A Willingness to Challenge Culture

The news today is filled with stories about the late congressman from Georgia, John Lewis. Others who knew him and/or who have carefully researched his life should write about this great man. I'll just say he was a man of conscience, who powerfully, and often effectively, addressed some of the greatest wrongs in America, in particular the American South. Congressman Lewis had the scars to demonstrate the sincerity of his convictions.

Though, as I have admitted, I don't know a lot about Congressman Lewis, I do think I can say with confidence that he sought to fight for things that are right. To look at it from the other side, he opposed some things that he saw in his world that were/are wrong. His life was lived in the conviction that was eloquently expressed (though a case can be made not lived) by Thomas Jefferson. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . . ." There are things that we know are right and wrong. As the Apostle Paul says there is a law written in the heart of even the irreligious (Romans 2:14-15).

One of the books that we read in a class on critical thinking that I teach uses a useful illustration to ask the question as to whether there are really virtues and therefore the necessary vices that come in their absence. The author of the Book, Russ Payne says yes there are ethical realities. (An Introduction to Philosophy, see in particular chapters 9-11). He asks the question, "Is it really wrong to torture puppies?" If one lived among a people that declared that puppy torturing is a great good, would that make it right? Paynes' answer is, Yes, there are ethical realities. Kindness, for example, is a real virtue, and I would say its opposite is a real vice. J. P. Moreland, the author of another book we use in the class, upholds the same concept. Though he is an Evangelical Christian he appeals to natural law.

Two specific aspects of scriptural teaching about extrabiblical knowledge are worthy of special note. First, Scripture repeatedly acknowledges the existence of natural moral law: true moral principles rooted in the way God made things, addressed to humans as humans (instead of to man as a believing member of the kingdom of God) and knowable by all people independently of the Bible (Job 31:13-15; Romans 1–2). Among other things, what this means is that believers need not appeal to Scripture in arguing for certain ethical positions, say, in the abortion debate.

Moreland, J.P.. Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (932 of 4822). NavPress. Kindle Edition.

In the face of powerful, head-bashing opposition, Lewis said that racial segregation and its associated evils are wrong. An ethical reality is being violated. I oppose this. As a child of the South, I'm glad he did. My culture was, and in ways still is, wrong. Treating people differently because they have more melanin in their skin is not right. 

So, where does this leave us?

• Some would say that we just dump Mr. Jefferson's classic lines. The powerful people always seem to find self-evident truths that favor their kind. I think Solomon, the great thinker, saw this as well. "Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them.” (Ecclesiastes 4:1, ESV)
  But if we just lapse into the right for you but not for me relativism--the direction things appear to be moving in my lifetime--don't we lose too much?
• Clearly, the "self-evident truths" some have claimed to have observed, have turned out to be falsehoods. The phrenology of the Nineteenth Century is an example. The shape and size of one's head is not an indication of intelligence and proper station in life. From pseudo-science to bad Biblical interpretation my culture has frequently gotten it wrong. Sorting out prejudice and ethical reality is hard work. Yet a skepticism that says, Nobody, really knows what is right and wrong," leads to the postmodern tribalism into which the Western world continues to descend. Unfortunately, I see the West taking other cultures into the same pit.
• I propose that John Lewis was right. We need to oppose what is wrong. We need to stand for what is right. We need to do so humbly, knowing that we often don't get it right the first time, or second, or twentieth. We should follow our Lord's counsel and be more eager to remove logs from our own eyes than splinters from the eyes of others. We can't, however, just take a pass. We are here for a reason.

Bottom line, for those of us who know the Lord, this is part of our salt and light project. If, as I believe, there really are ethical rights and wrongs, then how can we pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it in heaven," unless we try to live out and encourage those ethical realities. If my culture says otherwise, I must be willing to change.

Is This The Best We Can Do?

I just read Al Mohler's blog-post of a couple of weeks ago.  I found Mohler's reasoning and conclusions to be helpful.  Central in his piece is the conviction that character does matter.  His observation agrees with mine.  Evidence--and that is all we can go on--indicates a serious lack of a solid moral base in both major presidential candidates.

Mrs. Clinton simply doesn't seem to care about truth and integrity.  The recent announcement by the FBI, though indicating that the former Secretary of State would not be indited, was hardly an indication that she is a person of character.  She is clearly dedicated to the "We will absolutely not ever interfere with any abortion." position of the the Democrat party.  I cannot say whether her position is one of personal commitment or political expediency.  Either way it is a serious ethical flaw.  On one hand it represents a disrespect for human life, on the other it displays a glaring lack of integrity,  While a case can be made that she is was the victim of her husband's adultery, and her willingness to work through those issues and preserve her family is admirable, I have not heard her offer an apology to "The vast right wing conspiracy" since it became clear that, indeed, her husband did have "sex with that woman."

Recently, Evangelical (former) leader James Dobson announced that he believed that Donald Trump is born again.  The report, based on what he heard, indicates that Paula White led the presumptive Republican candidate to faith in Jesus.  I will gladly lead the rejoicing should such a report turn out to be true, but the fact is, I have no idea whether it is true or not.  I am struck with the convenience of floating this story at a time when Republican strategists are desperate to gain Evangelical support for their candidate.  In a subsequent statement Dobson speaks with greater caution.  Like me, it now appears that he is hopeful, but agnostic on the matter.  More to the point, the reality or fiction of the reports about Trump's conversion are irrelevant to the decision before me.  I know many folk--I would probably put myself in the group--who clearly are trusting the Gospel of Christ for life and eternity, who would make horrible presidents.  It is in a different realm, but the concept is relevant.  Paul, passing on counsel to his younger delegate, Timothy, cautions him to “not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others." (1 Timothy 5:22, NASB95)  When looking for someone to lead the church the standard was not, "Is he reported to be born again?" but, does he exhibit the necessary character?"  (See 1 Timothy 3) Though such character flows from a heart changed by "grace, through faith," it takes time to be seen.  We haven't had, and we won't have, the time to inspect the fruit.

In case it isn't clear, what I'm saying is I don't see either of the major candidates to be somebody I am for. As far as it goes, that is a sentiment that I hear from a number of Evangelicals.  They aren't for either candidate, however they are more, not-for, one candidate, and so they will, therefore, vote for the other.  One reason I appreciated Mohler's article is that he doesn't make that case.  Fairly early on Russel Moore wrote on that line of reasoning.  "Should we vote for the lesser of two evils?"  I admire the clarity of his conclusion.

Our primary concern is not the election night victory party, but the Judgment Seat of Christ.
When Christians face two clearly immoral options, we cannot rationalize a vote for immorality or injustice just because we deem the alternative to be worse. The Bible tells us we will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we “give approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32).
This side of the New Jerusalem, we will never have a perfect candidate. But we cannot vote for evil, even if it’s our only option.

 During my pastoral career I avoided endorsing candidates.  I'm not doing that now.  If anything I'm saying that I don't see either of the major candidates as worthy of my vote.  That's bipartisan, folks.  What will I do on November 8?  I don't yet know.  I am trying to approach this mess in such a way that my integrity will be intact on the other side.  I know that many of you will disagree with me on one or more of my points.  I have little interest in arguing.  I'd rather encourage.  Do what is right; at least try.

 

Marrying folk who are living together:

I suppose it is the pastoral equivalent of a lady hearing someone say, "Have you lost weight?  You look great!"  Someone recently commended me for "speaking the truth in love."  The conversation this friend spoke of was one that took place some years ago.  Two adults were living together without being married.  They had plans to be married--some five months in the future--and without thinking about it very much, they thought that made their present cohabitation OK.
I need to make known that I wasn't an outsider sticking my nose into somebody else's business.  On two levels (maybe more) I was being asked to be a part of the live-together now, marry later arrangement.  I remember swallowing hard just before I said, "I have a problem with that."
After I turned on the flashing red light in the room, I gave the couple an opportunity to end the conversation.  I know that the fact that I have a problem does not necessarily mean that I have a right to impose my standard on others.  The couple said little, but their eyes, and more the fact that they stayed seated, said, "Go on."  It's not a time for a complicated, long-winded, hard to follow tirade.  I used a one-verse observation to, as my friend, said, "Speak the truth in love."
There is nothing complex here, but it might be something that will help others who desire to lovingly speak the truth about a difficult problem in our culture.

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."  (Hebrews 13:4)

Use the semicolon in the verse above as the dividing line.  Before the semicolon the verse is marked by honor.  God says that what is going on here is to be held in honor.  Whatever is going on after the semicolon is something that makes one subject to God's judgment--hardly honorable.  The mention of the "marriage bed" is a tip-off.  If one were to make a video of what is going on in the marriage bed (something I very much don't recommend), and if a video were made of the activity that is described as fornication and adultery, the content of the videos would be identical.  So here the very same activity that in the front end of the verse is honorable, in the back end of the verse places one in the uncomfortable position of being the subject of God's judgment.
"So," I asked my friends, "what makes the difference between the two ends of the verse?  What has changed?"
The obvious answer is marriage.  At the beginning of the verse a married couple is being contemplated.  At the end a couple who are unwed.

Generally this scriptural observation/exhortation doesn't have the positive result that it had on this day.  I've been told that such matters are none of my business.  Frequently, I'm met with a look of incredulity, that eloquently says something like, "I can't believe that you believe (or "still believe") that."

I do believe it.  Further I don't believe it is just an arbitrary standard that God sent down from on high.  The sexual standard of the Bible is really rather simple.  Sex is to take place only between a man and a woman who are married to one another.  God gave us this standard because it is in line with the way that He made us.  Adhering to this standard leads to the greatest possible human flourishing.  Allowing it to erode does no one any favors, and for those of us who are given the responsibility to speak for the Lord, to fail to uphold this standard is sinful.

Here is where I have problem with some of my colleagues.  For too many of my fellow-pastors, this is the elephant that fills the room yet is politely ignored.   I'm  asking you to acknowledge the pachyderm.  It is tough, very tough, but I am convinced that if we are going to maintain our integrity we have to deal with it.
I appreciate the position that some pastors I know have taken:

• The pastor of a mega-church in California says to couples who inquire about marriage, "If I am going to work with you in doing this wedding you need to enter into this commitment of purity.  I'm not going to judge you about the past, but I need for your to commit to a standard of purity (chastity) from this point until your marriage."
• When confronted with the usual "problem,"
  "We can't get married now, we have to book a DJ, buy a dress, schedule a venue, etc. etc. etc."  Sometimes all of this is complicated by the claim that "we can't afford to live apart."  Leaving aside for a moment the fact that a family of six could live for a year on all they money they are proposing to spend on the big wedding, my friend offers the couple two alternatives:  Somebody needs to move out, or our church will help you put together a wedding.  It has to take place within two weeks.  (To those who would say that one more night is no different than another year, I would say, There is a difference.  My friend is encouraging the couple toward a commitment to do what is right, rather than what looks fabulous.)
• Another uses a questionnaire to begin a conversation about what the couple really wants.  If what they really, really want is to do as they jolly well please in spite of what the Word of God says, what business do we as "Men of God" have in being involved?

Guys, we can help one another here.  If a couple says, in essence, "We really don't think that what the Bible says about marriage has anything to do with us."  Why should we be involved.  I tell couples, "I'm not in the marrying business.  I am, however, glad to help people build Biblical homes.  If we are going to do that, we need to start right now."

I'd love to hear from you.  I think a discussion--even an argument--could be helpful.

I have observed the shift these two writers talk about--Evangelicals, and others who share their conservative ethical views,  are increasingly looked upon as the enemy.  How could you miss a societal change that obvious?  The phenomena Colin Hansen and Steve Cornell talk about is growing all around us.  The recent flap of Lou Giglio is one example.  These articles ask what we should we do about it?  Hunker down or go on the offense?

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/01/30/dare-to-be-immoral/

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/dare-to-challenge-the-intolerance/

Two News Stories with brief comments:

I just saw these two stories.
Both raised reaction in me.  This blog gives me a place to let my thoughts out:

"A pastor created a huge backlash on Reddit when he [Get it right C.T., it's "she."] left a note on a St. Louis Applebee's restaurant bill refusing a gratuity to a server." (here & here)

I offer this tip, to pastors everywhere.  Be generous.  And to "Pastor" Bell, Ms. Welch, the waitress, did not ruin your reputation!  You did, when your lack of character allowed you to write that note to the lady who had just waited on you and your guests.

AND:

In a major policy reversal, the Boy Scouts of America made a statement that the organization will probably allow professed homosexuals to hold leadership positions in the organization. (more)

I'm surprised, though I probably shouldn't be.  

I'm disappointed.  

I know some fine people involved in scouting--folk who are trying to keep roles, relationships, and responsibilities in order.  This will make things harder for them.

This also reinforces a conclusion of mine.  The church--those of us who are willing to live out and die for the truth of God's word--is going to have to stand alone.  I'm not saying that we should not try to preserve as many allies as we can for as long as we are able.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be sad when a cultural friend packs up and heads home.  I am saying that our situation is rapidly becoming identical to that of the First Century Christians in Corinth.  We are going to be called on to make decisions and take stands that no one around us will understand, or support.  We are going to have take seriously the Apostle Paul's admonition:

   “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:14–18, NASB95)  

I know the language sounds harsh.  It is Paul's not mine.  We have lived in a place and time where our culture has supported our Christian values.  That has been eroding.  It appears that the deterioration has reached a tipping point.  At this point I'm not speaking as an old Fundamentalist--though I am thankful for what my heritage has given me.  I write as a sad observer.

It's Complicated . . .

but politics often is.

Since it involves Sarah Palin, and she's been good enough to call my house several times in the last week, I thought I'd share something with her here. She didn't leave a number for me to call her back. I'm sure it just slipped her mind.



Anyhow:



I may not have all the details, but here is what I understand. Joe Miller, a friend of yours, won the Republican primary.

Incumbent Republican, Lisa Murkowski was not willing to rally behind Miller. Instead, with the blessing of much of the GOP establishment Ms. Murkowski is mounting a write-in campaign.

One can make a case that Murkowski had somewhat of a contract to respect the will of the primary voters. She lost. What she did seemed like bad style to me. I think her explanation, she wants the "people to have a choice," is pretty lame. Seems they had a choice and it wasn't her. I'll let others decide whether what she did was ethical. Is there such a thing as political-ethics? If so, my guess is a lot of politicians skipped that class.

I live a long way from Alaska, so I don't know much about what happened next. I understand that Murkowski's campaign was able to get some consessions from a judge, making it easier for a voter to write in. Included in these consessions was a ruling that poll workers would have a list with the names of write-in candidates who asked to be put on the list. Write-ins have to be spelled correctly. Murkowski is not the most common name.

Now, a radio talk show host--who looks a lot like a young Rush Limbaugh--gets involved. As I understand it, Dan Fagan, began promoting the idea that every Tom, Dick, and Mary, especially if their last name ended in "ski," should call the judge and get their name on this list. The idea being, this would make it harder for voters to find and copy Murkowski's name. Understandably, the Murkowski campaign was not happy with the radio voice. They made threats and Mr. Fagan found himself suspended.

There were some other media misactions, directed at Miller, that took place about the same time. While not directly related, they no doubt helped fuel to the ire.



OK, I'm not commenting on Politics, Governor Palin, I just want to talk about what is right.

I agree that as long as Fagan is not violating a law he has the freedom to spout his stuff. I have weighed-in, in the past, on protecting the freedoms of folk with whom we don't agree. (See my post from 8/24) I don't know, so I won't argue with you when you say that Miller is being treated badly.

What bothers me is I don't hear you saying that political decisions should not be decided by tricks and obfuscation--tricking people into spelling a name wrong. We should help people get the truth, persuade them to act on that truth, and pray. Winning by tricks may produce a short-term victory. It is a sure route to long-term disaster.



We can't tolerate underhanded behavior on the part of those who support our causes. If we don't condemn this stuff, at the least we appear to support it.

Our Ethical Health is What Really Needs Reform:

I've been thinking about the recently passed health-care bill, and the "process" that led to its passage. I'm amazed at how many people I run into who are angry, sad, afraid, or in other ways very upset about what happened in Washington. Comments contain words like, trickery, liars, flim-flam artists, devious, weak, sold-out, just-in-it-for-what-they-can-get. To say the least a great many people are upset.
There are thinkers and doers more capable than me who are encouraging political action. I'm listening, and I hope you are, as well. Rather than add my voice to the political conversation, what I want to do is seize on this teachable moment to point out how this monumental legislative/political struggle has shown that our culture is no longer standing on a foundation of truth and an ethic of right and wrong. Congress, and way to many of those of us who vote for congress-persons have taken our ethical motto from a popular advertising campaign and comedy routine, "Git-er-done!" I would add one word. "Just git-er-done!" Whatever it takes, whatever corners must be cut, however deeply the truth must be trampled into the mud, no matter if people less powerful than we must be hurt, just make sure at the end of the day that the task at hand is done.

Herewith I offer my top ten (maybe with a bonus or two) ways you know your ethics are slipping (or are already gone):

10 When you have start most of your statements with, "What I really meant was . . ."
The Bible puts forth this simple ethic, "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no." (James 5:12)
9) When the question that precedes any promise made is what, "What will you give me if . . . ?"
In describing the man of sterling character, the Psalmist describes him as someone "Swears to his own hurt and does not change." (Psalm 15:4, NASB) He keeps his word even when it costs him. From beginning to end, many of those who have populated the news have offered their oath to the highest bidder.
8) When your attitude about rules is, "If they will help me accomplish my goal, I support them, but if they are in my way I'm prepared to ignore, distort, or change them in a suspect way.
7) When those who are weak are looked at not as someone to be protected, but someone who can be used, ignored, or run-over to accomplish my goal."
6) When the ethical positions of others are instantly labeled as prejudices, thus making it easier for me seek to buy, beat, or ignore them.
5) When I am prepared to introduce totally unrelated incentives to accomplish my goal.
"If you won't tell mom, I'll give you my ice cream." can easily become, "If you don't tell the boss about me padding me my expense account I'll take your weekend on-call shift." which is just a short distance from, "If you'll vote for this bridge in my district, I'll give my vote on this legislation that affects an entire nation for decades."
4) When you are willing to listen to, and act favorably on the kind of approach in #5.
>3) When self-interest, like keeping my job, not getting caught, being reelected, or ending up with more at the end of the day, trumps all other concerns.
Look at Habakkuk 1:16. The ancient Chaldeans were so dedicated to the God of "WHAT WORKS" that offered sacrifices to the tools of their trade.
2) When you outsource matters of conscience to others.
I.E. Students who figure it is the teacher's job to keep them from cheating, workers who only work when they have to, drivers who only obey the law if they think there is a cop watching, or congressmen who say, "'If you don't tie our hands, we'll keep stealing." Character is what you are when no one is watching. Only a culture that has no respect for character continues to honor those who demonstrate that they have none.
1) When the prime question ceases to be, "What should I do?" and becomes a combination of, "What do I want?" and, "What can I get by with?"

11) When the word "principle" is almost always preceded by some version of "compromise" or followed by "but."

12) When people are expendible but getting what I want is not.
Read the rest of Psalm 15 and note the restraint of the man of integrity. The Archangel Michael showed Satan more respect than many of the addressed as "The Honorable" show one another.