Reilly on Tebow
January 13, 2012
Though I once considered the Denver Broncos my co-favorite team in the NFL, I was hugely disappointed that Tim Tebow led them to an overtime victory over my clearly-number-1-favorite team, the Pittsburgh Steelers. That said, I am like a whole lot of Americans in loving Tim Tebow and what he stands for.
Rick Reilly is now, after what seems like a conversion of sorts, also a Tebow-lover. Read what he has to say.
To Whom Does Marriage Belong?
December 15, 2011
It seems clear to me that, despite our efforts to retain the significance and true meaning of marriage, the tide of public opinion, coupled with a judiciary (and certain legislatures) incapable of doing, or unwilling to do, the hard work of rational thinking, will at some point yield the radical redefinition of marriage as the law of the land.
How’s that for a needlessly wordy sentence? But I digress…
“Gay marriage” appears to be on the horizon in our lifetimes, as it is legal in several states already. The question will be, for those who call themselves followers of Jesus, how shall we respond to this earth-shaking paradigm shift? I’m not going to offer all of my thoughts in this post; rather, I’d like to suggest a starting point for our thinking, one which we should adopt now. I raise a question:
Under whose purview, for the Christ-follower, does marriage fall?
Asked another way, who determines who is actually married, and who is not? Is it God, or is it the state? The answer to this question is clear—and critical. But first, just a little (rather obvious) history…
For most of my lifetime, and certainly for several generations preceding mine (from the time states began to require licenses for marriage), there was no conflict: the state defined marriage as we, as Christians, would (laws against miscegenation excepted, of course, though these, while discriminating unfairly against mixed-race couples, did not touch the “basic formula” of one man/one woman). It was not the least bit controversial, back in 1982 when my wife and I applied for a marriage license, to do so; no one seriously contemplated any different definition. As recently as 10-12 years ago, the whole notion that the state would recognize same-sex couples as “married” was still rather preposterous. No one, in other words, could be blamed for applying for a marriage license.
Now, though, some states have determined to alter the very definition of marriage—and thus the question, who makes the call? The Christian must answer “God does”—and then we ought to act upon it. I would suggest that “acting upon it” might involve several different responses (and I will enumerate these at some point in the not-too-distant future), but first and foremost, we must adopt this baseline conviction: when God and state come into conflict, we must obey God rather than men. Marriage is ultimately the purview of God, and if the state attempts to usurp this role, we must politely, but firmly and resolutely, decline to play along.
Can Anyone Decipher This?
December 11, 2011
There is a Baptist church just down the road that sometimes uses its sign to say some…interesting…things. Sometimes, though, their signage just leaves me scratching my head, and the latest lettering has been up maybe two weeks. I’ve driven by it a couple dozen times. And I have utterly no idea what it means. None. And I have a Master’s degree and have pastored for 20 years. But I can’t figure this out; can you help? Here’s what it says:
The steps that lead to any church are a part of God and should be tried a little more often.
Huh?
Why I Probably Won’t Visit the Creation Museum
November 26, 2011
I have some good friends who have at various times recommended to me that I some day pay a visit to the Creation Museum, developed somewhere in Kentucky by creation scientist Ken Ham.
I’ll most likely take a pass, thanks.
Look, I appreciate Ken Ham’s commitment to Christ, his great learning, his attempt in the Creation Museum to deliver a cogent apologetic for his viewpoint on creation. He is an intelligent man and a committed Christian. And his particular take on creation may be correct.
But it may not be. Truth be told, I rather suspect it is not, but I candidly and freely admit my ignorance here—which is why I doubt I will ever visit the museum. I realize that statement needs some ‘splainin’. I consider myself a “creation agnostic”, meaning, quite simply, that while I am completely committed to the Bible’s position—”in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”—I really don’t know exactly how. And here is a news flash for you: neither do you. Further revelation: neither does Ken Ham. Nor does Hugh Ross. What we have is the sure word of God, which tells us that in some way, over a time span of six periods which are described bt the Hebrew word “yom”, God created the universe and everything in it. That is what the Bible says, and that is good enough for me.
Unfortunately, that is not enough for some folks, notably Ken Ham. And that is why I doubt I will ever visit the museum.
I’ll elaborate in a moment, but first let me tell you what I am not saying. I am by no means arguing against scientific advancement. I am by no means arguing against the development and refinement of theories of creation. I am in no way arguing against Ken Ham’s appropriate prerogative to advance his researched arguments. These are all good, and I applaud them, as well as, to name one other individual, the work of Hugh Ross to demonstrate a significantly different model of God’s creation. In other words, have at it, boys!
What I do object to, and very strongly, is the use of a specific understanding of creation as a point of orthodoxy. I object very strongly to the wielding of one particular viewpoint as a club with which to bash other sincere believers as something less than faithful followers of Jesus. Suffice it to say that in the times I have heard Mr. Ham speak, he has come across in just this manner, raising his understanding of creation to such a point of orthodoxy that to disagree with his particular take is to, at the very least, call one’s commitment to Christ into question. Given the Bible’s strong words against sowing discord among the brethren, I find Ken Ham to be just such an agent, and it turns me off.
Look, I understand the critical nature of contending earnestly for the faith once delivered: I get it, and I think any semi-regular reader of this blog would concur. But I have little use for needless rancor, and I have little use for dividing the brethren over matters that even a modicum of humility ought to cause honest believers to admit, “Your ways, o God, are higher than ours.”
So by all means, do your research, write your books, argue your points, build your museums. Bring all of your understanding on the subject to bear. Though I am a “creation agnostic”, I am not unpersuadable, and perhaps I could be won over to your viewpoint. But other sincere Christians are not the enemy, regardless of your distaste for their viewpoints. We live in a world increasingly hostile to Bible truth, in which a percentage of people beleve the preposterous notion that the universe came into being without a Creator. And in that context, intramural squabbles conducted without Christian grace have no place.
And that, friends, is why I doubt I will ever visit the Creation Museum.
Aggressive Capitulation: One “Church” Deals with the “Gay Marriage” Debate
November 24, 2011
I think I have found—or rather been again reminded of—my exact polar opposite when it comes to people calling themselves followers of Jesus. A little history here is in order. Between January, 1990 and March, 1993, I was pastor of a small Southern Baptist church in High Point, NC. Students of church history will recognize this time period as perhaps the most contentious in Southern Baptist history. While it may not be accurate to say there was a formal split in the Convention, it felt like one, as so-called “moderates” removed themselves and aligned with other Baptist groups, including at least a couple groups formed specifically as alternatives to a Convention increasingly determined to go back to its theological roots. Of course, I wholeheartedly supported this return to Biblical orthodoxy, even if I did not always appreciate the manner in which the “fight” was carried out. It was during this time that I became aware of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church, located in Raleigh. Pullen and my church were ostensibly part of the same movement, but we could not have been further apart. It was during my tenure at Brentwood, if memory serves, that Pullen Memorial was removed from membership in the local Baptist association, due to some radical stance the church had taken.
Fast-forward now some twenty years, and because liberalism is a progressive disease, a dysfunction lacking grounding in anything save for a willingness to embrace the newest and trendiest aberrations, the church has gone progressively further off the theological deep end. The pastor of Pullen Church, one Nancy Petty, had decided several months back to take a mirror-opposite position to mine with regard to “gay marriage”, the aberration that bestows on homosexuals the special right to radically redefine the institution of marriage in accord with their own proclivities. Ms. Petty had decided that, while she would continue to perform weddings of heterosexual couples as well as “weddings” of homosexual couples, she would no longer sign state-issue marriage licenses for anyone, as long as the state of North Carolina refused to belly up to the progressive bar and declare the two types of relationships “equal”. This past week, the congregation of Pullen Church decided unanimously to declare this the official policy of the church. This, of course, is their privilege and freedom as Americans; I suppose if there’s one thing upon which I and the good folks at Pullen can agree, it is that we both cherish religious freedom as Americans.
That’s likely where the similarity ends, of course. My position, and I’ve mentioned this before, is the polar opposite: I will not sign a state-issued marriage license in any state that so cheapens the meaning of marriage in this way, though like Ms. Petty, I would conduct the ceremony. Frankly, I would encourage any and every evangelical pastor to take this same position. Though I may at a later point post a more fully-orbed defense of my beliefs, suffice it to say that my rationale is pretty simple: I refuse to be in any way, shape, or form an accomplice to this aberration.
The folks at Pullen couch their decision in terms like “equal protection under the law” (“gay marriage” entails nothing of the sort), “discriminat(ion)” (perhaps this is accurate in one sense, of course; marriage is by definition, whether “inclusive” or “exclusive” of gay couples, an institution that discriminates, and no sane person would have it any other way), “denying (homosexuals) the rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples” (Pullen here makes a typical liberal mistake, believing that rights accrue to particular groups rather than to individuals; I could write an entire post on this), and basing their position on the notion that “before God all people are equal”, which certainly is true, but which is thoroughly irrelevant to the conversation. Then again, such is the norm, generally, for liberal attempts to reason.
Liberal churches such as Pullen pride themselves (not too strong a word, judging by their website) on their genuineness, innovation, and cutting-edge positions on issues. Again, this is their prerogative. But make no mistake: when “churches” such as Pullen Memorial Baptist act in ways such as this, they are doing little more than boldly standing for the right to meekly cower before the spirit of the age.
Let’s call it “aggressive capitulation”.
Should There be a “Religious Test”?
November 24, 2011
Article VI of the United States Constitution reads, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. And I couldn’t be more in agreement, if this plank is understood correctly: no person should be barred from running for elective office, nor from serving in that office if elected, on the basis of his/her religious preference or lack thereof. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, as Mormons for instance, have every right to run for any office they choose, and to serve if elected. For that matter, I would wholeheartedly oppose any effort to bar an atheist, say, from running or serving.
That doesn’t mean that I’d ever vote for an atheist.
See, the problem we are seeing these days is that there are a number of folks who want to extend this idea of “no religious test” to the choices individual Americans make with regard to candidates for office. Here’s an example:
Obama and the Religious Test Clause
And this, of course, is clearly wrong—again, understood correctly. Allow me to explain.
People, notably secularists, but also many “people of faith”, want to use the term “religion” in what to me seems a skewed way. Disclaimer: I don’t even particularly care for the term itself, because of its rampant misuse—but I won’t use this space for a rant thereupon. Here’s the deal: a “religion” entails, though it is not limited to, a worldview, a particular viewpoint of reality. If it is taken seriously, rather than taken in a Nancy Pelosi-type way, religion involves the shaping of people’s core values and understanding of the nature of the universe, the fundamental nature of human beings, and everything that flows from those perceptions. Protestations notwithstanding, it is impossible, again at least for any politician who is serious about his/her faith, for that faith not to ultimately color that person’s approach to governing.
Now, people who don’t really understand what “religion” is about will often either under- or over-react to religion’s role in the way a candidate governs. They will tend to focus on overt things rather than underlying principles. For instance, some have railed about so-called “Religious Right” politicians wanting to set up the United States as a “theocracy”. By using this term, they either misunderstand what a “theocracy” entails, or misunderstand what motivates most on the “Religious Right”, or more likely, both. On the other hand, they sometimes under-react by dismissing concerns regarding their pet politicians, by assuring us that there will be no attempt at mass conversion, or hyper-meddling, by the representatives of a candidate’s church. Said Mitt Romney four years ago, “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.” Thanks, Mitt, but that’s not what we’re concerned about…
What people ought to be rightly concerned about, and what ought to influence their votes, is the view of reality that a given religion espouses, and of course the degree to which a given candidate gives evidence of agreement with that worldview. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are Baptists, and it’s fair to say that at points, their positions often reflected, not your great-grandmother’s Southern Baptist Convention, but the neo-orthodox version of Southern Baptist theology that was, thankfully, repudiated by the rank-and-file members during the often-rancorous SBC wars of the eighties and early-nineties. Though I was a Baptist during both of Mr. Carter’s runs, and the first of Mr. Clinton’s, I enthusiastically voted instead for a member of the Disciples of Christ (who ironically held many positions which sharply contrasted with this liberal denomination’s stances) twice, and an Episcopalian once, (albeit somewhat reluctantly). Now, it is probably fair to say that I wasn’t really applying a “religious test” in those cases; I certainly wasn’t preferring candidates from “my tribe” above those of another. And yet, the beliefs—the “religious beliefs”, if you will—of each candidate made a difference in my vote.
To those who would decry using a “religious test” as part of our voting considerations, I must protest. What of an atheist who ran? Would his atheism not likely tell us a lot about how that candidate viewed reality? Of course…and I’d not (knowingly, at least) vote for an atheist. What if Tom Cruise ran for office? Would his Scientology not be a telling factor in his belief structure? Of course it would, and under no circumstances would I vote for a Scientologist.
And this, of course, brings us to Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Mormon faith is well outside the mainstream of evangelical Christian thinking. Mormons often agree, politically, with positions taken by conservatives, and for that, I am thankful. Have I, personally, reached a decision with regard to, particularly, Mitt Romney? No, as of yet, I have not. But to say that his chosen faith, the beliefs that Mormons hold, the stances and positions that flow from it, and the questions it may or may not raise about how Mr. Romney’s mind works, ought have zero bearing on decisions I make in the voting booth, is in my judgment preposterous. Of course a candidate’s faith matters, because a candidate’s beliefs matter, and a candidate’s actions which naturally flow from a faith taken seriously matter, and a candidate’s positions, which naturally flow from that faith, matter. And evaluating such are fair game, and ever shall be.
And being concerned about such things—and voting in accord with our concerns—categorically does not violate either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution’s proscription of a “religious test”.
Mark Gubicza, Elizabeth Taylor, David Barton, and the Desperate Hunt for “Christian America”
November 12, 2011
Mark Gubicza was a slightly-better-than-average major league pitcher for a number of years.
Elizabeth Taylor was, well, Elizabeth Taylor.
David Barton is, or at least his official biography says he is, “an expert in historical and constitutional issues”.
I was thinking about David Barton the other day, and I thought of Mark Gubicza. And then I thought of Liz Taylor. And this is the certainly the first writing in the history of the world that has linked these three people together. Allow me…
I am a bit of a sports junkie, as many of you know, and I particularly enjoy digesting and analyzing sports statistics. For anyone who might know the reference, I think Bill James is a genius (and many of his imitators aren’t, by the way). At any rate, a number of years ago, I was reading a piece in some sports publication that used some new metric to rate every major league player, both pitchers and hitters (and ostensibly, fielders, I guess). After the author had crunched all the numbers, his apparatus spit back at us the player who, over the previous two or three years (I believe it was) was the best pitcher in baseball. And the answer was…Mark Gubicza.
It was during about that same period of time that I listened to Liz Taylor being interviewed on 20/20 or 60 Minutes or some TV newsmagazine about her good friend Michael Jackson, and when asked about the late Gloved One’s eccentricities, Liz said, “Michael Jackson is the most normal man I know.”
When I read that Mark Gubicza was purportedly the best pitcher in baseball, I remember thinking, “you haven’t told me a whole lot about Mark Gubicza, but you’ve said a whole lot about the credibility of your measuring device.” When I heard Elizabeth Taylor say that Michael Jackson was the most normal man she knew, I thought, “Liz, you haven’t told us much about Michael, but you have just spoken volumes about yourself.”
Now, how does this relate to David Barton? I’ll get to that, but for the uninitiated, a few words on the background of this post. Mr. Barton has become quite the superstar these days in some evangelical circles. He makes the rounds of churches and Christian schools, appears on Glenn Beck’s (now defunct) TV program, and leads a ministry named WallBuilders, which entails doing a lot of writing and other things.
And this is a big problem.
It’s a big problem because, quite simply, Mr. Barton plays fast-and-loose with our history. He holds neither a degree in history nor a degree in law, and yet he is accepted as an authority. Granted, he has certainly read a lot more about our nation’s history—and our Christian heritage—than have I. I am certain that Mr. Barton says a lot of things that are correct and helpful; I tend to agree that some on the secular left have not presented an accurate picture of how Christian faith helped mold our nation. But I am equally certain that Mr. Barton is guilty of presenting an inaccurate picture as well. There is plenty out there on the internet detailing his shabby regard for the facts that I need not get into specifics; you can certainly be big boys and girls and find it for yourselves if you don’t want to take my word for it.
But here’s how David Barton reminds me of Liz Taylor and Mark Gubicza: when David Barton makes statements that are completely contrary to those of every reputable historian; when he attempts to paint Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as strong Christians; when he adds his own interpretations to the writings and words of our nation’s founders as though his words were actually theirs (confident that his interpretation was their intent despite no such corroboration from any other historians); when these things happen, I say to myself, “you’ve not said much about history, but you’ve sure said a lot about yourself.”
So why do evangelicals so love Oral Roberts grad David Barton, an “authority” without many credentials? I would suggest it is because he tells us what we really want to believe. We are convinced—and I add myself to the “we” in this sentence—that the mainly-secular media slants the story in the other direction, tries to convince us that Christian faith was only incidental to our nation’s founding. And along comes Barton, who has certainly done a lot of reading and research, and we swallow what he says because we so want it to be true.
And some of it, no doubt, is. But enough of it involves historical revisionism, selective quoting of historical documents, and putting words in the mouths of our Founding Fathers, that he ought not be taken seriously as an expert in such matters.
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
