Jeff is a freelance writer and social commentary editor for various publications. His commentary and editorials have been published by the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. He is regularly published in The Wichita Eagle. Jeff is a frequent speaker on the Bible’s application to society and morality, and previously hosted Law Talk, a Christian legal radio talk show.

Click here www.syrioslyspeaking.com for current as well as past articles and commentary.

God's glory was behind the cross - Easter morning

Our family watched Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" in preparation for Easter. Having seen it before, it still requires a bit of courage to watch. Grave injustice and insolent brutality is always hard to witness. But Gibson's portrayal is biblically accurate and the imagery helps to better appreciate Jesus' suffering.

But questions still remain. Surely they are the same questions Jesus' mother and first cousin John must have had as they stood at the foot of the cross. How could the sovereign God of Israel have let this happen? Who is responsible for this tragedy?

Many continue to blame the Jews. While it is true the Jewish religious leaders orchestrated bogus religious trials and made false accusations that resulted in Jesus' execution, it is wrong to generalize and unfair to blame them alone for his death. Others say responsibility lies with Pilate, the Roman procurator who caved in to the pressures of self-preservation. Some Christians even claim personal responsibility, acknowledging their individual sin as the cause.

But there is another-one who at first glance makes me very uncomfortable pointing a finger at. It was God. It was Christ's own Father who was behind the crucifixion.

In his book, "The Pleasures of God," John Piper describes how before Jesus, there was a tension that underscored our redemptive history. At one extreme was God's glory and at the other was God's love for sinners who reject that glory. This conflict could not go unresolved indefinitely. God could no longer shield his holy eyes from humanity's crime in progress. It would be a travesty of justice to let the guilty go free.

The very essence of God's glory was at stake and something had to give-something big.

So on that Good Friday afternoon, nearly 2,000 years ago, divine justice met man's wickedness as God poured his wrath upon his perfect son.

Only in the inexpressible suffering of Christ could God's splendor be sustained. The belittlement of God's glory caused by man's sin could only be reconciled by a matching loss of glory encompassed in Jesus' suffering on the cross.

And God was behind it all. Jesus' sham of a trial, merciless beating and brutal death was not bad luck or ill-advised timing. As the Apostle Peter states in Acts 2:23, by divine consideration, God handed over his Son to the executioners with "set purpose and foreknowledge." At God's direction, Christ went to the cross as an expression of the worth of his Father's glory and his love for man.

It was atop a 2,000-year-old tree at Calvary that justice met mercy in the hands and feet of Jesus. But we should not forget the cross is not the end of the story. That was Friday and this is Sunday. And there is a new question to consider: Why do you look for the living among the dead?

Remember, the tomb was empty. God was behind that also.

Posted by Jeffrey L. Syrios, J.D. on March 23, 2008 at 08:32 AM in Faith & Religion
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)   

Hollywood's loss, our gain

I liked Heath Ledger. I first saw him in A Knights Tale, where he played the ruggedly handsome William Thatcher, who jousted his way into the heart of the beautiful princess Jocelyn. So like many, I was saddened by the news Ledger was dead at the age of 28.

But I can't say I was shocked.

With the exception of a movie star celebrating a 40th wedding anniversary, nothing about Hollywood surprises me anymore. News from Entertainment Tonight gets more bazaar every day. But it's not the media cramming the excessive lifestyle down our throats. Instead, celebrity gossip is market driven as cultural consumers nearly choke to death gorging on Hollywood's overindulgence.

But what is it about the absurd lifestyles of our pop idols that fascinate us average folks? Is it entertainment? Could it be therapeutic? Maybe we are just captivated by pity, like with the bearded woman at the state fair. We cannot stand to lookfor another moment, yet we cannot stop staring.

The truth is that Hollywood provides a tickle to a common itch. Wealth and fame resonate with everyone. Who doesn't notice the cars, clothes and beauty and not want a material upgrade?

These tangibles have become the object of man's pursuit. And Hollywood provides the stage in which the ends of affluence and applause are paraded before us as objects worthy of our aspirations. For many, our daily lives are spent as the audience in dauntless pursuit of the means by which we too can share the red carpet.

But there is a disconnect with Hollywood-a paradox between a lifestyle fashioned as the ultimate objective and the downfall of those who obtain it. After all, how odd is it that only after achieving riches and popularity, does Brittney seem bent on destroying herself? What could possibly have motivated Peter Cook to cheat on supermodel wife Christie Brinkley? And now, a talented 28-year-old heartthrob, at the beginning of a successful acting career, dies naked on his bedroom floor from a prescription drug overdose.

With the exception of a few top-shelf movies, I have long wondered what real value Hollywood brings to the lives of us regular people. Ledger's death makes it clear. The flashy lives and vain deaths of celebrities offer the real-time demonstration of the answer to life's ultimate question: How does it profit a man to gain the world and forfeit his soul?

That question was first asked 2,000 years ago. It was rhetorical of course, meant to challenge the perspective of a group of headstrong short-sighted disciples. But it has meaning today.

Fulfillment is not found in the indulgence of material possessions or the favor of man. The tighter we cling to this life, the more precarious it becomes. Instead, joy which endures beyond the frailties of this life is found in unselfishly bearing our cross for the sake of the one who bore it first for us.

The broken lives of celebrities reveal this-their tragic deaths confirm it.

Posted by Jeffrey L. Syrios, J.D. on February 22, 2008 at 08:22 AM in Culture
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Casinos don't smell right

The vote on casinos here in Sedgwick County is fast approaching, and my sense is that for many there remain more questions than answers. For every statistical survey decrying the evils of gambling, there is a case study from some medium-sized Midwest town proclaiming its virtue.

So who is right? Who can you trust? More important, how do you determine the truth by the first Tuesday in August?

So I sat down to determine if I could come to any conclusions on my own. No studies, bent editorials or fashioned white papers-just me, a simple mind and some good old common sense. In the end, I employed the foolproof formula my grandpa always used-the smell test.

It occurs to me the tipping point for the value of casinos as a justifiable state sanctioned revenue generator lies in the nature of the mechanism of the transfer of private assets to public funds.

With casinos, the method of the transfer of money is risk. Whether it is a roll of the dice or crank of a lever, it involves subjecting personal wealth to a game of chance.

It is hard to dispute that casino gambling is a bad risk for the gambler. Sure, there may be a few who consistently win more money then they lose. But that is the exception. The fact that casinos are a viable money maker for the owner confirms the truth that more money is lost by gamblers than won.

But so what? What people do with their money whether by sport or investment is their business. I agree, with one exception. When the private assets of an individual are transferred to the public revenue of the state through government legislated and owned casinos, the merit of gambling as an acceptable risk becomes a community issue.

A virtuous nation cannot tolerate a state owned revenue raising program that operates on the premise of encouraging its citizens to take bad risks. In other words, when the mechanism providing the public benefit is a private loss, the process becomes ignoble. Gambling further twists the excellence of capitalism by providing the greatest reward to those taking no risk (the non-gambling public) while penalizing the individual gambler who takes the biggest risk.

Our country was built upon the strong and industrious backs of men and women who worked hard for every dollar they earned. When risk was required, it was measured by the calculations of supply and demand, not the roll of a marble on a roulette table. And when the legislature called for a percentage of those private funds to be transferred to the state for public benefit, it did so in a way that did not knowingly create pathological addiction, personal bankruptcy and broken families.

In the end, state endorsed and owned casinos violate the compact of trust between the government and the governed. Worse yet, they run contrary to the hard work and smart choices that are woven into the fabric of our American heritage.

And as my grandpa would probably say, "that just don't smell right."

Posted by Jeffrey L. Syrios, J.D. on August 3, 2007 at 07:31 PM in Culture, Current Events, Politics
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Judge Powell put principle above politics

Sedgwick County, Kansas District Court Judge Anthony Powell's decision to step down from presiding over Dr. George Tiller's criminal abortion case is reassuring as well as encouraging.

Tiller is charged with 19 misdemeanor counts of violating a late-term abortion statute. Nine years ago, Powell was a pro-life legislator who played a relatively minor role in passing the abortion statute Tiller is now charged under. More important, he was an outspoken critic of Tiller's practice.

I cannot speak for Powell. However, I assume he is still pro-life and would prefer to have Tiller's abortion practice shut down altogether. And why wouldn't he? Abortion ends a purposefully created human life, whether it occurs moments after conception or in the last three months of pregnancy. A late-term abortion is particularly heinous not just because of the barbaric procedure, but because the baby killed is generally capable of living outside its mom.

So here we are almost a decade later. The former ardent pro-life legislator is no longer passing laws to limit abortion. He is now presiding as judge over the pre-eminent late-term abortionist in the Western Hemisphere.

Sometimes you cannot help but smile at the movement of Providence.

But at a time when the rule in high-profile cases is judicial activism, Powell carves out the exception. At the very point in his distinguished career of public service, when he sits in the unparalleled position of authority over his greatest moral adversary, Powell chooses principle over politics.

Courts such as the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should take notice at what a responsible judiciarylooks like. This is how a doctrinally passionate court checks itself with integrity.

It is not only West Coast judges, however, that should heed Powell's example. Activists on both sides of the abortion debate can learn something.

Next to truth, the greatest attribute in any moral debate is individual character. The famed Greek philosopher Aristotle believed the key element of persuasion was ethos-the persuasive appeal of one's character. The credibility of one's position flows directly from the understanding of that person's integrity.

Practically speaking, individual character is best demonstrated by the one who recognizes the morality of the means in the light of the truth at the end. In other words, the heart of a man is revealed in his recognition that the journey must be as virtuous as the destination.

At a time when, in the war over life, the most passionate advocates continue to marginalize their positions by inflammatory rhetoric and a denial of the obvious, a standard of conduct arises. A man steps forward who despite his fervent beliefs in the end, takes a principled stand at the means. And from that example we all learn that it is in the decisions steeped in character, that truth can be understood and accepted.

Posted by Jeffrey L. Syrios, J.D. on September 8, 2007 at 08:42 PM in Law
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)