Enquiring Minds Want to Know

As I am sure most people are aware by now, a fertilizer plant exploded in West, Texas a few days ago killing at least 35 people and injuring more than 150. Most people are also no doubt aware of the massive devastation caused by the blast. Authorities and investigators are working diligently to discover what caused the explosion. But that is only part of the story being reported in the media. Judging from what I have been reading, that is not the most important part, at least as far as attracting and keeping the attention of readers and viewers is concerned. What is dominating coverage of the explosion are the personal details.

In following the story I have learned that Maggie Grmela, a dressmaker in West, sat dejectedly over a sewing table in her home with a yellow measuring tape draped across her shoulders unable to work on a dress she was making for someone. I know her reaction to the explosion. She thought an electrical transformer blew up. I know that her daughter  called her soon after the explosion and pleaded for her and her husband to get over to her house. I know that Maggie's daughter has children. I also now know that Maggies' husband is a member of the local Knights of Columbus. I know about the tense and emotional night the Grmela family spent together praying and watching TV for news. I also know about Mimi Montgomery Irwin. She owns a restaurant in West called The Village Bakery. The Village Bakery was founded in 1952. The going price for fruit kolaches at the Village Bakery is $1.50 The explosion knocked out the windows in her restaurant. I know about Corey and Dena Mayo. They own the local steakhouse and have two teenage children. Their 13 year old son Dalton told the reporter that his friend's dad died in the explosion. Then there is Ray Snokhous. He was born and raised in West. He went to law school and spent many years living in Houston where he worked as a tax lawyer before he retired and moved back to West 10 years ago. "I wanted to get back to my roots" he replied when asked why he returned. I could go on with many more examples but I do not want to weary readers recounting stories and facts they can easily find elsewhere.

None of those personal details shed any light on what caused the explosion in Texas or its aftermath. Neither do the details concerning the Boston bomber's mother, such as her taste in clothing and the hair styles she wore when she was young add anything meaningful to the story of the bombing in Boston. So why are they reported? They are reported for the same reason that personal details are reported in every significant tragedy. Whether it is news that the daughter of a woman gunned down during a crime had a scholarship to Dartmouth and wanted to be a architect when she grew up or that the father of boy killed had recently quit drinking and gotten his job back, the purpose of including such details in a story is the same. That purpose is not to inform the reader of any relevant facts. It is to stir the emotions of the reader. We are informed that West's director of emergency services had blood spattered on his face from injuries he sustained as he spoke with a reporter for no good reason. It was done simply to increase pathos in the story. Similarly, what light does reporting that Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's mother styled her hair like a "1980's rock star" and wore low cut blouses when she was younger shed on the bombing? Does knowing that she went to beauty school and did facials at a spa give us insight into her son's motives?

Most of the details emerging from the explosion in West are relevant. The hard work, the confusion, the frustration, the despair, the hope, the relief that loved ones escaped harm are all important parts of the story. But in themselves, they are not enough to keep the reader coming back. The facts must be embellished. Accounts of church services for the fallen are not complete without mention of the "grieving, hand holding, and crying" of the parishioners. Officials do not move from meeting to meeting. They scurry. Witness accounts of events are not enough. We must be introduced to the feelings of the witnesses. The loss of a home must be accompanied by the grief and shock of the owner as he beholds the ruins.

Stirring the emotions of readers has become a major preoccupation of the press. There are stories are written to evoke compassion. There are stories written  to evoke anger. A story about illegal immigration can be written in a manner to strike sympathy in the heart of a reader. A story about illegal immigration can also be written in a manner to strike indignation. It depends on which facts are presented, in what order, what light, and what context. A reporter dispatched to write a story on illegal immigration can interview hard working immigrants living a precarious existence while being abused by unscrupulous employers. That same reporter could instead focus on the crime, lost jobs, and financial burdens that often follow in the wake of illegal immigration. The choice is made on the basis of what response is sought in the reader. This goes a long way in explaining the difference between the liberal and the conservative press.

Is it important for readers in Oregon or television viewers in in Florida to know that the daughter of  a dead parent had just picked out her prom dress? Did the press really need to go to Dagestan to get a picture of the suspects' mother raising her hands in grief over the news of what her son did? Is it important for us to know that one of the dead was planning to retire in a few months or that another had a son serving in Iraq?  No, it isn't.  Such things add nothing to the story but pathos. Nevertheless, those are the things enquiring minds want to know. 

The Rest of the Story

In the contentious debate over same sex marriage, a great many Americans have concluded that people of faith who condemn gay marriage are missing the central point of Christ's teaching in the Gospels. Jesus did not come to condemn anyone they say. He came to forgive. Jesus does not hate. He loves. It has become common to mistake Christ's command that we should love and forgive everyone with the notion that sin should be overlooked. Christ intended no such thing. Yes, He told us to forgive sinners, but he never budged on sin. Sin was to be shunned. As Christ pointed out, He did not come to change the law "one jot", He came to fulfill  it. Yes, Christ forgave prostitutes, thieves, liars, fornicators, and tax collectors, but He did not require that society tolerate such things. He did not command that laws against adultery and prostitution be changed or say that they should be amended to bring them into line with prevailing public opinion. He certainly did not command that sin be tolerated. He commanded that sin be forgiven and sinners be loved, not that sin be denied.

What is frequently overlooked when extolling the mercy of Christ is that after Christ forgave someone for doing something, He told them to stop doing it. Equally overlooked is that in order for a person to obtain Christ's mercy he not only had to admit that he had sinned, but that he was in need of mercy. Jesus called on us to forgive those who have wronged us. He also made it clear that in order to be forgiven, people must acknowledge that they have sinned and ask for forgiveness. If you have been wronged, you obtain God's mercy by forgiving those who have wronged you. If you have wronged someone you obtain God's mercy by admitting your wrong and asking for forgiveness. In no instance is the wrong disputed. That is where religious progressives err. They confuse Christ's forgiving sin with Christ accepting sin. They confuse Christ's refusal to condemn a person for sinning with His refusal to judge that person. Both are fundamental errors in understanding Scripture. When Christ forgave the adulterous woman He did not do so out of any high minded notion of tolerance. He did not forgive her because He felt in someway that laws against adultery were misguided attempts to legislate morality. He forgave her because he loved her and because she asked Him for forgiveness.

Many faiths and denominations fancy they are expanding on Christ's teaching and fulfilling God's true plan for humanity. Like the Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov, they feel that Christ could have, and should have done a better job getting His message across. It was God' failure to be more clear and more realistic concerning what He expected from us that has caused the moral and ethical confusion that besets Christianity today. Religious progressives believe it is their duty to sort things out and reinterpret the Gospels in order to correct biblical oversights and bring the Gospels into accordance with modern sensibilities. After all, things have changed quite a bit over the last 2,000 years. There is no way those who wrote the Bible could have foreseen everything. Others are seeking to maintain relevancy in changing times by frequently editing their doctrine lest they be left behind by the public. They shed the ballast of orthodoxy in order to bob upon the waves and go wherever the currents of modernity take them.

Yes, we are charged to love our neighbors and forgive sinners. We are not called to tolerate sin. Christ forgave prostitutes but he did not condone prostitution. Christ forgave sinners but He also admonished them to "go and sin no more."  Jesus offered mercy to everyone who would ask for it. However, one does not ask for forgiveness unless one recognizes that he needs it. One does not recognize he is in need of God's mercy unless he admits that he has sinned. One cannot sin unless there are sins to be committed. Naturally, if one does not consider homosexuality a sin, the matter of forgiveness is moot. In that case the task for religious progressives is getting the faithful to embrace, or at least tolerate, homosexuality. They take upon themselves the task of leading the ignorant and hateful out of the wilderness into the promised land of love and tolerance.

Those who assert God does not reject anyone are correct. God does not reject anyone. Neither does God call for us to reject sinners. It is sin we are to reject, not those who sin.The reason people find themselves estranged from God is because they reject Him. The strictures forbidding sin are for our benefit, not God's. The rules given to us are given in order to help bring us closer to God, not to keep us from annoying or angering Him. We do not harm God in the least when we sin. We only harm ourselves.

Christ did not roam the land strewing forgiveness like flowers upon everyone He came across. He told the world that God was willing to wipe the slate clean and give people a new start if they humbled themselves and asked Him to. He did not abolish sin. He came to offer forgiveness of sin because He loves sinners despite their sin. He still loves all men and He still offers forgiveness to everyone. But for forgiveness to be granted, it must first be asked for. That is the rest of the story.