Written by Rolley Haggard

A recent article in “World” Magazine titled “Still-silent shepherds” summarized the top reasons evangelical pastors give for not preaching against abortion. Among them is that “preaching on the issue might politically stigmatize the pastor or politicize the pulpit, scaring seekers off.”

Aside from the fact that such reasoning is purely pragmatic—concerned with results (what works) rather than principle (what’s right)—it is also severely problematic in three of its underlying assumptions:

One, that pulpits should avoid moral issues with controversial political overtones;

Two, that silence is justified on issues that may “scare seekers off”;

Three, that ignoring issues like abortion won’t adversely impact gospel ministry.

I submit that pulpits operating on these assumptions are undoing the very work they hope to do. To varying extents, they are “unpreaching” the gospel.

Should Pulpits Avoid Moral Issues with Controversial Political Overtones?

The short answer is an unequivocal no. Moral/spiritual matters are preeminently the domain of the church. Political overtones notwithstanding, abortion is arguably the moral/spiritual issue of our day. If we don’t speak to it, who will?

Abortion is, in essence, a moral and spiritual issue. It is a violation of the commandment “thou shalt not murder.” It is political only secondarily and arbitrarily. Just because it has been made part of the national political discourse, that does not alter its fundamental character. No court on earth can vacate the laws of heaven.

As heaven’s ambassadors, therefore, it is not only appropriate but obligatory that ministers address abortion. Whatever political overtones may attach to preaching against the sin of abortion, silence is not an option for the church—unless the plan is just to quit preaching against sin altogether.

Christian leaders often act so afraid of political entanglement—of violating the treasured separation of church and state”—that if the devil himself should incarnate and run for president, it seems likely that many pastors would refuse to preach against him for fear of politicizing the faith.

But preaching against abortion is not politicizing the faith. It is not an encroachment of the church into the affairs of the state. In fact, the reverse is true: politicization of abortion is an encroachment of the state into the affairs of the church. Christians have not only the right but the solemn obligation to preach against abortion. When there is conflict or overlap, our duty couldn’t be any more clear: We are to obey God rather than men and governments.

Is Pulpit Silence Justified on Issues that May Scare Off Seekers?

In answer to this we might well ask, “seekers of what?” Seekers of a pleasant but shallow church experience, or seekers of the living Christ? Seekers of a mere “form of godliness,” or seekers of “religion that is pure and undefiled”?

Preaching on abortion may indeed scare off those merely seeking a church, but it will attract and keep those who are seeking a Savior.

We are a morally sick society. When a patient has a life-threatening illness, no reputable physician minces words about the seriousness of the disease for fear of scaring off his client. The disease must be named. Before our Great Physician can heal, there must be sober appreciation of the gravity of the case and submission to appropriate treatment.

Whether a seeker has had an abortion, is contemplating one, is pressuring someone to have one, knows someone who has had one, or is simply buying into the lie that life is cheap, preaching on abortion will help that seeker understand the depth of human depravity and the vastness of God’s mercy. It will open his or her eyes to the truth that human life is infinitely precious to God from conception to natural death, and that He is willing and able to forgive and restore any penitents who come to Him, no matter what sins they may have committed.

If we find ourselves reluctant to preach on the very sins that are ravaging our communities and families for fear of scaring off would-be converts, maybe it’s time we take a refresher on what Christianity is all about.

Is It True that Ignoring Issues Like Abortion Won’t Have an Adverse Impact on Gospel Ministry?

There is at the heart of evangelical silence on abortion another seriously flawed assumption, and it is this: that preaching on “social concerns” is superfluous to gospel ministry, and that Christ’s Great Commission is best fulfilled by not “diluting” the gospel ministry with entanglement in so-called “secondary issues” like abortion. Avoiding such “entanglement” is frequently referred to as “keeping the main thing the main thing.”

While it is certainly true we don’t want to supplant the gospel with issues like abortion, neither do we want to go to the opposite extreme and divorce the gospel from them, either. Like medicine for disease, the gospel is the remedy for all sin. And preaching the gospel is about calling sinners to repentance and faith. If sin is not preached against, those whom we would lead to repentance and faith in Christ are instead led to believe they have little or nothing to repent of. They are given to assume that Christ simply overlooks, rather than forgives,what they’ve done (and, in too many cases, go right on doing).

To the degree that we minimize sin in our preaching of Christ, we wind up preaching not grace, but license; not forgiveness of sins, but permission to keep on sinning.

We may be “preaching the gospel” in the technical sense of telling people something about Jesus, but by skirting abortion we are effectively unpreaching it by sending the message that sins are not a big deal to God, that He simply overlooks them in the same way we do when we seldom (or never) mention certain sins in our sermons. Within such a homiletic framework, it is small wonder that 20 percent of women who have abortions describe themselves as born-again Christians.

By failing to preach on abortion we are encouraging not only cognitive, but moral, dissonance of the highest order. We are not merely giving sanction to the evil of our age, we are also misrepresenting the gospel. We think we’re making it easier for seekers to find Christ, but we’re actually making it easier for them to never feel any real need for Him. After all, if God isn’t all that upset over the heartless, cold-blooded murder of 56 million defenseless babies, how concerned can He be over any of our sins?

Rolley Haggard is a feature writer for BreakPoint.

This article was originally posted at the Breakpoint.org blog.

Select a passerby at random on a crowded city street and ask him to describe Christians and you are likely to hear words like “judgmental, divisive, and narrow-minded”. In some circles, the word “Christian” has become synonymous with bigotry. Ironically, denigrating an entire group of people based on what they believe fulfills the definition of bigotry. Pot, meet Kettle. But is it true? Are Christians judgmental, divisive, and narrow-minded?

This line of attack is very familiar to conservatives, both in the political realm and the theological. It’s rooted in the Alinskian doctrine of Shame & Ridicule. Progressives have been using it for decades, yet it’s only now that the vapid erosion of the American mind has progressed far enough for it to gain any serious traction.

The doctrine teaches that ridicule and shame are nearly invincible when weaponized. Not only are they uncomfortable for the target, but they leave a stain whether the claims being made are true or not. As the old adage goes, if you want to put someone on their heels, ask them how long it’s been since they stopped beating their wife. Their attention shifts from offense to defense.

In days past, this tactic was often seen as dirty pool by all except the most parasitic of community organizers and labor union bosses. After all, who was willing to tarnish their reputation by slandering someone falsely? Fast forward to today’s climate of hedonistic moral relativism and there’s no reason not to use Shame & Ridicule as freely and deceitfully as one desires.

The tactic has achieved such fantastic success against political conservatives, it’s often being used to attack theological conservatives now. Just as in the political arena, it plays on the paralyzing fear of “losing our audience” through the stigma of dogmatic adherence to conservatism. On the theological battlefield, it plays on the fear of driving away potential parishioners because of divisive doctrine. As the Republican party flouts the will of Republican voters to push amnesty for illegal aliens, large portions of mainstream Christianity are poised to kowtow on the issue of so-called gay “marriage” against the wishes of most Christians in the pews.

This fear and ideological uncertainty has led many so-called conservatives to “evolve” their positions on these issues, in order to alleviate some of the Shame & Ridicule. Unfortunately, this is what happens when leaders are placed in positions of prominence because of what they say, instead of what they believe and how they act. The cowardice displayed by prominent leaders on both fronts is simultaneously disheartening and infuriating. The most popular churches in the land are led by men who play it safe.

Lakewood Church, led by Rev. Guy Smiley, will not preach about sin because he’d rather tickle the ears than magnify the grace of Christ. Pastor Andy Stanley of North Point Ministries in Alpharetta, Georgia has no problem with open homosexual relationships in his church but believes that Christians have a “branding” problem, as if we were a line of basketball shoes. Pastor Bill Hybels in Barrington, Illinois promotes environmentalism and New Age mysticism from the pulpit at Willow Creek. These are just three men, but between them they regularly speak to nearly 100,000 Americans every week.

From the outside looking in, these men represent a good portion of the American church; the same way Tim Cook and Bill Gates represent a good portion of the computing industry. All the signs of success are present: the fannies are in the seats and the tithes are flowing like champagne. But what does that mean? Is it a sign of God’s favor that their ministries have been so richly-blessed? Or is it akin to the mounds of gold heaped up by the Church’s sale of indulgences in the Dark Ages? In that situation, the Church offered her benediction upon immoral and unrighteous lifestyles in return for material wealth and adulation. Is today’s Church any different? Or are these men engaging in the same economic transaction by accepting a buy-out to avoid uncomfortable convos?

At least on the surface, the answer to the question “Are Christians divisive and narrow-minded?” seems to be “No”. The largest pulpits in the land preach a brand of belief as free of division and judgment as possible. When pressed for any absolute boundaries, they yammer relativist platitudes and retreat to their shop-worn soundbites. But is this an accurate representation of Christianity? Author Michael Horton answers in his book Christless Christianity:

To say, “I don’t have it in my heart to condemn people” is to point to one’s own niceness rather than to the judgment that holds us all accountable as transgressors before God. The proper preaching of the law—God’s holiness, righteousness, glory, and justice—will not create an us versus them self-righteousness but will expose the best works, done from the best motives of the best among us, as filthy rags before God’s searching judgment. Bad law-preaching levels some of us; Osteen’s omission of the law levels none of us; biblical preaching of the law levels all of us.

So the answer to our question is “Yes…and No.”

No, Christians are not divisive, because properly-understood, biblical preaching of the law is the most egalitarian application of morality possible. It says that Mother Theresa is no more righteous than Ted Bundy. We all stand convicted before a thrice-holy God.

And Yes, Christianity and its adherents are divisive, narrow-minded, and judgmental because truth requires it and the gospel is founded upon it.

As Chesterton quipped, the point of having an open mind is the same as having an open mouth—to close it upon something solid. Christianity is a worldview which claims to be true, absolutely. That means to believe in it, you must disbelieve in that which contradicts it; which is very narrow-minded. The Apostle Paul described the Word as sharper than a sword, “piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow”.

So get out there and be divisive. Not needlessly so, obviously, but don’t allow aspersions of shame and ridicule to intimidate you into a mealy-mouthed, moral morass. Be proud of your narrow-mind and always be prepared to share what you’ve decided to close your mind upon.

Written by Pastor John Kirkwood

“The echo of sharp laughter from a crowd, as hammered nails pierce flesh, pierces the Bright Ones with perplexity. They see the Maker’s hands helpless against Made Wood. The bond is sealed with God’s blood, the body buried. In this is Love’s substance become darkness to their light. The Third Day sweetens the mystery. Astonished heralds now of Resurrection, they have eternity to solve it, and to praise.”
~Luci Shaw. “Accompanied by Angels”: Poems of the Incarnation

The Passion Week of Jesus Christ is the pinnacle of all history. Millions of words have been written about it, dozens of movies have offered a depiction, and it’s been a central figure for the artist for 2,000 years. Scripture is replete with its description, giving a glimpse of the crucifixion from just about everyone’s perspective. The view of the Father is alluded to in Genesis 22, the view of the Son from Psalms 22, the view of Israel from Isaiah 53, and the view of the prophets throughout the Old Testament.

The Gospels share the views of the Jews, the Romans, the disciples, Pilate, Herod, the Centurion, our Lord’s mother, his followers, Simon of Cyrene, the thieves, and many others. There is one view that we can only imagine. The view of the angels.

Satan and his angels most likely celebrated the event, not realizing the deeper meaning, as the White Witch in the Narnia Chronicles didn’t realize that the death of Aslan would be her undoing.

Forsaken by man, who couldn’t stay awake, it was an angel that appeared in Gethsemane to comfort him. Forsaken by God who robed his judgment in darkness, Jesus Christ was alone in his mortal dance with death and the grave, though I’m nearly certain that Michael the Archangel and the host of elect angels wanted desperately to act.

What do you know about angels? I don’t mean Jewish superstition from apocryphal accounts nor the imaginative personal anecdotes of the “Christian” or the spiritist. I mean, what do you know of angels from the accounts that have been given us in the Bible? Biblical cherubim and seraphim are very different from the fat babies, baring wings and bows that are pictured on Valentine cards; as are the Arch-angels unlike the scantily clad winged trinkets of Victoria’s worst kept secret.

Angels are fearsome and they are mighty: often opening their dialogues with “Fear not.” They are a higher creation than man in his current state, and they are among God’s highest creation.

Angels learn. They have volition. They have emotion. They know how to war and the bear the instruments of both worship and warfare. They deliver God’s message, encourage and minister to his servants, and will deliver his wrath. They are students.

They shouted with joy during the Creation week, amazed at the splendor of the Creator. An angel announced the birth of Jesus to a maiden and the whole host of angels heralded his birth to the shepherds. They warned his father to flee to Egypt and they comforted our Lord after his temptations by their former commander. Michael, who probably shared with Lucifer that appointment of the anointed cherub that covered the throne of the Lord, now saw his Lord mocked, his beard plucked, his face smashed, the laughing of a mongrel crowd.

What would it be like to view the passion through the eyes of an angel? Imagine Michael, who was there when our Lord laid aside crown and scepter and stepped into mud-pit earth only to be spitefully mocked with a crown of thorns. Visualize how he and the other angels must have waited, with hand to the hilt, hoping to get the command to act. Envision witnessing human history through the eyes of those who viewed it from the throne room. Beings who from their first moment of consciousness, served and worshiped our Lord only to see him drop his robe, remove his crown, and come to planet earth to be abused by a race of ingrates.

In the garden, just after Peter slashes out with a sword and cuts off the ear of Malchus; Jesus heals the ear and tells Peter to sheath his sword and says, “Think thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (The Gospel of Matthew)

Twelve legions of angels when one angel in antiquity killed 185,000 of Assyria’s choicest warriors in a single night? Was our Lord using hyperbole? Was he talking about his own rescue from the cross or was he referring to what would have had to have taken place if he decided not to “drink of that cup”?

One day the angels will return with our Lord, overcome Satan and his fallen legions, and divide the wheat and the tares for judgment. I believe Jesus could have spoken and all of creation would have had to yield; so I think it is clear when he adds the words, “But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be,” he is talking about his substitutionary sacrifice for all of mankind. If he didn’t die in our stead, we would all be judged in that moment and there wouldn’t be any wheat to separate.

Americans think back in horror to that moment not long ago when brave men were being attacked by a wicked mob in Benghazi, Libya. We cringe that help was in the area, and our great military heroes were told to “stand down.”

The repugnant actions of our executive branch in issuing that order is only eclipsed as it is countered by the Grace of a thrice-Holy God and his Son, the willing sacrifice, when God himself issued the ultimate stand down order – that which kept Michael’s sword in his sheath and his legions leaning over the balustrade of Heaven in stunned awe.

“The Third Day sweetens the mystery,” indeed! And they will have “eternity to solve it and to praise.”

The Maker of the universe…as Man, for man was made a curse. 
The claims of Law which He had made, unto the uttermost He paid. 
His holy fingers made the bough, which grew the thorns that crowned His brow; 
The nails that pierced His hand were mined, in secret places He designed. 
He made the forest from whence there sprung the tree on which His body hung; 
He died upon a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood. 
The sky that darkened o’er His head, by Him above the earth was spread. 
The sun that hid from Him its face, by His decree was poised in space. 
The spear which spilled His precious blood was tempered in the fires of God. 
The grave in which His form was laid was hewn in rocks His hands had made. 
The throne on which He now appears was His from everlasting years; 
But a new glory crowns His brow, and every knee to Him shall bow: 
The Maker of the universe. 

~ F. W. Pitt

This article was originally posted at the ClashDaily.com blog.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no such thing as Good and Evil. Things which I consider to be good might not be considered good by you, likewise with evil.

Everything is relative, morally. It’s a position typically held by those who consider themselves to be open-minded and tolerant. They wear their moral relativism proudly and enjoy using it as a club whenever someone questions their beliefs or behavior. In a morally-relative framework, Good and Evil are reduced to a series of differing opinions. This idea runs rampant in many parts of our culture today. It’s the predominant moral framework held by the ruling class in academia, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, large swaths of the legal profession, and your garden-variety Facebook Philosopher.

Simply put, moral relativism is of the Devil. This is not hyperbole. From the earliest days of recorded history, we know that mankind once walked with God and spoke to Him without hindrance. Then the Enemy tempted Eve, who tempted Adam, who disobeyed God’s commandment, and got ejected from the Garden. In the process, mankind was granted the knowledge of Good and Evil as God said would happen.

What Satan didn’t expect was that this plan would backfire terribly. Having knowledge of Good and Evil did subvert the human race, making them rebels from their first breath to their last; but it also made Man keenly aware of his need for salvation. The knowledge of Evil did indeed create a hunger in the heart of every person, but having the knowledge of Good meant that we would never find complete satisfaction in our depravity.

After the Lord’s victory on the cross, Lucifer must have realized his mistake. Now the utter sinfulness of mankind was no longer without remedy. The captivity of sin was led captive by the Lamb of God and all of those men and women who yearned for a restoration of their relationship with God could have it, through the shed blood of Immanuel. The Enemy must have realized the inevitability of God’s checkmate, but remained committed to obfuscating the path to salvation for as many souls as would heed his influence.

The brilliant subterfuge of moral relativism proves the diabolical genius of the Fallen One. He could never hope to outmatch God Almighty, but he sure has done a number on humanity. Through moral relativism, Satan attempts to walk us back into the Garden of Eden without the need for atonement or reconciliation. Just as he orchestrated events to create the awareness of Good and Evil in Adam and Eve, he now uses moral relativism to erase that knowledge and lead us further into God-less complacency. If Good and Evil don’t exist, apart from the personal and social creation of their existence in our minds, then the concept of sin is meaningless.

If Good and Evil don’t exist and the concept of sin is meaningless, then the only purpose God serves is to harsh your buzz. There’s no need for a Savior, anyone can return to bliss, ignorant of Good and Evil, simply by freeing their mind from the shackles of absolute morality. If this sounds like Oprah, there’s a reason. Satan has lost the fight on the battleground of logic and reason. He’s decided to focus his attacks on logic itself, knowing that without the confines of reason, the human mind weakens and becomes more susceptible to subversion. So just as Oprah’s new-agers peddle The Secret, the college professors push moral relativism; both aimed at the same goal: willful ignorance of the reality which binds us, in favor of the surreality which excites us.

The consequences of this shift are immense. Forgetting for a moment the eternal ramification of turning a blind eye to reconciliation through Christ, we are seeing precisely what happens in the temporal realm when a mind is stripped of all meaning and moral calibration. Shall we chalk it up to pure coincidence that the increased secularization of our society matches the explosion of asocial violence in our midst? There have always been horrific crimes, starting with Adam’s own son; the difference today is that it is our children who are committing these atrocities.

Witnesses to the recent horrific knife attack in Murrysville, Pennsylvania have described how the attacker was “blank faced” while slashing over 20 different people. His motive has yet to be determined. Our children have been ingesting the philosophic poison of relativism for generations now. Many of them are empty, aching with desolation and despair, possessing no moral inhibitions to prevent them from inflicting their pain on those around them.

We have a real opportunity to speak to the lost and rudderless generations around us. They may laugh at the antiquated idea of absolute morality, rooted in the eternal and unchanging character of God Almighty, but they also may seek to learn more about this Father Who breathed life and meaning into mankind and sent His Son to die on our behalf.

“If you neglect to instruct (your children) in the way of holiness, will the devil neglect to instruct them in the way of wickedness?” – John Flavel

By Anthony Esolen, first appeared on Public Discourse

Our culture has become soft. We suppose that sex is too trivial to require virtue, yet we also believe it is so significant that to suggest any restraint upon its consensual exercise is an affront to the most important fount of human dignity.

A sentinel watches upon the battlements. The air is raw and cold, and it seems to have penetrated to his knees and ankles and the shoulder upon which he rests his rifle. But he paces his rounds, hour after long hour. He peers into the little glooming light showing in the east. He turns again and faces the west, where the clouds are just beginning to reflect the slightest tinge of purple. He listens. All the sounds of the darkness are familiar to him, and bespeak the order of the early dawn. A thrush trills from the copse beside the river. The swallows have left their roosts and are beginning to twitter as they fly. A cock from a nearby farm crows. Yet if he hears a single sound made by man—a footstep, the roll of a wheel—he turns, his eyes narrow, he shifts his hands along the rifle, and he listens. He is a good sentinel.

The Thomistic understanding of virtue is straightforward enough. A virtue is a habit, what Aristotle calls a second nature. It is difficult to attain—hence, its association with manhood, which is what the Latin virtus literally means. It involves the perfection of a faculty, like the deep knowledge in the hands of a master craftsman. Therefore its definition cannot be arbitrary; it is bound up with the faculty in question, and the work to be done.

Since human beings are not robots, and since they find themselves always in situations that call upon many faculties at once, the virtues are bound together, and not only coincidentally. The root of the good sentinel’s virtue is to be found not in his eyesight, but in his piety. He desires to defend his city, because he loves it. If he were only a hireling, he would not expose himself to any risk beyond the literal specifications of his employment: he would watch, according to contract. When the wolves come, the hireling runs away.

But because the good sentinel loves his city, he calls up a host of subordinate virtues to support his piety. He calls upon self-denial. He is sometimes sleepy, but he never winks. He is often hungry, but he puts it out of his mind. He is often weary, but he does not flag. He calls upon foresight. He makes sure that he is physically and mentally ready to begin his watch, and orders his day accordingly. He calls upon industry and humility, as he considers that no work, no matter how small, is beneath his care, if it bears upon his duty. Other men may instruct a page boy to clean their rifles. He cleans his rifle himself.

Maybe it is easier for people who regularly face danger, or who must fight to wrest a living from the stubborn earth, to remember what the virtues are. It certainly is a commonplace among the pagan philosophers, and then among the Christian fathers, that one of the dangers of wealth is a softening or decay of the moral fiber. The rich—and, compared with almost anyone who has ever lived on earth, we Americans are all rich, even most of the relatively poor among us—neither face the immediate necessity for virtue, nor the immediate danger of vice. Their souls can be vitiated long before they notice the demise of their culture.

We see this queasy-making softness everywhere we turn. When Grover Cleveland delivered his first inaugural address, he declared that he would act according to an “unstrained” reading of the Constitution, adhering to precisely those powers it granted to him, and assuming no others. Cleveland was as good as his word. He did not compromise his moral character for the sake of an easy chance for popularity, as when he refrained from annexing Hawaii at the urging of a pack of avaricious adventurers. He was scrupulously honest. He obeyed the Constitution, the law of the land. He knew his place.

The contrast between Cleveland and our contemporary politicians is not just the contrast between one political philosophy and others. It is a contrast between a man who was trained up in virtue—who knew that virtue is a habit difficult to acquire, the perfection of a faculty that is not defined according to an individual’s caprice but that springs from the nature and the purpose of the faculty itself—and those who are not. We have always had bad politicians. But now, we take most of the vice for granted. We hardly notice it. The president makes a flagrant show of breaking the law; we shrug, because everyone is a cheater nowadays. Students cheat on their exams; spouses regularly break their vows—its most radical form is called divorce—and no one cares. Lawyers trawl the airwaves for litigants. Doctors record the results of examinations they have not performed. Ministers wrest the Scripture for their purposes. Vice always finds its excuse.

It is a telltale sign for our times that our most heated debates arise from the sexual faculties. We suppose ourselves enlightened in these matters, having matured far beyond the repressions and the taboos of our ancestors. One might note also that we have matured far beyond other qualities of our ancestors: their racism, perhaps; and that may be the best we can say for ourselves. We have matured far beyond their industriousness, their artistic skill, their loyalty, their honesty, their filial duty, their self-denial, their courage, their personal generosity, their purity, their neighborliness, and their reverence. Lawyers devour a full tenth of our nation’s income, as we take one another to court for a cross on the side of a public road, or a hot coffee that an old lady spills on herself at the drive-through—and that alone gives the lie to the single virtue we claim as our most precious. For we are, in fact, the mostintolerant generation ever to walk upon the face of the earth.

It is also telling that, in our arguments about those sexual faculties, we do what soft people do and not what virtuous people do. That is, we argue only about what is permissible. It is as if there were no such thing as sexual virtue at all. Imagine a sentinel who is always dickering with his superiors about whether he can sit down on the job, whether his rifle has to be loaded, whether he can sometimes leave his rifle in the corner rather than lugging it around, whether he can catch forty winks, and whether a noise qualifies as suspicious according to his own private concept of danger. Not only is such a man a bad sentinel; we would be hard put to call him a sentinel at all. He may wear the uniform, he may be stationed on the ramparts, and he may have signed a contract for sentinel duty. But he does not even acknowledge the existence of the virtues of a sentinel. He is soft in every way.

That is our condition now with regard to sex. No sane person would entrust the drafting of a constitution to people notable for mercurial interpretations. We would not listen to a pickpocket lecturing us on contract law. We do not comb the ranks of deserters for work on the Military Code of Honor. Yet with regard to sex, we are told we must heed ourselves—and, generally speaking, we are a pack of fornicators, adulterers, porn-users, abortion-procurers, child-corrupters, and sodomites.

What is the virtue the sexual faculties demand? Our grandparents, whether or not they were sinners in that respect, could have answered the question readily enough. They require chastity and all the contributory or corollary virtues: prudence, self-denial, moral courage, purity of thought and word and deed, care for children, and steadfastness in marriage. That answer came not from their caprice but from a plain view of what sexual intercourse simply is:it is, by way of efficient or exemplary cause, the act that brings into the world beings who dwell not only in time but in history and culture, if not in the shadow of eternity itself. By its very nature, it cannot be casual, as of dogs rutting in the road. It cannot be merely for a mutually agreed-upon duration of time, since the child that is its natural end transcends any such duration. He needs not a sire and a bitch, but a mother and a father bound to one another wholly, now and always.

But we are now in the odd position of supposing that sex is too trivial to require virtue for its exercise, but that it is simultaneously so significant, so determinative of a person’s identity, that to suggest any restraint upon its consensual exercise is an affront to the most important fount of human dignity. It is at once nugatory and holy. We are at once to think nothing of it, and everything. It is at once like scratching an itch, and worshiping a god. It requires no sacrifice from its exerciser, and the sacrifice of everything else to it: the welfare of children and the family, public morals, the common good, and liberty itself.

Anthony Esolen is Professor of English at Providence College in Providence Rhode Island, and the author of Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child and Ironies of Faith. He has translated Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata and Dante’s The Divine Comedy.

This article was first posted at The Public Discourse website.

Fred Phelps is dead. The fire-and-brimstone preacher, who for many years was pastor of the institution known as Westboro Baptist Church, died late Wednesday in a hospice in Topeka, Kansas. The announcement was made on his church’s website. The wording was simple: “Fred W. Phelps Sr. has gone the way of all flesh.” Thus brings to an end one of most bitter lives in modern history — and one of the most harmful to the Gospel.

Fred Phelps became infamous due to one central fact — he was a world-class hater. He brought great discredit to the Gospel of Christ because his message was undiluted hatred packaged as the beliefs of a church. Even Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center referred to Westboro Baptist Church as “this so-called church.” The damage was due to the fact that his platform for hatred was called a church. That provided the watching and listening world with a ready target and case study for the accusation that Christian conviction on questions of sexual morality is nothing more than disguised hatred for homosexuals. And, like radioactivity, Fred Phelps’ hatred will survive in lasting half-lives of animus.

The media made Fred Phelps into a public image, but they could hardly ignore a prophet of antipathy who showed up with his followers in public demonstrations and took his case for public protest all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. Phelps and the media needed each other and fed each other. The New York Times described Phelps as “a loathed figure at the fringe of the American religious scene,” but he was not a fringe figure in terms of media attention. I have done my best not to add to his publicity, but as calls from the media in recent days made clear, the time has come for a necessary word.

Fred Phelps claimed to preach against homosexuality, calling out sin as sin. “The way to prove you love your neighbor is to warn them that they’re committing sin,” he said in 2004. That is the full lie of a half truth. The way you prove you love your neighbor is to be honest about sin — including our own sin — in order to tell the good news of the forgiveness of sin and salvation in Christ.

Phelps knew exactly what he was doing.  As The Washington Post reported: “He found comfort in being a pariah. ‘If I had nobody mad at me, what right would I have to claim that I was preaching the gospel?’”

But that raises the most emphatic point — it was not the gospel that Fred Phelps was preaching. The gospel is the declaration of the good news that God saves sinners. It is the declaration of the fact that there is forgiveness of sins and life everlasting to be found in Christ and in belief in Him, and that is not the message for which Fred Phelps was known and hated.

He not only preached against homosexuality using the most vile and offensive graphic language possible, but he also took the next step and organized public protests at events such as the funerals for returning American soldiers who died in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was taking advantage of a moment of national focus and personal grief in order to transform a moment of sorrow and honor into a moment of controversy at the expense of compassion. He was a publicity hound in service to the powers of hell — corrupting the gospel of Christ.

Fred Phelps was so engaged in denouncing sin that the good news, the grace and mercy of God in Christ, was never made clear in his message. The gospel was never the point of his message. He did not represent the scandal of the gospel, but rather the scandal of preaching a false gospel. The gospel does not consist of denouncing sin. As the Puritans used to state so well, the preacher must do the “sin work” before declaring the “gospel work.” But the honest and necessary indictment of sin is but the threshold for the declaration of salvation in Christ’s name.

In Luke 15, Jesus told three parables about lostness and foundness, and in every one of them the point is clear — it is the salvation of even one sinner that causes rejoicing in heaven. Heaven is not pleased with the self-righteous preaching of a self-declared prophet. There is no rejoicing in heaven over the self-righteous preacher who does nothing but condemn sin and to do so in the most hateful and angry ways possible.

Fred Phelps made it easy for people to point to him and assert that theological opposition to homosexual behavior is rooted in nothing more than animus and hatred. He made the very point gospel-minded Christians have been trying to refute. He will be held accountable for a massive misrepresentation of the Christian faith, the Christian church, and the gospel of Christ. He single-handedly committed incalculable damage by presenting an enormous obstacle to the faithful teaching of the gospel. He made the job of every Christian more difficult in telling the truth about homosexuality as a sin and in declaring the good news of the gospel that Christ saves sinners.

What was missing is the attitude found in the New Testament. For instance, in First Corinthians chapter 5 and chapter 6, where the Apostle Paul indicts the Corinthian church for its complicity in sexual sin and lists those sexual sins, including homosexuality, and then says, “But such were some of you .. but you were washed.” The Christian gospel is not proclaimed from a position of moral superiority and smugness, but rather from the experience of one who has come to know God’s grace and cannot wait to share that message of grace with others.

We must be very clear about the fact that Fred Phelps’ sin was not that he said that sin is sin. That’s an essential task of every biblical Christian. It was that he seemed to celebrate the sinfulness of sin rather than be brokenhearted over it, and he never saw it as the opportunity — without skipping a breath — to get right to the declaration of the promise of salvation and forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ. The problem is that Fred Phelps gloried in sin and in his denunciation of sin to the expense of the gospel. The good news of the gospel simply never came through. The grace and mercy of God in Christ were never made clear in his message, and he became an enemy of the gospel rather than a representative of the gospel.

An article published at Slate.com just after the death of Fred Phelps raised a very interesting point and a troubling one as well. Tyler Lopez wrote: “But Westboro’s bombastic vitriol makes room for more casual or calculated anti-gay individuals to claim tolerance, love, and mercy. A quick comparison with Phelps can make even the most vicious anti-gay activists look like saints. By twisting the meaning of love and acceptance through carefully worded statements, homophobes are able to do a lot more damage to the LGBTQ community than a group like Westboro will ever do.”

That’s a very important statement and it’s one Christians need to read very carefully. Gay activist Tyler Lopez is saying that it is impossible to distinguish between the sin and the sinner. Hauntingly, it’s the mirror image of what Fred Phelps was declaring in his message. Fred Phelps represented a hatred of sin that became a hatred of sinners, and now Tyler Lopez, coming from the other direction, says the very same thing in the opposite form. He said it is impossible to say that you love me, if you say that you do not love my homosexuality. This points to the fact that Christians remain in a very difficult position, particularly in this age when Gospel truth-telling is becoming acutely more difficult every single day.

Fred Phelps made our challenge much worse. In this case, Tyler Lopez argues that Phelps made it easier for other people [and here he means evangelical Christians] to sound sane and rational. But the most tragic aspect of his accusation is that Tyler Lopez doesn’t consider our message — that is, a gospel-grounded biblical message on homosexuality — to be any better than Fred Phelps’ message. That’s a sobering realization for all of us. We also face the fact that any statement that same-sex sexuality is sin is going to be heard and condemned by many people as hateful and homophobic. This puts those who are the ambassadors and heralds of the gospel in this generation in an extremely awkward situation.

But, these are our times and that is our challenge. Our commission is to make very clear that we do love people, but we hate sin. And yet that doesn’t start with homosexuals — it starts in the mirror and in the church. And the knowledge of our sin drives us to seek refuge in Christ, in whom we find forgiveness and everlasting life.

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com blog.

Written by Rev. John Piper

It was a vexing, soul-stirring, Sunday morning.

First came my devotions, flaming with the words of Jesus on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). Second was a New York Times article about the transmission of HIV through lesbian sexual relations. Third came a powerful sermon, from the pastor at the church we’ve been attending, about Esau from Hebrews 12:12–17.

Here’s how they relate — and vex and stir — in reverse order.

The Insanity of Sin

Esau “sold his birthright for a single meal” (Hebrews 12:16). This is insane. His desire for food had made him irrational: “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” (Genesis 25:32). Besides the spiritual aspects of primogeniture, the firstborn was to receive twice the inheritance of other brothers (Deuteronomy 21:17).

The pastor compared this to Bill Gates asking you for some M&Ms, and you saying, “Make me majority stockholder in Microsoft, and you can have some.” And he says, “Fine.” Such is the insanity of sin. All sin. That’s the deal. You get M&Ms; you lose eternal joy.

But here’s the hook: The writer to the Hebrews makes this an example of sexual craving, not gluttony. Verse 16: “See to it that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau.” This helps make sense — if senselessness can make sense of anything — of presidents and pastors who risk their entire presidency and ministry for brief sexual pleasures. From Clinton to Swaggart to Haggard, legacies and souls are peddled for lentil soup.

When Esau Is the Hero

Which brings us to the New York Times article, titled “In Rare Case, Woman With H.I.V. Infects Female Sex Partner, C.D.C. Says.” Same-sex desires are disordered and sad, yet they don’t have to become sinful acts. But what kind of strange force is at work, when two lesbians engage in reckless and repeated sexual activity, knowing that one of them is infected with HIV? Answer: insane force. Esau-like force.

But be careful not to think this Esau-like insanity is owing to the passions of the moment. It is, in fact, what we are taught by the very Center for Disease Control that is supposed to protect our nation’s health. Here is their counsel, quoted at the end of the article:

C.D.C. officials advised that all infected people having sex with uninfected people stay on daily antiretroviral drugs, which can reduce virus levels in blood and bodily fluids so much that transmission is highly unlikely.

Translation: When you play Russian roulette with each other, be sure there is only one bullet in the gun. This is not the fruit of momentary passion. This is the considered counsel of cultural insanity. Esau is the hero in this story.

The Striking Parallel

Which brings us, finally, to Jesus. In Hebrews 12, Jesus is contrasted with Esau. Esau could not endure missing one meal for the joy of his inheritance (Hebrews 12:16). But Jesus “endured the cross for the joy set before him” (Hebrews 12:2). It is a striking parallel in the original Greek, evident in our English:

Esau
who for a single meal
sold his birthright. (Hebrews 12:16)

Jesus
who for the joy set before him
endured the cross. (Hebrews 12:2)

We are all cursed with the madness of Esau. We inherit it from Adam and Eve who chose one bite of fruit over eternal joy with God. We are all afflicted with congenital, culpable irrationality.

Awake to Real Joy

Here’s the good news. The remedy for this insanity is to wake up from the stupor and blindness that makes sin more desirable than God. Jesus modeled for us what that clear-eyed wakefulness looks like: “For the joy that was set before him endured the cross” (Hebrews 12:2).

But far more than modeling, he was paying and purchasing. He was paying the debt for all the Esau-like insanity of our preferring sin to God. And he was purchasing a new heart — a seeing heart, a rational heart, a heart that will not trade Microsoft for M&Ms.

When Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” it was the scream of the damned — damned in our place (Isaiah 53:5–6; Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:14). If we will repent and trust him, no Esau, no lesbian, no president, no pastor, no person will be condemned. Our sight and our reason will return to us.

This article was originally published at the desiringGod.org blog.

You’ve heard it said that “We are all God’s children.” This rings flowery and nice.

It’s an insidious lie.

Indeed, God both created and loves – in a way most unfathomable – everyone who ever lived. He wove us together in our mother’s womb and numbered our every hair. But God the Father has only one begotten Son. The rest of us, in order to become one of God’s children, must be adopted – in, by and through – the One Who is the Son: Jesus Christ. Those who are not adopted are not children of God. Christ and Christ alone is “the way, the truth and the life.”

Indeed, to become a child of God, we must ask God – through Christ – to adopt us. We mustn’t just believe upon Him – for “Even the demons believe that” (see James 2:19) – but, rather, we must also accept Him. We must follow Jesus, the one true God, as our only God. “But to all who believed him and accepted him (Jesus), he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12)

Don’t believe? Don’t accept? You have no right to become a child of God.

And that’s unholy hell.

I’m not here to question God. I can neither fully understand nor explain why what He says is so. I can only convey to you that He unmistakably, unequivocally and without stuttering, says it is so.

And so it is so.

“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

The postmodern concept of religious pluralism is likewise an insidious lie. It’s a relativist tool of deception, dreamed up the greatest of all deceivers. It’s a false religion – jazzed-up paganism – propagated by the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (see Ephesians 6:12).

Merriam Webster defines “pluralism” – in the context of which I refer – as “a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality.”

The goal of pluralist philosophy is to muddy the waters and divert mankind from the “narrow gate” that leads to eternal salvation (Jesus), while, at the same time, herding them along the “broad road” to eternal damnation (anything and everything that denies the singular and exclusive deity of Christ – or that rejects the certainty that He alone can save us from hell).

Pluralism is a non-starter. It’s inherently self-defeating, contradictory and, frankly, just plain stupid. Pick your “ism” – be it progressivism, socialism, Hinduism, Buddhism, communism, Marxism, atheism, et al. – and central to each you will find the leavening lie of pluralism.

Each of the world’s major religions fundamentally contradicts the other. They cannot all be true. Either one is true or none is true.

Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” (Matthew 7:13) Again, Jesus alone is that “narrow gate.”

Here’s the thing. You can deny Christ until the day you die. But after that, you will deny Him no more. Hate Him you may still, but deny Him you will not. Philippians 2:10-11 assures us, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

John 3:36 warns: “Whoever believes in the Son (Jesus) has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Christ is both tolerant and intolerant – utterly exclusive and wholly inclusive. He said in no uncertain terms: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

Universalists, atheists, pluralists and other followers of false god’s and religions, take note: Jesus, rather conspicuously, did not say: “No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad, Ganesh or L. Ron Hubbard.”

The narrow gate to heaven is utterly exclusive.

Yet Christ also promised us this: “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.” (Matthew 11:28-29)

Romans 10:13 is even more direct: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

The narrow gate to heaven is wholly inclusive.

If religious pluralism is true, which it cannot be, then Jesus is a liar. And if Jesus is a liar, then Carl Sagan was right when he said, “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.”

Worm food.

Thank God Jesus is not a liar.

Still, some apostate, celebrity mega-church pastors like Rob Bell have become wealthy calling Jesus a liar. They teach the heretical doctrine of “universal salvation,” which suggests that, ultimately, everyone ends up in heaven – even those who rejected Christ while here on earth.

Bell and others like him claim that “we’re all God’s children.”

This is a pseudo-Christian form of religious pluralism that may well condemn untold millions – to include celebrity mega-church pastors like Rob Bell – to the unimaginable horror of eternal separation from God. (Rob, brother, I pray that you’ll repent posthaste and ask Christ’s forgiveness for both your heresy and for leading your flock to slaughter. He’ll forgive you, just like he’s forgiven me for all the crap I’ve pulled over the years.)

And the Truth will set you free.

Romans 8:1-2 promises: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.”

By logical extension, the converse is true. There is condemnation for those who are not in Christ Jesus. Until and unless you believe upon, accept and follow Jesus – you remain imprisoned under the law of sin and death.

Unconvinced? You don’t have to believe to quietly pray this simple prayer to yourself: “Jesus, if you’re out there, please reveal yourself to me. If you’re real, help thou my unbelief.”

If I’m right – if Jesus is not a liar and He is who He says He is – then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by inquiring further.

If you don’t inquire further, you have everything to lose.  

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Last night’s debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham attracted a huge international audience and no shortage of controversy—even before it began. Bill Nye, whose main media presence is as “The Science Guy,” and Ken Ham, co-founder of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum, squared off in a true debate over one of the most important questions that the human mind can contemplate. That is no small achievement.

I enjoyed a front row seat at the debate, which took place even as a major winter storm raged outside, dumping considerable amounts of snow and ice and causing what the local police announced as a “Class Two” weather emergency. Inside the Creation Museum there was quite enough heat, and the debate took place without a hitch. Thankfully, it also took place without acrimony.

The initial controversy about the debate centered in criticism of Bill Nye for even accepting the invitation. Many evolutionary scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, refuse to debate the issue, believing that any public debate offers legitimacy to those who deny evolution. Nye was criticized by many leading evolutionists, who argued publicly that nothing good could come of the debate.

Interestingly, this points back to the famous debates over evolution that took place in nineteenth century England, when Anglican churchmen faced early evolutionary scientists in (mostly) civil public exchanges. Back then, it was the churchmen who were criticized by their peers for participation in the debate. Now, the table has turned, indicating something of the distance between the intellectual conditions then and now.

Of course, Bill Nye might have felt some moral obligation to debate the question, since he had launched a unilateral attack on creationist parents in a video that went viral last year. In that video, Nye told creationist parents:

“[I]f you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.”

But if Nye had launched the attack, he did not arrive at the debate in a defensive mode. A protege of the late Carl Sagan and the current CEO of the Planetary Society, Nye was in full form last night, wearing his customary bow-tie, and immaculately dressed in a very expensive suit. He took notes with a very fine writing instrument. I like his style.

Ken Ham is a veteran debater on the issue of origins, and he was clearly prepared for the debate. Ham’s arguments were tight and focused, and his demeanor was uniformly calm and professional. The format allowed for a full expression of both arguments, along with spirited exchanges and questions submitted from the audience. What the 150 minute event lacked was any requirement that the debaters answer each other’s questions. That would have changed the way the debate concluded.

The central question of the debate was this: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham stuck to the question tenaciously. Nye, on the other hand, tried to personalize the debate and kept changing the question from creation to “Ken Ham’s creationism.” Ham was unfazed, and kept to his argument.

As the debate began, it was clear that Ham and Nye do not even agree on definitions. The most friction on definition came when Nye rejected Ham’s distinction between “historical science” and “observational science” out of hand. Nye maintained his argument that science is a unitary method, without any distinction between historical and observational modes. Ham pressed his case that science cannot begin without making certain assumptions about the past, which cannot be observed. Furthermore, Ham rightly insisted that observational science generally does not require any specific commitment to a model of historical science. In other words, both evolutionists and creationists do similar experimental science, and sometimes even side-by-side.

Nye’s main presentation contained a clear rejection of biblical Christianity. At several points in the debate, he dismissed the Bible’s account of Noah and the ark as unbelievable. Oddly, he even made this a major point in his most lengthy argument. As any informed observer would have anticipated, Nye based his argument on the modern consensus and went to the customary lines of evidence, from fossils to ice rods. Ham argued back with fossil and geological arguments of his own. Those portions of the debate did not advance the arguments much past where they were left in the late nineteenth century, with both sides attempting to keep score by rocks and fossils.

In this light, the debate proved both sides right on one central point: If you agreed with Bill Nye you would agree with his reading of the evidence. The same was equally true for those who entered the room agreeing with Ken Ham; they would agree with his interpretation of the evidence.

That’s because the argument was never really about ice rods and sediment layers. It was about the most basic of all intellectual presuppositions: How do we know anything at all? On what basis do we grant intellectual authority? Is the universe self-contained and self-explanatory? Is there a Creator, and can we know him?

On those questions, Ham and Nye were separated by infinite intellectual space. They shared the stage, but they do not live in the same intellectual world. Nye is truly committed to a materialistic and naturalistic worldview. Ham is an evangelical Christian committed to the authority of the Bible. The clash of ultimate worldview questions was vividly displayed for all to see.

When asked how matter came to exist and how consciousness arose, Nye responded simply and honestly: “I don’t know.” Responding to the same questions, Ham went straight to the Bible, pointing to the Genesis narrative as a full and singular answer to these questions. Nye went on the attack whenever Ham cited the Bible, referring to the implausibility of believing what he kept describing as “Ken Ham’s interpretation of a 3,000 year old book translated into American English.”

To Bill Nye, the idea of divine revelation is apparently nonsensical. He ridiculed the very idea.

This is where the debate was most important. Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Both men said no. Neither was willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change their minds. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus. More than once he asserted a virtually unblemished confidence in the ability of modern science to correct itself. He steadfastly refused to admit that any intellectual presuppositions color his own judgment.

But the single most defining moments in the debate came as Bill Nye repeatedly cited the “reasonable man” argument in his presentation and responses. He cited Adolphe Quetelet’s famed l’homme moyen—“a reasonable man”—as the measure of his intellectual authority. Writing in 1835, Quetelet, a French intellectual, made his “reasonable man” famous. The “reasonable man” is a man of intellect and education and knowledge who can judge evidence and arguments and function as an intellectual authority on his own two feet. The “reasonable man” is a truly modern man. Very quickly, jurists seized on the “reasonable man” to define the law and lawyers used him to make arguments before juries. A “reasonable man” would interpret the evidence and make a reasoned judgment, free from intellectual pressure.

Bill Nye repeatedly cited the reasonable man in making his arguments. He is a firm believer in autonomous human reason and the ability of the human intellect to solve the great problems of existence without any need of divine revelation. He spoke of modern science revealing “what we all can know” as it operates on the basis of natural laws. As Nye sees it, Ken Ham has a worldview, but Nye does not. He referred to “Ken Ham’s worldview,” but claimed that science merely provides knowledge. He sees himself as the quintessential “reasonable man,” and he repeatedly dismissed Christian arguments as “not reasonable.”

In an unexpected turn, near the end of the event, Nye even turned to make an argument against Christianity on grounds of theodicy. He asked Ham if it was “reasonable” to believe that God had privileged a personal revelation that was not equally accessible to all. Nye’s weakest argument had to do with his claim—made twice—that billions of religious people accept modern science. He provided a chart that included vast millions of adherents of other world religions and announced that they are religious but accept modern science. That is nonsense, of course. At least it is nonsense if he meant to suggest that these billions believe in evolution. That is hardly the case. Later, he lowered his argument to assert that these billions of people use modern technology. So, of course, do creationists. There are few facilities in the world more high-tech than the Creation Museum.

Nye is clearly not a fan of theistic evolution, since he argued that a purely natural argument should be quite enough for the “reasonable man.” He seemed to affirm a methodological agnosticism, since he sees the question of a “higher power” or “spiritual being” to be one of little intellectual consequence. He did argue that nature is a closed system and that natural selection can allow for absolutely no supernatural interference or influence. In this respect, he sounded much like Stephen Hawking, who has argued that God may exist, but that there is nothing for him to do.

Ken Ham is a Young Earth Creationist (as am I), but the larger argument was over worldviews, and the debate revealed the direct collision between evolution and the recognition of any historical authority within Genesis 1-11. As if to make that clear, in making one of his closing arguments, Bill Nye actually went back to cite “this problem of the ark.”

The ark is not the real problem; autonomous human reason is. Bill Nye is a true believer in human reason and the ability of modern science to deliver us. Humanity is just “one germ away” from extinction, he said. But science provides him with the joy of discovery and understanding.

The problem with autonomous human reason is made clear by the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 1:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Rom 1:18-23 ESV).

The problem with human reason is that it, along with every other aspect of our humanity, was corrupted by the fall. This is what theologians refer to as the “noetic effects of the fall.” We have not lost the ability to know all things, but we have lost the ability to know them on our own authority and power. We are completely dependent upon divine revelation for the answers to the most important questions of life. Our sin keeps us from seeing what is right before our eyes in nature. We are dependent upon the God who loves us enough to reveal himself to us—and to give us his Word.

As it turns out, the reality and authority of divine revelation, more than any other issue, was what the debate last night was all about. As the closing statements made very clear, Ken Ham understood that fact, but Bill Nye did not.

The central issue last night was really not the age of the earth or the claims of modern science. The question was not really about the ark or sediment layers or fossils. It was about the central worldview clash of our times, and of any time: the clash between the worldview of the self-declared “reasonable man” and the worldview of the sinner saved by grace.

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com blog.

There is much hand-wringing over the violence and chaos of Chicago’s inner city neighborhoods and the fiscal crises facing the state, and we are led to believe that people really want solutions.  The evidence would say otherwise.  While those who cannot escape the situation might like change, our politicians clearly do not. Real solutions to the problems exist but are simply unpopular and unacceptable to those in power, so do not expect to see any change soon. 

A second reality is that many of us have detached ourselves from truth.  Sadly, critical thinking and logic are lost arts.  There is a culture-wide phenomenon of “looking the truth in the eye and denying it.”  Stability, peace and prosperity do not exist by accident, and neither does chaos.  They are the consequence of specific choices we make.  So long as we reward corrupt politicians by electing and reelecting them to office we will see corrupt policies implemented.  As long as we support indolent people from the public coffers, diligence will be discouraged. 

“Something for nothing” is not merely technically impossible (someone always pays), it is immoral and undermines the foundations of a prosperous economy, stable families and neighborhoods.  Providing for one’s self remains a virtue.  Intact, two-parent traditional families are the backbone of a peaceful, productive and stable community, but as long as we accept the “redefining” of the family, we will see chaos and violence on our streets.  If we tolerate public mocking of character and integrity, we should not be surprised by their scarcity.    

That Americans are more willing to participate in corruption is exposed by the fact that fully one third or more of federal disability recipients may be doing so fraudulently (See 60 Minutes report).  This adds up quickly to hundreds of billions of dollars and threatens the wellbeing of those who are genuinely disabled.  Tragically, multitudes of Americans no longer have personal convictions against fraud.  Political correctness has seared the consciences of millions who rationalize stealing from their neighbors. 

The Democrat Party has sold itself out to every form of fraud and vice imaginable; and disguising themselves as “compassionate” encourage soul-deadening and crippling dependency in every form.  They also support abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, pornographic sex education in the public schools, virtually unlimited gambling, and have been at the wheel of the state for the decades that have seen wholesale abuse of the pension funds on the state and local level.  It is an unsettling reality that most Illinoisans are still content to send their children to public schools where they are taught the Liberals’ three Rs, reading, writing and eroticism. Unfortunately, there is no other party to stand against these abuses.  The Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party in Chicago. 

So, what is a concerned and honest citizen to do?  So long as God is on His throne, there is always hope, but, change is possibly only once we recognize the principle that we ignore God to our peril.  He created the laws by which we must live; only He can temper their consequences with mercy, and only He can bring about the changes necessary for cultural stability and peace.

What I refer to is historically called “revival.”  In the early and again in the latter part of the 18th Century there were two great spiritual “revivals” in America known as the first and second “Great Awakenings.”  These culturally transformative events laid the foundation for the Revolution and  the liberties, prosperity and peace for which America is known and which we would like to once more enjoy.  Only such a spiritual awakening can reverse the cultural and moral decay we all suffer from today.  

 If and when we repent, God may respond.  It is His call; but, there is no alternative. 

 Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

Written by Franklin Graham

I appreciate the Robertson family’s strong commitment to biblical principles and their refusal to back down under intense media pressure over Phil Robertson’s comments in a recent interview. As the Robertson controversy winds down—at least for now—I have been amazed at how many churches have apparently “ducked” out on the issue (sin). Some were even quick to condemn Phil Robertson.

If we Christians banded together and took a stand, perhaps we wouldn’t be losing so much ground in what the media is calling the “cultural war.” However, it is not a cultural war—it is a religious war against Christians and the biblical truths we stand for. Some churches have fallen into the trap of being politically correct, under the disguise of tolerance.

God is not “politically correct,” and He is certainly not tolerant of sin. The Bible tells us that He is going to judge all sin one day; and anyone who is not found under the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, will face an eternity in hell separated from God. Scripture says, “So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:49-50). But today God is willing to forgive anyone who truly repents (is willing to turn from their sin), asks for His forgiveness, and believes on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (“For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” Romans 10:13).

You knew it would happen sooner or later. An outspoken, wildly popular, conservative Christian who doesn’t give a hoot—or in this case, a quack—about political correctness would air his views about homosexuality, and overnight, Hollywood hell would break loose.

To catch you up on the latest events, earlier this week, the text of Phil Robertson’s interview with GQ Magazine was released online, containing controversial comments about homosexual practice, among other things. (For those who have been living under a rock, Phil Robertson is the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan, and he is a self-proclaimed “Bible thumper.”)

Shortly after the interview was released, and quite predictably, GLAAD issued a statement condemning Robertson’s remarks as “some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.” (Reminder: GLAAD officially stands for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, but I have long suggested that a more appropriate name would be the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement.)

GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz says, “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” (Note to GLAAD: The majority of Louisianans do not support same-sex marriage.)

This was followed by a clarification and apology of sorts by Robertson: 

I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and, like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

The Human Rights Campaign, the world’s largest gay activist organization, also condemned Robertson’s remarks and called for A&E, the cable network that airs Duck Dynasty, to take action: “The A&E network should take immediate action to condemn Phil Robertson’s remarks and make clear they don’t support his views.”

Later the same day, A&E issued its own statement:

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.

In support of Robertson, the Faith Driven Consumer Facebook page started an “I Stand With Phil” campaign, while another Facebook page, “Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back on Duck Dynasty,” had more than 100,000 “likes” in a matter of hours. Talk about a clash of two cultures!

What did Robertson actually say that was so controversial?

First he remarked, “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Was he accusing all (or most) gays of engaging in bestiality or of sleeping with multiple women? It appears not, although I can easily see why his critics would think otherwise, and in that context, he was right to clarify his comments.

What he was saying, though, was that gay sex should be seen as part of the “anything goes” mentality of the sexual revolution of the ’60s, and in that regard he was right. In fact, while gay activists emphasize homosexual identity, placing the gay rights movement in the context of the civil rights movement of the ’60s, Robertson and other conservative Christians emphasize homosexual behavior, placing gay activism in the context of the sexual revolution of the same era.

Robertson next quoted from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, a famous passage in Paul’s letters in which he clearly states that practicing homosexuals, along with practicing heterosexual sinners of various stripes, will not inherit God’s kingdom. (For the record, despite frequent objections to the contrary, the Greek text is quite clear in terms of its overall sense.)

Was A&E genuinely unaware that Phil Robertson held to these views? I seriously doubt it. My guess is that they were just glad (not GLAAD) that he hadn’t aired them publicly.

Finally, Robertson suggested (speaking first for himself) that the female sexual organ was “more desirable” than a man’s rectum and that a woman had “more to offer” a man.

And for these comments he was promptly suspended.

The fact is, though, no matter how much two men may love each other, it remains indisputably clear that men were biologically designed to be with women, and vice versa. In that regard, no matter how crude Robertson’s comments may have been, they were correct.

As for his quotation from 1 Corinthians 6, did anyone really think that Robertson would say, “You know, now that I’ve become a TV celebrity, I’m going to revise my views on God’s intent for human sexuality and marriage”?

Personally, I don’t believe for a moment that Robertson will bow down to A&E and compromise his convictions, although I could see him offering a further clarification of his statements, explaining, for example, that he was not accusing homosexuals of practicing bestiality any more than heterosexuals engage in such perversion.

And I don’t see how A&E can back down from its position regardless of how popular the show is. The gay lobby is far too powerful. (I imagine that Alec Baldwin has an opinion on this as well, although, to be clear, I am not comparing Robertson to Baldwin.)

In fact, I don’t see either of them about to blink, which means the culture wars are about to hit the fan, and this could get very ugly very quickly.

I suggest that those of us who agree fundamentally with Robertson make clear that: 1) We are unashamed of our belief in Jesus and in biblical morality; 2) we stand against the mistreatment of all people, including gays and lesbians; and 3) we will not support the radical redefinition of marriage, regardless of the cost involved, nor do we see cultural capitulation to gay activism as inevitable.

Now would be a perfect time to take a stand, but with grace, precision and wisdom.

This article was originally posted at the Charismannews.com blog.

In 2 Corinthians 5:17, the Apostle Paul teaches us that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” 

Such are those who have been changed by the power of God to put away one’s sinful desires. One example is the life of Raleigh Mayberry Jr., a young man from Chicago who grew up in a fatherless home.   Involved with homosexuality from a young age, he was able to change through the power of Jesus Christ.  He now identifies as an ex-homosexual and is boldly proclaiming that homosexuality is not genetic and that it is possible to come out of the lifestyle. 

Please view this short video of Raleigh’s testimony by clicking HERE and share it with your friends and family. 

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

If you would rather write a check, please make it payable to Illinois Family Action or Illinois Family Institute, and mail it to us at: P.O. Box 88848 Carol Stream, Illinois  60188. 

We also accept credit card donations by phone at (708) 781-9328.