In one of my most recent blogs I talked about the intimations of mortality that I had as a result of my recent surgery to remove my gall bladder. You go to sleep no knowing if you will wake up. Now, just two weeks later, after having my staples removed (yes they are just what they sound like!), I am feeling so well that I have the exact opposite feeling - I feel, as the Word says, "as though I could run through a troop!" I am healthy, strong, and even able to golf again, and all after two weeks. I have recovered in a bout half to a third of the time they doctors expected. But this feeling of almost invincibility is every bit as wrong as the feelings of mortality earlier. In fact, it is even less realistic. I will leave this world some day. My strength will eventually wane and I may find myself completely at the mercy of others. I know - "that's life." That is just the point. This life contains many illusions - most of them in our own minds. The only antidote is to find out from someone without this tendency to kid ourselves what reality is like. Fortunately, there is someone just like that. Jesus. He had no illusions. I must come closer to Him. I must let Him inform my mind, and hopefully, eventually, my feelings. Because that is the only reality.
Pastor Ken
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Help Me Here
I have been thinking a lot about the "culture wars." The most obvious incidence right now is the debate over Proposition 8 in California. What are we who believe that God has lovingly revealed the best possible way to live life to do? This is an especially important question for parents and grandparents. For those who are not parents, I can say from personal experience as well as from observation that becoming a parent radically - and I mean radically - changes you and what you consider important in life. Becoming a grandparent just ups the ante all the more. And when you do become a parent, and then a grandparent, the culture wars take on a very personal note. My belief that God has given humanity free will, and the least I can do is allow my fellow human to exercise that as they see fit, so long as they are not hurting another, comes up against the very real desire to see my children and grandchildren raised in a society that encourages all the right things and discourages all the wrong things. I would not want my daughter to get an abortion unless her life was in danger. I would feel much more confident that it would not happen, and that she would share my value, if society also said that she ought not to. You get my point. And yet, as a believer, I know that just sounding judgmental is a very poor way to get a hearing for the good news of God's love in Jesus Christ. None of us likes being told we are a sinner. And, truth be told, that is not so much my job anyway. I have found that the Holy Spirit does a more than adequate job of convicting of sin without my help. But what about our prophetic responsibility? I am currently reading a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who is one who can truly be called a modern day prophet. But make no mistake, almost everyone in Nazi Germany thought he was completely wrong, as well as some even in the "Confessing Church." And yet, he was right, even though he did not live to see himself vindicated. Do I stand for a prophetic proclamation in the culture wars? Or do I advise withdrawing and just living a loving, godly life? It is easy to say, "make sure you are called to be a prophet," but, I frankly don't trust someone who is convinced they have that call. it is usually only obvious in retrospect. All of this is a bit rambling, but what I am saying is, let's talk about it! What do you think? Withdrawal into the Christian ghetto? In-your-face opposition that maddens everyone and runs the risk of persecution? What is God calling us to do? Let me know what you think.
Pastor Ken
Pastor Ken
Monday, August 16, 2010
A Reminder of Mortality
As I sit at my computer it is a day less than a week since I had my gall bladder removed. Now, first, let me say that this is a relatively simple and straight-forward procedure. In fact, they were able to remove my laparoscopically, so I experienced minimal pain and am healing at a remarkable rate - even faster than the best case scenario as outlined by the doctors and medical documentation suggested. But all of that was in the future when I entered the surgical suite last Tuesday. I knew that I had been under a general anesthetic before and had tolerated it well, so there was little reason to expect anything untoward to happen. But it was a more immediate than normal reminder that we are not nearly so much in control of our own lives as we like to think. So, morbid as it might have seemed, I told my wife that I would not have traded anything for the more than 36 years we have had together, and that I wanted her to tell our kids, if anything should happen, that I loved each and everyone of them. I wanted her to tell them that I went into surgery fully confident that I was in God's hands and that, regardless of what happened, I knew that I was in not just good hands, but God's hands. That doesn't mean that I thought that the surgeon couldn't make a mistake, even one that could result in a premature entrance to God's presence, but that, regardless of what the surgeon did, I was certain of my eternal destination. And that is a good feeling!
Pastor Ken
Pastor Ken
Monday, August 9, 2010
The Walker Decision
It has been almost a week now since Judge Walker handed down his decision overturning Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. I have read the entire decision and find many aspects of it troubling - enough to fill several pages. Much of his reasoning is fallacious. Some it reflects either a lack of knowledge regarding, or a willful ignoring of history. And some of it suggest the likely next steps that the secularists will be taking to further marginalize religious people as a prelude to what I believe will be a future persecution of all religions in general and Christianity in particular. The last sentence sounds alarmist, and I have been counseled by some not to make it, but I believe that it is coming and the church must get ready for it now. Let me review a few of the above things I said.
In finding of fact #42, Judge Walker said:
Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century.
Of course this is not true. If it were then we should expect not to see persons identified as homosexuals in texts prior to the late nineteenth century. But, of course, the identification of persons as homosexual is as old as human writing. How could religious texts, almost all of which date to centuries if not millennia prior the late nineteenth century, have expressly condemned such behavior otherwise? Indeed, homosexual individuals have typically had pejorative epithets directed towards them in most cultures - something which I do not approve, but which shows that such individuals were perceived of as being identified with their sexual behavior.
Finding #46 states: Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.
If this were true, then we would expect to find relatively stable percentages of individuals being gay across cultures and historical periods. But this is not true. Ancient Sparta had an extremely high incidence of bisexual behavior due to their approval of it and the organization of their society. There have been segments of other societies where homosexuality has been more prevalent due to its acceptance or promotion. This shows that such behavior is at least partially caused by the attitudes of society rather than just inborn characteristics.
Finding # 77 states: Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
This is the opening salvo. Already there are countries where pastors who preached from texts in the Bible that say that God is opposed to homosexual relations have been accused, convicted, and sentenced for "hate speech." This is a "finding of fact" by the judge. It provides the legal rational for labeling all sorts of religious beliefs "hateful" because someone claims to have been harmed by such beliefs.
There are many other such "findings of fact" that I could mention, and I am available to discuss or can send to anyone some of those others. But let me close with one of the "findings of law:" individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.
Do you understand what the judge is saying here? Any law which is based on moral views has an "insufficient basis" and can therefore be ruled unconstitutional. That would certainly apply to laws which prohibit public nudity or public intercourse. It might even apply to such moral views as those that would suggest that murder is immoral. Indeed, those who claim that you "can't legislate morality," are usually saying that you can't legislate any morality that they disagree with, but that we should continue to legislate morality which they do agree with!
Lastly, the judge said: The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.
This one statement means that secularism has now been privileged as the only acceptable basis for laws. Morals and religion are no longer allowed to be the basis for laws - and if a judge determines that you voted because of your religious beliefs, your vote does not count!
Friends, I point all of these out because I believe that they represent a grave error and threat to the freedoms of our country. When the majority decision in a duly constituted election can be overturned because it was based on religious or moral values, then we are only a short time away from the decision by those who have seized power based solely on the basis that they are not moral or religious to begin persecuting the moral and religious. Is this alarmist? Only if you don't find it alarming.
My next blog will probably address what I believe the church should be doing in all of this. I am in earnest prayer about our response. Is it time for the church to retreat behind its ghetto walls? We have certainly been guilty of hypocrisy in a magnitude that has undermined our moral credibility. Just one example: the divorce rate amongst born-again Christians is higher than amongst agnostics and atheists. We claim to value God's law and moral relationships, yet we are the worst offenders at violating parts of God's law. Does it mean that God's law should be ignored? Of course not. But it does undermine our attempts to ask society to uphold them if we do not. I am sure that will make many mad as well, so by this time I should have just about everyone mad at me!
Let me close by saying that I really do love gays. I know that seems impossible when so many in our society think that to love someone you must approve of all that they do. But as every parent knows, love is not based on the actions of another individual. Gays are no more guilty of sin than anyone else, for, as the Apostle Paul himself said, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Pastor Ken
In finding of fact #42, Judge Walker said:
Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century.
Of course this is not true. If it were then we should expect not to see persons identified as homosexuals in texts prior to the late nineteenth century. But, of course, the identification of persons as homosexual is as old as human writing. How could religious texts, almost all of which date to centuries if not millennia prior the late nineteenth century, have expressly condemned such behavior otherwise? Indeed, homosexual individuals have typically had pejorative epithets directed towards them in most cultures - something which I do not approve, but which shows that such individuals were perceived of as being identified with their sexual behavior.
Finding #46 states: Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.
If this were true, then we would expect to find relatively stable percentages of individuals being gay across cultures and historical periods. But this is not true. Ancient Sparta had an extremely high incidence of bisexual behavior due to their approval of it and the organization of their society. There have been segments of other societies where homosexuality has been more prevalent due to its acceptance or promotion. This shows that such behavior is at least partially caused by the attitudes of society rather than just inborn characteristics.
Finding # 77 states: Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
This is the opening salvo. Already there are countries where pastors who preached from texts in the Bible that say that God is opposed to homosexual relations have been accused, convicted, and sentenced for "hate speech." This is a "finding of fact" by the judge. It provides the legal rational for labeling all sorts of religious beliefs "hateful" because someone claims to have been harmed by such beliefs.
There are many other such "findings of fact" that I could mention, and I am available to discuss or can send to anyone some of those others. But let me close with one of the "findings of law:" individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.
Do you understand what the judge is saying here? Any law which is based on moral views has an "insufficient basis" and can therefore be ruled unconstitutional. That would certainly apply to laws which prohibit public nudity or public intercourse. It might even apply to such moral views as those that would suggest that murder is immoral. Indeed, those who claim that you "can't legislate morality," are usually saying that you can't legislate any morality that they disagree with, but that we should continue to legislate morality which they do agree with!
Lastly, the judge said: The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.
This one statement means that secularism has now been privileged as the only acceptable basis for laws. Morals and religion are no longer allowed to be the basis for laws - and if a judge determines that you voted because of your religious beliefs, your vote does not count!
Friends, I point all of these out because I believe that they represent a grave error and threat to the freedoms of our country. When the majority decision in a duly constituted election can be overturned because it was based on religious or moral values, then we are only a short time away from the decision by those who have seized power based solely on the basis that they are not moral or religious to begin persecuting the moral and religious. Is this alarmist? Only if you don't find it alarming.
My next blog will probably address what I believe the church should be doing in all of this. I am in earnest prayer about our response. Is it time for the church to retreat behind its ghetto walls? We have certainly been guilty of hypocrisy in a magnitude that has undermined our moral credibility. Just one example: the divorce rate amongst born-again Christians is higher than amongst agnostics and atheists. We claim to value God's law and moral relationships, yet we are the worst offenders at violating parts of God's law. Does it mean that God's law should be ignored? Of course not. But it does undermine our attempts to ask society to uphold them if we do not. I am sure that will make many mad as well, so by this time I should have just about everyone mad at me!
Let me close by saying that I really do love gays. I know that seems impossible when so many in our society think that to love someone you must approve of all that they do. But as every parent knows, love is not based on the actions of another individual. Gays are no more guilty of sin than anyone else, for, as the Apostle Paul himself said, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Pastor Ken
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
So the decision has been handed down. Another judge has decided that the people do not have the right to do what they have said they want to do. And, I must confess, I actually do believe that there is a higher source of right and wrong which must inform even our right to decide what we want to do, let alone do it. For those of you who are completely lost right now, I am referring to the decision today to declare unconstitutional a constitutional amendment passed in California outlawing same-sex marriage. You may recall that this is the second time that the people of the state of California have voted to restrict marriage to a man and an woman. The first time they were told that it was unconstitutional, so the second time they made it a constitutional amendment. Now it appears, even this may not be enough. The reason? The judge decided that marriage is a civil right. Civil rights are generally considered to be those rights guaranteed by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments of the constitution, including the right to enter into contracts and to equal protection under the law. Now, if this is a correct definition, and it seems as good as any to me, then the only way I can see that marriage would fall into this category is either to construe marriage as a contract, or to make it a question of equal protection. But be careful! Because if marriage is nothing more than a contract, then civil unions would qualify, and they are already legal in California. But further, if marriage is nothing more than an contract, then people will, indeed must, be allowed to enter into any marriage contract they desire, including multiple marriages. Now I know that many think this won't happen, but it already does in many societies. Some already think this ought to be allowed. The real problem here, though, is the question of where these "rights" come from. Our founders recognized that one could not assert rights based on personal desire. And they certainly disagreed with the idea that one only has the rights granted by the government. The only justification or source they could find to assert rights not granted by the government, but not based on personal desire, was when those rights were firmly grounded in "nature's God." Now, perhaps there are many who are comfortable with equating God's will with their own feelings. I am not. I know the heart of man too well. Without a revelation, there is no way that anyone can claim to know God's will and expect anyone else to agree with them. We must have an external source we can all go to. Historically, that source has been the Bible in our country. Our founders, and even Supreme Court Justices had no problem with this until the last few generations. This is one more example of how our country has set itself adrift on a sea of relativism. That may be exactly what the majority wants. If they do, then it will happen. But we who know the one true God and trust in His Son and His Word know better. And we must insist on living according to that revelation. In the end we cannot stop same-sex marriage, or multiple marriage, or any other number of things forbidden by God's Word from being adopted by our society. But we must insist on following God's will in our own lives and communities. But don't be surprised if sometime in the not so distant future the insistence on doing so results in penalties. That has not only been the way of the world for most of history, but still is in major parts of the world today. Our freedom from persecution in the US has been a welcome respite from the norm in human history. We ought not to be surprised if it is coming to an end.
Pastor Ken
Pastor Ken
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
