The president of Chick-Fil-A did not condemn gay marriage as alleged by the media. Dan Cathy was expressing his personal support for traditional family values and marital fidelity. Cathy was never asked specifically about gay marriage nor did he say anything about it.
In his answer to a question from the Biblical Recorder, Dan Cathy said “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unity. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
In reporting the above conviction, CNN said, “…But the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage…have ignited a social media wildfire.” A Time magazine headline read: “Boston Mayor Blocks Chick-Fil-A Franchise from City Over Homophobic Attitude.” Both quotations ably describe the vicious media scurrilous attack in reporting Dan Cathy’s personal convictions about traditional family values.
Time was reporting on Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s statement, “Chick-Fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston.” The Mayor went on to say “…we’re not going to have a company, Chick-Fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, in supporting his Boston colleague said, “Chick-Fil-A values are not Chicago values.” These mayors along with Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno have vowed to use their offices to block any permits for Chick-Fil-A restaurants. It was Boston Mayor who specifically said, “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult – unless they open up their policies.”
In other words, unless you share my worldview, I will use my government office to punish you.
To suggest that from the interview with Baptist Recorder, Dan Cathy was condemning gay marriage, is downright dishonest. In the interview, Cathy condemned infidelity in marriage. He was affirming a biblical understanding of marriage and family life.
Cathy’s convictions reignited activists who have been waging campaigns against Chick-Fil-A for the past year. Carlos Maza of Equality Matters, believes Chick-Fil-A is aligned with “some of the most vicious anti-gay voices in the country.” I imagine Maza is referring to the many conservative organizations, like Family Research Council, that benefit from the generosity of Chick-Fil-A.
The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center in Mount Berry, Georgia.
Chick-Fil-A employs some 50,000 workers in 1,600 outlets in 40 states across America. The company generates more than four billion dollars in annual revenues and serves millions of customers looking for affordable food in a family friendly setting.
This is the company against which gay rights groups have called for a boycott. Jim Henson Company has pulled its Muppet toys from kids’ meals at Chick-Fil-A. Henson’s company has since directed its revenue to GLADD, a leading gay rights organization.
In response to this acrimonious behavior, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, is leading a campaign and declared Wednesday, August 1, 2012, “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day”. A number of prominent evangelical leaders have endorsed the campaign. Like Dr. Billy Graham, I plan to join in the celebration, if I can find space in the Chick-Fil-A restaurants in my area. I just checked and business seems to booming for the company around the country.
For me, this anti Chick-Fil-A campaign by elected government officials is tantamount to institutional bullying. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, although a supporter of gay marriage, said “a fast food chain’s opposition to gay marriage is none of the government’s business. That is what I call bigotry and intolerance. According to columnist Michelle Malkin, “this is ugly repressive civility enforced with government brass knuckles.”
The US Constitution gives me a right to exercise my free speech and exercise the power of my wallet to support something honorable. Never forget the words of former President Alexander Hamilton, “if you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.”
Amidst this furor, Don Perry, a public relations executive at Chick-Fil-A, an African-American and a well-respected member of the business community in Atlanta passed away. I have every reason to believe that the faith and strong family underpinnings at the company and Don Perry’s home will assist in bringing comfort to everyone who is grieving.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Evil in Colorado!
The impact of last Friday’s senseless massacre in Colorado forced me to scrap my planned commentary and address the possible cause of this horrific tragedy.
I sorrow with the families and victims struggling to remain alive. For many people, life will never be the same. The impact of this tragedy will affect politicians, academics, counselors, clergy and every branch of security. The tragedy has taught us that even while engaged in leisurely activities, the vicious claws of evil lurk.
Ironically, it was while viewing a ghastly movie, tragedy struck. The movie, “Batman – The Dark Knight Rises”, is the third of a trilogy on Batman by Christopher Nolan. One reviewer said of the film, “it is the biggest and baddest Batman film ever made.” Actually, “the movie boasts a sense of doom and has the kind of substance only made possible by mortality,” says another reviewer.
That was the context in which evil struck early Friday morning. However, I hasten to add that I do not believe that it is necessarily because of the movie the massacre occurred. The murderous plot was in the making for months. The movie provided an opportunity for the killer’s launch.
So, let’s stop the blame game – one television station has already apologized for making an irresponsible accusation. Answers will not be found by blaming others. The issue is bigger than the Colorado crisis. Colorado is merely the most recent case in an increasing series of barbaric killings in America.
In researching this topic, I came across an excellent resource – Extreme Killing by James Alan Fox and Jack Levin. Both gentlemen are distinguished professors of Criminal Justice. In their 280-page volume they identify five distinct motives for mass killings – power, revenge, loyalty, profit and terror. What seems very obvious in this well-researched book, is the authors’ omission of the word evil in analyzing causes for mass killings.
The truth is, evil is not a preferred term among scholars. Whenever one uses the word evil, one is implying some deviation from a standard. This is what St. Augustine (354-430) would refer to as “a privation of good.”
By privation, Augustine meant a lack of something or an absence of something that should be there. Sickness can be considered a privation in that it is a lack of good health. Similarly, evil could be the lack of good.
I am not referring to human goodness – a worldview that suggests that we are all good and as such we are not responsible for our actions. This view suggests that we are all victims of the circumstances that engulf us. Such reasoning for instance, sees poverty as the cause of crime.
In his Templeton Address at the University of Chicago (1993), the late Chuck Colson argued, “Utopianism assures us that crime can be solved by government policy. On the left, that means rehabilitation; on the right, more and tougher laws to scare people straight. But our efforts prove futile. In the past thirty years, the prison population in America has increased five-fold. Violent crime has increased just as fast.”
In other words, the good from which evil has departed is not a political or sociological matter. Among the many studies that have been done on the subject of crime, allow me to refer to a study that was done in England by Professor Christie Davies. She found that crime was lowest a century ago when three out of four young Britons were enrolled in Sunday school. Since that time, Sunday school attendance has declined, and crime has correspondingly increased.
Social scientist James Wilson did a similar study between crime and social forces in America. He discovered that in the late 19th century, when the nation was rapidly industrializing, crime actually declined. Why? At the time, a powerful spiritual awakening was sweeping across America, inspiring moral revival and social renewal.
By contrast, in the affluent 1920’s, when there should have been less economic incentive for lawlessness, crime increased. Why? In the wake of Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin, religion fell from favor. In Wilson’s words, “The educated classes began to repudiate moral uplift.”
I believe Colson got it right when he said “Crime is a mirror of a community’s moral state.” As a society we cavalierly seek to silence those who advocate the sacredness of life. We relegate such rhetoric to private domain and unsuitable in the marketplace of ideas. Either tacitly or intentionally, our society has chosen to embrace a culture of death – listen to our music, examine our investments in theatre or study the tone of our political rhetoric. Then why should we be shocked with the corresponding increase in crime?
I return to St. Augustine for the closing word: “…evil is the corruption that arises when a good but potentially corruptible creature turns away from the infinite good of the Creator to the lesser good of the creatures.” Go think!
I sorrow with the families and victims struggling to remain alive. For many people, life will never be the same. The impact of this tragedy will affect politicians, academics, counselors, clergy and every branch of security. The tragedy has taught us that even while engaged in leisurely activities, the vicious claws of evil lurk.
Ironically, it was while viewing a ghastly movie, tragedy struck. The movie, “Batman – The Dark Knight Rises”, is the third of a trilogy on Batman by Christopher Nolan. One reviewer said of the film, “it is the biggest and baddest Batman film ever made.” Actually, “the movie boasts a sense of doom and has the kind of substance only made possible by mortality,” says another reviewer.
That was the context in which evil struck early Friday morning. However, I hasten to add that I do not believe that it is necessarily because of the movie the massacre occurred. The murderous plot was in the making for months. The movie provided an opportunity for the killer’s launch.
So, let’s stop the blame game – one television station has already apologized for making an irresponsible accusation. Answers will not be found by blaming others. The issue is bigger than the Colorado crisis. Colorado is merely the most recent case in an increasing series of barbaric killings in America.
In researching this topic, I came across an excellent resource – Extreme Killing by James Alan Fox and Jack Levin. Both gentlemen are distinguished professors of Criminal Justice. In their 280-page volume they identify five distinct motives for mass killings – power, revenge, loyalty, profit and terror. What seems very obvious in this well-researched book, is the authors’ omission of the word evil in analyzing causes for mass killings.
The truth is, evil is not a preferred term among scholars. Whenever one uses the word evil, one is implying some deviation from a standard. This is what St. Augustine (354-430) would refer to as “a privation of good.”
By privation, Augustine meant a lack of something or an absence of something that should be there. Sickness can be considered a privation in that it is a lack of good health. Similarly, evil could be the lack of good.
I am not referring to human goodness – a worldview that suggests that we are all good and as such we are not responsible for our actions. This view suggests that we are all victims of the circumstances that engulf us. Such reasoning for instance, sees poverty as the cause of crime.
In his Templeton Address at the University of Chicago (1993), the late Chuck Colson argued, “Utopianism assures us that crime can be solved by government policy. On the left, that means rehabilitation; on the right, more and tougher laws to scare people straight. But our efforts prove futile. In the past thirty years, the prison population in America has increased five-fold. Violent crime has increased just as fast.”
In other words, the good from which evil has departed is not a political or sociological matter. Among the many studies that have been done on the subject of crime, allow me to refer to a study that was done in England by Professor Christie Davies. She found that crime was lowest a century ago when three out of four young Britons were enrolled in Sunday school. Since that time, Sunday school attendance has declined, and crime has correspondingly increased.
Social scientist James Wilson did a similar study between crime and social forces in America. He discovered that in the late 19th century, when the nation was rapidly industrializing, crime actually declined. Why? At the time, a powerful spiritual awakening was sweeping across America, inspiring moral revival and social renewal.
By contrast, in the affluent 1920’s, when there should have been less economic incentive for lawlessness, crime increased. Why? In the wake of Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin, religion fell from favor. In Wilson’s words, “The educated classes began to repudiate moral uplift.”
I believe Colson got it right when he said “Crime is a mirror of a community’s moral state.” As a society we cavalierly seek to silence those who advocate the sacredness of life. We relegate such rhetoric to private domain and unsuitable in the marketplace of ideas. Either tacitly or intentionally, our society has chosen to embrace a culture of death – listen to our music, examine our investments in theatre or study the tone of our political rhetoric. Then why should we be shocked with the corresponding increase in crime?
I return to St. Augustine for the closing word: “…evil is the corruption that arises when a good but potentially corruptible creature turns away from the infinite good of the Creator to the lesser good of the creatures.” Go think!
Sunday, July 15, 2012
WHY ISRAEL?
A few weeks ago Dr. Rich Freeman addressed the congregation at the church I pastor. The attendance was about one percent of the congregation he addressed the previous week. Thankfully, the attendance did not diminish the impact of his ministry.
Dr. Freeman is a national executive with Chosen People Ministries – an international ministry to Jewish people. It was during one of our private conversations I learned that Rich and his wife were married on the same day as my wife and I. That information led to our discussing our plans for our 40th anniversary in 2013. We were hoping to visit Israel – that hope seemed dim, until that meeting.
Rich will be leading a tour to the Holy Land in 2013 and invited us to join him. He explained how my wife and I could serve as guest-hosts, and thus make our anniversary plans affordable. Our closest friends would know that a visit to the Holy Land has been a life-long dream for us. Actually, such a visit would be better described as a passion.
My passion was enhanced after pursuing a graduate course in Geography of Bible Lands with Dr. Barry Beitzel at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr. Beitzel’s knowledge of this subject is well known and respected globally. It was under his tutelage I learned about the geology, physical topography, hydrology and climate of the land of Israel. That knowledge enriched my appreciation for biblical texts like those which described Israel as “the land of milk and honey.”
I have since taught courses in Geography of the Bible, and Old and New Testament backgrounds. In addition, my interest in Archaeology and Near Eastern Studies has been growing since meeting Dr. Beitzel in the nineties. Today, I smile whenever my Jewish students compliment me for my knowledge of the land – little do they know that I’ve never been to Israel.
But, why should I want to go? Let me first establish that my passion has nothing to do with providing political endorsement to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Neither is it my intention to see Israel as Muslims see Mecca, or Catholics see the Vatican. For me, wanting to go to Israel is not like wanting to go on a pilgrimage.
I want to experience some of what I have been teaching for years. I need to experience a sense of space. In Galilee, I want to sense what it feels like to be 700 feet below sea level and see the Sea of Galilee, the lowest body of fresh water on earth. While in the region, I want to get a sense of the distances Jesus traveled. I want to see one of the first century boats that was discovered a few years ago.
I want to experience the sense of presence when I read my Bible about places like Bethsaida, Jordan or Jerusalem. I understand that some of the physical dimensions have changed in some areas, since the days of Jesus. For instance, the Sea of Galilee is much smaller. I also understand that some specific locations are questionable. Even with these questions, I believe there are enough certainties to make the visit a rich experience.
I almost forgot to tell you about my excitement to see the region of the Dead Sea. Imagine standing at the lowest point on earth – 1,300 feet below sea level, almost five times lower than the Death Valley in California. The Dead Sea is the most saline body of water in the world. Imagine, throwing yourself in the Dead Sea and not sink in the 500 square miles of water, devoid of all aquatic life.
After years of studying the archaeology of the land I am also eager to see and handle artifacts. I can’t wait to get into the Jar-shaped Israel Museum, home of the Dead Sea Scrolls – the most significant archaeological discovery of the twentieth century.
I am hoping the tour guide will allow me to visit my family’s only Jewish friend in Jerusalem. For years, she has been supplying me with daily news. When coupled with my daily reading of the Jerusalem Post, you can probably understand why I am eager to visit Israel.
However, I do not want to go alone. Actually, I may not be able to go if no one accompanies my wife and me. As guest-host, Chosen People Ministries is expecting me to bring along other interested parties. If you would like to join me, leave a comment below and I will send you more information, or contact:
JDI Travel Inc., (Michigan).
Telephone 248-340-9191 (Extension 10);
Electronic mail - info[at]jditravel.com
I almost forgot to tell you that while in Israel, those who come with me will be able to visit the Jordan River, Capernaum, Mt of Beatitudes, the Garden of Gethsemane, Mount of Olives, the Western Wall, and Qumran. Be prepared for much kosher foods and a communion service at the Garden Tomb.
Something tells me, this trip will be a life-changing experience.
Dr. Freeman is a national executive with Chosen People Ministries – an international ministry to Jewish people. It was during one of our private conversations I learned that Rich and his wife were married on the same day as my wife and I. That information led to our discussing our plans for our 40th anniversary in 2013. We were hoping to visit Israel – that hope seemed dim, until that meeting.
Rich will be leading a tour to the Holy Land in 2013 and invited us to join him. He explained how my wife and I could serve as guest-hosts, and thus make our anniversary plans affordable. Our closest friends would know that a visit to the Holy Land has been a life-long dream for us. Actually, such a visit would be better described as a passion.
My passion was enhanced after pursuing a graduate course in Geography of Bible Lands with Dr. Barry Beitzel at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr. Beitzel’s knowledge of this subject is well known and respected globally. It was under his tutelage I learned about the geology, physical topography, hydrology and climate of the land of Israel. That knowledge enriched my appreciation for biblical texts like those which described Israel as “the land of milk and honey.”
I have since taught courses in Geography of the Bible, and Old and New Testament backgrounds. In addition, my interest in Archaeology and Near Eastern Studies has been growing since meeting Dr. Beitzel in the nineties. Today, I smile whenever my Jewish students compliment me for my knowledge of the land – little do they know that I’ve never been to Israel.
But, why should I want to go? Let me first establish that my passion has nothing to do with providing political endorsement to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Neither is it my intention to see Israel as Muslims see Mecca, or Catholics see the Vatican. For me, wanting to go to Israel is not like wanting to go on a pilgrimage.
I want to experience some of what I have been teaching for years. I need to experience a sense of space. In Galilee, I want to sense what it feels like to be 700 feet below sea level and see the Sea of Galilee, the lowest body of fresh water on earth. While in the region, I want to get a sense of the distances Jesus traveled. I want to see one of the first century boats that was discovered a few years ago.
I want to experience the sense of presence when I read my Bible about places like Bethsaida, Jordan or Jerusalem. I understand that some of the physical dimensions have changed in some areas, since the days of Jesus. For instance, the Sea of Galilee is much smaller. I also understand that some specific locations are questionable. Even with these questions, I believe there are enough certainties to make the visit a rich experience.
I almost forgot to tell you about my excitement to see the region of the Dead Sea. Imagine standing at the lowest point on earth – 1,300 feet below sea level, almost five times lower than the Death Valley in California. The Dead Sea is the most saline body of water in the world. Imagine, throwing yourself in the Dead Sea and not sink in the 500 square miles of water, devoid of all aquatic life.
After years of studying the archaeology of the land I am also eager to see and handle artifacts. I can’t wait to get into the Jar-shaped Israel Museum, home of the Dead Sea Scrolls – the most significant archaeological discovery of the twentieth century.
I am hoping the tour guide will allow me to visit my family’s only Jewish friend in Jerusalem. For years, she has been supplying me with daily news. When coupled with my daily reading of the Jerusalem Post, you can probably understand why I am eager to visit Israel.
However, I do not want to go alone. Actually, I may not be able to go if no one accompanies my wife and me. As guest-host, Chosen People Ministries is expecting me to bring along other interested parties. If you would like to join me, leave a comment below and I will send you more information, or contact:
JDI Travel Inc., (Michigan).
Telephone 248-340-9191 (Extension 10);
Electronic mail - info[at]jditravel.com
I almost forgot to tell you that while in Israel, those who come with me will be able to visit the Jordan River, Capernaum, Mt of Beatitudes, the Garden of Gethsemane, Mount of Olives, the Western Wall, and Qumran. Be prepared for much kosher foods and a communion service at the Garden Tomb.
Something tells me, this trip will be a life-changing experience.
Monday, July 9, 2012
JESUS in A Pluralist Society
Volunteer chaplains in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department will no longer be allowed to invoke the name of Jesus in prayers at public events held on government property. The new policy is a matter of respecting the fact that people may have different faiths.
What happened at this Police Department is not an isolated case – that is the trend in our religiously pluralistic society. The focus of prayer is no longer to whom you are praying, rather, it is for whom you are praying. Honestly though, if a prayer must be guided by the religious diversity represented in the audience, to whom should such a prayer be addressed?
However, if the outcome of the prayer is dependent on the person asked to pray, one would expect the prayer to be addressed to whichever deity is being approached. Why then should it be offensive for one to pray in the name of Jesus on government property? Government’s role is to ensure impartial opportunities to all religions. Government has no right to determine the appropriateness of a prayer, unless the prayer incites behavior inimical to the laws of the land.
Imagine having to submit a prayer for approval to an administrator to ensure that the doctrine is not offensive to the persons for whom the prayer is being offered. Such practices entrust government with a pastoral responsibility, which is completely out of line with the US Constitution.
In some settings, it is preferred to provide a moment of silence, allowing persons to address their deity in silence. Such a practice is a display of respect for persons of faith, without subjecting a diverse group to a prayer which some may find objectionable.
Unfortunately, some believe, in the name of peace, no prayer should be offered in religiously mixed gatherings. Such a practice dismisses the place of faith in public life and tacitly supports the worldview of non-theists.
Because of the history of Christian influence in America, attempts to deemphasize religion are tantamount to muzzling the Christian voice. The Christian worldview has been replaced with views of tolerance, diversity, pluralism and peace. Many are even rewriting history to distort and delete the contributions of Christians. For these reasons, many frown at claims of Christian exclusivism.
Exclusivism, some would contend, has no place in a pluralistic society. In the present intellectual and religious climate, anyone who makes exclusive religious claims is perceived to be intolerant and bigoted. It would therefore seem more appropriate to talk about Jesus as one of many ways, as opposed to “the way, the truth, and the life.” Such rhetoric is assumed to be divisive and hostile to peace.
But what if such rhetoric reflects a biblical under-standing of Jesus? Should biblical rhetoric change to facilitate the current pluralistic mood? Harvard Religion Professor Dr. Diana Eck believes we should not allow ourselves to be imprisoned in first century revelation. She contends, “Our religious traditions are dynamic not static, changing not fixed, more like rivers than mountains.”
Then what do we do with the claims of Jesus? He said, “…I am the way…no one comes to the Father except through Me…” (John 14:6). His disciples understood this claim and preached it. Within months of His death, Peter said before the Jewish Sanhedrin: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Before believers were called Christians they were referred to as people of “the Way” (Acts 9:2). They presented themselves as those who believed in the One who said “I am the Way…” Is it likely that they made such claims because they did not live in an era of religious diversity? Certainly not!
The world into which the first Christians carried the gospel was a religiously pluralistic world. When they carried the message of Christianity to cities and villages throughout the Mediterranean, they encountered a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions in the Greco-Roman world.
The first three centuries of church history were a time of intense life-and-death struggle against the seductive power of syncretism. The issue of religious pluralism is not entirely new. However, the twenty-first century version needs to be tackled in a new way. We must meet it in the terms of our own times.
Our methods must change, but our message must remain – Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). As it was with Jesus and the early disciples, we must expect one of three responses – some will believe, some will reject and some will postpone their decision.
RECOMMENDED:
Diana Eck. A New Religious America (2001)
Leslie Newbigin. The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (‘89)
Michael Wilkins & J.P. Morgan (General Editors). Jesus Under Fire (1995)
What happened at this Police Department is not an isolated case – that is the trend in our religiously pluralistic society. The focus of prayer is no longer to whom you are praying, rather, it is for whom you are praying. Honestly though, if a prayer must be guided by the religious diversity represented in the audience, to whom should such a prayer be addressed?
However, if the outcome of the prayer is dependent on the person asked to pray, one would expect the prayer to be addressed to whichever deity is being approached. Why then should it be offensive for one to pray in the name of Jesus on government property? Government’s role is to ensure impartial opportunities to all religions. Government has no right to determine the appropriateness of a prayer, unless the prayer incites behavior inimical to the laws of the land.
Imagine having to submit a prayer for approval to an administrator to ensure that the doctrine is not offensive to the persons for whom the prayer is being offered. Such practices entrust government with a pastoral responsibility, which is completely out of line with the US Constitution.
In some settings, it is preferred to provide a moment of silence, allowing persons to address their deity in silence. Such a practice is a display of respect for persons of faith, without subjecting a diverse group to a prayer which some may find objectionable.
Unfortunately, some believe, in the name of peace, no prayer should be offered in religiously mixed gatherings. Such a practice dismisses the place of faith in public life and tacitly supports the worldview of non-theists.
Because of the history of Christian influence in America, attempts to deemphasize religion are tantamount to muzzling the Christian voice. The Christian worldview has been replaced with views of tolerance, diversity, pluralism and peace. Many are even rewriting history to distort and delete the contributions of Christians. For these reasons, many frown at claims of Christian exclusivism.
Exclusivism, some would contend, has no place in a pluralistic society. In the present intellectual and religious climate, anyone who makes exclusive religious claims is perceived to be intolerant and bigoted. It would therefore seem more appropriate to talk about Jesus as one of many ways, as opposed to “the way, the truth, and the life.” Such rhetoric is assumed to be divisive and hostile to peace.
But what if such rhetoric reflects a biblical under-standing of Jesus? Should biblical rhetoric change to facilitate the current pluralistic mood? Harvard Religion Professor Dr. Diana Eck believes we should not allow ourselves to be imprisoned in first century revelation. She contends, “Our religious traditions are dynamic not static, changing not fixed, more like rivers than mountains.”
Then what do we do with the claims of Jesus? He said, “…I am the way…no one comes to the Father except through Me…” (John 14:6). His disciples understood this claim and preached it. Within months of His death, Peter said before the Jewish Sanhedrin: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Before believers were called Christians they were referred to as people of “the Way” (Acts 9:2). They presented themselves as those who believed in the One who said “I am the Way…” Is it likely that they made such claims because they did not live in an era of religious diversity? Certainly not!
The world into which the first Christians carried the gospel was a religiously pluralistic world. When they carried the message of Christianity to cities and villages throughout the Mediterranean, they encountered a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions in the Greco-Roman world.
The first three centuries of church history were a time of intense life-and-death struggle against the seductive power of syncretism. The issue of religious pluralism is not entirely new. However, the twenty-first century version needs to be tackled in a new way. We must meet it in the terms of our own times.
Our methods must change, but our message must remain – Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). As it was with Jesus and the early disciples, we must expect one of three responses – some will believe, some will reject and some will postpone their decision.
RECOMMENDED:
Diana Eck. A New Religious America (2001)
Leslie Newbigin. The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (‘89)
Michael Wilkins & J.P. Morgan (General Editors). Jesus Under Fire (1995)
Monday, July 2, 2012
JULY FOURTH
In keeping with the American tradition of abbreviating names and terms, many refer to Independence Day as JULY FOURTH. That was the background that prompted an American to ask her pastor, Stewart Briscoe, if his homeland England had a JULY FOURTH. The witty Briscoe quickly replied, “No…we go from JULY THIRD to JULY FIFTH.” About 15 years ago my wife and I heard Briscoe’s response and smile whenever July 4th is approaching.
Well, it is time for us to smile again - in a few hours America will be celebrating her 236th birthday on July 4, 2012. Although still young when compared with many countries in Europe, it is an achievement for which every American should be proud. Apart from the national sense of pride, we ought to be proud because of the role the Christian faith played in the declaration of independence in 1776.
Agreed, today America is the most religiously diverse country in the world. However, it was Christianity that influenced the foundation of the nation in 1776. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, about 95% of them were orthodox Christians. Here is a breakdown of the religious affiliation of the signers:
Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 02 03.6%
Unitarian/Universalist 02 03.6%
Catholic 01 01.8%
In addition, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 24 of them held seminary or Bible school degrees. It has been said that “the Declaration is a statement of religious faith as well as a political manifesto.”
The document contains repeated references to God:
“…the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God…”
“…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
“…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions…” and
“…a firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.”
Despite this information, many modern day historians would want us to believe that many of the nation’s founders were a diverse group of atheists, deists and revolutionaries. How could that be, especially in light of direct religious quotations attributed to the Founding Fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence?
One such signer was John Adams. He was a judge, diplomat and the second president of the United States. He believed, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. Xlll, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813).
Similar quotations can be cited from many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. For instance, it was Senator Charles Carroll who said, “Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July, 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2nd day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer…” (Kate Mason Rowland, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1890), Vol. 2, pp. 373-374).
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration, once asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
Until recently, most Americans had little difficulty acknowledging the relationship between God and the freedoms offered to this place we call home. However, we are now overrun by atheistic and politically-correct ideologies that have expunged God from the marketplace of ideas.
Take some time this JULY FOURTH and thank God for the Founding Fathers who set us on the right course. Today, 236 years later, we are recognized as one of the most stable societies in the world.
RECOMMENDED:
Barton, David. The American Heritage Series (DVD);
-Why History Matters
-Unearthing America’s Christian Foundations
Benson, Lossing. Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence
Well, it is time for us to smile again - in a few hours America will be celebrating her 236th birthday on July 4, 2012. Although still young when compared with many countries in Europe, it is an achievement for which every American should be proud. Apart from the national sense of pride, we ought to be proud because of the role the Christian faith played in the declaration of independence in 1776.
Agreed, today America is the most religiously diverse country in the world. However, it was Christianity that influenced the foundation of the nation in 1776. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, about 95% of them were orthodox Christians. Here is a breakdown of the religious affiliation of the signers:
Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 02 03.6%
Unitarian/Universalist 02 03.6%
Catholic 01 01.8%
In addition, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 24 of them held seminary or Bible school degrees. It has been said that “the Declaration is a statement of religious faith as well as a political manifesto.”
The document contains repeated references to God:
“…the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God…”
“…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
“…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions…” and
“…a firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.”
Despite this information, many modern day historians would want us to believe that many of the nation’s founders were a diverse group of atheists, deists and revolutionaries. How could that be, especially in light of direct religious quotations attributed to the Founding Fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence?
One such signer was John Adams. He was a judge, diplomat and the second president of the United States. He believed, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. Xlll, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813).
Similar quotations can be cited from many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. For instance, it was Senator Charles Carroll who said, “Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July, 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2nd day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer…” (Kate Mason Rowland, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1890), Vol. 2, pp. 373-374).
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration, once asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
Until recently, most Americans had little difficulty acknowledging the relationship between God and the freedoms offered to this place we call home. However, we are now overrun by atheistic and politically-correct ideologies that have expunged God from the marketplace of ideas.
Take some time this JULY FOURTH and thank God for the Founding Fathers who set us on the right course. Today, 236 years later, we are recognized as one of the most stable societies in the world.
RECOMMENDED:
Barton, David. The American Heritage Series (DVD);
-Why History Matters
-Unearthing America’s Christian Foundations
Benson, Lossing. Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)