Michael Tinney, a member of the 2013/2014 Roundtable in Ethics, explains the answer to the following question. Is the overthrow of an existing king, ruler, or government, if war or violence is necessary, ever biblically justifiable? (more…)
Archive for the ‘Culture/Politics/History’ Category
“Wall of separation” is the exact phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, whereas “separation church and state” is the popular phraseology. My use of these phrases in this article should not be construed in any way as an endorsement of either agreeing with them or using them. I actually argue for Christians to disabuse ourselves from using them as a gloss of the First Amendment. For when it is so used, it is at best a tawdry and misleading replacement of the amendment’s beautiful words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I use it only because the article necessitates that I do.
In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case (1947 – 330 U.S.1), the Supreme Court applied the establishment clause to the states. It also imbued this guarantee with a firm Separationist reading. Justice Hugo Black’s words for the Everson majority proved a prophetic distillation of the establishment cases for the next four decades: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another….In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and state.” (italics added) (more…)
If someone rejects the normalcy of homosexuality, he is summarily labeled as a homophobe. If a crime is committed against a homosexual, it is quickly attributed to homophobia. (more…)
Recently, Chris Haynes presented a very helpful paper in the Round Table in Ethics that dealt with infanticide and euthanasia. A clear understanding of the sanctity of life is something every Christian needs to know in order to strengthen his own faith and be equipped to help others see God in the world and society. Chris’s paper is a great resource to that end.
The mantra of our day is equal rights and free speech unless of course one is expressing biblical morality. Equal rights really are more equal for some than for others.
“[I]n 2002, police were called to a disturbance in Brighton, England, in which an elderly man had been assaulted, knocked to the ground, and pelted with soil and water. The police arrested the man, and he was eventually convicted of harassment. His crime? Displaying a placard that read, “Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism.” No action was taken against his assailants. His right to protection from physical assault was regarded by the authorities as less important than the right of homosexuals to protection from criticism.”
 Simon DeBruxelles, “Preacher Fined for Anti-Gay Sermon,” The Times, April 25, 2002, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-278222,00.html. Accessed at http://www.kairosjournal.org/document.aspx?DocumentID=6145&QuadrantID=4&CategoryID=6&TopicID=43&L=1 9-24-13
Homosexuals never tire of comparing themselves to blacks and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Is it analogous? Well no, but it is effective. If successful in convincing the public that the plight of blacks is now the plight of the homosexual, they gain all of the rhetorical power of the Civil Rights Movement.
It is absolutely disanalogous because: being black is not a behavior or choice, nor is it changeable, whereas homosexuality is both a behavior and changeable. Further, while it is not merely a choice, it does involve a choice. It should cause anger in blacks to see their struggle degraded by the homosexual community.
Additionally, the Bible never speaks negatively of being black and actually speaks as positively about being black as any other color, whereas the Bible is, without exception, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, unambiguously condemnatory of homosexuality.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Thomas Jefferson was generally supported by Baptists and anti-federalists, but disfavored by Congregationalists, federalists, and others who believed in a stronger relationship between church and state. Jefferson and the Baptists worked closely in Virginia to disestablish the Anglican church and establish religious freedom for dissenters. Baptists supported Jefferson’s bid for president because of his commitment to “the rights of conscience.” (italics added) Just for the record, I do not believe Jefferson evidences true Christianity, but of course Baptists did not see that as essential for public office. (more…)
On January 1, 1802, newly elected President Thomas Jefferson received an unusual gift of mammoth proportions. It was delivered to him by John Leland (1754-1841), a Baptist preacher. The piece of cheese was more than four feet in diameter, thirteen feet in circumference, and seventeen inches in height. Once cured, it weighed in at 1,235 pounds. Jefferson’s favorite motto was emblazoned in red on the side, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” (more…)
“Wall of separation” is the exact phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, whereas “separation of church and state” is the popular phraseology. My use of these phrases in this article should not be construed in any way as an endorsement of either agreeing with them or using them. I actually argue for Christians to disabuse ourselves from using them as a gloss of the First Amendment. For when it is so used, it is at best a tawdry and misleading replacement of the amendment’s beautiful words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I use it only because the article necessitates that I do. (more…)
The elders of TBC are grateful for the years that the Boy Scouts of America have faithfully taught young boys character development and values-based leadership training. We have been both supportive and encouraged by their historic strong stand for biblical values as the basis and guide for their training and character development of these young boys.
The BSA pledge is, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the Scout law, to help other people at all times, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
We were profoundly disappointed to learn that, “On May 23, 2013, the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. This policy change is effective Jan. 1, 2014, allowing the Boy Scouts of America the transition time needed to communicate and implement this policy to its approximately 116,000 Scouting units.” 
This decision undermines the historic commitment and integrity of the Boy Scouts. A decision to continue endorsement of the BSA places young boys in a perilous environment as well as lends support to an organization that seeks by its action to normalize homosexuality; something the Scripture teaches ubiquitously and clearly as abnormal and sin (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
For the present, the policy for adults remains the same since, “A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration.” However, we believe this will one day be changed since the homosexual community has been successful thus far and has never given evidence of being satisfied with partial inclusion; also, by this decision, the BSA gives every indication that it no longer has the conviction that it once had when the leadership avowed that their convictions were “non-negotiable.” This conclusion is bolstered by the present abandonment of their tradition that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2000 in permitting the Scouts to decline membership to openly gay leaders and members.
Additionally, “Less than a week after the Boy Scouts changed its policy to allow gay-identifying youth, the California Senate passed a law that would revoke the organization’s tax-exempt status if it doesn’t also allow gay leaders.”
Consequently, it is with heavy hearts that we withdraw our endorsement of BSA. We can no longer encourage parents to enroll their young boys in the BSA since its decision places young boys in serious and unnecessary jeopardy.
The Trinity Baptist Church Elders