Solid Foundation

Death of an Athiest

2011-12-20T14:35:00.000-08:00

Great column by Cal Thomas

"Perhaps not since Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Carl Sagan has there been such an "evangelical" atheist as Christopher Hitchens, the writer and social commentator who died last week after a long and public battle with esophageal cancer.

Hitchens railed against those who believe in God. While an original writer, and smart, there was nothing original about his unbelief. Such views have been expressed since the dawn of humanity. They have also been answered by some of the wisest people who have ever lived. There is a difference between "smart" and "wise." As that Scripture in which Hitchens disbelieved says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Proverbs 9:10)

I have always found atheists to be interesting people because they just may be the world's smallest minority group, one that gets smaller still as its members pass on and meet God face to face. Still, atheists demand physical proof of God's existence, as if they could bring God down and make Him into their image. What kind of God would that be? He would be their equal and, thus, not God at all.

Evidence, alone, has never moved anyone from unbelief to faith. If proof were enough, all of the unbelieving contemporaries of Jesus (and Moses) would have believed in God because of the miracles they performed. Two people presented with exactly the same information can respond in opposite ways. Faith is not based solely on facts. It is a gift from a God who exists.

Hitchens wrote a book called "God is Not Great." It's a clever title, but how would he have known, since they had not been properly introduced?

C.S. Lewis, once an atheist and thus conversant with the subject, wrote after his conversion, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Some people exist, however nervously, believing that this life is all there is. The late singer Peggy Lee put the result of such faith this way: "Is that all there is? If that's all there is to life, then let's break out the booze and have a ball, if that's all there is."

Why contribute to charity, or perform other good deeds? Without a source to inspire charity, such acts are sentimental affectations, devoid of meaning and purpose. If survival of the fittest is the rule, let only the fit survive. That was the sentiment of Ebenezer Scrooge before his visitation by those three spirits and his subsequent transformation. Let the poor and starving die, he said, "...and decrease the surplus population." Who is to say such a notion is wrong without a standard by which to judge wrong.

To object to God is to create morality from a Gallup Poll. In Gallup We Trust doesn't have the same authority.

Hitchens was a gifted writer, but who gave him the gift? Why was he not a gifted actor, surgeon or athlete? Why was he not talentless? Was it an evolutionary accident, which would mean his gift and his life were meaningless and merely a "chasing after the wind"? (See Ecclesiastes) Apparently he thought so.

An atheist will tell you he doesn't need God in order to be good, or perform good works. Maybe not, but the very notion of "good" must have both a definition and a definer. "Only God is good," said Jesus. (Mark 10:18)

Who is the author of evil? And if God is nonexistent, why do we call it evil? Is one person's evil another person's good? Does such a view lead to ethics that must inevitably be situational?

Scripture warns, "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1)

In this season when many celebrate the object of their faith, there is no joy in the death of one who had faith that God does not exist. Hitchens now knows the truth and that can only be the worst possible news for him.

As for the atheists still with us, Christmas is a reminder there is still time to believe and receive the ultimate gift."

Committing to Marriage

2010-10-12T10:52:00.000-07:00

About once a week I receive an email marketing tip from C. Richard Weylman. Some of them are really helpful and others immediately end up in the electronic trash bin.

Today's tip is about committing to your goals so you will see them become a reality.

Here are Weylman's tips on making and meeting commitments:

1. You must make a choice. When you choose your desired future outcome over your current reality, you remove the struggle that leads to compromising your commitment.

2. Choose your future outcome over instant gratification. Focus on your future outcome, working through the steps it will take to achieve it, and it will override your need for instant gratification.

3. It takes 100% commitment to be successful. Don't make excuses and exceptions - it will set you up for failure and make it harder to get back on track. Make your commitment and stick to it - no excuses, no exceptions!

4. Be sure you are completely dedicated to your commitment, not just casually interested. Your level of desire will determine your results - period. Ken Blanchard, author of The One Minute Manager, says, "There is a difference between interest and commitment. When you're interested in doing something, you do it only when it's convenient. When you're committed to something, you accept no excuses, only results."

5. Visualize your future outcome instead of momentary temptation. When you are able to focus on the end result, you will make the right choices that support your desired outcome.

Now go back and read the tips again, only this time, instead of thinking about business goals, think about what it takes to make a marriage successful.

Pretty cool, huh?

With nearly half of all marriages in the U.S. ending in divorce and with many couples choosing not to marry at all, a little teaching on commitment might be in order.

May God give us the grace to keep our commitments.

Some Things are Better Caught than Taught

2010-09-29T18:59:00.000-07:00

Some things are better caught than taught.

I learned a lot about giving from my dad – not because he sat me down and taught me how to give – but because I watched him do it.

My dad was a union steelworker on the south side of Chicago for 38 years. Every Friday was payday. Every Friday he cashed his check at the bank and brought home a wallet full of $20 bills. For you younger readers, this was before the days of direct deposit, credit cards, and ATM cards.

When he came home from work, I watched him sit at the dining room table with my mom. The first he did was count out a certain number of bills and put them in the church offering envelope. The offering envelope then went into his Bible to bring to church the following Sunday morning.

What did I learn by catching my dad doing this?

First, I learned that giving was a top priority. My dad put money in the offering envelope before he gave money to my mom for groceries; before he put aside money for the mortgage; before he spent money on anything else. God was first place in his life. His giving reflected that.

Second, I learned that giving was proportionate to his income. The more money he made in a given week because of overtime or side jobs, the more money went into the offering envelope. Dad gave a fixed percentage of his income every week.

Third, I learned that giving was to be done regularly. Because Dad was paid every Friday, I witnessed his giving every Friday. He didn’t give once a month or on special occasions. He gave whenever he was paid.

Fourth, I leaned that giving was sacrificial. Dad put money in that envelope no matter how good the week was. And there were some lean weeks. Many times I overheard discussions about what how certain purchases would just have to wait. There just wasn’t enough money at that time. But money still went in the offering envelope every week – still went in the Bible.

Finally, I learned that giving was a privilege and something to done cheerfully. I never heard Dad complain about how he could have more money if didn’t give. He never talked about giving in order to gain God’s favor. Giving for him was a privilege; something that made him glad. My dad was a cheerful giver.

Some things are better caught than taught.

I often wonder what my daughters are catching from me. I pray that when it comes to giving, they’re catching the same thing I caught from their grandpa.

Is "Hate Speech" any Speech with which I Disagree?

2010-07-12T13:31:00.000-07:00

Ken Howell has been fired as an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois because one student was offended by his beliefs.

Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought at the university, sent an e-mail to his students who were preparing for their final exam. In the e-mail, Howell wrote:

"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."

Uh-oh. There it is. Howell implied the Catholic Church viewed homosexuality as sin.

Evidently, an anonymous student in the class was offended by this. I say "evidently" because the offended student didn't come forward to complain. Instead, another student, claiming to be a friend of the offended student, sent an e-mail to the religion department head calling Howell's e-mail "hate speech."

Ah, yes. Hate speech. Any speech which I find disagreeable.

In his e-mail, "the friend" of the offended student wrote:

"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing, declaring homosexual acts violate natural laws of man is another."

In his defense, Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law. Howell said:

"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches. I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."

Never be judged on that. Too bad the University of Illinois didn't cut Professor Howell the same slack.

In an e-mail to other school staff, Ann Mester, an associate dean at the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences wrote:

"The e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us."

So the university has standards of inclusivity? Evidently firing a highly regarded professor for agreeing with the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality doesn't violate the school's standards of inclusivity.

I wonder if the University of Illinois would fire a biology professor, who not only taught students the theory of evolution, but also openly admitted he believed evolution to be true and creationism false. After all, that doesn't sound very "inclusive", does it. Would it make a difference if a student in the biology class wrote an email to the associate dean saying she was offended by the professor's opinion? Not a chance.

In it's effort to be "inclusive", the University of Illinois includes all opinions except those with which it happens to disagree. Those opinions they consider "hate speech."

I hope someone steps in to restore sanity at the University of Illinois. For now it seems the inmates are running the asylum.

Is America Becoming More Pro-Life?

2010-05-02T16:24:00.000-07:00

In his most recent blog post, Albert Mohler paraphrased James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal with the following:

"It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. . . . It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents’ values."

Think about that. It's been 37 years since Roe v. Wade. Is it possible the number of those in the pro-life camp is growing at a faster rate than those in the pro-choice camp because the pro-lifers tend to have more kids? Just wondering.

Be Still My Soul

2010-04-24T05:10:00.000-07:00

Music is a gift from God. It engages both the heart and mind to focus us in way like none other.

David, the shepherd king, wrote music to express all kinds of emotions and thoughts. You can find David's songs in the Book of Psalms. In some, he offers praise to God. In others, he confesses his sin. Sometimes, he just delights in God's word.

Some songs have stayed with me my whole life. During my college days, there were what felt like desperate times to me. How would I make it through all that needed to be done? Who did God want me to be? What did He want me to do?

During those days, I came across a song by Russ Taff titled, "Be Still my Soul." I remember listening to that song over and over again from an old vinyl lp.

This morning, while reading Psalm 46 during devotions, I was reminded of this great song. I thought I'd share it with you. You'll have to get past the outmoded hairstyle and clothes. After all, it was 1983!

Loving Our Wives as Christ Loved the Church

2010-03-26T17:34:00.000-07:00

A quote from St. John Chrysostom's "On Marriage and Family Life":

You have heard how important obedience is; you praise and marveled at Paul, how he welds our whole life together, as we would expect from an admirable and spiritual man. You have done well. But now listen to what else he requires from you; he has not finished with his example. “Husbands,” he says, “love your wives, as Christ loved the Church.” You have seen the amount of obedience necessary; now hear about the amount of love necessary. Do you want your wife to be obedient to you, as the Church is to Christ? Then be responsible for the same providential care of her, as Christ is for the Church. And even if it becomes necessary for you to give your life for her, yes, and even to endure and undergo suffering of any kind, do not refuse. Even though you undergo all of this, you will never have done anything equal to what Christ has done. You are sacrificing yourself for someone to whom you are already joined, but He offered Himself up for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way, then, as He honored her by putting at His feet one who turned her back on Him, who hated, rejected, and disdained Him, as He accomplished this not with threats, or violence, or terror, or anything else like that, but through His untiring love; so also you should behave towards your wife. Even if you see her belittling you, or despising and mocking you, still you will be able to subject her to yourself, through affection, kindness, and your great regard for her. There is no influence more powerful than the bond of love, especially for husband and wife. A servant can be taught submission through fear; but even he, if provoked to much, will soon seek his escape. But one’s partner for life, the mother of one’s children, the source of one’s every joy, should never be fettered with fear and threats, but with love and patience. What kind of marriage can there be when the wife is afraid of her husband? What sort of satisfaction could a husband himself have, if he lives with his wife as if she were a slave and not with a woman by her own free will? Suffer anything for her sake, but never disgrace her, for Christ never did this with the Church.

I am humbled.

How Much is a Trillion?

2010-02-02T18:02:00.000-08:00

The new budget unveiled by the White House yesterday calls for total spending of $3.8 trillion in the coming year. Of that amount, $1.6 trillion will need to be borrowed because revenues aren't expected to be enough to cover the spending.

We hear numbers like a trillion being thrown around a lot these days. We know it's a big number -- but do we really have any idea how big? Just how different is one trillion from one billion from one million? Let me see if I can help.

What were you doing one million seconds ago? One million seconds is about twelve days. That was Thursday, January 21st, 2010.

What were you doing one billion seconds ago? One billion seconds is about 32 years. That was 1978. I was a sophomore in high school. Jimmy Carter declared a federal emergency at Love Canal.

What were you doing one trillion seconds ago? One trillion seconds is about 32,000 years. That was somewhere around 30,000 years before Christ.

Needless to say, a $1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit next year is really big. It's about $34,000 of debt per U.S. citizen.

That's just how much our country will borrow in the coming year. We already owe about $12 trillion from prior years. The additional $1.6 trillion will be added to that.

Will we ever pay back what we borrowed? The Bible says the borrower is the servant of the lender. We are selling ourselves into slavery.

A trillion here, a trillion there -- pretty soon it will be real money.

The Parable of the Talents Redux

2010-01-19T07:46:00.000-08:00

The current United States government can be illustrated by the story of a man going on a long trip. He called together his servants and entrusted his money to them while he was gone. He gave five bags of silver to one, two bags of silver to another, and one bag of silver to the last—dividing it in proportion to their abilities. He then left on his trip.

The servant who received the five bags of silver began to invest the money and earned five more. The servant with two bags of silver also went to work and earned two more. But the servant who received the one bag of silver dug a hole in the ground and hid the master’s money.

After a long time their master returned from his trip and called them to give an account of how they had used his money. The servant to whom he had entrusted the five bags of silver came forward with five more and said, “Master, you gave me five bags of silver to invest, and I have earned five more.”

The master was full of concern. “Surely you exploited the poor while increasing your wealth. You have been greedy in handling this money and only concerned about yourself. Because you now have more money than you need, I will take your money and give it to those you exploited. You really should do a better job of spreading the wealth around.”

The servant who had received the two bags of silver came forward and said, “Master, you gave me two bags of silver to invest, and I have earned two more.”

The master said, “Not bad, my middle class friend. I’m glad you have all you need. Because you don’t make more than $250,000 per year, I will try very hard to let you keep what you have earned. These are tough economic times, however, and I may need your help going forward. We all need to tighten our belt, you know.”

Then the servant with the one bag of silver came and said, “Master, I knew you were a harsh man, harvesting crops you didn’t plant and gathering crops you didn’t cultivate. I was afraid I would lose your money, so I hid it in the earth. Look, here is your money back.”

But the master replied, “You poor and unfortunate servant! Life has treated you so unfairly. Don’t worry; I’ll make sure you get everything you need as long as you vote for me in November.”

Then he ordered, “Take the money from the servant with ten bags of silver, and give to the one with the one bag of silver. To those who use well what they are given, we will take away their abundance. But for those who do nothing, we will make sure to give them enough to keep them depending on us. Now tell the greedy servant to stop complaining and get back to work. We have a country to fix.”

Tiger and Jesus, Part 3

2010-01-09T08:30:00.000-08:00

More and more people are weighing in on Brit Hume's comments about Tiger Woods and his need for a relationship with Jesus Christ.

The following is a post from Cal Thomas on Thursday, January 7th.

The secular left — and some self-described Christians — criticize Brit Hume, the Fox News commentator, for suggesting that the solution to Tiger Woods' problems is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Hume made his remarks on "Fox News Sunday." Disclosure: I also appear on Fox News.

Hume said, "My message to Tiger would be: Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

That is a message shared for 2,000 years by those who follow Jesus of Nazareth. It apparently continues to escape the secular left that Christians feel compelled to share their faith out of gratitude for what Jesus has done for them (dying in their place on a cross and offering a new life to those who repent and receive Him as savior). In a day when some extremists employ violence to advance their religion, it is curious that many would save their criticism for a truly peace-bringing message such as the one broadcast by Brit Hume.

Criticism of Hume has taken two forms. One is that it is hubris to presume the Christian faith is superior to other faiths. The other criticism is that Hume used Fox as a pulpit and if he wants to preach he should resign from the network and go door to door like a Jehovah's Witness.

Tom Shales, a TV and culture critic for The Washington Post, wrote, "Darts of derision should be aimed at Hume, not at his employer or at Fox News as a social force." Shales said it's, "worth a Google or two to investigate the origins of Hume's seemingly newfound fervor."

Shales discovered that the "cause" of Hume's conversion was his son's suicide in 1998.

Many people can testify to an event that leads them to focus on the meaning of life. For me, it was being fired from a job in which I had placed my "faith" that success would bring peace and purpose.

People use the name of Jesus Christ every day. For many, it is employed as a curse. Few seek to silence those who blaspheme using His Name. Speak ill of the Prophet Muhammad and you risk a fatwa and crazies storming your house. Speak ill of Jesus Christ and no one will come to your door. He may be the last "religious" figure one can still crucify without penalty, at least in the short term.

Christians like Hume are not trying to impose anything on anyone. They know the difference Jesus has made in their lives and they care enough about others to want to share His message in the hope that other lives will be similarly transformed.

When he was president, Jimmy Carter shared his faith with South Korean President Park Chung Hee as the two rode in a limousine on the way to the airport. The New York Times ludicrously editorialized about a possible violation of church-state separation.

It was Jesus of Nazareth who accurately predicted the hostile reaction to people who spoke well of Him. He said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me." (John 15:18-21)

You can read more of Cal Thomas' posts at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas1.asp

Not Judgemental, Just Relieved

2010-01-07T11:34:00.000-08:00

It seems I'm not the only one who thinks Tiger Woods is in need of a Savior (see my December 14th post). Fox News' Brit Hume recently said essentially the same thing on the air. The reaction by others to Hume's comments has been predictable.

The following is a post from Ann Coulter's blog yesterday. While I don't claim to agree with Ms. Coulter on everything (especially her delivery), I think she does an admirable job presenting the Gospel in a clear way to our post-Christian culture.

Someone mentioned Christianity on television recently and liberals reacted with their usual howls of rage and blinking incomprehension.

On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately:

"The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian
faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the
world."

Hume's words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a
tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals' copious ignorance of Christianity. (Also illustrating the words of the Bible:
"How is it you do not understand me when I speak? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my words." John 8:43.)

In The Washington Post, Tom Shales demanded that Hume apologize, saying he had "dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet."

Is Buddhism about forgiveness? Because, if so, Buddhists had better start demanding corrections from every book, magazine article and blog posting ever written on the subject, which claims Buddhists don't believe in God, but try to become their own gods.

I can't imagine that anyone thinks Tiger's problem was that he didn't
sufficiently think of himself as a god, especially after that final putt in
the Arnold Palmer Invitational last year.

In light of Shales' warning Hume about "what people are saying" about him, I hope Hume's a Christian, but that's not apparent from his inarguable description of Christianity.

Of course, given the reaction to his remarks, apparently one has to be a regular New Testament scholar to have so much as a passing familiarity with the basic concept of Christianity. On MSNBC, David
Shuster invoked the "separation of church and television" (a phrase that also doesn't appear in the Constitution), bitterly complaining that Hume had brought up Christianity "out-of-the-blue" on "a political talk show."

Why on earth would Hume mention religion while discussing a public figure who had fallen from grace and was in need of redemption and forgiveness? Boy, talk about coming out of left field!

What religion -- what topic -- induces this sort of babbling idiocy? (If
liberals really want to keep people from hearing about God, they should give Him his own show on MSNBC.)

Most perplexing was columnist Dan Savage's indignant accusation that Hume was claiming that Christianity "offers the best deal -- it
gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just
can't."

In fact, that's exactly what Christianity does. It's the best deal in the
universe. (I know it seems strange that a self-described atheist and "radical sex advice columnist faggot" like Savage would miss the
central point of Christianity, but there it is.)

God sent his only son to get the crap beaten out of him, die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you're in. Your sins are washed away from you -- sins even worse than adultery! -- because of the cross.

"He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by
nailing it to the cross." Colossians 2:14.

Surely you remember the cross, liberals -- the symbol banned by ACLU lawsuits from public property throughout the land?

Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the
hardest religion in the world.

In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don't need a church, a
teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don't need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you'll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you're getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that's disputed.

You can be washing the dishes or walking your dog or just
sitting there minding your business hating Susan Sarandon and accept that God sent his only son to die for your sins and rise from the dead ... and you're in!

"Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9.

If you do that, every rotten, sinful thing you've ever done is gone from
you. You're every bit as much a Christian as the pope or Billy Graham.

No fine print, no "your mileage may vary," no blackout dates. God ought to do a TV spot: "I'm God Almighty, and if you can find a better deal than the one I'm offering, take it."

The Gospel makes this point approximately 1,000 times. Here are a few examples at random:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in
Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23.

In a boiling rage, liberals constantly accuse Christians of being
"judgmental." No, we're relieved.

Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you
believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual
promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies -- no doing what all the other kids do.

And no more caring what the world thinks of you -- because, as Jesus warned in a prophecy constantly fulfilled by liberals: The world will hate you.

With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped
clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don't deserve it. It's the best deal in the universe.

You can read more of Ann Coulter's posts at http://www.anncoulter.com/.

Tiger Woods, Adultery, and the Need for a Savior

2009-12-14T17:33:00.000-08:00

The following is a post from Dr. Albert Mohler's blog today. Tiger's transgressions remind us that we're all sinners in need of a Savior.

The travail of Tiger Woods entered a new chapter over the weekend as Accenture, a global consulting firm, severed all ties with the world's most famous golfer. In doing so, Accenture became the first of Woods's major sponsors to end its relationship with him. It is not likely to be the last.

Tiger Woods's fall from public favor happened with breathtaking speed. In a matter of days, a minor vehicle accident in the middle of the night mushroomed into both private and public catastrophe. Even as Woods and his famously protective handlers sought to avoid or limit the controversy, the golfer's eventual admission of marital infidelity has forever changed the way the public looks to the world's most highly compensated athlete.

This story is far from over. Even as Tiger Woods has announced that he is taking an "indefinite" leave from professional golf in order to give priority to his wife and family, his future as both professional athlete and public figure is very much in question. Some believe that Woods will return to his exalted position after a necessary period of contrition and public withdrawal. Others suggest that, given the mental demands of professional golf, Tiger Woods will have a very difficult time returning to top form. And, what about Tiger Woods the brand? On these questions
time will have to tell. Nevertheless, the travail of Tiger Woods provides lessons that are already not to be missed.

Lesson One: Acts done in private can and will have public consequences.

Interestingly, the scandal surrounding Tiger Woods appeared to be of low voltage in its opening chapter. Indeed, some of the most interesting public debate of this first phase was over the question of whether the unfolding scandal was of any public
consequence at all. A good number of observers, including Peggy Noonan, appearing on the "This Week" program on ABC News, argued that the scandal was a private matter, since Tiger Woods is a professional athlete and not a politician. Writing in Newsweek magazine, Julia Baird made a similar argument. "He is not a politician, priest, or morals crusader. He is an athlete," Baird declared.

She continued:

Why do we even pretend that sportspeople are models of propriety? Or rather why do we need them to be? they are physically gifted, driven, and disciplined. That's what you need to excel in sport. Not moral strength, courage, decency, or fidelity. These virtues are admirable, but are a bonus: they should not be an expectation. Yet we continue to project an irrational desire for the physically perfect to be spiritually
strong.

That is a rather amazing argument. Moral strength, courage, decency, and fidelity are "admirable," but not necessary for athletes? Clearly, the American public was not buying that argument -- and for good reason.

Tiger Woods may not be a priest or a politician, but he has transformed himself into a public figure. Indeed, most of his income is derived from selling himself as a brand, an advertising symbol, and an image. The glare of publicity was not forced upon Tiger Woods -- he has actively and quite successfully cultivated this publicity for his own purposes. There is no inherent fault in this, but the American people are not buying the argument that his adventures in serial marital infidelity, combined with two late-night 911 calls, are matters of purely private concern between Tiger Woods and his wife, Elin Nordegren. Charles McGrath made this point clear in an essay published in The New York Times:

[Tiger] Woods has become a public figure not just in the way that most great athletes are public figures, but also in a way probably unparalleled in the history of publicity itself. He has made far more money from selling himself, or his image, then he has made from playing tournaments. That image, partly genuine and partly sculptured, has been one of decency, modesty, filial devotion and paternal responsibility, and not of mysterious car crashes and evasive explanations.

Private actions lead to public consequences. This is not true at the same scale for everyone. As Charles McGrath pointed out in his essay, if the accident that sparked this scandal had happened to most people, "it wouldn't have merited more than a line or two in the local weekly." But whatever the context, private sins never stay as private as sinners expect, and the consequences are never limited to those privately involved. While the greatest injury is to Tiger Woods's wife and children, he has also done great damage to the sport he has represented for so long. The damage spreads far beyond the sports world.

Lesson Two: The public still believes that adultery is a big deal.

There is no question that America's moral landscape has been transformed in recent decades. This is especially true when it comes to the morality of sex and sexuality. Our contemporary society is marked by a breathtaking pattern of moral renegotiation that has led to the virtual evaporation of many moral stigmas, a rebellion against all rules, and the increasing legitimation of any number of sexual practices, lifestyles, and forms of expression. A spirit of moral revolution and moral relativism when it comes to sex has been in the air at least since the 1960s. At the same time, marriage has been increasingly marginalized as an institution, with no-fault divorce and any number of other assaults serving to undermine marital stability and the place of marriage in society. Our contemporary mores have shifted to permissive extremes when it comes to matters such as premarital sex, pornography, and the ubiquitous use of sex in entertainment and advertising.

Still, it appears that Americans draw the line at adultery. The scandal surrounding Tiger Woods is essentially a scandal about adultery. In their own way, Americans have made clear their instinct and assumption that adultery is objectively wrong, deserving of moral censure, and not to be taken lightly.

The force of public outrage directed at Tiger Woods's admission of marital infidelity indicates that the American public conscience remains more deeply rooted in its biblical origins then many secular observers would expect or appreciate.

A fascinating angle on this issue is provided in an article by Roger Blitz published in The Financial Times. Blitz argues that Tiger Woods is likely to escape much damage to his reputation because "while Mr. Woods and his advisers have built his image around many values, such as his diversity, his connection with young people, ... and his well-spoken demeanor, Christian morality is not one of them."

In other words, Blitz asserts that those who are not publicly committed to Christian morality are not held to this standard by the public. Evidently, someone forgot to tell the American people. Virtually no public figure has come forth to argue that what Tiger Woods has done is of no significant moral consequence. No major figure has argued that marital infidelity is morally inconsequential. While Americans may be confused about any number of moral matters and questions about sexuality, marriage exists as a fundamental moral firewall, and the public outrage over this scandal is, in its own very important way, a testimonial to this fact.

Lesson Three: A fall from public favor can happen in an instant.

Just a matter of days ago, Tiger Woods was at the very top of his profession, one of the most admired public figures of the sports world, and a man known primarily for his exquisite discipline and absolute mental focus. All that has evaporated (for now, at least) in an almost instantaneous burst of scandal.

"What Tiger Woods has caused to happen to himself and his image over the past two weeks is the sports world's most remarkable fall from grace, ever." So wrote Christine Brennan in USA Today. She continued: "No athlete has ever held a perch so high in our culture -- right up there with President and Mrs. Obama, and Oprah -- and fallen so far so fast." All that changed in a matter of mere days. "Today, that man is in disarray, his family life a shambles, his golf future a question mark, with much of what we thought we knew about him now laughed at and doubted."

Of course, no one knows where the scandal will end. Tiger Woods must already deal with accusations of adultery, his own admission of guilt, and a growing swarm of salacious details, rumors, and speculations. He has added to his public challenge by attempting to script every admission for limited impact. Even as he has, to his credit, used words such as "transgressions" and "infidelity," he has not come forth with a compelling account of his behavior. Add to this his refusal to appear in public to make any comment. While this strategy is understandable, he will eventually be required to say something in a public forum.

Tiger Woods now finds himself in a disastrous crisis of his own making. There is no one else he can blame for his trouble and there is no public account that can undo the past. In a truly breathtaking reversal, Tiger Woods has gone from being one of the most universally respected figures in sport to one of the most widely discussed subjects of scandal. Clearly, it does not take long to fall from a pedestal.

In one of his advertisements for Accenture, the image of Tiger Woods appears along with the words: "It's what you do next that counts." Much now depends on what Tiger Woods does next. If the American people are truly scandalized by his adultery, they must now hope and pray that this marriage and family can be rebuilt and sustained. Something of far greater consequence than an illustrious career in sport is at stake here. Tiger Woods the human being is of infinitely greater value than Tiger Woods the brand.

For Christians, there is an even deeper concern. The current travail of Tiger Woods points far beyond his need for marital recovery, career consultation, or brand management. Tiger Woods needs a Savior. I am praying that this devastating experience, caused so classically by his own sin, will lead Tiger Woods to understand that he is not so self-sufficient as he thinks. Tiger Woods now faces a problem that he cannot solve. Though he can do much to repair his marriage, his family, and his public image, he cannot atone for his own sins. My prayer is that there is someone who can reach Tiger Woods with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the end, all this must remind Christians of the universal need for the Gospel. We must remember our own sin and our utter dependence upon the grace and mercy of God made ours in Jesus Christ. Without question, this is the most important lesson drawn from the travail of Tiger Woods.

On his deathbed, Martin Luther offered these last words: "We are sinners, it is true." Tiger Woods is one of us, after all.

You can read more of Dr. Mohler's posts at http://www.albertmohler.com/

Praying for Obama

2009-11-25T13:12:00.000-08:00

Have you seen the new t-shirts encouraging others to pray for President Obama? The shirts have caused quite a stir. Why would such a seemingly positive message be so controversial? The shirt references Psalm 109:8 which says:

"May his years be few; let someone else take his position."

Very funny. But is it?

Psalm 109:9 goes on to say:

"May his children become fatherless and his wife a widow."

Ouch.

Are those who wear this shirt really encouraging others to pray for President Obama's untimely death?

In his letter to the church in Rome,Paul admonished Christians to submit to those in government:

"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished (Romans 13:1,2)."

It's one thing to be persecuted for being a follower of Christ. It's quite another thing to be persecuted for dishonoring Christ's name. In their attempt to be clever, the creators of this t-shirt give Christians a bad name and dishonor the very One we follow.

I'm not saying Christians need to agree with Obama and his policies. I'm not saying Christians shouldn't be involved in the political process. What I am saying is,

"Bless those that persecute you. Don't curse them; pray that God will bless them. Live in harmony with each other. And don't think you know it all! Never pay back evil with more evil. Do things in such a way that everyone can see you are honorable. Do all that you can to live at peace with everyone. (Romans 12:14-18)."

If Good Works Don't Save Us, Why Bother?

2009-10-19T14:13:00.000-07:00

My wife and I have been getting together with a group of friends recently to discuss Francis Chan's book, Crazy Love.

In his book, Chan talks extensively about lukewarm Christians -- those who try to straddle the fence between living for God and living for oneself. He essentially claims there are no such things as lukewarm Christians. The Bible says Christ will spit the lukewarm out of his mouth. Not exactly how we'd expect one to treat his children.

During our group's discussion, I sensed some tension building. Chan was arguing that how we go about our daily lives is evidence of our salvation. Some wondered if he was advocating works based righteousness. Aren't we saved by faith alone?

It got me to thinking about my relationship with my wife. If I tell my wife often enough that I love her, does that make it true? If I tell others how much I love my wife, would that remove all doubt? What if I'm rarely patient with my wife? What if I'm not kind to her and often rude. What if I'm constantly putting my needs ahead or her's? What if I easily become angry with her, hold grudges against her and seldom trust her? Would you still say I love her? Probably not.

In the same way, if I say I believe Christ died for my sins and I love God, yet my behavior is no different from those who don't believe, am I really saved?

Make no mistake. We are saved by faith alone -- grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). But if that faith bears no fruit in my life (Galatians 5:22-23), is it real faith? The Bible says faith that does not produce good deeds is useless (James 2:17).

Each one of us should examine his own life. Is my faith real -- that is, is it a faith that saves? Is my faith producing fruit or is it dead?

Jesus said, "If you love me, obey my commandments (John 14:15). Good works won't save us -- but they are evidence that we are truly saved.

Have We Become Distracted from the Gospel?

2009-07-08T19:31:00.000-07:00

The following is a post from Dr. Albert Mohler first published on June 1, 2004. Its truth rings even clearer today.

Is this evangelicalism's terminal generation? Without doubt, we are facing an unprecedented set of challenges to evangelical identity. The rise of a postmodern culture has produced an intellectual context in which the very concept of truth is held under suspicion, and claims to revealed truth are simply ruled out of order.

Benjamin Franklin, caught on the street during a break in the Constitutional Convention, is said to have been asked by a passerby to describe the new order to be proposed. "A republic," he answered, "if you can keep it." By definition, evangelicals are to be a Gospel people, cherishing, teaching, and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We will remain evangelical only insofar as we maintain the integrity of our Gospel witness--if we can keep it. We are truly evangelical only if we keep our testimony to the Gospel without confusion or compromise.

We should be very concerned about certain trends in contemporary evangelicalism that threaten this integrity. The first is an ominous confusion about the Gospel itself. The heart of the Gospel is the objective truth that Christ died for sinners, and that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Christ--alone. The cardinal doctrine of justification by faith is, as Martin Luther warned, "the article by which the church stands or falls."

If so, the church is falling in many quarters. Much of what is presented in many pulpits--and marketed by flashy television preachers--bears little resemblance to this simple message. Instead, sinners are told to seek after riches, material blessings, vibrant health, and earthly rewards. Salvation is packaged as a product to be hawked on the airwaves and sold at a discount. The notion of salvation from sin and judgment is entirely missing from this scenario. Instead, salvation is presented as a gift of self-enhancement.

On the theological left, the Gospel had long ago been transformed into a social and political message of liberation from oppression. Now, among some who consider themselves evangelicals, the Gospel of Christ has been reduced to a form of self-expression or therapy. Salvation is promised as the answer to low self-esteem and emptiness. Gone is any notion of a holy God who offers salvation from sin and its eternal penalty.

The other pressing front in the current battle for the Gospel concerns the exclusivity of the work of Christ. The testimony of the Bible could not be more clear. Salvation comes to all who call upon the name of the Lord. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ--and through Jesus Christ alone.

In our culture of political correctness and intolerant tolerance, we are told that such a claim is simply unacceptable. There cannot be only one way of salvation. Who is to say that the religions of the world are wrong, and that Christianity alone is true?

Well, that is the non-negotiable criterion of evangelical faithfulness. Jesus identified Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life--and "no one comes to the Father, but through Me" [John 14:6]. Without this clear testimony, the Gospel is emptied of its integrity. The Bible allows no misunderstanding. Without conscious faith in Jesus Christ, there is no salvation.

Dean Kelley, a liberal Protestant, once noted that, "Even the most gentle, humble, and loving Christians must divide the world into those who confess Jesus as Lord and those who don't." Given the clarity of the Gospel, we have no other choice.

Even so, various forms of compromise erupt on this crucial front in the battle for the Gospel. Some advocate an open universalism, in which all persons are eventually saved. Others promote pluralism, promising that all roads will eventually lead to God, and that no faith has a privileged claim to truth. Closer to home, some have advocated a form of inclusivism in which other religions and faiths are seen to be included in the work of Christ. Still others advocate a form of "anonymous Christianity" or a post-mortem opportunity to confess Christ.

Against these various attempts to evade the simple clarity of the Gospel stands the Word of God. Our evangelical integrity stands or falls on this truth--salvation is found through faith in Christ alone. This is the logic of the missionary mandate and the sustaining conviction for all evangelism. Nevertheless, the worldview held by many individuals today--especially those among the educated classes--flatly rejects such claims as imperialistic and arrogant.

Sociologist James Davison Hunter has long warned that younger evangelicals tend to go soft on this doctrine. Educated in a culture of postmodern relativism and ideological pluralism, this generation has been taught to avoid making any exclusive claim to truth. Speak of your truth, if you must--but never claim to know the Truth. Unless this course is reversed, there will be no evangelicals in the next generation.

Charles Spurgeon stated it plainly: "We have come to a turning-point in the road. If we turn to the right, mayhap our children and our children's children will go that way; but if we turn to the left, generations yet unborn will curse our names for having been unfaithful to God and to His Word." Those words ring with prophetic urgency more than a century after they were written. Evangelicals must regain theological courage and conviction, or we must face the tragic reality that this may be evangelicalism's terminal generation.

You can read more of Dr. Mohler's posts at www.albertmohler.com

Is Belief in God Enough?

2009-06-21T20:09:00.000-07:00

According to a June 2008 survey conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 92% of Americans believe in God or a universal spirit. What does it mean to believe in God? Is belief in God the same as faith in God?

The Bible is clear that faith is more than just belief. It says, “You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror (James 2:19).”

One gets the sense that faith takes belief to another level – that faith is belief with a purpose.

Last Sunday night, I heard Dr. Paul D. Tripp speak on the topic, “What is Faith?” Dr. Tripp agrees that faith is belief in the existence of God; however, he takes it a step further and focuses on the implications that flow out of faith in God. According to Tripp, if one has faith in God, one must believe that God is Creator, God is Sovereign, and God is Savior.

If you have faith in God, you must believe that God is Creator. The earth is not a cosmic accident. It was created by God and was created with a purpose. The Bible says, “God created everything through him (Jesus), and nothing was created except through him (John 1:3).”

If God created everything, we are His creations. As creations, we are not our own. We belong to Him. We were created for His purposes. He can do with us as He pleases. How foolish for us as God’s creations to try and live our lives apart from our Creator or to question His purposes.

Faith in God also means believing God is sovereign. God is the supreme ruler with absolute power and authority over His creation. Not only has God created the world and everything in it, He sustains and controls it. Nothing happens without his knowledge and permission. The Bible says,

“God promised everything to the Son (Jesus) as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command (Hebrews 1:2-3).”

Faith in God means believing He is Creator and believing He is in charge. Yet all of us live our lives like we are in charge. We all reject God’s authority over us and His standards. The Bible says, “All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own (Isaiah 53:6).” It also says, “For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard (Romans 3:23).”

Sin is not something made up by men to make others feel guilty. It is man’s rejection of God’s authority and standards. It is our rejection of Him.

This brings us to the third thing we must believe if we are to have faith in God – God is Savior. If God is Savior, it implies we need saving. From what do we need to be saved? From our rejection of God and His authority over us – our sin. The Bible says, “the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).” The consequence for our rejection of God is separation from Him forever.

But there is good news! Our Sovereign Creator God has provided a way to save us from our rejection of Him. The Bible says, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).” And again, “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).”

What about you? Are you one of the 92% of Americans that believe in God? What difference does that make in your life? What do you believe about Him? Do you know Him as Creator, King and Savior?

The Truth Will Set You Free

2009-06-13T17:22:00.000-07:00

The cover story of the June 20, 2009 edition of World Magazine is entitled "The Sixth Wind?" by Marvin Olasky. The article argues that although the headlines may trumpet a decline in Christianity in America, a closer look suggests a rise in serious faith.

Olasky writes how Christianity's main religious opponents, Islam and Hinduism, "can only hold onto their flocks by banning or persecuting missionaries and attempting to restrict discussion. They fear open debate."

Olasky then quotes John Milton (pictured), who wrote in 1644:

"Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"

There's no need for Christians to be depressed. Truth always wins in the end.

God Doesn't Shrug

2009-06-10T19:34:00.000-07:00

Well I did it. It wasn’t easy, but I finally did it. I finished reading “Atlas Shrugged.” All 1,084 pages of it. My copy of the “Holy Bible” has 1,048 pages. This book is long.

A colleague of mine loaned me his copy (the original Signet paperback, in case you’re interested in that kind of thing) of “Atlas Shrugged” after hearing me give my two cents about the current economic turmoil. He said I would find the book relevant.

Relevant? Could a book written over 50 years ago (1957) by a woman who died more than 25 years ago (Ayn Rand) have anything relevant to say about today’s economic and political environment? I was amazed. It turns out I’m not the only one. “Atlas Shrugged” is #78 on Amazon’s current best seller list and has been one of their top 100 sellers for 101 days straight. Did I mention this book was written over 50 years ago?

“Atlas Shrugged” tells the story of a U.S. economy that is collapsing under the weight of government regulation and taxation. Those in power blame the wealthy capitalists for all of the nation’s ills and try to level the playing field by redistributing their wealth through taxation and finally nationalizing their businesses (sound familiar?). Finally, the capitalists, who are carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders for little reward or appreciation, decide to quit and go on strike (Atlas shrugs). Without the capitalists around to produce goods and create wealth, there is nothing left to fund the largesse of the welfare state and it collapses upon itself.

As I read the first three quarters of the book, I kept finding myself agreeing with Rand out loud. Our government continues to confiscate more and more of the money belonging to its most productive citizens and redistributing it to those who are less productive. Even now, as it struggles to find more money to confiscate, our government has borrowed over $11 trillion (much of it from other countries) to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs. Who will be left standing when the music stops? It’s not going to be pretty.

As much as I agreed with the first three quarters of the book, I disagreed all the more with the rest of it. Near the end of the book, the hero of the story, John Galt, gives an impassioned speech that literally goes on for more than 90 pages. The speech makes an intellectual case for Ayn Rand’s philosophy – the philosophy of Objectivism. Rand describes her philosophy as:

“the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

According to Rand, the chief end of man is his own happiness. Man’s glory is his ability to think and produce. Charity and altruism are incompatible with his nature.

The whole time I was reading Galt’s speech, I kept thinking of Solomon’s writings in Ecclesiates:

“I came to hate all my hard work here on earth, for I must leave to others everything I have earned. And who can tell whether my successors will be wise or foolish? Yet they will control everything I have gained by my skill and hard work under the sun. How meaningless! So I gave up in despair, questioning the value of all my hard work in this world. Some people work wisely with knowledge and skill, then must leave the fruit of their efforts to someone who hasn’t worked for it. This, too, is meaningless, a great tragedy. So what do people get
in this life for all their hard work and anxiety? Their days of labor are filled with pain and grief; even at night their minds cannot rest. It is all meaningless (Ecclesiates 2:18-23, New Living Translation).”

Rand says productive achievement is man’s noblest activity. Solomon says that without God, productive achievement is meaningless, filled with pain and grief.

Although Rand’s philosophy of rational self-interest may have merits as an economic or political system, it is incompatible with a Christian worldview. God is not welcome in Rand’s philosophy. To Rand, a sovereign God is an obstacle to man’s pursuit of his own interests. If you want to read a great essay by John Piper that both extols and critiques Rand’s philosophy, click here.

If anyone has a reason to shrug, it’s God. He created man in His own image so man can love and enjoy Him forever. He placed him in an idyllic garden and gave him everything his heart could desire. All God asked for in return was man’s love and obedience. But man decided to go his own way. He turned his back on God and disobeyed Him. When man learned the consequences of his sin, he blamed God. We do the same today. After all He’s done for us, who would blame God if He shrugged and went on strike? God has every right to quit on us, leave us to our own devices, and let the world collapse upon itself.

But what has God done instead? He became a man Himself. He went around healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, and teaching about God’s kingdom. What was man’s response? We nailed Him to a cross.

Surely after this injustice God would have every reason to shrug and leave the scene. But, no. He raised Jesus from the dead and brought Him back to heaven. What’s more – whoever believes in Jesus – whoever, receives Him as their Savior – will live forever with God as one of His children.

What a great God! To Him be glory and honor forever.

Good News

2009-04-29T18:43:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I had a discussion about God with a colleague at work. He brought it up – I didn’t.

Mike grew up in a Christian home, was educated in Christian schools, and even attended a Christian college. Today he’s agnostic.

He believes there’s a God. He even thinks God probably loves him. He’s just not sure what God is like or what God expects of him. He doesn’t think the Bible is authoritative because it was “written by men with an agenda.” He thinks everyone follows the same God – Christian, Jew, and Muslim. He’s also not sure what to believe about Jesus. He likes his teachings but just doesn’t trust what others have written about him.

If you ask Mike what keeps him from Christianity, he’s quick to respond – it’s Christians.

You see, Mike has a bad history with Christians. It started in his teen years when his sister committed suicide. At the funeral, while trying to share the gospel with those present, the minister made it clear his sister could not be in heaven because of her actions. Mike was incensed. Is this what God was all about? Follow the rules or be on the outside.

Mike’s parents made him go to a Christian college even though he didn’t want to. More rules. Little grace. Mike broke as many rules as he could and got himself kicked out.

He sees all Christians as setting up rules and forcing everyone else to follow. Think Moral Majority. It’s not lost on me that I haven’t been able to change his perception. At least not yet.

The gospel is supposed to be good news. Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28; New Living Translation) We can do nothing to save ourselves. Christ has done it all. And yet, for some reason, we often imply that more needs to be done. When we do this, we add weight to the weary. Instead of rest, we wear them out.

God isn’t finished with Mike. He’s not finished with me either. There’s not a thing either one of us can do to earn God’s favor. This is good news.

Who’s Really Intolerant?

2009-04-21T13:15:00.000-07:00

We often hear today that Christians are intolerant – you know, how all they want to do is force their beliefs on everyone else.

Which brings me to the Miss USA pageant held this past Sunday in Las Vegas.

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, had made it to the final fifteen and was supposedly one of the favorites to win it all. Having made it past the swim suit and evening gown rounds, she now came to the part of the competition where she had to answer a single question in front of the five judges.

Her questioner? Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger, openly gay self-described ‘queen of all media’, and one of the competition’s judges. The question? “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

After a brief pause, Prejean replied:

“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what? In my country, in my family, I think I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

How did the crowd respond? They booed.

How did Perez Hilton respond? After the pageant he called Miss Prejean a dumb bitch on his blog and went on to describe her as having half a brain. He also said he would have stormed onto the stage and ripped off her tiara had she won. Nice.

How did Carrie Prejean respond after her answer may have lost her the title and she was named runner-up? She said:

“I have no regrets about answering the question honestly. He asked me for my opinion and I gave it to him. I have nothing against gay people, and I didn’t mean to offend anyone in my answer.”

Now I have no idea whether Miss California’s answer cost her the crown. That’s not my point. What I find ironic is the same people who call Christians intolerant will not themselves tolerate any disagreement with their agenda.

To Perez Hilton, it doesn’t matter if Carrie Prejean has anything against gay people or whether she meant to offend anyone. To him, her position is intolerable.

And who’s trying to force whose beliefs on everyone else?

Hard Hearts

2009-04-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

The controversy over Pope Benedict XVI’s recent comments on the use of condoms in the fight against the spread of AIDS in Africa continues. For those of you who missed it, the pontiff essentially said you can’t resolve the AIDS problem with the distribution of condoms. The answer, he said, is a responsible and moral attitude toward sex including abstinence and monogamy.

The predictable outrage from activists and government officials ensued. French human rights minister Rama Yade said she was "dumbfounded" by the pope's comments. Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called them "the opposite of tolerance and understanding." The Belgian parliament passed a resolution calling them "unacceptable" and demanded Belgium's government officially protest.

What did they expect from the leader of a church that holds the position that sex outside of marriage is wrong?

The whole affair reminds me of Jesus’ teaching about divorce in Matthew 19. The Pharisees came up to Jesus and tested him by asking, “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus responded that marriage was instituted by God and “let no one split apart what God has joined together.” The Pharisees thought they had him where they wanted him. “Aha! Then why did Moses say in the law that a man could give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away?” Now Jesus had them right where he wanted them. He said:

“Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.”

Not what God originally intended. That says it all, doesn’t it?

God originally intended that man and woman would stay together for life in a committed relationship and would not have sex outside that relationship. Once again, mankind has rebelled and gone his own way.

Should condoms be condoned to slow the spread of AIDS? Only as a concession to our hard hearts. It is not what God had originally intended.

Is God a Republican or a Democrat?

2009-03-22T16:06:00.000-07:00

The other day someone asked my youngest daughter what made her parents mad. Her answer?

Politics.

What I hoped to hear was something like – oh, I don’t know – maybe when others dishonor God, or injustice, or sin. But politics? Ouch.

What is it about politics that arouses such passion?

Recently, I’ve picked up Amy E. Black’s book, Beyond Left and Right: Helping Christians Make Sense of American Politics (Baker Books 2008). In it, Dr. Black, a Wheaton College political science professor, suggests four principles to guide Christians developing a framework for thinking about politics.

We all “see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror” (I Corinthians 13:12a; New Living Translation) and therefore should exercise genuine humility when discussing politics.

In other words, I don’t know it all, so I should stop acting like I do.

The diversity of the body of Christ makes room for Christians to disagree on many political matters.

Really? You mean since I don’t know it all, maybe I can learn something from a brother or sister in Christ with whom I disagree politically?

The label “Christian” is for God and His work, not to validate human endeavors like politics.

As much as I may hate to admit it, God is not a Republican or Democrat. He’s not a Liberal or Conservative. He’s not a mascot for one party or the other. When we take our politics and try to hang God’s name on it, we use His name in vain.

Politics can and should be a means for demonstrating love in action and building the body of Christ.

Jesus said, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35; New Living Translation) How will others know we are followers of Christ? Not how we vote. Not what school of economics we adhere to. As the song says, “They’ll know we are Christians by our love.”

The next time someone asks my daughter what makes her parents mad, I hope she’ll be able to give a different answer.

A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep

2009-03-18T18:52:00.000-07:00

In his article, The Coming Evangelical Collapse, Michael Spencer claims evangelical Christianity is on the verge of a major collapse in the western world.

One of the reasons Spencer gives for the coming collapse is the failure of Evangelicals to pass on “an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.”

Regardless of what one may think about Spencer’s prediction, it’s hard not to agree that evangelicalism’s emphasis has shifted “from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.”

So how did Evangelicals get to this point? Spencer argues:

“Ironically, the billions of dollars we’ve spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.”

Have Evangelicals focused so much on telling others how to behave that we’ve neglected sharing with them what we believe and why we believe it? Do we even know what we believe and why we believe it? Are we a mile wide and an inch deep?

While Jesus was here on earth, He didn’t spend much time trying to change the politics of the Roman Empire. He had little to say about the sexual ethics of first century Palestine. Instead, He focused on making disciples. He healed the sick. He spoke out against religious hypocrisy. He taught about the Kingdom. He glorified His Father in heaven.

If Evangelicals desire to be more like Jesus, their focus needs to be more like His focus. As Jesus said, “Students are not greater than their teacher. But the student who is fully trained will become like the teacher.” (Luke 6:40; New Living Translation)

Solid Foundation

2009-03-10T19:05:00.000-07:00

How solid is the foundation on which you’ve built your life?

This question is rarely asked or answered when things are going well. But when the storms of life hit – when everything seems to be collapsing around us – the strength of our foundation could be the difference between surviving the storm or a mighty crash.

Those who’ve built their lives on money and possessions have undoubtedly had their house shaken a bit lately. The stock market is in a free fall with no bottom in sight. Each new round of layoffs adds to an already high unemployment rate. Retirement dreams vanish as 401(k) statements are opened. Many are discovering they owe more on their house than it’s worth.

Did you know that Jesus had a lot to say about the foolishness of building one’s life on money?

While teaching the crowds on the mountainside, Jesus said:

“Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where moths eat them and rust destroys them, and where thieves break in and steal. Store your treasures in heaven, where moths and rust cannot destroy, and thieves do not break in and steal. Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be.” (Matthew 6:19-21; New Living Translation)

So if money makes for a shaky foundation, on what sort of foundation should we build?

In the same mountainside lesson, Jesus taught:

“So don’t worry about these things, saying, ‘What will we eat? What will we drink? What will we wear?’ These things dominate the thoughts of unbelievers, but your heavenly Father already knows all your needs. Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need.” (Matthew 6:31-33; New Living Translation)

If you want to survive the storms life throws at you, make sure your foundation is built on things that are important to God.

This may take some serious remodeling. You may have to make some radical changes in your plans to get it right. But, before you do anything, be sure to consult with the Architect – the one who designed you in the first place. After all, it was He who said:

“Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.” (Matthew 7:24-27; New Living Translation)