UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES: 2002/10
Print Version
E-mail This Article
Leave CommentUNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
The Newsletter of Contend for the Faith, Inc
1 Chronicles 12:32
OCTOBER 2002
BOOT CAMP A SUCCESS
Deborah and I enjoyed our visit to the Denver area for the latest Young Defenders Boot Camp, hosted by Midwest Christian Outreach.
More than 200 junior high and high school students learned more about the beliefs of Mormons, Wiccans, occultists and relativists. They also learned how to defend Christianity against the claims of these other groups (1 Peter 3:15).
What impressed us the most was the eagerness with which the students received the information. They have a great desire to reach their classmates who are involved in aberrant groups, and they were excited to be equipped with the answers they had been searching for.
For the conference each student was given a manual to use for taking notes and follow along with the speakers for each session. What a beautiful sound it was to hear 200+ students turning the pages of their manuals at the same time as they eagerly embraced the truth they needed to try to reach their friends.
I spoke three times on Mormonism. Before one of the classes I asked some of the students if they had many Mormons in their school. Three girls responded that their high school is 85% Mormon! Think of that. That does not mean that the other 15% is evangelical Christian. Surely some of the students are into Wicca and others are just unbelievers. I would guess that 5-7% of the school is Christian.
These Christians are a tiny minority in their school. It was moving to see how much these girls want to be able to share the true Jesus and the genuine gospel.
Although the Boot Camp was not financially a success (the fee paid by students did not come close to covering the expenses), it was successful in equipping the young people. The youth group leader at the host church in Denver wrote to tell all of us involved in the conference:
“I wanted to pass along what an encouragement each of you and this conference was. . . . The students really enjoyed it, as well as my leaders and we are excited to participate again.”
PRAYER AND PRAISES
Please continue to pray for Heather, the young lady raised in a solid Baptist church who recently became a Mormon. She admits now that she knows Mormonism is false. She simply needs to confess and renounce her involvement in the LDS church and renew her commitment to the true Jesus of the Bible. Pray that the Lord would strengthen her so that she can cut her ties completely to this false religion.
Praise God for encourage-ment! I just received a note from a gentleman telling about the affect my article on Bishop Spong had in the life of his family.
The parents of this man’s wife are lifelong members of a rural Methodist church whose pastor had attended Spong’s lectures in Charlotte last Spring. This pastor enthusiastically embraced Spong’s heretical teaching and immediately began to preach accordingly in his church in order to “liberate” his flock.
After listening to three weeks of heresy from their pulpit, the man’s in-laws sent a letter to this pastor and other Methodist leaders questioning the validity of denying the essentials of the faith in a historically Christian church. They included a copy of my article exposing the truth about Spong’s teachings.
“Amazingly, beginning the weekend those letters were delivered the pastor never mentioned Spong, his theological concepts or his trendy clichés again from the pulpit.”
Plan to attend the ninth annual National Conference on Apologetics and Other Religions, November 8-9, being held this year at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews. This should be the best conference ever, with Ravi Zacharias as the keynote speaker.
UPCOMING SCHEDULE
Nov. 8-9 National Conference on Apologetics and Other Religions, Christ Covenant Church, Matthews, NC
www.ContendfortheFaith.org
CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH
UNDERSTANDING THE FOLLY OF “FAIRNESS”
Often when someone makes an unpopular decision, the decision-maker attempts to defend his pronouncement based on an appeal to a concept that, while dressed as virtue, is often vice in disguise. The principle to which I am referring is “fairness.”
Peter Ridder, the publisher (and would-be philosopher) of The Charlotte Observer, puts forth this principle as his justification for his decision that his newspaper will henceforth publish announcements of “same-sex commitments.”
For those whose reasoning is not well-grounded in a biblical worldview, fairness can be used like silly putty – one can twist it into any form he wishes, but the resultant creation is of little value.
Since this is an issue increasingly debated in and of tremendous significance to our society, Mr. Ridder’s arguments for his position should be examined and responded to.
As a preface to his decision, Mr. Ridder informed his readers that he received hundreds of emails and phone calls from people on both sides of the issue. He states, “I certainly respect their positions.” (An aside: Does he really respect two opposite positions on the same issue? All people are worthy of respect because they are created in the image of God, but not all ideas are due the same regard (many ideas must rightly be disdained).)
Also, Mr. Ridder writes, his decision was not based on who wrote the most persuasive notes. He even admits that 70% of those who contacted the newspaper were opposed to the announcements, yet he disregarded the views of this overwhelming majority.
In the end, he says, “it came down to an issue of simple justice and equal access. Two people should have the right to advertise their commitment.” He goes on to argue that while gay unions are not legally sanctioned in our state and homosexual acts are illegal, “Homosexuality itself is not illegal in North Carolina.” And he asserts that the publication of these announcements constitutes no endorsement of homosexuality.
Such reasoning, while widely accepted in our society, is fatally flawed and demonstrates a lack of consistency in thinking.
While basing his decision on a desire to be “fair and inclusive,” Mr. Ridder is apparently oblivious to how unfair and exclusive this policy change is. The traditional Judeo-Christian position on marriage, which has been the foundation upon which civilized societies have been built, is criticized as being intolerant because it excludes joining together any collection of individuals in matrimony other than one man and one woman. Yet consider the narrowness of the newspaper’s new “inclusive” policy:
· At the very least, it excludes polygamous “commitments.” Mr. Ridder pontificates that fairness demands “Two people should have the right to advertise their commitment.” Two people? Why only two people? If we are abandoning long-held standards of morality, why cling to this puritanical rule? What about three women committed to one man? And shouldn’t a woman who claims to be bisexual also deserve public recognition for her commitment to the ones she loves?
· The Observer will also (presumably) exclude incestuous relationships from their commitment announcements. But why? Don’t close relatives who are committed to one another also deserve “simple justice and equal access”? Mr. Ridder cannot object to a mother and her son or a man and his sister (assuming they are adults, of course) announcing their commitments based on illegality, because homosexual relationships are also illegal.
· Will the paper accept announcements from people who have deep and abiding commitments to their pets? I assume (again) that it will not. This is a form of discrimination called speciesism, which demonstrates a prejudice for human beings over nonhuman animals. Yet Mr. Ridder says “We should not discriminate in our advertising policies either.”
· If a priest and an 18-year-old altar boy want to announce their union, will Mr. Ridder turn them away? On what basis? The refusal cannot be based on immorality, because he rejects that as a valid argument. “How do I, in good conscience, reject a different lifestyle?” he says.
When Mr. Ridder embraces the views of those who advocate same-sex unions, he likely buys into personal relativism (each individ-ual decides what is right) and philosophical naturalism (there are no God-given moral absolutes). Misguided people are seeking, not tolerance, but approval of their aberrant lifestyles. Through publication of these announcements The Observer is undeniably giving its approval.
If Mr. Ridder has abandoned all standards, then he cannot refuse any commitment announcements in order to remain true to his idol of fairness. If he excludes even one declaration of a union, then he is a hypocrite. His “fair and inclusive” policy really means “fair to some” and “inclusive of favored relationships.”
In either case, my question remains the same: Will our society really be improved by abandoning biblical standards and advocating each person’s right to do whatever is “right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25)?
Dave
Jude 3
