Blog Archives
What America Needs to Know About Rick Warren
Vjack from Atheist Revolution has published a list of things that everyone needs to know about Rick Warren. He treats these things as if they are bad things, as if it is scandalous to believe any of them. I thought I’d take a look at his list and see just how scandalous it is.
- Warren’s much praised work on AIDS in Africa has been revealed as undermining scientifically-sound efforts to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in favor of thoroughly discredited religiously-based methods. He opposes contraception, even when it comes to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS. This takes anti-intellectualism and religious delusion to astounding levels.
- Warren opposes reproductive rights for women and stem cell research. He has criticized Obama’s position on these issues and vowed to pressure him into changing his mind. This should be worrisome for anyone who values separation of church and state.
- He was a strong supporter of Proposition 8, the measure which rolled back civil rights for many Californians by denying marriage to GLBT couples. This is bigotry.
- Warren has equated gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. This is bigotry.
- Warren has publicly stated that he would not vote for an atheist, regardless of qualifications. He thinks that no atheist could possibly be worthy of holding office. This is bigotry.
- He is a creationist. Lest we dismiss this as mere stupidity, please remember that many of us are still having to fight to keep this nonsense out of our schools. (source)
All right, let’s break this down:
- In other words, if people aren’t allowed to have sex wherever and whenever and with whomever they want–which is what “scientifically-sound” methods do–then the approach is no good. It is no good to teach people to keep their pants up, no, we must give them condoms and allow them to have sex all willy-nilly. The only 100% effective method of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS is abstinence. The problem isn’t the method, as Vjack implies, the problem is the committment level of the people in question. I’ve covered this topic before.
- “Reproductive rights” is a very nice way to say “abortion.” Vjack is trying to use less emotionally-charged words in order to downplay a serious ideological argument. What Warren is opposing is the murder of the unborn children. Vjack himself admits to holding a similar position in this post.
- Proposition 8 was nothing less than an attempt to legislate morality, and therefore should not have been passed. My views on gay marriage are rather complex and best discussed in a separate post. For now, let’s say that I disagree with Proposition 8 but I think that it is harsh to call its supporters bigots. There are sound intellectual reasons to oppose gay marriage, but they are all grounded in the Bible and therefore have no place in the law books.
- Warren has never equated gay marriage with incest or pedophilia. What he has done is question where the state will draw the line as far as what immoral marriages it will allow. To that end, he cited incest and pedophilia as two examples of what may be allowed next. History offers no examples since gay marriage has been as universally forbidden as incest and pedophilia among the many cultures that have existed. Warren was speculating, not equating.
- I’m not going to disagree with this point. This is bigotry.
- There are many intellectual and philosophical reasons that lead someone to be a creationist. Just as there are many philosophical and intellectual reasons that lead someone to be a naturalist. I don’t call naturalism “nonsense,” even if I think that a person who holds the position is being intellectually dishonest. Neither view is nonsense; but one must be incorrect. I’ve made my stance known. Now, what about teaching creationism in school? It toes the line, but I don’t think that it should be illegal.
Vjack reveals himself as very close-minded to other points of view. He is so certain that atheistic naturalism is correct, that he won’t even consider the position of the other side. Perhaps Vjack is guilty of the same bigotry that he accuses others of.
Robinson to Speak at Inauguration
New Hampshire’s Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who I’ve discussed on this blog before, has been invited to speak at Barack Obama’s Inauguration ceremony. The openly gay bishop will offer a prayer Sunday to kick off the festivities.
The Roman Catholic Blog is reporting that Robinson is going to offer a prayer that is not Christian. He will not use a Bible. For some reason, this reminds me of the following verse:
So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Mt 10:32-33)
A Theology of Homosexuality
C. Michael Patton has an excellent post on homosexuality here. I recommend reading it, especially if you struggle with this sin or know anyone that does.
Thoughts on Homosexuality
Andrew Faris from Christians in Context has a very thoughtful post on homosexuality here.
Why do Christians treat homosexuality differently than they do other sins? Someone who is gay is struggling with a sin the same as all of us struggle with our own sins. We should be gracious and welcoming when a homosexual couple comes into our church, and point them toward the light of Christ, who can free them from their homosexual bondage.
I can hear the objections from the gay community already. “Homosexuals are born that way. God wouldn’t want us to deny a part of ourselves to please him.” The problem is that Jesus does ask us to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow him (Lk 9:23). We are sinful creatures. Denying any sin is like denying a part of ourselves, and this is what Jesus calls us as Christians to do.
Trust me: I struggle with my sins every bit as much as a gay person would struggle with his homosexuality after coming to Christ. It is a daily struggle for me not to fall back into old patterns of sinfulness, as it will be for the gay person to come to Christ. But there is no sin too big for Christ to handle, if we submit to his will.
Calling for the Resignation of V. Gene Robinson
This is a call for V. Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire, to resign is episcopate because of his unrepentant sin of homosexuality.
The apostle Paul said:
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 Cor 9-10, emphasis added)
And:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim 1:8-11, emphasis added)
Based on the Law’s prohibition on homosexuality (Lev 18:22) and the apostle Paul’s clear echo of it, I would say that homosexuality is wrong. Let’s look at the qualifications for a bishop (overseer):
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3:2-7, emphasis added)
I am not considering Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson’s qualifications outside of the boldfaced terms. I hope he has been an good bishop in every other area and served his people well. However, he does not fit the qualifications of a bishop and should therefore resign his office.
Bishop Robinson is gay, and has joined in “marriage” to his long time partner. This is unacceptable. Homosexuality is a sin, and people who live in unrepentant sin should not serve in any capacity in ministry. This man is supposed to be the spiritual leader of his diocese, and he is “glorying in his shame” (Phil 3:19). This isn’t fair to the people of New Hampshire. Their spiritual leader can’t control his own sin, how is he supposed to counsel others to control their sins?
Until he repents of homosexuality, Bishop Robinson should not be permitted to continue in ministry.
“Odder Stories” Accuses Me of Racism
How, as a Christian apologist, do I gauge how well I’m doing? By this verse:
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (Jn 15:19, emphasis added)
I figure if the secular world hates what I have to say, then I must be doing a pretty darn good job. Conversely, if the Christian world loves me, then I must also be doing a pretty good job. From the comments that I receive, I see compliments from Christians (HT: Murphy Klasing and Wickle), and denigration from the world.
The most recent worldly accusation against me is to accuse me of 18th century racism for an old post on homosexuality. Unlike most Christians, I am allowing for the possibility that homosexuality may not be a choice. But along the same regard, neither is alcoholism or rage. Those things are genetic, too. Does anyone believe that they are good things, or are they things that we may struggle with but ultimately should eliminate for the good of all? Odder Stories says:
If you see echoes of 18th century racism, you’re not alone. In what sense is homosexuality like an addiction or anger issues? Why is it a ‘corrupting influence’? For one reason only: the Bible tells us that it is. It’s against ‘God’s plan’. We must ’surrender to God through Jesus Christ’, in the process attempting to deaden a major part of ourselves. As any honest advocate of this process will admit, this does not get rid of homosexuality, it merely teaches you to live with it by giving yourself over to what, at times, is indistinguishable from a cult.
He is absolutely correct in everything that he states. Christianity asks us to die to our former selves, of which homosexuality may be a part for some people. Like me having to die to my anger issues and other more serious addictions, the homosexual in service to the Lord must die to his homosexuality.
I freely admit that the only reason to argue against homosexuality is that the Bible says that it is a sin. There are no secular grounds whatsoever for arguing against it.
I feel that I’m an honest advocate of that position since I admit that the feelings never go away. There is not a day where I don’t struggle with my more serious addiction. Not a single day. But I’m struggling with it because I know God does not permit it, and I know that He will give me the strength to endure to the end. The homosexual can find that strength, too, if he or she looks to Jesus Christ.
Back Rome Again 