I want to propose an experiment: Let's lock up notable political conservatives Wait a minute. Give me an opportunity to explain the reason. Here we go:
Let's lock up Ben Shapiro, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson (he and I graduated from the same high school), John Stossel, Clint Fargeau, Robert Jeffress, and Anne Colter. (You may have a different list; it makes no difference.) In the experiment, we're locking each one in a separate cell and we're giving each one a typewriter and reams of paper, all the paper they'll need for what we want them to do for our experiment.
The next thing we do is that we go into each cell with these instructions: "We want you to produce an essay titled, 'My Political Philosophy.' Let us know when you're finished. Have a nice day."
What do you suppose we'd find when they're all finished? We'd find fundamental disagreements on both political and ethical issues all across the board.
As we read the political treatise of each one, we'd note that Kevin Williamson wrote an article about Donald Trump titled, "Witless Ape Rides Escalator. " Jonah Goldberg wrote an article with the headline, "Our Nation is Paying for Trump's Refusal to be Presidential."
However, Fargeau wrote an article in which he said, "The president has proven himself in spades, demonstrating the courage to stand up to Democrat intimidation and frame-ups again and again." In the article, Fargeau called Kevin Williamson a "fool," citing Proverbs 18:2.
Ann Coulter wrote about a national emergency, "The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.” But conservative pastor Robert Jeffress "defends President Donald Trump, . . . he doesn't simply defend
Trump—he defends him with one carefully crafted Bible-wrapped barb after another, and with more passion, more preparation, more devotion than anyone else in television interviews."
What about John Stossel's viewpoint? "When John Stossel, who interviewed Trump . . . for
ABC News accused Trump of bullying, Trump retorted, off-camera,
“Nobody talks to me that way!”
"But “someone should,” Stossel answered."
Stossel opposes laws against pornography, marijuana, recreational drugs, gambling, prostitution, polygamy, assisted suicide, and believes that most abortions should be legal. One could bet that Jeffress would beg to differ.
What's the point? Those aforementioned conservatives are contemporaneous. They have ample opportunities to discuss issues with each other and reflect on each other's viewpoint yet they contradict one another across the board, even if you let them consult with one another, the disagreements in the finished work would be ever-abounding.
Forty different authors wrote the Bible without consulting with each other while living in different places and most of them in different times, coming from different occupations which ran the gamut from a tax collector to a king, to fishermen, to being a former Pharisee and their finished product was complete, connected, and without contradiction. And to top it all off, their collected works were about the most controversial subject of them all: God. Yet, their final product was without error.
What if we asked the above contemporary conservative authors to write about God? What an unmitigated mess that would be!
Enough said!
WITHOUT COST
Friday, January 31, 2020
Friday, January 24, 2020
THAT VISIT TO DEATH ROW
THAT VISIT TO DEATH ROW
Every time he got the chance, Dr. Mike Adams used his break between semesters to take a trip through Mississippi where he was born, and then back to Texas where he grew up. Visiting friends and family and seeing his old childhood homes gave him a chance to think about where he was going by reflecting on where he’d been. That year’s road trip happened to end on December 30th, which was the 20th anniversary of an important milestone in a larger personal journey. It was the day he interviewed John Paul Penry on Texas’ death row just a few miles from his parents’ house thirteen days before his scheduled execution.
John Paul Penry was a rapist and killer. His first conviction put him in prison, but he was paroled after only two years. While on parole, he committed the same crime, which concluded with the murder of the young victim, beating her so that he burst both her kidneys. He killed her by shoving a pair of scissors into her heart. He was later convicted and sentenced to die.
After Penry’s case went through the justice system for twenty years, his execution was reset for the third and what appeared to be the final time. When Adams expressed interest in interviewing Penry prior to his execution, it wasn’t hard to make the arrangements.
His goal was simple when he arrived on death row on that second to last morning of the 20th century. He wanted to gather information so he could do a better job of teaching the case to his students. He had been teaching the Penry v. Lynaugh ruling for several years because it addressed constitutional and philosophical questions. He had no idea that the interview would affect him so personally.
After he gathered the information he was seeking, he stood up and placed his hand on the glass in order to do the death row handshake with Penry – as he placed his hand on the other side of the glass. Then something odd happened. Shortly after telling Adams he was scared of being executed, he recited John 3:16.
Adams asked Penry if he had read the Bible. He said that after learning how to read and write on death row, he had read the entire Bible over the course of his years as a condemned man.
It was difficult for Dr. Adams to feel at ease knowing that a convicted murderer and rapist had read the Bible while he had not. Adams was already a tenured professor. How could he call myself educated having not read the most important book in print?
He decided that he was going to go home, buy a Bible, and read it from cover to cover in the coming year, taking 6 months off to read six apologetic books as he worked his way through the KJV. When he finished, he was convinced of its truth, converted, and became the only Christian in a department full of tenured Marxists. He had gone there on a mission to help save John Penry from death but ended up being the one who had his death sentence commuted.
He concluded that if John Paul Penry can be used by God, then so can we. He advises other believers: "Don’t wallow in self-pity. Get over yourself, and get to work. Know that you are still valuable, and you are still needed in doing the work of reaching lost souls."
Every time he got the chance, Dr. Mike Adams used his break between semesters to take a trip through Mississippi where he was born, and then back to Texas where he grew up. Visiting friends and family and seeing his old childhood homes gave him a chance to think about where he was going by reflecting on where he’d been. That year’s road trip happened to end on December 30th, which was the 20th anniversary of an important milestone in a larger personal journey. It was the day he interviewed John Paul Penry on Texas’ death row just a few miles from his parents’ house thirteen days before his scheduled execution.
John Paul Penry was a rapist and killer. His first conviction put him in prison, but he was paroled after only two years. While on parole, he committed the same crime, which concluded with the murder of the young victim, beating her so that he burst both her kidneys. He killed her by shoving a pair of scissors into her heart. He was later convicted and sentenced to die.
After Penry’s case went through the justice system for twenty years, his execution was reset for the third and what appeared to be the final time. When Adams expressed interest in interviewing Penry prior to his execution, it wasn’t hard to make the arrangements.
His goal was simple when he arrived on death row on that second to last morning of the 20th century. He wanted to gather information so he could do a better job of teaching the case to his students. He had been teaching the Penry v. Lynaugh ruling for several years because it addressed constitutional and philosophical questions. He had no idea that the interview would affect him so personally.
After he gathered the information he was seeking, he stood up and placed his hand on the glass in order to do the death row handshake with Penry – as he placed his hand on the other side of the glass. Then something odd happened. Shortly after telling Adams he was scared of being executed, he recited John 3:16.
Adams asked Penry if he had read the Bible. He said that after learning how to read and write on death row, he had read the entire Bible over the course of his years as a condemned man.
It was difficult for Dr. Adams to feel at ease knowing that a convicted murderer and rapist had read the Bible while he had not. Adams was already a tenured professor. How could he call myself educated having not read the most important book in print?
He decided that he was going to go home, buy a Bible, and read it from cover to cover in the coming year, taking 6 months off to read six apologetic books as he worked his way through the KJV. When he finished, he was convinced of its truth, converted, and became the only Christian in a department full of tenured Marxists. He had gone there on a mission to help save John Penry from death but ended up being the one who had his death sentence commuted.
He concluded that if John Paul Penry can be used by God, then so can we. He advises other believers: "Don’t wallow in self-pity. Get over yourself, and get to work. Know that you are still valuable, and you are still needed in doing the work of reaching lost souls."
Friday, January 17, 2020
THE ANGRY PROFESSOR
THE ANGRY PROFESSOR
On November 10, 2010, Professor Richard Quinn stands before his class in the School of Business Administration at the University of Central Florida. The students had previously finished their midterm exams and they're expecting to hear a lecture that day. But such is not to be.
Quinn began by saying that he’d taught for 20 years and that today, he was going to give a lecture he’d hoped he would never have to give. He said that a student had anonymously notified him that there had been cheating on the midterm exam, that students had gotten the questions prior to taking the test. (As Professor Quinn had graded the tests, he’d become suspicious that something was wrong because the grades were one and one-half times higher than the midterms of all previous years.)
He estimated that 200 students in the class were involved in the scandal. Not only that, but reports had also come to him that students were bragging about having advance knowledge of the exam and of the high scores they made. He told the class, “We know who you are and we know where you are. The midterm exam will be tossed; everyone in the class will retake it.”
He gave a time period that the students would have--a fifty-hour time period to come in and take the exam. He said, "There would be no excuses for not taking the exam except a note from God. Even if you have to give birth during the exam, you are still required to be present and accounted for and take it."
Quinn told them that he’d notified the ethics committee, the Business Administration faculty, the dean, and 20 other universities as to the cheating. He went on to tell them that the university was going to protect its integrity; that such behavior would not be tolerated.
Then, speaking personally, he told the students, “To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement. I’m physically ill. I’m disillusioned. I’m disgusted. I’m trying to figure out what my last 20 years [of teaching] were for.”
Then, in the strongest words of them all, he was so offended by their cheating, he slowly said, “To those of you who cheated . . . don’t call me . . . don’t ask me to do anything for you . . . ever.”
That was some strong statement, something the students needed to hear. But what he said raises a serious issue. Those students, when they leave his class, will attend other classes, many of them in the Department of Arts and Sciences, courses like English, epistemology, and philosophy. In those classes, their professors will teach them that absolute truth doesn’t exist, yet in the School of Business Administration, Professor Quinn and all the other faculty members proceeded to punish them as if absolute truth does exist, that cheating will not be tolerated at their institution because cheating is wrong.
But if truth is relative depending on the person, the culture, and the times, who’s to say what’s right and wrong? Who is to punish students if absolute right and absolute wrong do not exist? Their other classes will teach them that each individual has “his truth,” that "You have your truth and I have mine, all is relative," they learn.
The denial of absolute truth catches fallen man in a trap: logically, according to his denial, he should make no moral judgments, because a moral judgment of what’s right and what’s wrong can’t be based on “That’s the way I feel about it.” The next person could say, “I feel exactly the opposite.”
The trap is sprung: he can’t make judgment calls on the basis of relativism, but he has to do just that. He can't live without doing so.
On November 10, 2010, Professor Richard Quinn stands before his class in the School of Business Administration at the University of Central Florida. The students had previously finished their midterm exams and they're expecting to hear a lecture that day. But such is not to be.
Quinn began by saying that he’d taught for 20 years and that today, he was going to give a lecture he’d hoped he would never have to give. He said that a student had anonymously notified him that there had been cheating on the midterm exam, that students had gotten the questions prior to taking the test. (As Professor Quinn had graded the tests, he’d become suspicious that something was wrong because the grades were one and one-half times higher than the midterms of all previous years.)
He estimated that 200 students in the class were involved in the scandal. Not only that, but reports had also come to him that students were bragging about having advance knowledge of the exam and of the high scores they made. He told the class, “We know who you are and we know where you are. The midterm exam will be tossed; everyone in the class will retake it.”
He gave a time period that the students would have--a fifty-hour time period to come in and take the exam. He said, "There would be no excuses for not taking the exam except a note from God. Even if you have to give birth during the exam, you are still required to be present and accounted for and take it."
Quinn told them that he’d notified the ethics committee, the Business Administration faculty, the dean, and 20 other universities as to the cheating. He went on to tell them that the university was going to protect its integrity; that such behavior would not be tolerated.
Then, speaking personally, he told the students, “To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement. I’m physically ill. I’m disillusioned. I’m disgusted. I’m trying to figure out what my last 20 years [of teaching] were for.”
Then, in the strongest words of them all, he was so offended by their cheating, he slowly said, “To those of you who cheated . . . don’t call me . . . don’t ask me to do anything for you . . . ever.”
That was some strong statement, something the students needed to hear. But what he said raises a serious issue. Those students, when they leave his class, will attend other classes, many of them in the Department of Arts and Sciences, courses like English, epistemology, and philosophy. In those classes, their professors will teach them that absolute truth doesn’t exist, yet in the School of Business Administration, Professor Quinn and all the other faculty members proceeded to punish them as if absolute truth does exist, that cheating will not be tolerated at their institution because cheating is wrong.
But if truth is relative depending on the person, the culture, and the times, who’s to say what’s right and wrong? Who is to punish students if absolute right and absolute wrong do not exist? Their other classes will teach them that each individual has “his truth,” that "You have your truth and I have mine, all is relative," they learn.
The denial of absolute truth catches fallen man in a trap: logically, according to his denial, he should make no moral judgments, because a moral judgment of what’s right and what’s wrong can’t be based on “That’s the way I feel about it.” The next person could say, “I feel exactly the opposite.”
The trap is sprung: he can’t make judgment calls on the basis of relativism, but he has to do just that. He can't live without doing so.
Friday, January 10, 2020
WHO ARE YOU?
“I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.”
―
Francois Mauriac wrote, "Tell me what you read and I’ll tell you who you are is true enough, but I’d know you better if you told me what you reread.”
When we spend 20 minutes scrolling down our Facebook feed, we’re reading. When we choose to click on an enticing title from a questionable news source, we’re reading. When we browse without reason, we’re reading. The only difference is that that kind of reading isn’t intentional. Reading shouldn’t be something that happens to us. It should be something that we actively do. It should be done with intent."
Then there's this study:
"Readers who identify with fictional characters [in a book] are prone to subconsciously adopt their behavior, new data shows. Researchers at Ohio State University say bookworms have been shown to adopt the feelings, thoughts, beliefs and internal responses of fictional characters they relate to in a phenomenon called 'experience-taking'." (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology)
―
Francois Mauriac wrote, "Tell me what you read and I’ll tell you who you are is true enough, but I’d know you better if you told me what you reread.”
When we spend 20 minutes scrolling down our Facebook feed, we’re reading. When we choose to click on an enticing title from a questionable news source, we’re reading. When we browse without reason, we’re reading. The only difference is that that kind of reading isn’t intentional. Reading shouldn’t be something that happens to us. It should be something that we actively do. It should be done with intent."
Then there's this study:
"Readers who identify with fictional characters [in a book] are prone to subconsciously adopt their behavior, new data shows. Researchers at Ohio State University say bookworms have been shown to adopt the feelings, thoughts, beliefs and internal responses of fictional characters they relate to in a phenomenon called 'experience-taking'." (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology)
THE GENERAL, THE PRIESTS, AND PAUL
What does the Bible say about reading? God commanded Joshua to be a reader: Joshua 1:8: "This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate
on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all
that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and
then you will have success." We see in that command that a result of reading is "doing." What we read influences what we do.
When Israel comes to have a monarchy, the king had these specific instructions: "Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes."
And there were these instructions from Moses to the priests: "When all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing."
Paul instructed Timothy: "Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching." To the Thessalonicans, Paul wrote, "I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren."
YEAH, YEAH . . . BUT
"Yeah, yeah, yeah," someone may be thinking, as if reading and you-are-what-you-read are of no consequence to him, to his kith, or to his kin. But he's tragically mistaken. Look no further than our universities and ask, "Who's the most frequently assigned author in books on philosophy in American college classrooms?' The answer . . . Karl Marx.
Wait. What? Karl Marx the author of a philosophical movement that killed 100 million people in the 20th century? By such an assignment, we see that there's no stigma attached to Marx; in fact, his philosophy holds "a position of high esteem in academic, journalistic, and intellectual circles." (Philip W. Magness) This helps explain, in part, why socialism has gained such standing among students today--they have become what they're reading. No surprise there. And what they're reading is dangerous to themselves and others, others such as us.
Thus the question: "What are you reading?"
Friday, January 3, 2020
TAKE GLENN BECK, PLEASE!
There was once a comedian who was famous for his one-liners, many of them aimed at his wife Sadie (but all in good fun). For example, Henny Youngman would say, "My wife
said to me, 'For our anniversary I want to go somewhere I've never been
before.' I said, 'Try the kitchen!'", or, "Last night my wife said the weather outside was fit for
neither man nor beast, so we both stayed home." But the joke he's most remembered for is, "Take my wife, please!" It was said of Youngman, "He could make the Sphinx crack a smile.
But it's no joke when we say, "Take Glenn Beck, please!" Why do we say that and what do we mean? We see Bible-believing Christians rallying around Glenn Beck because of his politics. But before we get to the Bible and its statements on that subject, let's look at the man himself.
"As a prerequisite for his second marriage, his wife-to-be insisted that they find a church they could attend as a family, and so they embarked on a church [I use the word advisedly] tour. That landed them at the Church [I use the word advisedly] of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"Beck gets teary when he talks about his baptism and how joining the church turned his life and his career around, and it’s clearly a huge part of his life.
"In at least one segment on his Fox News show, he attempted to prove the Book of Mormon true through scientific evidence. And in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, he spent an episode on his online video show dispelling common Mormon myths and attempting to show that his faith–and that of the Republican nominee and Mormon Mitt Romney–was just as normal and mainstream as any other common sect of Christianity." (Caitlyn Frye)
Sandra Tanner, who left the Latter Day Saints and became a Christian and is the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second prophet [I use the word advisedly] of the Mormon Church, said, "In June of 1998, Gordon B. Hinckley, who was the president of the church at that time, said, 'The traditional Christ of whom they, meaning the Christians, speak, is not the Christ of whom I speak.'
"Now, why isn’t it the same Christ? Because the Christ of the Bible has eternally been God. He’s never been less than He is today. And yet Jesus of Mormonism is one of a whole string of gods. His father, Heavenly Father, had to earn the right to become a God; Jesus had to earn the right to become a God; Jesus in Mormonism has not always been God. This is something he achieved. It is the goal of every Mormon man to someday achieve godhood the same as Jesus did, the same as Jesus’ father did."
Therefore Mormonism is not Christianity; it is opposed to Christianity's fundamental doctrine of who Jesus is and what He did. Yet, in April 2014, Liberty University invited Mormon Glenn Beck to preach to its students at its compulsory convocation, handing out $10 fines to residential students who didn’t have a good reason for not attending. (During his speech to the students, he talked about his and their joint reverence for the "Scriptures." Notice that he said, "the Scriptures," plural," a statement that most would think, "He's talking about the Bible." But he wasn't because by "the Scriptures," he meant the Bible AND the Book of Mormon, AND the Doctrine and Covenants, AND the Pearl of Great Price. No wonder he used the plural. But that's being deceptive because Christianity's definition of "the Scriptures" differs from his definition.)
Let's take another example of Bible-believing Christians rallying around various national heroes because of their political philosophy, i. e. the consequentialist. A consequentialist "believes that what matters is not the truth or falsehood of Christianity but the consequences of Christian belief — that those consequences will make people happier, make them better citizens, making them more likely to lead moral lives, making for happier families, etc." (Definition from Kevin Williamson)
One of the problems with the consequentialist view is that what they're advocating, according to their logic, is to believe a lie so you can be a better person, a better citizen, and so you can vote like they do. But that's neither internally consistent nor sustainable.
What's needed is the biblical perspective. To have that, we ask the question, "What does the Bible say is our first priority, the most important information there is? We don't have to look very hard to find the answer. It's in I Corinthians 15: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, . . ."
Paul also instructs us that anyone who does not declare the good news he preached is to be considered "anathema." Instead, we find Bible-believing Christians allying themselves about whom Christ said, "He that is not with Me is against Me."
Paul says, "he [the one preaching a different gospel is to be accursed." As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" To give such ones a platform on which to speak, to give such ones a standing ovation, to punish those who refuse to listen is to marginalize the importance of the gospel. (Cf. Titus 1: "For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach . . ." Such a one isn't to be rallied around, supported, nor given a platform in our churches.
Dr. J. B. Hixson put it this way during an interview with "The Berean Call:" "We need to ask ourselves, 'Is this person really promoting the good news about Jesus Christ and how a person can have eternal life or are they undermining the gospel?' And one of the biggest problems with working together and sort of—you know, ecumenical movements, or working together for the well-being of all is that it marginalizes what really matters the most.
Dr. Hixson went on to say, "I can give an example: people will say, 'This guy is great—he’s written a great book about how to manage your money,' or, 'He’s written a great, fantastic book about marriage,' or, 'This guy’s written a great book about how to have your best life now,' but they’re wrong when it comes to the gospel."
"They’re wrong when it comes to what matters most. People have been conditioned to compartmentalize and say, 'Oh, well, that doesn’t matter. This is still really good stuff.' But I go back to what Paul said in Galatians 1, 'If you’re not preaching the right gospel, you’re anathema!'
"Anathema – literally, 'comes under strict judgment.' We need to be honest when we talk about these people that are promoting so-called good causes but they’re wrong on the gospel, I think we should say, 'Hey, I’ve got a great book to recommend for you. This guy has a lot to say about how to have your best life now. The Bible calls him ‘anathema,’ but other than that, he’s pretty good!' It just doesn’t make sense."
The question is, what is to be our first priority, political philosophy to the point it becomes our religion or the gospel? The answer is in I Corinthians 15.
But it's no joke when we say, "Take Glenn Beck, please!" Why do we say that and what do we mean? We see Bible-believing Christians rallying around Glenn Beck because of his politics. But before we get to the Bible and its statements on that subject, let's look at the man himself.
"As a prerequisite for his second marriage, his wife-to-be insisted that they find a church they could attend as a family, and so they embarked on a church [I use the word advisedly] tour. That landed them at the Church [I use the word advisedly] of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"Beck gets teary when he talks about his baptism and how joining the church turned his life and his career around, and it’s clearly a huge part of his life.
'I do what I do because of my faith. I say the things I do. . . because of my faith. Because of my faith I am not afraid. It’s why I do have hope.'"He claims he didn’t talk about his faith on his shows for a long time, and still doesn’t talk about it much, because he’s not the model Mormon. But when it comes down to it, he talks about it quite a bit.
"In at least one segment on his Fox News show, he attempted to prove the Book of Mormon true through scientific evidence. And in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, he spent an episode on his online video show dispelling common Mormon myths and attempting to show that his faith–and that of the Republican nominee and Mormon Mitt Romney–was just as normal and mainstream as any other common sect of Christianity." (Caitlyn Frye)
Sandra Tanner, who left the Latter Day Saints and became a Christian and is the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second prophet [I use the word advisedly] of the Mormon Church, said, "In June of 1998, Gordon B. Hinckley, who was the president of the church at that time, said, 'The traditional Christ of whom they, meaning the Christians, speak, is not the Christ of whom I speak.'
"Now, why isn’t it the same Christ? Because the Christ of the Bible has eternally been God. He’s never been less than He is today. And yet Jesus of Mormonism is one of a whole string of gods. His father, Heavenly Father, had to earn the right to become a God; Jesus had to earn the right to become a God; Jesus in Mormonism has not always been God. This is something he achieved. It is the goal of every Mormon man to someday achieve godhood the same as Jesus did, the same as Jesus’ father did."
Therefore Mormonism is not Christianity; it is opposed to Christianity's fundamental doctrine of who Jesus is and what He did. Yet, in April 2014, Liberty University invited Mormon Glenn Beck to preach to its students at its compulsory convocation, handing out $10 fines to residential students who didn’t have a good reason for not attending. (During his speech to the students, he talked about his and their joint reverence for the "Scriptures." Notice that he said, "the Scriptures," plural," a statement that most would think, "He's talking about the Bible." But he wasn't because by "the Scriptures," he meant the Bible AND the Book of Mormon, AND the Doctrine and Covenants, AND the Pearl of Great Price. No wonder he used the plural. But that's being deceptive because Christianity's definition of "the Scriptures" differs from his definition.)
Let's take another example of Bible-believing Christians rallying around various national heroes because of their political philosophy, i. e. the consequentialist. A consequentialist "believes that what matters is not the truth or falsehood of Christianity but the consequences of Christian belief — that those consequences will make people happier, make them better citizens, making them more likely to lead moral lives, making for happier families, etc." (Definition from Kevin Williamson)
One of the problems with the consequentialist view is that what they're advocating, according to their logic, is to believe a lie so you can be a better person, a better citizen, and so you can vote like they do. But that's neither internally consistent nor sustainable.
What's needed is the biblical perspective. To have that, we ask the question, "What does the Bible say is our first priority, the most important information there is? We don't have to look very hard to find the answer. It's in I Corinthians 15: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, . . ."
Paul also instructs us that anyone who does not declare the good news he preached is to be considered "anathema." Instead, we find Bible-believing Christians allying themselves about whom Christ said, "He that is not with Me is against Me."
Paul says, "he [the one preaching a different gospel is to be accursed." As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" To give such ones a platform on which to speak, to give such ones a standing ovation, to punish those who refuse to listen is to marginalize the importance of the gospel. (Cf. Titus 1: "For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach . . ." Such a one isn't to be rallied around, supported, nor given a platform in our churches.
Dr. J. B. Hixson put it this way during an interview with "The Berean Call:" "We need to ask ourselves, 'Is this person really promoting the good news about Jesus Christ and how a person can have eternal life or are they undermining the gospel?' And one of the biggest problems with working together and sort of—you know, ecumenical movements, or working together for the well-being of all is that it marginalizes what really matters the most.
Dr. Hixson went on to say, "I can give an example: people will say, 'This guy is great—he’s written a great book about how to manage your money,' or, 'He’s written a great, fantastic book about marriage,' or, 'This guy’s written a great book about how to have your best life now,' but they’re wrong when it comes to the gospel."
"They’re wrong when it comes to what matters most. People have been conditioned to compartmentalize and say, 'Oh, well, that doesn’t matter. This is still really good stuff.' But I go back to what Paul said in Galatians 1, 'If you’re not preaching the right gospel, you’re anathema!'
"Anathema – literally, 'comes under strict judgment.' We need to be honest when we talk about these people that are promoting so-called good causes but they’re wrong on the gospel, I think we should say, 'Hey, I’ve got a great book to recommend for you. This guy has a lot to say about how to have your best life now. The Bible calls him ‘anathema,’ but other than that, he’s pretty good!' It just doesn’t make sense."
The question is, what is to be our first priority, political philosophy to the point it becomes our religion or the gospel? The answer is in I Corinthians 15.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)