R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 242

The Briefing 08-02-17

Who defines futility? Charlie Gard and the debate over parental rightsTime Magazine (Alice Park) — When Parents and Doctors Disagree on What Futile Means

Lawyer appointed to represent Charlie Gard linked to pro-euthanasia groupThe Telegraph (Robert Mendick) — Charlie Gard's parents angry that baby's lawyer is head of charity that backs assisted dying

Prominent British minister Steve Chalke denies Original Sin. Should we be surprised?Baptist News Global (Bob Allen) — British minister, known for unsettling evangelicals in UK, takes on doctrine of Original Sin

The post The Briefing 08-02-17 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing 08-01-17

Who has the authority to speak for children? Lessons from the life and death of Charlie GardWashington Post (Charles Krauthammer) — What to do for little Charlie GardThe Federalist (Daniel Payne) — UK Authorities Ran The Clock Out On Charlie Gard’s Life

Language and cultural warfare: Scurrilous charge of ‘hate group’ made against Alliance Defending FreedomWall Street Journal (Edwin Meese III) — The Latest ‘Hate’ Smear Target Is a Civil-Rights Group

PETA to honor cows killed, not for eating, but in traffic accidentUSA Today (Seth Slabaugh) — PETA billboard to honor cows killed in local crash

The post The Briefing 08-01-17 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

How should Christians think about artificial intelligence?

The post How should Christians think about artificial intelligence? appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

“God Made Me for China” — Eric Liddell Beyond Olympic Glory

The medal ceremony at the Olympics is a moment of rare pomp and ceremony in this informal age. The ceremonies represent both climax and catharsis, with athletes awarded the coveted gold, silver, and bronze medals placed around their necks.

It was not always so.

When Eric Liddell, “the Flying Scot,” won the 400 meter race and the gold medal at the 1924 games in Paris, there was no awards ceremony. Back then, the medals were engraved after the games and mailed in a simple package to the victors. But, even without the medal ceremony, there was glory. Liddell instantly became a hero to the entire United Kingdom and was recognized as one of the greatest athletes of his age.

Americans of my generation remember Eric Liddell largely because of Chariots of Fire, the 1981 British film written by Colin Welland, produced by David Puttnam, and directed by Hugh Hudson. The film was a surprising success in both Britain and the United States, winning four Academy Awards including Best Picture. The musical score for the film by Vangelis won another of the Oscars, and its theme is still instantly recognizable to those who have seen the movie.

To its credit, Chariots of Fire recognized Eric Liddell’s Christian faith and testimony. His story is inseparable from the drama of his refusal to compete on Sunday, believing it to be a breaking of God’s commandment. Though this determination was well-known before the 1924 Olympics, it became internationally famous when heats for Liddell’s best race, 100 meters, were scheduled for Sunday.

The dramatic plot of Chariots of Fire presented a personal competition between Liddell and Harold Abrahams, another top runner who had experienced the agonies of anti-Semitism as a student at Cambridge. When Liddell withdrew from the 100 meter event, Abrahams won, bringing Britain glory. Liddell had become a figure of ridicule, with everyone from athletic officials to British leaders unable to persuade him to sacrifice his moral convictions for the Olympic glory he was promised.

Liddell was left to run the 400 meter race, an event for which he was not favored and to which he knew he brought liabilities in terms of his racing form. But run he did, and he ran right into the history books, winning the gold medal with a personal story that shocked the world, even in the 1920s. His intensity of Christian conviction was already out of style and often ridiculed, but Eric Liddell became one of the most famous men in the British Empire and the larger world of athletics.

Those who have seen Chariots of Fire well remember how it ends, with the magnificent and sentimental music of Sir Hubert Parry’s anthem “Jerusalem” and William Blake’s famous words: “Bring me my Bow of burning gold; Bring me my Arrows of desire: Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold! Bring me my Chariot of fire!”

Then the screen fills with these words in text: “Eric Liddell, missionary, died in occupied China at the end of World War II. All of Scotland mourned.”

The end.

But in those few words was the real story of Eric Liddell. Yes, he was one of the most famous athletes of modern times and the Olympic glory of Scotland. He was also a Christian who refused to compete on Sunday and refused to compromise. Unquestionably, Eric Liddell was made to run. And yet, more than anything else, Eric Liddell believed that “God made me for China.”

Many Christians are proud to quote Liddell’s most famous lines from Chariots of Fire: “God made me fast. And when I run, I feel his pleasure.” God did make Eric Liddell fast, and he ran for God’s glory, but those words were not actually from Liddell. They were written by Colin Welland and put in the voice of Liddell, as played by actor Ian Charleson.

What Liddell did say, and more than once, was that God made him for China. This is what the viewers of the movie never learned. Liddell was born in Tientsin, China to missionary parents in 1902. James and Mary Liddell were in China under the commission of the London Missionary Society. As Duncan Hamilton, author of a very fine new biography of Liddell explains, as a young boy Eric Liddell simply considered himself to be Chinese.

Later, Eric and his brother would be sent to boarding school near London and would know their parents only through correspondence and brief visits. But China was always on Liddell’s heart. As a student at the University of Edinburgh, Liddell became very well known as both a runner and a preacher. He was especially powerful as a preacher to young men. Liddell spoke passionately but conversationally, explaining that the best preaching to young men took the form of a simple talk, in Duncan Hamilton’s words, “as if chatting over a picket fence.” But Liddell’s clear biblical and evangelical message came through, and powerfully.

He preached before, during, and after his Olympic glory. He returned to graduate from the University and Edinburgh shortly after the 1924 Paris games and made preparation to go to China as a missionary, also under the direction of the London Missionary Society.

He taught school, preached, and eventually found a wife, Florence. With her he had three daughters, though he was never to see the third. After decades of internal warfare and turmoil, China was thrown into the horrors of Japanese occupation during World War II.

Those horrors are still unknown to many Americans, but much of China was submitted to massive rape and murder by the occupying Imperial Japanese forces. Liddell eventually sent Florence, then pregnant with their third child, and their two daughters to Canada for safety. It was just in time.

Along with members of the China Inland Mission and many others, Christians and non-Christians alike, Eric Liddell was forced into a foretaste of hell itself in the Weihsien Internment Camp. He would die there shortly before the end of the war. In the concentration camp, Liddell became legendary and his witness for Christ astounded even many of his fellow Christians.

As Hamilton writes: “Liddell can sound too virtuous and too honorable to be true, as if those who knew him were either misrepresenting or consciously mythologizing. Not so. The evidence is too overwhelming to be dismissed as easily as that. Amid the myriad moral dilemmas in Weihsien, Liddell’s forbearance was remarkable.” He became the moral and spiritual leader of the horrifying reality with that camp.

Chariots of Fire was released when I was a seminary student. Like so many other young Christians, I saw the movie and was greatly moved by it. But, even then, I wondered if Liddell could really have been what so many others claimed of him.

Not long thereafter, a professor assigned me to read Shantung Compound by theologian Langdon Gilkey of the University of Chicago Divinity School. Gilkey was in many ways the opposite to Liddell. Gilkey was a theological liberal whose father, famously liberal, had been the first dean of the chapel at the University of Chicago. Langdon Gilkey had gone to China to teach English after graduating from Harvard. He found himself interred with Eric Liddell.

In Shantung Compound, Gilkey analyzed what happens when men and women are put under extraordinary pressure. He argued that the worst moral dilemmas in Weihsien came not from their Japanese captors, but from the prisoners themselves. His point was that, for many if not most of the captured, the experience brought out the worst in them, rather than the best. He changed the names of those inside the camp when he told their stories.

There were a few moral exceptions. Gilkey wrote of one exceptional individual, a missionary he named “Eric Ridley.” Gilkey wrote: “It is rare indeed when a person has the good fortune to meet a saint, but he came as close to it as anyone I have ever known.” Gilkey described how Liddell had largely single-handedly resolved the crisis of a breakout of teenage sexual activity in the camp. In the midst of a moral breakdown, with no societal structures to restrain behavior, few even seemed to want to help.

Gilkey made this observation: “There was a quality seemingly unique to the missionary group, namely, naturally and without pretense to respond to a need which everyone else recognized only to turn aside. Much of this went unnoticed, but our camp could scarcely have survived as well as it did without it. If there were any evidences of the grace of God observable on the surface of our camp existence, they were to be found here.”

Gilkey had renamed individuals as he wrote about them, but he described “Eric Ridley” as having won the 400 meter race at the Olympics for England before going to China as a missionary. Eric Ridley was Eric Liddell, and Langdon Gilkey was writing of a man he has observed so closely as a living saint. I realized that Langdon Gilkey had told the most important part of Eric Liddell’s story long before Chariots of Fire.

Gilkey closed his words about Erid Liddell with these: “Shortly before the camp ended, he was stricken with a brain tumor and died the same day. The entire camp, especially its youth, was stunned for days, so great was the vacuum that Eric’s death had left.”

Liddell indeed died of a brain tumor, suddenly and unexpectedly. The cause of his death only became clear after an autopsy. Eric Liddell died in the nation where he had been born. Indeed, he has sometimes been listed as China’s first Olympic medalist. He never saw his third daughter.

“God made me for China.” Eric Liddell lived his life in answer to that calling and commission. As Duncan Hamilton explains, Liddell “considered athletics as an addendum to his life rather than his sole reason for living it.”

Eric Liddell ran for God’s glory, but he was made for China. He desperately wanted the nation he loved to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and believe. David J. Michell, director for Canada Overseas Missionary Fellowship, would introduce Liddell’s collected devotional writings, The Disciplines of the Christian Life, by stating simply that “Eric Liddell’s desire was to know God more deeply, and as a missionary, to make him known more fully.”

Christians must remember that Olympic glory will eventually fade. There will be medalists for all to celebrate. But, will there be another Eric Liddell? At the very least, his story needs to be told again. The most important part of his story came long after his gold medal arrived by mail.

Duncan Hamilton’s new biography is For the Glory: Eric Liddell’s Journey from Olympic Champion to Modern Martyr (New York: Penguin Press, 2016).

The post “God Made Me for China” — Eric Liddell Beyond Olympic Glory appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Agonizing Ordeal of Eugene Peterson — You Might Be Next

Was he against it, before he was for it? Is he really against it now?

The ordeal experienced last week by popular author Eugene Peterson was agonizing to observe, largely self-inflicted, and virtually inevitable. You should pay close attention to it, for you might very well be next.

The ordeal began with Peterson, one of the most influential authors among evangelical pastors, responding to two straightforward questions about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Jonathan Merritt of Religion News Service referenced homosexuality and same-sex marriage and then asked Peterson if his view on the morality of same-sex relationships had changed. Peterson was pastor of Christ Our King Presbyterian Church in Bel Air, Maryland for 29 years, before retiring in 1991. In his answer, however, Peterson said, “I haven’t had a lot of experience with it.” An earlier congregation where he served as associate pastor, included “several women who were lesbians,” but didn’t “make a big deal about it.” The congregation he served as pastor was much the same: “I don’t think we ever really made a big deal of it.”

They had a gay musician, but, “nobody made any questions about it. And he was a really good musician.” His answer was convoluted, but he concluded, “it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.”

Peterson was then asked, “If you were pastoring today and a gay couple in your church who were Christians of good faith asked you to perform their same-sex wedding ceremony, is that something you would do?” Peterson answered simply, “Yes.”

That “yes” blew up the evangelical world like a signal flare. The RNS headline on the interview stated that Peterson had changed his mind on the question. A significant number of evangelicals responded with immediate shock and disappointment at Peterson’s answer. The largest Christian bookstore chain said that it was considering whether to continue selling Peterson’s many books, including The Message, his best-selling paraphrase of the Bible.

But, almost as quickly as his “yes” appeared, it was retracted.

The very next day, Peterson released a long statement, published in full at The Washington Post. He retracted his “yes” and said that he would actually not perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. “That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said, I would still love such as couple as their pastor.”

He also stated: “To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything.”

So, within 48 hours of the original interview, Eugene Peterson had issued a statement retracting his “yes” to a same-sex wedding ceremony. He now affirms marriage as “one man to one woman.”

The brushfire then switched directions. Now, folks displeased with Peterson’s RNS interview were at least partly comforted by his retraction, while those who had been comforted by his “yes” were hurt and infuriated by his subsequent “no.”

Jonathan Merritt ran a story at RNS within hours of Peterson’s retraction, noting that in 2014 Peterson had already told a conference in which he indicated his evolution on LGBTQ issues and looking back on his tenure as pastor, he said “I started to change my mind.” He also spoke of talking to parents whose children had come out as gay saying, “they’ve finally accepted that this is not a bad thing, that this can be a good thing. This can be a flourishing thing.”

What is really going on here? What does Eugene Peterson really believe about LGBT relationships and behaviors or about same-sex marriage? We really don’t know. We will probably never really know.

His retraction allows his books to be sold, but the ordeal has done massive damage to his reputation. One of the best-selling authors in the evangelical world is now, in effect, a giant Rorschach test. You can read him as fully open to LGBT relationships, but forced by political and economic pressure to act as if he isn’t. Or you can read him as basically a traditionalist on the question, who felt under pressure to affirm same-sex marriage and succumbed to the pressure, only to regret and retract quickly. Those do not exhaust the possibilities.

I have enjoyed many of Eugene Peterson’s writings. He is an elegant literary stylist, and he seems never to forget a pithy quote—saved just for the right paragraph. He also knows how to deploy the English language with powerful simplicity. Just consider these sentences from his pastoral memoir, The Pastor: “I was astonished to learn in one of these best-selling books (on church life) that the size of my church parking lot had far more to do with how things fared in my congregation than my choice of texts in preaching. I was being lied to and I knew it.” 

He even pulled off what might be the greatest (and shortest) literary achievement of my lifetime, using a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche, no less, to redefine Christian discipleship as “a long obedience in the same direction.” His turning of the words of Nietzsche into a definition of what it means to follow Christ was brilliant, clarifying, and unforgettable.

Thus, Eugene Peterson understands the stewardship of words. In another of his books, he stated: “We cannot be too careful about the words we use; we start out using them and they end up using us.” Indeed.

Several thoughtful evangelicals expressed concern and discouragement that Peterson had basically “shrugged” or “sighed” in his answers, concealing more than he revealed — and about an issue that really did require a yes or no answer.

But there should have been no surprise. Eugene Peterson has never been very clear about controversial questions, or on many crucial biblical and theological questions. His writings were categorized as “pastoral theology,” and there is little explicit doctrine in his books. His background was Pentecostal as a boy, and according to his memoir, he basically became a Presbyterian by accident. “I was not aware of choosing to become a Presbyterian. I didn’t go over the options available to me, study them, interview representative men and women, assess the pros and cons, pray for discernment, and then apply for membership. The Presbyterians needed a coach for their basketball team. I knew how to do that and I did it. . . . I was never self-consciously a Presbyterian. I am still not.”

That says a lot about Eugene Peterson, but it probably says more about the denomination of which he is a minister, the liberal Presbyterians known as the PCUSA. One of that Presbyterian denomination’s most famous pastors says he was never even “self-consciously a Presbyterian.” That just about says it all.

In The Message, Peterson’s best-selling paraphrase of the Bible, he avoided dealing with same-sex behaviors or relationships directly , even when addressing texts like Romans 1:26-27 or 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, where he translates same-sex behaviors simply as promiscuity in general.

Peterson has made his reputation as someone who does not deal with controversial questions. He also seems to be incapable of a clear answer on this question, even now. His “retraction” was devoid of any engagement with the Bible. His concern, he said, was for his congregation and the “historic biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage.” There was really nothing about the morality of LGBT behaviors and relationships at all. Would anyone really be surprised that Eugene Peterson holds to the PCUSA’s LGBTQ-affirming positions on these issues? If so, why?

Matthew Vines, a prominent LGBTQ activist and author, is absolutely right, by the way, when he argued that Peterson’s answer on the question of same-sex marriage is far less significant than his position on normative morality: “The main dividing line in the church is not whether Christians support same-sex marriages. It is over the more basic question of whether they believe all same-sex relationships are sinful in the first place.”

But Eugene Peterson is also 84 years old. The interview with RNS was actually a valedictory event, of a sort. He announced that he would not be doing any more public speaking or teaching. Peterson had every reason to expect that he would conclude his public ministry without having to answer these questions.

Until that final interview…

Most of his generational colleagues are either dead or safely retired. Peterson’s longevity is a testament to his continued literary production and power. He almost made it home without answering the question, but then it happened.

Consider these lessons from Eugene Peterson’s ordeal.

First, there is nowhere to hide. Every pastor, every Christian leader, every author  — even every believer — will have to answer the question. The question cannot simply be about same-sex marriage. The question is about whether or not the believer is willing to declare and defend God’s revealed plan for human sexuality and gender as clearly revealed in the Bible.

Second, you had better have your answer ready. Evasive, wandering, and inconclusive answers will be seen for what they are. Those who have fled for security to the house of evasion must know that the structure has crumbled. It always does.

Third, if you will stand for the Bible’s clear teachings on sexuality and gender, you had better be ready to answer the same way over and over and over again. The question will come back again and again, in hopes that you have finally decided to “get on the right side of history.” Faithfulness requires consistency — that “long obedience in the same direction.”

That is what it means to be a disciple of Christ, as Eugene Peterson has now taught us—in more ways than one.

 

The post The Agonizing Ordeal of Eugene Peterson — You Might Be Next appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Benjamin Franklin’s American Religion: A Conversation with Historian Thomas Kidd

The post Benjamin Franklin’s American Religion: A Conversation with Historian Thomas Kidd appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

How can pastors and churches fight the pornography epidemic?

The post How can pastors and churches fight the pornography epidemic? appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

At what stage of maturity should professing children be baptized?

The post At what stage of maturity should professing children be baptized? appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

What are some steps students can take as they prepare for seminary?

The post What are some steps students can take as they prepare for seminary? appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Briefing 06-30-17

Harry Potter at 20: What will be the legacy of J.K. Rowling's fantasy series 'Harry Potter'?Times Educational Supplement (Kate Parker) — Is Harry Potter the boy who saved reading?

The iPhone turns 10: Who owns whom? Do we own the iPhone, or does the iPhone own us?Wall Street Journal (Christopher Mims) — In 10 Years, Your iPhone Won’t Be a Phone AnymoreCrossway (Tony Reinke) — 12 Ways Your Phone Is Changing You

Religious liberty vs. sexual liberty: How "dignitary harm" could completely reshape the conversationThe Gospel Coalition (Albert Mohler) — Religious Freedom and Discrimination: Why the Debate Continues

The post The Briefing 06-30-17 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.