1. First, the issue of gay marriage and Christian Faith will not go away and it will continue to shape the public debate.
2. Second, every church in America will at some point be forced to take a stand on this issue one way or the other.

I have spent a lot of time contemplating this post.  The issue is a lot more clear in my head, so what follows is my best attempt to put my Faith into writing.

First, My Faith is Not Political

This, to me, is the most fundamental point to the issue of gay marriage.  I have written a lot on about the politics of Faith over the past years, so I will leave it to you, the reader, to do some research so you can understand this point (a good starting point is the articles linked at the bottom of this post or use the Category “Politics” to refine your search).  Christianity, in its truest form, is quite dissimilar from the other major world religions when it comes to politics.  The little chart below shows the fundamental difference.

Faith Comparison of Major Religions

Most important to notice is that Christianity is the only major religion that is NOT political.  In contrast, Judaism IS a political religion, but NOT evangelistic and Islam is BOTH Political and Evangelistic.

Israel, for example, is the political expression of Judaic faith, but they make no attempt to convert the Muslim or Christian citizens of Israel to their faith.  Nor do they force their citizens to observe Jewish Torah.

Islam is BOTH Political and Evangelistic.  Pick any Muslim country in the world (Turkey being the most moderate example) and you will see a legitimate interpretation of Islamic faith in action.  Mohammad is the first and best example.  He established the first Islamic State, Medina, in the middle 7th Century.  Islam is both concerned with Political power and converting non-belivers to follow Allah.

Christianity, as defined by Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and the New Testament, is NOT Political, but only concerned with taking the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus to those who do not have it.  Jesus refused to establish himself as a political leader and his first Apostles followed his example.  Christianity is decidedly apolitical in its nature. Our goal is Evangelistic (which means to spread to the good news), but not to convert people to a political view.

I will pick up on this point in another time, but suffice to say, this is why I think Conservative Evangelicalism in America has bastardized what it means to be a Disciple of the Messiah Jesus. Conservative Evangelicalism in its current incarnation has conflated politics, and Democracy, with the true evangelistic mission of Christian Faith.

Second, My Faith is Not Legal

This is another area where so many Christians get confused because of poor teaching over the past decades.  Too many confuse the Old Testament, which tells the history of the Jews, with the politics of America.  Simply put, The Old Testament theocracy and Torah (Law) was meant to bring Israel to the realization that no Law can make the heart of Man righteous.  The Law of the Old Covenant between God and Israel illustrated that no legal system can make people good.  Each person needs to be remade in the Image of God, not subjected to a form of government.  Thus, all the Law pointed to Jesus as the Savior and hope of mankind.

Judaism, as it is lived out today, does not see a need for Jesus as Messiah and so they live out their faith through either the politics of Israel, or through obedience to a set of Laws they find consistent with the Torah.

Islam, because it is both Political and Evangelistic, lives out their law and enforces it on others.  That is why we find Homosexuals hanged or killed in Muslim countries for their “sin” of homosexuality.  It is why Islamic countries have laws that force women to wear head coverings and stone women to death for sex outside of marriage.

Faith in Jesus, in contrast, recognizes that no matter how good our laws our, they are not enough to change the heart of people.  It is the great irony of American Evangelicalism that so many people think that if they pass a law to prohibit gay marriage, they will somehow keep the country “pure.”  But even God with his perfect Law (Torah) could not purify Israel.  This is why so much of the Evangelical furvor against homsexual marriage makes no sense.  It is an attempt to live out a Legalistic faith instead of an Evangelistic one.

Finally, Where I Stand

So given this understanding of my Faith, here is where I stand.

1. Christianity is not political, yet we live in a democracy.  Out of respect to the political powers in authority over me, I do feel obligated to vote my conscience.  However, there are two caveats to this point.

First, I do not find any foundation in the teachings of Jesus or in the teachings of the New Testament that would allow me to persuade others to share my political conscience.  In other words, it does not fit with my personal faith to endorse or create any “Christian” Political Action Committees to oppose gay marriage.  I do not think it is of any value to donate money to candidates who share my faith.  I do no support any advertisement campaign to “raise public awareness,” engage the “culture war” or persuade people to vote against gay marriage.  These are the methods of politicians, not Christians.

Second, if push comes to shove, I would gladly give up my right to vote at all if it caused anyone to stumble and think my faith in Jesus was in any way political or legal.  Voting my conscience is NOT my primary obligation.  My first obligation is to be an Ambassador to Jesus, not an emissary of the political Right (or Left) of America.

2. Christianity is not legalistic, so while I trust the biblical teaching that homosexuality is a sin, passing a law against homosexuality or against homosexual marriage is not my mission.  My mission is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  My only obligation is to share the Good News of Jeuss and then I must allow the Holy Spirit to convict others of both their sin and the path of righteousness. This is hard for legalistic-Evangelicals, because they would rather be in control and force others to follow their rules even if they do not share their heart.  But the message of Christ, and Him Crucified, is that our Heavenly Father wants to restore our hearts and then lead us into right action—not the other way around.

In short, it does not matter if gay marriage is legal or illegal in America.  The legality of this State sanctioned contract does not change my mission; it only shows how big my mission is.

Within the Christian community there is a small, but growing, contingent who have chosen to align themselves with the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered community. This billboard from Missiongathering Church in California takes a strong stand that any church which opposes gay marriage is “narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, and manipulative.”
You can read an interview with their pastor Alex Roller to get more info. But clearly, not all religious traditions share the same values and approach to marriage as a social contract.

With all of these radical changes to the social structure coming so quickly, I find myself, a resident of California, compelled to write a few short articles on this topic.  I say compelled because my biggest concern is that in writing about gay marriage in America, it will become too much the focus of this blog or my faith in general.   Despite this concern, I find it necessary to speak out.

…a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another.

But is Michaelson right?  Is this really the meaning and context for the Hebrew word “toevah”  I suggest he is wrong for a variety of reasons.  In making my point, I only need to analyze this one simple sentance.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice.

1. Michaelson Can’t Count

This is just a real basic point, but the term “toevah” occurs 117 times in the Hebrew Bible, not 103.  This, in and of itself, is a minor point, but gives me pause in trusting Michaelson’s ability to deal with more difficult issues.  For the record, the following diagrams show the frequency and occurrences of toevah (click the image to see it larger).

okay, so now on to the real problems with Michaelson’s article.

2.  Michaelson Creates a False Dichotomy

It has long been the contention of Homsexual advocates that while the Bible condemns the cultic forms of homosexuality (ie homosexuality in worship to false gods), it never condemns the “loving act” of sex between two men or two women.  Michaelson writes:

In five instances, Ezekiel mentions toevah together with both idolatry and zimah or znut, “whoredom” (Ez. 16:22, 16:36, 16:58, 23:26, 43:8), strongly suggesting that the nature of sexual toevah is not mere lewdness, and certainly not loving intimate expression, but sexuality in a cultic context

Michaelson is not the first to make these self-serving interpretations.

John J. McNeill³², James Nelson³³ and Peter Coleman³⁴ argue that the specific instructions given in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, which are part of the Holiness Code, must be understood in the context of cultic defilement. This is supported by biblical commentaries on Leviticus by Martin Noth³⁵ and Norman Snaith³⁶, and by Marvin Pope’s article on “Homosexuality” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.³⁷ The use of the Hebrew word ‘abomination’ [to ‘ebah] in this context clearly relates this to Canaanite idolatry and to the rituals–sexual or otherwise–practiced in it.³⁸ Israel’s prostitution and sexual practices characteristic of Canaanite fertility worship. Such sexual rituals expressed the view that sexuality was a mysterious sacred power, related to the power of the deity that was worshiped. This is why Canaanite worship frequently involved overt sexual acts. Israel was required to reject all such pagan practices both to affirm the transcendence of God and to distinguish Him from all creaturely powers.

The conclusion that is drawn from this is that with the change of the social horizon, such injunctions are no longer valid. Or if they are, the reason for their continuing applicability must be found elsewhere than their inclusion in the Levitical Holiness Code.

Trinity College and Seminary. Global Journal Volume 1, Trinity College and Seminary, 1999; 2006.

The problem here is that this interpretation makes no sense. If God is only condemning cultic-behavior, and not the act itself, then how do we understand this passage?

““You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. ” (Leviticus 18:19–25, ESV)

It is true that often the religious (cultic) nature of these acts is lost on the modern mind.

Modern readers of the ot doubtless miss occasionally the import of Canaanite idolatry. The worship of a Canaanite god or goddess was no minor blemish in Israel’s history. Besides having a devastatingly debasing effect on the practitioner, the acts of worship, which included male and female cultic prostitutes in hetero- and homosexual liaisons, were fundamentally opposed to the worship of the living God, and were, in fact, acts of treason against his suzerainty. R. K. Harrison, after describing the gross and savage worship system of the Canaanites, concludes that “its sordid and debased nature stand in marked contrast to the high ethical ideals of Israel. The absolute lack of moral character in the Canaanite deities made such corrupt practices as ritual prostitution, child sacrifice, and licentious worship the normal expression of religious devotion and fervor. In consequence there could be no compromise between the morality of the God of Israel and the debased sensuality of Canaanite religion”

Harris, R. Laird, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.

However, this does not mean these actions are abomination only in cultic context.  if God is only condemning as “taboo” the cultic practice of these actions, then does Michaelson also find acceptable for Christians to practice non-religious forms of child sacrifice when it is not done to Molech?  If it is okay for two Christian men to have sex when it is “loving”, is it also acceptable for a Christian woman to have sex with an animal if it is a “loving act” of shared intimacy?  This passage must be interpreted as a whole and taking one part out of context to serve ones sexual passions does not represent a Christian approach to applying Scripture.

Michaelson’s invocation of the “cultic clause” is simply foolishness in light of how these passages are revealed to us by YHWH.  There is no “right” way to worship God when we abuse our sexuality; that is the message of what God decrees as toevah.

3. Michaelson Fails to Take Seriously the Decrees of God

Ultimately the problem is that Michaelson, and homosexual advocates who are looking for any excuse to justify their sin, simply don’t take seriously the commands of God.  Michaelson asks, “is toevah a cultural taboo or abomination?”.  I think this passage from Ezekiel makes it clear, YHWH takes toevah very seriously and it is not just a cultural taboo.

““Thus says the Lord God: This is Jerusalem. I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. And she has rebelled against my rules by doing wickedness more than the nations, and against my statutes more than the countries all around her; for they have rejected my rules and have not walked in my statutes. Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you are more turbulent than the nations that are all around you, and have not walked in my statutes or obeyed my rules, and have not even acted according to the rules of the nations that are all around you, therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, even I, am against you. And I will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. And because of all your abominations I will do with you what I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again. Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds. Therefore, as I live, declares the Lord God, surely, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations, therefore I will withdraw. My eye will not spare, and I will have no pity. A third part of you shall die of pestilence and be consumed with famine in your midst; a third part shall fall by the sword all around you; and a third part I will scatter to all the winds and will unsheathe the sword after them. “Thus shall my anger spend itself, and I will vent my fury upon them and satisfy myself. And they shall know that I am the Lord—that I have spoken in my jealousy—when I spend my fury upon them. ” (Ezekiel 5:5–13, ESV)

Application

I will let the Scripture speak directly to Michaelson, and anyone who shares his view, on the meaning of toevah.

“A desire fulfilled is sweet to the soul, but to turn away from evil is an abomination to fools. ” (Proverbs 13:19, ESV)

 

“Those of crooked heart are an abomination to the Lord, but those of blameless ways are his delight. ” (Proverbs 11:20, ESV)

 

“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. ” (Proverbs 6:16–19, ESV)

 

“The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but he loves him who pursues righteousness. ” (Proverbs 15:9, ESV)

 

“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord. Why should a fool have money in his hand to buy wisdom when he has no sense? ” (Proverbs 17:15–16, ESV)

 

“Whoever plans to do evil will be called a schemer. The devising of folly is sin, and the scoffer is an abomination to mankind. If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work? ” (Proverbs 24:8–12, ESV)

 

“An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, but one whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked. ” (Proverbs 29:27, ESV)

Homosexuality is abomination. The Christian Right says so all the time, and non-religious LGBT activists say it too, to relegate religion to humanity’s dustheap. After all, isn’t that what it says in the Bible?

No—and progressive religionists should not use the word. It’s a mistranslation and a misconception, doing harm to LGBT people and religious people alike.

After his brief survey of how the Hebrew is used in a few select passages (no footnotes or authoritative sources are cited) Michaelson concludes:

Personally, I like “taboo” as a replacement. It conveys the culturally relative nature of toevah, has some connotation of foreignness, and rightly aligns the taboo against homosexuality with taboos against, for example, eating unkosher food. It also has a vaguely archaic feel, which it should. Admittedly, “taboo” began as tabu, and specifically refers to a particular concept in Pacific indigenous religion; it is a bit inexact to import it to Judaism and Christianity. Yet the word has, by now, entered the common parlance, and in that general sense, it matches toevah fairly well. (Alternatively, we could stick with the Hebrew term, the foreignness of which heightens the foreignness of the biblical concerns about homosexuality.) One thing remains clear, though: what’s really abominable here is the word “abomination” itself.

The substance of Michaelson’s argument is this:

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.

Elsewhere, Deuteronomy 7:25-26 commands:

[Y]ou shall burn the statues of their gods in fire. Do not desire the silver and gold on them and take it onto yourself, else you be snared by it, for it is a toevah to YHVH your God. And you shall not bring toevah to your home

Deut. 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 27:15, and 32:16 further identify idolatry, child sacrifice, witchcraft, and other “foreign” practices as toevah, and Deut. 20:18 says that avoiding toevah justifies the genocide of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanaites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. So, toevah is serious, but it is serious as a particular class of cultic offense: a transgression of national boundary. It is certainly not “abomination.”

The blog invited comment, so I wrote the following:

Hi, I have a question. The way I read your article, you are suggesting that homosexuality was nothing more than a cultural taboo. In our time, we should no longer consider it taboo any more than the food restrictions on Israel. Am I reading you right?

If that is the case, my question centers around this list you produced of verses that use the term you translate as “taboo”.

“Deut. 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 27:15, and 32:16 further identify idolatry, child sacrifice, witchcraft, and other “foreign” practices as toevah”

So do you also accept child sacrifice as a culturally acceptable practice for Christians since it is merely “taboo” and not an abomination?

Thanks

PS
This is my first time on your blog, so if I am missing some key context to your post, please let me know. Thanks.

More than a week has passed and neither RD Magazine nor Michaelson has chosen to post my question or respond to it.  Despite Michaelson’s stated credentials (he claims to be completing his Ph.D. in Jewish Thought at Hebrew University) he has made many substantive errors and critical omissions in his analysis.  I will address these in a future post, but for now I am interested in some input.  Please read his entire post and tell me…

1. What is your overall impression of his article?
2. Do you find his arguements about the “mistranslation” of “abomination” persuasive?  Why or why not?

Post your comments here or if you are too shy, you can always email me.

According to a recent court decision , Kentucky clergy fearful of armed robbers stealing the collection money can now carry concealed guns in church. Ministers and priests of rural churches lobbied state lawmakers to allow them to carry concealed guns after the clergy was left out of a 1996 law allowing concealed weapons in Kentucky. The amendment recently passed in the House by 76-9 and is due to be signed into law by Gov. Paul Patton April 15.

As I read this story, I could hardly believe what I was reading. I find it hard to imagine that Paul would instruct the early church to defend their wealth by killing people. I was always under the impression that our job was to spread the gospel of salvation, not kill the people who need to hear it.

If carrying a gun is required to be an effective pastor, then I am sadly unprepared. They never taught me this in seminary? Is this really what being a pastor is all about? I don’t even own a gun!!

Talk show hosts are already poking fun at the image this creates. Even Jay Lenno can see the inherent contradiction in this policy, why can’t those who are supposed to be lead by God’s spirit???

Let us consider some of the consequences if this becomes church policy:

I wonder if this will help create a new market for clergy-wear? Maybe pastors will carry specially anointed holsters with little crosses on them that say,

“God forgives, Pastors pack heat!”

“For God so loved the World, he gave us guns.”"

I wonder if there will be a special blessing which pastors can offer the thief as he pumps lead into him? Some possible blessings might be,

“God created us to have fellowship, now its time to meet your maker!”

“Faith comes by hearing, but its too late for you”

- With this new law, l have no doubt there will have to be special warning signs on the entrance to the Church? Here are a few suggestions that these churches might want to consider,

“God can’t protect us all, that is why we have Smith & Wesson!”

“We preach the gospel according to Colt 45″

-The above is not just fodder for the joke machines, but hopefully spurs us to think of the message we teach by the actions we take. We as the Body of Christ must ask ourselves what kind of theology produces a pastor that needs the power of the pistol over the power of the Gospel.

Do we no longer believe that God is able to protect us against the wrath of the world? When God said we preach a gospel of peace, maybe He did not take into account what our world would be like today? Certainly this is a radically defective view of God and his sovereignty. Has God brought the sinner to the church for salvation or damnation?

As Americans we certainly have a right to bear arms, but maybe if pastors and congregations would spend more time on their knees, they would not have to spend so much time on the firing range?

The problem is that “freedom” has shifted the focus of our Faith celebration away from grace.

Francis Schaeffer traces the roots of this philosophical shift during the late 18th and 19th centuries… a critical time in the founding of our nation.

After the Renaissance-Reformation period the next crucial stage was reached at the time of Rousseau (1712-78) and of Kant (1724-1804), although there were of course many others in the intervening period who could well be studied.

By the time we come to Kant and Rousseau, the sense of the autonomous is fully developed. So we find now that the problem was formulated differently. This shift in the wording of the formulation shows, by itself, the development of the problem. Whereas previously men had spoken of nature and grace, by the eighteenth century there was no idea of grace — the word did not fit any longer. Rationalism was now well-developed and entrenched, and there was no concept of revelation in any area. Consequently the problem was now defined, not in terms of “nature and grace,” but of “nature and freedom”

This is a titanic change, expressing a secularized situation. Nature has totally devoured grace, and what is left in its place “upstairs” is the word “freedom.”…

In the above diagram, freedom and nature are both now autonomous. The individual’s freedom is seen not only as freedom without the need of redemption, but as absolute freedom.

The fight to retain freedom is carried on by Rousseau to an extreme. He and those who follow him express in their literature and art a casting aside of civilization as that which is restraining man’s freedom. This is the birth of the Bohemian ideal. These thinkers feel the pressure “downstairs” of man as a machine. Naturalistic science becomes a very heavy weight — an enemy. Freedom is beginning to be lost. So these men, who are not really modem men as yet — and so have not accepted the fact that they are only machines — begin to hate science. They long for freedom even if the freedom makes no sense, and thus autonomous freedom and the autonomous machine stand facing each other.

Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer : A Christian Worldview. (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1996).

This concept of absolute Freedom for the individual (and nation) shaped America’s Founders and sowed the seeds for the American Revolution. The desire for unbridled  Freedom undergirds our modern American culture and, in the Church at large, has replaced any meaningful belief in the superseding power of Divine-grace. Few churches offer ‘more than cake’ when it comes to teaching the fundamental difference between America’s version of Freedom and YHWH’s Grace.  We have allowed the culture to idealize Freedom and instead of offering God’s alternative of Grace, the Church has simply chosen to offer a spiritualized freedom (Freedom + jesus).

The masses long for Freedom, yet economic chaos and global war have proven politicians to be false prophets of a false hope.  The church is in decline because She has compromised grace and offers nothing more significant than Jesus eating apple pie and saluting the Red White and Blue.  The Church has unwittingly fostered the rise of freedom and demise of grace.

This 4th of July, my prayer is that we, the people of God, set aside our dalliance with Freedom and return to our love of Grace.

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven;
but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matt. 7:21.

As we prepare to move from a small town outside of Seattle, WA to a much larger city near San Diego, CA, I am thinking a lot about my mission and calling to the Church.  Louis Berkhof in his essay titled “The Church And Social Problems” addresses two key points that are shaping my own thoughts about the future.

First, the Church Must be The Agent of God’s Love

…it is the duty of the Church to exemplify her teachings in this respect in her own social life. Example is stronger than precept. Social injustice, social sins, social misery may find no fertile soil, no congenial atmosphere in her midst. A spirit of true brotherhood must prevail. Her erring and wayward should be guided with loving hand to the Cross of Christ and guarded against evil influences. The spirit of Cain should be banished. Her rich should find their chiefest joy in ministering to the poor, thus fulfilling the law of Christ: “Bear ye one another’s burdens, in order that they may once hear the blessed word of our Lord: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” And in that way her poor will become ever increasingly conscious that their Father in heaven provides for them, and their lowly dwellings will resound with the songs of grateful hearts. O what a different world this would already be, if all the members of the Church of Christ lived conscientiously according to the precepts of their heavenly Lord!

L Berkhof, B. D., The Church and Social Problems (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 19.

Second, The Church Must Engage the People in Our Cities

…the Church should not neglect to bring the gospel to the submerged masses in the downtown districts of our great cities. The missionary activity of the Church has taken on magnificent proportions in these days, and we certainly have reasons to be thankful for it; but let us not close our eyes to the fact that the Church is shamefully negligent at home. Men who know, men who labored in foreign fields and have also visited some of the tenement districts of our large cities, tell us that conditions in some parts of our cities are worse than those found in gentile lands. What a terrible indictment against our boasted civilization; but also, what a fearful charge against the Church; what an imperative call to duty! It is part of the Church’s task to go out into the highways and hedges, into the streets and the lanes of the city to bring in the poor and the maimed and the halt and the blind.

L Berkhof, B. D., The Church and Social Problems (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 19.

We are losing the cultural battle and far too many Christians think the solution is political.  Even more seem to think the solution is starting social programs.  But Politics and Programs will not transform humanity.  As Berkhof says, “The greatest liberating force in the world is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Without the Gospel at our Core, the Church will become just another alternative in the morass of culture.

Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.”

“That’s not being respectful of other people’s lives,” O’Neill said. “It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else’s.”

And even dumber stuff like this

“This organization is extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda,” said Jehmu Greene, director of the Women’s Media Center, which is coordinating a campaign to force CBS to pull the ad before it airs on Feb. 7.

“Abortion is very controversial, and the anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health providers and their patients,” Greene said. “We’ve seen that clearly with the murder of Dr. George Tiller,” the late-term abortion provider who was gunned down in his Kansas church in May 2009.

So what was this highly “divisive” add that was anti-American and will lead to the killing of doctors? See for yourself and you decide.

It seems to me the only divisive and ignorant people in this discussion are the pro-abortion woman’s groups that are not even smart enough to watch an Ad before they oppose it.

PS

Please watch more of the Tebow family story by clicking here.

“The world says ‘you can be anything’, but God does not want you to be ‘anything’, He created you to be ’something’.” — J. R. Miller

At the top right corner of my blog, readers will notice a new quote from me appears on every new page.  Most of these quotes come from my posts and there is a context for understanding them.  However, one of my readers recently asked about the above quote which had no further context on my blog.  So for Melody, and everyone else who is interested, here is the short answer to what it means.

A Play On Words

First, the quote relies on an old speakers trick of creating play on words to grab attention.  Years ago when I was a pastor to teenagers, I found this particular turn of phrase very helpful in getting kids to listen… apparently it still works.

Practically Speaking

When most people tell a kid, “you can be anything you want in life” I understand what they are driving at.  They are attempting to encourage a kid to work hard and dream big.  The goal is admirable, but impractical.   The phrase is not helpful because no person is equipped to be “anything” they want in life.  Take my own life as an example.  I was born with a neurological condition that inhibits my eyesight.  Consequently, I am nearsighted and my depth perception is not the best.  One sport I was never good at was baseball.  Standing in the outfield looking into the sky for that little white ball was an impossible task and if I did happen to see it, chances are the ball was close enough to hit me in the head before I could catch it.  Now imagine I had a childhood dream of playing in the Big Leagues and some well meaning adult told me, “go for it Joe, you can be anything you want to be.”  Would that have been true?  No.  Maybe it would make the adult feel good, but it would have only lead me down a path of discouragement and failure.  I call it the “American Idol Syndrome”   Watch the show sometime.  The show is full of delusional people who were told by well meaning adults, “you can be a star.”   Filled with dreams and no talent, people come and audition.  They walk off the set rejected, humiliated and cursing the judges. Parents and friends keep feeding their “be anything” delusions—yet in truth no one person can be “anything”.  Success in this life is realizing your options are limited, finding something you are good at and then becoming something that is suited with your natural abilities.

Spiritually Speaking

Beyond the practical aspects, I think the message of “you can be anything” leads to spiritual emptiness.  The message itself assumes there is no plan or purpose in life beyond the meaning each person can give it through personal accomplishment.  When a teenager struggles to fulfill their dreams, they begin to experience the emptiness of the “anything” life.  On the other hand, the Bible gives an alternative picture of the “something” life.  The Scriptures tell us that God created each one of us for a purpose.  He has a plan for us. He created us with natural talents and gifts so that we could be something and do something with our lives.  When we live in accordance with that “something”, we experience real joy and satisfaction in life.

In brief, this is why I discourage people from trying to be “anything” and challenge them to discover God and be the “something” He has created them to be.

A powerful 7.0 earthquake hit haiti this past week and killed at least 72,000.  Countless people are starving and more will eventually die from diseases spawned from the unburied corpses filling the streets of Port-au-Prince. I feel a connection with the people of Haiti. My parents served there in the 1980′s doing both medical and building missions and they saw first hand the destructive rule of Bébé Doc Duvalier. Over the years, our family sponsored several needy kids from Haiti and I grew up reading letters from our sponsored children telling of their life in Haiti. In last week’s earthquake, my wife agonized in prayer for many days over the life of an APU friend who was missing, and eventually found alive, in the rubble of the Hotel Montana.  With my own history in mind, I want to address this earthquake and how I see God’s judgment and love at work.

God’s Judgement Today

The internet is abuzz with the infamous remarks made by Pat Robertson on on the 700 Club TV show.

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal. And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti; on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, et cetera. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have — and we need to pray for them — a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy, I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now, we’re helping the suffering people, and the suffering is unimaginable.

Most disturbing is the historical falsity presented as “fact” from a guy who founded a University. Napoleon III did not come into power in France until 44 years after the Haitian revolt.  If Robertson can’t get his history correct on such a simple thing, I don’t trust him in more complex matters.  So on its face Robertson’s “true story” must be called into serious question.

The primary problem with this quote, however, is Robertson’s biblical hermeneutic and application which I have repeatedly called into question.   In this particular instance, I would like to distance myself from Robertson’s assertion that natural disasters are the judgment of God.  I disagree with Robertson’s view for one simple reason; we are not in an age of Natural Judgement but an age of judgment through grace.

YHWH has not changed–He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God has appointed differing ages of judgment in order to establish his unchanging plan of salvation.  In other words, God’s method of judgement upon the world is different today than it was in the Old Testament, and different from the Age to come, but his overall purpose is the same–redemption of the lost.

First, unlike some other Christian commentators, I do not have a moral or ethical problem with God judging nations by the sword or natural disaster.  Clearly God did this during the Old Testament period where He punished whole nations for the sins of their Kings and leaders (Isa 1:1-20; Jer 5:15-17; Lam 2:1-22).  I don’t claim to understand it, I even cringe at it, but I trust that God’s judgement upon these nations in the Old Testament were fair and designed to serve YHWH’s purpose.

Second, God will some future day judge the nations for their actions.  The Old Testament is clear in teaching that in the “Day of the Lord” (an End of Times judgement) God will hold to account all the nations of the world for their wicked deeds.

For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations.
As you have done, it shall be done to you;
your deeds shall return on your own head (Obediah 15. ESV)

Third, the world today exists in the age of Christ’s Judgement of Grace.  God has, for a season, forestalled the judgement of sword and nature upon the nations so they might instead have an opportunity to respond to the judgement of Christ expressed in his unselfish act of love on the Cross.

“[Jesus says] Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.

The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”

Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light. (John 12:27-36)”

God’s judgement today is not with sword and quake–used to drive the sinful to their knees in fear–it is in the death of Christ lifted up on the Cross–used to drive the sinful to their knees in love. Through Jesus’ act of love for the world, God is judging the nations who refuse to accept Jesus as the light of life.

Finally, how then should we perceive natural disasters if they are not a judgment of God?

1. Natural disasters are a manifestation of corruption brought upon God’s creation through the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:1-24).
2. Natural disasters are the manifestation of Nature’s true longing to be freed from the shackles of sin’s corruption (Romans 8:18-25).

Application for Haiti

Haiti has suffered from a tremendous disaster, but the death and suffering are not a result of God’s judgment and I would argue that they are not even the result of the earthquake.  The death and destruction in haiti is the result of the sinful leaders of that nation who have kept those people in poverty and allowed the earthquake to bring destruction.

1. The death and suffering in Haiti is a direct result of greed.

Since 1992, the United States has given 3 Billion dollars in aid to Haiti, yet it remains the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.  The money was stolen by Haiti’s leaders and the more money the US poured in, the worse things got for Haiti.  The poor have no escape from Haiti because the money given to them was stolen by evil men.

2. The death and suffering in Haiti is a direct result of their value system.

In 1989, a 7.0 earthquake hit San Francisco (not exactly the picture of moral virtue), yet in that quake only 57 people were killed.  Why?  Because the leaders in the US, although sinful, still value the life of its citizenry. Based on our values, we impose building codes and invest Billions in infrastructures designed to protect the poor and wealthy alike from earthquakes.  Haiti’s leaders do not value life, so instead of spending money on infrastructure, they continued their policies of poverty.

3. The death and suffering of Haiti is a direct result of their religious faith.

Haiti’s predominant faith is Voodoo–a belief that magic and the spirits will save them from disaster.  Tony Campolo remarks on this very thing in his recent response to the earthquake.

Haiti’s former dictator, Jean-Claude Duvalier, was a voodoo witchdoctor, and when he was driven from power it was widely rumored that he offered an infant boy as a blood sacrifice to Satan, and cursed the country with an evil spell to bring disasters and suffering upon the Haitian people. You may not believe in that sort of thing, but many Haitians do. Now we must show them that God’s love, expressed through sacrificial people, is greater than the forces of darkness.

The Haitian people are ruled by evil spirits.  They allow politicians to rule who share their same faith and fears–leaders who seek power through evil forces. The curse of Duvalier may not have “caused” the earthquake, but it does remind us that the faith of a nation can enslave a people to poverty resulting the due penalty of their sin.

Ultimately, the hope for Haiti is that they see the light of Christ’s judgment of grace on the cross and turn to Him for freedom.  Haiti will only find this freedom in the giving of love–not dollars.   Love is expressed not through the giving of Billions, but through the message of the Gospel and the sacrifice of the many Christians who have given up the Western lifestyle to become the hands and feet of of Jesus to the people.

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Human Life

The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of government, the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” We pledge to work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in conscience, take the same stand.

Marriage

The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious traditions. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.

Religious Liberty

Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized. The threat to these fundamental principles of justice is evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate conscience protections for healthcare institutions and professionals, and in anti- discrimination statutes that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities, businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business. Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including government itself—on which society depends.

Unjust Laws

As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of sheer human will.

Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.

Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.

Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

I have not yet read the entire declaration available for download from their website, but I hope to get to it soon.

Who Signed It

There are literally hundreds of thousands of signers to this Declaration, but below are a few names I recognized from the main list of supporters.

Randy Alcorn
Founder and Director, Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM) (Sandy, OR)
Kay Arthur
CEO and Co-founder, Precept Ministries International (Chattanooga, TN)
Gary Bauer
President, American Values; Chairman, Campaign for Working Families (Washington D.C.)
Ken Boa
President, Reflections Ministries (Atlanta, GA)
Timothy Clinton
President, American Association of Christian Counselors (Forest, VA)
Chuck Colson
Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)
Rev. Daniel Delgado
Board of Directors, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference & Pastor, Third Day Missions Church (Staten Island, NY)
Dr. James Dobson
Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)
Dinesh D’Souza
Writer & Speaker (Rancho Santa Fe, CA)
Dr. Wayne Grudem
Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix, AZ)
Rev. Ken Hutcherson
Pastor, Antioch Bible Church (Kirkland, WA)
Rev. Tim Keller
Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York, NY)
Dr. Richard Land
President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (Washington, DC)
Josh McDowell
Founder, Josh McDowell Ministries (Plano, TX)
Dr. Tom Oden
Theologian, United Methodist Minister and Professor, Drew University (Madison, NJ)
Marvin Olasky
Editor-in-Chief, World Magazine and provost, The Kings College (New York City, NY)
Dr. J.I. Packer
Board of GovernorsÕ Professor of Theology, Regent College (Canada)
Dr. Ron Sider
Director, Evangelicals for Social Action (Wynnewood, PA)
Joni Eareckson Tada
Founder and CEO, Joni and Friends International Disability Center (Agoura Hills, CA)
Paul Young
COO & Executive VP, Christian Research Institute (Charlotte, NC)
Ravi Zacharias
Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Norcross, GA)

Here are my questions:

• What do you think of this declaration?  Is it a genuine call to engage the Christian conscience or a compromise of our faith?
• Will you sign the declaration? Why or why not?
• If you sign it, would you really follow through with the call to civil disobedience and risk imprisonment?

I take that back, actually it is not the silence that bothers me, but the outright defense of child-rape because Polanski is famous and shares the political views of those in power.  Take, for example, Whoopi Goldberg’s recent commentary on her TV show The View. Before we get to her, here are the basic details of the case.

Rolling Stone Features Polanski on the Run from the Law

At question again, is what happened in March of 1977, when Roman Polanski was staying at a house owned by Jack Nicholson. Polanski gave champagne and the drug methaqualone to a 13 year old girl, and allegedly began taking picture of her without her clothes on… The incident didn’t end with the pictures though, as according to the girl, she was told to get into a hot tub which Polanski then got into as well. This then led to an altercation in a bedroom of the house, where Polanski allegedly sexually assaulted the girl.

Three decades later, Polanski has been arrested and faces justice for the first time.  But now, in defense of rape, 110 film industry figures — including Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodovar, Tilda Swinton and Monica Bellucci — have signed a petition to Polanski released.

On her ABC daytime show Goldberg defended Polanski’s actions, including his flight from justice, by saying, “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”  Is she serious?  Yes, here is the video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NX_D0Bv9M0[/youtube]

Goldberg rants that we should know the “facts”.  So what are the facts?  What is it exactly that Goldberg says is not “rape rape?”  Here is the clean version of the details taken from the court transcripts.

Two weeks after Polanski plied her with Champagne and a Quaalude, Samantha Gailey appeared before an L.A. grand jury and recalled Polanski’s predatory behavior in a Mulholland Canyon home owned by Jack Nicholson.

The teenager’s troubling–and contemporaneous–account of her abuse at Polanski’s hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, “Take off your underwear” and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn’t wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey’s testimony, wrapped his hands around the child’s waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson’s home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he “keep away.” According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later “started to have intercourse with me.” At one point, according to Gailey’s testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was “on the pill,” and “When did you last have your period?” Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, “Would you want me to go in through your back?” before he “put his penis in my butt.” Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, “Because I was afraid of him.”

Following his indictment on various sex charges, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal–and sentence Polanski to prison–the director fled the country.

So according to Goldberg, when a 13 year old girl is drugged and forced to have anal intercourse (among other acts of sexual abuse) by a 43 year old man, it is not “rape rape”. I wonder if she would feel the same if the girl had been black and raped by a white man?  I don’t know, but her reasoning is still disgraceful.  Goldberg feels that not everyone in the world shares the view that we should protect 13 year old girls from middle aged men. and therefore, it is okay with Goldberg who says;

We are a “different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds – in the rest of Europe, they’re seen – often times…not everybody agrees with the way we see things.

According to Aljazzera news, Goldberg is right. Apparently Europeans love child rape.  If the person is famous, that is far more important than defending a woman’s right to not be raped by old white men.

France's culture minister Frederic Mitterrand, left, said the arrest was a "terrible thing" - AFP

France and Poland have urged Switzerland to free Roman Polanski, an award-winning film director, after he was arrested on a warrant dating back to 1978, for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.Bernard Kouchner, France’s foreign minister, said on Monday he was working with Radek Sikorski, his Polish counterpart, to help Polanski fight extradition to the US, which issued the arrest warrant.”This affair [the arrest, not the rape of a girl] is frankly a bit sinister. Here is a man of such talent, recognized worldwide, recognised especially in the country where he was arrested. This is not nice at all,” Kouchner said.

He said that he and Sikorski had petitioned Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, over the case.

Frederic Mitterrand, the French culture minister, also criticised Polanski’s arrest, describing it is a “terrible thing and very unfair“.

This incident reveals the true heart and moral bankruptcy of the world. It reminds me why the Gospel of jesus is so needed in our world. We live in an age where morality is culture and truth is opinion. Only a revival of the heart, renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit, will change our world. I am angry at the hypocrisy of the elitist who pretend to defend women to secure their power. But I am also moved to pray for them and all those lost in their own system of reason.

I am equally, if not more, disturbed at the Christians who align themselves with these people for the sake of a political agenda on “woman’s right”.  This story is a reminder that followers of Jesus must be careful who we align with, no matter how noble our goal.

The implications of this “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” are huge for our time. Jethani rightly points out some flaws within the church in seeking to fulfill our Big Mission using Big Solutions from Big Corporations, but I think he also reflects one of the major blind-spots of our culture. Does this flaw reflect Jethani’s hypocrisy? Or is it simply his own generational bias? I will share the details of Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine”

My concern about Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” is raised because of his views espoused in another post entitled, “Pro-Choice but Anti-Healthcare?” In truth, while Jethani rightly points out that Big Mission using Big Solutions form Big Corporations is not good.  He, like many other well intended Christians, seem to believe that Big Government is the solution to our Big Mission. Is Jethani’s post on Healthcare, when compared to his Daisy Cutter Doctrine, a demonstration of hypocrissy?  Cultural blindness?  Pandering to help sales for his magazine?  Or something else?  I don’t know because Jethani wont discuss the seeming contradiction of his two posts.

In response to his post, I posted the a comment on his blog.  Yet despite Jethani’s rhetoric about “entering the debate” Jethani was never willing to post my comment.  I attempted several times over a week long period to engage jethani, but it seems his definitino of “debate” is different from the one I read in Webster’s Dictionary.

So I decided to post my comment as “An Open Letter to Skye Jethani“.  Even if he is unable to offer a coherent defense of his position, then I am hoping someone who is better informed can help me out.

Hi, Skye. may I call you Skye?

My name is Joe. I am new to your site. I apologize in advance for the directness of some of my questions below, but I am truly hoping to get direct answers in return if you are willing to engage on this with me. You seem an intelligent writer and thinker, and I hope to get some insight into how you think on this issue since it is quite differently than me.

Your post begins with the assertion that those who are pro-life and oppose govt. run healthcare contradict themselves. I don’t know anything about the group you mention, and maybe they do have the flaws you write about, but on a personal level I would humbly submit my disagreement with your assertion that the only pro-life position includes govt. run healthcare.

I came to your blog when a friend referred me to your post on the “Daisy Cutter” Theology. It is very well written and I plan on writing favorable a post on my blog with some quotes [which is my previous post]. However, if you stand by what you wrote in that post, then I think you should apply it not just to missions, but to all aspects of your life as a follower of Jesus. There is no secular or sacred in our life, only the mission of the King.

Here is my concern Skye, in your other post [on the Daisy Cutter Doctrine], you write, “We have incorrectly made the scale of our methods conform to the scale of our mission. We have assumed that the magnitude of the ends should be proportional to the magnitude of the means. And in the process we’ve revealed how captivated our imaginations really are to consumerism. ”
I think that is exactly what you are doing here. You are wrongly assuming that the scale of your “compassion:” must be met by a massive systemic overhaul–not church-run but govt. run. Interesting how the “massive program for massive impact” solution is acceptable when it is the things we value and “consumerist” when it is something someone else values. Interesting how we reject “systems” in one area of life, but promote them in others where we think it serves our goals. And I say, “we” because I am prone to the same things Skye, if I do not take the wise council of brothers and sisters into my life.

Before I move on, let me give a little background on myself. I am a church planter and have been on a State run healthcare plan for the past 3 years. You have a good job Skye, so I assume you have healthcare from a private insurer. Do you have some personal experience with a successful govt. run healthcare system? My guess is that you would not trade in your private health insurance to be on my State insurance, would you? Based on my experience with both systems, I would trade insurance coverage with you any time.

You write, “But our conviction about life should also lead us to care about the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance and therefore receive inadequate care.”
Can you give me the breakdown of who is in this group of 45 Million? Your latter comment seems to indicate you think this number reflects the poor and unemployed. Do you really think that is the demographic of the total 45 Million? Just curious to know if you really understand this number or if you are just repeating what you read somewhere?

You wrote, “Our belief in the value of life should drive us to seek a system that will care for our brothers and sisters after they are born and not just before.”
Over the past few years, I have been without insurance a few times (mostly when the State messes up my paperwork and we lose it until we file again). We have several friends, and churches around us, who support a state run system and say, like you, that “no one should be without insurance.” Yet interestingly enough, when we were without insurance not one of these people, or churches, offered to help us pay for insurance, or pay for some of our medical bills. So, since this is your value, please tell me how many people who lack insurance do you personally assist Skye? Or is it that you just want other people to pay for your compassion? I see from your site, you are invited to speak at a lot of conferences. How much does it cost to go to one of those and run one? I wonder, if that money was better prioritized to help people instead of promoting careers or sell books or magazines, if the church could not do more for the Gospel? I wonder why the church needs the system of the State to care for people, when that is our mission not the mission of a secular world?

I am also interested to know, can you tell me exactly how much this new system will cost? Do you know how it will be paid for? Who will pay for it? The Bible speaks about indebtedness and its destructive power. Do you think massive debt and deflationary spending is a good solution and demonstrates compassion for the next generation who will be forced to work and pay for it?

You also wrote, ” We should care that the uninsured are 1.6 times more likely to die from cancer than those with insurance who are diagnosed and treated earlier.”
You are right, we should. The problem, however, with your comparison Skye is that you are using the wrong statistic to make your point. The 1.6% statistic you cite demonstrates that people who do not have the Private healthcare system (the one you think is completely broken and needs replaced) are more likely to die from cancer. In other words, the private healthcare system in America is successful in keeping people with cancer alive who would otherwise die. So clearly the system of healthcare itself is not broken if it is saving lives. Skye, if you want to make a statistically meaningful argument, you need to compare for me the rate of death from Cancer for the “fully” insured person in the Canadian and European healthcare systems vs. the Private US system? That is the correct comparison. Please look this up and then tell me. Do more people in the State run systems die of cancer or in the US private system? Which is more successful and caring for people? Do you know? I actually don’t know either, so when you find out please reinforce your argument with the right statistics.

You wrote, “We should care that we have a system that discriminates against those with preexisting conditions, the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.”
I agree 100%. My wife and I are in this boat if we try and get private insurance in the future when our income is higher and that scares me. But, this is also a red-herring (either that or it demonstrates a lack of understanding about the issue itself). The US Govt. can force private insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, AND force them not to drop people who cost “to much.” This law wont cost the taxpayer a single penny in Govt. bureaucracy.

Do you also know Skye that in many states, the government prevents a person from carrying their insurer from one job to the next. It is the govt. that prevents insurance portability.

There are many practical and meaningful solutions to the problems with healthcare that don’t include a State run system. but do you understand why these solutions wont pass? Because politicians want power. Power over people. Power over their lives. Power to control things. I think those Christians who are in favor of a State run system (and I do realize you are on the fence here brother), have an inherent misunderstanding about why govt exists (not just in the US, but the systems of govt itself). If you care to read further, I offer you these couple links.
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/03/one-blood-many-governments.html
http://www.morethancake.org/2006/09/laws-demonstrate-immorality-not-goodness.html

You seem wiling to wait and see how the govt. runs GM before deciding on healthcare, but that is not the indicator you need to look at. Think about this, why is it that NOT ONE SINGLE PROPOSAL now before the US House or Senate mandates that our Congressman must lay aside their Gold Plated healthcare plan and move to this new Government system? Will Barack Obama get the same plan as me? If this solution is so wonderful, why is the political class not willing to receive healthcare under the same system they propose for all other Americans?

I judge leadership Skye by actions, not rhetoric. You write for a magazine on leadership. Is this the kind of leadership you value and put your faith in? Leadership that forces others to do what the Congress itself is unwilling to do? I trust and value leadership that says, “follow me” not leadership that says, “you jump first” How do you define leadership Skye?

Finally, I would suggest that any desire for a “system” that forces compassion is not compassion. For the Christian, the solution is not private insurance or state insurance. I think the solution lies with individuals and churches who must demonstrate compassion by caring for the sick. May I ask your indulgence to read this parable I wrote that expresses my own view on this issue?
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/09/a-parable-of-political-compassion.html

Wow, that got long. I am sure my post reads with a lot more judgement than I truly intend Skye–I fear it is a shortcoming of the intent and probably my own failings as a writer. My apologies in advance, but I do hope you will consider a reply.

Thanks and God bless.

So what do you say?   Is the Daisy Cutter Doctrine alive in well among the Christians who seek Big Government solutions instead of Kingdom solutions?

Skye Jethani

My friend Paula showed me a recent blog post from Skye Jethani where he writes about his “Daisy-Cutter Doctrine.” Jethani is the managing editor of Leadership Journal which is owned by Christianity Today International.

So what is this new Daisy Cutter Doctrine Jethani writes about? It is named after a military weapon designed to do intimidate the enemy with an explosion so massive, that their desire to fight is stripped away. Jethani allegorizes this weapon to the the approach many churches take toward missions. He relates his own experience with speakers at large conferences aimed at energizing the audience for the “big” mission of the Gospel. Jethani writes about these popular conference presenters this way…

Throughout the stump speech, the presenter will wax eloquent about the fate he or she foresees for the new generation of church leaders in the audience. “Your generation will do what mine could not.” “The young leaders in the church are leading the way by throwing off what’s come before.” “You will be the generation to change the world.” Convinced of their manifest destiny, the twenty-somethings will head off to breakout sessions where they will learn the skills to impact the world-usually from other twenty-somethings.

In my study of Church history, this generational bigotry has, in my opinion, been one of the biggest barriers to fulfilling God’s mission for the world. If we are going to really fulfill the Gospel mission, then it must be done by recognizing it is not the task of one “chosen” generation or one “chosen” leader. It is the task of all God’s saints working together in the unity and power of the Spirit. Jethani, goes on to explain why the Daisy Cutter Doctrine is so appealing.

The shock and awe approach to mission is extremely appealing to people shaped by consumerism. It taps into our consumer-oriented desire for big impact and feeds the assumption that large equals legit.

But there is a less incriminating [I think Jethani means "obvious" not "incriminating"] reason why we are attracted to the Daisy Cutter Doctrine-a big mission seems to logically demand a big strategy… So we ask, how does Coca-Cola impact the world? How does Disney impact the world? How does Starbucks impact the world? And we forget to ask the only question that really matters: How does Jesus impact the world?

…through much of its history the church in Europe employed conventional (worldly) means to advance its spiritual mission. This resulted in the gospel being spread by the sword. We now look back at the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the slaughter of native peoples in the Americas mournfully. Centuries removed from those atrocities we wonder-how could people do such things in the name of Christ? Did they not see how inconsistent those methods were with the ways of Jesus? At the time, of course, they did not.

Jethani makes an excellent point. Let me extend his comment. I believe that each generation has its own methods to fulfill the Gospel mission. Each generation has some inherent blind-spot which feeds the mistaken notion that their methods are the enlightened path to achieving God’s call. Cultural bias is one reason why we need the wisdom of every generation to overcome our blind-spots.

The implications of this “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” are huge for our time. Jethani rightly points out some flaws within the church in seeking to fulfill our Big Mission using Big Solutions from Big Corporations, but I think he also reflects one of the major blind-spots of our culture. Does this flaw reflect Jethani’s hypocrisy? Or is it simply his own generational bias? I will share the details of Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” in the next post and you can decide for yourself.

In the meantime, I want to leave you with a great quote from Phil Vischer of VeggieTales fame. Vischer’s blog is the newest link on my blogroll and his quote is the perfect shield against the Daisy Cutter Doctrine.