By this logic

Here goes. According to some Christians, hormone contraceptives should be considered on par with abortion because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. Just to make sure no one misses the connection, they call them "abortifacients."

(Note: If you side with them that pregnancy begins at conception, raise your hand. If you side with the medical community that pregnancy begins at implantation, now raise your hand. I see we have work to do.)

Ok. Now we have had way too many random acts of gun violence in every corner of the country. Many of the Christians that obsess over the well-being of fertilized eggs are quick to give theology lessons to anyone that dares speak a disparaging word about guns. Evil resides in the person, not the weapon. Fair enough.

So using hormone treatments is intrinsically evil because it risks the life of a fertilized egg. Those treatments should be banned for everyone or at least prohibited for women of faith. Guns in the hands of criminals or mentally disordered people routinely kill innocent strangers or loved ones. Like those shoppers out in Oregon, those movie-goers in Colorado, the wife of that football player, or thousands of other tragic stories. These victims are worth every bit as much as those fertilized eggs. Right? But no discussion is allowed about placing any limits on guns? It just seems to me that guns are abortifacients. They often cause the instantaneous abortion of a fully developed human beings.

If it is acceptable to ban hormonal contraceptives, it should be equally acceptable to ban or regulate guns. If contraceptives are abortifacients, then guns are abortifacients as well. It is just good old fashioned truth in labeling. Fair is fair.

Reduction to the absurd

Legal challenges to laws limiting rights for same-sex couples will come before the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming months. During a lecture at Princeton University, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked why he equated homosexuality with bestiality and murder. Here is his response:

"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"

Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.

Then he deadpanned: "I'm surprised you aren't persuaded."

Not all of Scalia's moral feelings come from scripture. Here is a nice bon mot from Deuteronomy 16:19.

Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.

If we cannot have feelings on judges that fail to respect conflicts of interest, then we should not have feelings on murder. I am not equating unethical conduct with murder but just trying to draw a parallel.

Judges that favor the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless have always been a thorn in God's side. Love of money is the root of all sorts of evil. Right, Justice Scalia?

The toxic debate over contraception among American Christians

The debate over reproductive rights among American Christians is childish and embarrassing.

The whole religious liberty kerfuffle in America today has nothing to do with people having the right to worship as they choose. Instead, we have been treated to an intellectually dishonest debate over contraception. Catholics and some Evangelical Protestants claim that contraceptives should not be included in health insurance because some hormonal methods cause abortions. They have even coined a clever monicker for these hormonal treatments - "abortifacients."

Let me illustrate how the "debate" over religious liberty and conception takes place among Christians.

Fred Clark, a progressive Christian writer, noted the tendency among some Christian leaders to equate contraception with abortion. To illustrated the point, he used the lawsuit by a Christian publishing company claiming its religious liberty had been trampled by being forced to cover contraceptives it labelled "abortifacients." The debate was also politicized by several references to the "religious right."

Timothy Dalrymple,  a prominent evangelical Christian writer, punched back.

Fred Clark (“slacktivist”) and other hard-left progressives have accused evangelicals of lying about the abortifacient nature of some contraceptives. According to this view of things, evangelicals are really just dead-set on opposing anything associated with President Obama, so they have invented the excuse that some contraceptives are abortifacient (abortion-inducing) in order to give themselves a justification for joining Catholic efforts to overturn Obamacare or at least eliminate its contraceptive mandate. In fact, with his usual charity and subtlety (/sarcasm), Clark conflates opposing contraception in principle (which evangelicals generally do not) with opposing the use of specific contraceptives that can cause the destruction of a fertilized egg (which evangelicals generally do), and likewise conflates opposing contraception (do not) with opposing church-supported distribution of condoms to unmarried young people (often do).

Notice the rhetoric. Dalrymple paints those who support health insurance coverage for contraceptives as political extremists - "hard-left." He also claims that Clark called evangelicals liars for equating contraception with abortion. That is more polemics because Clark questioned the factual basis for the equation rather than calling it a lie.

Clark fired back, this time calling evangelicals a bunch of liars.

So, my dear evangelical brothers and sisters, can we please stop lying for Jesus by saying that emergency contraception is “an abortifacient”?

It will not be long before 'poopy-head', 'terrorist', and 'baby killer' are thrown around as epithets. Beyond the name-calling, the debate is counterproductive and ultimately harmful to the body of Christ. We serve Christ, not religious or political leaders. You would never know that by the hyperbolic discussion of contraception by Christians in America.

First of all, Clark is correct in stating that emergency contraceptives do not cause the body to abort a fertilized egg. People that call it an "abortifacient" are wrong. Here is a clear statement of the biological mechanism of action (emphasis added) from the medical literature.

A major barrier to the widespread acceptability and use of emergency contraception (EC) are concerns regarding the mechanisms of action of EC methods. Today, levonorgestrel (LNG) in a single dose of 1.5 mg taken within 120 h of an unprotected intercourse is the most widely used EC method worldwide. It has been demonstrated that LNG-EC acts through an effect on follicular development to delay or inhibit ovulation but has no effect once luteinizing hormone has started to increase. Thereafter, LNG-EC cannot prevent ovulation and it does not prevent fertilization or affect the human fallopian tube. LNG-EC has no effect on endometrial development or function. In an in vitro model, it was demonstrated that LNG did not interfere with blastocyst function or implantation.

In other words, emergency contraception messes with the hormones (particularly progesterone) to stop ovulation, but does not prevent fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg. It does not destroy a fertilized egg as some Christian leaders claim. The only thing that is aborted is their credibility.

The second problem is that the debate over contraception coverage by health insurance is not really about emergency contraceptives. The most widely used emergency contraceptive is available over the counter. The coverage requirement is for commonly used prescription contraceptives. It is not because the primary mechanism of action destroys a fertilized egg, but because there is some risk to prevent implantation.

“In summary, the primary contraceptive effect of all the non-barrier methods, including emergency use of contraceptive pills, is to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization. Additional contraceptive actions for all of these also may affect the process beyond fertilization but prior to pregnancy. For some methods these actions may be significant in contributing to their overall contraceptive efficacy.” American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Equity Toolkit (Accessed 2012-02-26). From ACOG Statement on Contraceptive Methods (July, 1998).

Some Christians have become so rigid and arbitrary that any hormonal treatment that can potentially interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg is considered an "abortifacient." How touching that we are so very careful with the well-being of a fertilized egg, even before it is even capable of further development beyond a single cell.

The controversy boils down to whether you consider a fertilized egg a fetus. The medical community defines pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg. The reason is simple. A fertilized egg is not viable until it is implanted in the uterus and the cells begin to multiply and differentiate. Some Christians, particularly politically powerful Catholic and Evangelical leaders, want to call a woman pregnant when an egg is fertilized and treat the disruption of implantation as an abortion. That belief has a very interesting history.

The debate over contraception also undermines any meaningful discussion of abortion. Calling the use of medications that might interfere with implantation of fertilized egg murder and an assault on human dignity is a sham.

Additionally, both Evangelical Protestants and Catholics believe abortion is the extinguishment of a person created by God, a being at whose conception personhood begins. Thus, abortion is a profound assault on human dignity and a violation of the Sixth Commandment, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

This is cynical politics and sloppy theology. The very next chapter of Exodus prohibits retribution for causing a miscarriage (Exodus 21:22-25).

“If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges. But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound and bruise for bruise.

From an ethical standpoint, if I want to err on the side of caution out of reverence for life and avoid contraceptive methods that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, there is nothing that stops me. There is no requirement in our society to use contraception. I can act freely within the dictates of my conscience. The ethical high ground, however, collapses when I want to impose my value system on others. Some Christian leaders want all employers to have the right to deny coverage for family planning. It does not matter whether you work for a university, hospital, nonprofit, publisher, or any other business. It does not matter what your own personal beliefs about contraception happen to be.

What do you call Christians that want to protect every fertilized human egg but barely lift a finger to stop the already born from dying of hunger, thirst, disease, war, or execution? Mental gymnastics over a fertilized egg require even more time, money, blood, sweat, tears, and political capital for the already born if one's concern is truly rooted in respect for life. If you want to protect every fertilized egg but cannot be bothered about the already born, you better hope the Lord has a well-developed sense of humor about hypocrisy.

And let's not forget that by opposing the most effective forms of contraception, you are deliberately increasing the chances a woman will have an unwanted pregnancy. There are few good outcomes with an unwanted pregnancy, but the advocates of prohibiting hormonal contraceptives do not care. The woman's choices at that point are extremely difficult. She can terminate the pregnancy, but wrestle with the emotional and moral issues for a lifetime. Or she can bear the emotional, physical, and financial costs of carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption. Lastly, she could become a parent despite not being prepared for the responsibility and perhaps lacking the resources to effectively raise the child.

The authoritarian streak in some Evangelical and Catholic leaders is on display in the fight over contraception. Perhaps if they cared less about their own power and more about the well-being of their flock, the debate would not be so unbecoming to the body of Christ. Do these people seriously think they bring glory to Christ by equating the use of hormonal contraceptives with abortion and murder?

Snapped

Corey Booker, mayor of Newark, is taking the food stamp challenge. Not only is he taking the challenge, but he is taking to social media to publicize his experiences and reflections. Now into the fifth day, he admits how difficult it is to count pennies, budget every meal, deal with hunger pains, and forego some vices like coffee. His motivation is to highlight the growing problem of food insecurity in our country.

As I begin this journey, I am doubling down on my commitment to the Food Justice Movement that is gaining awareness and participation in this country. We have much work to do at the local level to address a legacy of structural inequities in the American food system. As more and more working people and families - many holding down more than one job - face greater and greater challenges to juggle housing, medical, and transportation costs, meeting nutritional needs becomes a serious problem and a social justice issue. The struggle of children, seniors, and families to have access to essential nutrition is a struggle we are all invested in and we all benefit when families succeed. Now more than ever we are all in this together.

Personally, I believe every politician should be required to take the food stamp challenge. And try to support their family on a minimum wage job. Or live on the fixed income of senior citizen living on Social Security. That will never happen. Courage and compassion are not marketable commodities for politicians.

So far, Booker's efforts have been met with some criticism. There have been the typical slings and arrows from folks complaining about any government program for people in need. Their blessings in life do not extend to compassion and empathy. Christine Romans, a finance sector talking head at CNN, dismissed the food stamp challenge as unrealistic.

"It's not meant to be your only calorie intake source," Romans said. "'Supplemental' is the key. The government designs it so this is on top of what little money you might have, food pantries, soup kitchens."

What this "journalist" does not understand is that food banks and soup kitchens have limited resources and are not accessible to all the people that need them. The real conversation should be how threadbare the safety net is in our society.

The artifice in the food stamp challenge is that it only lasts for 7 days. Booker is counting down the days until his diet goes back to abundance. For the millions of people that cannot find work or are getting by on a minimum wage job, the food stamp challenge never ends.

Perfect God, stupid humans

In an interesting opinion piece in the New York Times, philosopher Yoram Hazony asks an important theological question.

Is God perfect? You often hear philosophers describe “theism” as the belief in a perfect being — a being whose attributes are said to include being all-powerful, all-knowing, immutable, perfectly good, perfectly simple, and necessarily existent (among others). And today, something like this view is common among lay people as well.

Hazony goes on to point out two stumbling blocks for belief in God as a perfect being. First, if God is perfect, then why is there so much imperfection in the world, particularly in the human element? Everything else around us has its place and purpose, but we are willful, selfish, greedy, and often malevolent creatures. Second, the God of scripture is depicted as surprised by our sinful nature, prone to collective punishment, easy to anger, jealous, and the spitting image of an abusive parent incapable of unconditional love. The scriptural literalists have no answer to why the God found in Genesis looks so different than the loving and merciful God described by Jesus and New Testament writers. He goes on to suggest that perhaps the best way to reconcile all of the head popping contradictions is to argue that God is not perfect and does not have to be. It is the more "realistic" view.

The ancient Israelites, in other words, discovered a more realistic God than that descended from the tradition of Greek thought. But philosophers have tended to steer clear of such a view, no doubt out of fear that an imperfect God would not attract mankind’s allegiance. Instead, they have preferred to speak to us of a God consisting of a series of sweeping idealizations — idealizations whose relation to the world in which we actually live is scarcely imaginable. Today, with theism rapidly losing ground across Europe and among Americans as well, we could stand to reconsider this point. Surely a more plausible conception of God couldn’t hurt.

There is another possibility. The flaws are not in God but in us.

First of all, no one, absolutely no one, can claim to understand what God is. God defies our senses and far exceeds the bounds of our puny intellect. We cannot begin to imagine God as a being that existed before matter sprang forth in a glorious explosion of energy. God spans time and space. We can get our head around some Titan-like human entity residing in the stratosphere above our little planet, meddling in human affairs. While that conception readily fits within our constructions of reality, it creates God in our image. A being that transcends all the boundaries of our existence defies comprehension.

Equally problematic is the concept of perfection. The attributes that define a perfect God are human-centered. We call God all knowing and all powerful, but then struggle with why there is suffering and injustice in the world. If an all powerful God stands by as we struggle with death, disease, and injustices at the hands of our fellow humans, then you begin to think of this deity as callous and unloving. It renders us no more valuable than the animals we slaughter for food or as potential threats to the quality of our lives. We want a God that grants our every wish, dries every tear, and rights every wrong. That is what we expect from a perfect God. Such a God looks like a rich and powerful parent that allows us to live like royalty as long as we obey a few rules, worship, and make a few ritual sacrifices in our daily lives. What an embarrassingly immature theology!

Let's face reality. We are woefully imperfect creatures in our ability to comprehend the universe around us and our place in it. The same goes for our understanding of God. While we may be instinctively drawn to believe in a being that exceeds the limits of our senses and intellect, only in arrogance can we claim to have clear and true picture of God. A life well-lived brings the hope and promise that one day we will come into a more complete understanding of God. As Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13: 8-12, faith, hope, and love hold the keys.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

As for perfection, everything that happens, even the terrible things we do to one another, may be part of a plan in motion. Creation is not static; it is dynamic. We cannot see or understand the end-game and how all the pieces fit. The process may fall short of our hopes, desires, and expectations, but that does not mean it is flawed from a big-picture perspective.

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Everything in the universe may be unfolding as God intended. Ultimately, that is the only perfection that counts. As for our understanding of God and our wish-fulfillment model of perfection, it falls far short of perfection.

Equal opportunity pulpits

There continues to be considerable resistance in some quarters to the ordination of women. The battle seems to particularly pitched in the Catholic Church where the Vatican has recently cracked down on any dissent in the ranks. For example, the American nuns participating in the Leadership Conference of Women Religious were harshly reprimanded and branded "radical feminists" for even hosting speakers that advocated the ordination of women. High profile priests have even been excommunicated for supporting leadership roles for women, including Roy Bourgeois of the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers. This zero-tolerance policy for dissent is strangely ironic for an organization that has huffed and puffed so mightily on the subject of religious freedom.

Perhaps the intolerance of any discussion on the ordination of women is not having the intended effect. The National Catholic Register just published an extraordinary editorial in support of ordination of our sisters in Christ. The opening salvo does not mince words.

The call to the priesthood is a gift from God. It is rooted in baptism and is called forth and affirmed by the community because it is authentic and evident in the person as a charism. Catholic women who have discerned a call to the priesthood and have had that call affirmed by the community should be ordained in the Roman Catholic church. Barring women from ordination to the priesthood is an injustice that cannot be allowed to stand.

The editorial then goes on to provide a detailed history of the Vatican's policy since 1976. At that time, the powers that be issued a statement that opened the door to possibility of ordaining women.

In April 1976 the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded unanimously: "It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate." In further deliberation, the commission voted 12-5 in favor of the view that Scripture alone does not exclude the ordination of women, and 12-5 in favor of the view that the church could ordain women to the priesthood without going against Christ's original intentions.

There was soon a move to slam the door shut, with the charge being led by Cardinal Ratzinger at the behest of Pope John Paul II. The Cardinal has continued the hardline approach after becoming Pope Benedict XVI. Opposition to the ordination of women became a key litmus test in determining fitness to move up the ranks from priest to bishop. As the case of Roy Bourgeois demonstrates, a priest now risks excommunication for daring to question official doctrine.

The Holy Spirit cannot be behind demands for obedience to church leaders and calls from the faithful for a change in policy. There is also something about the arrogance and oppressive actions by the powerful that seem far from Christ-like. Humble leadership is the mark of the Lord.

Killing Santa Claus

When our son was five, the toxicity of holiday materialism became plain to see. Between relatives and friends, there was a veritable mountain of gifts marked with his name. Like clockwork, the uniformed delivery elves seemed to add to the pile every day.

Needless to say, he was very excited. Each package was sized up carefully as he tried to gauge whether it might contain one of the items on his wish list.  He eyed package mountain every time came into the room to see if it had grown. The days were counted down until the loot would finally be his. This state of self-centered intoxication is exactly what the Mad Men (and women) of Madison Avenue were hoping to create.

The big day finally arrived. He was literally bouncing off the walls. The first few packages brought squeals of delight as he tore through the brightly colored paper. And then things started to go terribly wrong.

At first, he seemed like he was going into a coma. His eyes started to glaze over. There was drool at the corners of his mouth. He was nearly panting from hyperventilation. He barely looked at the contents of each package before asking for more.

Then came full-fledged demonic possession. He became increasingly belligerent during the interludes between his gifts as others in the room opened theirs. More! Now! A relative made the mistake of wanting to reminisce instead of opening the package in her lap. Smoke started to pour out of his ears.

Relatives tried to assure us that our son was just "over-tired." That is relative-speak for excited and obnoxious. The trouble was that the excitement came from anticipation, daily exposure to gift mountain, more than a month of advertising saturation bombing, comparing wish lists among friends, and let's not forget constant prayer to the patron saint of toys.

When the dust settled, my wife and I talked about the meltdown. The image that was all too clear in our minds was of our normally even-keeled son ripping through package after package, barely glancing at the contents, and demanding another. The religious elements of the holiday were completely lost in the amped up commercialization and consumerism. Santa Claus would have to die.

We decided to set strict limits on gift mountain for the future. We told him to limit his holiday wish list to three items. It was also critical to get him to thing about others, especially those less fortunate than him. The holiday Heart Fund was born.

The Heart Fund was money we set aside each year. Every year, our son was given the task of coming up with four organizations he wanted to give money to. He had to explain why he picked each organization and help with the envelope or online dedication. Part of the Christmas celebration included him announcing his gifts to others, courtesy of the Heart Fund.

Friends and relatives were asked to support our new and improved holiday celebration rules. There were a few puzzled looks and questions about we were going grinch. We explained our dissatisfaction with the me-me-me chorus to Jingle Bells. We set strict limits on what could be spent on gifts and requested relatives also consider donating to the Heart Fund. The light bulb in most people's head lit up when they heard him announce the recipients of the Heart Fund that first year.

The causes that he championed over the years were impressive. A relative's heart attack sparked a donation to the American Heart Association. A lost dog poster in the neighborhood generated interest in the Animal Care League. A homeless man inspired donations to Feeding America, Habitat for Humanity, and the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.

The other change in our holiday tradition was to get up very early every Christmas morning and go down to the Dominican Priory in the area to help with their holiday dinner delivery program. Long before dawn, you start by putting together bags filled with dinner items, fruit, drinks, and sweets for each person in the household. After the assembly line was complete, you pick up a list of addresses to deliver the goodies to.

By 10 in the morning, the deliveries were complete and we stopped for breakfast at the local pancake house. It was enough to tide us over until the big holiday meal with relatives.

Killing Santa Claus and the me-centered Christmas celebration was one of the smartest moves we ever made as parents. The focus on giving to others, especially strangers in need, changed the whole feeling from a feeding frenzy to a holiday spirit that burned warmly.

Some Christians love to blubber about a "war on Christmas." They hyperventilate over whether stores greet you with Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas. There are heated battles over tawdry holiday displays in public places. The trouble is that what bothers these people is whether the orgy of consumption is labeled Christmas. It is all about packaging, not content.

The real war on Christmas is that Christ is lost in the schlock and spending. That is why we killed Santa Claus.

It reminds me of song popular in my youth by Jethro Tull ("Christmas Song"). My favorite lines still still ring true:

Once in Royal David's City stood a lowly cattle shed, 

where a mother laid her baby. 

You'd do well to remember the things He later said.

Spiritual economics

Then He said to them, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions.” 

And He told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man was very productive. And he began reasoning to himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?’ Then he said, ‘This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry.”’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?’ So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

-- Luke 12:15-21

Another small victory for generosity of spirit in sea of greed.  Joe Lueken, owner of a successful grocery store chain in Minnesota, has  decided to give his company to his employees as he approached retirement.

On Jan. 1, Lueken's Village Foods, with two supermarkets in Bemidji and another in Wahpeton, N.D., will begin transferring ownership to its approximately 400 employees through an Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP).

Humility and recognition of the contribution of others to the success of the business were factors in the decision.

"My employees are largely responsible for any success I've had, and they deserve to get some of the benefits of that," Lueken said earlier this week. "You can't always take. You also have to give back."

The decision to "do the right thing" was supported by his family. It strengthens the community by giving people a stake in the future of the business, not to mention sets a powerful example of what God views as success.

"The whole move revolves around people, not things or money," Jeff Lueken said. "It's about allowing people to grow with the business and send their kids to college and have a great retirement, and even to express themselves at work."

The employees say it's a wonderful gift, but Joe Lueken said he's gotten more than he gave. Holding out two palms, one above the other, he said: "To see somebody go from here [up] to here is the best feeling in the world."

Amen!

Good Samaritan

Most people, regardless of their faith tradition, are familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). In this parable, Jesus is defining what it means to love your neighbor as yourself. The contrasts drawn in the parable are pointed and powerful. On the one hand, we see two religious men ignore a man beaten and bloody in the street. One is a priest, someone revered for leading religious services, and the other is a Levite, someone expert in religious law and doctrine. They failed the test of loving others as God expects. Along comes a Samaritan who ignores traditional tribal tensions to show love for a stranger in Judea. The moral of the story is that you should love all others, even those you have been taught to distrust or dislike by your culture and religion.

 Jesus would be pleased with this New York City policeman. The officer saw a homeless man on the sidewalk with no shoes. The officer stopped to buy the man heavy socks and warm boots. His gesture of kindness was recorded by a tourist who witnessed the event and took a picture with her cellphone.



The officer was surprised by the attention he received when the tourist posted the picture on the NYPD's Facebook page. People were greatly moved by his compassion.

Foster’s photo was posted Tuesday night to the NYPD’s official Facebook page and became an instant hit. More than 420,000 users “liked” it as of Thursday evening, and more than 140,000 shared it.

The context is perfect for retelling the Good Samaritan parable in 21st century America. Ordinances have been passed across the country that criminalize the homeless for sleeping on the street. It is against the law in some places to give the homeless food or money. These ordinances often put the police in the uncomfortable position of enforcing these laws. Likewise, political, business, and even some religious leaders have been bashing the poor as worthless freeloaders in our society. Our culture is hardening its heart to the suffering of others.

Officer Larry DiPrimo could have listened to our increasingly callous culture and walked on by the homeless man shivering in the street. Instead, he behaved like the compassionate Samaritan. And his act of kindness just happened to be witnessed and publicized by a stranger to the city.

She wrote: “The officer squatted down on the ground and proceeded to put socks and the new boots on this man. The officer expected NOTHING in return and did not know I was watching.”

DePrimo said buying the boots “was something I had to do.” He tried to persuade the man to get something to eat, but he declined and left.

“When I brought out the shoes, it was just a smile from ear to ear,” he said. “It was a great moment for both of us.”

Judging from the reaction to this story, people are hungry for the gospel of love as taught by Jesus. Not the religion of ceremony, law, and doctrine, but a theology built around loving God and love others.