Tag Archives: traditional
Take a few minutes to watch this video with Josh McDowell on Fox News to understand the difference between traditional and cultural tolerance. The difference is critical for our culture to move away from being “politically correct” and back to one of mutual respect and civility.
Apologist josh McDowell explains the difference between traditional and cultural tolerance this way:
Traditional tolerance separates the person from the action, behavior, or opinion. Traditional tolerance says, “I love you, I care about you, but I disagree with what you are saying (or how you are behaving).” But cultural tolerance does not separate the person from the words or actions and makes disagreement a personal attack. Which is, McDowell says, so many people respond with “why are you being so hateful?” when someone disagrees with them.
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.
One of the biggest challenges in defending traditional marriage in our current culture doesn’t come from the Supreme Court, LGBT activists, or political agendas. Instead, this challenge comes from self-described “gay-affirming Christians.”
This group believes the Bible has been misinterpreted for hundreds of years and now wants to “set the record straight” on the biblical teaching regarding sexuality. For gay-affirming Christians the issue is understanding the cultural context of passages like Romans 1 in order to properly translate them for our current culture.
One standard talking point for gay-affirming Christians is that Romans chapter 1 is not a prohibition of homosexuality or same-sex “marriage,” but only a prohibition of homosexual fornication and abuse. In other words, Paul is simply saying that as long as homosexuals are given the opportunity to marry, as are heterosexuals, their lifestyle as homosexuals will be as pleasing before God as anyone else.
Not only is this “interpretation” of Romans 1 dangerous, it violates any sensible hermeneutic in studying Scripture. First, it goes against the plain text understanding of the Scripture. There is absolutely no way for any reasonable person to read Romans 1 and walk away with that understanding. The only logical conclusion after reading Romans 1 is that homosexuality is a sin. But even if we study the passage’s meaning from a cultural perspective, or look at the original Greek to get the meaning, we see a consistent message.
Evangelist Ray Comfort is known for walking around talking to people about the Ten Commandments on camera. He records the exchanges and puts them online in order to train people on one way to effectively share the Gospel. But his latest project has the potential to stir far more controversy.
Comfort has launched a new movie called “Audacity” – a movie about the biblical teaching on homosexuality.
While he was initially unsure about producing the movie, Comfort finally agreed and said the movie is nothing like anyone is expecting a Christian movie on this touchy subject to be. He recently said in an interview that the movie is “nothing like you would expect from a Christian movie about the subject of homosexuality.”
Comfort believes this movie will provide a new perspective to people, especially people supporting same-sex “marriage” or those believing people are born gay. Comfort said:
“There is a delightful portion in the movie where you watch pro-gay people change their minds on camera about the issue of whether or not homosexuals are born that way,” Comfort said. “This is simply because they were given another perspective. So, I think that there’s going to be a lot of mind-changing going on after people have watched.”
We’ve all heard and read about the recent marriage ruling by the Supreme Court. The number of articles, blog posts, and interviews commenting on this landmark ruling is astounding. That being true, there is no reason for me to comment on the ruling at this time.
Instead, I’ve constructed a detailed list of the articles posted by top voices on the issue. From research analysts, political analysts, pastors, theologians, and cultural commenters, these articles look at the decision from every viewpoint and angle.
I urge you to read some of these articles and have a well-constructed response to the inevitable conversation that you will be involved in soon. Don’t be unprepared. Be informed and able to clearly articulate your position.
What The Supreme Court Said:
Christianity Today: Here’s What Supreme Court Says about Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
“So the question becomes: How will gay rights and religious rights be balanced? Below is what the justices said in today’s majority opinion and four dissents, as well as a summary of related survey data. Essentially, the majority believe the First Amendment gives religious groups and people “proper protection” to “continue to advocate” their beliefs on traditional marriage. But the dissenters are more skeptical, and concerned that “people of faith can take no comfort” in the ruling.”
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:
As I discussed yesterday, the Supreme Court is preparing to rule on the issue of marriage. More specifically, whether or not it should be legal in all 50 states for homosexuals to marry. This decision will have a major impact on every person regardless of which way the court rules.
Several years ago I was involved with educating churches and pastors on what steps they could take to protect their churches from lawsuits due to changing cultural norms. While many churches were receptive to such instruction, some churches believed it unnecessary. Few churches today seeking to protect their religious freedom think being educated is unnecessary.
Groups like The Gospel Coalition have been more cautious in recommending to churches steps that can be taken to protect their pastors, facilities, and religious freedom. So when I see recommendations from The Gospel Coalition, in conjunction with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), I take notice.
In a blog post not long ago, The Gospel Coalition recommended five ways churches can protect their religious convictions and freedom amidst a changing culture. These are five steps groups like ADF and the one I worked with were encouraging years ago; they are more critical today than ever.
The five steps are:
Scores of pastors in “hip” churches with trendy gimmicks and attractions can’t figure out why people seem to come, linger for a while, then leave. Yes, many of these churches are large – some have hundreds or even thousands of people each week – but they are an ever-revolving role of people that never seem to stick. Why?
Other pastors are having the same problem. The difference is that they oversee small, traditional churches that have “faithfully” held the ranks against any kind of change in their churches. Though younger generations disappeared, they comforted themselves with the knowledge that they were being “faithful” to their calling.
Two different churches with the same problem: people – both young and old – are leaving and not coming back.
This is not a traditional vs. modern church problem. This is a church problem; a Christian culture problem that transcends shallow differences like music and décor. Anyone that can’t see the reality that many people are simply walking away from the church needs to pull their head from the sand. The first thing we need to do is understand this group, then we can figure out why they are leaving.
Gay people want Christians to bake cakes celebrating their same-sex weddings. Christians want the right to respectfully decline in order to adhere to their religious convictions. Gay people want to sue Christians for refusing saying that it is “discriminatory,” and that business owners should not be allowed to refuse any customers.
Now, what happens when a gay bakery is asked to bake a cake celebrating traditional marriage?
Such a scenario, until now, has been nothing but speculation. Many of us have wondered out loud about this scenario saying that we suspect a gay baker would refuse and the story would be ignored. To this point the tolerance often demanded by many homosexuals is rarely extended to others. The double standards many activists employ is hard to fathom.
Theodore Shoebat decided to turn the tables and see what would happen if he asked gay bakers to bake him a cake with the message “Gay Marriage is Wrong” on it. The videos that follow chronicle his encounters with 13 gay bakers. To say the least, the tolerance many homosexuals demand is not afforded to Shoebat in his request. He writes of his experience: