R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 308

The Briefing 06-12-15

Podcast Transcript

1) Shared understanding of value of marriage does not equal shared understanding of marriage 

Marriage Today: Rich-Poor Gap, Later Vows, Gays Gain Access, Associated Press (David Crary)

Marriage Opportunity: The Moment for National Action, Institute for American Values (Marriage Opportunity Council)

Regan: Marriage is going out of style, and that could hurt, USA Today (Trish Regan)

2) Consequences of single-parent family inescapably apparent in children’s lives

The North-South Divide on Two-Parent Families, New York Times (David Leonhardt)

Red State Families: Better Than We Knew, Institute for Family Studies (W. Bradford Wilcox and Nicholas Zill)

3) Impact of modernized economies, societies on men economic and moral

The weaker sex, The Economist

4) Ten-year old bullying online reminder online and real-world behavior equally moral

Lord of the Screens, New York Times (Nick Bilton)

Transcript: The Briefing 06-11-15

The Briefing

June 11, 2015

This is a rush transcript. The copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

 

It’s Thursday, June 11, 2015. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) As global descent into terrorism continues, al Qaeda is broken by rise of ISIS

Here is a headline to haunt you. The Guardian reported late yesterday that the Isis onslaught has broken al Qaeda. As the report from The Guardian indicates al Qaeda, once the most feared terrorist group around the world, the group credited with and understood to be behind the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, has not been defeated by forces of freedom and liberty but rather it has now been defeated, according to this report from a major British newspaper, by an even more dangerous terrorist group. The group now known as the Islamic State.

As The Guardian reports,

“Two of al-Qaida’s most important spiritual leaders have told the Guardian that the terror group is no longer a functioning organization after being ripped apart by Isis.”

The Guardian reports that several senior jihadists, especially located right now in Jordan, have indicated that throughout the Middle East al Qaeda has been,

“Drained of recruits and money after losing territory and prestige to its former subordinate division.”

The paper goes on to say,

“The ongoing war between al-Qaida and Isis has left the U.S. struggling to catch up with the tectonic shifts within the global jihadi movement”

This is one of those issues that came to light, especially in recent days, as the President of the United States made the public statement that the U.S. has no comprehensive strategy to fight the Islamic State. We’re looking at a situation that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described as asymmetrical warfare. This is not the kind of war that the United States and its allies have been prepared to fight in the past. What is perhaps most striking in the present is that we still have no comprehensive military strategy to oppose groups like the Islamic State. And one of the most frightening things we can imagine is that a group of terrorists in its ambitions as clear in its history and as powerful as al Qaeda has now been, to use the words of some of his own leaders, “ripped apart by the Islamic State.”

This is one of those situations in which it seems that one demon is cast out only to be replaced by 70 others. That’s what we’re looking at here. We’re looking at the fact that the dissent into terrorism in terms of the world picture is one that is growing more ominous not less. In that sense the world is growing more dangerous not less, and we’re looking at the fact that when it comes to Islamic terrorism one force that had been feared beyond all others in recent history has now been supplanted by its former subordinate organization that is even more radical, even more dangerous, and an even greater challenge to the American defense strategy. If there’s one central issue that distinguishes the Islamic State from al Qaeda. It is that the Islamic State intends to establish a crusade for territory. It is claiming ambitions in terms of the caliphate; it is trying to establish not only a reputation for terrorism, it is trying to establish a workable state.

2) Contrary nature of abortion training to medical community evidenced by stigma

One of the most interesting journalistic contributions of recent days has been how the Islamic state, once it conquers territory, establishes two different trajectories. On the one hand, it establishes a reputation for terror, often by means of mass public executions; on the other hand it tries to establish a reputation for competence in local government. It is really interesting that we’re watching al Qaeda be ripped apart by the Islamic State. Indeed, according to The Guardian, it’s a process that has already taken place. Al Qaeda, according to this major British newspaper, is really a force no more. Whereas in recent years if we had seen that headline we would’ve thought that was unmitigated good news, we now know that in a fallen world bad news can lead to worse news. In this case, the demise of al Qaeda is at the expense of the rise of an even more dangerous jihadist organization. This has to lead us to look back about 20 years ago to when America thought we were entering a new and certainly safer world. That was an illusion. Now we know it. This headline is proof positive.

An incredibly important article appeared Tuesday at The Atlantic. The headline,

“The Scarcity of Abortion Training in America’s Medical Schools.”

One of the things we’ve remarked on, very common when it comes to the sanctity of human life, is that most doctors, to put the matter bluntly, don’t want to conduct abortions. They do not perform abortions. They don’t want anything to do with the abortion industrial complex. One of the other things that is also clear is that medical students by and large don’t want anything to do with abortion. To put the matter just as clearly as I can imagine, people do not go into medicine in order to kill but rather in order to heal and to save lives and that’s why one of the most interesting moral revelations of our contemporary moment is that even as there are so many people who are ardently pro-abortion and may even call themselves pro-choice, the reality is that most in the medical profession see those who perform abortions as pariahs. They want nothing to do with abortion.

That’s what makes The Atlantic story so interesting. The author of the story is Mara Gordon, who is identified as a resident in family medicine; keep that in mind, at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. In an absolutely amazing sentence, she writes,

“One of the reasons I went to medical school was to become an abortion provider—and, coming from a strongly pro-choice family, to use my medical training to increase abortion access in the U.S.”

That’s remarkable because it’s the only sentence like that I have confronted in years of reading all the literature I can see on the question of abortion. I have never seen someone say that they intentionally went into the medical profession, beginning with medical school through residency and into professional practice merely in order to enter the abortion business. As she continues her essay she writes,

“When I started medical school at the University of Pennsylvania, the culture war surrounding abortion still seemed abstract and far away.”

She writes about the fact that she is living in and received her medical education in a context where geographically, the majority is very pro-choice or pro-abortion. She writes,

“I grew up attending pro-choice rallies with my physician mom in Washington, D.C., and all my parents’ doctor friends supported abortion rights.”

Now what’s really interesting in that particular sentence is that she says her parent’s doctor friends supported abortion rights. She doesn’t say what’s very clear; they’re not actually involved in abortion themselves. That’s what makes her article so interesting. Writing about her own medical education at the University of Pennsylvania. She says,

“My medical education seemed to confirm my false sense that everyone working in healthcare felt the way I did about abortion access: Abortion was discussed in class as openly as blood pressure and diabetes, and spending a day in family-planning clinic was an opt-out, not opt-in, part of our clinical education. Many of my professors who work in family medicine routinely perform abortions for their patients, so when I started to think more seriously about a career in primary care, I assumed that making abortion part of my practice would be an easy decision.”

Then as she makes very clear, she discovered it wasn’t going to be so. She has come to recognize, she says, that there is a stigma that attaches to abortion providers. In her language she said,

“The stigma attached to abortion providers doesn’t just come from clinic protestors or grotesque billboards. It can come from within our own profession, too. It can be overt but it can also be more subtle, like a medical curriculum that doesn’t cover abortion care.”

Now once again, let’s just note where she has taken us in her argument. She tells us that she entered into the medical profession and went to medical school basically in order to become an abortion provider. She also was reassured by her own family context, very pro-abortion, and by her parent’s doctor friends, very pro-abortion at least in theory that abortion was just going to be medicine like any other medical calling. And then she says in her own medical education at the University of Pennsylvania, she had all those assumptions confirmed, but then went you look at the larger picture the confirmation goes away.

In a rather stunning if dated statistic going back to 2005, she says that,

“A survey of U.S. medical schools in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, only 32 percent of respondents said they offer a formal lecture specifically about abortion as part of their OB-GYN rotation, and 23 percent reported “no formal education” about abortion at all.”

So let’s just look at how that’s being defined here. That means that 32% of those who responded to the survey indicated that in the OB-GYN rotation at their medical school there isn’t even a single lecture on abortion – not one. That should tell us something. What it tells me is that most medical schools, most medical school professors, most doctors and most medical students believe that they’re going into the OB-GYN rotation in order to discover how to deliver baby safely, not how to terminate them to kill them in the womb.

In that same survey she cites,

“55 percent”, let’s just state the obvious, that’s a majority, “of medical schools reported that they offered students no clinical exposure to abortion.”

So even though this statistic is dated, it’s evidently the most recent that has been undertaken by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. That should also tell us something and what it tells us is that the majority of medical schools in the United States don’t want anything to do with abortion. And even if she’s talking about her own medical school education, my guess is that it’s a fairly safe assumption that most of the medical faculty at her medical schools don’t want anything to do with abortion.

Mara Gordon, the author of this essay laments the fact that in schools such as the University Of Arizona College of Medicine, abortions have been banned at that public facility since the 1970s and that was upheld by the United States Supreme Court. She goes on to say,

“Several other states, including Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas, also have laws in place that restrict or ban abortions in publicly funded institutions, including state universities.”

Now wait just a minute. She just told us how supposedly pro-abortion the culture of Philadelphia was, now she tells us that in Pennsylvania the law is in place that restricts the use of public facilities for abortions. Gordon cites Emily Garrett, a recent graduate of the University of Minnesota Medical School who said,

“I never would have seen an abortion had I not sought it out.”

Speaking of her own residency that will start in obstetrics and gynecology this summer, she plans to be an abortion provider in the future, but says she was able to come to that decision only through her involvement in an extracurricular student group that arranged shadowing opportunities at a Planned Parenthood.”

Emily Garrett is cited as saying,

“None of the physicians that I worked with [during the required obstetrics and gynecology clinical rotation] performed abortions in their practice.”

What does that tell her? On the one hand the article is really, really sad. It’s hard to imagine the author of this essay going into medicine primarily, if not exclusively, to become an abortion provider. The good news is that most people go into the medical profession, and that’s acknowledge in this article, not to terminate life in the womb, not to kill unborn babies, but rather to do everything to save life, to enhance life, to heal.

It’s also very interesting that this article reveals a disconnect between personal practice and the supposed political posture taken by some of these doctors. Gordon writes about the fact that her parent’s physician friends were supportive of abortion, but evidently they weren’t directly involved in it, at least most of them were not. And that seems to be the case when you look at the statistics. Most doctors, who are even pro-abortion by their political sentiments, turn out to want nothing at all to do with abortion as a matter of their professional practice. That should tell them something. We’ve got a huge battle on our hands for the sanctity of human life. Abortion remains one of the greatest moral scandals faced by humanity at any time and in particular by this generation of Americans. But this article does offer us some good news, an understanding that those who enter the medical profession by and large don’t want anything to do with abortion. And this young woman who does want something to do about abortion, she wants to commit her life to it, sadly and tragically enough, we find that she’s finding herself rather isolated in her own profession and even when it comes to medical school training.

The word that Gordon uses in her article is an important word in terms of the Christian worldview that word is “stigma.” There is a stigma she acknowledges that is attached to abortion and to medical professionals who are involved in abortion. She laments the fact that that stigma exists. But operating out of the biblical worldview, we understand why it does and why it must and why it always will. That’s because there is a permanent and indelible stigma attached to killing an unborn child. Let’s be thankful there is. Let’s pray there always will be.

3) Survey shows worldview positions tend to cluster in professions

Speaking of doctors and worldview issues – The Washington Post, Anna Swanson ran an article with associated church in recent days that is one of the most interesting things I have seen in print in a very long time. Here’s the headline,

“The Most Liberal and Conservative Jobs in America.”

The text of the article is very interesting, the graphics even more so if you go to the link to the webpage today, you’ll find that link and you can see the charts for yourself. Swanson tells us,

“You can probably guess that environmentalists and yoga instructors are more likely to be Democrats — and oil workers to be Republicans. But what about flight attendants, talk show hosts, and neurosurgeons?”

It’s a fascinating lead to a really interesting story. The charts follow the rather customary red blue division in terms of American political and ideological light. With blue meaning, leans left or Democratic and red meaning, leans right or Republican. It turns out when you look at the chart that park rangers are very blue, as are gardeners, chefs, comedians, professional poker players, union organizers, environmental scientists, floral designers, yoga instructors and Episcopal priests, very little surprise there. Leaning right, more conservative, are oil workers, pilots, loggers, motel owners, urologists, plastic surgeons, exterminators, car salesman, homebuilders, plumbers, surgeons, Sheriffs, farmers, cattle feeders, talk show hosts, business owners and neurosurgeons. Why? Well, the chart doesn’t actually explain necessarily why but it does tell us something very interesting from a worldview perspective.

It turns out that birds of a feather actually do work together. There is a clustering when it comes to professions and jobs. Why in the world would taxi drivers overwhelmingly be liberal? But they really are, overwhelmingly according to this chart. But almost as a mere image, professional truck drivers are very conservative. So why is it that conservatives are more likely to be truck drivers and liberals are more likely to be taxi drivers? Well, again, the chart doesn’t explain that. We can come up with some anticipations of why it might be so, some theories. It raises another question, why in the world among medical professionals, among doctors, would there be some such as pediatricians who are mostly liberal and others such as neurosurgeons, urologists and plastic surgeons who are rather more likely to be conservative.

Those in the Armed Forces wearing the American uniform are all more likely to be conservative than liberal, but the Marines in the Air Force turn out to be far more conservative than the Army and the Navy. The chart also ranks those who are in professional sports. This might actually redefine the category for some. But it turns out that the most conservative professional athletes are those involved in golf. The most liberal are professional poker players. In terms of the academic professions, well, they’re almost all really far on the left. As the chart indicates, economists are actually very liberal overall, but they still look conservative compared to anthropologists or for that matter, sociologist, archaeologists and historians.

As Swanson indicates in her text concerning the charts, it does make sense of a worldview perspective; it’s rather predictable that environmentalists and yoga instructors are more likely to be on the left. It’s probably more predictable, we can understand this, why oil workers would be on the right. But it’s really interesting that these charts underline the fact that we tend to cluster in terms of worldview.

Recent sociological work indicates that Americans tend to cluster, that’s the verbiage used by worldview, when it comes to neighborhood and neighborhood associations. We also tend to cluster when it comes to geographic areas, with people far more likely to be conservative in Dallas than in Boston. It turns out that worldview becomes rather predictable and clusterings having to do with geography, sociology, academia. But it’s a little more shocking, perhaps, to realize the extent to which worldview also separates people and brings them together in terms of job classifications and professions. So it turns out that question we were all asked, what do you want to be when you grow up, is more laden with worldview significance than some may realize. For some of these job classifications and professions we don’t know exactly why it matters. But the chart offers rather irrefutable proof that one way or another, evidently it does matter.

4) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar criticizes social injustice of prosperity gospel

Next, in recent days we talked about the dangerous heresy of prosperity theology. There has been good theological analysis, I’m glad to say, coming from biblically minded gospel minded Christians about the danger of prosperity theology. But what makes one essay really interesting of late is that it appeared in Time magazine. It wasn’t written by a theologian, it was written by L.A. Lakers basketball star, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. According to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, prosperity gospel is in his words, “War on the poor.” He says,

“The prosperity gospel is just another battlefront in that war. We could just shrug at the hundreds of thousands who willfully give up their money so their pastors can live in the kind of opulence that rivals that of the Roman Caesars. We could dismiss these worshipful congregants as victims of their own greed. But that would be misreading the situation. While greed may motivate the mansion-dwelling pastors, the congregants are motivated by hope of a better life. This is the same desperate, though misguided, hope that droves Americans to throw away $70.15 billion on lottery tickets in 2014, more than what was spent on sports tickets, books, video games, movie tickets and music combined. Who buys those tickets?” he asks. With one study concluding, “males, blacks, Native Americans, and those who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods” were more likely to play.”

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar also wrote,

“Americans have always had difficulty reconciling the lofty pursuit of spiritual enlightenment with the worldly hunger for material prosperity, especially if the former rejects the latter.”

He goes on to say,

“According to the purveyors of prosperity gospel, your friends and neighbors will know how righteous you are by the size of your bank account and the make of your car.”

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s critique of the prosperity gospel is not itself gospel centered, it is rather socioeconomic but that also is important. One of the scandals of the prosperity theology is that indeed it preys upon people, indeed it rather strategically preys upon disadvantaged people and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is right to see that as a scandal.

But what’s even a bigger scandal is how the prosperity theology becomes a false gospel. That leads people away from the true gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ on the basis of his atonement accomplished for us. But we should also note this, even as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar does not share our concern about the prosperity theology and its evils. We should share his.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. At my website, you’ll find a new article entitled “Which Way, Evangelicals? There is Nowhere to Hide,” dealing with this very strategic week in the life of American evangelicalism on the question of marriage and sexual morality. At the website for The Briefing today, you can also find a number of very important recent articles in the media dealing with these very contemporary and urgent issues. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to BoyceCollege.com.

 

I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

The Briefing 06-11-15

Podcast Transcript

1) As global descent into terrorism continues, al Qaeda is broken by rise of ISIS

Isis onslaught has broken al-Qaida, its spiritual leaders admit, The Guardian (Spencer Ackerman, Shiv Malik, Ali Younes and Mustafa Khalili)

2) Contrary nature of abortion training to medical community evidenced by stigma

The Scarcity of Abortion Training in America’s Medical Schools, The Atlantic (Mara Gordon)

3) Survey shows worldview positions tend to cluster in professions

The most liberal and conservative jobs in America, Washington Post (Ana Swanson)

4) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar criticizes social injustice of prosperity gospel

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Prosperity Gospel Is War on the Poor, TIME (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar)

Transcript: The Briefing 06-10-15

The Briefing

June 10, 2015

This is a rush transcript. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

 

It’s Wednesday, June 10, 2015. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Opposition to upheld Texas abortion law reveals entrenched nature of abortion movement

The big news yesterday was on the abortion front but the news really goes back to the year 2013. In that year the Texas legislature was considering a law that would have put restrictions largely based on parallels with the healthcare system upon abortion clinics in that state. Opponents of the legislation then and up to yesterday had charged that would lead to the closure of a good many abortion clinics in the state. That was something they at all costs wanted to avoid. National and international headlines are made back in 2013 when a pro-abortion member of the Texas legislature, Wendy Davis held a very long filibuster that eventually ran timeout in the legislative session. It was only when then Texas Governor Rick Perry called a special session of the legislature that the bill eventually passed. And yet it is been held up largely through court challenges ever since 2013.

But a major victory for the state of Texas and for the pro-life movement came yesterday. It came as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seated in New Orleans upheld the Texas law. Now what we’re looking at is a very interesting piece of legislation that has been made possible in recent years because of decisions made by the United States Supreme Court. In the years after the court’s infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the court had made clear it was allowing some restrictions on abortion. Many people looking at the Roe v. Wade decision actually misremember what the decision called for. The decision did give government an opportunity to step in on behalf of the unborn child in the last trimester and even in the middle trimester under certain conditions. And what the state of Texas was doing was pushing the legislative envelope in order to protect unborn children in that state.

Yesterday the Fifth Circuit gave the state of Texas a very big win in terms of the legislation and now the law can go into effect. To understand what’s at stake just consider the story that appeared yesterday in the Los Angeles Times. James Queally the reporter says,

“The ruling, which effectively affirmed the 2013 passage of House Bill 2, will force the closure of all but eight of the state’s clinics.”

Heather Busby executive director of a group known as pro-choice Texas said yesterday,

“It’s a travesty that a state the size of Texas will only have eight safe, legal abortion clinics. The 5th Circuit has once again put their political ideology above the law.”

That’s the kind of statement you expect from someone who has lost this kind of court decision. But we need to recognize that the math here is probably accurate. If you look at the restrictions that Texas House Bill 2 will put on abortion clinics those restrictions will make those clinics meet many of the requirements that will be also required of healthcare facilities such as emergency care centers and hospitals. But let’s just imagine for a moment that we’re not talking about abortion at all. As a thought experiment in order to get some sanity on this, let’s consider the fact that we’re merely talking about surgery of some form. Now if the surgery were any other form of surgery it would require the kind of regulations that are called for in this House Bill. In other words, what this bill actually does is to require abortion clinics in Texas to meet the minimal kinds of expectations and requirements that would be required of a hospital center or of any other place that would conduct surgery.

What this does reveal of course, is that for decades these abortion clinics have operated with something far less than those very medical requirements. As the Los Angeles Times reported, the bill required that doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic and it also required clinics to have the same equipment and building requirements as ambulatory surgery centers even if those facilities only administer oral antiabortion drugs.

The Los Angeles Times is also accurate in pointing out that the Texas bill will ban nearly all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Furthermore, it requires that abortion inducing drugs must be administered only when a physician is present. In terms of the legal argumentation behind the decision of the Fifth Circuit, one of the interesting issues is the phrase “undue burden.” That’s where the Supreme Court left the issue by saying that restrictions on abortion at the state level cannot put an undue burden upon a woman seeking an abortion. Honestly it all comes down to how judges will interpret the phrase “undue burden.”

Once again we see how deeply entrenched the abortion issue is in America and those who believe that every unborn life is deserving of protection must celebrate the decision handed down in New Orleans yesterday. At the same time we have to understand just how determined the pro-abortion movement is in America and how much they fear the closing of any abortion clinic under any circumstance. Of course the next question is not whether but how fast this case is likely to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. And as many observers have noted it’s going to be very, very difficult for the nation’s highest court once again to avoid the question of abortion. Like it or not, and they do not like it, that court bears responsibility for this abortion issue in the first place. And once again, the high court is going to face the issue of abortion unavoidably.

2) Responses to Campolo statement on homosexuality historic moment for evangelicalism

Next, yesterday the New York Times had on its front page a story headlined, “Evangelicals Open Door to Debate on Gay Rights.” It came just the day after prominent evangelical figure Tony Campolo, well identified on the evangelical left, had announced on his own website that he was calling upon the church to accept in terms of full inclusion same-sex couples who were in lifelong, monogamous commitments. He didn’t restrict that just to the word marriage.

Goodstein writes an important article and the importance of the article in the eyes of the editors is reflected in the fact that it landed on the front page of the New York Times. What she’s talking about here is at least partly based on a conversation held at Biola University in which one of the participants was Matthew Vines. Vines is author of the book that came out last year, entitled “God and the Gay Christian.” As Goodstein reports,

“He wrote it after he dropped out of Harvard; went home to Wichita, Kan.; came out to his parents; and studied Scripture and biblical exegesis on homosexuality. The book prompted a nearly instant rebuttal from the Reverend R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.”

She then correctly cites me as saying,

“If we accept his argument, we cannot do that without counting the cost, and that cost includes the loss of all confidence in the Bible.”

Vines had been invited to be a participant in a discussion at Biola University on these very issues. The really interesting thing about this article is how an editor at the New York Times summarized it in terms of that subhead. I repeat it again,

“Looking for ways to change, but not capitulate.”

That’s a fair representation of what’s found in the article. But what’s also clear in the article is that those who moved to a position like that of Matthew Vines are going to find it very difficult and I believe rightly so, to continue to identify as evangelicals. I really appreciate the fact the New York Times quoted me rightly in that article because as it’s connected to that subhead that’s the real point. We can’t change our position on the morality of homosexuality without abandoning scriptural authority. And we can’t abandon scriptural authority on this issue without fatally undermining the authority of Scripture on every issue. And that’s why yesterday ended up being so important in terms of the evangelical movement.

In a story that is still unfolding, Tony Campolo actually became the catalyst for what might in the long run be far more important developments. One of them has to do with David Neff, long identified with Christianity Today magazine from which he retired in 2012 as editor. Responding to Tony Campolo shortly after Campolo’s announcement, David Neff indicated his agreement with Tony Campolo. The importance of this simply cannot be overstated. We’re talking about someone who is at the helm of Christianity Today, which prides itself on being the flagship magazine of the evangelical movement going back to its founding by Billy Graham and its first major editor Carl F.H. Henry. And we’re talking about a magazine that still has incredible influence in the evangelical movement. It serves itself as something of a barometer of where evangelicals are and are headed on many of these issues. So it was huge news yesterday when a retired editor of Christianity Today came out emphatically for the recognition of openly gay couples in the church.

In a subsequent statement that Neff placed on Facebook he said this,

“I think the ethically responsible thing for gay and lesbian Christians to do is to form lasting, covenanted partnerships. I also believe that the church should help them in those partnerships in the same way the church should fortify traditional marriages.”

Well that statement was a thunderclap that reverberated throughout the evangelical world yesterday afternoon. In one of the most important responses, indeed, historically the most important response, Mark Galli on behalf of Christianity Today’s editorial board responded with a headline editorial that says this,

“Breaking News: 2 Billion Christians Believe in Traditional Marriage.”

As Galli wrote,

“News and reality are not always the same. Take the matter of marriage. When a prominent evangelical leader, like Tony Campolo, announces his support for gay marriage, it’s likely to get reporters’ attention. It is indeed news, in that it is still unusual to hear an otherwise orthodox Christian announce heterodox views on sexuality. But in the case of Campolo, it may not be the kind of news that garners much attention. (One reason: His organization Red Letter Christians has argued for same-sex marriage several times.)”

Before going any further, I simply have to note the interesting phrase that Mark Galli used in his opening paragraph, and that’s the phrase “otherwise Orthodox Christian.” That deserves a great deal of thought and reflection itself. But Galli went on in the editorial to say we were surprised when former Christianity Today editor David Neff on Facebook praised Campolo’s move. He then went on to cite this statement that David Neff made about the inclusion of same-sex couples and David Neff’s argument that the responsible thing for gay and lesbian Christians to do is to move into covenanted relationships.

Galli then stated very clearly,

“At Christianity Today, we’re saddened that David has come to this conclusion. Saddened because we firmly believe that the Bible teaches that God intends the most intimate of covenant relationships to be enjoyed exclusively by a man and a woman. We’ve stated this view explicitly in many editorials, and it is implicit but clear in many of our feature stories.”

Galli went on to write a particularly important paragraph in this very important editorial statement from Christianity Today. Acknowledging the fact that there is such a huge moral shift taking place around us, Galli then writes,

“But it’s not at all certain that the rapid cultural shift in America on gay marriage will be mirrored in the Christian church. North American and European Christians who believe in gay marriage are a small minority in these regions, and churches that ascribe to a more liberal sexual ethic continue to wither. Meanwhile, poll Christians in Africa, Asia, and practically anywhere in the world, and you’ll hear a resounding “no” to gay marriage. Scan the history of the church for 2,000 years and you’ll have a hard time turning up any Christian who would support same-sex marriage. The church has been and remains overwhelmingly united. It’s undergoing stress, certainly. But the evidence doesn’t support a narrative of division and collapse on this point.”

In an even more important statement, Galli went on to say,

“The reasons for this are many, but one that most commentators and same-sex marriage advocates fail to recognize is the profound theology that undergirds our ethics.”

He traces this through church history and then he says,

“It is not driven by an irrational prejudice of people living in the past, as the American zeitgeist assumes. It’s a consistent, nuanced, and, we believe, biblical working out of a theology of sexuality.”

Because this editorial is so important I want to reflect upon a couple of other statements made in the editorial Galli continues,

“We at Christianity Today are sorry when fellow evangelicals modify their views to accord with the current secular thinking on this matter. And we’ll continue to be sorry, because over the next many years, there will be other evangelicals who similarly reverse themselves on sexual ethics. We’ll be sad, but we won’t panic or despair.”

And then in a statement I genuinely do not know how to understand, Mark Galli wrote,

“We’ll be sad, but we won’t panic or despair. Neither will we feel compelled to condemn the converts and distance ourselves from them. But to be sure, they will be enlisting in a cause that we believe is ultimately destructive to society, to the church, and to relations between men and women.”

Let me tell you why I don’t know how to interpret that statement. It’s because if we believe that someone has genuinely articulated a position that we truly believe is “destructive to society, to the church, and to relations between men and women.” It’s hard to know how we could justify not separating ourselves from them. That’s the part that I simply do not know how to understand.

3) Democratic appeal to party base an overreading of leftward trend in American people

Yesterday is one of those red letter days in the evangelical movement. It’s an indication of what we’re going to face in days, months, and certainly years to come. It’s also an indication of the fact that we’ve reached a particular historical moment in the evangelical movement in the United States. A moment that brought about this editorial in Christianity Today magazine. On the one hand, the editors at Christianity Today had little choice but to respond given the fact that one of their former editors, a man who had been at the head of Christianity Today for many years, had come out in favor of same-sex couples in the church. But in terms of an emphatic affirmation of marriage as it is defined in Scripture, the Christianity Today editorial was very, very clear and for that we should be very, very thankful.

That same editorial pointed to some of the continuing questions, the evangelical movement is going to have to answer and we’ll be tracking those as well. But as I said in the beginning of this segment, this development is actually far more significant than the announcement made by Tony Campolo on Monday. The announcement that actually served as the catalyst for what David Neff had to say in response, and what Christianity Today had to say in response to that. But as we leave this story, it’s important to recognize one other point made not so much in the editorial by Mark Galli at Christianity Today, but in the headline of the editorial. Remember that headline was “Breaking News: 2 Billion Christians Believe in Traditional Marriage.” It doesn’t make news when a Christian affirms the traditional understanding of marriage, but it makes headline news when someone identified as a leader in the church, world leader in Christianity or a leader in what’s identified as the evangelical movement comes out in support of same-sex marriage. But that doesn’t mask the fact that not only for most Christians throughout Christian history, but right now for most Christians around the world, marriage is a very settled issue, settled by Scripture, defined as the union of a man and a woman to gather exclusively for a lifetime.

 

Next, another editorial caught my eye yesterday; this one was in the New York Times by columnist David Brooks. It’s entitled,

“The Mobilization Error.”

He’s writing about the 2016 presidential race. And he’s writing about the fact that candidates have to choose in terms of the contemporary political moment, one of two strategies in order not only do when their party’s nomination, but somehow also to win the presidency. He writes,

“Every serious presidential candidate has to answer a fundamental strategic question: Do I think I can win by expanding my party’s reach, or do I think I can win by mobilizing my party’s base?”

Those operating from a biblical worldview have to understand that there are huge worldview implications of that kind of question. David Brooks comes back to say,

“Two of the leading Republicans have staked out opposing sides on this issue. Scott Walker is trying to mobilize existing conservative voters. Jeb Bush is trying to expand his party’s reach.”

That’s an interesting read of the Republican side; he’s using two examples – one Governor, one former Governor, saying that Scott Walker is trying to win the Republican nomination by trying to define himself in terms of mobilizing the base of the Republican Party. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush looking not only to the nomination, but also to the general election is trying to figure out how many constituencies he can draw into his campaign, those who will support his candidacy who might be outside the traditional Republican court. Those are two very different strategies. I think David Brooks is right in pointing to those two examples. But then he looks to the Democratic Party and he says,

“The Democratic Party has no debate on this issue. Hillary Clinton has apparently decided to run as the Democratic Scott Walker.”

What he means by that is the Clinton campaign has made very clear, it’s not going to run to the center, not at all. It’s going to run to the left and do it’s very best to put together a strategy to win in November 2016 by running on the left and trying to mobilize as many voters from the left to go to the polls as possible.

David Brooks think that’s a really bad idea. He thinks it is bad for Republicans or for Democrats. He’s writing, particularly to Hillary Clinton, suggesting that this is bad because it isn’t going to be good for her party and it isn’t going to be good for the country. He points out that no one in recent election cycles has won with this kind of strategy unless his name is Barack Obama. And as Brooks indicates Barack Obama had a particular talent, at this point a singular talent, for bringing out increased voter participation among the true believers in his party, the constituencies most likely to agree with him. He did turn out a sufficient number of those voters to win not just once but twice. But David Brooks is writing to Hillary Clinton publicly here by saying that’s not going to work for you. It certainly didn’t work for your husband. He also says that this will be a legislative disaster, particularly for a Democrat because if a Democrat is elected running to the left. That Democratic president he says may live in the White House, but is going to have a very difficult time getting any legislation through with the Republican House and Senate. As Brooks says,

“If Clinton runs on an orthodox left-leaning, paint-by-numbers strategy, she’ll never be able to do this. She’ll live in the White House again, but she won’t be able to do much once she lives there.”

But then reading the worldview of Americans, David Brooks writes,

“The mobilization strategy over-reads the progressive shift in the electorate. It’s true that voters have drifted left on social issues. But they have not drifted left on economic and fiscal issues, as the continued unpopularity of Obamacare makes clear. If Clinton comes across as a stereotypical big-spending, big-government Democrat, she will pay a huge cost in the Upper Midwest and the Sun Belt.”

All that is really interesting. The political analysis by David Brooks is one of the better pieces that he has produced in recent months. He really gets to a very genuine issue and it points to a genuine dilemma that could be faced by the Democratic Party. But of course it’s a party that’s already made its choice very, very clear. Hillary Clinton is going to run to the left, she’s not going to run to the center. So where’s the great insight for the Christian worldview? It’s the fact that worldview really matters. And in this case, Americans tend in identification with those two parties to have very well defined worldviews, worldview A or worldview B, and those worldviews are so deeply entrenched and so clearly defined that there is a decreasing interest in both parties on those so-called swing voters who are supposedly in the middle.

Just think about the issues we discussed today on The Briefing. On how many of those issues is there any real middle ground? We reach the point in the American culture and we reached the point in American politics where that middle ground is disappearing fast. It’s not because the issues aren’t important it’s precisely because the issues really are.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information go to my website at AlbertMohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to BoyceCollege.com. Remember we’re taking questions for Ask Anything Weekend Edition. Call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058.

 

I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

The Briefing 06-10-15

1) Opposition to upheld Texas abortion law reveals entrenched nature of abortion movement

Controversial Texas abortion law upheld by federal appeals court, Los Angeles Times (James Queally)

Court Upholds Texas Law Criticized as Blocking Access to Abortions, New York Times (Manny Fernandez)

2) Responses to Campolo statement on homosexuality historic moment for evangelicalism

Evangelicals Open Door to Debate on Gay Rights, New York Times (Laurie Goodstein)

Breaking News: 2 Billion Christians Believe in Traditional Marriage, Christianity Today (Mark Galli)

3) Democratic appeal to party base an overreading of leftward trend in American people

The Mobilization Error, New York Times (David Brooks)

Which Way, Evangelicals? There is Nowhere to Hide

The very first issue of Christianity Today is dated October 15, 1956. In his first editorial, Carl F. H. Henry set his course for the magazine: “Those who direct the editorial policy of Christianity Today unreservedly accept the complete reliability and authority of the written Word of God. It is their conviction that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of plenary inspiration.”

Henry also affirmed continuity with the great orthodox tradition of biblical doctrine and moral principles: “The doctrinal content of historic Christianity will be presented and defended. Among the distinctive doctrines to be stressed are those of God, Christ, man, salvation, and the last things. The best modern scholarship recognizes the bearing of doctrine on moral and spiritual life.”

In that same issue, Billy Graham stressed the authority of the Bible in evangelism. “I use the phrase ‘The Bible says’ because the Word of God is the authoritative basis of our faith,” Graham said. “I do not continually distinguish between the authority of God and the authority of the Bible because I am confident that he has made his will known authoritatively in the Scriptures.”

That first issue of Christianity Today registered significant concerns about the trajectory of Christianity in America. Secularism was already the prevailing worldview in some elite circles of the culture, and those who founded Christianity Today did so, in large part, to establish a conservative counter-voice to the liberal magazine, the Christian Century.

Christianity Today has exerted a significant influence among American evangelicals since that first issue was published. But, as University of California at Berkeley historian David Hollinger has noted, “the fact remains that the public life of the United States moved farther in the directions advocated in 1960 by the Christian Century than in the directions then advocated by Christianity Today.”

If anything, that is an understatement.

Suffice it to say that the founders of Christianity Today did not have the legalization of same-sex marriage on their radar. They did not even have a vocabulary that would define it.

Tony Campolo’s announcement this week that he is “finally ready to call for the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church” hardly registered as a thunderclap. Campolo, long proudly identified with the evangelical Left, acknowledged in his statement that his previous answer to the question “has always been somewhat ambiguous.” Nevertheless, Campolo’s direction was clear. His wife and the organization he leads have both called for the legalization of same-sex marriage, and Campolo’s announcement came as no surprise to anyone who had followed his statements in recent years.

It was not always so. Back in 1999 Campolo told students at Calvin College, “I believe the first chapter of Romans is where I rest my case, and that is that the Bible does not allow for same-sex marriages and same-sex eroticism.” Similarly, he told Sojourners magazine that same year: “I believe that the Bible does not allow for same-gender sexual intercourse or marriage.” Romans 1:26-27, he said, “makes it clear that any homosexual activity is contrary to what the Bible allows.”

Campolo’s departure from this biblical clarity was dismissed in his statement this week by his remark that “people of good will can and do read the Bible very differently when it comes to controversial issues.” In this case, the Tony Campolo of 2015 reads the Bible differently than the Tony Campolo of 1999.

The real news of recent days, prompted by Campolo’s comments, was the statement made by David Neff, who was on the staff of Christianity Today from 1986 until his retirement in 2013, serving for some of those years as the magazine’s editor in chief. On social media Neff expressed his agreement with Campolo. Explaining his own position on the issue, Neff said: “I think the ethically responsible thing for gay and lesbian Christians to do is to form lasting, covenanted partnerships. I also believe that the church should help them in those partnerships in the same way the church should fortify traditional marriages.”

Now, that is a thunderclap – not so much because David Neff made that statement, but because David Neff was once editor-in-chief of Christianity Today.

Responding only hours after Neff made his statement, current editor-in-chief Mark Galli issued an editorial on behalf of the magazine in which he registered surprise and disappointment at Neff’s newly declared position. “At CT, we’re saddened that David has come to this conclusion,” Galli wrote. “Saddened because we firmly believe that the Bible teaches that God intends the most intimate of covenant relationships to be enjoyed exclusively by a man and a woman.”

Galli also made the case that the vast majority of Christians around the world — 2 billion by his estimate — stand with 2,000 years of unbroken Christian witness of that definition of marriage. That view, Galli wrote, is “a consistent, nuanced, and, we believe, biblical working out of a theology of sexuality.”

Galli added: “We at CT are sorry when fellow evangelicals modify their views to accord with the current secular understanding on this matter. We’ll continue to be sorry, because over the next many years, there will be many who will similarly reverse themselves on sexual ethics.”

Those statements, drawn from the editorial, are clear, convictional, and timely. Galli put Christianity Today on the record as opposed to same-sex marriage and to the affirmation of same-sex relationships in the church.

But then, in a very curious paragraph, Galli stated:

“We’ll be sad, but we won’t panic or despair. Neither will we feel compelled to condemn the converts and distance ourselves from them. But, to be sure, they will be enlisting in a cause that we believe is ultimately destructive to society, to the church, and to relations between men and women.”

I have to admit that I do not understand how those two sentences can be combined. If the view of the “converts” to same-sex marriage and the acceptance of homosexual partnerships is “ultimately destructive to society, to the church, and to relations between men and women,” how can that distance be avoided?

The reality is that it cannot. This is a moment of decision, and every evangelical believer, congregation, denomination, and institution will have to answer. There will be no place to hide. The forces driving this revolution in morality will not allow evasion or equivocation. Every pastor, every church, and every Christian organization will soon be forced to declare an allegiance to the Scriptures and to the Bible’s teachings on marriage and sexual morality, or to affirm loyalty to the sexual revolution. That revolution did not start with same-sex marriage, and it will not end there. But marriage is the most urgent issue of the day, and the moment of decision has arrived.

In this season of testing, Christians committed to the gospel of Christ are called upon to muster the greatest display of compassion and conviction of our lives. But true compassion will never lead to an abandonment of biblical authority or a redefinition of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I was contacted yesterday by Sarah Pulliam Bailey of The Washington Post. She asked about these very developments. As I told her, this issue will eventually break relationships — personally, congregationally, and institutionally. This is the sad reality and there is simply no way around it. No one, especially in a position of leadership, will be able to fly under the radar on this issue.

The last two days have been very revealing. The present moment is very demanding. The issues before us are compelling and urgent. The Bible is clear. Are you ready to give an answer?

 

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

For more information on Southern Seminary, visit SBTS.edu and for more information on Boyce College, visit BoyceCollege.com.

Sarah Pulliam Bailey, “From Franklin Graham to Tony Campolo, Some Evangelical Leaders are Dividing Over Gay Marriage.” The Washington Post, Tuesday, June 9, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ac...

Mark Galli, “Breaking News: 2 Billion Christians Believe in Traditional Marriage,” Christianity Today, Tuesday, June 9, 2015. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2...

Tony Campolo, “Tony Campolo: For the Record,” Monday, June 8, 2015. http://tonycampolo.org/for-the-record...

Tony Campolo, “Holding it Together,” Sojourners, May-June 1999. http://sojo.net/magazine/1999/05/hold...

Nathan Vanderklippe, “Homosexuality: Campolos Discourse on their Disagreement,” Online Chimes, October 22, 1999. http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/991022...

Amy Frykholm, “Culture Changers: David Hollinger on the Mainline Achievement,” Christian Century, July 2, 2012. http://www.christiancentury.org/artic...

 

 

Transcript: The Briefing 06-09-15

The Briefing

 

June 9, 2015

This is a rush transcript. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

It’s Tuesday, June 9, 2015. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) New York jailbreak coverage reminder of power entertainment has to confuse moral reality

As the New York Times reported,

“The plot was more “Shawshank Redemption” than “CSI”: two hardened inmates using power tools, handmade decoys and their hands to chisel and crawl their way out of a maximum-security prison in a subterranean escape.”

That’s the lead paragraph from a news story that has gripped Americans ever since Saturday morning. It is not an accident that a prison is often the context of some of the most interesting moral dilemmas and it’s also not an accident that Americans tend, at least in terms of their movie watching habits, to be very interested in prison breakout movies but this isn’t a movie this is real life. And as the reporters Jesse McKinley and David Goodman reported for the New York Times,

“The pursuit of the fugitives from Clinton Correctional Facility may be even more old-fashioned, in large part because of the manner in which the two criminals emerged: onto a camera-less street corner and into a world in which some of the best tracking targets available — cellphones, cars and credit cards — may not apply.”

As one law enforcement official indicated,

“They are basically untraceable.”

This is one of those fascinating human dramas and a very concerning one at that. You’re talking about a breakout from a prison. A breakout of two convicted murderers that in the words of New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo,

“Should be considered extremely dangerous.”

They broke out of prison by using tools and by digging. They broke out of prison the old-fashioned way and they broke out of a very old prison. The correctional facility was begun in 1865, the very last year of the U.S. Civil War.

As the New York Times tells the story the two men David Sweat and Richard Matt were discovered missing during a 5:30 AM bed check on Saturday morning. Further investigation showed the two men had assembled crew dummies to fool guards and had used cutting tools to carve holes in the sides of their adjoining cells before scrambling down into the bowels of the prison into a two foot wide pipe and out under the 30 foot walls. They then emerged from a manhole hundreds of feet from the prison, yet well in sight of the prisons opposing wall and the cellblocks beyond touching off a nationwide alert. The really interesting thing about this is that this prison was put in a place that was very remote in order to separate prisoners from civilization. But they also accomplished separating the prison from civilization in terms of many of the techniques and technologies that are available to law enforcement officials now to track people. These two murderers basically used a very old-fashioned system to breakout of a very old-fashioned prison to go out into the world in which all the newfangled technology appears to be relatively powerless to track them and find them and put them back in the prison where they belong.

From a moral perspective, there are several really interesting elements in this. In the first place, you have the big question that modern humanity finds very difficult to answer, just how bad can a person be? This is the question that is behind much of the conversation about the death penalty, much of the conversation about terrorism and its acts, much of the conversation about what’s going on in the larger culture in the headlines. Just how bad can people be? This is not some kind of esoteric abstract academic conversation. We’re talking about two convicted criminals here, both convicted murderers, all the murders involved being very violent. We’re talking about two men whose escape from prison caused such concern that the Governor of New York State immediately went to the prison facility in order to personally give leadership to the effort to try to recapture the criminals.

This story sounds like something from Hollywood, something from movie land that would’ve originated in the early decades of the 20th century. Moral historians look back to those decades and understand something that should have our attention. Americans during that time, and thereafter developed a very strange fascination with criminals, especially with the leaders of organized crime. The development of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and of the FBI’s now very famous Ten Most Wanted list was very much a part of the American fascination. Americans seem to be absolutely obsessed with details about the lives of famous criminals, ranging from people like Al Capone and John Dillinger to the most interesting case of all, and that was of Bonnie and Clyde.

These criminals and their crime stories provided a great deal of moral drama to Americans living in the early decades of the 20th century and we now know that drama has continued. It has just been transformed into other forms of crime. But it is interesting to note the moral confusion that entered into American public life and into the lives of Americans and their thinking when it came to the entertainment culture, giving so much attention, especially Hollywood in its early ages to these very well-known criminals. It turned out that when the criminals were put on the big screen, when their stories were told either in terms of fiction or nonfiction, the moral sentiments of Americans it turned out could be confused when the headlines intersected with the entertainment culture. And as soon as they became matters of celebrity not just of notoriety it turned out that Americans sometimes ended up pulling for the criminal rather than for the law enforcement officials. Now they didn’t do so when they actually had to confront the moral question but they did so when they were driven by a more emotional and entertainment driven understanding and we should understand that ourselves that that hasn’t gone away. That the mass power of entertainment, the mass power of telling a story on the big screen or for that matter now on the small screen, the ability to tell that story is the ability to manipulate emotions and the ability to confuse the moral reality.

But back to that most basic question raised by this issue – how evil, how dangerous can people be? So dangerous that you to put them into prison. So dangerous that you have to put the prison far, far from civilization. So dangerous that you have to create concentric circles of protection around the prison itself. So dangerous that you have to sentence some persons to life in prison without the opportunity of parole. So dangerous that in this case, the Governor of New York left his office in Albany and went to this site in order to make the point that he was personally leading the effort to recapture these criminals.

Oh and by the way, there are assuredly other moral issues here. For one thing, it turns out, and there’s no surprise here, that they evidently had some help from inside the prison. That would seem to be obvious since most prisoners don’t have the opportunity to take power tools to their cells. But that’s going to raise a host of other issues that points to the fact that even when we do our very best to create a context in which prisoners can be safely kept and kept away from society. It simply doesn’t work the way we plan. But when it comes to the sinful nature of humanity demonstrated very clearly in these two convicted murderers who broke out of this New York prison, you know, once again, the most interesting answer to this question doesn’t come from those who are trying to debate this issue in some law school seminar, or some doctoral class, but rather the people who are locking their doors and loading their guns and locking their windows in upstate New York.

2) Religious coalition urges Obama to allow government to fund abortions by breaking federal law

Next, another headline that should have our attention – this one also from the New York Times. It’s by reporter Michael Shear, the headline,

“Religious Leaders Urge U.S. to Fund Abortions for Rape Victims in Conflicts Abroad”

As is so often the case, the unfolding story is a great deal more interesting than the headline even would have indicated. As Shear reports, a coalition of religious and human rights leaders has called upon the President of the United States to support federal financing of abortions for

“women raped during violent conflicts overseas by members of terrorist groups like the Islamic State and Boko Haram.”

Now here’s why this story is even more interesting than the headline might indicate. It’s because what we’re looking at here is a classic case of political opportunism. The really interesting thing about this story is not so much the occasion that supposedly brought this coalition together in order to make a statement to the President of the United States. It’s the underlying ambition of this group, which is not at all hidden if you go to their own websites.

As Shear reports, the leaders of several Jewish, Christian and Muslim groups accuse the president of talk rather than action in addressing the grim fate of women and girls by refusing to direct the United States government to help pay for abortions in cases of rape in foreign countries. The fact is that no American president since 1973 has believed that he had the authorization to use federal funds to pay for abortions overseas. This is because in that very year, the year of the Roe v. Wade decision, the so-called Helms amendment was passed named for former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms that bans the use of any federal funds for overseas abortions. But as Shear reports, the religious group said that the Helms amendment mentions only abortions used as a method of family planning and should not be viewed as restricting the use of federal funds to make abortions available in cases of rape or incest. They called on President Obama to issue an executive order making government funds available for that purpose.

As Shear summarizes the case,

“Advocates for the change concede that no administration, Democratic or Republican, has interpreted federal law to allow the use of foreign assistance funds for abortions in rape cases since the Helms amendment went into effect more than four decades ago. But they said they had hoped Mr. Obama’s administration would be different.”

In a really interesting aspect of the article one of the women directing the effort that is Sara Ratcliffe, a director of a group called Catholics for Choice said,

“Advocates had spent six and a half years pleading, prodding and shouting to be heard, but no avail. This administration continues to bend a knee to the religious extremists.”

Well what the Obama administration have actually been doing is bending a knee in terms of federal law. The Helms amendment is very clear on this. But what’s also clear is that the issue that is now presented in this headline is basically a pretext for what these groups really want, which is for the federal government to pay for abortions virtually anywhere, anytime for any reason, for any woman who demands one. Just in case you’re wondering if that’s really the agenda of these groups all you have to do is go to their websites where their policy positions and their histories are rather clear on the subject.

What we’re looking at here is a very clear demonstration of the great theological and moral chasm that separates religious groups in the United States. You’re talking here about the far left, and they have been on the far left for a very long time. They have been so pro-abortion not only since 1973, but even before as they were pushing for what became the Roe v. Wade amendment. These groups are so pro-abortion that they will call in terms of their policy statements for abortion for any reason or for no reason and they will do so in explicitly religious language.

As the article in the New York Times makes clear, the coalition is being led as Shear says, by a group called the Center for Health and Gender Equity, which has been pushing the Obama administration to act for more than a year. The groups include such organizations as the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Shear then says,

“Last year, the Center for Health and Gender Equity and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice helped send a letter to the president on the subject, signed by 33 religious leaders and women’s advocates.”

Showing that great theological chasm, the head of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, his name is the Reverend Harry Knox said,

“We faith leaders are here today to call the moral question.”

According to the New York Times he said,

“Members of the coalition were scheduled to meet with the White House Council on Women and Girls on Thursday afternoon.”

If you go to the website for the group Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, it was founded in 1973 as the religious coalition for abortion rights; you’ll come to understand exactly who is the extremist when it comes to the abortion question. And you’re looking at an organization that for instance, on its own timeline goes back to 1991,

“The Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights opposes mandatory parental consent and notification legislation as coercive and harmful to young women.”

These groups have opposed virtually every single restriction on abortion since Roe v. Wade in 1973 and they push not only for the legalization of abortion under virtually any circumstance but also for federal government funding of abortions themselves.

The website of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice lists member groups such as the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the United Church of Christ, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, the General Board of Global Ministries, women’s division of the United Methodist Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the American Jewish committee and the American Jewish Congress.

What we’re looking at here in this headline just in recent days in the New York Times is a clear underlining of the basic worldview and theological conflict that now has created such a massive divide. The divide over abortions not a divide over how to define certain issues in what might be proposed as something of the middle ground. There is no middle ground here. You’re talking here about a constellation of far left denominations, churches and organizations calling itself the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice now – remember that it updated its language from its original name, as a religious coalition for abortion rights and then you’re talking about the worldview that understands every single human being at every stage of development as fully made in the image of God and fully deserving of a clear affirmation of the dignity and sanctity of that very life. This new story is one of those periodic alerts of the fact that sometimes the headlines just tell the tiniest part of the story. The big story is often behind the story, certainly behind the headlines and that’s certainly the case in this case.

3) Tony Campolo affirms gay couples in the church, continuing in predictable trajectory

Finally, a lot of headlines were made yesterday by Tony Campolo, a well-known figure on the so-called evangelical left. Tony Campolo released a statement early yesterday morning entitled, “For the Record.” The subtitle,  “Tony releases a new statement urging the church to be more welcoming.”

In the statement he says,

“As a young man I surrendered my life to Jesus and trusted in Him for my salvation, and I have been a staunch evangelical ever since. I rely on the doctrines of the Apostles Creed. I believe the Bible to have been written by men inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit. I place my highest priority on the words of Jesus, emphasizing the 25th chapter of Matthew, where Jesus makes clear that on Judgment Day the defining question will be how each of us responded to those he calls “the least of these”.

From this foundation I have done my best to preach the Gospel, care for the poor and oppressed, and earnestly motivate others to do the same. Because of my open concern for social justice, in recent years I have been asked the same question over and over again: Are you ready to fully accept into the Church those gay Christian couples who have made a lifetime commitment to one another?”

Now that’s a very interesting way to put the question. That’s not the only way this question is being put, but it’s a very specific way that Tony Campolo has stated the question that sets him up for the next paragraph. He says,

“While I have always tried to communicate grace and understanding to people on both sides of the issue, my answer to that question has always been somewhat ambiguous. One reason for that ambiguity was that I felt I could do more good for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters by serving as a bridge person, encouraging the rest of the Church to reach out in love and truly get to know them. The other reason was that, like so many other Christians, I was deeply uncertain about what was right. It has taken countless hours of prayer, study, conversation and emotional turmoil to bring me to the place where I am finally ready to call for the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church.”

Now, leaving the statement for a moment, this is the kind of news that isn’t as big as the news might have been if this had taken place several years ago. Most people, knowing Tony Campolo and following his trajectory, assume that this day would one day inevitably come and indeed it came, it came yesterday.

This comes over 15 years after Tony Campolo’s wife had taken a similar position and they have been involved in something of a rather public conversation about the issue. One that gained a great deal of evangelical attention. Tony Campolo says that he’s identified his entire life, since his conversion that is, as an evangelical and that he has in terms of the label, but he’s also identified himself very much on the evangelical left and he’s been involved in controversies with other evangelicals for most of that time as well. Controversies over the inerrancy of Scripture, controversies over the exclusivity of the gospel, controversies over any number of issues. Tony Campolo, I think it’s fair to say has often played the role of a provocateur and perhaps he intended to do that yesterday, but it’s too late.

Many others have already declared their understanding of this position in their affirmation of same-sex couples in same-sex activities and same-sex marriage and in this sense, Tony Campolo is arriving rather late to the game and once again it was fully understandable in terms of his trajectory that one day he would get here. The question was why not sooner rather than later? In the statement he cites what he describes as, “countless hours of prayer, study, conversation and emotional turmoil.” There’s no reason to doubt that those things took place. But what’s not found in his article is any serious engagement with Scripture whatsoever. A couple of interesting things here – he basically dismisses the scriptural issue by saying that Christians of goodwill can disagree over the interpretation of the crucial biblical texts. But on this matter of biblical interpretation, Tony Campolo was certainly by no means so unclear in times past. In 1999, he gave an interview to Sojourners magazine in which he said,

“Romans 1:26-27 makes it clear that any homosexual sexual activity is contrary to what the Bible allows. We can argue over this interpretation or that interpretation, but we must take the church very seriously. The fellowship of believers called the church of Jesus Christ has stood from the time of Christ to the present day, and I believe it speaks with authority. For almost 2,000 years, the church has read Romans 1 in a particular way. People who knew the Apostle Paul personally have written about what Paul meant when he wrote those verses.”

In an appearance at Calvin College in that same year 1999, the news report from his appearance quoted as saying,

“I believe that the first chapter of Romans is where I rest my case, and that is that the Bible does not allow for same-sex marriages and same-sex eroticism.”

The article from Calvin College also says,

“He also based his argument upon the tradition maintained by the Christian church for 2,000 years, which univocally opposed erotic homosexual acts. On no other issue — not slavery or women in church leadership — has the Christian church ever spoken with one voice throughout history, Campolo said.”

To put the matter bluntly, Tony Campolo was right then and he’s wrong now. But you’ll notice that he speaks very differently about Scripture now. He doesn’t say that he believes Scripture to be very clear in authorizing same-sex marriage. Rather, whereas in 1999 he said that Romans 1 very clearly says that all homosexual sexual acts are sin and that same-sex marriage would not then been be legitimate in the eyes of the church. In the year 2015 he says that the Scripture can be interpreted in different ways.

The statement he released yesterday has no serious engagement with Scripture at all. The other really interesting thing to note from his statement is that he limits his affirmation here to monogamous, same-sex couples in a lifelong commitment. That’s very interesting in and of itself. It’s really interesting on the eve of the Supreme Court decision that’s coming in June. It’s really interesting in terms of asking the question, what about other homosexual acts and other homosexual relationships? You see, even as this evolution of Tony Campolo reached this crucial moment yesterday in terms of the statement. This is not where the issue really is found in terms of the lives of most churches or the lives of most homosexuals.

Tony Campolo may honestly think that his statement will rest from yesterday for the rest of his days. He may intend for that to be his last word on the subject. But even those who are celebrating his statement almost assuredly will not be satisfied with it. There’s also no doubt that from the worldview of Tony Campolo what he is done here is an act of compassion. But this is where biblical Christians who are committed to the inerrancy of Scripture and are committed to that steadfast moral tradition based upon that Scripture must understand that compassion will never actually take the form of denying anything that Scripture clearly says. It will never take the form of in any way subverting what Scripture reveals. And in this case we have to be very clear as in every case that even though something may be claimed to be compassion, if it confuses the gospel, and if it confuses sin, if it confuses the Bible then it really isn’t compassion.

Tony Campolo and I have clashed on issues in the public square for any number of years now, but in private conversations he’s been very gracious and always engaging. I grieve yesterday’s statement by Tony Campolo most because I believe it comes as a direct cost of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I also fear that his statement will be most dangerous to those he has just sought to be most compassionate.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information go to my website at AlbertMohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to BoyceCollege.com.

I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

The Briefing 06-09-15

Podcast Transcript

1) New York jailbreak coverage reminder of power entertainment has to confuse moral reality

Wide Net Cast for Escaped Killers; They Could Be ‘Anywhere’, New York Times (Jesse McKinley and J. David Goodman)

2) Religious coalition urges Obama to allow government to fund abortions by breaking federal law

Religious Leaders Urge U.S. to Fund Abortions for Rape Victims in Conflicts Abroad, New York Times (Michael D. Shear)

AFFILIATES, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

3) Tony Campolo affirms gay couples in the church, continuing in predictable trajectory

Tony Campolo: For the Record, TonyCampolo.org (Tony Campolo)

Holding It Together, Sojourners (Tony Campolo)

Homosexuality: Campolos discourse on their disagreement, Calvin College Chimes (Nathan Vanderklippe)

Transcript: The Briefing 06-08-15

The Briefing

June 8, 2015

This is a rush transcript. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

 

It’s Monday, June 8, 2015. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Transgender and feminism agendas collide over admission policies at women’s colleges

Sometimes within just a matter of days or even hours a confluence of issues comes together in order to demonstrate what’s going on in the culture in an unmistakable and unavoidable way. That took place in the last days of last week and going into the weekend, including yesterday. It has to do with the transgender issue, and I’m not talking here about a celebrity case that has been much in the news. I’m talking about something that if anything is more important in the long run. And that has to do with policies changing within institutions and the collision of worldviews when it comes to how in the world institutions, including some the most famous feminist institutions in America, are going to deal with the transgender revolution.

From time to time on The Briefing I pointed out that what we have here is a set of conflicting absolutes. The feminist movement has its own set of ideological absolutes and it has to do with the fact that women, according to the feminist theory, are a besieged minority that must be identified in terms of being women in order for their cause to be heard and for their case to be made. And so you have in the feminist movement a major strain known as gender feminism. In some cases it argues that the feminine gender is actually superior to the male sex and in other ways it simply points to essential differences. Another mainstream of the feminist movement is that men and women are not basically different but they just have a different biology. But that biology is important because they argue that biology has been the cause of the oppression of women and girls throughout the centuries. And that leads to the collision with the transgender revolution because the feminist revolution is actually heavily invested in that old so-called binary understanding of male and female. And then you have the transgender revolution arguing that that binary system of understanding male and female simply has to go. It has to go entirely. In its place is a fluid understanding of gender and the thing we need to recognize right away is that you can’t have gender feminism and this fluid idea of gender and hold them simultaneously, at least not sanely.

But as I said, the most interesting development right now is taking place in institutions that are heavily invested in the feminist ideology. And there are seven institutions, seven very famous liberal arts colleges in the United States often known as the Seven Sisters that are amongst the most feminist institutions in America. These are women only colleges, all of them on the ideological left, all of them very committed to feminism, most of them very old and long-standing in terms of their tradition.

The headline came at the end of last week that Barnard College would be the last of the Seven Sisters to admit and to accept transgender students and this gets to be a very complicated tale. As Susan Svrluga reports for The Washington Post, in the fall of 2015 Barnard College will admit transgender students. This came after the trustees of the institution had gone through a year of what were described as intense discussions. These included public forums and online surveys of alumnae of the school,

“But it came [says Svrluga] at a moment of intense national interest in transgender issues.” She then gets right to the point, “Within the last academic year, all of the best-known women’s colleges have reconsidered their admissions policies, acknowledging a dramatic cultural change in the ways that people define themselves. What was once simple — male or female — has become far more nuanced for many, a complexity that traditional women’s colleges are taking on as they seek to be inclusive yet hold onto their missions.”

But even a cursory review of this issue makes very clear you can’t have both. You can’t have a commitment to the total radical inclusivity that denies that binary understanding of male and female and hold onto the traditional mission of a women’s college. Debora Spar, the president of the college and the chairperson of the board Jolyne Caruso-FitzGerald released what they called a joint letter in which they join two things which actually can’t be joined together. They said,

“There was no question that Barnard must reaffirm its mission as a college for women. And there was little debate that trans women should be eligible for admission to Barnard.”

Now just follow the complexity of the policy that was announced in the joint letter.

“To be considered for admission, an applicant must select ‘female’ on the Common Application”, that is commonly used by many colleges and universities, “and her application materials should support this self-identification.”

It’s not exactly clear how the admission materials are to support that assertion. Now remember that women transitioning to male will not be accepted for admission, but then The Washington Post said,

“Barnard students who choose to transition to male while at school will still be eligible to earn a degree.”

At the end of last week, Elizabeth Harris reported for The New York Times that,

“With its new policy, Barnard follows other prestigious women’s colleges in articulating a stance on transgender applicants and students at a moment when transgender people are more visible than ever.” She went on to acknowledge, “But the rules vary by institution. The policy at Wellesley, for example, is similar to Barnard’s, as is that of Smith College.” But then she reports, “Mount Holyoke, on the other hand, has one of the most inclusive policies of any prestigious women’s school.” Harris says, “In addition to welcoming transgender women, the school also accepts transgender men, as well as those born biologically female but who do not identify as either gender.” Then get the next sentence, “Only those born biologically male and who identify as men are ineligible to attend.”

The website for Mount Holyoke actually says,

“The following academically qualified students can apply for admission consideration:

Biologically born female; identifies as a woman
Biologically born female; identifies as a man
Biologically born female; identifies as other/they/ze
Biologically born female; does not identify as either woman or man
Biologically born male; identifies as woman
Biologically born male; identifies as other/they/ze and when “other/they” identity includes woman”

But then it again identifies those who cannot apply,

“Biologically born male; identifies as man.”

As Harris reports, Hollins University in Virginia takes a different approach than the other sisters in the group.

“Applicants born male will be considered for admission only if they have “completed the physical sex reassignment surgery and legal transformation from male to female,” according to campus policy. Students who transition from female to male will no longer be eligible for a Hollins degree.”

So in just a matter of days the Seven Sisters align themselves with Barnard College becoming the very last to join the transgender revolution. But the schools are joining this revolution in different ways. And while trying to do two things that are absolutely contradictory to try to maintain an identity as an historic women’s college, while denying that women is a meaningful category that has anything necessarily to do with sex.

Now remember that was at the end of last week going into the weekend and then comes the Sunday edition of The New York Times – always interesting, but on this count, this weekend, especially so. The front page article in the review section of The New York Times asked the question, “What makes a woman?” It’s by Elinor Burkett, a journalist, a former professor and a feminist, who was very upset with the direction of the ideology taken by the transgender revolution. Why? Because as she points out, there is now an automatic collision between old order feminists and the transgender activists. Burkett asked the question,

“Do women and men have different brains?” She then says, “Back when Lawrence H. Summers was president of Harvard and suggested that they did, the reaction was swift and merciless. Pundits branded him sexist. Faculty members deemed him a troglodyte. Alumni withheld donations.”

What she doesn’t say is that in short order, Lawrence Summers was out as the president of Harvard University. But now Burkett says that which got Lawrence Summers fired just a matter of a few years ago as president of Harvard University, is now taken to be the absolute orthodoxy of the transgender revolution. Pointing to the most recent celebrity gender transition she points out that the transition was celebrated as a way of realigning a body with the brain. The brain, it was claimed, is female.

Elinor Burkett says that’s the very argument that feminist have been arguing against for the last several decades. That argument that cost Lawrence Summers his job as president of Harvard University just a matter of a few years ago. Now it’s being celebrated by popular culture and being applauded by the very people who opposed it just a matter of a few years ago. Much of Elinor Burkett’s article, and again, it was the front page article in the review section of yesterday’s New York Times, is unmentionable in terms of this explicit nature on The Briefing. But suffice it to say that Burkett’s point is that she is a woman and that the feminist movement makes a great deal of the fact she is a woman and she argues that the binary understanding of human beings as male and female is being undermined by the logic and the ideology of the transgender movement.

In recent months on The Briefing we’ve discussed articles in The New York Times magazine and in The New Yorker indicating this very collision, but it’s interesting that now The New York Times, just days, virtually hours after the announcement by Barnard College that the newspaper itself reported, it now reports there’s a major problem here. This article comes from the far left in terms of worldview and one of most interesting things about it, there are two points I want to make – one is that Elinor Burkett, who is a radical proponent of abortion, sees that the abortion-rights movement as identified with women and she points out that many abortion-rights organizations now are actually trying to join the transgender revolution, at least in terms of political correctness by not mentioning women, even though by definition, only those who are born women are able actually to have a pregnancy, which leads to the very issue of abortion and the logic of the abortion-rights movement.

Burkett points to the quandary of these women’s colleges, and remember this comes out just a matter of about 48 hours after The New York Times reported on Barnard College and she writes,

“Women’s colleges are contorting themselves into knots to accommodate female students who consider themselves men, but usually not men who are living as women. Now these institutions, whose core mission is to cultivate female leaders, have student government and dormitory presidents who identify as males.”

Well here’s one very influential feminist writing from the left who says that simply isn’t going to work. A second point that becomes very clear in this article to those operating out of a biblical worldview is an acknowledgment that Elinor Burkett makes. She makes the point that so long as babies are born and someone observes the baby and says it’s a boy or it’s a girl, there will continue to be an assignment made at birth. In her own way, consistent with her own worldview for her own reasons, Elinor Burkett still thinks that matters. So do biblical Christians, of course, operating out of a very different worldview and on the basis of very different assumptions.

2) Children’s books important tools in furthering transgender agenda

A story by Alexandra Alter, here’s the headline,

“Transgender Children’s Books Fill a Void and Break a Taboo.”

The most important aspect of the article is for Christian parents to understand that this ideology is now very much, very strategically aimed at children. The very point of this article is that we now have coming an entire series of books addressed to children, including elementary aged children, telling them the message of the transgender revolution. Alter reports,

“Children’s literature is catching up to the broader culture, as stereotypes of transgender characters have given way to nuanced and sympathetic portrayals.” Altar goes on to report, “This year, children’s publishers are releasing around half a dozen novels in a spectrum of genres, including science fiction and young adult romance, that star transgender children and teenagers.”

David Levithan, the vice president and publisher of Scholastic Press said,

“In our culture, it was really something that was in the shadows, but suddenly people are talking about it. As our culture is starting to acknowledge transgender people and acknowledge that they are part of the fabric of who we are, literature is reflecting that.”

Alter tells us that in coming months there will be an entire series of these books. She points in particular to a book that was published by Duet addressed to the young adult audience. It is about

“a transgender teenage boy who falls in love with an older boy on the beach in Cape Cod.”

Later in the article Alter writes,

“In August, Scholastic will publish “George,” a middle-grade debut novel about a boy who knows he is a girl but doesn’t know how to tell his family and friends.”

Now we need to note that The New York Times is telling us, and parents need to be aware of this, that these books are being addressed to middle grade children. Alter then defines that when she writes,

“The next frontier for authors writing about transgender people seems to be middle-grade literature, or books aimed at 8- to 12-year-olds. In November, Disney Hyperion published “Gracefully Grayson,” a novel for readers ages 10 and up about a sixth-grade boy who feels like a girl.”

It’s sometimes hard to know exactly what to do with the confluence of articles like this, but the one thing we must not do is ignore it. Many times we’re being told that conservative Christians just can’t get these issues off their minds. Well one of the reasons is The New York Times can’t keep it off of the front page. And in a story like this, a confluence of stories like this, there’s a pattern that Christians need to observe very carefully. Because we are looking at how the culture is driven, shaped and formed. And we’re looking at the fact that the people who were driving this revolution understand they’re going to have to reach children and now they intend to do that. And remember we’re talking here about the definition of what’s being called the middle grades and they are identified as children ages 8 to 12. This tells us just how young they are aiming their attention and it will not stop there because just as in the picture book Heather Has Two Mommies, now about 25 years old, you can count on the fact that even now, the transgender revolution is changing the way that books for the very youngest children are written too.

Just as you really can’t have an historic women’s college consistent with its mission and join the transgender revolution. You can’t join that revolution and then put out picture books that include a mommy and a daddy, a son and a daughter, a brother and a sister, without adding a good deal of what the culture is now calling validity to the mix. But it’s worse than that, of course, because in this rebellion against the gift of gender, this culture is increasingly making it impossible to use terms like mother and father, son and daughter, brother and sister, even boy and girl, or man and woman with any definite meaning whatsoever.

It’s hard to say at this point where the transgender revolution is going to end. As I said, it has planted the seeds for its own destruction in the radical nature of its ideology. It is an unstable project individually and culturally but we can tell where it’s headed. It’s headed towards a great deal of acceleration in this culture and the way to accomplish that the leaders of this revolution know is by aiming as young as possible.

In so many ways as virtually anyone has now observed, the entertainment and information complex has been a major engine for driving the sexual revolution. The pictures we see on television, the betrayals we see from Hollywood, the understandings that come to us by the mass media, these have massive culture and ideology shaping impact. But just imagine the amplification of that impact when it comes to the very youngest eyes and ears. The pictures they see, the messaging that they receive, Christian parents better be very aware of this when it comes not only to those are children but also teenagers and young adults. If we do not ground the coming generation and the understanding of what it means to be male and female, as one of God’s greatest gifts to his human creatures made in his image, then we are going to simply see the same kind of insanity we now see in the Seven Sisters of these historically women’s colleges written virtually across the culture, including our own churches and denominations.

It is really interesting, very telling that you have the most influential newspaper in the United States, perhaps the most influential newspaper in the world, reflecting in a single issue, not to mention in a single week, this kind of confusion that is sown by this kind of moral revolution. It is evidently confusing even to those who are the readers, writers and editors of The New York Times who you can count upon believe themselves to be a part of this revolution, but they’re not all moving in the same direction and they can’t be because the ideologies of feminism and the transgender revolution are eventually irreconcilable.

As a pastoral challenge, the transgender revolution at the individual level is going to require the greatest conviction and compassion of the Christian church deeply committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to the totality of the Christian worldview. At the public level, you can see this debate that is primarily most interesting right now, is not between those who are arguing for the Christian worldview on the one hand and those who are the proponents of the revolution on the other – that’s an interesting debate.  But right now the even more interesting debate is on the secular left, amongst secular liberals who can’t decide right now which way to go – feminism or the transgender revolution. At least some of them recognize you can’t have both.

3) Gospel and prosperity theology incompatibilities evidenced in Creflo Dollar jet decision

But finally it’s also important for Christians to understand, also occasioned by headlines as we went into the weekend that you can’t have the gospel and prosperity theology. Those two are irreconcilable opposites. Prosperity theology or the so-called prosperity gospel is one of the most dangerous heresies now facing Christians worldwide. You can have the gospel of Jesus Christ or you can have the prosperity gospel, but you cannot have both. And the proponents of prosperity theology are out there replacing the gospel of Jesus Christ with a false gospel that doesn’t promise salvation from sin and all the promises that come in the gospel of Jesus Christ accomplished in the death burial and resurrection of the incarnate son of God, with a false gospel that promises health, wealth and prosperity instead.

This comes in mind with headlines that appeared in papers such as The Washington Post as we went into the weekend, telling us the Pastor Creflo Dollar is going to buy that $65 million private jet because God wants him to have it. You may recall that Creflo Dollar made infamous headlines in recent months, when it was discovered he was trying to raise $300 donations from his mailing list to buy him a $65 million private jet. What he was trying to buy was a Gulfstream G650, which as The Washington Post says, “isn’t just any private jet.” Faced with controversy, Dollar’s ministry backed off that effort to try to raise the money for a $65 million jet through $300 contributions. But at the end of the week his ministry announced that, those donations aside, the ministry is simply going to buy the jet for Creflo Dollar.

The board of World Changers Church International, according to The Washington Post has announced that the ministry will now go ahead and buy a Gulfstream G650 jet anyway, “at a time, place and price of our choosing.”

So take that, controversy. The board went on to say,

“We wholeheartedly reject the notion that the ministry’s airplane project is an imposition on our community or that it somehow takes advantage of our people. We plan to acquire a Gulfstream G650 because it is the best, and it is a reflection of the level of excellence at which this organization chooses to operate.”

To the credit of The Washington Post and Abby Ohlheiser, the reporter on this piece, she reports,

“Most Christians, evangelical or otherwise, do not consider prosperity gospel to be a mainstream interpretation of Scripture.”

That’s if anything, an understatement, but at least it’s important that she got that right in the article. The ministry statement included these words,

“A long-range, high-speed, intercontinental jet aircraft is a tool that is necessary in order to fulfill the mission of the ministry.” The statement went on to say, “In light of an unfortunate accident that recently resulted in the ministry’s aircraft being declared a total loss, it is our intention to purchase another airplane at a time, place and price of our choosing. We respectfully request that those who are not involved respect our right to practice what we believe, and only ask of the press that they report facts, and not fictional reports or biased perspectives.” The statement then read, “We encourage our community, and our pastors, to dream big, because we know that God loves us just that much.”

As I pointed out many times, the main problem with the prosperity theology isn’t that it promises too much. It is that it promises too little. Wealth and prosperity are passing at their very best and they are illusory and dangerous. This is evidence of that at face value. The most dangerous part of the statement from this board is where they defend the purchase of a $65 million jet because “we know that God loves us just that much.” But in reality, God does not love us that way. He loves us at an infinitely higher price for an infinitely higher gift. As John 3:16 reminds us,

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life.”

That’s the gospel of Jesus Christ; the prosperity gospel isn’t a gospel at all.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to BoyceCollege.com. I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

The Briefing 06-08-15

1) Transgender and feminism agendas collide over admission policies at women’s colleges

Barnard will admit transgender students. Now all ‘Seven Sisters’ colleges do., Washington Post (Susan Svrluga)

Barnard College, After Much Discussion, Decides to Accept Transgender Women, New York Times (Elizabeth Harris)

What Makes a Woman?, New York Times (Elinor Burkett)

2) Children’s books important tools in furthering transgender agenda

Transgender Children’s Books Fill a Void and Break a Taboo, New York Times (Alexandra Alter)

3) Gospel and prosperity theology incompatibilities evidenced in Creflo Dollar jet decision

Pastor Creflo Dollar might get his $65 million private jet after all, Washington Post (Abby Ohlheiser)

Statement From the Board of Directors, Creflo Dollar Ministries