Tag Archives: moral
We are initially incensed at the idea of charging a higher price during an emergency. Any ethical human being naturally thinks that during an emergency we should be willing to help people in need by charging less, or giving goods away for free. But how do we think biblically about the pricing of goods during an emergency?
About a year ago former president Obama announced that transgender people could serve openly in the military. The decision was criticized by many saying it would affect unit cohesion and military readiness. Others panned the decision as a drain on tax dollars that would be needed to fund hormone treatments and sex-reassignment surgeries. And of course there were plenty of privacy discussions.
One thing to be clear about in our “everything is a right” culture is that serving in the military is not a right. There’s nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says a person has the right to serve in the military. It is a privilege. If serving in the military were a right there would be no entrance requirements and people could not be disqualified based on bad eyesight, diabetes, or any other physical limitation. But, people are disqualified for any number of reasons, which is further evidence that military service is a privilege and not a right.
Canada has ruled that sexual acts with animals are legal providing there is no penetration involved. This ruling was handed down by the Canadian Supreme Court after a convicted sexual predator, found guilty of assaulting his stepdaughters, appealed the charge and conviction of bestiality.
At one time our Founders sought refuge from government persecution for their religious convictions. They left their homes to establish a place where people could freely live out their faith in every aspect of their life. What is happening today is a return to that same government persecution that our Founders desperately wanted to leave behind.
One area this seems most apparent is in the effort to force Christians to accept homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” Sure, there may have been a goal of simply seeing this lifestyle legitimized and legalized; but that appears now to have been a precursor for the larger goal of forcing every person to accept and celebrate it. But there can now be no doubt that seeking simple “equality” is a long forgotten idea. And the rhetoric we were fed that “no one would be affected” was nothing more than a well-rehearsed talking point in a carefully crafted campaign.
A statement in an article from a couple months ago echoes what, I believe, many Americans are thinking:
I’ve been saying this for years. And not just me, many voices concerned about the fallout of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” have said it.
If the government legalizes same-sex “marriage,” what legal or moral basis would there be to refuse to legalize polygamy or polyamory?
Let’s think logically for a moment. The U.S Supreme Court has found a “right” to same-sex “marriage” in the constitution. Often citing autonomy of adults and their ability to consent, SCOTUS decided that a civil right exists to allow homosexual adults to marry. If that is the case, then what possible moral of legal reasoning could there be to refuse to legalize polygamy and polyamory?
Go ahead, I’ll wait while you think about it.
Oh, you say it’s bad for the kids. I see. So not having a mother or a father – as in the case of same-sex “marriage” is acceptable, but having two or three moms or dads is not? Is that what you’re arguing? Come on, you need to do better than that.
The Supreme Court just ignored every argument for what is best for children and found a civil right for relationships in which kids will be denied one or the other – do you really think they will deny legalization of polygamy on the basis of kids having three moms of two dads? If the court doesn’t think it’s a big deal for a child to have no mom or no dad, they will surely not care if a child has multiple of one parent or another. Try again.
Church “experts” and analysts seem to be in a frenzy trying to figure out how to keep millennials from walking away from the church. There’s a panic to discover the strategic secret to making sure those younger generations stay connected, attending, and active in church.
The result has been a whole-sale failure on the part of the church.
Before anyone gets too mad at me, understand that I was part of the problem. I watched church trends and attended really cool conferences and seminars to learn new tips and tricks to bringing young families in and keeping them. What I’ve come to realize is that no matter how hard the church tries to keep millennials – they will eventually walk away IF they’ve never had a life-changing encounter with Jesus.
You see, the problem is not the church format, or ministries, or anything inside the church. The problem is what’s going on inside the people inside the church. Too many people inside the church have never encountered Jesus and been saved from their sin.
Now, don’t get me wrong. If you’re still preaching topical sermons from a King James Bible after you sing every verse of 5 hymns from a dusty hymnal then your church has some problems. But those problems are just symptoms of a larger problem. The root cause can be found by looking into the hearts of the people and seeing that many that claim to be saved are in fact lost.
So trying to start new – really cool – ministries, or change the format is like putting a band aid over a gunshot wound; it simply won’t help.
I was encouraged by a recent article in which a young millennial encouraged the church to stop trying to be cool and simply preach the Gospel and address tough issues from a biblical perspective. There’s a novel idea.
If you want a picture of what a few progressive Christians want in a church, look no further than the writing of Rachel Held Evans. The picture presented by Evans is a combination of hipster religion and liberal social policy, aimed, it seems, at attracting young people that are otherwise more interested in social media and selfies.
I get it. The effort to create a brand of church that is marketable to the young has become popular; not with everyone, but popular nonetheless. So we have coffee shops, light shows, a ministry tailored for every member of the church, and an entire brand designed to set us apart from every other church in town.
Maybe I’m getting old, but those things are far less appealing to me today than they were 10 years ago. And, it seems, Rachel Held Evans is not really impressed with it either. She wrote an article that appeared in the Washing Post expressing her displeasure with modern attempts to make church “cool.” We would most likely find a great deal of agreement in our rejection of what many church-trend-followers claim is a cool church.
I can stand in solid agreement with the idea that less is more, smaller is better, simpler is more effective, and deeper is needed. The last thing we need in our churches is louder music, more lights, branding, and old people trying to wear skinny jeans. We could use a little more reverence, in-depth study, confessing sins, and the kind of fellowship that leaves you longing for more.
So Evans and I can find mutual agreement in our rejection of “cool” church. Where we tend to disagree is what that looks like and means practically. For Evans, it seems to be a sort of utopia that I’m not sure can exist in a sin-filled world. In her article, Evans shares several ideas that she believes is needed in the church today. They are:
All you need to know about a taxpayer funded sex conference in Oregon is what a spokesperson for the event had to say about what the event is all about:
“We really think the message that they are bringing to these children is not value oriented. It’s about helping youth make good choices on their own personal sexuality. It’s about making good decisions about their relationships; it’s about giving them skills to just anything that has to deal with health.”
In other words, one of the organizers of the event says that the event is not about teaching values, but about teaching youth to “make good choices on their own personal sexuality.”
The problem with this statement is that every choice comes from a place of values, which begins with morality. So, for a person to make a “good choice” regarding sexuality that person must first have a moral understanding of his or her sexuality that will enable a good choice. The result of not teaching any values associated with sexuality is exactly the problem, it’s how we arrived at this particular point in our culture.
Christians have a responsibility to be obedient to civil government. Verses such as Mark 12:17 and Romans chapter 13 make it clear that Christians have a duty to be obedient to civil government because God has ordained government “for your good.”
Knowing that Christians have a responsibility to civil government makes it hard for some to understand why we resist and fight some laws. If, they suppose, Christians are to obey government, why fight the HHS mandate or the redefinition of marriage?
For those leading the charge in these particular areas of culture change it makes no sense for Christians to expend all their energy fighting the government when they should, as the Bible teaches, submit to and obey the government. Rather than risk the loss of livelihood or be fined for resisting and opposing laws mandated by the government, Christians ought to submit and obey.
While that is, technically true, it is not entirely true and stands outside the context of Christian responsibility.
No, no, no, no, no. Hoping the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex “marriage” in all fifty states is not a good idea. Yes, the issue is undoubtedly headed back to the high court and, yes, the court will be forced to rule whether or not individual states have the right to define marriage for themselves. But, to want the Supreme Court to decide for us all what the definition of marriage should be is an absurd proposition.
I get it, the writer of this article saying that such a decision by the high court would be a great thing for the Republican Party is thinking along secular political lines. His end game is a strengthened GOP that doesn’t have to deal with an unpopular cultural issue. Nonetheless, not only do I think it is a political strategy nightmare, I think it’s a moral disaster of epic proportions.
The writer starts off his support for a Supreme Court decision by saying: “Like it or not, opponents of gay marriage are losing the battle…A substantial majority of voters now support it, 59 percent in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.”