Julie Roys

Would Jesus Support Taxing the Rich?

2012-02-08T12:13:00.000-08:00

Would Jesus support taxing the rich? Last week, President Obama implied that he would. Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama expressed his reluctance to ask seniors, young people, or the middle class to shoulder the burden of our nation’s mounting debt. But, as someone who’s been “extraordinarily blessed,” Obama professed his willingness to “give up some of the tax breaks” he enjoys. He added that doing so coincides with Jesus’ directive: “Unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”

But, is this a legitimate application of this principle? I don’t think so. First of all, Jesus in this passage is encouraging believers to steward their resources well. But, giving more money to the government because it’s amassed a humongous debt isn’t really good stewardship. In truth, it just enables the government to continue its irresponsible spending – and not just irresponsible. Some of our government’s spending is immoral. For example, each year the federal government gives about 350-million dollars to Planned Parenthood – the largest abortion provider in the country. You see, not only do the rich need to consider their responsibility to steward the much they’ve been given; our government needs to consider its responsibility, as well.

Still, the question remains, does this passage in Luke give the government the right to tax its rich citizens more than it does its poor? Actually, this passage doesn’t apply to taxation at all. It simply asserts that Jesus requires much from those He’s given much – Jesus, not the IRS! So, if President Obama feels led to pay more in taxes, that’s between him and God. But, asserting that this passage gives the government license to tax the rich disproportionately is unfounded.

Personally, I’ve always favored a flat tax. After all, in the Old Testament, God required all His people – rich and poor – to pay a 10-percent tithe. This resulted in the rich paying more; but, it also ensured that everyone paid their fair share. Still, I wouldn’t assert that this is what Jesus would do. All Jesus actually said on the topic is “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

Should Christians Embrace "American Exceptionalism"

2012-01-26T11:56:00.000-08:00

Recently, I interviewed conservative talk show host Michael Medved and Fox News Contributor Juan Williams about "American Exceptionalism." Should Christians embrace exceptionalism? Or, is this concept elitist and ethnocentric? Their responses, as well as my discussion with Cisco Cotto on WMBI is below. What do you think?
Click to Listen

YouTube Sensation Shows Surprising Humility

2012-01-25T10:24:00.000-08:00

Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “. . .never retreat, never retract . . . never admit a mistake.” Of course, Napoleon’s massive ego cost scoresof lives in unnecessary wars and eventually landed him in exile. Truly, his life confirms the Proverb, “Pridegoes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”

Yet, despite this widely-acceptedmaxim, true humility is hard to find. As17^th-Century author Francoise de La Rochefoucauld noted, “Plenty ofpeople wish to become devout, but no one wishes to be humble.”

That’s why I was so surprised – andheartened – to hear a young man, who’s wildly popular, admit publicly he waswrong. His name is JeffersonBethke. And, his YouTube video, “Why IHate Religion, But Love Jesus,” has received more than 16-million hits.

There’s much to commend in Bethke’svideo, which lambasts religious hypocrisy. Unfortunately, though, the video also wrongly asserts that Jesus came “toabolish religion.” And, it perpetuatesthe myth that all the church has done is start wars and shun outcasts. Author and Pastor Kevin DeYoung made these errorspainfully clear in a thorough critique he posted last week at the GospelCoalition Blog. As DeYoung notes, Jesuswas a religious Jew who observed Jewish holy days. He founded the church and established churchdiscipline. Jesus loves religion; whatHe hates is false religion. And, as forthe church, it’s done more to help the poor and outcast than any institutionever!

No doubt, when one’s become anovernight sensation, this kind of rebuke can be hard to swallow. Even so, Bethke thanked DeYoung for promptingwhat he called, “painful growth.” And, Bethkesaid if he could redo the video, he’d “expand on the parts where (his) wordsand delivery were chosen poorly.”

Wow. DeYoung says he “can’t remember ever receiving such a teachable responseto criticism,” and neither can I – especially from a young person. As Oscar Wilde said, “InAmerica, the young are always ready to give to those who are older thanthemselves the full benefits of their inexperience.” But, not Mr. Bethke. He’s a rare example of humility – and a modelboth young and old should follow.

Below is the link to DeYoung's response, which also posts Bethke's video:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/13/does-jesus-hate-religion-kinda-sorta-not-really/

Why Don’t We Connect With God At Church?

2012-01-18T15:33:00.000-08:00

Most Americans have a fundamental disconnect withchurch. According to a new study by theBarna Group, most American church-goers rarely feel a “real and personalconnection with God” at worship services. And, a stunning one-third of church-goers say they’ve never connectedwith God during corporate worship.

Many reflecting on this study blamechurch-goers for this failure to connect. As one person commented at the “Out of Ur” blog, “Some people expectchurch to fill them up and get them dancing even though they haven't soughtafter God the previous six days.” Andtruly, that is a problem. As my pastoronce wrote, too often, people go to church to get some “emotionally-inducedhigh” or key spiritual insight. But,church isn’t designed to give Christians a spiritual shot in the arm. It’s designed to help us practice thepresence of God together so we can continue that practice throughout theweek. Or, is it?

Quite frankly, I don’t think manyAmerican church services are conducive to practicing God’s presence. They’re often shows we observe, rather than adiscipline in which we participate. It’swhere we listen to the experts, not engage with the living God.

To be honest, I feel like I connectwith God practically every Sunday – not because I’m so spiritual. I’m not. But, my church’s services are designed to facilitate connection withGod. Rather than filling every secondwith sound, our church actually schedules silence into the program. We reflect. We confess. We hear God’s Wordand submit to it. We pray. We worship. We receive communion. In short,we participate in spiritual exercises that enable us to receive from God andtrain us to receive from Him the rest of the week.

To me, that is church. It’s a place where we’re transformed, notmerely informed. It’s where we meet withGod together and learn the practices necessary to live in Christ daily. This model doesn’t necessarily attractthousands of entertainment-hungry Americans to church. But, it’s certainly a model that connectsthose of us who attend church with the God we worship.

Tebow Shows the Power of a Simple Witness

2012-01-12T08:21:00.000-08:00

Whowould have thought millions of people would read a Bible verse because of afootball player? But, that’s preciselywhat happened after Denver Quarterback Tim Tebow threw the longest overtime touchdownpass in the shortest overtime playoff in history.

That pass gave Tebow precisely 316passing yards in Sunday’s game. It alsobrought his average for a pass that day to 31.6 yards. This is uncanny, given that John 3:16 is Tebow’sfavorite verse and the verse he sported on his eye black when he was incollege.

Is all this coincidence? Who knows? But, we do know that on Monday, the day after the game, John 3:16 becamethe number-one search entry on Google. Just think, because of Tebow’s witness, millions read, perhaps for thefirst time –“God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son . . .”!

I wonder what the Christians whotold Tebow to tone it down are thinking now? They said his expressions of faith were simply alienating those whodon’t know Christ. And, I admit, I don’tknow if anyone’s become a Christian because of Tim Tebow. But, people now are reading Scripture and God’sWord does not return void.

Recently, I accompanied somestudents from the Moody Bible Institute as they preached Jesus on a subwayplatform in Chicago. They, too, saythey’ve been criticized for their public method of evangelism. But, as several attested, their witnessing haschanged lives.

Once, a church lady confronted D.L.Moody, saying similarly that she didn’t like the way he did his evangelism. Moody replied, “I don’t necessarily like allof it either. . . . Tell me, how do you do it?” “I don’t,” she said. “Well,” saidMoody, “I like the way I’m doing it better than the way you’re not doing it.”

I think D.L. Moody would love these Moodystudents and Tim Tebow. Sure, their evangelismmay be as unconventional as the way Tebow plays quarterback. But, at least, they’re doing it – as all ofus should be.

Could the Catholics Be Right on Contraception and Reproductive Technology?

2012-01-05T05:53:00.000-08:00

(I was raised in an evangelical home and taught that contraception and reproductive technologies are okay, as long as they don't destroy live embryos. But lately, I've been re-thinking this position. Some of this is due to the strength of Catholic arguments I've read that stress the deeply spiritual symbolic meaning of sex and reproduction. Also influencing me has been considering the disastrous fruit of contraception and Artificial Reproductive Technologies. Below are my recent thoughts concerning on the latter.)

She’sthe “child of a stranger” – the product of an anonymous sperm donor at BaylorUniversity in the early 1980s. Foryears, Kathleen LaBounty has searched for her “missing family” – for her biologicalfather and potential half-siblings. She’scontacted some 600 men who attended the school her father reportedly attendedand received 250 responses. But to date,Kathleen LaBounty still doesn’t know her father’s identity.

LaBounty’ssituation highlights a problem associated with a booming industry that’s graduallyredefining the family. Professionals callthe industry Artificial Reproductive Technology, or ART. But, Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family callssperm donation and artificial insemination “disembodied procreation.” And, he asserts that the growth of thisindustry is spawning one of the most significant social and cultural trends of2012.

Stantonis right. In the past decade, the use ofART has doubled, creating family situations God never intended. Many so-called “test-tube babies” never knowtheir fathers. Those from especially prolificdonors have dozens or even hundreds of half-siblings. And some, in violation of God’s design, are raisedin homes with same-sex parents.

ARThas made it possible to mix and match children and parents in any combination imaginable. In truth, it’s taken contraception, theseparation of sex from procreation, to the next level – the separation of childrenfrom their biological parents. And, likecontraception spawned the hook-up culture, now ART is spawning alternativefamilies.

Fordecades, evangelicals have dismissed as too Catholic the theology that Godintended sex – or the act of marriage – to be inseparable from procreation andvice-versa. Yet, maybe we evangelicals needto re-think this one. Maybe we need to adopta theology that submits to the natural order, instead of defying it – one thatmakes Kathleen LaBounty’s situation more rare, not increasingly common.

Theft & The Logic of Occupy

2012-01-03T07:47:00.000-08:00

They were best of friends. But now, the Occupy Wall Street protestorsand the Trinity Wall Street Episcopal Church have become enemies. At issue is a gravel lot the church owns thatthe protestors want. Since the City ofNew York ousted the protestors from Zuccotti Park, they’ve been seeking a placeto put down stakes. And, to them, thelot seems a perfect place. The church,however, disagrees – arguing that camping at the lot would be “unsafe” and“unhealthy.”

But, these protestors will not bedenied. As one occupier put it, “We needmore; you have more.” And, according tothe logic of Occupy, that’s all the justification one needs to seize private property. Dozens were arrested after trying to teardown the fence surrounding the church lot so they could occupy it.

These Occupy protestors remind me ofKing Ahab who, Scripture says, desperately wanted Naboth’s Vineyard. So, what did King Ahab do? He simply killed Naboth and occupied hisland. Of course, Ahab was king: he wasthe one percent. And, for some reason,occupiers believe that stealing is wrong for the richest one percent, but it’s okayfor everyone else. If you want aproperty, take it. Or, in a similarvein, if you don’t want to pay your student loans, simply default and let thetaxpayers foot the bill.

In this regard, occupiers resemblejust about every revolutionary group that’s ever ousted one evil regime only todiscover another evil regime takes its place. These groups begin by demanding recompense from the thieving rulingclass. But, before long, they’re thievingthemselves because, as an oppressed group, they feel entitled. In the end, all they do is reverse roles and theoppressed become the oppressors.

Unfortunately, some priests joinedthe Occupy protestors in violating church property. They said their “civil disobedience” waswarranted “to shine light” on “economic injustice.” But, there’s nothing justabout coveting and stealing. WhatAmerica needs is for everyone – Wall Street, Congress, and the masses – to respectGod’s law concerning private property.

Take Christ out of Christmas?

2011-12-15T07:35:00.000-08:00

Alright. Let’s just give up trying to reclaimChristmas, admit once and for all the culture has won, and officially “takeChrist out of Christmas.” So argues AmySullivan in an editorial in USA Today. Not that Sullivan wants to eliminate a celebration of Christ’sbirth. She simply wants to move thecelebration to a different day. Thatway, culture can have its “happy holiday” – its Santa and elves and shoppingbonanzas; and we Christians can have our religious holiday.

Sullivan’s idea actually has somemerit. After all, as any biblicalscholar will tell you, Jesus wasn’t really born on December 25^th,but likely in September. So, changingthe date would actually honor historical accuracy. However, it would dishonor two-thousand yearsof church tradition.

It also wouldn’t eliminate the battlebetween God and culture. Often it’s saidthat Christians stole December 25th from the Romans who celebrated the date asa festival to their sun god. But, sufficient evidence suggests that the Romansstole the date from the Christians first! In fact, as early as the second century, Christians were postulating –though incorrectly – that Jesus was born on December 25^th. So in the third century, when EmperorAurelian established December 25^th as a festival to the sun god, heactually was co-opting the date from Christians! Why? Because he hated Christianity and wanted to promote paganism.

Regardlessof when we celebrate Christ’s birth, Satan will try to sabotage it. After all, he’s sabotaged all the otherreligious holidays. January 1^st used to be a feast celebrating Christ’scircumcision; now it’s New Year’s. October 31^st is Halloween instead of All Saints’ or AllHallows’ Eve. And now, Mardi Grasovershadows Ash Wednesday – the day we prepare for the Easter bunn . . . uh, I mean Christ’s resurrection.

You see, Satan hates religiousholidays because he knows their power to re-focus our attention on his nemesis– Jesus Christ. He’ll always try to takethe Christ out of Christmas. Rather thansurrender December 25th, I suggest we Christians fight for it.

Why Don’t More Christians Like Tim Tebow?

2011-12-14T07:43:00.001-08:00

He’ssuccessful, yet humble; polite, but still willing to take an unpopularstand. Moral. Congenial. UnabashedlyChristian. So why are so many Christianscritical of Denver Quarterback Tim Tebow?

The football sensation has led theBroncos to six remarkable come-from-behind wins. As one reporter admitted, it’s “a streak evennon-believers are calling miraculous.” Not only do non-believers appreciate Tebow’s record, they also admirehis character. Dan Lebowitz, executivedirector of Sport in Society at Northeastern University, says Tebow exemplifiesa “new construct of manhood.” He’s “tough as heck on the football field, butstill . . . kind, compassionate,respectful of women.” As sports reporterDan Wetzel wrote, “You don’t have to be religious at all to enjoy Tim Tebow.”

But certainly, one would expectthose of us who are religious to love Tim Tebow even more. And, I have yet to hear anyone take exceptionwith his character or ability to rally a team. It’s his public displays of devotion that make many Christianssquirm. Tebow is quick to thank Jesusafter every victory. And, on the field,Tebow’s habit of kneeling for prayer has become so well-known that doing so isnow called “Tebowing.”

Some say Tebow’s public displays unnecessarilyoffend non-Christians and urge him to be more tactful about his publicwitness. Others say Tebow’s practice of praying inpublic violates Scripture. After all,didn’t Jesus instruct his followers to pray in private?

Of course, in Jesus’ day, societyvalued devotion to God and such displays would only invite personal praise;today, they invite scorn. And, it seemsto me, that’s really at the heart of why we Christians criticize TimTebow. We don’t want to risk publicembarrassment and have tons of excuses for why we should mute our publicwitness. Tebow confronts these excuses. And, he reminds us of the importance of confessingJesus before men. That makes usuncomfortable. Too often, we’d rather playarmchair quarterback than actually get in the game.

Cancel Church on Christmas?

2011-12-01T08:53:00.001-08:00

It was Christmas morning. And, like every Christmas he can remember, Davidwent with his family to church. But thisChristmas, he was surprised to find the church doors locked and the parking lotempty. You see, David, a native of Zimbabwe,had recently come to America to study. And, though he noticed that we Americans celebrate Christmas differentlythan Africans, he naturally assumed we’d gather for worship on this holyday. No African believer would ever thinkof missing church on Christmas!

I got to know David a bit while he was in the states. And, I thought of his reaction as I recently reada blog entitled, “Closed for Christmas.” The blog noted that Christmas this year falls on a Sunday. And, as a result, many churches arecancelling worship services on that day. Huh, I wonder what David would think about this? I mean, it’s one thing to overlook worship aspart of American Christmas Day celebrations. But, to cancel our regular worship because of Christmas – well, I haveto admit, that seems disordered.

Some commented to the blog that they thought cancellingservices was disordered, too, and blamed consumerism for the problem. But, I think another factor may play an evenbigger role. In a 2008 Time magazinearticle, Amy Sullivan explored why going to church on Christmas has vanishedfrom American tradition. She suggestedit’s because we’ve adopted a civil religion that elevates the ideal of family“to a sacrosanct level.” The NormanRockwell image of a family gathered around a tree, she argues, has become aChristmas icon that rivals baby Jesus. “Formost Christians,” she concludes, “Christmas is a day for family, not faith.”

Of course, for many of us, family and faith areintertwined. And certainly, God ordainedfamilies and delights in traditions that strengthen family bonds. But, when family traditions supercede churchtraditions, I think it suggests that maybe we’ve made family into an idol. Of course, what we do on Christmas is lessimportant than how we live the other 364 days of the year. But, as for me and my family, this ChristmasDay, we’re going to church.

Co-opting Holocaust: Okay for Gays, but not for Pro-lifers

2011-11-16T12:16:00.001-08:00

A new pro-life film comparing abortion to the Holocaust is sparking controversy. Is the comparison inappropriate – or just politically incorrect? Here's my take...

If you’re going to co-opt the Holocaust to promote an agenda, make sure your agenda is politically correct. You see, for years, gays have been using the Holocaust to gain sympathy for their cause and very few have objected. But recently, when Evangelist Ray Comfort produced a film likening the Holocaust to abortion, the Anti-Defamation League was up in arms!

The league’s national director called the pro-life film “180” perverse for asserting that the Holocaust and abortion are morally equivalent. “Must the memory of the six-million and millions of other victims be continually . . . abused by those with another agenda?” he asked. But again, gay groups have been doing this for years. The number of gays killed in the Holocaust actually numbers only about one-half of one percent of total Holocaust victims. Yet, the United States Holocaust Memorial dedicates an entire online exhibit to the Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals. What about Catholic and Lutheran clergy? They were slaughtered in similar numbers during the Holocaust, yet they’re hardly even mentioned! Apparently, some groups deserve special attention, but others do not.

But, what about innocent babies: do they deserve such attention? And, can we rightfully compare abortion – something our society condones – to the worst atrocity of the 20th Century? Absolutely! Abortion, just in the United States, has claimed 10-times the number of innocent victims as the Holocaust. Plus, it’s equally brutal. When aborted, babies, who can feel pain, are sometimes burned to death by saline solution. Or, with “dilation and evacuation,” they’re actually ripped limb by limb. (What could possibly be more morally depraved than that?”)

But, you see, babies – like Jews in Nazi Germany – have been stripped of their personhood. They’re fetuses not humans. So, while the anti-Defamation League will grant victim status to gays, they’ll rage against pro-lifers for assigning that status to babies. But, babies are victims of a Holocaust. And, it’s time we face that truth, rather than angrily denying it.

Undercover Agent Reveals Horrors of Sex Trafficking

2011-11-10T06:48:00.001-08:00

Recently, I interviewed a detective who worked undercover for two Christian human rights groups, infiltrating brothels around the world. His stories shocked me. Pimps offered him six-year-old girls to use for his sexual pleasure. Women imprisoned in brothels told him harrowing accounts of women murdered for trying to escape. It's a hard story to hear, but a reality we must face. As many as three-million people are trafficked across international borders every year and some estimate about two-million children are being used for profit in the global sex industry. Can we really stand by and do nothing?
Click here to listen to story

Christians Jump on Animal Rights Bandwagon

2011-11-02T17:13:00.000-07:00

Are killer whales people too? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals thinksthey are. Recently, the group asked a federal court to grant constitutionalrights to killer whales at SeaWorld, equating the whales’ captivity withslavery. Ridiculous, right?

As Christians, we understand thatGod made people in His likeness, notwhales. Yes, we should care foranimals. But no, we don’t grant them human rights. Yet increasingly, Christians are jumping onthe animal rights bandwagon.

Growing numbers of churches nowoffer so-called animal protection ministries – supporting animal food pantriesand encouraging members to end “pet homelessness” and eat vegan. The “Q” movement – involving hundreds of young,influential evangelicals –now is partnering with the Humane Society to promoteanimal welfare. And today, there’s evena hymn for annual pet blessing services. Sung to the tune of “I Sing the Mighty Power of God,” the new hymnpetitions God to ensure that “all farms be humane.”

This collusion between Christiansand animal rights groups didn’t happen accidentally. For the past several years, animal rightsgroups have been intensely recruiting people of faith. In fact, the Humane Society spends 400-thousanddollars a year on its Faith Outreach Campaign, seeking – quote – “one believerat a time.”

Christians need to be wary of theseanimal rights groups. Often, theymanipulate Scripture to suit their cause. Some argue, for example, that eating meat is sinful since only after theFall, did people eat animals. Somehow,they miss that Jesus Himself ate fish and lamb! Also, by unduly elevating animals, these groups necessarily devalue people. When asked about freeing the whales at SeaWorld, a Humane Society marine biologist noted that whales have the cognitivesophistication of toddlers. No wonderthese groups work to free five whales, but do nothing to free the millions ofpeople enslaved by human traffickers! Putsimply, animal rights groups wrongly believe that animals and humans have equalworth.

Evangelicalism: A House Divided

2011-10-26T11:54:00.000-07:00

As a conservative evangelical, I’m used to secularists demeaningmy intelligence for doubtingevolution; believing God can change sexual orientation; and holding that areturn to biblical values would save America. But increasingly, these attacks aren’t just coming from without – butwithin!

Last week, two professors fromEastern Nazarene College – a Christian school – wrote a scathing New York Timeseditorial entitled, “The Evangelical Rejection of Reason.” For refusing to embrace the Groupthinkpurported today as science, professors Karl Giberson and Randall Stephens calledevangelicals simplistic, anti-intellectual and ignorant. Perhaps the article’s graphic best depictsthe authors’ point: it shows a preacherwith a Bible and an air-filled balloon for a head. Wow! With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Of course, the article fails tomention that the true enemy of science today is the scientific establishment,which squelches all dissent with despicable tactics. Just ask Iowa State University Professor Guillermo Gonzalez, fired in 2008 for working ontheories suggesting Intelligent Design. Or, talk to Psychologists Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. Their rigorous study showing that changingone’s sexuality is possible has been completely ignored by the mainstream.

But, Giberson and Stephens ignorethese facts. They’re part of a growingnumber of evangelicals who seem to almost relish undermining the very movementto which they belong. But, do theybelong?

Historically, evangelicals have affirmedthe authority of Scripture. Yet, intheir book, “Annointed,” Giberson and Stephens write, the Bible “is thousandsof years old, written in obscure languages, from a mysterious andincomprehensible time and place.”

Jesus said a house divided againstitself cannot stand. If Christianschools keep employing professors like Giberson and Stephens, who sabatoge thefaith by attacking core evangelical beliefs and values, evangelicalism willfall.

Click here to read Giberson & Stephens' editorial

Tribute to Linda J. Stern

2011-10-21T06:04:00.000-07:00

Yesterday marked the 8th year since my mother's passing. She was and remains perhaps the person I most respect and admire in this world (alongside my father). My parents served 10 years as missionaries to Zimbabwe during the 1960s. Below is a tribute to my mother, written by Lester Fretz, who with his wife, Sandy, served with my parents in Africa and remain dear family friends. -- Julie

Normally, when I speak, I carefully guard my punchline. But today is different. As I come to the end of this tribute whichI’m greatly honored to share, I invite friends and family who can infer fromthe context of my thoughts, to join me in saying the last four words.

It certainly wasn’t fate of just coincidence where we firstme Linda Stern. Significantly it was onthe mission field as she has always been interested in sh1aring the gospel of Jesus Christ whether in Africa orAmerica.

Over 40 years ago, my wife and I had the privilege ofbecoming acquainted with Linda and Jim Stern when they served as medicalmissionaries in what is now Zimbabwe. Linda enjoyed talking about her early life as an MK in Sierra Leonewhere her parents were also missionaries.

While Jim headed the mission hospital, Linda was veryinvolved caring for their young family in addition to giving any neededassistance at the hospital. Jim wasinnovative and I’m sure he was egged on by Linda. Even though many months pregnant, she wouldmake an1 ambulance run over bumpy, bush back roads or just apath to pick up the ailing and sometimes the dying. She would even drive Jim and me around inthat same vehicle after dark so we could hunt African game. Her enthusiasm for life, her sense of humouras well as her interest in God’s Word were all greatly admired.

Because my wife and I had no transportation, we were sofortunate the many times Jim and Linda invited us to accompany them on tripsover long holiday weekends to gameparks, the Matopo Hills, Zimbabwe Ruins and Victoria Falls. Linda demonstrated her fishing ability onLake Kariba and as we fried our catch for a picnic shore lunch, a monkey cameout of the bushes and took something from (her son) David. Linda spoke curtly to the monkey and itdashed back into the underbrush.

In our weekly Bible studies and prayer meeting, Lindaalways had such keen insights. As westudied the local language, her grasp of it soon surpassed mine.

Jim was exceedingly generous in allowing Linda to be mypartner when we relaxed over a game of bridge in which Linda was a sharp,shrewd and successful player. As shelooked up with her twinkling, smiling eyes and collapsing her cards, I canstill hear her say with determination, “I’m going to open with 2 no trump!”

Back in America with Jim doing internship in the Buffaloarea nearby and later in practice in Pennsylvania, we were able to keep intouch with the Sterns and their growing family. Janeen became one of our daughter’s fondest friends. Our pony was given the name “Tandi” while thecat was called “Julie.” Linda’shospitality was always a treat whether in their home, at the family cottage andmore recently here in southern Kentucky. But we always reminisced about our wonderful days in Africa.

Like many of you, I always looked forward to thatincredible, poetic Christmas newsletter in which Linda updated the activitiesof the entire family, but always very modest about her own endeavours.

Her writing was a tremendous inspiration to me and I lovedto listen to her explain her insights about Revelation. Indeed, she was a model in the way she placedthe Lord’s work and her family high on her priorities.

Illustrative that her contribution to Christian literaturewill continue to impact its readers, this very interesting and challengingarticle appeared this past summer in a denominational periodical.

We felt greatly honored to be invited to attend thecelebration of Linda and Jim’s 45th wedding anniversary, a very thoughtful andmeaningful gesture that you children and grandchildren made possible.

As I think back to that memorable occasion, I’m remindedagain of how blessed we were to be even seated at their table. And now, as Ithink of where Linda is, and her love for that great concluding book of theBible, I anticipate the marriage supper of the Lamb where we can againfellowship together with the Lord whom she deeply loved. In the words of the title of the book whichher father wrote and now her son is updating, she has arrived at the placewhere there are None of These Diseases.

Should We “Occupy” America?

2011-10-19T15:45:00.000-07:00

    If you’re an average American, your household income is about 50-thousand dollars . You have two to three television sets; a DVD player; a computer; internet access; a cell phone; and at least two cars.   You eat out four to five times a week.   And, you’ve seen a movie in the theater in the past six months.

    Yes we, America’s so-called “peasants” live quite well. As I’ve been listening to the rhetoric surrounding “Occupy Wall Street,” I can’t help but wonder if we Americans haven’t lost some perspective. Not that the Occupy folks don’t have some legitimate complaints. With unemployment near 10-percent and politicians seemingly colluding with bank and corporate executives, Americans are understandably frustrated. But, as we contemplate our situation, I think we need some context.

    The average American household, for example, ranks among the richest five-percent of the world. Its members make a whopping 17-times more than that of a typical person. Even Americans the U.S. Government deems below the poverty line live well compared to the rest of the world. We consider a family of four with an annual household income of 22-thousand dollars to be poor. However, this same family ranks in the richest 20-percent of the world! And, that’s not taking into account government assistance – food stamps; home energy assistance; free pre-school; school lunches; and children’s health insurance.

    Sure, as a nation we’re struggling. We’ve lost jobs. Our incomes have shrunk. And, there are people around us who live in relative ease. But, in the world’s terms, very few of us are poor. In fact today, if you have clean water, you’re faring better than 884 million of God’s children.

    If you feel so led, go ahead – rage against the system. Occupy whatever city you wish. But personally, I’m grateful and sobered. And, I’m more concerned with what God thinks of how I’ve managed my wealth than I am with how some millionaire has managed his.

Can A Christian Vote for a Mormon?

2011-10-13T05:00:00.000-07:00

Can Christians support a Mormon for political office? That question has dominated political discourse after a Texas pastor called Mormonism a cult, seemingly disqualifying GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney as a legitimate choice.

"Every true, born-again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian," Pastor Robert Jeffress said. Jeffress supports Governor Rick Perry for president and doesn’t believe his rival, professed Mormon Mitt Romney, is a Christian.

Clearly, Mormonism rejects basic doctrines of the Christian faith, like the Trinity, making it difficult for Christians to embrace Mormons as fellow believers. But, is Jeffress right that Christians should always prefer professing Christians over non-Christians?

Not necessarily. Some professing Christians, like President Barack Obama, support anti-biblical causes like gay and abortion rights. Would Pastor Jeffress support President Obama over Governor Romney? I highly doubt it.

Ideally, all Christian candidates would hold biblical worldviews, but sadly, that’s not the case. In fact, some Mormon – and even Jewish candidates – have worldviews that are more biblical than some professing Christians! Personally, I’d consider supporting a non-Christian who supports biblical causes over a supposed Christian who supports anti-biblical causes.

Yet, even if a professing Christian holds a biblical worldview, he doesn’t automatically earn my support. Jesus said you know a tree by its fruit. And, actions need to reflect professed belief. Take Rick Perry. According to the San Antonio Express-News, from 2000 to 2009, Perry has donated only one half of a percent of his nearly 2.7 million-dollar income to religious organizations.(See article on Perry's giving) In contrast, over the same period, Romney has donated millions to his church. So, who deserves my support?

Honestly, I don’t yet know. But, I do know that our criteria for selecting candidates should include more than a simple profession of faith.

A New Age of Christian Persecution?

2011-10-05T11:59:00.000-07:00

Every now and then, an event rouses Americans from their apathy concerning worldwide persecution of Christians. Iran’s planned execution of a pastor for refusing to renounce his faith is one such event. Yet, though this pastor’s situation has grabbed headlines, it’s not unique – nor rare.

A whopping 105,000 Christians are killed each year for their faith, according to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE. That’s one Christian martyred every five minutes. It’s a “worldwide emergency,” the OSCE says – a massacre that must be stopped. Yet, Christian persecution is only escalating.

More Christians died for their faith in the 20th Century than in all the 19 previous centuries combined. And now, the 21st Century is on track to eclipse even that. In just the past month, Muslim extremists killed more than 100 Christians in Nigeria’s Plateau state. And, in Somalia, a Christian was decapitated.

Jesus predicted the world would hate His followers as it first hated Him. And truly, Christians have become the most hated religious group in the world. A 2010 study on religious freedom found that 75 out of every 100 people killed due to religious hatred are Christian.

Even in Western countries, this troubling trend is gaining momentum. Best-selling books charge that “religion (especially Christianity) poisons everything.” Gay rights groups label Christians bigots for opposing homosexuality. Even the Department of Homeland Security lists believing in “End Times” prophesies and opposing abortion as characteristics of domestic terrorists! Remember, in Nazi Germany, the first step to exterminating Jews was demonizing them.

So, what should Christians do? Jesus said, “Take heart. I have overcome the world.” He endured the cross for the joy set before Him. So, too, we must keep an eternal perspective – and, in the words of the Apostle Paul – “strengthen (our) feeble arms and weak knees.”

"Shocking Figures Reveal 105,000 Christians Martyred Each Year"
"Study On Religious Freedom," Vatican

State Issues Ultimatum: Take Same-Sex Couples Or Else! What's Next?

2011-09-29T06:00:00.000-07:00

Imagine a world in which only churches that affirm homosexuality are allowed to operate. Never in the U.S. – the land of the free, right? Well, that’s basically what Illinois is doing to faith-based foster care and adoption agencies right now. Following the passage of a new civil union bill, the state is issuing Christian social service agencies an ultimatum: place foster kids with same-sex couples or – lose your foster care contract.

As a result, the Evangelical Child and Family Agency (ECFA) is closing its foster care program, transferring nearly 250 foster care cases to two secular agencies. Catholic Charities faces a similar plight. It’s fighting the state in court. But, if it loses, it will need to transfer nearly two-thousand foster care cases to other agencies.

Never mind that these two top-rated agencies have been providing excellent foster care for nearly five decades. Never mind that the new law contains a clause supposedly exempting religious organizations from state interference. And, never mind that not even one same-sex couple has approached either agency, seeking to provide foster care!

No, now we’re living in an era where the rights of gays trump the rights of just about everyone else, especially Christians – and we’re just in the early stages. Think about it. If the state can pressure Christian foster care agencies to violate their consciences, what’s to keep governments from doing the same thing with Christian schools and churches? The federal government could withhold loans from students enrolled in Christian colleges that don’t hire practicing homosexuals. Churches could lose tax-exempt status if they exclude homosexuals from leadership.

You see, once society accepts that homosexuality is an immutable trait, the same as skin color or physical disability, gays become a protected class. This is why Christians need to oppose civil union and gay marriage laws. They’re based on the premise that homosexuality is not a behavior. And, once governments accept that premise, it’s open season on all Christian institutions.

(Below is a link to a six-minute piece I produced on Illinois' decision to reject contracts with the ECFA and Catholic Charities. It contains portions of interviews with a spokesman from IL Dept. of Children and Family Services; the exec. director of ECFA; a spokesman with Catholic Charities; and a foster care family.)

Click here to listen to story

Wheaton College President Issues Green Paper, Showing Commitment to Core Evangelical Beliefs

2011-09-28T06:24:00.000-07:00

In an age when many supposed evangelicals are drifting from their biblical moorings, the relatively new captain of evangelical flagship, Wheaton College, is affirming his commitment to core beliefs. In a so-called “Green Paper” distributed to students, faculty and staff, Wheaton President Philip Ryken stated his support for key doctrines like the inerrancy of Scripture and “Jesus Christ as the only Savior.”

“Academic institutions that go into spiritual decline typically retain the form of Christianity for a long time before falling into apostasy,” Ryken wrote. “But even before this happens, they make fatal compromises with unbiblical theology.”

So true. Case in point – Harvard University, or Princeton, or Yale. May Wheaton never follow in those footsteps.

In the paper, Ryken also affirmed his belief in hell. More precisely, he affirmed “God’s terrible, eternal wrath against sin.” Given that Wheaton graduate and evangelical celebrity Rob Bell appears to deny this doctrine, this was encouraging, as well. Ryken also addressed evolution, stating that college is committed to “Adam and Eve as the historical parents of the entire human race.”

Though Wheaton increasingly has faced opposition for its stand against homosexuality, the Green Paper reflected an unswerving commitment to a biblical sexual ethic. “…(W)e believe that homosexual relations – like all sexual relations outside of marriage as biblically defined – are sinful,” Ryken wrote.

No doubt, the pressure on Wheaton to cave on this issue will get more and more intense. Just this year, a group of Wheaton alumni who affirm gay identity launched OneWheaton to promote their cause. And, this October, OneWheaton is planning a series of events to coincide with Wheaton’s Homecoming. These include attending the college’s football game donning OneWheaton T-shirts, and hosting a concert near campus with recently-out recording artist Jennifer Knapp. God help Wheaton as it seeks to respond in truth and love.

Ryken also rightly challenges the college community to recapture a passion for souls, which is waning among evangelicals. He asks, “Has the evangelical church lost some of its fervor for evangelizing the lost?” Clearly it has.

Scott Moreau, a missions professor at Wheaton College, said in a New York Times article that two decades ago half of his graduate students named building churches abroad as their top priority. "Today, it might be 10%," Moreau says. "Fighting trafficking, orphanage work, HIV-AIDS, poverty – that is probably 50%.” I agree with Ryken that “we must never forget that people are lost without the gospel . . .” Social action without evangelization accomplishes little.

The only red flag I detected in the new document is its paragraph on “political challenges.” Ryken writes:
“ Wheaton College is variously perceived as too liberal or else too conservative politically. Furthermore, some constituents and observers have trouble distinguishing between political and theological liberalism or conservatism. This is part of a wider trend (on both the right and the left) of pursuing cultural influence for the church by means of political power. Arguably, one of Wheaton’s strengths is its breadth of biblically-grounded thought on social and political issues . . .”

I understand and can appreciate the difference between political and theological liberalism and conservatism. If I didn’t, I couldn’t attend the church I do, where the majority is theologically conservative, but tends to lean Left politically. But, just because theological and political liberalism and conservatism are different doesn’t mean they aren't connected. They are. Nor are they equally valid. Liberalism is based on thoroughly unbiblical premises that the state is our father, not God; that suffering is caused by inequality, not sin; and that salvation is achieved by government intervention and redistribution, not Christ.

Now, I do not believe the Kingdom of God will advance by political means. But, I am concerned by what I detect is a failure by some Wheaton professors to integrate their politics with correct theology. I don’t agree with Ryken’s assertion that one of Wheaton’s strengths is its “breadth” of thought on political and social issues. In fact, one of its most glaring weaknesses is that some of its faculty hold positions that are incongruous with a biblical worldview. When the chair of the Education Department asserts that Bill Ayers and company “have enlightened us” and that Marxism is “not necessarily" unbiblical, that’s a serious problem.

Of course, the Green Paper is intended to be a provisional document to spark discussion. Ryken has appointed a 10-person task force of students, faculty, staff, and alumni to review and revise the paper. He also is inviting the Wheaton community to respond to the paper via email (presidents.office@wheaton.edu). The task force will present its findings in an executive report due the end of January.

Air Force Removes Moral Compass/Cancels Just War Theory Course

2011-09-22T03:56:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Air Force this month effectively removed its moral compass. Responding to pressure from a vocal minority, it cancelled a class on Just War Theory for its nuclear missile launch officers. It’s now seeking to teach ethics without any religious basis.

Just War theory, as you may know, is based on Christian values and teaching. And, that’s precisely what offended the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an ironic name for a group that wants to erase religion. Foundation Spokesman Mikey Weinsten called the Just War class “disgusting” and demanded it be removed. The Air Force quickly caved.

Air Force Spokesman David Smith conceded that at one time, the armed service thought Bible-based training necessary “because of the nature of the job.” But now that society’s become pluralistic, he contends that such training is “inappropriate.” Now, Smith says, the Air Force must develop an ethics course without relying on any religious system.

Of course, that’s impossible. All ethics are derived from religious belief. Even the secularist relies on what’s essentially religious belief: the only difference is he trusts in man and so-called random processes where a theist trusts in God. So now, instead of valuing humans as beings made in God’s image, the person deciding humanity’s fate will think we’re simply accidents. And, rather than believing that a war must be just, he’ll simply try to ensure survival of the fittest.

Of course, Weinstein is hailing the change as a moral victory that will make the world more peaceful. He wrongfully characterizes Just War Theory as advocating that “war is a good thing.” On the contrary, Just War Theory actually teaches restraint – that a nation should go to war only after peaceful attempts have failed and only when its cause and intent are just. As Romans 13 says, government is God’s servant, “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” But, without God, there’s no definition of wrong or just. There’s simply a moral vacuum – and weapons of mass destruction.

Is youth ministry sabotaging kids’ faith?

2011-09-19T06:59:00.000-07:00

A new study by the Fuller Youth Institutes (FYI) indicates it is. As part of Fuller’s “College Transition Project,” researchers followed 384 youth group seniors during their first three years in college. The results are eye-opening. Dr. Kara Powell, director of the FYI, talks about the study’s findings in the six-minute audio clip below. I found especially informative Dr. Powell’s information about the importance of inter-generational relationships – and the unintended consequences of “segregating” our youth (at about 2:30). Every Christian parent and person in children’s and youth ministries should hear this!

Click to Listen

What do you think? Should churches eliminate youth groups? Or, do we just need to modify the way they operate?

Miley Cyrus & Designer Religion

2011-09-15T03:57:00.000-07:00

Pop icon and self-proclaimed Christian, Miley Cyrus, reportedly has a new tattoo –the Hindu symbol “Om” inked on her right wrist. This adds to Cyrus’ already pluralistic body of tattoos – a cross from Christianity; the word, “karma,” from eastern philosophies; and a dreamcatcher – from native-American and New Age religions.

Miley Cyrus truly is a walking religious oxymoron. But unfortunately, she represents a growing number of American Christians.

According to George Barna, Christians increasingly are customizing their faith – rejecting key Christian doctrines and adopting parts of other religions at will. A stunning 40-percent of Americans claim they’ve accepted Christ as their savior. But, only seven-percent believe all core Christian doctrines like the sinlessness of Christ and the existence of Satan. As Barna puts it, America is quickly becoming a country of “310 million people with 310 million religions.”

How can this be? Can God be one as Christianity teaches and thousands as Hinduism espouses? Of course not! But to most Americans, these contradictions aren’t a problem and a recent study by the Fuller Youth Institute may indicate why.

The study found that most kids who grow up in Christian homes have reduced the gospel to a moral code – a list of do’s and don’ts that frankly, doesn’t differ much from those of other religions. Similarly, Barna found that half of Americans believe salvation is earned and that “good” people go to heaven.

How ironic! Christianity actually is the only religion that’s not essentially a moral code! It’s not about what we do – working off bad karma, walking an eight-fold path, or following five pillars. It’s about what Jesus has done through the cross, making relationship with God possible. Perhaps, if more Americans understood the cross as more than body decoration, they’d practice true faith instead of designer religion.

Wheaton Revises Education Document; Removes Original Response

2011-09-12T07:26:00.000-07:00

Eighteen-months after my report exposing Wheaton College’s promotion of social justice in its Education Department, the college has revised the department’s conceptual framework. New Wheaton College President Philip Ryken also has removed the college’s official response to my report that had been posted to Wheaton’s website.

As you may recall, my piece revealed that Wheaton’s earlier conceptual framework relied heavily on far Left radicals like Bill Ayers, Paulo Freire, and Richard Rorty. It also included excerpts from my interview with the chair of Wheaton’s Education Department where she refers to Ayers as “enlightening” and claims Marxism is “not necessarily” unbiblical. The report aired in February 2010 on the former Sandy Rios Show on the Salem Broadcasting Network.

Wheaton’s original response posted to its website defended the Education Department and implied that I had somehow been disingenuous in my reporting. On the contrary, I actually gave Wheaton faculty and officials multiple opportunities to interview and to clarify their statements. I believe the report reflected an accurate picture of the college at the time.

According to Ryken, the revised conceptual framework has been submitted to the state of Illinois for approval and he hopes it will be finalized this Fall. I appreciate Dr. Ryken’s willingness to address this issue and truly hope the revision reflects substantive change at Wheaton and not mere window dressing. As I’ve written numerous times on this blog, Marxism flows from a materialistic worldview that’s completely incongruous with biblical Christianity. And, unfortunately, much of what passes for “social justice” today is simply repackaged Marxism.

I truly appreciate the heart of my brothers and sisters at Wheaton, my alma mater. Though we may have disagreed on the means of helping the poor and oppressed, we definitely agree on the desired end.

You can read my original post about Wheaton and listen to the audio of my report by clicking on the headline "Wheaton College's Promotion of Social Justice" to the right.

9-11, Evil & The Existence of God

2011-09-07T12:19:00.000-07:00

Imagine renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens arguing for the existence of God! Unthinkable, right? Yet, that’s essentially what Hitchens does in his latest article reflecting on 9-11.

Hitchens writes: “What I learned in a highly indelible manner from the events . . . of September 2001 was this. Never ignore the obvious. . . ” And, what is the obvious? That the cause of 9-11 was – in Hitchens’ words – simply “evil.”

Now, whether Hitchens admits it or not, asserting that objective evil exists is tantamount to asserting that God exists. After all, without an absolute moral standard, how can one determine anything is good or evil? As theologian R.C. Sproul writes, “Evil is parasitic. It depends on a host outside of itself for its very definition. Nothing can be said to be evil without the prior standard of good.”

To get around this problem, many atheists claim evil is an illusion – a human invention that evolves as we do. But, as Hitchens admits, something about twin airplanes flying into twin towers, killing nearly three-thousand people, leaves this definition wanting. As author and sociologist Peter Berger notes, some deeds are “so monstrously evil” that they appear immune to any kind of moral relativizing. They force us to recognize a “transcendent realm of moral absolutes” – a realm, which we inherently know has been grossly violated.

Hitchens isn’t about to acknowledge any transcendent realm. But, he admits one can’t escape the existence of evil – even if he tries. Journalist Robert Fisk, for example, repeatedly mocked President Bush for believing in a so-called “axis of evil.” Yet, Fisk himself said about Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers, “Something evil has happened here.”

You see, evil is real, but this reality simply does not fit into an atheistic worldview. And, that betrays something else Hitchens should recognize as obvious – that atheism is false.

Spreading Dominionist Paranoia

2011-08-31T09:19:00.000-07:00

America, watch out! Conservative evanglicals are trying to take over the world! That’s the message communicated in numerous blogs and articles dubbing GOP presidential contenders Michele Bachman and Governor Rick Perry as so-called “dominionists.”

Dominionists, they say, are part of a dark conspiracy that’s trying to establish Christian theocracy. Quoting a sociologist who’s studied evangelicals, reporter Ryan Lizza suggests they’re religious fanatics who won’t rest until “Christians, and Christians alone . . . occupy all secular institutions.”

Of course, this is patently false. None of the GOP contenders supports theocracy. And, Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey, two evangelical thinkers cited as major influences on Bachmann, openly reject theocracy. In fact, Schaeffer explicitly wrote, “There is no New Testament basis for a linking of church and state until Christ, the King returns.”

So, why are scores of liberal bloggers and reporters spreading “dominionist” paranoia?

Well, it’s not because they oppose dominion – that is, as long as it’s theirs. As one gay blogger admitted, “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate . . . children.” Or, as terrorist turned educator Bill Ayers spouts, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough!”

What upsets liberals about Bachmann and Perry is that they’re worldview Christians: they view Christianity not merely as a set of private beliefs, but as a lens for interpreting all of life. You see, progressives are fine with people professing Jesus as savior. But, allowing faith to creep out of one’s personal closet – to inform one’s view of say, same-sex marriage, abortion rights, or big government – now that’s scary. That threatens their cultural dominion. And, they’ll viciously attack anyone who dares do it.

Doing Church for People Raised in the Cheesecake Factory

2011-08-24T11:14:00.000-07:00

How do you do church for a society raised in the Cheesecake Factory? Author and Pastor John Ortberg recently posed this question when examining the role of entertainment in worship. You see, it used to be that peoples’ media diet was extremely restricted. And, as a result, they could easily sit through a 90-minute, theologically-rich sermon. As Ortberg put it, “If you are raised on nothing but broccoli, an apple tastes like dessert.”

But now, our appetites have changed. We’ve been raised in a virtual Cheescake Factory – daily gorging on TV, computer games, DVDs, iPods, iPads, and iPhones. Now, as Ortberg notes, “an apple tastes like punishment.” So, he wonders, how do we capture peoples’ attention without fostering the very shallowness of mind from which God wants to deliver us?

By and large, the Christian community has failed to consider this question. Instead of rebuking attention-deficit, we tend to accommodate it, creating high-tech, sensation-generating worship services. But, what if, as cultural critic Neil Postman suggested, we’re amusing ourselves to death? What if technology and entertainment has undone our capacity to think? The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2 that “No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs.” Yet today, I wonder if we’re not so plugged in to civilian distractions that we’re practically useless for kingdom purposes.

The path to spiritual maturity is a rigorous and yes, sometimes tedious, process – one that, quite frankly, our current attention spans simply won’t tolerate. If we’re ever going to mature spiritually, we need to periodically fast from entertainment; endure some boredom; and allow our appetites to change. We need to start eating broccoli again. Sure, a cheesecake diet tastes good, but it does little to nourish the body.

Is God Father – and Mother?

2011-08-10T12:18:00.000-07:00

Can God be Mother, as well as Father? The United Church of Christ apparently believes He can. Its General Synod recently voted overwhelmingly to strike the term “heavenly Father” from its constitution. And, reportedly some UCC pastors already are referring to God alternately as “Father and Mother.”

That God possesses both masculine and feminine characteristics is indisputable. In Isaiah, he’s likened to “a woman in travail” and even a “mother” who “comforts her child.” But, does possessing the characteristics of a mother equate with being a mother? And if so, then why does Jesus exclusively refer to God as Father – and never once as Mother?

Of course, liberal church leaders, like many within the UCC, argue that Jesus was simply a man of his times – “historically conditioned” by Jewish patriarchal society. But, to assert that Jesus was unable to transcend His culture denies His divinity. Perhaps, though, some argue, Jesus simply wanted to avoid shocking his listeners. But, practically everything Jesus did shocked his listeners – healing on the Sabbath, clearing the temple – and yes, referring to God intimately as His father or even “daddy.”

It’s fair, then, to conclude that Jesus, when teaching that God is Father, not Mother, was actually communicating a timeless truth. But why would God prefer that we relate to him in such a gender-specific way? As Catholic apologist Mark Brumley writes, it’s all about symbol. Inherent in the symbol of fatherhood – and even in masculinity itself – is initiation. Fathers, for example, initiate procreation; mothers, on the other hand, receive it. And, this is how God relates to His people: He initiates; we receive. This is why C.S. Lewis wrote, “What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relationship to it.”

Fatherhood also symbolizes God’s transcendence over creation, as opposed to immanence. Again, a father procreates outside and away from himself; but, a woman procreates inside and within herself. She symbolizes immanence; he symbolizes transcendence. Of course, because of the cross, God can dwell immanently with His people. But, in regards to His creation, God’s transcendence takes priority. This transcendence is what separates Christianity from a whole host of pantheistic religions. And, it’s yet another reason why God is Father, not Mother.

Jesus was not creating God in culture’s image when He called Him Father. Yet, that’s precisely what people who call God Mother are doing. They’re failing to recognize the symbolic purpose of gender. And, they’re remaking God in their all-inclusive, politically-correct image – something God never gave us liberty to do.

Youth Ministry – A Failed Experiment?

2011-08-03T13:21:00.000-07:00

Youth ministry is a “50-Year Failed Experiment.” So says Scott Brown, director of the National Center for Family Integrated Churches – a group calling for the end of so-called “age-segregated ministry.” Along with LeClerc Brothers Motion Pictures, this group has produced a documentary, called “Divided,” arguing its case. Plus, it’s posted an online confession rejecting the youth-group ministry model that more than 750 churches have signed.

Youth groups undermine the family, these church leaders argue, by replacing fathers with youth pastors as the primary disciplers of children. This, they say, is why 60- to 85-percent of churched youth leave the church once they become adults.

I’m not sure youth groups can be made solely responsible for losing this next generation of Christians. Certainly, culture has become more hostile to Christianity, making raising Christian kids extraordinarily difficult. Still, I think the family-integrated movement highlights a major weakness in the church today.

As “Divided” documents, before the modern Sunday School movement, the precursor of today’s youth groups, children were discipled at home. In fact, when Sunday Schools began, some predicted the movement would lead fathers to relinquish their discipling responsibility and give it to the church. Sadly, this prediction has come true with some devastating consequences. I recently discussed this with my 18-year-old son and he relayed that many of his church-going friends no longer walk with the Lord. He said the only ones who still have a vibrant relationship with God are those whose parents discipled them at home.

Youth groups also – just by their very existence – create another problem: they isolate teenagers from the life and mission of the church, causing many teens to get bored and drop out. Churches should challenge teens to engage in significant kingdom work within the context of their local church. Instead, they often ignore teens, relegating them to youth groups that function independently from the Body.

I’ve often wondered why my 18-year-old displays such strong leadership qualities when he’s on missions trips, but doesn’t desire to lead in his local youth group. When I asked him, he said that when he’s on a trip, he understands and owns his team’s kingdom mission. But, at youth group, he doesn’t. He said most youth events seem inwardly focused and disconnected from the larger mission of the church. He loves attending youth group, but it doesn’t inspire him to serve.

I don’t think youth groups are wrong. They can be helpful. No doubt, my kids have benefitted significantly from the relationships they’ve developed with youth group leaders and students. But, youth groups need to support parents in discipling their own children, not assume that responsibility themselves. And, they need to engage kids in the mission of the local church, not exist merely for their own benefit. Unfortunately, few youth groups are doing this well and perhaps the paradigm itself is fundamentally flawed. At the very least, youth groups are an experiment worth re-evaluating.

www.dividedthemovie.com

Norway Shooter – Christian or Social Darwinist?

2011-07-28T05:47:00.000-07:00

Christianity is “lethally dangerous nonsense.” That’s according to prominent atheist Richard Dawkins. But, it’s also the message communicated in worldwide media reports concerning the shooter in Norway. As soon as Norwegian Police identified Anders Breivik as a “fundamentalist Christian,” the internet exploded with warnings against “extreme religion.”

A comment on the Huffington Post that “Religious conservatives are dangerous” was shared on Facebook by nearly three-thousand readers. A blogger from Norfolk reiterated this sentiment, writing: “Let's be clear, extremism of any kind is dangerous, but religious extremists are the most dangerous because in their warped view, God is on their side.” But, is Breivik really a “fundamentalist Christian”? And, is this the lesson to be learned from the shooting in Norway?

As fair-minded reporters delve more closely into Breivik’s beliefs, they’re discovering Breivik was not motivated by Christianity. As CNN Religion Editor Dan Gilgoff writes, “Breivik appears to have been motivated more by an extreme loathing of European multiculturalism . . . than by Christianity.”

In his 15-hundred word manifesto, Breivik states, “I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie.” He also reveals a complete ignorance of Christian fundamentals when he states that one can be a “Christian-agnostic” or even a “Christian atheist”! To Breivik, Christian simply means supporting “the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy,” which he defines as observing “Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter.” Breivik also contradicts Scripture, asserting that Christians are not “required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.”

Perhaps Breivik’s most revealing statement, however, is that science should take “undisputed precedence over biblical teachings” and that “national Darwinism” should form the foundation of societies. You see, Breivik is a Darwin-inspired nationalist much like Mao Tse Tung and Joseph Stalin. They used survival of the fittest as justification for slaughtering millions who opposed them; similarly, Breivik used survival of European culture as justification for slaughtering Muslims and the socialists who support them. That is social Darwinism – a philosophy clearly from the pit of hell. It was used by Margaret Sanger to justify killing African-Americans through abortion. It also motivated Eric Harris to murder students at Columbine High School. “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE???” Harris wrote. “Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.”

You see, Anders Breivik doesn’t reveal radical Christianity, which is summed up in the two commandments – love God and love others; he reveals radical Darwinism – the philosophy that might is right since evolution requires the fittest to survive. So, it’s not Christianity, but rather Darwinism, that’s lethally dangerous nonsense.

Who's Responsible For the Poor?

2011-07-20T13:01:00.000-07:00

Eight in 10 evangelical leaders think it’s the government’s responsibility to care for the very poor. That’s according to a recent Pew Forum Survey and a stunning revelation, given that the Bible never once delegates this responsibility to civil government!

Repeatedly, Scripture enjoins the Church to care for the poor. Clearly, the New Testament Church assumed this mandate – daily distributing food and teaching that true and faultless religion is looking after orphans and widows. For about two-thousand years following, the church continued this mission – building orphanages, running hospitals, and feeding the hungry. But, in the past 50 years, something’s changed. Now, an increasing number of Christians don’t believe the church is equal to the task.

Jimmy Dorrell, executive director for a faith-based ministry in Waco, Texas, says, “It’s fallacious to believe the church can do what the government does for the poor.” He cites research showing that each church, synagogue, and mosque in America would have to contribute $300,000 each year to fund the basic poverty-relief programs provided by government. Melissa Rogers, director of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University Divinity School echoes Dorrell’s sentiment. “There are some things that essentially only the government can do,” she says, “. . . like maintaining a safety net for people in particular need of assistance and making sure they’re safe in the wake of disasters.”

Really? The Christian organization Franklin Graham heads, Samaritan’s Purse, provides excellent disaster relief. Recently, Graham reflected that a hundred years ago, the safety net in America was the church. If someone was hungry or needing a job, he’d go to his church. But, “the government took that . . . away from the church,” Graham said. “And (the government) had more money to give and more programs to give, and pretty soon, the churches just backed off.”

Graham’s right. American churches reportedly give only about one-half of one-percent of their budgets to help the poor. And, churches don’t have nearly the budgets they should because only 9-percent of born again Christians reportedly tithe.[i] Meanwhile, government spending on welfare has exploded. Today, even after adjusting for inflation, the government spends 13 times more on welfare programs than it did 45 years ago.[ii] Despite this, nearly 44-million Americans today live in poverty – the highest number in 51 years of record-keeping![iii]

You see, the government can’t address the causes of poverty – like fatherlessness, addiction, and learned patterns of dependency. In fact, government programs simply exacerbate these problems – undermining intact families and eroding peoples’ work ethic. In the past 45 years, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed from 7-percent to 40-percent. And, of the 70 federal welfare programs today, only one even requires recipients to work![iv] Only the church has the transformative power necessary to tackle poverty. Christians – and especially church leaders – need to recognize this fact and stop looking to government to do the work of the Church.

[i] Barna Research Group

[ii] Heritage Foundation

[iii] 2009 U.S. Census Bureau Report

[iv] Heritage Foundation

Theistic Devolution

2011-07-14T06:55:00.000-07:00

How God created the universe is irrelevant. Whether He followed the Genesis narrative literally – or, simply sparked life and allowed evolution to take over matters little. What matters is whether or not you believe God played a role in its creation.

Ever heard that argument? It’s becoming increasingly popular. In fact, a recent survey of evangelical leaders found that nearly half believe in evolution, provided that a Supreme Being guided it. Francis Collins, the head of the human Genome Project and an outspoken Christian, also believes in so-called “theistic evolution.” In fact, according to Collins, most serious scientists who are also believers believe “God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts.” No big deal, right? Wrong.

Genesis One clearly states that God created the plants and living creatures “according to their kinds” and commanded them to likewise reproduce. This hardly squares with theistic evolution, which espouses that the diversity of life today evolved from simple life forms over a long period of time.

But then, some may say Christians who oppose evolution are simply misinterpreting Scripture like the church did in Galileo’s day. Certainly, we should be open to re-examining our doctrine if it clearly conflicts with God’s revelation in nature. However, this isn’t the case with macro-evolution. In fact, as Michael Behe explains in “The Edge of Evolution,” evolutionary mechanisms like mutations and natural selection lack the ability to create progression in species. In fact, research reveals that mutations only weaken organisms, leading to conditions like sickle-cell anemia and cancer.

So, why are Christians converting to theistic evolution? It seems to me we’re simply capitulating to the philosophical naturalists. Nancy Pearcey writes in “Total Truth” that naturalists won’t attack religion as false because that would arouse public protest. Instead, they’ve simply relegated faith to the realm of values. “Theology is no longer regarded as an independent source of knowledge,” Pearcey writes. “It is merely an overlay of value on otherwise value-free facts.” Collins confirms this low view of faith when he admits that theistic evolution, because it proposes God, “is not intended as a scientific theory. Its truth can be tested only by the spiritual logic of the heart, the mind, and the soul.” In other words, we can’t know that belief in a Creator-God is objectively true; we simply must rely on subjective belief.

In this way, theistic evolutionists have actually partnered with naturalists to deconstruct the very foundation of Christianity. And, without this foundation in objective truth, we have no basis for arguing that a Christian understanding of anything – morality, theology, or any field of study – is any more legitimate than a naturalistic one.

But, Romans 1 says we can know “from what has been made” God’s “invisible qualities,” so that we “are without excuse.” Today, we’re privy to more evidence pointing to an intelligent Creator than any generation ever. We know, for example, that DNA is a highly-developed software that controls a fully-automated, high-tech protein factory with the ability to repair itself and even check for errors. You see, contrary to theistic evolutionists, life did not develop randomly. God designed it and His creation bears witness to this fact.

Is the Gospel Ethnocentric?

2011-07-06T12:34:00.000-07:00

Missionaries are destroying indigenous cultures. At least, that’s what many anthropologists would have you believe. Sure, missionaries help indigenous people by offering medical and dental services. But, by spreading the gospel, some say they’re obliterating origin myths and native religions. As one Brazilian activist lamented, “(Some native tribes) no longer worship shamans because missionaries told them it was bad. That’s a terrible, immense cultural loss.”

Now, anyone who’s studied the history of Christian missions knows that missionaries have made some huge cultural gaffes in the past. They sometimes equated Western civilization with Christianity. And, instead of nurturing indigenous expressions of faith, they squashed them and replaced them with European traditions.

But, such ethnocentrism today is rare. In fact, most contemporary missionaries raise up indigenous leaders and typically adopt a background or support role. Plus, these missionaries try to assimilate into the culture, not change it. In Brazil, for example, some even wear loincloths to fit in better.

Yet, I’m sure these accommodations won’t satisfy many anthropologists because at issue here is not appreciation for culture: at issue is belief about the nature of man and the cause of suffering. You see, to the secularist and many anthropologists, man is not good or evil: these concepts are merely cultural constructs. So, all cultures and cultural expressions are equally valid. Additionally, suffering is not caused by sin and peoples’ bondage to it; it’s caused by man’s misunderstanding of man.

Interestingly, though, anthropologists have a difficult time applying this concept consistently. Take female circumcision. This barbaric practice causes severe emotional trauma and renders most women incapable of experiencing sexual pleasure. Yet, it’s indigenous to much of Africa and parts of the Middle East. In fact, more than 90-percent of the women in Somalia, Egypt, Mali, and Eritrea have been circumcised.

So, is it wrong – or ethnocentric – to condemn this practice? To be consistent, an anthropologist would have to say yes. Yet, anyone who values women cringes at the thought of girls being marred for life to appease a misogynistic society. Even the United Nations and the International Conference on Population and Development have publicly condemned female circumcision, despite these groups’ reluctance to impinge on cultural norms.

You see, evil is real, not some social construct. And, people – as fallen creatures – have created cultures marred by their sinful natures. Sin – not merely misunderstanding – causes suffering. And, missionaries, by introducing people to the truth, are not destroying cultures. They’re giving indigenous people the same opportunity many of us have been given – the opportunity to find freedom from sin and suffering through the cross of Jesus Christ.

Exporting Lady Gaga

2011-06-29T11:34:00.001-07:00

The United States is known around the world for exporting McDonald’s, Apple computers, Coca-Cola – and now, Lady Gaga.

That’s right. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week bragged that our state department had “seal(ed) the deal” for the sacrilegious pop star to perform at a gay pride rally in Rome. Yes, amid the many pressing matters of state like international terrorism and human trafficking, promoting blasphemy and alternative lifestyles apparently ranks high on our state department’s list.

Clinton made her remarks at a celebration of LGBT Pride Month co-hosted by the state department and the group, Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. According to Clinton, the state department regarded Gaga’s performance so critical that David Thorne, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, wrote Gaga a letter urging her to come. Plus, the entire “embassy team” in Rome reportedly worked diligently with Euro Pride organizers, playing a – quote – “instrumental role.”

As you may remember, Lady Gaga – an Italian American – deeply offended Christians earlier this year with her song “Judas.” The video for this song opens with Gaga, clutching a Jesus-type figure, wearing a golden crown of thorns. She declares, “Jesus is my virtue, and Judas is the demon I cling to….I’m just a holy fool . . . I’m in love with Judas, Judas.”

The song enraged religious groups in the U.S., prompting Catholic League President Bill Donahue to say, “Lady Gaga tries to continue to shock Catholics and Christians in general: she dresses as a nun... she swallows the rosary. She has now morphed into a caricature of herself.” But, the outrage over Lady Gaga wasn’t limited to the U.S. The country of Lebanon banned radio stations from playing “Judas.” And, Malaysia banned a Lady Gaga song affirming alternate lifestyles, called “Born This Way.”

One has to wonder why the state department would try to secure an offensive pop-star to represent America in another country. I also wonder why the State Department is securing acts for foreign gay pride events when nearly half of Americans think homosexuality is morally wrong.

Thomas Jefferson once said that “to compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Yet it seems our leaders no longer respect this principle. Instead, they use their publicly-funded positions to promote the views and values of whoever has the most fans on Facebook. Not only does this poorly represent America to the world. But, it also gives legitimacy to false ideas and reprehensible behavior.

Lessons From a Former Camp Meeting

2011-06-22T11:54:00.000-07:00

Martha’s Vineyard today is known as the playground of presidents. But, in the 1800’s, people traveled to this picturesque island off Cape Cod not to fish or to recreate – but to worship.

Last week, my husband and I visited Martha’s Vineyard while celebrating our 25^th anniversary. And, we were surprised to find that at the heart of the island’s busiest town sits a huge tabernacle encircled by hundreds of brightly-painted gingerbread cottages. One-hundred-seventy-six years ago, this spot was known as Wesleyan Grove – a Methodist camp meeting where thousands congregated for week-long revival meetings.

Morning till night, preachers exhorted, worshipers sang, and scores committed their lives to Christ. Camp meetings like Wesleyan Grove were instrumental in the Second Great Awakening – a movement, which created millions of new converts and exploded denominations like the Methodists.

So, you can imagine my excitement when I saw a sign at the tabernacle announcing a “community sing” the evening we were visiting. I wondered if perhaps the revivalist spirit might still be alive in this little town. My husband and I returned at the announced time in eager expectation, but found the tabernacle empty.

I’ve since learned the community sings at the tabernacle are held only in July and August, as are Sunday services. But, these bear little resemblance to the camp meetings of old. In fact, not all the songs at the sings are even religious – some are rounds and patriotic tunes. People used to flock to this tabernacle for nearly round-the-clock services. They met God and were forever changed. But now, it seems people are more interested in remembering a “quaint” tradition than encountering a great and awesome God.

In their book, “The Church in America,” sociologists Rodney Starke and Roger Finke say many American denominations have followed the pattern of the Wesleyan Grove camp meeting. At their inception, these groups taught a so-called “high-tension” faith – opposing the culture and calling people to radical repentance. They also maintained minimal structure, often relying on itinerant preachers and lay pastors. However, over time, these unorthodox groups became orthodox. They moved toward wealth and status and became increasingly secular. And, as quickly as these groups once grew, they then shrank.

It’s sobering to ponder. It shows how easily vibrant Christian movements can be reduced to mere history and landmarks. I work for an institution that’s almost as old as Wesleyan Grove. Yet somehow, the Moody Bible Institute has retained its vision and vitality. But, that’s no guarantee for the future. If Moody or any other Christian organization or church wants to remain true to God’s call, it must seek first God’s Kingdom and His righteousness – not worldly acceptance.

Does Evolution Explain Altruism?

2011-06-09T06:41:00.000-07:00

Evolution changes everything. Some think this theory simply explains origins, which by the way, it spectacularly fails to do. Even evolutionists admit they can only speculate how life emerged from inorganic matter. Yet, despite this glaring deficiency, Darwinists increasingly are purporting that evolution can explain much more than biological diversity. They say it can explain how political systems, societal norms, even personal morality has evolved.

All of us possess a desire to unify our beliefs into one comprehensive worldview. And, for a Darwinist, this means believing that every aspect of reality – not just biology – emerged randomly and impersonally. That’s why one of the fastest growing disciplines today is evolutionary psychology. This discipline presumes that if natural selection produced the human body, then it must also account for the way humans think, believe, and behave. But, because evolutionary psychology is based on a faulty premise, it devolves into absurdity and wild speculation.

Take altruism, for example. This presents a particularly difficult problem for evolutionary psychologists. You see, natural selection dictates that only the fittest pass on their genes to the next generation. Yet, self-sacrifice – a characteristic that necessarily endangers the survival of an organism – still exists in the natural world. Why, for example, would a healthy person sacrifice a kidney for a brother? Wouldn’t natural selection dictate that the genes leading to this detrimental behavior naturally die out in a population over time?

The logical conclusion is that maybe something other than natural selection is active in this world. And, maybe organisms – especially humans – are more than just the sum total of their genes. But, because Darwinists are committed to a belief system that negates the spiritual realm, they ignore these obvious explanations. Evolutionary psychologists instead have concocted what’s called “kin selection.” This theory, popularized by biologist E.O. Wilson, suggests that when a person sacrifices himself for a relative, he’s actually helping that relative to survive and procreate. And, since he shares genetic material with his relative, he’s not really acting altruistically: he’s simply passing on his genes indirectly.

Over the past few decades, most Darwinists have accepted kin selection. But now, Wilson is abandoning this theory. Apparently, researchers have found that some species, which share a lot of genetic material with each other don’t behave altruistically. But, other species, which share very little genetic material do. “Nothing we were finding connected with kin selection,” Wilson said. “I knew that something was going wrong – there was a smell to it.”

Now many Darwinists are left with egg on their faces and they’re refusing to accept Wilson’s conclusion. But, I agree with Wilson that this all has a very distinctive smell to it. It’s the aroma of those who claim to be wise, but have become fools. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. The assumption that all that exists is matter is folly.

Overpopulation Myth

2011-06-02T04:19:00.000-07:00

Christians need to stop swallowing overpopulation propaganda. Really, we do. Just last week, Christianity Today posted an article to its website entitled, “A Christian Response to Overpopulation.” The article acknowledges that none of the calamities predicted 43 years ago in Paul Ehrlich’s doomsday book “Population Bomb” have come true. Yet, author Amy Julia Becker repeats as gospel truth similar scaremongering today by the United Nations and The New York Times.

Becker cites a recent United Nations report, projecting that the world’s population may top 10 billion by the year 21-hundred. Then, like the Times reporters who call this a “sobering forecast,” Becker writes, “the prospect of billions more people threaten(s) the future health and well-being of many.” She adds that “unrestricted population growth . . . can put children in danger as a result of severely limited resources.”

Really? Is the world truly facing an overpopulation crisis? And, are we on the verge of some cataclysmic worldwide famine?

Interestingly, even the “sobering” U.N. report acknowledges that by the turn of the century, population will declining in most countries. In fact, population already is declining in parts of Europe. And, it would be declining in the United States were it not for immigration. You see, thanks to contraception and abortion, birthrates are falling precipitously around the world, but most dramatically in the developed countries. In fact, for the first time ever, birthrates in southern and Eastern Europe have dropped below one-point-three children per woman. If that rate continues, the population in these European nations will be cut in half in 45 years!

Of course, some developing countries have much higher birthrates – namely those in Africa. However, due to so-called “family planning” initiatives, the birthrate in Africa is plummeting, as well. Forty years ago, Africa’s birthrate hovered near 7 children per woman; now, it’s around four children and is projected to dip below three by 2050. In fact, the most likely scenario is that worldwide population will peak at just over nine billion in 2075. And then, it will start falling. So, why all the alarm?

One unavoidable conclusion is that Planned Parenthood International, the U.N. Population Fund, and similar organizations fear losing their funding. As the Times article noted, foreign aid to pay for contraceptives and abortion has stagnated at $238-billion for the past decade. Plus, the United States, which has long been the biggest donor, cut international family planning programs five percent last month as part of Congress’ budget compromise.

Christians need to be wary of overpopulation scaremongering. At its abortive and contraceptive core, lay Satan’s strategy to kill and destroy. But, God blesses children and actually commands couples to procreate. So what’s the Christian response to the myth of overpopulation? Be fruitful and multiply – and steward well the resources God’s given us.

Gay Affirmation: Freedom or License?

2011-05-25T20:00:00.000-07:00

The desire to be free runs deep in the human soul. Perhaps one of the most gripping scenes I’ve ever watched is in the movie “Braveheart.” It depicts Scottish Patriot William Wallace choosing to be disemboweled rather than yield to his British oppressors.

Though Wallace dies externally bound and mutilated, inwardly he’s free and triumphant. In contrast, the man who betrayed him, and the cause of Scottish independence, survives in seeming freedom. Yet inwardly, he’s bound to the guilt and shame of his actions.

This scene graphically depicts a truth central to Christianity: that the path to freedom often requires suffering – confession and repentance. Christianity also teaches that true freedom is an inward reality that often defies our external circumstances. In contrast, license is the world’s counterfeit to this freedom. It allows a person to do whatever he wants, but leaves him bound by guilt and shame. It promises freedom, but delivers bondage.

I thought about freedom and license as I read the webpage of OneWheaton – a pro-gay group of Wheaton College students and alumni. This group boldly proclaims that one can be a faithful Christian and also embrace a lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgendered identity. And, it promises freedom to those who identify as LGBTQ saying, “After Wheaton our lives became stories of liberation.”

I graduated from Wheaton and I know several alum who have struggled with same-sex attraction. Some have embraced that identity and walked away from the Lord. Some have worked through their attraction – an incredibly grueling process probably the emotional equivalent of being disemboweled. Yet, these courageous brothers and sisters have emerged whole and remarkably at peace.

I admit I don’t have any close friends who have embraced a gay or lesbian identity and yet stayed in the church. But, I have friends who do who insist these gay and lesbian Christians genuinely possess a passion for God. Yet, I wonder, are these believers truly free?

I suppose, there’s a certain amount of relief in openly admitting your desires and finding people who not only accept you, but allow you to comfortably satisfy those desires. But, if homosexuality is sin, which Scripture clearly indicates it is. And, we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, which convicts us of sin – then living as a gay Christian hardly seems liberating.

I wonder sometimes if the constant push by gay Christians for the entire Christian community to affirm their lifestyle doesn’t betray their inner turmoil. As Queen Gertrude said in Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” I’m glad Wheaton College responded in truth – maintaining an orthodox view of human sexuality. Yet, even if Wheaton hadn’t, I don’t believe it would have relieved these gay and lesbian Christians from shame and guilt. Only God can do that – and His way requires renouncing, not affirming, sin.

Before writing this, I consulted with Chad Klopfenstein -- a follower of Christ and Wheaton grad who struggled with same-sex attraction years ago. He's now married and has children. Below is an excerpt of one of his e-mails printed with his permission.

. . . In response to your question about whether I know Christians in the gay lifestyle who are at peace, the answer is a resounding no. They are happy and often very loving. But the conflict is obvious whenever issues of faith enter the conversation.

. . . I have a number (probably less than 15) of friends who are in the gay lifestyle. I love them and still ache for them when I see what they seem to want to ignore. You captured that perfectly in your commentary.

A quick anecdote that might explain what I mean: I had a dream several years ago about one of my close friends who is in the lifestyle. I rarely see him, but we keep in touch via email, etc. In my dream, I was at a banquet table that was laden to the point of collapsing with every possible good thing to eat. I was heaping my plate full and reveling in the feast. My friend walked up and I was thrilled to see him. We hugged and started laughing about old jokes.

I asked him to join me in the feast. He looked at me sadly, as though he felt sorry for me, and told me that the table was empty. He said I was deluded and I should accept that there was nothing to eat. I woke up and cried for hours.

Should Christian Kids Attend Prom?

2011-05-19T04:12:00.000-07:00

Should Christian kids attend prom? That’s the question thousands of parents and teens face this time of year. And, one our family encountered, as well. In the end, we allowed our 18-year-old to make his own decision to go. But, his description of what happened there makes me all the more convinced that Christian kids have no business attending these events.

You see, unless a school has a strict “no-grinding” policy, attending these events is tantamount to viewing pornography and I’m not exaggerating. For those not familiar with “grinding,” it’s basically a lap dance from behind. Occasionally, as a teacher at our high school described, girls even get down on all fours – yes, in a prom dress. And, in at least one instance my son described, a couple grinded while a boy wrapped his tie around his partner’s neck, holding it like a leash.

Of course, viewing this degrading and perverse behavior is bad enough. But, often Christian kids participate. In fact, a relative of mine told me that grinding is prevalent at her children’s prom – at a Christian school. Unfortunately, this cultural phenomenon, which originated among young adults who got it from viewing porn, has become widespread among teens and even pre-teen children. Just a couple of years ago, it was common that only a handful of teens at a school dance actually grinded. Now, as one female student lamented, “If you want to dance, like regular, you would totally stand out.”

As I’ve talked with other Christian parents about navigating school dances, the consensus often seems to be that attending is okay. Make sure your kids attend with a group of Christian students. And, they can stick to themselves and avoid all the perversity. But, in most school dances, that’s simply not possible. The perversity is unavoidable. And understand, if your kids attend a dance with non-Christian friends, those seemingly nice, respectable kids likely will behave like animals on the dance floor. That’s how depraved this culture has become.

So, what can we parents do? For starters, we can express our disapproval to our local school districts. Several schools nationwide have successfully established “no-grind” policies. Further, some schools discuss the sexism and postural domination inherent in grind dancing in their sex ed classes. After all, this form of dancing involves girls offering their bodies as objects to be used for boys’ sexual arousal. As one sex ed instructor noted, “I don’t believe any student . . . would chose to be degraded or give their power away in public if they saw it as such.”

Most importantly, though, we need to teach our children their value and purpose: that they’re made in the image of God and their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. We also need to encourage them to guard their eyes. They need to mimic the Psalmist who wrote, “I refuse to take a second look at corrupting people and degrading things. I . . . stay clear of contamination.”

Confronting or Accommodating Culture?

2011-05-12T05:27:00.000-07:00

Recently, the imam of the “Ground Zero Mosque” spoke to a gathering of evangelicals at a conference called “Q,” in Portland, Oregon. His invitation understandably sparked controversy. But, Gabe Lyons, creator of “Q,” said he wanted to understand what the imam believes and why – and to bridge the chasm of fear between Muslims and Christians. One Baptist minister thanked Lyons, calling “this particular bridge . . . one of the worthiest cultural creations of our present age.”

Bridge-building. It’s certainly become a popular way we evangelicals engage the culture in an effort to redeem it and to reach non-Christians. And certainly, anyone who’s ever tried to witness to an unbeliever knows how important listening and building trust can prove in that process. Yet lately, evangelicals seem to have exalted bridge-building to a new level. Now, we invite leaders of other religions to speak at our conferences. We create entire ministries that exist solely to build bridges between Christians and gays – or some other seemingly estranged group. And, we have Christian rock bands that tour with irreligious and foul-mouthed groups like Stone Sour and Halestorm. Is this what the Apostle Paul meant when he said he had become “all things to all men” that he might “save some”?

I don’t think so. Take, for example, Paul’s speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17. Evangelicals often cite this passage as justification for bridge-building strategies. Here, before an audience of idol-worshipping pagans, Paul begins explaining God by referencing the Athenian’s altar to “An Unknown God.” He also quotes pagan poets – again connecting to Athenian culture. But, Paul isn’t building a bridge the way today’s cultural engagers do. He isn’t merely listening to Athenian culture to understand it and find some common ground. As Russell Moore, a dean at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes in the article, “Retaking Mars Hill,” Paul referenced Athenian culture to confront it.

When mentioning the altar to the “Unknown God,” Paul is pointing out that the Athenians themselves acknowledge their ignorance of the divine. Similarly, when Paul quotes pagan poets, he’s doing so to demonstrate how Athenian beliefs actually contradict themselves. As Moore writes, Paul “points to the Athenians’ culture not so much to bring out what they know as what they deny.” Yes, Paul acknowledges God’s image is reflected in Greek culture. But, Paul recognizes how sin has distorted and perverted this image. And, he concludes with an apparent bridge-burning statement. Paul says, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”

This is what’s missing in much of today’s evangelical bridge-building. We’re so intent on being “all things to all people” that we’ve forgotten the purpose is to “win some.” We’ve made bridge-building an end in and of itself. And, instead of confronting culture, we’re accommodating it and, I fear, neglecting the gospel.

Christianity and Capitalism in Conflict?

2011-04-27T11:51:00.000-07:00

Do Christianity and capitalism clash? A stunning 44-percent of Americans think they do; a mere 36-percent believe they don’t. That’s according to a new poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Religion News Service. White evangelicals, however, tend to view capitalism more favorably than the general population. Forty-four percent reportedly think businesses unregulated by government would behave ethically. That’s compared to 36-percent of Catholics; 33-percent of mainline Protestants; and 34-percent of minority Christians.

So, what should Christians make of these results? Not surprisingly, some readers of “Out of Ur,” a blog for church leaders, echo the sentiments of the 44-percent.

One reader writes, “Love of money is the root of all evil, and capitalism runs on, depends on, the love of money.”

But, as others note, “All economic systems ‘run on money.’” And, “There is nothing wrong with abundance. The more money someone has, the more (he) can help needy.” Another astutely asks, “So if we need government to keep business honest, then who is keeping the government honest?”

These are great questions and observations. Yet, the one that impacted me most was this: “Ultimately, Christianity clashes with every economy and every form of government. This is the tension of living in the Kingdom that has come, but not fully yet.”

Don’t get me wrong. I think some economic systems are better than others. Capitalism evolved out of Christian convictions that God ordained private property by prohibiting theft and covetousness. In contrast, socialism developed from unbiblical assumptions that man is good and private property bad.

Yet, I retain a healthy suspicion of all economic systems because I know how easily economic forces can trump the influence of God in my life. For example, when I was a teenager, I loved bartering for goods in Third World markets. Why? Because I saw it as a game, and getting a lower price than everyone else stroked my pride and made me feel clever. Yet, when I went to Ghana this past summer, I found the thrill of bartering was gone. I no longer wanted to get the basement price from some vendor I knew was living on a dollar a day. Over time, God’s values had replaced blatant self-interest and I was okay with paying a bit more for a product. Yet, this example reminds me how easy it is to succumb to economic interests before Kingdom interests – to allow a force that’s morally neutral give birth to sin.

Is Christianity compatible with capitalism? Yes, I think it is. But, the free market, just like any pressure in society – can trigger sin. And, people operating in even the best of economic systems will pervert them. Regardless of what economic system we support, we constantly need to examine how money and market forces are shaping us – and then submit our attitudes and actions to the Lordship of Christ. That’s my view.

Cautioning Ayn Rand Disciples

2011-04-20T11:13:00.000-07:00

I recently shared a flight with one of the founders of the Tea Party in Wisconsin. I might never have discovered this fact, though, if it hadn’t been for the book I was reading at the time – “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand.

You see, Ayn Rand has become a darling of the political Right. This popular philosopher was born in Russia and her best-selling novels cleverly expose how socialism destroys society. And, though Rand died nearly 30 years ago, her best-selling novels remain hugely influential. In fact, a Library of Congress survey found “Atlas Shrugged” second only to the Bible as the “most influential book of all time.” Last week, bolstered by a new movie based on the book, “Atlas Shrugged” shot to #3 on Amazon’s Bestseller List.

Yet, as I told my Tea Party acquaintance, I hold conflicting sentiments regarding Rand. I admire Rand’s belief in small government and her disdain for so-called “looting”: that’s Rand’s term for taking money from the producers in society and giving it to those who produce nothing. But, I’m repulsed by Rand’s worship of the self-made man and her promotion of greed as a virtue.

My new acquaintance was surprised by my concerns. Apparently, all the
conservatives she knew were huge Rand fans – including the star GOP Congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. Reportedly, Ryan so admires Rand, he requires his entire staff to read her writings.

I think Rand was an excellent writer and an astute philosopher and I, too, think people should read her works. Yet, I think everyone –especially Christians – need to do so critically. You see, Rand was an atheist who maintained a distorted worldview. She believed man to be “a noble being with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life” and “productive achievement as his noblest activity.” Ironically, Rand fell into the same trap as those on the complete opposite end of the political spectrum: like many liberals, she believed man to be inherently good and championed a kind of utopia only possible in heaven. While liberals often look to government to save society and demonize selfish individualists, Rand demonized the government and exalted high producing industrialists as society’s savior. But, both are unbiblical. Jesus alone saves and man is helpless without Him.

Rand also missed man’s communal nature. I appreciate that she promoted personal responsibility. I Peter 2:13 says, “Submit yourself to every ordinance of man.” And truly, even the best of Republics is doomed if people fail to govern themselves and instead look to the state to regulate personal morality. Yet, to Rand, each person was an island and she reportedly died lonely and depressed. Sadly, Ayn Rand missed that we are made in God’s triune – inherently relational image – and that we find happiness as we serve a community. You see, God intended us to govern ourselves so we can govern our family, so we can lead the church, and ultimately bless society.

The Up-Side of Epic Failure

2011-04-07T05:24:00.001-07:00

Most people go to conferences to become successful. And, it’s no different in the church world. Church leaders flock to mega-church mega-conferences, trying to glean insights on programming, small group models, and methods of evangelism. But now there’s a conference that’s devoted – to failure.

That’s right. The “Epic Fail” Conference next week will gather pastors to process their failures. They’ll meet, appropriately, in a failed church-turned-bar in a small Pennsylvania town.

J.R. Briggs, a pastor and author inspired the conference with a blog posting last summer. “I’ve been to my fair share of church conferences in the past decade,” Briggs writes. “Some have been helpful. Most have not.”

Despite their big budgets, flawless programming, and big-name speakers, Briggs says he and most other pastors leave these conferences feeling inferior and insecure. What’s worse, some actually walk away thinking they’ve discovered the “silver bullet, the key concept, the perfect model” that will double their church overnight.

What if, Briggs asks, someone held a conference and invited speakers to share their failures, not their successes? Perhaps we could learn more from broken people sharing how God’s grace proved sufficient in weakness than we can from charismatic Superpastors.

I love this concept – not just for pastors. I think this should spawn an entire Epic Fail series. How about Epic Fail for businessmen, for parents, or for people like my dear friends who poured their hearts into a political campaign – and lost? How many of us yearn for a safe place to share, to cry, and to pray with other truly kindred spirits? How many of us would benefit from together “boasting in weakness,” so that Christ’s power could be revealed in us?

Recently, John Ortberg wrote in “Leadership Journal” about a survey on spiritual growth in which he participated. The survey asked thousands of people to share what contributed to their greatest seasons of spiritual growth. Participants didn’t name great teaching, small groups, insightful books, or even awesome worship experiences. No, they said they “grew more during seasons of loss, pain, and crisis than they did at any other time.”

We Christians are a strange bunch. We’re all moral failures. If we don’t think so, the Apostle John says “we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” But self-deception is a curious thing. I’ve found I cycle into it – often catapulted by some success; but then, I cycle out of it – usually dashed by some, at least to me, epic failure. I’ve come to understand that failure, submitted to God, can actually become this incredible gift. It reveals our inadequacy, yet help us discover God’s sufficiency. It wounds our pride, but failure increases our worship.

The KJV – A Lasting Monument to William Tyndale

2011-04-02T07:06:00.000-07:00

For the past four centuries, the King James Version of the Bible has reigned supreme. Soon after its completion in 1611, it became the translation of choice for almost all English-speaking Protestants. Some 350 years after its creation, Winston Churchill hailed it a “masterpiece” and George Bernard Shaw called the King James Version “magnificent.” Today, even the famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits, “Not to know the King James Bible is to be, in some small way, a barbarian.”

Yet, who do we have to thank for this incredible work? Truly, King James provided the vision and resources necessary to create the version that bears his name. This published scholar, linguist, and poet assembled some 47 scholars who worked tirelessly for seven years to produce the king’s “Authorized Version.”

Still, King James’ magnum opus never would have been produced had it not been for a simple cleric who lived nearly 100 years earlier. His name was William Tyndale. And, Tyndale lived and died for one consuming passion: he wanted the boy who quote – “driveth the plough” – to know Scripture every bit as well as the priest who led his congregation.

That’s a noble aspiration today, but in the 1520s, it was heretical. The Catholic Church had forbidden that the Bible be translated into the common language. The church viewed an informed public as a threat to its power. And, many priests feared a biblically literate populace would better recognize their corruption. As the Bishop of London expounded at the time, the Bible in “the vulgar tongue . . . will without doubt infect and contaminate the flock committed to us.”

Tyndale, however, embraced the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers – that God commissions all believers to be ministers of His Word. Tyndale also rightly understood that the church would never reform as long as laypeople were denied God’s truth.

Tyndale fled to Germany in 1524 and the next year, produced the New Testament in English. This New Testament was then printed and smuggled into England. And, in 1530, Tyndale completed and printed the Pentateuch in English, as well. Five years later, though, a friend betrayed Tyndale. He was captured and imprisoned in a castle near Brussels. There he languished for more than 430 days without heat or light. Eventually, Tyndale was charged with treason and hanged. Yet, right before Tyndale died, he cried out, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes!”

That God did in the early 1600s. And, nearly 90-percent of Tyndale’s Bible passed into the King James Version. Truly, this version stands as a lasting monument not just to King James, but to William Tyndale – a martyr and hero of the faith. All of us who own a Bible owe Tyndale a great debt.

Will Christians Survive “New Egypt”?

2011-03-18T04:48:00.000-07:00

What will happen to Christians in the “New Egypt”? Will they enjoy unprecedented freedom? Or, as a recent wave of violence suggests, will they be oppressed more than ever?

Christians comprise about 10-percent of Egypt’s 84-million citizens. And, many of these Christians actively participated in the democratic uprisings that led to the ouster of the repressive Hosni Mubarak regime. These Christians hoped a change in government would bring more freedom. But, democracy doesn’t always bring freedom from tyranny. As British Historian Lord John Acton observed more than 100 years ago, “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority.”

Unfortunately, a tyrannical and intolerant Muslim majority appears to be prevailing in certain parts of Egypt. In Soul, a suburb of Cairo, a mob of about four-thousand Muslims burned a church on March 5th. The rampaging mob also attacked the homes of Christians, killing two people and prompting many to flee to nearby villages. This led to further outbreaks of violence in Cairo, eventually killing 13 and wounding 140.

So far, democracy in the Arab World has spelled persecution for most Christians. Iraq’s Christian population has dwindled to nearly half of what it was when the U.S. invaded in 2003. Iraqi churches have been bombed; congregations gunned down; priests beheaded; and believers raped and even crucified. Christian leaders Bahrain, Yemen, and Tunisia say the turmoil there has not yet specifically targeted Christians, but many are holding their breath. Certainly, the Arab countries that have recently acquired political freedoms have an abysmal track record of mistreating Christians.

As radio host Jerry Bowyer recently noted, “(R)evolutions . . . seldom make things any better; they change governments, but don’t change people.” Democracy worked in America because our founders embraced Judeo-Christian values, which affirm the worth of every individual and his right to follow his conscience. Unfortunately, much of the Arab World doesn’t embrace these same values. In fact, the Egyptian constitution establishes Islam as the state religion and affirms the principles of Islamic – or Shariah – law. According to Shariah, conversion to another faith is apostasy – a crime equated with treason and punishable by death!

Certainly, we need to be praying for our Christian brothers and sisters in these newly-democratic Arab states. And, hopefully, the U.S. will exert its influence on these countries – encouraging them to honor religious freedom. Otherwise, it’s quite likely that Christians in Egypt and other Arab countries may experience democracy in the coming months – but not freedom.

Orthodox Christianity Labeled “Extreme”

2011-03-09T06:29:00.000-08:00

Orthodox Christianity has become extreme – or, so I’m told. This week, I was mentioned multiple times on the internet for holding “scary” and “fringe” views. But, just what justified this designation? Well, I hold to the Orthodox Christian view of marriage and family. In other words, I don’t support the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, and Questioning agenda. I believe in tolerance; but I don’t support the philosophical assumptions of the LGBTQ community.

Similarly, a British High Court last week deemed a Christian couple unfit to house foster children. Why? Because the couple refuses to condone homosexuality. This couple has exemplified the Scriptural mandate to “look after orphans,” sacrificially raising 15 foster children, in addition to their own four. Yet, the UK’s Equality and Human rights Commission deemed this couple’s Christian moral views to be infectious and requiring quarantine.

Mind you, Christian morals have served as the foundation for all of Western law and civilization for centuries. They served as the impetus for the abolition of slavery; provided the basis for human rights; and created the most prosperous and free societies the world has ever known. Yet now, Christian morals are deemed dangerous and extreme.

But, it’s not just moral objections to homosexuality that’s earned Christianity these labels. I was stunned this week to read a letter to the editor in my local paper, labeling certain school board candidates “extremist thinking.” What was their extreme thought? Well, the author of the letter suspects these candidates might actually believe God created the universe!

Mind you, these candidates aren’t even advocating that the schools require teaching Intelligent Design or Creationism. They’re being slammed simply because one of the candidates admitted he might teach his children that an intelligent being created the universe. Two others, the letter states, attend a church where the pastor announced he didn’t believe in evolution. I mean, having ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright who publicly damned America is one thing; but, having ties to a pastor who doubts evolution? Now, that’s grounds for political disqualification.

Stunning, isn’t it? For decades, so-called new atheists, gay rights activists, and liberal intellectuals have been slowly and consistently denigrating Orthodox Christianity. They hype examples of wrong-headed religiously motivated violence. But, they conveniently ignore Christian charity and relief work – and families whose faith in God saved them from divorce or personal destruction. These anti-Christian activists have created a new normal where Christianity is bad and discriminating against Christians is not only condoned, but encouraged.

I suppose this shouldn’t surprise or dishearten Christians. Jesus told us we would be “hated by everyone” because of him. But he also said, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven.” Rejoicing when reviled – now, that is extreme. But, it’s the kind of extremism we truly can embrace.

Rob Bell & Hell

2011-03-02T14:12:00.000-08:00

Rob Bell doesn’t believe in hell – or, so it seems. In a video promoting his upcoming book, the so-called “rock star” pastor challenges the idea that “only a few select people make it to heaven.” He suggest the idea that God is going to “send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus” implies that Jesus rescues people – from God! “What kind of God is that,” Bell muses, “that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? . . . The good news,” he asserts, “is actually better than we could ever imagine. The good news is that love wins.”

I honestly have no idea what Bell means by “love wins.” His book by that title actually doesn’t release until the end of March. Still, many now are speculating Bell is a universalist or outright heretic. Others are rallying to Bell’s defense, accusing his critics of jumping to conclusions. Personally, I’m withholding labels until I read the book. Still, I find Bell’s video deeply troubling.

Bell – already a best-selling author – pastors a church of 10-thousand and podcasts to another 50-thousand. So, his influence, especially among so-called millenials, could hardly be overstated. This group of 20- and 30-somethings already suffers from what seems to be a terminal case of theological confusion. North Park University Professor Scot McKnight estimates on his popular blog, Jesus Creed, that an estimated 75-percent of his students believe everyone goes to heaven. So, Bell introducing this false dichotomy concerning God and hell seems unhelpful at best – and devastating at worst.

You see, essentially what Bell suggests is that either God is good and hell doesn’t exist – or, hell exists, and God cannot possibly be good. However, Scripture clearly states that God is good and hell exists. God is not just love. The living creatures who surround God’s throne do not cry, “Love, love, love is the Lord God Almighty.” They cry, “Holy, holy, holy . . .” God’s holiness is every bit as integral to his nature as His love.

This being the case, sin is not merely making mistakes or poor choices. As theologian R.C. Sproul states, “Sin is cosmic treason.” It’s an act of rebellion that reveals our inherent hostility toward a holy and sovereign God. It’s a crime that must be punished for justice to be served. You see, God doesn’t owe any of us salvation. All of us deserve hell.

I agree with Bell that in the end love wins, but not because hell doesn’t exist. Love wins because Jesus took the punishment for our sin and offers pardon to those willing to receive it. I hope that’s where Bell eventually lands. Honestly, from what I’ve read, I kind of doubt he will. But, this controversy hopefully will spur Christian leaders to address heaven and hell and nature of God. Quite frankly, the eternities of a generation of young adults hangs in the balance. And, despite their views, heaven and hell do exist – and the sooner they discover it, the better.

Where Have all the “Public Servants” Gone?

2011-02-23T10:14:00.000-08:00

He’s the highest paid superintendent in our area, even though he oversees the least amount of students, teachers, and schools. Plus, under his watch, our school district has increased spending 20-percent over the past four years, while enrollment has steadily decreased. The district has run deficits the past four years, and now it’s facing bankruptcy unless it takes some immediate and drastic measures.

Yet, at a recent community forum, our superintendent boldly announced, “I’m not taking a 10-percent pay cut!”

So seems the attitude among our so-called “public servants” today. Once upon a time, so I’ve heard, people on the public’s payroll put the good of the community above their own selfish interests. Not anymore. Now they’re entitled: they clamor for their rights; demand what they’re due; and seem to care little for the public welfare.

Of course, there are exceptions: some public employees remember they’re working for the people. Yet, just this week, tens of thousands of disgruntled public school teachers in Wisconsin called in sick and abandoned their classrooms. Apparently, demanding collective bargaining rights trumped the need to educate millions of Wisconsin children. Similarly, state senate Democrats deserted their posts, fleeing to another state rather than face defeat on the union bill. Their departure leaves the senate one vote shy of a quorum and essentially holds the entire legislature hostage.

Now, I’m not against politicians and public school teachers. My husband’s a public school teacher, though he’s never joined the union. But, what bothers me is the me-first attitude I see displayed in so many of these standoffs triggered by huge budget deficits. Many of these public employees seem bent on making someone else pay for the problem. It would be so refreshing if these so-called public servants actually displayed concern for the common good.

States around the country are facing huge budget shortfalls and someone has to give. Wisconsin’s confronting a 3-point-6 billion-dollar deficit; so is Florida; New York’s deficit stands at 10-billion dollars; and California? It somehow has to close a 25-billion–dollar shortfall. Yet, what are teachers in California doing? They’re holding a candlelight vigil to show support for Wisconsin teachers who refuse to do their job.

Let’s face it: the recession has caused tax revenues to plummet. And we can’t just keep increasing the burden on taxpayers. Many in the private sector have made big sacrifices to keep their companies afloat. I think it’s time the public sector does the same – instead of defiantly announcing they won’t take a 10-percent pay cut. I think everyone should take the advice offered in Philippians 2 – that we look not only to our own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Islam, Racism, and Slavery

2011-02-17T03:31:00.000-08:00

Islam is growing rapidly among Africans and African-Americans. Today, African-American Muslims represent one of the fastest-growing segments of Islam, accounting for more than 30-percent of American Muslims. In Africa, Islam is growing twice as fast as Christianity, according to Frontline Fellowship, a Bible-based African Mission.

I wonder, though, how many of these new Muslim converts realize the role Islam played in promoting race-based slavery. Over the past several weeks, I’ve been researching slavery and religion for a documentary I’m producing for Moody Radio. This study has made me face the unsettling role Christians played in the promotion of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But, it’s also opened my eyes to how Islam institutionalized racial slavery in Africa – and how some Islamic countries continue to practice race-based slavery today.

As part of my research, I interviewed Dr. John Azumah, a native of Ghana, West Africa, who holds a PhD in Islamics. Azumah claims that because of Islamic political pressure, very few Westerners and Africans alike know the truth about Islam and race-based slavery.

Yet, Mohammadan Arabs were the first to enslave black Africans, beginning in the early 8th Century. According to Azumah, Arabs developed a highly-organized system of slave-raiding and trading. And, this eventually provided the supply chain for Europeans who began the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the 16th Century.

Though so-called “Christian” Europe shamefully participated in slavery for about 300 years, Christians eventually spearheaded its abolition. Yet, in Islam, no corresponding abolition movement has ever existed. In fact, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates outlawed slavery relatively recently – in the 1960s. And, in Mauritania, though slavery was outlawed in 1981, it persists today. According to the United Nations and human rights groups, tens- and perhaps hundreds-of-thousands of so-called “black Moors” remain enslaved by their “white Moor” masters today.

Azumah says slavery persists among Muslims because they’re encouraged to live in the way of Muhammed, and Muhammed owned and traded slaves. The Koran itself encourages the taking of slaves as spoils of holy war, or jihad. “Enjoy what ye took in war,” the Koran states. “Allah gave you mastery over them.” To this day, Azumah says, the word in the Arabic language for slave – “abid” (ah-BEED) – literally means dark-skinned person. Though used commonly in Arabic language, “abid” is analogous to the N-word in American vernacular.

Many people of African descent have embraced Islam because people like Malcolm X have portrayed the religion as color-blind. But, that’s simply not the case. And, though I admit that some Christians through the ages have displayed despicable racism, there’s not a hint of racism in the Bible nor in Jesus.

For more information:
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Arab-Islam-Africa-Inter-religious-Dialogue/dp/1851682732

http://www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6645-2004Jan10¬Found=true