A Sunday in San Francisco
September 29, 2008
On my way into the city for a speaking engagement on Sunday morning, my route was blocked by the closure of Folsom Street. The signs on the barricades gave me some clue as to the nature of the event. The San Francisco Chronicle filled in the details with an article on Monday, Sept. 29.
The event was the 25th Folsom Street Fair – “the world’s biggest celebration of leather, bondage and sexual fetish.” Continuing to quote from the Chronicle, “It was just another scene from the city’s unabashed bash – a public display of all things kinky that covered 13 blocks in the South of Market neighborhood and drew hundreds of thousands of people, many of them not wearing leather in key places.” The article quotes several attendees’ experiences at the event with being spanked, whipped, or lead around in leather straps or other bondage tools.
There were “naked people selling bondage gear…and naked people with cameras taking pictures of other naked people.” One man reportedly wore only an 11-foot Burmese python around his waist. There were more than 250 vendors selling whips, chains, pornography, and other products to be used in what one participant called, “kinky play.”
Anthony Gonzalez, the president of the St. Joseph’s Men’s Society, a Roman Catholic fraternal group said, “If you go in there, you see public nudity and street orgies. We want to know why this is allowed on the streets of San Francisco without any sanction at all. It’s anarchy.” That, Mr. Gonzalez, is a good question.
This type of behavior would not allowed, much less sanctioned and protected by civil authorities, in almost any other place in the world. But in San Francisco, this kind of behavior is not only tolerated, it is portrayed as normal. To say otherwise, supposedly denies the participants their civil or constitutional rights. It requires a broad reading of the constitution to find our forefathers defending public nudity, public orgies, and hawking products related to these practices as a right. But, in our culture, everyone has a supposed right to do whatever they please, with the rest of us shamed into silence in the name of a new definition of tolerance.
Despite my frustration with this entire mess, my solution might surprise you. Abandoning the city and its inhabitants to their debauchery is not an option. My wife rode public transportation Sunday, and sat next to a young woman on her way to the Fair. They struck up a conversation, during which the young woman told Ann about her abusive past, her spiritual confusion, and her daily emotional torment. She was really that frank with a stranger on the bus! Ann responded by sharing the gospel with her. That, my friends, is the best response to the debauchery in our culture. While we also need to bring pressure on public officials to enact and enforce laws limiting public indecency, the only way to change what happens in private is through the gospel.
We are in a dangerous point in time in the Bay Area. The final throes of a society falling into God’s judgment are not when we openly rebel against God, but when we “give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1: 32, NASB). May God help us to be salt and light, to share the love of Jesus Christ with broken people, and to demand civil authorities fulfill their God-given role of restraining practices destructive to our society.
<< Return to Archive
Yes on Proposition 8
September 22, 2008
While the presidential election has captured the nation’s attention, along with the melt down on Wall Street, the most important issue Californians will decide in this election is the definition of marriage. By statewide vote, we thought this issue was settled a few years ago. But four judges decided differently, and now we must vote again to establish marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.
Why is this so important? Those of us who support a traditional definition of marriage are often portrayed as homophobic, civil rights-denying, religious bigots. With rare and regrettable exception, we are none of the above. We simply know redefining marriage will have long-term, disastrous consequences for our nation.
Voting yes on 8 is not an attack on homosexuals. Proposition 8 does not address private behavior; it only speaks to redefining the public institution of marriage to include homosexual unions.
Voting yes on 8 does not deny anyone their rights. Homosexuals have been granted similar rights to married couples in laws protecting civil unions. Proposition 8 does not limit those rights.
Voting yes on 8 is motivated by religious conviction for many of us, but the definition of marriage is not primarily a religious issue. It is a legal issue with social implications. Whether you are a person of faith or not, the practical reality is redefining marriage will have profound social and financial consequences for our nation in the next few decades. The impact won’t be seen immediately, but like a snowball it will have profound impact in the future.
Over the next few weeks, millions will be spent on both sides of this issue. This issue is far too important to be decided by a marketing effort. Preserving the definition of marriage depends on good people – quiet, hard-working, not usually politically active people going to the ballot box to make a difference. One of my concerns is you might be so frustrated by both political candidates you decide to sit out this election. Don’t do it. If you don’t want to vote the entire ballot, it is still worth going to the polls just to vote on this issue.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8.
<< Return to Archive
Order in the Court
September 15, 2008
My oldest son works in Washington, D.C. and has a number of other friends about his age who have similar positions in government. One of his friends is a law clerk at the Supreme Court. On a recent visit, my son asked if I would like a behind-the-scenes tour of the Supreme Court building. History buff that I am, I jumped at the chance for a private tour with his law clerk friend.
I have toured the Supreme Court building on two occasions as a tourist. I expected this experience to be about the same. Not so! My new friend took us behind-the-scenes to the private part of the building where the justices work. With permission of Chief Justice Roberts, we were able to tour the private meeting room where the justices actually deliberate and confer about their decisions. It was an awe-inspiring moment for me as I thought of the historic decisions that had been made in that room.
The Supreme Court has become the arbiter of moral values for our nation. While we may prefer laws governing moral behavior be decided by legislatures or popular vote, the reality is issues like abortion and (someday) a national definition of marriage are or will ultimately be decided by the court. The Court’s power continues to increase because justices are living longer, thus extending their influence and making Court decisions less likely to be overturned.
That is, for me, one of the main reasons to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Some of my friends are lamenting the weaknesses in both presidential candidates and are reluctant to vote for either. I understand those concerns – both about the character of the candidates and their various policy positions. The character of the candidates isn’t going to change in the next 45 days. Their policy positions may change, but in the long run their decisions about the economy or the war on terror will be short-lived.
The next president, however, will most likely appoint one or perhaps two Supreme Court justices. It is likely those appointments will last 30 years – more than three times the maximum time either candidate could serve as a two-term president. This fact makes this presidential election extremely significant. Perhaps the most important question we should be asking these candidates is their guiding philosophy on judicial appointments, including to the Supreme Court. The longest-term impact of this election won’t be on the economy, the war, or any other of today’s pressing policy matters. It will be on the Supreme Court.
So, as you consider who to vote for on November 4, think about the candidate who will most likely appoint justices who will most likely support moral positions based on the Christian worldview. We don’t need a “Christian Supreme Court,” but we do need a court that will support moral values foundational to a healthy society.
Don’t sit this one out – vote!
<< Return to Archive
Pastors
September 8, 2008
Pastors have always been my heroes. My first pastor, Dr. T.C. Melton, was a model pastor. He planted his life in one location for almost 30 years, served people as a spiritual guide, preached and taught the Bible faithfully, and led his church through good times and bad to make a significant mark on his community. He was and is an effective leader.
Last night, it was my privilege to participate in a pastor installation service at a church in our area. The church, and the new pastor, shared mutual commitments to seal their new relationship and start their ministry together. The service magnified the pastoral office and properly celebrated the arrival of a new spiritual leader. It was a special night, full of promise for a future of effective ministry together.
At the Northern California campus, we are highlighting effective pastors this fall in chapel. We have four pastors from across the West speaking in a special “pastor’s series.” The first pastor, Dr. Walter Price, from Beaumont, CA was our guest last week. He preached an exceptional message and is a model of effective pastoral leadership our students can emulate.
One of the unique and positive aspects of the faculty at Golden Gate is that several of our men serve as pastors – two of them in large, growing churches. Professors who are also pastors bring a special practicality to the classroom. It is hard to live in the ivory tower when you are in the trenches most of the time!
Why all this emphasis on pastoral leadership? Very simply, the Bible describes the church as the fulfillment of God’s eternal plan for the ages and pastors as God’s gift to us to lead the church. Pastors are, in my opinion, the most important kingdom leaders. They are responsible for making disciples, starting new churches, calling out and sending missionaries, and preserving the doctrinal integrity of the church. That is a big job – and a worthy calling. They are the front line leaders for kingdom advance. Those of us who work in support roles have an important calling to strengthen pastors and help shape new pastors for the future. But the importance of our work pales in comparison to the actual work of pastoral leadership.
You either are a pastor or have a pastor. If you are a pastor, be encouraged. Your work matters to God! You are a gift to the church and we need you. If you have a pastor, find a way to encourage him – to make his work more of a joy - this week.
<< Return to Archive
Envy or Admiration
September 3, 2008
My friend, Dr. Roger Spradlin, pastor of Valley Baptist Church, Bakersfield, Calfornia was recently speaking at a conference and said (my paraphrase), “Today, many people envy other people – but they don’t admire them. They want what they have, without regard for their character.”
In just a few words, Dr. Spradlin nailed a prevalent attitude in American culture. We envy what other people have – money, fame, power, appearance, possessions – and want to be like them in obtaining their external accoutrements. We seem to have lost the capacity to care about the character of people as part of the package of deciding if we want to be like them. This is particularly troubling to me as it relates to people deciding who to admire as a leader.
We envy what people have, instead of admire who people are. We crave the external, rather than celebrate the internal. We long for the superficial, instead of disciplining ourselves to achieve the significant. We seem, as a culture, to be ever-closer to actually believing the ridiculous bumper sticker “The one who has the most toys, wins!” The one who seems to have it all, at least wins our allegiance!
The great divorce in America leadership – in politics, business, and sadly in religion – is segregating character from the discussion on leadership effectiveness or suitability. If a person appears successful, they are perceived as competent to lead. Like the camera commercial said, “Image is everything.” That certainly seems to be true as we evaluate leaders. Likeability also seems important. I often hear it said, “She seems nice” or “He looks like you can trust him” when my friends discuss leaders. How ridiculous!
Leadership must rest on a foundation of character for sustained positive influence to result. Sure, almost anyone can fake it for a while but true character eventually shines through. And when it does, a lifetime of work can be invalidated by what is revealed. Trust is lost, and even though forgiveness may be extended, a leader’s future effectiveness is compromised.
We were “old school” parents. We congratulated our children for their accomplishments, but we praised them for their character. When they told the truth, showed compassion, stood up for the weak, gave sacrificially, or kept their word even when it was costly – we
praised them. We pointed out the positive character attribute being demonstrated, described how important it was to us, and said some of the most powerful words in parental vocabulary, “I’m proud of you.”
Leaders should strive to be admired for their character, not envied for their popularity and its external symbols of success. And, we must use our influence – in our families and our organizations – to celebrate character as foundational to success. What we celebrate, is emulated by our followers.
<< Return to Archive