Category Archives: Current Events

Can Fighting for Our ‘Rights’ as Christians Ever Be ‘Wrong‘?

Posted by Dan C. on

That’s a question I’ve been considering (off and on) for some time. The recent issue with Gideon Bibles in Navy Lodging facilities turned it back on again. Bibles were out and are now back in, at least temporarily, while the issue gets ‘higher’ leadership review. How will it end? God knows, and I’m not even going to hazard a guess, at least in this article. What I will do is repeat the above question:

Can fighting for our ‘rights’ as Christians ever be ‘wrong’?

After giving it a lot of thought, my answer is a resounding ‘Yes!” Let me explain.

First of all, please know that I don’t believe that we should just roll over whenever an atheist starts complaining about the mention of God in the public square (or a Bible in a Navy Lodge nightstand). Neither do I have an issue with legal entities or constitutionalists fighting about it – it’s what they do. I’ll answer the question at hand with another question:

What’s more important, our religions ‘rights’ or the eternal souls of those who rail against God?

To most, if not all believers, that should be a rhetorical question. I like the German term for it – ‘selbtsverstandlich’, or ‘self-understood’. It’s the answer I received from everyone in our Sunday morning Bible study at the Chapel I attend on Ft. Carson, CO. While the answer was automatic, it was also followed by a ‘but’ in some cases and a discussion about America’s founding fathers and the Constitution. Therein lies my point.

There is a lot of fighting for ‘our’ rights going on these days and not a small number of organizations, with the ‘Christian’ flag flying high, engaged in the battle against those pesky ‘atheists’. While it is commendable to take a stand for ‘rights’, what I almost never hear in the midst of all the ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ rhetoric is concern for the lost and dying ‘them’ who are rushing headlong into a Christless eternity while they rail against the God they know exists.

While on one hand I don’t hear much about what we freely answer is more important than our ‘rights’, on the other hand I sense an air of prideful self-righteousness as we stick out our bony ‘Christian’ chests while making our demands. Somewhere we’ve crossed a hard to detect line in the sand and lost sight of the Great Commission – the making of disciples of all nations that, by nature, begins with sharing the gospel with the lost and dying. And I’m guilty. It’s probably connected to the ‘sin hangover’ we all have.

And that’s when I think that fighting for our ‘rights’ can be ‘wrong – when we cross that line. Sadly, one of the results of crossing the line is the image of ‘Christians’ that’s projected to the same lost and dying we should be reaching with the message of the gospel. The ‘us’ vs. ‘them fight that they see eclipses whatever else we are trying to communicate about our Christianity. In a way we’ve aided and abetted the enemy in his never ending quest to discredit our testimony.

So can fighting for our ‘rights’ ever be ‘wrong’? Absolutely! When our rights become a higher priority to us than sharing the gospel, even with those ‘pesky atheists’, we’re wrong.

Think about it.

‘Get with the Program’ — The Church of England Votes to Ordain Women Bishops

Posted by Dan C. on

Al Mohler, Tuesday • July 15, 2014

clip_image002

Writing about the age of John Milton, the British author A. N. Wilson once tried to explain to modern secular readers that there had once been a time when bishops of the Church of England were titanic figures of conviction who were ready to stand against the culture. “It needs an act of supreme historical imagination to be able to recapture an atmosphere in which Anglican bishops might be taken seriously,” he wrote, “still more, one in which  they might be thought threatening.”

Keep that in mind as you read the news that the General Synod of the Church of England voted yesterday to approve the consecration of women as bishops of the church.

The votes came less than two years after a similar measure failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote before the same synod. The election of women as bishops had sailed through the bishops and the clergy, but opposition from lay members of the synod had blocked the measure late in 2012.

What few even in the British media are now mentioning is the massive pressure brought upon the church by the larger British culture and, most specifically, from the British government.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said yesterday was “a great day for the Church and for equality.” Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that the vote was a “big moment” and Ed Miliband, leader of the opposition Labor Party said that the vote was “wonderful news.”

As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the church’s chief cleric, Archbishop Justin Welby said that the measure adopted Monday would mark “the start of a great adventure of seeking mutual flourishing while still, in some cases, disagreeing. The challenge for us will be for the church to model good disagreement and to continue to demonstrate love for those who disagree on theological grounds.”

That “adventure” will leave conservative evangelicals in the Church of England increasingly out in the cold, despite all the talk of “mutual flourishing.” The measure approved by the synod means that women bishops will be bishops in full, with mandatory recognition of their episcopal status by all within the Church of England. This will leave conservative ministers under the authority of bishops they do not actually believe to be bishops in fact. It is hard to imagine “mutual flourishing” in that circumstance. The measure also called for the appointment of one conservative evangelical male bishop in coming months — which means that the church has just committed itself to appoint a bishop who does not believe that at least some of his colleague bishops will meet the biblical requirements.

This is the kind of “compromise” that pervades mainline liberal Protestantism. It shifts the church decisively to the left and calls for mutual respect. Conservatives are to be kindly shown the door. Ruth Gledhill of The Guardian [London], one of the most insightful observers of religion in Great Britain, recognized the plight of the evangelicals, though she celebrated the vote: “In the last 69 episcopal appointments, there have been evangelicals but not a single conservative one.” In this context, “conservative” means more concerned with doctrinal matters and opposed to a change in the church’s teachings on gender and human sexuality. But, as Gledhill recognized, “This wing of the church is where so much of the energy is, giving rise not just to growth, but also that necessary resource, cash.”

Yes, there is another pattern to recognize — evangelicals have the growth and the cash, just not the votes. The talk about mutual flourishing is really an argument to remain in the church and keep paying the bills.

Ruth Gledhill is profoundly right about another aspect of Monday’s vote as well. It won’t stop with women bishops. “Now the church can move into the 20th century, although perhaps not the 21st,” she wrote. “A change on gay marriage would be needed to do that.” Well, stay tuned, as they say. The same church now has bishops living and teaching in open defiance of the church’s law on sexuality as well.

There is a very real sense in which Monday’s vote was inevitable. Once the church had decided to ordain women as priests, the elevation of women to bishop was only a matter of time. But the Church of England explicitly claims apostolic succession back to the earliest years of the church, traced through bishops. That is why virtually every major media outlet in Britain acknowledged, at least, that the vote reversed 2,000 years of Christian tradition. They also tended to note that the vote came after 20 years of controversy.

Evidently, 2,000 of years of tradition was no match for 20 years of controversy.

And much of that controversy was driven by cultural and political forces. Back in November 2012, when laity in the General Synod defeated a similar measure, Britain’s head of government pitched a fit. Prime Minister Cameron told Parliament that the Church of England needed “to get with the program.” He added, “You have to respect the individual institutions and the way they work, while giving them a sharp prod.” A sharp prod, indeed.

Cameron told Parliament, “I think it’s important for the Church of England to be a modern church in touch with society as it is today and this was a key step it needed to take.” There is the modern secular imperative with its teeth bared: Be a modern church in touch with society as it is today, or look out.

Archbishop Rowan Williams, then the Archbishop of Canterbury, responded like a chastened child, acknowledging the Prime Minister’s point and stating that “it seems that we are willfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that larger society.” There was no mention of obedience to Scripture.

Maria Miller, the British government’s minister for equalities openly threatened the church. In a rather contradictory statement, she provided a “prod” of her own: “Obviously, it’s for the Church of England to run its own procedures and processes, but I hope that they have heard, loud and clear, the strength of feeling on this, and that it acts quickly.”

Some members of Parliament threatened to disestablish the church and to remove its bishops from the House of Lords. There can be no doubt that the refusal to elect women as bishops put the church far out of line with Britain’s secular culture — now one of the most secular societies on the planet.

There are a great many issues of importance in this situation. These include the very idea of a state church (much less, a state church in a hyper-secular society), the definition and role of bishops, the role of women in the church, the importance of doctrinal tradition, and, most of all, the authority of Scripture and the integrity of the Christian Faith.

But the public conversation about Monday’s vote reveals issues of urgency and importance that go far beyond Britain and the Church of England. The Prime Minister’s command that the church “get with the program” and “be a modern church in touch with society as it is today” is a command that is now addressed in every modern culture to every church.

One key question is that raised by A. N. Wilson. Can we even envision a day when Christian leaders might be taken seriously as committed to biblical Christianity? Or, to use his very words, “still more, one in which they might be thought threatening?” If not, Christianity in the West will continue its slide into compromise and eventual surrender.

The Very Rev. William Ralph Inge, Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London in the early 20th century, once famously remarked: “Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.” Now, that is a word from an Anglican we all need to hear.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Just write me at mail@albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler

Ruth Gledhill, “Joy and Relief at Display of Unity for Vote on Ordination of Women Bishops,” The Guardian [London], Monday, July 14, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/14/ordination-of-women-joy-and-relief

Patrick Wintour and Lizzy Davis, “David Cameron: Church of England Should ‘Get on with it’ on Female Bishops,” The Guardian [London], Wednesday, November 21, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/21/david-cameron-church-female-bishops

Aida Edemariam and Lizzy Davis, “Pressure Piles on Church to Vote Again in Female Bishops,” The Guardian [London], Friday, November 23, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/maria-miller-church-female-bishops

Megachurch Pastor John MacArthur: Denominations That Allow Gay ‘Marriage’ Are ‘Satan’s Church’

Posted by Dan C. on

In the wake of the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s recent decision to celebrate same-sex “marriages,” celebrity pastor John MacArthur of “Grace to You” has come out with some strong statements condemning “false churches” that abandon Biblical teachings against homosexual behavior.

“They have no allegiance to the Bible,” MacArthur told The Blaze online news service. “You go back to every one of those seminaries … for a century [they] have been deniers of biblical authority, they have no relationship to scripture, they are the apostate church, they are Satan’s church.”

While it seems clear MacArthur was implying that self-professed Christians who accept gay “marriage” are doing Satan’s work, not necessarily worshiping the devil, it is worth noting that the actual Satanic Temple of America has called same-sex “marriage” one of its “sacraments.”

MacArthur, who is Baptist, believes in the teachings of John Calvin regarding the inerrancy and literal truth of Scripture.  The PCUSA also has its roots in Calvinism, but in 1967 the church updated its precepts to distance itself from Calvin and adopted a more flexible view of Biblical truth.

During a 2001 debate over whether the denomination would permit the ordination of openly homosexual pastors, PCUSA officials said, “We acknowledge the role of scriptural authority in the Presbyterian Church, but Presbyterians generally do not believe in biblical inerrancy. Presbyterians do not insist that every detail of chronology or sequence or pre-scientific description in scripture be true in literal form. Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail.”

In his interview with The Blaze, MacArthur lamented the cultural decline of mainstream denominations like the PCUSA, and said their watered-down approach to theology is a major factor in the increasing secularization of America, which he argues was founded on “cultural Christianity.”

According to MacArthur, the historical “cultural Christianity” of Americans has long been a stabilizing force for society.  It didn’t mean that everyone belonged to the same church or worshiped exactly the same way, but it did mean that the culture as a whole had a shared set of values and generally believed they would have to answer to a higher power in the afterlife.

The founding fathers, MacArthur told The Blaze, “knew you couldn’t compel people to goodness” unless the majority of people believed in God.  But in our increasingly agnostic society, the very idea of “goodness” is open to debate.

“Cultural Christianity … is dying at a warp speed,” MacArthur said. “In the last election … the Democratic platform was pro-killing children and pro-homosexuality.  The young generation has bought into the corruption and lack of ethics morals by media entertainment [and] educators.”

MacArthur cited the unwillingness of mainstream pastors to speak out on controversial issues like homosexuality and abortion as the reason society has begun to embrace immorality as goodness.  He challenged church leaders to meditate on Romans 1, which reads in part:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

“Romans 1 describes exactly what is happening in America,” MacArthur told The Blaze. “It defines the wrath as God giving them over, giving them over, giving them over.”

To read the rest of The Blaze’s interview with John MacArthur, click here.

Online Source: LifeSite News

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Posted by Dan C. on

By Nury Vittachi | July 6th 2014

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected

WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.

INTERNAL MONOLOGUES

Scientists have discovered that “invisible friends” are not something reserved for children. We all have them, and encounter them often in the form of interior monologues. As we experience events, we mentally tell a non-present listener about it.

The imagined listener may be a spouse, it may be Jesus or Buddha or it may be no one in particular. It’s just how the way the human mind processes facts. The identity, tangibility or existence of the listener is irrelevant.

“From childhood, people form enduring, stable and important relationships with fictional characters, imaginary friends, deceased relatives, unseen heroes and fantasized mates,” says Boyer of Washington University, himself an atheist. This feeling of having an awareness of another consciousness might simply be the way our natural operating system works.

PUZZLING RESPONSES

These findings may go a long way to explaining a series of puzzles in recent social science studies. In the United States, 38% of people who identified themselves as atheist or agnostic went on to claim to believe in a God or a Higher Power (Pew Forum, “Religion and the Unaffiliated”, 2012).

While the UK is often defined as an irreligious place, a recent survey by Theos, a think tank, found that very few people—only 13 per cent of adults—agreed with the statement “humans are purely material beings with no spiritual element”. For the vast majority of us, unseen realities are very present.

When researchers asked people whether they had taken part in esoteric spiritual practices such as having a Reiki session or having their aura read, the results were almost identical (between 38 and 40%) for people who defined themselves as religious, non-religious or atheist.

The implication is that we all believe in a not dissimilar range of tangible and intangible realities. Whether a particular brand of higher consciousness is included in that list (“I believe in God”, “I believe in some sort of higher force”, “I believe in no higher consciousness”) is little more than a detail.

EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSES

If a tendency to believe in the reality of an intangible network is so deeply wired into humanity, the implication is that it must have an evolutionary purpose. Social scientists have long believed that the emotional depth and complexity of the human mind means that mindful, self-aware people necessarily suffer from deep existential dread. Spiritual beliefs evolved over thousands of years as nature’s way to help us balance this out and go on functioning.

If a loved one dies, even many anti-religious people usually feel a need for a farewell ritual, complete with readings from old books and intoned declarations that are not unlike prayers. In war situations, commanders frequently comment that atheist soldiers pray far more than they think they do.

Statistics show that the majority of people who stop being part of organized religious groups don’t become committed atheists, but retain a mental model in which “The Universe” somehow has a purpose for humanity.

In the US, only 20 per cent of people have no religious affiliation, but of these, only one in ten say they are atheists. The majority are “nothing in particular” according to figures published in New Scientist.

FEELING OF CONNECTEDNESS

There are other, more socially-oriented evolutionary purposes, too. Religious communities grow faster, since people behave better (referring to the general majority over the millennia, as opposed to minority extremists highlighted by the media on any given day).

Why is this so? Religious folk attend weekly lectures on morality, read portions of respected books about the subject on a daily basis and regularly discuss the subject in groups, so it would be inevitable that some of this guidance sinks in.

There is also the notion that the presence of an invisible moralistic presence makes misdemeanors harder to commit. “People who think they are being watched tend to behave themselves and cooperate more,” says the New Scientist’s Lawton. “Societies that chanced on the idea of supernatural surveillance were likely to have been more successful than those that didn’t, further spreading religious ideas.”

This is not simply a matter of religious folk having a metaphorical angel on their shoulder, dispensing advice. It is far deeper than that—a sense of interconnectivity between all things. If I commit a sin, it is not an isolated event but will have appropriate repercussions. This idea is common to all large scale faith groups, whether it is called karma or simply God ensuring that you “reap what you sow”. 

NARRATIVE PRESENCE

These theories find confirmation from a very different academic discipline—the literature department. The present writer, based at the Creativity Lab at Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s School of Design, has been looking at the manifestation of cosmic justice in fictional narratives—books, movies and games. It is clear that in almost all fictional worlds, God exists, whether the stories are written by people of a religious, atheist or indeterminate beliefs.

It’s not that a deity appears directly in tales. It is that the fundamental basis of stories appears to be the link between the moral decisions made by the protagonists and the same characters’ ultimate destiny. The payback is always appropriate to the choices made. An unnamed, unidentified mechanism ensures that this is so, and is a fundamental element of stories—perhaps the fundamental element of narratives.

In children’s stories, this can be very simple: the good guys win, the bad guys lose. In narratives for older readers, the ending is more complex, with some lose ends left dangling, and others ambiguous. Yet the ultimate appropriateness of the ending is rarely in doubt. If a tale ended with Harry Potter being tortured to death and the Dursley family dancing on his grave, the audience would be horrified, of course, but also puzzled: that’s not what happens in stories. Similarly, in a tragedy, we would be surprised if King Lear’s cruelty to Cordelia did not lead to his demise.

Indeed, it appears that stories exist to establish that there exists a mechanism or a person—cosmic destiny, karma, God, fate, Mother Nature—to make sure the right thing happens to the right person. Without this overarching moral mechanism, narratives become records of unrelated arbitrary events, and lose much of their entertainment value. In contrast, the stories which become universally popular appear to be carefully composed records of cosmic justice at work.

WELL-DEFINED PROCESS

In manuals for writers (see “Screenplay” by Syd Field, for example) this process is often defined in some detail. Would-be screenwriters are taught that during the build-up of the story, the villain can sin (take unfair advantages) to his or her heart’s content without punishment, but the heroic protagonist must be karmically punished for even the slightest deviation from the path of moral rectitude. The hero does eventually win the fight, not by being bigger or stronger, but because of the choices he makes.

This process is so well-established in narrative creation that the literati have even created a specific category for the minority of tales which fail to follow this pattern. They are known as “bleak” narratives. An example is A Fine Balance, by Rohinton Mistry, in which the likable central characters suffer terrible fates while the horrible faceless villains triumph entirely unmolested.

While some bleak stories are well-received by critics, they rarely win mass popularity among readers or moviegoers. Stories without the appropriate outcome mechanism feel incomplete. The purveyor of cosmic justice is not just a cast member, but appears to be the hidden heart of the show.

ROOTS OF ATHEISM

But if a belief in cosmic justice is natural and deeply rooted, the question arises: where does atheism fit in? Albert Einstein, who had a life-long fascination with metaphysics, believed atheism came from a mistaken belief that harmful superstition and a general belief in religious or mystical experience were the same thing, missing the fact that evolution would discard unhelpful beliefs and foster the growth of helpful ones. He declared himself “not a ‘Freethinker’ in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition” (“Einstein on Peace”, page 510).

Similarly, Charles Darwin, in a meeting with a campaigner for atheism in September 1881, distanced himself from the views of his guest, finding them too “aggressive”. In the latter years of his life, he offered his premises for the use of the local church minister and changed his family schedule to enable his children to attend services.

SMALL DIFFERENCES

Of course these findings do not prove that it is impossible to stop believing in God. What they do indicate, quite powerfully, is that we may be fooling ourselves if we think that we are making the key decisions about what we believe, and if we think we know how deeply our views pervade our consciousnesses. It further suggests that the difference between the atheist and the non-atheist viewpoint is much smaller than probably either side perceives. Both groups have consciousnesses which create for themselves realities which include very similar tangible and intangible elements. It may simply be that their awareness levels and interpretations of certain surface details differ.

THE FUTURE

But as higher levels of education spread, will starry-eyed spirituality die out and cooler, drier atheism sweep the field, as some atheism campaigners suggest? Some specialists feel this is unlikely. “If godlessness flourishes where there is stability and prosperity, then climate change and environmental degradation could seriously slow the spread of atheism,” says Lawton in New Scientist.

On a more personal level, we all have loved ones who will die, and we all have a tendency to puzzle about what consciousness is, whether it is separate from the brain, and whether it can survive.  We will always have existential dread with us—at a personal or societal level. So the need for periods of contemplative calm in churches or temples or other places devoted to the ineffable and inexplicable will remain. They appear to be part of who we are as humans.

Furthermore, every time we read a book or watch a movie, we are reinforcing our default belief in the eventual triumph of karma. While there is certainly growth in the number of bleak narratives being produced, it is difficult to imagine them becoming the majority form of cultural entertainment. Most of us will skip Cormac McCarthy’s crushingly depressing “The Road” in favor of the newest Pixar movie.

POPULATION IMPLICATIONS

When looking at trends, there’s also population growth to consider. Western countries are moving away from the standard family model, and tend to obsess over topics such as same-sex marriage and abortion on demand. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these issues, in practice they are associated with shrinking populations.  Europeans (and the Japanese) are not having enough children to replace the adult generation, and are seeing their communities shrink on a daily basis.

Africans and South Asians, on the other hand, are generally religious and retain the traditional model of multi-child families—which may be old-fashioned from a Western point of view, but it’s a model powerfully sanctioned by the evolutionary urge to extend the gene pool.

“It’s clearly the case that the future will involve an increase in religious populations and a decrease in scepticism,” says Steve Jones, a professor in genetics at University College London, speaking at the Hay Festival in the UK recently.

This may appear as bad news for pro-atheism campaigners. But for the evolutionary life-force which may actually make the decisions, this may augur well for the continued existence of humanity. (An image of Richard Dawkins and his selfish gene having a testy argument over dinner springs to mind.)

In the meantime, it might be wise for religious folks to refrain from teasing atheist friends who accidentally say something about their souls. And it might be equally smart for the more militant of today’s atheists to stop teasing religious people at all.

We might all be a little more spiritual than we think.

Online Source

Is Gay Marriage Destroying the United Methodist Church?

Posted by Dan C. on

That’s the title of an article in Christianity Today. Here is an excerpt from that article:

“Irreconcilable” disagreement over same-sex unions is once again prompting debate over splitting the historic United Methodist Church (UMC), one of America’s largest denominations.

“If we are one church, we cannot act as if we are two. If, in reality, we are two churches, it may not be wise to pretend any longer that we are one,” concludes a statement last month from 80 traditionalists from across the UMC, which has 7.7 million U.S. members. (An additional 4.4 million members are overseas.)

The statement says the UMC is facing a crisis in four areas because:

* Pastors have violated or said they are willing to violate the Book of Discipline ban on same-sex marriages. (The Book of Discipline is the church’s most authoritative guide.)

* Pastors and other leaders realize that there are no “meaningful consequences” for violating the Book of Discipline by officiating at a same-sex union. (In one instance, two clergy were given a “24-hour suspension without pay” for marrying gay couples.)

* More church leaders believe “significant parts of the Scriptures do not provide an accurate understanding of God’s heart and mind and may be discarded as uninspired and in error.”

* Among top leaders, “there are dramatic differences in how personal and social holiness is lived out and taught.”

Questions that come to mind:

  • Shouldn’t some differences be irreconcilable?
  • When does a ‘church’ cease being a true church of the living God?
  • Since when does what ‘more and more church leaders believe’ have any standing when what more of them believe clearly violates God’s design and plan for marriage?

The article didn’t leave out an opinion from the “grassroots” level (regular folks).

“At the grassroots, schism is unpopular. A June poll, commissioned by a UMC agency, indicates that rank and file UMC members are opposed to a church schism over homosexuality. “We found that regardless of a person’s position on homosexuality, members felt strongly that the church could offer a positive and different voice to the broader conversation occurring in society today,” said John Deuterman, president of Corporate Research, which conducted the survey for the UMC Communications agency.” (Emphasis mine)

I really don’t know what that is trying to say. The only ‘positive’ and ‘different’ (than society) voice ought to be the voice of Almighty God, who has spoken rather clearly in this matter.

 

bbbbb

Fuzzy Thinking?

Posted by Dan C. on

Premise 1 The Old Testament Law prohibited eating certain foods and declared some ‘unclean’.

Premise 2. Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’

Conclusion: Therefore Jesus contradicted/abolished/dismissed OT Law.

The above syllogism is used by many to affirm certain behavior/activity prohibited by OT Law. What behavior/activity is currently being defended is immaterial to the REAL question at hand.

1. “Did Jesus abolish OT Law?” Using the term ‘abolish’ by definition includes contradicting and/or dismissing the Law.

At this point, a rather lengthy discussion can be had concerning what is meant by ‘abolish’, as well as an even longer dissertation concerning the ‘types’ of Law in the OT. To answer out question however, we need only look to the words of Jesus himself:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

There you have it. Jesus did not come abolish the Law, but to fulfill not only the Law, but also the Prophets. Whatever that means, the above conclusion is false.

I’m not going to get into the meaning of it all, but there are some good answers from an excellent source to specific questions like “Did Jesus abolish OT law?” at www.gotQuestions.org. Just Google the question and read to your heart’s content.

___________________________________

The above post is dedicated to “Bones”, a fellow who stated that Jesus did contradict and/or dismiss OT Law, over at a ‘Progressive’ Christian are of the blogosphere. I could not address him there, as I have been blocked from doing so. That’s probably a good thing (being blocked) since there are even more really foolish arguments being made over there and I have a tendency to want to address them all and perhaps become a poor steward of God’s time.

Meriam: “I am a Christian, and a Christian I shall remain”

Posted by Dan C. on

Meriam: “I am a Christian, and a Christian I shall remain”

Posted by Jesse Johnson at The Cripplegate

Meriam Yehya Ibrahim is married, 27-years-old, mother to a 20-month old son, 8-months pregnant, and last week was sentenced to death for being a Christian. 

Her story is not all that uncommon. Her father was Muslim, and her mother was an ethnic Christian. As is common in much of the world—including the United States—Muslim men frequently marry non-Muslim women, because by Islamic tradition their children are considered Muslim. It frankly doesn’t matter what the children of that religious mish-mash marriage actually believe about God or faith; because the father was Muslim, so are the children. Period. These kind of marriage don’t often last—but that is not their point. Their point is simply to expand Islam through the children.

Such was the case for Meriam. Her parents had two children, herself and a brother. Her father then left her mother to raise both of them. Her mother came to faith in Christ, and raised her children in the church. Meriam’s grew up, and (as Christians are prone to do) married a believer, and had a son.

Her brother meanwhile had left Christianity and returned to the religion of his father. He reported Meriam to the police, who arrested her, tried her in an Islamic court, and convicted her of blasphemy and adultery. More on the adultery later.

Her country, Sudan, is one of many in the world that claim to have religious freedom, yet also make it a capital crime for someone to leave the Muslim faith. They say to the world, “We have religious freedom!” but what they mean by that is “you are free to worship in any religion you want, as long as Muslims don’t leave the Islamic religion.” Thus they can look the human right’s groups in the eye and declare their love for personal freedom, as long as the Western world respects their right for Islamic tradition. Which, by the way, includes the death sentence for any Muslims that convert to Christianity.

This is the mess that Meriam found herself in when her brother reported her. In the eyes of Islam she is a Muslim—never mind the fact that she doesn’t practice, believe, or follow Islam in anyway—thus it is a crime for her to claim Christ. The exact crime is “Apostasy,” punishable by death. Islam demonstrates its mercy toward women by declaring that a pregnant women sentenced to death for such a thing shall be spared until their child is weaned. Assuming her new baby survives child birth—hardly a sure thing, because the government says “for security reasons” she must give birth in prison—she likely has another year or two to live.

Under Islamic law not only is it a crime to leave the Muslim religion, but it is also illegal for a Muslim women to marry a non-Muslim man (obviously the reverse is not true, or Meriam wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with). Since in the eyes of Islamic law she is Muslim, her marriage to her husband was declared void by the courts. Since she is pregnant, she is thereby guilty of adultery. For that she gets 100 lashes, and it is unlikely they will wait for the baby to be weaned before they carry out that part of the sentence.

Meriam is not alone. In Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, and other Islamic countries Christians are routinely arrested, beaten, and even martyred for no other reason than for embracing Jesus and rejecting the message of Mohammad. Yet these stories are hardly ever news. What makes Meriam different?

Simple: CNN picked up her story and ran with it. I have no idea why, but they did. Maybe it is because she is in jail with her 20-month old son, who is sick and denied medical care (again, for security reasons). Perhaps it is because her husband, Daniel, is in a wheel chair. He says he is totally dependent upon his wife to care for him, and doesn’t know what will happen to him now that she is gone. Maybe it is because of its proximity to the story of the kidnapped Nigerian school girls.

Why CNN chose this story to focus on we may never know. But the result of the press coverage has been a public relations row for Sudan. Other countries have pressured Sudan to find a diplomatic way to end Meriam’s imprisonment and spare her life.

Perhaps because of this push back, her trial court granted her what they described as a “merciful” option. They gave her 3 days to recant her faith in Christ. If she would just tell the court that this whole thing was a big misunderstanding, she and her son could go free. And this is plausible enough, isn’t it? She doesn’t really remember her father; how was she to know that she was a Muslim? Now that she does, she can simply apologize to the court, ask to delay the beatings until after she delivers her baby, and go home.

CNN reports that after three days, the judge brought her back to the court. In Diet-of-Worms style, a Sheik appealed to the judge to recognize, “how dangerous a crime like this is to Islam and the Islamic community.”

When it was her turn to speak, Meriam simply said, “I am a Christian, and I will remain a Christian.”

I have no idea what kind of church she goes to. In Sudan there are Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, and Orthodox believers. Whatever kind of Christian she is, she is also obviously the kind that would rather die than renounce her faith.

It is noteworthy that the Koran expressly allows people to artificially deny the Muslim faith for a brief period of time; if a Muslim was on trial and his only way to escape was to lie about his faith, Surat An-Nahl 16:106 would allow him to deny Islam for the day, to get his freedom and save his life.

16:106

The obvious question: what kind of religion values faith at gun-point? What kind of religion tells someone “if you leave, we will kill you and possibly your children?” Sudan’s government says that the rest of the world doesn’t understand, and that blasphemy laws are at the heart of what it means to be a Muslim nation. They may be right; after all perhaps a dozen other Islamic countries have the same law. It is hardly unique to Islam though—remember that it was the Jewish court system that sentenced Jesus to die. Like Meriam, his crime was “blasphemy.”

Who knows how Meriam’s case will end? Its possible that international pressure will prevail, and that they will release her, and perhaps only expel her from the country. Its possible that the press will forget about this case, and two years from now she will be executed, as so many other Christians are: forgotten and anonymous.

Pray for Meriam and Daniel this week. Consider it a joy to intercede for someone who values faithfulness to Jesus above the limited freedoms this world has to offer.

World Vision and Why We Grieve For the Children

Posted by Dan C. on

by Trevin Wax, The Gospel Coalition

World Vision has announced that its American branch will adjust its employee code of conduct to allow same-sex couples who are legally “married.”

Hoping to keep the evangelical organization out of debates over same-sex marriage, president Richard Stearns adjusted the employee code of conduct to sexuality within the confines of “marriage” whether between man and man or woman and woman. In other words, while declaring to not take a position on redefining marriage, his organization has redefined it.

Some observers are elated.

Evangelicals are shocked.

Many are outraged.

No matter what you think about this decision, I hope you feel a sense of grief… for the children. This is a story of deep and lasting significance, because there are children’s lives at stake in how we respond.

Children will suffer as evangelicals lose trust in and withdraw support from World Vision in the future. It will take time for evangelicals to start new organizations that maintain historic Christian concepts of sin, faith, and repentance.

In the meantime, children will suffer. Needlessly.

That’s why critics of the evangelical outcry toward World Vision will say, Get over it! Kids matter more than what men and women choose to do romantically!

Strangely enough, we agree. In fact, this is one of the main reasons we’re against redefining marriage. We believe kids matter more than gays and lesbians having romantic relationships enshrined as “marriage.”

Children are the ones who suffer when society says there’s no difference between a mom or a dad.

Children are the ones who suffer when a couple’s romantic interests outstrip a child’s healthy development, whether in no-fault easy divorce laws, or in the redefining of society’s central institution.

Children are the ones who suffer when Mom and Dad choose to live together, as if their relationship is one lengthy trial or audition, a decision that can’t provide their children with the security that comes from marriage.

Children are the ones who suffer when careers matter more than marriage, when romance matters more than reproduction, when sex is a commodity, when a marriage culture is undermined.

Children are the ones who suffer when organizations like World Vision, under the guise of neutrality, adopt policies that enshrine a false definition of marriage in the very statement that says no position will be taken.

Children are the ones who suffer when President Obama (rightly) mourns the rampant fatherlessness in the African-American community, while simultaneously campaigning for marriage laws that would make fathers totally unnecessary.

Children are the ones who suffer and die when “sexual freedom” means the right of a mother to take the life of her unborn child.

Sex is our god. Children are our sacrifice.

So, yes, we grieve for the children across the world who will be adversely affected by World Vision’s decision and the evangelical response.

But we also grieve for children here at home who are growing up in a culture in which sexual idolatry distorts the meaning of marriage and the beauty of God’s original design.

Today is a day to grieve for the children.

The ‘Imago Dei Campaign’–A Noble Undertaking, or Spiritual Compromise?

Posted by Dan C. on

There’s a new campaign afoot, called ‘Imago Dei’. The Web page says the campaign is:

“Committed to shining the light of Christ by Reconciling Billy Graham’s message of salvation through Christ with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s march for justice.”

To join the movement all you have to do is affirm the following:

“I recognize that every human being, in and out of the womb, carries the image of God; without exception. Therefore, I will treat everyone with love and respect.”

The site also offers further explains and encourages:

Who We Are

Imago Dei is a global movement committed to shining the light of Christ. A type social media/ digital platform component with the metric of committing millions to the cause.

Join Us

By signing up for the Imago Dei Campaign, you are committed to changing the world by recognizing that we are all made in the image of God, without exception.

Question: Do we who call ourselves Christians need a ‘campaign’ to treat others with love and respect when the Bible already provides the very same guidance, and more concerning how we are to treat others?

Answer: Only if we are lacking in Biblical literacy – and I mean LACKING, or if the power of God working in the hearts of his children is insufficient to the task. (See Phil 2:13).

Question: How can anything that sounds so noble be bad?

Answer: There are at least two possibilities to consider.

1. If it fosters a false form of ecumenism. This movement does just that, as have other interesting developments in recent months and years.

One must consider the fact that this ‘movement’ has as its leaders both Protestants and Catholics. The protestant leaders. The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, along with James and Betty Robison affirm Roman Catholicism (salvation = faith plus works) as genuine Christianity. It must be added that although there was a group of liberal Lutheran and Catholic leaders who seem to have come to a meeting of the minds, complete with a declaration that appears to equate salvation by faith alone, The Council of Trent, with its pronouncements of ‘anathema’ against those who maintain salvation by grace alone, has NEVER been abrogated.

The Catholic leadership consists of Roma Downey and her husband Mark Burnett, producers of the doctrinally “The Bible’ miniseries and ‘Son of God’ big screen production. Both of those never presented the true gospel that is about the issue of sin, repentance, and belief, but rather asserted that Jesus came to ‘change the world’ World change is a product of Christ’s death for the sins of men, not the main reason he came. I won’t get into all of the connections Roma Downey has with New Age spirituality, Contemplative mysticism, and Eastern religions’ panentheism.

2. If it can be used by other ‘movements’, steeped in practices the Bible calls sinful, to demand that their ‘sin’ be accepted or ‘affirmed by Christians. That is exactly what the LGBT community has been after for years, and this gives them another opportunity/tool to use for making their demands. It goes like this: “I’m made in the image of God just like you and I’m ‘gay’, and if you say anything against my sexuality, you are not treating me with love and respect. People have already been prosecuted for ‘hate’ crimes for agreeing with the Bible on certain issues. Isn’t this just a ‘logical’ outcome? Is this ‘campaign’ just a convenient way for professing Christians to be silent concerning ‘sin’ without feeling guilty for being spiritual cowards?

The “Son of God” Movie – Faithful Adaptation?

Posted by Dan C. on

A recent Newsweek magazine special edition  titled ‘Jesus’ there was an article at the back called:

FAITHFUL ADAPTATION : Two of the church’s most influential voices explain why Son of God is a meaningful benchmark for Christianity’s future..

Here is the article. I have underlined the interviewer questions/statements for clarity :

FAITHFUL ADAPTATION

Two of the church’s most influential voices explain why Son of God is a meaningful benchmark for Christianity’s future.

REV. JOEL OSTEEN

 

Pastor of Lakewood Church, the largest church in America, and the author of several books, including the recent Break Out!

 

What was it like for you to work with Mark Burnett and Roma Downey on Son of God?

 

I was technically a consultant, but I didn’t do much. That’s not my expertise. I felt they could get theologians or experts, so for me it was more about being a friend. . I was just there to support them as part of the Christian community. When I heard what they were doing . . . I was there to be supportive in any way I could.

What kinds of conversations did the three of you have about the way the story was going to be presented? Did you ever debate Scripture versus a good script?

 

I was on board the whole way. I never saw anything that was off base. . . . At one point in Son of God, Jesus walks out to Peter’s little fishing boat, and Jesus says, “We’re going to change the world.” I loved that. Some people might say, “But that’s not in the Bible,” but I said, “Look, guys, you’re making the Bible contemporary.”

Does that attitude also inform the way you minister to your community at Lakewood?

 

I get criticized for it, but people already know what they’re doing wrong. When I look at the congregation, I don’t have the heart to tell these people they’re crewing up. They already came in here and spent their time and energy. I want to tell them God is there for them, that they can overcome addictions, that they can make good decisions. I want to empower them. I don’t think Jesus came to condemn. He lifted people up. People are tired of being told what to do and tired of being talked down to. Of course, there are two sides of it.

 

Because other ministers feel they have a different calling?

 

Exactly. I can see the other side. Some people need to have somebody in their face saying, “You have to straighten up.” But that’s not my job. My role is to celebrate anyone who is doing something good. They don’t have to be like me. I don’t have to agree with them I00 percent. None of us agree 100 percent on everything. We’re in this together. We’re going to see the good in each other, and I think that’s one of the beauties of what Mark and Roma are doing. It’s a tool for us to celebrate who we are.

Lakewood is one of the largest churches in the country. Is it helpful for you to have a film like Son of God, which gives your congregation a common vocabulary or experience?

 

It is harder to have community in a church like ours. The church is very diverse, not only racially but economically. You could have a CEO sitting by somebody who took the bus. But the pros outweigh the cons for me. There are services that have 15,000 people, and it’s very empowering. It’s like a concert. It’s about bringing people together. So we see a movie like Son Of God as a tool; we see it as a way to get together. It’s easy to say, “Let’s go sec a movie.” People think, “I don’t want to go to church, but you know what, I’ll go see a movie.” And that can create a spark on the inside that says, ‘Tm not religious, but maybe I need a relationship with God,” and that’s who we’re trying to reach- not just the church people. Plus, the film is so well done .What I love about Mark and Roma is that they know how to do it right, with that added production value. Son of God is on par with anything you would go to see in the movies.

 

Do you feel Son of God is finally giving the Greatest Story Ever Told the treatment it deserves?

 

It really is. I say this all the time, but Mark and Roma could be doing anything. They have the opportunities, they have the fame, they have the money. These guys have chosen to use their gift, their power and their celebrity to do something great for faith and to bring the Bible to life. That’s why it’s easy to get behind it.

REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ

 

Leader of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Council l and author of Path of Miracles

 

Tell me briefly how you got involved with The Bible series and. ultimately, the Son of God film.

 

Roma Downey, Mark Burnett and their team engaged Christian leaders for the sake of The Bible series. The primary purpose was to advise and consent: We said, “Let’s look at the series, some of the segments, the trailer, the script. Is there anything that will cause great angst or consternation within the Bible-believing community?” So I was engaged at the initial stages, and it became a wonderful journey. The Christian worldview via the conduit of popular culture appears marginalized and ridiculed. But now there’s this redemptive opportunity to offer the Bible to a new generation n. It became a visual presentation of the wonderful life-changing narrative that’s stems out of God’s word.

How much course correcting did you do as an adviser?

 

None. Mark and Roma did their due diligence beforehand. For me, as long as the core message and core themes were, without compromise, about love and grace and redemption and taking care of those in need :and changing the world for good, I was covered .And they not only adhered to that, they actually elevated that message through the Bible series and now the Son of God movie.

What does Son of God do differently than The Bible?

 

By focusing on the Jesus narrative exclusively, Son of God takes The Bible and raises and amplifies it on a very powerful scale. There’s a difference between seeing the story through your television and seeing this radical journey of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ on the big screen. And because it’s being released in theaters, it offers an opportunity for fellowship and fraternity ty. It’s a convocation. It invites us to have a conversation about faith, religion and God.

Why do you feel that’s paramount at this point in our history?

 

We have so much confrontation and so many debates taking place in America on a plethora of issues every single day. I ‘m only 44 years of age, but I’ve never seen my nation as divided as I see it now. Son of God says, “Let’s come together and let’s have a conversation. Let’s experience something different, something that’s conciliatory, something that’s redemptive.” And that’s why it’s more than a film to me. It really is a call for gathering.

How significant is it that the film is being released nationally in English and Spanish on the same day?

 

I can’t find the words to describe the significance. It speaks to the hearts of Mark and Roma. The Hispanic-American community is not just a segment or a demographic. It’s the fastest-growing segment of the Christian community. By mid-century, the majority of Christians in America, in both the Catholic and in the Evangelical – Protestant world, will be of Hispanic-American descent, according to Pew research. Mark and Roma picked up on that, they acted proactively, and they’re releasing it in Spanish on the very same day. I commend and applaud them for that.

© 2014 Newsweek LLC

I could probably add a lot of personal comment, but I will only ask a question:

If “Son of God is a meaningful benchmark for Christianity’s future.”, and it just might be, what does that  really mean?