• /
    • Archives /
  • November 30, 1999

Archives For November 30, 1999

Is sweet debate a pie in the sky?

Meredith Flynn —  February 28, 2013

cherry pieCOMMENTARY | On one special day every year, the Illinois State Capitol fills with the aroma of fresh-baked pie. Dubbed “Cherry Pie Day,” the event draws homeschooling families from across the state to Springfield, where they deliver the homemade desserts to legislators. It’s their way to thank lawmakers for their service, and to “sweeten the deal” while lobbying them on behalf of homeschooling interests.

Recently, a different group of volunteer lobbyists headed to the Capitol in support of a traditional definition of marriage. As the temperature outside hovered in the mid-20s, they prayed together under the gaze of a statue of Abraham Lincoln, and then streamed into the building to lobby their legislators to vote no on HB 10, the bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Illinois.

A few steps from the gathering, a debate rose between a handful of the rally attenders, and two lone protesters who had come in favor of same-sex marriage. The dialogue bounced back and forth, intense but not ugly. Just each side having their say.

The speakers were eloquent, and each spoke directly from his or her experience. These were obviously well thought-out opinions, and deeply rooted. And, while they answered each other so quickly that they couldn’t have been listening very well, it was the very definition of a civil disagreement.

But it was still uncomfortable, especially compared to the rousing unity of the rally. As people walked by the small debating group, most of them kept a safe distance.

This is likely true of most conflicts, and it’s certainly been on display in the same-sex marriage debate in Illinois: It’s easier to express opinions – elegantly, even – with people who agree with you. But there’s nothing as messy as staring eye-to-eye with an opponent who fully believes he or she is right, on the very topic on which you believe they’re dead wrong.

That’s what the group on the Capitol lawn was doing. Both sides stared down the uncomfortable notion of disagreement and faced into the awkwardness of expressing an opinion, when someone was waiting to refute it with their next breath.

As Christians are navigating the difficulties of same-sex marriage in Illinois, surely many have wondered how they can “sweeten the deal” when they talk to their friends and families and acquaintances about the issue. Without the comfort of cherry pie, what can they add to their argument to help others see that it’s a valid view? How can they hope to turn the cultural tide with their words, when there are so many voices saying the opposite?

The answer was on display that day on the Capitol steps: It’s clear-eyed, unwavering, thoughtful, calm, prayed-through debate. And it will require courage and humility and a willingness to examine long-held beliefs. The only chance opponents of same-sex marriage have to add any sweetness to these conversations is to actually have them. Maybe over pie.

In Commentary , , , , ,
permalink

The unseen danger of same-sex marriage

Meredith Flynn —  February 7, 2013

pull quote_WARNOCKCOMMENTARY | Mark Warnock

At first glance, the fight about same-sex marriage appears to be over whether to “normalize” homosexuality. But there is a more chilling danger lurking unseen: legalizing same-sex marriage will change the government’s posture toward religion from neutral to antagonistic.

Marriage is a universal, God-given institution, which is set up to provide the best environment for the nurturing of children. Marriage fuses the private interests of romance and sex with the public interest of seeing that children are cared for.

Marriage was not created by either the state or the organized church, but both administer it.  More importantly, both have long agreed on its definition: a permanent joining of a man and woman, which authorizes their sexual congress and makes them responsible to parent any children they might have.

Now, however, our government wants to usurp marriage for its own, and change it to include homosexual couples.

Many Christian churches, including Baptists, are bound by Scripture and doctrines to the original, time-honored understanding of marriage. They simply cannot recognize same-sex marriage as legitimate. Redefining marriage will put government and religion on opposite sides of an unfriendly divide.

The state will soon find it necessary to enforce its new definition of marriage, and to protect those marriages from discrimination. Churches and synagogues that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages will risk the state’s wrath. Imagine if a church secretary enters a same sex marriage and wants to add her partner to her church-funded medical coverage. Or what if a gay couple wanted to rent the facilities for their ceremony? Would the law allow a church to say yes to some non-members, but no to others?

We have already seen the government force individuals and their businesses to recognize same-sex marriage in violation of their own religious convictions. All assurances that religious people have nothing to fear are coming from advocates of same-sex marriage, who view religion as an essentially private matter. The “assurance” they offer is that religious people can think whatever they want about same-sex marriages, but will still be forced in practice to acknowledge and accommodate them.

In this contest, the state has all the power. It can legislate, fine, remove tax exemption, and seize property. If same-sex marriage becomes law, religious people and institutions will find themselves no longer in a neutral, free, protected place in our society.

This may in fact be the sinister goal of same-sex marriage legislation. Under Illinois civil union law, homosexual couples already have all the rights that marriage would confer. The only meaningful difference is that legalizing same-sex marriage will increase the government’s power over religion.

The first American freedom may be about to fade away.

Mark Warnock is associate pastor at First Baptist Church of Columbia, Ill., and is studying for his Ph.D in Christian Philosophy at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

In Commentary ,
permalink

Does the Bible say anything about eating habits?

Meredith Flynn —  January 31, 2013

pull quote_ROACHCOMMENTARY (From Baptist Press) | David Roach

It’s that brief season of the year when most people are still on track with their resolutions to eat more healthfully and lose weight. In pursuit of that goal, millions have consulted Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, online diet plans, calorie-counting apps and a host of other nutritional guides – most of which have great value.

But what about the Bible? Does it have anything to say about our eating habits?

Certainly it does. Incorporating Scripture’s wisdom into our New Year’s resolutions could mean the difference between success and failure.

First of all, we should make a distinction between healthy eating and fasting. The Bible says a great deal about fasting, but that’s abstaining from food for a purely spiritual purpose.

Healthy eating habits are a different matter, which the Bible also addresses. For one, the apostle Paul calls the body “a temple of the Holy Spirit” and urges, “You are not your own … glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). The context is an exhortation to flee sexual immorality and not profane the body that was created to honor God, but there’s an application to diet as well. Honoring our bodies as sacred temples certainly includes eating healthy foods that keep them functioning well.

The Old Testament, in fact, includes an example of God’s blessing people who eat healthy food. When Daniel and his three friends resolved not to eat the rich food of Babylon but instead make their diet vegetables and water, “they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food” (Daniel 1:15 NIV). Of course, health was not the reason for Daniel’s food choice. It had to do with ritual purity and being set apart from the pagan culture of Babylon, and God honored his obedience.

Nevertheless, it was also an occasion when God brought positive consequences from healthy eating. (It’s worth noting that the Old Testament ceremonial laws on diet are no longer in force under the New Covenant, though moral principles related to food still hold. See Acts 10:9-16.) Add Proverbs’ warning about the ruinous effects of gluttony (Proverbs 23:20-21), and this is enough to assure us that God cares about our caloric intake.

Thankfully, though, that’s not all the Bible has to say about eating. Paul says that God “richly provides us with everything to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17). The writer of Ecclesiastes makes the connection to eating explicit, telling us that we should enjoy food as a gift from God (Ecclesiastes 3:13). Perhaps that is part of the reason why the Old Testament law required Jews to participate in a series of feasts every year and why scriptural examples of godly hospitality commonly include large quantities of food (see, for example, Genesis 18:6-8; Judges 6:19; 2 Samuel 9:10-13; Luke 15:23).

Jesus Himself instituted the New Covenant at a feast, the Passover meal. And when God wanted to picture for the apostle John the joy that will occur in heaven at Christ’s second coming, He showed him a vision of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:6-10) – another meal. God not only cares about healthy eating, there’s also a place for feasting in His economy.

So what does all this mean for dieters? While the Bible doesn’t prescribe any specific diet plan, it does highlight the principle of balance – between healthy restraint and enjoyment of rich foods. In other words, make a habit of disciplined, healthy eating, but on occasion let yourself enjoy a feast of God’s good gifts. Looking forward to the feasts will help keep you going during the seasons of restraint. Interestingly, that distillation of the Bible’s wisdom on eating is the same conclusion that dieticians have reached after thousands of years of scientific research. In Scripture God truly does provide “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3).

David Roach is a writer in Shelbyville, Ky. This article first appeared at Bible Mesh (www.biblemesh.com), an online discipleship resource to help people from all backgrounds grow in their knowledge of the Bible and how it applies to all of life.

In Commentary , , , ,
permalink

Big moments are big opportunities

Meredith Flynn —  January 24, 2013

pull quote_ADAMS_jan24COMMENTARY | Nate Adams

A few days ago I had the privilege of performing the wedding ceremony for our son Caleb and his now wife Laura. As is true for most young couples, it was arguably the biggest moment of their lives. So I was very pleased when, together, they told me their desire was for the ceremony to honor God. But I was especially moved when they went a step further, and asked me to make sure the Gospel was clearly presented.

You pastors that are reading this know what a welcome and freeing experience that is. We long, most of us, for opportunities to share Christ openly. But we also need to be sensitive to the couple’s or family’s wishes at times like weddings, anniversaries, or funerals.

And not everyone wants to give the big moments of their lives to the Lord. Even devoted Christians often expect the bride to be the primary focus of a wedding day, and that’s understandable. But I think you can focus on the bride, honor the Lord, and share the Gospel without diminishing any of the three. Let me share briefly here the few words I included in Caleb’s and Laura’s ceremony:

“Now let me pause here and say something to the rest of the congregation. When Caleb and Laura and I were planning this ceremony, I asked them, what would you like the central message of your wedding ceremony to be? What would you like the people gathered there on that special day to know above all else?

“Here’s what they said. ‘The most important thing about us and our story is that we would not be together except for the way God has worked in our lives. We want others to see His story in our story. We didn’t really know how to love each other until Christ became the center of our relationship. We would love everyone there to know what it means to have God at the center of their lives and their relationships.’

“You see, the way this young couple came to know and love each other is the way many people come to know and love God. It may begin with just a casual acquaintance, an occasional prayer, maybe even periods of disinterest and distance. And then one day, your realization that God loves you unconditionally comes alive, perhaps through the joyful expression and heartfelt testimony of someone who really knows Him. You realize the void in your life, and that God has been there all along, loving you and reaching out to you. Nothing would please Caleb and Laura more, and nothing would honor their wedding day more, than for you to turn to God as they have, and to surrender your life to Him.  Caleb and Laura want you to know that, with the certainty they do.”

Words along those lines can give wedding guests something to talk about at the reception. More importantly, they can give lost friends and family something to talk about on the drive home, or with the couple after they return from the honeymoon.

The biggest wedding day of all will be when the risen and victorious Lord Jesus returns to earth as a Groom coming for his bride, the Church. That day will certainly focus on the Bride, but it will also glorify God and lead every knee to bow at the truth of the Gospel. It will be a day when we will all be glad for the big moments of our lives that we gave to the Lord, especially if He uses them as opportunities to draw our loved ones to Himself for eternity.

Nate Adams is executive director of the Illinois Baptist State Association.

In Commentary , , , ,
permalink

The Louie Giglio moment: Where do we go from here?

Meredith Flynn —  January 17, 2013

pull quote_STETZERCOMMENTARY | Ed Stetzer

(From Baptist Press) Louie Giglio withdrew from the program at President Obama’s inauguration in the face of criticism over a 15-year-old sermon referencing homosexuality as a sin. Many will want to debate and desire to nuance the specific wording he used in the sermon, but his points are largely mainstream evangelical beliefs.

This Louie Giglio moment, and the Chick-fil-A moment that preceded it, and the Rick Warren moment which preceded that, raise the question: Where do people of faith with long-standing traditional religious/scriptural convictions go from here?

For those of us who know Louie, this is a strange moment indeed — but also illustrative of how our culture has turned. Louie has dedicated his life to helping others — the poor, the enslaved, those trapped in sexual trafficking. Yet, I do not recognize the person I see portrayed on the news — a bigoted homophobe driven by his hatred for gays. You can be certain that is not Louie Giglio — even though some prefer to believe that any opposition to homosexual practice, and people who hold that view, must apparently be silenced for the common good.

In a recent LifeWay Research study, 37 percent of American adults agreed that homosexuality is a sin. That number is declining (down from 44 percent according to a 2011 survey), but it is still a substantial minority. Yet, such views (which were mainstream just a few decades ago) are indeed now a minority position — and viewed as unacceptable by many in society.

So, what does this mean for Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews and others who believe that their authoritative religious texts teach something the prevailing culture finds so unacceptable that they are no longer welcome in the public square? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan or speak against injustice?

Or, instead, can we recognize that a substantial minority in our culture hold views they see as rooted in their scriptures and part of their faith, even though those views may not always be popularly accepted?

Yes, the First Amendment protects these views. But we also have to decide if the people who hold such views can be protected by our self-identified tolerant culture as they seek not just to hold those beliefs in secret, but also dare to utter them in public — even on a sermon tape 15 years ago.

Ed Stetzer is president of LifeWay Research. This column first appeared at USATODAY.com.

In Commentary , , , ,
permalink