I was surprised to pick up my local newspaper recently and find an opinion column entitled "Old Time Religion." The column was written by a local writer who just happens to be a Christian and a member of a local church. She shared a recent experience about a young man coming to her and inviting her and her family to his church. To quote the writer, she said the invitation went like this: "You and your husband and kids really ought to come to our church. We don't sing any of that old timey music and nobody has to wear church clothes. You just come anyway you are, and nobody cares what you do the rest of the week. You just come and enjoy worship services and leave with a really good feeling."
Needless to say, the writer wasn't too impressed with the invitation. While she thanked the young man for the invite, she also told him that she already had a church home and that she and her family would continue to worship there.
When I hear and read stories like this, I'm reminded yet again that churches have changed quite a bit over the last decade or so. Naming all those changes would be virtually impossible, but I think it would be beneficial to mention a few. As the young man mentioned, the music of many churches has changed. Where churches once incorporated a lot of hymns into their worship, many of those hymns have now been labeled as "old timey music." Consequently, they've been abandoned for songs with a much more modern sound.
I'm certainly not against music that has a more contemporary feel. In fact, I like a good deal of the music that gets air-time on contemporary Christian radio stations. Yet, I wonder if it's good that some modern churches have done away with the "old timey music." I learned some of the richest and deepest theology of my life through the singing of those old standards. Our music has definitely changed, but has it changed for the better?
The young man also indicated that church attire has changed over the last several years. I would agree. When I was a kid, it would have been unthinkable to get up on Sunday morning and wear shorts and bluejeans to worship. Now we find it to be a common occurrence. Why the difference? I think it has to do with a new attitude about worship. As the young man said, "You just come anyway you are." To me, it begs the question: Why did the old-timers feel that they needed to dress up when they went to God's house? Perhaps it was because they were trying to present the very best they had to God. "Church clothes" have surely changed, but I wonder if they've changed for the better.
And as the young man indicated to the writer, at his church you can come and worship "and nobody cares what you do for the rest of the week." I doubt that is the message that the young man's pastor was trying to send, but it's pretty sad that he received that impression. Maybe the young man got that impression because it seems that even the message of many churches has changed. In some churches, doctrines that have stood intact for centuries are now being cast to the wayside.
Rob Bell, pastor of a contemporary megachurch in Grand Rapids, Michigan, just recently wrote a book called Love Wins. In the book, he essentially denies the biblical doctrines of heaven and hell. That's right - the man who is a pastor of what is supposed to be an evangelical church denies the bibically-based and historically-cherished doctrines of heaven and hell. The message and the doctrines of many churches have changed, but have they changed for the better?
Clearly, there are no shortage of changes in our churches, but my concern is that our churches don't have THE CHANGE they most desperately need. I'm talking about the kind of change that comes from a life that's totally surrendered to Jesus Christ. We can change our music, our clothes, our buildings, and anything else we want to. But until the people in our churches are changed, our world will continue to see most of our churches as an irrelevant and unnecessary joke. Perhaps they're right.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
A President Who Refuses to Defend the Law
Today I was both shocked and saddened to learn that the President of the United States is refusing to allow the Department of Justice (DOJ) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The DOMA became the law of the land in 1996 when both houses of Congress approved it and President Clinton signed it. Simply stated, the DOMA says that the federal government will only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. It also grants each state the privilege of determining marriage laws for its own individual state. As part of DOMA, no state is required to recognize the homosexual marriages that might be permitted in other states.
This law has been defended by the DOJ for the last 15 years, and rightfully so because it is the LAW of the land. And yet, now we have a President who seems to think that the law of the land is no longer worthy of a defense by the DOJ. While this is hard to believe, I found that the President's actions are not unprecedented. There have been a few cases when the DOJ has declined to defend statutes.
Those rare cases can be broken down into three categories. The first category include cases in which intervening Supreme Court decisions have rendered the defense of the statute untenable. Clearly this first category does not apply in this case of the DOMA. The second category involves statutes that in the DOJ's view infringe the constitutional powers of the President himself. Again, that does not apply in this case of the DOMA.
The third and smallest category involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional. This third category actually does apply in this case because the President just recently said that he believes Section 3 of the DOMA is unconstitutional. But even with that being said, that is only his opinion, and the last time I checked his opinion is not the law.
Think about this: Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
Much of the info I gathered for this post came from a Georgetown Law Professor named Nan Hunter. You can access her thoughts here. She is by no means a "conservative" thinker. And yet, she came to this conclusion in 2009: "While it is not impossible for the DOJ to refuse to defend the DOMA, it would be an extraordinary act for them to do so" (emphasis mine). Ms. Hunter, I couldn't agree with you more.
I hope all this grieves your heart just as much as it has mine. More importantly, I hope this is yet another wake-up call to remind us to pray for our President and governing officials. In this case, not only are they governing in a way that is irresponsible, but they're leading in a way that is unbiblical. We know what God did in places like Sodom and Gomorrah, and Judah, and Rome when the powers that be decided to endorse the homosexual lifestyle - one that God consistently calls an abomination.
How can we hope to avoid the same fate they experienced if we open wide the door to homosexual marriage? Clearly we won't, nor should we. If God judged homosexuality back then, He will continue to do so today. Let us pray that our leaders will learn a lesson from history (and the Scripture) and that they will change course immediately. Revival is the only hope left for our land. I'm praying that it will begin at the house of God and that it will touch both the houses of Congress and even the White House.
This law has been defended by the DOJ for the last 15 years, and rightfully so because it is the LAW of the land. And yet, now we have a President who seems to think that the law of the land is no longer worthy of a defense by the DOJ. While this is hard to believe, I found that the President's actions are not unprecedented. There have been a few cases when the DOJ has declined to defend statutes.
Those rare cases can be broken down into three categories. The first category include cases in which intervening Supreme Court decisions have rendered the defense of the statute untenable. Clearly this first category does not apply in this case of the DOMA. The second category involves statutes that in the DOJ's view infringe the constitutional powers of the President himself. Again, that does not apply in this case of the DOMA.
The third and smallest category involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional. This third category actually does apply in this case because the President just recently said that he believes Section 3 of the DOMA is unconstitutional. But even with that being said, that is only his opinion, and the last time I checked his opinion is not the law.
Think about this: Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."In other words, it is the President's job to "defend the Constitution of the United States." While I understand that the DOMA is not the Constitution, clearly the legislative branch of our government has determined the DOMA to be a law that is constitutional. For this President to instruct the DOJ not to defend a law that has been deemed constitutional by both houses of Congress and a U.S. President is both irresponsible and incomprehensible.
Much of the info I gathered for this post came from a Georgetown Law Professor named Nan Hunter. You can access her thoughts here. She is by no means a "conservative" thinker. And yet, she came to this conclusion in 2009: "While it is not impossible for the DOJ to refuse to defend the DOMA, it would be an extraordinary act for them to do so" (emphasis mine). Ms. Hunter, I couldn't agree with you more.
I hope all this grieves your heart just as much as it has mine. More importantly, I hope this is yet another wake-up call to remind us to pray for our President and governing officials. In this case, not only are they governing in a way that is irresponsible, but they're leading in a way that is unbiblical. We know what God did in places like Sodom and Gomorrah, and Judah, and Rome when the powers that be decided to endorse the homosexual lifestyle - one that God consistently calls an abomination.
How can we hope to avoid the same fate they experienced if we open wide the door to homosexual marriage? Clearly we won't, nor should we. If God judged homosexuality back then, He will continue to do so today. Let us pray that our leaders will learn a lesson from history (and the Scripture) and that they will change course immediately. Revival is the only hope left for our land. I'm praying that it will begin at the house of God and that it will touch both the houses of Congress and even the White House.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Why Did Jesus Come to Earth?
Today I had the privilege of visiting an institution of higher learning. I went to listen to a speaker who came to talk about the ultimate purpose of Christ's coming to earth. The speaker gave a passionate lecture for about 40 minutes. He was very engaging and clearly he possesses a wonderful gift of communication. The speaker concluded that Jesus came to this earth to establish the kingdom of God. With that I heartily agree, but still it begs the question: What is the kingdom of God and how did Christ instruct His followers to establish it?
According to the speaker, the kingdom of God is essentially the reign of Jesus Christ over all the earth. He explained that Christ's kingdom is ultimately established through the means of social justice - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. He said that "justice, and love, and changing the structures of the social order" are the reasons for which Christ laid down His life on Calvary's cross. As the speaker brought his message to a conclusion, he urged the students and faculty to "change the world through social justice."
I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what the man said. He said things that I wish every church could've heard. But still, I found myself wondering, "Did Jesus really come to change the social order? Was that His ultimate purpose for coming and dying on the cross?"
I'd like to submit that Christ did not come simply to change the social order. His coming was not just about feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and relieving the burdens of the afflicted. While Jesus certainly did all those things (and much more), that was not His ultimate purpose for coming to earth. Even Jesus acknowledged "the poor you have with you always" (John 12:8). Now matter how much "social justice" we do, there will always be those who have a multitude of physical and material needs.
So why did Christ come? Christ came to this earth to pay the penalty for our sins through His death on the cross. By dying in our place, Jesus satisfied the wrath of His holy Heavenly Father. His death on the cross has opened wide the gates of heaven to all those that will place their faith in Him. Jesus also came to make disciples out of each one of us. That means He has commissioned us not only to follow Jesus, but to teach others how to do the same.
Let me explain. When Jesus met Saul on the road to Damascus, Saul was a murderer. In fact, he was going to Damascus to kill Christians. Saul was in a state of reprobation (rejected by God), but Jesus wanted to do a work of transformation in his life. Jesus said it was for this purpose that He wanted to send Saul to the Gentiles: "to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me" (Acts 26:18).
In other words, Jesus did not come merely to change the social order. He came to transform human souls - to turn us from darkness to light! Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with changing the natural order of things, but lasting change will never occur until sins have been forgiven and souls have been saved. You can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and relieve the afflicted all you want, but until Christ transforms human souls it's all for naught.
I've written this post for this reason: We need to be careful that we don't change the Gospel of Christ from a life-transforming message into a humanitarian campaign, otherwise known as "the social gospel." I'm convinced that Christ and his followers would not have even recognized such a perversion of the Gospel. Remember, Paul challenged the Galatians with these words: "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-8).
So what is the true Gospel? Why did Jesus really come? This same Paul provides us with the answer: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Tim. 1:15). May we never tire of sharing the Gospel of our Lord with both the rich and the poor - the blessed and the afflicted. Then, and only then, will the social order be radically changed for the glory of God.
According to the speaker, the kingdom of God is essentially the reign of Jesus Christ over all the earth. He explained that Christ's kingdom is ultimately established through the means of social justice - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. He said that "justice, and love, and changing the structures of the social order" are the reasons for which Christ laid down His life on Calvary's cross. As the speaker brought his message to a conclusion, he urged the students and faculty to "change the world through social justice."
I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what the man said. He said things that I wish every church could've heard. But still, I found myself wondering, "Did Jesus really come to change the social order? Was that His ultimate purpose for coming and dying on the cross?"
I'd like to submit that Christ did not come simply to change the social order. His coming was not just about feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, and relieving the burdens of the afflicted. While Jesus certainly did all those things (and much more), that was not His ultimate purpose for coming to earth. Even Jesus acknowledged "the poor you have with you always" (John 12:8). Now matter how much "social justice" we do, there will always be those who have a multitude of physical and material needs.
So why did Christ come? Christ came to this earth to pay the penalty for our sins through His death on the cross. By dying in our place, Jesus satisfied the wrath of His holy Heavenly Father. His death on the cross has opened wide the gates of heaven to all those that will place their faith in Him. Jesus also came to make disciples out of each one of us. That means He has commissioned us not only to follow Jesus, but to teach others how to do the same.
Let me explain. When Jesus met Saul on the road to Damascus, Saul was a murderer. In fact, he was going to Damascus to kill Christians. Saul was in a state of reprobation (rejected by God), but Jesus wanted to do a work of transformation in his life. Jesus said it was for this purpose that He wanted to send Saul to the Gentiles: "to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me" (Acts 26:18).
In other words, Jesus did not come merely to change the social order. He came to transform human souls - to turn us from darkness to light! Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with changing the natural order of things, but lasting change will never occur until sins have been forgiven and souls have been saved. You can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and relieve the afflicted all you want, but until Christ transforms human souls it's all for naught.
I've written this post for this reason: We need to be careful that we don't change the Gospel of Christ from a life-transforming message into a humanitarian campaign, otherwise known as "the social gospel." I'm convinced that Christ and his followers would not have even recognized such a perversion of the Gospel. Remember, Paul challenged the Galatians with these words: "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-8).
So what is the true Gospel? Why did Jesus really come? This same Paul provides us with the answer: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Tim. 1:15). May we never tire of sharing the Gospel of our Lord with both the rich and the poor - the blessed and the afflicted. Then, and only then, will the social order be radically changed for the glory of God.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Does God's Word Direct Us to Accept Everyone?
My last blog post had to do with Belmont University. If you read it, you know that the school just recently added "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination policy - a move that basically paves the way for them to hire gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and trans-gendered individuals. The school's trustee chairman indicated that the school would remain true to its Christian heritage when it relieved a lesbian soccer coach of her duties. Yet, within a matter of days the school "changed its tune" when a wealthy music mogul made a $10,000,000 donation to the school. Funny how that kind of money has a way of helping individuals and institutions to change their minds.
I learned about this story primarily through the writing of Lonnie Wilkey, editor of the Tennessee Baptist Convention's Baptist & Reflector. He basically took Belmont University to task for compromising under the weight of the almighty dollar. Since then, others have taken exception with what Lonnie had to write. One such writer, Chris McCain of The Tennessean, published an article entitled "Following God's Word Means Accepting Everyone."
That brings me back to my original question: Does God's Word really direct us to accept everyone? The answer to that question depends on how one defines the word "accept." If by "accept" someone means that we are to love everyone and seek their salvation and discipleship, clearly the answer to that question is yes. If you read Mr. McCain's article, it's very clear he's not using that definition of "accept." For him, acceptance means a complete endorsement of someone's lifestyle - in this case, the lifestyle of a homosexual. He argues that "to label homosexuality as a sin places human limits on God's love." In other words, unless you're willing to completely endorse the lifestyle of a homosexual, you're short-changing the love of God.
I'd like to respectfully disagree. It is entirely possible for a Christian to love everyone without condoning their sinful behaviors. Since Mr. McCain made reference to Jesus in his article, it will aid us to look at how Jesus dealt with similar situations of sin. John 7:53-8:11 shares with us the story of the woman who was caught in adultery. When given a chance to condemn her to death, Christ looked down at the adulterous woman and forgave her sins. In doing so, he demonstrated the love of God.
It's at that point of the story where our liberal friends always seem to stop, but her story was not finished there. What did Jesus say next? "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). The fact that Jesus loved the adulterous woman didn't stop Him from confronting her with her sin and calling her to repentance. In doing so, he demonstrated the holiness of God. So then, if we're going to be faithful to our Lord, we must also demonstrate God's love and holiness. We can't do that if we start accepting every sinful lifestyle that comes down the pike.
And by the way, if "following God's Word means accepting everyone," I wonder if Mr. McCain would be in favor of Belmont "accepting" pedophiles under the school's non-discrimination policy? What about polygamists? Or perhaps even those who practice bestiality? If following God's Word means accepting everyone, shouldn't those who practice such things also be considered for hiring by the school?
Obviously, Mr. McCain doesn't really mean everyone when he says everyone. He wants to define who "everyone" is. Here is Mr. McCain's dilemma: The choice is not his to make. The choice is God's to make and He settled it a long time ago when He gave us His precious, inerrant Word. Rather than giving lip-service to God and distorting the truth of His Word, my prayer is that we will all continue to demonstrate both His love and holiness by "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). Our world needs Him now more than ever.
I learned about this story primarily through the writing of Lonnie Wilkey, editor of the Tennessee Baptist Convention's Baptist & Reflector. He basically took Belmont University to task for compromising under the weight of the almighty dollar. Since then, others have taken exception with what Lonnie had to write. One such writer, Chris McCain of The Tennessean, published an article entitled "Following God's Word Means Accepting Everyone."
That brings me back to my original question: Does God's Word really direct us to accept everyone? The answer to that question depends on how one defines the word "accept." If by "accept" someone means that we are to love everyone and seek their salvation and discipleship, clearly the answer to that question is yes. If you read Mr. McCain's article, it's very clear he's not using that definition of "accept." For him, acceptance means a complete endorsement of someone's lifestyle - in this case, the lifestyle of a homosexual. He argues that "to label homosexuality as a sin places human limits on God's love." In other words, unless you're willing to completely endorse the lifestyle of a homosexual, you're short-changing the love of God.
I'd like to respectfully disagree. It is entirely possible for a Christian to love everyone without condoning their sinful behaviors. Since Mr. McCain made reference to Jesus in his article, it will aid us to look at how Jesus dealt with similar situations of sin. John 7:53-8:11 shares with us the story of the woman who was caught in adultery. When given a chance to condemn her to death, Christ looked down at the adulterous woman and forgave her sins. In doing so, he demonstrated the love of God.
It's at that point of the story where our liberal friends always seem to stop, but her story was not finished there. What did Jesus say next? "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). The fact that Jesus loved the adulterous woman didn't stop Him from confronting her with her sin and calling her to repentance. In doing so, he demonstrated the holiness of God. So then, if we're going to be faithful to our Lord, we must also demonstrate God's love and holiness. We can't do that if we start accepting every sinful lifestyle that comes down the pike.
And by the way, if "following God's Word means accepting everyone," I wonder if Mr. McCain would be in favor of Belmont "accepting" pedophiles under the school's non-discrimination policy? What about polygamists? Or perhaps even those who practice bestiality? If following God's Word means accepting everyone, shouldn't those who practice such things also be considered for hiring by the school?
Obviously, Mr. McCain doesn't really mean everyone when he says everyone. He wants to define who "everyone" is. Here is Mr. McCain's dilemma: The choice is not his to make. The choice is God's to make and He settled it a long time ago when He gave us His precious, inerrant Word. Rather than giving lip-service to God and distorting the truth of His Word, my prayer is that we will all continue to demonstrate both His love and holiness by "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). Our world needs Him now more than ever.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Sexual Orientation and Belmont University
Within the last few days, the trustees of Belmont University voted to add "sexual orientation" to the school's nondiscrimination policy. In other words, they don't want a person's sexual preference to make any difference at all when a person is considered for employment at the university. You can read the story here. In order to understand the impact of this decision, it will probably aid you to know some things about the school's history.
I'm certainly no expert when it comes to the history of Belmont, but since I'm the pastor of a Tennessee Baptist Church (TBC) that was in cooperation with the school until just a few years ago, hopefully I can make a few informed statements. Belmont was a school created by the Tennessee Baptist Convention in the early 1950's. As with the other TBC institutions of higher learning, the purpose of the school was to train young men and women to be champions for Christ - whether serving him in Christian ministry or in the secular world.
Since its inception, music has played a strong influence on the livelihood of the college. That's not hard to understand, especially since Belmont is located in Music City, USA (Nashville). Many popular singers/songwriters received their education at the University, and consequently a good number of them have become influential donors since their graduation. To put it in a nutshell, Belmont relied heavily upon the TBC during its early years. As time passed, dependence on the TBC wained as the school became increasingly dependent upon the substantial gifts of some wealthy donors.
Many so-called "Christian schools" have gone down that path. It's almost as if you can see gold becoming their god right before your very eyes. Decisions are made much less on biblical convictions, and much more on what will attract the almighty dollar.
The recent decision by the Belmont Board of Trustees is just another very sad sign of this disturbing trend. And yet, this trend is really nothing new. In fact, it's as old as the Bible itself. Just consider men like David, Solomon, and a host of others. So long as they were ruddy little shepherd boys and ignorant young men calling on the wisdom of God, they made decisions based on God's Word and God's favor was added to their lives/kingdoms. Yet when they begin to prosper, somewhere along the way they allowed their prosperity to turn them away from following the Lord. In the cases of David and Solomon, both of them ended in some manner of disgrace because they failed to completely trust the Lord and heed His commands during their latter years.
In my opinion, that is precisely what has happened to Belmont. In this situation of their lesbian soccer coach, they had a wonderful opportunity to step up and shine bright for Christ, declaring the uncompromising truth of Scripture. Instead, they chose the path of least resistance. For every guy like me who writes to confront the institution with their sin, there will be many deep-pocketed donors who will assure them that they made the right decision.
What can we take from this? We better be very careful who we align ourselves with. We can align ourselves with the counselors and resources of this world, but I'm sure of this - none of them will be there to stand in judgment for us when we are called to give an account to Christ. What has Jesus said? "Whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:33). Are we Christians? Then let us stand on the Word of God. If weren't not willing to stand on His Word, then let's stop giving lip-service to God. There is simply too much at stake. There is a world out there watching this situation unfold and they're looking for someone to lovingly declare the truth of God's Word.
I certainly wish Belmont no ill will. My prayer is simply that the school's leadership would repent of this decision, ask the Lord for forgiveness, and begin again to lovingly share the truth of God with a world that so desperately needs to hear it. Now is no time for compromise.
I'm certainly no expert when it comes to the history of Belmont, but since I'm the pastor of a Tennessee Baptist Church (TBC) that was in cooperation with the school until just a few years ago, hopefully I can make a few informed statements. Belmont was a school created by the Tennessee Baptist Convention in the early 1950's. As with the other TBC institutions of higher learning, the purpose of the school was to train young men and women to be champions for Christ - whether serving him in Christian ministry or in the secular world.
Since its inception, music has played a strong influence on the livelihood of the college. That's not hard to understand, especially since Belmont is located in Music City, USA (Nashville). Many popular singers/songwriters received their education at the University, and consequently a good number of them have become influential donors since their graduation. To put it in a nutshell, Belmont relied heavily upon the TBC during its early years. As time passed, dependence on the TBC wained as the school became increasingly dependent upon the substantial gifts of some wealthy donors.
Many so-called "Christian schools" have gone down that path. It's almost as if you can see gold becoming their god right before your very eyes. Decisions are made much less on biblical convictions, and much more on what will attract the almighty dollar.
The recent decision by the Belmont Board of Trustees is just another very sad sign of this disturbing trend. And yet, this trend is really nothing new. In fact, it's as old as the Bible itself. Just consider men like David, Solomon, and a host of others. So long as they were ruddy little shepherd boys and ignorant young men calling on the wisdom of God, they made decisions based on God's Word and God's favor was added to their lives/kingdoms. Yet when they begin to prosper, somewhere along the way they allowed their prosperity to turn them away from following the Lord. In the cases of David and Solomon, both of them ended in some manner of disgrace because they failed to completely trust the Lord and heed His commands during their latter years.
In my opinion, that is precisely what has happened to Belmont. In this situation of their lesbian soccer coach, they had a wonderful opportunity to step up and shine bright for Christ, declaring the uncompromising truth of Scripture. Instead, they chose the path of least resistance. For every guy like me who writes to confront the institution with their sin, there will be many deep-pocketed donors who will assure them that they made the right decision.
What can we take from this? We better be very careful who we align ourselves with. We can align ourselves with the counselors and resources of this world, but I'm sure of this - none of them will be there to stand in judgment for us when we are called to give an account to Christ. What has Jesus said? "Whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:33). Are we Christians? Then let us stand on the Word of God. If weren't not willing to stand on His Word, then let's stop giving lip-service to God. There is simply too much at stake. There is a world out there watching this situation unfold and they're looking for someone to lovingly declare the truth of God's Word.
I certainly wish Belmont no ill will. My prayer is simply that the school's leadership would repent of this decision, ask the Lord for forgiveness, and begin again to lovingly share the truth of God with a world that so desperately needs to hear it. Now is no time for compromise.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Slippery Slope of Abortion in America
By now I'm sure many of you are familiar with the horrific story of brutal murder that has come ringing out of Philadelphia, PA. If you haven't read the story, take a look at it here. Kermit Gosnell, a 69-year-old family practitioner posing as an abortion doctor, was recently charged with the murder of a 41-year-old woman and seven infant children. If you read the report of the Pennsylvania DA on the case, you are actually led to believe that Gosnell was responsible for the murder of hundreds more babies and at least one more adult. Without getting too graphic, Gosnell would fully deliver the babies, jab a pair of scissors into the back of their necks, and cut their spinal cords. As wicked as partial-birth abortion is, it seems to pale in comparison to this.
Of course, it's unthinkable that this kind of murder could happen in the United States of America. But did these horrific events take place in a vacuum? In other words, what circumstances created an environment where this type of murder could take place? Clearly the legalization of abortion in 1973 opened the floodgates to some of the grizzly practices we're seeing today. While I'll admit that illegal abortions were commonplace in America before Roe v. Wade, I think it's clear that legalized abortion has done very little to clean up what is a barbaric, abominable act in the eyes of God.
Here's what really gets me in this whole conversation. How can we say that a child inside the womb has fewer rights than a child of the same age outside the womb? Do people really believe that a child outside the womb is a human being, but that one inside the womb is not? You can dress it up, clean it up, and call it whatever you wish, but God's Word calls it the shedding of innocent blood (cf. 2 Kings 21:16). In Bible times, Judah was judged because it shed so much innocent blood during the reign of Manasseh. What makes us think that America will somehow avoid the judgment of God for committing similar sinful acts?
There's no question that abortion has created quite a slippery slope here in America. Legalized abortion led to partial-birth abortion and now this. Is there any end in sight? Only if God sends us the revival we so desperately need. My prayer is that revival will begin in each of our hearts, that it will transform our families, and that it will so move upon the houses of God across this land that finally our culture will be radically changed for the glory of Christ. Then, and only then, will the slippery slope of death be transformed into a holy pursuit of life.
Of course, it's unthinkable that this kind of murder could happen in the United States of America. But did these horrific events take place in a vacuum? In other words, what circumstances created an environment where this type of murder could take place? Clearly the legalization of abortion in 1973 opened the floodgates to some of the grizzly practices we're seeing today. While I'll admit that illegal abortions were commonplace in America before Roe v. Wade, I think it's clear that legalized abortion has done very little to clean up what is a barbaric, abominable act in the eyes of God.
Here's what really gets me in this whole conversation. How can we say that a child inside the womb has fewer rights than a child of the same age outside the womb? Do people really believe that a child outside the womb is a human being, but that one inside the womb is not? You can dress it up, clean it up, and call it whatever you wish, but God's Word calls it the shedding of innocent blood (cf. 2 Kings 21:16). In Bible times, Judah was judged because it shed so much innocent blood during the reign of Manasseh. What makes us think that America will somehow avoid the judgment of God for committing similar sinful acts?
There's no question that abortion has created quite a slippery slope here in America. Legalized abortion led to partial-birth abortion and now this. Is there any end in sight? Only if God sends us the revival we so desperately need. My prayer is that revival will begin in each of our hearts, that it will transform our families, and that it will so move upon the houses of God across this land that finally our culture will be radically changed for the glory of Christ. Then, and only then, will the slippery slope of death be transformed into a holy pursuit of life.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Just Because Mom & Dad Can Doesn't Mean They Should
I am still a relatively young man (or at least I like to think so). I feel blessed that God has given me opportunities to serve him in a number of different ways - as husband, father, pastor, coach, etc. While attempting to serve the Lord in those capacities, I have noticed a disturbing trend among those of my generation. Why is it that many in my generation continue to remain dependent upon their parents? Maybe I'm off base, but it just seems to me that more and more young people are having to rely on their parents to pay their bills, raise their children, and provide for their livelihood.
I mentioned how blessed I have been to serve God in a number of ways. I am also blessed to have two of the greatest parents who have ever lived. I understand that not everyone can say the same thing, so I thank God often for the wonderful parents he blessed me with. I'll never forget the wise counsel my parents gave me when I was considering marriage. I had just bought an engagement ring for my soon-to-be fiancee and I was so excited to bring it home and show it to mom and dad. I remember them both looking at it and agreeing that it was a lovely piece of jewelry.
But what they did next helped to provide me with one of the great lessons of my life. They explained to me that when I got married, no longer was I going to be supported by them. Rather, I would then be self-supporting as it would be up to me to "man-up" and seize the responsibility that marriage/parenthood brings. I thank God that I have two parents who loved me enough to teach me about marriage and responsibility.
And yet as I look at the trends of our culture, I wonder if there were some in my generation who never had that conversation with mom and dad. Perhaps they did, but maybe they just didn't listen to mom and dad's instruction. As a coach, I see more and more children being brought to the ballpark by grandma and grandpa - not because they're helping to give the grandkids a ride, but because they have custody of them. When the parents do show up, sometimes they are high, drunk, or obviously just in no position to raise children.
So, this is a challenge to all those in my generation: It's time for us to step up and take responsibility for ourselves and our families. Just because mom & dad can afford to support us doesn't mean that they should. In fact, many parents can't afford to support their children and grandchildren, yet they often feel pressured to bail them out. We should not be putting this kind of pressure on the people who raised us.
What's the answer? First and foremost, let's make sure that we've surrendered our lives to Christ. We will never do an adequate job of assuming responsibility in our homes until we have placed our faith in the Savior. Furthermore, let's decide that we're going to pursue a close walk with our Heavenly Father. Remember, the favor of God comes "by humility and the fear of the Lord" (Prov. 22:4). Finally, we should let the words of Ecc. 9:10 ring in our hearts and minds each day: "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might."
Mom and Dad raised us to be big boys and big girls. Now I pray we'll trust God and act like it.
I mentioned how blessed I have been to serve God in a number of ways. I am also blessed to have two of the greatest parents who have ever lived. I understand that not everyone can say the same thing, so I thank God often for the wonderful parents he blessed me with. I'll never forget the wise counsel my parents gave me when I was considering marriage. I had just bought an engagement ring for my soon-to-be fiancee and I was so excited to bring it home and show it to mom and dad. I remember them both looking at it and agreeing that it was a lovely piece of jewelry.
But what they did next helped to provide me with one of the great lessons of my life. They explained to me that when I got married, no longer was I going to be supported by them. Rather, I would then be self-supporting as it would be up to me to "man-up" and seize the responsibility that marriage/parenthood brings. I thank God that I have two parents who loved me enough to teach me about marriage and responsibility.
And yet as I look at the trends of our culture, I wonder if there were some in my generation who never had that conversation with mom and dad. Perhaps they did, but maybe they just didn't listen to mom and dad's instruction. As a coach, I see more and more children being brought to the ballpark by grandma and grandpa - not because they're helping to give the grandkids a ride, but because they have custody of them. When the parents do show up, sometimes they are high, drunk, or obviously just in no position to raise children.
So, this is a challenge to all those in my generation: It's time for us to step up and take responsibility for ourselves and our families. Just because mom & dad can afford to support us doesn't mean that they should. In fact, many parents can't afford to support their children and grandchildren, yet they often feel pressured to bail them out. We should not be putting this kind of pressure on the people who raised us.
What's the answer? First and foremost, let's make sure that we've surrendered our lives to Christ. We will never do an adequate job of assuming responsibility in our homes until we have placed our faith in the Savior. Furthermore, let's decide that we're going to pursue a close walk with our Heavenly Father. Remember, the favor of God comes "by humility and the fear of the Lord" (Prov. 22:4). Finally, we should let the words of Ecc. 9:10 ring in our hearts and minds each day: "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might."
Mom and Dad raised us to be big boys and big girls. Now I pray we'll trust God and act like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)