The Right to Discriminate

The courts are taking up several cases where business owners have refused to provide goods and services or even employment benefits to people based on their religious beliefs. In Oregon, Sweet Cakes refused to bake cakes for a gay couple. In New Mexico, Elane Photography refused to shoot photo’s for a gay couple. The most well known case pending being Hobby Lobby’s refusal to meet the health care mandates. In all cases, they cited religious belief as the bases for the refusal.

We need to think about the impact that this could have on our country. If the courts rule in favor of these religious fundamentalist, they will have granted the right to discriminate and nullify all of our anti-discrimination laws that exists today. It would open the door to discriminate against anyone for any reason based on any belief. The problem becomes how do we police the beliefs? Given the religious diversity of this country, how would we even begin to decide which belief can discriminate and which ones cannot? Do we register these beliefs as legal and acceptable and others as illegal or unrecognized. The absurdity here is that we considering whether a business can have religion. Should we also debate if a failed business goes to heaven or hell?

The reality would mean that a Baptist business could refuse to provide services to Catholic or Methodist businesses or patrons. They certainly have religious differences and historical hatred of others. What would a ruling mean to women’s rights? Women could be refused employment if the business did not believe in women working. We already see that they want to deny certain employment benefits. They might even demand that women dress a certain way to comply with their religious codes.

As another hypothetical example, Henry Ford was a well known anti-Semitic. Does this mean that the Ford Motor company could refuse to sell cars or deny employment to Jews? Do we really want a country where employment signs could read “Jews and Women need not apply”?

These legal efforts claim to be protecting religious belief. The fact is that this is an assault on freedom and dignity of all men and women. They would legalize the hatreds and bigotries of the religious past and risk the same violence. In effect, throwing civil rights back four hundred years or more. All businesses must be treated the same and these businesses must treat all Americans with the same respect and dignity – No Exceptions.

Satan to get Monument in Oklahoma

If you need a reason to understand why religion must stay out of the government, let me give you a good one. In 2012, Oklahoma allowed the placement of a Ten Commandments monument. Now, the Satanic Temple has formally submitted its application to place its own monument on the Oklahoma capital grounds. The Yahoo.com news article   describes the monument as“depicts Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard that's often used as a symbol of the occult. In the rendering, Satan is sitting in a pentagram-adorned throne with smiling children next to him.”

Keep in mind that the Satanic Temple is not asking for any public money to place their monument. They already have half of the money needed. What they are wanting is their right to also place a monument where another religion has already placed one. A Hindu leader in Nevada and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have also submitted their applications for the same right. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has already won the right in a Florida case.

Yet, we can see that Rep. Don Armes, R-Faxon does not intend to allow any other belief other than those that match his belief to place a monument. His statement in the article clearly sums this up "’I think we need to be tolerant of people who think different than us, but this is Oklahoma, and that's not going to fly here.’" He contradicts himself in the same sentence. He is clearly showing a partiality to one religion and intolerance towards another in the discharging of his duties. Would he allow a monument to the Virgin Mary, or one of the Saints? Would he allow the Hindu monument and deny the Satanic Temple? Or, does he get to pick and choose whose religion is acceptable and whose is not? Do you see the problem here?

I believe in a highly secular government and I think that this helps point out why it should be. To do otherwise invites the oppression and hate that is inherent in all religions. It also needlessly distracts the political process and prevents progress on the smallest of issues, which in the end hurts us all.

A Christmas Carol: Let's Act Like Scrooge

This time of year can be a bit crazy with the rushing to purchase gifts, traffic, and the shopping crowds. To compound the problem, the nation is (or was depending on your view) in a recession and millions have lost jobs, health insurance, and are struggling just to keep what they have. Then add to the mix the politically correct crowd and now the Christmas holiday is turned into a battle ground over semantics and the the removal of Christ from the holiday. Is it any wonder that the spirit of Christmas is lost by many?

One of the things that I like to do during this time of year is watch the Christmas Carol movies base on Charles Dickens novel “A Christmas Carol” published in 1843. I have several versions ranging from the silent film era to some of the latest releases including the 1951 version with Alastair Sim, which is probably the standard to compare all other versions. Each film puts a slightly different twist or emphasis on portraying the characters. I think what makes the story so popular is how it address issues that cross time. The struggle between the classes, the exploitation of the poor, and the treatment of our fellow man. These are timeless problems that say a lot about a society and the kind of people we are and want to be.


Fred, Scrooge's nephew, at the beginning gives an excellent speech concerning Christmas "I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round...as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!'" Of course, to this Scrooge says his famous Bah Hum Bug! Yet, I wonder how many people see Christmas as a time of good will to their fellow man? Or, how many see their neighbor “as a fellow-passenger to the grave”? The green eyed monster of greed and mass consumption seems to have taken over the holiday. When standing in line at midnight and trampling their neighbor for a thing that will lose its luster in a month becomes a holiday tradition, I think we have missed what Fred was talking about.

In one version, Patric Stewart playing Scrooge, ask the ghost of his old partner Jacob Marley, why he suffers so because he was a “good” businessman. In response, Marley screams “mankind was my business, their common welfare was my business.” In another classic version with Albert Finney as Scrooge, we see Scrooge going around to various debtors and demanding payment on loans he has made to them. Here we see Scrooge taking advantage of the poor and forcing them into deeper debt or be forced into work houses and/or lose their livelihood. This is not much different than the modern credit card industry. Once they get you hook, they drain away the resources of the household. There is even a credit card company offering a card with 79% interest. The conversation between Scrooge and Marley raises the question “is it right to do something to your fellow man as long as it is under guise of a legal business transaction?”


In another scene the Ghost of Christmas Present takes Scrooge to Fred's house. Scrooge sees Fred toasting his Uncle even with complaints from his guests. Some guest even openly state that they hate Scrooge. Fred displays some real Christian attitude. Not only does he rebuke his guest without anger or malice, he sees his Uncle's real condition as a man poor in spirit with a real need for a changed heart. Do we see the other shoppers as competitors and adversaries or people who are truly poor in spirit and need a life changing a event – the Christ in Christmas.

The Ghost of Christmas Present also takes Scrooge to Bob Cratchit his clerk's house. Here we see that while poor, there is joy and happiness within the home. In a very interesting gesture of gratitude, Bob toasts Scrooge for what has been provided. Even though he really is over worked and under paid. Bob's wife does object to the toast, but Bob insist that at least for the days sake. In the Cratchit home we see gratitude, humility, love and peace. All of these seem to be missing from the modern home, which must have the big house, the new cars, and the latest gadgets. The modern family, in one respect, is not much different then the Cratchit family living paycheck to paycheck. The difference is the Cratchit family is much happier and content.

So, is this going somewhere or what? The point is to ask the question “should we be more like Scrooge this time of year?”

Before answering the question, you need to think about the end of the story. After Scrooge has encounter with the Ghost of Christmas Future, he repents of his ways and becomes a charitable fellow. What makes Scrooge the role model is that it is noted that Scrooge kept the spirit of Christmas all year and became the best master and friend that the city knew. This makes Scrooge the role model for he shows the signs of the Spirit: Gal 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.”

Maybe we can reclaim Christmas by being a bit more like Scrooge, living it the year round reaching and touching people. Giving them the changed heart, which ultimately will change society.

Just a few thoughts about the Spirit of Christmas. I hope you all have a joyful holiday.

Evangelicals Retreat from Rhetoric

An article in the Wall Street Journal titled Evangelical Leader Preaches Pullback From Politics,Culture War by Neil King Jr., is about the new stance being taken by Russell Moore the new public voice of the Southern Baptist Convention. The jest of the article is that Evangelicals need to tone down the rhetoric and disassociate themselves from any political party, which in practice means breaking ties with the Republican Party. I could not agree more, but the only problem is not much will really change.

The Southern Baptists leadership for the most part are fundamentalists and tend to be narrow minded and uncompromising. This tendency carries over into the political arena. A political compromise in a secular world is seen as a compromise of one’s religious beliefs regardless of the topic. The narrowness has forced the country to focus on just a few issues, namely abortion and gay rights, to the exclusion of other national priorities. The result is an organization that has divided the country for their own theological agenda.

The “retreat” from the rhetoric, as stated in the article, should only be seen as a tactical retreat to regroup. This retreat does not mean that the attitude and speech of hate will go away. They will still be made just with a different spin, something learned while rubbing shoulders with with the elite in Washington. In the end, they will still attempt to impose their form of theocratic rule on a country that is one of the most religiously diversified in the world. This can only cause more social tension dividing a country by differences instead of coming together on common ground for the common good.

The article also pointed out that the Southern Baptists are in decline and having trouble keeping young adults. It stated that LifeWay research projects membership to fall to half of what it is today by 2050. It would seem that these young adults are a bit more pragmatic and do not see the world through the same myopic lens. For them, there are more than two issues in the world and it is time to move on. Moore even admits that the young people have been alienated by the whole process.

Bridging the gap between old and young will be a real challenge for Moore. Southern Baptists will have to deal with the science and biology around homosexuality as well as the secular view. Using the “because I said so” argument will notwork. They will need to use reason and create a dialogue if they want to win them back. The leadership will need to listen, really listen, to young adults. Listening for a group that is used to ruling over the laity will be a near impossible task. The problem here is that all religious leaders believe that they rule with God’s authority and are following his will. This makes them incapable of self-criticism because to be wrong equates to God being wrong and God is never wrong.

Russell Moore does have one thing correct, they have chased the “populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads.” This has allowed the leadership to enjoy the benefits rubbing shoulders with the rich and powerful in Washington. Also, let's not forget that this gives them access to the media as well. Moore’s predecessor, Richard Land, as noted in the article, frequented the Oval Office during the Bush administration. It certainly is more gratifying to the carnal man to be in the shadow of the rich and powerful then the lonely light of some distant deity. I would argue that they have comprised their own faith in God and placed it in the earthly gains of which they are partaking in.

My advice to Moore would be to do some self-evaluation. If as the Southern Baptist claim, sin is the problem, the solution is not a theocratic based government. It is foolishness for him and others to believe that they can make God’s law the law the land. It did not work for God so why do they think it will work for them? If they want to change society, then the change must be one person at a time and that person must willingly accept the change. This is the only way to solve the “sin”problem. To do anything else is to create a totalitarian government that oppresses reason and every free thought to which history bears witness to this.

The Fundamentalist and Homosexuality

The modern Fundamental Church has a real tiger by the tail when it comes to gay rights, marriage, and homosexuality in general. On one hand, there is the belief or thought that being gay is nothing more than a life style choice. To say it a different way, it is a free will choice. Then if being gay is a choice, it is no different than someone choosing to smoke, drink, or any other vice that one might chose or that the Church might deem as an offense or a sin before God. If however, that is not the case and being gay is more of natural phenomena or genetics then Fundamentalist have a different problem on their hands. My intent is not to debate the validity of either view, but to look at the problem that each presents to the Fundamentalist.

The first problem in this two part essay is that of choice, which in the eyes of Fundamentalist makes it a sin before God. Depending on the Church or the denomination they will certainly quote a whole set of Scriptures and for the most part Scripture may be the only basis for their belief. This then makes it purely a religious concern. An atheists or agnostics certainly would not see it as an offense against God. To further complicate the matter not all Christian communities agree on the issue. Some denominations are going as far as to allow homosexual priests and clergy. So, clearly this is not a simple black and white issue even within the Christian community at large.

When it comes to religion, America is one of the most pluralistic nations in the world. You can find everything from Atheism to Zoroastrianism and everything in between. All of these will have varying beliefs concerning homosexuality. As a pluralistic society whose religious view or belief should override everyone else’s concerning this or anything else for that matter? Can it be as simple as a democratic vote or is it a bit more complicated?

We can look to the 17^th century British philosopher John Locke (1634-1704) for some insight on how to deal with this issue. For Locke, the government not the Church was not given the care of men’s souls. This was left solely in the hands of the individual. He would argue that the political leaders in charge should not limit the practice of another religious group for a very simple reason; the other group might be in charge one day and do the same. For example, what if this nation became predominately Wiccans or Druids? The Fundamentalist would not want their religious beliefs or practices prohibited by these groups.

It is also important to keep in mind, as Locke would argue, the only power that the government has is force. You cannot force someone to choose a religion even with the point of the sword. Under the threat of death, everyone would choose the religion only to save their life and not because they believed it. What makes this even more complicated is that everyone believes that they have the one and only true religion, which is a very good reason to keep the Church and State separate.

If one religious group manages to force its religious laws onto the land via the government, are we not repeating the history of intolerance and violence that went on in Europe? There was a period in time as the leadership changed in Europe so did the national religion. Many times this ushered in an era of Christian persecution against other Christians and kept the cycle of violence and hatred going. This leads us back to Locke and his view of the role of government. The government’s only concerns should be matters of defense, property, liberty, and health.

Part of the problem is that the religious Fundamentalist can only see good in whatever they do. Much like Charlemagne walking a town through the baptismal or to the gallows, it was for the good of individual and to serve the will of God. Again, I must agree with Locke, in that religion must be a passive force in the world so that conversion is genuine and any benefits or condemnations are gained voluntarily.

The Fundamentalist should reconsider their approach to this issue. If it is a choice and a sin, it would seem that a genuine conversion is what is needed to solve the problem. This would require action on their part to create disciples in a loving and non-violent way, but instead they have chosen to use the rule of law to enact their beliefs. All the while, some of their most vocal leaders are caught in the very sin that they have been preaching against. Obviously, some soul searching needs to occur.

So, if we come back to the issue of the freedom to choose, then we must allow these people the right to choose how they wish to live. As a society we must not step on or hinder their belief or their pursuit of happiness because another group disagrees with that belief based solely on a religious view. To do otherwise would place one belief system over another and risk creating a society of hate and prejudice. We should seek to build a society where we live peaceably with open and free discussion on the things that we disagree about and strengthen those that we do agree on.

Abortion is NOT the Only Issue

We are getting close to another political season, if it ever really ends. This will cause various groups to start mounting their offenses and building defenses for their causes. In response to this political fire storm I have to ask; can a single issue be the only criterion for evaluating and selecting a political candidate? To be more specific, should abortion be the only issue by which a person selects a candidate? It should be a thought provoking notion. For many Christians it is the only basis for selecting a person who is running for public office. I first must ask, does that really make sense given all of the social, economical, political, and military problems that the country faces? Is it so big of an issue that we must forget all other issues and make no progress on these other problems? Does making abortion the only issue cause more problems and maybe even worsen the abortion issue? These are but a few of the questions that a person must answer or else they deceive themselves into believing that there are no other problems in the world today, which is why the answer is a resounding no. No, abortion must not be the only issue.

Let me explain why abortion must not be the only issue. First, we must go back to the Reagen era when the Christian Right and the Moral Majority crawled in bed with the Republican party. At the time, I thought that this was a good thing, but I am now convinced that it has been devastating to the Church and the Kingdom work. What has transpired over time is that the Republican party has built a base of loyal voters based primarily on a single issue, though a few others can be thrown in to form a type of political trinity being made up of abortion, homosexuality, and the Ten Commandments.

This new political trinity combined with some mass consumerism now leads the church at large. The politics of man are quickly becoming the new theology and doctrines of the church. With little effort, you can get a large portion of a church to attend an anti-abortion rally. These people will be willing to scream and shout obscenities to get their voices heard or work tirelessly for the cause. Yet, make a call for volunteers to help the poor or visit and share the Gospel, you will be lucky to get the deacons to show up much less any of the members.

As the marriage of the Church and the Republican party has matured so has the indifference to others, which has created an attitude of hate. The indifference shown towards the poor should not be a surprise. Remember Reagan successfully daemonized the welfare mom as someone squirting babies out as fast as she can to collect welfare checks and drive a Cadillac. I have observed this indifference during visitation. As a deacon returned, he had nothing but contempt for those he had visited. He critiqued how they lived and dressed. I did not find the broken heart of Christ in this man. All I saw was the pride of life and the arrogance of “I am better because I am a Christians”. This is a common attitude among the faithful. Another deacon, who also runs a visitation group, explained to an individual that their kind was not welcomed. As the leadership leads so goes the Church.

As political activism has grown to be synonymous with a good Christian walk, I have seen the message of Christ being perverted. Churches are tying salvation and/or church membership to having a Republican voting record. The news has been and will be littered with examples of this very thing. A deacon or Sunday School teacher will be ask to leave the church because they have the wrong political view. I have even been in deacon's meetings where someone would give a warning about voting for the “right” person. The problem, at least in part, is that much of the Church's leadership has substituted Spiritual power for political power and wealth. They enjoy rubbing elbows with the powerful. It provides a sense of power and importance that is much different from helping the single mother who is struggling to get buy on a minimum wage job. So, now the game is to stay in control and keep the power at any cost. Keep in mind that power is a very strong narcotic and when combined with pride, anything can happen. Just like an addict justifies his habit so does the leadership.

As the church's leadership writes more articles or gives interviews, watch as they hyperbole the issues and the consequences. Invariably the end of society, the Republic, or the world as we know it will be the results if the issue is not confronted. They always attempt to illicit fear amongst the faithful. Why? Has Christ given the Church the spirit of fear? Also, why are they willing to spread innuendo, lies and half truths? The reason is to ensure that the faithful vote or act “correctly”. The leadership is acting just like the political establishment where ethics is an “anything goes for the cause”.

To get back to the issue of abortion. This myopic view for selecting and judging a candidates has allowed other harmful policies and corruption to permeate the system while other issues are ignored. What about stewardship? More importantly, shouldn't we be concerned about the human trafficking? Shouldn't we be concerned that people are going hungry? Shouldn't we be concerned that people are denied basic health care? Shouldn't we be concerned about literacy? Don't these lives count for something?

I also question the sanity of the single mindedness of only one issue. It seems to fit some compulsive mental disorder or some type of imbalance. This lack of balance and extremism mirrors the rest of society. Maybe the culture is having a bigger impact on the Church then the Church is on the culture? Another problem with this single mindedness is that it seems to exclude the whole counsel of God. Doesn't the Bible also talk about:

How we conduct business and economics...

• false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight. (Proverbs 11:1, ESV)
• Shall I acquit the man with wicked scales and with a bag of deceitful weights? (Micah 6:11, ESV)
• The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. (Proverbs 22:7, ESV)

How we treat People...

• ... I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me (Matthew 25:40, ESV)
• ... Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. (I Peter 5:5, ESV)
• Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed. (Proverbs 19:17, ESV)

Some of the Church's problems get back to the fact that statistically there is no differences in the lives of Christians verse non-Christians. For example, Proverbs 22:7 is really counter culture but most Christians are enslaved to debt just like the rest of America. If Christians could live differently, they could draw more souls into the Kingdom, which would help solve some of these problems. There must be more to being a Christian than attending Church on Sunday and the occasional political rally where they can declare all that they hate.

Additionally, abortion is a symptom of a much larger and more complex social issues. If the abortion problem is to be solved, the root causes within society must be addressed. Whether abortion is legal or illegal, the under lining problems will still exist. This will require that the Left and the Right compromise. This compromise cannot occur while the Christian Right views this as a compromise against God. This is wanting to implement “Christian Law” while the membership itself doesn't even follow it. It would seem that the Church needs to get its house in order before making the rest of the world do it.

To sum up why abortion must not be the only issue. One, it has or is converting the Church into a political organization. This leads to the second, the mission, message, and purpose of the Church is being perverted. Thirdly, the political impact is more negative than positive in that the Church is an anti-poor organization. Fourthly, the individual remains a secular and worldly creature. And finally, God has been or is being removed from Church and replaced with the idol of Power. The result is that it is creating the Church of Laodicea as noted in Revelation 3:15 (ESV) I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!

If you think that I am being a bit harsh on the Church, I would suggest that you read the book unChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. My personal experience validates the book as well as over ten years of being a deacon in a Southern Baptist church. I am ashamed of the hate within the secret walls of the church. As a companion book you should reference The Divine Commodity by Skye Jethani. Jethani reviews the affect of consumerism on the Church.

Some thoughts on Church Unity

The New Testament speaks of the need for church unity, but; how has this been translated into action of the church. As I have observed, unity today means following leadership and conforming unquestioningly to the established traditions and habits of the establishment. The establishment does not have to be the pastor it can also be deacons or other factions within the church that have the largest or at least the loudest say. Those who do raise questions or concerns are treated as if they are spiritually lesser, unchristian, miss guided, and at times even demonized. To appreciate this type of response, one must also understand that the issues typically have little if anything to do with doctrine. To question the continuation or change to a ministry, even a failed ministry, can evoke the wrath of the establishment, which always sees itself as being right and the most spiritual. Other things such as the spending of money, order of worship, the type of worship can also create factions bent on having their way. None of these having anything to do with doctrine and all should be openly and honestly discussed without creating a break in the fellowship.

There are some problems with this type of blind and mindless unity. One, it forces the masses to quit thinking and applying Scripture to their daily lives because you now have "church rules", which lose their relevancy once you leave church. Blindly following prevents them from seeing the differences between traditions, cultural influences, and real doctrinal issues. The second problem of this form of unity is that it creates an unquestionable ecclesiastical order. This can lead to corruption once leadership is incapable of making mistakes even if those mistakes are immoral and/or illegal.

Some of the root cause of this problem may be that the leadership over emphasizes or even miss use Scripture concerning unity such as, Romans 16:17-18. While the New Testament writers were concerned about unity of the church, as Wayne Grudem points out in is his Systematic Theology, “there are no direct New Testament commands to separate from Christians”. The Apostles had disagreements amongst themselves and still had unity in the mission and cause for Christ. It is absurd to believe that everyone must agree on everything to have unity within the church.

Another potential cause to the problem is the modern version of the “Pharisees syndrome”, more concerned about legal or doctrinal issues than the souls of men. This leads to the looking down on people as some how lesser than themselves. The affect is not limited to how they treat follow Christians at various maturity levels but society as a whole. Even to the audacity to tell visitors that they are not fit to come to church. This changes the song “Just as I am” to “Only as we want you”, which may be the biggest sin of the modern church since it could lead to the lose of souls and goes against Christ's commandment to reach ALL men.

So, what is the solution? First, pastors, clergy, priest, and lay leaders they must define the purpose of the church so that the member clearly understand its role in the Kingdom work. This means going beyond the standard theologically filled babble or saying something like “we are reaching the world for Christ”. This is a bit vague for the person sitting in the pew and it must be a bit more relevant and closer to home. Unity of purpose can be achieved through the use of a mission statement for the church or basically stating what ministries the church is going to engage in. This will provide a gage that can be used to evaluate the spending of money, starting and stopping of ministries, and many other activities. It will also start providing clear places for the membership to insert themselves into and make the Christian life an active life with a Kingdom focus (surly it is more than going on Sunday).

Another area is to understand change. I have been in deacon's meeting where someone wants to do something new and the first thing stated is “we are not changing any doctrine”. I have always wanted to ask if they knew the doctrine and could really identify a change if a statement like that is required. It needs to be understood that the church is in a constant state of change. If not, it is dieing. Change here is the cultural and technological change that goes on in the world as well as the transition to the next generation. We must understand that the culture will enter the church. Two key examples here are music and dress. Surly, we can see that we do not dress like they did two or three hundred years ago nor is the music the same. So, during the last two thousand years which dress is proper or which music is correct? How someone answers will depend on their age, back ground, social and economic status.

One last thought. We should not see disagreement as necessarily bad. Honest and open discussion, which also requires listening, allows everyone to have a voice in the direction that church takes in its ministry work. This satisfies a need that people have to be heard, to contribute, and to be needed. It also helps ensure that the best decision in made. The church is full of ideas, back grounds and insights it would be a shame to not hear from them. Once a direction has been decided, then the church should rally around the task or mission and move forward.