Are Christians Allowed to Cheer for Michael Vick?

Full disclosure: I will not be cheering for Michael Vick this Fall. I hope he has the worst year statistically of his entire career, and that the Eagles as a whole implode faster than my own dreams of being a professional football player. But that's because I'm a Cowboys fan. It has nothing to do with the dog fighting.

Because I am a glutton for punishment, I still occasionally peruse the comments section on sports articles on the internet. On articles having to do with Michael Vick this is a particularly fascinating (punishing?) thing to do. It's clear that a large segment of the population doesn't think Vick should ever be forgiven for what he has done, has dismissed him as having little to no value as a person, and genuinely resents him his chance at redemption. What is truly saddening is that quite a few of these people seem to be Christians, and that they seem to have reached these stances based on seemingly "Christian" values.

So here are what I think are some genuine Christian values that people should keep in mind when reacting to the Michael Vick situation:

Michael Vick bears the image of God.

Michael Vick has intrinsic value, as all human beings do, as someone who is made in God's image. What exactly that means is a complex question beyond the scope of this particular blog entry, but what is absolutely means is that he cannot be dismissed as having no value. Christians should be cheering for his redemption as loud as for anyone else's. Which brings me to my second point ...

Redemption is always a good thing. Always.

First, Michael Vick isn't getting away with anything. He served his prison time, and he seems to be genuinely repentant and changed by the experience. It's odd, then, to see some Christians resenting his redemption, feeling as if he doesn't deserve the chance to repent, to be changed. This is particularly odd given that the foundation of the entire Christian understanding of reality as we find it is the desperate need for redemption of everyone and everything. Quite simply, we cannot thank God for our own redemption, then resent the work of redemption in the lives of others. I genuinely hope Vick has changed. I'm rooting for him.

The Bible speaks about only one unforgivable sin ... and it's not dog fighting.

Look, I'm a dog person. I really love dogs. And when I think about someone abusing, torturing, and murdering dogs (or any animal for that matter) ... well, my hand gets itchy for a baseball bat. It's sick. It's completely inexcusable. But it's not unforgivable. Christians, as the ones who uphold the intrinsic value of humanity based on the image of God and who strive to share the hope of redemption with all mankind, ought to be screaming this the loudest. Michael Vick can be forgiven. We all can be forgiven. That's how big the redemption of God is.

Fine, you say, he can come out of prison. Heck, he can even have a job and a normal life. But he doesn't deserve a chance to play in the NFL again. He certainly doesn't deserve the chance to make the $100 million dollars his new contract is worth. Granted. You think it doesn't get to me that this guy gets to make $100 million dollars while law-abiding citizens like my family are stuck trying to stay in the black month to month on two-part time jobs in a horrible economy? Sure, it's unfair! But the thing about God's grace is that it is lavish. For those on the outside looking in, lavishness will often seem unfair. And, of course, I believe God will hold Vick responsible for how he handles that $100 million dollars. Let us pray he's a wise steward of the funds.

When I see Vick's story, I see the gospel unfolding before me. Does Vick self-identify as a Christian? If not, will he ever do so? I don't know. But so far his redemption is beautiful to me. Make no mistake, I will be cheering against Vick and the Eagles with all my heart this Fall, but I will also be rooting Vick on as a person. For I am in need of redemption, too. And watching his unfold comforts me in thinking about my own.

Apologizing to the Gay Community

 

I saw this at a website called God Hates Protestors; the sign on the bottom right is important - it reads, "I used to be a Bible-Banging homophobe - Sorry."

Some context is required to appreciate this.  The photo was taken during a gay pride parade in Chicago.  Some Christians (not pictured) decided to show up and yell hateful messages at the homosexual crowd through loudspeakers.  That is not the way Jesus ministered to people ("Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" and all that), so another group of Christians decided to go and a non-hateful side of Christianity.

This man is inspiring to me.  He doesn't act immature and say that his Christianity is better than that of anyone else.  He doesn't get into an argument with the other Believers or the homosexual crowd.  Instead, he humbly asked forgiveness for the hatred he had once displayed, and he showed love to his fellow man.  No one remembers anything about the mean protestors who were heckling the crowd, but the gay man in this picture will never forget the time that a Christian stopped to say that he cared about him.  (Of course, that doesn't explain why he's in his underwear.)

You might be wondering about the theology of that man on the other side of the fence.  Does he accept the homosexual lifestyle?  Do he disagree with it even though he wants to show that he cares for these people?  We'll never know - and it's not the point.

A lot of healing needs to be done between the Christian and the homosexual communities.  It's common for people to assume that anyone who goes to church is a hateful person who would attack a gay man.  This is because certain people have used Christianity as an excuse for gay bashing (an awful thing to do), and it's going to take a lot of work to overcome this.  

The world needs to know that Jesus' followers are not a violent and hateful people who wish to hurt others.  We must present the love of God to all men, and we must re-build the bridges that our past mistakes have torn down.

Hand-Tracings Usually End Up Making Turkeys (Pun Intended)

Sometime during my eternally long journey through graduate school, a professor put the following events on the board, in correct chronological order:

*John Milton got married

*John Milton wrote Paradise Lost

*John Milton's wife died

*John Milton wrote Paradise Regained

I wonder if anyone will notice if I change "Satan" to "The Giant Nag"

Now, the point of this exercise wasn't to rag on the Miltons' marriage, but rather to make an important point: cause and effect relationships aren't always that easy to discern. (By the way, I looked it up: Milton was married three times, and, no, I didn't bother to figure out which wife is referenced above).

Normally, we get this. We understand that events usually have complex explanations. This is why no one goes around claiming that Abraham Lincoln was killed because John Wilkes Booth had unresolved anger problems, then stops as if that is sufficient. One philosopher, David Hume, even went as far as to claim that cause and effect relationships are impossible to prove. (This is one of the things that caused me to hate philosophy in college ... or, well, I think it caused my hatred ... )

You can't prove that Thomas being a giant nerd caused him to include a reference to me

The funny thing is that alot of this caution seems to fly out the window when it comes to explaining what God is up to these days. With 9/11, with Katrina, with Haiti -- each time we saw prominent Christian leaders more than willing to explain to us exactly why God had allowed these things to happen, what their true cause was. I cannot think of a single instance where these "explanations" did not do more harm than good, yet there seems to remain this irresistible urge to offer them.

Another "Planet of the Apes" movie: proof that God's judgement is falling on our nation

Personally, I don't believe that history is without purpose or fully unknowable. Like many Christians, I affirm the providence of God at work in history, and believe that the Scriptures show me where human history is ultimately heading. The Bible claims to explain the start of history, the end of history, and give little glimpses of God at work in history along the way. Where Christians get into trouble is not in insisting that history has purpose, but in claiming the ability to trace God's hand at every step of the way. The Scriptures are full of countries that prospered for reasons you might not expect, people that suffered where judgement was as far from the explanation as you can get, and quite a few ambivalent human and divine actions we're still not sure how to explain fully.

Because a jet ski suddenly appearing in the Mediterranean and carrying Jonah safely and comfortably to shore

wouldn't have driven the point home in quite the same way ...

Recently, Christian historian Mark Noll had this to say on the issue:

"A Christian has to affirm Providence, but a Christian historian should not assume to know the mind of God about most particular events ... For most historians, I think it's wiser to affirm a general sort of Providence and yet not presume that you as an individual can know what God intended for any particular situation in the past." (Interview in August issue of Christianity Today)

I think that's good advice for Christians in general.

Britain's Lost Sense of Self

I recently read an article in The Economist in which the author states rather plainly that the violence and anarchy of the riots which began in London and have spread across England are the result of "moral malaise." According to the article, British politicians are quick to hand out their ready-made partisan parlance: the Left says it's the government's fault; the Right decries: "criminality, pure and simple." But The Economist calls both sides on the carpet for lazy thinking. The author instead appeals to an "absence of internal, moral restraints" combined with "near-American levels of [economic] inequality," which is, of course, ultimately a moral dilemma as well.

I find this appeal to morals surprising on one level, don't you? I thought we (the West) had moved beyond morality. Talk about "an inherent sense of right and wrong" is so passe. And yet, here we are... again. We can't ever seem to shake it.

Darwinian psychologists, scientists, and philosophers tell us we need a standard set of morals to survive as individuals and thrive as societies but that there is no basis for such a standard, that the future will consist of those individuals who know there is no such thing as absolute truth but pretend there is in order to survive and reproduce. Is the truth about reality that we know what feels most real and true isn't real or true and we have to lie to ourselves and pretend that what feels true--but we know isn't--is? Or is it more likely that the 'beneficial lie' is really the truth after all? Did we invent the sun to explain the light and the shadow? Or do light and shadow prove the sunshine?

The article goes on to say the loss of moral norms and absolutes has resulted in a loss of self:

The widespread assumption that, for all their inequalities and fissures, the country and its capital are fundamentally orderly and harmonious, has been revealed to be complacent. The cracks in British society—economic and moral—have opened up, and they are deeper than they seemed.

The riots have been bad for Britain’s already stuttering economy. They have been ruinous for the people whose homes and businesses have been damaged and destroyed. They have tarnished Britain’s image around the world. But most of all, they have been desperately disorienting for the country’s own sense of itself.

This lostness, this social and individual identity crisis, is felt sincerely, not merely in Britain, but all across the modern world. We realize things aren't the way they're supposed to be and that morals have something to do with it.

Is My Site Still on Your RSS Reader? Good. Because Some Changes are Happening...

You know those stupid retail stores that "go out of business" every year...only to re-open and go out of business again the next year?  Well, that's me.  I happily quit writing this site when I thought I had run out of things to say, but this site isn't finished teaching people.  And teaching me.

It finally occurred to me that I had not taken the final step in this project.  You see, my plan was to create a place for rational discussions about the Christian faith, and a sort of meeting place for all sorts of people who want to know more about Christianity - but I was doing it all by myself.  What am I?  Some sort of extreme introvert who thinks he can be a community to himself?  Don't be ridiculous.

Anyway, I came up with the idea of having numerous other writers contribute to this site.  I didn't think anyone would want to take up such a project.  I approached a few people I know - all friends who I look up to and have always learned from - and asked them if they would want to contribute articles to this site.

And they all said "yes." 

I'm still shocked.

So, Thinking Through Christianity is back.  With a team of writers.  We don't all agree on everything.  We are from different churches, and we even vote differently.   But we are passionate about what we're doing, here.  Stay tuned.