Current

Here are some interesting posts to help us think through the continued sexual revolution – especially as it played out in Indiana a few weeks ago.

The New Intolerance – Mary Eberstadt (First Things)

The End of Tolerance and Enforced Morality – Ben Domenech (The Federalist)

Indiana Shows the Left Has No Concept of Freedom – Robert Tracinski (The Federalist)

Love and Hate in a Foreign Country – Carl Trueman (First Things)

Must Christianity Change Its Sexual Ethics? History May Hold The Key – Trevin Wax (Religion News Service)

Current: Indiana RFRA

By now you must have heard about Indiana’s new RFRA law, but if you listen to the media’s portrayal, you probably think it has to do with discriminating against homosexuals. But of course, it really has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with protecting our religious freedom. Joe Carter has a helpful post that summarizes What You Should Know About Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.  If you want the quick version, check out this helpful visual.  Even some, like Stephen Prothero and Douglas Laycock, who support same-sex marriage argue that that the law is not about discrimination but religious freedom. In Laycock’s words:

The critical fact with respect to all the hysteria over Indiana is this: No one has ever won an exemption from a discrimination law under a RFRA standard. Few have tried, and none have won. There is absolutely no basis in experience for the charge that these laws are a license to discriminate.

Despite having nothing to do with discrimination, many called for boycotting the state of Indiana. Aaron Earls points out that If You Are Boycotting Indiana, Here’s Where Else You Need to Boycott – including many other states with similar laws, our country with a similar federal law, and many other nations with much less friendly attitudes toward homosexuality.  But as Earls points out again, the laws really have nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with religious freedom.  So boycotting Indiana really means one is opposing religious freedom.

And one wonders if that isn’t, after all, the point. How do we explain all the freaking out over this law that we have recently witnessed? Did the media and many political leaders, business leaders, entertainment leaders, and sports leaders simply act out of total ignorance of what the law says (raising serious questions of their competence)?  Or is there a growing opposition to religious freedom that the law seeks to protect?

Albert Mohler points to recent editorials in both The Washington Post and The New York Times that seek to redefine religious liberty, desire to give the government the right to infringe on religious liberty, or simply demand that religions bow “to the enlightenments of modernity.”

Meanwhile Russell Moore writes:

Many of those leading the discussion of religious freedom have little or no understanding of what motivates religious people…. If one cannot empathize with why defying conscience on a matter of religious exercise is a life-or-death concern, then one is free to impute all sorts of evil motives….  This is particularly problematic when widespread ignorance of religious motivation is joined with a zealotry that can only be called religious: for the stamping out of all dissent against the sexual revolution.

In our culture’s headlong rush toward so called “same-sex marriage,” it seems that many are willing to steamroll right over religious freedom.  Indeed, Frank Turek argues that “Same-Sex Marriage” Is Becoming the Established Religion. He writes:

Forget tolerance. This is well beyond tolerance. Now, if you don’t agree to celebrate same sex marriage, the established religion will commence an inquisition and, without a trial, punish you for heresy. That’s why this legislation is necessary.

So how should the church respond?

First, the church needs to stand firm on the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality and the definition of marriage no matter how unpopular it may be.  We are not in a popularity contest, and we seek to please God, not men.

Second, the church needs to continue to fight for religious freedom. We need to make our case in the public square for the freedom to believe, and to practice what we believe.

Third, the church needs to look past this looming issue, and continue to do what the church is always called to do – love God with all of our being and love our neighbor as ourselves.  Jesus said the world would know we are Christians by our love.  We need to counter our culture’s impression of hate with the true practice of daily love – even toward those who oppose us.

Finally, the church needs to remember what we celebrated only a few days ago.  Our Savior is risen.  He ascended into heaven and reigns at the right hand of the Father.  We need not freak out. The sky is not falling.  Our God is still on the throne.

Current

Among the latest to come out of the so called “same-sex marriage” debate is the religious persecution of Barronelle Stutzman for declining to make flower arrangements for a “same-sex wedding.” For her “crime,” the judge’s decision will essentially put her out of business. She is appealing the case. You can read more about it at the following links:

State Says 70-Year-Old Flower Shop Owner Discriminated Against Gay Couple. Here’s How She Responded. – Kelsey Harkness (The Daily Signal)

A Florist Loses Religious Freedom, and Much More – Denny Burke (CNN)

Plea for Sanity – Mike Wittmer

In the first post, the homosexual couple is quoted as saying, “We respect everyone’s beliefs, but businesses that are open to the public have an obligation to serve everyone.” Stutzman replied, “I did serve Rob. It’s the event that I turned down, not the service for Rob or his partner.”

In the third post, Mike Wittmer suggests this idea as sensible middle ground: “Any business must serve any person, but it must not be required to serve every act.” Read his post for his explanation.

I’d like to key off both Stutzman’s and Wittmer’s statements, and suggest: Any business must serve any person, but it is not required to offer every product or service. This, it seems to me, is just common sense.

I have worked for several Christian bookstores, and we sold Christian books. We didn’t sell Muslim books or New Age books – just Christian books. And different stores drew the line differently on what constituted a Christian book. We willingly served any customer who came, but only with the products that that particular store sold.

Recently our local grocery store stopped selling a delicious chocolate candy bar that my family really enjoyed. They are still willing to serve us; they just won’t sell us that product that we want. This is not discrimination; it is simply a business choosing what to sell and what not to sell.

I suggest we extend the same courtesy to florists, bakeries, and photographers. They must serve everyone, but they are not required to offer every product or service. They must (and should happily) serve homosexuals because they are human beings. But they can choose what services or products they offer. They might choose not to do any weddings. They might specialize in “same-sex weddings” if that is their choice. They might specialize in “traditional” weddings if that is their choice.

And it should be their choice. The government should not take it upon itself to tell businesses what products and services they must offer.

Any business must serve any person, but it is not required to offer every product or service. Here is a necessary distinction that I hope our nation will grasp. The alternative will be continued religious persecution in a country founded, ironically, for religious (not sexual) freedom.

Current

Here are some helpful posts on the ISIS:

What ISIS Really Wants – Graeme Wood (The Atlantic)
A detailed look at the Islamic State.

FAQs: Islamic State Beheads 21 Egyptian Christians in Libya – Joe Carter (TGC)
Some helpful background.

A Biblical Meditation on the ISIS Execution of 21 Christians – Tom Schreiner (TGC)
How the church should respond.

Current

To follow up on my last post, here are some helpful thoughts on the homosexuality issue:

Not That Kind of Homosexuality? – Kevin DeYoung

The Myth of Hate – Alan Shlemon (Stand To Reason)

Same-Sex Attraction in the Church – Sam Allberry

Five Commitments To Those Struggling With Same Sex Attraction In Our Midst – Kevin DeYoung

Current

A weekly collection of current news and issues in the church, country, and world.

The debate on the Hobby Lobby decision continues, so here are a few of my own thoughts, followed by some good posts from others to ponder.

1. Much of the outcry against the decision seems to be that an employer could be involved in such a private, personal matter as birth control.  And I agree.  But of course Hobby Lobby didn’t ask to be in that position.  It was the Obama administration that made birth control public policy by requiring employers to pay for it.  As soon as you require someone else to pay, it is no longer a private matter, but a very public matter involving other people.  If you want to keep birth control a private, personal choice, save your money and pay for it yourself.

2. Which brings us to the second point: what is the purpose of insurance? I have life insurance to support my family in case I die unexpectedly.  I have car insurance to cover the costs if I have an unexpected car accident.  I have life insurance to pay the bills if I get an unexpected disease or my health in some other way deteriorates unexpectedly.  The point is that insurance is designed so the many can cover the costs of the few who have the unexpected happen.  So where does this leave birth control?  Good question, because birth control has nothing to do with the unexpected – certainly not in the way of a disease or other health failure.  If you want some form of birth control, save your money and buy it.  Why should you expect your insurance company pay for it?

3. The answer to that last question of course is because there is a large group of people who want sex to be completely free without any possibility of pregnancy, and of course someone else should fit the bill to make sure there is no pregnancy.  But last time I checked, sex without pregnancy was not a Constitutional right.  Again, if you want birth control, pay for it yourself.  Take responsibility for your actions and stop expecting (or demanding) a handout.

4. While I am not necessarily against birth control in general, any birth control that could cause an abortion shouldn’t even be on the market, let alone be mandated in insurance policies.  It would be nice if the current administration would stop trying to shove their pro-abortion views down our throats.

5. Finally, there is the issue of priorities.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not free birth control.  And that is as it should be.

Here are some other helpful takes on the issue:

Was Hobby Lobby All Wrong About Emergency Contraceptives? – Kevin DeYoung

A Simple Solution to Healthcare Woes: Separate Health Insurance from Employment – Leslie Loftis (The Federalist)

A Company Liberals Could Love – Ross Douthat (The New York Times)

Non-hysterical comments welcome….

 

Current

The Supreme Court gave their ruling on the Hobby Lobby case today, ruling by a slim majority in favor of religious freedom.  Here are some helpful posts:

First, a news story: Supreme Court rules ObamaCare provision can’t force some employers to cover contraception – Fox News

Second, a quick summary of the case: What You Should Know About the Contraceptive Mandate Decision – Joe Carter (Acton)

Third, a good summary of some major issues: Hobby Lobby and the Liberty of Conscience – Kevin DeYoung

Finally, an analysis: The Supreme Court Agrees with Hobby Lobby, But Your Neighbor Probably Doesn’t – Trevin Wax

While there is reason to celebrate the decision, it is more than a little disconcerting that four justices and much of the population believes a “right” to free birth control should trump the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Trevin Wax in his post above also makes a point worth quoting:

Consider this. A generation ago, a person’s religious observance was a public matter, a defining characteristic of one’s identity, while a person’s sexual activity was something private. Today, this situation is reversed. A person’s sexual behavior is now considered a defining characteristic of identity, a public matter to be affirmed (even subsidized) by others, while religious observance is private and personal, relegated to places of worship and not able to infringe upon or impact the public square.

In the midst of this “brave new world” of confused identities and priorities, we as Christians must look to Jesus for our identity.  Serving Him must be our priority.  And no matter what comes, we will find our hope for the future not in rulings or cultural opinions but in the One who reigns over all.

Current

A weekly collection of current news and issues in the church, country, and world.

Here are some helpful posts on the continuing homosexuality issue:

How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong If It Doesn’t Harm Anyone? – Matt Smethurst (GC)

Whose Justice? Whose Morality? – Mike Wittmer

Perversion of Justice (in Another Sense) – Jared Wilson