2 Articles & a Statement on the "Respect for Marriage" Act:

The two articles, one from a respected Evangelical magazine and the other from a widely read online, Evangelical commentator,  agree on the basic facts of what the act does--mainly codifying recent SCOTUS decisions, particularly Obergefell. The CT article puts a positive spin on it, while Dennison takes a darker view.

I think the CT article is only available to subscribers. You may find it elsewhere. It is by Carl Esbeck.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/november-web-only/same-sex-marriage-religious-liberty-respect-marriage-act.html

https://www.denisonforum.org/daily-article/does-the-so-called-respect-for-marriage-act-threaten-our-religious-liberty/

In the Theological sense, I am an Evangelical, the LDS church is not. They have, however, been co-belligerents with us in many of the social battles of our time. The first line of their statement indicates that they still profess to be on our side in regard to a proper definition of marriage. 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement
I wonder, though, in our age of freedom to worship (in private), but not necessarily freedom to proclaim truth lest it offend, is the Mormon statement a retreat into a sort of modified Benedict Option (HM's brief definition: withdraw, hole up, and hope, wait, and pray for better days).

Not all slopes are slippery, but, clearly, some are. 

Christian leaders need to be wise. All of us need to pray for clear courageous thinking.

Can We Just All Get Along? Part 1:

Mark Galli, Franklin Graham, and some friends of mine:
I realize that by writing this, I'm taking the role of someone who steps into a domestic dispute. Before I'm done both sides might decide to unite and fight with me rather than each other. I'm motivated to stick my nose in, however, because this is a squabble that is taking place between my friends. Though I've never met either, I regard both Mark Galli and Franklin Graham as friends. I have benefitted from both of their ministries. As soon as the matter hit the fan, so to speak, some of my personal friends began to weigh in. I felt like the host at a Thanksgiving feast when war-veteran Uncle Charlie, just couldn't resist commenting on Niece Suzie's "I love Jane Fonda" sweatshirt and the vegan meal she had packed in for the occasion.
At first, I thought I would write one big peace-making piece. Instead, I'm going to dole out my "wisdom" in bite-size servings. That way you can chew on each serving for a day or two before the next mouthful is served up.
Before I offer my first pacific hors d'oeuvres (note that's a lower-case "p"), let me review what I'm talking about.

• On December 19, Editor Mark Galli published an editorial in Christianity Today stating, "Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments."
• Whatever is you may think of Galli--I have found him to be often helpful in pulling together various strands of thought in the Christian world--he is no dummy. I'm not saying that it was Galli's intention to stir up a ruckus with his frequent use of CT founder, Rev. Billy Graham's, name, but he had to have known that using Graham's name in this context could be seen as waving a red cape in front of a bull named Franklin.
• Franklin Graham, Billy's son, did not disappoint. He released a statement the next day. To no one's surprise, he disagreed with Galli. He did surprise some of us, though, when he revealed that his dad had voted for Mr. Trump.
• I have no idea how many opinion pieces followed. I saw several articles about an interview Galli did on CNN. Another article is a summary of an interview Galli had with New Yorker writer, Isaac Chotiner.
• Nothing much happens in our world without a petition or letter to sign. Not to disappoint, more than one-hundred Evangelical leaders signed a letter addressed to CT President Timothy Dalrymple. “Your editorial offensively questioned the spiritual integrity and Christian witness of tens-of-millions of believers who take seriously their civic and moral obligations.”
• Of course, Dalrymple responded, and 
• on it goes.

Let's begin by thinking about worldviews--perhaps philosophies or even Theologies are better words. What I'm talking about are those foundational truths on which we build the rest of our thinking. Our overall philosophy of life and our ethics which are part of that philosophy are based on the way we see the world. What makes the world tick? Or, perhaps more accurately, "What would make our world work the way it should?"
Since all Evangelicals, to one extent or another, hold in common the basic Gospel message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and all that these fact mean, one would think that Evangelicals share the same worldview. One might think that, but one might be wrong. The Roman Catholic Church and the early reformers all subscribed to the same creeds, yet their differences fomented reformations, martyrdoms, and wars. The varying denominations in Christendom bear witness not to what they shared, but to that over which they differed.

The operative question is often not just, "What do you think is important? but, "What do you think is most important at this time, and how does that differ from what your neighbor thinks?"
Take the present bruhaha and dig down to the basic realities--as each side sees them--that lie below the surface. Here are two matters that both sides agree on, in principle, but about which they disagree mightily in degree and emphasis--abortion and social justice. Keeping our focus on the evangelical leaders who are in this argument, it is clear that both sides are prolife. Just reading the articles I mentioned above will make that clear. Once you get below that agreement in principle, however, we notice all sorts of differences. Is this the most important issue of our day? Is it so important that someone who is not prolife disqualifies themself as being worthy to hold public office? What about prenatal deformities, rape, or incest? How do we define "health of the mother"? What difference does the answer make?
Galli's writing and Graham's humanitarian work clearly show both to be dedicated to social justice. Just exactly how does one best address life's inequities? To what extent do people today have a responsibility to repair the social legacy of their less enlightened ancestors?
There is an old joke about politics. Elections are about choosing between "Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer." (originally it was Tweedledee and Tweedledum, John Tenniel's illustration, from Through the Looking-Glass (1871)). Of course nobody in national politics is dum anymore. even if they are, brains can easily be hired. It seems that now the choice if often between Tweedle Bad and Tweedle worse. Deciding who is Bad and who is Worse is a matter of nuance. Answers to basic questions like those above are going to inform that choice. Good people will disagree.

Two more things, really quick:
Nobody wants to make an important decision based on 50.0001% certainty. In the same way that a fisherman's fish gets bigger each time he tells about his catch, decisions that barely more than a coin-toss to begin with, evolve into thunderous slam-dunks. Our craving for certitude drives us in that direction.
When our certitude is challenged we easily become like a potential mugging victim cornered in a dark alley. 2x4, rock, broken bottle, we desperately look for a weapon we can use in self-defense. In  the kind of fight this article is about, there is almost always piece of pipe nearby. It is about 2 feet long and has fitting on one end. Read the label--ad hominem, attack the spokesperson rather than what the spokesperson says.

In this case the spokesperson is me, so be nice. Chew on this until next time.
it

The Ins and Outs of Christians living in an ungodly world:

This is rough.  It is merely a cut-and-paste from some old sermon notes.
I'm posting this as a follow-up or further explanation of the STTA for August 30, 2011.
As followers of Christ, our relationship with the world is complex.  Perhaps these bones from a past sermon will be of help to you.

Christians in an Ungodly World.

#1 The "In"s and "Out"s of Christian Living in an Ungodly World, John 17

Read John 17.

Do a worldliness quiz:

How many of you use

      car?

      music?

      wear neckties?

      jewelry?

      vote?

      have ever held public office, school board, etc.?

      are involved in public institutions, work for   government, kids in public school, etc.?

      watch movies?

      read non-christian magazines?

      swim or go to the beach where both sexes are    present?

All of these are regarded as worldly activities by various groups. 

Give a few examples.

While I reject the position that would characterize all or any of these activities as necessarily worldly I think that most of you would agree with me that each of them and a great many other things and activities can become negative in a person's life.

Consider another aspect of the problem:

Multitude of problems in the world:

How to solve?

Military?

Government agencies?

Is a particular view of politics "Christian"?

What should be the Christians involvement in these secular agencies?

As followers of Christ what should be our relationship to the world in which we find ourselves?

Explore this issue over the next several weeks.  It will be an exploration together, because I am still very much a learner on these matters.

H. Richard Niebuhr, in his book Christ and Culture, summarizes 5 ways that Christians have typically responded to the culture around them, the world.

1)  The first view is (move to one side of stage) is characterized by monks and present day Amish.

Our own heritage is a modification of this.  There is nothing in common.

2)  The second move to the other end.  Is represented by classical liberals and many polyannaish type people that we meet everyday (move to other end of stage) We can work together totally, denial of any fundamental differences.

In between these Christ is creator of world, Christ is redeemer of church  therefore there is some commonality.

3)  These three positions that lie between the poles are a little tough to grasp.  They may be artificial distictions, so let me simply summarize them this way.

there are those who recognixe the difference but see that the church and culture have similar goals.  We can agree with the world and work together.  We can fine tune and adjust the world so that it will work for us.

4)  There are those who see the world here and the church here in constant tension.  The relationship of the church to the world is confrontational.

5)  Finally there are those who see the mission of the church as to recreate culture.  I think that this is the reason for the fear expressed by many about the so called, "Christian Right."  Rightly or wrongly they have seen this goal and they fear it.

OK,  where should we be.

It is fairly easy to cut off the ends.  I think our look at the words of the Lord this AM will do that. 

Since the question is bound to come up.  As I read Niebuhr's book I found myself saying yes and then later saying no to the three other positions.  I find the most agreement with the position expressed by tension and confrontation.

My plan at this point is to center our thoughts around the prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ just bfore He went to the cross, John 17.

Our relationship to the world, expressed in the prepositions used by John.

"Out of" ek (6):  Eph. 2:1-2

"in" en (11):  Acts 1:8

(note, en, is used again in 17.)

"not of" ek (14,16):  I John 2:15-17

"out of" ek (15):  I Cor.5:10

Note the purposes for all of this in 1-5 & 19-26

That we might be His witnesses in the world and bring glory to God.

A review of the book by Dale S. Kuehne, SEX and the iWORLD:

In a world where the Ten Commandments are banned from court houses and social Mores are consistently ignored or overthrown what rules are there to guide us in our social interactions? Dale S. Kuehne observes that there are three taboos which govern the “iWorld,” his descriptive title of the dominant culture of the West in the Twenty-first Century:
1. One may not criticize someone else’s life choices or behavior.
2. One may not behave in a manner that coerces or causes harm to others.
3. One may not engage in a sexual relationship with someone without his or her consent. (p. 71)
Brave or not, this is the new world in which we live.
In Sex and the iWorld Kuehne contrasts three paradigms for finding meaning in life—the tWorld, traditional, the past; the iWorld, individualistic, the present; and the rWorld relational, proposed. While a discussion of sexual matters is very much a part of the book, the presentation of the three worlds is much broader than that. Sex, being an important part of who we are and our relationships, serves in the text as a window into relationships in general.
The first four chapters provide a description of, and contrasts between, the tWorld and the iWorld. The fourth chapter is devoted to an examination of “humans, human relationships, and sexuality” in the iWorld (p. 44). The rest of the book is devoted to describing the rWorld. While Kuehne is not heavy handed in his treatment, he does make it clear that a world in which relationships, with our God and others, dominate is superior not only to the individualistic way of life that dominates the West at the beginning of this millennium, but to the traditional patterns that gave meaning to life from the Greeks through the Cleavers (Ward, June, Wally, and The Beaver).
The difference between the three worlds can be seen by asking a denizen of each realm a basic question: How does one achieve happiness? The tWorlder would reply that one achieves meaning in life by accepting the role into which she or he is born, respecting the boundaries that define how one lives in that realm and then living life fully in that capacity. The citizen of iWorld is all about removing all impediments to freedom and self-expression as the means to achieving the good life. While the rWorld advocate would say that we were made to relate; we are at our best when we respect and develop relationships—with our Maker, with family, and others. While the tWorld and rWorld have some key similarities, Kuehne makes plain:

I do not want to return to the tWorld, and this book does not recommend that we try. The tWorld contained much that was good and that is consistent with my faith, but unfortunately it also contained many evils. . . . Instead I am arguing that in rediscovering the relational essence of Christianity and in seeking to live accordingly, society would actually be doing something that has never been done well. In short, I am asking you to be open to the possibility that what I am about to describe is something that has been often misunderstood and never fully lived. (p. 97-98)

Anyone who is aware of the radical changes that took place in our world around the 60s will be familiar with most of what Kuehne has to say about the contrast between the t and the i Worlds. Anyone familiar with the Bible’s teaching on sexuality, relationships, and meaning in life will likewise be disappointed if he is looking for something new in the author’s proposal for a new paradigm. But, then, didn’t Solomon say that the quest for the novel is a fruitless search? In spite of the book dealing with mostly familiar material the organizational matrix Kuehne provides is worth the read. Actually, if a reader figures that he already mostly knows about the information referenced above, what he might want to do is read the introduction, then read chapter 10, and then decide whether to read the rest of the book.
The author labors the point that this is not a Christian book per se. Kuehne identifies himself as a pastor and professor of politics. He claims to be writing primarily as the latter. A non-Christian will likely find the disclaimers disingenuous. As a conservative Christian I found them unnecessary. As one who preaches from and seeks to live by the Bible, I found little if anything with which to disagree. The author is in favor of traditional marriage, does not accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, and rejects the idea that for a person to not fulfill his sexual desires—whatever flavor they be--is the sure road to unfulfillment, if not downright neurosis.
From my perspective in the pastoral trenches it was a worthwhile 220 page read.