Evangelicals, we don't want prayer in schools (or why we shouldn't)

Several months ago, sitting in the Indiana Memorial Union with my friend Adam deWeber,  two students approached us and asked if we'd do a quick survey for a class project. We agreed and were given sheets with twenty-five or so questions. One of the questions was 'do you support prayer in schools?'  I asked what they meant by that, but they said the couldn't/wouldn't explain more. As it stood, that's an impossible question for me to answer.

If you mean, should we allow students time to pray privately (emergency prayers before finals will always be needed), or to voluntarily gather in groups to pray together (i.e. See You at the Pole), then yes, I support this.

But I suspect they mean officially sanctioned prayers led by a teacher/administrator with student participation expected or encouraged. This is what most from older generations bemoan losing when Madalyn Murray O'Hair won her lawsuit and school prayers were no more (the historical timeline of prayers in public schools is more complicated than this, I know).

If it is this type of officially sanctioned prayers led by a school official, then I DO NOT WANT PRAYER IN MY KIDS' SCHOOL. That's right, I would oppose this type of prayer in our local public schools. Why? Two big reasons:

First, I don't want my kids learning how to pray in school because it isn't the job of a school official to teach my children how to pray.  It's mine and the church's responsibility. Would I get to choose who leads them in prayer in day and thus teaches them to pray? If so, I'd find a faithful Presbyterian or Evangelical to teach them (if not, then a Lutheran or Catholic could be fine). But I doubt I'll get to choose. What if it's a crazy "health-and-wealth-prosperity-gospel" teacher? What if it's a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness? What if it's some crazy liberal who prays to Mother God or something like that? What kind of prayers would be offered - vague general prayers that are innocuous and unChristian?  I'd rather my kids not pray like that. I don't want civil religion types prayers - I'd rather have no prayer.

Second, if we insist the prayers are truly Christian prayers, in the name of Christ and informed by core Christian doctrines, then what of the sizeable minorities who do not claim to be Christians. What of the Jews in our schools, the Muslims, the atheists. Should we force their children to pray to in Christ's name? What about regions where Christianity is the minority, like Hamtrack, MI or in Jewish neighborhoods in NYC?  Is it the majority that chooses what kind of prayers are offered?  What of the Christian students in these areas - should they be forced to pray to in a Muslim way?

We live in a pluralistic culture. The job of the schools is not to promote religion; they wouldn't be good at it.

J. Gresham Machen, the staunch opponent of liberalism at Princenton who went on to found Westminster Theological Seminary, likewise opposed Bible readings and prayers in school...back in  1933!

Let Justice Roll Down Like Waters

I remember hearing a talk radio host recently warn people that if their church spoke about social justice, they should leave because the church isn't Christian, it's communist. I understand that labels can mean all sorts of things, but I find it hard to be against social justice. If you're against it, are you for social injustice? The Bible does speak about social justice all the time - not necessarily in those words. In fact, maybe we should call it what the Bible calls it - righteousness.

Everyone talks about justice, Democrat and Republican, though they'll use different language to do so. Justice for the unborn. Justice for oppressed. Justice for the immigrant. Justice for those whose convictions go against the cultural tide. And all these groups deserve justice!

But, I don't hear many talking about intergenerational justice - and I think we need to start talking about that in earnest. In a 2011 statement, a group of evangelical thinkers (Evangelical for Social Action with Center for Public Justice) issued a Call for Intergenerational Justice, contending “Intergenerational justice demands that one generation must not benefit or suffer unfairly at the cost of another.”

The issue that sparked the petition was the mounting debt crisis. Unfortunately, this crisis has not gone away, though it is being ignored. The federal budget deficit was $984 billion in 2019 - a 26% increase from the year before. Our national debts is $23 trillion ($23,000,000,000,000).  Obviously, this is not sustainable. It's also unjust! To fix today's problems on tomorrow's dollar keeps snowballing...and the monstrous snowball will destroy our children's economic futures.

And I listen to debates where politicians promise new programs - free this, free that...with no viable way to pay for it - and I think we're selling our kids to the god of mammon, unwilling to sacrifice a modicum of our material prosperity today to help them in the future. Biblically, it is the parent's role to save for their children, not mortgage their children's future (2 Corinthians 12:14, and a lot of wisdom literature).

My small-government Republican friends may like this post so far. You won't if you keep reading...

As unjust as those who rack up massive debt for their children are those who use up all the earth's resources, leaving it polluted and stripped. Some will quibble over the science of climate change. Set it aside. Can we quibble over the loss of 3 billion birds in North America in the last few decades (or are bird watchers and ornithologists also just a tool of 'big solar' - ok, I'm getting a bit sarcastic)?  Shouldn't we all be able to agree that we want clean water (not like what my mom and dad lived with in PA where some of their neighbor's water was flammable)?  Shouldn't we be able to agree that we need clean air - not like people in the LA Basin suffered through a few decades ago? Shouldn't we agree that there are some places of such awe-inspiring beauty that we shouldn't befoul them with oil rigs or mines and ruin them for future generations?

Regulations (that were barely addressing the massive problems to begin with) are being rolled back to make energy cheaper, manufacturing more competitive, etc.  But it is unjust. Biblically, the land (and sea and sky) doesn't belong to us - we are stewards of it for God. And, it's a common good - not just ours to use, but everyone's, including future generations. The Bible has quite a bit to say to those who destroy the earth (i.e. Revelation 11:18, Proverbs 12:10, Deuteronomy 20:19-20).

I am sure there is a myriad of other applications of this concept of generational justice. Let's include this in our dialogue, expect it of our elected officials, and strive together to find solutions for everyone, even those who are yet to be born.

Don't use Dead Christians to Score Political/Rhetorical Points

Over the past few days, I have seen a few disturbing Facebook posts about Christian's slaughtered in Nigeria and the Philippines. Of course, as a Christian and, frankly as a human, I am deeply saddened by this. But, these posts have been rhetorically dishonest and so devalue and dishonor those who have died.

The reports are not usually posted with a simple "this is sad, we should pray and remember Christians who live in hard places and have their lives taken from them." No, instead it's, "the media is falling all over themselves to report the massacre in New Zealand, but nary a word about the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria and the Philippines."  It's a rhetorical trick attempting to demonstrate that the media ("the left wing media") doesn't care about the plight of Christians. Problem is, the facts are very wrong.

First, consider what is being spread regarding the bombing in the Philippines; the following post is an example. This was posted on March 15th, shortly after the New Zealand mosque killings.

Indeed ISIS terrorists did attack two Catholic churches in the Philippines and killing at least twenty, wounding dozens. But this attacked happened in late January (not, as the post implies, in mid-March). And, the tragedy was covered by media when it actually happened, including CNN, Fox, NYTimes, BBC, Reuters and many more.


The killings in Nigeria are different, more complicated. The posts that have been circulating, often referencing a Breitbart headline, claim that Muslim militants have killed more than 120 Christians in Nigeria. Again, this is a mixture of truth and error. The numbers vary from agency to agency, but 120 is very likely. However, this is part of a larger feud between farmers and herders that is raging in Nigeria currently. Muslim nomadic herders (Fulani) have been in conflict with the ethnically Christian Adara people in Nigeria. Many on both sides have been killed. In February, Adara gunmen, in response to an attack by Fulani, targetted Fulani settlements and killed at least 130. In March, yes 120 Christians, or more, were killed as a part of this conflict. It's ugly. It is war. Which makes it categorically different than a white supremacist walking into a mosque and killing fifty, wounding more.  

The Christland shooting has received more attention than either of the other two events. I don't doubt that, but it seems completely understandable too. There is a 'first world bias' to events we read about or hear about from the media. A factory fire that kills 20 in Bangladesh won't make the news. Same fire in Chicago or Londo will. And, this kind of violence isn't expected in New Zealand, but we have become somewhat calloused to it in other parts of the country. A gangland shootout killing three or four people won't make the news if it's in Chicago or LA. If it's on the streets of Cape Cod or in Disneyland it would.

Let me be blunt, misrepresenting these horrific events to make the point that Christians are ignored by the media is dishonest. It is, in terms of the Ten Commandments, bearing false witness. And, it dishonors the dead - they aren't tools to be used in your war against the media. Shaping public opinion by using false data is, at best, manipulative. It feeds the "us vs. them" mentality that is doing so much harm in our nation and across the globe. Please stop.

Why I Cringe When I People Say America Was/Is A Christian Nation

Below is text from one of my 2010 posts. Claims that the U.S. was/is a Christian nation get repeated by the right (when arguing for traditional family values) and the left (i.e. as a Christian nation we ought to welcome refugees)...and it always make me cringe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last night I spoke to a small group of international graduate students on the topic "Is America a Christian Nation?" I asked at the outset if they had been given the impression that America was a Christian nation and they all agreed that they had.

I began by asking what it is that makes an individual a Christian. I outlined three essential things. First, an internal work of God referred to as 'regeneration' or 'being born again'. That is the work of God and the sine qua non of being a Christian - without that work, we are still dead in sin and not a part of the Kingdom. This internal change will be manifested externally in the Fruit of the Spirit, but these externals flow from (necessarily) the internal change and cannot be forced or produced simply by the will of man.

Second, Christians are defined right belief. I asked, "if I told you I was an atheist who believed in God, what would you say?" Rightly they understand that I wouldn't be a real atheist, for atheists are marked by a specific belief, namely in the nonexistence of God. Likewise, real Christians are marked by certain beliefs. John, in his first letter articulates a doctrinal test -those who are truly believers will confess Christ. Those who don't, aren't genuine believers, but antichrists. Paul articulates the importance of right belief in several places, but look specifically at Galatians 1:6-9 and his condemnation of 'another gospel'. The early creeds, accepted by Catholics and Protestants (and with minor disagreement, Orthodox believers) are a wonderful summary of what true Christians have believed for centuries.

Finally, there are certain actions that mark of genuine Christians. Again, I asked, "what makes someone a vegetarian?" Obviously, vegetarians are marked off by certain practices, more so than beliefs. They don't eat meat. So Christians are marked off by certain actions, among them is participation in the sacraments of baptism and communion. The New Testament does not allow for a category of believer that is unbaptized or non-participatory in the sacramental life of the Body of Christ (I know, the exception is the thief on the cross). Likewise, the NT doesn't allow us to conceive of believers who are not connected to the life of the church.

Having established what it means for a person to be a Christian, we moved on the discuss what it means for a nation to be Christian. First, a nation could be officially Christian in that it recognized/supported/regulated a state church. England is officially Anglican. Denmark has the Danish National Church (Lutheran). In a similar way, many states officially support Islam as the state religion (Iran, Kuwait, etc.), and several officially support Buddhism (Cambodia, Thailand, etc.).

Second, a nation could be established explicitly on Christian principles, theology, Scriptures, etc. The charter of the Plymouth Colony(Mayflower Compact) is such a document, stating,

"Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic..."

Third, a nation could be considered Christian if the vast majority of the population is Christian (but, on that, see the discussion above regarding the marks of a true Christian). So, do these apply to America?

Going back to the early 1700's, N.America was controlled by three colonizing powers: France, Great Britain, and Spain. Before the 1700's, other nations, like the Dutch, controlled some portions of N. America, but by 1700, it was those three that controlled the entire N.American continent. Two of the three were Roman Catholic, England was officially Protestant. Of the three groups of settlers (English, Spanish, and French), only one came for explicitly religious reasons. The Pilgrims (Separatists) and the Puritans settled in Massachusetts in hopes of finding freedom from (Anglican) persecution. However, not all British settlers came for religious reasons. Alongside the Dissenters (Pilgrims & Puritans) looking for freedom came good Anglicans who were motivated by the hope of a new life or financial prosperity.

Moving ahead to the time of the Revolution and the founding of the United States as a nation, many Christians look back to our Founding Fathers as pillars of Christian virtue who sought to establish a nation on the Christian principles. There is, however, good reason to question this. (I won't even raise the issue of whether or not rebellion against a sovereign is biblical, I'll just direct your attention to 1 Peter 1:13 and Romans 13:1-7). While it is absolutely true, that many pastors were supportive of the Revolution and that many of the Founding Fathers were good Christians (Patrick Henry, John Witherspoon, and Samuel Adams -who's better known for his beer than his role in founding our nation), that is certainly not the whole story. Among the founders there were quite a few Deists (and heretics). Ben Franklin denied the deity of Christ. John Adams denied the Trinity. Thomas Jefferson took scissors to his Bible and cut out all things supernatural, including the resurrection of Christ. Can such men be considered Christian? The did talk of god, but they eschewed a Christian understanding of God. They're god was sub-Christian. Thomas Paine was worse yet (or maybe better yet). He said, "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." No wonder he was referred to as the 'filthy little atheist'! Moreover, Washington, while being a regular church goer refused communion for his whole adult life. In addition, he was a Grand Master in the Masonic Lodge - something that cannot easily be reconciled with genuine Christian convictions. (Regarding the image: in the words of an author I can't remember, 'Praying doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.' Ok, the quote is actually, 'going to church doesn't make you a Christian...' but you get the idea.)

Considering all of this, I believe we can say that Christianity was certainly influential, but not exclusively so. Maybe more important than Jesus or Moses were the Enlightenment philosphers in vogue at the time - Kant, Rousseau, etc - and their elevation of autonomous reason over revelation (ie. 'we hold these truth to be self evident').

Moreover, beyond the small circle of founders, the population at large, while certainly thinking of themselves as Christian, could be thought of as only nominally so. Belief in God can be assumed, as well as a general Judeo-Chrsitian ethic; however, it is estimated that only 10-15% of the population attended church regularly. [Interestingly, more people attend church regularly now than when this nation was born, in terms of sheer numbers and also percentage of population. So it could be argued we are more Christian now than then. I don't think most would like that argument.]

In addition, when you look at the founding documents of the United States, you don't see any gospel orientation (not even a specifically Christian orientation like in the Mayflower Compact). Certainly vague talk of God or Creator is there, but Deists could affirm that No mention of Christ or the gospel. There was never an officially sanctioned state church for the nation (though many states supported the church - Anglican or Congregational). In fact, our Constitution distances us from any form of established religion. Our leaders are not subject to any religious test (Article 6.3), and religious liberty (not just of Christians) was articulated in the 1st amendment. Interestingly, Patrick Henry understood this to be grounded in the gospel, writing,"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship." I disagree with him on the first part, but affirm the connection between the gospel and religious freedom in the second part of the quote.

It must be conceded that American's breathed Christian air. The Judeo-Christian ethic was assumed. I've even heard it said that the god atheists disbelieved in was the Christian God (not a Muslim god or Hindu god, etc). However, that is a far cry from saying we were founded on Christian principles.

So, I believe saying America is a Christian nation doesn't do justice to the historical complexities surrounding the birth or our nation. In addition, and more importantly, it doesn't do justice to the nature of genuine Christianity. This is why I cringe when I hear pastors or theologians or lay people saying it. Do we really want that baggage?

First, American civil religion isn't Christianity. Morality isn't Christianity. Christian does come with a moral system, but the moral system, which American did, by and large, embrace, isn't what is essential to Christianity.

Second, looking at the history of our nation, we cannot claim it was a Christian nation and then turn a blind eye to the atrocities we have, as a nation, committed. This is, I believe, very important to own. Slavery. The dispossession of and slaughter of Native Americans. The confinement of Japanese in internment camps. Entrenched racism. And that's the short list. No wonder people in other parts of the world hear America claiming to be a Christian nation, look at our history, and conclude they want nothing to do with Christianity.

Lastly, I think Christians should think long and hard about whether or not the idea of a Christian nation is even biblical. Can a Christian America be squared with Jesus' statements regarding the spiritual nature of his kingdom? I don't think they can be easily reconciled.

I'll conclude with a long quote from Richard Alpert in the Huffington Post:

“Speaking from the heart of the Muslim world in Turkey's Cankaya Palace in April 2009, President Barack Obama answered the question with the nuance that has come to characterize his public statements: America, he declared, is "a predominantly Christian nation" but "we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

The President's answer seems to strike a discordant tone between reality and self-perception. On the one hand, American has no official church or religion. The United States Constitution expressly forbids a national religion. Yet on the other hand, Christianity is the religion of a substantial supermajority of the American population. According to the latest results of the Pew Research Centre's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, nearly 80 percent of Americans self-identify as Christian.

But there is no contradiction in the President's statement. America is, and indeed always has been, a nation of Christians but it is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian nation.” 

Want more. Watch this short video from Bryan Chapell, President of Covenant Theological Seminary.

Pastors are not Political Leaders

I haven't listened to this whole sermon, but his clip is great. A hardy 'Amen!'

Celebrate or Mourn over Bin Laden?

So, what was your reaction when the news broke that Bin Laden had been killed. If I'm honest, mine was pretty flat. I was amused that it broke in on Trumps show. I was (am) incredibly cynical when I hear people talk about the end of the war on terror and a new age. I scoffed when reporters spoke of this as 'the biggest news story since 9/11'. Really.

I didn't think too much about how I should react - till this morning at least (this post was started on 5/2). My Google Reader was filled with thoughts about Bin Ladens death, my Facebook page was equally loaded with peoples comments - some expressing jubilation, others chastising those who would rejoice in the death of a man, evil though he was.

How should we respond? By rejecting either-or ways of thinking (or feeling). I am confident we should be both rejoicing and mourning.

As many have pointed out, God himself does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. God, through the prophet Ezekiel asks, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23). Likewise, Peter reminds us "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

So, God does not delight in the death of the wicked...Or does he?

I am entirely convinced that nothing happens apart from God's sovereignty. The casting of the lot, the flashing of lightning, the growing of the grass, the feeding of young animals, the affairs of nations, the decisions of a king, and all aspects of our life are in God's sovereign control. Nothing happens apart from God's will - not even the death of his Son, a heinously wicked act.

Moreover, the psalmist declares that God does what pleases him.

Psalm 115:3 - "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases."
Psalm 135:6 - "Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps."

So, did the death of Bin Laden please God? Should it please us? Or is God grieved? Should we grieve?

Yes, and yes. Yes and yes.

God does delight in justice. He does not want the wicked to go unpunished. In fact, He commands that judgment be executed and the wicked punished (see Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:16; Deut. 25:2; Ezra 7:25-26; Prov. 17:15). God himself executes justice (Ps. 9:16, and many more), and God does place the responsibility of executing judgment into the hands of men to whom he has granted this authority (Jer. 21:12; Ezra 7:26; Rom. 13:1-4). Moreover, we are given examples of rejoicing when God executes judgment (Deut. 32:39-43; Ps. 58:10-11; Rev. 18:20; Rev 19:1-5).

[Sidebar: I am in no way meaning to say that enemies of the US are God's enemies. We are not God's chosen nation, not even a Christian nation. The point is, God executes judgment against evil and God's people do celebrate that].

Let me say it bluntly. It is good Bin Laden has been killed. Justice has been served by those whom are charged with executing it - not private individuals, but agents of the government in whom God has placed the sword to execute judgment. We should celebrate that justice long delayed has finally been meted out. We should celebrate, and grieve.

I have seen many comparisons between celebrations here in the US after the news of Bin Laden's death and celebrations in other parts of the world when the Twin Towers fell. Stop it. It is an awful comparison. Those who celebrated the death of the more than 3000 on 9/11 were celebrating the death of noncombatant men, women and children. Those who celebrate the death of Bin Laden celebrate justice being served in the death of an wicked man who murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children. I honestly wish there was more sobriety in our celebrations, more gravitas, but I won't begrudge those who take a deep sigh of relief and let out a whoop.

I know this post is weighted towards the 'rejoice' side over against the 'weep' side. I want us to feel both profoundly, but the buzz I have been reading from Christians seemed to almost wholly neglect this side of it. So, in typical fashion, I'm sure I've over-corrected.

The Tea Partier and the Christian Left

Matt showed me this video earlier today. Yeah, we were real busy. Anyway, it was funny, but even funnier the second time.

Was The US Ever A Christian Nation?

Coming off the 4th of July weekend, I'm sure many heard sermons about returning our nation to it's Christian roots (though here at ECC, happily, no mention was even made of the fact that it was the 4th!). But was the US ever a Christian Nation? I thought I'd post this short video by Bryan Chapell, the president of Covenant Theological Seminary. He offers this very level headed answer to the question:

Should the US Support Israel? (update)

A friend of mine recently posted some thoughts on our funding of the Israeli military. The question isn't are we? That's certain. The real question is should we be?

The argument could get very complicated and I'm not going to try to sort it out. There could be real, good, compelling reasons to support financially and militarily a friendly democracy (kind of - after posting this I saw a story on Israeli censorship. Not good.) in a part of the world where we don't have many friends (mostly because we support Israel so unquestioningly).

My point here isn't to dissect the whole debate, but to take one argument off the table. Please, let's not argue that Israel has a divine right to the land. Many have seen it as the duty of the US, as a Christian nation (which we aren't, and never were) to support Israel as God's chosen people in the holding/taking back of the land that is theirs by divine grant. This argument just doesn't hold water - Israel has no more divine right to the land than does Japan. I'm going to quote Piper on this (because he comes at it from a historical premillennial position. I'm amillennial. Piper's position is typical of those in the amillennial camp, but not as typical in the premillennial camp where dispensationalism has won the day for the most part):

"I do not deny that Israel was chosen by God from all the peoples of the world to be the focus of special blessing in the history of redemption which climaxed in Jesus Christ, the Messiah...Nor do I deny that God promised to Israel the presently disputed land from the time of Abraham onward...But neither of these Biblical facts leads necessarily to the endorsement of present-day Israel as the rightful possessor of all the disputed land. Israel may have such a right. And she may not. But that decision is not based on divine privilege. Why?"

First, a covenant breaking people cannot claim a divine right to the land. Only those who have perfectly kept covenant can claim any 'right' to anything. That the promises of the land are conditional is clear from Scripture: "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel” (Exodus 19:5, ESV).

But isn't the promise to Abraham unconditional? How can a conditional covenant at Sinai replace an unconditional promise give to Abraham (Gen 12 & 15)? Well, calling the Abrahamic covenant an unconditional covenant isn't entirely accurate. Certainly in Gen. 12:1-3 (where the promises are made) and Gen. 15 (where the covenant is more formally ratified) there are no stipulations, conditions or commands to keep. Just promises. Moreover, the 'everlasting' nature of the covenant promises is set out in Gen. 17:7-8.

Yet, in Gen. 18:9 God says, "For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him" (ESV). In addition, after Abraham demonstrates his faith and willingness to obey God, we read, "And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22:15-18, ESV).

So the promises are both conditional and secure. Ligon Duncan says it forcefully, "A covenant by definition has conditions. There in no such thing as a wholly unconditional covenant. Don’t ever let anybody sell you a bill of goods that there is such a thing as an unconditional covenant. Why? Because you have to have two sides before you have a covenant. And if you have two sides, then you’ve got requirements. So a covenant by definition has conditions. And so the covenant of grace is both unilateral and bilateral. It is conditional and unconditional. It is monergistic and synergistic...God sovereignly fulfills the conditions of the covenant...the beauty of the covenant of grace is that God comes in and He Himself provides the basis of our part of the relationship." (You see this time and time again in the NT. For example, look at Jude 1-7, a passage I'm preaching on this Sunday. There's a seemingly paradoxical blend of unconditional promises, i.e. 'you are kept by God', alongside calls for vigilance and warnings for those who fall/apostatize.)

The covenant God made with the people of Israel at Sinai must be seen in light of the covenant with Abraham. There are differences in emphases between the two; however, there is great continuity. In fact, Exodus 2:23-25 sets the whole Exodus/Sinai event in the context of 'God remembering' his covenant with Abraham. The Sinai covenant advances the Abrahamic covenant in that it deals corporately and nationally with Israel. The law is set within the context of covenant, as a definition of what covenant keeping will look like (covenant is a bigger concept than law). The nation will experience God's blessing if, and only if, it keeps covenant. On the other hand, it's a mistake to call this a covenant of works. God's grace is all over the covenant at Sinai. Israel wasn't chosen because they kept covenant. Instead, keeping covenant was the proper response to having been chosen. Moreover, God graciously provided through the sacrificial system a means of dealing with the people's sins, which God knew were inevitable. Still, for the nation to keep the land and the blessing, they would have to be faithful. They were not. That leads me to the next point.

Second, Abraham's true descendant do receive all God promised. Did Israel's failures and faithlessness negate God's promises? Does the question sound familiar? Paul anticipates the question when he says, "it is not as though the word of God has failed" (Rom. 9:6a), and "has God rejected his people?" (Rom. 11:1a). The answer is NO. The people of God, the true heirs of Abraham will receive the blessings God promised. But the people of God are not defined merely by their ancestry or by the certain physical marks (i.e. circumcision). In other words, not all Jews are truly Israel. In fact, it was never a purely ethnic thing. Not all of the descendants of Abraham were heirs of the promise. Ishmael was not, nor was Esau. Moreover, the Old Testament contains clear witness that being a Jew outwardly through circumcision wasn't enough, circumcision needed to be of the heart also (Deut. 10:16, Deut. 30:6). Michael Williams writes in Far As The Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story Of Redemption, "True inclusion in the covenant came not to those who merely went through the formality of the circumcision rite but to those who bore it as a symbol of living faith in God who set Israel apart for his service" (see Gal 3:7-9, Rom. 9:8).

In the NT it becomes clear that Jesus Christ was the 'True Israel of God'. God's says of Israel, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, 'Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son' "(Exodus 4:22-23, ESV). Compare that to the teaching of the NT (Rom. 8:29, Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:6, Luke 3:22 and especially Luke 9:35).

Moreover, the 'out of Egypt' motif is very important. In the OT, the phrase 'out of Egypt' or some variation appears more than 140 times. Clark rightly comments, "It is one of the defining facts of the existence of national Israel." It is then quite significant when Matthew applies this theme to Jesus in Matthew 2:14-15, "And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called my son.'" (ESV). Again, Clark writes, "Matthew's inspired interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures must norm our interpretation of Scripture and according to Matthew's interpretation, it is our Lord Jesus, not the temporary, national, people who is the true Israel of God."

In addition, the promises made to Abraham are explicitly said to have been fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 3:16: "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ." And the same chapter Paul makes it clear that these promises belong also to those who are in Christ Jesus, "the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." (Gal 3:22).

It is Christ who is the true Israel and those who are ingrafted into Jesus by faith are the true children of Abraham. In John 8 Jesus has an extended conversation about who the true children of Abraham are. Clark summarizes,"This, then is our Lord's definition of a child of Abraham, a Jew, or Israel: One who does the things Abraham did. What did Abraham do? According to Jesus, "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced" (v.56). According to Jesus the Messiah, a Jew, a true Israelite is a one who has saving faith in the Lord Jesus before or after the incarnation."

Given this, it shouldn't be surprising that the apostles refer to the church with language that had previously been reserved for national Israel. Paul refers to the church of Galatia, a church made up of Jewish and Gentile believers, as the 'Israel of God' (Gal 3:15). Peter uses the same kind of language of the mostly Gentile church in 1 Peter 2:-10, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy." Also, the author of Hebrews refers to those who have faith in Jesus as the "House of Israel" (Heb. 8:8-10).

Does this mean that we as Christians are to inherit the land? Yes and No. Not the physical land, but the physical land was only a shadow of a heavenly, spiritual reality. Just as the ethnic, national people of God in the Old Testament (Israel) was a temporary foreshadowing of the eternal, spiritual and multi-ethnic people of God (the Church), so the physical land of was a temporary shadow of the heavenly land; the earthly city of the heavenly city (Heb. 11:8-16, Heb. 11:39). Those who are the true Israel by virtue of their faith will receive the promised reward, the reward that Abraham was looking for, the reward that was typified by the physical land of Palestine.

After all, Jesus clearly taught that his kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one (John 18:36). In addition, it's an eternal kingdom, not a really long 1,000 year kingdom. He will always be on the throne as the true King, the true descendant of David.

That doesn't mean God is done with ethnic Israel. Paul teaches that that Israel's disbelief was not complete nor final. He, as an ethnic Jew is also a part of the believing remnant, a member of the enlarged People of God, the True Israel. Not all Jews rejected their Messiah. Moreover, Paul holds out hope that the people of Israel will not persist forever in their unbelief. Piper rightly contends, "God has saving purposes for ethnic Israel (Rom. 11:25-26). But for now the people are at enmity with God in rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ, their Messiah (Rom. 11:28). God has expanded his saving work to embrace all peoples (including Palestinians) who will trust his Son and depend on his death and resurrection for salvation."

So, as we discuss our nations relationship with Israel, let's do so on the basis of what is just, what is equitable, what will lead to peace. Let's do so on the basis of international law and not on the basis of a supposed Divine right.

For those who may want more reading, here's a few great links:
Sam Storms on "Romans 11 and the Future of Israel": Part 1, Part 2,
Sam Storms on "The Church, Israel, and 'Replacement Theology": Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
R. Scott Clark on "The Israel of God"
John Piper on "Israel, Palestine and the Middle East" and "Do Jews have a Divine Right in the Promised Land?"

Health Care Reform

Justin Taylor offered some thoughts on the health care reform bill today on his blog. He summed up his thoughts in a sentence, "Glad to see that the Senate Finance Committee has agreed not to include end-of-life counseling provisions from the Senate's version of the health-care reform bill." He then goes on to quote from Wesley Smith and from an interview with President Obama.

Wesley Smith had explained the provisions as follows:

"We don’t yet know what the final health-care reform bill will look like. But it appears certain that President Obama and his congressional allies hope to establish a centralized board or boards that would be charged with limiting costs by deciding which procedures and drugs would be covered, under what circumstances. The legitimate fear is that such boards, regardless of their benefits, would impose rationing based on invidious categories — such as age, disability, or other “quality of life” measurements. In other words, the boards would deny certain categories of patients treatment available to other categories of patients."

It's not like the President didn't warn us. Check out this interview from April 2009 in the NY Times:

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Alright, I'll admit that I know less about the Health Care Reform Bill than many, but I can still detect faulty logic. Here is where the argument offered by Taylor and Smith breaks down - and I think we need to own this. Taylor and to Smith seem appalled at the idea of a committee being formed to 'ration' health care or make decisions based on "age, disability, or other “quality of life” measurements". I'm with them. It's disturbing in the extreme. YET, we cannot act as though those kind of decisions aren't being made know. Ok, it's not by a committee and not always on the basis of age or quality of life. Instead of a committee market forces (the cost of procedures/medicines, income levels and availability of health insurance, etc) are in the drivers seat. This, to me, is also appalling.

Again, I'm not for the Health Care Bill (based on what I have heard/understood about it). My mind could be changed (I was wrong once back in 2000). But please, let's not act like decisions about a patients health aren't being made now by people/forces other than the patient themselves.

Lake of Fire - a documentary on abortion

Last week a blog I frequent recommended this documentary on the abortion issue. It is an issue I have committed to be more informed about and active in year round, not just in Novembers. So I found Lake of Fire in the library and watched it in two sittings, the kids afternoon naps and tonight once I got them in bed. Honestly, I was glad to break it up like this because it is not an easy film to watch. Here are a few of the reasons why:

1. The constant connection drawn between religious fundamentalists and the prolife movement got annoying. I understand that almost all fundamentalists are prolife, but not all those of the prolife persuasion are fundamentalists. The film makers spent an inordinate amount of time talking to nutjobs, like the guys who believe all blasphemers should be executed (though in a humorous moment the man on camera who made this claim had to ask his pastor off camera what constituted blasphemy). The Christian Reconstructionist Roas Rushdoony and his Institutes of Biblical Law were discussed as though they were widely accepted in the Christian community (ok, for a small number of uberreformed people they might be).

2. The hate and lack of compassion on the anti-abortion protesters/activists was appalling. One of the things that comes to life in this film is the emotional turmoil the women seeking an abortion often go through before, during and after the procedure. It was heartbreaking. While we should be concerned for the unborn life, we must not forget the life of the women either. (And don't forget the men. There's a moving scene in the beginning of the film recounting the story of a young man who tried in vain to convince his girlfriend to keep the child. He experience loss and pain as well).

3. The lack of intellectual dialogue was disappointing. This isn't a film where you'll find the best articulation of prolife positions. While I felt the prochoice position was better represented (they had more big guns on camera) this side of the issue still had it's wacko's. There was one lady who argued that the prolifers she encountered fit the profile of pedophiles. Another woman, a psychologist I believe, argued that prolifers were so angry at the termination of the babies new life (certainly not her words) because they were 'projecting' (her word). They were projecting their own killing, their own taking of new life onto those abortion doctors and that's what enraged them. What did they kill? Creativity and new thought with their dogma! Yeah, that's it. That's why they are so mad. Stupid.

4. That no one followed the slippery slope of the prochoice arguments to their logical conclusions was frustrating. Alan Dershowitz, a man whose life and intellect I greatly respect, is particularly guilty of this. He describes seeing his daughter in a sonogram and thinking, "that's my daughter, I can't conceive of not letting her live. She's a baby" [my paraphrase]. Yet, that doesn't bring him to a prolife position. He goes on to say, "but that was because we had decided to keep her. If we had decided not to, would I have felt the same way? I don't know" [again, my paraphrase]. I want someone to ask him, "what if I don't want my two year old? What if I don't want my elderly parents when they get to be a nuisance?" Since when did being wanted become the defining characteristic of personhood, or more importantly, human life.

Another extreme example of this was the line of argument offered by Peter Singer. He asks, quite bluntly, "what makes killing wrong?" He argues that since they baby doesn't care what happens to it we shouldn't be overly concerned either. He argues that taking a innocent human life isn't always wrong. He states that a fetus can't feel pain or satisfaction until at least 18 weeks. A utilitarian calculation should weigh the woman's desire to have the abortion, the fetus' desire to live and not feel pain. So, he argues, since a fetus has no desire to live and cant' feel pain, the mothers desire overrides other concerns. Ok, but what about me when I'm asleep. I don't want anything. If you killed me quickly I wouldn't feel pain. His argument is slippery in the extreme!

5. The confusion of issues was nonsensical at times. It was asserted repeatedly, in passing, that prolifers were anti women, racists, etc. Ok, lets just grant for the sake of argument that prolifers are all racists. Does that negate the validity of their arguments? It's an awful example of an an ad hominem argument (don't wrestle with the idea, attack the person).

6. The reminder that I've been used by the Republican Party is infuriating. It was said (can't remember by whom), that most Republican politicians don't want abortion to go away - it's how they raise money and punch their ticket to Washington. I think the commentator is right.

7. It is very disturbing. At first I was disappointed the film was in black and white. After they showed in graphic details the first abortion procedure being done, I was grateful. Honestly, I almost threw up. There were two procedures shown in detail, not to mention very graphic pictures of babies (and of women who had tried to perform abortions on themselves before it was legal). There is also a very lude scene with an all female rock band - just a warning.

8. It was incredibly challenging.
- In a speech given to a prochoice group, Jocelyn Edwards, former Surgeon General, makes the comment that we care a lot about children when they are in someone else's uterus. As a nation, we are failing to care well for the massive numbers of children who live in poverty, without health care, hungry and helpless. She's right, and shame on us prolifers.
- Noam Chomsky makes a similar point when he reminds the viewer that some 15 million children die each year from preventable diseases and fixable situation (ie. no access to clean water). His point - if you're prolife, be consistent and others may be more willing to listen to you.
- According to one expert, botched abortions were the leading cause of death in women ages 15-45 during the 1950's. That should guard us against any Pollyannish notions that overturning Roe v. Wade would end the tragedy of abortion. We must deal with the root issues, including the loosening of the connection between sex and marriage, but also the cultural/societal structures that make carrying a baby to delivery so undesirable. In short, we must step up efforts to care for women as well as babies.

For me, one of the high points of the film was listening to Norma McCorvey ('Jane Roe'), tell of her conversion and subsequent shift in thinking on abortion. It really is a story of grace. The film is one I would strongly recommend to everyone but kids. Be prepared and be open to being challenged.

NRO Top Conservative Movies

National Review Online has compiled a list of the top conservative movies - "great movies that offer compelling messages about freedom, families, patriotism, traditions, and more".

1. The Lives of Others (2007)
2. The Incredibles (2004)
3. Metropolitan (1990)
4. Forrest Gump (1994)
5. 300 (2007)
6. Groundhog Day (1993)
7. The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)
8. Juno (2007)
9. Blast from the Past (1999)
10. Ghostbusters (1984)
11. The Lord of the Rings (2001, 2002, 2003)
12. The Dark Knight (2008)
13. Braveheart (1995)
14. A Simple Plan (1998)
15. Red Dawn (1984)
16. Master and Commander (2003)
17. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (2005)
18. The Edge (1997)
19. We Were Soldiers (2002)
20. Gattaca (1997)
21. Heartbreak Ridge (1986)
22. Brazil (1985)
23. United 93 (2006)
24. Team America: World Police (2004)
25. Gran Torino (2008)

Ok, so anyone want to guess how many I've seen? Here's a hint, I haven't seen Gran Torino yet - Lynn didn't think it would be a good Valentine's Day date movie - still not sure why? Check out the whole list (25 more honorable mentions) with comment on why they made the list.

Shoddy Journalism

I am no fan of Nancy Pelosi, but the CNN piece Ridiculous items in stimulus plan, by Ruben Navarrette Jr., is so shoddy and misrepresentative that an apology should be issued. Aware that this post is in danger of dying the death of a thousand qualifications, let me say I am not in favor of Pelosi's position nor of the stimulus package as a whole. However, to equate Pelosi's position with the radical agenda of Margaret Sanger is shameful. This is guilt by association of the worst kind.

Basically, Navarrette's argument is that for a brief moment what Pelosi said sounded like something Sanger would have said. Sanger was an awful person who wanted to forcefully sterilize Jews and Italians. How awful. Pelosi's taking us down that path.

Here's an example: "When you make the argument that contraception is a cost-saving measure for state and federal government, some might think what you're implying is that the babies who would otherwise have been born were destined to become dependent on welfare and other public services. (emphasis added). Navarrette deals more with how Pelosi's argument might be construed and possible links to a radical social engineering agenda than he does criticizing the actual argument she makes (in which there is plenty to criticize!). In essence, his mode of argument would be like someone saying, 'When pastor Dan says Jesus was fully human, some might think he's denying the deity of Jesus'. Navarrette should deal critically with what she said, not with how some might take her words.

This is the next paragraph in Navarrette's piece [with comments]: "Now, maybe that isn't where Pelosi was headed with her comments. It doesn't matter. [YES IT DOES] She shouldn't have said what she said [I disagree. If that's why she want's more funding for contraception/abortion, be honest and say it. Better that than hiding behind political double speak]. Imagine if these remarks had come from a conservative Republican from a red state instead of a liberal Democrat from a blue state. The left-leaning media would have gone nuts. [Yep. And here you are going nuts. What's the difference]"

Enough demonizing people and assuming the worst. Deal with positions, deal with them accurately. That's my two cents worth.

Abortion since 1860

Correction: When first posted I referenced an interview with Susan Sarandon. Actually, the interview was with Dana Delany of Desperate Housewives. Obviously I'm up on my celebs. Thanks Lynn for correcting me.

I read this post several weeks ago and wanted to comment on but it got lost in the shuffle of a new semester. I found Marvin Olasky's column in World Magazine surprising, interesting and even encouraging (her book Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America is in my Amazon basket now).

"To save the lives of more unborn Americans we should see how our pro-life predecessors succeeded in the past—and by the past I don't mean only the past three decades but the past two centuries. It's conventional to think of the abortion horror as a product of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, but research I've done at the Library of Congress shows that abortion on the eve of the Civil War was more frequent, in proportion to the U.S. population, than it is now.

You have not just read a misprint. Roughly 160,000 abortions occurred in 1860 in a population of 30 million. Probably about 1.2 million abortions (13 percent of them through RU-486) occurred last year in a population estimated at around 307 million. The horrific current number is obviously no cause for self-congratulation, but reputable forecasters at the time of Roe v. Wade were predicting a butcher's bill of more than 4 million abortions annually by now.

With everything we're doing wrong, are we doing something right to fall far short of that 4 million prediction, and to have witnessed a decline during the past decade from 1.6 million to 1.2 million? I believe we are, and not for the first time in American history: The number of abortions in America, in proportion to the population, declined by at least 50 percent during the 50 years from 1860 to 1910. How did that happen? And is the current decline likely to continue?"

In summary, here's how - they served the women who were most likely to seek abortions. Through the late 19th and early 20th century reformers and Christian organizations reached out to women, including prostitutes (one of the groups most likely to seek abortions), provide them with support and alternatives (adoption). The efforts were successful in lowering the rate of abortions per capita.

While we should note that most states had laws prohibiting abortions (except when the mothers life was in danger), these laws were largely ignored and few were ever prosecuted. Olasky writes, "by the 1870s, every state had such laws [prohibiting abortion], but they were largely ignored, as The New York Times noted in a biblically referenced editorial titled "The Least of These Little Ones." Editor Louis Jennings, a conservative Christian, complained in 1871 that the "perpetration of infant murder . . . is rank and smells to heaven. Why is there no hint of its punishment?"

Olasky notes that passing/enforcing laws against abortion was not the focus of the prolife movement (my guess is the pivot came in after Roe v. Wade). Olasky concludes the article with these wise words: "Even though convictions were rare, law was not entirely useless. Anti-abortion statutes did send a message of right and wrong. They forced abortionists to advertise in code, bribe policemen and politicians, and hire lawyers. Law could not end abortion but it could reduce the butcher's bill, just as laws against drunken driving today cannot end the practice but can save lives. Today, it's still worthwhile to pass laws restricting abortion, but time and money spent on providing and promoting compassionate alternatives saves more lives."

Last night I heard someone ask Dana Delany (not Susan Sarandon) what she hoped Obama would do first as President. She is hoping he will lift the 'gag rule' and make abortions available to women around the rule. I bring this up because it seems that, for a time, the legal efforts of the prolife movement will need to be set aside freeing the movement to serve women and their unborn children in other ways. Many prolifers supported Obama and it seems not without good reason. Time and money spent on serving mothers, providing healthcare, childcare, fair wages, etc holds promise in the continued battle to create a culture of life, not death.

Faith and the Inauguration

Os Guinness has written a terrific oped piece in USAToday on Faith and the Inauguration.

I have been hard on President Obama's policies and decisions to this point, but if I'm totally honest, there is big part of me that is eager to see what he will do, hopeful that the optimism he demonstrated will be transferred to the rest of the nation. I am also thankful that Obama's race was not a barrier to him reaching the highest office in the land and hope that maybe the days of racism and inequality are drawing to an end (which would be real good for the Church of Christ as this is a blemish on its record!).

Piper: How Barack Obama Will Make Christ a Minister of Condemnation

I have not posted much on the Presidential transition of power or the inauguration of President Elect Obama not because I'm not interested, but not well enough informed. I don't know most of the people who have been appointed to cabinet posts but most seem pleased with what he has done. I do think he has done a good job of tempering expectations - something every president elect must do or else disappoint supporters grievously.

I was, however, dismayed to see who Obama had asked to deliver the invocation at the inauguration kick off (not the actual inauguration event - Rick Warren is doing that - which is a different type of disappointment). Here's Piper's thought on it, and just a warning, they are harsh.

"At Barack Obama’s request, tomorrow in the Lincoln Memorial, Gene Robinson, the first openly non-celibate homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church, will deliver the invocation for the inauguration kick-off.

This is tragic not mainly because Obama is willing to hold up the legitimacy of homosexual intercourse, but because he is willing to get behind the church endorsement of sexual intercourse between men.

It is one thing to say: Two men may legally have sex. It is another to say: The Christian church acted acceptably in blessing Robinson’s sex with men.

The implications of this are serious.

It means that Barack Obama is willing, not just to tolerate, but to feature a person and a viewpoint that makes the church a minister of damnation. Again, the tragedy here is not that many people in public life hold views (like atheism) that lead to damnation, but that Obama is making the church the minister of damnation.

The apostle Paul says,

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves , nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

What is Paul saying about things like adultery, greed, stealing, and homosexual practice? As J. I. Packer puts it, “They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God’s kingdom of salvation.” (Christianity Today, January 2003, p. 48).

In other words, to bless people in these sins, instead of offering them forgiveness and deliverance from them, is to minister damnation to them, not salvation.

The gospel, with its forgiveness and deliverance from homosexual practice, offers salvation. Gene Robinson, with his blessing and approval of homosexual practice, offers damnation. And he does it in the name of Christ.

It is as though Obama sought out a church which blessed stealing and adultery, and then chose its most well-known thief and adulterer, and asked him to pray.

One more time: The issue here is not that presidents may need to tolerate things they don’t approve of. The issue is this: In linking the Christian ministry to the approval of homosexual activity, Christ is made a minister of condemnation."

Now my turn - I agree in substance with Piper, though I think he should be harder on the church and not as harsh on President Elect Obama. It's the church's job to lead and keep itself morally upright, not the secular state. Certainly Obama doesn't earn points in my book for selecting the gay bishop, but I have not come to expect much by way of moral leading or religious wisdom from the President. Obama is doing what successful Presidents do - trying to keep as many people who elected them happy as possible!

the Truth isn't always in the middle

I am a fairly regular reader of Scott McKnight's blog Jesus Creed, though I don't keep up every day, and he blogs a ton (how does he find all that time). I usually find his posts stimulating and enriching. Recently, however, he has been writing a series of reflections on "The Third Way", using Adam Hamilton's book Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White: Thoughts on Religion, Morality, and Politics as the discussion starter. Now I haven't read the book and probably won't, at least for a long time, but the thought behind it seems at once attractive and also wrongheaded.

McKnight correctly writes the 'liberal' and 'conservative' are not the only two options. Of course I agree with that. The labels are useless to begin with because they are very relative (in politics as well as religion). To my uncle and all my other fundi relatives I'm a raging liberal. To the liberals I work with on the CaRLA board, I'm a conservative fundi. McKnight, and Hamilton, argue for a middle road between the two. McKnight acknowledges that the middle road between conservatism and liberalism is a hard one to hold too. He says that people complain all the time that this Third Way "muddies the waters. It creates ambiguity."

The Third Way does muddy the water and create ambiguity, but that's not my issue In the first post from Dec. 8th with McKnight/Hamilton's position. In fact, I don't think it muddies the water enough. It seems overly simplistic. If the liberals are to the left and the conservatives are to the right, pitch your tent in no man's land. Ok, but what if you should be pitching it to the left? Or to the right? Sometimes the truth is in the middle gray area, but not always. Sometimes it's to the right, sometimes to to the left. Just as we should avoid totting the party line (whether it Republican, Democratic, Presbyterian, Liberal Protestant, Evangelical, etc.), so we should avoid totting the Moderate party ("run to the gray").

I think McKnight/Hamilton's thesis works at the macro level, but not when it comes to evaluating individual doctrines, maybe not individual policies either. For example, the liberal Jesus, the 'historical Jesus' is a wonderful Jewish teacher who made no divine claims, had a small inconsequential ministry in Palestine stumbled into Jerusalem and somehow got himself crucified. His later disciples deified him in political churchmanship...The conservative Christian Jesus is the Jesus of the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition. The truth isn't in the middle, it's with the ancient and 'conservative' Christians who continue to assert the truths of Jesus deity and humanity in one person, his life, death and resurrection.

This approach is more muddy because it requires deep thought not only about the gray area, but also about whether there is a legitimate middle ground on a particular issue.

Another Perspective on Gay Marriage

I stumbled across this article today which offers a very different perspective, one that I'll need to mull over more thoroughly, on the same sex marriage debate. Summary: Prop 8 in Cali. is more tolerant and liberal than laws in Mass. demanding same sex marriage be recognized. Hmm.

Read the whole thing.

Clarification on Previous Post on Gay Marraige

In the comments on my previous post, SEG asked for some clarification on why I am for using the legislative process to put an end to abortion but not a fan of the ban on gay marriage. First, let me say that I am not for gay marriage and do believe homosexuality is a flagrant sin (one of many). But I think there is a difference between the two issues, abortion and gay marriage.

Here's the difference as I see it, and I am open for correction and input. First, I see nowhere in scripture where I am to crusade in the larger society for morality. We should be moral people and salt and light that change society from the inside out. I do see, however, where we are called to stand up for the weak, the powerless, to care about justice, etc. In most ways, the gay marriage issue is a victimless issue. We obviously can't say the same thing about abortion.

Secondly, changing the terminology from marriage back to civil union is semantics - just wording. Now I really haven't spent time reading the legislation, but I am under the impression that virtually all of the rights extended to gay couples under the umbrella of 'marriage' will continue to be extended under the umbrella of 'civil union'. No matter what you call it the sin remains. To change that, you'd have to outlaw homosexuality (sodomy laws, etc.) and enforce it. I don't know many people who are in favor of this, and I certainly am not. On the issue of abortion, I'm not advocating action to protect a word or concept, but lives.

Hope the clarification is helpful.

Gay Marriage and Constitutional Bans

A few weeks ago I mentioned that I'm not one who supports amendments to the Constitution banning gay marriage. Yesterday three states passed amendments to their state constitutions banning it. Here's a quote from William Duncan on marriagedebate.com:

Voters in California, Arizona and Florida approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman yesterday. This is great news for marriage.

The California victory is especially important since it reversed the California Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage in May of this year. The Florida victory is significant because the amendment there needed sixty percent approval to be enacted. The Arizona victory reversed the very narrow defeat of a slightly more complicated marriage amendment in 2006.

First, I should say I'm not necessarily opposed to constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, I'm just not for them. I'm very ambivalent, but do think advocacy for and money spent to promote such bans are a complete waste.

Going back to the quote I can explain why. First, Duncan says this is great news for marriage. I really and truly fail to see how such amendments will make make marriages better. Will they lower divorce rates, increase fidelity or anything else that could be considered good news for marriage. Secondly, I don't get the personification of marriage - as if marriage is now celebrating.

More importantly, I don't see how this truly changes anything except in name. Civil unions are still protected legally and gay individuals in civil unions are still provided the same rights, essentially, as married couples. Frankly, a rose by any other name is still as sweet. I don't care if you call it a civil union or a marriage. Civil unions are marriages in all but a legal sense.

Now please, understand I'm not advocating a gay lifestyle. I think its sinful, but lets work at addressing the sin and stop quibbling over words.

Finally, I question why Christians care so much about how the state defines marriage. Will I allow the state to define for me or my kids how we should understand marriage. Until the day the state tells me I have to perform gay marriages, I just don't care if a gay couple gets hitched at a courthouse. 'Whatever' I think is the proper response.