The Growing Assault on Physical Resurrection

One of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith that is quietly under assault both in scholarly and popular opinion is the doctrine of the physical resurrection of the body. This is a distinguishing doctrine of orthodox Christian faith. 

Unfortunately, much of popular entertainment draws more from neo-platonic and neo-gnostic views of the afterlife than they do from the Bible. Even many believers speak of the afterlife as if our souls float off to heaven where they live forever in disembodied bliss. Or they talk as though separation from our material bodies is itself a form of spiritual liberation. I recently read that 55% of those who identify as Christian are either unsure of or outright deny physical resurrection. This erosion of confidence in physical resurrection is not only resulting from popular culture. It is also taking root among the teachers of the Church.

Not too long ago I wrote a series of posts to deal with this issue in response to a couple of local Bible Study teachers who were enamored with preterist interpretations. These teachers were particularly influenced by James Stuart Russell's preterist arguments in his book The Parousia published in  1878. Russell is a convincing writer and clearly an intelligent man but unfortunately his interpretive paradigm led to heretical conclusions. Even orthodox teachers such as R.C. Sproul have felt it necessary to address Russell's work (Sproul tried to acknowledge some of Russell's points while offering an orthodox alternative to his conclusion). In the age of the internet this type of material is resurfacing at an accelerated rate forcing the Church to re-address arguments it has long-ago resolved.

The assault on resurrection, however, is not only coming from preterists or the "people in the pews". Some scholars have also rejected the historical doctrine. The latest scholar to do so is David Bentley Hart, an Eastern Orthodox theologian who is no stranger to marginal theological opinions. I wasn't planning to mention his arguments because Hart isn't likely to be much of an influence in the thinking of many people in churches I know. Essentially, Hart argues that our modern assumptions prevent us from properly understanding what ancient people would have understood by the language of resurrection. That is a common tactic lately of those who wish to instantly establish their own novel positions against traditional interpretations. He then argues for his own unique view of what resurrection means.

I had no plans to ever mention Hart or his views but today I read a response to Hart by theologian Brian Mattson that I thought was excellent. I thought Mattson was effective in using very basic observations to punch a Volkswagen sized hole in Hart's assumptions. He does a very good job of showing that physical resurrection has been the doctrine of the Church since the beginning. 

If you are interested in the topic it is worth the read: https://calvinistinternational.com/2018/08/09/ancients-resurrection-david-bentley-hart/

Principled Non-Participation: A Worldview Observation

Over the past several weeks there has been a lot of coverage related to supposed controversy over the booking of entertainment talent for president elect Trump’s inauguration celebration.  The band of Talledega College, a historically black school, encountered widespread criticism after announcing they would perform. Country star Toby Keith was also criticized despite explaining that he has performed for several presidents irrespective of their political party or platform.

Others have been shamed into backtracking from their initial acceptance of the invitation to perform. The Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli backed out of consideration after allegedly saying he was “getting too much heat”. Just a couple days ago, Broadway star Jennifer Holiday also backed out and issued an apology, saying her initial acceptance was an example of a lack of judgment and that her “only choice must now be to stand with the LGBT Community” and not perform.

If reports are to be believed, there have been several others who have refused to participate ranging from Elton John and Adam Lambert to high school marching bands and even individual members of the Rockets and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Before we go on any further, I want to point out that I do not really have a problem with individuals deciding not to participate in the event because they believe their participation would somehow compromise their integrity. I also do not have a problem with those who decided to perform or have done so for previous administrations. This article is not about the politics whatsoever. Rather, what I want to point out is a particular observation of how the interaction between worldview and culture influences the perceived ethical or moral value of the decision itself.

Many who are associated with liberal or progressive agendas are horrified by the thought of Donald Trump taking office as the President of the United States. Several of these performers see performing for Trump as somehow legitimizing the event and would rather use the opportunity to highlight the antithesis between certain values he appears to represent and their own. Many ordinary people who are fans also see the participation of cultural icons, particularly those they identify with, in his inauguration as somehow betraying important values they hold dear.

Frankly, as a Christian there are many things that Mr. Trump appears to represent that I also find quite concerning, but what I find more interesting is the way that these withdrawals and public refusals are being portrayed and responded to. It seems that it is now a virtuous act to stand on principal and refuse to participate in adding the perception of legitimacy to a cause that is morally opposed to liberal and progressive convictions. Those supposedly standing up for their “principals” are praised for their courage and integrity.

What is interesting about this is that the underlying logic has so frequently been denied to Christians whose convictions have run afoul of the quickly changing cultural mores. We have seen the criticism levied at company and charity executives who do not “get with the program” regarding company policies support various progressive agendas. We have seen it with pharmacies who are not comfortable with dispensing drugs to end pregnancies. We have seen it related to doctors who choose not to perform certain procedures and we have seen it with photographers and bakers who choose to not participate in homosexual weddings.

The idea that one should stand upon principal and refuse to participate wherever values would be compromised is something that is increasingly only seen as virtuous if the values are those of the new morality. Indeed, to take similar stands for traditional values is often decried as hateful and even criminal.

For example, it was not long ago the State of Colorado ruled that Masterpiece Cake Shop must supply cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies despite the fact that the proprietor was a devout Christian and felt that to do so would compromise his moral convictions. The court ruled that “his religious objections to the practice did not trump the state's anti-discrimination statutes.” Since the shop sold wedding cakes, they could not refuse a client that wanted to purchase one. Cultural progressives applauded this (and other similar decisions) as a triumph of equality. However, when high end fashion designers Tom Ford and Marc Jacobs refused to design a dress Melania Trump, this logic seemed to disappear.

Although the First Amendment is specifically concerned with political and religious speech, the roar of the crowd is growing stronger by the day. Cultural revolutions are not complete until the new consensus is enforceable through the coercion of the crowd and/or the power of the state. The divisions that this election has highlighted (and perhaps deepened) are complex and varied. Attempts at reducing them to simple explanations are bound to fail. What is clear, however, is that we are seeing more clearly the response of a new and still insecure orthodoxy when it perceives itself to be challenged and the picture is troubling for those who wish to proactively engage the culture but whose convictions are antithetical to its newfound morality. 

Agape Love?

There has been a lot of talk this past week about love. In light of the Supreme Court decision, many in the broader culture are celebrating what they see as a triumph for love in the establishment of marriage rights for homosexual couples. They are also using various arguments based upon what they understand as principals derived from love to urge those who are not celebrating the decision to change their minds. Meanwhile, many Christians are trying to ensure they are not seen as unloving, while doing their best to express support for a biblical understanding on the issues. In various conversations, I have heard believers try to distinguish their understanding of love with what the culture is talking about by using the term “agape love”.

Agape love, we are told, is the highest form of love. It is said to be a self-sacrificial love and devotion. It is understood to transcend physical desires and is the highest expression of pure love. It is the kind of love God demonstrates though the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As such, “agape love” is understood as a technical term for a kind of love that is uniquely identified with perfect and divine love.

This understanding of agape love as a type of “super love” is not new. It has been around in Christian circles for a very long time. The special status of agape in part comes from the fact that the Greek language has many words that can be translated by the single English word love. Depending upon the context, each of these may carry a slightly more specific connotation than the general term love and agape can have the meaning of selfless and pure love.

Greek contains a word that is often related to sexual desire (ερος / eros) and another often associated with what we would call friendly affection (στοργἠ / storge). The Greek terms for love we find frequently in the Bible are phileo (φιλἐω) and agape (ἀγἀπη). It is often argued that phileo is a warm affection similar to what brothers might experience. It is said to involve a tender care and fondness. This is not an affection we would have for an enemy. We are told, however, that agape love is much higher and noble. It is supposedly the sacrificial kind of love that we are called to exhibit even to those who persecute us, etc.

Many preachers have milked these distinctions to emphasize the differences between mere feelings of affection and the transcendent love that God has for us, and we are to have toward others. The problem with this, as DA Carson points out in his book Exegetical Fallacies, is that the word agape is not actually a technical term for a higher form of love. We recognize that most words have a range of meaning (called a semantic range) and agape is no different. It is sometimes used for the kind of love many Christians associate with it, but not always. Even in the Bible, the word is used in various ways.

For example, in 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul uses the word agape to describe the love that Demas had for the world which led to him abandoning Paul. The word has sufficient semantic range that when the Septuagint translators were working to produce a Greek copy of the Hebrew Bible, they used the word agape to describe the incestuous lust Amnon had for his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:4). In the same way, the word phileo is used at times to describe the type of love that many often associate with agape. For example, it is the word used to describe the love the Father has for the Son in John 5:20.

I think we are right to emphasize the pure, holy, selfless love of God as the standard to which all love should be measured. I am also sympathetic with believers looking to define concepts of love and affection in a biblical way. We should just be careful about making technical distinctions based upon biblical language that the writers themselves did not intend. As always, we need to pay attention to context in order to understand how a particular author is using his or her terms. All of the Bible, however, points us to the love of God in Christ. In Him we see all the fullness of love personified, agape and otherwise.

Review: The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor's Journey into Christian Faith by Rosaria Champagne Butterfield

http://christianaudio.com/the-secret-thoughts-of-an-unlikely-convert-rosaria-champagne-butterfield

This book is a testimony to the grace of God, the power of His word, and the hope of the Gospel. Dr. Butterfield was a tenured professor at Syracuse University teaching Literature and Women’s Studies. Her research focus was a form of post-structuralist criticism known as Queer Theory. She was in a committed lesbian relationship, was an outspoken supporter of the LGBT agenda, and served as an advisor and mentor to homosexual students. As part of her research on the “Christian Right” she began reading the Bible and conversing with a local pastor who lovingly challenged her presuppositions and stereotypes. By the grace of God, she became a believer in Christ and began the difficult process of having her life transformed. She describes her conversion as a train wreck and the book records the long and ongoing process of her being transformed by the renewing of her mind.

The first part of this book, particularly the first chapter, is one of the most compelling things I have read recently. She highlights how the failure of the Christian community to think carefully about the ideas we proclaim and to demonstrate love marginalize those whom we proclaim a desire to reach. Many of Dr. Butterfield’s observations are an indictment against our lack of commitment to open our doors to those who are broken and in need of the Gospel. The implication is perhaps we are content to settle for sloganeering and public positioning because we are content to engage in a discussion about theoretical people rather than in discussions with real people.

Homosexuality is obviously a major issue facing the church in our time and Christians are grappling with the appropriate way to engage the culture. Dr. Butterfield, however, reminds us that homosexuality is only a symptom of a more significant issue that Christ calls us to address; namely sin. The good news, as she reminds us, is that God has equipped the Church through His word and the message of the gospel to do precisely that. She emphasizes that most of the helpful progress be at the individual level as local Churches reach out in truth and love, engaging those in the homosexual community as real people rather than projects, and patiently sharing the gospel.

Her story is also a powerful reminder that we often do not realize what the people sitting next to us in Church are struggling with or who is not there because they felt too uncomfortable to come. It is a reminder that the first word of the great commission is “go”. It is often not enough just to put an invitation card in a mailbox. We need to be willing to take the message of the Gospel outside of the walls of our meetinghouses.

The latter part of the book is a recounting of how significantly her life has changed since her conversion. It covers a number of different topics and includes mild apologetics for adoption, homeschooling, exclusive psalmody, and hospitality. At times, the latter part of the book is a bit like a proud mother rifling through her purse to show you photos of her children. The tone, however, is always sincere and highlights the fact that Dr. Butterfield and her family are real people who are prayerfully continuing on their journey of faith and confidence in Christ.

This book really challenged me to ask if my Church and I are really committed to engaging with those that are different and may make us uncomfortable. Are we confident enough in the Gospel to share it with the outcasts and those on the margins of society? I recommend this book, particularly the first chapter, to anyone who may be asking these questions, and especially to those who are not.

 * I received a free copy of this book from christianaudio.com as part of their Reviewers Program. Reviews are not required to be positive and the opinions I have expressed are my own.

Defense of Marriage

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to decide if they should overturn California’s proposition 8 ban on homosexual marriage. This is just the latest in a long series of incidents that highlight the shift of the broader culture away from traditional Judeo-Christian moral standards. The “homosexual” issue is probably the most significant challenge that Christian churches will face in the coming years with regard to cultural engagement. Those defending traditional Christian values have been steadily losing ground as the cultural battles over the legitimacy of homosexual marriage continue.

Over recent years, the victories won by those pushing an agenda to normalize homosexuality have been met with a series of efforts both inside and outside the church to “defend traditional marriage”. I think that all believers would agree that traditional marriage is something worth defending but a careful examination of the literature and rhetoric reveals that usually the primary interest is an opposition to homosexual marriage in particular. This seems to be true of both the religious and political elements of the movement.

Before we go further, I want to be clear. According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Exegetical arguments to the contrary are textbook cases of eisegesis and rationalization. There is no question that to elevate homosexual unions to the same status as marriage is a distortion of God’s intent and is an appropriate concern for the Church. The secular public policy issues are also crucial because of the centrality of marriage to the structure of our society. Reducing marriage to a mere confirmation of the emotional attachments between adults and ignoring the broader function of marriage for the family and culture will have disastrous results. I am not questioning the legitimacy of churches rallying around this issue. Rather, I am pointing out that gay marriage is only one of many issues that must be dealt with if the goal is to defend marriage as a broader institution.

Unfortunately, the American church has little cultural authority on the wider issue of biblical marriage. Decades ago, the church in America all but abdicated its position as the defender of marriage. There have always been faithful congregations and pastors that have stood upon the Word but in general, the voice of the church has been functionally silent as no-fault divorce, pornography, and cohabitation have been eating away at the foundation of marriage as a cultural institution. The institution now under attack has already been substantially weakened both in the broader culture and within the church.

I do not want to oversimplify the problem, the erosion of marriage in the general culture has many complex implications for the pastoral ministry of the Church. Biblical churches are in the difficult position of speaking clearly on a range of sins such as divorce while also effectively bringing a ministry of grace to those who are bearing burdens associated with them. I have heard preachers deliver thundering and scathing rebukes of divorce and premarital sex with all the passion that Amos could muster while offering no grace or hope to those who needed it. I have also heard preachers who have skillfully avoided the subject so as not to offend anyone. Both of these are unbalanced approaches that fail to provide the kind of leadership the church is called to provide.

If the Church is to take an effective stand on issues of marriage it needs to do so consistently and with appropriate balance of law and grace. Before we can engage in the overall cultural discussion, we must first address the issues within the fellowship of believers. Many local churches have, but the typical report is discouraging. We recognize that marriage certificates are issued by the State. The Church, however, has no obligation to sanction a union simply because it is acceptable to the state. If we are to defend marriage in the culture, we must begin by defending it within our own communion.

There was a time when the culture was so distinct from the Church that Christian morality was exceptional and unique. Eventually, so many elements of Judeo-Christian morality were imported into the social mores and laws of Western Civilization that the accepted standards of morality became those of the Bible. We are fast approaching another age where that is no longer the case. Will we have the same courage of our convictions that our early fathers in the faith had? If so, we need to begin talking about a broader biblical view of marriage that goes beyond singling out a particular sin.

Those who wish to make a defense of marriage a focus of their ministry do well to take a stand on homosexual marriage but that by itself is not enough. It is just as important that a biblical perspective is cultivated with regard to divorce, cohabitation, neglect, abuse, and the dangers of pornography. Too many Christians have no theological framework for their understanding of marriage. Too many cannot explain the biblical teaching concerning what marriage is, why it is important, and what it looks like when practically lived out. The statistics indicate that there is little distinction in most American churches between the attitudes of the members about these things and those of their unbelieving neighbors. If our goal is to offer a biblical defense of marriage we must model it and teach in our own fellowships (1 Peter 2:11-12). This involves a comprehensive and positive teaching about marriage rather than a narrow reaction to one particular challenge. By all means, let us meet the challenge, but let us do it by ensuring that the culture cannot redefine our teaching on marriage by forcing a distortion of our doctrine by pushing us to only teach about what we oppose. Let us bring the gospel to bear on the entirety of the institution.

Book Review: Roger Resler- Compelling Interest: The Real Story Behind Roe v. Wade

Compelling Interest: The Real Story Behind Roe v. Wade - unabridged audiobook on CD

By Roger Resler / christianaudio

In the past 40 years, there have been many attempts from both sides of the abortion debate to frame the historical narrative to their advantage. Frequently, these attempts fail to address the fundamental issues involved because they do not take the time to understand the perspective of the other side. In his book, Compelling Interest: The Real Story Behind Roe vs. Wade, Roger Resler does the homework and offers a cogent analysis of the basic assumptions upon which the pro-abortion movement is based. Resler’s analysis is relentlessly logical and he attacks the key philosophical underpinnings of the movement rather than wasting time knocking down straw men. Resler is unashamedly arguing from a pro-life position but his characterizations of the “pro-choice” position are well supported by direct quotations from leaders within the movement. He has clearly made an effort to understand the other side and that makes his critique much more powerful.

I liked several things about the book. First, and most importantly, Resler calls attention to the fact that fundamentally the abortion debate is a civil rights issue. The crux of the issue is whether it is appropriate for our legal system to define living human beings as “non-persons” and therefore deny to them rights and protections under the law. As Resler points out, the question of when human beings become full “persons” is a metaphysical rather than a scientific question. There is no biological question that a genetically unique human begins life at conception. The question is whether this human life should legally be considered a “person”. Resler, like some others before him, highlights the fact that this is a debate about worldview issues rather than facts. From a legal standpoint, it is a debate about whether all humans possess unalienable rights that must be protected or if utilitarian value determines ones standing before the law.

Resler’s analysis of the evolution of the semantics of abortion debate was also well done and valuable. I listened to the audiobook and was appreciative that the author narrated it. The reading was well done and quotations were often direct recordings of those quoted. Even when they were not, different voices were used which helped me follow the arguments and to keep my attention engaged. I especially appreciated the audio from the oral arguments before the court.

Other reviewers have mentioned that Resler is fond of overstatement and that the book gets redundant at times. There is a tendency toward dramatic emphasis but it simply reinforces the author’s passion for the subject and is not too distracting. The organization of the work and Resler’s desire to address each section thoroughly lends itself to a certain amount of repetition but the value is that each argument is essentially a contained unit increasing the usefulness of the book as a reference work. Resler is not the first person to make the arguments included in the book but his grasp of the material is outstanding and this book will be a helpful resource to those who are looking for a single volume that covers the range of issues involved. I recommend the book to anyone who wants to learn more about Roe vs. Wade or the abortion debate in general.

As Christians, we believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and therefore have intrinsic rather than functional value. This is an ethical rather than a scientific debate and, as members of this society, it is one in which we must not avoid participating. I agree that abortion should never become the central issue for any Christian church. The ministry priorities of a gathered church should always be the Gospel ministry rather than any social, economic, or political concern. The mission of the gathered church, however, does not detract from our responsibility as individual Christian citizens to be a clear voice in defense of basic principles of justice for the weak and vulnerable. 

If you think that these concerns are unnecessary I encourage you to read Mary Elizabeth Williams recent article at Salon.com entitled "So What if Abortion Ends a Life". The trajectory of this line of thought that for life to be valuable it must possess some sort of functional utility is not difficult to see. In fact, as any good student of history will know, we have seen it numerous times before with disastrous results.

Crumbs of Evil: An Autistic Perspective on Sanctification

The CDC estimates that one out of every 110 children is born with some form of autism spectrum disorder. The underlying causes and most effective treatments continue to be debated among medical professionals. From a ministry perspective, however, one thing is clear. There is a large and growing population of people with autism who need to hear and understand the Gospel just as much as everyone else, but whose style of learning and interacting present challenges for the traditional approaches to youth ministry and evangelism.

This issue is particularly important to me because my son Zack, the younger of my two amazing children, has autism. Although he is “high functioning”, he nevertheless has certain challenges in communication, attention span, and sensitivity to environment that other children his age do not have. He, like many autistic children, thinks in very concrete terms that make certain abstract concepts difficult for him to understand. The Lord, however, has repeatedly shown me the power of His Word and has often worked through Zack to rebuke my lack of confidence in the power of the simple Gospel. I would like to share one of the more recent examples.

The doctrine of sanctification can be difficult for anyone to understand and especially so for an 11 year old child that does not do well with figurative language! How do you explain that when they believe the person that they were has died with Christ and a new person is created within them? How do you explain that although the old person died spiritually they will still struggle with the sinful tendencies of the nature that belonged to the old person? How do you explain that they are being transformed to be more like Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit applying the Word of God in their life? How can you help them understand although this work is taking place their confidence before God is based not on their own works but on the life of Jesus lived and not their own?

Nevertheless, Zack and I had a number of short conversations over the course of a couple months about what it meant to be a new person in Jesus and why we were to be “good” even though we are saved by grace through faith. I was not sure how much he actually understood when an incident occurred that clarified for me just how much the Holy Spirit had brought to his understanding. He became frustrated with something, lost his temper, and responded in a way that was less than appropriate. Concerned that his emotions would escalate further I took him aside and helped him calm down. Once he was calm, I asked him if he thought that he had made good choices in dealing with the situation. I was certainly not expecting to hear what he said next.

He looked at me, raised his hands shoulder high with his palms facing up, and said, “I know I am supposed to be a Christian, listen to the Bible, be swept clean by Jesus and baptized… but there are still crumbs of evil in there! (as he pointed to his chest)” Amazed that he was able to make that application all I could muster in response was “me too son, me too”. My son had just given me a very helpful metaphor for understanding what we had been discussing. It was far more helpful and articulate than anything I had come up with in trying to explain it to him.

He is right; the Word of God is like a broom that is sweeping us clean of all sorts of spiritual impurities and clutter. It is a continuing process that does not end until we are finally glorified with Christ. As long as we are in this world struggling with the flesh and sin, we know that “crumbs of evil” remain. This is why we need to be careful not to neglect the ministry of the Word so that we can put on Christ and lay aside the old man. I am grateful to have heard wisdom from the mouth of “babes” and I am reminded of how I should never underestimate my God or my son.

This and other incidents have encouraged me greatly and highlighted something interesting about the way the Bible teaches that I would like to highlight for the encouragement of others who are teaching children with autism. God has been most gracious in that He did not reveal Himself in a theology textbook. The abstract principals of theology such as holiness, sin, grace, regeneration, etc. are revealed to us through human experiences. We see constantly repeated illustrations of the character of God through the narratives and most clearly in the life of Jesus Christ. God has demonstrated in tangible figures the principals that theologians draw out.

For example, it is easier to teach the concept of grace by looking at the life of Christ or various Old Testament illustrations rather than trying to begin with the definition of grace as “unmerited favor”. These more tangible illustrations are helpful in teaching any person the truths of the Bible but since the autistic child is likely to be less responsive to many other methods, this approach becomes even more valuable. If we avoid using those narratives just to teach morality and instead emphasize the underlying Gospel truths to which they point they can be powerful teaching tools. Since so much of the Bible is already written this way, the teaching of Bible truth to many autistic children is not altogether different from teaching any other child. It just requires more patience and persistent, prayerful, confidence in the Word of God.

Newtown

Like most everyone else my heart is very heavy as I think about what happened in Newtown Connecticut. I reflected upon what might be appropriate to post as I reflect upon those events. Our prayers are with those families. I do not believe I can add anything of any substance to what Dr. Mohler posted on his blog Friday. I encourage you to read his thoughts Here. 

Making Fun of Muhammad

I was travelling outside of the United States last week when the various news sites were covering protests and demonstrations throughout the Muslim world in reaction to the publication of certain video’s and cartoons that are apparently disparaging to the Muslim prophet Mohamed. This led to a lively discussion among my international friends and they were eager to hear what I as an “American” thought about all of this.

The consensus among the group was that the United States government should use its power to remove the video from YouTube in order to protect people from further violence. I did my best to explain that the American government did not, and should not, have this kind of power. We discussed the fundamental liberties that Americans have traditionally defended and the danger of allowing the government to restrict them. It was difficult for my friends to understand how such a philosophical commitment could be so powerful that a government would refrain from taking action that would protect people from harm. I did my best to explain that unfortunately liberty often has an extremely high price. Some of my foreign friends seemed to understand this explanation and others were more hesitant.

While I believe that government censorship is indeed a threat to personal liberty, it is important to distinguish between supporting an action and believing that the government has no right to restrict it. Although I support the idea that government should not interfere with the freedom of speech except in extreme cases (i.e. you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater) it does not mean that I agree that these increasingly frequent parodies of Muhammad are appropriate.

Unfortunately, some Christians seem to have a smug sense of satisfaction at seeing the type of irreverent attacks that have so often been aimed at us, focused on another target. Some believers apparently think that since Muhammad is a false prophet any attempt to discredit him is acceptable. The publication of properly supported historical analysis, theological evaluation, and factual criticism are all fair game but the publication of slanderous, insulting, and intentionally inflammatory art or communications is sinful and should be recognized as such. For Christians, the ends do not justify the means. We are to speak the truth.

The priority for all Christian behavior is love. We are to speak the truth in love and as far as it is possible with us, we are to be at peace with all men. Our endorsement should never be on anything that seeks to inflame zealous reaction apart from love and the truth. We have to remember that our battle is not against the deceived, but against the deceiver. Amusement at the agitation of the lost is evidence of our own spiritual deadness and hatred for those in darkness is an indictment upon our own heart.

Some may try to rationalize sinful opinions against these demonstrators by pointing to the violent hatred that they exhibit. In doing so they fail to recognize that the zealous hatred in the faces of those protestors is a picture of the ugliness of our own hearts apart from Christ. Except for the grace of God, we are as fanatically committed to idolatry as they are. They are similar to the Jews of Paul’s day in that “they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge”. Our burden for them must be to share Christ. We are to take no pleasure even in the insults hurled at those who insult us. We address Islam not with satire or slander but with the Truth. The world hates those who hate them and laughs at the discomfort of its enemies. We, however, are to love those who hate us and to pray from them.

It is not the place of the Church to try to regulate the behavior and speech of the unbelieving world. We can support the freedom of those who disagree with us to share their views in a free society. We understand that a society that protects this right is beneficial to the Church because it allows us greater freedom to share the truth and participate in the marketplace of ideas. This does not, however, remove our responsibility as Christians to oppose slanderous and irresponsible expressions. Let us pray for the grace to live by the words of Paul to the Ephesians, “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”

Let us pray that we may live to see the Lord glorify Himself in the lives of these violent extremists by bringing them to know Christ just as He did with a young man of a similar spirit named Saul who went on to be used mightily as an apostle of grace. 

The Thriller Sermon: Entertaining Ourselves to Death

The purpose of the Church is to glorify God. We (the Church) come together to praise God, to worship Him and to build one another up and encourage each other in the knowledge of Him. The pulpit is set apart for the ministry of the Word. That Word is vital to the Church. It is what nourishes the people of God, strengthens them, and transforms them.

At various times on this site and in conversation with other believers I have expressed concern about the infiltration of our marketing and entertainment culture into the worship and ministry of the Church in America. In large sections of evangelical America, we have lost sight of the holiness of God, of reverence for His Word, and of Him as the central object of our worship.

There are no perfect churches just as there are no perfect people. We all struggle with the infiltration of sin in our lives and in our churches. It is not my place or anyone else’s to sit in judgment over the ministers of the Lord as each one will have to give his own account. Nevertheless, we do have a biblical responsibility to respond when those claiming Christ act in ways that dishonor our Savior and the witness of His Church.

Rather than write another article on the unhealthy and unbiblical influence of worldly culture on the Church today I simply ask that you watch this video, taken at the Potters House Church in Denver. This, my friends, is what I have been talking about. Outrageously, at the end of the performance the pastor even says, “If I wasn't the Pastor of this church; I would become a member, Amen. We done brought Michael Jackson back, Amen.” He says this without any indication that he understands the misguided (and borderline blasphemous) nature of those remarks.

(If you do not see the video you can find it here)

Lord God, please have mercy on us, your children. Forgive our weakness and our irreverence. May your Holy Spirit be poured out upon us so that we may stand in awe of your glory, your holiness, your love. Help to open our eyes that we may see the majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ and be filled. May your light so shine in our lives that, as the song says, the things of the world grow strangely dim. 

Dr. Carl Trueman on Celebrity, Authority, and Authenticity

Over the past few decades there has been a tremendous increase in the influence of para-church organizations within conservative Christian circles. There are a handful of teachers and preachers who have gained enormous cross denominational followings although they have no direct pastoral relationship to most of those who follow them. Many of these men are unquestionably gifted preachers and teachers and their work has benefitted the church in many ways. Along with those benefits, however, there are certain dangers that come with the growing popularity and influence of celebrity pastors.

One of the leading voices calling the attention of the church (and celebrity pastors) to this issue has been Dr. Carl Trueman. Dr. Trueman is the chair of Church History at Westminster Seminary, a pastor in the OPC, and a blogger at Reformation21. A few days ago I saw the following interview with Dr. Trueman on the Reformed Baptist Blog where he discusses issues related to celebrity, authority, and authenticity within conservative churches today. As usual professor Trueman’s comments are sharp and thought provoking.

If you do not see the embedded video above you can view it by clicking HERE

Truth & Politics: A Plea to Christians

As the party machinery of the Democrats and Republicans shift into high gear this election season the rhetoric is heating up. There have already been ads from both sides that contain important distortions of the facts. (See examples Here & Here) The political propagandists are masters at presenting information with altered contexts so that even the truthful information they convey is somewhat misleading. None of this is new. In fact, if you study American history you will find that the situation was worse in some of the past elections. Still, it remains an unfortunate element of political discourse that nothing is quite as simple as it seems.

My concern on this site is never primarily political. My focus is on the Word of God and its implications for our lives. This includes politics, but not as an end in itself, but rather as an expression of our priorities and worldview which should be informed by the Bible. With that in mind I would like to offer one suggestion to all my Christian brothers and sisters this election season. Do not get caught up in the propaganda. We are Children of Truth and as such we should seek to honor the truth.

It is easy when we agree with a particular position or candidate to cut them too much slack when it comes to their “spin”. We tend to believe the things we want to believe and so we often accept arguments and justification from those whom we support without really evaluating it. We carefully scrutinize the statements of those whom we disagree and are outraged by their stretching the truth while we swallow whole the same kinds of tactics from those on “our side”. The tragedy is that even while doing this we envision ourselves as the informed guardians of truth and goodness.

You will not often hear me quoting Thomas Merton with approval but he was exactly right when he observed that “Propaganda makes up our minds for us, but in such a way that it leaves us the sense of pride and satisfaction of men who have made up their own minds. And in the last analysis, propaganda achieves this effect because we want it to. This is one of the few real pleasures left to modern man: this illusion that he is thinking for himself when, in fact, someone else is doing his thinking for him.”

My prayer for us this election season is that we as Christians would be careful to make reasonable efforts to evaluate each candidate’s claims. I pray that we would not either knowingly or unknowingly repeat deceptive or inflammatory rhetoric simply because it supports our candidate. I pray we would not get caught up in the worldly nature of the process. Even as we seek to do what is best for the country we must not be motivated by any other goal than to glorify God and to show forth Christ, who is the Truth. We may argue passionately but as Christians we are to do our best to convince one another with the truth rather than cunning arguments or “spin”.

Even among believers there will always be differences of opinion about which policies and political approaches would be best for the country. We should not expect that as Christians we will have complete unity on these kinds of secondary issues but we should be united in our approach to debating the merits of such things. For believers the ends do not justify the means. The world has its own way of doing things and we cannot expect that to change but we can demand that the conversation within our own fellowship exhibits love and integrity.

There is no doubt that elections are very important but as Christians they can never be of utmost importance. Our hope is not in public policy but rather in the power of the Gospel. Our confidence is not in princes but in God who is the sovereign king of the universe and the author of our salvation. We may have strong feelings about what is best for our country politically but the only platform to which we should have unquestioned loyalty is the Gospel. As Paul says, “therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another (Eph. 4:25).

German Court Bans Circumcision

I would have thought that as a result of their history of horrifying anti-Semitism that the courts in Germany would be particularly sensitive when it comes to laws that discriminate against Jewish believers. Yesterday, however, a German court in Cologne effectively outlawed the faithful practice of Judaism within its jurisdiction when it ruled that infant circumcision was illegal. You can read the story here.

There is no requirement that Christians circumcise their sons but as believers we should be sensitive to the excessive entanglement of secular states in regulating what is or is not appropriate religious practice. While some regulation is both necessary and reasonable, this kind of intrusion into a core religious practice of Jews (and many Muslims) that has been recognized and carried out for thousands of years should be troubling to us.

Perhaps this is simply the case of a court not thinking through the broader implications of its decision but this kind of intrusion of the secular state into religious practice does not bode well for personal liberties (religious or not) within that society. I pray that the churches in Germany will send a clear message that they oppose the state interfering in this area. If they fail to do so history has shown us that the next knock may be upon their own door. 

Gendercide

Many advocates of legalized abortion on demand have long argued that their position is protective of women and women's rights. It seems, however, that at least in some cases the basic concern for women is actually less important than promoting a particular perspective on pregnancy that completely disregards any and all the interests of the child for the absolute control of the mother. It is ironic that at the heels of the Civil Rights Movement in our country that we would ignore the most basic civil rights, even the right to life itself, of these children.


The video that follows speaks for itself. I warn you, however, that it is disturbing to watch on a number of different levels.

Book Review: David W. Jones & Russell S. Woodbridge > Health, Wealth & Happiness- Has the Prosperity Gospel Overshadowed the Gospel of Christ?

Health, Wealth & Happiness

By David W. Jones & Russell S. Woodbridge / Kregel Publications

The desire for a thriving, healthy, and productive life is as strong as ever, especially in tough economic times. As people become more disillusioned at the state of the economy, they also become more susceptible to the lure of the prosperity gospel and its teachings of health, wealth, and happiness for the faithful. But what happens when the promise of prosperity overshadows the promise of the real gospel--the gospel of Christ?

Believing that the prosperity gospel is constructed upon faulty theology, authors David W. Jones and Russell S. Woodbridge take a closer look at five crucial areas of error relating to the prosperity gospel. In a fair but firm tone, the authors discuss the history and theology of the prosperity gospel movement to reveal that its foundation is the alteration of core biblical teachings.  Although even some of today's most well-known pastors teach these doctrines the authors show how they are actually a distortion that undermines the teaching of the Bible. After an introduction and assessment of the movement, readers are invited to take a look at Scripture to understand what the Bible really says about wealth, poverty, suffering, and giving.

Theologically sound but acessible to all readers, Health, Wealth & Happiness: Has the Prosperity Gospel Overshadowed the Gospel of Christ is sure to become a trusted resource for laypersons, pastors, and Christian leaders.

It is a tragedy that the so called prosperity movement has become so influential. What is even more tragic though is that many Christians are unable to recognize that these teachers are proclaiming is a serious distortion of the Gospel. Because teachers like Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, and Joyce Meyer have combined their eclectic teaching with Biblical elements many people are confused into thinking that what they are hearing from them is Christian teaching. It is not. This book by David W. Jones and Russell S. Woodbridge is a gift to the Church because of the extent these teachings have not only infiltrated the culture at large but also many of our Churches.

The authors begin with a short but thorough critique of the prosperity / Word of Faith movement. The critique starts with an examination of the foundational assumptions of prosperity teaching and traces their development from their origins in the mystical “New Thought” movement through the more popular “soft” prosperity teaching found in various churches today. The authors’ then move on to an examination of specific elements of the teaching that includes many direct quotes from popular prosperity teachers and the errors they involve.

Once they convincingly make the case that prosperity teaching is unbiblical and spiritually dangerous they then present a Biblically based corrective to those distorted doctrines. They discuss the Bible’s teaching on suffering, wealth, poverty, and giving in a way that is positive, accessible, and balanced. The book also contains resources for further study for those who wish to learn more.

The value of this book is that it is brief, easy to read, and well written yet it manages to deal with the major errors in prosperity teaching in an effective way. I pray that this book will be widely read by those who think that these teachings properly fall within the broad range of “Evangelical Christianity”. I pray that we would take up the challenge that the authors give us to go to the Bible and understand what God has said about these issues so that we might be more knowledgeable about how to understand these issues. I pray also that many who are followers of these prosperity teachers would be led to look carefully at what they are being taught and believe. I gladly recommend this book. It should be widely read and widely shared. 

A Wonderful Gift for Free

"And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."  (Ephesians 4:11-14 ESV)

It is not often that we are given gifts of great value for free. Our Father God, however, is most gracious and bestows upon us the greatest treasures out of His own bounty. The obvious treasure He gives which is of immeasurable value is Christ Himself and our own salvation through Him. This is not the end of God's generosity though. He also gives us many other gifts and one of them is teachers and preachers who He provides so that we may grow up into maturity in the faith.

One of the men whose preaching has been a tremendous gift of God to His Church is Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones. If you are familiar with the work of Dr. Lloyd-Jones then you already know this. If you are not familiar with his ministry the best way to better understand his value is to listen to one of his sermons. Fortunately (praise God) that has just been made much easier to do. This morning at the Together for the Gospel Conference in Louisville KY it was announced that the substantial library of of his recorded sermons (over 1,600) are now available to be downloaded for free at http://www.mlj-usa.com/audiolibrary. (you just need to register)

I would encourage brothers and sisters who are looking for preaching material to listen to throughout the week to take advantage of this collection. I am confident that you will be blessed by it.

God Bless 

Ministry ROI

Having a career in business as well as participating in ministry provides me a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the two. Both companies and ministries must make decisions about how to use the resources that they have. Both must prioritize goals and objectives in order to ensure that time and resources are not squandered on non-value added activity. One of the keys to being a good manager whether in business or ministry is the ability to choose well how to use the available resources and to coordinate all those activities to support a unified goal. This is one of the reasons why the best leaders in both ministry and business tend to be effective communicators who can get a group of people “on the same page”. Because of these similarities the last few decades have seen the growth of a movement that seeks to define the pastor as CEO. This model of ministry leadership, however, ignores important differences between the Biblical view of ministry leadership and business management.

The fundamental differences between management and leadership in a business verses a ministry context are so substantial that a number of books and articles have already been written and yet the subject has yet to be exhausted. The fundamental assumptions about everything from labor, resources, strategy, and risk are substantially different between the two. Even many of the specific tasks that seem similar are really quite different. For example, there is a huge difference between giving a sermon and giving a 30 minute speech, or selling an idea to a board of directors and building consensus with elders or deacons. If a pastor handles these things like a business they will eventually find themselves forced to adopt business rather than ministry strategies. Each of the approaches builds a certain momentum that is difficult to change midstream without a lot of pain involved.

Of course, ministries must be as responsible as any well managed business with their resources but the goal is something much more difficult to measure. As a result, we must be very careful that we do not assume that business type measurements are adequate to truly capture the effectiveness of a ministry. The cost equation is much more subtle in a ministry context and the process cannot be measured by an output as simple or tangible as profit or stock price.

Businesses do not want to divert a single dollar to anything that will not generate a measurable return on investment. When faced with the decision to invest time, resources, or money good managers want to know if that investment will increase revenue, reduce costs, or increase throughput. If so, a good business manager will then assess the value of what needs to be invested against the expected return on that investment and the amount of time required to generate that return.

Many “good” ideas are rejected because the expected return either is not great enough or not fast enough to justify the risk of putting the time, money, or resources into the project. Though financial people often make it sound complicated the analysis is fairly straightforward. You can think of it using the metaphor of a candy machine. When you put money in a candy machine you expect the candy to drop out of the bottom. You are not going to put money in if you do not believe that you can get the candy when you want it or not at all. If you end up putting money in and do not get any candy (or cannot get it fast enough) you have wasted your money.

Therefore business managers generally try to quantify the return so they can reduce the number of projects to only those that have a high probability of paying off for them. They try and model plans in advance and then closely measure the progress of those plans once employed. The general approach is to formulate a plan, implement the plan, measure to see if you are getting the results you planned, and then act on that data to modify the plan as necessary. Empirical data drives the process. The management approach is as Dr. W. Edwards Deming once said “In God we trust, all others must bring data!” Emotions and assumptions can end up costing a lot of money so it is vital that opinions are double-checked with data wherever practical. In business if it cannot be measured it probably isn’t worth doing.

In the context of ministry, however, this kind of modeling and measurement often leads to pragmatic rather than Biblical decision making. In Biblical ministry, God has determined the strategy. It is His plan and He has told us what we need to “do”.  While there is a lot of variation on how we can go about it we cannot simply modify the approach it if we are not happy with the results. For one thing we do not always have the ability to properly evaluate all of the aspects of ministry effectiveness. By its nature, empirical data is focused on the things that are visible and yet much of ministry involves things which are somewhat less tangible. After all, how much is a single individual soul worth? How would you quantify the value of a person growing from an immature to a mature believer?

Of course, one might say that we should focus our resources on activities that are likely to lead to the most evangelistic results over those that are likely to have fewer results. That might sound good but it is an impossible case to make. To begin with, it is a hopelessly short term view from a Biblical perspective. One soul won in a low return program might turn out to be the person who leads a Whitefield or a Spurgeon to Christ. How many teeming thousands might hear the Gospel through such a person who only counted as “1” on some administrative report? Furthermore, it ignores the reality that the Holy Spirit is the one that brings forth repentance and conversion. Our part is to preach and live the Word and trust God for the increase. Choices of course have to be made but we should always be careful to keep in mind that we are simply stewards and that God is building His Church. Ministry resource decisions are difficult and I know that Churches cannot afford to do everything. We need to focus efforts on Biblical priorities and trust God to work though we may not see all the results.

As an illustration of this point I would like to share a story that a pastor friend told me a few months ago. His church was located near a park that hosts city sponsored events. Each year during these events the Church allows people to park on their property and they provide water, popcorn, and other snacks. As a result there is a lot of cross-traffic between the park and the church property. A few years ago a woman walking across the lot during a festival noticed the pastor’s name on the sign and began looking around to see if she could find him. When she saw him some distance away she hurried over to him and expressed her surprised delight that he was still there after so many years. She explained to him that many years earlier she had been a child that was not headed in a good direction. Then one summer she was invited to that church’s VBS program by a friend. She only attended one night but she heard the Gospel and later accepted Jesus Christ as her savior. She wanted to tell him that through her witness God had also saved her parents and she was able to find and marry a Christian man and was now raising children who were also believers. She was excited that after all those years she could thank the man who had led her to the Lord.

How many times have ministry leaders struggled to decide if they should continue programs where only a few guests visit or where they only get limited feedback? Ministry leaders have to make managerial decisions and wisdom and discernment is required. Let us pray that as they do so they would be encouraged by God’s promise that His word will not return to Him void. It may be many years, perhaps not until heaven, that we will ever know the true results of our ministries. It is likely that many discouraged brothers and sisters have laid up many unexpected treasures in heaven. I pray that our leaders have the strength to set Biblical priorities and then trust God for the increase.

Recent Discovery of 1st Century Bible Manuscript

Recently the blogosphere has been buzzing with news that a 1st century copy of the Gospel of Mark had been found. The news first broke in a debate between well known textual scholar Dan Wallace who was defending the accuracy of the Scriptures and Bart Erhman, author of Misquoting Jesus and many other similar texts, who was arguing against the textual accuracy of the Bible. During the debate Dr. Wallace mentioned the new discovery. If confirmed, this will be the earliest known fragment of the New Testament that we have. The importance of such a find for Bible scholars is obvious. 


Dr. Wallace has released a statement that you can read HERE to provide some clarification as to what has been found. You can also read Dr. Wallace's summary of the debate with Dr. Erhman that prompted the revelation HERE.


It is amazing to think that there are still such treasures hidden away waiting to be found. The greatest treasure, however, is that which can be found in the Gospel... namely our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Former Speaker Pelosi Says the President is Courageous for Opposing Her Church

Recently the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Hosanna Tabor case that the government cannot interfere in religious communities’ decisions about who will be their teachers, leaders, and ministers. This was rightly seen as a major victory for religious liberty against government intrusion. This battle was won but the war is far from over. The limit of government intrusion on religious institutions and personal convictions is still being attacked from many angles.

What constitutes a religious organization is emerging as the next great battleground and it is important that Christians are paying attention to what is happening. The recent birth control mandate by the President highlights the kinds of issues that will be raised.

This mandate requires that organizations opposed to birth control and sterilization pay for these services as part of their health care plans. Many religious organizations are outraged by this and a number of Catholic Bishops have asserted that they will not comply. One of the supporters of this mandate has been the minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who identifies herself as Catholic. When a reporter tried to get her to address the obvious conflict between her support of the President’s mandate and the Catholic faith she proclaims she tried to muddy the water by mentioning that there were other Catholics who also support the mandate. This is a classic deflection that never worked with my mother but always seems to be effective for politicians… not sure why.

Pelosi may think that the President’s mandate is courageous but regardless of how many other Catholics she can find who agree with her there is no question that this mandate is contrary to a core belief of her Church. I recognize that in the U.S. our political leaders represent a much wider demographic than just Christians and in order to faithfully represent their constituency they may vote in ways that we might not like. Pelosi, however, did not take this angle. Rather she chose to point out that there were others as well who are in practice rejecting a core commitment of their Church. Now I do not expect that people will be in complete agreement with every single position of their pastors, elders, or bishops. There is something dishonest, however, about not simply saying that. The language that she uses in her response seems to imply that this is a debatable issue within the Catholic Church. So far as I am aware the Catholic Church has been rather consistent on this issue despite the protests of some members.

I am not Catholic and I am not surprised at Pelosi’s position but I do think that we need to stand with these bishops on the issue of government forcing religiously managed organizations to make choices that contradict their convictions. The principal at stake here is even broader than just abortion and birth control (not that those aren’t pressing enough). We need to understand how our representatives vote on these matters because we are at the beginning of a long process where many are trying to redefine the relationship between the United States government and our churches and religious organizations. 

SB 1418: Christians, Stem Cells, and Low Calorie Soda

When I was young I used to love to watch the television show Connections. In each episode the host, James Burke, would walk you through a series of technological innovations showing how one innovation builds upon another as technology evolved from ages past to the present time. By the end of the show he would have shown that something like an improvement in candle wax was a necessary step in the development of missile technology or something similarly amazing. I was reminded of those unexpected technological connections when I began to look into Oklahoma senate bill 1418.

On January 18th Ralph Shortey, a Republican state senator in Oklahoma, proposed bill SB 1418 intended to prohibit the use of aborted fetuses in food production. The bill states that “No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients.”

One may wonder why he felt such a bill was necessary since the use of human cells in food products is already illegal. Senator Shortey was quoted as saying “People are thinking that this has to do with fetuses being chopped up and put in our burritos. That’s not the case. It’s beyond that.” Senator Shortey has no evidence that any actual food products have been sold that were developed using fetuses. He is said to have proposed the bill based upon an online article he read about a pro-life group known as Children of God for Life who were trying to organize a boycott of PepsiCo. The group was trying to pressure PepsiCo over concerns that PepsiCo had partnered with a biotech company named Senomyx to develop a new low calorie sweetener who was using stem cells from an aborted fetus in its tests.

Senomyx and a number of their customers have denied that human cells or tissue has been used in any of their research and there is no evidence (that I can find) that cells or tissue have been directly used.  Although as written senator Shortey’s bill seems to address a problem that doesn’t exist it is not clear if his bill would address what Senomyx is actually doing. The issues are a bit more complicated than the blatant use of cells or tissues.

It seems that Senomyx has developed a process where embryonic stem cells are used to derive certain components used in chemical tests. From what I can understand they have used proteins ultimately derived from the stem cells of a healthy fetus aborted in the 1970’s (HEK 293) to develop chemical signatures for sweeteners. These signatures make it possible to compare the signature of a product under development to the signature of a known sweetener such as sugar to aid in product development (no batching and taste testing etc.).

Although not quite as sensational as the headlines indicate, the issues involved still raise a number of potential ethical questions. It is impossible to accurately predict or control the ripple effects of new technologies once they are unleashed. When arguing for stem cell research most advocates tended to focus attention on the medical potential of developing treatments for paraplegics and other similar uses. I highly doubt that many people would have been motivated to support it in order to have better tasting coffee and soda (though few things surprise me anymore). Of course, Christians find the use of human embryos for research to be a horrible thing but do the ethical considerations for human cells and tissue extend to single proteins and amino acids? If so, do they only do so when they are known to have derived from human cells? Does it matter if the fetus was intentionally aborted or should all fetal material be treated the same way?

As new technology challenges our established paradigms we must decide how to respond. I wonder how many Christians are even aware of the various places that this kind of technology is popping up. Had you asked me last week I would never have suspected that stem cells had any potential connection to artificial sweeteners. A number of well known food companies have a working relationship with Senomyx and we can be confident that there are other firms working along similar lines.

If Christians choose to avoid these products once made aware of them the question becomes how far to take that logic? To what extent are we responsible for investigating all the nuances of the goods and services that we use? Certainly many of the old technology products we use come from companies that support things that we strongly disagree with. Where is the line and what constitutes a reasonable effort to know if it has been crossed?

The problems involved in many of these new technologies are complex and it is very easy to oversimplify them. It is important that Christian thinkers and scientists who understand the technologies and their applications be at the forefront of educating the rest of us so that we are better prepared to examine the issues. The community of faith has a responsibility to bring ethical issues to light and to engage in the cultural dialogue about how to handle them. In order to do this we need to be properly informed.

This bill highlighted two things for me. First, it is really important that Christians are actively involved in the cultural dialogue around newer technologies, particularly those associated with the uniqueness of human life. Second, it is important that we take the time to understand those technologies so that we might be able to contribute to the development of policies that are consistent with our desire to defend the sanctity of life.

I appreciate senator Shortey’s willingness to defend the uniqueness of human life. I wish, however, that he had taken the time to fully investigate the matter rather than simply react to an internet article. Had he taken the time to do that I think he could have started an important conversation about where this technology is taking us. As it stands I doubt this bill will get anywhere and the conversations it will start are not likely to be the kind that will help to bring intelligent attention to the difficult ethical problems associated with this kind of emerging technology.