grace-decatur.com

Dear Rev. Jones: 

Caught you on “Nightline” last night, with my old Lawrence University friend Terry Moran.  I appreciated his patience and moderation in speaking with you.  As I listened I got the impression that you were thinking “Boy this was really a dumb idea, but how do I get out of it now?”  YOU said you were concerned but were “wondering, ‘When do we stop?’”  YOU said, “How much do we back down? How many times do we back down?” You told the AP. “Instead of us backing down, maybe it’s time to stand up.  Maybe it’s time to send a message to radical Islam. . .” 

I can see your predicament.  I mean, if you go through with your plan to burn the Quran, you’ll make a real fool of yourself.  You could well be endangering the lives of yourself, your church members, not to mention Christians in general, and as Gen. Petraeus has pointed out, our Soldiers on the ground.  I mean, you’re about to incur the wrath of a bunch of people who are not nearly as reasonable or peace-loving as we keep hearing that they are.  I don’t mean Muslims.  I mean the radicals.  You know who I mean, the “death to America” crowd.   No doubt the ones who inspired this hair-brained idea of yours in the first place.  Believe me, there are a lot of folks out here who don’t really blame you.

 On the other hand, if you do the right thing, and call it off, well, then you’ll appear weak, and look like you’ve caved in, and all that.  They (again, not the Muslims, but the terrorists, the Jihadists), will have won.   

Bummer of a position to be in.  You’ve sure painted yourself in to a corner.  As I heard you on “Nightline” last night I, perhaps looking for some good in you, seemed to hear you wishing out loud for a way out.  A way to pull your, well, your Qurans anyway, out of the fire.   

I’ve got an idea.  I agree with you, that it’s time for somebody to send a message.  But WHAT message?  That’s the key, after all.  You’re a pastor, right?  So am I.  What’s the message you and I were called to preach? 

Here’s what I would do.  Go on with your event.  Gather your big crowd.  Invite the media. Build your big bon-fire, and stack up all of your Qurans next to it.  Here’s where you throw them the curve ball.  You pick up a Quran, and you remind everyone of what “they” did to us on 9-11.  You remind the crowd that although “they” don’t represent Islam as a whole, nonetheless, “they” did this in the name of Allah, of Islam, and of those Qurans that are piled up before you.  Then you remind the crowd that you have a Frst Amendment right to free speech, freedom of religion, and even a right to burn without a permit (so says your lawyer). 

But THEN, I would say, “But what would it prove if we burned this stack of Qurans?  What would ultimately be accomplished?  Sure we have a RIGHT to do it, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.  This is, after all, the same argument that Imam up in New York is making about his RIGHT to build his Mosque, literally in the shadow of Ground Zero.  While none of us question his right, we would hope that he would see what an insensitive thing it would be, what a hurtful thing it would be, what an offensive thing it would be to the families of the victims and to a lot more innocent Americans, many of whom unfortunately equate all Muslims with the evil terrorists who attacked us nine years ago.  Though he has the right to build it, it may not be the right thing to do, if he is genuinely concerned with the feelings of others.  Just like it would be really, really wrong for me to throw this Quran, into that fire.  For me to insist on my right to do something, that would be the wrong thing to do.  For me to equate all Muslims with the terrorists and do something really offensive to the innocent Muslims who live among us in America, and around the world, who condemn the terrorists as adamantly as you and I do, and as adamantly as a lot of Christians would condemn me, if I were, indeed, to throw these Qurans into that fire.”

 “I could do it.  “They” have been burning effigies of me, and American flags all week long in anticipation of this event.  That’s how “they” do things in “their” world.  But I’m not going to do that.  I’m a Christian, and even though I have the right to do this, it isn’t right.  We (Americans) are bigger and better than that.  We (Christians) believe in a concept called GRACE.” 

“The Bible says, ‘Mercy triumphs over judgment (or justice)’  (James 2: 13).”    

Mohammad Mukhtar, a cleric and candidate for the Afghan parliament in the September 18 election said “It is the duty of Muslims to react.  When their holy book Quran gets burned in public, then there is nothing left. If this happens, I think the first and most important reaction will be that wherever Americans are seen, they will be killed. No matter where they will be in the world they will be killed.”  Kabul resident, Rajab Ali said, “If this (burning of the Quran) happens there will be chaos in Afghanistan and being a Muslim, if we don’t defend the Quran then what else we can do?” 

“We’re here to show you what else you can do, Rajab.  We’re going to demonstrate grace.  You see, it is the duty of Christians to forgive, and to love.  Your book and your clerics may cry out for blood, but  our Leader cries out, ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.’  Our Leader said, ‘If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  Our God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life.  We follow One who demonstrated His love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  We’ve all sinned, we’ve all fallen short of God’s glory, and we all deserve to die and be cast into everlasting fire.  Just as I have a RIGHT to throw each and every one of these Holy Qurans into that fire, God would be perfectly just and right to throw each and every one of us into the everlasting fires of Hell forever.  But we’re saved by grace, because of the mercy of God.  No, we’re not going to burn these Qurans today, or any other day.  We’re Christians.  We’re Americans.  We’re better than that.” 

“Now if you want to know more about God’s amazing grace, or the One who died so we could be forgiven, stick around and I’ll be happy to tell you all about Him.  If not, go on home.  Move along. Nothing more to see here.” 

Just a thought.  Why don’t you consider it?  You’d be the bigger man.  You’d be acting like a Christian. 

Pastor Scott

California is once again revisiting the debate over “Prop 8,” the ballot measure that amended the state constitution to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage that the court threw out last year.  This morning I was speaking with a good friend at the gym where I work out.  He is a self-described libertarian, but I would classify him more as an antinomian.  Now he is a pretty conservative guy, but on these sort of issues, he has some views that would be typically considered very liberal.  (But he is a great guy, and I owe him a lot as I have been striving to lose weight for my upcoming National Guard appointment.)

My friend’s position is that no one has the right to impose their standard on any one else’s  personal moral choices, and therefore, Prop 8 should be struck down.  Now, I agree with him most of the time.  I heartily agree that the government should have no role in granting who can and cannot be married.  I also agree that the majority does not rule, but that we are a constitutional republic, governed by the rule of law.   But that’s not what this debate is about. Nor is the debate about the violation of anyone’s civil rights.  Any gay man or woman has the same right to marry any other person, of the opposite sex, because that’s what a marriage is.  Any other type of arrangement, except that of two people (not animals, or plants) of opposite sexes, is simply not a marriage.   This discussion then, is fundamentally about the definition of marriage.

As stated before, on this blog, no government agency, or human agency has the right to define marriage.  It has been defined once and for all, by God.  (See my posting on McCain on the Ellen show, from May of 2008).  The Bible has already defined marriage in the early chapters of the book of Genesis, and as I said then, if anyone does not recognize the Bible as authority, we could talk about “natural law.”  There we have a slam dunk.  Homosexual couples cannot procreate, thus ending any hope of a process of evolution, or even continued existence.  As the Bible says, even nature itself teaches us that homosexuality is a perversion and an abomination.

So the question then is, who says?  Who’s Bible is right?  Who’s “god” gets to define marriage?   The founders would have said the God of the Bible.  Contrary to modern misguided, publicly educated and indoctrinated opinion, this nation was not founded as an atheistic humanistic secular state.  It was founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics and principles.  (NB:  According to Colin Rhys Lovell’s English Constitutional and Legal History, published by New York: Oxford University Press, 1962, pp 3-50,  the “People’s Law,” as practiced by the 16th-17th century Anglo-Saxons who came to America and founded our nation considered only four offenses to be committed against the whole society and therefore, capital offenses:  treason, cowardice, desertion, and HOMOSEXUALITY [emphasis added]).  The United States of America was never intended to be a secular, or atheistic, humanist state.  The concept of separation of church and state as defined by our founders in the U.S. Constitution states simply that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor denying the free exercise thereof.”  The intent was to prevent the Congress of the United States (not any state government or local municipality) from establishing a state church, as in England, or to give preference at the federal level, to any particular religious sect or denomination.  To suggest that any law remotely based on the Bible is therefore unconstitutional is patently absurd.  All laws are based on someone’s spiritual beliefs.

Let me illustrate.  Although my friend believes it is wrong to impose a standard of morality, or a definition of marriage that is based on the Bible, he also decries the notion that “might makes right.”  He clearly does not believe in lawlessness; no one does.  He would be quick to object to a person attacking his wife, robbing his property or stealing his truck, just because that person was bigger and stronger than him.  In fact, at his club, we are not even allowed to take magazines into the washroom, or spit in the drinking fountain. (FASCIST!)  But all of those laws, against assault, robbery, or thievery, are based on the Decalogue, as given by Moses from Jehovah God, in the Bible.  Everyone must look to some ULTIMATE AUTHORITY.

So Who, or what might that be?  Well, for me, it’s God.  (For everyone else it’s God too, whether or not they know it, but let me concede the point for sake of argument).  In the United States, and even in California, the ultimate source of authority is the Constitution.  So, back to California, and Prop 8.  The problem facing the California Supreme Court is that they ruled a law unconstitutional, as is their purview.  They determined that the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage” was unconstitutional.  Fair enough.  Then the people voted to amend the state constitution, so as to ban same-sex “marriages” as is their purview.  The Supreme Court ought not to be able to declare an amendment to the Constitution, unconstitutional.  That is absurd.  The reason is that the ultimate authority is not the Supreme Court, but the constitution.  The same constitution that grants authority to the court to rule as they had in the earlier decision.  The Constitution is written by and ratified by the people.  In a democracy, the authority is vested in the people.  It’s not mob rule, because it is not a pure democracy.  It is a constitutional republic.  The constitution rules.  The RULE OF LAW.  So if the court is not subject to the authority of the state constitution, and bound by its duly established amendments, then they truly are not a constitutional democracy or republic, but an oligarchy.  The California Supreme Court might as well declare themselves sovereign and make themselves immune from all laws and prosecution.  They are above the Law!  But that’s not America!

Is the current law unjust?  Well if a majority of the people believe it to be, they can change it in a constitutionally prescribed process to amend their constitution, which they did.  But the court cannot then rule the Constitution unconstitutional! Have we had constitutional amendments that have been wrong?  Sure.  We reversed them, or repealed them, but it was a harder process, by design, than just passing legislation, or the court striking down the same legislation.  A constitutional amendment takes longer, and requires a super-majority, on purpose, so that once it is in place, it will stand.

For example, at present there are laws on the books in every state prohibiting abortion.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is an alleged right to abortion in the Constitution, striking down those laws.  So I support a Constitutional amendment in defense of life, that would once and for all settle the matter.  I, and those who share my view, have not yet been able to get it done, but we’ll keep trying to persuade and change public opinion and hope to one day pass such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  That’s what the gay “marriage” people need to do.  Nothing is stopping them.  The court, however has no authority to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional!

So what business is it of mine if two consenting adults of the same sex want to be “married?”  Well, as a pastor, I wonder if I would have to recognize, or even perform such “marriages?”  Would my opposition, based on my Scriptural convictions be protected in Gay Marriage America?  What if I don’t believe in gay adoption?  Would Christian adoption agencies such as the Baptist Children’s Home be forced to place children in the homes of a gay couple?  Would we be able to say that only married couples can adopt, and that marriage is between a man and wife, a mother and father?

Would marriages in California, or Massachusetts  have to be recognized in other “non-gay marriage” states?  Here we go again!  Haven’t we been down that road in the Civil War days, over slavery?  Or what about multiple marriage partners?  Why, if marriage is not between a man and a woman, can’t it be between a man and several women (hello Utah)?  Where does it end?  Here we go again!

Two consenting adults can do whatever they please in the privacy of their own homes, and ought not to be threatened by intrusion by the government.  But the government (remember, of the people, for the people, and by the people)  ought not to be required by a small, unelected ruling body, such as any state supreme court to sanction their behavior, or be punished for opposing it on moral grounds.

This debate is about 1) the definition of marriage, 2) ultimate authority, and 3) the insistence of a minority of the sanctioning of a lifestyle that most in this country believe to be objectionable, immoral and aberrant.  The gay community will never be satisfied until their lifestyle is endorsed and approved by the state, and eventually by the church.

Isaiah 5: 20

Jdimytai Damour had been working at the Long Island Walmart store for only about a week when frenzied shoppers knocked him down on the day after Thanksgiving.  He was trampled to death by shoppers who had forced their way into the store, five minutes before it was supposed to be opening, so that they could get to the special “door buster” deals.  According to an MSN report, items on sale at the WalMart included a Samsung 50-inch plasma HDTV for $798, a Bissel Compact Upright Vacuum for $28, a Samsung 10.2 mega-pixel digital camera for $69 and DVDs such as “The Incredible Hulk” for only $9.

This event happened, as one NPR commentator insightfully pointed out, just five hours after THANKSGIVING.

Now let’s not fool ourselves by talking about Thanksgiving in some old, traditional, religious terms.  Let’s face it.  It has become a day of excesses.  Gluttony, football from morning until late in the evening, advertising hype, and the kickoff of the “holiday” shopping season–”BLACK FRIDAY.”  The Friday after Thanksgiving has been so named, because it is the day on which most retailers hope to move from the “red” into the “black” in their ledgers.  It is the day that their year is salvaged.  Even in good economic times, most retailers operate in the red through out the year, gearing up for the Christmas shopping season, which moves them into positive territory.  “Black Friday” is the day that sets the tone for the entire season, so they want to get off to a big start, and thus the “early bird” sales.  In one outlet mall just north of Chicago, people brave the cold and camp out in the parking lot, so as to be the first in the stores when they open at 2:00 AM.

So, “Thanksgiving” (note the quotes) is the kickoff of an annual national orgy of covetousness.  Thank God for the “holidays” wherein we break even for the year.  Now get out there and SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!  After all, you NEED that new Wii, or you will just DIE!  And kids, get those lists ready for Santa, because coveting is the real “Reason for the Season.”

Well, Christians are supposed to be different, and go against the flow, and I want to suggest that we take back the “Holidays” and place the emphasis where it belongs.  Instead of Thanksgiving being the official start of the “holiday” rush, let’s turn it around and make Christmas (as we called it when I was a kid) the culmination of the Thanksgiving season.  Instead of making 10 page Christmas lists, let’s teach our children to make Thanksgiving lists.  That’s right.  For every day between Thanksgiving and Christmas, let’s take some special time to give thanks for some thing.  For our families.  For our nation.  For our homes, our churches, our jobs.  OK, for the gifts we will give, and the fact that we are so affluent that we can “just go nuts” at Christmas.  For the food we enjoy, especially on Thanksgiving day.  For the fact that we can worship as we choose.  That had something to do with the pilgrim’s reason for coming to America, after all.

And how about we culminate our Thanksgiving season on Christmas day–the supposed birth of our Savior, who came to save us from hell (Oh yeah, that), and for the forgiveness of our sins, and the relationship we can have with God, because of His agonizing sacrificial, substitutionary death on the cross.  For His blood that He shed for us, freely.

1 Corinthians 9: 15 says it this way, “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.”

If we could get Christians to turn it around, and start making the “holidays” a time of giving thanks, and remembering the real “reason for the season,” we could change our world.  We might even save a life.  Doesn’t the story of Jdimytai Damour convince us that we need to rethink our ways?  In Scripture, a spirit of unthankfulness is always the beginning point of the downward spiral into utter depravity.  Now we’ve seen it played out before our eyes in a violent mob scene in Long Island, New York.

Let’s replace covetousness, selfishness, and idolatry with thanks to the true God, Who loved so much that He GAVE His only Son.

By they way, if you need some help with that Thanksgiving list, a great place to start is Psalm 103.  Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits.

One of my favorite things to do while watching political debates is to play along.  I have, over the years, come up with quite a few “zingers” or “what I woulda said” comments.  I have often marveled at the answers given by my candidates, and been frustrated by their lack of a quick comeback.  I figure, they’re the ones with all the money, experience and research staffs.  If I can come up with the perfect comeback why cant they?  I guess it’s like watching Jeopardy and always knowing the answers, until you actually go on the show and get a question on French impressionist paintings or some such thing and have to stand there like Ralph Cramden going “hummona hummona hummona.”

But, for what it’s worth, the other night I was watching the debate between vice presidential hopefuls, Joe Biden (from Scranton, PA, and apparently the Home Depot) and Sarah Palin.  Joe kept talking about his neighborhood back in Scranton and how things would be if they set the tone for the country.  I was intrigued by his (or their) definition of “fairness.”  Remember, he said that’s when the rich pay their “fair share” so as to help the poor.  “In my neighborhood of Scranton, Pennsylvania we call that ‘fairness’,” he said.

REALLY?  Do you know what we call that in my neighborhood, Joe?  We call it SOCIALISM.  Do you know what the Bible calls it when you (the government) or anyone else takes something from someone that they have worked hard to earn, without their consent.  Here’s a word we haven’t heard in political debates.  We call it “STEALING!”

Joe, in my neighborhood, and in thousands of other neighborhoods across this great nation we have a definition of “fairness” that works a whole lot better.  It’s when a person gets to keep the money that they have earned and the government keeps their hands off of it.  That’s right, Joe.  We think letting people keep their own money is FAIR!

And what about the second presidential debate, moderated by Tom Brokaw?  Remember the “zen question,” as he called it? Talk about a softball for either of the candidates, but particularly for Senator McCain.

Brokaw:  “Now here’s a kind of a ‘zen’ question from an emailer.  What is something you don’t know that you will undoubtedly learn  as president?”

My answer:  The same things that we didn’t know on September 10, 2001, Tom.

Look, the Bible says: Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring. (Proverbs 27: 1)

And again:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that.” But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.  Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.  (James 4: 13-17).

There is much we do not know, and we must be prepared to face an uncertain future.  That requires mature and proven leadership.

And, by the way, another thing we don’t know is, Who is this candidate, Senator Obama?  Is he the disciple of the racists Jeremiah White and  Father Flager of Chicago?  Is he a product of a corrupt political machine?  Is he a friend of radical domestic terrorists who purposed to blow up the United States Capitol building and the Pentagon, and advocated killing rich people and parents?  Is he the only senator from my home state of Illinois who voted to oppose guaranteeing medical care for babies born alive after a failed attempted abortion?  Is he the Constitutional law professor, who when asked when persons are entitled to civil rights protections he replied “That’s above my pay grade?”

There is much we do not know, and therefore, much to risk.  TOO MUCH!

We don’t know what the markets will do in the coming weeks and months.  We don’t know what the Russians will do in the coming weeks and months.  We don’t know what the Iranians, or the North Koreans, or the Venezuelans, or the Taliban, or the Al Queda will do.  Life is uncertain, and therefore a man’s character, temperment, and worldview are essential.  We need to know what personal beliefs and convictions will inform his responses to whatever potential crises may spring up.

In the words of Senator Biden (from Scranton):  “The presidency is no place for on-the-job training.”

Americans, pray for our nation, and vote with your brains, not just your emotions.  Hope is a wonderful thing, but hope in what?   Anger may cause us to make wrong decisions, that we will later regret.  Before you vote, ask which of these candidates best represents the ideals and convictions put forth in God’s word, the Bible.  That’s where we find light.

If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!  (Matthew 6: 23b).

Last Saturday evening Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Community Church in Lake Forest, California hosted a political forum with the two presumptive candidates for president, Senators John McCain, and Barak Obama.  To suggest that Sen. McCain won the debate would be inaccurate, because it was not technically a debate.  It more resembled something like the Charlie Rose show.  It would also be the understatement of the entire election season.

Though Pastor Warren introduced both men as friends whom he greatly respected, one might have questioned his impartiality.  Going into the event, I admit that I had serious apprehensions, in light of some of Rick’s latest allignments and involvements, such as global warming initiatives with the likes of Bono and Sting.  I was pleasantly surprised and I am all too willing to admit that I was very wrong!  After the fact, one might wonder if Rick was in fact a McCainiac who invited Obama in for what would amount to a “set up,” or a trap to expose his utter incompentance–not, mind you, because of anything Rick did or didn’t do or say, but because of the way Mr. Obama flailed and flopped around all night long.  I mean, we’ve all grown used to his um. . . er. . ah. . . kind of. . . hemming and hawing, . . I mean. . . well, uh. . .  whenever he is not, uh. . . relying on, you know,  a teleprompter.  (I wonder what David Letterman’s “Great Moments in Presidential Speeches” spoofs  will look like if Barak is elected, or if those will pass with the current administration).  But this was absolutely embarrassing!

First:  The question of when life begins, he said, was “above his pay-grade.”  To anyone who has hung around with any military people, or even watched an Army movie, it is obvious that this was a clear reference to military terminology.  For example, setting policy is not for soldiers on the field.  That is reserved for the politicians and presidents.  Determining strategies is the function of higher officers.  Those of higher rank, and therefore, pay-grade.

So Obama says that this question is above his pay-grade.  But wait.  He wants to be commander in chief!  Now I realize that abortion policy does not come under the purview of the military, and therefore the reference to commander in chief is not truly applicable.  I only invoke the reference in response to Mr. Obama’s “pay-grade” dodge.  He wants to be president expressly for the purpose of setting public policy on such matters, and to dodge the question so as not to hurt his chances at election is sheer cowardice.

Next:  It is not for him to define marriage, because the U.S. Constitution does not, but it should be left to the states.  Right, and wrong, and wrong again!  First,  it is not for him, or the U.S. Constitution or the states to define marriage.  God already has (see my previous post on John McCain on the Ellen Show).  HOWEVER, if he says that the definition should be left to the states, then why did he later voice his opposition to the ballot initiative in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman?  Last I checked, California is a state, and that decision will be made by them in the coming election.  How can a senator from Illinois have anything to say about a decision that he says should be left to the individual states, when California seeks to make that decision?

It ultimately wasn’t the answers to any specific questions that necessarily won the day for Senator McCain.  It was Senator Obama’s inconsistency and constant equivocating, that exposed him as the novice that he is, and imminently UNqualified to even share the stage with Mr. McCain, let alone to be President of the United States.  And in response, all the Democrats and Obama apologists can muster is “Foul!”  “They cheated!”  Because they didn’t get the joke about the Lost in Space “cone of silence!”  No, Senator McCain wasn’t really in a “cone of silence.”  But Senator Obama was clearly “lost in space.”  And that is why he lost at Saddleback.  Nobody cheated.  Obama was bested.

I’m not a huge John McCain fan, but I felt like he did an adequate job of holding his own in a recent appearance on the Ellen Degeneres show.  But I have this habit of shouting at the TV, and offering my advice in situations like this one.  “Here’s what I would have said. . .”

For the record, I do not, and I did not watch the Ellen show the other day.  I must admit that I have never found Ellen to be all that funny, but that’s beside the point.  My humor is rather esoteric.  I do, however, find her to be a fairly likable person.  I must admit, I hate the fact that she is gay, because I think I could really enjoy her as an entertainer if I weren’t so distracted by her lifestyle, and her agenda.

As I said, I thought John McCain handled the interview (based on the clips that I have seen) fairly well.  I thought it was very gracious of him to wish her “every happiness,” as I would have, in that circumstance.  Neither would I “walk her down the aisle,” as she facetiously requested of him, but then I have declined to participate in weddings, even of some of my own church members.  (Well, they used to be members.)

Here’s what I would say to Ellen. 

First, as a guest on HER show, I would not want to be critical of her choices or her personal life, on national TV.  If she were gracious enough to have me as a guest, knowing of my disapproval of her lifestyle, I would want to be equally gracious and not come off as attacking or condemning her.  I would ask her, respectfully, not to put me in such a position as having to respond to that issue on her program on national TV.  I would offer to discuss it privately, if she really wanted to hear what I had to say.

So here’s what I would say backstage.

Ellen made a comment, that Mr. McCain’s position was “old thinking” and that the new way of thinking recognized that “we are all the same.”  Well Ellen, which is it? Are we all the same or are some of us different?  I would contend that we are all the same, and that some have made unnatural, sinful choices, but I thought that your position was that, “Oh no!  Some of us are born different, and it’s not a choice or something we can control.”  So which is it?  This is “new thinking” and different thinking than I am used to hearing from the gay community.  Which are we to believe?

Furthermore, my thinking is not based on law, or the U.S. Constitution, or the ruling of any court, even the recent ruling of the California Supreme Court.  Marriage is not something that needs to be defined by any government or any earthly authority.  It has been defined by its inventor–God.  It is the union between a man and a woman.  It has been such, since the Garden of Eden.

Oh, but you don’t believe in the Garden of Eden?  You believe in evolution?  OK.  Then let’s talk procreation.  How does that happen in a same sex relationship?  It can’t, can it?  What would that do to evolution?  Seems to me it would shut it down once and for all!  So now we’re back to Scripture, this time Romans.  Does not even nature necessarily inform our definition of marriage?  Isn’t what you are suggesting, “unnatural?”  At the risk of sounding crude, even electricians and plumbers and pipe fitters speak of “male” and “female” connectors, based on whether they plug in, or get plugged into.  You can’t connect two “male” ends, or two “female” ends of a cord.  It has to do with the way we are designed by our Designer.

Homosexuality, therefore, is unnatural, and according to Scripture, it is sin.  By the way, it is no worse than any other sin, including my own sins.  I have long viewed it as an addiction, and it can be remedied like other addictive behaviors.  I have seen men who were homosexuals find victory over the bondage of this lifestyle, and confess to their slavery to this sin.  There is deliverance, through Christ, from the bondage of this, or any other kind of sin.  The difference in our day is that this behavior, homosexuality, has been promoted as a legitimate “alternative” lifestyle.  Gay men and women have compared it, and thus our responses to it,  to interracial marriage, and racism.  The differences are obvious, but nonetheless, they claim that just as we “corrected” our thinking about race, we are sure to see the “error of our ways” and eventually come to accept homosexuality and normalize gay “marriage.”

Our standard is, and must be the Word of God.  While there is no prohibition or objection to the former issues in Scripture, there is a prohibition, and a condemnation of homosexual behavior.  This is undeniable to anyone who will honestly consult the Scriptures.  Again, the scriptural definition of homosexuality is not more or less scathing than the scriptural definition and prohibition of any other sin.  It is, however, undeniable.

The issue that confronts the church is, as it has always been, our need to hate sin, and love sinners.  This mandate is made all the more complex, when we realize the gay community’s insistence on acceptance and normalization of their sin.  Anything less than full endorsement and approval of their lifestyle by the church has been and will be labeled as “intolerance,” “hate,” “homophobia,” and “gay bashing.”

The true intolerance, and the true hatred come from those who will not tolerate any point of view but their own, and who will seek to impose their lifestyle on society. 

I am a musician.  As such, I have had many professional relationships with other musicians, some of whom happened to be gay.  I have had very dear friends who were involved in this lifestyle.  Unlikely as it may be, if any of these friends of mine should happen to read this blog, I want to say that I love them, and as Senator McCain said, I wish them every happiness.  I want nothing less for them than God’s very best.  However, I cannot approve of, or condone their sin, any more than I could condone an unmarried heterosexual couple living together, or having sex outside of marriage.   It doesn’t mean that I don’t care for them as people or count them as very dear friends. 

Shouldn’t “gay” people have the same right to marry as “straight” people?  Sure.  Marriage, according to God, and according to nature, is between a man and a woman.  If Ellen wants to marry, she can get married.  She has the same right as any other person.  But she’ll need a man.  Otherwise it is not “marriage.”  She is choosing not to marry, in favor of a relationship with another woman.  That’s her choice, and though I may disagree with it, it is her right.  But it is NOT a marriage.

I am becoming more and more convinced of something I have believed for a long time, namely that our concept of God is terribly inadequate.  OUR GOD IS WAY TOO SMALL!  A good friend of mine has said that “Most Christians believe in a God Who is just about three inches bigger than us.”  That’s true, for a couple of reasons.  Some times we make God too small, and some times we think that we’re much bigger than we really are.  Either way, we’ve got a problem.

And it’s not limited to some people.  We all forget Who God is. 

I’ve recently been involved in a conversation with a very dear friend, over the issue of God’s electing purpose.  I’ve been wrestling with a question raised by my friend, about why God would have created people with no hope of salvation, just to send them to hell.   The first problem with my friend’s thinking is that removing the issue of election doesn’t solve anything.  God is still omniscient (all knowing), eternal (therefore, knowing the end from the beginning) and almighty, meaning that He could have prevented the reality that many will die and go to hell.   The objection seems to be based on a lack of belief in the depravity and fallenness of man.  Those who would raise such objections seem to believe that left to ourselves, some might have chosen to come to Christ on their own.  Our response is that if God hadn’t elected some, then none would be saved.

There seems to be another flaw in this kind of thinking, that neglects the historic and biblical reality that God created Adam and Eve in holiness, in a right relationship with Himself, and that it was the fall that left us dead and ruined.  On that note, the question seems to be do we believe God or Satan.  Satan told Eve, “You won’t die,” but God said she would.  If we believe, as Arminianism holds, that man did not die in the fall, but was merely “damaged” who is it with whom we are agreeing?  And if we recognize the FACT that we are DEAD, as the Bible clearly teaches, then we must realize that no one could come to Christ apart from the electing purpose of God, the particular, substitutionary atonement of Christ,  the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the and the effectual, irresistable call of God.  Dead people cannot believe or respond to an invitation, because they are dead!

But even if we don’t accept the necessity of God’s election, we’re still stuck with the idea that God KNEW that many would reject the gospel and go to hell, and He let them be born anyway!  Why?

What are the alternatives?  That He would only let those be born who would believe?  Then wouldn’t we really be mindless robots without free will, as the Arminians seem to think we make people to be?  Or what if we just taught that there is no hell?  It seems that is what most people really want.  But then everyone, no matter how evil and ungodly, would be in heaven and Jesus died for nothing.

In the end, all of this misses the main point.  We must understand Who God is, and that He is perfect and that He is much greater than we can possibly conceive.  Why does God create (or allow to be born into the world) those for whom there is no hope, that will only live, die, and go to hell apart from Christ?  I DON’T KNOW.  All I know is that He is God, and if He did it, then it is right.  It is perfect.  He cannot do wrong, or be unfair.  He’s God and He’s always right.  Everything He does is perfect, simply because He is God.

Do I understand that?  No.  Do I like it?  Do I agree with it?  It doesn’t matter?

I am not entitled to an explanation, nor am I qualified or capable of rendering a judgment as to the righteousness of God’s actions.  Romans 9: 19-23 answers this question perfectly.  Does the thing formed have the right to ask the One who formed it, Why have you made me thus?  Obviously not.  Imagine our utter audacity to speak as if we knew better than God, or that He needed to justify His actions to us, according to our fallen, corrupt ideas of right or wrong!  Do we have a better plan than God?  Can we sit in judgment of Almighty God? 

But really, seriously, why would God do something that we can’t understand or rationalize in our minds, that seems so wrong? 

Again, I don’t have a clue. 

Because He’s God and we’re not.  That’s all. 

Lest I seem to be dismissive of what I realize are truly sincere, and heart rending questions, let me share the words of a friend and seminary professor, which have given me great comfort through the years.  The late Dr. Paul Feinberg, shared these words in a seminary apologetics class, in which we were discussing the so-called “problem of evil.”  I offer his words as comfort and encouragement to those who may be wrestling with these issues.  Dr. Feinberg closed his lecture with these words:

 ”The more we come to know God, the less we will feel the need to ask ‘Why’.” 

A recent article on AlbertMohler.com was troubling (http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1054).  Dr. Mohler’s article referenced the original story, from Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/69049).  A day or two later I saw the same story referenced on the NBC Today show, and again on FOX News, with commentary from two “talking heads,” one, a young liberatarian and former MTV “V.J.” named “Kennedy.”  After seeing all of these reports I was extremely troubled. 

 While it’s not surprising that there would be some fringe oppostion to the placement of Gideons’ Bibles in hotel rooms, they have pretty much been a fixture in recent years.  The real question in my mind is why would any thinking person object to them?  They are not obtrusive, or invasive, or in anyone’s face.  They’re in the drawer, for goodness sake!  If it bothers you, don’t open the drawers! 

 Furthermore, they don’t cost anyone any money.  They are not paid for by the hotels, or by anyone’s tax dollars.  There is no church-state issue here.  The misinformation, or shall I call it the “lie” of the hotel’s argument is found in the statement of Soho Grand Hotel spokesperson, Lori Deblois, “Unlike traditional hotels, the 10-year-old boutique has never put Bibles in its guest rooms, because “society evolves,” says hotel spokeswoman Lori DeBlois. Providing Bibles would mean the hotel “would have to take care of every guest’s belief.”  Wrong!  The hotel does not, and does not have to take care of anyone’s beliefs.  (By the way, by placing their “intimacy kits,” they are offending my beliefs, as my belief is that fornication and sex outside of marriage is sin.)

Who pays for those Gideons’ Bibles in the hotels?  How do they get there in the first place?  I’ll tell you.  Christian businessmen, associated with a “fraternal” organization called the Gideons International, get together, and pay dues.  Out of their dues, they purchase Bibles, and whenever a new hotel opens up, they seek permission to go in, and “place” their Bibles in each room of the hotel.  They are gifts, paid for out of the pockets of these Christian businessmen, themselves.

The hotels are not taking care of anyone’s beliefs, or endorseing any “religion.”  Christians give them the Bibles at no cost to the hotel or the guest. 

By the way, did you know that most people who commit suicide do so in hotel rooms? 

Thousands of people would testify how they came to faith in Jesus Christ because they read the Gideons’ Bible.  Some would even testify that they read the Bible and kept it.  While hotels have started inventorizing their rooms, and billing travelers who pilfer hotel towels or bathrobes, the Gideons are very happy to have a person “steal” their Bibles, and to replace them, again, at their own expense, because, as one Gideon friend of mine said, “That’s what we put them there for.”

I was taken by Ms. DeBlois’ comments, and those of the young Ms. Kennedy which echoed her sentiments.  Kennedy raised the question on FOX News, “Why not the Book of Mormon, or the Koran, or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard?  Why should the hotel endorse one religion?”  Why not indeed?  Let the Muslim, or the Scientologist, or the Mormon, or the Wiccan, or whoever distribute their writings.  Who’s stopping them?

If such religions are serious about “evangelizing” or spreading their message, in a free society, let them join the conversation.  I don’t think they will, because the very nature of religion is self-serving, as opposed to Christianity, which is about giving ourselves away.  If there were any interest on the part of these “religions” to be benevolent, and give their message away, they might do so, but there isn’t.  Why do those indigent and needy people in society come to churches for benevolence aid, even though they don’t find any reason to attend worship services?  Why don’t they go to the local coven or mosque for help?  Could it be that they know they would not be likely to get any?

 And why are the hotels so benevolent to spread their “lifestyle” kits to promote hedonism and fornication?  Who’s promoting their agenda?  Don’t be fooled.  They are tacking the cost of their condoms, and feathers, and sexual dice games onto the room rate, for all of their guests to pay, whether they support such lifestyle choices or not.  They’re not giving anything away. 

 In the words of Martin Luther:  “God’s truth abideth still, His Kingdom is forever.”

Anyone who has ever taught a Sunday School class knows that the teacher always learns more than the “learners.”  God taught me a lesson this week that was not in the quarterly.  It was in the Bible, and it had been there all along, but recent experiences brought it to light in a new way.

 We were studying the parables of Jesus.  Matthew 13.   Great stuff.  I particularly like the two main parables about the sower and the four soils, and the wheat and the tares.  I have always maintained that the main point of these two, especially in their juxtaposition, is that we only know who is saved by their fruit, and by their submission to Jesus.  It’s not for us to try to sort it out in our own wisdom, but rather to watch for fruit and submissive obedience to Christ.  (Tares look just like wheat while they grow up side by side, but the head of the tare is empty and therefore very light.  Wheat, when it reaches maturity, bows its head, due to its fullness and heaviness of the grain, while the tares never will bow–a picture of the emptiness of the Pharisee’s religion and his unwillingness to submit to God’s authority).

What caught my attention, on this Sunday morning was the mention of “the birds of the air,” first in Matthew 13: 4, and then again, in the context of the parable of the mustard seed, in vs. 32.  In the former instance, “the birds of the air” were devouring the seeds (of the gospel, or of new life in its infancy) before they could even germinate and bear life.  In the second, Jesus intentionally mentions that the “birds of the air” were able to make their nests, make homes, and receive shelter from the tree which had grown up from the tiniest mustard seed.

 Admittedly, our experience always colors our perspective and understanding of Scripture, and it is certainly the case in this instance.  Last week I received some very troubling news about certain individuals who have set themselves in opposition to the work of God.  Because of differences between believers and doctrinal understandings, there are those who will choose up sides, and behave in ways that are hurtful and destructive to the work of the Kingdom and the cause of Christ–regardless of who is right or wrong.  How should a Christian respond to attacks from the “birds” who seek to devour truth, and stand opposed to the growth God’s work?

Let’s pray for a day, when those who have been the recipients of the attacks, can offer comfort, shelter, and blessing to those very “birds” who once sought to destroy them in thier infancy.  When they might actually find a home in the branches of the tree that grew up from the seed, that they once sought to devour.  After all, God in His sovereignty will never allow even one seed of His work to be devoured by any kind of fowl.  (See Gamaliel’s wise instruction in Acts 5: 33-39).  If God is in the seed, it will grow and bear fruit, and nothing will be able to stand against it–and to do so would be to stand in opposition to God Himself!

Pray for the opportunity to bless those who curse you, and do good to those who hatefully oppose you  (Matt 5: 44).  That’s the essence of grace.

I was listening to local radio the other morning and caught the tail end of an interesting conversation between two gentlemen.  The first was the morning talk show host, and I believe the local station manager.  The second was a local pastor who has his own radio talk show on this same station.  I have never met or talked to this guy personally, but he is the pastor of a local church where some very good friends of ours attend.  I have listened to his show, and for the most part, I have respected his views. 

Admittedly, there have been times when I have found myself shouting at the radio, exhorting him to take a stronger stand and “let (whomever he was conversing with) have it!  Straighten him out!  Don’t let him get away with that!!!”  He, clearly, is a much more tactful and less confrontational person than I am, which is probably one reason why he is successful with his radio broadcast.  So, on this occasion, when I heard him letting the station manager’s comments slide, I was not surprised.  It was pretty true to form. 

I want to also acknowledge that I have no idea what kind of relationship these two guys may have off the air, or what private conversations they may or may not have had regarding matters of faith, and that this pastor was a guest on the morning guy’s show, promoting his own show, and that he was talking to the manager of the station, and therefore, his “boss.”  All of these details, undoubtedly factored into his responses to the comments of the morning show guy.

That being said, let me rehearse the gist of their conversation.  Whatever they had been talking about, it came down to this pastor asking the other guy, “So then, you are an agnostic, right?”  and the morning show guy saying “Well, I don’t know.  But look, you have made that “leap of faith,” and I have too many issues that I need answers to before I can do that, and I just think there are too many questions that can’t be answered” (or words to that effect).  The pastor acknowledged his position with the standard talk radio closing line, “Fair enough,”  and that’s where the conversation ended, before a bunch of commercials and the local weather, or whatever was next.

Now, this was clearly not the time or place or context for that discussion to be continued, but in my opinion, it is a conversation that must be brought to a conclusion.  Here’s why.

 First, it is important to establish the “agnostic’s” real meaning.  I see that there are at least two possible meanings to his statements.  Let’s call the first, ”sincerely seeking,” or the second, “sarcastic skepticism.” 

Giving the benefit of the doubt, and calling our friend a “seeker,” I would suggest that any Christian, pastor or otherwise, has a responsibility, and even an obligation to pursue that line of discourse.  To have an unbeliever admit that he has honest questions that he has not been able to answer to his own satisfaction, and that these questions are keeping him from coming to a saving relationship with Christ, ought to stir us up to a response.  We ought to inquire, “What are your questions?  What is it that is troubling you?  Let me help you wrestle with your doubts, and perhaps lead you to the truth.”  Because “truth” is not some abstract, unknowable concept.  It is a person, JESUS, who came into this world to bear witness to the truth (John 18: 37)  He IS the truth, and truth can only be found in Him.  Pontius Pilate, in this same context asked “What is truth?”–think of it–as he stood face to face with Him!  Truth is not some illusive hypothetical.  It is knowable, because God is knowable, in the person of truth, Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, having heard this (morning show) guy discuss “religion” on numerous occasions, I must admit that I lean more toward believing him to be the “skeptic.”  He comes across, and in fact, came across in this conversation, as very condescending.  Proverbs says, “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” (26: 5).  What seemed to come through in this guy’s comments was an attitude of superiority, arrogance, and condescension.  He is not so simple or gullible as to believe some old book like the Bible.  He is a “critical thinker.”  He’s above “faith.”  He believes in reason.  He believes in science! 

The truth is, he obviosly has more faith than most believers in Jesus.  It takes a lot of faith to believe the absurdities of evolution, secular humanism, or any of the other “secular” religions of our day.  It’s a lot simpler and more rational to believe that the Bible is true, we are created in the image of God, and that Jesus came to save us, and that life has meaning because God gives it meaning.

The popular phrase, “a leap of faith,” must be rightly understood.  It  simply means that after all the facts are lined up, the next logical step is one that cannot be imperically proven, thus the “leap of ‘faith’.”  When a person wants to leap across a puddle on the sidewalk, he gets a good running start, and then leaps across, IN THE SAME DIRECTION THAT HIS MOMENTUM IS CARRYING HIM.  Not in the opposite direction, or off on some other tangent.  Biblical faith is NOT the least bit inconsistent with reason.  To consider the facts, and the observable evidences of creation, and reach some other conclusion (such as evolution, or atheism) is not at all logical, and requires a HUGE, and quite irrational “leap of faith,” or, more accuratley, a “leap of doubt.”

The impression, either expressed or implied by our modern pluralistic society, and even by many well meaning Christians is that it is OK to believe whatever a person believes.  It’s “fair enough.”  The problem is, that this tolerant attitude of “live and let live,” in reality equates to “live and let die,” or worse, “live and let go to hell!”  I realize that we need to be patient and tactful.       2 Timothy 2: 25 instructs us to ”instruct those who oppose themselves in MEEKNESS.”  Meekness, however, must never equate to affimation of error.  Tact must never be a substitute for truth.  Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by Him (John 14: 6).

“Fair enough?”

By the way, this Pastor, Wayne Kent, is pastor of First Christian Church in Decatur.  While I’m sure we would have significant doctrinal differences, I enjoy, and highly recommend his show.  It airs on WSOY, 1340 AM  in Decatur, on Wednesday nights at 5:00.  Tune him in!    .  .  . ON YOUR WAY TO PRAYER MEETING!