By Josh Klein
We’ve been duped.
I cannot think of another way to put it. The Christian right has been duped.
Deceived by what? You may ask.
The separation of Church and State.
What if I told you that the phrase “separation of Church and State” was found nowhere in the constitution or the Bill of Rights?
It’s true.
Now, we’ve constantly been told that the first amendment of the Constitution is where we get the phrase. But how? And was it to protect the Church or the State?
Commonly, the ACLU and other left-wing advocates have indicated that separation of Church and State is meant to keep religious speech and thought out of the public sphere. They argue that individuals with deeply held religious beliefs should not let their religious morals dictate their policies. Of course, this all comes to a head as Donald Trump is appointing a devout Catholic with a record on pro-life rulings to the Supreme Court. Long time Senator Dianne Feinstein implicated that such beliefs were a danger to the constitution when she said to Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you,”[1] whatever that means. The argument of course only applies to those on the right side of the aisle. Those on the left are encouraged to use their voices and religion to convince the masses. For instance, Mayor of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg constantly used his religious opinions to back up his political motives[2]. Advocates for nationalized healthcare have also often used religious language to advocate for the socialization of the healthcare system. But when it comes to voices speaking out against abortion or for individual responsibility based on scripture charges of conflating “church and state” abound. And too many have been duped into believing that to be the case.
Churches have been sidelined in many a political discourse at the use of the words “separation of Church and State.” Prayers before football games have been cause for litigation since the 1990s[3]. Churches threatened with the loss of tax-exempt status for entering the political sphere[4] and non-prophets have been threatened as well. Public schools have been shamed into eliminating public prayer before events and again, the hot button topic of the day is the religious affiliation of a future Supreme Court justice.
But what does “separation of Church and State” mean? Where did it come from? Why is it important? And, as a Christian, is it really not okay to use our faith in determining political engagement? And where is the pastor’s role in all of this?
These are important questions in this day and age, and for too long the Church has abdicated the responsibility for answering these questions to the public sphere.
Where does “separation of Church and State” come from? And what was its purpose?
Many might say it comes from the constitution. They are wrong. That does not mean the concept does not reside in the constitution. It does. However, to adequately understand what the term was meant to establish one must know where it comes from what part of the constitution is it derived.
The term itself was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter that he wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 in which he commends the first amendment and implies that it is the Church, not the State, that is sought to be protected by it. He says, “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that acts of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”[5]
The history of the conversation is even more interesting. The Danbury Baptists were concerned about their religious freedom and penned a letter to Jefferson prior to his inauguration into office. Jefferson’s response was to insure them that the practice of religion was, in fact, an inalienable right guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution.
The term then became codified as part of the First Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in 1878. Thus, the confusion for many that it is a part of the constitution when the words do not appear in the writings.
But what does all of this mean?
It simply means that, as Jefferson wrote to reassure the Danbury Baptists, the desire to not establish a national religion was an effort to protect the Church (religions), not the State.
In other words, our public discourse has missed the point. It is not to separate religion from government completely, but to separate governmental control from religion completely. Protect people’s right to worship, not to protect the government’s atheism because, as we shall see, the government was not intended to be run atheistically.
And this principle was understood by the founding fathers.
They knew that a nation built on the fundamental idea that God (the creator) endowed each individual with inalienable rights must incorporate religious thought and ethics in the way it governed. That is, in fact, a religious statement!
John Adams famously said this in a letter in 1798 “Because we have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by – morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition – Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People” (emphasis mine).[6]
Two of the authors of the constitution seem to indicate the opposite of our current civil discourse. The guiding of our government can only be adequately done through moral and religious convictions. The freedom to worship is not a positive right given by our government, it is a negative right given us by our Creator. The government’s role is not to tell us who or what we ought to worship, or how, but to protect our God-given rights to worship.
So what sense does it make then that government would make any statements curbing speech or reference to God (any god for that matter) in a public setting? Also, given the history of our constitutional writers, would they not be pleased with the selection of justices that exhibit a moral and religious standing?
Would the founding fathers be opposed to public discourse that not only mentioned God but also offered to worship God? According to Jefferson and Adams, they would not. The only objection they may have is if the government made a law that forced others to worship a certain way.
How then should Christians and the Church act politicly?
It is clear, at least to me, that the above evidence (and there is plenty more, but for the sake of space we will rest the case there) would indicate not only a prohibition on the government from intervening in worship but also an encouragement from government for religious entities to engage with politics.
Religious institutions, churches, pastors, and the like should be outspoken and engaged politically. So long as no laws are being passed to infringe on a person’s right to worship whomever or whatever they choose then religious engagement should be robust, not anathema.
But, as Christians, we are not bound to the constraints of the constitution but by the constraints of scripture. How ought we engage in public life in a way that is honoring to God? Just because it is legal does not mean it is biblical.
This is a difficult question to answer, in part because the cultural context of 1st century Rome is so politically different than 21st century America, as well as the ambiguity with which Jesus carried himself on political matters. However, I do think there is a solid biblical precedent for the believer to follow.
On a personal and a corporate level, I believe the engagement can look very similar.
As a Pastor, I seek to understand what the leadership in the church did politically throughout the scriptures. First, I see a group of believers that were fairly apolitical but also understood their role as citizens. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 both indicate that a humble submission to the authorities is necessary to maintain a good witness as well as to best glorify God. However, Acts 5 would indicate that there are exceptions to this sort of submission. Those exceptions take place when the government is dictating that we must not worship our God and/or dictates that preaching the gospel is antithetical to the government’s legal system. In both cases, it seems clear throughout scripture that disobedience of man-made institutions to glorify God is not only acceptable but required.
Given what was established by the constitution, it seems that the freedom we experience in this country is a cause for celebration and humble submission to our governmental authorities, but it also means that we ought not abdicate our political responsibilities at a personal or corporate level.
The laws of our great nation were meant to encourage interaction with the political sphere from the religious sphere. The religious sphere was expected to influence the political sphere, though the political sphere was to refrain from influencing the religious!
For far too long we have let empty words about supposed Christian political ethics bind our consciences. Religion was always intended to be the bulwark of the American social fabric. Thus, as Christians, we should feel free to engage with politics on a religious level.
Whether or not to be overtly political from the pulpit or from within a religious organization then transfers not from a Romans 13 issue but to a Romans 14 issue. This is an area where each individual congregation must make its decision, but to forbid all churches from acting in politics seems unconstitutional and unbiblical.
As a pastor, I also seek to take my cues from the Apostle Paul on this matter. He was not afraid to use his political rights as a citizen of Rome to protect himself and further the gospel (Acts 22:22-29). Why are we so hesitant to exercise our rights? Rights given by God and recognized by the American Constitution are far more available to us than they were to Paul?
Because we have been told that we are not good Christians if we are also patriotic. Now, there is an argument that can be made and should be made, for those that put their country above their God. This dogmatic patriotism is a form of idolatry and thus, a sin.
But these are not the people I am addressing in this section.
It is not anti-Christian to be pro-American (see, Should Christians Be Against Christian Nationalism?). I do think that Christians ought to be honest about the moral failings of America’s past and present; however, to be a proud citizen of the country and to participate in that citizenship appropriately is not only good but godly. Paul exemplified this for us through his life and writings. He was a proud Roman but not without a critique of Roman culture when it cut against the grain of God’s holiness. Yet somehow, there is a movement seeking to convince the Christian right that any sort of patriotism is idolatry and that exuberant participation in the American system of government is complicity in all its evils, real or imaginary. Of course, the same standard is not set for the Christian left, which would laud the abhorrent practices of abortion and gender transitioning among children within our own culture.
In a sense, the use of “separation of Church and State” as a political weapon against Christians has been effective. No loving Christian worth his or her salt would endeavor to be considered politically motivated in their religious practices and ideology, so we tend to take the critiques to heart and placate the complaints with mea culpas aplenty. It is time that we stand for our rights as citizens of America and as godly disciples within that same vein.
This means a thoughtful and robust engagement with politics from a Christian perspective should be expected from our churches, and not simply the churches that correspond with the popular liberal narratives. We must no longer be afraid of the charge of politicization of the gospel when, in fact, it is in standing for the gospel that we embrace the political realm, especially in America. In no other land throughout history and time has the Christian been given such a lofty platform as the platform of the first amendment.
Like Paul, who used his Romans citizenry as a means to explicate the gospel throughout the empire, we also must seek to use our American citizenry to freely and unapologetically declare the truth to the masses. If we are condemned for doing good amidst our national discourse, then we have fulfilled 1 Peter 2 in its fullness.
It is not only within our rights as citizens of this country to fight back against the misuse of the first amendment against religious institutions; it is also liberty afforded to us through scripture and the example of other godly people that came before us. Let us not acquiesce to the loud narratives about what churches can and cannot do amidst the political landscape, but let us boldly preach the gospel and the truth of biblical justice and morality in accordance with scripture and in submission to the original authors of our nation’s founding document. In doing so, we do not espouse hypocrisy, nor do we cheapen the gospel through politics. In fact, I would argue that scripture indicates the opposite of those charges is true. If we are to be salt and light, we must be salt and light in all spheres of culture. Preserving the good and exposing the vile for that is what we use salt and light to accomplish, yes, even in and perhaps especially in the political realm.
Notes
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/feinstein-the-dogma-lives-loudly-within-you-and-thats-a-concern/2017/09/07/04303fda-93cb-11e7-8482-8dc9a7af29f9_video.html
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/politics/pete-buttigieg-religious-journey/index.html
[3] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-ohio-school-district-over-football-team-prayers
[4] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
[5] https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
[6] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set, DVD Set, mp4 Download Set by Frank Turek
American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace
Josh Klein is an ordained minister from Omaha, Nebraska with 12 years of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/NgPSSpJ
No one can be Happy without this
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Unhappy? It’s impossible to be happy unless you are thankful. Frank uses the book of Romans and common sense to show why. Along the way, Frank addresses the politically incorrect passages in Romans 1 and asks questions to people who disagree with Paul and Jesus. Frank also addresses the following questions listeners have:
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
God Is Greater Than Us. Always.
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bob Perry
Every year at Thanksgiving, we can count on seeing lists of things people are thankful for. I understand the desire to be grateful for all our blessings. There is no doubt about the fact that too many of us take those kinds of things for granted. It is also understandable that the religious origins of Thanksgiving compel us to tie our thankfulness to God. But being grateful seems to come with a parallel assumption that being “blessed” means being healthy, wealthy, and happy. God wants us to have our “best life now.”
When Culture Invades The Church
Being one that has his antennae up to detect cultural assumptions that find their way into the church, it occurred to me that this might be one of them. After all, we are called to have “the mind of Christ.” Everyone agrees on that. But it was Christ who said, “In this world, you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
So, if Jesus promised us we would have trouble:
I’m wondering why we would expect the Christian life to be without it …
I’m wondering why we think we deserve “our best life now”…
I’m wondering why we would think the words we speak have the power to make things turn out the way we desire them to be when Jesus never said any such thing…
Why does our thankfulness always seem to depend on our happiness? And why is it that it is only when we are happy that we attach the heartfelt announcement that “God is so good!” to the Thanksgiving lists we make?
What About The Unpleasant Things?
One of the biggest objections to the existence of God is that there is evil and suffering in the world. Critics of Christianity wonder how a good God could allow us to experience these if he claims to love us so much?
It’s a good question. And, to be consistent, we ought to be able to answer it. So, I decided to make a Thanksgiving list of my own.
Rousing A Deaf World
This may seem like a weird list but I made it for a reason. You see, I believe Joni Eareckson Tada who says that the accident that broke her neck and has left her a quadriplegic since she was a teenager, “was the best thing that ever happened to her.” The suffering she has experienced forced her to question the purpose of her life. And in her search for purpose, she sought and found God.
I believe C. S. Lewis when he says that
I believe that if James, the brother of Jesus can be beaten, taken to the top of the Jerusalem Temple and thrown off, then stoned to death because he survived the fall; if Peter can endure the sufferings we learn of in his epistles and then die crucified upside down; if Paul can be beaten, tortured and left for dead in a ditch outside Lystra, then stoned, imprisoned and beheaded on a Roman street, I believe him when he writes that, “we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope …” (Romans 5:3-4)
The early church spread and grew because it was being persecuted. If suffering was good enough for the apostles, I’m not sure why it isn’t good enough for me.
Preaching What We May Practice
Of course, all of this is easy to say sitting here in my home office in my suburban American neighborhood. But sooner or later I may be forced to practice what it is so very easy for me to preach. I believe these are the kinds of things we ought to be thinking about now. Because if the suffering starts, that is not the time to start wrestling with its purpose. It’s hard to understand why your life is in turmoil when you’re looking at it from inside the storm.
Jesus Christ sweated blood. He was flogged and beaten mercilessly and then nailed to a cross to hang there until he died. If being sanctified means being made more like Christ, I think we should stop thinking that suffering is not for us. Maybe we should start thinking about what it really means to be sanctified.
The Purpose Of Pain
No one likes pain. But we should be contemplating its purpose before we have to experience it. And that means trusting that God created this world to annihilate evil, suffering, and pain forever. His purpose for this life centers on him, not us. Getting sanctified means developing eternal virtues like charity, compassion, patience, courage, and humility.
Happiness is not a virtue.
So this Thanksgiving, I say we start telling the truth. Instead of just expecting the pleasure, let’s start anticipating the pain. And let’s start looking to show more compassion for those who already are experiencing it. Let’s do so with full knowledge of the reason we are all called to endure it — because it leads to our transformation into someone better.
As a good friend of mine recently pointed out, when you raise your hands in praise and thanksgiving, you form a “greater-than sign” that puts God in his proper place, and you in yours.
Let’s remember that regardless of our circumstances, we have an eternal purpose. It is bigger than us. And God is good whether we’re doing well at the moment or not. Let’s raise our hands with gratitude. But let’s be thankful for that too.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/vgCEtCs
Gratitude is Easy…Contentment is Hard
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
Every year between Halloween and Thanksgiving, I feel a little uneasy about the countdown of blessings so many people do. Something seems slightly “off” about it, but I’ve never been able to put my finger on what it is.
It’s like a gallon of milk that hasn’t actually expired. You know it should be good, but there’s enough of a strange scent that you pass it to the nearest person and ask them to confirm that it, indeed, does not smell right. (Why do we always do that?!)
I think I’ve finally put my finger on where the funny smell is coming from. It’s not that there is anything wrong with focusing on giving thanks every November. It’s great to have the reminder to think about the many wonderful things we have in our lives, and the Bible clearly calls us to give thanks to the Lord in all circumstances.
But the smell that’s slightly off for me is that gratitude alone is pretty easy.
It doesn’t require much sacrifice or change of heart to take inventory of our blessings. Gratitude is simply a measure of our perspective on the things we already have, and most of us can easily embrace those things with a seasonal reminder.
Gratitude is not what most of us struggle with most, however. It’s the closely related cousin named contentment that causes far more consternation.
While gratitude is a measure of our perspective on the things we already have, contentment is a measure of our perspective on the things we don’t have. It’s being able to say we want nothing more no matter how much or little we have.
But how is that possible? How can we ever genuinely say that we could want no more if we were to have almost nothing?
Such true contentment is only possible with a full dependence on Jesus. Every earthly thing can be taken from us, but Jesus can never be. We can always trust that He is all we need because His promises are for eternity; our earthly time is but a mist (James 4:14).
It’s amazing that as a society we go from gratitude in November to wanting more, more, more in December. What’s more amazing is that we’ve already been given the most we can have: the birth of Jesus.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the November counting of blessings naturally segued into the December counting of all the things we don’t need in light of the birth of Jesus?
I don’t need security. Or more money. Or more excitement. Or more kids. Or a different job. Or different schools for my kids. Or anything else.
I simply need the promise of an eternity with God, which is exactly what Jesus’ birth brought.
When we fully appreciate the promise that Christmas offers, we can say we are thankful for all we have and need nothing more. It is this gratitude with contentment that results in complete and lasting joy.
Each day this month, talk to your kids about something they don’t need in this world in light of the birth of Jesus. On Christmas, joyfully celebrate that we have ALL we will ever need in Him.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/vgXhmSE
Why Celebrate Thanksgiving?
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bernard Mauser
Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. Philippians 4:6
Thanksgiving means different things to different people. Some say it is about food, family, and football. Others, that it’s a break from work or a time to stand outside of your favorite store to get Christmas gifts for a great price. Tied up with this celebration in history is the religious element of giving thanks to God for His blessings.
There are two things to keep in mind about Thanksgiving. First, there is the holiday that people celebrate around the world. Second, there is the command that Christians are to be people who constantly give thanks in every situation. Although the history of the holiday is interesting, the more important is the second. Christians recognize, as did our founders, Thanksgiving should be a time to thank the true Ruler of the nations. Let’s look at both the historical and the Christian background.
First, when you ask kids what they know about Thanksgiving they’ll talk about turkey and Pilgrims. The first Thanksgiving in the New World was celebrated with the Pilgrims in 1621. There are only two original sources that mention this celebration. We discover this report (using modern spelling) from Edward Winslow:
“our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.”[1]
William Bradford adds, “besides waterfowl there was a great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many.”[2] We find the original celebration lasted three days and the menu included deer, fowl, and turkey.
George Washington issued the following proclamation of Thanksgiving on October 3, 1789 to God for his protection and the blessings God has conferred upon us as a nation:
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington[3]
After this time, various leaders in America proclaimed different days of Thanksgiving to be held throughout the United States. Yet there was no fixed day upon which all the nation would devote to such an observance until a woman named Sarah Josepha Hale wrote a letter to Lincoln which implored him to make “Thanksgiving a National and fixed Union Festival…. To become permanently an American custom and institution.”[4] On October 3, 1863, Lincoln declared a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens” to be held the last Thursday of November. It has been held on this day in America ever since.
Long before any of these celebrations in America, the Israelites had instituted peace offerings to God as a way of giving thanks. Moses instructed the Israelites in Leviticus 7 about these peace offerings in order to maintain fellowship with God. This practice continued throughout history in many nations as men have recognized both that God is the ruler of all the nations and that every good and perfect gift comes from Him. (James 1:17) The Thanksgiving holiday is an excellent time to remind us of this important outflow of thanksgiving that should be sewn into every part of every day. Let us never go a day without giving our Maker and Ruler both thanks and praise.
Notes
[1] https://www.pilgrimhall.org/pdf/TG_What_Happened_in_1621.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091
[4] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Bernard Mauser became a Christian in 1999 after trying to refute Christianity. Upon finding out Christianity is true, I went on for my first Masters at Southern Evangelical Seminary (in Christian Apologetics) and completed my second Masters and Ph.D. (in Philosophy) at Marquette University. His professional publications are in the areas of natural law ethics, religious pluralism, and Biblical hermeneutics.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/7gXs6D6
Live Not by Lies with Rod Dreher
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
For years, émigrés from the former Soviet bloc have been telling New York Times best-selling author, Rod Dreher they see telltale signs of “soft” totalitarianism cropping up in America. In his new book, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents, Dreher amplifies the alarm sounded by these brave men. “America is sleepwalking into soft totalitarianism. If we ignore the prophetic voices of those who survived Communism, we deserve what we get,” says Dreher. We are walking into a trap, and the solution is much more than politics.
Mr. Dreher joins Frank to expose this encroaching problem and offer some solutions. All Christians need to listen to this! If you begin to live by lies now, you will not resist when you’re pressured to deny Christ.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
How Should Christians Think About The Transgender Movement?
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Ryan Leasure
In this post, we’re asking the question: How should Christians think about the Transgender Movement? In many respects, this is a difficult question to answer because the movement is constantly in flux and definitions frequently change. Be that as it may, Christians must do their best to engage Transgenderism from a biblical worldview.
God’s Good Creation
From the outset, we must acknowledge that Transgenderism was not part of God’s pre-fallen creation. Not only did God create both male and female as a complementary pair, his assessment of his creation was that “it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). Both male and female, image-bearers of God, in perfect fellowship with God and each other.
In addition to their harmony with God and each other, both man and woman had perfect harmony with their bodies. Genesis 2:25 tells us that “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” No disgust or confusion existed in humanity’s gender identity. They were comfortable in their own skin. So much so, that nudity was an afterthought.
Corruption Of Sin
Sadly, paradise was lost. Man and woman chose to usurp the lordship of God and declare themselves to be their own lords. Instead of submitting to God’s good direction, they carved out a new one for themselves. Unfortunately, we’ve been doing the same thing ever since — defying God’s authority and calling our own shots.
Immediately after the first humans sinned, the way they interacted with the world shifted dramatically. Genesis 3:7 reports this shift: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” Before the fall, naked and unashamed. After the fall, bodily shame.
They experienced this shame, not simply because their bodies began a long journey of decay, but because sin ransacked their minds. Jeremiah says it most succinctly, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). As a result, we can’t always trust our thoughts and feelings because sin has corrupted them.
At root, this is the underlying cause of the Transgender movement. We are a people who have been so radically affected by sin’s corruption, that we’ve become uncomfortable with our own bodies. This is especially the case for Transgender individuals who experience gender dysphoria.
Definitions
In order to think biblically about the Transgender Movement, we must have a basic understanding of the following definitions:1
Sex — Refers to one’s biological makeup and composition (XX or XY chromosome).
Gender Identity — A person’s self-perception of whether they are male or female (or something else entirely).
Gender Dysphoria — A mismatch between the gender that matched one’s biological sex and the gender one feels oneself to be.
Cisgender — A term used to refer to people who have a match between their biological sex and their personal gender identity.
Transgender — A term used to refer to individuals who identify or express a gender identity that does not match their biological sex.
The Perfect Storm
In order for Transgenderism to gain a footing in western culture, several factors had to coalesce to provide the proper soil for the movement to sprout.2 The first factor is the culture’s embrace of relativism. Relativism is the view that objective truth does not exist. Instead, everyone experiences their own individual truth. Hence, phrases such as “you can’t tell me what to do” or “you live your truth and I’ll live mine” pervade the cultural landscape.
Another factor is our post-Christian society. It’s no surprise that our culture is running away from its Christian roots at a rapid pace. While residual effects still linger, the dominating forces our our culture — the university, the media, and the entertainment industry — are increasingly leading us away from Christianity’s influence.
A third factor is our embrace of the sexual revolution. With the rise of no-fault divorce, the pill, and the separation of sex from procreation in general, western culture has embraced the mantra “if it feels good, do it.” That is to say, no sexual boundaries exist anymore except a consenting partner.
And fourth, a gnostic view of reality undergirds the Transgender Movement. The ancient heresy of gnosticism taught that the physical world is evil, while only the spiritual is good. In the same way, Transgenderism has embraced the idea that one’s feelings ought to trump one’s biology.
The combination of these various factors has provided the perfect storm for the rise of the Transgender Movement.
What Transgender Activists Won’t Tell You
I recently read an op-ed in the New York Times titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy.” The author, Andrea Long Chu begins with a shocking admission:
Notice how Chu admits that the surgery won’t actually reassign sex. Chu’s body will regard the vagina as a mere wound which will require ongoing treatment. That is to say, all that surgery and cross-sex hormones can do is provide cosmetic changes. They cannot change one’s chromosomes. People who undergo sex reassignment surgery, therefore, do not become the opposite sex. They simply masculinize or feminize themselves.
While the activists want to paint a beautiful picture of the Transgender Movement, the reality is much, much darker. Chu goes on to state in the article, “I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones. . . . Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began my transition.” Statements like these ought to grieve us. People like Chu deal with deep emotional pain and they deserve our most sincere compassion. Gender dysphoria is no joke, and we ought not treat it lightly. What this article makes clear, though, is that transitioning away from one’s biological gender is not the solution to one’s problems. In fact, it often makes one feel worse.
Chu writes, “I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.” Sadly, this is a reality for many Transgender people. Studies show, that no matter how accepting one’s culture is, risk of suicide remains astronomically high for those who undergo sex reassignment surgery.
I don’t mention any of these points lightly. I’m grieved over the pain many experience. But if there’s anything that we can learn from stories like Chu’s, it’s that embracing Transgenderism is not the solution.
Ramifications
While the Transgender Movement touts its desire to make sure everyone gets fair treatment, the reality is that the movement mows down anyone in its path. Consider Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker, former director of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and its Gender Identity Clinic (GIC). While Zucker himself was not opposed to the Transgender Movement, activists pushed for his termination because he was insufficiently pro-trans. His sin? He believed that we should be cautious when transitioning children. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) pressured the Canadian government into shutting down his practice despite that fact that his patients gave him raving reviews.3
Of course, this raises this issue of children who experience gender dysphoria. Unfortunately, activists push for kids to transition despite the fact that 80-95% of all kids who experience gender dysphoria grow out it.4 As part of the treatment plan, they urge puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Once kids reach the age of eighteen, then they can get sex-reassignment surgery if they like. But in what world with any moral decency is it appropriate to manipulate children’s physiology like this, not to mention their emotional state?
Bathrooms and locker rooms have also been front and center of this conversation. While the issue is probably most significant for schools, the debate went national with the North Carolina bathroom bill which stated that Transgender individuals had to have their birth certificate changed to their new preferred gender before they were allowed to use the opposite bathroom. This led to a massive outcry by cultural elites. PayPal terminated their expansion plans in North Carolina over this human rights violation. Of course, they kept their international headquarters in Singapore where private, homosexual sex will get you a two-year prison sentence.
Sports is another area affected by the Transgender Movement. Recently, Laurel Hubbard, formerly known as Gavin, won two gold medals in weightlifting at the Pacific Games. In Texas, Mack Beggs won her second straight wrestling state championship. Mack is biologically female, but transitioned to a male a few years ago by receiving testosterone injections. Mack went 36-0 in her final season. Controversies also surround Transgender track and field athletes because of their unfair advantage over biological females. And then there’s a Transgender UFC fighter who cracked an opponent’s skull and sent her to the hospital to receive treatment for severe head injuries.
In the end, the Transgender Movement isn’t all about fair and equal treatment. It holds no prisoners for anyone who opposes it. Doctors, employers, and politicians must toe the line lest they encounter the wrath of the activists. But perhaps the biggest victims of the movement are girls and women. Not only has their privacy been violated by allowing biological males to share locker rooms with them, they are also put at unfair advantages athletically having to compete against bigger, faster, stronger men.
Rebellion Against Our Maker
Deuteronomy 22:5 states, “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” At root, the problem is a rejection of God’s creative design. God made us male and female (Gen. 1:27), and the very small number of intersex cases doesn’t undermine that.5
The command in Deuteronomy 22:5 couldn’t be any clearer. Don’t reject God’s biological design for you by pretending to be something you are not. Just like Adam and Eve, Transgenderism is a rejection of God’s lordship over us. It shakes its fist back at God and says “don’t tell me what to do!”
This rejection only comes by a willful suppression of the truth. Even though God has revealed his plans for sex in nature, people have chosen to go in a different direction. We read in Romans 1:24-25, “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”
Concluding Thoughts
Gender dysphoria is a real issue that has caused untold thousands deep emotional distress. As Christians, we should be sympathetic towards these unique struggles and provide support and encouragement with a spirit of grace. In my next post, I will go a bit further into this by asking: How should Christians lovingly engage those with same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria?
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/ogSEK4E
Divine Impassibility: God As Our Unaffected Fortress
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Huffling
Several of my previous blogs have dealt with divine simplicity and some objections to the doctrine. As I have written, it is the most important divine attribute, even if it is hotly debated.
Those who accept simplicity are on a completely different theological trajectory from those who reject it.
I would argue that its acceptance puts one on the trajectory to classical theism while its denial puts one on the trajectory to process theology since its rejection implies or outright states that God changes and is thus in a process. If simplicity is true, then God is without potency, or the potential to change. If he is without the potential to change, then by definition he cannot change—it is impossible. He is thus immutable. He is in a state of being, not in a state of becoming.
This leads to another important doctrine, and almost as disputed as divine simplicity: divine impassibility. If God cannot change, then he cannot be affected by anything in a passive way. We cannot make God any different than he is. We don’t make him happy, sad, upset, etc. We don’t add or take away from him in any way. In other words, he is impassible.
In short, this doctrine denies there are passions in God that are changed by his creation. God does not have human emotions. Stating this doctrine, especially to those who have never heard it, usually upsets people. They tend to get emotional about it. After all, doesn’t the Bible teach that God gets angry, jealous, pleased, and the like? Yes, it does. It also teaches that God has a body if we take it literally. God “went down” to Sodom and Gomorrah to see what they were doing (Gen. 19). God is said to have nostrils (Ex. 15:8), ears (2 Sam. 22:7), fingers (Ps. 8:3), and many other body parts. However, orthodox Christians do not believe that the Bible is literal when it says this. After all, John 4:24 says “God is Spirit.” So, if the Bible uses such figurative terms for God having a body, why wouldn’t we take the emotional language to be just as figurative? Historically passions have been tied to physical bodies.
Since God is not physical, he has no passions.
But how do we know that the passages that talk about God being physical aren’t literal, and the passages that talk about him being spiritual aren’t figurative? The answer is in one word: philosophy. We use our philosophical views to interpret Scripture. Since we have arguments and reasons to believe that God is immaterial, eternal, immutable, omnipresent, etc., Scriptures that describe God in contradictory ways to these attributes must be figurative. This should not be surprising given the fact that the Bible tells us that we can know God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, [which] have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1: 20).
So, what does the Bible mean when it says things like God is angry or jealous? It is using figurative language to express a literal truth about God. God is described as angry because he brings about effects and results in a similar way that angry people do, such as wrath, judgment, and destruction. He is said to be jealous since he is against his people going after other gods. This is similar to describing God as a fortress. It should be obvious that God is not made of brick and mortar, but he is similar to a fortress in that he is immovable and stable.
Since the Bible is not a philosophy or theology textbook but rather a collection of letters to his people, it is not surprising that it describes God in such figurative ways. This is really not avoidable. Most people don’t have the time or inclination to study God on a metaphysical level. Thus, the writers of the Bible wrote it so that the words would resonate with its readers. They could have written a dissertation on God being immutable, or they could just say that God is a fortress or a rock. These figurative descriptions resonate with people since figurative language is so highly used. The same is the case with God being angry about sin. We all know what that means. It means that God is against sin and he takes action against it. Even if one didn’t have the metaphysical background to recognize the figurative use of the language, he would still be right in knowing that in some way God is against sin.
Let me say a word about the incarnation as it usually comes up in discussions on divine impassibility. Divine impassibility has only been attributed to the divine nature. It does not hold that Jesus’ human nature is without passions or is immutable. The one person of Jesus has two natures: divine and human. They are not confused (do not overlap). The divine nature is wholly divine while the human nature is wholly human (without sin). So, while it is true that Jesus is God, his human nature is still a human nature, passible, and changeable, while his divine nature remains untouched by human passions or changes in any way.
Like divine simplicity, divine impassibility has fallen on hard times. Many today hold that a being that cannot be affected by our plights, fears, problems, etc. is not a person, not the God of the Bible, and not worthy of worship. Such a God is often compared to the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle that did not care about the world but only contemplated himself. Such is the view of thinkers like William Lane Craig. Consider his answer to a question asked on his website:
This is a fairly typical response from those who hold that God is passible. Notice that there is no philosophical or theological argument here, simply an emotional appeal. It is indeed a weakness for humans to be “unmoved by human suffering,” but we are not talking about a human. We are talking about God. Such blurring of the Creator/creature distinction occurs when we reject divine simplicity.
Having said all that, it is not the case that God as an impassible being is uncaring toward our suffering. This is a mischaracterization of the God of classical theism and the God of the Bible. Being impassible does not equate to being uncaring or unloving. It simply means that given the kind of being God is (based on philosophical investigation that is legitimate even according to the Bible) he is not the kind of being to be affected. He is perfect in himself without any addition or subtraction to his being.
To be the kind of being to be affected he would have to be changeable, temporal, and composed (by whom?). But to be changeable and temporal is to be in a process of change, or just simply in a process. Thus, to agree that God is passible, changeable, and temporal would to agree on some level with process theology. How can God change and suffer along with us without being in a process? Again, either classical theism is true, or process theology is true. There is no third option as attributes like simplicity, immutability, impassibility, and eternality (in the classical sense) are contradictory with their opposites. In other words, either they are true or not.
To modify these attributes is to deny them.
Would we really want God to be moved or suffer along with us like other humans do? Surely he knows of our happiness and sorrows, but does that mean he must be sorrowful with us to understand or care about us? (Again I am speaking of the divine essence, not the human nature of Jesus.) Should we not want a God of stability who cannot be moved or changed by anything? Such would seem to be a God more worthy of worship as we can always count on him being the same. Such also seems to be closer to the God of the Bible.
It should be clear that the acceptance or rejection of simplicity and other classical doctrines such as immutability and impassibility are vital for classical theism, and their rejection leads one to the only other option: process theology.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/MgPDZpX
The Separation of Church and State Deception
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Josh Klein
We’ve been duped.
I cannot think of another way to put it. The Christian right has been duped.
Deceived by what? You may ask.
The separation of Church and State.
What if I told you that the phrase “separation of Church and State” was found nowhere in the constitution or the Bill of Rights?
It’s true.
Now, we’ve constantly been told that the first amendment of the Constitution is where we get the phrase. But how? And was it to protect the Church or the State?
Commonly, the ACLU and other left-wing advocates have indicated that separation of Church and State is meant to keep religious speech and thought out of the public sphere. They argue that individuals with deeply held religious beliefs should not let their religious morals dictate their policies. Of course, this all comes to a head as Donald Trump is appointing a devout Catholic with a record on pro-life rulings to the Supreme Court. Long time Senator Dianne Feinstein implicated that such beliefs were a danger to the constitution when she said to Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you,”[1] whatever that means. The argument of course only applies to those on the right side of the aisle. Those on the left are encouraged to use their voices and religion to convince the masses. For instance, Mayor of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg constantly used his religious opinions to back up his political motives[2]. Advocates for nationalized healthcare have also often used religious language to advocate for the socialization of the healthcare system. But when it comes to voices speaking out against abortion or for individual responsibility based on scripture charges of conflating “church and state” abound. And too many have been duped into believing that to be the case.
Churches have been sidelined in many a political discourse at the use of the words “separation of Church and State.” Prayers before football games have been cause for litigation since the 1990s[3]. Churches threatened with the loss of tax-exempt status for entering the political sphere[4] and non-prophets have been threatened as well. Public schools have been shamed into eliminating public prayer before events and again, the hot button topic of the day is the religious affiliation of a future Supreme Court justice.
But what does “separation of Church and State” mean? Where did it come from? Why is it important? And, as a Christian, is it really not okay to use our faith in determining political engagement? And where is the pastor’s role in all of this?
These are important questions in this day and age, and for too long the Church has abdicated the responsibility for answering these questions to the public sphere.
Where does “separation of Church and State” come from? And what was its purpose?
Many might say it comes from the constitution. They are wrong. That does not mean the concept does not reside in the constitution. It does. However, to adequately understand what the term was meant to establish one must know where it comes from what part of the constitution is it derived.
The term itself was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter that he wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 in which he commends the first amendment and implies that it is the Church, not the State, that is sought to be protected by it. He says, “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that acts of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”[5]
The history of the conversation is even more interesting. The Danbury Baptists were concerned about their religious freedom and penned a letter to Jefferson prior to his inauguration into office. Jefferson’s response was to insure them that the practice of religion was, in fact, an inalienable right guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution.
The term then became codified as part of the First Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in 1878. Thus, the confusion for many that it is a part of the constitution when the words do not appear in the writings.
But what does all of this mean?
It simply means that, as Jefferson wrote to reassure the Danbury Baptists, the desire to not establish a national religion was an effort to protect the Church (religions), not the State.
In other words, our public discourse has missed the point. It is not to separate religion from government completely, but to separate governmental control from religion completely. Protect people’s right to worship, not to protect the government’s atheism because, as we shall see, the government was not intended to be run atheistically.
And this principle was understood by the founding fathers.
They knew that a nation built on the fundamental idea that God (the creator) endowed each individual with inalienable rights must incorporate religious thought and ethics in the way it governed. That is, in fact, a religious statement!
John Adams famously said this in a letter in 1798 “Because we have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by – morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition – Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People” (emphasis mine).[6]
Two of the authors of the constitution seem to indicate the opposite of our current civil discourse. The guiding of our government can only be adequately done through moral and religious convictions. The freedom to worship is not a positive right given by our government, it is a negative right given us by our Creator. The government’s role is not to tell us who or what we ought to worship, or how, but to protect our God-given rights to worship.
So what sense does it make then that government would make any statements curbing speech or reference to God (any god for that matter) in a public setting? Also, given the history of our constitutional writers, would they not be pleased with the selection of justices that exhibit a moral and religious standing?
Would the founding fathers be opposed to public discourse that not only mentioned God but also offered to worship God? According to Jefferson and Adams, they would not. The only objection they may have is if the government made a law that forced others to worship a certain way.
How then should Christians and the Church act politicly?
It is clear, at least to me, that the above evidence (and there is plenty more, but for the sake of space we will rest the case there) would indicate not only a prohibition on the government from intervening in worship but also an encouragement from government for religious entities to engage with politics.
Religious institutions, churches, pastors, and the like should be outspoken and engaged politically. So long as no laws are being passed to infringe on a person’s right to worship whomever or whatever they choose then religious engagement should be robust, not anathema.
But, as Christians, we are not bound to the constraints of the constitution but by the constraints of scripture. How ought we engage in public life in a way that is honoring to God? Just because it is legal does not mean it is biblical.
This is a difficult question to answer, in part because the cultural context of 1st century Rome is so politically different than 21st century America, as well as the ambiguity with which Jesus carried himself on political matters. However, I do think there is a solid biblical precedent for the believer to follow.
On a personal and a corporate level, I believe the engagement can look very similar.
As a Pastor, I seek to understand what the leadership in the church did politically throughout the scriptures. First, I see a group of believers that were fairly apolitical but also understood their role as citizens. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 both indicate that a humble submission to the authorities is necessary to maintain a good witness as well as to best glorify God. However, Acts 5 would indicate that there are exceptions to this sort of submission. Those exceptions take place when the government is dictating that we must not worship our God and/or dictates that preaching the gospel is antithetical to the government’s legal system. In both cases, it seems clear throughout scripture that disobedience of man-made institutions to glorify God is not only acceptable but required.
Given what was established by the constitution, it seems that the freedom we experience in this country is a cause for celebration and humble submission to our governmental authorities, but it also means that we ought not abdicate our political responsibilities at a personal or corporate level.
The laws of our great nation were meant to encourage interaction with the political sphere from the religious sphere. The religious sphere was expected to influence the political sphere, though the political sphere was to refrain from influencing the religious!
For far too long we have let empty words about supposed Christian political ethics bind our consciences. Religion was always intended to be the bulwark of the American social fabric. Thus, as Christians, we should feel free to engage with politics on a religious level.
Whether or not to be overtly political from the pulpit or from within a religious organization then transfers not from a Romans 13 issue but to a Romans 14 issue. This is an area where each individual congregation must make its decision, but to forbid all churches from acting in politics seems unconstitutional and unbiblical.
As a pastor, I also seek to take my cues from the Apostle Paul on this matter. He was not afraid to use his political rights as a citizen of Rome to protect himself and further the gospel (Acts 22:22-29). Why are we so hesitant to exercise our rights? Rights given by God and recognized by the American Constitution are far more available to us than they were to Paul?
Because we have been told that we are not good Christians if we are also patriotic. Now, there is an argument that can be made and should be made, for those that put their country above their God. This dogmatic patriotism is a form of idolatry and thus, a sin.
But these are not the people I am addressing in this section.
It is not anti-Christian to be pro-American (see, Should Christians Be Against Christian Nationalism?). I do think that Christians ought to be honest about the moral failings of America’s past and present; however, to be a proud citizen of the country and to participate in that citizenship appropriately is not only good but godly. Paul exemplified this for us through his life and writings. He was a proud Roman but not without a critique of Roman culture when it cut against the grain of God’s holiness. Yet somehow, there is a movement seeking to convince the Christian right that any sort of patriotism is idolatry and that exuberant participation in the American system of government is complicity in all its evils, real or imaginary. Of course, the same standard is not set for the Christian left, which would laud the abhorrent practices of abortion and gender transitioning among children within our own culture.
In a sense, the use of “separation of Church and State” as a political weapon against Christians has been effective. No loving Christian worth his or her salt would endeavor to be considered politically motivated in their religious practices and ideology, so we tend to take the critiques to heart and placate the complaints with mea culpas aplenty. It is time that we stand for our rights as citizens of America and as godly disciples within that same vein.
This means a thoughtful and robust engagement with politics from a Christian perspective should be expected from our churches, and not simply the churches that correspond with the popular liberal narratives. We must no longer be afraid of the charge of politicization of the gospel when, in fact, it is in standing for the gospel that we embrace the political realm, especially in America. In no other land throughout history and time has the Christian been given such a lofty platform as the platform of the first amendment.
Like Paul, who used his Romans citizenry as a means to explicate the gospel throughout the empire, we also must seek to use our American citizenry to freely and unapologetically declare the truth to the masses. If we are condemned for doing good amidst our national discourse, then we have fulfilled 1 Peter 2 in its fullness.
It is not only within our rights as citizens of this country to fight back against the misuse of the first amendment against religious institutions; it is also liberty afforded to us through scripture and the example of other godly people that came before us. Let us not acquiesce to the loud narratives about what churches can and cannot do amidst the political landscape, but let us boldly preach the gospel and the truth of biblical justice and morality in accordance with scripture and in submission to the original authors of our nation’s founding document. In doing so, we do not espouse hypocrisy, nor do we cheapen the gospel through politics. In fact, I would argue that scripture indicates the opposite of those charges is true. If we are to be salt and light, we must be salt and light in all spheres of culture. Preserving the good and exposing the vile for that is what we use salt and light to accomplish, yes, even in and perhaps especially in the political realm.
Notes
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/feinstein-the-dogma-lives-loudly-within-you-and-thats-a-concern/2017/09/07/04303fda-93cb-11e7-8482-8dc9a7af29f9_video.html
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/politics/pete-buttigieg-religious-journey/index.html
[3] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-ohio-school-district-over-football-team-prayers
[4] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
[5] https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
[6] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set, DVD Set, mp4 Download Set by Frank Turek
American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace
Josh Klein is an ordained minister from Omaha, Nebraska with 12 years of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/NgPSSpJ
Challenging Conversations with Jason Jimenez
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Are you afraid to have conversations about controversial issues? Some are even controversial in the church! Then join Frank as he welcomes Jason Jimenez, author of the new book Challenging Conversations. The book gives practical advice on how to have productive conversations on 9 issues: Depression and mental illness, addiction, pornography, pre-marital sex, divorce and remarriage, LGBT issues, abortion, politics, and racism. On the show, Frank and Jason cover three of these issues. After the show, check out Jason’s ministry www.StandStrongMinistries.org
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Would Abolishing The Police Bring Us More Peace?
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Jason Jimenez
What will the aftermath be after disbanding or abolishing the police in our country? What will be the collateral damage?
You see, my friend, when we fail to realize the actual problem and aggressively, without lawful consent, use extreme and illegitimate methods to correct what we think is the problem, all we are really breeding is chaos and anarchy.
So, here are three points of reason I’d like to share with you in this whole discussion of whether or not it’s a good idea to defund or abolish the police.
First, we need to stop falsely portraying police presence as a police state.
I may agree in demilitarizing law enforcement and reforming many engineered tactics being used on civilians, but that doesn’t lead me to conclude we are better off defunding public safety.
Even amid protests and riots, the vast majority of the police are present to deescalate the situations that are unfolding in the streets. They are not there to inflict harm and strip people of their constitutional rights. Most of the violence is coming from a small percentage of protestors, not from the police officers.
Second, we need to reform our law enforcement, not conform to an ideology of lawlessness and disorder.
The rush to judgment by many of our legislatures to defund the police in America is lacking something pretty significant…common sense.
Think about it. How is it possible to get better policing by defunding policing? You can’t reduce crime by defunding public safety. Public safety exists to keep the peace, and if necessary, to enforce the law.
Who, I ask, will replace the police? The people rioting in the streets? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
If this is genuinely about police brutality—then let’s stick to the officers who are guilty of abusing their power. Condemning and seeking to punish the entire police force is not retribution.
The more reasonable and sensible course of action is to defund the police unions, afford better yearly training for officers, and develop better citywide support and assistance on social matters with non-profits and other agencies. Also, I believe police chiefs need more control over the hiring and firing of police officers, and when an officer crosses the line—arbitration should not be so lenient as it currently stands. This will drastically remove the bad apples in police departments while improving public safety in our communities.
Third, we cannot afford the oppression in our country to lead to the suppression of the truth.
Much of what the protesters are advocating aren’t solutions to further enhance morality and civility in our communities, and it certainly does not bring about racial unity. The civil unrest of protestors continues to spiral out of control and is leading to more civil disorder.
The truth is, and I realize many will not like hearing this, but the communities that are suffering the most from the rioting, looting, and setting buildings on fire is the black communities.
How is damaging and defacing property helping the black community? How’s that justice for Floyd and those oppressed?
In the end, these riots will have an economically negative effect on black families and communities, leaving them in more unsatisfactory conditions than before.
That is not justice.
If we take an honest and hard look at the rioters, you will discover their allegiance is to vengeance, not justice—and that is something they have no right to enforce. We are warned in Proverbs 24:29 not to say, “I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay the man back for what he has done.”
Here’s the bottom line: groups who use victimhood as vindication to act in violence and incite racism are not worthy of following or taking a knee for.
I pray you will consider these three points of reason as we pray for repentance and peace in America.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Jason Jimenez is president of Stand Strong Ministries, a faculty member at Summit Ministries, and a best-selling author who specializes in apologetics and biblical worldview training. Check out www.standstrongministries.org.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/8gEdRwF