Is "bigot" the new "sinner"?

It seems that, at one point in history, you could tell someone that they were doing something wrong and they'd either agree, try to justify their behavior, or would apologize and quit doing it.  It seems that, anymore, you can't tell someone that they're doing something wrong.

For example: if you say that sex outside of marriage is wrong, then prepare to be called a prude, archaic, outdated, judgmental, and so on.  Now if you say that homosexual sex is wrong, then dear Lord are you going to be labeled: homophobe, bigot, intolerant, hateful, Nazi, KKK, and many other awesomely negative things. 

The irony here is that those who disagree with me (when I say that homosexual sex is wrong) are often the ones to escalate the hateful rhetoric.  I'm just saying what the Bible says pretty clearly.  It doesn't mean I hate gays; just because hetero sex outside of marriage is wrong doesn't mean I hate those people either.  They all need Jesus.  This makes me a hateful bigot, so they say. 

Does anyone else here see the irony, the hypocrisy behind saying, "you can't label people, you label-label, labeled, label label LABEL!"  I call someone a sinner (we are all sinners, by the way).  They call me a bigot.  I believe that "bigot" is the equivalent of "sinner" for the nonreligious. 

How does this advance the discussion?  How does this make them tolerant, open-minded, and accepting of all?  Because it's not tolerant (b/c they don't really want opposing views to exist), it's not open-minded (b/c they're not really interested in hearing the other side), and it's not accepting of all (b/c anyone who disagrees with them is evil, even though there really is no right and wrong, so they say).  This seems to be where decades of debate has led: if a gay person disagrees with me, I can respect that.  If I disagree with a gay person, I'm a hate-filled bigot.  Our society doesn't let you say anything is "wrong" anymore, except for saying that it's wrong to say that something is wrong.

Why I Suddenly Dislike Promise Keepers

I received a letter the other day from Promise Keepers, an end-of-the-year-gift-appeal letter to be exact.  The envelope in which it came was a zoomed-in section of this photo, taken by a pastor with his iPad at the Cedar Falls PK conference this year (which I attended with several men from my church, and you can see me in the photo below).  The photo was intended to be just a photo of a bunch of guys worshiping Jesus together at this men's rally.  However, after taking a closer look, the photographer noticed that in the center of the stage there appeared to be an angel manifested, right there in the center of the worship band.  PK picked up the photo and has gone berserk with it, using it for all kinds of publicity purposes, including this year-end fundraising letter and the envelope in which it arrived.

Here is the photo (with a terrible Photoshop job done by me to show you where I am in relation to the "angel"):

 The caption to the photo is a quotation from Matthew 1:20 (it's actually a part of Matthew 1:20): ". . . and the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. . .").  It appears again at the top of the letterhead with faux handwriting font pointing to it saying, "This is not a doctored photo!"  The entire appeal letter is focused on this "appearance" of the angel at the Cedar Falls conference, including this section of text:

God uses angels as messengers to convey phenomenal news.  And when God visits, the people feel extremely blessed.  Promise Keepers was blessed to receive a very special message from an angel this year.  We've suspected that angels joined us in worship, but now we have the photo. . . . men worshipped loudly, forcefully, vigorously, and whole-heartedly!  That's when the angel appeared, during the praise and worship as men confessed at the altar.

Here's THE MESSAGE that we believe God was sending through that angel - He is pleased with our depth of spiritual pursuit.  He is pleased with our focus on the Word of God.  He is pleased with the impact of the ministry of Promise Keepers. (all spelling, punctuation, and emphasis original)

The letter is "signed" by PK President and CEO, Raleigh B. Washington, and by Chariman Emeritus/Founder Bill McCartney.  I would hope that, like Mark Driscoll, they themselves did not write this but have a team of marketing people to write it.  At least then they could claim ignorance.

Several things drive me nuts about all this.  (btw, this is serving as a place to organize my thoughts before I write PK a letter of complaint)  One is their taking Matt. 1:20 out of context completely and using it in conjunction with the "angel" photo for fundraising purposes.  That verse describes what happened to Joseph after he learned that Mary was pregnant before they had been together as husband and wife.  Joseph planned to divorce her quietly, but an angel appeared to him in a dream to tell him the truth and to tell him not to be afraid to take Mary home as his wife.  It was a one-time, unique appearance for a specific purpose, and it has nothing to do with what happened in CF.  Additionally, PK has never (to my knowledge) played it safe with this image with a statement such as, "while this is probably a well-timed capture of a lens flare + reflection of the stage light on the floor, if it is an angel, then . . . cool!"  From the moment this photo was made public, PK has loudly and carelessly flaunted it as proof of angels at PK conferences and has commented on their facebook page with numerous other Scriptures taken out of context because they have the word "angel" in them (such as Psalm 34:7: "The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them.").  They have done nothing to prevent a hyperbolic, superstitious, blind acceptance of an obvious photographic light effect.  Talk about a confirmation bias!

 They have embarrassed themselves and Christians in general who also will fight tooth and nail for its "obvious" angelic reality.  Listen, people: I was there.  I had a great line of sight to the entire stage.  There was a moving spotlight behind the keyboardist (under the arrow) that was shining in the direction of the photographer.  You can see similar lights (an orange-ish and a pink-ish one as you move from right to left at that same height) on the stage, some of which are the same color as the "angel"!  (For example, look just above the guy in the orange shirt by the American flag) Why does that fact escape these people?  And why would an angel only appear in one man's camera, when there were undoubtedly hundreds of other photos taken about that same time but from different angles?  If there were an angel (one that, apparently, can only be seen by cameras), why aren't there more photos?


Here is a photo I took during the Lincoln Brewster concert (he used the existing lights and did not set up his own):

 

 To the right, you can see one of the swivel lights on top of a large box.  That is the light shining in the photog's eyes in the angel pic.  Yes, the lights can change color.  (You could almost argue that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove in this photo, right behind Lincoln Brewster at center stage!)

I suppose what irks me the most is the combination of the fact that the angel photo is easily explainable as a case of strong lights+perfect timing/angle, and the fact that PK is using this for pure propaganda, now including a shameless "you should give us money because, look, an ANGEL appeared (to one person's iPad) at one of our conferences (not any others), which clearly can mean only one thing: God endorses PK's mission."

Do I believe that PK is a good ministry to men?  Yes.  Do I believe that they should keep doing conferences?  Yes.  Their message is absolutely right: be the man God called you to be - love, cherish, serve your wife and family, be there for them, be sexually pure, be bold for Christ.  But do I believe they should advertise, promote, and fundraise with this photo?  Absolutely not.

It's desperate.

It's ignorant.

It's embarrassing.

It's manipulative.

PK, you can do so much better than that.  I'm really disappointed.

Abortion and the argument of implantation

I've heard pro-abortionists argue that the embryo is not a person until it implants itself on uterus.  The argument generally goes like this: the process from conception to implantation on the wall of the uterus takes several days.  Beyond that, some 20-50% of embryos miscarry prior to implantation.  Once the embryo does implant, it sends out hormones to “signal” its attachment which also ceases the mother’s menstrual cycle.  Therefore, it is ridiculous to think that every embryo is a person.  Therefore, the embryo is not a person.

In response to this decisive moment being the moment when personhood is achieved, we can say a couple of things.  First, if it were universally agreed upon that personhood begins at implantation, then there would hardly be any abortions except for the spontaneous kind, which are also known as miscarriages.  However, personhood is not dependent on other people (in this case, the mother’s body) being aware of it by the hormone signal it produces.   Most people in the world are not aware that I exist; am I therefore not a person?

Second, the essence of the nature of the embryo is not dependent on how many of its kind survive.  Just because a large number of pre-implantation embryos do not survive does not change what it is in its essence.  Those that do miscarry die natural deaths are not being aborted in the same way as is what’s being debated in our country these days.  By the way, 100% of all people die.

Are you really saying that the potentially millions of frozen embryos are real people, just like you and me, with rights?  If so, why aren't you trying to save them?

Yes, I'm saying that.  It doesn't matter how incredulous you feel about the logic of it; what matters is whether the embryo is a person, and in every way that matters (i.e., the embryo is genetically distinct and alive) it is.  This is why I'm against embryonic stem cell research and am alarmed at the cavalier way fertilization treatments make dozens of embryos without ever intending to implant them all.  A pro-life couple can use IVF if they're willing to eventually implant all the embryos made for them (not necessarily all at once) and at least give them the same chance at development as a naturally-conceived embryo.

And in the way in which I'm capable, I am trying to save them by trying to change people's minds about what embryos are: very small, undeveloped human beings, but human beings nonetheless.

The argument of implantation fails to be valid because it defines one's essence by other people's awareness of its existence, and it arbitrarily assigns personhood to whether most of its kind survive.  

Abortion and the Argument of Pain

So I preached a sermon about abortion last Sunday (which you can listen to here).  It's far from perfect, and I feel I left out some important things (such as the effects of abortion on fathers), but the aim was not to attack women; rather, the aim was to attack the arguments used by pro-abortionists, which usually center around the woman and her rights.  Here, and in a few forthcoming entries, I want to state why I do not think any of the most common pro-abortion arguments are valid.  

Let's start with this one, one I recently saw in the comments section of a very edgy Matt Walsh blog article which goes roughly like this: I hear what you pro-lifers are saying, but before a certain point in its development, the fetus cannot even feel pain.  So abortion doesn't even hurt the so-called "baby."  This argument is ridiculous because, as ethicist Scott Rae points out, it confuses the experience of harm with the reality of harm.  If I were paralyzed from the waist down, and you cut off my legs, I would not feel pain, but could we say that there was therefore no harm done?  If I am anesthetized for surgery, and the doctor slips and pokes a hole in my heart, I didn't feel it - did he hurt me or not?  Harm is done when YOU hurt someone; it doesn't matter if they feel it or not.  Hurting someone does not depend on them feeling the pain of the harm done. 

This argument does not answer the question, "Is abortion wrong?"  It answers only the question, "How much pain will the baby feel when she is killed?"  

To which I ask, "Does it matter?"  We need to shift the focus of the discussion away from questions of convenience to questions of essence.  Convenience questions are questions such as is this child wanted?, is the woman/girl ready to be a mother?, will the fetus feel pain?, is the fetus viable?, etc.  Essence questions are is the embryo/fetus a human person or not?, what is the difference between a baby who has completely exited the birth canal and one that has only exited up to its head?, why is the killing of a healthy, 8-month-old fetus justified on the basis of concerns for the mother's health (which is defined arbitrarily by her physician)?

It's all about what the embryo/fetus is.  If it is not a person, then no justification for abortion is necessary.  If it is a person, then no justification is adequate.

Porn: Marriage and Integrity Killer

Yesterday I preached a sermon about pornography and how Christians should stand against it.  In my research for this topic (which was all done under the watchful eye of a trusted accountability partner), I came across miserable stat after miserable stat that left me frustrated and angry.  There are many lies that people buy into about porn in order to justify their use of it, but no justification is sufficient to conclude that porn is harmless entertainment and doesn't hurt anybody.

Here are some stats I found (mostly from Covenant Eyes and several of their research projects): (Note: p = pornography; it was shorthand in my research notes)

Worldwide

-       -More than 1.6 billion searches for porn so far this year

-       -1 in 5 mobile searches are for p

-       -24% of smartphone users admit to having p on their handset (and of that group, 84% say their significant other didn't know about it)

-       -Political persuasion doesn't make any difference; all political groups use p at about the same rate

-      - There are nearly 2 million p sites

-       -In a 2008 online survey of over 560 college students, 93% of boys and 62% of girls were exposed to p before 18.  Nearly 75% say their parents had never discussed Internet P with them.

o   In a 2009 survey of 29,000 college students, 51% of males and 32% of female students first viewed P before their teenage years.

-       -In a 2004 report from Message Labs, 70% of IP traffic occurs between 9-5, when most people are at work.

In the Church of Jesus Christ

-       "If you think you can't fall into sexual sin, then you're godlier than David, stronger than Samson, and wiser than Solomon."  - Bill Perkins

-      - Regular church attenders are 26% less likely to look at p than non-attenders, but those self-identified as "fundamentalists" are 91% MORE likely to look at p.

-     -  A 2006 survey reported that 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women view p regularly.

Effects on marriage and family

-       -Prolonged exposure to P leads to:

o   An exaggerated perception of sexual activity in society

o   Diminished trust between intimate couples

o   The abandonment of the hope of sexual monogamy

o   Belief that promiscuity is the natural state

o   Belief that abstinence and sexual inactivity are unhealthy

o   Belief that marriage is sexually confining

o   Lack of attraction to family and to child-raising

-     -  In 2002, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported that

o   56% of divorces involved one party having "an obsessive interest in p websites."

o   33% involved excessive time spent speaking in chat rooms.

-       -"Never before in the history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene) material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions." (US Dept. of Justice)

-      - in 2004, 70 million individuals visit p sites each week, 11 million of them are younger than 18.

-       -Nearly 2/3 of parents do not use online parental controls or filtering software.

 

Amusement and the god of entertainment

Sometimes I feel like I could preach for an hour on a particular topic.  I'm pretty sure I'm the only one at church who feels that way, but some topics can easily be soapboxes for me.  This past Sunday, I preached on the god of entertainment (we are in a series on false gods).*  In doing an early Sunday morning run through of the sermon, it quickly became apparent that this sermon was way too long for me, coming in at nearly 40 minutes (I try not to preach more than 30, with rare exceptions).  So the difficult question surfaced: what do I have to cut to get this down to 25 minutes?  This is probably a good situation in which to find yourself; it's better than having to face the question, "What can I add to get this up to the right length?"  If you find yourself with a 10-minute sermon and you can't think of anything else to add, it's going to be a tough time for you sermonically.

So the gist of the sermon was this: entertainment is a gift from God, but it becomes an idol when it diverts and distracts us to the point that our most important relationships suffer.  The main part that was cut was a section on the concept of "amusement."  Here it is:

     Many forms of entertainment we seek because we want to be amused.  I never realized what the word "amusement" meant.  The Muses, according to Greek mythology, are the personification of knowledge and the arts: literature, dance, music, science, geography, math, philosophy, drama, and inspiration.  Music is an art of the Muses, and a museum used to be where you'd go to worship the Muses.  They were all about thoughtfulness, reflection, and creativity. 
     Now when you take a Greek word and put an "a" on the front of it, it negates the word.  It makes the difference between "theist" (someone who believes God exists) and "atheist" (someone who believes God does not exist).  Therefore, the word amusement basically means the lack of thoughtfulness, reflection, and creativity. 
     There's nothing wrong with a good laugh; it can help us cope with things that would otherwise drive us crazy.  But I have to wonder, does the god of entertainment really want to help us or hurt us?  Are we, as Neil Postman so aptly titles his book, amusing ourselves to death?  TV, movies, games, social media all promise to add value to your life - but they take it from you, one hour, one game, one newsfeed at a time.  We sit in front of the TV and say, "there's nothing on!"  maybe what we mean is "meaningless!  Meaningless!  It's all meaningless!"  As Kyle Idleman writes, "never in the history of humanity has there been so much entertainment and so little satisfaction."

* - shout out to Kyle Idleman for his excellent book Gods At War: Defeating the Idols that Battle for Your Heart (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013).

"Into this world"

I have an honest question for those who assert that abortion should be allowed at any time before birth (although this question also applies to those who only support abortion up to a certain point) because, if a person doesn't want to, they shouldn't have to "bring a child into this world."  My question is this: isn't the baby already in the world?  Just because you can't see an unborn baby (with the naked eye; you CAN see her with ultrasounds) doesn't mean that she isn't "in the world" already.  They are behind some layers of skin and muscle, not in another dimension.