Jon and Kate May Lose Eight...

My family once enjoyed the adventures and reality TV exploits of professing Christians "Jon & Kate Plus 8" (including sextuplets) on the TLC network. We were once fascinated and yes, entertained by the struggles and mundane mishaps of a married couple trying to live life and raise eight small children and then came black monday, on the heels of tabloid reports proclaiming the divorce and demise of the Gosselins.

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ (Philippians 3:7)

The season 5 premiere of the show wracked up nearly 10 million viewers Monday night. Why? We, like the other 10 million couch potatoes, driven by a good bit of morbid curiousity, tuned into to watch the anger (mostly Kate's), angst and selfishness of two parents, who were overcome by the celebrity of book tours and papparazzi on their way to a collision course with classic 21st century dysfunctionality. One blogger known as "Think Christian" described the fall well, "I was hoping to see how a Christian family is working though tough marital times. Instead, it was a sad look into how fame can corrupt a family of eight...not one mention of God or faith from the Christian couple...The family that once was compelling to watch because of their realness has now become a victim to the drama filled, conflict-driven reality television realm...For me one of the toughest moments of the show came at the sextuplet's birthday party when one of the girls told Jon she didn't want him to leave anymore..."

Tales of Jon's alleged adultry, may have led to their current state of affairs, however the lure of fame and fortune - the height of self-exaltation and pride, seem to appear as cracks in this crumbling family foundation. by contrast, toward the end of Christian pop star Rich Mullins's career, it was known that he made a lot of money, but you'd never know it by looking at how he lived. Though he made hundreds of thousands of dollars, he chose to live on $24,000 a year. He told his accountant not to tell him how much money he had. It was easier to give it away if he didn't know how much he had, he would say with a smile. Rich's sister, Debbie, recalls a time when she saw how little he cared for fame and its trappings: "I went with a friend to see him when he was playing with Amy Grant at Radio City Music Hall. After the concert we were standing outside, and this white limousine someone had provided for him pulled up to take him back to the hotel. He told the driver to go on because he wanted to ride with the guys in the equipment van. We said good-bye, and he left in the van. "My friend said, 'Do you ever get tired of people treating your brother like he's different from you or anyone else?' "When I said no, she asked why. I said, 'Because he is different. I would have gotten into the limo." What would Jon and Kate do? Would they bring the kids along for the ride?

The Pro-Life Movement's Not Dead Yet?

The black knight of Monty Python fame might have best described the current trend of the pro-life movement with the slogan, "we're not dead yet- we're feeling better." A new Gallup poll claims that for the first time since 1995, when the question was first asked by the organization, most Americans consider themselves to be "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice." The straightforward question asked of participants was this: "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?" Fifty-one percent responded that they were pro-life and 42 percent said they were pro-choice. These percentages are the reverse found in the same poll in 2006.

What happened? Why the change in public opinion? the past several years of pro-life work, education and family-friendly policies may have contributed greatly as well as the technological advances of our day (e.g early preemies, sonograms and crisis pregnancy centers), which make it practically impossible for pro-aborts to deny the reality of unborn, human life. Whatever the case may be, there is change coming, as noted recently by an atheistic columnist from the Denver Post, David Harsayni who wrote, "After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life. So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?"

The fight is far from over however, Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare recently ruled that women are permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus. In the United States, a woman can have an abortion for nearly any reason she chooses. In fact, a health exemption for the mother allows abortions to be performed virtually on demand. That said, maybe this poll tells us that the dynamics of the abortion debate are about to change, that Americans are getting past the politics and into the morality of the issue. If true, that makes this war once again, a fair fight.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Should Christians 'Respect' Other Religions?

One of the most popular and politically correct ideologies around today is that of religious or philosophical tolerance and respect. Somehow, someway, disagreements over doctrine and taking stands for truth over the last several years, has led to the branding of biblical views as "hate speech", and to new and revised definitions of words like tolerance and respect. Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas anyway?

In the aftermath of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Jordan, where he spoke of his "respect" for Islam (coming on the heels of the Pope's notorious 2006 speech about Islam in Germany), columnist Albert Mohler posed the provocative question, "Should Christians respect other religions?" Now before you answer his question for yourself, let's remember that words mean things, and we may want to actually know what the word means before we throw it out for public consumption. According to most dictionaries, tolerance simply refers to, "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own." Similarly, respect carries an interesting two-fold definition as having, "esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, and "deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges."

The point of this definition is that we should not be moved to silence by hyper-tolernant friends and foes when disucssing religion and world-views. As per the real meaning of these words, we can appreciate an individual and even defend his or her right to be WRONG (this is called respect) about God and salvation and we can even politely listen to their opinons, but still should lovingly confront their error. What kind of eror do we mean? Speaking of the Pope and his new-found reverence for Islam, the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that Muslims are "included in the plan of salvation" by virtue of their claim to "hold the faith of Abraham." Should that idea be refuted? Can it be done so respectfully and with tolerance? Obviously.

As Mohler implies, what are we to do we do with major documents such as Vatican II which state, "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. " That same language is basic to the current official catechism (indoctrinated teaching)of the church as well and trust me will be judged. While the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Islam is both erroneous and incomplete, it also holds that sincere Muslims can be included in Christ's salvation through their faithfulness to monotheism and Islam. That's just wrong- its NOT true. Truth dear ones is divisive and exclusive by definition and we cannot remain silent when witnessing and sharing with others when souls and eternity are on the line.

Mohler right conlcudes, "Evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God's Son, and takes millions of souls captive. This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations." Now that's respectful truth and comes as a result of good doctrine, which comes from the scripture, as we'll discuss in greater depth this Sunday (Why the Bible?) .

Is Torture Biblical?

Jack Bauer and Jesus

Most anyone who knows us at all, knows that Mary and I have been faithful viewers of the TV show, "24" for the past few years- it's about the only TV show we watch with any regularity thank God, but after this week's finale, we'll be on hiatus for some time. We have followed and been riveted by the exploits of secret-agent man Jack Bauer, who tortues bad-guy terrorists and wars against evil by the minute literally 24 hours a day (when does that man go to the bathroom or consume a beverage of any kind, for goddness sake?).

In lieu of the recent controversy over the CIA tapes of America's "enhanced interrogations" of suspected terrorists in the 'war on terror' that escalted more than a notch after 9-11, I have begun to wonder what God thinks and what the Bible has to say about such things as "waterboarding" (simulated drowning of suspected terrorists in interrogation). I know what the aforementioned Mr. Bauer would do (waterboarding is a day at the beach for him). But more importantly what would Jesus, a victim of 'torture' Himself ( read Isa. 53, the gospels and see the Passion) would do or say about it today? First, what are Christians saying about it?

For starters, white evangelicals are more sympathetic to torture. The poll data from a survey of American adults released April 29 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 62 % of white evangelical Protestants said torture of a suspected terrorist could be often or sometimes justified to obtain important information. By contrast, 51 % of white non-Hispanic Catholics, 46 % of white mainline Protestants (mostly liberal) and 40 % of the religiously unaffiliated held that position. Moreover, those who attend religious services at least once a week were more likely than those who rarely or never attend to say torture is sometimes or often justified in that scenario - 54 to 42 %. What is torture anyway? Torture can be defined as “the infliction of intense pain to punish, to coerce, or to derive sadistic pleasure.” Of course, sadism is never appropriate or just, but what about punishment or coercion? Is there ever a time when inflicting pain is justified in order to punish wrongdoing or to obtain a confession? What if that confession would lead to information that could save thousands of lives( this is the Jack Bauer defense)?

Pro-Family leader Gary Bauer said the answer is "It depends. I think if we believe the person we have can give us information to stop thousands of Americans from being killed, it would be morally suspect to not use harsh tactics to get that information." Many other evangelicals and conservatives disagree, including Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who revealed this month that he thinks waterboarding is torture and never justified. He said part of his conclusion is based on his belief that it's "...very likely to cause permanent psychological damage. It seems to me once you accept the 'end justifies the means' argument, then you have taken a step onto a very steep and slippery slope to a dark and dangerous place."

What now? Last fall, a university study on morals and ethics found that 44 % of white Southern evangelicals rely on life experience and common sense to form opinions on torture. By contrast, 28 % said they relied on Christian teachings or beliefs. Doh- red flag! Not good family- we need a biblical world-view, not a life-experience one in order to answer tough questions. So what does the Bible say?The Bible acknowledges the existence of torture. In a parable, Jesus spoke of a servant who was “turned . . . over to the jailers to be tortured” (Matthew 18:34). Such an allusion seems to indicate that the use of torture was common in the prisons of the day. The Bible also records the stories of many victims of torture other than Jesus (e.g. Paul and Silas -Acts 16), the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:2; 38:6), and other unnamed saints (Hebrews 11:35). In every case, we see that the godly are the victims of torture, never the perpetrators of torture. After all we are all (that means evil terrorists included) made in God's image and guess what- worthy of redemption right? It should go without saying that as individuals, we are not to seek revenge. Vengeance belongs only to the Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19).

Here's another question then, what about from the govermental view? We know that God has appointed civil governments and charged them with maintaining justice in this world (Romans 13:1-5). “For [the ruler] is God's servant to do you good . . . an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (verse 4). Elsewhere, God calls judges and magistrates to provide justice, which comes from God Himself (Psalm 82:1-4). If they fail in their duty, they will themselves be judged by the Lord, the Judge of all (verses 7-8). So government bears the responsibility to protect the good and punish the evil (Jack likes that part). What methods may it employ in carrying out that responsibility? Beyond the endorsement of capital punishment (Romans 13:4; Genesis 9:6), the Bible does not say. The Bible neither condemns nor condones a government’s use of torture. Many more questions can and should be asked: What specific techniques should be considered “torture”? Where do we draw the line? Is the infliction of any kind of pain inherently wrong? What if there are no permanent physical effects? Is sleep deprivation torture? What about a forced change in diet? Should yelling at a prisoner be considered psychological torture? Though there are practical considerations there, but it is scripture and the prompting of the Spirit that should dictate our view.

These are all questions not addressed explicitly in the Bible and are beyond the scope of this pastor at the moment, but they do highlight the need for us to dig deeper (see today's Dig Deeper from the blog- to pray “for kings and all those in authority”, 1 Timothy 2:2). May our President and other policy makers have the wisdom to distinguish good from evil and to provide true justice considering that all people are created in the image of God.

Mother's Day Madness!

As I feared and expected, some of you ladies were a bit ruffled after our Sunday morning Mother's Day message on the "Gift of Order", which concluded our series on The Body (the church). Although I might have come off a bit chauvinistic to some of you in expositing or explaining Paul's text from 1 Corinthians 14:33-40, I prayerfully hope that I did not needlessly offend with my words and that this blog will clarify where time on Sunday at CCC could not.

I understand this is a provocative and to some, a controversial passage of scripture, in that it steps on the toes of modern coventional wisdom, American culture, political correctness and assuredly, feminism as we know it. The issues are predominately two-fold: can women speak in church and can they or should they serve as preachers and pastors in the biblical and evangelical church? Well, rather than skip Paul's teaching there in dealing with the excesses and disturbances occuring in the Corinthian church (including tongues and prophesying) as he concluded his doctrine on the behavior of the local 'body' of Christ, we attempted to deal with the issues head on as scripture does.

To summarize, when Paul spoke to the order of the church, as God is a God of order and authority (1 Corinthians 14:40), the text tells us that women are to "keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak;...(14:34)." As I mentioned Sunday, one of the challenges we face in interpreting, explaining and preaching the Bible, is that we are somewhat handcuffed when translating the original, more nuanced and elaborate, original languages of scripture (Greek in this case) to English. Literally, 'something gets lost in the translation,' and this text is an example of that. The word "speak" here literally means to proclaim, or to speak forth, as in prophecy (heralding truth, not the predictive type) or preaching. Therefore, a better translation or understanding might be that 'they (women) are not to preach.' Again, that would be in the gender-integrated context of the local church gathering. This admonition again would not preclude a woman from speaking or questioning in a church gathering in so far, as it would not disrupt the service or usurp the pastoral authority of the preacher as was the case in Corinth with regard to revelations and tongues. Nor, would that admonition preclude a woman from exercising her prophecy and teaching gifts in discipleship and among other groups publically.

With regard to this issue and tying it into the question of woman pastors, we noted that Paul elaborated in depth as to the why of this doctrine, in 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Therein contains the timeless principle of church leadership and preaching for all times and all peoples. Refer to the message on-line or an outline we can provide for details. At the end of the day, we have to accept that not only has God given men and woman spiritual equality at the cross and from creation, but He has also given us diversity, from which should spring unity (The Body, Pt. 1) .

Ladies and gentlemen, God created us in His image, "male and female" (Gen. 1:27) with equal value and dignity. The Prophet Joel and Peter in Acts 2:17, remind us that God poured out His Holy Spirit with gifts on His "sons and daughters." Let's not forget that. Ms. Susan Hunt, a conference speaker from the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood offers five principles from the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) that offer an exhortation and encouragement to our women who want to exercise their gifts for His glory and kingdom:

1) In submission, women must follow the ecclesiastical leadership that God has given them. The women’s ministry must be submitted to the male leadership for approval, but so must every other discipleship ministry. We also see the qualifications for male headship in that women are called to submit to godly leaders not tyrants. This should be seen as a security for women, not a hindrance.
2) A vibrant women’s ministry can come alongside the diaconal ministries of the church because they are compassionate.
3) When a women’s ministry is characterized by community we see what it means to truly be the family of God. The widows in the New Testament were credentialed by a life of the ordinary stuff that makes covenant community life extraordinary.
4) Gender specific discipleship, as seen in Titus 2:3-5, is so important because we would never on our own come to an understanding of what it means to be a life-giver. Gender specific disicipleship that focuses on principles about what God says about our womanhood must be taught because women are hearing something in the culture and what they are hearing is not God’s way.
5) In 2 Timothy 3:2-17 we see that Timothy’s mother and grandmother taught him the Scriptures from infancy. Here we see the principles of the foundation and sufficiency of Scripture.

If there are core biblical principles, women’s ministry can be the church's greatest delight for men and women. If not, then it will be our worst nightmare. We'll fit this and all of us together in our new series, Basic Training, which begins Sunday.