Tag Archives: Southern Baptist

Why Doesn’t George Zimmerman Mind His Own Business?

Obama in hoodie

Obama in hoodieOnce a vigilante, always a vigilante.

One would think that after enduring a nationally–televised trial and being the subject of a current Department of Justice witch hunt, George Zimmerman would finally mind his own business. But no, Zimmerman continues to poke his nose into situations better handled by public safety professionals. (As I’ve previously written about in ‘The only thing George Zimmerman didn’t do is play lacrosse’ and ‘Nine out of ten journalists say, “Guilty!”’)

Last Wednesday, Zimmerman came across a Ford Explorer that had just been involved in a car crash. The SUV had turned over and a family of four was trapped inside as the damaged car began smoking.

If Zimmerman would simply take the advice of experts like Russell Moore, the recently appointed head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, he would have either stayed in his car and dialed 9–1–1 or simply driven down the road; content in the knowledge that expert medical specialists were on the way and would no doubt be on scene before the car exploded.

But no, this EMT wannabe had to jump out of his car and rush over to the wreck where he helped the family escape. The only thing Zimmerman didn’t do was arrange a news conference to announce his deed. The media learned of his unauthorized rescue activities when the Seminole County Sheriff’s office announced it on Monday. So at least Zimmerman is not guilty of practicing PR without a license.

Moore thinks Zimmerman is a buttinski who is causing white America to forget it should be feeling guilty. In an interview with the Washington Post Moore explains, “Most white evangelicals, white Americans, are seeing this microscopically in terms of this verdict, and most African Americans are seeing it macroscopically. It’s Trayvon Martin, it’s Emmitt Till, it’s Medgar Evers, it’s my son, it’s my neighbor’s son, it’s my situation that I had. . . . Most white Americans say, “We don’t know what happened that night,” and [whites] are missing the point.”

Moore doesn’t explain why white Americans are taking their lead on racial solidarity from a Hispanic like Zimmerman. But as a Southern Baptist, I can assure you I’ll think twice before I take my theology lead from Dr. Moore.

Lining up with the “Rev.” Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson (who has been known to feel a bit uneasy in the past when approached by black youth wearing gang attire), Moore goes on to say, “Regardless of what Trayvon Martin was doing or not doing that night, you have someone who was taking upon himself some sort of vigilante justice, even by getting out of the car. Regardless of what the legal verdict was, this was wrong.”

Based on that statement, I’m going to assume Moore also gave the movie Machine Gun Preacher two thumbs down. Regardless of the good doctor’s movie preferences, the ignorance and arrogance in that statement are breathtaking.

George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain and he was on patrol that night. He was watching, which is what the neighborhood watch does. Zimmerman lived in the neighborhood, Martin did not. The angelic and childlike Martin was staying with his father’s girlfriend because he was serving his third suspension from school and mom was tired of being disobeyed.

Zimmerman was already outside his car looking for Martin when the 9–1–1 dispatcher said, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.” The dispatcher is not a sworn law enforcement officer and the statement does not have the force of law. Different dispatchers will tell you different things. When Moore has guests over for dinner and they show up with food or a bottle of vintage Welch’s (he is a Baptist, after all) and the wife says, “Oh, you didn’t have to do that,” does Moore force them to return the item to their car?

Besides, there actually was crime in the area Zimmerman volunteered to patrol. Police records show eight burglaries, nine thefts and one shooting in the prior year. Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowner’s association, observed, “He once caught a thief and an arrest was made. (Zimmerman) helped solve a lot of crimes.”

The behavior that Moore advocates closely resembles what witnesses to the fatal confrontation actually did. One man heard the commotion, looked out the window and called 9–1–1. Since he wasn’t a “vigilante” or “wannabe” that was the sum total of his civic duty for the evening.

Yet if he had walked outside and yelled at Martin to stop pounding Zimmerman because he was calling the police, there’s a chance Martin would have stopped and thereby survived the encounter.

Instead, by being the Passive Samaritans, witnesses did nothing to protect anyone’s life. Even the police will tell you when seconds count — they are minutes away.

Moore finishes destroying his credibility by observing, “And when you add this to the larger context of racial profiling and a legal system that does seem to have systemic injustices as it relates to African Americans with arrests and sentencing, I think that makes for a huge crisis. . . ”

This inaccurate cant is something you expect from a Berkeley sociology professor. It’s always a bit daunting to cast Bible verses at a theologian, but does the phrase “for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” ring a bell for Dr. Moore?

Most of us won’t ever be involved in a fight for our lives, but the following could well happen. Let’s say you find yourself alone and in trouble on a dark, cold and rainy night. Who would you rather have chance by and observe your predicament: Russell Moore or George Zimmerman?

Jesus, Another Innocent Man Wrongly Convicted

bitter christianFew pastimes are more entertaining than witnessing a smug, non–orthodox Jew giving instruction on New Testament theology to Christians. Last Saturday the most reverend Lisa Miller in her Washington Post ‘Belief Watch’ column asked readers, “Is gun ownership Christian?

This puts believers at an immediate disadvantage because Christ did not spend much of his ministry discussing consumer goods. He mentions the odd cloak, fragrant ointment, sword and widow’s mite, but one would not confuse Him with Ralph Nader or other marketplace stalwarts.

Besides, since Miller picks and chooses what she believes in regard to her own faith, she has no problem distorting the Gospel in an effort to draft Jesus into Code Pink.

She begins by completely misunderstanding the significance of Jesus on the cross. Miller writes, “The Christian Lord allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight the injustice of the death sentence imposed on him.” To co–opt Mark Twain; this is an inability to distinguish between lightning and the lightning bug.

On the contrary, it was not a miscarriage of justice. The sentence was the fulfillment of divine justice. Christ willingly substituted Himself on the cross in place of a sinful mankind. God did not alter the terms of the first Covenant with Abraham. There was a price to be paid for man’s rebellion and he decided to pay it Himself. (This refusal to “evolve” on the part of the creator, should give pause to modern “Christian” leader’s attempts to revise and soften the New Testament, but it doesn’t.)

Consequently, Christ was not the earliest recruit for the left’s anti–capitol punishment movement. Christ died for our sins. He willingly paid the price we could not pay and ushered in the New Covenant.

There would be no Christians without Christ’s death on the cross. Even if the Jerusalem chapter of the Innocence Project had tried to get Him off the hook, He would have refused the offer, because to do so would have rendered His work pointless.

After that inauspicious beginning, Miller moves on to the point of her column, “How do such Christians reconcile their stalwart commitment to the Second Amendment with their belief in a gospel that preaches nonviolence?” And then she quotes Matthew 5:39 – “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This leads me to believe Miller was also not a fan of the excellent “Machine Gun Preacher”

Then it left me wondering if I had missed a recent development on the violence front, so I did an online search on “strike AND cheek AND gunfight” to see if there had been a rash of concealed carry permit holders (CCW) lighting up people who slapped them.

That search string was a bust, so I tried “strike AND cheek AND shoot” with the same result. Evidently there is no problem with Christian gun owners initiating violence. Miller’s goal appears to involve persuading Christians to join the ranks of the defenseless. This decision, however, would not be made in a vacuum. Should a Christian head of household decide to disarm because he believes guns are inherently evil, like cigarettes or 16 oz. sodas, his decision would not affect him alone. His wife, his children and mom in the basement would all instantly become draftees in the War for Pacifism.

And the family would be misguided draftees at that. As Adam Clarke points out in his commentary on the passage, these “exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Say for example, an orthodox Christian that leftists like Miller slap up the side of the head for refusing to support homosexual marriage. Following Matthew, the Christian would turn the other cheek as he said he does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle either.

The verse is most certainly not directed toward ancient or modern Christians with a desire to defend their persons or their family.

Then Miller snidely intimates that “conservative Christian leaders are not falling over themselves to proclaim in public their pro–gun theologies.” But then Miller proceeds to list various Christians who are doing just that.

She takes issue with Richard Land, a former Southern Baptist Convention official, who said during a December interview on National People’s Radio (NPR) that he supports arming teachers. And Miller concludes with David French, senior counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice, who told her “Turn the other cheek does not mean turn your wife’s cheek or turn your children’s cheek.”

Miller — who works for an organization sporting guards who check commoners before they are allowed to enter — replies, “Provocative, but unconvincing. Jesus identified with the weak, not the strong; with the victims, not the shooters (or the people with the guns).”

Wrong again. Jesus praised a Roman centurion who controlled his own sword and 90 others — for his faith, saying, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” What’s more, Jesus reached out to the weak and the victims, but unlike leftist community organizers, He considered Himself a shepherd and the shepherd doesn’t hand the wolf a napkin as he approaches the herd.

There is another verse that’s very germane to this discussion, although Miller manages to overlook it. Luke 6:42 advises, “Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Miller would do more to protect the innocent life of children if she would worry less about the imaginary threat of “assault weapons” in the hands of Christians and more about the real threat of “assault doctors*” who are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million innocents each year during abortions.

 

*Thanks to my wife, Janet, for this inspired term that aptly describes a depraved occupation.