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

Called Out

So I have been called out about my blog yesterday. I was told by someone whom I love and respect (No, not my wife!) that the important point in the story (you can see it at: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/ ) is not that the courts and school insisted on the student having different morals, but that she had refused to counsel homosexual students, which she was required to do in compliance with ACA ethics code. First, let me say that I still maintain that, as Christians, we need to know going in what will be required of us in a job and, if we cannot abide by those rules, not take the job or position rather than take the job and then refuse to do what we were told we would have to up front. And I definitely see the point made that to refuse to counsel someone because of their sexual orientation is wrong. My question in this case (and I don't have enough information at this point to know the answer) is whether she would have been required to affirm the lifestyle of the gay students she would have been counseling. Would that be analogous to requiring a counselor to affirm the correctness of a decision to seek an abortion and help the person not to feel guilty as they do so? Now this question itself probably betrays a lack of understanding of the counseling profession as it stands today. So it may be that my comments on this issue are uninformed, and, as such, out of place. If so, I apologize. And I certainly do not want to be perceived as being opposed to psychology, psychiatry or counseling - I refer people to counselors and firmly believe in the place of both godly and psychological counseling. Both have their place and the Christian should avail her or himself of them as necessary, just as we would any other professional. But the overall warning I sounded yesterday I stand by. While it may be that this case was narrowly decided, i.e. that she violated her agreement to counsel any and all, I do believe that in the popular mind this is more a matter of gay rights and the continued insistence that society must agree that the gay lifestyle is as moral as any other, and that Christians may be increasingly marginalized if we refuse to agree with the changing moral standards of our society. That is not surprising. My point yesterday was that Christians may find there is a financial cost to adhering to our beliefs. Are we willing to pay it? There is so much more I could say - and probably will. But that is enough for now. God bless!

Pastor Ken

Are you ready?

Today a story hit the wires about a Christian student who was expelled from Graduate school in Psychology for not changing her belief that homosexuality is wrong. And so it begins. I can hear the reasoning now: "We in the psychology community know what is right. Christians are wrong (and wrong-headed) and must be prevented from counseling if they insist on letting their beliefs influence that counseling. It is a matter of protecting the integrity of our profession." Wait until that same reasoning is used in medicine (abortion is a right and anyone personally opposed must be barred from practicing medicine), in the law (same argument, among others), police work (when we tell you to break up a church meeting, you must do it), and the list goes on. What do we do about it? Well, of course, the ballot box is still available, at least for now. But we must also prepare ourselves. The main reason Christianity was superseded by Islam was not so much the threat of death, since that was usually not a problem, but the threat of higher taxes! We must decide in advance whether we will choose Christ or our comfort. We may find ourselves second-class citizens if we insist on living out our beliefs. Be warned!

Pastor Ken

What a vacation!

So I have been on vacation for the past week or so. During that time, in addition to driving to San Francisco twice to see my Son and Daughter-in-law, I have also been hospitalized. We did not know what was wrong at first, but eventually it was determined that I have a (quite large) gallstone. They say that gall and kidney stones are the closest thing men feel to delivering a baby. If that is true, then I owe a big apology to my wife! Since being hospitalized, I have had two more attacks. So here I wait for my HMO to decide that they are willing to sit down and talk about surgery, which is the only remediation available. About the only thing I can say is it makes me appreciate the immediate access we have to our Father in heaven - no lines, no bureaucracies, no waiting. In the meantime, I trust I will be back to this blog again soon. God bless!

Pastor Ken

To not decide is to decide

This morning I read an opinion piece by Joseph Bottum in First Things, the journal put out by Evangelicals and Catholics Together. That, by the way, is a journal I would definitely recommend for any thinking person. You don't have to agree with everything to benefit from the thinking you will do when you read it. In the piece he made the statement that to decide to be neutral - to not make a decision - on abortion, is to make a decision. As long as the US allows children to be killed in their mothers' wombs, they will be killed. To want it all to just go away, and for us to stop talking about it is to decide that you want the killing to continue. In this way it is much like slavery before the civil war - there were many who wanted first the Whigs, and then the Republicans to just stop talking about it. But, of course, that would have meant that people would have been continued to be enslaved. It might be that we will have to do more than just talk about it, but not even talking about it is to decide that the killing will continue.

Pastor Ken

Earthquake!

This afternoon we experienced yet another earthquake in SoCal. And it just reminded me that earthquakes are a mixed thing. On the one hand, they mean we live on a living planet. There are many scientists who believe that life could not have arisen if not for earthquakes (among many other things). And yet they create havoc with we puny humans. And, they are one of the signs of the end of the age, and as such are pretty scary. I guess all I can say is it makes me glad I have trusted Christ for my eternity so that, while I must admit that I am not volunteering to leave this life immediately, I am not worried about what will happen when I do. Just another reason to Praise the Lord!

Pastor Ken

One Reason I am a Christian

The other day I ran across an article on the "new agnositicism" that I found both thoughtful and thought provoking. If you are interested, you can read it at: http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/ I appreciate the honesty of the author. And, I agree with his characterizations of the "new atheists." I have long contended that atheism is a type of religious belief, at least as defined by the atheists themselves. Basically, to be an atheist in the strictest sense, one who have to have omniscience in order to claim absolute knowledge that there is no God. Agnosticism only claims to have inadequate knowledge to claim that there is a God. The underlying assumption of the article referenced above, "An Agnostic Manifesto" by Ron Rosenbaum, is that there is no scientific, positivistic evidence for the existence of God, and therefore, while one can claim to believe that there is one, it is an "irrational" belief, sometimes referred to as "blind faith." Let me begin by saying that I agree that I have not found enough scientific, positivistic evidence to prove beyond doubt that there is a God. Nor do I expect that this will ever be possible. But that is because scientific, positivistic (s/p) inquiry begins with a set of assumptions which would rule out the possibility of finding any such evidence. For you see, s/p inquiry only deals with this universe. Since this universe is subject to the second law of thermodynamics, and since it is subject to the laws of causation, then the Christian God cannot possibly be a part of this universe. I am not saying that He sould not be able to insert Himself into this universe at any point He might desire, but to be a part of this universe would make Him a finite being with a definite beginning and a certain end. And, since I do believe that Thomas Aquinas has shown logically that an uncaused cause is an absolute necessity for this universe, then God must be that uncaused cause and must exist outside of this universe. So where does that leave us? How does that qualify as a reason why I am a Christian? Just this: It means that if we are to have any knowledge of God at all, it will have to be as a result of His taking the initiative and making Himself known. We will not and cannot discover proof of His existence on our own. But as an historian, I find credible proof that a man known as Jesus of Nazareth, also called the Christ, did indeed live some two thousand years ago and that, after being crucified on a Roman cross, rose from the dead. I also accept the s/p evidence for that being impossible. Dead people do not come back to life again. So if Jesus did, then there must have been some kind of intervention from outside this universe. And, given that Jesus predicted that he would indeed raise from the dead, then I have adequate reason to accept the other things he said, including that there is a God, who was the one who would raise him from the dead, and that this God loved fallen humanity so much that He sent Jesus to provide us with a way of transcending not only our own sinfulness, but the limitations of this universe. I have chosen, therefore, to trust him with my life. I have found that the instructions he gave to his disciples and which were written down and preserved for me provide the best possible foundation not only for the life to come, but for this life also. Having entrusted my life to this God, I have experienced a quality of life and an experience of that God that serves to reinforce my faith. And that is one reason why I am a Christian.

Pastor Ken