Monthly Archive for November, 2009

Christian “Manhattan Declaration” Hit and Miss

Written by Colin. Published on November 23, 2009 ago in Apologetics, Politics and Religion. 46 Comments

A group of Christian leaders from Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical churches have signed a seven page declaration which is supposed to affirm an adherence to certain biblical principles which have recently become hot button political issues in the United States:

  • the sanctity of human life
  • the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
  • the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Here is a short clip from Fox News:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwMDuMAXoj4&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

The group argues that these are “fundamental truths” not so much about God or about conduct within his church, but rather pertain to: “justice and the common good… to human dignity and the well-being of society.”

This is the beginning of what is surely theologically dangerous language. Why do leaders in the church feel the need to make statements and adhere to declarations which apply to the entire secular culture? It is not our job as Christians to threaten civil disobedience for “the common good” – we are to do it for the glory of God and the magnification of his name – among the nations. We are not called to change the behaviour of the nations.

In fact, when a nation simply focusses on changing behaviour without conversion – this is called hypocrisy. When religions leaders are calling for changes of behaviour of non-believers without the essential and fundamental application of the gospel – it is Phariseeism.

I am not saying this declaration is “bad” or that there are not right principles in it. However, it is advertised as primarily a tool for social change, not for conversion of souls. That is a distraction.

It would have been much better to make a declaration affirming Christian’s responsibility to evangelise and to share the gospel, knowing that aside from the essential fruit of salvation and eternal life – believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin will necessary transform this world for the better.

What the Declaration Gets Right
There is also emphasis in the declaration on affirming our duty to God above the state. This is entirely appropriate – and can not be stated enough:

…that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

This is correct. The modern state, being an authority structure fundamentally and definitionally opposed to Christian principles and the authority of God, is always a threat to Christianity. It is not a complimentary organisation, as many misreadings of Romans 13 would indicate, but rather it is in direct competition with God. Christians should often assert their desire to follow God and his kingdom when these two entities inevitably come into conflict.

Most governments right now permit much religious liberty – but even this language reveals the problem: religious liberty is not a “permission” from the state. The right to worship God comes from him – and he rules over all the earth and all that is in it. The state has no right to dictate what is permissible or not in this arena. The state has no authority here.

Summary
Nevertheless, it is not good to confuse religious liberty, which is a negative right (being free from aggression against us) into a positive right (being entitled to force our customs and behaviours onto others). This declaration conflates these two kinds of rights. We should be affirming our right to not be aggressed against, but we must avoid language which changes “sharing the gospel” – an act consistent with salvation by faith, human freedom and voluntary choice – into “affirming the state’s role to enforce our values in civic life.” We have no right to do this. It is idolatry.

Links: Does the U.S. now resemble a Post-Communist Eastern European Country?

Written by Colin. Published on November 20, 2009 ago in General. 2 Comments

Does the U.S. now resemble a Post-Communist Eastern European country?

Has Hell begun to freeze over? Texas has doubts about capital punishment?

Can reporters count? There are “more pro-life votes in the House than pro-choice.”

Rand Paul: Try, Convict and Lock Up Terrorists In Guantanamo

Category #2
The Great Depression: One writer’s experience with being clinically depressed without health insurance.

Reason Magazine asks for Donations (video). Ironic?

Some think prosperity gospel preachers caused “the crash.”

How Do We Determine If Soldiers Are Worthy Of Honor?

Written by Atanamis. Published on November 16, 2009 ago in Philosophy and Politics. 17 Comments

When considering how to view soldiers, it is important to look at both why they join, what they do, and what their nation asks of them. A soldier who joins in expectation that he is putting his life on the line for protection of others should be given credit for that willingness to sacrifice, even if the nation for which he serves uses him for unsavory purposes. A soldier who knowingly commits acts of atrocity should be scorned even if he did so for supposedly noble purposes or at the orders of a superior. In no case should a soldier be “worshiped” or considered to be above reproach, but neither should they be condemned purely because you disagree with policy decisions by their nation.

It is often hard to determine why someone joins the military. Someone who is forced to join to escape prison though clearly isn’t doing so out of an interest in serving others by putting their life on the line. Many people who join militaries do so though in the belief that doing so will protect the safety or liberty of their family, friends, or neighbors. Even if one believes this motivation is naive, the sacrifice it implies is significant. The Bible indicates that there is no greater love than to lay one’s life down for another. Someone who joins purely out of a desire to inflict harm on others though is not worthy of respect for their joining a military. Most who would call for soldiers to be honored likely would NOT call for them to be honored if it was known that they had done so purely out of a blood lust.

A soldier potentially takes that risk in joining a military. Of course, the above quality could potentially also apply to people we might consider terrorists, to those who commit war crimes, or to those who otherwise engage in acts that are unsupportable. No soldier who engages in improper conduct should be honored. The question of what consitutes “improper” is probably the biggest concern for those who oppose honoring troops. Is engaging in an unjust war improper? What about torturing an enemy who has critical information? Some might argue that there are no rules in love or war, and that any action that helps one achieve their goals is acceptable. This is generally the idea behind the view that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. In fact though, each man is responsible for his own actions and cannot beg off on having been given orders to engage in wrongful behavior.

The specifics of what is considered wrongful behavior are likely to be an area of contention, but I would not hold a soldier responsible for actions outside their direct control. This would include decisions like where their military is fighting and with what operational goals. An individual soldier cannot necessarily be expected to be familiar with the larger details of a conflict they are engaged in, or to refuse to be deployed to a given conflict. (That said, a military ought to strive to keep soldiers informed and to allow them to opt out of conflict if they feel strongly that it is unjust.) They do have control over their direct actions, and should not deliberately target civilians or engage in deliberate torture of enemies (regardless of legal combatant status). Targetting soldiers (who have not surrendered) in the case of a war for legitimate reasons is acceptable, since those soldiers have specifically identified themselves as targets.

The final condition to be considered is the cause of the nation for which a soldier fights. It is illegitimate for a soldier to intentionally join a military which they know exists for immoral purposes. If I know my nation is engaging in a genocide, I should not join its military. This raises the question of what constitutes “legitimate” use of a military. The only legitimate use of a military is to remove physical threats to oneself or others. It is always morally legitimate to respond with lethal force if someone is threatening your life or that of a non-aggressor party, regardless of whether one is in a police or military force. If someone points a gun at my wife, I’ll kill them. I can also do this if someone is threatening my neighbor with lethal force. Nations (as gatherings of people) have the right to do the same thing.

Soldiers Give Us Neither Freedom Nor Peace

Written by Colin. Published on November 12, 2009 ago in Politics and Religion. 29 Comments

Yesterday was veterans day in many countries around the world. And while mourning those who have died in conflict and war is a understandable and worthy effort, this holiday has long been used as a means of promoting imperialism, warmongering and soldier/military worship.

If we truly desire to be advocates of peace, justice and freedom in this world, then we would not be supporters of war, militarism, nationalism or imperialism. War does not bring peace in almost any capacity. In the short-term – people are killed, property is destroyed and men are taught to hate other men with whom they otherwise would have no conflict. In the long-term, resentment is fostered, free peoples are occupied and despotic regimes are installed or even elected in response to the memory of violence and aggression.

Our freedoms come from a benevolent and gracious Creator, who has given us life and life abundantly. He has delivered us from our sins and offered us peace with Him and peace with each other. War is not the domain of Christians and it is not in the footsteps of Christ.

Charles Spurgeon once eloquently said:

 War is to our minds the most difficult thing to sanctify to God. The genius of the Christian religion is altogether contrary to everything like strife of any kind, much more to the deadly clash of arms. . . . Now I say again, I am no apologist for war, from my soul I loathe it, and I do not understand the position of a Christian man as a warrior, but still I greatly rejoice that there are to be found at this present day in the ranks many of those who fear God and adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour (“A Peal of Bells,” July 7, 1861, Metropolitan Tabernacle).

The freedom to worship, to dissent, to speak, to work, to create, to trade and to associate first come from God. They do not come from the military, or because soldiers are dying in other parts of the world. The military, by its very nature, is destructive of these freedoms. It calls men to worship the state, to pledge allegiance to the state, to be silent and take orders, to sacrifice one’s life, to do as one is told, to eat from the state’s hand and to hate it’s enemies.

Veterans day is not a day to be grateful for the military or the state. It is a day to remember the dead, who have died for the vanity, greed and sin of men. It is a day to pray to the Prince of peace for his intervention in this violent world, that he would not tarry in his coming. It is a day to forsake trusting in men and his sinful appetites, and hope in the assurance of God’s grace and peace which he has promised us, and demonstrated with the blood of his Son.

Christians And Employers

Written by Colin. Published on November 10, 2009 ago in Philosophy, Politics, Religion and Theology. 3 Comments
This entry is part 3 of 6 in the series Christianity and Covenants

Christians And Employers

I want to preface by saying that some may find this article offensive. However, my goal here is not to judge the decisions that others have made or to condemn them, but to try and look at some biblical passages and consider what they mean with regard to the topic of employment. Let me also state that I am not coming at this from a position of compliance or adherence, my own employment history is full of disregard for biblical principles, and the course to right it is ongoing and has required many sacrifices. So please consider this as a word from one sinner saved by grace to another.

The most fundamental question to ask in working out the mess or the relationship between Christians and their employers is this: what kind of contract do Christians have with their employers?

The Greco-Roman cultural context of the new testament had several classes of labour relationships: slaves/masters, employees/employers, patrons/clients, heads of house/family and others. So when Peter writes “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear…”(1 Peter 2:18-20) or Paul writes “Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters…” (Ephesians 6:5), we have to keep it in it’s proper historical and cultural context.

Modern employees most certainly are not in the same category as ancient slaves. This is because employees are freely contracted – and they have been able to do this because our culture views a contract as an agreement between two or more parties or equal status. In the ancient world, slaves (and to a lesser extent: debtors and clients) had an inferior status to their masters – and this includes bond-slaves. It’s a concept entirely radical in a modern society which holds equality as a fundamental part of humanity.

Slavery is a relationship also defined by force – that is the threatening or delivering of aggressive violence. People who are being forced to work against their will, without an explicit contract, are slaves. In this sense, the relation of most people to their governments then, is a slave/master relationship – but this will have to be dealt with elsewhere, as we are focussing on employment. However, employment is a voluntary contract – not a coercive or forced one. We choose to work for an employer.

But the point is this: that the biblical language about slaves/servants and masters in not applicable to most employment. You boss is not your master and your co-workers aren’t slaves. However, this doesn’t mean that the bible has nothing to say about employees.

Making Employment Contracts
Because contracts with employers are voluntary, that is, we make them by our own free choice and as people of equal status with our employers, then we are responsible for our decisions. These relationships fall under the same kind of categories as “vows” in the bible – verbal (or written) agreements, often involving mutual obligation. And the bible has plenty to say about these relationships. A few examples:

Proverbs 20:25 – It is a snare for a man to devote rashly something as holy, And afterward to reconsider his vows.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 – Pay what you have vowed— Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.

Luke 16:9-13 – And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home. He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own? No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

If we agree to do something for our employer, then we should do it, and we should do it with quality and diligence. We need to leave no question that we have fulfilled our vows.

But implied here is a bigger principle – the place where the most care is needed is before we even make an employment contract. We should make vows that can exist in harmony with our Christian lifestyle and worship of God. Before even entering into an employment contract, we need to be asking basic questions:

Could this job interfere with my Christian obligations? As Christians, we are to be part of a local church, sharing the gospel and ministering to the body. It would not be wise to get a job which interferes with these things. Would my workplace be a gospel-free zone? Would my work schedule cause dramatic conflicts with fellowship and ministry in my local church? Does my job place undue burdens on my family, and my ability to lead/serve them? Are my children or spouse lacking in the reception of my biblical role/responsibilities because of this job?

Could this job require me to engage in immoral/unbiblical activities? We might be surprised, if we thought about it, that there are a large number of culturally acceptable jobs which might go against biblical principles. I wonder how many soldiers ask themselves if what they are doing is defending against aggression or if they are actually engaging in a hostile initiation of violence against others. Could my my job be exploiting others? Might it promote, fund or contribute towards advocacy or endorsement of sinful or immoral lifestyle?

Could this job stifle my worship? We need to beware of taking on so much responsibility to our employer that it affects our mental and emotional capacity to engage meaningfully with God. Again the best solution is pro-active: could this job/promotion lead to me not having enough time to pray, to read my bible or consider who God is and what he has done for me?

It’s Never Too Late
We often don’t realise we’ve bit off more than we can chew with our employers until we’ve already made the contract. The bible takes this into account in other places – such as with divorces or marrying an unbeliever. We’re commanded not to do these things, but God has foreseen our inability – and yet he still sent his son to die on the cross for us. He knows that we are but dust. Just because we can’t share the gospel at work, have neglected the raising of our children or find ourselves “too busy” to commune with God does not mean we are hopeless or “outside” of God’s capacity to work with us. My family needs this word just as much as anyone – as we have both taken on plenty of contracts which have interfered with our Christian faith.

Many jobs and responsibilities can be drawn down, altered and amended to provide more time for more important things. However, this could mean that our material lifestyles must also be drawn down. My wife and I will likely never own a house or have a new car – but that is a small sacrifice. And Christians are not entitled to a middle or even lower-middle class lifestyle.

Ideally, a person who is working in an unethical profession would quit as soon as contractually possible. With some military jobs – this may not be possible, but even the military often allows for transfers/demotions to positions which are not directly contributing to the killing or harming of others.

Its easy for a person with a blog to say what should and shouldn’t be, and then throw out life-altering solutions. Trust me, it’s impacting me as well (just wait until I talk about debt!). But the point is that biblical principles aren’t measured relative to the contracts and vows we’ve made – rather, our life needs to conform to these principles.

Links: Let’s Talk About Texting Whilst Driving

Written by Colin. Published on November 6, 2009 ago in Current Events. 2 Comments

Finally, an article against bans on texting whilst driving:

Now think of this poll showing a widespread opposition to texting while driving. I submit that you would get similar results from a poll that asked people about the right to drive:

Do you support or oppose the right of everyone to own 4,000-pound heaps of steel and control them completely and autonomously at top speeds in the midst of thousands of other citizens whose lives could be in danger with so much as a slight flick of the wrist to the right or left?

That question could elicit nearly 100% negative results. We generally trust our capacity to manage ourselves but we do not trust the capacity of others to manage themselves. And we surely don’t believe that society can generally function well under conditions of freedom. Even though we live in the midst of spontaneous order and use its brilliance every day (grocery store, the world wide web, restaurants, housing developments), we don’t really understand it.

While we were promised that they would eventually be repaid possibly at a profit, CIT has now declared bankruptcy with the intent of transferring asset ownership to debt holders. Atanamis‘ commentary: This means that the $2.33 billion in preferred stock that the US government purchased are now most likely worthless. Government funds were wasted because those spending the money are not held accountable for the results of their actions.

N.F.L. Seeks Congressional Help on Drug Policy:

Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the N.F.L., took the unusual step Tuesday of asking Congress to change federal labor laws to prevent states from interfering with the league’s efforts to enforce its banned substances policy.

A step forward for the peoples of the world – domain names beyond Latin script 

Husbands and Wives

Written by Colin. Published on November 3, 2009 ago in Religion and Theology. 34 Comments
This entry is part 3 of 6 in the series Christianity and Covenants

Husbands and Wives

It is an incredible thing that many churches will sometimes spend valuable sermon time preaching on the evils of homosexuality, pre-marital sex or general “left-wing” debauchery, and yet often ignore fundamental aspects of the marriage relationship as layed out in scripture and deduced in Christian theology. Many Christians view this as a “defense of marriage” against encroaching secular humanism or (leftist) moral relativism. Some even go to the polls or to protests against gay marriage as part of the purely “defensive” effort.

Ironically, these highly visible, yet “defensively” dubious activities, have no ability whatsoever to “save” or “protect” the sanctity of marriage – rather, husbands and wives loving and submitting to one another in light of the gospel is where the power is.

Marriage does not exist as a political tool for the government to use to promote family values or even reproduction. Marriage also is not just any relationship between two people who “love” each other. Marriage is, first and foremost, an image, a covenant that is a representation of Christ’s relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:22-33).

The Marriage Covenant
A marriage is not a contract. The husband does not agree to love the wife if she submits to him. The wife does not agree to submit to the husband if he loves her. In fact, the marriage relationship is actually two separate covenants that are acknowledged before God.

When a man and woman take marriage vows, they each make a promise to unconditionally, and unilaterally fulfill a set of promises. It is the same kind of covenant that God makes with man. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) puts it perfectly:

[Husbands:] Your unconditional acceptance of your wife is not based upon her performance, but on her worth as God’s gift to you.

Ironically, even on the CBMW website, a bastion of complementarianism, it was difficult to find a corresponding statement for wives. This was the best I could do:

There are many situations where a husband is selfish, unreasonable, and hypocritical. This alone does not release a wife from her responsibility to respect and submit to him.

But really, the point is simple – the roles and structure in marriage is ordained by God. It is voluntarily entered into by husbands and wives, both of whom engage an unconditional set of vows to one another.

This is what makes marital love so special – it is a self-sacrificing love – a love that does not come from merit or profit. The best synonym I can think of for this kind of love is “commitment.” It means that spouses make a deliberate, intentional choice to overlook each other’s faults, to forgive one another and to commit to one another in the same way that God has done these things toward us.

Christ forgave us while we were still sinners – so we love our spouses, knowing that they have, do and will sin against us. Christ gave himself for us, so we too surrender our lives, our pride and our independence for the benefit of our spouse. Christ clothes us in his righteousness and has saved us – we protect, honour and affirm the role of our spouse and their worth as a child of God.

The marriage relationship comes back to the gospel. As it should – Paul already reminded us of this in Ephesians 5.

Perverting the Gospel
The feminist movement in the hearts of men and women has been the greatest modern assault on marriages. I worded that sentence carefully. It is not simply feminism – in the sense of certain intellectuals, books or even ideology. It is the fact that something other than biblical marriage has encroached upon the marriage covenant in the hearts of husbands and wives.

A quick way to survey these views, is to go back to Ephesians 5, and interpret them in the theology of marriage being an image of Christ and the Church.

Marriage is a 50/50 partnership:  If my salvation from sin were a 50/50 partnership with God, I’d be in big trouble. If Christ and I are both responsible for salvation, how can I expect that I maintain it in all of my continuing sin and falling short of God’s standards? What if Christ and I disagree on how best to save me?

Marriage is a give and take relationship: Imagine if the gospel were give and take. Maybe God should stop “taking” all the time and give me a little more leeway to indulge sin? But if I wanted to give to God, what can I bring that is worthy of a perfect, self-sufficient God?

Marriage roles are interchangeable: Perhaps it isn’t me who needs saving, it’s God! And I can save him just as well as he can save me.

Marriage is conditional: God only has to forgive me if I first apologise. God will only save me if I make a vow to praise him forever. What if Christ’s death and resurrection were only available to people of a certain pre-existing righteousness?

Now if marriage has less to do with the gospel, then more egalitarian, even feminist views on marriage are potentially compatible with marriage. However, scripture argues that marriage and the gospel go hand in hand.

This goes back to an earlier point. What is the best way to affirm and support the biblical view of marriage? It is not to attack feminism in others, or egalitarianism – but rather for us to have a deeper knowledge of the gospel. For us to continue to probe the love with which God has loved us and to meditate on the work of Christ on the cross. In doing this, we will have a better understanding and vision for loving our spouses.