Shutting Down Christianity

Liberal disdain for all things Christian, and the desire to remove all vestiges of Christianity from public view so as to pack the Christian faith into the four walls of the church, and no place else, is nothing new. The American Civil Liberties Union has been one of those organizations at the forefront of limiting biblical exposure to the general public. Click on the links below to view two different articles on this subject.

 

Shutting Down Christianity One Commandment at a Time.

Judge Suggests Chopping 10 Commandments Down to 6.

Does God “Look on Wickedness”?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min of Apologetics Press

The prophet Habakkuk once spoke to God, saying, “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (1:13). Some have questioned how this statement could be true, considering God allowed the diabolical devil to come before His presence on the “day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord” (Job 1:6). How can God be described accurately as having “purer eyes than to behold evil,” when Satan, “the evil one” (Matthew 6:13), was able to present himself before the Lord and have a conversation with Him? If God can be in the presence of “the wicked one” (1 John 3:12), how can He simultaneously not be able to “look on wickedness”?

Consider, first of all, the fact that the Bible repeatedly testifies to God’s omniscience and omnipresence. “[T]here is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13). Neither the righteous nor the wicked can flee from God’s presence (cf. Psalm 139:7-8). He fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24). Indeed, God is the all-knowing, ever-present One. Thus, given the Bible’s overall teaching about the nature of God, it should be obvious that Habakkuk 1:13 means something other than “God does not know or see what the wicked are doing.”

Second, that Habakkuk meant something other than “God cannot literally look upon wickedness” is also evident from the very chapter and verse in which he makes this statement. After declaring, “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (1:13a), he asked, “Why do You look on those who deal treacherously, and hold Your tongue when the wicked devours a person more righteous than he?” (1:13b, emp. added). Those who “deal treacherously” certainly are engaged in wickedness, and yet, God looks on them. Consider also verse two where the prophet asked, “[H]ow long shall I cry, and You will not hear?” (emp. added). What did he mean by “hear”? He explained in his next statement: “Even cry out to You, ‘Violence!’ and You will not save” (emp. added). Thus, to “hear” in verse two meant “to save.” Similarly, in verse 13 the prophet was not suggesting that God cannot see the wicked. He does, in fact, see them and often even allows them to continue in their existence for a time in order to fulfill His purposes.

In context, Habakkuk was bewildered by the fact that God was using a wicked nation like Babylon to punish Judah. The prophet was undoubtedly aware of Judah’s perverse ways (1:1-4), but did not understand why God would “look” toward the extremely wicked nation of Babylon in order to punish the Jews. The truth is, however, God neither approved of nor ignored Babylon’s sins. After He providentially used them to punish the Jews, He likewise brought judgment upon the Babylonians. Just as He predicted (Jeremiah 50-51; Isaiah 21; 45:1; etc.), Babylon was soon destroyed in the sixth century B.C.

God’s perfectly holy, just, divine nature will not allow Him to “look on wickedness”—meaning, He cannot delight, accept, or ignore iniquity. He hates sin (Proverbs 6:16-19). He “is against those who do evil” (1 Peter 3:12). He may have allowed Satan to come into His presence with the sons of God, but God never looks upon wickedness with pleasure and approval.

Be careful, however, not to confuse God’s refusal to approve sin, with the idea that He does not use sinners—or even Satan—to accomplish His will. He used the extremely wicked Chaldeans to bring judgment upon the Jews. He used the Medes and Persians to destroy the Babylonians. And He even used Satan to prove that His servant Job was faithful, and ultimately to show Himself as the sovereign Ruler of the Universe, Who warrants man’s unwavering respect and loyalty.

The Real Integrity Test

From Church and Culture.

If you lie, commit adultery, take drugs, break the speed limit, drink and drive, and willingly handle stolen goods, you’re in good company.

Or at least company.

According to research from Essex University in England, British people have become markedly less honest in the last decade.  Coupled with this decline in morality is a growing acceptance of dishonest behavior.

For example, in 2000 70% said that an extramarital affair was never justified.  Now, barely 50% would agree.  Only 33% feel lying on a job application was wrong.

I am confident the same survey would reveal similar results in the United States.

Here is the test:

Rate your attitude to each of the following activities with one point if you think it is never justified; two points if you think it is rarely justified; three if you view it as sometimes justified and four if you think it is always justified.

Be honest.

A. Avoiding paying the fare on public transport.

B. Cheating on taxes if you have a chance.

C. Driving faster than the speed limit.

D. Keeping money you found in the street.

E. Lying in your own interests.

F. Not reporting accidental damage you have done to a parked car.

G. Throwing away litter in a public place.

H. Driving under the influence of alcohol.

I. Making up a job application.

J. Buying something you know is stolen.

According to the authors, a score below 10 suggests you are very honest, 11 to 15 means you do not mind bending the rules but are more honest than average, 16 to 20 suggests you are relaxed about the rules and anything more than 21 suggests you do not believe in living by the rules.

I’ll let you judge your own score.

I’ll confess I scored in the 11-15 range.  (My answer on “speeding” took a toll.)

What I found interesting was not simply the decline in morality, or its growing acceptance, but the nature of that acceptance.  Did you notice what the questions had in common?

They each posed the opportunity to do something when no one was looking.

It is often said that true integrity is who you are when no one is looking.  If the lack of integrity is similarly scored, then “Oh, my.”  Suddenly, this test is even more revealing than imagined.

It’s not that we would do more things that lack integrity, or are more accepting of them in ourselves and others, but that the opportunity to “get away” with it is one of the great driving forces of whether we would do it.  It’s not only an absence of an internal compass, but no sense of any transcendent accountability.

One of the great biblical models of integrity, Joseph, faced a sexual temptation of this nature.  He was approached for a sexual tryst with a woman that would be private, discrete, and enormously enjoyable (Potiphar’s position ensured that he could have almost any woman of his choosing, so there is little doubt she would have been highly attractive).

Joseph’s response?

“How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?”

Who talks that way anymore?  Who believes that way anymore?

This is the heart of the moral decline, and the deeper spiritual story behind the cultural polling.  It’s not that we don’t know right from wrong.  According to the Bible, that’s written in our hearts.

No, it’s that we’ve lost any sense of constantly living our life before an audience

… of One.

James Emery White

Sources

John Binghan, “Rise in dishonesty signals looming ‘integrity crisis’ in Britain,” The Telegraph, January 25, 2012. Read online.

Protecting the Long-Born

Written by James Emory White of Church and Culture.

My parents are both in their eighties.

My wife’s parents are also in that era, and one has Alzheimer’s disease.

As I reflect on their lives, and situation, it occurs to me that there is enormous energy spent by many Christians on protecting the un-born. But what about protecting the long-born?

Few groups are more in need of compassion and protection than the elderly.  In the larger sanctity of life debate, I believe that those of age will be the tipping point toward the devaluation of life far more than those in the womb. In other words, I’m convinced that it may very well be euthanasia, not abortion or infanticide, that will move the moral chains down the field most profoundly.

Why?

It’s simple.

*They are more costly and burdensome to society.

*They are less physically and emotionally attractive.

*They are less productive, if productive at all.

In a word, there will be a growing sense that the elderly are dispensable, and necessarily so for the welfare and well-being of the majority.

The Nazis called them “useless eaters.”

In an article in The Telegraph, Alasdair Palmer observed that this will come to a head sooner than later largely through the success of medical science prolonging physical age. By 2033, there will be eight times as many centenarians living in Britain than there are today.

And there won’t be enough money to care for them.

But as he adds, “The economic problem…is less serious than the cultural and social one, which is that, collectively, we don’t value old people.” He goes further, noting that the very old “are not thought of as attractive. They are not ‘sexy’, literally or metaphorically.”

And here is where Palmer’s analysis may be most telling: “For the most part, the knowledge, experience and reliability that come with age aren’t valued – although the few employers that are willing to hire older workers report that they are very glad they did so, because they are usually less demanding, and work harder, than the young.”

He’s right. We erroneously equate “old” with “useless.” And it’s not just the very old. Good luck finding a job if you are over 50 and unemployed. Then consider our mindset toward physical aging. We value youth and beauty above all things, and turn our eyes away from anything that would remind us of its fleeting nature.

The Christian, of course, goes beyond such utilitarian and aesthetic debates.

It’s not whether there is wisdom to be found in the old (there is), or value in their contributions (there are). It’s not even where true beauty lies (it’s not in anyone’s outward appearance). The Christian goes beyond such things and employs a value that is increasingly rare in our world.

Honor.

We are called to honor our fathers and mothers; honor our forbears; honor those who have gone before us; honor those bearing the mantle of advanced age.

Ancient cultures did.

The older you were, the more you were honored and elevated to places of leadership and influence. The “elders” were respected above all others, and those younger gave them their due regard.

It is the mark of a decaying culture that we now trend in the opposite direction.

And it is a fast decay, because it is a powerful and swift trend.

James Emery White

Sources

“Our fixation on youth culture has left the elderly out in the cold,” Alasdair Palmer, August 6, 2011, The Telegraph. Read online.

The Generation They Want to Be

Another thought from Church and Culture.

The latest study is out on what is now commonly known as the Millennial generation, and it’s not pretty.

Featured as front-page material in such publications USA Today, the study originally published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds Millennials (born 1982-2000) more “civically and politically disengaged, more focused on materialistic values and less concerned about helping the larger community” than either Generation X (born 1962-1981) or Baby Boomers (born 1946 to about 1961) when studied at the same age.

Yes, there is a rise in volunteering and a decline in prejudice, but as one of the study’s authors, Jean Twenge, notes, this is simply the result of their rampant individualism and “school requirements.”

This mark is so pronounced it’s even produced a new word, “slacktivism,” a pejorative term for response and engagement that is nothing more than armchair activism, often online.  Think of the “work” involved in spreading Kony 2012.

Perhaps most telling was this comment from Twenge on the Millennial matter: “They reflect the culture, and young people show the changes in the culture the strongest.”

Yes, but they are not devoid of choice.

It is for this reason that studies attempting to forecast future behavior on current behavior or attitude are deeply flawed.  For example, let’s not forget that Hippies turned into Yuppies, and those at Woodstock ended up populating Wall Street.

Not exactly in anyone’s forecast.

In truth, Millennials have gone through a roller-coaster ride of assessment.  The earliest studies predicted them to be the greatest generation to date.  Remember those?  Millennials were predicted to be more positive in outlook, more socially oriented, and maintain the strongest possible “can-do” spirit.  No Gen-X slackers here, much less the experience of a rebel phase such as Boomers went through in the sixties.  Projections mused that under millennial influence, music would become more melodic/singable, sitcoms more wholesome, culture more mannered, individualism more restrained, and…well, you get the picture.

Welcome to the most heroic, wholesome generation since the G.I.’s returned from World War II.

Now, Twenge and others are finding them among the least.

I don’t know which will be proven true.

I only know it’s up to them.

James Emery White

Sources

Millennials just might not be such a special bunch after all, Michelle Healy, USA Today, Weekend Edition, March 16-18, 2012, p. 1A. Read online.

For an example of the earlier, more positive assessments of the Millennial generation, see Neil Howe, William Strauss and R.J. Matson, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation (2000).

Starbucks Blows Off its Pro-Family Customers

From The Christian Diarist.

Starbucks held its annual shareholders meeting last week, during which the Seattle-based coffee company affirmed that support for same-sex marriage is one of its core values.

Following the meeting, the National Organization of Marriage announced a “Dump Starbucks” protest campaign.

“The majority of Americans,” said NOM President Brian Brown, “believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They will not be pleased to learn that their money is being used to advance gay marriage in society.”

Brown’s remarks, and NOM’s protest campaign, fomented predictable yelps of outrage from the LGBTQIA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex, Aesexual) community, which considers opposition to same-sex marriage prima facie evidence of bigotry.

But it also elicited unexpected criticism from certain leaders within the evangelical community, who think that Christians ought not join NOM’s protest campaign.

“It’s not that I’m saying a boycott in and of itself is always evil or wrong,” blogged Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

“It’s just that, in this case (and many like it),” he continued, a boycott exposes us to our worst tendencies. Christians are tempted, again and again, to fight live the devil to please the Lord.”

Well, I respectfully disagree with Dr. Moore. I believe that NOM, whose stated mission is “to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it,” is standing in the gap for those of who are not homophobic, but who believe that God intended marriage to be exclusively between man and woman.

I had no idea Starbucks had waded into the same-sex marriage debate. As a customer, I do not expect the coffee company to embrace my point of view on the issue. I do, however, expect the company to be neutral.

As Brown suggested, I am deeply offended that Starbucks is using the money I have spent on its lattes to support public policy that offends my religious sensibilities. Just as I am deeply offended that the Girl Scouts are in bed with Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion providers, while they are asking me to buy their cookies.

Well, I am no longer buying Girl Scout cookies, though the girls actually selling the cookies know nothing about the organization’s tacit support for abortion. And I will no longer buy my lattes at Starbucks, though the baristas working there have nothing to with  the company’s misguided core values.

Companies like Starbucks, organizations like the Girl Scouts, don’t care if they offend the faith community. That’s why neither will get another dollar from me.

Starving for Religion in ‘Hunger Games’

The Hunger Games movie is all the rage. Here’s an interesting commentary from Real Clear Religion regarding the movie and series.

“The importance of religion in the wildly popular “Hunger Games” books and new movie is a lot like the barking of a dog in the Sherlock Holmes story “Silver Blaze.”

Holmes directs a police inspector’s attention to “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” “The dog did nothing in the night-time.” “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

The dog, of course, did not bark.

If you’ve been cut off from all popular culture for a while, “The Hunger Games” and its two sequels are novels by Suzanne Collins. She creates a dystopian future where the remnants of the United States are ruled by a despot who enforces his rule with an annual “game” that’s a cross between Roman gladiator contests and a modern reality TV show. A couple of people from each province are chosen by lottery to enter into a group battle to the death, all televised. Last person standing is the winner.”

Click on this link to read the entire article.

‘Good Christian’ Show Attacks Christians 72 Times in 2 Episodes

This article is from NewsBusters. Follow this link to view the entire article.

“Hell Hath No Fury,” the second episode in ABC’s unholy mess “GCB,” was even worse than the pilot. Despite the vain and meager PR attempts by its Jesus-touting stars, the show’s true agenda of degrading Christianity, conservatives, and Texans shines as bright as the light of Heaven with a total of 72 attacks on the Christian faith in a mere two episodes.

“GCB’s” sin-filled debut left audiences and advertisers questioning Disney-owned ABC’s credibility. Because of the show’s blatant assault on a particular audience, Kraft pulled its Philadelphia Cream Cheese ad  from the programming faster than Kristen Chenoweth could don one of her hideous “Southern” costumes.

Hyper or Hypo?

In a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, Ted Gregory chronicled how young adults live in an age of “hyper-connectivity.”

For example, David Macias has five personal electronic devices: a laptop, smartphone, e-reader and not one but two iPods — one for his car, one for workouts at the gym.

“I have trouble sleeping sometimes,” the 19-year-old college freshman said while taking a break from watching a movie on his laptop in the College Of DuPage cafeteria. Macias said he sleeps with his cellphone, which wakes him when he receives a text.

“It’s crazy,” said Macias, of Aurora. “I’ve got to turn it off.”

The idea of “hyper-connectivity” is being constantly connected to electronic devices. It appears to be the bane of the so-called millennials, the generation born from 1981-2000 who came of age in the new millennium.

Observers seem split on the effect this will have; some feel it will make millennials “nimble analysts and decision makers.” Others feel it will mean an inability to retain information, a tendency to be easily distracted, and a lack of “deep-thinking capabilities” and “face-to-face social skills.”

I’m leaning toward the second camp.

A fascinating study was conducted by Stanford professor Clifford Nass in 2009 in order to determine the effects of media multitasking on concentration. Those who engaged in heavy multitasking, courtesy of the internet, were less able to focus on a single task.

An earlier study was conducted in 2007 at UCLA. The goal was to study the Internet’s effect on brain activity. Volunteers wore goggles that projected web pages while submitting to a whole-brain magnetic resonance image. Novices to web surfing, after only six days at one-hour of surfing each day, began showing dramatic changes in brain activity. Gary Small, a professor at UCLA, concluded that the Internet is “rapidly and profoundly altering our brains.”

Pulling from the Stanford and UCLA studies, Nicholas Carr drew a startling conclusion in his book The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brain: the internet is weakening our comprehension and transforming us into shallow thinkers.

Tim Challies writes that it is a simple and inevitable progression: “With the ever-present distractions in our lives, we are quickly becoming a people of shallow thoughts, and shallow thoughts will lead to shallow living.” Anecdotally, it seems to be an ongoing descent, meaning the more we use the internet, the worse it gets. Though millions of websites exist, along with countless pages of books chronicling the knowledge of millennia, we seem more dependent than ever on news and information soundbites from Yahoo or AOL. The most energy we seem willing to expend is a quick search on Google. Or as Challies writes, “We have become scanners rather than engagers, skimmers in place of readers.”

It brings to mind something the late historian Daniel Boorstin once suggested: “The greatest menace to progress is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.”

The opposite of hyper, from the Greek meaning “above” or “over” is “hypo,” from the Greek meaning “below” or “under.”

So while it is an age of hyper-connectivity, perhaps we should also acknowledge the inevitable result.

Hypo-intellectualism.

James Emery White

Sources

“Hyperconnected: Brain gain or drain?,” Ted Gregory, Chicago Tribune, February 29, 2012. Read online.
Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brain.
Tim Challies, The Next Story: Life and Faith After the Digital Revolution.
Daniel Boorstin, Cleopatra’s Nose: Essays on the Unexpected (ed. Ruth Boorstin).

Editor’s Note

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, NC, and the ranked adjunctive professor of theology and culture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which he also served as their fourth president. His latest book is What They Didn’t Teach You in Seminary (Baker). To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on to www.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world. Follow Dr. White on twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.

Broken Windows

From Church and Culture.com

A social scientist, James Q. Wilson was perhaps best known for his “broken windows” theory of law enforcement which laid the groundwork for crime-reduction programs in cities throughout the nation, beginning with New York.

In the 1980′s, New York City was in the grip of one of the worst crime epidemics in its history.  But then, suddenly and without warning, from a high in 1990, the crime rate went into a dramatic decline.  Murders dropped by two-thirds.  Felonies were cut in half.

Why?

They followed Wilson’s theory.

Wilson argued that crime is the inevitable result of disorder.  If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that that no one cares and no one is in charge.  Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal that anything goes.

The idea is that crime is contagious.  It can start with a broken window and spread to an entire community.  Which means that what matters are the little things; what become critical are small stands against the spread of crime.

Which is exactly how New York City addressed the problem.

The war was waged on broken windows and graffiti, focusing on the subways.  The cleanup took from 1984 to 1990.  It soon spread to the entire city.  Seemingly inconsequential enforcements, such as turnstile-jumping on the subways, the “squeegee men” who came up to drivers at intersections, public drunkenness, and littering, were targeted.  To the surprise of all, crime began to fall in the city.

In Serious Times, I used Wilson’s theory to argue a point about how Christians can make a difference with their life.

When we live in such a way that we influence as “salt” and “light” (Mt. 5:13-16), with lives infused by Christ, it impacts the world around us in disproportionate measure.  We become the mended windows and the scrubbed-off graffiti.  The key to making a difference is not often a massive program, but what some have called the “monastic option” – humble, deliberate acts of cultural preservation.  This is precisely what a deepened soul, with a developed mind, following God’s call, rooted in a church, accomplishes.  Small, individual acts of living like, and for, Christ in relation to those who do not.

Henri Nouwen writes of a church building site where monks were working closely together with some good-natured, but good-cursing workers.  He wondered how the monks would react.  He knew how he would react.  He would not say anything at first, but slowly get angry until he finally exploded to say, “Don’t you know you are not supposed to curse!”  Then everyone would be angry, the air would be tense, and charity would be hard to find.  While Nouwen contemplated such things, a monk by the name of Anthony did respond.  After having heard the name of Jesus used “in vain” several times over from one particular man, Anthony walked quietly to the man, put his arm around his shoulder, and said, “Hey, you know – this is a monastery – and we love that man here.”  The man looked up at him, smiled, and said, “To tell you the truth – I do too.”  And they both had a good laugh.

And from that simple exchange, everything changed.

Why?

A broken window had been repaired.

James Q. Wilson died on Friday.  He was 80.

James Emery White