As I mentioned after my Thanksgiving day wishes, there has a been a lot of buzz about the Manhattan Declaration. To me, this is something which is far too important to ignore.
For those who may not know, let me start by explaining what the Manhattan Declaration is. I will not be posting the Declaration itself here on my blog, but please feel free to go to www.manhattandeclartion.org to check it out for yourself, and see if you think that my characterization is accurate. It is certainly not my intention to, in any way, or at any time, mislead anyone, or misrepresent what this is all about.
The Manhattan Declaration, according the declaration itself, is "A Call Of Christian Conscience." It was originally drafted on October 20th of 2009, and released to the public on November 20th of 2009.
The document addresses three main issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious liberty. It purports to be a document which unites differing Christian groups around these very important issues. It lays out a case for the pro-life position, and against Abortion. It lays out a case in favor of preserving marriage as a sacred institution, and why we should strive against allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized. It also outlines the dangers faced by religious groups in the present age, where there is much animosity directed at anyone who dares to so much as disapprove of nearly anything.
To the extent that it does these things I would support it as a statement of position, and as a place for people of conscience to rally, and say, OK, we have differences, but we all agree that these things are important, so let's stand together on them. But that is not all that the document says. And it going farther, it leaves a lot to be desired.
Clearly, I am pro-life. If you wish to call me anti-abortion, that's fine, I'm not going to fight you on it, I am anti-abortion, because I'm pro-life. As far as it goes, I think that the declaration does a pretty good job of laying out some good arguments and points for a pro-life position, however, for something that supposes to be a Christian document, it spends far too much time expounding secular arguments instead, and virtually no time on Biblical arguments, save a couple of verses of Scripture which are never explained or defended in any way. Also, I do believe that marriage is only possible, in a very real sense, between one man and one woman, and again, the declaration does a very good job of laying out a secular case for traditional marriage, but again, is staggeringly weak when it comes to a Biblical basis, which is especially important on this issue, because, if the Bible didn't speak to this issue I personally wouldn't really care about it at all. I also understand the importance of religious liberty, but again, it is defended and explained entirely with secular arguments. So, while I can affirm the positions taken by the declaration, I think that they could have done a better job laying them out and defending them, and the fact that they didn't defend them from the Bible is a serious problem for me.
All that being said, let me get on to the main problem that I have with the Manhattan Declaration.
The document makes a big deal about Christians, and where they stand on important issues. But what is meant by "Christian"? Well, to quote from the declaration; "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians..." This should be another problem for Bible believing Christians. The fact that this document lumps Evangelical Christians in with Catholics, as well as, so-called, Orthodox, sounds huge warning bells in my mind, as the beliefs of these groups are wildly different. This brings me back to how the Manhattan Declaration came to my attention. Initially I had heard Chuck Colson talk about some, which is not surprising since he is one of the people who wrote it, but I hadn't had time to check it out. Then a friend asked me if I had signed it yet, and I could only respond that, up to that point, I hadn't had time to check it out yet. So, when I had time, I went to the website, www.manhattandeclaration.org, and checked it out.
The first that I saw when I got to the website was the very brief summary that is there, and I decided to look and see who had signed the declaration. While there are some very well known Christian leaders on the list, you can't help but notice more than a few Roman Catholic Archbishops on the list. For any Bible believing Christian, this has to give you pause when considering something like this. So I knew I was going to have to look very closely at the declaration before I could make up my mind, so I pulled up the full declaration and read the entire thing.
If you should read the declaration you will find that only scant lip service is given to the Gospel, and even then it is not defined or explained in any way shape or form, yet we know for sure that a Roman Catholic Archbishop would mean something very different by Gospel than I do. Given that this document was written with the idea in mind that it was for the approval of Catholics and Christians, it seems clear that the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is not what's in view even the one time that it is mentioned. And no, in a pure sense, Catholics are not Christians. At it's best Catholicism is an apostate form of Christianity, but not true Biblical Christianity. That is not to say that no Catholics are truly redeemed, but given what is taught in most Catholic Churches and circles, I would venture to say that they are a rare breed.
Having established that the purposes of this document are not to further the Gospel, what then could they be? Well, it must have to do with propagating morality, but if that's all they are concerned with, why mention Christianity at all? Simply to have a grounding for the morality they are seeking? Perhaps, but if so, that does not do justice to the purpose of Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is to share the Gospel with the entire world. That's it, that's the core, it's why the Church exists. Our mission to spread the Gospel, to preach the Gospel, is the reason the Church is in the world, it's the reason God doesn't rapture (sorry, it's the best word I can think of for this) us out of the world the instant we come to faith in Him. And that is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, that we are sinners in a fallen world, in danger of eternal judgment from a righteous and Holy and Just God, and can be redeemed out of this world and saved from that damnation only by grace and through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, which is something that could not be affirmed by many of the signers and endorsers of the declaration.
Now, from the Catholic perspective, there is a certain logic to this declaration. Being that Catholicism, as it is practiced, and as it is taught in most local Parishes and such, is a very legalistic religion, believing in a works based righteousness (often you will hear that the works must be coupled with faith, but even that is a gross bastardization of the Gospel) and that being good at least gets you closer to Heaven, no matter why you are good, it would make sense to force people, through political action or whatever, to be better, and thus put them closer to God, even if you have to drag them, kicking and screaming, to it. But this is not something that is compatible with Biblical Christianity. If a person rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the true Gospel, then they are damned and destined for Hell, and just how good or bad they are is of little consequence to them.
So, if I were to sum up the Manhattan Declaration, I would have to put it something like this: "We, under the guise of Christianity, demand adherence to our moral standards. We stand up, shake our fist at the culture and say, you will submit to us, we will see to it. We couldn't care less if you go to hell for all eternity, we will have our moralistic domain here and now! We don't care if you believe, only that you submit!"
But wait, there's something familiar about that sentiment, it's Islam! That's right, Islam doesn't require an affirmation of faith, only submission to it's laws and teachings. That's what's going on with the Manhattan Declaration, it's declaring that we don't care what you believe, only that people submit to the moral standards that it puts forth. This is all too common amongst people who wish to claim Christianity. It is what Dr. Michael Horton calls Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism. That is, we try to be moral, and it makes us feel better, and oh yeah, as an afterthought, there is a god, but that doesn't really affect us.
For me to affirm the Manhattan Declaration would be to say, if you are homosexual, you can go to hell, as long as you go without a marriage license. If you are woman, you can go to hell, as long as you go without having had an abortion. And I will fight for religious liberty, and disregard laws that I think conflict with that, while also refusing to submit to the consequences of such action. That is something that I absolutely cannot affirm. No matter who you are, or what your sin, I want you to learn about Jesus, repent of your sins, and be redeemed. If you are going to hell anyway, it doesn't matter what sin you committed, it will separate you from God.
So do I support the Manhattan Declaration? Will I be signing it? No. Unreservedly, and emphatically, NO!
There is more to be said, and I know that some will raise objections to what I've written, but I'll have to deal with those as they arise, because this long enough already.
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
To Whom Are We Preaching?
Acts 2:14 [ESV] "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words."
In Acts Chapter 2 the Apostle Peter was preaching to Jews. This is very important, as we will see after we look at little bit more of his Sermon.
Acts 2:22-41 [ESV]
And he goes on the explain who God is, and what that means to these people who do not have a background in Old Testament Theology. And farther along in this Chapter, after explaining some of the prerequisite knowledge Luke (the writer of Acts) tells us, "32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."
As you read through the New Testament you will notice that the Jews do not mock when told of the resurrection of the dead, because they believed in resurrection, though not all of them believed that Jesus had risen, but they certainly believed that there would be a resurrection. It was the Greeks (or any non Jews) who would mock at the thought. As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:23 [NASB]" but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."
Now, the question is, why is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that he was Crucified, buried, and then rose again, a stumbling block to the Jews? Quite simply because that means that His claims are true, that he is the Christ (Greek for Messiah) and that they must embrace Him. This is very hard for them for a few reasons. You see, most Jews at that time, and throughout all of the time since then, even up until today, held to a very legalistic form of Judaism, failing to understand that from the very beginning Salvation was by the Grace of God and not by works. So these very religious people would have to admit that they are apostates, that is that they did not believe the true tenets of their own religion, that they had failed, and needed a Savior. Further, the Messiah that most Jews were (and mistakenly still are) looking for, was one who would conquer their enemies, and free them from oppression. Of course Jesus is the one who will do those things, but it was not in the Divine plan for Him to accomplish them at His first coming. Jesus being the Christ was a stumbling block because it forced them to turn away from so much of what they held to be true, not that the Old Testament is wrong or somehow invalid, but because they so grossly misunderstood it.
As to the Gospel being foolishness to the Gentiles, that is pretty easy to understand. They simply had no basis in their beliefs for the one true God, or their sin, or their need for repentance and Salvation. Besides, they had no expectation of resurrection, and the idea of coming back from the dead just seemed downright silly to them. That kind of thing just doesn't happen. And of course, on a natural level, they would be correct, but Jesus death, burial and resurrection, as well as the resurrection that we who are in Christ look forward to is Supernatural, and not natural. So the Jews have a hard time with the implications, but if they can overcome that, they are right there, ready to receive the salvation of Christ, while the gentiles must have it all laid out before they can even understand it, and even then, much of it just sounds silly.
This is also why in Acts 2, as a result of Peters preaching there was a huge response, with some 3,000 people being redeemed, while in Acts 17 the response seems to be quite minimal. This is not to say that Peter's approach was better, or that Paul did something wrong (some have suggested this nonsense) but rather that Peter was spreading the seed (to borrow from the parable of the soils in Mark 4) on well prepared, good soil, while most of the seed that Paul was spreading fell on the hard packed road, and what good soil there was the Lord had used Paul to plow and get ready by explaining the basics of what he was talking about.
I think that this is part of our problem today. Look at the world around us. Even for us in the United States, and even more in Europe and many other places, we are not living in an Acts 2 world! This is an Acts 17 culture! Even those who are active in Evangelism must understand that they are not Peter preaching to Jews, but rather Paul preaching to Greeks! This is the problem as I see it. Most evangelism classes try to teach a trite and quick way to deliver the Gospel message and move on. Maybe this worked back in the 50's and even to some extent in the 60's, when exposure to the Bible and the basics of it's truths were difficult to avoid. But back in the 60's or so the USA began a massive shift away from such basic ideas, and anyone born since then is progressively less and less likely to have the basic understanding for a quick message, which assumes a knowledge of sin and it's consequences, to be effective.
This is also why I have problems with simply leading people through "the sinners prayer." Most of the time, and more and more as we move forward, these are Acts 17 people who don't even know what it is they are doing. To them it's just a religious exercise that someone is telling them will save their Soul (whatever that means to them, if anything at all) or get them in the group (and they don't know why, but it seems like being in the group is a good thing). Then they are told, write down this date, now you are saved, and if you ever doubt it, just remember that on this date you chanted this incantation... ummm, I mean, prayed this prayer, so you know for sure that you "got saved." If you should in fact run across an Acts 2 person, you might find the simple and straightforward approach to be valid, but Acts 2 people are exceedingly rare these days.
This is why we must be prepared in several ways. We must be prepared to engage in much longer conversations and discourses. With most people in today's world you simply cannot effectively share the Gospel in five minutes and move on. We must be prepared to define our terms. Too often these days if you are in a room with 20 other people and say something about God, you may well have 21 different definitions, so, like Paul, we need to be ready to explain who God is, and what we are talking about. We need to be prepared to present the Gospel beginning with the fall and sin, rather than the Cross. Of course the destination is the same, but getting there will take longer. We must also understand be prepared for multiple conversations if that is possible, or be ready to direct someone to where they can get good Biblical answers if we don't have a reasonable expectation of seeing them again.
The work is still there to be done, but we're going to have to work a lot harder to accomplish it.
******************
For those of you who listen to Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis, you may find this familiar, yes, I was influenced by him, but did not simply copy him.
In Acts Chapter 2 the Apostle Peter was preaching to Jews. This is very important, as we will see after we look at little bit more of his Sermon.
Acts 2:22-41 [ESV]
22"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25 For David says concerning him,
"'I saw the Lord always before me,
for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;
26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
my flesh also will dwell in hope.
27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,
or let your Holy One see corruption.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of gladness with your presence.'
29 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,
"'The Lord said to my Lord,Sit at my right hand,
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.'
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
As we read this, it can be clearly seen that Peter preached to these people, these Jews, as he called them "men of Israel" in verse 22, and "men of Judah" in verse 14. This is critically important to the style and substance of his sermon. It is crystal clear that Peter was building on a base of knowledge that these people already possessed. He had no need to define his terms, or to explain who God was, or what sin was. His audience knew and understood completely that men are sinful by nature, and required a sacrifice for that sin. He also speaks of David, whom the Jews would know well, as a major figure in the history of Israel.
Also, we will notice that those who responded to Peters preaching already understood that something was required of them, for they asked what they must do. Please note that Peter did not say, "With every head bowed and every eye closed, repeat after me..." He said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Because of the knowledge that these Jews already possessed, it was a relatively simple task for Peter to show them the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially after he told them of the magnitude of their guilt before God, whom they knew a great deal about from their own history as a nation.
Contrast this now with the Apostle Paul, proclaiming the same Gospel, but to Greeks, who did not have the same background as the Jews that Peter was speaking to.
Acts 17:22-23: [ESV]
22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you."And he goes on the explain who God is, and what that means to these people who do not have a background in Old Testament Theology. And farther along in this Chapter, after explaining some of the prerequisite knowledge Luke (the writer of Acts) tells us, "32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."
As you read through the New Testament you will notice that the Jews do not mock when told of the resurrection of the dead, because they believed in resurrection, though not all of them believed that Jesus had risen, but they certainly believed that there would be a resurrection. It was the Greeks (or any non Jews) who would mock at the thought. As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:23 [NASB]" but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."
Now, the question is, why is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that he was Crucified, buried, and then rose again, a stumbling block to the Jews? Quite simply because that means that His claims are true, that he is the Christ (Greek for Messiah) and that they must embrace Him. This is very hard for them for a few reasons. You see, most Jews at that time, and throughout all of the time since then, even up until today, held to a very legalistic form of Judaism, failing to understand that from the very beginning Salvation was by the Grace of God and not by works. So these very religious people would have to admit that they are apostates, that is that they did not believe the true tenets of their own religion, that they had failed, and needed a Savior. Further, the Messiah that most Jews were (and mistakenly still are) looking for, was one who would conquer their enemies, and free them from oppression. Of course Jesus is the one who will do those things, but it was not in the Divine plan for Him to accomplish them at His first coming. Jesus being the Christ was a stumbling block because it forced them to turn away from so much of what they held to be true, not that the Old Testament is wrong or somehow invalid, but because they so grossly misunderstood it.
As to the Gospel being foolishness to the Gentiles, that is pretty easy to understand. They simply had no basis in their beliefs for the one true God, or their sin, or their need for repentance and Salvation. Besides, they had no expectation of resurrection, and the idea of coming back from the dead just seemed downright silly to them. That kind of thing just doesn't happen. And of course, on a natural level, they would be correct, but Jesus death, burial and resurrection, as well as the resurrection that we who are in Christ look forward to is Supernatural, and not natural. So the Jews have a hard time with the implications, but if they can overcome that, they are right there, ready to receive the salvation of Christ, while the gentiles must have it all laid out before they can even understand it, and even then, much of it just sounds silly.
This is also why in Acts 2, as a result of Peters preaching there was a huge response, with some 3,000 people being redeemed, while in Acts 17 the response seems to be quite minimal. This is not to say that Peter's approach was better, or that Paul did something wrong (some have suggested this nonsense) but rather that Peter was spreading the seed (to borrow from the parable of the soils in Mark 4) on well prepared, good soil, while most of the seed that Paul was spreading fell on the hard packed road, and what good soil there was the Lord had used Paul to plow and get ready by explaining the basics of what he was talking about.
I think that this is part of our problem today. Look at the world around us. Even for us in the United States, and even more in Europe and many other places, we are not living in an Acts 2 world! This is an Acts 17 culture! Even those who are active in Evangelism must understand that they are not Peter preaching to Jews, but rather Paul preaching to Greeks! This is the problem as I see it. Most evangelism classes try to teach a trite and quick way to deliver the Gospel message and move on. Maybe this worked back in the 50's and even to some extent in the 60's, when exposure to the Bible and the basics of it's truths were difficult to avoid. But back in the 60's or so the USA began a massive shift away from such basic ideas, and anyone born since then is progressively less and less likely to have the basic understanding for a quick message, which assumes a knowledge of sin and it's consequences, to be effective.
This is also why I have problems with simply leading people through "the sinners prayer." Most of the time, and more and more as we move forward, these are Acts 17 people who don't even know what it is they are doing. To them it's just a religious exercise that someone is telling them will save their Soul (whatever that means to them, if anything at all) or get them in the group (and they don't know why, but it seems like being in the group is a good thing). Then they are told, write down this date, now you are saved, and if you ever doubt it, just remember that on this date you chanted this incantation... ummm, I mean, prayed this prayer, so you know for sure that you "got saved." If you should in fact run across an Acts 2 person, you might find the simple and straightforward approach to be valid, but Acts 2 people are exceedingly rare these days.
This is why we must be prepared in several ways. We must be prepared to engage in much longer conversations and discourses. With most people in today's world you simply cannot effectively share the Gospel in five minutes and move on. We must be prepared to define our terms. Too often these days if you are in a room with 20 other people and say something about God, you may well have 21 different definitions, so, like Paul, we need to be ready to explain who God is, and what we are talking about. We need to be prepared to present the Gospel beginning with the fall and sin, rather than the Cross. Of course the destination is the same, but getting there will take longer. We must also understand be prepared for multiple conversations if that is possible, or be ready to direct someone to where they can get good Biblical answers if we don't have a reasonable expectation of seeing them again.
The work is still there to be done, but we're going to have to work a lot harder to accomplish it.
******************
For those of you who listen to Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis, you may find this familiar, yes, I was influenced by him, but did not simply copy him.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Abandoning The Language
Acts 11:19-26 [ESV] "19 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. 22 The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, 24 for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. 25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians."
From www.dictionary.com:
*****************************
It seems to me that pretty much everywhere we look today we are likely to see Christians flat out running from that name. First they started running from specific denomination names, not wanting to be called Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or any other, saying that it's really that we believe the Bible that matters and not what we call our Church. OK, there is some truth to that, we don't want to be divided by the name on the building, but on the other hand, denominations are supposed to be a sort of shorthand to help you see at a glance what general positions a certain fellowship holds on a multitude of issues, and as such, aren't a bad thing, as long as denominational identity is not taken too far, which I understand was often the case.
Next we saw people not wanting to be called Protestant, because we believe the Bible, and don't want to make it sound like we're against something, or that we're embracing something new instead of Historic Christianity as taught by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers and Christ Himself, and of course the Bible in general. Again, there is some truth in this, but also again, there is nothing harmful in identifying with Protestantism, which was born out of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's. By accepting the title of Protestant you are saying that whenever Doctrine and Teaching of any Church moves away from Biblical Truth you will stand up and say, "NO!" You will take a stand for what is right and present the Bible as the Authority, no matter what human reason has to say about it. By calling oneself a Protestant, or even Reformed (although that carries a much more specific meaning) one is not saying that they affirm every word or teaching uttered by Martin Luther or John Calvin, or any of the other Reformers, but rather that one will stand up for the Bible, and uphold it as the Authority. That is the true spirit of the Reformation, a turning away from fallible human reason and a return to, and embracing of, Biblical Authority. (And I'm not addressing here the pure poppycock that Baptists are not Protestant, but rather members of some Church begun by John The Baptist and is somehow separate from the rest of Christianity. If you've been taught this, just know that it's pure nonsense with no Historical accuracy whatsoever.)
This brings me to my main point, the rampant tendency today to abandon the word "Christian" to define oneself before the world and the culture. All over the place today you will find Christians refusing to use that word. Most often they call themselves "Followers of Christ." Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with saying that you are a follower of Christ, I am one myself. Being a follower of Jesus Christ is a good thing, and all true Christians are followers of Christ, just as all true followers of Christ are Christians. So I do not object to calling oneself a "Follower of Christ" but I do object to abandoning the word "Christian." Saying that one is a Christian carries a lot more meaning with it, and I'm not talking about baggage, which is the reason why so many wish to abandon it today. To simply say that one is a Follower of Christ is a weaker statement in many regards. You could easily infer from the phrase "follower of Christ" that a person looks at Jesus and generally likes what they see, and wants to go along down that path. By this could simply mean living a good moral life, or feeding the hungry, or helping the poor and impoverished. None of these are bad things, but if you stop there then they are not enough. To use the phrase "follower of Christ" in such a manner is not deceptive. It is incomplete, but not deceptive on it's face, because in a general sense, that could be the full meaning of the phrase.
However, the word Christian is different. Now I understand that some people use it in the same way that I just described "follower of Christ" but just because it is used that way does not make it actually mean the same thing. Calling oneself a Christian fully identifies oneself with Christ. It says, "I am striving to be more like Christ, in all that it entails, and in all that He is. I am willing to not only follow Him, but to suffer with Him, and place Him at the very center of my very identity." To use the term "Christian" in the same way as I described "follower of Christ" in the last paragraph would be deceptive on it's face. If you simply follow Christ, in some indefinite or undetermined way, you could simply fall away when the going gets tough, so someone who is simply a "follower of Christ" could cease to be a "follower of Christ" without actually having to say (if they are being honest) that they never followed Him at all. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, in truth, you are taking the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the central piece of your very own identity, and would be willing to suffer, or even die, rather than to give that up. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, because a true and real follower of Christ will do the same, as I said before, in the truest meanings, these two things are the same, but they do not seem the same, and I guess therein lies my problem.
Some of the reasons given for abandoning the word "Christian" are that many people throughout history have called themselves Christians while doing terrible and horrible things, but if we replace "Christian" with "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Christ" do you think people will not take on that title and still do the same terrible things? The word Christian is not sullied because true Christians have done these terrible acts, but because the name Christian has too often been claimed by those who had no right or allegiance to it. So how would you defend the phrase "follower of Christ" so that the same thing doesn't happen to it? You can't. Besides, many times horrendous acts have been committed simply in the name of Christ, without ever using the term "Christian." Should we abandon the name of Christ? Certainly NOT!!! And yet, refusing to call ourselves Christians would be a step in that direction.
I would actually encourage Christians to use both, thinking carefully about when either would be most appropriate. I'll close with an excellent example of this from Matthew Henry (1662-1714) in his Concise Commentary: "Act 11:25-30 Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ's precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind."
From www.dictionary.com:
Chris⋅tian
–adjective
| 1. | of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith. |
| 2. | of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country. |
| 3. | of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades. |
| 4. | exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity. |
| 5. | decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial. |
| 6. | human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian. |
–noun
| 7. | a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. |
| 8. | a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian. |
| 9. | a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren. |
| 10. | the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. |
| 11. | a male given name. |
*****************************
It seems to me that pretty much everywhere we look today we are likely to see Christians flat out running from that name. First they started running from specific denomination names, not wanting to be called Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or any other, saying that it's really that we believe the Bible that matters and not what we call our Church. OK, there is some truth to that, we don't want to be divided by the name on the building, but on the other hand, denominations are supposed to be a sort of shorthand to help you see at a glance what general positions a certain fellowship holds on a multitude of issues, and as such, aren't a bad thing, as long as denominational identity is not taken too far, which I understand was often the case.
Next we saw people not wanting to be called Protestant, because we believe the Bible, and don't want to make it sound like we're against something, or that we're embracing something new instead of Historic Christianity as taught by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers and Christ Himself, and of course the Bible in general. Again, there is some truth in this, but also again, there is nothing harmful in identifying with Protestantism, which was born out of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's. By accepting the title of Protestant you are saying that whenever Doctrine and Teaching of any Church moves away from Biblical Truth you will stand up and say, "NO!" You will take a stand for what is right and present the Bible as the Authority, no matter what human reason has to say about it. By calling oneself a Protestant, or even Reformed (although that carries a much more specific meaning) one is not saying that they affirm every word or teaching uttered by Martin Luther or John Calvin, or any of the other Reformers, but rather that one will stand up for the Bible, and uphold it as the Authority. That is the true spirit of the Reformation, a turning away from fallible human reason and a return to, and embracing of, Biblical Authority. (And I'm not addressing here the pure poppycock that Baptists are not Protestant, but rather members of some Church begun by John The Baptist and is somehow separate from the rest of Christianity. If you've been taught this, just know that it's pure nonsense with no Historical accuracy whatsoever.)
This brings me to my main point, the rampant tendency today to abandon the word "Christian" to define oneself before the world and the culture. All over the place today you will find Christians refusing to use that word. Most often they call themselves "Followers of Christ." Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with saying that you are a follower of Christ, I am one myself. Being a follower of Jesus Christ is a good thing, and all true Christians are followers of Christ, just as all true followers of Christ are Christians. So I do not object to calling oneself a "Follower of Christ" but I do object to abandoning the word "Christian." Saying that one is a Christian carries a lot more meaning with it, and I'm not talking about baggage, which is the reason why so many wish to abandon it today. To simply say that one is a Follower of Christ is a weaker statement in many regards. You could easily infer from the phrase "follower of Christ" that a person looks at Jesus and generally likes what they see, and wants to go along down that path. By this could simply mean living a good moral life, or feeding the hungry, or helping the poor and impoverished. None of these are bad things, but if you stop there then they are not enough. To use the phrase "follower of Christ" in such a manner is not deceptive. It is incomplete, but not deceptive on it's face, because in a general sense, that could be the full meaning of the phrase.
However, the word Christian is different. Now I understand that some people use it in the same way that I just described "follower of Christ" but just because it is used that way does not make it actually mean the same thing. Calling oneself a Christian fully identifies oneself with Christ. It says, "I am striving to be more like Christ, in all that it entails, and in all that He is. I am willing to not only follow Him, but to suffer with Him, and place Him at the very center of my very identity." To use the term "Christian" in the same way as I described "follower of Christ" in the last paragraph would be deceptive on it's face. If you simply follow Christ, in some indefinite or undetermined way, you could simply fall away when the going gets tough, so someone who is simply a "follower of Christ" could cease to be a "follower of Christ" without actually having to say (if they are being honest) that they never followed Him at all. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, in truth, you are taking the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the central piece of your very own identity, and would be willing to suffer, or even die, rather than to give that up. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, because a true and real follower of Christ will do the same, as I said before, in the truest meanings, these two things are the same, but they do not seem the same, and I guess therein lies my problem.
Some of the reasons given for abandoning the word "Christian" are that many people throughout history have called themselves Christians while doing terrible and horrible things, but if we replace "Christian" with "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Christ" do you think people will not take on that title and still do the same terrible things? The word Christian is not sullied because true Christians have done these terrible acts, but because the name Christian has too often been claimed by those who had no right or allegiance to it. So how would you defend the phrase "follower of Christ" so that the same thing doesn't happen to it? You can't. Besides, many times horrendous acts have been committed simply in the name of Christ, without ever using the term "Christian." Should we abandon the name of Christ? Certainly NOT!!! And yet, refusing to call ourselves Christians would be a step in that direction.
I would actually encourage Christians to use both, thinking carefully about when either would be most appropriate. I'll close with an excellent example of this from Matthew Henry (1662-1714) in his Concise Commentary: "Act 11:25-30 Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ's precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind."
Friday, August 21, 2009
Something To Think About From John Piper
Desiring God Blog |
| The Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality Posted: 19 Aug 2009 10:12 PM PDT (Author: John Piper) I saw the fast-moving, misshapen, unusually-wide funnel over downtown Minneapolis from Seven Corners. I said to Kevin Dau, "That looks serious." It was. Serious in more ways than one. A friend who drove down to see the damage wrote,
According to the ELCA's printed convention schedule, at 2 PM on Wednesday, August 19, the 5th session of the convention was to begin. The main item of the session: "Consideration: Proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality." The issue is whether practicing homosexuality is a behavior that should disqualify a person from the pastoral ministry.
Let me venture an interpretation of this Providence with some biblical warrant. 1. The unrepentant practice of homosexual behavior (like other sins) will exclude a person from the kingdom of God.
2. The church has always embraced those who forsake sexual sin but who still struggle with homosexual desires, rejoicing with them that all our fallen, sinful, disordered lives (all of us, no exceptions) are forgiven if we turn to Christ in faith.
3. Therefore, official church pronouncements that condone the very sins that keep people out of the kingdom of God, are evil. They dishonor God, contradict Scripture, and implicitly promote damnation where salvation is freely offered. 4. Jesus Christ controls the wind, including all tornados.
5. When asked about a seemingly random calamity near Jerusalem where 18 people were killed, Jesus answered in general terms—an answer that would cover calamities in Minneapolis, Taiwan, or Baghdad. God's message is repent, because none of us will otherwise escape God's judgment.
6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.
 | |
| .  |
Sunday, May 24, 2009
A Soldier's Prayer
A Soldier's Prayer
Look God: I have never spoken to You,
But now I want to say, "How do You do."
You see God, they told me You did not exist;
And, like a fool, I believed all of this.
Last night from a shell hole I saw Your sky;
I figured right then they had told me a lie.
Had I taken the time to see the things You made,
I would know they weren't calling a spade a spade.
I wonder, God, if You would shake my hand;
Somehow, I feel that You will understand.
Strange, I had to come to this hellish place
Before I had time to see Your face.
Well, I guess there isn't much more to say,
But I am sure glad, God, I met You today.
I guess the zero hour will soon be here,
But I am not afraid since I know You are near.
The signal - well, God, I will have to go;
I love you lots, this I want you to know.
Looks like this will be a horrible fight;
Who knows, I may come to your house tonight.
Though I wasn't friendly with you before,
I wonder, God, if you would wait at the door.
Look, I am crying, me shedding tears!
I wish I had known you these many years.
Well, I will have to go now, God.
Goodbye - Strange, since I met you,
I am not afraid to die.
...Author Unknown
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
It's All Connected
I find a lot of Christians to be relatively unconcerned with Politics, thinking that it is unconnected from their life as a Christian, but this is not how it is.
Even in politics the truth matters, the truth always matters. All truth is God's truth, there simply is no other kind. But one thing that many don't realize is that political ideals and theories often are based on other ideas and philosophies. For instance, the idea of a Constitutional Republic where the people elect Representatives and their rights and liberties are defended is based in a Biblical, God centered worldview. Certainly not that anyone is compelled to believe the Bible under such a system (belief by compulsion is no true belief anyway) but it is understood in such a system that there is a Creator God and that certain liberties are granted by Him, and therefore the Government has no authority to take them away. On the other hand, there is Socialism (in all it's forms, Communism or whatever) which is based on atheism. That system is the one that says that there is no God, that the people have only the rights that are granted to them by the state and the state (or Government) has the right to take away whatever rights it wishes, because all rights are given at the whim of the state anyway.
So, what I am saying here is that politics is not in any way unconnected from Spiritual things, it is, in fact, deeply connected. So, when I argue for our Constitutional form of Government, as instituted (though admittedly not so well carried out at times) and against Socialism, I am in fact arguing just as much for a God centered worldview, and against atheism, as I am discussing politics.
Remember, all truth is God's truth, and the truth matters.
Even in politics the truth matters, the truth always matters. All truth is God's truth, there simply is no other kind. But one thing that many don't realize is that political ideals and theories often are based on other ideas and philosophies. For instance, the idea of a Constitutional Republic where the people elect Representatives and their rights and liberties are defended is based in a Biblical, God centered worldview. Certainly not that anyone is compelled to believe the Bible under such a system (belief by compulsion is no true belief anyway) but it is understood in such a system that there is a Creator God and that certain liberties are granted by Him, and therefore the Government has no authority to take them away. On the other hand, there is Socialism (in all it's forms, Communism or whatever) which is based on atheism. That system is the one that says that there is no God, that the people have only the rights that are granted to them by the state and the state (or Government) has the right to take away whatever rights it wishes, because all rights are given at the whim of the state anyway.
So, what I am saying here is that politics is not in any way unconnected from Spiritual things, it is, in fact, deeply connected. So, when I argue for our Constitutional form of Government, as instituted (though admittedly not so well carried out at times) and against Socialism, I am in fact arguing just as much for a God centered worldview, and against atheism, as I am discussing politics.
Remember, all truth is God's truth, and the truth matters.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Battle Lines
The battle lines are clearly drawn. Finally someone on the left has admitted what it is they really want. The head of the Green division of the British Government has stated that population control should be an aim of the left, and castigated the rest of the environmentalists for not being willing to talk about it. He is saying that people who have more than 2 children are enemies of the planet, and that contraception and abortion should be used to control population. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried to make a similar case, trying to get people to believe that money for contraception and abortion will help our economy to recover. Brittan and Canada have had socialist health care (call it universal coverage or whatever you wish) for many years now, and a close examination of their systems will show that this too is about population control, as I've been saying for some time. This is something else that the left wants to institute in the US. Government run health care amounts to health care rationing, or decreased access to health care, rather than increased access as some would have you to believe. Rationing health care, and restricting access to it, is for one purpose only, and that is to kill people, thus reducing overall population.
Aside from being lies of the left, even if they were true, these ideals are very shortsighted. Even if Speaker Pelosi were correct and keeping women from becoming pregnant and murdering babies in the womb would be a boost for our economy, what happens down the road when there are not enough younger workers to keep the economy moving? This is the problem faced by Japan right now. In fact, according to breakpoint (w/Chuck Colson and Mark Early), Japanese companies are sending their workers home early for the express purpose of... making babies. They have recognized the dire straights that they are in due to past practices and policies that have greatly lowered their birth rates, and they are taking action to correct the problem. Why are we trying to head in the other direction?
Beyond this, the fact of the matter is that these are, in fact, lies. The planet does not suffer from overpopulation, and is capable of sustaining many more people than are living on it today. Of course, we need the environmentalist wackoes to stop fighting against the farmers, and let them grow the crops and raise the livestock to be able to feed the global population, which they have the ability to do, if they are allowed to do so unhindered. Nor is "Global Warming", which has now turned into global cooling, forcing the extremists to change their jargon to "climate Change" which is a meaningless propaganda phrase, a real threat, according to leading and renowned climatologists, but instead of listening to them, the news only tells us about Al Gore and the other liberals, many with no science education at all, or certainly no specialty in climate science, saying that there can now be no doubt. True enough, there can be no doubt that these people are trying to introduce population control measures by any means they possibly can.
The truth of the matter is that it really comes down to the family. Rather than trying to destroy our culture by handing out condoms to our kids and murder as many babies as possible, we need to work on healing families. We need to undo the sexual revolution, get people to stop having sex before or outside of marriage, and stay married for life. I don't mean by laws, but by way of reason. We must start to explain that the way to make a strong, stable society, economy and everything, is by having a strong base of strong families.
You see, the family, and certainly not the Government, is the base of any society, and any society that loses that, and fails to regain it, is doomed to failure. Families are not perfect by any means, but they have been under constant attack in the country for many decades now, and the assault shows no signs of letting up any time soon. We must fight back. If we don't want abortion and population control, and further destruction of the family to be the norm of the day, we must take a stand now.
As Christians we can never accept the idea that murdering people by denying access to health care (under the guise of universal health care coverage) and murdering babies in the womb, can ever be the right way to go. If you didn't understand before why the ideals of the left are wrong, I hope you do now. I will try in the future to make this clearer. We must stand and fight for the family and for the people. Right vs. Left really is Right vs. Wrong.
Aside from being lies of the left, even if they were true, these ideals are very shortsighted. Even if Speaker Pelosi were correct and keeping women from becoming pregnant and murdering babies in the womb would be a boost for our economy, what happens down the road when there are not enough younger workers to keep the economy moving? This is the problem faced by Japan right now. In fact, according to breakpoint (w/Chuck Colson and Mark Early), Japanese companies are sending their workers home early for the express purpose of... making babies. They have recognized the dire straights that they are in due to past practices and policies that have greatly lowered their birth rates, and they are taking action to correct the problem. Why are we trying to head in the other direction?
Beyond this, the fact of the matter is that these are, in fact, lies. The planet does not suffer from overpopulation, and is capable of sustaining many more people than are living on it today. Of course, we need the environmentalist wackoes to stop fighting against the farmers, and let them grow the crops and raise the livestock to be able to feed the global population, which they have the ability to do, if they are allowed to do so unhindered. Nor is "Global Warming", which has now turned into global cooling, forcing the extremists to change their jargon to "climate Change" which is a meaningless propaganda phrase, a real threat, according to leading and renowned climatologists, but instead of listening to them, the news only tells us about Al Gore and the other liberals, many with no science education at all, or certainly no specialty in climate science, saying that there can now be no doubt. True enough, there can be no doubt that these people are trying to introduce population control measures by any means they possibly can.
The truth of the matter is that it really comes down to the family. Rather than trying to destroy our culture by handing out condoms to our kids and murder as many babies as possible, we need to work on healing families. We need to undo the sexual revolution, get people to stop having sex before or outside of marriage, and stay married for life. I don't mean by laws, but by way of reason. We must start to explain that the way to make a strong, stable society, economy and everything, is by having a strong base of strong families.
You see, the family, and certainly not the Government, is the base of any society, and any society that loses that, and fails to regain it, is doomed to failure. Families are not perfect by any means, but they have been under constant attack in the country for many decades now, and the assault shows no signs of letting up any time soon. We must fight back. If we don't want abortion and population control, and further destruction of the family to be the norm of the day, we must take a stand now.
As Christians we can never accept the idea that murdering people by denying access to health care (under the guise of universal health care coverage) and murdering babies in the womb, can ever be the right way to go. If you didn't understand before why the ideals of the left are wrong, I hope you do now. I will try in the future to make this clearer. We must stand and fight for the family and for the people. Right vs. Left really is Right vs. Wrong.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Be Courageous, Mr President
Clearly I was not one of those that wept for joy at the inauguration, but that's ok, the message of this video is still very powerful, and well worth considering.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Our New President
It's now official, we have a new President as Barack Obama took the oath of office today. I thought it would be an appropriate time to share a few thoughts on this.
First, a lot of Christians seem to be asking other Christians, especially those like me who have made our feelings clear, if we plan to pray for our new President. While I can't speak for anyone else, what I can say is that, of course I'll pray for him. I'll pray that God keeps him safe and guides his steps, and that he will preside over the Government during a great time for the USA.
Second, I also keep hearing people ask if we want President Obama to succeed. Well, I have to ask what exactly is meant by that question. Do I want the Country to be successful while Barack Obama is President, even if it means that he gets the credit for it? Of course I do, even though I understand that Obama will be seen as a successful President regardless of if he is or not, I still want the Country to do well. If the question is, do I want Obama to be successful in bringing about all the things that he talked about in his campaign, then my answer has to be no, I am still diametrically opposed to his ideology and philosophy, if I weren't, I probably would have voted for him. If the question is, do I want him to fulfill God's plan for our Nation, be it for good or for ill (from our perspective), then again, the answer would be, of course.
Furthermore, I am sick and tired of hearing how Obama will do such a great job, and we just need to give him a chance, especially from the same people who never gave George W. Bush a chance, or the benefit of the doubt, a single day in the entire eight years that he was President. Given Obamas' stated intentions during the campaign, we cannot afford to give him a chance, it's just that we don't have a choice now.
I am also disgusted by the people who couldn't seem to spend enough time downing President Bush about the cost of his second Inauguration ($43 Million) and yet have not uttered a word about President Obama and the cost of his ($173 Million).
I'm also wondering why every time I type Barack or Obama blogger underlines them in red as though I've misspelled a word, I think it's time to get that taken care of.
I did not watch the inauguration today, understanding that I will probably see it and hear it 100,000,000 times over the course of the next few days, pretty much everywhere I look, but I kinda have to kick myself, not that I wanted to see it, but because I was at the school, and should have gone and watched it with my daughters' class, but didn't think of it in time.
Also, regardless of how much I disagree with Barack Obama on the issues, he is still my President, and if some schmuck ever throws a shoe at him, I'm going to be seriously ticked. I certainly won't laugh about it like those butt heads in the media did about that guy throwing his shoes at President Bush.
First, a lot of Christians seem to be asking other Christians, especially those like me who have made our feelings clear, if we plan to pray for our new President. While I can't speak for anyone else, what I can say is that, of course I'll pray for him. I'll pray that God keeps him safe and guides his steps, and that he will preside over the Government during a great time for the USA.
Second, I also keep hearing people ask if we want President Obama to succeed. Well, I have to ask what exactly is meant by that question. Do I want the Country to be successful while Barack Obama is President, even if it means that he gets the credit for it? Of course I do, even though I understand that Obama will be seen as a successful President regardless of if he is or not, I still want the Country to do well. If the question is, do I want Obama to be successful in bringing about all the things that he talked about in his campaign, then my answer has to be no, I am still diametrically opposed to his ideology and philosophy, if I weren't, I probably would have voted for him. If the question is, do I want him to fulfill God's plan for our Nation, be it for good or for ill (from our perspective), then again, the answer would be, of course.
Furthermore, I am sick and tired of hearing how Obama will do such a great job, and we just need to give him a chance, especially from the same people who never gave George W. Bush a chance, or the benefit of the doubt, a single day in the entire eight years that he was President. Given Obamas' stated intentions during the campaign, we cannot afford to give him a chance, it's just that we don't have a choice now.
I am also disgusted by the people who couldn't seem to spend enough time downing President Bush about the cost of his second Inauguration ($43 Million) and yet have not uttered a word about President Obama and the cost of his ($173 Million).
I'm also wondering why every time I type Barack or Obama blogger underlines them in red as though I've misspelled a word, I think it's time to get that taken care of.
I did not watch the inauguration today, understanding that I will probably see it and hear it 100,000,000 times over the course of the next few days, pretty much everywhere I look, but I kinda have to kick myself, not that I wanted to see it, but because I was at the school, and should have gone and watched it with my daughters' class, but didn't think of it in time.
Also, regardless of how much I disagree with Barack Obama on the issues, he is still my President, and if some schmuck ever throws a shoe at him, I'm going to be seriously ticked. I certainly won't laugh about it like those butt heads in the media did about that guy throwing his shoes at President Bush.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
How Barack Obama Will Make Christ a Minister of Condemnation
Desiring God Blog |
| How Barack Obama Will Make Christ a Minister of Condemnation Posted: 17 Jan 2009 10:03 AM CST (Author: John Piper) At Barack Obama's request, tomorrow in the Lincoln Memorial, Gene Robinson, the first openly non-celibate homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church, will deliver the invocation for the inauguration kick-off. This is tragic not mainly because Obama is willing to hold up the legitimacy of homosexual intercourse, but because he is willing to get behind the church endorsement of sexual intercourse between men. It is one thing to say: Two men may legally have sex. It is another to say: The Christian church acted acceptably in blessing Robinson's sex with men. The implications of this are serious. It means that Barack Obama is willing, not just to tolerate, but to feature a person and a viewpoint that makes the church a minister of damnation. Again, the tragedy here is not that many people in public life hold views (like atheism) that lead to damnation, but that Obama is making the church the minister of damnation. The apostle Paul says,
What is Paul saying about things like adultery, greed, stealing, and homosexual practice? As J. I. Packer puts it, "They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God's kingdom of salvation." (Christianity Today, January 2003, p. 48). In other words, to bless people in these sins, instead of offering them forgiveness and deliverance from them, is to minister damnation to them, not salvation. The gospel, with its forgiveness and deliverance from homosexual practice, offers salvation. Gene Robinson, with his blessing and approval of homosexual practice, offers damnation. And he does it in the name of Christ. It is as though Obama sought out a church which blessed stealing and adultery, and then chose its most well-known thief and adulterer, and asked him to pray. One more time: The issue here is not that presidents may need to tolerate things they don't approve of. The issue is this: In linking the Christian ministry to the approval of homosexual activity, Christ is made a minister of condemnation.  |
Monday, January 5, 2009
Marriage Musing
I was thinking a little bit earlier today about how much I love my wife. It occurred to me that I really love everything about her, from her very best qualities all the way to her outstanding stubbornness. From her faithfulness and dependability to her tendency to be pretty demanding with me. From her exceptional baking and above average cooking to her occasional absentmindedness. I love her emotionally, intellectually, physically, and any other potential area that you might think of. Every bit of her goes into making her who she is. Even when I get upset with her about something, I wouldn't have her to be someone other than who she is. Besides, she tolerates me, and that alone should tell you what a remarkable lady she is. The only change I would be interested in for her is the same I would wish for any Christian, and that is Spiritual growth (Philippians 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:").
As I thought more about this it occurred to me that this is right. This is how it should be. Ephesians 5:25 (NKJV) says: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her," and then goes on to talk about bringing His bride (the Church) to perfection, but after the fact, not loving because of the perfection that He will ultimately bring us to, but loving us now in spite of our imperfections. As I thought about this, the part that really struck me was the part about loving my wife the way Christ loved(s) the Church, in spite of all of our imperfections and problems, He loved us so much that he suffered one of the most horrific deaths imaginable to redeem us from eternal damnation, and instead bring us into eternal Glorification. Speaking for Husbands, we are being commanded to love our wives completely, not only to be willing to sacrifice for her, even to the point of laying down our lives, but to love her completely and unconditionally.
Clearly we, being humans ourselves, are not capable of loving as perfectly as Jesus Christ loves us, but that is the goal, that is the measure. In today's culture we tend to spend a lot of our time looking for things that we could use to get out of a marriage if we decided we wanted to, but this isn't the picture that Jesus paints for us, in John 6:37 He says, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Or in the ESV, "whoever comes to me I will never cast out." This is that unconditional love, remember that whenever we sin, we are being unfaithful to Jesus, basically, we are cheating, having an affair, betraying Him, but even for all of that, he will never cast us out, he will never Divorce His Church, that's how much he loves us. That's how much we are to love our wives. Not stubborn commitment, not resigning oneself to stick with it because it's the right thing to do, but a choice to love, because that is the model that Jesus Christ has set for us to follow.
I'm not claiming to have all of this down pat. I've been married now for almost 10 years, and I really wish that I had known all of this 10 years ago, I should like to think that I would have been much less of a jerk over these years.
Again, that doesn't mean that we don't see the imperfections, after all, if you're in love with some puffed up false image, then clearly you would not be loving according to Christ's model. He sees us clearly as we are, and yet loves us, so it's quite alright for us to see and acknowledge the imperfections in our wives, this just means that we are in love with the true woman, and not a false image. I would think that this is part of loving our wives as Christ loved the Church.
Don't wait for her to be perfect, just love her, every day.
As I thought more about this it occurred to me that this is right. This is how it should be. Ephesians 5:25 (NKJV) says: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her," and then goes on to talk about bringing His bride (the Church) to perfection, but after the fact, not loving because of the perfection that He will ultimately bring us to, but loving us now in spite of our imperfections. As I thought about this, the part that really struck me was the part about loving my wife the way Christ loved(s) the Church, in spite of all of our imperfections and problems, He loved us so much that he suffered one of the most horrific deaths imaginable to redeem us from eternal damnation, and instead bring us into eternal Glorification. Speaking for Husbands, we are being commanded to love our wives completely, not only to be willing to sacrifice for her, even to the point of laying down our lives, but to love her completely and unconditionally.
Clearly we, being humans ourselves, are not capable of loving as perfectly as Jesus Christ loves us, but that is the goal, that is the measure. In today's culture we tend to spend a lot of our time looking for things that we could use to get out of a marriage if we decided we wanted to, but this isn't the picture that Jesus paints for us, in John 6:37 He says, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Or in the ESV, "whoever comes to me I will never cast out." This is that unconditional love, remember that whenever we sin, we are being unfaithful to Jesus, basically, we are cheating, having an affair, betraying Him, but even for all of that, he will never cast us out, he will never Divorce His Church, that's how much he loves us. That's how much we are to love our wives. Not stubborn commitment, not resigning oneself to stick with it because it's the right thing to do, but a choice to love, because that is the model that Jesus Christ has set for us to follow.
I'm not claiming to have all of this down pat. I've been married now for almost 10 years, and I really wish that I had known all of this 10 years ago, I should like to think that I would have been much less of a jerk over these years.
Again, that doesn't mean that we don't see the imperfections, after all, if you're in love with some puffed up false image, then clearly you would not be loving according to Christ's model. He sees us clearly as we are, and yet loves us, so it's quite alright for us to see and acknowledge the imperfections in our wives, this just means that we are in love with the true woman, and not a false image. I would think that this is part of loving our wives as Christ loved the Church.
Don't wait for her to be perfect, just love her, every day.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Christmas Eve
Hello all, it is now Christmas Eve, and I hope that everyone is having a great time with family and friends. I have been blessed to be able to spend the last couple of days and today with my mom, and will be spending Christmas day with my wife's family, so it will be a great time for all.
My daughter has been a little sick, spiking a pretty good fever the other night, but we seem to, at least, have that under control now, so thank God for that.
More than anything else though, Thank God that he sent his only Son to Earth to live a sinless life and die on the Cross for our sins, so that we could spend eternity with Him.
Yes, as I said in my last post, that is what Christmas is about for me. It's a time to remember the birth of our Savior and reflect on all that means for us. Of course, we love the time with family and friends, and all the great food and presents and all those wonderful things that make up the Christmas Season.
A funny little side story, last night Mom had to call her Cable Company about something, and at the end of the phone call the woman from the Cable Company says, "Happy Holidays," so Mom says to her, "And a Merry Christmas to you too." Go Mom!
My daughter has been a little sick, spiking a pretty good fever the other night, but we seem to, at least, have that under control now, so thank God for that.
More than anything else though, Thank God that he sent his only Son to Earth to live a sinless life and die on the Cross for our sins, so that we could spend eternity with Him.
Yes, as I said in my last post, that is what Christmas is about for me. It's a time to remember the birth of our Savior and reflect on all that means for us. Of course, we love the time with family and friends, and all the great food and presents and all those wonderful things that make up the Christmas Season.
A funny little side story, last night Mom had to call her Cable Company about something, and at the end of the phone call the woman from the Cable Company says, "Happy Holidays," so Mom says to her, "And a Merry Christmas to you too." Go Mom!
Monday, December 22, 2008
The Separation Of Church And Christmas
There are a lot of people today who want to protest any public display of Christmas Celebration, but I have to question if there is really any point at all to what these people are doing.
Of course for Christians, such as myself, Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ. Most of us understand quite well that December 25th was not the actual date of our Lord's birth, but since this is when it has been celebrated for a few centuries, we are willing to go with the tradition. Even Christians though, tend to take part in a lot of practices that are not uniquely Christian, or even Christian at all for that matter.
Look at some of the songs that we sing. Songs like "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" there's really nothing Christian at all about this song, in fact, it makes reference to the Pagan festival of Yule, and talks about the Fates, which are directly out of Greek Mythology. I'm not against this song, it's catchy and whatnot, but certainly shouldn't offend anyone, as it's not a Christian song at all.
Any what's the big deal about Christmas tree's? Again, I'm not against Christmas tree's, in fact, I'm rather fond of them, but again, there is nothing uniquely Christian about them. And yet, even Christmas tree's, which also have their roots in Pagan, rather than Christian, culture, seem to be a source of consternation for some of these people. Crazy as it is, they see Christmas tree's as a way of having religion forced upon them.
Then there's Santa Claus, some people even object to Santa Claus... I mean, calling him a religious symbol, I actually object to Santa Claus for exactly the opposite reason. I feel that too many Christians make far too big of a deal about Santa Claus, at the expense of teaching their kids about Jesus, in fact, most parents, even Christian ones, get very upset if their kids stop believing in Santa, but seem to care very little if they believe about Jesus.
As for the manger scene, well, ok, that's a different argument, because that is uniquely Christian, not that I think that public displays of it should be banned, but as I said, that's a whole different argument.
My point is that, while I Celebrate the Birth of Christ, Christmas has become a very broad holiday, which can be celebrated by a wide variety of people, who celebrate for a very wide variety of reasons. It is entirely possible that someone could celebrate Christmas, take part in many of the traditions, sing a very great deal of traditional Christmas songs, have a Christmas tree, have presents, have a big family get together and a great family feast, and never Celebrate the Birth of Christ at all.
I'm not saying that this is what people should do, but it is a what a lot of people do do. So there is really nothing for people to get all bent out of shape about, just because someone says "Merry Christmas" does not mean that they are trying to force you to believe in Jesus, they are just observing a holiday, and in the US an official Federal holiday.
I do love Christmas, both for the Christian traditions, as well as for some of the secular traditions, but it's not my favorite holiday, but I won't get into all of that right now. I just don't think that people need to get all bent out of shape, Christmas shouldn't be offensive, it's a holiday that anyone can choose to celebrate, either on it's secular side, or on it's Christian side, but absolutely no one needs to be offended about it.
Of course for Christians, such as myself, Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ. Most of us understand quite well that December 25th was not the actual date of our Lord's birth, but since this is when it has been celebrated for a few centuries, we are willing to go with the tradition. Even Christians though, tend to take part in a lot of practices that are not uniquely Christian, or even Christian at all for that matter.
Look at some of the songs that we sing. Songs like "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" there's really nothing Christian at all about this song, in fact, it makes reference to the Pagan festival of Yule, and talks about the Fates, which are directly out of Greek Mythology. I'm not against this song, it's catchy and whatnot, but certainly shouldn't offend anyone, as it's not a Christian song at all.
Any what's the big deal about Christmas tree's? Again, I'm not against Christmas tree's, in fact, I'm rather fond of them, but again, there is nothing uniquely Christian about them. And yet, even Christmas tree's, which also have their roots in Pagan, rather than Christian, culture, seem to be a source of consternation for some of these people. Crazy as it is, they see Christmas tree's as a way of having religion forced upon them.
Then there's Santa Claus, some people even object to Santa Claus... I mean, calling him a religious symbol, I actually object to Santa Claus for exactly the opposite reason. I feel that too many Christians make far too big of a deal about Santa Claus, at the expense of teaching their kids about Jesus, in fact, most parents, even Christian ones, get very upset if their kids stop believing in Santa, but seem to care very little if they believe about Jesus.
As for the manger scene, well, ok, that's a different argument, because that is uniquely Christian, not that I think that public displays of it should be banned, but as I said, that's a whole different argument.
My point is that, while I Celebrate the Birth of Christ, Christmas has become a very broad holiday, which can be celebrated by a wide variety of people, who celebrate for a very wide variety of reasons. It is entirely possible that someone could celebrate Christmas, take part in many of the traditions, sing a very great deal of traditional Christmas songs, have a Christmas tree, have presents, have a big family get together and a great family feast, and never Celebrate the Birth of Christ at all.
I'm not saying that this is what people should do, but it is a what a lot of people do do. So there is really nothing for people to get all bent out of shape about, just because someone says "Merry Christmas" does not mean that they are trying to force you to believe in Jesus, they are just observing a holiday, and in the US an official Federal holiday.
I do love Christmas, both for the Christian traditions, as well as for some of the secular traditions, but it's not my favorite holiday, but I won't get into all of that right now. I just don't think that people need to get all bent out of shape, Christmas shouldn't be offensive, it's a holiday that anyone can choose to celebrate, either on it's secular side, or on it's Christian side, but absolutely no one needs to be offended about it.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
"A Private Hot Line to God?"
"A Private Hot Line to God?" |
Gregory Koukl
Does God talk to you personally? Would you bet your life on it? Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture, Greg argues. This is the claim of a prophet, and not even Old Testament prophets did so unless they were willing to die for the claim.
| I've made what I think is a telling observation about those who hold to a dual source of special revelation. Whenever an organization says, "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe our leadership is inspired," or "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe this other book of ours" (like the Book of Mormon, for example) "is inspired," the Bible always ends up taking the back seat instead of being on equal footing with these other sources of special revelation. I think most Christians will be comfortable with that assessment. This, though, raises a question about Evangelical claims to multiple sources of special revelation. For all our talk about sola Scriptura, many also hold that God speaks to them on a regular basis giving true information about Himself and specific directions for their lives. Their claim is, essentially, "I believe the Bible is a bona fide source of information and the Spirit also gives private information directly to me." The second step frequently follows the first: The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling him trumps the objective Scripture. I was teaching from the Bible recently in a large Evangelical church here in Southern California, and I was publicly opposed by a woman who challenged my view not on the basis of a better interpretation of Scripture (she completely ignored my exegesis), but on the basis of what she was convinced the Holy Spirit had told her. She called me a heretic and said I was sinning because I was "analyzing and dissecting the Bible" instead of letting the Holy Spirit speak to me. My view was merely "man's interpretation." You'd be amazed at how often I run into that kind of response by otherwise orthodox Christians. Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not. This is a delicate issue, so I want to take a moment and clarify my view regarding whether the Bible teaches that God speaks to us in this fashion. The question is not whether or not Jesus lives in our hearts in the person of the Holy Spirit. Having believed, we've been sealed with the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. We've been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He indwells us. He convicts us of sin. He teaches us. The Holy Spirit regenerates us, washing us in the blood of Christ. He comforts us in difficult times. He confirms in our hearts that we are children of God. The Holy Spirit is in and through every part of our lives, and He ought to be. All of this is specifically taught in the Bible. The question is not whether there is a Holy Spirit, or whether that Holy Spirit indwells us, or whether that Holy Spirit does things for us or to us in an experiential, subjective way. All of those things are the case. The question is actually two-fold: Is it enough for Christians to simply say, "'You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart.' I have the confirmation of a subjective experience. I feel Jesus.'?" The answer is no, it is not enough to say that. Because the Mormons feel Jesus. And the New Ager feels Jesus. And a Jehovah's Witness feels Jesus. Lots of people feel Jesus. They have psychological certainty that they're children of God and that they're right with God. The point I'm making is that the foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it's too easy to be misled by subjective elements. There must be something else that gives us reason to believe that our subjective certainty-- our personal confidence that Jesus is ours-- is more than just an empty confidence, but is, in fact, the truth. Hasn't it been the case, friends, that you've felt absolutely certain about something that later turned out to be false? Of course you did. And the question is: How do we protect ourselves from that error? How do we represent the truth of Christianity to another person who may not be sharing our subjective certitude, or our subjective experience? We must have some objective foundation. We must be able to point to more than just our feelings to prove the truthfulness of our faith and the legitimacy of our confidence that Jesus is in our lives. But there's a second step here. There's another factor that goes beyond proving to ourselves or others that Jesus is true beyond our psychological confidence. Do we have biblical justification for the idea that one of the ways the Holy Spirit is active in our lives is that He, as a standard operational procedure, gives Christians personal and individual messages from God, contentful, propositional information like, "Marry that person"? Does the Bible teach that having a personal, live connection with God speaking to you is God's way for Christians? Does the Bible teach that this represents the optimal Christian life? You hear His voice and then you know what to do in your life? Is it the case that the Bible teaches that the Bible itself is not the only source of authoritative information about God, but rather, our subjective experience is also a source of authoritative information about God? And can we expect God to speak to us and fill in the gaps, as it were, on things the Bible does not address (e.g., the specific person I should marry)? My answer is, the Bible does not teach such a thing. It's ironic that so many Christians who hold to sola scriptura in debates with Roman Catholics, would also hold that they receive authoritative pronouncements from God. For goodness sake, at least the Roman Catholic Church relegates that only to the teaching magisterium of the church, and to the Pope when he speaks from the chair. But we have Protestants who hold to sola scriptura who then, in the next breath, speak about the authoritative messages they've received from God that they're obliged to follow. By the way, if you're in the habit of saying, "God told me to do..." thus and so, keep in mind that you're making the claim of a prophet, no less than any prophet of the Old Testament. The testing for a prophet was very severe. A prophet of the Old Testament never made that kind of claim unless he was willing to stake his life on it and die for the claim. In fact, if the claim wasn't true, that's just what happened. The prophet found himself under a pile of rocks. So Christians would be good to guard their mouths and not flippantly make proclamations that God has been speaking privately to them. Even the prophets of God did not make those claims with such a cavalier attitude. We ought not assume that maturity as a Christian means receiving daily authoritative revelations from God when the Bible itself does not give us the justification for believing that such a thing is a standard work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does many things, but it doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit does that. |
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1998 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
Saturday, November 29, 2008
The Battle For The Beginning
I just finished reading and excellent book, "The Battle For The Beginning: Creation, Evolution, and the Bible" by John MacArthur.There is a generally accepted idea that people who believe in the Biblical account of Creation are ignoring science, or that perhaps the Bible is true, but we have misunderstood it. In this book, John MacArthur takes you step by step through the first three Chapters of Genesis to show us exactly what the Bible says, and why we have not misunderstood it. He also takes you through some of the science (although this is not an in depth scientific study) to show that it is not Christians who have ignored what science is trying to tell us.
More importantly, perhaps, MacArthur guides us through why it is that people would cling to such notions as evolution, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Creation is actually the truth.
I won't get into all of these reasons here today, since MacArthur does such a great job of bearing it all out in the pages of this book. This is a book I highly recommend, and, at present, it costs only $11.00 at www.gty.org and I think you'll find it to be money well spent.
For any Christian who has held fast to their belief in Scriptural Creationism, but is constantly buffeted by the never ending storm of criticism from the world at large, I think this book will be a huge blessing. For those who don't know, or believe in Evolution but are wanting to look at the other side of the debate, this book will be, at the very least, a great place to start.
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Great Lie Begins
It was on this date in 1859 that Charles Darwin published "The Origin of the Species" in which he set forth his ideas for the theory of evolution, in a vain attempt to explain where everything came from, without giving credit to God.
The remarkable thing is not that someone once thought of this and put it out there as a theory, but rather that so many fairly reasonable people have bought into the idea as though it were something that could actually have happened.
Over many years, it is Christians who have been accused of ignoring science when it comes to the Creation/Evolution debate, however, if you stop and think about it, this simply isn't true. The funny thing is that much of what is touted as proof of evolution can only be seen as such if you presuppose that evolution is true, and deliberately interpret the data to agree with what you already think.
Just to give a somewhat unrelated example, let me tell of a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. The Atheist asked the Christian if he believed in Creation, and that Jesus had indeed died on the Cross, and been raised from the dead, and some other miraculous events, and the Christian said yes, and the Atheist basically said, well, there you go, you must be wrong because those things can't happen. Of course, what he was doing was attempting to frame the debate in such a way as to say that natural scientific laws as we know them are all there is, and so, anything outside of that can't be real. The problem is that the debate was about whether or not there is anything Supernatural, so, assuming that the Supernatural doesn't exist doesn't prove that it does not.
This is the same thing that happens in the Creation/Evolution debate. Those who believe in Evolution look at all evidence as though Evolution is absolutely true, and therefore, anything that goes against this must be false, which does not allow them to even consider the possibility that they could be wrong.
There are many reasons why Evolution doesn't make any sense, but it's really not about science. I'm not going to get into all of that today, but I may at some point soon. For today, I just wanted to point out that the lie began 149 years ago today, and we are still fighting against it after all this time.
The remarkable thing is not that someone once thought of this and put it out there as a theory, but rather that so many fairly reasonable people have bought into the idea as though it were something that could actually have happened.
Over many years, it is Christians who have been accused of ignoring science when it comes to the Creation/Evolution debate, however, if you stop and think about it, this simply isn't true. The funny thing is that much of what is touted as proof of evolution can only be seen as such if you presuppose that evolution is true, and deliberately interpret the data to agree with what you already think.
Just to give a somewhat unrelated example, let me tell of a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. The Atheist asked the Christian if he believed in Creation, and that Jesus had indeed died on the Cross, and been raised from the dead, and some other miraculous events, and the Christian said yes, and the Atheist basically said, well, there you go, you must be wrong because those things can't happen. Of course, what he was doing was attempting to frame the debate in such a way as to say that natural scientific laws as we know them are all there is, and so, anything outside of that can't be real. The problem is that the debate was about whether or not there is anything Supernatural, so, assuming that the Supernatural doesn't exist doesn't prove that it does not.
This is the same thing that happens in the Creation/Evolution debate. Those who believe in Evolution look at all evidence as though Evolution is absolutely true, and therefore, anything that goes against this must be false, which does not allow them to even consider the possibility that they could be wrong.
There are many reasons why Evolution doesn't make any sense, but it's really not about science. I'm not going to get into all of that today, but I may at some point soon. For today, I just wanted to point out that the lie began 149 years ago today, and we are still fighting against it after all this time.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Abortion and Human Rights
Abortion and Human Rights |
Gregory Koukl
Greg convincingly describes how the issue of abortion is truly no different than the issue of slavery. The issue to be considered is the issue of human rights.
| Let me ask you a question. Are you against slavery? Do you believe that the issue of slavery is a moral position? Are laws legislating that particular moral position appropriate? What you've said is that it's appropriate to legislate certain moral issues and that you'd be in favor of that. The economic issue would actually be on the side of the South because slavery is what propped up the economic system of the South. When slaves were emancipated it gutted them of their economic force. Let's remove the economic argument. Based solely on morality, are you willing to say that the moral issue of slavery should be enforced simply as a moral issue? This is a very important point. Many people have offered the objection that we should not force a particular morality in the issue of abortion. My questions are very pointed and leading, and they were simply to make the point that virtually everybody who makes that kind of objection actually does believe that there are cases in which morality should be legislated. We talked about the obvious issue of slavery because there is the human rights issue that is at stake. My encouragement to you and anyone else who would espouse the same position is to understand that the pro-life side is arguing this issue on the basis of human rights. The question for us is whether the unborn child is a human being that has inalienable rights in the same way that a black is a human being that has inalienable rights. If that is the case, it is just as appropriate for us to legislate on the abortion issue as it is in the slavery issue. It's not just a casual parallel because in 1859 Judge Taney on the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision that declared that black people were not human beings and did not deserve protection under the law. That was a Supreme Court decision that was later overturned by The Emancipation Proclamation. The point I'm making is that if you don't address this issue on a human rights basis then you're not addressing it on the basis that pro-lifers are addressing it. The questions should be asked about the appropriateness of abortion or about laws against abortion based on a human rights issue. To be honest with you, I and virtually every other pro-lifer will abandon the fight if the unborn child is not a human being worthy of being protected. We're not interested in getting into people's bedrooms and telling them how to have sex and how to live. We're not interested in restricting choices because we are bigoted and want to make people's lives miserable. We're interested in human rights just like those who argued against slavery. If you are to reject my position on abortion, that's your prerogative. I respect your right to do that. But I would encourage you to engage intellectually the real critical issue: is the unborn child a human being? If you can answer for yourself with some rationality that there is no reason to believe that this is a human being, then I think you've justified your position. But I don't think the simple objection that it's not appropriate for one person to force their morality on someone else is ultimately legitimate. When questioned a little bit you acknowledge that that's not a valid way of approaching human rights issues. What about cases of rape and incest? I don't say that it's permissible in those cases. I think you're pointing out an inconsistency in this discussion that is very valid. I agree entirely and this is why I do not hold that abortion should be allowed in those cases. This really demonstrates how important the question of the human rights of the child is because it compels us to certain conclusions. It removes from us the liberty of making ad hoc decisions based on our emotions. We must approach this in a disciplined way as a transcendent human rights issue. If we don't do that we are not doing the issue justice. But what I don't want anybody to do is to mistakenly frame this issue as one of choice. It is not an issue of choice any more than slavery was an issue of choice. It's not an issue of what a woman can do with her body. Frankly, a woman can't do what she wants with her own body and neither can men. Laws restrict those freedoms given the right set of circumstances. The issue to be considered here is the issue of human rights. It's unfortunate that the press and certain people arguing for one position have framed the question differently because they have missed the entire point. During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn't be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn't tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue. Even then when you had a living, breathing human being standing there staring back, they still could argue that way. I'm not a bit surprised that it could be done with an unseen infant that is growing out of sight in the womb of its mother. Anyway that's my personal challenge to you to rethink this issue in a different fashion. |
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1992 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Fetal Personhood: It's Simple
Fetal Personhood: It's Simple |
Gregory Koukl
What makes a person a person? Does a fetus qualify?
I'm asking for people just to work hard to get some clarity on this issue. It's not that hard. If I've heard this once, I've heard it a dozen times: "This is a difficult issue. It's a confusing issue. It's hard to come to a real, proper understanding." The abortion issue is not a difficult issue. It is not a confusing issue. It is a very simple issue when it comes to the facts themselves. And I'm trying to urge people to have some clarity based on what is true here and what is moral and right; not based on what we want for ourselves. That's what makes these kind of issues complicated. The truth is self-evident but we don't like what is true because it makes a moral demand upon us, and that moral demand frequently is uncomfortable and inconveniencing. When we face discomfort and inconvenience, then we want to change the rules; and we try to change the rules by using contorted, disfigured arguments and we claim that it's a difficult issue. It's not difficult at all. I talked with a young lady last night who made the point that she thinks that. She used the illustration of snapshots. If you took a photo of the developing fetus at every stage of development you would see something different; therefore the fetus is a different thing at each different stage of development. Well, that's an idea, I guess. That's a way of looking at it but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It doesn't mean because you can take a picture of me at six, and ten, and twelve, and twenty-four, and forty-four that I am somehow a different being. I'm the same being talking on this show right now that graduated from Simon Greenleaf University two weeks ago, and graduated from York High School in 1968, even though I don't look the same as I did back then. I still have my girlish figure, but I look different. Does that mean I'm a different person? I'm a different being? All these gradualism arguments fail because they don't have a clear fix on what it means for a thing to be a thing. It sounds like double talk, but it's not double talk at all. It's very simple. A thing is itself and not something else, and it remains itself as long as it exists. I am Greg Koukl. I was Greg Koukl when I was born, and I'll be Greg Koukl when I die. I am Greg Koukl from beginning to end. I am Greg Koukl the whole time through even though my body changes form. Beings don't transform into different beings. They are what they are. When does an acorn become an oak? Well, no one knows for sure. Of course we do! An acorn never becomes an oak. An acorn is an oak. Period. That's what an acorn is. It's an oak in immature form. It can become a mature oak tree. But young or old, it's an oak. This is not a matter of opinion, folks. When we get down to it, acorn doesn't describe what a thing is, in a sense; it describes the stage of development of that particular thing. It's kind of like asking what is a teenager? Well, a teenager isn't a particular thing, like there is a being called teenager. What a teenager is a description of the stage of development of the human being. It is a human at a certain age. An acorn is an oak at a certain age. And a fetus is a human being at a certain age. Now some people try to get around this by saying, "Okay, I'll give in. An unborn child is a human being, but it's not a person." And I have a very simple Columbo for you in that situation. It's very, very easy to use. When someone lays this on you, ask them a very fair question: What's the difference? They will say absolutely nothing. There will be a long, embarrassing silence and don't you dare open your mouth because what this person has just said is that they are willing to sacrifice the life of a human child because it's not a person, yet they are not in any position whatsoever to tell you the difference between the two. It's kind of like saying why are you killing those children? "Well, it's because they don't have a high enough I.Q." Well, how high of an I.Q. do you have to have to live? "Frankly, I don't have the faintest idea, but I know these kids are pretty dumb." What is that? That is exactly what this response implies. Nonpersons shouldn't be allowed to live. What's a nonperson? "I don't know, but they're not one of them." If a person is willing to sacrifice the life of a child based on its nonpersonhood, it seems to me they ought to have a fairly clear idea of what personhood actually is. But of course nobody does in a clear fashion. It becomes arbitrary at that point. The fact is that human beings are persons. They are personal kinds of beings whether they are in an early stage of development or a later stage of development. That's what a human is and it remains itself from the beginning to end. It's very simple. It's not hard. It's not complex. We've known it for ages. This personhood argument is only 10-20 years old, since Roe vs. Wade , Frank Beckwith says. Before then there was never a personhood argument. It was introduced after Roe v. Wade to make the decision to have an abortion a little more palatable. The same thing happened with Dred Scott. He's not a person, he's black. He's not a person, though he's a human technically; but that's just a little detail. It's not significant. It's simple, folks. |
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1994 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Here's A Thought
Maybe someone out there can give me an answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it. My wife just turned on the TV and it was on the History Channel initially, and I caught something about what was being said. They were talking about some Star or stellar phenomenon that's 64 Billion Light years away. A light year is a measure of distance, namely the distance that light can travel in one year. That would mean that it would take 64 Billion years for the light from this object to reach Earth. However, the Big Bang Theory says that the Big Bang occurred, starting up the Universe, around 14 Billion years ago. So, how is it that light from this star, or whatever, is reaching us on Earth today? Seems to me that the nearest light from this object should be 50 Billion light years away still, right?
Now, that being said, I know how ascribing to the Biblical account of creation would deal with such a question. To answer the questions about the apparent age of the Earth, you would look at the fact that God created Adam as a full grown adult, with the appearance of age. Likewise, you would say that God created the Earth with the appearance of age also. So, why not take it one more step, which would actually fit logically into the rest of this, and say that God created the entire universe with that same appearance of age, including the light that already reaches Earth (and beyond) even from 64 Billion light years away.
So, if someone from the evolutionary side wants to give an answer to this, that would be great, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, and anyone else who wants to weigh in is welcome also, of course.
Now, that being said, I know how ascribing to the Biblical account of creation would deal with such a question. To answer the questions about the apparent age of the Earth, you would look at the fact that God created Adam as a full grown adult, with the appearance of age. Likewise, you would say that God created the Earth with the appearance of age also. So, why not take it one more step, which would actually fit logically into the rest of this, and say that God created the entire universe with that same appearance of age, including the light that already reaches Earth (and beyond) even from 64 Billion light years away.
So, if someone from the evolutionary side wants to give an answer to this, that would be great, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, and anyone else who wants to weigh in is welcome also, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
