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.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
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
Monday, June 25, 2012
Atheist Pastors?
What would your church do if your pastor says he is an atheist? A church in the Netherlands had to answer that question after their pastor wrote a book entitled: Believing in a God Who Does Not Exist – Manifesto of an Atheist Pastor. The church came to the conclusion that his atheistic views did not differ fundamentally from those of other liberal theologians within the denomination and therefore retained his services as pastor.
After some 25 years of ministry as a Pentecostal preacher in Louisiana, Jerry DeWitt also announced to his congregation that he was an avowed atheist. Recently, DeWitt told a group in Johnson County, Kansas: “If you don’t believe, then you will be like me – you’ll suddenly find yourself where you only have two choices. You can either be honest that you don’t believe…or you can pretend that you do – which is what so many people are doing and that is called faith.”
DeWitt is now Executive Director of Recovering from Religion, an organization he founded in 2009. Since leaving the pulpit, DeWitt was nurtured by Clergy Project – a movement aimed at giving doubting and atheist preachers a community in which they can talk about their disbelief. The Clergy movement is a growing community with former rabbis, imams and Catholic priests. Most members in this 300 member organization are Protestants.
DeWitt and members of the Clergy Project claim that they no longer hold to a belief in anything beyond the natural. Since the existence of God or gods falls into this category, they deny the existence of deities. Atheists do not believe in the supernatural. Hence, they cannot believe in miracles, because miracles imply an intervention of someone beyond the natural.
Interestingly, atheism is acceptable within some religious belief systems like Jainism, Buddhism and Neo-pagan movements like Wicca. Although very humanitarian in their practices, these and similar belief systems will not acknowledge divine intervention.
However, Christianity has always maintained a belief system that includes divine intervention. As a matter of fact, Christians believe, Jesus is God manifested in the human form. Christians teach, “The Word (Jesus) became flesh and made His dwelling among us…” (John 1:14). Christians contend that the birth and resurrection of Jesus were miraculous acts.
How is it possible for one to have taught these things and now to deny them? DeWitt claims that he was first confronted with his disbelief when he “became the person who got the burden of preaching about hell.” Apart from questions about hell, DeWitt began to doubt certain biblical translations, healing and the failure of prayer.
DeWitt has now joined ranks with Teresa MacBain, who for 44 years was in ministry, culminating in a senior pastoral position at a Methodist Church in Florida. She is now Acting Executive Director of the Clergy Project. At an American Atheists convention in Maryland, she announced her atheism, inspiring a roaring round of applause.
I believe there are a number of factors that can drive clergy to deny the faith. Some of these existed in the first century. Peter refers to them as “false prophets” and “false teachers.” Peter contends such leaders “will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them…” (2 Peter 2:1-3).
The truth is we have grown accustomed to a type of Christianity without divine power. Some of us are best known for our social programs, our diversity and pluralism. Although noble, they have replaced practices like revival and spiritual renewal. Our sermons are no longer convicting, they merely inspire and soothe discomfort.
One priest along the Texas-Mexico border now tries animal therapy. His dogs have their own vestments and greet parishioners and accompany the pastor during the service. This priest believes, “In this dehumanized era, dogs are the angels that will keep us human.”
Some churches still teach how to position your lips in order to speak in tongues – isn’t this an attempt to disguise supernatural intervention? From our pulpits we have replaced the grace of God with the greed of gold. It is only a matter of time before we or our listeners get sick of this charade.
Because I have personally experienced the power of God in my life and ministry, I am saddened with much of what passes for Christian ministry today. We have allowed others to determine our priorities and see little need “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). To contend is an athletic term that means to fight with all one’s strength…to strive energetically…to be strenuous in defense.
I am still convinced that what was entrusted to us is worth defending. That is why Christianity continues to soar as the best of the belief systems. Even with unanswered questions, it offers a hope that is indisputable.
After some 25 years of ministry as a Pentecostal preacher in Louisiana, Jerry DeWitt also announced to his congregation that he was an avowed atheist. Recently, DeWitt told a group in Johnson County, Kansas: “If you don’t believe, then you will be like me – you’ll suddenly find yourself where you only have two choices. You can either be honest that you don’t believe…or you can pretend that you do – which is what so many people are doing and that is called faith.”
DeWitt is now Executive Director of Recovering from Religion, an organization he founded in 2009. Since leaving the pulpit, DeWitt was nurtured by Clergy Project – a movement aimed at giving doubting and atheist preachers a community in which they can talk about their disbelief. The Clergy movement is a growing community with former rabbis, imams and Catholic priests. Most members in this 300 member organization are Protestants.
Interestingly, atheism is acceptable within some religious belief systems like Jainism, Buddhism and Neo-pagan movements like Wicca. Although very humanitarian in their practices, these and similar belief systems will not acknowledge divine intervention.
However, Christianity has always maintained a belief system that includes divine intervention. As a matter of fact, Christians believe, Jesus is God manifested in the human form. Christians teach, “The Word (Jesus) became flesh and made His dwelling among us…” (John 1:14). Christians contend that the birth and resurrection of Jesus were miraculous acts.
How is it possible for one to have taught these things and now to deny them? DeWitt claims that he was first confronted with his disbelief when he “became the person who got the burden of preaching about hell.” Apart from questions about hell, DeWitt began to doubt certain biblical translations, healing and the failure of prayer.
DeWitt has now joined ranks with Teresa MacBain, who for 44 years was in ministry, culminating in a senior pastoral position at a Methodist Church in Florida. She is now Acting Executive Director of the Clergy Project. At an American Atheists convention in Maryland, she announced her atheism, inspiring a roaring round of applause.
I believe there are a number of factors that can drive clergy to deny the faith. Some of these existed in the first century. Peter refers to them as “false prophets” and “false teachers.” Peter contends such leaders “will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them…” (2 Peter 2:1-3).
The truth is we have grown accustomed to a type of Christianity without divine power. Some of us are best known for our social programs, our diversity and pluralism. Although noble, they have replaced practices like revival and spiritual renewal. Our sermons are no longer convicting, they merely inspire and soothe discomfort.
One priest along the Texas-Mexico border now tries animal therapy. His dogs have their own vestments and greet parishioners and accompany the pastor during the service. This priest believes, “In this dehumanized era, dogs are the angels that will keep us human.”
Some churches still teach how to position your lips in order to speak in tongues – isn’t this an attempt to disguise supernatural intervention? From our pulpits we have replaced the grace of God with the greed of gold. It is only a matter of time before we or our listeners get sick of this charade.
Because I have personally experienced the power of God in my life and ministry, I am saddened with much of what passes for Christian ministry today. We have allowed others to determine our priorities and see little need “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). To contend is an athletic term that means to fight with all one’s strength…to strive energetically…to be strenuous in defense.
I am still convinced that what was entrusted to us is worth defending. That is why Christianity continues to soar as the best of the belief systems. Even with unanswered questions, it offers a hope that is indisputable.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
How Much Is Dad Worth?
According to Insure.com, in 2012, dad’s
contribution at home is worth about $20,000. A few weeks ago this same group
assessed a mother’s worth at about $60,000 per annum. Using data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the researchers assessed the value of dad’s
domestic duties based on the hourly compensation individuals receive for
performing similar tasks.
The bottom line, dad’s contribution is important, but not that significant. When added to the feminist frenzy of the seventies, some have concluded that dad’s physical presence is optional.
In many ways, our society has moved from the domination of men to the demise of men. We have fewer men in our classrooms both as students and teachers. With the increase of single mothers, there are fewer fathers at home with their children. This trend would seem to suggest that dad’s role is no longer unique - rather, it is optional.
This perception of dad is not consistent with a biblical understanding of fatherhood. Neither is it consistent with recent research. Dr. David Popenoe, one of the pioneers of the relatively young field of research into fathers and father-hood, stressed, “Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home.” Popenoe contends, “Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring” (Life without father: Compelling new evidence that fatherhood and marriage are indispensable for the good of children and society - page 163).
The term “involved fathers” is the preferred term used by scholars who are involved in researching the impact of dads. One such scholar, Dr. Kyle Pruett (Yale Child Study Center) believes responsible fathering involves:
1. Feeling and behaving responsibly toward one’s child
2. Being emotionally engaged
3. Being physically accessible
4. Providing material support to sustain the child’s needs and
5. Exerting influence in child rearing decisions.
In his book, Fatherneed:Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, Pruett tells the story of his eighty-four year old mother.
One of the most important influences a father can have on his child is indirect – fathers influence their children in large part through the quality of their relationship with the mother of their children. Fathers who treat the mothers of their children with respect and deal with conflict within the relationship in an adult and appropriate manner are more likely to have boys who understand how they are to treat women and who are less likely to act in an aggressive fashion toward females.
Girls with involved, respectful fathers see how they should expect men to treat them and are less likely to become involved in violent or unhealthy relationships (Gable, Crnic & Belsky (1994). Coparenting within the family system: Influences on children’s development. Family Relations, 43(4), 380-386).
Literature and research in the field of fathering is impressive. Some of the findings indicate:
- children have better educational outcomes;
- children are more emotionally secure;
- children are more confident to explore their surroundings and relate better to their peers.
In light of the increasing research findings, one is prone to ask, what about persons who are deprived of father-figures in their lives? The Bible often places widows and the fatherless in similar categories. Both groups have lost significant males in their lives. Both groups are left with a void. Both groups appear to be defenseless. These are the ones the Psalmist had in mind when he said: “A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in His holy dwelling. God sets the lonely in families…” (Psalm 68:5-6).
Happy Fathers Day!
The bottom line, dad’s contribution is important, but not that significant. When added to the feminist frenzy of the seventies, some have concluded that dad’s physical presence is optional.
In many ways, our society has moved from the domination of men to the demise of men. We have fewer men in our classrooms both as students and teachers. With the increase of single mothers, there are fewer fathers at home with their children. This trend would seem to suggest that dad’s role is no longer unique - rather, it is optional.
This perception of dad is not consistent with a biblical understanding of fatherhood. Neither is it consistent with recent research. Dr. David Popenoe, one of the pioneers of the relatively young field of research into fathers and father-hood, stressed, “Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home.” Popenoe contends, “Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring” (Life without father: Compelling new evidence that fatherhood and marriage are indispensable for the good of children and society - page 163).
The term “involved fathers” is the preferred term used by scholars who are involved in researching the impact of dads. One such scholar, Dr. Kyle Pruett (Yale Child Study Center) believes responsible fathering involves:
1. Feeling and behaving responsibly toward one’s child
2. Being emotionally engaged
3. Being physically accessible
4. Providing material support to sustain the child’s needs and
5. Exerting influence in child rearing decisions.
“My mother, a veteran of fifty years in elementary education and still teaching at age eight-four, tells me she can pick out the “well-fathered” kids in her classes by their self-confidence and willingness to try new things” (page 42).Pruett’s mother is correct, good fathers have a powerful and positive impact upon the development and health of their children. One study of school-aged children found that children with good relationships with their fathers were less likely to experience depression, to exhibit disruptive behavior, or to lie and were more likely to exhibit pro-social behavior (Mosely & Thompson (1995). Fathering behavior and child outcomes: The role of race and poverty. In Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research, and social policy (pp. 148-165).
One of the most important influences a father can have on his child is indirect – fathers influence their children in large part through the quality of their relationship with the mother of their children. Fathers who treat the mothers of their children with respect and deal with conflict within the relationship in an adult and appropriate manner are more likely to have boys who understand how they are to treat women and who are less likely to act in an aggressive fashion toward females.
Girls with involved, respectful fathers see how they should expect men to treat them and are less likely to become involved in violent or unhealthy relationships (Gable, Crnic & Belsky (1994). Coparenting within the family system: Influences on children’s development. Family Relations, 43(4), 380-386).
Literature and research in the field of fathering is impressive. Some of the findings indicate:
- children have better educational outcomes;
- children are more emotionally secure;
- children are more confident to explore their surroundings and relate better to their peers.
In light of the increasing research findings, one is prone to ask, what about persons who are deprived of father-figures in their lives? The Bible often places widows and the fatherless in similar categories. Both groups have lost significant males in their lives. Both groups are left with a void. Both groups appear to be defenseless. These are the ones the Psalmist had in mind when he said: “A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in His holy dwelling. God sets the lonely in families…” (Psalm 68:5-6).
Happy Fathers Day!
Monday, June 11, 2012
JUNE BRIDE: A Thing of the Past?
This week’s commentary is different –
it is excerpts of a letter authored by Congressman Frank Wolf (Republican) and
Former Ambassador Tony Hall (Democrat). I share the conviction of both
gentlemen that the voices of America
North
Carolina
"The
Bible is clear - God's definition of marriage is between a man and a
woman." These simple, but provocative, words spoken by the Reverend Billy
Graham, whom we have both long admired, were featured in an advertisement that
ran in multiple newspapers in North
Carolina
It is clear
that our culture has begun a profound shift. For millennia, marriage has not
been tampered with, and yet, in a matter of decades a relatively small segment
of our society has succeeded in calling into question this institution with a
swiftness that would be almost inconceivable were it not reality. The
fact that ballot initiatives, such as the one in N. Carolina ,
are even necessary speaks to the underlying crisis.
In the last
month alone, both the President and Vice President of the United States
In 2008, he
justified his support for civil unions by saying: 'If people find that
controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I
think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in
Romans.'" Given that the President cited Jesus, it should also be noted
that in the Gospel of Matthew (19:4-6), Jesus says, "Haven't you
read...that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said,
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but
one. Therefore what God has joined together let man not separate."
Talking heads
and strategists in Washington
We believe
that the President's position, which he sought to justify by citing Scripture,
necessitates a response - a reasoned, winsome, faithful interpretation of what
Scripture actually says about God's intent for the sacred institution of
marriage. For those of us who identify ourselves as followers of Jesus,
this apologetic for marriage must be seasoned with grace and love while also
being grounded in truth.
The nation
needs to hear from its church leaders on this issue. Some segments of the
church are already engaged – for those, we express our profound
gratitude. Others, however, are noticeably silent, which begs the
question: where are the Christian apologists who will sound the clarion call
for Biblical orthodoxy on the institution of marriage? Where are the
William Wilberforce's and the Mother Theresa's and the C. S. Lewis' for our day?
The apostle
Paul wrote to the church in Corinth
We are asking
you, as a follower of Jesus and a leader in His church, to leverage your
influence. Consider the teachers in your congregation and the students they
shape on a daily basis, or business people wielding their influence in the
marketplace, or film students seeking to address the culture.
On this issue,
as on so many others, the discussion among government leaders and opinion
makers is simply a downstream manifestation of what is already happening in the
broader culture, which is why your leadership is so important.
We write to
you not as a Republican and a Democrat, which we are, but as men of faith who
take seriously the teaching of Scripture - as do you. German pastor and
theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously said, "Not to speak is to
speak. Not to act is to act." In that spirit, we implore you,
with an urgency that the situation demands, to boldly lend your voice to the
public square on this defining issue - for such a time as this.
Monday, June 4, 2012
The Faith of Our Presidents
Article Six of the Constitution clearly states, “…no religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States United States
Land admits, “Most of the Mormons I know are decent, God-fearing, honest people. I think that Romney, as a serious Mormon, is far less likely to have any sexual scandals than a person who wasn’t a person of faith. He is far more likely to keep his word - far more likely to be a role model than were he a person of no faith. I think most Americans like having a president who is aware and acknowledges he is accountable to a higher authority than himself. If his Mormonism informs his policies, he will be pro-life, he’s going to be pro-family, and pro-traditional marriage” (“The Daily Caller,” April 11, 2012 – by Caroline May).
McCollister should know, as a historian, he devoted much time to
studying the faith of the presidents and published his findings in God
and the Oval Office: The Religious Faith of Our Forty-Three Presidents. McCollister
contends that studying the beliefs of America’s first few presidents can help us
in national contemporary debates.
National interest in the faiths of our presidents is as strong as
ever. The fact that President Barack Obama found it necessary to part ways with
his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is a classic example of the
importance of religion in the lives of our presidents.
Despite Article Six of the constitution, all presidents of the United States
During the 1960 presidential campaign, the issue of whether the
nation would elect a Catholic to be president raised the specter of an implicit
religious test. John F. Kennedy, in an address on September 12, 1960,
confronted the question directly. With much clarity he stated,
“Neither
do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article Six of the
Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they
disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it...
contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for
President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, who happens
also to be a Catholic.”
Kennedy’s response to his critics is particularly appropriate in
this presidential campaign year. For many, the question of President Obama’s
faith is still not clear – is he a Muslim or a Christian? To date, he
acknowledges that he was born a Muslim, but as a young adult, he made a
conscious decision to embrace Christianity.
However, his former pastor Jeremiah Wright has a few questions
about the President’s Christianity. Recently, Wright said on tape: “…and even after Barack and Michelle came to
the church…their kids weren’t raised in the church like you raise other kids in
Sunday School. No. Church is not their thing. It never was their thing. The church
was not an integral part of their spiritual lives after they got married. But
the church was an integral part of Barack’s politics. Because he needed that
black base” (The Amateur by Edward Klein: page 43).
But another situation confronts evangelical voters during this
presidential campaign – the President’s opponent is a Mormon. That is correct;
the Republican candidate Governor Mitt Romney shares religious views that can
be considered heretical by many evangelicals. Should this pose a problem in the
upcoming presidential elections?
Richard Land, a leader in the Southern Baptist Church, believes
the media will highlight every variant belief among Mormons to influence the
vote of independents. If elected, Land believes Romney’s faith will inform his
decisions. But should that be a problem for evangelicals?
Land admits, “Most of the Mormons I know are decent, God-fearing, honest people. I think that Romney, as a serious Mormon, is far less likely to have any sexual scandals than a person who wasn’t a person of faith. He is far more likely to keep his word - far more likely to be a role model than were he a person of no faith. I think most Americans like having a president who is aware and acknowledges he is accountable to a higher authority than himself. If his Mormonism informs his policies, he will be pro-life, he’s going to be pro-family, and pro-traditional marriage” (“The Daily Caller,” April 11, 2012 – by Caroline May).
Recent studies on those who practice Mormonism in Utah
- Mormons live longer than most Americans; men by eleven years and
women by eight years;
- Utah
In this brief overview, it is obvious that both presidential candidates
have and will make policy decisions, influenced by their religious worldviews.
Please keep this in mind as you go to the polls in a few months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)