thoughts concerning the Supreme Court's attempts to redefine morality

I would guess that most of you have heard about the Supreme Court's decision to somehow find gay marriage in the Constitution. Much like the so-called Constitutional right to kill children who have not yet been born, one has to wear special glasses to find this new so-called right, I guess. But, be that as it may, here we are. Hardly a day for rejoicing, when evil is call good and celebrated.

So, what now?
 

Take these thoughts for what they are worth, I'm putting them out there for consideration. No doubt, others have and will give their opinions and thoughts.
 

Separation of God and country
 

For a while, we've accepted a couple of curious ideas —the notion of the separation of church and state along with the notion of a mixing of God and country. I can listen to AFR and hear this in their motto “faith, family, freedom”, I have been to churches which have the country's flag almost as prominently shown as the cross, I can hear and read the non-stop cacophony of calls revival revival revival because that is the only hope for our country and we need to attend the next big conference or rally or stadium event and show people how serious we are and we need to cry out to God for revival and so on and so forth.
 

Maybe it's time to stop trying to dress God up in the American flag.
 

Is patriotism and love of country wrong? I don't think so. One can read the biblical book of Romans and see Paul's love and concern for his kinsmen, even as they were rejecting him and his message. One can read the gospels and see Jesus' concern and heartbreak over Israel, even as He was pronouncing judgment on them for rejecting Him.
 

But love isn't blind. Israel was (and is) a people with a covenant from God, but while Paul lamented his kinsmen's blindness, he also saw that he had another set of kinsmen. He called those who believed in Jesus Christ, who had repented of their sins, his brothers and sisters.
 

Let me give another example. The family is a good thing, something God created, and is one thing being attacked by this attempt to create a new morality. But Jesus also said that those who follow Him are to hate their father and mother and even their own lives, and said that for those who follow Him that their enemies will be those of their households.
 

This is a difficult way to think. We'd rather have a simple dichotomy, “This is good here, that over there is evil”, but we are given a more difficult way of thinking, “Love of country and family is good, but that country and family can become your enemies if you follow Christ”.
 

I'm a citizen of the US, and that's fine as far as it goes. But for Christians, our ultimate citizenship is in Heaven. The bond I have through Christ with the Christians in various prisons across the world, with those being persecuted in various ways, is far stronger and more eternal than the bond I have with anyone claiming only national citizenship.
 

There are no white hats
 

To employ this way of thinking in a more negative way, it's become plain that both side of the aisle, politically and religiously, are simply wrong.
 

It's easy to see how the people on the left are wrong. What evils do they not condone and celebrate? The murders we call abortion and assisted suicide, the various kinds of sexual perversions, government theft and corruption and greed and control.
 

But it's when I have looked to the right, thinking I'm with the “good guys”, the white hats, that I've seen that they really aren't all that good. I may agree with many of the things they stand for, but...

When I look at the religious right, I see much the same kinds of lust for power as I see on the left. I see compromise, even in regards to the basic Christian beliefs. For political reason (and perhaps other reasons, too), Franklin Graham stopped referring to Mormonism as a cult. I can look at the speakers for the Values Voters Summit, and see a Mormon, a few Roman Catholics, and someone with connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. The leaders of the religious right are people like Peter Wagner, a man who is a partner with the worst of the worst in regards to false prophets, false teachers, fake healers.
 

If you don't know the word “dominionism” and the ideas behind it, get acquainted with it. To put it simply, Wagner and those with him want power. They think they have a divine command and even right to run the world, to take over what they call the spheres of society, that they must do those things before Christ will return for His mature warrior-bride.

Now, don't think that dominionism is only a religious right thing. Though he may not use the word dominionism, Brian McLaren is just as set on remaking the world into his own image as Peter Wagner is. But my main concern for the moment with the supposed “good guys”, the ones trying to sport the white hats. But when I look at Wagner and has cronies, I see their hats are just as black as those of people on the left.
 

I'm not a prophet, and not going to pretend to be one, but I'm going to make a non-prophetic prediction, one that I have a small hope will be wrong but I'm pretty sure is going to happen, because it's already happened to some degree, for example with Graham's compromises concerning Mormonism. I predict that many in the NAR will continue to drift to the left, and will even embrace this new morality. They will dress their compromises up in pietistic rhetoric, they will find sad stories they can use to make themselves appear compassionate, they will end in devouring those who stand against them.
 

In other words, when power and wealth are your goals, then compromises will find their needed excuses. The NAR is already built on lies and distortions, they have no solid ground to anchor themselves to anything.
 

Broadly speaking, the Bible tells us these kinds of things will happen
 

Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the dominionists, the Bible tells us that the world will become a darker and more evil place in these end times. Evil men will grow worse and worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves. The times will be perilous for those with faith in Christ. False messiahs and saviors will rise, and many will be deceived by them.
 

Mankind doesn't want to change, unless it is that it wants to dive more and more into sin. And it will continue to the demand that the Church accept its sins, approve of its perversions, check off on what it wants. The world will demand that the church become its friend, and if the church doesn't, well, the church will have to pay.
 

And the US church has not helped itself. It has fed the people in its pews and stadium seating a steady died of theological fluff, promising people their best lives now if they follow the prescribed rituals and say the correct positive words, promising a life of fulfillment and adventure if people make prayer circles and tell the sun to stand still and be audacious and other such things. People in churches think they are lions when they are merely lambs, and not even God's lambs, only meat for the world's grinders. Pastors who pose as tough guys will topple like houses of cards, and their people will follow them.
 

We are being disillusioned. Let us rejoice in that, and repent of believing the earlier illusions. The US is not Heaven, it is not God's Kingdom. I have a greater kinship with many of the people whose sufferings are told on the Voice of the Martyr's website then I do with many politically conservative and liberal politicians and activists.

there's sick and wrong, then there's this...

I've Seen the Future of Men's Fashion and I'm Afraid

Words almost fail...

What kind of philosophical or psychological babble could be used to describe or justify this rot?

None. The word "rot" is quite enough.

does "lack of credibility" mean nothing?

So, there's this organization out there called Love146. Their main concern is child sex trafficing, trying to stop it and help the victims. Since that is an issue that needs dealt with, all well and good.

Now, apparently, this organization has recent had it's 10th anniversary, and celebrated it with an event of some kind. At this event, they had a guest speaker.

That guest speaker was former US president Bill Clinton.

Yes, the same Bill Clinton whose presidency was marred by his sexual shenanigans with a White House intern, and whose lies about that resulted in his impeachment. The same Bill Clinton whose political career was marked by accusations of sexual misconduct.

http://youtu.be/F9iy7rhRIRQ

Maybe this organization, Love146, is doing lots of good work. But if they are so all-fired-up about sexual exploitation, why did they have a known sexual exploiter speak at their event? Did they try to get one of the women whom this former president exploited? Would't that have been much more in keeping with their goals and aims?

Does Clintons lack of credibility on this issue mean nothing?

I would like to think that this organization is a good one, well worth supporting, that maybe this was simply a slip in judgment. But it still leaves me wondering.

albert mohler and the chick-fil-a controversy

I think I'll let someone with better skill at using words say it for me this time.

My Take: Chick-fil-A controversy reveals religious liberty under threat

not sure who to bark at today?

Because, apparently, one must use e-cards every now and again to make a valid point...



Meaning, quite simply, that if you're letting the culture decide what's right and wrong, well, cultures change. More than that, if you think that fallen, sinful humanity is going to come up with an acceptable moral code, you really should dig up a history book.

Moral relativism is a farce, though not often a funny one. Those it makes use of today, it may well turn on tomorrow. The one that makes his or her own morality is also free to change that morality, and who can say they cannot?

Well, someone will. Because the farce behind moral relativism is that people will be allowed to choose their own moral code. They won't. Those who support the voices of opposition when they are at the bottom, will be less welcoming to them when they are in the position of power.

Either man will submit to God, or man will create gods. History shows us how that works out.

sojo celebrates the tasteless

Which isn't even mentioning that this things is put out by heretical Unitarians Universalists. I'd say it says something about UUs, but given how gimmicky and trend-following seeker and purpose churches have become, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if something like this winds up coming from such a church.

Actually, it does say a lot about UUs--their disregard for biblical morality and teachings about decence, for example. And the real fear that other types of churches would follow suit says a good bit about them, too.

Naked Before the Lord: Unitarians Have More Fun

A dozen men from First Parish (Unitarian Universalist of Framingham, Mass.), ages 64 to 87, got naked before the Lord (and everyone else, for that matter), for a fundraising calendar called “Celebration 2012.” The calendars, which sell for $15 apiece, feature “a year of dashing, accomplished First Parish gentlemen — Leo, Holly, Tony, John, Steve, Dick, Stan, Glenn, Larry, Ed, Walt and Jim,” according to the parish web site.

The church calendar is tastefully rendered, thanks to a strategically-placed bag of golf clubs, banjo, laptop computer and what appears to be a large-mouth bass. The eldest pin-up dude is a retired minister who says there is a “certain elegance” to the older male form.

This is simply pathetic logic. Let's look at another example, of sorts.

Bozell Column: Unzipping the Male 'X Factor'

“Idol” always airs wacky and untalented oddballs in its audition phase, but has featured nothing like the contestant named Geo Godley at the “X Factor” auditions in Seattle. As he began performing his own ridiculous song called “I’m a Stud,” he dropped his pants and displayed his male parts for the studio audience. Fox playfully covered his crotch with the show’s red X logo.

When the Parents Television Council filed a complaint against Fox with the FCC, a new line of defense emerged. The blog Reality Blurred claimed Godley wasn’t even naked. An audience member reported he was wearing a leopard-print thong. The blogger also noted Godley wore a thong in his...YouTube audition video, further removing the idea that anyone at Fox didn’t know what kind of indigestion they were manufacturing for the folks at home.

So now Fox is elaborately faking male nudity? That’s going to be their defense? They will do anything, including sending Abdul to fake-vomit over the fake-flasher.

So, by the definition of "tastefully rendered" given by the Sojrone above, strategically-placed stuff to cover certain areas, what X-Factor did fits in squarely in that definition.

But, hey, UUs are liberals, it would have been news if Sojo had been critical of them.

rejoicing in iniquity

EDIT: A commentor has corrected me on something. My info that Bolz-Weber is herself a practicing homosexual seems to be wrong. I have corrected the post, and apologize for not making sure that my information was correct the first time.

Joyless Christians and The Lord of the Rings

When you get tired of trying to defend yourself from those you know are right, there's nothing like changing the subject and bringing up the real or supposed faults of those who are against you. At least, that's what Bolz-Weber does in this little piece at Sojo. Outside of the rather bizarre nature of the first paragraph (btw the one part of the piece that mentions LotR), we quickly come to the really issue here. Emphases mine.

So this week I kept thinking about joy and what role joy has in our faith. Sure, we talk about prayer and sin and creeds and liturgy and discipleship and advocacy as being part of our Christian faith. But what of joy? It sadly never seems to be on the top of the list of what it means to be God’s people. And it’s definitely not what Christians are known for. Any guess on what is the top adjective used to describe Christians? Judgmental. I think maybe that’s because human religion so easily becomes more about knowing right from wrong than knowing God.

Not sure where she got that claim. There is no source mentioned, and if it is taken from a poll, then that would likely raise other questions.

But let's just assume that her claim is true--that most people in the US think that Christians are judgmental. So what?

First, what does that mean? If I can someone judgmental, it probably means that that person disapproves of something that I do. It could be something trivial, such as that they think that I spend too much time reading, or maybe they think I spend too much time reading trivial things like science fiction and fantasy. I disagree, but so long as they don't try to take away my library card or throw away my book collection, I'm probably not very worked up about their opinions.

But it may be about things that aren't so trivial. Let's take the example of a couple of roommates in college. One is a fairly solid Christian, and while he isn't perfect, his does try to live by the moral and ethical standards of the Bible, which means he isn't sleeping around with any girls. His roommate is quite the player, he sees the girls he meets as potential sex partners, and is not shy about his conquests.

Would the sexually unrestrained rooommate not consider it judgmental if the Christian roommate did not approve of his sexual practices? Would he not consider himself to be judged by that roommate, even if the Christian only has the best interest and well-being of his roommate at heart?

We could go on to things that could be considered even more serious. Does the fact that Christians disapprove of theft mean they are judgmental towards thieves? Does having a moral code that said "You shall not murder" mean they are judgmental toward murderers?

Frankly, I'm not sold on Bolz-Weber's contention that the church being known as judgmental is a bad thing. It may be saying more about the people who say that church is that way, such as Bolz-Weber, than about the church itself.

And, yes, I suspect I know where Bolz-Weber is going with that statement. She is one whose church accepts practicing homosexuals, and who does not call them to repent of that sinful practice, and instead wants them to be accepted by the church. As such, those who disapprove of those she approves are to her mind judgmental. And since the church is well-known for being against those practices, and she cannot biblically defend them, it is so much easier to accuse those people who do not accept her of something else. In this case, of being joyless.

Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer knew this. He suggests that the original sin was choosing the knowledge of good and evil over the knowledge of God. See, there were two trees in the Garden of Eden, and the snake said, If you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will be like God. But there was another tree. The tree of life. Yet we chose the knowledge of good and evil over knowledge of God. Bonhoeffer calls this the “fall upward.”

I'm not aware of the context of Bonhoeffer's statement, but I'd be rather surprised if he didn't think that knowing what is good from what is evil would be unimportant. If I remember right, he lived in Germany during the time of Hitler coming to power. I think he also participated in an attempt to kill Hitler. He had a pretty good front row seat to how important knowing good from evil was, especially when evil was trying so hard to disguise itself as good.

We chose to move God out of the center and put ourselves there, and ever since then, human religion tends to be about the knowledge of good and evil, and not the knowledge of life — or the knowledge of God. This is demonstrated in how we read the parable of the sower. I think we naturally tend to read this parable not as the parable of the sower, but as the parable of the judgment of the soil. To focus on the worthiness of the soil is to read the parable in judgment. When we approach this text, or our lives with only the knowing and judging of good and evil, we miss out on the knowing of God. But to focus on the lush and ludicrous image of how God extravagantly, wastefully, wantonly sows the Word of the kingdom is to read the parable in joy.

Now, this is a parable which Jesus Himself gave an interpretation.

Matthew 13

18Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

20But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

21Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

22He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

23But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

I find it interesting that Jesus interpreted this parable in the way the Bolz-Weber considered judgmental and perhaps by extension joyless. Jesus makes it a parable of judgment on the types of soils.

I find it even more interesting that He makes mention of joy in the interpretation. Those who are like the stony places received the word with joy, but they do not take root, and when things like troubles and persecutions come because of the Word of God, they get offended.

Does that not, in a nutshell, describe the emergents like Bolz-Weber? They claim to have come to God in joy at the first, but when the Word of God is questioned and they are put to the test because of it, they are so quick to get offended. And so they try to explain away what the Bible says, and in effect make a gospel of their own works, which is no gospel at all.

And isn’t life just too short, too sacred, and too important to skimp on joy? Yet joy can often be the thing we give up when being right seems more important. It’s like that cliché: Would you rather be right or be happy? I’ve focused on being right a lot in my life. First, in the conservative Christianity of my youth, and then in the leftist politics of my young adulthood. They aren’t always mutually exclusive, but if given the choice, I want to choose to be happy instead. And leave being right to God and God alone.

And here we have it. Not that she's the first to choose what seems to make her happy over what is right.

Genesis 3

1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

In fact, this whole mess we find ourselves in can be said to be the product of this happy-over-right type of thinking. Eve saw that the fruit was pleasant, and she chose the pleasant over what was right.

In the book of Judges, there is a phrase that is used whenever Israel leaves God and turns to idols and plummets into sin, "Every man did what was right in his own eyes". Is that not what Bolz-Weber is telling us to do?

Joy is important, but happiness is not the measure.

Chesterton on evil and skinning a cat

If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat

Whether or not Bolz-Weber denies the cat, I don't know, but if happiness to her is more important than being right, then upon what basis can she tell the cat-skinner to stop? Or will she leave the question of right or wrong concerning cat-skinning to God and God alone?

EDIT: A commentor has corrected me on something. My info that Bolz-Weber is herself a practicing homosexual seems to be wrong. I have corrected the post, and apologize for not making sure that my information was correct the first time.

hall of as shameful as it gets

Scorsese, Allen, Aronofsky&others join "FREE POLANSKI" petition

I have no idea who most of those people are, but some are disturbingly familiar, and I would expect better from them.

Here's one of the parts of the petition that is perhaps most telling.

Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition. This extradition, if it takes place, will be heavy in consequences and will take away his freedom.

Umm...he gave drugs to a 13-year-old girl and sexually abused her. I would hope he would get some heavy consequences from such an act, including having his freedoms taken away by being put in prison.

is this emergent's next stop?

A few weeks ago on his blog, emergent Tony Jones came out saying that the church should approve and recognize glbt lifestyles.

I wonder if this will be where emergents are going to go next?

The Other Side of Disgust

Daniel Bergner isn’t the devil’s advocate, but he is a pervert’s apologist. This author and contributor to the New York Times Magazine has a new book titled “The Other Side of Desire” which argues it is unfair to judge bizarre, harmful, and disgusting sexual attractions as bizarre, harmful, and disgusting.


Bergner’s book focuses on four real-life fetishists: a husband with a secret foot fetish, a man with an attraction to amputees, a vicious female sadist, and a man who longs for sex with his 12-year-old stepdaughter. Book reviews and interviews suggest he hasn’t written a book to judge the fetishists, but rather to judge the society that would rush to condemn their drives and behaviors.

What these people call “moral ambiguity” leads inexorably to moral paralysis. Its champions in our popular culture aren’t trying to redefine the boundaries as much as destroy them. They may look like playful pundits who just want to talk graphically about sex for fun and profit. But they’re constructing a funhouse with mirrors so distorted that the people inside will be lost without any guideposts for an escape.


The commercial possibilities for Bergner’s exploitation of perversion may be never-ending. Gottlieb concluded: “On one level, this book has all the elements of a top-rated HBO series – provocatively graphic sex, humorous dialogue, and moral ambiguity.”

The problem for those like Jones now is--where do they draw the line, and why? As they have abandoned biblical absolutes, where do they say "This crosses the line"? And what if someone wants to cross that line?

I doubt it will be long before emergents start talking about "stories" of those who practice those kinds of sexual perversions, throwing in words like "oppressions" and "misunderstanding", claiming those have been "judged" and "condemned" and need rather to be "heard" in the midst of the pomo/emergent "conversation", essentially spinning them as the victims and those who says practices are sick and wrong as being "oppressors" simply interested in "power".

follow the threads

Ok, how about some threads.

Diane Butler-Bass, in her book "Christianity for the Rest of Us", takes an approving look at one St. Andrew Christian Church in Kansas. Here is an excerpt from that church's beliefs page on their website.

We welcome and affirm all children of God of any color, class, sexual orientation, age, gender, ability or thought.

While following the guidelines of the denomination, we have developed as a congregation that is particularly passionate about preserving the dignity of all, valuing diversity, seeking justice for the disadvantaged and preserving the delicate balance of Earth’s ecosystem.

In other words, a church that's so in the liberal's back pockets.

This church is a part of a group with the oxymoronic name The Center for Progressive Chrisitanity. The CPC's website's links page has come interesting things on it, like a link to the Westar Institutes, the people who have given us the travesty called the Jesus Seminar.

And there's the link to the progressive hymn writer, William Flanders. And from his site, one can find the lyrics to his hymns. Here's a couple of stanzas from one of them, with a possible spelling correction noted by me in one of them.

The God that we love is no God we hear.
While “Thus says the Lord” rings bold and sincere,
The words are the prophets’, theirs evermore.
Still unheard but, our God, listened for.

The God that we love may not even be;
To face this our mind must always be free.
Our heart says that God awaits us, instead,
Our (perhaps that should by 'out') of sight and, always, up ahead

So, in this man's head (and likely in that of these 'progressives' he writes hymns for), when the prophets said "Thus says the Lord" they were only speaking and writing their own words, and the God he claims to want to hear from may not even exist.

Don't be surprised at this, please, unless you really are new to this kind of progressive non-thinking. There are many out there who claim the name Christian who are really little more than athiests in their philosophies and beliefs--Spong, Borg, Crossan, Caputo, Vattimo, and others, and one can see the emergents going the ways of these people, though they are not there yet (while noting that Butler Bass is an emergent in her own right, and it was her book that lead to finding this songwriter).

Why these people want to call themselves Christian while denying everything true in Christianity is beyond me. Were they honest, they would drop the pretenses and own up to their athiesm. Since they don't, I don't think it too harsh to think that there are subterfuges and manipulations they can pull off on the 'inside' of the church that they can't do if they were 'outside' it as self-proclaimed nonbelievers.

certain of uncertainty?

It's truly amazing how far people will go to try to undermine biblical authority.

On pp. 77-80 of The Great Emergence, Tickle goes into Einstein and Heisenberg, about Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And what do these scientific theories have to do with the Bible...?

...Nor would the Heisenberg Principle stay safely tucked away in physics laws. Instead, "uncertainty" became the only fact that could be accepted as fact, not only in the popular mind, but also in large segments of the academic world as well

In particular, literary deconstruction planted its standard dead in the center of Heisenberg, claiming that there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the perceiver. And, as an obvious consequence, all writing--be it sacred or secular--has no innate meaning until it is read and, therefore, has no meaning outside of the circumstances and disposition of the reader. Enter the battle of the Book. Enter the warriors, both human and inanimate, who will hack the already wounded body of sola scripture into buriable pieces. Enter the twentieth century's great, garish opening in the cable's waterproof casing of story.
Tickle, The Great Emergence, pp 79-80

If you've heard some people make arguments against the current postmodern virus, you'll likely have heard them sum up the postmodern position in a statement something like this, "The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths". I mention that because Tickle may as well have said that when she writes ""uncertainty" became the only fact that could be accepted as a fact".

In other words, it is a statement that is it's own contradiction, it is self-refuting. One cannot believe it because if it is truth it is a false statement. To say that "The only certainty is uncertainty" is to make even that statement an uncertain statement.

So, right off, we can see that postmodernism is a realm of madness.

Even more subject to madness and the result of it is the statement "there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the perceiver". McLaren goes on in one of his books about how postmodernism is supposedly a reaction to Nazism and the certainties that led up to it. Even granting that those early pomos may have been at least partially right in the diagnosis of the problems leading up to Nazism, can we really say that extreme uncertainty really sufficiently answers what went wrong? If truth is merely relative to the perceiver, than upon what basis can one even answer someone who says that something like Nazism was a good thing? If there are no absolute truths, than how can one say that Auschwitz was evil? And if such a thing happens again (and things like it have happened since then, in places like the Soviet Union and Cambodia and China and Darfur), how are these disciples of uncertainty ready to say that those who do those things are wrong?

immorality should be legalized???

First, let's get this out of the way.

As will be discussed later, I believe the Bible says that same-gender eroticism is wrong.
Tony Campolo, Adventures in missing the point, p. 178

Campolo begins this chapter, where he discusses homosexuality, with a story apparently from his high school years. It's about another boy in his school, who was apparently known to be homosexual, and the things he suffered from the other students, which seem to have eventually led to his suicide.

I think it can be agreed that if things happened like Campolo claimed, than what happened to that boy was wrong and ugly. Such cruelties are not good and not to be condoned or encouraged.

But then Campolo makes this leap.

I believe that if Jesus were in our shoes, he would reach out in love to his homosexual brothers and sisters and demand that they be treated justly, that we end the discrimination that has too often made homosexuals into second-class citizens and denied them their constitutional rights. If Jesus were in our shoes, he would work to create an atmosphere in society wherein homosexuals could be open about who they are without fear of oppression and persecution. If Jesus were in our shoes, those with a homosexual orientation would be treated with dignity and respect.
p. 178

One division Campolo makes is between 'orientation' and 'behavior', which may help explain some part of the statement above. Some, but not all.

For example, what constitutional rights have been denied homosexuals? When I see that, I think "he means homosexual marriage". And when he writes that they should be "treated justly", isn't that also what is meant, though other things may be thrown in too?

So, is he in essence saying "I think that homosexual sexual acts are sinful, but that we must recognize the people who engage in them, let them marry and have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, let them adopt children, and treat such marriages as normal and even right"?

If so, I have to ask "Why?"

Campolo says that Jesus, if He were here today (and really isn't He, I might add), would demand that homosexuals be treated justly. Very well, but what does that mean? Does it mean "Their sexual activities must be approved on socially and in the church"? Does it mean "Churches should not call homosexual sex sin"? Does it mean "Society must recognize gay marriage"?

To which I have to think, no, Jesus would not be for those things. I think very strongly that He would not approve of the mistreatment of Campolo fellow student in his boyhood, but at the same time, I don't think He would tell that student that his sexual choices were acceptable.

One can point to the instance when a group brought the adultress to Jesus for judgment. He points out the group's sinfulness, but also doesn't let her completely off the hook by telling her that while she is not condemned by Him, she is not to do that again.

We do not see Him demanding that her adultrous relationship be recognized and accepted by the nation. We do not see Him saying that her sin wasn't really a sin.

I would well image Jesus in a similar spot as Campolo gives concerning his fellow student being tormented by other students. He would likely have those tormentors remember their own sins (what magazines do they have hidden under their mattresses, or what were the one boy and his girlfriend doing in his car a couple of evenings ago). Perhaps (and I stress perhaps) after that, he would turn to boy being persecuted, and say that He will not condemn him, but he is not to act that way any more.

What I can't see Jesus doing is demanding that even if homosexuality is sinful, it should be recognized and accepted by society and homosexuals should be allowed to marry and be considered normal. There is a certain twisted-ness about that thinking, for how can we on one hand say that something is wrong and immoral, and on the other say that it should be lawful and legal?

“Enough with the Bible already…”

The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already

If it is truly the Bible that is causing some to hold these discriminatory beliefs, then perhaps we need to set the Bible aside for awhile. Perhaps we need to not construct a belief system about LGBT folk built on the foundation of a couple verses in scripture. Perhaps that isn’t healthy, fair, just or Christian.

For some, I believe the Bible has become an idol. Some place the Bible above Jesus’ compassion and love, Jesus’ radical inclusivity, and hold steadfast onto what they believe to be the correct interpretation of a small amount of verses that speak about same-sex relations. To those who repeatedly start quoting Leviticus and Romans verses as soon as anyone brings up the topic of homosexuality, I’d suggest perhaps you stick your Bible back up on the shelf for awhile. Perhaps it should collect a little bit of dust. And maybe, just maybe, you need to go out and grab coffee with someone who’s gay. Maybe you need to hear their story, learn about what they’ve been through, how they’ve experienced Christians and the church.

If it is the Bible that is causing us to delay accepting and celebrating LGBT persons as being fully human and fully created in the image of God, just as they are, then perhaps we need to say, “Enough with the Bible already…”

These statement are almost beyond commenting on, or needing commenting on. Seriously, what can be added to what is said?

I mean, really, how arrogant does this man have to be, to say that if the Bible disagrees with him and people of his ilk, then the Bible is the thing that has to be discarded?

And this man is strongly in the emergent slum, a contibutor to the book "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope".

But there are his words, voicing his willingness to thumb his nose at God and say "I know better than You!!!"

Sickening. And indicative of emergents as a whole.

ht Apprising Minsitries

so much for sound doctrine

Far from any individual's theology being The Right One, in one sense all theologies are heresies. For theologies, like heresies, are major or minor distortions of the truth.

We know in part and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
(I Corinthians 13:9-10)

In other words, what you believe may be correct, but is certainly not completely correct. The point? We must always be open to further insights that will give us fuller understanding of what God is all about.
Tony Campolo, Adventures in Mission the Point, p. 32

And, since this book is a tag team between Campolo and McLaren, of course McLaren likes Campolo's twist of phrase.

I love Tony's statement that "in one sense all theologies are heresies".
McLaren, p. 39

First, let's look at the passage Campolo points to as proof for his "in one sense all theologies are heresies" idea.

I Corinthians 13

8. Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

10. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done away.

So, can this be said to mean that "in one sense all theologies are heresies"? Where?

What else does Scripture say about doctrines?

Titus 1:9
He (an elder) must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine, and refute those who oppose it.

2:1
You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

I Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

I Timothy 1
8. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.

9. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

10. for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

11. that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Paul has something to say to the issue of heresies.

Galatians 1
6. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--

7. which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other thant heone we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

9. As we ahve already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

I Timothy 4:1
1. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:

2. Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.

3. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

4. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

It is not surprising that an emergent should 'love' the statement that "in one sense all theologies are heresies". Anything that would support their relativistic delusions is something for them to embrace. Anything they can grab on to to support lie they believe that sound doctrine is unnecessary and even dangerous is poison they will flock to.

Because if "in one sense all theologies are heresies", then it is only a short step to saying that there really aren't really any heresies at all.

getting it all backwards

He (Vincent Donovan) explains, "I was to learn that any thoelogy or theory that makes no reference to previous missionary experience, which does not take that experience into account, is a dead and useless thing...praxis must be prior to theology...In my work [theology would have to proceed] from practice to theory. If a theology did emerge from my work, it would have to be a theology growing out of the life and experience of the pagan peoples of the savannahs of East Africa". Similarly, I have become convinced that a generous orthodoxy appropriate for our postmodern world will have to grow out of the experience of the post-Christian, post-secular people of the cities of the twenty-first century.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 100

If the whole postmodern virus as it concerns religion could be summed up in one small phrase, a good one would be "praxis must be prior to theology".

Or to sum up in other words, "we have to do everything backwards".

We have to change the message of the Gospel to fit, so we think, the heathen peoples to whom we are suppose taking to Gospel to. We have to know what the people want so we can give it to them, rather then giving them what they need.

(and if you live in the country, tough bananas, pal, because they're only concerned about "the post-Christian, post-secular people of the cities of the twenty-first century"/.)

Instead of going to the Bible to see what message we should give to the heathen, we go to the heathen to see what message we should give to them.

Because Jesus said "Go into all the world, and get from them the gospel". Didn't he???

As someone who spent a few years in missions himself, I can only say that these men's ideas are hogwash.

friends in low places

No. The Christian faith, I am proposing, should become (in the name of Jesus Christ) a welcome friend to other religions of the world, not a threat. We should be seen as a protector of their heritages, a defender against common enemies, not one of the enemies. Just as Jesus came originally not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, not to condemn people but to save them, I believe he comes today not to destroy or condemn anything (anything but evil) but to redeem and save everything that can be redeemed and saved.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 287

What is evil but religions that teach people to worship and serve other beings but the true God? What is evil but religions that teach people to seek their own salvations in their own works--acts of 'righteousness', pursuit of nothingness, an unending cycle of reincarnation?

There is the definition of evil. True Christianity cannot but be the enemy of such things, as even Jesus and the Apostles knew.

Other religions are the enemies of God, and as such the enemies of the people in those religions. Those religions are misleading the people, giving them false hopes and false assureances, and as the Truth Christianity cannot be anything else but the enemy of those things.

Christianity must love the people in other religions enough to tell them the truth, that they are worshiping what is not true, worshiping devils and demons, thinking they are saved when in reality they are lost, and telling them to repent and leave those things and come to the living God.

the postmodern's greatest fear

To propose a postmodern theology of the Cross, to meditate the event that transpires in the death of Jesus, is to try to think a certain death of God, the death of the ens supremum et deus omnipotens, the death of the God of power, in order to release the event of the unconditional claim lacking worldly sovereignty that issues from the cross...I would press further to a more pressing and important death, the death of the deus omnipotens of classical theology, and this in order to nourish the life of the event that stirs within the name of God, which is the stuff of our rebirth...insofar as there is any philosophical life left in this increasingly dated expression, the death of God, it refers to an ongoing and never finished project of deconstructing the God of ontotheologic, which is for me above all the God of sovereign power...The work of burning off the old metaphysics of omnipotence, which can never cease, must always be a way to fan the flame or build the fire of the event that transpires in the name of God.
John Caputo, in the essay "Spectral Hermeneutics", in the book "After the Death of God", pp 66-67

From my perspective, limited as it may be, perhaps these statements sum up the whole postmodern virus mindset as well as anything else--the thing the postmoderns are running from, that they fear, that they try to hide from by calling on the mountains of relativism and meaninglessness to hide them from, is the God of sovereignty, the all-powerful and all-knowing God.

Read Pagitt's "A Christianity Worth Believing", and see how he desperately tries to say that our concepts of God power and sovereignty have somehow come from Greek or Roman thought, not from anything in the Bible.

Read almost any emergent work, and see how they denigrate the concepts of the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-sovereign God. It's a common theme.

What is there instead? Something of human construction. With Caputo, it's some kind of 'weak theology', which is essentially meaningless. With Pagitt, it's some kind of 'holism', which does not recognize any barriers.

Little gods made in man's image.

One can only hope and pray that these will have their eyes opened, while they have time to be opened.

dispersing

A bit of something different. A Dilbert comic which comments on those who try to not make decisions and commitments. I doubt it was aimed to postmoderns, religious or not, but it seemed apropo.



It looks like it's not going to complete fit on here, sorry about that. But if you click on it, it should take you to where the complete strip is located.

spinning Christ's temptations II

...refuses to take a religious shortcut to authority and kingship (which would subvert God's natural system of gaining honor through humble service)...
Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 139

And the passage referred to...

Luke 4
4:5 And he led him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
4:6 And the devil said unto him, To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for it hath been delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship before me, it shall all be thine.
4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

It's simply...incredible, the fact that Mclaren here makes no mention at all of the nature of the temptation, that the devil's demand was the Jesus should worship the devil instead of the Father.

But to look at it in a more (post)modern-day way, please look at what McLaren himself says here.

Emerging church leader Brian Mclaren on Lambeth, mission and reconciliation

And fourth, I think our future will also require us to join humbly and charitably with people of other faiths - Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, secularists, and others - in pursuit of peace, environmental stewardship, and justice for all people, things that matter greatly to the heart of God.

Jesus refused to worship anyone or anything other then His Heavenly Father, even if it meant that the devil keeps authority over the kingdoms of the world. McLaren, on the other hands, encourages compromise and even acceptance of those in false religions in order to accomplish what is in his mind an improving of the world.

The difference in these two views can hardly be more different.