Tag Archive for: Culture

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

If it Feels Right it must Be Right… Right?

,

By Jeremy Linn

How could something that feels so right be called immoral?

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

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

Imagine Dragons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

,

By Erik Manning

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

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

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

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

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

Meme Erik M blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Explore More:

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

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

 

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

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

/by
The Christian’s Response to Cultural Change

The Christian’s Response to Cultural Change

,

By V. T. Clark

Daniel was a young man when his world changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by
Don’t Mix Politics & Religion

“Don’t Mix Politics & Religion!”

,

By Tim Stratton

Complaint:

Dear Tim,

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

– Sean

Tim’s Response:

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

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

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

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

Politics & Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lesser of Two Evils

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

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

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

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

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

 

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

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

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

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

By Michael Sherrard 

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

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

  1. Listen

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

  1. Learn 

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

  1. Love

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

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

 

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

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

/by
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
Respectfully Engaging with Muslims

Respectfully Engaging with Muslims

, ,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Engaging with Muslims

Respectful engagement takes courage and compassion

Let’s talk about respectfully engaging with Muslims. Being an ambassador for Christ means more than just defending what’s true. It also means loving people well. The more we engage with our neighbors, the more we see that religion is a core part of many people’s lives. And getting to know them means getting to know their religion. Beyond only focusing on critique or apologetics, we should also discover what makes each major religion attractive to adherents and converts.

How much do we know about Islam, the second-largest religion in the world? As part of my work with the Hendricks Center on respectfully engaging world religions, I invited Crescent Project founder Fouad Masri to talk about lessons he’s learned engaging with Muslims since 1979. In this post, I’ll share some of what I learned about what makes Islam attractive to Muslims, converts, and key points of connection Christians can use for respectful engagement.

What keeps Muslims faithful to Islam?

Before engaging with Muslims, it’s important to know that there’s a spectrum of practice and belief among Muslims in a variety of branches of Islam. So find out what your Muslim friend actually believes. Some Muslims don’t think much about the five pillars of Islam and may have never studied the teachings of Muhammad. Don’t automatically assume you know what any particular Muslim believes.

One thing that attracts people to Islam is a sense of order amidst chaos. For them, Islam answers questions like “How should I eat?” Answer: “With your right hand, not your left.” Also, many Muslim remain faithful to Islam to avoid feeling like a traitor. Your friend might agree with a point you made about the historicity of Jesus’ divine claim, crucifixion, or resurrection but they could think, “If I agree that Islam is wrong on this one, it might bring shame to my family.”

Many Christians think they understand Islam but need to do some homework to respectfully engage Muslims. Similarly, some Muslims think they understand Christian theology, but reason, “Christians are polytheists who worship three gods: God, Mary, and Jesus. Why should I believe that? Islam has to be right; There’s only one God.” Others come to America and don’t see Christians exhibit God’s love. Instead, they see crime, drunkenness, and drug addiction and think, “Christianity has failed America. I’m sticking with Islam instead of all this chaos.”

What draws converts to Islam?

While engaging with Muslims, you’ll find converts who say Islam is exotic. Many don’t connect with the contemporary worship styles they’ve seen in most evangelical churches. They’re seeking a more ancient, meditative sense of transcendence. But rather than looking into the ancient practices of historic Christianity, the ritualistic structure of Islam grabs their attention. Other converts find Islam’s structure brings them comfort in a diverse, pluralistic society.

But keep in mind, when you’re engaging with Muslims, some are seeking answers to tough questions about God. For example, many Muslims struggle with the problem of evil. They ask the same kinds of questions non-Muslims do: “Does God really exist?” “Does God care?” Some even wonder, “Are there other ways to know about God other than Islam?”

How to engage with Muslims

Masri has been engaging with Muslims for decades and he’s noticed that compassion ministries often open the door for respectful interfaith dialogue. He’s seen how Muslim refugees in Sicily, Greece, and America not only appreciate Christian ministries but directly ask, “Why are you helping us?” This gave them pause, especially since some were raised to see Christians as enemies. He says:

When they see love and kindness, they want to know more… Begin a conversation like, “Oh, you are a Muslim? Oh, you believe in one god?” Then, let them share. And then let the God of Abraham lead them to the knowledge of Christ the Messiah.

There are many ways to engage with Muslims and begin authentic relationships. But practicing hospitality is a great way to quickly create an openness to respectful, spiritual conversations. So compassion is key.

Still, pointing our Muslim friends to Jesus takes courage. Muslims reject the idea that Jesus is divine or ever claimed to be divine. How might a Christian respond to those who challenges the biblical conception of Jesus? I was surprised by Masri’s answer:

Let them read the words of Jesus. I know an imam. Somebody gave him a Bible. He read the words of Jesus: “From their fruit, you shall know them.” He got saved and baptized. The words of Jesus speak for who Jesus is. Many times, we try to explain this with our own power. Let the word speak for itself.

Interestingly, the imam linked his experience of Christian compassion ministries with Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 7:15-20: “Watch out for false prophets…You will recognize them by their fruit…a good tree is not able to bear bad fruit.” I would have never made this connection, but the Holy Spirit had already been at work in his life. While we must be prepared to defend the truth, sometimes people are one Bible verse away from finding a saving relationship with God. This is another thing to keep in mind when engaging with Muslims.

Jesus: A Point of Connection

I’ve found a great place to start when engaging with Muslims is with Jesus. Islam teaches that he is a prophet. Although many Muslims are told that the Bible’s been corrupted, the Qu’ran actually says “none can alter the words of Allah” (Surah 6:34). And Muslims seem to be commanded to accept the Christian Scriptures in Surah 29:46: “Do not argue with the People of the Scripture… Say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you…’”

Interestingly, the Qur’an notes that Jesus performed healing miracles (Surah 3:49) but doesn’t include any narrative accounts of those healing miracles. You could ask your Muslim friend, “Do you want to see how Jesus performed healings? It’s in the Bible.” Show them Mark 2:1-12, where Jesus claimed to forgive sins in the context of a healing miracle. Here, Jesus is claiming the divine prerogative to forgive sins. Forgiving the paralytic was very different from anything Jews believed priests, prophets, or even angels could do. The scribal response show they knew that only God can forgive sins. Talk about that and you’re off and running in a conversation on the claims of Jesus.

Engage with Courage and Compassion

While some Muslims find the structure of Islam attractive, potential converts may be attracted to traditions they perceive as exotic. Still, others have spiritual questions that are not fully satisfied by Islam. Compassionate service can begin to create an openness to considering the teachings of Jesus in the Bible. Let’s ask the Lord to help us begin engaging with Muslims with both courage and compassion.

 

Mikel Del Rosario is a Ph.D. student in New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center, and Adjunct Professor of Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University.

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

/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
mass shootings

Questions about Mass Shootings w/ J. Warner Wallace

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

In the wake of the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church mass shooting in Texas, many questions arise, and our national conversation about gun violence intensifies. We grieve with these families and cannot ignore the evil done by the perpetrator. Detective J. Warner Wallace answers some questions about mass shootings and how we should handle the discourse on these delicate issues.

Article: Three Important Questions to Balance in the Wake of Gun Violence

mass shootings

/by