MENU

Politics
Category

On January 9, 2015 By In Culture, Family and Children, Politics

Same Love, Different God: A Gay Anthem

Since I first heard Macklemore’s Same Love in 2012, I’ve had a strange resonance with its message. This is odd because I’m a Conservative-Christian. That is, I not only adhere to the historic creeds of the church, but I’m seeking ordination in a denomination which adds even more confessional standards to the bunch! Perhaps more to the point, I’m a Christian-Conservative. By my early twenties, I’d devoured the works of Christopher Dawson, William F. Buckley, and Russell Kirk. If I thought they’d come, I’d invite Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks to my birthday party.

With such an Alex P. Keaton-pedigree, how could I be drawn to the lyrics of a song which gives voice to the liberal cry for LGBTQ rights? Was I falling victim to the ol’ snappy rhythm-stupid lyric trap? Well, after hearing the song almost weekly for two years now, I’ve come to realize that my affinity for the message is not in spite of the lyrics, but because of the lyrics. In fact, I think the song can work as a sort of tract for explaining the position of Christian-Conservatives and Conservative-Christians. At its heart, Same Love argues: (1) Our view of sexuality is influenced by the culture. (2) Our personal sexuality is influenced by our “innate” selves. (3) Our sexuality is accountable to the one, true God.

First, our view of sexuality is influenced by the culture. At the beginning of the song, we’re given a story.

When I was in the 3rd grade I thought that I was gay ’cause I could draw,

My uncle was and I kept my room straight

I told my mom, tears rushing down my face, she’s like,

“Ben you’ve loved girls since before pre-K”

Trippin’, yeah, I guess she had a point, didn’t she?

A bunch of stereotypes all in my head

I remember doing the math like “Yeah, I’m good a little league”

A pre-conceived idea of what it all meant

For those who like the same sex had the characteristics

Macklemore thought he was gay because he had certain characteristics generally thought of as “feminine.” Thankfully, he had a thoughtful mother who told him that his sexuality is deeper than just his interests and sensibilities. In this regard, the church could learn a lot from Macklemore’s mom. Let me tell you a story not dissimilar to the one Macklemore recounts. This one, an amalgamation of the stories of a number of my gay friends who were raised in conservative, evangelical churches, only to leave the faith for a gay lifestyle: 

“With my friends from school, I was reading Dostoevsky, playing Mozart, and reciting Shakespeare. At youth group, I was playing ultimate cow-tongue Frisbee, Call of Duty, and sitting through services which reminded me of a pep rally. Because of my “weird” sensibilities, I was called gay by my church before I was ever accepted as a gay man by the community with which I now identify.  At first, I didn’t think of myself as a homosexual; I just knew I wasn’t straight by my church’s standards. Two communities–two options–were before me; church community or gay community. Both groups told me that I had the sensibilities of the second group. So, eventually, I believed them both. Subsequently, I was embraced, nurtured, and freed by a loving community of gay friends at school.”

Perhaps our sharpest, most gifted church members left the faith because their church didn’t have the theological or liturgical tools to show them how the creation and preservation of art fits into the redemptive schema of God. Sure, as Christians, there are certain character-qualities that should typify the life of a man or woman. These qualities complement the qualities of the opposite sex. However, there are numerous sensibilities and personality traits which must not be viewed as statically masculine or feminine.

One of the reasons it’s so easy to create theories in which a figure from the past (like Abraham Lincoln) is gay, is because the traits typical of masculinity and femininity are constantly in flux. In Lincoln’s day, to have a public display of emotion was more acceptable of a man than a woman. Obviously, in Ronald Reagan’s day, that had changed. Thus, a modern reader can anachronistically infer something about a 18th or 19th century man’s sexual orientation from his “feminine” traits. Like Macklemore’s mom, the church needs to recover a healthy, biblical doctrine of masculinity and femininity-a doctrine which avoids stereotypes and accounts for the artist and the athlete.

Second, our personal sexuality is influenced by our “innate” selves. Now, we’ve seen that cultural views of masculinity and femininity have something to do with how we view “gay” and “straight,” and thus influence how we judge our own sexuality. However, that is not the whole story. The song goes on to say that we can’t allow these cultural stereotypes to influence our personal sexuality.

You [can’t] be cured with some treatment and religion

Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition

Playing God

To change your sexual identity is like playing God. You can’t just go through a procedure to “fix” your orientation. It is innate to you. Now, a tension is set up in the song. On the one hand, we’re born with physicality, with bodies. On the other hand, the song suggests, just because one is born with female genitalia, does not mean that one *is* female. One may be born female, but, in fact, be male. Here, the song prioritizes the metaphysical over the physical. What you feel is innate and right. What you are physically is subjective and possibly wrong. 

Here is the tension: that which is “innate” is sometimes physical and other times metaphysical. When it is the feeling of hate (which the song mentions), it is wrong and should be changed. When it is the feeling of attraction toward someone of the same sex, it should be embraced. When the physicality is your gender, it can be amended. When the physicality is your race (which the song mentions), it must be embraced and accepted. The song is right, you can’t play God; you have to submit to your innate self. The question, however, is how do we know what is innate? Asked differently: “should I ‘play god’ and deny my feeling of same sex attraction?” or “Should I ‘play god’ and have a sex change?” You see, the decision isn’t as easy as “to be myself or not?” No, the issue is “what part of myself will I ‘not be?’”

This brings us to our third area of agreement with the song; our sexuality is accountable to the one, true God.

Whatever God you believe in

We come from the same one

Strip away the fear

Underneath it’s all the same love

The song is not promoting a squishy relativism. It doesn’t say “whatever god you believe in, it doesn’t matter.” Nor does it say, “Whatever god you believe in is true.” No, you may (subjectively) believe in the Muslim god, or the Wiccan god, or the Buddhist god, but actually there is only one (objective) god.

Of course, having a god speak to us is the only way to resolve the tension of what is “innate” and “non-innate” to our humanity. To say something is innate is to say it can exist apart from brokenness and sin. The metal of a ship is innate, the rust is not. Our age is made up of only broken things, so the only way to know what is innate is to know what existed before there was brokenness, and what will exist when the brokenness is taken away. Someone who knows the Alpha and the Omega has to tell us what is innate. Given our “situatedness” in history, we can’t know such things on our own.  Our sexuality can’t be “discovered,” it has to be given to us by our Creator.

Well, who is this one, true God? Macklemore claims to know him; indeed, he speaks for him. He lets us know that this god deems race (physical) and sexual preference (metaphysical) as innate; but judges hate (metaphysical) and gender (physical) as non-innate. Macklemore doesn’t think you should put your trust in a book “written 3,000 years ago.” I get that. However, what’s the alternative? Macklemore’s told us that there is only one god, but what’s this god’s name? How did he and Macklemore meet? Macklemore is telling us what is innate and what is extraneous, what is good and what is bad, what is clean and what is unclean, what is holy and what is profane. Are we supposed to take his word for it that this is god’s opinion?

While I agree that there is only one, true God, I think He is Yahweh; the one in whom Abraham put his trust, the one who Moses encountered in a cloud, the one who Paul knew, the one from whom Jesus claimed to be. Not only are other “gods” subject to Him (including Macklemore’s god), but I am subject to him. My sexual orientation, gender, and proclivities are subject to him. You see, we can’t base our sexual identity on the culture’s view of masculinity and femininity, it’s relative and ever fluctuating. We can’t base our sexual identity on our own impulses. How would we know which are innate and which are bad? How would we know which to neglect and which to embrace? No, we have to base our sexual identity and practices on the one, true God. He created our gendered-bodies, and he has a plan for them stretching beyond this short life.

As a straight man, I resonate with Same Love because, in a sexually “open” and “evolving” world, I need a sure and steady word from God just as much as my gay friends do. Macklemore claims to have such a word. In fact, Jesus and Macklemore are making the exact same claim; both claim they know the will of the one, true God. Here is your choice: put your faith in the one who rose from the dead, or put your faith in the one who wrote Thrift Shop.<> оптимизация а ов рекламное агентство

Read more

On January 6, 2015 By In Books, Politics, Scribblings

Theology as Language

Even when I quibble with points here and there, I never read Vinoth Ramachandra’s work without being moved and changed; Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping Our World is no exception. Here’s a worthwhile nugget:

“Christian theology is more than a set of doctrinal beliefs or systematic arguments. It is a way of seeing, of so dwelling in a particular language and doing new things with that language that its revelatory and transformative power is manifest in the world. That language arose out of specific historical events that both constitute us as the ekklesia of Christ and call forth characteristic social practices such as thanksgiving, forgiving, exposing evil, truth-telling, welcoming the broken and the hopeless, and bearing testimony to grace. Such a theology seeks comprehensiveness, because it seeks to bear prophetic witness to One whose speech-acts heal, renew and transform the world in its entirety, but its own speech is always broken, sharing in the not-yet-redeemed character of the world.”<>mobi onlineреклама в гугл

Read more

On December 17, 2014 By In Politics

“The Death of Me”

A few weeks ago I ran errands for my wife. I was in our local grocery store picking up a few essentials: 17 jars of peanut butter (we have six children), 53 bags of potato chips, and several mega-packs of diapers (two of the six children are still in diapers). In other words, an average every-other-day trip to the grocery store for the Hale family.

While on the cereal aisle I noticed a mother dealing with two unruly children. In actuality, she was the one being dealt with. The children were working her over pretty good as they fussed, fought, and carried on about something or other. I came in late so I was unclear as to what set off the uprising. The mother attempted to appease the dissidents by offering to buy them the cereal with a “free prize inside.” As I listened to her appeasement attempts I thought, “Good woman, please. Put down this uprising already. Don’t negotiate with the terrorists.” With her offer of détente clearly rejected by her offspring the mother succumbed to exasperation and exclaimed, “You kids are going to be the death of me.”

That last exclamation struck me as odd and stayed in my mind throughout the rest of my shopping trip. “Now there is a phrase you don’t hear much anymore,” was my initial thought. My next thought was (I confess) rather judgmental. “Two kids are going to be ‘the death of you?’ Two kids?!? My tenacious wife frequently takes all six of our children to the store without incident. And she has been known to add a couple of neighbor kids to the trip just because she can.” Then Philo of Alexandria’s famous quote about being kind because everyone we meet is fighting a great battle floated into my head and I confessed my judgmental attitude to the Lord. Clearly this mother was, and had been, fighting great battles for some time and was being routed quite handily in the latest skirmish.

Then I personalized her exclamation and thought about it in my own life. “You kids are going to be the death of me.” There is much truth in this rather antiquated saying. My children have been the death of me. Or to put a finer point on things, they have been the death and resurrection of me. This is exactly the way God designed my children to operate in my life. I love sleeping in a little too much and so God kills that in me by giving me infants that won’t sleep and toddlers that awake periodically with nightmares or needing to go potty. But He doesn’t leave me there. I am resurrected as someone who learns that my time — even my sleeping time — no longer belongs to me but I must share it with others so that they might have what they need. I have a love for eating out at restaurants and so God kills that in me by giving me six children so that eating out is almost always a financial impossibility. Then I am resurrected as someone who falls in love with cooking, eating at home, and looking forward to a royal feast created with two pounds of pinto beans, Jiffy cornbread mix, and a slow cooker.

In Proverbs 27:17 we hear, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” It is easy to read a verse like that and imagine two equally competent adults sitting around a table vigorously discussing theological points. One adult expresses a view, the other adult offers a slightly different viewpoint, and in the back and forth iron sharpens iron. Having been a parent for over 15 years I can honestly say that I never really knew what that verse meant until my wife and I had children. Children sharpen us far more — and far more often — than any of our relationships with our adult friends. Got anger issues? Rest assured, a screaming toddler or a tired 6-year-old will force those issues to the surface in a way no Bible study ever could. Got problems controlling your tongue? Try controlling it when your teenager is experimenting with the finer nuances of the rhetoric stage and you forgot to change out of your cranky pants.

Pastor Douglas Wilson pointed out in a sermon once that we pray to God for joy and God answers our prayer by enrolling us in “school of hard knocks classes” that eventually produce deep, meaningful joy, provided we stick with the classes long enough to see graduation day. But we kick against the goads of all of that and reply, “God, I prayed to you and asked for joy but my life has been a dumpster fire ever since. I didn’t mean to sign up for ‘hard knocks classes.’ I wanted to skip right to the ‘joy diploma’ at the end.” We want the diploma but we want it without the blood, sweat, and tears of going to class, learning the material, pulling all-nighters cramming for finals, and mastering skills over years of study. Eugene Peterson calls this a long obedience in the same direction and that is most certainly the way of God as He sanctifies His people.

Just like Jesus in Hebrews 12:2, the only way to the joy set before us is through enduring the cross. But the cross is never the final word in the matter. After death, resurrection. After the removal of the dross, gold. After iron has sharpened iron, a razor-sharp blade. For Christian parents, our children are the iron that God uses to run us through and bring about “the death of me.” They are the most effective means in God’s arsenal to bring about the death of all that is selfish, petty, ugly, and wicked in our lives. What God kills He also resurrects to love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. The Christian parent can confidently submit to the “death of me” because he or she realizes that what awaits on the other side of that death is not “more death,” but rather resurrection life, a better life, a fuller life, and hopeful life. We will be better for it and so will our children.

—-

Derek Hale has lived all of his life in Wichita, Kansas and isn’t a bit ashamed about that fact. He and his wife Nicole have only six children – four daughters and two young sons of thunder. Derek is a ruling elder, chief musician, and performs pastoral duties at Trinity Covenant Church (CREC). Derek works for NetApp and enjoys reading, computers, exercising, craft beer, and playing and listening to music. But not all at the same time. He blogs occasionally at derekthehale.wordpress.com/.<> оптимизация а под yandex

Read more

On December 13, 2014 By In Politics

What are You Prepared to Do?

Guest Post by Steven Wedgeworth 

The so-called “conservative” responses to the Senate torture report are now making their rounds, and they tell us quite a bit about what really matters to certain people. Thus far no one has denied that the most morally repugnant alleged practices actually took place. No one has said, “That’s crazy! We would never use rape as a weapon! We could never forcibly insert food into someone’s rectum! No way!” No. They have not said that. They have attempted to justify the practices by arguing that the practices produced important information, that the proper authorities knew about them, and that our enemies do much worse. But they are not denying those practices.

Tellingly, Dick Cheney declined to refute the charge of rectal re-hydration. He sidestepped the gravity of the question entirely by saying he had “no knowledge” of that specific practice, but then he went straight to a defense of its hypothetical use on the grounds that it would have been necessary: “What are you prepared to do to get the truth against future attacks against the United States?” It’s a good question. What are you prepared to do? Are you prepared to threaten to rape someone’s mother? Are you prepared to make that threat within a context where it is credible? Are you prepared to carry through with that threat? If the answer is NO!, which it should be, then Mr. Cheney’s justification fails.

It’s also worth pointing out that Mr. Cheney’s “rebuttal” to the Senate report actually heightens the moral culpability of the United States government, as he spends great time arguing that the President was fully aware of everything he needed to be aware of. He denies that the CIA acted alone or simply went off track. He says it was very well-executed and in line with what the authorities instructed. That might be a kind of political point scored, but for moral onlookers it makes things worse not better.

Let’s be clear about this. The “partisan” nature of the Senate report has nothing at all to do with the identification of the “techniques.” The partisan nature has to do with where the blame should be put and the level of functionality and efficiency claimed for the program. But thus far no one disputes the depraved actions used to obtain information. You cannot skip that point. Anyone who does is irresponsibly avoiding the primary moral issue.

This is actually not the first we are hearing of such practices. If this were 2007 or 2008 one might have reasonable grounds to wait for more information to come out. But the evidence has piled up since then. In fact, the making and revealing of this report was staunchly opposed by many of the defenders of the US’s torture practices. They didn’t want more information back then. But more evidence has been available for some time. Eric Fair was a party to the torturing. He has been writing about the effects torture had on him since at least 2007. On Tuesday of this week he wrote:

Today, the Senate released its torture report. Many people were surprised by what it contained: accounts of waterboardings far more frequent than what had previously been reported, weeklong sleep deprivation, a horrific and humiliating procedure called “rectal rehydration.” I’m not surprised. I assure you there is more; much remains redacted.

This also isn’t the first time defenders of torture have reserved the right to employ the most barbarous methods if necessary. John Yoo was a high-ranking legal counsel to George W. Bush, the author of the “Torture Memos,” and a principal legal architect of the policies and methods used as enhanced interrogation. In 2005, wholly in the open and with no shame, he acknowledged that crushing the testicles of a suspect’s child was within the bounds of what the United States ought to be permitted to do:

Under the logic of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yoo’s view of presidential power, the president, as Commander in Chief, could direct the torture of a detainee’s innocent child in order to obtain his cooperation, and no law can stop him. This is no exaggeration, nor is it a proposition from which Mr. Yoo would retreat. In a December 1, 2005, debate with Notre Dame Professor Doug Cassel, Mr. Yoo stated the president could lawfully order “crushing the testicles of a person’s child”:
Mr. Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Mr. Yoo: No treaty.
Mr. Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Mr. Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
(Reining in the Imperial Presidency pg. 117-118)

If John Yoo will publicly claim for the US the right to crush the testicles of an innocent child, then it is not at all difficult to believe that the US would threaten to rape someone’s mother. In fact, Yoo’s fiendish imagination almost makes what really happened seem a relief. At least it was only a threat. But it was a threat given in a context where it was believable and where its credibility was essential to its effectiveness.

We also have to face the reality that such torture debases and degrades the torturer along with the one being tortured. Remember Eric Fair. Or how about those lower-ranking soldiers who were arrested? Remember Lynndie England, Megan Ambuhl, Charles Graner, and others. I have no problem saying that they were, at least for a time, moral monsters. But now we have to wonder how it was that they became moral monsters. It certainly seems as if they were molded into them. And make no mistake, their lives are forever ruined. They will never recover. They will never be “normal.”

In 2008, Michael Peppard showed that female serviceman degraded themselves sexually in order to degrade Guantánamo detainees. I won’t reprint the material here, for it is truly disturbing, but those who wish to read for themselves can find it towards the bottom of this essay. This week Mr. Peppard has again written on the subject, showing how the latest Senate Report demonstrates such methods were intentional and a consistent part of the program.

So again, back to the Vice President’s question. What are you willing to do? Are you willing to crush the testicles of a young boy? Are you willing to destroy the lives of American servicemen? Are you willing for your daughter to sexually degrade herself in an attempt to obtain information that a detainee may or may not possess? What are you willing to do? 

This all highlights the problem here for humans. Not for politicians. Not for abstract conversations. For humans with moral consciences responsible before a living God. There are some things that are off limits. These things are always evil. They are malum in se.

The Apostle Paul famously anticipates a certain sort of consequentialism in Rom. 3:8 saying, “And why not say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.” Notice that Paul says any suggestion that he affirms such an argument is slander. If something is evil per se, then it may not be used in the service of good. That’s a basic Biblical principle. There are lots of things that are not evil per se which are still “bad” and ordinarily off-limits. The taking of human life is such an item. Murder is evil per se, but not all taking of human life is murder. Capital punishment, as well as the taking of life in defense of other life immediately threatened is not murder. But what of sexual assault? That’s what I keep coming back to. Can one engage in sexual assault in order to save a life? The question is hard to take seriously. One obvious reason is because it cannot reasonably be conceived as “necessary” to do such an act. But it’s also because sexual assault is a special kind of evil that can never be justified, not under any circumstance.

There’s a saying popular in the legal community that goes like this: “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.” Conservatives right now who avoid the gravity of such immoral actions are currently pounding the table. They do not have the facts on their side. So they attack commentators. They do not even have the law on their side, certainly not the moral law of God. So they attack partisan motives or try to stir up competing emotions. They are pounding the table.

But this is a massive failure because this isn’t just an argument. We humans are not the only participants in this conversation. God is here. He is not mocked. He has eyes. He sees all. It does not matter if our enemies would have done the same thing to us. We are not judged by that standard. To suggest that the greatest existential need was to avoid the threat from those enemies is to actually miss the big picture. God is here. Fear Him.

Also, we have to remember that an immoral freedom is actually not freedom at all. It is a new kind of bondage. If we defeat our enemy only to discover that we have become very much like him, to learn that we are no longer honest and upright men, then we have not defeated the greatest enemy at all. We have succumb to his powers. To bend our wills and distort our consciences is not freedom.

What are you prepared to do? Are you prepared to sell your soul? Are you prepared to sear your conscience and forfeit your claim to justice?

And any Christian who is not worried about this fact right now needs to step away from the politics and draw near to their God.

This article was originally posted at Steven’s blog, Wedgewords.

Steven Wedgeworth is the pastor of Christ Church in Lakeland, FL. He is also a founder and general editor of The Calvinist International. A graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson, MS), a Presbyterian minister, and a classical school teacher, Steven lives in Lakeland, FL with his wife, son, and daughter.<>проверить ping а

Read more

On December 7, 2014 By In Culture, Politics

St. Ambrose: The Proto-Kuyperian

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (7.9MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

December 7th is the day set aside on the Church Calendar to remember St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.

Ambrose of Milan

st-ambrose-1While men like St. Athanasius defended the faith at the Council of Nicaea, the real work restoring orthodoxy throughout the empire required local hands. While the Church had clearly spoken and declared that arianism was heresy, many of the bishops installed around the world remained loyal to arianism. As Rev. Steve Wilkins often says, “heretics don’t listen to church councils.” The labors of the council would be for not if Christ did not raise up men in local jurisdictions to protect the word and church. One such man who would serve as a protector of the church against all such heresies was St. Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan.

Contemporary with the fourth century councils, St. Ambrose rose to the rank of Roman governor over the region of Liguria and Emelia. Titled the “Consular Prefect” Ambrose was headquartered in Milan, the functional capital of the western Roman empire. In such an influential seat, Ambrose had the attention and recognition of the emperors.

St. Ambrose the Proto-Kuyperian

The cornerstone of the Kuyperian worldview is the principle of sphere sovereignty, the idea that God has ordained the institutions around us (e.g. Church, State, Family) and given them limited authority and responsibilities. These spheres work together like cogwheels as God expresses his will through the created order. Ambrose himself set many of the sphere boundaries that will later be embraced by Kuyperian systems.

During Ambrose’s tenure as governor, Milan’s episcopal seat was maintained by an Arian Bishop. When he died, both factions of the Church sought to place their own man in the vacant seat. Recognizing that his place was a servant of the public, not a member of the clergy, Ambrose refused to take a side. Instead he made a plea for peace between the two parties and urged the people of Milan to choose a new bishop without violence. While Ambrose could have easily called down the power of the state to squash Arianism, he recognized that such an act would have been outside his office’s legitimate authority and purpose.

The people of Milan then did the unthinkable – they demanded the unbaptized Roman governor as their new Bishop. Ambrose fled to plead with the Emperor for any excuse out from under the miter. Having no imperial sympathies, Ambrose was baptized and finally succumbed to episcopal consecration on this day (December 7) in 375 AD.

Continuing in the proto-kuyperian theme, Ambrose recognized that in this new sphere of the state, his worldly titles and wealth would be an hindrance to the proper function as the overseer of Milan. Ambrose disposed of his worldly wealth by giving it to the poor and the church. All his silver and gold, his lands and estates were given away as he sought to focus himself on the ministry. Overnight, the once powerful Roman governor becomes Victor Hugo’s “Monseigneur Bienvenu.” His consistency alone is worthy of our admiration.

Bishop Ambrose vs the Emperors

As bishop, Ambrose was at liberty to take on the arian heresy and his efforts proved quite successful. They were, however, noticed as the Arian empress Justina maneuvered the child regent Valentinian II against his efforts. The emperor began to make laws showing lenience toward the arians and ordered Ambrose to give up two of his churches in Milan for arian use. Ambrose refused and upon being summoned to Valentian’s court was able to successfully defend his position.

Milan is then absorbed into Theodosius’s empire as he defends Valentinian II against the conquest of Magnus Maximus. Valentinian II continues to pressure Ambrose to provide for the arians and demands the Portian basilica. Ambrose responds by having his parishioners barricade themselves inside the basillica until the order is rescinded. Ambrose continues to maintain sovereignty of the church refusing to bow to the state’s demands of religious tolerance.

Ambrose’s civil disobedience is most famous in his excommunication of Emperor Theodosius, who oversaw the brutal massacre of 7,000 people in the city of Thessalonica. Ambrose refused the emperor access to the Lord’s table and demanded repentance. Ambrose is said to have met Theodosius at the door of the Church and said,

“It seems, sir, that you do not yet rightly apprehend the enormity of the massacre lately committed. Let not the splendour of your purple robes hinder you from being acquainted with the infirmities of that body which they cover. You are of the same mould with those subjects which you govern; and there is one common Lord and Emperor of the world. With what eyes will you behold his temple? With what feet will you tread his sanctuary? How will you lift up to him in prayer those hands which are still stained with blood unjustly spilt? Depart, therefore, and attempt not, by a second offence, to aggravate your former crime; but quietly take the yoke upon you which the Lord has appointed for you. It is sharp, but it is medicinal and conducive to your health.”  (Rev. Alban Butler (1711–73).  Volume XII: December. The Lives of the Saints.  1866.)

Ambrose gives the emperor eight months of penance, which he submits to from his palace.

The Legacy of St. Ambrose

St. Ambrose’s ministry serves to solidify the victory of trinitarian orthodoxy and serves as an example of what the proper relationship between church and state looks like. He was influential among emperors and loved by his people. In addition to his contributions as a bishop, he went on to write hymns and is traditionally credited with the hymn Te Deum, which is said to have been composed when he baptized St. Augustine. Ambrose is a champion of the faith and a worthy name to add to your family’s baby names list.

For more on St. Ambrose of Milan: click here for a lecture from Rev. Steve Wilkins of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church.

Ambrose2<>емейл маркетингпродвижения а в поисковиках

Read more

On November 26, 2014 By In Politics

The Christian with a $56 Million ISIS Bounty On His Head

In the midst of the chaos created by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), there is a particular Christian who has the Islamic radicals ruffled. ISIS leaders have even placed a $56 million bounty on his head. His name is Canon Andrew White and he is the vicar of the only Anglican Church in Iraq.

Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 1.22.49 AM

Can Christianity Survive in Iraq?

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Christian population in Iraq has faced a harsh and hellish struggle for survival in the war-torn state. The religious persecution has shrunk the Christian population in Iraq from over 1.5 million believers in 2003 to just a tiny fraction of that today. Christians have been forced out of the country and bombs have specifically targeted Christian churches. Priests and Bishops have faced the brunt of attacks as Islamic groups have attempted to discourage the faith that has existed in Iraq for 2,000 years.

The Vicar of Baghdad

Canon Andrew White, who is called the Vicar of Baghdad, began his peace work in Iraq in 1998 and then re-established St. George’s Church in Baghdad in 2005 in a post-Saddam Iraq. White’s church soon became the center of the community, offering hope to Iraqi Christians amid a dangerous and tumultuous environment. Through the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, Canon White was able to also provide a Church-based school and medical clinic. Called, “Aboona” or “father” by the people of his congregation, White has been kidnapped, shot at, and endured bombings – yet his heart continues to be focused on protecting the Christian minority in Iraq. Thousands from White’s congregation have left Baghdad since ISIS broke through and the Vicar can count over a thousand who have been killed from his congregation alone.

The Church in Danger

In October, Archbishop Justin Welby ordered White to return for fear of his life. Reluctantly, Canon White left Iraq for Jerusalem where he continues to be an advocate of peace and shed light on the struggles of the Christians in Iraq. As he watches his people suffer from afar, “Aboona” wants to return to Baghdad. While many ask, “Why would you go back when it’s so dangerous?” His answer is always “Because I love my people.”

The Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East (FRRME) supports the work of Canon Andrew White and provides humanitarian relief in Iraq through St. George’s Church and Clinic. Click here to find out you can help this cause. 

Read More about Canon Andrew White in a recent interview with the Huffington Post UK.<>как написать концепцию а

Read more

On November 21, 2014 By In Culture, Politics

Anglican Archbishop Asks Clergy Not to Sign First Things “Marriage Pledge”

The Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church of North America has released a statement urging members and clergy not to sign, “The Marriage Pledge” introduced by the writers at First Things. Archbishop Beach is asking for time for his bishops, clergy, and lay leaders “to consider the consequences of making such a commitment.”

The pledge introduced by Rev. Radner and Rev. Seitz at First Things is very compelling, the language  appeals to those of us who are frustrated with the judicial activism that has altered the meaning of marriage in too many states. The statement appeals to my inner libertarian with notions like, “We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates.” While at the same time reaffirming our love for the Church by an act of allegiance to the Christian definition of marriage, “We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ­articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.”

Doug Wilson has said of the pledge, “…Christians who tie the knot need to have more secure knots than the secularists do. If this pledge catches on, I can easily envision Christians being less bound, less obligated, less constrained, and less secure than Andrew Sullivan is in his mirage. In short, church weddings detached from the civil sphere are worthless unless the church is being given the contracted legal authority to adjudicate the divorce — property, custody, the works. Anything less than that is a sham and a farce.”

Read the statement from Archbishop Beach below:

“I am writing to you because there has been alot of discussion in recent days about taking “The Marriage Pledge.” If you have not been following the online conversation, you can read the Pledge here at First Things , as well as a critical commentary here on Doug Wilson’s blog.

Some of our bishops and clergy have been in favor of signing this pledge, some are not in favor of signing the pledge, while others need more time to consider the consequences of making such a commitment.

It would be best for us to take counsel together before taking further action. Therefore I ask that you do not sign this pledge until as bishops, clergy, and lay leaders we have had more opportunities to pray about and discuss the legal, theological, and sociological ramifications of signing such a statement.

I ask us all to join together in prayer for the preservation of a biblical understanding of marriage in our society, in specific prayers for the courts in North America, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court as these issues come before them. Even in the midst of different perspectives about the wisdom of signing the pledge, we can rejoice that all of this discussion is motivated by a strongly shared commitment to the sanctity of marriage as established by Our Lord in the Scriptures. It is often when the times seem darkest that God’s glory can be most clearly displayed.

Your brother at the Foot of the Cross,

Screen Shot 2014-11-21 at 10.59.50 AM

 

 

 

Archbishop and Primate
Anglican Church in North America”

<>neobrutгугл директ

Read more

On November 13, 2014 By In Culture, Politics

Unfortunate Boss: Springsteen’s Real Problem

Bruce Springsteen is one of my favorite songwriters. He and the E Street Band have been a musical inspiration to me for a number of years now. This doesn’t mean I like all of his material – in fact, there’s quite a bit I don’t like – but approximately 70 songs of his are top notch in my estimation. As spectacular as Springsteen’s live performances are, perhaps his greatest skill is his lyrical storytelling. He is able to communicate depths of human emotion in profound ways and he frequently centers on themes of faith, hope, and redemption. Fans will acknowledge a spiritual element in Springsteen’s music, even describing his concerts in terms of a religious experience. Springsteen’s lyrics may also be meaningful in the lives of many Christians, regardless of his own religious affiliation or lack thereof.

Over the years Springsteen has become known for political activism. With the hit song, “Born in the USA,” Springsteen entered into the arena of public policy, proving that he isn’t afraid to criticize our elected leaders. This week, he sparked controversy for covering Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son” at a patriotic event in Washington, D.C. The song has anti-war undertones and takes jabs at the political elite. But this is by no means a bad thing! Politicians are not above reproach and we do well to expose immorality. In fact, libertarians and constitutionalists may argue that there is nothing more patriotic than decrying the abuses of power we witness day in and day out. (more…)

Read more

On September 29, 2014 By In Politics, Theology

My Debt to Christian Reconstructionism

I came to Reformed theology through a very different door. While many of my friends were coming to it through the mainline Reformational figures–R.C. Sproul, et al.–I came through the doors of Christian Reconstructionism. I had heard and read Gary North before I ever heard of the popular Calvinist names of John MacArthur and John Piper. The first Gary North article I read as a young college student was on six-day creationism. At the time I felt rather offended by the suggestion. There was a type of dogmatism in Gary’s words that left an impression on me. It was not just that six-day creationism was right, it was that it was needed for all of life. Looking back, I think I am today much more sympathetic to that claim than when I first read it. I now pastor a congregation whose denomination embraces six-day creationism. But it wasn’t that which drew my attention. It was the claim that the Christian faith needed a cohesive, all encompassing paradigm. I was used to separating matters. And the thing about matter is that it is composed of atoms. And atoms are happily atomized. Keeping things distant from each other helped create this divided theology. What hath creation to do with eschatology? I answer this question very differently today because of Christian Reconstructionism.

North was on to something. He still is today publishing vociferously. He is filled with youthful vigor as he writes 2-3 essays a day. The man truly redeems the time. It was through North that I heard about Christian Reconstructionism. A friend of mine from college had been engaged with that movement for some time, and so one day he came into my room and offered me his Christian Recons. collection of journals. I took them all. I still have a few today. Most of them are available on-line for free. CR (Christian Reconstructionism) opened a vast world. In it, there was rich Reformed theology. There was the sovereignty of God topic, usually summarized b y the TULIP, but in the CR world that sovereignty spoke to areas like economics, history, education, and more. I had previously been exposed to the sovereignty of God only over individual salvation. I fought that battle for a while, but eventually gave in. It was too persuasive. Thanks to Michael Horton’s Putting Amazing Back into Grace. a But then CR told me that the sovereignty of God needed to be even more prominent in my thinking. How prominent? As prominent as the world. It further taught me that Reformed is not enough. That is, you cannot simply live with your systematic theology tattooed all over your body (metaphorically speaking), but you needed it tattooed all over the world. The law of God needed to be more than a reminder of an objective standard, but a reality lived out by the nations.

In short, CR’s emphasis on the totality of Jesus for all of life consumed me. It still does to this day. Differences aside–and I do have concerns; concerns with how that theology is articulated and pastorally communicated within the vestiges of this movement–the CR movement opened the world to me. I had been isolated for a long time. My denominational loyalties kept me imprisoned to a narrow view of life that lacked beauty and didn’t translate into much tangible fruit. But with CR, I was always struck by how much a small movement had produced. The movement was not new per se. It came from a long line of thinkers. Calvin embraced some of it in his Deuteronomy Commentary–though at other places he seems to contradict himself; I do have a theory as to why–ask me–Bucer spoke unabashedly about theocratic principles, the Puritans thought that the Gospel needed to be far more than a heart declaration, but a declaration that needed to affect its environment in tangible ways.

As the years have passed, I’ve had the privilege to meet many of these modern Reconstructionists, though I never met R.J. Rushdoony. My admiration continues for many of their insights. And many of those insights seem to be even more relevant today as this nation continues to entangle itself morally, socially, and in other ways in a fashion that belittles its glorious Puritan heritage.

CR led me to where I am today. It taught me to see the world in a more wholistic fashion. It taught me to appreciate elements of this world that I never thought would interest me. Paul says we are to give honor where honor is due. As I get a bit older and reflect upon my last 15 years of theological engagement I become more grateful for those early influences. I am learning not to despise them, despite some differences. I am learning to appreciate their incredible hard work in doing, saying, writing, and speaking ideas that were and are so contrary to the current evangelical ethos.

With this in mind, I’d like to offer five Reconstructionist principles that have helped me to think more biblically and that have shaped me today. Many outside of the CR movement may share these same ideas, but they were and are very central to Reconstructionist ideals. And yes, I am aware that CRs differ on a host of issues.

First, I am indebted to the labors of James B. Jordan b who taught me to think about the world through new eyes. Jim has always emphasized a healthy biblicism. He argues that the reason so many in the evangelical world fail to understand the implications of the Bible is because they suffer from a flawed hermeneutic. They have atomized revelation because they have failed to see the thread that runs through all of Scriptures. JBJ says that God’s revelation is not a piece of literature, it is God’s word, which means that it is layered with great mysteries that only the wise can see. Jim argues for the lunacy of unbelief. The reason unbelievers cannot understand the Bible is because without the Bible they are profoundly insane. It’s not that they can’t understand truth nor that they are incapable of saying anything true, but rather that they are theologically insane, and hence incapable of coherently formulating or speaking harmoniously truthful about the world.

Second, I am indebted to Gary North’s principles of economics. Though he has written so much about capitalism and its implications in society, I am more interested in his economic focus for the Church. His writings on tithing and its implication for the Church have shaped my understanding of the centrality of the Church. North argued that the Church is the center of charity.

Third, I am indebted to Rushdoony’s powerful expositions on the nature of education and the necessity of a distinctly Christian understanding of the Lordship of Jesus over the training and nurturing of our children (Deut. 6). Rushdoony says that education is inescapably messianic. Your children are either being nurtured by the true Messiah or a false one.

Fourth, I am indebted to Greg Bahnsen’s powerful ways of communicating Van Til’s apologetic. Were it not for Bahnsen’s popularizing of Van Til, Van Til would have remained a figure at Westminter Seminary’s archives. I know that some have continued Van Til’s legacy without the help of CR, but what was unique about Bahnsen’s popularizing of Van Til was that he saw Van Til’s model of “no neutrality” applying to a host of issues, beyond the apologetics methodology debate.

Finally, I am indebted to Gary Demar’s American Vision ministries (I should add the late David Chilton). It was through Gary’s book, Last Days Madness, that I was awakened to the flaws of Dispensational theology and the richness of Preterism. Gary has dedicated much of his career to awakening the evangelical mind to an alternative eschatology. His words have not gone unheeded. Many have begun to question their understanding of Revelation, and adopting a more consistent biblical method for understanding that glorious book.

For these reasons, and I am certain many others could be mentioned, I am indebted to Christian Reconstructionism. Reformed Theology has been enriched by the contributions of these scholars.<>продвижение а план

  1. The irony here is that Horton is decidedly anti-Reconstructionist  (back)
  2. some of these figures like James Jordan are no longer a part of that movement, though he was a very influential figure in it in the early days  (back)

Read more

On September 23, 2014 By In Politics

The Image of God Recommends Them To You

Guest post by Mark Nenadov

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34, ESV)

In his 1867 speech in Boston, Frederick Douglass said:

“If we would reach a degree of civilization higher and grander than any yet attained, we should welcome to our ample continent all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples…The outspread wings of the American eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are likely to come.”

Christians don’t speak with one clear voice on immigration policy. Our exegesis, political theory, experiences, prejudices, vocations, and economic situations seem to guarantee that. And that is OK.

At a bare minimum, though, I believe Christians should share something of Douglass’ optimism. It ought to be grounded not so much in trust of human nature as trust in God’s sovereignty and His graciousness to the nations in Jesus Christ. We North Americans have an “ample continent” which can welcome many “outsiders” and we will have no claim on being “exceptional” if we don’t make our place welcoming. In theologically conservative circles there are sadly few who possess such optimism. The shrill voice of the “nativist alarmist” is raised in every generation. And it is ugly.

I have no desire to tell you how to vote or what concrete policy positions to support. I’m just sharing thoughts which will hopefully help you think “Christianly” in this area. Before proceeding, let me tell you something about myself. It doesn’t make me any less or more of an authority on this matter, but perhaps it will interest you. I’m a first generation Canadian, the son of immigrants from the former Yugoslavia. My dad left his country illegally because it was about to arrest him for his religious principles.

1. Don’t forget your past (or your status)

In my mind, at the root of the problematic thinking on immigration that is so prevalent among theologically conservative Christians is a basic forgetfulness.

First, there is forgetfulness about our indebtedness to (and dependence on) God’s gracious disposition in our direction. That’s when pride and a sour nationalism creeps in.

Second, there is a forgetfulness of the basic dignity which is tied to the fact that humans are made in the image of God.

Third, it is easy for us to forget how tenuous our “nativist” identity is. Even if your family was here “going way back”, you might be surprised to learn how marginal and “outsider” your roots really are. It’s often not hard to find a “break” in a “nativist” pedigree.

Fourth, it is easy to forget how non-mainstream and marginal our religious or cultural affiliation really is. For example, as a Baptist, I must always remember how Baptists were once been regarded as outsiders. In the early 19th century, several states imposed “dissenter” taxes on Baptist ministers. Baptists also couldn’t hold public offices at times. And that’s just the situation in North America. Baptists often did not fare very well in Europe, either. Historical research is a great antidote against ignorant and boastful nativism.

2. Beware of sensationalistic statistics and slogans

I was once researching old newspapers from my town here in Ontario, Canada, and I found a political ad from the 1920s. It said: “Canada is for Canadians…stop the alarming tide of immigration.” With a touch of humour, the competing politician observed that the majority of immigrants were actually from the British Isles. While I am sure some things have gotten worse since the 1920s, I’m glad for progress in this area. Canadian politicians do not feel free to be so overtly xenophobic today. Though, I must say when I survey North American political discourse, I’m still amazed at how free politicians still feel to play the “nativist” card!

Let’s dig into U.S. history a bit. In 1845, the U.S. Nativist Party spoke of a troubling “onslaught” of Irish Catholics — 1.7 million Irish Catholic immigrants who “crowded the shores of the United States.” Similar anecdotes could be shared regarding fears of Jewish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, or German immigrants. Of course, such “concerning” statistics seem laughable today. Especially in light of how many millions upon millions of people have immigrated to North American since then. However, we would do well to recognize the extent to which we are confronted with thinly veiled messages which, while perhaps a bit more sophisticated, convey the same spirit. In each generation, the alarmists know how to dress up statistics and platitudes to spread fear and xenophobia.

Of course, it is not wrong to use immigration statistics. In fact, they can be genuinely alarming in that they call out serious logistical, policy-making, or humanitarian challenges. However, they should never propel us to hatred or “tight-fistedness.” We need to keep up a healthy optimism. God created a glorious world and He is in control. He didn’t create a zero-sum world. The world is full of God’s wondrous works. Don’t let fear-mongers fool you into wasting your time with foolishness which leads to slavish fears.

3. Beware of common but false assumptions

Not everything that is popularly repeated is true. Nor is everything that is intuitive. Nor is everything that aligns with our anecdotal experiences. Here are two common but false assumptions about immigration:

A. “Immigration is bad for the economy”
On the contrary, economists generally believe that immigration leads to increases in productivity and growth for all parties in the economy. For more information on this, review Building a Wall around the Welfare State, Instead of the Country. 60% of the top 25 technology companies have been founded or co-founded by first or second generation immigrants. Who knows what other amazing developments will come at the hands of immigrants in the future!

B. “Muslims are taking over the West and are not assimilating”
This is a pervasive myth, and one with a certain amount of plausibility. However, Doug Sanders’ work has shown that many of these “popular assumptions” are either inaccurate or exaggerated. Though I reject the Islamic religion and its truth claims and hate the “political correctness” that shuns the critique of religious beliefs, I must say that many of the commonly held fears about Muslim immigration are based more upon anecdotal evidence than any sort of trustworthy analysis. Muslim birthrates are rapidly falling. Doug Sanders suggests that even if the immigration rates stay constant, Europe is unlikely to surpass a 10% Muslim population. And while Muslim immigrants often initially have differing views than their host countries, their opinions tend to converge with those of their new neighbours. Generation by generation, they’re assimilating quicker than many assume. Sanders also notes that about 40% of American Muslims have University degrees–about twice as many as the overall national average.

Whatever we might make of Sanders’ findings, I believe Christians ought to have an evangelical optimism about Muslim immigration. Many Muslims who can’t (safely) hear the gospel in their homelands, through immigration, now have an opportunity to hear the gospel. If North American Christians will take it to them, that is. Personally, it is disturbing that some are so consumed by a Muslim “threat” that they seem unable to even rejoice in (let alone participate in) this gospel opportunity. For instance, a PCA minister recently claimed that mass conversion of Muslims is “not Biblically doable” (his article, in Charisma News, has been subsequently taken down).

We would do well to remember the prayer of the RCA minister Samuel Zwemer:

“Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son in the Muslim world, and fulfill through him the prayer of Abraham thy friend, ‘O, that Ishmael might live before thee.’ For Jesus’ sake. Amen.”

Some final thoughts

Whether or not you agree with everything I’ve said here, I hope that this article will help you think through these issues.

Let us remember that God’s people, in many seasons of history, have been and are pilgrims and strangers, and so our treatment of others should reflect sensitivity to those in the same situation.

We need to do some serious thinking on the immigration issue on a level that is more basic than merely that of a policy discussion. No matter what policies we may wish to support, we Christians must proceed under the Lordship of Christ. Why should we be concerned about the immigrant? As John Calvin said, it is “the image of God, which recommends him to you” (Institutes, 3.7.6).

Read more