Archive | christian living RSS feed for this section
26 Apr

19th Century Origins and the Power of the History of Ideas

23 Mar

“From Chapter 4 of Rosaria Butterfield’s “Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ” (Crown and Covenant Publications, 2015)

The concept of sexual orientation was first used by Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), and its effect, if not intent, was to radically resituate sexuality from its biblical/creational context to something completely new: the foundational drive that determines and defines human identity. Nothing short of personhood was at stake. By defining humanity according to sexual desires and segregating it according to its gendered object, Freud was—intentionally or not—suppressing the biblical category of being made in God’s image, male and female, and replacing it with the psychoanalytic category of sexual identity. In both intent and language usage, Freud took aim at the Bible’s authority to diagnose gender and sexuality dysfunctions and prescribe solutions for them.”

Read the whole thing, from The Aquila Report.

Responding to Death: the case of Lazarus

29 Oct
Vintage Tomb of Lazarus Bethany Israel 1890 Postcard | Zazzle.com

My mother died a few days ago. She was a remarkable godly woman. I’m reflecting on death as a Christian. John 11 comes to mind. How should we respond to death? It is natural and good to mourn the loss of a loved one. In John 11, Lazarus was sick. Lazarus died. Jesus loved Lazarus. Jesus saw the grief to others caused by the death of Lazarus (33). The emotions of the moment overwhelmed him. And so Jesus wept. As fellow humans with Jesus, we can relate. When my mother died, I wept. But I would weep again, hard, when I’d see my brother weep or my children weep. The death of loved ones hurt, even when or if we believe true and comforting things about them. Jesus wept despite believing that Lazarus was in a better place. Jesus wept despite knowing that Lazarus was no longer suffering. He referred to the death of Lazarus as sleep (no suffering, temporary, see verse 11). These Jesus knew both to be true. And still, Jesus wept. He wept because Jesus is human, with all the emotions that come with that. But Jesus also wept because, as God, he knew the meaning of and reason for death. Evil, moral and natural, including death, pain and suffering, is a result of sin brought into the good world that God the Son created in the beginning. So Jesus wept.

But Jesus also comforted those who wept with Him over Lazarus by telling them the purpose of this providential moment. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead; he commanded the stone to be removed and called Lazarus forth from it. By raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus was demonstrating to onlookers that the Son of Man has power over death. Christ, and not death, will have the final word in this fallen world. He had already said to Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus: “Your brother will rise again” (23). Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”

Now notice the second response to death, given here by Martha, believe or trust in Jesus. The resurrection that Jesus performed was not intended to impress, it was not an end in itself, it was not to inspire people to be nice (although raising Lazarus was certainly an act of profound compassion and kindness). So then why did Jesus perform the resurrection? What response did he intend to elicit? Jesus said that God had sovereignly brought about this occasion, the illness and death of Lazarus, “for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it,” and “so that they [ordinary people] may believe you [the Father] sent me.” Jesus raised Lazarus to demonstrate that the Son of God has the power to resurrect dead people, those dead spiritually in their trespasses and sins and those dead physically lying in a tomb. Jesus showed that He can and will reverse the consequences of sin, spiritual and physical death. He is the “resurrection and the life” and all those who believe in Him will live an abundant life forever. How does he do this? He brings life to others by laying down his own life for them. Later in the passage, it is Caiaphas the High Priest, who gets it, albeit unwittingly, when he says to the others concerning the plot to kill Jesus (50-53): “it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.”

I once had a young person tell me that the purpose of Jesus in the world, and any miracles he may have performed, was mainly to inspire people to be nice to one another. But is that what Jesus says was his purpose here? If Jesus only had the goal of inspiring human kindness, no one would have responded with resentment. But some did. They understand what the the resurrection of Lazarus meant. It meant, as Jesus had been teaching, that man’s only hope to escape the clutches of everlasting death was faith in Christ Himself. This drove some to believe but others to plot (45). Are you a believer or plotter? He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

Can political liberalism and religious liberty (accommodation) coexist?

29 Apr

Can political liberalism and religious liberty (accommodation) coexist?

Similar argument made in Smith’s game-changing book Pagan and Christian in the City: “The Supreme Court might soon address this issue. Four Supreme Court justices (led by Justice Samuel Alito) began 2019 by suggesting their willingness to revisit a landmark decision with stark views on this question. In the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith, a five-justice majority (led by Justice Antonin Scalia) made it virtually impossible to secure, under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, religious-based exemptions to laws that apply to everyone and do not overtly or covertly discriminate against religion (what lawyers call “neutral laws of general applicability”). The Smith decision presumes a deep tension between religious exercise and the common good. In Smith’s view, the democratic process must almost always resolve that tension. Courts, therefore, almost always deny religious accommodation requests. Justice Alito and his colleagues, however, said Smith “drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause,” and effectively invited requests to reverse it.

Revisiting Smith possesses significant cultural salience. Many of today’s progressives, conservatives, and libertarians share — knowingly or not — Smith’s critical shortcoming: a failure to explain why religion in particular and religious exercise in particular should shape the common good, even when they go against the grain of secular visions adopted in law. Revisiting Smith provides an opening to address this shortcoming. The Court should take it, as this oversight puts the American tradition of self-government at stake.

Smith and many elements of the modern American left and right possess this shortcoming because they evaluate the social worth of religious pluralism against some set of liberal values that, in their view, should supersede religious duties. For Smith, the superseding value is majoritarianism: Religious pluralism is good when democratic majorities decide it is worth their solicitude. For progressives, religious pluralism is good to the extent it supports what law professor Mark Movsesian calls “equality as sameness.” Any religious practice, institution, or tradition that understands equality differently is publicly unacceptable. For some conservatives and libertarians, religious pluralism is good simply because self-expression is good. On this view, religious liberty deserves protection simply because self-expression deserves protection — nothing particular to religion here does any work. Finally, for other conservatives who dispute that the common good is served by diverse religious expression, religious liberty is part of the common good only to the extent it establishes a particular religion’s orthodoxy.

It is not surprising that what Stanford’s Michael McConnell called “the most thoroughly liberal political community in the history of the world” would strive to define even religion around liberal ideals — but it is problematic. Liberal democracy, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed, is “particularly liable to commit itself blindly and extravagantly to general ideas.” This is partly because liberalism is, as Samuel Huntington put it in Conservatism as an Ideology, an “ideational” ideology. It “approach[es] existing institutions with an ‘ought demand’ that the institutions be reshaped to embody the values of the ideology.” This “ought demand” is present in social-contract theory, and it poses a particular problem for religious liberty. More often than not, religious exercise is manifested in rituals and institutions that are prior to — and claim to outlast — political liberalism. Reshaping religious exercise around liberal values can therefore dilute religion.

The consequences of dilution are not limited to religion. As our founders recognized, diluting religious exercise poses a problem for political liberalism; self-government presupposes certain moral virtues that religion cultivates and liberalism does not. In a culture that does not appreciate a distinct contribution from religious exercise, engagement with religion, both personally and in public life will erode — along with the corresponding cultivation of religious exercise’s personal and public goods.”

Read the rest from National Affairs (and definitely read Smith’s book Pagan and the Christian in the City).  Smith argues that there has been and always will be a vying for supremacy between the transcendent religion of Christianity and the immanent religion of modern paganism.  Compromises in the name of political liberalism are at best short-lived and at worst preferential towards modern paganism.  Any worldview that finds meaning and purpose and epistemological grounding in this world rather than another will always marginalize the transcendent religionists to the outer periphery of society (it’s a logical necessity of sorts).

Let’s Not Miss Solomon’s Point These Days…

8 Apr

Engraving by Gustave Dore (1832-1883)

No photo description available.

Let’s not miss Solomon’s sober discovery these days:

Ecclesiastes 2:1 “I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.” But that also proved to be meaningless. 2 “Laughter,” I said, “is madness. And what does pleasure accomplish?” 3 I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly—my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was good for people to do under the heavens during the few days of their lives.

4 I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired male and female singers, and a harem as well—the delights of a man’s heart. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.

10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my labor,
and this was the reward for all my toil.
11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun.”

It is becoming clearer to me, thanks in part to this virus, how looking for satisfaction in a life focused totally on that which is “under the sun” is pointless. It’s time to focus on what is beyond the sun instead, for “what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?” (Mark 8:36). Best to store up for ourselves “treasures in heaven” (Matt. 6:19-21) where moth and thief (and viruses) can not destroy or rob us of that “pearl of great price” (Matt. 13:46). Augustine got where Solomon was coming from when he wrote in his Confessions, “Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee.” Time is fleeting in this mortal life; better to believe, realize and experience what the true “chief end of man” is now rather than later (or never). Beats chasing after the wind.

 

Dr. David Ayers’s study on Evangelical Youth and Sexual Activity

30 Oct

Length to full study

Interview with the Gospel Coalition

Despite the clear biblical instruction, sex outside of marriage has become increasingly morally acceptable among young evangelicals. That’s one of the findings in a new research brief for the Institute of Family Studies produced by sociologist David J. Ayers, interim provost and vice president for academic affairs, and professor of sociology, at Grove City College. He uses data from the National Survey of Family Growth to gauge trends in sexual activity among never-married evangelical young people.

Ayers has taught college-level courses on Marriage and Family for about 30 years, and his most recent book is Christian Marriage: A Comprehensive Introduction (Lexham Press, 2019).

Clearly, there is a sense in which men and women are not equals sociologically

29 Aug

Excerpt from Glen Stanton at First Things:

Anthropologists have long recognized that the most fundamental social problem every community must solve is the unattached male. If his sexual, physical, and emotional energies are not governed and directed in a pro-social, domesticated manner, he will become the village’s most malignant cancer. Wives and children, in that order, are the only successful remedy ever found. Military service is a very distant second. Nobel Prize winning economist George Akerlof explains that “men settle down when they get married; if they fail to marry, they fail to settle down,” because “with marriage, men take on new identities that change their behavior.” This does not seem to work with same-sex male couples in long-term relationships.

Husbands and fathers become better, safer, more responsible and productive citizens, unrivaled by their peers in any other relational status. Husbands become better mates, treating their wives better by every important measure—physical and emotional safety, financial and material provision, personal respect, fidelity, general self-sacrifice, etc.—compared to boyfriends, whether dating or cohabiting. Husbands and fathers enjoy significantly lower health, life, and auto insurance premiums than do their single peers, for a strictly pragmatic reason. Insurance companies are not sentimental about husbands. Husbands get lower premiums because they are different creatures in terms of habits, values, behavior, and general health.

This is why Golding’s Lord of the Flies is a tale not so much about the dark nature of humanity as about the isolation of the masculine from the feminine. Had there been just a few confident girls amongst those boys, its conclusion might have been more Swiss Family Robinson

Whole thing here.

How the disciples encourage preachers, teachers and parents

9 Aug

Bishop JC Ryle on John 2: “the Jewish leaders responded, “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken.”

We see in this passage, how men may remember words of religious truth long after they are spoken, and may one day see a meaning in those who at first they did not see.

We are told that our Lord said to the Jews, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” John informs us distinctly that “He spoke of the temple of His body,” that he referred to His own resurrection. Yet the meaning of the sentence was not understood by our Lord’s disciples at the time that it was spoken. It was not until “He was risen from the dead,” three years after the events here described, that the full significance of the sentence flashed on their hearts. For three years it was a dark and useless saying to them. For three years it lay sleeping in their minds, like a seed in a tomb, and bore no fruit. But at the end of that time the darkness passed away. They saw the application of their Master’s words, and as they saw it were confirmed in their faith. “They remembered that He had said this,” and as they remembered “they believed.”

It is a comfortable and cheering thought, that the same kind of thing that happened to the disciples is often going on at the present day. The sermons that are preached to apparently heedless ears in churches, are not all lost and thrown away. The instruction that is given in schools and pastoral visits, is not all wasted and forgotten. The texts that are taught by parents to children are not all taught in vain. There is often a resurrection of sermons, and texts, and instruction, after an interval of many years. The good seed sometimes springs up after he that sowed it has been long dead and gone. Let preachers go on preaching, and teachers go on teaching, and parents go on training up children in the way they should go. Let them sow the good seed of Bible truth in faith and patience. Their labor is not in vain in the Lord. Their words are remembered far more than they think, and will yet spring up “after many days.” (1 Cor. 15:58; Eccles. 11:1.)

Evangelicals, the Kingdom of God, and Donald Trump

7 Jun

Perhaps the ‪#‎NeverTrump‬ debate among evangelicals may in fact boil down to this: should evangelicals be more worried about the nation or the church, the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of this world? Let’s be clear, voting for Trump, however purely strategic it happens to be, will result in a pro-Trump label for evangelicals (that’s how it will be uncharitably spun). So, how detrimental, shameful, consequential, to the church or kingdom of Jesus Christ will that be? If they reason it won’t be all that detrimental for the cause of Christ and reputation of his church, then a strategic choice to defeat Hillary may be prudent though painful. But if they think that it will be highly detrimental, then they will reason that a Hillary defeat gains little compared to the “mark of Trump” the church will have to bear in the aftermath of the election. Whatever an evangelical does, it seems to me that too few of them are worried about the heavenly kingdom’s reputation and goals and are singularly focused instead on the kingdom of this world.

 

Do Christian colleges have a right to be Christian colleges?

5 May

From Adam Macleod:

Gordon College is still under attack for being an intentionally Christian college. For nearly two years, cultural elites in Massachusetts, led by The Boston Globe, have been waging a sustained campaign of accusation and coercion in an effort to force the college to abandon the self-consciously Christian identity expressed in its life and conduct statement.

The attack appeared existential at one time, when the New England Association of Schools and Colleges announced that it would review Gordon’s accreditation. Yet to its lasting credit, the college has remained steadfast in its witness. After a well-organized and vocal objection by the college’s supportersand other friends of conscience, the NEASC quietly backed down.

Still the attacks continue. Most recently, a former Gordon philosophy professor, Lauren Barthold, has filed suit against Gordon alleging unlawful discrimination. Her complaint is signed by lawyers of the American Civil Liberties Union. The college denies her allegations, explaining that she was disciplined by her colleagues on the faculty not on a legally prohibited basis but because she wrote in a newspaper calling for outsiders to impose economic sanctions on the college. She encouraged others to pressure the college to abandon its Christian moral ideals.

The ACLU’s complaint does not contradict that account. And if recent history is any indication, the full facts will vindicate Gordon College once they surface. None of the accusations leveled against Gordon over the last two years has turned out to be true, except the charge that members of the Gordon College community choose to live biblically. Gordon has not discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, Professor Barthold acknowledges the “many . . . LGBTQ-identified students who have found deep friendships, intellectual growth and spiritual support [at Gordon].”

So, this case is not about Gordon discriminating. This case is about Gordon’s right to be excellent in ways that other Massachusetts colleges and universities are not. The issue is whether Massachusetts courts will preserve the liberty of Gordon’s faculty, staff, and students to maintain an educational community that is unique in its moral commitments. On this point Gordon College can claim an unlikely ally. If the judges of Massachusetts read the writings of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then they will learn that Gordon College has the right to be differently excellent.

The Constitutional Right to Exclude

In its 2010 decision in the case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Supreme Court of the United States declared and upheld the right of a state university to discriminate against unwanted student groups by excluding them from campus life. The unwanted student groups in Martinez were (who else?) religious groups that require members to live according to moral truths.

Read the rest

What does the Christian church really face after Obergefell?

22 Apr

From Jake Meador:

Hope, History, and the American Church After Obergefell
It’s a truth universally recognized by anyone who has ever talked about the BenOp that a person who expresses concern about the church’s future is in want of a person to quote Tertullian at them.

Sorry, is that cheeky? Here’s the quote and we’ll get to why it grates on my hear so in a moment: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”

The problem isn’t that Tertullian is always wrong. The problem is that this quote has become a sort of truism reflexively recited by American evangelicals who can only imagine that government-sanctioned opposition to the church will be a good thing for the American church. And while there will likely be some benefits to come from opposition, it’s essential that evangelicals not be overly sanguine about the American church’s short-term prospects.

The Historical Precedent for the Death of Regional Churches

The first point we need to get clear is that, historically speaking, it is simply not true that persecution always helps to strengthen and refine the church. Sometimes persecution simply destroys a church. Once upon a time there were thriving churches in northern Africa, the Middle East, China, and Japan. Then they died. (You can read about them in this fine book by Philip Jenkins.)

Those churches were all either destroyed (in the latter cases) or driven to the very edge of society (in the case of the two former groups). Indeed, what little remained of the historic churches of the Middle East has been largely eradicated by ISIS.

Thus we need to first figure out why these churches were destroyed or simply made into permanent extreme minorities. There are a number of factors in play:

In some cases, the church was closely tied to a ruling elite and when that elite was overthrown the church lost its standing and was crushed.
In other cases, the faith was actually only professed by a small minority of social elites and never penetrated into the mass population.

Finally, in still other cases, Christian identity has become conflated with a set of other characteristics or cultural values which, over time, erode the distinctly Christian characteristics of a people. So there is still a superficial Christianity, but it is badly compromised by its close ties to nationalism. Greece is a good example of this as somewhere between 88 and 98% of the population profess to be Greek Orthodox but only 27% of those people actually attend church weekly. Elsewhere in Europe the numbers are even more dire. In Denmark, 80% of the population is Lutheran but only 3% attend any kind of church service weekly. This critique also applies to cities and states in the USA that are historically Catholic, such as Chicago or Boston. The gap between those who claim to adhere to a specific faith and those who attend church weekly is enormous.
What all this means is that there are a number of conditions that have historically caused local churches to crumble and regional churches to disappear or lapse into a kind of permanent minority status. And the key thing to get clear is that this is very much a live possibility in the United States.

Read the rest

Church, FOR God, BY God. Reformed vs Evangelical Worship

8 Apr

It seems that the “church is for the unchurched” crowd in evangelicalism gets things exactly backwards. The priority seems to be to design church/worship around what is pleasing to the unchurched, then the churched, then God, sadly in that order. Shouldn’t it be exactly the reverse? Shouldn’t church be designed FOR God (what pleases Him) and BY God (according to His biblical methodology)? What does the bible say? What are the dangers of doing church according to our own designs?

Calvin: First, it tends greatly to establish God’s authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions.”

Robert Godfrey has a helpful, fair, and accurate description of what separates Reformed worship from mainstream evangelical worship in this short essay (excerpt below).

One of the challenges of being Reformed in America is to figure out the relationship between what is evangelical and what is Reformed. Protestantism in America is dominated by the mainline Protestants, the evangelicals, and the charismatics. After these dominant groups, other major players would include the confessional Lutherans. But where do the Reformed fit in, particularly in relation to the evangelicals, with whom historically we have been most closely linked?

Some observers argue that the confessional Reformed are a subgroup in the broader evangelical movement. Certainly over the centuries in America, the Reformed have often allied themselves with the evangelicals, have shared much in common with the evangelicals, and have often tried to refrain from criticizing the evangelical movement. But are we Reformed really evangelical?

One area in which the differences between evangelical and Reformed can be examined is the matter of worship. At first glance, we may see more similarities than differences. The orders of worship in Reformed and evangelical churches can be almost identical. Certainly, both kinds of churches sing songs, read Scripture, pray, preach, and administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But do these similarities reflect only formal agreement, or do they represent a common understanding of the meaning and function of these liturgical acts in worship?

If we look closely, I believe that we will see the substantive differences between evangelicals and Reformed on worship. That difference is clear on two central issues: first, the understanding of the presence of God in the service; and second, the understanding of the ministerial office in worship.

Ex-Lesbian Rosario Butterfield on How evangelicals should engage homosexuals

8 Apr

You don’t need a megachurch to go to heaven

10 Mar

From Hans Fiene @ The Federalist:

If you’re a parent trying to give your child the best education possible, I would worry about teacher quality and your own involvement in your little one’s intellectual development before I’d worry about class size. I’m not saying that having 19 children per room isn’t preferable to 23. I’m just saying that the student-to-teacher ratio won’t matter a tremendous amount if your son’s teacher thinks four plus twelve equals purple or you want your kid to memorize the chronology of WWE champions instead of U.S. presidents.

So if little Bryden (because that’s what boys are named these days, in case you hadn’t already given up on humanity) has a bit of an overcrowded class, but a solid teacher and great support from you, don’t let anybody convince you that you’re selfishly endangering his education if you don’t turn your life upside down by moving to a slightly less-congested school district.
Likewise, if you’re a Christian parent trying to give your child the best spiritual formation possible, don’t let anyone convince you that you’re selfish for not making the size of a congregation your number one priority. In particular, don’t let megachurch pastor Andy Stanley convince you that you’re endangering your child’s soul if you don’t attend a large congregation.

If you’re a bit confused by Stanley’s accusation (one that, to his credit, he quickly recanted), here’s what he meant: Making friends at church is what keeps people in the faith, and the more kids your church has, the more opportunities your children will have to make friends. Therefore, if you attend a congregation that only has enough kids for a joint middle school/high school youth group, you’re reducing your kids’ friend-making potential and thus putting them at risk.

It doesn’t matter if the local megachurch’s Christology is wonky enough to keep you at a smaller parish or if the mid-sized flock you belong to is where you and your kids were both baptized and confirmed, apparently. To Stanley, it would be better for you to have a millstone hung around your neck and be thrown into the sea than that you should cause your freshman to share a bag of Doritos and a TeenzAlive! Study Bible with a seventh grader.

Read the rest

I don’t recognize my church anymore, but no one cares.

7 Mar

In his book, Worshiping with Calvin, Terry Johnson writes about contemporary worship.  He has much to say on the matter (how it displaces us from our common heritage, fails to unite all of God’s people in worship, distracts and entertains, ignores, reduces and oversimplifies theological content, etc.).  But he also points out that it leaves many worshipers behind and marginalized.  He writes:

From 1975 to 2000 Chuck Fromm was the head of Maranatha Music in Costa Mesa, CA, the birthplace and source of the contemporary genre in the early 1970s…. [Fromm explains how Christian Rock resonated with him in a special way, as the music of his people and his culture, rather than something he felt came from a “different universe and imported.”]  Much as Fromm’s testimony resonates, it is also rich with irony.  He seems not to recognize that the church music environment that was a “different universe” from what he calls “my culture,” was in fact a familiar and comfortable culture for many others.  What he came to reject, many others continued to embrace and love.  For some, their familiar and comfortable church culture had deep roots, reaching back to the Protestant Reformers to the early church.  At the same time, the importation of his culture into the church was inevitably deeply alienating to those in the church for whom it was new and foreign.  How many times have we heard older people say, “I do not recognize my church anymore.”  After forty years (or even 450 years) of relative sameness they walked into their church service one Sunday, saw a “praise band” up front, heard strange music played with non-traditional instruments (electric guitars, drums, tambourines, etc.), and were profoundly disoriented and disturbed by the experience.  If they dared to express concern, they were cautioned not to obstruct the progress of the gospel.  The church, it was explained, was reaching the unchurched.  They soon learned that the only people to whom the church cared to minister the gospel were young people, or so it seemed.  Apparently older people, who were put off by the new, did not need gospel ministry.  Sot it was in with the youth culture, and out with whatever preceded it.”

Why Boys Need Mommies

3 Feb

Good one from Tim Challies:

Thinking back, I wonder if people thought I was a bit of a mama’s boy. I grew up in a stable home and loved and respected both of my parents. I regularly spent time with each of them. But I was always closer to my mother. If this was true when I was young, it was even more pronounced when I was a teenager. In those years I was a boy, a young man, who needed his mom.

Boys need their dads, we know that. Boys need their dads to model masculinity, to model the love and affection they ought to have for a woman, to teach them the kind of life skills they will need. Girls need their dads too. They need their dads to protect them, to be affectionate with them and in that way to display healthy physical boundaries. They need their dads to hold the boys at bay and, eventually, to give their blessing to that special one. Girls need their moms. They need their moms to model femininity, to teach and train them to be women, to model patience and wisdom. Books, blogs, and sermon illustrations abound for each of these relationships. But what about boys and their moms?

Read it all

Why was Fire Chief Kevin Cochran really fired?

17 Nov

From the Wall Street Journal

Kelvin Cochran has led a remarkable life by any standard. He was born into a poor family in Shreveport, La., in 1960 that became even poorer after his father walked out and left his mother to raise six children alone. “After he left, we couldn’t afford to live in the projects anymore,” he once told an interviewer.

Mr. Cochran aspired to be a firefighter from age 5, and he eventually was appointed Shreveport’s first black fire chief in 1999. In 2008 he became the fire chief of Atlanta. And In 2009 President Obama appointed him U.S. fire administrator, the top position in the profession.

At the urging of Democratic Mayor Kasim Reed, Mr. Cochran returned to his post in Atlanta in 2010 and continued to impress. In 2012, after more than 30 years of service, he was given a Fire Chief of the Year Award by Fire Chief magazine. In a related press release, the mayor’s office said that “under Chief Cochran’s leadership, the department has seen dramatic improvements in response times and staffing.” Mr. Reed added: “Chief Cochran’s pioneering efforts to improve performance and service within the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department have won him much-deserved national recognition.”

But a year ago, Mr. Cochran was suspended for 30 days without pay, pending an investigation into his behavior. On Jan. 6, at the end of the suspension, Mr. Reed sacked him. Mr. Cochran’s fireable offense, according to the city, was publishing a book in violation of the city’s ethics code and without permission from the mayor. The reality, according to a lawsuit filed in response to the firing, is that Mr. Cochran no longer has his $172,000-a-year job because of what’s in the book. The suit accuses the city of firing Mr. Cochran for his religious beliefs.

It turns out that when he’s not fighting fires, Mr. Cochran spends a lot of time helping black men turn their lives around and stay out of trouble. He does this under the auspices of Atlanta’s Elizabeth Baptist Church, where he is a deacon and leads a men’s bible study.

Mr. Cochran self-published a book in 2013, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” The book, written on his own time, is a compilation of lesson plans for his bible classes and explains how the teachings of Christ can help men fulfill their purpose as responsible husbands and fathers. What earned the ire of Atlanta officials is that the 162-page tome includes a few passages criticizing homosexual conduct as “perversion.”

In response to the lawsuit, the city has maintained that Mr. Cochran was terminated for violating protocol, not for his religious views—as if he would have been fired for publishing a cookbook. But comments from the mayor and other city officials at the time of the suspension suggest that the book’s content is what drove the decision.

“I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran’s book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration’s work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all of her citizens—regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race and religious beliefs,” said Mr. Reed. Alex Wan, a member of the City Council who is openly gay, said “I respect each individual’s right to have their own thoughts, beliefs and opinions, but when you’re a city employee, and those thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”

So the mayor fired someone who disagreed with him in the name of inclusivity and tolerance. And Mr. Wan believes that government employees are entitled to their own views but not entitled to share them with anyone. If this is true, the Constitution’s protections of free speech and freedom of religion are meaningless in practice.

David Cortman of Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal group representing Mr. Cochran, says the city is now using protocol arguments to cover its tracks after wrongly terminating someone for holding and expressing religious views that city officials didn’t like. There is no official requirement to notify the mayor before you write a book, Mr. Cortman told me, and Mr. Cochran sought and received permission from the city’s ethics department to pursue the book project.

“The ethics rule concerns moonlighting, other employment or outside work,” said Mr. Cortman. “It doesn’t apply to writing a book, religious or otherwise, on your own time at home. And if they had such a rule in place it would be unconstitutional. You don’t need the government’s permission to do that.”

Despite the left’s efforts to paint Mr. Cochran as some kind of hateful bigot, the city’s own investigation of the former fire chief’s work history found no complaints of discrimination.

Many Americans—and polls show their numbers growing—don’t agree with Mr. Cochran about sexual behavior or same-sex marriage, but all Americans have a stake in religious freedom. Consider: Would it be OK for a mayor who holds traditional views on marriage to fire an employee who wrote a book that expressed support for same-sex marriage?

“Our nation was founded on the principle that everyone should be free to not just believe what they want, but to live their lives according to those beliefs,” said Mr. Cochran in a statement last month following a court hearing. “I’m here today not just for myself, but for every religious person in America who does not want to live in fear of facing termination for expressing their faith.”

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).

original link

Deep down, men and women like and need chivalry

6 Nov

From Jeffrey Tucker:

Daniel Craig, the star behind the smash hit James Bond movies, was asked what he likes most about his classic character.

“He’s a considerate person … and he looks out for other people,” he told RedBulletin.com.

This is one reason we love Bond. He has a problem with misogyny, true, but his outward behavior toward women is chivalrous. It stands out in a time when manners are rarely on display, and the culture’s obsession with “equality” has misled men into thinking they have no ritual obligations toward women.

Read it all

Thy shalt not bow to the gods of the culture. Living faithfully in Babylon. Great chapel sermon by Mike Kruger.

22 Oct

http://player.subsplash.com/650f428

“Uh, I’m, like, a Christian, but I…” (If I had a nickel)

23 Sep

More Lutheran Satire:

How comprehensive does God intend gender complementarity to be? Cherney: “Are Women Real?”

16 Sep

Most evangelicals are gender complementarians (equal but different). But some limit that complementarity to the church and home. But how comprehensive does God intend gender complimentarity to be? Thorny issue on which reasonable Christians disagree. Here is one take.

“From Lily Cherney (Are Women Real?):

Growing up as a secular person, as a materialist, I didn’t have any category in my world for the existence of real categories, of “natures.” All was one, or all was bits and pieces, or whatever—it was all just matter in motion. The idea that there is some real thing called human nature, and moreover that it gets even more complicated than that and there is a feminine nature and a masculine nature—those were supernatural ideas, as floridly and extravagantly supernatural as unicorns or resurrections or Narnia. That they also, strangely, matched my actual experience of the world more accurately than the materialist story—that they seemed to come with better evidence—was… spooky.”

Read it all

Five Christian millennial errors

15 Sep

From John Reid:

Disclaimer: While most of my material is soft in delivery, there is a time and a place for a strict and assertive approach. I found this to be an appropriate time for such.

Recently a video went viral with a message about what Christians are not. Typical trendy rhetoric followed that while perhaps had good intentions in breaking down the barrier between the Church and the world, the message was very problematic: “I’m a Christian and I’m queer. I’m a Christian and I like Beyonce.” A very well written critique to the video can be found here.This piece is not a critique of the video but rather a holistic response to young Christian millennials who often sacrifice their Christian values for the sake of being relevant to the world. I will remind you, oh beloved children of God, that Jesus himself said that the world will hate you because of your love for Him. You can love the world like Jesus loves the world and still be hated. It’s not your fault, so don’t change your method. Your advocacy for Christ should never come at the expense of your relationship with Him. Here are 5 ways that many Christian millennials are hurting their delivery of the gospel to a world that desperately needs it.

1) Tolerance
Tolerance flies in the face of the gospel because it is apathetic both to brokenness and holiness, and when we don’t recognize our brokenness then we will never recognize our need for holiness…and thus Jesus becomes, at best, superfluous. Millennials have it in their minds that hating people’s sin means hating the individual. This message is due in part to the liberal media but many young Christian millennials sing the same tune. Instead of hating sin for the separation that it causes between us and God, they accept the sins of others in the name of “loving them for who they are.”

But the problem with that is when we accept people for who they want to be, we neglect the people that Jesus made them to be.

Jesus was the prime example of love, but never does He display an ounce of tolerance. (see: Jesus, The Epitome of Intolerance) Indeed the cross was proof of His intolerance. What type of tolerance prompts a king to step off his throne to die for his people? Tolerance was never part of the story! The gospel does not boast “come as you are, stay as you are” but rather “come as you are TO BE RESTORED!”

We don’t get to make up the narrative here, folks! The story has already been written- and it is beautiful!

2) Neglecting Theology
Consider the etymology of the word theology; theo- God, logy-study: the study of God. A trendy message among young Christians these days is “theology is good, but loving like Jesus is better.” The problem here is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Not only are they not mutually exclusive but rather they are dependent on each other. The more we know Jesus, the more we love Him and the more we love Him the more we want to know Him and so the cycle continues. Our desire to know him (theology) should be an implication for our love for Him. And the more this continues the more we will desire to live like Him and thus love His people AS HE loves them.

You wouldn’t show your love for a spouse simply by how you talk about them, you’d show your love by knowing them, spending time with them, and serving them.

But when theology is neglected, the ramifications are made known in the way we treat others. Even with a Christian label we only love on them with a wishy washy love that promotes no agenda for change and restoration. When theology is neglected Christian millennials succumb to weak cultural ideas and defective scriptural interpretation such as “Jesus just said to love people, so why should we be opposed to gay marriage?” and “the Bible says not to judge, so don’t tell me that I shouldn’t be sleeping with my boyfriend!” when the Bible actually tells Christians to judge each other (Matthew 7:24, I Corinthians 5:9-13). A good theology will inform the individual that not only are they wrong in their sin, but that Jesus wants so much MORE for them; more joy, purity and intimacy with Him.

Read the other 3

“How The Gospel Ended My Same-Sex Relationship”

11 Sep

From Anonymous at For the Church:

I just want to tell a little of my story, with the hope that maybe someone out there will hear me differently than so many of the aforementioned sound bites circulating right now. Warning: You may not like the way my story turns out. You may feel sorry for me, or even be angry with me. You may feel flustered that my story doesn’t fit nicely into a theological box that you would like to keep nice and tidy. You may hate the advice I have to give, but please know that what I share is coming from a place of love and concern. Prayerfully, I’ll even encourage someone out there.

So…here it goes.

I am a Christian, one who believes that what the Bible says about sexuality is of great importance. I’m also someone who was in a same-sex relationship for many years, even as I claimed Christ. For a long time these were the two things that defined me.

There are lots of us out there actually, even in the most conservative of churches. Most often we don’t talk about it, but today I will, because I want you to know that there is a story contrary to the one heard on repeat in the media every day.

Read the rest

Anti-Evangelical Bigotry in Academia; by the numbers

31 Aug

From ARDA:

The one finding I would most like to share after more than a quarter-century of traveling throughout this country reporting on issues of faith is how similar people are in their basic desires and ambitions.

Talk to people of faith of all ages in any region of the U.S., and what they are basically searching for is a sense of transcendent meaning that provides hope, optimism and purpose in the face of the struggles associated with being human.

They want to become better versions of themselves, more caring and loving friends, neighbors, parents and spouses. And they see in their faith both the support networks and community rituals and the interior resources such as prayer and meditation a path to a better life.

Yet there remains a disconnect in popular culture, and in many media and academic settings, between the preoccupation with the most radically polarizing figures speaking in the name of religion and what goes on in your neighborhood church, synagogue or mosque.

That disconnect would be comical if it were not so damaging to some of our most vulnerable populations.

So why do we have so many signs of becoming an increasingly polarized nation, where we are willing to apply negative stereotypes to entire groups of people, whether they are atheists or evangelicals, Muslims or blacks?

It is not because such indiscriminate attitudes have a strong basis in science. Behavioral and social scientists increasingly are finding evidence of how individual characteristics – a person’s image of God, the depth of their prayer lives, the number of friends they have in a congregation – transcend faith categories in predicting the impact of religion in people’s lives.

A recent study indicating widespread bias toward conservative Christians by college and university teachers provides some possible answers.

The unpleasant truth supported by this and other research: It is easier to judge people we do not know, and inhibitions about expressing prejudice tend to fall away if enough of your colleagues have the same beliefs.

Selective bias

Those who teach in higher education are relatively OK with some religious groups, according to a study based on a 2012 online national survey that drew 464 complete responses.

Asked to assess religious groups on a “feeling thermometer” of 1 to 100, Jewish people, mainline Protestants and Catholics all achieved an average score of 65 or higher, researchers led by University of North Texas sociologist George Yancey reported in an online article in the journal Sociology of Religion.

Next to the bottom, just slightly above fundamentalists, were Protestant evangelicals with an average score of 48.

Based on the rankings and other survey responses, researchers Yancey, Sam Reiner and Jake O’Connell classified nearly half of the participants as “conservative Protestant critics,” those with negative attitudes toward evangelicals.

The greatest sin of evangelicals: A perceived intolerance toward the academic critics own political views and belief systems.

“They tend to be intolerant of others with different points of view or political positions,” one health care professor said. An English professor said evangelicals were attempting “to change the U.S. from a secular to a religious state.”

In contrast, just 17 percent of the academic respondents were classified as “theological definers,” a group describing conservative Protestants in more neutral, academic terms.

Substituting hostility with more scholarly assessments made a major difference in attitudes, researchers noted.

Thus, while critics gave evangelicals an average score of 41 on the feeling thermometer, theological definers gave an average score of 63.

Bias is easy

Of course, bias among majority groups or those with higher degrees of status, power and influence is not limited to any one social or professional group.

Just how much we judge many minority groups is easily seen in national surveys where atheists and Muslims tend to fall toward the bottom in terms of trust and acceptance.

The work of Yancey and other researchers, however, is helping to provide a greater understanding for such polarization.

For example, the study of academic attitudes toward conservative Protestants suggests some more universal grounds for bias:

They are not like us: Research has indicated academics in general are less religious and more politically liberal than most Americans, and that conservative Protestants are substantially underrepresented on university faculty. Conservative Protestants are also viewed as being less educated and low status, separate from the elite status aspired to by many academics in higher education. In several ways, conservative Protestants may be considered the “quintessential out-group for academics,” Yancey, Reimer and O’Connell noted.

Don’t know them, don’t want to know them: In the study, the harshest academic critics of conservative Protestants were the ones with the least contact, and least likely to seek to establish relationships with evangelicals. Those who took a more neutral academic approach were most likely to have evangelicals in their social network.

“Despite bad press, my (many) dealings with evangelical Protestants remind me that most of those with whom I’ve worked sincerely try to lead lives marked with loving kindness and good will,” one “theological definer” reported..

Easy to pick on, harder to defend: The study also found academic critics felt free to use harsh, emotional language when describing conservative Protestants; more neutral observers largely confined themselves to academic, dispassionate assessments. The open hostility of critics “may produce a silencing effect which keeps conservative Protestants ‘in the closet,’” study researchers said.

Another set of new studies suggests that belonging to a tightly knit and unified group not only tends to legitimize prejudice against others, but also gives permission to be openly hostile to those opposed by a majority of their own group.

Membership in a group where bias is acceptable appears to give individuals a license to “express prejudices they would otherwise keep to themselves,” researchers from the London Business School and New York University reported.

The good news is attitudes can change.

But change requires humility.

And intellectual humility, the ability to understand the limits of one’s own knowledge and to be open to new ways of understanding, seems to be in short supply, even, or perhaps in some cases especially, among academics.

Image by David Keddie at English Wikipedia [Public Domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Image by DaKohlmeyer, Trinity Evangelical Free Church [CC BY-NC 2.0]

How did Christians lose their position in the academy?

29 Jul

From Mathew Tuninga:

Rosaria Butterfield was a professor of women’s studies who specialized in Queer Theory at Syracuse University. A practicing lesbian, she was an activist in the gay and lesbian community until she converted to Christianity in 1999. She is now a Reformed Presbyterian.

Given such a story, you might expect Butterfield to have an interesting perspective on the relationship between Christians and the academy. And you will not be disappointed. Only seven pages into her book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, Butterfield declares that she maintains her appreciation for the university and her respect for feminism:

Although I live my life now for Christ and Christ alone, I do not find myself in like-minded company when my fellow Christians bemoan the state of the university today. Feminism has a better reputation than Christianity at all major U.S. universities and this fact really bothers (and confuses) many Christians…

But how has the church responded to this truth? Too often the church sets itself up as a victim of this paradigm shift in America, but I think this is dishonest. Here’s what I think happened: Since all major U.S. universities had Christian roots, too many Christians thought that they could rest in Christian tradition, not Christian relevance.

These words accurately capture many Christians’ bewilderment about what has taken place during the past few decades. The academy, leading the culture, has abandoned Christian teaching about gender and sexual ethics wholesale. Not only are sexual promiscuity and divorce widely accepted, not only have traditional gender roles been widely jettisoned, but the very normativity of sexual complementarity has lots its persuasive power. And it has lost persuasive power not only to a few fringe radicals in the academy, mind you, but to the very people who determine the highest law of the land. Christians are not shocked because they do not expect to witness evil in this life. They are shocked because these developments defy what Christians think are the most basic common sense assumptions possible about the differences between male and female.

Butterfield’s words confirm what many Christians are only beginning to realize. Our worldview – our moral paradigm – is not nearly as intuitive or persuasive as we have imagined it to be. The authority of our churches and our sacred texts is nowhere nearly as widely respected as we thought it was. We are quite out of touch. We have not been engaged. We have been resting on the laurels of more than a thousand years of Christendom. As Butterfield puts it,

Too often the church does not know how to interface with university culture because it comes to the table only ready to moralize and not dialogue. There is a core difference between sharing the gospel with the lost and imposing a specific moral standard on the unconverted. Like it or not, in the court of public opinion, feminists and not Bible-believing Christians have won the war of intellectual integrity.

A few points jump out at me from Butterfield’s reflections.

1) Attempting to impose our moral framework on American law is not the same as being engaged in the nation’s moral conversation. We have too often confused political activism with thoughtful engagement. If we can’t even persuade the country to uphold marriage at a civil level, what does that say for our ability to witness to the need for the gospel at a moral and spiritual level?

2) Preaching at people – proclaiming the truth – is not the same thing as communicating. We need to proclaim the gospel, of course, but we have too often confused the bare declaration of various messages found in Scripture with the thoughtful engagement that comes from wrestling with what the word of God has to say in light of what we learn from observing, listening, loving and conversing with our neighbors and fellow citizens. We prefer to imitate the way the apostles confronted the covenant people of God (i.e., Acts 4) rather than the way they witnessed to the Gentiles (i.e., Acts 17). We mimic the way Jesus confronted the Pharisees (Matthew 23) rather than the way he ministered to “tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 14-15). But America is not the covenant people of God and Americans are not – by and large – Pharisees.

3) Our inability to wrestle with the way the word of God speaks to contemporary culture in a thoughtful, humble way communicates a lack of integrity on our part. Why? Because a tendency simply to preach at people as if they share our basic assumptions about life – while ignoring the fact that they don’t – shows that we do not respect them. We do not take them seriously. We are not willing to learn from them, let alone grant them equality in a conversation. What we think is faithfulness looks to the world an awful lot like arrogance. And Christians, of all people, should know that this is a problem. The Christian tradition has a lot to say about the evil of pride.

We have a lot of work to do, and not primarily at the political level. As James Davison Hunter argued several years ago in his book, To Change the World, we need to be less focused on politics and more focused on culture, less focused on power and more focused on people, less focused on winning and more focused on witnessing.

I think our situation is a little bit like that of a husband and wife whose conversation has gradually escalated to the point where they are talking past one another and each is equally frustrated that the other person is not listening – no doubt willfully. It is time to step back, do some real soul-searching, and think about what and how we are communicating. Communication does not simply consist in declaring what you think and feel is true. Communication is a two-way street. Messages must be received and understood, not simply delivered. And that can only happen in contexts of respect, friendship, and trust.

As in a marriage, if we think the fault is all on the other side we are sadly deluded. In that case, the road ahead will be quite rocky indeed.

Pascal’s apologetic and evangelistic method

3 Jul

Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is.

pascal

Blaise Pascal was a brilliant 17th-century French mathematician and physicist who had a dramatic Christian conversion experience and thereafter devoted much of his thought to Christianity and philosophy. He began to assemble notes and fragments he hoped would be woven into a book called The Defense of the Christian Religion, but he died just two months after his 39th birthday and it was never written. Those fragments, however, were published as Pensees (“Thoughts”), and it has become one of the most famous Christian books in history.

One of the most interesting of Pascal’s Pensees is the one quoted above. Here Pascal looks holistically at how to present the Christian message to those who do not believe it. He begins with the psychology of non-belief. He says that people are not objective about religion (here meaning Christianity). They really despise it and don’t want it to be true—yet fear it may be true. Some of these are fair-minded people who see good, well-thought-out reasons Christianity is not true. Others are not so fair-minded, and they just vilify and caricature it. But no one is neutral. People know instinctively that if Christianity is true they will lose control, and they will not be able to live any way they wish. So they are rooting for it not to be true, and are more than willing to accept any objections to the faith they hear.

How should Christians respond? Pascal thinks there are basically three stages to bringing someone on the way to faith. First, you have to disarm and surprise them. Many people hope Christianity does not make sense on any level. They especially enjoy hearing about professing Christians who are intemperate, irrational, and hypocritical—this confirms them in their non-belief. When, however, some presentation of Christian faith—or simply a Christian believer’s character—comes across as well-informed, thoughtful, sensible, open-minded, helpful, and generous, then this breaks stereotypes and commands a begrudging respect.

After this, Pascal says, we should be somewhat more proactive. “Next make it attractive, make good men wish [Christianity] were true.” We might object to the term “make” and suggest that Christianity is already attractive, but that’s to miss Pascal’s point. Of course he isn’t saying we should make Christianity into something it’s not; rather, we should reveal, point out, and expose its existing features. But the phrase “make good men wish it were true” gets across that this takes determination and ingenuity. We must know our culture—know its hopes—and then show others that only in Christ will their aspirations ever find fulfillment, that only in him will the plot lines of their lives ever have resolution and a happy ending.

I’m glad Pascal calls for this because, understandably, in these conversations we want to talk about sin and the barrier it creates between God and us. Pascal isn’t arguing against that. Certainly he isn’t telling us to hide that. But do we take time to talk about the manifold and astonishing blessings of salvation? Do we give time and effort to explaining the new birth; our new name and identity; adoption into God’s family; the experience of God’s love and beholding Christ’s glory; the slow but radical change in our character; a growing freedom from our past and peace in our present; power and meaning in the face of suffering; membership in a new, universal, multi-racial counter-cultural community; a mission to do justice and mercy on the earth; guidance from and personal fellowship with God himself; relationships of love that go on forever; the promise of our own future perfection and glorious beauty; complete confidence in the face of death; and the new heavens and new earth, a perfectly restored material world?

If we do this, Pascal gives us a very specific outcome to shoot for. If we’ve pointed out such things in an effective way, then some (though surely not all) will say, “If Christianity really can give that, it would be wonderful. Yes, it would be great if it were true. But of course Christianity isn’t. What a shame!”

Only then will most people sit through any kind of substantial presentation of the evidence and reasons for the truth of Christianity. Now Pascal says to “show that it is [true].” If they have not been brought through stage 1 (being disarmed and surprised by the lives and speech of believers) and stage 2 (seeing the great and attractive promises of God in Christ), their eyes will simply glaze over if you begin talking about “the evidence for the resurrection.” They will still expect Christianity to be at best useless and at worst a threat. But if Christianity has begun to make emotional and cultural sense they may listen to a sustained discussion of why it makes logical and rational sense. By “emotional sense” I mean that Christianity must be shown to be fill holes and answer questions and account for phenomena in the personal, inward, heart realm. By “cultural sense” I mean that Christianity must be shown to have the resources to powerfully address our social problems and explain human social behavior.

Original link

Only if their imagination is captured will most people give a fair hearing to the strong arguments for the truth of Christianity. Let’s appeal to heart and imagination as well as to reason as we speak publicly about our faith in Jesus.

Editors’ note: This article originally appeared in the newsletter of Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

State Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple, Fines Them $135K

3 Jul

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate.

>>> For more on religious liberty and same-sex marriage, see Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.

Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who is employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw out the argument in the “proposed order” he issued back in April.

But today, Avakian, who was in charge of making the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision.

>>> Emails Raise Questions About Bias in Case Against Sweet Cakes by Melissa

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

(Photo: Alex Anderson/Facebook)

The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, was shocked by the provision.

“Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she told The Daily Signal. “Now he has ruled that the Kleins’ simple statement of personal resolve to be true to their faith is unlawful. This is a brazen attack on every American’s right to freely speak and imposes government orthodoxy on those who do not agree with government sanctioned ideas.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, called the order “outrageous” and said citizens of Oregon should be “ashamed.”

“This order is an outrageous abuse of the rights of the Kleins to freely practice their religion under the First Amendment,” he said.

It is exactly this kind of oppressive persecution by government officials that led the pilgrims to America. And Commissioner Avakian’s order that the Kleins stop speaking about this case is even more outrageous—and also a fundamental violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment.

Avakian would have fit right in as a bureaucrat in the Soviet Union or Red China. Oregon should be ashamed that such an unprincipled, scurrilous individual is a government official in the state.

The case began in February 2013 when Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a complaint against the Kleins for refusing to bake them a wedding cake.

At the time of the refusal, same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Oregon.

The Bowman-Cryers’ complaint went to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, which is in charge of defending the law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation, among other characteristics, called the Equality Act of 2007.

In January 2014, the agency found the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation. In April, McCullough recommended they pay $75,000 to Rachel and $60,000 to Laurel.

In order to reach the total amount, $135,000, Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct.

Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

In their Facebook post, the Kleins signaled their intention to appeal Avakian’s ruling, writing, “We will not give up this fight and we will not be silenced,” already perhaps putting themselves at risk of violating the cease and desist.

What should Christians think about the official adoption of the Confederate Flag?

22 Jun

From Russell Moore:

This week the nation reels over the murder of praying Christians in an historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina. At the same time, one of the issues hurting many is the Confederate Battle Flag flying at full-mast from the South Carolina Capitol grounds even in the aftermath of this racist act of violence on innocent people. This raises the question of what we as Christians ought to think about the Confederate Battle Flag, given the fact that many of us are from the South.

The flag of my home state of Mississippi contains the Confederate Battle Flag as part of it, and I’m deeply conflicted about that. The flag represents home for me. I love Christ, church, and family more than Mississippi, but that’s about it. Even so, that battle flag makes me wince—even though I’m the descendant of Confederate veterans.

Some would say that the Confederate Battle Flag is simply about heritage, not about hate. Singer Brad Paisley sang that his wearing a Confederate flag on his shirt was just meant to say that he was a Lynyrd Skynyrd fan. Comedian Stephen Colbert quipped, “Little known fact: Jefferson Davis—HUGE Skynyrd fan.”

Defenders of the flag would point out that the United States flag is itself tied up with ugly questions of history. Washington and Jefferson, after all, supported chattel slavery too. The difference is, though, that the United States overcame its sinful support of this wicked system (though tragically late in the game). The Confederate States of America was not simply about limited government and local autonomy; the Confederate States of America was constitutionally committed to the continuation, with protections of law, to a great evil. The moral enormity of the slavery question is one still viscerally felt today, especially by the descendants of those who were enslaved and persecuted.

The gospel speaks to this. The idea of a human being attempting to “own” another human being is abhorrent in a Christian view of humanity. That should hardly need to be said these days, though it does, given the modern-day slavery enterprises of human trafficking all over the world. In the Scriptures, humanity is given dominion over the creation. We are not given dominion over our fellow image-bearing human beings (Gen. 1:27-30). The southern system of chattel slavery was built off of the things the Scripture condemns as wicked: “man-stealing” (1 Tim. 1:10), the theft of another’s labor (Jas. 5:1-6), the breaking up of families, and on and on.

In order to prop up this system, a system that benefited the Mammonism of wealthy planters, Southern religion had to carefully weave a counter-biblical theology that could justify it (the biblically ridiculous “curse of Ham” concept, for instance). In so doing, this form of southern folk religion was outside of the global and historic teachings of the Christian church. The abolitionists were right—and they were right not because they were on the right side of history but because they were on the right side of God.

Even beyond that, though, the Flag has taken on yet another contextual meaning in the years since. The Confederate Battle Flag was the emblem of Jim Crow defiance to the civil rights movement, of the Dixiecrat opposition to integration, and of the domestic terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens’ Councils of our all too recent, all too awful history.

White Christians ought to think about what that flag says to our African-American brothers and sisters in Christ, especially in the aftermath of yet another act of white supremacist terrorism against them. The gospel frees us from scrapping for our “heritage” at the expense of others. As those in Christ, this descendant of Confederate veterans has more in common with a Nigerian Christian than I do with a non-Christian white Mississippian who knows the right use of “y’all” and how to make sweet tea.

None of us is free from a sketchy background, and none of our backgrounds is wholly evil. The blood of Jesus has ransomed us all “from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers” (1 Pet. 1:18), whether your forefathers were Yankees, rebels, Vikings, or whatever. We can give gratitude for where we’ve come from, without perpetuating symbols of pretend superiority over others.

The Apostle Paul says that we should not prize our freedom to the point of destroying those for whom Christ died. We should instead “pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19). The Confederate Battle Flag may mean many things, but with those things it represents a defiance against abolition and against civil rights. The symbol was used to enslave the little brothers and sisters of Jesus, to bomb little girls in church buildings, to terrorize preachers of the gospel and their families with burning crosses on front lawns by night.

That sort of symbolism is out of step with the justice of Jesus Christ. The cross and the Confederate flag cannot co-exist without one setting the other on fire. White Christians, let’s listen to our African-American brothers and sisters. Let’s care not just about our own history, but also about our shared history with them. In Christ, we were slaves in Egypt—and as part of the Body of Christ we were all slaves too in Mississippi. Let’s watch our hearts, pray for wisdom, work for justice, love our neighbors. Let’s take down that flag.

From me: 

It’s time to talk about this. I would ask Christians to set aside political and cultural lenses as best they can and prayerfully consider what 1 Cor. 8 may suggest to us about a Christian’s support for the adoption of the Confederate Flag as an official symbol of his/her state. Notice in this passage that Paul is not concerned with who is right or wrong about eating meat that had been sacrificed to pagan idols (he actually says that those who say there is nothing wrong with it are technically right, that the offended party is being too sensitive). Nevertheless, what overrides his concern? Peace, love, edification in the church. He says that Christians are free to eat that meat. They actually have very good reasons for doing so (it’s not really possessed, since meat is from God and there is only one God anyways, not matter what pagans believe). But if eating meat, which is morally neutral (so to speak) is offensive to the brothers, foments hate, distracts from worship, causes division, impedes edification, then we should refrain from doing so in the presence of the weaker or more scrupulous brothers.

I believe that the principle at play in 1 Cor. 8 applies to Christian support for official adoption of the Confederate Flag for their state’s symbol. No matter what a Christian may or may not feel about what the flag truly represents, it is not a hill worth dying on since it clearly causes division, pain, tension, offense among God’s people where there is neither Jew nor Greek.

But what about Christian liberty? Aren’t we free, without a clear command from God, to believe and support what we want politically? Well, this is a matter of Christian liberty, to be sure. Christians are free to believe what they want about the meaning of the Confederate Flag. That will vary from believer to believer. For some, it will be a nothing more that pure hate, rebellion, and racism. For others, it will be a valiant attempt to maintain something of true republican government. But this is beside the point. Indeed, the same was true about eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor. 8. It too was a matter of Christian liberty, and yet Paul advised them to use that Christian liberty for the harmony and peace of the church, not to have their rights vindicated. Maybe letting this go, conceding ground for the sake of peace/love, is what having the mind of Christ is like. After all, Paul told us: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,a who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,b being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6-8). Basically, Paul asks us, on issues where there is no clear command from God, to be driven by love and the unity/edification of the church, not personal pride. Because where there are people placing personal pride above brotherly love, there is bound to be sin. How serious is he about this? Read for yourself: For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way [flaunting your liberty/rightness] and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.”

Belgic Confession 36: On Civil Government

17 Jun

ARTICLE 36 – THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT

We believe that, because of the depravity of mankind, our gracious God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers.1 He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies,2 in order that the licentiousness of men be restrained and that everything be conducted among them in good order.3 For that purpose He has placed the sword in the hand of the government to punish wrongdoers and to protect those who do what is good (Rom 13:4). Their task of restraining and sustaining is not limited to the public order but includes the protection of the church and its ministry in order that *the kingdom of Christ may come, the Word of the gospel may be preached everywhere,4 and God may be honoured and served by everyone, as He requires in His Word.

Moreover, everyone – no matter of what quality, condition, or rank – ought to be subject to the civil officers, pay taxes, hold them in honour and respect, and obey them in all things5 which do not disagree with the Word of God.6 We ought to pray for them, that God may direct them in all their ways and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way (1 Tim 2:1-2).

For that reason we condemn the Anabaptists and other rebellious people, and in general all those who reject the authorities and civil officers, subvert justice,7 introduce a communion of goods, and confound the decency that God has established among men.

*The following words were deleted here by the General Synod 1905 of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland): all idolatry and false worship may be removed and prevented, the kingdom of antichrist may be destroyed.

1. Prov 8:15; Dan 2:21; John 19:11; Rom 13:1. 2. Exo 18:20. 3. Deut 1:16; Deut 16:19; Judg 21:25; Psalm 82; Jer 21:12; Jer 22:3; 1 Pet 2:13-14. 4. Psalm 2; Rom 13:4 a; 1 Tim 2:1-4. 5. Mat 17:27; Mat 22:21; Rom 13:7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:17. 6. Acts 4:19; Acts 5:29. 7. 2 Pet 2:10; Jude 8.

– See more at: http://www.scripturezealot.com/belgic-confession/#sthash.hKtSpurc.dpuf

Homeschooling and the Christian Duty by Sally Thomas

12 Jun

From First Things:

By withdrawing from the larger culture, homeschoolers aid and abet the culture’s failings—or so, at least, the charge goes. Christians have a responsibility to be not “of the world,” but, we are told, they also have a responsibility to be “in the world.” And therefore it’s our duty to send our children to public school. After all, Jesus calls us to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, and how can we possibly be those things if we stay at home all day?

According to this logic, we are called not only to witness, via our children, to a diverse population of people but also somehow to salvage public education itself, as if this would right everything that’s out of whack in our society. To decline to do so is, in this view, both personally selfish and culturally destructive.

Though at this stage in my life I have a hard time understanding why I should feel a greater sense of responsibility to a government institution than I do to my children, I must confess that it has not always been so. Our oldest daughter spent four years in an English working-class neighborhood school, where she was conspicuous not only for being American but also for having parents who were actually married to each other and actually both the parents of all children in our home. Aside from the Bangladeshi Muslims who comprised roughly a third of the school population, ours was the only family with any discernable religious orientation whatsoever.

As such, we did feel responsible for the well-being of that school. The education on offer wasn’t brilliant—“random topics” seemed to be the general theme of the National Curriculum as taught at this particular school—but, as we told ourselves, it was OK. We could supplement at home. And meanwhile our daughter was receiving a valuable cultural education, right?

This is what we told ourselves even in the face of, for instance, the sex-education program we encountered in Year Four, the English equivalent of third grade. We were the only parents who asked to preview the materials; when we discovered, among other things, that they included an animated video sequence of teddy bears having fairly graphic sex, we exercised our right to opt out, and took the children to the British Museum that day instead, for cultural education on a different level, for once.

Random topics we could deal with. Animated teddy bears boinking we could avoid, at least in the short run. I suppose we could have gone on indefinitely telling ourselves that all this was OK—not great, but OK—if our daughter had been happy and thriving. But she wasn’t. Over time, most of her close friends moved to other primary schools with better test scores. The remaining school population was, as the English say, rougher. The overall atmosphere becamerougher.

Well, we said, this is not good, but we can’t just abandon the school. Meanwhile our daughter, always reserved, became almost paralytically shy. On the playground, as she told us later, she concentrated on not being called ugly names by the boys. In class, she cried a lot rather than raise her hand. At home, she cried herself to sleep. On one occasion, as I distinctly recall, she was upset because in Religious Ed—no separation of church and state there—another kid had announced to the class, “God’s stupid,” and the teacher hadn’t said anything to him, and she had felt that this was wrong.

The incident had happened months earlier, it emerged—we certainly had known nothing of it at the time—but it still ate away at her. As I comforted her, my first impulse was to say, “Well, that’s not anything to cry about.” But of course it was. An adult might have spoken to the kid in question. An adult might have spoken to the teacher. What could an eight-year-old child do? Cry, that’s what.

Certainly Jesus tells us all to be salt and light. In the Christian tradition, however, we use phrases like “the age of reason” for a reason: recognition of the fundamental difference between an adult’s understanding and a child’s. The classical model of education uses the language of the Trivium—grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric—to describe stages of cognitive development in terms that provide, I think, a useful and accurate model for spiritual as well as intellectual formation.

A child in the grammar stage, a third-grader, say, is developmentally geared toward the acquisition of basic facts, memorizing Bible verses or the Corporal Works of Mercy. Even a bright third-grader lacks the powers of higher reasoning necessary to discern the truth amid conflicting messages.

Middle-schoolers, in the dialectical stage, are ready to learn to argue—learn to argue. As anyone with a middle-schooler knows, this dovetails nicely with certain natural inclinations of the age, but the average eighth-grader is hardly prepared to play C.S. Lewis in social studies class.

Even high-schoolers are still in the process of acquiring the rhetorical sophistication they will need in college to defend their faith to others and to themselves. Consider how many college freshmen allow themselves to be talked out of Christianity during the fall semester, in the course of Intro to World Religions. If college freshmen can’t cope, it seems unrealistic to expect third-graders to bear the burden of evangelizing their schools. What seems far more likely is that, to one degree or another, the schools will end up evangelizing these children.

Read the rest

The Evangelical Roots of the Duggar Disaster

12 Jun

Christians should not be surprised by the absolute giddiness, excitement, that accompanies some unbelievers when they hear and hastily share the news of Josh Duggar’s wicked actions in his adolescence. They should not be surprised because they are largely responsible for that reaction. Christians have accepted a number of falsities from the world, and pay the price for them. One is that Christianity needs to counter the celebrity driven culture with its own celebrities, even if what we actually know about them spiritually is limited to what has been packaged for us by directors and producers. This approach (“Our celebrities are better than yours!”) is doomed. That Christian celebrities deserve special favor, deference, respect, attention, honor, status, more than ordinary Christians and/or pastors, theologians, missionaries, is to adopt the world’s standards for success, not God’s.

But more significantly, more fatally, Christians have bought into the unbiblical notion that some men are good, innocent, and others are bad, guilty. Basically, they start believing that believers are good, clean, and nice and non-believers are bad, dirty, and rude. Believers go to church and have traditional families. Non-believers go to clubs and have alternative lifestyles. So, Duggars are good, Kardashians are bad, and therein lies the problem. The biblical message is quite different, since no one is good but God, all have sinned, all are conceived in iniquity, and any good done by anyone is a gracious and divine gift leaving no room for self-righteous boasting. Christians must come to grips with the fact that they pray in Jesus name for a reason: He alone lived a righteous life; He alone has satisfied the righteous requirements of God’s law; He alone may enter in the divine presence; He alone is holy. We are not to look to the Duggars as exemplars of righteousness any more than we are to look to the Kardahsians. Rather, we look to Christ, the Righteous One, alone, since the good deeds we might offer to assuage the judgement of God, believer or unbeliever, Duggar or Kardashian, are but filthy rags to God. But the deeds offered by Christ’s life and death were exclusively sufficient. Be In Christ. That is the safe place.

On the place of non-Christian thought in the intellectual life of the believer.

20 May

I love philosophy, particularly political philosophy. Being a Christian does not mean that non-Christian thinkers offer nothing beneficial to me or mankind. But non-Christian thought lacks something that, as a believer, makes it insufficient. Holy Scripture. Scripture must be the lens through which all thought is read and critically analyzed. When the general revelation, graciously granted to non-believers, is combined with and interpreted through the special revelation of Scripture, the knowledge gleaned is rightfully awed and wholly trustworthy. But there can be no substitute for the glorious truths contained in Holy Scripture. Many learned men, well versed in non-Christian thought, find that when God sovereignly stooped down, humbled them, redeemed them, opened their eyes to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and granted them an insatiable love for and use of scripture in their intellectual endeavors, they find their minds have finally been truly and indescribably awakened, never learning, thinking, the same way again. They are able to see what they couldn’t see before. This is precisely what happened to John Calvin, a former humanist, lover of Seneca and Cicero. But upon his conversion, which was both spiritual and intellectual, he was never the same as he discovered the truth and utility of scripture in the great and noble work of human philosophy and thought. Calvin did not stop reading and thinking about non-Christian thought. It’s just that he placed philosophy in the service of theology, which is the only role it may play in the intellectual life of the believer. He placed Athens in the service of Jerusalem. Here’s how he put it: “Now this power which is peculiar to Scripture is clear from the fact that of human writings, however artfully polished, there is none capable of affecting us at all comparably. Read Demosthenes or Cicero; read Plato, Aristotle or any other of that class. You will, I admit, feel wonderfully allured, delighted, moved, enchanted. But turn from them to the reading of the sacred volume and whether you will it or not, it will so powerfully affect you, so pierce your heart, so work its way into your very marrow, that compared with the impression so produced, the power of the orators and philosophers will almost disappear; making it clear that the Holy Scriptures breathe something divine, which lifts them far above all the gifts and graces of human industry.”

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.

When it comes to parenting, gender matters. Mothers don’t father and fathers don’t mother.

19 May

From Sociologist of family studies, Jenet Erickson:

As the Supreme Court considers whether to redefine marriage in genderless terms, scholars supporting gender-diverse parenting filed an amicus briefurging the Court not to eviscerate this fundamental norm of marriage given its crucial benefits to the development of children. If same-sex marriage is constitutionalized, the message the law will send is that the gender of parents becomes valueless, since any two adults will do.

Gender Diversity Is in Our Genes

In the late 1970s, Azim Surani tried to create new life using two sets of genes from only a mother, or a father. Everything then known about genetics suggested that with the right number of chromosomes, life would develop normally, even if all of its genetic material came only from a female or a male. But the eggs with only the mother’s genes could not survive. A similar fate met the eggs implanted with two sets of father’s genes.

As science reporter Paul Raeburn describes, Surani discovered that mothers and fathers each contributed something in their genes that was critical to sustaining life. These “paternal” and “maternal” genes appeared completely indistinguishable in every way, yet expressed themselves differently depending on whether they came from the mother or the father. And both were essential to the survival of the egg.

The essential need for both a mother and a father to provide genetic material for survival parallels what social science tells us about the importance of mothers and fathers in children’s development. Fathers and mothers bring similar, even indistinguishable, capacities that enable healthy child development. But like the complementarity of the left and right halves of the brain, they also bring distinct capacities that provide complementary, irreplaceable contributions to children’s healthy development.

Read the rest

So much “progress” has left so many (children) behind. Putnam’s Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis

27 Apr

Championing Our Kids

April 27, 2015

Robert Putnam’s new book Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis has quickly become the context for America’s national debate on poverty – cited, praised, disputed, criticized – but often at the center of think tank debates and conference discussions. And if the forthcoming presidential election ever rises to a minimal level of sophistication on issues of inequality and social mobility, Putnam’s work will figure prominently.

This is a very good thing for our country. Putnam is playing the essential role of reintroducing America to itself, and the experience is unpleasant. A nation once divided between north and south has become bifurcated by a line of class. A single society has become two different worlds of opportunity.

One is the world of the educated and wealthy, characterized by greater family stability, economic prospects, and community cohesion. The wealthy live in places with better schools, increasingly segregated from the working class. Parents there have a greater ability to invest time – including early childhood interaction, what Putnam calls “Goodnight Moon” time – and resources in their children. When schools aren’t living up to expectations, there are tutors. When children get into trouble, as children of every background manage to do, there are lawyers, psychologists, and addiction treatment counselors. In this world, children are more likely to participate in extracurricular activities and church-related groups where they learn important social skills. They are more likely to be situated in a circle of adults beyond their family that helps with advice, internships, and jobs.

The world of the working class, in contrast, features economic stagnation, family instability, and community breakdown. Large economic trends, particularly globalization and the technological revolution, have pushed the blue-collar economy in many places into a permanent slump. Wages have stagnated or declined, and workforce participation has fallen. At the same time, the connection between childbearing and marriage has been broken. Chronically stressed parents – often single parents – have less time and fewer resources to invest in their children. They often practice a parenting style that is harsher and less nurturing, with serious consequences for early childhood development.  Community institutions, including public schools, are weak, providing children with fewer extracurricular opportunities. When children get into trouble, there is no support structure of addiction treatment and legal help. As Putnam puts it, the “airbags” do not deploy.

In Our Kids, Putnam ably summarizes recent studies on all these topics – on family structure, on religious engagement, on early childhood brain development. His overarching argument is compelling: The best social scientific research demonstrates the need for children to be located in strong social and family networks, but those networks are rapidly declining in the working class. The result is a class divide that is fundamentally at odds with the American ideal.

The power of Our Kids, however, is not found in its exposition. It is found in its storytelling. Putnam highlights case studies, gathered from hundreds of interviews in low and higher income families. This does more than personalize the book; these individual cases add up to a serious analytic point. All of the economic, social, and cultural trends that Putnam describes are experienced by children as one thing: the absence of responsible, loving, consistent adults in their lives. Our Kids reveals a national crisis of child neglect and emotional abandonment, and the evidence is heartbreaking.

Consider the matter of birthdays. Those of us who have children understand the eager desire for personal affirmation that all kids feel on the anniversary of their birth. It is, as far as they are concerned, a national celebration of their personhood. In Our Kids, one interview subject, Kaya, describes her tenth birthday. “I couldn’t have a cake or anything like that because we were struggling so bad,” she remembered.  “My dad said, ‘We don’t really have the money for it. We’re going to do it in May or June.’ I was like ‘Oh, okay.’  I was pretty sad about it, but it was like ‘whatever.’” The resignation in that final statement is really a resignation to a world indifferent to her personhood.

Or take the case of Sophia, who recalls her mother’s response to her birthday, “The day after my ninth birthday, she was arrested down the street from here for prostitution. And she never came to see me. She was so close, but she chose prostitution and drugs over me.” This communicates an almost unimaginable message of worthlessness in the life of a child.

Many of Putnam’s case studies reveal children who are radically disconnected from structures of nurture. Putnam tells the story of David, who isn’t allowed to visit his father in prison because he is on parole himself. “I never really had around-the-family-table dinners at all,” he muses, “so I never got to miss it.” David’s quote is unintentionally ironic. He has missed participation in a cultural institution he suspects is very valuable, a symbol of stability. Some of the children in Our Kids have attempted to cope with abandonment by adopting a pose of cynicism. So Mary Sue posts on Facebook: “Love gets you hurt; trust gets you killed.”

These case studies are not always sad. The children often exhibit remarkable resilience, and parents generally do not intend emotional harm to children. They are often dealing with a toxic level of stress in their own lives that constrains their ability to provide what their children need. But the consequence for children is nonetheless tragic. The lack of serve-and-return interactions early in life can cause deficits in brain development and problems in social adjustment. These kids often start the education process already behind. According to one study Putnam cites, 72 percent of middle class children know the alphabet when entering school, compared to 19 percent of poor children. Children from overwhelmed and dysfunctional families can have problems with impulse control and fail to gain social skills, such as showing up on time and working with others, that future employers value.

The most disturbing aspect of this story is not educational or economic.  It is emotional.  Many of the children Putnam highlights feel a pervasive sense of abandonment.  They have accumulated a heavy burden of suspicion and distrust. It is difficult to become a thriving, responsible adult after feeling abandoned as a child. Not impossible, but difficult.

While the book’s emphasis on stories is effective, Putnam’s voice in the book is particularly praiseworthy. He is morally offended by the findings he conveys. In his view, the findings violate America’s “foundational national pledge that God has created each of us equal.” The normal tone of academic writing is analytic and dispassionate. Putnam, in contrast, is unapologetic about his love for the American ideal and angered by its attenuation. In reaching for words sufficient for his outrage, the author quotes Proverbs: “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.” Putnam is doing more than presenting a social scientific case. He is urging social solidarity and calling America to a moral ideal of inclusion.

Putnam preaches social justice as he takes on the role of prophet, warning about future social disaster. He compares America’s problem of stalled social mobility to global warming. With global warming, the circumstances we see today reflect practices of decades ago, and our current habits of pollution will determine sea levels and crop growth patterns decades into the future. On social policy, Putnam argues, the lead times are similarly long. Our current level of economic mobility for young adults reflects their economic, social, and family circumstances of two decades ago when they were raised. Those circumstances today are worse, by nearly every measure. According to Putnam, this means that social mobility “seems poised to plunge in the year ahead, shattering the American Dream.”

The author of Our Kids is clearly a man of the left, but an older form of the left.  Putnam’s ideal is the socially mixed, economically fluid, communitarian America of the 1940s and 1950s (minus the sexism and racism).  Some of his critics have accused him of nostalgia, but the charge is unfair. His comparison of the social conditions that prevailed in post-World War II America reveals what has been lost. How these precious things might be regained is a different matter (and the weakest point of the book). Good diagnosis, in the end, is not sufficient. But all treatment and recovery begin with good diagnosis.

Serious political action on these issues will require a shared understanding of the problem.  And this is where Our Kidsshines. Putnam offers a comprehensive picture of our social and economic crisis that both includes and challenges the whole spectrum of American ideology. He challenges the left to take seriously the roles of family and religious participation. There is no escaping the fact that America’s two-tier family structure is a main source of growing class division. The wealthy and educated have often adopted a neo-traditional model – the old family structure with greater gender equality and two incomes. The poor have often adopted a shifting kaleidoscope of family arrangements in which the role of the father has become voluntary. Many children, as a result, fall through the cracks. Putnam cites a shocking figure: Compared to college-educated men, men with a high school education are four times more likely to father children with whom they don’t live, and half as likely to visit those children.

In many of Putnam’s stories, religious institutions are the last refuge of help and social order in decaying, dangerous communities. Kids who are active in their religious communities are more involved in extracurricular activities and less prone to substance abuse and delinquency. Traditionally, religious participation for the affluent and the poor was similar. But poor families are now less religiously involved than the affluent.

There are plenty of uncomfortable findings in Our Kids for conservatives to chew on as well. Many of the social and cultural problems they decry, including family breakdown, are related to the collapse of the blue-collar economy. Putnam highlights his hometown of Port Clinton, Ohio, a struggling rust-belt community. In 1978, 9 percent of children were born out of wedlock – about half the national rate. By 1990, nearly 40 percent of children in Port Clinton were born out of wedlock – twice the national rate. During these twelve years, Port Clinton did not experience moral collapse; it experienced the collapse of the local economy. While cultural factors surely played a role, they could not have been decisive.

Conservatives will need to take seriously that global economic trends have made rewarding work for people with limited education rare in large portions of the country – a trend with destructive radiating social effects. And the problem has been particularly concentrated among men. As Putnam points out, real hourly wages for men with a college degree and a full-time job grew by more than 20 percent from 1980 to 2012.  During the same period, real wages fell by 22 percent for high school dropouts and by 11 percent for high school graduates.

Putnam’s survey of possible policy responses at the end of his book is likely to disappoint both liberals and conservatives. The ideas seem obviously insufficient to the scale of the problem the author has described. But Putnam’s goal is not contained in a five-point plan.  He wants to place the collapse of the American dream for millions of Americans at the center of the political debate, in order to produce a virtuous competition of creative policy ideas from liberals and conservatives.

“I have an old fashioned view,” Putnam recently wrote to me, “that politics is about persuading opponents, not just vilifying them. So I’m trying hard to keep focused on the kids. We need more champions for them and fewer ‘villains’ in our politics.  But my view of politics may be hopelessly outdated.”

Let us hope this is not true. And let us appreciate the important social contribution of Robert Putnam, a champion for our kids.

Questions for Reflection:

1)    How have you observed what the author calls “a national crisis of childhood neglect and emotional abandonment,” and what do you see are the radiating effects of that in various communities?

2)    Given this national crisis, what are the proper roles and responsibilities of government in response to this, alongside those of other institutions such as churches, families, businesses, and nonprofits?

3)    Where do you see your individual role in responding to God’s call to love your neighbor, in this case children, regardless of whether you have children of your own?

– Michael J. Gerson is a Visiting Fellow with the Center for Public Justice and a nationally syndicated columnist who appears twice weekly in The Washington Post. He is the author of Heroic Conservatism (2007) and the co-author of City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era (2010)

What does Jesus really think of homosexuality?

13 Apr

From Kevin DeYoung:

Crossway has done a great job putting together a number of resources related to the new book on homosexuality.

Here is a general page giving basic information, including endorsements and other links.

Crossway has also put out a free 36-page sampler which includes the Table of Contents, the Introduction, and Chapter One. A free study guide is also available for download.

Recently, I gave an hour long message covering a few of the themes in the book. Following the message I sat on a panel with Justin Taylor, Jackie Hill-Perry, and Josh Moody to continue the conversation. Both of these videos are embedded below.

 Further:On a recent episode of “The Good Wife” a wedding planner, who refuses to take on a gay couple as a client, is asked two questions.  “Did Jesus ever condemn homosexuality?”  She replied “No.”  She was then asked if Jesus condemned divorce.  She responded that he had.  The point of the attorney was that her religious discrimination was ‘selective’ because she was willing to do a wedding for a divorced heterosexual couple but not a homosexual couple marrying for the first time.

Sigh… Where to begin?

First, the wedding planner claimed to be a Christian, not a follower of a religion based exclusively on the spoken words of Jesus as he walked the earth.  I’ve never heard of such a religion, in fact.  Second, I don’t think we would like such a religion, since it would have a hard time condemning incest, rape or bestiality, also subjects that Jesus did not address explicitly in his earthly ministry as contained in the four gospels.

But Christianity does not teach that all theology and all morality is contained only in the words of Jesus found in the four gospels.  Seriously, the claim that Jesus had no opinion on the subject of homosexuality is simply laughable (as bible scholars left and right know).

Here are just some of the reasons, first from Robert Gagnon (leading expert on the Bible and sexuality):

Q: Speaking of Jesus, some argue that because Jesus said nothing about the matter that it was not an important issue for him. What do you think?

There is no historical basis for arguing that Jesus might have been neutral or even favorable toward same-sex intercourse.

All the evidence we have points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that Jesus would have strongly opposed same-sex intercourse had such behavior been a serious problem among first-century Jews. It simply was not a problem in Israel.

First, Jesus’ alleged silence has to be set against the backdrop of unequivocal and strong opposition to same-sex intercourse in the Hebrew Bible and throughout early Judaism. It is not historically likely that Jesus overturned any prohibition of the Mosaic law, let alone on a strongly held moral matter such as this. And Jesus was not shy about disagreeing with prevailing viewpoints. Had he wanted his disciples to take a different viewpoint he would have had to say so.

Second, the notion of Jesus’ “silence” has to be qualified. According to Mark, Jesus spoke out against porneia, “sexual immorality” (Mark 7:21-23) and accepted the Decalogue commandment against adultery (Mark 10:19). In Jesus’ day, and for many centuries before and thereafter, porneia was universally understood in Judaism to include same-sex intercourse. Moreover, the Decalogue commandment against adultery was treated as a broad rubric prohibiting all forms of sexual practice that deviated from the creation model in Genesis 1-2, including homoerotic intercourse.

Third, that Jesus lifted up the male-female model for sexual relationships in Genesis 1-2 as the basis for defining God’s will for sexuality is apparent from his back-to-back citation in Mark 10:6-7 of Genesis 1:27 (“God made them male and female”) and Genesis 2:24 (“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”).

These are the same two texts that Paul cites or alludes to in his denunciation of same-sex intercourse in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. For Jesus, marriage was ordained by the Creator to be an indissoluble (re-)union of a man and woman–two complementary sexual others–into one flesh. Authorization of homoerotic unions requires a different creation account.

Fourth, it is time to deconstruct the myth of a sexually tolerant Jesus. Three sets of Jesus sayings make clear that, far from loosening the law’s stance on sex, Jesus intensified the ethical demand in this area: (a) Jesus´ stance on divorce and remarriage (Mark 10:1-12; also Matthew 5:32 and the parallel in Luke 16:18; and Paul’s citation of Jesus´ position in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11); (b) Jesus´ remark about adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:27-28); and (c) Jesus´ statement about removing body parts as preferable to being thrown into hell (Matthew 5:29-30 and Mark 9:43-48) which, based on the context in Matthew as well as rabbinic parallels, primarily has to do with sexual immorality.

Simply put, sex mattered to Jesus. Jesus did not broaden the range of acceptable sexual expression; he narrowed it. And he thought that unrepentant, repetitive deviation from this norm could get a person thrown into hell.

Where then do we get the impression that Jesus was soft on sex? People think of his encounters with the adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11, the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50, and the Samaritan woman who had many husbands in John 4.

What the first story suggests is that Jesus did modify the law at one point: Sexual immorality should not incur a death penalty from the state. Why? Not because sex for him did not matter but rather because stoning was a terminal act that did not give opportunity for repentance and reform. Moreover, all three stories confirm what we know about Jesus elsewhere: that he aggressively sought the lost, ate with them, fraternized with them. But the same Jesus who could protect an adulterous woman from stoning also took a very strong stance against divorce-and-remarriage.

We see a parallel in Jesus’ stance toward tax collectors, who had a justly deserved reputation for exploiting their own people for personal gain. We do not conclude from Jesus’ well-known outreach to tax collectors that Jesus was soft on economic exploitation. To the contrary: All scholars agree that Jesus intensified God’s ethical demand with respect to treatment of the poor and generosity with material possessions. Why then do we conclude from Jesus’ outreach to sexual sinners that sexual sin was not so important to Jesus?

Is the Southern Baptist bookstore, Lifeway, really committed to the sufficiency of scripture?

7 Apr

From Tod Pruitt

Lifeway, a publishing arm of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination will no longer be promoting and selling Heaven tourism books. This is good news. If you are unfamiliar with the term, Heaven tourism refers to books like 90 Minutes in Heavenand Heaven is for Real in which the authors claim to have died and visited Heaven only to be returned to earth. The defenders of the immensely popular books claim that they help bolster their belief in Heaven. Of course this begs the question: why are the Scripture’s promises concerning the afterlife not sufficient to bolster faith?

During its June 2014 meeting in Baltimore, MD the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution affirming the sufficiency of Scripture (that God speaks to His people through the mediation of His Word) over subjective personal claims of heavenly visitations. That was an encouraging development. But of course the books on heavenly tourism are not the only problem lining the shelves of Lifeway. They continue to sell Sarah Young’s Jesus Calling and all of its various editions (I stopped counting at 10). Ironically, Jesus Calling represents a far more egregious attack on the sufficiency of Scripture than do the fanciful tales of people’s trips to Heaven.

Also, Lifeway may want to ask Beth Moore about her understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture. A well known Southern Baptist, Mrs. Moore frequently claims to be given direct messages from God outside the Scriptures. Yet, her books and curriculum remain the most prominent of all the Lifeway products. And as withJesus Calling I believe Beth Moore’s materials do far more to undermine the sufficiency of Scripture than do the heavenly tourism books.

Lifeway promotes a host of books and studies that purport to help people hear the voice of God. Many of these books list Scripture as just one of many ways that God speaks to His people. Clearly there are Christians who do believe that God still gives direct revelation outside the mediation of his Word. This is foundational to Pentecostalism, for instance. But the SBC has more than once approved rather robust statements affirming the sufficiency of Scripture. So why is it that the arm of the SBC which produces and sells books and curriculum is producing and selling so many products that clearly contradict the SBC’s stated doctrinal positions?

A quick perusal of the Lifeway Christian Bookstore website reveals that the vast majority of their products are of a highly experiential and therapeutic variety. There are precious few studies of the biblical text and Christian doctrine. Astonishingly, Lifeway is still selling books by oneness Pentecostal (denies the Trinity) and prosperity preacher T.D. Jakes. How can this be? Why is the Southern Baptist Convention promoting books and other materials from a false teacher who regularly distorts the Word of God? I would plead with Lifeway to consider the difficult position in which this places SBC pastors. Many of these men labor to bring doctrinal health and unity to their churches. When Lifeway promotes books that sow confusion or undermine sound doctrine the SBC pastor is left in a position of opposing leadership in his own denomination.

I fear that the answer to this question has less to do with lack of discernment (which is bad enough) and more to do with money. The fact is, the majority of Christians consume bad books. They don’t desire careful expositions of the Scriptures and studies of Christian doctrine. And instead of seeking to whet the appetites of Southern Baptists for sound doctrine Lifeway seems content to sell them books which contradict historic Christian orthodoxy and the stated doctrines of the their own denomination.

Does the command to love my neighbor mean that I should attend/cater a celebration of their sin?

6 Apr

This meme is making its way around facebook and the blogosphere.  Here are my thoughts on it:

'Jesus commanded his disciples to love their neighbors.  If by that he meant that they should participate in and celebrate the sinful behavior of their neighbors, then Jesus and His disciples did not love their neighbors.  But of course, this isn’t what Jesus meant at all.  Jesus loved his neighbor perfectly, and apparently that love included not only mercy, service, sacrificial death, but also convicting truth about their sin which was met with hostility and offense (e.g., Zacchaeus, the rich young ruler or the woman at the well).  No, the command to love your neighbor is preceded and superseded by the “first” and “greatest” commandment of all, love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul (Matt. 22:37).  That is, the second and lesser commandment is controlled by, informed by, and limited by the first and greater commandment.  

So men will command Christians to love their neighbor by celebrating their sin, but like Peter, the believer will love and obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Jesus ate with and befriended sinners (he befriended me after all!), but he did not participate in or join in a celebration of their sinful activities, nor did he fail to acknowledge and rebuke their sin in love (e.g., the woman at the well).  Indeed, as a carpenter, Jesus would have crafted chairs for pagans to sit in (that’s loving your neighbor), but he would not have crafted idols for them to worship (that’s loving God more, since making idols for the purposes of idolatry is forbidden in the Law, Lev. 26.1, and he obeyed the law perfectly, Heb. 4:15).  You see, he did what he instructs the believer to do.  First, before anything else, love and obey God with all your heart, mind, and soul.  Then, love your neighbor.  Loving your neighbor in scripture never meant (nor did Jesus and his disciples practice) indifference to or celebration of sin.  Quite the contrary, the followers of Jesus are to "come out from among them" for they are of a different order: 2 Cor. 6. 

The biblically illiterate will be duped, stumped, humored, or convinced by memes like this, but faithful believers need not be troubled by them at all.  Twisting scripture is a trick of the devil, the fundamentalist, the heretic, and the bible skeptic, and those who want to transform Jesus into their own image, but not the disciples of Jesus Christ who are prepared to let God be true and every man be a liar (Rom. 3:4).'

Jesus commanded his disciples to love their neighbors. If by that he meant that they should participate in and celebrate the sinful behavior of their neighbors, then Jesus and His disciples did not love their neighbors. But of course, this isn’t what Jesus meant at all. Jesus loved his neighbor perfectly, and apparently that love included not only mercy, service, sacrificial death, but also convicting truth about their sin which was met with hostility and offense (e.g., Zacchaeus, the rich young ruler or the woman at the well). No, the command to love your neighbor is preceded and superseded by the “first” and “greatest” commandment of all, love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul (Matt. 22:37). That is, the second and lesser commandment is controlled by, informed by, and limited by the first and greater commandment.

So men will command Christians to love their neighbor by celebrating their sin, but like Peter, the believer will love and obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Jesus ate with and befriended sinners (he befriended me after all!), but he did not participate in or join in a celebration of their sinful activities, nor did he fail to acknowledge and rebuke their sin in love (e.g., the woman at the well). Indeed, as a carpenter, Jesus would have crafted chairs for pagans to sit in (that’s loving your neighbor), but he would not have crafted idols for them to worship (that’s loving God more, since making idols for the purposes of idolatry is forbidden in the Law, Lev. 26.1, and he obeyed the law perfectly, Heb. 4:15). You see, he did what he instructs the believer to do. First, before anything else, love and obey God with all your heart, mind, and soul. Then, love your neighbor. Loving your neighbor in scripture never meant (nor did Jesus and his disciples practice) indifference to or celebration of sin. Quite the contrary, the followers of Jesus are to “come out from among them” for they are of a different order: 2 Cor. 6.

The biblically illiterate will be duped, stumped, humored, or convinced by memes like this, but faithful believers need not be troubled by them at all. Twisting scripture is a trick of the devil, the fundamentalist, the heretic, and the bible skeptic, and those who want to transform Jesus into their own image, but not the disciples of Jesus Christ who are prepared to let God be true and every man be a liar (Rom. 3:4).

Comments….
  • Someone asked me this in the comments: “So, an act like “serving pizza” would fall under your example A whereas a church choosing not to marry a same-sex couple would fall under example B, correct?”
  • My response: Of course. You aren’t loving your neighbor if you refuse to deliver pizza on the doorstep of a divorced person, Hindu, or adulterer. You are just being a self righteous jerk, completely ignorant of the gospel or your own sin. But you aren’t loving God if you don’t hesitate to cater a two hour party at a legal brothel. That kind of discrimination is required as disciples of Christ and “progressives” may call them bigots or backwards or whatever insult makes them feel superior. The believer will have to just take it knowing that they mocked Jesus and he promised that his disciples would fare no better.

“Lord, take their children and smash their heads against the rocks.” Ps. 137; praying against the violent and wicked

31 Mar

From his grace (Cranmer blog):

Psalm 137: “God, I wish you’d take the children of my enemies and smash their heads against the rocks”

There is perhaps no greater empathy aroused in times of war and strife than when we see the intolerable suffering of children; the desperate eyes of the innocent; the tears of orphaned babies, frightened, hungry, sapped of all hope and devoid of love. Their little mangled bodies lie on crimson sheets, spliced by shrapnel, traumatised by nightmares, soaked in the stench of their own urine. These images leave a wound far deeper than any weapon of mass destruction.

The newly-installed Bishop of Leeds the Rt Rev’d Nick Bains delivered yesterday’s ‘Thought For The Day’ on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. He tells us on his blog – Musings of a Restless Bishop – that it was “written in the face of the horrors of Gaza, Syria, Ukraine and all the other bloody conflicts filling the news screens, and with a strict word limit”. His subject was Psalm 137 – the well-known lament which begins “By the Rivers of Babylon”. He takes us from Boney M’s jaunty disco dance hit to the psalm’s final line, which is a disturbing imprecation. He writes:

Now, Psalm 137 is not a comfortable song; nor is it a song for the comfortable. It ends with a shrill cry of pain and hatred: “God, I wish you’d take the children of my enemies and smash their heads against the rocks.” But, it isn’t there to justify an ethic. It isn’t there to suggest it is right to think such awful things of other people’s children. It is there for two reasons: first, to confront us with the reality of how deep our own human hatred can go, and, secondly, to tell us not to lie to God (thinking he can’t handle that reality or the depths of human despair).

Christians tend to focus on the messianic blessings and sing about the glories of Zion: we love the psalms of thanksgiving, kingship and confidence, and meditate on those of remembrance and wisdom. About a third of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are drawn from the Psalms, which highlights their theological significance and liturgical importance to the Early Church.

But the Psalter is also full of bitter imprecations which offend modern sensibilities. Curses against enemies abound, often in otherwise sublime settings of supreme sacrifice, humility and brokenness. The Christian will naturally feel that that the spirit of anger and hatred reflected in these sections falls well below Jesus’ teaching and moral standards: it’s hardly an expression of love for one’s enemies to pray that God would take their children and smash their heads against the rocks.

But the intense suffering of the Jews in exile naturally aroused the desire for such horror: we want to hate our enemies, and rather enjoy wishing upon them all manner of suffering and strife. The parents of Gaza are teaching their children that Jews are lower than pigs; the Jews of Israel are teaching their children that Palestinians are all terrorists; the Sunni ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq are beheading the cultic Shia and slaughtering infidel Christians; the Shia are fighting back where they can. The dismembered Christians might be forgiven as they pray in their bombed-out churches for their enemies to die and rot in hell.

But we must bear in mind the fact that for most of the psalmists there was no meaningful afterlife, and so no vindication of the righteous or judgment of the wicked. Rather like today, when notions of heaven and hell are routinely dismissed with the goblins and fairies of Neverland, we prefer judgment to be seen to be done in this world. The final lines of Psalm 137 cannot really be understood without considering that the psalmist was passionate about and impatient for justice:

Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom
in the day of Jerusalem;
who said, Rase it, rase it,
even to the foundation thereof.
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed;
happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth
thy little ones against the stones.

Such laments take us to the depths of helplessness and forsakenness. They are cries of distress when there is nowhere to turn: God has abandoned us and our enemies mock and scorn – or terrorise, persecute and murder. Impulsively but genuinely we want their children to be fatherless and their wives to become widows (Psalm 109:8f). And we hope to God that their bastard offspring don’t grow up to be another generation of murderous devils.

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:14).

Those who are taught resentment and loathing will not easily find Jesus or enter the kingdom. Violence breeds violence and hate engenders hate. The way of Christ is peace. In our secularpolis this may seem like sheer folly. But it is a choice we make in the hope and anticipation that God’s love will finally prevail through the way of the cross, despite our inability to see how this may be possible when warring hearts are filled with grievances and pain.

There is nothing at all to be gained from smashing the heads of babies against the rocks. No, that way lies a world wracked by revenge and ever more violence.

On the love of country. The limits of partriotism

4 Mar

From Bruce Frohen:

Patriotism, or its lack, has been in the news again, as happens every now and then in our hotly contested political culture. President Obama’s persistent references to what he deems to be the history of oppression in our nation, and in western civilization more generally, have led some to question his “patriotism,” by which is meant his love of country. Such arguments may or may not be useful as a means of carrying on political debate. But they certainly throw light on varying conceptions of our duties toward our country and nation. I mention country and nation separately to highlight the particular object of my concern, namely, the question of just what it is to which we owe our “patriotic” loyalty. Is it a geographical unit? A cultural unity or people? Or is it a specific political regime that we think has a rightful call on our love? And what form, and extent, should this love take?

Americans in particular have a reputation for placing love of “country” high on their list of self-described virtues. Yet our conception of that country often is described in specifically political terms. The Pledge of Allegiance, written in the late nineteenth century by the Christian socialist minister Francis Bellamy and adopted by the US Congress in 1942, aims to reinforce loyalty “to the republic for which” the flag “stands.” A significant strain in American ideology connects the greatness of the United States to political principles, usually equality and democracy, putatively found in the Declaration of Independence and reinvigorated by various political figures (especially Abraham Lincoln) and political movements (like the civil rights movement).

The claims for this political conception of patriotism are strong in the United States, to which so many people came in search of the freedom to lead lives of faith and virtue disallowed in their homelands, and in which people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds have been joined by their pursuit of economic well-being in the context of ordered liberty. But critics of this formulation may point to the darker side of an ideology that posits a particular set of principles as the definition of a nation and the thing to which we owe “allegiance.” Various ideologies, from communism to socialism to fascism, have demanded the loyalties of the people, who have been formed into various youth, neighborhood, and other “patriotic” associations to further the cause.

Dissenting persons and communities have been stripped of their legal and customary rights and even exterminated on the grounds of “disloyalty” to a ruling political dogma—again, usually some form of equality. Many Americans would deny the danger of any such ideology in our country, particularly given the attachment of our political religion to democratic forms. But dissenters from contemporary “progressive” ideologies continue to be shunned and have their careers ruined. It also is worthwhile noting the involvement of the United States in a variety of “wars of liberation” and “nation-building” adventures that have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and have their roots in the vision of patriotism as a kind of political loyalty transcending practical questions of human decency and affection.

The conviction that Americans by nature are committed to specific political principles generally is presented as a necessary bulwark against various forms of “blood and iron” patriotism, like that of Otto von Bismark. It was Bismark who consolidated Germany into a Prussian-dominated nation state in part through a kulturkampf waged against the Catholic Church and culture. Racism, ethnic violence, and various forms of antidemocratic politics are said to arise from too close an identification of the nation with a specific culture or people. And it clearly is the case that such forms of violence, even genocide, have resulted in part from the capturing of political power by one group that chooses to identify its racial or ethnic makeup as deserving and requiring supremacy over others identified as disloyal by their very being.

The choice, then, seems a stark one; one not likely to encourage attachment to any form of patriotism. In the first case we see a kind of political religion, in which ideological commitments trump all other attachments and may even justify immoral actions for the greater good they promise. Religion itself, in the sense of a way of life binding a community to a particular conception of the good and how it can be pursued with virtue, becomes a tool of the state. Lost, then, are the natural checks on power provided by religious institutions and standards of conduct meant to restrain human appetite and pride in the name of faith, hope, and love.

In the second case, we see a civil religion, in which the people is identified as a political as well as cultural highest good, to which all other goods must be subordinated. Many proponents of civil religion deny the dangers of such identification by ignoring or denying its cultural component. Robert Bellah, for example, identifies “civil” religion as a form of quasi-religious attachment to American democratic principles. He deems this form of public religion largely benign if kept subordinate to his chosen political principles (equality), thereby confusing civil with political religion. But true “civil” religion, or attachment to “the best of” a people, is merely an invitation to turn ethnic, geographical, or other attachments into a kind of higher calling, akin to that of politics, and Bellah’s “civil” religion is merely a political replacement for its civil counterpart.

What then, of the patriot? If both civil and political religion result, in effect, in a religious attachment to a regime that justifies moral enormities in the name of ideology (including an ideology of ethnic identity) is there no virtue in the love of country? Is the soldier either a fool or a cad, willing to kill for inhumane reasons?

Of course not. Patriotism merely means love of one’s own. It is an attachment to one’s land and people, as well as the form of life (including the political form of life) they lead. This form of love is virtuous to the extent that it is well ordered. One naturally loves one’s own—the people with whom one has grown up, the form of life in which one is raised, the political and economic customs one shares with one’s fellows. The desire to improve one’s own is natural enough, though increasingly promoted by contemporary ideologies. That desire generally and properly is rooted in the customs, principles, and assumptions already present in one’s culture.

Thus the political structures of medieval Europe were constantly under pressure from the demands of the Church both as an institution and as a set of moral, political, and legal principles formulated through canon law, codes of honor (the chivalric code was a very real, active motivator of human conduct for many), and political debate. The principles were internal in the sense that they were generated by forces within the culture. At the same time, they transcended merely political and merely ethnic loyalties and considerations. One’s patriotism, or love of country, was properly limited and even conditioned by love of God, of Church, and of other associations within the political, ethnic, and geographical horizon. Particularly at a time before “country” had been consolidated and simplified into the territorial nation state, love of one’s own pulled one in many directions, subjected one to many sets of duties, and allowed one to pursue the split and conflicting loyalties natural to a good life in a manner capable of spurring one to virtue and decency as great deeds for what might or might not be truly great causes.

The danger of patriotism is not its love, or even the willingness it provides to people to sacrifice for their country. The danger comes about when the nation state, the people, or some other specific unit within a society claims sovereignty over all others, demanding loyalty to itself above all. For such loyalty belongs to God alone and is properly put into effect only through the balancing of moral duties to those around him, in all the rich variety of circumstances and associations provided by a decent life.

Original source

Bruce P. Frohnen is Professor of Law at The Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law.

No, Reformed folk aren’t unfamiliar with John 3:16

23 Feb

It is ironic that in the same chapter, indeed in the same context, in which our Lord teaches the utter necessity of rebirth to even see the kingdom, let alone choose it, non-Reformed views find one of their main proof texts to argue that fallen man retains a small island of ability to choose Christ. It is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

What does this famous verse teach about fallen man’s ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing. The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ. A careful look at the text reveals, however, that it teaches nothing of the kind. What the text teaches is that everyone who believes in Christ will be saved. Whoever does A (believes) will receive B (everlasting life). The text says nothing, absolutely nothing, about who will ever believe. It says nothing about fallen man’s natural moral ability. Reformed people and non-Reformed people both heartily agree that all who believe will be saved. They heartily disagree about who has the ability to believe.

Some may reply, “All right. The text does not explicitly teach that fallen men have the ability to choose Christ without being reborn first, but it certainly implies that.” I am not willing to grant that the text even implies such a thing. However, even if it did it would make no difference in the debate. Why not? Our rule of interpreting Scripture is that implications drawn from the Scripture must always be subordinate to the explicit teaching of Scripture. We must never, never, never reverse this to subordinate the explicit teaching of Scripture to possible implications drawn from Scripture. This rule is shared by both Reformed and non-Reformed thinkers.

From Dr. R.C. Sproul

If John 3:16 implied a universal natural human ability of fallen men to choose Christ, then that implication would be wiped out by Jesus’ explicit teaching to the contrary. We have already shown that Jesus explicitly and unambiguously taught that no man has the ability to come to him without God doing something to give him that ability, namely drawing him.

Fallen man is flesh. In the flesh he can do nothing to please God. Paul declares, “The fleshly mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:78).

We ask, then, “Who are those who are ‘in the flesh’?” Paul goes on to declare: “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you” (Rom. 8:9). The crucial word here is if. What distinguishes those who are in the flesh from those who are not is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. No one who is not reborn is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit. People who are in the flesh have not been reborn. Unless they are first reborn, born of the Holy Spirit, they cannot be subject to the law of God. They cannot please God.

God commands us to believe in Christ. He is pleased by those who choose Christ. If unregenerate people could choose Christ, then they could be subject to at least one of God’s commands and they could at least do something that is pleasing to God. If that is so, then the apostle has erred here in insisting that those who are in the flesh can neither be subject to God nor please him.

We conclude that fallen man is still free to choose what he desires, but because his desires are only wicked he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ. As long as he remains in the flesh, unregenerate, he will never choose Christ. He cannot choose Christ precisely because he cannot act against his own will. He has no desire for Christ. He cannot choose what he does not desire. His fall is great. It is so great that only the effectual grace of God working in his heart can bring him to faith.

Excerpt from R.C. Sproul’s Chosen by God.

Original source