Tag: Christian

Corona, churches, and Easter

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

April 12th, 2020 is Easter Sunday. It is considered the most important date in history by the Christian religion. It is universally celebrated as the day on which Jesus Christ rose up out of the grave in which he had been placed after his death the Friday before by crucifixion. He had been declared dead, was entombed, and came back to life immortal. This is the message that has been proclaimed for 2000 years.

Today, in America, that message will be muted considerably because churches have been ordered by the State to close their doors because of the Corona virus panic, er, I mean, pandemic.

If the State can tell churches to shut down over a ‘bug’, then this can happen for any reason at all. In fact, history shows that the more totalitarian a State becomes, the more prone it is to shut church doors. America is not immune.

In defiance of this order, churches everywhere ought to throw open their doors, welcome everyone in, and get on with the joyful worship of the One Who was dead, but now lives. Pastors and church boards ought to ‘gird up their loins’ and tell the State where to get off. After all, as the Apostle Peter said so eloquently when called up before the Jewish Court, “We ought to obey God, rather than men.”

Will this happen? Not likely. Today, in America, worship of the State has trumped worship of the King. God help us!

Note: The above was submitted as a Letter to the Editor to the Ravalli Republic, in Hamilton, MT on April 4, 2020 and printed April 5.

I fully expect to receive blowback because of this, but it makes me angry that the US government, our government, can simply issue a ‘guideline’ (thinly veiled threat is more like it) to churches and other places of worship, which is then taken as law by those same assemblies. It is not my intention to disparage or minimize the danger posed by Coronavirus, but I will not be quiet when a governing official (whoever that might be—elected or bureaucratic) orders a church to close its doors. No government should be able to dictate which church can practice its faith, when it can be open, when it must close, how many people can attend, who can attend, how much distance there must be between attendees, etc., ad infinitum.

Most churches today are more concerned with maintaining their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status than with proclaiming the truth. Threaten the run-of-the-mill pastor of today with ‘sanctions’ for disobedience of State rules and he will probably cave, thus watering down the message of the Good News. More than likely, he will trot out the argument that, according to Romans 13, we are supposed to obey the civil authority in everything we do, without ever considering that Christians in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia were under the same mandate and subject to the same standard.

Where will we draw the line against the encroachment of the State? If the various churches refuse to stand up to its edicts and dictates, what chance do any of us have?

We must not be quiet or we will be silenced.

Conform or Desist: the Bozeman School Controversy

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

In an article I posted yesterday, I laid out the reason why a club (a group of people who join together to promote a specific agenda) must, by its very nature, be exclusive. A club can’t admit nor tolerate those who advocate for competing ideologies. If it does, then it has lost its focus and become something different than it was. This is true no matter the type of club or what it stands for.

Specifically, I addressed the situation in Bozeman, MT, in which certain high school students had “challenged” the FCA, a school-recognized Christian athletic club because the club was not “inclusive”. I argued that the club had every right to maintain its position because everyone has the absolute right of association (disassociation). If people must associate with others they don’t want to, then people with power and backing can force viewpoints on others who might disagree with them.

There is, however, also the very distinct possibility that the students who are making the complaint really don’t want to join the club. It is entirely plausible that this whole brouhaha is designed to literally quash the message that is “offensive” to them. In fact, I’d lay odds on that the real intention here is not to persuade the club to accept members who have variant lifestyles, but to force it to change its base message or to drive it out of existence entirely.

This is a common tactic used to stifle opposing viewpoints. It can be summed up like this.

“You have said something which I don’t like and find objectionable. I do not want to consider what you said and refuse to make any personal changes if I find your statement valid in any way. Because I find it objectionable and refuse to consider it, I am left with only two choices: withdraw from the conversation and disassociate myself from you and/or attempt to use force to shut you up so that I don’t have to hear what you are saying.”

It is not my intention here to make any moral judgments about the issue of homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, or what constitutes a marriage. Although I do have strongly held beliefs about these issues, I don’t consider them to be the issue at stake, instead they are the narrative used to avoid addressing the core of the issue, which is the liberty to speak what you wish and to associate with whomever you want. This is the point which has triggered the complaining students.

From reading numerous news articles about this controversy, it appears that the students could join the group if they wanted to, even if they disagreed with its message. It appears that they did not make the effort, instead went to the school authorities to effect a desired outcome. It appears that they have been successful, winning a ruling that the club must either drop the offending language and become “inclusive” or lose official status if they keep it. However, if a lawsuit is brought against the school over this issue, it will probably be forced to recognize the club as legitimate—regardless of the club’s policy.

I will say it again. Freedom of association and the freedom to speak one’s mind are probably the two most important rights we have. In that order, I might add. We should be able to choose who we associate with (disassociate from) and we should be able to say what we think without having to be afraid that someone is going to use force against us because they don’t approve. Unfortunately, the Bozeman students who started this ruckus don’t understand what that means.

Ironically, the students may have shot themselves in the foot, since there has been considerable interest shown in the club after this controversy began. From the Chronicle:

“Statewide FCA has about 350 student members in college, high schools and middle schools. After the controversy broke in Bozeman, he said, about 48 kids showed up at the FCA meeting, a huge increase.”

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Clubs and Inclusiveness: A Mutual Incompatibility

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

I was watching NBC News (KECI) out of Missoula, Montana, this morning (11/14/2019) when I noticed a tidbit on their news feed scroller. I may not have the words exactly right, but it’s close enough for anyone to get the message.

“Bozeman High School students are challenging a Christian club (FCA) for not being inclusive.”

A news article from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle can be seen here.

It would be easy to lose focus here by condemning this club for discriminating against the ‘disaffected’ students. It would also be just as easy to excoriate the students for attempting to impose their own agenda onto the club. It would be futile to try to produce some type of common ground between them so that all the participants could be happy and satisfied.

A club, any club, has to be exclusive, prejudicial, and discriminating. Every club, no matter what its religion, philosophy, purpose, bent, or goal MUST ABSOLUTELY determine what it will be and who will be part of it. By its very nature, a club is an exclusive group of people who band together to accomplish a certain pre-defined task. It simply can’t be any other way.

Think about all the myriad things that individual people have an interest in. Immediately relevant to this discussion are religion and lifestyle, not always mutually compatible. Sports, gardening, social activity, philosophical thought, guns, sewing circles, etc., etc., and on and on and on. The list is endless. However, no matter WHAT the club is involved in, it always has one purpose: to promote the interests of its members.

Let’s look at one easily defined category—chess. Chess is a game unlike any other and there are millions of people around the world who are fascinated by it. Innumerable clubs have been set up in order to bring people together who are interested in playing and have a desire to improve their skills.

World-wide, the one thing in common among all the groups, however, is that they are all dedicated solely and completely to the game of chess. Nothing else. It is an exclusive club. Non-devotees need not apply.

Imagine the consternation and chaos that would ensue if someone from outside the club wanted to join, but was determined to force the club to allow members who wanted to play Tiddly-Winks. Both are games, after all, so there shouldn’t be a problem. Except for one thing—when a chess club starts importing other games into its structure, it no longer is a chess club. It has morphed into something different which might satisfy some people, but will repel the true believers, who will likely tender their resignation from the club.

Every club has ground rules about who it will accept, what the focus is on, how that focus will be accomplished, how the rules will be enforced, why someone will be asked to leave, et al. These rules may be written or not. They may be formal or not. They may be set in stone or subject to constant change, but the one thing which can’t be denied is that they provide a structure so that the club can operate under its original charter.

As pertains to the situation in Bozeman, if the excluded students actually succeed in joining the club, they have two choices—change themselves to fit the parameters of the club OR change the club to fit their own preferences. In the case of the first, they will, by conforming to the rules, become part of the club as it was originally designed. In the case of the second, the club will become something else.

As far as the club is concerned, it also has two choices—either continue to exclude certain persons and thoughts from its structure OR to allow and accept competing ideologies which will inevitably dilute its message. In the case of the first, someone’s feelings are going to be hurt because they are not given access due to their refusal to conform. In the case of the second, the “Christian” part of the club will simply disappear and something antagonistic to it will appear.

Regardless of belief and opinion, the right of certain people to disassociate themselves from others ought to be ironclad and unassailable. No one person or any group of persons should be required to associate with anyone else who promotes or holds an incompatible viewpoint. Freedom of association (or disassociation) should be the preeminent right accorded to everyone. Otherwise, we become a society in which personal beliefs and opinions become weapons to force others into submission to ourselves and our agendas.