What a Sick Dream: New York’s New Freedom to Kill Babies!

abortion meme

Liberals everywhere are celebrating the news that New Yorkers can kill their babies right up until birth. Sarah Ragle Weddington, the attorney who represented Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey …

Source: What a Sick Dream: New York’s New Freedom to Kill Babies!

John Allen Chau: Martyr?

Click here to read about John from those at ORU who knew him…

The question at the heart of the Christ and Culture concept is to consider what manner of communication and approach the Church take pursue when it intersects with the culture at large. It is to contemplate, “If asked, what should I say to the culture about Jesus?”

The Sentinelese People as Museum Artifact

Among those who have commented on this incident with John Allen Chau and the Sentinelese people are those who support the murderous response of the Sentinelese to Chau. Some have done it on the basis of protecting them from disease, some on the basis of having a right to protect their borders, and (I’m convinced) some just want to preserve this people group as though it were a museum artifact. John Chau just felt they had a right to know Jesus.

Prayerfully Intentional

Don’t listen to the spin that the world is giving to this event. Even some in the Church (if they truly are in the Church) are being critical of Chau as though this were a sophmorish, foolish act. I have it on good authority that the opposite is true.

They say that all people are connected to all other people by six or less points of separation. I did not know John Chau, but I know someone who did—someone who had even discussed this sacrificial mission. And that person knows those who knew Chau even more intimately than that. Those who knew him best know that this was as genuine and meaningful an act of Christian love and sacrifice as what Jim Elliot when he went to the Auca Indians.

The Mantle of John Elliot

Remember John Allen Chau. Fruit for the Kingdom of God will come from his selflessness—fruit that remains.

Want to Be a Part of What John Allen Chau Did?

Pray for the Sentinelese people that they would hear about Jesus and follow Him.

Our Culture Needs The Reckless Love of God and Our Churches Should Sing About It!

The Church in many places now is singing a song called “Reckless Love.” It’s a beautiful song and the lyrics are precious, powerful, and thought-provoking (you can read them at the end of this post).

The chorus begins with the phrase

Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God

Powerful! The first person I ever heard refer to the “reckless love of God” was Rich Mullins. He was the artist who sang “Our God is an Awesome God!” He had a song called “The Love of God” (lyrics below). In that song he referred to

the reckless raging fury

That they call the love of God

This concept of the “reckless” love of God is one the Church can not afford to miss! What God has done to bring us into fellowship with Himself even at the cost of His own Son; even at the cost of allowing people to be separated from Him eternally; all because He wants those who want Him! All for His love for us! Come on!

https://youtu.be/PKooXwwk6bs

Reckless Love

Caleb Culver, Cory Asbury, Ran Jackson

Verse 1

Before I spoke a word

You were singing over me

You have been so, so

Good to me

Before I took a breath

You breathed Your life in me

You have been so, so

Kind to me

Chorus

Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God

Oh, it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found, leaves the ninety-nine

I couldn’t earn it

I don’t deserve it

Still You give yourself away

Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God

Verse 2

When I was your foe, still Your love fought for me

You have been so, so

Good to me

When I felt no worth

You paid it all for me

You have been so, so

Kind to me

https://youtu.be/IhKZn8gdN-E

The Love of God

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy

I cannot find in my own

And He keeps His fire burning

To melt this heart of stone

Keeps me aching with a yearning

Keeps me glad to have been caught

In the reckless raging fury

That they call the love of God

Now I’ve seen no band of angels

But I’ve heard the soldiers’ songs

Love hangs over them like a banner

Love within them leads them on

To the battle on the journey

And it’s never gonna stop

Ever widening their mercies

And the fury of His love

Oh the love of God

And oh, the love of God

The love of God

Joy and sorrow are this ocean

And in their every ebb and flow

Now the Lord a door has opened

That all Hell could never close

Here I’m tested and made worthy

Tossed about but lifted up

In the reckless raging fury

That they call the love of God

Written by Richard Mullins • Copyright © Universal Music Publishing Group, Capitol Christian Music Group

Read this article at Scottythinks.com.

A Word about Donald Trump (You’re Not Gonna Like It!)

It’s time that a few things were said about Donald Trump and the next President of the United States.

trump election article

First, let me clarify a few things:

I am writing to Evangelicals—that’s the group I belong to and understand the most.

Second, I am aware of all of the things that are distasteful to Christians about Donald Trump. I get it: he’s rude, arrogant, his language is bad, and he’s not Christian by our definition. Some would say he is racist, but these days everyone gets labeled racist, and I am not willing to allow a wall and protection against Muslim terrorists to be equated with racism. But, hey, I get it.

With these qualifications in mind, let’s get on with what needs to be said.

My Biggest Concern

My biggest concern is that Donald Trump is going to split the party. I don’t think that means what it used to in a party that is already divided in at least three ways. Nevertheless, there is the real threat that he will form his own party, siphon off conservatives from the herd, and a la Ross Perot, the democrats get their man (or woman in this case). But, even if Trump does not go independent and intentionally split the party, at the rate we are going, because of the sensibilities of various groups who simply cannot imagine themselves pulling the lever for Trump, the party is likely to split itself on principle.

Now, as I said above: I get it. Trump is not a holy man. Here’s my thing though, as it stands right now, I am not prepared to label “holy” anyone  in the current race for the White House. That’s not as judgmental as it sounds. I don’t think American Evangelical Christians do a very good job of discerning the “holy” candidates from the unholy ones. Sure, we are good at recognizing adultery and abortion and same-sex support, and believe, I care about those things. But after that, we get upset at language, etc. Goodness, in our own churches we quibble over the most trivial things and divide ourselves over personality issues! Let me say this: If we think we are going to elect a candidate who is somehow going to legislate Christianity from the Oval Office, or that America’s spiritual problems could even be solved in this way, we have proven we have learned nothing. Between two equally qualified candidates for president, would I choose a Christian over an atheist? Yes, because I believe spirituality and morality matters. Is it possible, hypothetically speaking, that there could be an atheist qualified to be a good president or a Christian completely unqualified to be president, or vise versa? Absolutely!

But let’s get down to what we are after and what we can reasonably expect in 21st century American politics. Personally, I think that, in the past, when we Christians thought we had “found our man,” we were kidding ourselves (with the exception of Ronald Reagan, although even he was more in line with the morality of Christianity like a Lincoln more than he was any kind of overtly genuine evangelical, which I do not believe he was). Going forward, I think we are naive to think that anyone in the field of candidates is a “shoe in” to become our evangelical hero in the White House, and those who we may be convinced have a genuine faith will not likely be able to be effective.  Like it or not, America is not open to an overtly evangelical Christian in the White House. But now, on the brink of a split party because of our Christian principles, we may help America to elect a socialist or, more likely, the heir to the Clinton dynasty.

The Pendulum

Here’s another of my big concerns. We live in a country that was foolish enough to elect Barak Obama not to one but two terms in office! That reality comes with its own reprisals! But, from a conservative standpoint, Mr. Obama has all but destroyed America (some may not like that language but that is how Christian conservatives, particularly evangelicals, feel). He has taken the country in the wrong direction and drastically so. Is Donald Trump drastic in his own right? Yes! But it may take someone conservatively drastic just to offset the damage done over the last eight years! I personally think that anyone less drastic than Trump will likely not make a dent in Washington or have a hope of pointing America back in the right direction.

Final Note

For those afraid or embarrassed to support Donald Trump, be careful that you are not intimidated or influenced by a sophisticated media that knows how to throw its voice and sound like it cares about morality. For those who have disagreements with Trump on principle, let me ask you a question: would you rather have Trump or Clinton? Because I believe that’s what it will come down to. In that scenario, I would choose Trump, but I don’t trust America to do so. Welcome to the White House, Madame President!

The Scripture Bypass Defense

Many today are looking for ways to discount the Bible and all it has to say about how we should live. I have noticed a particular, observable progression in “reasoning” that reveals where many land when it comes to the Bible. I call it the Scripture Bypass Defense. Here it is:

  • Scripture does not say what we think it says.
  • Scripture says what we think it says but does not mean what we think it means.
  • Scripture says what we think it says, and it means what we think it means, it just does not apply to our modern situation.
  • Scripture says what we think it says, and it means what we think it means, and it applies to our modern situation, but it is just too difficult to obey so the Holy Spirit lets us out of it.

Why I Am Disappointed with Pope Francis | Chris Castaldo

Source: Why I Am Disappointed with Pope Francis | Chris CastaldoChris Castaldo

In this article Dr. Castaldo ponders whether Pope Francis’s silence about Jesus during his American visit was in keeping with the phrase (mistakenly) attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, which says, ““Preach the gospel at all times, and use words if necessary.”

I admit that I reject the premise of this axiom for one simple reason: it is always, always, ALWAYS necessary to use words when preaching the gospel.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10:14-15, NIV/1984)

Dr. Castaldo writes from deep knowledge of Catholicism. You can also check out Dr. Castaldo’s blog and learn more about him www.chriscastaldo.com

Michael Brown and T. D. Jakes: An Unfortunate Interview and a Failed Rebuke

Michael BrownOprah JakesI believe several things dynamics are at work in the Huffington Post interview with T. D. Jakes. The interview was first posted on the Huff Post website on August 4. The topic of discussion was Jakes’ new book, then turned to the LGBT community and the black church.

After personally transcribing the interview myself, I tend to think that several dynamics were at play in the interview. First of all, I think two conversations were going on. The interviewer, Marc Lamont-Hill, academic, journalist, author, activist, and television personality and Distinguished Professor of African-American Studies at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, was looking for Jakes to endorse the LGBT community and to admit to an acceptance of homosexuality. Jakes, it seems to me, was trying to be benevolent with his “Jump the Broom” theology (if you don’t know what that means check out this post). The interview spurred what Jakes referred to as “a virulent diatribe in cyber-Christian-land” which demanded a reiteration of his stance on that old diversion, same-sex marriage.

Jakes may think the criticism unfair, but the proof is in the pudding: the Huff Post article accompanying the video. In sum, the article claims that Jakes thinks it is absolutely possible for the black church and the LGBT community to co-exist, that Jakes’ own views on homosexuality have evolved and are still evolving, and that LGBT people should find a church that aligns with their own views on faith.

While Jakes was waxing eloquent on the separation of church and state, the republic, and pluralism, Hill heard him endorsing homosexuality.

Jakes can be irritated at the outcry from cyber-Christian-land, but in reality the force of his interview was simply to placate the LGBT community and give quarter to the concept of gay Christianity.

Michael Brown called Jakes out asking him to clarify his stance on homosexuality. This elicited a “reiteration” of Jakes’ stance on same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, Jakes didn’t answer the question and Brown let him off the hook.

In his article, “Oprah, Osteen, Jakes, and Homophobia,” Brown is somehow encouraged that Oprah still welcomes Osteen and Jakes after they openly claimed homosexuality to be a sin. First of all, there is little to be worried about with inviting Osteen on your show. He is not going to be polarizing. Second of all, T. D. Jakes is a powerful, popular black man with a feel good theology. Oprah would never reject him. Neither of these men have ever stood up to Oprah and called her out for her new age religiosity or her pro-gay stance. Why wouldn’t she welcome them? Brown ends his article with a pointer on how not to be labeled a homophobe. Anyone who unequivocally takes a stand against homosexuality as a lifestyle (which Jakes did not do in his interview) is going to be labelled a homophobe and a hater.

While I have no problem with Jakes “reiteration,” and I do not think he supports homosexuality, he absolutely encouraged gay Christianity. Here is a quote from the interview:

“If you don’t like those convictions and values and you totally disagree with it, don’t try to change my house, move into your own. And establish that sort of thing and find someone that gets what you get about faith.”

The answer for the American culture that rejects truth from the Word of God is not “find a place to go where people agree with you”! My goodness, this only feeds America’s twisted definition of tolerance. The answer is, “Go to a Bible believing church and sit there until God changes you! Immerse yourself in the Presence, the Power, the Word, and the worship of the True God!” Yes the church must be accepting and loving. But sending the LGBT community into inclusive churches where they can be surrounded with people who agree with them (which as a community they are wont to do anyway) is an unfortunate message!

Post Script: Once again the issue has gotten side-tracked by the diversion of same-sex marriage. The issue is gay Christianity!