I am three-fourths of the way through Brad Thor's excellent -- and chilling -- Jason Bourne-meets-Jack Ryan thriller The Last Patriot and in it, he makes a point that resonates in Colson's post: that political correctness is going to be the downfall and ruination of Western civilization as we know it.

I am so sick of all the PC sycophants whining about why can't we all just get along when dangerous factions such as Islamofascists and these so-called human rights tribunals are ripping our country apart from the inside out.

What's the Matter with Canada?
By Chuck Colson, as posted on Townhall.com
(July 21, 2008)

How is this for irony? Recent actions by Canadian human rights groups have observers alarmed for the state of human rights in Canada. That is because the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal do not give a fig about protecting human rights. Their mission is suppressing free speech.

Maclean’s magazine was hauled before these two “quasi-judicial” bodies when it published excerpts from Mark Steyn’s popular book America Alone. Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress charged that the content of these excerpts about the expansion of radical Islam “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint, but the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal got in on the act. It investigated the charges in what bloggers on the scene called a “kangaroo court,” and has yet to issue a ruling. But there is a greater cause for concern here: As the Calgary Herald pointed out, Maclean’s has the money to fight the charges—but not everyone does. The Herald gloomily predicted, “Let a citizen of modest means utter a politically incorrect thought: He will be crushed.”

That is what happened to the Reverend Stephen Boissoin. In a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, he protested the homosexual agenda, and was hauled off before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The complaint—sound familiar?—was that Boissoin’s words were “likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt because of their sexual orientation.”

The panel ordered “that Mr. Boissoin . . . shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or in the internet, in the future, any disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” He was also ordered to apologize in writing for the article, and was fined.

As the Catholic Exchange reports, “In essence, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is ordering . . . the minister to renounce his Christian faith, since his opposition to homosexuality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Bible.” The article went on to observe that a prominent Canadian priest, Father Alphonse de Valk, is now being investigated “for having publicly defended the Church’s traditional definition of marriage. Some of [his] allegedly hateful statements are quotations from the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

This is what Pope Benedict calls the “dictatorship of relativism.” In the name of tolerance—or of someone’s twisted idea of that concept—we have to protect everyone’s sensitivities. Nobody can say anything that might make someone feel like a victim of hatred and contempt. And thus we back into a soft despotism, which suppresses free speech and eradicates religious freedom.

Where is this going to end? Will it become a crime even to be a Christian in Canada? Will opposition to radical Islam be routinely punished? Here in America, we already know you can get in hot water for opposing gay marriage—like the Christian photographers who refused to take pictures at a lesbian civil ceremony, and ended up being fined by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

Make no mistake. If Canadians do not stand up for their religious and free speech rights, they will soon be gone. And so will ours. For what happens in the beautiful country to the north of us often affects our so-called “enlightened elites” in the United States.

Although this might seem “innocent enough”, what is really actually happening is the indoctrination and conditioning of children to a perspective on sexuality that embraces the modern teaching that sexual identity rather than biologically determined, is a preference or a choice with the long lasting consequence that people should be allowed (encouraged) to choose whatever sex they want to be.

You think I am off the wall with my interpretation? What do you think about the following viewpoints of Chuck Colson: ?

“Norman Spack is a pediatric endocrinologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. Not long ago, he opened a clinic for what he terms “transgendered” children. Incredibly, he is giving kids as young as seven drugs that delay the onset of puberty—the first step in sex-change surgery when they are older.

Spack injects children with hormone-blocking drugs to prevent them from developing secondary sexual characteristics, like breasts or facial hair. The idea is to give them a few more years to make up their minds if they want to be male—or female.

When these kids hit their teen years, they are given the option of taking cross-hormones for a few years—which will allow them to develop the characteristics of the opposite sex. Tragically, the treatment will condemn these teenagers to lifelong infertility.

Spack appears to think that that is a reasonable trade-off for teens who feel they are trapped in the body of the opposite sex: After all, the cross-hormone treatments will make it easier for them to “pass” as the opposite sex. For instance, men will not grow as tall as they normally would, nor will they develop beards or Adam’s apples.”

I agree with Chuck Colson who says:

“Science and the Bible teach otherwise: God created us male and female in His image. Shots and surgeries and politically correct teachings cannot alter this fundamental truth.

Tragically, some parents are now buying into this false teaching—and allowing their children to undergo destructive treatments.

You and I need to be spreading the word that legitimate treatment is available for people suffering from gender confusion—and it is a treatment that does not sacrifice the well-being of children to the political agendas of adults”.

That’s the Way I see it too!

John

]]> http://gregdarley.wordpress.com/?p=77 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:19:59 +0000 Greg http://gregdarley.wordpress.com/?p=77 I finished up "Loving God" by Chuck Colson while on our trip.  Chuck has had a great influence in my life.

Chuck quoted John Calvin in one chapter and it has stood out to me in  huge way.  He said, "It is the first duty of the Christian to make the invisible Kingdom visible."

WOW!  That is awesome.  What would it look like if all Christians made this their first duty?  How would the world be changed?  How different would culture look?

What are the ways that you see Christians doing this?

Here are a few that I'll bring up:

Free Chains.  Project we started through World Causes trying to stop child sex trafficking.

Eleho: Organization by a friend in San Diego making a difference for the Karen People.

Innocence Atlanta: Friend in Atlanta trying to end sex trafficking within the city.

Fermi Project: A group trying to help Christians impact and influence culture

Prison Fellowship: organization by Chuck trying to bring truth into prisons.

Ethur: creative group dealing with issues like character and consumerism.

What are some ways or people you know trying to make the invisible kingdom known?

Ed Brayton and Timothy Sandefur catch George Bush "honoring" Thomas Jefferson by altering his actual words to avoid any hint of anti-religious opinions.

From the "Theists Are Far Ruder to Atheists than Atheists Could Be in Return" File comes Chuck Colson, the convicted felon who thinks he's better than you. Hemant at the Friendly Atheist is having none of it. Hemant's also not buying the idea that requiring students to actually act out Islamic prayers is a legitimate way to teach them about world religions, even if the teacher is a Christian.

Over at Catholic and Enjoying It, Mark Shea manages to be more far more outraged about a story in which Muslims are supposedly outraged by a puppy than anyone in the story is actually outraged. But he makes up for it by his hearty endorsement of Cthulhu's 2008 run for the White House. No More Years!

And finally, Orac over at Respectful Insolence bemoans yet another loss to the forces of woo: apparently some states, with Vermont the most prominant amongst them, are starting to require insurance companies to pay for the "evidence-free medicine" of naturopathy. Lest you think that such errant nonsense couldn't possibly hurt you, Orac points out that it's a move that will kick you right in the pocketbook:

I don't know about you, but if I were paying into an insurance plan, and the company administering that plan were wasting money paying for woo, I'd be mightily pissed. This can only serve to drive up the costs for everyone, as patients with non-self-limiting diseases pursue non-science-based modalities, think they feel better for a while, and then find that their disease is progressing, at which point they seek out science-based medical care--which their insurance companies will have to pay for, too.

In "The Faith" Colson tells the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and how he followed God's call to return to Nazi Germany to "strengthen what remains," which ultimately ended in his arrest and execution.

As we discussed this in group, the conversation turned to trying to identify suffering we experience for the sake of the Gospel, and compared to Bonhoeffer, the Secret Believers, and other stories of suffering, none of us felt like we are truly "suffering" for the gospel. Do we have suffering in life? Absolutely. Is it suffering for the Gospel? Thats a question we grappled with.

At one point my husband made a statement that has left me intrigued. He said:

"If God tells us that all sins are the same and that we shouldn't compare sin as one being worse than another, is it fair to say that we also shouldn't compare sufferings among Christians?"

Meaning, is it wrong for Christians to look to others who have endured great suffering for the sake of the Gospel and hold them in a higher regard than others who work for the Gospel but have not been asked to suffer in a similar manner? Can suffering for the Gospel be Measured? Does God measure suffering for the sake of eternal reward? How does scripture address these questions?

Same-Sex 'Marriage' Today
Polygamy Tomorrow

My comments:

What is wrong with Colson's approach to this issue?

At the heart of the TX court ruling was not the issue of marriage, but the issue of unconstitutional search and seizure.

At the heart of the TX court ruling was the right to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

This cannot be mixed with the CA court ruling that "legalized" homosexual marriage.

Mr Colson is comparing apples and oranges.

Another problem is to think that we need to have the government to intervene in practically everything that comes around.  We need less government intervention and more Christian examples.

If only the ones who are moralists could see this.

The church needs to be politically active, but the greatest way for us to stem the tide of moral decay is to work on the moral life of the church most of all.  We cannot speak as loudly as we should until we clean up our own house.

Just musing..

Burning Question Number Three: Faith: What is the biggest problem facing the Church today?

The biggest problem in the church today is that everyone knows the biggest problem in the church.  I have been reading Leadership, Relevant, and other big Christian magazines and hearing people discuss this topic for some time now.  I a lot of talk and a little talk about individuals actually doing something regarding the problems the church faces.  Everyone talks like they know the answer but in reality it looks like we are just grasping at straws.

I fear that we, as a church, have become people of little action in life.  Don't get me wrong, there are people and churches around the world that are doing a great job actually doing something to help the church and putting into practice solutions to problems they see happening.  I that action is exactly what God wants us to do.  However, I fear to much time is spent barking and not enough biting.  We need to stop saying, "This is the problem with the church..." and start saying, "This is a problem we see with the church and this is what we are doing to fix the problem."  How awesome would that be?

Burning Question Number Four: Politics: Is either party right?

I hope not.  I think every side has their flaws.  As a young man, I still have yet to "subscribe" to a political party.  I don't think I could could ever say, "What you believe as a republican/democrat/independent is exactly what I believe."  I fear there is a lot of corruption in politics and we as the public hear little regarding the actual truth.

I also think that we get many promises that are often unfulfilled which is depressing.  With this being a voting season I hear candidates talking about all the changes they are going to make to our county, how the war will end, and how taxes are going to go down.  I'm not sure those things will ever happen until Christ returns.  I just want gas to go back to under 2 bucks a gallon.

Burning Question Number Five: Culture: How do we influence it without being consumed by it?

My father always taught me the key to life in in the word "balance".  Almost every time I got to consumed by something as a child, my dad would sit me down and talk about the importance of balancing everything out in my life.  I can still hear him to this day walking across my room while I was playing Nintendo whispering "balance" to me as he studied for his message for Sunday at the kitchen counter.

Dad would always tell me that I need to make sure I am not one sided or heavy in anything I do. The same goes for culture.  Jesus told us to be in the world and not of it, the importance of balance.  Jesus would go into town and spend time in culture listening to the people and being around them at their events.  However, He retreated all the time to spend time alone with God.  I think we need to do this in our own lives as well.  We need to listen and ask questions of our culture to understand where its coming from but at the same time we need to spend time with God to make sure we are not becoming consumed by it.  It's all about "balance".

Burning Question Number Six: How do escape the excess of culture?

The "excess of culture" I'm sure is the amount of consumption by our society as individuals.  In other words, consumerism.  Some people would say we are to live with as little as we can and other would say there is nothing wrong with having nice things, God wants us to have nice things.  I think we see biblical examples of both sides.  Some people in the bible had a lot because God gave it to them and others had little because God gave it to them.  I think think issue ties in with social justice.  What are we doing with the "things" we have in this world?  How are we using what God has given us?

I would hope that our escape is found in the mercy and compassion for others.  I would hope we escape the excess of culture by thinking, "How can I help my neighbor?  What more can I give?".  Instead of being people who desire the bigger, better, faster approach to life, I think we need to step back and differenciate our needs from our wants.

Burning Question Number Seven: War: How should we respond?

I think we must understand that we are always in a state of war.  Since Adam decided to sin, man has been going through wars for lifetimes.  It's part of the fallen race.  However, I think we as a body need to respond with love and compassion.  Instead of taking the time to hate, make war, and promote violence, I think we need to seek each others best. Jesus found himself in war and turmoil all the time.  People rose up beside him at all angles trying to "fight" with him.  What was his response?

What are your burning questions?  How would you respond to these question if you were asked?

-Jordan

2.  This commercial parody would probably more accurately reflect Planned Parenthood's worldview.

3.  Florida's Senate Passes Evolution Academic Freedom Act.

The Florida Senate voted 21-17 Wednesday, following a strong majority vote in the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee, to submit the Evolution Academic Freedom Act for vote in the House.

If passed, the new bill will give full protections and freedoms for teachers and students in Florida schools to share views in the classroom that challenge some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The new bill was largely prompted by legislators after the Florida Board of Education decided to begin requiring the instruction of evolution in schools earlier this year.

Many teachers and students reportedly felt marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized if they shared personal views that ran counter to Darwinism.

Read the rest - Source: Christian Post

4.  This is completely nasty.

5.  Hillary Clinton... a prayer warrior?  Ummmm.  I highly doubt it.

6.  Evangelical Politics - Three Generations: Shane Claiborne, Chuck  Colson, and Greg Boyd are part of panel discussion at the National Pastors' Conference moderated by "Speaking of Faith" radio host, Krista Tippett.  You can download the audio here (right click and select "save as").  You can watch the video here.

7.  Joe Carter posts on "10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design" read part 1, part 2, and part 3.  Great series... check it out!

8. From the Friendly Atheist - "20 Things that Christians Do In Church That Annoy Me"

9.  Great advice from Abraham Piper in a guest post on Between Two Worlds.  Made me rethink how I do my syndication feed.  I'll start syndicating the entire post.

HT: Abraham Piper - 22 Words

10.  Steve Brown interviews Tony Jones on "What is the Emergent Church?"

11.  Calvinism 101?  Try these articles on T.U.I.L.P. - Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

12. More on Calvinism, Thomas McDill, assistant professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at  Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrote a guest post at Justin Taylor's blog on the good he sees in the resurgence of Calvinism among young evangelicals.  The catch here is that he is an Arminian (so he offered some cautions as well).  HT: Ben Witherington

13.  John Piper encourages us to make much of Christ with this economic stimulus package that is coming in the mail.

14.  The Church of the Nazarene  has their own rap song.  Ummmmm.... interesting.

I think the EFCA needs a rap song too.

HT: Withallyourmind.net

15.  Keith Buhler shares five bad reasons not to see Expelled.  The movie is great, and you should ignore the pro-evolution brouhaha over it.  Just go see it and make up your own mind.

16.  By the way, men and women are different.  C. Michael Patton discusses on his blog the theology of men and women and their roles, and so he compares and contrasts the two major positions on this matter: complementarianism and egalitarianism.  Great post for a hot to handle topic.

17.  While I don't agree with all of Rob Bell's theological positions I do like some of the NOOMA videos, below is one of my favorites - "Rich".

Part I

Part 2

18.  We should be so thankful everything that we take for granted here in the United States.  As I'm writing this I'm sucking down a Caribou Coffee Chocolate Northern Lite Cooler - $4.40 (before tax).  Reading this article about Myanmar refugees living in Thailand, I am reminded that many people exist on way less a day that what this drink cost me.

Trying to figure out who is working with refugees there I found that Strategic World Impact, a Christian relief organization headquartered in Bartlettsville, OK, is doing some good work there.  Also Baptist World Alliance is bringing attention to the crisis there.  Though they don't have a website (at least not what I could find), Kawthoolei Karen Baptist Bible School and College is working alongside these refugees as well.

HT: Ellen Stevens

19.  Being a reformed evangelical when discussing Calvinism with some Arminian brothers and sisters I'm often asked, "Why evangelize if God has predestined those who are saved?"  Bob Hayton has a great blog post on this topic sharing how Calvinism informs evangelism. 

Despite what many have said or heard, Calvinism does not negate or downplay evangelism. Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, William Carey, and Adoniram Judson were not exceptions to the rule. Rather, they are simply some noteworthy examples of evangelists and preachers who were both Calvinistic in theology and evangelistic in practice.

Of course, Spurgeon said it best. When asked why his doctrine of election did not move him to preach only to the elect, Spurgeon replied: “If you’ll go around and pull up their shirttails so I can see if they have an E stamped on their back, I will.”

20.  Larry James has been blogging on Race in America - here's the first post of that series at Everyday Citizen.

Burning Question Number Two: Homosexuality: How Should we respond?

Response:  I never understood how homosexuality became "the big sin".  Somewhere along the line we (Christians), have made a list of sins and ranked them in order from bad to worse.  You can take the Lord's name in vain and get drunk on Friday night and still be in the fellowship but once your gay or kill someone your out.  I understand that society makes a list but in God's eyes, a sin is a sin.  This means that we as a body have let habitual sinners cast stones at homosexuality while refusing to have them deal with their own constant sin.  It's easy to point the finger at a sinner, but just remember that there are three fingers pointing back at you.  "He who is without sin, throw the first stone".

With that said, I don't think we should let people remain in their sinnful state.  This include homosexuals, compulsive liars, those addicted to pornography, people living with each other out of wedlock, and everyone who has a "thorn in the flesh".  We must respond to homosexuality the same way we respond to dealing with other sin issues.  Jesus was king at showing mercy and grace but never missed the chance to teach people how to remove sin from their life by trusting in Him.  He preached to "follow Him" constantly.  When the woman who was caught in adultly was thrown at Jesus feet He didn't push her away.  He handled the situation by teaching the people and the woman a lesson about love and compassion.  1 Peter 5:6-9 tells us to...

"Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you. Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings."

How much time do we spend responding to sexual immorality and sin issues by being humble or taking the chance to learn how we can help one another through mercy and grace?  Is it possible that I could help my homosexual brother get over his hurdle while he helps me get over my sin issues at the same time?  Is it possible to grow together in our faith and relationship with God? When was the last time we responded by teaching people to cast their cares on the Lord together? What does this type of loving spiritual community look like?

The devil prowls around all the time.  He hides in sin and finds joy when we as Christians fight over issues while refusing to grow.  We forget to resist him.  We forget to teach people to resist.  We forget that we must overcome him together.  We forget to let the Holy Spirit work our lives.  To grow spiritual, we must respond together to overcome sin.  One of my favorite worship songs by the Desperation band states, " We will overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony, everyone overcome".

How powerful and awesome would it be if we responded to the homosexual community by first admiting we have sin in our lives and have a desire to overcome it.   What if we refused to let sin take hold of our lives and removed it by standing firm in the faith so others would want to break out as well because we are overcoming sin issues?  The bible says that "brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of suffering".  We need to respond by equipping brothers and sisters with Christ.  We need to show mercy, grace, compassion, and love.  A response of everyone overcoming!

How amazing would that be?

-Jordan

Burning Question Number One: Injustice: Is our focus on social justice out of balance?

Response: I think some parts of this question need to be defined. For example, what does "our" mean? Is "our" talking about the church as a whole, individual people outside the body, Christians in general, Western Christians? Who is "our" talking about? I think in America we have missed the mark completely in seeking to ensure a fair harmonious society. We look great on the outside but internally we are falling apart. What does a "harmonious society" even look like? In America, so many people desire to be on top, ahead of the next person, the top of their company, etc. This isn't just in the secular world but in the church as well. Because of our desires we will always be out of balance. Thank God for mercy and grace. People desire to be noticed, to be praised, and when they buy into their desires it throws our balance off.

The social justice issue makes me even wonder if a harmonious society will ever exist without Christ. What is our role as a church in regards to injustice? Social Justice is defined as the belief that every individual and group is entitled to fair and equal rights. Does this include people who believe differently than we do? If so then how tolerant are we supposed to be as Christians? How tollerant should we be against those who are the opposite of how we believe or teach differently than what we believe?

Social justice is said to be the participation in social, educational, and economic opportunities. How are we responding as Christians to these issues? Are "our" actions Christ like?  What is "our" agenda for increasing understanding of oppression and inequality? How much action are we willing to take to overcome social justice? I think that until we as Christians, as a church, and as individuals can come to common ground on these issues we will always be out of balance in regards to social justice.

What do you think?

-Jordan

- indepth discussion between Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne on politics, violence, social action, etc. from three very different points of view

You can go here to watch (or download the audio). 

Also, here's Boyd take on the discussion afterwards.

1. InJustice
2. Homosexuality
3. Faith
4. Politics
5. Culture
6. Consumerism
7. War

Check out the May/June 2008 issue (#33) for their complete answers.

As a followup to this series, I listened to a recent edition of American Public Media's Speaking of Faith, where host Krista Tippett presents a conversation among three generations of evangelical leaders (two of which were involved in the Relevant article) — Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne — about how (or if) Christians should be involved in politics. The event was part of a larger pastor's conference in San Diego sponsored by Zondervan.

You can listen to or download various audio formats on the Speaking of Faith site or watch the video online.

Very good stuff!

FAITH: What Is the Biggest Problem Facing the Church Today?

1. Shane Claiborne: the prosperity gospel that [says] God has come to bless you and to give you health and wealth...The other thing I would name too is the shortsightedness of nationalism.

2. Nancy Ortberg: We don't believe God. We don't believe the vision of God. We don't believe who He is. We don't believe that He's good. We're not captivated by that vision.

3. N.T. Wright: I think it has to do with relearning the issue of how to think. The 18 century [sic] stressed Reason, with a capital "R." reason, to many, is doscounted; people don't really do that stuff very much.

4. Chuck Colson: We have substituted therapy for Truth.

5. Brian McLaren: I think the biggest problem of the Church in America is that we've lost our way. We've gotten comfortable carrying on a version of Christianity that has drifted farther and farther from what God intends. We have various versions of Christianity that are dangerously at ease with racism (as long as it's not too overt), with a kind of idolatrous nationalism, with political partisanship that trumps our identity in Christ, with complacency about injustice and with consumerism that makes life consist in the abundance of possessions one acquires.

6. Steve Brown: Self-righteousness.

7. Cindy Jacobs: [We need] to get back to a biblical worldview. Why haven't we attacked the big problems in the world, such as systemic poverty, violence and abortion? We need to learn to love God with our minds, not just our hearts and souls.

VIA:

My biggest observation and critique is not with any of the answers, but with the question itself. As you can tell by the responses, not only are we never going to get to consensus on this, but we're not even close to some sort of starting point.

But are we even suppose to?

A student of mine reviewed "Bruce Almighty" for class. She referenced this website and the following quote which I believe applies to this question as well:

When asked what he wants people to take away from the film, Tom Shadyac replied, ‘Hopefully they'll walk away entertained. But also, I think we all have this “idolatry of magnitude”, thinking that if we don't do something huge for the world that we haven't done anything. We forget the story of the widow's mite. We have this idea we have to do something huge, when we don't take seriously enough the idea that it's just the way you say hello, the way you treat somebody, the way you conduct yourself at work or in your car, or how you treat the earth. I hope this idea sparks just a little different way of thinking of how we can all change the world.’

This is also found in our language of God. "We have a BIG God." There's a lot of "Omni's" when it comes to describing Him. And that's not bad, it's just that it dominates the conversations at the cost of other characteristics that are more prominent in the Scriptures. A song that my wife and I sing for the kids entitled "Sometimes I Feel Afraid" has a chorus that goes, "Because our God, He is big, He's gigantic, He's enormous, He is powerful, and strong, He is amazing, and He's awesome, and there's nothing in this world that He couldn't pulverize..." (Yeah, gotta love the word "pulverize" in a worship song!)

Are those the descriptions of God in the Bible? Sure, but there's a whole lot of other descriptions like "holy," "generous," "kind," "giving," "loving," "patient," "present/near," "shelter," "help," "rock," "refuge," and on and on. And again, arguing from a perspective of textual percentages, perhaps we ought to re-balance ourselves in our language.

So, as we each focus clearly and energetically on the "big" areas that we see as problems for us in the Church, may we also paradoxically see how "small" the issues are in comparison to the grand work of God throughout the world. May we also never neglect the "little" things, as mentioned by Shadyac, in our everyday, mundane, routine walks of life, and recognize that we don't have to be tackling "big" issues in order to be advancing the Kingdom of God.

War: How should we respond?

The real problem here is the cultural captivity of the Church in America. Most American Christians are Americans first and Christians second. National identity trumps commitment to Jesus time and time again. When American Christians show a moral preference for war as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, they have not discerned the true meaning of the Gospel. They're blinded by nationalism, rather than having their eyes fixed on the Prince of Peace. — Jim Wallis

Some of the leaders of America and Britain over the last 10 years have spoken quite openly about getting rid of evil and doing so by means of violence. That seems to me extraordinarily lacking in historical awareness, theological substance and just sheer human wisdom. — N.T. Wright

People are pretty hunkered down in their positions-the vast majority favoring war as an acceptable option, and a small but growing minority either committed to pacifism or growing ore suspicious about war. We need to move to higher ground, and move from binary yes-no questions like, Are you for or against pacifism? to questions that force people to think more deeply. — Brian McLaren

How do we as a Church become communities in our nation that really advocate for peace? I don't see a lot of churches doing things that make me think, or give ma a lot of hope that the Church could be a force for peace in this country. — Nancy Ortberg

Now, when one gets into the specifics of which war to fight, how to go about obtaining justice, what kind of force should be used and how in particular one should protect the innocent, the way gets muddy. I sometimes fear that Christians (both pacifist Christians and "Kill the enemy for Jesus" Christians) have never taken the time to go through the complexity. — Steve Brown

It's unmistakable to me, when I look at the cross, what love looks like when it stares you in the face and says, "Forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing." Now the Sermon on the Mount may not look like the best way to lead the biggest superpower in the world and the biggest military–maybe that should tell us something. — Shane Claiborne

This seems to pose the question of whether or not we should be pacifists as Christians. Sometimes one has to go to war to make peace. Ask the veterans of World War II when they battled against the evil tide of Hitler's regime. The Bible clearly states there is a time for war and a time for peace. — Cindy Jacobs

We live in a fallen world, which is why Augustine first formulated what is known as the "just war doctrine." Thomas Aquinas was perhaps the most articulate on this when he included the just war doctrine under the section in Summa Theologica on love. He considered it a supreme act of charity to give one's life in defense of innocent civilians. I agree with Aquinas. — Chuck Colson

Check out the May/June 2008 issue (#33) for their complete answers.

Other Burning Questions:
1. InJustice
2. Homosexuality
3. Faith
4. Politics
5. Culture
6. Consumerism

HOMOSEXUALITY: How Should We Respond?

The range on this question is much more difficult to decipher. I'm also working on a "Surprised at Love Won Out, pt.3" (link not up yet) post in which I will tackle the Biblical theologies, the difficult passages of Scripture, and try to outline the key arguments on both sides. So, unlike the previous RELEVANT post, with these quotes, I will respond to each excerpt as they come:

1. We need to respond to people within their struggles. The hard thing about issues around your sexuality is that it just permeates everything about who you are. The struggle of the Church, and for us as individuals, is: How do we align what we know about homosexual issues now with our understanding of Scripture? ... But I think churches need to stop being primarily known for this issue. There are so many other things in the world that we need to be proactively bringing the Gospel and the Kingdom to bear on -- how we got stuck on a couple of these issues is just curious to me. I don't understand it. (Nancy Ortberg)

One, Ortberg is exactly right in responding to people within their struggles. As mentioned in previous posts, homosexuals are not issues to be won, but people to be loved. So, addressing first the point of pain and struggle for those who are suffering (because obviously not every homosexual person is struggling), must precede, and even usurp principled argumentation.

Second, I would question whether or not the church is really primarily known for this issue. I may be naive, but perhaps the ecclesial conscious and the Church's societal reputation is not primarily dominated by the issues of homosexuality. But then again, I could be wrong. However, given that, I disagree that "there are so many other things in the world that we need to be proactively bringing the Gospel and the Kingdom to bear on." This seems to be a dismissal of the importance of wrestling with this issue, and the people who are in turmoil over their sexual identities. I don't think we can succumb to a prioritization in this matter, for "if one part of the body suffers, we all suffer with it." While it cannot dominate the discussion, neither can it be secondary to others, especially since Christianity (so I've heard) is about the marginalized, forgotten, forgotten, etc. It seems appropriate then, to give fair attention to our brothers and sisters who face this battle every day of their lives.

2. First of all, one needs a biblical worldview and to know what the Bible says in passages such as Romans 1:26-27. Homosexuality is a very serious issue to God. With that said, it is God's kindness that leads us to repentance. Therefore, we are to love homosexuals. I didn't say "homosexuality," but homosexuals. They need the Lord, and somehow they have become society's 'untouchables.'"

On a governmental level, we must take a biblical stance and work on such legislation as the Defense of Marriage wording to be put into our state's constitutions. (Cindy Jacobs)

I patently disagree. If homosexuality is "a very serious issue to God," why then do we point to Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus, and Romans 1 (and occasionally 1 Corinthians 6:9) and then we are at a loss for Biblical references? Arguing from a position of textual percentages, it seems very low on the priority list. That does not mean that it is unimportant. I just simply don't understand how anyone could use the strong language used by Jacobs.

Her "love homosexuals" comment is too close to "love the sinner, hate the sin" phrase which all Christians ought to strike from their categories. I appreciate Mike Haley's insights,

We understand that cliche in these four walls [of the church], but when you use them outside those four walls, we need to look at how people are interpreting that. So what ultimately are we saying to someone when we use that phrase? Well, what we're saying is that I love you, but I hate what you're doing. But you need to see it from a gay person's perspective. We see ourselves as defined by the very thing that we're doing, so we believe that when you hate what we're doing, you hate us to our very core. That's why we've got to lose that phrase out of our vocabulary, it does not translate. [1]

Lastly with Jacobs, I pray we never make Marriage any more an institution of the State than it already is. Civil Unions are the jurisdiction of the State, and there ought to be clear definitions and parameters on what that means and what rights and unions the State decides. Marriage, however, has always been an institution of faith, religion,...of the Church. And Christians who want to take it to the political realm are doing more damage to both State and Religion than they realize. I as a pastor already have "power invested in me by the state of..." I thought our commissioning and authority came from God to marry. Let's be VERY careful how we legislate.

3. Nobody has the luxury of speaking as an outsider of the human race, and [our] subculture has certain 'acceptable sins,' and others that are just not the ones for which Christ died. So grace is the operative word. I don't think we can compromise any truth of Scripture, but self-righteousness is also a major compromise of that truth....Today Jesus would be accused of being a friend of gays and lesbians too. That's because He is. (Steve Brown)

I appreciate Brown giving some perspectives on the collective whole. The problem is, we all compromise the truth of Scripture, and we do it all the time, in the Church, and we even accept it. One word: Sabbath. How about another word: Coveting. Here's another example: Philippians 4:8, do we really "think on these things?" How about the unity Jesus called for in John 17. We could go on, and on, and on... So, I would simply ask Brown to take it one step further, and be even more gracious on his declaration that we really can't "compromise any truth of Scripture."

4. The best way to understand homosexuality is Romans 1. God created a physical order. He then condemns those who ignore what should be obvious to them, who exchange the truth for a lie. And then He immediately singles out homosexuality. That is not because homosexual sex is any worse a sin than many others we commit. It is just that it is the one that most obviously violates the natural created order. I would welcome homosexuals into my church, but I would expect them to be chaste in their sexual behavior, as I would any other unmarried person -- or married person, for that matter. (Chuck Colson)

I would refer to my comment under Jacobs above, and add that this reasoning is a bit myopic. "The best way?" Hmm. No actual relationships with people who are gay? Just a mere textual reading is the "best way" to understand homosexuality? "Obvious to them?" That seems to be the crux of the issue, and in fact, an argument in the other direction. For homosexuals, there is no obvious egregiousness. "Expect them to be chaste?" So, would you kick them out if you found out they engaged in sexual behavior? Then what about other members who were caught lying? Would you kick them out too? (etc., etc., etc.)

5. First, before we say or do anything, we should pray for wisdom, keeping in mind the promise in the epistle of James that God loves to give sincere and single-minded people wisdom. In sincerely and single-mindedly praying for wisdom, we are admitting we don't already have things figured out, that we have more to learn. When the issue of homosexuality comes up, people quickly say, "What about Romans 1? What about Leviticus? What about 1 Corinthians 6?" I what to say, "Well, what about 1 Corinthians 13? What about James 3?" You can't find solutions to a lot of polarizing issues on the level of the polarization; you have to move above the line that runs between extremes, seeking a higher vantage point or perspective, and there you can find creative solutions and redemptive ways forward

We can never forget that we're dealing with more than a theory or issue. We're dealing with people with breakable hearts -- sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, and colleagues and pastors, too. In my view, to be a follower of Jesus means to live in that relational tension and not try to solve it by writing off a percentage of people as lepers or Samaritans or Pharisees or enemies. (Brian McLaren)

Amen.

6. I think the question is twofold: one is a matter of public policy, and the other is a matter of Christian teaching...A cooling-off period of public policy wouldn't be a bad thing, instead of this frantic race on the one hand to say, "We must have gay marriages," and on the other hand to say, "We must ban any such thing."

The Bible is actually quite clear on the subject...The idea that Paul was only referring to a small scale of something different from what we know now simply doesn't stand up historically. But it is also a problem in the Church, because we have forgotten how to do reasoned, wise discourse. (N.T. Wright)

I have a great appreciation for Wright, but this perplexed me. I'm not sure what he's getting at, and not sure if I agree that a "cooling-off" period is a good thing. I want to know more about the historical context. I do concur completely, however, that "we have forgotten how to do reasoned, wise discourse" which may be the reason for the succinctness of his contribution.

7. We need to be able to disagree well, and maybe one of our biggest witnesses to the larger society is that we as a Church can disagree well...If we are able to have a healthier understanding of sexuality and to celebrate singleness as well as marriage and family, then we can transcend some of this...It's so scandalous that there are these heterosexual, married [couples] pointing fingers and saying gay folks are breaking up our families. Evangelicals are surpassing the divorce rate of secular society, and yet we're accusing gay folks of breaking up the family, while all of them want to get married. I want to create communities where we can have a healthy conversation and not just point fingers and excommunicate people who disagree with us. (Shane Claiborne)

I actually think Claiborne's sentiments are a great place to conclude this post and a great positioning for us in the Church. There has got to be some sense of acceptance with this issue, allowing some denominations (and even churches within denominations) to disagree about this without losing fellowship or communion. There's got to be a way that we can argue well, have "wise discourse" (Wright), and recognize that there are good Biblical arguments on all sides of the issue.

May we disagree well, argue honestly, and love unconditionally, transcendently, above and overtly against any other ethic.

---

[1] Mike Haley testimony from "Love Won Out" (April 12, 2008).

]]> http://joongwlee.wordpress.com/?p=92 Tue, 27 May 2008 17:45:41 +0000 joongwlee http://joongwlee.wordpress.com/?p=92 This morning, as I was reading Chuck Colson's BreakPoint e-mail newsletter ("Diversion from Reality" 5/27/08), I was prompted to post this right away. Some excerpts from Colson (with my bold emphasis) and short comments:

Thanks to television, movies, text-messaging, virtual gaming, chat rooms, and websites like Facebook, entertainment and diversion are always just a click away for teens these days. And while teens do need some “down time” to escape the pressures of school or even work, something is wrong when “down time” becomes “all the time.”

This is not just for teens, but also for 20-somethings, and 30-somethings-plus! And yes, when "down time" becomes "all the time" then many things come crumbling down...

While entertainment is not necessarily a bad thing, it is by its very nature something that draws our attention from one thing to another. Unfortunately, most of the entertainment teens are exposed to today does not divert them from the frivolous to the noble, but the other way around.

As I've been engaged in college ministry for a couple of decades, I've seen so many precious lives waste away in this way...it's such a shame. Here's a challenge: Find a form of entertainment that diverts our minds from the frivolous to the noble! Please find it and tell me about it and I'll post it here.

Colson also quotes Staub who wrote in his book, The Culturally Savvy Christian:

“When diversion becomes a way of life, we avoid the very issues to which we should be most attentive. We are diverted from the grim, unpleasant truth that our lives lack meaning without God . . .”

Diversions have a way of directing people to fun things here and now, but sometimes, truth (no matter how unpleasant they might be) needs to be confronted, lest even greater unpleasantries face them in the future...

Even more importantly, perhaps, Christian adults need to model a lifestyle that is countercultural. Do our entertainment habits sink to the lowest common denominator of mindless entertainment, or are they tempered, molded, and informed by our Christian worldview? Do we live to serve others, or do we live to serve ourselves and our own appetites? Remember: Our teens are watching us.

Here, here; hear, hear! My children don't watch much TV. They watch you and me...

-In the United States, egg prices are up 35 percent; milk up 23 percent; and bread up 16. For most Americans, who on average spend 10 percent of their income on food, these increases squeeze our budgets.

-In countries like Ethiopia and Bangladesh, people can spend 70 percent of their income on food; so even modest increases in food prices can impair their ability to feed their families. And price increases for the staples they depend on have not been modest: Wheat prices have doubled and corn prices quadrupled in the last year

-It takes 510 pounds of corn to make 13 gallons of ethanol—that amount could "feed a child in Zambia or Mexico for a year," while it fuels your car only for a week.

How does this affect your thinking on biofules? Do you think that our lifestyles directly affect those around the world?  What does your worldview put first, people, economy, environment, or something else?

Comments?

Be sure to read the commentary.

Check this audio discussion.  Here is the synopsis:

A passionate discussion is unfolding in public and in private among Evangelical leaders and communities. Should Christians be involved in politics and if so, how? What has gone wrong, and what has been learned from the Moral Majority up until now. In this live public conversation, Krista probes these ideas with three formative Evangelicals.

In case you nned to be tempted a little more to listen to it, the three evangelicals are Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne.

Chuck praises Woodward for speaking up for what he believed in, even when “he was denied an administrative position on the grounds that he was ‘ideologically incompatible’ with the values of the university” and was ridiculed my many. But David recognized that a clash of worldviews is under way and the so-called culture war is a war of worldviews.  If you have not read Colson’s How Now Shall We Live?, you need to. It has done more for my thinking and walk with God than anything over the past year. In fact, it prompted my joining the Centurion Program, which I would also highly recommend to anyone who wants to impact our culture for the gospel.