The Painful Medicine of Irony - Rachel Held Evans and her vision regarding the World Vision Matter

“When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong.”

So says Rachel Held Evans, supposedly an authority on what Christian millenials believe, on CNN’s beliefblog on March 31, 2014.  Ms. Evans is right: something is wrong.  I agree with Ms. Evans that if anyone immediately withdrew their sponsorship of a child because of World Vision’s initial statement, that was wrong.  Ms. Evans is writing about the recent decision and reversal by World Vision with respect to homosexuality, and homosexual “marriage” in particular.  Ms. Evans excoriates the reversal as being brought about by what she labels “the evangelical machine.”  The evangelical machine apparently means anyone who believes in Christian orthodoxy – she cites Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, who she says wrote it was a “disaster.”

Giving Ms. Evans the benefit of the doubt, her one word summary of Dr. Mohler’s view is overwhelming simplification at best, downright misleading at worst.  In full disclosure, I am a student at Southern Seminary, so my view should be taken with that in mind.  However, one might want to actually visit Dr. Mohler’s website, AlbertMohler.com and read the article before accepting Ms. Evan’s summary. 

What is amazingly ironic about Ms. Evans is her insistent distrust of anyone who holds firm convictions and acts on them. Nonetheless, she exhibits a unabashed willingness to criticize vociferously anyone who disagrees with her own firmly held convictions.  It takes every ounce of energy for me to remain polite with the likes of Ms. Evans, as her attitude is as judgmental and arrogant as that which she proclaims to so dislike.

Ms. Evans is very sympathetic to LGBT matters, so her take on the World Vision situation isn’t surprising.  Jeff Chu, a homosexual who recently wrote a book asking whether God loves him, is shown on a video on Ms. Evans’ website today, March 31, 2014, despite her constant whining that evangelicals are losing millenials to the culture wars, in part because of “the obsession with opposing gay marriage.”  Ms. Evans seems to miss the entire point here.  This is a disagreement about what the Bible means.  Apparently, according to Ms. Evans, this is not a question of orthodoxy, just a simple matter of interpretation, open to debate. 

Therein lies the fundamental disagreement.  Ms. Evans has determined that the debate is about incidentals and chalks up everything else to rigid self-righteousness among (mostly) older evangelicals.  Interestingly, she seems completely unyielding when it comes to discussing whether this issue is more than merely incidental.  She won’t have it.  Any discussion about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior is simply off the table for Ms. Evans.  Her mind is made up and if the Bible happens to say something that is different than what she believes then it can be chalked up to “the few passages about homosexuality accepted uncritically, without regard to context or culture."  In other words, those who believe differently than her are “uncritical” and haven’t actually considered “context or culture” but are simply dogmatic . . . I don’t want to put any more words in her mouth.

You see, while Ms. Evans is partly right, she is also very, very wrong.  Many who are my age (51 this year) are in between on these things.  On the one hand, I agree with her the church hasn’t done a good job of getting people to understand why it has problems with homosexuality.  On the other hand, where Ms. Evans is wrong is in her wholesale, and, frankly, dogmatic determination that all possible wrong stems completely and utterly from (mostly) older evangelicals who just don’t get it.  How is that millenials are just so right about everything?  How is that they’ve got all the correct answers and those of us who are older (and, just possibly, wiser?) have it so profoundly wrong?  How have we so missed it, so badly, and so completely?  Supposedly, one of the hallmarks of millenials, according to Ms. Evans, is a longing "for faith communities in which they are safe asking tough questions and wrestling with doubt." (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/27/why-millennials-are-leaving-the-church/).  She doesn't seem to have many doubts about who is right and wrong here.  Isn’t it at least remotely possible that some of us who believe differently than Ms. Evans just might actually have thought about it for more than a minute and even anguished over it?  Isn't assuming otherwise to be guilty of the very sins which Ms. Evans accuses older evangelicals?

Ms. Evans is wrong for bashing what she calls the “evangelical machine.”  What she is really bashing is people who think differently than her about the Bible.  So her complaint that they’re wrong to think differently than her is ironic given her big beef with evangelicals is that they’re supposedly putting their own views ahead of the bible.  Irony is such painful medicine, isn’t it?

World Vision Redux: Taking Words at Face Value and Biblical Inerrancy

    World Vision has issued a statement reversing its recent decision to permit "married" homosexuals to work for it.  Many evangelical leaders have praised the move.  Some allegedly Christian commenters, however, have taken a cynical approach, suggesting World Vision is just waiting for a better time and will ultimately relent and repent of its repentance.

     I cannot look into anyone's heart and, therefore, cannot determine if the folks at World Vision are being honest or not.  Thus, I either take their words at face value, or I don't.  This is similar to one of the main problems people have with the Bible.  The plain words often say things people simply don't want to hear, so they come up with reasons why the Bible couldn't possibly mean that.  Ironically, homosexuality is one of the key places where this happens.  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah becomes a tale of poor hospitality instead of one of immoral homosexual behavior.  David and Jonathan are made into homosexual lovers despite no reasonable inference this is true.  Prohibitions against homosexual behavior found in Romans Chapter One are cast aside because Paul supposedly couldn't have understood the idea of same sex attraction and, therefore, had to be talking about temple prostitution, for instance.  All of these are extra-biblical notions that seek to avoid the otherwise clear language of Scripture.  If we are to believe what the Bible says, then we have to take the words for what they say, not what we want them to say.

     So, ironically, many who believe homosexual behavior is sin because they believe we can take the Bible at face value, nonetheless refuse to take World Vision at face value.  I understand World Vision's statement are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, at least not in the way the Biblical writers words were.  Yet, when a brother or sister in Christ specifically repents for an error, do we not then owe them the benefit of the doubt?   Cynicism should be our last thought, not our first.  Should World Vision ultimately give into the culture, then those of you who saw it coming no doubt will be happy to tell those of us who choose to think otherwise that you told us so.  In the meantime, we should, as we do with the Bible, accept World Vision's words for what they are and applaud the courage it took to do such an about face, particularly in light of social pressure even among so-called Christians to do otherwise.

     My family has supported World Vision in the past, and I had sent World Vision an email stating I could no longer give to them in good conscience, because one of my main reasons for giving to them was their Christian worldview.  I repent, as well.  Good for World Vision for doing what they've done.

Reconciling Westboro Baptist and World Vision - Mission Impossible? Maybe Not.

    
     Fred Phelps, the former elder statesman and pastor of Westboro Baptist (NOT Southern Baptist) Church died recently.  The church issued a terse communique that it would not be doing anything to officially acknowledge their excommunicated leader's passing.  Presumably, its members will keep on protesting with their "God Hates Fags" signs and keep giving Christianity a black eye.  World Vision, an organization which has helped the needy throughout the world for decades announced that it now will permit same sex couples as employees.  Both organizations are making theological statements.  Both are, ironically, wrong, and for the same reason - bad theology.

     Westboro's brand of "we know better than you do who is in and who is out of heaven and we know we're definitely in" theology reeks of what is often called hyper-calvinism.   This is an heretical theology that posits what is sometimes in Christian circles euphemistically called "the frozen chosen."  These folks understand that God's elect means them and, quite possibly, or even probably, nobody else.  Thus, you get what we have come to expect from Westboro - an insensitive, intolerant "Christianity" that would as soon spit on you as help you.  There is nothing of the parable of the Good Samaritan in Westboro's theology at all, despite its claim it adheres to the Christian bible and various confessions of faith that many true Christians see as meaningful.  So we have truth with no heart - Pharisees who tithe their mint and cumin, but neglect the greater matters such as justice, mercy and faith (Matthew, Chapter 23).  Make no mistake, Westboro is right that unrepentant homosexual behavior is sin.  But kicking people while they're down, rather than offering a hand up, hardly qualifies as any sort of Christian behavior.

     Unfortunately, World Vision has the same problem, just from the opposite side of the coin.  In an effort to placate denominations that have rushed headlong into apostasy by kowtowing to the times despite the clear teaching of Scripture regarding homosexual behavior (not the temptation that arises from same sex attraction), World Vision has also misunderstood Christian theology.  There is heart, but no truth.  World Vision is wrapping itself in a mantle of justice, mercy, and faith but is neglecting tithing its mint and cumin.  There are numerous biblical passages which indicate homosexual behavior (again, not the temptation of same sex attraction) is sin.  (Romans, Chapter One, for instance).  World Vision's claim to seek unity miserably fails since it depends on bad theology.

     Perhaps an analogy might prove useful here to demonstrate why both are equally wrong.  Suppose you are standing on a street corner waiting to cross a busy street.  A fellow pedestrian walks out in front of an oncoming bus, apparently unaware he is about to get hit.  The Westboro Baptist response is to hold up a sign saying "God Hates Idiots who walk in front of buses."  The World Vision response is to shout, "it's okay you're walking in front of a bus, we love you."  In both instances, the bus hits and kills the pedestrian.  The approach may be different, but the result is the same.

     The Christian response to the pedestrian is to grab his arm and yank him out of the way, all the while shouting "watch out for the bus, watch out for the bus."  While the pedestrian might initially get mad at the Christian for doing so, his life will be spared.  Ultimately Christians must speak truth in love and love in truth and act on both.  There is no pulling the two apart somehow, as both Westboro and World Vision are trying to do.  Westboro wants "truth" only, World Vision wants "love" only.  Jesus never gave us this option.

     So I will stop giving to World Vision and find another avenue to help people.  I never gave to Westboro, anyway.  Some will accuse those of us who disengage from World Vision of not caring for the needy.  Okay.  But then, doesn't that just mean you are holding up a sign that says "God hates people who don't give to World Vision."
   

   

March Madness, Worship, and Perspective

           Since 1979 one eight seed, and two six seeds have won the NCAA tournament.  That means that 88% of the time, the winner has been a four seed or higher (interestingly, no five seed has won during that time).  So who cares whether the A-10 has six teams in the tournament or not?  Only two are five seeds – VCU and St. Louis – the rest don’t matter (neither VCU nor St Louis likely matter, either).  SMU didn’t get in?  Cry me a river – SMU wasn’t going  to win, anyway because SMU would not have been a four seed or higher.

            ESPN and other media outlets make gazillions of dollars over-analyzing all this nonsense, when the simple reality is that the Weber States, the Woffords, the Harvards, and the Manhattans simply are not going to win.  Is it possible?  Sure, and Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama will be having a beer at the Rose Garden tomorrow to talk about Vlad bailing out of Crimea.  Yes, it’s possible, but history says otherwise:  no team below an eight seed has even played in a national championship game since 1979, let alone won the thing.  We know the odds are that Florida, Virginia, Wichita State or Arizona is the likely winner (one seeds win the thing 60 percent of the time).  This doesn’t mean it isn’t fun to watch the inevitable upsets that happen during the first round but we don’t need Seth Greenberg obsessing over ball screen defense, or Jay Bilas acting as if the world will collapse if the ACC doesn’t get a number one seed. (Seth is looking pretty good right now, though, after Virginia Tech fired his replacement). 

            I live in Kentucky where it is virtual heresy for me to suggest basketball doesn’t matter.  Don’t get me wrong.  I am not knocking sports.  I’ve always been a fan.  Played lots of playground football, baseball, basketball, foursquare, you name it, when I was a kid – if there was a ball handy, I was in.  I like the team-building that happens in team sports.  I like the discipline that both team and individual sports require.  I admire the dedication folks give to honing the physical and mental toughness it takes to play a sport well.  What I have come to dislike intensely is that we have become obsessed to the point that March Madness really is just that: madness.

            I mentioned the statistics above so we could get some perspective.  Whether people like it or want to admit it, the NCAA selection committee does a pretty good job of getting this thing right.  The top four seeds comprise 91% of the tournament winners over the past 35 years (32 out of 35) and have made up almost 83% of the final four teams over the past 35 years.  Realistically, the tournament could be just the top 16 teams every year and the results would be almost the same.

            Why do we obsess, then?  We are born worshipers.  We love to find an altar where we can bow down and lay our alms.  So we gather with others, we put on our jersey, colors, whatever, we have a meal, we watch the game.  We’re up, we’re down.  We cry if our team loses, maybe we cry if our team wins.  We really engage.  For a moment we think we’re part of something, even if only by extension. 

            But then, perspective.  The day after comes, win or lose.  We’re back to the job, back to school.  Within a day or two life sets in and even the glory of the team having won starts to fade.  Who was it that hit that last second buzzer beater in the second game, anyway?  Within a week or two whatever investment we made has lost its effect. Life is back to normal and our efforts have made no difference.  The temporary emotion was just that, temporary.  Our worship has not brought us satisfaction;  if anything, there is an emptiness where the March Madness was.  Seth and Jay can’t help us now.  We’ll have to fill ourselves up again with something else.  Football is so far off – no one really watches MLB . . . what then?

            When we find our satisfaction in such things, we find ourselves leaping from event to event, from happening to happening, looking, searching, but never really finding a way to fill ourselves up with something bigger than us.  We want to find that something, but our efforts simply seem to fail.  So we plug into our job even more, we plug into our hobby even more.  Still, it can’t seem to fix what ails us.  It won’t.

            We worship because we were made that way by a perfectly holy and righteous God who must demand our worship of Him or find Himself guilty of idolatry.  Our efforts to worship other things inevitably lead to a dead end.  That is why March Madness is truly mad.  The irony is that even for most of the players winning the tournament won’t matter in any significant way within a very short time.  Yes, “no one can take it away” but what would they be taking, anyway?  A temporary euphoria?  Every single player, every single coach, every single manager, every single towel boy will fall off the euphoria mountain at some point within a very short time.  What will be left?  Only a memory.

            You see, we try to fill our lives up with this stuff because we are convinced, sometimes by ESPN, sometimes by our friends, most often by ourselves, that if we just had this feeling, or that something that our lives would be complete.  It’s madness.  We were created to worship by a God who cares about what we worship.  So who is more rational: the one who worships at a temporary, man-made altar which will lose its power almost as soon as it’s put up, or the one who worships the almighty creator of the universe whose power never ends? 

            Yes, enjoy the NCAA tournament for the sheer  joy of watching young men working hard and having fun.  Shout when your team wins.  Shed a brief tear when your 14 seed loses (as they inevitably will).  But put it in perspective.  Despite Seth Greenberg’s insistence, ball screen defense just won’t matter in eternity.

Who Will Defend the Secular Sinner?

            Disparate matters have caught my attention lately.  The faculty at Rutgers University voted against having Condoleeza Rice speak at commencement.  A student editorial at Harvard suggested, in the name of some sort of justice, certain viewpoints shouldn’t be tolerated.  Some gay rights activists have made clear that any rejection of gay marriage rights is an intolerable secular sin, no matter what reason might be given.  The Obama administration fought to deport a German family seeking asylum in order to homeschool their children, only to relent, even after obtaining a favorable ruling from the Sixth Circuit and a denied appeal to the Supreme Court.

            The common feature here is the worldview that underlies these matters.  Generally, these situations are occurring because Western civilization has granted wholesale acceptance to naturalistic materialism as its prime principle for understanding reality.  This worldview accepts that the universe is all there ever was, all there is, and all there ever will be.  Ultimately, everything is explainable by purely naturalistic causes.  This, in turn, means that human beings  are really nothing more than very sophisticated slime, developed, somehow, from lower life forms over millions of years.  Our place on the planet exists only as a byproduct of the ongoing existence of the universe itself.  We are born, we live, we die.  There is no God, there is no overarching purpose to reality that governs our existence, our lives have no ultimate meaning, and our lives have no intrinsic value.  We simply are.

            This has enormous implications, which we see borne out again and again.  Secularists, ironically, consistently claim that their point of view is better.  Why else would the Rutgers faculty protest Condoleeza Rice speaking?  By all accounts she is an intelligent, learned, and successful woman – wouldn’t that ordinarily qualify her to speak at a commencement?  Well, apparently not if she worked for George W. Bush and helped him “lie” about weapons of mass destruction.  The problem, here, is that the underlying world view doesn’t provide a rational basis for the Rutgers’ faculty argument.  Who gets to say which morals count and which don’t?  Upon what basis does the Rutgers’ faculty claim Ms. Rice’s secular sins merit their disdain?  They truly don’t have a rational basis, only a personal bias – they just don’t like Ms. Rice or at least don’t like her politics.  But this is enough.

            Enter a young lady at Harvard who apparently believes justice means that if you don’t agree with the group, then your views should be banned permanently from discussion.  I guess we could at least give her credit for making her bias clear.  She doesn’t want to even have to deal with those with whom she disagrees because their point of view is, again, not wanted.  Her claim actually makes a bit more sense than the Rutgers’ faculty, since she cites Harvard’s own policies and, at least reasonably suggests that if the policies are truly to be believed as some sort of moral good, then, by definition, the opposite is a moral bad and ought to be banished.  Of course, the irony is that the academic buzzwords of tolerance and diversity have proven to mean validation and anything goes.  As a result, the most secular of sins are to suggest that someone else is morally wrong and that not everything goes.  Ironically, though, secularists hypocritically commit this sin every time they claim that Christian belief is morally wrong and shouldn't get "anything goes" status.

            Some gay activists are taking this to an extreme.  It is now deemed utterly bigoted and homophobic to have any opposition to gay marriage for any reason.  Essentially, this has now reached a social tipping point which permits proponents to argue for annihilation of any view other than absolute gay marriage equality as utterly wrong.  Thus, those in favor of gay marriage who also want no opposition to anything gay are taking advantage of their relative cultural power to completely oppress and ostracize those who disagree.[1]  But wasn’t one of the big arguments for gay rights that the feeling of oppression and ostracization among gays shouldn't exist in a liberal society?  Doesn’t this, then, make this argument hypocritical, and ironic?  You have to understand, though, use of power follows from a naturalistic worldview.  Since life has no overarching purpose, meaning, or value, then raw power becomes the only arbiter of morality.  Might makes right. 

            The last example of this is the curious handling of the Romeike family by the Obama administration.  This family fled Germany because they are Christians and Germany does not allow homeschooling, particularly Christian homeschooling (interestingly, an old holdover law from the Hitler days).  The Obama administration attempted to deport them, but they won in immigration court.  The administration appealed, winning in the district and circuit courts.  The Supreme Court would not accept the Romeike’s appeal.  Oddly, the Department of Homeland Security then granted the Romeikes an indefinite visa.

            I believe the Obama administration was making a simple point – we have power and are not afraid to use it.  See what we did with these people – we jerked them around until we were good and ready to let them stay, on our terms.  There is a ruthlessness here that should scare all Americans, not just homeschoolers.  There was nothing that suggested the Romeikes have been anything but model citizens while living in the United States.  There is no evidence there will be a flood of German Christians rushing in to seek asylum if the Romeikes had been allowed to stay.  No, this was simply a government making clear to people with whom it doesn’t generally agree that they had better watch out because it has power to do whatever it wants.  Again, when there is no outside moral restraint, the result is that power becomes the sole arbiter of morality.  Might makes right.

            Ironically, what many so-called progressive “thinkers” fail to see and understand is that they could easily be next. When a Harvard educated student is prepared to banish academic dissent because it doesn’t follow the party line, what happens when the party line changes?  If 5,000 or so years of recorded human history tells us anything about our fellow human beings it is (a) the party line is always changing and (b) human beings can be and are malevolent creatures who will act spitefully.  Gay rights supporters think all is now peaches and cream.  Maybe, but what happens when the next group comes along and decides homosexuality is the new secular sin?  Guess who will come to your aid?  It won’t be your so-called fellow “progressives” because they will have no reason to come to your aid.  No, it will be nasty Christians, like me, whom you currently belittle and bemoan.  You see, I don’t believe might makes right because we are not just sophisticated slime; we bear the very image of the God of the universe.  As a result, we matter – not because the faculty at Rutgers voted us in, or because the president decided not to make an example of us – but because the God who put all this together says so.  We have intrinsic value, purpose and meaning.  Since I believe that God wants you to spend eternity with him, I will advocate for His reality until I can no longer draw breath, even in defense of a gay Rutgers professor who wants to banish academic dissent and deport German homeschoolers if he is being harmed as a result of a might makes right naturalistic worldview.  But I’m the puritanical one, right?

---

[1] Not all gays, nor all gay marriage advocates fall into this camp.  However, for one who does, see Mark Joseph Stern at Slate.com.

Mark Joseph Stern: A Relentless Crusade Against Christianity

    

           Mark Joseph Stern, who covers “science, the law, and LBGTQ issues” for Slate.com once again shows a remarkable inability (unwillingness?) to understand Christianity.  Just a few weeks ago he took aim at biblical creationists and misfired badly.   Now he dogmatically approaches that worst of all secular sins, homophobia, with more ferocity than that of the alleged homophobic “haters” he writes about in his latest column. 

            He claims he is responding to a recent Ross Douthat column about the Arizona religious freedom legislation vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer.  Douthat attempted to explain why Christians have concerns about the current wave of gay marriage lawsuits against folks who otherwise have no issue serving gay customers, but close the door when it comes to gay marriage.  Mr. Stern either doesn't understand or doesn't care to understand that what motivates Christians is not hate at all.  In what is apparently his typical fashion, he offers very little rational discourse, but plenty of venomous epithets. 

            At the heart of his so-called argument is the following: “Douthat transforms them [anti-gay bigots] from retrograde homophobes to virtuous objectors, unwilling to bend their beliefs to match public opinion.”  Perhaps in a Freudian slip, Mr. Stern tells us what is really behind his agenda – the requirement that Christians, regardless of why, or how, they hold their beliefs, ought to have to bend to public opinion.  The problem, Mr. Stern – just a small bump in your road – is we have a Constitution that protects both religious liberty and freedom of speech, even when others find that religious exercise and free speech offensive.  Thus state laws which impinge on those freedoms are problematic and violate the fundamental law of the land.  But, of course, you know that since you write about law.

            The reality is Mr. Stern is so caught up in pointing fingers at the secular sin of homophobia that he doesn’t see his own Pharisaical blindness.  For those who are biblically illiterate, the Pharisees were a Jewish religious sect in the first century with whom Jesus had many clashes because they looked more towards their own rules than to the heart of the Jewish God.  Mr. Stern recognizes only his own quasi-religious rules that homosexual behavior is utterly and unalterably acceptable and that any attempt to suggest otherwise should be met not with mere distaste, but outright, vitriolic, and determined vociferousness.  Mr. Stern’s lack of rationality is both petulant and pathetic.  He wags his finger at those nasty, Christian hate-mongers,  claiming his morality is so much more superior, and then argues that they should have to “bend their wills” to his and those who believe like him because . . .well, he offers only public opinion as his rationale.

            You see what Mr. Stern continues to miss, again, and again, is the difference that any true Christian sees between acknowledging sin and participating in sin.  I acknowledge my own sin is every bit as sinful as that of a practicing homosexual.  Where there is, however, a difference, is I am not asking homosexuals to participate in my sins through the force of legislation.  What Mr. Stern appears to want is civil rights style laws that call upon Christians to leave their religious beliefs at the door, no matter what.  To equate so-called homophobia with racism is a category error.  From my standpoint as a Christian, human beings are one race – the human race.  Efforts to cull out differences stems from our own sinfulness, not from any biblical standard.  That some Christians in the past attempted to make arguments based on Scripture to support their racist views says something about the people who made the arguments, not Scripture and not Christianity generally. 

            There is no basis in the Bible to show that a person’s skin color results in a behavior that is sinful.  However, homosexual attraction, while not sinful in itself, is like any other temptation that humans face.  When it results in behavior the Bible says is sinful, Christians have no choice but to say so.  This is not an effort to condemn, but an effort to save.  To claim it is hate would be like claiming that pulling an unaware pedestrian from in front of an oncoming bus is hate because that person doesn’t like people touching him or her.

            Where Mr. Stern's argument fails most miserably is in his mischaracterization that Christians (not the many false church goers who contemptibly shame the name of Christ with the very kind of vitriol Mr. Stern uses) see something as sin and, therefore, must hate the person who engages in the sin.  When I see a person who is sinning, I simply see a fellow sinning sojourner and recognize that without the love of Christ living in me, I would be on the same path to hell.  Since I don’t want anyone to go to hell, my desire is that person repent of their sin and turn to follow Christ.  If Mr. Stern says I am a hater to want people to enjoy eternity with the God of the universe instead of spending eternity in the pits of damnation in eternal torment, so be it.

            Ultimately, does Mr. Stern propose that it is okay to force Christians to violate their conscience?  What if public opinion were to change tomorrow?  And guys like me are dogmatic haters?  Really?