AS AN EVANGELICAL I Support the Catholics

I am in support of the forty-three Catholic dioceses, charities and organizations that filed twelve different lawsuits across America against the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services mandate. The mandate forces Catholic organizations to provide contraception, a violation of their religious beliefs. This is an attempt by the Obama administration to force religious organizations to provide something that violates their faith.  

This mandate sets a dangerous precedent. It will allow government to dictate which religious beliefs are lawful and which are not. In a May 21 Editorial, The New York Sun contended “the Church is seeking shelter under both the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and a statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” This Act was passed in 1993 – by an overwhelming voice vote in the House and a 97-03 vote in the Senate – with the aim of protecting free exercise.

 

The Act requires strict scrutiny of laws, and prohibits the government from substantially burdening “a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

It would seem as though, the case the Catholic Church has launched against the government, has the potential to emerge as one of the great civil rights lawsuits of our time. The implications are great, not only for Catholics, but for all religious groups in this country.

In the wake of the Catholic lawsuits, leaders from a variety of faith backgrounds, politicians and educators met last Thursday in Washington, D.C. for the National Religious Freedom Conference. In attendance was former Health and Human Services secretary, Michael Levitt. Levitt said of the conference, “this is the uniting of the faith community to declare that we’re going to fight back to defend religious freedom.”

The conference outlined three major threats to religious freedom: The first is the government mandate that religious institutions, such as hospitals and universities, act contrary to their conscience by offering birth control coverage to their employees.

The second is what religious leaders say is a threat to the autonomy of religious organizations to choose their own leaders.

The third issue is religious principles in everyday life, like pharmacists who object for moral reasons to carrying what believers equate to abortion-causing drugs or religious student-groups being marginalized on school campuses. One example of the latter is the fight at Vanderbilt University over its non-discrimination policy, requiring student religious groups be open leadership to anyone, even those who don't hold to their beliefs.

 

Like delegates at the conference, I am very uncomfortable about government’s growing trend to marginalize religion in the marketplace. In a major foreign policy address last December, before United Nations delegates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton identified  “deeply-held … religious beliefs” as among “the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people.” (LGBT – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)

 

This growing hostility is not American. The American founders viewed churches as a central institution within American life. The founders saw religion as providing the moral foundation of self-restraint and community awareness for the success of self-government.

Churches have contributed to the success of America by encouraging virtue. Research in Social Science has also shown that churches provide direct and indirect economic and social benefits to communities. Churches provide community volunteerism, education, civic skills-training and reduced levels of deviance.

 
In addition, churches encourage civility, instill hope contribute to the long-term health of communities. If it were not for churches, government would have to expand public funding to replace the community benefits that churches provide.

Be encouraged – the first intensive effort by the state to eliminate Christian thought came after the burning of Rome during the reign of the Emperor Nero in 64 C.E. Nero made the Christians the scapegoats for the disaster, and they were savagely tortured and burned, at least in and around Rome. Untold numbers of Christians died heroically for their faith. So impressive were the many who died gladly for Christ that they were more than replaced by new converts. The Christian writer Tertullian observed: “The blood of the martyrs is seed.”

 

For this reason I am strong, and so should you. As a way of moving forward, the National Religious Freedom Conference announced plans to create religious freedom caucuses in every state, an effort designed to bridge the gap between politics and religion. Remember, retreating is not an option.

Homosexual Rights?

President Obama’s decision to support gay marriage demonstrates his commitment to ensure that all Americans are treated equally under the law. As Chief Executive Officer, the President is committed to providing equality for all people, regardless of race, gender, age, disability, national origin, or religion. I have no problem with that; hence my support for the civil rights movement.

Historically, the Civil Rights Movement referred to differences over which one had no control. Hence the emphasis on race, gender, disability and so on. To include gay marriage into this category is to suggest that being gay is like being black or being female – in other words, being gay is an inherent genetic or biological condition. Hence, just as one cannot change his or her gender, one cannot change his or her sexual orientation.

Simply put, one needs to answer the question, is one’s sexual orientation determined by behavior or a biological condition? If behavior, then behavior modification is possible; if biological condition, then one’s sexual orientation is natural.

For a moment, let us look at a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient Greece and Rome. The Greeks even had an educational philosophy based on pederasty – a socially acknowledged relationship between an adult male and a younger male, usually in his teens. Some scholars believe pederasty was introduced as an initiation ritual in Crete, where it was associated with entrance into military life.

Pederasty and eventually homosexuality were practiced in Greece and Rome for centuries. If such practices were genetic, why are they not as prevalent in these cultures today? Has the gene pool changed? The truth is, the ancient Greeks and Romans were both homosexual and heterosexual. In other words, ancient Greek and Roman males typically were married and had families, yet these same married men also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.

The practices were so prevalent in those ancient cultures, many may even have thought they were natural. However, with time the practices waned and the prevalence/frequency relegated to the archives. That would not be the case if the practices were genetic. Rather, if the practices were genetic, the tendency for increased homosexuality would be understandable.

By the first century, pederasty was no longer as accepted as it had been in classical Greece, nor did such “Greek love” ever enjoy equal acceptance in Roman life. Female homosexuality was hardly ever mentioned in classical Greek literature.

Jewish historians like Philo and Josephus concur that homosexual behavior was common among non-Jewish communities. Jews considered the practice to be unnatural and intolerable before God who created human bodies to be compatible with the opposite gender.

Paul picks up the Jewish rhetoric and strongly condemns homosexuality. Interestingly, during Paul’s time, pederasty was not as prevalent as in ancient Greece. Hence, to use that as an argument to suggest that Paul was discussing pederasty in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is untenable.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul actually used two Greek words to describe what he was talking about. He used the word malakos in a metaphorical sense to designate the passive partner of a homosexual relationship. Some English translations correctly use the word effeminate in reference to malakos. Paul also uses the Greek word which identifies the male in a homosexual relationship. To be more specific, the Greek term describes “a man who lies with another man.”

As far as Paul was concerned, he was describing a behavior. Actually, he listed other undesirable behaviors in the text. Paul went further to remind the Christians in Corinth – “and that is what some of you were” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

From this brief historical overview, it would seem obvious that there is nothing in ancient history to suggest that homosexuality is biological. If this were to be the case, then the Bible would be unreasonable to condemn practices for which the practitioners were totally not responsible. Furthermore, the Bible would again be unreasonable to expect persons to change genetic or biological conditions for which they were not responsible.  

When in need of a companion, Adam was presented with “a helper suited to his needs.” In Hebrew, the term actually means “that which is opposite” or “that which corresponds.” The person who was provided was biologically and emotionally compatible to meet his needs.

The Defense of Marriage Act, although not a religious document, was designed to defend the compatibility referred to in the Bible. The Act was intended to protect the family, a social institution that has successfully served civilizations for millennia. The Act reflects my biological right. It should not be replaced to accommodate behavioral rights.

Mother’s Day & Mother’s Way

When afforded the opportunity to deliver my first Mother’s Day sermon in the United States, I was advised by the host pastor to be sensitive to women in the congregation who were unable to have children. I was told that some women avoid attending Mother’s Day services because at such services they are faced with the pain of infertility.

In one’s display of sensitivity to infertility, one must not create another kind of pain of ignoring the noble role played by mothers. It was this nobility that inspired Anna Jarvis to observe the first American celebration of Mother’s Day in 1908.

Some persons felt that Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen was challenging the nobility of motherhood when she referred derogatorily to Ann Romney as uninformed because she “never worked a day in her life.” Rosen knew that Romney was a stay-at-home mom who took care of five boys. Because Ann Romney is the wife of the Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, Rosen’s analysis caused a political firestorm.

The reference to Ann Romney backfired on Rosen and resulted in an apology. It also generated much commentary on the value of motherhood, especially among stay-at-home moms.

Each year, Salary.com asks thousands of stay-at-home moms to complete a detailed survey about how they spend their days managing a household and raising children. The popular website dedicated to salary compensation issues then puts a price tag on mothering chores. This year’s study says the average stay-at-home mom’s compen-sation would total $112,962.00 for the year.

Appreciating the role and worth of mothering has changed dramatically over the years. Several years ago it was economically necessary for women to have many children. For instance, women in slavery were considered valuable because of their abilities to produce more slaves, which ensured the master’s profits.

That backdrop has caused some women to view having children as a hindrance from reaching their full potential. Today, many women do not want to be obstructed from competing in the corporate world. In order to accomplish this they prefer to have control of their ability to reproduce. Some want the privilege to be sexually active, without the responsibility and challenges that accompany such activities. Somewhere along the line we seem to believe that having children must be solely at the mother’s discretion. The context of a caring marital environment seems to be a diminishing option in society.

Government health officials are telling us that out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for almost four in ten babies. The overall rise reflects the burgeoning number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married. Statistics confirm that out-of-wedlock births have been rising since the late 1990’s. Women in their thirties and forties are listening to their biological clocks and are choosing to give birth, despite their single status. But is this situation best for the children that come from this out-of-wedlock trend?

Social scientists are telling us that babies are totally helpless without the nurture and protection of parents or other adult humans. A child is dependent on adults at least until sexual maturity and until the child has acquired a minimal number of social and technical skills. In essence, children function best when offered balanced nurturing by male and female parents.

Much of the value mothers and fathers bring to their children is due to the fact that mothers and fathers are different. By cooperating together and complementing each other in their differences, a mother and father team provides things that same-sex caregivers cannot.

The fathering difference is explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed:Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child (pp. 17-34). Pruett explains that dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.” Mothers and fathers parent differently, and this difference provides important diversity in experiences for children. Dr. Pruett explains that fathers have a distinct style of communication and interaction with children. By eight weeks, infants can tell the difference between a male or female interacting with them.

 

 

I see that difference often as I observe my children interact with their children. Whereas fathers want to tickle and wrestle, mothers want to comfort and cuddle. Glen Stanton is correct, “children need a mother and father, and to intentionally deny them of either is cruel” (Marriage on Trial – p.120).

At this season, we salute all mothers, especially those who intentionally provide a balanced context for the development of their children.

Genuine Predictions IN THE BIBLE?

Unlike any other sacred text in ancient or modern history, the Bible is unique in its prophetic claims. The vague prophecies of people like Jean Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce are not in the same category at all. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a scale as to render absurd, any explanation other than divine revelation.

The argument about prophecy is essentially an argument about omniscience- the quality of knowing everything. Prophecy is a declaration of events, such as no human wisdom or forecast is sufficient to make. Prophecy must be more than a good guess or conjecture. It must possess sufficient precision so as to be capable of verifying the out-come. By its very nature prophecy is a manifestation of non-human ability to know.

SCIENCE & PROPHECY

Scientific predictions are very different from prophecy. For instance, predictions of eclipses are in reality a judgment of confidence in a continued orderly routine of nature. Similarly, predictions in chemistry, physics, or biology are not prophecies. Such predictions are based on consistent observable patterns of activity.

Prophecy deals with contingencies or those events that just happen. In other words, prophecy deals with human affairs which are to human mentality contingent and therefore unpredictable. Whereas science depends of scholars to predict, prophecy does not. The predictions of the prophet are not dependent on the skills of the prophet. The prophet is basically a conduit though whom information is conveyed.

FALSE PROPHETS

Because of the importance and high value placed on prophecy, the Bible demands that false prophets be severely punished. The false prophet was one who contended that the information he or she was conveying, was received from a source that was beyond human knowledge. This is how the Old

Testament summarizes that teaching: “But a prophet who presumes to speak in My name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death” (Deuteronomy 18:20).

One hundred percent accurate fulfillment of prophecy was the standard of authenticity set in the Bible. In challenging false prophets, the book of Isaiah states: “Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome…” (Isaiah 41:22).

 

SCHOLARSHIP & PROPHECY

Unlike any other sacred text, prophecy pervades the entire Bible – it is not an isolated phenomenon. It is believed that the Bible contains some 2,500 prophecies. If it can be proven that even one of these is false, the credibility of the entire text is at stake. In addition, the integrity of divine knowledge is also in question. Interestingly, some Bible scholars believe that about 80% of all prophecies in the Bible have already been accurately fulfilled.  

However, other biblical scholars who are skeptical about divine intervention, challenge this analysis. They often question the authorship and dating of texts. By suggesting that the dates of reporting events are later than the life of the prophet, these scholars are able to remove the predictive nature of the text. In other words, the text is mere history and not prophecy.

 

JESUS & PROPHECY

Jesus did not view prophecy as some scholars do today. Following His resurrection, He said to His disciples: “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). Here Jesus refers to the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible to make the point that His resurrection was a fulfillment of what was predicted. On other occasions, Jesus referred to events in His life as the fulfillment of predictions from the Hebrew Bible.

New Testament writers wrote with a conviction that what they were saying was “according to the Scriptures” – an expression referring to the Hebrew Scriptures.
 

To suggest that Bible prophecies are authentic, is to suggest that the writers were divinely empowered to write what they did. In addition, the fact that their predictions continue to be accurately fulfilled validates their claim to prophecy. The writer to the book of Hebrews was therefore correct when he said: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways…” (Hebrews 1:1).

From this overview, it is obvious that when one reads the Bible, one is reading much more than mere ancient literature. From the Bible’s ability to bring about significant behavioral change, it would seem reasonable to conclude that when one reads, one is actually reading the Word of God.