Pastor's Blog

The sexual revolution, which began in the 1960s and continues unabated today, is first and foremost a revolt against maturity. A central aspect of maturity is the willingness to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s behavior. But the ultimate goal of the sexual revolution is to  enjoy all the pleasures of sex with none of its responsibilities :   sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone, by any means, without commitment, without emotional attachment, without risk to life, health, or pocketbook, but  especially  without the risk of having children. Why especially without the risk of having children? Because raising a child is the ultimate responsibility. And the troublesome thing about taking responsibility is that doing so necessarily requires a  self-limitation of personal freedom . A single man has greater personal freedom than a man with a wife and child. He may use his time and energy and money in any way that pleases  him.  Not so ...

A lot of attention has been given the last few weeks to a some videos released by The Center for Medical Progress. The videos show representatives of Planned Parenthood trading in the body parts of aborted babies. It’s a ghastly and ghoulish business. But to hear some people speak, the outrage is entirely misplaced. It’s not the crushing and dismemberment of the youngest and most vulnerable human beings among us that should disturb us, but the fact that the frightful proceedings should ever be brought to light.  Watching Planned Parenthood and its media and celebrity apologists attempt to deflect criticism reminds me of one of Jesus’ more humorous—but  scathing —word pictures:    the one in which he accused certain hypocrites of straining out gnats and swallowing camels (Matt. 23:24). The image is designed to point out the pretentious hypocrisy of paying scrupulous attention to relatively inconsequential matters while ignoring fundamental moral concerns. Jesus ...

Alongside every religion lies some political opinion which is linked to it by affinity. If the human mind is allowed to follow its own bent, it will regulate political society and the City of God in the same uniform manner and will, I dare say, seek to harmonize earth and heaven. — Alexis de Tocqueville [1]  — Tocqueville is on to something here. I would argue, however, that the connection between religion and political opinion is a stronger one than mere affinity. It is more accurate to say that politics grows out of religion . This is so regardless of the religion in question, even those that are not usually recognized as such. The self-proclaimed secular man, for instance, who is the first to shout, “Separation of church and state!” is in reality no less religious than the most fundamental of Christian fundamentalists; nor is he seeking any the less to “harmonize earth and heaven” in accordance with his religious views. Their respective religions are quite different, b...

In his Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville makes an important observation about the power of the majority and its tendency to shame, intimidate, and silence those who speak the truth.  In America, the majority has staked out a formidable fence around thought. Inside those limits a writer is free but woe betide him if he dares to stray beyond them. Not that he need fear an auto-da-f é but he is the victim of all kinds of unpleasantness and everyday persecutions. A political career [or a ministerial calling] is closed to him for he has offended the only power with the capacity to give him an opening. He is denied everything, including renown. Before publishing his views, he thought he had supporters; it seems he has lost them once he has declared himself publicly; for his detractors speak out loudly and those who think as he does, but without his courage, keep silent and slink away. He gives in and finally bends beneath the effort of each passing day, withdrawing into si...

Jamestown has the distinction of being the first permanent English colony in North America. Not the first English colony ever, but the first to survive. It nearly floundered, however, because of a lack of willingness on the part of many colonists to work. But when all the the other members of the council were drowned at sea during a storm, Captain John Smith was left in charge and instituted some basic reforms, including the Biblical injunction, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). The company was divided into squads of ten or fifteen, and assigned to the necessary duties of the colony. Six hours each day were devoted to their tasks, the rest in pastimes and merry exercises. But such was the untowardness of many among them, to whom labor was equally new and irksome, that our President was compelled to give them sharp counsel after his peculiar fashion.   “Countryman,” he said, “the long experience of our late miseries, I hope, is suffic...

I t is not uncommon to find atheists attacking the morality of the Bible on the subject of slavery, and in so doing, seeking to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith. They observe—correctly, I might add—that the Bible never issues an outright condemnation of slave-holding, but only seeks to regulate its practice, thus seeming to give it tacit approval. There are numerous provisions in the law, for instance, governing the acquisition, sale, and treatment of slaves (e.g. Ex. 20:8-11, 17; 21:1-6; Lev. 25:39-46; Deut. 15: 12-18; etc.), but nowhere do we find an absolute prohibition stating, “You shall not be a slave-holder.” Neither do we find such an interdiction in Jesus’ teaching, even though he must have interacted with many slaves and slave-holders alike during the course of his ministry, and both figure prominently in his parables (Matt. 13:24-30; 18:21-35; 21:33-41; etc.). Nor do we find a command in any of Paul’s letters requiring masters to release their slaves, b...

W hen our iniquity had come to its full height, and it was clear beyond all mistaking that retribution in the form of punishment and death must be looked for, the hour arrived in which God had determined to make known from then onwards His loving-kindness and His power. How surpassing is the love and tenderness of God! in that hour, instead of hating us and rejecting us and remembering our wickednesses against us, He showed how long-suffering He is. He bore with us, and in pity He took our sins upon Himself and gave His own Son as a ransom for us - the Holy for the wicked, the Sinless for sinners, the Just for the unjust, the Incorrupt for the corrupt, the Immortal for the mortal. For was there, indeed, anything except His righteousness that could have availed to cover our sins? In whom could we, in our lawlessness and ungodliness, have been made holy, but in the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable working! O benefits unhoped for! - that the wickedness of multitudes sho...

There are many defects of the modern mind, one of them being the conditioning we have received to to prize mere functional utility at the expense of beauty. When we consider the value of something, we almost always do so in terms of its usefulness. What’s it good for?   What function does it perform?   Is it efficient? The question we rarely seem to ask is, “Is it beautiful?” How often do we purchase something simply for the pure aesthetic delight we take in it? Are we not inclined to think such an expense a waste of money? Yet God has given us senses that appreciate beauty – sights, sounds, and smells that have a pleasing effect. Sadly, however, Christians often fail to cultivate their aesthetic sense. It is thought to be unspiritual to “waste time” on such things. But God’s delight in things beautiful is displayed in his handiwork. Think of the varieties of color he splashes on the sky at sunset, the thousands of hues of green in nature (with none of them clashing),...

“Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?” - C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - I recently came across this picture, which seems to be making the rounds on social media in one form or another. What do you suppose is its purpose, its intended meaning? What conclusion does its creator wish us to draw? Is it simply that blacks, whites, gays, straights, religious people, and atheists all have the same basic skeletal structure? This is true enough, of course, but also so obvious as to scarcely need pointing out. So what is its meaning? Given the social and political climate of the day, it seems to be this:  that blacks, whites, gays, straights, religious people, and atheists are all morally equivalent. The picture contains an argument that might be expressed in the following syllogism: People who have the same skeletal structure are morally equivalent. Blacks, whites, gays, straights, religious peo...