Did They Need to Die?

Yesterday's events at Fort Hood are deeply tragic. My heart and prayers are for the families of the now thirteen slain and thirty wounded. These brave men and women died at the hands of one who was to be their healer. Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a board certified psychologist, which means he is also a medical doctor who takes the same oath to first do not harm. He has also taken the oath to defend this nation with his life that every member of the military takes. He has broken all of his oaths and his slain his brothers.

The real tragedy is beyond the shooting but the reality that it could have and should have been prevented. Despite the media spin by outlets such as Newsweek to make it a story about a military on the brink in which any of our soldiers could snap just like the major, the real story is still out there. He did not kill his fellow soldiers because he didn't want to go to Iraq. He does not suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as he has never been into combat. He did not open fire because he was bullied by his fellow officers. Most of the news outlets are ignoring his views and history.

All of the evidence points a far darker picture of Hasan. He has posted on a number websites his radical Islamic views. He has praised suicide bombers and has even suggested that one needs to go off in Times Square. He frequently called for Muslims to rise up against the aggressor, namely us. He stated more than once that the killers of the young men outside the recruiting station in Little Rock didn't go far enough. He was a radical Islamist in our ranks who sided with those whom we are fighting. It was these views and the fact he was vocal about them that were at the root of his problems with his fellow officers not his Muslim faith. In any other time, his postings would have been considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy, also known as treason. The Army knew this and in the name of political correctness chose not to act. I am glad that American Muslims have come out and rightly condemned this act.

The other spin I've begun to hear is from the anti-gun lobby. If there can be a shooting on military base where there's lots of guns, how do guns stop violence? The truth is that 99.9% of the personnel on the base are not armed. Only designated individuals are allowed to carry weapons, such as security personnel. On most domestic bases, the security is handled by a civilian force, like the Sergeant that finally shot Hasan. It is no different from opening fire on college campus or in a shopping mall. Essentially, no one is armed. Having been in the military myself, I know this first hand. Other than during security drills on the sub and at the range, I never carried a firearm on base. I only carried a baton when on security duty at the base club. All the firearms are locked up in armories.

The other part of the story is the fact that one never expects a fellow soldier, much less an officer, to do what the major "allegedly" did. There is an automatic level of trust extended to other members of the armed forces just by virtue of the uniform. Had I come around the corner after hearing gunfire and saw an officer with weapons, I would not have assumed he was the shooter but rather that he was looking for the shooter. His uniform was his shield and how he disarmed his victims.

There are Muslims in the military who serve with distinction. That is not at issue here, but what is at issue is why someone with these views was allowed to continue wearing the uniform of this country? Reports all say he was trying to get out of the Army. I have to ask three questions: One, why did they promote him to major last spring knowing his views? Two, why didn't the Army act and remove him from service when it became obvious that he supported the views of the enemy? Finally, even lacking the political will to act, why didn't they just let him out when he asked? While Hasan takes the brunt of the blame for his actions, the military holds some as well for not acting in a timely fashion. If they had acted in a manner appropriate to the reality of the situation instead of from political correctness, there would be thirteen fewer graves.

A Solution Minded Approach

As I have contemplated the church's engagement in the public arena, I realized something key. We are using the same tactics as the world uses such as pickets and protests for one simple reason: We don't know any other way. We remember the marches of the civil rights era and the antiwar protests, especially against Vietnam, and believe that this is the way to get our message out and solve the problem.

Reinforcing this are the awareness campaigns for a wide variety of causes from breast cancer to the environment. The medical causes are especially effective as the money flows into their coffers from these events and ads. It is easy to fall into the trap the moral and cultural issues can be addressed in the same way. We thinks that as long as people know about the issue they will believe us and accept our views.

The truth is much harder to face. Signs, protests, and marches do not change many minds, if any. The effective campaigns in this pattern address issues that almost anyone can agree upon, such as cancer treatment or autism. More controversial views do not have the same impact through these means.

So, if this approach will not actually solve anything, what do we do? The first thing is to change our mindset. We cannot "save the world" en masse. That type of thinking is what leads us to absurd attempts to use large, national campaigns or even media blitzes on a local level. What if the solution were more personal? I think of the nor former director of a Planned Parenthood office who changed her mind completely after watching the ultrasound of an abortion. Her mind was not changed by all the protests in the world. It was the reality of the procedure and seeing it that changed it for her. However, this is an impractical approach to reaching the young women who are considering abortions.

Continuing with abortion as an example, what would it be like if we took a personal approach instead of political? I hear from a lot of people who complain that this or that pastor or church doesn't stand up for life because they aren't seen in the protests and rallies. I wonder what the complainers would do if suddenly confronted with woman who feels she has no other alternative? Would they sight the same rhetoric used in the rallies or would they do nothing at all?

The radical solution is personal and much more helpful. What would happen if instead of protesting, each strong believer in the Pro-Life cause took the time to love on and help one of the mothers? What if a church or other group got together and bought the needed supplies for the baby that she can't afford? What if they offered to help her as she raised the child and made a commitment to her? This is not about a program, but about actually changing lives.

The objection that I know is on many of your lips is that this won't save all the babies. It won't but neither will your marches and protests. But it will make a difference in not just one life but two every time we take this approach.

Abortion is only one example. All the stuff we protest and rave about can be approached from this direction. Jesus knew the world was full of sin and vice, but He didn't try to change the world as a great political leader or speaker. He did it one person at a time. Do you really doubt that His way actually changed the world?

The Angry Nation

This is one of those rare occasions when my podcast and my blog are on the same topic. Those of you familiar with the program are already somewhat familiar with my view on the current state of political discourse. I believe that it bears repeating and some further elaboration.

Never in my life have I seen the general public angrier than they are right now. Both sides of the political spectrum have fallen into a pattern of discourse that is anything but civil. Once confined to the fringe ideologues on both sides of the aisle, this anger and hatred have begun to be the main form of debate, if you can call it that.

Granted, there have always been a level of verbal combat in the political arena. However, it has become much worse of the last several years. There was some of it to a degree during the Clinton years. Republicans did it to some degree, but I saw the meaner attacks coming from the President's defenders and supporters. It was the beginning of the age of the paid political attack dog with James Carville in the lead and the new and growing twenty-four hour news media lapped it up. But even in those early days, it was still possible to have a reasonable disagreement between colleagues on substantive issues without a shouting match. It was not as personal as it is now.

The slide accelerated with the election of President Bush. The far left wing of the Democrat party expressed such a visceral and irrational hatred of the president that even when he did things that they should have agreed with, they opposed them just because they came from him. During this time, especially during Bush's second term, the truly angry voices from the right came to prominence as well, not just those who were accused of being angry by those who disagree with them. As the president broke further and further away from the conservative base that helped him get elected, they got angrier and angrier. The election of President Obama pushed even the average citizen of a conservative bent over the edge while the anger of the left did not abate one iota. The few reasonable voices on both sides of the political spectrum are drowned out but the angry and vocal.

The combative nature of politics has leaked into our personal lives and conversations. People are have a tendency to form cliques anyway, but the groups form are separated by a much broader line than they used to be. Ideology now forms the basis for an ever growing number of social groups rather than common interest. Fewer and fewer people have real friendship with those they disagree with. One friend I have who does not agree with me on anything actually felt the need to say something to the effect of, "You know, for a (my political ideology), you're actually really cool." How sad it is that she actually had to say it but even sadder still that it speaks to the objectifying and demonization of people who hold a different worldview than our own.

For me, the saddest part of all is that Christians in the political arena are indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. This should not be the case. In more than one passage, we are admonished by the Word of God to give honor where honor is due. This means a respect for authority and giving them the proper honor due the position regardless of whether or not we agree with them. There is to be NO name calling of any kind. Keep in mind that the New Testament admonitions were given during the reigns of Caesars Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, three of the worst and most corrupt emperors in Roman history. Caligula and Nero were madmen and cruel beyond measure. Yet, the church is told to give them the respect they were due despite the fact that they persecuted the church, especially Nero. No modern government official, elected or otherwise, comes close to any of these men.

If we, the church, are to be engaged in politics, we must do it in a manner that most reflects the character and nature of Jesus. Christians should be the reasonable voice that is able to rise above the din and speak wisdom with humility and clarity. That may mean a fundamental shift in thinking for many because it means we do not hold issue protests. Rather, it is the well reasoned argument backed with strong and genuine emotion spoken by a humble man or woman of God that wins in the arena of ideas. That's what Jesus did. His anger was reserved for those who corrupted the faith of others and even with them, most of His responses were still gentle and wise. Consider this next time you engage in a political debate with someone.

On The Solution Side

As you know from my last post, I am very concerned about the growing gang violence and crime in my community. I am also disturbed by the lack of coverage by the local news media. Now that the general public is more aware of the situation after an incident that could not be ignored, it's time to take a look at the solutions for the problem.

The first and most obvious place to start is with law enforcement. Although it has not been made public knowledge until recently, the police department in Peoria under the leadership of Chief Steve Settingsgard has stepped up to the plate and has been quietly taking the problem seriously. There has been no official gang task force, several efforts are being made to increase patrols and educate officers on gang activities and signs. There efforts have met with only limited results but not due to any fault on their part. This is where another track must be taken to help ensure these gangs are either removed from our streets by arrest or changing the lives of the members and potential members.

Economics is only a minor issue in gang membership and crime. I know that flies in the face of conventional wisdom, however during even the best of times, crime still increases. For at least the last thirty years, we have had significant periods of tremendous economic and job growth in the middle sections of each decade. During those "fat" times, gang violence, drug sales, and other crimes still increased. Membership does see an upswing in times of recession, but not to the degree that most would think. Gangs are an entirely different breed than the individual criminal.

The deeper solution is to address the social problems underlying the gang issue. Before I go any further, I want to go on record stating that I do not advocate for government action in this arena. More often than not, the best of intentions lead to exacerbation of the problems rather than solutions. There are many reasons for this, but ultimately it is the lack of a personal relationship with the people and neighborhoods that lead to the missteps. There's a reason my late grandmother always said that, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

The primary draw to the gangs is not the money, although that certainly is an issue. In listening to interview after interview with gang members from all over the country as well as my personal experience with local "bangers," the common denominator for most gangs is the sense of family that the members have. These young people and often children who join do so to make up for the lack of acceptance and family at home. The real solution to this is to meet that need in a healthy way rather than the bizarre and warped version found in these criminal groups.

For some, this would be considered a radical thought. Those who try to fix things with education and economic programs will always miss the mark. For younger gang members, the older ones almost take on a fatherly role that no amount of education or a job can ever alter or break. The cataclysm of illegitimate births in the inner city in which fathers are absent often for several generations has created a breeding ground for these dysfunctional "families." Therefor, the solution is to provide these young men and women with the father figures they lack.

As I said, this is a radical solution because it requires much more manpower, if you will, than most programs. These kids need one-on-one relationships with men of integrity who are concerned about their character and lives and are willing to allow them into their own lives. Transparency with these kids is essential to teach them how problems are handled in a healthy manner. Girls needs someone in their lives that are concerned about them and give them a good father figure. Fathers are essential to the moral development of a young woman and set the pattern for all male relationships that follow.

There are some who are trying to work with these kids but enough men to actually have an impact are not stepping up to the plate. Those few who are find their impact limited simply because no matter how passionate and exceptional these men are, there is a point at which they can reach no more kids on their own. As much respect as I have for Carl Cannon, he can't do it alone.

There is a largely untapped resource from which men can come to make the changes. In the Peoria Metro area alone, there are an estimated three hundred fifty churches, all with men of varying ages in them who could share their lives with these kids and offer real hope of a better life. Not all of them can do this, but many could and perhaps should learn to drop their preconceived notions and step into the role of mentor for a young teen or kid and show them a life that is achievable.

I am not asking anyone to consider anything I would not do myself. My wife and I have been quietly impacting the lives of the young people God puts in our path for years. We let them into our home and share what little we have with them. More importantly, we genuinely love these kids and give them a sense of family that they lack. I am grateful that we are not alone. I know of several others who do the same. The impact we have on our own is relatively small, but imagine how it could be if more joined us. Perhaps, even if you did.

The Gangs of Peoria

I'm taking a major departure from my normal line of commentary just for today. There is a train of thought that I have not been able to shake for some time now about what I have seen in Peoria and the surrounding area.

I have been serving in the inner city of Peoria in one capacity or another for over thirteen years. On top of that, I live in what has become one of the rougher neighborhoods in the city. I have seen a lot and heard more. What I have seen begs the question, "Why have the local media outlets ignored our growing gang problem?"

I have seen an increasing number of gang members in my neighborhood openly displaying their colors. Where I live, there is a strong presence of the No Loves, a home-grown gang as well as the Gangster Disciples out of Chicago. I have seen tags from the Vice Lords and the Latin Kings, both of whom are large gangs from Chicago, as well as a whole slue of other locals. I hear rumors of several other national level gangs moving into the city and surrounding communities.

After the respite of 2008, this year has seen a dramatic increase in violence, arson, and other crimes. The first homicide of the year was a young man shot in his home about six blocks from my home. To anyone who knows anything about gangs, almost all of the crimes have a distinct ring to them. The man found set on fire in a field on the south end struck me as especially familiar in its style. Shootings are up, drug dealing is on the rise, and other crimes normally associated with this type of activity.

I wonder, if I can ask a few questions as a private citizen with no journalistic experience can discover which gangs are connected to some of the activities, why doesn't the press? The police department is working on the problem, yet the average citizen didn't hear anything about gangs in Peoria until an incident at Woodview Commons, student residences located on the East Peoria Campus of Illinois Central College (ICC). The only other report naming specific gangs was from that first homicide and only then because of the personal involvement of community activist and pastor, Harvey Burnett. He made it clear in interviews who had committed the crime, the No Love's. They are rumored to be responsible for other shootings and crimes in the neighborhood, including the murder of a convenience store owner on the corner of Prospect and McClure, across the street from Glen Oak Park and Zoo.

In my view, there are only three possible answers for the journalistic silence and only one is marginally acceptable. The first is denial. Is the media just like many of us who would like to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the problem? I hope not, but the second bad answer is worse. I would like to think that it is not just plain laziness. Get the bare bones and don't worry about the rest. Report on the police report and maybe the prayer vigil but not take the time to dig too much. I truly do not want to believe that and think better of most of our local news outlets.

The only reason I would accept is that the police department asked the press to keep the gangs out of the news so as not to hamper their investigations. I hope that is the case, but I am skeptical.

The truth is that we have a problem. The larger national level gangs are coming here to exploit our local drug market and to take advantage of our rural areas to cook meth. If we want to solve the problem, we must first acknowledge the issue and take real steps, not just talk and feel-good measures, but actions on multiple fronts. More on that in the next column.

The Next Steps

You might be asking what's next for this burgeoning media ministry? You aren't alone. About a week and half ago I posted a program called "The Reasons." After explaining why I began to do all of this, the episode turned into vision casting about the next steps for this ministry.

I have always had a burden for other artists, musicians, and writers and helping them share the gift the Lord has given them. Although I have been criticized as a self-promoter, I believe firmly that if you have something to share, you do not have the right to keep it to yourself. I believe very much in what the Lord has given me and, more importantly, in the gifts the Lord gives others as well. That leads me to the next step.

My wife and I have been praying for some time now for the direction for us to take. We've made a few false starts and pulled back for more clarification. We are now certain and are working to make the next step happen. I have been doing research on what would be necessary to start a 24-7 streaming internet radio station. With the growth in listenership for internet radio and the minimal expense of starting, this is the logical and best move to make.

The station will be a combination of talk and music with most of music from local and independent artists. Musical segments would be arranged by genre and broadcast at regular times each day. Talk will include an expanded version of Foundational Truth and others who have a similar calling to do likewise. We also intend to attach an online store to provide a venue for the artists featured on the programs to make their materials available. Eventually, some of the programming will be live with callers. I am very excited about the prospects of this move and feel very much that this is the Lord's direction.

There are two realities of this move. The first is financial. While this is not nearly as expensive as a broadcast station, there are some very real expenses involved. Monthly service fees, equipment, advertising, and money to cover the time spent on the station are all necessary. I have projected a start-up cost estimate of $5-6000 to cover all of that for the first couple of months and the filling fees for a non-profit corporation. Just for comparison, that wouldn't even begin to cover the cost of the filing fees for a broadcast station much less any of the other costs involved.

The other reality is by far the more exciting. I cannot produce all of the content necessary myself. I will need to find others who are willing to produce programs, especially the musical ones. I would like to do one of those myself, but am more than happy to give up the "spotlight" to someone with a real gift for it. The more local Christian artists can receive the exposure their gifts deserve, the better off the Kingdom is.

I now have to ask the questions? Would you listen to this type of station? Are you interested in being a part of it by producing a program (I'll train you) or providing music? Finally, would you be willing to prayerfully consider financially supporting this ministry?

There's a lot more to discuss with you about this than can be covered in a blog post. The vision is quite extensive and detailed. If you want to know more, let me know and I will give you as much of the brain dump as you can handle.

An Issue of Image

Image is an issue for the church of Jesus Christ whether we want to admit it or not. The world we live in is built entirely upon perception. Elections are won or lost not on issues but on the image a candidate presents to the electorate regardless of his actual positions. Careers are made or broken by how well a public image is controlled. How we, the church, are perceived by the outside world has a direct impact on our effectiveness in reaching people with the Gospel of Jesus.

At this point, I'm sure that your hackles are up and your defenses are slamming into place. "Worldly! Carnal! Fleshly!" you cry. "Heresy!" Before you stop reading, consider this; we are called to reflect the image of Jesus Himself in everything we do and say. This really is about image, but not in the way the world considers it. The bottom line, we have to consider how well we are representing the Lord to those who need His grace and mercy.

We have to face facts, especially the most unpleasant ones. We do not show the character and nature of Jesus well. There are exceptions to that, of course, but as a whole we aren't doing so great. We are not seen in the same light as the first century church. Luke records in the book of Acts that the early church had "favor with all the people." Today, that is not the case.

I have been tackling this issue in detail in my daily podcasts starting last week. The programs are mostly taken from the book unChristian by David Kinnaman. This is perhaps the most definitive study of what he refers to as "outsiders" and their views on the church as a whole. It is a must read for anyone who is serious about reaching the world with the Gospel. It is available by clicking here or from CBD's website, Christianbook.com. If you want to understand the barriers the world has to coming to Christ and the image issues we have, please read it.

I hope that we can all be an instrument of change to better reflect the image of Christ in a world that has rejected us and through us Him. Then, just as in Acts, "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."