from Ben's mom
Cal Thomas wrote a thought-provoking and controversial column on the futility of trying to turn back time in public education. There are several things in the column that I would like to comment on:
1) Thomas points out the incongruity of Christians with strong convictions about Creationism lying about their true intentions to get intelligent design in the public schools. It is interesting how easy it is for us to ignore one imperative God-given command in order to defend a tenet of our faith. I have found this to be baffling in the way many treat homosexuals and others who engage in sins we aren't so fond of. We can "hate" them or at least belittle their very humanity and make life difficult for them and ignore the commands throughout Scripture to love our enemies. I am no less guilty of this myself and I constantly battle with what to do with my convictions and how to love those who mock God. Ultimately, God came to earth and became one of us and in the process willingly gave up His power so that we could have free will. If He isn't concerned with His reputation, then perhaps I should focus my energy in the same direction He did. And certainly lying is not something He would encourage us to do.
2) Thomas dances around a key issue that brought about much of the problems we face today. Religious parents often failed to impart their beliefs, convictions, and the basis for those things to their children. They were too busy, or it was too difficult, to talk about faith, sex, origins, etc.... They left a lot of it up to the schools (and to churches who really fell down) and their kids walked away without their convictions and beliefs. Some of them talked, but failed to walk, and the hypocrisy was not lost on their kids who ultimately realized the belief wasn't THAT important. It is one thing for me to delegate the instruction of my child on particle physics, molecular biology, calculus and English literature to someone else. It is far different to delegate the teaching of the most important things: faith, relationships, personal responsibility to others.
3) Thomas is ready for parents of faith to give up on the public sphere and to either homeschool or send their kids to Christian schools. I am not quite there. I have too many public school teacher friends who have carefully (silently) encouraged the teaching of Christianity (child-to-child) in their classrooms. I know too many who have come to Christ out of secular homes because someone at school lived Christ before them and took them to church. While I am not ready to send my own child to public school, I would not completely eliminate that possibility. I think it is a question for much prayer. However, having said that, the curriculum that is being used in ALL schools (and homeschools) is something to consider. I don't get very excited about this realm. I don't relish the idea of reading my children's texts to see what kind of worldview is being thrust upon them. Even Christian schools fall prey to using some shoddy texts. I doubt I will find a perfect curriculum. Whether my child attends a public or private school, or I choose to homeschool, my husband and I will have a huge responsibility to know what he is being taught, and to be prepared to communicate our beliefs when they differ from his texts.
The culture may not be worth saving. But each and every child we encounter is worth our time. And if we commit to investing in our own children, there is hope for the culture.
5 comments:
On No. 1, regarding loving your enemies and homosexuals:
First, I have no disagreement that I am to love my enemies, i.e., my own personal adversaries. However, I think a different question is how I should treat God’s enemies. I don’t think Scripture, including the New Testament, instructs us to love God’s enemies. In fact, Jesus’ treatment of God’s enemies is consistent with the confession of the psalmist: “Do I not hate them, O Lord, that hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies.” (Ps. 139:21-22.) Just look at a some examples. When they accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, He contended with them by calling into question their own ability to cast out demons. He followed up by warning them that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could not be forgiven and called them a brood of vipers. (Matt. 12:22-37.) He defended the law and condemned their self-justification. (Luke 16:14-17.) He forcefully preached public condemnations against them for their false indoctrination of others (i.e., forcing their self-made standards on others) (Matt. 23:13-15), their self-made laws (Matt. 23:16-22), neglecting the weighty matters of biblical justice (Matt. 23:23), their sinful self-indulgence (Matt. 23:25), and their lawlessness (Matt. 23:28). When they asked for a sign, he called them an evil and adulterous generation. (Matt. 12:38-39.) He preached judgment against them in parables, which they understood to be directed against them. (Matt. 21:28-46.) He told the Sadducees they were wrong on their doctrines regarding marriage. (Matt. 22:23-33.)
Second, in discussions such as these, I think there is a tendency to fall into the hasty generalization fallacy. There are two types of homosexuals, and the distinction is important as it relates to loving your enemies/hating God’s enemies. The first is the homosexual who acknowledges that homosexuality is a sin, confesses it as such, and repents from it, though he might continue to struggle with it inwardly, as Paul describes in Romans 7 our constant struggle with sin in general. This one is much like the publican who, in Luke 18, would not so much as lift his eyes to heaven but smote upon his breast, saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” We should not count these types among the enemies of God.
The other type of homosexual is the one who, much like the Pharisees, refuses to acknowledge his own sin, and specifically, acknowledge homosexuality as sin. Rather, like the Pharisees, he would be justified in his own eyes by his own self-created law that homosexuality should be celebrated. Also much like the Pharisees, he wants to impose this self-made law on others by forcing them to embrace and “tolerate” his self-made standard.
In my own anecdotal experience, I have found that most Christians hold the animosity against the latter category homosexuals, not the former. While Christ may not have been concerned about His personal reputation, I think He was concerned about the reputation of His Father in the way He defended His Father’s reputation and His Father’s Law. Although you may have some other type of “homophobic” action in mind, we ought to follow the example of Jesus and contend with these by defending the reputation of the Father and His Law.
(Sorry about the length of the post)
Hey Guys, Just thought I would pitch in my 2 cents worth, I'll send the bill later...
I'm not sure it's wise to mimic the actions or feelings of David under all circumstances, it is Psalm 137 which says:
"O daughter Babylon, soon to be devastated!How blessed will be the one who repays you for what you dished out to us! How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies
and smashes them on a rock!"
...Perhaps a bit strong for our "present day" Christianity, but in the Bible nevertheless, should we follow those Biblical actions as well??
The Psalms, it seems to me, have more to do with talking to God, feelings, emotions, etc, and less to do with physical actions we should perpitrate (but thats just me, I would love to hear another opinion on that).
As far as Christ's condemnation of the Pharisees, I think we as Christians need to be careful never to -fully- judge another person. Christ is omniscient, we are NOT. Christ can fully see the hearts and eventual outcomes of the lives of every human being on this planet. However, we can NOT. Therefore, Christ can go around condemning people and calling them "broods of vipers" without the least bit of question in His mind as to the eventual salvation, or condemnation, of that individual. And, until we can do the same (which will be never), we must continue to show Christ's love to all people, at all times, in all places.
In the "For What it's Worth" column today...
Happy New Year to Yall.
AZ
In my reading of the New Testament, I have never noticed Jesus to be harsh with anyone but the religious authorities who thought they had it all together and could identify God's enemies and His friends. Jesus seemed particularly frustrated with this attitude. Indeed, he pointed out his reputation for being a "glutton and winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Luke 7:34). To the woman caught in adultery, He was kind. He told her to go and sin no more after telling her "neither do I condemn you." (John 8:11) What convicted her? His sermon or His campaign against adultery? It looks to me like it was his love. I have never known a sinner to repent and be saved because they were chastised, scorned, and alienated by Christians. And if it is God who convicts of sin, and we never know whom He has convicted, then we probably be on the safe side and be on the love side and the not the self-righteous condemning side. The Church has enough problems to work on to keep us busy for a long time. But in the meantime, if Jesus walked the earth today, whom would He have dinner with?
Drew:
Your first point confuses and intermingles two different issues. The issue I was addressing was the thoughts and feelings we ought to have towards the enemies of God, as well as the words we speak to them. The issue you appear to address are the actions we ought to take towards those enemies.
Psalm 137 does not describe the actions of the psalmist himself; nor is it a call to action. Rather, it expresses the thoughts and emotions of the psalmist with respect to the judgment of God as prophesied against Babylon. These thoughts and emotions are not condemned in Scripture. (Contrast with the thoughts of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar as recorded in the early chapters of Job but later condemned by God in Job 42:7-9.) Psalm 137 is thus consistent with a righteous hatred toward the enemies of God and is not “a bit strong for our ‘present day’ Christianity.”
On your second point, I agree that we ought not to condemn people, because it involves judging hearts, which only God can do. But sinful actions, as well as false doctrines, are entirely fair game for us, because God has given us a standard by which to judge them, as well as the ability to see, understand, and evaluate them. And we should not shy away from speaking strongly against sin and false doctrine. Christ was not the only one in the New Testament who had strong words for God’s enemies. John the Baptist also used the “brood of vipers” terminology in Matt. 3:7. Peter rebuked Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8:20-23, saying, “Your money perish with you ….” Throughout his epistles, Paul instructs us to constantly evaluate and cast out teachers of false doctrine.
The problem of the Pharisees is that they judged the actions of others for the sake of self-glorification and without helping the sinner find a way out. Christ preached repentance and forgiveness and pointed a way for the sinner, but that doesn’t mean He didn’t also judge the actions of the sinner. In fact, repentance and forgiveness both necessarily involve sin. Without sin, there is no repentance and there is no forgiveness. Today’s problems are different. Today, we want to eliminate the notion of sin, which nullifies Christ’s message of our need for repentance and forgiveness.
>>In my reading of the New Testament, I have never noticed Jesus to be harsh with anyone but the religious authorities who thought they had it all together and could identify God's enemies and His friends. >>
I think this describes liberal ideology and the homosexual movement, in particular. The homosexual movement (i.e., the latter category of homosexuals in my first post) think they have it all together and are self-righteous, calling "good" what God calls sin.
>>To the woman caught in adultery, He was kind. He told her to go and sin no more after telling her "neither do I condemn you." (John 8:11)>>
But in telling her to “go and sin no more,” He told her that her conduct was sinful. If Christ came today and told the homosexual movement to “go and sin no more,” their response today would be, “Sin? We’re not sinning,” and then He would be lambasted as a homophobe.
>>if Jesus walked the earth today, whom would He have dinner with?>>
While any answer to this rhetorical question is of course speculative, I think it would look a lot like groups such as Exodus International, who are “eating with” homosexuals and showing them a way out, not Lambda Legal Defense, who are trying, like the Pharisees were, to keep sinners entrapped and ought to be contended with.
Post a Comment