by Ryan Polk | Jul 19, 2013
George Zimmerman was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin, and the verdict has expectedly led to strong reactions of both agreement and disagreement. There are so many variables involved in this case and the subsequent verdict and certainly no lack of people offering their opinions and editorials regarding race and justice. It’s complicated to say the least and all the more difficult when the tensions of racial issues are involved.
The outcry and commentary from political pundits and racial leaders is to be expected and is somewhat predictable. The question for us, however, is how should the church and Christians think and respond to this event in our cultural history? Personally, this case and the responses to it don’t sit well with me. I am a white father to four adopted children, none of whom are white. I am fearful for them at times.
One of the great difficulties in responding rightly to this case is that while the verdict may have been correct by legal standards, it did not do much to assuage the haunting feeling that justice was not done. The tragedy is not simply that a 17-year-old young man is dead, but it is that he didn’t have to be. There is no way to know the heart or motivation of either George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin.
As we evaluate we must go by the facts as we know them, just like the jurors did who found themselves deliberating one of the most difficult cases imaginable. Here are some of the important facts…
– Regardless of motive, Zimmerman initiated the events that led to the death of Martin.
– Martin’s actions did not warrant the urgency in which Zimmerman responded.
– Neither Zimmerman nor any vehicle, home, or other person was in imminent danger to necessitate Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to pursue Martin.
– Zimmerman’s course of action stopped being wise when he decided to aggressively approach Martin rather than waiting for the police.
– Martin’s response as a young black teenager being followed by a vehicle and then pursued by a stranger must be taken into account. Historically, it must be admitted that these situations have not usually ended well for the young black man.
– Martin’s wisest course of action would have been to either stay on his phone reporting what was taking place or doing all he could to remove himself from the situation.
– Martin’s aggressive response to Zimmerman’s aggression led to a guaranteed violent encounter.
– At the time of the violent conflict, both Martin and Zimmerman were more than likely (in their own minds) acting in self-defense
My assessment is that the real story is not as one-sided as Zimmerman has portrayed it and that Martin is not as innocent of a victim as the narrative is being crafted. Neither of those opinions alleviate any of the tragedy of an extremely unnecessary death. It is important to make the distinction that Zimmerman was found not guilty but he was not found innocent because he wasn’t. All of our actions have consequences. Zimmerman may have been not guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter under the law, but he is not innocent by any means of actions that put him in a position that led to him taking a life. Martin was certainly a victim, but his actions as well put him in a worse predicament than he needed to be in.
As we try to respond rightly, we must not allow ourselves to fall into the stereotypical responses that so often accompany these types of issues. I would like to offer a few insights that, Lord willing, will help us think well about this…
– There were no winners in this verdict. A 17-year-old boy is dead and didn’t have to be. It is tragic even if the letter of the law was served.
– There is no real reason to take sides. This is not a black/white, left/right, or liberal/conservative issue. We should not view tragedy in terms of winners and losers.
– We make no progress by denying race played a role in this case nor by saying it was the sole factor.
– Christians (of all races) must acknowledge any racism, whether overt or latent, repent and work on crucifying this part of our fallen fleshly humanity.
– Before making quick judgments, those of us who are white, need to try our best to understand why a young black man would feel threatened or what it is like to be viewed suspiciously for no other reason than the fact you are black. The majority rarely understand what it is like to not be the majority.
– Before making quick judgments, blacks need to remember and know that many of us who are white hate racism, want it to end, and are saddened by it, even if we don’t experience it like you have.
– As the church, we should seek to be salt in light in racial issues just as we are to do in all areas of life, and all races need to understand that we were adopted by a heavenly Father who shows no partiality and sees no distinctions and because of that neither should we.
There have been some excellent pieces written on this issue over the past few days. I would wholeheartedly recommend the articles by Al Mohler, Russell Moore, Thabiti Anyabwile, and William Saletan.
by Angela Sanders | Jul 18, 2013
I’ve been debating for a long time whether or not to write a blog on drinking. I have strong feelings on the subject, but no one has ever asked me directly what they are. For the most part, they assume and then spend the rest of the conversation explaining (sometimes justifying, though I’m not judging) their own choice.
I had just about decided to let it rest and stick to blog topics that are more universally neutral in the Christian world when a young lady that I care a lot about made a casual comment about my not drinking. It was clear from her statement that she assumed my decision not to drink had something to do with my affiliation with the Southern Baptist denomination. I could easily hide behind that. I believe I have in the past, actually. However, my decision to abstain from alcohol has nothing to do with my being a Southern Baptist, and I feel compelled to let her and anyone else who might assume the same thing know how I arrived at the decision I’ve made. If I don’t, I have wasted an opportunity to influence.
Now, this young lady’s comment was neither critical nor defensive, so please understand that this post is in no way a counterargument. It is simply a list of reasons that I do not and will not, at any point in the future, drink. I hope that those who find themselves undecided or feel a check in their spirit when they consider drinking for reasons they cannot identify will be encouraged and bolstered by what they read.
To my brothers and sisters who do drink, please do not take offense. I’m sure that you have weighed and prayed about your decision as well. I do not think less of you for the decision you’ve made, but I’m convinced that there are those who find themselves straddling uncomfortably a fence–which seems to have grown taller as of late–that separates people whom they love, trust, and admire. I know that’s not fun. If I can, I want to help them down on the side that I personally believe will bring them peace and spare them regret.
* The Bible says not to be drunk, and the line between having a drink and having too many drinks is just too fuzzy. Drunkenness, or being controlled by alcohol (even for a short time), is something that Christ died to set us free from. To me, drinking after He did that would be like being released from jail and choosing to frequent the jail parking lot.
* I don’t want to contribute financially to an industry that capitalizes on the pain, neediness, and addiction of anyone. I know too many people whose lives have either been ruined or forever altered by alcohol. Though many people are able to drink without becoming addicted, I wonder how many people, without realizing it, have come to depend on alcohol as a social crutch, trading in Christ-centered or even people-centered relationships that might have been for ones that revolve around the consumption of a substance.
* Alcohol dulls sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. Alcohol creates spiritual static, making it hard for me to discern what God might be saying to me, and I never know what He’s going to say or when. Missing a divine appointment because I chose to drink, for me, would be like letting someone drown because I’m busy watching TV.
* I don’t want to exclude anyone or hinder relationships. People who do drink often exclude those who don’t drink when they gather socially. I like peanut butter, but I don’t let it keep me from spending time with friends who have peanut allergies. I simply don’t eat peanut butter when I’m around them. The effects of drinking often carry over into the next day, causing others to feel as if they are less important than the drinking experience to the one who chooses to drink.
* I don’t want to point others, particularly my children, toward anything that could potentially become a problem for or hurt them.
* If I chose to drink, it would be for me, to fulfill my own desires and purposes, which is where every sin issue I’ve ever had has started. I just don’t want to go there.
* If I broke off a piece of the Loritab, Darvacet, Percacet, or Vicadin in my cabinet every time I felt the need to relax, people would say I had a problem. I struggle to see how that is any different than pouring a glass of whatever when I feel the need to chill.
* I just don’t need it. As a Christian, every freedom is mine in Christ. In fact, the spiritual yard that the Father has given me to play in is way too huge for me to worry about whether or not to set foot in the 10X10 plot of freedom that is social drinking.
* I want to be set apart. The Bible doesn’t say that no one can ever drink, but God does tell several individuals whom He sets apart for higher tasks not to consume alcohol. There has to be a reason for that. On some level, He must value abstinence from alcohol, and, hey, if God is taking volunteers for higher tasks, sign me up!
So, there it is. Do with it what you will, friends, but I felt I had to share. Let me say again that I do not think less of those who drink.
It does make me sad, however, when I scroll through my Facebook and Twitter feeds and see that so many young Christians I know are constantly posting pictures of their alcoholic drinks and dropping the names of imported beers and mixed drinks they’ve consumed. What are they trying to prove? If they really believe drinking isn’t an issue, then why the show and tell?
by Ryan Smith | Jul 8, 2013
Confession. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. While I am not a political junky, I do get caught up in the grandiose chess match that is American politics. I gained interest in Obama in 2006; not because he was a strong orator, but because his oratory brought a resonating message of change to a gridlocked system. I read his book, watched his speeches, and learned about his worldview. I did not agree with all of his policies, but I believed in the man making the decisions.
Fast-forward a few years. The man who spoke of conviction and unity has since trended toward “evolving” political views. His divisive shifts in thinking, and “progressive” moves away from the convictions he outlined as a younger candidate have not held true to the man I thought I was supporting.
This introduces my dilemma. My aim in this post is not political, though certainly the topic is of a political nature. My aim is theological. As a Christian, what should my attitude and actions be towards a president with whom I disagree?
Romans 13 gives us direction regarding government and its citizens. Paul tells us, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
What do we learn from this passage?
- We are to be subject to the governing authorities.
- Our government’s authority is given by God and exists because God wills it.
- When we resist our authorities, we resist God.
- Resistance to our temporal government results in eternal consequence.
I would not expect this to be the Bible’s stance on government. I believe these four things apply except in cases where the government directs citizens to explicitly go against God’s will expressed in Scripture. After all, governments sanction the killing of infants, redefine institutions given by God (for His glory) to accommodate sin, and label running away from God’s principles as, “progress.” How are we to respond? Are we simply to roll over and let these things happen? How does a Christian obey the Word of God in one hand while obeying leaders who do not affirm its statutes in the other?
As I have wrestled with this idea and prayed about how to be obedient to God’s Word, I have come to a few conclusions.
1) I am to honor God in honoring his institutions. When I submit myself to authority, I exercise humility. Whether it is the authority of a boss in the workplace (Eph. 6:5-9), a godly man in his home (Eph. 5:22-32), or parents in the family (Eph. 6:1-4), God has placed us all under authority and in authority. Scripture reminds us we continually fail in authority and are to forgive those in authority over us as we desire forgiveness from those under our authority. God’s institutions point us to a greater home with a greater King. Until then, I should treat those in authority over me with respect and prayer. The further from God they seem, the more I need to pray and intercede on their behalf. In honoring them, I honor God.
2) The way I treat my president says more about me than it does my president. George Bush, Barack Obama, and I will all stand before the same throne, judged by the same Master, with the same sin-soaked heart, with no other plea but Christ. We are equally sinful. Jesus had one-on-one encounters with many leaders. Even as they mocked and abused Him, what was His response? Father, forgive them. Let us be as prayerful, intercessory, and forgiving as our Christ.
3) Sin does not justify sin. Perhaps the worst thing I can do is lie, gossip, or slander another who is presumably outside of God’s will. Not only does it condemn me for the same rebellion against God that I am opposing, but it misrepresents Christ to the world around me. If I may be blunt, many of us are showing a horrible shade of ugly in the way we talk about our officials. One can barely scan their Facebook feed without encountering a pithy quip backhanding the president. He is called a socialist, a Muslim, an anti-Christ, a non-American, a fool, and this from people professing to be Christians. Quit. Repent. Pray. We can disagree with our leaders, but we don’t have to sin in order to do so. There is a godly way to disagree.
4) Make a difference, not just a noise. Should Christians be politically active? Of course. Having godly leaders praying and making decisions on behalf of those who have smaller voices is commendable. But remember, Christ continually had to turn from the crowds who wanted to make Him king. Why? Because His authority was above that of a king. We walk in a kingdom that is not of this world. Men may come in and out of the oval office, but Christ and Christ alone occupies His eternal throne.
I am not endorsing or un-endorsing any candidate, party, or ideology. I am simply wrestling with what it means to follow Christ in the area of politics. Ultimately, let us thank God for His sovereignty, and follow His model as we pray and engage our political system. Let us strive to see God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, but realize it is not ushered in through government, but the church. Governments rise and fall, but the gates of hell cannot overcome the bride of Christ. Let’s be the church, even towards those with whom we disagree.
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior…” 1 Tim. 2:1-3
by Annie Corser | Jul 2, 2013
Spoiler Alert: I am going to be bold on the topic of homosexuality in the following post. My target is to address those who believe it is correct to rationalize, justify and even commend homosexuals to give up the fight and act out on their temptations.
I am a sinner redeemed through the blood of Christ, and I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the Southern Baptist beliefs. Therefore, I do not pick and choose the teachings of God to fit myself. Rather, I fit myself to the teachings of God. While this causes me to face my temptations with self-control and confront myself when I fail, I am going through the process of sanctification.
I am not narrow-minded because I believe in the Truth within the Bible, the whole Bible. I am not judgmental because I view anything that displeases God as a sin (disobedience to His instructions equals sin). I am not old-fashioned because I believe parts of the Old Testament still hold Truths we should obey. (No, the Old Testament law does not save us. Jesus Christ finished the law, but as Christians we are called to walk in obedience).
I am passionate about the social issue surrounding homosexuality because it hits close to home. I grew up in Oklahoma, the Bible-belt of America, yet I grew up knowing several openly gay people. I never once called them names, avoided them or looked at them with disgust. However, they did know my beliefs about their “lifestyle.”
I recently read a letter to the church from a woman who struggles with the temptation to be homosexual. She admits that acting out on a homosexual temptation is a sin, but she also explains that she needs the support from her church to encourage and teach her how to battle her temptation.
Now for the real post:
Here is my problem with the discussion about same-sex marriage “rights.” It simply is not an equality issue. It is a heart and sin issue. Homosexuality has been proven to be a temptation that can be overcome, but it is not a fast or easy process.
I have read several articles recently from writers who deal compassionately and more eloquently than I am on this topic. One group of articles came from an insight in the June 13 issue of the Baptist Messenger and a second from further reading by Joe Dallas in an article titled Answering the Gay Christian Position.
In Dallas’ piece, he talks about his own temptation for homosexual behaviors. Dallas explains that as he gave up his fight over his homosexual temptation, he began to place importance on pleasing himself than being obedient in self-denial. He created his own interpretation of the Scriptures in order to make them fit his lifestyle. In his article he quotes Francis Schaeffer, saying:
“Schaeffer is more specific: “Here in the midst of life there is to be a strong choice, by the grace of God. It is not a matter of waiting until we no longer have strong sexual desires, but rather — we are to understand what Jesus means when He talks about denying ourselves that which is not rightfully ours.”
The social group now known as the gay and lesbian community believe they are a social class who have been oppressed. Trying to compare the gay and lesbian community to women’s suffrage and slavery has no bounds. Yes, many “out of the closet” gays were and are bullied, and sure, they realized their choices did not give them “equal rights.” However, their choice to live in a homosexual relationship is just that, a choice. Women did not choose to be women, yet they were discriminated against. African Americans did not choose their race, yet they were enslaved. In contrast, who will stop the “criminal social class” from fighting for their “rights” as citizens after they chose to break the law? Who is to say that pedophiles will not rise up for their “rights” to marrying young children after they chose to act out on their temptation and attraction for younger ages? Dallas emphasizes this idea as he states,
“Should the authenticity of our sexual desires be the criteria by which we judge their rightness? If so, one wonders whether pedophilia, incest, or sadomasochism might not also be legitimized so long as they ‘seem right’ to an individual.”
To the homosexual “rights” activists:
Are you really helping them by lying to them? Humans were made to have partners, yes. But our partners are to be of the opposite gender. Fighting for the right to publicly display sinful actions without “criticism” does not make homosexuality okay. There is a difference between being criticized for your actions and being criticized for who you are. God made each person wonderfully, and He also allows us to face our own temptations. Whether we fight to glorify Him through those temptations, or give into them and create a false reality is our own choice. As for me, I will not hate my brothers and sisters who battle with homosexuality, but I will also not tell them that it is ever okay to act out their desires.
To the church:
Do not be swayed by false witnesses. Do not turn from the Truth. The fight for homosexuality should not be seen as a political battle, but as a spiritual one. It should not be fought with anger but with love. As the body of Christ, with family members and friends who have succumbed to the temptation of homosexuality, may we not shun them out of the church, but spread the Truth to them and pray that their hearts be softened and their minds be opened to the Truth God has provided us in His Word. For those who are still fighting for control over their temptation, may we encourage them and stand alongside them so as to not let them fall into this sin.
Be bold, but be loving. Be passionate, but be compassionate. Be honest, but be humble.
Be mindful of the battle of the mind and soul, and be prayerful to a God greater than our trials.
by Brian Hobbs | Mar 28, 2013
“A nation that is arguing about whether to privatize lighthouses will not socialize medicine.” So argued the late William F. Buckley, Jr.
Buckley’s point was simply this: if a democracy is arguing about good ideas, it is more likely to avoid bad ones. Today, America is arguing whether to recognize so-called same-sex “marriage.” The very fact this is the central debate is a disadvantage to conservative Christians. Proponents of same-sex “marriage” typically use broad terms and ideals, such as “equality” to advance their position.
People often forget we already have marriage equality. Everyone can marry anyone, as long as the person is of the opposite sex, is not a relative and is not a minor. What is being demanded is a special right, a newly invented one at that.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing two landmark cases that could change marriage policy in America. While Southern Baptists are hopeful the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold the biblical, historical understanding of marriage, we recognize that no government leaders—even the highest court in the land—can redefine what God Himself has established.
Why are Christians unwilling to change on the issue? Here are three reasons:
The Scriptures
No one throughout time spoke with more authority than Jesus Christ, and no one has spoken so clearly on marriage. Performing His first miracle at a wedding, Jesus often addressed marriage.
Quoting Genesis, Jesus said, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife” (Mark 10:7). Notice Christ did not say “man… cleave to his husband.” He also did not say “wives” (plural). In other places, the New Testament speaks clearly to God’s unchanging meaning of marriage (for example, Eph. 5).
Jesus walked among Rome where polygamy was widely accepted, to a culture that had made friends with divorce and cohabitation, and a civilization that was influenced by Ancient Greece which knew homosexuality well. In other words, Jesus and the Apostles spoke in a day not unlike our own.
So it is not that Southern Baptists are not willing to redefine marriage, it is that we cannot. Our consciences are captive to the revealed Word of God.
Nature
It does not take a biology expert to know the sexual union of a man and a woman leads to offspring and procreation, while homosexual acts do not. The primary purpose of marriage is the proliferation of the human race. Somewhere along the line, Christians forfeited that ideal, and today we are reaping a bitter harvest for it.
Building a home, let alone a society, on the notions of romantic love or attraction is like building a house on shifting sands. Much like the basic purposes of eating is nutrition, with good taste as an added pleasure given by God, the main purpose of sex is procreation, with pleasure and bonding as added benefits given by God.
The government has no public or practical interest in homosexual unions any more than they do in friendships. In other words, marriage, from the government’s viewpoint, is all about children.
Legal
One of the cases on which the Supreme Court will rule is Proposition 8, a California law passed by voters that defined, for California, marriage is between one man and one woman. Traditionally, marriage laws have been left up to the states. However, the nine justices could attempt to make Oklahoma (which has a marriage protection law of its own, passed in 2004) have our policy dictated by, say, Vermont or New York.
Even so, we Christians recognize that marriage is not something defined, it is something we observe. No state or sub-division of government has a right to redefine what God Himself has set in place.
The Supreme Court rulings reportedly will not be handed down until the summer. In the meanwhile, America will continue to argue this issue. As Christians, let’s make sure our side does so with gentleness, compassion and respect. After all, we do not just want to win the argument. We want to win the people.
by Chris Forbes | Jan 14, 2013
It’s a new year and time to exit our doomsday bunkers & introduce you to the Word Slingers! I’m looking forward to seeing what exciting & interesting things will come from this team. My contribution will be to make “Off the Cuff” observations about what’s going on in the world. At least that’s my plan. I may end up more “off” than “cuff.” If you don’t like the jokes, you can always read the links.
The writers on our new word slingin’ team are mostly Okies. For those of you from out of state, “Okie” is a technical term for “Pre-Californian.” Actually, I read recently that more people have moved back to our state from California than left during the Oklahoma Dust Bowl. Do us a favor OKC, don’t show any of these people Lake Hefner until the lake level rises again. The exodus could start all over!
So 2012 was not the end? Kinda rethinking those “No Payments Until 2013” buys now!
Last year was crazy, we had so many people fearing it was the end of the world. Of course the biggest scare was about the Mayan Calendar December 21, 2012 date. The day came and went without anything apocalyptic happening. It turns out the Mayans were not making a prediction about the end of the world at all, they were actually trying to calculate the shelf life of Hostess Twinkies.
The end-time fears continued even into January 2013. Astronomers warned there was a slim chance that the asteroid Apophis could come dangerously close the planet earth on January 9th. Fortunately the asteroid missed the earth by 9 million miles and won’t be coming back. If it had hit Washington, DC, it could have saved America trillions of dollars!
Stay in touch, I’m on Twitter @cforbesoklahoma