There have been questions raised recently by some Christians regarding whether a Mormon should become president. The reason for this is because Mitt Romney, a “top tier” Republican candidate, is a Mormon. This issue reminds me of when John Kennedy was a candidate for president back in 1960. Some Protestants were concerned that a Roman Catholic president would be taking orders from the Vatican, ridiculous as that sounds to us today. Now a similar concern has arisen with Romney. Should Christians be concerned about a Mormon as president?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the official name of the Mormon Church (sometimes abbreviated “LDS”), has the name “Jesus Christ” in it, but it is quite different from mainstream Christian churches (i.e., Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox). There are three aspects of the LDS church that make most mainstream or orthodox (with a small “O”) Christians consider it not truly “Christian” in the usual sense of the term:
(1) It has the Book of Mormon and several other books as its scripture in addition to the Bible;
(2) Its theology is quite different from mainstream Christianity in many different ways;
(3) Its eschatology (final judgment and end times) is also very different from mainstream Christianity and what the Bible has to say on this.
You can go to http://www.beliefnet.com/features/mormonism.html or other religious websites for more details on Mormonism and its beliefs.
In a future posting I’ll discuss whether a person’s formal religious affiliation is something that a person should consider when choosing whom to vote for in an election.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Homosexual Debate – Part IV
After writing my earlier postings on the subject of homosexuality, I came across an article that examined the two sides of the debate from a slightly different theological viewpoint than I had. While the article is clearly coming from the traditionalist side (that the practice of homosexuality is a sin), it does highlight the contrast between the opposing views from a theological perspective. The author, James V. Heidinger II, explains another way of understanding the debate and how Christians reading the same Bible can arrive at quite different conclusions on the subject. Below is an excerpt from that article:
Dr. Les Longden, professor of Evangelism and Discipleship at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, notes that the controversy … reflects what biblical scholar Karl Donfried describes as the struggle of “two contrasting theologies...at work in much of mainline Protestantism: a theology of acceptance versus a theology of redemption.”
The “theology of acceptance” has reduced the mystery of God “to one who simply wants us to love one another with an emphasis on the affirmation of the other, especially those who have been marginalized by society.” A “theology of redemption,” by contrast, “recognizes the power of sin, acknowledges that evil can only be overcome through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and accentuates the call to discipleship...as a call to holiness” (Donfried, “Who Owns the Bible? Toward the Recovery of a Christian Hermeneutic,” p. 7. Donfried cites Philip Turner, “An Unworkable Theology,” First Things, June/July, 2005, p. II).
Longden correctly notes that this whole controversy provides us with the opportunity to test whether the principle of “inclusiveness” is rightly normed and informed by a “theology of redemption” or is in competition with it.
For sure, the theologies contrasted above reflect more than just nuances of difference. They refer to, essentially, two different gospels.
From “Good News Magazine,” May/June 2007, Vol. 40, No. 6, page 9. © 2007, Good News, Wilmore, KY 40390
Dr. Les Longden, professor of Evangelism and Discipleship at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, notes that the controversy … reflects what biblical scholar Karl Donfried describes as the struggle of “two contrasting theologies...at work in much of mainline Protestantism: a theology of acceptance versus a theology of redemption.”
The “theology of acceptance” has reduced the mystery of God “to one who simply wants us to love one another with an emphasis on the affirmation of the other, especially those who have been marginalized by society.” A “theology of redemption,” by contrast, “recognizes the power of sin, acknowledges that evil can only be overcome through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and accentuates the call to discipleship...as a call to holiness” (Donfried, “Who Owns the Bible? Toward the Recovery of a Christian Hermeneutic,” p. 7. Donfried cites Philip Turner, “An Unworkable Theology,” First Things, June/July, 2005, p. II).
Longden correctly notes that this whole controversy provides us with the opportunity to test whether the principle of “inclusiveness” is rightly normed and informed by a “theology of redemption” or is in competition with it.
For sure, the theologies contrasted above reflect more than just nuances of difference. They refer to, essentially, two different gospels.
From “Good News Magazine,” May/June 2007, Vol. 40, No. 6, page 9. © 2007, Good News, Wilmore, KY 40390
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Homosexual Debate – Part III
Before continuing, you might want to read my earlier postings, The Homosexual Debate – Part I and Part II, to give you some background as to what I am trying to accomplish.
In Part II, I explained where the traditionalists are coming from when it comes to the role of homosexuals in the Church, and the issue in general. In this posting I’ll explain where the Christian non-traditionalists (my terminology) are coming from in their belief that homosexuals should have “full inclusion” in the Church and in society (including “same-sex marriage”). Again, views differ among proponents of gay rights within the Church, so I’ll be speaking in generalities. I hope, however, to give you some idea of the thinking behind the non-traditionalist viewpoint on the subject.
I said in my earlier posting that the key to understanding the traditionalist viewpoint is that they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin based on the various biblical prohibitions against it. The non-traditionalist view is the exact opposite; that the practice of homosexuality is not a sin, but is a natural, God-given alternative sexual expression. If you believe that it is not a sin, then the issue is one of fairness. The question then becomes, why should practicing homosexuals be excluded from “full participation” in the life of the church (i.e., marriage and ordination) just because of what must be considered cultural prejudices? The non-traditionalists equate “prejudice” against gays with prejudice against women and minorities.
What about all of those biblical prohibitions? The non-traditionalists explain that they are expressions of deep-seated cultural biases which found their way into Scripture, and they do not reflect God’s will on the subject. The reasoning is that if God created certain people as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, why would God then consider such a lifestyle to be a sin? It doesn’t seem fair that God would make certain people with a certain sexual orientation, and then condemn that orientation as sinful. Regarding the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, non-traditionalists claim that it is more about hospitality than sexual sin.
Traditionalists consider this non-traditional interpretation of Scripture to be revisionist and misguided, reinterpreting the Bible to fit an agenda. On the other hand, Christian non-traditionalists say that the love of Jesus Christ supersedes any moral prohibitions in the Bible, so we should reflect Christ-like love to all by not excluding gays from full participation in the church.
As you can see, this is a difficult topic, and I have barely scratched the surface. I hope I have at least shed a little light on the debate and where each side is coming from. May God bless you in your search for answers to these difficult questions.
In Part II, I explained where the traditionalists are coming from when it comes to the role of homosexuals in the Church, and the issue in general. In this posting I’ll explain where the Christian non-traditionalists (my terminology) are coming from in their belief that homosexuals should have “full inclusion” in the Church and in society (including “same-sex marriage”). Again, views differ among proponents of gay rights within the Church, so I’ll be speaking in generalities. I hope, however, to give you some idea of the thinking behind the non-traditionalist viewpoint on the subject.
I said in my earlier posting that the key to understanding the traditionalist viewpoint is that they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin based on the various biblical prohibitions against it. The non-traditionalist view is the exact opposite; that the practice of homosexuality is not a sin, but is a natural, God-given alternative sexual expression. If you believe that it is not a sin, then the issue is one of fairness. The question then becomes, why should practicing homosexuals be excluded from “full participation” in the life of the church (i.e., marriage and ordination) just because of what must be considered cultural prejudices? The non-traditionalists equate “prejudice” against gays with prejudice against women and minorities.
What about all of those biblical prohibitions? The non-traditionalists explain that they are expressions of deep-seated cultural biases which found their way into Scripture, and they do not reflect God’s will on the subject. The reasoning is that if God created certain people as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, why would God then consider such a lifestyle to be a sin? It doesn’t seem fair that God would make certain people with a certain sexual orientation, and then condemn that orientation as sinful. Regarding the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, non-traditionalists claim that it is more about hospitality than sexual sin.
Traditionalists consider this non-traditional interpretation of Scripture to be revisionist and misguided, reinterpreting the Bible to fit an agenda. On the other hand, Christian non-traditionalists say that the love of Jesus Christ supersedes any moral prohibitions in the Bible, so we should reflect Christ-like love to all by not excluding gays from full participation in the church.
As you can see, this is a difficult topic, and I have barely scratched the surface. I hope I have at least shed a little light on the debate and where each side is coming from. May God bless you in your search for answers to these difficult questions.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Homosexual Debate – Part II
Before continuing, you might want to read my earlier posting, The Homosexual Debate – Part I, to give you some background as to what I am trying to accomplish.
The traditionalists (my terminology – see Part I) base their position primarily on what the Bible has to say about the practice of homosexuality. In both the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) and the New Testament, the practice of homosexuality is condemned as sinful. It is specifically addressed as a sinful act in a number of places, and it is implied as sinful in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18 & 19). While traditionalists may differ somewhat on the subject, many believe that “we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:13) and homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. However, the belief is that if somebody persists in anything that the Bible considers a sinful act, then he or she is unrepentant and therefore should not be allowed to be in leadership positions in a church or be ordained as clergy. So the key factor of the traditionalist viewpoint is that the practice of homosexuality is a sin based on numerous references to it in the Bible.
Notice that I say “the practice of homosexuality” is a sin, not necessarily being a homosexual. Again, traditionalists differ on this subject, but many believe that a homosexual doesn’t necessary “choose” to be of that sexual orientation, but it occurs through other factors, either born that way or the result of environmental factors (lack of love from a parent, molested as a child, etc.) So theoretically a celibate gay person could be in a leadership position or ordained as clergy because they aren’t “practicing” that lifestyle.
This is a brief overview of the traditionalist viewpoint. In a future posting I’ll explain where the non-traditionalists are coming from and how they justify their position.
The traditionalists (my terminology – see Part I) base their position primarily on what the Bible has to say about the practice of homosexuality. In both the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) and the New Testament, the practice of homosexuality is condemned as sinful. It is specifically addressed as a sinful act in a number of places, and it is implied as sinful in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18 & 19). While traditionalists may differ somewhat on the subject, many believe that “we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:13) and homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. However, the belief is that if somebody persists in anything that the Bible considers a sinful act, then he or she is unrepentant and therefore should not be allowed to be in leadership positions in a church or be ordained as clergy. So the key factor of the traditionalist viewpoint is that the practice of homosexuality is a sin based on numerous references to it in the Bible.
Notice that I say “the practice of homosexuality” is a sin, not necessarily being a homosexual. Again, traditionalists differ on this subject, but many believe that a homosexual doesn’t necessary “choose” to be of that sexual orientation, but it occurs through other factors, either born that way or the result of environmental factors (lack of love from a parent, molested as a child, etc.) So theoretically a celibate gay person could be in a leadership position or ordained as clergy because they aren’t “practicing” that lifestyle.
This is a brief overview of the traditionalist viewpoint. In a future posting I’ll explain where the non-traditionalists are coming from and how they justify their position.
Monday, May 14, 2007
A Humorous Look at Mother's Day
We recently celebrated Mother’s Day. It is a day when we not only honor mothers, but celebrate the family, which is the basic building block of any society, and parenting, which is the most important job in the world (and may be the most difficult).
There comes a time in the life of every parent when the harsh reality sets in – you have become your parents. How do you know? You start saying the same annoying things to your children that your parents used to say to you. That realization hits you when you blurt out: “You ask why? I’ll tell you why. Because I said so, that’s why!” You are shocked when you hear yourself saying to your kids: “Do you think money grows on trees?” You cringe when you hear yourself say, “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times, clean your room!” Then there’s that all-time favorite: “Don’t make me come down there.” If you’re in a car, then it becomes “Don’t make me stop this car.” Without thinking, you say: “Stop crying, or I’ll really give you something to cry about!”
Then there is my personal favorite, “I’m doing this for your own good.” At the dinner table you say: “Eat your broccoli. It’ll put hair on your chest.” Of course little Suzy looks up at you and says: “But I don’t want hair on my chest.” You say to her: “Don’t talk back to me! Finish that broccoli now!”
My mother’s ultimate revenge was, “Wait until you have children of your own.” That was a frightening thought to me. What if my kids ended up just as bad as I was as a kid? That really scared me. Fortunately my kids were much better behaved than I was, so we dodged the bullet on that one.
The one thing I don’t repeat is: “You want to have your cake and eat it too.” My parents used to say that all the time, and I never understood what it meant. It doesn’t make any sense! Why else would you want cake – just to look at it? Of course I want my cake, and I do want to eat it too!
Despite their often annoying expressions, you could turn into someone a lot worse than your parents. Honor them, not only on Mother’s Day or Father’s Day, but all year round. If they are no longer with us, honor their legacy. They may have been flawed, but they still are our parents.
There comes a time in the life of every parent when the harsh reality sets in – you have become your parents. How do you know? You start saying the same annoying things to your children that your parents used to say to you. That realization hits you when you blurt out: “You ask why? I’ll tell you why. Because I said so, that’s why!” You are shocked when you hear yourself saying to your kids: “Do you think money grows on trees?” You cringe when you hear yourself say, “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times, clean your room!” Then there’s that all-time favorite: “Don’t make me come down there.” If you’re in a car, then it becomes “Don’t make me stop this car.” Without thinking, you say: “Stop crying, or I’ll really give you something to cry about!”
Then there is my personal favorite, “I’m doing this for your own good.” At the dinner table you say: “Eat your broccoli. It’ll put hair on your chest.” Of course little Suzy looks up at you and says: “But I don’t want hair on my chest.” You say to her: “Don’t talk back to me! Finish that broccoli now!”
My mother’s ultimate revenge was, “Wait until you have children of your own.” That was a frightening thought to me. What if my kids ended up just as bad as I was as a kid? That really scared me. Fortunately my kids were much better behaved than I was, so we dodged the bullet on that one.
The one thing I don’t repeat is: “You want to have your cake and eat it too.” My parents used to say that all the time, and I never understood what it meant. It doesn’t make any sense! Why else would you want cake – just to look at it? Of course I want my cake, and I do want to eat it too!
Despite their often annoying expressions, you could turn into someone a lot worse than your parents. Honor them, not only on Mother’s Day or Father’s Day, but all year round. If they are no longer with us, honor their legacy. They may have been flawed, but they still are our parents.
Friday, May 11, 2007
A Mother’s Day Message for Christian Parents
Raising children has never been easy, even under ideal circumstances. When your circumstances are less than ideal, it becomes even more challenging. All I can say is that the best thing to do is to look to Jesus for your help and strength. We can consider God the ultimate parent – God invented parenthood and will help us through it.
Our earthly mothers were flawed, and we are flawed. That’s why we need to pray early and often for the strength and wisdom we need to get through the day and do the right thing. Remember what it says in Proverbs 3:5-6:
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. NIV
Jesus was on this earth for over 30 years, and for most of that time lived the life of an ordinary person, so he understands what we are up against. We don’t often think about the fact that Jesus lived in a single-parent household. Some time between when Jesus was 12 and when he was 30, Joseph died, leaving Mary a widow and Jesus as the man of the house.
While Mary had the unspeakable privilege of being with Jesus for 30 years, she also experienced heartache. Of course the worst heartache was suffered by Mary at the cross, where she watched her firstborn son suffer and die. We also face trials and heartache, and I believe the best thing to do is bring them to Jesus – to lay them at the foot of the cross. Jesus died for us, so he is not going to ignore us when we cry out to him.
Spiritual Warfare
The Bible is very clear that we are to train our children properly, even though they will often resist. Studies have shown that children not only need boundaries, but actually want them (although often it doesn’t seem like it). Proverbs 22:6 is not a promise, but it is a pretty safe bet. It says:
Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray. NRSV
Deuteronomy 6:6-7 tells us to teach our children about God’s ways:
These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. (NIV)
Today it is especially critical that parents (and grandparents) pass on to their children the right values. This is necessary because of all the terrible messages our children are receiving though TV, movies, music, games, and cartoons. Years ago, the values we taught our kids used to be reinforced, at least to some extent, in the culture at large. Children used to be shielded from images and messages that were considered inappropriate for them. No longer. Today, anything goes, even during the so called “family hour” on TV.
There are forces in the culture that are working hard to shape the next generation in ways that most parents would object to. Because of that, we and our children are given messages that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian ethic and traditional morals. Today the only place where your values are being reinforced is in Sunday school or CCD. The culture tells us that traditional values are repressive and obsolete, and we need to enter the brave new world of freedom from these oppressive moral codes.
I am not telling you about this spiritual warfare to discourage you, but rather to let you know that much about parenting has a spiritual component to it. I also want to assure you that you are not alone in this battle. Paul explained spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6:12, and then went on to tell us that we have available to us the full armor of God so we can fight this battle:
For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. NRSV
We can be encouraged by what the Apostle John tells us in 1 John 4:4b (NRSV):
For the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
We have God on our side – all we have to do is seek his strength, wisdom, and guidance. Jesus assured us in John 16:33 (NIV):
“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
We can and will win this spiritual battle by godly parenting, prayer, and discipline. And as adults let us honor our own parents by giving them godly grandchildren as a legacy.
Our earthly mothers were flawed, and we are flawed. That’s why we need to pray early and often for the strength and wisdom we need to get through the day and do the right thing. Remember what it says in Proverbs 3:5-6:
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. NIV
Jesus was on this earth for over 30 years, and for most of that time lived the life of an ordinary person, so he understands what we are up against. We don’t often think about the fact that Jesus lived in a single-parent household. Some time between when Jesus was 12 and when he was 30, Joseph died, leaving Mary a widow and Jesus as the man of the house.
While Mary had the unspeakable privilege of being with Jesus for 30 years, she also experienced heartache. Of course the worst heartache was suffered by Mary at the cross, where she watched her firstborn son suffer and die. We also face trials and heartache, and I believe the best thing to do is bring them to Jesus – to lay them at the foot of the cross. Jesus died for us, so he is not going to ignore us when we cry out to him.
Spiritual Warfare
The Bible is very clear that we are to train our children properly, even though they will often resist. Studies have shown that children not only need boundaries, but actually want them (although often it doesn’t seem like it). Proverbs 22:6 is not a promise, but it is a pretty safe bet. It says:
Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray. NRSV
Deuteronomy 6:6-7 tells us to teach our children about God’s ways:
These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. (NIV)
Today it is especially critical that parents (and grandparents) pass on to their children the right values. This is necessary because of all the terrible messages our children are receiving though TV, movies, music, games, and cartoons. Years ago, the values we taught our kids used to be reinforced, at least to some extent, in the culture at large. Children used to be shielded from images and messages that were considered inappropriate for them. No longer. Today, anything goes, even during the so called “family hour” on TV.
There are forces in the culture that are working hard to shape the next generation in ways that most parents would object to. Because of that, we and our children are given messages that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian ethic and traditional morals. Today the only place where your values are being reinforced is in Sunday school or CCD. The culture tells us that traditional values are repressive and obsolete, and we need to enter the brave new world of freedom from these oppressive moral codes.
I am not telling you about this spiritual warfare to discourage you, but rather to let you know that much about parenting has a spiritual component to it. I also want to assure you that you are not alone in this battle. Paul explained spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6:12, and then went on to tell us that we have available to us the full armor of God so we can fight this battle:
For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. NRSV
We can be encouraged by what the Apostle John tells us in 1 John 4:4b (NRSV):
For the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
We have God on our side – all we have to do is seek his strength, wisdom, and guidance. Jesus assured us in John 16:33 (NIV):
“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
We can and will win this spiritual battle by godly parenting, prayer, and discipline. And as adults let us honor our own parents by giving them godly grandchildren as a legacy.
TV Viewership Down
A couple of days ago there was an article in the Poughkeepsie Journal stating that fewer people are watching network television. The article went on to say how network executives are trying to figure out why. Isn’t the answer obvious?
There’s nothing worth watching on network TV. Some parents are trying to shield their children from what passes today for family entertainment. Some people are offended by the continuous put downs of traditional family values and faith, and the glorification of promiscuous lifestyles. The popularity of such shows as “American Idol” shows how desperate the public is for entertainment that doesn’t offend.
The media elites today sneer at the programming of the “Golden Age of TV” as being naïve, unrealistic, and boring. However, they don’t call it the “Golden Age” for nothing. Those programs portrayed decent values, good family relationships, and were actually entertaining. If you wonder why society has deteriorated so much, just look at what you children and youth are exposed to on network TV. It isn’t a pretty picture.
The media and their apologists say that what children see on TV really doesn’t really affect them. I disagree. If what we see on TV has no affect, then why do those same media executives spend billions of dollars on advertising? Again, all you have to do is look at the direction society is going to realize what affect the sex, violence, and other negative things have on our children and youth.
If more people and their children stop watching the garbage on TV, maybe the media elites will finally get the message.
There’s nothing worth watching on network TV. Some parents are trying to shield their children from what passes today for family entertainment. Some people are offended by the continuous put downs of traditional family values and faith, and the glorification of promiscuous lifestyles. The popularity of such shows as “American Idol” shows how desperate the public is for entertainment that doesn’t offend.
The media elites today sneer at the programming of the “Golden Age of TV” as being naïve, unrealistic, and boring. However, they don’t call it the “Golden Age” for nothing. Those programs portrayed decent values, good family relationships, and were actually entertaining. If you wonder why society has deteriorated so much, just look at what you children and youth are exposed to on network TV. It isn’t a pretty picture.
The media and their apologists say that what children see on TV really doesn’t really affect them. I disagree. If what we see on TV has no affect, then why do those same media executives spend billions of dollars on advertising? Again, all you have to do is look at the direction society is going to realize what affect the sex, violence, and other negative things have on our children and youth.
If more people and their children stop watching the garbage on TV, maybe the media elites will finally get the message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)