Conscience, Religious Liberty, and Discrimination

**Warning: Some graphic language and terms are used in order to communicate a point, the language and tone of these examples do not reflect my personal feelings or views or that of The Journey Church or other organizations I represent

A huge issue being discussed right now in the national media and within Christendom is religious liberty versus discrimination. The gay marriage debate is front and center, once again, and the subject now is over religious freedom to decline services to same-sex partners or whether it is discrimination. 

I do not pretend that this is an easy issue. But it is an important one. 

The debate centers around Christian conscience of assisting or performing services for a same-sex marriage. This is not about whether a burger joint owned by Christians should serve homosexuals at their counters. This is not about whether a gym owned by Christians should allow homosexuals to be members. This is about asking business owners or service providers to provide a service that directly violates their conscience. 

For example: there have already been cases around the country of florists, bakers, and photographers being fined by the government for refusing to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies due to their Christian convictions. The government is currently making decisions and legislation that would force these businesses to provide services and violate their conscience. 

There has been much written about this as of late. Trevin Wax writes particularly about the violation of conscience here. Al Mohler writes here about the coercion of the government to force people to do things against their religious liberties. Doug Wilson writes here in response to two journalists who write and compare not serving homosexuals as Jim Crow laws. Joe Carter writes here about why the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage is not the same as race and civil rights. You can go and read these articles to gain more understanding of the issues at hand here.

The way I would like to end this post is to share why I'm personally concerned about our trajectory. Our government is rapidly falling in line with the narrative that to decline services to someone for religious convictions is insufficient and only a cover up for discrimination. This bothers me because I can see a day when someone contacts me about renting our church to have a same-sex marriage and/or asking me to perform the ceremony. We would decline both requests for such services. What happens when this is reported to civil authorities as discrimination and/or a hate crime or violation of civil rights, and the church, including myself, are fined, penalized, and even prosecuted? 

I am not homophobic. I have friends who are professing homosexuals. I do not agree with this lifestyle based on my religious convictions and worldview. However, I will eat in the same restaruant with them. I will workout on the same machines and equipment. I will use the same pool. I will root for them when they make a tackle, hit a jumper, or throw a no-hitter. They are welcome to attend our church's worship gatherings. However, to ask me to endorse, support, or contribute to their being married, violates my conscience and convictions. But it appears we are on track for the government to say, "Too bad." 

Consider some parallel situations and ask whether it is appropiate for services to be performed:

-- a lesbian couple who owns a sign shop are asked to create a banner for an anti-gay rally that says, "Fags go to hell!" Should they be forced to create this sign?

-- a black family who owns a bakery are given an order for a cake that reads, "Happy 150th Anniversary Ku Klux Klan: Death to all Nigers." Should this family be reasonably expected to make this cake without pause or hesitation or are they discriminating?

-- a Jewish family who owns a kosher restaurant is asked to supply an order of smoked ham. Are they forced to violate conscience because they are a public restaurant or are they discriminating against us pork lovers?

-- a feminist bookstore owner is asked to carry a book by a guy who constantly slams women, refers to them as "bitches," and writes insistently on how the only uses for a woman are sex and carrying babies. Should she be made to sell and promote such a book in her store or is she discriminating?

-- a pacifist movie theatre owner is asked to show a documentary supporting and propagating war called "The Beauty of War." Is he to violate his conscience or is he discriminating?

-- a Muslim family who owns a tee shirt print company is asked to produce shirts which read, "Jesus is Lord, Muhammad's a Liar." Is the family expected to go along with this or would it be discrimination to decline?

The purpose of some of these graphic scenarios is position us to see what is at stake here. In each one of these examples, I believe the business owners are within their rights to decline services. I do not believe any of them should be forced to violate their conscience and convictions, regardless of whether the pressure is from the public or the government. 

We are not dealing with bigotry and discrimination. I do not know any thoughtful and devout Christians who are homophobic or consumed with making homosexuals miserable. The charge often leveled against Christians is we are consumed with this issue. I'm not consumed with this. I do not desire to spend significant time writing or speaking about it. However, when it is constantly pushed in your face by the media, the gay activists, and the government, then Christians have to speak up. We do not want to violate our conscience. It is not discrimination. It is not a race issue. It is not bigotry. It is about our convictions and the religious liberty to live those. If we do not have that, then our country is but a faint shadow of what we once were, and my own military service to uphold our freedoms seems in vain.

if you believe others can benefit from reading, share with it with them 

Defining Christianity Like An Atheist Than A Christian

As odd as it may sound, I actually enjoyed listening to the ranting and fodder of the late Christopher Hitchens. I disagreed with nearly everything he taught, but he was likeable and witty, which made him easy to listen to. Hitchens spoke out regularly against religious beliefs, Christianity in particular. He would often debate Christians in university settings, on radio programs, and he appeared on television programs representing atheism, and his particular brand - anti-theism.

On one occasion Hitchens was interviewed on a radio program where a minister from the Unitarian Church, Marilyn Sewell, was talking with him about a book he wrote called God is Not Great. In the book Hitchens paints God as a monster. So Sewell - who seemed to think her and Hitchens were on the same side - implies that Hitchens only seems to be talking about the “fundamentalist” Christians, you know those who believe the Bible, that Jesus lived, died on the cross, and rose again. But she and her denomination don’t believe in all that, they celebrate the example of Jesus and the way of love. Listen to what she asks Hitchens, and his response:

Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian…

From the mouth of an atheist we see very clearly there are certain beliefs, facts, and particular knowledge claims that Christians hold, that to not hold them, excludes you from defining yourself as a Christian. I would go beyond Hitchens description and add to the list.

Christians believe from the Scriptures that: 

-- God is Triune: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
-- We believe that God is Creator of all and is holy and righteous in all His ways
-- We believe that man was created by God for relationship and to bring God glory, but all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
-- We believe this sin condemns us before God and puts us at odds with Him, separating us from relationship
-- But we believe God, in His love, sent forth His Son to reconcile sinful man to Himself by lifting the curse off of us and punishing it on the head of His own Son as a substitute in our place
-- We believe that Christ, who was crucified was also raised on the third day, and that his resurrection is the justification of who he was, what he taught, and evidence His Father had accepted his sacrifice for sinners
-- We believe that all who place their faith in the sacrifice makes for sinners will be saved and made children of God, reconciled to relationship

Christianity is not what you want to make it. Because Christianity is a knowledge tradition, it is not simply a set of religious beliefs. Christianity makes claims about reality (metaphysics), not just religious claims.

The two most common groups to misrepresent and/or redefine Christian beliefs are atheists, who love to create straw man versions of Christianity, and liberal Christians, who retract doctrines that have grown out of favor with the culture. Both of these groups define Christianity wrongly, assuming it is a define-it-for-yourself endeavor. The problem is, one of these groups openly acknowledges they are not Christians, while the other group is deceived in thinking they are. So while I would add much more to my definition than Hitchens did to his, I would rather define Christianity like he did than like Sewell. In this case, I would rather define Christianity like an atheist than a "Christian."

share this article with others by using the buttons below

Using Satan's Glasses To Interpret Scripture

Everyone is a bible interpreter. If you have ever quoted a verse or referenced something Jesus said, you are doing interpretation. The question is not whether we are bible interpreters, it is whether we are good interpreters.

Bible interpretation is the discipline known as hermeneutics. There is a right way of doing interpretation and a wrong way of doing interpretation. There are hermeneutic rules such as 1. always interpret Scripture with Scripture and 2. interpret Scripture in its proper context, and the often forgotten task 3. look for authorial intent. These and other principles are guidelines and guardrails to prevent the Wild Wild West of bible interpretation (see more on that here).  

The Devil's Interpretation

The danger I want to warn us of, is reading the Bible like Satan. Satan knows the Bible. He likely has more verses memorized than you do, and me for that matter. Yet this does not mean that Satan rightly or correctly interprets Scripture. We saw Satan distort God's words in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3. God said one thing, Satan said something completely different.  Man becomes the victim.

But perhaps the most clear example is found in Matthew 4. In Matthew 4 Jesus has just been baptized and is led into the wilderness by the Spirit. There he will be tempted and tried. Satan appears to Jesus after he has gone 40 days and nights without food. He comes and challenges Jesus to turn stones into bread. Jesus doesn't go for it. But then Satan moves to his next temptation, but this time he uses Scripture. In Matthew 4:6 Satan says to Jesus as they stand at the pinnacle of the temple, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you,' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"

Well there you have it, I guess Jesus has to jump. After all, Satan has shown from Scripture (Ps. 91:11-12) that Jesus should jump because angels will be there and will keep him from striking his foot. But Jesus doesn't jump. Instead, Jesus counters Satan's use of Scripture with another passage (Deut. 6:16), "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" In other words, Jesus interprets Scripture with Scripture when he tells Satan he's not jumping off the temple. He shows that Satan's conclusions are invalid, because the passage is not quoted in context. Jesus exhibits here how Bible interpretation should be done. 

Don't Use the Bible Like Satan

Unfortunately, many people today don't take heed to this example. Instead, countless thousands pluck Bible verses kicking and screaming out of their contexts to make or prove any point. However, this is not permissible. We don't have the option of using Scripture any ole' way we want. 

One of the ways I have seen this developing in our culture is the use of passages like 1 Corinthians 13 and 1 John 4:8. In this former passage, we see Paul outline the way of love in the Christian life. He speaks to how love must accompany all of our actions. In the latter passage, we see John declare that anyone who does not love is not from God, because God is love. So these two passages, and a few others, are often tossed out in public square conversations, even in Christian-to-Christian conversation, to negate speaking out against sinful actions. These passages are used as an attempt to muzzle into silence a Christian who is speaking out against sin. The often heard retort is, "Well, I know you are saying that X is wrong, but the Bible also says that God is love, so I just think we should focus on loving people." Now don't get me wrong, loving people is important, but what that statement attempted to do is produce an action - in this case, silencing the believer who is vocalizing the sinfulness of an action - by using other passages of Scripture. Does this look familiar?

The Bible exhorts believers to stand for the truth. Interestingly, Jesus, the most loving of all humans to ever live, had no problem calling out sin. Yes, he loved people and was merciful, but he did not tap-dance around the issues of the day in order to win the crowds affections. Another fascinating part of this is the reality that the verses used from Paul (1 Corinthians 13) and John (1 John 4:8) come from guys who do the very thing (call out sin) that those who cite their verses are trying to urge against. For example, John, the same John who wrote that God is love, is also the same guy who wrote in the same book(!) the words of 1 John 1:6 "If we say we have fellowship with him (God) while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." Or consider this doozy in 1 John 3:6 "No one who abides in him (God) keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him." As you can see, to use verses from these guys to promote this idea that we should not speak out against sin, is to be deceptively selective in choosing verses, because they do the very thing you are using them to silence others from doing.

It is not loving to remain silent when people are sinning their way straight to hell. It is neither loving or noble to silence believers who are daring to show courage in the face of a culture and church that are not. Yes, believers should be tactful and wise as serpents and gentle as doves in the way they approach speaking out against sin. But when believers are quoting Scripture to other believers to produce an action that the particular passage doesn't warrant, it's wrong. By the way, this is how the Devil does Bible interpretation. It is time Christians stop using Satan's glasses to read Scripture.


if you believe this article is helpful and would be beneficial for others, share by using the buttons below

The Joke Is On Us

Ah danggit, we've been duped!! 

Go ahead and admit it, we fell for it. The joke is on us, and you know what, we deserve it. 

What am I talking about, you wonder? I'm talking about the lie we bought when we fell for the idea that moral absolutes were a thing of the past that everyone had outgrown. You remember, don't you? Christians were lectured by everyone about how morals were not absolute, but varied from culture to culture. Remember the rhetoric? We can't impose our views on others, it is wrong. We were made to feel like the scum of the earth for projecting our "superior" moral standards on those who have the right to do what they think is right for them. It is their life, as long as they are not bothering us. 

Do we all remember this narrative which circulated over recent years?

Now open your eyes and look where we are. The tables have turned. Those whose moral standards used to pace the culture, are now the one's having the absolute morality of the others pushed down their throats to point of asphyxiation. Like the revolutionary leader who stirs up the masses against the wicked king, only to become a harsher dictator once he's assumed power, so have the once "liberators" of tyrannical moralists become the tyrants themselves.

Proof In The Pudding

Take for example the upcoming Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. The games will be held in February and many Americans will compete against the best in other countries in all sorts of sports and events.

But in case you forgot, there was talk about the United States not participating in the Olympic Games. Do you remember why? Because in the summer of last year (2013), Russia passed a law against any public displays or expressions of homosexuality or distribution of information about homosexuality to children. Americans, especially news outlets, politicians, and activists (examples here, here, and here), were outraged at such bigoted, intolerant actions. They called for boycotts of the Olympics, even Russian vodka. Many took to the streets pouring out Russian vodka (that'll show'em!) to protest such laws. They could not believe anyone had the nerve to violate the moral ethic of approving and even celebrating homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle. How draconian!

Interestingly, this Russian bill passed with a vote of 436-0. The reasons they stated for creating the legislation was to promote traditional Russian values as opposed to Western liberalism, which they see as corrupting Russian youth. According to the American narrative, we should respect that, right? It is their culture. That's what's right for them. Who are we to say what is right for them? Who are we to impose our moral judgments over their country?

Do you sniff the hypocrisy dripping from the American outcry? I thought we believed that morality was not legislated by any group of people, but rather it was relative to each culture? I thought what was good for them is good for them and what is good for us is good for us? Surely we are not inserting ourselves as Russia's moral police, right? After all, the same people upset over Russia's anti-gay laws would be the same people unwillingly to go to war over injustices like tyrannical governments killing its citizens. We don't want to be the world's policemen when it comes to saving lives, but if it comes down to who you can have sex with, then sure, we are there with our blue lights flashing and our sirens ringing.

Unbelievable, But Not Really

So let us say it together, "We. Were. Duped." They pulled one over on us pretty good. We were made to feel like the outdated grandpa who had longed lost his pulse on reality and "the way things are today," only to see those who tore down our belief in absolute morals, build their own version to stand from and cry the absoluteness of it. 

The joke is on us, but I don't see any of us laughing.


share with others by using the buttons below

The Calamity of Conceding Our Voice

It is safe to say that I will probably not be giving any Presidential Inauguration prayers in my lifetime. Is it possible I could be invited? Sure, I guess it is. But it is probably just as possible that I'll lead a space mission to explore Jupiter or be the next skipper of the Chicago Cubs to lead them to a World Series title (side note: we will probably be inhabiting condos on Jupiter before any skipper leads the Cubs to a World Series title). Bottom line: I don't have to worry about being asked for this honorable task.

But let's pretend for a moment that I was asked. Let's imagine for a moment that for some reason, some newly elected president had heard of me or knew me - it would probably have to be a hometown friend, but growing up in Lebanon, TN probably rules this theory out too - and wanted me to give the Inauguration Day prayer. Wow! What a privilege! What an honor! What an opportunity! It's ashamed I wouldn't be allowed to do it. 

"Why wouldn't you be allowed to do it?," you wonder. Legally speaking (at least right now), nothing would be able to keep me from doing it. However, the censorship police and mafia-like bullies represented by organizations like GLADD and others like them, would quickly pounce on the president-elect's choice of having me give the prestigious prayer. Why? Because I have written, spoken, and support the Bible's teachings on homosexuality being a sin. This would disqualify me for such a role in our ever-changing culture. The track-record is proving this.

The Silencing of Christians

Consider what happened to Pastor Louie Giglio in January of 2012. Giglio was asked by President Barak Obama to give the Inauguration Day prayer. Incredible! One of my guys (conservative evangelical) is given an incredible platform and opportunity. Yet, quickly after the announcement was made, Giglio rescinded the offer and issued a statement. He cited not wanting to be a distraction from the Inauguration. Giglio had been asked to participate because of his amazing work with Passion and leading a movement to end sex-trafficking and slavery around the world. What in the world could possibly make Louie Giglio offering a prayer a "distraction" on Inauguration Day? 

Are you ready for this? He preached a sermon speaking against homosexuality 15-20 years prior. There you have it. The censonship police and mafia-like bullies went rummaging through Giglio's past, searching tirelessly to find their silver bullet. They found it. A message where Giglio affirms Scripture's teachings on the sinfulness of same-sex practices. Hence, I will probably never be doing an Inauguration Day prayer.

While we are eliminating things I will never do, we can add being on a reality tv show now, especially on A&E. With the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty dust-up last week, we were reminded again that Christians are not allowed speak out or against homosexuality.  

The Bully Tactics

How did these things happen? How did Giglio get pressured into rescinding his invitation? How did A&E succumb to pressure to suspend Robertson? The answer: from the pressure of groups like GLADD and others. Their mission is to target and eliminate all views that oppose homosexuality. They intentionally target news media and entertainment media to push their agenda and to rid any conservative or biblical values on the subject from the discussion. 

How are they able to do this? Simple: they bully. They, along with the media, and others with liberal ideology, revert to bully tactics. They are not interested in rational conversation where ideas are exchanged and debated. They have one agenda: exalt their idea and demolish opposing ones. They have succeeded in winning some public opinion, not because they have debated ideas well, but because they have castigated their opponents. They name call: bigot, homophobe, racist, intolerant, judgmental, hate-monger. That's the strategy. Yet interestingly, amidst all the name-calling, they never provide evidence to back their accusations. This is classic bullying.

And before you are duped into thinking that the pro-choice, pro-homosexual movements are about tolerance, multiculturalism, and diversity, consider the truth. They are not tolerant of any view but theirs. GLADD exists to rid the media and entertainment of different views. Multiculturalism is a sham too. They do not want a culture with multiple streams of beliefs and values. Again, they want one - theirs. And if it is not self-evident already, diversity is not a value either. The conservative, Bible-believing Christian's ideas are not welcome or wanted by those on the left. There is no desire for a diversity of ideas; it's all lip service. It is a smoke-screen. It sounds good. But it is empty of any substance. 

Draw a Line in the Sand

At a time when Christians need to be speaking out, we find ourselves with a serious case of laryngitis. We have lost our voices. Many are silenced out of ignorance, they simply do not know what to say or how to say it. Others are silenced out of choice. The former issue is corrected through being taught about the issues and shown how to engage in them. The latter is only fixed when we get courage. Many do not want to speak out because they fear being rejected and/or persecuted by men. Many thought leaders in the evangelical world are making it a mark of spiritual maturity or gospel-nobleness to not fight this fight. I think they are wrong. (Doug Wilson makes a stinging case about this)
 
We need Christians and churches who stand strong and intelligently proclaim truth. We need not make homosexuality are only focus; however, we refuse to be bullied into silence. We need Christians who demand their pastors and leaders not be cowards. One of the saddest parts of the Giglio story often not discussed is the fact that detractors of Giglio had to search back 15-20 years to even find a sermon where he dealt with this issue. This issue has been raging in the culture for sometime now, and that type of extended silence is why we are in this current cultural landscape. It is a calamity to concede our voice. The church, which is made up of believers, needs to learn to speak again. 

The Voices of Saints From Old

Listen to Martin Luther's famous words when pushed to recant his beliefs that went against the power-structure of the Catholic Church: 

"Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

Consider Calvin's words: 

“A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."

In a sermon Charles Spurgeon preached about the jeer of critics he said:

"Whenever the world reproaches you, say, "Well, I thank you for that word, I will strive to deserve it and you shall be more displeased, if you will. If it be a vile thing to serve Christ, I will serve him more than I have ever done, and be viler still; if it be disgraceful to be numbered with the poor, tried, and afflicted people, I will be disgraced. Nay, the more disgraced I am, the more happy shall I be; I shall feel that disgrace is honor, that ignominy is glory, that shame and spitting from the lips of enemies, is but the same thing as praise and glory from the mouth of Christ." Instead of yielding, go forward, show your enemies that you do not know how to go back, that you are not made of the soft metal of these modern times."

And later in the sermon,

"I pray God to send a few men with what the Americans call "grit" in them; men who when they know a thing to be right, will not turn away, or turn aside, or stop; men who will persevere all the more true to their Master because they are opposed; who, the more they are thrust into the fire, the hotter they become; who, just like the bow, the further the string is drawn, the more powerfully will it send forth its arrows, and so, the more they are trodden upon, the more mighty will they become in the cause of truth against error."

I'm afraid Mr. Spurgeon's desire for his London congregation to reflect American "grit" would be unfounded today. We have lost our "grit," at least in the church. Yes, we are to preach the gospel. But we are also to speak truth to the culture we live in. Preaching the gospel should not be our excuse to sitting on the sidelines while our culture is imploding. The church needs a recovery of her voice. It begins with her leaders. It will then spill into the rest of the seats. If the leaders will not speak and lead the way, then the church needs to find new leaders. May God give us the courage to clear our throats for such a time as this.


Want to exercise your voice? Share these thoughts with others via Facebook & Twitter using the buttons below

You're a Christian, huh? Hmm...

 I know what some of you were already thinking as you read the title of this post, "Who are you judge who is or who is not a Christian?" This is a natural question to ask, I suppose, but I do not believe it is really what you are asking. "Who are you to judge," is really seeking to find out by what authority I can make a definitive claim about somebody being a Christian or not. The answer to that question is easy: nobody. I'm nobody. I do not carry any inherent authority which makes what I say the rule of the day. However, before you type another domain into your browser and move on, that does not dismiss the issue.

Just because I am nobody, and lack inherent authority in myself, does not mean the right to identify as Christian is a free-for-all. Fundamentally, "Who are you to judge," is the wrong question. The more appropriate questions begging to be asked: is there any way to judge who is or who is not a Christian? Is there an objective standard by which Christians can be identified or is it simply a subjective endeavor? I believe the Bible and historic, orthodox Christianity answers without hesitation: yes, there is an objective standard!

So what?

Why do I raise this issue? We currently live in a cultural climate of debate and division over many hot-topic issues. Things including homosexuality and abortion are a couple of mainstream examples. In the midst of many of these debates the line drawn is between Christian beliefs vs secular beliefs. As a Christian, I find myself distinctively on one side of the dividing line in these arguments. Yet surprisingly, I often will have someone who is taking a stance distinctively rooted in secular philosophy claim to be a Christian. This makes no sense to me. 

**WARNING: This is the point in the article where your modern sensibilities may get aggravated, a seat belt or bit in your mouth may assist you in finishing** 

For someone to claim they are Christian, though they hold distinctly non-Christian views and have non-Christian behavior patterns, is absurd. Again, this raises the vitriol of folks to say, "Who are you to say?" My previous answer remains, "nobody," but that doesn't void my claim. There is a standard, an objective standard, by which a Christian can be deciphered. We do not make or move that standard. It is given through Scripture's revelation and teaching. "Yeah, but interpreting the Bible is so subjective; one group believes this way and another group that way," you quip. However, again, there is an objective standard on interpreting the Bible. You do not approach the Bible and impose your view on to it (though many do), there are rules and guidelines which inform interpretation (this is the discipline and field of hermeneutics).

But back to my point. To claim to be a Christian, while holding very clearly stated (from Scripture) non-Christian beliefs and behaviors, is a contradiction. The Bible would call this person a hypocrite. The word 'hypocrite' is from a Greek word meaning 'actor.' In other words, people who claim to be Christian while holding non-Christian beliefs and behaviors are actors. They are posers. Pretenders. I'm not afraid to say this. It may ruffle your feathers and send your politically correct alarms off, but it is only because you have been conditioned to respond this way. In actuality, it's nonsense, and there needs to be a recovery of the ability to call out nonsense. 

An Analogy

Suppose you met a guy at a crowded dinner party and proceeded to strike up a conversation. The two of you have a lot in common and are mutually enjoying the conversation. But at some point in the discussion he informs you he is a football player for the Tennessee Titans. He claims he is a tight end for the Titans, your favorite NFL team. You think to yourself, "this is amazing." Eventually the conversation is halted by his need to go to the bathroom and he lets you know he'll be right back. In your excitement, you pull your phone out and begin looking up the Titans roster to find your new pal (and to send out texts and tweets bragging to your friends). However when you pull it up, he's not there. You keep digging and looking, you search Google, nothing, he's nowhere to be found. You scan NFL.com, which lists every NFL player, nothing.

You think to yourself, "I bet none of his information has been loaded to the internet yet." No you don't. You think to yourself, "I've been duped." Most of you, if this happened to you, would conclude very quickly, this guy was a fraud. He was a pretender. He claimed to be a NFL player with the Tennessee Titans; however, all the things that objectively determine that (a contract, access to team facilities, on the team roster) are missing.

Your fake NFL player friend returns and begins to strike up conversation again. At this point you are attempting to probe deeper into his identity and whether he is telling the truth. Eventually you point blank ask him, "Did you actually have a contract with the Titans, because I tried to find you and couldn't?" 

To your surprise and dismay, he answers back to you, "No, I haven't signed any contracts." 

You fire back with frustration, "Then you're not really an NFL player or on the Titans." 

Thinking you could not be shocked by anything else he could possibly say, he hits you with, "Well who are you to judge whether or not I'm on the Tennessee Titans?" 

Unable to continue acting like this is a reasonable conversation, you passionately explain, "I'm nobody to judge, but the issue is very clear. If you have not signed a contract with the team or are not on the roster, then you're not a part of the team. Period. That is not debatable. That is a fact. It is an objective standard."

As you walk away you hear him mutter, "Well, that's your opinion and interpretation."

Not An Unfamiliar Scene

What I have described is a made up story, but the scenes and logic in this story resemble every day life. In the same way this guy claimed to be a NFL football player, but did not meet the objective standards for validating such a claim, many today profess to be Christians while believing and behaving in definitiely non-Christian ways. Many fail to meet the objective standards.

Some will say, "Well, those people claim to believe in Jesus, doesn't the Bible say that is sufficient for salvation? Doesn't that make them a Christian?" True, we are called to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus for our salvation, but that belief, true belief, transforms us, not leaves us the same as before our belief. Believing a set of facts or premises is not what makes you a Christian. Even the Devil believes the right facts about Jesus. Doing this thing or that thing, or believing this fact or that fact, makes you no more a Christian than being in a garage makes you a car. 

Jesus says in Matthew 7 that a tree is known by its fruit. In other words, your life will tell the story of who/what you are. If you are a Christian, your life should reflect the beliefs and behaviors that are distinctively Christian. You are not free to make up your own rules or forge your own way and call it Christian. You are not free to slap your own operators manual to this thing we call the Christian life, it has already been written.

The Objective Standards

What is a Christian? Am I a Christian? These are not subjective questions. There is a distinction between being a Christian and not being one. This distinction is not determined by an individual's feelings or personal interpretation. It is objective. So what is it?

To determine whether someone is truly a Christian there should be evidences of two events in their life. First, there is the event of being born-again. Jesus himself teaches that unless a person is born-again he or she will not enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3). This event is also described as regeneration (Titus 3:5) or being saved (Romans 10:1-13). When we are born-again, saved, and experience regeneration, we are justified before God, pardoned of our sin, adopted into His family, and indwelled by the Holy Spirit, who testifies to our spirit that we are children of God (Romans 8:16). This is not a subjective feeling, this is an actual event. This is not believing a few facts about the Bible or Jesus, this is a profound changing of our heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26-27). It has either happened or it hasn't, no in-between.

This leads to the second event, transformation. Not only are we saved, born-again, and experience regeneration, this first event leads to the second event, we begin to change. Believers do not remain the same upon conversion. We do not go back to our old ways of living. We begin the process of transformation (Romans 12:1-2). We take off the old self and put on the new (Colossians 3:1-9). We pursue and strive for holiness, without which no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). We do not go back to our former ways when we walked in ignorance, but instead, we seek to be holy in all our conduct, just as the One who saved us and called us is holy (1 Peter 1:14-16). This event of transformation is not one time, but ongoing. We continue transforming in godliness for the rest of our lives. This is not subjective, it is measurable. (See Galatians 5:16-24)

Two events. We are born-again and we are transformed. These things are non-negotiable, objective standards of determining a Christian. If you have not been born-again, you are not a Christian, Jesus says so. And his opinion on the matter trumps your feelings about it. If your life is not being transformed to reflect more and more of God's will, as revealed through Scripture, then you are probably not a believer. True believers do not seek to justify their sinfulness by misinterpreting or reinterpreting the Bible. They humbly submit to God's Word and are transformed by it.

Who's Arrogant?

Finally, in the midst of all these debates in our culture, true believers will side with the Bible, not against it. True believers will reflect a biblical worldview, not the latest whims of the culture. True believers will see their lives transformed to reflect God's will, not remain in rebellion. True believers submit underneath God's Word, not stand above it.

John Piper has pointed out, and I believe him to be spot on, that believers are often charged with being arrogant because we try to teach everyone what the Scriptures teach concerning God and His will for mankind. But they are wrong. The opposite is true. Real arrogance is found in those who refuse to submit to an authority outside themselves, and instead, do whatever they please. Real arrogance is believing you make the rules. Refusing to submit to Scripture's teaching, and thinking you have the right to decide what a Christian is; that my friends, is the height of arrogance.

Amidst all the debates happening in our culture, it is time we call phooey on claims to be Christian that do not meet the criteria. As much as this raises the blood-pressure of some, it is time to give the Family Feud [X] (cue annoying buzzard sound) when folks self-identifying as Christians are living in habitual sin, without remorse, and holding distinctively non-Christian beliefs, without regard. Just ask them, "So you're a Christian, huh? Hmm..."

If you believe this article could be helpful for others to read, then love your neighbor as yourself and share it via Facebook, Twitter, or email with the buttons below.

I welcome your reactions and thoughts in the comment section below. Keep your responses mature, reasonable, and constructive.

Do What the Hypocrites Tell You

There is a lot of accusation today that Christians are hypocrites. There is some truth to this charge at times. After all, Christians proclaim truths that they cannot perfectly live out. In that sense, Christians are hypocrites. In that sense, everyone who has any ideals or values is a hypocrite because nobody can live out their ideals perfectly. Nobody is perfect. Nevertheless, this does not lower or diminish the ideal or truth claim itself. 

The Greek word, from which we get our word "hypocrite," is hypokrisis, which means: actor. A hypocrite was an actor. Actors play roles. They pretend. They portray characters and fictitious plots, but it isn't real. The reason the word has come to mean someone who doesn't live out their convictions or who says one thing and does another, is because this is similar to an actor. When we claim we have certain beliefs or morals or ideals, but we live and act contrary to them, we are rightfully accused of acting - we're hypocrites. 

Jesus had a problem with hypocrites. He especially had issues with the religious hypocrites of his day, the Pharisees. These guys would bark out the law to people, even added to it, but then missed it on issues of the heart. They knew the letter of the law, but missed the heart of the law. The most infamous place in the Gospels where Jesus addresses the Pharisees and their hypocrisy is Matthew 23. Jesus goes on a tirade about their hypocrisy. He calls them whitewashed tombs that look good on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men's bones (vs27). They were actors. 

Many people today make this charge against Christians. Sometimes the charge is right and accurate. But a growing trend has developed to label anyone who stands up for something, but isn't perfect, as a hypocrite. The name-calling of "hypocrite" is meant to silence people from speaking up about beliefs, morals, or character. 

Many attempts are made to discredit Christian claims because of Christian failures. I have run into this issue numerous times in conversations with non-believers. In order to shut a Christian up, they will point out examples or situations where Christians, or at least professing Christians, have screwed up or not represented Christ very well. This is done to discredit the argument being made by the Christian. However, this is a logical fallacy called the Ad Hominem. This logical fallacy seeks to discredit an argument based on behaviors or past actions of people who believed the same argument. It is a character attack on a person or group, not the argument itself. That would be like arguing 2+2=4 is not true, because Hitler believed 2+2=4 and look at him!  

So here is my point: people may point out the shortcomings of Christians and call them hypocrites, but that does not discredit or discount the Christian claims or arguments. Jesus demonstrates this when he tells the listening crowds concerning the Pharisees to "practice and observe whatever they tell you - but not what they do." (Matthew 23:3). Jesus says to do what they tell you. Why? Because the credibility of what they are telling you is not dependent on the behavior, attitude, or character of the Pharisees. Jesus tells them: do what the hypocrites tell you. Just don't do what they do. There is a difference.

So next time someone attempts to discredit a Christian claim by stating that Christians are hypocrites, tell them playfully, "Do what the hypocrites tell you...Jesus says so." 

Share using the buttons below

The Idea of Human Dignity Presupposes God

If you turn on the news today, you won't have to wait long to see chaos abounding in the world. In some parts of the world we see hunger and disease destroying lives. Other parts of the world are ruled and bullied by evil tyrants and dictators. There are wars and threats of war. In America we have the long-standing debates of abortion, racism, same-sex marriage, immigration, and the state of the economy. At the root of all these issues is one common factor: human dignity. 

The concept of human dignity is the idea that every human being has intrinsic worth and has the right to be valued and receive ethical treatment. The reason we care about wars, dictators oppressing people, abortion, racism, or any number of issues we see on the news, is the common thread of human dignity. We want human beings to be treated with value and worth. This is right. This is good. 

A Question that Puzzles Me

However, I want to raise a question that puzzles me. Many of the loudest supporters in the fight for human dignity around the world are those who deny God's existence or claim we can't know if there is god (atheist/agnostics). This is a head-scratcher. I would like to know where the philosophical basis for human dignity comes from if God does not exist. Let me explain. 

In a worldview that denies God's existence, that only leaves the material world. In a materialistic world, the universe only consists of matter. In a materialistic worldview, the human being is nothing more than a collection of atoms. We are a pile of cells, nothing more. So when we see a beautiful painting, hear a symphonic masterpiece, witness an amazing act of love and kindness, see two intellectuals discuss complex problems and concepts of math, philosophy, astronomy, theology, or anything else, we are not really experiencing anything different than a dog barking or a coke can fizzing. It is nothing but matter acting on matter. No inherent value. No intrinsic worth. No innate beauty. Just a clump of cells experiencing a chemical reaction. Nothing more.  

The Inconsistent Atheist

The atheist and agnostic will not agree with this; however, they can't support why humans should matter any more than a blade of grass that gets mowed down. Why should we care when we see a starving child? Why should it bother us that children are getting sexually molested? Why do we care about the rights of those not in power or in the majority? The atheist and agnostic has no answer that comports with their worldview. If they were consistent with their worldview they would have to agree a human being is nothing but a bunch of protons and neutrons. Who cares about the plight of a big clump of cells? What makes a human being any different than the banana peel we discard in the trash? If the atheist was consistent to his claimed worldview, he would have to say "nothing." 

But most atheists and agnostics I know do care about people. Most all of them do believe in human dignity. I do not deny their concern for people and their dignity. My argument is, in their caring, they are inconsistent with their own worldview. Thank God they are inconsistent! If they were not, it would lead to a nasty fatalism and nihilism. 

Human Dignity Presupposes God

The reason the atheist and agnostic are able to fight for human rights and dignity is they borrow the Christian worldview. They don't even realize they are doing it. They don't realize that if they were true to their claimed worldview they have no grounds for supporting human dignity. So they borrow the Christian worldview. Christians believe in human dignity because we believe humans, unlike every other created thing, are made in the image of God. In Genesis 1:26 the Triune God says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The reason human beings have inherent worth is because they are made in God's image. God gives us worth and dignity. 

When you remove God from your worldview, and you reduce human beings down to clumps of atoms and biochemical reactions, you stripe human beings of their inherent dignity. Human dignity presupposes God. Atheists and agnostics will not want to admit it, but they do not have a sufficient answer for why they give a rip about humans. They cannot account for caring about people. There is no doubting that they do care for people, they just can't account for it with their worldview.

Conclusion

Next time you hear an atheist or agnostic ranting about the evils of this world and using that to dismiss God, just ask them why they care. After all, there is nothing good or evil, right or wrong in a world where matter is acting on matter. To care about people and the plight of this world, you presuppose the God of the Bible.  

If you think others would like to read this, share using the buttons below