You Will Soon be Paying for Everyone’s Morning-After Pill

You probably heard the news. The readers of this blog aren’t living under a rock (hopefully). President Barack Obama announced his plans to require health insurers to provide for all forms of contraception to women free of charge. Of course, insurance companies are not going to be providing for these medications out of the goodness of their hearts … or pocketbooks. The end result will mean that every single person in the United States will be paying for everyone’s contraception, including abortive pills.

Pay close attention to what I’m about to say because you likely won’t hear it from me again … I am proud of how the Roman Catholic Church responded to these new demands. The Roman Church made an announcement that started a whole lot of controversy: that their bishops would rather go to jail than go against their religious conviction by going along with this new policy. Now, in the case of Roman Catholics, they believe all forms of contraception are morally wrong. I do not believe there is a Biblical reason to hold such an extensive view, however, I stand firmly with them against all forms of abortion.

Did the President honestly believe he could force this kind of direct, in-your-face policy without an uproar from the people whose religious liberty would be trampled upon? Or was he only meaning to test the waters to see exactly what he could get away with? Personally, I believe he was trying to gain support for his various proponents for the upcoming election. Apparently, he would much rather gain the support of abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood than those with religious convictions. Gotta love politicians running for office.

Our nation’s founding fathers had enough foresight to include a Bill of Rights in the United Stated Constitution guaranteeing in plain English our rights as American citizens. The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Such a masterful of defining religious liberty. Yet somehow, our President believes he can sidestep the Bill of Rights by forcing people – against their will – to pay for a service they have the highest religious and moral objections to. 

Eventually, the Southern Baptist Convention let it be known that they would act in accordance with the Roman Catholics, and would rather go to jail than pay for the murder of unborn children. The political chatter that followed was disturbing to listen to, because no one really seemed to apprehend why Christians and Roman Catholics would be opposed to paying for people’s abortion medications. If you are one of the masses who still hasn’t perceived the reasoning behind our madness, I’ll be straight with you: because we believe abortion is murder, and we refuse to have blood on our hands.

Obama, being the master communicator that he is, waited a few days, then announced a “compromise” that would be suitable for everyone:

Today, we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward.  Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work.  So that core principle remains.  But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly.  Let me repeat:  These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services.  But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they’ll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.

In the words of Gandalf the Grey, “I suppose you think yourself terribly clever…” How about it, Mr. President? What am I missing, because this sounds like religious objectors will still be paying for all forms of contraception, even abortion pills?

I can only pray that through a series of governmental checks and balances this kind of belligerent attack on our religious freedom be completely undone. Our founding fathers, especially John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are turning in their graves at Barack Obama’s oppression of the free peoples of the United States.
In fact, recently, my elder Dr. James White posted a youtube video discussing recent current events. His conclusion offers how we, as Christians, might respond and pray for our nation. I encourage you to take the time to watch the video; Christian, you will be encouraged.

Timeless Truth and Timely Methods

Early on in my career as a Starbucks customer, I noticed more and more of my Christian friends reading the same book. It had a purple cover, though it was the subtitle that ultimately did me in: “Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality.” Blue Like Jazz was the book “everyone” was suddenly interested in (everyone except me, apparently *grin*). At the time I was on this kick of reading any book that was seemingly having an influence on the Church. While I never did break that habit, I was able to work my way through Donald Miller’s work.

Blue Like Jazz is one of those rare books where I actually *felt* dumber after reading it. I mean, come on, any book that dedicates 31 pages of pointless cartoons can’t be taken seriously can it? One more quick rabbit trail before I plunge into the real purpose of this blog article … one of the funny things about Miller’s book is that when you ask people who’ve read it what they think it was about, the most common answer is: “I don’t know.”

In any case, it was in this book that I first heard of Mark Driscoll. And it was not a good introduction:

“I had this friend from Seattle named Mark who was the pastor of a pretty cool church near the University of Washington, in the village. He had a lot of artists going to his church and a lot of hippies and yuppies and people who listen to public radio. I went up and visited him one time, and I loved the community he had put together. I felt like I could breathe for the first time in years. Visiting Mark’s church in Seattle helped me realize I wasn’t alone in the world. I would talk to my friends about his church, to my friends at the church I was attending, but they didn’t get it.

Mark had written several articles for secular magazines and had been interviewed a few times on the radio and had gotten this reputation as a pastor who said cusswords. It is true that Mark said a lot of cusswords. I don’t know why he did it. He didn’t become a Christian till he was in college, so maybe he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to say cusswords and be a pastor. I think some of my friends believed that it was the goal of the devil to get people to say cusswords, so they thought Mark was possessed or something, and they told me I should not really get into anything he was a part of. Because of the cusswords. But like I said, I was dying inside, and even though Mark said cusswords, he was telling a lot of people about Jesus, and he was being socially active, and he seemed to love a lot of people the church was neglecting, like liberals and fruit nuts. About the time I was praying that God would help me find a church, I got a call from Mark the Cussing Pastor, and he said he had a close friend who was moving to Portland to start a church and that I should join him.” (Blue Like Jazz, p. 133-134. Bold Mine).

I urge the reader to do yourself a favor and not read Blue Like Jazz or anything else by Miller (other books include Searching for God Knows What – which is nearly as pointless). But Miller did do one thing for me, and that was to introduce me to “the Cussing Pastor,” Mark Driscoll.

Pinpointing the exact date is impossible now, but it was a few months after Miller’s book (sometime in 2004) that I began hearing more and more about this pastor who cusses. Christian friends began listening to his sermons, and as time went on I learned that he was a Charismatic Calvinist (that is, a Charismatic and a Calvinist), and very cool taboot. Unfortunately, the more I learned about Mark Driscoll the more problem areas I was discovering. Friends were reading his book, The Radical Reformission, where he invites the reader to “begin a radical journey with me as we explore what life in Christ can mean in the context of an emerging church in a changing world” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 23).

Up to this point, my initial reaction to Driscoll was this: how can this man honestly be qualified for the office of Elder with such a filthy mouth? Don’t misunderstand me, I recognize that Christians let expletives slip out from time to time. But this is something we ought not to be proud of, and work hard not to do. I remember listening to sermons with my friends where he is cursing, and then I would read Ephesians 4:29, “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear” (NASB). With the luxury of hindsight, I might also have read from the pastoral epistles regarding the qualifications of an Elder.

Because I’m not one to rely on hearsay only, I quickly bought and read The Radical Reformission. Little did I know that I was about to open up the can of worms known now as “The Emerging Church Movement” (ECM).  Mark explains the beginnings of the ECM:

“A team of young pastors, including myself, was then formed by Leadership Network, and we flew around the country speaking to other pastors about the emerging culture and the emerging church … Now that the time has come to write, I am presenting this book as a contribution toward the furtherance of the emerging church in the emerging culture.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 16-17).

Fine; but what is the purpose of the Emerging Church Movement (ECM)? Driscoll explains:

“Our lives shape, and are shaped by, the culture we live in, and the gospel must be fitted to (not altered for) particular people, times, and circumstances so that evangelism will be effective … We have the church, or the gathering of God’s people – which includes those who are not Christians (Matt. 13:24-30) – where people are built up in their faith and knitted together in loving community. They can then faithfully engage those in the culture with the gospel, while experiencing its transforming power in their own lives.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 20-21).

Based on the annotations I made on these pages it is safe to assume I did a double take when I read that. Some of what he says is true, like how our lives shape and are shaped by the culture. However, he strays way off of the straight and narrow path when he speaks of the church being made up of Christians and non-Christians. He builds on this point throughout the book to such an extent that I am certain he did not misspeak here. In fact, he explains his view of evangelism called “Reformission Participation Evangelism” which he describes as “Belong to the church, then believe in Jesus” (Driscoll, p. 68) and “Reformission evangelism blurs the lines between evangelism and discipleship” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 73). He continues:

“In reformission evangelism, people are called to come and see the transformed lives of God’s people before they are called to repent of sin and to trust in God. Taking a cue from dating is helpful on this point. If we desire people to be happily married to Jesus as his loving bride, it makes sense to let them go out on a few dates with him instead of just putting a shotgun to their heads and asking them to hurry up, put on a white dress, and try to look happy for the photos.” (Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, p. 68, Bold Mine).

“LGBT”–Just When I Thought I Had it…

Just when I thought I had it, they went and changed it. “LGBT,” of course, is an acronym for “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender,” representing the gay rights movement. They have since expanded the acronym to “LGBTQIP,” which means: “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer/Questioning Intersexed/Intersexual Pansexual/Polysexual etc.” And all I can say is … wow. I wasn’t prepared for that.

I had the privilege of working my way through Michael Brown’s A Queer Thing Happened to America: And what a long, strange trip it’s been. He successfully provides a history of the homosexual (and other sexual orientations) movement in America. He explains the birth of the movement, their goals, what they have accomplished, and concludes by offering thoughts on how we, as Christians, ought to respond.

To my homosexual friends, before I continue I wanted to speak to you for a moment. I want to be clear about a few things because I know how emotionally charged this issue can be. First, I am a Christian, which means that I believe homosexuality is sinful. It is sinful because the Lord says so in the Bible and He has defined the way in which human sexuality is to be expressed. Second, I am, however, opposed to any violence or persecution done towards the homosexual community. There is no excuse for the mistreatment of any human being, regardless of their sexuality. We are all equal in value because we are all made in the image of the triune God. Thirdly, though we may disagree, I would hope for the opportunity to have a civil conversation about these important subjects because of the great impact it has on Western Civilization.

Brown’s work has had a tremendous impact on my life already, and I would urge you to read the book if you have time to do so. It is, at times, full of historical and statistical information – which can be a bit dry at times – but very useful. I am not an alarmist, and do not want to sound like one (Michael Brown mentions more than once in his book that he doesn’t either). But the factual information in this book is helpful in understanding where our culture is at when it comes to homosexuality.

If you’ve been in the workforce over the past decade (as I have) you have noticed a monumental shift in people’s attitude towards homosexuality. Our culture shifted from awkwardness to passiveness to rabid support. Support is now said to be in the name of “diversity,” and Brown spends a good amount of time explaining how this is used to mean anything non-Christian, especially in favor of homosexual activism. My last two jobs are both fully on board in offering their support for same-sex marriage, homosexual equality, and homosexual activist groups.

Being a Christian in this kind of environment becomes difficult because we can’t support this kind of “diversity” because it would force us to go against our religious convictions. But as you have probably discovered the “diversity” we are talking about really isn’t meant to include the views of Christians, but only of the one-sided perspective of gay activists. There is no support of pro-family organizations, or of any “traditional” viewpoint. I would ask the reader: is this really diversity?

Hot topics such as this often stir up all sorts of emotions because we are dealing with people’s sexuality, which is a core element of each one of us. It is important. Yet, as Christians, we are required by God to disagree with homosexuality out of love – both love for God, and for those practicing the homosexual lifestyle. Sadly, some lack the ability to understand how one can disagree with the lifestyle choices of another and yet still love them. Nevertheless, this is how the Christian is supposed to operate. We may strongly and passionately disapprove of homosexuality but we are required by our God to love all people.

Homosexuality (and sexuality in general) will be one of the hot topics Christians can use to speak the truth to a lost and dying world. While the world is demanding that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples and polyamorous (i.e. polygamy) relationships, we must be ready and willing to respond with the Bible as our primary weapon. The Holy Spirit uses the preaching of the gospel as the primary means to save sinners from their sinful lifestyle, unto repentance and life in Jesus Christ. Isn’t this precisely what Paul said: “¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16, NASB). Amen to that.

Appreciate you reading,
Metzger

Love Triumphs Over Truth?

Picture this: a group of Christian leaders from different backgrounds, ministry perspectives and life experiences coming together for the sake of unity. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? This was the essential purpose of the Elephant Room 2 (ER2). Unfortunately, ER2 was destined to encounter serious problems one of the 7 men on the list was none other than T.D. Jakes, a renowned Modalist. Other notables include the now infamous Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, and James McDonald. An interesting bunch of men, to be sure, but what did it produce?

If you’ve had your head out of the sand for any length of time you know the Internet has been buzzing about the sad results for days on end. What was most disappointing to me, personally, was the segment of time spent discussing Jakes’ view of the godhead. The big question (arguably the only decent question too) put to Jakes was by Driscoll asking him about his use of the term “manifestations.” This was an important question because Modalism believes that God consists of one divine Person who expresses himself in different modes or manifestations. Jakes replied by citing 1 Timothy 3:16, continuing to defend his use of the term manifestations!

If ever Jakes should have been asked what he meant by this, this would have been the time. But what actually happened? Nothing. Jakes was given a pass by the other 6 men, including Mark Driscoll. I am in complete agreement with Dr. James White who comments: “Driscoll and the rest heard what they wanted to hear, fist-bumped and applauded, and all was well. It would have been so painfully simple to bring this entire question to a complete conclusion.”

It was not as though Driscoll is ignorant of the essential issues at stake here. He received his Graduate degree in exegetical theology from Western Seminary, and knows all the core essential differences between the Trinity and Modalism. Yet he would not defend the Biblical view. Instead he chose to pretend all is well for the sake of unity, leaving many people with the false impression that T.D. Jakes is a Trinitarian.

The Ruling Elder had some *excellent* comments about Mark Driscoll’s views on the Trinity. In his article he brings out that Driscoll’s own views on the Trinity are at best underdeveloped, specifically with reference to the eternality of the Son-ship of Christ (that the 2nd Person of the Trinity has not only eternally existed, but that He has eternally existed as the Son in relation to the Father).

He cites from Driscoll’s book:

“The whole attempt to define the eternal relations in the immanent or ontological Trinity seems misguided. First, God has given us no revelation of the nature of their eternal relations. We should follow the command of the Bible: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" and refuse to speculate. Second, the Apostles' Creed defines the Son as "begotten, not made." The point was that something begotten was of the same substance as the one who does the begetting. But the term "begotten" could never be defined with any clarity, so it was of little use. Third, begotten unavoidably implies a beginning of the one begotten. That would certainly lend support to the Arian heresy that the Son is a created being and not the Creator God. For these reasons it is best to omit the creedal terms "begotten" and "proceeds" from our definition of Trinity. Our authority is not in creeds but in Scripture.” (Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Believe (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2010), 27-28)

While this might sound impressive to those unfamiliar with the subject, it is a fancy way of saying that for hundreds of years Christians have been too rigid in how they define the Trinity. I also need to just get this out there … I pray that Driscoll can come to terms with all that the Bible has to say about the triunity of God – including the eternality of Christ’s son-ship (John 1, as the classic example).

Driscoll has done many things over the years (I’ve been keeping tabs on his ministry since 2003), and by now it is hard for him to truly surprise me. But EP2 did surprise me. I have gotten accustomed to his cussing (which he did finally stop – to his credit), to his starting “relevant” church movements, becoming involved in the dramatic, his ability to “see things” through personal extra-Biblical revelation, and all around over the top activities. But I did not expect him to embrace into the fellowship of faith someone who denies the Trinity.

I expect more from a church elder. I expect him to have the discernment to recognize when a heretic is playing with words to try to muddle an issue. With Jakes specifically, I expected him to defend the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity – as taught in Scripture – and for him to have loved T.D. Jakes enough to share that truth with him.

Speaking about the qualifications of elders, Paul wrote:

⁷ For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, ⁸ but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, ⁹ holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. (Titus 1:7-9, NASB).

Because of his extensive knowledge of God and the gospel, I expected Mark Driscoll to “[hold] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” This is God’s expectation of the office of elder, and the standard to which Driscoll is held.

Much more could be said (and probably has been said somewhere in the blogosphere) so I’ll conclude with this: unity should be the Christian’s goal wherever possible, but not at the expense of truth. Unity and truth work in perfect harmony together, because it is the faith that unifies the body of Christ. The Apostle Paul said it best: “²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

Rusty