Limited freedom of expression

Today the Supreme court ruled that the Hastings School of Law at the University of California could require a Christian organization (the Christian Legal Society) to open leadership to individuals who do not agree with their statement of faith. In this case, it was the requirement that all members must not violate the sexual commands of the Bible, but it could have been anything else. There is still much to be litigated on this case, and it will most likely go back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the precedent is frightening. Shall gay groups be required to allow anti-gays in leadership of their groups? Shall a local chapter of the NAACP be required to allow a bigot to stand for office? Shall an Muslim group be required to allow an atheist to lead it? Or is the University of California only going to impose this restriction on Christian groups? Even the Supreme Court questioned that last thing. We will see what happens in the years to come, because it will probably take that long before a final decision is reached. But in the meantime, be careful, because Constitutional protections only extend to non-public activities and institutions. With the federal government getting involved in healthcare, can it be long before we will be told that we may not pray for the sick in a hospital? Don't laugh - it might not be far away!

Pastor Ken

God First

So I have been on vacation for the past week (hence the long break between posts). As always, there was a pile of "stuff" waiting for me when I got back into the office. It reminded me that life goes on in our absence. And that is a good thing to remember. Life goes on, and we are not necessary for it to happen or be important. It is so easy to only think of life in terms of ourselves. But I am reminded of the school motto at Azusa Pacific University, which my daughter attended: God First. Lord, help me live my life making You first.

Pastor Ken

Faith a Dividing Line

A new survey by the Barna Group was released today on Americans' attitudes towards abortion. As expected, the vast majority of Americans favor a middle ground, being opposed to both abortion with no restrictions and the outright banning of abortion in all circumstances. Most Americans think that there are some cases where it should be allowed. But the one statistic that jumped out at me was the faith divide. 78% of evangelical Christians thought that there should be at least some restrictions on abortion, while 72% of atheists and agnostics thought there should be no restrictions. That doesn't surprise me. If you do not think or are not sure that there is a God, then human life, while marginally more important that animal life, is still a part of the continuum. But if you believe that there is a God and that He has placed humanity in a special relationship with Him (in His image), then you cannot justify the indiscriminate killing of humans, especially not for convenience. None of this is very surprising. But what it does do is give the lie to the idea that religion is not necessary for morality. Yes, it is true that even atheists and agnostics are somewhat moral. But their morality is defined by themselves - they disagree with people of faith on other moral attitudes, choosing to redefine what constitutes morality. This is an example of just that. Killing a child before it is born is not immoral to some, and is to others, and it is their faith that determines that moral stand. Given the trajectory of our society, this is a very worrying idea.

Pastor Ken

Natural Theology

There were two articles in this morning's LA Times that caught my eye. Well, other than the articles on the Lakers and Dodgers and Sparks - but those are another story. The two articles were on the Claremont School of Theology and the review of a book entitled, God is Not One. They were widely separated, but each informed the other in ways that most probably missed. First the article on the Claremont School of Theology. The school is affiliated with the United Methodist Church and is approved to train clergy for them. They recently announced that they intend on offering clerical studies - studies designed to created clergy - for Buddhists and Jews. You can imagine the firestorm that is coming. When asked how they could justify it, the President said that we live in a pluralistic world and must learn how to get along and even cooperate. Now, from one perspective, that not only sounds OK, but holds a great deal of promise. From another perspective it is positively deranged. And the perspective that makes all the difference is called naturalism. And that brings me to the second article, in which the author argues that the world's 8 major religions really do not agree on their basics. I won't repeat all he said, but one of his main points is that each of them considers the plight of humanity differently (referred to as Anthropology in Theology) as well as the solution (typically referred to as Soteriology). And yet the politically correct way of looking at things is to say that all religions desire the same thing, at least in this world. So it occurred to me that what we have here is the result of the modern project and the naturalism that is so ubiquitous in our society. Science has been so successful because it has focused on the natural processes of the world and ignored any possible supernatural ones. That has made it very robust and effective in the natural realm. And if you only look at religion or theology from the natural realm - what is the effect of religion in this life and this world, then mashing all the world's religions together around their commonalities makes sense. But once you decide that the main point of any religion is to deal with the eternal and supernatural, then the differences are just too great and cannot be bridged. Perhaps for some the natural approach is sufficient. It certainly seems to be for Claremont School of Theology. But I can't shake one verse from the New Testament: Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. That kingdom overlaps this mortal life, but is primarily about eternal life. I, for one, cannot reconcile being a Biblical Christian with natural theology.

Pastor Ken

People Used to be Weird!

I am working on a class on Monasticism for a church history intensive at Kings College and Seminary. First, let me say what a joy and honor it is to teach those who are training for ministry. It is a noble - and difficult - calling. One cannot study Monasticism without talking about two of the first, and, to modern ears, weirdest monks - St. Anthony and St. Simon the Stylite. Anthony was weird enough - he lived alone in the bottom of a well for decades and only ate the simplest of fare. But Simon - now there was one weird puppy. He lived for 36 years on the top of a pillar, which was increased in height from nine to fifty feet. Now that sounds just plain - well, weird - to me. What is the point of living on the top of a pillar? And yet, to the people of his day he was a saint who was widely sought out for his advice and prayers. Now we could just chalk it all up to the credulity of the ancients. And yet, I can't help but wonder - what is it that we believe and accept that will be chalked up to our credulity? Or, will people in the future see something even worse - a people so incredulous that we couldn't see what is clear about God and His work to those who live in the future? Of course, I am a child of my generation, so I probably have no idea. But I wonder.

Pastor Ken

Science - Its problem and value

What is not to like about modern science? It has given us everything from medical technology to the X-box. There is no doubt that our world could not support the sheer number of people on the planet without the considerable aid of science. So what could be a problem with science? Just this - by refusing to consider "purpose," what Aristotelian and Thomist philosophy refers to as "final causes," it has truncated our view of reality. The modern project, of which science as currently understood is the pinnacle, not only refuses to ask questions of purpose or final cause, but insists that such questions are invalid. By defining "success" as the increase of human happiness in this world and life, it has done an admirable job of increasing happiness in this life. But by denying the possibility of God and eternal life, it has rule out of bounds the discussion of either subject. But what if there is a God? And what if science, by its exclusive attention to this life only, is unable to tell us anything about God or eternity? And what if we refuse to consider other sources of knowledge than science? Will we find out only too late that God was there all along trying to get our attention so we could know and fulfill the qualifications of eternal life in His presence? Just a question.

Pastor Ken

Business as usual

I just finished talking to a businessman who is having fits with a client who claims to be a Christian, but refuses to honor signed contracts and, as he put it, looks at contracts, once signed, as "the beginning of negotiations." The excuse? They are of a different culture. Now I know that cultures differ - and in fact, I celebrate many of those cultural differences. And, I am very aware not only that there are problems inherent in our own culture, but that I may not even be aware of some of the worst, since I have been raised in this culture. But that is why we need an outside standard against which to compare and correct all cultures. I continue to maintain that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that the best expression of that standard is to be found in the Bible. It is the Bible that teaches us to let our yes be yes and our no be no - in other words to mean what we say and honor what we say. I fully expect all of us to be judged by the content of God's revelation, regardless of our cultural background. My prayer is primarily that God will show me those things that I do and say that conflict with that revelation and to help me to not make excuses because of my culture or upbringing.

Pastor Ken