DownshoreDrift

Obama, Gosnell, Planned Parenthood, and the Born Alive Infant Protection Acts 2001-2003

As the Dr. Kermit Gosnell case really hit the news last week, I kept hearing bits and pieces about President Obama's votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Acts when he was an Illinois state senator a decade ago. Obama voted against these acts four times because he feared that they would somehow erode abortion rights. Obama's political opponents stated that he was in favor of infanticide, and like so many other partisan attacks of recent years, I dismissed these attacks as over-the-top. But, with the Gosnell allegations of perhaps at least over 100 babies "born-alive" who were then killed, I started wondering if we had a situation where Obama had, in fact, voted against a bill in Illinois that would have been applicable to the Gosnell case. 

As I looked into the situation further, I decided to go to Left-leaning sources to find out what they said. I was shocked. Even Left-leaning news sources like the Washington Post FactChecker and Factcheck.org agreed that Obama had voted four times against legislation that would beef up protections for babies who were born alive after surviving abortion attempts. They disagreed with the charge that he was PRO infanticide, understandably, but they did agree that he did not support legislation that virtually every Democrat and Republican in the country said was reasonable. 

The synopsis from the Washington Post FactChecker:

The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”

Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:

“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

Notice that Obama referred to “previable fetuses,” or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the mother’s body. Obama’s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb.Critics contend that this interpretation is not necessarily true because some previable fetuses survive after delivery from an unsuccessful abortion. They argue that Obama essentially opposed protecting the survivors.

Illinois lawmakers voted down identical versions of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001 and 2002 before a new iteration of the bill came before the Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, headed by Obama. This new legislation removed the controversial line about recognizing live-born children as humans and giving them immediate protection under the law. It also addressed Obama’s concern about previable fetuses, adding a “neutrality clause” that said the measure would not affect the legal status of fetuses prior to delivery.

Nonetheless, Obama voted against the new bill, which happened to be an almost exact replica — almost to the word — of a federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that passed in 2002 without opposition in either politial party. (Updated: The vote in the House was by voice vote and the vote in the Senate was by unanimous consent.)

 

The liberal-leaning Factcheck.org tells the same story.

So, what do we make of this? The facts are that Obama voted FOUR times against a bill that would have better protected babies born alive after abortions because of an assertion that it would have weakened abortion rights. Obama weighed the survival of live babies against the possibility of weakening the ability to abort babies in utero. While this might fall short of advocating for infanticide, it most definitely shifts priority from a live baby to the desire of the mother to have that baby killed. That is the philosophical jump necessary for Infanticide to be accepted in our society and our president made that jump and voted for it officially FOUR times.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell in his "House of Horrors," according to testimony, killed over 100 "born-alive" babies who survived the initial abortion attempt under the philosophy that the intent of the mother was to abort the child so that made it acceptable. This perspective is gaining steam as Marc A. Theissen wrote for The Washington Post on April 8th:

"Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

No, Alisa. It is murder to kill a child that is born and is struggling for life. How is this even up for debate?

Kermit Gosnell. Planned Parenthood. President Obama. All have the same philosophy that Abortion "Rights" trump the Human Rights of a baby born alive at the result of a botched abortion. While maybe they are not going around and advocating for Infanticide, what they have all done is exalt the desire of the mother past birth when the baby is outside of her body and have decided that that desire of the woman is greater than the right of the defenseless baby to live. The ramifications of this are horrifying and the fact that our president, not some fringe political outlier, supports this view, should be of grave concern to every American. Is the Abortion battle now headed outside the womb? Is the Gosnell situation not as rare as we would like to believe? How far will America go in supporting a woman's "right to choose?" With a national health care system emerging, will decisions be made regarding viability for babies already born to not treat them or try to help them survive if they have difficult illnesses or if the parent decides they do not want them?

How far does this philosophy go?

And, please do not tell me that I am employing the slippery-slope fallacy. American politics tells us that the "slippery slope" is alive and well, as does an abortion clinic in West Philadelphia.

Oh, and one other question: Is this why the media might not be eager to run with the Gosnell story? 

How to End the Media Blackout of the Gosnell Case TODAY.

I wrote about this the other day, but the Media-Bias-Blackout of the Gosnell Abortion/Infanticide case in Philadelphia continues, by and large. Kirsten Powers wrote about it on Wednesday for the USA Today and she asked the questions that every member of the Media who reported on Sandra Fluke, Trayvon Martin, Newtown, Aurora, or any other story that gained national attention should be asking here: Why is the Media silent on the Kermit Gosnell Case? 

See the Powers article here: http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2072577

Mollie Z. Hemingway, writing for Patheos, addressed this story yesterday and convinced me to start directly contacting reporters via Twitter about why they are not covering this case. Here are a couple of her articles:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/04/media-on-gosnell-adjust-the-framing/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/04/a-wapo-reporter-explains-her-personal-gosnell-blackout/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/04/politico-and-atlantic-coms-turn-to-explain-gosnell-blackout/

Many groups are calling for a concerted Twitter barrage on national media outlets today to let them know that they need to be covering this story.  

http://www.christianpost.com/news/tweetfest-seeks-to-shame-media-on-gosnell-blackout-93790/

If you have Twitter and have some time, perhaps you will participate in highlighting this story and its implications. The fact that it is being ignored when we are hit everyday with banalities in our media coverage tells us all we need to know about the "truth" that we are getting from the national news media on this and who knows what other issues. Babies were killed - perhaps hundreds of them. This is a major story. It should be told. 

Good to see Conor Friedersdorf pick up the story for The Atlantic now. He agrees that this should be front page news and details the horror of this story masterfully:

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

Conor says, 

"For this isn't solely a story about babies having their heads severed, though it is that. It is also a story about a place where, according to the grand jury, women were sent to give birth into toilets; where a doctor casually spread gonorrhea and chlamydiae to unsuspecting women through the reuse of cheap, disposable instruments; an office where a 15-year-old administered anesthesia; an office where former workers admit to playing games when giving patients powerful narcotics; an office where white women were attended to by a doctor and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers. Any single one of those things would itself make for a blockbuster news story. Is it even conceivable that an optometrist who attended to his white patients in a clean office while an intern took care of the black patients in a filthy room wouldn't make national headlines?

"But it isn't even solely a story of a rogue clinic that's awful in all sorts of sensational ways either. Multiple local and state agencies are implicated in an oversight failure that is epic in proportions! If I were a city editor for any Philadelphia newspaper the grand jury report would suggest a dozen major investigative projects I could undertake if I had the staff to support them. And I probably wouldn't have the staff. But there is so much fodder for additional reporting.  

"There is, finally, the fact that abortion, one of the most hotly contested, polarizing debates in the country, is at the center of this case. It arguably informs the abortion debate in any number of ways, and has numerous plausible implications for abortion policy, including the oversight and regulation of clinics, the appropriateness of late-term abortions, the penalties for failing to report abuses, the statute of limitations for killings like those with which Gosnell is charged, whether staff should be legally culpable for the bad behavior of doctors under whom they work..."

A list of some Twitter handles for major news outlets and reporters:

@ezraklein
@ggreenwald
@JoeNBC
@NickKristof
@AnnCurry
@Newsweek
@Slate
@NYTimes
@NPRNews
@HuffingtonPost
@Salon
@WSJ
@WashingtonPost
@FoxNews
@LIFE
@CNN
@DrSanjayGupta
@AndersonCooper
@thenation
@Politico

I encourage you to contact each of these news outlets and reporters and let them know that this story should be covered. Use any of the links above in your tweet.

Should We Be Talking About Treason? Is Christ Divided? What the BFM2000 Has to Say on the Matter

Something of a dustup occurred in the SBC Blogosphere recently when Norm Miller, the Director of Communication and Marketing at Truett-McConnell College (SBC) in Georgia and editor/moderator/contributor for the Traditionalist SBCToday.com group blog commented in a post about the ideal SBC president and who it should NOT be. Miller referred to the Lifeway study called The Gospel Project and its inclusion of writers from Christian backgrounds beyond the SBC. Apparently, Miller thinks it a negative thing to bring in other perspectives to SBC Bible Study material and he blames Ed Stetzer, General Editor of The Gospel Project (www.gospelproject.com) and head of Lifeway Research for this egregious error: 

"To allow those outside of our denomination and who hold doctrinal positions diametrically opposed to our doctrinal positions to then comment to us about theology and doctrine through a teaching curriculum is not a matter that should require me to use scripture to refute as we are aware of our doctrinal differences with Anglicans, Methodists and Presbys. To wit: works salvation, falling from grace, and baptizing babies, respectively. I should not have to offer biblical evidences to the contrary of those positions which I believe are not biblical, nor are they Baptist. I therefore see inviting such people to speak to the SBC in a teaching curriculum, e.g., smacks of ecumenicism at least, and allowing wolves in the sheeps’ pen at worst.
This is not the sort of behavior that pleases me in a Southern Baptist leader (Stetzer). Such behavior is not Southern Baptist statesmanship; it is treason. I would seek no such traits in an SBC presidential candidate. — Norm"

According to Miller it is ecumenicism, faithless shepherding, and treason to add in voices from the broader Christian traditions to Southern Baptist literature. Never mind that nothing that is written in The Gospel Project undermines or contradicts any Baptist doctrine. It is just the fact that Anglicans, Methodists, and Presbyterians are quoted in the literature only in places where they are in agreement with our teaching, that is so offensive and traitorous. I would understand the concern if the teachings listed above that we DO NOT agree with were being advocated in TGP, but Miller is saying that because someone from another denomination is in error in one place that they then have nothing to offer us and to act as they do is an an act of denominational treason - even where we think they are correct and speaking Biblically. This is dangerous and unsustainable. With that metric as a guide, Southern Baptists should then reject every statement made by any Baptist leader who also was in favor of racial segregation pre-1970 (even the teachings that we agree with - even the leader himself) because we have now rejected that teaching as gross theological error. We tend to be more charitable toward our own errors, however. 

Ed Stetzer wrote a response yesterday where he compared The Gospel Project's use of other voices with Dr. Paige Patterson's quoting Christians from other traditions in his recently completed commentary on Revelation. Stetzer asks if Patterson, a Traditionalist hero, is a traitor for doing so? The obvious answer would be "no." So, what is the difference? I guess that people you agree with can engage in actions that you might find offensive in those with whom you do not agree.

http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2013/04/10/paige-patterson-is-not-a-traitor/

But, this all begs a larger question: Who are the real traitors to the body of Christ? Is it people like Ed Stetzer who meet with and work with and bring in voices from the larger body of Christ on the areas of our common agreement? Or, is it people who seek to isolate themselves from the larger church in one narrowing move after another? I would prefer leaving the treason/traitor talk aside as I think that the whole concept is ludicrous, but if it is going to be used, perhaps we can find apply its use in other directions as well?

When we continuously isolate ourselves along ever narrowing parameters, we are not protecting doctrine - we are actually doing damage to other aspects of the doctrine that we should be preserving. John 17 records Jesus' prayer to the Father that we be one just as he and the Father are one. Romans 12:5,10 says that we belong to one another and are to be devoted to one another in brotherly love. We know that if we are truly children of God through faith in Christ that we will spend eternity together. Now, I am all for denominational distinctives and I am not advocating some kind of "let's all just get along" theology. On the contrary. I think that vigorous debate and disagreement can be a good thing as it sharpens us and teaches us how to love one another even when we don't agree. We can be unified in Christ and still disagree on things. But, what about where we DO agree? When an Anglican says something that I can affirm as true, isn't that something that we should highlight and celebrate? Aren't those points of agreement between brothers who differ in some areas the very things that we should be excited about in relation to the witness of the church and Christian unity? Now, our unity is in Christ, not our agreement on every possible doctrinal issue. But, isn't highlighting what we do agree on a good thing? Why would we want to disparage it?

The Gospel Project only presents doctrine and writings from throughout the larger Christian community that Baptists could agree with and that is consistent with our confession of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp). Really, TGP actually strengthens the Baptist position instead of weakening it. The BFM2000 highlights Baptist distinctives but it also places the SBC in the midst of the larger body of Christ and calls us to work and play well with others who are not of our tribe. For example:


Article VI: The Church - "The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation." So, we recognize that the "church" is more than just the SBC - it is every redeemed believer in Christ everywhere.

Article IX: The Kingdom - "The Kingdom of God includes both His general sovereignty over the universe and His particular kingship over men who willfully acknowledge Him as King. Particularly the Kingdom is the realm of salvation into which men enter by trustful, childlike commitment to Jesus Christ. Christians ought to pray and to labor that the Kingdom may come and God's will be done on earth. The full consummation of the Kingdom awaits the return of Jesus Christ and the end of this age." Here we see an admission that the Kingdom of God is bigger than the SBC. People all over the world are submitting to God and are entering His Kingdom.

Article XIV: Cooperation - "Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament." It seems like The Gospel Project found a way for Christians of different denominations to express truth together in ways that neither violated conscience nor compromised loyalty to Christ. 

It seems as though Ed Stetzer and the writers of The Gospel Project, in trying to bring in the best scholarship from other denominations and find common ground with believers from the larger church who make up God's Kingdom, are actually living out the implications of the BFM2000. Those accusing them of treason are perhaps the ones who are engaging in their own form of treason - against the larger body of Christ (again, the term is unhelpful and I don't think anyone is actually committing treason - I am simply using the term to prove a point).

We will always have different denominations and churches. We see certain things differently. But, when we stop making an effort to work together and learn from one another along the lines of where we at least DO agree, then we begin to do violence to the common unity that should exist in the larger body of Christ. When we isolate ourselves even from those we agree with, we begin to fall into schism and we ignore the larger spiritual truth that we are all one in Christ. I join with Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:13 in asking, "Is Christ divided?"

When we ignore or disparage those voices from other Christian streams who are saying things that we can agree with just because they are not of our tribe, we damage our witness before the world. Jesus said that the world would know that we are his disciples by how we love one another (John 13:34-35). What do we witness to when we declare it to be denominational treason when we simply quote from other Christians in other denominations? At that point, do we not then commit another form of treason against the larger body of Christ of which we are a part? Is Christ divided? 

When we eliminate the insight from brothers and sisters of other streams and cease to interact with them, even on areas of agreement and work with them where we can, do we not weaken ourselves and also weaken them? If the teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is true about how each member of the body needs the other and without us each contributing then the whole body suffers, are we not causing the whole body of Christ to suffer through calling for isolation and attempting to shut off communication and the transmission of thought? Is that not a move against the body of Christ? Could that not be considered a form of treason? Is Christ divided?

There are good reasons that I am a Baptist and that I am not an Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc. There are significant areas with which I disagree with those groups and where I affirm Baptist theology and ecclesiology. But, I would actually be denying my own confession of faith if I did not also attempt to work with and learn from other segments of the body of Christ whenever I could - especially in the common areas where we agree. To shut myself off from them and ONLY communicate with and learn from Southern Baptists would be its own form of treason against the larger church and would perhaps label me a traitor - not to the SBC necessarily, but to the body of Christ as a whole, of which the SBC is just a part (again, the treason/traitor talk is silly - I hope the reader can see the point I am trying to make). As Article VI on the Church says, God's church is made up of the redeemed from all ages and every people group around the world. It is made up of those who God has saved and loved, not only of those that we approve of and want to be in fellowship with, necessarily. We should submit to God's will and not try and establish our own when it comes to the Bride of Christ. 

I have been blogging as an SBC pastor since 2006. In that time period, I have seen the Baptist Identity movement emerge, the Joshua Convergence, the John 3:16ers, and now the Traditionalists. There are a lot of good people in those movements - some that I consider friends. There is much that they promote that we can all benefit from. But, those movements, on their worst days, have also - at times - leaned toward isolationism. Accusing those who want to engage with Christians from other denominations on points of agreement of "treason" is not helpful and could be seen as a form of unnecessary division itself - against the larger body of Christ. My prayer is that that is NOT what is believed among those segments of SBC life, that the criticism of The Gospel Project along these lines will cease, and that we will seek to celebrate the points at which we agree with our brothers and sisters of other denominations while simultaneously holding to our own Biblical convictions as Baptists in humility with charity toward all. 

Again I ask, Is Christ divided?

Why the Media Blackout on the Philadelphia Abortionist/Infanticide Trial?

Here on Downshoredrift.com I have highlighted from time-to-time the Media bias in our country over different issues. Here is another such issue. There is a trial going on in Philadelphia where Dr. Kermit Gosnell has been accused of killing 7 babies who were born alive after botched abortions. Sworn testimony says that over 100 babies were killed after being born. This should be a MAJOR national news story with breathless reporting by the major news networks. Yet, it is being reported that the mainstream Media has been basically silent on this case. Why report nonstop on the Trayvon Martin, Casey Anthony, or Jerry Sandusky trials and say basically nothing about this? The obvious reason is because it casts the Pro-Choice movement and Planned Parenthood in a negative light and that is not acceptable.

From the article:

The trial details are nothing short of sensational: A doctor accused of killing seven newborns and a young woman at a filthy Philadelphia clinic strewn with body parts and described as a “slaughterhouse.” It’s big news in Philadelphia, but nationally, not so much. The lack of coverage is a problem for a growing chorus of conservative and media critics, who allege that the scant national media attention can be attributed not to the courtroom drama but the politics of abortion. Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortionist, meaning that any coverage of the trial risks painting the pro-choice movement in an unflattering light. In a statement issued last week, 20 conservative leaders called for an end to what they described as a “media blackout” and “censoring” of the trial for political reasons. “The horrific excesses of the abortion industry exemplified by Gosnell and Planned Parenthood are major, national news stories any way you look at them. But the pro-abortion liberal media are determined to hide them from the public,” said the April 4 statement led by the conservative Media Research Center and signed by former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, columnist Kellyanne Conway and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/8/abortion-doctor-on-trial-but-media-not-interested/#ixzz2PzUzI0VQ 

Now, everyone is due their day in court and we should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I am actually against sensationalism regarding these kinds of trials and of convicting someone in the court of public opinion before a jury/judge renders their verdict/sentencing. But, to have basically no mention of this at all when so many other things go reported ad nauseum is just another example of how the news media in America is determined to not give us the whole story - or to give us the story that advances certain agendas and silences others.

In a Democratic Republic where new laws are written and old law that has guided society for generations is abolished based on swings in public opinion, a News Media with a biased agenda that shapes that public opinion is actually a danger to the nation instead of an aid. We are being guided more by manipulation and bias instead of truth and justice and that is a very dangerous situation indeed.

Plastic Living, Plastic Faith

I was thinking recently about how much we simulate the experiences that we would like to have and the life that we would like to live into something that can be approached, bought, sold, and consumed. We often do not want the real thing, but we are happy with a facsimile of what we think would be nice. For example, my favorite Italian restaurant in town is made to look like Tuscany on the inside and has trees growing on the roof on the outside, but in reality, it is in a parking lot in front of a Best Buy on a bypass. I like to listen to the music I like and pretend that I am in a coffeehouse or cafe in Europe when I go to my favorite coffee shop in town, but in reality, I am sitting in the middle of a parking lot in a relatively small building off the side of a road in Montgomery, Alabama. I pipe in music that evokes a mood and wear clothes that I like and try to surround myself with things that make me think of other places, all the while missing the "real" that is right in front of me.

When we were in New Orleans last week, we were walking through the French Quarter and my friend, Matt, said, "It is amazing what Disney has done with this place." I laughed and we started joking about how in a world of pretend and counterfeit, when you see the real thing, you try to make that pretend too. We aren't used to the "real" since almost everything that we encounter is a knock-off of something else far away that is real. We have bought the "echo" so much that we don't know what the real sound is.

I have been to Tuscany and the Italian restaurant I like in town really isn't much like it except for the feel. It does evoke a certain emotion, which is the goal, I guess. But, at the end of the day, you are still in Montgomery. I have sat in coffeehouses in Seattle and San Francisco and in Europe and Starbucks really isn't that similar, except that you can have the same emotion for a moment if you play the right music and don't look out the window at the parking lot that you are sitting in the middle of.

There is real life to be found, though. On our trip to Louisiana last week we ended up visiting a Citrus grove to visit with a farmer whose farm was flooded from Hurricane Isaac last year. Our church sent some money to help with recovery and some of it made it to this farmer. So, he had us walk around the citrus grove and pick oranges and grapefruits. There was a swamp there and mosquitos and an alligator in the swamp, even though we couldn't see it. We picked ripe oranges off the trees and bit into them and juice ran down our arms and across our cheeks and we were sticky and hot and laughing and it was all quite real. There is no way that we could have created a counterfeit of that event. I will remember it for a long time.

This brings me to my point. Starbucks is packed every day and real things happen there in conversation and relationship. I meet people there all the time. But, the environment isn't really real. It is meant to evoke an emotion. But, how much damage do we do to ourselves when we are missing what is native and true to the place that we live and the people we live in community with when we are always grasping over the feeling that comes from being someplace else - perhaps someplace more exotic? Maybe God is HERE in THIS place and He wants us to stop trying to create emotions that will make us feel better and instead embrace what actually IS. How much emotion do we try and create in church? How much do we try and create ambiance or a sense that we are someplace else when we gather in worship? How much do the lights and technology and music and videos and all of our bells and whistles seek to create an escape for our senses into another place that is not quite false but is not actually real, either?

Jesus put on flesh and blood and walked a real earth. He lived in a particular place and time and ate real food and "used the bathroom" and slept and did everything else that real people do. He didn't escape it or try to create or weave a fantasy that would appeal to people. I am all for beauty and telling stories and for weaving tales. I am all for sitting back in my chair on a Monday afternoon and thinking of the Italian coast or London or the Himalayas or San Francisco and wishing that I was there. But, we have to snap out of the daydream and actually embrace the life that God has given us. Our worship should reflect that reality as well - that God is Here right now and He is not silent and He wants us to embrace Him and THIS place as the place of His activity and salvation.

When we live plastic lives we end up projecting a plastic faith and plastic worship and we promote a plastic Jesus that can make us feel good for a moment, but who doesn't really change things. The real Jesus would have been in the parking lot waiting for you to join Him.

Or, perhaps in a citrus grove with orange juice running down his chin, laughing.

GK Chesterton on the Glorious Redundancy of God

More great insight from Chesterton on what appears to be an argument against God by Naturalists. Redundancy in Nature might not mean that God is not involved. It might mean that He sees everything differently from us, which, if God were really God and we are not, should not be that surprising. From Orthodoxy (1908):

“All the towering materialism which dominates the modern mind rests ultimately upon one assumption; a false assumption. It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork. People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance. This is a fallacy even in relation to known fact. For the variation in human affairs is generally brought into them, not by life, but by death; by the dying down or breaking off of their strength or desire. A man varies his movements because of some slight element of failure or fatigue. He gets into an omnibus because he is tired of walking; or he walks because he is tired of sitting still. But if his life and joy were so gigantic that he never tired of going to Islington, he might go to Islington as regularly as the Thames goes to Sheerness. The very speed and ecstacy of his life would have the stillness of death. The sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life. The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy. A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening, “Do it again” to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we. The repetition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical ENCORE. Heaven may ENCORE the bird who laid an egg. If the human being conceives and brings forth a human child instead of bringing forth a fish, or a bat, or a griffin, the reason may not be that we are fixed in an animal fate without life or purpose. It may be that our little tragedy has touched the gods, that they admire it from their starry galleries, and that at the end of every human drama man is called again and again before the curtain. Repetition may go on for millions of years, by mere choice, and at any instant it may stop. Man may stand on the earth generation after generation, and yet each birth be his positively last appearance.”

GK Chesterton on the Contradictions of Skepticism

I have been under the impression for some time now that the arguments of Atheism are ultimately parasitic upon the assertions of Theism and that they collapse in upon the weight of their own contradictions. In many cases the very argument that the atheist uses is only plausible because of his presuppositions based upon his own assertions that one must accept by faith instead of on the basis of evidence. At any rate, the skeptic is left with a pile of contradictions of his own making yet he is often utterly unaware of his dilemma because all of his energy is wrapped up in flailing against the God he claims not to believe in. In many ways, the Atheist, with nothing else to reassure him, is more wrapped up in the nonexistence of God than the Theist is in the existence of God. If God does exist, the atheist is doomed and he knows it. 

GK Chesterton (1874-1936) in Orthodoxy addresses some of the contradictory positions of the skeptic in a direct way that is relevant for today, I think: 

“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

Political Message Present in President Obama's Easter Sunday

President Obama and his family attended St. John's Episcopal Church on Sunday and heard a message blasting the Religious Right according to an AP article.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-hears-easter-political-theme-035820270--politics.html

The Rev. Dr. Luis Leon said the following: 

"It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back ... for blacks to be back in the back of the bus ... for women to be back in the kitchen ... for immigrants to be on their side of the border," Leon said. He said the message of Easter was about the "proclamation of victory, the victory of powerful love over loveless power."

Now, I do not know the full context of Rev. Leon's sermon, but the last line is interesting to me. The message of Easter is not just about a victory of powerful love over loveless power. Perhaps that is how he described the resurrection of Christ and he considers it to be something that really happened and this is just a way to see it. I am well aware that the media will cherry pick quotes for a story and distort things terribly. So, perhaps the message was entirely orthodox but I also know that a common theme of liberal theology is to replace the real person and work of Jesus with an idea and make it all a divine sign pointing to some larger social reality. Not saying that happened here necessarily, but it often does. 

But, given that consideration, I do think that a larger point should be made. The Resurrection of Jesus is not a metaphor that we can use for our lives or our politics that tells us that brighter days are ahead, love will win, and that we can have our best life now. It is a real message about God taking on flesh and being killed in our place and taking our judgment and making the world new again through his rising from the dead. Yes, it has current applications in our everyday lives and those implications are to be explored - it even affects our politics. But, the resurrection is not primarily about us - it is about what God did as the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. All meaning for it flows out of God and His salvation plan. 

Like I said, perhaps Rev. Dr. Leon covered all of this and President Obama and his family were able to hear the gospel instead of just political applications and denunciations of political enemies. But, my larger thought is that the Resurrection is not something to be trifled with or just focused on on Easter Sunday. I am going to write this week about the Resurrection here and give a defense for it and talk about what it means in a few posts. Rev. Leon just kicked it off for me.

Easter Story: Sin/Suffering, Cross, Resurrection, Ascension, New Creation

I am thinking about this week and the story it tells in the Christian life and how we live according to an alternative reality that is rooted in Heaven and not this world. Tomorrow and Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments involving the legalization of Gay Marriage in America. That is not a small issue. We debate politics, the economy, and who has power and who does not. Christians live in a world that is telling and living by a story different from what we see in Scripture. What are we to think? What are we to do?

I think that the answer is found in the rhythm of the Gospel Story laid out before us in Scripture and remembered during Holy Week and beyond:

Sin/Suffering - the Bible tells us that our natural state is one of brokenness and alienation from God, our Creator and true source of life. Our heart is corrupt and in every way imaginable we desire to go the other way. These desires cannot be reformed or relearned - they are inherent to us. They might take different shapes and forms, but the summation of the human condition is one of loneliness, rejection, and grasping for a kind of life that only exists at the edges of our memory and if grasped can only be maintained for a moment before it slips away back into the realm of longing. So, we construct every method we can dream up to try and fix our lives and return to a place of satisfaction, but we never quite arrive. Things always fall apart and we are usually to blame.

The Cross - Jesus stepped into our alienation and suffering and took it upon Himself. The focus of our faith is the Suffering Savior who didn't shy away from the pain of the human condition but embraced it. He didn't turn away from our sin, but he became sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). So, The Cross is not JUST an historical event, but it also gives pattern and shape to our spiritual and physical lives now. We are discipled by the Cross and by suffering and by redemption and substitutionary sacrifice and because life here is broken down, we have to face that brokenness head on and we cannot flinch. When we do, we find that Jesus is already there taking it upon Himself and suffering in our place. Death comes to all, but it is not the end of the story and God is always working.

Resurrection - the fact that Jesus did not stay dead changes everything. A man rose from the dead and still lives. It is staggering and impossible if you really think about it instead of allowing it to remain a religious fantasy that sits in your devotional beliefs and practices somewhere. If the Resurrection is true - if Jesus really rose from the dead - then it seems that all of life should revolve around that and that it should change everything. Death is not the end. We don't have to fear it. When we see things falling apart (including our own bodies and lives) we know that there is another part of the story that has yet to be told, but we get a picture of it at the Empty Tomb. He is not here, He is risen. That matters. It affects how I face failure and sickness and brokenness in life and relationships. There is always the Resurrection and no matter what I do or face, I cannot change it. I must believe it and let it change me.

Ascension - Jesus did not stay here, but he ascended back to Heaven and gave us His Holy Spirit to indwell us and guide us and empower us and teach us. The Spirit is a deposit of what is to come and through a relationship with the Spirit of God we are able to glimpse into what God has in store for us both in this age and in the age to come. The Kingdom of God shows up through the Spirit of God when God's people gather and live together as "called-out" ones in a world gone made. God's Kingdom has broken into the kingdom of this World first through Jesus and then through the outpouring of God's Spirit in and through His people. The Ascension had happen for the Spirit to be poured out. And, God's Spirit continues to birth new life everywhere.

The New Creation - we are headed somewhere beautiful where all things will be made new in Christ, where the old order of things dipped in death and rooted in frustration will fade away and the New Life of Christ will spring forth upon the earth in a beautiful array of glory and splendor as everything is reconciled back to God through Christ. We experience a "drip-drop" of that now when sacrificial love is shown, when gentleness and patience is practiced, and when Christ is glorified, among other things. The New Creation will consist of those who have been brought near to God and who have responded to Him and it will tell the story of God's great love and intent. Our Hope is rooted in Christ alone and the promise that one day, all things will be made new, even though for the present time we will go through many trials to enter the Kingdom of God. 

Holy Week and Easter is when much of this story comes together in observance, worship, remembrance, and consideration of what it means for Christ to be risen. He really did raise from the dead. It really does mean something both in history and in the future. Embrace the Resurrection every day, not just Easter Sunday.

Douglas Wilson: Wrong About Slavery, the South, and Southern Christianity

Recently, Douglas Wilson's collection of essays entitled Black and Tan: A Collection of Essays and Excursions on Slavery, Culture War, and Scripture in America has been highlighted by a number of Black pastors and theologians such as Anthony Bradley, Bryan Loritts, and Thabiti Anyabwile. Bryan Loritts, in a recent blog post, called for White Evangelicals to address Wilson, a popular Reformed Presbyterian pastor and apologist from Moscow, Idaho who has developed a strong following among many conservative Christians in America. Wilson makes the case that Southern slavery was not as bad as has been historically reported, that Southern Christians were not wrong to own slaves or participate in the practice as long as they treated their slaves well, and that opponents of Christianity have falsely used Southern Slavery as a way to attack Christianity and the Bible. Instead of addressing our past, he doubles down on the practice of Southern Christians and says that not only was their practice Biblical, but that to denounce them is to side with liberal radicals and to denounce Scripture itself. Having just spent 3 years researching and writing a book on the subject, I thought I would address some of Wilson's arguments.

In chapter 4, "Scripture and Slavery," Wilson lays out his biblical argument for why Southern Christians were not wrong and tries to make a historical defense. It is impossible to give a full treatment of his argument in a blog post, so I will hit a few main points. Wilson rightly argues that the Gospel undermines slavery because it promotes setting the captive free. Given time, the Gospel will liberate people and slavery will be ended because it reflects the sinful condition of mankind and our slavery to sin which Jesus came to free us from. Wilson says after quoting 1 Timothy 6:1-5 which gives instructions on slaves and masters,

"At the same time, because the gospel of Christ necessarily brings liberty to captives, it should also be obvious that the spread of the gospel over time necessarily subverts the institution of slavery generally. But this gradual subversion would have been reformational and gradual, and not revolutionary and bloodthirsty, as radical abolitionism was."

Wilson's main argument is that slavery should have been allowed to be confronted by the Gospel over time and should not have been overthrown by radical abolitionists and that the WAY it was abolished did as much harm as good and has led us into our current predicament. He brings up the way that Paul addressed slaveowners and slavery in the New Testament as the Gospel spread into pagan lands for the first time. What Wilson seems to not realize is that the historical context is entirely different. Southern Christians had the Bible and benefitted from 1800 years of Christian thought and scholarship. They were a people immersed in the gospel. Also, European Christendom had already made many pronouncements against Christians owning other Christians as slaves. As African Slaves in the South converted to Christianity, they were not given the same freedom as White Europeans.

In Greek and Roman lands where the Gospel was just taking root in the 1st Century when Paul wrote his letters, slavery was the accepted means of employment and was a basis for the economy and resulted from military conquest. Up to 40% of the population of Italy were slaves in the 1st Century BC. This number grew as Roman Legions conquered peoples all over the Mediterranean world. So, Paul was speaking into a system that already existed when the Gospel emerged. Slaves were considered members of the slaveowners household. It was not a system based on race and was often not a lifelong situation. Still, Paul completely undermines it. Gal. 3:26-29, Col. 3:11, Eph. 2:11-22, and Philemon as well as 1 Timothy 6:1-5 among other passages show a leveling of relationships. To the slave, the command was given to honor and respect and witness for Christ in their situation. To the slaveowner, they were to treat the slave with kindness and care. When they were both Christians, they were to be seen as brothers and as one in Christ with no distinction between them based on class or status. This completely undermined the whole system that was based on Aristotle's "Natural Slavery" argument that identified fixed distinctions between Greek, Barbarian, Slave, Free, Male, Female, etc. Paul's letters and the Gospel actually confronted the whole system of slavery by tearing down the dividing walls until all that was left was brotherly love.

Southerners appealed to Aristotle's philosophy in defending slavery, not the Bible. They brought the Bible in and warped it to provide for themselves a theological cover, but their practice was more Greek than Christian. This is why Greek architecture, philosophy, and place names were so prominent in the South during this time period and beyond. The Greeks gave Southerners the defense that they needed and then Christianity was employed to build upon this pagan foundation. Southern slavery was a product of the Colonialism and the Enlightenment and economic expediency more than it was careful Biblical exegesis. When Wilson defends Christian participation in Southern Slavery, he actually sides with the critics of Christianity and the Bible. He would do better to denounce the whole thing on Biblical grounds and just say that our ancestors misread Scripture.

Wilson also says,

"The Slave Trade was an abomination. The Bible condemns it and all who believe the Bible are bound to do the same. But apart from the slave trade in a slave-holding society, owning slaves per se was not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it outright and those who believe the Bible are bound to refrain in the same way."

Wilson is careful to denounce all forms of racism and he clearly says that we are better off now that we no longer have slavery. He declares that the Gospel is opposed to slavery. But, he draws some strange distinctions here. First of all, he declares the Slave Trade to be an abomination and to be clearly opposed by Scripture. He says that the South also outlawed the Slave Trade. But, he is only talking about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that was outlawed in the early 1800's. The domestic Slave Trade continued through the Civil War. My own city of Montgomery, AL had multiple slave markets, some of which were on the same blocks as churches. Christians participated in them and bought and sold human beings in shackles and chains in these markets. The Slave Trade did not end with its abolishment of the Trans-Atlantic variety. If anything, it grew as tens of thousands of slaves were shipped across the South and sold like cattle. Wilson does not condemn this or equate the domestic Slave Trade with what he has previously denounced as evil.

His further argument that it was allowed for Christians to own slaves even though the Slave Trade was evil is a strange one - and one that is economically impossible to justify. Christians were the MARKET for the Slave Trade. How can it be evil to participate in the Slave Trade but justified to own the very thing being sold in that trade? His logic is tortured at this point. He even goes so far as to say that those who believe the Bible are bound to refrain from condemning Christians owning slaves in such a society. So, just because slavery was accepted in the society then it is okay for Christians to participate in it? Apply that reasoning to other social sins and see where it gets you.

Wilson is actually playing into the hands of his Liberal, anti-Bible opponents with this line of thinking. It is better to say that antebellum Christians were culturally captive and that they subverted Scripture to the economic situation of the day and constructed a philosophy borrowing from Greek and Enlightenment influence that promoted their own prosperity and way of life. Such a confession allows for repentance. Scripture actually undermines the entire basis for slavery but Southern White Christians could not see it because it would have cost them their wealth and power. Instead, they were willing to sacrifice their treasure and their children to defend to the death an oppressive unjust system that did not find its basis in Scripture. Could one imagine Jesus or Paul or Peter or any of the Apostles owning slaves or promoting the practice? Then, surely the whole system was a result of the Fall and was to be dismantled. Northern Abolitionists spent around 60 years begging the South and Christians in the South to do so and war only came when Southern reactionaries drew a line in the sand at the election of Abraham Lincoln and seceded and then initiated war at Fort Sumter. There were many other options available to them but none were acceptable because they all entailed a reduction in power for the South.

Douglas Wilson is wrong in his history and wrong in his application. Southern Evangelicals 1800 years removed from the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ should have known better. But, they were culturally captive and used the Bible to promote their own way of life. It was the ultimate prosperity gospel and the roots of where we are as a society are found in their arguments, not the argument of the abolitionists.

EDIT 2:25pm CST:  In fairness to Doug Wilson, he has responded to the criticism of his ideas on his blog. He says,

Someone then asked Thabiti Anyabwile on Twitter what he thought of the whole thing, and he responded by saying that the hammer ought to be dropped hard on any defense of slavery. The problem with that is that I don't want to defend slavery. This whole thing has to do with what the most scriptural way of resisting slavery would have been, not whether slavery ought to have been resisted.

Let me just say that Wilson does in fact defend the practice of Christians owning slaves in the Antebellum period. He says in his book, "Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, malum in se, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians in slave-owning cultures to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?"

But, apart from that, if all that Wilson wants to do is talk about the most Biblical way for slavery to have been resisted, I want to make a simple suggestion:

How about if all of the Christian slaveowners had repented, freed their slaves, and then had gone to their state legislatures and voted out of office everyone who promoted slavery and established righteousness and justice in the land?  The slaves would have been freed quickly and without any bloodshed.  Any other solution or call to have patience or a denunciation of Abolitionists is completely missing the point, in my opinion.

CS Lewis on Jesus' Claims About Himself

I am preaching a series this month on what led to the murder of Jesus. He was not just loved by everyone and then, at the last minute, the rulers and priests decided to kill him. Rather, he was opposed throughout his entire ministry. He confounded and confused everyone and said things that either were true or that would have classified him as a delusional lunatic. CS Lewis has a great perspective from his book, God in the Dock that I want to share here:

LEWIS: The other phenomenon is the quite appalling nature of this Man’s theological remarks. You all know what I mean, and I want rather to stress the point that the appalling claim, which this Man seems to be making, is not merely made at one moment of His career. There is, of course, the one moment, which led to His execution. The moment at which the High Priest said to Him, ‘Who are you?’ ‘I am the Anointed, the Son of the uncreated God, and you shall see me appearing at the end of all history as the judge of the universe.’ But that claim, in fact, does not rest on this one dramatic moment. When you look into his conversation you will find this sort of claim running throughout the whole thing. For instance, He went about saying to people, ‘I forgive your sins’. Now it is quite natural for a man to forgive something you do to him. Thus if somebody cheats me out of five pounds it is quite possible and reasonable for me to say, ‘Well, I forgive him, we will say no more about it.’ What on earth would you say if somebody had done you out of five pounds and I said, ‘That is all right, I forgive him? Then there is a curious thing, which seems to slip out almost by accident. On one occasion this Man is sitting looking down on Jerusalem from the hill about it and suddenly in comes an extraordinary remark — ‘I keep on sending you prophets and wise men.’ Nobody comments on it. And yet, quite suddenly, almost incidentally, He is claiming to be the power that all through the centuries is sending wise men and leaders into the world. Here is another curious remark: in almost every religion there are unpleasant observances like fasting. This Man suddenly remarks one day, ‘No one need fast while I am here.’ Who is this man who remarks one day, ‘No one need fast while I am here.’ Who is this Man who remarks that His mere presence suspends all normal rules? Who is the person who can suddenly tell the School they can have a half-holiday? Sometimes the statements put forward the assumption that He, the Speaker, is completely without sin or fault. This is always the attitude. ‘You, to whom I am talking, are all sinners,’ and He never remotely suggests that this same reproach can be brought against Him. He says again, ‘I am the begotten of the One God, before Abraham was, I am,’ And remember what the words ‘I am’ were in Hebrew. They were the name of God, which must not be spoken by any human being, the name which it was death to utter. Well, that is the other side. On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most same and humble of men. There is no halfway house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked him: ‘Are you the son of Brahma?’ he would have said, ‘My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.’ If you had gone to Socrates and asked, ‘Are you Zeus?’ he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, ‘Are you Allah?’ he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, ‘Are you Heaven?’ I think he would have probably replied, ‘Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.’ The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion, which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are not looking for a piece of toast to suit you you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met him. He produced mainly three effects — Hatred — Terror — Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.
_____________________
So, what do we do with Jesus? He is unlike any other man that has ever walked the earth. We cannot just express "mild approval." We must either accept him or reject him. He leaves us no other choice.

Piers Morgan Is Right! We Do Need the Nanny State!

Piers Morgan, in an interview on his show recently in disagreement with a guest, said that we do occasionally need the Nanny State. I AGREE with him. 

PIERS MORGAN: "I disagree with you. I think people need them occasionally, particularly on issues like smoking, drinking, guzzling sodas too big for them, you know, eating 16 Big Macs a day, whatever it may be, the reality is we all need a bit of nannying about that. That's why so many people are on diets. That's a form of nanny state."

When people have cast off all restraint and when there is no more self-control and they live however they please, yes, the result is that the government takes authoritarian measures to control the population. When we cannot control ourselves and act like children, a Nanny is brought in to control us. That is the way that things work. The promise of the Social Revolutions of the late 1960's was that we would be liberated to do as we please. Like every Utopian vision that has ever existed, the sad fact of human nature was ignored. This fact is that we are all sinful and that we, when given a chance, will act upon our sinful desires bringing disintegration and destruction upon ourselves. The Liberation movements promised us freedom, but instead, we find that we are out of control and need to be reigned in by a "higher power."  

America ran away from God because we wanted to do as we pleased and we believed the promise that life would be better apart from the controls of religion and tradition. We did not want God's commands or guidance any longer. So, we killed Him, as Nietzsche said. Now, we have shelved faith and guidance. Sure, individuals still believe - but I am talking about the larger culture. 

What our second president, John Adams, proclaimed in the 1798 has come true:

"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government."

So, here we are. We have cast off restraint so we could pursue "freedom." And, the result is that we have lost our freedom and we need the government to come in and tell us what size soft drink we can buy - and a host of other things.

We were promised freedom and are receiving slavery. Sounds like Romans 6.

Again, the Bible is proven true.

The Gift of God is a Person, Not a Book

Kenneth E. Bailey, in his book, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, makes a very interesting point about the primacy of Jesus Christ to our faith. For some time now, I have maintained the the Gospel is a person (Jesus Christ), not just a set of propositions (i.e. Four Spiritual Laws). 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 seems to make this case rather strongly. Bailey refers to Jesus' interaction with the Samaritan Woman at the Well in John 4:10-14 to make this point,

Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." She *said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?" Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life." (John 4:10-14 NASB)


Bailey says, 

"For this woman "the gift of God" was primarily the Torah of Moses. For the Jew it was the Law and the Prophets, while for the Muslim it is the Qur'an. That is, God's ultimate gift was and is a book. But the Suffering Servant of Isaiah was told by God, 'I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations' (Isaiah 42:6). 


"Here the covenant is not words in a book but a person. For the woman, as for all Christians, the supreme gift of God to his people is not the New Testament but rather the person of Jesus. For Jeremiah, God was 'living water' that the people had rejected as they dug their own 'broken cisterns that can hold no water' (Jer. 2:13). In the story before us, language applied to God is reused to describe Jesus."



This is not meant in any way to devalue the Bible as the Word of God or to say that Jesus is the apex therefore parts of the Bible might not be actually true or reliable. Far from it! It points to Christ, the revelation of God and our only source of salvation. But, we must still go to Jesus. Jesus Himself said about the Pharisees that they they were ignoring all the signs that God had provided authenticating his ministry, such as John the Baptist, works, the Father's affirmation, and even Scripture itself. They were using Scripture the wrong way because it was supposed to point to Himself:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." (John 5:39, 40 NASB)

The Pharisees were pouring over the Scriptures trying to find eternal life within. They were using the Scriptures as a set of principles and propositions and steps to Shalom - the blessed, peaceful, prosperous life. Yet, they were unwilling to go to the One to whom the Scriptures pointed - Jesus. The Scriptures were a witness to Christ and testified about Him. Life and Salvation are only found in Christ alone - not in Biblical propositions. This is not to separate the Law from Christ because the Law demonstrates God's character and Jesus fulfills the Law - it tells us what God is like and if we are to be reconciled with God then His Law and character become our delight. But, salvation is found in Christ himself, not just in knowing the precepts of God's character and his commands. That comes in relationship.

I think that many people today in trying to value Scripture miss that we are all called to a supernatural relationship with God through Jesus Christ empowered by the Spirit by faith. Discipleship does not just involve learning information about God, but it involves the bending of the will to God's will and entering into a living relationship with God through Christ. The gift of God is Jesus - He is the exact representation of God and the fullness of His being. Scripture points to Christ with whom we have a real relationship by faith. The Word of God is an amazing gift, but it is not the ultimate gift. The Church is a beautiful thing, but it is not the means of salvation either. Salvation is found in the gift of God, Christ alone. Scripture is meant to lead us to Christ, in whom all the blessings of God reside. When reading Scripture and obeying, let us do so with an eye on how it throws us into relationship with and dependence upon Christ. We enter into this relationship practically through faith, prayer, worship, obedience, good works, and through abiding in Christ daily both as individuals and in community. The relationship with Christ is a real thing attested to and described in Scripture. But, we must go to Him in faith and dependence to experience it. 

The Bible tells us so.

Rand Paul Exposes The Ideological Collapse of the Democratic Party

Throughout my lifetime, Democrats have ideologically defended civil liberties and have raised opposition to the power of the state interfering in the lives of Americans. Groups like the ACLU have consistently defended Constitutional rights of Americans to protest and engage in free assembly and to be free of government intrusion. Of course, their concern for religious freedom has often been muted because of their own biases, but overall, they have supported liberty. This has also applied to American military involvement and the Constitutional rights of even convicted criminals. Liberals were not always consistent in the application of these rights, but they could be counted on to at least raise of fuss if they sense any kind of Executive overreach.

Those days are gone, at least for now.

Senator Rand Paul in his filibuster last night on the potential use of Drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens who are not engaging in active attack against the United States exposed the ideological collapse of the Democratic Party when it comes to the Constitution and the basic rights of citizens. Democrats used to be counted on to oppose abuse of power, at least to a degree.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a trial for an accused person: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The basic idea here is that if someone is suspected of engaging in illegal activity, they should be arrested and indicted and face a fair trial. Of course, if someone is actively attacking someone else or is an immediate threat, then they can be stopped with deadly force. But, that is not what Rand Paul was opposing. He was opposing the idea that a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil could be taken out with a Drone strike (or perhaps a sniper or a any other attack) without an attempt at arrest and due process. He tried to get some kind of affirmation from President Obama's administration that that would not happen and was relatively unsuccessful.

Here is the larger issue: Democrats have completely capitulated to a desire for power and have abandoned any defense of liberty that used to motivate them. What is exposed here is a callous disregard for the Constitution and the rights of the people to protect them against the abuse of government. They have done this because they trust themselves and President Obama to wield this power ethically. Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps he will. We tend to trust ourselves and our friends. But, how would they feel if a Republican were pushing for these kinds of powers on U.S. soil? How did they feel about Bush's use of Gitmo and waterboarding? Of almost anything that he did? What about the next president? Can he be trusted to do the right thing?

Replace Obama with Bush or a future Republican and ask what the reaction from Democrats would be? My guess is that they would vehemently oppose what is being promoted and what is possible the same way that Rand Paul is. Actually, I am sure of it. And, that hypocrisy demonstrates the complete ideological collapse of the Democratic Party on the issue of civil liberties and it shows that they have now sacrificed principle for power. When that kind of exchange takes place, the person/party has nothing left to offer anyone but a call to "trust me" and a grasping for even more power.

The real reason that Republicans and Democrats can no longer work together is because neither party really believes in anything other than their own self promotion and grasping of power to use as they see fit. There are no longer any "truths" that are worth defending or fighting for that transcend political expediency. Take any calls for Medicare/Social Security reform. There is no political will to do that because it might cause whoever proposes it to lose power as people wanting those benefits now to turn against them in the short term. But, true concern for senior citizens would cause someone to try and save the system for the long term instead of letting it collapse under is own weight.

Or, consider reform in social and Welfare programs. True concern for the poor would look at some of the systemic causes of poverty and would be willing to consider if government dependence over generations is actually doing more harm than good and is actually trapping people in poverty. So, reform of the system could be considered to actually be a help to people over the long term by helping move them to self-sufficiency and into wealth creation. That would show true concern and care about the poor. But, we see people on both sides defending a system that perpetuates the problem instead of actually addressing the problem.

One might also consider U.S. foreign policy and the use of military force around the world. An interventionist policy that seeks to remake the world in America's image and according to America's goals seems to guide the use of the American military. It also leads us into endless war all over the world. Some want to cut the military but do not want to address the goals of U.S. foreign policy. Is this policy sustainable? Can we continue to carry it out? What about the cost? Because we don't have any real guiding ideology that is thought out, we end up grasping at power and control instead of considering the long-term effects and how we can pay for it. The truth is that we are over $16 Trillion in debt and that debt will reach $20 Trillion by the end of Obama's second term. Clearly this course is not sustainable, but we cannot discuss any alternatives because too many will lose power if they cut anything. We greatly fear not being able to control everything but is our continued control sustainable long term? Something has got to give.

The Drone debate is one that should be a bipartisan affirmation of the rights of Americans while seeking real, Constitutional solutions to our security challenges. But, we don't have those discussions anymore because every player is just jockeying for power over and against the other. If a Republican is the Oval Office, conservatives defend everything he does and liberals attack everything he does. If a Democrat is in office, the sides switch. There is no allegiance to truth - only to power and who holds it.

Much has been written about the weakness and ineffectiveness of the Republican Party over the past few years culminating in Obama's defeat of Romney in November, and there is merit in that argument. But, the Democratic Party is just as intellectually bankrupt and this episode proves it. They have power right now and they have come together to secure it and promote it further. That is it. That's all. Liberals in the 1980's would have opposed the current erosion of Constitutional rights that is taking place right now. But, that defense of civil liberty has taken a backseat to holding on to power and grasping after more of it. They are proving what their main goal is and this power grab will be their ultimate undoing.

This debate is another example of what the erosion of transcendent truth has brought to America. We cannot have consistent discussions anymore. We cannot come to agreement or even understand our disagreements because there is no consistency regarding what people really believe. Our beliefs change according to what we think benefits us in the moment and helps to enhance our position - they do not reflect any sense of what we think is "right." Look at the mainstream media reaction to Paul's filibuster. It is either ignored or it was largely mocked.

The Bible talks about this state of affairs in Isaiah 59 when it says, "So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. (Isaiah 59:14 NIV).

A people who cannot agree on who can be killed or attacked or whether or not a trial is available to them or whether a noncombatant is innocent until proven guilty is a people that can no longer discern right from wrong. That is where we are. That is where Democrats are. It is also where a large number of Republicans are.

The Moral Collapse of America affects everything.

Calvinism Controversy Blew Up At My Church Last Night

I was warned about this. Calvinism has been causing problems in the SBC for the past decade or so and has become a flashpoint of division and controversy. Currently, Frank Page of the Executive Committee has convened a task force to try and find a way forward through the difficulty. Louisiana Baptists are attempting to purge themselves of Calvinists. Many say that Calvinist and Non-Calvinist Baptists cannot co-exist in the same church or even in the same Convention. I was told that a big blow up would eventually come. So, it kind of did for a minute - but not really. Really, we just had a good discussion.

I am not a Calvinist. I am upfront about that and have been since I first came to my church as Associate Pastor 13 years ago. When they asked me to become pastor 7 1/2 years ago, I reiterated that I was not a Calvinist. Our previous pastor that I worked under WAS a Calvinist and most of our elders are Calvinists. We have a lot of Calvinists in our church. I am not one, but they seem to be able to put up with me. We have a lot of Non-Calvinists, too. We have ex-Catholics and Methodists and Presbyterians and Charismatics, too. We have had Anglicans and Lutherans as well. We have some Muslims who come and they are hearing about Jesus. We have those who were formerly of no religion and those who rejected Christ. We even have some who grew up Baptist. We have people from the North and the South and from China, Korea, Brazil, Nigeria, Jamaica, and a few other countries. We have White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic. And, we have Calvinists and Non-Calvinists.

The "blow up" (but not really) happened last night when I was teaching on the Roman Centurion who stood before Jesus as he died on the Cross. Here is the story:

"When some of those standing near heard this, they said, 'Listen, he's calling Elijah.'
One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 'Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down,' he said. With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:35-39)

We went through the Gospels and looked at the other times that people had declared Jesus to be the Christ and/or the Son of God. For many, it was after a great miracle or a manifestation of Jesus' glory and power. But, this instance was different. This Roman Centurion, who had pledged and declared that Caesar was Lord and that the Son of God, now switched his allegiance by declaring that JESUS was the Son of God. This was no small thing.

NT Wright speaks of the cult of emperor worship when he says, "If Jesus was the true king, Caesar was not."
In Paul’s day, the cult of Caesar was the fastest-growing religion in the Mediterranean world. In Rome itself the emperors did not claim full divine honors, but they did adopt the title “son of god”-the god in question being their recently deceased, and newly deified, predecessor. And in the provinces, from Greece and Turkey through the Middle East to Egypt, divinization was standard. The people had worshiped rulers before; why shouldn’t Augustus and his successors, with their extraordinary powers, receive the same divine honors? So the imperial cult grew. Its “good news” was that Caesar, the son of God, was now the lord of the whole world, claiming allegiance from everybody in return for bringing salvation and justice to the world. Resistance was met with crucifixion. The system was based on sheer power.

The Roman Centurion was an ambassador of the "sheer power" of Rome. Crucifixion was a way of demonstrating that power. Jesus, was under the boot of Rome as he was nailed to the Cross and died there and this Centurion was the man carrying out the sentence. Why would this Centurion, highly trained and totally devoted, switch allegiance and declare that THIS man who was hanging there bloody, naked, and dead, was the Son of God instead of Caesar, the Emperor to whom he had pledged allegiance? It could ONLY have been because God revealed it to him and changed his heart. In Jesus' dying and weakness, before he had raised from the dead even, this Gentile's heart was changed and he saw Jesus for who He really was. It is inexplicable. My point is that salvation is a miracle and unless God reveals Himself to us and calls us by His grace none of us can respond. Why this man and not others? He saw what Peter and James and Andrew, etc. could not see at the moment. Amazing.

At this point, someone asked that if salvation was all God and God was the one who called (which they believed) then, did God call people to NOT believe and to be damned? I explained that that would be "Double Predestination" and that God called people to be saved but He did not necessarily create people to be damned - that when people rejected God's offer of grace, they received the punishment they deserved. The truth is that we are all sinners and God's wrath remains on us when we reject Christ (John 3:35-36) but His saving grace is granted to those who believe in Jesus. 

At this point, hands went up all over the sanctuary. Our Wednesday study is very lively with lots of interaction, but it was especially so last night. One after another began to share their perspective. Questions were asked, positions were shared, agreement and disagreement occurred. I tried to moderate and answer where I could, but I was also happy to see people answering one another. It went on for about 20 minutes and it was a spirited discussion. I then sent them to their small groups after the larger teaching to discuss and told them that their small group leaders would have ALL the answers. People laughed.

I made the point that the Bible speaks of both God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility in Salvation and that there seems to be an element of mystery in why some reject and some accept Christ. Faith comes from hearing the Word of Christ (Romans 10) and the gospel must be proclaimed. But, the Gospel is the message about who Christ is and what He has done - it is not just a set of propositions to be accepted or rejected. The gospel is a person, Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). After turning our focus to Christ, the need to preach the gospel, the mystery of who and how God saves that is held in the mind of God, God's initiative and prerogative in grace, and man's responsibility to believe and repent, we seemed to be at some form of consensus - at least that is the impression that I got. People maintained their positions but we all got along, prayed for each other, and I believe, realized that we had far more in common than not. And, that is pretty much how it goes at our church.

Our unity is in Christ and not in adherence to a particular doctrine or perspective according to Calvinism or non-Calvinism. I am not quite sure how it works, but it just does. We value loving one another sacrificially, sharing differing viewpoints, respecting one another, listening, and, in the end, centering our faith and hope on the person and work of Jesus as the center of our faith and fellowship. We have views - sometimes strong views - but they are not a hindrance to our unity in Christ or our fellowship or cooperation in God's Mission. Now, there are lines that we would not cross - who Jesus is, what salvation is, the Bible being the Word of God, etc., but on this issue, we get along and work together.

At the same time, I recognize that Christian unity is created by Christ and maintained by the Spirit. The manifestation of it can be shattered in an instant if we become selfish or think that we must fight for one perspective in this debate over another. I was joking, really, when I said that the Calvinism controversy "blew up" at my church. We had a lively debate, I think, but in the end, we moved forward in Christ. I think that is how it is supposed to be and I am so thankful that I serve a church with people from various backgrounds of Christianity who find their unity in Christ instead of who they follow or what perspective they clothe themselves in. Maybe this could happen in the SBC as well? Maybe it already is happening in many places but there are loud voices who want something different? Perhaps the "Middle" where people really do get along is where cooperation already is happening and we can go on from that point. Perhaps.

Why the Media Has Become a Propaganda Machine

In an article making its way around the interwebs, Patrick Pexton, ombudsman for the Washington Post, gives us some insight into the hopeless bias of journalists when it comes to the gay marriage issue and the progressive agenda. He says that he gets lots of reader complaints arguing that the Washington Post is pro-gay and anti-Christian. To illustrate the point, he makes mention of an email exchange between a Post journalist, a reader, and himself where the journalist answers the reader's accusations of bias. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-is-the-post-pro-gay/2013/02/22/fab8235c-7c53-11e2-a044-676856536b40_print.html

____________
Replied the reporter: “The reason that legitimate media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time. Journalism, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that’s the ‘view of the world’ that we espouse; therefore, journalists are going to cover the segment of society that is still not treated equally under the law.”
The reader: “Contrary to what you say, the mission of journalism is not justice. Defining justice is a political matter, not journalistic. Journalism should be about accuracy and fairness.“Good journalism also means not demeaning conservatives as ‘haters.’ ”The reporter: “As for accuracy, should the media make room for racists, i.e. those people who believe that black people shouldn’t marry white people? Any story on African-Americans wouldn’t be wholly accurate without the opinion of a racist, right?“Of course I have a bias. I have a bias toward fairness,” the reporter continued. “The true conservative would have the same bias. The true conservative would want the government out of people’s bedrooms, and religion out of government.”
____________

I am writing about this issue because it is the barometer of our time. Wherever you land on the gay rights issue decides if you are acceptable or not in our culture. If you affirm gay marriage, then you will be considered to be on the right side of history. If you say it is morally wrong, even if you do nothing to stop it, you are lumped in with racists and Neanderthals. It is the new litmus test and the new justice issue for the progressive elites, including many in the media. We are not even discussing the issue anymore. If you disagree with ever facet of the gay agenda, then all other arguments that you might make are irrelevant. Of course, the same applies to disagreeing with all tenets of evolution, modern psychology, sexual freedom, abortion on demand, or a host of other intellectual and moral positions. Either get with the program or remove yourself from society. That is not just the mantra of the Left, but it is the opinion of the Media as well. This has been going on for sometime, but only now is the Media confident enough to begin to admit it. 

And, here is the crux of the issue - the real reason behind the anti-Christian positions taken by many of those in the "legitimate media" as the Post journalist calls his profession:

[From Pexton] "And because our profession lives and dies on the First Amendment — one of the libertarian cornerstones of the Constitution — most journalists have a problem with religionists telling people what they can and cannot do. We want to write words, read books, watch movies, listen to music, and have sex and babies pretty much when, where and how we choose."

What this is really about is that people want to do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it without anyone telling them that it is wrong or that it is not approved of. This is not really about justice - it is about license. No rules. No morality (at least not of the Christian kind). No standards at all - except what THEY decide the standards should be. Try and oppose the dogma of political correctness and you will find out that one cannot "write words" or "read books" or "do what one chooses to do." They believe in morality - just their own. And, under the guise of "journalism" they are going to slant every story they tell to promote that agenda - including stories about politics, entertainment, the economy, and of course, social issues. It even works its way into sports reporting.

I am actually not advocating one position or another here. My personal perspective is that of a conservative, Evangelical Christian. But, I recognize that we live in a pluralistic country with competing views. I get that and I also have no desire to take anyone's civil rights away from them or to promote injustice of any kind. But, let's have an honest discussion. I am tired of the bias from Right-leaning media as well. It is everywhere as truth is completely sacrificed for persuasion and appeals to power. I am at the point where I simply do not trust the story-tellers in our society. Personal bias is everywhere and it is a sign of a society that has completely lost its way. Jeremiah 59 explains our situation well:

_______________
No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; 
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil. 

So justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us. We look for light, but all is darkness; 
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows. Like the blind we grope along the wall, feeling our way like men without eyes. At midday we stumble as if it were twilight; among the strong, we are like the dead. We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves. We look for justice, but find none; for deliverance, but it is far away. 

So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. 

The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. 
(Isaiah 59:4, 9-11, 14, 15 NIV84)
_______________

Truth is nowhere to be found. The Free Press that the nation needs has been subverted to personal bias and agenda and it is on the Left and the Right. We have to learn to discern and think for ourselves and not let others do it for us. 

We live in interesting times. 

HT: http://www.dennyburk.com/asinine-ignorant-unfair-journalism-at-the-washington-post/

The Tebow Moment, FBC Dallas' $130 Million Sanctuary, and the End of Christendom

As I reported earlier today, Tim Tebow has decided to withdraw his name from a list of speakers invited to help First Baptist, Dallas, TX open their new $130 million downtown sanctuary.  Tebow did this because of the campaign begun by pro-gay groups who have labelled First Baptist's pastor, Robert Jeffress as an intolerant and controversial pastor because of things that he has said about homosexuals, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, and other groups.  Jeffress has been very direct and to the point over the years in saying that homosexuality was sin and that Mormons, Muslims, and Jews are going to Hell because they do not embrace the Biblical Jesus.

Gregg Doyel, a CBS Sports reporter was one of Tebow's most outspoken critics for his decision to speak at First Baptist.  Doyel says,

Tim Tebow is about to make the biggest mistake of his life. Tebow has agreed to speak at a hateful Baptist preacher's church, an evangelical cretin named Robert Jeffress who does the work of the Lord sort of like Westboro Baptist in Topeka, Kan., does the work of the Lord.

Not at all.

Jeffress isn't as bad as Westboro. He doesn't send his flock to funerals of U.S. soldiers and have his sheep yell awful things like, "God hates fags." But he comes close. Too close. He believes, he has said, "It's a fact that [AIDS is] a gay disease so there's a reasonable reason to exclude gays from the military.Jeffress is a bad guy. He says Jews and homosexuals are going to hell. He says the Catholic church is a satanic cult. He says Islam "is a religion that promotes pedophilia -- sex with children."

Mormons? They're going to hell, too, but Jeffress was willing to overlook that and promote Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election because Obama, Jeffress said, "is paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist."  "I am not saying that President Obama is the Antichrist, I am not saying that at all," Jeffress said in November. "One reason I know he's not the Antichrist is the Antichrist is going to have much higher poll numbers when he comes."

Tim Tebow supports this man. More than supports him, Tebow is going to throw his weight -- and it is considerable; we're talking about Tim Tebow for God's sake -- behind this preacher by speaking at his church in Dallas in April. And that is a mistake he'll never overcome.

Doyel concludes his rant with this denunciation:

I'm ashamed to like Tim Tebow now. More specifically, I don't like Tim Tebow now. I can't. Liking him means liking someone who wouldn't just agree with, but would support, Robert Jeffress. And I despise Robert Jeffress.  And there are people like me, I promise you. Thousands, maybe millions of us who have enjoyed Tim Tebow as a sports spectacle, but who won't enjoy this. Who can't enjoy this. I suspect there are Christians -- many of you -- who are as disappointed as I am that Tebow would align himself with something as monstrous as Robert Jeffress. Please read that sentence again, because this column isn't an attack of Christianity.

I don't consider Robert Jeffress' theology to be Christianity, a religion built on love. Jeffress speaks hate. Robert Jeffress wouldn't have saved Mary Magdalene. He would have stoned her. Tim Tebow will speak at this man's church. Be gone, Tim Tebow. I'm done with you.

This is on CBS Sports. And, Doyel's views and those of others gained traction until Tebow declined to speak at the grand opening of First Baptist Dallas' $130 million downtown sanctuary. Think about the implications of this for a moment - a complete denunciation by critics of Tebow because he associates with the pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, TX.

Whatever Jeffress has said or has not said, the fact remains that he pastors one of the most influential and largest churches in Evangelicalism. Tim Tebow was seen as a "savior" of sorts for Evangelicals in America over the past couple of years as he prayed and gave witness to Christ. The fact that Tebow will not speak in a church that has views that are largely accepted in Evangelicalism under pressure from secularists is telling. Not only is the Christian cultural consensus in America dead, but the Evangelical consensus is also breaking up under the weight of the hostility of the larger culture. The only kind of "Christianity" deemed acceptable in America today is the kind that is being reframed as all love and no judgment for sin.  Even Tim Tebow, an Evangelical Icon, cannot hold the worlds of culture, football, and faith together any longer. The center of Cultural Christianity that we have depended upon cannot hold.

We might remember this as the Tebow Moment. 

To take this a bit further, First Baptist Church, Dallas, TX, is about to dedicate a $130 million sanctuary in Downtown Dallas, TX.  The worship center will seat 3,000 people with a mile of pews, stained glass windows, and impressive fountains. It is a mammoth structure. The grand opening events will have speakers and performers such as David Jeremiah, Charles Billingsley, Jim Cymbala, Phil Wickham, the Brooklyn Tabernacle Singers, and Dr. James Dobson. Tim Tebow was supposed to join that lineup. But, one must ask what kind of bells and whistles are involved in a $130 million price tag for a 3,000 seat sanctuary. One must ask if spending $130 million on a 3,000 seat sanctuary with fountains and glass and other luxuries is even the religion that Jesus had in mind when he died on the cross alone and rejected. First Baptist will celebrate over the next month. The world wonders what they are celebrating.  

Another problem:  The thinking that causes a church to build a $130 million building in downtown Dallas, TX is based on the assumptions of Christendom - the idea that Christianity is favored and that the masses will see it as a benefit to their way of life to participate in such an endeavor. But, as the Tebow Moment shows, that reality is changing rapidly. FBC Dallas is now seen as an intolerant, hateful church by the larger world. It is seen as promoting a hateful religion that seeks to harm other people. However, this is not a fringe church. This church is at the heart of Evangelicalism and the result of it being seen this way will have an effect on Evangelical churches around America. It was one thing for us to disavow Westboro for their hatred. It will be quite another to be expected to disavow First Baptist Church, Dallas, TX. They are us, at least in a relational sense.

And, will a church that continues to hold unpopular views and that is seen as intolerant and hateful be able to pay for a $130 million sanctuary? Here is a view of the sanctuary:

First Baptist Dallas Construction Video from First Dallas on Vimeo.

We live in challenging times. I don't know what the future holds, but I know that Evangelicals must maintain Biblical positions and do so in love. HOW we communicate those positions needs to be thought about more clearly in a culture that has now become very hostile to the Christian faith - or, at least the form of Christianity that says that there is such a thing as sin and that Jesus is the only way of salvation. Also, what posture we take in the world is important. We demonstrate what our values are by how we spend our money and use our resources. Is a $130 million sanctuary built during a terrible recession while people are struggling the best way to represent Christ in this changing environment? With the presuppositions of Christendom giving way to a culture now hostile to Christian thought and morality, what is the future of endeavors like this? What is the future of First Baptist, Dallas?

We can expect persecution. I just wonder if we are ready for it?

I also wonder if perhaps God is not stripping us of everything that we have ever depended upon besides Him? We'll see how First Baptist Dallas responds.  I wonder how the rest of us will respond as well. The world is very different than it was just a year or two ago.

Under Pressure, Tim Tebow Cancels First Baptist, Dallas, TX Appearance

After opposition arose against First Baptist, Dallas, TX and pastor Robert Jeffress for what were called "controversial" stands against homosexuals, Muslims, Mormons, and other groups, Tim Tebow, who was scheduled to speak there, has just cancelled his appearance in a series of tweets.

@TimTebow: "While I was looking forward to sharing a message of hope and Christ's unconditional love with the faithful members of the historic...First Baptist Church of Dallas in April, due to new information that has been brought to my attention, I have decided to cancel my...upcoming appearance. I will continue to use the platform God has blessed me with to bring Faith, Hope and Love to all those......needing a brighter day. Thank you for all of your love and support." God Bless!Sent Feb 21, 09:09 AM 

The opposition to him speaking there has come from groups like Change.org who launched a petition on their website calling for Tebow to not speak at First Baptist:

"This church's pastor has made several openly anti-gay and anti-Semitic comments. By speaking at this church, Mr. Tebow would be legitimizing the opinion of that pastor and those in the church that are homophobic and anti-Jewish."

https://www.change.org/petitions/tim-tebow-please-don-t-speak-at-first-baptist-dallas

I don't know everything about Robert Jeffress or all that he has said. But, First Baptist, Dallas, TX is hardly a fringe church in Evangelicalism. The fact that it is being treated as a "hate group" and that Tebow was both pressured and gave in to the pressure to not speak there is a huge development in the advance of secular forces and their impact on the church. Louie Giglio could not pray at the Inauguration because of a message preached 15 years ago where he called homosexuality sin and now Tebow won't speak at a church that promotes conservative positions. Even if you disagree with First Baptist on some of these positions, the climate that is emerging here is very troubling, to say the least. 
Less than a year ago, President Obama was still AGAINST gay marriage. Think of how much has changed since then.

Louisiana College and the Death of Leadership

Joshua Breland and Drew Wales have been writing about how Louisiana College is burning. It appears that it has already burned down and it just doesn't know it yet, at least from an influence/leadership standpoint. Drew Wales withdrew from classes yesterday. Perhaps Josh is not far behind. I hope not. I hope he sticks this out and the trustess of LC step up and do their job. The Baptist world is watching and looking for leadership - and so far, the only leadership I have seen is from two theology students named Joshua Breland and Drew Wales. Everyone else involved is either complicit in abuse of authority or are trafficking in cowardice from how it looks to me. There is a trustee meeting next week and my hope is that the trustees show strong leadership and hold accountable those who have abused their authority.

Louisiana College is an academic institution. It let go three professors without real cause - except for the fact that they were Calvinists, a theological position accepted in the SBC from the very beginning and never disavowed. Joshua and Drew, AFTER the decisions were made, began to highlight what was happening and called for reconsideration. They tried to speak with leadership, but the decisions were made and they had no voice. So, LC being a public institution making public decisions, Joshua and Drew began to protest on the basis of conviction. My Baptist History classes told me that Baptists have been dissenters since our beginning. Our churches are built so that people can, moved by the Holy Spirit, have a say in things. Joshua and Drew expressed their opinion on the situation. Most colleges and universities actually make room for student dissent of administration decisions. They are not afraid of alternative opinions or of being questioned. They are not afraid of discussion - at least that is how it is supposed to be.

The implications of Louisiana College's decision to clean house of Calvinists is no small thing for Southern Baptists theologically. It should be questioned and discussed and defended by advocates and opposed by detractors. No Baptist body - including Louisiana Baptists - have ever made a decision AGAINST Calvinism. So, a Cooperative Program state baptist college can just do so arbitrarily?  By what authority? For Breland and Wales to question this is right and appropriate. For the trustees of LC to NOT question it is an abdication of duty, in my opinion. But, their meeting is coming up next week. Hopefully, they will rectify this.

It is too late for Drew Wales, though, at least as a student of LC. Under pressure of disciplinary action for daring to speak up about a move that has no real ethical or theological defense, he withdrew from school. As Baptists, we should encourage those who take principled stands. During the Conservative Resurgance, how many students of Baptist colleges and seminaries opposed leadership - and were ENCOURAGED to do so? Were they disciplined? What would have happened if courageous, conservative Baptist college students who opposed the liberal directions of Baptist college leadership had been censured and disciplined for expressing concern?  Leaders in the Conservative Resurgence would have defended them vociferously. They would have been martyrs in the cause. Where are those same leaders now?

Dissent was acceptable during the CR but it is NOT acceptable now, apparently. Real leadership means that you are not just thinking about yourself but are instead thinking about the good of others.  The only ones that I have observed in this who have the best interests of Louisiana College at heart are Joshua Breland and Drew Wales. And, they are being disciplined for it. Louisiana College will lose their accreditation with SACS if they do not quickly reverse course, in my opinion. Also, in my opinion, this is not just about Calvinism but it is about power and control and who gets to wield it. True Biblical leadership is self-sacrificing, courageous, and puts others ahead of self.  I have seen that in Breland and Wales as they have tried to act in the best interests of LC and am waiting to see the same thing from LC administration and trustees and the rest of Louisiana Baptist leadership. Leadership is not about position but about doing the right thing and standing for truth, even at expense to yourself.

When do we get to see that from Louisiana College leadership? Or, has their influence/authority already burned down? 

 

Carnival Cruise Ship Nightmare as Metaphor

If you are like me, you have been following with interest the Carnival Cruise Ship breakdown in the Gulf of Mexico where 4,000 vacationers have been stuck on a disabled ship with backed up bathrooms, no food, sickness, and oppressive heat. People who thought they were going to enjoy a great vacation on a floating hotel with endless buffet spreads, ice sculptures, gambling, drinking, and Vegas-style shows had their plans completely destroyed as a fire broke out in the engine room early Sunday morning leaving the ship basically lost at sea. Reports have been coming in of urine soaked hallways, almost no food, and people in misery. Now, after being pulled into port in Mobile, Alabama by a tug boat going 4-5 mph, one of the busses taking them to New Orleans to spend the night broke down.  The nightmare just kept going. 

Fortunately, Carnival Cruise lines is offering a reimbursement of the costs of the cruise, a 15% discount on their next cruise with Carnival (oh, really?), and a whopping $500 in cash for their trouble.  I think that along with loved ones waiting to pick up the weary travelers, there were probably a host of lawyers ready to give their own version of aid, for a small fee, of course.

All of this got me thinking about how fragile our Fantasy Island/Love Boat existence in America is. We think that things will just keep chugging on toward the destination that we have charted out and we work for life to be as fun and simple as a cruise. A sense of entitlement grows and we have the expectation that we will be taken care of and happy and things will generally go our way.  When they don't, we get frustrated, depressed, and wonder what is wrong. But, life is not like a Carnival Cruise ship.  The reality is a whole lot more like that broken vessel that was pulled into port by a tug boat reeking of urine and sewage. Oh, great!  I'm being all cheery today!  But, it really is true. Real life is full of engine fires and things not working out. We use our wealth and power to try and insulate ourselves from it, but it never works. At some point, our best attempts break down and we are left waiting and wondering what comes next.

I think about what happened during Hurricane Katrina when I saw families coming into the shelter that we started with all of their belongings in a paper bag. I think about the families that we met when my son had cancer as they saw their own children taken by a vicious disease. I think about people that I have known who have been abused or who have seen their spouses leave them for no reason or who have lost jobs that they have poured their heart and soul into through no fault of their own.  You are floating along and things are going well and then you hit an iceberg and it is every man for himself as the ship goes down.  Nothing in life is guaranteed.

The Carnival Cruise Fiasco story is interesting for us on land and was a nightmare for those on the ship. While we have good days and there is much to enjoy and celebrate in life, the reality is that the Carnival fiasco is a metaphor for the unexpected tragedies that we face in life. These things will come. How will you handle them? Will you panic and give in to fear?  Will you think that you don't deserve bad things to happen to you? In a world racked with sin and death, we have a Savior who has entered in to rescue and provide hope. We must cling to Christ and represent Him, even in the midst of tragedy. I hope that everyone who went through this past week is okay, but I also recognize that people all over the world right now are going through their own tragedies. Fortunately, God sees and knows and gives strength and comfort when we cling to Him. Grace is always available, even in the midst of disaster.