Here is an excerpt from the much-publicized “Key Findings” of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life dated June 23, 2008:
“Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions - not just their own - can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%). Only among Mormons (57%) and Jehovah's Witnesses (80%) do majorities say that their own religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life.”
“Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions. The exceptions are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, 54% and 77% of whom, respectively, say there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion.”
Kent Comments:
An interesting storm front always brews up when a society devoted to some version of “tolerance” is also very involved with a religion which seems to teach that there is “one way only” to God.
All sorts of little eddies develop in the winds of such a storm. For one thing, “tolerance” becomes very hard to define. Does it require that all views be accepted as somehow “true” or does it mean that even views that are false will not be persecuted in some way?
There is also the fear of “sounding like a cult.” Sometimes it seems that the greater the error in a religious view, the more cocksure its advocates become. We wouldn’t want to be like that, would we?
Let’s face it - the American mind-set makes it very comfortable to think in terms of some kind of universalism. That is, everyone is “going to heaven.” Don’t we all want to meet there some day for a big family reunion? Shouldn’t almost everyone - except, perhaps the most heinous criminals - be allowed to come?
But an at-face-value reading of the Christian faith doesn’t jive with this mind-set. Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except by me.” The Apostles said, “There is no other name [than Jesus] by which we must be saved.”
Christianity has many features that are attractive to us, but this one is not. It has therefore been subject to all sorts of ingenious attempts to explain it away.
The Pew Forum found that most American have a “non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion.” This is especially convenient because it allows Christians to non-dogmatically “interpret away” that unpleasant exclusivism that is part of the historic Christian faith.
Perhaps there is just enough truth in any religion to give a devoted practitioner access to God. Perhaps Jesus really is the only way to God, but you can be “in Him” without even knowing it. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps . . . and on the non-dogmaticism goes.
It says something very disturbing that more than half of the members of evangelical Protestant churches have taken some kind of mental refuge in one of those “perhaps.” You might expect that from the “big seven” mainline denominations which gave up the historic Christian faith many years ago. But the evangelical Protestants were supposed to “go against the grain” especially in regard to matters like this.
It is possible that they have, at least among the leaders, to some extent. This unpleasant aspect of the historic Christian faith probably gets an airing at many evangelical churches, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it “takes” with church members.
For a long time, evangelical churches have been busy making themselves attractive to the culture around them, so as to entice the members of that culture to enter their folds. This has been a very tricky business about which many have warned us.
When evangelicals invited people to bring all the trappings of current culture to church with them in the hopes that this would attract more people to church, did they not suspect that this would also invite cultural attitudes into the church?
Many evangelicals were willing to make the church into a high-tech, rock concert, shopping mall, munch-donuts-and-chat-on-your-cell-phone venue. In other words, they invited people to think that church is just that culture you love with a little dab of God on top.
Of course, a part of our culture is the belief that, in the end, everyone will be saved. So why should we be surprised that, down at the “surround sound theater” church, that’s exactly what most people believe?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Obscene Profits and Stupid Politicians
From: CNSNews.com
June 11, 2008
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080611d.html
"At a time of record oil prices and record profits -- when oil companies are getting various tax breaks and financial incentives from the federal government -- shouldn't those companies "be able to give something back to the consumer?" NBC's Matt Lauer asked McCain. "Absolutely," McCain replied.
"And they should be investing in alternative energy and they should be giving back to the consumer and they should be embarking on research and development that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil," McCain said.
"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits," McCain said.
Last month in North Carolina, McCain said, "I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere -- and I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax -- that's not what bothers me -- but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people or industries or corporations that are distorting the market."
Kent Comments: I am not an economist, but I can usually detect some Baloney Sandwich when I see it. All the recent talk about “windfall profits” on the part of oil companies has “BS” written all over it. Let’s run through some items as they appear in this news story.
Notice how in Matt Lauer’s question (such a completely unbiased question), we are told (should good questions “tell” us anything?) that oil companies are making a lot of money and getting “tax breaks” from the government. Because of these two facts, Matt tells us (still in his question) that oil companies should “be able to give something back to the consumer.”
Isn’t it comforting to hear our Republican presidential nominee simply agree with this, without question or qualm? But that’s not the main point here.
So oil companies are getting “tax breaks.” Let’s rephrase that one: oil companies aren’t being taxed as much as they could be. Right now, oil companies are making decent profits, and by the reckoning of most news people and politicians, this means that oil companies should be taxed more and should give consumers some kind of discount.
That being the case, when oil company profits are low - and they have been low in the past - will these same news people and politicians call on the government to lower taxes on oil companies. Will they call on consumers to pay extra to the oil companies, beyond what they charge? For some reason, I have never heard anyone call for that!
Then, the pseudo-brilliant John McCain (who seems a more stupid every time I hear him speak) informs us that oil companies “have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways,” adding that “there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits.”
That is akin to telling an automobile manufacturer firm that it should be “more participatory in making motorcycles.” Oil companies extract and process oil. They collect people who are experts at that and that alone. Telling them to do other things is, well, stupid.
Now let’s talk about all that “emotion” about the profits of oil companies. If people are all that “emotional” about the profits of oil companies, there is something very immediate and practical that they can do. They can put their money where their big, fat, “emotional” mouths are - that is, they can buy oil company stocks.
If John McCain really wants to help people, here are two practical suggestions: urge the government to lower taxes on oil companies, and tell people to move their savings, IRAs, 401ks, and so forth - and participate in these large profits!
But John McCain doesn’t like “obscene profits” being made anywhere. Hey Johnny, here’s a hint: the biggest “obscene profit” being made is by the government. The government makes more in taxes on a gallon of gasoline than does any oil company.
John McCain thinks someone is “distorting the market.” Yes, someone is. That “someone” is the unholy alliance between governmental bureaucracy and environmentalists that prevents more oil from being extracted from the U.S.
Economic ignorance - whether it comes naturally or by concerted effort - is a very dangerous thing. It’s especially dangerous in politicians - a location where it is most often found.
June 11, 2008
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080611d.html
"At a time of record oil prices and record profits -- when oil companies are getting various tax breaks and financial incentives from the federal government -- shouldn't those companies "be able to give something back to the consumer?" NBC's Matt Lauer asked McCain. "Absolutely," McCain replied.
"And they should be investing in alternative energy and they should be giving back to the consumer and they should be embarking on research and development that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil," McCain said.
"The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits," McCain said.
Last month in North Carolina, McCain said, "I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere -- and I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax -- that's not what bothers me -- but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people or industries or corporations that are distorting the market."
Kent Comments: I am not an economist, but I can usually detect some Baloney Sandwich when I see it. All the recent talk about “windfall profits” on the part of oil companies has “BS” written all over it. Let’s run through some items as they appear in this news story.
Notice how in Matt Lauer’s question (such a completely unbiased question), we are told (should good questions “tell” us anything?) that oil companies are making a lot of money and getting “tax breaks” from the government. Because of these two facts, Matt tells us (still in his question) that oil companies should “be able to give something back to the consumer.”
Isn’t it comforting to hear our Republican presidential nominee simply agree with this, without question or qualm? But that’s not the main point here.
So oil companies are getting “tax breaks.” Let’s rephrase that one: oil companies aren’t being taxed as much as they could be. Right now, oil companies are making decent profits, and by the reckoning of most news people and politicians, this means that oil companies should be taxed more and should give consumers some kind of discount.
That being the case, when oil company profits are low - and they have been low in the past - will these same news people and politicians call on the government to lower taxes on oil companies. Will they call on consumers to pay extra to the oil companies, beyond what they charge? For some reason, I have never heard anyone call for that!
Then, the pseudo-brilliant John McCain (who seems a more stupid every time I hear him speak) informs us that oil companies “have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways,” adding that “there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits.”
That is akin to telling an automobile manufacturer firm that it should be “more participatory in making motorcycles.” Oil companies extract and process oil. They collect people who are experts at that and that alone. Telling them to do other things is, well, stupid.
Now let’s talk about all that “emotion” about the profits of oil companies. If people are all that “emotional” about the profits of oil companies, there is something very immediate and practical that they can do. They can put their money where their big, fat, “emotional” mouths are - that is, they can buy oil company stocks.
If John McCain really wants to help people, here are two practical suggestions: urge the government to lower taxes on oil companies, and tell people to move their savings, IRAs, 401ks, and so forth - and participate in these large profits!
But John McCain doesn’t like “obscene profits” being made anywhere. Hey Johnny, here’s a hint: the biggest “obscene profit” being made is by the government. The government makes more in taxes on a gallon of gasoline than does any oil company.
John McCain thinks someone is “distorting the market.” Yes, someone is. That “someone” is the unholy alliance between governmental bureaucracy and environmentalists that prevents more oil from being extracted from the U.S.
Economic ignorance - whether it comes naturally or by concerted effort - is a very dangerous thing. It’s especially dangerous in politicians - a location where it is most often found.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The 'Moment of Truth'
Pennies for Your Thoughts
What Fox TV's public confessional reveals.
Todd Hertz | posted 6/10/2008 08:55AM
Before appearing on Fox's popular The Moment of Truth (Wednesdays, 8/7c), contestants are asked 21 increasingly personal questions while hooked to a polygraph machine. Then, on camera, they field the same questions while hooked to the lie detector, but this time with loved ones sitting just a few feet away—and a viewing audience of more than 10 million. The more questions they truthfully answer, the more money they win—up to $500,000.
One man, with his spouse sitting in the front row, was asked, "Are you sexually attracted to your wife's sisters?" (He said yes.) A woman, with her mother in the audience, was asked, "Do you want to look like your mom when you are her age?" (She said no.) It gets uncomfortable. Each family is allowed to skip one question if they can't bear to hear the answer.
In one episode, a woman in the hot seat was asked by an ex-boyfriend, "Would you leave your husband for me?" After a few tense seconds, the woman's sister slapped the pass button. The audience let out a chorus of scathing boos. They wanted to know.
I recalled the bloodthirsty crowds in Gladiator, who jeered fighters who would not kill. Like them, this TV audience wanted entertainment, no matter the cost. The difference? Now we want emotional carnage. Perhaps this is a byproduct of our instant, total-access culture. We want to know what Britney Spears is doing right now. We want to know a stranger's dirty laundry. This voyeurism, or "information porn," feels dirty and thrilling. As one Fox exec said of the show, "By the time a participant is done, you know all about them." But should we? . . .
Christians understand the need for honesty and confession; some ugly truths, like the adultery one contestant admitted, must be revealed—privately. But can such public transparency—inspired by monetary gain in front of jeering masses—truly benefit anyone?
Well, apparently Fox.
Kent comments:
The ability to know and the need to know: hard to sort out sometimes, aren’t they?
For some time I have been struck by the irony of the fact that Fox broadcasting - which is supposed to be the darling of conservatives for being “fair and balanced” - also promotes some of the trashiest garbage on its “entertainment” venue of any of the networks. Don't conservatives supposedly lament the decay of culture?
An aside: as far as being “fair and balanced” goes, I notice that in its radio news Fox seems to cover the same stories with about the same perspective as any other network. It would be fun and informative to hear the news from a completely different perspective. This would include selecting stories other than those thought to be important by UPI, AP, and the New York Times. As far as I can tell, Fox doesn’t really do that.
Meanwhile, back to the original topic . . .
Christianity Today is quite right to point out the depravity of the whole format of something like “The Moment of Truth.” Our culture constantly craves a vicarious emotional fix. Propriety and decency can’t be allowed to stand in the way of that!
Christians are supposed to be tellers of truth. But that by no means implies that we are under any obligation to tell everyone, or even anyone, all the truths we know. Some truths are appropriately private, rightly shared only with God. Some things are simply no one else’s business. That fact seems to elude many in our culture - especially when there is money to be made.
There is a lamentable tendency today for the church to mimic the culture rather than critiquing it. Churches fashion themselves like a shopping mall or a coffee shop in order to attract crowds.
How long will it be before some congregation - under the faulty guise of “confession” and “truth” - sponsors an evening of a supposedly Christian “Moment of Truth”?
What Fox TV's public confessional reveals.
Todd Hertz | posted 6/10/2008 08:55AM
Before appearing on Fox's popular The Moment of Truth (Wednesdays, 8/7c), contestants are asked 21 increasingly personal questions while hooked to a polygraph machine. Then, on camera, they field the same questions while hooked to the lie detector, but this time with loved ones sitting just a few feet away—and a viewing audience of more than 10 million. The more questions they truthfully answer, the more money they win—up to $500,000.
One man, with his spouse sitting in the front row, was asked, "Are you sexually attracted to your wife's sisters?" (He said yes.) A woman, with her mother in the audience, was asked, "Do you want to look like your mom when you are her age?" (She said no.) It gets uncomfortable. Each family is allowed to skip one question if they can't bear to hear the answer.
In one episode, a woman in the hot seat was asked by an ex-boyfriend, "Would you leave your husband for me?" After a few tense seconds, the woman's sister slapped the pass button. The audience let out a chorus of scathing boos. They wanted to know.
I recalled the bloodthirsty crowds in Gladiator, who jeered fighters who would not kill. Like them, this TV audience wanted entertainment, no matter the cost. The difference? Now we want emotional carnage. Perhaps this is a byproduct of our instant, total-access culture. We want to know what Britney Spears is doing right now. We want to know a stranger's dirty laundry. This voyeurism, or "information porn," feels dirty and thrilling. As one Fox exec said of the show, "By the time a participant is done, you know all about them." But should we? . . .
Christians understand the need for honesty and confession; some ugly truths, like the adultery one contestant admitted, must be revealed—privately. But can such public transparency—inspired by monetary gain in front of jeering masses—truly benefit anyone?
Well, apparently Fox.
Kent comments:
The ability to know and the need to know: hard to sort out sometimes, aren’t they?
For some time I have been struck by the irony of the fact that Fox broadcasting - which is supposed to be the darling of conservatives for being “fair and balanced” - also promotes some of the trashiest garbage on its “entertainment” venue of any of the networks. Don't conservatives supposedly lament the decay of culture?
An aside: as far as being “fair and balanced” goes, I notice that in its radio news Fox seems to cover the same stories with about the same perspective as any other network. It would be fun and informative to hear the news from a completely different perspective. This would include selecting stories other than those thought to be important by UPI, AP, and the New York Times. As far as I can tell, Fox doesn’t really do that.
Meanwhile, back to the original topic . . .
Christianity Today is quite right to point out the depravity of the whole format of something like “The Moment of Truth.” Our culture constantly craves a vicarious emotional fix. Propriety and decency can’t be allowed to stand in the way of that!
Christians are supposed to be tellers of truth. But that by no means implies that we are under any obligation to tell everyone, or even anyone, all the truths we know. Some truths are appropriately private, rightly shared only with God. Some things are simply no one else’s business. That fact seems to elude many in our culture - especially when there is money to be made.
There is a lamentable tendency today for the church to mimic the culture rather than critiquing it. Churches fashion themselves like a shopping mall or a coffee shop in order to attract crowds.
How long will it be before some congregation - under the faulty guise of “confession” and “truth” - sponsors an evening of a supposedly Christian “Moment of Truth”?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
'Open Hands' Can Drop Important Things
This post consists of comments on:
CHRISTIAN VISION PROJECT
An Open-Handed Gospel
We have to decide whether we have a stingy or a generous God.
Richard J. Mouw (Richard J. Mouw is president and professor of Christian philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary.)
Kent will comment in this color bold. The rest is excerpts from this article. You can read the whole thing at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/15.44.html and I will say up front that the author says much that is not quoted here. Also, I am not attempting to defend any group of evangelicals, of which group I am not a member. I only want to comment on some of the ideas presented. Away we go.
Many evangelical commentators these days insist that salvation is closely tied to doctrinal clarity. Here, for example, is how one prominent evangelical leader criticized those of us who have endorsed the various "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" documents: "What those signers … are saying is that while they believe the doctrine of justification as articulated by the Reformers is true, they are not willing to say people must believe it to be saved. In other words, they believe people are saved who do not believe the biblical doctrine of justification."
I am passionate in my agreement with Martin Luther on justification by faith alone. But do I believe that a person can be confused about this doctrine and still be saved? Absolutely.
I sympathize with the plea to avoid thinking that everyone who doesn’t understand all of Biblical teaching is headed for hell. My gut instinct is to want to throw the gates of heaven wide open to everyone who wants to come, no matter what they think or do. But my instincts do not count for anything here. There are beliefs, according to the Bible, that we must hold in order to be saved. For example, the Apostle Paul in Romans 10:9 informs us that one belief required for salvation is the “God raised Jesus from the dead.” Many people simply do not believe that, and if they do not, I can offer them no reassurance about salvation.
While it sounds a bit harsh, I don’t make up these rules, I just report them.
And the truth is that we evangelicals often give the impression that we have decided to be a spiritually stingy people. A recent Barna Group survey, for example, offers evidence that many young people in the larger society think of evangelicals primarily as "judgmental" types, hostile toward folks in other religions and mean-spirited in our attitudes about homosexuality. Even many young evangelicals share some of these assessments of the older generation. A leader at an evangelical college said it this way: "A lot of our students worry about typical evangelical attitudes toward people who have different belief systems and lifestyles. It's not that they don't take the Bible's teachings seriously. It's just that they have gotten to know Muslims and gays, and they are embarrassed by the harsh spirit toward such folks that they see in the older generation. If we don't do something about this negative image soon, we could easily lose them for the evangelical cause."
Let’s not worry about Muslims just now. This matter of how Christians (or other people in our society, for that matter) should deal with “gays” is something that some Christian “leaders” have been harping about for some time now. (Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are worried sick about this very matter.)
Project with me for just a moment. Suppose those who enjoy the sin of having sexual relationships with animals suddenly decided to demand social recognition. (It will happen - it’s just a matter of time.) Suppose if you took your family to Cape Cod, instead of seeing men walking around draped around other men, you saw men (or women) and their “animal partner” of choice, the human now and then kissing or showing signs of affection/perversion to the animal. (I’m not sure how the animals might react, so I won’t explore that!)
Suppose the beastiphiles (yes, I made that one up) were all very sincere. Suppose they believed they were “born that way” and that their actions were something everyone else should “respect.” Suppose most public figures and media outlets began to treat the beastiphiles as a persecuted minority deserving some special legal protection. Suppose the beastiphiles began to demand that their employers cover their “significant animal other” under a healthcare plan. Suppose the beastiphiles began to demand legal recognition for human-beast marraige.
How should a Christian react to all that? Would not a bit of an it’s-time-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand attitude be justified? The only real difference between this senario and the current matter of “gay” things is that the “gay” propaganda his been force-fed to everyone in almost every venue for many years now. (And anyone who says otherwise simply has an anti-beastiphilia prejudice.)
I will stop there, but you get the idea.
I have spent a lot of time trying to promote convicted civility. I have to confess, however, that I sometimes get a little nervous about that project. It is so easy . . . to err on one side or the other; holding both up simultaneously takes constant effort. And I would hate to have assisted the cause of a freewheeling sense of divine generosity that does not maintain vigilance in protecting and defending the truth of the gospel.
But the effort to keep this marriage together needs to be made. The proper antidote to relativism and universalism is not a retreat into a stingy spirit. We must be clear in telling others about the hope that lies within us, the apostle Peter teaches; but he quickly adds that we must always do so "with gentleness and respect" (1 Pet. 3:15–16).
We need to be careful not to read into “gentleness and respect” things the Biblical writers did not intend. For example, some anti-Christian assertions make the one who makes them worthy of “condemnation” - this according to the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:8. (For other examples, examine the public pronouncements of John the Baptizer.)
Because we live in a culture that itself condemns any view that does not pretend to tolerate every view, almost anything Christians try to say or do is going to be falsely branded as “intolerant” and thus lacking respect. “Respect” has come to mean that we must never seriously critique anyone’s view of anything.
So while some Christians can be overly vitriolic, what we lack more than anything today is a clear statement of truth in a world wedded to relativism. In that context, charges that we lack “gentleness and respect” will often mean that we are stating some truth some members of our culture would rather not hear.
Sometimes, perhaps often times, the problem is not with what we are saying or how we are saying it. The problem is with listener who needs to repent.
[regarding some kind words exchanged between a Jewish rabbi and the king of an Islamic country]
As an evangelical Christian . . . I believe with all my heart that the God I worship, the God of Abraham, looked down on that scene, where a descendent of Isaac gave a blessing to a descendent of Ishmael, and smiled and said, "That's good! That's the way I want things to be!" I'm not entirely clear about how to work this into my theology, I confessed, but I'm willing to live with some mystery in thinking about that encounter.
I find I need to live with some mystery about what God is doing in the Abrahamic religions. At the same time, I cannot fail to proclaim the John 3:16 message that God has sent a Savior, and that those who believe on him will not perish but have everlasting life.
We serve a God whose generous ways with others are beyond our capacity to grasp. But that same generosity has been clearly displayed in the marvelous grace that sent our Savior to Calvary—an abundant grace that is greater than all of our sin. The proclamation of that overwhelming generosity must not be muted, even as we live in the presence of mysteries we cannot comprehend.
There is a pervasive and perverse tendency for those who want to avoid coming to any definite conclusion to hide in “mystery.” In Biblical terminology, what God has revealed is no longer a mystery. There is no “mystery” about “what God is doing in the Abrahamic religions.” He has done and is doing the same thing there as in every other religion. That program is nicely summarized by the Apostle Paul who said (by the way, to a hostile audience whose religious views, Paul had just informed them, were incorrect):
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." (Act 17:30-31 ESV)
Need I say more?
CHRISTIAN VISION PROJECT
An Open-Handed Gospel
We have to decide whether we have a stingy or a generous God.
Richard J. Mouw (Richard J. Mouw is president and professor of Christian philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary.)
Kent will comment in this color bold. The rest is excerpts from this article. You can read the whole thing at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/15.44.html and I will say up front that the author says much that is not quoted here. Also, I am not attempting to defend any group of evangelicals, of which group I am not a member. I only want to comment on some of the ideas presented. Away we go.
Many evangelical commentators these days insist that salvation is closely tied to doctrinal clarity. Here, for example, is how one prominent evangelical leader criticized those of us who have endorsed the various "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" documents: "What those signers … are saying is that while they believe the doctrine of justification as articulated by the Reformers is true, they are not willing to say people must believe it to be saved. In other words, they believe people are saved who do not believe the biblical doctrine of justification."
I am passionate in my agreement with Martin Luther on justification by faith alone. But do I believe that a person can be confused about this doctrine and still be saved? Absolutely.
I sympathize with the plea to avoid thinking that everyone who doesn’t understand all of Biblical teaching is headed for hell. My gut instinct is to want to throw the gates of heaven wide open to everyone who wants to come, no matter what they think or do. But my instincts do not count for anything here. There are beliefs, according to the Bible, that we must hold in order to be saved. For example, the Apostle Paul in Romans 10:9 informs us that one belief required for salvation is the “God raised Jesus from the dead.” Many people simply do not believe that, and if they do not, I can offer them no reassurance about salvation.
While it sounds a bit harsh, I don’t make up these rules, I just report them.
And the truth is that we evangelicals often give the impression that we have decided to be a spiritually stingy people. A recent Barna Group survey, for example, offers evidence that many young people in the larger society think of evangelicals primarily as "judgmental" types, hostile toward folks in other religions and mean-spirited in our attitudes about homosexuality. Even many young evangelicals share some of these assessments of the older generation. A leader at an evangelical college said it this way: "A lot of our students worry about typical evangelical attitudes toward people who have different belief systems and lifestyles. It's not that they don't take the Bible's teachings seriously. It's just that they have gotten to know Muslims and gays, and they are embarrassed by the harsh spirit toward such folks that they see in the older generation. If we don't do something about this negative image soon, we could easily lose them for the evangelical cause."
Let’s not worry about Muslims just now. This matter of how Christians (or other people in our society, for that matter) should deal with “gays” is something that some Christian “leaders” have been harping about for some time now. (Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are worried sick about this very matter.)
Project with me for just a moment. Suppose those who enjoy the sin of having sexual relationships with animals suddenly decided to demand social recognition. (It will happen - it’s just a matter of time.) Suppose if you took your family to Cape Cod, instead of seeing men walking around draped around other men, you saw men (or women) and their “animal partner” of choice, the human now and then kissing or showing signs of affection/perversion to the animal. (I’m not sure how the animals might react, so I won’t explore that!)
Suppose the beastiphiles (yes, I made that one up) were all very sincere. Suppose they believed they were “born that way” and that their actions were something everyone else should “respect.” Suppose most public figures and media outlets began to treat the beastiphiles as a persecuted minority deserving some special legal protection. Suppose the beastiphiles began to demand that their employers cover their “significant animal other” under a healthcare plan. Suppose the beastiphiles began to demand legal recognition for human-beast marraige.
How should a Christian react to all that? Would not a bit of an it’s-time-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand attitude be justified? The only real difference between this senario and the current matter of “gay” things is that the “gay” propaganda his been force-fed to everyone in almost every venue for many years now. (And anyone who says otherwise simply has an anti-beastiphilia prejudice.)
I will stop there, but you get the idea.
I have spent a lot of time trying to promote convicted civility. I have to confess, however, that I sometimes get a little nervous about that project. It is so easy . . . to err on one side or the other; holding both up simultaneously takes constant effort. And I would hate to have assisted the cause of a freewheeling sense of divine generosity that does not maintain vigilance in protecting and defending the truth of the gospel.
But the effort to keep this marriage together needs to be made. The proper antidote to relativism and universalism is not a retreat into a stingy spirit. We must be clear in telling others about the hope that lies within us, the apostle Peter teaches; but he quickly adds that we must always do so "with gentleness and respect" (1 Pet. 3:15–16).
We need to be careful not to read into “gentleness and respect” things the Biblical writers did not intend. For example, some anti-Christian assertions make the one who makes them worthy of “condemnation” - this according to the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:8. (For other examples, examine the public pronouncements of John the Baptizer.)
Because we live in a culture that itself condemns any view that does not pretend to tolerate every view, almost anything Christians try to say or do is going to be falsely branded as “intolerant” and thus lacking respect. “Respect” has come to mean that we must never seriously critique anyone’s view of anything.
So while some Christians can be overly vitriolic, what we lack more than anything today is a clear statement of truth in a world wedded to relativism. In that context, charges that we lack “gentleness and respect” will often mean that we are stating some truth some members of our culture would rather not hear.
Sometimes, perhaps often times, the problem is not with what we are saying or how we are saying it. The problem is with listener who needs to repent.
[regarding some kind words exchanged between a Jewish rabbi and the king of an Islamic country]
As an evangelical Christian . . . I believe with all my heart that the God I worship, the God of Abraham, looked down on that scene, where a descendent of Isaac gave a blessing to a descendent of Ishmael, and smiled and said, "That's good! That's the way I want things to be!" I'm not entirely clear about how to work this into my theology, I confessed, but I'm willing to live with some mystery in thinking about that encounter.
I find I need to live with some mystery about what God is doing in the Abrahamic religions. At the same time, I cannot fail to proclaim the John 3:16 message that God has sent a Savior, and that those who believe on him will not perish but have everlasting life.
We serve a God whose generous ways with others are beyond our capacity to grasp. But that same generosity has been clearly displayed in the marvelous grace that sent our Savior to Calvary—an abundant grace that is greater than all of our sin. The proclamation of that overwhelming generosity must not be muted, even as we live in the presence of mysteries we cannot comprehend.
There is a pervasive and perverse tendency for those who want to avoid coming to any definite conclusion to hide in “mystery.” In Biblical terminology, what God has revealed is no longer a mystery. There is no “mystery” about “what God is doing in the Abrahamic religions.” He has done and is doing the same thing there as in every other religion. That program is nicely summarized by the Apostle Paul who said (by the way, to a hostile audience whose religious views, Paul had just informed them, were incorrect):
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." (Act 17:30-31 ESV)
Need I say more?
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The Unacceptable Costs of 'Social Engineering' Governments
I want to interact here with the article that follows. My comments will look like this and appear throughout the article as needed.
Why We Whisper [Breakpoint by Charles Colson]
The Economic Costs of Sin
May 2, 2008
Imagine the following social experiment: You divide up Americans into two groups. Those who agreed to live by traditional moral values live in certain states. Those who reject traditional values take up residence in other states that would allow them to do whatever they pleased, morally speaking.
I agree with the "spirit" of Colson's thesis. The problems he mentions are real. But I still think that what he and the authors of the book he is recommending miss a key point in this whole matter, as we will see below.
If by “traditional” moral values Chuck means “Christian ethics” then I must agree. All things being equal, keeping the commandments will make life better. Clearly, if we didn’t murder one another, if we didn’t steal from one another, if we didn’t tell damaging lies about others, if we didn’t commit adultery, then life could not help but be better for everyone.
After 20 years, which states would be better off—economically speaking? The traditional values states would be far better off, because the liberal states would be spending $500 billion dollars every year dealing with the economic costs of their moral decisions.
Senator Jim DeMint and David Woodward outline those costs in their book, titled: Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It's Wrong. As the authors note, "As elected officials and judges continue to throw traditions overboard from the ship of state," conspicuously absent from the political debate "is the mounting cost in dollars [and] debt."
But, of course, people are not always - or even often - going to live by the moral commandments of the Bible. Chuck wants to analyze the financial cost of failing to do so. While I think this is a worthy project, something very important is assumed in this analysis - and it is something that should not be assumed, but should be challenged.
For example, there is the cost in treating sexually transmitted diseases. Research shows that more than half of all Americans will contract a sexually transmitted disease at some point. The cost: Some $17 billion in higher taxes and health insurance costs every year. And that does not include secondary costs, like treating cervical cancer, infertility, birth defects, and brain damage. And yet, our government does little or nothing to discourage premarital sex.
There are several things here that should be challenged. Not a single tax dollar should be spent treating sexually transmitted diseases. I know taxes are spent on this - but rather than just complaining about it in this way, Christians should be challenging the morality of forcing one citizen to pay for the bad decision of another citizen. As nice as that sounds, it is a version of legalized theft.
And those health insurance costs? That problem could easily be solved if insurance companies were allowed to exclude sexually transmitted diseases from their coverage, or if they were allowed to refuse coverage to people who engage in activities likely to result in such diseases.
Of course, it would be much better if people simply didn’t engage in those activities. But since they do, the next best thing is to allow them to pay for their own moral mistakes, rather than forcing everyone else to pay for their moral mistakes.
And then there are the huge costs of out-of-wedlock childbearing. Welfare costs alone to single-parent families amount to $148 billion per year. We pay indirectly, as well, through costs associated with child abuse—much more common in single-parent homes—and in higher crime rates.
Again, having children outside marriage is a serious problem. And again, part of the problem here is that government actually encourages this activity by paying people, via welfare payments, who engage in this bad activity.
Americans spend billions on abortions—mostly to single women—not counting the expense of treating post-abortion medical and psychological problems.
Once again, this problem could be solved to some extent if our governments ceased all funding of organizations that provide abortions, and if we dealt with those who performed abortions as the criminals that they are.
We also pay huge economic bills associated with pornography and government-sponsored gambling. We pay for the easy availability of divorce and for the choice of many to cohabit instead of marry. In time we will, like Scandinavian countries, be asked to pay the economic costs of destroying traditional marriage.
So our efforts should be directed not just at disseminating good ethics, as important as that is, but in crying “bloody murder” when governments hand out money to people.
As DeMint and Woodward write, the quest for unfettered moral freedom has come at a very steep price—a price we all pay, whether we engage in these behaviors or not. And at the same time as we pay—more and more each year—we are being told we are narrow-minded bigots if we speak out against the destructive behaviors that are causing the increased costs.
I agree that there is an economic price we all now pay for bad behavior on the part of others. But one important mechanism to discourage bad behavior is to STOP PAYING FOR IT. At no point in this article does Colson make this very reasonable demand. Those who do what is right should not be forced to pay the expenses of those who do what is wrong.
The economic costs—not to mention the costs in human suffering—are why you and I need to speak out. We ought to insist that our lawmakers support policies that make good economic sense and relieve human misery. Instead of making biblical arguments, which sadly, most people do not listen to anymore, we ought to make prudential ones: that encouraging destructive behavior is destroying the economic health of our nation. And it is demonstrable.
So, Colson’s argument seems to go, if people will not listen to matters of right and wrong, they might just listen to the matter of what it is costing them. It is a good bet that people who don’t care about murder and adultery won’t be much affected by economic arguments. If you don’t mind destroying your own health by engaging in dangerous sexual activity, why are you going to be concerned about the “economic health of our nation”?
If special-interest groups and liberal lawmakers tell us to pipe down and stop trying to "impose our morality" on everyone else, we need to remind our leaders of that little clause in the Constitution: the one that talks about promoting the general welfare.
That phrase about “promoting the general welfare” occurs in the preamble to our Constitution. That general welfare was supposed to be promoted by the central government exercising only those very limited powers delegated to it by the Constitution.
Paying for abortions, fighting sexually transmitted diseases, payments to unwed mothers, and a host of other such things is not a power granted to the central government by our Constitution. So what we should be complaining about is not that many people are amoral. What we should be complaining about is the fact that our government has spun out of control. In its social engineering efforts, it has encouraged all sorts of bad behavior.
In regard to that bad behavior, Christians should preach repentance to sinners. In regard to policy, Christians should demand that government withdraw from areas where God never authorized it to operate.
Why We Whisper [Breakpoint by Charles Colson]
The Economic Costs of Sin
May 2, 2008
Imagine the following social experiment: You divide up Americans into two groups. Those who agreed to live by traditional moral values live in certain states. Those who reject traditional values take up residence in other states that would allow them to do whatever they pleased, morally speaking.
I agree with the "spirit" of Colson's thesis. The problems he mentions are real. But I still think that what he and the authors of the book he is recommending miss a key point in this whole matter, as we will see below.
If by “traditional” moral values Chuck means “Christian ethics” then I must agree. All things being equal, keeping the commandments will make life better. Clearly, if we didn’t murder one another, if we didn’t steal from one another, if we didn’t tell damaging lies about others, if we didn’t commit adultery, then life could not help but be better for everyone.
After 20 years, which states would be better off—economically speaking? The traditional values states would be far better off, because the liberal states would be spending $500 billion dollars every year dealing with the economic costs of their moral decisions.
Senator Jim DeMint and David Woodward outline those costs in their book, titled: Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It's Wrong. As the authors note, "As elected officials and judges continue to throw traditions overboard from the ship of state," conspicuously absent from the political debate "is the mounting cost in dollars [and] debt."
But, of course, people are not always - or even often - going to live by the moral commandments of the Bible. Chuck wants to analyze the financial cost of failing to do so. While I think this is a worthy project, something very important is assumed in this analysis - and it is something that should not be assumed, but should be challenged.
For example, there is the cost in treating sexually transmitted diseases. Research shows that more than half of all Americans will contract a sexually transmitted disease at some point. The cost: Some $17 billion in higher taxes and health insurance costs every year. And that does not include secondary costs, like treating cervical cancer, infertility, birth defects, and brain damage. And yet, our government does little or nothing to discourage premarital sex.
There are several things here that should be challenged. Not a single tax dollar should be spent treating sexually transmitted diseases. I know taxes are spent on this - but rather than just complaining about it in this way, Christians should be challenging the morality of forcing one citizen to pay for the bad decision of another citizen. As nice as that sounds, it is a version of legalized theft.
And those health insurance costs? That problem could easily be solved if insurance companies were allowed to exclude sexually transmitted diseases from their coverage, or if they were allowed to refuse coverage to people who engage in activities likely to result in such diseases.
Of course, it would be much better if people simply didn’t engage in those activities. But since they do, the next best thing is to allow them to pay for their own moral mistakes, rather than forcing everyone else to pay for their moral mistakes.
And then there are the huge costs of out-of-wedlock childbearing. Welfare costs alone to single-parent families amount to $148 billion per year. We pay indirectly, as well, through costs associated with child abuse—much more common in single-parent homes—and in higher crime rates.
Again, having children outside marriage is a serious problem. And again, part of the problem here is that government actually encourages this activity by paying people, via welfare payments, who engage in this bad activity.
Americans spend billions on abortions—mostly to single women—not counting the expense of treating post-abortion medical and psychological problems.
Once again, this problem could be solved to some extent if our governments ceased all funding of organizations that provide abortions, and if we dealt with those who performed abortions as the criminals that they are.
We also pay huge economic bills associated with pornography and government-sponsored gambling. We pay for the easy availability of divorce and for the choice of many to cohabit instead of marry. In time we will, like Scandinavian countries, be asked to pay the economic costs of destroying traditional marriage.
So our efforts should be directed not just at disseminating good ethics, as important as that is, but in crying “bloody murder” when governments hand out money to people.
As DeMint and Woodward write, the quest for unfettered moral freedom has come at a very steep price—a price we all pay, whether we engage in these behaviors or not. And at the same time as we pay—more and more each year—we are being told we are narrow-minded bigots if we speak out against the destructive behaviors that are causing the increased costs.
I agree that there is an economic price we all now pay for bad behavior on the part of others. But one important mechanism to discourage bad behavior is to STOP PAYING FOR IT. At no point in this article does Colson make this very reasonable demand. Those who do what is right should not be forced to pay the expenses of those who do what is wrong.
The economic costs—not to mention the costs in human suffering—are why you and I need to speak out. We ought to insist that our lawmakers support policies that make good economic sense and relieve human misery. Instead of making biblical arguments, which sadly, most people do not listen to anymore, we ought to make prudential ones: that encouraging destructive behavior is destroying the economic health of our nation. And it is demonstrable.
So, Colson’s argument seems to go, if people will not listen to matters of right and wrong, they might just listen to the matter of what it is costing them. It is a good bet that people who don’t care about murder and adultery won’t be much affected by economic arguments. If you don’t mind destroying your own health by engaging in dangerous sexual activity, why are you going to be concerned about the “economic health of our nation”?
If special-interest groups and liberal lawmakers tell us to pipe down and stop trying to "impose our morality" on everyone else, we need to remind our leaders of that little clause in the Constitution: the one that talks about promoting the general welfare.
That phrase about “promoting the general welfare” occurs in the preamble to our Constitution. That general welfare was supposed to be promoted by the central government exercising only those very limited powers delegated to it by the Constitution.
Paying for abortions, fighting sexually transmitted diseases, payments to unwed mothers, and a host of other such things is not a power granted to the central government by our Constitution. So what we should be complaining about is not that many people are amoral. What we should be complaining about is the fact that our government has spun out of control. In its social engineering efforts, it has encouraged all sorts of bad behavior.
In regard to that bad behavior, Christians should preach repentance to sinners. In regard to policy, Christians should demand that government withdraw from areas where God never authorized it to operate.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Scathing Attacks
In a recent installment (Christian Standard, April 16, 2008) of “And So It Goes” titled “Can’t We All Just Get Along?” Paul S. Williams wrote:
Many of the things on which we differ matter greatly. That is why we express such passion in our rhetoric. I’m good with passion. I just recoil when passion devolves into vitriolic attack. That is when my heart grows heavy and the light in my soul goes dim. That is when I want to say with Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”
I know there are times we all become angry about what another has written. But unless we have additional reason, we have no right to attack the author. After all, that person is a pilgrim on the journey, just like you and me, trying hard to get it right.
I hope we never quit challenging one another’s thoughts. There is no other way to grow. But I also hope we can learn to leave the meanness where it belongs—under the hard and fast control of the Spirit of Christ.
Kent comments:
I agree that we can and should dispense with “meanness.” This word implies nastiness, and a case of the nasties can be, well, nasty.
But I find it interesting that he also rejects “vitriolic” attack. An attack that is vitriolic is scathing. Now, while “scathing” can indicate a harmful attack, whether or not this is a bad thing depends upon exactly what you are attacking. If you attacking a person, that attack is not only un-Christian, it is also illogical, since personal attack is a logical fallacy.
But if you are attacking a faulty, dangerous-to-the-faith position, a scathing attack can be appropriate. If you don’t think so, reconsider some of the things said by the Apostle Paul about false doctrine.
The culture of Christendom is often just “weeniefied” about this matter. We think - for no good reason - that strong attacks are never justified, no matter how ridiculous or even horrible the position we are attacking might be.
There are some views with which we not only can’t, but shouldn’t “get along.” Sometimes even very well-meaning people can very innocently promote very damaging ideas. In cases where those people have an easily-influenced audience, it may be our duty to offer an attack, even a scathing one, of the damaging idea - not the person, but the idea. Some Christian publications promote some very bad ideas. I have even seen a bad idea now and then in the publication for which Paul Williams writes.
We must keep in mind the fact that in our culture, an attack on a person’s ideas will often incorrectly be seen as an attack on the person. That people sometimes make this mistake is no reason not to attack bad ideas - no matter who the author might be.
Many of the things on which we differ matter greatly. That is why we express such passion in our rhetoric. I’m good with passion. I just recoil when passion devolves into vitriolic attack. That is when my heart grows heavy and the light in my soul goes dim. That is when I want to say with Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”
I know there are times we all become angry about what another has written. But unless we have additional reason, we have no right to attack the author. After all, that person is a pilgrim on the journey, just like you and me, trying hard to get it right.
I hope we never quit challenging one another’s thoughts. There is no other way to grow. But I also hope we can learn to leave the meanness where it belongs—under the hard and fast control of the Spirit of Christ.
Kent comments:
I agree that we can and should dispense with “meanness.” This word implies nastiness, and a case of the nasties can be, well, nasty.
But I find it interesting that he also rejects “vitriolic” attack. An attack that is vitriolic is scathing. Now, while “scathing” can indicate a harmful attack, whether or not this is a bad thing depends upon exactly what you are attacking. If you attacking a person, that attack is not only un-Christian, it is also illogical, since personal attack is a logical fallacy.
But if you are attacking a faulty, dangerous-to-the-faith position, a scathing attack can be appropriate. If you don’t think so, reconsider some of the things said by the Apostle Paul about false doctrine.
The culture of Christendom is often just “weeniefied” about this matter. We think - for no good reason - that strong attacks are never justified, no matter how ridiculous or even horrible the position we are attacking might be.
There are some views with which we not only can’t, but shouldn’t “get along.” Sometimes even very well-meaning people can very innocently promote very damaging ideas. In cases where those people have an easily-influenced audience, it may be our duty to offer an attack, even a scathing one, of the damaging idea - not the person, but the idea. Some Christian publications promote some very bad ideas. I have even seen a bad idea now and then in the publication for which Paul Williams writes.
We must keep in mind the fact that in our culture, an attack on a person’s ideas will often incorrectly be seen as an attack on the person. That people sometimes make this mistake is no reason not to attack bad ideas - no matter who the author might be.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
All That Need Be Said About Jeremiah Wright
The following is from an article found at:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080430a.html
The article is about reactions to comments by Sen. Barack Obama's minister:
Mychal Massie, chairman of Project 21, a conservative black think tank, said he finds Wright's remarks about the black church "vulgar."
"There is no black church," Massie told Cybercast News Service . "There is no white church. There's only the Christian church. And if it's not (a Christian church), it's an abomination to God."
Massie, who holds theological degrees, said he bases his opinion on the Bible, specifically Acts 34-35: "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
"I defy him to do a study of the word of God and produce anything that he has to say," Massie said. "It isn't in there."
Kent comments:
In this case, I don't have to comment. Mychal Massie has said it all.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080430a.html
The article is about reactions to comments by Sen. Barack Obama's minister:
Mychal Massie, chairman of Project 21, a conservative black think tank, said he finds Wright's remarks about the black church "vulgar."
"There is no black church," Massie told Cybercast News Service . "There is no white church. There's only the Christian church. And if it's not (a Christian church), it's an abomination to God."
Massie, who holds theological degrees, said he bases his opinion on the Bible, specifically Acts 34-35: "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
"I defy him to do a study of the word of God and produce anything that he has to say," Massie said. "It isn't in there."
Kent comments:
In this case, I don't have to comment. Mychal Massie has said it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)