• Read an article today (linked by SBCVoices) in which the writer seemed to be bemoaning the use of video screens as worship aids. He called them “little JumboTron type of contraption[s].” The gist of his article was we are becoming entertainment and personality driven in or churches. The use of modern technology is evidence of that trend. Well, the Corinthians seemed to have been entertainment and personality driven, and they didn’t even have electricity. If I could figure out a way to use IPods and IPads as a part of my preaching and teaching, I’d do it in a heart beat. We minister daily to people who live in the world of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and a host of other sophisticated, technological tools I am only now beginning to understand and use. Our task is to use all appropriate resources to introduce people to the Gospel and disciple them in their walk with the Lord. Being a Ludite about these modern technological tools accomplishes nothing.
• I wonder about homosexuals and their urge to have children. Children are the product of heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Conception requires an egg, carried by the woman, to be fertilized by sperm, produced by the man. Regardless of the delivery system, conception is a function of heterosexuality. Artificial insemination, the preferred method among homosexuals, is nothing less than vicarious sexual intercourse. Further, does not the desire for children render void the notion of homosexuality as an orientation? Why would a homosexual desire children, a function wholly within the realm of heterosexuality? Does not the desire for children affirm the normalcy and naturalness of heterosexuality?
• The rape of CBS reporter Lara Logan during the revolt in Cairo underscores the misogynistic tendencies of Islam (she could have been raped at a riot in America, by the way). The treatment of Islamic women speaks to more than misogyny. Inherent in Islam is the belief women are the root cause of men’s sexual desire. So, if women are covered in a burka, or at least modest clothes and a head scarf or veil, men will not be tempted. So, women, not men’s sensual desires, are the problem. What would Jesus have said? In fact, he did say something about this. If a man looks on a woman and desires her in his heart, he has committed adultery. In that light, James declared we are all enticed and lured by our own desires. So, men, we are the problem, not women, regardless of how they are dressed.
• I have been wondering about the teachers in Wisconsin who, a few weeks ago, called in sick so they could attend the protest at the capital in Madison. Were they still paid a full salary for the days they missed because they were “sick”? How about those who took one of the excuse slips a doctor was handing out? Did they compound their lie by taking one of those phony “excuses” (and abet the doctor who compromised his/her own professional ethics)? Did they not compromise their integrity, at the least, by lying about being sick and not fulfilling the terms of their contracts? How many of them would call in sick and protest for more technology in their classrooms to enhance the education of their pupils? My wife, by the way, is a teacher. Were any of those teachers professing Christians?
• Back to the church: are we fulfilling Paul’s prediction? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” Tickling is a sensual thing. Most, if not all, physical and emotional appetites are insatiable. So, if we need “feeling” in our experiences at church, we will never be able to get enough. Is not the truth, on the other hand, ultimately fulfilling. While we will never be able to attain to all wisdom, we can find satisfaction and contentment in the Word. David said, “Content is the man . . . whose delight is in the law of the Lord.” We will never get our ears sufficiently tickled, but the Word is sufficient for our every need. Its truth is everlasting. Physical things are only temporary. Too, if you get tickled too much, you might just throw up.
• In a forum at Saddleback Church in August of 2008, Barack Obama was asked when he thought life began. He replied “that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” He later admitted his answer was flippant. Maybe, but his answer told us a lot about him. Now, some 2 ½ years later, the President has weighed in on another hot button issue: the Defense of Marriage Act. He and Attorney-General Holder have decided no longer to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts. Apparently, having risen to a higher pay grade, Mr. Obama must feel qualified to speak on the issue. The President himself claims still to be grappling with the concept of same-sex marriage, but still considers DOMA to be unconstitutional. Pardon me for asking, but why, for the first time in human history, should we moderns grant to homosexuals a “right” they have never enjoyed. Upon what basis can homosexuals claim the right to marry? Seemingly, rising to a higher pay grade does not endow one with greater wisdom.
• No doubt, you’ve all read about home-schooled sophomore Joel Northrup, the fifth-ranked wrestler in the state of Iowa. Jason defaulted on his first match in the state finals. He had drawn Cassy Herkelman, a female freshman, as his opponent, and he could not, in good conscience, wrestle a girl. His refusal to wrestle Cassy was based on his biblical convictions. A post by Caryn Rivadeneira on “her-meneutics,” the Christianity Today blog for women, included the following comment. “My guess is that his decision to default has more to do with his view of who is against him on the mat than it does with actual violence. And I think his refusal has more to do with his cultural view of girls than his Christian faith.” In Ms. Rivadeneira’s view, Joel Northrup is both a liar and a sexist. She is in favor of boys wrestling girls. I would think Mr. Northrup’s convictions should be honored, not sanctimoniously questioned. For a better and more balanced view, read Mona Charen’s article at http://bit.ly/f5OG1Z. By the way, what a good time to ask, “What would Jesus do?”
No comments:
Post a Comment