Hurricane Katrina had ripped a devastating swath through the Southeastern US. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens were desperate for any kind of relief. In an effort to aid the hurting masses, media spokesmen appeared on national television urging us to give. This was a time for compassion in a very concrete way.
In one “live” endeavor, Mike Meyers and Kanye West appeared together hoping to prompt us to generosity. But instead of pleading for our financial assistance, Mr. West took a “pot shot” at our President. “Bush doesn’t like blacks,” he proclaimed. From his perspective, the President’s slow response demonstrated his distaste, yea even his hatred, for suffering black Americans in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
I have a few questions. Why is Mr. Bush’s alleged hatred for blacks morally reprehensible, but Mr. West’s obvious hatred for the President morally acceptable? How is one man’s hatred wrong, while another man’s hatred is right? If it’s wrong to hate any class or group of people, how can it be right to hate an individual? Talk about “the pot calling the kettle black.”
Remember King David? The prophet Nathan came to the palace for not only a visit, but a report (2 Samuel 12:1ff). Evidently, a poor shepherd owned a singular lamb (v. 3). The lamb wasn’t a part of a larger flock, it was the family pet. A wealthy neighbor, who owned countless sheep, stole the poor man’s pet and served it up as supper to a guest (v. 4). When David heard what had happened, he was incensed (v. 5)! The mighty king vowed to use the full power of his throne to punish the evildoer (vv. 5-6). But alas, it was David himself who was the wealthy man (v. 7). He had stolen his “neighbor’s” wife, committed adultery with her, then murdered her innocent husband when it looked like his own heinous sin might be exposed.
Mark it down. When a man goes overboard to object to somebody else’s moral failure, he’s probably guilty of the same — or worse, himself.