Category: Public Policy
If You’re a Christian and Supporting Donald Trump: Read This
Posted on March 2, 2016 in Public Policy, Theology by Nathan Cherry
I liked watching the Celebrity Apprentice. I thought it was fun to watch these celebrities get told off by Donald Trump because I was pretty sure most of them hated him and would be the first to break a bottle over his head in a bar fight. So of course it made for entertaining television; come on, you were just as intrigued by Dennis Rodman as I was.
However, watching Trump rise politically has been the most confusing and bewildering experience. How can a man say the things Trump says and still be in the race? I’ve seen local politicians be mercilessly attacked and forced from office for less. (I have a theory that the media secretly wants Trump elected, but I’ll save that for another time.)
I’ve been voting for many years and am generally enthused in some way to go to the polls and cast my vote. However, my biggest fear is that when I step into that ballot box in 2016 that I will be faced with the choice between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders for President. If that is the choice we may see more write-in ballots this year than any election in history. (Don’t be afraid to write my name in there, I’ll go to Washington for you.)
The reason I say this article is for Christians supporting Trump is two-fold:
This is the Kind of Coach I Want My Kids Playing For
Posted on December 31, 2015 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Suppose you’re a high-school football coach that has received praise and accolades in your annual review for the last 7 years. You’ve also been told by athletes and parents about what a good influence you are on the players and what a great role model you are. You don’t do anything special or different for your entire tenure as a coach. Then, one day you find out the school is placing you on administrative leave and suggesting you not be re-hired.
What would you think?
That is the position coach Joe Kennedy found himself in when the local Washington state school district he worked for refused to allow him to continue saying silent prayers on the football field.
Here’s the story.
In 2008 Coach Kennedy saw the movie “Facing the Giants” and decided to start praying for his team. He would stroll out to the field before and after games to say a silent prayer for the athletes. He didn’t tell anyone, didn’t invite anyone, he just started praying. Before long members of his team joined him and they would silently pray before and after games. No one was forced. No one was disciplined or removed from the team for not praying. It was a completely voluntary routine.
Will the Church Be Protected from the Legal Ramifications of Same-Sex “Marriage”?
Posted on December 30, 2015 in Marriage, Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
It’s clear from the plain understanding of these laws that anyone, not just a church, has the right to live and do business according to their sincerely held religious beliefs. The idea that the Supreme Court or any governing body can force a person to support anything that violates their conscience or religious convictions is completely foreign to the American Constitution. (This includes the taxpayer funding of abortion.) Our Founders specifically sought to create a place where people would not be forced to violate their convictions.
The proposed resolution goes on to cite cases from around the country where Christians have been prosecuted for their refusal to support same-sex “marriage.” These examples include a photographer in New Mexico, baker in Colorado, florist in Washington, and others that have seen their business and personal lives thrown into turmoil by an overzealous government and complicit media that are chomping at the bit to make examples of anyone that refuse to bow to their agenda.
The resolution goes on to propose the following law designed to protect churches and the people that work for them, as well as religious organizations and their employees and Christian-owned businesses:
Do School Employees Lose All Religious Rights By Being a School Employee?
Posted on December 17, 2015 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
There’s an enormous misunderstanding regarding the Constitution and religion that is causing all sorts of trouble for folks that just want to pray. The misunderstanding is being intentionally propagated by an atheist group that doesn’t want to see religious expressions in public.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has a notion that government and religion are mutually exclusive. They have as their mission “to protect the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.” The problem here is that there is no such “constitutional principle.” Nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence is there a word about keeping religion out of public life; or the so-called “separation of church and state.” In fact, what the Constitution does say is that the government has no authority to make any laws pertaining to the free exercise and expression of religion.
But that doesn’t stop this atheist group from demanding that coaches not take part in team prayers.
One of the latest cases comes from Naperville, Ill. where a high school football coach is under fire for simply being present with his players during team prayers. (Click here to read the local article) The complaint came after a picture of the team, including the coaches, was sent to the FFRF. They sent a letter to the school district demanding the action cease immediately.
Common Sense Wins in Houston as Men are Not Allowed in Women’s Bathrooms
Posted on November 10, 2015 in Public Policy, Sexuality, Uncategorized by Nathan Cherry
What does not seem to be so common is common sense. The HERO ordinance would have allowed transgender people to use whatever bathroom, shower, locker room, or facility they chose. This means, in very simple terms, that any person can claim to be any gender they want in order to gain access to the facility they want. To put it plainly, men, particularly sexual predators would have immediate access to women’s bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.
George Washington Law School professor John Banzhaf put the measure in perspective by noting that women would see it as an invasion of their “sexual privacy.” He said:
Church Silence on Critical Moral Issues is Aiding Sin and Perverting the Gospel
Posted on November 4, 2015 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
I have long been an interested party in how the Gospel propels us into social involvement. The idea that as Christians we can stick our head in the sand and pretend everything is okay in our society seems both unbiblical and counter-intuitive to what Scripture teaches. That we should be active in helping “the least of these” and doing everything in our power to champion them seems obvious given the Bible’s teaching (see the book of James).
What I have come to realize is that many churches, pastors, and Christians are the least active, least involved (seemingly the least concerned) about matters that have come to be known as “social justice” issues. Whether this is due to such issues becoming highly politicized, or whether it is a result of poor theology is unclear. What is clear is that far too many Christians have little concern for anything that faintly smells political.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting we all quit our jobs and run for political office. That calling must be clear as the person called to run for office will need every ounce of grace and strength God will grant. But as Christians we cannot sit on the sidelines and bemoan the state of our culture and society (politically or morally) while we do absolutely nothing. No one like a backseat driver or am armchair quarterback.
So while a few churches have taken any interest in the world outside their Bible-insulated walls, most have stayed content to meet each week to condemn society, gossip about sinful neighbors, and remain idle. This is lamentable at best. And I wish more churches would connect the Gospel to local and global action that reaches beyond week long mission trips. In fact, I firmly believe that if most churches became involved in “campaigning” for change in their communities we would see our society changed into something more in line with our theology.
But, to be honest, I am not optimistic or hopeful that this will happen.
The New War on Women: A Man Has Just Been Named “Woman” of the Year
Posted on October 28, 2015 in Marriage, Public Policy, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
This post will likely be deemed “offensive” and “hate speech” by some. It will certainly be considered politically incorrect. Those realities make it all the more necessary and bewildering.
It seems Caitlyn Jenner, the new identity of the man formerly known as Bruce Jenner, will be named “Woman of the Year” by Glamour magazine. Now, there is so much packed into that statement that needs addressed, it is hard to know where to start.
Let’s consider the state of a society that celebrates and throws parties when a man is named “Woman of the Year.” It seems our culture loves embracing confusing ideas that aren’t based in realty. And by doing so we have become hypocrites that loathe the truth. We tell a man dressing as a woman that “she” is courageous and beautiful. We then tell people that believe in God, heaven, and eternity that they are “anti-science.” Even though biologically Bruce Jenner is a man and, therefore, scientifically he is living a lie. Our culture says we should celebrate his decision and support him in his confusion. But don’t you dare claim to pray or believe in divine intervention because that is unscientific.
Speaking of science. It has been shown, scientifically, that unborn babies have a heartbeat by 8 weeks. They can hear sounds and have recordable brain activity by 12 weeks. And by 20 weeks they can feel pain. And yet our President and many others praise Planned Parenthood for killing unborn babies. All the while, Planned Parenthood (and many abortion advocates) can’t really say when an unborn child really becomes human. You know, scientifically speaking. But let’s go ahead and tell a man dressed as a woman that he is in fact, a woman. Because, you know, equality and all.
People Claim Jesus Was “Inclusive.” Did Jesus Really Accept Sin?
Posted on October 27, 2015 in Public Policy, Sexuality, Theology by Nathan Cherry
Lately, much has been made of the word “inclusive.” We want to make sure no one is excluded, unwelcome, or alienated. We want to be one big happy family that gets along all the time. And in order to do that, we are hell-bent on accepting people – and their views – just as they are.
So dedicated are we to this idea of universal inclusion that we stand ready to revise centuries of tradition, values, and faith in order to ensure everyone has a seat at the table. For Christians the struggle to rightly live our faith each and every day according to the transcendent truth of Scripture has never been more difficult.
How do we “love your neighbor as yourself” in a culture that says unless you celebrate and advocate for my sin you are a discriminatory bigot? That might be the question of the century for every Christian. And some Christians have decided the only way to “love your neighbor” is to joyfully accept, celebrate, and endorse his sin. So whether that sin is homosexuality, co-habitation, gambling, or any other form of sin – they cheer.
The Governmental Persecution of the Church Has Begun
Posted on September 29, 2015 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
If I were to ask you whether churches would ever lose their tax-exempt status (or be sued) for refusing to support homosexuality, what would you say?
Can you imagine a time in our nation when a church would be forced, under penalty of law, to accept something that it believes is sin? That is the question many people are currently wondering. In light of the earlier Supreme Court ruling in the Obergfell case, political analysts are speculating that it is just a matter of time before churches are in one way or another forced to support homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.”
In particular, commentator Bill O’Reilly said he thinks it’s “just a matter of time” before churches are sued for refusing to perform same-sex weddings. In a video after the Supreme Court decision he said:
“It’s just a matter of time before lawsuits are filed against churches and religious organizations, trying to strip them of their tax-exempt status if they don’t toe the line on gay marriage and other progressive causes.”
Let’s be honest here, it has always been religious people that have stood in the way of liberal causes. When you think of the primary opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and other liberal social ideas, it is Christians and those with deeply held religious convictions that stand opposed. For this reason people of faith are a target, an obstacle to be removed in order to achieve some liberal idea of a utopian society.
All You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Marriage Decision
Posted on June 30, 2015 in Marriage, Public Policy, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
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.”