Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/24/2006 | Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/24/2006 | Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

I've got to get to the office, but this article caught my attention on the way out the door. It points out where the homosexual agenda is headed, and I think we are on a collision course in Canada. The gay marriage thing will likely be an issue used to attack the Christian church if it is allowed to stand. A few excerpts from the article:

Live and let live. A simple concept, to be sure, but can we apply it to the growing conflict between gay rights and religious beliefs? The answer increasingly seems to be no.

And note this:

If the gay-rights movement is willing to trample on the moral beliefs of the Boy Scouts for the sake of "tolerance," will religious institutions that also provide social services and oppose gay rights on religious grounds fare any better?

Not likely! And then notice this:

In the 1982 case of Bob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court found that when a charitable organization's policies become "at odds with the common community conscience," its state and federal tax exemptions may be revoked, even if the policies are religiously motivated. This decision allowed governments at all levels to revoke the income or property-tax exemptions of religious institutions that "discriminate" against same-sex couples. All it takes is a court, legislature, or tax bureaucrat to find that the "community conscience" demands it.

While many decried BJU's old policy, including me, I realized that the court battle had far reaching implications when it was fought and lost.

We certainly need to be 'wise as serpents and harmless as doves' in these troubling days.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

More on the ego

I was talking to my wife about my theory of ego and the call to preach. I blogged on this earlier, but I want to expand it a bit more.

In the earlier post, I said this:

At the heart of a good deal of it, there must be ego. Are you conscious of ego in yourself? Do you realize how much it drives what you say and do? On a parallel track, how much of the 'call to preach' is simply ego? A good deal of it, in my opinion. Leadership involves ego. Very few leaders are in their positions because they are the humblest and godliest of men.

It is possible to be godly while driven by ego, but the challenge of any spiritual leadership is to find the right balance, subordinate and subdue the self, and harness the ego for godly pursuits.

In our conversation last night we were commenting on what drives people in the ministry. I mentioned my theory that much of the call to preach is ego based. The term ego usually has negative connotations, but it can be used at least neutrally to describe something about the inner man. This aspect of our inner being motivates our behaviour and, if it is subordinated to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it can be used to accomplish God's will and not our own.

Of course, there is a fine line between ego-submission and ego-driven. The flesh can be indulged very easily as we derive pleasure from the position of leadership. But the person who is ego-driven in the ministry, the one who is seeking ever bigger crowds, ever larger and more 'successful' ministry, ever widening reputation and recognition... well, that person is on a journey to a destination that will never be reached. It is like a drug. Nothing will ever satisfy. No amount of success, no size of crowd, no position of influence will ever really be enough. Ego can and will consume the soul just as much as drugs do.

I recall reading a quote attributed to J. Paul Getty, at one time one of the richest men in the world. He was asked how much money it takes to satisfy. His reply? "Just a little bit more." So it is with an ego driven ministry. The ego will never be satisfied if you are in the ministry solely or primarily for ego.

The vast majority of ministry opportunities in the Christian church are small, unknown, insignificant (worldly speaking), frustrating, ego shattering, and necessary. If we choose to enter the ministry for some reason of satisfying ourselves, we are on a fools errand. The work of the ministry is a necessary function in God's kingdom. It has many blessed rewards and not a few disappointments. But our satisfaction must be derived from knowing and doing the will of God or we will be overwhelmed by the disappointments. If God chooses to expand our ministry to wider proportions, so be it! But let us not be seeking the wider proportions, let us seek to do the work of the ministry.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

My upbringing was in the holiness movement. The church I attended (no one was a member) was the Church of God in Drayton Valley. They are a part of what is called "the Church of God Reformation Movement." They claim not to be a denomination and have a unique polity in a sense. They are today thoroughly evangelical and in many ways (in my view) somewhat indistinguishable from the broader evangelical movement as a whole.

Last February a group including representatives from the CoG and nine other holiness groups published a document called The Holiness Manifesto. Christianity Today reprinted it in March along with an interview of one of the spokesmen under the title "Holiness Without the Legalism".

You can read all this for yourself if you like. It all sounds like bafflegab to me, i.e., a whole lot of verbiage sounding substantive but saying practically nothing.

The reason I comment on this subject is that the 'anti-legalism' rhetoric is very familiar to those of us who are independent Baptists. Evangelicals have been regularly taking shots at Fundamentalists in general with the charge of 'legalism'. Today, the faux-fundies (aka, Young Fundamentalists, New Fundamentalists, Historic Fundamentalists) raise the same charge against the Fundamentalist Movement.

The title of the article, "Holiness Without the Legalism" is what caught my eye this morning. (I admit I am way behind the times in keeping up with CT! That could be a good thing.) When an evangelical or a faux-fundie uses the term "legalism", they usually mean pastoral imposition of moral standards of some kind. We should admit that real spiritual life and holiness from the heart are impossible to achieve merely by imposing external standards. No one became holy because their dress was acceptable to the fundamentalist community. No one became holy by having the proper haircut. Etc.

But the fear of legalism mutes all hints at helping people get any kind of handle on how to live. What does a holy heart look like in today's world? If you read the Holiness Manifesto, you come away with this: be nice. The closest they come to specifics is this:

live lives that are devout, pure, and reconciled

and this

care for the earth

What is the believer to do? What exactly is the Holiness Manifesto calling people to? (And what would the founders of the Holiness movement say? I think of Daniel S. Warner, the founder of the Church of God. He was a forthright advocate of holy living and separation from the world. Alas, we live in a different world today.)

A cursory study of the words used in the New Testament regarding holiness leads one to these conclusions: Holiness means devotion to God and living lives of moral purity. In a practical sense it means that you should be involved in the regular faithful committed worship of God. You should be involved in everything a Bible preaching church does to worship God. And you should turn away from every expression of evil we find in the world today. Everything connected with sexual immorality should be eschewed: that would include suggestive television, movies, music and the like. By music, we mean the sound, not just the words. Everything connected with violence, might makes right, power and exploitation of others should be eschewed: that would include much popular entertainment, including those already mentioned, many video games, gambling, drinking (as an exploitation of the weakness of many), and so on. Everything connected with addiction should be eschewed (all things are lawful but I will not be brought under the power of any).

And all this eschewing should come from the heart, because I want to please God, not my preacher or anyone else.

If that's legalism, then I'm all for Holines By Legalism.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

... and now, back to work

In the crush of activities for this weekend, including getting the kids off on their journey, see below, I have been neglecting my reading. Last week I started the last chapter of Pickering's book, The Tragedy of Compromise. The chapter is entitled "Gray Hairs Are Here and There". In some ways, this seems to be the best chapter of the whole book. Dr. Pickering outlines the appeal of the new evangelicalism to the fundamentalist and then lists little compromises that add up to the slide of fundamentalist institutions and churches into an evangelical mindset.

Quite frankly, I think this is the problem in the many debates at sites like Sharper Iron and others. Most of the participants are not fundamentalists, though they claim to be.

Pickering quotes Dr. David Beale, one of my professors at Bob Jones University, as saying of faux-Fundamentalists:

"Unlike present-day Fundamentalists, they refuse to regard the militant defense of the faith and the full doctrine and practice of holiness as intrinsically fundamental." [from In Pursuit of Purity, p. 261ff., quoted in Pickering, p. 159.]

One cry of faux-fundies is that there is no adequate definition of what a fundamentalist is. Dr. Beale's statement here should be sufficient. There are two distinguishing marks:

• Militant defense of the faith
• Full doctrine and practice of holiness

When it comes down to it, is there anything else that would distinguish a true fundamentalist position from that of an evangelical? If one could take a snapshot of churches in the 50s, as the seismic shift in the fundie/evangelical world was happening, what would mark the difference between the two philosophies? The difference would not have been doctrinal. Both groups held to the same doctrines. The difference was philosophical: will I wage war for the gospel, or not? Will I wage war for holiness, or not?

Today, the churches are confronted with different issues, but essentially the battle is the same. The faux-fundies want to tone down the militancy and want us to learn to play nice with our conservative evangelical friends. They want to tone down the battle for holiness to the extent that there is little left to fight for. The only thing militant about the faux-fundies is that they will fight you if you disagree with their religious pacifism.

I intend to write more on this in the future. My goal is not to "save fundamentalism", but to define and perpetrate in my life the biblical philosophy of earnestly contending for the faith. May God help us to be in dead earnest about the battle with the world, the flesh and the devil.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

a milestone that could wait forty years but must not

This morning my wife took two of our kids to the ferry for stage one of their week long trek to BJU. This is God's will. It is not my will. I could keep them with me for another forty years or so.

Here is a picture of the four who were with us this summer. The picture is set in the park across the street from the house in which I grew up in Alberta. The street is the street I drove away on in 1980. My dad told me later that he knew then that I was never coming back home again. I'm not quite there yet with any of ours, but that day is coming as well.



The two we sent off today are the two uppermost on the teeter totter. This playground implement was one of the goalposts when we played football in the park. It was also second base. We had to keep the two seats on the left down when we played, none of us relished running full tilt into the raised teeter totter.

My daughter will be a junior this year. She is growing into a fine Christian lady. The picture to the left is taken on the way home from family camp this year, waiting in line at the ferry. My son took this in the mirror of my truck, with my daughter holding her favorite 'man', Bob the dog.


My son will be a freshman. He will be a 'preacher boy', having his heart stirred for the ministry for some time now. He has been preaching little messages in our services after he gives the announcements for the last two years. They will join my oldest who is already down in Greenville, preparing to start an MA in Bible. The youngest two will stay with us here at home, for a while.

The gift of fatherhood is a precious thing, granted us by the Father of all. We gratefully received, and we are willing to give back, especially in giving back to the service of the King of kings.

I suppose I'll not get much work done today.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Distinction

ESV Malachi 3:18 Then once more you shall see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him.

In studying this verse, I came across this paragraph by E. Ray Clendenon in his excellent commentary on Malachi from the New American Commentary series [Broadman & Holman]:

Jesus’ parable [of the wheat and the tares] suggests why God may say ‘you will again see the distinction.’ When a garden is first planted, it is easy to see the difference between it and the surrounding countryside. The difficulty only arises after the onset of weeds. Likewise at the beginning of Israel’s history the difference between God’s people and the nations, especially Egypt, was clearly visible (1 Kgs 8:53). Beginning with the fourth plague, God would ‘make a distinction between my people and your people’ (Exod 8:23), as was the case in all the remaining plagues (Exod 9:4, 11, 26; 10:6, 23). Finally, the tenth plague against the firstborn would cause unimaginable anguish, ‘but among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal. Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.’ Afterwards the Sabbath would be a ‘sign’ of Israel’s distinction (Exod 31:13, 17), as would the laws of the clean and unclean (Lev 10:10; 11:47; 20:25). But in spite of the object lesson at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal teaching Israel the consequences of obedience or disobedience (Deut 27:12-13; Josh 8:30-35), Israel soon lost their visible distinctiveness and became like all the nations (Deut 17:14; Ezek 20:32). Where God’s repeated discipline had failed to restore his people, his coming to purify the priesthood (Mal 3:1-4) and destroy the wicked on that final day will succeed (3:5; 4:1, 3). The situation of the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of the righteous will no longer exist after the day of the Lord brings judgment and vindication. [pp. 448-449]

The verb 'see the distinction' is the normal word for 'to see' in the OT. Sight, or seeing, is the ability to distinguish differences visually. It is interesting that Clendenon picks up on distinctiveness as a theme for God's people through the Old Testament. God has always desired his people to be visibly distinct from the world. Part of that distinction is in a clearly distinct mode of worship and a distinct lifestyle.

Today it seems that the church generally seeks to erase distinctions more than emphasize them or at least accentuate them. In Malachi, clarity comes in "the day" when God "makes up his jewels [precious treasure]" out of those who fear Him. This is a reference to the Day of the Lord and the judgement of the world.

Is it possible for God's people to regain distinctiveness apart from the judgement of 'the day'?