It strikes me as odd, or at least as a logical fallacy, some of the thinking that we hear in America.  We have people who are double-minded on many issues and will tap dance around and angrily deny their inconsistent thinking.  The main concept for many (and in most cases the ONLY concept) is disagreeing with the “other side”.

For some examples, I can see the logical of the “No abortion/Yes Capital punishment” stand; the infant has done nothing wrong and the criminal has.  I can see the logic in the “No abortion/No Capital punishment” stand: life is sacred, we should always fight for it.  I can even see the “Yes abortion/ Yes Capital punishment” stand: life is cheap.  But how can someone justify “Yes abortion/ No Capital punishment”: infants must die but psycopaths must be given a chance.  Does that make sense to anyone?  If so, please explain, because it is the only one of the four positions that I can see no logical support for.  Either life is cheap, its sacred, or innocense deserves a chance and guilt deserves punishment.  But newborn life being cheap and criminal conduct being something we should preserve and protect… that doesn’t hold water.

Or, as another example, celebrities like Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, and others, who stand and boldly cry that the rebuilding of Iraq, the elevation of its women from property to citizens, the new freedom of worship to the Christians, Jews and (most importantly in Iraq) Shi’ite and Kurd believers, and the feeding of the starving as BAD because, well, they say its because of Bush lying, but it seems more like its because they didn’t think of it first.  I base this of the fact that these same people are up in arms that we haven’t taken action in Darfur.  I agree, the atrocities must end.  But its hard to convince me that people can believe this and not be glad that the atrocities (WELL documented and with no Republican/Bush slant) of Sadam Husein have ended.

If you believe that its wrong for those who immigrate illegally to be punished for breaking the immigration laws because they are hungry/in need of medical care/persecuted at home, why are you living in a huge, mostly empty mansion?  Bring them in, pay for their medical bills.  And explain to me, in the mean time, why those who are hungry/in need of medical care/persecuted at home but choosing to obey the immigration laws SHOULD be punished?  After all, by following procedure, they cannot come here and get a job or the care they require for some time (because the process is lengthy).  Why should they be punished?  Or more to the point, why should they follow the law?

We have so many people who are double-minded.  And I think it comes down to a perversion of love.  Love God’s way is outward focused (toward God and toward neighbors).  Love our way is inward focused (whatever doesn’t inconvenience me or make me feel bad).  Our double-minded folk want to sleep at night, so they cry for justice and equality to placate their souls.  But they want to be comfortable, so they don’t go, they don’t help, they just smile and ask others to help.  Double-minded folk don’t want to feel like killers, so they are against capital punishment; but… they don’t want to have any “complications” in their life, so they are pro-abortion.

Double-minded folk seem to be good people, often.  But clearly, they are not God’s people.  Their love is selfish and therefore inconsistent.

God’s people follow the Way.  They live the Two.  They love God and others before they love themselves (and you MUST love yourself, too!  Just not foremost).  They are good people, but they are often seen as trouble-makers because their lives point out the inconsistent and selfish views of others.  They love selfLESSly, and consistently.  They are single-minded, loving freely and purely.

So I guess the question is, where do you and I fall?  I strive to live the Two. Sometimes I fail.  What about you?  Are you single-minded, or are you inconsistent?