Free Expression

Stevenson Quote

[Note–please be sure to read this article from The Federalist!]
I linked this post to a Facebook group that is for Christian Church/church of Christ ministers only. It was deleted within an hour. Ironically, this is a post about the denial of free expression and sharing it is also denied.

This is because there are, within conservative, evangelical Christianity, at least two camps of opinion about how cultural matters ought to be decided. At this time, in North America, by far the largest is the camp that believes the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) is about saving souls, and making good ethical disciples, who express their Christianity as much as they can in their businesses, places of work, schools, neighbourhoods, etc. These, however, are heavily influenced by the Adventism of the mid-nineteenth century, which taught that the end of the world was immanent, and the focus should be on individual salvation while the rest of the world, its governments, institutions, its culture is abandoned to Satan. Those who hold to this view make up the vast majority of Christians today, and it is the “received view” of most megachurches.

These are the ones who will not sympathize much with business people who, out of a commitment to Christ, refuse to celebrate same-sex marriages. They would argue that their work is secular, and that they must therefore submit to the laws of the land (Romans 13:1ff). This view is often inconsistent, as it generally accepts the sacred/secular distinction as it applies to Christians in the marketplace, but protests loudly (and rightly) at the abortion holocaust.

The other camp believes that the Dominion Mandate (a.k.a. the “Cultural Mandate.” There are some great resources here) of Genesis 1:28 has not been rescinded, and that the glory of the Lord is literally to spread “throughout the earth” (Habakkuk 2:14). The belief here is that God has sovereign rights over all His Creation, and those rights are not diminished by human reason or law. This view holds that the moral law is demanded of all humans everywhere, and that civil law ought to reflect that. It does not understand Biblical Law as salvific, that is, it does not teach that salvation comes through the Law, but rather that the implications of Christian discipleship range through all of life. In other words, it is wholistic: Christianity is not only about one’s personal ethics or inner life, or family, but demands obedience in all places, and God’s Law is to be obeyed by all. When a nation perverts this Law, Christians are obligated to prophesy against them, and to use means to bring these nations back under the Law of God.

It does not mean that a nation will become Christian, in that all, or even a vast majority of its inhabitants will be Christians, but when man’s law is in disobedience to God’s Law, the Christian is obliged to speak and to act.

As to work, this view understands that all of work is a part of God’s Dominion Mandate, and thus is holy, sacred. There is no secular world.

As Abraham Kuyper said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry, ‘Mine!'”

Follow-up to Previous Post: "Stay Out of the Ghetto."

pew-and-pulpit

Earlier this month I posted an article warning against the ghettoisation of Christianity. This post illustrates well the challenges that are met by those who must work and live outside the ghetto:

Article here from the Gospel Coalition.

Stay Out of the Ghetto

resistance

I was concerned when I learned recently that some states in the US are considering legislation to protect ministers of religion from civil and criminal penalties, if they refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages. I think this is a bad thing that appears tempting to the fearful. This is because it creates a safety zone for a very small percentage of Christians, the professional clergy, to operate within the very small confines of their churches; and by “church,” it will be most often restricted to physical property set aside for religious purposes. Churches that rent school space, for example, may not get off so easily.

This is good news for mega-church and small-church clergy alike: They will enjoy “freedom of worship” (to use President Obama’s phrase) and agree to give up actual religious freedom. In fact, by accepting this sort of thing, clergy is supporting a rending asunder of the church between themselves and the majority of Christians who are expected to bow to Caesar at every turn.

Christian ministers need to decide if they are preaching the Gospel of a God who is Lord of all, or is lord of their campus.

Preachers, be prepared to stand with those in the marketplace who refuse to bow the knee to Ba’al.

I had much more to say on this, but I found this little article by R. C. Sproul Jr., who says it much better than I. It is reproduced below, but the full article can be found here.

THURSDAY, JULY 2, 2015

Bread, Circuses, and the Coliseum

While the Christians who went to their deaths under the empire of Rome died for their faith, I fear they did not die for our faith. First, we must understand what Rome had against these saints. Part of the genius of the Roman empire was their “broad-mindedness.” They did not roll into town after their phalanxes had left not one brick upon another and rebuild from scratch. Instead it was their habit to assimilate. As they did with the Pharisees, they cut a deal. We will rule over you, but you can, by and large, keep doing what you were doing.  Keep your temple. Worship there. Keep your traditions, your way of life.  All we ask of you is that you pay your taxes, acknowledge our authority, and then this one other little thing- we need you to acknowledge that Caesar is Lord. Burn a pinch of incense, bow the knee, and then go back to what you were doing. You don’t even have to mean it.

The Christians’ problem was more political than narrowly theological. You see the very first creed of the church was just three words long, but managed to confront Rome at its heart. Christians were those who confessed Christ is Lord. They died by the thousands because they would not confess that Caesar is Lord.

Which brings us to our faith. We’re like the Pharisees. We have our worship services, our private convictions, and that’s where our faith ends. The rest of our lives are committed to the authority of the state, and to the diversions and distractions the broader culture provides. We are in no danger because we are no danger. When the world calls our convictions “hate” we simply change them, insisting that our response to the wholesale turning over of God’s created order is more love, more appeasement, more assurance that we are not a danger. Some of us reinterpret our Bibles to get with the times. Some simply look away awkwardly when the Bible embarrasses us. We conflate the Biblical notion that all sin is rebellion against the living God and deserving of His judgment into the much safer notion that all sins are equal, making all of them innocuous, not worthy to be mentioned.

When the Supreme Court made its most wicked ruling, upending the natural, God created order of things, we ignored it. When we finally woke up, we found safe, reasonable, Rome approved ways of “fighting” it. 42 years later and still three thousand little babies are murdered every day, right in our own neighborhoods. And we are more interested in our favorite football team.

We worship a Jesus who will save us from our sins, but whose reign we’re willing to negotiate. We worship a state that simply requires of us that we be nice and keep our convictions to ourselves. We worship distraction, so that we won’t have to face our idolatry. We worship the acceptance of the broader culture, and sacrifice all else to get it. We’re not like our fathers who died for Jesus, but like our fathers that killed Him and the prophets God sent to call us to repentance, because they, like we, worship the god of this age.

Until we stop repenting to the god of this age for the plain teaching of the living God, and start repenting to the living God for bowing before the god of this age, we will be trodden underfoot. Until we weep for our sin, until we tear down the high places, until we cease to hand our children over to Moloch we will burn with Rome. Lord be merciful to us, sinners.

 

A Restorationist's Thoughts on the Confederate Battle Flag

confederateWar_flag_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Army

There have been many opinions about the Confederate battle flag (for those interested in the various flags of the Confederacy, see here). It has, reportedly, been removed from the Gettysburg National Park, and will likely be removed from all state and federal government properties. I am not going to address the wisdom of doing this or not doing this, since either leaving it nor removing it will likely heal racism in the United States.

This little post is directed to Christians, especially those who think that Melvinious’ phrase, “In Essentials, Unity, in Opinions, Liberty, and in all things, Love” is a useful rule of life (this quote has been variously attributed to Augustine, but is more likely Rupertus Melenius, 1582-1651). The early leaders of the Restoration Movement adapted this phrase to describe their approach to Christian unity, and it is, overall, a good rule. Most of the trouble with it is, however, that there is quite a bit of debate over what constitutes an essential and what determines an opinion.

To illustrate, and to bring us to back to the Confederate flag, there’s this. Later in August, we shall welcome into our home a young woman from Japan, who is spending about a year to experience something of our country. The size itself should be quite an experience. This will be the fifth Japanese boarder we’ve had with us. Canada and Japan have an agreement that, with a special visa, a Japanese person, under 30, may live here for one year and hold a job, as long as that job is not in their area of expertise. For example, we had a Japanese schoolteacher live with us who was not permitted to teach school, but she could hold any other job she could find.  This is reciprocal, and Canadians under the age of 30 may go to Japan on the same terms. The Japanese call this a “homestay” experience.

In our kitchen, we have a large poster frame with two newspapers framed in it from August, 1945. My father was stationed in San Diego at the end of the war, and my mother saved these papers. They proclaim with great excitement, the end of the Japanese theatre of war. They are very interesting historical artifacts, and they are very valuable to us. Before our Japanese visitor arrives, we will take them down and put them away. We are not meaning to hide or deny the ugly truths of Japanese aggression (much of which has been denied by Japan in their education of their young since that time). Keeping this reminder of the Allies’ victory is also showing a reminder of Japan’s defeat.

We intend no covering over of the events of the war, but this young woman may have false information about Japan from that era, or may, due to internet access, have full details of the horror of Japanese aggression. We just don’t know. She may want to know what we’ve been told. It is likely that if she had any family involved in WWII, that they are quite old, if living at all. The presence of these newspapers may shock, hurt, confuse, or anger her, and this is not the reason we’re bringing her into our home. If this war comes up in conversation, we will certainly explain the facts we know, from Pearl Harbour to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (we once had a young woman from Nagasaki live with us).

So, in keeping with this great Restoration slogan, we suppose that having the newspapers on our wall are not essential, or necessary. If she were coming to learn of the history of Japan in WWII, these things might be useful. But she isn’t. She is here to learn of Canada in the 21st century. If the Confederate flag flew at Gettysburg, and this is a museum to a great battle there, it really should fly there now, out of concern for historical accuracy. Our home is not a museum, but a place of welcome for strangers.

What is necessary is that this young woman feel welcome into a home where she may learn Christ. This overrides any concern we might have to keep the story of WWII alive, true and accurate. The truth is still there, even without the newsprint to show it.

The Confederate flag is a fact of history, and need not be banned or eliminated from its place in history, but is it a necessary  emblem of modern life? For the sake of the Gospel, Christians do, perhaps, need to think this one through.

Blogging the Revised Ontario Sex-Education Curriculum: 12 things you must know

Many parents are shocked to learn what has been happening in their children’s schools. This situation, however, was many years in coming. Scott Masson has a very good video here.

My purpose in this entry is to simply make 12 concise statements about the Government of Ontario and its view of you and your children. Once you know these things, you may plan accordingly.

  1. The Government of Ontario does not see your children as really yours. The children you birthed or adopted belong to the state, which determines what is best for your children in health, education, and their general welfare. At best, parents are seen as “co-parents” with the state.
  2. The Government of Ontario determines what is fact and truth in matters of sexuality.
  3. The Government of Ontario will state that their view of sexuality is based upon scientific fact. This is not true. It is based on a collection of theories that express the strong desires of a few people.
  4. It has been decided that homosexuality and transgenderism, and the vast varieties of experience brought for by these orientations, are as normal and correct and right and true as heterosexuality.
  5. The actions of non-heterosexuality good, even if it includes what has been for years considered sodomy.
  6. These orientations and behaviours are not to be avoided, cured, treated, pitied, or restricted; rather, they are to be embraced and accepted as fully as heterosexuality.
  7. Children must decide for themselves what is right, and parents, religion or tradition may or may not be a part of this decision.
  8. Non-heterosexual orientation may occur at any time in a person’s lifetime, including the preschool age.
  9. Gender is not sex. The sex you were born with is not necessarily your gender. This is called “gender fluidity.” Your child’s gender may be “fluid,” and you as a parent have no right to interfere with it.
  10. When your religious views contradict those of the government, which will occur most often in school, your religious views must yield to those of the government.
  11. Historically, the family is the place of nurture and education, health and wellbeing. The state sees the schools and other state institutions as superior to the family. The state sees the traditional family is a its competitor. This curriculum is a part of the Government of Ontario’s attempt to effectively destroy the traditional family.
  12. Individuals do not have rights, only groups have rights, and those groups must be approved by the state. You, your child, and your family have value only as they contribute to society, and society that is worthy is determined by the state.

resistance