"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 18) - The Shift Toward Accepting Unjust Scales Of Justice

My last post bemoaned the willingness of so many evangelical Christians, followers of a faith that commands us not to bear false witness, to minimize, defend, repeat, or simply stop caring about truth.

In this post, I want to look at how Christians damage the credibility of the gospel when we highlight failures of character and integrity in our opponents while finding ways to excuse it in our allies.[i]

Throughout this series, I have been returning to the same claim concerning the conservative evangelicalism in which I was raised: I didn't move; you did.  When I look at the things that increasingly separate me from American evangelicalism, I keep finding that it's because of the values evangelicalism itself taught me.

For example, I remember being raised amidst the conservative evangelical insistence that character and integrity mattered in private and public life. This wasn’t reduced to merely our sex lives. Greed was spiritually and societally dangerous. Dishonesty and hypocrisy eventually corrupt everything they touch. Having power or being popular did not excuse immorality but made character even more important, because the consequences impacted so many more people. 

The statements and declarations I have been revisiting throughout this series are remarkably consistent in warning about greed, corruption, selfish ambition, dishonesty, covetousness, the seduction of wealth, and the danger of Christians becoming too comfortable with the rich and powerful. They insist that Christian proclamation must be accompanied by Christian character unmarred by greed and corruption, because otherwise our testimony loses its credibility.[1]

“When there is no distinction in conduct between Christians and non-Christians – for example in the practice of corruption and greed…then the world is right to wonder if our Christianity makes any difference at all. Our message carries no authenticity to a watching world…”

“The proclamation of God’s kingdom necessarily demands the prophetic denunciation of all that is incompatible with it. Among the evils we deplore are destructive violence, including institutionalized violence, political corruption, all forms of exploitation of people and of the earth…”

“Our challenge to others to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ will be plausible only if we ourselves have evidently died to selfish ambition, dishonesty, and covetousness, and are living a life of simplicity, contentment, and generosity.

“We are called, as those who serve God and not mammon, to recognize that greed perpetuates poverty, and to renounce it."

Scripture repeatedly condemns dishonest scales, an image I think will be helpful for this post. For example:

“A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight. When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom. The integrity of the upright guides them, but the crookedness of the treacherous destroys them.” (Proverbs 11:1-3)[ii]

There is something profoundly unjust about having one measure for one person and another measure for someone else. It’s not just about weighing grain; it’s about measuring a fair, righteous and consistent judgment on all attitudes, words and actions.

What happens to our Christian witness when the standards we once proclaimed loudly become negotiable when applying them consistently would cost us political power?

I see a relevance here not just for individual witness (which is really important), but to corporate witness as well. To whom or what have we hitched our moral wagons? And at what cost? And is it a consistent, steady scales or a compromised, sliding one that a watching world sees the people of God using?

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 3): The Manila Manifesto (1989)

In my first post in this series, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical, as it has become increasingly willing to excuse attitudes, behaviors, and priorities that seem incompatible with the character and teaching of Jesus.

 

My second post began the process of offering a sampling of decades of statements (beginning in the 1970s) put out by evangelical leaders, organizations, denominations, colleges, and ministries. They are declarations and manifestos explaining what they believed Christian evangelicals should value and how Christians should engage the world. They provide a record of what the movement publicly claimed to stand for, even if evangelicalism did not always live consistently with its principles.

 

This post is about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto. The Manila Manifesto was produced and drafted by the British evangelical pastor and theologian John Stott. He led the drafting team at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization (Lausanne II) held in Manila, Philippines in July 1989. [1]

What Would Stephen Say Today?

 It's been a minute. There's a lot going on in my life and the world, and I have busy other places.

This past Sunday, our text was Acts 6-7, where Stephen answers his accusers by walking them through their own history to point out how often they were an unfaithful lot that constantly refused to listen to God's messengers, the prophets, to the point of persecuting and even killing them (culminating in Jesus). 

This highlights their hypocrisy—they cherished the Law and the Temple but had completely failed at the core ethical demands of the Law. They kept repeating the same pattern of resistance to God’s chosen deliverers and to His Spirit. They proved Stephen’s point immediately by killing him.

I did some research on what the prophets they rejected had to say. I think it’s really important that we learn from our spiritual history. (You can read the full sermon notes here.)  Then, I did my best to pull Stephen's speech into 21st century United States. 

Threads of Victory in Tales of Despair

Esau McCaulley’s book Reading While Black: African American Biblical Interpretation as an Exercise in Hope is rightly garnering a lot of attention. It is a thought-provoking and important book. Rather than outlining or reviewing the entire book, I want to provides some excerpts from the second half of chapter six that have landed pretty hard on my heart.

Let this linger. 

It is right that we weep with those who weep, and find hope with those who have found hope. And we all be inspired to do justice and love mercy.

* * * * *

Black bodies enter the laws of this land, not as persons but as an accounting tool to determine the voting rights of white men (the Three-Fifths Compromise). Before that we were mercilessly dragged from our native land and flung to the far ends of the world to be beaten, bred, raped, and degraded. Families were ripped apart and all the doors of opportunity were closed to us. We were despised and rejected by men, seen as cursed and abandoned by God. We were those from whom men hid their faces.

The year 1865 did not signal freedom, but simply the beginning of a different type of struggle. The years of reconstruction saw some expansion of Black opportunity. However Black bodies were again sacrificed at the altar of compromise in 1877 when, in exchange for the presidency, Republicans agreed to remove troops from the south. What followed was a series of ever-increasing Jim Crow laws that robbed Black people of dignity and opportunity.

And what more shall we say? For the time would fail me to tell of the lynching tree, the Red summer, the dogs and the water hoses, the sit-ins, Emmett Till, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King Jr., the people who defied governors and presidents, braved mobs, and sang victory, people of whom the world was not worthy. The history of Black people in this country is a litany of suffering. Yet we are definitely more than this suffering. There is a thread of victory woven into the tale of despair...

A Non-Partisan Ethical Framework For Christian Voting In 2020

So what’s a Christian to do when it comes time to vote?

We are citizens of Heaven first, but we are also American citizens who have been given the opportunity and perhaps even the mandate to be involved. The Bible uses imagery of salt and light to describe a Christian’s spiritual influence; it’s easy to see how this has a pragmatic aspect as well. It's just not easy to see what to do when, as voters, we are balancing flawed people, parties and platforms.

I wrote a series of posts during the last Presidential election that covered various ethical theories that can be applied as one prepares to vote. I hope the process of viewing people, parties and platforms through different ethical lenses will bring voting clarity. As a Christian, I build my ethical foundation on Divine Command and Natural Law theory, but it's not as if the others don't have something to offer (the importance of virtue; the weighing of both the means and the ends, etc). 

The following links all take you to posts that referred to Trump and Clinton in 2016; apply as needed in this year's elections.

• Virtue or Vice? (Virtue ethics). Which candidate or party do you believe will be most likely to perform the right action, with the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, and in the right way?
• Commands And Contracts (Deontological, or duty-based ethics). Which candidate or party most values the social contract (the laws of our society)? Which do you believe is genuinely attempting to protect the weak, disadvantaged, and marginalized in our midst? If you are a Christian, which is most committed to promoting God's design for human flourishing (love, justice, mercy, truth, etc.) and honoring God's commands for what a just society looks like?
• The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number (Consequentialist or Utilitarian ethics). Which candidate or party do you believe has a better understanding of what constitutes the 'good'? Which is most likely to enact policies that will bring this good to the greatest number without trampling on the rights of the few? Which is most likely to defend those who are viewed as lacking utility?
• The Categorical Imperatives (Kantian Ethics). Which candidate or party are you most confident will not try to universalize a principle that is destructive, but will instead live and govern within the constraints of the Golden Rule? Which values people for their humanity and not their utility, treating them as ends in themselves (with value, worth and dignity) rather than the means to accomplishing an end? Which is most consistent in establishing rules for others that they themselves follow?
• The Overlap Of Natural Law And Societal Law (Natural Law ethics). Do the candidates and/or parties believe there are morally demanding Natural Laws at work in the world? If so, do they believe they come from Nature's God (objective, authoritative Law Giver), Nature itself, or from a social contract (common experience and rational consensus of the people)? Which candidate is most likely to promote legislation in which the Natural Law referenced in our founding documents overlaps with our ongoing implementation of human law?
• Who Best Understands Your Rights? (Rights-based ethics). Do the candidates differ in their perspective on negative rights (what we can't do to others) vs. positive rights (what we must do for others)?  Which is more likely to limit their agenda to duties of non-interference, and which one is more likely to demand duties of assistance? Which supports the idea that rights are natural, universal, equal and inalienable vs. culturally constructed?

THE CONCERNS OF BIBLICAL ETHICS

As a Christian, I see a lot of issues to which the Bible speaks. Justice is many splendored thing, and while some of these issues will be more prominent in the minds of Christians, all of them are worth considering. This list could be much longer, but I am trying to limit myself to issues the Bible addresses as part of what will characterize nations that walk in the path of righteousness (that is, right living in line with God's design for the world).

So, which candidate (or party) is most likely to do the following things:

• Protect innocent human life from conception until death. This involves everything from abortion, euthanasia, and war to immigrants/refugees fleeing violence and persecution. 
• Protect all life from abuse. This involves fighting against unjustified violence and fighting for all innocent victims.
• Honor all people as image bearers of God.  There is no room for leaders or parties who mock, debase, or refuse to stand for the honor, worth and dignity of fellow human beings. "In as much as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it unto me." (Matthew 25:40)
• Promote just policies that help those in dire economic situations. Here I am thinking of quality of life issues. Who are the most needy among us?  Are we as a society investing in and caring for them? Our policies should neither punish success nor overlook the needy; they should promote generosity and discourage greed. A just economic system does not guarantee equal outcome, but surely it strives for equality of opportunity. 
• Steward creation well. This is, in particular, sound environmental policies. This command to Christians is as old as Genesis.
• Create genuinely just systems of justice. We need a court system that is truly impartial and not effected by race, riches, or status. God cares about justice. So should we. 
• Do justice and love mercy. A nation whose laws are not honored or enforced will descend into chaos; a nation whose laws are not honorable or ought not be enforced is no better.  How do we exercise compassionate justice well? 
• Protect religious freedom. This is freedom to practice religion and worship - or not - without unjust discrimination or coercive social policy. 
• Promote marriages and families in which children flourish. We as a society have a vested interest in raising children in stable, low-conflict families for the sake of the children first and the stability of society second. In addition, we should have policies and people in government that generously help those who, for whatever reasons, are not in this kind of situation. 
• Model truth, grace, justice, mercy and integrity. 

The most exhaustive list I have found of side-by-side comparisons of presidential platforms (for Democrat Biden, Republican Trump, Libertarian Jorgensen and Green Party Hawkins)  is at procon.org, "Compare 2020 Presidential Candidate Positions." There is also an easy-to-take quiz that will show you how you are aligning with this year's candidates (at least those four).

Isidewith.com has an extensive quiz about a huge range of issues. It offers the choice wof nuanced answers that you can weight according to how important they are to you. The summary includes not only national and state candidates that align with how you answered, but an overview of where it places you in the political spectrum. 

There is no party or person that is going to offer us the opportunity to vote with no second thoughts. We weigh them in the balance and vote with the awareness that empires of the earth will never align smoothly with the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, here we are, exiles in Babylon, and we seek the prosperity of the nation (Jeremiah 29:7). 

May we all have wisdom. 

Justice

It's frustratingly tense for evangelical Christians to talk about justice issues.

The Social Gospel movement in the 1920s became mostly social with little gospel pretty quickly; Social Justice Warriors have turned the discussion of justice into a vehicle for Identity Politics and Marxist ideology. Perhaps it is understandable why, to many evangelicals, "social" and "justice" have become dog whistles signaling leftist, neo-marxist radicals to storm the doors of their local church.

There is a danger that we Christians will disengage from the cultural conversation about justice because the empire is redefining kingdom words, or because empire ideologies have coopted biblical principles.  Why do I call this a danger? Because we are at risk of giving up land God established for us to inhabit. After all, justice was a just God's idea. 

God rolled out a vision for a just society through biblical revelation, starting with the Israelites in the Old Testament and moving into the church in the New Testament. Being the people of God was not just a personal covenant; it was a corporate commitment. A just society reflects just people who image a just God. And the foundation built in the Old Testament era found eager builders in the New Testament to continue the work God started.

God Cares About Justice. So Should We.

I've been thinking more lately about what it means for a follower of Jesus to do justice and love mercy (Micah 6:8) on both a personal and a policy level. By personal, I mean how I do those things in my direct circle of influence. By policy, I mean how I use the power of my voice and my vote to promote political policy. Christians have dual citizenship in a Kingdom and an empire, and it's not always easy to hear the still, small voice that ought to be guiding us above the tumultuous crowds clamoring for bread and circuses.

It's frustratingly tense for evangelical Christians to talk about justice issues. The Social Gospel movement in the 1920s became mostly social with little gospel pretty quickly; Social Justice Warriors have turned the discussion of justice into a vehicle for Identity Politics and Marxist ideology. To many evangelicals, "social" and "justice" have become dog whistles signaling leftist, neo-marxist radicals to storm the doors of their local church.

Nevertheless, neither society nor justice was their idea. It was God's. God rolled out a vision for a just society through biblical revelation, starting with the Israelites in the Old Testament and moving into the church in the New Testament. As a Christian, I see a lot of issues to which the Bible speaks. Justice is many splendored thing, and while some of issues will be more prominent in the minds of Christians than others - and should be - all of them are worth considering. Justice remains a deeply biblical issue, and it deserves our attention. 

Free To Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty In America (Part 1/3)

Luke Goodrich works for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. He's won multiple Supreme Court victories for religious freedom. He has appeared on Fox, CNN, ABC, NPR, and been in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Time Magazine. He's also an adjunct professor at the University of Utah law school where he teaches constitutional law.  In other words he's qualified to speak on this issue.

I suspect he will also surprise - and challenge - both liberals and conservatives on this issue. While it's written broadly for people of faith and specifically for Christians, I think it also offers great food for thought for those who are not religious.

Don't assume I automatically agree with everything - I have some questions that remain (and perhaps even some points of dissent) that will emerge over the course of this three part series. Meanwhile, I would love to see a thoughtful conversation emerge from this book (and these posts).

I am going to blog a review/overview of his book in three installments that will match the three sections of his book:

1) What Is Religious Freedom
2) What Are The Most Serious Threats?
3) What Can Be Done?

What I blog will be a mix of direct quotes and paraphrases from his writing. I will try to note where I am stepping out of the book and offering my own commentary.

Sliding Into Irrelevancy

The church has been sliding into cultural irrelevance for a few years now. You see this not only in the rise of the 'nones' and the declining number of regular church attenders, but also in how seriously the culture  takes the perspective of the church on moral issues.

I've seen a huge shift in the 15 years I've been a pastor. When I started in church ministry, "I'm a pastor," granted me a degree of deference from almost everyone. Not any more. If anything, it's usually cause for dismissing me. [1]

I think I know one reason this is changing. [2] There has been a seismic shift in how our culture views the church, and it's not merely because we have clashing worldview. It's because Jesus' figurative warning has come true: our 'salt' has lost its saltiness, and it's being trampled (Matthew 5).

The recent revelations of John Crist’s moral failure, addiction, and abuse of power while building a public platform under the banner of “Christian entertainer” is going to function as a placeholder for a lot of other stories of scandal in church leadership that have taken the news cycle by storm in the past few years.

My goal is not to malign Mr. Crist (who has himself confessed to egregious moral failure) or aggrandize anyone else. My goal is to take an honest look at the state of the church in the United States right now, at least in how it is responding to public sin or failure.

This is going to take some time, so settle in.

My 2019 Wish List

1. We value life - all life. It starts in the womb, and it continues until death. The question of personhood and humanity looms ever larger as science reveals more and more about the life of the unborn. We must figure out how to exercise justice and mercy at our southern border to those who are born. Speaking of doing better, we can also do this by looking more carefully about the context in which crime flourishes. We value life when we value all of life.

• "Thinking About Illegal Immigration As A Citizen Of Heaven"
• "Why I am Pro-Life"
• "Crime And The Statistics That Clarify (Or Distort) The Issue"

2. We address the causes of the #metoo movement at the core. Specifically, how do we create a culture that trains us from the time we are children on how to honor others sexually? We appear to be doing a terrible job. I suspect the two biggest culprits are families in which honor is not modeled and entertainment that is remarkably crude, shallow and selfish when portraying relationships, sex, and sexuality. Morality, character, integrity. They matter. Oh, and pornography is a monster.

• "When Men Become Monsters"

3. We reject materialism as the standard for the good life. "But the economy is good!" has become my least favorite phrase of 2018, as if having money in my pocket is more important than anything else. I want leaders and policies that model and promote truth, generosity, justice and mercy for all people, even if the achievement of these goals literally costs us something. The United States has plenty of money. We have room, as a nation and as individuals, to exercise what Timothy Keller calls a 'generous justice.' 

4. We give up caustic, abrasive, confrontational public discourse. Obnoxious people and/or mean posts get headlines. It's ruining our ability to have meaningful conversation about just about everything. I would love to see this modeled from the top down, beginning with our president and all other elected leaders in Washington.  If politicians never used Twitter again to make an argument, vent, or explain something, I would consider 2019 a win.

5. The entertainment industry listens to itself and watches itself, and makes the connection: what they celebrate, their audience will do. If you want better people, make better entertainment. Write songs and tell stories that bring out nobility in people. You reap what you sow.

• "It's Not Just Entertainment."
• "Dying To Be Entertained (The Hunger Games And Philosophy)"
• "Worldviews in Entertainment: Starting the Conversation"
• "Are You Not Entertained?"
• "Getting What You Deserve"

6. Christians remember that our kingdom is not of this world. Our citizenship is in heaven. Our allegiance is to Jesus. We do not owe allegiance to Trump, Obama, Clinton or Sanders. The Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian parties are not to be revered. In 2019, may we feel increasingly uneasy in a world that is not our home. May that unease inspire us to holy engagement with everyone and everything around us, and that includes holding said politicians and parties accountable when they contribute to the brokenness of the world.

• "Empires, Shires, And Incense To Ceasar"
• "What This Election Has Revealed About The Church"

7. All of us recommit to the pursuit of truth. Fake news is a problem from the Right and the Left; calling real news 'fake news' just because we don't like it is just as problematic. We need to do our own research: go to primary sources; absorb perspectives from multiple viewpoints; read, watch and listen widely; filter opinion from fact. The truth is there. It's just harder than ever to find it. Do work.

• "All The News That's Fake To Print"

8. The church - which I love - becomes a compelling community of salvation, truth, love, generosity, justice, mercy and hope that truly reflects the character and nature of Jesus.

• "What Makes Me Proud Of The American Church"
• "America's Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone, Including Atheists" (Rodney Stark)
• "Moving Into The Neighborhood"

Thinking About Illegal Immigration As A Citizen Of Heaven

So, the disclaimer first. 

I am not here to offer the final word on this issue. Shoot, this probably won't be my own final thoughts on this very complex issue. I've just recently been spending a lot of time thinking about ways in which I can tend to view life with the principles and values of the nation in which I live vs. the principles and values of the Kingdom of God, which is where my ultimate citizenship and allegiance lies.

As a result, I've been reading a lot about how Christians are processing the illegal immigration issue.  It's no secret we Christians are all over the map in how we believe we should respond. What I offer here is an attempt to do justice to two distinct sides on this issue, express some thoughts about the intersection of justice and mercy, and offer a solution that I hope offers a vision of how the church could change the world for our good and God's glory. 

So be patient, please, if you choose to read this. I'm not asking you to agree with me on every point; like I said, I'm sure these won't by my final thoughts. I would love to engage respectfully with you if you disagree in hopes that I can learn and grow.

I also encourage you to read the links at the end of this article.

The Foreigner

If you are a Jackie Chan fan - and maybe even if you are not - you will like The Foreigner. It's a compelling story in the tradition of Taken. A father has lost his daughter, and he will do anything to bring the perpetrators to justice. From the shocking act of terrorism at the beginning to the end the audience knows is coming, the film keeps us engaged and (generally speaking) rooting for the right people for the right reasons.

There are several interesting elements to the story that deserve some serious thought. Pierce Brosnan's character (Liam Hennessy) is a morally compromised man trying to do the right thing for morally ambiguous reasons. He would be a great case study for an ethics class. Several affairs show what happens to individuals and situations when sex, which is meant to be an expression of love, becomes a weapon. As much as I am interested in pursuing those thoughts more deeply at some point, I am currently more interested in something that stood out to me in relation to Jackie Chan's character, Quan Minh.

When Men Become Monsters

In an ideal ecosystem, everything has a particular role to play; there is a balance that is hopefully not disrupted by something that breaks the natural flow and harmony. In a broken ecosystem, something invasive is introduced that will brings harm. (I'm talking to you, zebra mussel.)

The Harvey Weinstein scandal is calling attention to a lot of important issues, so I want to be sure we don't overlook this one: we have a sexually broken moral ecosystem in the United States. While both men and women are are impacted, women are bearing the brunt in overwhelming numbers as morally monstrous men increasingly exert their power to use and abuse. How did we get here? What are the causes? What can we do to address it?

* * * * *

First, we have to address the terrible social cost of pornography. Is there really any question that it fuels all kinds of terrible fallout for women and men? It fundamentally damaging how people view others. It’s ruining sex for millions of people; it’s leading to a rise in human trafficking; it’s creating a culture in which we begin to think of pornographic norms as if they were actual norms. Read up on how people who work with kids are noticing wildly changing norms for young girls who are being pressured to perform like porn stars by equally young boys who are being raised on porn. And if you are wondering if there are studies that confirm the link, the answer is yes. 

Yet in the midst of this damage we laud moral monsters like Hugh Hefner - well, not everyone did - who have done all they could to convince us that our current sexual ecosystem is the best of all possible worlds: Boys will be boys, and women will be bunnies. When men say ‘hop,’ women should be happy to do so naked on the grounds of a castle that puts Neverland's scandalous rumors to shame. It’s all so very normal and good and healthy.

Wind River's Modern American Frontier

Wind River is the third film in a loosely connected trilogy linked to Taylor Sheridan. As a screenwriter in Hell Or High Water and Sicario, he set both in what Sheridan calls the "modern American frontier."  As a director, Sheridan uses the same setting in Wind River to take a stark look at the ways in which sin shatters the world in a 21st century Wild West.

I noted in my review of Hell or High Water that I was conscious while watching the film that it was a remarkably well made movie. I thought the same thing during Wind River. I didn't realize until later that Sheridan was responsible for both. I'm impressed that he got y attention with both. The dialogue and pacing, the brooding silence that suddenly explodes in violence, the way in which the landscape is just as much a character as the actors (the cinematographer also shot Beasts Of The Southern Wild)...  Wind River is just really well done in terms of cinematic art.*

During the opening credits, a voice intones, "There is a meadow in my perfect world." There is no idyllic meadow in this film.  Instead, there is the bitterly cold mountains of Wind River, the only American Indian reservation in Wyoming. As cold as that wind is, there is one just as bitter that moans through too many hearts as well. One character says, "You'd think people would realize this is sheep country." Hello, foreshadowing. Sheep country attracts wolves. There is more than one kind of sheep, and there are many kinds of wolves, and a howling, harrowing wind flows relentlessly through them all.

The Shape Of Reality: What Is Justice?

As noted in the opening post in this series, I believe Christianity offers compelling reasons to believe that truth is found most fully and consistently within the framework of a Christian worldview. The second post addressed the need for an objective foundation for morality. The language of morality only makes sense if we are significant moral agents who have an obligation to choose good and avoid evil, so the third post addressed the issue of whether or not we are really free.

The concepts of freedom and moral obligation brings with them the idea of justice. If right and wrong are objectively real, and we are people deserving of praise and culpability based on how our choices align with moral goodness, then part of the morally obligatory good would be to treat people justly. So, what is justice?

Men, Women, And The Line Between Objectification and Empowerment

I'm about to wander into a minefield.

I want to offer a man’s perspective about whether or not women's attempts at empowering women actually do or don’t empower them in the most meaningful sense of the word - at least based on how men perceive or experience this quest. Just what everyone was hoping for, right? A man talking about women's empowerment. I just ask that you bear with me. I am increasingly convinced that unless we build a bridge between how men and women understand this issue we will not make necessary progress as a culture.

I will not be building the entire bridge with this article. Not even close. At best, I am offering a supporting strut by attempting to explain how men view this issue for the sake of clarity and truth. I want to live in a world where everyone is granted intrinsic value as human beings, a world where justice and peace rule the day. That's my goal, and I hope these thoughts contribute to that end. 

Let's tiptoe through this.

* * * * *

We live in a visual culture, a world in which the medium is often just as impactful as the message. Content, said media analyst Marshall McLuhan, cannot easily be separated from form.  In addition to just being a visual culture, we are increasingly a pornified culture. The statistics are sobering to say the least. Thanks to the internet, we have access to pornography in ways that are unprecedented in the history of the world. The vast majority of consumers are men. 70% of men ages 18-24 visit porn sites in a typical month. Why? Because nature or nature’s God (depending on your worldview) has wired men to be visually stimulated. I don’t think this is a debated issue. Men are turned on by sight.  Psychology Today quoted several researchers who have noted, “Men’s brains are designed to objectify females.” They talk about the unwilled connection between a man's brains and his genitals that begins with a sensitivity to visual cues. "Men’s brains scrutinize the details of arousing visuals with the kind of concentration jewelers apply to the cut of a diamond.”

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

"I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson, dying in the gutter for no reason at all... They taught me the world only makes sense if you force it to." - Bruce Wayne

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice has given critics plenty of reason to rant. As far as the art of film goes, it leaves a lot to be desired (though I must confess, I enjoyed it enough to see it twice). However, my goal is not to critique the movie as art but to look at the some of the worldview messages either embedded or preached in it.

Zach Snyder touched on a number of issues: terrorism, politics, power, genetic engineering and religion, to name a few. The one that stood out to me as the core of the movie had to do with power. 

* * * * * * * * * *

It’s been three years since the unveiling of Superman to the world at the end of Man of Steel. Plenty of people are angry about what happened in Metropolis, but far more are in awe of this Kryptonian god. He stops terrorists; he saves people trapped by fire and flood; he carries the space shuttle on his shoulders. There’s just that pesky and increasingly vocal minority that worries that a Man of Steel might not have the morals to match to his muscles. Early on, a Senator voices what many are feeling: “The world has been so caught up with what he can do that no one has asked what he should do.” Not even Superman has a clear perspective on the latter question, and therein lies the problem.

Lex Luthor highlights what he calls the oldest lie in America: “power can be innocent.” Not that this bothers Lex, of course. He’s not concerned that people have power; he’s concerned that people other than himself have more power than he does. After all, Lex knows his own heart, and he assumes others will do with their power what he longs to accomplish. Lex has never known power to be blended with goodness; no wonder the idea of a God who is all-powerful and all-good makes no sense to him. Superman is neither, of course, but he’s the closest thing Lex has seen. The principle still applies. Superman has power; he must be corrupt. And he must be controlled.

While the movie does not do a great job making this plain, Bruce Wayne is a mess. He has given in to depression and isolation. He drinks himself to sleep at night. His crumbling mansion matches his crumbling morality, one which now justifies torturing criminals and savagely attacking gangs. A clearly jaded Alfred notes at one point, “That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men... cruel.” Bruce’s response? “Twenty years in Gotham. How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?” Not Bruce Wayne, that’s for sure. “We are criminals,” he tells Alfred. “We’ve always been criminals.”

The Equalizer: Gotta Be Who You Are In This World

Robert McCall is a nice guy. He challenges people to succeed with "Progress, not perfection," and he doesn't shame them for their failures. He befriends people whom others reject or ignore, like an overweight employee and a young prostitute named Teri. He's a great boss, a good neighbor, and a voracious reader of classic literature. He's also - unbeknownst to them - a mix of Repairman Jack, Jack Reacher, and Liam "I Have A Very Particular Set Of Skills" Neeson.

One night, during one of the frequent times his path crosses with Teri's at a diner, Robert asks her why she hasn't pursued a music career.

"You and I know what I really am."
"I think you can be anything you want to be."
"Maybe in your world, Robert. It doesn't really happen that way in mine."
"Change your world."

If only life were that simple. When it becomes painfully clear that her world will kill her, he decides to change it for her. The bad guys drag other people for whom he cares into the conflict, and he unleashes a one-man war of vigilante justice. In spite of his anger, he gives those deserving of judgment a chance to do the right thing. He might do justice, but he offers mercy. Most of them refuse it. It's a bad call on their part, because Robert is going to make sure they reap what they sowed. He stays true to his life philosophy: "When somebody does something unspeakable, you do something about it, 'cause you can."

He's a vigilante knight in shining but tarnished armor, fighting for good in a world that believes his kind of noble warrior only appears in fictional books. Teri sure doesn't think men like him exist when she meets him. She believes by the end of the movie.