Most people who live in California, or who watch news on a regular basis (if you do I’m sorry for you), know that the California State Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that the California State Constitution demands homosexuals be allowed to marry.
Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. At our preachers’ luncheon this week Garry Green, the preacher in Brentwood, was correctly arguing that marriage as ALWAYS been defined as being between a man and a woman to start a family. The state supreme court redefined the word marriage after thousands of years to fit their own agenda.
Now I will be the first to say this does not surprise me in California. California is famous for our left-wing humanist, Marxist, liberal, social evolution policy leadership. What I want to focus on for a minute is our great (it hurts to even write that jokingly) governor. Arnold says his personal view is that marriage is, “marriage is between a man and a woman.” Then he goes on to say that he is going to fight the constitutional amendment that is going to be on the ballot this fall to define marriage as between a man and a woman – figure that one out. Apparently he is going to be fighting against what he believes in. At the end of one of the articles I read the author quotes Arnold and says: “Schwarzenegger said he doesn't think same-sex marriages in the coming months will stir up Californians much. ‘I think life will go on as usual,’ he said.”
Let’s hope Arnold is wrong – way wrong! Now is the time for people who believe in family values to stand up and take a stand. Are we going to let four judges on a bench in San Francisco redefine a word that has had the same definition for thousands of years? Are we going to let the minority of our society participate in an institution that God setup to be between a man and a woman? I hope life will not go on as usual these next few months leading up to the election. I pray the people of California will send a resounding voice to the world that we still stand on the foundations of marriage. Time will tell. It’s time for people to start praying and start voting.
And one last thing… just to let everyone know I did NOT vote for Arnold so I take no responsibility for his actions :)
Caleb
*Information source is http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/16/BASD10NVAI.DTL&tsp=1
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Fred Thompson, Postmodernism, and Change
Today I found out that Fred Thompson was going to be writing for Townhall.com. As I read through his first blog post I found his words to be profoundly parallel with the church. Notice what he says in the context of thoughts that have been confirmed to him in the process of the presidential race: “Second, change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance…. The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate.”
Today people are looking at numbers. They are looking at truth from a pragmatic perspective. They have been sold a faulty premise which has been reinforced blatantly, and many times unknowingly, from the pulpit, eldership, our Christian colleges, and our papers (many of whom would proudly ware the label of conservative). There are others who have bought into an unbiblical worldview of what truth is or isn’t, if it exist, and if it does can I so claim to know it? There is lots of talk about postmodernism amongst the churches of Christ. I hear people chiming in about knowing lots about it or not knowing much of it. I read of people claiming to be for or against it. Recently I read a blog where the author said he had a teacher who said he was against postmodernism. I’m not sure what the teacher meant, I was not there, but there is a way in which the teacher would be correct in what he said.
The fact is we live in a country filled with people who are evaluating truth through the lenses of postmodernism. Is it helpful to understand this mindset? No doubt! But here is the rub. What is one to do when he is faced with a country filled with people who have a particular worldview that is not allowing for the results you want (i.e. the church to be increasing in numbers through the roof in a matter of years)? The following is a synopsis of the progression amongst the Lord's church.
Let's start with when a problem was set on the table. Many of the “big dogs” amongst the churches of Christ began giving blistering lectures at our “big shows” about how many are not “growing” (what that means is increasing in numbers) like we once were so we must “change” something. So how are we going to fix the problem of not growing numerically by leaps and bounds?
First, these men began advocating that we must “change” our methods of evangelism. This went on for some time amongst us. We had programs from the Jule Miller Films, to We Care, to Friendship Evangelism, to Fisher’s of Men, to Small Groups, and this list could get really long, but if you have been involved you can make your own long list here. Then the experts went back to the tables to see what the “results” were of their endeavors. The numbers came in and they did not improve. In some cases they got worse. The change the method idea didn’t seem to work.
Second, we were faced with a major fork in the road. We began to question our message. Is it really true that we have the truth on these matters of faith if nobody else is accepting them? The next natural avenue to “change” was doctrine. If the method being “changed” didn’t bring the results then the only thing left to “change” is the message. It was/is rather slow at first. A little change here or a little change there and then it quickly blasts forward into wholesale change of the message.
Let’s bring Fred Thompson back into the picture for just a moment. Pay attention to these words, “change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance.” What Mr. Thompson is saying is that careful scrutiny needs to be applied to the source of the conflict because “change” is not in and of itself a virtue. Is there a problem? What is the problem? Is the problem real? If so how do we change to fix this problem? To use some words of Mr. Thompson, the challenge for the Lord’s church is calibrating whether or not the change being called for is founded, and if it is consistent with God’s word and His principals. Here are a couple thoughts.
First, in all the bantering amongst the churches of Christ I scarcely hear the voice that challenges the validity of the “problem.” All of this “change” is based upon the need to bring dramatic increase in numbers. But what if the problem is not really a problem? What if God never obligated His church to be the manufactures of numbers? What if God never said nor implied he was going to judge His people based upon the numbers they produced? What if we CHANGED our understanding and realized that the problem is not a problem?
Second, how do we address the postmodern culture? When the old methods didn’t work we tried lots of new ones. So when that didn’t work we changed the message. But why is it that the postmodern mind is never challenged to change? We are told we must just embrace the postmodern mind – bologna! All have conceded, from Earl Edwards to Rubel Shelly, the reality that the majority of people living in our culture have that mind, but that by no means dictates the necessity to change the MESSAGE to fit the mind. No, rather it means our job is ever before us to challenge the minds of the majority of people in our culture to change!
The task is heavy to take a message to a world that does not want to hear it, but for crying out loud have we read the Gospels? Have we read the New Testament? And have we read the Old Testament prophets and the task they bore on their backs!!! Noah, Elijah, Jermiah, Isaiah, Amos, Jonah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and every other spokesman of God in the Bible were prophets of change! Change the message? Never! Change the method? Sometimes. Change the thinking of the culture they lived in? Every single one of them! Was the soil different in different places at different times? For sure. Was their success and pleasing-ness to God based upon their number of converts? Not a single one of them. They were all pleasing to God, without exception, when they held fast and proclaimed His word regardless of the culture they found themselves, and their receptivity to the message.
Is change needed? Yes. Do we need to change the methods? Sometimes. Do we need to change the message? NEVER! Do we need to change our faulty premises? No doubt. Must we proclaim a message to the people in a postmodern culture to change their entire way of thinking? That is the task at hand – to preach the foolishness of the cross to our culture and let God handle the rest.
Sow the Seed,
Caleb O’Hara
Today people are looking at numbers. They are looking at truth from a pragmatic perspective. They have been sold a faulty premise which has been reinforced blatantly, and many times unknowingly, from the pulpit, eldership, our Christian colleges, and our papers (many of whom would proudly ware the label of conservative). There are others who have bought into an unbiblical worldview of what truth is or isn’t, if it exist, and if it does can I so claim to know it? There is lots of talk about postmodernism amongst the churches of Christ. I hear people chiming in about knowing lots about it or not knowing much of it. I read of people claiming to be for or against it. Recently I read a blog where the author said he had a teacher who said he was against postmodernism. I’m not sure what the teacher meant, I was not there, but there is a way in which the teacher would be correct in what he said.
The fact is we live in a country filled with people who are evaluating truth through the lenses of postmodernism. Is it helpful to understand this mindset? No doubt! But here is the rub. What is one to do when he is faced with a country filled with people who have a particular worldview that is not allowing for the results you want (i.e. the church to be increasing in numbers through the roof in a matter of years)? The following is a synopsis of the progression amongst the Lord's church.
Let's start with when a problem was set on the table. Many of the “big dogs” amongst the churches of Christ began giving blistering lectures at our “big shows” about how many are not “growing” (what that means is increasing in numbers) like we once were so we must “change” something. So how are we going to fix the problem of not growing numerically by leaps and bounds?
First, these men began advocating that we must “change” our methods of evangelism. This went on for some time amongst us. We had programs from the Jule Miller Films, to We Care, to Friendship Evangelism, to Fisher’s of Men, to Small Groups, and this list could get really long, but if you have been involved you can make your own long list here. Then the experts went back to the tables to see what the “results” were of their endeavors. The numbers came in and they did not improve. In some cases they got worse. The change the method idea didn’t seem to work.
Second, we were faced with a major fork in the road. We began to question our message. Is it really true that we have the truth on these matters of faith if nobody else is accepting them? The next natural avenue to “change” was doctrine. If the method being “changed” didn’t bring the results then the only thing left to “change” is the message. It was/is rather slow at first. A little change here or a little change there and then it quickly blasts forward into wholesale change of the message.
Let’s bring Fred Thompson back into the picture for just a moment. Pay attention to these words, “change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance.” What Mr. Thompson is saying is that careful scrutiny needs to be applied to the source of the conflict because “change” is not in and of itself a virtue. Is there a problem? What is the problem? Is the problem real? If so how do we change to fix this problem? To use some words of Mr. Thompson, the challenge for the Lord’s church is calibrating whether or not the change being called for is founded, and if it is consistent with God’s word and His principals. Here are a couple thoughts.
First, in all the bantering amongst the churches of Christ I scarcely hear the voice that challenges the validity of the “problem.” All of this “change” is based upon the need to bring dramatic increase in numbers. But what if the problem is not really a problem? What if God never obligated His church to be the manufactures of numbers? What if God never said nor implied he was going to judge His people based upon the numbers they produced? What if we CHANGED our understanding and realized that the problem is not a problem?
Second, how do we address the postmodern culture? When the old methods didn’t work we tried lots of new ones. So when that didn’t work we changed the message. But why is it that the postmodern mind is never challenged to change? We are told we must just embrace the postmodern mind – bologna! All have conceded, from Earl Edwards to Rubel Shelly, the reality that the majority of people living in our culture have that mind, but that by no means dictates the necessity to change the MESSAGE to fit the mind. No, rather it means our job is ever before us to challenge the minds of the majority of people in our culture to change!
The task is heavy to take a message to a world that does not want to hear it, but for crying out loud have we read the Gospels? Have we read the New Testament? And have we read the Old Testament prophets and the task they bore on their backs!!! Noah, Elijah, Jermiah, Isaiah, Amos, Jonah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and every other spokesman of God in the Bible were prophets of change! Change the message? Never! Change the method? Sometimes. Change the thinking of the culture they lived in? Every single one of them! Was the soil different in different places at different times? For sure. Was their success and pleasing-ness to God based upon their number of converts? Not a single one of them. They were all pleasing to God, without exception, when they held fast and proclaimed His word regardless of the culture they found themselves, and their receptivity to the message.
Is change needed? Yes. Do we need to change the methods? Sometimes. Do we need to change the message? NEVER! Do we need to change our faulty premises? No doubt. Must we proclaim a message to the people in a postmodern culture to change their entire way of thinking? That is the task at hand – to preach the foolishness of the cross to our culture and let God handle the rest.
Sow the Seed,
Caleb O’Hara
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
