Some of the parents of kids attending the high school in Frisco, TX (a small town north of Dallas), were expressing outrage in a Fox News report today. One mother was quoted as saying, "I was never notified by the schools that they were going to allow this. I was a little shocked." Some parents "even contacted the police about their children's safety."
What nefarious deeds could be causing such a ruckus? Subversive, anti-government materials? Free drugs? Pedophiles? No, it's the Gideons, handing out Bibles in the school, or on the sidewalk outside. How dare they!
School officials insist they were in compliance with the law by allowing the Gideons to come into the school to set up a display, with the provision that no direct conversations take place to urge students to take a Bible or listen to any Bible-friendly exhortations. And, the school's PTA president "didn't feel like [the Bible] was being pushed upon" students at the school. But no matter, for some parents concerned for their children's welfare, bringing Bibles anywhere near the school may as well have been setting up a marijuana kiosk in the cafeteria.
Meanwhile, schools in other cities have been allowing Muslim speakers to come and make presentations on Islamic beliefs, for the sake of "awareness", including a school last year in Houston, where students were taught "the Five Pillars of Islam and how to pray five times a day and wear Islamic religious garb." A similar "presentation" on Christianity would have doubtless started a riot among parents in Frisco.
This kind of selective secularization of our society is not new, and not likely to be diminished by the passing years, as long as the "correct" thing in our culture is to keep religion (specifically the Christian version) as far away from public life as possible. It makes you wonder if some people are going to try to take Jesus to court when He returns. Actually, they will be in court, and He's the Judge.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Peace or appeasement?
I'm sure there were many admirable qualities about Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who served England as the Second World War was taking shape in Europe. But today, he's best known for assuring the world that there was "peace in our time," based on nothing more than an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler. The difficulty of balancing peace with appeasement has been ever since perfectly illustrated by Chamberlain's eagerness to win peace, to the point that he could not discern how great a price should be paid for it.
This remains a thorny question among politicians of this vastly diverse world scene, and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East are but one example of this. It's a difficult issue to work through, not the least of reasons being the religious differences between all parties involved. So it has been common for some who make their living as "ambassadors for peace" to try their hand at creating the right atmosphere for a lasting end to conflict.
So comes the current Catholic pope, Benedict, to make his appeal to the warring nations, and, of course, he bases his exhortations on the theology of peace as he understands it. He is reported in today's headlines saying, "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new, that history need not be repeated, that memories can be healed, that the bitter fruits of recrimination and hostility can be overcome, and that a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman, for the whole human family, and in a special way for the people who dwell in this land so dear to the heart of the Savior."
Now, the religious and the secular viewpoints have a common interest in peaceful relations among mankind, but they employ very different methods, especially if you take seriously the words of Jesus on the subject. Jesus said very bluntly, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) Of course, Jesus is also called "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6), so we can't call Him a warmonger for such language. But we must understand that true peace in the Bible's view begins with peace between men and God, and the Gospel is God's "peace mission", whereby, according to Paul, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:19)
The Bible states that, apart from the "justification of faith", there can be no "peace with God" (Romans 5:1). Without that, there is no real chance of lasting peace among men. The things that divide mankind are just too deep, too strongly felt, too tied to culture and tradition, and mostly too blocked by the core human motives of self-preservation to permit any worldly or political solution to human conflict, at least without significant alteration of the basic operations of the brain; which has been contemplated by many like Huxley (Brave New World), or Orwell (1984).
Meanwhile, it is a worthy objective to work toward a cessation of open warfare among nations, and most would grant that Benedict has nothing but the sincerest motives for doing his part. But to call men to have hope in "a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman" is a long shot at best, given the depth of differences that divide the people responsible for actually enforcing such a peace. And, to imply that "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new" in the context of worldly peace among nations that do not agree on the more fundamental issue of gaining peace with God, is an attempt to short-cut the Gospel message into a "let's just all get along" sermon. That not only misleads any who would still hope for world peace, it seriously distorts the message of the Gospel, and turns biblical peace into worldly appeasement.
This remains a thorny question among politicians of this vastly diverse world scene, and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East are but one example of this. It's a difficult issue to work through, not the least of reasons being the religious differences between all parties involved. So it has been common for some who make their living as "ambassadors for peace" to try their hand at creating the right atmosphere for a lasting end to conflict.
So comes the current Catholic pope, Benedict, to make his appeal to the warring nations, and, of course, he bases his exhortations on the theology of peace as he understands it. He is reported in today's headlines saying, "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new, that history need not be repeated, that memories can be healed, that the bitter fruits of recrimination and hostility can be overcome, and that a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman, for the whole human family, and in a special way for the people who dwell in this land so dear to the heart of the Savior."
Now, the religious and the secular viewpoints have a common interest in peaceful relations among mankind, but they employ very different methods, especially if you take seriously the words of Jesus on the subject. Jesus said very bluntly, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) Of course, Jesus is also called "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6), so we can't call Him a warmonger for such language. But we must understand that true peace in the Bible's view begins with peace between men and God, and the Gospel is God's "peace mission", whereby, according to Paul, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:19)
The Bible states that, apart from the "justification of faith", there can be no "peace with God" (Romans 5:1). Without that, there is no real chance of lasting peace among men. The things that divide mankind are just too deep, too strongly felt, too tied to culture and tradition, and mostly too blocked by the core human motives of self-preservation to permit any worldly or political solution to human conflict, at least without significant alteration of the basic operations of the brain; which has been contemplated by many like Huxley (Brave New World), or Orwell (1984).
Meanwhile, it is a worthy objective to work toward a cessation of open warfare among nations, and most would grant that Benedict has nothing but the sincerest motives for doing his part. But to call men to have hope in "a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman" is a long shot at best, given the depth of differences that divide the people responsible for actually enforcing such a peace. And, to imply that "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new" in the context of worldly peace among nations that do not agree on the more fundamental issue of gaining peace with God, is an attempt to short-cut the Gospel message into a "let's just all get along" sermon. That not only misleads any who would still hope for world peace, it seriously distorts the message of the Gospel, and turns biblical peace into worldly appeasement.
Friday, May 8, 2009
A Day of Prayer?
When the apostle Paul told us, by way of the Thessalonian letter, to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17), the idea of a "day of prayer" seems to maybe send the wrong message to some of our citizens. Sure, it's a fine reason to draw the Church together to pray with one voice, as happened at a "prayer concert" last night at a large Omaha church. But do we need a day on the calendar, and one set by Harry Truman at that (a fine gentleman, but not well known for his evangelical convictions), to bring the Church together for prayer?
And, with the religious climate in our nation today, can we really hope to have a "national" prayer day that will in any way be satisfying to all, even among those who accept the name "Christian", and even less those who call themselves some other name or no-name. James Dobson is miffed at the president for not sending a cabinet member to the event at the Capitol, and now a "source" claims that conditions were set on who could come from the White House, i.e., they had to be "pro-life." An understandable qualification from Dobson's view of an event built on prayer to the God of life, but further limiting the scope of a day intended to bring the nation to prayer.
Meanwhile, others want to open up the appeal for prayer to all comers, regardless of the content of their faith statements. Now, as I understand the Bible, God Himself puts limits on the kind of prayer He responds to, i.e., that which comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is to say, "in Jesus' name." God may "hear" other prayers, and in His sovereign will may allow a person to follow that route to eventually find the truth that is through the One Savior of all mankind, Jesus Christ. But that's not to say He regards all prayers as equal, just being happy that at least folks are praying, not cursing.
Maybe it's just impossible these days to get everyone to agree on the meaning of a "day of prayer", so it might be better to just call the Church of Jesus together (and maybe a lot more often than yearly would be a good idea), and make it clear that only those who pray in the Spirit of God (Ephesians 6:18) are expected to join in. At least then we won't get people confused by thinking at "all prayers are equal."
And, with the religious climate in our nation today, can we really hope to have a "national" prayer day that will in any way be satisfying to all, even among those who accept the name "Christian", and even less those who call themselves some other name or no-name. James Dobson is miffed at the president for not sending a cabinet member to the event at the Capitol, and now a "source" claims that conditions were set on who could come from the White House, i.e., they had to be "pro-life." An understandable qualification from Dobson's view of an event built on prayer to the God of life, but further limiting the scope of a day intended to bring the nation to prayer.
Meanwhile, others want to open up the appeal for prayer to all comers, regardless of the content of their faith statements. Now, as I understand the Bible, God Himself puts limits on the kind of prayer He responds to, i.e., that which comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is to say, "in Jesus' name." God may "hear" other prayers, and in His sovereign will may allow a person to follow that route to eventually find the truth that is through the One Savior of all mankind, Jesus Christ. But that's not to say He regards all prayers as equal, just being happy that at least folks are praying, not cursing.
Maybe it's just impossible these days to get everyone to agree on the meaning of a "day of prayer", so it might be better to just call the Church of Jesus together (and maybe a lot more often than yearly would be a good idea), and make it clear that only those who pray in the Spirit of God (Ephesians 6:18) are expected to join in. At least then we won't get people confused by thinking at "all prayers are equal."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)