Christian Issues

• 4 Comments

•

I'm not writing this to slam the church, because I really, really like it. Rather, I want to 1) rant a bit to get it out of my system and 2) get my thoughts in order before I talk to the pastor.

Last spring I visited a new church (new to me, but new...to everybody; it was a new church plant and I got a flier in the mail)

The preaching was saturated with the Gospel and I was so hungry for that (and still am, on a daily basis)

The singing part of the service was WONDERFUL; full of rich and deep theology, respectful of the writers of the old hymns and completely focused upward. I could leave behind the horizontal and be pulled into the vertical.

One thing happened and I almost didn't go back...but I did go back - and it was equal parts sermon and singing that drew me back.

I spent most of my summer out of town, and I went back to this church in the late summer, early fall. My first time back, was the last day for the (now former) music minister.

Since then, my haven for worship has steadily changed. The preaching is still some of the most Gospel saturated that I have EVER heard.

On the singing...three things have been added, that add up to one huge negative (for me)

1) the insertion of man-centered band playing both at the beginning and middle of a worship song. No matter how theologically rich a song is, if you stop singing in the middle, because the band puts the focus on...well...the band....the focus is now OFF God.

2) More 7-11, less conscience worship. 7-11 singing is the equivalent of the "repetitive prayers" that Jesus said belong to the pagans

3) The utter disrespect for the great people of God whose hymns and songs reflect the pain and faith in their lives, but raping them with the insertion of 7-11 in the middle.

I detest the thievery of old and beautiful hymns by a crop of youngsters to steal the hymns, add a few 7-11 choruses in the middle and slap their own name on them.

4) (and this is a "me thing") when you spend 20 minutes focusing my mind and soul upward toward heaven in worship, don't pull me back into the horizontal with a 10 minute "meet and greet" toward the end of it.

look up, look up, look up...and now for something completely different!

If you want to do the "meet and greet" - do your band and 7-11 early (one or two songs, please) THEN do the meet and greet early, THEN let's do business with God.

I love the preaching, but if the music keeps slipping toward K-FLUFF, I'll reevaluate.

• 1 Comment

•

From Matthew 19 (ESV)

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

"They" asked..."why did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

I believe that what Moses commanded is that IF a man is going to send his wife away, then he must give her a certificate of divorce to leave with, so that she could legally marry again.

Moses did not command a man to divorce - he regulated divorce.

As Jesus corrected "them" - Moses allowed divorce, not command it.

It reminded me of Eve in the garden - She changed the command of God ever-so-slightly from "don't eat" to "don't even touch"

What I'm taking away today is that when God gives a command...follow it.

Adding to the Law doesn't make us more holy...it just gives us more chances to mess up.

 

• 4 Comments

•

★★★★★★I think this is one I'll go through here (spiritual discipline, perhaps?)

As I was reading this book, the first part seemed like it is full of "white guilt" - expanding the sin of racism to all white people in the USA by virtue of the color of their skin.

After that, Piper explores individual sins on both sides of the issue - "both" because the reality is (at this point, anyway) the big divide seems greatest between African-Americans and Americans of European descent.  There is plenty of sin to go around.

When Piper gets into the meat of the topic - WHY it is a sin and why it matters, this is an excellent book.  I also broadened to topic to include "favoritism" (not just the race kind) and it became more excellent.

by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation, (Rev. 5:9)

From chapter 6 on, the book is steeped in the Gospel.  We are all created in the image of God - to practice favoritism in any way strikes at the image.

I'm giving this 4 stars (also working on a star system... 😉

 

 

•

The article is here.

My General Opinion:

If a Christian marriage is supposed to mirror Christ and the church, Molher's teaching is a full on assault on gospel-defined love in marriage (the UNdeserved favor of mercy and the ILL-deserved favor that is grace.)  Molher has warped  the testimony that IS the image of Christian love having replaced it with a loathsome treadmill of legalistic, regular performance and reward.

A Covenant Blessing?  Or "Regularly Earned Privilege?"

The privilege of marital intimacy, in Mohler’s teaching, comes from performance, not covenant, which means it’s no longer a covenant blessing – an expected part of a Christian marriage.  It is now a reward.

This goes beyond sexual intimacy as a right that can be lost – it is now a privilege that must be earned.

The argument goes - "so, you would force a wife to have sex, no matter how her husband behaves?"

There is a huge difference between starting out with a covenant blessing, and forfeiting that blessing by behavior that is covenant-breaking...and having to earn marital intimacy to start with.

This is the direct opposite of the gospel; this is full pelagianism in the sexual arena – a man must fully, and regularly earn his reward.  Gone is the image of “one flesh” and in its place we find a life lived under constant performance judgment, reward, or retaliation.

If a Christian marriage reflects Christ and the church, this teaching tells us that we enter into a covenant relationship with our Lord, and then we have to earn Enghetti.

When a “privilege” must be “regularly” earned, it explicitly communicates the premise that the starting point is…nothing.  Mohler is not teaching that Enghetti can be lost…he’s teaching that the husband’s default is the desert…and he must “regularly” earn the oasis of the marriage bed.

So...What if He Stumbles...?

If her husband does not “obey the word” – a wife will not win him “without a word by her conduct” by violating  1 Peter 3:1

A wife’s openness to her husband inspires his love toward her, bringing more closeness between them, allowing him to give more of himself to her.  Marital intimacy should not be a system of “carrot and stick” to allow him to earn access to the marriage bed!

1 Cor. 7:3 says “ The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.”  The KJV says, “due benevolence” – marital intimacy is “benevolence,” not an earned privilege.

I would submit that if a wife only gives of herself when all is well, or worse, only when he as performed to her expectation, that's not "due benevolence".

If she only "wants" sex when she wants it, when he has earned it...on her terms, that tags her with Mohler's description of him: "the accomplishment of sexual fulfillment."

It is when she gives of herself for HIM - to HIM, for HIS sake - not because he has earned it, but because she loves him, that's love.  When she gives to him, not because his behavior has earned it, but because her heart wants it, that's covenant love.

Final Thoughts:

Mohler writes:

Rather than taking satisfaction in his wife, he looks at dirty pictures in order to be rewarded with sexual arousal that comes without responsibility, expectation, or demand

Rather than making the battle against pornography a team effort, it becomes a battle of the sexes instead.

SHE gets to decide if he has earned sex.  SHE gets to decide if he has earned marital intimacy. SHE gets to decide of his behavior is good enough to give of herself.

All he can do is stay on the treadmill and hope that he measures up to her standards, whatever those standards might be.

If we bring “man and wife” back to “Christ and the church…” It doesn’t get any worse than this.

•

I just purchased the book, and already I've got concerns.

Sexual assault is a serious crime, it wrecks people.  It needs to be addressed, it needs to be stopped.  Women who have been sexually assaulted need to be ministered to with the utmost of love and care.

BUT>>>

when the definition of "sexual assault" is so broadened to the point where anything qualifies, the term becomes meaningless.

Those people who have been sexually assaulted - it undermines the seriousness of what they truly have been subjected to.

I have a friend who was "gang-raped" when she was 12 years old.  She had a child as a result.  She is affected to this day.  That qualifies and it is REAL.

When I was a pre-teen, I was "pantsed" by a neighbor boy.  We were in a field (I think pulling weeds in a bean field or something of the sort) and he was messing around and grabbed my shorts and yanked them down around my ankles, underwear and all.  Under this broad definition, that qualifies.

Please, don't undermine the reality of my friend's pain, but telling me that a childhood prank was "sexual assault."

•

This is a bit from "God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology" (I have a few comment underneath)

The Center of the Theology of the New Testament Letters:  The authors of these twenty-one letters are radically united in the proclamation of bizarre ideas.

To see this, let us engage in a bit of contrastive analysis, contemplating what these authors did not do and what their letters do not advocate.

Rome was not their kingdom, and they were not trying to make it home. They sought the city that is to come. Not one of these authors gave his life to address the systemic injustice of the Roman Empire by means of political reform. Not one of these authors went the way of Josephus and sought to cozy up to the emperor, though Paul seems to have had opportunities to seek such “influence” with some high-ranking officials. Not one of these authors did or said anything about trying to stop Rome from fighting its wars. Not one of them championed the idea that the government should take money from the rich and redistribute it equally to the poor, nor did they leave the ministry to advocate a government of greater fiscal responsibility, lowered taxes, and increased national security. Not one of these authors taught that the way to change the world is by initiating a universal, government-funded education program. Not one of these authors was out to make as much money as he possibly could. Not one of these authors embraced one of the popular philosophies of the day, nor did they seek to synthesize the message of Jesus with the spirit of their age. None of them advocated higher moral standards in society at large (outside the church), nor did they lobby for universal health care or a revised definition of marriage that would legitimate same-sex unions.  None of them seem to have cared whether anyone reading their letters would be perceived by the broader culture as hip, savvy, chic, or cool. They had a different program.

These authors believed that the decisive event in the story of the world had taken place. God loved the world by sending his Son, condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, poured out all his wrath on Jesus at the cross, and accomplished salvation through that ultimate display of justice. God raised Jesus from the dead, and Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples by proclaiming the good news.

How did they go about carrying out this commission? They all basically did the same thing. None appears to have sought to carry out the commission through political or educational institutions. According to the book of Acts, they simply told people, whether groups or individuals, who God is, what he had accomplished in Jesus, and what this implied for them. God accomplished salvation through judgment in Jesus, and the implication for every auditor of the message is that they would either believe and be saved or disobey (be unpersuaded by) the gospel and be judged. Through the announcement of judgment, the saved rejoiced in and glorified God. The converts, those who believed the message, were gathered into congregations, churches. Paul, Peter, and James all refer to elders who led these churches.

The authors of the letters studied in this chapter wrote what they did to form, instruct, and protect the churches. Their message is that God has glorified himself by working salvation through judgment in fulfillment of the Old Testament in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Their message is that there is a way of life that evidences belief in that message, and a way of life that does not. Their message is that God has sent the Spirit, who has given new life to those who believe; and the Spirit will keep them to the end, so that on the last day, when Christ comes to save through judgment, they will be those who glorify God for his mercy. The center of the theology of the letters of the New Testament is the glory of God in salvation through judgment.

I think where this goes sideways is the apparent false dichotomy between political activism and spreading the gospel.  Does spreading the gospel rule out being politically active?

If one of the messages of Scripture is that Christians should pursue justice, one way to do that is through the political system.

Other than that...the authors of Scripture wrote exactly what the Spirit wanted them to write.  No more, no less.

•

What would you do if, after nine months of pregnancy, you gave birth to a baby who unexpectedly had Down syndrome? For two Portland, Oregon parents, the answer is sue. That’s right: they’re suing the hospital because they say doctors didn’t diagnose their daughter while they were pregnant.

Their entire argument consists of the fact that, had they known their four-year-old daughter had an extra chromosome, they wouldn’t have allowed her to live. How can a parent look at their child and then say, “if I had known you had a disability, I wouldn’t have let you live”?

(emphasis mine)

•

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’

Yup.

 

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.”

Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.”

The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated.

In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

•

While anti-religious rights folks scream that "the mandate" hearings did not include women, or pro-mandate witnesses, the back story reveals a lot.

  1. there were women, just not at the first sitting
  2. The committee at the hearing involved advocating for religious rights.  Why do they consider women more (or less) capable of advocating for rights that affect us all?
  3. what goes around comes around.

If the hearings included no women (even "forgetting the claim is false) - the committee that wrote the thing...

According to the research from Human Life International (HLI), the panel behind Barack Obama's contraception, sterilization, and "morning-after" pill mandate was dominated by pro-abortion organizations.

According to HLA, the members of the panel leading to the Obama mandate included (among other):

Claire Brindis is a member of the Board of Directors of the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, as well as a member of NARAL’s Pro-Choice California “1969 Society,” which has been called by NARAL “a group of our most steadfast and generous donors.”

Angela Diaz is a former board member of “Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health,” an advocacy group that “work[s] to improve access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion.”

Paula A. Johnson is the Chairwoman of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts...

Magda G. Peck is associated with a host of organizations that advocate for abortion and free access to contraception, and was on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs and served as both vice chair and chair of the board.

Linda Rosenstock, committee chairwoman, has since October 2004 donated over $40,000 to pro-choice political candidates including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and the Democratic National Committee.

Alina Salganicoff is the Vice President and Director of Women’s Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a major proponent of abortion and contraception on demand.

•

By Dinesh D'Souza:

Here in the West, there are lots of liberal Christians. Some of them have assumed a kind of reverse mission: instead of being the church's missionaries to the world, they have become the world's missionaries to the church. They devote their moral energies to trying to make the church more democratic, to assure equal rights for women, to legitimize homosexual marriage, and so on. A small but influential segment of liberal Christianity rejects all the central doctrines of Christianity. H. Richard Hiebuhr famously summed up their credo: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgement through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

I have met liberal Christians who are good and sincere people. But their version of Christianity is retreating, in two senses. Liberal Christians are distinguished by how much intellectual and moral ground they concede to the adversaries of Christianity: "Granted, no rational person today can believe in miracles, but..." "True, the Old Testament God seems a mighty vengeful fellow, but..." "Admittedly religion is responsible for most of the conflict and oppression in history, but..."

This yes-but Christianity in full intellectual withdrawal, and it is also becoming less relevant. * * *

Unfortunately, the central themes of some of the liberal churches have become indistinguishable from those of the American Civil Liberties Union, the national Organization for Women, and the homosexual rights movement. Why listen to Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong drone on when you can get the same message and much more interesting visuals at San Francisco's gay pride parade?

This is quote I try to keep on hand.

What really struck me was the "Christ's missionary to the world" vs. "the world's missionary to the church."