character

A Debate For the Nation

Hello everyone. It has been a minute since I have had the chance to sit down and write for the blog. You might be thinking, "Could it maybe have something to do with the mid-term elections?" The immediate answer is 'no'; however, it isn't necessarily a coincidence either. I have been watching our country over the last decade of my life. I went from being a 27-year-old who thought a specific way about character and what having good character meant to now being a 37-year-old with a different viewpoint.

I am not someone who gets political when it comes to my writing or preaching. As a pastor, I do not feel it is right for me to use my "platform" to focus on government politics when my calling goes higher than that. I have watched too many folks "of the cloth" push their political views, and I find it disgusting.  I have had people argue that some of my writing is political, especially an older article titled "Political Uproar." Yet, if you take the time to read the article, it becomes a lesson on taking something at face value. Everyone can read something or make it appear a certain way, yet for transparency's sake, I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am a moderate who leans depending on the issue. When I say I don't get political, I mean that I do not push a specific narrative. My outlook is neutral, not geared to a political party.

Now that that is out of the way, I can get to my point of character. From childhood, I learned about good character in church, school, sports, and by watching my dad and brother in the Boy Scouts. The problem is, what good character is seems to change as we get older and depending on the chapter of life we are in. I used a superhero picture above because I think it is a good analogy of how character can look different depending on the hero. Superman is considered the first superhero. He has superhuman abilities such as flight, strength, invulnerability, and heat vision. He works with law enforcement officials instead of taking matters into his own hands (vigilante). His moral code consists of an absolute no-kill rule. He believes in the sanctity of life and always finds another way. There are some who argue this makes him weak. When an alternate reality version has been created that shows Superman killing the Joker, it shows exactly what can happen when individuals set aside their moral code. Can a superhero really be allowed the 'hero' part if he uses tyranny?

Batman is called a superhero, yet his more proper definition is a vigilante. This can be more of a risky thing because a vigilante often takes the law into their own hands. I am not saying Batman is a bad guy or shouldn't be considered someone with bad character. Like Superman, he lives by a no-kill moral code. That is noble, and I can appreciate that. The problem with a vigilante is what makes the character come into question: someone can do something for what is deemed "the right reason,' yet end up doing it the wrong way. For all arguments' sake, Batman is trying to get rid of those who are set on destroying Gotham. He goes after those who are trying to harm individuals, disrupt peace, cause darkness, etc. Batman tends to act as a combination of a judge, jury, and law enforcer without any accountability. By not working with officials, a vigilante ends up creating a problem for due process, the chain of evidence, and the admissibility of evidence for law and order, and creates additional problems instead of just solutions. We don't acknowledge that when a vigilante steps in, it often escalates problems because they are then seen as a challenge by the enemies.

Both Batman and Superman share a common moral code with the "no-kill" stance. The way they demonstrate the rest of their ethical and moral codes is different. We can see that in our country today. Civic values, social trust, and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY have become such hot topics that we, as a nation, are in a character crisis. I look back at my 37 years on the planet, and in this country, and see the changes that have happened. Not all change is bad, yet in the last decade I have seen a change that breaks my heart. If we cannot come together and face the fact that we are lacking in core values of honesty, empathy, critical thinking, communication, and due diligence, we will never recover.

As a Christ-follower, I work hard to better myself every day while recognizing the ways I fall short. You don't have to be a Christ-follower to do that. I would hope you would open yourself up to it, yet I am not here to demand it or force it; that has to be a 'you-call.' Whether you believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and God the Son, or not, there are lessons we can look at and learn from without shoving our faith down your throat. Jesus demonstrates the need for compassion and empathy. He was willing to step into the messy lives of those who were deemed "unworthy or less-than" and offered aid and care. He sat with those the leaders of the time ignored because they felt they were "unclean" or not living according to their standards. He even said, "It isn't the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." Why do we, as a country, look at those we disagree with and act like modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees? The minute someone disagrees with another person, the verbal (and sometimes physical) brutality that occurs is repulsive. And yes, I am calling out my fellow Christ-followers on this. I see this from both 'primary' sides of the spectrum. Instead of stepping up and calling out the behavior of others on "our side," we allow it to happen, which causes more problems. You are allowed to have your own viewpoint. You are allowed to disagree with someone else. You should not be allowed to verbally or physically attack someone due to your differing opinions. Our country looks the other way when we see it happening. How can we have good character and allow this type of behavior to happen?

Critical thinking has gone out the window in this country. With AI, ChatGPT, etc., anyone can find what they want to find, even if it is not always based on critical thinking. Jesus taught critical thinking throughout his adult ministry. When I read the New Testament, especially the four Gospels, I sometimes find myself sharing the frustration of the disciples when they feel they cannot get a clear explanation or answer from Jesus. I look at my life and get frustrated when I ask a question and don't get an answer. Jesus is often seen as answering a question being asked of Him but offering an open-ended question as a response. He probes everyone, not just his primary students (the disciples), with thought-provoking opportunities to learn from others' perspectives and to think critically for themselves. This opens up the bigger picture instead of looking at the world through a narrow lens. In the Gospels, Jesus sends his disciples out two-by-two to share the Sermon on the Mount. Problems arise in the Decapolis (the ten cities) because of clashing cultural views. Instead of letting the uproar continue, he then travels to help provide continued conversation and teaching. He doesn't just show up and tell folks they are wrong, dumb, or use other non-helpful communication methods. He talks it out, offering questions to help folks understand and communicate how and why they may feel and think a certain way. Why can't we, as a diverse cultural nation, learn to communicate in ways that allow others to express how or why they think a certain way and then offer methods to think critically and challenge that provides learning opportunities instead of bashing and tearing people down?

Due Diligence:  the process of carefully examining and verifying information before making a decision or moving forward with a particular action or agreement. When we look at the Gospel of Luke, within the first 4 verses, there is an account of due diligence. Luke, a gentile physician (who later becomes a companion on Paul's mission), does his due diligence of research and fact-checking before writing a Gospel outlining the life and ministry of Adult Jesus. Luke wasn't an eyewitness to events. Without firsthand witness and knowledge, he had to do his research to understand who this Jesus was. Luke demonstrated the responsibility of due diligence by finding evidence to validate accounts while exposing wrong thinking. David Guzik put it perfectly when writing, "Luke wanted to give a third account with an emphasis on comprehensiveness and order." Fast forward in the Gospel to the Holy Week section: Jesus is teaching in the temple courtyard. The Pharisees are trying to trap him and point out some wrong thinking.

^"Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.  So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

He saw through their duplicity and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent."

You might be wondering how that is an example of due diligence. The Pharisees' goal was to turn public opinion of Jesus to make it look like Jesus was team Rome. Instead of stepping back and truly listening, they only heard what they wanted to hear. They decided to try to trap him by asking about the taxes to Caesar, without realizing that they also taxed their people at the temple. Jesus asks for a denarius, a piece of money, and asks whose face it is. When they say it is Caesar, Jesus demonstrates the need to respect the government when they make a request. We do not have to like everything the governing leaders do. We do not have to agree with their thoughts. There is a level of obedience and due process that needs to take place to be of good character in a fight for change. We are responsible to God in all things we do. How we express ourselves and the character we live by is to reflect God, not be of the world. We have to do our due diligence in all things and ask ourselves the old question: WWJD, and how would he respond? He would offer a chance to allow others an opportunity for their due diligence. We should be practicing the same for ourselves.

I am tired, folks. I am tired of watching people around me, and in my circle, bash others because, broadly speaking, we, as a nation, are in such a character crisis. Yes, one can argue it starts with leadership. I think back to the movie "Remember the Titans." Julius and Gerry are at it after an intense practice and training camp. This team was forced to integrate, with racial problems being the central conflict. Gerry, a white player and captain, gets on Julius, a black player, for his lack of stepping up and what he sees as a selfish and bad attitude. Julius tells Gerry he isn't going to exhaust himself for the team, a team that isn't unified, and points out Gerry's role in that division. Julius makes it clear he is going to take care of himself and himself only. Gerry, the captain of the team, tells Julius his attitude is the worst he has ever heard. Julius looks to Gerry and says, "Attitude reflects leadership, Captain."

Our leadership in this country needs to be better. We need to stop looking up to and hailing individuals (no matter where you fall on the spectrum) as heroes when their character doesn't demonstrate that type of person. Just because someone may be in your "viewpoint circle" doesn't mean you get to look away when bad character traits happen. You don't get to scream about ethics while being unethical and not being open to seeing your own downfall. Universal ethical rule: If it is okay for someone you know or for yourself to do something or say something, you are not allowed to get mad when someone on the opposite side does it. If you say it isn't okay for the opposite side to say or do something, you don't get to sit back and allow others on your side to do it or allow yourself to do it.

This isn't about politics. This isn't about religion. This isn't about culture. This isn't about anything other than human arrogance and selfishness. I said what I said. I am not perfect. I make mistakes too, and I have to be better every day, just like I am calling others to be better. I try to own my mistakes. I try very hard not to blame someone else for my own choices, even if I felt "influenced." I am still responsible for me, myself, and I. No one else is to blame. Nothing happening around me is to blame. All evil requires to succeed in this world is for good people to sit back and do nothing. In fact, there are two kinds of evil: The people who do evil things, and the people who see evil being done and don't speak up. There is a right way to step up and speak up, and there is a wrong way. Think about the character you are demonstrating. Think about those who are watching you or who might look up to you. Are you demonstrating good character for others, or are you being a destructive person by fueling the character crisis in an effort to look 'tough'?