There is a post on the Boundless blog today titled "Christian Support for the Gay Agenda." Someone commenting on the post said that the gay agenda is composed of two aspects:

The first aspect is the "leave us alone and let us do what we want" aspect, which is what the gay rights movement started out with. This side of the agenda supports overturning laws that inhibit the non-violent actions of gays. The other aspect of the agenda wants to impose it on the rest of us -- forcing businesses to recognize civil unions.

But I believe that comment betrays a naivete about the gay agenda.

Being "left alone" is not a primary goal in the homosexual community, and neither is a desire to "impose" a gay lifestyle on the mainstream, heterosexual culture. The actual-if-unspoken agenda is to establish in the collective heart of mainstream culture a full, warm embrace of homosexuality. The "leave us alone" and "imposing" efforts are the only means they have for seeking to bring it about. But, of course, these efforts will not work. Such methods change no one's heart.

Why is a mainstream embracing of homosexuality so important to the gay community? It is important because, at some level, everyone caught up in homosexuality has an underlying, nagging sense of guilt about it. They work hard to mask it, but ultimately masking is impossible apart from society's unconditional acceptance. Those who want it will fight vehemently against any implications or suggestions of guilt, and short of God's merciful intervention, their hearts will eventually harden so that internal guilty undercurrents are completely extinguished.

Some months ago someone who doesn't know Christ but does know a number of practicing gays asked me, "How can you know that gays have guilt?" In this situation, scriptural arguments were of no avail in providing a satisfactory answer, so I asked in turn, "Have any of your gay friends known lasting joy, contentment, or happiness?" Silence.

What should the Christian response be toward those in the gay community who hate us because we, by our biblical stance on the issue, interfere with their attempts to feel okay inside? Is it possible to love and include them without compromising our biblical stance? It is, if we are willing to be unliked. It's okay to be unliked; Jesus never promised popularity. He did promise that all who hold to his standards will be persecuted. Are we willing?

Several years ago, a Gay Pride parade took place in Philadelphia at the same time as the Sunday worship service at Tenth Presbyterian Church. A large segment of the parade stopped out in front of the church in angry protest against the Bible-believing congregation inside. The service ended, and due to the hostility just outside the doors, many of us were hesitant to exit the building. But James Boice told us not to be afraid. "They're not really angry at you," he said. "They are angry at God."

When Jesus gave the conditions for kingdom entry to a rich young man, he didn't make the terms palatable so that the man would come in. Jesus gave him the truth, but we are told that Jesus' truth-giving was governed by love for this man despite his resistance (Mark 10:17-22). The man walked away in sorrow because he couldn't have the kingdom on his terms. Jesus makes clear that love and upholding biblical truth--even when we are rejected for it--go hand-in-hand.

Labels: morality

Steven Curtis Chapman lost his youngest daughter, Maria, in a tragic accident yesterday. You can read about it here. Pray most, perhaps, for his teenaged son.

Labels: people

"Our thoughts and prayers go out to . . . " A favorite expression of political candidates and media pundits. Even Christians struggle to know how to pray at times, but we know for sure that sending our prayers to those in Myanmar or China or to the family of Ted Kennedy isn't accomplishing anything. In fact, the expression "Our thoughts and prayers go out to . . . " doesn't even say anything, since human beings cannot be the recipients of prayer.

What is revealed about those who routinely utter the sentiment is threefold: they have a concern for political correctness, they make efforts to abide by cultural protocol, and they lack a real knowledge of God.

The root of the struggle Christians have with prayer is in knowing how to pray, but they are never in doubt about the recipient of their prayers. Contrarily, those who offer prayers to suffering people are betraying a hopelessness about real divine intervention. Protocol and public graciousness aside, sending "thoughts and prayers" to someone in need reveals a lot about those who use the expression.

In recent months I've heard political candidates use that expression, although among the leading presidential contenders--Obama, Clinton, and McCain--only McCain uses it with reference to Ted Kennedy (see the candidates' websites):

Obama: "Let us lift his spirits tonight by letting Ted Kennedy know that we are thinking of him, that we are praying for him, that we are standing with him."
Clinton: "Our thoughts are with him and Vicki and we are praying for a quick and full recovery."
McCain: "Our thoughts and prayers go out to Senator Kennedy and his family."

This doesn't really tell us much beyond the fact that Clinton and Obama have better web editors than McCain. The fact remains that all who send "thoughts and prayers" to someone in distress are, themselves, in distress. They need Christ, because only in union with him is real prayer possible:

"The Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God" (Rom. 8:26-27).

Labels: culture

Television, the Great Life-Waster:

Television is one of the greatest life-wasters of the modern age. And, of course, the Internet is running to catch up, and may have caught up. You can be more selective on the Internet, but you can also select worse things with only the Judge of the universe watching. TV still reigns as the great life-waster. The main problem with TV is not how much smut is available, though that is a problem. Just the ads are enough to sow fertile seeds of greed and lust, no matter what program you're watching. The greater problem is banality. A mind fed daily on TV diminishes. Your mind was made to know and love God. Its facility for this great calling is ruined by excessive TV. The content is so trivial and so shallow that the capacity of the mind to think worthy thoughts withers, and the capacity of the heart to feel deep emotions shrivels.

--John Piper, Don't Waste Your Life (Crossway, 2007), 120.

Labels: culture

The American obsession with luxurious homes is evident in the sheer number and popularity of home-improvement television shows and the ever-growing sprawl of McMansions in just about every American suburb. A well-written, albeit finger-pointing, article titled "The Cult of House Worship" is available on the Oxford American website. The article is very interesting and will hit home, even though its author Hal Crowther places the majority of blame for the recent housing crisis on Wall Street rather than giving a fair share of it to those whose personal greed made them all too willing to fall for what the predatory lenders were selling.

Surely some of those caught in the subprime housing mess were victimized, but, in America, where information on just about everything is as close as the free public library, an equally large number did not take into account two truths that all adults are responsible to know and practice:

(1) If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
(2) Live within your means.

Crowther's liberal bias aside, his article can make us all think about how we view our own homes. Here's an excerpt:

Way beyond comfort or any aesthetic considerations, the great houses tower and sprawl because, as Thomas Sutpen grasped, “How else would they know how much money I have, how far I’ve come?” There was a time when church-building and public building were rivals to residential construction. But in America, Domus has become one of the most potent gods in the pantheon of Mammon, and his temples far outstrip anything we build for church or state.

(HT: World magazine)

Labels: culture

One of the hardest experiences in the Christian life is trusting that God is good when things seem to the contrary. We pray and pray about a difficulty or perplexing situation, and sometimes it seems that, as a direct result of our prayers, things only get worse. What is God doing at such times? This poem by John Newton, called These Inward Trials," explains a lot:

I ask'd the Lord, that I might grow
In faith, and love, and ev'ry grace,
Might more of his salvation know,
And seek more earnestly his face.

'Twas he who taught me thus to pray,
And he, I trust has answer'd pray'r;
But it has been in such a way,
As almost drove me to despair.

I hop'd that in some favour'd hour,
At once he'd answer my request:
And by his love's constraining pow'r,
Subdue my sins, and give me rest.

Instead of this. he made me feel
The hidden evils of my heart;
And let the angry pow'rs of hell
Assault my soul in ev'ry part.

Yea more, with his own hand he seem'd
Intent to aggravate my woe;
Cross'd all the fair designs I schem'd,
Blasted my gourds, and laid me low.

Lord, why is this, I trembling cry'd,
Wilt thou pursue thy worm to death?
"'Tis in this way," the Lord reply'd,
"I answer pray'r for grace and faith.

"These inward trials I employ,
From self and pride to set thee free;
And break thy schemes of earthly joy,
That thou mayst seek thy all in me."

Labels: Christian Life

". . . our relationship with God is mirrored in our relationships with people."
--Ed Welch

(JBC, vol. 22, no. 3 [Spring 2004]): 17.

Labels: quotes

Is getting a divorce ever okay? "Yes," say most. "In cases of adultery divorce is perfectly acceptable. After all, Jesus said so." Certainly there are situations in which a marital separation is quite advisable--in cases of abuse, most certainly--but divorce is another matter. On the other hand, if children are in any way endangered by an abusive spouse or a gambling addict who blows through the family's sole source of income, sometimes a divorce is the only prevention. But the fact remains that God is never actually made glad by divorce, whatever the cause.

There has been a lot of debate about biblically acceptable divorce lately. Bible scholars vary in their interpretation of Jesus' words to the disciples in Matthew: "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." Some say Jesus was referring not to marriage but to breaking off an engagement in cases of sexual unfaithfulness. Much of the controversy surrounds the term "sexual immorality"; what exactly did Jesus mean when he used those words? Ultimately, what we need is not so much consensus on these particular words. What we really need to do is examine all the Bible says about marriage and what that reveals about God himself.

People latch onto Jesus' words in Matthew 19 often because they want an out. And desiring to get out of a marriage characterized by betrayal, hurt, and broken trust is so completely understandable that support is almost always given to a betrayed spouse who wants to leave. But consider what Jesus told the Pharisees. They asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And here's what Jesus told them: “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” There is no "exception" here. What is there is the fact that hardness of heart lies behind divorce, whether betrayal is a part of it or not. What is there is a reminder of what God set up from creation: man is not to separate what God has put together.

According to Malachi, God considers divorce itself to be an act of unfaithfulness and the antithesis of love: "You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, 'Why does he not?' Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 'For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence,' says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”

People embrace the "exception clause" in Matthew 19 more than other Bible teachings on the subject because it makes God seem more sympathetic. After all, how could a kind God ask someone to stay in a marriage that is left with nothing but lies, coldness, and brokenness--a situation that presents nothing ahead but loneliness and misery? But viewing it only from that perspective fails to take into account the bigger picture of what God is all about in our lives. God's greatest goals for us in this life are not happiness, unending harmony, untroubled relationships, and getting what we're owed. Because he is kind and good, we so often do get those things, but to expect them in this life is to set ourselves up for disappointment.

God designed marriage not primarily for our happiness but to give us a picture of our relationship to Christ. So here's the thing: Christ never divorces us when we are unfaithful to him, something we do every day in one way or another. Doesn't this fact all by itself take the widely accepted interpretation of the "exception clause" and toss it out the window? Everyone faces loneliness and betrayals and relational disharmony, and yet our call to love sacrifically is never conditioned on how well it's going for us or on what we're getting out of it.

All that being said, I remember the words of my former pastor James Boice, who said that although divorce is never pleasing to God, it is not the unforgiveable sin. In fact, Dr. Boice said he had seen God bless many second marriages. Still, the main thing we must consider is not "What am I entitled to?" but "What will bring joy to God's heart?"

Labels: marriage