R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 200

Monday, Feb. 11, 2019

The reality of sexual abuse hits home: A massive investigative report on sexual abuse in Southern Baptist ConventionHouston Chronicle (Robert Downen, Lise Olsen, and John Tedesco) — Abuse of Faith

How did this happen? History, church order, and a moral crisis collide

Supreme Court and abortion: A recent decision, the question of momentum, and the sanctity of human life in AmericaWashington Post (Robert Barnes) — Supreme Court on 5-to-4 vote blocks restrictive Louisiana abortion law

The post Monday, Feb. 11, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing — Feb. 11, 2019

The reality of sexual abuse hits home: A massive investigative report on sexual abuse in Southern Baptist ConventionHouston Chronicle (Robert Downen, Lise Olsen, and John Tedesco) — Abuse of Faith

How did this happen? History, church order, and a moral crisis collide

Supreme Court and abortion: A recent decision, the question of momentum, and the sanctity of human life in AmericaWashington Post (Robert Barnes) — Supreme Court on 5-to-4 vote blocks restrictive Louisiana abortion law

The post The Briefing — Feb. 11, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Keep Up or Die?: A Church that Won’t Hold a Heresy Trial Isn’t Really a Church

J. Gresham Machen, the great Presbyterian theologian from the early decades of the 20th century, brilliantly assessed the state of modern Christianity and the rise of Protestant liberalism. Rather than seeing liberal theology as a variant of the Christian faith, Machen labeled it as some other religion that merely poses as Christianity. For Machen, nothing unified orthodox Christianity with Protestant liberalism—the former pursued theological fidelity to the God of the Bible, while the latter morphed into an entirely new religion altogether.

This dichotomy beamed in a recent article from the New York Times with a shocking yet revealing headline: “This Canadian Preacher Doesn’t Believe in God but Supports Her Church.” The subject of the headline is the Reverend Gretta Vosper, an avowed atheist who serves as a minister in the United Church of Canada (UCC). In November of last year, the UCC almost convened an historic heresy trial against Vosper to determine if an atheist possessed the qualifications of a pastor. The Canadian church, however, capitulated and reached “a settlement” with Vosper—a decision that allowed Vosper to remain a minister in her church despite her atheistic belief.

The controversy between Vosper and the UCC stretches back to 2008 when Vosper’s book, With or Without God, trivialized belief in God. Her own concept of morality and virtue eclipsed faith in God as the primary marks of a Christian. In 2013, Vosper made her atheism public, followed by a 2015 letter that Vosper wrote in which she disparaged God’s presence in the world and activity in historical events. God could not be responsible because God does not exist. Her argument: There is no God, no one’s in charge. Accidents just happen. Belief in God, according to Vosper, belongs to an outdated worldview.

Interestingly, in her zeal to depart from an antiquated, theocentric worldview, Vosper’s congregation dramatically shrunk in size. When she discarded the Lord’s Prayer, her church deteriorated from 150 attendees to 50—an exodus of 100 people or two-thirds of the congregation. It turns out that cultural relevance, rather than saving a marginalized church, only hemorrhages to a swift demise.

Her atheism provoked the local jurisdiction of the UCC to conduct what Vosper labeled, a “heresy trial.” The local panel ruled her unsuitable for ministry and almost defrocked the atheist minister. Then, the National Churches conducted its final review of her case and subsequently reached a settlement with Vosper. The UCC explained its decision to end the investigation stating, “This doesn’t alter in any way the belief of the United Church of Canada in God.” In other words, atheism and theism are not incompatible in the view of this church. The requirement that one believe in God does not contradict the reality that one denies the existence of God. This is capitulation of the highest order. The UCC, by legitimizing atheism as a possible expression for its ministers, has actually erased all the lines, safeguards, and convictions that should guide the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing is out of bounds; nothing can cross the line because the line has disappeared. The UCC reduced belief in God to an outdated, outmoded, and inconsequential tenet of the Christian faith.

Vosper celebrated the UCC’s decision, stating, “It’s going to be wonderful. We’ll be out from underneath the heavy cloud, now we’ll be able to really fly.” Indeed, her church members did fly—they flew right out of the church in droves.

Julian Falconer, Vosper’s attorney, explained why the UCC settled rather than conducting a trail: “Both parties took a long look at the cost benefit at running a heresy trial, and whether it was good for anyone, and the results speak for themselves.” This explanation reveals an extremely important and harrowing reality behind this case. The UCC conducted a cost benefit analysis and decided that heresy was the lesser of two evils. The church weighed faith in God against “inclusivity” and valued inclusivism higher than theological fidelity. For the sake of the church, belief in God had to go.

Kevin Flatt’s book After Evangelicalism: The Sixties and the United Church chronicles the theological downgrade of the UCC since the 1960s. Social justice propelled the UCC rather than theological commitments. As such, the UCC became an engine of secularism and liberalism in Canada. It pioneered transgender ministers, supported abortion, and championed same-sex marriage before it became legal in Canada. Flatt’s analysis identified the “keep up or die” trope that drove the UCC’s liberal transformation. Cultural relevance conflicts with supernatural doctrines and theology. The UCC, like so many denominations guided by the “keep up or die” mentality, have surrendered theological conviction for the misguided hope that survival in this secular age hinges on abandoning the doctrines and precious truths of the gospel that have guided the Church since its inception. The results of this idea, however, have devastated liberal churches. It turns out that “keep up or die” really means “keep up and die.”  As Vosper declared, liberal churches do indeed fly; they fly right out of existence. Their members flee, their doors close, and the churches die fast.

Frankly, the number of liberal churches dying just serves to make the point learned from the Scriptures and 2,000 years of church history: A church that refuses to hold a heresy trial when faced with a heretic is no church of Jesus Christ.

This article draws from the February 8th edition of The Briefing. To listen to the full episode, click here. To subscribe to The Briefing–Dr. Mohler’s daily podcast that serves as an analysis of news and events–click here. 

The post Keep Up or Die?: A Church that Won’t Hold a Heresy Trial Isn’t Really a Church appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Friday, Feb. 8, 2019

‘Keep up or die’: A church that won’t hold a heresy trial when confronted with heresy isn’t really a churchNew York Times (Catherine Porter) — A Canadian Preacher Who Doesn’t Believe in GodReligion News Service (John Longhurst) — Atheist minister Gretta Vosper hopes to stay at Canadian church for the long haul

Is it possible to raise children without the notion of sin? Why a mere morality of harm isn’t sufficientNew York Times (Julia Scheeres) — Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin

Buckle up: If you’re a German politician who wants to impose a speed limit on the Autobahn, you won’t be a politician for long New York Times (Katrin Bennhold) — Impose a Speed Limit on the Autobahn? Not So Fast, Many Germans Say

The post Friday, Feb. 8, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Knowing Where We Stand: Washington Post Columnist Says Anyone Who Holds to Biblical Morality Is A Bigot–Calls for VP Pence to Resign

Sometimes, in just one public argument, all the worst winds gather together as a perfect storm. Perhaps no article in recent months fits that mold more than an opinion piece that ran just days ago in The Washington Post by veteran columnist Richard Cohen. The headline of the article reads, “It’s Not Just Northam. Republicans Must Confront the Bigotry of the Pences Too.”

So we are told in advance that the article will condemn bigotry. The headline itself carries a weighty context—the background of the article flows from the charges levied against the governor of Virginia after embarrassing photographs surfaced that indicate a repetitive pattern of racism. Understandably, the Democratic Party has decided that Northam should resign. But Richard Cohen says that by the same logic, if Governor Northam must go, Vice President Mike Pence must go too. Why? Because both Northam and Pence stand equally guilty of bigotry.

Actually, Cohen seems to argue that the Pences, both the Vice President and his wife, may be guilty of an even more heinous bigotry. Cohen writes, “If bigotry is repugnant, why not demand the resignation of Vice President Pence for his ugly views on homosexuality? And while they’re at it, why not insist that Pence’s wife Karen resign her position at a school that discriminates against gays and lesbians?”

Cohen makes a now familiar argument – he creates a moral parallel between the question of racism and anyone who believes that LGBTQ behaviors and relationships are sinful. He equates discrimination based on skin color with the moral agenda of gay rights.

Cohen tries to head off objections to his argument by writing, “The Pences are deeply religious, and their views on homosexuality are based on their religious convictions. To this I say, so what? The Bible was used to justify slavery. And in my own time, racists cited this or that biblical passage to assert that racial segregation was precisely what God intended.”

Cohen operates out of a secular, cosmopolitan perspective. In his view, the use of the Bible in modern moral debate is simply out of bounds. Citing the misuse of the Bible to defend American slavery, he argues that Christians are guilty of the same pattern now, but with reference to sexuality. Cohen is right when he alleges that some have used the Bible to defend slavery and segregation.  Advocates of slavery relied upon a faulty hermeneutic and a wrongful approach to the Scriptures. In Cohen’s mind, given the Vice President’s beliefs concerning sexuality, he should be seen as disqualified to serve in high office. Cohen boldly says that appeal to religious conviction cannot serve as a haven for bigoted beliefs and behavior—not for racism and not for anti-LGBTQ positions. He just assumes that all right-minded people will agree that any belief that homosexuality is sinful is just another form of bigotry.

The misuse of the Bible on the matters of race in no way nullifies its clarity or its authority for Christians on sexual ethics. Justification for slavery relied upon a few verses, ripped out of their historical, literary, and theological context. But the Scriptures abound with texts, verses, and instructions regarding marriage and sexuality. The Bible presents a unified theme in all 66 books—a theme that declares marriage as an institution created by God that unites one man to one woman. Indeed, in Romans 1, Paul grounds marital and sexual ethics not only in the Old Testament but in the broader scope of creation. The structure of creation testifies to the goodness and orderliness of God’s design for humanity as male and female—from birth—and for marriage and the proper expression of sexuality.

But Cohen continues down his fallacious spiral and just declares that anyone who holds to a biblical view of homosexuality is nothing more than a bigot. By his own logic, Cohen has labeled every Orthodox Jew, Roman Catholic, Mormon, and Muslim who holds to the official teachings of their faith to be a bigot. But Cohen made his central attack upon the Pences and conservative evangelicals. How dare they hold to the doctrines and teachings that Christianity has affirmed for over 2,000 years?

In this insidious but extremely revealing article, Cohen does all he can to dismantle the idea that homosexuality could even be imagined as sinful and morally wrong. He proceeds to smear as a bigot anyone who would dare to even think of homosexuality as sinful.

Note clearly that Richard Cohen makes his own moral judgment abundantly clear. He states: “It is simply wrong to foster a belief that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are immoral.” So Cohen does believe in right and wrong, but measured by his own internal compass and prevailing elite opinion.

Richard Cohen has drawn a line in the sand. He has appointed himself as judge, jury, and executioner. Homosexuality is not wrong, so if you believe that anything in the LGBTQ array is sinful, you are bigoted. As such, you should be exiled from the public square, where there is no place for bigots.

Cohen’s article represents the inevitable collision between religious liberty and the newly defined sexual liberties. The cultural Left believes that any moral opposition to homosexuality exudes intolerance and hatred of the highest order. Cultural exile awaits those who will not get in line with modernity’s vision of sexuality. Opposition amounts to nothing less than the same hatred and bigoted sensibilities that marked the defenders of slavery. These are, by Cohen’s estimation, moral equivalents that must be eradicated.

Yet, despite all of this, the real issue at stake in this article revolves around objective morality—the truth that morality is fixed, finite, eternally true, and divinely revealed. The real antipathy Cohen directs at the Pences and to conservative Christians centers on our audacity to draw anything from the pages of Holy Scripture. We dare to say, “God said.” We dare to believe that God has spoken, that the Bible is his Word, that it bears divine authority and is without error. The secular mind cannot accept the audacious claim to believe that true morality flows from God’s revelation, that God has spoken and established an order to his creation. The secular elites believe that anyone who holds to a biblical morality is a bigot and anyone who believes in divine revelation must be an idiot. In the view of the secular culture, that’s where we stand.

Of course, the perennial question for the church comes down to this: Will we stand?

This article draws from the February 6th edition of The Briefing. To listen to the full episode, click here. To subscribe to The Briefing–Dr. Mohler’s daily podcast that serves as an analysis of news and events–click here. 

The post Knowing Where We Stand: Washington Post Columnist Says Anyone Who Holds to Biblical Morality Is A Bigot–Calls for VP Pence to Resign appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Thursday, Feb. 7, 2019

Knowing where we stand: Washington Post columnist says anyone who holds to biblical morality is a bigotWashington Post (Richard Cohen) — It’s not just Northam. Republicans must confront the bigotry of the Pences too.

What does Planned Parenthood mean when it says it wants "reproductive justice"?Courier-Journal (Andrew Wolfson) — Planned Parenthood makes big money move to fight right-wing attacks

Reproduction, race, and sex-selection abortions: Why abortion isn't the fundamental right sexual revolutionaries say it is Courier-Journal (Joan Kofodimos) — Hypocritical abortion bill would hurt people of color in Kentucky

The post Thursday, Feb. 7, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

“Made in the holy image of God”—The One Specific Moment in Last Night’s State of the Union that Highlights Our Culture’s Vast Worldview Divide

After a week-long delay due to the partial government shutdown, the 2019 State of the Union Address showed up in a big way. When the time arrived for President Donald Trump’s speech, it came with all the requisite drama that surrounds The State of the Union and then some. Indeed, the deep worldview divides represented by the current political climate overshadowed the usual political pageantry associated with this speech. It was an epic drama of democracy.

Long before he became President of the United States, Donald Trump understood television. He understood reality TV, and his expertise was on display last night. The President carefully orchestrated arguments and policy statements on a range of issues like infrastructure, women in the workplace, or the price of pharmaceutical drugs—issues that his partisan opponents could not help applauding. He understood the optics of this event and he crafted a message that would paint himself as a statesman of the republic who could speak to issues that bridged partisan divides. By evoking imagery of Ronald Reagan, the President summoned the divided congress to greatness: to pursue results, live for a grand vision, and promote America’s “destiny” as an example for the world.

At the same time, the President also knew exactly what he was doing when he articulated points that would not garner support from Democrats but remarkable disagreement. That, too, was part of the plan—and one issue, specifically, magnified the vast worldview divide present within the American culture.

During his speech, the President promoted a policy for paid family leave. This policy boasts the support of many Democrats and even some Republicans. The Democrats, along with many in the President’s own party, applauded the policy proposal. The President’s next series of words silenced the bipartisan applause:

“There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments from birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated that he would ‘execute a baby after birth.’ To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.”

The President struck a contentious, volatile, and crucial chord with these words that not only condemned late-term abortion but called on Congress to completely ban the atrocity now legal in New York and championed in Virginia.

Abortion reigns as the only sacrament that remains amongst the political left. They treat it as a sacrament to cherish and defend at all costs—a worldview that presses them to pass legislation like the new law in New York State.

Indeed, the President’s words highlighted that great worldview divide over something as basic as the dignity and sanctity of human life. When the President condemned late-term abortions, the cameras in the House Chamber panned the faces of the Democrats who exhibited a stone-cold expression—they sat in disgruntled silence. As Donald Trump called for legislation to end the practice, their opposition to his call was painfully and visibly clear. The ideology and worldview of the political left has trapped them within an argument from which they apparently have no intention of escaping. On a nationally televised address with the eyes of the nation watching, lawmakers eagerly embraced a culture of death.

Then, the President did something remarkable, taking his comments in a direction virtually unprecedented in the language of recent presidents. The President said, “Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life. And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children—born and unborn—are made in the holy image of God.” Right there, one of the most fundamental doctrines of Scripture and definitional truths about humanity was affirmed. That ought not to go without our attention. The President made very clear that the grounds for human dignity and the protection of the unborn flows from a biblical worldview—that all humanity is made in the image of God.

The left was unmoved. They sat as stone statuary. The worldview of the left, however, leaves them with no other choice. This has had two horrific consequences. First, the logic of the pro-abortion movement, if honest, must point to the unrestricted access of abortion at any point in the pregnancy for any reason. Second, the pressure of the pro-abortion worldview has made pro-life Democrats an extinct species.

The horror of abortion has dotted the headlines of recent days, and the President’s speech put the issue front and center in the national spotlight. It is my hope that this issue will not be swept under the rug in the coming days, weeks, and months, but that the nation’s leaders will, with zeal and urgency, pass legislation that will protect the lives of the unborn—precious creatures of God made in his holy image.

 

This article draws from the February 6th edition of The Briefing. To listen to the full episode, click here. To subscribe to The Briefing–Dr. Mohler’s daily podcast that serves as an analysis of news and events–click here. 

The post “Made in the holy image of God”—The One Specific Moment in Last Night’s State of the Union that Highlights Our Culture’s Vast Worldview Divide appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2019

The pageantry of democracy: As President Trump delivers State of the Union address, drama fills the chamber

“Made in the holy image of God”—The one specific moment in last night’s State of the Union that highlights our culture’s vast worldview divide

One of the most respected scientists in the world won’t stop talking about aliens. What does this tell us about modern science?Washington Post (Avi Selk) — Harvard’s top astronomer says an alien ship may be among us — and he doesn’t care what his colleagues think

The post Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2019 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

A Morality Tale Lived Out: The Bizarre Headlines from the Commonwealth of Virginia

In recent decades, the Commonwealth of Virginia has served as a barometer for the entire nation. Once a solidly “red” state, Virginia has become a “purple” state thanks to massive political and demographic transitions. Virginia’s boundary with Washington D.C. is the gravitational force that pulls Virginia from the right to the center-left. Thus, in every presidential election cycle, the political pundits and campaign operatives all ask the same crucial question: “Which way will Virginia go?”

In recent days, however, Virginia is the subject of disturbing headlines that cascade from the national news media—headlines that the citizens of Virginia did not foresee.

It all started in the early part of last week when the Commonwealth’s Governor, Ralph Northam, advocated for a radical abortion bill that would legalize abortion up to the moment of birth—indeed, in this horrifying interview, Governor Northam appeared to support infanticide. By the end of the week, the headlines took an unprecedented turn.

The personal page from the Governor’s 1984 yearbook surfaced. The page disclosed a picture of a man in blackface and another wearing the robes of the Ku Klux Klan. By Friday night, the governor apologized for his presence in the photograph though he could not remember which person he was.

The story did not end there.

On Saturday, the Governor held one of the most bizarre press conferences in American political history. Northam changed his tune, declaring that he was neither of the individuals pictured. His apology only extended to the presence of the photograph on his personal page in the yearbook of the Eastern Virginia Medical School. Moreover, Northam admitted that at some point between 1984 and 1987, he did participate in a party where impersonated Michael Jackson in blackface. Despite this admission and growing political pressure, the Governor insists he will not resign. By Sunday night, however, the Democratic Party, at both the state and national levels, decided that it needed Ralph Northam to step aside. Democratic leaders have called upon Northam to vacate the governor’s mansion and make way for the Lieutenant Governor, Justin Fairfax.

The story, as you now might expect, took another bizarre turn.

By Monday, press reports surfaced of sexual assault allegations against the Lieutenant Governor. The headline in The Washington Post read, “Va. Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax denies sex assault allegation from 2004.” Theresa Vargas from The Washington Post reported, “Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax issued a statement early Monday denying a sexual assault allegation that appeared on the same conservative website that posted a racist photograph from Gov. Ralph Northam’s medical school yearbook page.”

The Washington Post reported that the woman who levied these accusations against Fairfax did indeed consent to kissing, but the episode ended with a forceful act that left her “crying and shaking.” By midnight on Monday, Fairfax released another statement that the Washington Post had for several months investigated the accusation but could not prove the woman’s testimony because of inconsistencies within the allegation and the absence of corroborating evidence. Thus, The Washington Post “made the considered decision not to publish the story.”

Then, in yet another bizarre turn, the Washington Post explained that though they did not originally publish the story, it denied that there had been inconsistencies with the woman’s claim.

The stories swirling out of Virginia has everyone on the defensive: The Governor has appeared in racist photographs, the Lieutenant Governor has been accused of sexual assault, and The Washington Post is defending its decision to not run the story of credible sexual assault accusations in the first place.

Amid this firestorm and chaotic tumult, several important questions arise with tremendous worldview significance: If there were no inconsistencies or a lack of corroborating evidence, why did The Washington Post fail to report sexual assault allegations against the second highest official in the Commonwealth of Virginia? Moreover, why did The Washington Post run numerous other stories of sexual assault allegations based on highly circumstantial and uncorroborated evidence—stories like the ones The Washington Post published about the then nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh?

Why the difference? Why did The Washington Post print a story in one case but not in another? The Washington Post will now have to defend its apparent double-standard: In one case involving a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court, The Washington Post ran accusations based on circumstantial and unsubstantiated claims. In another case involving the Democratic Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, The Washington Post exhibited restraint, even though the paper admitted that the evidence against Fairfax was strong and did not contain irregularities.

In this fast-paced and volatile political environment, many politicians and news outlets rush to judgment. The political left and the mainstream news outlets excoriated Kavanaugh and delivered a guilty verdict before any trial. Will those same infallible judges follow suit on a case where there is now an admission of a sexual relationship between this woman and the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia? Will they follow the logic of their own reasoning and accusations? These are massive quandaries that raise another equally important question: How does anyone come to a responsible conclusion?

This is a palpable morality tale lived out and developing before our eyes. The morally significant actors in Virginia are not just the Governor nor the Lieutenant Governor, but the reporters, editors, and publishers of the magazines and newspapers who have taken up the solemn responsibility of reporting the news. News outlets like The Washington Post bear a significant moral responsibility for the information they dispense. We know exactly the message The Washington Post intended to send in the case of Judge Kavanaugh. What will be the message they send in the case of the Virginia Lieutenant Governor?

Christians understand that all of life in one sense is a succession of morality tales. Few make the moral nature of those tales so immediately apparent as we see in this story, still unfolding.

This article draws from the February 5th edition of The Briefing. To listen to the full episode, click here. To subscribe to The Briefing–Dr. Mohler’s daily podcast that serves as an analysis of news and events–click here. 

The post A Morality Tale Lived Out: The Bizarre Headlines from the Commonwealth of Virginia appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

But the Things Revealed Belong to Us and to Our Children Forever

The post But the Things Revealed Belong to Us and to Our Children Forever appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.