Dr. Mohler's BlogNovember 2008
Echoes of Old Heresies Still Among Us -- A Visit to Divinity Hall
The date was July 15, 1838, the place was the chapel of Divinity Hall at Harvard, and the speaker was Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson had been asked to deliver an address to the Senior Class of the Divinity College, and he accepted the challenge. Emerson was then a part-time Unitarian preacher, but his intellectual stature in the movement known as Transcendentalism attracted the attention of the students training for ministry. More to the point, Emerson had ignited an intellectual explosion the year before, when he was asked to deliver the annual lecture to the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard. That address, "The American Scholar," was widely understood to represent a declaration of independence for American intellectuals. No longer should American thinkers be slavishly dependent upon European patterns, Emerson declared. This was the time for the emergence of the American Scholar, a new and advanced form of the human thinker; a scholar who would "plant himself indomitably on his instincts" and refuse to be "timid, imitative, tame." A year later, Emerson rose to deliver his address to the Divinity School. Speaking to young men studying for the ministry, Emerson repudiated Christianity and called the young ministers to trust their own spiritual instincts and to free themselves from the Bible, from belief in a divine Christ, and from any remnant of orthodox Christianity. "Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion," he declared. "As it appears to us, and as it has appeared for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus." This singular focus on Christ has turned Christianity into an uninspiring religion, he argued. All the "official titles" ascribed to Jesus just serve to make him into a "demigod," Emerson insisted. Preaching that centers on Jesus Christ as the divine Savior is "vulgar," Emerson asserted. Miracles were eliminated as a possibility. Men and women do not come to be "converted," he insisted, by a "profanation of the soul" that centers on necessary beliefs. Instead, they should be converted "by the reception of beautiful sentiments." Emerson also attacked the ministers of his day by accusing them of preaching the Bible. So far as Emerson was concerned, the Bible was a dead and lifeless book in itself. Preaching from the Bible will not produce greatness, Emerson explained. To limit the voice of God to the Bible is to shut the voice of God up into a dead book. "Men have come to speak of the revelation as somewhat long ago given and done, as if God were dead. The injury to faith throttles the preacher; and the goodliest of institutions becomes an uncertain and inarticulate voice," he argued. In other words, the young ministers were challenged to give up preaching the Bible and instead to preach their own religious sentiments: "To this holy office you propose to devote yourselves. I wish you may feel your call in throbs of desire and hope. The office is the first in the world. It is of that reality that it cannot suffer the deduction of any falsehood. And it is my duty to say to you that the need was never greater of new revelation than now." Emerson's bold and confrontational call for "new" revelation was translated into his most memorable lines from this historic address -- "Yourself a newborn bard of the Holy Ghost, cast behind you all conformity, and acquaint men at first hand with Deity." In other words, he commanded the young ministers to abandon the Scriptures and to trust their own instincts, religious sentiments, and intuitions as all the divine revelation they will need. "Preaching," he explained, is nothing more than "the expression of the moral sentiment in application to the duties of life." With his address, Emerson ignited a firestorm. He had boldly and thoroughly repudiated biblical Christianity. His proposal was to replace the Christian faith with a religion of individualistic sentimentality, iced with a coating of moralism. Nevertheless, even as Emerson ignited a firestorm, the Harvard faculty were themselves mostly Unitarian in outlook. Theological liberalism had already become a fixture by the 1830s. The professors scandalized by Emerson's address might protest his candor, but they had little theological ammunition with which to refute him. Ralph Waldo Emerson's 1838 "Divinity School Address" was a call to radical theological revisionism, and thousands of ministers have answered his call. It is no accident that evangelical Christianity was so soon set on its heels in Emerson's New England. Standing in the chapel in Divinity Hall last evening, I was struck by how contemporary Emerson's argument sounds. The call he issued 170 years ago is the very message we now hear from others -- Christianity must change or die. We cannot simply preach a book that is two thousand years old. God still speaks, and a slavish dependence on the Bible is both offensive and ineffectual. Doctrines must go -- intuition and sentiment will be enough. The issues and arguments are the same. Nevertheless, we have all the evidence we need to show us where Emerson's argument leads. It leads to the death of churches, denominations, institutions, and ministries. It leaves sinners dead in their sins and robs them of hearing the Gospel. The church has never needed "newborn bards of the Holy Ghost." Instead, the need of the church is for preachers who are skilled in the art of preaching the Word of God -- rightly dividing the Word of Truth, while holding without apology to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. I am glad I visited that historic room in Divinity Hall last night. It served to remind me of what is at stake in our generation -- and for eternity. There are no new heresies, only echoes of the old ones. And yet, the old ones come back again and again. 
The Empty Promise of Meditation
Now, the Gannett News Service offers a report on the issue:
Like many churchgoers in the Bible Belt, Kristy Robinson teaches Sunday school with her husband and helps prepare communion at their Episcopal church in Franklin, Tenn. She rounds out her church- and prayer-filled life with another spiritual practice that's not quite as familiar: meditation. "I'll see a difference in my day if I don't," says Robinson, who opens each day with 20 minutes of absolute silence. The Bible does speak positively about meditation. In the Psalms, David sings of meditating on the Law of God day and night. The biblical concept of meditation is not without reference to thought and content. To the contrary, it is about thinking that is directed by the Word of God -- scripturally saturated thought. This is almost the exact opposite of Eastern meditation, which sets the emptying of the mind as its goal. The Eastern concept of emptying the mind is just not anything close to the biblical vision of filling the mind with the Word of God. More from the article: "All the chanting and incense and — yikes — even meditation altars may seem too New Age and mystical for some, but meditation has gone mainstream and been embraced by suburban moms and busy people. Younger generations get an introduction in yoga classes, careerists escape on meditation retreats and boomers seek tranquility in meditation gardens. Meditation, it seems, is no longer associated as a counterculture activity made hip by The Beatles and favored by flower children. Some approach meditation through Buddhism or other Eastern religions; more and more Christians meditate through the ancient ritual of centering prayer; while others develop their own style, whether it's patterned after the breathing techniques of popular guru Deepak Chopra or not. Most sit still, usually focusing on a mantra or on their breathing, but you can even clear your mind while walking around, tending a garden or through movement-based activities, such as tai chi." The biblical concept of meditation on the Word of God does involve an emptying, of course. We must empty our minds of ungodly and unbiblical thoughts, of desires for sin and resistance to the reign of God in our lives. But that emptying never involves an empty mind. Instead, it involves a mind in which unbiblical thoughts are replaced by the truth of Scripture -- not a blank slate of meditation that revolves around the self. In Psalm 119, David writes, "Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me." [Psalm 119:97] David's meditation did not revolve around David, nor did it involve David trying to empty his mind into silence. He desperately wanted to hear from God, and he knew he would hear directly from God in the law. He studied the Scriptures in order to cleanse his mind of wrong thoughts and have them replaced with right thoughts and patterns of thinking. The article included a good assessment from Professor Don Whitney of Southern Seminary: "The idea of emptying the mind is not biblically based," says Don Whitney, associate professor of biblical spirituality at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. "There can be a danger." Referring to meditation's long association with Hinduism, Buddhism and other Eastern religions, Whitney says, "Some of the yoga stuff, where you're given a mantra, that is rooted in false religions." He sees no problem with stretching, but once you start chanting, you're treading on treacherous ground, he says. His beef is that some people are seeking tools to help them live and de-stress. "That's very selfish," he says. "Our lives should be lived to the glory of God." This is a really helpful analysis of the issue. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be rid of stress that is rooted in worldliness and the cares of this world. But getting rid of this worry is not a matter of self-therapy, but of having our minds reordered by the Word of God -- reordered by the Creator. We live in a world so shaped by therapeutic concerns that most people never stop to wonder if God is dealing with them in their stress, their distress, their haunting thoughts, their cluttered minds. An attempt to empty the mind might well be an effort to listen to the self when we should seek to hear from God. Beyond this, we should question the entire idea that the mind can ever be empty. Instead, it is far more likely that when we attempt to "empty" the mind in this way, we are just closing ourselves to anything but the concerns of the sovereign self. For Christians, this kind of meditation is a danger, not a means to spiritual growth. Should we meditate? Without question, we should meditate upon the Word of God. This should be a part of our regular and constant spiritual discipline. But, this kind of meditation does not lead to an empty mind, nor to the sense of an empty mind, but to a mind constantly more directed by Scripture. Any other form of meditation is a dangerous distraction and an empty promise.
They Like Themselves
Researchers Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell are worried that these young people are showing signs of excessive self-esteem, which may set them up for disappointments later in life. As USA Today reports: Compared with the Baby Boomers who were seniors in 1975, 12th-graders surveyed in 2006 were much more confident they'd be "very good" employees, mates and parents, and they were more self-satisfied overall, say Twenge and co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia. Between half and two-thirds of the Gen Y teens gave themselves top ratings, compared with less than half in their parents' generation. The report is in 'Psychological Science.' Boomer parents "are more likely than their parents were to praise children — and maybe over praise them," Twenge says. This can foster great expectations or perhaps even smugness about one's chances of reaching "the stars" at work and in family life, she adds. "Their narcissism could be a recipe for depression later when things don't work out as well as they expected." All this reminds me of Garrison Keillor's fictional community of Lake Woebegon, where all of the kids are "above average." That simply isn't possible, but there is good reason to believe that many current parenting strategies imply that it is. In recent years, some observers have warned that children are not well served when parents lavish them with inordinate praise or with unrealistic assessments. The culture of earned recognition has given way to sports teams that award a trophy to every player and to contests in which every participant wins. As they grow older, some children turn cynical about all this. They just begin to discount what their parents, educators, or other authorities tell them. Eventually, reality intrudes in the form of college admissions, athletic scholarships, or other dimensions of merited recognition. It may be that every player on the 8th grade team gets the same trophy, regardless of performance on the field. All that changes when it comes time for college athletic scholarships, however. Those are not passed out without regard for performance. Other children bask in the glory of unmerited praise. Educators talk of children who insist that they should receive an "A" on a paper or test because "I am an 'A' person." Some children reach young adulthood with no real help from parents in understanding their place in the world -- or about what it might take for them to get where they want to go. Roy Baumeister of Florida State University states his concern memorably: "Many people who grew up in the '50s say, 'Nothing I did was ever good enough for my parents.' Now we're seeing the pendulum swing, and you hear from coaches and teachers who have been at it a while that kids have become more fragile. They don't take criticism well," he says. "Thinking you're God's gift to the world is nice for you. It's a little harder for everyone else around you." Every child is special. And we certainly hope that these children exceed all expectations about their future excellence in all areas of life. Nevertheless, a little reality might help, and some honesty as well. When secular observers express this kind of concern, Christian parents should take particular notice. We should encourage our children to excellence in all things -- not so much for their self-esteem but for the glory of God. And, we must be honest with them about what this excellence would mean and what this standard will require. That kind of reality therapy will be as good for the parents as for the children. As the Apostle Paul reminds us: For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. [Romans 12:3]
Atheists Attempt Public Relations
As Tom Krattenmaker reports in USA Today, "Being an atheist is not easy in this age of great public religiosity in America. Not when the overwhelming majority of Americans profess some form of belief in God. Not when many believers equate non-belief with immorality." Furthermore, many atheists recognize that well known atheist celebrities such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have shown an abrasive and belligerent face of atheism to the public. Add to that Bill Maher's film "Religulous" and the lingering memory of militant atheists of the last century such as Madalyn Murray O'Hair. They do have a problem. Some also have a strategy, as Krattenmaker explains: But if Margaret Downey keeps making progress with her campaign to show a different face of atheism, it's possible to imagine the day when avowing one's non-belief will not be political suicide. (It seems to be just that today, given that only one member of Congress, Rep. Pete Stark of California, has revealed that he does not believe in a deity; in view of polling data suggesting that some 5% to 15% of Americans are atheists and agnostics, it seems certain there are at least a few more non-believing senators and representatives in the halls — and closets — of Congress.) Downey, having recently finished a stint as president of the Atheist Alliance International, is now organizing a non-believers' unity convention to take place in 2011. She is the poster person for positive atheism, a term she uses for a new face of atheism that emphasizes the good things in which non-believers do believe. In other words, Downey wants atheists to be known more for what they do believe rather than for what they deny. It's going to be a tough sell. Krattenmaker nevertheless reports that there is a spirit of "positive atheism" among many atheist groups now. In his words: The spirit of positive atheism infused this fall's convention of the Atheist Alliance, which comprises nearly 60 U.S. atheist groups with combined membership of about 5,000. Attendees gave blood and had their hair shorn for use in cancer patients' wigs. At last year's convention, Downey presided over a baby-naming ceremony, where parents and their supporters exalted wisdom, love, honesty and the beauty of nature, and the newborns were given not godparents, but "guideparents." All this makes for interesting reading and media attention, but it's hard to see that the average American will see this new approach as reassuring. The fact remains that atheism, by definition, is a worldview based on the denial of God's existence. Atheists may attempt to create rituals, ceremonies, and practices that mimic Christian traditions, but this serves only to point to the infinite emptiness at the heart of the atheist worldview. I think I can understand why atheists are concerned about public relations. A kinder, gentler atheism might sell better in the public square. But it remains what it is -- a worldview that denies the existence of a divine Creator, Redeemer, or Judge. As Tom Krattenmaker acknowledges, one key sticking point is the fact that a recent poll indicated that most Americans believe that an atheist should not serve as President of the United States. Now, there is no legal or constitutional barrier to an atheist serving as President. The problem for an atheist candidate is the reluctance of the electorate. It seems that a majority of Americans believes that belief in God -- a divine Creator, Redeemer, and Judge -- is an important qualification for leadership. No public relations strategy is going to overcome that.
Defender of Faith? Throne Language for the Postmodern Prince
Even so, the Prince has been working on changes he proposes to the 1953 Royal Titles Act. The most significant proposal is this -- Prince Charles, if crowned as King, wants to be known as "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith." This represents a seismic shift, but it perfectly fits the postmodern Prince. As The Telegraph [London] reported: The Prince caused controversy within the Anglican church when he floated the idea several years ago of becoming Defender of the Faiths in an attempt to embrace the other religions in Britain. In a compromise he has now opted for Defender of Faith which he hopes will unite the different strands of society, and their beliefs, at his Coronation. The original title, Defender of the Faith, was granted to King Henry VIII in 1521. Pope Leo X was impressed by King Henry's defense of the Catholic faith against the Lutheran threat, granting him the title as a reward. King Henry had written The Defense of the Seven Sacraments as an indictment of Martin Luther and his theology. But, of course, a later pope would have a very different view of Henry VIII after the king broke with Rome and established the Church of England with himself as its supreme head. Henry VIII and future monarchs would retain the title, "Defender of the Faith," as a seal of their primacy within the Anglican church. But, of course, this means defending a very specific form of a very specific faith -- the Christian faith. Pope Leo did not designate Henry VIII as the defender of religion, nor of faith in general (impossible conceptions in the sixteenth century) but as Defender of the Faith. Prince Charles is, even by the standards of British royalty, something of an odd duck. When his engagement to Lady Diana Spencer was announced in 1981, the Prince was asked if he was in love with Diana. Yes, he answered, "whatever that means." It was not a good sign that Prince Charles evidently did not know what falling in love means. Now, he desires to be known, as king, as Defender of Faith. Faith, in other words, "whatever that means." Some years ago, Prince Charles began to display patterns of thought that are distinctly New Age. He is known to be influenced by the writings and personal influence of the late Laurens van der Post, a major New Age thinker. When the Prince of Wales speaks on issues of public importance, he often sounds like a New Age intellectual. In other words, he is often virtually impossible to understand. The issue of the investiture and coronation language is very easy to understand, however. A future King Charles does not want to defend the Christian faith, but all faiths -- even faith itself. As The Telegraph reported, A Clarence House spokesman said: "There has been work done on the accession planning as you would expect however there has been no planning of the Coronation or its contents." The Prince has been advised on the accession by Sir Stephen Lamport, his former Private Secretary, who was a senior civil servant. Vernon Bogdanor, the constitutionalist who is Professor of Government at Oxford University, said: "In 1952, when the Queen came to the throne, it was very much an Anglican society. The Prince of Wales will become head of a nation which is multi-denominational. "The Prince has said that he wants to be seen as a defender of all religious faiths and not just the Anglican church but the Coronation is an Anglican ceremony. Any change would require legislation." Prince Charles originally wanted to be known as "Defender of Faiths," but will now settle for "Defender of Faith," according to sources close to the Prince. Just a few years ago, Prince Charles commented: All the great prophets, all the great thinkers, all those who have achieved an awareness of the aspects of life which lie beneath the surface, all have showed the same understanding of the universe or the nature of God or the purpose of our existence--and that is why I think it is so important to understand the common threads which link us in one great and important tapestry. Anyone who looks closely at this statement will recognize immediately that it is false. The various religions of the world are not talking about the same divine reality, nor revealing "the same understanding of the universe or the nature of God or the purpose of our existence." To the contrary, there is no generic "faith" in any meaningful sense of the word. This news out of Great Britain tells us a great deal about the future of the House of Windsor and, in its own way, about the future of the British people. The public decline of the Church of England is nothing less than tragic, but grave theological compromises preceded its statistical free fall. Nevertheless, far beyond the green and pleasant land of Britain, this news also tells us a great deal about how so many people understand faith. They see it as a substance or stance without any necessary object or referent. In this view, it all comes down to mere faith, and faith in faith -- and faith in any faith. Christianity makes a claim to being the faith, indeed the faith "once for all delivered to the saints" [Jude 3]. That is the faith that deserves our defense, for it is faith in Christ, and in Christ alone, that saves. _________________________ Photo credit, HRH The Prince of Wales, photographed by Hugo Burnand, courtesy of www.royal.gov.uk.
The Aftermath -- Two Media Angles
Michael Lindenberger of TIME wanted to talk about what the election meant for the issue of same-sex marriage. His questions came right after proponents of gay marriage, stung by their defeat on California's Proposition 8 vote, appealed to the court to overturn the amendment. He reported: The request is directed at the same court that in May issued one of the most sweeping declarations of fundamental gay rights in U.S. legal history, making same-sex marriage legal by a 4-3 vote. The Republican-dominated court could decide by the end of this week whether to rule on the request for a stay or send it to a lower court first. But whatever the merits of the legal challenge, the court will face enormous pressure as it deliberates. "If the California Supreme Court were to issue a ruling that would invalidate the will of the people, the consequences for the court would be momentous," the Rev. Albert Mohler told TIME over the weekend. Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and one of the nation's leading Evangelical voices, called such a "usurpation" hard to fathom. Imagine, he said, how much more controversial Roe v. Wade would be now had the court issued the decision after more than half the states had held statewide elections on the issue. "Tuesday's rulings have made it much more costly for any court to reach a conclusion in favor of gay marriage," he said. I stand by that statement. The California Supreme Court is expected to respond to the question within the week, and that will tell us a great deal about where this issue now goes in California. In a fascinating twist, Lindenberger reports that some gay rights activists now want the issue to be dropped in favor of other priorities. He reported on a phone call that included more than 100 activists and legal scholars who support same-sex marriage. "The mood was dour," he revealed. But this is the really interesting part of this section of his article: Longtime gay rights advocate Dean Trantalis of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and others on the conference call expressed concern that the gay rights movement had become too focused on marriage, and is now paying the price in other more critical areas. "Marriage was never our issue," Trantalis said. "It was thrust upon us by the other side, and they've done a very good job of beating us up over it. What is Dean Trantalis saying here? Is he saying that opponents of same-sex marriage "thrust" the issue upon gay rights activists? The "other side" forced the issue? I have no idea what he could be talking about here. Defenders of natural marriage did not force this issue upon anyone. I do understand what he means when he says that "the gay rights movement had become too focused on marriage." It was this movement that made marriage the flash point, hoping that acceptance of same-sex marriage would break down remaining barriers to the full normalization of homosexuality within the society.
Not only was a pro-abortion candidate elected President, but all three state ballot questions related to abortion were shot down. Ms. Simon describes the divide now evident between those in the movement who still intend to work for the outlawing of abortion and those who now call for a softer approach, hoping to reduce the number of abortions through social programs and counseling. As she reported my comments: "It could be we're at a tipping point in this culture," said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "Ignoring the obvious will not help." Count me among those who believe that we cannot now step back and negotiate how many abortions we are willing to settle for in order for this issue to just go away. I reject the argument put forth by those who say we should now just step back and accept legal abortion on demand as a permanent reality and move on. My friend Mark Dever put that argument in its place in his comments included in the article: "It's like saying, 'Let's work to make sure they kill fewer Jews in the concentration camps this year,"' said the Rev. Mark Dever, a pastor in Washington D.C. Who could live with that? We should rejoice when any mother chooses to keep her child, but this is not where we can stop. Fewer abortions is not good enough. These articles indicate something of the soul-searching that has begun among those on all sides of these contentious issues. This is no time to take a sabbatical from attention to these crucial questions.
Is it Legitimate to Question God?
Of all possible tragedies, the death of a child is singularly horrific. The caller did not relate details of this tragedy, but we all heard enough to feel the unspeakable grief experienced by this young Christian couple. Do they have a right to question God? It seems to me that the answer is both yes and no. Beginning with the biblical affirmation that God is omnipotent and omniscient, sovereign and ever-reigning, we start with the understanding that whatever comes to pass does so by the express command, ordination, or permission of the Father. Thus, the Creator is at all times responsible for his creation -- and for his creatures. So, is it legitimate to question God? Perhaps we should consider how God has revealed himself to us as Father. Considering a human father for a moment, we can recognize two different ways of questioning his ways. The first way would be to rest secure in his love and fatherly care, but to express confusion over his ways. Even the most faithful and trusting children wonder about their parents at times. What are they up to? Why did they make that decision rather than the other? What was the purpose of that action? As close as children are to parents, parents often perplex children by acting like adults. In this mode of questioning, the child never questions the father's love and faithful disposition, but does admit confusion -- and perhaps even disappointment. The other way of questioning a human father is to question his character, his faithfulness, or the authenticity of his love. This is an altogether different mode of questioning. In this second pattern of questioning, the child questions the father's heart, not merely his actions and ways. Now, move from considering these two different modes of questioning a human father to a parallel set of approaches to questioning our heavenly Father. It is not unfaithful to admit and to articulate a sense of perplexity and pain in observing the ways of God. There are times when we cannot offer an explanation of God's ways. At times, we cannot even detect any possibility of a purpose. We can admit this to ourselves, to our brothers and sisters in Christ, and to our heavenly Father. The other mode of questioning God, on the other hand, constitutes sin and implies unbelief. We cannot remain faithful and question God's own faithfulness. His love for those who are in Christ is beyond question. His character is a constant and his love never fails. He is not loving and gracious toward believers at one moment, only to turn into a malevolent deity the next. He never changes. In this light, it would be sin to question God in this second sense -- the sense in which we might question whether God really loves us, or if He is really faithful to his promises. This is not the questioning worthy of a believer, but of an unbeliever. In Numbers 23:19 we read: "God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has He spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" To question God's faithfulness is to assault his character. Finite human beings are incapable of understanding the wisdom of God, except when that wisdom is mediated to us through the miracle of revelation. We are not promised that all of our questions will be answered on earth. We are promised, however, that on the Day of the Lord every believer's eyes will be dry, and every tear will be wiped away. We will understand all things in a transformed light. We will know in a fully revealed sense what it means when we are promised that nothing can separate us from the love of God. On that day will not be God's interrogators or questioners, but worshipers who will see him face to face. Is it legitimate for a believer to question God? Yes and no. Even the Apostle Paul admitted to being perplexed [2 Corinthians 4:8], but by his own affirmation he was not crushed. We have no right to question the steadfast love of God for us, however, because this insinuates that God is either unable nor unwilling to keep his word. As the Bible reveals, He is neither unable or unwilling. He is ever faithful, even as his ways are "past finding out" [Romans 11:33]. One day, we will be beyond asking any questions about God's ways. Until then, it may help to remember that even the Apostle Paul was sometimes perplexed. Perplexed, that is, but not unfaithful.
The Challenge We Face
Without question, that is good news. The vote in California was especially significant, as Proposition 8 allowed the citizens of the nation's most populous state to take the issue back from the state's Supreme Court, which had arrogantly usurped the authority of the people in a 4/3 decision back in May. The 52-48 vote was a clear win for marriage, and a geographical vote distribution chart shows that same-sex marriage has support mainly in the Bay area of San Francisco and neighboring communities. The win in Florida was important because the measure needed 60 percent of the votes in order to pass. It received 62 percent of the votes cast. The Arizona vote was similarly significant -- in this case because that state had been the only state to date to have turned down a similar measure in a previous election. Nevertheless, legal challenges were quickly filed in California. The most threatening of these asks the California Supreme Court to rule the measure as unconstitutional because it "revises" rather than "amends" the state's constitution. The claim is specious, but so was the argument accepted by the court back in May. This much is clear -- any court that would overrule a mandate from the people in this manner will undermine its own legitimacy. In other developments, statements from two prominent politicians made news on the issue. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger encouraged same-sex marriage advocates to press ahead. He even expressed hope that the state's Supreme Court would overrule the voice of the people. "It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area." As The Los Angeles Times reported: Schwarzenegger publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." On Sunday, he urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. "I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done ." What makes this especially interesting is that Schwarzenegger had run for office opposing same-sex marriage. He is not now a candidate for re-election. As the paper observed, "With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor's thinking appears to have evolved on the issue." Meanwhile, Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi told The San Francisco Chronicle that voters just have misunderstood the measure. In a stunning demonstration of political condescension, Rep. Pelosi argued: "Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was . . . . I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state." If anything, the wording of the proposition, controversial in itself, makes the Speaker's point even more ludicrous. Is she seriously suggesting that the voters of her home state cannot be taken seriously when they defend marriage? It appears so. In yet other developments, protesters marched in front of the Mormon Temple on Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles and across the street from Saddleback Community Church. The Mormon church was the largest single financial contributor to the fight for Proposition 8, and major Evangelical churches were behind the effort as well, joined by many Roman Catholics. On the other hand, as reported in The Los Angeles Times: "We will continue to bless same-sex unions here until we can legally celebrate same-sex unions again," the Rev. Ed Bacon told 1,000 congregants during Sunday services at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, which has blessed same-sex unions for 16 years. After the service, Bacon and other clergy members held a news conference on the church steps. They were surrounded by gay and lesbian couples, some standing with young children. "I know these couples. I know their relationships," Bacon said, addressing a phalanx of television cameras. "They should be celebrated, rather than disparaged. . . . In the eyes of God, these people are married." This struggle isn't over -- not even close.
ABC News Segment on the Election
"How Not to Raise a Pagan"
America Has Chosen a President
The margin of victory for the Democratic ticket was clear. Americans voted in record numbers and with tangible enthusiasm. By the end of the day, it was clear that Barack Obama would be elected with a majority of the popular vote and a near landslide in the Electoral College. When President-Elect Obama greeted the throngs of his supporters in Chicago's Gra |
