Tipping Sacred Cow

Some Cows Need Tipping

TSC Podcast 2

by

Biblical Masculinity: The Church Needs Men

 

Today I am posting a message I gave a few years back about Biblical masculinity.  I hate to say it, but one of the most endangered animals on the planet is the Godly Man.  One of the reasons for this is the confusion surrounding what it means to be a man, in particular what it means to be a Godly man.  This is a topical message, so those of you that lean toward exegetical preaching (I am totally with you on this) be warned.  My main scripture is 1Cor 16:13-14.  I hope you enjoy.

 

Supreme Court of O Canada

by

Well Canada has done it again, or to be exact, the Supreme Court of Canada has done it.  I usually do not post twice in one day, but for this I am making an exception.  The Supreme Court has recently upheld a ruling, which has both free expression and freedom of religion implications.  The ruling in question can be found here.  I will try my best to summarize what happened and why you should care.

The story begins with a Saskatchewan resident by the name of William Whatcott.  William, a professing Christian and former practicing homosexual, went about distributing flyers that were critical of public schools and their addition of educational material promoting the homosexual lifestyle.  Several people reported Whatcoff, claiming his four flyers promoted hatred against individuals based on their sexual orientation.  The complaints made their way to a human rights tribunal, which ultimately ruled against Whatcoff.  This wouldn’t be much of a story if it ended there.  The issue moved through the court system where it progressed from the Court of Queen’s Bench to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, and eventually onto the Supreme Court of Canada.  Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the contents of Whatcoff’s flyers where hate material and were not protected on the basis of freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

So why should you care about this judgment?  First off, it has set precedence in ruling that criticism of homosexual behavior can be classified as ‘hate speech”.  This means that critical examination, dissenting opinion, and possibly our Christian convictions could potentially result in court appearances and jail time.  If that wasn’t worrisome enough consider for a moment how they will go about determining fair criticism verses hate speech.

To begin to understand how this is going to happen we must look at the courts ruling.

the term ‘hatred’ contained in a legislative hate speech prohibition should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The court says that they must “objectively” test the speech in question to see if it meets their definition of ‘hatred’.  Can one truly be objective in defining hatred when, by its very nature, hatred is a subjectively emotive concept?  Let’s be honest, we all subjectively find different things repugnant and offensive.  Would an arbitrator or judge be any different than the rest of us?  Although they address this concern in the ruling, I have no idea how it is going to work out in a repeatable and practical way.

My concerns only increased as I read thought the ruling’s history.  Throughout the entire process all levels of authority were faced with the same dilemma and were equipped with the same test.  In a truly objective exercise one would expect consistency in ruling.  However, the Supreme Court and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal came to completely different conclusions.  Given all things being equal, how else could they come to diametrically opposite rulings unless the process was subjective?

Ultimately this is a blow to our freedom of expression and religion.  Yes, we need to protect people from hate speech, but we need to do it in a fashion that is consistent and predictable.  That is not what the Supreme Court has left us with.  Instead they have left us uncertain as to where we stand, and questioning whether our very convictions are now deemed illegal.

 

p.s.  Just in case you missed the link to the ruling in the above post you can find it here: Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott

2013 & Beyond

by

Prognostication tends to be tricky business; only the foolhardy need apply.  I often speculate which current trends will stand the test of time, and which innovations or events will be considered truly historic.  Sadly history is rarely acknowledged as it is being made, and is only recognized in hindsight for what it is.  Therefore, seeing as how today marks the delineation between the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013, it seems only fitting to look back on the year that was and prognosticate.  What might the history books have to say about 2012?

Although I would love to try and summarize the past year, that would be more than a bit ambitious for a single post.  When it comes to history there are many areas of potential study, as well as many perspectives.  For the sake of this article I am going to limit my attention to church history from the North American perspective.  So how will history judge the North American church of 2012?

Historically a right understanding of Soteriology, as well as the character and nature of God, were defining factors in determining orthodoxy.  Epistles were written and counsels were called over such issues.  I believe it would be fair to say that church history demonstrates how much of a premium was placed on defining and protecting the central truths of Christianity.  However, if the North American church were to continue on its present trajectory I believe history will record 2012 as the birth of the movement to relegate core doctrines of the Christian faith to secondary issue status.

What would lead me to this conclusion?  Well, 2012 was a year that saw influential church leaders make questionable decisions and take ill advised actions that both helped legitimize known heresies and undermine core Christian doctrine.  I wouldn’t blame you if you missed the particular incidents I am referring to.  For the most part they were not exactly the type of events that mainstream media covers.  However, those of you who can guess which instances I am referring to, you too likely sensed that what you were witnessing was a fundamental change in thinking.

The first event, and that is what it was billed as, was the Elephant Room 2 (ER2) conference.  I am sure it was never the intention of James MacDonald or Mark Driscoll to short sell the gospel or to legitimize a known heresy, but to some extent that is what happened.  How exactly could this occur?  Well, this came about when they invited T. D. Jakes, a well-known modalist and prosperity gospel preacher, to participate and be a fellow contributor to the Elephant Room conversation.

Without rehashing the entire controversy, I will say that although ER2 did little to clarify Jakes’ Trinitarian beliefs, it did send the evangelical world a pretty clear message.  What exactly was that message?  The church is willing to allow relationship and ecumenism to trump issues of truth and orthodoxy, even if the subject matter involves the very nature of God.  Influential church leaders treated Jakes as a fellow brother in Christ before, during, and after the ER2 conference.  At no point did the question of his orthodoxy appear to play a role in qualifying him to participate, nor did the persisting ambiguity of his Trinitarian beliefs disqualify him from further fellowship.   How this could happen isn’t difficult to understand when one simply reads the Elephant Room’s purpose statement:

… We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently.

The second event took place during the recent US presidential campaign.  In Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency he garnered many influential supporters, one of them being Billy Graham.  In a curiously timed about-face, the same week as he endorsed Romney for President Mormonism was removed from the Billy Graham website’s cult list.  This caught the attention of the media machine, and left Graham to explain both his decision and its timing.

So why should we find this bothersome?  The original reason why Mormonism was included on the list of cults was because their beliefs ran contrary to what the canonical Scriptures teach.  They might use similar language, but Mormons do not understand history, heaven, hell, God, man, or salvation the same way the Church has for the past two millennia.  Should we temper our criticism, or worse yet self-censor for the sake of a “higher” political agenda?  That is what appears to have happened.  Two messages were sent the day Mormonism was removed from Graham’s web site; one to the Church and one to the Mormons.  The Church heard political expedience and avoiding offence are more important than helping someone escape a false religion, and Mormons heard we are all playing on the same team.  Both messages are equally devastating.

Ultimately I hope these two examples are merely blips in an otherwise upward trend of contending for the truth. However, if in 2013 the North American church should continue in the same direction my prediction will become ever more probable. I really don’t know how many people give thought to the idea that they are creating the history that their ancestors will look back on. I wonder how different our culture would be if more people gave thought to how future generations might judge their choices. How different would our decisions be if we viewed things in light of history, legacy, and truth instead of through the lenses of immediacy?

Arguments for Legalizing Marijuana

by

If you have been paying attention to recent developments in the USA, one issue which may have caught your eye is the growing movement to legalize marijuana.  Yes sir, the push is on in many states to legalize both medical and recreational usage.  At the time of this post fourteen states have already decriminalized the usage of cannabis, while two states, Colorado and Washington, have outright legalized it.

Maybe this isn’t an issue that would typically pop up on your radar. I know for the most part, depending on your age and/or worldview, you may be unfamiliar with the key arguments touted by the grassroots (pun intended) legalization lobby. I typically work with young people, so this issue tends to pop up in conversation more often than I would probably like. The one consistent argument I have to deal with is the “seemingly” harmless impact of cannabis usage. The old “No One is Getting Hurt” defense is never a satisfying argument in any debate. Thanks to Steven Crowder, who with his usual wit and insight, pokes holes in this, and many other standard arguments used to justify the legalization of marijuana. Check out his video below.

[embedplusvideo height=”281″ width=”450″ standard=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Dv4x2pRMamE?fs=1&hd=1″ vars=”ytid=Dv4x2pRMamE&width=450&height=281&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=1&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=” id=”ep4657″ /]

Fifty From The Pulpit

by

Why Christians Need to Address Fifty Shades

 

The last time I was scheduled to preach I did something which might be considered a little unusual. No, I didn’t wear mismatched socks, nor did I don a bow tie.  Both might be considered a little out of the ordinary for my character, but not necessarily the variety of unusual I am talking about.  The surprising event I am referring to is the fact I took ten minutes away from my allotted time to preach, and used that time to talk about a book.  What makes this even more unusual is the aforementioned book had absolutely nothing to do with God, the Gospel, or the Bible.

You’re probably wondering what secular book would warrant stealing some precious preaching time in order to discuss.  Unless you live in the back woods, where television and internet connectivity are nonexistent, you probably have a pretty good idea what book I am talking about.  The E. L. James Fifty Shades trilogy has become a cultural phenomenon of monstrous proportions.  The trilogy has occupied the top three spots on the New York Times bestseller list for months, and has become the fastest-selling series of all time.  We are talking some big numbers here folks.  To put things into perspective, it is bigger than J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.  However, unlike the Harry Potter series, Fifty Shades was definitely not written for children or tweens.  It has been marketed as “erotic fiction”, and is famous (or infamous) for its graphic depiction of BDSM (bondage – domination – sadism – masochism).  In other words – it’s porn.

Deciding to take time out of our Sunday service to talk about a book, which is essentially porn, was an easy decision to make.  Please do not mistake my last comment to mean we didn’t first count the cost of our decision.  We most assuredly did.  Human nature and curiosity being what they are you always run the risk of opening a door of temptation for those who want to “confirm” what you are saying is true. However, we felt the benefit of helping spare just one person the hurt caused by porn, far outweighed the potential risk.

Another reason for addressing the Fifty Shades series from the pulpit, is that this issue will likely not be going away anytime soon.  Oh, I am sure in the not too distant future E. L. James’ books will be but a footnote, if that, in our literary history.  However, mark my words, her books are just the beginning of what is to come.  In the same way Harry Potter and Twilight Saga marked the insurgence of supernatural and vampire themed books marketed to tweens, so too will the Fifty Shades series mark the influx of “acceptable” and “Chic” porn marketed to women.  One cashier at a national book chain I frequent, confided in me that they could not stock the shelves fast enough.  Don’t tell me the publishers are not sitting up and taking notice.

If you are observant, you may have already noticed that there has been a definite trajectory in our culture to the issue of porn.  Books that could only be found in sketchy “specialty stores” slowly began to find their way onto nondescript shelves in secluded dark corners of mainstream bookstores.  Now, these same books are being promoted and prominently displayed by the cash registers for quick and easy purchase.  Material once though shameful to possess is now being openly celebrated and endorsed by neighbors, friends, and family.  Porn has since lost its stigma and has become acceptable, trendy, and chic.  You had better believe this way of thinking will invade our local assemblies.  I would argue it already has.  The most telling statement I have heard to date was spoken by a friend who said, “I didn’t know that it was porn when I bought it.  I just can’t seem to put it down.”  Hook, line and sinker.

So when it came to that fateful Sunday, although I did address the book series in question, my goal was to target the mistaken idea of porn’s acceptability.  No one would argue that the Bible doesn’t clearly show that sexual immorality, in all its varied forms, is sin.  What people tend to forget is that the Bible also shows that sexual sin isn’t simply the physical act, but includes the actions, thoughts, and intents leading up to the actual sin (Matt 5:27-28).  Jesus singlehandedly destroyed the dividing line between thoughts and actions.  In other words making plans for, entertaining the thoughts of, or simply fantasizing about sexuality in a sinful way is a sin.

This touches the heart of what pornography is and does.  It is a fantasy world populated with images that depict sexuality in deviant, perverted, and sinful ways.  Individuals who indulge in pornography may not be “physically” participating in the sexual act being depicted, but they are just as much participants mentally, which is a sin (Matt 5:27-28).  The really sad thing is these pornographic images continue to exist in the memory of those who are sinning, to be relived long after the “show” is over and the last sentence has been read.  As Believers, the thing we can never forget is the Word tells us to be selective in what we allow into our lives (what we see, hear, and think) to ensure that they are pure and holy and ultimately pleasing to God (Psalm 101:3, Luke 11:34-36, Phil 4:8).

In closing I would like to embolden everyone, especially you leaders, to have the courage to address this issue head on.  It was both encouraging and surprising how many people thanked us afterward for being bold enough to give a word of correction and to tell them the truth.  Let me assure you it is better to address the issue and take the heat now instead of staying silent and waiting for the inevitable masses yet to come who will suffer in silence as they try to escape the iron grip of porn.

 

 

Note:  I have taken the liberty of adding a few links that may help arm you in your discussions.

Girls Gone Wise, Dr. Drew Interview, Jenny Armstron’s blog, MSMBC,

Please be warned they are not all Christian sites and I wouldn’t want to vouch for everything on their sites or all of their opinions.  Use these links for informative purposes only.