Viewing the World through God's Word

Category: The World (Page 6 of 10)

The Still-Singing Bird

O PreacherRecently I’ve read books about the persecuted church.  The suffering God calls his children to endure stuns me. For example, one man in an Eastern European country said, “We expect to be persecuted the same as we expect the sun to rise in the east every morning.”

While it’s critical we be informed of such hostility against Christians, it’s as important to be informed of God’s unstoppable saving work.  The latest blog from Ravi Zacharias balances our view–and should move us to prayerful repentance over the devillish lies America is exporting.

The Bird Still Sings: Why Christianity Cannot Be Silenced

Posted by Ravi Zacharias on August 7, 2015

In America now it seems fashionable to mock evangelicalism and try to silence the gospel message. But Jesus is growing His Church across the globe, and historic movements are taking place from China and Korea to the Middle East.

Years ago I read a powerful essay by my favorite essayist, F.W. Boreham, called “The Candle and The Bird.” With his brilliant sweep of knowledge of God’s working in history, Boreham traces how revivals have spread from continent to continent, how when the brilliant flame of God’s moving in the hearts of people seemed to be dying out in one place there would be a fresh spark igniting a God-breathed revival elsewhere.

From Germany through Zinzendorf to England through Wesley and Whitfield to Wales and Scotland, and then to the Evangelical Awakening in America, it is fascinating to see how God has done His work through times and seasons and locations. Boreham distinguishes between extinguishing a candle and chasing away a bird: when you extinguish a candle, the light goes out; when you chase away a bird, it sings its song from another bough. Hence, his title “The Candle and The Bird”—a beautiful metaphor.

RZIM_the_bird_still_sings_ravi_zacharias_blog_apologetics_online_web

In America now it is fashionable to mock the bird of evangelicalism and try to silence it. But the song is being sung on other boughs and historic movements are taking place. In China, Korea, and the Middle East, places where once the gospel’s saving message seemed to be extinguished, churches are packed with hungry hearts, the youth listening to the gospel message with rapt attention. In countries where there was once hostility, crowds fill the auditoriums. In Romania, where to believe in God was once to put one’s life at risk, ten thousand filled the auditorium in which I spoke. From senators and other political leaders there we heard of the dark days of the past and of the shining hope of the future. We prayed in chambers once inhabited by a tyrant and were told this was probably the first time a prayer had been publicly uttered. They have witnessed what Christ-less lives can birth, shattering their countries and their hopes. They can now see that the only possible hope for transforming a heart is Jesus Christ.

But mistakes were made across history and we still have not learned. When the gospel was first taken into places like India and China in the 18th and 19th centuries, it often came on the wings of western political expansionism and the so-called “gunboat diplomacy.” That incongruous combination spelt disaster for both groups. Political imperialism soon lost out, and with it went the missionary effort, seen as being in cahoots with political demagoguery. In a staggering change, now the agents of demagoguery are carrying a different message, basically, “We in America have evicted Christian values and beliefs. We have replaced them with naturalistic assumptions. Mores and the sacred are things of the past. We have silenced those voices … and so must you; if you don’t, you will forfeit all the monetary support we would otherwise give you.” Yes, that is what is happening, and rather than being an influence for good in the world, America is becoming a purveyor of ungodliness.

What those with this monetary “gun-to-the-head” attitude don’t realize is that other countries have seen through this hollowness, and what was once a respected nation is now viewed as a valueless paper machine sinking because it has lost its faith and values. They know it. They say it. They remind us of the emptiness of freedom without responsibility. We are too blind to admit that our gradual collapse has come walking in lockstep with our irreligious handmaiden, toward our disintegration. Jesus cautioned us about such scandalous blindness.

But there is good news. The very nations that evicted “gunboat” missions are now receiving the message of Jesus without the gunboat. Those giving heed to the gunboat of naturalism will accept the gunboat’s benefits but reject the naturalism it insists on because they have already been there and know why they were sinking and in need of assistance. I have had sheiks and mullahs tell me, “Please don’t stop coming; we need you here. We need Christians here.” Those were the very words to me a few years ago from the now assassinated Chief of Intelligence in Syria. He knew the healing balm of Jesus Christ was needed and as we left him, the church leader with me expressed his amazement at hearing such an admission. It just could not be made in public.

The church in China is the fastest growing church in the world. One professor in China told a Christian colleague, a friend of mine, “Stop criticizing Marxism…. It left the souls of the people empty, which is why they are listening to you now.” I can just hear a generation from now someone telling the next generation of preachers in America, “Stop criticizing naturalism. It has left the souls of people empty, which is why they are listening to you now.”

Ironically, in a powerful piece published some years ago in his very popular column in England, self-proclaimed atheist Matthew Parris said that after he had revisited Malawi where he had grown up, he was convinced against his ideological commitment to atheism that what Africa needs is not more aid but the gospel of Jesus Christ, which alone changes hearts. He admitted to speaking with a schizoid struggle, yet he strongly believed that the only hope for Africa was the Evangel: the gospel of Jesus Christ. He ended his article in The Times of December 27, 2008, “Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.” That, from an atheist, is profoundly powerful.

The bird is singing from different boughs … it is not silent. In a twist, down the road our rabid atheism here may one day awaken society to what it has squandered. Yes, it can happen that the bird will start singing again in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and throughout this land. You would be amazed at the letters we get expressing the disillusionment of people from within their own worldview without values and without God. One professor in California told me that when he was young, he was a radical activist for all the causes that challenged our shared meanings of the past. Now in his veteran years he deeply regrets that wrongheaded life of his youth.

The bird still sings its songs. We hear it and see it as we travel—and I would be remiss if I did not say many thanks to all our supporters who make it possible for our team to get to these places.

The words of Arthur Hugh Clough say it well:

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,

Seem here no painful inch to gain,

Far back, through creeks and inlets making,

Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

And not by eastern windows only,

When daylight comes, comes in the light;

In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!

But westward, look, the land is bright!

The mockery will not have the last laugh. You see, dancing on the grave of an extinguished Christianity is farcical at best. Because the grave is empty. And the one who knows the way out of the grave sits in the heavens and laughs.

 

 

 

Confederate Flag & the Cross

P.AllanWill furling the Confederate flag from State grounds improve race relations?

Pennsylvania’s Valley Forge Flag company explains why they’ll no longer produce the Stars and Bars:  “We hope this decision will show our support for those affected by the recent events in Charleston, and, in some small way, help to foster racial unity and tolerance in our country.”  Amazon, Google, Wal-Mart and others have followed.  Some southern states—South Carolina the prime example—have removed the flag from State property.

Symbols Clash.  Opponents see the flag as an emblem of slavery and racism.  Supporters say it represents the South’s heritage and culture, and it memorializes Confederate casualties of the 1861-1865 Civil War.

Symbols hold different meanings for different people.  For Christians, the cross represent Christ’s sacrificial death by which we sinners are reconciled to the holy God.  For non-Christians, the public cross represents Christians’ attempts to force their faith on everyone.  Shall all offensive-to-some symbols be removed from the public square?

I understand the Confederate flag can remind African-Americans of white supremacy.  If my grandfather had been hanged by the Ku Klux Klan under that flag, I would cringe every time I saw it wave.  However,  that same flag can remind us of racism’s horrors and drive us to never permit them again.  If a state decides to furl the flag, so be it.   Big merchandisers?  I think that’s a bit over the top.  Certainly individuals shouldn’t be despised nor disallowed the flag.

More can be said.  A good overview of the history, regionalism, economic interests, etc. of the Confederate flag is here— http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/am483_97/projects/sarratt/intro.html.

Let me make just two points about this from a biblical worldview . . .

One, God created races.  Eliminate God as Creator, and we’re left with time+chance as race-source.  Then any race can claim supremacy according to their rating system.  But, if every race is God-created, a “supreme” race loses its footing.  Adam and Eve are Dad and Mom to us all.  After the Flood the grandchildren of Noah “spread in their lands, each with his own language, by their clans, in their nations” (Genesis 10:1-5).

Racism, therefore, is man-made and sin against our Creator.  It’s not just a human issue or a source of social or economic contention.  It is an offense against the God who made us.  The old Sunday school song proclaims sound theological truth . . .

Jesus loves the little children,
all the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
they are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Two, Christ’s cross unites the colors.  Details were different then.  Racism wasn’t black/white but Gentile/Jew.  God’s solution wasn’t to take down a flag but nail up his Son.  The crucified Christ made the two one.  Peace wouldn’t come by a law but by the cross.  That would be the way to reconcile Jew and Gentile, black and white, to God.  And in that peace the two would become one new humanity, in which there would be “neither Jew nor Greek . . . neither slave nor free . . . no male and female” but “all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).  This overflowing passage requires careful reading . . .

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth
and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision”
(that done in the body by the hands of men)–
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ,
excluded from citizenship in Israel and
foreigners to the covenants of the promise,
without hope and without God in the world.
But now in Christ Jesus
you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace,
who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross,
by which he put to death their hostility.
He came and preached peace to you who were far away
and peace to those who were near.
For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens,
but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household,
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
In him the whole building is joined together
and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
And in him you to
o are being built together
to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit (Ephesians 2:11-22).

Furling the Confederate flag is a small, symbolic step.  Politicians tend to take these as loudly as they can.  Maybe it will help.  But storing away a flag doesn’t change the reality of history, however one views it.  And pulling flags from the shelf can’t change the human heart.

Only God in Christ can do that.  And we are transformed when we who trust him understand that he died to make one new humanity in which identity isn’t determined by race, economics or sex,  but by the redeeming, saving work of Christ.

When blacks and whites are “brought near [to God] through the blood of Christ”, we are brought near to one another.  And then, standing shoulder to shoulder as family, the only flag flying over us is Christ.

 Christian Flag

Ungovernable?

P.AllanI wondered last week while watching the news:  “Is the world becoming ungovernable?”

By “ungovernable” I mean, “Are the world’s governments becoming unable to rule in such a way that a reasonable number of people enjoy a reasonable amount of safety, security, justice and happiness?”

The question arose as I watched TV news cover the shooting deaths of four Marines and one Navy sailor by a young Muslim male in Chattanooga last week.  Let’s use that as a case study (though we could use the exploding Middle East, Iran’s nuclear threat, Putin’s Ukraine invasion, an expanding China, the illegal immigration travesty, racial conflict, the national debt and global economy and so on).

The terrorist (certainly terrorist-influenced) shot up two shopping center military offices.  Military was prohibited by regulation to carry firearms (though apparently one or two did).  The attacks occurred toward the end of Muslim Ramadan.  Weeks earlier ISIS (or another of those demonic groups) announced plans to attack U.S. military and their families.

Why weren’t military personnel better protected?  I get it:  123 such facilities around the country make better protection prohibitive . . . the enemy needs to “get lucky” only once to succeed . . . . it’s impossible to pin-point-predict where and when a terrorist will strike.  I get all that—but “all that” only pushes us closer to “Yes, the world is becoming ungovernable.”  No government agency adequately prepared.

Here are three additional reasons why I think “ungovernable” may be looming.

One, God’s wrath.  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of man, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth . . . For although they knew God (through creation), they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:18,21, ESV). 

Wrath.  The Greek word means “a divine upsurge of anger” against humans’ unrighteousness.  Humanity has “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25).  God, who made and sustains us, will not allow his name to be shamed.  Consequently, while he loves the world (John 3:16), he exercises “displeasure” (to put it mildly) in giving us over to the consequences of our own way.  And, because our way is unrighteousness and godless, things go from bad to worse.

Cumulative consequences of being “given over.”  Three times in Romans 1:24-32 Paul explains that God expresses his wrath by giving us over to or giving us up to. 

Therefore (since we exchanged God’s glory for images–1:23), God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves (1:24).  Rampant sexual immorality is a consequence of God’s wrath.

For this reason (because we exchanged God’s truth for a lie–1:25), God gave them up to dishonorable passions (1:26a).  Sexually-transmitted diseases are the consequence of God’s wrath.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (1:28)—evil, envy, murder, maliciousness, insolent, inventors of evil, ruthless (to name just a few things that ought not be done).

God hasn’t “given us over to” these consequences one time, but progressively.  Therefore, as these moral and mental evils continue among us—and as world population increases—consequences snowball.  Things don’t just seem worse; things are worse.  We all suffer the increasingly cumulative consequences of God’s “giving us over to” wrath.  Therefore, governing becomes increasingly difficult.

The fallenness of human leaders.  All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).  Leaders are no less sinful because they’re “famous.”  Presidents, senators, representatives, kings, ambassadors are no less fallen because they belong to “the political class.”

Often we shake our heads at government ineptness.  The problem runs deeper; it lies in the sinful human nature.  Gather a group of sin-fallen leaders (who may be intelligent and skilled) and their leadership will inevitably produce fallen results.

The King we need.  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this (Isaiah 9:6,7). 

Isaiah predicted his birth.  John saw his coming.

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war.  His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.  He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.  The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.  Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God.  On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS (Revelation 19:11-16).

 LISTEN TO THE VIDEO ABOVE!
TURN UP THE VOLUME!
HE IS OUR HOPE!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. MEAN BY UNGOVERNABLE?
  2. EXAMPLES?
  3. REASONS WHY–God’s wrath, cumulative consequences of given over (Rom. 1), fallenness of leaders
  4. HOPE IS KING JESUS

 

 

 

 

 

We need the King.  The world needs the King.  Not a king.  The King.  The King of all kings.  The One whose kingdom does not belong to this world (John 18:36a).  Why the need?  I’m not a prophet or historian; but from where I sit the world is becoming ungovernable.

Take the latest “lone wolf” terrorist attack in Chattanooga.   A 20-something Muslim young man gunned down four Marines and one Navy sailor at a recruiting office and an operations center.  “Soft targets” in shopping centers.  Military denied weapons from President Bill Clinton’s days.  Certainly when Clinton urged this regulation, it was for good reason.  Times have long-changed.  Radical Islamists for at least weeks have been calling for the deaths U.S. military men and women and their families.  Yet, as far as I know, the government did little, if anything, to protect them.  How long ago was the Fort Hood massacre?  How long does it take for the President and Congress to devise a plan and implement it?  This is one small, but grievous, reason why I think the world is becoming ungovernable.

 

 

 

 

The world needs the King.  Too long it’s been under the control of the evil one (1 John 5:19).  John the apostle saw in his revelation the time when the whole world will be dominated by a king called  antichrist (Rev.  13:  ).  We don’t need a king.  We need the King.  The King of kings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orcas, Horses and Babies

Bigger photo than usual to better see three of my grandchildren—Nicholas, Channing and Faith (clockwise from front).   Children are a precious gift from God, made in his image.  Therefore, human life—every one— is sacred.

I just finished reading Oklahoma Republican Senator James Lankford’s address to the U. S. Senate.  It’s available on video above and in text below (from Denny Burke’s blog—http://www.dennyburk.com/may-senator-lankfords-appeal-be-heard-and-heeded-from-sea-to-shining-sea-senatorlankford-plannedparenthood/.)

His argument isn’t new, just especially timely given the recent alleged admission by Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, that PP sells aborted body parts for research  (https://theoldpreacher.com/unborns-body-parts-for-sale/).  Abortion, of course, is the evil; trafficking in body parts just makes it more despicable.

I hope we’ll all listen and read and pray for God’s mercy on this nation, which surely lies under his wrath, and for God’s power to stop this ongoing slaughter.

Mr. President, I’d like to take just a moment to be able to speak about a subject that’s very, very difficult for me to speak about, and quite frankly difficult for a lot of Americans to talk about and hear about. It connects to all of us, in extremely personal ways. Let me set some context. Not long ago a group of animal rights activists gathered around a research facility, a research facility that was using animals for their testing. The activists gathered around the facility and chanted and has signs that they held up saying ‘it’s not science, it’s violence.’ And other signs that said ‘animal lives are their right, we have just begun to fight.’ As they protested to protect the lives of the animals that were being used in that facility for research.

Now, I understand their frustration there. But let me put it into context of some things that came out this week. We learned that this week an organization called Planned Parenthood is using children that are aborted and sending the bodies of those aborted children to research facilities, sometimes for sale, different body parts, to be used in research. These are not mice, these are not lab rats, these are children. Children that have gone through the process of a horrific abortion.

This morning in an Appropriations hearing, that the President and I both were in, we had extensive conversation about the rights of orca whales. And this protracted conversation went on and on, that many people were also connected to, about the rights of orca whales and the care for them. Then we had a protracted conversation about horse slaughter and how horses would be humanely put down. But in the middle of all that conversation happening today, there were children still being aborted with an instrument reaching into a mother, tearing apart a child but carefully protecting certain organs because those organs would be valuable to sell.

Now, the challenge that we have on this as a nation is, the argument is for that baby. That baby’s really not a baby, it’s just a fetus, it’s tissue. That’s not a human baby is what everyone is told. That’s just tissue and it’s up to the mom to determine what happens to that tissue. And then on the flip side of it moments later they take that tissue and then sell it because it’s human organs that are needed for research. You can’t say in one moment that’s not a human and then sell it for the next moment as a human organ and say now suddenly it is. It was a human all the way through. There was never a time that wasn’t a child, never a time that wasn’t a human, and it seems the ultimate irony to me that we spend time talking about humane treatment of animals being put down like in horse slaughter and we completely miss children being ripped apart in the womb and their body parts being sold.

So here’s how it happens. A mom comes into a facility, gives consent to have an abortion, makes that request. After that request is made, to some moms — and we don’t know exactly how they choose which moms — to some moms they then ask consent for their child after it’s aborted to be used for research purposes. From the video that was put out this week, they said that was actually comforting to some moms that they would know how traumatic the abortion is, at least some good would come out of it, that those body parts would then be used for research to hopefully save other children, which again comes back to this ultimate irony that we would literally tear one child apart in an abortion with the assumption that hopefully would help some other child in the future, missing out on the significance of the child that’s right there that could be helped by protecting their life.

And then the doctor in this particular video gives the details of how once they get that consent from the mom, they would be careful to reach in and actually crush the head of the child to kill the child in the womb so they could preserve the rest of the organs because the kidney has value, the liver has value, because the lungs have value, because the muscles in the legs have value. I would tell you that child has value. And that every single adult that can hear me right now was once 20 weeks old in the womb and we can look at each other and understand the difference between that child in the womb and any of us now is time. That’s a human being we’re talking about.

And it doesn’t bring me comfort to know that one child is torn apart so that maybe they can do research on the child’s organs to in some future moment help a different child. Not every woman is being asked that her aborted child would be used for research and we really don’t know the whys. Maybe they’re looking for particularly healthy moms. Maybe they’re looking for very mature, healthy babies. Maybe it’s a situation where a particular mom couldn’t afford to have the abortion procedure and so they swap off and say if you can’t afford to have the abortion procedure maybe we can cover the cost by then possibly selling some of these organs then. We don’t know. But I think maybe the question needs to be asked.

Why this Congress would spend time today debating horse slaughter and debating orca whales, but yet we’ve become so numb to children that the other debate doesn’t seem to come up. Maybe we need to start again as a nation, asking a basic question. If that’s a child, and in our Declaration [of Independence] we said every person that we believe is endowed by our Creator to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, maybe we need to ask as a nation again, do we really believe that?

Let’s start with some basic things. How about a child at 20 weeks that we know scientifically can feel pain? We cannot have their limbs ripped apart in an abortion. There are only seven countries in the world that allow that. We’re in a prime group like North Korea and China with nations that still allow abortions that late. We should ask that question again – is that really who we are as America? Maybe we need to ask the question again with Planned Parenthood, who we give half a billion dollars in funding to, maybe this is not a good idea. And other organizations that serve people all over the country who raise their funds separately, and don’t do it by federal funds. Maybe that’s a legitimate question that we need to ask?

Mr. President… we have hard questions to deal with as a Nation. Budget, regulations, future direction that we’re going. Why don’t we add to the list, do we really care about children or not? And on a day that we passed an education bill, before we pat ourselves on the back saying how much we care about children, let’s make sure we’re dealing with a compassion for children at every age, not just at certain ages. Have we really become this numb? How do we turn it around? With that I yield back.

Unborns’ Body Parts for Sale

O PreacherThis video sickens me.  I hope it does you, too.  Now (with our tax dollars!) not only does Planned Parenthood perform abortions, it seems irrefutable that they sell the babies’ body parts.

In my view, most abortions are child sacrifice, an abomination against God who created us in his image.  “Are you not children of transgression . . . you . . . who slaughter your children in the valleys . . . ?” (Isaiah 57:4,5).  What, then, shall we call the selling of their body parts for financial profit?  Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood, discusses this “business deal” while casually eating dinner and drinking wine!

I planned to write the next installment of our Mark study today.  But this is too shockingly evil to overlook.  We must be informed!  And we must do what we can—everything from praying to emailing our reps in Washington.

So I hope you’ll make the time to read the blogs below.  The first is from Dr. Albert Mohler.  The second is from the “National Review”.  And the third is from “Focus on the Family.”  It contains an easy way to do the emailing I mentioned above.

How often these days national and world events have pointed me back to these sobering and frightening words of the apostle Paul . . .

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities– his eternal power and divine nature– have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools  and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator– who is forever praised. Amen.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,  slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;  they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them
(Romans 1:18-32).

How can we not be living in the days when God has given this nation over to the consequences of the godlessness we’ve wanted?  Our only hope is in the righteousness of God that he gives through Christ . . .

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.  This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (Romans 3:21-24).

http://www.albertmohler.com/?p=35257

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421198/planned-parenthood-fetus-sale-business-corporation-profit?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NR5PM&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign

http://jimdaly.focusonthefamily.com/four-things-you-can-do-now-about-the-latest-planned-parenthood-scandal/?utm_source=nl_dalyfocus&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=289101&refcd=289101&crmlink=content-keep-reading

embryo

Growth by Persecution

P.Allan“Persecuted believers have become the new face of genuine Christianity.  They are filled with passion to live or die for Christ, and we in the West have much to learn from them.”

Product Details

So writes Tom Doyle in his book, Killing Christians:  Living the Faith Where It’s Not Safe to Believe.  Tom  pastored for 20 years in CO, TX & NM before launching into missions in the volatile Middle East.  His eye-opening book is available from Amazon . . . http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Christians-Living-Faith-Believe/dp/0718030680/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436986616&sr=8-1&keywords=Killing+Christians

I just started reading it, but I couldn’t get past the Introduction without commenting.  Listen to Doyle . . .

Persecution Malfunction.  “Oppressors over the centuries have never recognized that the persecution of Christians is always a failed initiative.  It just doesn’t work.  To the contrary, killing believers routinely accelerates the spread of the gospel and the growth of the church.”

This reminds me again of Psalm 2:4a about the nations who rage against the LORD and his Anointed . . .

He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the LORD holds them in derision.”

Radical Islamists like ISIS and antichrist governments like Iran may vow to destroy Jesus’ followers, but their plots (according to Doyle and history) produce the opposite results.

Why?  “Because Jesus’ message of love and reconciliation thrives in a climate where hostility, danger, and martyrdom are present.  Persecution and the spread of the gospel are as inseparable as identical twins.  Suffering propels the growth of Jesus movements around the world” (Doyle).

Muslim vs. Christian Growth.  Can that be true?  Are persecuted churches really growing, especially when they are virtually all little house  or underground churches?  Certainly our mega-churches far exceed their growth! But Doyle writes what all American-church studies have shown:  “For those of us in the West, the threat of persecution is virtually nonexistent, but statistics show church growth in America—which experiences no persecution—has leveled off during the last twenty years.”

Nevertheless, one gets the feeling that Muslims are out-growing us.  Not so, writes David Garrison, author of Church Planting Movements (in 2012).  “The annual global growth rate is currently 2.6% for evangelicals, 1.2% for historical Christians, 1.2% for the world population growth [and] 1.9% for Islam (with 96% of that growth estimated to come through biological births).”

Global vs. American Church Growth.  Whew!  Gospel-spread remains ahead of Islam-spread!  Globally.  But in America church growth has been level for two decades.  And I would argue that much “growth” we see in most local churches has come mainly from “church shoppers.”  Four-plus years ago, when we moved into our new church building, newcomers visited about every Sunday.  A new church building attracts “shoppers.”  So does the latest and loudest praise music.  And smoke and disco lights.  And a coffee bar with free Sunday newspapers.  And a “multi-plex” where six different-style services are held simultaneously.  That’s church growth by Madison Ave. marketing.  Books have unashamedly argued for it.  Many pastors have bought into it.  Only recently have they learned that  church growth by marketing usually produces consumer “Christians.”

Growth vs. Gospel.  The term “church growth” implies we’re playing the numbers game.  Counting people is biblical (see Acts), but only as a sign that the Gospel is spreading and converts/disciples are being made.  That’s how I’m using the term here.  Not bodies in a building, the Spirit of Christ in lives.

Persecution and Gospel-Spread.  We should ask why “persecution and the spread of the gospel are as inseparable as identical twins.”  Listen again to Doyle:  “As inconceivable as it is to Christians who have not faced life-threatening persecution, the suffering produces immense blessing through the radical transformation of individual believers.  Each one comes away marked, never truly returning to the same life.  Sometimes survivors are unrecognizable even by their own families because, in the midst of their brutal afflictions, they experienced Christ in an hour of need as few of us ever do.”

How sobering!  Apparently the higher the cost of following Jesus the deeper the devotion to following Jesus!

Oh, we do suffer.  Chronic physical pain.  Broken heart over a broken marriage.  Loneliness from losing a loved one.  This is real suffering— but suffering common to fallen humanity.  It’s not suffering because we follow Jesus (even though it genuinely, and sometimes cruelly, tests our faith).  Nevertheless, despite the growing threat to religious freedom,  I’d guess 99% of us aren’t suffering for Christ. 

Action Suggestions.  So what can we do?  Pray for persecution?  That’s not being a fool for Christ, that’s just being a fool!    Here are three sensible suggestions . . .

  1. Read Killing Christians or Dreams and Visions (both by Doyle and available from Amazon), or other books or websites about persecuted Christians (Voice of the Martyrs-http://www.persecution.com/.)  Media news says little about Christian persecution.  So most of us are only vaguely aware of what’s happening.  We’re left with a truncated view of the Body of Christ and presume all Jesus’ followers live in a “Disney World” somewhat resembling ours.  Consequently, we’re blind to the life-and-death war that following Jesus drafts us into.
  2. Mentally compare our Jesus’ following with theirs.  Even when we are informed, it’s easy to dismiss what we read.  How much greater impact when we measure our life of following Jesus with the lives of believers in the Middle East!  Let’s read, but then imagine our following Jesus potentially costing our job, our home or our lives.  How would we respond if Jesus invited us, “Come, follow me and die”?
  3. Repent of lukewarmness and pray for the Holy Sp[rit to inflame our hearts with passion for Jesus.  In the final analysis, reading and comparing are only aids.  The Holy Spirit alone can inflame our hearts with passion for our Lord.  What changes he might work if we regularly prayed,  “Lord, ignite my heart with passion for you.  Deepen my devotion to you, so that I’ll die more to myself and live more to you.”
  4. Pray in daily devotions for the persecuted church.  Lois and I have established that habit.  It reminds us of our suffering brothers and sisters everyday.  And who knows what the Lord might do in response to our little prayers for a “little” believer in Iran?
  5. Ask the persecuted church to pray for us.  We may have beautiful air-conditioned buildings and overflowing  libraries of books and the freedom to argue secondary theological points.  But what I’m reading tells me they have the heart, the passion and the devotion to Jesus that we’ve lost (if we ever had it).  So maybe when we send our missionary offering each month, we should send this humble prayer request . . .

Will you please ask the Jesus’ followers you serve
to pray earnestly for us in America?
We so need the faith and passion and life-or-death devotion to Christ they have!

 

Faith and State

O PreacherListen to a beautiful presentation of “America the Beautiful” from the Hillside College Choir by clicking on the flag . . .

Listening makes me nostalgic.  Violence in our cities and division over race, politics and same-sex marriage  make that song sound like something from the “Leave It to Beaver” and “Little House on the Prairie” days.

But America had its problems then, too.

In 1950 the U.S. Senate authorized a wide-ranging investigation of homosexuals “and other moral perverts” working in government.  Two months earlier the Civil Service Commission intensified its efforts to find and fire lesbians and gay government employees.  Last week (just 65 years after the government hunt for homosexuals!) the U.S. Supreme Court mandated each state to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.  A swift, seismic societal shift!

Rick Segal commented on it in a “Desiring God” blog July 3rd . . .

“The 350-year marriage of Protestant Christian theology and American popular culture is over. Christianity, it may be sadly said, is no longer the preeminent social influence in American life. We Christians who dared to presume that America was ever all and only ours are, apart from some God-ordained awakening, unlikely to ‘get our country back.’ We will live and work henceforth, as do most other Christians around the world, amidst a public square hostile to our beliefs.”

The First Amendment, of course, guarantees religious freedom:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”  Nevertheless, here are a few ominous signs of what may be coming.

  • Oregon  bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein were fined $135,000, forcing them into bankruptcy, because (as they explained to their former gay customers), their faith forbade them from participating in a same-sex wedding.
  • Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman (a grandmother) is being prosecuted for refusing to provide services for a same-sex wedding.  She could lose her home and life’s savings.
  • Colorado baker Jack Phillips faces jail time if he violates a court order to bake cakes for a same-sex wedding.  (Source for the first three points “The Christian Post” http://www.christianpost.com/news/battle-lines-for-religious-liberty-and-same-sex-marriage-are-set-141179/
  • Mark Oppenheimer in “Time Magazine” (June 28th) called for the government to stop subsidizing religion and non-profits through tax exemptions (http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/).
  • Debate on “Fox News Sunday” (July 5th) between Kelly Shackelford (president of Liberty Institute) and Evan Wolfson (attorney and gay rights advocate) revealed the fierceness of the division.  Wolfson argued that no one has the right to let their faith impact how they run their business, claiming that one’s beliefs then become a license to discriminate.  Shackelford insisted that Wolfson and his allies want a license to discriminate against Christians.
  • Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his dissenting opinion, “The majority ‘graciously suggests’ that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage.  The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion.  Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.
  • Supreme Court Justice Alito added this in his dissenting opinion:  “[This decision] will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy . . . this will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent . . . I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

I’m not confusing the kingdom of God (“My kingdom is not of this world”–Jesus, John 18:36) with the USA.  I do believe, however, that God shed his grace on America.  In my view, the recent Supreme Court decision is another example of America dismissing that grace.  And I sense that, because of it, Christian living will become costlier in this country.

In Mark 12:13 Jesus answered his enemies, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are Gods.”  Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999), a liberal Protestant theologian, said implicit in Jesus’ statement is this:  “Do not give Caesar more than his due!  Give him nothing that belongs to God.”  He went on to charge, “When the State demands what is God’s, it makes itself independent of God, absolutizes itself, deifies itself and becomes satanic.”

Certainly we’re not there—yet.  By God’s mercy, may we never be.  We still live in the Romans 13 phase of history where we’re to “be subject to the governing authorities.”  But one generation will live in the Revelation 13 phase where government becomes openly anti-Christ  and Caesar demands what is God’s alone. That’s the direction history is moving.

“If we are to enter God’s kingdom,
we must pass through many tribulations” (Acts 20:22). 

Are we ready?

 

 

 


Concern After the Court

O PreacherThe U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 Obergefell decision not merely allows all states to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but mandates they do so.  Concern:  What does this mean for religious freedom?

Rather than my prophesying, let’s get it straight from five of the justices.  Under each opinionI’ve repeated what I considered their most-concerning remarks.  Warning!  This is a long blog.  Make a pit stop and grab a snack now.  And let’s read carefully to allow these words to hit us full force.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy devoted only one brief paragraph to the issue . . .

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

(Kennedy wrote that we may “advocate” and “teach” our faith-principles about marriage, but wrote nothing about our exercising or practicing those rights.  This implies that the baker and photographer may talk about unbliblical same-sex marriage, but they can’t refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding.)

Usually only one justice writes for the minority opinion.  In this case, all four dissenting justices did.  Here is what Chief Justice Roberts had to say . . .

“Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.”

(“Today’s decision . . . creates serious questions about religious liberty.”)

“Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

(“The First Amendment guarantees . . . the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion.  Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”)

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

(“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.“)

“Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same sex marriage. Ante, at 19. That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples. Ante, at 19. The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. Ante, at 17, 19, 22, 25. These apparent assaults on the character of fair-minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. See post, at 6–7 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted. Ante, at 19.”

(“It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”)

Justice Scalia opined nothing about religion, but his remarks clearly  warn about potential loss of liberty . .

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

(“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court . . . [This} robs the People of . . . the freedom to govern themselves.”)

“Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman. This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

(“A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”)

Justice Thomas’ dissent may be even more concerning . . .

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect…

“Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

“The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

“Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

(” . . . the majority’s decision threatens religious liberty . . . It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples . . . Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process.  Instead the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”)

Finally, Justice Alito warned . . .

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

“Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

“The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds. Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.”

(“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy . . .  I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools . . .  If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.”)

Concern:  What should we do?  Love the same-sex-marriage folks.  At the appropriate time, let them know we believe what the Bible commandsBut let’s do it as their friend, not their judge.  Let’s pray for them.  And let’s pray for those in authority over us (1 Timothy 2:1,2) and for our Father to have mercy on this nation.

Remember:
the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t have the final word.
The High King of Heaven does!

 

Confront or Cave?

O PreacherYesterday the Supreme Court gave approval to those who practice what God declares ought not to be done.

“For this reason (because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie)
God
gave them up to dishonorable passions.
For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women
and were consumed with passion for one another,
men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves
the due penalty for their error . . .
Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die,
they not only do them
but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:24,26,27,32).

By a vote of 5-4 the justices gave legal approval to those who practice what God says ought not to be done.

Of course, the Bible has no standing with the Court.  How could it in a nation that separates Church (i.e.  God) and State?  But why doesn’t at least historical, religious doctrine have standing?  Why didn’t the justices (without condoning any particular one) at least consider what religion has to offer on the matter?  Why must the Court be atheistic in its deliberations?  Why must it act as if man’s historical view of God would be partisan?  (As if the Court now is purely objective!)

A sizable percentage of Americans think the decision more political than legal.  For example, in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not a legal judgment.”

The majority of the Court disagrees.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “swing vote” of the five, argued, “ . . . the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex cannot be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

Really?  Do the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses provide “a fundamental right to marry”?  They say nothing about marriage, let alone same-sex marriage.  (With that in mind, why does the government have anything to do with marriage of any kind?)

We know where this is headed, right?  Those who believe in one-man-one-woman marriage will be (as we have already been) considered bigots.  More photographers, florists, bakers and others associated with weddings will be legally compelled to provide services for same-sex weddings—or penalized if they don’t.  It will be interesting to see if any bills in Congress protecting such penalties will gain traction.  If they do, it’ll be a stunning reversal of current practice and one that will make the same-sex marriage law virtually unenforceable.  Justice Samuel Alito stated bluntly that the decision “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”

Justice Antonin Scalia offered this rebuke to the Court majority.  “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative–indeed super-legislative-–power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government . . . A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”  Ah, but we still proudly calls ourselves one!

Furthermore, by virtue of Justice Kennedy’s reasoning (together with Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) the door is opened to other “marriages.”  Just today, Politico incredibly wrote, ” . . . the next step seems clear.  We should turn our efforts toward the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners.  It’s time to legalize polygamy.”  You can read the whole article here:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VY8ASVJ6j7M.  It’s inevitable.

The question before us Christians is:  will we confront or cave?  In the heat of this moment, we swear we’ll never cave.  But over time, as same-sex marriage becomes the new normal, and as polygamy and more extreme marriage “arrangements” are argued, it may become easier and easier to accept “gay” marriage.  If we do, we’ll join those who give approval to what God says ought not to be done.

Here we face a fundamental question:  Do we really believe the Bible is the true Word of the living God for all mankind or is it just “our” religious book?  I’m afraid there are some who say, “The Muslims have the Koran; Christians have the Bible.  To each his own.”  If we believe the Bible is God’s revelation for all mankind, we must not cave.

So how should we confront?  By refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding.  (I say that as a matter of personal conscience, not as a “Christian law”.)  By praying that this Court decision might be reversed in the future.  By working, with God’s grace, to make our biblical marriages healthy, strong and truly Christ-centered.  (It would be the height of hypocrisy for us to condemn a loving, happy same-sex marriage, while our “biblical” one is marked by selfishness and hostility!)  By loving same-sex couples and praying that any we know might come to see the truth.  (They aren’t our enemies—even if they were, we’re commanded to love them according to Matthew 5:44!)  It’s not our place to sit in judgment over them.  Finally (though this list isn’t exhaustive), by giving ourselves in serious, wholehearted devotion to Christ.  With the culture morally decaying all around us (racism, violence, sex, “gay marriage”, etc.), halfhearted “Christians” will fall away.  ” . . . when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away” (Mark 4:17).

As I sit here at my desk, being branded a bigot or persecuted for my marriage beliefs seem far-removed.  But they’re not—not from any of us.  “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).

So here’s the question:  Will we cave (give in to get along) or confront (speak and live the truth of Christ in the love of Christ)?  We are a shrinking minority.  But remember:  we follow the One who is Lord over all!  And he wins in the end!

believers in jesus christ is the bride of christ this is a mystery but ...