Visiting a Jewish synagogue

Several years ago, on the Shabbat, which is the Jewish name for the Sabbath, my friend Craig and I attended a conservative Jewish synagogue service. Jewish folks believe in meeting all morning long, so from 9:15 until noon, they read from the Torah, prayed Hebrew prayers, and even meditated on Psalm 150. (“Why don’t we use musical instruments in our service?” the rabbi asked the audience.. “Because if the string on our instrument breaks, we might be tempted to fix it and thus dishonor the Sabbath.”)

Afterwards, we ate lunch with the congregation, actually consuming the stereotypical bagels and lox. Then, thanks to our decade-long relationship with the rabbi, we were invited at 1 p.m. to share the story of Christianity with about 50 Jewish believers. After 35 minutes of a prepared talk where transparency was very evident (i.e. no hiding the gospel through our friendship with the rabbi!), we opened the floor for questions.

What followed was what I would have expected in a Mormon ward. In fact, there was one instance where I—no kidding—had to literally remind myself that we were answering Jews and not Mormons. Here were just some of their many questions:

• “Are you saying that, unless we accept the Jesus of the New Testament, we will go to hell? But doesn’t God want everyone to go to heaven?”
• “What do you mean, we are sinners? I’m 85% good!” (My reply: “Well, you’re doing better than I am, and yet you’re still failing 15% of the time.”)
• “How can you say lusting after a woman is adultery? I still like to look at the ladies.” –said by a man in his 80’s
• “How is it possible that Jesus is God Almighty? Doesn’t the Bible say God is one?”

There were three or four Holocaust survivors in the audience, and they pointed out the sin of anti-Semitism, even referring to specific times when they personally had been called “Christ-killers.” Humbly, we read from the WEA declaration (“The Gospel and the Jewish People: An Evangelical Statement”) that begins, “We sadly acknowledge that church history has been marred with anti-Semitic words and deeds and that at times when the Jewish people were in great peril, the church did far less than it should have.” And, yes, we must admit that some throughout history have also unfairly treated or attacked the Mormon people.

When the scheduled one-hour talk stretched into an hour and a half, the rabbi finally closed the meeting. Much to our surprise, we did not receive any negative reaction afterward, and a dozen folks waited patiently to talk to us individually. I was able to hand out eight The Case for Christ books (Lee Strobel), while three or four others told me that their friends had already given them copies! (great job, Christians, you’re doing your job!) One elderly Jewish man even asked the rabbi if we could return for further discussion—wow!

But the biggest smile of the day came when a septuagenarian gentleman put his hand on my shoulder and quietly asked, “Do you know how you are a success with our group? You watch how many fall asleep. I always say you are successful with only 10 percent who fall asleep. But nobody fell asleep today!” Those who don’t understand Christianity might not like our message, but many want to hear what we have to say, even if they don’t agree. And if we don’t have answers to these very fair questions, then we are not doing what 1 Peter 3:15-16 commands us to do.

To every man an answer.

The Deseret News and the Ethics of Reporting

I have been involved in the journalism field for almost three decades. Among other things, I spent two years as a sports reporter for a community newspaper (1982-1985); I graduated from San Diego State University with a journalism degree (1985); and I spent 17 years teaching journalism to high school students, watching my private school students win a number of awards and compete well with much larger public schools.

Thus, it is with dismay that I have watched the print journalism industry go to pot over the past decade. With advertising dollars radically shifting to other media outlets, especially to those related to the Internet, newspapers have been letting go of staff members by the dozens. Pink slips for qualified reporters are commonplace. My friend worked for Los Angeles’ second largest daily for many years; he was laid off two years ago. Thus, I have advised my daughter, a very gifted writer and the editor in chief last year for the high school newspaper that I advised, to not choose journalism as a major. It’s not the field it once was.

At the end of August, the Deseret News—a daily Salt Lake City newspaper run by Denver-based Media One and owned by the Mormon Church—cut 84 positions at the paper and combined the rest of the staff with its KSL-television and news department. This new model is survival-mode, a way to keep the newspaper printing while cutting costs to make up for the decrease in advertising revenue.

The day after the cuts, Salt Lake Tribune columnist Peg McEntee made some disturbing observations. Now, mind you, the Salt Lake Tribune is also run by Media One, which according to its website “oversees advertising, printing, circulation and business functions of Salt Lake City's daily newspapers.” Referring to a story on the Deseret News website on an agreement made by the LDS Church and Jewish leaders regarding Holocaust victims who were being baptized for the dead, McEntee wrote: “What got my attention was the byline on the story—Michael Purdy: Special to the Deseret News. At least at the time, about 10:30 a.m., there was no indication that Purdy is a Salt Lake City-based spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints….it was striking that in one of its first breaking-news articles the newspaper failed to identify the ‘reporter’ as a member of the faith’s public affairs department. The story bore a New York dateline, which in standard journalism practice means the writer was there. Purdy was in Salt Lake City. Also, the photograph with the story was taken several years ago near the Family History Library, but the caption didn’t mention that.” (Salt Lake Tribune, Sept 2, 2010, p. B2).

With apparent tongue in cheek, McEntee called this a “rookie mistake” committed by the new leaders of the paper. While the author’s name was eventually removed, the words ”Purdy is in the Public Affairs Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” was finally added in by the end of the day.  To me, this still isn’t kosher, but I guess I shouldn’t expect much from a newspaper that produces a weekly filler called The Mormon Times.  And it’s obvious that the reporters before this time were told to report the news in a positive-PR way for their church. In the same way, I’m sure no conservative reporter for the New York Times lasts long either.

If you’re wanting to be taken seriously as a journalistic newspaper—one where you report the 5 Ws and serve as an objective source of news to your readership—you can’t have PR people doing the writing.  Now I know that American journalism lost its innocence long ago, and we can just throw out names like Pulitzer, Hearst, Cronkite (“that’s the way it was”), and even Murdock to show this to be true. Today, you can know what to expect before tuning in to MSNBC, CNN, or Fox. Obviously, it depends on who owns the outlet, and I bemoan the slant on journalism that we see. As I was instructed in college, the reader should never be able to figure out the reporter’s personal opinion for any news piece. We were told that objectivity was vital and the facts reigned supreme. Ahh, but for a perfect world!

So, while it’s no surprise that the media is controlled by those who produce it, imagine if it was discovered that Obama’s publicists were responsible for writing the front page news stories for The Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times. (Some may even suspect this already occurs!).  I would hope the public would freak if they found out this was true.  As for the LDS Church public relations department serving as ghost writers for the recently laid-off Deseret News reporters, let’s just say that my old journalism professors would have never approved of such a marriage. And neither do I.

Dealing with Nonthinking Professors at a Public College

For seven years, I taught English classes at Grossmont Community College in El Cajon, CA. My specialty was English 98, a class that is two steps below freshman composition. Working with grammar, paragraph writing, and essays, I enjoyed taking students from a place of little to no confidence and turning them into writers who believed in themselves.

This year, my daughter Carissa is taking her second year of college at this school, so back in August I helped her with her schedule. We carefully went through the classes she needed and tried to choose professors who had decent ratings on www.ratemyprofessor.com. Well, I guess we picked two big winners in her English and philosophy classes. For English, she has an adjunct professor who has decided he will push his environmental agenda on his students. Their readings involve the global warming/don't eat animals/tree hugging/"careful where you step" environmental hoopla we hear so much about in the 21st century. On the first day of class, this teacher apparently told the students, and I'm not quoting exactly, "Don't listen to those right wing loud mouths on conservative talk radio. We'll teach the truth here."

Carissa has already caught some contradictions--apparently one of her books uses the Bible for supporting evidence and, on the next page, cites Evolution as a reason why we shouldn't harm the planet--but I find it fascinating how our tax dollars could support such drivel. As a Christian, I fully believe in protecting the planet, which is God's beautiful creation, but I refuse to worship her as her professor probably wants the students to do. I will wait until the end of the semester before I talk to the department head, who I know very well, and relay my concerns; it wouldn't be fair to CJ to do it now. She is staying for the challenge to what she has been taught all her life, and I'm fine with that. But having taught at Grossmont for many years, I know how quickly I would have been pummeled by the school's admin if I started the first day like this: "Hey everyone, just so you know, don't believe all those atheists/New Agers/Mormons/Muslims, etc., that you hear on television or meet in your classrooms. They know nothing. During this semester in English, we'll be reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and we'll read devotions from the Bible every day. Maybe you too will come to your senses and want to convert to Jesus!" Do you know how quickly my cell phone would light up? Guaranteed, I had at least one Muslim in my class every semester, and I know these students would have complained. But why should a teacher be allowed to air his liberal agenda in, all places, a freshman English (composition) class? What happened to teaching the fundamentals (in English, reading and writing) without having to have a particular philosophy shoved down your throat? Why must my child be inundated with a godless agenda when a conservative one would be attacked? Why are liberals so narrow-minded? Yes, I ask a lot of questions.

So my daughter calls me last week and tells me about her philosophy class. Apparently, the teacher comes from an Eastern background and is affiliated with Buddhism. She challenged her students by bringing up the issue of reality. How do we even know we are here? This is called Pantheism; its answer is to escape this realm by meditation. Probably the movie The Matrix is the best example of this Eastern worldview; if you haven't seen it, you ought to, as it will blow your mind.

As we got to talking, we started to come up with possible responses to her teacher when she insists that reality is just an illusion. I have taught my daughter to always ask questions--this strategy is explained so well in the new book Tactics by Greg Koukl--to expose the bankrupt nature of nonChristian world views.  What we came up with are possible questions Carissa could ask at her next class when the issue was revisited. Maybe you'd like to respond with some of your own, so feel free to comment back:

* Philosopher Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." If we are not here, then who is doing the thinking?

* Why are we even debating this philosophical issue if this isn't reality? How is possible to have an intelligent discussion in a realm that is illusory?

* If this is all an illusion, then what right do you have to say that the next step after this, possibly Nirvana, is actually reality? In other words, how is it possible to know if we're part of an illusion if you've never experienced reality?

* Does this mean grades don't really matter? If what we are experiencing right now isn't real, then who cares what I get for a grade? Shouldn't the next college or grad school just accept me regardless of how many F's I've earned?

* If you're correct in this argument, must I attend your class to get credit for it? Can't we just pretend I came?

* If I kick you in the shin, but you're really not here to experience the sensation of my foot smashing into your lower leg, will you still get a bruise? If not, may I do so right now? (OK, Carissa, not all of these have to be asked!)

* If reality is just an illusion, then do you stop at stoplights when they're red? If so, why do you do that if they're just part of the illusion too? Just imagine they're green.

* In fact, why do you get into a car at all? If you really want to go across town, shouldn't you be able to meditate your way there?

* If I take your test next week and don't do so well, how can you tell that I really did not do so well? After all, your opinion and mine could be different, and how do you know your reality is more authoritative than mine? Just because you're the teacher? What right do you have to say that your opinion is more "correct" than mine? (Apparently she is a Post Modernist who doesn't believe in absolutes.)

* If you say I didn't turn in a homework assignment, how do you know that I didn't? Maybe in my realm, I did.

* Does this mean the Chargers really did win the Super Bowl last year and so the idea that they lost to the Jets in the Divisional playoffs in January was all in my imagination? Is it possible for me to participate in the victory parade now?

Bankrupt philosophical systems sometimes need a wake-up call. As you can see, pantheism is definitely bankrupt.