Last week the Supreme Court of the United States may have showed its hand by staying a ruling of a lower court which ruled against the gay marriage ban in Virginia and thereby affecting similar laws in other states. Many political insiders and judicial watchers believe this decision is an indication of how the High Court will eventually rule. Many cultural experts, and seemingly most Americans if we believe the polls, suggest that gay marriage is inevitable. The cynic in me, or maybe I should say the realist in me agrees with their assessment.

Approximately six years ago I was serving in a new church and one of my parishioners approached me with several questions regarding my position on certain doctrinal and social issues. (As a side note, this member served for a period of time in the Clinton administration, and the reason I make mention of this is that it may help to clarify his own political views and the context of our conversation. To say the least, we had our differences but got along well as brothers in Christ.) One of his questions concerned my views on homosexuality and why my sermons early on at this particular church seemed to focus on the gay marriage debate. My answer; “Gay marriage is the number one social issue on the horizon, and how we handle it may very well determine the direction of the Church in America and our country for generations. It’s only a matter of time before gay marriage will be made legal in all 50 states. Once it’s the law of the land the homosexual agenda will turn its focus on Christian organizations including the Church.”

This may have seemed like an exaggeration at the moment to this former church member, but time I believe is proving me right. I wasn’t speaking then nor am I now as some sort of prophet who foretells the future. I’m simply an observer of our culture and its rapidly changing beliefs. These changes reveal much about our view of the Scriptures and God’s authority. The Bible once held in high esteem apparently no longer serves as America’s moral compass.

To be frank, gay marriage is only the next step along this path we’ve been on for years now, and when proponents have raised questions concerning other “sins” the Church has often appeared to minimize their seriousness in comparison to homosexuality. Adopting a “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” philosophy regarding sex outside of marriage seems to be the case across the broad spectrum of the Church. This is a problem, but a problem with differences. As a pastor I can honestly say most clergy probably don’t address fornication in its various forms enough to help our congregations maintain a sense of real purity. We don’t speak enough about the battles men and women face with pornography and how to overcome its addictive draw. There’s no doubt sexual immorality is an issue even among seniors who now have one of the highest STD rates among all age groups in America. (Report: STDs on the Rise Among America’s Senior Citizens)

The real issue is the attempts made by gay marriage proponents to normalize a sinful behavior as non-sinful. A large portion of the Church still acknowledges any sex outside of marriage as sinful and not something to promote as right and wholesome. This would also hold true for most who watch pornography. If these were not still considered sinful behaviors then individuals wouldn’t have such strong desires to keep their actions secret from family, friends, and the Church.

I recently watched a commercial on a local station with the tag line “Marriage is Marriage.” The advertisement showed three gay couples and two straight couples in supposed marital relationships with young families in tow. The message was clear; the union of a homosexual couple is just as normal and legitimate as that of a heterosexual couple. According to God’s Word “Marriage is NOT Marriage” in a homosexual context. From the earliest of times marriage has been recognized as the union of a man and woman with God performing the first recorded marriage in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:18, 21 – 25). Even Christ confirms the idea of marriage being only between a man and woman in Matthew 19 when He states:

Recently my wife and I have been watching more HGTV than usual. Our oldest son got us hooked on shows like “Love It or List It” and “House Hunters” during one of his last trips to North Charleston. I’m not sure what the real interest is other than comparing the taste and opinions of others to our own. I think part of our curiosity may also be in seeing how others live elsewhere.

Now while watching these shows I’ve noticed a disturbing trend, or at least disturbing to me, as I shared with my wife not long ago. Time and again as couples walk into their newly renovated homes and spaces the first words spoken are normally “Oh my God.” There’s really nothing new about this phrase other than the frequency of its use within the American culture. No matter the source whether it’s commercials, social media, or in daily conversations “Oh my God” has become the new “awesome.” A decade ago the word “awesome” was used ad nauseam to describe most everything good or beyond the norm and today it’s “Oh my God” or “OMG” in text and posts on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

The issue I take with “Oh my God” or “OMG” is that these expressions are forms of blasphemy – literally taking the Lord’s name in vain. I think what disturbs me most is that so many Christians seem to be ignorant of this truth and seldom appear convicted by their frequent use. Actually, just writing about this topic makes me uncomfortable as a follower of Christ. No doubt some will question if such statements are profane at all because the prevalent thinking of our day suggest we've moved beyond such ideas. Yet God is the same God of old if He is truly immutable, and therefore any use of His name in an irreverent way is sinful no matter what the majority may believe today. 

The primary meaning of the Hebrew word “shav” [vain] is “evil, useless, or worthless.” The New Living Translation renders “shav” as “misuse.” Common sense should tell us that phrases such as “Oh my God” and OMG are clearly an abuse of God’s name. And because these terms are an abuse of His name they demean His Holy and righteous character.

Here’s a question along the same line. Shouldn’t we also consider how we use the name of Christ Jesus since He’s fully God? How many times have you heard others use the name of Christ in disgust as part of a typical conversation? Probably more than we’d like to admit. In reality the misuse of God’s name in any form should be discouraged and especially among Christians.

As believers let’s encourage one another to be different than the world around us, and show God the proper respect He is rightly due.

Blessings,
Rod

It’s a good thing former NFL running back Darrick Ward is no longer playing, or he most likely would have experienced the wrath of Roger Goodell. The Christian Post has reported that Ward and his family have received death threats from Gay Activists due to his tweets about ESPN’s coverage of the kiss. Basically Ward’s response was that he thought it was inappropriate for ESPN to show the Sam’s kiss because children were watching the draft. ESPN and the NFL, I believe, wanted to make a statement and they did, proving they’re a progressive organization. I love the game of football having played for a number of years, but I don’t tune in to ESPN, the NFL Network, or watch games on Sunday afternoons for a progressive political statement. I tune in simply to watch the game.  

Our words and actions may cost us personally at times whether they’re right or wrong, but surely I’m not the only one who sees the real danger that lurks ahead. When Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church were protesting the funerals of American soldiers and saying the vilest things some wanted to pass laws to quiet his group which I believe would have been a mistake. I don’t have to like the views or what someone may say to appreciate their right to think it and say it – whatever “it” may be. If we continue to police every word as a nation, it won’t be long until it hits home with you and me. Our First Amendment rights aren't to protect the majority but the minority.        

The reality is that these events are simply indications of greater problems in our country and  the Church as well. Studies from Pew and Barna, along with other research groups, provide us enormous amounts of data each year from which we can intelligently decipher our national direction. One conclusion which is becoming ever clearer is that our constitutional rights are rapidly evaporating under the guise of a pseudo-tolerance and politically correct society. We should keep in mind that a majority doesn't automatically equate to being in the right. A large number of Americans no longer seem to care if the US Constitution is pillaged by ethically challenged individuals in leadership as long as it doesn't affect them personally. So from a secular point of view our problems appear to be  a constitutional crisis that seeks to “fundamentally change America.”   

In regards to the Church, her issues are not only intertwined and influenced by a worldly mentality but also from doctrinal ignorance and spiritual apathy. There is an issue with the refusal to deal with sin and especially the sin of homosexuality. This is extremely prevalent within the Millennial Generation – those born between the late 1970’s and 1990’s. Here are some things we know about them:

1. They have a great need for instant gratification and lack the discipline to wait. They've grown-up in the age of rapid technology and expect answers quickly.
   
2. (This should be a no brainier) – They have short attention spans; meaning that most would have only read a paragraph or two of this blog.
3. They live at home longer and are getting married later in life.
4. They hide their true identities online behind created personas.
5. They care less about the things their parents and grandparents did at the same point in life.
6. From birth to death, almost everything about their life is documented electronically. They’re different from Generation X before them (1964 – 1977) in some significant ways. Where Gen X accepted diversity Millennials celebrate diversity, almost reveling in the differences of others. Their predecessors also had a mistrust of established intuitions like the Church, but Millennials view institutions as irrelevant which I believe poses a greater danger. And lastly, Gen Xers maintained a distinction between family and friends where as Millennials take a different view. For this generation friends are considered family which may help to explain their strong and supportive views of homosexuality.

Dolphins fine and suspend player for tweeting negative comment about Michael Sam; Frank Schwab, editor of Shutdown Corner on Yahoo Sports

LeBron James says NBA players feel no members of Donald Sterling's family should own Clippers; The Canadian Press – Sun, 11 May, 2014

Generation X and The Millennials: What You Need to Know About Mentoring the New Generations; Diane Thielfoldt and Devon Scheef, August 2004

Barna Millennial Project; https://www.barna.org/barna-update/millennials

Recently I attended a viewing of the “Son of God” and was somewhat taken aback by its lack of biblical reliability. My wife stated she knew before we entered the theater I would be disappointed simply because she knows me and my love for the Word of God. I truly had high hopes because of the support this film had garnered from the evangelical community, yet I’m still coming to terms with the continuously changing face of evangelicalism. There is often a portrayal within our society that all evangelicals are conservative and biblically literate which is far from the truth. Theologically America is less conservative today and our view of the Bible is in decline.

From Barna’s research I would venture a guess and say most Christians who watched the “Son of God” did so more with a devotional eye rather than a factual one, and that accuracy wasn't as important as was the emotional factor. I realize certain creative liberties will always be taken by filmmakers – even those holding to the Christian banner. Creative license however shouldn’t be an excuse for a lack of Scriptural faithfulness, and especially for those who are held in high regard within Christendom.       

Now for those who enjoyed the “Son of God” and were moved by this film I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but I do believe there are some things we should think about as Christians. So what are my real issues with this film? 

First, the cynic in me says this production wasn’t as pure as some would have us believe.  The film was peddled as an evangelistic tool to many pastors, and I sincerely hope numerous individuals came to know Christ as Savior but I’m not so sure. Knowing what I know now about how the movie was produced from bits and pieces of “The Bible” on the History Channel, I question if the motives weren’t more for financial reasons based on the success of the miniseries. I don’t have a problem with this film making money, but I do have a problem with what I believe is a lack of truthfulness in its marketing.      

Secondly, the storyline was fragmented most likely because it was spliced together and better suited for television rather than a larger theatrical production. This was not the high quality film that was characterized by its representatives.    

Third, Downey’s Catholicism was more on display than the Gospel of John. In the scene of the Last Supper the false doctrine of transubstantiation is promoted (a belief that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ and becomes a means of salvation). The Archdiocese of Washington has even devoted video lessons based on particular clips from the film including the doctrine of transubstantiation (explanation). And then there is Mary Magdalene’s constant presence and placement of importance beside Christ which is not only misleading but a distraction to say the least.

And lastly the biggest problem I have with the film is what was intentionally left out. At one point Christ Jesus is addressing Thomas and states, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” That’s it – no more. The exclusivity of Christ is abandoned and I have to wonder why? Clearly the statement is from John 14:6 and what is excluded is, “And no one comes to the Father except through me.”

Was this done for political correctness in order not to offend others? Who knows?  What I do know is that faith in Christ is the only means of salvation, and there’s no reasonable excuse to leave such an important fact out of the dialogue as presented.

Were there positive aspects to this film?

Absolutely!

I was moved by the crucifixion of Christ and was once again reminded of His sacrificial love. And of course His resurrection was reassuring because without this we have no hope. As Christians it’s inconceivable to demand perfection in this production or any other, but we should maintain an expectation of authenticity that honors God and His Word.

Just Thinking,
Rod

Here’s a quick devotional thought for today. Read John 6:1-14 and take note of three major characteristics of Christ Jesus that every believer should be thankful for:

1. His patients (6:1-3)
2. His compassion (6:4-9)
3. His sufficiency (6:10-14)

Remember the game tag? One kid was the proverbial “it,” and all the other kids ran from him in order not to be tagged and become “it.” A fun and simple game played in simpler times and in big green yards. I’m not even sure if children are allowed to play tag anymore in public schools because of its political incorrectness, but many adults play a tagging game in today’s society and they play with a vengeance.

Politicians, lobbyists, special interest groups, and the media often use tagging as a tactic to advance social agendas and political ideologies. This calculated approach is intellectually dishonest and destructive to our society. The method of tagging has been used successfully for years now primarily against Bible believing Christians and other groups who lean toward traditional values and conservatism. It works by simply attaching a “tag” to a group or issue in order to negatively label someone that doesn’t share the same worldview. The tags most often used today are prefixes and suffixes such as “anti” or “phobia” with the hopes of demonizing a particular group of people for the purpose of squelching debate. Part of the tagging strategy seeks to elicit an emotional response by appealing to the feelings of an individual and not the intellect. 

I look back at the late 70s and early 80s with great interest in the use of these tags to turn a moral debate into a political one. The hot button issue was abortion with the passing of Roe v. Wade in 1973, and what took place in the public square was often manipulative in a psychological sense. Rhetorically, the term “antiabortion” while technically correct in describing one’s position in opposition to abortion also lacks clarity based on other societal attachments to the term. Attachments of being “antiabortion” automatically presupposed a definition of someone being anti-woman and anti-choice which is intellectually dishonest – this broad definition still lingers 30 years later. Leftist leaning politicians and groups continue to promote this form of dishonesty with their fallacious arguments on the “war against women” as seen in the last presidential election. In the 80s Christian and conservative leaders quickly attempted to turn the tide by using the term “pro-life” to combat the negative connotations of antiabortion and anti-choice.

As a young man during that time I remember hearing the pro-abortion language and thinking how persuasive it was because of its pro-individual appeal. Once the situational and statistical aberrations are removed from the conversation the argument for being pro-abortion or pro-choice I believe is an ethically challenged and selfish decision.

I use the abortion issue as an example to address something similar happening in our culture presently. Just a few weeks ago you may remember Phil Robertson of A&E’s Duck Dynasty was tagged as being anti-gay and homophobic because his comments given during an interview with GQ magazine. This tagging was led by the LGBT community, many Democrats, Hollywood elites, and the mainstream media. Note what Mr. Robertson actually said:

Now note what the Apostle Paul says from 1 Corinthians:

Robertson’s paraphrase of 1 Corinthians appears to be right on target and in agreement with the Apostle Paul’s statement to the Church. Verses 9 and 10 obviously address all forms of sexual immorality as a sin and in particular homosexuality. In verse 11 the Apostle specifies that at least a significant number in the Church at Corinth were once practicing these particular sins, but now have changed their behaviors and are not to return to their former lifestyle. The Apostle Paul also makes a similar argument against these forms of sin in Romans 1:18 – 32 and identifies them as forms of idolatry, (which is a whole other discussion).  

Phil Robertson, and Christians as a whole aren’t anti-gay or homophobic. If we’re anything we are pro-God, pro-Bible, pro-life, and pro-love. Some might debate the pro-love aspect, but from a Christian view not sharing the truth of the Gospel is unloving and a form of disobedience. To experience the truth and love of Christ and not to share it with the rest of humanity is sinful. Robertson had a duty as Follow of Christ to speak out given the platform he was given, and he did so even if some consider his speech to be somewhat crude.

As a side note, my wife I believe made a great point on Phil Robertson’s supposed crudeness. Many of those who were most outraged by his rough and colorful language seemingly never speak out about the foul language used regularly on television. Somehow it’s inappropriate to speak about sexuality in a magazine article but it’s not inappropriate to take God’s name in vain repeatedly as a form of entertainment – a bit hypocritical don’t you think?  

The real problem “anti-taggers” have isn’t with people like Phil Robertson but with God and His Word. This is not to say I agree in totality with Phil Robertson on some of his doctrines, but I do agree with his view on the total depravity of man and his need for a Savior – the Savior Christ Jesus.

As a Christian it isn’t my desire to impose my lifestyle or beliefs upon another, nor is it my desire to have nonbelievers impose their lifestyles and beliefs upon me or the Church. It’s also not my desire to shut down debate but to encourage an open and honest dialogue with individuals from all walks of life. If we preach tolerance the let us practice it also. Tolerance is the ability to accept another human being without having to approve of their lifestyle and choices. We may not always agree, but we should always be able to discuss our differing views no matter how loud the conversation becomes.

Blessings,
Rod

In the brief video below Paul Washer brings some interesting thoughts to the table. I certainly believe, based upon what I've seen in the Church during the last 25 years, that many children and individuals have been given a false sense of security simply because they "prayed a prayer" at VBS or in Sunday School. Watch the video and then please share your thoughts.