October 31st is often celebrated as "Reformation Day", especially in local gatherings more in tune with the Reformation and confessional Christianity. October 31st, 1517 was the day that Martin Luther (in)famously nailed the 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, "officially" launching what is known as the Protestant Reformation.
I used to look forward to this day as an exciting day in the church, a day when we should redouble our focus on the "Five Solas of the Reformation" and cherish the memory of the giants of the faith who came before us and laid the foundation for the Reformed, confessional wing of the church: Calvin, Luther. Zwingli.
Now? Now I look back with regret at this time, regret over what might have been. In those days when the shackles of Rome were first cast off there was a very real chance to reform the church in practice as well as in doctrine. Instead institutional inertia won the day. The doctrine got better (at least some of it) but the practice stayed the same. Pastors replaced priests but the machinery of organized religion kept chugging along. When a group of Christians started to ask questions and reject Protestantized Roman Catholic practices like infant baptism they were met with essentially the same response that the Roman Catholic church gave to the Reformers: persecution, imprisonment, torture and murder.
Today is as always an important day in the history of the church but rather than looking back at the Reformation as a golden era in the church to be emulated, let us instead use that period as a launching point to go even further back, all the way back to when the apostles were leading the church through service, sacrifice and imitation. Our foundation for church practice and doctrine in not found in the 16th century, it is found in the 1st,
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
War, Foreign Policy, Politics and The Kingdom
My latest post is up at the Energion roundtable and deals with an issue I have written a lot about, namely foreign policy and war from a Kingdom perspective. The post, Energion Political Roundtable Question #11: Foreign Policy is likely to draw some discussion/friendly fire backlash so check it out and watch for responses and rebuttals galore!
Friday, October 26, 2012
More On Mourdock From Mohler
Al Mohler weighs in with his usual clarity and candor on the Richard Mourdock kerfuffle, The Mourdock Moment: Life, Death, and Lies on the Campaign Trail. As is usually the case when Dr. Mohler speaks to issues like this he brings a forceful but thoughtful argument.
The entire essay is great but this paragraph is just outstanding:
The issue of exceptions that might justify an abortion cannot be discussed carelessly. Furthermore, any reference to rape must start with a clear affirmation of the horrifying evil of rape and an equal affirmation of concern for any woman or girl victimized by a rapist. At this point, the defender of the unborn should point to the fact that every single human life is sacred at every point of its development and without regard to the context of that life’s conception. No one would deny that this is true of a six-year-old child conceived in the horror of a rape. Those who defend the unborn know that it was equally true when that child was in the womb.
It requires a muddled and convoluted mind to assert that life begins at conception and at the same time putting forth circumstance when that life may morally be snuffed out. Even the "life of the mother" clause is intentionally vague as virtually any pregnancy carries with it risks that are life threatening. Again Al Mohler lays out the truth...
First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare.
That is a pretty strongly worded statement. Dr. Mohler admits that Richard Mourdock didn't express this sentiment very eloquently but he was at least trying to be honest, something those seeking to capitalize on this media driven non-issue cannot be accused of. I guess when you have nothing else to run on you try to distract the electorate.
I don't expect those who do not have hearts and minds renewed by the Holy Spirit and do not affirm all life as created in the image of God and therefore precious at every age and every stage of life to understand or agree with this mindset. What disappoints me is the reaction by some Christians who seem willing to make the same charges for political gain.
Furthermore, although this conversation is almost completely absent from political discourse among those who are "pro-life", there is the question of reconciling the idea of all human life being precious at every and any stage with the general acceptance of war as a legitimate way to spread ideals and policies. Evangelicals are one of the most universally approving audiences for America's wars of preemption and aggression and this bald hypocrisy is not lost on the world.
We have so far to go on this issue. Whether "our guy" wins or loses in November our mission to the world will not change and our efforts must not falter. Standing up for the innocent especially the unborn and affirming the dignity of all human life even when in a foreign country or a prison cell must mark every moment of our lives. Not merely or even specifically by voting Republican but in our actions and deeds ministering to the crisis pregnancy, in how we treat and support orphans and adoption, in the visitation of the sick, the widow and the wounded in our community. Affirming life is much more than words or bumper stickers or campaign signs in our yard.
The world is watching.
The entire essay is great but this paragraph is just outstanding:
The issue of exceptions that might justify an abortion cannot be discussed carelessly. Furthermore, any reference to rape must start with a clear affirmation of the horrifying evil of rape and an equal affirmation of concern for any woman or girl victimized by a rapist. At this point, the defender of the unborn should point to the fact that every single human life is sacred at every point of its development and without regard to the context of that life’s conception. No one would deny that this is true of a six-year-old child conceived in the horror of a rape. Those who defend the unborn know that it was equally true when that child was in the womb.
It requires a muddled and convoluted mind to assert that life begins at conception and at the same time putting forth circumstance when that life may morally be snuffed out. Even the "life of the mother" clause is intentionally vague as virtually any pregnancy carries with it risks that are life threatening. Again Al Mohler lays out the truth...
First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare.
That is a pretty strongly worded statement. Dr. Mohler admits that Richard Mourdock didn't express this sentiment very eloquently but he was at least trying to be honest, something those seeking to capitalize on this media driven non-issue cannot be accused of. I guess when you have nothing else to run on you try to distract the electorate.
I don't expect those who do not have hearts and minds renewed by the Holy Spirit and do not affirm all life as created in the image of God and therefore precious at every age and every stage of life to understand or agree with this mindset. What disappoints me is the reaction by some Christians who seem willing to make the same charges for political gain.
Furthermore, although this conversation is almost completely absent from political discourse among those who are "pro-life", there is the question of reconciling the idea of all human life being precious at every and any stage with the general acceptance of war as a legitimate way to spread ideals and policies. Evangelicals are one of the most universally approving audiences for America's wars of preemption and aggression and this bald hypocrisy is not lost on the world.
We have so far to go on this issue. Whether "our guy" wins or loses in November our mission to the world will not change and our efforts must not falter. Standing up for the innocent especially the unborn and affirming the dignity of all human life even when in a foreign country or a prison cell must mark every moment of our lives. Not merely or even specifically by voting Republican but in our actions and deeds ministering to the crisis pregnancy, in how we treat and support orphans and adoption, in the visitation of the sick, the widow and the wounded in our community. Affirming life is much more than words or bumper stickers or campaign signs in our yard.
The world is watching.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Instead Of Buying Meaningless Junk....
Why not Help Haiti Orphans as You Shop. Click, Shop and Give.! There are several ways to help and the proceeds go to fund the mission of caring for the fatherless and spreading the love of Christ in deed as well as in word. Whatcha waiting for, get shopping!
All Life Is Precious And God Is Always In Control Even When The Circumstances Are Awful
Here I go again with a quasi-political post but this has me all wound up. In the otherwise boring world of Indiana politics, a comment last night by GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock has the media all a-twitter. Here is what he said in response to a question about abortion and exceptions in the case of rape…
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.
Gasp!
Now of course in this political environment those pretty obvious words have been twisted, even unfortunately by some people who claim to be Christians. Our illustrious State Democratic Chairman, Dan Parker wasted no time in saying:
"As a pro-life Catholic, I'm stunned and ashamed that Richard Mourdock believes God intended rape," Parker said in a statement. "Victims of rape are victims of an extremely violent act, and mine is not a violent God."
Set aside the idea of “my God” here. Mr. Parker, a supposed pro-life leader in a political party that has made being pro-abortion a litmus test, is guilty of bearing false witness, something that his church frowns on. Only someone who is borderline illiterate or masterfully dishonest would hear those words and come to Mr. Parker’s conclusion. I am hoping that people in Indiana are less susceptible to the sort of “gotcha” politics being wielded here by Indiana and national Democrats. I was probably going to vote for Richard Mourdock anyway, although I am considering Libertarian Andrew Horning, but now I am definitely going to vote for Mourdock. For someone who claims to be pro-life to seek to score cheap political points that come at the expense of the lives of unborn children is unconscionable. Perhaps Mr. Parker should read the genealogy in Matthew where the lineage of Jesus through Joseph the husband of Mary includes Solomon, a man conceived by the terrible sin of David. You think maybe that even in the midst of David's sin God was at work?
As I have stated before, if you say you are pro-life then that should extend to all unborn children regardless of the circumstances of their conception (a notion clearly lost on “pro-life” Dan Parker). Let me be uncharacteristically blunt:
Aborting an unborn child conceived as the result of a rape is punishing an innocent for the crime of another.
Here is a prime example of the muddled way that religious Americans view abortion. Is God only in control when pregnancy happens to a middle class Caucasian married couple that has already started painting the nursery and opened a 529 account? What about when the terrified teen girl comes into the crisis pregnancy center where I volunteer? Should we tell her that God doesn’t care about her or her child because she drank too much at a party and got pregnant? Should we tell the woman living in a motel to abort her child because the dad ran off and she doesn’t have much financial support? You can’t call children a blessing when the stars are all aligned and then turn around and support the dismemberment and murder of a child based on the criminal act of another.
Turning abortion into a mainly political argument has led to ridiculous discussions like “under what circumstances of conception does a child forfeit her right to life?” and statements like those from Dan Parker that are simply beyond the pale, using an issue of human life to try to undermine a political campaign and retain control of the U.S. Senate. We have brought this on ourselves and it is high time for Christians to stop relying on the ballot box to overcome the evil of abortion. I guarantee that there are opportunities for each and every Christian in America to give or volunteer at a life affirming ministry in their own home town. We need to quit relying on politicians to do what God has called us to do as salt and light in the world. Abortion is a barbaric, pagan practice and the only cure is the sin atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Only the blood of the Lamb can save the innocent blood of the unborn.
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.
Gasp!
Now of course in this political environment those pretty obvious words have been twisted, even unfortunately by some people who claim to be Christians. Our illustrious State Democratic Chairman, Dan Parker wasted no time in saying:
"As a pro-life Catholic, I'm stunned and ashamed that Richard Mourdock believes God intended rape," Parker said in a statement. "Victims of rape are victims of an extremely violent act, and mine is not a violent God."
Set aside the idea of “my God” here. Mr. Parker, a supposed pro-life leader in a political party that has made being pro-abortion a litmus test, is guilty of bearing false witness, something that his church frowns on. Only someone who is borderline illiterate or masterfully dishonest would hear those words and come to Mr. Parker’s conclusion. I am hoping that people in Indiana are less susceptible to the sort of “gotcha” politics being wielded here by Indiana and national Democrats. I was probably going to vote for Richard Mourdock anyway, although I am considering Libertarian Andrew Horning, but now I am definitely going to vote for Mourdock. For someone who claims to be pro-life to seek to score cheap political points that come at the expense of the lives of unborn children is unconscionable. Perhaps Mr. Parker should read the genealogy in Matthew where the lineage of Jesus through Joseph the husband of Mary includes Solomon, a man conceived by the terrible sin of David. You think maybe that even in the midst of David's sin God was at work?
As I have stated before, if you say you are pro-life then that should extend to all unborn children regardless of the circumstances of their conception (a notion clearly lost on “pro-life” Dan Parker). Let me be uncharacteristically blunt:
Aborting an unborn child conceived as the result of a rape is punishing an innocent for the crime of another.
Here is a prime example of the muddled way that religious Americans view abortion. Is God only in control when pregnancy happens to a middle class Caucasian married couple that has already started painting the nursery and opened a 529 account? What about when the terrified teen girl comes into the crisis pregnancy center where I volunteer? Should we tell her that God doesn’t care about her or her child because she drank too much at a party and got pregnant? Should we tell the woman living in a motel to abort her child because the dad ran off and she doesn’t have much financial support? You can’t call children a blessing when the stars are all aligned and then turn around and support the dismemberment and murder of a child based on the criminal act of another.
Turning abortion into a mainly political argument has led to ridiculous discussions like “under what circumstances of conception does a child forfeit her right to life?” and statements like those from Dan Parker that are simply beyond the pale, using an issue of human life to try to undermine a political campaign and retain control of the U.S. Senate. We have brought this on ourselves and it is high time for Christians to stop relying on the ballot box to overcome the evil of abortion. I guarantee that there are opportunities for each and every Christian in America to give or volunteer at a life affirming ministry in their own home town. We need to quit relying on politicians to do what God has called us to do as salt and light in the world. Abortion is a barbaric, pagan practice and the only cure is the sin atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Only the blood of the Lamb can save the innocent blood of the unborn.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Mirror Images
Sorry for yet another quasi-political post but it has been on my mind a lot, not from a "Vote for Candidate A!" position but more for how it impacts the church. So the language that follows will be strong, the hyperbole thick.
In the last decade or so, perhaps with a genesis in the beginning of the Presidency of George W. Bush, I have seen a major ratcheting up of the division in the church based on political preference. Maybe it has always been there but it seems that in the world of a constant media barrage, of Twitter and Facebook and blogging, of 24 hour news channels and talking heads who will do anything to keep getting the opportunity to spout off on TV, what we experience today is unlike any time in the past, even in the fairly recent past.
Case in point. CNN ran an interesting look at President Obama's religious faith and why it seems so alien to so many more traditional evangelicals, Is Obama The 'Wrong' Kind of Christian. While the story is interesting, I think it asks the wrong question because I don't see any sign that President Obama is a Christian of any sort, the 'right' or the 'wrong'. Mitt Romney certainly is not a Christian. Yet that doesn't stop many Christians, left and right alike, from claiming that "their guy" is the one who represents "Christian values".
I see this somewhat differently. I don't see two men who are polar opposites of one another. I instead see President Obama and Mitt Romney as mirror images of one another or perhaps two sides of the same coin. Both represent different types of religious American culture. Both a part of religious movements that have attempted to co-opt Christianity and in doing so have perverted the Gospel. Both use religion in the political process to advance their own agenda and to gain power.
The religious right and the religious left in this country represent two mostly political and cultural movements dressed up in pious sounding language. The religious left is the religion of self-gratification where no pleasure should be denied (which explains the defense of abortion even in the most heinous methods as the ultimate sacrament of the cult of self-gratification). The religious right is the religion of fear, fear of losing what belongs to you, fear of foreign threats (commies, Jihadists, etc), fear of outsiders and the unknown, fear of perceived threats to "security".
From religious feminist Rachel Held Evans (Ha, ha I built a menstrual tent and covered my head! Hilarious! Buy my book!) to Jim Wallis who thinks that Jesus was the original advocate of redistributive economics and who sports a man-crush for Obama that puts MSNBC's Chris Matthews to shame, the religious left in America uses the Sermon on the Mount to advocate for leftist political positions that have no real basis in Scripture (note, I truly think that Wallis is a brother in Christ, just one who is terribly misguided). On the other hand we have the Glenn Beck/David Barton types who think that America is God's chosen land and that Jesus was the original rugged individualist proto-capitalist who traveled around the Middle East with an American flag in one hand and a Colt .45 revolver in the other. For them Jesus is not only OK with smiting the enemies of America (and Israel) but perhaps even actively encourages it.
Left out in the cold are those who are faithful followers of Christ but don't see a home, and more importantly don't see their King, in either camp. Neither the rugged individualistic, flag waving, America as a Christian nation, kill them before they kill you religion of the American religious right nor the Jesus as peace sign flashing hippie, income redistribution advocating, Prius driving religion of the religious left faithfully represent the Kingdom. What is worse, this division not only does nothing to advance the calling of the church, it makes our collective mission exponentially more difficult. Rather than striving with the enemy in the realm of preaching the Gospel to the lost we are tangled up in arguments over tax policy, which wars are "just" and who should pay for birth control pills.
In just a few weeks this election will be over and one side will be excited and the other crushed. Perhaps it will be the religious left who will see the continuation of Obama's quasi-messianic reign as a sign of hope for America. Or perhaps, as I suspect is more likely, it will be the religious right as Christians celebrate the election of a pagan who "shares our values". Either way it would be a good time for both sides to have some serious conversations about what the mission of the church is and whether our obsession with politics is healthy or not. I am afraid that conversation is unlikely to happen. The rising vitriol lobbed at one group by the other only to be escalated and returned is leading to a division in the church that might someday rival the religious wars of Europe. The comfy religious cocoon of America is burning down around us and rather than preparing for evangelizing a "post-Christian" West, most Christians are preparing for the next legislative session.
We have moved beyond needing to get politics out of our religion. Today our politics is our religion. If we can't recover some semblance of perspective we might have to just eschew political involvement at all. As important as the issues facing our nation are, they are completely insignificant compared to the mission that Christ has tasked each and every Christian with carrying out.
In the last decade or so, perhaps with a genesis in the beginning of the Presidency of George W. Bush, I have seen a major ratcheting up of the division in the church based on political preference. Maybe it has always been there but it seems that in the world of a constant media barrage, of Twitter and Facebook and blogging, of 24 hour news channels and talking heads who will do anything to keep getting the opportunity to spout off on TV, what we experience today is unlike any time in the past, even in the fairly recent past.
Case in point. CNN ran an interesting look at President Obama's religious faith and why it seems so alien to so many more traditional evangelicals, Is Obama The 'Wrong' Kind of Christian. While the story is interesting, I think it asks the wrong question because I don't see any sign that President Obama is a Christian of any sort, the 'right' or the 'wrong'. Mitt Romney certainly is not a Christian. Yet that doesn't stop many Christians, left and right alike, from claiming that "their guy" is the one who represents "Christian values".
I see this somewhat differently. I don't see two men who are polar opposites of one another. I instead see President Obama and Mitt Romney as mirror images of one another or perhaps two sides of the same coin. Both represent different types of religious American culture. Both a part of religious movements that have attempted to co-opt Christianity and in doing so have perverted the Gospel. Both use religion in the political process to advance their own agenda and to gain power.
The religious right and the religious left in this country represent two mostly political and cultural movements dressed up in pious sounding language. The religious left is the religion of self-gratification where no pleasure should be denied (which explains the defense of abortion even in the most heinous methods as the ultimate sacrament of the cult of self-gratification). The religious right is the religion of fear, fear of losing what belongs to you, fear of foreign threats (commies, Jihadists, etc), fear of outsiders and the unknown, fear of perceived threats to "security".
From religious feminist Rachel Held Evans (Ha, ha I built a menstrual tent and covered my head! Hilarious! Buy my book!) to Jim Wallis who thinks that Jesus was the original advocate of redistributive economics and who sports a man-crush for Obama that puts MSNBC's Chris Matthews to shame, the religious left in America uses the Sermon on the Mount to advocate for leftist political positions that have no real basis in Scripture (note, I truly think that Wallis is a brother in Christ, just one who is terribly misguided). On the other hand we have the Glenn Beck/David Barton types who think that America is God's chosen land and that Jesus was the original rugged individualist proto-capitalist who traveled around the Middle East with an American flag in one hand and a Colt .45 revolver in the other. For them Jesus is not only OK with smiting the enemies of America (and Israel) but perhaps even actively encourages it.
Left out in the cold are those who are faithful followers of Christ but don't see a home, and more importantly don't see their King, in either camp. Neither the rugged individualistic, flag waving, America as a Christian nation, kill them before they kill you religion of the American religious right nor the Jesus as peace sign flashing hippie, income redistribution advocating, Prius driving religion of the religious left faithfully represent the Kingdom. What is worse, this division not only does nothing to advance the calling of the church, it makes our collective mission exponentially more difficult. Rather than striving with the enemy in the realm of preaching the Gospel to the lost we are tangled up in arguments over tax policy, which wars are "just" and who should pay for birth control pills.
In just a few weeks this election will be over and one side will be excited and the other crushed. Perhaps it will be the religious left who will see the continuation of Obama's quasi-messianic reign as a sign of hope for America. Or perhaps, as I suspect is more likely, it will be the religious right as Christians celebrate the election of a pagan who "shares our values". Either way it would be a good time for both sides to have some serious conversations about what the mission of the church is and whether our obsession with politics is healthy or not. I am afraid that conversation is unlikely to happen. The rising vitriol lobbed at one group by the other only to be escalated and returned is leading to a division in the church that might someday rival the religious wars of Europe. The comfy religious cocoon of America is burning down around us and rather than preparing for evangelizing a "post-Christian" West, most Christians are preparing for the next legislative session.
We have moved beyond needing to get politics out of our religion. Today our politics is our religion. If we can't recover some semblance of perspective we might have to just eschew political involvement at all. As important as the issues facing our nation are, they are completely insignificant compared to the mission that Christ has tasked each and every Christian with carrying out.
Voting for President and voting on church membership have equal Biblical support
Twitter is great for some things but it also allows us to send out brief thoughts that often are just bad theology. Case in point. I love Dr. Russell Moore, especially for his tireless advocacy for adoption, but this is just an awful tweet.
While Russell Moore is a dean at Southern Seminary, a well respected speaker and author and a leader for the church around the world and I am a nobody with a blog in Indiana we do share something in common: neither of us has a vote in who to "receive as church members".
The Bible tells us to "be subject to the governing authorities" but nothing about choosing those authorities. The Bible tells us to love one another but nothing about picking and choosing which we will accept as brothers and sisters. The cavalier way we make such bold statement about "church membership" and other pragmatic traditions of man and grant them the authority of Scripture is deeply troubling.
When someone votes on whether to accept a Christian as a member of the "their church" or to allow them to partake of the Lord's Supper or whether or not they should be baptized, that person deigns to step into God's place and dictate terms to Him. Jesus often chooses the unlovely, the sick, the outcast as His disciples and as one of those I am eternally grateful that He chose me. With that in mind I don't get a say in who to accept as a member of His church.
Your vote for President of the United States is important, yes. But your vote on whom to receive as church members, even more so.
— Russell Moore (@drmoore) October 21, 2012
While Russell Moore is a dean at Southern Seminary, a well respected speaker and author and a leader for the church around the world and I am a nobody with a blog in Indiana we do share something in common: neither of us has a vote in who to "receive as church members".
The Bible tells us to "be subject to the governing authorities" but nothing about choosing those authorities. The Bible tells us to love one another but nothing about picking and choosing which we will accept as brothers and sisters. The cavalier way we make such bold statement about "church membership" and other pragmatic traditions of man and grant them the authority of Scripture is deeply troubling.
When someone votes on whether to accept a Christian as a member of the "their church" or to allow them to partake of the Lord's Supper or whether or not they should be baptized, that person deigns to step into God's place and dictate terms to Him. Jesus often chooses the unlovely, the sick, the outcast as His disciples and as one of those I am eternally grateful that He chose me. With that in mind I don't get a say in who to accept as a member of His church.
Friday, October 19, 2012
So Romney Is "Pro-Life"?
This video just came out from the Romney campaign....
Note that this is on the Mitt Romney youtube channel, a channel his webpage links to.
Now on his campaign page, in the generic "values" section, Romney says, emphasis added:
Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Mitt Romney is "pro-life" and believes that "life" begins at conception but his campaign is putting out a video that touts his support for abortion when the circumstances are right. When a child is conceived as a result of rape, incest or can be a danger to the life of the mother, that life that began at conception is expendable.
Let's be clear. If life begins at conception and all human life is precious, then it doesn't matter what the circumstance are behind that life coming into being. Perhaps he is sincere but muddled on this position but more likely Romney is simply pandering here. The "rape, incest, life of the mother" clause is cover for conservative politicians but make no sense. There are tragically lots of people walking around that were conceived as the result of rape or incest and many more that were born in spite of the danger to their mother (Tim Tebow anyone?). They are not less worthy of life than people conceived by loving married upper class parents who were seeking to conceive a child.
Someone says on the one hand that he is pro-life and opposes abortion but then turns around and says that some human beings, defenseless children who committed no crime, can be punished for the acts of another. That is not being pro-life. That is being a politician. I don't expect any more than that from him but those who tell us we are duty bound to vote for Romney because he is "pro-life" need to rethink what that term means.
Note that this is on the Mitt Romney youtube channel, a channel his webpage links to.
Now on his campaign page, in the generic "values" section, Romney says, emphasis added:
Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Mitt Romney is "pro-life" and believes that "life" begins at conception but his campaign is putting out a video that touts his support for abortion when the circumstances are right. When a child is conceived as a result of rape, incest or can be a danger to the life of the mother, that life that began at conception is expendable.
Let's be clear. If life begins at conception and all human life is precious, then it doesn't matter what the circumstance are behind that life coming into being. Perhaps he is sincere but muddled on this position but more likely Romney is simply pandering here. The "rape, incest, life of the mother" clause is cover for conservative politicians but make no sense. There are tragically lots of people walking around that were conceived as the result of rape or incest and many more that were born in spite of the danger to their mother (Tim Tebow anyone?). They are not less worthy of life than people conceived by loving married upper class parents who were seeking to conceive a child.
Someone says on the one hand that he is pro-life and opposes abortion but then turns around and says that some human beings, defenseless children who committed no crime, can be punished for the acts of another. That is not being pro-life. That is being a politician. I don't expect any more than that from him but those who tell us we are duty bound to vote for Romney because he is "pro-life" need to rethink what that term means.
Close But No Cigar On The Church Celebrity Culture
The whole sordid mess around Dinesh D'Souza, (now former) President of King's College has been ugly and bad for the church as these issues always are. Set aside for a moment that someone who is as smart as D'Souza that makes his living from speaking to Christian groups didn't think that getting engaged while still married to his first wife would be an issue or the fact that even if he weren't still married, that by getting remarried while his ex-wife lives would mean he was committing adultery (something that not many people seem to care about). Something else in this drew my attention.
Carl Trueman has been all over the problem of celebrity driven Christianity for some time and he weighs in on the issue and has this to say (emphasis mine):
Yet, while the questions hanging over the matter regarding his marriage are worrying, I confess that I find equally disturbing the idea that there are Christian groups out there willing to pay Christian leaders fees of $10,000 and upwards for giving a single lecture. When my youngest son read the reports online, his initial reaction was not to the marriage issue but to the cash: "That's what really gets Christianity in this country a bad name." was his comment.
I heartily agree. But. While Carl is on the right track he misses the bigger picture:
It is no less disturbing that there are Christian groups out there willing to pay Christian leaders fees of $40,000 a year and upwards for giving a single lecture every Sunday.
Paying a talented speaker $10,000 for a single speech is outrageous but paying a less talented speaker a full-time salary and benefits to do the same thing on Sundays is "not muzzling the ox"? Celebrity speakers who command huge fees for speaking engagements are nothing more than a natural outgrowth of a church culture that seeks after passive observers in church watching a performance and listening to a religious professional give a lecture.
We can often get caught up in the outrage of a celebrity Christian speaker being paid huge sums to give lectures or group like First Baptist Dallas spending $130,000,000 on a new building but then we miss that paying anyone to lead in the church or spending $500,000 on a new building is simply moving the decimal a few places while retaining the same spirit.
When we look at the celebrity culture in the church or the drive to build ever bigger and more expensive "churches", our first impulse is to blame it on being worldly but the culprit might just be our own church culture writ large.
Carl Trueman has been all over the problem of celebrity driven Christianity for some time and he weighs in on the issue and has this to say (emphasis mine):
Yet, while the questions hanging over the matter regarding his marriage are worrying, I confess that I find equally disturbing the idea that there are Christian groups out there willing to pay Christian leaders fees of $10,000 and upwards for giving a single lecture. When my youngest son read the reports online, his initial reaction was not to the marriage issue but to the cash: "That's what really gets Christianity in this country a bad name." was his comment.
I heartily agree. But. While Carl is on the right track he misses the bigger picture:
It is no less disturbing that there are Christian groups out there willing to pay Christian leaders fees of $40,000 a year and upwards for giving a single lecture every Sunday.
Paying a talented speaker $10,000 for a single speech is outrageous but paying a less talented speaker a full-time salary and benefits to do the same thing on Sundays is "not muzzling the ox"? Celebrity speakers who command huge fees for speaking engagements are nothing more than a natural outgrowth of a church culture that seeks after passive observers in church watching a performance and listening to a religious professional give a lecture.
We can often get caught up in the outrage of a celebrity Christian speaker being paid huge sums to give lectures or group like First Baptist Dallas spending $130,000,000 on a new building but then we miss that paying anyone to lead in the church or spending $500,000 on a new building is simply moving the decimal a few places while retaining the same spirit.
When we look at the celebrity culture in the church or the drive to build ever bigger and more expensive "churches", our first impulse is to blame it on being worldly but the culprit might just be our own church culture writ large.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Mitt and Billy
I have been mulling over what, if anything, to say about the kerfuffle over Billy Graham's meeting with Mitt Romney, his subsequent endorsement of Romney and the highly controversial removal of mormonism from the list of cults on the webpage of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Many of my fellow believers who are former mormons or on the front lines of mormon evangelism were rightly outraged by this and then today I read something that drove me to write this post.
Apparently the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association took out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal, using funds donated for this stated purpose "building the kingdom of God and bringing people into relationship with Jesus Christ" to buy an ad to advocate for someone who is diametrically opposed to that mission in every possible way. In part the ad reads:
"As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election may be my last," Graham says in the ad. "I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman."
How exactly can we take seriously a statement like that? A man who belongs to and has been a leader in a religious cult that denies every crucial doctrine in the Bible and perverts the Gospel cannot in any sense of the word be said to "base their decisions on biblical principles". The Bible says nothing about gay marriage. The Bible says nothing about abortion being wrong but preemptive war being OK. The Bible does say an awful lot about being wary of wolves seeking to devour the sheep, wolves who externally look like sheep but are only interested in destroying God's sheep.
I don't pretend to know Billy Graham's motivation here nor do I discount his decades of service to the Kingdom preaching the Gospel night after night to more people than I have talked to in my entire life about any topic. I do know this much. This action is yet another example of the extent to which American Christians are willing to set aside any sense of discernment to win a political victory. I also know that Christians who know nothing about mormonism look to Billy Graham as a trusted leader in the church and that leadership is a responsibility that transcends political pragmatism.
Watchbloggers like the Pyromaniacs would jump all over Billy Graham for this under normal circumstances but instead we are treated to a six part series about why they are voting for Mitt Romney. If Graham had met with Thomas Monson and then removed mormonism from the BGEA webpage as a cult, you can be sure that the boys would have something caustic and ugly to say. But not when it comes to defeating Barack Obama! These same fellows blew a gasket about other Christians signing the Manhattan Declaration which calls for unity among Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians in working toward ending abortion. One thing all three of those groups share is a belief in orthodox trinitarian doctrine and that is something that Mitt Romney explicitly denies. Just don't point that out or you will get an earful of self-righteous bleating.
Listen to me carefully:
Defeating Barack Obama in this election is not the highest priority of the church.
Did you catch that? In fact it isn't even in the ten top. Dare I say not anywhere on our priority list at all as the church.
The apostle John spoke to this very issue in his second epistle:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 1:7-11)
I wonder what John would have to say about the most recognizable figure in the church warmly greeting and endorsing someone that John called "the deceiver and the antichrist" because this election is so important to the church.
If you want to vote for Romney in the certain to be dashed hope that he will do great things like ending abortion, that is fine. Not my choice, not by a long shot. Obama is a horrible President and Romney probably would be a less horrible President and I don't feel obligated to vote for one over the other. Just don't blur the bright line between the Biblical Gospel and the perversion of mormonism to make evangelicals feel better about casting their vote for him. America will some day be gone and no one will care who won the 2012 election but those who spend an eternity in hell thanks to the lies of mormonism most certainly will care.
Apparently the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association took out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal, using funds donated for this stated purpose "building the kingdom of God and bringing people into relationship with Jesus Christ" to buy an ad to advocate for someone who is diametrically opposed to that mission in every possible way. In part the ad reads:
"As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election may be my last," Graham says in the ad. "I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman."
How exactly can we take seriously a statement like that? A man who belongs to and has been a leader in a religious cult that denies every crucial doctrine in the Bible and perverts the Gospel cannot in any sense of the word be said to "base their decisions on biblical principles". The Bible says nothing about gay marriage. The Bible says nothing about abortion being wrong but preemptive war being OK. The Bible does say an awful lot about being wary of wolves seeking to devour the sheep, wolves who externally look like sheep but are only interested in destroying God's sheep.
I don't pretend to know Billy Graham's motivation here nor do I discount his decades of service to the Kingdom preaching the Gospel night after night to more people than I have talked to in my entire life about any topic. I do know this much. This action is yet another example of the extent to which American Christians are willing to set aside any sense of discernment to win a political victory. I also know that Christians who know nothing about mormonism look to Billy Graham as a trusted leader in the church and that leadership is a responsibility that transcends political pragmatism.
Watchbloggers like the Pyromaniacs would jump all over Billy Graham for this under normal circumstances but instead we are treated to a six part series about why they are voting for Mitt Romney. If Graham had met with Thomas Monson and then removed mormonism from the BGEA webpage as a cult, you can be sure that the boys would have something caustic and ugly to say. But not when it comes to defeating Barack Obama! These same fellows blew a gasket about other Christians signing the Manhattan Declaration which calls for unity among Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians in working toward ending abortion. One thing all three of those groups share is a belief in orthodox trinitarian doctrine and that is something that Mitt Romney explicitly denies. Just don't point that out or you will get an earful of self-righteous bleating.
Listen to me carefully:
Defeating Barack Obama in this election is not the highest priority of the church.
Did you catch that? In fact it isn't even in the ten top. Dare I say not anywhere on our priority list at all as the church.
The apostle John spoke to this very issue in his second epistle:
 |
| A lovely visit with a wolf |
I wonder what John would have to say about the most recognizable figure in the church warmly greeting and endorsing someone that John called "the deceiver and the antichrist" because this election is so important to the church.
If you want to vote for Romney in the certain to be dashed hope that he will do great things like ending abortion, that is fine. Not my choice, not by a long shot. Obama is a horrible President and Romney probably would be a less horrible President and I don't feel obligated to vote for one over the other. Just don't blur the bright line between the Biblical Gospel and the perversion of mormonism to make evangelicals feel better about casting their vote for him. America will some day be gone and no one will care who won the 2012 election but those who spend an eternity in hell thanks to the lies of mormonism most certainly will care.
Making It Up As We Go
It should not be a surprise to anyone who reads this blog that I believe we have gone far astray from the Biblical meaning and practice of the gathered church. There are two primary reasons this has happened. First many of the practices that we assume in the church are a hybrid of what we see in the Bible and Roman Catholic traditions that were protestantized. If you take a traditional evangelical "worship service" and change "pastor" to "priest", "pulpit" to "altar" and "Lord's Supper" to "Euchatrist" and, voila!, you have a Roman Mass. Certainly and I can't overemphasize this, the meanings are very different but the practice looks very similar, although teachings like "the sacraments as a means of grace" are far too close to Roman sacramental doctrine for my tastes.
Anyway, I followed a link from Tim Challies to a post by Mike Leake, Borrowed Light: Should We Baptize Upon Profession?. Mike looks at the issue of withholding baptism from those that profess faith until an examination of some sort can be done. In this post Mike admits he struggles with the contradiction between what we see in Scripture (baptism immediately following profession of faith) versus how we practice traditionally in much of the church (baptism after a series of examinations). This was my comment on his post.....
This seems to be one of those circumstances where we allow the pragmatic considerations to override the Scriptural considerations. We see one thing in the Bible but have a hard time making it work in practice so we make something up. The same goes with "church membership". We don't see it in the Bible but we can't figure out how to do accountability and discipline without it so we canonize an extra-biblical tradition.
That kind of captures it. We read the Bible but we can't (or won't) make it work in "real life" so we create some artificial replacement. Real community and fellowship are hard and messy so we reduce life in the church to a weekly ritual. No wonder so many churches have small groups to try to meet the need for fellowship among Christians that they cannot and do not get on Sunday.
I understand that it is foolhardy to try to perfectly replicate every aspect of the first century church. We live in a vast land where believers are often spread out over wide distances (although most of that has to do with us driving great distances to meet with the "right" kind of Christian instead of our neighbor). We have no hint of real persecution. We have technology was undreamt of in the first century. We have of course a complete New Testament, something unavailable to anyone in the earliest days of the church. We have thousands of years of thinkers and theologians working through the big issues.
That doesn't mean that we should feel free to "fill in the blanks", especially when doing so compromises the very principles that are clearly expressed in Scripture. Being a disciple isn't easy but that should lead to us seeking to be more faithful and removing the traditions of man rather than making it up as we go.
Anyway, I followed a link from Tim Challies to a post by Mike Leake, Borrowed Light: Should We Baptize Upon Profession?. Mike looks at the issue of withholding baptism from those that profess faith until an examination of some sort can be done. In this post Mike admits he struggles with the contradiction between what we see in Scripture (baptism immediately following profession of faith) versus how we practice traditionally in much of the church (baptism after a series of examinations). This was my comment on his post.....
This seems to be one of those circumstances where we allow the pragmatic considerations to override the Scriptural considerations. We see one thing in the Bible but have a hard time making it work in practice so we make something up. The same goes with "church membership". We don't see it in the Bible but we can't figure out how to do accountability and discipline without it so we canonize an extra-biblical tradition.
That kind of captures it. We read the Bible but we can't (or won't) make it work in "real life" so we create some artificial replacement. Real community and fellowship are hard and messy so we reduce life in the church to a weekly ritual. No wonder so many churches have small groups to try to meet the need for fellowship among Christians that they cannot and do not get on Sunday.
I understand that it is foolhardy to try to perfectly replicate every aspect of the first century church. We live in a vast land where believers are often spread out over wide distances (although most of that has to do with us driving great distances to meet with the "right" kind of Christian instead of our neighbor). We have no hint of real persecution. We have technology was undreamt of in the first century. We have of course a complete New Testament, something unavailable to anyone in the earliest days of the church. We have thousands of years of thinkers and theologians working through the big issues.
That doesn't mean that we should feel free to "fill in the blanks", especially when doing so compromises the very principles that are clearly expressed in Scripture. Being a disciple isn't easy but that should lead to us seeking to be more faithful and removing the traditions of man rather than making it up as we go.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Pastor Romney
I studiously avoided the Presidential debate last night. I am not very interested in listening to two guys lie to me. Plus we were at the pregnancy resource center ministering which is a far more valuable;e use of my time. Anyway we got home and my wife turned on the TV and since all we get is broadcast TV of course the very end of the debate was on. I was in the other room but I could hear them. Romney said something that made my ears perk up. This is from the CNN transcript of the second debate (Emphasis added)
My - my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we're all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I - I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I've sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times.
THAT got my attention. Mitt Romney, in case you missed it, is a mormon. He served in the Stake Presidency in Massachusetts and also as a "bishop" in his ward. This is important to note. As a mormon I never once heard a single reference to any mormon leader as "pastor". In fact pastor was more often a pejorative term. I would never have called the bishop of any ward we were in "pastor" nor would we have called the stake president by that title.
So why would Mitt Romney call himself a "pastor" when he never would have referred to himself as a "pastor" when he was in leadership and none of the people he led would have called him that either? Maybe saying "I served as a bishop and stake president" sounds too weird and alien to evangelical voters ears? Perhaps using those terms would remind evangelical voters that he is part of a religion that historically called orthodox Christianity heretical and an abomination in God's eyes?
Make no mistake. Mitt Romney is quite literally trying to become a wolf among the sheep and his job is made easier because the sheep have no idea what wolves look like. So many Christians think that Mitt Romney "shares our values" because he claims to be pro-life (at least when it comes to abortion). As a Christian, I can think of very few values that I would think Mitt Romney has in common with me because my values are formed by my faith in Christ, a faith that Mitt Romney does not share and in fact actively rejects. He talks about God but the "god" he worships is one of many in a polytheistic pantheon and is not the God we read of in the Bible. He says that we are all "children of the same God" but he means that literally in the sense of being offspring from a procreative act.
I am not saying you can't or shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney. I will not be but not because he is a mormon. I think and President Obama are two peas in the pod and neither of them would know the truth if it was tattooed on their foreheads. What I am saying is that because of the perverse marriage between politics and what we understand as the church many Christians are getting the impression that we share more in common with Mitt Romney, a pagan blasphemer, because he is "conservative" than we do with a "liberal" follower of Christ.
If you vote, and you are under no religious obligation to do so no matter what some blowhards say, do so based on your conscience and with your eyes wide open. Mitt Romney is not "one of us" and he does not share "our values" and neither does President Obama. Just watch how Romney speaks and pay attention to the words he uses because it is clear to me that he is trying to deceive the elect by making himself out to be something he is not.
My - my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we're all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I - I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I've sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times.
 |
| If I call myself Pastor maybe they will forget I am a mormon? |
So why would Mitt Romney call himself a "pastor" when he never would have referred to himself as a "pastor" when he was in leadership and none of the people he led would have called him that either? Maybe saying "I served as a bishop and stake president" sounds too weird and alien to evangelical voters ears? Perhaps using those terms would remind evangelical voters that he is part of a religion that historically called orthodox Christianity heretical and an abomination in God's eyes?
Make no mistake. Mitt Romney is quite literally trying to become a wolf among the sheep and his job is made easier because the sheep have no idea what wolves look like. So many Christians think that Mitt Romney "shares our values" because he claims to be pro-life (at least when it comes to abortion). As a Christian, I can think of very few values that I would think Mitt Romney has in common with me because my values are formed by my faith in Christ, a faith that Mitt Romney does not share and in fact actively rejects. He talks about God but the "god" he worships is one of many in a polytheistic pantheon and is not the God we read of in the Bible. He says that we are all "children of the same God" but he means that literally in the sense of being offspring from a procreative act.
I am not saying you can't or shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney. I will not be but not because he is a mormon. I think and President Obama are two peas in the pod and neither of them would know the truth if it was tattooed on their foreheads. What I am saying is that because of the perverse marriage between politics and what we understand as the church many Christians are getting the impression that we share more in common with Mitt Romney, a pagan blasphemer, because he is "conservative" than we do with a "liberal" follower of Christ.
If you vote, and you are under no religious obligation to do so no matter what some blowhards say, do so based on your conscience and with your eyes wide open. Mitt Romney is not "one of us" and he does not share "our values" and neither does President Obama. Just watch how Romney speaks and pay attention to the words he uses because it is clear to me that he is trying to deceive the elect by making himself out to be something he is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)