The Bottom of the “Ninth” (Commandment, That Is)

Last Friday I heard about an interesting story from the world of theater. Phelim McAleer has written a play about the shooting of Michael Brown and, with a week to go until the debut, the actors are walking out. The issue causing their complaint is integrity. The play appears to have more than they can bear. (Jack Nicholson, check your phone messages. Some people “can’t handle the truth.”)

Ferguson: The Play uses a technique called “verbatim theater.” The script is based solely on the testimony received by the grand jury. What is written is what was actually said in the court room as the grand jury decided whether or not it was proper to bring an indictment against the accused officer, a vital step in maintaining due process in our courts. The audience is intended to see and hear what the grand jury heard, to be exposed to what was really known and true. And therein lies the problem, at least for some of the actors.

The truth doesn’t match the narrative. It doesn’t match the media accounts. It doesn’t match the screaming protesters, the race warriors, the grievance mongers. The truth in uncomfortable for many, so uncomfortable that several actors have walked out completely. Others are lobbying for changes in the script that will remove some of the positive light the testimony shines on the officer. As one of the actors discussed, the truth is “subjective.” As opposed to the will of the mob.

The idea of “subjective” truth has been a significant force in liberal philosophy for some time now. Far from building up any form of cohesion or peace in society, I think it has contributed to a terrible decline. A slide in standards of integrity, honesty. A lack of trust. A refusal to even try to communicate. After all, if “your” truth is different than “my” truth, then agreement is impossible on the matter, and engagement a useless exercise. 

It’s been a terrible slide, and now we approach a horrible bottom. We saw it in the Michael Brown case. We saw it in the Trayvon Martin case, in the Duke Lacrosse “Rape” case. “Truth” for many is determined before any investigation of the matter, much less a trial. And even when the facts are known, people still cling to their own “truth,” unwilling or unable to learn, to accept what is, unless it agrees with their own view. For if “truth” is subjective, then so is “false.” 

The officer in Ferguson became a public pariah, the object of scorn and harassment. It’s a darn lousy payback for putting your neck on the line to do a necessary job. About the only positive thing for him was that, despite calls from the mob, the grand jury did its job. They took the testimony. And under oath, the witnesses did their jobs. They gave the facts. Not the media spin, not the hearsay. They told what they saw and what they heard. I have to wonder if it will be like that next time. 

The ninth commandment of the Bible states “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Many will opine that it is also a command for honesty in all that you do (an interpretation I agree with). But in its purest form, the command is very simple. Or it should be. And yet, what will happen as more and more people embrace the idea that “truth is subjective,” that their reality is fine, if others disagree, so what? What happens to just, for any of us, as “true” and “false” become fluid, subject to the whims of whoever is speaking? It’s happened in our schools. It’s happened in our courts, in the way that judges interpret the laws that we live by. And if it happens in our testimony, in how we determine guilt and innocence?

Truth and justice are inseparable. There is nothing subjective about that. As one falls, so does the other, dragging us all to the bottom with it.

Ensurance Fraud

Figuring heavily into the “You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up” category, Stevenson University has issued a letter apologizing to students for serving a Mexican buffet on an “Intergalactic” theme night. Apparently the university received several complaints from students who felt the choices was (gads!) racist due to the association between aliens and undocumented Mexican immigrants. Apparently, it’s not only taboo to say “illegal alien” on California campuses, but now the system is taking down the words one at a time. I can almost feel the thought police right now, reaching out for my Sigourney Weaver DVD set…

I was torn at first which action was more ridiculous (and I mean that in the most literal way possible), the fact that some (presumably) adult college students contacted the administration with the complaint, or that the administration was so complete in their apology and desire to “improve.” The situation resolved itself quickly as I waded through a few details. By promising that she is “committed to ensuring that student life staff receive the training necessary to make sure that this type of incident does not happen again at Stevenson,” Dr. Golz of the college administration wins, hands down (don’t shoot?).

Along with a sufficient amount of bowing and scraping, the doctor promises more training on “cultural competency,” presumably a close relative of “diversity,” or perhaps “sensitivity.” At a time when college costs continue to rise, and valuable faculty and classes are being eliminated, it is notable that the university system of California has a seemingly endless supply of cash to throw forward any time a ruckus involving race or gender issues are mentioned. I suppose that it’s understandable that USC students tend to identify with illegal aliens (yes, I wrote it!) Considering the debt they are likely to be graduating with, and their chances of making a decent living with their degree of choice, the students and the immigrants will most likely have similar lifestyles. 

Of all of the sad and regrettable things mentioned, both in the complaints and the response, the one I found most lamentable was the use of the word “ensuring.” I find it lamentable, and ridiculous, because the doctor can “ensure” nothing. She cannot because she is not facing a complaint based in logic or reason, or even a modicum of common sense. 

The issue here is not offense given. The issue is offense taken. It does not spring from any form of thought or maturity, but from a well of self-indulgent outrage. And one thing that is becoming increasingly clear as time passes is that well has no bottom, that source will never run dry. Those feeling entitled will vent this rage at their leisure, in any situation, in impossible quantities, and they will continue to do this as long as their demands continue to be me. And since there is little evidence that any college administration is willing to take on these post-adolescent despots, the outrage will continue for the foreseeable future. But there is still hope, at least for California.

The “big one” could still hit at any time…

The "Form of Godliness"

As I listened to the radio yesterday, I caught part of an interview with Haaz Sleiman. For those unfamiliar with the man (and you can count me among them), he is an actor of some note. The subject of the interview was his part in the National Geographic movie “Killing Jesus,” based on the book co-authored by Bill O’Reilly. He plays the title role.

While I have read several of Mr. O’Reilly’s historical works, I will state plainly now that I have not read “Killing Jesus.” I may get to it sometime in the future, or not. As such, I have no opinion about the book one way or the other. I mention it only to provide context for Mr. Sleiman, whom I also have no opinion about as an actor or a person. My interest here is about a single exchange in the interview.

While discussing the movie, Mr. Sleiman mentioned his great affection for Jesus. He was very definite about how his knowledge of Jesus has changed his life, particularly over the last decade. He praised Jesus’ teachings about love for one another, peace, generosity, and acceptance. I was with him right up to that point. Then he made a statement that took me right out his camp. While I don’t recall the exact wording, the message was clear enough: “God and Allah are one and the same.”

There was more discussion afterward. He went on to mention how he wasn’t really religious, though he was “spiritual” (whatever that means). He emphasized inclusiveness. There was more. It didn’t matter to me. I had lost interest.

I do understand what the man was saying, or at least I believe I do. “Allah” is the word for “God” in the Muslim faith. So be it. But having the same name doesn’t make things the same. Calling a dog a cat doesn’t make it cat. Calling a boy a girl doesn’t make him a girl. Calling a ceremony between two of the same sex a wedding doesn’t make it a wedding. And whatever you call the Muslim deity, that doesn’t make it God.

There are lots of differences you could point out between the two, but most of those are just indicators, consequences of the same fundamental difference: God has a Son. Allah does not. Paying lip service to Christ, putting him as a prophet second only to Muhammed, still boils down to one thing: You are placing faith in men, not God. Obeying men, idolizing men, pursuing the petty, violent goals of men, not God. 

Tomorrow, Christians around the world will celebrate Easter. It is a time of rejoicing in the salvation provided by God through His Son. It should also be a time to remember the words of Paul to Timothy, that while there are many in the world who claim “a form of godliness,” we worship THE form of Godliness. God in the flesh, given for our pardon, sacrificed for us. Let us always remember the value of this great gift, provided by the Father: His one and only Son, and the only name by which people are saved.