Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Faith & Practice, Life issues, tagged advocacy, Facebook, protection, sin, warning on October 31, 2011| 3 Comments »
One day, a woman posted an open question on Facebook. “My boyfriend wants to move in with me. Should I let him?”
Now, because he had been included as one of her Facebook friends, the woman’s pastor responded. “No! Don’t do it!”
“Well!” the offended woman later blurted to a fellow member of her congregation, “maybe I’ll just transfer my membership to a church where they’ll leave me alone!”
Comments, anyone?
Posted in Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Sexy or holy?, tagged Reformation, sex education, the church, worldviews on October 31, 2011| 2 Comments »
Yesterday was Reformation Day. It is the Sunday that Lutherans worldwide reflect not so much on a man, but on the request made by that man of his church.
Martin Luther saw some abuses in the church. Worldy ideas and opinions had crept into the church and affected both teaching and practice. Luther was greatly concerned by what he saw. As one called to speak truth and lead away from danger, Luther warned the people not to put too much trust in one particular practice. Those in authority over Luther were angered by his boldness. He was told to stop speaking. To mind his manners and know his place. But, Luther grieved for the people who were affected by the abuses of wrong teaching and practice.
Luther’s conscience found no peace in silence. So, he brought his concerns to the attention of the church by inviting his fellow professors to a debate. His thoughts were carefully composed into 95 Theses (or ideas), printed and, with a few blows of a hammer, nailed for all to see on the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church. There was nothing unusual in this action. It was the customary way to announce a debate. Luther was now public with his criticisms of Rome and concerns for the people.
Rome heard the blows of Luther’s hammer. “We are the church! Who is this man?” spoke the pride of authority.
“Behold! This is a work of Satan to stir up division within the church!” spoke well-meaning but frightened leaders.
“This is an attack! An apology must be written, or else!” spoke angry voices in well-established positions.
But, what did Luther request? And why did his request anger certain people in the church? Anyone reading Luther’s written concerns today would recognize that he was a loyal son of the church. He spoke and wrote with respect for the church, but also caring concern for those under the influence of the church. Luther was not guilty of questioning the Word of God, but of questioning the church’s interpretation and application of that Word. A practice, indeed, built on human and flawed assumptions.
Luther was heard and understood by many of his peers. After all, he was not the first to speak up. Others had recognized certain church practices to be more faithful to human opinion than the Word of God. Pointing out errors in scholastic theology had already cost some believers their lives. Luther, who by the mercy of Christ had experienced his own reformation, was motivated to ask important questions of the church. His concerns were faithful to The Good Shepherd and sensitive to the sheep. But, Luther’s public posting drew fire. It caused some to move into a defensive posture. Ears were ringing from the hammer blows on the church door.
Some ears are ringing today from the blow of another hammer on a church door. For a long time, some parents have seen certain abuses in the church. They have been “speaking up” with valid concerns about the teaching and practice of sex education. Sex education is a concern for Christians in particular because it is founded on human and flawed assumptions. Alfred Kinsey, often called the “father of modern sex education,” did not seek Wisdom (Jesus Christ); therefore, his perspectives on male, female, modesty, patience, purity, marriage, children, and society are directly opposed to the Creator and Redeemer of life.
So, when a concerned Christian parent does not see that the church’s teaching and practice of sex education is distinctively different from the world’s, she feels compelled to speak. She writes a kind of request, asking that the church wake up. Listen. Think. Dialogue on the issue. When he posted the 95 Theses, Luther did not attack the pope. Neither does a discerning and concerned parent attack a particular person. Instead, she relies on the fact that she has a duty to request that pastors and all church leaders be faithful to The Word and consider the source of every teaching and practice.
With the best of intentions, the church may want to equip parents to better teach their children about male and female, relationships and love, marriage and procreation. Unfortunately, a weakness of sinful Christians is to believe we can sort through worldly models and make proper use of the “good stuff” in our teaching. There is wisdom in a lesson from history. The Israelites, returning from captivity to rebuild Jerusalem, were overwhelmed by the responsibility given to them. They were tempted to accept the help of unbelieving neighbors in the land. But, God warned them not to accept such help. To do so would be to compromise faith and practice.
Luther posted 95 Theses in a public place because faithfulness to the Word — Jesus Christ — would not allow him to be silent. His compassion for people would not let him be silent. Once he saw abuses and the consequences that followed, he could not un-see. It was long past time to dialogue. To correct error. Even though he was told not to do anything that might disturb the church, Luther would not — could not — recant.
A Christian parent posts a thought in a public place because faithfulness to the Word — Jesus Christ — will not allow her to be silent. Her compassion for people, especially children, will not let her be silent. Once she sees abuses and the consequences that follow, she cannot un-see. It is long past time to dialogue. To correct error. Even though she is told that her concern is inappropriate and might disturb the church, this parent will not — cannot — recant.
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Sexy or holy?, tagged civilization, creation, family, future of hope, modesty, purity, selflessness, womanhood on October 28, 2011| Leave a Comment »
Tonight, as I prepare for a Titus 2 Retreat, I read from my grandmother’s book, What A Young Woman Ought to Know. The book, by Mary Wood-Allen, M.D., is but one in her Purity and Truth series authored in 1898. If anyone wants to say to me: Hmm. That’s quite dated, isn’t it? I will respond: Truth is never dated.
Dr. Wood-Allen writes:
We seldom think of the fact that upon sex depend all the sweet ties of home and family. It is because of sex that we are fathers, mothers, and children; that we have the dear family life, with its anniversaries of weddings and birthdays. It is through sex that the ‘desolate of the earth are set in families,’ and love and generosity have sway instead of selfishness. For this reason we ought to regard sex with reverent thought, to hold it sacred to the highest purposes, to speak of it ever with purest delicacy, and never with jesting . . . .”
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Sexy or holy?, tagged accountability, boundaries, cover-up of sin, Jesus Christ, modesty, purity, sex education, the church, wisdom, worldview, wrong choices on October 19, 2011| 6 Comments »
I’m still wondering: Why did publication of the article, “Child Abuse” (an original post of ezerwoman), bring an angry response from a Christian author on “sexuality?” Might this response be similar to the response of a woman angered by her pastor’s pro-life sermon? Pro-life pastors have learned by experience that when they speak God’s Word on abortion, it’s not unusual for a woman to respond in anger because she is either in denial over a past abortion or maintaining a defensive posture.
For many years, I’ve been made aware of certain choices, behaviors, defensive reactions (i.e. “abortion is the lesser of two evils”), and cover-ups within my own church. Indeed, we are “saints and sinners,” but can we encourage the “saint” without calling to accountability the “sinner”?
Silence is not a virtue, not when virtue itself is being mocked. Disrobed. Stolen away.
Why would concerns about protecting virtue and modesty cause anger? Why would someone take offense when others caution against breaking down naturally protective inhibitions, or putting children in harm’s way with too much information too soon (and then expecting them to “wait”), or raising curiosity about all kinds of “sex,” or borrowing tools and techniques from non-Biblical models, or choosing the word “sex” to describe the subject matter rather than “purity”? To bring clarity, I’ve been digging out old phone logs, journals, scribbled notes, research papers, and stories from pastors, teachers, parents, and students I’ve met along the journey. We are in a marriage-breaking, family-fracturing, child-hurting, soul-risking mess. I wish I could word it better, but simply put: I’ve seen too much on my “watch.” And… there is a shameful lack of accountability.
Bearing that in mind, I’m further determined to hold myself accountable. First to my Savior and, next, to those who put their trust in Him rather than human opinion. Dealing with sensitive and difficult issues, even finding myself in conflict with well-meaning Christians, requires the good counsel of wisdom. I make a practice of running my thoughts by my husband because I need his logic and practical sense. He has a “three day rule.” Give major decisions or responses three days. Write the letter. Make the phone call. Speak up… but, when possible, only after three days. In addition to my husband, I seek the counsel of a core group of pastors I’ve come to trust over the years. I seek the counsel of wise women who properly understand the role of “ezer.” By surrounding myself with a group of people who have also seen Christians build on the wrong foundation when it comes to “sexuality” — and then witnessed the consequences and mourned with hurting people — I hope to be faithfully encouraged to the highest standard. The standard of God’s Word. The Word that exhorts us to “speak up” when wrong things are happening and human lives are at risk.
Silence is not a virtue. That’s what a woman told me following a Titus 2 Retreat. She explained years of childhood sexual abuse that led to promiscuity, abortion, and despair. She wanted the cover-up to stop.
Silence is not a virtue. That’s what several men and women told me when thirty years of sexual abuse of children by their Christian school principal came to light. They wanted the cover-up to stop.
Silence is not a virtue. That’s what a young woman told me after being encouraged by Christian parents to date older, more “experienced” men. When she became pregnant by an “experienced” man, money was handed over for an abortion so that the daughter “wouldn’t have her life ruined.” She wanted the cover-up to stop.
Silence is not a virtue. That’s what a Christian youth director told me after marrying his Christian sweetheart. But, because both had learned about sex early and encouraged to be open about their “sexuality,” each had bonded to several others before the youth director and his sweetheart married. The marriage was troubled for a long, long time. He wanted the cover-up to stop.
Silence is not a virtue. That’s what an older woman told me who admitted that, for years, she was taught to be comfortable with her body, her “sexuality.” In boy/girl classrooms, inhibitions were stripped away. Seeing herself as a “sexual” person, she played the “game.” When she captured a man’s attention and certain expectations followed, she grieved her loss of innocence. She wanted the cover-up to stop.
Silence is not a virtue. In a few short years and close proximity, four pastors within my Christian denomination apparently saw themselves as “sexual persons” with a “need” to act out their “sexuality” rather than as human persons created by God to live as men under Christ’s robe of righteousness. One openly embraced his homosexuality, left my church body, and became an Episcopalian priest. Another was charged and arrested for “lascivious acts with a minor and third degree sexual abuse.” Two more were caught in a prostitution sting, one of them the former pastor of my home congregation. Is the response to this: “Forgive me! Love me! Let’s go on with life”? Or, do we want the cover-up to stop?
Christians may think they are different from the world when Jesus is wrapped around everything we say and do. But — you’ve heard me say it many times — Jesus does not wrap Himself around worldly things. Christians may believe they are helping others toward a brighter future. But, if they’re using styles and techniques learned from any source other than God’s Word, then the outcome will have undesirable consequences. God brought to Adam and Eve new emotions of embarrassment and shame with their nakedness and sin. He covered that embarrassment with clothing and that shame with Jesus’ robe of righteousness. We must honor that covering, even when a modern sex educator insists: “No need for modesty! Don’t be embarrassed! Be comfortable in your glory!”
When we see bad things happening and people being confused, hurt or — most tragic of all — tempted away from the Father God, we cannot be silent.
Silence is not a virtue when virtue is being stolen away.
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Parenting & Education, Sexy or holy?, tagged children at risk, Christianity, church, classroom, God's Word, holy, modesty, sensuality, sexual behavior on October 17, 2011| 2 Comments »
The question was asked, “What is the difference between ‘modern sex education’ and ‘comprehensive sex education?'” The answer: Both are education in sex. Education in sex is quite different from God’s Word to instruct in purity and guard modesty. So, perhaps, when we know a particular class is called “sex education” or “sexuality for boys and girls,” or a set of books is labeled “a sex education series,” or even “Christian Sex Education,” we ought to ask: What are the desired outcomes?
One of the desired outcomes of modern sex education is to help boys and girls become more comfortable with their bodies. With their “sexuality.” A well-known Christian author/teacher in the field of sex education once confronted me. He said: I understand that you’re displeased with our church’s sex education. In that particular time and place, I could only respond quickly with my concern about modesty. “Yes, I am concerned. Couldn’t we, at the very least, teach boys and girls separately so as not to break down their natural inhibitions and destroy protective boundaries? Doesn’t God desire that we protect the innocence of children?” His response? He said he was pleased that his son, at age ten, knew more about sex than he did at that age. I wondered aloud: “Is that a good thing?”
Modern sex education has, indeed, achieved a desired outcome. Everywhere I look, I see young women who are comfortable with their bodies. Their “sexuality.” They are comfortably exposed at the Lord’s Table much to the discomfort of pastors offering the sacrament. They are comfortably exposed at the mall, on the beach or at the pool, on dates, playing sports, at church youth events, or in Bible study.
Girls are, indeed, comfortable with their “sexuality.” Christian girls shop at Victoria’s Secret or Abercrombie & Fitch just like non-Christian girls. They purchase sensual dresses for prom or other social events, often to the delight of moms who gush pride in their “sexy” daughters. Girls are not embarrassed by sexually-suggestive remarks. They speak, text, and post sensual messages. They are so “comfortable” with their bodies — their “sexuality” — that very little is left to the male imagination.
It’s difficult to mentor, guard, or practice modesty when sex education’s goal is to make classrooms of boys and girls together more comfortable with themselves. When God speaks of modesty, isn’t He calling us to be “holy” as opposed to “sexy”? Isn’t He calling us to dress and act in ways that call attention not to our glory, but His? And, as with all things godly, isn’t there a reason for this?
Those who promote Christianized-sex education insist that their emphasis is on chastity. They claim this is a far cry from secular instruction on how to use a condom or where to go for an abortion. But, the innocence of children is stolen away by even the most passionate Christian who wants to come out of the Victorian closet of prudish inhibition. There are many well-meaning Christians who, with the sincere hope of preventing sexually-transmitted diseases and unwed pregnancy, support some form of sex education. But, Douglas Gresham, the step-son of C.S. Lewis explained to me that he views “modern sex education as child abuse because it is ill-planned and poorly thought out, thus adding to the very problem it is trying to address and eroding the structure of a healthy family.”
What does he mean? Perhaps this. So-called “sex education” before Alfred Kinsey was generally a discussion of human biology and procreation, hygiene, and marriage. It was a discussion to be had in the home with the parent in the role of teacher. Who would better guard the virtue of children? Who would better explain “sex” (defined by a pre-sexual revolution dictionary as ones “maleness” or “femaleness”)? Who would better assist a son or daughter in being patient until marriage and, thus, help build a structure for a healthy family? But, after Alfred Kinsey, this life-shaping responsibility was transferred to school teachers and so-called “experts.” Prior to the release of Kinsey’s research, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, no child development experts suggested that children were sexual from birth or that they benefited from childhood sexual activity (or, I’d like to add, from childhood sexual discussions between boys and girls in classrooms). (Note: For documentation on this and more, I recommend you read Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith A. Reisman, 2000)
In 1986 Planned Parenthood (PP) commissioned a poll to determine how “comprehensive” sex education affected behavior. “Comprehensive” means placing emphasis on the practice of “safe sex.” Much to the PP’s dismay, the study showed that children exposed to such a program had a 47% higher rate of sexual activity than those who’d had no sex education at all. (Planned Parenthood Poll, “American Teens Speak: Sex, Myths, TV and Birth Control.” Lou Harris and Associates, December 1986, p. 59, table 6-1.)
So, I wonder:
I’m thinking that it just might not be a good thing — no, not a good thing at all — if my nine-year-old grandson knows more about sex than I did at his age.
Posted in Faith & Practice, tagged forgiveness, Great Physician, Lord's Supper, mercy, resistance, Savior from sin, stubborn attitude on October 14, 2011| 5 Comments »
My pastor believes there is ultimately only one thing he can do for the souls entrusted to his care. He can be faithful to preach the Word and offer the Sacraments.
Nothing — not one thing — will do more for me or any other member of my church family. Nothing but the Wisdom of the Word, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the Body and Blood of the Savior Jesus Christ will carry us on this earthly journey to our heavenly home.
But, when my pastor started offering the Lord’s Supper not just twice a month, but every Sunday, the complaining began. Stubbornness set in. Attendance dropped. Those who guard the finances began to worry. My pastor didn’t suggest the change because he’s enamored by the power of authority, but because he’s under authority. He opened God’s Book. In adult class and a series of sermons, he spoke God’s Word of instruction. He explained the illness of sin and the Source of forgivness, healing, and strength. Then, with faith in the Great Physician, my pastor stopped the practice of withholding medicine — saving it only for this Sunday or that — and started offering it every Sunday. There, at the Lord’s Table, I am reminded that I’m forgiven and do not have to carry the burden of my sin baggage. I am strengthened for the week’s battle against satan, the world, and my own sinful self. I am filled for a week of worshiping God by serving others.
So, here is my pastor faithfully preparing the Lord’s Table every Sunday for us. For a sick, burdened, and weary flock. With arms open, he speaks The Word: Come! Here is Christ… “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” But, some in the flock have chosen to voice their dislike of weekly communion by refusing to attend church as regularly as they were. In fact, there are whispers: Maybe if pastor sees the attendance dropping and money not coming in to meet our budget, he will stop this practice.
Do these people hear what they’re saying? “Stop, pastor! Stop offering us so much Christ! Stop, or else… .”
Could it be? Are some people really saying: We want more blessings! We want more members to join! We want more money for our storehouses! We want success! We want a place in the community! We want more stuff! But, we don’t want more Christ.
“Give us music, Pastor.” “Give us joy, Pastor.” “Give us opportunity to praise God, Pastor.”
But, Christ. The Word in human flesh here for us. Forgiveness for us. Abundant life for us…
Just not so much.
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Faith & Practice, Parenting & Education, Sexy or holy?, tagged chastity, forgiveness, hope, household of faith, innocence, Kinsey, purity, sex education, temptation, the church on October 11, 2011| 2 Comments »
An editor asked to reprint one of my blogs in a national publication. The article, “Child Abuse” (7-29-11), suggested that we ought to examine the source of sex education. It prompted notes of appreciation… but also a call of anger to the publisher from a person of authority in the church. He felt as if he’d been “attacked.” “Labeled.” Why?
Some think the Old Testament is, well, “old.” But, I’ll tell you what. At times like this, I find lessons taught by historic events refreshingly helpful and hopeful. At this moment, with division caused among God’s people over sex education versus instruction in purity, I turn to Ezra 4:1-6.
The people of Israel had just been set free from captivity in Persia (formerly Babylon) so that they might return to Jerusalem. Few Israelites, however, wanted to return to their homeland. A great many had adapted to their new surroundings. They had property and liked their new lifestyle. Going back (as in “backward”?) was not appealing. Very few packed their bags and returned to rebuild a crumbled and decaying Jerusalem. Reality hit hard. The job of rebuilding the temple to the Lord was going to be difficult. How tempting it probably was to accept the help offered by unbelieving neighbors in the land. Were the neighbors being kind, or did they have an agenda of their own? Whatever the case, fathers of the Israelite houses said, “No.” To maintain pure worship, the Israelites rejected the offer of help from the people of the land who lived a life of blended and false religious beliefs. To accept would have placed households at risk of being deceived away from Jehovah God. To accept help from nonbelievers — to use their tools or building materials — could not be tolerated. The task before the few and faithful Israelites was daunting, in fact, reminiscent of Noah building the Lord’s ark in the midst of his more “progressive” neighbors. But, then — as today — clear boundaries in doctrine and practice are necessary because a corrupt gospel is no Gospel at all (Galatians 1:8).
The Christian finds him or herself facing a similar challenge today. God’s Word tells His people to instruct sons and daughters in purity. But, the people in the land where we Christians live practice the impurity of blended religions. These neighbors offer their assistance — tools and building materials (with an agenda of their own?) — to us . But, what will happen if we Christians accept that offer of help? Will there be compromise? Clear boundaries in doctrine and practice are necessary because a corrupt teaching of purity is no teaching of purity at all.
Here is my prayer. May the eyes of Christian parents, pastors, teachers or students be open to the deception of blended religious beliefs. May we refuse the assistance of people in the land who have turned from the Creator of life, marriage and family to follow false gods. May we, with humility, examine our building materials and if found impure, disgard them as trash. If we have been influenced by the “father of modern sex education,” Alfred Kinsey, may we turn from the lie. Yes, Kinsey attended a church. But, he practiced the religion of Darwin. He built on his own theory that “children are sexual from birth.” He coined the term “sexuality” and worshiped in its temple. False gods always demand sacrifice. Today, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and GLSEN build on the religion of my personal “sexuality.” The sacrifice is the innocence of children; the very lives of children through abortion.
If we have put our trust in ways of the world rather than in the purity of God’s Word, may we let go of pride and hurry to the Cross. If we have innocently accepted help from unbelieving people of the land, may we repent and be drenched in Christ’s mercy. The pure Gospel is this: Jesus is our Robe of Righteousness. Even if we have been deceived and unintentionally brought harm to others, we have hope. In our Savior Jesus Christ, there is always hope.
Only one voice hisses: There is no hope. But, that lie of Satan has no authority over us. Because of what Jesus has done for us — in spite of us, we have dominion over the father of lies. Of false religions. Of hopelessness.
Dear Lord,
You are the Builder of all that is good, right and true. Give us courage to examine the source of our tools and, when we’ve trusted our judgment rather than Yours, accept our humble confession. Forgive us. Lead us away from the temptation to wrap Jesus around false teaching… false hope. Equip us to set the gate of innocence back in place and guard the household of faith. AMEN.
Posted in Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, tagged ethics, lifestyle, moral choices, princples, right and wrong on October 5, 2011| 1 Comment »
It happened several times while I was on my recent road trip. A decision needed to be made. Take the interstate and make time, or meander the backcountry road and enjoy the scenery. Stop two hours earlier and “wind down,” or press on to a further destination. Stay with a friend or relative another night, or reserve a motel room and get some work done on the laptop. Relying on my feelings left me hanging in mid-air. One minute, I felt like exploring the aspen groves and kicking my shoes off by a mountain stream. But, maybe less than an hour later, I felt like I just wanted to be home.
My feelings changed with my moods. Refreshed and starting a new day with beauty all around me, I felt adventuresome. Undaunted. But, as the sun lost its brilliance and slipped beneath the horizon, I felt like settling some place safe and making my “nest.” Plans for the day made, I felt like engaging. Plans changed or unsure, I felt like disengaging.
Feelings are fickle. They cannot be trusted.
Yet, for a long, long time, I’ve been watching a younger generation make life-altering decisions based wholly on feelings. The sixteen-year-old knocks at the door of our caring pregnancy center. “He told me he loved me. Do you think I’m pregnant?” The phone rings late at night. “I felt like moving in with him would secure our relationship, but tonight when I shared my concerns with him, he kicked me out. Will you come get me?” Years of separation from God haunt the woman. “In that moment of despair, I felt like an abortion would make things right again. But, I never again felt good about myself. Can God ever forgive me?” The young man’s shoulders slump under the orange prison garb. “Pride pumped my ego. Boundaries were for lesser men. I felt in control, exhilarated by the risk, and confident in the adulation of others… until they slapped on the cuffs. Now, my family is paying the price.”
What kind of people do we become and what kind of culture do we build when we are ignorant of “right” and “wrong?” When we are “self”-guided by feelings?
Some time ago, a sociologist from Notre Dame interviewed 230 young people across the U.S. The sociologist, Christian Smith, asked questions pertaining to morality. Smith summarized in his book, Lost in Transition, that the results were “disheartening.” It isn’t that the behavior of young people today is better or worse than my generation. The problem is a lack of moral reasoning. When asked about the “moral dilemmas and the meaning of life,” the young people offered Smith “rambling” replies which testified that “they just don’t have the categories or vocabulary” to even engage in moral reflection. “I don’t really deal with right and wrong that often,” said one young person. For these 18-23-year-olds, right and wrong is judged by how a particular action made them feel. As one put it, “I have no other way of knowing what to do but how I internally feel.”
But, asks Chuck Colson, what happens when doing the right thing requires ignoring how you “feel” and, instead, determining actions by an external standard? In what ways are parents — with the support of the Church — helping the younger generation to think rather than just feel? There are those who predict that these young people will grow more reflective with age. But, reflection requires that we have principles and ideals on which to base our reflections. Young people who are bombarded by messages from the world, deceived by Satan, and influenced by their own fickle feelings and changing opinions will be ill-equipped for ethical decision-making. Marriage. Parenting. Being a good neighbor.
So, what can we do? There is a practical tool for congregations to use with parents, college students, teachers, and a concerned community. It’s a DVD series titled Doing the Right Thing featuring a panel of morally academic “thinkers” interacting with an assembly of students. Panelists include Chuck Colson, Dr. Robert George of Princeton University, and other astute and principled men. The series is moderated by Brit Hume. Our son, Jon, purchased the series and our family has viewed it. We highly recommend it and hope to make use of it in our own congregation and community. Why don’t you, too? Doing the Right Thing is available from The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.
Fickle feelings can’t be trusted. But, doing the right thing — based on a standard outside of ourselves — can.
Posted in Faith & Practice, Identity, tagged Babylonian king, care & concern, humanism, Jesus Christ, new age, peace, progressivism, worldview on October 1, 2011| Leave a Comment »
Most of us have followed a car bearing the bumper sticker: Coexist. Symbols of different religions make up each letter of the word. Sounds good. In order to “give peace a chance,” shouldn’t we all “coexist?” But, what does this mean?
Not everyone in my circle of family, friends or neighbors believes exactly as I do. Therefore, I “coexist” with people of many perspectives on life and of many faiths by treating them as the human beings God made them to be. They are worthy, because of what Jesus Christ has done for us all, of my kindness. Respect. Civility. Care. Concern. Help.
Does the bumper sticker “coexist” suggest something more? If so, other questions follow. Can the religion of humanism or atheism coexist with the Biblical worldview of Creation, The Fall, and Redemption? Can the way of Mohammed, Buddha, or Gaia coexist with the God who calls Himself “I Am;” who spoke to Job, asking: “Were you there . . . Have you commanded . . . Do you know how . . . ?” Can Jesus Christ coexist with the religion of “save yourself?”
At every Titus 2 Retreat, I share the passage from Ezra 4:3. It is a powerful message for Christians living in this “progressive” age. The Israelites had been captive in Babylon for a long, long time. When the Babylonian king told the Israelites they could return to their homeland, very few of God’s people chose to do so. They had coexisted with the Babylonian religions and practices for so long that they didn’t want to return to their “old ways.” A relatively small number of Israelites returned to re-build the decayed city of Jerusalem.
With such few workers, the re-building of Jerusalem was difficult. Watching the process, some non-believing neighbors in the land offered their assistance. (Did they have an agenda of their own?) But, God cautioned His people not to accept the help of unbelievers. Why? 1) The job of rebuilding Jerusalem was given exclusively to God’s people, 2) accepting help from non-believers would obligate God’s people to pagan ways, and 3) the potential for corruption in worship was too great if God’s people aligned themselves with non-believers.
Can people who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ coexist with those who do not? As kind and civil human beings who see each of their neighbors as creations of God: Yes. But, as believers in the One True God who reveals Himself in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: No. We cannot “coexist” if the definition is “blend,” “bend,” or “bow to other gods.” The Biblical worldview of male and female, children and family, education, human care, law, government, and even economics contrasts all others.
What partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial . . . What agreement has the temple of God with idols (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)?”
In the end, it comes down to our answer to the question asked by Jesus:
Who do people say that the Son of Man is (Matthew 16:13)?”
Ezerwoman's Blog 