Showing posts with label Inclusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inclusion. Show all posts

Friday, January 11, 2013

Segregation: Its New Incarnation




Segregation can take many forms. Today, a new party is being prohibited from drinking from the public fountain

  • Rev. Louie Giglio, the pro-family pastor picked by President Obama to deliver the benediction at his Jan. 21st inauguration, has backed out after a pressure campaign by homosexual activists. (LifeSiteNews.com, Jan. 10, 2013)
  • Obama’s choice of Giglio on Tuesday quickly came under attack by activists who highlighted a sermon the pastor delivered in the 1990s offering a “Christian response to homosexuality.”
  • In the sermon, the pastor expressed Christian teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that it is possible to leave the homosexual lifestyle “through the healing power of Jesus.” He said Christians must “lovingly but firmly respond” to an “aggressive agenda” by some in the homosexual community.
The Presidential Inauguration Committee would not stand behind their choice of Giglio. The Committee could easily have said, “We can’t expect our speakers to agree with us in every way. We can’t demand perfect conformity to our party stance.” However, they claimed ignorance:

  • They were unaware of the sermon when they selected Giglio. They said he was chosen for his work in combatting human trafficking.
Bad Giglio! He uttered verboten words and was removed from the public fountain, no longer allowed a seat at the table. Sadly, the administration is fully supportive of this new form of segregation:

  • “As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans,” said spokesperson Addie Whisenant.
Segregation is now being justified by “this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance.” How ironic! “Inclusion and acceptance” has sent Giglio to the back of the bus! How can Whisenant talk of “inclusion and acceptance” in light of Giglio’s rejection and segregation?

Of course, the Left justifies this hypocrisy by claiming:

  • We are intolerant of everyone except the intolerant. We will tolerate everything except intolerance.
However, this justification is barely coherent. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things and people that all of us will not tolerate, and some for good reason. We still do not tolerate pedophiles teaching children. Nor do we tolerate bigamists, necrophiles or bestophiles. Nor will we include unrepentant muggers or domestic violence perpetrators on our political podium.

For each of us, there is a limit to tolerance. However, Giglio drew his line in the wrong place – in a place mandated by the Bible - and now he finds himself in the back of the bus.

Is the administration really serious about their standard of “inclusion and acceptance?” Hardly! There is little doubt that they will include a Muslim Imam on their podium. However, their holy writings are intolerant of Jews and Blacks (including gays). About the Jews, the Koran teaches:
      
  •   “Jews are those who were cursed and transformed into apes and swine…” (Sura 2:65, 5:60, 7:166).
  •     “Jews are the worst of Allah’s creation…” (Sura 8:55-56, 98:6)
Blacks fare little better. The Hadiths, the saying of Muhammad read:
  •   “Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.” (Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 21, p. 21
  •  "Abu Darda reported that the Holy Prophet said: Allah created Adam when he created him (sic). Then He stroke (sic) his right shoulder and took out a white race as if they were seeds, and He stroke (sic) his left shoulder and took out a black race as if they were coals. Then He said to those who were in his right side: Towards paradise and I don't care. He said to those who were on his left shoulder: Towards Hell and I don't care. – Ahmad." (Mishkat, Vol. 3, p. 117
  • Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.” (Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375)
However, the Left remains silent about these teachings and the blatant acts of anti-Semitism that are resulting from them. It seems that the Committee is applying its standard of “inclusion and acceptance” in a discriminatory manner. Some get a “pass,” while others are pushed to the back of the bus.

Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy understandably asked:

  • “Are all orthodox clergy now to be banished from civic life if they openly affirm their faith’s teachings about marriage and sexual ethics? Are only clergy from declining liberal denominations now acceptable according to hyper political correctness?
The answer is clearly “yes!” Tooley then asked:

  • Will the same standard also apply to Muslims and members of other faiths who don’t subscribe to the views of western secular elites?”
It seems that for now, they can still drink from the public fountain, as long as the secularists don’t feel threatened by them.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Universalism: Its Appeal and Its Error



 Universalism, the notion that we will all go to heaven, is re-entering the church with renewed vigor. Its proponents argue:

  1. We are all created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). God is love and would never subject any of His children to eternal punishment.
  1. The idea that some are “in” and some are “out” is pharisaic and detestable. Instead, Jesus received all who came to Him and denounced the holier-than-thou spirit of pharisaism.
  1. We are saved by grace. What right do we have to point the finger at others and exclude them from grace!
There are also the more secularized forms of these arguments:

  1. We are all part of the same human family. We therefore should all enjoy the same rights and benefits. Exclusivity has no place in a modern and enlightened society. Instead, we need to work for inclusion.
  1. It is sheer prejudice that claims that some humans are more deserving than others and therefore are entitled to more. This kind of prejudice should not be tolerated.
  1. If God is loving, He would find a way to include all His creation.
In light of these challenges, it is imperative that we re-examine Scripture and ask ourselves, “Who is God and what does He want – if anything - from us?”

A good place to start is with Jesus. Although He received all who came to Him, He had His requirements, which determined inclusion and exclusion. He taught more on eternal judgment – the ultimate in inclusion and exclusion - than anyone else. Here are a few of these references just from the Gospel of Matthew: Matthew 10:28; 13:12-15; 13:30; 13:38-42; 13:49-50; 15:13; 16:26; 18:7-9; 18:34-35; 21:41; 21:44; 22:13; 23:33; 24:50-51; 25:30; 25:32-33; 25:41; 25:46; 26:24.

In this regards, Jesus’ warnings are consistent with the rest of Scripture. They give us a picture of a God who hates sin and self-righteousness. Jeremiah, a Prophet of Israel, is reflective of the rest of Scripture. He highlights why God is angry at His people Israel, who had rejected their God:

  • They did not ask, 'Where is the Lord, who brought us up out of Egypt…I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce...The priests did not ask, 'Where is the Lord?'…The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols…see if there has ever been anything like this: Has a nation ever changed its gods?...But my people have exchanged their Glory for worthless idols…My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns [instead of the living waters], broken cisterns that cannot hold water. (Jeremiah 2:6-13)
God, and this includes Jesus, has always made distinctions regarding who is “in” and who is “out.” Clearly, those who reject Him are “out.” Although He pleads for their return, He will punish, but not proactively. Instead, He will allow Israel to be punished by their own choices. Eventually, after we continue to reject Him, He removes His protective hands from us, allowing us to freely pursue own desires (Romans 1:24, 26, 28):

  • “Your wickedness will punish you; your backsliding will rebuke you. Consider then and realize how evil and bitter it is for you when you forsake the Lord your God and have no awe of me." (Jeremiah 2:19)
Why does He want them to consider these things? So that they will turn away from their sins by acknowledging them – repent! But this is the very thing that Israel refuses to do. Instead, Israel erected cisterns of self-righteousness:

  • [Israel] you say, 'I am innocent; he is not angry with me.' But I will pass judgment on you because you say, 'I have not sinned.'” (Jeremiah 2:35)
Instead of sincerely acknowledging our sins, we justify them – an abomination in God’s sight (Luke 16:15). God never required His people to accomplish great feats of self-sacrifice to merit inclusion – just an acknowledgement of our sin before our Creator and Redeemer:

  • "Return, faithless Israel…I will frown on you no longer, for I am merciful…I will not be angry forever. Only acknowledge your guilt--you have rebelled against the Lord your God." (Jeremiah 3:12-13)
Clearly, God cares about sin. Sin separates us from God and creates exclusion. Yes, there is inclusion and exclusion, but this is easily remedied. However, the human race – even the priests and prophets - rejects God’s pleas and seeks to build their own cisterns. In fact, this is the message of all Scripture, leaving little room for universalism and a standard-less God.

However, we also need to face the secular challenge from those who have little respect for Scripture. So here are some considerations:

It’s therefore important that we take a close look at universalism and its implications:

  1. Universalism makes salvation into an “entitlement” program with all of the negative psychological baggage that goes along with it.
  1. Universalism makes life pointless. If everyone is saved at the end, there is nothing important to learn here – no reason to go to church or study the Bible.
  1. If our lives entail no eternal consequences, then life becomes pointless, apart from having a good time. It’s like a teacher giving all her students an “A+” regardless of their performance. This deprives us of the motivation to do right, especially when we see evil prospering.
  1. All the major religions recognize that there will be eternal consequences for our inhumanity, suggesting that God has written this truth into all our hearts (Romans 1:32).
  1. There is no adequate rationale for moral living or for seeking God without eternal consequences. It makes more sense to get whatever we can out of life if we’re all going to the same eternal home (1 Cor. 15:19). Studies even reveal that those who believe in these consequences are more apt to act in moral ways.
  1. If God is so benign and doesn’t want to see any suffer eternally, why doesn’t He model life on earth in accordance with His final heavenly plan? Why the discontinuity? If any form of eternal punishment is disagreeable to Him, why not also in the temporal world? If God has rejected the idea of eternal judgment, why has He not also ruled against the occurrence of disease, warfare, and tsunamis? Instead, continuity would suggest that we will also have to endure consequences in the next life.
  1. A universalistic God has little interest in justice and victimization if He refuses to do anything about them. Such a God would be an offense to our own sense of justice. This would undermine all of our pursuit after justice. Chaos would necessarily result.
  1. Universalism communicates the wrong message—our behavior doesn’t matter and God doesn’t care. Why then should we? Life would become brutal and unlivable if we tried to model ourselves after such a God.
  1. If we are created in the image of God and therefore have a powerful sense of justice and retribution, shouldn’t we also expect that God would have the same mind-set? If God lacked such punitive concerns, then our preoccupation with law and punitive sanctions would be something displeasing to God. Therefore, if we truly believe in a universalistic God, we should try to model our society after Him and rid ourselves of courts, prisons, fines, and even failing grades.
  1. We need suffering and consequences to become the compassionate, humble, and understanding people God wants us to be. Evidently, consequences for sin are not alien to God’s plan.
  1. Knowing that God will eventually right the wrongs that are done gives us the emotional freedom to love others by committing our concerns and longings for ultimate justice to God. Without experiencing radical victimization, we Westerners have become quite comfortable and fail to appreciate the fact that the imposition of justice brings psychological closure, which enables us to move on.
  1. A God concerned about eternal consequences proclaims that somehow, justice and mercy must coexist. Take a good look at universalism. It provides the affluent, self-indulgent, myopic West with the ultimate in designer gods, one who would tell us, “Live as you like. Far be it from me to interfere with your fulfillment and pleasures. It’ll all be wonderful in the end, however you live.” This fabrication dumps justice in favor of our immediate comforts. How convenient!
We need to ask ourselves, “Why is universalism so appealing?” Is it because it is rational or even pragmatic or is it because it supports our cultural direction and lifestyle choices?