IS LOVE AND KINDNESS ALWAYS ENOUGH?

In an essay entitled “Fear Not,” Presbyterian minister, Dan McNerney, argues that we should not even fear Islamic oppression, terrorism, and immigration. Why not? Because God is in charge and can bring good out of the worst situations:

·       Yet, they survive through their incredible faith, often becoming witnesses in jail for their Lord.

·       In recent years, the underground church in Iran has become the fastest growing church in the world, now numbering three million believers.

Of course, I rejoice at such testimonies. These not only reveal the glory of our God but also His care for His Church—us! However, from such examples, McNerney also seems to argue that if God is in control we shouldn’t be. Instead, we should adopt a politically “hands-off” stance when it comes to confronting Islam:

·       Too often, we prefer holding onto and controlling the reins of our lives, reluctant to trust anyone, not even God. We would rather be racked with anxiety than give up control of our lives. It makes no sense, but we do it all the time.

Certainly, we must trust in the Lord and not be “racked with anxiety,” but doesn’t the Church have a responsibility here, at least to advocate for the protection of society and the innocent? And aren’t we showing a lack of love for our neighbor when we remain silent in the face of hundreds of thousands of potential jihadists entering our neighborhoods?

McNerney’s only response to evil seems to be to “give up control of our lives” and to live without care before the proven dangers. However, we also have a role to play:

·       Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause. (Isaiah 1:17; ESV)

·       Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3)

When we can make a difference and yet fail to protect against the oppressor, we are at fault:

·       So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. (James 4:17)

Instead, the Church must be prophetic and expose evil:

·       Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. (Ephesians 5:11)

When we fail to stand against evil and even welcome evil into our midst, we betray our calling. The Church had failed to stand against segregation and Hitler. This opened the door to great suffering and brought disrepute upon the Church.

However, it seems that McNerney would just have us pray, turn our back, and walk on.

Jesus told a parable about a Good Samaritan who took care of a man who had been mugged and left “half dead.” Seeing him, a priest and a Levite crossed over to the opposite side, but why not? Perhaps, like McNerney, they were determined not to be “racked with anxiety” over what to do about this man. Indeed, God is sovereign. It’s His business, right?

However, to be fair to McNerney, he does advocate in favor of love:

·       The only thing that will bring a radical Muslim to his knees is the power, love and grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We cannot allow fear to enter our souls and extinguish our faith or hope in our own country. Fear has no place in the Gospel.

Truly, the Church must lead with love. However, love alone did not stop the Jim Crow laws or Hitler. Force also was necessary.

If Mordechai had thought according to McNerney’s thinking, he might have planted Haman a garden or polished his shoes, once he heard of the edict, inspired by Haman, for the utter destruction of the Jewish people. However, Mordechai knew that stronger measures were needed to rescue his people. Therefore, he prevailed upon Esther to approach the king, even at the risk of her own life.

While we are called to love as Jesus did, sometimes other measures are necessary to protect the innocent. That’s why God had ordained a justice system to wield His vengeful sword (Romans 13:1-4).

It is now common to hear people say that, “If Hitler had just been loved enough, he would have been tamed.” However, this is not the message of Scripture, which acknowledges that sometimes kindness and peace are not enough:

·       If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Romans 12:18)

Sometimes it is not possible, since it doesn’t depend entirely on us. Jesus is our exemplar of love, and yet He was put to death. And He warned that the world would also hate us:

·       “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 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.  Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. (John 15:18-20)

This happens, not because of our lack of love but because of evil. Therefore, there are times when love must cloth itself with coercion—even excommunication. In the case of brethren who had proved that they weren’t amenable to reason and gentleness, Jesus instructed:

·       “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17)

Notice that Jesus didn’t follow McNerney’s admonition: “The only thing that will bring a radical Muslim to his knees is the power, love and grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” If our own brethren won’t always be brought to their knees by love, we should not expect that this one tactic will bring the radical Muslim to his knees.

Nor did Jesus castigate the Church at Pergamum for not loving enough. Instead, He criticized this church for not taking decisive measures against false teaching:

·       “But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.” (Revelation 2:14)

Likewise, the Church at Thyatira had not been criticized because they did not love Jezebel enough to bring about her repentance:

·       “But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality.” (Revelation 2:20-21)

Love will not overcome all evil. In the case of Jezebel, she refused to repent. Meanwhile, the Church at Ephesus was commended because they resorted to more coercive means:

·       “I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.” (Revelation 2:2)

Likewise, when Jesus returns, He will return with more than tenderness. The Prophet Malachi gives a description of what His return will be like even for some of His elect:

·       But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. (Malachi 3:2-3)

Jesus will not just come with tenderness. Nevertheless, McNerney is right that we shouldn’t be shaking in fear over the Islamic threat. Our God reigns. However, we must be as wise as serpents and take a meaningful stance against this threat, if not for ourselves, then for the innocent who are now being decimated by this sword.

Faced with Gay Coercion: Fight or Flight

What should we Christians do when a homosexual demands services? This has become a career-threatening choice, as the National Review writes:

• Christian-adoption and foster-care agencies have been forced to stop providing those services because they object to placing children in same-sex households. Other cases include a photographer, a baker, a florist, a bed-and-breakfast, a t-shirt company, a student counselor, the Salvation Army, and more. In each of these instances, there were plenty of other businesses available that were willing to provide similar services.

Newsperson, Kirsten Powers, a new convert to the Christian faith, does not see a problem here for Christians:

• It’s not clear why some Christian vendors are so confused about their role here. … Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. … Christians serve unrepentant murderers through prison ministry. So why can’t they provide a service for a same-sex marriage?

This is a much debated issue today among Christians as we seek to faithfully navigate the new paths etched out by our culture. It raises the question, “WWJD” – “What would please our Savior?”

For one thing, we are not free to violate our conscience even if we are mistaken about the normative will of God:

• So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Romans 4:22-23).

Scripture argues that we have to be true to our conscience. Anything less is sin! Even if we violate what we mistakenly think is wrong, we have violated our relationship with God.

This is all fine, but what if we see a gay person bleeding to death. Are we not supposed to do anything about it if we think that aiding him is wrong? Admittedly, there are principles of truth and objective morality that must take precedence. Jesus’ Good Samaritan aided his enemy, the Jew.

However, this type of case is not at issue here. Instead, it’s usually a matter of baking a cake or photographing a gay wedding. Should the State compel the Christian to comply, or should our Constitutional right to freedom-of-religion preside?

Powers draws a false analogy between Christians ministering to murderers in prison and baking a cake to celebrate a gay marriage. These two are not equivalent. Ministering to a murderer is not the same thing as partaking in the murder or even celebrating it. It’s a matter of ministering to the person and not his actions. However, baking the cake for the gay wedding is supporting something Scripture finds unsupportable.

Similarly, many Christians readily bring meals to gay HIV patients. However, there is a difference here. Bringing meals does not contribute to an act that Christians regard as wrong. In contrast, helping a gay connect with other gays for sexual reasons would. In such a case, this activity would cause the Christian to share in the sin, something we cannot do, and it is something we cannot allow the government to force us to do. Many will choose prison over compliance.

Powers should not be surprised by this reasoning. Would she sell gasoline to Hitler to fuel his tanks? Would she sell guns to a drug dealer knowing that they will be used to kill the innocent? To do such would be to share in their sins.

Would she rent out a room at her B&B to a pedophile and his prey? Wouldn’t this represent complicity in his sin? Of course!

Where do we draw the line? Some cases are difficult; some aren’t. Should the Christian T-shirt maker be required to print a T-shirt reading, “Christ Kills” or even “Go Gay Pride?”  I think not! Such coercion would undermine the integrity of our nation and reject the very principles that had once made it great. It would also violate our sacred relationship with our Savior.

Meanwhile, in other Western nations, churches are being compelled to open their doors to gay marriage. This cannot be allowed! Not only would this represent of violation of the One we adore and His love for His church, it would also divide the church! I pray that we might see what is at stake!

The UN, Parents, Children’s Rights, and the Catholic Church

 

Under the guise of the “protection of children,” the United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of the Child under precept #26 recommends that:

• The Holy See bring all its laws and regulations as well as its policies and practices in conformity and make full use of its moral authority to condemn all forms of harassment, discrimination or violence against children based on their sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of their parents and to support efforts at international level for the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

By promoting a highly self-destructive lifestyle that, according to surveys, shortens the male homosexuals’ life by 20-24 years, the UN has lost all credibility, especially in light of the fact that real human rights violations – namely, the genocide of religious minorities in many Islamic countries - are vainly crying out for attention.

In their mindless dash to enforce gay rights, the UN has ignored many of the costs:

1.     Attenuated lifespan

2.     The Proliferation of STDs, Substance Abuse, Suicide, Mental Illness Endemic to this Lifestyle.

3.     The Fact that all of the Major World Religions have Ruled against it

4.     The Historical Evidence that this Lifestyle Produces a Dead End

5.     The Suppression of the Freedoms of Speech and Religion to Achieve this End

6.     The Resulting Gender Confusion and Sexualization of Children

7.     The Breakdown of Values that have Produced the Greatest Civilizations.

Of course, the Committee knows better than their own parents regarding the welfare of children and has demonstrated that it is more than willing to limit parental rights in favor of their own “enlightened” agenda:

• #32. The Committee reminds the Holy See that the right of children to freely express their views constitutes one of the most essential components of children’s dignity and that ensuring this right is a legal obligation under the Convention, which leaves no leeway for the discretion of the States parties… (c) Encourage, through legislation and policy, opportunities for parents and guardians to listen to children and give due weight to their views in matters that concern them and promote parenting education programmes, which build on existing positive behaviours and attitudes.

Who is to determine these “positive behaviours and attitudes?” The UN, of course, and the parents and church must fall in line and submit to “opportunities for parents and guardians to listen to children and give due weight to their views!” While the UN hypocritically champions the free speech of children, it extends no such privilege to their parents other than re-education. Indeed, we have a lot of prior horrific experience with States that claim that they know what is best for children and therefore limit parental influence:

• Lenin had said: “The best revolutionary is a youth devoid of morals.” His word being law in Communist organizations, all members work secretly to make young people of both sexes anti-social and immoral. Children up to teen-age are taught to rebel against the discipline of the home. Parents are represented to their children as old-fashioned. Parental authority is scoffed at. The subverters argue that parents have lied to their children since they were old enough to listen, regarding Santa Claus and where babies come from. The subversives claims parents are the victims of reactionary teachings and capitalistic exploitation. The child is encouraged to educate the parents in regard to modern and progressive ideas. They are warned that, for their own good, they must refuse to be dominated or disciplined by their parents. The purpose of this subversive campaign is to destroy the sanctity, and unity, of the home which is the foundation upon which our civilization is founded.

If parental influence can be neutralized, what then is left to influence our children? The sexualizing influence of the culture – the permissive, morally-relativistic schools and the morally-indulgent media! Meanwhile, parents must only listen to their children and give their words and desires full respect.

Discipline? Forget it! Our children are free moral agents, according to the UN, and what we teach our children better reflect this:

•   #40. The Committee reminds the Holy See that all forms of violence against children, however light, are unacceptable and that the Convention leaves no room for any level of violence against children… ensure that an interpretation of Scripture as not condoning corporal punishment is reflected in Church teaching and other activities and incorporated into all theological education and training.

While the UN demands that children have their say, it is not as accommodating to their parents or their religion. Evidently, the UN has reached such a state of enlightenment that it can confidently dictate to us how we are to understand and teach the Bible.

The UN demands to reign supreme over all areas of the family – religion, education, values, the works. After all, “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future,” as Adolph Hitler confidently professed. How then does the world government own the youth? By making itself the supreme authority in all family matters:

•   #41. The Committee is concerned about the Holy See’s position that civil authorities should intervene in the family setting only in cases where a proven abuse has been committed in order not to interfere with the duties and rights of the parents.

The UN demands the right to intervene whenever! How can the UN demand such authority? Has it been able to shed the gentle light of reason in these areas? Has it demonstrated that it is the better and more loving caretaker of our children?

In contrast, the wise King Solomon knew a critical truth about mothers. When two women came before him, each claiming maternity over a certain baby, Solomon ordered that the baby be cut in two – one part given to each claimant. At this, the real mother cried out:

•  “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!” But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!” Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.” (1 Kings 3:26-27)

The UN is the “other” claimant. It does not love the children as the real mother and will allow their destruction in order to promote its blind and tyrannical agenda.

Senator Rob Portman, Capitulation, and Things of the Heart

Influence and change are strange creatures. CNN reports that Ohio Senator Rob Portman just disclosed:

• "I'm announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about that has to do with gay couples' opportunity to marry," http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gay-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

• "I've come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I've had for over 26 years. That I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay."

The last consideration had made all the difference for Portman – “our son…is gay.” But why should this make the difference? Applying this logic elsewhere:

• My son is a thief, and therefore I have come to accept thievery, or
• My son wants to marry a second man, so I’ve come to accept homosexual polygamy. That’s just who he is, or,
• My son now wants his married threesome to include a teenager, and I have to respect who he really is.

Of course, this reasoning is absurd, but this is the controlling thought of the day – We are our desires, and society must affirm our desires. If society fails to do this, it is denying our human rights!

Actually, the question has never been gay marriage. Gays can informally marry anyone they so choose. Instead, the issue is social affirmation, its promotion within all levels of society, and even the prohibition of anyone speaking against this behavior.

Before “coming out,” Portman sought the advice of someone who he could really trust - Dick Cheney, whose daughter is gay:

• Cheney's advice was simple: "Follow your heart."

It is easy to “follow your heart” if you’re taking the heat:

• In 2011, 100 University of Michigan law school graduates walked out of Portman's commencement address to protest his [then disapproval of] gay rights after circulating a petition trying to get him removed as the event's speaker.

We find that our heart is always relieved when we adopt the popular, militant position. But what about the mind? What about the statistics that reveal that gays experience heightened levels of disease, abbreviated lives, suicide, substance abuse and depression, even in countries where this lifestyle is thoroughly accepted?

When we put aside the mind, capitulation becomes easy, in fact, even heroic before the likes of CNN, the universities and the media. Who wouldn’t want to go with the heart? The person with convictions!