You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Current Events’ category.

The leaders of the transgender revolution revile the celebrated declaration, “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl,” when a baby is born. Transgender activists recognize that their revolution cannot succeed until doctors who deliver babies, or ultrasound technicians at women’s cliques, stop labeling babies as a specific gender. The announcement of a baby’s gender, however, still fills delivery rooms and doctor’s offices with excitement. I predict that this practice will continue.

Recently, an article ran in “The Ethicist” column of the New York Times Magazine. The ethicist in this case is Professor Kwame Anthony Appiah. The headline in the article asked, “Should I Go to a Gender-Reveal Party?” The questioner who wrote in for advice posed to “The Ethicist” the following scenario:

“A close relation is pregnant with her first child and is having a gender-reveal party. She is overjoyed with the addition to our family, as am I. However, I am adamantly opposed to attending the gender-reveal party because it violates my moral code. I have worked in activism for my entire professional life and, though I am cisgender, I have strong feelings about gender politics and equality. Gender-reveal parties, where parents and guests learn a baby’s gender together, violate my values because they reaffirm society’s gender binarism and inadvertently perpetuate the stigma against non-binary genders. I know I will never experience firsthand the challenges of being gender-nonconforming, but when I think about how I might feel, I would be very hurt knowing my parents had a gender-reveal party for me before I was born with my incorrect gender. I know the non-binary community faces much deeper, more urgent problems than this hypothetical situation, but even so, I have a moral aversion to helping affirm society’s gender binarism. Should I attend the party?”

This question represents just one more step towards cultural insanity. The questioner cannot fathom nor allow for a party where people celebrate politically incorrect labels like “boy” and “girl.” Such a party violates the moral code of the transgender movement.

Indeed, the moral unction behind this question is breathtaking. Scenarios like this come, not on the leading edge of a moral revolution. Rather, the moral revolution must have made significant gains before an ethics column in the New York Times Magazine begins to get letters with this kind of moral outrage at a gender-reveal party.

Christians thinking about this moral confusion must first stop at the vocabulary used in this article—particularly the word, “cisgender.” Using that term plays into the entire gender revolution. The term indicates that someone born a male is quite comfortable with being male. Even adopting the vocabulary, therefore, becomes an enormous problem because the vocabulary assumes that you accept the ideology of the transgender revolutionaries—that gender fluidity exists and that the gender assigned at one’s birth may or may not be factual. “Cisgender” signifies that you buy into the idea that all of humanity must be identified on a spectrum, with cisgender at one end and gender-nonconforming, or, transgender at the other end.

Secondly, Christians need to note the kind of moral outrage indicated in the question. The questioner, filled with indignation, lashes out at a set of parents who had the audacity to throw a gender-reveal party—a party that apparently does nothing more than perpetuate binary stereotypes. Indeed, according to this article in the New York Times Magazine, gender-reveal parties could damage relationships between parents and their transgender children who find out that mom and dad threw a party which revealed an “incorrect gender.” This argument asks the reader to make incredible leaps in logic and to possess an imaginative framework which obfuscates all reality.

But here’s the third thing we come to understand about this article: It tells us that the writers, editors, and publishers of the New York Times Magazine believe that these are the kinds of questions we should be concerned about and that we too should experience the confliction, indeed, the outrage present in the question posed to “The Ethicist.”

The question, by itself, poses enormous problems and reveals the erosion of any sane ethic.

For the rest of the post…

Advertisements

Vegas Prof. Shoots Self as an Anti-Trump Protest

In August of this year, 69-year-old Mark J. Bird, a sociology professor intentionally shot himself in the arm as- he says- a protest against the president. In so doing, he violated a number of laws and local ordinances such as carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, discharging a firearm in a prohibited location, and possibly endangering students.

The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that Bird had taped a $100 bill to the mirror of the bathroom with a note that read, “for the janitor.” That’s nice, and while it’s good that he did take the time to think about the trouble he was causing the cleanup crew- he did not think of the damage he was doing to the anti-gun rights cause.

Namely, by bringing a gun onto a college campus and using it within deadly range of students and faculty while violating a handful of laws, Bird proved conclusively that gun control laws do not work.

It’s unclear how the sociology teacher believed that shooting himself in the arm would hurt Donald Trump. At present it might be sufficient to say that the man had a clear case of Trump Derangement Syndrome; a satirical condition that appears to be more real and less satirical with each passing news cycle.

The professor joined the college staff in 1993. He was an emeritus member of the faculty according to Richard Lake, a college spokesman. This coming Fall season, Bird was not slated to teach any classes. As yet, the school has not taken any disciplinary action against the professor, and they do not have any plans to.

One student called emergency services when professor Bird was seen stumbling out of the bathroom bleeding and staggering. The professor fell to the floor where he was later collected by emergency medical personnel.

Other students reported hearing what they called a loud noise, though a .22 caliber shot report from inside a well-insulated lavatory would almost certainly not be terribly loud. One employee of the college told police that he had tried to hold Bird’s hand and comfort him while others worked to stop the blood gushing from his wound.

During the interim before the authorities could arrive, Bird told the people surrounding him there on the floor that he had done this to himself in order to protest the Trump administration. The incident took place at 8:15 am and the campus was declared safe at 9:00 am that morning. A campus-wide alert informed students that the gun had been sequestered and was in the control of authorities.

The faculty president Robert Manis said, “They never really told the students much about it except that it was resolved on the actual day of the shooting. When you don’t give the full details, then rumors go crazy. It’s unfortunate because it made the students and faculty very afraid and allowed rumors to proliferate.”

The college president, Federico Zaragoza released a statement that was published in the college newsletter, saying “I appreciate all of the expressions of concern and interest, and I pledge to keep everyone updated should the situation change.” A typical information-free administrative statement.

Further details about Bird’s mental health and his motivations have not been pursued by the press either local or national. But this is clearly another expression of the increasingly violent nature of the anti-Trump movement. The story has not gone beyond local Los Vegas papers and it is highly unlikely to reach national media.

For the rest of the post…

By Megan Briggs

Steve Carter
It’s been over a month now since Steve Carter, the lead teaching pastor of Willow Creek, resigned unexpectedly. On Sunday, August 5, 2018 while he was supposed to be onstage at Willow Creek’s main campus in South Barrington, Illinois, Carter was backstage throwing up. Afterward, he drove home and typed out his resignation letter. Carter recently granted his first interview since resigning, in which he shares a little more about his decision to leave.

“Pat’s story was pretty brave,” Carter told Religious News Service. “I thought, what’s the brave thing I am supposed to do?” Pat Baranowski served as Bill Hybel’s assistant for over eight years. When the New York Times published her story on August 5, which included allegations of sexual harassment by Hybels, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Carter. He could no longer serve in a position of leadership at a church that was initially averse and then woefully slow to respond to allegations of sexual harassment involving Hybels.

The church and its leaders had been dealing with the fallout of an article published in the Chicago Tribune in March, in which multiple women shared their own allegations against Hybels and his alleged sexual misconduct and harassment. Carter had even stood on stage when Hybels denounced the allegations as false and described them as an attempt to ruin his legacy. Now, Carter seriously regrets the agreement with Hybels that his physical presence implied.

He also regrets being on stage for any of the “family meetings” (meetings hosted by the elder board of Willow Creek, designed to communicate to the congregation) that occurred after the Chicago Tribune article broke. Carter wrote in a blog post titled “An Apology” what he believes the church leadership should have done at those meetings: “I believe now that what our church needed initially was to practice transparency and repentance, to grieve, and to reflect on what Jesus was inviting us into and to listen to the Holy Spirit.” Carter also apologized for not doing more to “prevent the hurtful statements that were made” about the women who brought allegations forward.

Steve Carter Moves Forward

The mantra Carter is repeating through this process of moving on from Willow is “Grieve. Breathe. Receive.” RNS reports instead of rushing into a new assignment, Carter is “focusing on his own spirituality and asking God what he should do next.”

Before his resignation, Carter had a book in the works with publisher David C. Cook. That book, the topic of which was to be about his leadership role at Willow, has been sidelined. Carter is now working on another project with David C. Cook titled Everything to Lose: Doing the Right Thing When the Stakes Are High. The book will be released in November and will focus on the reasons he left Willow.

According to the interview with RNS, Carter has also been reaching out to the women who have brought allegations against Hybels. He and his wife, Sarah, have also started a GoFundMe campaign called “We believe you.” The campaign is raising money (the goal is $50,000) to create a counseling scholarship program for “those who have been abused and shamed at the hands of churches and clergy.” The campaign description says 100 percent of the funds raised will go to pay for counseling for those seeking help healing from sexual and power abuse.

For the rest of the post…

It remains to be seen how a recent controversy will affect evangelist Greg Laurie’s annual SoCal Harvest Aug. 17-19. However, considerable media coverage in the Los Angeles area could ultimately boost attendance at the 29-year-old event.

Laurie, who leads the Riverside-based Harvest Christian Fellowship, was featured in a promotional billboard holding a generic Bible. After two weeks, the Irvine Company removed billboards from a Newport Beach mall and the Irvine Spectrum because of complaints.

In a blog post last week, Laurie pointed out the book didn’t say Bible or have a cross on it, although he affirmed it was a Bible.

“Why are people so frightened of the Bible?” Laurie asked. “Think of the words of George Washington: ‘It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.’”

For the rest of the post…

Here is a helpful article on the not-so-good direction modern is going in.

~ Bryan

Nine Reasons People Aren’t Singing in Worship

Worship leaders around the world are sadly changing their church’s worship (often unintentionally) into a spectator event. Before discussing our present situation, let’s look back into history.

Prior to the Reformation, worship was largely done for the people. The music was performed by professional musicians and sung in an unfamiliar language (Latin).

The Reformation gave worship back to the people. This including congregational singing. It employed simple, attainable tunes with solid, scriptural lyrics in the language of the people.

Worship once again became participatory. The evolution of the printed hymnal brought with it an explosion of congregational singing and the church’s love for singing increased.

Then came the advent of new video technologies. Churches began to project the lyrics of their songs on a screen. The number of songs at a church’s disposal increased exponentially.

[1] At first, this advance in technology led to more powerful congregational singing, but soon, a shift in worship leadership began to move the congregation back to pre-Reformation pew potatoes (spectators).

What has occurred could be summed up as the re-professionalization of church music and the loss of a key goal of worship leading—enabling the people to sing their praises to God.

Simply put, we are breeding a culture of spectators in our churches. We are changing what should be a participative worship environment to a concert event. Worship is moving to its pre-Reformation mess.

9 reasons people are not singing any more.

  1. They don’t know the songs.

    With the release of new songs weekly and the increased birthing of locally-written songs, worship leaders are providing a steady diet of the latest, greatest worship songs. Indeed, we should be singing new songs. But too high a rate of new song inclusion in worship can kill our participation rate and turn the congregation into spectators. I see this all the time. I advocate doing no more than one new song in a worship service, and then repeating the song on and off for several weeks until it becomes known by the congregation. People worship best with songs they know, so we need to teach and reinforce the new expressions of worship. (more)

  2. We are singing songs not suitable for congregational singing.

    There are lots of great, new worship songs today, but in the vast pool of new songs, many are not suitable for congregational singing by virtue of their rhythms (too difficult for the average singer) or too wide of a range (consider the average singer—not the vocal superstar on stage).

  3. We are singing in keys too high for the average singer.

    The people we are leading in worship generally have a limited range and do not have a high range. When we pitch songs in keys that are too high, the congregation will stop singing, tire out and eventually quit, becoming spectators. Remember that our responsibility is to enable the congregation to sing their praises, not to showcase our great platform voices by pitching songs in our power ranges. The basic range of the average singer is an octave and a fourth from A to D (more).

  4. The congregation can’t hear people around them singing.

    If our music is too loud for people to hear each other singing, it is too loud. Conversely, if the music is too quiet, generally, the congregation will fail to sing out with power. Find the right balance—strong, but not over-bearing.

  5. We have created worship services which are spectator events, building a performance environment.

    I am a strong advocate of setting a great environment for worship including lighting, visuals, inclusion of the arts and much more. However when our environments take things to a level that calls undue attention to those on stage or distracts from our worship of God, we have gone too far. Excellence—yes. Highly professional performance—no.

  6. The congregation feels they are not expected to sing.

    As worship leaders, we often get so involved in our professional production of worship that we fail to be authentic, invite the congregation into the journey of worship, and then do all we can to facilitate that experience in singing familiar songs, new songs introduced properly, and all sung in the proper congregational range. (more)

  7. We fail to have a common body of hymnody.

    With the availability of so many new songs, we often become haphazard in our worship planning, pulling songs from so many sources without reinforcing the songs and helping the congregation to take them on as a regular expression of their worship. In the old days, the hymnal was that repository. Today, we need to create song lists to use in planning our times of worship. (more)

  8. Worship leaders ad lib too much.

    Keep the melody clear and strong.

For the rest of the post…

Image may contain: text

BreakPoint: The Greatest Love

Memorial Day Memories

Today on BreakPoint, we hear Chuck Colson’s thoughts on Memorial Day and what he called, “The Greatest Love.

It was February of 1945—three months before the end of World War II in Europe. Eighteen-year-old Sergeant Joseph George of Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, was stationed in Lorient, France. It was evening, and George was preparing to go on patrol. The Americans were hoping to locate landmines buried by the Germans.

Sergeant George had been on patrol duty the night before. As he told his friend Private James Caudill, he was tired—tired and scared. Private Caudill offered to take the patrol on his behalf. He pointed out that, at age 36, he was nearly two decades older than George. He told George—who had already been blown off a torpedoed ship in the English Channel—“You’re young. Go home. Get married. Live a rich, full life.” And then Private Caudill went out on patrol. A few hours later, he was killed by a German sniper.

The actions of Private Caudill echo the values and valor of generations of military men and women we remember today. And they are an example of the sort of behavior we almost take for granted when it comes to our men and women in uniform who fight just wars.

What is a just war? One that is defined as providing a proportionate response to evil, to protect non-combatants, among other considerations. Today, our military men and women around the world are fighting to resist evil. Ridding the world of Islamo-fascism—by just means—is a good and loving act.

This willingness to sacrifice on behalf of our neighbors is why military service is considered such a high calling for Christians—and part of what makes just wars just. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica puts his discussion of just war in his chapter on charity—the love of God and neighbor. John Calvin agreed; he called soldiering justly a “God-like act,” because “it imitates God’s restraining evil out of love for His creatures.”

A world in which free nations refuse to fight just wars would be a world where evil is unchecked and where the strong would be free to prey on the weak—as we are now seeing in Darfur.

Our soldiers’ willingness to defend the defenseless around the world makes me proud to be an American. Their willingness to lay down their lives is a reflection of how the Christian worldview has influenced our society, which is why American soldiers, by the way, are welcomed all over the world, as historian Stephen Ambrose wrote, while soldiers from other cultures are feared.

So what of Sgt. Joseph George? He returned safely home. He married, fathered five sons. One of them—Princeton Professor Robert George—is a good friend of mine. He’s devoted much of his life to fighting the moral evils of our time: abortion, embryo-destructive research, and efforts to redefine marriage in a way that would destroy it.

In John 15:13, Jesus said, “Greater love has no man than this, that [he] lay down his life for his friends.” The story of Private Caudill and Sergeant George makes one realize more deeply what a tremendous gift this is. It’s why the George family has remembered Private Caudill in prayers for sixty-one years.

For the rest of the post…

On Wednesday and Thursday, the modern state of Israeli celebrated the 70th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence. Here are nine things you should know about the creation of the modern Israeli state.

1. In AD 138, the ancient nation of Israel ceased to exist when the Roman emperor Hadrian crushed the Bar Kochba revolt and banned all Jews from Palestine (i.e., the biblical regions known as the Land of Israel). The land was conquered by various nations until 1517, when it was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans retained control until 1917, when the British captured Jerusalem during World War I.

2. By 1850, only about 14,000 Jews remained in Palestine. But in 1881, in reaction to growing anti-Semitism in Europe and Russia, a number of Hovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) organizations were established with the aim of furthering Jewish settlement in the area. The Hovevei Zion groups were the forerunners of modern Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel.

3. Theodore Herzl—officially referred to in the Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel as “the spiritual father of the Jewish State“—launched the modern Zionist movement in 1896. In his pamphlet Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), Herzl considers the “Jewish Question”:

Everything tends, in fact, to one and the same conclusion, which is clearly enunciated in that classic Berlin phrase: “Juden Raus!” (Out with the Jews!)

I shall now put the Question in the briefest possible form: Are we to “get out” now and where to?

Or, may we yet remain? And, how long?

Herzl answered that question by proposing a Jewish homeland:

The whole plan is in its essence perfectly simple, as it must necessarily be if it is to come within the comprehension of all.

Let the sovereignty be granted us over a portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a nation; the rest we shall manage for ourselves.

Herzl also proposed two possible locations for the homeland—Palestine and Argentinia. “We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion,” he said.

4. In 1897, Herzl began to put his plan into action by convening the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. At this symbolic congress—which was referred to as the Basel Congress—the group adopted the Basel Program with this stated goal: “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law.” A few weeks after the event, Herzl wrote in his diary, “Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word—which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly—it would be this: At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today l would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years perhaps, and certainly in fifty years, everyone will perceive it.”

5. During World War I, the Allies drove the Turks out of Ottoman Syria. In 1917, the British government announced its support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in the 67-word statement know as the Balfour Declaration:

His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

After the war the British controlled the area of Palestine and was given a mandate by the League of Nations to administer the territory. Under British rule, the land was sometimes referred to as Mandatory Palestine.

6. The Jewish population in Palestine grew between 1919 and 1923 as Jews began to flee persecution in Russia and Ukraine. This influx of Jews, along with the Balfour Declaration, led the Arab inhabitants of the land to develop their own political movement, known as Palestinian nationalism. A nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs led to the “Great Revolt” of 1936-1939. This insurrection led the British to propose a partition of the land into Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs rejected the proposal.

7. In 1939, the British began limiting Jewish immigration into Palestine. Even after the Holocaust began creating Jewish refugees in Europe, the UK refused to lift the immigration cap. Thousands of Jews died trying to flee to Palestine in small boats, and thousands more were caught and turned away. The American government supported a move to allow 100,000 new immigrants into the region, which prompted the British to abandon the Palestine Mandate and leave the issue to be resolved by the United Nations.

8. On May 15, 1947, the United Nations created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine), with representatives from 11 “neutral” countries: Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. UNSCOP offered two proposals to solve the “Palestine Question.”

For the rest of the post…

October 2018
S M T W T F S
« Sep    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Archives

Twitter Updates

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

Advertisements