Nature vs. nurture

By Jeff Long

Recently, a friend and I have been texting about the actions of University of Oklahoma running back Joe Mixon early one morning in 2014.

A horrifying video was released just last month that clearly shows the incident in a campus deli in Norman, Oklahoma. You can call it up instantly on YouTube.

Mixon is considered one of college football's best rushers. Less than two weeks ago, he announced his decision to leave school early to declare himself for this spring's NFL draft.

He almost certainly will be chosen by a team; his talent is unquestionable, although his behavior that long-ago night will diminish the value of any contract he will receive.

He will be seen as a risk, what former Texas Longhorns coach Charlie Strong might call a "bad character" guy.

Here's why: Mixon, on the morning in question, was pushed and slapped by a female student after an exchange of words.

The then-18-year-old athlete responded by hitting the co-ed so hard she dropped like a stone, her face hitting a table, breaking her jaw, eye socket and cheekbone.

In a society where you can go to jail for unpaid parking tickets, disfiguring the appearance of another human being rightly might be seen as worthy of prison. But Mixon didn't face incarceration. He received a deferred sentence and community service.

Oh, and he was suspended for the entire 2014 season.

Mixon says of the prospects of meeting with NFL suitors: "I'm looking for them to get to know the actual me."

I once had a church employee who was fond of saying, "I want you to know my heart," as if somehow a person's actions can be compartmentalized and dismissed as unimportant.

I've not had much patience with that mindset, but perhaps I'm in the minority.

My texting friend is sympathetic to Mixon, telling me he can't imagine the horrible environments in which some of these young men are raised.

This is a classic "nurture" argument.

This is the thinking: he's probably a good kid who grew up in tough circumstances. Maybe he can't help it.

Hm. I find that a tough sell.

St. Paul might -- I say might -- come down on the side of nature: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God" (Romans 3:10-11).

Even from the Old Testament, we get another "nature" proclamation: "... every inclination of the human heart was evil continually" (Genesis 6:5).

The famous pain-wracked admission of David following his horrendous actions in the Bathsheba incident must be inserted at this juncture too: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

What's the answer -- nature or nurture?

We won't solve the puzzle. But I look to our tomcats for some insight.

Hold on, reader! Give this idea a chance!

We have three toms: One was rescued by our daughters from underneath an abandoned building. Another was adopted out of a no-kill shelter.

Both of these toms are interested only in the food we can provide. But the third tom, the oldest, was bottle-fed as a kitten.

Yes, he's interested in food, but he likes to be held by his owners.

It's not affection; I'm not sure cats are capable of that emotion. But he is driven to be close to us, a drive that came not out of nature, but nurture.

He likes to be cuddled because he was held as a tiny tom.

The nurture argument is deeply troublesome because it can seem to excuse violations of universally accepted standards of morality. But I can't go along with the nature argument of St. Paul or King David, either.

Everyone must have at least the chance at redemption.

We can't just completely write people off because of a mistake, even a bad one. But it is very hard to hold nature and nurture in tension.

What would Jesus do? Somehow I think he would be watching and waiting to see what Joe Mixon makes of himself.