Christianity, Memorial Day, and Patriotism

For the last three Memorial Days, Kevin DeYoung has posted this, and for the last three Memorial Days I have reposted it.

"Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, was instituted to honor Union soldiers who died in the Civil War. After World War I, the purpose of the day was expanded to include all men and women who died in U.S. military service. Today, Memorial Day is mainly thought of as the unofficial start of summer-a long weekend with a car race, playoff basketball, and brats and burgers on the grill.

It is always tricky to know how the church should or shouldn’t celebrate patriotic holidays. Certainly, some churches blend church and state in such a way that the kingdom of God morphs into a doctrinally-thin, spiritually nebulous civil religion. But even with this dangers, there are a number of good reasons why Christians should give thanks for Memorial Day.

1. Being a soldier is not a sub-Christian activity. In Luke 3, John the Baptist warns the people to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. The crowds respond favorably to his message and ask him, “What then shall we do?” John tells the rich man to share his tunics, the tax collectors to collect only what belongs to them, and the soldiers to stop their extortion. If ever there was a time to tell the soldiers that true repentance meant resigning from the army, surely this was the time. And yet, John does not tell them that they must give up soldier-work to bear fruit, only that they need to be honest soldiers. The Centurion is even held up by Jesus as the best example of faith he’s seen in Israel (Luke 7:9). Military service, when executed with integrity and in the Spirit of God, is a suitable vocation for the people of God.

2. The life of a soldier can demonstrate the highest Christian virtues. While it’s true that our movies sometimes go too far in glamorizing war, this is only the case because there have been many heroics acts in the history of war suitable for our admiration. Soldiers in battle are called on to show courage, daring, service, shrewdness, endurance, hard work, faith, and obedience. These virtues fall into the “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just” category that deserve our praise (Philippians 4:8).

3. Military service is one of the most common metaphors in the New Testament to describe the Christian life. We are to fight the good fight, put on the armor of God, and serve as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. When we remember the sacrifice, single-minded dedication, and discipline involved in the life of a soldier, we are calling to mind what we are supposed to be like as Christians in service to Christ.

4. Love of country can be a good thing. As Christians we have dual citizenship. Our first and ultimate allegiance must always be to Christ whose heavenly dwelling is our eternal home. But we are also citizens of an earthly country. We will stand before God not as individuals wiped clean of all earthly nationality, but as people with distinct languages, cultural affinities, and homelands. It is not wrong to love our distinct language, culture, or nationality. Whenever I’m at a ball game I still get choked up during the singing of the National Anthem. I think this is good. Love for God does not mean we love nothing else on earth, but rather that we learn to love the things on earth in the right way and with the right proportions and priorities. Love of country is a good thing, and it is right to honor those who defend the principles that make our country good.

5. This may be controversial to some, but I believe the facts of history will demonstrate that on the whole, the United States military has been a force for good in the world. Obviously, as a military power, we have blundered at times, both individually and corporately. But on the whole, the men and women of our armed services have fought and are fighting for causes that promote freedom, defend the rights of human beings, and reject tyranny. War is still hell and a tragic result of the fall. Praise God for his promise to one day end all human conflict. But in a world where people are evil by nature and leaders are not always reasonable and countries do not always have good intentions, war is sometimes the way to peace-at least the best peace we can hope for between peoples and nations this side of heaven.

So thank God for a day to remember God’s common grace to America and his special grace in enlisting us, poor weak soldiers that we are, in service to Christ our Captain and conquering King."

And finally, a favorite quote of mine from Thomas Sowell on patriotism:

“Despite a tendency in some intellectual circles to see the nation as just a subordinate part of the world at large—some acting, or even describing themselves as citizens of the world—patriotism is, in one sense, little more than a recognition of the basic fact that one’s own material well-being, personal freedom, and sheer physical survival depend on the particular institutions, traditions, and policies of the particular nation in which one lives. There is no comparable world government, and without the concrete institutions of government, there is nothing to be a citizen of or to have enforceable rights, however lofty or poetic it may sound to be a citizen of the world. When one’s fate is clearly recognized as depending on the surrounding national framework—the institutions, traditions, and norms of one’s country—then the preservation of that framework cannot be a matter of indifference while each individual pursues purely individual interests. Patriotism is recognition of a shared fate, and the shared responsibilities that come with it. …Conditions may become so repugnant in one country that it makes sense to move to another country. But there is no such thing as moving to “the world.” One may of course live in a country parasitically, accepting all the benefits for which others have sacrificed—both in the past and in the present—while rejecting any notion of being obliged to do the same. But once that attitude becomes general, the country becomes defenseless against forces of either internal disintegration or external aggression. In short, patriotism and national honor cannot be reduced to simply psychological quirks, to which intellectuals can consider themselves superior, without risking dire consequences, of which France in 1940 was a classic example. It was considered chic in some circles in France of the 1930s to say “Rather Hitler than Blum.” But that was before they experienced living under Hitler or dying after dehumanization in Hitler’s concentration camps.”

-Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society

Kevin DeYoung

 

 

Thomas Sowell

Compromise, Politics, and the Lesser of Two Evils

"Many...people have voted year after year, and after little change seems to occur they wonder if their vote really matters or whether politics is really part of the answer.

I wrote this book  to address that frustration. I also wrote it to address the nagging concern that  citizens and public officials sometimes have: whether it's moral or effective to achieve a partial good in politics and public policy when the ideal is not possible.  

It's often claimed that it's "moral compromise" to aim for anything less than the perfect. I've heard that objection repeatedly during the past twenty-four years that I've been involved in public policy through the courts and legislation. By showing that it is both moral and effective to achieve political and legal reform through the momentum created by incremental changes, I hope to encourage citizens and activists to persevere in politics and public policy. 

Our high expectations sometimes lead us to think that an "all or nothing" approach must govern politics. But in the fact of the institutional constraints, competing interests, and real obstacles that prevent any political reform, I contend that there is no moral compromise when we make the aim of politics not the perfect good, but the greatest good possible.

By showing that it is both moral and effective to achieve political and legal reform through the momentum created by incremental changes, I hope to encourage citizens and activists to persevere in politics and public policy. The frustration that comes from high expectations that aren't realized might be tempered more deeply by looking into the obstacles that block political and legal change.

First, political change usually comes slowly in a democracy. One of the main reason is that political power is diffused through the three branches of government--legislative, judicial, executive. And in the United States, the power is further diffused in our federal system between the national government and the fifty states. This separation of powers was intentional--to prevent the consolidation of power in one person or branch that could result in tyranny. The upside is that tyranny is prevented; the downside is that the three branches of government often move slowly or piecemeal. 

Second, in a representative democracy--a republic--politics inherently involves a clash of contending interests. This is the result of free people in a free society deciding how to live together. Other obstacles include public opinion, legal constraints, procedural hurdles, opposing parties, money, human vices and weakness, among others.

But progress can be made. 

To persevere in pursuing political reform, it's important to understand and contend with these obstacles, as citizens and voters, and find some way to identify effective solutions to the particular obstacles.  

In light of the clash of interests and competing obstacles in politics that block progress and change, it is possible to advance partial changes when complete change is not possible. And such a strategy can be both moral and effective. It is moral when a legislator aims to achieve a partial good or limit an unjust law or condition but is prevented by countervailing forces beyond his or her control. It's always good to decrease and lessen an evil when we cannot completely end it due to forces beyond our control. That's not cooperation or complicity or compromise."

--Clarke Forsythe, Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square (2009 A.D.) 

    

Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Cheap Grace

"Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like a cheapjacks' wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sins, and the consolation of religion are thrown away at cut prices...Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."

--Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (1937 A.D.)

Loving Me Despite How I Am

“God’s grace is intended to change people. There is something wrong with you. From God’s point of view, [I] not only need someone else to be killed in [my] place in order to be forgiven, [I] need to be transformed to be fit to live with...God does not accept me just as I am, he loves me despite how I am. He loves me just as Jesus is. He loves me enough to devote my life to renewing me into the image of Jesus.”

-David Powlison, Seeing with New Eyes

Why Ancient Christians Were Killed

“Let us not forget why the Christians were killed. They were not killed because they worshiped Jesus…Nobody cared who worshipped whom so long as the worshipper did not disrupt the unity of the state, centered in the formal worship of Caesar. The reason the Christians were killed was because they were rebels…We may express the nature of their rebellion in two ways, both of which are true. First, we can say that they worshipped Jesus as God and they worshipped the infinite-personal God only. The Caesars would not tolerate this worshipping of the one God only. It was counted as treason…If they had worshipped Jesus and Caesar, they would have gone unharmed, but they rejected all forms of syncretism…[Second], no totalitarian authority [or] state can tolerate those who have an absolute by which to judge that state and its actions.”

Francis Schaeffer, “How Should We Then Live” (1976 A.D.)   

The Creation of Middle Earth

This is the creation story from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings prequel The Silmarillion. Just for explanation: "Iluvatar" is the name for God, and the 'Ainur' are something like high-ranking angels. Anyone familiar with the Bible will be able to tell that the Catholic Tolkien has crafted his creation story to mirror the teaching of Scripture.

"And many other things Iluvatar spoke to the Ainur at that time, and because of their memory of his words, and the knowledge that each has of the music that he himself made, the Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them. Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new, and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past. And so it was that as this vision of the World was played before them, the Ainur saw that it contained things which they had not thought. And they saw with amazement the coming of the children of Iluvatar, and the habitation that was prepared for them; and they perceived that they themselves in the labor of their music had been busy with the preparation of this dwelling, and yet knew not that it had any purpose beyond its own beauty. For the children of Iluvatar are conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Iluvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making. Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Iluvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise would have been hidden even from the Ainur."

–J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion

Mitt Romney, Evangelicals, and Mormonism

Dr. Al Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was asked by CNN to give some unsolicited advice to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney on his upcoming address to the evangelical college Liberty University. He speaks with his usual good sense to political and cultural issues. Here was his council:

At Liberty University, Romney faces the opportunity to introduce himself to American evangelicals in a whole new way. He is speaking as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, and this represents a crucial moment for his campaign.

As he addresses evangelicals, Romney’s most important goal must be to speak as himself. He should speak of his faith and his convictions. He should identify himself as a Mormon whose worldview is shaped by his faith.

He should draw clear lines from his faith to his political principles, speaking of his concern for the culture, marriage, the family and the future of our nation. He should speak without hesitation, explaining how he arrived at his most important political and moral convictions.

He should not try to bridge the theological gulf that separates Mormons from evangelical Christians, but he should point directly to common concerns and shared convictions about the crucial issues facing our nation. He should acknowledge the fact that he is a Mormon and that he has taken his faith seriously as it informs his worldview. Evangelicals respect an honest statement of theological difference, for we take theology seriously.

He should remind the audience at Liberty University that he is not running to be their preacher but to be their president. He should speak to shared political and policy concerns, making clear the fact that his policies emerge from a deep reservoir of commitment.

The governor will serve himself and his campaign well by telling evangelicals his story, understanding that it is very different from their story. Like most Americans, evangelicals would choose, if possible, to elect one of their own.

Nevertheless, evangelicals have demonstrated a readiness to vote for serious candidates who represent very different theological understandings but share a common set of concerns for the nation, rooted in an overlapping of worldviews.

If Romney seizes the moment at Liberty University, he will make history for himself, for his campaign and for the nation.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11/unsolicited-advice-what-should-mitt-romney-say-at-liberty-university/?iref=allsearch

 This morning on his daily news podcast "The Briefing," Dr. Mohler reflected on how Mr. Romney's speech compared to his counsel. In the process, he said this (which I was intrigued to hear since it was almost verbatim of counsel I gave someone in an email).

"I think one of the most dangerous things that can happen here from a Christian perspective is that in the context of this political issue, we can minimize the theological differences between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism, or on the other hand we can act as if those differences existing--that necessarily means that we cannot vote for a Mormon. Those are two very different things..."

Listen to the rest of the Podcast for further explanation and commentary on Mr. Romney's address to Liberty University. In fact, I would encourage listening to it daily--it's only about 12 minutes long. Evangelicals would do well to learn from Dr. Mohler's content and tone on political matters.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/05/14/the-briefing-05-14-12/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AlbertMohlerTheBriefing+%28AlbertMohler.com+%E2%80%93+The+Briefing%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

  

Who Said Economics was Dismal?

Saw this on a friend's Facebook wall and got a laugh. It's an economics joke. The man on the right appears to be the Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises, who was a dire opponent of John Maynard Keynes, hence his jibe and laughter.

All Religious Beliefs are Equal

Socrates: "So you believe that each man's opinion is as good as anyone else's?

Protagoras: "That's correct."

Socrates: "How do you make a living?"

Protagoras: "I am a teacher."

Socrates: "I find this very puzzling. You admit you earn money teaching, but I cannot imagine what you could possibly teach anyone. After all, you admit that each person's opinion is as good as anyone else's. This means that what your students believe is as good as anything you could possibly teach them. Once they learn that each person is the measure of all things, what possible reason would they have to pay you for any further lessons? How can you possibly teach them anything once they learn that their opinions are as good as yours?" 

--Plato's Theaetetus

"One of my freshman students was unable to go home for the weekend, so he stayed in town and attended a city church on Sunday morning. As the student reported the event, the pastor's thesis was that 'All religious beliefs are true.' Not wishing to provoke a confrontation with the pastor, the student attempted to slip out of the church; he failed. The pastor insisted that the student share one of his religious beliefs so the pastor could demonstrate his open-minded tolerance. Finally the student sighed, surrendered to the pastor's demands, and said: "Since you won't let me leave until I tell you what I believe, here it is. Sir, with all due respect, one of my religious beliefs is that you are going to hell." Angered by the student's remark, the ministerial defender of religious relativism replied, "Well, I guess I made a mistake. All religious beliefs are true except yours.""

--Ronald Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions 

 

 

 

 

 

Test-Scores: Insufficient and Necessary

“Incentive structures can have problems in themselves, aside from outside competition. The mere process of formalizing what is to be rewarded presents many complexities and pitfalls. Most problems, decisions, and performances are multidimensional, but somehow the results have to be reduced to a few key indicators which are to be institutionally rewarded or penalized: attendance records, test scores, output per unit of time, seniority, etc. The need to reduce the indicators to a manageable few is based not only on the need to conserve the time (and sanity) of those who assign rewards and penalties, but also to provide those subject to these incentives with some objective indication of what their performance is expected to be and how it will be judged. But, almost by definition, key indicators can never tell the whole story.” 

--Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions 

Killing the Death Penalty and Losing Our Moral Nerve

"When a murder occurs, the community is obliged, regardless how unpleasant, to clear its throat as it were and declare a communal response. Yale professor of computer science David Gelernter, who was letter-bombed in June 1993 and nearly lost his life, has put the matter clearly. We execute convicted murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: namely, that murder, an evil so terrible and so utterly defiling to a community, is intolerable. An execution forces the community “to assume forever the burden of moral certainty; it is a form of absolute speech that allows no waffling or equivocation. Deliberate murder, the community announces, is absolutely evil and absolutely intolerable, period.”

But there is a fundamental problem here—a problem that eclipses the deep and contentious philosophical debates surrounding the death penalty. The problem is our culture’s unwillingness to pass moral judgments. Morally speaking, we have grown accustomed to equivocating, and in so doing we have cut ourselves off at the knees. American society’s moral evasiveness begins with its indifference to the moral marker “Thou shalt not murder.” The Torah, it must be remembered, does not forbid taking the life of a human being; rather, it forbids murder. Indeed, Jewish and Christian moral traditions concur in acknowledging justifiable forms of homicide, such as self-defense, civilian protection, resisting insurrection, and just war. In a morally courageous society, this list would be extended to include executing those who commit the ultimate in human crime.

Harry Weller, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney for the state of Connecticut, who represented the state’s interests in the appeal of Connecticut’s first death sentence in 30 years, argues that “when society convicts someone of murder it cannot ‘turn away its eyes’ but must impose the sentence required by law.” In this regard he cites the contemporary relevance of the eleventh-century Jewish commentator Rashi, who warns that one cannot act in a cowardly manner by transforming the victimizer into a victim. For Rashi and for Weller, it is morally inexcusable for society to say, “One citizen is already dead. Why should we take the life of another?”Despite the potential for error and the complexities surrounding capital punishment, the state has not only the right but a duty to deter and punish violent criminals while protecting its law-abiding citizenry. Any potential victim of a murderer deserves nothing short of the highest protection, which only the existence of the death penalty offers."

--J. Daryl Charles, Capital Crime and Punishment: Reflections on Violating Human Sanctity

Calling the Bluff of Moral Relativists

“A great many modern people cling to the protection of views which are not merely false, but incoherent. For instance, they dogmatically insist that truth cannot be known, all the while supposing that what they say is true. Once upon a time it was enough to point out the incoherency—to call attention to the obvious. No longer. Today the reply is likely to be, ‘I’m incoherent, but so what? I don’t need coherency, and I can do without meaning.’ I answer, ‘I don’t believe you, because we both know that the longing for meaning and coherency is deep-set in every mind, including yours. The real question, then, is this: What is it that is so important to you that you are willing to give up even meaning, even coherency to have it?’”

--J. Budziszewski, The Revenge of Conscience

 

Allah and the Son of God

Trevin Wax interviews Collin Hansen and J.D. Greear about issues facing Christians as we seek to do missions among Muslims in Muslim cultures. This will give you a good handle on some of the current controversial issues.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2011/02/10/islam-and-contextualization-a-conversation-with-collin-hansen-j-d-greear/

Imperialism, Racism, and Sexism

"Imperialism, sexism, and racism are words of Western coinage, not because the West invented these evils, which are alas universal, but because the West recognized and named and condemned them as evils and struggled mightily- and not entirely in vain- to weaken their hold and to help their victims. If, to borrow a phrase, Western culture does indeed "go," imperialism, sexism, and racism will not go with it. More likely casualties will be the freedom to denounce them and the effort to end them.

It may be that Western culture will indeed go: The lack of conviction of many of those who should be its defenders and the passionate intensity of its accusers may well join to complete its destruction. But if it does go, the men and women of all the continents will thereby be impoverished and endangered" 

--Bernard Lewis, Cultures in Conflict (closing paragraphs)

 

When Will Jesus Return?

This passage from George Ladd was recently quoted by David Platt in his excellent sermon on the sovereignty and God and global missions. It concerns Matthew 24:13, in which Jesus says, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (Matthew 24:14 ESV).

This statement has often raised questions like "Does this mean Jesus can't come back yet?" "How will we know when all nations have been reached?" "Can we know?" etc. Without dismissing them, Ladd cuts through those questions in this statement:

God alone knows the definition of terms. I cannot precisely define who all the nations are. Only God knows the exact meaning to evangelize. He alone will know when that goal is fulfilled. But I do not need to know. I know only one thing: Christ has not yet returned; therefore, the task is not yet done. When it is done, Christ will come. Our responsibility is not to insist on defining the terms; our responsibility is to complete the task. So long as Christ does not return, our work is undone. Let us get busy and complete our mission.

-George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom (1959 A.D.)

 

Kevin DeYoung on "Hiding Above the Fray"

Good little post by DeYoung. Good counsel for pastors and politicians.

Hiding Above the Fray

I’m not saying their positions are always wrong, but their position on their positions makes me nervous. I’m talking about those pastors, politicians, pundits, and publications which, at the first sign of firefight, always scramble for the cleanest spot above the fray.

The ones that always claim to transcend old polarities. The ones that always claim to be above all the silly nonsense that used to drag us down. The ones that keep their noses clean by putting them high into air. The ones that are never dirty enough for the trenches.

Why not get shot at with the rest of us? Are there not right sides to be on in some battles? Or do you not want us to see that you are at war as much as everyone else?

I get nervous when the middle ground is always the safe spot. I wonder if the two sides are being described fairly. Or if there are really twenty sides instead of two. I wonder if the sane voice of civility crying in the uncouth wilderness has something it doesn’t want me to hear. I wonder if instead of getting an intellectual argument for the truth I’m getting an emotional appeal to feel superior than the lowbrow rabble-rousers. I am skeptical of those whose first instinct in the midst of theological, political, or cultural controversy is to plead with everyone that there doesn’t have to be a controversy.

I have no desire to turn every skirmish into a war. There is more to life than belligerence. But there is also more to life than boasting of civility when battles need to be won. When the Bible tells us to seek the things that are above, it doesn’t always mean the fray.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/04/hiding-above-the-fray/

Andy Stanley and Homosexuality--A Need for Clarity

Al Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Andy Stanley is the pastor of North Point Community Church in Atlanta (and the son of famous pastor/teacher Charles Stanley). Mohler wrote the following piece yesterday, describing a recent sermon illustration Stanley used.

"A shot now reverberating around the evangelical world was fired by Atlanta megachurch pastor Andy Stanley in recent days. Preaching at North Point Community Church, in a sermon series known as “Christian,” Stanley preached a message titled “When Gracie Met Truthy” on April 15, 2012. With reference to John 1:14, Stanley described the challenge of affirming grace and truth in full measure. He spoke of grace and truth as a tension, warning that “if you resolve it, you give up something important.”

The message was insightful and winsome, and Andy Stanley is a master communicator. Early in the message he spoke of homosexuals in attendance, mentioning that some had shared with him that they had come to North Point because they were tired of messages in gay-affirming churches that did nothing but affirm homosexuality.

Then, in the most intense part of his message, Stanley told the congregation an account meant to illustrate his message. He told of a couple with a young daughter who divorced when the wife discovered that the husband was in a sexual relationship with another man. The woman then insisted that her former husband and his gay partner move to another congregation. They did move, but to another North Point location, where they volunteered together as part of a “host team.” The woman later told Andy Stanley that her former husband and his partner were now involved as volunteers in the other congregational location.

The story took a strange turn when Stanley then explained that he had learned that the former husband’s gay partner was still married. Stanley then explained that the partner was actually committing adultery, and that the adultery was incompatible with his service on a host team. Stanley told the two men that they could not serve on the host team so long as the one man was still married. He later told of the former wife’s decision not to live in bitterness, and of her initiative to bring the whole new family structure to a Christmas service. This included the woman, her daughter, her former husband, his gay partner, and his daughter. Stanley celebrated this new “modern family” as an expression of forgiveness.

He concluded by telling of Christ’s death for sinners and told the congregation that Jesus does not condemn them, even if they cannot or do not leave their life of sin.

Declaring the death of Christ as atonement for sin is orthodox Christianity and this declaration is essential to the Gospel of Christ. The problem was that Stanley never mentioned faith or repentance — which are equally essential to the Gospel. There is indeed no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, but this defines those who have acted in repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). As for those who are not in Christ, they stand condemned already (John 3:18).

The most puzzling and shocking part of the message was the illustration and the account of the homosexual couple, however. The inescapable impression left by the account was that the sin of concern was adultery, but not homosexuality. Stanley clearly and repeatedly stressed the sin of adultery, but then left the reality of the homosexual relationship between the two men unaddressed as sin. To the contrary, he seemed to normalize their relationship. They would be allowed to serve on the host team if both were divorced. The moral status of their relationship seemed to be questioned only in terms of adultery, with no moral judgment on their homosexuality.

Was this intended as a salvo of sorts? The story was so well told and the message so well constructed that there can be little doubt of its meaning. Does this signal the normalization of homosexuality at North Point Community Church? This hardly seems possible, but it appeared to be the implication of the message. Given the volatility of this issue, ambiguity will be replaced by clarity one way or the other, and likely sooner than later.

We can only hope that Andy Stanley and the church will clarify and affirm the biblical declaration of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, even as he preaches the forgiveness of sin in any form through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His affirmation of grace and truth in full measure is exactly right, but grace and truth are not actually in tension. The only tension is our finite ability to act in full faithfulness. The knowledge of our sin is, in truth, a gift of grace. And grace is only grace because of the truth of what God has done for us in Christ.And yet, even as we know this is true, we also know that the Christian church has often failed miserably in demonstrating grace to those who struggle with same-sex attractions and those who are involved in homosexual behaviors. We have treated them as a special class of sinners and we have assured ourselves of our moral superiority. The Gospel of Jesus Christ destroys that pretension and calls for us to reach out to all sinners with the message of the Gospel, declaring the forgiveness of sins in Christ and calling them to faith and repentance.

The Gospel is robbed of its power if any sinner or any sin is declared outside its saving power. But the Gospel is also robbed of its power if sin — any sin — is minimized to any degree.What does Andy Stanley now believe about homosexuality and the church’s witness? We must pray that he will clarify the issues so graphically raised in his message, and that he will do so in a way the unambiguously affirms the Bible’s clear teachings — and that he will do so precisely because he loves sinners enough to tell them the truth — all the truth — about both our sin and God’s provision in Christ. Biblical faithfulness simply does not allow for the normalization of homosexuality. We desperately want all persons to feel welcome to hear the Gospel and, responding in faith and repentance, to join with us in mutual obedience to Christ. But we cannot allow anyone, ourselves included, to come to Christ — or to church — on our own terms."

--Al Mohler, "Is the Megachurch the New Liberalism?" 

Social Drinking and Weak Consciences

D.A. Carson comments on 1 Corinthians 8:12-13, which reads

"When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, lest I make my brother stumble.

(1 Corinthians 8:12-13)

"There are two elements in this spiritual counsel that must be understood.

First, the kind of situation Paul is facing here must not be confused with quite a different one. Suppose you are a Christians who, owing to you r cultural background, has always engaged in social drinking. Now you move into a circle that is more socially conservative. Some senior saint comes up to you and says, 'I have to tell you that I am offended by your drinking. Paul tells us that if anyone is offended by what you do, you must stop it. I'm offended; you must therefore stop your drinking." How would you respond?

This senior saint is simply manipulating you. He (or she) is not a person with a weak conscience who is in danger of tippling on the side because of your example, and thus wounding his weak conscience. Far from it. If he sees you drinking again he will likely denounce you in the most unrestrained terms. In his eyes, he is the stronger person, not the weaker. In other words, this case is not at all like the one the apostle had to deal with. Indeed, you might be wise to tell him, 'I'm sorry to hear that you have such a weak conscience.' He will probably be so unclear as to what you mean that he may actually leave you alone for a couple of weeks.

To develop a modern example somewhat akin to what Paul faces, we would have to change the story somewhat. Now you have become a youth sponsor in a church. Some of the young people from socially conservative homes see you drinking and, against the conscience they have developed over such matters, follow suit; in time they become sloppy about all kinds of serious moral issues. You have thus become party to their substantial destruction."

--D.A. Carson,  The Cross in Christian Ministry