Christian Universities in the Crosshairs

Politicians lie. I have known this for years but the breadth and depth of political falsehood continues to amaze me. Politicians lie about their experiences, their agendas and even their beliefs. One of the common lies is about the purpose or impact of legislation. A current law being considered in California, SB 1146, is a law based on a lie.

SB 1146 is a law that has as its stated intent the elimination of discrimination against individuals who are LGBT which is currently a popular issue among progressive politicians. While this is the stated goal of the legislation its actual goal is more sinister. It is a major step in what appears to be a goal of crippling Christian Universities.

Many of the most prestigious universities in America began as religious institutions. When Harvard was founded in 1636 it trained Puritan clergy. Yale was founded in 1701 to educate ministers in the Congregationalist faint. Princeton was also a school for minsters when it was founded in 1746. Jonathan Edwards, the preacher whose ministry launched the religious revival known as the Great Awakening, was at one time the president of Princeton. Over the years these great universities have become increasingly secular, so much so that most Americans are not even aware of their religious heritage.

While religious training, in the classical, biblical sense ceased to be important to these institutions it continues to be valued by many Americans. A large number of private Christian Universities have come into being with the goal of providing young Christians with a university education in the context of a Christian worldview.

These colleges do not limit their education to merely religious instruction. While all include courses in the bible, they offer degrees in a wide variety of disciplines, including degrees in the biological and physical sciences, engineering, computer science and the humanities.

Students are attracted to these private universities for many reasons, both faith based and practical. Students are drawn to campuses that align with their personal values and beliefs. Codes of conduct and morality which discourage sex outside of marriage, alcohol use and other behaviors are attractive to parents.

It is these codes of conduct and morality that have drawn the ire of legislators in California. Schools that adhere to traditional Christian teachings will by definition be opposed to LGBT lifestyles. The obvious solution to this dilemma would be for those individuals who are of the LGBT persuasion to not enroll at a Christian university. This solution is obvious but completely unacceptable to California legislators. They are determined to force Christian universities to change their approach.

The proposed law would require all Christian universities not directly owned and operated by an established church, and whose students receive any form of governmental assistance, grant or scholarship, to notify all current and prospective students that they do not comply with federal anti-discrimination law under Title IX. This notification must be included in all handbooks, policies and recruitment packets sent to students. Failure to appropriately notify students is grounds for civil action.

It does not take a law degree to understand the ramifications of such a law. Individuals who disagree with a university’s moral stance will apply for admittance and sue if any mistakes are made. The same tactics that have been used against Christian baker’s and florists who declined to participate in same sex weddings will be wielded against the schools. The cost of litigating the inevitable lawsuits will be a significant strain on university budgets.

The only way a Christian institution can absolutely protected from such actions would be to end participation in government financial aid programs. As a large proportion ofstudents are dependent on these programs, the loss of this source of financial support would make Christian schools unaffordable and enrollment would decline. Christian universities are left with no viable options. They can deny their faith and their teachings or they can face financial distress and potential ruin.

California legislators have been fully educated on the ramifications of SB 1146. As a result no one can claim that the harm to Christian schools is an unintended consequence of well-intentioned legislation. The intention of the progressive legislators in California is clear. They want to punish those who do not share their worldview. Anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth.

Bart

Thanks for reading. If you share my concerns about the impact of SB 1146, please share this post with others and consider contacting your state representative. 

Going Through Life With Blinders On

His life could be better, if he took the time to actually focus on it. Unfortunately  he was too busy to prioritize his health. He had high blood pressure and cholesterol but did not exercise or watch his diet as he should. He battled anxiety and took medication every day to keep it in check. I recommended counseling and he agreed that it would be helpful but did not see how he could fit it into his schedule.

I wondered if he had people in his life who could encourage him and help him with his priorities so I asked him about other sources of emotional and spiritual support, if he had any faith or was a member of any church. He told me he had been raised Catholic but had left the church many years before in the wake of  a scandal involving one of the parish priests. He didn't have much use for faith any more and didn't give God much thought. He was too busy going through life, doing his job, raising his children and supporting his family.

He told me that he went through life with blinders on. He figured that he was a pretty good person, that he was doing his best and that he was therefore confident that he would be okay with God, if there was one, when the time came. He didn't believe in an afterlife but thought if there was one it would be good to see bad people get what they deserved.

As he spoke I realized his words embodied the majority of American’s religious  thinking.  His theology was completely his own, an individualized belief based on personal opinion and unfounded hope. He had never tested his opinions or explored his beliefs. His worldview was convenient, comfortable and superficial. It could not withstand even superficial scrutiny, which did not matter because he never allowed it to be scrutinized. It was what he chose to believe and no one had the right to challenge it.

I tried to encourage him to think a little more deeply about life by sharing with him the observations of Ravi Zacharias, a leader in Christian thought and apologetics. Ravi says that for any worldview to be valid it must answer the four great questions of life, the questions of Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny.

Origin- Where did we come from? What is the source of matter, energy and life? 

Meaning- Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? What are the goals of existence?

Morality- How do we define good and evil? Why does evil exist and where does it come from? 

Destiny- What happens to us when we die?

I should not have been surprised that these questions had no impact on him. It is a lot easier to go through life pretending there are no questions than it is to search for answers. The problem he will face is that these questions do have answers, truths that exist independent of his interest or belief, truths for which all men, including him, will one day have to the give account.

His refusal to address his physical issues may result in serious harm later in life. His refusal to address spiritual issues will impact him in the life to come. 

Someday, the blinders will come off. 

- Bart 

thanks for reading. Comments and questions are welcome. For future posts, subscribe to the blog or follow me on Twitter @bartbarrettmd

 

Good Dad, Bad Dad, Disowned by Dad. Happy Father's Day.

I was a little nervous as I walked to the bulletin board outside my professor’s office. The final grades had just been posted for his class, the last grade of my first year at UCI as a biology major, and I desperately wanted an “A”. I was one “A” away from what had seemed to me an impossible achievement, a 4.0 grade average for my first year in University.

I grew up in an abusive home where I was repeatedly reminded of every awkward deed and innocent mistake. The persistent put downs and constant mocking had left a mark. I constantly doubted myself.  I started university hoping against hope that I had what it took to make it into medical school, not at all confident I did. Straight “A’s” had not even entered my mind.

I reached the bulletin board. My eyes found my student ID number and scanned across to the grade column. “A”. I had done it. I let out a yell and hurried to find a pay phone to call my wife. (This was 1984 after all) “I did it!” I yelled into the phone, fighting back the tears. The conversation was brief as I wanted to share my joy with others. I hung up and dialed my father’s number to give him the news, certain he would be proud. I blurted out, “I just got my last grade! I got a 4.0 for the year!”

His words were a punch to my stomach, “Wow. I honestly didn’t think you had it in you.” My father didn’t believe in me. I hung up the phone deflated and hurt.

7 years later I graduated from medical school. All of my family, including my father, were in the audience as I walked across the stage to receive my degree. I received my diploma from the dean and turned out to the audience to search for my family. I saw my dad first. He was standing on his chair, head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd. He was pumping his fist in the air, a huge smile on his face, overwhelmed with pride for me.

These stories are two of my most vivid memories of my father and illustrate the enigma that he is. On many occasions he was a viciously and abusively mean, reducing me to fearful tears. At other times he could be incredibly generous and supportive. For the three years I was in residency he gave us $500 each month so we could afford to have Lisa stay home with our infant son. My final year of residency he gave our almost three-year-old son an empty box for Christmas, telling him that Santa said he was a bad boy. When I questioned him about it he disowned me.

As father’s day approaches all of these memories come flooding back. I have not seen my father in over 23 years but he still impacts my life. I work every day to overcome the negative traits I inherited from him and the abuse wrought insecurity that remains.

I am not alone in my struggles. A while back I wrote a blog post entitled “The Day my Dad Disowned Me.” Although it was posted two years ago, each day brings new readers who have been similarly disowned. Almost every month I receive a message or comment from someone dealing with issues of abandonment. The stories of pain and rejection shared by strangers are heartbreakingly sad. Dysfunctional and absent father’s damage their children in unimaginable ways.

I pray for these hurting people every Father’s Day.

There is nothing I can do for them, and there is nothing I can do to about the damage done by my father in the past. All I can do is be the best father I can be for my children and encourage others to do the same.

On this day that we celebrate dads, my prayer is to be a good one. 

- Bart

thanks for reading. Remember to subscribe to the blog to receive future posts. You can follow me on Twitter @bartbarrettmd

Video Block

Double-click here to add a video by URL or embed code. Learn more

After Orlando, Some Questions

Is there anything we can do to prevent another terror attack? Must we resign ourselves to a future where mass murder is the norm? Why can't our government protect us?

The answer to the first question is challenging, as it is dependent on an understanding of the actions and behaviors of the murderer. As is often the case, gun control legislation (or the lack of it, depending on your perspective) is a main topic of discussion in the immediate aftermath. In the days before the killing the terrorist purchased weapons and ammunition at a Florida gun store. He did so in compliance with existing gun laws in the state. Demanding that it be impossible for people "like him" to purchase a weapon is an understandable response, but it is not as easy as it sounds.

Two of the worst mass shootings, in San Bernardino and Newtown, occurred in states with strict gun laws. The guns were not purchased by the killers so no background check or watch list would have made a difference. The murderers found a way to get the weapons they wanted. This is an important point to remember. Individuals determined to commit mass murder are not going to be concerned with violating gun laws and will find some way to achieve their goal. We tend to forget the weapons used in the Boston Marathon attack were pressure cookers, nails and ball bearings. While gun control legislation may cause citizens to feel as if something is being done, little will be actually accomplished.

In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting discussion as also centered around the purported failure of the FBI to act on reports about the shooter. Two separate investigations of the killer were conducted. Apparently these were not insignificant investigations and included multiple interviews of the suspect, as well as co-workers and other contacts. One report indicated that the killer was also placed under some degree of surveillance for a period of months. While there was evidence that the killer had made threatening statements and expressed support for terrorist organizations there was no clear evidence that he was planning an attack. He appeared to be one of a number of Muslim Americans who verbally support terrorist views. As disturbing as this is, it is not a crime in America and the investigation was dropped.

Some might say that the FBI or other law enforcement officials should keep such individuals under ongoing surveillance and observation. Basic math illustrates the problem with such an approach. There are nearly 3 million Muslims in the United States. If 1/1000 of them are radicalized or potentially radicalized, that would amount to 3000 individuals. Counting support staff, it could take as many as 10 people or more to place someone under constant surveillance. That is 30,000 FBI agents. As the FBI only employs 35,000 people, and there is no way to clearly identify who needs to be watched and who doesn't, it is clear that the FBI cannot completely protect us. Identifying, monitoring and reporting individuals who sympathize with terror cannot be done by the government, it can only be done by citizens.

The people best positioned to help weed out the evil in our midst are the people who have ongoing contact with those who might wish to do us harm. As the terror problem is almost exclusively a Muslim problem any meaningful solution will have to include members of the Muslim community. It is time for Muslim clerics to speak out against not only acts of terror but against the ideology that breeds them. Leaders in the Muslim community need to work together to eliminate radicalism from their midst. Hateful acts begin as hateful thoughts borne out of hateful ideology. If Islam is truly a religion of peace it needs to go to war against the evil done in its name. 

The question of whether or not we must be resigned to mass shootings is dependent on many factors. Foremost among them is the duty of individuals to protect themselves. Every mass shooting reiterates the truth that law enforcement cannot save us. If we decide to rely on law enforcement alone we will continue to see tragedy occur. We need to be a society of vigilant citizens. We must also give consideration to being a society of individuals trained and equipped to defend ourselves. There is a reason that the majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones. 

Finally, our government cannot protect us. Large entities are best equipped to defeat large threats. Massive bureaucracies are not nimble or quick enough to eliminate small threats and lone wolf attacks. We are not being attacked by uniformed armies landing on our shores. Individual enemy combatants are appearing on our doorsteps. Americans will need to rise up together to fight this. To do this will require us to speak the truth about the war we are in, the enemy we face and on how we all can contribute. This is not a war that will be won with hashtags or rainbow colored profile pictures. This one is on all of us.

 - Bart

Lessons From Social Anxiety

I think I have the world’s strangest form of anxiety disorder. I can stand in front of hundreds of people and speak without batting an eye. On a daily basis I have intense conversations about major life issues with patients from multiple different backgrounds without a tinge of nervousness. But if I am invited to a small social event or a dinner with people I do not know well I am a nervous wreck. I get sick to my stomach before the meal even begins.

I do not often show my nerves during the actual events and my wife is the only one who can tell that I am uncomfortable. I join in the conversations, tell stories and crack jokes, all the while wondering if I have said anything inappropriate or unknowingly offensive. I typically spend the drive home rehashing the evening, spending more time wondering what other people may have thought about something I said than I do on the actual events.

I found myself reflecting on my social anxiety after a recent church event. Everyone was kind and there was not a harsh word spoken yet my customary sense of inadequacy was waiting for me in the car ride home. As I thought about my feelings I wondered if others may have similar struggles. I wondered if anyone else present had been similarly anxious.   I thought of those who had declined their invitations and not come at all and wondered if some of those who were “unable to make it” were in truth “unable to deal with it.”

I realized that I had never considered the possibility that there might be others present with similar feelings and fears. As is often the case my anxiety limits my ability to consider and respond to the feelings of others. I have always assumed that I am the only one feeling inadequate in a given situation. As I reflected on the evening I gained a new understanding of the tendency for some people to form cliques, to migrate toward those they know well and to seem to wall off those with whom they are not familiar. Actions I have often considered to be selfish and inconsiderate might actually be about emotional safety.

I wonder if there might not be two social assumption traps into which we typically fall. The first trap is the assumption that no one is like us, the second trap the assumption that everyone is like us. I have fallen victim to the error of assuming that everyone in the room is comfortable except for me, that I am the only nervous person present. I wonder if others who are comfortable may wrongly assume that everyone is as comfortable as they are and also be oblivious to those who are struggling.

I wish I could sat that I have come up with a brilliant solution to the dilemma I have identified but I can’t. The only response that seems to be appropriate is grace. I need to be more gracious in my assumptions about what others are thinking. I need to choose to believe that people are not thinking negatively. On those occasions when others do think negatively, I need to be forgiving, realizing that they may be struggling in the same way I am. I need to be gracious to those who are quiet, gracious to those who talk too much, and gracious to those who I do not understand, for we are all alike in one important way- we are all imperfect, and we all have room to grow.

- Bart

You can subscribe to the blog by clicking the link on the page, each new post will be delivered via email. I can also be followed on twitter @bartbarrettmd. Comments and questions are welcome!