We live in one world and, according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, every world citizen is my neighbour. That means I am to be concerned about every one. Not only concerned, but to love them and to want the very best for them. So, in this blog, I write about neighbours and social issues, often by bringing in someone else's writing and then commenting on it from my Christian point of few.
I do not know much about Madeleine L'Engle, but I do know whose "First Coming" she's talking about in her poem. I'll give you a chance to beat me to it. Say it!........ Yes, you're right: Jesus's. I found this poem in a church bulletin last night. I immediately changed my plan for this post and decided to let you in on Madeleine's poetic musing. A fine one it is. Simple, eloquent, true.
Here it is. Make this pre-Christmas day of Friday worthwhile by doing your own musing on Jesus' birth--the Incarnation, as we call it in proper theological term. The core of that word is the Latin "Carnus" or some such form, which means "flesh" or "meat. You come across it in words like "carnal" and "carnivore." So guess what "incarnation" refers to--Jesus coming into our flesh and blood, taking on our body. But let me not digress....
First Coming
He did not wait till the world was ready,
till men and nations were at peace.
He came when the heavens were unsteady
and prisoners cried out for release.
He did not wait for the perfect time.
He came when the need was deep and great.
He died with sinners in all their grime,
turned water into wine.
He did not wait till hearts were pure.
In joy He came to a tarnished world of sin and doubt.
To a world like ours, of anguished shame
He came, and His Light would not go out.
He came to a world which did not mesh,
to heal its tangles, shield its scorn
In the mystery of the Word made Flesh
The Maker of the stars was born.
We cannot wait till the world is sane
To raise our songs with joyful voice,
For to share our grief, to touch our pain,
He came with Love: Rejoice! Rejoice!
As far as I can recall, I have never heard of Regis Nicoll until ten minutes ago, when a friend forwarded an article written by him. Apparently, Nicoll is no slouch, judging from his association with the late Charles Colson and his BreakPoint column. Oh, oh. My title is about whether or not to judge and here I go, before I even open up the subject, making a judgment about some someone on basis of his friends. Well, it is often said that you can judge a person by her friends and, I guess, that's what I am doing right now. But I'll stick to it, since it is a positive judgement this time.
When you take Biblical passages about judging out of their context and just place them side by side, you could conclude that the Bible contradicts itself. Sometimes it tells you not to judge; at other times it tells you to do so. It's a matter of context. It all depends on the issue under discussion. Each issue requires a different response: some need judging; others need restraint in this respect.
Well, herewith Nicoll's article taken from Crisis Magazine of June 15, 2017. Enjoy the read and weigh the matter carefully. It surely is relevant to our lives, both individual as well as social.
It took but a few decades for the law written on the human heart, engraved on stone, and honored for millennia to be largely lost on the collective conscience. Today, instead of the Ten Commandments, there is one: “Thou shalt not judge.”
Oddly, in a time when the concept of “sin” has also lost its purchase, a person called out for judging will become a social outcast until his “guilt” is purged by the penances of public apology, diversity/sensitivity training, and reparation to the offended. Even among Christians, judging the behaviors and lifestyles of others is considered unseemly at best and unchristian at worst.
Take singer Carrie Underwood. When she came out in support of same-sex “marriage” in 2012, she credited her faith for her position stating, “Above all, God wanted us to love others,” adding “It’s not up to me to judge anybody.”
A year later when Pope Francis fielded a question about a gay subculture in the clergy, his now famous response, stripped from its context, was taken by nice people of faith and social progressives as an imprimatur on non-judgmentalism.
Despite its ever-so humble patina, non-judgmentalism has deep logical, practical, moral, and theological problems.
First, if “it’s not up to me to judge,” that applies to the wrongness of actions as well as their rightness. For which ever way we judge is a de facto judgment on the opposing view. For example, when Carrie Underwood endorsed same-sex “marriage” it was her moral judgment on the social contrivance and its supporters, as well as a moral insinuation, if not judgment, about the criticisms and critics.
Second, non-judgmentalism is self-indicting. If judgment-making is wrong, so too is the judgment against judgment-making.
Third, fidelity to non-judgmentalism requires moral neutrality on all matters—an impossibility even for the entrenched non-judgmentalist. Regardless of his religious sympathies, he will consider things like cheating, rape, and exploitation as wrong and things like honesty, fairness, and charity as good.
Fourth, the person who refrains from judging truth from falsehood and good from evil quickly will find himself a victim of those adept at parading one for the other.
Lastly and most importantly for Christians, the “who-am-I-to-judge” ethic has no biblical warrant. Quite the opposite.
In his letter to the Colossians, St. Paul wanted his readers to make a moral distinction between the traditions of men and the teachings of Jesus so that they wouldn’t be taken “captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy.” Likewise, Jesus’ instruction in St. Matthew’s gospel about “fruit” inspection was to help his disciples from falling in with bad teachers and their sophistry.
Too often, socially nice Christians focus on what Jesus says a few verses up (“Do not judge, or you too will be judged”), isolate it from the rest of the chapter, and couple it with the second half of the Great Commandment, reasoning,
Since I would be offended if my neighbor pointed out my moral failings, I’ll not point out his. That way I love my neighbor as myself and relieve us both of any awkward moments.
A win-win with undeniable appeal, but in direct conflict with Jesus’s instruction, “If your brother sins, rebuke him.”
Contra “who-am-I-to-judge” morality, Jesus expects his people to make moral judgments, confronting others and invoking discipline when necessary. In fact, Paul had some sharp words for a congregation that failed to do just that.
The occasion was an instance of sexual immorality that went unaddressed within the Corinthian church. Scolding the assembly for its moral complacence, Paul ordered the expulsion of the offender “so that [his] sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” In the same spirit, Paul told the Galatian believers, “if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.”
According to Jesus and the early Church, judgment and discipline are duties that the Church exercises for the health of the Body and the restoration and spiritual well-being of its members.
Who-am-I-to-judge Christians will demur, referencing a Pharisaical sting operation that outed an adulteress. Although the encounter nearly led to her stoning, neither the morality of her deed nor the moral authority to judge it was at issue. The woman had sinned, plain and simple, a fact acknowledged by Jesus in his parting instruction, “leave your life of sin.”
Had the religious SWAT team done the same, this biblical vignette might never have been recorded. Instead, they condemned her to death, and Jesus called into question their license to do so.
Anyone can judge the morality of an act, knowing only the applicable standard. But condemnation requires not only knowledge of the standard and the transgression, but what was in the transgressor’s mind (what did they know about the standard) and heart (what was their intent), places that no one has access to but God.
Today a common ploy to silence Christian objections to homosexualism is to point out heterosexual sin in the camp, citing Matthew 7:3 (“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”).
Despite the stinging prose of the popular proof text, neither it nor the moral condition in the Church has any bearing on the morality of homosexualism and the novel institutions it promotes. What’s more, Jesus never said that one sinner shouldn’t judge the actions of another. Instead, in the context of Matthew chapter 7, Jesus teaches that we should be attentive to the “specks” in our eyes so that we can rightly discern the specks in others.
People who decline to do so—particularly, who-am-I-to-judge Christians—have much to answer for the moral pathologies of the church that they are quick to, uh, judge.
They are like the village physician whose patients are dying off because he doesn’t want to unsettle them with information about their life-threatening conditions. Or the best-friend-mom whose little angel has become a tyrant over momma’s fear that a “no” landing on the delicate ears of her budding prodigy would damage the sense of exceptionalness that she has worked so hard to nurture.
Love seeks the supreme good for others. Above all, love desires others to become the persons they were created to be: children of God, being transformed in the image of the Son, and enjoying unbroken fellowship with the Son and Father through the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Love means that I am my brother’s keeper, with the duty to observe, question, challenge, and, yes, judge his actions—not to condemn, but to guide, coach and encourage toward life abundant. To do otherwise is not love but indifference or cowardice.
Carrie Underwood was right. “Above all, God wanted us to love others.” However, we love others not by never having to say they’re sinning; but by helping them with their “specks” and allowing them to help us with ours.
Regis Nicoll is a Colson Center Fellow, a columnist for BreakPoint, and regular contributor to Touchstone and Salvo magazines. He also serves as the lay pastor of an Anglican church plant in Chattanooga. His new book is titled Why There Is a God: And Why It Matters.
Tim Farron, leader of Britain's Liberal Democrat Party, arrives at a polling station in Kendal, Britain, on June 8, 2017. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Andrew Yates
In general, I am no klutz. If I were I would not have a doctorate and would not have published as much as I have. However, when it comes to technical computer stuff, the description would not be far off.
I copied this article from the website Religious News Service and try as I may, I cannot adjust the formatting as it came to me. You may have noticed such irregularities before. I get easily stumped when it comes to this stuff. So, please take it as it comes and concentrate on the content rather than the format. I hope that is not asking too much.
I am treating you to an important British issue of religion in politics. Yes, it's a British report, not a Canadian one. However, the situation in Canada is not much different. If you read up on Liberal theory in Canada and practice, you will find parallel, if not similar situations in our own country. The thing is, it does not appear often in our secular media and so you're not aware of it. For this reason, I do draw your attention to it occasionally--like today--and this won't be the last.
LONDON (RNS) Concern is growing among British Christians about their place in the country’s public life after Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, resigned over his religious beliefs.
Farron, who led his party for two years, cited the difficulties he faced squaring his Christianity with his political leadership. In a statement Wednesday (June 14), Farron said: “I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader.”
“I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe in and whom my faith is in,” he added. “In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we are living in a tolerant liberal society.
Farron’s religious beliefs emerged as an issue early on in the recent British general election when he was challenged on his attitude toward same-sex marriage in a TV interview and was asked whether he thought homosexuality was a sin.
His first reply was to say that “to understand sexuality is to understand we are all sinners,” but it only spurred more criticism, despite Farron’s eventually saying he accepted same-sex marriage.
Farron led the Liberal Democrats in June 9’s election from nine seats to 12, although the party failed to capitalize on the anti-Brexit vote, despite being strongly in favor of the European Union.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats Party, Tim Farron, speaks at the launch of the party’s general election campaign in Kingston-Upon-Thames, Britain, on May 1, 2017. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Peter Nicholls
But his leadership was called into question after Lord Brian Paddick – the party’s home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords and a well-known gay activist – said he was quitting because of the leadership’s views during the election.
Party members are said to have then acted against Farron, indicating he had to go.
The Liberal Democrat Party is Britain’s third largest, formed in 1988. It is a centrist party, usually closer to the Conservatives on economics and veering more toward Labour on social policy.
Lord David Alton at a summit on how freedom of religion or belief can help prevent violent extremism. The event was held at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London on Oct. 19, 2016. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons/Foreign and Commonwealth Office
One of the notable Christian politicians in Britain, Lord David Alton, was among those who expressed dismay at Farron’s quitting.
“The old Liberal Party was a party of conscience and proud of its Christian foundations,” he said. “That Christian tradition was subsequently ridiculed by many Liberal Democrats, implacable in their hostility to faith schools and insistent on imposing policies, such as abortion, on their members. Inevitably, this has made it a hostile place for people of faith.”
The old Liberal Party and its successor, the Liberal Democrats, managed to accommodate people of differing views on personal moral matters for many years.
Others in politics were dismayed by what happened to Farron.
“His resignation reflects the fact that we live in a society that is still illiberal in many ways and is intolerant of political leaders having a faith,” said Sarah Latham, director of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum. “This urgently needs to change. It will change only if Christians step up and get involved in all areas of life and change the rhetoric.” On Twitter, Richard Chapman, adviser to the Church of England on Parliament and politics, said what had happened to Farron was “awful.”
“Mature liberal democracy shouldn’t be pushing religion from the public square,” he wrote. Paul Woolley, the deputy chief executive of the Bible Society, expressed fear that Britain’s liberal political culture isn’t liberal enough to include decent people such as Farron.
However, journalist Mary Kenny, who is a columnist for the Catholic Herald, argued that Farron’s problem was that he was not politically adept enough and that he should have made his point better by saying “what I believe is a matter of conscience but I respect the law.” In recent years, gay issues have become the most neuralgic matter in the crossover between faith and politics in the U.K.
In 2007 a dispute arose between the Catholic Church in England and Wales and the government over whether Catholic adoption agencies should be exempt from the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which allowed same-sex couples to adopt children.
The Catholic Church argued that the legislation contradicted the church’s moral values. The church was unsuccessful in fighting the matter through the courts, and the Catholic charities either closed or stopped working on adoptions.
More recently, politicians and commentators criticized Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed coalition partner, the Democratic Unionist Party, because of the DUP’s track record on opposing same-sex marriage.
The Conservative leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, who is gay and planning to marry her partner, demanded assurances from May that there would be no watering down of LGBT rights if the DUP deal went through.
It’s
theology time! The term “born again” has
a long history, something to be expected, since Jesus introduced it two
millennia ago. It has undergone a long process of definition and redefinition,
also something to be expected, since Jesus himself associates it with the
Spirit and His unpredictable directions.
The more “professional” theological
term is “regeneration,” which may be defined as “that divine act by which the
sinner is endowed with new spiritual life and by which that new life is first
called into action.” Or, more simply, “implanting of the new life in the
soul.” It brings about “a radical change
of the governing disposition of the soul, under the influence of the Holy
Spirit” (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 467-469).
My
favourite American theologian and late friend, Gordon Spykman, wrote that regeneration “refers to a profound change in
our condition, its fundamental redirection, the starting point of a renewed
life. It is born of the overpowering initiative of the sovereign grace of
God.” It is a “decisive turnaround” that
“is a result of the unfathomable work of the Holy Spirit.” That Spirit “makes us new creatures—our old
nature has been buried with Christ and we are now raised with Him to newness of
life. The life-renewing Spirit enlightens our blinded minds. He liberates our
enslaved wills.” Once this has happened,
“we can never be the same again.”
“Regeneration may be an undateable event. Its time and place may escape
us. Yet it marks the dawn of a new day. With it comes a new lease on life. Like
a seed sown in the ground, it may remain hidden for a while, but eventually it
germinates and bears fruit. Rebirth (Boer: a “delatinized” version of the word)
therefore is a total…renewal of the whole person,… the decisive change of the
direction….” (Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics, pp.
488-489).
The
question is: Why born again? What’s the reason? The answer is already embedded
in the previous paragraph. Did you
notice “our blinded minds” and “our enslaved wills?” Over against these stand “newness of life”
and enlightenment.
The
New Testament (NT) says:
As for you, you were
dead in your transgressions and sins,2 in which you used to
livewhen you followed
the ways of this world …
gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a]and following its desires and thoughts.
Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3).
When you
weredeadin yoursins andin the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you
alive with Christ. He forgave us all oursins (Colossians 2:13).
The above are only a few of the many verses in
the Bible that describe our desperate situation. We are dead in our “transgressions
and sins.” That’s a pretty ugly situation. That’s the short and long of it. It’s
something we don’t like to hear or consider.
But that’s not where it stops. That’s not the
last word and not even the most important word. Being born again means that,
according to the above verse, “God made us alive with Christ. He forgave us all
our sins.” It doesn’t get better than
that. There’s no better news than this.
That’s why we need to be reborn, regenerated. It enables us to live the
new life, the life that is guided by the standards of the Kingdom of God.
I am bold and grateful to say that I am born again. God has reworked me. Put a new life and mind
in me. The posts of this blog are kind of an illustration of such a person, along
with the mistaken thoughts that still occur, for we are still surrounded by
worldly standards that sometimes creep back into our minds.
I am very conscious of continued shortcomings,
but that does not depress me or make me sad. My main emotion or attitude is one
of joy and gratitude for forgiveness and the new life given me. Those are the
final words: forgiveness, and therefore joy and gratitude.
This is all very short about a profound reality.
If you wish to pursue it further, scour the internet for books on the subject.
There should be plenty. But let me tell you: Being born again is a great
experience that’s with you for ever. And
it has nothing to do with the scornful caricatures we come across in the media.
It has everything to do with seeing the world and your neighbor with new eyes
and new values.
In closing for the day, here’s a joyful and
grateful sound in the NT from one who experienced this rebirth—I Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ!In
His great mercy He has given us new birthinto a living hopethrough the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead.
That’s how the more formal New
International Version puts it. A more informal translation is that of Eugene
Peterson’s The Message:
What a God we have! And how fortunate we are to have Him…!
Because Jesus was raised from the dead, we’ve been given a brand-new life and
have everything to live for, including a future in heaven—and the future starts
right now.
And then he goes on:
I know how great this makes you feel,
even though you have to put up with every kind of aggravation in the meantime.
I’m tempted to keyboard the rest of
that joyful passage for you, but you can find it in any Bible. Go, read it, and
you’ll notice the joy and laughter this born again thing produces in its happy
recipients, the citizens of the Kingdom of God with its new ambitions, new values,
new hopes and new visions—a completely new and upbeat life for which people throughout the centuries literally give up their lives. Taste and see that the Lord is good!
You’ve come to expect a
mix of religious and so-called “secular” topics from me. I’ve explained the
reasons for that more than once. It is simply that they are not two separate
areas or regions so much as that religion underlies all subjects; it serves as
their substratum. They do not exist as
separate entities so much as the religious infusing and shaping everything
else.
And so, today we jump from the topic of water consumption to that of
being born again. The reason for my
concern for the economics and ecology of water consumption is precisely because
I am born again. Of course, reason, observation, experience, etc., all play
a part as well, but the direction in which they lead you is ultimately decided by your
value system, your worldview, your beliefs and, finally, your religion, i.e.,
your ultimates. If you are truly born again, then water issues must concern you, for they are so basic
to the life of your neighbor throughout the world.
Born again. In the minds
of the average writer in the Vancouver
Sun (VS) this is about the most vicious pejorative you can use to describe
Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, especially their American
versions. Once you have described
Evangelical or Fundamentalist action as the result of being born again, you no
longer have to take it seriously; it is guaranteed to be wrong, damaging,
anti-social, ridiculous even. Nothing further needs to be said.
But what is this thing
called “born again?” Let’s go back to the original reference to it
in the Bible:
Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
Now there was a
Pharisee, a man named Nicodemuswho was
a member of the Jewish ruling council.2 He came
to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi,we knowthat you are a teacher who has come from
God. For no one could perform the signsyou are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus
replied,“Very truly I tell you,
no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”
4 “How
can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot
enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus
answered,“Very
truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of
water and the Spirit.6 Flesh gives birth to
flesh, but the Spirit[b]gives birth to spirit.7 You
should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c]must be
born again.’8 The wind blows wherever
it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or
where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3).
It must be admitted that
Jesus’ explanation is not too clear to our modern way of thinking, but one
thing is clear: It is necessary if we wish to see the Kingdom of God. It is not just something nice, not just
icing on the cake of salvation; It is a necessary condition. Without it you cannot see the Kingdom of God;
without it, you cannot be a Christian.
That’s pretty drastic.
Since the early history
of Christian theology, scholars have widely discussed the meaning of being born
again. I hope to take you through some of that in the next post. However, it is no wonder that it is unpopular
with the secular crowd. The need for
it is the human condition, which, according to both the Bible and Christian theology,
is totally distorted. May I say the
word? Sinful! Stronger still, dead in sin! There, I’ve said it. Phew! Nowthat ain’t pretty and it’s not going to
raise my popularity with my favourite VS
writers, most of whom I appreciate and read regularly.
No wonder that proud
mankind is offended by this evaluation of human nature. And no wonder most folk try to evade its truth by poking fun of it and castigating it for its association in our minds with extreme fundies in the southern USA. In terms of the West,
it has been rejected in principle ever since the Renaissance centuries ago and
by the subsequent philosophical developments through rationalism, secularism
and post-modernism. It is offensive,
humiliating, demeaning. It is one of the reasons the dominant worldview in the
West rejects it outright and pokes fun of it.
