A men's conference to skip

It's not a written rule, but I typically shy away from any men's conference that features as its headline speaker a liar directly responsible for the senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, and who denies the exclusivity of Jesus Christ.

Way to go, LifeWay.

Christians Have a Choice to Make: God or Country?

We Christians have a choice to make: will we follow our God or our country? Douglas Wilson addresses this issue, especially as it pertains to so-called "gay marriage":

Those believers who have had an ordinary love of country, coupled with a naive (and very unbiblical) belief that America could never become an idolatrous adversary to the kingdom of God, are the kind of people who would be quick to acknowledge on paper that if we had to choose between God and country, we should always and everywhere choose God. But having ticked that box, they murmur to themselves that they are very glad that they could never be called upon to make that choice. Sorry, but here it is. Right on top of us.

Our nation is a nation just like all the others, and we can spiral into spiritual apostasy just like all the others. We are now more than halfway down the line of statues in the royal hall of Charn, where the look of our earlier nobility has vanished and we are just three elections away from the coldest forms of despair. Just think — all over the world, drone strikes making the world safe for sodomy.

As a nation like all others, we do have the option of repentance as well. But the first sin requiring the deepest repentance will have to be that damn-fool notion of American exceptionalism.

This is why pastors have a particular and pressing duty here. If this despotic modern state is the idol of our age — and it is — then pastors have a pressing duty to prepare their parishioners to resist it. We have a duty to prepare our people to refuse to bow down when they hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer (Dan. 3:5). Those instruments seem odd to us today, and so does Nebuchadnezzar's statue, but you may depend upon it — at the time, bowing down to that statue to that music at that time was about as mainstream as you could possibly get, and the only people left standing were the extremists and weirdos.

John warns Christians as little children, telling them to keep themselves from idols (1 John 5:21). This will be a pressing danger when the idolatry is mainstream, when paying your mortgage depends on conforming, when all the networks are asking what the big deal is, when we can't buy or sell without offering that pinch of incense to the emperor, and the music has been playing for a good minute and a half now. People are starting to look. You see an official in the back writing down your name.

Be sure to read the entire post.

One Nation, Under God

Americans love to prattle on about our precious Star Spangled Banner and Pledge of Allegiance, and how we are "one nation, under God." But the sad fact is that most of the noble, patriotic virtues we celebrate each Independence Day no longer exist, if they ever did at all.

As Christians, however, we can proclaim honestly that we are indeed one nation, under God: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9).

Let us keep that in mind, not just today but every day. Political leaders rise and fall, and nations will come and go, but "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

Pastor Sent to Prison for Advocating Spanking

I will admit up front that I know nothing about Aleitheia Bible Church or Pastor Philip Caminiti. I had never even heard of them before reading that Caminiti was sentenced to two years in prison for teaching that spanking is biblical.

Yes, this happened in America. Madison, Wisconsin, to be exact.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi wanted to send a message that "child abuse" would not be tolerated. "What is important to me," she said, "is there was and continues to this day no expression of remorse or repentance for the consequences of those actions, or what the whole chain of events has led the family and the community through."

Again, I will confess to being ignorant of all the facts in the case. Is it possible that there were instances in which parental discipline may have gone too far? Yes, I suppose it is. But keep in mind that the imprisoned pastor was never charged with abusing a child. His "crime" was instructing parents in his congregation to spank their children.

As far as I can tell, no crime was ever committed. Wisconsin law states: "Reasonable discipline may involve only such force as a reasonable person believes is necessary. It is never reasonable discipline to use force which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death or creates an unreasonable risk of great bodily harm or death." I guess it all depends on what a particular court deems "reasonable."

I was reminded of something my own pastor, John Piper, once said about spanking: "I just think spanking is really healthy for children. It is a measured deliverance of a non-damaging act of mild pain that makes the child feel the seriousness of what he's done. It is not beating. It is not abuse. There is a clear difference. The very word "spank" exists because there is such a thing as a loving way to whop a child on his behind or his chunky thigh."

Spanking is "really healthy for children"? There are many people out there who would have a difficult time trying to wrap their minds around that concept. "He's saying parents should hit their children! How barbaric!" Nonsense.

We are designed in such a way that pain actually serves to protect our bodies. The pain a child feels when touching a hot stove keeps his hand from becoming badly burned. Likewise, a quick swat on the bottom can help a disobedient child avoid even worse consequences associated with sinful behavior.

This is a very important issue, and what has happened in Wisconsin should concern Christians everywhere. What many fathers and mothers consider to be a normal, biblical part of parenting could be reason enough for the state to tear them away from their children and throw them into prison.

But, then again, this is a nation that has little use for scriptural truth. What else would we expect?

Lawsuit Against God Dismissed

While I'm on vacation, please enjoy some old posts from the Contemporary Calvinist.

Lawsuit Against God Dismissed
(originally posted 03/03/2009)

You may recall that Ernie Chambers, a former Nebraska state senator, sought a permanent injunction against God back in 2007 for causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants." A Douglas County District Court judge threw out the suit in 2008 on the grounds that the defendant was never served a legal notice. Chambers appealed, saying that if God was indeed omnipresent and omniscient, then he knew he was being sued, so no legal notice was needed.

As expected, the Nebraska Court of Appeals recently dismissed the lawsuit, but not because it believed it lacked the jurisdiction or the authority to enforce such an injunction against the Creator of the universe. No, the suit was dismissed because the court decided it does not rule on abstract, hypothetical, or fictitious issues.

Mr. Chambers, you will get your day in court, but it will be as the defendant. The question is, will you be left to defend yourself (which you won't be able to do), or will you have Jesus Christ as your advocate?

(I suppose I should also add that the members of the Nebraska Court of Appeals will eventually find out just how abstract, hypothetical, or fictitious God really is.)

Onward Christian Soldiers?

While I'm on vacation, please enjoy some old posts from the Contemporary Calvinist.

Onward Christian Soldiers?
(originally posted 05/06/2009)

Consider this report from Reuters:

Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed to ensure that troops did not breach regulations which forbid proselytising, a military spokeswoman said.

The U.S. military has denied its soldiers tried to convert Afghans to Christianity, after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a bible class on a base with a stack of bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages.

U.S. Central Command's General Order Number 1 forbids troops on active duty -- including all those based in Iraq and Afghanistan -- from trying to convert people to another religion.

"I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed," spokeswoman Major Jennifer Willis said at Bagram air base, north of Kabul.

My initial reaction was one of shock. The chaplains were the ones responsible for confiscating these Bibles? How could they do something like that in good conscience?

Despite the official denial of the military, it's obvious the Bibles were intended to be distributed among the local population. Regardless, some may argue that the chaplains should have ignored the order. As the Apostle Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

But as I reflected further on this incident I found it increasingly difficult to sympathize with those involved. While we are called to evangelize other nations, I'm not sure it's the place of an active duty member of the U.S. military to assume that responsibility, even if all that is entailed is simply handing out Bibles.

I have two concerns. First of all, evangelizing isn't in any soldier's job description. Just as we don't expect to see anyone else in secular employment evangelizing on "company time," we shouldn't expect it from our soldiers.

Secondly, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan on a military mission. Killing people and destroying property was the very nature of that mission, and I don't think the spreading of the gospel should ever be associated with the use of military force.

The war we are called to fight is a spiritual one (Ephesians 6:12-13), and the weapon we have been given is the "sword of the spirit" (Ephesians 6:17). Going out into the world to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19) should be done with the willingness to give our own lives for the sake of the gospel (Matthew 16:25, John 12:24-25), not in the process of taking the lives of others. The military, after all, is a tool of the state, not a ministry arm of the church.

More on this story:

Not a Single Christian Church Left in Afghanistan

Thanks to our meddling, there are no more churches in Afghanistan. CNSNews reports:

There is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.

This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime.

In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan's new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country.

The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the State Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report. The report, which was released last month and covers the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, also states that “there were no Christian schools in the country.”

“There is no longer a public Christian church; the courts have not upheld the church's claim to its 99-year lease, and the landowner destroyed the building in March [2010],” reads the State Department report on religious freedom. “[Private] chapels and churches for the international community of various faiths are located on several military bases, PRTs [Provincial Reconstruction Teams], and at the Italian embassy. Some citizens who converted to Christianity as refugees have returned.”

In recent times, freedom of religion has declined in Afghanistan, according to the State Department.

This just adds to my confusion as to why so many American Christians supported (and continue to support) our government's wars in the Middle East.

(via Libertarian Christians)

Couple Threatened with Fines for Holding a Home Bible Study

Given the animosity many local authorities have shown toward kids who set up lemonade stands, I can't say I was surprised when I read this story from California:

An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a "church" and not as a private gathering.

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called "a regular gathering of more than three people".

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple's legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further "religious gatherings" in their home, according to PJI.

It reminds me of something I learned about China when my wife and I were there two years ago. Our guide explained that meeting and worshiping together as Christians is perfectly legal in that country...just as long as you first register with the government.

What do you think? Are the Fromms violating the command in Romans 13:1 to be subject to the governing authorities? Or is this a glimpse of things to come in a nation growing increasingly hostile to the gospel of Christ?

Christian Warmongering at Its Worst

When you fail to draw a distinction between the city of man and the city of God, you end up sounding like this:

If America is really serious about combating worldwide Islamic terrorism and the increasing reports of Christian genocide among the 44 Muslim nations, then let us take up the battle cry of Ann Coulter and the Muslim author who converted to Christianity and train our military not only to kill and destroy our enemies but to convert them to Christianity. ...

... My one revision of Coulter is not that we should invade their countries: We must invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. PC (perversity correctness) means keeping Christianity, America and the West on the road to dhimmitude.

Six million Muslims convert to Christianity per year. Thank God Christian missionaries are still devoted to Christ's mandate: Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Would to God that our military would join Christ's battle cry and honor this verse of the Marines' Hymn:

First to fight for right and freedom [of religion]
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
Of United States Marine.

Semper Fi!

Would to God that American Christians would return to the belief that the kingdom of God is advanced by the power of the Gospel, not by the power of the gun.

Sending the Wrong Message

Even at first glance one should see just how dangerous this kind of theology is.



Uniting Christ with the state? No thanks.

"Equality" Is Coming to British Churches

The church teaches equality, but it does so in light of God's word. For example, we are all created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The gospel is offered to all nations (Mark 13:10), and "we will all stand before the judgment seat of God" (Romans 14:10).

But some members of the British Parliament want to broaden the definition of equality to force churches to employ those who engage in sexually deviant behavior. From the Telegraph:

Religious groups are to be forced to accept homosexual youth workers, secretaries and other staff, even if their faith holds same-sex relationships to be sinful.

Christian organisations fear that the tightened legislation, which is due to come into force next year, will undermine the integrity of churches and dilute their moral message.

It comes amid growing concern that Christians are being unfairly targeted by discrimination laws, following a number of high-profile cases of courts finding against believers who stand up for their faith.

Religious leaders had hoped to lobby for exemptions to the Equality Bill but Maria Eagle, the deputy equalities minister, has now indicated that it will cover almost all church employees.

"The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between," she told delegates at the Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Human Rights conference in London.

"While the state would not intervene in narrowly ritual or doctrinal matters within faith groups, these communities cannot claim that everything they run is outside the scope of anti-discrimination law.

"Members of faith groups have a role in making the argument in their own communities for greater LGBT acceptance, but in the meantime the state has a duty to protect people from unfair treatment."

We should take note of what happens across the pond because things that take root over there have a tendency to pop up over here.

Onward Christian Soldiers?

Consider this report from Reuters:

Bibles in Afghan languages sent to a U.S. soldier at a base in Afghanistan were confiscated and destroyed to ensure that troops did not breach regulations which forbid proselytising, a military spokeswoman said.

The U.S. military has denied its soldiers tried to convert Afghans to Christianity, after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a bible class on a base with a stack of bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages.

U.S. Central Command's General Order Number 1 forbids troops on active duty -- including all those based in Iraq and Afghanistan -- from trying to convert people to another religion.

"I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed," spokeswoman Major Jennifer Willis said at Bagram air base, north of Kabul.

My initial reaction was one of shock. The chaplains were the ones responsible for confiscating these Bibles? How could they do something like that in good conscience?

Despite the official denial of the military, it's obvious the Bibles were intended to be distributed among the local population. Regardless, some may argue that the chaplains should have ignored the order. As the Apostle Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

But as I reflected further on this incident I found it increasingly difficult to sympathize with those involved. While we are called to evangelize other nations, I'm not sure it's the place of an active duty member of the U.S. military to assume that responsibility, even if all that is entailed is simply handing out Bibles.

I have two concerns. First of all, evangelizing isn't in any soldier's job description. Just as we don't expect to see anyone else in secular employment evangelizing on "company time," we shouldn't expect it from our soldiers.

Secondly, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan on a military mission. Killing people and destroying property was the very nature of that mission, and I don't think the spreading of the gospel should ever be associated with the use of military force.

The war we are called to fight is a spiritual one (Ephesians 6:12-13), and the weapon we have been given is the "sword of the spirit" (Ephesians 6:17). Going out into the world to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19) should be done with the willingness to give our own lives for the sake of the gospel (Matthew 16:25, John 12:24-25), not in the process of taking the lives of others. The military, after all, is a tool of the state, not a ministry arm of the church.

More on this story:

Flags in Church

Timothy D. Terrell of the Center for Biblical Law and Economics, in his essay Nationalism in the Sanctuary, explains the problem with displaying the American and Christian flags in church sanctuaries. Definitely worth reading.

The American Empire: An Unholy Alliance between Church and State

The man hailed as the first Christian emperor of Rome was Constantine, whose alleged "conversion" in 312 A.D. came on the eve of a great battle for the Roman throne. In the simplified version of the legend, Constantine saw a flaming cross in the sky emblazoned with the words "In hoc signo vinces," meaning "By this sign, conquer"--and he proceeded to do just that.

Constantine the Great, however, was far from Christian. Throughout his life, he remained a worshipper of Sol Invictus (the Invincible Sun) and retained the title of "Pontifex Maximus," which meant that, in addition to his duties as emperor, he served as the chief priest of the Roman pagan religion. (Ironically, the Catholic Church continues to bestow that title on its popes.)

Although Christianity was not the official religion of the Roman Empire during the reign of Constantine--that came later when Theodosius took the throne--it was tolerated and protected, which explains why so many Christians in the fourth century readily embraced their new emperor. How could anyone view the end of brutal persecution as a bad thing? In addition, Christians had a strong ally in government.

From Constantine's perspective, his acceptance of Christianity was probably more a marriage of convenience. There were numerous external and internal threats to the empire, so it was naturally easier to work with the Christians than to eliminate them. Their religion was spreading throughout the empire, so why not use that to his advantage? He could win over a growing minority segment of the population by ending their persecution while at the same time appeasing the majority by maintaining the old pagan practices. One of the ways he accomplished this was to merge Christianity with certain aspects of paganism, not the least of which included the celebration of Christmas and Easter.

But the acceptance of Christianity as a legitimate religion by the Roman Empire had its downside. Alistair Kee, in his historical treatise Constantine versus Christ: The Triumph of Ideology, noted that Constantine's reign was "a fundamental turning-point," adding, "From that time the imperial ideology, with all its implications for the accumulation of wealth and the exercise of power over the weak, was given religious legitimation by the church."

Over the centuries, Constantinian Christianity spread like a cancer. Christians became more militant and took up the sword to advance the Kingdom of God. Churches were no longer merely bodies of believers gathering together for worship and fellowship; they evolved into huge, elaborate cathedrals built on the backs of the poor. Popes, cardinals and bishops ruled as merciless tyrants, waging war, imposing burdensome taxes and executing those who dared to challenge their authority. Worst of all, the Bible was kept out of the hands of the layperson; only the clergy had the right to read and interpret scripture.

Christendom brought with it a renewed persecution of Christians. As we saw during the Reformation, believers were martyred not because of their "unbiblical" beliefs, but because they were seen as a threat to the social, political and economic hold the church-state had over the people.

It was this hold that led the framers of our Constitution to establish a separation of church and state. The separation they envisioned, however, had nothing to do with removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses or banning prayer from schools. They merely wanted to prevent government from interfering--both negatively and favorably--with the religious practices of its citizens.

Baron de Montesquieu, who was an inspiration to many of America's Founding Fathers, addressed the issue of the separation of church and state in his book The Spirit of the Laws. He saw the greatest threat coming from those in government who would embrace religion as a matter of official policy:

A more certain way to attack religion is by favor, by the comforts of life, by the hope of wealth; not by what reminds one of it, but by what makes one forget it; not by what makes one indignant, but by what makes men lukewarm, when other passions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires are silent. In the matter of changing religion, State favors are stronger than penalties.

Within the last few years there has been a strengthening of the bond between church and state. Thanks to President Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives," Christian organizations have been reduced to little more than political special interest groups. Call me cynical, but I just don't see how the church can honor God when those who should be trusting Him to meet their needs are scrambling for government handouts.

Not surprisingly, the result of this alliance isn't a more God-honoring system of government. In fact, there are some striking similarities between the Roman Empire of Constantine and the United States of America. What we are witnessing is the rise of a modern Constantinian church-state, characterized by a shift among Christians toward a more militaristic worldview.

You may recall Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, who stated unequivocally that terrorists are "after us because we're a Christian nation." Boykin implied that our "Christian nation" is leading the charge in what is in fact a spiritual war against Satan, and he also said that Bush is "in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

It seems George W. Bush, also a professing Christian, agrees. During a 2004 campaign meeting with an Amish group in Lancaster, Penn., the president said, "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."

"Christianese" is like a second language for Washington politicians. Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush (or was it God speaking through him?) announced the beginning of his "war on terror," claiming that it wouldn't end "until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Compare Bush's statement with the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 12:30: "Whoever is not with me is against me …" It was no coincidence. Bush knew that his worldwide crusade could only work with the support of his evangelical Christian base. And, sad to say, those on the "religious right" were all too eager to join in the bloodshed.

But none were content to limit the fight to terrorists. Bush expanded the conflict to include nations that had not even attacked our own. When he labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil," he was sending the nations of the world a not-so-subtle warning that they dare not mess with America. In essence, Bush was securing his place in the hearts and minds of Christians as Emperor of the Holy American Empire.

It's as if our leader received a divine revelation and we are simply following along, thinking that we are doing God's will. As Constantine's armies rallied behind the cross, we hold aloft the American flag as our sacred symbol--and by this sign, we conquer.

Unfortunately, what Constantine claimed to have seen was not a sign from God. It goes against the words of Jesus, who said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world" (John 18:36).

The Apostle Paul reinforced this when he wrote, "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Eph. 6:12). And yet American Christians today praise the holy crusade against terror as if the spiritual forces of evil can be defeated with troops, bombs and democracy.

We Christians need to realize that even though the American flag is displayed prominently in so many church sanctuaries, Christ does not share his throne with the state. When lying politicians invoke the name of God as they are sworn into office, we should be offended that our Lord's name is being taken in vain. When people criticize U.S. policies, we need to consider that America isn't the church, and the Body of Christ isn't bound by national borders or restricted to any particular geographic location. And when the government promises financial incentives to churches, we must remember that we cannot serve two masters.

Failure to distinguish between God and country, church and state, can be a deadly sin. As Alistair Kee wrote of Constantine the Great:

He conquered the Christian church. The conquest was complete, extending over doctrine, liturgy, art and architecture, comity, ethos and ethics. And this is the greatest irony, that Constantine achieved by kindness what his predecessors had not been able to achieve by force. Without a threat or a blow, and all unsuspecting, the Christians were led into captivity and their religion transformed into a new imperial cult. … But this achievement, unheralded then, unrecognized now, represents Constantine's greatest conquest, the one which has persisted largely unchallenged through the centuries in Europe and wherever European Christianity has spread.

Who knows? Future generations may one day read about the rise and fall of the American Empire. If that happens, let us hope and pray that they learn the lessons from history that we did not.