Sermon Illustrations on Controversy

The One Jesus Loves

John 11:29

Henri Nouwen elaborates on the qualifications for leadership in his book “In the Name of Jesus”:

"Christian leaders cannot simply be persons who have well-informed opinions about the burning issues of our time. Their leadership must be rooted in the permanent, intimate relationship with the incarnate Word, Jesus, and they need to find there the source for their words, advice, and guidance… Dealing with burning issues easily leads to divisiveness because, before we know it, or sense of self is caught up in our opinion about a given subject. But when we are securely rooted in personal intimacy with the source of life, it will be possible to remain flexible but not relativistic, convinced without being rigid, willing to confront without being offensive, gentle and forgiving without being soft, and true witnesses without being manipulative."

Would Jesus Join This Protest?

John 2:17

Principles to follow when taking a stand on an issue. Article begins with author describing a protest she took part in, but it got out of hand. Protesters must demonstrate the qualities of Christ. Zeal must be tempered with knowledge. Just feeling strongly against something is not enough of a reason to take physical action. Strong convictions must be accompanied by clear thinking.

Keys to Godly Protest

1. Couple God’s power with personal obedience. When God lays

something on your heart, act on it.

2. Present a good reputation so your opinions will be heard.

3. Act respectfully.

4. Cling to the good.

5. Watch your reflexes.

The Water of Life Lost Through Controversy

I don't believe any of us can afford to have a victory over our Christian brethren. I saw once, a little incident in Scottish history. It was at the time when conflicts were being waged between two factions in Scotland. One of them was represented by the garrison in the old castle at Edinburgh, and the townspeople were on the other side. They fell into a very serious fight about surrendering the town. It was the easiest thing in the world for the castle to subdue whatever force was brought against it. Those of you who have been there know how commanding a position it occupied. In a very little while, they opened a terrific cannonade on the town. They were soon subdued. It was an easy victory. But they found that the explosions of their cannon had shaken the rock beneath them and opened the fissures so widely that the waters in the wells that the garrison lived upon had run away into nothing.

I don't believe we can afford to be victorious over each other, and that Christian denomination that holds its own by the destruction of any other one will find that its fissures beneath will carry away the water of piety and grace on which it lives.

-- Dr. Robinson

Creative Freedom

Psalms 119:96

A small rock band commemorated the anniversary of September 11th with a controversial concert they called “Hit Another Tower.” One band member justified their work saying, “We believe there is nothing so serious that you can't laugh about it.” [1]

Other artistic controversy emerged recently when a sculpture depicting a woman with flailing arms and legs was placed on exhibit. The artist said his work was meant to honor those who jumped from the World Trade Center. Onlookers were so disturbed, it was quickly removed.

I cannot think of a place where the lines of moral law are more vague and our inner need for these lines more heightened than in the realms of personal expression. Achievement in culture and civilization is defined by man's unique capacity to create and discern beauty, to express and utilize wisdom, virtue, and power. But we fail to remember that wrong use of these capacities is the defining trademark of evil throughout history.

Reinhold Niebuhr once stated, “The destructiveness in human life is primarily the consequence of exceeding, not the bounds of nature, but much more the ultimate limits… There are such limits, because man is a creature as well as creator.” [2] Fifty years have past since Niebuhr penned these words and yet they couldn't be more appropriate for today. We flaunt the freedom to create, all the while choosing to forget our Creator. But unbound by moral law, even our own heart's expression can lead to destruction.

In his novel Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky masterfully captures a heart wrestling with the lines of beauty. He writes, “Is there beauty in Sodom? Believe me, that for the immense mass of mankind beauty is found in Sodom... The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man.” [3]

Only through a moral framework are we reminded of the sanctity of beauty, the sanctity of time, the sanctity of the word, the sanctity of life. When you desacralize these things, destruction entails. What contradiction is to reason, evil is to life.

But in God there is no contradiction, and emerging from Him is that indestructible law. To all perfections there is a limit, says the Psalmist, but the law of God is boundless. (Psalm 119:96) You see, God has made us to create, giving us all the freedoms for the design with which He fashioned us; but creatures, that we might find our reason for being in that moral framework with which He framed us.

Dear friends, may you know beauty and truth not in abstract expressions but personally — in the splendor of Jesus Christ.

____________

1. Wall Street Opinion Journal, “Rock group issues call to Hit Another Tower.” September 13, 2002. www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/13/1031608303822.html

2. Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952.

3. Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov.

____________

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12464

The Greater Source of Suffering

Once Clarence Darrow was visiting Brand Whitlock, then Mayor of Toledo, when an admirer of the great lawyer burst into the office and asked Whitlock to introduce him. “Ah, Mr. Darrow,” gushed the intruder, “you have suffered a great deal in your life for being misunderstood, haven't you?”

Darrow smiled wryly and replied, “Yes, my friend, but I haven't suffered half as much as I would have if I had been understood.”

Martin Luther King On Taking A Stand

Luke 21:19

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929 - 1968)

Civil rights leader

Cited in BITS & PIECES

Andy Kaufman and the Southern Baptists

John 3:16

Andy Kaufman's gotten a lot of attention recently -- a movie (MAN ON THE MOON), a book (LOST IN THE FUNHOUSE), and a feature article in ROLLING STONE. Dead at 35 in 1984, Kaufman was a meteor of strangeness in his short time with us. As Latka Gravas (or Foreign Man) in TAXI, lounge entertainer Tony Clifton, Elvis, and a crazed conga drum player, Kaufman bedeviled and amused us, sort of.

At the same time, the ministerial alliance of Chicago has asked Southern Baptists not to flood their city with the gospel. Associated Press reported strong opposition from the Council of Religious Leaders, one of whom charged Southern Baptists with “non-Christlike-arrogance,” since they say “non-Christians ... are outside God’s plan of salvation.”

These two phenomena seem unrelated, but there are striking parallels. Sure, there is any number of differences. Kaufman was arguably godless and insane, for two.

But consider these similarities:

1. BOTH SEEM LIKE MARTIANS TO THEIR HECKLERS. Performer Kaufmann actually sang “99 Bottles of Beer” all the way through. Nobody goes below the 80’s. Southern Baptists have evangelistic tracts with talk of hell. They even sketch in flames. Nobody would be that stupid in these days of appreciating the divine in everyone. It’s just not done.

2. BOTH ARE UNBELIEVABLY INSULTING. Kaufman would declare that women were not his match, and he would invite them to test his claim. Some would storm out of the audience and take him on, only to fail amid his insults. Southern Baptists say that gays are wrong, Hindus are wrong, Muslims are wrong. In fact, they say all but Christians are wrong. None of this “Worship at the church of your choice,” for your choice could be damnably confused. The Council says the SBC could encourage hate crimes. A bishop charges them with “non-Jesus-like arrogance." (Note: Kaufman meant to be insulting; Southern Baptists just are by virtue of their message.)

3. BOTH ARE GOOD AT PLAYING UNNATURAL ROLES. Andy wasn’t Latka Gravas; he wasn’t Tony Clifton. But he did Latka and Tony because he thought he was supposed to. With Southern roots, Southern Baptists are naturally polite and deferential folks. They love their Bible studies and potluck suppers in Dixie. There’s nothing quite like watching the Alabama-Auburn game on tv, with the sliding door open to the smell of pine needles. It’s a bit unnatural for them to confront urban strangers with the gospel, to help a transvestite find a dress in a clothes closet, and to stifle the gag reflex in a homeless shelter. Yet here they come because they think they’re supposed to.

4. BOTH HAVE A CHILDLIKE WONDER. Kaufman delighted in lip-synching to old recordings of the Mighty Mouse theme (“Here he comes to save the day!") and “Old McDonald” (“ee eye ee eye oh”). Southern Baptists love Sunday School and “Jesus Loves Me." They have little patience for Moltmann, Bultmann, and other such Manns. It’s mainly John 3:16 and a cup of cold water in Jesus’ name for them. Some of them read the heavies, but they don’t get too heavy.

5. BOTH ARE HAVING WAY TOO MUCH FUN. Kaufman thrived on the criticism. So too do Southern Baptists. Both knew they must be doing something right if there were groans and howls of protest. How could anyone be cheerful in the midst of such dismay? To paraphrase Kierkegaard, neither Chicago nor the world is really their audience.

So they’re coming to the Windy City. And whatever the response, you can expect to hear back, “Tenk you veddy much.”

Spurring on Secularism

The leading historian of fundamentalism assesses the damages inflicted by the fundamentalist-modernist controversy.

An interview with George Marsden

----------

What happened to fundamentalism and liberalism after the ruckus died down? In the long run, was the fundamentalist-modernist controversy a "tempest in a teapot," or a significant event in modern American religious history?

To help us bridge the gap between the 1930s and today, Christian History spoke with George Marsden, professor of history at the University of Notre Dame. George is author of the now classic Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford, 1980).

What happened to fundamentalism after the 1930s?

After losing a number of public battles, like the Scopes trial, the fundamentalists regrouped; they formed independent denominations, Bible churches, and parachurch and revivalist organizations. They mobilized the radio--Charles Fuller and his Old Fashioned Revival Hour is a good example.

The watchers of mainstream culture were writing off fundamentalism, assuming that as people became more educated they would become more liberal. In fact, fundamentalism was moving on the popular front and was still quite effective. In the 1970s, Jerry Falwell revealed to the country that fundamentalism had not gone away and was still a powerful movement.

What about liberalism?

Liberalism flourished, and mainline Protestant churches were very influential in the culture; they tended to think they spoke for Protestantism in America.

For instance, in the 1940s, major radio networks were expected to donate some time for Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant programming. The National Council of Churches, which determined who would represent Protestantism on this free air time, refused to invite fundamentalists to participate. Charles Fuller arguably had the most popular religious radio program of the day--air time for which he paid. When he demanded equal free time, he was refused.

This "control" of Protestant culture, of course, weakened in the sixties and seventies as mainline Protestantism fragmented, and mainline churches started losing members.

So even though liberals controlled the media, they didn't sabotage the appeal of fundamentalism. The cultural center doesn't control lots of things that are going on in subcultures on the periphery in American life. Fundamentalism is a pretty good illustration of that.

Fundamentalists have a reputation for majoring in minors, worrying as much about card playing and dancing as about inerrancy and the Incarnation. Is that fair?

Bans on smoking, drinking, dancing, and such have always been a feature of revivalist Christianity--evangelical and fundamentalist. At evangelical Wheaton College, for example, social dancing is still forbidden. However, behavioral tests are no longer as important as political tests. Today fundamentalists would have serious doubts about a believer who is a political liberal.

Have fundamentalists borrowed anything from liberalism?

Perhaps one thing fundamentalists now share with liberals is a therapeutic model of ministry. Fundamentalists are still serious about doctrine, but they now have an entire industry that helps people talk about feelings and deal with relationships. Naturally, fundamentalists handle relational topics differently than do liberals, but they often traffic in the same therapeutic language and assumptions.

Have liberals learned anything from fundamentalists?

Liberals have learned that it's difficult for the church to survive if there's nothing that makes the church distinct from culture. If all we need are social agencies or schools, church becomes superfluous. So liberals have become more concerned about doctrine, though they would hardly share the same doctrinal stands as fundamentalists.

Did the fundamentalist-modernist controversy impact the larger American culture?

The controversies of the 1920s strengthened the hand of people who wanted to secularize the culture; they were able to argue that religion is divisive, and the way to keep the peace is to restrict religion to the private domain.

Also secularism became more dominant in mainline Protestant schools, which reacted strongly against fundamentalism. For instance, one message mainline Protestant colleges sent to their constituencies in the 1930s and 1940s was this: "We're religious, but we're not fundamentalist!" That reaction tended to move them further from their particular religious identities, so that today many Presbyterian and Baptist colleges are just as secular as Yale and Harvard.

What did the controversy reveal about ongoing issues in American culture?

In America it's been assumed that a single, government-run school system can teach values that will satisfy everybody in the community. That assumption developed in the day when broadly Protestant values were common.

The fundamentalist-modernist controversy--especially in regards to the teaching of evolution--pointed out that cultural unity was breaking up (this is even before the mainstream allowed much room for the values of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and other religious groups).

It's impossible for a single school system to represent all those views. We're still facing those issues, and gradually Americans are coming to see that a single educational system is not going to work.

What still puzzles you about fundamentalism?

Many fundamentalists seem to hold two views at once. One is the premillennial view--culture is on the decline; it's under God's judgment; we shouldn't trust in politics or human solutions because things are just going to get worse and worse until Jesus returns.

At the same time, the same people will argue that we should be reforming America: America is God's chosen nation--or was once a Christian nation and we should try to bring America back to this godly condition.

On the one hand, America is Babylon and under judgment. On the other hand, America is Israel, God's chosen nation.

What do you appreciate most about fundamentalists?

Fundamentalists are willing to take a stand, and that's often been a difficult thing to do.

If you let culture make tolerance the preeminent virtue, pretty soon you won't have anything else. And so it's good that there are Christians who have said we need to draw a line somewhere.

...[section of interview missing]...

Pariah. In his early years, Billy Graham was embraced by fundamentalists. But at his 1957 New York City crusade, he spoke well of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics, and he didn't discourage new converts from attending non-fundamentalist churches. Graham's more open stance toward other Christians was too much for fundamentalists, who have refused to fellowship with him since.

----------

Issue 55, Vol. XVI, No. 3, Page 42

Controversies Can Be Profitable

"There is no learned man but will confess that he hath much profited by reading controversies - his senses awakened, his judgment sharpened, and the truth which he holds more firmly established. All controversy being permitted, falsehood will appear more false, and truth the more true."

-- John Milton

The Encyclopedia of Theological Ignorance

I am the proud owner of "The Oxford English Dictionary," which contains every word in our language. Instead of the 20-volume version that retails for $3,000, I got a special one-volume edition for only $39.95 by joining a certain book club. It contains the full text of the dictionary, with the drawback of typesetting shrunken too small to read. Next, I purchased a splendid magnifying glass, the size of a dinner plate mounted on a swivel arm with a fluorescent light built in. When I train the magnifying glass on a word, the tiny marks show up crisp and clear in the center, or focal point, while the edges grow progressively distorted.

In an exact parallel, for me Jesus has become the focal point of faith, and increasingly I am learning to keep the magnifying glass of my faith focused on him. In my spiritual journey I have long lingered in the margins, puzzling over matters like the problem of pain, the conundrum of prayer, providence versus free will. When I do so, everything becomes fuzzy. Looking at Jesus, however, restores clarity. For example, the Bible leaves many questions unanswered about the problem of pain, but in Jesus I see unmistakable proof that God is the God of all comfort, not the author of our pain.

I admit that many orthodox Christian doctrines bother me. Will hell really involve an eternity of torment? What of those who live and die without hearing about Jesus? I fall back on the response of Bishop Ambrose, mentor of Saint Augustine, who was asked on his deathbed whether he feared facing God at judgment. "We have a good Master," Ambrose replied. I learn to trust God with areas I do not understand by getting to know Jesus-and if that sounds evasive, I suggest it accurately reflects the centrality of Christ presented in the New Testament. With Jesus as the focal point, we let our eyes wander with care into the margins.

I have often wondered why the Bible does not give clearer answers to those questions at the margins. God had the opportunity to address the problem of pain in his speech at the end of Job and yet avoided the topic entirely. The Bible treats other issues - free will, infant salvation, annihilation - with clues, not direct pronouncements. I have a theory why.

On a shelf near my dictionary sits another book titled THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF IGNORANCE. Whereas most encyclopedias compile information that we know, this book outlines the areas science cannot yet explain. Perhaps God has fenced off an area of knowledge, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THEOLOGICAL IGNORANCE.

Consider infant salvation. Most theologians have found a few clues that lead them to conclude God welcomes all infants "under the age of accountability." The biblical evidence, however, is scant. What if God had made a clear pronouncement: "Thus saith the Lord. Every child under the age of ten, I will welcome into heaven"? I can easily see crusaders of the tenth century mounting a campaign to slaughter every child under the age of ten in order to guarantee their eternal salvation-which, of course, would mean that none of us would be around a millennium later to contemplate such questions.

In view of the mess we have made of crystal-clear commands-the unity of the church, love as a mark of Christians, reliance on God's grace and not our works, the importance of personal purity, the dangers of wealth-I tremble to think how we might act if some of the ambiguous doctrines were less ambiguous. We dare not repeat the error of Eden by assuming prerogatives in realms we cannot fathom.

Take the doctrine of God's sovereignty, taught in the Bible in such a way that it stands in creative tension with human freedom. The perspective of an all-powerful being who sees all history at once rather than unfolding second by second will always baffle theologians because that point of view is unattainable to us, even unimaginable by us. A humble approach accepts the difference in perspective and worships a God who transcends our limitations.

Hyper-Calvinists take on the prerogatives that no human can bear. Thus Malthusians opposed vaccination for smallpox because, they said, it interfered with God's sovereign will. Calvinist churches discouraged early missionaries such as William Carey, ignoring the obvious fact that we are the ones chosen by a sovereign God to carry the good news worldwide. On the other hand, in their doctrine of "perseverance of the saints," Calvinists correctly expressed the biblical tension between eternal security and the need for God's followers to persevere in their faith.

Obviously, we must and should investigate some of the issues in what I have called "the margins." I have been greatly helped, for example, by C. S. Lewis's depiction in THE GREAT DIVORCE of hell as a place people continue to choose even when they end up there. As Milton's Satan put it, "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." Still, I must insist that the most important questions about heaven and hell - who goes where, whether there are second chances, what form the judgments and rewards take, intermediate states after death - are opaque at best. Increasingly, I am grateful for that ignorance and grateful that the God who revealed himself in Jesus is the one who knows the answers.

*

When Ayatollahs Speak

John 16:2

Discontent over Jerry Falwell's labeling Muhammad a "terrorist" and "man of war" is festering overseas. The Lynchburg, Virginia, pastor now has joined the elite fraternity of high-profile figures ordered executed for speaking evil against Islam.

The Associated Press reported Oct. 12 that Ayatollah Mohsen Mujtahed Shabestari, a close aide and confidant of Iran's supreme leader, told the Shiite Muslim faithful in the northwestern Iranian town of Tabriz that Falwell is a "mercenary and must be killed," and that "the death of this man is a religious duty."

Hossein Chariatmadari, editor of the Iranian Shiite daily newspaper "Kayhan," also reportedly claimed that the call to kill Falwell is consistent with the teachings of Islam. "It is imperative to kill," he said.

In Bombay, India, outraged clerics held a general strike in protest of what they perceived as Falwell's irreverent opinion. The protest turned violent -- no surprise -- and five participants were reported killed.

Salman Rushdie discovered shortly after the publication of the "Satanic Verses" in 1989 that to malign Muhammad, the revered prophet of Islam, is to risk assassination at the hands of Shiite zealots. The Indian-born British citizen was accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini shortly before the supreme leader of Iran died in February 1989.

I've chuckled at the thought of Falwell phoning Rushdie to ask for advice.

In reality Falwell is not the first Protestant minister to provoke consternation among fundamentalist Muslim clerics. Shabestari also has preached death-warrant sermons against Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham. Robertson claimed that Islam sought to dominate and, if need be, destroy. Graham said last November that Islam is an "evil" and "wicked" religion.

Not all anti-Falwellian statements have been as menacing as those of Shabestari.

Ayatollah Hussein Nouri Hamedani accused Falwell of participating in a "Zionist plan" to provoke confrontation between the Muslim and Christian worlds, but stopped short of demanding the minister's life.

In Beirut, Lebanon, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, known for his harsh criticism of all things American, said that Falwell had "infringed" on Muhammad's dignity. Fadlallah encouraged Muslims to cease investment in American markets. Iranian Ayatollah Hussein Mousavi Tabrizi said Falwell's comments were insulting, but that he could be enlightened with dialogue.

Tabrizi told the AP, "We will not issue a death verdict against the priest," as if they were entitled to do so if they wished.

Even Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former president of Iran, entered the fray, calling Falwell's remarks "rude" and a "result of the environment the American rulers have created."

Falwell later apologized for having offended Muslims globally and said he sincerely regretted offending law-abiding Muslims. Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, head of a Sunni Muslim mosque in Cairo, accepted the apology as a "return to the righteous path" on Falwell's part.

Tabrizi reportedly agreed, saying, "A person courageous enough to apologize for his errors is worthy of praise.... It's humanitarian and good Islamic behavior to accept an apology from a person who admits making a mistake."

Several clerics, however, have refused Falwell's apology. Shabestari and Chariatmadari have remained silent, and Sheik Zuheir Jaaed, deputy head of Lebanese association of Shiite and Sunni Muslims, said Falwell's comments "will not calm us." Falwell "cannot insult the prophet and then apologize," Jaaed said.

Controversy is nothing new to Falwell. However, when I heard that some Shiite clerics were sharpening their swords and splitting hairs over Falwell's remarks on the Sept. 30 edition of "60 Minutes," I thought of how I would have responded to the question concerning the "prophet" and terrorism.

"Do you believe Muhammad was a terrorist, Mr. Tomlin?"

Indeed, the question is one that every Christian should be ready to answer in the hope that our responses might generate genuine dialogue and a chance to share the gospel.

What might my answer have been to this TNT-laden question? Realizing that any answer that doesn't extol the divine character of Muhammad will be offensive to Muslims abroad, I would have replied:

"I believe that Muhammad was a man."

Muhammad, like all others who have influenced history and religion, was essentially the same in his human nature as Mahatma Ghandi, the boy Buddha, and even the apostle Paul -- fallen. All followed devised systems of religion that bargained with the righteousness of God. They hoped to achieve God's favor by doing, fighting, working or meditating, and in Paul's case, even persecuting the followers of a prophet from Galilee.

The prophet from Galilee, however, was no ordinary man. He was the Son of God whom the early church father Athanasius said had come "in condescension to show lovingkindness to us, and to visit us." He never sinned; he came to bridge the gulf of sin that separated humanity from God by his death. He came into the world to save sinners, as Paul wrote after having encountered the resurrected Christ.

Christ died for Muhammad.

Muhammad, of course, did not believe that God could be so gracious and so intimately involved with creation, and chose to believe in a god who was aloof and not easily impressed by humanity's pleas for help. He and his followers instead established another system of religion, sometimes by force, and shackled the chains of legalistic religion around the feet of countless millions for centuries to come.

Today Muslim clerics in the Middle East are ratcheting up their own rhetoric and becoming increasingly hard-line. ASSIST News service reported that a cleric in a mosque in Al-Unayzah, Saudi Arabia, recently described Christianity as "a distorted and deformed religion," a "false faith" comprised of people "Allah described in his book as deviating from the path of righteousness." In the grand mosque of Sanaa, Yemen, a speaker was reported as asking Allah in prayer "to destroy the Jews and their supporters and the Christians and their supporters and followers."

With such men leading the Muslim faithful in the Middle East, there is little wonder that in Islamic states such as Iran, Yemen and Saudi Arabia speaking ill against the revered founder of Islam can be punished with the swing of a sword or the squeeze of a trigger.

It will become increasingly difficult in the near future to answer questions like the question posed to Falwell. Christians will not have the luxury of Monday-morning quarterbacking responses to loaded questions when our answers boil the blood and fire the tongues of those who disdain Christ and his followers. But answer we must.

Paul wrote in his second letter to his young protege Timothy: "Before God and Christ Jesus, who is going to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom I solemnly charge you: proclaim the message; persist in it whether convenient or not; rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience and teaching. For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will accumulate teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear something new. They will turn away from hearing the truth and will turn aside to myths. But as for you, keep a clear head about everything, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."

I pray that the body of Christ doesn't allow the threats of Muslim leaders in distant lands to deter the church from its mission. The mission is costly, and some Christians -- perhaps notables such as Robertson, Graham and Falwell -- may be killed while sharing the truth, the message of hope in Christ. But as the Anabaptist Balthazar Hubmaier once said, "The truth is unkillable."

________________

Tomlin is news director at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

*

Of Science and Religion: What Really Got Galileo Into Trouble

The PBS program NOVA had an episode that can stimulate some valuable discussion and reading. If Christians handle it wisely, it might give us a chance to correct the popular misconception that Galileo, the seventeenth-century astronomer, was the victim of religious suppression of science. This is important, because critics have always used the Galileo story to unfairly paint the Church as anti-science.

Allegedly, theologians in Galileo's day were unwilling to consider any evidence that contradicted Ptolemy's theory that the earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus's and Galileo's hypothesis that the earth revolved around the Sun, the story goes, was brutally suppressed. But history is not all that simple.

Dr. Owen Gingerich, who appears on the program, has devoted much of his life to studying Copernicus and Galileo. As research professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard and senior astronomer emeritus at Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, he has spent years studying questions like this. He's convinced the primary issue between Galileo and the Church wasn't whether the earth revolved around the Sun -- the heliocentric theory. Instead it was "a turf battle over who had the keys to the truth, one that was especially exacerbated at that time because of the Catholic battle with the Protestants over the way to interpret Scripture." The primary issue was not heliocentrism, but "how literally Scripture should be interpreted."

Gingerich reports, "About two-thirds of the copies [of Galileo] in Italy were censored and essentially none elsewhere ... [T]he rest of the world saw that exercise as a local Italian imbroglio, and they were having none of it."

The truth is that Pope Urban VIII had a strong interest in science. Although he accepted the view that Earth was the center of the universe, he authorized Galileo to write a book to explain the alternatives. If Galileo had simply presented his view, everything would have been fine.

Instead Galileo presented the competing views as a drama for three actors. The character espousing Pope Urban's view was named Simplicius. Gingerich observed, "Galileo has arranged the dialogue to make Simplicius's words sound like the dying gasp of a man whose arguments had been drowned in a deluge of contradicting facts ... The choice of words, and the context in which they were set, made Urban look like a complete fool." Urban was a powerful enemy, and Galileo was put on trial. But he wasn't convicted of heresy, as everybody thinks. Galileo was convicted of teaching heliocentrism, when he had been forbidden to do so. It was a case of insubordination.

We really don't know whether the NOVA documentary will have an anti-Christian bias and present the old myth that the Christian Church was -- and is -- opposed to good science. Keep in mind it probably has some spin -- the media can't resist it. But if Gingerich's views are offered, it could help offset the reductionist "science or religion" interpretation often associated with the Galileo controversy.

Christians need to have the facts and correct the legends. NOVA just might give us an opportunity to do that.

Christian Views Not Welcome?

Men like Rod Paige and Franklin Graham are not afraid to boldly confirm their Christian beliefs, even when it's unfashionable.

_________________

Should evangelical Christians -- whose Bible-based views often counter the so-called mainstream social, political and religious attitudes -- be restrained from voicing their beliefs in secular settings?

Two recent situations suggest that there is a growing effort to silence Christians who express their perspective on current issues.

Secretary of Education Rod Paige found this out last week when he suggested that America's public schools could stand to adopt better values systems, even those based on religious teachings. Asked if schools should embrace religious values, Mr. Paige answered, “Absolutely.” Asked why there is animosity toward religion and God in schools, Mr. Paige said, “It's a real puzzle to me.”

Leftist groups erupted in anger over the comments.

Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, told the Associated Press, “The answer should be there is no hostility toward God in public schools - there's neutrality. This idea of animosity is right out of the religious right's playbook about how to discredit public education, and he buys into it.”

Maybe Mr. Lynn should pull his head out of the sand and see the amazing number of legal cases involving discrimination in our schools. Students wishing to start after-school Bible clubs are frequently told they cannot do so, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has said they can. Students face discrimination in scholarship awards because of religious studies. Students are told they cannot hand out Christian candy canes if they bear a religious message or turn in artwork that has a religious connotation.

“Neutrality” is hardly how I'd describe the religious environment in our schools.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network also criticized Mr. Paige.

“The language of religious values -- particularly 'Christian values' -- has often been misused to isolate or denigrate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” said Kevin Jennings, GLSEN's executive director. The group says schools should sponsor diversity - code word for, “keep the Christians silent.”

At our nation's founding and for many years thereafter, our nation's public schools were havens of Christian thought. Only in recent years has it become trendy to denounce those who attempt to bring a Christian influence in the classroom.

“The groups firing at Rod Paige have been working to eradicate the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression from schools and every other corner of the public square,” said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. “The value of teaching young children charity, peace and kindness is indisputable. Jesus taught us to 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' and we could certainly use more of that lesson in violence ridden schools.”

The fact is, it is only the radical homosexuals and the militant civil libertarians -- those who oppose any religious reference in the public square -- who are so adamantly opposed to a few religious values being utilized in our public schools.

Evangelist Franklin Graham was also targeted for censure this week. He is to speak at a Good Friday event at the Pentagon. This angered a few Muslim employees there. Thankfully, the Defense Department said it would not rescind its invitation to Rev. Graham to speak at the services. As you know, Rev. Graham earlier called Islam an evil religion last year. Nevertheless, he has devoted much of his ministry to helping people in Muslim nations.

Franklin, who is the son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, is president of Samaritan's Purse, a relief organization that is currently conducting relief work in Iraq. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has stipulated that the organization should not be allowed to minister there, even though Samaritan's Purse has a long history of helping predominately Muslim nations, including Bosnia, Afghanistan and others.

The love of Christ reaches out to all. That is the beauty of the Gospel. While Christians and Muslims will certainly disagree on many key issues, that does not preclude Christian organizations like Samaritan's Purse from reaching out in Christian love to lend a helping hand at a time of need. Christ is no respecter of persons and neither should be His followers.

Nevertheless, it has become fashionable to rebuke Christians when they don't follow the party line of vague “diversity” and other feel-good concepts of the day. But Christians will not sanction homosexual conduct. Christians will not adopt “inclusive” policies to accept other religious teachings. We will respect the views of all, but will not be brought into the nebulous middle where “diversity” and “inclusion” exists for everyone except us.

I thank God that men like Rod Paige and Franklin Graham are not afraid to boldly confirm their Christian beliefs, even in this time in our nation's history when it has become terribly unfashionable to do so.

*

A Prayer For Christ-Followers

John 17:6

Graduation ceremonies are beginning to take place across the country. At this time last year you may have heard about the commencement services at Georgetown University, that prestigious Catholic University in the heart of Washington, D.C. The speaker was the cardinal from Nigeria, Francis Arinze, who also serves as the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

Cardinal Arinze boldly told Georgetown's class of 2003 that happiness is not found in the pursuit of material wealth or pleasures of the flesh but by fervently adhering to convictional beliefs.

He went on to say that in many parts of the world the family is under siege as a result of what he called an anti-life mentality, evident in advocacy for abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Instead of the family being honored, he said, today it is scorned. It is banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions, and cut in two by divorce.

We might think that a message like this at a church-related institution should not be unexpected -- yet people got up to leave in protest in the middle of the speech and 70 faculty members signed a stinging letter charging Cardinal Arinze with “inappropriate remarks.”

Jonathan Rausch and David Brooks, who write for the Atlantic Monthly, have recently described such responses in the church in this country as pictures of flexidoxy that they say have infiltrated the church. No longer, they observe, is the church concerned with orthodoxy -- that is, the true teaching, the sound doctrine, the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) -– or with false teaching.

The church in America wants to be as flexible as the shifting currents of our society, the authors write. The result, they say, is another new category of people -- not convictional theists or antagonistic atheists, but apatheists, which is shorthand for apathetic theists.

Thus, borrowing from these writers, the church in America overall can be described by ideas like “apatheistic flexidoxy.” Yet Jesus, in John 17, prays something very different for His followers.

John 17 is the Lord's own prayer where we see Him pouring out His heart to the Father for His followers. This prayer is certainly the “Holy of Holies” of the Gospel record as Jesus prayed not only for His immediate followers but for His followers through the ages, for all true believers for all time.

The first five verses of John 17 provide one of the truly high water marks of New Testament Christology. It reminds us that this one who is praying today for His followers is the one, true, exalted, majestic, cosmic Lord of heaven and King of earth.

Thus beginning at verse 6, to the end of the chapter, Jesus prays for His followers -- for the true church through the centuries. In Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25 we are reminded that Jesus prays for His own still today at the right hand of God. And I believe this prayer in John 17 is still what He prays for us today.

If you have traveled around the world or just across the country, you know that Christ-followers are different and diverse -- red, yellow, black and white; young and old; small and large; short and tall; thin and overweight; urban, rural, suburban; educated and uneducated; well-known and anonymous; rich and poor; and on the list could go. But in spite of our many differences, geographical and otherwise, we belong to the same Lord -- and thus to each other.

Yet believers especially in this country often exhibit a petty spirit, one of selfishness, competition and disunity. If we take this prayer seriously, such division, such a spirit, such actions break our Savior's heart.

One of the things that gains the attention of the world and authenticates our message is the way Christians love each other and live and serve together in harmony. I believe it is this witness that our Lord wants and expects from us in the world. The lost world cannot see God, but they can see Christians.

It is true that the secular media and secular press often present Christians in the worst light, but sadly on more than one occasion we have provided the ink for their stories. So often what the unbelieving world sees in us is what they believe about God. If the world sees love and unity, they will believe that God is love. If they see constant fighting, bickering and discord, they likely will misunderstand and reject the Gospel message.

In verse 20 of John 17, Jesus says that some will believe because of our witness -- because Christ's followers are to be both loving and true. Thus, there is every reason we should love one another and live in unity.

Yes, there are differences, but those things that we share in common should bring joy to our hearts and encourage us to love one another, promoting genuine Christian unity among one another at every opportunity.

However, we cannot miss the second theme of Jesus' prayer in John 17 -- the importance and emphasis on truth and holiness, for ultimately true unity is based on true truth! Any other kind of unity is earthly, worldly, temporal and ultimately empty.

The Word brings joy and love to us, and it also imparts God's power for righteous and holy living, a righteous and holy living that distinguishes the church from the world. Jesus' prayer, then, is not only for spiritual unity, but also for sanctified truth. Verse 17 is the key, where He prays, “Sanctify them in truth, Your word is truth!”

Thus the church is to be in the world as a witness to the truth -- not to be of the world, not to think or live like the world. The church, according to both the church's early confession and according to the prayer of Jesus, is not only one and universal but also holy and apostolic.

Just as it saddens the Father and the Son when we demonstrate discord rather than unity, so it saddens the Father and the Son and harms the witness of the church when we look to the world to be our guide rather than looking to God's Word.

While our postmodern world encourages the church in the direction of an “apatheistic flexidoxy,” Jesus calls for sanctifying truth. Today we must commit ourselves to becoming agents of reconciliation and agents of grace in a fractured and broken world. For some, that will require grace to overcome painful hurts of the past and, for others, it will require grace to overcome the baggage of cultural prejudices.

This is not a call for some politically correct multiculturalism, but rather it is a faithful response to Christ's prayer for joyful unity among all of His followers!

__________

David S. Dockery is president of Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. Union is affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate in KeruxID 25837-26027]

A Newsmagazine, Mel Gibson & the Bible

John 10:11

Newsweek magazine has launched a frontal attack upon Mel Gibson's movie, “The Passion of The Christ,” but the real target of the magazine's article is the truthfulness of the Bible itself. In “Who Really Killed Jesus?: What History Teaches Us,” Newsweek's Feb. 16, 2004, cover story, writer Jon Meacham labels Gibson's movie “controversial,” “powerful” and “troubling.” More seriously, Meacham blasts the movie as anti-Semitic and potentially dangerous. Newsweek raises the specter of a new wave of anti-Semitism spreading across the world, directly due to the influence of Gibson's film.

The movie is to be released Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday. According to Meacham, the movie “is already provoking a pitched battle between those who think the film unfairly blames the Jewish people for Jesus' death and those who are instead focused on Gibson's emotional depiction of Jesus' torment.” Meacham concedes that Gibson “obviously reveres the Christ of faith” and then criticizes Gibson for “a literal-minded rendering of the most dramatic passages scattered throughout the four Gospels.”

Why would Meacham be surprised that Gibson turned to the Bible as the historical source for his movie? According to Newsweek, the Bible is simply not to be trusted. Mincing no words, Meacham describes the Bible as “a problematic source.” In his words: “Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing at particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance.”

Making this argument, Meacham reflects the trend of liberal biblical scholarship over the last half century. In the wake of the Holocaust and with the rise of modern sensitivities, liberal biblical critics have sought to distance themselves from the clear teachings of the Gospels. Furthermore, they have increasingly lambasted the Gospels as unreliable, anti-Semitic and largely fictional accounts intended to justify the early church's separation from Judaism.

Beyond this, such scholars argue that the Gospels have themselves fueled anti- Semitism throughout European history and that a literal presentation of the biblical material is inherently dangerous.

In the magazine's opening pages, editor Mark Whitaker justifies the cover story by claiming that Gibson's The Passion of The Christ raises “disturbing questions” about who killed Christ. Pressing his point, Whitaker argues that Gibson blames the Jews of Jerusalem, rather than the Roman leadership, for the death of Christ. In Whitaker's words, “we thought it was worth a clear-eyed review of the evidence.”

Unfortunately, Newsweek offered anything but a “clear-eyed review of the evidence.” Instead, the magazine took the opportunity to continue the slander of anti-Semitism against the Gospels and to fuel the very passions the magazine condemned.

Whitaker remarked that he had chosen managing editor Meacham to write this article because he is “an observant Episcopalian” who studied biblical history at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., and “has remained a close follower of religious scholarship.”

Meacham may be a follower of religious scholarship, but his interest seems directed only at scholarship of a liberal bent. Whitaker stated that Meacham “dusted off his old textbooks and spoke to Christian and Jewish leaders and experts” in the development of his story. It is too bad he did not consult more conservative sources.

Leaving no room for doubt, Whitaker judges Gibson and the Gospels guilty of anti-Semitism. In his words, “Gibson based his highly emotional and violent account on literal readings of New Testament passages that have been most often used to imply Jewish culpability.”

In the actual cover story, Meacham blames the “errors” of Gibson's movie on the filmmaker's reliance on the Gospel materials. According to Meacham, “the roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie in overly literal readings -- which are, in fact, misreadings -- of many New Testament texts.”

Of course, Meacham presumes not only to judge the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts, but also to be an expert in what would be a legitimate reading or misreading of the biblical text. In so doing, he advances the liberal argument that the only way to “read” the biblical text is to subvert its apparent meaning.

Without doubt, Gibson has based his movie on the New Testament accounts. He drew his narrative largely from the Gospels of John and Mark, though passages from Matthew and Luke also appear. The movie is a graphic account of the crucifixion and suffering of Christ, and the violence of the movie -- true to the biblical accounts -- has earned the film an “R” rating. Nevertheless, Meacham judges that Gibson's literal reading of the Gospel accounts will “give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago.” Nevertheless, in order to make this judgment, Meacham must assume that historical sources apart from the Bible -- sparse as they are -- are more reliable than the Bible itself. Actually, Meacham bases most of his argument on speculative readings of the biblical texts and efforts by modern liberal historians to reconstruct the historical and religious context of first-century Judaism -- not even on actual historical texts.

Just in case we might misunderstand his view of the Bible, Meacham offers an extended explanation of his view of biblical inspiration. According to Meacham, “The Bible did not descend from heaven fully formed and edged in gilt. The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John shaped their narratives several decades after Jesus' death to attract converts and make their young religion -- understood by many Christians to be a faction of Judaism -- attractive to as broad an audience as possible.” Of course, no one believes that the Bible descended from heaven complete with leather covers, but Christians have historically believed that the actual words of the Bible were directly inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. Meacham sees a political agenda behind the biblical text. Biblical Christians, however, understand the Bible to be the very Word of God, and thus our responsibility in interpretation is to understand the text -- not to correct it.

Given his view of the Bible, Meacham's view of Gibson's movie is quite understandable. He acknowledges the power of Gibson's film, even as he condescendingly explains that “in the New Testament, the implication is that the world is in the grip of evil, and Jesus has come to deliver us from the powers of darkness through his death and resurrection -- an upheaval of the very order of things.”

What about Christ? Meacham asserts that the titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” were commonly used in the first century in reference to religious leaders. This contentious point misses the larger truth that the New Testament Gospels reveal Jesus claiming these titles for Himself, combining in His life and ministry the messianic expectation of the Old Testament and His identity as the very Son of God in human flesh.

Meacham does make some important historical arguments, but he weaves back and forth between criticism of the biblical text and an unsubstantiated argument from secular historical sources.

One controversial scene in the movie, in which a Jewish mob cries out, “His blood be on us and on our children!” ultimately cut from the film, prompted Meacham to allege that the source of the dialogue (the Gospel of Matthew) was “a partisan Gospel writer.”

As Meacham continued, “The Gospels were composed to present Jesus in the best possible light to potential converts in the Roman Empire -- and to put the Temple leadership in the worst possible light.”

Further, Meacham claims that “many scholars believe that the author of Matthew, which is the only Gospel to include the 'His blood be on us' line, was writing after the destruction of the Temple in [A.D.] 70 and inserted the words to help explain why such misery had come upon the people of Jerusalem. According to this argument, blood had already fallen on them and on their children.”

Here Meacham's subversion of the biblical text is most apparent. He projects the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew at least a generation after the crucifixion itself and attributes the shape and substance of the Gospel to an anonymous author's intention to push a political agenda and to explain the destruction of the Temple.

Gibson is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, and Meacham chides him for failing to take his filmmaking instructions from the Vatican. In the aftermath of Vatican II, the Catholic Church adopted guidelines that suggest how the passion narrative should be presented in any dramatic format. According to the Vatican's guidelines, “to attempt to utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one Gospel and the next from another Gospel, and so forth, is to risk violating the integrity of the text themselves.” The guidelines also suggest avoiding the use of large Jewish crowds and any depiction of a Sanhedrin trial.

This is an example of political correctness infecting the Roman curia. As represented by these guidelines, the Gospels must be sanitized in order to be presented safely. The Sanhedrin trial, for example, is crucial to the passion narrative.

At the bottom of all of this lies antipathy toward the Christian Gospel, the four New Testament Gospels and the “scandal of particularity” that lies at the core of the Christian faith. The New Testament is very clear in presenting the death of Christ not as a tragedy of world history, but rather as the accomplishment of God's saving purpose.

The question, “Who killed Jesus?” should direct us to the historical reality, clearly presented in the Gospels, that complicity between the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities led to Christ's crucifixion. But the larger point -- and the essential theological point -- is that Christ died for our sins. Thus, the correct answer to the question, “Who killed Jesus?” is -- we did. Christ died for sinners. That is the central theme of the New Testament Gospel and it is the essential answer Christians must give not only in the face of this controversy, but as the essence of our Christian witness.

The death of Christ was not a tragedy that befell Him. As Christ declared, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Further, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down at my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” (John 10:18).

The cross does not represent defeat, but victory. Jesus Christ did not have his life taken from Him -- He gave it willingly for sinners. His death was not the end of his ministry, but its fulfillment. Christ willingly suffered and died in the place of sinners -- and God raised Him from the dead as the vindication of His earthly ministry.

Regrettably, Newsweek decided to use this release of Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ to level its attack upon the New Testament. The controversy over the movie will produce many opportunities for truth-telling in the midst of the confusion. It's up to us to tell the rest of the story.

*

Christians and Voting

Luke 13:34

Millions of Americans go to the polls and vote for the next president of the United States. On what basis should we make our decision? Should a candidate’s religious faith — or lack of faith — have an impact on whom we vote for?

I’d like to share with you the views of two of the twentieth century’s greatest religious figures: Chuck Colson and Billy Graham.

Chuck felt very strongly about the duty of Christians to vote — and to vote for the best qualified candidate no matter what his personal religious convictions. He considered voting a spiritual duty. On BreakPoint, Chuck noted that as voters, we are to choose the most competent people to be God’s magistrates to do justice, restrain evil, and preserve order. He pointed to Exodus 18, where Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, told him to select men of good moral character who were competent to help judge the people.

Chuck also quoted Martin Luther, who reportedly said he would rather be judged by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian. He meant that he’d prefer to choose the best qualified leader available than vote for someone less qualified who happened to share his religious beliefs. We do this in other areas of our life all the time. For instance, if you needed to undergo brain surgery, would you choose a Christian surgeon, or the best surgeon available no matter what his beliefs?

Billy Graham also has strong views about voting for the best candidate no matter what his private beliefs are. A few days ago [late October 2012], the Rev. Graham took out newspaper ads in USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch urging people to vote for candidates who supported biblical teaching on some of the great moral issues of the day.

As Graham put it, “We are at a crossroads, and there are profound moral issues at stake. I strongly urge you to vote for candidates who support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and woman, protect the sanctity of life, and defend our religious freedoms.”

Some commentators criticized Graham for mixing in partisan politics. But is that really what he was doing?

Dr. Timothy George, Chairman of the Board of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, does not think so. In an essay he published at the Christian Post, George points out that Graham, who will turn 94 in a few days, is nearing the end of his life — which means his words “have a certain gravity” that we should respectfully listen to.

Second, George says, “Graham reveals in his words a deep love for his country. Jesus (and Jeremiah before him) loved Jerusalem and wept over it. There are some tears in Billy Graham’s lament about the turning point we face in our American republic today.”

And third, Graham — as Chuck did in the Manhattan Declaration — asks Christians to “take a stand on three nonnegotiable commitments of the Christian worldview: the sacredness of every human life ... the dignity of marriage as God intended it to be ... and religious freedom.”

And I agree.

We need to pray about who is best qualified to lead our country, in Congress and in the White House. And then, when we go to the polls on Tuesday, we must do our best to choose the candidates who will best fulfill biblical commands for leadership: men and women of good character who are committed to preserving order and promoting justice for all.

________

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12189]

A Curmudgeon I Shall Be: Musical Mush, Part 2

Confession is good for the soul, so they say. Recently, one “BreakPoint” listener accused me of being a curmudgeon. He had heard a February commentary, in which I detailed my teeth-grinding agitation at what I called musical mush: that is, church music devoid of theological content.

In my response to him, I confessed that there may be a bit of a curmudgeonly streak running through me. As I get older I feel an increasing urgency to get my message to the Church, because I know I have less time left to do it. I think everybody experiences this as they grow older. Even the Apostle Paul's writings intensified in urgency in his later epistles.

While I'm certainly no Paul, I understand what it's like to love the Church and care passionately for her well being. That's why I dared to take on what I knew would be controversial: the tendency to use music more for entertainment than for worship. Too often, we see ourselves as the audience to be pandered to and entertained, rather than a congregation of participants with Christ as our liturgist, or music leader, and God as the audience of our worship. So if that makes me a curmudgeon, well, then, a curmudgeon I shall be.

While the entertain-me mindset of consumerism that I see in so many churches disturbs me, I'm thrilled to see that some congregations are beginning to use old hymns set to new music. I saw it recently in the forty minutes of contemporary worship music in Ted Haggard's church in Colorado Springs. The musicians led the congregation to worship by taking some of the great classics of the faith and putting the lyrics to a contemporary beat. I absolutely loved it, as I did similar music that I heard at a Baptist church in St. Louis.

Many Christian artists have caught this vision. One group that has done it beautifully is Indelible Grace. They noticed something as they worked with college students in the campus ministry of Reformed University Fellowship. According to Indelible Grace's website, young people were “being touched by the Gospel, gripped by the rich theology and great poetry of the hymns of the Church. As these students began to taste more of the depth of the Gospel and the richness of the hymn tradition, many began to join the music of their culture with the words of our forefathers (and [fore]mothers!), and a movement was born.”

In writing about old books, C. S. Lewis noted: “Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.”

Well, I think the same could be said about old hymns. We need them to correct the blindspots of our own cultural context. And we need skilled writers and composers to “sing a new song” to the Lord, taking rich theology and crafting music to honor our King in this new day and age. And perhaps, even curmudgeons like me will like it and join in.

Who knows? Wonder of wonders, we might even arrive at a truce in the worship wars. I'll have more to say about this tomorrow.

________

With One Voice: Musical Mush, Part 3

During recent decades, many a church has found itself foundering on the rocks when it comes to what kind of music to use in worship. Cultural change, like a fast moving tide, has left church vessels ravaged, split open, usually along contemporary and traditional divides, with the grey hairs and the pony tails parting ways. It's a shame.

In yesterday's commentary, I alluded to what old hymns have to offer the Church. I was also careful to mention that I'm no despiser of contemporary music so long as it has good theological content. But after the outpouring of e-mails and letters I received when I aired the first commentary on worship music back in February, I can only imagine the ones I'll receive now. Maybe I should learn to keep my mouth shut; my wife, Patty, who has heard me sing, would agree. But the truth is music matters. It has always mattered.

U2's lead singer, Bono, puts it this way: “Music is worship: whether it's worship of women or their designer, the world or its destroyer ... the smoke goes upwards ... to God or something you replace God with ... usually yourself.” So while I lament that some Christian radio stations have taken away programs for biblical teaching, that does not mean I discount the ways in which music itself teaches us and the way it moves us.

Dr. Reggie Kidd, a professor at Reformed Theological Seminary and a worship leader for nearly twenty-five years, has written a book, WITH ONE VOICE, that truly transcends the “worship wars.” Dr. Kidd talks about how music, or more precisely a community of Christians gathered in true worship, is a scaffolding for faith in a culture that has lost its ability to imagine.

Believing in a Jesus whose bones cannot be found in a tomb seems to be just a little too radical for this generation; so, Kidd argues, “in the face of the deconstruction of the Christian view of reality, the great cultural task of Christians is the reclamation of the imagination. This needs to be worked out on a broad front,” Kidd continues, “from the way Christians conduct themselves in the marketplace and in politics to the way ... they engage the arts ... and, of course music ... Music opens the imagination to the possibility that what we see is not all there is.”

For example, Kidd relates the story of writer Anne Lamott, who was first drawn into a church by the sounds of a singing congregation wafting out into the street as she walked by. Lamott, who was then still a seeker, said: “Somehow the singing wore down all the boundaries and distinctions that kept me so isolated ... standing with them to sing ... I felt bigger than myself, like I was being taken care of, tricked into coming back to life.”

Truth set to music, embodied in a singing community, can sometimes seep into the soul and convince us when spoken words fall short. Remember that it was the fiction stories of George MacDonald that moved a skeptical C. S. Lewis to faith; so it's no surprise that music could also be a way to enlarge our narrow view of reality.

So, okay, we have our differences. You might choose the guitar and praise music. Others prefer the pipe organ and old favorites. What we can agree on, however, is that the music we sing must open the imagination to the reality of God.

________

Disowning Conservative Politics Is Costly For Pastor

Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing -- and the church's -- to conservative political candidates and causes.

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

Mr. Boyd says he is no liberal. He is opposed to abortion and thinks homosexuality is not God’s ideal. The response from his congregation at Woodland Hills Church here in suburban St. Paul -- packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class evangelicals -- was passionate. Some members walked out of a sermon and never returned. By the time the dust had settled, Woodland Hills, which Mr. Boyd founded in 1992, had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.

But there were also congregants who thanked Mr. Boyd, telling him they were moved to tears to hear him voice concerns they had been too afraid to share.

“Most of my friends are believers,” said Shannon Staiger, a psychotherapist and church member, “and they think if you’re a believer, you’ll vote for Bush. And it’s scary to go against that.”

Sermons like Mr. Boyd’s are hardly typical in today’s evangelical churches. But the upheaval at Woodland Hills is an example of the internal debates now going on in some evangelical colleges, magazines and churches. A common concern is that the Christian message is being compromised by the tendency to tie evangelical Christianity to the Republican Party and American nationalism, especially through the war in Iraq.

At least six books on this theme have been published recently, some by Christian publishing houses. Randall Balmer, a religion professor at Barnard College and an evangelical, has written “Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America -- an Evangelical’s Lament.” And Mr. Boyd has a new book out, “The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church,” which is based on his sermons.

“There is a lot of discontent brewing,” said Brian D. McLaren, the founding pastor at Cedar Ridge Community Church in Gaithersburg, Md., and a leader in the evangelical movement known as the “emerging church,” which is at the forefront of challenging the more politicized evangelical establishment.

“More and more people are saying this has gone too far -- the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right,” Mr. McLaren said. “You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people.

“Because people think, ‘Oh no, what is going to come next is homosexual bashing, or pro-war rhetoric, or complaining about ‘activist judges.’ “

Mr. Boyd said he had cleared his sermons with the church’s board, but his words left some in his congregation stunned. Some said that he was disrespecting President Bush and the military, that he was soft on abortion or telling them not to vote.

“When we joined years ago, Greg was a conservative speaker,” said William Berggren, a lawyer who joined the church with his wife six years ago. “But we totally disagreed with him on this. You can’t be a Christian and ignore actions that you feel are wrong. A case in point is the abortion issue. If the church were awake when abortion was passed in the 70’s, it wouldn’t have happened. But the church was asleep.”

Mr. Boyd, 49, who preaches in blue jeans and rumpled plaid shirts, leads a church that occupies a squat block-long building that was once a home improvement chain store.

The church grew from 40 members in 12 years, based in no small part on Mr. Boyd’s draw as an electrifying preacher who stuck closely to Scripture. He has degrees from Yale Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary, and he taught theology at Bethel College in St. Paul, where he created a controversy a few years ago by questioning whether God fully knew the future. Some pastors in his own denomination, the Baptist General Conference, mounted an effort to evict Mr. Boyd from the denomination and his teaching post, but he won that battle.

He is known among evangelicals for a bestselling book, “Letters From a Skeptic,” based on correspondence with his father, a leftist union organizer and a lifelong agnostic -- an exchange that eventually persuaded his father to embrace Christianity.

Mr. Boyd said he never intended his sermons to be taken as merely a critique of the Republican Party or the religious right. He refuses to share his party affiliation, or whether he has one, for that reason. He said there were Christians on both the left and the right who had turned politics and patriotism into “idolatry.”

He said he first became alarmed while visiting another megachurch’s worship service on a Fourth of July years ago. The service finished with the chorus singing “God Bless America” and a video of fighter jets flying over a hill silhouetted with crosses.

“I thought to myself, ‘What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?’” he said in an interview.

Patriotic displays are still a mainstay in some evangelical churches. Across town from Mr. Boyd’s church, the sanctuary of North Heights Lutheran Church was draped in bunting on the Sunday before the Fourth of July this year for a “freedom celebration.” Military veterans and flag twirlers paraded into the sanctuary, an enormous American flag rose slowly behind the stage, and a Marine major who had served in Afghanistan preached that the military was spending “your hard-earned money” on good causes.

In his six sermons, Mr. Boyd laid out a broad argument that the role of Christians was not to seek “power over” others -- by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars.

Christians should instead seek to have “power under” others — “winning people’s hearts” by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did, Mr. Boyd said.

“America wasn’t founded as a theocracy,” he said. “America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.

“I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.”

Mr. Boyd lambasted the “hypocrisy and pettiness” of Christians who focus on “sexual issues” like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson’s breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

“Those are the two buttons to push if you want to get Christians to act,” he said. “And those are the two buttons Jesus never pushed.”

Some Woodland Hills members said they applauded the sermons because they had resolved their conflicted feelings. David Churchill, a truck driver for U.P.S. and a Teamster for 26 years, said he had been “raised in a religious-right home” but was torn between the Republican expectations of faith and family and the Democratic expectations of his union.

When Mr. Boyd preached his sermons, “it was liberating to me,” Mr. Churchill said.

Mr. Boyd gave his sermons while his church was in the midst of a $7 million fund-raising campaign. But only $4 million came in, and 7 of the more than 50 staff members were laid off, he said.

Mary Van Sickle, the family pastor at Woodland Hills, said she lost 20 volunteers who had been the backbone of the church’s Sunday school.

“They said, ‘You’re not doing what the church is supposed to be doing, which is supporting the Republican way,’ “ she said. “It was some of my best volunteers.”

The Rev. Paul Eddy, a theology professor at Bethel College and the teaching pastor at Woodland Hills, said: “Greg is an anomaly in the megachurch world. He didn’t give a whit about church leadership, never read a book about church growth. His biggest fear is that people will think that all church is is a weekend carnival, with people liking the worship, the music, his speaking, and that’s it.”

In the end, those who left tended to be white, middle-class suburbanites, church staff members said. In their place, the church has added more members who live in the surrounding community — African-Americans, Hispanics and Hmong immigrants from Laos.

This suits Mr. Boyd. His vision for his church is an ethnically and economically diverse congregation that exemplifies Jesus’ teachings by its members’ actions. He, his wife and three other families from the church moved from the suburbs three years ago to a predominantly black neighborhood in St. Paul.

Mr. Boyd now says of the upheaval: “I don’t regret any aspect of it at all. It was a defining moment for us. We let go of something we were never called to be. We just didn’t know the price we were going to pay for doing it.”

His congregation of about 4,000 is still digesting his message. Mr. Boyd arranged a forum on a recent Wednesday night to allow members to sound off on his new book. The reception was warm, but many of the 56 questions submitted in writing were pointed: Isn’t abortion an evil that Christians should prevent? Are you saying Christians should not join the military? How can Christians possibly have “power under” Osama bin Laden? Didn’t the church play an enormously positive role in the civil rights movement?

One woman asked: “So why NOT us? If we contain the wisdom and grace and love and creativity of Jesus, why shouldn’t we be the ones involved in politics and setting laws?”

Mr. Boyd responded: “I don’t think there’s a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don’t slap the label ‘Christian’ on it.”

[see also HolwickID #32986]

Is the Quest For Political Power Destroying the Church?

Not everyone is encouraged by the church’s ascent in recent years to political power. Gregory Boyd, senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, has written a new book addressing the dangers of intermingling the gospel and the G.O.P. The Myth of a Christian Nation (Zondervan, 2006), outlines Boyd’s concerns and chronicles his pastoral attempts to extricate the cross from the flag. Below is an excerpt.

________

Like many evangelical pastors in the months before the 2004 election, I felt pressure from a number of right-wing political and religious sources, as well as from some people in my own congregation, to “shepherd my flock” into voting for “the right candidate” and “the right position.” Among other things, I was asked to hand out leaflets, to draw attention to various political events, and to have our church members sign petitions, make pledges, and so on. Increasingly, some in our church grew irate because of my refusal (supported by the church board) to have the church participate in these activities.

In April of 2004, as the religious buzz was escalating, I felt it necessary to preach a series of sermons that would provide a biblical explanation for why our church should not join the rising chorus of right-wing political activity. I also decided this would be a good opportunity to expose the danger of associating the Christian faith too closely with any political point of view, whether conservative or liberal. The series was entitled, “The Cross and the Sword.”

The response surprised me.

For one thing, I had never received so much positive feedback. Some people literally wept with gratitude, saying that they had always felt like outsiders in the evangelical community for not “toeing the conservative party line.” Others reported that their eyes had been opened to how they had unwittingly allowed political and national agendas to cloud their vision of the uniquely beautiful kingdom of God.

But neither had I ever received so much intensely negative feedback. I felt as though I’d stuck a stick in a hornet’s nest! About 20 percent of my congregation (roughly a thousand people) left the church.

Many who left sincerely believe there is little ambiguity in how true Christian faith translates into politics. Since God is against abortion, Christians should vote for the pro-life candidate, they believe — and the preacher should say so. Since God is against homosexuality, Christians should vote for the candidate who supports the marriage amendment act — and a Bible-believing pastor should proclaim this. Since God is for personal freedom, Christians should vote for the candidate who will fulfill “America’s mission” to bring freedom to the world — and any American pastor, like myself, should use his “God-given authority and responsibility” to make this known. “It’s that simple,” I was told. To insist that it’s not, some suggested, is to be (as I was variously described) a liberal, a compromiser, wishy-washy, unpatriotic, afraid to take a stand, or simply on the side of Satan.

My thesis, which caused such an uproar, is this: I believe a significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry. To a frightful degree, I think, evangelicals fuse the kingdom of God with a preferred version of the kingdom of the world (whether it’s our national interests, a particular form of government, a particular political program, or so on). Rather than focusing our understanding of God’s kingdom on the person of Jesus — who, incidentally, never allowed himself to get pulled into the political disputes of his day — I believe many of us American evangelicals have allowed our understanding of the kingdom of God to be polluted with political ideals, agendas, and issues.

For some evangelicals, the kingdom of God is largely about, if not centered on, “taking America back for God,” voting for the Christian candidate, outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, winning the culture war, defending political freedom at home and abroad, keeping the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, fighting for prayer in the public schools and at public events, and fighting to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings.

I believe that this perspective is misguided, that fusing together the kingdom of God with this or any other version of the kingdom of the world is idolatrous and that this fusion is having serious negative consequences for Christ’s church and for the advancement of God’s kingdom.

I do not argue that those political positions are either wrong or right. Nor do I argue that Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics. While people whose faith has been politicized may well interpret me along such lines, I assure you that this is not what I’m saying. The issue is far more fundamental than how we should vote or participate in government. Rather, I want to challenge the assumption that finding the right political path has anything to do with advancing the kingdom of God.

________

[see also HolwickID #32985]

Speak Out Or Give In??: the Church and the Culture Wars

There they go again. The liberal media, it seems, likes nothing better than to play up what they see (or create) as divisions in the evangelical ranks. This Sunday's NEW YORK TIMES featured a front-page story about Gregory Boyd, an evangelical pastor in Minnesota who is highly critical of the religious right and refuses to talk about abortion or other cultural war issues from his pulpit.

The article paints him in heroic terms, willing to stand against the tide. It quotes other Christian leaders who support him, but none of those who might give the other point of view. It seems if you want to get into the NEW YORK TIMES these days, all you've got to do is bash conservative evangelicals.

The NEW YORK TIMES quotes Pastor Boyd attacking “the 'hypocrisy and pettiness' of Christians who focus on 'sexual issues' like homosexuality, abortion, or Janet Jackson's breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl” two years ago. “These are buttons,” he said, “you push if you want to get Christians to act.”

Sadly, a lot of evangelicals believe this kind of propaganda. And since we are acquiring this negative image, we ought to abandon moral issues and adopt Boyd's position. Particularly some younger evangelicals are suggesting that we stay away from divisive issues like abortion and homosexuality altogether and just go back and be like the first-century Church — stay out of politics, tend to our spiritual knitting.

I wonder what early Church they are talking about. Take just the issue of abortion. The early Church was outspokenly pro-life right from the beginning just as the Jews had been. In the second chapter of the DIDACHE, one of the first discipleship books for young Christians written in the first century, was this stern injunction: “Thou shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” Justin Martyr wrote about this in his first apology. And in the second century, Athenagoras wrote a plea to Emperor Marcus Aurelius: “We say that women that use drugs to bring abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for the abortion.” And you can be sure that that was not a hot-button issue then.

Note that the early Church was not afraid to call abortion murder. Tony Snow, the president's press secretary, got roughed up badly last week for doing just that.

Now, Boyd is a good scholar. I was impressed with a book he wrote some years ago when he was on the Bethel Seminary faculty — although I took sharp issue with his embrace of open theology. But I think he ought to go back and refresh himself on the early history of his own church.

And as for his argument that we like these hot-button issues to gain support, let the record show that Christians did not bring these issues into public life. All the culture war issues today stem back to ROE V. WADE when the Supreme Court, by the stroke of a pen, invalidated all of the state laws in America that had been worked out through deliberate democratic debate.

Life issues, you see, go to the very heart of the Gospel, which is why the first-century Church cared so passionately. And we can do no less today. The Church does not just have the right to speak about it; it has the duty to do so.

________

Proving His Point: the Pope's Speech

Muslims are outraged over Pope Benedict’s recent speech, in which he denounced violence as a means of bringing about religious conversion. How did they demonstrate their anger? Ironically, with violent protest — even murder.

The highlight of the Pope’s visit to his native Germany was an address at Regensberg, where he once taught. The speech was supposed to be memorable for its forceful response to the crisis caused by Western secularism. Instead, it’s more likely to be remembered as further proof, if we needed any, that irony — to say nothing of civility — is not one of Islam’s strongest suits.

The Pope spoke about the importance of reason within Christianity. As he put it, “The encounter between the biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance.” It was intended by God.

This “encounter” helped create Western civilization. And in rejecting Christianity, the Pope warned, Europe is rejecting the basis of the rationality that made Western achievements possible. That is a point you heard me make in commentaries on Rodney Stark’s terrific new book, THE VICTORY OF REASON.

This part of the Pope’s remarks was well received, even by some of his harshest critics. Unfortunately, this part, which was ninety percent of the speech, was washed away in the controversy.

The fuss is about what the Pope said about Islam. He quoted a fourteenth-century Byzantine Christian emperor, who, in a discussion about Christianity and Islam with a Persian scholar, said this: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Benedict’s point was that “forced” conversion is “contrary to God’s nature,” as well as to both reason and faith. The effort to forcibly convert people to Islam is, for Benedict, an example of how the differences between the Christian and Islamic conception of God manifest themselves in the “real world” — a difference on display just a few weeks ago when Islamists tried to force the conversion of two Fox News journalists taken hostage.

In response to the Pope’s reasonable and factual comments, Muslims took to the streets demanding an “apology” and attacking Christian churches. The Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda pledged to “break the Cross and spill the wine,” leaving Christians with no choice but “Islam or death.” And on Sunday, Somali Islamist gunmen shot in the back and killed a Roman Catholic nun ministering to the poor in Mogadishu.

If Muslims had protested peacefully, they would have undercut the Pope’s remarks. Instead, they proved him correct.

Pope Benedict is the second religious leader of international stature to really call Islam to account. Franklin Graham did it a while back and was beaten up by the press for months. Well, the Pope is now going to suffer the same fate. The NEW YORK TIMES in a Saturday morning editorial BLAMED THE POPE, and no mention was made of Muslim violence.

This controversy underscores the unpleasant truth that Islamic violence is deeply rooted in both the religious and cultural fabric of the Muslim world. It is time for the West to face that painful truth and to buckle down for what will be a long struggle. Thankfully, Pope Benedict is making us do that.

________

Peace Is Controversial

Luke 2:14

Lisa Jensen hung a Christmas wreath on the outside wall of her home in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. The pine boughs were arranged into a peace sign because she “wanted to put a message of peace out there,” Jensen said. But Bob Kearns, the president of her homeowner’s association, ordered her to remove the wreath on the grounds that “signs, billboards or advertising structures of any kind” are banned, and subject to a $25-per-day fine. The HOA’s entire architectural control committee resigned in protest, and Jensen refused to remove the wreath.

“The peace sign has a lot of negativity associated with it,” Kearns claimed. “It’s also an anti-Christ sign. That’s how it started,” he said, calling the peace sign “Satanic”.

After a local -- and national -- outcry, Kearns backed off. He apologized and said the wreath could stay.

________

Durango Herald

Jeremiah Wright's Controversial View of America

Psalms 137

Barack Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright is a prominent proponent of “Black nationalism” and has made many controversial statements in his sermons about the unrighteousness of America’s conduct.

A sermon Wright gave after the 9/11 attack labels as terrorism America’s past actions against Indians and blacks. He lumps those actions in the same category with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombing of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi’s home, the bombing of Grenada and the pre-9/11 bombings of Iraq.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards,” Wright said at the time. “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

In an April 25, 2008, interview on PBS’ “Bill Moyers Journal,” Wright told Moyers he was in the New York City area on Sept. 11, 2001, and, from a hotel room, saw the second plane hit the World Trade Center. He also said members of his church lost loved ones during the attacks.

“They came to church wanting to know where is God in this. And so, I had to show them using that Psalm -- Psalm 137 -- how the people [Israelites] who were carried away into slavery were very angry, very bitter,” Wright said. “...And that’s exactly where we [were]. We want revenge. They wanted revenge. God doesn’t want to leave you there, however. God wants redemption. God wants wholeness. And that’s the context, the biblical context I used to try to get people sitting again, in that sanctuary on that Sunday following 9/11, who wanted to know, ‘Where is God in this? What is God saying? What is God saying? Because I want revenge.’”

Moyers also played a lengthy clip from one of Wright’s sermons where he referenced America’s past actions against blacks, including slavery and segregation. In the infamous quote, Wright goes on to say, “The government gives [black Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God d--- America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God d--- America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d--- America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

Wright said that quote, too, was taken out of context.

“When you start confusing God and government, your allegiances to government -- a particular government and not to God -- then you’re in serious trouble because governments fail people,” he said, explaining the sermon. “And governments change. And governments lie. And those [were the] three points of the sermon. And that was the context in which I was illustrating how the governments ... since biblical times, up to our time, changed, how they failed, and how they lie.... [The] governments that wanna kill innocents are not consistent with the will of God. And that you are made in the image of God, you’re not made in the image of any particular government. We have the freedom here in this country to talk about that publicly, whereas some other places, you’re dead if say the wrong thing about your government.”

________

Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.

Keeping Christ In Christmas: Another Worldly Distraction

2 Timothy 2:4

A couple of years ago, I went to K-Mart during the Christmas season to see for myself just how anti-Christian things have become. As I stood back looking at the Christmas trees, I was amazed. I was angry. Every single box that contained a tree that would be used for nothing other than celebrating Christmas was labeled a “holiday tree.”

How dare K-Mart refuse to acknowledge my faith! How dare other secular companies change “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings!” This is all an example of secular society being so . . . so . . . so . . . secular! And we Christians must stand up and do something about it. We must “Keep Christ in Christmas!” Right?

Well . . .

That’s what I used to think. And that’s what many Christians seem to be devoting their time and energy to this time of year. Just recently I was invited to join a Facebook group called “Keep Christ in Christmas.” On the opposing side, groups like the ACLU somehow seemed concerned with NOT giving Christ the preeminence during this holiday or any other time.

It’s obvious there’s a war going on. In particular, some have called this the War on Christmas. At large, we can classify this under the Culture Wars. But I am prone to wonder: is this a battle in which Christians ought to fight? Or is this a worldly distraction? A soldier of Jesus Christ is not to be entangled with the affairs of this world (2 Timothy 2:4). I’m afraid that’s exactly what the “Keeping Christ in Christmas” outrage is all about.

Before we choose to exhaust our God-given time and energy to any cause, we must consider if it is worthy. I pray that you would consider the following questions concerning this particular case.

QUESTIONS ABOUT KEEPING CHRIST IN CHRISTMAS:

1. IS THERE ANY BIBLICAL WARRANT FOR CHRISTIANS TO DEMAND THAT SOCIETY PAY HOMAGE TO CHRISTIANITY?

When I read the account of the early Christians in the Bible, I see a great gulf fixed between Christianity and society. One of the great distinctions of the Baptist faith is the emphasis on the separation of church and state. I cherish that idea. I believe Jesus made a distinction when He said to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” and “unto God that which is God’s.” Certainly, a Christian’s loyalty to his nation does not hinge on the faith of its leaders. In Acts, the early church dealt with a society that was vehemently opposed to the message of Christianity. Can you imagine Paul standing before King Agrippa and demanding that he respect the Christian faith? Doesn’t it seem so far removed from biblical Christianity for us to be so shocked that the secular world won’t give us fair treatment? The answer to this first question is quite obvious: no.

2. IS THERE ANY HISTORICAL EXAMPLE OF CHRISTIANITY DOING SO?

Yes, and I don’t think they’ve been such great testimonies. Does the Inquisition ring a bell? Anyone living in the Roman Empire at one point had to confess allegiance to Christ, and in particular, the pope, against the threat of imprisonment or even death. Are we supposed to believe that the majority of those who avoided persecution did so because they were genuine, regenerate followers of the Lord Jesus? Of course not! They were false converts. Centuries later, in Zurich, the Anabaptists were drowned by decree of the great Ulrich Zwingli for not conforming to his brand of Christianity. Later still, the Congregationalists imprisoned and even whipped those who did not conform to their church in Colonial America. Say what you want to defend the actions of your heroes against Galileo, John Huss, Michael Servetus, William Tyndale, Felix Manz, Obadiah Holmes and others, but there is no biblical justification for the church to ever, ever take matters like these into her hands. Let’s not go down that road yet again.

3. DOES AMERICA’S CHRISTIAN HERITAGE EXCLUDE ALL OTHER FAITHS?

Two of the greatest influences on the development of freedom in this country were Baptists. Though they lived during a time in America that was basically void of those not claiming at least some Christian persuasion, they wanted to secure the right to worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience to ALL FAITHS. Roger Williams said:

There goes many a ship to sea, with many hundred souls in one

ship, whose weal and woe is common, and is a true picture of a

commonwealth, or a human combination or society. It hath fallen

out sometimes, that both Papists and Protestants, Jews and Turks,

may be embarked in one ship; upon which supposal I affirm, that

all the liberty of conscience, that ever I pleaded for, turns

upon these two hinges–that none of the Papists. Protestants,

Jews, or Turks be forced to come to the ship’s prayers or

worship, nor compelled from their own particular prayers or

worship, if they practice any.

And John Leland said:

Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking

freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I

contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration

is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above

the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free,

Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.

When I hear fellow believers say things like, “Look at all these Muslims moving in. Where has our country gone?” I just think, where has our sense of religious freedom gone? Hey, I’m no friend of ISLAM, but according to my beliefs as a Christian, as a Baptist, and as an American, I should not be seeking society to favor my religion over that of those Williams and Leland referred to as “the Turk.”

Maybe you’re thinking, “Well, that’s fine. Include them. But what about all the instances in which nativity scenes are taken down and menorahs are put up? Or schools in which you can’t pray but you have to learn about Islam? It’s a matter of fairness.” I agree. But I didn’t expect society to be fair, did you?

I have a few Jewish friends and a Jewish cousin. I don’t wish them a Merry Christmas. They don’t wish me a Happy Chanukah. I don’t wish my Jehovah’s Witness cousin a Merry Christmas. She doesn’t wish me a happy . . . Tuesday. Some insist that we have to be boisterous about wishing everyone a Merry Christmas even if they don’t celebrate it. Yet those same wouldn’t want to be wished a Happy Kwanzaa or Ramadan. We have to realize that Christmas is OUR holiday. Christmas is exclusive to Christians. Chanukah is exclusive to Jews, and so on. The public sector should not be forced by any one religion to take sides.

4. DOES GOD BLESS AMERICA BECAUSE OF HER LIP SERVICE?

Ok, so you say “blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” And I agree. But don’t be fooled. Just because we have “In God We Trust” on our coins, “One Nation Under God” in our Pledge, and a President who claims Jesus Christ is his “favorite philosopher” DOES NOT MEAN THAT OUR COUNTRY RECOGNIZES THE TRUE GOD. In fact, everything in society is indicative of the opposite.

One of my favorite editions of “O Holy Night” is done by Christian artist Dave Phelps. He’s a former member of the Gaither vocal band. He’s been in southern Gospel circles his entire career. Yet, as well done as the song is, the second chorus repeats “fall on your knees . . . ” rather than “Christ is the Lord . . . ” Admittedly, that bugs me. Yet, today, on SECULAR radio (one of those 24/7 Christmas holiday music stations), both Celine Dion and Josh Grobin’s versions of “O Holy Night” played, and both contained the phrase “Christ is the Lord.” I like that! I think it’s great Christ is being proclaimed even through means of secular radio and secular artists (Proverbs 1:20). Those kinds of things shouldn’t be expected. However, when they occur, we rejoice (Philippians 1:18). But it still reminds me of what Jesus said to the Pharisees:

MARK 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias

prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people

honoureth me with THEIR lips, but their heart is far from me.

Let’s face it – America’s hearts are far from God. Millions may get up everyday and say the Pledge of Allegiance, but it’s just lip service. The same is true for “Merry Christmas.” We might get people to say it, but to what avail? Is God withholding His judgment on us because people still say it, but ready to pour out His wrath the moment we lose the “Happy Holidays” battle? Someone may dress up like George Washington, acquire an early American way of speaking, come visit a school for a history lesson, and utter a speech of our nation’s first President, but it doesn’t make him George Washington. The unsaved being compelled to say “Merry Christmas” really won’t change a thing.

5. DO WE HONESTLY THINK CHRISTIANS AROUND THE WORLD (ESPECIALLY CHINA, INDIA, ETC.) GIVE AN OUNCE OF CARE ABOUT WHAT THE STORES AND INSTITUTIONS ARE SAYING ABOUT THE HOLIDAYS?

I don’t think it’s even crossed their minds, and I don’t think Christianity was ever intended to care so much about it in the first place.

6. WAS CHRIST IN CHRISTMAS TO BEGIN WITH?

When we talk of the cause, “Keeping Christ in Christmas”, what Christmas are we dealing with anyway? There’s got to be more than one. Certainly, the Christmas that is so commercialized that people become barbaric to fill their greed is not the Christmas I celebrate. Certainly, the Christmas that is part of the Roman Catholic calendar is not the Christmas I celebrate (although I acknowledge this as its heritage). In fact, what would the headline read about what’s going on here if it were true to history:

“Evangelical Christians Outraged That Secular Society Won’t Give

Full Honor to Commercialized Catholic Holiday”

It isn’t about keeping Christ in Christmas – society took Him away from their version of Christmas a long time ago. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that putting His name on that commercialized frenzy they call Christmas is almost blasphemous.

7. WHAT IS THE REAL BATTLE?

The real battle is keeping Christ high and lifted up in the churches! God did not give K-Mart the charge to preach the gospel! He didn’t tell the ACLU, “you are the salt of the earth” nor did He tell CNN or NBC they are “the light of the world.” If I’m going to complain about something, it’s going to be Joel Osteen’s poor performance as a preacher on LARRY KING LIVE. At least I can say he has somewhat a responsibility to deliver. But society does not. This Christmas, let us make sure the Lord Jesus is exalted in our churches. Let us renew our commitment to the Great Commission!

8. HOW DOES OUR ATTITUDE ABOUT THIS AFFECT THE GREAT COMMISSION?

I believe when we focus on the Culture Wars, and in particular the Christmas War, we heap to ourselves a hatred from the world we were never intended to have. If they’re going to hate us (which Jesus said they would), let it be for a fervent preaching of sin, righteousness, and the gospel; not because we’re concerned that every lost person and organization conform to our standard. What do lost people think of those crazy right-wing Moral Majority Christians? God tells us to preach the gospel to them and we spend all this time arguing with them about things like this?

As biblically-minded Christians, we should expect nothing less from society. It shouldn’t be a surprise that Christianity is being pushed out of the public square. It just so happens that America has enjoyed a great Christian influence for so long and we’ve taken it for granted. We’re so accustomed to it that it’s shocking to see it dwindle. But it wasn’t society that put that influence there and it’s not society that is to blame for its wrecking. The responsibility will always rest on God’s people. American churches need a wake up call. We have to get away from the Culture Wars and once again engage in the Spiritual Wars. The culture will take care of itself when the quickening power of the gospel is preached. But there’s just so little of that today that we just desire all the RESULTS of the gospel without the gospel itself. Well it’s time to face the facts: society does not like Christianity. And it’s not our job to make them do so. It’s our job to take the glorious message of that virgin-born Babe to every creature. This Christmas, don’t be distracted by what the secular world is doing. It wasn’t their holiday to ruin. They’re just doing what secular people do. Let us exalt the miracle of Christmas and leave no room for society to be ignorant of its real significance.

How A Newspaper Responded To Threats

Amos 7:16

As someone who has spent a career in the business of words, it’s unusual to find myself speechless. Yet, there I was, a little more than two weeks ago. What is the correct response, really, to this?

YOU’RE DEAD. WATCH YOUR BACK.

WE WILL BURN YOU DOWN.

YOU SHOULD BE PUT IN FRONT OF A FIRING SQUAD AS A TRAITOR.

How did I come to be hearing these threats?

More than a year ago, The Republic’s editorial board began taking a stand against the actions and positioning of Donald Trump. In piece after piece, we made it clear that his principles weren’t conservative. They were bad for the party, bad for Arizona, dangerous for America.

But in its more than 125 years, The Republic had never endorsed a Democrat for president. So, over the many months of the campaign, we found ourselves with this question: Endorse no one, or endorse a Democrat for the first time in our history?

We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party.

We chose patriotism over party. We endorsed the Democrat.

And then the reaction started pouring in. Threats against our business. Threats against our people.

So, what is the response?

What is the correct response to any of the vile threats against me? What is the correct response to the more disturbing actions and words directed against so many others?

I’ve thought about those responses a lot. Today, I offer you a few.

First, to those who called

To the anonymous caller who invoked the name of Don Bolles — he’s the Republic reporter who was assassinated by a car bomb 40 years ago — and threatened that more of our reporters would be blown up because of the endorsement, I give you Kimberly. She is the young woman who answered the phone when you called. She sat in my office and calmly told three Phoenix police detectives what you had said. She told them that later, she walked to church and prayed for you. Prayed for patience, for forgiveness. Kimberly knows free speech requires compassion.

To those who said we should be shut down, burned down, who said they hoped we would cease to exist under a new presidential administration, I give you Nicole. She is our editor who directs the news staff, independent of our endorsements. After your threats, Nicole put on her press badge and walked with her reporters and photographers into the latest Donald Trump rally in Prescott Valley, Ariz. She stood as Trump encouraged his followers to heckle and boo and bully journalists. Then she came back to the newsroom to ensure our coverage was fair. Nicole knows free speech requires an open debate.

To those of you who have said that someone who disagrees with you deserves to be punished, I give you Phil. Our editorial page editor is a lifelong Republican, a conservative and a patriot. He was an early voice of reason, arguing calmly that Donald Trump didn’t represent the values of the party he loves. Phil understands that free speech sometimes requires bravery.

To those of you who have spit on, threatened with violence, screamed at and bullied the young people going door-to-door selling subscriptions, I give you those dozens of young men and women themselves. Many sell subscriptions to work their way through school. Most were too frightened to share even their first names here. But they are still on the job. They know that free speech is part of a society that values hard work and equal opportunity.

To those of you who have called us hacks and losers with no purpose, and that we are un-American, I give you Dennis. He is the investigative reporter who first revealed the despicable mistreatment of our veterans at the VA hospital. His work triggered comprehensive debate and, one hopes, lasting change. He and others on his team have been hailed as heroes by veterans’ families across the country. Dennis knows that free speech is sometimes the only way to hold the powerful accountable.

To those of you who have invoked the name of longtime publisher Gene Pulliam, saying he is spinning in his grave, I give you his wife, Nina. After reporter Don Bolles was targeted by a bomber for doing his job, Nina Pulliam wept at his hospital bed. He died there slowly over 12 days. The Pulliams understood that free speech, and a free press, come at a cost.

Then, of course, there are the threats against the publisher today.

Next, a personal word

To those of you who have said Jesus will judge me, that you hope I burn in hell, that non-Christians should be kept out of our country, I give you my pastor grandfather. He was imprisoned and tortured for being a [Korean] Christian, and suffered the murder of his best friend for also refusing to deny Christ. He taught all that freedom of religion is a fragile and precious thing.

Much as my grandfather taught, I also know there are a lot of things worth standing up for.

To those of you who said we should go live with the immigrants we love so much, and who threatened violence against people who look or speak a different way, I give you Jobe Couch.

He was the Army cultural attaché and Alabama professor who sponsored my aunts and my mother when they arrived in America from Korea after World War II. There are dozens of descendants of his kindness. Citizens with college degrees, a dentist, lawyers, engineers, pastors, teachers, business owners, a Marine, a publisher and more. Uncle Jobe stood for the power of America as a melting pot. He taught me that one kind man can make a difference.

An open exchange of ideas

To all the other people who we heard from, who thanked us for our courage and our bravery, or who were bold enough to disagree with us on principle — the people who didn’t threaten to bomb our homes or harm our families — I have something for you, too. To you, I give my gratitude. I’m grateful that you stood up to say that we live in a better world when we exchange ideas freely, fairly, without fear.

To all of you who asked why we endorsed — or what right we had to do so — I give you my mother. She grew up under an occupying dictatorship, with no right to an education, no free press, no freedom of religion, no freedom to assemble peaceably, no right to vote. No right to free speech. She raised a journalist who understood not to take these rights for granted.

Don Bolles and Nina Pulliam are gone now, and Uncle Jobe is, too.

But the journalists I introduced you to here walk into the newsroom every day to do their jobs.

When they do, they pass by an inscription that fills an entire wall, floor to ceiling. It is 45 words long. It is an idea that is in my thoughts a lot these days.

It is the First Amendment.

Preaching On Racism

Ezra 4:3

We all have our blind spots. Yours is a little more obvious to the rest of us than it is to you. Mine is so much a part of me, I might need your assistance to find it.

“Well, one thing I know – I’m not a racist.”

No one automatically thinks of themselves as in bondage to prejudice. Not even the fiercest member of the most radical white-supremacy group would admit to such. No, he’s just fully aware of the differences in people, he would probably say, and proud of his own identity.

Since racism wears so many disguises, all of them attractive and comfortable – just being who we are, authentically human, our true nature, and “I’m no hypocrite!” – we may require an outside source to call our attention to this alien force which can poison our relationships, betray our commitments, and abandon those looking to us as Christ-figures.

I once preached on racism to the largest church in the state, a congregation without a single minority member, and some of whose leaders were known as staunch defenders of segregation. It will not surprise you to know I was very young at the time. (Translation: bold, daring, and somewhat foolhardy.)

Looking back, my youth was probably an asset. It allowed me to speak boldly and have the old Pharisees simply dismiss my words as the rants of a young Turk. When church was over, no one got particularly upset and my job security was never at issue.

What text did the sermon use? I have long since forgotten – probably Matthew 22:39 about loving one’s neighbor as himself – but it dealt with various blind spots in God’s people. I mentioned three or four of these vision blackouts, of which racism was one. Each point took no more than five minutes. But it was the one on racial prejudice that got their full and undivided attention.

After the service, a retired pastor came up and offered a bit of advice. (To this day, I still do not know whether he approved of the sermon, or was advising me on how to do what I had been attempting. I suspect the latter.) “Joe,” he said, “Carlyle Marney used to say, ‘The people are mired down in quicksand and you throw them a rope. Now, if you jerk the rope too hard, it breaks and they’re in there for good. The way to get them out is to keep a steady pull on that rope.’”

Who can argue with that? I surely do not.

When I began pastoring in late 1962, the kind of racism afflicting our society was an entirely different animal than today. In 1968, the Sunday after Martin Luther King was assassinated, I was so burdened that I unloaded on my all-white congregation (in the Mississippi Delta, yet) in anguish and anger – at myself, at my white brethren, at our society. And they received the message.

These days, the form of racism practiced by church people tends to be much more subtle. It may show up in hiring, in the choice of friendships, and in conversation. Some churches welcome minorities into their worship services but would never think of asking one to teach a class or serve as a deacon or elder.

Most churches where I preach are integrated to some degree. Once in a while, I’ll see a mixed-race couple in the congregation and one or two minorities in the choir. And – this needs to be said – in New Orleans where I live, quite a few of our churches are nearly fifty-fifty in racial composition.

Here are 7 suggestions for the pastor who wants to help his people do right in the matter of race relations –

1) Ask a minority member of your church to tell you their story privately, their experiences in your church, and how they have been treated. Listen closely for what they are not saying – the times they were dismissed because of skin color or some other criteria, the uncomfortable feelings some members project when in their presence, harsh words spoken or something less than love shown.

2) Bring several minority members together (if you have them) to talk with you plainly and honestly. Assure them of the confidentiality of this gathering, that no one will be quoted, and that they too should keep it to themselves. (That said, you will want to avoid saying anything you do not want to hear coming back at your from other members. Be wise; be harmless.)

As they open up and share their feelings and experiences, ask them what scriptures gives them most comfort and direction? What sermons would they love to hear that would be good for the entire church? (Never promise to preach something they suggest. Still, it would be helpful to know what they are thinking.)

3) Talk with two or three of your most trusted lay leaders and determine how much this congregation would welcome in order to “get past” the racism of former days. That could involve Sunday School lessons, sermons, testimonies, swapping pulpits with a minority pastor, or inviting in a local pastor along with his entire worship leadership team (choir, musicians, etc) for a Sunday night service.

4) Settle with the Holy Spirit how much control you are willing to relinquish to the most fearful of your church members, those who threaten to leave or who predict an uprising from some in the congregation “if you preach that” or “if that preacher comes here.” Look to the Lord.

Not long ago, a pastor in a nearby state made international news when he allowed a few naysayers to stop him from conducting a wedding in their church for an African-American couple attending their services. I believe the pastor’s motives were pure and that he was unwilling to sacrifice the ministry of that church in order to make a point. But others have been quick to say this could have been an excellent growing experience for the church which the pastor missed.

The bottom line is always that the pastor must hear from the Lord in these things. According to Matthew 16:18, Jesus Himself is the owner and the operator of the Church. His should be the only opinion that matters.

5) Befriend the minority pastors in your community. Have lunch occasionally with one or two. As you find your spirit bonding with one in particular, pick his brain on the subject of racism as it pertains to your hometown. You might be surprised to find an entire world of experiences completely foreign to you.

6) In your services, consider a testimony from a member whose attitudes toward other races God has changed. Or, perhaps you would prefer to interview them in a worship service or, if you have the means, to video their testimony and edit it down to a manageable time.

7) In your sermons, particularly if you have members who guard their prejudices and hold their racism dear, bear in mind that a great way to make a point when people are on edge is by telling a story. Something about hearing what happened to others makes a truth less threatening and a lesson more palatable. Jesus did this regularly by using parables.

We have said “minority” rather than “African-American” for the simple reason that racial minorities vary from place to place. For some, it’s the Arabs and Muslims; in other places, the minority group (but quickly heading toward majority status!) is Hispanics or even Asians. There was a time in the Northeast USA when my group, the Irish, were discriminated against.

Someone has said that if overnight all skin colors were eliminated and tomorrow morning, we awakened to find everyone on earth looking alike, by nightfall we would have found some other basis of discrimination.

We are such sinners, and must work against these carnal tendencies all the time. Sin is relentless and self-discipline must be just as diligent. “We who are in this tabernacle do groan,” said Paul (2 Corinthians 5:4). Indeed we do.

The Lord’s admonition to “love thy neighbor as thyself” originated in Leviticus 19 where the Lord told Israel that the stranger in their midst was to be welcomed as a member of the family and dealt with fairly. He was to be loved as oneself, because after all, “you were strangers in Egypt yourselves once.” You know how it feels. (cf. Leviticus 19:34)

One of the chief criteria by which we shall be examined at Judgment, our Lord said in Matthew 25:35, is: “I was a stranger (foreigner) and you took me in.”

If that doesn’t speak to racism, nothing does.

Sermon: Christ, Not Controversies

1 Timothy 1:1

Sermon in 1 Timothy series - Clean Up the Church, #1. 1 Timothy 1:1-7

CHRIST, NOT CONTROVERSIES

=========================

I. Paul's dilemma.

A. Can you depend on those under you?

B. The situation of Paul's first letter to Timothy.

C. The acid is still circulating.

II. The plight of the Pastorals.

A. The letters to Timothy and Titus are the final ones from Paul.

B. The big issues.

III. Get all excited.

A. One of the hallmarks of false teachers is controversy. 1:4

B. Modern controversies are easier to spot.

C. Another emphasis of false teachers is weirdness. 1:6-7

IV. Focus on the essentials.

A. Paul urges an emphasis on God's work. 1:4

B. The goal is love. 1:5

V. Know what you are talking about.

A. Most Christians are pretty ignorant about the Bible.

B. Knowledge is only part of the solution.

Jesus Can Tame You, Tiger

John 14:6

For Americans who are both political junkies and faithful churchgoers (guilty as charged), Sunday mornings can mean a painful choice between watching the Sunday talk shows for scoops (or gaffes) from newsmakers, or attending services to meditate on the wisdom of ancient scripture and tradition.

But thanks to Brit Hume and “Fox News Sunday,” we didn’t have to choose. On yesterday’s program the panelists were discussing predictions for the coming year and when talk turned to Tiger Woods, Hume weighed in with some serious preachifying:

“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a

person, I think, is a very open question. And it’s a tragic

situation.... But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies

out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, seems to me to

depend on his faith.

“He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind

of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.

So my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and

you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’”

Bet a lot of churchgoers didn’t get such a straightforward sermon. And how many preachers got in a shot at Buddhism? At THE DAILY DISH, Andrew Sullivan blasted “the pure sectarianism” of Hume’s comments and got in a good line about “the slow morphing of Fox News into the 700 Club.”

Hume’s homily was understandable, because, well, this is Fox News, but also because Hume himself reconnected with his faith in a serious way after his son committed suicide in 1998 and his faith clearly carried him through. As USA Today’s Cathy Grossman NOTES, in a 2008 INTERVIEW with The Hollywood Reporter on the occasion of his retirement as FNC’s Washington bureau chief, Hume said this when asked what he wanted to do in retirement:

“I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done.

I’m not claiming it’s impossible to do when you work in this business.

I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son

died, I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a

person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what

you say you believe, it’s a pretty big thing. If you do it part time,

you’re not really living it.”

In his “Fox News Sunday” remarks, Hume was correct in that BUDDHISM DOES NOT have the same concepts of forgiveness and redemption. But Buddhism certainly provides paths for healing and the kind of recovery that Hume seems to be talking about. And there have been any number of rebuttals from Buddhists, as rounded up at USA Today’s FAITH & REASON site. Among my favorites is Kyle Lovett, a.k.a. THE REFORMED BUDDHIST:

Could Hume get away with saying something like this about Jewish people

or Black People or the Muslim Faith? You betcha he couldn’t. Why

should he be able to skate away scot-free when speaking about Buddhists?

Christians may have some quibbles as well. From what I can tell, Hume’s framing of his altar call to the wayward golfer raises at least two debatable points:

One is the purpose of Christianity: It is eternal salvation through belief in Jesus Christ. That is the entry point, the foundation of it all. Christian belief should lead believers to behave in upright ways, to sacrifice themselves totally, and to live as Christ did. But if that happens, it is really a welcome result of belief. In his remarks, Hume almost sounds like all those Christian “life coaches” and prosperity gospel preachers who see Christianity as a means to a happy and successful life. Christianity is more about what has been called “the sanctification of failure,” namely through Jesus on the cross. In that sense Tiger has plenty of opportunity to be a witness.

The other problem with Hume’s comments is that they are contradicted by so much evidence. Anecdotally, one need look no further than the sanctimonious Christian politicians-turned-philanderers, or the many high-profile pastors who turn out to have feet of clay. Statistics also show that Christians are as likely to divorce or abort as everyone else, and Bible Belt states often have much higher rates of marital breakdown and teen pregnancy than other regions.

So Buddhism -- or any number of other religious or secular philosophies -- could get Tiger to the Promised Land that Brit Hume wants for him. (Though RUMORS of Tiger partying it up in the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan would lead one to believe he isn’t listening to Pastor Brit or any other religious leader at the moment.)

On the other hand, there’s a good argument to be made that Tiger should just do what he does best: play golf. That’s the direction in which “Fox News Sunday” regular William Kristol, who was clearly nonplused at Hume’s comments, hoped to steer the conversation:

“Well, Brit is concerned about Tiger’s soul, which is admirable. I’d

just make a more straightforward sports prediction, which is that he’ll

come back and win the Masters. Because, you know, he’s still an awfully

good golfer, despite the chaos and bad news about his personal life.”

Any takers on Woods at the Masters?

You Can't Just Focus On the Positive

Should we focus our efforts and energies only on the less divisive, more positive aspects of our faith? I’ll defer to Martin Luther, who said:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefields besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

The Subversive Erasmus

John 17:14

The Reformation’s linchpin was Martin Luther but he had a contemporary who was just as subversive. His name was Erasmus. If anyone has heard of Erasmus today, it’s because of one book that’s occasionally force-fed to college students studying the Renaissance: “The Praise of Folly.” It’s not a bad little book, but it hardly begins to indicate just how righteously funny the monk from Rotterdam really was. Erasmus also believed Luther to be insufficiently humorous, and he told him so. He basically agreed with everything Luther wrote and everything Luther did, but he didn’t like violence on either side of the controversy, and he constantly called for calm, for mercy, for forgiveness, for quiet reform. He said things like “I will die for God but I will not die for Luther,” and “I love Luther and hate Lutherans.” He published a Greek New Testament that was the first of its kind and launched the age of scripture that could actually be read and understood by the masses. He constantly told the Pope to stop protecting corrupt priests and to turn the church’s attention to the poor, the widow, the orphan, the prisoner, the criminal, the pimp and the prostitute. (He was especially incensed that priests used prostitutes but didn’t help prostitutes.) He counseled the church to disband its armies, give its lands to the poor, and return to the simplicity of Christ.

For his trouble, Erasmus was hated by everyone. The Lutherans, who originally thought of him as “one of us,” hated him for not supporting their violent takeover of the churches in Switzerland and Germany. The conservatives in the Vatican caused his books to be burned in several places, including his own university at Louvain, because he refused to condemn Luther. (Instead he wrote privately to Luther, and they disputed scripture together.) He was called a wimp, a man of no conviction, a man trying to protect his own life by not getting involved. And through it all, Erasmus continued to preach mercy, kindness, long-suffering, calm, love of brother for brother, because he refused to accept that any man, for any reason, should be separated from the body of Christ.

What does this have to do with us? Throughout his life, Erasmus returned to the scripture about being “in the world but not of the world,” and Paul’s phrase of “having as if not having.” This allowed him to be thought of simultaneously as “the first humanist” — always writing about current events, especially current events in Biblical scholarship — and as the most devout of cloistered “unworldly” scholars. (His devotion, by the way, had no outward form. He wrote brutal satires about his fellow monks, and their love of the cowl, the hairshirt, the rules and regulations of monastic living. He was one of the most famous monks of his time, and yet claimed there were no rules and regulations for a monk, that withdrawal from the world was an inner, not an outer, process.) By seeing the world clearly, but standing apart from it, he was able to describe its enthusiasms and trends as a pageant of vanity (he was a fan of Ecclesiastes) while constantly calling those who would hear back to the example of Christ. And when he should have been enjoying his declining years as one of the most respected and beloved men of letters in Europe, instead he was esteemed as a worthless old man who wouldn’t “get with the times” and turn evangelical.

(How) Does Acts 15 Help Us With Difficult Decisions?

Luke 9:36

The account of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 has been drawn on in a range of situations where Christians have argued for a radical change in our understanding of the church and salvation.

The account of the Council meeting itself forms the climax of an extended section of the narrative that began in Acts 10 with Peter’s rooftop vision and encounter with Cornelius, the Roman centurion and ‘God-fearer’. The importance of this episode is highlighted by Luke’s repetition of it in Peter’s recounting the episode in Acts 11. Luke builds the story carefully, noting the development of the distinctive identity of the Jesus-followers in the form of the name ‘Christian’ in Acts 11:25, and he then dovetails the story of the beginning of Paul’s ministry in Acts 13 and 14 before returning to the question of gentile believers in Acts 15.

This is important, since Luke deliberately structures his accounts of Peter’s and Paul’s ministries to mirror one another, so Peter’s encounter with Cornelius is mirrored by Paul’s habit of preaching to ‘Greeks’ after he has first preached in the synagogue. And, coming at the mid-point of Acts, the Council and its decision become the turning point in the narrative. Up until now, the main focus has been the ministry of Peter and the growth of the gospel amongst Jewish believers. But from now on, the focus is decisively on Paul and his ministry amongst gentile believers. He heads West again on his so-called ‘Second Missionary journey’, and is directed by the Spirit to cross into Europe, where he establishes congregations at Philippi and Thessaloniki, then heads south to Athens and Corinth in Acts 18.

===========================

Noting this highlights two issues of context which we need to consider when reading the Council decision. First, it is hard to underestimate what a seismic shift it was for the early church to come to terms with the idea that salvation for Jesus was for gentiles who remained as gentiles rather than joining the historic people of God by becoming converts to Judaism. Something of the significance is captured at the start of Paul’s reflection on the Jews in the purposes of God in Romans 9–11:

Theirs is the adoption; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (Romans 9:4–5)

The Mosaic law, including circumcision and the food laws, were understood to be the Scriptural commands of God to his people. So anyone wanting to join God’s people needed to take on the ‘yoke of the law’ and conform.

The second question of context is the extent to which Luke is here describing a one-off, historical event, rather than setting out principles for the continuing life of the church. This arises in reading every part of Acts. Was the pattern of the shared life of the early believers, having ‘everything in common’, a one-off glimpse of an utopian moment, or an example for us to follow in our church communities? Are the ‘signs and wonders’ something for the apostolic era alone, or might they persist into the present? Are Luke’s accounts of the leaders a record of their actions alone, or an example for us to emulate? Each needs to be considered on its own merits, but there is also a sense in which the answer is ‘both/and’ instead or ‘either/or’. Luke is clearly recording events (like the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost) which are once-for-all; but these once-for-all events are the threshold of a new age — the age of the end-times gift of the Spirit and the preaching of the gospel in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth before Jesus’ return. This is the age in which we continue to live, and so, in terms of ‘theological time’, we are still in the same era.

===========================

What of the decision process in the Council itself? The account in Acts 15 has a number of striking features.

First, there was no attempt to ‘agree to disagree’ or seek ‘good disagreement’. As elsewhere in relation to this issue (for example, in Paul’s correspondence with the Galatians) the clear differences were expressed in ‘sharp dispute and debate’ (Acts 15:2). Nowhere in the NT is unity sought by avoiding issues or agreeing to ‘walk together apart.’ If this had happened on the issue at stake, we might have ended up with a church of Jewish followers of Jesus, and a church of gentile followers of Jesus, which would have fundamentally changed both the nature of the church and the subsequent history of Christianity.

Secondly, Luke’s account suggests that space was given to hear both sides of the debate. In the text itself, more space is given to Peter’s side of things and his account, though I don’t think it is clear what that signifies. Was the ‘new teaching’ given space because the default option would have been to continue as they had been, so they needed to listen more carefully to the advocates for change? Or did this new teaching need greater scrutiny and interrogation? I don’t think we can know.

Thirdly, it is striking that the new teaching has advocates from two quite distinct perspectives. Both Peter, apostle ‘to the Jews’, and Paul, ‘apostle to the gentiles’, who themselves had been on different sides and were potentially the focus of rival groupings (see 1 Cor 1:12) testified in harmony about the new thing God was doing. This work of God transcended the natural boundaries or groupings within the early church; this was not a matter of a power struggle between blocs.

Fourthly, the testimony that both Peter and Paul share has such a wide appeal as the authentic work of God that the response of the whole group is to fall into ‘silence’. This isn’t just the lack of argument and contention that goes with being teachable, signified by the word hesychia (1 Tim 2:11), but the much stronger response sigao of actually saying nothing (as in Luke 9:36). And the silence was not an act of respect to give space to Paul and Barnabas’s account — it was a response to it as they heard what God was doing.

Fifthly, the wisdom of the sage James, brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, who might well have been thought to have an interest in keeping the movement thoroughly Jewish, appears to have been decisive in shaping the final decision.

Sixthly, though in relatively abbreviated form, the citation of Scripture is key. This apparent innovation, this novel act of God, is in fact understood to be something already articulated in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). This is often passed over or misunderstood, since James quotes from the Greek OT, which give an alternative reading suggesting the gentiles will come to worship God, instead of the Hebrew which suggests rather the opposite, that God’s people will conquer or subdue the gentiles. But such ‘alternative readings’ of the OT was widespread in Second Temple Judaism, and the idea James cites can be found in many passages in the OT, not only in the early promises to Abraham, but in the later prophets (particularly the second part of Isaiah, chapters 40 onwards) who express a vision of the whole earth coming to worship the Holy One of Israel who is the creator of and lord over the whole world.

Seventhly, the potential disruption of this new understanding is minimized by the disciplines that the new gentile believers are asked to live under. There is a strong consensus that the four rules are drawn not from the covenant with Noah (which might look like laws for a universal humanity) but specifically from Torah, rather embarrassingly from Leviticus 17 and 18:

1. No Idols (Leviticus 17:7-9)

They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves...

2. No Sexual immorality (Leviticus 18:6-23)

No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations ... [or] your neighbor’s wife ... [or] with a man as one does with a woman ... [or] with an animal

3. No drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-12)

... Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood – I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people

4. No eating strangled meat (Leviticus 17:13-14)

Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood

===========================

This confluence of revelation from God, testimony of experience, agreement between those of very different perspectives, the apostolic wisdom of a respected leader, the location of the experience in the scriptural account of the purposes of God, and the minimizing of disruption and difference, might then offer us some kind of framework for decision-making in the contemporary context when faced with a sharp difference of view.

[It is rather striking that there is a complete absence of appeal to the example of Jesus, and this reminds of us two things in passing. First, Jesus’ teaching in the gospels does look very Jewish, and his mission is consistently portrayed as being ‘to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt 15.24) with only hints that it might in time develop further. Given the momentous significance of the decision to recognize the gentile mission, this suggests that the gospel writers were not adapting the stories about Jesus in order to answer questions that they had. The reference to the laws from Leviticus also undermines the popular notion that we are to ignore the OT law which has been displaced by the grace of God in Jesus. It is clear in Acts, and the rest of the NT, that we gentiles have been incorporated into the Jewish people of God, even without obeying all details of the Mosaic law, and we are not displacing them or superseding them.]

But, against that, we also need to note that the admission of the Gentiles was seen to fulfill, in OT terms, the ultimate goal of the eschatological purposes of God, indeed the whole point of the story and history of God’s election of a special people for himself in the first place. They were always to be a light to the world, that all people would be drawn to the presence of God enthroned in Zion, and the whole earth filled with knowledge of the glory of God. To that extent, this event is unrepeatable, so the example here needs to be referred to with caution. In particular, it means that citing this example as justification for a contemporary change in the church on a specific issue would require us to argue that our issue was one which we can find expressed in the OT as an eschatological goal of God’s purposes in redemption — which is asking rather a lot.

The Jerusalem Council: Consensus Decision Making

Acts 12:2

We often look to the church in Acts as an example of a vibrant, Spirit-filled, unified church. But when we look at it more closely we discover that they had many of the same problems that we do. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 provided perhaps the most detailed look at the decision making process of New Testament leaders. What can we learn from this example?

In the New Testament, at first nearly all the Christians came from a Jewish background. Naturally, they continued many of the cultural and religious practices from their Jewish background. But eventually as greater numbers of Gentiles believed it was inevitable that questions would arise as to which practices were really necessary to be Christians and which were optional. In particular, were Gentile believers required to be circumcised in order to be accepted as Christians?

The Jerusalem Council

Paul and Barnabas, along with some other leaders, were sent to Jerusalem to discuss the issue with the apostles and elders (Acts 15:2-3). After reporting on God’s work among the Gentiles they came to the key question. The passage says that there was “much debate” (v. 7), so it seems that they had a very spirited discussion. After a period of time, Peter “stood up” and shared how God had used him to first bring the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1 through 11:18). He was referring to his experience with Cornelius in which God give him a vision to convince him that it was alright to have fellowship with non-Jews. Peter concluded by reminding them that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by God’s grace (Acts 15:11).

Then it sounds like Paul and Barnabas spoke some more, after which James brought the discussion to a close (Acts 15:13-21). He cited Scriptural support for bring the Gospel to the Gentiles, and then concluded by saying:

Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

After this they composed a letter summarizing their decision and sent it back with Paul and Barnabas along with some representatives from the elders in Jerusalem.

What was the Decision Process?

There is much more that could be said about the decision and its significance in the book of Acts, but that would be the topic for another article. For now, I want to focus on what we can learn about the decision process itself.

1. There was a spirited debate

There was a range of opinions represented in this meeting and they openly discussed the issues for quite some time. This should be an encouragement to us when we have different opinions, because even the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem did not always see eye to eye.

2. Respected leaders summarized the issues

After a period of open discussion the two most senior leaders summarized the issues. Peter was the leader among the Apostles, and ministered mostly to the Jews (Gal. 2:7-8). His word would have carried a lot of weight among the Christians from a Jewish background. The James mentioned was not James the Apostle, because he was martyred earlier (Acts 12:2). This was James the half-brother of Jesus, who became the leader of the church in Jerusalem. Paul was there, but he was not yet recognized as a top leader at this point.

3. James made the final decision

James seems to have been the chairman of the council. After there had been a thorough discussion, he spoke up with his conclusion. Notice that he said “Therefore, it is my judgment . . .” (Acts 15:19). Apparently he had authority to speak for the group. I don’t think that this was a dictatorial decision, but after hearing all sides he was the one to make the final decision. As a leader in a consensus culture, he worked to bring everyone together to a decision that all could accept. There is no record that they took any sort of vote.

4. The decision represented a compromise

The final decision represented a compromise based on the concerns of the various parties. They could not require Gentile believers to be circumcised because that would endanger salvation by grace. But they did require the Gentile believers to refrain from certain practices that were particularly offensive to the Jews. So the more culturally Jewish group did get some recognition in the decision.

5. They all agreed to support the decision

Even at this point it is possible that not everyone was 100% happy with the decision, but nevertheless they all gave their support to the outcome. The letter that they composed came from “The apostles and brethren who are elders,” not just from James. The letter gives strong support to the ministry of Paul and Barnabas and expresses disapproval of those who were trying to force Gentile believers to be circumcised.

What principles guided their decision?

Finally it is helpful to look at some of the principles behind their decision:

● They stood firm on the core truths of the faith (salvation by faith alone)

● They were sensitive to important cultural issues, especially those that would make it difficult for Jewish believers to have fellowship with Gentile believers

● They were concerned about the unity of the church. The Gentiles were asked to give up some of their freedoms in order to keep from offending the Jews. Most of the restrictions have to do with food. Because most churches had meals together, there fellowship was hindered if the Gentiles did not observe the Jewish dietary laws.

● They were diplomatic: the letter did not even mention the word “circumcision,” which was the biggest issue!

When Scripture Seems Silent

John 14:6

What is a path of wisdom for churches to follow with emotion-packed, divisive, yet meaningful topics of today that we do not think Scripture speaks to? What do we do when we don’t want to bind consciences on things that Scripture is not clear about, but we want to promote wisdom and biblical fidelity? In an era replete with complex social issues, Christians often encounter scenarios that Scripture does not explicitly address. Consider, for instance, issues that have become more common as transgenderism has become more prominent, such as pronoun usage and restroom choices. What should we think about such matters?

Four principles for wisdom and biblical fidelity

When Scripture seems silent, here are four principles we should consider applying in order to uphold both wisdom and biblical fidelity.

1. Understand the scope of Scripture

In thinking about how to navigate these issues, Christians must first turn to Scripture. But there are two primary pitfalls we need to avoid when considering whether Scripture addresses an issue.

The first pitfall is to assume that Scripture always has something to say about every subject. This is what philosopher Roy Clouser calls the “encyclopedic assumption“: regarding the Bible as an encyclopedia in which we may look for an answer to any sort of question we may have. The problem with this approach, as Clouser points out, is that it ignores the Bible’s own central theme and purpose and tries to force the Bible to yield truths about matters which never crossed the minds of its authors.

The second pitfall is assuming that Scripture has nothing to say about a topic the Bible does not directly and specifically address. Therefore, we reason, we are free to “follow our conscience” in determining how to think about it. This approach ignores the fact that God’s Word is the foundation for all knowledge. As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states, Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, equipping us for every good work. There is almost always something we can apply from Scripture to help us think about every issue we are called on to consider.

This is especially true the closer the issue gets to the realm of the human heart. The Bible does not have much to say about the inner workings of an atom, so it does not directly address specific issues within the realm of physics. But the Bible does have a great deal to say about the inner workings of the human heart, and thus it does often have something to say about issues related to human conduct and behavior.

2. Search for and apply relevant scriptural commands, whether directly or indirectly

If an issue proceeds from the heart, then we must consider whether Scripture has something to say about it directly or indirectly. The first place we should look is in scriptural commands, whether broad or narrow.

Within the Bible we find two basic categories of commands: broad (or general) commands and narrow (or specific) commands. Broad/general commands typically apply to many situations, such as the command to love God first and then love our neighbor, and always apply in some way to all cultures and all contexts. In considering the issue of pronouns, we must first ask what behavior most exhibits our love for God? For instance, since Jesus is truth (John 14:6), we must use language — including pronouns — in a way that best expresses and reflects truth. We must also do that in a way that is most loving toward our neighbors.

The other type of Scriptural commands are narrow or specific commands, those that relate to a particular circumstance, often in a culture that differs from our own. An example is Deuteronomy 22:8 which says, “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.” An application in our day might be to build a fence around your backyard pool so that a neighbor’s child doesn’t fall in and drown.

Narrow commands might not always apply to all cultures and all contexts. In some cases (as with the example above), there might be a parallel application. Narrow commands are similar to “case law” (i.e., law as established by the outcome of former cases) in that they give us paradigmatic examples for situations we might encounter.

In determining how a command applies, we must consider the reason for the command. If the reason for the command is a theological principle that is always true, then the rule will almost always apply today. As a general rule, if the Old Testament gives a moral command, it is still in effect unless later canceled, either explicitly or implicitly, in the New Testament.

3. Apply indirect commands analogically

Sometimes it is rather obvious how a command in Scripture can be applied. But oftentimes, to determine whether an action or circumstance is similar to an action judged to be wrong in Scripture, we must use analogical reasoning. In his essay “The Place of Scripture in Christian Ethics,” James Gustafson states the commonly accepted method of scriptural analogy:

Those actions of persons and groups are to be judged morally wrong which are similar to actions that are judged to be wrong or against God’s will under similar circumstances in Scripture, or are discordant with actions judged to be right or in accord with God’s will in Scripture.

An example of how to use analogical reasoning might be to consider the relevance of Jesus’ commands regarding oaths (Matthew 5:33-37). The application extends beyond the issue of oaths into the realm of general truthfulness. As Tim Keller explained, Jesus is “saying if you think you can create levels of truthfulness, you’re wrong. He is saying that ‘every yes and every no must be as truthful as if you just swore it on a stack of Bibles on network television.’ Every yes and every no is observed, because God is the creator and is present with us.”

As applied to pronouns, the question you might ask is whether you believe pronouns represent specific genders or are interchangeable terms? If you do not think they are interchangeable, then are you being untruthful if you use the pronoun “she” to refer to biological males or “he” for biological women.

Ultimately, the issue is not what pronouns you are using but what you are doing with those words — and your motive behind it. Are you using the words to communicate truth or to say what you do not truly believe? And are you using pronouns as weapons in a “culture war” (e.g., to mock or hurt a person who identifies as transgender), or are you attempting to avoid conflict or hurt someone’s feelings at the expense of speaking the truth?

4. In the absence of scriptural commands, apply Christian liberty thoughtfully

Those are difficult questions to address, which is why we are tempted to classify pronoun usage as an issue of Christian liberty.

How does Christian liberty apply? In Romans 14:1-23, Paul addresses matters of conscience where Scripture is silent. He advises believers not to pass judgment on disputable matters but to act in love. This principle of Christian liberty applies to contemporary issues not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.

The issue of pronoun usage might not be, as we’ve argued above, a true issue of Christian liberty, though, since Scripture does seem to address how we use language for the purposes of being truthful. However, the issue of individual restroom usage may be a better — albeit counterintuitive — example of an issue where Christian liberty should prevail.

The Bible does have something to say about how to go to the toilet (Deut. 23:12-14). But it does not say anything about the necessity of those individual facilities being gender-neutral. We could argue, of course, that such an explanation was not necessary because it is a matter of “common sense.” Yet appealing to a common-sense standard might violate the purpose of Christian liberty.

There are, after all, numerous activities that some Christians have considered to be sinful because they violate the common-sense standard. The ingestion of harmful substances, such as tobacco, has been a frequent example through the past few centuries. However, this has not prevented other groups of believers (perhaps most famously, the Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon) from claiming it to be an issue of Christian liberty.

Whether or not it is a matter of common sense, the best approach might be to consider bathroom usage to be (in a limited sense) a matter of Christian liberty. This is not to say that in considering it a matter of liberty that Christians must therefore allow anyone of any gender to use any restroom they choose. Indeed, that is not how Christian liberty works. What it means is that in the absence of clear direction from Scripture, Christians are allowed to adopt whatever customs and practices are deemed to be best and in keeping with the principle of love.

Restroom usage can thus be approached as an issue of Christian liberty, with a focus on other relevant concerns such as safety, privacy, and respect for persons. These are some of the reasons why many churches with newer buildings have a “family-friendly” restroom. There is nothing in Scripture, of course, that requires a separate facility for families of young children to use. But concerns over privacy and respect have led some churches to choose that as a loving and respectful option.

In the same way, churches can use their Christian liberty to allow visitors who identify as transgender to use gender-neutral facilities (such as single-room toilets that might not be available to everyone or family restrooms when they are not in use). But Christian liberty also gives churches the freedom to require that restroom usage conform to a person’s biological sex. Both are examples of how Christian liberty might look different within different circles of believers.

After choosing a side, we might think that one group is weaker in faith than the other. Yet, because they are fellow believers, we are still required to welcome them instead of quarreling over our different opinions, despising them, and passing judgment on them (Romans 14:1,3).

(A third option, allowing transgender individuals to use the public restroom that aligns with their gender identity is likely to be the least loving option. Christian liberty should never be used in such a way that it becomes a stumbling block to other sincere Christians (Rom. 14:13). Allowing a biological man to enter a female-only space (i.e., a space where men who aren’t transgender would be forbidden from entering) would give the impression that biological sex is irrelevant to God and his people. It does not properly love the individual because it affirms their disordered identity.)

Embracing wisdom, love, and grace

As we face questions that Scripture does not explicitly address, we should be committed to walking in wisdom, love, and grace. Rather than simply assuming we are right and another group of Christians is wrong, we must first seek diligently to hear from God and apply his Word directly and analogically. If we become convinced that Scripture is silent on the issue, we then can view it as a matter of Christian liberty. But we must embrace all that entails and not use it as a license to do whatever our sinful nature (or our sinful culture) deems to be best.

Adopting such an approach requires humility, patience, and a commitment to uphold the core truths of our faith while navigating the nuances of our ever-changing world. It’s an approach that is rarely easy and often controversial. But in doing so, we reflect Christ’s love and wisdom, and we offer the watching world a God-honoring response to the pressing issues of our times.

News: Homosexual Activists Denounce Preacher

Luke 13:23

An evangelical minister who conducted the funeral of an AIDS activist has

been vilified by homosexual activists and castigated in secular press reports

for discussing eternal salvation at the service.

John Hopkins, 43-year-old associate pastor at a 2,200-member Associate

Reformed Presbyterian church in Columbia, South Carolina, had developed a

friendship with Robert Parker, Jr., a member of the church. Hopkins

officiated at his funeral December 28.

At the end of the service, according to his sermon manuscript, Hopkins asked,

"Is he in heaven now? No one on earth has authority to judge." Hopkins went

on to say that the church believes "homosexuality is one among many sins, and

for anyone to know God's grace, love, forgiveness, and mercy he must turn

from everything the Bible lists as a sin."

Around 20 offended homosexuals walked out before the service finished.

The following day, in a front-page story, the Columbia State reported that

Hopkins had launched a "half-hour diatribe" against Parker's lifestyle,

saying "homosexuality is a mortal sin" and that Parker "might be in hell."

Hopkins told CHRISTIANITY TODAY that he wanted to expose a false assurance of

salvation at the service because Parker did not believe he needed to repent

of what he believed was genetically-based homosexuality.

Later, homosexual activists held a ceremony for Parker, with several clergy

assuring mourners that Parker is in heaven.

Hopkins has received several harassing phone calls, including threats that he

would be "brought to ruin" and the church would be "stampeded" with

homosexual activists if there is no public apology. He also has received

support from some pastors who thought his remarks were too restrained. Both

Hopkins and the church have issued statements extending sympathy to Parker's

family.

#3558