Why Premium Sex Is Your Best Bet for Relational Success

Why Premium Sex Is Your Best Bet for Relational Success

By Terrell Clemmons

Last December, television talk-show host Meredith Vieira invited relationship expert Siggy Flicker onto her show as part of her “Ultimate Relationship Gift Guide,” to help her female audience answer the big holiday question, “What do I get him?” “It should be about ‘from the heart’ and it should be a thoughtful thing,” Siggy said right off the bat. So, what was the recommended from-the-heart, thoughtful thing for the relationship of a few weeks to three months in? “You’re starting to get to know each other… I always say, lingerie, pajamas—or, I love Hanky Panky underwear,” she said, holding up a pair of black and red g-string panties.

“But wait,” Meredith feigned objection, “that’s a suggestive thing, isn’t it?”

“Ya know, in the beginning of a relationship, what are you doing a lot of?” Siggy shot back, still holding up the panties. “You’re getting to know each other!” she semi-barked in a New Jersey beat. Like, Who hasn’t gotten the memo that morals are just, so… passé?

Isn’t it strange that something as intimate and private as sex has become, at least in the eyes of some, the fulcrum around which all relational life seems to turn? Or not turn. Take reactions to Lolo Jones for example, the rags-to-riches track and field star whose intention to save sex for marriage drew more coverage than her athletic success. “Lolo Jones should’ve had sex before that race,” was one of the tamer digs fired her way, “because #SexisforWinners.”

Sex may well be for winners, but before making a definitive statement out of that, the smart single would do well to figure out which game she (or he) is trying to win.

The Economics of Sex

The Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture, a research group specializing in family, sexuality, and social structures, took a rigorous look at today’s romantic landscape, and condensed what they found into a brilliant, ten-minute video titled, “The Economics of Sex.” It looks at sex as an exchange that goes something like this: Historically, the woman has been the gatekeeper for sex in a relationship. Will the man have to pay her a few compliments to get sex? Or take her on a certain number of dates? Or will he have to pay the premium—a lifetime commitment of all he is and has? She sets the price.

But the rise of feminism and contraceptive use upset that market equilibrium. It lowered the cost of sex by reducing the likelihood of pregnancy, and gradually the supply of women settling for sex at a reduced rate increased. Men in turn, taking the path of least resistance, went in droves for low-cost sex, rather than paying the premium. This split the mating market into two sub-markets: one where people go for sex, and another where people seek marriage. The former is more male-heavy, while the latter leans female.

This split market altered the woman’s gatekeeping function. It became easier for her to secure a mate in the short term because men looking for sex outnumber available women. But the reverse is true for women seeking marriage. Because, in that market, men, being in shorter supply, have the upper hand.

The Feminist Who Says, “Settle!”

This disappointing reality hits home especially hard for the aging woman who wants a family. In her 2010 book Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, Lori Gottlieb, a 40-something single mother (by sperm donation) thoughtfully reflected on, not her unmet fill of sex, but her unmet longing for marriage and family. “Do it [settle] young,” she writes, rather than holding out for Mr. Perfect.

Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child) … in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family.

Her argument met with, shall we say, mixed reviews, though her counsel seemed to be offered in all sincerity.

Solutions That Satisfy

And given current market conditions, it seems fitting. Strictly speaking, the market solution for women would be for them to band together to raise the price of sex. This would call men back to a higher standard, thereby improving relational prospects for all.

Yes, all. In the latest National Marriage Project report, titled “What Happens in Vegas Doesn’t Always Stay in Vegas,” researchers Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades found that the way couples conduct their sex lives before marriage has a bearing on their future happiness. About 90 percent of couples have sex before marriage, they reported, but those who do so only with their future spouse have better odds for marriage stability than those who play the market first.

In other words, sexual monogamy is a pretty good plan for winning at relationships, if what you ultimately want is marriage and potential family. Admittedly, it’s not the way to “win” if sex is all you’re after. Since the odds are against finding success at both, the wise single will consider early on, Which one do I want? and choose a course of action accordingly.

Getting to Know Each Other: The Premium Way

Chelsea and Mark got married last summer at age 21. They’d been dating since their freshman year of high school. And while they didn’t make a big, public deal about it, most of the friends and family at their wedding knew they had waited.

They, too, drew attention for making a counter-cultural choice. Sometimes there was ridicule, which hurt. But the thing that surprised them most was not the ridicule, but the way some of their peers seemed not even to have categories of thought by which to conceive of such a relationship (What? Well … why?).

“They have sex right from the start, and then they have to learn how to communicate with each other,” Chelsea said. “If they don’t have sex in four days, it’s like the biggest nightmare to them. And it’s a nightmare because they feel like they don’t have the relationship when there’s no sex because that’s all the relationship’s based on.”

She finds that really sad. “It’s as if they can’t even talk to each other. All they seem to know how to do is have sex. Then they get bored and move on to the next relationship.” For her, waiting prioritized the relationship over sex so that the friendship could mature and develop a life of its own, without sex being the center of it. Since the wedding, the sex “has been nice, but we have so much more besides that. Other couples are missing out on so much more that there is.”

We should pity Ms. Flicker for confusing cursory sex with “getting to know each other.”

Know Your Power

In financial terms, to corner, a market is to get sufficient control of an asset to manipulate the price. Casual sex surrenders control and gives everything away dirt-cheap. The smart woman (and man) who wants a sex life that is thoughtful and satisfies longings will retain control of her assets until the set price—the premium—has been paid. “The Economics of Sex” video concludes, “For a woman to know what she wants in a relationship, and to signal it clearly… this is her power in the economy.” It’s also the most winning strategy for achieving sexual and relational success.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2WdB7TJ

/by
Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney_ Journalists Worthy of the Name

Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney: Journalists Worthy of the Name

By Terrell Clemmons

Phelim McAleer was in Pennsylvania in early 2013 doing a series of screenings of his film FrackNation. As he often did when travelling, he checked the local paper for interesting court cases underway, and a case concerning a doctor in Philadelphia caught his attention. And so it happened that on one of his days off, he walked into the courtroom where abortionist Kermit Gosnell was standing trial for a slew of charges including (but not limited to) murder, infanticide, and multiple violations of state abortion law.

Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney_ Journalists Worthy of the Name

Phelim had seen a lot in his twenty-five years in journalism (he started his career in a part of Northern Ireland known as “Bandit Country”), but the evidence he saw that day in Room 304 of the Philadelphia Justice Center surpassed anything he’d previously encountered. The photos displayed up on a big screen—pictures of well-formed babies, some of whose necks had been snipped with scissors after live birth—were more horrific than anything he’d ever seen. All of this was shocking in itself, but what was even more astounding to him as a journalist was that the press gallery behind him was completely empty. There were no national journalists covering this case. Not one. How could this be?

He returned home to Los Angeles and told his journalist partner and wife, Ann McElhinney, that he had found the next project they would work on. At first, Ann wanted nothing to do with it. This subject was foreign territory for them, way outside their wheelhouse. Besides, both she and Phelim had always considered themselves neutral on abortion. Why venture into such a hornet’s nest?

Phelim ordered the court transcripts anyway, and Ann read them. Afterward, she agreed, Yes, they would make this film. It was more than an assent or a shared inclination. It was a conviction. Here was information of significant public interest, and it was shameful that no one was putting it out. A film about this had to be made; therefore, they would make it.

Truth-Telling in the Public Interest

It would be a controversial undertaking, but Phelim and Ann were no strangers to covering controversy. Both natives of Ireland, they had started out as print journalists, but then moved into filmmaking. For one of their early productions, The Search for Tristan’s Mum, Ann went undercover to infiltrate a corrupt baby trafficking ring in Indonesia. As a result of her investigation, Tristan was returned to his natural mother, and the baby sellers were put in prison.

While they were living in Romania in the early 2000s, an uproar arose about a gold mine in Transylvania called the RosË›ia Montana˘ă Project. They watched as Western environmentalists and activist groups like Greenpeace came in with their agendas, talking for the locals as if the locals couldn’t speak for themselves. Worse, the media were not reporting the truth of the matter—that the vast majority of the locals very much wanted the mine.

The RosË›ia Montana˘ăsituation provoked a kind of conversion moment for them on two levels. They saw that (1) capitalism was the economic system best suited to lift people out of poverty, and (2) mainstream journalism was not only doing a shoddy job of reporting the truth, but at some point it was downright corrupt, in that the narrative of the outside environmentalists was being reported rather than the actual truth on the ground. So in 2006, they released Mine Your Own Business, which told the truth about the mining village and also examined other mining projects in the developing world that were under threat of opposition from powerful outside interests.

Continuing with the theme of Big Environmentalism and the effect it can have on impoverished communities, in 2009 they produced Not Evil Just Wrong, which examined and critiqued hysteria about global warming. Then, in 2013, came FrackNation, for which Phelim faced threats, cops, and bogus lawsuits to tell the stories of rural Americans whose livelihoods stood at risk because of misinformation about hydraulic fracking.

And so, while on the surface the trial of an abortion doctor appeared to be a change of direction, at a more basic level, it was a continuation of the journalistic duty to report facts and stories mainstream journalism was misreporting, or in the case of Gosnell, outright ignoring.

Accidental Discovery

Ironically, the abortion “House of Horrors,” as the Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society at 3801 Lancaster Avenue came to be known, was also discovered quite by accident. Kermit Gosnell had been under investigation for running an illegal prescription drug racket in early 2010, when Tosha Lewis, an informant recruited from Gosnell’s clinic staff, casually mentioned an Asian woman who had died at the clinic a few months back. Something about her death, Tosha said, “just wasn’t right.” The narcotics investigator went to look up the police report, but there was none. This puzzle led to more questions, then to search warrants, and then ultimately to a coordinated raid that included narcotics investigators, the Pennsylvania Departments of State and Health, the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency, and the FBI—all told, a raid of more than twenty participants.

They walked into a veritable waking nightmare. A cat had the run of the place, and the stench of cat feces, urine, and formaldehyde hung in the air. There was blood on the floor, urine on the stairs, and piles of trash everywhere. The chairs, blankets, and all surfaces were drowning in cat hair, and the medical equipment was unsanitary, outdated, rusty, and lying haphazardly about the place in varying states of disrepair.

The more they looked around, the worse it got. A metal cupboard housed jars of severed baby feet. Refrigerators and freezers scattered throughout the cobbled-together maze of a building held more bloody fetal remains—they were stuffed into used water jugs, milk jugs, cat-food containers, plastic bags, and Minute Maid juice bottles. The basement housed -fetal remains stacked to the ceiling.

It was the stuff of horror movies, but this was no Hollywood set. This was real life. Semiconscious women moaned in the waiting room, while none of the post-op patients were hooked up to any kind of monitoring device. Two were bleeding heavily and in such distress that paramedics were called, only to discover that the emergency exit door had been padlocked shut, and no one could find a key. Meanwhile, Gosnell wanted to do an abortion while the investigators went about their work. When he finished, he sat down at his desk wearing torn, bloody surgical gloves and ate his dinner, gesturing with his chopsticks while answering investigators’ questions.

Clearly the team had stumbled onto a crime scene that went beyond drug running and one suspicious death.

Documenting an American Tragedy

In the end, the wheels of the Pennsylvania justice system consigned Kermit Gosnell to life in prison without parole. The challenge for Phelim and Ann became how to tactfully but truthfully document the manifold unsettling realities of this case.

Thorough professionals, they interviewed officials from the local police, the DEA, the FBI, and state oversight boards, along with clinic staff and former patients. Ultimately, Ann decided to write a book about the case, in addition to making the film. “It’s disturbing that this story isn’t widely known,” she explained. And there were aspects of the case that wouldn’t end up in the movie, but that should be recorded. “People should know these things,” she said, her Irish brogue accentuating the conviction.

The result is Gosnell, The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer, a page-turning journalistic account of the case, which has to be read to be believed. Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does. Along the way, Ann exposes failure after appalling failure, unflinchingly naming names of officials whose responsibility it was to enforce the law or to ensure that medical standards safeguarding women and children were maintained, but who ignored clear warning signs, looked the other way, or blatantly ignored the law. Local and national media did no better.

She candidly admits it was hard:

Reading the testimony and sifting through the evidence in the case in the research for this book and for writing the script of the movie has been brutal. I have wept at my computer. I have said the Our Father sitting at my desk. I am no holy roller—I hadn’t prayed in years—but at times when I was confronted with the worst of this story I didn’t know what else to do.

More Conversion Moments

Until Gosnell, she found prolife activists distasteful—too earnest, too religious, maybe even manipulative. Back off with your scary pictures, she thought, I’m sure they’ve been photo-shopped anyway. After learning of the Gosnell case, though, everything changed. The images shown in the courtroom were not from activists. They were from police detectives, medical examiners, and employees of the Gosnell clinic testifying under oath.

Similarly, the voices in her book and in the film are not pro-life voices. The most powerful testimonies in the trial, Ann said, were those of the abortion doctors themselves when describing what constituted “a good, legal abortion.” Nearly everyone on the jury was pro-choice at the outset, but some let out audible gasps as an expert witness abortionist explained in detail what she did. Nor was it just Phelim, Ann, and jury members who would reexamine their views. “Prosecutors, several journalists, and even Gosnell’s own lawyer ultimately experienced changes of heart and mind,” Ann wrote.

“Basically, once you find out the truth about abortion, you drop the pro-choice easy narrative very quickly,” says Phelim. “Abortion is like an article of faith for some people, you know? They don’t think about it, but they just are pro-abortion. I’ll tell you, their faith was shattered. Everyone’s faith was shattered.”

Changing people’s minds, though, is not what they set out to do. “They used to say in journalism, if you want to send a message, go to Western Union,” Phelim says. “We didn’t go into this to send a message. We went in to tell the truth.” And so, when it comes to Gosnell, “our message to pro-life and pro-choice people is, find out the truth. Make an informed decision. Because when you find out the truth about abortion as a pro-choice person, it will rattle your confidence in your pro-choice position. And that’s exactly what journalism should be about.”

Both Phelim and Ann hope that through their book and film, people will find out the truth, and that something like Gosnell’s clinic will never happen again. “The truth is very, very important,” Phelim says, “and the truth will set you free. That’s what I want.”

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2AwiyRL

/by
If it Feels Right it must Be Right... Right

If it Feels Right it must Be Right… Right?

,

By Jeremy Linn

How could something that feels so right be called immoral?

If it Feels Right it must Be Right... Right

That is basically the question Imagine Dragons singer Dan Reynolds proposed on a recent interview on the Ellen Show. In the interview, Dan talked about his upbringing as a Mormon and his tendency to rebel against the moral cues of his culture. When he attended BYU (the “Mormon college”), he started sleeping with his girlfriend. BYU somehow found out about Dan’s actions, and the school decided to kick him out. That’s when he asked the question – “Why is this thing that feels right also something that gets me kicked out of college and shames me in my community and made me feel all this guilt?”

Imagine Dragons

Now a few warnings before continuing. I am NOT about to advocate for the moral validity of the Mormon faith. I am also not about to tear down Imagine Dragons – I would say they’re in my top 5 favorite bands. Finally, I am not going to analyze BYU’s response to Dan’s actions or the effect that response had in Dan’s life.

But I do want to point out that in his question, Dan implied that he believed what he was doing was okay because it felt right to do. His assessment of his moral actions was not based on an objective moral code laid out by Mormonism, or any other objective moral code for that matter. It was based on a subjective standard – how those actions felt to him.

This notion is common for people in our culture to hold – if something feels right, it must be morally right. But do feelings actually provide us a solid basis to assess the moral quality of our actions? To address complex questions like this one, I like to start with the most obvious points, and then continue from there. So I will do just that with this question.

One obvious point is that using feelings as a basis for moral assessment doesn’t work logically. If we’re going off a purely feelings-based standard, any action could be morally justified with that standard. For example, I would not be surprised if some people who are charged with child pornography felt that accessing that content was an okay thing to do. Yet they are still prosecuted, and many people who base morality off individual feelings would be outraged by their actions.

Another point is feelings are temporary and can change. What feels right one day may feel not-so-right the next. What if Dan suddenly started to feel like sleeping with his girlfriend was a wrong thing to do? It seems that under the feelings-based standard, the action would turn suddenly from morally right to evidently wrong.

Based on these two concepts alone, it’s clear that feelings are not a solid basis for us to assess the moral quality of our actions. Certainly less obvious points could be thrown in as well. There’s the question of how to determine who is right when two people’s feelings conflict. Then there’s the question of how to govern with moral principles when the standard for morality is the feelings of each individual in a society.

So what is a proper standard to assess moral actions? Again, I turn to the obvious points to address this question. First, a proper standard involves something that goes beyond what an individual feels since feelings are a poor basis for making moral judgments. Second, the standard is one that will not change quickly, as moral assessment would be nearly impossible if the standard can change on a dime. Third, the standard must transcend cultural norms in order for us to be able to evaluate the moral actions of people from a different culture.

This criteria for a proper moral standard is in line with theism – the notion that a good and personal God exists. In theism, goodness is inherent in God’s nature, and thus the moral standard comes from reflection about God’s nature. This nature goes beyond individual feelings, never changes, and transcends cultures.

It is possible that a non-theistic standard could meet the same criteria. But whether a moral standard comes from a theistic or non-theistic viewpoint, one thing’s for sure:

If something we do feels right, it does not necessarily follow that we are doing the right thing.

 

Jeremy is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2BijtEO

/by
Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance”

Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance?”

,

By Erik Manning

John Allen Chau’s death has sparked questions about the morality of Christian missions. Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance?”

Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance”

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, by now you’ve heard about the death of John Allen Chau. The 26-year old missionary traveled to a remote Indian island in hopes of sharing his faith with an isolated and uncivilized tribe called the Sentinelese. This group was known for their aggression towards outsiders and even fired arrows on his approaching boat. Unmoved, Chau made it to the island only to have been killed the next day. To avoid conflict with the Sentinelese, local authorities have given up trying to recover his body.

Chau’s death has sparked a lot of debate about the morality of Christian missions. Let’s just say that the reaction has not been all that empathetic. Social media have called him all kinds of names. Some have even made him the subject of some pretty appalling and mean-spirited memes.

The press has also chimed in. Many have raised questions of arrogance and imperialism. Here’s just a little sampling:

Meme Erik M blog

“This was an act of cultural imperialism and insane arrogance…” — Janet Street-Porter, The Independent

“There is no question that this attempt to make contact was totally wrong and a major violation of their human rights to autonomy. Outsiders need to respect their wishes and treat them with dignity as fellow human beings. Respect means we don’t assume to know better how they should live.” — John Bodley, anthropologist, quoted in The New York Times

“Those who seek to change their culture, their gods or their beliefs are practicing a form of violence. Perhaps people will only understand this when extraterrestrials arrive here and try to evangelize us with their gods and doctrines.” — Sydney Possuelo, Brazilian explorer, quoted in The New York Post

Was Chau “a violator of human rights?” Are Christian missionaries practicing a “form of violence?”

If your smug-detector is working, you’re probably picking up on some thinly veiled arrogance in statements like these. There are some hidden assumptions going on here.

First, these statements assume some sort of religious relativism. Either all religions are equally valid paths to God. Or none of them really are, but people ought to be left alone to determine the truth for themselves.

Furthermore, these statements assume that Christians are wrong about the uniqueness of Christ.

It seems like that in our day the only heresy is to say that religious truth can be exclusive. This runs cross-grain against the message of the early church. Before the Sanhedrin, Peter said:

“Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead…Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10–12)

If there is no resurrection, then all Christian missionaries are wasting their lives.

St. Paul is the paradigm of Christian missionaries. He traveled all over the Greco-Roman world, spreading the gospel to people who never heard about Jesus. He tried to convert Jews, and he tried converting idol-worshipers. He said he had an obligation to the civilized and the savage. (Romans 1:14) And he had a lot of success, but he also experienced great persecution.

In his letters and in the Book of Acts we read about what hardship he endured. He was in and out of prison. He was repeatedly whipped, beaten with rods, was once stoned and left for dead. He survived three shipwrecks trying to take the gospels to other nations. (2 Corinthians 11:23–27) And he eventually was beheaded by the Romans.

Was Paul some kind of crazy, arrogant imperialist? What were his motives? Paul himself said:

“If we are “out of our mind,” as some say, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” (2 Corinthians 5:13–15)

Now if the resurrection of Jesus isn’t historical, and if the religions of those he preached to were as equally valid as his, then what he did was wrong. We can say with confidence he wasted his life. Paul himself said as much:

“I face death every day — yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.” (1 Corinthians 15:30–32)

Now, I’m not at all saying Chau is a modern-day Paul. I’m not in a position to judge his motives or the wisdom of his actions. Other people who understand the complexity of world missions have weighed in, and I’ll defer to their expertise. But what I will say is that he seemed to be motivated by love to share what he believed to be true and important. That’s not arrogance and imperialism. That would be the true motive of any missionary or evangelist.

If we’re arrogant for thinking what we believe is true, then we’re all arrogant.

Think about it for a second. If you say Christianity is evil because it’s exclusive, you too are being exclusive. By making saying something is immoral you’re excluding it by calling it evil. The whole arrogance charge simply backfires. How can you not believe what you think is true?

Allow me to illustrate with a moral analogy. If you believe in global warming and others don’t, does that make you arrogant? You could believe based on the evidence you’ve examined. Or you could believe on the authority of others you trust.

That would make you, in some sense, an exclusivist. In your mind, those who doubt global warming would be believing something false and even harmful. You might even become a climate change “evangelist”. You’ll encourage others to use renewable energy, weatherize their homes, drive hybrids and stump for certain kinds of legislation. You’ll want to share with people the evidence you’ve heard. I mean, the planet depends on it. It’s a big deal. Those beliefs do not make you arrogant, imperialistic or disrespectful.

If there’s evidence for the resurrection — and I believe that there is in spades — then sharing the gospel can’t possibly be arrogant or imperialistic. Considering the implications of the Gospel, the Christian sharing this would be no worse than the outspoken environmentalist.

Christians who don’t share their faith are the real moral failures

You probably have heard of Penn Jillette. He’s best known for his work with fellow magician Teller as half of the team Penn & Teller. He’s also a very outspoken atheist. In an interview, he said that Christians who don’t share their faith are the ones who have a real moral problem. Quoting Penn:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward — and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself — how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

This is what real tolerance looks like. He doesn’t agree with Christianity. But he doesn’t assume that people are jerks for sharing their faith with him. He respects their concern even if he feels they’re mistaken.

As for Chau, I don’t write to make him some kind of a paradigm of what real Christianity should look like. Yet in a day where Christians are so tight-lipped about sharing their faith to avoid being awkward, I gotta say that I at least respect his guts. What I’m getting at is that missions and Christian evangelism is not based on a lack of respect. Nor is it a form of violence against others. Rather, it would be a lack of respect and love to always remain silent.

To Explore More:

Here’s Jillette’s statement on proselytizing, if you’re interested:

And here is the famous Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga on the topic of arrogance and Christian exclusivism:

 

Erik Manning is graduated of Rhema Bible Training College and is interested in the intersection of culture, evangelism and Christian apologetics. isjesusalive.com

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2A2RnNU

/by
My Conversation About Morality with an Atheist Millennial Man

My Conversation About Morality with an Atheist Millennial Man

, ,

By Wintery Knight

wintery knight 2.png

A meme that was posted on the WK Facebook page, by the new meme admin

I spent some time talking to an atheist millennial recently. He considers himself a moral person, and he is very helpful to others. I asked him to define morality, and he said that morality was feeling good, and helping other people to feel good. I was trying to think of a way to punch a hole in his feelings-based utilitarianism. How could I show him that happy feelings are not a good basis for morality?

Now, you’re probably thinking that abortion is the most obvious example of something that is morally wrong – it’s just killing a baby because adults don’t want to take responsibility for their foolish pursuit of pleasure. But atheists typically don’t think of unborn children as people. They usually believe in naturalistic evolution, and they are committed to a view of reality where the universe is an accident, human beings are accidents, there are no objective human rights, and biological evolution progresses because the strong survive while the weak die. So you aren’t going to be able to generate a moral standard that includes compassion for weak unborn children on that scenario. If the rule is “let’s do what makes us happy,” and the unborn child can’t voice her opinion, then the selfish grown-ups win.

Instead, I decided to focus on fatherlessness. I asked him whether he thought that fatherlessness harmed children. Surprisingly, he said that it didn’t and that he had a relative who was doing a great job raising fatherless kids. I asked him if he had ever looked at the research on what father absence does to children. He hadn’t. Then I asked him if a system of sexual rules based on “me feeling good, and other people around me feeling good,” was likely to protect children. He went silent.

Well, that was the end of that conversation. And I think it was a nice window into how millennials – who are absolutely clueless about what research says about sex, dating, marriage, and parenting – think about relationships. They’re making decisions based on their feelings, then acting surprised when their “common sense” decisions based on happiness “in the moment” blow up in their faces, and destroy the lives of their children, including their unborn children.

Unfortunately, young people are having children outside of a marriage commitment more and more.

wintery knight 1

Out-of-wedlocks births rising as cohabitation replaces marriage

Far-left Bloomberg News reports:

Forty percent of all births in the U.S. now occur outside of wedlock, up from 10 percent in 1970, according to an annual report released on Wednesday by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the largest international provider of sexual and reproductive health services. That number is even higher in the European Union.

The EU has a higher rate of fatherless births because they have high taxes and big government to allow women to have children without having to commit to a husband:

The EU likely sees more births out of wedlock because many member countries have welfare systems that support gender-balanced child care, said Michael Hermann, UNFPA’s senior adviser on economics and demography, in an interview. Public health care systems, paid paternal leave, early education programs and tax incentives give unwed parents support beyond what a partner can provide.

More welfare and more government services make it easier for women to pursue relationships with men who aren’t interested in marriage. Hot bad boys who give them all the tingles. Big government makes those boring, predictable marriage-ready men dispensable. Big government also makes it much harder for a man who does marry to afford a stay-at-home mother for his kids, because he has to pay higher taxes for big government.

More:

The data show such births in the U.S. and EU are predominantly to unmarried couples living together rather than to single mothers, the report says.

[…] Jones also noted that the rise in births outside of marriage is closely correlated to delays in childbearing. “Women are claiming their ground professionally,” she said. “Delaying motherhood is a rational decision when you consider the impact it can have on your career, and that’s contributing to this trend.”

[….] The traditional progression of Western life “has been reversed,” said John Santelli, a professor in population, family health and pediatrics at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health. “Cohabiting partners are having children before getting married. That’s a long-term trend across developing nations.”

Regardless of marital status, more couples are choosing not to have kids at all. The U.S. fertility rate hit a historic 30-year low last year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hermann said the rise in births outside of wedlock has actually mitigated the decline in fertility, which “would be much steeper if women weren’t having children outside marriage.”

What’s interesting about this anti-marriage article is that they have nothing to say about the research showing that cohabitation – and also marriages that occur after a period of cohabitation – are inferior to no-cohabitation marriages. People who are serious about self-control, and who are serious about committing through thick and thin, tend to have longer lasting marriages. But we don’t prioritize chastity, fidelity and self-sacrificial commitment anymore, because that relationships that require self-denial make us unhappy.

The article concludes: “We can’t go back to the ’50s”. Right. Because if feelings-based “morality” is assumed, then any choice between adult happiness and children’s happiness will favor the adults. Today’s young people carefully AVOID any evidence that contradicts their new “happiness-morality.” They act surprised when their unstable relationships dissolve, leaving children separated from their fathers. Marriage requires that both partners have a system of morality that puts the commitment above happy feelings. People have to be accustomed to doing things that feel bad, just because they are good and moral things to do according to an objective standard of morality. The new atheist morality of happy feelings doesn’t develop the character needed for commitment.

If you ask an atheist millennial, they think they are doing a great job of being “moral.” They don’t see the messes they are making for children as something that they are causing themselves, with their own foolish feelings-based decision-making. They think they know everything about relationships through their feelings. They think that they are exempt from the patterns of cause and effect in the peer-reviewed research.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2AUAuVq

/by
The Christian’s Response to Cultural Change

The Christian’s Response to Cultural Change

,

By V. T. Clark

Daniel was a young man when his world changed.

The world Daniel knew and grew up in changed to a world contrary to his culture and his faith. Christians today find themselves not immune to the shifting cultural changes of society. With this brings personal and communal challenges of what is the Christian response and role in culture. It becomes vital figuring out how to respond to culture with a stance in Apologetics, through actions reflecting Christ and standing firm in the faith.

One response could be disengagement. However, as Chuck Colson wrote in “How Now Shall We Live?” Christians should not shy away from culture, but be prepared to minister, serve, and share the Gospel. Disengagement from the culture is not a best response nor should it be a choice. Instead, as Christians, what needs to be done is finding ways to engage and live within society as Daniel did, but without compromising Biblical values. This is a fine line to walk, but the reality is Christians must live and interact within the society and culture.

Although Daniel could have tried to escape with repercussions, he becomes an example of courage and steadfastness in a culture different from his own. When offered food considered defiling (Daniel 1:8-16), rather than compromise, Daniel relied on his faith in God. God’s response for Daniel’s faithfulness was favor not only in God’s eye but through later circumstances the king’s so Daniel was given opportunities to display in words and actions, credit to God.

For Christians, Daniel’s responses to his world is an example of the Christian response to modern day culture. While Daniel did not have a say in where he lived, he did have a choice in how he would respond to society and culture. Likewise, so do Christians and one form at a believer’s use is in the form of apologetics. Mary Jo Sharp writes in, “Living in Truth” apologetics is, “making a case for belief in the Christian God, which includes answering objections to belief in God.” This echoes 1 Peter 3:15 of being prepared like Daniel to give reason and why to belief in God. For those unfamiliar with apologetics, there are Bible studies geared toward teaching believers not only how to share their belief, but even how to defend their belief. Daniel use every opportunity to credit God and use those moments to be a testament in his faith in God.

Paul, in the book of Acts, interacted with diverse groups of people in a form of apologetics where though the message of the Gospel stayed the same, he considered how he interacted with society and the culture. There are many ways to handle the encounters without changing the message. Tim Muehlhoff argues the greatest skills for Christian is not in debating but recognizing and affirming God’s truth through conversations with people and how Christians engage others in their daily lives. The challenge is engaging in culture while not being part of culture (John 17:13-19). Obviously, Daniel was facing more extreme situations where he had little if any say in his life. However, like Daniel, he showed the struggles for us as Christians, being under pressure to conform to society and culture without compromising values and belief.

Those who follow Christ are called to shed light on the Gospel to the world. (John 17:15). There is the reality though not to be too influenced by the world. (James 1:27; 1 Corinthians 7:31; Romans 12:2; 1 John 2:15). One solution is suggested by Dr. Jim Eckman for believers to evaluate how they speak the language of Christianity in a relativistic world. This also brings the need to do heart checks and determine if one’s faith and even actions line up with Christ. A favorite quote from Francis Schaeffer is:

“We are not excused from speaking, just because the culture and society no longer rest as much as they once did in on Christian thinking. Moreover, Christians do not need to be in the majority to influence society.”

Daniel was one man, but he held fast to God, and by obedience, he followed God. The same can be said for modern Christian engaging others in an increasingly secular world. Reality, this can make casual conversations and daily interactions sometimes a complex manner. The concept of what is truth is becoming more convoluted and with it changing definitions of even what is tolerance. Christians are supposed to be counter-culture. John Lennox saw post-modernism having within itself a self-contradiction of “no absolute truth” while the Christian finds themselves sharing truth seen through the eyes of God.

When looking at how Daniel handle his response to a changing society and culture, what is found is a core commitment to God. While the Christian finds themselves immerse in day to day engagement with people in real life or even on social media there is a point of conflict when the two worlds meet. Apologetics calls for sharing the truth of God’s world which is a contrast to a pluralistic world where sometimes the prevailing idea is “live and let live.” For the Christian, this is not biblical and laced with grey areas of morality not founded on biblical truth.

Apologetics is about finding common ground to be able to engage in conversations where the message of the Gospel can be interlaced in conversation. It is easy to react to a post-modern society without grace or think culture is useless, but Theodore Turneau countered like Paul, use culture in a way to connect with non-believers without compromising the message. Disengagement from society and even culture will not help discussions. Disengaging can be detrimental or even argued contrary to the “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:19-20). Every day brings with it new challenges to those who follow and believe in Christ. The challenge then lies in the Christian understanding more what is their role in society and culture and how to engage in the community in a way which reflects Christ.

Notes

Charles W. Colson.”How now shall we live?” Journal of Markets & Morality, vol. 5, no. 1, 2002, p. 287+.

Dr. Jim Eckman. “Culture and the Christian: Separate, Identify or Transform? – Issues In Perspective.” Issues In Perspective. 31 Dec. 2011. https://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/12/11-12-31-1/.

James A. Patterson.  “Cultural Pessimism In Modern Evangelical Thought: Francis Schaeffer, Carl Henry, And Charles Colson,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 4 (December 2006): 813.

Mary Jo Sharp. Living in Truth: Confident Conversation in a Conflicted Culture by Mary Jo Sharp (September 26, 2015).  Lifeway Christia

 

V. T. Clark is a graduate student via Houston Baptist University Online graduate program. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Christian Ministry with a minor in Biblical Studies from Liberty University. She’s currently part of HBU Chapter of Ratio Christi at Houston Baptist University, as well as a writer for By Grace, In Faith. V. T. Clark is a member of CAA: Christian Apologetics Alliance and a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Married to a Combat Marine Veteran, she is dedicated to apologetics, theology, and biblical studies.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ABma49

/by
Secular Leftists Demand Christian Student Senator Resign For Disagreeing With Them

Secular Leftists Demand Christian Student Senator Resign For Disagreeing With Them

,

By Wintery Knight

I had to blog about this story about a tough girl at UC Berkeley who is taking a lot of heat for her Christian beliefs. It would have been easier for her to keep them private. But they forced her to vote, and she had to respect her conscience. Campus Reform posted an article about the facts of the case.

It says:

Isabella Chow is an elected student senator who represents the Associated Students of the University of California party Student Action. But after choosing to abstain from voting on a resolution to oppose the recent Title IX changes proposed by President Donald Trump, Chow’s own party disavowed her.

The proposed Title IX changes lack a legal definition of gender, effectively limiting “gender identity” to one’s physical sex, according to the Wall Street Journal.  The resolution before the Berkeley student government was a statement of opposition to these proposed changes, intended to display solidarity with members of the LGBT community, specifically “transgender, intersex, nonbinary and gender nonconforming students,” as reported by the independent student newspaper the Daily Californian.

That article was from November 9th, but The College Fix had some news in their article posted Monday:

Chow has faced intense backlash over her position, with numerous individuals slamming her on social media (one commenter on Facebook called Chow a “mental imbecile”) as well as in person. The response has been so hostile that Chow has made changes to how she gets around campus. “I don’t feel safe walking alone to class and take precautions not to walk alone at night,” Chow said.

Chow provided The Fix with multiple Internet postings openly accusing her of bigotry and hatred. One, from student senator Teddy Lake, said that Chow’s Christian beliefs “were not beliefs at all— they were hateful prejudices that deserve nothing less than the strongest condemnation.”

Several posts on the website Reddit were filled with angry comments. One commenter accused Chow of “sanctimonious holier-than-thou bullsh*t,” and another said: “She’s a horrible person.”

The editors of The Daily Californian published an editorial calling for Chow’s resignation, accusing her of “publicly dismissing the identities of individuals on campus” and “eras[ing] and dehuman[izing]” numerous Berkeley students.

“Chow used her powerful public platform to negate entire experiences and identities. UC Berkeley students cannot allow and accept leaders like Chow to make decisions on their behalf,” the editors wrote.

The campus’s Queer Alliance Resource Center, meanwhile, produced a statement in opposition to Chow.

“Her ‘love’ is no protection against the current oppression faced by trans, intersex, and non-binary individuals. Instead, her ‘love’ pads her condescending disapproval towards us and reminds us of our history of surviving so-called ‘love.’ Senator Chow’s ‘love’ is not of warmth and compassion but of judgement and disapproval. We cannot sit idly by while Chow sits on moral high ground casting moral judgements,” the statement reads.

The Center also produced a petition calling on Chow to resign.

[…]At a student senate meeting last week, numerous members of the Berkeley community publicly expressed their opinions, almost all of them explicitly critical of Chow.

“I condemn Isabella Chow’s words, not because they’re different from mine, but because they are dangerous, and inherently prejudiced. I encourage Senator Chow to reach a dialogue with queer-affirming Christian communities that LGBT existence is compatible with the love of God,” one student said.

Another attendee said to Chow: “Your Christian morals should not be in our student government or for any government; and if you cannot separate your religion from your job as a senator, please resign.”

Another accused Chow of “speaking words of hate, mashed under the name of love.”

Chow eventually approached The Daily Californian asking if the publication would run either a statement or an op-ed by her. The Daily refused to publish either.

She has sunk a ton of money into her education, and now she is at the mercy of far-left professors and TAs. For her sake, I hope that she is working toward a STEM degree. It will help her to find work going forward. This is definitely going to affect her whole life going forward – a lot of big companies aren’t going to hire someone like her who refuses to go along with the LGBT agenda. I hope she’s prepared for that.

Isabella Chow, a Christian woman, encircled by secular leftist fascists.

Resiliency

I was watching this video from Prager University on resiliency, and it was talking about several ways that a person can make themselves defensible against unexpected setbacks.

Watch:

I think it’s important for Christians to think carefully about what they will study and where they work. Having a good education and money makes it easier to deal with threats like the ones arrayed against Isabella. It allows you to find work more easily, to move if you have to, etc. It’s important to train your character by studying hard things, doing hard things and finishing what you start. Having a platform to tell your story is important. Having a network of accomplished friends helps, too.

If you marry, then marry someone with courage and strength, who will stand by you, and help you to persist. It’s a serious mistake to marry someone who doesn’t understand Christianity as a service, and who doesn’t have any strength to deploy in case of a crisis. If you’re being attacked, you want a stable partner who has strength in practical areas and informed convictions. Not someone who is drowning in sin, narcissism, student loan debt, peer pressure, drug addiction, reckless thrill-seeking, etc.

Some jobs and cities have a lot of anti-Christian progressives. It’s easier to avoid those if you have a good education, practical skills, and a good resume. Often, the influence you have is going to be determined by the decisions you make to make yourself resilient. My ambition has always been to have an influence without allowing the secular left to easily silence me. If they know where I work, and where I live, then they can put pressure on me to recant my views. Conversely, if I am careful about education, career, and finance, then I can put pressure on them to back off if they challenge me.

As we saw when fascists broke down the door at Tucker Carlson’s home, we are living in a time of secular leftist facism. And this fascism is defended even by the elites in the mainstream media.

Here’s a concept every Christian should know that people in information security speak about… being a “hard target”:

A hard-target is a person who, due to their actions and/or appropriate protective measures, is able to minimize existing risks and thus most likely represents an unattractive target. Originally, these two terms come from the military and relate to protected and unprotected targets.

The Christian life is a lot more strategic than churches teach us. We’re obsessed with compassion, feelings, and not being judged. Instead, we should be focused on having an influence and making ourselves into hard targets for the secular culture. We have a sanitized view of how sin corrupts non-Christians, allowing them to do unspeakable evils to Christians who merely disagree with them. We think that secular leftists will behave like moral people as if denying God’s existence makes no difference to a person’s ability to be moral. We think that nihilists will respect our basic human rights – human rights that they can’t even rationally ground in their worldview. And we think that God’s job is to protect us and make us feel good no matter how unprepared and reckless we are.

If you want to have an influence, then you need to make every decision wisely, in order to prepare for the day when your cover is blown behind enemy lines. Remember, with respect to God’s purposes in the world; your happiness is expendable.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2z7Zc4I

/by
Redeeming the Kavanaugh Debacle

Redeeming the Kavanaugh Debacle

By Michael Sherrard 

People are hurting. People are angry. And truth be told, fear is the likely emotion consuming many right now– fear of losing position and power, fear of retaliation, fear of exploitation. Some fears are appropriate and some fears misplaced, but all fears can become something dangerous if left alone. Christians, now, is the time to quench this spirit of fear and to bring comfort and peace into the midst of this politically hostile mess created by those lacking restraint and discernment. I think we have a tremendous opportunity to redeem this time by forging unity in the fire that has been stoked by the Kavanaugh confirmation, and even more, I think there is a chance for the Gospel to be heard.

It is often difficult to find common ground with opponents. Some issues are polarizing with little common interest. This is not true of the Kavanaugh case. Let me explain. On one side of the fight is a group that is passionately proclaiming that victims of sexual abuse should feel free and safe to come forward and report that they have been attacked. Now, who in their right mind could disagree with this? Is there really anyone in this country that thinks we should create an oppressive society that blames victims and generally distrusts them? Of course not, except for villains and tyrants and middle school bullies. We agree.

Similarly, on the other side of the fight, there is a group passionately proclaiming that we should not allow anyone’s life to be ruined or suffer a severe penalty because of an accusation that cannot be verified. Does anyone disagree with this? Is there really anyone in this country that thinks we should create a whimsical court of public opinion where we feel obligated to choose sides based on who we think is more believable? Surely not, except for villains and tyrants and middle school cool kids. Again, we agree.

I think this is amazing. In one of the most heated political battles among many recent heated political battles, there is an opportunity for unity. Let’s redeem this pain. Let us join together and fight to ensure that we have a world of justice and equity where victims are safe to name their attacker and citizens are protected from false accusations. Are we too stupid of a people to figure this out? Or are we too selfish to pursue what is commonly good instead of using every public event to advance our personal agenda?

Christians, let’s be the peacekeepers here. This is an occasion to put on display the teachings of Jesus and the fruit of His Spirit. Love your political opponent by being self-controlled, patient, gentle, and kind as you listen to another’s point of view. Being heard is a joyful experience that results in peace. Give this gift to others and build bridges instead of lighting them on fire. Take a deep breath, control your emotions, and forge unity with those that are on the other side. Imagine the gift of hope we can give this world right now if we are able to do this. Think of the public good God will have accomplished through us, and think of the gospel implications.

Let us live in such a way that we earn the right to be heard. When we have a well-earned platform, make much of Jesus. Stop griping and complaining that the world is going to Hell. Instead, take advantage of every opportunity to make sure that it doesn’t. I think this is our time to let the light of Christ shine through our patience, discernment, and gentleness. May this be so in all of us.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yIjd1m

/by
Don’t Mix Politics & Religion

“Don’t Mix Politics & Religion!”

,

By Tim Stratton

Complaint:

Dear Tim,

I love you man, but I don’t want my politics and my religion mixed. I look up to you for religious context and commentary because you are an expert in the field. Not politics. That’s just your opinions, and I can get that from every Tom, Dick, and Harry… but not Tim.

– Sean

Tim’s Response:

Thank you for your kind words, Sean. However, in addition to your pleasantries are statements that I encourage you to consider more deeply.

It would be absurd not to have one’s worldview (religion) influence their politics. In fact, one’s worldview ought to do that much (not the other way around). That is to say, if one truly believes that God exists, created humanity on purpose and for a specific purpose and that Jesus revealed how we ought to live, then the laws of politicians will either approximate to the “law above the law” (ultimate reality) or not.

If God does not exist, then humanity was not created on purpose or for a specific purpose. Thus, we would be mere accidents if atheism is true. If humanity is nothing but accidents, then politics are objectively meaningless (along with everything else) as there would be no objective purpose of the existence of humanity (say goodbye to human rights). Thus, on atheism, it would not really be wrong (objectively speaking) if Obama, Trump, Hitler, or Stalin is calling the shots. It is merely one’s irrelevant subjective opinion.

If God exists and Christianity is true, however, then one’s subjective political opinions can be objectively right or objectively wrong.

Politics & Gospel

Additionally, when a Christian claims they do not want their “politics and religion mixed” that is a good indicator that they probably do not understand their own religion for at least two reasons: 1- Jesus got involved in politics. 2- We are commanded to love all people and to share the gospel with the world.

First, consider the fact that Jesus constantly interacted with the Pharisees in the New Testament. The Pharisees were the religious and political rulers of Israel. Matthew 23: 23-24 provides a good example:

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

Think about the “more important matters of the law” and modern-day America. Politicians today are more concerned about the consequences of using plastic drinking straws than placing restrictions on abortion (killing innocent human beings) and actually advocate for it in many cases. What do you think Jesus would say to these politicians? Based on His reaction to the political leaders of Israel, do you think Jesus would worry about hurting the feelings of modern-day politicians or those who vote for them? We must not disregard the “more important matters of the law.”

Second, if a Christian does not take politics seriously, then they probably do not take evangelism seriously. Frank Turek shows a satellite image of the Korean peninsula to make this point (See Why Christians Should Be Involved In Politics).

Notice the stark contrast between the north and south. South Korea is filled with light, activity, and productivity. According to Turek, “it is one of the most Christianized countries in the world.” North Korea, on the other hand, stands in polar contrast to their neighbors south of the border. North Korea is dark and seemingly “dead.” Turek accurately describes it as a big “concentration camp.” What is the difference between North and South Korea? One word: POLITICS!

Many South Koreans have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ because there is political freedom to share the gospel. The communistic government of North Korea, on the other hand, does not allow the gospel to be shared — it is a dictatorship. If you are a Christian, Sean, then you know that the gospel message is the most important information a person could ever have access to or possess. If you truly love all people — as Jesus commanded — then you must desire the people who have never heard the gospel to have access to this eternally vital information. Since politics is keeping millions of souls from hearing the gospel, if you truly love and care for all humans, then you should care about politics.

To not care about politics is to not care about people.

The Lesser of Two Evils

If you believe Christianity (your “religion”) is true, you must “mix” it with politics — at least if you are a consistent Christian and strive to love all people. After all, if Christianity corresponds to reality, then the politicians you support and vote for should strive to correspond to reality too. No politician will do this perfectly, but some political views approximate to reality more than others.

Unless Jesus Christ is running for office, all elections are a vote between the lesser of two evils. As Turek notes, if Billy Graham was running against Hitler, it would still be a vote between the lesser of two evils. Obviously, one who strives to be an objectively good person would do anything possible to keep Hitler and his politics out of office. That would include “mixing” politics with religion and sharing his or her views with as many voters as possible.

Bottom line: You kindly refer to me as an “expert” in my field (theology and metaphysics/ultimate reality). If that is true, then this expertise allows me to intelligently provide insight into things that fall under the umbrella of ultimate reality — like some political issues — as an expert too. That is to say, my political opinions are informed from my knowledge of reality. In fact, if one is trained how to think logically, then thinking logically applies to all aspects of life. This includes both religion and politics.

If one’s religion is true and their political view is also objectively good or right, then one’s religion and politics must be “mixed” . . . independent if they realize it or not.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

 

Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North-West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2JgVEkf

/by
How To Be Civil With A Political Party That “Wants To Destroy You”

How To Be Civil With A Political Party That “Wants To Destroy You”

By Michael Sherrard 

Hillary Clinton has thrown more fuel on an already raging fire. In a recent interview, she stated very plainly that until the left has power again, they cannot be civil. If not for the fact that this advice will be followed by many to extreme ends, I’d just laugh at the extreme irony of saying “after I beat you up, I’ll be nice to you.”

Well, I think there is a better way, the way of Jesus Christ namely. It’s a way that involves loving your enemies, praying for those that persecute you, and making a reasonable case for your beliefs with gentleness and respect. For the level-headed Americans that remain, here are three ways you can still be civil in an age of incivility.

  1. Listen

The profound lack of listening today is probably both the greatest source of frustration and anger and also the easiest problem to fix. Just shut up. Seriously, learn to shut up. You don’t always have to run your mouth. Instead, listen to your opponent. Listen without the goal of correction. Listen with the goal of understanding. Who knows, maybe you’ll learn something. You’ve been wrong before. Perhaps you are wrong now. What have you got to lose? At the very least, after you have truly listened to your opponent, you will understand better how to proceed in persuading them that their position is flawed in some way. But truth be told, the greatest thing that comes from listening isn’t convincing, it’s compassion. It is easy to hate ideas. It is not as easy to hate an individual. And when you listen and listen well, you are able to hear the person along with their position. This leads to unity and productive conversations. I know it’s a novel idea, but you should give listening a try.

  1. Learn 

Everybody today is an expert. That is of course sarcasm. The truth is that everybody thinks they are an expert. However, very few can actually explain their beliefs if it requires more than 144 characters or a picture. Personal beliefs today have a profound lack of depth that stems from a deterioration of critical thinking. Beliefs are formed from a pop culture more than reasoned thinking and meaningful reflection, and many accept simply what feels good rather trying to discern what is good. The solution is knowledge. A fundamental component of civil discourse is accurate knowledge of both your position and your opponents. If you cannot explain why your position is true, you are not allowed to talk about it. And I’ll take it a step further. If you do not know why your opponent thinks their position is the correct one, you are not allowed to attack it. I know this is a novel idea, but if you don’t have anything good to say because you don’t know what the heck you are talking about, you ought not say anything at all.

  1. Love

Find a way to love your political opponent. They are in your neighborhood, workplace, school, and church. Now, don’t misunderstand my point here. I think listening to your opponent and learning more about the relevant issues of our time is an act of love. If you do just the above two points, you will have given a great gift to this world. But let’s go a bit further. Go out of your way this week to be kind and serve those that disagree with you. Instead of spending all your mental energy plotting how to belittle your enemy with a clever meme, think instead how you can build them up. They are struggling with life just like you are. Their finances are in trouble. They are suffering broken relationships in their family. They have just received news that their child has cancer. But, hey, feel free to attack their character because they disagree with you on a political issue. Kick them while they are down. Or, be humble and serve them. I’ll let you choose.

This is a time for us all to follow the example of Jesus who did not count equality with God a thing to be exploited but humbled himself by taking the form of a servant. And as a servant, He died on the cross in order to purchase our redemption. Let us all live in this manner, a manner worthy of the gospel, and let us all be civil even to those not worthy of it.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OvQdDX

/by