Headline Highlights: Week of August 18th, 2012

 

Newspaper (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I link these articles here because I believe the issues are important for Christians to be mindful of and to carefully weigh out.  Some articles are of a controversial nature, and their inclusion here does not necessarily express my agreement with either the political or theological views of the source.  I simply find these articles worth discussing and bringing to the attention of my fellow believers (or worth reminding about).

Ephesians 6:12: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Romans 12:18: If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

As Christians, we absolutely MUST remember these verses as we weigh out our positions on moral-civil issues and then seek to enact and support laws, policies and practices in society that reflect our positions.  It is not the people who disagree with us that we “fight” against, but the devil behind them (whether or not they are aware of it).  Because the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbors, we must extend a Christian grace even to those with whom we disagree.  When we fail to extend such a grace, we fail as credible ambassadors of Christ.

Issue 1:  Inciting Bible Study:

Desiring God: All Scripture Is Breathed Out by God, Continue in It:  This is an excellent message on the authority of Scripture, and also has some tie-in with the Issue 2, below.

Desiring God: The Shelf Life on Preaching the Gospel to Yourself:

John 5 shows the folly of fixing on the Scriptures while ignoring the God of grace. Jesus crossed paths with a troop who liked to think of themselves as soaked in the Scriptures, but they were getting them all wrong, taking them in through the wrong grid. What an epic tragedy: They had God himself in the flesh, standing in their very midst, and they missed him because their Bible reading was going awry with self at the center.

Jesus says to them, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39–40). The lesson for us is to never disconnect our searching of the Scriptures from a conscious awareness and pursuit of Jesus as our Savior, Lord, and Treasure. The gospel of Jesus is the core, culmination, and meaning of the Scriptures. No matter how passionate the study, regular Bible intake that is not in accord with the truth of the gospel becomes zeal without knowledge.

Displace the gospel from the center, and studiousness with the Scriptures soon becomes a massive self-salvation project.

Issue 2:  Degrading Church Leadership:  There are two primary dimensions in which I see this happening on the macro scale, one is the egalitarian view that allows women to become the heads of a church body, and one is the condoning of open sexual immorality by church leaders.  The condoning of open sin is the simpler issue to handle, it just shouldn’t happen.  But the egalitarianism vs. complementarianism issue needs a more careful address than that (the TGC video linked below does an excellent job).  First, it is important to clarify that complementarianism is not the “traditional” approach to headship and submission that egalitarians and feminists characterize it as.  Complementarianism is the historically traditional approach, but egalitarians and feminists will most often approach the issue in a way that only casts it in light of the abuses and wrongs done under it – much like characterizing all of Christianity by the abuses, wrongs, and brutality that happened during the Crusades.  It is also helpful to distinguish between men from boys and women from girls (basically, distinguish adults from children, for both genders).

In the marriage and theological (teaching) dimensions of life, men have explicit  biblical headship over everyone (women and children).  Also in the marriage and theological dimension, women have headship over children.  The 5th commandment is to honor your father and mother (Exodus 20:12), and Timothy had learned his faith from his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5).  It’s not explicitly stated, but I think that it’s safe to pull out the principle that if a godly woman is old enough to be a mother or grandmother to a young man, that she can rebuke him if there is a biblically valid reason, even though she has no explicit headship over him.  Frankly, if you’re a physically mature male, but morally and theologically immature, then you’re still a boy, and you have no headship whatsoever, over anyone.  Mark Driscoll would call you – and I would agree with him – a boy who can shave (thank you, Pastor Mark, for that very helpful term).

I have no particular objection to women having headship over men in an administrative or civic capacity, until her administrative or civic authority bleeds over into a theological issue, then her headship runs out.  I have no objection to my wife being in charge of my to-do list (mainly because if I’m in charge of it, nothing will get done), but I speak for my house on theological issues – even if my wife disagrees with me (which she very rarely does, and when she does disagree, it’s discussed in private).

Associated Baptist Press: Baptist Women Pastors Reach Milestone:

The Gospel Coalition: Why is TGC Complementarian?

The Gospel Coalition: To my Egalitarian Friends and What’s Wrong With Patriarchy?

Christianity Today: Are Women Happy At Church? Nearly 75% Say Yes, Yet Feel Guilty:

Barna Group: Christian Women Today, Part 1 of 4:

Christianity Today: Canada’s Largest Protestant Church Elects Openly Gay Leader:  Homosexuality is not some especially depraved sin or brand of sexual immorality, it is just another type of sexual immorality.  The biblical inconsistency of churches like this one is demonstrated in their (sinful) condoning of open homosexuality, but their (correct) disdain for open adultery.

Issue 3:  Intolerance of Orthodox Christianity:

Christianity Today: Family Research Council Points to Southern Poverty Law Center in Sparking Shooter’s Reaction:

Some good news: Christianity Today:  InterVarsity Re-Instated As New York University Decides Leadership Policy Is “Common Sense, Not Discrimination”

Issue 4: Voting by Faith:  What is the role of our faith in our vote?  I have said before that morality can come from nearly any religion, even though salvation only comes from one.  Even though I do not agree with the theology of either of our main presidential candidates (or vice presidential candidates, for that matter), there is one with whom I share more ideas about morality than the other.

The Resurgence: Politics and the Kingdom of God:  The last two sentences summarize the whole article, and make a strong case for balanced thought and careful discernment.

Those who act as though politics are the primary way God has determined to bring about the kingdom of God will inevitably downplay the significance of the church as God’s agent through which the Spirit works in the world. On the other hand, those who avoid all political or cultural involvement as inherently evil will miss or downplay the social and cultural ramifications of the gospel of Jesus.

The All of Life series from which this article comes is also a worthwhile read, though it doesn’t focus entirely on Christian political engagement.

Associated Baptist Press: Analyst says Romney plays religion card:

Pew Research Center: Religion & Politics 2012:

Christianity Today: President Obama’s Faith Council Focuses On Human Trafficking:

http://www.barna.org/culture-articles/579-christian-women-today-part-1-of-4-what-women-think-of-faith-leadership-and-their-role-in-the-church

Related articles

• Headline Highlights: Week of August 10th, 2012 (thinkrhema.wordpress.com)

 

Headline Highlights: Week of August 10th, 2012

Highlights are back, but being reduced to a once-a-week frequency to help balance other responsibilities.  Enjoy.

Newspaper (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I link these articles here because I believe the issues are important for Christians to be mindful of and to carefully weigh out.  Some articles are of a controversial nature, and their inclusion here does not necessarily express my agreement with either the political or theological views of the source.  I simply find these articles worth discussing and bringing to the attention of my fellow believers (or worth reminding about).

Ephesians 6:12: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Romans 12:18: If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

As Christians, we absolutely MUST remember these verses as we weigh out our positions on moral-civil issues and then seek to enact and support laws, policies and practices in society that reflect our positions.  It is not the people who disagree with us that we “fight” against, but the devil behind them (whether or not they are aware of it).  Because the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbors, we must extend a Christian grace even to those with whom we disagree.  When we fail to extend such a grace, we fail as credible ambassadors of Christ.

Issue 1: A Trending Lack of Discernment:  “Knowledge is the soil in which the Holy Spirit sows the seed of understanding” (modified from this article).  There is a tragic illiteracy of Scripture among modern Western Christians, and that illiteracy and lack of knowledge is growing into a possibly more tragic lack of understanding of, and discernment between, false teachings or sound doctrine.  This lack of discernment also plays into how we will (or won’t) respond to the other two issues in this Highlights post.

Ligonier: Where East Meets West; Desiring God: Fight the Poverty of Attention and Do We Ignore the Bible.

Issue 2:  Religious Liberty vs. “Discrimination” based on Homosexuality (or other sin issue):  Chick-fil-A aside, “tolerance” vs. Religious Liberty and Christian Morals remains a prevalent issue in current events.  Conservative Christians are castigated by the political (and religious) left because of a firm belief that homosexuality is outside of God’s design and morally wrong.  The hypocrisy in some Christian groups is that they lack of grace towards this particular sexual sin, while silently condoning or not actively fighting other sexual sin within their congregation.  The hypocrisy of the far left is their “tolerance” of everyone but Conservative Christians, and it is particularly ironic with regards to this issue because they are “tolerant” of Conservative Muslims, who are violently anti-homosexual (in nations where Sharia law is in place and enforce, homosexuality is a capital crime punished by death).

World Magazine: Philosophical Differences and Vanderbilt Squeeze:
Excerpt from Philosophical Differences: “A sharp-eyed reader [of the average anti-discrimination policy] will grasp both the central issue and the embedded fallacy. The issue: An institution (such as a Christian college) that refuses hiring on the basis of homosexual practice is thereby discriminatory. The fallacy: If a non-discrimination policy includes religion in its list of protected categories, then any institution religiously opposed to hiring a [person practicing a lifestyle contrary to the institution’s beliefs] is itself discriminated against…”

Desiring God: Not Your Mother’s Kind of Tolerance and No One is More Tolerant Than God:

A strongly recommended book for this discussion: D.A. Carson, Intolerance of Tolerance.

Issue 3:  Systemic Academic Antagonism of Christianity:  This issue is more of the same lack of “tolerance” for Christians, but in a more narrow scope than the above issue.  I also have personal experience on the untolerated end  of this particular issue, which I may write about later.

World Magazine: Soaping the Slippery Slope, Into Exile, Good Deeds Punished, and Vanderbilt Squeeze:

On a brighter note… Christianity Today: Missouri Students Can Now Opt Out of School Assignments on Religious Grounds:

Related articles

• Headline Highlights: 2012, July 31st  (thinkrhema.wordpress.com)
• Headline Highlights: 2012, July 30th (thinkrhema.wordpress.com)
• Headline Highlights: 2012, July 28th (thinkrhema.wordpress.com)

Headline Highlights: 2012, July 31st

Newspaper (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I link these articles here because I believe the issues are important for Christians to be mindful of and to carefully weigh out.  Some articles are of a controversial nature, and their inclusion here does not necessarily express my agreement with either the political or theological views of the source.  I simply find these articles worth discussing and bringing to the attention of my fellow believers (or worth reminding about).

Only one topic today…  Not that there wasn’t much going on in the world, just that I have limited time to write.

Media Research Center: JFK and Mitt: The Media’s Double Standard on Faith:  The last couple of Highlights posts have had a lot to do with Religious Liberty vs. Separation of Church and State (at least in the civic dimension).  So when I found this article today I found it very interesting, because it extends the discussion of Religious Liberty to the Presidential office.  Of our two main Presidential candidates this year, one claims the Mormon faith, and the other claims the Christian faith (though the practice and preaching of his “home church” seems more Unitarian to me).  While religion and faith are certainly factors that should be considered when we choose our leaders, I don’t think that Christians succeed as ambassadors of Christ in the political realm when a candidate’s faith is the only issue they consider.  Fortunately, most of the Christians whom I personally know do not make faith their single swaying issue.  But if you happen to run in to the sort of Christian who does think that way, regardless of which way they vote, here is a worthy point of discussion: Morality comes from nearly any faith, but salvation only comes from one.  Since we’re not the judges of people’s salvation, it is of questionable use to vote for one person over another only because we think their faith is authentic.  With regard to civic leaders, we should be more concerned with their morality than their salvation.  On the other hand, if we’re voting for religious leaders (say, confirming a new pastor, or electing elders/deacons, etc.), we should know if what they teach is the Gospel that brings salvation, or just moral mush that we could get from any other faith (in fact, here is one pastor’s tool for self grading on this topic).

Near the beginning of the primary campaigns, Christianity Today published a brief history on Faith and the American Presidency*, as well as a small book on How to Pick a President*.  I haven’t read either of these yet, but I expect that in CT’s usual manner, they’ve given a reasonably ecumenical handling of the topic (the broadest Christian doctrines without being Unitarian).  I can also comfortably wager that some readers will be surprised by the particular theologies held by some of our past Presidents (Thomas Jefferson’s Deism, for example).

*NOTE:  The above linked books are Kindle versions, but you do not necessarily need to purchase a Kindle to read them, because Amazon offers a Free Kindle App.

Headline Highlights: 2012, July 30th

Newspaper (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I link these articles here because I believe the issues are important for Christians to be mindful of and to carefully weigh out.  Some articles are of a controversial nature, and their inclusion here does not necessarily express my agreement with either the political or theological views of the source.  I simply find these articles worth discussing and bringing to the attention of my fellow believers (or worth reminding about).

Desiring God: Why Read the Bible?  If you follow any link from this post, follow this one.  I sincerely wish to inspire this sort of study (more with my other posts than the Highlights).  I also wish that I had come to this sort of attitude towards Bible study much sooner than I did.

The Gospel Coalition: 60 Second Summary: Defining Religious Liberty Down

The Foundry: Business Owners Battle Obamacare for Religious Freedom and Chick-fil-A Latest Example of How Same-Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Freedom

CNS News: DOJ to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business

The practice of faith in and through business – actually, anywhere outside the home and the physical church – is being attacked on two fronts right now.  First, through healthcare “reform” rules; second, gay marriage vs. traditional family values.  There is undoubtedly both a spiritual and a political battle going on here, religious freedom is an absolutely critical issue – both to religious practitioners (of any faith), and to a moral society.  Some Christians may not realize the significance of this – that government might try to restrict us to exercising our faith only within the walls of our homes and churches, for them, I recommend this article from the Resurgence.  I strongly believe that the worst thing a Christian can do is take a head-in-the-sand attitude towards this issue in its current form.  The next worst thing is to limit his or her response to “I’ll pray for my leaders and trust God.”  While it is certainly necessary to pray for our leaders and to trust God, if we stop there, we are either adopting an attitude of pride towards the issue (it’s not worth my time to deal with that), or complacence (showing by our actions that we don’t really care about the outcome).  If you are honest enough to acknowledge your stake in this issue, here is what I suggest:  pray, pray, and pray some more.  Then talk to your pastor, other church leaders, and fellow congregants about what is going on – make people who agree with you aware of the issue, then pray corporately over the issue.  Talk about it when you’re in public, and invite bystanders to join the conversation – maybe next time you’re getting coffee with a Christian friend, ask the person at the next table what they think.  Don’t be shy, but also don’t be rude or confrontational if you find out that they disagree.  If they do disagree, then it’s a golden gospel sharing opportunity, and you can raise the questions about first amendment and religious freedoms as sort of an appologetics technique.  Beyond that, if you can do so in a God-honoring manor, contact your elected representatives (Congress, Senate), as well as your local media, and call on them to report on the issue in an honest way.

Fox: Black Wedding Banned by Baptist Church:  Racism still exists, even within the Church, and it is utterly wrong! I don’t know if lack of spine in this sense is a sin that should disqualify a pastor from ministry, but it would not bother me if the local First Baptist affiliation revoked their endorsement of that church and pastor.  If you are a Christian living an a multi-ethnic community, seek to build a multi-ethnic church; if you are a part of a mono-ethnic congregation in a multi-ethnic  community, seek to change that, and seek to build ministry and outreach partnerships with other congregations of different ethnicities (yes, you might also have to work across denominational lines).

Desiring God: How to Watch the Olympic Games and How Does Physical Exercise Relate to Sanctification?:  I don’t have any particular comments here, I just found these topics interesting, what do you think?

Headline Highlights: 2012, July 28th

I link these articles here because I believe the issues are important for Christians to be mindful of and to carefully weigh out.  Some articles are of a controversial nature, and their inclusion here does not necessarily express my agreement with either the political or theological views of the source.  I simply find these articles worth discussing and bringing to the attention of my fellow believers (or worth reminding about).

Washington Times: Chick-fil-A versus Chicago Values:  I love hyperbole.  Apparently tongues run faster than brains in Chicago.  Among other things, this article points out the inconsistency and incoherence of “tolerance” as defined by modern liberals.  Tolerance from the Christian perspective is well put in the Christian cliche, “love the sinner, hate the sin.”  No sinful behavior from anyone lets us off the hook from our obligation to love, evangelize, and forgive.  But loving, evangelizing, and forgiving do not amount to tolerance for continued sinning so that grace may abound (Romans 6:1-14).  In the case of homosexuality and other sexual sins, they run so deep that people become nearly defined by them, the solution is not simple, no matter how much heterosexual and sexually pure Christians might want it to be.  See also: Highlights 201207027 and Right of Refusal vs Loving Your Neighbor.

Life News: First Plaintiff Beats Obama HHS-Abortion Mandate in Court:  Take note of the common thread between this and the Chick-fil-A issue, political opposition against Christian views expressed and exercised outside the Church and home.  In the case of the contraceptive mandate, it is past the point  of oppositional rhetoric, and has reached the point of law.  To me, this thread is a write-your-representative level issue, because the First Amendment promises that the government will not restrict the exercise of religion.  But Evangelical Christendom demands action and a God-glorifying lifestyle outside the home.  A law like this is exactly what the First Amendment protects religious practices against.  Attitudes like those in Chicago (and elsewhere) towards Chick-fil-A are also the type of attitudes that bring laws like this into fruition.  See also: The Foundry: Religious Freedom Is Not Just for Churches.

The Foundry: Louisiana Teachers Union Threatens to Sue Voucher Schools:  Soap box warning.  Call me paranoid, but I know I am not the only one who thinks this way…  There are several different political and moral worldviews that hold values utterly contradictory to those of traditionally evangelical Christians, and those political and moral worldviews account for a probable majority among public school teachers.  The result is that Johnny and Suzy go to Sunday School once a week and learn that God made the world, deserves to be obeyed, and loves them; then they go to public school five days a week and learn that the world just spontaneously showed up, there are no rules because there is no god, and if there was a god who made rules then he wouldn’t be loving.  Christian private schools open up the opportunity to change that balance, and charter schools and voucher schools open that same opportunity to less economically endowed Christian families.  But because of an over-literal understanding of Separation of Church and State, anti-evangelical and anti-capitalist thinking demands that charter or voucher schools cease to exist.  Ironically, and hypocritically, they demand a state monopoly on education and curriculum.  How should carefully thoughtful Christians respond?  There are three basic responses:  homeschooling, where (usually) the child is insulated and “protected” from all non-christian thinking, and probably from important social development; private Christian schooling, where the child learns better social skills, but is again insulated and “protected” against non-christian thinking; or heavily parent involved public schooling, where the child learns from a young age how to be in the world but not of it, and experiences “normal” social development.  Admittedly, I have presented the choices in such a way to make it clear where I come down on this issue, but I’ll also mention that my own educational experience was a mix of these three options, depending on which academic year we’re talking about.  I’ll also say that I learned more about the world outside the Church when I joined the Marine Corps, and that I was probably not as prepared for it as I could have been if my educational experience had been different.  I would liken that experience to being dropped in the middle of a river at flood-stage without knowing how to swim.  Fortunately, in my case, there were spiritual and moral lifeguards present.

Anyway, as it pertains to school choice, and method of education, I don’t see any glaring reasons for Christians to take one position or another.  Economically, educational choice is a critical issue that needs to be moved forward.  But for Christians, those who come down hard and dogmatically on one educational choice are probably not making that choice in a carefully thoughtful manner.

Related articles

• Nation of Islam can open a restaurant in Chicago, but not Chick-fil-A? (legalinsurrection.com)
• Evangelist Billy Graham defends Chick-fil-A (religion.blogs.cnn.com)

Headline Highlights: 2012, July 27

I link these articles here because I believe the issues are important for Christians to be mindful of and to carefully weigh out.  Some articles are of a controversial nature, and their inclusion here does not necessarily express my agreement with either the political or theological views of the source.  I simply find these articles worth discussing and bringing to the attention of my fellow believers (or worth reminding about).

The Foundry: The Dad Divide in Child Welfare:  Here are current stats on the absence of fathers.  The Church, and thoughtful Christians have a role in addressing this issue.  Part of that role is in protecting the sanctity of marriage (see below), but it is also in mentoring and building Godly men and fathers.

Christianity Today: Why Gay Marriage is More Than a Legal Issue:  It is very accurate to liken McCarthyism with the modern liberal attitude towards traditional Christian Family Values – and anyone espousing such values.  As I have mentioned before, Christians should make careful distinctions between the civic and evangelistic dimensions of this issue.  As a citizen, I will ardently oppose any legislation condoning gay marriage.  But as a Christian, homosexuals are no more sinful than any other person guilty of sexual sin, and  I will minister and relate to homosexuals in the same way as I would to a person who was a porn addict, adulterer, or promiscuous.  Any other approach is either theologically inconsistent or incoherent – either to speak on God’s behalf and say that he holds a different attitude towards homosexuality than sexual sin in general, or to allow contradictions within scripture by utterly mutilating the intent of any biblical passage addressing sexual sin or homosexuality.

The Gospel Coalition: Do You See the Suffering:  While immigration is undoubtedly a hot-button political issue in the US.  How should the Church respond?  Admittedly, my faith and my politics are in conflict here.  But I remember (thanks to either Spurgeon or Lawson) that politics is not the God ordained venue for world change, but the Gospel.  If we see the suffering of the impoverished, many of whom immigrate illegally to the United States, we will be better equipped to bring the Gospel to them.  But if we merely criminalize their immigration and lump them in with the genuine criminals who also immigrate illegally, we reduce the issue to race, and fail as ambassadors of Christ.  This article is also very much in line with Stearns’ Hole in Our Gospel.

Right of Refusal vs. Loving Your Neighbor

Before you read my thoughts, here’s the source article from Desiring God: Some Foreseen Effects of Legalizing So-Called Same Sex Marriage.

When a Christian business makes a business decision based on their religion, shouldn’t that be protected by the First Amendment? To Christians doing business, I don’t know the case law or constitutional issues around a “right to refuse service,” but you would be well advised to follow this issue, or to somehow include in your marketing materials that you are a faith based business.  However if you see your work as “Business as Mission,” then how are you going to reach people if you refuse to accept them as clients based on their unbeliever’s decision to live outside of a believer’s moral standard?  If it is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict the heart and induce repentance, then we should exercise discernment and be open to allowing the Holy Spirit to work through us in that person’s life.

Hopefully it is at least somewhat clear that I see both a civic and an evangelistic dimension in this issue.  From the civic dimension I believe that the court was utterly wrong to infringe on what appears to me to be the First Amendment rights of a business (we know from the Citizens United decision that the First Amendment applies to businesses).  From the evangelistic dimension (which Pastor Piper didn’t mention in his post, but I assume he would agree) Christians still have a duty to love and evangelize homosexuals (under the Great Commission and Greatest Commandment).  As this is a particularly delicate area of evangelism, great care should be taken when deciding the nature of even a business-as-mission interaction with a client living in overt sin.  Not every Christian, and certainly not every Christian business is equipped to minister effectively to homosexuals; and even if they are effectively equipped for such work, the business relationship with that particular client or prospect may not be conducive to evangelism.

If you are a Christian doing business, are you personally equipped for ministry to homosexuals (or addicts, or xyz overt sinner)?  If you are, might the typical business-client relationship in your field open doors to do such ministry?  If not (which I believe was most likely the case for Elane Photography), then you are probably correct not to do business with that client in a way which might be perceived to condone their sin – and any American court which chides you for exercising such right of refusal is infringing upon your First Amendment right to practice your religion without interference from the government.