The Price of an Immoral Society

Tags

Censorship, Christianity, Culture, Education, God, Government, Gun Control, Humanity, Law, Liberalism, Liberty, Media, Security, Society, Truth

Gun control has been in the news a lot lately.  Partially this is due to recent tragedies, and partially due to the season of political campaigning–gun control being a highly politicized issue.

The politicization of it suggests a certain disingenuous flavor to much of the conversation.  On a roundup of today’s liberal opinions, I observed both the contention that because of the Trump presidency we are on the verge of becoming a fascist totalitarian state, and various calls to disarm the American populace–both of these ideas being promoted from the same side politically.  Surely this is an odd juxtaposition?  When reality imitates parody, how can we take such people seriously?

I would like very much to live in a safer world.  I see the suffering, and the violence that continues to unfold.  But I am concerned that the way all of this is being discussed points not to safety but to slavery.

So Beto O’Rourke said, with damnation-invoking enthusiasm, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”  I don’t have either of those, but I do wonder what might be taken from me a little bit down the line.  Freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, religion, perhaps?

‘Nonsense,’ you say.  ‘Conservative fear-mongering.  Slippery-slope fallacy.  All the liberals want is a reasonable assault-weapons ban, nothing more.  Pinky-swear.’

Maybe; but I doubt it.

For one thing, conservative fear-mongering is a difficult charge to make in light of recent history.  Ten years ago, saying ‘if we legalize gay marriage, Christian bakers and photographers and others will find themselves being prosecuted for not wanting to participate’ would have been called ridiculous fear-mongering.  Five years ago, ‘teachers will be fired for refusing to call boys girls’ would have been called fear-mongering.  Radical social shifts happen awfully fast these days, and the unthinkable can become the standard before you know it.

But back to the point at hand.  If the gun control debate were really just about some background check laws, or banning AR-15s, we could have that conversation.  But I really don’t think it is.  I think the debate we are seeing in America is not about controlling guns but controlling people.

There are two reasons I think this.

The first is simply my observation that the defining feature of the left is centralized control.  You wouldn’t think that, given the fact that we call the political left “liberals” and “Democrats,” but it’s true.  Their center is big government, and a substantial amount of their power comes from big business, big media, etc.  Increasing government control over various areas of life is at the heart of a lot of their policies.  Their radical wing is socialism.  So the left’s position on gun control must be seen in the big picture of their general approach to society.

The second is that, by contrast, the constitutional freedoms of American society have a sort of coherence, and those who attack one are likely to attack others.  I am not fear-mongering, just observing.  In a recent interview, UCLA professor Douglas Kellner underlined this, saying, “I don’t see the Second Amendment as absolute, just like I don’t see the First Amendment as absolute.  In both cases, there need to be qualifications in certain contexts.”  The first amendment, just like the second one, may be subject to “qualifications” for the purpose of addressing gun violence; we should further regulate what people are allowed to say.  Given the rather broad scope of what the left is willing to label as hateful, harmful, or extremism, the implications of this kind of thinking are considerable.

Ultimately, I think that what we’re seeing from the left in the gun control debate is the offer to trade freedom for safety.  An unhappy trade, but I understand why people would be interested in making it.  It should be noted, of course, that when societies give up freedom in pursuit of slavery, they sometimes end up both enslaved and unsafe.  But, however we go forward, we should go forward with open eyes.  Safety, as being dangled before us, has slavery attached down the line.

Yet there is a third option.  I’ve said this before, so I hope I don’t sound like too much of a broken record.  Instead of chaos or control, we could choose Christ.  It is possible to have both a great deal of freedom and a great deal of safety–if you add to the mix a great deal of virtue.  Instead of giving up the right to keep and bear arms–and the right to free speech, and freedom of conscience, and probably a few other things–we could give up paganism.

Give up paganism?  I know, it’s a big ask to a lot of people, but we could do it.  We could put the Bible and prayer back in the schools, and the Ten Commandments in prominent public displays.  We could stop watching movies and TV shows filled with violence and vulgarity and nudity, thus compelling Hollywood to produce edifying entertainment instead.  We could stop listening to musicians whose music, apparel, or conduct are indecent.  We could stop letting the rich rob the poor with cigarettes and slot machines.  We could stop killing babies, and show that we actually value human life.  We could teach children–in the public schools–that life has a transcendent meaning, that God their Creator is holy and loving, and that they, too, should do good and love one another.

With a culture-wide embrace of virtue, grounded in God, we could be able to be both safe and free.

Or we could keep our paganism, and choose between anarchy and slavery.

Immorality comes with a high price tag.

Advertisements

Seeing the Choice

Tags

America, Christianity, Culture War, Humanity, Liberalism, Pluralism, Religious Left, Secularism, Truth

A coalition of liberal Christians has recently put out a statement “Christians Against Christian Nationalism,” supporting a pluralistic society, rather than one distinctly Christian.  ‘Christian Nationalism,’ in their term, “demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian.”  This definition, and other features of the statement, tend to lump together the idea that American society should be Christian at the core with other ideas, as “to be a good American, one must be Christian.”

The statement, of course, raises questions it does not directly answer:

Christianity should not be privileged by the state?  What worldview should the state privilege, then?  For the state will certainly promote a worldview, otherwise it cannot enact and enforce laws.

And again, “Government should not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.”  No?  And if someone wants to revive the practice of human sacrifice engaged in by so many religions throughout history?  We mustn’t reject those religious views?

“Religious instruction is best left to our houses of worship, other religious institutions and families.”  And whose morals and virtues will you teach in the schools?

We must have some kind of a nation.  Why not a Christian one?

Now, when one looks at the greed and corruption, racism and hate, sprawling abortion industry and militant sexual revolution, it is fairly easy to say that we’re not a very Christian nation.  There are a lot of Christians in the nation–and they do a lot of good!–but the character of society is in many ways not very Christian.

But the really important question is not “what is America?” but “what was America meant to be, what should it have been, and what might it be?”  And there the answer is quite obviously “a Christian nation”–in some sense of the term: not as a nation where everyone was or was required to be a Christian, not in the sense that pastors wrote the laws or in the establishment of a state church, but in the sense of a nation founded largely by Christians and shaped through most of its history by Christian morals and principles (the obvious exceptions and hypocrisies notwithstanding).

For what these pro-secularism liberals seem to miss is that a society must have some governing ideology.  Pluralism is never really advocated for that job, except perhaps by thoroughgoing anarchists, because real ideological pluralism would allow any religious and cultural practices a place, and that is obviously not the intention of such secular coalitions.

A limited pluralism is not a foundation-level ideology; something beneath it sets the limits.  The supposed pluralistic ideology being pushed is actually grounded upon something else, some ideology that decides which values and practices are permissible and which aren’t.  That underlying ideology is probably some form of atheism, pantheism, or (most likely) paganism.

So we have to see the choices clearly for the future of our society.  The illusion is that we have a choice between a Christian nation or a pluralist nation; that is not the case.  We have a choice between a Christian nation and a pagan nation.  Either culture will promote an agenda for society, will teach their values in the schools and media, and will enforce their morals in the justice system.

“Christian nationalism” is simply the alternative to pagan nationalism.

Language and Truth

Tags

Abortion, Bias, Deception, Journalism, Media, NPR, Objectivity, Pro-life, Truth

Human language is complicated business, and the way we talk about a subject can deceive or speak truth simply by the labels we use.  When we speak and when we listen, when we write and when we read, we should be attentive to whether language is being used truthfully or deceptively.

Consider this piece of NPR’s journalistic guidanceNPR’s journalistic guidance (HT: Albert Mohler).  I had thought NPR an example for objectivity in journalism; then I started listening to them more.  Having a pervasive and slightly subtle bias is not necessarily better than having an overt one.  In this guidance memo, many things could be addressed, but the most obvious is this exhortation to pro-abortion bias (credited to Joe Neel):

“The term “unborn” implies that there is a baby inside a pregnant woman, not a fetus. Babies are not babies until they are born. They’re fetuses. Incorrectly calling a fetus a “baby” or “the unborn” is part of the strategy used by antiabortion groups to shift language/legality/public opinion.”

Yes, referring to the child in the womb as a baby is part of the pro-life strategy–the strategy of telling the truth.  They are babies; I suspect that most people know that.  Speaking the truth is indeed key, as we see media outlets arrayed against it.  Abortion kills a human baby.  If the lies should be defeated and this truth acknowledged, we may finally see this long horror brought to an end.

The Choice

Tags

Bible, Christianity, Homosexuality, LGBTQ+, Scripture, Truth, United Methodists

Pray for the United Methodists this weekend.  At a special session, held in St. Louis, they will be making a decision that is likely to be critical for the future of their denomination, and for their witness in a lost world.

The issue, of course, is whether to embrace or reject the sexual revolution.  Unless they put the issue off again, they will be choosing either to hold their present biblical position regarding human sexuality, or to revise it some way or another, affirming (in varying degrees) LGBTQ+ identity.  Either result will probably mean the fracturing of their denomination, whether immediately or more slowly.

Religion News, a propaganda machine for liberal “Christianity”, has published a showcase of opinions regarding what some Methodists hope will result from the session.  It is a very slanted piece of reporting (granted, it is labeled an Opinion piece), a collection of voices that are mostly liberal to very liberal, with a couple of very gentle conservative voices included to soften the one-sidedness.  But, as a piece of liberal advocacy, the article does highlight what is at stake for the Methodists in this session.

It begins with a reminder that the denomination has already effectively caved to the sexual revolution, and only by repentance and submission to God will they be able to turn back from the precipice of paganism that looms before them.  They already have an openly lesbian bishop.  Having biblical standards regarding human sexuality on paper isn’t worth much if you ignore them in practice.

The voices that follow show the inroads of secularism and paganism in their denomination’s leadership.

Rev. Adam Hamilton says:

It requires patience, humility and grace to look at people with whom you disagree on an issue or theological point and say, “You are still my brother or sister.” It requires a willingness to say, “I don’t agree with you here, but I value what you bring to the table, and I need you.”

As though gross sexual immorality were a matter of adiaphora or theological minutia!  Hamilton regards willingness to tolerate this sort of thing as a sign of patience, humility, and grace.  The Scriptures regard that sort of tolerance as a spiritual failing, not a virtue (see 1 Cor. 5).

Rev. Alex da Silva Souto speaks in worldly terms of discrimination, framing this (as the culture has so effectively done) in terms stolen from the civil rights movement.  He says:

Which is why I and thousands of other United Methodists support the Simple Plan, which would strike from our Book of Discipline all discriminatory language against LGBTQIA+ people. After decades of systemic harm, the only solution is returning to the first rule of United Methodism: “Do no harm.” The Simple Plan proposes exactly that. We must first stop the spiritual/physical harm against LGBTQIA+ people, and only then can we have a real conversation about “human sexuality.”

Very good.  First, let the pagan culture set the agenda, then engage in theological reflection.  Step 1, surrender, step 2, sit down at the diplomatic table.  What could go wrong?

Rev. Beth Ann Cook begins insightfully.  She recognizes that there is an underlying issue:

Our theological division is not limited to the issue of human sexuality. Sexual ethics are the presenting problem for a deeper theological division in our church.

But her following comment makes clear that she does not grasp what the underlying issue is:

The Commission on a Way Forward spent countless hours looking at every possibility. There is no perfect plan. Passing any of the plans will violate someone’s deeply held convictions in such a way that they will feel unable to remain part of our denomination.

Deeply held convictions are not worth defending simply because they are deeply held convictions.  Atheists have deeply held convictions, but you shouldn’t let them guide your denominational policy.

The underlying issue is whether or not God should be believed and obeyed.  A perfect plan, in this case, is one that says God should be believed and obeyed, and that those whose deeply held convictions disagree with this are welcome the to leave.  The Traditional Plan probably approximates this closely enough.

The Scriptures are not unclear about the issues being debated here.  This is not a matter of difficult biblical interpretation.  Besides the clear condemnations of homosexuality in various biblical passages (e.g., Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Tim. 1:10), the opening chapters of Genesis lay the groundwork for a sound theological anthropology, and attendant doctrine of human sexuality.  God created mankind in His image, male and female (Gen. 1:27).  He made us man and woman, equal in dignity and glory as His image-bearers, immutably different from each other, and sexually complementary (Gen. 2:18-24).

That is, God created humanity in two genders, male and female; both men and women are fully human and equal; men and women are different, not changeable and not interchangeable; sexual intimacy is designed to be enjoyed by a man and woman within the covenant of marriage.

We could go on through the article, but it isn’t necessary.  This is the issue, often buried beneath worldly rhetoric or the laudable goal of unity.  Is God to be believed, trusted, and obeyed?

God’s Word is clear.  The issue for the United Methodists is a question of whether to believe God’s Word and accept its authority; that is a question of whether to believe God and accept His authority.  The alternative is the anthropology and sexual mores of an increasingly pagan culture.  Ultimately, then, the United Methodists are deciding between God and idols, between Christianity and paganism.

I pray they make the right choice.

Revoice and Christian Identity

Tags

Homosexuality, Humanity, Identity

St. Louis is known as the “Gateway to the West.”  The moniker provokes images of adventure and excitement; a gateway takes you somewhere, opens new possibilities.  But we should remember that gateways can open to places you ought not go.  Some thresholds should not be crossed.  Some doors should be barred—especially for the Christian.

A gateway is being ceremoniously opened in St. Louis today, and I fear it is a shameful thing.  I fear it will result in shame at that great and terrible last day.  The gateway I speak of is the Revoice Conference.

The stated summary of Revoice is “Supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.”  It is a troubling capitulation to the categories of this world, and quite possibly a gateway to worse.

Revoice exists in that margin of evangelicals who have not embraced the new sexual revolution wholesale, but who have accepted some of its categories in troubling ways.  The conference is hosted by a PCA church, and expresses adherence to the Christian stance that marriage is between a man and a woman.  There is no endorsement of homosexual sexual activity here.  No doubt the baseline understanding of sex and marriage of Revoice seems woefully benighted to the dominant voices of the Episcopal church or the UCC.

But, in its own way, that makes Revoice all the more likely to create inroads for the acceptance of LGBTQ+ identity in evangelical churches.  We see a group that is holding up biblical standards on sexual activity with one hand and the world’s understanding of sexual identity with the other.  There are other problems with Revoice, no doubt, but that is the one I wish to address.

Here is how the latest phase of the sexual revolution unfolded in America.  Immoral behaviors that had been regarded as obscene for two millennia found sudden acceptance by hijacking the legacy of the civil rights movement.  In the civil rights movement a wonderful victory for liberty had been won, and a great blow was dealt to the evil of racism in our nation.  But activists for the sexual revolution discovered that the same rhetoric could be (mis)applied to human sexual desires.  If a moral question about sexual behavior could be transformed into a question about equal rights for people who are different, resistance would crumble.  Those who disagreed could be lumped together with racists.  So it unfolded.

That is why language must be considered carefully.  Terms and categories come with a whole set of associations, and tend to bypass much of our critical thinking by taking advantage of these associations.  It was of the utmost importance that the issue of homosexual marriage be labeled marriage equality.  It was extremely valuable to talk less about the sexual acts involved, and talk more about love—for who wants to be seen as opposed to love?

Returning our attention to Revoice, we see that the categories of the world have made their inroads, and if accepted are likely to do great spiritual harm to churches and especially to those individuals struggling with same-sex attraction, gender dysphoria, etc.  Two examples will suffice:

The most glaring problem is the use of the term sexual minorities.  Like marriage equality, this creates a false connection with the matter of civil rights.  Sexual attraction is not a category like race, sex, age, etc.  If this linguistic transfer is made and sexual attraction becomes a civil rights category, everything that belongs to it is legitimized both morally and legally.  To run a comparison, it would be like calling thieves property-rights minorities or something of the kind.  No area of sin, nor of temptation, creates a legitimate identity category.

But this term is perhaps accepted by Revoice on the foundation of a more basic set of terms, the ones that appear in their purpose statement: gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians.  This is a fundamental and far-reaching linguistic surrender to the categories of the world.  The Church must not accept it.  What do I mean?  There are Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction, and Christians who struggle with gender dysphoria.  But they should not be described or describe themselves as gay Christians or transgender Christians.

Why not?  Because Christians are to mortify their sinful desires, not fold them into their identity.  The acceptance of these as identity categories invariably suggests that there is something innocent about the inclination as long as you don’t act upon it.  But our sinful inclinations are not innocent.  If I struggle with pride, it is perfectly good to admit that in the appropriate context.  But I should not make arrogance a part of my identity.

For the Christian’s identity is found in Christ.  In Christ we have been given the Spirit and called to mortify the flesh.  We still struggle with sin, but it does not define us.  “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Cor. 5:17)

We no longer belong to this world; we are citizens of the Kingdom of God.  We are “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

That means we live by kingdom ethics: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.  Because of these, the wrath of God is coming” (Col. 3:5-6).

It means we find our identity in Christ.  “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.  The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).

Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria have a hard road to walk.  They are already fighting battles most of their brothers and sisters do not have to face.  They are already fighting against a world trying to tempt them to embrace those desires and to declare good what God has declared evil.  They already have churches that wave the rainbow flag, tempting them to turn from the way of the cross and to live out of the flesh.  It is no kindness to suggest they make the sinful desires they struggle against into fundamental aspects of their identity.  That’s one of the gateways the world offers; the Church shouldn’t be opening it for them.

Tokyo Rose

Tags

Abortion, Culture War, Religious Left, Truth

Religion News Service recently heralded a “Call to pause: Evangelical women hit pause on the culture war,” referring to this document, and followed shortly by “Call to pause: Evangelical men join evangelical women in the call to hit pause on culture war.”

The whole thing is an instructive example of duplicity, as it is a culture war offensive disguised as a ceasefire.  The white flag waves above, the troops advance below.  Strategically speaking, it is clever; after all, it was Sun Tzu who said “All warfare is based on deception” (The Art of War, trans. Lionel Giles).  Morally speaking, it is detestable; after all, it was God who said “Do not lie.  Do not deceive one another” (Lev. 19:11, NIV).

But how do I justify calling these documents duplicitous?  Consider first the source.  This is, ostensibly, a call from within evangelicalism to back off on the culture wars.  But the call is being promoted by RNS, which (in my opinion) may be fairly called a propaganda machine for the religious left.  The call was initiated by Lisa Sharon Harper, formerly in leadership at Sojourners, an organization whose central identity has been liberal advocacy while claiming to be bipartisan (‘God is not a REPUBLICAN…or a democrat’).  The nuanced, centrist evangelical credentials of this statement are suspect from the beginning.

Who are the “rising chorus of leading Evangelical women” and “strong core of leading Evangelical men” endorsing this document?  An evangelical may be forgiven for not recognizing most of the names.  But some of the most recognizable (to me, granted) are suggestive:

• Jen Hatmaker. Popular among evangelicals until she began voicing support for the new sexual revolution, claiming that same-sex relationships can be holy.
• Rachel Held Evans. Influential writer and progressive advocate who hung out for a long time on the evangelical left before finally joining the Episcopal Church.
• Several voices from Sojourners. Prominent among concerns about this organization may be mentioned their opposition to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement (i.e., the heart of the gospel).  See here and here.
• Shane Claiborne. Activist who has done a lot of good, but not a man of good judgment; he recently endorsed Richard Rohr’s heretical book on the Trinity.    Interested readers may see Fred Sanders’ brilliant critique here.

In other words, this is a statement from the far left of those who identify as evangelicals, and includes voices far enough to the left that they militate against Christian orthodoxy.

But what about the content of the statement?  To be brief, it calls for 1) A pause to the culture war, 2) Fasting and challenging the culture war mindset, 3) Listening to people of color, 4) Action based on this prayer and reconsideration.  There is much to be commended in this.  It is good to pause and reflect.  It is good to fast and pray, and to repent of attitudes that see others as enemies rather than as people who God loves.  It is good to listen to minorities, whose perspectives have often been ignored.  It is good to act on prayer and careful thought.  All very good.

How then can I call it duplicitous?  Because the first bullet point is not a call to pause at all.  It is a call to “pause” by rejecting the appointment of a conservative supreme court justice to fill the vacancy left by Justice Kennedy and instead “calling our Senators to demand they replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy with a moderate independent Justice.”  We ‘pause’ from the culture wars by ensuring that abortion legislation remains at status quo.  The ‘pause’ is a demand for action of a ‘moderate’ kind—and ‘moderate’, in this sense, means effectively pro-Roe v. Wade.

So who is being called to ‘pause’ their efforts here?  The religious left?  The endorsers of this document and those who agree with them theologically and politically?  No.  They are not pausing, and this document itself constitutes an advance of their agenda.  It is those who disagree with them who are being asked to pause.  The culture war will most definitely continue, but will the conservatives kindly stop defending their position?

If there is a culture war—and the religious left certainly is waging one—then there is another term for a unilateral ‘pause’ from the other side.  It is called surrender.  That is the hardly disguised subtext of this document.  On the surface we see a call to prayerful reflection, and this is indeed a very good idea.  But the voice urging this call is Tokyo Rose.