Protecting Marriage Preserves the Family

This article was originally published in the Kansas City Star on July 8, 2006.

Recently the U.S. Senate voted on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have defined the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Opponents of the federal Marriage Amendment claim that no such amendment to the U.S. Constitution is needed since there are current laws on the books in 45 states prohibiting same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact these measures have passed with an average margin of 71% within their respective states. This is all well and good; and typically states-rights is the best way to decide an issue like this. Yet the truth remains that the proponents of same-sex marriage are not content to let the democratic process run its course in this particular case. At this very time the marriage laws in ten of the 45 states mentioned above are being challenged in federal court. If a federal judge decides that such laws violate the U.S. Constitution then the will of that 71% of citizens in those states will be made null and void. These states will then be forced by the federal government to recognize same-sex unions that have been ratified in other states. In this light it is clear that a federal amendment is required in order to avoid the over-reaching arm of the federal courts.

The typical argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that marriage is a societal institution that is constantly being redefined as society sees fit. To this end laws are passed to give legal sanction to the relationship and to confer certain rights upon it. The flaw in this argument is that it cannot be shown that marriage is nothing more than a social contract. It is completely overlooked that no society has ever sanctioned same-sex marriage. Societies have merely recognized the already-existing institution of marriage and have passed laws regulating it for the benefit of that society. Marriage always has been between man and woman. Sociologist Kingsley David states, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval...of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." (emphasis added) Even Paul Nathanson, who is himself a homosexual, stated the five functions of marriage as: 1) to foster male-female bonding, (2) to foster the birth and rearing of children (emphasis added), (3) to foster man-child relationships, (4) to foster a healthy masculine identity and (5) to foster the transition of adolescents into sexually responsible adults. As can obviously be seen, many of these cannon take place in a same-sex relationship.

With all this having been said, the ideal for marriage is to have one man committed for life to one woman for the purpose of bearing and rearing children in order that the human race may be perpetuated. Only a male-female relationship is naturally conducive to the bearing of children. For the state to issue marriage licenses to anyone outside these bounds is to say that marriage is no big thing at all. Once this happens marriage cannot be denied to any other group on any logical ground and any children that are brought into this "family" are denied either a true father or a true mother. The sanctity of the institution of marriage must be protected as this is the fertile ground wherein the next generation of any society is raised. No man can teach a little girl how to be a woman just as no woman can teach a boy how to be a man. Both a mother and a father living in the home in a committed marriage relationship are needed to provide the type of environment needed to raise healthy children. If our nation wants the coming generations to succeed, the institution of marriage should be supported and strengthened, not redefined.

Humility

I was just reminded of something very important:

When discussing "hot-button" issues, always be careful to discern where others in the conversation stand on the issue and why. It can be very easy to come across as crass and uncaring and, thereby, deeply offend someone that you should be trying to win over in a spirit of love. I feel like I may have done this with a co-worker and am convicted that I must go back to him in a spirit of humility, admit my wrong-doing and ask for forgiveness. Perhaps I haven't messed things up so badly that he has discounted my views on the matter altogether going forward. I would hate to bring a reproach upon my Lord in this way. Funny. I was just talking to my kids about this at our morning devotion this morning (from 1 Cor. 9). My admonition to them was to "be very careful what you say and do around others so as not to make them think badly of Christians and the God they serve" (paraphrased, of course). I should take my own advise.

And Down the Slippery Slope We Go

This is a must-read article on Albert Mohler's blog.

Pondering 1 Timothy 3

"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. " -- 1 Timothy 3:1-7

This passage has been a passage of some interest to me for quite a while. It is one of the classic passages used to determine the qualifications of a pastor/elder/bishop in the Church. It spells out the clear expectations that God has laid out for those who seek to shepherd His people and lead them in their sanctification and direct their worship of God. There are those who interpret these qualifications more strictly and those who are more loose in their view (almost seeing them as suggestions or guidelines...but keep in mind Paul does not say an overseer should be...but rather Paul states that an overseer must be....) Where I run into a problem, personally, is how the qualifications are applied. Are the qualifications to be "back-dated", as it were, to include things done in the unregenerate state of the candidate before salvation? Or is one disqualified if they were a drunkard given to bar-room brawls before they were saved? Is there something within the passage that implies that all the listed qualifications are to be treated equally (like a check-list)? Or is the list weighted where certain qualifications are more important than others (and who decides the weight)? I am planning on studying this particular passage in a little more depth in the very near future and ask for prayer in seeing God's wisdom in this passage and the related passages I will be looking at. I will be posting what I discover at some point in the future.

A Better Atheist Debate

I've been following the online debate between Christopher Hitchens (Author of "God is Not Great) and Doug Wilson. The third, and most recent, installment clearly shows what I love most about Doug Wilson and his writing style. He makes a similar, though much better argued, point to what I made in my article in the Kansas City Star which I posted here. In summary, it's this: If you don't have a transcendent, objective standard from which to make moral judgments, you can't make any moral judgments about anything! Once that point is clearly understood, the debate is over. Like it says in the book of the Revelation: in the end...God wins.

Nightline Atheist "Debate"

I just watched the stream of last night's "debate" on Nightline. I cringed. Just a little background is warranted here. ABC News decided to host a debate on the existence of God and the parties involved were to be Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort of Way of the Master ministries and Brian Sapient and "Kelly" (no last name given) of the Rational Response Squad.

The first hole that the Kirk and Ray stepped into was in agreeing to debate on a scientific basis with no appeal to Scripture or faith...purely reason. I'm not saying that arguments from reason can't be made, I'm saying that, based on what I saw, these two were not up to the task at hand. While Ray did a great job in presenting the gospel, that's exactly where he lost credibility. Kirk didn't help much when he used his entire time allotment to give his personal testimony. Again, while I applaud their evangelistic efforts it was rather disingenuous of them to make an evengelistic gospel presentation under the guise of a scientific argument on the existence of God. Later, during the session where the moderator asked questions of both sides in an informal manner, there were statements made by the atheists and when asked by the moderator if they would like to respond, Cameron and Comfort appeared as if they had used all their best stuff and had nothing else to say, even responding to the direct question of "Do you have a response?" with what amounted to an "...uhh....no." They looked totally unprepared and it would appear that the atheists ate their lunch (to a certain extent). This made all Christians look like what Brian and Kelly were trying to make them out to be...brainless robots acting strictly on dogmatic doctrine with no reason to back it up. They should have debated on a philosophical level instead.

But there's always the other side. As far as atheist side went, while they looked much more prepared and serious about the debate (they actually took notes on what Ray and Kirk were saying and could be seen discussing rebuttals) their arguments were not arguments. Most of the presentation time, particularly that by Kelly, was spent in belittling theists and making unsupported claims about theism in particular and Christianity in specific (they were unsupported claims because there is not support for them...e.g.: Jesus never existed). But I have to give them this: they took the upper hand and never gave it up.

For another point of view on debate, check out the Stand to Reason blog.

Fetus=Human=Person

This article originally appeared in the Kansas City Star on April 29, 2006 during my time as a panelist for Midwest Voices:

The legislature of South Dakota recently passed legislation that would effectively end abortion in that state. The response was just as would be expected. Every year, thousands of people fill the streets of various cities across the nation in rallies, protests and demonstrations regarding this perennial hot-button issue. On the one side it is believed that human life begins at conception and that abortion is the murder of this innocent, unborn person. On the other side of the issue it is claimed that we cannot know when life begins and that, at any rate, the unborn fetus is not a “person” and therefore is not privy to any of the rights of the Constitution. Therein lies the issue. Is the fetus human? If it is human is it a “person”? Is there a difference? According to the National Institutes of Health, approximately 1.3 million induced abortions occur every year. That totals up to about 43 million abortions performed since the procedure was legalized in 1973. If it can be shown that human life and personhood begin at conception and that abortion is the murder of an unborn life, that would amount to a genocide that all other genocides in the history of mankind pale in comparison to. It’s a serious question, so we should give it some thought. By the way, Kansas is one of the national leaders in third-trimester abortions with the clinic of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita being one of the few in the nation that provides such a service.
The first question in regards to the abortion is, “Can we kill it?” Nearly anyone would agree that to kill an innocent human person is wrong. In the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 the court legalized induced abortion based on the finding that a human embryo is not a “person.” Notice that the court did not say the embryo is not a human. Biological science and basic logic prove that, from conception, the entity in the woman’s womb is human. Not only that, it is a unique human. Just as dogs produce baby dogs and cats produce baby cats, humans produce baby humans. The fertilized ovum contains all of the genetic information that it will contain as a full-grown adult. So the embryo is not a “blob of tissue.” It is a human being. A unique human being with DNA that is distinct from both parents.
Next comes the idea of “personhood.” We’ve established that the embryo is human. But is it a person? How can we tell? What traits mark a “person” as distinct from a “human?” There really aren’t any! An individual is a “person” because they are “human.” Any distinctions that are made are arbitrary and artificial. Moreover, distinctions of this kind were also used to deny the “personhood” of blacks and Jews in order to justify slavery and the holocaust. These oppressed people were considered “sub-human” based on arbitrary distinctions. Human-ness is indistinguishable from personhood. If one is a human being, they are a person. At this point, although I staunchly oppose the activities of Planned Parenthood, I have to applaud them on this point. In an article in Friday’s Star titled “St. Louis appeals court hears abortion arguments”, a Planned Parenthood attorney states that an informed-consent law is flawed because it refers to an embryo as a “human being” while the Roe v. Wade decision states that an embryo is not a “person.” In this statement, even Planned Parenthood is recognizing the equality between the terms “human” and “person.”
With these ideas in mind, we can conclude with what is called a logical syllogism. Certain premises are laid out and a logical conclusion is drawn from the premises. The syllogism I would propose here is: 1) All unborn babies are human beings, 2) all human beings are persons, 3) It is wrong to kill a human person; therefore (4) it is wrong to kill unborn babies. Yet we continue to do so at the rate of over 1 million per year just because we’ve labeled them “non-persons.” We must recognize that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to an authority higher than himself. The State is neither the giver or definer of life, nor is it the provider of meaning in life. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Today we may kill the unborn but how long will it be before the arbitrary line is moved and we are considered the non-persons?. Who will speak for us then if we don’t speak out now? And what judgment will we face for our cheap view of life?

Evangelism Linebacker

This is hilarious!! It's an evangelistic take on the "Office Linebacker" commercials with Terry Tate.

Anglican Controversy

I was directed to this article in the L.A. Times. It regards an exchange of correspondence between Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America (hereafter referred to as the "Episcopal Church") and Bishop Peter Akinola, Archbishop of the Anglican Church in Nigeria. Now, while I am a Southern Baptist and have no horse in this race, as it were, I am very interested in seeing how this plays out. While their are definitely areas of Anglican doctrine that I do not agree with, there is a basic foundation of biblical Christian doctrine where we do agree. It is on this basis that I watch this controversy with great care and concern and am encouraged by those who would stand up for the word of God in the midst of great controversy and declare that the Scriptures alone are the final arbiter of how the Church is to believe and behave.

As a bit of background on this issue: the Episcopal Church is under fire in the greater worldwide Anglican Communion for ordaining and installing an openly gay bishop (namely, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire). During a meeting of bishops in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania last year, the Anglican Communion gave an ultimatum to Bishop Jefferts Schori stating that the Episcopal Church must cease and decist from pursuing the clear agenda of normalizing homosexuality within the church. In spite of the doctrines and practices being supported by Bishop Jefferts Schori and other upper-level leaders within the Episcopal Church there are several individual congregations within the United States that are opposed to these actions and are seeking a way to maintain a biblical, conservative doctrine while remaining a part of the greater Anglican Communion. With this in mind, Bishop Akinola has planned a trip to the U.S. to install Martyn Minns as Bishop over the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). This group would actually be an off-shoot of the Anglican Church in Nigeria and, thereby, under the authority of Bishop Akinola and would be open to any congregations in the U.S. seeking to follow a more biblical and traditional body of doctrine and practice within the Anglican C0mmunion.

Using the links in the article I was able to obtain copies of the letters that were exchanged and it presents a very interesting scene.

In the initial, rather brief, letter, Bishop Jefferts Schori makes an appeal to Bishop Akinola to refrain from coming to the U.S. to install Bishop Minns as head of CANA. She gives three reasons for this:
1. It would be a violation of the customs of the church (regarding limits of episcopal activity and respect of jurisdictional boundaries).
2. The action would damage efforts at reconciliation between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
3. The action would display to the world "division and disunity that are not part of the mind of Christ, which we must strive to display to all."

Now...let that soak in a minute. Bishop Jefferts Schori, the woman who favors promotion of openly gay clergy to the rank of Bishop and thumbs her nose at those who disagree, calling them, in effect, backwards and "behind the times" (note her interview with the Boston Globe, "Where the protesters are, in some parts of Africa or in other parts of the Anglican Communion today, is where this church and this society we live in was 50 years ago, and for us to assume that people can move that distance in a year or in a relatively instantaneous manner is perhaps faithless," she said. "That kind of movement and development has taken us a good deal of pain and energy over 40 or 50 years, and I think we have to make some space so that others can make that journey as well." -- How arrogant! - JV) is now, all of a sudden, interested in the time-honored customs of the church! And the idea of reconciliation? The quote above tells us that he only reconciliation she's interested in is for the world to reconcile their views to hers! And I'll let Bishop Akinola address the last point (as well as the others) as he responded with a well-written letter of his own (with my comments interspersed):

First, Bishop Akinola brings to the fore the fact that Bishop Jefferts Schori's letter was not actually sent to him, but was posted on the Episcopal News Service website! He then recounts the history of the controversy that has led to the current situation. Regarding Bishop Jefferts Schori's objection that Bishop Akinola's actions were a violation of tradition and protocol, Bishop Akinola responds, stating that "our Provinces are divided, and so the usual protocol and permissions are no longer applicable." Essentially, the Bishop states that, since the Episcopal church has turned its back on the Anglican Communion in this matter, there is no longer an ecclesiastical boundary. Bishop Akinola has basically declared that he no longer sees the Episcopal church as part of the Anglican Communion. He then states that he is willing to "renew the pledge" that was made to former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold that "the Church of Nigeria will be the first to restore communion on the day that your Province abandons its current unbiblical agenda." (emphasis added)

YES! Here is the key! Bishop Akinola has a firm and unchanging foundation for making the judgments he is making. It is the Bible! I was just reading in 1 Corinthians 5 this morning with my family and we were discussing that, if someone who claims to be a Christian is living an immoral life, we are to remove the immoral brother! This is what Bishop Akinola is doing, only on a higher level. He then commences to rip (in the most loving way) Bishop Jefferts Schori's appeal to church custom and turns her argument on its head. I'll let the Bishop speak for himself:

"I also find it curious that you are appealing to the ancient customs of the church when it is your own Province's deliberate rejection of the biblical and historic teaching of the Church that has prompted our current crisis."(emphasis added)

Again I say, YES!! One cannot pick and choose which doctrines of the bible are to be held to! Also, one cannot pledge fealty to a particular body of faith, doctrine and tradition and then decide for themselves which articles they will uphold to their own benefit while discarding the rest.
Bishop Akinola wraps up his letter with the following paragraph. I will quote it in its entirety but it brought to mind 1 Cor 6:1-11 when I read it:
"You mention the call to reconciliation. As you well know this is a call that I wholeheartedly embrace and indeed was a major theme of our time in Tanzania. You will also remember that one of the key elements of our discussion and the resulting Communique was the importance of resolving our current differences without resorting to civil law suits. (cf. 1 Cor. 6 - JV) You agreed to this. Yet it is my understanding that you are still continuing your own punitive legal actions against a number of CANA clergy and congregations. I fail to see how this is consistent with your own claim to be working towards reconciliation."

So, how interested is Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in reconciling the Episcopal Church with the other bodies within the worldwide Anglican Communion? It would seem that she's not nearly as interested in that as she is in pushing her own agenda upon the rest of the Communion. I personally applaud Bishop Akinola for what he is doing and what he is standing for. While it is a tragedy whenever a schism occurs within a denomination, it must be handled with the word of God as the arbiter between the sides. If there is disagreement the Scriptures must be the deciding factor. While Bishop Jefferts Schori has stated that she does not desire to cause schism within the Anglical Communion, her refusal to adhere to Scripture and its commands has already done the work. Bishop Akinola is now under obligation to step in (since no one else has taken the initiative) and provide for those who seek to follow a more Christ-honoring ecclesiastical body. May God be with Bishop Akinola as he seeks to honor the Lord in this.

Realtivism Collapses Under Its Own Arguments

This article was originally published Feb. 16, 2006 in the Kansas City Star:

Recently many conservatives have been up in arms over the film Brokeback Mountain, seeing it as an attempt to mainstream homosexuality and make it more socially acceptable. The responses from the other side of the issue have included claims that if the activity involves two consenting individuals and no one is being harmed, then the activity in question cannot be considered “wrong.” This same kind of thinking can be found when it comes to religious ideas, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is the kind of thinking that says, “Who are you to judge?” and “That may be true for you, but it isn’t for me.” In taking this sort of moral high-ground the person asking the question is actually stating that the one making the moral assertion has no right to do so.
This moral relativism is rampant in our nation and is a danger to our society. On the surface relativism may seem humble and even a bit noble. After all, isn’t it arrogant to imply that one moral system is superior to another? Yet, the one holding the relativistic position likely has not thoroughly thought this position through, for if the idea of moral relativism is carried out to its logical conclusion then its proponents would be in a very unhappy place. The main idea with moral relativism is that no one person or society can make objective moral judgments that are universally true for all people at all times. The problems with this philosophy are manifold, but two of these downfalls will be discussed here in order to show the inadequacy of this school of thought.
The first problem that the proponents of moral relativism face is the self-refuting nature of the system. To illustrate, let’s say that Joe (a moral absolutist) is discussing homosexuality with Tom (a moral relativist). Joe states that he believes homosexuality is wrong. Tom responds by asking, “Who are you to judge?” In asking this question Tom has actually made a moral judgment of his own by implying that Joe is “wrong” in his claim about homosexuality. Tom has just proven that it really is okay to make moral judgments, he just doesn’t agree with Joe’s moral judgments. By trying to claim that making moral judgments is wrong, the relativist refutes his own argument. The second issue that moral relativists have to deal with is the most dire. If it is true that no one can make absolute moral judgments that are true for all people at all times, then all moral judgments are under suspicion. If it can’t be said that homosexuality is wrong, why can’t the same be said of pedophelia or bestiality by extension? If it can’t be said that abortion or assisted suicide are wrong, then how much longer will it be until the same is said about infanticide and euthanasia of the elderly and disabled? Once one begins down the road of moral relativism where is the stopping point? There is none. If the making of moral judgments is disallowed then the entire system of laws must be thrown out. After all, laws are an imposition of a moral code on a society. This leaves mankind with the realization that moral rules must exist for society to survive.
How do we rescue ourselves from this moral relativism? The key is recognizing that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to a higher authority than himself. The State is not the giver of life, nor the provider of rights. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Until we again recognize this America will continue in its slide of moral decay. Today we may kill the unborn and those who wish to die. We may also allow marriage to be redefined in order to accommodate those living an unnatural lifestyle, but if our society continues to embrace relativism our nation will go the way of all the great nations of the past, to be remembered only in history books.