Burn the Qur’an or Love Your Neighbor as Yourself?

Over at the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton has provided a well thought out response to the recent fuss about burning the Qur’an.  In it, he seeks to help frame the debate from a Reformed perspective that is based on the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, or Two-Kingdoms doctrine.  Although the issue has been set forth as political and Christians are to engage in the political arena, there is much more at stake than politics and military success.  Horton writes,

As citizens of democratic nations, Christians may be concerned about the implications of Qur’an-burning for international peace and justice. However, as citizens of the kingdom of Christ, they have even more reason to denounce such actions. Recall James and John—the “sons of thunder”—asking Jesus if they could call fire down from heaven on a Samaritan village that rejected their message. We read that Jesus rebuked them.  Continue reading


Restoring Honesty: A Couple of Good Responses to Glenn Beck’s Rally

If you want to know where the Evangelical church is in America, then just check out the recent Restoring Honor rally led by Glenn Beck this past weekend.  Regardless of one’s personal perspective on Glenn Beck’s politics, his combination of politics and religion is not to be recommended or embraced.  You would think that one of the key ingredients in “restoring honor” would be honesty.  But apparently honesty concerning God and religion is not important as long as one’s political agenda is furthered by the promotion of false gods and false religion. Continue reading

>Interview on the Church and the Public Square Completed

>Over at Letters from Mississippi, David Strain has posted the last installment of his four-part interview with Darryl Hart. Of particular interest to me is part of his answer to this question: How would you suggest 2K thinking should play out so as to avoid sounding like we are advocating a laissez faire attitude to real social ills?

Second, I do not see why J. Gresham Machen is not a good example of how individual believers can be involved in politics or society while still affirming the spirituality of the church and the enormity of the church’s burden to preach the good news. Machen was active in Democratic politics, wrote lots of letters to editors, joined political organizations, testified before Congress to oppose the Federal Department of Education. He was an active citizen, even while saying the church should not be engaged in politics. Here the distinction between the church’s calling as a corporate body versus the calling of individual Christians was key.

Also, his response to David’s request for Darryl to ground the doctrine of the spirituality of the church from scripture is good. If the interviews get you thinking and you want more to chew on, you can find Darryl’s book here. All four parts are helpful, you can find the first three installments here:

Part I
Part II
Part III

>Living as Dual Citizens

Ever get confused on how to live the Christian life as one who is a citizen of heaven while simultaneously a citizen of America or the world?

Then here is a book that you ought to read and study. I have been anticipating it for some time now because it seeks to help you learn how to do this from a self-consciously Reformed confessional perspective.

Stellman explores the Christian pilgrimage with deep biblical insight, humor, and relevance to our contemporary context, revealing how Christians are to think of themselves and their role this side of heaven.

Check out a couple of the endorsements.

>Euthanasia: A Right to Death with Dignity or License to Kill with Impunity? (Part 2)

>(Part 1)

Before making my case against euthanasia, I think it would be helpful to briefly outline what the modern proponents of euthanasia are advocating. In this post I want to briefly address three questions concerning euthanasia: 1) what is euthanasia; 2) what is the purpose for it according to modern proponents, 3) how do modern proponents make their case?

First, what is euthanasia? The practice of euthanasia is not a new theoretical development within science but is a practice that has been around for centuries. However, the modern understanding of euthanasia is the result of an evolutionary process stemming back to antiquity. The term euthanasia has an ancient Greek origin and is the combination of two separate words. The first word, eu, means good; the second word, thanatos, means death; so when used together they combine to mean “a good death.”[1] Although the origin of the word presents a quite simple idea, in recent times the term, and practice, has become more complex. According to The American Heritage Dictionary, euthanasia is, “The action of killing an individual for reasons considered to be merciful.” Notice that in this definition the modern notion of euthanasia is not simply to have a “good death,” but includes the means by which the death is achieved. Euthanasia is not just about “ends,” but is also about “means.” So one would wonder, if the death is supposed to be good, does that mean that the means used to achieve that good death are also good? Well, besides the fact that the means used is the action of “killing,” when advocates of euthanasia define the practice, they say that euthanasia is the means used to achieve a good death whether that action is positive or negative.[2]

Second, what is the purpose for it according to modern proponents? Modern proponents of euthanasia desire to see an explicit exception licensing physicians to kill their patients in order to relieve uncontrollable pain and suffering inserted into law. They appeal to a range of exceptional cases to show the utility of the practice. The gist of their argument is that there are times when killing the patient is the humane thing to do and in the patient’s best interest. They assert that merely letting a patient die naturally is at times cruel and can dehumanize the patient.

Third, how do modern proponents make their case? In order to make this case, modern advocates of euthanasia emphasize two foundational axioms: 1) individual autonomy; and 2) the necessity of mercy/avoidance of suffering. According to Margaret P. Battin, “The moral argument in favor of permitting physician assistance in suicide is grounded in the conjunction of two principles: self-determination . . . and mercy.”[3] She describes the moral right of self-determination as the right to live one’s life as one sees fit, subject only to the constraint that this not involve harm to others. So fundamental is this principle, that Daniel Jussim asserts that to deny an individual the choice of death is said to be a crime against one’s right of self-determination.[4] For the euthanasia advocate, euthanasia should be legalized so that a doctor (or for some any individual) can kill a patient/person, without being indicted for murder, and what makes this killing justified and acceptable is that the individual requested it. As we saw with Jussim, it is not the killing that is the crime, but refusing an individual’s request to be killed.

The second foundational principle advocates use to endorse euthanasia is the principle of mercy. According to Battin, the principle of mercy teaches that one ought both to refrain from causing pain or suffering and act to relieve it. Advocates claim that this principle of mercy, or avoidance of suffering, underwrites the right of a dying person to an easy death and clearly supports physician-assisted suicide in many cases. Derek Humphry believes that in a caring society there must be opportunities provided to hopelessly ill patients after all other avenues of care have been exhausted. He asserts that requesting assistance in dying should no longer remain illegal since it provides a compassionate, merciful and noble means to achieve a good death.

Humphrey’s statement is indicative of much of the literature promoting euthanasia, which tends to emphasize the subjective nature of a patient’s plight, rather than provide a rigorous philosophical defense, since advocates believe that compassion is the best means of persuading the public. Timothy Quill, M.D. suggests the best tactic in the debate is not to argue over positions, but instead to tell stories of the unrelieved suffering of dying patients–to tug on the heart strings. The public is to be persuaded to accept euthanasia not by arguments of right and wrong, but via unthinking compassion for those who suffer.[5] This emphasis upon mercy seems to be more of a tool for manipulation than an actual concern for the suffering. But the manipulation does not stop here, to make their case for “mercy killing,” proponents of euthanasia use the “hard” cases approach to attract and create sympathy for persons who are suffering. They admittedly seek to manufacture a universal need that is actually based on rare and tragic situations. Humphry himself admits to manipulating the data to create the appearance that there are a lot of persons suffering to create the facade that there is a great need and demand for euthanasia when the data does not support his rhetoric, “Take note that I have liberally used the word ‘some’. Most people die quickly, peacefully, and painlessly. Of that there is no doubt. Physician-assisted suicide is needed for very few dying patients-probably two percent or less of total deaths.”[6] No one wants people to suffer needlessly, so it becomes quite easy to use the pain and suffering of others for rhetorical purposes. Are the modern euthanasia advocates being honest about their agenda?

When one looks at the questions concerning the practice of euthanasia, whether ethical, legal, practical, medicinal, etc., it is imperative that one not fall into the trap of believing that medicine and technology are merely means that are value-neutral. The moral questions surrounding the issue of euthanasia are not just about the use or misuse of the means of medicine and technology, but also about the ends that medicine and technology serve. With this in mind, and in light of the stated purposes and axioms of euthanasia proponents, should euthanasia be considered an acceptable means of dealing with the difficult issues of life and death? Will legalized killing (whether to promote self-determination or for supposed mercy) actually result in a society that is characterized by care and mercy for the suffering, or will it create a whole new set of problems?

(Part 3)


[1] Derek Humphry, “Euthanasia Is Ethical,” in Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints, ed. Carol Wekeser, Opposing Viewpoints Series, ed. David Bender and Bruno Leone (San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1005), 18.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Margaret P. Battin, “Is a Physician Ever Obligated to Help a Patient Die?” in Regulating How We Die: The Ethical, Medical and Legal Issues Surrounding Physician-Assisted Suicide, ed. Linda L. Emanuel (Harvard University Press, 1998), 21-47.

[4] Daniel Jussim, Euthanasia: The “Right to Die” Issue (Hillside, NJ: Enslow Publications, Inc., 1993), 53-54.

[5] Cited in Adam Wolfson, “Killing off the dying?-so-called assisted suicide,” [on-line]; accessed 14 April 2009; available from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n131/ai_20632393/.

[6] Derek Humphry, “The Case for Physician Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia,” [on-line]; accessed 14 April 2009; available from http://www.finalexit.org/lit-essays.html, [emphasis mine].

[7] Stanley Hauerwas, God Medicine and Suffering (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 97-98.

>Euthanasia: A Right to Death with Dignity or License to Kill with Impunity? (Part 1)

>The explosion of ideas generated during the scientific revolution has created vast changes and seemingly limitless potential for innovation in the different fields and practices of science and technology. In the field of medicine, advances in technology and medical knowledge have occurred so rapidly that health care possibilities have outgrown their moral and ethical mores. The appearance of near limitless possibilities and capabilities of medicine and technology have created a conundrum of knowing how and when to set limits to that which seems to be limitless. Many patients expect doctors to do everything possible to cure their ailments; doctors (often out of fear of litigation) oblige this expectation by utilizing every possible medical and technological means available; yet, they endure blame when they fail and complaints by those who accuse them of going to far. In some cases these “heroic” efforts are genuinely therapeutic and life-extending, whereas at other times they simply prolong the process of dying. The result is that the lines between preserving life and prolonging death have become blurred, which has created a “host of complex issues for society, the medical profession, and the dying individual and his family.”[1]

The practice of euthanasia has been heralded by right-to-die advocates as a legitimate and humane means for dealing with these new problems. However, it has engendered much scrutiny and debate because of its radical digression from traditional views of life and death. The autonomy of the self and the necessity of mercy are the championed axioms that are replacing the traditional values of the intrinsic value and inviolability of life and society’s duty to protect human life.[2] To make the situation even more difficult, there is debate even among right-to-die advocates about how euthanasia should be understood and what practices should be allowed.[3] I have decided to provide a series of posts that will argue that euthanasia should not become an acceptable means for dealing with these difficult end-of-life dilemmas, for rather than promoting death with dignity, it will provide a license for killing with impunity.

However, before I begin, let me put my cards on the table concerning my approach. As a confessionally Reformed Presbyterian, my ultimate reasons for rejecting euthanasia is for biblical, for as the answer to Q.3 of the Westminster Larger Catechism states, “The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.”[4] However, given that everyone does not live in light of biblical authority, I am approaching this conversation on euthanasia from a natural law perspective, and I do so for two reasons. First, I desire to attempt to better communicate with my neighbor who does not accept biblical authority as I do. I realize that not everybody accepts biblical authority as I do. I do not desire for this to cut off communication, so utilizing natural law argumentation seems the best way to keep the communication channels open. Peter J. Bernardi states my concern well, “Ultimately, the religious conviction that life is a gift from God that we are not free to end on our own terms is the most effective motive for remaining opposed to doctor-assisted self-killing. But what effect would that argument have on someone who does not believe in God?”.[5] With an issue like euthanasia, it is imperative to open lines of communication with which persons from throughout the community will engage no matter their religious convictions.

A second reason I have decided to attempt a natural law argument instead of an explicit biblical argument comes from my understanding of the nature of biblical ethics. The ethical commands of scripture seem to be directed to the covenant community and not towards those outside the covenant community. For example, when one reads the Decalogue in Exodus 2o.1-17, one finds an indicative-imperative structure to the commandments. The commandments are built upon the foundation of the prologue that God has saved his people from bondage in Egypt. God’s salvific action on behalf of his people provide the necessary foundation upon which his ethical demands for his people are founded. When one seeks to place those ethical demands on those outside the covenant, who have not been the recipients of God’s salvific “indicative,” then it would appear that one is using scripture in a way not intended by God. The ethical commands in scripture do not seem to be designed for the world at large. Rather, the purpose of scripture’s ethical commands seems to be to regulate and define the lifestyle of God’s redeemed covenant people.

Natural law, however, does provide a common ground for those in the covenant community to engage in dialogue over public issues with the unredeemed (those who are members ob both the city of God and the city of man interacting with those who are only members of the city of man). David VanDrunen writes,

Natural law is God’s common moral revelation given to all people of whatever religious conviction. A common moral realm, in which all of created humanity enjoys membership, is rightly governed by a common moral standard that is revealed to all of crated humanity. The civil kingdom is for human beings insofar as they are created and sustained by God; natural law morally obligates human beings insofar as they are created and sustained by God.[6]

This understanding of natural law is not built upon the false notion of human autonomy but is grounded in God’s own nature and the creation of human beings in the divine image, so that it is ultimately grounded on the authority of God the Creator. In fact, as VanDrunen argues, “natural law is taught in Scripture,”[7] and the scripture actually teaches that when those in the covenant of grace are dealing culturally with those not in the covenant of grace, that natural law rather than special revelation is the basis for moral reasoning.[8]

By making my case according to a natural law argument, I am not jettisoning God’s authority or even his communication, rather, I am making my case with two proper, God-centered presuppositions: he is there and he is not silent. His communication is not just found in the scripture, however, but also in his created order; there is a place for general revelation in addition to special revelation. My attempt at a natural law argument is grounded in God’s general revelation. Now I acknowledge that my understanding of general revelation has surely been shaped by my study of God’s special revelation (the Bible). Yet, I am not making a case for how I have come to my beliefs on this subject as shaped by the Bible; I am attempting to make a case that reflects my beliefs as they are found in general revelation, or natural law, since that is the common language for the sphere of the city of man. Let me be clear, I am not arguing for a common ground or neutral ground of knowledge, but a common ground of communication. I hope to appeal to the law that is written on man’s heart because he is created in God’s image, which he suppresses in unrighteousness (Rom 1.18), yet which he does not suppress completely.

With an issue as important and controversial as euthanasia, we must engage in the conversation by doing more than simply talking to ourselves (or preaching to the choir). If natural man will not receive the indicatives of the gospel, why do we think we can hoist upon him the imperatives and get a better outcome?

In this series of posts I will be arguing against euthanasia on natural law grounds: legalizing it will have a negative effect on society by creating a culture of death in which death will become the accepted means for dealing with life’s difficulties, it will lead to abuses that will endanger the weak and elderly, and it will result in other forms of euthanasia (such as nonvoluntary and involuntary) that can endanger everyone. Euthanasia should not become an acceptable means for dealing with these difficult end-of-life dilemmas, for rather than promoting death with dignity, it will provide a license for killing with impunity.

(Part 2)

[1] John Jerfferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2004), 183.

[2] And as will be discussed in more detail in a later post, the intrinsic equality of all persons is also being replaced with elitist notions of equality that are based on “quality of life.”

[3] For the purpose of this series of posts, I will be discussing euthanasia with specific reference to the practices of active-voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Since both actions involve intentional acts of killing an innocent being, I understand them to be morally equal, and hence, I deal with the two of them the same way and at the same time. I realize that not everyone agrees with this moral equation, but for the practical considerations of these posts it is expedient.

[4] For fine discussions of euthanasia from a biblical perspective see Davis, Evangelical Ethics; John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993); Millard J. Erickson and Ines E. Bowers, “Euthanasia and Christian Ethics” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (1976): 15-24.

[5] Peter J. Bernardi, “Dr. Death’s Dreadful Sermon: From Roe to Final Exit, there really is a slippery slope,” Christianity Today, 15 August 1994, 30-32. [emphasis mine]

[6] David VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law(Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, 2006), 38.

[7] Ibid., 2.

[8] Ibid., 37-54. For further arguments in favor of the biblical case for natural law and its use in public moral discourse, see Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion)(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003); David Novak, Natural Law in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); and John Barton, “Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the Old Testament,” Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 30 (April 1979): 1-14.

>Praying for a Rookie President

>Over at Real Clear Politics, Thomas Sowell has an interesting article comparing the costly mistakes that rookie athletes make with the potential for even costlier mistakes that our rookie President has already and may continue to make. Sowell says,

We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

Now, obviously any first term President is in a sense a “rookie.” But this is not what concerns Sowell, rather, he is concerned that President Obama does not have any previous executive responsibility in an organization in which he was personally responsible for the outcome of his decisions. Sowell’s conclusion is, “We can lose some very big games with this rookie.”

Although as a citizen of the city of man, I agree with Sowell’s assessment, and am not in agreement with man of the decisions and policies of our current President; however, as I am also a citizen of the city of God, I have been commanded to pray for those in leadership over me,

I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way, (1 Tim 2.1-2).

To me, this is one of truly helpful aspects about the Two Kingdoms perspective–on the one hand I can disagree with our President and stand in opposition to his ideals, and yet on the other I can pray for his success as a govenor without expecting him to change his ideals.

Too many today intertwine their faith with their politics and find themselves confused about how to maintain their faith as pilgrims in a land that that is not their home, while simultaneously wisely maintaining the rights, privilges and responsibilities as citizens in America. This confusion often leads persons who pray for leaders with whom they disagree only to pray that the leaders change their beliefs to agree with them.

If our President is indeed a rookie as Sowell asserts, then we should pray that God provide him the wisdom to govern well, no matter his idealogy, that he not “lose some very big games.”

Read Sowell’s entire post here.

Preaching and the Two-Kingdoms

In the fourth chapter of Why Johnny Can’t Preach, Gordon advocates that “Christian preaching should be the person, character, and work of Christ,” (70). Gordon goes on to fill out his understanding of Christ-centered preaching when he says, “Even when the faithful exposition of particular texts requires some explanation of aspects of our behavior, it is always to be done in a manner that the hearer perceives such commanded behavior to be itself a matter of being rescued from the power of sin through the grace of Christ,” (71). He suggests that rather than divorcing behavior from the gospel, that as the “people’s confidence in Christ grows, they do, ordinarily and inevitably, bear fruit that accords with faith,” (78). He then goes on to poetically encourage ministers to feed their people full of the gospel:

Fill the sails of your hearers’ souls with the wind of confidence in the Redeemer, and they will trust him as their Sanctifier, and long to see his fruit in their lives. Fill their minds and imaginations with a vision of the loveliness and perfection of Christ in his person, and the flock will long to be like him. Impress upon their weak and wavering hearts the utter competence of the mediation of the One who ever lives to make intercession for them, and they will long to serve and comfort others, even as Christ has served and comforted them. (78)

The point is that it is only Christ-centered and saturated sermons that can feed and nurture faith in the souls of believers.

Faith is not built by preaching introspectively (constantly challenging people to question whether they have faith); faith is not built by preaching moralistically (which has exactly the opposite effect of focusing attention on the self rather than on Christ, in whom our faith is placed); faith is not built by joining the culture wars and taking potshots at what is wrong with our culture. Faith is built by careful, thorough exposition of the person, character, and work of Christ. (76, emphasis in original)

In the quote above, we find Gordon’s four failed alternatives to Christ-centered preaching: 1) moralism; 2) How-To; 3) Introspection; and 4) Social Gospel/So-Called Culture War. I found his comments concerning all the categories enlightening, but especially the fourth. In his discussion, Gordon does an excellent job of laying out a clear and easy to understand perspective of preaching that corresponds to the spirituality of the church, or the Two-Kingdom theory–that there is a distinction between the city of God (the church) and the city of man (culture).

Gordon argues that preaching should be done in light of keeping the two kingdoms separate and realizing that preaching is attached to the city of God and not the city of man. He supports this position with two main arguments. First, he makes a Natural Law argument that preaching that is devoted to commenting on what’s wrong with our culture and what ought to be done to improve it either by individuals or even worse by the coercive power of government is wrong because it is out of step with the nature of our country. The beauty of the work of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic is that they created a form of government founded upon a commitment to liberty. So important was liberty to them that it was more important than any good thing that individuals or a coercive federal government could force on persons.

The American Republic was designed in such a manner that it could have avoided the extremes represented today by secularist France and religious Iran. . . . The American Republic was designed to enforce neither, but permit both. The so-called culture wars in that Republic today are therefore due to a failure to believe in liberty, and a trigger-happy willingness to coerce others. (85, footnote 14)

In addition to this Natural Law argument, he second argument is biblical-theological. He notes that many in our churches love to live in imagined and self-made worlds of good guys and bad guys, and to think that they are part of the good guys. The problem with this is that Genesis 3 instructs that in Adam, we are all sinners and revolt against the reign of God and that each of us, therefore, prefer our own wills to the will of God. The Bible goes on to teach us that now we are dead in our sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2) and are utterly incapable, in and of ourselves, of changing our situation and our behavior. This inability is also true for government. The government cannot change us or rescue us from our revolt; education cannot enlighten our darkened minds; not even the church can deliver us from our darkened understanding that considers our own way better than God’s way; and surely coercive human governments cannot cure souls. The only answer is Jesus: “Only the God-man, the last Adam, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice and present intercession at the right hand of God, can rescue any of us from our revolt,” (86).

Because his words are so clear and helpful, here is a lengthy sampling:

So the one inadmissible thing to a culture warrior (that cultual change is out of our hands) is the basic subtext of everything the Bible teaches.

The culture warrior refuses to acknowledge that true and significant cultural change can happen only when the individual members of the culture have forsaken their own self-centeredness, and have revolted against their revolt against God. Worse, the culture warrior assumes that coerced change in behavior is desirable–that if we can pass a law that outlaws sin, this will somehow make people and culture better (when, in fact, we just become more devious and learn how to evade detection, adding deception to our other sins). Culture warriors are not content with the two legitimate ways in which humans may exert influence on the behavior of others; through reasoned discourse and the power of example. The power of example is too costly and too slow, and besides, we don’t wish to be around unbelievers much anyway. And reasoned discourse is beyond the capacity of most of us today; most could never explain convincingly to another why one behavioral choice is wiser than another. So we resort to coercion: using the coercive power of the government to enforce external compliance to the ways of God.

Such a view is so contrary to everything the Bible teaches that its prevelance must be accounted for as a kind of blindness that is due to misplaced partriotism. . . . The particular blindness of the culture warrior is that he permits himself to think God is pleased by coerced behavior; by requiring people to say “one nation, under God” even if they do not yet believe in God (which strikes me as an instance of taking the Lord’s name in vain). The culture warrior’s religion and his patriotism are in conflict. His Christianity teaches him that God is not pleased with mere external confession of insincere religious faith; but his patriotism just cannot accept the fact that his culture is movinging in directions of which he disapproves.

. . . Haven’t we already had a historical experiment that is precisely what the culture warriors want? Wasn’t ancient Israel a nation whose constitution demanded obedience to the revealed laws of God, and didn’t its executive branch use coercion to attain such obedience? Did Israel not, effectively, have the Ten Commandments in its courthouse? Yet which prophet ever had anything good to say about the nation? Indeed, as Jesus and the apostles more bluntly put it, which of the prophets did they not kill? If theocracy didn’t work in Israel, where God divinely instituted it, why do people insist on believing it will work in places where God manifestly has not instituted it? (86-88, emphasis in original)

Preaching that is biblical and apostolic will only be recovered through an enduring commitment to Christ-centered, expository proclamations of scripture to the church–not to the culture. There is a proper place for laws and government, but not as the answer for man’s rebellion against God’s rule and his perishing in sin–people need Christ. So give them Christ!

More Trendy, "Authentic" Christianity

Read about it here.

This is not a joke. You have to see it to believe it. I like U2 and I like the Lord’s Supper. But should they be mixed?

This is another example of the problem with trying to mix cult and culture, as well as, offering worship that is not regulated by the scripture.

[HT: Rodney Trotter]