59 Sermon Illustrations on Tolerance

Are you tolerant? (Should you be?)

Deconstructing the gospel of tolerance.

_______________________________________

It is the only serious sin left. Even murder has its mitigating factors, but not this one. It is the pariah sin, the charge that makes you untouchable without need for further explanation. The sin is intolerance, and the greatest sinners in late twentieth-century America are evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. America is sick of intolerant people, and it's not going to tolerate them anymore.

How did orthodox Christianity, whose spread throughout the world was predicated in great part on its inclusiveness ("Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden"), come to be a symbol of exclusivity and intolerance? One possible answer echoes the sentiment seen on the church signboard: "If you feel distant from God, guess who moved?" It seems so simple. Christians have stayed true to a 4,000-year-old revelation of moral truth, ultimately rooted in God's eternal nature. Naturally this offends the "do your own thing" sensibilities of talk-show hosts, Hollywood filmmakers, White House spin doctors, and those who follow after.

A less sanguine explanation is that tolerance was invented in response to the spectacle of Christians slaughtering each other in the name of Christ. The religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe led to the increasingly widespread conviction that there had to be a better way to decide these things than with the sword. The answer was tolerance, essentially a decision not to decide -- that is, to decide on the private level but not on the public.

Historically, then, tolerance was the liberal, secular answer to the inability of conservative religionists to compromise with those who differed from them. Tolerance, in this sense, is relatively new, not something even thought desirable through most of human history.

After all, why tolerate error? This is precisely what tolerance requires of us. Genuine tolerance, as opposed to its pale counterfeits, requires us to allow those who espouse or live out ideas we think wrong, perhaps even harmful, not only to do so but also to try to persuade others to do the same. A number of important notions imbedded in this concept are often ignored when charges of intolerance are thrown around.

First, one is not tolerant of something unless one objects to it. I do not tolerate something I either accept or am indifferent to, because it requires nothing of me. Most social liberals, for instance, cannot rightfully be said to be tolerant regarding homosexual behavior since they have no objection to it. You do not have to tolerate that which you accept or affirm. If you want to know whether a liberal is tolerant, ask what he or she thinks of Jesse Helms or Pat Robertson or Kenneth Starr.

If tolerance requires an initial objection, then conservatives, ironically, may be much more tolerant than liberals, because there are so many more things to which they object. The least tolerant person is the person who accepts everything, because such a person is not required to overcome any internal objections. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, turnips are singularly tolerant.

A challenge for those who prize tolerance as one of the highest public goods is to distinguish between healthy tolerance and a diseased moral passivity or indifference. What is the difference between a genuinely tolerant society and a morally bankrupt one, incapable of calling evil for what it is? Is Chesterton on to something when he says tolerance is the virtue of those who don't believe in anything? Too much of what passes as tolerance in America is not the result of principled judgment but is simple moral indifference. Invoking "it's not my business" may keep us from becoming a nation of prudish snoops, but historically, it also has led nations into collaboration with great evil.

If tolerance requires an initial objection, it also implies withheld power. If I would stop something if I could, but am powerless to do so, I am not tolerant, merely impotent. True tolerance means I voluntarily withhold what power I have to coerce someone else's behavior.

In an open society such as ours, where a wide range of divergent thinking and behavior is protected by law and custom, one must show varying degrees of tolerance even to that to which one objects. In opposing abortion, for instance, some seek legal sanctions, others rely on moral suasion or civil disobedience, and still others seek pragmatic compromise. A radical few murder abortion doctors. All but the last actually demonstrate tolerance, to differing degrees, in that they seek to persuade more than to coerce.

This suggests an interesting paradox within the notion of tolerance. At the core of tolerance is a kind of intolerance. If you can only tolerate that to which you object, then you have already shown yourself somewhat intolerant in making that initial objection.

This hidden aspect of tolerance doesn't bother those who think there's plenty in the world to object to, but it is unsettling to the interminably open-minded. Their raison d'être is captured succinctly in a dictum offered approvingly in my son's high-school sociology text as it discusses homosexual practice: "everything is right somewhere and nothing is right everywhere."

Thus relativism absolutizes pluralism. That is, it takes the clearly observable fact that we have a multitude of views and values and practices in the world -- pluralism -- and draws the illegitimate conclusion that there is no justifiable way of choosing among them. Truth is merely opinion, goodness only what the majority says it is.

Such relativism is not the province only of academic texts, it is the spirit of our age and therefore deep in our own bones. It is no surprise, then, that intolerance is our society's greatest sin. The intolerant person is the one thing that cannot be tolerated, the one person who must be shamed or silenced. A guest commentator on National Public Radio shocked even his progressive hosts, but spoke for many, when he objected to the Southern Baptist belief that a lot of people are going to hell: "The evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe in this crap would leave the world a better place." (It's comforting to see that the dreaded Religious Right is not the only source of intolerance in our society.)

Nevertheless -- and here's the rub -- it is widely acknowledged that no moral person tolerates everything. For some, the intolerable grows largely from issues of justice and fairness -- racism, sexism, homophobia, economic inequity. Such people are divided on an issue like pornography, where values that they hold with equal passion -- freedom of expression versus ending the exploitation of women -- collide. Given that everyone agrees that some things should not be tolerated, the real issue should not be whether one is tolerant or intolerant, but what's included on one's list.

The charge of intolerance has become a potent weapon in the culture wars, all the more useful because it carries a lot of emotional firepower without requiring a great deal of evidence or logical consistency. People complain about others "forcing their values" on them, when they are perfectly willing to do the same on many issues. Or they claim "you can't legislate morality" when, in fact, the overwhelming majority of laws of all kinds are rooted in a moral assertion about how things ought to be. Doctor Laura, the popular yet controversial radio host, has remarked on the hate mail she receives for being so intolerant as to believe there is something like moral absolutes in the world: "The irony is that those people are mad because I made a judgment about somebody's behavior, and, while they may admit that there is more than one possible opinion about the morality of any particular action in life, mine is obviously not one of them."

Those accused of intolerance are usually thought to be guilty of one of two supporting sins -- ignorance or callousness. A newspaper article praising a documentary on gay activism on college campuses notes that some might fault the film for not interviewing anyone who sees the homosexual lifestyle as "sinful," but then concludes, "Anyone who tried to make that argument after the poignant stories of Gary and others would look stupid or heartless or both." Stupid or heartless -- not much of a choice, but the only one afforded those out of step with the moral climate of our times.

It is no surprise that religion is often seen as the greatest source of intolerance -- as when, for example, not only gay activists but also many editorialists blamed conservative Christians for the brutal beating and death of Matthew Shepard. For the last 250 years or so, secularists have waited patiently for the fulfillment of their prediction that religion would die out in the next generation or two. But religious people have been singularly uncooperative, and new strategies have developed for controlling this blight on human progress. If religion won't "wither away" as philosopher Richard Rorty has wished, then perhaps it can be privatized and thereby removed from influence on public life -- sort of like localizing an outbreak of the plague.

Such a view is expressed by another academic: "Hope [for tolerance] may lie ... in modernity itself and in its principal creation, international commercial society. It is still possible that the structures of this international order will encourage skepticism about religious and other claims to exclusivity and about the motives of those who impose such claims." That's an intriguing idea -- if people cannot be argued out of their superstitions (rationalism), or coerced (totalitarianism), then perhaps they can be advertised into submission (materialism). If Darwin and Stalin didn't get you, MasterCard will.

It is actually much easier to be considered intolerant today than in the past. You used to have to breathe a little smoke and fire, maybe vote to keep someone out of your country club, or at least tell inappropriate jokes. The bar has been lowered. Now all you have to do is disagree with someone, especially on certain hot-button issues.

Consider the following story. A priest, a rabbi, and an evangelical English teacher (myself) are on a plane heading to Washington, D.C. The priest and the rabbi together organize an annual trip to the Holocaust Museum in order to promote understanding, reconciliation, and, yes, tolerance. They invite people who they believe are in a position to influence others -- one year pastors and religious leaders, another year teachers. The group is given material in advance, including, from the priest, a piece attacking the pope for not being progressive enough.

I have been to the Holocaust Museum before, but I still find it overwhelmingly powerful. There is little I wouldn't do to stand against anything like the attitudes that made it possible, as I hope is clear in my teaching of literature and in my life. But there is one thing I won't do, and that apparently is enough to make me intolerant, though nobody uses the word.

I won't become a relativist, or even a universalist. I will not agree, as we were encouraged to agree at the post-trip debriefing, that all major religions are equally valid approaches to God, equally approved by God, and that to think otherwise is to be on the side at least of intolerance, if not of the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Now, that's not really a fair assessment of what was said in the meeting. It was much more cordial, much more affirming, much more good-spirited than that. But it was in the air. It didn't have to be said explicitly, because it was assumed, the common wisdom.

I was asked, spontaneously, to give my response to the trip at that debriefing. I tried to be cooperative, in keeping with the spirit of the two men who were expending a great amount of time and energy and resources to do a genuinely good and helpful thing. But I also said that I hoped my unwillingness to be a universalist did not disqualify me from being part of the dialogue. I was willing to respect most anyone seeking truth in life, but I wasn't willing to agree that every search was equally successful, or that sincerity and being a "good person" were the defining marks of a successful quest.

The priest got up and said, of course no one was advocating relativism. The rabbi spoke to me afterward and said that he, for one, wanted me to be a part of any continuing dialogue. We have since exchanged letters. He still doesn't see why if he can affirm my being a Christian who has a right relationship with God through Christ, I can't affirm his having a right relationship with God without Christ. Or, though he doesn't say it, affirm the Buddhists for having their own adequate truth without either God or Christ.

I try to say to him that he is not really being as flexible as he claims, because he is insisting that only his view on this is correct. I must give up my "triumphalism" (another version of the intolerance charge) and Christian exclusivity, but he apparently has to give up nothing. I become tolerant only by adopting his and the priest's position. He responds that he really is not interested in tolerance; he expects affirmation. Why should his religion, older than mine, be merely tolerated? How condescending of me to offer tolerance, as though he and his religion were something to be put up with.

I reply that I wasn't the one to bring up tolerance in the first place. I agree that tolerance is a fairly weak concept and not an adequate goal for how people should relate to one another. I want to say that he and the priest are really coreligionists. Their religion is ethical humanism -- the human quest for being good through human efforts -- with a side dish of theism. Their liberal Catholicism and liberal Judaism are not really two different religions getting along with each other, but only different flavors of the same religion. They are much closer to each other in core beliefs than they are to more conservative believers within the religion each espouses. They, in fact, do not really respect other religions so much as they try to shame members of other religions to give up their "absolutism" to join them in the progressive club of the open-minded. And they are as absolute in this requirement as any absolutist fundamentalist of any religion.

I don't say this to the rabbi, however. It is undoubtedly a caricature of his position, it would be hurtful to him, and no one would be the better for me having sounded off. And I have no confidence he would understand, much less be persuaded, even if I were a model of discretion, sensitivity, and logical clarity. Some views of the world operate like parallel universes, neither capable of interacting with the other, and nary a wormhole in sight. Perhaps the progressive will always see the traditionalist as fearfully clinging to past, constricted, and culturally bound notions of morality. And traditionalists will always see progressives as trendy, naive, and confused.

Our debriefing of the trip to the Holocaust Museum ends with the priest issuing a dark warning that a Jews for Jesus gathering is coming to town the next week, suggesting that they represent the kind of threat we are all fighting against. I decide not to mention that I have given money to Jews for Jesus for years.

I began giving in the mid-1970s after I met Rivkah, a converted Jew I taught with for a year at a fundamentalist college. She was quitting teaching to join Jews for Jesus and trying to raise support. I liked Rivkah, and I wanted to help her out.

I didn't realize how controversial the organization was until many years later when I was talking to the woman who speaks to my classes when I teach the Holocaust. She is a survivor of five concentration camps, and I respect her enormously for her efforts to let young people see and hear from her what they may pass over or not believe in books. Mrs. W. once mentioned to me that one of her friend's children had joined Jews for Jesus, "a terrible organization." It startled me. It occurred to me that Jews for Jesus was to a Jewish parent what the Moonies would be to an evangelical Christian parent -- only worse, because Christians, for all their sense of being under attack, are still far too numerous to be in any danger of disappearing, a situation not felt by many Jews.

So what am I to think of Jews for Jesus? Do I think of Rivkah or Mrs. W.? Do I listen to the priest or to the Great Commission? Is that commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel and make disciples misunderstood, as some argue, or simply baldly imperialistic and triumphalist as others claim? Is it intolerant even to offer the gospel, without bribe or coercion? Can this story only be told to those who already embrace it? Should no one try to convince anyone to be and believe anything but what he or she was born into? Are feminists and environmentalists equally wrong to evangelize? Is not spreading to others the truth as one sees it a sign of respect and sensitivity, or is it a sign of indifference and confusion? If I have a life-saving medicine and don't share it, I am selfish and properly condemned. What am I to do if I believe I have a life-saving message?

What, in short, are theologically conservative Christians to make of all this? Should it bother us to be called intolerant? How far do we go in resisting what we believe to be wrong? (Do we, for instance, call for sodomy laws and the jailing of practicing gays? Or do we support fairness in housing and employment rights for gays but not the legalization of homosexual marriage? Or something else?)

I would like to think that the charge of intolerance is entirely wrongheaded, a badge to be worn proudly by a people committed to goodness and truth no matter what the cost. The problem is, I hang around Christians too much. I hear too many sermons, too many Christian gurus on the radio and television; I get too much Christian junk mail from too many Christian organizations. It is difficult to argue with a straight face that Christians are unfairly accused of intolerance when one is surrounded by name calling, finger pointing, back stabbing, bomb throwing, and plain, old-fashioned gossip. And that's just the stuff Christians do to each other.

It is an admirable thing when one is willing to die for the truth. It is more problematic when one is willing to kill for it. Throughout this century, the church has shown itself more willing to do the latter than the former. A long documentation of fundamentalist and evangelical warring against those within the ranks is both depressing and unnecessary. Anyone raised in this subculture knows the stories, and many bear the wounds.

Another problem with easily shrugging off the charge of intolerance is the selective nature of our moral outrage. We appear to be in a continual lather over things sexual -- pornography, homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, adultery, sex education, promiscuity, and fornication -- yet we have been amazingly patient, even lethargic, about the evils of racism, and positively resistant to righting the wrongs of sexism. The recent counterattack in the "values" sector of the culture wars, in fact, has the liberals shouting that they are really the moral ones because they are fighting hunger, injustice, and the like, while conservatives are just interested in getting their long, blue noses into people's bedrooms.

It's no wonder, then, that our reputation in dealing with those with whom we disagree is somewhere to the right of Rasputin. We are seen as the pit bulls of the culture wars -- small brains, big teeth, strong jaws, and no interest in compromise. Is this indictment fair? Often not. Understandable? Absolutely.

What is a Christian to do? Well, traditionally we have tried, when confronted with a problem, to figure out what the Bible says. It's too much to consider here what the Bible has to say about the individual issues of the culture wars; many voices are being heard on those issues. But what, if anything, does the Bible have to say about tolerance in general? Is God tolerant? Does the Bible say we should be?

My answer is tentative and anecdotal -- and maybe a bit wishy-washy for some. Is God tolerant? Yes and no. The Bible certainly teaches us that God hates sin. That much, I think, is clear. He is depicted as morally uncompromising, righteously angry, holy, and sure to punish evil. Yet he is also depicted as patient, long-suffering, forgiving, and slow to anger -- qualities closely related to tolerance. It seems he does, in a sense, tolerate sin -- at least for a season. If tolerance is withholding the power to coerce conformity with one's own views, then it seems God is exceptionally tolerant. After all, we do much that displeases him, that violates who he is and what he made creation to be, and yet he does not immediately destroy us or even force us into obedience.

A number of stories from the Bible touch on the issue of tolerance. When David flees Jerusalem under threat from Absalom, Shimei comes out to curse and stone him as he passes by. David restrains those who want to kill Shimei, saying Shimei is perhaps speaking for the Lord. That is an interesting example of tolerance (though undercut by David's deathbed petition to Solomon to take revenge on Shimei). Is it remotely possible that some of the stones that get tossed at Christians for their attitudes and behavior are deserved -- even from God? It would not be the first time God used strange messengers.

Surely there are also lessons about tolerance and intolerance in the parable of the Good Samaritan. It may not be precisely intolerance that keeps the priest and Levite from helping the wounded man, but it is close enough to be instructive. Clearly they feel sufficiently removed from him to feel no responsibility to help. Their religiosity does not translate into neighborliness, into godly behavior.

Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan in order to explain the meaning of the command to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Since Christians in our society are essentially accused of being bad neighbors, we should ask ourselves what it means to be a good neighbor today. It is more than Mister Rogers niceness, certainly, but also more than pointing out our neighbor's mistakes.

Perhaps the single most enlightening story for thinking about God's attitude toward tolerance is the gospel story of the woman caught in adultery. We have in this ancient text all the elements of a contemporary "values clarification" exercise on tolerance: a woman accused of a sexual sin (her co-sinner nowhere to be seen), religious leaders insisting on strict application of the traditional moral law, and a crowd representing society as a whole. But instead of all this being mediated by Jenny or Jerry, we have Jesus.

The religious leaders care less about the moral law, of course, than they do about defeating an enemy. (Sound familiar?) They have brought this woman to Jesus to trap him. Either he will deny the law of Moses and thereby lose his authority as a moral teacher, or he will agree to the condemnation of the woman and thereby lose the sympathy of the common people who chafe under the arrogant legalism of the religious leaders (and also perhaps get himself in trouble with the Roman authorities who alone can approve the death penalty).

What would today's apostles of tolerance do? They would point out, to begin with, that the woman and presumably her sexual partner are consenting adults. Who is to say that adultery is a sin? Whose business is it anyway? Perhaps it's of interest to offended spouses, but certainly not anyone else. The woman should be freed without blame, perhaps even commended for her bold defiance of archaic and sexist sexual norms, and directed to the nearest lawyer to discuss the merits of a lawsuit against her accusers.

What might today's public defenders of morality do? About what the religious authorities of her day did. They would use her as a public example of sin, show little or no regard for her as a person, call for her public shaming, and exploit the whole situation to advance their call for a return to traditional morality. She would be the poster girl for their next fundraising letter decrying the decline of religious values and calling for sacrificial financial support in order to carry on God's fight against evil.

What does Jesus do? He does the seemingly impossible, affirming the moral law and at the same time refusing to humiliate the sinner. He tells the religious leaders that the one of them who is without sin should cast the first stone. (In the background, a cheer from the lovers of tolerance.) He tells the woman that he does not condemn her. (Two cheers.) But then, crucially, he says what no modern champion of tolerance is likely to say: "Go and sin no more." (A disappointed groan.)

Is God tolerant? Yes, more so than we are. But also less so. God's forbearance never compromises his holiness or justice. He forgives and waits where we attack and destroy. He grieves and judges where we are lax or indifferent. Our goal is to be as tolerant as God but not more so, praying earnestly for the wisdom to know the difference.

Ultimately, tolerance is too weak a concept to be attributed to God. God is so much more than tolerant that Christians can rightfully ignore tolerance as a fundamental goal for their own lives -- but only if they are willing to live by a much higher standard. God does not call us to be tolerant of our neighbors. God calls us to love them -- at least as much as we love ourselves. Before we all nod our approval, we should take a sober look at what that might entail.

Biblical love is always sacrificial love. Don't say you love someone unless you are willing to suffer for that person. Sacrificial love does not say, "Do as I do or you are going to hell." It says, "I would rather be crucified than have you be harmed."

This is the point at which the "hate the sin, love the sinner" maxim is most relevant, but also most questionable. We say this as glibly as the tolerance people mouth their slogans. It is perfectly correct, and also perfectly unconvincing.

If you are loved, you generally know it. And you know it in great part by how someone acts toward you. The simple fact is that the people whose behavior we believe is sinful do not report that they feel loved -- or anything close to it. They do not feel as the woman caught in adultery or the Samaritan woman most likely felt when confronted with their sin by Jesus.

"Who cares how they feel?" some will say. "The replacement of objective moral law by subjective feelings is how we got into this mess in the first place." But the assertion of the objective moral law without concern for how it is experienced is legalism, and legalism is the counterfeit of love-based Christian morality.

Evidence for the lack of love in Christian rhetoric is not hard to find and is not limited to the extremes. All I have to do to find it is open my mail. The sad truth is that, in our battle with a hostile culture, we have adopted the culture's tactics. We fight ugliness with ugliness, distortion with distortion, sarcasm with sarcasm.

Consider the ACLU, an organization as self-declaredly opposed to the social agenda of conservative Christianity as any. The tone of their fundraising letters, like most, is consistently alarmist, simplistic, and sarcastic: "Freedom vs. authoritarianism. That's what the struggle over competing visions of morality is all about." "Increasingly we are being assaulted with the belief that somehow we are a nation in steep moral decline." "We are being told by the Merchants of Virtue ... that we should return to those good old days." "Right now those who would impose their pious standards of morality on private, personal behavior are dangerously close to winning the debate." It's not exactly an appeal to sweet reason.

Surely Christians are different. Surely Christians speak to the sinner with a broken heart. Surely they try to model the spirit of Christ: "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." In many places, perhaps, but not in my mailbox, not on my radio. Consider the following excerpts from a fundraising letter, typical of those from many highly successful Christian organizations: "These shameful 'high priests' of the anti-virtue movement." "As God's people for this historic hour, we rise to the challenge and give whatever it takes to turn back the anti-Christian juggernaut which threatens our way of life." "Do not doubt that prayer will become a crime, the Bible off-limits, and sharing our faith in public forbidden." Who can resist reaching for the checkbook when the whole cosmos is at stake?

But such tactics undermine the Christian witness that the senders seek to proclaim. The letter from which I've quoted displays all the familiar manipulative strategies of modern advertising and political propaganda. The envelope even gives the false impression that it is a registered letter, a touch worthy of magazine subscription marketers and vacation scams. Winning is losing if this is how we are to win the culture wars.

I believe we do this because we do not really trust the gospel. Turn the other cheek, the first shall be last, lose our life to gain it, love our enemies. Those bold principles of Jesus make for great sermons, but in our bones we appear not to believe they are practical for everyday living in a hostile society. We seem to believe that if we are not as aggressive and hard-nosed as our supposed enemies, that God (and our organization) will somehow be defeated and goodness will disappear from the earth. The result is that we are perceived, often not unfairly, as simply mean-spirited -- as, well, intolerant.

How should it be? How can we affirm Christian morality, unapologetically rooted in the Bible, without becoming rhetorical bomb throwers?

First, we should resist any appeal whose primary aim or result is to make us either angry or afraid. Anger and fear are our most primitive and instinctive emotions, and they are the surest route (along with sentimentality) to our checkbooks. Neither leads us to love our neighbor, or God either, for that matter. We are eager to cite Jesus' righteous anger in cleansing the temple, but the combination of righteousness and anger is much more problematic in us than it is in him. We would do well to tape a verse from James on our foreheads: "Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry. For human anger does not result in God's righteousness" (1:19-20).

Second, we should listen to the stories of those who oppose us. Everyone has a story to tell, and the surest route to conflict is to supress the stories of others. A source of frustration for conservative Christians is the feeling that their story is being silenced in the public square. If we want the right to tell our story, however, we must be willing, even eager, to hear the stories of others. And we should listen compassionately, with a bias toward finding common ground rather than listening for an opportunity to attack. This common ground is not the flaccid "everybody is right" of flabby relativism. The goal is not niceness, or pseudounanimity, but a core package of values and rights we can affirm together while we continue to disagree on some fundamental understandings of the ultimate nature of things.

Must Christians be tolerant? Not really -- certainly not as our society defines the term. But we must be loving, and that is a far greater challenge, with far greater dangers and rewards. We must find better ways to demonstrate that we do, in fact, love the sinner while we hate the sin.

Our response to abortion is instructive. In the years immediately after its legalization, Christian opponents of abortion were widely accused of caring about the fetus but not about the woman or even the child if it was born. It was easier to say abortion is a sin than to provide practical help to sinners. Since that time, countless programs, many of them volunteer, have arisen that minister to every need, physical and spiritual, of pregnant women in difficult circumstances. Tangible love has replaced empty denunciation.

We have failed so far to respond as well to homosexuals. We have not been in the frontlines in the fight against AIDS, just as we were not in the struggle against racism. How differently would conservative Christianity be perceived today if we had been the first and most passionate of those offering practical help to AIDS sufferers? The bulk of our response -- verbal and nonverbal, literal and symbolic -- suggests that we hate the sinner every bit as much as the sin. This is the story we hear from gays in our pews as much as from those in the parades. We can say it isn't so; but talk is cheap. We do not have to affirm homosexuals in their homosexuality, as our culture insists, but we do have to love them, and we haven't yet figured out how to do that.

We have always struggled as human beings to understand and live out the implications of the "thou shalt nots" and the "blessed ares" of the Bible. It is clear that there are things we ought and ought not to do. And there is no reason to apologize for asserting that to a tone-deaf world. But it is also clear that the bedrock of all biblical morality is God's love. That love is not incompatible with judgment ("go and sin no more") but it is incompatible with our not properly valuing all that God has created, including those who offend us.

______________________________

Daniel Taylor is a professor of literature at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Copyright(c) 1999 by the author or Christianity Today, Inc./Christianity Today magazine. January 11, 1999 Vol. 43, No. 1, Page 42

Letters to the Editor in subsequent issue:

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

THOSE MESSY GRAY AREAS

* Daniel Taylor's article on tolerance ["Are You Tolerant? (Should You Be?)," Jan. 11] recalled a line from Oswald Chambers: "There never was a more inconsistent Being on this earth than Our Lord, but He was never inconsistent to His Father. The one consistency of the saint is not to a principle, but to the Divine life." The easy answer to tolerance is to see issues in black and white. Taylor's admonition to practice unconditional love often leads us into the messy gray areas where it turns out we find the face of Christ as we serve our brothers and sisters. And that love is never understood by either side as the Cross demonstrates; but take heart, the One who died on the cross understands and empowers.

Bob Martin

Walnut Creek, Calif.

* This issue is not as easy to sort out as those on the extremes seem to find it to be. Taylor's pointing us in the direction of Jesus' example is wholly appropriate and proper.

Those who were the target of Jesus' most virulent condemnation were not the most obvious and notorious sinners. They were the biblicists who rightly knew and taught reverence and obedience to Scripture, but whose self-righteous judgment had no mercy. As Eugene Peterson interprets Matthew 7:4-5, "Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor."

Ron Schooler

Los Angeles, Calif.

* The answer to the question depends upon how one defines tolerant. In some of the categories that appear on your cover, the proponents of those items claim to be seeking "tolerance," but what they are really looking for is affirmation. Anything less, they call "intolerance." For them to consider one "tolerant," an endorsement is usually required.

Christians are seen as "intolerant" unless they agree with homosexuality, abortion, divorce, and so on. Such is cultural surrender, not "tolerance." The meaning of tolerant has been changed right under our noses.

David Block

Carrollton, Tex.

* I agree wholeheartedly that Christians in our culture (myself included) too often lack a real love for those with whom we disagree, and that lovelessness sabotages an otherwise effective witness of God's people to effect change.

Having said that, I was bothered by the tone of the article in one respect. Taylor argues that "the single most enlightening story for thinking about God's attitude toward tolerance is the gospel story of the woman caught in adultery." The problem is that this woman was truly broken and repentant. In many, many other situations where our Lord confronted sin and evil (exhibiting his lack of tolerance), He used words like "you hypocrites"; "you blind guides (and fools)"; "you snakes ... you brood of vipers." The point is: While loving the sinner, God's law is inviolable, and his truth never changes. It's not us judging sin; God has already judged it.

David P. Clarke

Norfolk, Va.

* Taylor asks, "How differently would conservative Christianity be perceived today if we had been the first and most passionate of those offering practical help to aids sufferers?" Well, look no further than New York City, where the Catholic church is the number one organization caring for AIDS victims; the annual "Gay Pride" parade marches past Saint Patrick's Cathedral so that the marchers can demonstrate their hatred of the church -- and they do so in ways that would have outraged the news media if they were a Christian group marching past an abortion clinic.

Don Schenk

Allentown, Pa.

* Bravo on shifting the debate from tolerance/intolerance to the balance of sin and love. A couple of comments:

(1) Why is it that Christians seem to be the least "tolerant" of people who sin in areas where they are the least tempted to sin themselves (homosexuality, abortion) but are more tolerant of people who sin in areas where they are more likely to be tempted themselves (gossip, pride, etc.)?

(2) In order to appear less intolerant, some Christians have resorted to evangelizing with the appeal that you should become a Christian because "Christianity is good for you" rather than because "it is the truth." Since Christianity can lead to suffering and persecution, we are giving people an excuse to reject the truth as a "lie" because it was not "good" as promised.

Gerald Nanninga

New Hope, Minn.

*

How should Christians respond to homosexuals’ public presence?

Twenty years ago, most homosexuals guarded their sexuality as a shameful secret. Today homosexuals march into the White House to see the President, who hopes to secure their votes in the next election. Homosexuals have emerged from the shadows not as perverts but as co-workers, family members, and political operatives. Unwilling any longer to remain hidden, they have framed their public appeal as a matter of civil rights. Homosexuals are ordinary people, they say, despised for an attribute as accidental as skin color. Should they not be free from prejudice? Should they not teach school, adopt children, fight as soldiers, become pastors like any other person? Isn’t that the American way?

Christians who think hard about homosexuality — and surely we must — have found this hard to answer. To begin with, scholars have argued furiously about the Bible’s message; many contend that it says nothing about modern homosexuality at all. Even if we agree about the Bible’s prohibitions, we have the difficult task of applying its message in a way that meets a new situation. It is one thing to condemn homosexual behavior, another to offer pastoral care to those with fierce homosexual longings. And even if we know how to treat homosexuality in the church, we have further questions of how to apply the Bible’s message in a pluralistic society.

First, what does the Bible say? Thankfully, as two of these books show, a degree of clarity has emerged after much vexed exegesis. Thomas Schmidt, who teaches New Testament at Westmont College, gives a persuasive, detailed, verse-by-verse response to revisionist critics. He shows that the biblical injunctions clearly apply to homosexuality as it is practiced today and not only to its forms in the ancient world.

Another New Testament professor, Marion Soards of Louisville Seminary, may be more helpful for the general reader. Soards writes to his own Presbyterian church’s confused situation, but his brief, lucid overview of the biblical evidence will aid anyone seeking a pathway through conflicting claims.

Soards has a habit of putting matters into perspective with only a few sentences, and doing it convincingly. After reading his summation of John Boswell’s work, for example, it would be difficult for anyone to quote Boswell as an unchallenged authority on the history of homosexuality and the church. Soards gives no detailed prescription for the church (neither does Schmidt), but he makes clear that both Old Testament and New consider homosexual behavior “outside the boundaries of God’s intentions for humanity.” From the beginning, God intended for sexual union to be experienced within marriage between man and woman.

WILDFLOWERS AMONG WHEAT

It is not easy to apply such an answer today, however. Why such one-note absolutism? Why can’t we simply live and let live — appreciating, as Andrew Sullivan poetically puts it, the wildflowers among our wheat?

As Schmidt sees it, these are questions born of individualism, while sexuality is a communal endeavor, with each of us bearing responsibility toward others for the way we live. Homosexual behavior undermines marriage, he says. Unlike the celibate person, who, though unmarried, testifies to the good of marriage, the active homosexual pursues sexual union according to his own private principles of individual self-fulfillment. Like adultery, homosexuality cannot be judged just by how it seems to the individuals involved. It must be considered in the broader context of what it does to the whole community’s understanding of sex. Same-sex intimacy offers an alternative “good” that undermines a community’s marriages, Schmidt contends.

This is an argument that Andrew Sullivan, editor of “The New Republic,” takes up from the other side. It is refreshing that he even recognizes the issue of communal interests. Unfortunately, he argues the issue within strict categories of his own invention, which (while they enable him to answer every argument that he imagines) do not fit the actual content of Schmidt’s (and many others’) position.

Sullivan’s book aims to deal with the politics of homosexuality, which he describes in four categories: Prohibitionist, Liberationist, Conservative, and Liberal. Sullivan is brilliant at many points. His recounting of how liberals have found themselves at odds with their own principles is particularly illuminating. However, his book is weakest in considering positions furthest from his own, those that would discourage rather than defend homosexual practice. For reasons unclear, Sullivan identifies the Prohibitionist position with the Catholic church and/or religious fundamentalists. To my knowledge, the modern Catholic church does not favor laws that would prosecute homosexuals; and while I do not doubt that there exist Christian fundamentalists who would seek to root out homosexuality through punishment and incarceration, Sullivan cites none and would, I suspect, have to concede that this punitive stance represents a minority view within fundamentalism rather than a consensus. Sullivan — who comes from a devout Catholic family and is himself a practicing Catholic — tries to do justice to a biblical understanding of homosexuality but is clearly out of his depth. He seems to have swallowed Boswell whole.

That aside, Sullivan compellingly puts forward the great fact that all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, must confront: homosexuals exist. If they have not (Sullivan to the contrary) existed at all times and places, certainly they exist in our time and place. While all three of these authors accept that the cause of homosexuality must be more complex than a “homosexual gene,” they all acknowledge that homosexuality is a condition homosexuals “find themselves in” — they do not consciously choose it.

Sullivan is very good at explaining the difficulty of the homosexual’s position. Remembering his first adolescent experiences with sexual desire, he writes, “It was like getting on a plane for the first time, being exhilarated by its ascent, gazing with wonder out of the window, seeing the clouds bob beneath you, but then suddenly realizing that you are on the wrong flight, going to a destination which terrifies you… And you cannot get off.” He says that a homosexual teenager learns that “the condition of his friendships is the subjugation of himself.” Sullivan hopes that a more tolerant culture may develop in America, yet he believes that homosexuality is bound to be marked by deception and hiding, simply because homosexuals are a small minority and the issue is such a fundamental one. Homosexuals, he says, can never be “just like other people.”

DEEPER THAN FAIRNESS

Schmidt widens and darkens this portrait, giving a well-documented account of the experience of homosexuals. He demonstrates from a thorough review of the evidence that “Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype, and it is not merely the majority experience — it is virtually the only experience.”

In a group of ten randomly selected homosexual men in their thirties, he summarizes, only one is faithful to his partner, and he will not be within a year. Four have never had a relationship that lasted a year, and only one has had a relationship that lasted more than three years. Six regularly have sex with strangers; three participate in orgies. Three are currently alcoholics; five have a history of alcohol abuse. Five regularly use at least one illegal drug, three are multiple drug users. Four have a history of acute depression, three have contemplated suicide, two have attempted suicide. Eight have had sexually transmitted diseases, three are HIV positive, one has AIDS.

This portrait, like the more personal one that Sullivan offers, should surely elicit compassion. These are sufferers. But it should also remind us that the “homosexual issue” is much deeper than a matter of “fair treatment.”

Fair treatment is all that Sullivan asks for at the political level. He proposes simply that homosexuals receive equal treatment under the law — no more, no less. For him this includes — and demands — the legalization of homosexual marriage. Conservatives, he says, should face the fact that homosexuality exists and encourage steps to domesticate it. He is eloquent in describing the homosexual’s longing for lasting intimacy that cannot (by society’s laws) be fulfilled. He presents a wonderful vista of what marriage would offer.

But he seems not to realize that marriage is prelegal and preceremonial, that law does not create marriage but only regularizes it. Where was the law in Eden? Marriage would surely exist very much as it does whether or not it were officially recognized. Where it does not exist, the legal opportunity hardly can create it. (Today’s urban ghettos are a horrid proof of that.) Homosexual marriage — exclusive and lifelong sexual relationship — is virtually nonexistent, as Schmidt’s summary of the evidence shows. Homosexuality is not simply a different flavor of sexuality, it is a different type, following its own nature.

Sullivan, surprisingly, acknowledges that legalized “domestic partnerships” undermine traditional marriages, yet seriously suggests that homosexual marriages would enrich heterosexual relationships through “greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets,” by which he means adultery. Perhaps this reveals the degree to which he does not know what he is talking about when he talks of marriage. Open marriages, as studies have consistently found, are those with the bottom falling out.

If “marriage” is not an answer to homosexuality, and “fairness” is too simple a prescription, how should Christians treat homosexuality? I suspect a great many Christians wish it would simply go away. They would be happy to live and let live, so long as homosexuals stayed in the closet and left others blissfully ignorant of their condition. That, however, is not really an option for those who care about pastoral ministry.

People who “find themselves homosexual” need help to find a pattern of life that is fruitful and appropriate for their condition.

Surely the ancient and biblical tradition of celibacy is relevant, even if our society is reluctant to acknowledge it. (Sullivan apparently cannot even imagine it. He treats singleness as synonymous with promiscuity.) Some progress in ministry has been made, particularly by “ex-gay” groups, but in most churches, homosexuals are still invisible and uncared for.

As to public policy, Sullivan’s book is an excellent spur to thinking through various issues, from gays in the military to laws against prejudice in private housing. (Sullivan is for the former, against the latter.) Sullivan’s positions will be anathema to most conservatives, but he covers a range of issues acutely and, for the most part, fairly.

Christians face the problem of influencing a public order that does not necessarily share our basic values. We cannot turn America into the church, but how far can we push our sexual values, or accept others’ that we believe are destructive? Conservative Christians, clinging to Scripture, have sensed that the welfare of marriage and the family is involved in the way our nation treats homosexuality. We know what the Bible teaches. We have at least some idea how homosexuality should be treated within the church. In the public sphere, we are a long way from home.

Books reviewed:

“Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality,” by Andrew Sullivan (Alfred A. Knopf, 209 pp.; $22, hardcover)

“Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate,” by Thomas E. Schmidt (InterVarsity, 240 pp.; $10.99, paper)

“Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority and the Church Today,” by Marion L. Soards (Westminster John Knox, 84 pp.; $9.99, paper). Reviewed by Tim Stafford.

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine ctcurrmrj5TD0515B6r

#3554

*

As America becomes more religiously pluralistic, Christians should demonstrate tolerance and knowledge of different philosophies about God, said an Atlanta researcher, author and professor.

Tolerance, however, does not mean Christians must accept other religious claims as true, Bill Craig told Southern Baptist interfaith witness leaders March 20.

"The concept of tolerance implies that you disagree," Craig said. "You can't tolerate something you agree with.

"Toleration is treating those with whom you disagree with respect and charity. The correct basis of tolerance is the inherent worth of the individual, who has rights to free speech."

Free speech includes sharing the gospel, but Christians should be prepared to encounter people with radically different views of God, Craig said.

To know what others believe, "do a lot of listening," Craig recommended. They may not have the principles of their beliefs logically formulated, and by listening Christians can find opportunities to witness.

For example, some people practice a principle Craig called "verificationism." They doubt claims that God exists and that God created the world because they cannot be proven with the five senses.

Yet Craig noted many ethical, metaphysical and aesthetic statements cannot be proven with the five senses either.

"Mystical anti-realism," common in the New Age movement and many Eastern religions, is the burning issue of today, Craig said. This belief is that God cannot be understood by human thought, so all people can do is have a mystical experience with him.

Mystical anti-realism teaches thoughts about God -- such as God exists -- are meaningful, but are neither true or false, Craig said. The theory denies a philosophical teaching called the principle of "bivalence" which says statements must be either true or false.

"No reason could ever be given for adopting mystical anti-realism. It could only be embraced by an irrational leap of faith," he said.

The philosophy Craig defined as "perhaps the most wild" is radical pluralism. This contends each person constitutes reality for himself, and objective truth does not exist. The basic attitude is, "That may be true for you, but not for me."

People who adhere to radical pluralism for their theology would have to refuse science and law as well, Craig said, because they also are based on principles of truth.

A group Craig called "skeptical agnostics" don't know what to believe about God, he said. They would say the existence of God and the meaning of life are issues too deep for humans to understand and it is impossible to know the truth.

That approach is "personally unlivable," Craig said, because "it leaves undecided man's deepest questions." It offers no objective standard of what is right and wrong and no hope of life after death, so people live totally for themselves.

Searchword: News Copyright (c) 1995 Baptist Press

RNb5322bmrwB5322k5323

#3942

*

The London Daily Telegraph, ISSUE 1449, Friday 14 May 1999.

US Army recruits witches to guard pagans' rights, by Ben Fenton in Washington

The United States army has recognized white witchcraft as a religion and has appointed chaplains to oversee pagan ceremonies on at least five bases.

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that there were believed to be at least 100 witches attending covens at Fort Hood, Texas, the army's largest base with more than 42,000 troops. So respectful has the army become of the pagan rites that security was increased at Fort Hood's Boy Scout camp, where covens are held.

The move is to deter members of Christian groups from intimidating the group. The pagans, called Wiccans, are accorded the same privileges as practitioners of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. They are encouraged to have their religious preference stamped on the metal dog-tags each soldier wears.

Lt. Col. Donald Troyer, the Seventh Day Adventist army chaplain who has been given responsibility for Fort Hood's coven, admitted that he was not overjoyed with his job because fellow Christian pastors disapproved and had been "cool" towards him. He said: "It's such a volatile subject. It just sparks a fury."

The Pentagon says it has received several requests for a posting to Fort Hood because it has such a large pagan congregation. A spokesman said yesterday: "We are obliged by the Constitution to respect and make provisions for the religious needs of members of the military and not to pass judgments on their beliefs.

The Covenant of the Goddess, which claims to represent most American Wiccans from its base in Berkeley, California, says there are about 50,000 followers of the faith in America. They celebrate earth-spirits such as the "great goddess Freya" and on their altars give blessings to water, bread and salt, the three essentials of life, while the congregation holds hands in a circle around a large bonfire.

Their main festivals are at the vernal and autumnal equinox and at midsummer. However, sacrifices, either human or animal, are not tolerated. One Wiccan said: "It is not something we do."

*

Judges 12:1-6

US'S AND THEM'S

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

I. They're not like me, so I don't like them.

II. How do you say "New Joisey"? Judges 12:1-6

III. We still don't get along.

A. Distinctions are deeply ingrained.

B. Divisions remain among us.

IV. Our tension.

A. Christianity grew because it was inclusive.

B. Key points on tolerance.

C. Religion is seen as greatest source of intolerance.

D. Is God tolerant?

V. Test case: Woman caught in adultery. John 8:1-11

A. Values clarification class.

B. The trap.

C. What we would do.

D. What Jesus does.

VI. God does not call us to be tolerant - he calls us to love.

A. It is a sobering standard.

B. Loved people know it.

C. Will you love?

*

This past week (Feb. 1993) Bob Greene, in his syndicated newspaper column told the story of "The Naked

Guy." Student at U. of Calif. at Berkeley who started going to classes last Fall stark naked. Claimed Western culture devalued human body and he refused to go along. What was so incredible about this case, Greene observed, was that it was not until a few weeks ago that UCB kicked him out. Seems there was no campus regulation vs. nudity!

The furor over Senator Rick Santorum’s recent comments concerning homosexuality and the law continues unabated.

During an interview with the Associated Press, Santorum mentioned the pending LAWRENCE V. TEXAS case, in which the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of Texas’s prohibition against sodomy. Santorum said, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy; you have the right to polygamy; you have the right to incest; you have the right to adultery.”

As soon as his comments became public, the press and gay rights groups vilified Santorum. His words were compared to controversial and racially insensitive remarks made by Senator Trent Lott last fall.

The NEW YORK TIMES said that the Senator’s “remarks equating homosexuality with polygamy and incest” wrote a “new chapter” in “the long and conflicted history between gays and Republicans.”

The problem is, of course, that he did no such thing. Santorum was merely stating what should be obvious to anyone who has followed the Court’s decisions in this area. Any reasoning the Court uses to overturn the Texas law can be applied to the other conduct Santorum cited. Santorum has a lot of company in his thinking. I and others have written the same thing in scholarly journals. Justice Scalia argued the same thing in his dissent in PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CASEY.

What’s more, Santorum’s critics know this. So what’s behind the demagoguery? The same thing that is behind all demagogues: that is, intimidate those with whom you disagree. In Santorum’s case, the source of the ire isn’t his legal analysis; it is his moral analysis. As a devout Catholic, he does not believe that the state ought to sanction all kinds of sexual behavior.

Tolerance used to mean an open market for the free discussion of everyone’s truth claims — not anymore. Over the past few decades, it has been redefined to be the notion that not only should I have the right to do what I want to do, but you have to approve of it, as well.

Failure to show approval is considered to be, at best, narrow-mindedness and, at worst, bigotry and hate-mongering. This isn’t my conclusion. It’s what the Supreme Court said in ROMER V. EVANS, when it invalidated a Colorado constitutional amendment barring anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. The Court said that only “animus,” or bias, could have caused the voters to vote for such a law.

And the stakes are about to get higher. Massachusetts is on the verge of creating a right to same-sex marriage. If that happens, says Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution, same-sex couples from across the country will get married in Massachusetts, return home, and demand that their “marriages” be recognized in their states. Their efforts will be enhanced if moral objections to homosexuality are automatically dismissed as bigotry.

And this is what’s really at stake in the debate over Santorum’s comments: not a politician’s fortunes, but the meaning of TOLERANCE and FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE. It’s whether people of faith will be able to state publicly what they believe or whether the only right left to Americans will be one of so-called “sexual freedom.”

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

Visit SEN. RICK SANTORUM’S WEBSITE to read his response to the Associated Press story: http://www.senate.gov/~santorum/

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “PERSISTENT CONFLICT FOR GAYS AND G.O.P.,” NEW YORK TIMES, April 22, 2003. Article costs $2.95 to retrieve.

L. Brent Bozell, “ASSOCIATED (WITH LIBERALS) PRESS,” Townhall.com, April 30, 2003: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20030430.shtml

Stanley Kurtz, “THE LIBERTARIAN QUESTION: INCEST, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND ADULTERY,” NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, April 30, 2003: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp

Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, THE CHRISTIAN IN TODAY’S CULTURE (Tyndale, 1999).

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #15774]

This speaks a lot about the quality of Japanese products and their standards:

They're still laughing about this at IBM. Apparently the computer giant decided to have some parts manufactured in Japan as a trial project. In the specifications, they stated that they will only accept three defective parts per 10,000.

When the delivery came in there was an accompanying letter. It said, "We Japanese had a hard time understanding North American business practices. But the three defective parts per 10,000 have been separately manufactured and have been included in the consignment. Hope this pleases you."

EBENSBURG, Pa., June 4 - It was a picturesque scene as 22-year-old Jonas Swartzentruber, a typically shy member of an ultra-plain sect of the Old Order Amish, guided his horse and buggy along Lemon Drop Road while S.U.V.'s and other engines of modernity passed him by.

Then a state police officer stopped the youthful farmer and wrote a ticket for not having an orange and red reflector triangle on the buggy's rear as night fell here in the rolling Allegheny hills.

Mr. Swartzentruber, arguing instead for a red lantern and plain gray strips of light-reflecting tape, quietly set a new course across the land, one that landed him in jail for three days. It has sparked a constitutional fight playing out appropriately enough in the name of William Penn, the Quaker patriarch who went to prison six times in the process of founding this state as a "holy experiment" in religious tolerance.

Mr. Swartzentruber refused to pay a $93 fine for lacking the reflector triangle state law requires for slow vehicles. He considers the gaudiness of the colors and the symbolism of the triangle a grave violation of the ordnung, the unwritten rules governing his sect, which is one of the most stringent among the many Amish groups fiercely devoted to different interpretations of the biblical call in Romans 12:2 to live symbol-free and plain and not "conformed to this world."

Leaders of the local 80-member community, known as the Andy Weaver group of the Swartzentruber Amish, are pleading to use the gray tape that a half-dozen other states with growing Amish communities have accepted. Otherwise, the group said, it will be compelled to move on, as Amish have done for three centuries, to a more tolerant place.

The authorities have defended the triangle as a necessary safety measure accepted by many other horse-and-buggy Amish sects, including scores in Pennsylvania Dutch country. The police have written two dozen reflector citations as the Swartzentruber Amish hold out in solidarity.

"Why does the State of Pennsylvania require this?" asked Heath Long, assistant district attorney, as the cases were heard two weeks ago in Cambria County Court. "Because it works - it saves lives."

In behalf of the Amish, pro bono lawyers from Reed Smith L.L.P. in Pittsburgh and the American Civil Liberties Union pressed a challenge rooted in Penn's historic invitation to conscientious diversity.

They noted how Penn's ideal has played out in court precedents that allow Amish groups to differ not just from "the English people," as they call the majority, but also among their own separate congregations.

"Our country has sped up around these people, literally and figuratively," said Donna M. Doblick, in defending the Amish with John A. Camp, her law firm colleague.

"No one should have to choose between worshiping God in the way they see fit and living in Pennsylvania," Ms. Doblick said, noting that there have been no buggy collisions on local roads and that the tape may be safer than the triangle.

A visitor can see why the Amish moved here to a pastoral valley beyond town five years ago after deciding that their Ohio base had become overrun with Amish-seeking tourists. The land is serene and this town seems more than tolerant as shoppers look for the Amish's produce at the Saturday farmer's market.

"But at night on the S-curve by Lemondrop Road you come upon them and - whoa - you're lucky to see the buggy in time," said Ken Caretti, a retired corrections guard who contends the triangle is more effective than the gray tape. "I couldn't care less about their religion," said Mr. Caretti, pausing on his grass mower by a pristine lawn Madonna.

But the Amish could not care more about their religion and its details, notes Donald B. Kraybill, a sociology and religion professor at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. He is an expert on the Amish congregations, subgroups and breakaway sects that count 180,000 Americans as members.

Despite their loathing of symbols, the Amish buggy has become "an implicit religious symbol," signifying rejection of the automobile and other worldly trappings, said Professor Kraybill, who was a witness for the defense. "They have very serious objections to what looks to them like a symbol of the outside world being forced upon their sacred object."

The spirit of Solomon as much as William Penn may be required of Judge Timothy Creany, whose decision is expected any day.

Facing the Amish, who journeyed to his courtroom by horse and buggy, Judge Creany summarized the constitutional issue, "If we're trampling on your religious rights, we have to have a very compelling interest."

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

*

Last month, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released the results of a poll measuring Americans' attitudes towards religion and whether the surge in religious activity in the weeks following September 11 had any staying power. With one notable exception, it didn't.

The exception is Americans' attitudes towards Muslim-Americans. A year ago, forty-five percent of those surveyed told Pew they had a favorable impression of Muslim-Americans. By November that number had risen to fifty-nine percent, which could be taken as a sign simply of the increased interest in religion. But the new poll shows that, while American's attitudes towards religion in general have returned to pre-September 11 levels, Muslims are still benefiting from the surge.

Fifty-four percent of all Americans hold a favorable impression of Muslim-Americans, twenty percent higher than a year ago.

The poll results tell a second story. Nearly half of those polled agreed with the statement that "some religions are more likely than others to encourage violence." There's little doubt that the religion they had in mind was Islam. According to Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Center, the findings point to a "closet concern in the linkage between Islam and violence."

If Americans are concerned about the link between Islam and violence, why do they continue to say they have a favorable impression of Muslims? Of course, we want all Americans to love our Muslim neighbors, but Christians ought to love them enough to want to lead them to a true religion of love.

The explanation for these schizoid attitudes lies in the mushy, civil-religious ecumenism that so many of our political and religious leaders have championed. It insists that Islam is a religion of peace and that the highjackers highjacked Islam as well as the airplanes.

The Pew study shows that while Americans feel obliged to repeat this politically correct palaver, they actually have doubts -- that they're afraid to voice them at the risk of being labeled "bigots."

As I learned from personal experience, these fears are justified. Earlier this year, I spoke to a meeting of evangelicals in Boston about the theological differences between Christianity and Islam. I called on Christians to lovingly point out these differences to their Muslim neighbors because when Jesus told us to "preach the Gospel to all nations," He included Muslims. In the light of September 11, I believe, Muslims should be having doubts about their own religion and, perhaps, be open to the Gospel.

These words were described as "ill-conceived" and "dangerous" by Charles Austin in the BERGEN (NJ) RECORD. He wrote that my remarks invoked memories of the Crusades and the forced conversion of Jews during the Medieval period. He even compared what he called "hard-line evangelism" to the imposition of Islamic law by the Taliban.

This is where religious ecumenism leads us. Tolerance, instead of meaning treating each other civilly despite our differences, becomes denying those differences, and criticizing your neighbor's worldview is tantamount to hate speech.

The result then is a public square where important issues can't be honestly discussed, truth claims can't be made, and people won't admit what they believe. That's why Christians must expose the politically correct ecumenism. If not, truth itself may become a permanent fixture in America's closet.

For further reading:

"Americans Struggle With Religion's Role at Home and Abroad," Pew Forum press release, 20 March 2002.

Charles Austin, "Colson's Call to Convert Muslims Is Dangerous," BERGEN RECORD, 14 February 2002.

BreakPoint commentary, No. 011218, "Mushy Ecumenism: Incoherent Civil Religion."

"Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings," Barna Research, 12 February 2002.

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Tolerance has been given a bad name, according to a panel of scholars urging Christians to recover the word's original meaning, which they argue was distorted in 18th century philosophy.

"Christianity and Toleration" was the topic of an April 9 symposium at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. The event, sponsored by Baylor's Center for Christian Ethics, focused on the recent publication of "The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit," written by Chip Conyers, a professor at Baylor's George W. Truett Theological Seminary.

Conyers says that toleration took on a different meaning after the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement that emphasized rationalism over traditional social, political and religious ideas.

Under the influence of Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, religion was assigned to the domain of "private" affairs and as a result lost much of its moral authority, Conyers said. "Public life belonged to the state." Somewhere along the line, as a way of keeping peace among competing ideas, society developed the notion that all views should be regarded as having equal value in the name of toleration.

But Conyers and two other primary speakers said toleration has a place for people with a Christian worldview.

Conyers said his purpose is "not to discredit tolerance but to bring credit to it once again."

For the Christian, Conyers said, toleration should mean believing firmly in the eternal truth of God but still being willing to listen to other points of view. Christians can engage in conversations with those of other viewpoints, seeking to discover points of truth that can be agreed upon, he said.

In contrast, the type of toleration advocated today is "logically impossible," said J. Budziszewski, a professor of political philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.

"The modern version of toleration operates like a Trojan horse," he said. "It shuts out every view but one -- while claiming to be neutral." Under the guise of toleration, one view gets smuggled in, Budziszewski said. "Which view is smuggled in? Well, it depends on who's doing the smuggling." In too many cases, modern appeals for toleration are merely disguised attempts to keep competing ideas off the playing field, he said.

Christians must find a way to challenge the assumption that the modern view of all-views-are-equal toleration is necessary to prevent violence, added William Cavanaugh, assistant professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn.

"Modern toleration assumes we can't disagree without doing violence to each other," he said.

In any solution that is crafted, "non-violence will have to have a central place," Cavanaugh said. "We must demonstrate that we can in fact differ without killing one another."

*

During a service at a large evangelical church, a Muslim leader -- who had been invited to give the message -- stood at the pulpit and declared: "All of us believe in Jesus. I believe in Mohammed and all the prophets. So our mission here is to introduce people to God." And then he added, "We believe in Jesus more than you do, in fact."

What a thing to hear in a Bible-believing church!

Since September 11, we've seen all kinds of ecumenical services -- from the huge one at Yankee Stadium, to the prayer service at the National Cathedral, to the celebration of Ramadan in the White House to small celebrations all over America. And, yes, it's right to reach out to our Muslim neighbors -- to offer love and support at a time when they may be feeling vulnerable. President Bush is absolutely right to reach out in friendship to Muslims -- to lead the way so as to discourage outbreaks of religious bigotry. But Christians must be careful not to allow support and acceptance of our Muslim neighbors to sink into a kind of mushy civil religion -- one that obscures the truth about both Christianity and Islam. As I have been documenting over recent days, the two are not the same.

One dramatic difference is Christianity and Islam's understanding of Jesus. Christianity teaches that Jesus is part of the Trinity. He is God, the Son who has offered as an atoning sacrifice on the cross to save his people from their sins. By contrast, the Koran denies that Jesus was crucified at all and claims that Jesus was no more than "a Messenger of Allah and His Word." Muslims reject the deity of Christ and His atoning sacrifice. That's a big difference. Contrary to what the Muslim leader says, Muslims do not believe in Jesus more than we do -- pure nonsense.

To suggest that Christianity and Islam are basically the same is not only unfair to Christianity, it's equally unfair to Islam. It compromises both and thus creates massive worldview confusion. People need to know where the lines are drawn to think about Christianity or Islam rationally.

And getting out the truth about how Christianity differs from Islam is more important now than ever. Just before the September 11 attacks, a Gallup survey showed that some 45 percent of Americans had favorable views of Muslim-Americans. Today, 59 percent do. Imagine it -- Islamic extremists attack America, and we think more of Islam than before the attack!

Well, this has happened because leaders on many fronts have cleaned up Islam. They've made a point of including Muslims in public religious events and telling Americans that the terrorists hijacked a peace-loving religion. Those who dare to suggest otherwise, as some Christian leaders have done, are vilified.

Again, while it's right to love our Muslim neighbors, we must redouble our efforts to make sure our children and our neighbors know that all religions are not alike.

The same survey showing that more Americans view Muslims favorably also says Americans -- by a huge majority -- believe religion is gaining influence in American life. The critical question, of course, is what kind of religion is gaining influence. Is it the real thing or mushy civil religious ecumenism? It's time for Christians -- lovingly always -- to make the truth known. All religious beliefs are tolerated -- not all are true.

_________________________

Copyright © 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

When the gospel is taught erroneously within the church, the most loving action Christians can take is to confront those in error, said New Testament scholar D.A. Carson.

The evangelical church has imbibed popular culture's redefinition of love and tolerance to such a point it has lost a clear understanding of the gospel, said Carson, a renowned author and New Testament professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

In many cases, Carson said, the church has swapped the gospel for a contrived unity based on a popular, sentimental definition of love. Whether the church is inclined to carry out discipline to ensure that a pure gospel is both taught and lived out comes down to its understanding of tolerance, he said.

"In the older version of tolerance, the idea was something like this: 'I might disagree profoundly with your argument or point of view or perspective on some matter, but I would insist on your right to articulate and defend your point of view,'" said Carson, who is the author of such books as "The Gagging of God" and "Exegetical Fallacies."

"If I do that, I am considered, in the older view of tolerance, a tolerant person. In the new view of tolerance, however, I have no strong views and you have no strong views. That makes us both tolerant persons. If I have strong views and articulate them, I am, by definition, intolerant."

Speaking on Galatians 2:11-21, Carson pointed out that Paul, in rebuking Peter, a fellow apostle, did not see unity as being more important than the purity of the gospel. Here, Paul demonstrates the preeminence of the gospel and the care that must be taken in preserving it.

By publicly rebuking a fellow apostle for compromising the gospel of grace, Paul demonstrates the depth of his love for the churches at Galatia, Carson said.

"In a closed society, in a confessional society, the old definition of tolerance meant that in the church certain things should not be tolerated," Carson said. "[U]nder the new definition, no place is allowed for a group to claim it is right. The church that takes this stance is no longer perceived as standing for something and thus in some sense heroic, but is merely bigoted, narrow, right-wing, antiquarian."

To foster true unity in the church, Christians must understand that biblical truth is hierarchical; some truths strike closer to the heart of the gospel and are worth dying for, while others are not.

Realizing this would help most churches avoid splitting over fringe issues, he said.

"All that God says is true, but God might have to say some things several times for us to understand what he means because we are dumb and slow and morally thick and removed from the historical circumstances," Carson said.

"Thus, historically, the church has been pretty careful, usually, not to lay down dogmatic insistence on belief in something that shows up only once or twice in Scripture, not because it's not true, but because we may not be quite certain what it means.

"There are some things that are so bound up with the heart of the gospel that you will be prepared to sacrifice anything for them, including apostolic unity," he said. "And there are other things where Paul says, 'One person eats this food and another person doesn't. One person regards one day above another, another person views all days the same. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.'

"You can't imagine Paul saying, 'One person sleeps around, another person doesn't. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.' There is a hierarchialization that you find in Scripture in the realm of ethics and the realm of that which is essential to the gospel."

Regarding church discipline, Carson pointed out that Scripture addresses only three specific offenses which demand the excommunication of the offender: denial of the truth of the gospel, particularly by teachers; unrepentant moral failure such as that found in 1 Corinthians 5; and unrepentant schismatic behavior by a person or group of persons that creates division within the church.

"You are making judgment calls, whether you like it or not. But the fact that they are complex and difficult does not absolve [church leaders] of the responsibility," Carson said. "It means that you cannot approach these matters with a sloganeering approach, but with a deep humility of mind that goes back to Scripture again and again and again."

*

Parents and students attending this year’s commencement at Georgetown University, a Catholic school, would surely expect to hear a commencement address that took Catholic teaching seriously. And that’s what they got. But many in the crowd were offended, even outraged.

The commencement speaker was Francis Cardinal Arinze, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. The dean who invited Arinze expected him to speak about the relationship between Christianity and Islam, especially in places like the Cardinal’s native Nigeria.

Instead, Cardinal Arinze told Georgetown’s class of 2003 that “happiness is found not in the pursuit of material wealth or pleasures of the flesh, but by fervently adhering to religious beliefs.” Warming to his task, he then told graduates and guests about the importance of the family in Christian faith and life.

He said that “in many parts of the world, the family is under siege” as a result of what he called “an anti-life mentality [that can be seen] in contraception, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.” Instead of being honored, the family is “scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions, and cut in two by divorce.”

Well, that’s a very Catholic message one might expect from a Catholic cardinal. But it proved too much for many in the audience. Teresa Sanders, a professor of THEOLOGY, left the stage DURING Arinze’s remarks. Seventy other faculty members signed a letter to the dean protesting what one of them called Arinze’s “wildly inappropriate” remarks. Really? As a result, the dean apologized for the Cardinal’s remarks and the “hurt” they caused.

This incident speaks volumes about the spiritual and moral condition of the West. As historian Philip Jenkins has written, the numerical and geographical heart of Christianity has shifted from the West to the developing world. One result of this shift is that, as was predicted, Christians from Africa are now evangelizing Europe and America, instead of the other way around.

Thus, we see Anglican bishops from Africa standing against Western apostasy by ordaining American clergy who will uphold historic Christian teaching on faith and morals. And we see Cardinal Arinze pointing out the damage being wrought by the West’s forsaking of these teachings.

The response to the Cardinal shows just how phony all the rhetoric about “tolerance” really is. Tolerance originally meant allowing people whom you believed to be wrong to live according to their beliefs without fear of reprisal.

It then mutated into the idea that all beliefs are equally valid. While this was mistaken, at least it allowed for the possibility that Christians might publicly express their beliefs. Now “tolerance” means that no one — other than Christians — should ever hear anything that contradicts what they think, or otherwise upsets them. This is especially true if the subject is human sexuality.

This bogus definition of tolerance is why the dean felt the need to apologize for what the Cardinal said. Fortunately, our African brethren think otherwise. They take their faith seriously — seriously enough to tell the truth about the state of our souls, whether we like it or not.

There is hope in Africa, if not in Georgetown.

FOR FURTHER READING:

Read the TEXT OF CARDINAL ARINZE’S SPEECH (scroll down to “Francis Cardinal Arinze: Arise, Rejoice, God Is Calling You”).

Julia Duin, “CRITICISM OF GAYS RILES GEORGETOWN,” WASHINGTON TIMES, May 30, 2003.

Al Dobras, “WILL THE REAL BIGOTS PLEASE STAND UP?“ BREAKPOINT ONLINE, May 9, 2003.

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Once upon a time there was a handsome young prince. When he grew up, he began searching for a wife, but could not find a princess he wanted to marry. One day, he met another prince — and fell in love. The two men married and lived happily ever after.

They must have been the only ones who did. When the fairy tale — which ended with the newly married “couple” kissing — was read to Massachusetts first graders, Christian parents were outraged.

Two sets of parents sued the Lexington school district, claiming that district officials violated both state law and their civil rights by allowing a teacher to read to their 6-year-olds a book that normalizes homosexual love and marriage.

Not surprisingly — this is Massachusetts, after all — federal judge Mark Wolf dismissed the lawsuit. Public schools, he wrote, are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”

I guess it is not possible to become a productive citizen without embracing the teachings of radical gays.

Incredibly, the judge said parents did not even have a right to pull their kids from classes that discuss and depict homosexual behavior. Allowing kids to leave, the judge said, “could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students.”

This decision is so ghastly it is hard to know where to begin. Since when did parents not have the right to control what their children are exposed to when it comes to matters of sexuality? And what about the damaging effect on kids who are taught ideas that conflict with their parents’ teachings?

If the school district is really committed to teaching about all kinds of families, then why not give children a story about a prince who longs for another prince, realizes his longings are disordered, undergoes reparative therapy, and lives happily ever after — with a princess?

The real goal, of course, is normalizing homosexuality. The judge tipped his hand on this when he said that children should be taught to “respect” differences in sexual orientation.

The two families are appealing Judge Wolf’s decision, and we ought to be praying for their ultimate success. But we must also realize what is really going on here.

When it comes to sin, humans have been playing the denial game ever since the Fall. In Romans, Paul says that even pagans know God’s moral law because it is “written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.”

That’s why it is not enough for homosexuals to be tolerated; in order to live with their own consciences, homosexuals demand unanimous assent that homosexuality is a moral good. And that means silencing those who believe that homosexuality is a disorder, and that homosexual behavior is a moral sin.

You and I must fight back when homosexuals attempt to promote gay “marriage” in public schools. But we must also reach out with compassion to those ensnared by disordered sexual desires.

The Bible teaches that sin — and a guilty conscience — can be erased only by the grace of God through faith in Christ.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was moved to HolwickID #17876]

Something that is counterfeit is, by definition, intended to closely resemble what is genuine. Counterfeits are made of things that are valuable: jewels, works of art, currency. The more closely they resemble the genuine article, the bigger the threat they pose. The Department of Treasury does not concern itself with studying Monopoly money, and curators do not waste time examining poor copies of masterpieces. Those charged with protecting something precious realize that imitation is the most dangerous form of thievery.

Living as we do in a culture that has adopted pluralism as a supreme value, we would do well to take some time to think about the nature of counterfeit. Time and again I have had the same conversation in which people who reject the exclusivity of the Christian faith will say something to the effect of, “But surely you recognize that figures such as Mahatma Gandhi or the Dalai Lama are far more spiritual than most Christians. Look at their compassion! Look at their enlightenment! Do you mean to suggest that they are not truly spiritual?”

A simple “yes” is likely to shut down this conversation. But if we examine the nature of counterfeit, we may go a bit deeper. Consider that “spiritual” figures who do not bow to the lordship of Christ are practicing a kind of counterfeit spirituality. This takes into account that they may show genuine compassion. It acknowledges that they may have sacrificed their lives for others. They may be more disciplined or learned than we will ever be. But if they are not a genuine way to the Father, these virtues become even more dangerous. The beauty and mystery of false religion are the pied piper's tune leading souls to destruction.

Imagine that you go to your bank to withdraw some money. The teller gives you a stack of bills, which you discover are not genuine currency. When you protest, he or she points out the intricate beauty of the design on the bills, claiming that they must be the work of a master counterfeiter. Recognition that you are in possession of high quality counterfeit would probably not make you more inclined to accept it.

Some people use the word counterfeit interchangeably with the word hypocritical. If they say, “All religions are counterfeit” they really mean, “No religion is genuine.” Yet counterfeit currency would not exist if there were not such a thing as genuine currency. Likewise, the existence of counterfeit spirituality actually testifies to the reality of a true spirituality. False messiahs exist because they are imitations of the true Messiah; they cannot gain us access to the God of the universe. Make no mistake, we are all spiritual beings. But the spirituality that God accepts is based on a relationship with Christ, and the indwelling of his Spirit.

Jesus Christ made the bold and polarizing claim that no one could come to the Father except through him. In other words, no other currency could satisfy our debt but the blood of the Lamb who was slain. He freely offers to pay our debt. There is plenty of exquisite counterfeit available, but only the genuine article can purchase eternal life.

________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

The wave of contempt for God's Word that rolled across Europe in the first three years of this century is now crashing against our northern border. Following the lead of liberal Sweden's Riksdag parliament, the Canadian House of Commons approved a bill April 29 that eventually could subdue orthodox, biblical preaching on the sin of homosexuality.

Members of parliament who oppose the bill, such as John McKay, have referred to the legislation as a “chill bill.” Proponents of the bill suggest that a “notwithstanding” clause still protects sermons and other religious rhetoric.

Canada, however, has a history of bowing to the will of the homosexual agenda.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission once fined a Christian $4,500 when he placed an advertisement that condemned homosexuality in a Canadian newspaper. The advertisement, which gave the references to Romans 1:26, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, had “offended” three homosexual men. The actual verses were not even quoted.

When a schoolteacher in British Columbia argued in letters to a newspaper that homosexuality was not innate behavior, he was suspended by his school district for one month without pay. The high court in British Columbia recently ruled that his suspension was valid.

Derek Rogusky, vice president of family policy for Focus on the Family Canada, said that the courts of Canada generally favor the rights of homosexuals over the rights of conservative religious people when the two worldviews collide.

“We've seen through the courts that when religious freedom comes up against gay rights, that in fact religious freedom tends to be more often the loser,” Rogusky said on CBC Newsworld.

The clash of opinions over homosexuality is a driving force behind European policy making. In June 2002, Sweden legalized same-sex adoption. Not long after, the Swedes began allowing 21 of its embassies to “marry” same-sex couples. Sweden also passed a law that criminalizes some biblical exposition on homosexuality –- those that condemn it as a sinful practice.

The Swedish government has dragged the Lutheran Church of Sweden along like a dumb ox. In fact, the church at its 2004 synod will formulate a common liturgy for blessing homosexual unions. Bo Larsson, who directs the offices of Archbishop K.G. Hammar, said that the church “officially” accepts same-sex relations within the church.

“And many of us are not only glad and proud of it, but we want to talk about it,” Larsson said, according to Ecumenical News International. “Jesus and the Gospel stand for everybody's right to equality and freedom from oppression.”

Canada, of course, takes its lead from Europe.

But sadly, one of the groups fighting hardest to gain acceptance for same-sex “marriages” to the north is the United Church of Canada, the largest mainline Protestant denomination in the country. The denomination announced April 23 that it would “intervene” in a Canadian Supreme Court hearing on same-sex “marriage” in order to champion the rights of same-sex partners.

According to the UCC, an organization with Methodist roots, “Christian morality and religious principles require that same-sex couples have access to the same marriage rights as opposite-sex couples.” They believe they can assist the government in the debate against more conservative groups that might not have, let's say, a “proper” understanding of the Bible and the person and work of Christ.

The UCC has published congregational study guides on how to accept homosexuals for membership and “ordered ministry.” Affirm United, an organization established as a UCC program in the 1990s, issues guidelines for writing statements that support open homosexual membership in congregations. One church's statement of affirmation said that it was open to people of every “sexual identity” as a sign “that Christ's community is one of acceptance and love for all people in the same radically inclusive way that Jesus showed us.”

The state of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex “marriages.” Perhaps the tide has crossed our borders. I would say that the church at large in America is safe on high ground, but with the current controversy in the Methodist and Episcopal churches, it seems as if we are battling a veritable tsunami.

You can expect that if the homosexual agenda wins the legislative battle over marriage at the federal level, that its advocates will spare no expense to see that the church falls in line with government policy. It worked in Sweden for them. It worked in Canada.

It will work here, too, if we cease to preach that homosexuality is a sin that can be cleansed by the blood of Christ. If, in the name of “inclusiveness,” we accept the homosexual agenda's Jesus, a Jesus that doesn't require men and women to exchange their filthy rags for spotless white robs, then we will be guilty of throwing concrete life preservers to those who are drowning. Worst of all, we would be preaching a Jesus who died for nothing.

We, as a church, must intervene in our nation's crisis. If the Canadian Parliament will listen to their nation's largest Protestant denomination, perhaps ours will listen to Southern Baptists. The denomination may be America's last best hope to obstruct the homosexual agenda at the federal level.

*

What do you get when you hold a conference with 1,200 people who are all afraid of offending one another? I'll tell you what you DON'T get. You don't get unity, and you don't get agreement on anything.

That's what happened when the Spiritual Activism Conference took place recently in Washington, D.C. According to the NEW YORK TIMES, this group of religious liberals came together to discuss “taking back religion from the conservative Christians.” But the conference members had trouble getting anything specific done.

The TIMES hit it right on the nose when it explained, “Turnout at the Spiritual Activism Conference was high, but if the gathering is any indication, the biggest barrier for liberals may be their regard for pluralism: for letting people say what they want, how they want to, and for trying to include everyone's priorities rather than choosing two or three issues that could inspire a movement.” Never mind even setting policy goals; some conference members were afraid that singing hymns might be enough to upset some members. Instead of coming away with a clear set of objectives, the conference members mostly came away frustrated.

Ironically for a group that prides itself on tolerance, it seems the only thing the conference could agree on was its opposition to the “religious right.” But frustrating as it was for them, the group had to concede that the “religious right” is a lot better at getting things done. BELIEFNET suggests this was because “religious conservatives are willing to argue there is one correct view on policy issues.”

You see, that's the crux of the liberals' problem. This conflict is not about political or social divisions. It's about authority — specifically, whether or not Christians are willing to acknowledge that the Bible is our authority.

Tony Campolo certainly recognized this. Though Tony and I disagree on lots of things, I really like Tony. He's honest, and he loves the Bible. He tried to explain at this conference the necessity of following Scripture. But one participant retorted, “I thought this was a spiritual progressives' conference. I don't want to play the game of 'the Bible says this or that,' or that we get validation from something other than ourselves.”

There you have it. Validation from ourselves simply means you make up your own god. We Christians may interpret the Bible differently; we may apply it to life differently; we may have arguments over exegesis. But the Bible has to be the ultimate authority. Otherwise we end up worshiping the goddess of tolerance and believing that tolerance takes precedence over truth.

Dorothy Sayers, the great English writer, said it best: “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”

This kind of so-called “tolerance” can never bring people together, but only as we saw in Washington, pull them farther apart.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #18044]

During my daily rounds at the hospital, I came across a room where I could immediately tell by looking through the glass doorway that the man inside, though his back was to me, was visibly disturbed. He was anxiously sitting up on the far side of the bed with his feet hanging off while he pulled repeatedly at the unkempt sheets.

Knocking on the door frame, I announced myself: “Hello, I'm Chaplain Jon. Is everything all right in here?”

Pointing to the wall at the foot of the bed, the man replied, “No, there is a crucifix.” I sighed as I examined the wall, knowing full well what was there, and I quickly looked at my census list to verify the patient information and faith tradition. I found the room number and the only word I needed to see: Hindu.

As a Protestant chaplain serving at a Catholic hospital in the multicultural and interfaith environment of Los Angeles, it was not infrequent for me to find patients perturbed by the presence of a crucifix on their wall. Trying to be diplomatic and defuse the situation, I explained, “If you are offended by the crucifix, I can make arrangements for it to be removed during your stay here.” The truth, more accurately, is that some of the more zealous of the Catholic faith had learned of this practice of accommodating people of other faith traditions, and had most of the crucifixes permanently installed on the wall, so the best effort to accommodate patients often was to drape a cloth over the offending relic.

The Hindu patient left me dumbfounded by what he told me next. Turning more toward me and pulling one knee onto the bed, his face wrinkling from being misunderstood, he explained, “I am not offended by the crucifix. I am disturbed that it is at the foot of my bed, which is a place of dishonor in my culture. Every time I lie down, I feel as if I am disrespecting the God of this hospital.”

The teacher had just become the student. I was overwhelmed with how much respect this man had for a faith not his own. I couldn't help but think that I had just glimpsed a nugget of human unity whose offspring surely is peace.

________

Reverend Jon Arnold (c) 2004 from Chicken Soup for the Soul Stories for A Better World by Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen, Candice C. Carter, Susanna Palomares, Linda K. Williams and Bradley L. Winch. All rights reserved

*

In 1989, the builders of a tea garden in a San Francisco park inadvertently left a parking barrier behind. Four years of complaints yielded zero efforts to remove the eyesore. Then — and I'm not making this up — a group of New Agers began to venerate the barrier as “a manifestation of the Hindi god, Shiva.”

Quicker than you can say “wall of separation,” park rangers hastened to remove the now-sacred eyesore. While the barrier's worshippers eventually got to keep the object of their veneration, officials insisted that their worship be in private.

It's hard to imagine a better example of the tortured relationship between religion and public life. Fortunately, however, there's a new book that offers a possible way out of the mess we have created.

In THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG, attorney Kevin Hasson [see also HolwickID #30790] calls those who insist on excluding religion from the public square “park rangers,” named after those rangers who drove people worshipping parking barriers out of their park. The insistence of the rangers is rooted in the belief that “freedom is simply incompatible with public claims of religious truth ..." no matter “how harmless” those claims may be.

But “park rangers” aren't the only people out to restrict the free exercise of religion. The other side of this restrictionist coin is those whom Hasson calls “pilgrims.” The “pilgrim” response to religious diversity is to restrict or “outlaw others' religious freedom in the name of their own truth.” Some good Christians fall into this trap.

Hasson's alternative to these extremes begins by acknowledging that “religious diversity is a fact of life” that can't be “outlawed,” and “needn't be glorified.” Instead, our goal should be to live “authentically” in the midst of this diversity and allow others to do the same.

How you do this is what sets Hasson apart from other commentators. He doesn't ground religious freedom in the kind of relativism that says all religions are equally valid and, thus, all deserving of respect. Hasson knows that believers in different religions can and do vehemently disagree about a lot.

Since people don't agree about God, Hasson proposes that they agree about man, instead — specifically, that “man is born to seek freely the truth about God,” a truth that our nation's founders embraced when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

This idea makes what Hasson calls “pluralism without relativism” possible. The “right to be wrong” means respecting “others' duty to follow their conscience even as we insist that they're mistaken.”

That's why Hasson, as head of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, represents not only Christians, but also Muslim cops in Newark and Jewish prisoners in Texas. His defense of Muslims has earned him the right to be heard on al-Jazeera, an audience that, as recent events show, needs to embrace religious freedom.

While Hasson's approach, given our elites' hostility to religion, may not be the way to “end the culture war honorably,” it is the right way to think about religious freedom — everybody's freedom. Like Hasson, I'm confident that Christianity, rightly articulated, will prevail in the free market of ideas — that is, if the park rangers will stick to protecting picnic baskets.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Around A.D. 800, Timothy, a patriarch of the Nestorian church, engaged in a famous debate with the Muslim caliph in Baghdad. The discussion was marked by reason and civility on both sides.

Imagine, Timothy said, that we are all in a dark house, and someone throws a precious pearl in the midst of a pile of ordinary stones. Everyone scrabbles for the pearl, and some think they’ve found it, but nobody can be sure until day breaks.

In the same way, he said, the pearl of true faith and wisdom had fallen into the darkness of this transitory world; each faith believed that it alone had found the pearl. Yet all he could claim - and all the caliph could say in response - was that some faiths thought they had enough evidence to prove that they were indeed holding the real pearl, but the final truth would not be known in this world.

________

Philip Jenkins, professor of the humanities at Penn State University

Many Americans regard religion, for all the good it does, as a source of conflict. They think of places like Northern Ireland, South Asia, or the Middle East and wonder if a little less religion might not be good for social peace. But as a recent Wall Street Journal article points out, they’re not looking close enough to home.

Naomi Schaefer Riley points to what she calls the “riddle of American exceptionalism.” How is it that “one of the most religiously fervent [countries] in the world” is, at the same time, “one of the most religiously tolerant”? As she puts it, “generally, societies are one or the other.”

She’s right. For example, Iran is very religious, but no one would call it “tolerant.” Likewise, Scandinavian countries are very tolerant but no one would call them “religiously fervent.”

So why is America both? Citing the work by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Riley credits what she calls “religious bridging” — that is, having friends and acquaintances of a different faith.

According to the data, among the average American’s five closest friends, between two and three “are of other faiths.” What’s more, half of all Americans are married to “someone of a different faith from the one in which they were raised.”

This “bridging” has the effect of changing people’s attitudes toward different religions. For example, simply getting to know a real, live evangelical, as opposed to the media caricature, increases a person’s positive feelings toward evangelicals in general.

According to Riley, “This finding bodes well for the health of American religion and for American tolerance.” She is encouraged that Americans seem more willing to overlook “abstract lessons we were once taught” in favor of “facts on the ground.”

But I think that Riley and the people at Pew have missed the real reason that Americans are both religious and tolerant. It’s because we remembered those lessons — we didn’t overlook them — the lessons, that is, that Christianity teaches about the dignity and sanctity of the person.

Unlike other religions, Christianity does not require a choice between fervor and tolerance. We believe that our God created us in His image and gave us a free will so that we could love Him. If we were forced to accept Him, it wouldn’t be love.

Free will is the very essence of what we believe as Christians, which makes tolerance a must. By “tolerance,” I don’t mean the mushy, politically correct way the word is used today. Not a license to do anything you want; but the real kind of tolerance that respects the deepest convictions of other human beings, and regards them as worthy of respect — even if we strongly disagree.

This irony — that it is America’s specifically Christian religious fervor that makes tolerance possible — is what’s missing from this story. It couldn’t happen in Islamic or even Buddhist societies, as recent events in Sri Lanka illustrate.

What’s more, Riley was wrong in claiming that overlooking “abstract lessons we were once taught” produces tolerance. That only produces indifference. And it’s hard to respect other people’s convictions when you don’t even notice them.

No, when believers apply those so-called abstract lessons about freedom and human dignity — that’s when we see true tolerance.

________

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

[Holwick- Not a typical “safe” sermon illustration but shows an extreme angle on acceptance and not judging. Good for shock value and contrast. I view the condition as an emotional/psychological/spiritual disorder.]

Ain't for the Likes of Me to Judge

by Paulette S. Menard

Taunton, Massachusetts, USA

I am a male-to-female transsexual and have successfully transitioned fully to female. In the course of my transition, I had let slip many friendships due to many factors, among them fear of non-acceptance.

Emil is a friend who owns a motel in the next state. He moved there because it was getting too crowded here in the “flat lands”. We became friendly when I first stopped at his motel many years ago because we had been from neighboring towns. It was a chance for Emil to reconnect with his roots. I visited him two or three times a year as a male.

I hadn't visited Emil throughout my transition because he can be rather conservative in his politics, is a lifelong bachelor, and is rough as a corn cob. After my surgery and living my new life for a while, I felt it was time to try to connect with him again.

I went to Emil's motel and registered, and asked the desk clerk if Emil was around. She said he was at his cottage. After putting my things in my cottage, I walked over to visit him. I could see him watching me walk up and there was no recognition in his eyes.

I said hello and could see him working hard to place me. Suddenly his eyes lit up and he said, “Well, hi yourself. Come up and sit yourself down here. Want a beer?” He looked me up and down -- I was in a dress and he only had known me as man. His next words to me were, “Look different, don't ya.” I smiled, laughed and agreed. We chatted about our respective hometowns and other things for most of the afternoon. All the while I felt he was carefully avoiding asking any questions about what had happened to me. It got on to dinnertime and Emil said, “Don't suppose you're hungry? Got a roast in the oven for tomorrow, but you're here today.”

During dinner I asked him why he hadn't asked any questions about how I looked. “Fig'red you'd get around to telling me sooner or later,” he replied. So I told him about the reasons for my transition and the forces that led up to it. His only question was “Are you happy?” I replied yes, and as far as he was concerned that was that!

After dinner as we were sitting and talking I asked him what he thought about my transition. His response was “Ain't for the likes of me to judge one way or t'other.” It's funny, but sometimes those you expect to have an adverse reaction to such a major life change are the first ones to accept. Even now, a few months after this happened, I still get misty-eyed when I think of how accepting Emil is. I find this whole episode to be amazing. You just can't tell a book by its cover.

I thought long and hard before publishing this story, but decided that it was important: in my experience, people don't know much about transsexuals, and fear them. It is, I think, a fear of the unknown; part of my goal with HeroicStories is to show that people *are* people, even if they are different than you are. (This, for instance, is why I try so hard to get stories from countries other than USA; I want readers to see the humanity behind who they might consider “enemies”; it's very much harder to drop bombs on *people* you have some understanding of, and empathy with, than “enemies”.)

As a “sanity check”, I ran the story by the subscribers of the “Hero Talk” discussion list. At the time, there were about 140 people on the list; I asked if this was too controversial for HS. The reaction was VERY strong: they argued forcefully that I should run the story. With the permission of the people quoted, I'm including some of their comments here.

Andrew in British Columbia, Canada: “Paulette's decision to risk 'coming out' to a close friend, after letting many other friendships fall by the wayside, is a heroic breaching of her comfort zone. Emil's *lack* of reaction is heroic; I'd venture to say that most, if not all, people would exhibit at least a modicum of shock, if not open intolerance, and I very much doubt you could find a large number of people who would be as hospitable as Emil was. Heroism often lies in jolting people out of their complacency, and this story certainly has the potential to do that in spades. If we're on the front lines against prejudice and intolerance, we daren't shy away from a potential victory because we fear the backlash from the prejudiced and intolerant.” Paul in Colorado: “The hero accepts and demonstrates unconditional love. That was Jesus' message. How wonderful it got through!”

The Wall Street Journal arrives at my office every morning. I read it for a relatively balanced view of cultural trends and financial markets in the U.S. and the world. Needless to say, I was shocked when the Journal ran articles about Southern Baptists and Apple Corporation’s Tim Cook on the same page. Interestingly, Cook’s “coming out” announcement actually was verification of old news. Running a story about Southern Baptists above the fold was a shock.

The headline read, “Southern Baptists Soften Tone on Gays.” Really?

Unlike the Roman Catholics who change at the whim of a pontiff, Southern Baptists on the whole have changed nothing because our core belief system is based on the unchanging absolutes of God’s Word. At the very least, the headline is misleading.

Consequently, allow me to list of five simple things to remember about Baptists, especially in the context of the social confusion created by a small minority of American citizens:

First, Baptists are people of the Book.

The principles of God’s Word are neither for sale nor are they negotiable. That makes Baptists a stubborn lot. When Baptists have made mistakes by following cultural prejudices instead of scriptural truths, they on the whole tend to repent and move forward, hoisting high the Word of God as the authority for life, liberty and purposefulness.

While biblical principles are for all people everywhere, embracing the Gospel by faith gives individuals the opportunity to enter a personal relationship with the ultimate Author and Teacher of the Word. As a result, Baptists tend to test their worldview by the Word of God and desire that every aspect of life is compatible with its truths.

Second, Baptists love people.

Collectively, Baptists love people so much they invest millions of dollars in ministries to help people in the United States and around the world. They volunteer for all kinds of helping ministries. They know that being part of a church is more than the number of noses at some church gathering. They are part of a community of believers involved in touching the world with the Gospel.

Baptists believe they have experienced the transformational love of God for their personal lives, and as a result they want to communicate God’s love to individuals and all cultures. They love people who are broken. After all, they were one of the major players pre-WWII in building hospitals to serve people with medical needs. They love people who lack basic literacy skills by launching educational ministries to teach knowledge and wisdom. Through ministries to children and the sexually exploited, Baptists demonstrate love for people who are abandoned.

When calamities strike, it is Baptists with those bright yellow shirts who are some of the first on the scene to help people through the crisis. It is in our spiritual DNA to love people and help them walk through their trials. Our hope is that others see the love of God through us.

Third, no Baptist can speak for all Baptists.

Someone can speak in a general way about Baptists. Someone can speak to Baptists. But to speak for all Baptists is contrary to our autonomous nature. Beyond Scripture, the closest thing we have to address the sentiments of Baptists relating to moral or social issues are the various resolutions that are passed at annual meetings. Even that is the reflection of thought of the Baptists meeting at that moment in history.

Fourth, Baptists trust the transformational Gospel more than psychotherapy.

As one media source put it, “reparative therapies aimed at ridding patients of unwanted same-sex attractions” were discussed during the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission’s national conference on “The Gospel, Homosexuality and the Future of Marriage” last month in Nashville. While there is a place for the psychologist, Baptists are highly suspicious of that work when it sterilizes the transformational power of the Gospel.

ERLC President Russell Moore suggested that instead of looking to psychologists for a cure for same-sex attraction, people need to look to Christ for the power to overcome temptation of all forms. “The Bible doesn’t promise us freedom from temptation,” Moore said. “The Bible promises us the power of the Spirit to walk through the temptation.”

Fifth, Baptists are the standard bearers for religious liberty and good public policy.

The current debate in our nation is actually whether dichotomous worldviews can exist with equality. While in theory that sounds compelling, in a practical sense it is next to impossible. In the context of religious freedom, the majority worldview must accommodate the minority. Currently, the minority worldview of the LGBT is clamoring for acceptance and does not tolerate the biblical convictions of believers who have influenced this culture for decades.

Will Baptists withdraw from the discussion? Not on your life! And do not mistake our compassion for people as acquiescence of our biblical convictions.

As part of convictional living, Baptists have a history of promoting justice and the common good. We work for laws that are historically founded and generationally positive. We cannot shrink from the responsibility that God has called us to lead people to repentance and faith in Christ. Remember, the law is to be a tutor to show people what unrighteousness looks like.

As Baptists living in a representative form of government, we promote laws for better health for women and the lives of children in the womb. We encourage legislators to protect the aged from social engineers who devalue the life of those who no longer make a recognized contribution to society. We oppose elected officials who abuse the power of their office by rewriting policy and by failing to enforce constitutional measures the citizenry has overwhelmingly adopted. We applaud statutes that protect minors from abusive persons. The list of good practices that promote the common good is huge, and Baptists are involved with a history of being convictional people more than culturally relevant.

As I wrote this article, additional news broke about the 276 school girls who were kidnapped by the Boko Haram terrorist group in Nigeria. The leader, Abubakar Shekau, dashed hopes for a prisoner exchange to get the girls released. He boasted that these young girls were married off as the spoils of war.

Such a notion is anathema where biblical Christianity flourishes. If anyone questions the importance of Baptists being Baptists, point them to the tragedy of a culture that exists for the whims of human deviance. Let us continue to be convictionally compassionate and diligent intercessors so “that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good acceptable in the sight of God our Savior” (1 Timothy 2:2-3).

Acts 17:1–21 — Thessalonica, Berea, Athens — (outline by F. F. Bruce, NICNT) « Leader information shown in this fashion »

{A.} The Birth of the Church (1:1–5:42)

{B.} Persecution and Expansion (6:1–9:31)

{C.} The Acts of Peter & Beginnings of Gentile Christianity (9:32-12:25)

{D.} Church Extension from Antioch & Apostolic Decree at Jerusalem

(12:25–15:35)

{E.} Paul Leaves Antioch & Moves to the Aegean World (15:36–19:20)

{1} Recently Planted Churches Revisited (15:36–16:5)

A. Paul Parts Company with Barnabas and Takes Silas as His Colleague (15:36–41)

B. Paul & Silas in South Galatia; Timothy Joins Them (16:1–4)

C. The Churches Grow in Faith & Numbers (16:5)

{2} Philippi (16:6–40)

A. The Call from Macedonia (16:6–10)

B. Troas to Philippi (16:11–12a)

C. The Faith of Lydia (16:12b–15)

D. The “Pythoness” (16:16–18)

E. Paul and Silas Imprisoned (16:19–24)

F. Earthquake at Midnight: the Jailer’s Conversion (16:25-34)

1. The Earthquake and the Jailer (16:25-28)

2. The Jailer and Salvation (16:29-34)

G. Paul and Silas Leave Philippi (16:35-40)

{3} Thessalonica to Athens (17:1-34)

A. Arrival in Thessalonica (17:1-4, NKJV): 1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

1. Follow their journey on the map.

2. At the end of the previous chapter the missionaries left Philippi; who are those who came to Thessalonica? … who was left? « – Paul, Silas and Timothy departed; Luke, who reappears later in Acts 20:5–6 on Paul’s third missionary journey, is left behind. »

3. How did the missionaries’ approach differ from that in Philippi? « – that they were able to meet in a synagogue (more evidence that there was no synagogue in Philippi) »

4. What was Paul’s course of action in presenting the gospel? … why was this appropriate? « – he met in their place of worship and used the Old Testament as his authority; this was a common ground for discussion with people acknowledging the true God »

5. Who previously had taught that Messiah must suffer (see Mark 8:31, Luke 24:26, 46)? « – Jesus himself, both before and after His death and resurrection »

6. Who previously had taught that Jesus was Messiah (Acts 2:36)? « – Peter on the day of Pentecost »

7. Some teachers and ministers portray Paul’s gospel as different from that of the other apostles and Jesus; what do you think? Why? « – it is the same; salvation through a resurrected Messiah »

8. A church is born here at Thessalonica; what was its character? « – of Jews, God-fearing Gentiles, prominent women

»

B. Trouble at Thessalonica (17:5–9, NKJV): 5 But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. 6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brethren to the rulers of the city, crying out, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here too. 7 Jason has harbored them, and these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king — Jesus.” 8 And they troubled the crowd and the rulers of the city when they heard these things. 9 So when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

1. What was there occasion for envy? « – this sect of the Way was gaining converts, even from among those whom the Jews had been “wooing” »

2. How did Paul show himself (at a later time) free from such envy (Philippians 1:15-18, 1 Corinthians 1:12–13, 3:5–6) « – if people are coming to the faith, no matter through whom, he rejoices »

3. What are some other translations of “evil men”? « – “lewd fellows of the baser sort” (AV), “bad characters” (NIV), “unprincipled loungers” (Philips), “ruffians” (NRSV) »

4. What is one mark of an impure religion (see also Matthew 26:60 or Mark 14:57–59; also John 11:50, 18:14)? « – the end purpose is considered justification for any means used to achieve it: even lying and murder »

5. How were the Jews’ accusations like those against Jesus?

a. Verse 6 with Luke 23:5 « – they were causing tumult, by their challenging the established order »

b. Verse 7 with Luke 23:1, John 19:12 « – the Kingship of Jesus as being subversive to the authority of Caesar »

c. In what sense were these accusations true (see for example Matthew 10:34–39) « – Jesus Christ and His teaching are totally opposed to the current world order »

d. In what sense were they misrepresentations (see for example Mark 12:17, John 19:10–11) « – Christianity affirms the need for and right of secular rulers (as God’s deputies) »

C. Berea (17:10–15, NKJV): 10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. 13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds. 14 Then immediately the brethren sent Paul away, to go to the sea; but both Silas and Timothy remained there. 15 So those who conducted Paul brought him to Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him with all speed, they departed.

1. This is a society that supports, at least with lip-service, toleration – but true faith must by the very nature of truth be exclusive: there is ONE Way, ONE Saviour, ONE faith – what are the marks of fair-minded religious tolerance? « – listening readily and checking thoroughly against the Bible »

2. What was the result of this? … the implication? « – many Jews, Gentiles, prominent women believed; examined objectively, Christianity can hold its own and will, through the Holy Spirit, result in genuine conversions »

3. Why was Paul an especial target of the opposition? « – his Bible knowledge and training gave him great power in presenting the gospel and refuting Jewish objections; his reputation must have been formidable (consider Festus’ words, “Much learning doth make thee mad.”) »

D. Athens (17:16–21, NKJV): « This section not covered until following week » 16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. 17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. 18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? 20 For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean.” 21 For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. « (Epicureans: “eat, drink and be merry boys”; Stoics: “real men don’t cry”) »

1. What is the “therefore” in verse 17 there for? « – it was the idol worship in particular that resulted in his actions and speech »

2. What made this in Athens different from other Gentile cities? « – the degree and extent of idolatry; as at one time in Jerusalem, they seemed to adopt every deity that came along »

3. That this should cause Paul to argue in the marketplace is easy to see; but why in the synagogues (Psalm 96:3)? « – evidently the Jews had had little influence against idolatry in their community »

4. What gods did they think Paul was preaching? « – Jesus and Anastasis (resurrection); the Greeks and Romans established gods for almost every commonplace occurrence of life »

5. How did they spend their time? « – looking for novelties »