What I won't write about

Did you see the story last week, the story about tiny crazy ants. Make sure you spell the ants correctly, by the way. There's enough writing about crazy aunts as it is. Anyway, scientists believe the ants were inadvertently transported here by people traveling from South America. These little suckers are taking over in the South like living breathing Kudzu. In the U.S., they are often referred to as Rasberry crazy ants, named for the Houston pest control operator who first spotted them. At first, "it was just something that looked a little different," Tom Rasberry told CBSNews.com. "The following year the numbers built from a few thousand to hundreds of millions."

"You can stick your hand on the ground and they'll swarm all over and you'll look like a zombie," Austin resident Bill Leake told CBSNews.com. They are indeed dangerous. As they continue to spread, the crazy ants are a threat to the southeastern ecosystem. Rasberry estimated that they kill 90 to 95 percent of insects and reptiles, as well as birds, on the properties they populate.

In other words, they take over and everything in their paths is run down, covered and well, dead. Once they decide on a path, they continue on that path till everything in their way is "zombie-ish."

I'm nearing 25,000 page views and 1,000 blogs written (just to mention a couple of numbers). A lot of times I'm introduced as "oh, you're the writer," as if all pastors or preachers aren't. But I do write almost daily. The question I'm asked the most is where do you get your subjects from? In other words, how do you know what to write? Most of the time, I just read. So this past week, there was plenty I could have written about.

Oh, I could have written about the Supreme Court and same-sex wedding rulings, but I chose not to.

I could have written about the decision by a school in some state somewhere in this country to eliminate prayer by a student football player because one parent or one family protested. Just about any state. Just about any school. Somewhere in the past week there was a protest about someone saying a prayer, usually in Jesus' name. I chose not to.

I could have written about how a football player accused of murder seems to garner much more attention than hundreds of football players who are genuinely good people do. I could have added to my nearly 1,000 blogs with a piece about all the great athletes I've interviewed or even got to know over the 34 years I was in the business. I chose not to.

Heck, I could have written about Paula Deen, and truthfully I'll be darned if I see how a cook who said something apparently years ago can be fired for that saying no matter how famous she is or how infamous the word is. I remember fondly Richard Pryor, and I wonder so many things that we could have talked about.

I could have, but I chose not to. I didn't want to be lumped into one side or the other of any of those issues.

The question I guess I've asked myself over and over as the days have passed and I didn't write about any or all of these things is am I frightened to "take a stand" on any or all of these issues? I think not. I've written so many times about such that I've stopped counting. Or I'm about to. Frightened? Nah. Tired of arguing. You betcha.

Would I make a difference if I wrote about any or all of these issues, taking stands on either side of them? Nah.  The rush to judgment on either side of these issues has been accomplished. Like those cr I'm not going to change many minds. But that's not the reason I choose not to write about them.

If I chose to write about them from the prospective of the right, would I be frightened that I would be called names by the left? Well, certainly if anyone read the pieces, that's a consideration. I've read the incredibly vile comments by people who say they were offended by Deen. Really? I'm probably all those things that the left could call me so that doesn't really shake me.

If I chose to write about them from the prospective of the left, would the names change but the sentiment remain the same? Probably. We're living in an age where name-calling, because of social media, is reaching an epic, if not generally creative, stage. But that's not the reason.

If anyone is a consistent reader of these things, I believe, or hope, they would see that I'm a moderate on most things, moved by Jesus' teachings more than constitutional ones, moved by the idea of grace more than law, moved by love more than rules, moved by compassion more than reward.

But that's not why I'm leaving these hot topics alone.

Nah. The reason I've chosen not to write about them in the past week is a simple one: A great part of me feels these issues have been won or lost -- depending on you're perspective. They're done. Toast. Cooked. Ready to take off the stove. Stick a fork in them, they're done.

It's time all of us find a way to settle these things and move on to the next great or less than great topic or idea or doctrine or notion. It's time. I've lost the ability to believe we can talk these things over and come to a proper solution.

The right says ... the left adamantly disagrees.
The left says ... the right is offended greatly.

And usually there is some kind of "funny" picture to go with the facebook sharing, though I wonder if either side ever thinks about how un-funny it is to the other side..

People are left in the wake of these monstrous jet boats of disorder without regard to the future. So, I'm choosing to stop making the wakes.

Did this cook, apparently famous, say something offensive at some point in her life? Apparently so. Does this mean that everyone who has ever said that word or something similar will be fired from their positions, their posts, their careers? Apparently not. Do I find this person's language offensive? You betcha. Do I find the language in most PG-13 movies offensive? You betcha. Will the movie language be cleaned up in the foreseeable future? Not a chance. So, I move on despite the evident hypocrisy. Will this cook? I don't know. I do know that forgiveness apparently was never going to be an option. Fire her was. Amazing. Just amazing.

Do I believe a student-led prayer is damaging in any way? Of course not. Is it establishing a religion? Of course not. Do I demand that the prayer be to Jesus even if I feel it must be? Of course not. But we've stopped talking these things over, so we must simply quit praying period rather than offend. Right? Isn't that all we're left with? Aren't the ones who believe in prayer losing every single discussion? You betcha. So, I move on despite the evident hypocrisy. Amazing. Just amazing.

At the annual conference in my state a few weeks back, someone offered a proposal about marriage that would have re-iterated what the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline says about marriage (you can look it up if you're interested). In the arguments that ensued, someone said that the proposal "offended" them. I've not been able to shake that statement since. One pastor proposing to re-iterate what is found in scripture and in the denomination's own BOD "offends" another pastor. Simply by proposing it. No offensive language that I could see in the proposal. No loud arguing. Nothing but a proposal on paper. And it offended. Will this kind of discussion continue until one side gets its way? You betcha. So, I move on despite the evident hypocrisy in the system. Amazing. Just amazing.

I read with great interest the e-mail by Adam Hamilton, the wonderful man as best I can tell and wonderfully successful pastor from Kansas City, in reaction to the Supreme Court's rulings last week.

He wrote this: "You can try to pretend that the issue will go away, but, as we’ve seen this week, that is highly unlikely. You can leave churches that are open to wrestling with the issue like ours in order to find churches that “hold the line.” But it seems unlikely that even those who “hold the line” will see this issue the same in the years ahead. As a church we don’t all see eye to eye on this. Your pastors don’t all agree about this. And we’ve learned to be okay with that. We have to learn to agree to disagree on this issue as our society and the broader church are going to continue to wrestle with this issue – it is not going away and greater change is coming. As a church we’ve committed to be a place that welcomes everyone. We’ve committed to be a church where thoughtful, committed Christians on both sides will agree to disagree with respect and love."

I pray he's right on much of this thinking. I pray that both sides of all these issues agree to disagree with respect and love, but I suspect that the word "offends" will be thrown around quite a bit in the next 20 years. I also suspect, strongly, that many of these issues have been decided before the discussion -- the real discussion, a rational discussion that doesn't offend -- is ever held. I suspect that the crazy ants among us have already begun their charge and everything in their path will be swarmed. Thus, I suspect the discussion of how we will handle such things truly will never be held.

Hamilton finishes by writing, "I personally believe that twenty years from now most churches will welcome gay and lesbian families, will call gay and lesbian people to live lives of faithfulness and sacrificial love in their relationship just as they call heterosexual couples to do, and that they will see the passages on same-sex attraction as reflecting cultural norms just as the passages on slavery and on the subordination of women reflected cultural norm and not God’s heart and timeless will."

I believe we have the right to agree or disagree with these statements. But I do believe if we put as much time and effort and prayer and thought into the areas of the homeless, the hungry, those without clean water, helping the lost who refuse to listen to those who were just like them before being found, as we do cooks who say the N-word, prayer before football games, and especially who marries whom, this world would change dramatically.

But since right now I can't see that happening, I won't write about it.