I recently had the blessing of spending two weeks with teenagers at the Fairfield (SC) and Lake Murray (SC) Salkehatchie camps. I came away, as I always do, mightily impressed with this generation's ability to rise to a challenge.
Salkehatchie is a statewide summer service program that locates in various communities throughout the state of South Carolina for the purpose of improving the material lives of the poorest among us.
But there is also a tremendous spiritual aspect to the mission in that those who participate are there to bring the love of Christ to the home owners in a visible and verbal manner and the program is designed to impress upon the teens what it means to take one's Christianity seriously in becoming a true disciple of Christ.
In the nightly worship service at the Fairfield camp, the talks this year centered around the theme that "Christianity is simple, but is isn't easy" and at the Lake Murray camp, around the theme what it means to love God. Both camps used Mark 12:30, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.", as their primary Scripture.
What troubles me about the next generation is that we are not training them to love God " with all of their mind". In one sense we have reduced Christianity to being just an emotional experience, and I, for one, think so-called contemporary worship has played a large part in this. We are not teaching our children that there is an intellectual base to not only Christianity, but to love.
While there is an emotional base to love, true love cannot be based solely on emotion. If emotion is the only component, then love will ebb and flow and eventually die. We can see this in the high divorce rate within the country as people marry with a false sense of what it is to love someone. True love has to be a commitment of one's will to the true good of another person. One has to be committed regardless of the actions of the one being loved.
It is the same with God. To love God with our minds, we have to be committed in our wills to do so, and take measures to ensure that our love for Him is nurtured. The progression goes like this: What we see and hear, enters our minds. If we entertain what enters our minds and allow it to rest there and grow, it affects our hearts, what we come to love. Once our hearts are affected, then our actions follow, because in matters under our control, we only do that which we love. If we are to love God with all of our minds, we have to be discerning in what we allow into our minds.
That there is a battle for the minds of this next generation should not be in doubt. Teens today are living in a culture that bombards them day and night with a worldview that is decidedly not only non-Christian, but in many cases anti-Christian. The sad part is that many youth in our churches are buying into it without even realizing that they are doing so. The proof that even "churched" teens have bought into the culture is born out in the way they dress, especially the young females, and in the music they listen to.
Nothing touches the soul like music, hence nothing will change one's worldview more than the music we feed our minds. I know this from my own experience as I listen to the lyrics of today's "oldies, but goldies", I can look back at how the songs swayed my worldview to believe that I could find ultimate fulfillment in the right romantic relationship. Only by learning some hard lessons did I find that only Christ can fill that longing for fulfillment that we all have in our hearts.
As to dress, no one is asking today's young females to wear burqas, but they seem to have accepted the idea that they have to dress like their favorite rock or movie star to be cool and accepted. I really don't believe they have any idea of the message they are sending to the males that they hang out with.
Every day, we are faced with a myriad of decisions and we have a choice. Do we honor Christ, or do we honor ourselves above Christ? Our thinking controls our heart which determines which choice we will make and if we are not discerning in our thinking, we will easily succumb to the pressures of the culture around us. Christianity is simple, but it is not easy.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Homegoing
Sixty years ago, although I did not realize it at the time, a blessing named Annie Mae Settles came into my life. I can remember standing on the front porch of our home while my Moma interviewed a young Black woman about a job as housekeeper. She got the job and, through the years, became much more than an employee, she became a member of our family.
Annie Mae's obvious talent was in the kitchen. She could cook like no one else. It probably wasn't the healthiest diet around but man was it good. Even to this day, when my wife, Muriel, uses her macaroni recipe, my boys will say that it is good, but it doesn't taste quite like Annie Mae's. As I think back on it, she did not have to do this; she could have just gone through the motions in cooking our meals, but she always seemed to put maximum effort into her craft. I think it stemmed from a pride in her craft and desire to give us her best.
Throughout my school years, Annie Mae was often my counselor, offering good Godly wisdom on a variety of issues. In what was probably unfair to her, I would use her as a sounding board to take the temperature of my parents when I had been involved in something that I would have been better off leaving alone. She was even there offering advice on my love life when my long time girlfriend dumped me for another guy. She prevented a lot of heartache in my life.
How a Black woman could invest so much of herself in a White family might be a mystery to some, but it speaks volumes about her character. She was a true disciple of Jesus Christ, living out a life of humility, love and servant hood. My Dad was a product of his generation, growing up in the segregated South with all of its prejudices, but Annie Mae conquered that. My Dad, whom she called "Mr. Abby", came to love her as a member of the family and would have done anything for her. There is a life lesson here for all of us.
She and my Mom became best friends. There were several times over the years when various families in McCormick tried to hire her away with the lure of more money, but Annie Mae refused to leave. In the latter years Moma was in bad health and her rheumatism made her extremely irritable. I was stationed in Texas and my sister, Bobbie, was living in Columbia. Annie Mae became the primary care giver until her own health prevented her from doing so. I am sure she put up with a lot and most would have left. She stuck it out because of love for my Mom and for that I will be forever grateful.
Annie Mae passed away June 23, 2011. She was one of my heroes. A woman who worked three jobs to support her family, yet never asked anything for herself. I hesitate to call her a "Christian", because that term has been so watered down lately and really doesn't do her justice. She was a Christ follower, who took seriously the challenge of living a life that reflected Christ. I loved her like my own mother, will miss her dearly, and am deeply grieved at her passing, yet I take great joy in knowing that she stepped into the waiting arms of her Master and that I will see her again someday.
Annie Mae's obvious talent was in the kitchen. She could cook like no one else. It probably wasn't the healthiest diet around but man was it good. Even to this day, when my wife, Muriel, uses her macaroni recipe, my boys will say that it is good, but it doesn't taste quite like Annie Mae's. As I think back on it, she did not have to do this; she could have just gone through the motions in cooking our meals, but she always seemed to put maximum effort into her craft. I think it stemmed from a pride in her craft and desire to give us her best.
Throughout my school years, Annie Mae was often my counselor, offering good Godly wisdom on a variety of issues. In what was probably unfair to her, I would use her as a sounding board to take the temperature of my parents when I had been involved in something that I would have been better off leaving alone. She was even there offering advice on my love life when my long time girlfriend dumped me for another guy. She prevented a lot of heartache in my life.
How a Black woman could invest so much of herself in a White family might be a mystery to some, but it speaks volumes about her character. She was a true disciple of Jesus Christ, living out a life of humility, love and servant hood. My Dad was a product of his generation, growing up in the segregated South with all of its prejudices, but Annie Mae conquered that. My Dad, whom she called "Mr. Abby", came to love her as a member of the family and would have done anything for her. There is a life lesson here for all of us.
She and my Mom became best friends. There were several times over the years when various families in McCormick tried to hire her away with the lure of more money, but Annie Mae refused to leave. In the latter years Moma was in bad health and her rheumatism made her extremely irritable. I was stationed in Texas and my sister, Bobbie, was living in Columbia. Annie Mae became the primary care giver until her own health prevented her from doing so. I am sure she put up with a lot and most would have left. She stuck it out because of love for my Mom and for that I will be forever grateful.
Annie Mae passed away June 23, 2011. She was one of my heroes. A woman who worked three jobs to support her family, yet never asked anything for herself. I hesitate to call her a "Christian", because that term has been so watered down lately and really doesn't do her justice. She was a Christ follower, who took seriously the challenge of living a life that reflected Christ. I loved her like my own mother, will miss her dearly, and am deeply grieved at her passing, yet I take great joy in knowing that she stepped into the waiting arms of her Master and that I will see her again someday.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Mixed Faith Marriages
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?--2 Corinthians 6:14
A recent article in the local paper by Melissa Dutton of the Associated Press addressed the issue of what to do when the bride and groom come from different religious traditions. Americans seem to be marrying outside of their faiths with increasing regularity as 25% of Americans households were mixed faith in 2006, up from 15 per cent in 1988. This is disturbing for the Kingdom on a number of fronts because it means that we are not passing on the faith and its doctrines to those who come after us.
I found myself agreeing with much of the article as it seemed to emphasize that the couples have a no holds barred discussion before getting married about how they will practice their faiths, which holidays they will celebrate, etc. Rabbi Stuart E. Davis of Overland Park Kansas is quoted saying that both individuals should think hard about what is important in their own religions. Well, duh? Various other considerations that should be explored were mentioned in the rest of the article, the most important being, in which faith tradition will the children be raised.
It seems to me, that for Christians, this is a no brainer. Don't date outside the faith and then one will not marry outside the faith. I am not enough of a theologian to know whether or not 2 Corinthians 6:14 is a command or a warning, but in either case, it is sound advice. The one issue that causes most divorces is the issue of money, but religious disagreements would have to rank near the top. The article even offered the sound advice that interfaith marriages are not for everyone and that it would be much better to part company if there are insurmountable differences. I would say that they are not for anyone who takes their faith seriously and wishes their marriage to survive, because there are going to be differences that will be impossible to resolve in my view.
The one thing that stunned me was the statement by Ed Case, CEO of InterfaithFamily.com that, "It takes a very mature couple that can be freely open and have a willingness to believe and respect that no religion is more right than another." Say what? This is post-modern relativism, the denial that there is an absolute truth plainly stated.
Truth by its very nature is exclusive. Why would someone be a Jew, Hindu, Muslim or Christian if they did not believe that their belief system was true? This is especially applicable to Christians, as Christ said in the book of John that his very purpose in coming was to bear witness to the truth and He claimed to be the truth.
Every other religion denies the deity of Christ, His atoning death and His bodily resurrection. The law of non-contradiction says that two opposing truth claims cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For someone who claimed to be a Christian to deny the claims of Christ and yield to the proposition that it is no more true than the claims of another religion, would be to deny his or her faith. That individual would not be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.
A recent article in the local paper by Melissa Dutton of the Associated Press addressed the issue of what to do when the bride and groom come from different religious traditions. Americans seem to be marrying outside of their faiths with increasing regularity as 25% of Americans households were mixed faith in 2006, up from 15 per cent in 1988. This is disturbing for the Kingdom on a number of fronts because it means that we are not passing on the faith and its doctrines to those who come after us.
I found myself agreeing with much of the article as it seemed to emphasize that the couples have a no holds barred discussion before getting married about how they will practice their faiths, which holidays they will celebrate, etc. Rabbi Stuart E. Davis of Overland Park Kansas is quoted saying that both individuals should think hard about what is important in their own religions. Well, duh? Various other considerations that should be explored were mentioned in the rest of the article, the most important being, in which faith tradition will the children be raised.
It seems to me, that for Christians, this is a no brainer. Don't date outside the faith and then one will not marry outside the faith. I am not enough of a theologian to know whether or not 2 Corinthians 6:14 is a command or a warning, but in either case, it is sound advice. The one issue that causes most divorces is the issue of money, but religious disagreements would have to rank near the top. The article even offered the sound advice that interfaith marriages are not for everyone and that it would be much better to part company if there are insurmountable differences. I would say that they are not for anyone who takes their faith seriously and wishes their marriage to survive, because there are going to be differences that will be impossible to resolve in my view.
The one thing that stunned me was the statement by Ed Case, CEO of InterfaithFamily.com that, "It takes a very mature couple that can be freely open and have a willingness to believe and respect that no religion is more right than another." Say what? This is post-modern relativism, the denial that there is an absolute truth plainly stated.
Truth by its very nature is exclusive. Why would someone be a Jew, Hindu, Muslim or Christian if they did not believe that their belief system was true? This is especially applicable to Christians, as Christ said in the book of John that his very purpose in coming was to bear witness to the truth and He claimed to be the truth.
Every other religion denies the deity of Christ, His atoning death and His bodily resurrection. The law of non-contradiction says that two opposing truth claims cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For someone who claimed to be a Christian to deny the claims of Christ and yield to the proposition that it is no more true than the claims of another religion, would be to deny his or her faith. That individual would not be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Lives Unworthy to be Lived
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.-Psalm 139:13
There is a bill making its way through the North Carolina House of Representatives that doesn't outlaw abortion, but does put several restrictions on those who would provide and receive one. Among them are a mandatory 24 hour waiting period and the requirement for the mother to view an ultrasound of her unborn child. These seem to be reasonable restrictions, in that they provide a cooling off period and a way for the mother to make an fully informed decision about what an abortion entails.
Pro-abortion forces are predictably up in arms that any legislative body would dare to restrict access to a procedure that they view as a right, but their argument against the legislation reveals a window into their worldview.
The main argument seems to be that if passed, the legislation would result in 3,000 more births in North Carolina, costing the taxpayers an additional $7 million dollars in social services. Now think about that. What they are really saying is that some lives are unworthy to be lived simply because they might possibly but an additional burden on society. The fact that they believe the restrictions will result in more births says that they know that abortion is the taking of a human life, that once a mother sees an ultrasound, 97% choose to carry to term.
This is a dangerous worldview for any society to adopt. We have seen the results in Nazi Germany when the Germans decided which lives were unworthy to be lived and exterminated 6 million people. It is a utilitarian view of life that inevitably raises man to the level of being his own god in deciding who lives and who dies based on some artificial criteria which may change depending on who is in power.
Quite a departure from the Christian world view that man is made in the image of God and therefore is valuable in and of himself, apart from any value judgment placed on his life by fellow human beings. I am not from North Carolina, but I am cheering passage of the bill.
There is a bill making its way through the North Carolina House of Representatives that doesn't outlaw abortion, but does put several restrictions on those who would provide and receive one. Among them are a mandatory 24 hour waiting period and the requirement for the mother to view an ultrasound of her unborn child. These seem to be reasonable restrictions, in that they provide a cooling off period and a way for the mother to make an fully informed decision about what an abortion entails.
Pro-abortion forces are predictably up in arms that any legislative body would dare to restrict access to a procedure that they view as a right, but their argument against the legislation reveals a window into their worldview.
The main argument seems to be that if passed, the legislation would result in 3,000 more births in North Carolina, costing the taxpayers an additional $7 million dollars in social services. Now think about that. What they are really saying is that some lives are unworthy to be lived simply because they might possibly but an additional burden on society. The fact that they believe the restrictions will result in more births says that they know that abortion is the taking of a human life, that once a mother sees an ultrasound, 97% choose to carry to term.
This is a dangerous worldview for any society to adopt. We have seen the results in Nazi Germany when the Germans decided which lives were unworthy to be lived and exterminated 6 million people. It is a utilitarian view of life that inevitably raises man to the level of being his own god in deciding who lives and who dies based on some artificial criteria which may change depending on who is in power.
Quite a departure from the Christian world view that man is made in the image of God and therefore is valuable in and of himself, apart from any value judgment placed on his life by fellow human beings. I am not from North Carolina, but I am cheering passage of the bill.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Planned Parenthood
The first inalienable, or God given right, mentioned in the document that founded our nation, the Declaration of Independence, is the right to life. My question is: If the right to life is a God given right, then is it proper for the government of a Republic founded on such a principle to use taxpayer money to fund the killing of the unborn?
That is exactly what our government is doing as it uses public money to fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $360 million dollars a year. Republicans recently had a chance to strip this funding from the 20011 budget but, alas, caved in to the Democrats and allowed the funding to remain.
Planned Parenthood claims that abortions only make up about 3 percent of its total services, but as it turns out, that is a complete lie. In 2009, it provided 332,278 abortions, more that a quarter of all abortions performed in the US that year and a 14.7 increase over 2006. Planned Parenthood also provided prenatal services to 7,022 women and referred just 977 for adoption. It provided abortion services to over 97 percent of its pregnant clients in 2009.
Why the discrepancy between their claim of 3 percent and the actual facts? The claim is a gimmick. The group skews the numbers by counting individual appointments as multiple visits ranging anywhere from 5 to 20. This waters down the percentage of abortions as Planned Parenthood tries to appear to be merely a prenatal health care provider. It doesn' work for anyone who takes a closer look. For every adoption referral in 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 340 abortions. Providing abortion services is the group's reason for existence.
If abortion is not the taking of a human life, then no excuse is necessary. If it is the taking of a human life, then no excuse is sufficient. Any biology 101 student knows that life begins at conception, so what is our government doing in aiding the killing of the most innocent among us?
That is exactly what our government is doing as it uses public money to fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $360 million dollars a year. Republicans recently had a chance to strip this funding from the 20011 budget but, alas, caved in to the Democrats and allowed the funding to remain.
Planned Parenthood claims that abortions only make up about 3 percent of its total services, but as it turns out, that is a complete lie. In 2009, it provided 332,278 abortions, more that a quarter of all abortions performed in the US that year and a 14.7 increase over 2006. Planned Parenthood also provided prenatal services to 7,022 women and referred just 977 for adoption. It provided abortion services to over 97 percent of its pregnant clients in 2009.
Why the discrepancy between their claim of 3 percent and the actual facts? The claim is a gimmick. The group skews the numbers by counting individual appointments as multiple visits ranging anywhere from 5 to 20. This waters down the percentage of abortions as Planned Parenthood tries to appear to be merely a prenatal health care provider. It doesn' work for anyone who takes a closer look. For every adoption referral in 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 340 abortions. Providing abortion services is the group's reason for existence.
If abortion is not the taking of a human life, then no excuse is necessary. If it is the taking of a human life, then no excuse is sufficient. Any biology 101 student knows that life begins at conception, so what is our government doing in aiding the killing of the most innocent among us?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Is Easter True?
Millions of Christians, all over the world, just celebrated the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If Jesus did, in fact, bodily rise from the dead, then it is the most significant event in human history, and one's response to it has eternal implications.
This week take the opportunity to use this as a conversation starter with non-believing friends. First note that the celebration took place, then ask, "I was wondering, do you think Easter is true?" If they respond in the negative, they are in good company, because in the beginning, the women at the tomb and the disciples did not believe it either. Ask, "How did you come to that conclusion?" More importantly, listen to the answer, as it will reveal a lot about their thought process.
A good follow up question to any non-believer is, "What if you are wrong?" Some will get defensive and ask you, the believer, "Well, how do you know you're right?" Scripture says that we must always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us and to do it with gentleness and respect. The proper response is, "Well, what proof would you accept?" An answer of, "There is no proof", indicates that you are wasting your time, but a positive response, opens the door for you to explain your reasons for believing.
When we are talking to non-believers, we have to remember that while we can introduce scripture at some point, they will not be familiar with the Bible or necessarily look at it as an authority, so our arguments must sometimes appeal to them on another basis.
One of the best defenses is to look at Scripture as history, (there are extra-Biblical sources to back it up) and explain that the best evidence of the truth of the resurrection is the changed lives of the apostles. Immediately after Jesus was crucified, they went into hiding in Jerusalem in fear of their lives. On the third day after the resurrection, they emerged as the boldest witnesses the world has ever seen, proclaiming that they had seen, touched and talked with the risen Christ.
Were they lying? A reasonable man would say no. Every apostle except John, who was exiled to Patmos, went to his death never changing his story. Now a man may die for a lie, but a man will never die for what he knows is a lie.
Chuck Colson, one of the Watergate conspirators, likes to say that he knows a thing or two about conspiracies. Some of the most powerful men in the world were involved in the Watergate cover up, yet it only took two weeks for John Dean to break and confess to the crime, implicating the others and they weren't even threatened with death. If the resurrection of Jesus had been a conspiracy, one of the disciples would have broken and spilled the beans. None did. All went to their deaths proclaiming the risen Savior. Christ changed their lives and He has been changing lives ever since.
Remember, no matter how the conversation with your friend turns out, the goal is to get them to meet Jesus, not convert them to your opinion or even to win the argument.
This week take the opportunity to use this as a conversation starter with non-believing friends. First note that the celebration took place, then ask, "I was wondering, do you think Easter is true?" If they respond in the negative, they are in good company, because in the beginning, the women at the tomb and the disciples did not believe it either. Ask, "How did you come to that conclusion?" More importantly, listen to the answer, as it will reveal a lot about their thought process.
A good follow up question to any non-believer is, "What if you are wrong?" Some will get defensive and ask you, the believer, "Well, how do you know you're right?" Scripture says that we must always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us and to do it with gentleness and respect. The proper response is, "Well, what proof would you accept?" An answer of, "There is no proof", indicates that you are wasting your time, but a positive response, opens the door for you to explain your reasons for believing.
When we are talking to non-believers, we have to remember that while we can introduce scripture at some point, they will not be familiar with the Bible or necessarily look at it as an authority, so our arguments must sometimes appeal to them on another basis.
One of the best defenses is to look at Scripture as history, (there are extra-Biblical sources to back it up) and explain that the best evidence of the truth of the resurrection is the changed lives of the apostles. Immediately after Jesus was crucified, they went into hiding in Jerusalem in fear of their lives. On the third day after the resurrection, they emerged as the boldest witnesses the world has ever seen, proclaiming that they had seen, touched and talked with the risen Christ.
Were they lying? A reasonable man would say no. Every apostle except John, who was exiled to Patmos, went to his death never changing his story. Now a man may die for a lie, but a man will never die for what he knows is a lie.
Chuck Colson, one of the Watergate conspirators, likes to say that he knows a thing or two about conspiracies. Some of the most powerful men in the world were involved in the Watergate cover up, yet it only took two weeks for John Dean to break and confess to the crime, implicating the others and they weren't even threatened with death. If the resurrection of Jesus had been a conspiracy, one of the disciples would have broken and spilled the beans. None did. All went to their deaths proclaiming the risen Savior. Christ changed their lives and He has been changing lives ever since.
Remember, no matter how the conversation with your friend turns out, the goal is to get them to meet Jesus, not convert them to your opinion or even to win the argument.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Value of Life
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.--Psalm 139:13
The news out of Europe is that scientists have developed a test whereby they can diagnose Down Syndrome by giving a simple blood test to a pregnant woman. The test results were published in the online journal, Nature Medicine, suggesting that scientists can spot Down Syndrome through fetal DNA that has been shed into the mother's bloodstream.
This is being hailed as good news because it may result in avoiding the necessity of taking a sample of amniotic fluid, which carries the risk of causing a miscarriage, to make a firm diagnosis.
Now I am all for safety in medicine, but I find this news highly disturbing. I can only think of one reason for testing in the first place and that is that doctors will encourage the parents of a potentially Down child to abort the pregnancy.
We are already in an age where we end human life in the womb simply because the child will not be born with our idea of perfection? Where will such thinking end? I think one only has to look to Nazi Germany, whose citizens started out going down this same path, to see our future. A future where life is valuable only because it fits someone's idea of what is acceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)