Gleanings 8-22-15

Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth. Worship the LORD with gladness; come before him with joyful songs. Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us, and we are his ; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture. Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name. For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations.

Light is shed upon the righteous and joy on the upright in heart.

“Challenging times: perhaps we ought to return to the worship of God the Father Almighty, and stop chumming around with our sky buddy” --Doug Wilson

Lots of legal theorists think that the Constitution is a living document, which is elastic and stretchy, but only when you are stretching it to the left. But notice how nobody ever says that the majority opinions in pursuit of judicial activism are “living documents” also. --Doug Wilson

http://condor.cmich.edu/cdm/search/collection/isactyent/order/title/ad/asc
History of Mt Pleasant MI in newspapers

8-19-15 Gleanings

http://churchrelevance.com/resources/top-church-blogs/
Top 300 Christian Blogs

The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity. The seas have lifted up, O LORD, the seas have lifted up their voice; the seas have lifted up their pounding waves. Mightier than the thunder of the great waters, mightier than the breakers of the sea-- the LORD on high is mighty. Your statutes stand firm; holiness adorns your house for endless days, O LORD.

We restrain the exercise of our freedom for the sake of weak believers, but not when we are faced with Pharisees who demand that we conform to what is unscriptural. Where the gospel is at stake, liberty needs to be exercised; where the stability of a weak Christian is at stake, we need to restrain it. --John Calvin

Martin Luther “A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.”

The sanctuary of God is made from the hearts of God’s people, hearts lifted to give and to praise, hearts ascended to God.--Peter Leithart

Planned Parenthood doesn’t give away contraceptives; it sells them.  It doesn’t do cancer screenings.  And although it may be that  only 3% of its business comes from abortion, 90% of their profits do.  Also, fetal tissue research has NOT resulted in any medical breakthroughs.--Gene Veith

Why Gay Marriage Proponents Can’t Appeal to the Abolitionist Movement

--by Ben Reaoch

I remember listening to Tony Campolo speak in chapel when I was a student at Wheaton College. His passion inspired me. His compassion for the downtrodden motivated me. I revered him as a biblical and prophetic voice.

So when I saw earlier this summer he had endorsed gay marriage, I was saddened. The statement on his website is eye-opening and concerning. He concludes:

Obviously, people of good will can and do read the Scriptures very differently when it comes to controversial issues, and I am painfully aware that there are ways I could be wrong about this one. However, I am old enough to remember when we in the church made strong biblical cases for keeping women out of teaching roles in the church, and when divorced and remarried people often were excluded from fellowship altogether on the basis of Scripture. Not long before that, some Christians even made biblical cases supporting slavery. Many of those people were sincere believers, but most of us now agree that they were wrong. I am afraid we are making the same kind of mistake again, which is why I am speaking out. (emphasis added)

Matthew Vines, another proponent of gay marriage and author of God and the Gay Christian, writes, “In the 19th century, experience played a key role in compelling Christians to rethink another traditional—and supposedly biblical—belief. This time, the issue was slavery” (15). Vines claims that Christians have made pivotal decisions based on the principle of good fruit and bad fruit. For example, the early church decided to include Gentiles. Likewise, 19th-century Christian abolitionists “appealed to conscience based on the destructive consequences of slavery. A bad tree produces bad fruit” (15).

So, for Vines, the church was basically supportive of slavery throughout history until the 19th century, when “experience” brought about a reinterpretation of Scripture. But is this a fair historical account? Most importantly, does it do justice to the authority of Scripture?

Slavery’s Complex History

First, we must acknowledge that the story of slavery throughout the ages is complicated. Specifically, we must recognize key differences between slavery in New Testament times and slavery in America and elsewhere in more recent history. In his book Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ (IVP Academic, 2001), Murray Harris summarizes several key differences between Greco-Roman slavery and New World slavery:

In the first century, slaves were not distinguishable from free persons by race, by speech, or by clothing; they were sometimes more highly educated than their owners and held responsible professional positions; some persons sold themselves into slavery for economic or social advantage; they could reasonably hope to be emancipated after 10 or 20 years of service or by their 30s at the latest; they were not denied the right of public assembly and were not socially segregated (at least in the cities); they could accumulate savings to buy their freedom; their natural inferiority was not assumed. (44)

It’s imperative that we understand these differences as we assess how the church through the ages has interacted with slavery. This is not to imply that slavery in the first century was a pleasant thing. But the race-based, chattel slavery practiced in the United States is in a different category. There is no way to defend such an abomination from Scripture, and those who sought to do so revealed their deep-seated racism. 

While the Bible lacks a crystal-clear text condeming the institution of slavery, it does not commend slavery either. The features of slavery in the first century (for example, not race-based, the regularity with which slaves earned their freedom, and so on)—and also the critical role this particular form of slavery played in the economy—help us to understand why abolition was not on the apostles’ front burner.

Key Differences

The abolitionist position rightly sees in Scripture indicators pointing toward freedom. We can cite passages that seriously undermine the institution of slavery (for example, Exod. 21:16; 1 Cor. 7:21; 1 Tim. 1:10; Philemon). Even the passages some used to defend slavery were revolutionary in their original context, for they put master and slave on the same footing (for example, Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1).

Additionally, while slaves were instructed to obey their masters, the institution of slavery was never rooted in creation. It was understood to be a reality of contemporary life, not a creation ordinance from God. In contrast, one-man/one-woman marriage, gender roles, and the prohibition of homosexual acts are consistently rooted in creation (Rom. 1:24–27, where there are distinct echoes of the creation account; 1 Cor. 11:8–9; Eph. 5:31; 1 Tim. 2:13–14). 

Scripture doesn’t speak out explicitly against each and every sinful practice going on in the world. Some practices such as slavery are tolerated within the biblical narrative even while they far short of the God’s ideal. We could put polygamy in this category, too. That we come across many examples of polygamy in the Bible, even among individuals praiseworthy in other respects, does not endorse the practice. Similarly, the biblical passages addressing slavery shouldn’t be read as condoning slavery as an institution. In fact, as we observed, the instructions regarding slavery bring radical transformation to the master-slave relationship.

We may recognize one more key difference between the abolitionist arguments and the pro-gay marriage arguments. The abolitionists were going against the tide of culture, whereas gay-marriage proponents are jumping on board a cultural movement that is picking up speed by the minute. As Tim Keller observes:

During the Civil War, British Presbyterian biblical scholars told their southern American colleagues who supported slavery that they were reading the scriptural texts through cultural blinders. They wanted to find evidence for their views in the Bible and voila—they found it. If no Christian reading the Bible—across diverse cultures and times—ever previously discovered support for same-sex relationships in the Bible until today, it’s hard not to wonder if many now have new cultural spectacles on, having a strong predisposition to find in these texts evidence for the views they already hold.  

Experience Is Not Ultimate

We shouldn’t be surprised when Scripture challenges cultural trends, even when it challenges our strongly felt experiences. At these moments we must determine which authority holds final sway in our lives. Every generation of believers will face new challenges to biblical authority and new temptations to compromise the truth and manipulate God’s Word to condone sinful practices. Today that temptation is great, as it is proclaimed to us by respected professing evangelicals. 

But experience is not the final arbiter of truth. Scripture is. In these times of cultural upheaval, we must allow Scripture to interpret our experiences—not vice versa.

The damaging myth of “Relationship not Religion”

by Dr. Joel McDurmon

Religion vs. Relationship” is a false choice, and is always necessarily a false choice. By erecting this false dichotomy, people display that they understand neither what religion is nor what a relationship is. As a result, they denigrate both. Certainly, Christianity is a relationship with Christ. Of course it is! But there is no relationship with Christ outside of His covenant. And a covenant is by definition a relationship establishing certain bonds—that is, a religion. Christianity is a covenantal-judicial religion (using the true meaning of the word) just as much as it is a “relationship.” In fact, the two things are inseparable. You can’t have a true relationship without true religion, and you can’t have a true religion without this proper relationship. Our relationships are established by religion, and without such at the root, relationships are perverted. All that has been accomplished by the “relationship not religion” propaganda has been to remove the church further from its true nature as a covenantal-judicial community of believers. Those who so readily use the quip “not religion but relationship” understand neither. They do not understand what religion truly is, and therefore do not understand why Christianity—all of the Bible—is at its core religion. It is covenant, and covenant is religion. God’s covenant with the elect in Christ Jesus is the only true religion—but it is religion inescapably.

What is really happening today in most circumstances when people are taught and trained in the mantra “relationship not religion” is that they are being deceived with an emotional-type of faith in place of the full judicial-oriented faith that applies to every area of life. Those that really embrace the mantra and then begin to wear it as a badge of distinction, or even superiority, are practicing a very shallow form of self-righteousness. To the extent that they are bound by this belief and practice, they are not free from religion, but only bound to a false one.

read the rest:
http://americanvision.org/11256/damaging-myth-relationship-religion/

Defending Planned Parenthood: Do The Arguments Work?

by Michael Kruger

Much has been said about Planned Parenthood over the last few weeks due to the release of numerous behind-the-scenes videos.  These videos have revealed what Christians have know (and said) for years, namely that abortion is one of the most barbaric, callous, and tragic practices of the modern world.
Hidden behind sanitized words like “fetus” and “tissue donation” and “scientific research” is the unthinkable reality that Planned Parenthood “doctors” are chopping up living babies in order to sell their body parts on the open market.

So, what could possibly be said in defense of PP’s activities?  Incredibly, some people have tried to make a defense.  And what is fascinating is to observe how inadequate (or even irrelevant) such defenses turn out to be.  Let’s just examine a few of them:

1. Planned Parenthood does other good things.  This is an example of a “change the subject” defense.  In order to deflect attention away from the killing of babies, PP advocates point out how they also provide general healthcare like mammograms and STD testing.

However, there are numerous problems with this response. First, PP does not manage a single licensed mammogram facility in the United States. Not even one.  Their main industry is, and always has been, abortion.  Second, this defense is not actually a defense at all because it never addresses the main issue. The question is still on the table: does PP, in fact, kill babies and harvest their parts?  If so, then it doesn’t matter what other good things it might do.  Such things cannot overturn, nor should they cause us to ignore, the unthinkable practices they are engaged in.

2. The videos have been heavily edited.  This response is legion among PP supporters, with the help of a complicit media.  Of course, technically they are right.  Of course the videos are edited. They are too long to show all at once. But, that is true of any lengthy video clip that needs to be shown on TV or the internet.  The key issue is whether the video has been edited in such a way that it distorts the message.  Given that the full videos are available for anyone to watch, why doesn’t PP just show alternative clips that prove their side of the story?  Notice that they have not done this. And there is a reason for that.  It cannot be done.  Regardless of how many minutes you watch, the message is the same.

3. Planned Parenthood is not making any money.  This, again, is a “change the subject” defense, and it simply doesn’t work.  First, it is doubtful whether this claim is true.  In the most recent video, there is even haggling over prices (see here). But, even it the claim is true, it is entirely irrelevant.  Is murdering babies only a problem if someone makes money doing it?  If they murder babies and make no money, is it then alright?  The absolute absurdity of such an argument is its own refutation.

4. Fetal tissue is being used for important scientific research. The PP website even tries to pull on the heartstrings when they say, “The opportunity to donate fetal tissue has been a source of comfort for many women who have chosen to donate.”  But, what they don’t mention is that these so-called organ donors–the babies–are alive when the organs are harvested!  Its not the mothers who “donate” these body parts, its the babies themselves–at the cost of their own lives.  What if we went around killing 8-year-olds for body parts?  Would that be acceptable simply under the guise of scientific research? This defense is so bad, that it is tragic that so many people are falling for it.

These are just four examples, of the many flawed arguments used to defend PP. But, I want to point out something very important.  Notice what is not being offered as a defense.

Planned Parenthood never says anywhere that they are not actually cutting up babies and selling their parts.

Rather they are saying such actions are justified because we don’t make money doing it, or because it used for science, or because we do other things that are good.

Most people who are accused of murder say, “I didn’t do it.”  Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, simply says “We are doing it, but its not murder.”  Thus, they have never denied killing babies.  And that is a stunning silence that should not be missed.

This raises the question of how a country could get to the place where not only this is allowed, but is funded by federal tax dollars.

I am reminded of the way the world looked at the German people after the Holocaust had ended. The issue was not just how the Nazis could commit such unthinkable atrocities. The issue was how the entire German nation could stand by and watch it happen and do nothing.

Of course, there were some in Germany who fought against the Nazis. And there are some (thankfully) in America that fight against abortion. But, America, as a whole, is turning a blind eye.
Someday, I believe the abortion practice will eventually end.  And when it does, it is sad to think they will look back into these generations of our country and ask, How could the entire nation stand by and watch it happen and do nothing?

As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said,
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil:  God will not hold us guiltless.  Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

In Cold Blood

“Anyone who watches these videos knows that Planned Parenthood is engaged in barbaric practices and human rights abuses that must end. There is no reason for an organization that uses illegal abortion methods to sell baby parts and commit such atrocities against humanity to still receive over $500 million each year from taxpayers.”--David Daleiden

Consider the popular bumper sticker: “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!” Notice what’s going on here. The pro-life advocate makes a moral claim that he believes is objectively true—namely, that elective abortion is unjust killing. The abortion-choice advocate responds by changing that objective truth claim into one about likes and dislikes, as if the pro-lifer were talking about a mere preference. But this misses the point entirely. Pro-life advocates don’t oppose abortion because they find it distasteful; they oppose it because it violates rational moral principles. Imagine if I said, “Don’t like spousal abuse? Don’t beat your wife!”--Francis J. Beckwith

A Sermon For Five.... READ IT!

http://dougwils.com/s8-expository/a-sermon-for-five.html