R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 376

Transcript: The Briefing 03-28-14

The Briefing

 

 March 28, 2014

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

 

It’s Friday, March 28, 2014. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 

We had sincerely hoped that the world was becoming a safer place, but as we have learned in recent days, in geopolitical terms, the world is actually becoming a more dangerous place, an ominously and threateningly more dangerous place. That was made abundantly clear when you look at the actions taken by Russian President Vladimir Putin. In recent days, he has stolen an entire strategic region of the world. He stole the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine and he got away with it. On the geopolitical stage, he got away with what can only be described as grand larceny, but back on March 19 of this year, President Obama said, “What we’re going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we’ve got a strong international coalition that sends a clear message.” Well the coalition, we now understand, doesn’t exist and the clear message certainly has not been sent. Speaking this week in the European theater, the president was very clear in trying to say all the right things to President Putin and to our European allies about Ukraine. And, yet, as the president said the right things, President Putin is actually not listening or even if he’s listening, he’s not paying attention. He’s unconcerned with what President Obama says or President Obama thinks, and you can add to President Obama, the European nations as well.

 

Furthermore, he’s learned several very dangerous lessons (that is, President Putin) in recent days. He has learned that America understands, at least in terms of its president, that it is in a weaker and not a stronger position in the world. As David Sanger of The New York Times writes, “Mr. Obama acknowledges, at least in private, that he is managing an era of American retrenchment.” Sanger went on to write, “History suggests that such eras [of retrenchment]— akin to what the United States went through after the two world wars and Vietnam — often look like weakness to the rest of the world.” As the editors of The Weekly Standard said, “Retrenchment looks like weakness because it is weakness, and the consequences of such eras of weakness aren’t happy.” Well, indeed, they’re not. They’re not happy at all, but that’s the world we are now entering. We had thought, even in recent years, that we were living in a period of relative peace and that we were bequeathing to our children and our grandchildren an even safer and more stable world, but the world has not cooperated. Several incidents have brought this to our attention, but none more graphically than the grand larceny of Vladimir Putin and the fact that, even as he got away with stealing the Crimean Peninsula, he now threatens in a very real sense all of the Eastern region of Ukraine, perhaps the entire nation of Ukraine, and, as George Will warned in yesterday’s papers, perhaps even Poland as well. The geopolitical ambitions, the geographical ambitions of Vladimir Putin are not yet fully understood, but his aggression is itself clear. As many people around the world now recognize, a part of the problem is that America’s retrenchment, to use President Obama’s understanding, or our retreat in terms of power and influence has left a very nasty void, and as nature abhors a vacuum, so does the geopolitical scene. Someone will fill that void and Vladimir Putin intends to be, at least in terms of his theater of operations, the power that fills that void.

 

Speaking in Europe in recent days, President Obama has at least said the right things. Speaking to European leaders, he said, “We must not take for granted the progress made here in Europe. The contest of ideas continues. That’s what’s at stake in Ukraine.” The president is profoundly right that what is at stake is a battle of ideas, a contest of ideas: Western democracy over against Eastern autocracy. The kind of liberty that Americans understand and had hoped that was being recognized by other nations around the world and the denial of liberty in the name of nationalism that marks the leadership of Vladimir Putin. The president went on to say to the European leaders, “We live in a world where our ideals will be challenged again and again. We can’t count on others to meet those tests.” As The Financial Times of London reports, indeed, European leaders made clear by their own behavior that we can’t count on others to do this, to fill this void, to demonstrate to the aggressors of the world that they won’t get away with their aggression. But, as is becoming increasingly clear, we can’t even count on ourselves. President Obama is not part of the solution in so much of this, but rather part of the problem. He has sent a very uncertain sound and he has made the situation worse by saying things such as, “We will not accept such things as Putin’s annexation of Crimea,” but we have basically accepted and that’s the problem. The president has had the habit in this dangerous world of saying things that he hopes will deter aggression, but, as he has discovered, saying things doesn’t make them so. The president drew what he himself called “a red line” that Syrian President Bashar Assad must not cross. He did cross it using chemical weapons against his own people, and he too get away with it. Saying that something is unacceptable when you’re president of the United States and saying it in terms of the world diplomatic context used to mean that the president of the United States intended to do something to demonstrate that we were not accepting whatever the president said was unacceptable. Just think of someone like Teddy Roosevelt or, for that matter, not only George W. Bush, but Franklin Roosevelt or Richard Nixon or even Bill Clinton. But when President Obama says that something is unacceptable, the reality is people around the world know that the pattern is he will accept it.

 

In its editorial published in yesterday’s edition, The Wall Street Journal said that the lessons sent by the White House comes down to this: Mr. Putin can keep Crimea as long as he stops there. But then the editors asked, but why would he? The US and its allies had promised to exact a cost for his land-grab in Ukraine. Instead, the response has been anemic, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it, and Mr. Putin can logically conclude that the price also wouldn’t be high for an incursion elsewhere in Ukraine or his continuing campaign to destabilize the new government in Kiev. As the editors say, the message that Kiev will understand in all this is: You’re on your own. And, indeed, they are on their own.

 

What we’re looking at here are some very serious and real constraints on American power, but when it comes to American influence, this is where the president of the United States seems not to understand just how dangerous the world is and, furthermore, how unpersuaded aggressors of the world are by his words and his rationality. The fact is, as President Woodrow Wilson understood during and after World War I, rationality has its limits when you’re arguing with aggressors. Aggressors, as it turns out, are impervious to Western rationality, to moral logic. They crossed those bridges long ago, and when they crossed them, they burned them.

 

By the way, Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal had a business story that makes a very similar point and it’s very much filled with worldview implications. William Boston, writing for the business pages of The Wall Street Journal, writes about the CEO of Siemens AG. That’s a major European Corporation. The leader of Siemens went to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin, and, remember, this is a business based in Europe supposedly standing for democracy. But as Boston writes:

 

Siemens AG Chief Executive Joe Kaeser met Mr. Putin at his official residence outside Moscow on Wednesday. The men posed for the cameras and talked up Germany and Russia’s special economic relationship. Siemens began conducting business in Russia 161 years ago, when it built the czar’s telegraph network.

 

The leader of Siemens AG, the CEO John Kaeser, said:

 

Siemens has been present in Russia since 1853—a presence that has survived many highs and lows. We want to maintain the conversation even in today’s politically difficult times.

 

In other words, the CEO of this major German-based corporation went to Russia to say, Come whatever, come war, come peace, come Putin the aggressor or Putin the peacemaker, it doesn’t matter. We want to do business with you. We did business with the czars back over 160 years ago. The czars were autocratic, cutting off the heads of serfs and taking their policy. The czars were themselves notoriously evil, taking the property of peasants and executing people with impunity. Vladimir Putin annexes Crimea—no problem, says this capitalist, we’ll simply make sure our business continues. As he said, “We want to maintain the conversation even in today’s politically difficult times.”

 

In a fallen world, our economic issues are very revealing. The economic incentives for doing business with Russia are not going to keep many European companies and, perhaps, many American companies as well away from the moral problem of doing business with a dictator. It is often said that the Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin said that when the time comes to hang the capitalists, the capitalists will actually negotiate and bargain over who gets to sell the rope. It isn’t actually historically verifiable that Lenin said any such thing, but it sounds like him and, furthermore, the point that is made in the aphorism seems to be hauntingly true. And one of the things we need to recognize when we think about living in this fallen world, a world that is explained only by Genesis 3, not only in terms of the individuals who make it up, but the geopolitical realities we read about in the headlines, the one thing that becomes clear is this: every part of our society, every part of our lives, every dimension of our society is affected by sin. That gets down to the economy as well, where there are people who are right now lining up to do business with Vladimir Putin, perhaps hoping even to take the places of those who might not do business because of moral scruples. It reveals a great deal. It reveals a part of why it is so dangerous to live in this world because the dangers are more subtle and more numerous and all the more threatening than we often want to think they are.

 

Speaking of living in a dangerous world, a very ominous news report came out on the front page of yesterday’s edition of USA Today. The reporter is Mahi Ramakrishnan, and as he reports:

 

The pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines jet is believed to be solely responsible for the flight being taken hundreds of miles off course and there is no evidence of a mechanical failure or hijacking by a passenger, according to an law enforcement official involved in the investigation.

 

A high-ranking officer attached to a special investigative branch of the Malaysia police force told USA Today on Wednesday that investigators are pressing relatives of the pilot, Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah, for information on his behavior leading up to the March 8 flight.

 

This is one of those stories that tells us of just how much evil can be concentrated in one single individual. This affirms the importance of the morality of human action and the fact that so many incidents in this world are only explained by the actions of human actors, the sinful actions of human moral agents. This also points to the moral context of the disappearance of this jetliner. As it turns out, at least according to this investigator, the reality is that this isn’t something that happened to this plane. It isn’t something that merely happened to the 239 souls aboard. One of those souls aboard, the captain of the airliner, is now suspected of committing suicide and mass murder by diverting the plane from its path and leading to its eventual crash in one of the most remote spots on earth—in the Indian Ocean.

 

Even as that was reported, other reports were coming that satellite images from France and China and other nations have revealed over 300 different items floating on the surface of the Indian Ocean, but cyclonic winds and other currents have so distributed these materials that even if they are discovered to have come from the Malaysian airliner, it may give no indication whatsoever of where the rest of the plane may be, certainly now, on the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

 

One of the things the becomes clear here is not only the limits of human rationality and human research, the limits of human technology, the limits of our own investigative ability, but we also come to terms with the fact that there are parts of this planet—not just outer space, but of this planet we inhabit—that are so remote and so unknown to us that it is almost impossible now to believe that there will be any intellectually and morally satisfying end to this investigation. It’s hard to believe that the plane will ever now be found in any reasonable amount of time, and it’s going to be something that will test to those who have lost loved ones on this plane. It will add injury to the great hurt and grief of their loss, and that points out the fact that, again, as we are made in the image of God, God made us rational creatures and our rationality cries out for the demand of an answer. We want to know why, but one of the most haunting and painful realizations of our human existence in this fallen world is that sometimes we actually never get the answer to that haunting question why.

 

There’s a great deal of conversation in this country about the release this weekend of the new film entitled Noah. It’s by director Darren Aronofsky and it’s getting a lot of attention not so much because of how it tells the story of Noah, but by how it mistells that story. Russell Crowe is starring in the movie and it tells the story of Noah, but it’s not the story of Noah so much as is found in the book of Genesis, but the story of Noah as it was envisioned by Darren Aronofsky, who, in terms of a paraphrase, said that this movie is going to be the least biblical, biblical movie ever made.

 

There are a lot of problems with this movie. The way it tells the story is actually, well, it’s explained by the fact that if you’re going to make a movie about Noah as Noah is actually described along with the narrative about him in the historical events in the book of Genesis, there isn’t enough there for a major motion picture. The Bible gives us all we need to know about Noah, all we need to know about God’s judgment, all we need to about the ark and God’s purpose in Noah and his descendants, all we need to know about the Noahic covenant (that is the covenant that God made with Noah), but we are not given the kind of dialogue that you will have to have in a movie. We’re not given the details and, furthermore, in the Scripture, we do not find many of the interpersonal dynamics, not to mention the big world conflicts, that’s supposedly are necessary for telling a Hollywood epic. And Darren Aronofsky isn’t deterred by that. He’s filled in the gaps with his own version of the story, a narrative that mixes ecological concerns and animal rights with a retelling of the story that involves conflict and themes that are not found in the biblical narrative.

 

Now one of the interesting parts of this controversy is that many Christians are debating whether or not the film should have been made since it isn’t true to the Bible, but what’s even more interesting is how many Christians were involved in some sense with the movie, at least early on, and have been champions of the movie, suggesting that Christians should not only go, but should take others to see the movie as well. What we have here is a basic conflict about how to understand the entertainment industry and Hollywood as a subset of that. Christians, I would argue, tend to get far too excited about some things and far too disappointed in others. When it comes to telling stories from the Bible, I need to point out emphatically that the Bible is infinitely better at telling its own story than anyone else, including and especially Hollywood. One of the things this controversy makes clear is that many Christians need to think far more deeply and seriously about our engagement with the products, that is the consumer products, of an entertainment culture and Hollywood is a subset of that culture. Christians often get far too excited about some products and then far too concerned and worried about others, but we need to point out very emphatically that when you’re thinking about Hollywood, we need to keep in mind one fact, one central fact, and keep this ever in our focus. When it comes to telling the story of the Bible, the Bible is infinitely better at telling its own story than anyone in Hollywood, and, furthermore, we need to recognize that Hollywood, at its best or its worst, is always a commercial enterprise and that’s very clear too.

 

That was made very, very clear in an article that appeared in Bloomberg BusinessWeek on the fact that Hollywood is increasingly discovering Christians and those who are interested in Christianity or a part of the larger culture of cultural Christianity who will buy tickets to go and see these movies. And so even as this movie may be, as its own director states, the least biblical, biblical movie ever made, they’re trying to sell it to Christians as far more biblical than it actually is. Scott Bowles, writing in USA Today, also reveals this fact. He cites Jeffrey McCall, a professor of media studies at DePaul University in Greencastle, Indiana, who said:

 

Hollywood has the same corporate and relativist values it has had for many years. The producers have, however, identified a market that is underserved and won’t come to the movie theater to watch crazy violence and sex-drenched pots.

 

Well, it will be interesting to see how the Christian community responds to Noah and to many other movies that are now going to be marketed to Christians, but what we must recognizes is this: we cannot count on Hollywood to tell the story that is ours to tell; the story that the Bible tells infinitely better than anyone else can tell it. And if people are looking for the story to be different than what is found in the Bible, then they’re not actually looking for the Bible story, but for a story of their own imaginative invention. We are well warned by a director who said of this product, this movie is the least biblical, biblical movie ever made. If he’s saying that before we see the movie, we can only imagine what we’ll think once we’ve seen it.

 

On the other hand, we need to point out that as our friends and neighbors may be seeing this movie, it does give us an opportunity if nothing else to set the record straight. Oh, and as we’re setting the record straight, let’s set it straight in terms of the biblical metanarrative. And that is the reminder that the Noah account, the historical facts related to Noah and the universal flood that took place and the salvation that was pictured in the ark, that all this points to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the Noahic covenant points to the shift within the book of Genesis from dealing with humanity at large to dealing with what would become the nation of Israel. This is a very important historical chapter not only for the book of Genesis and the Bible, but in human history. It’s a good thing, at least, that many in our culture will be talking about it. Let’s help them to talk about it in ways that are most biblical and that get to the gospel. After all, that’s our point. Let’s keep that in mind.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. Remember tomorrow’s release of another edition of Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Remember to call with your question in your voice. Just give us a call at 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058. 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’m speaking to you from Albany, New York. Today, I’ll be delivering lectures at Mid-American Baptist Theological Seminary’s New York Campus. Tomorrow, I’ll be speaking to the Northeastern Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, also meeting here in the Albany area. Perhaps, I’ll have the opportunity to see some of you there. I’ll meet you again on Monday for The Briefing.

The Briefing 03-28-14

Podcast Transcript

1) Despite Obama’s “retrenchment” the world is becoming a more dangerous place

Global Crises Put Obama’s Strategy of Caution to the Test, New York Times (David E Sanger)

Superpower Once Lived Here, The Weekly Standard (William Kristol)

Obama warns Europe of return to nationalist conflicts, Financial Times (Christian Oliver and James Fontanella-Khan)

Obama’s Uncertain Trumpet, Wall Street Journal (Editorial)

2)Economic incentives for doing business with Russia will not keep people from moral problems

Siemens Chief Meets Putin in Russia, Wall Street Journal (William Boston)

3) As Malaysian Airlines pilot is accused, we may never know the answer to “why”

Malaysia jet disappearance no accident, investigator says, USA Today (Mahi Ramakrishnan)

4) Noah: The Bible is infinitely better at telling it’s own story than anyone else

Russell Crowe Meets the Pope, but Will Religious Viewers See Noah? Bloomberg Businessweek (Bilge Ebiri)

Is ‘Noah’ film sacred enough?, CNN (Carol Costello)

 

 

Transcript: The Briefing 03-27-14

The Briefing

 

 March 27, 2014

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

 

It’s Thursday, March 27, 2014. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 

An historic and much welcomed announcement came from World Vision U.S. yesterday afternoon. The letter came from Richard Stearns, the President of the American division of World Vision. He wrote, “Today the World Vision U.S. board publicly reversed its recent decision to change our national employment conduct policy. The board acknowledged they made a mistake and chose to revert to our long-standing conduct policy requiring sexual abstinence for all single employees and faithfulness within the biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.” He went on to say:

 

We are writing to you, our trusted partners and Christian leaders, who have come to us in the spirit of Matthew chapter 18 to express your concern in love and conviction. You share our desire to come together in the body of Christ around our mission to serve the poorest of the poor. We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.

 

In the world today, there are countless surprises and many, many disappointments, and when you have a letter like this to arrive, it is a singularly happy event. What you have here is a major Christian organization correcting an error, doing so publicly, doing so very clearly. In this letter that comes from Richard Stearns, the World Vision U.S. board makes very clear that it is not just making an expedient effort to try to get back to the previous policy; it is acknowledging that it made a mistake. And the most important portion of this letter is where it acknowledges that the mistake was made. In the fourth paragraph of Richard Stearns’s letter, he writes:

 

We are brokenhearted over the pain and confusion we’ve caused many of our friends, who saw this decision as a reversal of our strong commitment to biblical authority. We ask that you understand that this was never the board’s intent. We are asking for your continued support. We commit to you that we will continue to listen to the wise counsel of Christian brothers and sisters, and we will reach out to key partners in the weeks ahead.

 

While World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage, we strongly affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect.

 

Well certainly that last statement is true. Every single human being, who is now alive and will ever live or who has ever lived, is made in the image of God and is to be loved and treated with dignity and respect. But the first portion of that paragraph is so very important where Richard Stearns writes that there were many people who saw the decision that they announced earlier this week as a reversal of “our strong commitment to biblical authority.” Well, indeed, that’s exactly not only what it was seen to be; that’s what it was. And even if that portion of this letter might not have been written as strongly, in terms of its wording, as it could have been, it does send the signal very clearly and it doesn’t attempt to evade the central issue, which is that the authority of Scripture was directly at stake.

 

And that next paragraph makes that point dramatically clear when Richard Stearns writes that World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage. That is a crucial phrasing, a crucial series of words because in the statement that World Vision released earlier this week announcing that they were changing their policy to allow for the employment of openly gay employees in legal same-sex marriages, the board had made the statement that the issue of marriage and sexuality, the homosexuality issue wasn’t clear in Scripture. Now they’re making a very clear statement that they see the issue clearly and that Scripture is clear on the issue. They refer to the biblical view of marriage.

 

That is a very significant statement and, as I said, this is a very happy development. We need to express appreciation to the board of World Vision and to Richard Stearns for making this statement so clearly and in such a timely manner. There are those who have immediately come back to say they must have been under intense pressure. Well, of course, they were, but it’s not enough just to say that they did this because of the pressure. The way they wrote the letter requires us to give not only the benefit of the doubt, but a sincere word of appreciation to World Vision U.S. for making this statement yesterday in such a clear and unequivocal manner and, indeed, a manner that demonstrated a great deal of grace as well, even thanking their critics in the spirit of Matthew chapter 18 for helping them to see the issue more correctly.

 

This statement made by world vision also immediately helps so many Christians around the United States and the world who are wondering what in the world to do in light of the earlier policy announcement; the policy change to accept the hiring of those who were openly gay, who were living in legal same-sex marriages. Now there were many Christians under that situation, under that policy who were asking the question, “Can we continue to fund World Vision?” and the immediate issue here was the tearing of the conscience between the knowledge there are so many people, including many children, who are in such dramatic need and the question as to whether or not you are actually doing what ought to be done, in terms of the responsibility of Christian stewardship and generosity, by giving to an organization that had adopted such an unbiblical policy. Now this statement coming yesterday from World Vision alleviates not only its donor base of that moral quandary, but also so many other Christians who can now support World Vision and support the children and others who were assisted by this ministry without the concern that they would’ve been required to violate their conscience on the authority of Scripture and on that the Bible teachings of sexuality in so doing.

 

Earlier this week I published an article at albertmohler.com very critical of World Vision for having taken that step announced earlier this week that would’ve violated the authority of Scripture and the Scripture’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. I now need to come back with equal clarity to what was demonstrated in this letter from World Vision and say that they have changed their position. They have gone back to affirm a biblical understanding and that is clearly good news, and I want to make my judgment on that fully clear.

 

The aftermath of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments held on Tuesday in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods cases—those are cases, of course, dealing with the ObamaCare mandate for contraception coverage. The reverberations continue to be very revealing; two in particular. The first is an article published in The Washington Examiner by Timothy P. Carney. Carney writes that there is the possibility of peace in this front-of-the-culture war if the left wants it and would have it. That has to do with the fact that there is a misconstrual of what’s actually a stake here. There are many on the left who are writing as if what’s at stake in this controversy is the access that women might have to contraception. As Timothy Carney argues very persuasively in this article, that’s hardly at stake. Contraception is available virtually everywhere. The only issue at stake before the Supreme Court in these two cases is whether the government can compel a company to pay for that contraception coverage in that health care coverage that is offered by the employer to the employees. Those are two very different questions, but you wouldn’t know that from much of the media coverage. But that’s where Timothy Carney gets to the issue at stake and he nails it. He absolutely gets to the heart of the issue. He says the problem is that the left doesn’t want to see this as anything other than a direct assault upon contraception access, and he says that’s so because if we think this is merely over the issue of birth control, we miss how the left has elevated that issue to an issue of its own religious commitment. He writes:

 

The Pill is not just a pill to them [speaking of the cultural left]. It has become something holy. And they won’t tolerate any burden between them and their Blessed Sacrament. The culture war isn’t religious versus secular. It’s a clash of two faiths.

 

At the level of worldview analysis, that is a powerful and perceptive statement. That is exactly what we’re looking at. The dimension of the culture war, as Timothy Carney gets exactly right, isn’t between a secular side and a religious side, but between two opposing sides, both of whom have essentially religious commitments. On the one side, you have Christians and other people with very clear religious convictions who are very troubled by not only birth control in general, but especially by the potential that any form of birth controls could function at least at some time as an abortifacient causing an abortion. On the other side, you have people for whom the birth control pill is now a symbol of an entire worldview of sexual liberation and they raise that to the level of an almost sacramental importance. As he writes, they won’t let anything get between them and their “Blessed Sacrament.” The issue isn’t religious versus secular. It’s a clash of two faiths.

 

Now, from time to time, we make this point by going back to Thomas Sowell, the Stanford Hoover Institution economist who makes this point in his book, The Conflict of Visions. As he says, every single individual, whether that individual regards himself or herself as religious or secular, liberal or conservative, operates on the basis, as he says, of a certain vision of life and that vision of life is what we would call a worldview. And he writes about the fact that it isn’t accidental that if you can predict someone’s position on issue A, you can probably at least anticipate their position on issue B, C, D, E, F, and so on. He asked the question, “Why is that so?” It’s because they don’t disagree on those issues alone; they disagree on a fundamental understanding of reality, and anyway you define that, it’s essentially theological. In this sense, even a secular worldview is far more theologically-oriented than those who hold it might want to think. And Timothy Carney’s exactly right: what we have here, in terms of this controversy, is something that reveals a very deep commitment that goes beyond what most cultural conservatives and Christians understand. As a matter fact, it points to a fundamental political reality. If the Obama Administration wanted to accomplish making certain that women through ObamaCare had unrestricted access to free contraceptive care, they could have done it without requiring employers to violate their convictions in so doing. In other words, that part of the law, that requirement seems, in essence, a premeditated assault upon religious conviction in order not only to get something accomplished, but to make a point in so doing. And that’s what explains why these cases were before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

 

But I said there were two articles that are very revealing in this cultural conversation that continues to reveal so much. The other is an article by Tal Kopan, published at Politico, having to do with California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer. She asked a very interesting question in a television interview in which the Supreme Court debate and conversation and oral arguments became the topic of conversation. She was asked what she thought about the cases before the Supreme Court. She said:

 

I have never heard Hobby Lobby or any other corporation, I could be wrong, or any other boss complain that Viagra is covered in many insurance plans, particularly all of them, or other kinds of things, you know, for men, which I won’t go into.

 

A very revealing statement. Senator Boxer has been known for making some statements that have required a great deal of head scratching and consideration. Add this one to the list. She seems to lack any understanding whatsoever or at least she refuses to make any acknowledgment of the fact that there are serious moral issues held by many people, including the leaders of her own church, about birth control and about contraception and about a potential abortifacient effect. She doesn’t even deal with that. She simply says, “It’s a male-female issue. I don’t hear anyone complaining about paying for Viagra,” as if that’s somehow an equivalent issue. The question of whether or not Viagra should be included in government mandated healthcare is, so far as I see, a very legitimate question. It is just a question that has nothing to do with something that has the moral significance of birth control and especially any birth control that could be potentially abortifacient in effect. Senator Boxer proceeded to deal with the issue after the host of the program Chris Jansing pressed her on whether she could rightly compare Viagra and birth control. She said quote:

 

I’ve never heard them put any type of moral objection, remember, this is a moral objection to men getting Viagra, but they have a moral objection to women getting certain types of birth control. What’s their next moral objection? Do they objective to vaccinations? Where do you take it from here?

 

But it’s hard to know where to take the discussion from there because where it stands in terms of her comments is an abject refusal to understand even what’s at stake. Even the Obama Administration has at least responded to the issues, acknowledging that there could be serious moral issues at stake. The position of the Obama Administration, as put forward by the Solicitor General Donald Verilli before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, was that even though there are legitimate moral objections, these are trumped by the responsibility of the government, they claim, to make such services available to all women without cost. Indeed, it’s hard to know now how to talk about many of these issues in the public square where you have some people who won’t even accept the fact that there are serious moral issues at stake. As Tim Carney writes in his column, it’s as if many on the left think that religious people are making up these objections and concerns as we go along. All Barbara Boxer would have to do in order to settle that issue would be to talk to one of the bishops of her own church, but, then again, she would probably get quite an earful.

 

The intersection of our entertainment industry and morality is sometimes a very messy thing. That’s one of the reasons why I steadfastly try to give as little attention to Hollywood as possible in terms of the kinds of things that are likely to generate the scandal sheets. But every once in a while something happens in Hollywood that simply can’t be ignored because it points to something far more important and far more pervasive than anything Hollywood might even recognize.

 

The announcement came yesterday in USA Today and other major media announcements that actress Gwyneth Paltrow, age 41, is separating from her husband Chris Martin, the lead singer of Coldplay. As USA Today reports, they’ve had a troubled marriage ever since they were secretly married back in 2003, and now the announcement has come that they’re going to be breaking up. But that announcement taken alone wouldn’t explain why we’re talking about this issue today on The Briefing. No, what explains that is the fact that the announcement about this divorce was made on the website, that’s Gwyneth Paltrow’s personal website, along with an explanation that does demand our attention. The title of her article was “Conscious Uncoupling.” She writes

 

It is with hearts full of sadness that we’ve decided to separate. We’ve been working hard for well over a year, some of it together, some of it separated, to see what might have been possible between us, and we have come to the conclusion that while we love each other very much, we will remain separate. We are, however, and will always be a family, and in many ways we are closer than we have ever been. We are parents first and foremost to two incredibly wonderful children, and we ask for their and our space and privacy to be respected at this difficult time. We’ve always conducted our relationship privately, and we hope that as we consciously uncouple and co-parent, will be able to continue in the same manner.

 

It was signed Gwyneth and Chris. Now just that one paragraph taken by itself is filled with all kinds of material of worldview significance. First of all, you have here the very use of the phrase “conscious uncoupling” to describe the divorce, that is, the breakup of the marriage that is here announced. Then you have the statement made in public, made right in this statement by these two people that “in many ways we are closer than we have ever been.” That’s the kind of almost postmodern nonsense that only makes sense if you consider the fact that it must’ve been at least assisted by some kind of public relations agent as a way to describe the breakup of this family. And then you have the fact that here’s a Hollywood couple claiming that they need private space to deal with their private lives, but the reality is that if they were merely private people, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place. Those in the entertainment industry, whether it’s Hollywood or the music industry, live off of the fuel of publicity, and even as that certainly impinges upon their private lives in very dangerous and deleterious ways, they can’t simply turn off the faucet of public attention when they make an announcement such as this, and, furthermore, they did make an announcement. They intended for the announcement to get attention and now they say that don’t want any attention, which leads to the problem of Hollywood writ large.

 

But what’s really significant about this is the fact that that one paragraph statement by Gwyneth and Chris was followed by a rather long essay by Dr. Habib Sadeghi and Dr. Sherry Sami entitled “On Conscious Uncoupling.” They write this:

 

Divorce is a traumatic and difficult decision for all parties involved. And there’s arguably no salve besides time to take that pain away. However, when the whole concept of marriage and divorce is re-examined, there’s actually something far more powerful and positive at play.

 

Well, let your worldview alarm bells go off. When someone writes that there’s something positive about divorce, you better listen pretty carefully. They then launch into this:

 

The media likes to throw away the statistic that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. It turns out that’s accurate. Many people are concerned about the divorce rate and see it as an important problem that needs to be fixed, but what if divorce itself isn’t in the problem? What if it’s just a symptom of something deeper that needs our attention? The high divorce rate might actually be calling to learn a new way of being in relationships.

 

Well buckle your seat belts; these two doctors are going to tell us about this “new way of being in relationships.” Dr. Sadeghi and Dr. Sami write:

 

During the upper Paleolithic period of human history, the life expectancy for human beings at birth was 33. By 1900, it was only 46 for men and 48 for women. Today, it’s 76 for men and 81 for women. What does this have to do with the divorce rate? For the vast majority of history, humans lived relatively short lives and, accordingly, they weren’t in relationships with the same person for 25 to 50 years. Modern society adheres to the concept that marriage should be life-long, but when we’re living three lifetimes compared to early humans perhaps we need to redefine the construct. Social research suggests that because we’re living so long, most people will have two or three significant long-term relationships in their lifetime

 

As if we missed the point, they write:

 

To put it plainly, as divorce rates indicate, human beings haven’t been able fully to adapt to the skyrocketing life expectancy. Our biology and psychology aren’t set up to be with one person for four or five or six decades. This is not to suggest there aren’t couples who happily make those milestones. We hope that we’re one of them. Everyone enters into a marriage with a good intention to go all the way, but this sort of longevity is the exception rather than the rule.

 

Well rarely do you see such a straightforward suggestion that the entire understanding of marriage that is at the basis of Western civilization, indeed all human civilization, needs to be comprehensively rethought. An interesting angle on this is the fact that many who have been pressing for the legalization of same-sex marriage, especially from the side of the same-sex advocates, have been suggesting that one of the necessary impacts of legalizing same-sex marriage is that the entry of so many same-sex couples into the institution of marriage will redefine it, and one of the ways, at least some of them have suggested, that it will be redefined is by making it more of a term contract rather than a life-long commitment to a monogamous relationship.

 

Now you have these two people in the public eye, Gwenyth Paltrow and Chris Martin, saying, “We’re going through a conscious uncoupling. We’re closer than we’ve ever been in many ways and we’re simply going to announce that it’s time that we move on.” One of the interesting arguments made by these two supposedly doctors—identified in the media as New Age theorists—one of the interesting points they make is that we’re simply not programmed anymore for this kind of longevity in terms of marriage and we shouldn’t see it as a tragedy then when there is a conscious uncoupling. I guess the tragedy would be if there’s an unconscious uncoupling, but these two argue right out in public that the skyrocketing divorce rates simply aren’t a problem. Not if you understand that the problem is the fact that divorce is made necessary by those who suggest it, rather irrationally, evidently they think, that marriage should be the union of one man and one woman for one lifetime.

 

Later they write:

 

To change the concept of divorce, we need to release the belief structures we have around marriage, the great rigidity in our thought process. The belief structure is the all or nothing idea that when we marry it’s for life. The truth is the only thing any of us have is today; beyond that, there are no guarantees. The idea of being married to one person for life is too much pressure for anyone.

 

Well there you have it, but I’m back to Tim Carney’s point that what we have in the culture war is not two different positions, described one as religious on one side and the other as secular. What we have are two rival religions. And when it comes to this divorce story or this conscious uncoupling story, when it comes to this marriage article, what you really have, again, is the conflict of absolutes; as Thomas Sowell would say, the conflict of visions. You have the conflict of two different religions. One that says that God has ordained marriage as one thing for His glory and for human flourishing, and the other who says, you know, marriage is going to evolve along with the rest of human society. Our evolving longevity means we’re going to have to redefine marriage and if we do so, we won’t see divorce as a problem, much less as a sin. We won’t see skyrocketing divorce rates as something to be overcome. We’ll simply see them as a signal that the problem is we’ve been thinking wrongly about marriage. It needs not to be lifelong monogamy, no longer any of this “till death do we part,” no, let’s just make it some kind of term project. We’ll see how long it goes, and then afterwards, we’ll just consciously uncouple. Quite honestly, it’s hard to imagine anything more revealing coming out of Hollywood, and that’s really saying something.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. Remember Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. The phone number is 877-505-2058. Call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. 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 03-27-14

Podcast Transcript

1) World Vision’s historic and welcome statement acknowledges error

World Vision to reverse gay marriage decision, World Magazine (Jamie Dean)

World Vision Reverses Decision To Hire Christians in Same-Sex Marriages, Christianity Today (Jeremy Weber and Celeste Gracey)

2) Liberals elevate contraception to sacramental importance

Peace in the culture wars — if the Left wants it, Washington Examiner (Timothy P Carney)

Barbara Boxer: Why no Viagra complaints? Politico (Tal Kopan)

3) Marriage too rigid? Divorce too negative? Enter “conscious uncoupling”

‘Conscious uncoupling’: Gwyneth Paltrow explores spiritual side of divorce on Goop, New York Daily News (Tracy Miller)

Conscious Uncoupling, Goop.com

Gwyneth Paltrow’s “Conscious Uncoupling” From Chris Martin Sounds So Lovely. Can I Have One?, Slate (Jessica Grose)

Transcript: The Briefing 03-26-14

The Briefing

 

 March 26, 2014

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

 

It’s Wednesday, March 26, 2014. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court was ground zero for one of the most important debates in recent American history, and that debate took place, in terms of the oral arguments presented, in two cases, which were combined in a double session before the nation’s highest court. The two cases were Sebelius versus Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods versus Sebelius. Both of them on the same question of the constitutionality of the ObamaCare legislation’s contraception mandate and the Obama administration’s very clear determination that they were going to hold almost everyone to making the availability of birth control, including potential abortifacients, the rule of law for every corporation in America, including those that were headed by persons with very deep religious convictions and including corporations that were established around a deeply conviction Christian vision. That includes Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, and those two corporations, represented by their attorneys, had the opportunity to make their case before the nation’s highest court yesterday.

 

Now before turning to what happened before the court, let’s consider what happened in the court of public opinion. The headlines around the country demonstrated the fact that there’s anxiety, especially on the part of the cultural left, about how this case could go if indeed the court finds for Conestoga Woods and Hobby Lobby. But the editorial boards of many of the nation’s leading newspapers left no doubt whatsoever about their determination to shame the court into finding against Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods. The editorial board of The New York Times on March 22 ran an editorial entitled “Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty,” suggesting that there were no real religious liberty issues at stake in the ObamaCare legislation’s contraception mandate. The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post both ran similar editorials with the editorial boards declaring that there is no real problem here and that there are ominous repercussions that will come if the court finds in favor of the religious liberty claims made by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods.

 

But when the oral arguments took place yesterday, it was apparent, as there was live blogging and live reporting out of the nation’s highest court, that the courts justices, at least many of them, were not accepting the arguments put forth by the Obama Administration. As a matter fact, David Savage of the LA Times reported it this way:

 

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices sharply criticized part of President Obama’s healthcare law Tuesday, suggesting they will rule later this year that requiring Christian-owned corporations to offer their employees contraceptives coverage violates the freedom of religion.

 

You find similar coverage at The Washington Post, similar coverage at The Wall Street Journal, and as a matter fact, when you start looking at other coverage around the web, you find similar analyses. For example, Ian Millhiser, writing for Think Progress, that is a liberal media outlet, says that it was apparent in the oral arguments that justice Anthony Kennedy, widely and commonly considered to be the swing vote on this case as in so many others, had defined the case before the court yesterday as an abortion case and, according to those who were hoping for a ruling against Conestoga Woods and Hobby Lobby, that was an ominous sign for their case. And that’s why The New York Times coverage by Adam Liptak gets very interesting because, as he says, the court “seemed ready to accept that at least some for-profit corporations may advance claims based on religious freedom.” But the justices, he said, appeared divided along ideological lines over whether the objections before it, based on a requirement in President Obama’s health care law, should succeed. As Liptak writes, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who probably holds the decisive vote, asked questions helpful to both sides. He appeared skeptical that the two family-controlled companies that objected to the contraception coverage requirement were burdened by the law as they could cease providing health insurance at all. He also expressed solicitude for what he called the rights of employees, but, says Liptak, he also had reservations about whether the government could require the companies in the case to provide coverage in light of the many exemptions and accommodations it has offered to other groups.

 

That’s where the coverage by David Savage in the LA Times gets right to the point. He writes that Justice Kennedy said in response to US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli—he was making the administration’s case. He was arguing on behalf of the Obama Administration and, thus, on behalf of the mandate. Kennedy said, “Your reasoning would permit requiring profit-making corporations to pay for abortions.” That was a devastating line. That was a very revealing statement coming from Justice Kennedy and that’s why there are now shockwaves spreading throughout the entire pro-choice and pro-ObamaCare legislation world about the statement made by Justice Kennedy in that context. Because Justice Kennedy made the point, in terms of his statement, to Solicitor General Verrilli, if your argument holds, if the argument made by the administration were to prevail, there is nothing that would prevent forcing a for-profit Christian Corporation to pay for abortions.

 

It’s clear that those on the cultural left fear the direction the court may take in this case. Walter Dellinger, a former acting United States solicitor general said, “If Hobby Lobby were to prevail, the consequences would extend far beyond the issue of contraception.” And there are others who are saying the same thing. Mr. Dellinger went on to say, “A win for Hobby Lobby could turn out to be a significant setback for gay rights.” Meanwhile, on the other side, you have similar understandings of what would be at stake if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods lose the case. But here comes a very interesting question. Why would gay rights now be before the court in this case when there was nothing in the case that was apparently about gay rights? It’s because the religious liberty arguments that were put forth by the lawyers for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods yesterday are almost exactly the kinds of arguments that will later be put forth in the arguments that are made on behalf of Christians as related to contested questions in the workplace and in the larger economy with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Both sides knew it yesterday, in terms of the oral arguments, and both sides are now waiting almost breathlessly to see what in the world the court will say about this issue because even as it will surely not be the last word, this is going to be a very important word. Both sides are basically in agreement that this is the most important religious liberty case to come before the nation’s highest court in almost a quarter of a century.

 

Next we turn to another story that is also very, very important. It’s headline news as well. It has to do with that massive mudslide that took place in Arlington, Washington, there in Snohomish County, where approximately one square mile of earth simply disappeared, apparently swallowing up over 100 people in terms of that awful and unexpected accident. The landslide took place on Saturday morning, wiped out about thirty houses in Snohomish County there in the state of Washington. What is so scary about this is that we take for granted the fact that the ground under our feet is stable, and those who were inhabiting this particular square-mile that virtually disappeared going down a hillside and surrendering into quicksand, they assumed—and had every right to assume—that the ground under their feet was firm. But it wasn’t. As we know now, it was actually taking the form of volcanic ash that had been saturated with water, and in retrospect it was an accident waiting to happen. But that accident waited many, many decades to happen. Indeed, it might have waited centuries to happen, and yet when it happened, it had vast devastation in its wake. At least fourteen people are known to have died and the number of people missing has now climbed to 176. We’re talking about a massive death toll in terms of this horrifying accident. Chief Travis Hots of the Snohomish County Fire District 21 said, “We’re still in a rescue mode at this time, but the situation is very grim. We’ve not found anybody still alive since Saturday.” How horrifying it would be to find out all the sudden that the ground began to swallow you up and to swallow up many other people as well, and to know that even as we do count on that ground under our feet being firm, we even sing about it and talk about it, “How Firm a Foundation,” we understand it’s not quite so firm as we might think it to be. In other words, in a Genesis 3 world, we take some things for granted that we have no right to take for granted. We assume a certain form of safety and security in that which sometimes will simply give way and swallow us up. There is a parable to be seen in what has happened at Snohomish County, Washington, and there’s also grave human injury and human pain. We need to pray for those in this area of Washington State who have lost so much. We need to pray that there could be some others who are survivors who still may be found. And we need to be reminded—every single one of us—that even the ground under our feet is not so firm and stable as it appears.

 

It was that great early American theologian and preacher Jonathan Edwards in that most famous of his sermons, “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God,” who made very clear that we as sinners are walking across what appears to be very firm ground, when actually it is a very thin net. And as he reminds sinners, “Sinners, you never know when your foot may fall.” How true that is and how horribly we are reminded of that when we see these headlines out of Washington State.

 

Another parable came alive before our eyes when earlier this week five colleagues of Ponzi-scheme-convicted criminal Bernard L. Madoff were also convicted of crimes, crimes of complicity with Bernie Madoff in what is now regarded as the largest Ponzi scheme or financial fraud in world history, involving billions of dollars—not just millions, but billions of dollars. Bernard Madoff will serve the rest of his time in prison. As a matter fact, in several lifetimes he could never serve all the time that he was sentenced to in terms of his criminal convictions. He admitted being the mastermind of this massive Ponzi scheme. That’s a scheme that is basically a form of financial fraud in which you invite persons to invest, but then you spend their money. You make them think they’ve actually gained by their investment by asking other people to invest, taking their new money and giving it to your old investor. Eventually, the whole house of cards falls, and as the Bible says, the fall of that house is very great. Now that was demonstrated to us on the convictions of these five people, but as we’re thinking of the moral and worldview importance of this, we need to recognize that the secular press is talking about this in terms we can understand. Christians can immediately understand.

 

The court that convicted these five persons who were accused of complicity with Bernie Madoff came to the conclusion that there was no way they could possibly not have known that this was a Ponzi scheme and a massive system of financial fraud. Even though Bernie Madoff said he was the only one who knew, even as these five defendants said they didn’t know what they were doing, they were just coming up with computer programs and keeping books and doing other things to assist Mr. Madoff, the court in rendering its judgment said it was impossible that they didn’t know that this was fraud. After all, the computer programs they were asked to devise, the double books they were asked to keep, the actions they were assigned to accomplish, would only make sense in terms of a massive fraud. And, furthermore, as the secular media, led by The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, has made clear, they benefited by means of this conspiracy. In other words, this tells us a great deal about human nature. Bernie Madoff got into this believing that he would somehow get out of it. He never expected to be caught. He didn’t do this expecting to spend the rest of his life in prison. What about those who invested with him? After all, they were investing with them in a frenzy because he was producing returns far and above what other similar investors were able to produce. Now why would he be able to bring those returns? Well there is no rational indication that he had access to any forms of investments that others didn’t have. He wasn’t that much wiser than anyone else. In other words, those investors, as courts have ruled, should have known that something was fishy, and yet they didn’t want to believe that. They hid it from their own eyes, as Bernie Madoff must’ve lied to himself about the inevitability of the fall of his fraud and the fact that he would be caught. And now these five employees—the court has rendered its verdict. They knew; they had to know. They could not, not know that what was going on before their eyes with their complicity was a massive financial fraud. And, yet, who knows the hearts of these individuals? Maybe they really did lie to themselves, and what does that tell us? It tells us that we as human beings, fallen, frail, fragile human beings, deceitful and sometimes dishonest human beings, will not only lie to others, we will lie to ourselves, and sometimes it takes a court and its criminal conviction verdict to make very clear these folks were lying to themselves.

 

Finally two rather incredible stories, both of these on marijuana, both of them very revealing, and I do mean very revealing. The first has to do with the report coming from the Times Washington Bureau that the pot industry now has new allies among political conservatives. Evan Halper writes:

 

Hoping to get pot legalized in Nevada, an investment firm specializing in the fast-growing marijuana industry invited the ballot initiative’s backers to pitch 150 financiers at a Las Vegas symposium. Within 10 minutes, they raised $150,000.

But what makes this story really interesting is that the person behind this is a conservative political activist or, at least, he’s defined as, identified as a conservative political activist. The man’s name is Michael Correia. He’s an advocate for the 300-member National Cannabis Industry Association. He’s a former Republican Party staffer, who for two years worked as a lobbyist for the American Legislative Exchange Council—that’s a very conservative advocacy group. And as Halper writes:

 

For him, the work is largely about the federal government unnecessarily stifling an industry’s growth. Any conservative, he said, should be troubled when companies can’t claim tax deductions or keep cash in banks or provide plants for federal medical research.

 

It’s an interesting statement; a very revealing statement. As the paper says, “For him, the work is largely about the federal government unnecessarily stifling a industries growth.” Well, what that states is the fact that at least for some who call themselves conservatives, any industry that grows is by its very nature of growth a good industry. In other words, there are some who would call themselves conservatives whose actual legacy and impact will be anything but conservative. They are not conserving those things that must be conserved; they’re simply making a radical argument for human liberty, a libertarian argument that says the government has no right to control me or to state that I can’t be involved in the marijuana business.

 

It’s an interesting argument, but it also shows us something else in a fallen world. When something like the marijuana business now comes up and when there are massive opportunities for millions and billions of dollars to be made, people are going to line up to get a part of that business. And some, who are arguing from what they claim will be a conservative pro-business worldview, will say it’s wrong for government to say that people can’t smoke marijuana, can’t produce marijuana, can’t sell marijuana, can’t transport marijuana, can’t keep money in bank accounts from selling marijuana, and can’t grow marijuana just about anywhere they want to grow it. That kind of libertarian argument is often described as conservative because many of the people making the arguments have worked in conservative organizations and advocacy groups. But make no mistake; from a worldview perspective, this isn’t conservative. The conservative worldview is based in the understanding that certain things must be conserved. Those include moral habits and institutions, such as marriage and family, and the conservative worldview understands that even though there is a tremendous danger from the growth of government, government does have legitimate purpose in maintaining moral restrictions upon some human behaviors. If you don’t believe that government should have any restrictions upon human behaviors, just consider what’s going to happen in terms of the outworking of the legalization of marijuana. Even those who’ve been pushing for it now recognize there are complexities they didn’t even see coming. As the governor of Colorado said to other governors, “You better watch out because we’re a living experiment about what the legalization of marijuana is going to look like,” and Governor Hickenlooper said to his own colleagues, “You better not jump in this pool too fast or you might drown.”

 

That leads to the second article. It appeared in yesterday’s edition of USA Today. The headline is misleading. The headline is this: “Veterinarians Ask Owners to Keep Their Dogs Off Grass.” Why is it misleading? Because they’re not talking about dogs walking on grass or doing what dogs do on grass, they’re talking about dogs eating grass; that is, ingesting marijuana. As Trevor Hughes writes:

 

Residents of Colorado and Washington state aren’t the only ones getting high on legal marijuana: So are their four-legged friends.

 

The states’ decision to legalize recreational pot is driving an increase in the number of dogs scarfing down marijuana-infused cookies, brownies and butters. Unlike humans who can metabolize marijuana in a few hours, dogs feel the effects far longer. The sight of a glassy-eyed dog sprawled on the floor or stumbling around frightens pet owners, veterinarians say.

 

One leading animal doctor in Colorado, that’s Tim Hackett, director of Colorado State University’s veterinary teaching Hospital, said. “We see dogs stoned out of their minds for days. They’re a mess. The pot goes in cookies and butters. Dogs love that stuff and they won’t eat just one.” Hughes writes:

 

The marijuana itself isn’t particularly harmful to dogs, but any dog that eats a pound of butter will get sick and could die. A stoned dog also can’t vomit or breathe well, he said. “The dogs are terrified.”

 

Well I guess so, but the really revealing part of this is the fact that, again, sin has consequences that sometimes go far beyond the direct sinner involved. Here you have pets who are showing the consequences, showing up in veterinary hospitals in Colorado, stoned out of their minds and in danger of their lives, because they’ve been ingesting marijuana brownies, cookies, and—what  I didn’t even know before existed—marijuana butters. And, as it turns out, even some who’ve been pushing for the legalization of marijuana are saying, “Wait just a minute. It’s hurting our pets.” And in response to that, I want to say, well, what about your kids? Your own health department is reporting that your own kids are far more likely to have a first cigarette that’s marijuana than tobacco. This is moral insanity, but it’s also a part of the outworking of those who are trying to push a merely libertarian worldview. Libertarians have something to add to our political conversation, but Christians have to recognize we can never embrace unreservedly that libertarian worldview because it denies some of the goodness of the moral restraints that God puts in His created order, in human society, including the proper role of government, as Paul makes very clear in Romans chapter 13. And, as oddly enough, comes in the form of testimony from a parable of glassy-eyed canines in Colorado, who wonder what in the world has just happened to them.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. Remember Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call with your question in your voice at 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058. 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 03-26-14

Podcast Transcript

1) One of the most important religious liberty cases in recent history now before Supreme Court

Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty, New York Times (Editorial Board)

Hobby Lobby case: Defenders of religious freedom should be careful what they pray for, Los Angeles Times (Editorial)

Justices sound ready to reject contraceptives mandate under Obamacare, Los Angeles Times (David G Savage)

Justices Seem Divided on Health Law’s Contraceptive Rule, New York Times (Adam Liptak)

The government’s ‘compelling’ interest in protecting contraceptive coverage, Washington Post (Editorial Board)

Justice Kennedy Thinks Hobby Lobby Is An Abortion Case — That’s Bad News For Birth Control, Think Progress (Ian Millhiser)

2) In a fallen world, we can’t even take the ground beneath our feet for granted

Official: Residents knew of ‘high risk’ of landslides, USA Today (Elizabeth Weise, Janet Kim and John Bacon)

3) Madoff’s associates convicted despite claims of ignorance – They had to know

Jury Says 5 Madoff Employees Knowingly Aided Swindle of Clients’ Billions, New York Times (Rachel B Abrams and Diana B Henriques)

4) “Conservatives” who support marijuana are not truly conservative

Marijuana industry finds unlikely new allies in conservatives, Los Angeles Times (Evan Halper)

5) Tragic rise in animals consuming marijuana

Puppies on pot a growing hazard, USA Today (Trevor Hughes)

 

Transcript: The Briefing 03-25-14

The Briefing

 

 March 25, 2014

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

 

It’s Tuesday, March 25, 2014. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 

Eventually, and quite quickly, every single Christian organization, every Christian church and congregation, every individual Christian will have to declare a position, a public position, on the issue of same-sex marriage and the larger context of the sexual revolution. And when it comes to at least one very large and influential Christian organization, the wait is no longer. Yesterday, World Vision announced in a statement coming from its leader of the United States branch that it will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman. The story was broken by Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber of Christianity Today. As they write, abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule for World Vision employees. The policy change announced yesterday will now permit gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed in one of the largest Christian charities in the United States. In an interview given to Christianity Today, World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns explained the rationale behind what was identified as a condition of employment at World Vision. He said that it actually was a “very narrow policy change.” He said that it should be viewed by the evangelical community as “symbolic not of compromise, but of Christian unity.” According to Christianity Today, Stearns also said that he hoped the decision made by World Vision would “inspire unity elsewhere among Christians.” Stearns explained that the decision adopted by the board, not unanimously but overwhelmingly, was intended to avoid the division he saw as currently “tearing churches apart” over same-sex relationships. Christianity Today explained that his motivation was to attempt to solidify its long-held philosophy as a parachurch organization to defer to churches on theological issues so that it can focus on uniting Christians around serving the poor.

 

As Christianity Today rightly reports, there is a long list of issues that World Vision has been undeclared on, at least in terms of taking a position. That includes questions of divorce and remarriage, baptism, and female pastors, but what World Vision appears not to understand or perhaps disingenuously not to accept is that the adoption of this policy does not mean that the organization is not taking sides. It is now going to involve every single one of its donors in supporting the employment of those who are gay Christians in committed same-sex relationships so long as they are solemnized into legal marriages. Stearns said:

 

It’s easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there. This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We decided we’re not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support.

 

That language is not understandable. You can’t say that it is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage; you just decided to allow your employees to be involved in it. Indeed, you’ve gone on to state that you believe that this policy should be accepted and emulated by other Christian organizations. You can’t say that this is a rejection of traditional marriage which we affirm and support, if you affirm traditional marriage only as one choice of kinds of marriages among others. Defensively, Stearns said, “We’re not caving to some kind of pressure. We’re not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us.” He then went on to say something that should have our attention in the most vocal way. He said:

 

This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We’re an operational arm of the global church. We’re not a theological arm of the church.

 

That is a false dichotomy that is fatal to any Christian enterprise. There is no biblical distinction between the operational and theological dimensions of the Christian faith. As a matter fact, if the operational extension of the church’s mission is not based in the gospel and in a clearly and robustly theological understanding, then whatever’s operating isn’t Christian. It’s just an operation that may have Christians involved in it or may claim a Christian identity. He says, “This is simply a decision about whether or not you are eligible for employment at World Vision U.S. based on this single issue and nothing more.” Well he may hope that that’s true, but, of course, it will not be true because now World Vision becomes an employer that says we take no position whatsoever on whether you are involved in marriage as defined as between a man and a woman or between a woman and a woman or man and a man. And by saying that it is no longer an issue that applies in its employment policies, it is accepting the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is to say it is also accepting, in this context, the morality of same-sex marriage.

 

This is not something, we should note, that has been forced upon the board of World Vision. As a matter fact, their statement makes that statement emphatically. As Stearns said, “We’re not caving to some kind of pressure. We’re not of some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us.” In other words, the board came to this decision, and it came to this decision in such a way that it tries to say it’s not taking a position, but by not taking a position in this sense, they are taking a position. There is no way around the fact that they are now offering organizational endorsement to same-sex marriage. Furthermore, by allowing that they’re going to be setting a stage for churches and denominations to set their own policies, they will simply as an operational arm try to be inclusive of the entire church, well there we find the problem. If you’re going to define Christianity in such a way that it involves everyone that may call themselves a Christian church and denomination, if you’re going to extend your employment pool and your donor base to that kind of broad and comprehensive understanding and identity, then you’re going to be accepting many things that are theologically incompatible with the Christian faith. This is not the same kind of issue as talking about the debate between egalitarians and complementarians in the church. This is not the same kind of debate as the conversation about divorce and remarriage. Here we are talking about the radical redefinition of marriage in our time, which is all about the normalization of homosexuality as a sexual behavior.

 

One of the most interesting aspects of this World Vision decision is that it claims that single persons must remain abstinent, but now married persons may be involved in sex even when that marriage is of same-sex couples. In other words, openly homosexual persons will be accepted on the same basis as all others within World Vision and its employment scheme so long as they are legally married. This board and this president cannot possibly believe that that is not a major transformative moment for World Vision. Stearns told Christianity Today that World Vision has never asked employees about sexual orientation. It is simply held to its policy that single employees must remain sexually abstinent and committed to be so; married couples are treated as married couples. But, of course, that means that until yesterday those who are involved in any form of homosexual behavior could not be employees at World Vision; all that changes with the policy that was handed down yesterday. Now openly homosexual employees can be sexually active so long as they are legally married.

 

In terms of the comprehensiveness of World Vision, in terms of its donor base and its employees, CT remarks that World Vision has staff from more than 50 denominations and at least several of those have officially endorsed the legalization of same-sex marriage. They include the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Presbyterian Church USA. This kind of comprehensiveness may have worked in a previous age, in which the churches were basically united on at least some theological and moral essentials, but this is no longer the case and it has not been the case for a very long time. Stearns said that World Vision and its board have faced in recent years a difficult question, “What do we do about someone who applies for a job at World Vision who is in a legal same-sex marriage that may have been sanctioned and performed by their church? Do we deny them employment?” Well that raises a huge question: what then is the theological or confessional boundary for World Vision? It turns out that it is either the Apostles’ Creed or World Vision’s Trinitarian Statement of Faith. What becomes very evident from this news release and from the decision handed down yesterday is that nothing in those statements is read as precluding the acceptance and legalization of same-sex marriage and the acceptance of employees in those same-sex marriages. To make the situation clear, Stearns told Christianity Today, “Under our old conduct policy that would’ve been a violation. The new policy will not exclude someone from employment if they are in a legal same-sex marriage.” In another very revealing comment he made to Christianity Today, Stearns said:

 

Denominations disagree on many, many things—on divorce and remarriage, modes of baptism, women in leadership roles in the church, beliefs on evolution, etc.—so our practice has always been to defer to the authority and autonomy of local churches and denominational bodies on matters of doctrine that go beyond the Apostles’ Creed and our statement of faith. We unite around our Trinitarian beliefs and we have always deferred to the local church on these other matters.

 

Well raises a very core issue. The churches that are encompassed within the employment base of World Vision, including those denominations I mentioned—well they include the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA and the Episcopal Church—those churches have routinely allow violations of the Apostles’ Creed and of the doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, this statement assumes a shared theological basis that is manifestly and obviously absent. Speaking about the issue of same-sex marriage and the larger issue of the morality of homosexuality within the churches, Stearns said:

 

It’s been heartbreaking to watch this issue rip through the church. It’s tearing churches apart, tearing denominations apart, tearing Christian colleges apart, and even tearing families apart. Our board felt we cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue. We’ve got to focus on our mission. We are determined to find unity in our diversity.

 

In other words, they say they’re not taking a side on the issue, but they are going to accept the legalization of same-sex marriage and hire employees who may be in legal same-sex relationships. They say they don’t want to take a side, but, of course, they have taken a side and the entire watching world knows the side they’ve taken.

 

Shifting the scene to Great Britain, we turn first to the book of Leviticus 18:21: “You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.” Molech was a pagan deity in Canaan and according to the Canaanite religion, the way to appease the wrath of Molech was to give that pagan god children to be burned in the fire. And these were most often children under the age of two and they were burned in the fire in a human sacrifice to try to assuage the wrath of Molech. And here in the book of Leviticus and throughout the Old Testament there is the condemnation of this pagan deity and of his murderous worship, and there is the instruction to Israel that above all things it must never offer its own children to the fire.

Keep that in mind in this news story that comes from The Telegraph yesterday from London. According to The Telegraph, the remains of more than 15,000 babies in the United Kingdom were incinerated as clinical waste by hospitals in Britain; some of these babies used and burned as waste to energy in order to heat the hospitals. Sarah Knapton, writing as the science correspondent for The Telegraph, said, “The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals” (that according to a recent investigation in Britain). “Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning fetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.” On Sunday night, the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice. The health minister Dr. Dan Poulter branded the practice as “totally unacceptable”—one of the most significant moral understatements of modern history. The 15,000 fetuses that were incinerated by twenty-seven different health service trusts were over the last two years alone. The investigation does not reveal how far back in time this practice goes and how many thousands of fetuses were burned in order to heat British hospitals. According to The Telegraph, one of the country’s leading hospitals in Britain, that’s Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 16 weeks gestation in their own heating plant. The mothers were told the remains had been “cremated.” Another waste-to-energy facility at a hospital in Ipswich, operated by a private contractor, incinerated 1,101 fetuses between 2011 and 2013. Again the health minister said, “This practice is totally unacceptable.” He went on to say, “While the vast majority of hospitals are acting in the appropriate way, that must be the case for all hospitals and the Human Tissue Authority now has been asked to ensure that it acts on this issue without delay.”

 

So how do we see this? Well we have to see this going back to the fact that legal abortion leads to just this kind of consideration. I mean, after all, if the fetus is merely unwanted tissue, then why should it be treated in any sense as a human being, and that’s the affront to the moral understanding that is obvious in this story. We are all appalled by this, even those who claim to be pro-choice and pro-abortion appear to be appalled by this, but why are they appalled? If this is merely a so-called “product of conception,” then why is there the outcry? There’s the outcry because we know that is not the case. We know that these are human beings who were terminated before they could be gestated and born. These were human beings who were not treated as human beings, but were murdered (those at least who were aborted) and then were burned in order to provide energy to heat the hospital.

 

It is hard to imagine how we consider ourselves to be morally advanced over primitive peoples when we compare this practice with what was going on in Canaan in the sacrifices to Molech. These babies were sacrificed all right—these in the United Kingdom. These babies were not sacrifice to a pagan deity in order to assuage his wrath; they were sacrificed to a modern sexual lifestyle and to a modern understanding of personal autonomy that says that if this baby is not wanted, it will die, and they are sacrificed nonetheless. But the treatment of these babies after they were dead points back to the truth of the fact that they were not treated as babies until they were dead, and now, all the sudden, there is an outcry at the fact that these babies were burned. It’s hard to imagine which among these comments is more outrageous: the fact that the health minister said the practice is totally unacceptable—you might say that about the fact that the floors were waxed wrongly. We’re talking here about the killing of unborn babies and the incineration of their bodies to heat hospitals. Then, furthermore, he goes on to say while the vast majority of hospitals are acting in the appropriate way, that must be the case for all hospitals. What’s the appropriate way? To kill the babies and then to dispose of their bodies in a more respectful sense. That’s hardly acceptable. That’s hardly the appropriate way. But we’re living in a time in which modern medical practice has been redefined against the sanctity of human life in such a way that you can use the words acceptable and appropriate meaning how to kill babies and then dispose of their remains.

 

This horror story was told last night on Britain’s television Channel 4, and the British people now have to face the reality that this was done in their nation. But before we smugly assume that this is something that happened in Britain and not here in the United States, we need to remember that the same destruction of human life, the same killing of unborn life, and the same kind of rationalization is taking place right here in the United States. The problem isn’t just how the remains are disposed of; it’s the fact that they were remains rather than babies, born and given the gift of life, respected as human, the human beings made in the image of God that they are. It’s a bit late to be outraged when you’re arguing over how to dispose of the remains.

 

Of course, here in the United States today is a big day. At ten o’clock this morning Eastern Time, the Supreme Court of the United States is going to hear oral arguments in the case of Sebelius versus Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods. These are very important cases being heard together at the Supreme Court. Religious liberty is on the line and we’ll be talking in coming days about how it is so and we’ll be listening intently to the oral arguments in order to hear the arguments as put forth by both sides in this case, and it will be very interesting to see how justices engage these questions in terms of the oral arguments. But this much is clear: it’s not just Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, two corporations, who have their religious liberties riding upon these cases and the eventual decision of the US Supreme Court. We are all there. We are there along with these two corporations because whether we are corporations, congregations, Christian institutions, or individuals, the reality is that the state here is using its power, or has made clear its intention to use its power, to coerce acts against religious conscience. If that can be done at Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Woods, it can be done anywhere, and that’s the big issue now before the Supreme Court. The arguments being made by those who oppose Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods in this case are injurious to the very understanding of religious liberty that gave birth to this country. We’re going to be going through some very difficult days. Just how difficult they are remains to be seen, but if these decisions go the wrong way, these will be ominous days indeed. Much is at stake today at the US Supreme Court. So as you go through your day today, pray for the United States Supreme Court and pray for those lawyers who are going to be arguing on behalf of religious liberty. They’re not going to be arguing only for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods; they’re going to be arguing for all of us.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. Remember Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call with your question in your voice at 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058. 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 03-25-14

1) World Vision claims they haven’t taken a side on same-sex marriage, but they have

World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages, Christianity Today (Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber)

2) Sacrificed to Molek: 15,000 aborted babies burned as fuel to heat UK hospitals

Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals, The Telegraph (Sarah Knapton)

3) Pray for today’s Supreme Court religious liberty case

Contraception Ruling Could Have Reach Far Beyond Women’s Rights, New York Times (Adam Liptak)

Pointing to Disaster — The Flawed Moral Vision of World Vision [Updated]

UPDATE [March 26, 2014] The President of World Vision U.S. announced today that the Board of Directors has reversed its decision and would return to its previous policy that affirms sexual abstinence for all unmarried employees and defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Additional comment will be posted as soon as possible.

Like all revolutions, moral revolutions are marked by events that signal major turning points in social transformation. Yesterday, March 24, 2014, will be remembered as one of those days. The headline in the news story by Christianity Today made the issue easy enough to understand — “World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages.”

As the magazine reported, “World Vision’s American branch will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman.”

World Vision U.S. President Richard Stearns announced the change in a letter to World Vision staff. The organization, one of the largest humanitarian organizations in the world, “will continue to expect abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage for all staff,” Stearns said. He then added that “since World Vision is a multi-denominational organization that welcomes employees from more than 50 denominations, and since a number of these denominations in recent years have sanctioned same-sex marriage for Christians, the board—in keeping with our practice of deferring to church authority in the lives of our staff, and desiring to treat all of our employees equally—chose to adjust our policy.” That led to the key change Stearns was then to announce: “Thus, the board has modified our Employee Standards of Conduct to allow a Christian in a legal same-sex marriage to be employed at World Vision.”

Stearns went on to state that he wanted “to be clear that we have not endorsed same-sex marriage, but we have chosen to defer to the authority of local churches on this issue.” He said that the World Vision board had watched as several denominations had been “torn apart” by the issue and that he and the board “wanted to prevent this divisive issue from tearing  World Vision apart and potentially crippling our ability to accomplish our vital kingdom mission of loving and serving the poorest of the poor in the name of Christ.”

In an interview with Christianity Today, Stearns called the shift a “very narrow policy change” that he said was made in the name of Christian unity. “We are not caving to some kind of pressure, ” he insisted. “We are not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us.”

He claimed that the action was not made under political pressure. “This is not compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of local churches and denominations on theological issues. We’re an operational arm of the global church, we’re not a theological arm of the church.”

Stearns also said that World Vision has never asked potential employees about their sexual orientation. They are asked to affirm the Apostles Creed or the organization’s own trinitarian statement of faith. Employees within the organization represent more than 50 denominations, including at least some that affirm homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and openly gay ministers. These include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Church of Christ.

In that light, Stearns said that the World Vision U.S. board has had to confront a pressing question: “What do we do about someone who applies for a job at World Vision who is in a legal same-sex relationship that may have been sanctioned and performed by their church? Do we deny them employment?”

Continuing his list of what he insisted the policy shift is “not about,” Stearns said: “This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture . . . . People can say, ‘Scripture is very clear on this issue,’ and my answer is, ‘Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.’ The church is divided on this issue. And we are not the local church. We are am operational organization uniting Christians around a common mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ.”

Richard Stearns has every right to try to make his case, but these arguments are pathetically inadequate. Far more than that, his arguments reveal basic issues that every Christian ministry, organization, church, and denomination will have to face — and soon.

The distinction between an “operational arm” of the church and a “theological arm” is a fatal misreading of reality. World Vision claims a Christian identity, claims to serve the kingdom of Christ, and claims a theological rationale for its much-needed ministries to the poor and distressed. It cannot surrender theological responsibility when convenient and then claim a Christian identity and a theological mandate for ministry.

Add to this the fact that World Vision claims not to have compromised the authority of Scripture, even as its U.S. president basically throws the Bible into a pit of confusion by suggesting that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the question of the morality of same-sex sexuality. Stearns insists that he is not compromising biblical authority even as he undermines confidence that the church can understand and trust what the Bible reveals about same-sex sexuality.

The policy shift points back to a basic problem with World Vision’s understanding of the church. No organization can serve on behalf of churches across the vast theological and moral spectrum that would include clearly evangelical denominations, on the one hand, and liberal denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, and the United Church of Christ, on the other. That might work if World Vision were selling church furniture, but not when the mission of the organization claims a biblical mandate.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to argue that World Vision is not taking sides on the issue. The objective fact is that World Vision will now employ openly-gay employees involved in openly homosexual relationships. There is no rational sense in claiming that this represents neutrality.

In his final comment included in Christianity Today‘s coverage of the issue, Richard Stearns stated: “I’m hoping this may inspire unity among others as well. To say how we come together across some differences and still join together as brothers and sisters in Christ in our common mission of building the kingdom.”

Note carefully that his language is deeply theological — not just “operational.” He speaks of being “brothers and sisters in Christ” and of “building the kingdom.” What kingdom? Whose kingdom?

Writing to the Corinthian Christians, the Apostle Paul stated: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]

The leader of World Vision U.S. now claims that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the sinfulness of same-sex sexuality and relationships, but he also claims a “mission of building the kingdom.” The Apostle Paul makes homosexuality a kingdom issue, and he does so in the clearest of terms.

Of course, Paul’s point is not that homosexuals are uniquely sinful, but that all of us are sinners in need of the grace and mercy of God that come to us in the gift of salvation. Thanks be to God, Paul follows those words with these: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” [1 Corinthians 6:11]

The worst aspect of the World Vision U.S. policy shift is the fact that it will mislead the world about the reality of sin and the urgent need of salvation. Willingly recognizing same-sex marriage and validating openly homosexual employees in their homosexuality is a grave and tragic act that confirms sinners in their sin — and that is an act that violates the gospel of Christ.

World Vision has made a decisive difference in millions of lives around the world. Its humanitarian work is urgently important in a world of unspeakable need. Last year the organization had a total financial reach of almost $3 billion. Its scale and expertise are unprecedented in the Christian world. That is what makes this policy shift so ominous and threatening.

In 1974, the late Carl F. H. Henry, then the dean of evangelical theologians, became “lecturer-at-large” for World Vision. In his autobiography, Confessions of a Theologian (1986), Dr. Henry stated: “During the period from its early pastors’ conferences in the 1940s to the present time, World Vision has been an an incomparable partner in extending the compassionate outreach of Christians in ten Western nations to the less fortunate millions in eighty non-Western countries. Decades before Live-Aid and other secular programs, and even many denominational programs, awakened to the need, World Vision had pointed the way.”

The shift announced yesterday by World Vision points to disaster. We can only pray that there is yet time for World Vision to rethink this matter, correct their course, stand without compromise on the authority of Scripture, and point the way for evangelical Christians to follow once again.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Just write me at mail@albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler

Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber, “World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages,” Christianity Today, Monday, March 24, 2014. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2...

“Change in Practice: How We Live Out Our Employee Conduct Policy,” World Vision, Monday, March 24, 2014. http://ogpdn1wn2d93vut8u40tokx1dl7.wp...

Carl F. H. Henry, Confessions of a Theologian (Waco: Word Books, 1986), p. 380.

 

Pointing to Disaster — The Flawed Moral Vision of World Vision

Like all revolutions, moral revolutions are marked by events that signal major turning points in social transformation. Yesterday, March 24, 2014, will be remembered as one of those days. The headline in the news story by Christianity Today made the issue easy enough to understand — “World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages.”

As the magazine reported, “World Vision’s American branch will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman.”

World Vision U.S. President Richard Stearns announced the change in a letter to World Vision staff. The organization, one of the largest humanitarian organizations in the world, “will continue to expect abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage for all staff,” Stearns said. He then added that “since World Vision is a multi-denominational organization that welcomes employees from more than 50 denominations, and since a number of these denominations in recent years have sanctioned same-sex marriage for Christians, the board—in keeping with our practice of deferring to church authority in the lives of our staff, and desiring to treat all of our employees equally—chose to adjust our policy.” That led to the key change Stearns was then to announce: “Thus, the board has modified our Employee Standards of Conduct to allow a Christian in a legal same-sex marriage to be employed at World Vision.”

Stearns went on to state that he wanted “to be clear that we have not endorsed same-sex marriage, but we have chosen to defer to the authority of local churches on this issue.” He said that the World Vision board had watched as several denominations had been “torn apart” by the issue and that he and the board “wanted to prevent this divisive issue from tearing  World Vision apart and potentially crippling our ability to accomplish our vital kingdom mission of loving and serving the poorest of the poor in the name of Christ.”

In an interview with Christianity Today, Stearns called the shift a “very narrow policy change” that he said was made in the name of Christian unity. “We are not caving to some kind of pressure, ” he insisted. “We are not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us.”

He claimed that the action was not made under political pressure. “This is not compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of local churches and denominations on theological issues. We’re an operational arm of the global church, we’re not a theological arm of the church.”

Stearns also said that World Vision has never asked potential employees about their sexual orientation. They are asked to affirm the Apostles Creed or the organization’s own trinitarian statement of faith. Employees within the organization represent more than 50 denominations, including at least some that affirm homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and openly gay ministers. These include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Church of Christ.

In that light, Stearns said that the World Vision U.S. board has had to confront a pressing question: “What do we do about someone who applies for a job at World Vision who is in a legal same-sex relationship that may have been sanctioned and performed by their church? Do we deny them employment?”

Continuing his list of what he insisted the policy shift is “not about,” Stearns said: “This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture . . . . People can say, ‘Scripture is very clear on this issue,’ and my answer is, ‘Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.’ The church is divided on this issue. And we are not the local church. We are am operational organization uniting Christians around a common mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ.”

Richard Stearns has every right to try to make his case, but these arguments are pathetically inadequate. Far more than that, his arguments reveal basic issues that every Christian ministry, organization, church, and denomination will have to face — and soon.

The distinction between an “operational arm” of the church and a “theological arm” is a fatal misreading of reality. World Vision claims a Christian identity, claims to serve the kingdom of Christ, and claims a theological rationale for its much-needed ministries to the poor and distressed. It cannot surrender theological responsibility when convenient and then claim a Christian identity and a theological mandate for ministry.

Add to this the fact that World Vision claims not to have compromised the authority of Scripture, even as its U.S. president basically throws the Bible into a pit of confusion by suggesting that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the question of the morality of same-sex sexuality. Stearns insists that he is not compromising biblical authority even as he undermines confidence that the church can understand and trust what the Bible reveals about same-sex sexuality.

The policy shift points back to a basic problem with World Vision’s understanding of the church. No organization can serve on behalf of churches across the vast theological and moral spectrum that would include clearly evangelical denominations, on the one hand, and liberal denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, and the United Church of Christ, on the other. That might work if World Vision were selling church furniture, but not when the mission of the organization claims a biblical mandate.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to argue that World Vision is not taking sides on the issue. The objective fact is that World Vision will now employ openly-gay employees involved in openly homosexual relationships. There is no rational sense in claiming that this represents neutrality.

In his final comment included in Christianity Today‘s coverage of the issue, Richard Stearns stated: “I’m hoping this may inspire unity among others as well. To say how we come together across some differences and still join together as brothers and sisters in Christ in our common mission of building the kingdom.”

Note carefully that his language is deeply theological — not just “operational.” He speaks of being “brothers and sisters in Christ” and of “building the kingdom.” What kingdom? Whose kingdom?

Writing to the Corinthian Christians, the Apostle Paul stated: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]

The leader of World Vision U.S. now claims that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the sinfulness of same-sex sexuality and relationships, but he also claims a “mission of building the kingdom.” The Apostle Paul makes homosexuality a kingdom issue, and he does so in the clearest of terms.

Of course, Paul’s point is not that homosexuals are uniquely sinful, but that all of us are sinners in need of the grace and mercy of God that come to us in the gift of salvation. Thanks be to God, Paul follows those words with these: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” [1 Corinthians 6:11]

The worst aspect of the World Vision U.S. policy shift is the fact that it will mislead the world about the reality of sin and the urgent need of salvation. Willingly recognizing same-sex marriage and validating openly homosexual employees in their homosexuality is a grave and tragic act that confirms sinners in their sin — and that is an act that violates the gospel of Christ.

World Vision has made a decisive difference in millions of lives around the world. Its humanitarian work is urgently important in a world of unspeakable need. Last year the organization had a total financial reach of almost $3 billion. Its scale and expertise are unprecedented in the Christian world. That is what makes this policy shift so ominous and threatening.

In 1974, the late Carl F. H. Henry, then the dean of evangelical theologians, became “lecturer-at-large” for World Vision. In his autobiography, Confessions of a Theologian (1986), Dr. Henry stated: “During the period from its early pastors’ conferences in the 1940s to the present time, World Vision has been an an incomparable partner in extending the compassionate outreach of Christians in ten Western nations to the less fortunate millions in eighty non-Western countries. Decades before Live-Aid and other secular programs, and even many denominational programs, awakened to the need, World Vision had pointed the way.”

The shift announced yesterday by World Vision points to disaster. We can only pray that there is yet time for World Vision to rethink this matter, correct their course, stand without compromise on the authority of Scripture, and point the way for evangelical Christians to follow once again.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Just write me at mail@albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler

Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber, “World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages,” Christianity Today, Monday, March 24, 2014. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2...

“Change in Practice: How We Live Out Our Employee Conduct Policy,” World Vision, Monday, March 24, 2014. http://ogpdn1wn2d93vut8u40tokx1dl7.wp...

Carl F. H. Henry, Confessions of a Theologian (Waco: Word Books, 1986), p. 380.