The Scandal of Silence

I was asked recently if I had a 'word' for the church where I was going to speak. The pastor didn't use phrases like "prophecy" lightly, but that's what he wanted. I hadn't really prepared for such, but in a heartbeat, God gave me some words for that congregation, and I wonder if what I offered might not be useful for others globally. Thus I share some of those thoughts here.

Three times in the last year Australian Christians have been given a chance to speak. The plebiscite about same-sex marriage, the general national election in which Liberals won convincingly over Labor and the many other lesser parties, and the issue of Israel Folau and his being sacked by Rugby Australia over comments about certain people going to hell.

In each case, and with great fanfare and public notice, individual Christians were asked to speak out. I read it online; I saw it in the newspaper. I overheard it in church after church that individuals were charged to speak out. 

My friend Avi Snyder lives in Hungary, although he, like me, is also a US citizen. He often encounters Christian people in churches and even church leaders around the globe who have a reluctance to speak out on certain matters. Of course, everyone doesn't see eye-to-eye about all the moral issues of the day, and Avi and I are certainly accepting of that. 

There is something which bothers him the most, as he and I are both integrally linked in Jewish evangelism and the cause of bringing the Gospel to Jewish people.  Here's how Avi addresses this one when he finds Christians who are reluctant to speak to Jewish people about Jesus, because of the Holocaust. 

He asks, "What was the sin of the Church in 1940 in Germany?"
The person usually answers, "Silence."
Avi then points out that silence in these days, that is, not sharing Messiah with the Jewish people, is a similar evil or sin that the Church is committing now.

Some in the Catholic world are noticing the need to speak out about sexual abuses.

In April this year, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI broke six years of relative silence with the release of an outspoken letter on the clergy sex abuse scandal. Benedict's analysis differs significantly from that of his successor, Pope Francis, and thus leaves the world's Catholics with contrasting papal perspectives on the greatest crisis facing Roman Catholicism today.

In his 6,000-word essay, published in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, with an English translation by the Catholic News Agency, Benedict blames the epidemic of clergy sex abuse largely on a collapse of moral standards in the 1960s and the subsequent failure of Catholic leaders to uphold traditional church teaching. 

"It could be said," Benedict writes, "that in the 20 years from 1960 to 1980, the previously normative standards regarding sexuality collapsed entirely." Among the changes, in Benedict's view, was that pedophilia became seen as "allowed and appropriate," and pornography became widespread and accepted. The priesthood, meanwhile, fell into crisis.

I'm hoping that you join me in thinking about the answer I gave the pastor that morning. Yes, silence is an appropriate response when one doesn't know an answer. (Proverbs 18.13).  But when you or I know the answer, and when we should be declaring the truths of the Lord to a desperately needy world, shame on us if we are silent. That's the scandal I mentioned. 

Ezekiel the prophet said as much:

“Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself. Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself.”

(Chapter 3, verses 17-21)

What is your response? Care to be silent or tell me what you really think? I'm (sometimes) all ears.

Censorship (Michael Jackson, Amazon, Michael Brown, Professor Catherine Strong)

The documentary "Leaving Neverland" went live this week and the reaction online and in the radio stations went ballistic.  The ABC in Australia's comments are here. In this report, they cite the bias of the director/ producers in that none of the Jackson estate is represented. The report reminds us that one of the two accusers had a very different story to tell under oath not long ago. And the report shows the kickback of many of Jackson's faithful via social media. No surprise there.

Australian Damien Shields, the author of a book about Jackson's artistic process and a longtime fan who has come out against the documentary, said the MJ supporters felt motivated to protect the star's legacy.

"I've heard a lot of people say that the Michael Jackson fans are biased, and they don't see anything other than Michael is not guilty, and that they don't raise any points other than all the things that they believe exonerate him. And that's true," he said.  "But the reason we are in a position where that is necessary is because the other platforms that are telling this story are not telling that side of the story." (from the ABC article)

It's happening in New Zealand and up in Canada, "Michael Jackson isn't currently on any MediaWorks (NZ) Radio stations' playlists," Leon Wratt, the company's director for radio, said in a statement to the CNN.  "This is a reflection of our audiences and their preferences—it is our job to ensure our radio stations are playing the music people want to hear." “We [MediaWorks] aren’t deciding whether Michael Jackson is guilty of paedophilia, we’re just making sure our radio stations are going to play the music people want to hear.” In Canada, three major Montreal-based radio stations have also stopped playing Jackson's music. Even the Simpsons have pulled their Michael Jackson episode. Wow.

Michael L Brown is a trend-watcher, an honest critic of the press and a Ph.D. from New York University. His latest blog on censorship is here. He starts his commentary with "With the news last week that Amazon has banned Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam, co-authored by British activist Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin, Amazon has crossed a very dangerous and precarious line."

After Brown demonstrates the books one can buy on Amazon including some pretty horrible books for terrorists and anti-Semitic drivel, he wonders what is next. The issue for Amazon is clear. Brown says, "By banning this book, Amazon is opening up one of two possibilities: Either Amazon will not be consistent, thereby demonstrating extreme hypocrisy. Or Amazon will start banning many other books, leading to a very dangerous precedent. Which books and authors will be next? And what can conservative, Bible believers expect? Perhaps our books opposing LGBT activism or exposing the evils of abortion will be next?"

Censorship is the issue. I listened to a radio interview yesterday on International Women’s Day here on the ABC radio in Sydney. Catherine Strong, a professor from RMIT ( @hellharpy) was answering the question of censorship. She had written on the Jackson topic the day before. Her article in The Conversation is here.   She raised excellent thought questions, like, “More importantly, however, is the question of what happens to the stories of the victims. If we stop listening to Michael Jackson, does that simply allow us to avoid something uncomfortable, to not have to think about those little boys and what they allege happened to them?” She likens banning the music to “have put a tiny band-aid over a gaping wound.”

Let’s talk about morals; let’s talk about representatives. Let’s be honest about banning things which are ruinous to society if we can even do that in a free marketplace of ideas world.  But silence and silencing is not the answer. Is it?

I liked the placard in the Jackson piece. "Seek truth; think for yourself" I find so many of my Jewish people are keen underdog supporters. I find we have an innate concern to seek the truth and to follow that, no matter what others think. We are raised to think for ourselves. (Of course, within certain boundaries, of course) Maybe that's why I'm ever attuned to such matters as these. Many rabbis would have banned the Newer Testament (the story of Yeshua) to me when I was a lad. Censorship is not really the way to deal with things. It's best to allow people to read for themselves, to discuss, and then make up their own minds.  Think about this... have you ever read the story of Jesus? Honestly?

I'd be disappointed if every Kevin Spacey movie or "House of Cards" episode or Bill Cosby sitcom or repeats of "Billie Jean" were removed from our annals. Should we never visit a gallery and see a Toulouse Lautrec painting? Was what Mozart did in his mad-cap, out-of-bounds, libido-crazed life evidence we should turn off the radio when "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" is played? Who makes those decisions for us?

Think for yourself.