Re: The following article about a gathering storm against the Bible. The impression is getting harder and harder to shake that Christians have no greater desire than to commit suicide. What else is there to think? There is nothing at all that can be called real leadership anywhere. Gone -long gone- are the days when you could point to someone like Jonathan Edwards or Charles G Finney or Walter Rauschenbusch or Reinhold Niebuhr and say: There is someone who knows what he is talking about, who knows what is happening in society, who is well informed, and who has the guts to speak out even when doing so means he takes a lot of heat in the process. There are plenty of compassionate Christians, and that is all for the good. There also are many, many Christians who know the Bible with greater thoroughness than I know it, and also know how to explain it well. But that's about all you can say. And it isn't enough. Not nearly. There are no serious leaders who are willing to stand up to the cultural juggernaut that is literally sweeping away Christianity -and in the bargain also sweeping away what remains of Judaism; and other faiths won't be far behind, you can count on it. Pat Robertson, for all of his weaknesses, some of which are monumental, at least has the great virtue of understanding the problem. What is necessary is communication, hence the 700 Club, in ways a first rate news and information program that gives us a template for what can be done. "In ways" is the operative characterization, however, since there are many other ways that the show doesn't do what it should, but at least it is something in a media world where there is almost nothing else. Robertson has simply been marking time for he past decade or more. In military terminology, he is a "spent force." He hasn't had a new idea for years and years and has no idea how to organize much of anything beyond what he has done so far. Some of that is meritorious, such as Operation Blessing, a smaller scale Christian version of the Red Cross, but in terms of political mobilization he is clueless. Most of all, Robertson deserves credit for making an actual effort, and that is what is needed more than anything else, actual effort. But there is so little of that generally that it is legitimate to ask about a Christian death wish. Needless to say, I am well aware of a number of websites and other examples of organized activity intended to stem the tide. Some, in fact, are quite good -as far as they go. Like Americans for Truth, a site that compiles news about homosexual inroads into society and the Church. LifeSite News also covers some of these kinds of stories even though most of its focus is on abortion and such issues as pornography. But even in such cases there is no leadership. These are just news services. Moreover, the people who run these sites have no real theology -or philosophy- of action, for what to do, nor any vision of the kind of education necessary to be effective in the world. Worse, such sites lurch from one financial crisis to another. LifeSite recently sent out an SOS to its subscribers, it was running in the red and needed help. I'm sure its staff is small, but even a site like that needs tech support, occasional software purchases, security services, and the like, it simply isn't possible for two or three content people to do it all. Yet the information it provides to (mostly) Christians around the country, as valuable as it is, is essentially unsupported. And the same can be said for other such groups. Christians simply won't "get real" about what needs to be done. But why should they? It looks like they have taken the position that the battle is lost anyway, may as well surrender -but calling it "renewal" or "time for reflection" or "a need to be compassionate toward others" or still other locutions that all have the same effect, retreat, running away, and adjusting to defeat. On the other side there is an abundance of just about everything. In just about every area. Not that New America is our "enemy" but it certainly could use a few good swift kicks. And we are operating on out-of-pocket, essentially, vs. an organization which runs on what ? $25 million or so? I don't know what LifeSite's budget is, but it would be a huge surprise if it exceeded, say, $ 50,000 per year. And what is it up against? A score of homosexual organizations funded with Hollywood millions. And so it is with respect to almost any issue you can name except abortion, the one -and only one- social cause that Christians have rallied behind with full commitment. What explains all of this? Probably many things, but I'd put the influence of libertarianism at the top of the list, a philosophy that puts individuals ahead of anything else, and morality in last place in their scheme of values. To the extent that it has penetrated the churches it surely has undermined what is most essential to living Christian faith, concern for others. There is also, among many believers, not necessarily Evangelicals but especially among Evangelicals, a worldview that is locked into an imagined past when all of America shared a simple faith that had no serious interest beyond making a living, or making a success in the marketplace, but no (or not much) concern about science, the arts, philosophy, scholarly history, communications, or anything else except questions of faith. Trouble is, that world never existed, and to use it as a model for Christian faith in the 21st century makes no sense at all. Or has everyone forgotten that the University of Chicago started as a Baptist institution, and that countless other colleges and universities began as Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc institutions? Granted, what was missing in all of that was the kind of Christian theology that could have maintained these schools as Christian educational facilities, which was a gigantic failing, but the point is that earlier generations of Christians understood, without doubt, that Christian responsibility included what might be called engaging actively in the "culture wars." In fairness, there is some of this happening today. Liberty University is giving it a real try, not just counting the school, but in its various "outreach" programs. And around the country there are similar efforts even if none have the high profile that Liberty has achieved so far. Which is also for the good. But what about communications? This is most ironic. Until ca. 1990, Christians were the leaders in intelligent use of mass media. Today they are anything but in that category. Yes, and thank God, there are local or even regional efforts to "get back in the game." 3ABN is a good example, and I know about UHF Christian "networks" that are being developed, but again, in every case the story that is being played out is David vs. Goliath, and in case after case it is Goliath who is winning. Part of the problem is also lack of comprehension of what a spiritually rooted philosophy of dealing effectively with the larger world should consist of. There is a sort of "Sunday School mentality" that is pervasive -as if stories of Bible heroes are all you need to know, to engage with society and all of the complex issues of our era. That, and the view that Christians can and should go it alone, as Christians, and no-one else can possibly say anything meaningful, whether Buddhists or Hindus or Confucians or anyone else. Is it all that inexplicable in an increasingly pluralistic country that Christians are losing the young? They see Christian faith as less and less relevant. Then there is the "other gospel" -you know it well, the "Gospel of Horatio Alger." Its right up there with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Its message is: No-one needs anything except his own bootstraps. Well, sometimes things do work out that way. This cannot be denied. But how common is this story? And is it relevant to today's situation? Here we are, in so many words, a collection of small European countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, etc, and it is the late 1930s and the Third Reich is on the march. Belgium, Holland, etc, should all lift themselves by their bootstraps and expect to prevail??? O, yeah? For this is our predicament, nothing less. And yet everyone -OK, not literally, but to make a point- is saying "all you need are your bootstraps." To me that is a perfect formula for total defeat. -------------------------- What has brought this on, everything said so far in this essay, has been the "overwhelming" response to Words worth fighting for. I mean, I am simply flabbergasted at the outpouring of responses to the composition. I could not have asked for more. As of this writing the total number is....drum roll please... Zero. Nothing. "0" Hey, not bad for, I really think, a damned good piece of writing that I had worked on for much of a month. Really put my heart and soul into it, too. And no-one gives a damn? Well, that would seem to tell me something. Billy ====================================== NRO July 30, 2013 Yes, Threats to Religious Liberty Happen Here
Advocates of same-sex marriage are classifying Biblical teachings as “hate speech.” By _Ryan T. Anderson_ (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/ryan-t-anderson) Some on the left are criticizing Senator Ted Cruz’s recent comments about how the drive to redefine marriage may threaten religious freedom — but a closer inspection of the issue reveals his worries were accurate, prescient, and maybe even too cautious. In an interview with Cruz, David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network raised the concerns that many Christians are now expressing: “A lot of Christian scholars, when they talk about the marriage issue, they see it as a religious-freedom issue . . . as in essence going down this line toward potential ‘hate speech’ from the pulpit,” Brody said. In reply, Cruz _pointed_ (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2013/07/23/brody-file-video-exclusive-ted-cruz-warns-that-charging-pastors.aspx) to problems abroad. “ If you look at other nations that have gone down the road toward gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced,” he said. “It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach Biblical truths on marriage. That has been defined elsewhere as hate speech, as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government.” Advocates of redefining marriage contend that the First Amendment ensures that pastors, priests, and other clergy in America will remain free to preach what they want to — they will never be forced to celebrate a same-sex wedding, and liberals suggest that this is the extent of the challenge to religious liberty posed by the redefinition of marriage. To the contrary, if marriage is redefined, then a belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman ordered to procreation and family life — a notion once shared by virtually every human society — would increasingly be characterized as an irrational prejudice that ought to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for religious believers are _becoming apparent_ (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it) . Ted Cruz looked to other countries for examples, but he easily could have cited a growing number of incidents in the United States. Thomas Messner, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has _documented_ (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/same-sex-marriage-and-the-threat-to-religious-liberty) _multiple_ (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/04/from-culture-wars-to-conscience-wars-emerging-threats-to- conscience) _instances_ (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/same-sex-marriage-and-threats-to-religious-freedom-how-nondiscrimination-law s-factor-in) in which laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as laws redefining marriage, have already eroded religious liberty and the rights of conscience. After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston faced a mandate to place children with same-sex couples. Rather than go against its principles, Catholic Charities _decided_ (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp) to get out of the adoption business — a move that helps neither the orphans nor society. When Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, the town of Lexington’s school superintendent, Paul Ash, _defended_ (http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=23077) the decision to the Boston Globe with this statement: “ Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission prosecuted a photographer for declining to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony.” Doctors in California were successfully sued for declining to perform an artificial insemination on a woman in a same-sex relationship. Owners of a bed-and-breakfast in Illinois who declined to rent their facility for a same-sex civil-union ceremony and reception were sued for violating the state nondiscrimination law. A Georgia wellness counselor was _fired_ (http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/WaldenSJorder.pdf) after she referred someone in a same-sex relationship to another counselor. In fact, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty _reports_ (http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Same-Sex-Marriage-and-State-Anti-Discrimi nation-Laws-with-Appendices.pdf) that “over 350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage.” In a letter sent to priests, deacons, and pastoral facilitators in 131 parishes, the Catholic bishop of Springfield, Ill., explains that a same-sex-marriage bill state lawmakers are considering this year does not include meaningful protections for religious liberty: [It] would not stop the state from obligating the Knights of Columbus to make their halls available for same-sex “weddings.” It would not stop the state from requiring Catholic grade schools to hire teachers who are legally “married” to someone of the same sex. This bill would not protect Catholic hospitals, charities, or colleges, which exclude those so “married” from senior leadership positions. . . . This “religious freedom” law does nothing at all to protect the consciences of people in business, or who work for the government. We saw the harmful consequences of deceptive titles all too painfully last year when the so-called “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act” forced Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoption services in Illinois. . . . There is no possible way– none whatsoever — for those who believe that marriage is exclusively the union of husband and wife to avoid legal penalties and harsh discriminatory treatment if the bill becomes law. Why should we expect it be otherwise? After all, we would be people who, according to the thinking behind the bill, hold onto an “unfair ” view of marriage. The state would have equated our view with bigotry — which it uses the law to marginalize in every way short of criminal punishment. Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum, an appointee to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, _argues_ (http://www.brooklaw.edu/~/media/PDF/LawJournals/BLR_PDF/blr_v72i.ashx) that the push to redefine marriage trumps religious-liberty concerns: For all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed-and-breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried, straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the “zero-sum” nature of the game inevitably comes into play. And, in making that decision in this zero-sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people. Indeed, for many supporters of redefining marriage, such infringements on religious liberty are not flaws but virtues of the movement. Citizens must insist that the government respect those who continue to stand for marriage as the union of a man and a woman. When he “evolved” on the issue last year, President Obama insisted that the debate about marriage was a legitimate one, that there were reasonable people of good will on both sides. Supporters of marriage as we’ve always understood it (a male-female union) “are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective,” Obama explained in an interview with Robin Roberts on ABC. “They’re coming at it because they care about families.” He added that “a bunch of ’em are friends of mine . . . people who I deeply respect.” But in a growing number of incidents, government has not respected these Americans. To counter this, we must _insist_ (http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/7/civility-bullying-and-same-sex-marriage) that government not discriminate against those who hold to the historic definition of marriage. Policy should prohibit the government or anyone who receives taxpayers’ dollars from discriminating in employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting against those who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
