God in the Midst of Restricted International Adoptions

A few weeks ago, we had a friend attend an adoption conference. They have been planning on adopting internationally for awhile, so we expected her to come back excited. We were surprised and challenged when she came back convicted and fired up that the church change their approach to international adoptions. As she shared how the prevailing thought for the church is to rescue these children from their countries, but that it doesn’t address the systemic issues that continue to cause these countries to need so much orphan care, I was struck by what God may be doing in the restricting of international adoptions recently. Russia is no longer allowing international adoptions from America. Ethiopia, Haiti, and a number of other countries have changed their procedures and processes to combat corruption and slow down the adoption process. This has been understandably frustrating for many Americans currently in the process of adopting or wanting to adopt internationally.

What if God is trying to wake up the American church to the needs of these countries? What if God is trying to invite us to address orphan care in a different way? What if the solution to orphan care went beyond adoption to addressing systemic change in the culture?

Rescuing by Entering the Mess

Adoption is a beautiful picture of the gospel of Jesus Christ, demonstrating that God the Father desired to bring us into His family to experience His blessings. This caused Him to bring us out of our current situation, alienated from Him, and save us through faith in Christ. This is why adoption is such a beautiful picture and I am so thankful for those adopting and in the process of adopting.

In thinking about the restricted adoption processes, the gospel also reminds us that Jesus took on flesh to enter into humanity’s situation, address systemic issues, and guide us towards restoration of brokenness. As countries restrict adoptions, God seems to be calling us to pay greater attention to the state of life in these other countries, to be concerned that the nations be restored, and not just have their children rescued.

Obviously it is a “both/and” approach and I’m not advocating that we should stop adopting internationally, but my hope is that the church doesn’t merely seek help in changing legislation.

Can you imagine if those in our churches passionate about international adoption moved into these countries with the greatest needs?

Fulfilling the Great Commission through Orphan Care – Over There

Jesus tells His disciples to go and make disciples, starting where they are and then extending it to the nations. God has awakened the church to His heart for the orphan and He may be using this awakening to create a wave of new missions to the nations.

Russia, Ethiopia, Haiti, and many other countries have great and profound needs; adoption is a piece of the solution, but God uses missionaries to change the world. He just may be using our inability to bring orphans out of their situation to invite us to enter into their situation.

What Happens at an Atheist Church?

David Norman is currently pursuing an M.Div. at Southwestern Seminary and has served in ministry for over 12 years. He thinks Jesus is enough, reading heavy books covered in dust is awesome, and the church is still the hope of the world.  He blogs at www.davidnormanblog.com and tweets (twits? twitters?) from @david_norman. ___

A recent BBC News Magazine article asked, “What happens at an atheist church?”:

The theme of the morning is “wonder” – a reaction, explains Jones, to criticism that atheists lack a sense of it.

So we bow our heads for two minutes of contemplation about the miracle of life and, in his closing sermon, Jones speaks about how the death of his mother influenced his own spiritual journey and determination to get the most out of every second, aware that life is all too brief and nothing comes after it.

The audience – overwhelmingly young, white and middle class – appear excited to be part of something new and speak of the void they felt on a Sunday morning when they decided to abandon their Christian faith. Few actively identify themselves as atheists.

“It’s a nice excuse to get together and have a bit of a community spirit but without the religion aspect,” says Jess Bonham, a photographer.

“It’s not a church, it’s a congregation of unreligious people.”

Misapplied Worship

God has created within the human heart the need to worship. We have been created with the inward desire to give ourselves to something greater – something beyond ourselves. Because Christ alone fills the void, whenever we refuse to bow our knee to God, we find ourselves on a perpetual search for something else to worship. An “atheist church” stands as a modern-day evidence of this truth by providing an avenue for worship while denying the only person truly worthy of worship.

More interesting is that the article notes that the atheist congregation spends time contemplating the miracle of life. This in itself is a fascinating discovery. Atheism, as a worldview, is not a specific denial of the Judeo-Christian God, but of the supernatural in general. It is a thoroughly naturalist anti-religion that scoffs at the notion of the miraculous. One wonders, then, how they can both contemplate the miracle of life, and yet be so deeply tied to the refusal to believe in the supernatural and manage not to see any discontinuity of thought?

The article itself references ten virtues, or commandments, that have been written for the faithless. The list can be found here. None of the virtues are evil, in fact they promote such things as politeness, sacrifice, and forgiveness. But in the absence of the Divine, these virtues are nonsensical. If there is no Creator, no afterlife or eternal life, no judgment, no reckoning – if this life truly is all that there is – virtues such as sacrifice and politeness are pithy ideals that hinder one from making the most of every moment.

The argument could be made that the desire to live in such a manner – “to flex our ethical muscles,” as the author put it – testifies to an innate knowledge that a life spent hedonistically seeking pleasure and gain at the expense of others is objectively wrong. In fact, every practice of this atheist church, including its very existence, testifies to the vain attempt to replace a life devoted to the Sovereign God with something – anything – else.

This same article claims that England and Wales are now the most unreligious nations in the Western world. What was once the missionary-sending “hub” that sent such men into world as Andrew Fuller, William Carey, and Hudson Taylor is now hard soil – desperately in need of laborers of the gospel. The streets that once thundered with the preaching of Spurgeon, Morgan, Stott, and Lloyd-Jones have now become full of men and women who have never heard the gospel. May God raise up thousands of missionaries to carry it back into these nations.

Redeeming “Church”

The last line in the quote above sounds eerily familiar to quotes used by many contemporary churches. In effort to distance themselves from what the culture may perceive to be dry, dusty, lifeless “church,” it has become common to use another term. We call them fellowships, communities, even bodies – anything, it seems, to avoid the use of a term that carries such historical baggage as “church.”

Perhaps we’d do well to return to using the term, “church.” After all, it is Christ’s church that Jesus bled for, died for, promised to build, and calls His bride. The church is the only institution that God promised to sustain eternally. Of course, using those other terms doesn’t abdicate a congregation’s place in the universal church. The Reformers were quick to acknowledge that the church existed wherever the Word was rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered. But the solution to the growing dissonance between what the church was established to be and the current perception of the church cannot be solved by merely opting to use another descriptor.

Instead, we must redeem even the word “church” by repenting of our failure to sail between the Charybdis of absorbing the values of our culture and the Scylla of creating an artificial Christianese counter-culture. We must, instead, live as pilgrims – citizens of another Kingdom – in this world, wholly committed to the God whose gospel we proclaim. Then we are more than a fellowship, more than a congregation, an experience or a community – we are an outpost of the Kingdom of Heaven. We are the church.

May God bring us to such repentance for His glory.

The Dark Knight Rises (Or, the Return of Rob Bell)

Rob Bell was once a rising star in evangelicalism. Back in the day, many conservative evangelicals overlooked his pithiness and obscure descriptions of doctrine because his voice was different, his reach was broad (for example, the Chicago Sun-Times dubbed him "The Next Billy Graham"), and he seemed to be orthodox. Over time, many evangelicals began to distance themselves from Bell as he minimized the virgin birth of Christ in Velvet Elvis or even when he toyed with ethereal thoughts on quantum physics in "Everything is Spiritual." But, the nail in the coffin was his placation of Hell in Love Wins. This book's release even lead to an apparent denouncement from John Piper.

Like Batman, this hero became a reviled vigilante in the eyes of the very ones who once praised his work. Eventually, even Bell's own congregation couldn't handle the controversy.

Why is all of this important? Because he has a new book on the way. In What We Talk About When We Talk About God, Bell "shows how traditional ideas have grown stale and dysfunctional and reveals a new path for how to return vitality and vibrancy to how we understand God." (Here's the somewhat confusing trailer.) I'm not sure if this book is about evangelism or perhaps some sort of theology on the doctrine of God, but it's sure to sell and sure to confuse more than help Bell's target audience of people disillusioned with "traditional" Christianity. Get ready to immunize your church for the next wave of Bell.

Christian leaders have already chimed in on this subject and undoubtedly more will. Here are a few worth reading:

Owen Strachan:

If you want mystery and the ethereal stuff of faith without the burdens of inerrancy and orthodoxy, you could go his way. I do happen to love the “numinous” nature of Christianity, too. But I find it, and see my senses most come alive, not when I’m plumbing uncertainty (which leads ultimately to destruction), but when I’m peering into the mind of God in Scripture. This is why I so love Jonathan Edwards: because his vision of God, thoroughly biblical, is so transcendent, captivating, grand, large, deep, soaring, and exciting.

Carl Trueman:

[Y]es, people will take it seriously and the book will no doubt sell in vast quantities. As the old song has it: Find out what they like and how they like it and let them have it just that way.

Steve Knight also talks about Bell's promotional event for the book and the positive response he received from his supporters.

Close Encounters of the Unknowing Kind

Trillia Newbell is a freelance journalist and writer. She writes on faith and family for The Knoxville News-Sentinel and serves as Managing Editor for Women of God Magazine. Her love and primary role is that of a wife and mother. She lives in Tennessee with her husband, Thern, and their two children, Weston and Sydney. _

I recently posted an encounter I had with a man in a local grocery store parking lot on the social site Facebook.  Here is what I wrote:

Just got back from Kroger. In parking lot man asked: “Those your kids?” Me: Yep. Him: “I mean, you gave birth to ‘em?” Me: Yep. Him: Perplexed, “Well, they sure are pretty.” Me: Thanks.

There is one thing that is certain, if I ever found myself in a situation that required an army of women to fight for me, I’ve got those women. Many of my friends were appalled by the apparent ignorance of the man asking the questions. Other women replayed stories of their own strange encounters with people who asked personal and probing questions.  It is obvious that regardless of what the situation is, many women find themselves answering questions about their children and  their birthing habits.

My children are biracial. Their father is white, half British to be exact. From the moment our oldest was born I realized that I would be asked questions about my ownership, so to speak, of my son. He is fair-skinned (barely olive skinned, there are many white people darker than my boy), with bone-straight hair, and big beautiful brown eyes. He looks white and he identifies himself as such. Actually, he says he is peach and I am brown.

When my son was a toddler he would lick my face because to him, I resembled chocolate. He used to ask often why God made me brown. He was very curious about that. Now, 6 years old, he is beginning to understand that God created the world and everything in it and that we are all created in His image. But at first I was a bit of a mystery to him. I’m trying to teach him about ethnicity and differences in hopes that he would celebrate the diversity of God’s creation and grow to love others. But what I realize is that if he isn’t taught, he won’t know.

What I am learning through having a son who is learning about race and ethnicity and discovering his own identity  is that ignorance doesn’t automatically equate to racism. As a matter of fact, I would say most people who may have questions or seem unknowing are simply unaware and do not harbor hate in their heart towards others.

Maybe I am being generous or naïve. I don’t know. But I’ve spoken and corresponded with enough loving and well-meaning people to know that there are people who genuinely don’t know much about other races. I don’t want to assume the heart of a person because of a question. I surely don’t want to assume that ignorance equals hate, how I would define racism. I want to assume that they don’t know and I want to be open to sharing parts of me so that they would understand.

My Response Matters

Another theme in my comments section was over my response to the man who unwittingly questioned my motherhood. I truly was not offended. It takes quite a bit to offend me but especially in relation to strangers and race.  I would argue that in the case of interacting with people of different cultures or ethnicities, ignorance is not bliss. Therefore, I want to be a catalyst for open and honest conversation. If I respond in such a way that is defensive and angry,  I imagine that person will not attempt to speak to another person about their questions. If I had time, I would sit down with every person who didn’t understand race. In the end they’d probably know more about what I  believe God’s Word has to say about it than they ever wanted to know.

This leads me to my final point. As a Christian, I want to be a light to the world, especially as it relates to race and racism. I would like nothing more than to sit with a racist and share the gospel with him or her. It is the gospel that reconciles all tribes and tongues with God through the blood of Jesus. The gospel reconciles men and women to each other, changing our names to sons and daughters of God and bringing us into a new family. It’s the gospel that motivates me to have peace with my fellow man who doesn’t understand or know when he speaks. Again, I don’t think the man was racist in the parking lot, but if he were, I would love him because Christ loved me and gave himself up for me.

My response is key to racial reconciliation and it is important to proclaiming the Good News. I don’t want to assume that ignorance equals hate. I want to be gracious and maybe even through my response they will think before they ask the next person questions . But all in all, I want to be thinking eternally. There’s more to think about than the here and now. I don’t want to become a stumbling block for open and honest conversation about race or the gospel.

_

The original version of this article appeared at Trillia's personal blog.

The 50/50 Divorce Rate and the Christian Example

Note: I spoke about this post (originally at For Christ and Culture) with Dr. Barry Creamer on 90.9 KCBI in Dallas. Listen HERE. ___

It has long been stated that 50% of marriages in America lead to divorce. If you ask most Americans how many marriages they believe end in divorce, they would probably point to this number. I’ve heard it all my life and it shaped my views on marriage early in life. When my parents divorced in my mid-teens, I remember thinking, “If two people don’t get along, divorce is a normal outcome. It makes sense.” In fact, I was pro-divorce in the case of my parents. As I grew older and learned much more about the biblical truths regarding marriage, I still never really doubted the statistic and have even quoted it in sermons and conversations more than once.

Encouraging Statistics?

Recently, Dr. Kalman Heller posited that his studies shed a more accurate light on divorce rates in America. He notes that various demographics apply and using specifically broad numbers is mostly unhelpful, but I do like the generalization that he is willing to make:

Rather than viewing marriage as a 50-50 shot in the dark, it can be viewed as having a 70 percent likelihood of succeeding.

Again, throwing around a 70% success rate does not do justice to the raw numbers, but what if marriage in America is not lost? Dr. Heller interestingly points out that divorce rates in first marriages particularly have overall decreased since the ‘70s. This is encouraging and should spur us on toward resiliency in support of marriage rather than lamenting at the seeming decline of lasting covenants.

(By the way, Kirk Spencer did a fine job addressing this topic last summer with more detailed statistics and Ed Stetzer has some helpful thoughts here.)

Christian: Play Your Part

There has been a significant amount of discussion, and dare I say venom, in evangelicalism regarding laws endorsing homosexual partnership and a diversion from traditional marriage. Indeed, the Bible is entirely clear on God’s one woman/one man design for marriage. However, where Christians often lack proper gumption is promoting the beauty of God’s intention.

In today’s culture, marriage is defined several different ways with many people not possessing a solid stance on what the marriage relationship should objectively be. Christians have the unique advantage and calling to shed light on the truth of marriage. God joyfully placed man and woman together (Gen. 2:20-25) and gave them specific roles that mirror Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:22-32). These two texts alone give us great confidence in our own marriages and counseling others’ marriages.

In a confused culture, here are two very basic ways that we can play our part in an attempt to improve the statistics and to present a commendable view of marriage:

1. Be a biblical example – Scripture has much to say about man and wife complementing one another, serving one another, praying for one another, and being faithful to one another (Eph. 5:22-32; 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Titus 2:1-6; Col. 3:18-19). We should honor God in word and deed via our marriages so that others (children, family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, church members) might see what marriage is supposed to be.
2. Refrain from hate speech – There is always a time and place to stand on biblical truth, but Christians have a tendency to let their passion for marriage paint a false picture of grace and mercy. We should certainly spend much more time demonstrating true marriage than railing against homosexuals, teen moms, and others who do not fit the conservative Christian checklist for marriage. It might be more helpful to love others with patience as God does with us (Rom. 2:4) and show them truth in your own marriage and life.

Is the Bible Anti-Wealth? No!

A few months ago, I wrote a review of David Platt’s Radical Together. I strongly commended the book. Here’s one major strength: its exaltation of and dependence on a sovereign, awesome God:

Platt wisely grounds human action in the sovereignty of God. There has been a great deal of discussion in certain circles over whether certain strands of theology kill missions. Is embracing God’s comprehensive sovereignty like a nail gun to the head when it comes to evangelism and discipleship? Not if Radical Together has anything to say about it. As the Bible does (see Job 38-41, for starters, or Isa40-48), Platt exalts a massive, awesome, authoritative, majestic God in his book. But he doesn’t end there. He knows that God is great and also good and so desires to extend his goodness to sinners. Platt therefore calls for holistic personal commitment to the Great Commission (see ch. 5).

God is using David Platt to help change the priorities of a whole generation of believers. That is truly remarkable.

I registered one concern with the book: that we not think that the Bible is anti-wealth. Actually, in some instances, wealthy Christians used their money to build up the church. Working off of 1 Timothy 6:17-19, I wrote this:

So Paul does not, in this passage, malign wealth, possessions, or even what you might call a “nice lifestyle.” We are tempted to look down upon such things, but it seems fairly clear to me that the biblical authors did not do so. In fact, as Richard Bauckham has shown in his book Gospel Women, wealthy women connected to the imperial court and possessing mind-bending wealth provided major funding to the apostles. It is not always right, then, for the wealthy (and, globally speaking, relatively wealthy folks like the American middle-class) to sell their homes and cars, or for churches to sell their buildings and end sports leagues. It might be. We want to feel that tension, in accord with Prov 30:8 (“give me neither poverty nor riches”).

There’s much to engage here, and I’ve only scratched the surface.

Evangelicalism desperately needs Platt’s laser focus on the gospel and missions. The church exists to make disciples for the glory of God, both locally and abroad. I would only point out that I think that wealth and philanthropy can actually be our friend here. In other words, if you want to apply the “radical” model–with its many strengths–I can think of few things more radical than using one’s wealth for gospel purposes. Maybe the most spiritual thing to do to support the promotion of the gospel is this: stay in your job, save and invest scrupulously, and keep pumping out money to support missionaries and pastors.

Here’s just one example of thousands we could give on this point. A forgotten man named Henry Parsons Crowell made vast amounts of money through the Quaker Oats company. Did he hoard it? Nope. He gave away 70% percent of his massive income and helped bankroll Moody Bible Institute, the school that Joel Carpenter has shown in Revive Us Again (Oxford, 1999) has sent out thousands upon thousands of missionaries in its century of ministry. Yes, every time you eat Quaker Oats, you’re paying masticular homage to a man who–merely by giving money–helped catapult the gospel all over the world. Read a full free book about this inspiring man here.

This is a testimony to what wealth, including but not limited to truly fabulous wealth, can do if committed to the Lord. It’s one of countless others we could share of evangelicals of great or small means who tucked money away not for themselves, but for the work of Christ’s church.

Let this also be said: beyond support of missions, I don’t think the Bible is against using money for other purposes, either: buying cars or houses or air conditioners or running shoes. Where, after all, are we going to draw the line on this issue–you can’t have indoor plumbing? You shouldn’t buy ground coffee beans from Starbucks? You’re in the wrong if you pay a photographer for family pictures? Where are such directives in Scripture? And wasn’t Job, for example, wealthy and prosperous as a sign of God’s blessing (Job 1, 41)? This is a pretty slippery slope, as one can see. It can lead to false guilt for leading a normal life. Platt has already given us all the foundational motivation we need in Radical Together: the greatness of God and the mercy shed abroad in the cross of Jesus Christ.

So Platt’s fundamental message is sorely needed and personally challenging: are you and I making and using money as if there is no such thing as the work of the gospel? Is the promotion of Christ in the 10/40 window to people who will never hear of him if we don’t send folks important to us? Do our church budgets reflect this reality? Do our home budgets?

Read Radical Together and Radical. Be challenged. Reorient your spending, even as you avoid false guilt. Homes, cars, coats, paved driveways, dark chocolate raisins, and good books are gifts of God. Let’s hear Platt’s sorely needed call and his powerful solution and subordinate all things to the kingdom of Christ and its advancement over all the earth.

_

Cross-posted from Thought Life.

Leading Ladies Everywhere

Current trends in faith intrigue me because I'm a blogger and I'm a blogger because I'm innately curious. Trends interest me but they do not capture me, and I think this distinction is important. I have had times where I have been momentarily distracted by ideas and methodologies, shoes and styles, but at the end of all things, I think we can agree these momentary pleasures are best if they pass away. And good riddance, too. I am, however, still interested in faith trends. I'm lured by them because I love the culture of heaven and I think it ought to affect the culture of earth, and what are trends if not culture's response to heaven's delay?

Leading Lady

One such trend that has gotten less airplay in recent years is the Emergent Church Movement (ECM) (some of you are rolling your eyes here, having already moved on past that old thing and fancying some new thing these days), but I'm still paying attention to it because the effects and the sustainability of it are just now beginning to show their true colors. You only thought the effects of it were things like Love Wins and the rise of feminism, but they were only catalysts. The true effects are where are all those people now?

Phyllis Tickle is a leading voice in the emergent movement, a Christian-mystic, a contributor to USA Today, The Christian Science Monitor, PBS, and NPR. I've often been drawn to Tickle's voice because there's a sense of reverence, the Holy, I've found lacking in much of evangelicalism these days. She's gentle and lulling, and of course she is—if there's anything the ECM is known for, it is half of the whole of love—the gentle passive half void of the justice of God.

The Death of Feminism?

In the recent Emergence Christianity Conference, Tickle spoke. (And I'm getting to the point about all this and why it matters.)

The audio for the conference is not available, but the blogs of attendees are in plenty. One such attendee-blogger wrote of how disappointed she was by Tickle's talk. This leading lady of the movement who has brought a voice to equality in the church, primarily in gender roles, spoke of the downfall of modern faith being the lack of women at home, bringing up babies and such:

"Phyllis described the freedoms working outside the home in WW2 and the ability to control our cycles the Pill brought women and argued that such things led to the destruction of the nuclear family and therefore the foundation of the civil religion of Christendom. While it is a narrow assessment of causality, I can agree with the descriptive observation that such things changed our culture. But then she jumped from these changes as that which brought an end to Christendom to describing how such changes led to the destruction of the ways the faith is passed on to new generations which thereby resulted in a biblically illiterate society. As she described it, when mom is not at home weaving the stories of scripture and the church calendar into her day to day activities in front of her children, they do not receive the basics of the faith. One cannot apparently have a sacred family meal over Papa John’s pizza picked up on the way home from work the same way that one can if one is baking bread, doing family crafts, and eating pancakes on Shrove Tuesday. Phyllis ended the session by encouraging us to discover ways to be back in the kitchen with our children and finding crafty ways to import the rhythms of the church year to them. Essentially to focus on the family and all that. That is the great emergence. The end."*

Because the audio isn't available (and I wish it was so I could not only give you a fuller picture, but give myself a fuller one too), I don't know if any of this was a direct quote from Tickle. However, I know the general thrust of her argument sent the bloggers into a tizzy, so I would guess this paragraph is fairly close to the original.

Passing Away

Here is my purpose in sharing this quote. It is not to raise the flag of complementarity, or to espouse the incorrect view that Biblical-Womanhood is home/baby-making and nothing else. My purpose is not to say the Feminist Movement got it completely wrong or dinner around the table is the answer to all the world's problems. My purpose is to highlight trends in the Church are trends; they are as temporal as the dew on the morning grass and the oak leaves on the tree in my back yard. They are not only passing away, but they are also not important enough for us to get waylaid by as they pass.

There are moments to confront with truth, to stand firm when the waves threaten to knock down what we hold most dear. Riding trains and beating drums of passing movements, though, is not as helpful as simply adoring Christ and preaching the simplicity of the gospel in every area of our lives.

Douglas Wilson shared this from his book Five Cities that Ruled the World recently:

"Truth and error will get sorted out in the long run, and probably much quicker if we just let it rip rather than try to manage the whole process. Somehow the managers of the process are frequently found to be an essential part of the problem, and it turns out they tend to manage the discussions in such a way that that interesting fact never comes out" (pg. 191).

Movements will pass away. Error will be seen. History might repeat itself, but it will always do so with a little more hindsight and a little more abandon. Things might not get better and we may feel the negative effects of feminism for a long, long time. But truth works itself to the light with the help of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of God.

What Lasts Longest

What we see in that snippet of a commentary on Tickle's talk is an acknowledgement that what a movement once espoused as best, was perhaps not best. And I think, in some ways, we all see a bit of ourselves in that. Ways we once thought were ultimate now pale in comparison to the bigger, more full picture of God's grandness we have.

Stay your eyes on Christ in these days, meditate on the truths of the Gospel, on the sufficiency of His word and the delight of the Father toward you. Do all of this with the help of the Holy Spirit and be not distracted by the morning dew.

It is passing away.

Is Forgiveness a Viable Option for the Justice System?

Conor McBride shot his fiancee in the face. He immediately confessed and turned himself in. Through a process called "restorative justice," discussed at length in this New York Times article, he received a much lighter sentence than usual as he, his family, and the victim's family all three came together to offer apologies and forgiveness. Instead of the typical life sentence, McBride was sentenced to 20 years with 10 years of probation following his release. The story relates the following anecdote from the victim's hospital room, as her father sat by her bedside and she, in a comatose state, was being kept alive by modern technology:

Ann’s face was covered in bandages, and she was intubated and unconscious, but Andy felt her say, “Forgive him.” His response was immediate. “No,” he said out loud. “No way. It’s impossible.” But Andy kept hearing his daughter’s voice: “Forgive him. Forgive him.”

Struggling to come to grips with what the father believes was his soon to be deceased daughter's plea, he was moved to do something unusual - extend forgiveness and grace to the one who shot her. However, that was not enough for this victim's family. They believed that the murderer, the one who killed their daughter, should have his sentence affected by their forgiveness and his own contrition.

While the Bible clearly calls followers of Christ to forgive those who harm them, should this same offer of forgiveness play a part in the judicial system? Is it more effective than the typically applied penal code? I'm not sure I am smart enough to know the answer, but I'll be honest: the family's response of forgiveness and grace is astonishing and Christ-like. What is more, their forgiveness has not only changed the life of the young man who took their daughter's life, it has helped change a community. Consider this from the end of the article:

As much as the Grosmaires say that forgiveness helped them, so, too, has the story of their forgiveness. They’ve spoken about it to church groups and prayer breakfasts around Tallahassee and plan to do more talks. The story is a signpost in the wilderness, something solid and decent they can return to while wandering in this parallel universe without their youngest daughter. Kate Grosmaire keeps asking herself if she has really forgiven Conor. “I think about it all the time,” she said. “Is that forgiveness still there? Have I released that debt?” Even as the answer comes back yes, she says, it can’t erase her awareness of what she no longer has. “Forgiving Conor doesn’t change the fact that Ann is not with us. My daughter was shot, and she died. I walk by her empty bedroom at least twice a day.”

I am curious to hear your thoughts. Is restorative justice a viable option in the American justice system? Should a Christian ethic of grace and forgiveness change the way in which we apply justice? What do you think?

Should Christians Be Concerned About the Environment?

Jonathan Merritt is author of A Faith of Our Own and Green Like God. He has published more than 350 articles in outlets such as USA Today, The Atlantic, National Journal, and CNN.com. He holds an M.Div. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Th.M. from Emory University. Connect with Jonathan on Twitter.  

___

People often ask me for a reason why I believe Christians should care for the environment. They are often taken aback when I respond, "Because of the Gospel." While these two might not immediately strike one as connected, I’ve come to believe they are inextricably so. Let me explain.

Creation care is a launching pad for the Gospel. I continue to get correspondence from missionaries around the world who are relieved to find American Christians championing “creation care.” In many foreign countries, missionaries don’t begin with Jesus, who is unknown. Rather they begin with the creation and Creator, who is clearly evident to all (Rom 1).

Creation care strengthens our Gospel witness. In Western countries like ours, where there is a growing sensitivity to environmental problems, people see environmental stewardship as the mark of a “good” person. When people see Christians selflessly caring for this planet and advocating for those who depend on Earth’s resources, our message becomes convincing. That’s why church planters across the U.S. are beginning to incorporate stewardship practices into their congregation’s DNA.

Furthermore, foreign peoples carefully observe the historically Christian West, and based on our lifestyles and witnesses, they form opinions about our faith. Take paper consumption, for example. America comprises only 5% of the world’s population, yet we consume over a third of Earth’s paper products. How does this effect the Gospel in countries like Nicaragua, Honduras, and Ecuador, where deforestation causes so much injustice?

Living out the Gospel includes caring for creation. It is inappropriate to claim that creation care — or any social issue — comprises the foundation of the Gospel. But we must accept that the Gospel calls us to a radically sacrificial, compassionate lifestyle. Even the Great Commission commands us both to “make disciples of all nations” and to teach others to “obey everything I have commanded you.” This includes the commands to love our global neighbors, care for “least of these” and uphold the creation care mandates replete throughout Scripture.

Ignoring environmental problems heaps shame on the Gospel. Part of missional living is truth-telling. That means we must be honest about our world’s problems. When we blindly follow Christian lobbying groups and “alliances” that ignore global injustices, the Gospel suffers. St. Augustine cautions against this in The Literal Meaning of Genesis:

It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, while presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense. We should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn . . . If they find a Christian mistaken in a field, which they themselves know well, and hear him maintain his foolish opinions about the Scriptures, how then are they going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?

I could offer a number of reasons why Christians should care about creation: Because the “earth is the Lord’s” (Psalm 24), because it reveals the attributes of God (Psalm 19; Rom 1), because God asked us to care for it (Genesis 2:15), and because Christ’s death began a process of cosmic redemption in which we are called to participate (Col 1; Rev 11). But more than any of those, we must care about creation because we want the Kingdom of God to reign on earth and the Gospel of Jesus Christ to take root among all people.

_

A version of this article first appeared in Christianity Today.

Why I'm Not Reading in 2013

Josh King is Lead Pastor of Sachse's First Baptist Church and a graduate of Criswell College and Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Wylie, Texas with his wife Jacki and their two young boys.  

_

Personally, I think New Year's resolutions get a bad rap. Many people portray them as almost unbiblical and at odds with Jesus and the Gospel. I disagree. I find them to be useful, at least in terms of assessing one's life. I think it is healthy to look back, evaluate, and move forward.

Instead of adding things like diet, exercise, and reading, I am cutting stuff out. The most life changing, for me, will be reading. I have decided that in 2013, I will not read any new books. Crazy, right? I know, like most resolutions, I will probably fail at this sometime mid-February but my motivation is centered around changing my personal attitude through an attempt at reading less.

Those who know me know that I am an avid reader. I love books - especially eBooks. There is something mind blowing about someone that I have never met packing up his mind and transferring it to me. I love the experience and the possibilities. But over time it has waned from learning and growth to acquiring and flaunting. To me, reading books has been no different than someone who might collect cars, watches, or electronics. I read to "stay in the know" and to let others know that I was. I was devouring without contributing.

This year, I am seeking a new approach that looks like this:

1. I will look to talk with people who know. Instead of picking up a book on revitalization, I will sit down and buy coffee for a revitalizer.
2. I will re-read what I've read. There are a few books over the past few years that stand out. I don't remember every detail, but I remember thinking and being engaged by the author and the content. This year, if I do read, I am going to go back and re-read those with a pen and paper. I will interact and look for real ways to apply what I've already learned.
3. I will seek balance, or better yet, priority. This is a tricky part. Should I read my Bible more than I read other books? Should I write more than I read? Just trying to answer those questions in the affirmative is going to be a challenge.

I am clearly not against books or new books. I am sure this year will be filled with great works by great men; all of which I can read... next year.

Be Strong and Courageous (and Not a Boy-Man)

I recently had the opportunity to see The Bourne Legacy, which is way better than the critics had made it sound and totally worth seeing for adults. The critics, by the way, often don’t like a movie that skews traditional, as Legacy does. It was a fantastic action film filled with the intelligent intensity you expect from the Bourne series. No, Jeremy Renner is not Matt Damon, but he’s quite convincing in his portrait of a Bourne-like character. Go see the film. It’s a blast.

Anyway, it struck me afresh how impressive the lead character of the Bourne movie is as a man. He’s in control, assertive, aware of others, physically fine-tuned, and one who meets any challenge in front of him. This kind of man is strikingly different than another avatar of modern cinema, the boy-man, who pops up repeatedly in the films made or led by Judd Apatow, Adam Sandler, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, and many others.

The boy-man is selfish, young, immature, addicted to games, immune to responsibility, foul-mouthed, and weak. He’s overwhelmed by adulthood, so he chooses to stay in some sort of boyish fantasy. He doesn’t want to build big things, meaningful things, like a family, a six-decade marriage, a socially and personally profitable career, or a gospel-driven church or missions effort. He wants to make music, play games, follow sports, flirt with girls, loaf through life, bend the rules so he’s not accountable or inconvenienced in his selfishness, and ignore the need to help others.

I want to suggest that wherever you can as a young man or one involved in any way in training young men, you point them toward manhood, maturity, adulthood, responsibility, ambition, strategy, vision, focus. Yes, it can be fun to be boyish. But you know what’s far more satisfying? Becoming something. Becoming something greater than you are. Becoming a man. Building stuff.

What else is cool? Winning a woman’s heart and keeping it for years, decades, a lifetime. Raising children to know the Lord. Giving tons of energy to a church plant or a church undergoing revitalization. Leaving everything to go to the mission field as a single young man. Mentoring at-risk youth. Creating a company that employs others and advances the common good. Pushing past laziness and whining and getting yourself in shape, fine-tuning your body so that you’re no longer a boy in the way you eat and take care of yourself.

The Bourne series is of course fictional. But if you read the stories of real-life elite soldiers, you see that they become something greater than they naturally are. See the gripping American Sniper, for example. The stuff that a Navy SEAL must do to enter the program is stunning, frightening. It’s also awesome. Emulate that as a Christian.  Become a SEAL follower of Christ. Become something greater than you are and that this culture trains you to be.

You’re not an idiot by nature as a guy. You’re not a goofball. You’re not addicted to silly things. If you are a boy-man right now, there is tremendous hope for you, and there is forgiveness for your sins. If you haven’t been trained well, if you haven’t had a father at all, there are gospel-preaching churches led by godly men who will train and help you. Seek them out. In the power of the Spirit, leave your boyish ways.

Hear Moses’ words to Joshua as he passed on the mantle of leadership in Joshua 1:9.

“Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”

And, we might say by way of contextualization today, do not be a boy-man. Be a man, period.

_

Cross-posted from Owen's personal blog.

Unconscionable

I’ll be honest. I’ve known for a while that sex trafficking exists, and that it is becoming a growing problem. However, when I read this article at Forbes, it took my breath away, hacked me off, and made me want to cry all at the same time. The very idea that 100,000 American children are being abducted and enslaved in sex slavery each year, and that there are only 100 shelter beds available – in the entire country – for these children, blows my mind. Even worse is the reality that in 40 of our states, children who are caught by the authorities are incarcerated and treated like criminals, rather than being cared for and treated like the victims that they are. This is unconscionable. It is immoral. Consider a few more statistical realities about the state of child sex trafficking in the U.S.:

• Human trafficking is the 2nd fastest growing criminal enterprise, behind only drug trafficking.
• On average, trafficking begins when the child is 13-years old.
• The average child who is trafficked for sex is expected to see 10-15 clients PER DAY.
• This means that the average child will be raped 6,000 times during their victimization.

The article goes on to provide much more detail. I hope you will read it.

What Can We Do?

So the question then becomes, what can the church do? What can a follower of Christ do? I am no expert – I hope I’ve already made that clear – but it seems to me that there are two immediate needs that we could work toward.

First, we have to put pressure on the legislative authorities of our various states to decriminalize underage victims of sexual exploitation. If we would simply stand up, contact our state senators and congressman, write the governor, etc., maybe they would begin to act on behalf of these exploited children. I’m planning on writing my first letter today.

Secondly, particularly for those who live in urban areas, the lack of shelter beds for children who are being exploited seems tragic. I don’t know what it would have to look like, but it seems to me that we could create opportunities and places to provide shelter to victims of exploitation. Whether it be an actual home, or a network of homes, those of us who love Christ and love children should be the most likely to step up and help facilitate this kind of care.

May God have mercy on these children, and may the church step up and be their advocates.

_

Cross-posted from Micah's personal blog.

Jovan Belcher, Bob Costas, and Jesus

The sports world was rocked this weekend when Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher killed his girlfriend Saturday morning, then proceeded to fatally shoot himself in the head at the Chiefs' practice facility. Though no motive has been declared, it is safe to assume that Belcher was a very troubled man (if even during the short time frame of the incident). Prompted by this event, NBC anchor Bob Costas used his "Sunday Night Football" platform last night to give a speech on gun control at halftime of the Dallas Cowboys vs. Philadelphia Eagles game. This led to immediate reaction from fans and news outlets (search "#Costas" on Twitter for reference). Though much of the fallout was politically- and emotionally-charged, the fundamental concern regarding Costas's advocacy of gun control appeared to be his timing. Many asked, "Is this the right time to pontificate about your personal beliefs on gun control?" Still others argued that such a time was the perfect opportunity to speak on this matter.

Regardless of whether or not Costas was "right" or "wrong" to voice his opinion in that venue (and a consensus is not on the horizon, of course), there are a two general issues with his thesis.

1. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Overused phrase? Yes. True? Yep. Costas's argument that Belcher and his girlfriend "would still be alive" if he was unable to obtain a gun is a stretch. Sure, it could theoretically be true if Belcher only wanted to use a gun, but that's unlikely. Over recent decades, Chicago learned that banning guns did not lower homicide rates. In fact, they increased. And John Lott argues that this isn't isolated to Chicago or any other specific area. Additionally, anyone who has been a parent or in some sort of ministry to teenagers knows that making a child come home by 10 p.m. every night does not guarantee his or her chastity.

Abortion restrictions, for example, statistically show potential in saving lives while homicides and suicides play out differently. Obama's endorsements led to 300,000 more abortions through Planned Parenthood. That's raw data in support of such restrictions, so I don't want to demonize law. However, homicide and suicides are conducted through a myriad of means. Guns are one of many weapons of death. Though stats may vary in different contexts, the statistics - at the very least - call for much more debate than was allowed in last night's broadcast. Costas might have been able to save face if he used more conditional language like "might" or "who knows if...?" Instead, he matter-of-factly pounded the gong.

2. Only God changes hearts. It cannot be stated enough that laws do not transform sinful hearts. The void that was clearly in Belcher's heart would not be filled by tighter regulations, but by the life-transforming power of the gospel. It must be said that we should always fight to legislate godly virtues in our society, but we must also remember that Jesus Christ's life, death, resurrection, and ascension bring the only true hope to mankind (John 14:6-7; 1 Cor. 12:12-16). Christians have the propensity to either hate law and government or idolize it; instead, let us support legislation where it helps society but let nothing replace the foundational human need for the gospel.

Jovan Belcher didn't need a law telling him not to own a gun (assuming that he did, in fact, own it legally); he needed to see that God was and is the only solution to whatever deep anguish he was experiencing.

_

This post was the topic of discussion when I co-hosted "For Christ and Culture" on 90.9 KCBI in Dallas. LISTEN HERE

The 8 Best Post-Election Responses

Soon after Obama's re-election, many evangelicals had provocative and thoughtful responses. I've aggregated my eight favorite articles here (in no particular order): > Jonathan Merritt believes that "American Christians may be on the cusp of a healthier engagement in the public square."

> Albert Mohler is concerned that the 2012 election represents "a new moral landscape in America, and huge challenge to those of us who care passionately about these issues."

> Thomas Kidd charges us to focus on "the little cultural spheres we inhabit on a daily basis."

> Denny Burk contends that Christians owe President Obama "our loyal opposition."

> Russell Moore also wants Christians to remember that "honor doesn't mean blanket endorsement."

> Anthony Bradley proposes that the exit polls reveal that "for black voters, entitlement programs trump moral-social issues every time."

> Owen Strachan to young evangelicals: "God is sovereign ... But even as Jeremiah wept for Israel, so we weep for what America is becoming."

> Ed Stetzer exhorts Christians "to do better next time by not calling pollsters liars and not believing the unbelievable."

The Witness of the Church in Hurricane Sandy

This week at the 20^th anniversary celebration of Hope for New York, Redeemer’s non-profit created to organize Christians to serve the city, Dr. Tim Keller spoke on the value of mercy and justice for the church in an increasingly secular society. His words came in the wake of the worst natural disaster to ever strike our city.

One of the striking statements that he made was that the church must become famous for mercy and justice. He was articulating the seamlessness of word and deed in communicating the gospel of Jesus Christ. Dr. Keller is one of most famous preachers in our day but said that when an increasingly secular society hears him preach, they may hear it as intolerant and narrow-minded; but when they see the church serve their city, society finds it attractive and becomes open to the word connected to the deed.

I watched this firsthand in New York City last week when Sandy caused devastation and destruction through flooding and power outages. The response of the church declared the gospel of Jesus Christ and demonstrated a concern for His name to be lifted high and represented rather than the name of any church.

Church Unity in Proclaiming our One Savior

In John 17:20-23, Jesus prays for the unity of the church in order that our oneness would demonstrate to the world that we know Him. Now, what constitutes unity is always debated, but what I’ve seen in New York City for a while now and demonstrated beautifully recently is exactly that - church unity.

In New York City, pastors, deacons, and parishioners from different churches have been praying together regularly for a while - praying for one another in need and praying for each other’s churches. This praying together has led to celebrating one another and last week it led to serving side by side for the good of our city.

When the power went out in lower Manhattan, the ocean washed away many homes and lives in Staten Island, the South Brooklyn shores and the Rockaways here in New York City, the reflex of the church was to give until we had no more to give and then to repeat the effort the next day. There was confusion for the first couple of days in all of New York City with many not knowing what could or should be done to help, but churches from around the country and locally sprang into action to help however they could.

I live in Manhattan, so I saw many different churches serving together to feed thousands of people in the Lower East Side and East Village. Churches rallying together to organize the distribution of goods, to identify elderly and disabled stuck in their apartments in high-rise buildings, and to clean up places ruined by the storm and its aftermath. The same story was happening in Red Hook, where a church convinced a community center to open and be the primary hub for organized distribution of goods which enabled the local health clinic to maintain its operation. They not only convinced them to open their doors, but were the leadership for the distribution. A number of Brooklyn churches joined them, even rallying older congregations who had not joined the efforts later in the week.

In Chelsea and around the city, government agencies required a mandatory evacuation of the projects, the location of our city’s most vulnerable. Many in the projects refused to evacuate because of past experience and the lack of easy access to shelters. This left them without power and water as well as without assistance as the local government aimed to serve the shelters first. I served alongside five other churches and a few relief organizations, watched as members of the broader church convinced restaurants to feed hundreds for meals costing only $2 (in New York City!).

It’s moving to watch the church be unified in mission and mindset. In mission, to see the church rally to the needs of the city and in mindset to be concerned only that Jesus received the credit. The relief efforts are far from over, FEMA and the National Guard remain throughout the city to help as they can, but the church has the opportunity to provide the long-term relief well after the government is gone. This is one of many opportunities for the church to become famous through demonstrating the love of Christ in order that they may declare the good news of Jesus Christ.

Deeds of Mercy Paving the Way for the Message

The aim of the church was to extend the tangible love of God as we met the tangible needs of those suffering in our city. Leading with this desire and praying for those suffering opened people’s eyes to the message of Christ in new ways. In a city that has aimed to ban churches from meeting in public schools, the church is paving the way for the message of Christ not by protesting, but by posturing ourselves as servants.

This is not merely a disaster relief story, but has been the repeated pattern of mission history, the combination and seamlessness of word and deed being the full declaration and demonstration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Dr. Keller spoke of this as the future reality for the church, it was clear to me that this has been its present and past need.

Dr. Keller cited Portland, OR where churches have organized over 20,000 volunteers and approached the city government and mayor asking where they can do the most good for the city. Can you imagine if churches around the country and the world organized to simply bless their city, not for the agenda of the church, but to demonstrate of God who loves the people of their city?

Our message is good news, and justice makes people feel it as well as hear it.

Permanent Impermanence

Reality shows come in all shapes an sizes. Some involve risk and danger, some involve competition, some involve talented musicians, and others involve somehow-famous thirty-somethings. I'll admit that I often find them entertaining and occasionally inspiring. Reality shows are not sinful in and of themselves, but they do cause a dangerous unrest in our culture, particularly in the realm of "romantic" relationships. There appears to be a general unrest amongst younger people due to their desire to be like these reality stars - brave, macho, talented, attractive, rich, etc. Because of this, there is a significant amount of singles that I meet and know who cannot be satisfied with what God has blessed them with and impose these sanctions on potential spouses. Of course, reality shows aren't the only factor, but speak largely about the cultural shift we are experiencing. People always want a better job, a nicer house, a more precise talent, and a better-looking spouse. For those who do not know Christ, we can expect this at some level; for those who know Christ, there must be greater wisdom.

As culture teaches young single folks that they can never be satisfied with their "lot in life," there must be a ferocious battle against stagnation. We must trust Jesus with what we have and what we may or may not eventually have. Younger Christians should seek older Christians who are willing to invest in them, gleaning invaluable advice in the process. Do not let the pleasures of this world press upon your pursuit of joy in marriage.

If I could give a few pieces of advice, I would plead with the singles of this generation in the following ways:

MEN

1. Take Responsibility - Look, we all know that video games can be fun and even a rare form of male bonding, but the fantasy has to take a backseat to reality. I have known so many guys who will play sick so that they can skip work in order to play their new game. Additionally, there is a propensity to stay up too late and not be prepared for work, school, or another appointment. Just because you aren't out late getting drunk or staying the night with a woman doesn't mean that you are being responsible. Take everything you do seriously and with real preparation not because of men, but because of the One who provided you the task (Eph. 6:6; 1 Cor. 10:31).

2. Seek a Bride - Notice the order of these tips - responsibility, then seek a bride. The Bible is clear that singleness is a gift from God, so if you are called to singleness, don't waste ladies' time. For the rest of you, join them in not wasting ladies' time unless you are seeking a real covenant with them. I am not a hardcore proponent of "kissing dating goodbye" but I also am not a supporter of "dating for fun." God did not create inter-gender relationships to have some ethereal scenario that is beyond friendship but less than marriage. If it is not leading anywhere, kill it. God has something much bigger for you than temporal attention. Seek a woman with the heart of Christ out of your own heart for Christ. Marriage is a beautiful picture of the gospel (Eph. 5:22-31) and we should not play games with that.

WOMEN

1. Be the Standard - This may sound weird coming from a guy who so elevates male leadership in these things, but here's the point: you will attract a certain type of man based on your actions. There will always be sleazeballs with poor intentions, but a good Christian man will notice a good Christian woman. When the gospel informs decisions, things tend to come together. When I started dating my wife, the criteria that got her a first date was not that she was pretty (even though she is), smart (even though she is smarter than me), or even her particular personality (which is a perfect balance to mine); I was attracted immediately to her open love for Christ and reputation among those whom I respect and love. Let your integrity be of utmost importance, portraying the wife that God calls you to be (1 Pet. 3:1-4) and let God bring the right man when the time is right.

2. Lower Expectations - Most women have an innate desire for security, and rightfully so. However this plays itself out in two ways: 1) "I'm going to work hard and make money 'cause I don't need no man!" or 2) "I'm going to wait for a man who is on a trajectory toward wealth so that I will always be taken care of." The truth is, God has called your husband to be a leader and he should be able to provide, but financial security causes even the best of people to make bad decisions (Prov. 23:4). I know many Christian men who are working hard at work and pursuing Christ earnestly who struggle weekly to pay bills. Is this an ideal situation? Of course not! But do not let living paycheck to paycheck be a deterrent when you find a man who loves Christ.

Dear Christian: Making Money is Good (So is Workplace Dignity)

Do you ever think about the dignity of work, and the humanity of workers?  Christians have a powerful stake in this conversation.  The saving gospel transforms all of our lives, including the way we work, we are employed, we employ. This article, “Productivity and Grace: Management and Labor at a Denver Manufacturer,” is about a Denver manufacturer whose leaders treat their employees with kindness and dignity.  From Christianity Today‘s This Is Our City project, it’s an inspiring piece by Chris Horst, and I commend it to you.  Much to chew on here.

Sandwiched between rail lines and a tire depot, the Blender Products factory hides in a quiet neighborhood in Denver. The nondescript warehouse looks from the outside as nondescript as most warehouses do. But the way Steve Hill and Jim Howey lead inside the building is unusual in an industry known for top-down hierarchies of management.

“The metal fabrication business is extremely cutthroat,” says Hill. “Workers are given a singular task, and maximum output is demanded. They’re simply a factor of production. As a general rule, they have no access to management. There is very little crossover between guys on the floor and guys in the offices.”

Hill and Howey aim to subvert the us-versus-them mentality. Many days they walk the shop floor, engaging their workers as peers. Employees on the floor are treated as importantly as the managers, undermining the adversarial culture simmering in many manufacturing businesses.

Here’s the whole shebang.

I am not one who would advocate for unions as a general rule.  But as I read up on progressivism, the history of American labor, and the captains of industry–an ongoing reading project involves the Industrial Titans of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries–I am keenly aware of the way some manufacturers and industry leaders of the last couple centuries have failed to treat their workers with appropriate dignity.  A figure like Andrew Carnegie, for example, shows us both the tremendous ingenuity of the capitalist and the shameful inhumanity every person is capable of.  Carnegie built libraries for his workers, but they had precious little time by which to visit them.

Christians who believe in the rightness of the free market nonetheless must also be known for their application of the doctrine of the image of God to labor and capitalism.  We don’t only care about making money in order to flourish domestically and societally (and globally); we also care about workers, people, those whom God has invested with meaning and purpose and talent.  The Blender Products leaders, Steve Hill and Jim Howey, clearly get that.  It’s beautiful to read their story along these lines.

With the above stated, don’t misread me.  I’m fundamentally for big business (and medium and small businesses), I generally trust the free market, and I think it’s intellectually facile to think wealth and wealthy people are bad.  The best program of social uplift I know of is one that involves marriage, hard work, and earning money, and there should be absolutely no shame in such things (contra what we are encouraged to feel today). But the Bible seems to be pretty clear about the need to be fair and even kind to others who need to earn money (see 1 Timothy 5:18).

In fact, let’s sharpen the point: Christian employers should be widely known for how well they treat their employees.  Failure on this point is not a small matter.  In the broader world and the political-cultural realm, we should be known not only for our belief in meaningful work and money-earning, but for our advocacy on behalf of the weak, including employees who are mistreated and who need appropriate representation. (By the way, for more resources on the goodness of work and much more, check out the Center for Faith and Work, affiliated with Redeemer Presbyterian Church of Manhattan–cool conference on this subject coming up in early November 2012.)

The image of God means that we can work, create, be entrepreneurs, be day laborers, be manufacturers, homemakers, bosses, ad consultants, teachers, and so much more.  The gospel creates a love for such work in Jesus’s name, and a desire to bring others to the flourishing and spiritual life they can never find outside of the workplace of God, the kingdom of Christ.

-

Cross-posted from Owen's personal blog.

When Love Refuses to Affirm

*Editor's Note: This was #2 on our Top Posts of 2012. _

There are times when your love for people trumps your desire to stay away from potentially offending them. This is one of those times.

I recently stumbled across a theological statement of The Vision Church of Atlanta which proudly boasts Bishop Allen and his life partner, "First Gentleman" Rashad. Included on the page is a horrific handling of Leviticus, the Law, and Jesus's views on such things, but that's probably a post for another day. Here is the particularly gut-wrenching section that I want to focus on here:

We believe that God’s love is inclusive and welcoming to all. We believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ cuts across all barriers which fragment and divide us. We are called to love, affirm and welcome all regardless of race, gender and/or affectional orientation, class, or life situation. As Christ-centered Christians, we are to be known for our inclusiveness, reconciliation, and liberation for all who are oppressed. The church has too often allowed particular aspects of a person to place them out of the faith. Therefore, we emphasize the “whosoever” in John 3:16. We are also called to “love our neighbors as we love ourselves” (Mark 12:29-31), and “love our enemies” Luke 6:27.

So much can be said about this section, but what troubles me most is that the drafter of this explanation (likely the bishop himself) uses the love of Christ as a springboard for the "love equals affirmation" hermeneutic. I totally agree much of this presentation, everything from the power of the barrier-crossing gospel to the call to love our neighbors and enemies. Any Christian would quickly and rightly say "amen!" to that.

Where the logic totally falls apart is assuming that the inclusiveness of the gospel allows for no standard of right and wrong. The gospel is indeed the power of God to save the Jew, Gentile, man, woman, child, black, white, etc. But that's not all. It is also a proclamation that sin has been conquered and that God's righteous reign is supreme. His glory is paramount. In short, the implication by The Vision Church is that because the gospel is not a sectarian message in its reach, tolerance is the highest form of love. In fact, love is often the opposite.

What's Love Got to Do with It?

When defining love, we must be extremely careful not to confuse it with affirmation. I love my wife whether she commits adultery or not, and I would forgive and reconcile with her if that were to ever happen (God forbid), but I would not condone nor endorse her to do it again. Christ's death on the cross would cover that sin, but he would also command repentance and I rightly would expect the same. The beauty of the gospel is not that we get to sin freely, but that we are free to sin no more. We have so individualized everything in our culture that "what works for me is best for me" has firmly seeped into much of today's Christian thought. Repentance and dying to self flip that script entirely.

Jesus clearly spent much of his ministry teaching and modeling love. As mentioned before, he said that we must love our God, our neighbors, and our enemies. Indeed, John says that "God is love" in his first epistle (1 John 4:8). However, we should also pay attention to how Jesus loved. His interaction with the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is a striking example that comes to mind. After saving her life from those who sought to condemn and marginalize her, he said this:

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

What a beautiful picture of grace! He could have easily judged her (as the true Judge) and yet he told her, "I do not condemn you." Now, we could stop there, but we can't. Why? Because Jesus didn't stop there. He then says, "Go and sin no more." See that? Love is not just the forgiveness of sins, but also the pointing toward something better. When Christians, exercising real humility and gentleness, tell a homosexual or alcoholic or adulterer or gossip queen that what they are doing is a sin, they are exercising the love of Christ. It is not loving to leave people in their sin or simply offer hollow acquittal. Jesus pardons sin and points us in the right direction.

At the Cross

In reflecting on the aforementioned theological averment that promotes a choose-your-own-lifestyle therapy, it is grievous that the gospel is weakened to such a nebulous ideal. What's more, this kind of thought is being broadcasted as the true teachings of Jesus. Jesus becomes nothing more than a naïve mother who accepts all of her children's flaws. This flies in the face of the cross, where God in the flesh died the most gruesome form of execution ever created to gain victory over sin. He hung there because sin is that hideous and offensive. Paul lists a very particular set of sins in 1 Cor. 6:7-10 that range from the greedy to the homosexual and in verse 11 says, "that's what some of you were, but you were sanctified and justified in Christ." In this transferred vindication, we walk away from those things and into the newness of life.

The cross indicts every one of us but there is hope on the other side of an empty tomb. We cannot trust our own hearts. We cannot think of our own preferences. We cannot be defined by those things which God clearly warns against. We must be washed in the blood, sent out of the grave and into the world. There can be no reconciliation where sin is not only accepted but endorsed. It pains me to see people so blinded by their own fragmented hearts, but I can pray with joy and hope knowing that no one is out of the reach of God's saving hand.

Public Discourse and the Weight of Freedom

*Disclaimer: This post is not in reference to any particular person but rather in response to the innumerable social media updates that daily ridicule those who engage in public discussions. ___

Over the past few weeks, the presidential and vice presidential debates have predictably turned social media into a public debate forum for expounding conservative and liberal viewpoints. Indeed, social media is today's largest and most widely-accessible form of open dialogue. Anyone can own a Facebook or Twitter and offer their opinions without worry of legitimate retribution. Social media is, in just about every sense, the new public forum.

In the midst of this, people are spending equal amounts of time complaining about the aforementioned dialogue on their social media accounts. While many use social media to publish their ideas and convictions about politics and social issues in general, others take to the Internet their desire to banish the conversation and keep their Facebook or Twitter feeds free from bureaucratic exhortation. In both instances, people are exercising their God-ordained and government-allowed freedom to have their voice heard.

Freedom isn't Free, But it is Priceless

As I said in a previous post, people from all over the world flee to America in search of freedoms that they do not experience in their own countries. In many citizens' eyes, these immigrants are a threat to our country because they take American jobs via cheap labor, mooch off welfare, engage in criminal mischief, and are resistant to completely adopt American culture. While there are certainly cases of such behavior and concerns are legitimate, the underlying issue is the simple fact that freedom is priceless. (This would make a great MasterCard commercial, wouldn't it?)

When you reflect on the lives lost in search of American ideals, the weight of freedom is a heavy load to shoulder. People die every day escaping tyranny while others are taken captive in their own countries for owning a Bible or tweeting a negative comment about their government. In the U.S., it is a crime to discriminate based on religion and naysayers unabashedly draw disgusting cartoons, post grotesque pictures, or attach shameful subtitles to photos of our leaders just because they can. Yes, I recognize that this example reveals that there is a severe disconnect between the right to freedom and the abuse of it, but that's an argument for later in the post.

So, how does all of this relate to online political discussion? Let me explain.

A Case for Public Discourse

Elementary education, local news, Time magazine, ESPN, and 140-character tweets all have one thing in common - they provide the opportunity to absorb information and consider others' opinions. I fear that Americans have become inoculated to this precious treasure. As the general population either openly debates or complains about open debate, the irony is that everyone involved is applying the identical principle of freedom of speech. Sarcasm and snarkiness over Internet-based mediums only enhance my point: Americans are free to express themselves. And it's a beautiful thing. People now know your opinion and can assess for themselves whether or not there is a valid proposition to consider. This leads to healthy self-examination of one's own presuppositions and/or assumptions.

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, "Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech." There are quite possibly a million theological avenues to go down in this discussion, but for the sake of brevity I want to make two very basic statements about the importance of public discourse based on this quote:

1. "Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom" - Do you know why you know anything? Do you know why you have an opinion about anything? Precisely because you are in a free society that allows public discourse. We have opinion television shows on every channel at every second of every day at some point. Your very conscience in many ways is directly affected by the freedom of thought. As Christians, we believe that God's wisdom is true wisdom,and even that cannot come very easily without the freedom for someone to share it with you publicly.

2. "No such Thing as Liberty, without Freedom of Speech" - There are a plethora of countries around the world in which people cannot express their opinion freely. Do we take it for granted in America? Absolutely! But as with anything else in life, one does not throw the whole idea out simply because it is abused. At the foundational level, freedom of speech is a liberty that cannot quantified and it should be promoted at all costs. Having a personal conscience and a right to be an individual is one of the most paramount rights as a human being. Even as Christians are one unified body under Christ, God in no way made us clones. We should embrace diverse people with a heart to learn from them, whether or not we get annoyed at their (perceived) ignorance to a topic.

Give Me Freedom or Give Me Death

Perhaps those who connect with myself and millions of others on social media are not fond of our love for open dialogue. That's fine. Again, we both have the right to feel a certain way. What we cannot do is stifle the public forum. It may sound like an overstatement and implausible, but if people begin to be afraid of ridicule by participating in public discourse then liberty is immediately compromised. I have learned more from dialogue with others on social media than from any other medium of news transmission. I'd prefer to go ahead and meet Jesus in the clouds rather than live in secrecy and seclusion from others' conclusions.

What the Prosperity Gospel Does to the Gospel

*Editor's Note: This was #1 on our Top Posts of 2012.

_

I was reminded recently by a local TV preacher (asking for money in exchange for prayers, of course) how badly the "prosperity gospel" distorts the gospel of Christ. Here are three major things that I think the prosperity gospel does:

1. Cheapens Grace

The gospel of Jesus Christ is built upon the fact that God’s wrath needed to be satisfied by the shedding of blood in order for sinners to be taken out from under this wrath. Jesus did not have your material wealth in mind when he died on the cross. No, Jesus had your eternal soul in mind. Your wealth on earth is judged by others, but your soul is judged by God. Grace is poured out because you are born in spiritual poverty with no hope, not because your 401k is lower than you’d like. Paul proclaims that we are more than conquerors in Christ. What more do we really need?

2. Glorifies Materialism

One of the grossest sins in America is the infatuation with money and reputation. I live in Dallas where everyone is in debt up to their eyeballs in order to be seen as one of the North Dallas elites. It doesn’t matter that you make $35,000 per year as long as people think you make $200,000. It’s a scary place to be to think that God wants your wealth because he is ultimately concerned with your renown and happiness. There is a reason that faithful believers in the Bible struggled at one point or another by earthly standards – God was teaching them to refocus their standards according to his. Wealth is not sinful in and of itself, but should never be sought as though you deserve it.

3. Elevates Moralism

It is pretty clear in any prosperity sermon that you are blessed if you are wealthy. A key phrase for a prosperity preacher is, “Are you broke? Does your car need new tires? Did you only get peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch this week? It’s because you haven’t unlocked God’s ultimate plan for you!” He (or she) proceeds to tell you that if you do this and that, God will bless you. What is this blessing? MONEY. Duh. What more could you need to be happy? Forget reckless abandon for Christ and his Kingdom, as long as you got Chili’s instead of tuna salad this week. God’s blessing is him. You get HIM with no stipulations.