Thinking Christian

Recently posted on the Center For a Just Society website, my thoughts on “Hate Is Not a Family Value,” beginning with,

The other day I saw a car displaying the bumper sticker, “Hate is not a family value.” As slogans go, I thought, this one is just about perfect. Packed with emotional impact, in just six short words it exposes the hypocrisy of “family values” proponents. That’s the intent, at any rate, and it works well so long as one doesn’t break the First Rule of slogans: Don’t think too hard about them, just swallow them whole.

Tweet This Post

A popular hymn in the church where I grew up began, “I was sinking deep in sin.” I think another song could be written, “I was shrinking deep in sin.” For it seems to me that one effect of sin is to make us smaller.

God created us to live large. Genesis 1:28, the first commandment of them all, is simply huge:

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Jesus stated his purpose in John 10:10,

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

This is what we were meant for. It is about living life to the full, experiencing the best and the most that life has to offer.

Temptation lies to us and says sin has more to offer. My own experience tells me otherwise. Sin narrows my experience, rather than broadening it. If it is sexual temptation, it constricts my view of the woman. The 1970s feminists were on the right track when they objected to being regarded as sex objects. The woman is a whole person, but a purely sexual view regards her in only one limited dimension. It does not make her less of a whole person; it does not shrink her. It shrinks instead the man who falsely sees her as so much less than a whole person. Sexual relations within a faithful, loving marriage are not that way, for the relationship itself is much larger than that, involving a day-long, life-long covenant between two whole people; and marital relationships (unlike most illicit ones, where this is strictly guarded against) have the potential of enlarging into an entire new life in the family.

That is but one example. I could also mention the temptation to anger and impatience at a slow driver blocking the road ahead. What does that anger do but narrow our focus to the bumper in front of us? Nothing exists for us in the whole glorious world but the back end of some annoying car. The sin of impatient anger hides from us that there is a real human in that car. It obscures our view of the rest of the world around us.

it is the same with all sin. Gluttony reduces our world to that of food. Greed reduces our view to what we wish we had. Sloth reduces our world to what we can see and do from our couch. Pride limits our perspective to our own selves.

Sin, which tries to tell us it will enlarge experience, instead makes small our experience of the world. It lies. Above all it shuts out our view of the greatest, largest reality of all, God himself. To seek God and his way is to experience the fullest and best that life has to offer.

Tweet This Post

Introduced late in January, now referred to committee, H.R. 4530: Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010:

Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 – Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates. Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination. Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act. Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them. Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney’s fees should they prevail. Deems a state’s receipt of federal educational assistance for a program to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for conduct prohibited under this Act regarding such program.

MissionAmerica summarizes what’s wrong with this.

Tweet This Post

The Faith and Reason blog at USA Today tells us Tim Tebow is going to be featured in a commercial during the Super Bowl. Tebow, who just finished up his senior year of football at the University of Florida, is a natural for appearing on Super Bowl Sunday—many consider him the best college quarterback in the land, if not the best player in any position. (I’m not a Gator fan, by the way!)

What’s raising a ruckus is first, that he is an outspoken evangelical Christian, and second, that the ad is to be sponsored by Focus on the Family. The ad’s content has not been made public in detail, but the sponsor has made it known that it’s a pro-life message. Here’s how Cathy Lynn Grossman at Faith and Reason described the problem:

What’s not to love? What’s the issue here? How about…

I love my family more than you love your family” [sic] v. My love is as good as yours.

Or

God honors my choices, not yours.

That’s the subtext of the Tebow ad, an affront to anyone who would make a different choice, say those who strenuously object to CBS’ plan to air it. They see Focus on the Family — known for its stands against gay marriage, reproductive rights education beyond promoting abstinence, and opposition to legal abortion — delivering it’s [sic] views to a massive family audience on Super Bowl Sunday.

An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year — an event designed to bring Americans together,” said Jehmu Greene, speaking for a a coalition of women who oppose the ad.

Is the Super Bowl the place for this or not? I really wouldn’t want the game turned into a battleground for worldviews. Thirty-second spots just aren’t the right medium for the kind of interaction that solves problems: the reasoned, mutually respectful sort. There might be good reasons to think twice about taking the culture war to a new battlefield. As genuine and as uplifting as Tebow’s story may be (and it genuinely is), someone else could surely concoct a commercial that feels as uplifting from the other side of the issue. Where does that get us?

But last I heard, CBS is going to run the ad anyway. If there are objections to it, here’s hoping they’re not raised for the wrong reasons—like the ones suggested in the excerpts I quoted above. I seriously doubt Tebow (and his mother, who reportedly also is involved in the spot) plans to communicate the first message there (“I love my family more…”). If he did it would be wrong, certainly, but from what I know about him, that’s just not going to happen. The suggestion that he would do that amounts to an advance scare tactic and nothing more.

What about, “God honors my choices, not yours,“ though? That would be wrong, too. It would be wrong in the same way as “Christians hold the truth” is wrong. If the message is to be, “I’ve got God in my hip pocket,” or “God is on my side,” that would be offensive not only to some sectors of a national audience, but to God himself.

I don’t expect them to make God a part of this ad. That’s just a guess, based on the media buzz I’ve seen so far. But since the Faith and Reason blog brought it up, I want to spend some moments on it anyway.

Suppose the message is, “I choose to honor God with my choices.” That’s different. That’s recognizing where honor belongs. It’s recognizing that God doesn’t pick one man or woman’s side over any others.

Note what happened when an angel of the Lord came to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15):

When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the Lord. Now I have come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, “What does my lord say to his servant?” And the commander of the Lord’s army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

This Commander didn’t take Joshua’s side, but that’s not to say there were no sides in the battle. There was the Lord’s side, and there was opposition to the Lord’s side, and of course those who wanted to take the true and victorious side joined with the Lord. Joshua signified that by taking off his sandals in worship before this Commander (who many commentators think may have been the pre-incarnate Christ).

Make no mistake, there are sides in the battle for morality and for life. There is great confusion, though, as to how these sides are formed and named. There are those who think that morality is their own choice (or their community’s or culture’s choice). There are others who think morality is something we all grow into (biologically and/or culturally) and we don’t really have much choice over what we value or honor. For either group, there is morality but there is no moral authority, except in perhaps in history and culture (expressed by law and custom). There are other views besides these, but these are dominant in our culture.

If either of those were actually the case, then it would make sense to ask, “Who are you to say my morality is wrong?” And I think many people think that we are all operating out of that authority-free attitude toward morality. This, I believe, is why they can’t understand anyone saying someone else’s morality was wrong. For them, there’s no basis for saying that, and they think that’s what everyone should think. (That view often turns ironic, of course, when it bleeds over into saying “it’s immoral of you to say that someone else’s morality is wrong.” But I’ll just mention that in passing and leave it aside.)

The issue, as Brad Bright says, is God. If there is a God who is holy, good, and just, then there are sides. There is a right side and a wrong one. The wrong one is whatever opposes God, and the right one is the one that seeks to follow his ways. None of us could ever succeed in enlisting God to our own side, but anyone can enlist to join God on his side. Anyone can learn what God says is right and wrong, and if they speak of right and wrong, they do it not on their own authority but on God’s. If that is “an affront to anyone who would make a different choice,” it’s not just a person-to-person affront. It’s a confrontation with true, transcendent authority.

Anyone can honor God’s choices. I have a feeling that if this commercial says anything about God, choices, and honor, that’s what it’s going to say. We’ll see.

Tweet This Post

“He needs something that Christianity especially provides and offers, and that is redemption and forgiveness.”

True story, unrelated to Tiger’s situation except for the topic matter: A psychiatric hospital in Lansing, Michigan phoned the pastor at the church I was attending at the time. They asked him, “Do you Christians have any help to offer someone who needs to feel forgiven?” He answered, “We specialize in it!” It’s not just about a famous golfer landing in a heap of trouble. We’re all in a heap of trouble of one sort or another. Like no one else and like no other religion, Jesus Christ specializes in walking us out of it.

But, as Brit Hume has discovered, “speak the name Jesus Christ and all hell breaks loose.” I’m glad he’s been willing to look hell in the eye and keep speaking the name of Jesus.

Hat Tip: Stand to Reason

Tweet This Post

John Mark Reynolds:

Uganda may pass a law that could lead to the death penalty for homosexual behavior.

The proposed law is odious….

No good can come of this bill and great harm will be done if it is passed.

Some fringe Evangelical support may be behind the bill and so American Evangelicals have some obligation to comment and urge rejection of this hateful, useless, and dangerous piece of legislation by all Christians…. the bill is bad for numerous reasons.

[From An Odious Law: Uganda and Homosexuality » Evangel | A First Things Blog]

Here’s my voice raised in agreement.

Tweet This Post

Maybe it’s the Yorktown effect. I live just a few miles from the battlefield where America won its independence from Britain, and my commute to work actually takes me through that battlefield. Just a few blocks from there is the home of a patriot named Thomas Nelson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, who “gave most of his fortune to purchase supplies for the Patriots and died in debt, but as an American citizen” (waymarking.com). He was one of those who agreed to “pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to the cause of independence.

I do not mean to over-state the Manhattan Declaration’s parallels with the Declaration of Independence; yet there are similarities, in their common call to stand in unity for true liberty under God and in the solemn commitment signers make to stand with that truth even if current law denies it. I have made that solemn commitment, and I am grateful and humbled to have my signature under it. I am also grateful that as of this writing almost one-quarter million others have signed it. I urge you to join us with your signature as well.

As for the Yorktown effect, I’m quite sure I would have signed the Declaration regardless of where I lived, because it’s really about the truth. The Manhattan Declaration rests firmly and solidly on biblical principles of life, marriage, and liberty. If these matters are not of God, then what anyone believes about them is of no consequence. But I believe God has spoken on them, and we have no option but to accept his word as true. Thankfully it is a good truth; and the Manhattan Declaration makes a positive stand for that truth.

The Declaration makes a positive statement for life and human dignity. Its stand against abortion is accompanied by its call to help innocent victims of war and its stand against

the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS.

… all of which is rooted in God’s own loving regard for us whom he created in his own image.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. (John 10:10)

The Declaration makes a positive statement for marriage. Its strong stand against same-sex “marriage” is prefaced by its biblical definition of marriage’s intent:

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Genesis 2:23-24).

This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband (Ephesians 5:32-33).

And it is also balanced by a call to

stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

In other words, it is about strengthening marriage in all ways. It’s not just about “gay rights,” but about all that God says about this one most crucial institution of all societies.

It is an uncompromising call to truth, yet wrapped round with grace:

We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

The Declaration makes a positive statement for religious liberty. Laws regarding “hate crimes” and conscience clauses, and “political correctness” in general, threaten one of the Western world’s (and especially America’s) most basic, bedrock principles: that a person’s religious conscience is not to be coerced by law. As the Declaration says,

Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.

The roots of this are deeply biblical:

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners (Isaiah 61:1).

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s (Matthew 22:21).

Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard (Acts 4:19-20).

Yet it is not some strange new theocratic threat; its civil foundations go back at least to George Mason and the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, not to mention the already-mentioned Declaration of Independence. It is not only biblical, it is also thoroughly democratic and American.

But if it were merely democratic and American, that would not make it worth attaching my name to it so publicly. I support the Manhattan Declaration because I am convinced its call is based in the truth, and because I am convinced that its truth is founded in the God of truth.

Tweet This Post