Why the pulpit must be political

Why the pulpit must be political

,

By Michael Sherrard 

With all that is going on in the world, my church doesn’t need to be entertained. They need to be trained. We are not in a time of peace. While we creatively plan the stage design for our next sermon series, another group is setting the stage for our removal from society.

Now, of course, it is right to be creative in church. I’m not saying otherwise. But the pulpit doesn’t belong to entertainers. Pastors are not merely MC’s. They are watchmen. And when the enemy is before us, the watchman better not be blinded by his own stage lights while his people are attacked.

Rather than be caught defenseless, pastors must equip their people to engage a culture that is becoming increasingly hostile toward Christianity. And so, the pulpit must be political. Yes, I know that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. Let’s get that out of the way. I already hear your objection: “We should care more about salvation than society.” Sure, I agree. It is better to lose the world than your soul. But if you think that society can go to hell as long as people don’t, you’ve fallen for an old trick and you’ve misunderstood the nature of the gospel.

A politically silent pulpit is one that is catering to the secularist’s agenda: “Keep your religious beliefs private. They are not wanted in society. They are no good to us.” And for some reason, we’ve bought into the propaganda of those that want to fashion a society after their own values. Somehow they have convinced us that the only good beliefs for society are the beliefs of atheists. But beliefs that are true are true for all and are good for all. It does not matter where they come from. And if the Christian message contains truth, the application of that truth is far-reaching. It does not end at the capital steps.

Christianity is an all-encompassing worldview. Meaning, it is a set of true beliefs that affect all of life. The gospel itself has implications that go beyond ones eternal destination. We see this truth in Paul’s ethics. Pauline ethics might be summed up this way: because Christ humbled himself and died on a cross, so should you be humble and willfully offer up your life for the good of others (Phil 2:1-11). Our faith manifests itself in ways that benefit others if it is a real faith. You must repress your hope in God to keep it private. I doubt you disagree with this.

So why are politics off limits? Why is it right for us to sit back and allow harmful policies be legislated? Why shouldn’t we expose candidates that seek to preserve the right to kill babies? Why do we think we have to let atheists run our country? Are Christian teachings not good? Do they not promote human flourishing? Why do we think a Christian influence equals a theocracy? How have we become so simple minded about our civil responsibility? Pastors we have failed our people. If it is not our job to instruct the people of God on these things, whose job is it?

When politics are ignored in the pulpit the message to the world and the church is clear: Christianity is irrelevant. It tells the world that what we care about is our little club, and it tells those in the club not to worry about what goes on outside. Subsequently, many in the church find it impossible to find fulfillment in life because life itself is apparently not worth redeeming. This leads to self-indulgence and things like “church shopping.” We use the church as a commodity to meet our needs. We consume the church rather than be the church. And the body of Christ becomes a glutton for the work of others instead of being a vessel passing out the common grace of our Lord.

Even though we know that the only way to find life is to give it away, we have sold a product that says otherwise. Let us change that. We understand that we are to seek the good of others. We understand that Christ did not redeem us for irrelevance, but to be agents of renewal. Therefore, let us turn our attention again to society and utilize all the tools at our disposal. As we eagerly await the Kingdom to come, let us not neglect the land we have been given. Let us be political.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

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

/by
Daddy, Can I Kill It

Daddy, Can I Kill It?

,

If your back was turned when your child asked, “Daddy (or Mommy), can I kill it?”  What would be your first question?

What is it?

A spider?  Sure.  Your baby sister?  No.

Many of the problems in our culture stem from the fact that many people fail to correctly answer the question, “What is it?”  What is the nature of the thing in question?

This applies in everything from abortion to Senate confirmation hearings, which, come to think of it, are really about the same thing. What is the nature of the Constitution?  What is the nature of the unborn?  What is the nature of sex?

It seems to me that the Left’s answers to these “What is it?” questions are wrong.  And their wrong answers lead to wrongdoing.

What is the nature of the Constitution? 

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land that expresses the will of the people, and, at the same time, protects the people from an overreaching government.  It can only be changed through the amendment process (that’s why the amendment process is in there!).  The will of the people should not be overruled by rogue judges who merely disagree with what the people have decided (that’s what overreaching governments do).

But the Left doesn’t care about the will of the people.  They want judges who will impose Leftist policy preferences and will fight any judge who isn’t a Leftist legislator.   That’s why they came out against Judge Kavanaugh immediately after he was announced back in July.  It had nothing to do with any alleged sexual misconduct.  This is about abortion.

Abortion is not, and never has been, in the Constitution. In 1973 seven unelected judges overruled the will of the people in all fifty states by inventing a right to abortion through their Roe vs. Wade opinion.

The Left knows that if a case rises to the Court that challenges Roe vs. Wade, a judge like Brett Kavanaugh might actually read the Constitution and join others to overturn Roe.  That would put the question of abortion back to the states where people could actually vote on it.  (Overturning Roe vs. Wade wouldn’t outlaw abortion—it would just return the issue to the states and allow the people in each state to vote on it.)

What is the nature of the unborn?

Why are Leftists afraid to allow people to vote on abortion?  Because democracy and truth is the enemy of their pro-abortion position. An informed public might correctly answer the question, “What is the nature of the unborn?” and vote to restrict or outlaw abortion.  Indeed, anyone who has ever seen a sonogram knows there’s an actual baby in there.  It’s not just “a blob of tissue,” but a genetically unique human being from the moment of conception.   That’s a scientific fact.

But for the science-denying Left, the nature of the unborn doesn’t matter.  Power matters.  Their wrong answer about the nature of the unborn leads them to think it’s justified to use power to commit wrongdoing to get what they want.  After all, once you’ve convinced yourself that it’s justified to kill the unborn, how hard is it to convince yourself that it’s justified to kill the reputation and candidacy of a conservative judge?

Daddy, can I kill it?  Why not?  It’s in my way.

What is the nature of sex?

And then there’s sex, from which all of this derives. For the Left, sex is like a religion and a militant one at that.  Anyone who questions their sexual dogma will be branded a heretic, as I was.  In the name of “inclusion, tolerance, and diversity,” you will be excluded and not tolerated for holding a diverse view.

The Left’s views on sex are not only contradictory on so many levels, but their wrong view on the nature of sex also leads to personal and societal destruction.  For the past fifty years Leftists in academia, the media, and Hollywood, have been cheering on casual sex as if the nature of sex itself is merely physical.  It’s little more than a sport.  It’s a competition where you’re urged to throw off all restraint and constantly pursue sexual conquest, especially when it’s outside of marriage.

So why are Leftists now outraged to hear that some teenage boy may have actually pursued sexual conquest as if it were merely a sport?  They create and champion an environment that amps youth up to “score” sexually and are then shocked when a youth may have actually gone too far in attempting to do so.

The Left has helped create the very problem they’re now selectively incensed about.  (I say “selectively” because who on the Left voted to remove Bill Clinton for the sexual sins he committed, not allegedly as a drunken teenager, but known sins he committed as President of the United States?)

They’ve done the very thing C.S. Lewis observed about those who undermine virtue.  Lewis wrote, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

In fact, the Left has castrated the proper view of sex itself. A moment’s reflection should convince anyone that sex is far more than just physical. If sex is just physical, then why is it worse if someone rapes you than if someone physically assaults you? Why are people more traumatized over sex than almost anything else? Why do we consider the uncorroborated word of Dr. Ford so seriously, even when all of the supposed witnesses deny it happened?

Because deep in our hearts we know that sex isn’t just a sport or physical activity to be taken lightly as the Left has been advertising for so long.  It’s much more than physical.  There are spiritual, emotional, reproductive, psychological, and moral aspects to sex, which means the consequences can be either wonderful or devastating.

Sex is like fire:  if you keep it in your fireplace, it will warm you.  But if you get it anywhere else in your house, it will burn your house down.  If you have sex with someone, then everything changes dramatically forever.

Regardless of how this confirmation process turns out, there are more foundational issues we must address personally and as a country.  Are we going to continue to lie to ourselves about the nature of the Constitution, the nature of the unborn, and the nature of sex?  If so, we’re not only going to continue killing our vulnerable children; we’re going to continue killing our vulnerable country.

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case

/by
Cdc Reports Std Rates Hit All-Time High For The Fourth Straight Year

Cdc Reports: Std Rates Hit All-Time High For The Fourth Straight Year

By Wintery Knight

 

Preliminary CDC numbers for STDs in 2017

Preliminary CDC numbers for STDs in 2017

 

I’ve been blogging about skyrocketing rates of sexually-transmitted-diseases for the last few years, and particularly how it impacts high-risk groups, e.g., men who have sex with men. The attitude that the culture is taking towards this is to not make any moral judgments, but someone is going to have to pay for all the health care that is required to “fix” this problem.

Fox News reports on the latest numbers:

Sexually-transmitted diseases continue to hit all-time highs in the U.S. with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reporting a 10 percent spike for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in 2017. The federal health agency said in a report released Tuesday that the numbers, which include nearly 2.3 million new cases of the aforementioned diseases, reflect a “steep, sustained increase” in STDs since 2013.

“We’re sliding backward,” Jonathan Mermin, director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, said. “It is evident the systems that identify, treat and ultimately prevent STDs are strained to near-breaking point.”

The data, which was presented at the 2018 STD Prevention Conference, found a 67 percent increase in gonorrhea diagnoses, which officials sounded alarmed over due to the growing threat of untreatable strains.

The CDC gives us the numbers well enough, but like all government agencies, their attitude is not to tell the selfish adults to behave morally. They blame “stigma and discrimination” for the rise in STDs, and recommend more government as the solution. I.e., they think that people who disapprove of sex outside of marriage are to blame for the skyrocketing rates of STDs. If we all stopped making the irresponsible, reckless people feel bad with our ignorant moral judgments, then the STD problem would immediately be solved.

Anyway, here is an article that talks about untreatable strains of gonorrhea in particular:

Scientists have found a “superbug” strain of gonorrhea in Japan that is resistant to all recommended antibiotics and say it could transform a once easily treatable infection into a global public health threat.

The new strain of the sexually transmitted disease — called H041 — cannot be killed by any currently recommended treatments for gonorrhea, leaving doctors with no other option than to try medicines so far untested against the disease.

[…]Gonorrhea is a bacterial sexually transmitted infection and if left untreated can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility in women.

British scientists said last year that there was a real risk of gonorrhea becoming a superbug — a bacteria that has mutated and become resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics — after increasing reports of gonorrhea drug resistance emerged in Hong Kong, China, Australia and other parts of Asia.

Now, I know it’s tempting (for some people who like tolerance) to say that we should let people do whatever they want to do, and not judge them. After all, we can just take some money from the wealthy in order to solve these problems without making anyone feel bad. I hear this a lot from the “don’t judge” crowd. But this time, it looks like no amount of money is going to solve this problem, and maybe the judgers were right to warn.

Syphilis is also a problem in certain high-risk groups:

The sometimes-deadly disease syphilis is exploding in the United States, with most of the increase since 1995 among men who have sex with men (MSM), according to a new report from the Atlanta-based Center for Disease Control (CDC).

As recently as 2000, researchers believed the total elimination of syphilis was within reach. The recent dramatic increases in infections, coupled with the observation that syphilis closely tracks with other diseases like AIDS, have the medical and scientific community deeply concerned. The CDC report considers “the increase in syphilis among MSM is a major public health concern.”

According to the report, “During 2005-2013, the number of primary and secondary syphilis cases reported each year in the United States nearly doubled, from 8,724 to 16,663; the annual rate increased from 2.9 to 5.3 cases per 100,000 population.”

The report also says that “men contributed an increasing proportion of cases, accounting for 91.1% of all primary and secondary syphilis cases in 2013.” Most of the increases came from men who have sex with men, which were responsible for 77% of cases in 2009 but 83.9% in 2012, what the report calls “the vast majority of male… syphilis cases.”

HIV is also a problem for this same group:

A fact sheet released at the end of June by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic,” says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).

“Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States,” the fact sheet states.

We do have certain segments of the population who think that normal sexuality means having sex with dozens, hundreds and even thousands of partners. Just on the grounds of “they’re hot.” And naturally, these people are at higher risk for STDs.

 

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

/by
The Gay Agenda & the Wrong Side of Hate

The Gay Agenda & the Wrong Side of Hate

,

By Brady Cone

Protestors. Death threats. Misleading newspaper articles. In the days leading up to a talk I was doing on campus at North Carolina State University last year, the environment consistently became increasingly hostile. I was simply speaking about my story of struggling with sexuality issues, and how God’s overwhelming grace had rescued my soul. Why the hostility from the LGBT community on campus? It was because my very existence is a threat to the foundation on which they have built their lives, their identities, and ultimately their value and hope. Which is why they feel so threatened by anyone who dares to say they could live any other way.

Being raised on a farm in Nebraska, I grew up experiencing nothing but same-sex attraction. By the time I was in my teens I identified as gay. As with anyone else who is gay, I felt like “I was just born this way.” I grew up during a time when our culture was undergoing a major shift, and LGBT people were becoming more and more accepted. As I was confused and trying to figure out what to do with the feelings I was having; the culture was screaming at us, “if you have same-sex attraction, you were born with it, and you need to be gay to be happy and healthy.” That’s the narrative which was fed to me. I would go on to accept that dogma because I thought I had no other choice.

But then I came to know Jesus and my whole world changed! I later walked away from my homosexual life. I knew that if I was going to live out a faith based on God’s Word, I had to surrender to ALL of God’s Word, not just the parts that were easy, convenient, or made sense. Walking away from my LGBT life didn’t always make sense, because it felt to the depth of my soul that “this is just the way I am!” But, over the years God chipped away at my gay identity and started to untwist what my heart had twisted.

I still struggle occasionally. Once in a while, I catch a glimpse of a guy who I find attractive, and I have to repent. With that said, however, my life, and my attractions are so different now than they were a decade ago. God shined His light in my heart to show me places where I was looking to men to find value and wholeness. He showed me the idolatry in my heart. Now, I have instead been able to find wholeness in Christ. The further I have been away from that community/lifestyle/identity, the less normal/natural it seems. I am now in a healthy relationship with a woman which is leading towards marriage. And it’s all from God’s grace! That’s what sanctification does.

It is a fact that even if we were born with same-sex desires, we still have a choice in how we live our lives — we have free will! Through the power of the Holy Spirit, we can wake up every morning and choose to live a life that is pure, holy, and pleasing to God — no matter what attractions, temptations, and desires we have — or not! So in that sense, it does not matter if one is born gay or not.

What am I Free to Choose?

I am always discerning in how I use the word choice, and so should all Christians. I didn’t choose to have same-sex attraction. Nor could I just choose to turn it off. It is only after I chose to stop resisting the Holy Spirit and chose to surrender my life to Christ that I gained God’s power to make hard choices — free choices — to deny my flesh and take the way of escape God promises to provide when we face temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Romans 8:26-27 states, “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.” The current belief of the LGBT community and secular society at large is that “gay people are born gay.” That is used as justification of their lifestyle, and justification of not only acceptance but forced celebration.

After living in the gay community, leaving it, and now being in a ministry where I have helped hundreds of people work through their own wrestling of same-sex attraction and faith, I adamantly do not believe that we are “born gay.” That debate, however, is for another day. The scope of this article is to show that even if I am wrong about being “born that way,” it simply does not matter and is irrelevant.

What does matter is that I once was, and no longer am gay? Not only I but thousands like me! It does not mean that a switch is flipped, and all the same-sex attraction goes away. It does not even mean that you can “pray away the gay.” It means that over the course of our lifetime, God sanctifies us, shows us the idols we are serving, and through ongoing sanctification, He untwists what our sinful hearts have twisted. Which means we can find our wholeness through Him, instead of acquiring it through the idolatry of another person. I’ve seen the idolatry in my own heart, and the hundreds of others who I have ministered to. But, there is true freedom is choosing to submit to Christ, instead of the things of the world!

There are no studies proving that people are born gay. Some people have bought into the rhetoric and claim that there are studies that “prove” it, however, every time I ask to see these supposed “proofs” these same people have never provided anything but assertions. And even if we were born gay, it is still irrelevant. After all, the Bible makes it clear that we are all born into sin. We are all born with sinful inclinations and a deceitful heart. So why is there such strong rhetoric, claiming that people who feel gay have no choice but to act gay? It is because the entire narrative pushing the gay agenda in our culture relies on it.

Brady Cone Exists! 

The LGBT community tries to claim that people like me don’t exist — but we do! Thousands of us. They try to claim we don’t exist because our mere existence completely derails their entire narrative. Their narrative and agenda rely on convincing people that some have no choice but to be or act gay, just like white people are born white and black people are born black. But, the fact that people like me change shows that they are wrong and illustrates that sexuality is fluid, controllable, and cannot be put on the same level as other aspects of our personhood such as race.

The push of not only equality—but forced acceptance, relies on them making their sexuality a part of who they are—a piece of them which is central to their humanity. Which is why they feel so threatened by someone like me. My very existence—proving that people with same-sex attraction don’t have to live as gay—pulls the rug out from under every piece of justification they have in their push for equality, acceptance, and forced celebration.

I have lived through such a unique time in our culture. Growing up wrestling with gay feelings and attractions, I felt extremely rejected by those around me. But a mere 15 to 20 years later, the rejection comes from our culture for merely choosing to not live as a gay man. Our culture claims that how I live is dangerous. They claim it is irresponsible, dangerous, and outright cruel to expect people to deny themselves from the feelings of what comes natural to them. However, it is only cruel if sex and romantic relationships are central to our humanity. But they are not. So what is more dangerous? A culture which claims “sex and romantic relationships with whoever you please is central to your humanity, and without it you are not complete” or a faith in which our savior Jesus comes along and says, “I have set you free because everything you need for your humanity and your eternity is freely given by me.”

Back to North Carolina

Throughout sharing my story of wrestling with sexuality—and how God’s love and grace are sufficient for every one of us—the back of the room was filled with hundreds of protestors holding up signs. Throughout the question and answer session, LGBT members of the audience and the protestors tried to cause disturbances and ridicule me. One person went as far as saying they wished I had pulled the trigger on the gun back when I had almost committed suicide as a hurting 13-year-old boy.

But there was one student that night, whose heart was open to the message of God’s love and grace. His name was Levi, and he was one of the protestors in the back of the room. As he stood there holding his sign with his fellow LGBT comrades, something was stirring in his heart. He stood there, watching his community respond to me with such vicious hatred—all while I responded to them with tenderness and grace.

As he stood there, a thought was racing through his head. He kept thinking, “I’m standing on the wrong side of hate.”

Levi slipped out as soon as the event was over and went back to his dorm room. That same week he reached out to his old youth pastor from high school and a couple of Christian friends. When I first heard from him months later, he had left the gay community, and said goodbye to his gay identity. He was thriving in his relationship with the Lord. At that moment, in that room, God had shined the light of His truth in Levi’s heart, as He had done in mine over a decade ago. Levi discovered that his sexuality was not central to his humanity, nor could it provide him with any type of wholeness. Only Christ could do that.

Today, Levi is walking in freedom, which was bought for him on the cross. He has found peace and joy, and the freedom to deny himself and chooses to live a life that is pure, holy, and in line with God’s Word. Levi and I are the people Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 6:11, while speaking of homosexuals he states “that is what some of you were,” (emphasis added) “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

 

Brady Cone was a college student at Chadron State and living a homosexual lifestyle. He had struggled with these issues since a young age and thought he was trapped in that lifestyle. Coming to know Christ changed everything for Brady! Jesus gave him another choice: a life of holiness through Christ. Brady says that leaving behind a world of homosexuality was the most difficult thing that he has have ever done, but through it, God has given him new life and freedom in ways he never dreamed. Brady’s goal is to share his testimony and discuss the power of the Gospel in his life. In turn, he hopes to provide discipleship, insight, and written material to equip the church in discussing these matters.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2O4tv20

/by
borders

Why Everyone Believes in Secure Borders and Why America Needs Them

,

If you say you’re for open borders, you’re not.  Not completely.

Do you have locks on your doors?  How about on your car?  Got a fence so your kids can play safely?  Do you have passwords on your computers?  How about your bank accounts? Do you protect your credit card numbers?  Your social security number?  How about your medical records?  Do you think curbs, guardrails, and traffic lines are a good idea, or should people be able to drive any where and any way they want?  How about security borders at the airport—necessary or optional?

The truth is everyone believes in secure borders.  In fact, life would be impossible without them. As long as human nature is what it is—bent toward evil—borders will be necessary.  The only question is “Where am I going to draw the borders for my own security?”

You may not want to secure the border of the United States, but you certainly want to secure the border of your home.  The problem is the security of your home is affected by the security on your street, which is affected by the security in your town, which is affected by the security in your state and your country.

And I’m not just talking about your physical security, but also your economic security.

People want to come here for the freedoms and prosperity we have in America. This has become the land of opportunity and the most prosperous nation on earth, which would have been impossible without secure borders. Open borders would destroy the very reasons people want to come here in the first place.

Why?  Because prosperity can only be achieved when people feel secure enough economically and personally to take risks to innovate, invest, and extend themselves into the market.  That security requires safe streets, reliable and adequate infrastructure, environmental protection, and a welfare base kept to a sustainable limit.  Such security also requires the rule of law which helps create a predictable and level playing field.  Without the rule of law, you don’t get the security and prosperity of America—you get the corruption and poverty of, say, Venezuela (where annual inflation is now 43,378%!).

People flee countries that don’t have this unique combination of security and freedom.  That’s why communist countries build walls to keep people in.  We need walls to keep people out!

While it would be great to give everyone the same opportunities we have in America, it’s impossible to do by bringing everyone here. If we opened our borders, millions of people would flood this country and overwhelm the very things necessary to keep it prosperous, including our strained safety net.  And even extremely high immigration levels would do virtually nothing to ease world poverty as this video graphically demonstrates.

Then there’s the fact that some illegal immigrants would harm Americans.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying all illegal immigrants would be terrorists or criminals (although some surely would be).  What I’m saying is that controlled immigration and secured borders are as necessary to a country as they are to your home.  You don’t let just anyone and everyone into your home. If you did, your home would be destroyed, possibly by a criminal element, but most definitely by the fact that your home couldn’t physically handle a large influx of people. In a similar way, open borders would kill the golden goose called America—it would destroy the very environment which entices people to come here in the first place.

So while an open borders policy may sound compassionate, it actually leads to disastrous results.  That is because—like so many other utopian leftist ideas—it ignores reality and misdiagnoses human nature.

Finally, contrary to the media narrative, Scripture doesn’t mandate open borders or prohibit walls.  As Dr. Wayne Grudem unpacks here, the Bible actually affirms that borders are legitimate and walls are good things. God Himself scattered people by language (Gen. 11), and the promised land of Israel had definite borders as did its surrounding nations.  In fact, Moses respected the border of Edom by asking permission of the King of Edom to pass through that country (Moses was denied as you’ll read in Num. 20:17-21).  Jesus acknowledged that nations need to be reached (Matt. 28:17-20), and Paul declared that God intends nations to have legitimate rulers (Rom. 13:1).  Paul even used his status as a Roman citizen to protect himself from harm (Acts 22:25-26).  And the scriptural commands not to steal presuppose borders and the right to private property.

(Remarkably, there will even be a border in the afterlife between Heaven and Hell because God can’t force free creatures to love Him or one another.  Forced love is impossible.  Love requires freedom and freedom requires the security that your choices will be respected, even if it means that you want an eternal border between you and God.)

We are blessed to live in America.  But we need to recognize that it’s impossible to have everyone live here.  The best way to protect America and help people outside of our country is to control immigration at a sustainable level while exporting our ideas of economic and political liberty to other nations.

We can’t bring everyone to America, but we should try to bring America to everyone.

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case.

/by
Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

,

By J. Brian Huffling

A common argument used by abortion advocates is: “A woman can do what she wants with her body! Since it is her body that is going through the pregnancy, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.” However, this “argument” fails for a number of reasons.

First, it is not an argument. It is an assertion. An argument is a series of at least two propositions that logically lead to a conclusion. That doesn’t happen here.

Second, there are a myriad of things that a person can’t do in the name of privacy or by appealing to “this is my body.” A person cannot do drugs (excluding marijuana in some places) and simply get away with it, even though it is his body that is affected by the drugs. A person, in most places, cannot prostitute herself, even though it is her body. (Some have actually argued that prostitution should be legal because it empowers women and it is their body.) Examples could be multiplied, but hopefully, the point is clear.

Third, and most importantly, it isn’t her body!!! When deciding to murder a baby in the womb, arguing “It’s my body, so I can do it” is simply asinine (that means incredibly stupid)! If a woman was going to abort herself, that would be suicide. Abortion takes the life of the baby, not the mother. The baby is a separate being with its own DNA, blood type, and gender. The baby is not identical with the mother. So, even if she could do what she wanted with her body, the baby is a different story.

Some will retort that at the moment of abortion (presumably in the first trimester), the fetus is not a human yet. However, this is ludicrous. The only reason to claim this is to justify abortion. What else would it be? The baby is a product of sexual reproduction, which can only reproduce another member of the parents’ species. Two humans cannot sexually reproduce another species. At conception, the baby has all of its needed chromosomes (the same number of fully developed adults). The fetus simply needs time to develop. Two humans can only reproduce humans. The fact that the baby isn’t fully developed doesn’t make it a non-human. Our bodies don’t stop developing until the early twenties as the frontal lobe of the brain is still forming (this is what connects reason and emotion, which explains why teenagers can be very irrational).

One cannot help but wonder why liberals are so concerned with women’s rights while simultaneously willing and even advocating for the outright murder of so many women (female babies). Such advocates are not advocates of love and compassion, but of hatred and murder.

Forgiveness

If you are reading this and have had an abortion, or know someone who has, it is important to know there is forgiveness in Christ. Yes, abortion is wrong. You probably already know that. But it doesn’t mean that you are outside of grace and forgiveness. God’s grace covers even abortion. Know that. Hear the words of John: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all [all!] unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

As Christians, we should condemn abortion for what it is while also remembering and communicating the grace of Jesus Christ.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2N4yP3W

/by
Terrell Clemmons Interviews Nancy Pearcey About The Impact Of Secularism

Terrell Clemmons Interviews Nancy Pearcey About The Impact Of Secularism

,

By Wintery Knight

Salvo magazine is my favorite magazine for the discussion of issues related to the Christian worldview. They focus on the most interesting topics; sex and feminism, intelligent design and evolution, marriage and family, abortion and euthanasia, etc. One of their writers, Terrell Clemmons, has just about the best Christian worldview I’ve ever encountered. She interviewed well-known Christian writer Nancy Pearcey in Salvo magazine.

The first part of the interview has Nancy explaining what happened to her when – as a teen – she asked her family and church and Christian leaders for reasons why she should take Christianity seriously. She ended up having to construct her entire worldview herself. She spent an entire year and a half reading nothing but Christian apologetics books. And from that, she moved on to connect Christianity to every other subject that you can possibly imagine.

The part of the interview I liked best was when Terrell asked Nancy what the consequences would be in real life to the popular secular ideas that the universe is an accident, that human beings are just robots made out of meat, that there is no free will and no way that humans ought to be objectively.

Excerpt:

What do you see as the greatest threat to the next generation?

The greatest threats are the issues covered in Love Thy Body because they involve the family—and children who grow up without a secure, loving family do not do as well in any area of life, including their spiritual and intellectual lives. Practices like contraception, abortion, and artificial reproduction are already creating an attitude that having a child is merely a lifestyle choice, an accessory to enrich adult lives and meet adult needs. The hookup culture is destroying people’s ability to form the secure, exclusive relationships they need to create stable, happy families. Porn is decimating a generation of young people who are literally being trained to objectify others for their own sexual gratification. When they marry, they are shocked—shocked—to discover that they are unable to experience a sexual response with a real live person. They are only able to respond to pornography. Homosexuality and transgenderism are both creating a gender-free society by denying the value and purpose of biological sex as the foundation for gender identity and marriage.

We are often told that these issues won’t affect anyone else, but that is not true. As the law changes, we are all affected. In a free society, certain rights are honored as pre-political rights. That means the state does not create them but only recognizes them as a pre-existing fact. For example, the right to life used to be a pre-political right—something you had just because you were human. But the only way the state could legalize abortion was by first deciding that some humans are not persons with a right to legal protection. The state now decides who qualifies for human rights, apart from biology. That is a huge power grab by the state, and it means we are all at risk. No one has a right to life now by the sheer fact of being human, but only at the dispensation of the state.

In the same way, marriage used to be a pre-political right based on the fact that humans are a sexually reproducing species. But the only way the state could legalize same-sex marriage was by denying the biological basis of marriage and redefining it as a purely emotional commitment, which is what the Supreme Court did in its Obergefell decision. The state no longer merely recognizes marriage as a pre-political right but has claimed the right to decide what marriage is, apart from biology.

Gender used to follow from your biological sex. But the only way the state can treat a trans woman (born male) the same as a biological woman is by dismissing biology as irrelevant. That’s why public schools are enforcing policies telling teachers whom they must call “he” and “she,” regardless of the student’s biological sex.

Same-sex activists say the next step is parenthood. In a same-sex couple, at least one parent is not biologically related to any children they have. So the only way the state can treat same-sex parents the same as opposite-sex parents is by dismissing biology as irrelevant and then substituting a new definition of “parent” (perhaps based on emotional bonds). You will be your child’s parent only at the permission of the state.

And what the state gives, the state can take away. Human rights are no longer “unalienable.” These issues are sold to the public as a way of expanding choice. But in reality, they hand over power to the state.

You can see examples of the state stepping in to “fix” the problems caused by the decline of lasting, stable marriages. Divorce courts control a man’s salary and his rights to communicate with and visit his children. Civil rights commissions bully anyone who doesn’t celebrate they LGBT agenda. Universities punish men for real or imagined bad treatment of women without any criminal investigation or criminal trial. And we are all on the hook for the costs of the breakdown of the family, which results in more crime (for fatherless boys), and more unwanted pregnancies (for fatherless girls). In 2008, it was $112 billion per year, no telling what it is up to now when the out-of-wedlock birth rate is now up to 42%.

Although the secular left’s new view of the body and sexuality seemed to be all goodness and happiness – at least to them –  it’s actually caused a lot of problems, and increased the intervention of the state into our affairs.

 

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

/by
Sexually Transmitted Unease_ How Casual Sex Works Bad Chemistry From Good

Sexually Transmitted Unease: How Casual Sex Works Bad Chemistry From Good

,

By Terrell Clemmons

“Want a Capri Sun?”

Those were the first words he said to her afterward. Rachel White, age fifteen, had been anticipating this moment for at least a year. She’d sneaked out on a snowy school night, shoes in hand. Then, wearing nothing but her wet socks,  Ginuwine playing in the background, it was finally happening! Oh my god, she told herself, this is sex! Just move your hips to Ginuwine. When it was over, he locked eyes with her, opened his mouth … and offered her a kiddie drink in a disposable bag.

Nevertheless, delirious in the afterglow, Rachel shared all the details with her friends the following day at school. Soon though, her delirium morphed into a strange agitation. ‘He’ wasn’t her boyfriend or anyone particularly special. They had been “just talking” – her lingo for “just friends” – and since he was cool and good-looking, Rachel had picked him to be the one to whom she would lose her virginity. Once the deed was done, “I wanted something from him. I thought about him every five minutes.” She called him repeatedly, several times a day until finally, his weary mother asked her to please stop calling. Then depression set in. “I didn’t want to go to school. I didn’t want to eat. And if Ginuwine came on the radio—forget it.”

Rachel later blogged about her experience and found she wasn’t alone in suffering a post-sex funk. Kate responded, describing her first time this way, “He just sort of rolled off me, he was drunk and probably also high, and I just sat there for awhile and stared at the ceiling while he snored. I remember I got up … thinking, ‘That’s it? What the hell just happened?’” Others recounted stories of writing long embarrassing love letters or drunken explosions at parties. Clearly, joining the sexually initiated doesn’t always pan out as expected.

The Neurology of Sex

Any Grandma or psychotherapist worth her salt could have told them that this was bound to happen. In Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children, OB-GYNs Dr. Joe S. McIlhaney Jr., and Dr. Freda McKissic Bush explain, from a neurobiological perspective, why it happens and how. “Scientists are confirming that sex is more than a momentary physical act. It produces powerful, even lifelong, changes in our brains that direct and influence our future to a surprising degree,” they write. A single sexual encounter sets off a cascade of changes in a young brain, and modern imaging technology allows researchers to observe those changes more thoroughly than ever before. Hooked explains what they are discovering.

Three neurochemicals, in particular, are especially involved in sex:

Oxytocin. Oxytocin is the “bonding” chemical. While it is present in both sexes, it’s much more predominant in females. When a boy and girl touch in a meaningful way, even something as simple as a lingering hug, oxytocin is released in the girl’s brain, causing her to desire more of his touch and to feel an increasing bond to him. It also produces feelings of trust in him, whether or not he actually merits it. When sexual intercourse happens, her brain is flooded with oxytocin, causing her to feel connected to him and to continue to need this connection with him, as Rachel discovered. Oxytocin is also released when a mother nurses her newborn, causing similar, though non-sexual, feelings of deep attachment. “The important thing to recognize,” the doctor’s stress, “is that the desire to connect is not just an emotional feeling. Bonding is real… a powerful connection that cannot be undone without great emotional pain.”

Vasopressin. Vasopressin is the bonding chemical for males. Often referred to as “the monogamy molecule,” it hasn’t been as thoroughly studied as oxytocin but is known to play a role in bonding, both to the female sexually and to the children that result. In an article titled, The Two Become One: The Role of Oxytocin and Vasopressin, Dianne S. Vadney explained it this way,”Essentially, vasopressin released after intercourse is significant in that it creates a desire in the male to stay with his mate, inspires a protective sense (in humans, perhaps this is what creates almost a jealous tendency) about his mate, and drives him to protect his territory and his offspring.”

Dopamine. Dopamine is the “feel-good” or “reward” chemical. When we do something exciting, dopamine floods our brain and produces feelings of exhilaration and well-being. Not surprisingly, it also makes us want to repeat the behavior that produced it. Active in both males and females, dopamine is values-neutral, meaning it rewards pleasurable or exciting behaviors without distinguishing between those that are beneficial and those that may be harmful.

Hooked by Sex

“Sex is one of the strongest generators of the dopamine reward,” the Hooked authors point out. This is not inherently bad, but overstimulation can cause the brain to become relatively resistant to it, leading the indiscriminate to engage in more and more of the same behavior to regain the high, not unlike the spiral of addictive drug use. “For this reason, young people particularly are vulnerable to falling into a cycle of dopamine reward for unwise sexual behavior – they can get hooked on it.” But when the relationships are short-lived, the losses due to breakup are felt in the brain centers that feel physical pain and can actually be seen on a brain scan. It’s not hard to see how multiple relationships, each with its own cycle of bonding and breaking, can lead to profound pain, anxiety, and confusion, especially among teens still far from emotional maturity.

The results can be devastating. A series of studies published between 2002-2007 showed that sexually initiated youth are three times more likely to be depressed than their abstaining peers. The girls were three times as likely to have attempted suicide, and the boys were a whopping seven more likely to have done so. The studies accounted for other mitigating factors in their lives, ensuring an accurate comparison with their peers.

Natural Chemistry

Rachel White, who now writes for Cosmopolitan, Jezebel, and other sex-focused outlets, offers this suggestion for avoiding the pain of disappointment after first-time sex: “Maybe we need to throw out the idea of virginity altogether. Maybe we need to toss away the idea that you ‘lose’ something from a single act… Perhaps teaching this would help with those depression stats.” In other words, devalue the sex act altogether, starting with the very first one. Lower your expectations; the dismal thinking goes so that you won’t suffer the pain of disappointment.

Rachel can promote disposable sex until the cows come home, but it will never improve the depression or suicide stats. In fact, it will probably make them worse. It’s impossible for the neurochemical aspects of sex to be turned off. Here’s a better idea: Ponder deeply the remarkable work of oxytocin and vasopressin. Consider how the biochemistry of sex appears to be marvelously fashioned for the purpose of forging marriage and family bonds. See sex that way. And then act accordingly. Go with instead of against your natural chemistry.

And finally, lest the cheap sex authors convince you that sexual restraint equals sexual repression, reflect on the serendipitous, dual sex ministrations of dopamine. Only regular, monogamous sex keeps the dopamine rushes coming, strengthening the marital bond, infusing feelings of personal well-being, and smoothing the inescapable bumps that come with living together and, if fortune smiles, raising children. All that without the pain and fear of breakup.

 

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

/by
God Is Not A Moral Being and the Moral Argument Is Often Wrongheaded

God Is Not A Moral Being and the Moral Argument Is Often Wrongheaded

,

By J. Brian Huffling

God is not a moral being and often the way the moral argument is used is just wrong. What I mean by the former is that God does not abide by moral commands, nor does he fulfill obligations or virtues in the way that humans do. I am also denying that God is his own standard of goodness in the moral sense. To be one’s own standard would be equivalent to being arbitrary since whatever he did would be in accordance with his standard. To say he can’t violate his nature is also unhelpful as nothing can violate its nature. (What does that even mean? If something did something that supposedly “went against its nature,” then it obviously wasn’t against its nature or the action couldn’t have been done.) In this article, I am going to explain what it means for a human to be moral, demonstrate why that doesn’t apply to God, and then show why the moral argument usually doesn’t work but how it could work.

What Does It Mean for A Being to Be Moral?

There are many theories that try to explain what it means for a human to be moral. Hopefully, a Christian would want to maintain a theory that upholds an objective standard of morality and thus deny moral relativism. Divine command theory is one popular approach in Christian circles to argue for an objective basis for morality. Even if this theory were true, it could not account for why God would be moral. It would also not demonstrate any real basis for an action being moral or immoral other than God just stating it as so. However, if divine command theory were true, it would not demonstrate that God is moral since he does not follow commands from another being. (Saying he follows his own commands reduces to being arbitrary and is probably incoherent.)

Other ethical systems that in my opinion are more rationally acceptable and biblical are virtue theory and natural law ethics. The latter comports well with Romans 2:15 which says that the “law is written” on people’s hearts. In other words, we have a built-in conscience. Natural law teaches that humans have a nature and actions that promote the good of that nature are good actions. Conversely, actions that prohibit the good of our human nature are bad. So, a human killing another human to eat him for dinner is evil because of the nature of being a human (he is made in God’s image). However, it is not morally wrong for a human, or other animal, to kill a deer in order to eat it.

In accordance with this human nature are virtues that are cultivated and actualized. Natural law can imbibe Aristotle’s virtue ethics very will, with certain necessary tweaks. One could argue that being sanctified through trials is one way our virtues are realized. The Sermon on the Mount seems to fit very well with virtue theory, that is, on becoming a person of good character.

In short, humans are moral beings because we have a certain nature. We have a law written on our hearts that reflects this moral aspect of our being that God gave us.

God Transcends Moral Categories

But God has no such nature. He has no moral law written on his heart. He does not become more virtuous. He does not live up to some standard of goodness. He is not even his own standard—whatever that even means. To say that he would not do something that would be considered wrong since his character is in accordance with goodness is still to subordinate his character to something else, or to compare it to something “external” to him. Is this not the point of Job? When Job wants to take God to court the obvious question is raised, “Who would be the judge?” God’s answer to Job as to why God allowed such evil to befall Job is basically, “I’m God and you are not.”

But Doesn’t the Bible Say God Is Good?

Because God is not a human he does not have human virtues. God is simply not morally good in the sense of possessing virtues like humans. But the Bible does say that God is good, praiseworthy, loving, etc. And there is a sense in which he is good, but I don’t think this is moral goodness. The Bible often uses various figures of speech and metaphor to talk about God. In fact, the Bible more often than not uses physical terms to describe God. However, orthodox Christians do not think that God is physical, even though there are probably more descriptions of God that seem to indicate him having a material body than being merely a spirit. Until recently, at least for the most part, orthodox Christians have not held that God has emotions like humans; although, the Bible says that God gets angry, jealous, etc. These descriptions of God are anthropomorphic, meaning that they are just ways of describing God in a human language without really being literal.

God is not a human and is not bound by a human body, does not have changing passions/emotions, and is not constrained or bound by human morality. He cannot be moral or immoral since there is no standard that he measures up to or virtues to fulfill. If there were a standard that was not part of him, then he would not be God. And again, to be his own standard borders on incoherence. It wouldn’t matter what he did, he would be completely “in the right.” We only say things like, “God would never do so and so” because we have a notion of what a morally good action looks like on the human level. However, God is not a human. We have a horrible habit as humans of making God like us rather than recognizing that he is not like us. He is infinite, unlimited being. We are finite beings that he has given a particular nature that allows us to change for the better or worse depending on our actions. He cannot change. As Brian Davies says,

The notion of God as subject to duties or obligations (and as acting in accordance with them) would, I think, have been thought of by [Aquinas] as an unfortunate lapse into anthropomorphism, as reducing God to the level of a human creature.

—Davies, Brian. Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil (Kindle Locations 1253-1255). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. (By the way, this is an excellent book that deals with God not being a moral being.)

God Is Good

God is good, in fact, he’s perfect. But he’s not morally perfect as perfection in that sense has the notion of actualizing some moral potential (or being his own perfect standard which I have already criticized as being incoherent and arbitrary). He is metaphysically good and perfect. He is perfect in the sense that he is complete being and lacks nothing. Further, all other perfections that are found in creatures as effects pre-exist in a way in him as the cause. This even includes goodness in the area of morality and virtues, but without making him moral in the way that we are. Matter pre-exists in God as its cause without God being material. But there is a sense in which that God can be said to have virtues, but in a very analogous kind of way.

In Summa Theologiae I. 21. 1 and Summa Contra Gentiles 1.92, 1.93, and 1.94 Aquinas talks about how certain virtues can be said of God. For example, God is said to be just because he gives to people what they deserve. This is because for a man to be just is to give people what they deserve, so we analogously say that God is just. However, he does not owe us anything. Rather, he has constituted us in such a way that we require certain goods to fulfill what God wants us to be. Thus, since God has made us in such a way, he gives us what is required to fulfill this goal. But this does not demonstrate that God is a moral being in the sense of having to act in a certain way lest he be in violation of a moral law. The moral law that we talk about for humans is part of our nature. God has no such nature that is constituted of a moral law and there is no law he is subservient to. He does what he wills and that is as far as it goes. He is not judged by any standard.

The Moral Argument

So how does this relate to the moral argument? Arguments that depend on some reasoning that we are moral because we share in God’s moral goodness are on the wrong track. We are not moral because we are somehow tethered to God’s morality. We are also not moral because we are made in his image. We are made in his image, but as already argued, he is not moral in the sense that we are. We shouldn’t attribute characteristics to God because we have them and are said to be in his image. We should look to him to see how we are in his image, not make him into our image. So the moral argument needs to say something different than our morality needs to be accounted for in a being who is also moral.

But the moral argument can be successful, but probably as part of a cosmological argument. Since we are beings with an objective nature that nature needs accounting for. The objective goodness that we have and are obligated to also needs accounting for. It can’t be accounted for by us since the cause for such a nature with objective moral obligations needs an “external” grounding. The conclusion of such reasoning would be a demonstration of God’s existence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Christians today need to be very careful how we talk about God’s morality. There is an analogous way in which we can talk about God has having virtues, as Aquinas says. However, this does not translate into God being moral in the way that we are. God is not a human and is thus not bound by human morality. He transcends humanity and our morality. Our perfections do pre-exist in him, but so do all good perfections. We need to recognize that God is not in the image of man. We are in his image. He is not a cosmic superman. He is the transcendent Creator and Sustainer of all finite being.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kMK9Wf

/by
Are You Good Enough For Heaven

Are You Good Enough For Heaven?

,

by Al Serrato

“Avast yer jabberin, ya bunch a bilge rats!”

The voice sounded strange as it reached into the hallway. The speaker was apparently trying to make a point. “Yer division a booty must be… “he paused to consider his words, “more equitable if ye be wanting to sail with me.”

He had my attention. I was at a work conference in a hotel, wandering the halls during a break when I happened across this conference room. I peeked inside. It could have been a scene from the latest Pirates movie. Men of various ages with lots of facial hair, many dressed in striped pants, with the occasional peg leg and hook hand. Yes, I had stumbled across a pirates’ convention, the 350th annual, it seemed, from the schedule which I found posted outside.

The speaker’s topic was ethics. He went on to explain what an equitable share of booty amounted to, in his view, using a very modern looking PowerPoint presentation to punctuate his points.

I caught up with him at the break and asked if he had time for a few questions. He seemed a bit suspicious, what with my business casual attire, but nonetheless willing.

“Seriously,” I began. “Ethics for pirates? I mean, for centuries you guys have been boarding and capturing and enslaving people without much regard for ethics. You’ve been known to rape, pillage, and plunder, and your personal hygiene is … not the best.” I quickly ended, seeing that I was crossing a line.

A hurt look crossed his face. “Yer words be stingin,” he began, but my words were nothing compared to his breath. I took a step back and tried not to stare at the parrot on his shoulder. “I don’t suppose ye know bout all the good that we do. Why ar ann’l ball raises thousands for the widows n’orphns fund, and we do lots of behind the scenes work ye never be aware of. Last year alone, we returned almost 30 percent of our captured booty to charitable organizations.”

“Is that a fact?” I asked. “I had no idea. But,” I persisted, “this is stuff that you’re stealing.”

“We make no excuses for that, m’lad. But we’ve been pretty transparent about that from the beginning, ain’t we? After all, ye had no trouble spotting us for who we are. If ye want the real thievin’ ones, it’s the bankers and lawyers ye want to be houndin…” He pointed down the hall to the lawyers’ convention I had been attending.

Yes, of course, I’m making this up. But I think there is a valid point here to be made. Human beings have an amazing capacity to judge themselves on a curve. Pirates no doubt convince themselves that they are somehow justified in doing what they do. They may think of the harm they suffered when younger or may feel that life dealt them the hand that they play. And they no doubt have a set of ethics that they follow, however uncivilized it may seem to us. And many, if pressed, would seek to justify their behavior by reference to all the things they don’t do. “Sure, we kill on occasion. But only those who don’t surrender, or those who for whatever reason need killing.” This is the human condition, whether in a high school, at the office, on a pirate ship, or in a prison. We don’t seem to have the capacity to see ourselves for what we truly are.

What does any of this have to do with Christian apologetics? Just this: the number one response of nonbelievers as to why they don’t worry about the afterlife goes something like this. “I don’t know if there is a God, but if there is, he will see all the good that I do and accept me. So, I’m not worried. A good God will see that I am living a good life.”

But holding this view is not that different than the pirates in the analogy above. Compared to others of that ilk, an individual pirate might seem like a good guy. But that hardly would qualify him for life in a peaceful and civilized society. His problem isn’t how he compares to his fellows, but how he measures up to the place he’s trying to get to. He may think himself “good” when in an objective sense he is anything but. Similarly, many people today believe they have a proper sense of what “good” human behavior is, but how can they know for sure when they are mired in the corruption of their nature? And more importantly, have they given any thought to what “perfect” behavior requires? What a perfect being might use to measure admission to His realm?

It’s easy for us to pat ourselves on the back for our goodness. But perhaps we are a bit too smug. Our persistent feelings of guilt serve as a guide – a reminder – that all is not well. They serve to call us to account to the One who left us here, and who expects something of us if we are to be in a relationship with Him. These feelings of guilt provide the backdrop of bad news, the kind of news from which we naturally shy away. The kind of bad news that sets the stage for the ultimate Good News of the gospel.

So, next time you encounter this response, you might suggest that the nonbeliever consider his frame of reference. Immersed in a sinful culture, inhabiting flesh and blood bodies whose weakness overcomes the willingness of the spirit, we may be as unable to see ourselves for what we truly are as the fictional pirates above would be. In short, we may not be in the best position to know if we are as “good” as we pretend.

Fortunately, there is a better answer, one that does not require us to earn our way back to God’s presence. But until we see our need for a Savior, we’re not likely to find the answer that is waiting to set us free.

 

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

/by