culture war

Are You a Statistic?

Frank

I’ve been thinking about the blanket assumption that Christians who identify homosexuality as a sin are bigots. While there are definitely fringe elements (i.e. Fred Phelps) and an over-emphasis in politics (will gay-marriage really bring about the end of Western Civilization?), the appropriate Christian response to homosexuality should be the same as for any other sin. Bigotry implies hate, but we’re told by Jesus to love others including sinners.

So how does homosexuality stack up number-wise? (I’m a number cruncher by trade, so bear with me)

  • Homosexuals account for only 2% of the population according to the US Census Bureau, though polls indicate that number rises to the order of 10% when the respondents can be anonymous.
  • According to a recent Barna survey, only 40% of American adults believe Jesus lived a sinless life, meaning 60% are in sin by denying the deity of Christ.
  • Recent data shows the number of Americans identifying as Christians has dropped from 85% to 76% over the last decade.
  • It’s generally accepted that 10% of the population are alcoholics while according to the CDC 20% smoke
  • A survey by the Kaiser Foundation shows that roughly 45% of teenagers have engaged in some form of sexual activity. Teenagers account for 8% of the total population, so that gives us 4%.
  • In 2001, the Federal Reserve reported that 44% of people do not pay off their credit cards monthly.
  • And last year 53% of the voting population voted for Barack Obama. (Just kidding!)

So well more than 100% of the population is engaged in some sort of sin, accounting for likely crossover. And this list covers a broad range, ranging from arguable sins depending on personal convictions (smoking, credit card debt, homosexuality), sins that can be argued isn’t the fault of the person (alcoholism, homosexuality), and sins that are subjective to doctrine (Christ’s divinity, only Christians are saved).

So is it worth expending such a fuss over a such a small percentage of the whole? Given the above adds up to over 100%, doesn’t that just confirm that “all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) So if believing that homosexuality is sin and that equals hate, then doesn’t that mean we ‘hate’ everyone?

There are a few things we can take away from this. One we, as Christians, should treat all sins and sinners equally because of the above passage. Two, homosexuals should recognize that they are a very small target relative to the Christian desire that “all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4) Finally, we should be sobered by these statistics and reminded that “not everyone who says to me (Jesus), ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)

Are You a Statistic?

Frank

I’ve been thinking about the blanket assumption that Christians who identify homosexuality as a sin are bigots. While there are definitely fringe elements (i.e. Fred Phelps) and an over-emphasis in politics (will gay-marriage really bring about the end of Western Civilization?), the appropriate Christian response to homosexuality should be the same as for any other sin. Bigotry implies hate, but we’re told by Jesus to love others including sinners.

So how does homosexuality stack up number-wise? (I’m a number cruncher by trade, so bear with me)

  • Homosexuals account for only 2% of the population according to the US Census Bureau, though polls indicate that number rises to the order of 10% when the respondents can be anonymous.
  • According to a recent Barna survey, only 40% of American adults believe Jesus lived a sinless life, meaning 60% are in sin by denying the deity of Christ.
  • Recent data shows the number of Americans identifying as Christians has dropped from 85% to 76% over the last decade.
  • It’s generally accepted that 10% of the population are alcoholics while according to the CDC 20% smoke
  • A survey by the Kaiser Foundation shows that roughly 45% of teenagers have engaged in some form of sexual activity. Teenagers account for 8% of the total population, so that gives us 4%.
  • In 2001, the Federal Reserve reported that 44% of people do not pay off their credit cards monthly.
  • And last year 53% of the voting population voted for Barack Obama. (Just kidding!)

So well more than 100% of the population is engaged in some sort of sin, accounting for likely crossover. And this list covers a broad range, ranging from arguable sins depending on personal convictions (smoking, credit card debt, homosexuality), sins that can be argued isn’t the fault of the person (alcoholism, homosexuality), and sins that are subjective to doctrine (Christ’s divinity, only Christians are saved).

So is it worth expending such a fuss over a such a small percentage of the whole? Given the above adds up to over 100%, doesn’t that just confirm that “all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) So if believing that homosexuality is sin and that equals hate, then doesn’t that mean we ‘hate’ everyone?

There are a few things we can take away from this. One we, as Christians, should treat all sins and sinners equally because of the above passage. Two, homosexuals should recognize that they are a very small target relative to the Christian desire that “all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4) Finally, we should be sobered by these statistics and reminded that “not everyone who says to me (Jesus), ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)

Abortion Shmabortion

Frank

Unless you’ve been living under a rock (and if so, I can relate!) you’ve probably heard about all the uproar over President Barack Obama receiving an honorary degree and giving the commencement address at very-catholic (yet neither Big 10 nor Big East) Notre Dame. He isn’t the first sitting president to do this, nor is he the first Liberal or Democrat to receive this honor. The abortion debate is nothing new, but the fuss over this time was unique. Maybe the newer debate over embryonic stem cell research was the straw that broke the Pro-Life camel’s back. I’m not sure, but 27 people were arrested, including Norma McCorvey. Who, you may ask? She is the ‘Roe’ in Roe v Wade and it is seldom reported that she is now in the Pro-Life camp.

But enough about that, the protest shows that we have a long way to go to reach the point where as the President said we would stop “reducing those with differing views to caricature.” And that’s what the abortion debate has become- a war of words, belittling the opinions and convictions of the other side.

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times, the Church should not be spending all her resources rallying behind political candidates with the hope of tipping the balance of the Supreme Court. But instead should be pouring her heart into those at-risk of abortions. No, purity balls for teens don’t count. These are young girls, heavily involved in their churches that would be likely to abstain from sex until marriage anyways. No, I’m talking about those impacted by the socio-economic drivers that lead to abortions. You’re not likely to find these women in all-white suburban mega-churches.

I heard an interview with the guys from Audio Adrenaline and they were talking about “orphan prevention” instead of the usual orphan adoption/foster home outreach many churches participate in. In Haiti, with their Hands and Feet Project, they reach out the impoverished to take away the economic incentive to give up a child.

Look out into your community and reach out to the struggling mother. Befriend the single-mom at church that no one else talks to. Embrace the teens in your church to value the blessing of sex in the context of marriage and the sanctity of life developing in a womb. Participate in “abortion prevention”.

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27

Abortion Shmabortion

Frank

Unless you’ve been living under a rock (and if so, I can relate!) you’ve probably heard about all the uproar over President Barack Obama receiving an honorary degree and giving the commencement address at very-catholic (yet neither Big 10 nor Big East) Notre Dame. He isn’t the first sitting president to do this, nor is he the first Liberal or Democrat to receive this honor. The abortion debate is nothing new, but the fuss over this time was unique. Maybe the newer debate over embryonic stem cell research was the straw that broke the Pro-Life camel’s back. I’m not sure, but 27 people were arrested, including Norma McCorvey. Who, you may ask? She is the ‘Roe’ in Roe v Wade and it is seldom reported that she is now in the Pro-Life camp.

But enough about that, the protest shows that we have a long way to go to reach the point where as the President said we would stop “reducing those with differing views to caricature.” And that’s what the abortion debate has become- a war of words, belittling the opinions and convictions of the other side.

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times, the Church should not be spending all her resources rallying behind political candidates with the hope of tipping the balance of the Supreme Court. But instead should be pouring her heart into those at-risk of abortions. No, purity balls for teens don’t count. These are young girls, heavily involved in their churches that would be likely to abstain from sex until marriage anyways. No, I’m talking about those impacted by the socio-economic drivers that lead to abortions. You’re not likely to find these women in all-white suburban mega-churches.

I heard an interview with the guys from Audio Adrenaline and they were talking about “orphan prevention” instead of the usual orphan adoption/foster home outreach many churches participate in. In Haiti, with their Hands and Feet Project, they reach out the impoverished to take away the economic incentive to give up a child.

Look out into your community and reach out to the struggling mother. Befriend the single-mom at church that no one else talks to. Embrace the teens in your church to value the blessing of sex in the context of marriage and the sanctity of life developing in a womb. Participate in “abortion prevention”.

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27

I wish they all could be California girls…

Frank

No, not really. Especially if they’re anything like Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Is anyone tired of this yet? She was asked a question on gay marriage from an openly gay host whose only claim to fame is running an online tabloid and having a name similar to Paris Hilton. She was open about her faith in interviews leading up to the pageant and California is home to the controversial Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. What did she expect to happen?

So she lost. So she said it was because of her answer opposing gay marriage. So what.

So Miss Prejean did what Evangelical Christians have learned to do, not from the example of Jesus Christ, but from their political brand of American Christianity (TM)- she played the “persecution” card. Now she’s a celebrity to the Religious Right (scroll down down at the 558 mark and listen to the podcast if you want to hear this “great” interview) and a spokesperson for the National Organization of Marriage (I’d never heard of it before she came along, and I’m against gay-marriage).

Yes, the Perez Hilton went over the line by taking her response personal instead of crediting her for her honesty and not being tempted by peer pressure to be politically correct. He then left the line far behind in his rear view mirror when he went public calling her a “b—h” and “c–t” just because she thinks differently than he does. But that does not come close to equalling Christian persecution.

I’ve written several times before criticising the “persecution complex” of American Christianity (TM), and I’ll repeat myself by saying her crying about losing a beauty pageant is an insult to the thousands of Christians across the globe whose lives are threatened because of their faith.

Did I mention this was a beauty pageant? An celebration of vanity if there ever was one. And last I checked, vanity is a sin. It doesn’t help her cause that she got breast implants before the competition and that they were paid for by her California sponsor.

I’m sorry, but I have little sympathy for this woman. Was she treated unfairly? Yes, of course. Was it because of her faith? Not sure if it was as much a matter of faith than of politics. Is she being persecuted? Yes to a degree, but only because she’s elevated herself to the level of national celebrity. I’ll certainly pray for her and wish nothing but the best, but I won’t claim her as speaking for me, my politics, nor my faith.

Instead I turn to Jesus, who never backed down from persecution. “At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ “(Luke 13:31-32) But his goal wasn’t political or to change the social norms (though admittedly he did speak out against some of them, emphasis on some) but instead to offer redemption to the world through shedding his blood.

The Wages of Sin

Frank

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

Tomorrow the largest federal tobacco tax increase in history takes effect as the tax on a pack of cigarettes goes from $0.39 to $1.01. This “sin tax” is expected to raise $33 billion towards health care expansion for children. This continues a trend to tax specific products to pay for social programs. Even the state of Nevada was considering taxing prostitution to make up for shortfalls in their budget.

There are three choices to politically curb social vices, legislate/regulate, tax, or use the bully pulpit as a platform for change. Social conservatives have traditionally taken the legislate/regulate route, while taxing is more palatable to social liberals. Sadly, we rarely see anyone use their political power to address vices. Nancy Reagan’s campaign to “just say no” is the most obvious, and maybe even the most recent, that I can think of (up until only recently, following the over-hyped “value voter”, other issues such as health care, immigration, and so forth have seldom been approached as social ills).

The irony of course, is that while so many cry foul whenever someone tries to pass legislation to curb something like abortion which infringes on a woman’s right to choose, few voices are heard when something like cigarettes are excessively taxed. And unless I’ve missed it, people still have the right to “choose” whether or not to smoke. You could argue that these aren’t morally equivalent, but we’re not talking morals here- we’re talking legal rights.

Not that it matters anyway. Every vice could be taxed to the point of being prohibitively expensive, regulated far beyond mere inconvenience, and outlawed with the strictest penalties and people would still choose to indulge in their favorite sin. It is, after all, in our nature. The only way to effectively curb a social vice is to address it on moral grounds. That cannot be done from the ballot box, but from the pew; not during an election cycle, but every day; not from an elected leader, but from our own Christian example.

Of course we all know the real “sin tax” is the eternal penalty to be paid for our sins. Thanks be to God for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who paid that tax in advance for us.

What am I doing here?

Frank

Someone posted this on the bulletin board at work and I got a good laugh. It pretty well sums up my efforts at blogging. So why do I do it?

I hinted in my last post, that I relate to David when facing Goliath. He wasn’t motivated by the battle (though I have to fight that in my own pride), but he was motivated because Goliath mocked his God. “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?” (1 Sam 17:26) I feel like our culture, in the name of political correctness and tolerance, is defying the armies of the living God- his Kingdom on Earth, also known as his Church. Like David asking who will stand against this, I look at American Christianity (TM) and ask the same. But our watered down church has let the world creep in and manipulate the Gospel while our mouths have been shut to preaching the Truth.

I also feel like Jeremiah who said, “his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot.” (Jer 20:9) I feel like I have something to say, and I trust that the Spirit is leading me. In fact, that’s why I’ll go a while without posting- it’s not that there isn’t anything to blog about, but my spirit doesn’t feel moved to do so. I might be the only person who cares what I think, but I cannot “hold it in.”

I have to fight my own pride, thinking that I have some special insight. But I do want to share what’s on my heart and I don’t want to do it for my own benefit. That’s why I try to approach this like a ministry with various links (because it isn’t all about me) and try to include a scripture with every post (because again, it isn’t all about me).

If you’re a regular visitor, thank you. If you found this by Googling “nbc kings review,” please come back for more.

Signs of the Times

Frank

“You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” (Mt 16:3)

It’s been a while since I’ve hit the topic of politics. I’ve been trying to give our new administration the benefit of the doubt as they are getting settled. But the news yesterday moves me to post my thoughts and feelings. First up was President Obama’s presidential order overturning former President Bush’s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. This is a divisive issue, even among Christians as this article notes. Despite your theological position on when life begins, this debate is senseless and frustrating. On the one hand it could be argued that the embryos would be destroyed anyway, while on the other hand one could point towards the many advances made without using embryonic stem cells (off the top of my head, I think of the case of growing a jaw bone and stem cells from skin that mimic embryonic cells). Moreso, you could express frustration that one of the pioneers in the field of embryonic stem cell research was a fraud, or that California passed a $3 billion bond for stem cell research helping to precipitate the financial crisis we presently find ourselves in. With those thoughts in mind, this recent move by the President seems nothing more than grandstanding.

Meanwhile, the President is also planning to rescind the previous administration’s “conscience clause” which allows doctors, nurses or pharmacists to choose not to participate in procedures that violate their conscience. While this sounds reasonable, this clause has been used as a straw man for everything wrong with the “theocracy” of the Bush Administration. But it just reinforces existing law granting “reasonable accommodation” in the workplace. (This is the law that keeps you from firing someone practicing Islam, for taking breaks during the day to pray towards Mecca.) The intent however, was to solidify that protection with regards to medical procedures. An example of its impact would be a pro-life ultrasound technician being called to assist in an abortion. And it’s not as if this would deny anyone the care they’re seeking, just that that person would have to receive it from someone else. I don’t buy the severity of the examples cited in the linked article above. You can always go to another pharmacy, and there’s usually more than one doctor in a hospital. Again, this just appears to be the President playing to the extremes in his base.

I was hoping this president, who ran on the platform of “Change You can Believe In”, who claimed to usher in a new era of politics in Washington, is playing politics as usual. There’s a consequence, of course. Drawing battle lines on issues sure to divide people on the basis of their religious convictions is asking for trouble (and to be fair, the previous administration was guilty of this as well); it forces people to take a side and not seek a middle ground. That then, usually extends to churches and religious leaders who love to hear themselves talk about the eroding morals of our society. And the layperson is caught in the middle, politics or religion? And with the recent history of how well the Religious Right has fought these battles in recent years, many are turned off of religion all together.

So despite the state of the economy, it’s not much of a surprise to see that fewer and fewer are considering themselves religious and that more and more prescribe to no faith in particular. What is sad is that the oft-quoted stat of 85% of Americans who call themselves Christians has dropped to 76%. Have that many turned away from Christ for the sake of politics? I pray not, but the possibility breaks my heart.

This news, this early in the new administration, doesn’t fill me with hope. In fact, I don’t see the next four years going particularly well for the faithful. It will be that much harder to practice our faith in public, and that much more offensive to proclaim that faith to the non believer.

***update***
I didn’t read the fine print on the stats above. Apparently although the total number of Christians as a percentage as decreased, the numbers in fundamentalist and evangelical churches have increased. Which I think solidifies my point- this ongoing culture war is either driving a wedge between people and faith or is driving them to the extreme fringes within their faith.

*** update 2***
Here is a very good article from Slate that demonstrates how hard it is to maintain consistency in the pro-life debate. You may not agree with the premise of the argument, but it highlights the validity of the Catholic Church’s ‘Culture of Life’ that is not limited to abortion, but extends to aging, the death penalty, and war.

The Spirit of MLK

Frank

I’ve asked before where is our modern-day Martin Luther King and heard crickets in response. While hope in a presidential candidate for change brought out the likes of Rev Wright, a preacher in the mold of MLK, but lacking the spirit of humility. I’ve heard a good description of Rev. King- that he held the Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other, respecting the Separation of Church and State but more so respecting the call of God and His sovereignty over any nation or government. His cause was a social justice, rooted in scriptural morals. His struggle was not only against flesh and blood, but also against the rulers of the day. In order to bring about moral change in society, he had to take on the laws that ruled that society.

So here we are today, with lines boldly drawn along the moral/cultural divide, with entire denominations picking sides based on politics rather than the word of God. Today, religious leaders are less likely to preach with the Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other and more likely to hold member rolls in one with political contributions in the other. So I do not depend on religious “leaders” to rise up in the spirit of Martin Luther King. Instead, I rely on the lay-person, the congregant, the Public Christian to boldly proclaim the Word of God in the face of moral decay in our society.

Right now I’m reading about Gabriel’s visit to Mary to tell her she was going to give birth to the Son of God. I think of all that could have gone wrong for her by saying yes. Not only would she have a child out of wedlock, but she would claim that that child was the long-awaited Messiah. Imagine the ridicule, the rejection, the suffering she could face. She could be outcast from society, rejected by her fiance, called “crazy” by the religious leaders. There were a lot of reasons to say no, but one large reason to say yes. It was the will of God.

What do we face for speaking out in the name of Jesus? Ridicule, rejection, suffering? Do you risk rejection for society, family, and even your religion for “speaking the truth in love?” If not, then you’re not a Public Christian but likely a Sunday-pew-filler. I’m not going to say what issues we need to be speaking out on, or what institutions we need to face up against. There are plenty, and too many regrettably have been hijacked for the sake of politics. But what about closer to home? Is there a false doctrine being preached in your church that you’re too afraid to speak up about? Is there a local need that you have a vision to minister to but are uncertain how? Is there a neighbor or co-worker that you know has a spiritual need that only you can meet? If so, answer like Mary and say, “I am the Lord’s servant. May it be to me as you have said.” (Luke 1:38)

I leave you with some excerpts from Martin Luther King’s Letter From a Birmingham Jail, 1963:

So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice–or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?..

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.

The Culture War Never Ends

Frank
I didn’t get as far as I wanted with my ‘Culture War’ posts. There are still a lot of topics still to be covered, but instead of regurgitating a stream of posts in a mad dash to meet a deadline I’ll post those when I get the chance. I’m going to start using labels for my posts too, so topics can easily be found.

That said, the Culture War isn’t over just because Christmas is. Sure, there were the typical battles over public Nativity scenes, vandalized decorations, and so on. In the Washington State Capitol, for example, atheists placed a proclamation against organized religion and belief in God in general next to their Nativity. What rubs me wrong the most, is how the atheist argument relies on belittling the religious by claiming that “reason” comes to the conclusion that there is no God. In other words, faith in God is unreasonable. But I prefer this instead, “A fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)

That argument is repeated in a series of billboards that are beginning to spring up, intentionally coinciding with the holidays.
But like I said, just because Christmas is over doesn’t mean that the Culture War is over. Michael Newdow (you might remember him for suing to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance) is suing over the oath to be taken by President-elect Barak Obama, which will be taken with a Bible closing with the words “so help me God”. This is his third lawsuit over the presidential inauguration so the lawsuit isn’t taken very seriously. Neither the ACLU nor the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ, known from the radio show Jay Sekulow Live) make any mention of this suit on their home pages (follow the links on the right).
What’s interesting though, is the motivation for the suit. As quoted from the article:

Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.

“Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny,” according to the lawsuit.

I’m a recovering addict, so should I sue the Super Bowl for their Budweiser ads because I feel stigmatized? Or as a Christian, don’t I feel excluded by most television programming that espouses worldly values contrary to my own? Should I sue NBC or the FCC?
It was debated after Obama’s victory whether that would embolden the far-left. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. The past administration has done plenty to invigorate that base. But there is in increasing hostility towards religion that if it continues unchecked, could result in our own rights being curbed for the sake of Political Correctness.