David Murray - Leadership for Servants
Tag Archive - Culture

When the Government Tries to be God

Mar 13, 2013 • By David Murray • 11 Comments

Although Christians ought to be the most loyal citizens in any nation, we are facing the increasing challenge of a government that instead of acting as God’s servant for good, is becoming God’s opponent for evil?

Of course, for too long successive governments have enacted and tolerated laws that are evil (such as the legalizing of abortion). What’s new in our day is that laws are being proposed and enacted that attempt to force Christians to give up core Christian doctrines (e.g. Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation) and ethics (e.g. biblical definition of marriage).

When the Government does this, it is crossing the line from being God’s servant to being God itself. When that happens, what should we do? Thankfully we have a biblical example of similar governmental usurpation of God’s place in Acts 4, when the Apostles were commanded to stop preaching Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation.

The apostle’s response was not a simple “No way!” Rather, it was a respectful and biblically reasoned “No!”

“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20).

Their “No” was framed as a question, appealed to the leaders’ knowledge of God, and explained the preaching of Jesus as something that they couldn’t help doing. But it was still a “No!”

When forbidden to preach Christ-alone-ism and commanded to preach many-ways-to-God-ism (or pluralism) we respectfully say, “No! And here are our reasons.”

1. Pluralism disobeys God
What’s the first and greatest commandment? “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deut. 6:4-5).

It was first given to Israel as they prepared to enter a multi-faith environment, Jesus reiterated it in the midst of a similar multi-religious culture, and it remains the first and greatest commandment to this day. Everybody must have the God of the Bible as their only God and everybody should love that one God with everything they have.

Pluralism disobeys God because it says you can have any, many, or no gods and you certainly don’t need to love Him with everything you’ve got.

2. Pluralism diminishes Scripture
Pluralism says that there are many paths to the top of the mountain. There’s a Jewish path, a Hindu path, a Buddhist path, etc., and we all meet up at the top in God. This diminishes, undermines, and rejects the Bible’s message that there is one path up the mountain and it’s Jesus Christ (1 John 5:12; John 14:6; 3:36).

Political leaders can pass as many laws as they like but they can’t change the truth of Scripture by legislation or by majority vote. They may decide that gravity doesn’t exist, vote against it, pass laws against it, and prosecute its supporters.  But if any one of them chooses to jump out the window they’ll discover that no matter how public, vehement, and repeated their assertions, gravity is still very true.

3. Pluralism defies logic
The future heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, is meant to take an oath to be the defender of the protestant faith. However, he’s decided that he wants to be simply “the defender of faith.” What kind of faith? Any kind of faith? There are people who still believe it’s OK to sacrifice children. Are we going to defend their faith?

Even secular journalists see the folly of this. Janet Daley of the Daily Telegraph wrote: “You cannot defend all faiths – at least not at the same time – because each has beliefs that render those of the others false.”

It’s not faith that saves but what or who faith is in. Many Muslims’ faith is stronger than many Christians’ faith. But no matter how sincere, zealous, vigorous, and confident faith is, if it’s in a falsehood it will not save. Thankfully, the weakest faith in Christ will certainly save.

4. Pluralism damages evangelism
What motivated the New Testament apostles and evangelical missionaries through the centuries? It was the belief that Christ is the only way to be saved.

We’re not funding missionaries and doing evangelism because we think it’s a good idea, it’s a nice hobby, or it makes us feel good. It’s because, to put it bluntly, without Christ, you’re damned. And if we don’t believe that, then let’s stop all evangelism and outreach, and let’s call all the missionaries back and stop wasting our money.

But, “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). There is no other name in India, in Pakistan, in Iraq, or in Antartica. What about Afghanistan? No other name. What about the USA? No other name. No second name, no third name, no fourth name. No other name.

5. Pluralism despises our neighbor
We’re being told today that preaching the Gospel is hatred. No, to be silent is hatred. To say nothing about Jesus to the perishing is hatred. To see someone in error and hold back the truth is hatred.

The second great commandment is “to love our neighbor as ourselves.” That’s why to every pious Hindu, orthodox Jew, secular atheist, sincere agnostic, radical Muslim, and nominal Christian, we tell you with a heart overflowing with love, Jesus is the only Name under heaven by which you can be saved.

6. Pluralism denies Christ
The Apostle Peter had denied Christ in front of a little servant girl a few weeks before because he was so afraid of the religious and political leaders. Now he faces these same leaders and is again charged with knowing and preaching Christ.

What will he do? Is he going to deny Jesus again? Will he just use the general name “God,” and avoid offending his accusers?

No. From his “I don’t know the man” of a few weeks previously, he now preaches the Name above every name. What a moment! The denier of Christ becomes a spirit-filled preacher of Christ to the crucifiers of Christ (vv. 8-12).

And notice it’s not enough to say, “He is a Savior,” or even “He is my Savior.” No, “He is the only Savior.” The Savior that excludes all others. “Neither is there salvation in any other.” There are no options, no alternatives, no substitutes, no fall backs, no back ups.

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The Most Disobeyed Commandment in the Church?

Mar 12, 2013 • By David Murray • 57 Comments

OK, that’s a big claim. So let me limit it a bit. “The most disobeyed commandment in the church in the last four months.”

Now, let’s see, what happened four months ago?

Oh, yes, President Obama won re-election.

But what’s that got to do with any commandment?

Well, try the fifth for size.

Honor my father and mother? Obama’s not my Dad.

No, but the fifth commandment covers all inferior-superior relationships, including that of citizen-President. As the Westminster Larger Catechism puts it:

By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth (A. 124).

Answer 125 goes on to explain that superiors like Presidents are called father and mother to make us more willing and cheerful in performing our duties to them, as if they were our parents!

Gulp!

It get’s worse, better, worse, whatever. Answer 127 tells us what honor we owe to the President:

  1. All due reverence in heart, word, and behavior
  2. Prayer and thanksgiving for them
  3. Imitation of their virtues and graces
  4. Willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels
  5. Due submission to their corrections
  6. Fidelity to, defense and maintenance of their persons and authority
  7. Bearing with their infirmities
  8. Covering them in love

8x Gulp!

Many Christians have shattered this commandment in a thousand pieces over the last four months, perhaps even over the last four years.

Sure, we must defend the sanctity of life and of marriage, but we must not do so at the expense of the fifth commandment. Since when do we get to pick and choose which commandments are most important and which are irrelevant?

Serious moral errors in some areas of government policy and practice are no excuse for failing to obey this commandment in all other areas.

Thankfully and mercifully, God offers forgiveness for this sin too – if we repent of it and believe in Jesus.

I’m guessing this will be the most unshared, unliked, and un-tweeted post I’ve ever written. But I’ll probably make up for that tomorrow when we’ll look at exceptions to the fifth commandment – what we should do when the Government tries to be God.

Update: Here’s a link to When Government tries to be God.

Prepare for Gay Marriage

Feb 7, 2013 • By David Murray • 94 Comments

I hate writing about this subject, but with both French and British parliaments passing gay marriage laws in the past week, we’re reaching a no-turning-back point in our world. God is sovereign and specializes in last minute rescues, but barring a Mordecai-type intervention we might as well face up to the reality that gay marriage is coming down the pike at an unstoppable speed, and it’s going to impact many Christians in damaging and even destructive ways. While continuing to pray, preach, and campaign against this (read these nine words again), we must also ask how we can prepare for the collision in such a way that minimizes the carnage.

1. Prepare our children
Most of us try to protect our children from sexual information until they are mature enough to handle it, without delaying so much that they end up hearing it first from someone else. We also want to lay a solid foundation of teaching them about God’s beautiful design for sexual relationships before eventually explaining the various perversions of God’s order.

That privilege – of waiting until our children are old enough and of presenting the beautiful before the ugly – will be increasingly denied us by the normalization and display of homosexuality in the media, in schools, and in the malls. This is going to be tough, but we will have to teach our children much earlier and about much more than we would ordinarily choose.

2. Prepare to love
Though Christians are often accused of hating homosexuals, homosexuals harbor far more hate for Christians than vice versa. They really do hate us in a way I’ve never seen in any other group – way more than radical Muslims or even the secular humanist and communist groups of the 1970′s to 1990′s, and that’s saying something. They are our self-declared enemies and want to see our beliefs, words, and actions criminalized. They want to shut down our businesses, render Christians unemployable, and incarcerate our preachers.

In response, we must love them.

That’s going to be one of the hardest things we will ever do, as most of us will never have encountered such personal enmity from anyone. But we must beg for the spirit of Christ, who prayed, “Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.” We must graciously and gently good-news them and good-deed them, while being unflinching in our moral convictions.

We don’t need to prove our spiritual manhood by condemning homosexuality in every sermon and prayer. Keep the focus on the saving love of Christ, no matter how tempting it is to get into constant condemnation mode. Remember, there are probably homosexuals in most of our congregations. Try to win them, not beat them.

3. Prepare for jail
I doubt most politicians really want lots of otherwise law-abiding citizens jailed for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or for preaching that homosexuality is wrong. Many do, however, want to create a climate of intimidation that will deter Christians from doing such things. If the UK pattern is a model – and it looks as if US campaigners are using the same playbook – they will pass “hate-crime” legislation, press charges against us, shame us in the media, stigmatize our businesses and churches, threaten us with the loss of our children, and impose substantial fines, all in the hope to scare us into silence. But when none of these things move us, the legal penalties will intensify until eventually some of us, maybe many of us, will end up going to prison for it. We’d better get ready for that inevitable reality.

4. Prepare for betrayal
This is going to be a sifting time. Some Christians will cave. Prominent preachers will compromise. Famous Christians will distance themselves from believers who have fallen foul of homosexual campaigners. “What’s the point in going to jail? We can still preach the Gospel without ever mentioning homosexuality. We must be wise….etc.” There will be major Judas-type disappointments. The mighty will fall. But many humble unknown Christians will suffer honorably and beautifully and know the blessedness of being persecuted for righteousness sake.

5. Prepare a refuge?
This great nation was founded when a group of persecuted believers fled religious persecution to find and enjoy freedom of religion. It’s beyond ironic that the very same pilgrims would be among the first targets of this new “religious” persecution if they were alive today. If the current trajectory continues, we will look at one another and ask, “Where can we flee to?” Perhaps a State will come forward that will stand up to this tyranny and offer refuge to thousands of moral and spiritual refugees, aliens in their own land. Maybe another Mayflower will be required, perhaps many of them, this time to sail away from these shores in hope of finding freedom to worship and serve God according to His Word. But where to? Where is left? Russia? Which brings us to…

6. Prepare for eternity
The Bible makes clear, and history backs it up, that when a people goes down this route, it’s close to it’s end. It has run out of moral ground, it’s already over the cliff, and falling into the holy wrath of God. As country after country passes gay marriage laws, the end is coming closer and closer. If the USA falls, how far behind will God’s judgment be? The time is short and shortening. We need mercy, we need prayer, we need to plead with our family and friends to flee the coming wrath by fleeing to Christ the only savior of sinners – yes even homosexual sinners – that will come to Him for salvation.

In the meantime, let’s not give up and give in but continue to do all that we can to save our society and precious souls.

The Apostle Paul’s Media Pyramid

Jan 8, 2013 • By David Murray • 5 Comments

A food pyramid is a graphic way of displaying the recommended daily intake of different kinds of healthy food. The Apostle Paul drew a media food pyramid for us in Philippians 4:8, breaking down our media intake into six healthy categories:

Whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever thingsare pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.

1. True not false: “Whatever things are true”
Media lies are found on both the left and the right. Christians will often rightly protest at the bias of the mainstream media, and yet be completely blind to the bias that comes from the more conservative media outlets. But lies are lies regardless of whether they come from the left or the right.

We also have to be careful that we don’t over-expose ourselves to journalists who spend most of their time exposing the lies of “the other team.” Again this over-emphasis on falsehood only breeds cynicism, suspicion, and mistrust.

2. Noble not base: “Whatever things are noble”
The media tend to publicize the vile and sordid side of life. Some of the most popular books over the past years have been childhood memoirs that describe the most horrific abuse and cruelty. 50 Shades of Grey, a trilogy of books that celebrate sadistic sex, has occupied the bestsellers list for months and months, drawing massive media attention and debasing old and young minds alike.

“Don’t do this to yourself!” appealed Paul. Bin the base and nourish the noble in your life. “Noble” means “majestic, awe-inspiring, worthy, and elevating.” It’s the word used to describe deacons in 1 Tim 3:8 and old men in Titus 2:2. It can be translated “gravity” and is the opposite of what is cheap, tawdry, and frivolous.

3. Right not wrong: “Whatever things are just”
“Just” means what conforms to God’s law and standards, and describes right conduct in the whole of life. Does that sound like most sit-coms, soap-operas, and news features? Do the media celebrate right acts? Quite the reverse; they usually focus on sinful acts. Moral people don’t make the news and if they do ever appear in TV or on film, they are caricatured as out-of-touch or irrelevant.

4. Purity not filth: “Whatever things are pure”
When was the last time you saw a film that celebrated chastity and modesty, or showed the beauty of Christian marriage, or that portrayed a normal functioning family. Immorality, abuse, fighting, murder, and weirdness rules the day. Filth floats to the surface while purity sinks without trace.

5. Beautiful not ugly: “Whatever things are lovely”
“Lovely” things call and compel admiration and affection. It’s literally “towards love” and means whatever produces love, whatever moves towards love. Perhaps the best modern word would be “beautiful” or “winsome.” That’s hardly a word that comes to mind when surveying most TV listings or movie premieres. The ugly side of life seems to win the day as so many are fatally drawn to the darkness (John 3:19). Notice how many millions of views that “Fail” videos have on Youtube! See if you can find many viral videos that showcase the beautiful and the lovely.

6. Praise not complaint: “Whatever things are of good report”
Focus on what is constructive rather than destructive, on whatever makes people exclaim, “Well done!” rather than what makes you and others say, “That’s terrible.”

As you sit at your dinner table, do you suggest topics that will show people up in a good light or in a bad light? Do you tell stories that will make your family praise God and others or in a way that will make them doubt God and criticize others.

Whatever x 6
There is much good in everyday life that should be acknowledged and appreciated, regardless of whether it is done or said by a Christian or not. Whether it’s a good product, a helpful service, a wise insight, a superb article, or a beautiful photograph, praise and celebrate it. Don’t look first for what you can critique, look for what you can admire. As Paul summed up: “If there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.”

And his emphasis is not on the “not.” He’s not saying so much, “Don’t watch that, don’t listen to this, don’t think about that, don’t, don’t, don’t…” Rather it’s positive, “Do think, do focus, do fill your minds with the true, the good, the lovely, etc.” And let’s help our children to do the same. That’s a daily duty and a daily battle for which we need daily grace.

What old and new media sources and resources have you found that help you eat healthy?

See also: A New Diet for a New Year.

Newtown: Time to operate on a “need to know” basis

Dec 17, 2012 • By David Murray • 19 Comments

If Friday had happened a hundred years ago, most of America would probably still not have heard of Newtown. A limited narrative of facts would eventually have trickled out across the country, and maybe even reach a few other parts of the world. Perhaps there might have been a brief paragraph in The London Times and a few other significant international newspapers.

Horrific specifics
What a difference a hundred years makes. Within seconds we know not only what happened in general but all the horrific specifics. Within minutes we have eyewitness accounts. Within hours we have photos and video. By the end of the day we have hundreds, maybe thousands of reporters swarming over the town. Press conferences are carried live; interviews with bereaved families and spared families fill the non-stop news cycle; the perpetrator’s evil mind and twisted past are dredged; amateur psychologists opine on the ravings and ranting of evil. Old and new media are drowning us in a deluge of frightful information and fearful images.

For most of us, it’s time to pull the plug and avert our gaze.

It is neither necessary nor wise for most of us to know all this horrifying information. What good purpose does it serve to hear or read exactly how the murderer went about his vile business, what was heard or seen in the classrooms and offices, how victims tried to defend themselves and others, etc? It is deeply damaging to our short and long-term mental, emotional, and spiritual health to expose ourselves to such bloodcurdling details.

Self-inflicted trauma
I’m not saying we ignore what happened, nor that we shouldn’t sympathise deeply with the families and the community. I’m saying most of us need only know enough to pray intelligently for the needs of the survivors, their families, and the community. But most of us know way, way more than that by now, darkening our waking hours and disturbing our sleeping hours. I don’t think most of us realize the deep and damaging trauma we are inflicting upon ourselves.

Some Christians probably should know more, especially those whom God has specially called to interpret and explain these monstrous actions to the public and the church. But most of us  don’t need to glue ourselves to TV and Internet news. Instead, we should actively shield ourselves and our families from much of it. If we wouldn’t read books or watch films that gave such details, why do it with real-life events?

Not necessary or wise
I’m at the stage where I’m reading some headlines, and maybe the first paragraph of some reports. But that’s where I’m now drawing the line. For most of us it is not necessary or wise to watch the multiple funerals and memorial services, to read the latest insights into this evil mind, to watch crime scene reconstructions, or to listen to harrowing interviews with teachers and parents. It’s time to operate on a “need to know” basis.

And we shouldn’t feel guilty about it. 

But we must pray. Indeed, we must pray for Newtown and the nation as we’ve never prayed before.

Can we have a break from homosexuality?

Nov 26, 2012 • By David Murray • 12 Comments

Can we have a voluntary moratorium on writing or speaking about homosexuality in Christian circles. It doesn’t have to be forever, but if we could have just a few weeks or even months without it being written about or preached upon, we would all be the better for it.

I think I was 14 or 15 before I heard of homosexuality (it wasn’t exactly a trending topic in Glasgow city schools!). I was maybe late teens before I heard it mentioned, quite obliquely, in a sermon. That kind of ignorance or denial is probably not healthy today. However, I sometimes wish for these days again rather than the other extreme where we cannot get away from it. The media shove it in our faces every day already. Do Christians need to be similarly obsessed?

Of course the subject needs to be addressed from time to time, especially when the militant gay rights movement is such a force in our society. However, it would be so good if we could get through a week now and again without having to soil our minds with it.

A clever devil
The devil is not stupid. He knows that the more people talk about homosexuality, the more it is normalized and becomes just another part of “ordinary” sinful society. The more we talk and write about it, the less shocking and the more “whatever” it becomes.

I imagine most homosexuals are delighted with the way Christians are helping to normalize conversations and discussions about this sin, especially without regard for the ages, innocence, and vulnerability of those who are present. I’ve lost count of the number of times Christian adults have talked about homosexuality in front of my little girls. It makes me so angry, because I want them to hear about healthy and beautiful sexual relations, long before being exposed to the most perverse and twisted – and I want them to hear it from me.

The Apostle Paul said of the unfruitful works of darkness, “For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret” (Eph. 5:12). If that verse doesn’t apply to some extent to this evil, I don’t know what it does cover.

Lost innocence
The devil also knows that by exposing younger and younger children to the vocabulary and idea of homosexuality, that precious innocence is lost and curiosity is dangerously aroused. There are appropriate ages to introduce these things to children, and we should respect parents discretion on this. Can we not find euphemistic ways of talking about some sins, protecting young innocent minds among us, while the rest of us know what’s being talked about?

We’re going to have to fight some fearful battles on this front in the coming years. Homosexuals will not rest with the acceptance of gay marriage. They want to eliminate all criticism and disapproval of their sin, and they will not stop until they are not only tolerated or accepted but approved by all. However, do we really need to constantly fill the blogosphere, Christian magazines, Christian schools, our pulpits, and our family dinner tables with this?

I feel I’ve failed in this area too, and therefore I’ve now resolved to neither talk nor write about this subject more than is absolutely necessary, and always in appropriate forums and ways.

Why don’t you join me?

Christian bloggers, writers, editors, teachers, and preachers, can I appeal to you? Please give us a break from mentioning homosexuality. Even for a month. Give us something positive and wholesome to think about. Give us Jesus.

What is a social conservative?

Nov 14, 2012 • By David Murray • 3 Comments

My friend Andrew Murray (no relation) is manager of Bethany Christian Trust, a charity for the homeless and vulnerable in Aberdeen. Some years ago, when he stood as a Conservative candidate for election in Edinburgh, he gave this speech (slightly edited here) on “What is a social conservative?”

The conservatism I believe in is often termed social conservatism and it can be summed up under six headings;

Firstly, I believe in the traditional Family and the Home as one of the principal symbols of social conservatism.

Social conservatives generally believe in the traditional view of the family as the basic building block of any stable society. While acknowledging that many families don’t always work out as planned, I believe that a solid, stable family is the best environment for children to be brought up. It is their first school where they are taught basic values. We are relational beings and the family is the place where we learn our social skills, our respect for authority and hopefully some good manners.

As any social worker will tell you, the attachments made in the first few weeks and months of a child’s life will affect their experience of relationships for the rest of their lives. For social conservatives the family is the most tried-and-trusted institution. It offers the kind of multidimensional care that the feed-and-forget state cannot. To quote John Hayes MP;

…government can undertake some functions undertaken by a family or a community. The state, or market, can replace the breadwinning role of a father, but it can’t tuck a child into bed at night….

Secondly, I believe conservative Values

It is hard to imagine a Conservative leader today standing up at the Party Conference and saying that the first of the Party’s main objectives is ‘To uphold the Christian religion and resist all attacks upon it’ as Winston Churchill did in 1946. Politics needs a moral context.

Beliefs such as capitalism without a moral context simply descend into the celebration of self interest.  Policies need to follow principles not focus groups and polls. Values such as justice, equality, decency, respect, compassion are not formed in a vacuum. When political leaders believe that they are the supreme power in a nation, and have no higher power to which they are accountable, it can lead to disastrous consequences.  There must be a divine standard to which we measure all our actions. As Lord Hugh Cecil has said:

Religion is the standard by which the plans of politicians must be judged, and a religious purpose must purify their aims and methods.  Emphasising this truth, Conservatism will be the creed neither of a superfluous faction nor of a selfish class.

Thirdly I believe in Realism, Pragmatism and a Limited Role for the State.

I reject the left wing idea that through social engineering and just the right amount of funding, a utopia is attainable. Stalinist Russia is surely all the evidence we need that a utopian society is a socialist fairy tail. To quote the Conservative researcher Michael Veitch:

For the Conservative, an appreciation of the fallen nature of mankind has led to an understanding of the appropriate view of the state.  Because people are flawed, it is futile for the state to seek to bend their wants and desires to its will – a common mistake of the Left through the ages.  Furthermore, because man is a flawed being, it follows that the state – a man made institution – is equally flawed.  History bears witness to the fact that it is therefore folly to place too much power into the hands of the government.

Conservatism is not controlled by an ideology like socialism. As conservatives we seek to pragmatically solve problems based on knowledge, realism, and tried and tested conservative values.

Fourthly, I believe in Responsibility

Many Conservatives talk about economic and social freedom, but freedom with no limits leads to chaos. Social conservatives believe in personal, community and corporate responsibility. The more people take responsibility the less the state needs to get involved. Responsibility cannot be legislated, it must be taught primarily through the family as children are brought up, and local communities taking responsibility for their more wayward members. Margaret Thatcher in her now famous quote on society can say it better that I can:

We’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. They’re casting their problems on society. And you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.

Fifthly, I believe in Compassion

Unlike the top down solutions of the left, conservatives understand that real compassion can only be communicated through people at a ‘grass roots’ level.

The conservative approach to compassion is distinctive. We understand that the institutions of civil society form the soundest basis for a caring society. School choice, zero tolerance of crime and a safety-net approach to welfare are other favoured hallmarks.  To quote John Hayes MP:

The state and the market are one dimensional – providing material care. They don’t provide the personal touch. Someone down on their luck doesn’t just need money dispensed from behind a plastic screen. He also needs encouragement, friendship and hope. He needs to know that someone is in his corner. He needs help to walk tall again.

Lastly, I believe in Tradition

Social conservatives do not look around for the latest political fad and do not collapse at the first challenge of political correctness. Our principles and beliefs are grounded in something stronger and deeper than passing fads. As Edward Leigh MP has said:

Tradition is accumulated wisdom. Established customs and practices have stood the test of time, and should be preserved for the benefit of present and future generations.

Conclusion

In closing, let me summarise social conservatism with this excellent quote from Russel Kirk in The Conservative Mind:

  • “Conservatives generally believe that there exists a transcendent moral order, to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society.
  • Conservatives uphold the principle of social continuity. They prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know.
  • Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long and painful social experience, the results of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice.
  • Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order can ever be created.”

Economics for Everybody

Sep 27, 2012 • By David Murray • 1 Comment

It’s not easy to produce a Christian video curriculum on any subject these days. With so much exposure to mass media and the vast resources at these producers’ disposal, it’s extremely difficult for Christians with limited budgets, limited equipment, and limited audiences to get anywhere close to matching the production quality that people are used to.

Freezing and forgetting
Most people don’t realize how hard it is to talk to camera in a lively and gripping way that doesn’t come across like really poor acting. When you’re in a studio with half a dozen guys pointing various cameras, lights, and recording equipment in your face, it’s a great recipe for freezing and forgetting your lines.

The camera also has a way of revealing what a boring person you are! Again TV personalities have a lot to answer for. They are so excessively pumped and energized that they make even normally lively people look like the walking dead. To come across as “normal” by TV standards, you’d almost need to have an electric current running through you.

There’s also the challenge of doing something more than just a talking head in a studio without the video images taking over from the teaching content.

Impressive content and production
In spite of all these obstacles, I was hopeful that R.C. Sproul Jr’s new Ligonier teaching series, Economics for Everybody would make the grade. And it does. I was impressed with the production quality, the combination of teaching content and film extracts, RC’s lively presence on camera, and the skill with which he simplifies economics so that everybody can understand and relate to it. I liked his basic analogy, that the way we all handle money in our everyday life is a small picture of the greater economic forces and issues that businesses and government have to face. Economics for Everybody is for everybody.

My teenage boys and I started the curriculum last week and I thought I’d post their initial thoughts after a completing a couple of lessons, with a fuller review from us all when we finish it.

Allan (16)
R.C. Sproul Jr. presents Economics in a very entertaining, gripping way that is bound to immediately grasp the listener’s attention. His study guide is clearly informative and has some personal questions with which the reader can examine his or her response. Using illustrations he promotes the biblical truths of economics including topics such as where has economics come from, where did it begin, and how can we use it to further God’s kingdom.

Angus (15)
I thought that the way this film is presented is a unique idea. Particularly favorable are the frequent switches from the speaker to film examples from times past. The content is a biblically founded guide to using Economics in today’s day and age. Although concepts we rarely talk about, the ideas given should definitely be put into practice more. The liveliness of R.C. Sproul Jr. keeps the viewer’s mind firmly concentrated on what is being taught. I found the layout of the study guide a bit hard to follow, but it provoked lots of genuine questions for discussion.

Economics for Everybody: Applying Biblical Principles to Work, Wealth and the World. Twelve 23-minute messages (over four hours of teaching) plus study guide for $36. Buy from Ligonier.

The fastest way to discourage other Christians

Aug 29, 2012 • By David Murray • 8 Comments

How to make Christian hearts and heads droop.

Find lots of different ways of saying:

“I have the best parents in the world.”

“I have the best wife in the world.”

“I have the best kids in the world.”

“I am the best witness in the world.”

Repeat.

For a bit of variation, regularly use yourself as an example of godly character and conduct.

To make even more heads drop and hearts sink, use social media to communicate the same message.

Alternatively.

If it’s all true (perhaps the biggest “IF” in the world), thank God in privacy and humility.

Then look really, really hard for a personal weakness and boast loudly and widely about it (2 Cor. 11:30; 12:9).

And watch God be lifted up, along with lots of Christian hearts and heads.

How to be a Christian hater

Aug 14, 2012 • By David Murray • 1 Comment

No, not how to hate Christians. Rather, how to hate as a Christian. For, as we saw yesterday, there is a time to hate (Eccl. 3:8).

But how are we to hate? How are we hate in a Christian manner?

Hate biblically: Personal prejudices and biases must never be the basis for hate. We must hate only what the Bible commands us to hate. While the Bible commands us to hate evil in general (Rom. 12:9; Heb. 1:9), it also gives us specific sins to hate: lying (Prov. 13:5), bribes, (Prov. 15:27), covetousness (Prov. 28:16), false ways (Ps. 119:104),  pride and arrogance (Prov. 8:13), etc.

Hate proportionately: Our hate should be proportionate to the offense. We don’t show equal hatred towards playground bullying and murder or rape. Some sins are more dangerous than others, and some are more damaging to society than others. Our moral outrage should reflect the seriousness of the sin.

Hate appropriately: The way we express our hate should fit our role in society. For example, a President expresses his hate of Islamic terrorism in a different way to a private citizen. While a President is authorized by God to use armies to oppose such evil, unless his life is in imminent danger the private citizen opposes evil with prayers and words.

Hate impersonally: Yes, hate the sin but love the person doing the sinning. Hard, very hard, though it may be at times, we must make every effort to separate the sin from the person. Jesus is the perfect example of someone who loves us personally, yet hates our sin with a perfect hatred.

Hate lovingly: Hating a person’s sin is no excuse to treat them rudely or violently. Instead, while opposing their sinful practices and opinions, we must try to do them good in many practical ways (Rom. 12:17-21). We listen to their viewpoint courteously, we answer them reasonably, we don’t insult them or call them names, and we look for opportunities to show practical acts of kindness. We do not defeat evil with evil, but with good. When they shout at us, we don’t retaliate by turning up the volume even higher. We hope they will discover, before it’s too late, that those they presently call “haters” actually love them far more than many who say they love them.

Hate evangelistically: We express disapproval, opposition, and yes even abhorrence towards a person’s conduct in order to convict them of sin, to show them that their lifestyle is offensive to God. But that’s not the end point; rather, it’s only a stepping stone to pointing them to the full and free forgiveness of Jesus Christ. We’re not out to prove them wrong or put them right. We’re out to bring them into the love of God in Christ.

The case for “hate”

Aug 13, 2012 • By David Murray • 6 Comments

“Hate” is just about the only sin left standing in the 21st century; we can do anything but hate. In fact, to say anything is wrong is to hate, and to be called a “hater” is the ultimate insult. New “hate-crime” laws in Europe are targetting anyone who makes anyone feel hated (regardless of whether they were hated or not).

Hate-burgers
We used to hear teenagers respond to parental correction with, “I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!” and laugh: “It’ll pass.” Now mature adults respond to any moral disagreement with, “You hate me, you hate me, you hate me!” and we fear we are on the way to prison, or at least to losing our jobs or businesses.

Chicken burgers are transformed into hate-burgers by expressions of support for biblical marriage. Call someone a “hater,” and you don’t need to even listen to their views, no matter how reasonably or calmly stated.

Standing up for hate
Well, I’m going to stand up for “hate.” In fact, I want to see a revival of hate in our churches and in our society. I’m not talking about the sinful hate that attacks people with vicious words or wicked actions. I’m talking about holy hate, the kind of hate we find commanded and commended in the Bible (Ps. 97:10), the hate that loathes and opposes anything that dishonors God and harms humanity.

“But Jesus loved everybody!”
Yes, Jesus loved every single one of his neighbors, perfectly. But He also hated sin with perfect hatred. So much so that such hate was one of the proofs of His divinity (Heb. 1:9). It was His holy hate of Pharisaical double standards that put a whip in His hand to drive conmen out of the Temple. It was His holy hate of sin that propelled Him to Calvary’s cross to save sinners. It was His holy hate of the Devil that inspired Him to defeat and destroy him.

It was the hate of tyrannical slavery that mobilized Wilberforce and other abolitionists. It was the hate of enslaving and dehumanizing false religion that motivated William Carey, Adoniram Judson, and many other missionaries to give their lives for the salvation of faraway nations. It was the hate of Nazi principles and practice that motivated Churchill, Roosevelt and millions of soldiers. It was the hate of sinful discrimination and prejudice that empowered the civil rights movement.

It’s the hate of sexual abuse that campaigns against the international sex trade in young boys and girls. It’s the hate of alcoholism and drug addiction that calls thousands of Christians to seek out the perishing on our cities’ streets and in homeless shelters. It’s the hate of baby-slaughter that lines the sidewalks of abortion clinics with loving pro-life counselors. It’s the hate of drunk driving’s massive human and financial cost ($132 billion in the US every year) that propels MADD.

What hatred was made for
In They don’t make hate like they used to, Lars Walker refers to C. S. Lewis’s space novel, Perelandra, where the hero, Ransom, makes a moral decision to use his fists to fight a demonic spirit that had possessed a man:

Then an experience that perhaps no good man can ever have in our world came over him – a torrent of perfectly unmixed and lawful hatred. The energy of hating, never before felt without some guilt, without some dim knowledge that he was failing fully to distinguish the sinner from the sin, rose in his arms and legs till he felt that they were pillars of burning blood….It is perhaps difficult to understand why this filled Ransom not with horror but with a kind of joy. The joy came from finding at last what hatred was made for.

Yes, hatred has a moral purpose. In fact, without it, we are quite simply no longer moral. Morality requires not just a love for what’s right but a hatred for what’s wrong. We cannot love anything without hating its opposite. We cannot love our neighbor without hating what harms him or our society.

The big question
That being so, the big question is not whether moral hatred is right. The question is: “What is moral? How are we to decide what is wrong? What are we to hate?”

The alternatives are certainly becoming clearer: Jesus’ biblical values or Rahm Emmanuel’s “Chicago values?”

Tomorrow we will look at how Christians are to hate (and here it is).

Curiosity and Christ: Should Christians support exploration of Mars?

Aug 10, 2012 • By David Murray • 0 Comments

After eight and a half months, 352 million miles, and $2.5 billion dollars, Curiosity Rover landed on Mars accompanied by widespread congratulations and jubilation.

Can we join in? Should Christians support and celebrate the Mars Exploration Program? More importantly, does God?

Worshipping God
Curiosity has certainly given us more reason to worship God. The pictures are astounding in what they reveal of our Creator’s high-definition creation. Clearly, Mars was neither an accident nor an afterthought. It was deliberately conceived, designed, produced and carefully placed in its orbit by a wise and powerful God. If you want to be awed, consider that the Valles Marineris rift system on Mars is 10 times longer, five times deeper and 20 times wider than the Grand Canyon!

Truly, the heavens declare God’s glory and the sky proclaims His handwork (Psalm 19:1). And it’s not just Mars that evokes worship, it’s also the technology and the human brains that invented it that make us worship the God who made such brains, materials, forces, and laws to enable such an accomplishment to take place. We lift our hands and faces skywards, just as the NASA scientists did, but we look beyond a red planet and a robot to see the God behind it all.

Loving our neighbor
We might also argue that supporting NASA is a way of loving our neighbors. “What, our Martian neighbors?” No, I’m referring to the numerous spin-off benefits that the space program’s research has brought to the human race: ultrasound, microprocessors, cell phones, medical treatments, Teflon (and 1500 others according to NASA). It is estimated that for every dollar spent on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit.

Read the rest of the article at Christianity.com

3 Reasons for the Epidemic of Christophobia

Aug 1, 2012 • By David Murray • 1 Comment

One of the worst things you can be called today is “Homophobic,” often defined as “having an irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals.” However, while alleged homophobia (together with any opposition to homosexuality) is being aggressively intimidated out of existence by an ever-vigilant media and militant homosexuality, another phobia is growing, Christophobia, “an irrational fear and hatred of Christ and of Christians.” Indeed, often those who are most vigilant against homophobia are the most violent in their Christophobia.

Christophobia is not new; it’s as old as Luke 8:26-38, where, after Christ delivered a man from thousands of demons, people reacted not by rejoicing but by running away in terror, then urging Him to leave. Even the healed man seems to have felt the crowd’s hostility and begged the departing Jesus to take him too.

However, although Christophobia is not new, it does seem to be a reaching epidemic proportions in many places.  Last century, communist nations such as China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea waged a merciless and murderous war on harmless Christians. This century, while communist oppression has diminished, many Islamic countries have taken on the persecutor’s mantle. In January 2011, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an atheist convert from Islam, wrote a Newsweek article on the “War on Christians” being waged across the Muslim world resulting in thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths:

Fair-minded assessment of recent events and trends leads to the conclusion that the scale and severity of Islamophobia pales in comparison with the bloody Christophobia currently coursing through Muslim-majority nations from one end of the globe to the other. 

But we don’t need to look in the history books or to other nations for Christophobia. Even in America, there is a determined effort to remove Christianity from the public sphere and consciousness: Christian holidays and symbols are being extirpated, prayer is banned in public schools, the 10 Commandments have been removed from courts and classrooms, blasphemous art and a mocking media deride Christian values. We might ask, “What have we done to deserve this? What threat do we pose? Why is Christophobia the only acceptable bigotry that’s left?”

I offer three answers to these questions in my monthly article at Christianity.com

Check out and Tweets of the Day are on a few moe days of vacation.

Victory? The Triumphant Gay Revolution

Jun 25, 2012 • By David Murray • 6 Comments

If you just saw the subtitle, “How a Despised Minority Pushed Back, Beat Death, Found Love, and Changed America for Everyone,” you might think that you were about to read a book about Christianity. Sadly, Linda Hirshman’s book Victory is actually describing “The Gay Revolution’s Triumph” over Christianity.

No point in Christians reading about that, right? Well, I certainly wouldn’t recommend it for most Christians; it’s like watching a slow-motion replay of a loved one being murdered. However, as we tend to learn more from our defeats than our successes, it’s worth using this book to conduct a post-mortem on why the Church has lost so many battles in this fight.

Premature hubris?
Maybe, however, Hirshman’s terminology of “Victory” and “Triumph” is premature. Even a gay activist, like Democratic strategist Richard Socarides (who also served as Special Assistant to President Clinton), thinks so. Just before publication, he pled with Hirshman, “But there’s so much that has not been done. People will think you’re saying it’s over and everyone should go home.” With gay marriage still in the “To-do” column, Socarides probably fears public perceptions of hubris that tend to be punished. He may also be wary of history’s numerous examples of mistimed victory laps.

And notice, while accepting that the Church has lost many battles in this arena, I’m not conceding ultimate defeat in this war. There are many worrying signs, and the momentum seems to be against us. However, who knows, perhaps the title and message of this book might be a (metaphorical) “Haman” moment that stirs up many Christians at such a time as this to take a last glorious stand for the biblical definition and institution of marriage. As we examine Hirshman’s analysis of “The Triumphant Gay Revolution” let’s pray that God will use it to teach us and to stir us to action.

Well-defined Strategy
Hirshman’s basic thesis is that while there are some similarities between the black rights and the feminist movements in terms of tactics, the gay rights movement had a far superior strategy, and therefore achieved much more than these other movements.

She argues that while blacks and women sought tolerance and equal rights, they failed to achieve all they could have because they made the great mistake of merely trying to defend their difference. Gay activists’ aims were much higher; not just tolerance, but approval of their difference; not separate but equal, but rather integrated and admired.

Moral certainty
To achieve this strategy, gay leaders had to make a staggering moral claim: “Gay is good.” Not just acceptable, not just OK, but a moral good. Few Christians have grasped this essential element of the gay agenda. Gay men and women are not like most adulterers and fornicators who know their immorality is bad, but still do it anyway. Gays have convinced themselves that they are not only moral, but that their morality is superior to Christian morality, and therefore should replace it.

As Hirshman says: “It is the moral certainty of the gay revolution that explains why, unlike the racial and feminist movements, it has been able to stand up to that powerful counterforce [the morally driven religious right] and, slowly but surely, prevail.”

Identify your enemies
Standing firmly on this “moral foundation,” gay activists identified four major obstacles to achieving their strategic objective: (1) The churches considered them sinful; (2) The state criminalized their sex acts; (3) Doctors – mainly psychologists – thought they were crazy; and (4) The military feared they would be traitors to the nation.

For gays, conformity with mainstream norms was not an option. The accepted versions of sin, crime, sanity, and loyalty were mortal enemies that had to be taken down and replaced.

Select your primary targets
Hirshman provides a stunning wealth of detail about how the gay movement worked to overcome these “four horsemen of the gay apocalypse” – Sinful, Criminal, Crazy, and Subversive.” However, their core moral claim – “Gay is Good” – required a ruthless focus on the two traditional institutions of heterosexual morality – marriage and the military.

Same-sex marriage guru Evan Wolfson saw that marriage was “the central social and legal institution in any society.” Barring gays from marriage focused “on the core of what makes them different: their sexual and emotional relationships. Challenging marriage discrimination would challenge the core of gay exclusion.”

And as the ban on gays in the military was also based upon a moral belief that “gays were more likely to be unreliable and disloyal” that too had to go.

Collective identity
Although the aim was individual rights, “for a despised and marginalized minority, individualism is never the way to equality. Its members must recognize themselves as an oppressed class and act collectively.”

One thing that comes across in the book is the powerful unity of the multiple diverse strands of the gay movement, although Hirshman admits that a lot of that powerful unity was based on the unifying power of sex – “It’s hard to take the sex out of homosexual.”

Refusal to compromise
Despite many political and judicial victories over the years, the gay movement would not stop short of victory over the military and the church. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) was the unacceptable sop that President Clinton offered to the many gay supporters he had cultivated by over-promising during the 1992 presidential campaign.

But tolerance of secret conduct was nowhere near enough to achieve the longed-for moral approbation. Repeal of DADT was finally accomplished in 2011, together with the removal of the ban on gays serving in the military.

And we can expect the same no-compromise approach to the one remaining bulwark – the prohibition on Gay Marriage. We need to understand that no amount of “Civil Partnership” compromises will satisfy the demand for moral approval.

Never give up
Many thought that AIDS would be the end of the gay movement. However, in what is the most stunning claim in the whole book, Hirshman says, “AIDS was the making of the gay revolution.” And when you read of how the gay community leveraged this setback to secure massive funding not just for medical treatment, but also for educational and community initiatives (in a way that blacks and women never did), you cannot but agree with the claim.

“Heroism”
Hirshman says that gays benefited from the legal profession’s “nostalgia for the heroic role it played during the racial civil rights movement…For young lawyers aspiring to be the next Thurgood Marshall, the gay revolution was the civil rights movement of their generation.”

In a section that goes a long way to explaining why the legal culture is so anti-Christian, Hirshman points out that law firms have “become among the best places in America for gay and lesbian employees…The legal sector has the largest number of top-scoring companies in HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, an annual measure of how equitably large private businesses in the United States treat their lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees, consumers, and investors.”

The Last Battle
So, it all looks rather grim for Christians. We are facing opponents with a well-defined strategy, and an energizing moral certainty. Their “kill-list” has three out of four successes and they are pursuing the last, “the most resilient horseman of the gay apocalypse—sin” with a united, uncompromising, never-give-up, laser-like focus on gay marriage. And many lawyers – including our President – are out to make a great name for themselves in this final “Triumph.”

Is there anything we can do? I believe there is. We can repent. Yes, lets begin with ourselves, the Christian church, and our own sin: our apathy, our cowardice, our defeatism, our pragmatism, and our inconsistency. Let’s confess it and seek the empowering pardon that Christ alone can give.

We can also pray. Despite our failings, we can pray for God’s mercy to His church and the nation. We can plead, “For your Name’s sake, for your glory’s sake, intervene for your beautiful and blessed institution of marriage. Lord, this is the first and last bastion of Christian morality. If we lose it, we are unlikely to ever see it restored.”

And we can love. Although the majority of the gay movement hold us in contempt – and make no mistake, they do – let’s not return evil for evil. In our personal relationships with gays, and in our public words, while holding firmly to biblical morality, let’s do all we can to smash the caricatures of Christians as gay-haters. Gays have declared themselves our enemies. As such, they are entitled to our love – especially the love of evangelism.

Lastly, let’s not give up on the legal and political avenues open to us. Let’s prayerfully and practically support courageous Christian individuals and organizations who can speak truth to power.

Who knows, maybe in God’s providence Hirshman might have to write another book before too long: “Debacle: How I helped the gay revolution snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

This review was first published at The Gospel Coalition.

For Christians and churches struggling with explaining the Biblical position on Homosexuality, here’s a short briefing paper on Homosexuality and the Bible.

Pop music getting sadder and sadder

Jun 7, 2012 • By David Murray • 5 Comments

Feeling sad? Don’t reach for your radio – unless it’s a “Golden Oldies” channel – because over the last 50 years pop hots have become longer, slower and sadder (summary here).

Researchers who listened to a sampling of 1000 Top 40 songs from the last 50 years and found that:

Over the years, popular recordings became longer in duration and the proportion of female artists increased…There was also an increase in the use of minor mode [which most associate with gloom and despair] and a decrease in average tempo, confirming that popular music became more sad-sounding over time. Decreases in tempo were also more pronounced for songs in major than in minor mode, highlighting a progressive increase of mixed emotional cues in popular music.

Notice the tentative connection of more sad songs with more female singers! Brave researchers (or foolish!). On a more “positive” note, the study says that Lady Gaga’s fast-tempo, major-mode recordings has risen above (below?) these trends.

Lady Gaga apart, I wonder how much this downward emotional trajectory is connected with another trend, reported last year, of popular music lyrics becoming more self-focused and negative?

The researchers found the use of first-person plural pronouns (we, us, our) declined over the years, while the use of first-person singular pronouns (I, me, mine) increased. Words reflecting anger or antisocial behavior (hate, kill, etc.) became more prevalent over the 28-year period.

Conversely, terms depicting social interactions (talking, sharing) became less common, as did the use of words conveying positive emotions (love, nice, sweet). These findings mirror “recent evidence showing increases in U.S. loneliness and psychopathology over time.”

We probably didn’t need psychologists to tell us that an increasingly self-focused and negative society is an increasingly sad society. But the data source is intriguing and surprisingly revealing.

But let’s turn the spotlight on ourselves. What about the lyrics and music of Christian praise? Is it counter-cultural or simply following modern trends? If someone was to research the lyrics and music of Christian songs over the last 50 years, what conclusions would they draw? On the rare occasions that I listen to CCM on the car radio, there seems to be a generalized ”whine” in most of the songs. How much of our message is being obscured or denied by our medium?

And fellow Psalm-singers, the inspired words that we sing are balanced towards the God-focused and the positive; but do our tunes and the way we sing them match our words? Or by getting sadder, slower, and longer does our medium confuse our message?

You’re not racist are you? Sometimes

Apr 26, 2012 • By David Murray • 2 Comments

“You’re not racist, are you?”

“Of course not.”

“Nor sexist?”

“Never!”

“Ageist? Sizeist? Nationalist?”

“No, nein, non!”

Well, if you’re a Republican, you probably are all of these things.

Also true if you’re a Democrat.

Want some research to back that up? Here you go (more detail here).

Study 1: People who spent time outside during winter overestimated the extent to which other people were bothered by cold

Study 2: People who ate salty snacks without water thought other people were overly bothered by thirst

But in both studies this effect evaporated when participants believed that the other people under consideration held opposing political views from their own.

In other words, Republicans don’t mind if Democrats freeze to death, and Democrats don’t care if Republicans die of thirst.

OK, that’s a slight over-statement but the point is that our sympathy, our ability to imagine and feel what others are feeling, wants to draw a line at the red/blue border.

As the researchers put it: “We overestimate the extent to which others feel what we’re feeling, unless they’re on another team.” We’re happy to walk in other people’s shoes, as long as they’re wearing the same colors.

And if this sympathy-limitation is true of politics, how much more of gender, age, race, etc. Dissimilarity and difference tends to turn our hearts off. As researchers concluded: “These consequences suggest a surprising limitation in people’s capacity to empathize with others with whom they disagree or differ from.”

So, should we all become Independents?

No, the answer is more and more of the Gospel of Christ worked deeper and deeper into our hearts.

Because who loved the disagreeable, the dissimilar, and the different more than He did?

The Elephant in the Room at T4G

Apr 18, 2012 • By David Murray • 45 Comments

Although commentary abounds about last week’s T4G (pros and cons, highlights and disappointments, etc), one question I have not seen raised is, “Where were all our black brothers (and sisters)?”

Kim Shay has blogged about what it was like to be one of the small minority of women at the conference. But there was an even smaller minority of African Americans. It looked to me to be about 1-2%, maybe.

In one way I’m very reluctant to raise the question because I’ve discovered to my cost that it’s almost impossible to question or comment about anything race-related in the USA without being accused of being a racist! I’ve waited to see if some of the more culturally sensitive commentators/bloggers would address this “elephant in the room.” So far, silence.

So let me break the silence by saying that I was hugely disappointed by the largely mono-cultural make-up of T4G (the few non-WASPS I did get to speak to were from outside of the USA!). Others, quietly, said the same to me.

TGC Contrast
It was quite different at The Gospel Coalition conferences I’ve attended in Chicago, where there was a much better representation of different cultures and races (not yet representative of society, but much closer). Coming from a fairly mono-cultural church in Grand Rapids, it was one of the great blessings of attending TGC to get to know and fellowship with people from different backgrounds – challenging, but edifying, and some of these relationships endure. I’d hoped for more of this at T4G.

Given the massive and admirable effort people like John Piper, Mark Dever, and Thabiti Anyabwile, have put into challenging racism and expanding the “New Reformed” movement’s racial and cultural diversity, it must have been so disappointing for them to look out on an almost unbroken sea of white faces.

Conference clash?
Why did this happen? What are the reasons? One African American brother I wanted to meet at the conference told me that he would be at the Man up 2012 conference in Atlanta the following week. Maybe that conference clash explained many other absentees. In some ways I hope so, because it would be a real pity if, after all the barrier-breaking, bridge-building work, we all retreated into our ghettos again.

(And if I’ve used any wrong or insensitive language here, I sincerely apologize in advance).

UPDATE FROM COMMENTS:

Well, the racist charge came as expected. Sigh! Where does one begin?

1. I loved T4G. Listen to this week’s podcast with Tim Challies if you’re not convinced. It was a privilege to be there and I look forward to going back. It was superbly organized and the speakers did a great job. Met lots of fantastic people and came back supercharged. I loved T4G.

2. The leaders and organizers T4G are not racist. I did not accuse them of such and I would never dare to do such. As I said in my post, I know these men have done a huge amount to try to build bridges and break down barriers. I’m sure that they were as disappointed as me that we were not as “Together for the Gospel” as we could be.

3. And that’s really my point. And I’m sure it’s the ultimate aim of T4G as well – to be TOGETHER for the Gospel, for such conferences to truly reflect the beautiful diversity of Christ’s kingdom on earth. My post was to highlight the lack of diversity, ask why, and initiate a conversation about how that can be better accomplished in the future. The cause certainly isn’t helped by closing our eyes, shutting down conversation, and throwing accusations of racism around. The lack of “togetherness” was not intentional but we need to be intentional if we want to change it.

4. This is not just about how to get more cultural and racial diversity at “our” conferences. What about ourselves attending conferences where we might be the minority? As well as giving us a sense of what it’s like to be in a minority, that might do more than anything to show to the world the way that the Gospel can unite. I’d love to see it in our churches, but conferences would be a good start. Anyone got any good suggestions?

A modern parable from Britain’s Got Talent

Mar 29, 2012 • By David Murray • 6 Comments

He’s being called “the new Susan Boyle,” and you only have to watch the video to see why (two profanities edited out). The media are again making much of the “ugly duckling” angle, but there are two other lessons from this “parable.”

The power of partnership
When you first see this so-called “Beauty and the Beast” pairing, you wonder how they ever got together…then you hear their moving story unfold. When Jonathan Antoine’s painful shyness and weight problems made him an obvious and easy target for bullies, Charlotte stuck up for him and protected him. Jonathan admitted: ”I would not be going on stage today without Charlotte at my side.”

“Do you think you can win?” asked a skeptical Simon Cowell as they stepped on stage.

“Yeah…together,” they replied in unison.

But when Cowell later suggested to Jonathan that he was unbelievably great, whereas Charlotte was just good; that Charlotte might be a drag on his certain future stardom; and even that he should “dump her” to get ahead, the audience held its breath.

Will he throw her under the bus? Will he take the gold and leave the gal?

“NO!’ he responded. We came on here as a duo and we’ll stay here as a duo.” And all the ladies wept (OK and not a few guys teared up too – this one included!).

There’s no question of Jonathan’s superior singing talent, but he knows that without her by his side he couldn’t sing a note on stage.

“Two are better than one,” said Solomon (Eccl. 4:9). True in Britain’s Got Talent. True in marriage. True in disciple-making.

The power of pain
There’s something about suffering that gives a unique power to singing. You only have to look at Susan Boyle or Jonathan Antoine to know that they must have had a really tough time growing up in our cruel world.

And you can hear it in their singing. You can’t help but feel that, just as with Susan Boyle, Jonathan poured 17 years of agonizing suffering into those powerful three minutes on stage. It’s in his posture, it’s in his expression, it’s in his gestures, it’s especially in the deep pathos of his voice.

And we connect. We resonate. We empathize. 100 other singers, possibly even better singers, could sing the same song and it would do nothing for us. But there’s something mysterious, something indefinable, in the voice of a genuine sufferer that lasers our hearts and stirs our deepest emotions.

And it’s the same in preaching, counseling, and even witnessing. Suffering brings a unique, powerful dimension to all human communication. We can tell the difference between a preacher who’s just preaching the commentaries and one who’s preaching out of his own deep experience.

Suffering is not just the best singing school. It’s also the best Seminary.

The old idea still causing us problems

Mar 16, 2012 • By David Murray • 0 Comments

Time recently published its 2012 list of 10 ideas that are changing your life. Some of the usual suspects appear: “Computers are destroying our brains,” “Humanity is destroying the earth,” and (hold the front page!) “We’re destroying ourselves with stress.” There’s also the bizarre: new food preservation techniques can keep meat edible for up to seven years (think I’ll give that BBQ a pass). But at least half the entries mask a core idea that’s been causing us problems for 6,000 years—the self-centered desire and demand for independence. Here are its latest disguises.

Living Alone Is the New Norm: In one of the biggest societal changes ever witnessed, the number of Americans living alone has increased from 4 million in 1950 (9 percent of households) to 33 million (28 percent of households) today.

But don’t feel sorry for the “new loners.” NYU sociologist Erik Klinenberg tell us this is the ideal life:

Living alone serves a purpose: it helps us pursue sacred modern values—individual freedom, personal control, and self-realization—that carry us from adolescence to our final days. Living alone allows us to do what we want, when we want, on our own terms. It liberates us from the constraints of a domestic partner’s needs and demands and permits us to focus on ourselves.

The Rise of the Nones: “The fastest-growing religious group in the U.S. (16 percent) is the category of people who say they have no religious affiliation.”

That doesn’t mean “the Nones” don’t want any kind of church; no, they just want to do be free from “rigid dogma” and do it their way. The unofficial chaplain of “Not Church,” a regular gathering of American expats on Mexico’s Baja peninsula, said, “The underlying drive is to distance themselves from organized religion and build a rich if unorthodox spiritual life.”

Black Irony: Touré described for Time how many black Americans are turning their backs on conventional forms of blackness and want to “take a more independent even irreverent look at the subject.”

There’s that “I” word again . . . .and again: “Black irony’s imperative to use blackness inindependent ways responds to the mind-bending complexity of modern blackness . . . Sometimes we simply want to feel free to be independently black rather than worship at the altar.”

Privacy in Public: The drive to be free from others, from their scrutiny, and from accountability, has become so strong that the courts have now enshrined a right to privacy in public.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled against law enforcement using GPS signals to track a suspected drug dealer, even though the cops monitored only where the suspect went on public streets. “Thanks to that decision, for the first time in American history there is now a legal right to privacy in public.” Previously, courts agreed that Americans voluntarily gave up their Fourth Amendment protections almost as soon as they left their homes.

Niche Aging: It’s been worrying to watch retired people increasingly withdraw from society into “retirement communities,” often at great loss to themselves and at even greater loss to those from whom they withdraw their knowledge and experience. But now: “the generic retirement model is starting to give way to what developers are calling affinity housing—niche communities where choosy boomers can opt to grow old alongside others who share a specific interest” (e.g. Country Music, Feng Shui, and even LGBT). The idea would appear to be, “If I can’t be completely independent, then at least let me live beside those most like myself.”

Large Capital “I”
I’m not saying all of these ideas are completely wrong; some of them are understandable and even well motivated. But, taken together, do they not frame a picture of a large capital “I”? “Let me be me, let me be separate, having as little relationship with, dependence upon, or accountability to others as possible.”

But that’s not how God designed us to live. In the original creation, God created us dependent, both upon him and upon one another. Adam needed Eve, Eve needed Adam, and both needed God. And all was very, very good. It would never be better. Mutual need and dependence was part of God’s perfect order and part of our happiness.

In fact, what spoiled it all was a sinful desire for independence—the desire for “individual freedom, personal control, and self-realization.” Adam and Eve did not just want independence from God; they wanted to be god themselves. After sin entered, that desire for independence only accelerated as our first parents blamed each other and pushed away from one another.

Mercy of Dependence
In great mercy, God sowed dependence back into humanity with his first gospel promise (Gen. 3:15), calling us to depend upon him to send a Devil-destroyer and humanity-saver. In a judgment full of mercy, he then built sorrow and difficulty into two of our core callings, work and child-bearing (Gen. 3:16-18), again to make us need and depend upon one another and, above all, on God himself.

Of course, in a sinful world where interdependent relationships can be so easily abused, independence is sometimes more moral and ethical than dependence. For example, negative peer pressure or national oppression must be resisted and sometimes even fought. However, self-centered expressions of independence are far more common and reveal our fundamental flaw, rather than how to repair it.

Am I arguing for the return of a dependency culture? Yes, but not the “depend on government” culture envisioned by so many of our politicians, a dependency that only increases our separation and alienation from one another and from God. Rather, I have in mind the original divine order that built dependence on God and on one another into the very fiber of our beings and of our world.

And let’s not only be quick to spot the big capital “I” in the latest fads and fashions of our world. Let’s also keep a close watch upon ourselves. May God help us to weaken our own stubborn streaks of independence, and to strengthen God-glorifying, community-building dependency, his plan from the beginning.

Now there’s an idea that would change our lives, our families, our communities, our churches, and our world.

This article was originally published here on The Gospel Coalition Blog.

Franklin Graham apologizes to President Obama

Feb 29, 2012 • By David Murray • 7 Comments

Evangelist Franklin Graham has apologized to President Obama for questioning his Christian faith and said that he now accepts Obama’s declarations that he is a Christian. In a statement, issued Tuesday, Graham said:

I regret any comments I have ever made which may have cast any doubt on the personal faith of our president, Mr. Obama…I apologize to him and to any I have offended for not better articulating my reason for not supporting him in this election — for his faith has nothing to do with my consideration of him as a candidate.

This is the right decision and I admire Graham for doing this. While we are called to compare a person’s profession of faith with the fruits that are evident in their lives (Matt. 7:16-18), I believe that Franklin Graham’s original comments were wrong, and that for the following reasons:

  • It’s one thing to bring your concerns about a person’s faith to that person in private, it’s another thing altogether to raise these concerns in front of millions on breakfast TV.
  • While we can certainly question whether a person’s particular policies and practices are consistent with a Christian profession, it’s a huge step from that to proclaiming that a person is not a Christian.
  • There have been previous Presidents whose lives have been contrary to their Christian claims, yet they have not been treated this way by Franklin Graham or his father. That incongruity is where the unfounded allegation of racism finds its energy.
  • While the seemingly “Christ-less” testimony President Obama told Graham about how he came to faith is very worrying, it was told in private, and should not have been re-told in public.
  • Graham’s criticisms of the President’s faith were not based on Scriptural marks, the fruits of faith,  but on the way he told his testimony.
  • Graham not only refused to say if President Obama was a Christian, he ended up giving more credibility to the allegation that he is actually a Muslim.
  • While saying that he was not in a position to say if anyone was not a Christian, he did just that with President Obama, and then pronounced that Rick Santorum definitely was a Christian.

Three lessons to be learned from this debacle:

1. Train: We have to admire Graham’s bravery for going into the lion’s den and contending for the Christian faith in the public square. But public spokesmen like Graham should also be constantly and thoroughly trained to deal with the tactics of an extremely hostile media. In this interview at least, Graham seemed to walk straight into their trap and, judging by his rambling and defensive remarks, was completely unprepared for the question.

2. Honor: In opposing some of the anti-Christian policies of President Obama, Christians must stand out from the rest of the opposition by continuing to give honor to whom honor is due (Rom. 13:7). And if we honor God in this way, we have the promise that He will also honor us (1 Sam. 2:30).

3. Pray: We should be much more prayerful for men like Franklin Graham, Al Mohler, James Dobson, etc., who have the opportunity and the courage to represent Christ in such a difficult arena. May God give them much wisdom and wise counselors to help them continue to bear witness faithfully and persuasively.

But we should also pray for President Obama and all who lead us that they would all be truly converted to Christ, or that they would follow Him far more consistently.

Here’s the original controversial interview.

Page 1 of 2
12»