Moral Responsibility

          The term “moral responsibility” has been tossed about recently in connection with the tidal wave of people pouring over our southern border. According to the media, celebrities, and politicians of both parties, American citizens are morally responsible for the welfare of these children. Such pronouncements leave me wondering if the speaker knows what the term means or is confused about where he lives.

Moral responsibility is the requirement to act within the parameters of one’s view of right and wrong. Moral responsibility demands we behave according to what is right even when it is easier to do wrong. Therein, lays the problem. What is “right” to morally diverse America?

The President quoted the gospel of Matthew as the basis for making this decision. Even if you believe he agrees with the Bible, you can be certain a significant number of Americans do not. The Bible no longer represents American morality. No one is that misinformed. Even if the Bible did represent the morality of America, those who think Christians, en masse, are responsible for the poor and needy haven’t read the Bible thoroughly. Scripture lays responsibility for the indigent first at the feet of parents and family. “If any man or woman that believe have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” The principle applies to dependents of all types. In this case the family is dumping responsibility on the doorstep of others. This is not how neighbors love one another. If Christians have a moral responsibility, it is to return these children to their families.  

How about the Constitution? Sorry, no help there. The Constitution is a legal document, not a moral one and, right now, is not followed any more than the scriptures. The Constitution says one of the primary functions of government is to ensure domestic tranquility. Inviting trespassing and smuggling across the border; handcuffing law enforcement; burdening tax payers without their consent; and burying the unemployed under masses of competition for low paying/unskilled jobs; does not make for tranquility domestic or otherwise. 

Where are the shining examples of moral responsibility? Jesus taught His followers to “follow me.” As far as I know, no leader in any field has stepped up to set a moral precedent and lead by example. The White House hasn’t adopted or fostered any undocumented children. Senate Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi went to have a look at these kids, saw a divine spark, but didn’t open her home to any of them. Does anyone know if Glen Beck has taken any children in? I doubt it. None of our Congressmen or Senators here in Arizona is boasting about his efforts to shelter these refugees in his home. The leaders of our nation won’t take them in; they won’t deport them and they won’t stop them from coming. I see neither moral nor political responsibility being taken by our elected officials.

Before we assign morally responsible for these children, it is necessary to have morals and once you open that door, you’re in for more than caring for children. It is hypocritical to point the finger of moral responsibility at people who refuse to shelter children while cheering on the snuffing out of the unborn by the millions.

Moral responsibility is an individual mandate, not a political one. Think of me what you will, but I feel no moral obligation to abet criminals of any age. I will be helping to feed and house my enemies for the rest of my life. That’s my other cheek; my second mile; my coat and my cloak.

Genesis 1:1

          “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Every author knows the opening line of a story is critical to its success. The opening sentence must hook the reader and draw him inside the world between the covers. Therefore, it must tell the reader something important while conveying the promise of greater things to follow. No book has done that as well as the Bible. Considering the author, this comes as no surprise to me.

          I’m no biblical scholar. I’m not a “successful” author. According to the leaders of my profession, my two years of college puts me a single step above a trained ape. But, I’m a reader. I read for pleasure; I read to inform myself; and I read as part of my spiritual life. I may not be a literary genius, but I know what I like and I like the Bible.

          Because a book is considered a classic does not mean it’s worth reading. Mandatory reading lists are full of books that failure to engage the reader. If a book does not kick start your thinking; put it down. This bit of advice applies to the Bible as well. Reading the Bible with an open mind is the best approach. However, it’s perfectly acceptable to read the Bible in an adversarial mode. It’s indifference one needs to worry about. We should read books outside our comfort zone as a means of expanding our tastes and point of view. In the same manner, everyone should try brussel sprouts. Nevertheless, if one feels compelled to spit out what you’re reading rather than swallow it---by all means do so.

          This approach may sound like a poor way to win converts to Christianity. I’m sure it is, but I’m not trying to make converts. That’s not my job, nor is it the job of any Christian. The Holy Spirit converts men; Christians testify to their experience. That’s what this little piece is about—my experience, as a writer and a reader, with Genesis 1:1.

          I do not come from a Christian background. My father was an agnostic and my mother was a forced to go to Sunday School Baptist. We never attended a church service as a family. I went twice with a neighbor when I was in fifth grade, but my dad put a stop to that when he found out they were “holy rollers.” It’s safe to say the first time I pried open the covers of a Bible, I was not a Christian. I’d heard Genesis 1:1 quoted. I’d heard a lot of things about the Bible, most of them from people who had read it as often as I did. By the time I opened a Bible for myself, I was surprised to find the quote right there on page one. I got three words in before the questions started.

          “In the beginning;” in the beginning of what? Stories begin “in media res” in the middle of things. Events which led to this moment have already happened. What the author wishes to tell us is about to unfold. Therefore, in the beginning was obviously not the beginning of God or whatever might constitute the environment of God. A few lines further assured me that we were not talking about the beginning of time; the solar system, the earth or mankind. None of those things existed, “in the beginning.” Aha, a mystery, the hook was set. I was reeled in and floating on the ether waiting to see what was about to begin. It was something for which my level of Bible knowledge had not prepared me.

          The simplest answer, as often is the case, was the right one. A story was about to be told. I wasn’t sure I’d like the book. There was no dust jacket on the Bible with a picture of the author, a blurb about the story and an excerpt from the New York Times’ review. In fact, most reviewers I knew were as in the dark as I was. If I wanted to really know the story, I was going to have to read it for myself. Reading a book yourself is always the best choice. But, for those who can’t or won’t, here’s a hint—it’s a love story.

          “In the beginning God…” There was God…boom…just like that. There were no arguments or backstory to explain God’s existence. No evidence is presented that this was the one and only God. There was no big bang, just God speaking the heaven and the earth into existence. I was almost certain that the heavens and the earth were real. Why couldn’t God be just as real?

          God’s existence and this story are a take it or leave it proposition. It was written that way and remains so. Do not expect the Bible or Christians to prove or explain God before you read further. The text says God is; that’s all you get. If you can accept that and read on, a relationship may ensue between you and the Holy Ghost that will provide the proof you seek. The text will come to life; signs may follow, but they will not be necessary to distinguish fact from fiction.

Jesus told sign seekers, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.”  The proof of the Bible is not in the signs and wonders it describes. It is in the person the book introduces and in the state of the reader’s heart and soul. The proof is in the love the words inspire.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Why? For the same reason He does everything in the story---for you.  

           

Self Inflicted Wounds

          According to Hall of Fame baseball player, Yogi Berra, “You can observe a lot just by watching.” Step back from the day-to-day and watch people. We’re a species of complainers. In summer, it’s too hot. In winter, it’s too cold. Liberals are too liberal; conservatives are too conservative; no one is happy. The people passing by not only believe the world is unfair, they’re sure everyone’s unfairly picking on them. The sad part is that these same people are perplexed that there is not peace on earth and good will to men.

          We may take comfort in that we are born this way. The very first man and woman were given dominion over the entire planet and ruled from the paradise of Eden. To keep things running smoothly, God dropped by everyday to say hello.  But, there was trouble in paradise. Adam was unhappy with the arrangement. He was convinced God was holding out on him just because he was a man. Satan supplied the reason for God’s judgmental attitude. “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

          Adam’s eyes were opened—to a new reality with a far less comfortable existence. He knew what it was to be good and after eating, he knew what it was to be evil. In fact, he was evil; a complaining; self-absorbed; self-righteous; rebellious evil. Solomon once said that there is nothing new under the sun. His statement is never truer than when we look at Man. However you count time; Man hasn’t changed. We may live longer, be more educated, and communicate faster, but we’re still the same old Adam. In the words of an old mentor of mine, there are people who “wouldn’t be happy with Jesus on a mule.” The writers of the gospels testify to the truth of this assessment.

          “What to do; what to do?”

          Jesus said the gate to salvation was narrow and few find it. That means a whole lot of people are just getting warmed up—they are going to be unhappy for eternity. Dissatisfaction is a self-inflicted wound. Railing against life, the weather and the universe does nothing to satisfy the nagging thorn in our soul. There is not enough success, money, fame or power to erase the void in Man. What did we lose in Eden that remains so hard to find?

The answer is joy and peace with God. Man will have no peace or joy; he will remain a complainer until he makes peace with God. Of the few who find the gateway to salvation; peace does not come automatically and contentment comes only with enduring trials, heartache, and sadness. There is one place in which Man may find peace. In His presence is fullness of joy. Practice being in the presence of God, it isn’t hard to do. Be still; be quiet; cease from fighting and He will come to you.

          “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

Something Borrowed, Nothing New

Strengthening Marriage as an Antidote to Poverty

Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result.

Since marital decline drives up child poverty and welfare dependence, and since the poor aspire to healthy marriage but lack the norms, understanding, and skills to achieve it, it is reasonable for government to take active steps to strengthen marriage. Just as government discourages youth from dropping out of school, it should clearly and forcefully articulate the value of marriage. It should provide information that will help people to form and maintain healthy marriages and delay childbearing until they are married and economically stable. In particular, clarifying the severe shortcomings of the “child first, marriage later” philosophy to potential parents in lower-income communities should be a priority.

Marriage is highly beneficial to children, adults, and society; it needs to be encouraged and strengthened. Under current government policies, however, marriage is either ignored or undermined. This needs to change.

—Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.

Simple Solution

Until recently I had no idea that I was born a narrow minded, racist. I’m okay with that because, after all, I was born that way. I’ve known since 1975 that I was an evangelical, religious fanatic and that’s my own fault. Meanwhile, I’ve embraced my inherent lack of compassion and racial sensitivity and found that I am nonetheless happy as a WASP.

One reason for my joy is that my background prepares me to come up with simple solutions to complex problems. Let me share a “fer instance” with you. Below is a section of an AP news report written by a fellow named David Crary. He says:

“In every region of America, white and Asian children are far better positioned for success than black, Latino and American Indian children, according to a new report appealing for urgent action to bridge this racial gap. Titled "Race for Results," the report is being released Tuesday by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which for decades has worked to improve child well-being in the United States.

Using a single composite score with a scale of one to 1,000, Asian children have the highest index score at 776, followed by white children at 704. "Scores for Latino (404), American-Indian (387) and African-American (345) children are distressingly lower, and this pattern holds true in nearly every state," said the report.

Patrick McCarthy, the Casey Foundation's president, said the findings are "a call to action that requires serious and sustained attention from the private, nonprofit, philanthropic and government sectors to create equitable opportunities for children of color."

Let’s don’t over react. I have a racist, hypocritical, simplistic, solution to the problem? “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” The problem, as I see it, has nothing to do with race---it is a problem of culture. African-American children don’t lag because they are black skinned or are oppressed. They lag because ghetto, barrio, reservation, and trailer park cultures do not value education.  Or if you prefer, segments of African-American, Latino, Native and White culture do not value education as a means to success.

Of course, I don’t have any scientific studies or statistics to quote. The only data I have to back up what I’m saying is a lifetime of observation. Parental emphasis on education is reflected in the performance of their children; race is a distant second at best. When “getting on a check” is the family’s focus for the future of its children, this will be reflected in the test scores of the children. Is that racist? If the shoe fits…I’ll gladly wear it.

Paul Ryan was recently quoted as saying our country was in a, “tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value of work.”

He was immediately criticized by the Congressional Black Caucus. “When he says ‘inner city’ ‘culture’ these are simply code words for what he really means: black.” They went on to say “a serious policy conversation on poverty should not begin with assumptions and stereotypes.”

Should we begin with the politically correct delusions that more money or bigger schools will produce scholars independent of family values?  

Let me bury myself a little deeper and paraphrase Mark Twain’s thinking. Twain believed that education and schooling are not the same thing. Telling kids to “Go to school,” is not promoting education. Making children go to school is even less educational. Mandatory public education worked in the days when education was left to the local school district. This is no longer the case. In its efforts to effect “equality” the federal government has succeeded in reducing public education to its lowest common denominator.

More money, smaller classes, common core standards and ignoring culture will not improve education. Seeing parents who continue to educate themselves promotes education like nothing else can. Parents who preach education for education’s sake are better equipped than any government program to produce educated children.

Convince a child to value his own skin more than a sheepskin and you educate rather than school. Raise readers and you will raise lifetime learners. Parents raise readers by being readers. The solution lies with parents. It’s not the government and it’s not the school system who decides your child’s future---it’s you. The cultural environment of the home points children down the road of life and they do not depart from it easily.