What Is Christian Culture?

Noah Hahn and Rev. Paul Schulz have co-written an excellent article in Christian Culture. Here is portion.

A household requires an authority structure governed by virtue. Aristotle’s example of a household virtue is courage. A husband, who is by nature the authority, exemplifies courage in commanding; a wife, having a different nature, exemplifies the same virtue in obeying. Children, who have yet another nature, obey their father in a different way. When natural authority is respected by all, virtue can be passed down to the next generation; a boy raised in a virtuous home by a courageous father will one day do the same for his own household.

Even the highest household authority, however, is not absolute. No human father is perfectly wise, and no son has a perfect memory or perfect obedience. For this reason, authority also involves respect for a tradition that predates and survives any one particular authority. As G. K. Chesterton spoke of a “democracy of the dead,” we might say that a household or a community that neglects tradition is committing cultural election fraud. This does not mean tradition has absolute authority, but it does mean it has default authority. The authority of tradition does not dictate that we never change, but it does place the burden of proof on the one who wants to change. Tradition does not bar us from asking questions, but it does reveal that such questions are best asked in conversation with a certain body of respectable texts, stories, art, and music. Understood in this way, tradition is not about stuffing old ideas into the cramped theater of your mind. Rather, tradition is about allowing your mind to stretch—sometimes painfully—to fill cathedrals built long ago.

I recommend the entire piece: "What Is Christian Culture?"

Wokism Is Not Christian

In the current issue of Christian Culture, Rolf Preus has written an excellent article entitled “Wokism.” Below is a sample section.

It is among us Christians that human life has been valued. It is among us Christians that marriage and the family have been honored. Wokism takes our teaching about the value of the human being and refashions it in two critical ways. First, it replaces personal sin and guilt with corporate and systemic sin and guilt. Second, it forbids God to enter into the conversation and tell us what is right and wrong in regard to the domestic estate.

Sin is always personal and individual. There is such a thing as corporate sin (“I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips,” Isaiah 6:5), but accountability is always an individual matter. God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of those who hate him, but it is only if they hate him. He does not punish the children for the sins of their fathers. Sin is personal. While the gospel is proclaimed to all, it is received individually. The just shall live by his faith, not by another’s faith. To speak of sin and guilt as systemic ignores individual responsibility. And if one is deemed to be of the oppressor class, how is he to find redemption? Can a white man choose to become black? In fact, there is no redemption in the woke culture. There is only judgment.

The full article can be found here.

The Mob Needs Jesus

Yesterday, Pr. Hans Fiene posted the following on Facebook. It is an excellent summation of what we are seeing in the United States.

"Be careful because one day the cancel culture mob will turn on you."

I get where people are going with this line, but here's the problem: A substantial percentage of people do not ever, under any circumstances, think for themselves. They do not reason through issues. They do not form opinions based on principles or logic. Rather, they uncritically accept every doctrine handed to them by those whose approval they desire.

Ask someone who once opposed gay marriage but now favors it why he changed his mind? Most likely, he won't be able to give you a real answer. He won't be able to point to a philosophical shift or a piece of information that altered his view.

He'll just tell you, "love is love," "I believe in equality," "this is who they are." He won't even give you ideas, just slogans and soundbites. Same thing with transgender issues, race issues, etc... So these folks don't think for themselves. They have no interest in doing so. They will always update and install the latest version of the woke software their leaders hand them. And deep down, they recognize this about themselves. So telling them "one day, you'll stray from orthodoxy and the mob will come for you" is foolishness to them because there is no reason for them to stray. Ever.

So you won't change the hearts of people who have no desire to defy the mob that, one day, the mob will come for them. But you might change their hearts by telling them about something better than the mob.

You see, people aren't committed to the mob because of its ideas. They're committed to the mob because it gives them a tribe to belong to. A tribe that will protect them from loneliness, from a meaningless existence, and most of all, from guilt. The mob will protect you from that nagging voice in your head that tells you how worthless and vile your sins have made you, how unacceptable to God you are. The mob will prop up the illusion that you are a righteous person who doesn't need forgiveness.

And even if people know, deep down, that what the mob offers them isn't real, they won't let go of it until they are certain that they'll gain something better in return. People won't acknowledge their guilt if they think God is going to respond by rubbing their face in it.

So keep proclaiming Jesus, friends. Keep talking about His salvation, His bloody, sin-destroying love. Every time someone repeats the new pronouns or the new line about how punctuation is a tool of white supremacy, keep going back to the crucified Son of God.

Keep planting the seed. It may not grow at all, or it may not grow any time soon. But if you want people to disavow the cancel culture mob, your best shot is to show them that there is Someone far greater than the mob.

Someone who won't make them pretend that they're not torn apart by guilt over their sins. Someone who actually gives them absolution after confession. Someone who gives them righteousness instead of making them earn it day after day after day.

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. The answer is always Jesus. Sometimes He's a slow and exhausting answer. But He's the only one that works.

A Case for Sanctuary Cities

Since before the founding of this country, people have made their way to our lands. Some came seeking opportunity, others freedom. This was a land recognized for welcoming all regardless of their prior circumstance or condition. Indeed, the national ethos was recognized worldwide and preserved by Emma Lazarus in “The New Colossus”:

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

These words accurately describe the majority condition for those risking what little they have for something better. A brief recounting is sufficient to remind us from what these seekers fled: religious persecution, governmental ostracization, economic or resource destitution, etc. They have struggled to develop in their respective circumstances under constraints that might give a sense of security but in actuality inhibited freedom. Sadly, many who began the trek did not survive, succumbing to the elements, illness, hunger, or thirst; but those who survived were welcomed to integrate themselves into society as productive members.

Over time, the open borders became more constrained as obstacles were established to slow the influx. Laws enacted to regulate who would be allowed to reside in our country based on a series of predetermined stipulations: Are there familial ties established within our borders? Are they wanted for a unique skill set? Does their presence constitute a public good? Will they place an undue burden on society? These laws had a dual purpose. Our economy would be protected from the additional residents, and those considered undesirable would not be allowed entry.

In recent years, the bureaucracy established to regulate the number of people entering our country to establish residency has become a major impediment to entry. Because of the long waiting period for entry, many have tried to circumvent procedures surreptitiously. While some have had success in prematurely accelerating the process, too many have ended in death. No good comes from this. While these people may not be citizens, they are human beings that should be accorded basic rights until such time as they can take their place in society. What we need are sanctuary cities—in great number. Are you puzzled by this suggestion seeing that there are many already established across the United States? The individuals to whom we should be offering sanctuary are the most vulnerable and least able to care for themselves, those poised to vie for a place on American soil—the unborn.

Unborn children are increasingly being considered less worthy than an immigrant trying to gain residency. Questions are asked:

• Should this child be brought into this terrible world?
• Can the child be cared for financially?
• Can the child be raised to be of benefit to society?
• How will my immediate and long-term plans change?
• Does the child have needs that will require specialized care?

Barriers, not of concrete or steel but of personal ideology and autonomy, are emplaced to impede what should be the only humane outcome. In cold, systematic fashion, risks are weighed against the future value of the person on society. Is there a net gain? If so, the baby is allowed entry; if not, entry is denied. The child is deported to the place from whence it came—its Maker.

Abortion is a disgrace for any nation. Americans legitimized abortion in 1973, and groups like Planned Parenthood have done their best to turn a heinous practice into a flourishing industry protected by the American legal system. Have we gone mad? Apparently so. When referring to abortion as a woman’s right to choose or a healthcare option or having autonomy over one’s body, the individual is acknowledging that there is a separate entity living within. Yes, there is a symbiotic relationship, but this is no parasite or bacteria or virus. This is a baby. And calling him or her a fetus does not help because fetus is Latin for “offspring.” That is still a baby, no matter how one wants to slice and dice rhetoric—or the baby. Abortion is not a necessary violence for the convenience of the woman carrying the child or one that should be mandated (as being attempted in England) because it could potentially be a burden. The children must be accorded the same dignity offered to the immigrant population we so readily seek to protect. Waskom, Texas has boldly declared itself a sanctuary city for the unborn. Good for them! Would that all cities follow suit.

Keep It Real

Real is the cross: the cross of life in our fallen, broken, corrupted, and dying world, as well as the cross of Jesus Christ, the world’s only hope and the one thing in this life that is truly real in the sense of carrying us to salvation and everlasting life.

Sometimes I think our plastic and narcissistic culture has placed us into a kind of delusional “matrix” along the lines of the film of that name.  The job of the Church and her ministers is to rouse people from their slumber, from their contentment to medicate and play and entertain their way out of facing the reality that the wages of sin is death—so that we can then lead them to Christ, who is the real solution to the real problem.  We are dealing with people who no longer understand what is real and what is not real, a culture that presumes that posed people from stock photos are real, while considering that which is truly real, life under the cross of Jesus, to be somehow unreal.  Once people understand the eternal reality of our fallen world and the reality of the incarnation, atonement, and the eternal kingdom of our Lord, it is much harder to fall back into the lie, the satanic delusion that all is well.… To be real in this day and age is to be countercultural, to stand out against the dull hum of phony conformity and soul-numbing mediocrity.

The one real Person who is making a real difference is Christ.

Larry Beane, Gottesdienst, Vol. 22.4

Cultural Pressure: Stand or Fall?

On April 7th, syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts wrote a piece proclaiming that conservatives have lost the culture war on same-sex couples and are foolish for continuing to push “discriminatory” religious freedom laws.  We, as a society, have allegedly become more enlightened concerning same-sex relationships, and conservatives need to get over themselves.

Somebody needs to sit them down and explain that when you have taken an execrable stand and been repudiated for it as decisively as the right has been, you only have two options: Change your stand, or shut your mouth.  At this point, either one will do.

Major organizations—media, professional bodies, corporations—approve the agenda, so it must be correct.  Now go away.  As Americans, we are not accustomed to this, because there had formally been a free exchange of ideas in this country.  Open, and often heated, debate among individuals, but increasingly, the West has eschewed individualism for a populist or fascist collectivism.  But this is really nothing new.

During the early centuries of the Church, the prevailing political and religious organizations were condemning and abusing Christians, because they refused to accept or approve of decadent cultural norms.  These early believers were met with opposition like that related by Arnobius of Sicca in Against the Pagans wherein the Christians are accused of practices contrary to society:

You follow profane religious systems, and you practice rites unheard-of throughout the entire world. (I.25)

The opponents in ancient Rome, just like Leonard Pitts, could not understand why there might be a segment of society that would be openly opposed to the generally accepted position.  They cannot fathom standards higher than those being practiced in their philosophically-advanced culture, yet their philosophies just do not grasp the truth.

What do you, O men, endowed with reason, dare to assert?  What do you dare to prate of?  What do you try to bring forward in the recklessness of unguarded speech?  To adore the Supreme God, as the Lord of all things that be, as occupying the highest place among all exalted ones; to pray to Him with respectful submission in our distresses; to cling to Him with all our senses, so to speak; to love Him, to look up to Him with faith—is this an accursed and unholy religion, full of impiety and of sacrilege, polluting through the superstition of its newness the ceremonies established in olden times? (I.25)

In other words, he is asking: “Are you saying that to put God above all in worship and life is polluting the established norms of society?”  The inferred answer is yes, because those ideas society idolizes were not being given their due, therefore pressure needed to be exerted to bring these Christ cult into line or silence it altogether.  Sounds oddly familiar to our modern world, does it not?

Christians are not called to worship or appease the world: we are to speak of Christ crucified.  Arnobius made the case that we are doing what is good, proper, and acceptable before our Lord:

We Christians are nothing else than worshipers of the Supreme King and Head, under our Master, Christ.  If you examine carefully, you will find that nothing else is implied in that religion.  This is the sum of all that we do; this is the proposed end and limit of sacred duties.  Before Him we all prostrate ourselves, according to our custom; Him we adore in joint prayers; from Him we beg things just and honorable, and worthy of His ear.  Not that He needs our supplications, or loves to see the homage of so many thousands laid at His feet.  This is our benefit, and has a regard to our advantage.  For since we are prone to err, and to yield to various lusts and appetites through the fault of our innate weakness, He allows Himself at all times to be comprehended in our thoughts, that while we entreat Him and strive to merit His bounties, we may receive a desire for purity, and may free ourselves from every stain by the removal of all our shortcomings. (I.27)

Arnobius lays out in straightforward terms the disciple’s duty of worship and obedience, plus the privilege, as sinners, to come before God seeking His bountiful provision of mercy and goodness that we might grow in grace.  To do otherwise would be unsafe, even foolish.

The level of Christian commitment would have been understood and praised by pagans of the time, but the object of adoration and resulting life change were not.  As followers of Christ lived before the world, they witnessed of Him in the course of everyday conversations of life with the level of freedom being dictated by the circumstance.  By necessity a culture clash ensued among worldviews.  The collective mindset, rooted in polytheism as it was, would have accepted Christianity if the Christ they adored would have been been offered in henotheistic fashion, but its virtuous exclusivity ran contrary to not only all religious forms, but also as the political and philosophical that had been interwoven to accommodate the masses.  Measures were enacted to either squelch Christianity or rid the empire of its adherents and return the populace to the status quo.

The same collective plans and mindset are working within Western Civilization, so that the Church, once held in high regard for being a beacon of truth, must battle cultural onslaughts from many factions, both internal and external.  Those outside the church are increasingly fighting for normalization of relationships once considered aberrant.  Tolerance and diversity have transformed from being positions of disagreement to cultural weapons to ensure the masses are in lockstep.  Open hostility with extreme measures are applauded as proper tactics to battle so-called “discrimination” of whichever cause or person might be receiving objections to their sin.

Those inside the church recognize that something needs to be done, but have decided that the most effective tactic is to appease the culture.  Mainline Protestants began doing this decades ago, and as they continue to align with the world, their numbers showing a 50% reduction in membership since 1960.  Evangelical and Confessional groups are somewhat better off, but even here there is trouble afoot as well-meaning pastors insist on changing the format, preferring an entertainment-driven experience to solemnity.  (Consider some thoughts by Glenn Chatfield on his experience and reaction.)  In addition, sermons have been changed to be relevant (i.e., they no longer mention sin or the need of a Savior).  Rick Warren and Andy Stanley have given up on preaching truth and are now preaching nonsense (Warren’s Imagination Doctrine) or appeasement (Stanley’s Brand New).

If Christians live out their calling, culture will be affected: people will notice.  (Pastor Jordan Cooper has a few thoughts on this.)  Our attempts may be met with sincere questions, more hostility, or both.  Arnobius was writing when Christians were persecuted.  Beginning with the highest positions of government, these Jesus followers were to be run out, killed, or forced to recant—all for the common good.  Today, our society is moving that direction.  Rather than capitulate, hold fast (Heb 10:23) and stand firm (2 Th 2:15; 1 Pe 5:12).

Freedom to Sin, or Freedom from Sin?

A friend posted a link on Facebook referencing the following blog post from a Christian father offering four promises if he has a child coming out as homosexual:

1. If I have gay children, you’ll all know it.
2. If I have gay children, I’ll pray for them.
3. If I have gay children, I’ll love them.
4. If I have gay children, most likely I have gay children.

The first and third promises seem appropriate.  The author will acknowledge what is happening and not attempt to hide or deny it; neither will he stop loving them.

Promise two is also appropriate in form, but the intent is incorrect.  The author says that he “won’t pray for them to be made ‘normal,’” nor will he “pray that God will heal or change or fix them.”  He goes on to explain that he will pray that the child be kept from “ignorance and hatred and violence” and ungodly treatment from “His misguided children.”  Every parent I know would seek to prevent bullying, teasing, etc. for his or her child, so that aspect is all well and good, but something is dreadfully wrong.  He does not pray that they might repent from the lifestyle.  That seems a rather odd position to take, but these three promises are built on the fourth, which is the underlying basis for the post: homosexuality is a God-given condition.  If you do not believe my words, consider these from the post:

• God has already created them and wired them, and placed the seed of who they are within them.  Psalm 139 says that He, “stitched them together in their mother’s womb.”  The incredibly intricate stuff that makes them uniquely them; once-in-History souls, has already been uploaded into their very cells.
• Because of that, there isn’t a coming deadline on their sexuality that their mother and I are working feverishly toward.  I don’t believe there’s some magical expiration date approaching, by which time she and I need to somehow do, or say, or pray just the right things to get them to “turn straight,” or forever lose them to the other side. 
• [Emphasis his]

Do you see the problems?  First, this father has chosen to rationalize the sin of the child by blaming it on the Creator.  We have a problem though.  The very Creator being blamed established the heterosexual union of husband and wife as the only valid place for sexual relations.  Every other form is sin.  There is no valid argument to be made that will lessen the truth.  Second, if anyone disagrees, that person or group is misguided.  The natural parent-child relationship trumps all other law—biblical, natural, or otherwise.

About this time, the usual retort is, “There are people who have same-sex attractions but are celibate.  They‘re still ‘gay.’  What about them?”  Lust is a sin regardless of the object.  Whether I might lust after another woman or man, I am an adulterer; if unmarried, I would be a fornicator.  Men and women deal with lust, whether opposite-sex or same-sex attraction.  As with any other sin, the question remains: are we willing to mortify the flesh as the Apostle Paul says?

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.  (Co 3:5)

Western society has a way of grouping individuals of aberrant intent or behavior in special classifications.  While in the past these classifications may have been used to assist the individual toward normalcy, we have chosen, rather, to consider any predilection to be normal for that individual and to change the classification in order to protect the right to engage in any resulting behavior, further enslaving the person in their sin, downplaying or dismissing potential effects on others.  Christians are not to condone this mindset whereby sin is coddled and given a free pass.  No, our call is much higher—to live in a new-found life in God won for us by Jesus:

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.  (Ro 6:17-18)

Today's Christianity?

This morning I read a blog post (HT: Bill Muehlenberg) warning of an article, “Contraception Saves Lives,” which promotes Margaret Sanger.  That’s right.  The queen of modern eugenics is lifted up for her undying quest to make contraceptives “widely available to working class and poor women.”  The author, Rachel Marie Stone, attempts to make the same poor arguments that are proffered by Planned Parenthood for ease of access to contraception and abortion: fewer unwanted pregnancies saves money and lives.

This global problem may be argued medically or economically, but that is treating the symptom.  This is a spiritual problem and must be addressed spiritually.  Certainly, there will be economic and medical fallout for actions, and these must be addressed in a compassionate and godly manner, but that does not get to the problem.  To give a horticultural example, that would be like snipping the buds off of weeds in order to stop seed germination, when the need is to pull them out, roots and all.  The readers would be better served by an article addressing the need for Christians to identify sin where it is manifest—I am lost and undone—and to proclaim the gospel of Christ.  He died for me—a personal Savior for a personal sin.

No matter how one tries to pretty up this pig, it still wallows in the mire.  The editors of Christianity Today (CT) should be ashamed for allowing this to be published.  I'm sure CT printed this piece in order to generate publicity for their periodical.  With over 200 comments as of this writing both condemning and lauding the content, they succeeded, but (and excuse my assumption here) I expected something with Christianity in the title would print something—well—Christian, not pagan.  For that reason I suggest they change the name to Paganism Today in order to more correctly identify their brand.

The More Things Change …

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.  (1 Tim 1:15)

While reading more of Arnobius of Sicca, I was struck by a comment he makes about pagan reaction to Christianity:

These are your ideas, these are your sentiments, impiously conceived, and more impiously believed.  No, rather, to speak out more truly, the diviners, the dream interpreters, the soothsayers, the prophets, and the custodians of shrines, ever vain, have devised these fables.  For they, fearing that their own arts be brought to nothing, and that they may extort but paltry fees from the devotees, now few and infrequent, whenever they have found you to be willing that their craft should come into disrepute, cry aloud:

“The gods are neglected, and in the temples there is now a very thin attendance.  Former ceremonies are exposed to derision, and the time-honored rites of institutions once sacred have sunk before the superstitions of new religions.  Justly is the human race afflicted by so many pressing calamities, justly is it racked by the hardships of so many toils.  And men—a senseless race—being unable, from their inborn blindness, to see even that which is placed in open light, dare to assert in their frenzy what you in your sane mind do not blush to believe.”

The Case against the Pagans, I.24

Wait a minute!  Am I reading of early fourth-century pagans against Christians, or am I reading the transcript from a twenty-first-century news show discussing politics and economics?  The objections and underlying arguments are nearly identical: speculative prognostication is challenged, and in an effort to secure funding, the pundits cry out in a shrill voice that the truth-tellers are spewing superstitious nonsense—this in an effort to maintain income for pontificating ideas based more on predilection than fact.

Or could be I reading of a response from a recent church body gathering that has chosen to adhere more to cultural norms than scripture and have decided to distance themselves from those troglodytes who actually believe that the Bible means what it says?  The same shrill tone, reasoning, and conclusions can be found in an effort to maintain the shoddy foundation and rickety infrastructure upholding the organization.

Whether in politics, economics, or the church, why would people vigorously oppose the truth?  It is because they love the lie and the system upholding it.  In order to properly build God’s house, the apostle Paul relied on the foundation given him, Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:10-11), to lay a foundation for the assembly in Corinth.  To the church in Ephesus, he referred to Jesus as the cornerstone by which the foundational Church offices would be properly aligned and the structure joined together (Eph 2:19-21).  All attempts to reshape or refine the scandal of the gospel to make it palatable leave the life and work of Christ as no more than exemplary human drama or the zenith of spiritual achievement.  Whatever creative way Jesus may be presented which removes the sin problem leaves us with nice guy, not the Savior we need.

Jesus came into the world to save sinners.  We do not want to admit the need, but when we do and believe on Him, there is reconciliation between God and us and rest in knowing that we are accepted in the beloved.  May we keep that message central.

The State Cannot Fix These Problems

Gene Veith mentions an article in the American Conservative by Patrick Deneen positing that the solution to the health and higher education crises we are facing cannot be fixed by the solutions proffered by Conservatives or Liberals.

The dominant voices in the debate in both areas—health and education—cleave closely to the contemporary party lines. On the Right, the case is made that a competitive market model will solve the ills of both health care and education. By allowing prices to be driven by supply and demand, and the motivations of the primary actors—doctors and professoriate, on the one hand, patients and students, on the other—to be largely self-interested, the market will resolve how best to allocate the relatively limited access to the best health care and the best institutions of higher education. On the Left, it is believed that the State should rest a heavy hand on the scales of the market, enforcing widespread access, suppressing costs (or providing subsidies), and forcing providers to conform to state-mandated expectations and standards.

Deneen goes on to state that any approach to these problems not rooted in charity as practiced by the Church is not viable, because the State does not and cannot operate in the area of human services.

Worshiping Virtue: The Idol of Political Correctness

People sense that virtue is a divine attribute either as a result of inherent knowledge from the imago dei, or by reasoning that since evil is prevalent in mankind, divinity must be somehow transcendentally other.  In either case, God can be said to have placed eternity in man's heart though he is unable to understand it all (Eccl 3:11).  At some point in Roman society and history the decision was made to deify virtues themselves turning attention from the creator to the created.  This allowed men to promote and magnify themselves if they attained to these virtues as a goal in itself without purpose for society as a whole.

In much the same way, American domestic policy has turned in a similar direction.  Understanding, tolerance, equality, justice, etc. are worthwhile traits for any person or group, but they have been elevated to a status that may be considered divine.  Laws are enacted, corporate policies are reworked.  Specific values are set up as laudable goals but deemed by those in authority to be idols worthy of worship.  If the knee is not bowed, the consequences will be suffered.  As was true centuries ago, we as a nation are now bowing to idols that reflect our humanity.  What godless men hope to attain, though in reality never shall, they deify and worship, ignoring the Lord of all who bestowed on man the very gifts and attributes being idolized.

Arnobius saw the folly in this whole line of reasoning amongst the Romans and asked why they are worshiping human virtues as gods?  They have nothing in themselves—no divine power of their own.  In fact, the opposites are demonstrated daily through human actions.

And that being the case, how can these things be deified, either then or now?

We would ask you, especially you Romans, lords and princes of the world, whether you think that Piety, Concord, Safety, Honor, Virtue, Happiness, and other such names, to which we see you see altars built and splendid temples, have divine power, and live in in the regions of heaven?  Or, as is usual, have you classed them with the deities merely for form’s sake, because we desire and wish these blessings to fall to our lot?  For if, while you think them empty names without any substance, you yet deify them with divine honors, you will have to consider whether that is a childish frolic, or tends to bring your deities into contempt, when you make equal, and add to their number vain and feigned names.  But if you have loaded them with temples and couches, holding with more assurance that these, too, are deities, we pray you to teach us in our ignorance, by what course, in what way, Victory, Peace, Equity, and the others mentioned among the gods, can be understood to be gods, to belong to the assembly of the immortals?

For we—but, perhaps, you would rob and deprive us of common-sense—feel and perceive that none of these has divine power, or possesses a form of its own kind; but that, on the contrary, they are the manliness of manhood: the safety of the safe, the honor of the respected, the victory of the conqueror, the harmony of the allied, the piety of the pious, the recollection of the observant, the good fortune, indeed, of him who lives happily and without exciting any ill-feeling.

Now it is easy to perceive that, in speaking thus, we speak most reasonably when we observe the contrary qualities opposed to them, misfortune, discord, forgetfulness, injustice, impiety, baseness of spirit, and unfortunate weakness of body.  For as these things happen accidentally, and depend on human acts and chance moods, so their contraries, named after more agreeable qualities, must be found in others; and from these, originating in this wise, have arisen those invented names.

Arnobius of Sicca, The Case against the Pagans, Book IV, cap. 1-2

Thoughts on The Manhattan Declaration

I just learned earlier today of The Manhattan Declaration through Bob Heyton at Fundamentally Reformed who is leery of it. Later I stumbled on Eric Landry's less than glowing opinion at White Horse Inn. Then on Facebook, I saw a comment from one of the ladies in our church describing how important it was.

Time to check it out.

The declaration's home page gives a good summary of the document. Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical leaders desire to unite and defend three key tenets of a civil society: sanctity of human life; marriage between one man and one woman; right of religious liberty. On a separate page is the list of notable signatories many of whom are easily recognized depending on one's faith background.

My thoughts
I am not enthusiastic about joining with Orthodox and Roman Catholic leaders in a purportedly Christian endeavor, as this is claimed to be. Let's face the facts—the three groups teach the same gospel (death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) but apply it to the adherent in vastly different ways, so that it comes out looking like the preaching of different gospels. That said, how do you get the three groups to agree on how to term their mutual displeasure in mutually acceptable tones. You end up with a document without backbone. The MD has trouble making a biblical case. It tends to be built more on natural law in a social construct with some supporting Scripture as might be applicable.

I question the historicity of some claims in the preamble concerning the degree of Christian involvement in women's suffrage and the civil rights movements, but maybe I am ignorant of those facts.

I also question the logic of the following quote:

There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself.

I read Dr. King's letter. He is eloquent and passionate, but the letter was not written from an explicitly Christian perspective. Yes, he quoted Augustine and Aquinas, but it was in matters of making and following just laws, not the biblical basis for just law.

I applaud the writers for the effort and diligence in seeking to bring these issues to the fore, but they would have been better served to write three different declarations with their unique perspectives or one that was based primarily on holy writ.

Radio Static

Today I found the following Facebook status:

Hell's radio stations: Rush, Glenn, Sean & Alan, Contemporary Christian music with no commercial interruptions . . .

Lest anyone think these are the words of a liberal secularist bent on destroying the church and all that is sacred, the man who shared these thoughts has an M.Div. from a U.S. seminary and a Ph.D. in Theology and Ethics from University of Edinburgh. He currently teaches at a seminary in the U.S. I realize that with these credentials, he could still be a wolf amongst the flock, but I have known him personally for over 30 years and think his opinions have merit.

Talk radio
Let's start with the political commentators. I admit to listening to the first three men within the past 24 hours via radio and internet feed and have periodically over the years. Each is well-known for his conservative political opinions. There is one thing I have learned from listening: though they each purport to believe in God, each approaches socio-political problems from a humanist perspective. Glenn warns of the rampant spending and uncontrolled "czars." Rush trumpets American ingenuity and exceptionalism. Sean argued with Michael Moore about what constitutes a Christian viewpoint of capitalism. They each cited Jesus' words to bolster his case. Frankly, I doubt any of them knows what a biblical perspective looks like: pray for those who rule; care for widows and orphans in their need; live as resident aliens (because our citizenship is in heaven), seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, etc.

Does that mean I should avoid politics or not speak out? Not at all. When Tertullian wrote The Apology, the intended recipients were "Rulers of the Roman Empire"--the first words written in the treatise. This he did in the face of persecution. It seems no less important to do so while living in a free state, but that does not define us. We are not being made into the image of the Founding Fathers but into the image of Christ.

Contemporary Christian Music
I might be able to count on one hand the number of songs that have been written in the last twenty years having meaningful content. By that I mean words that do not dwell on my feelings or dwell on my relationships or repeat endlessly or repeat endlessly or repeat endlessly or repeat . . .

Music has purpose, and no, it is not to make us feel worshipful on Sunday morning. In the church it is a teaching tool. Look at Colossians 3:16

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Notice that there are two participial phrases: 1) teaching and admonishing; and 2) singing psalms and hymns spiritual songs. Paul is connecting these thoughts to help believers understand that music is to be doctrinally sound. On the whole, CCM does not fit the description, yet churches insist on using the popular choruses ad infinitum. Many hymns are no better. We just need to be more careful of what is being taught by the praise band.

Someone will say, "But the songs speak to me where I am." Fine, listen to mainstream country. Those artists and songwriters can say it much better. For worship I expect something that points me to the Lord of the universe. Someone else will retort, "But the psalmist talks about feelings." Yes, he does, but the ultimate focus is the person and work of God.

Conclusion
Ask yourself this question: Is my radio-listening governing me, or am I governing my radio-listening? By that, I am saying that you can listen to whatever you desire, but make sure it is active listening "with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ" (Philippians 1:10).