The Empty Promise of Meditation
Posted: Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 12:12 pm ET
    |
|
Should Christians practice meditation? An increasing number of Christians are trying or using Eastern meditation techniques in an effort to direct their spiritual lives. It is no longer shocking to see churches offering yoga and meditation classes, nor to hear some Christians talking about their walks in a labyrinth, time spent in meditation, or experiments with the latest borrowing from the East.
Now, the Gannett News Service offers a report on the issue:
Like many churchgoers in the Bible Belt, Kristy Robinson teaches Sunday school with her husband and helps prepare communion at their Episcopal church in Franklin, Tenn.
She rounds out her church- and prayer-filled life with another spiritual practice that's not quite as familiar: meditation.
"I'll see a difference in my day if I don't," says Robinson, who opens each day with 20 minutes of absolute silence.
The Bible does speak positively about meditation. In the Psalms, David sings of meditating on the Law of God day and night. The biblical concept of meditation is not without reference to thought and content. To the contrary, it is about thinking that is directed by the Word of God -- scripturally saturated thought.
This is almost the exact opposite of Eastern meditation, which sets the emptying of the mind as its goal. The Eastern concept of emptying the mind is just not anything close to the biblical vision of filling the mind with the Word of God.
More from the article:
"All the chanting and incense and — yikes — even meditation altars may seem too New Age and mystical for some, but meditation has gone mainstream and been embraced by suburban moms and busy people.
Younger generations get an introduction in yoga classes, careerists escape on meditation retreats and boomers seek tranquility in meditation gardens. Meditation, it seems, is no longer associated as a counterculture activity made hip by The Beatles and favored by flower children.
Some approach meditation through Buddhism or other Eastern religions; more and more Christians meditate through the ancient ritual of centering prayer; while others develop their own style, whether it's patterned after the breathing techniques of popular guru Deepak Chopra or not.
Most sit still, usually focusing on a mantra or on their breathing, but you can even clear your mind while walking around, tending a garden or through movement-based activities, such as tai chi."
The biblical concept of meditation on the Word of God does involve an emptying, of course. We must empty our minds of ungodly and unbiblical thoughts, of desires for sin and resistance to the reign of God in our lives. But that emptying never involves an empty mind. Instead, it involves a mind in which unbiblical thoughts are replaced by the truth of Scripture -- not a blank slate of meditation that revolves around the self.
In Psalm 119, David writes, "Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me." [Psalm 119:97] David's meditation did not revolve around David, nor did it involve David trying to empty his mind into silence. He desperately wanted to hear from God, and he knew he would hear directly from God in the law. He studied the Scriptures in order to cleanse his mind of wrong thoughts and have them replaced with right thoughts and patterns of thinking.
The article included a good assessment from Professor Don Whitney of Southern Seminary:
"The idea of emptying the mind is not biblically based," says Don Whitney, associate professor of biblical spirituality at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. "There can be a danger."
Referring to meditation's long association with Hinduism, Buddhism and other Eastern religions, Whitney says, "Some of the yoga stuff, where you're given a mantra, that is rooted in false religions." He sees no problem with stretching, but once you start chanting, you're treading on treacherous ground, he says.
His beef is that some people are seeking tools to help them live and de-stress. "That's very selfish," he says. "Our lives should be lived to the glory of God."
This is a really helpful analysis of the issue. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be rid of stress that is rooted in worldliness and the cares of this world. But getting rid of this worry is not a matter of self-therapy, but of having our minds reordered by the Word of God -- reordered by the Creator.
We live in a world so shaped by therapeutic concerns that most people never stop to wonder if God is dealing with them in their stress, their distress, their haunting thoughts, their cluttered minds. An attempt to empty the mind might well be an effort to listen to the self when we should seek to hear from God.
Beyond this, we should question the entire idea that the mind can ever be empty. Instead, it is far more likely that when we attempt to "empty" the mind in this way, we are just closing ourselves to anything but the concerns of the sovereign self.
For Christians, this kind of meditation is a danger, not a means to spiritual growth. Should we meditate? Without question, we should meditate upon the Word of God. This should be a part of our regular and constant spiritual discipline. But, this kind of meditation does not lead to an empty mind, nor to the sense of an empty mind, but to a mind constantly more directed by Scripture.
Any other form of meditation is a dangerous distraction and an empty promise.
They Like Themselves
Posted: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 4:21 am ET
|
|
USA Today is out with a report on a new research project that deserves our attention. It seems that high school graduates surveyed in 2006 consider themselves much more likely to succeed in life when compared to the self-assessment offered by graduates in 1975.
Researchers Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell are worried that these young people are showing signs of excessive self-esteem, which may set them up for disappointments later in life.
As USA Today reports:
Compared with the Baby Boomers who were seniors in 1975, 12th-graders surveyed in 2006 were much more confident they'd be "very good" employees, mates and parents, and they were more self-satisfied overall, say Twenge and co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia. Between half and two-thirds of the Gen Y teens gave themselves top ratings, compared with less than half in their parents' generation. The report is in 'Psychological Science.'
Boomer parents "are more likely than their parents were to praise children — and maybe over praise them," Twenge says. This can foster great expectations or perhaps even smugness about one's chances of reaching "the stars" at work and in family life, she adds. "Their narcissism could be a recipe for depression later when things don't work out as well as they expected."
All this reminds me of Garrison Keillor's fictional community of Lake Woebegon, where all of the kids are "above average." That simply isn't possible, but there is good reason to believe that many current parenting strategies imply that it is.
In recent years, some observers have warned that children are not well served when parents lavish them with inordinate praise or with unrealistic assessments. The culture of earned recognition has given way to sports teams that award a trophy to every player and to contests in which every participant wins.
As they grow older, some children turn cynical about all this. They just begin to discount what their parents, educators, or other authorities tell them. Eventually, reality intrudes in the form of college admissions, athletic scholarships, or other dimensions of merited recognition. It may be that every player on the 8th grade team gets the same trophy, regardless of performance on the field. All that changes when it comes time for college athletic scholarships, however. Those are not passed out without regard for performance.
Other children bask in the glory of unmerited praise. Educators talk of children who insist that they should receive an "A" on a paper or test because "I am an 'A' person." Some children reach young adulthood with no real help from parents in understanding their place in the world -- or about what it might take for them to get where they want to go.
Roy Baumeister of Florida State University states his concern memorably:
"Many people who grew up in the '50s say, 'Nothing I did was ever good enough for my parents.' Now we're seeing the pendulum swing, and you hear from coaches and teachers who have been at it a while that kids have become more fragile. They don't take criticism well," he says.
"Thinking you're God's gift to the world is nice for you. It's a little harder for everyone else around you."
Every child is special. And we certainly hope that these children exceed all expectations about their future excellence in all areas of life. Nevertheless, a little reality might help, and some honesty as well.
When secular observers express this kind of concern, Christian parents should take particular notice. We should encourage our children to excellence in all things -- not so much for their self-esteem but for the glory of God. And, we must be honest with them about what this excellence would mean and what this standard will require.
That kind of reality therapy will be as good for the parents as for the children. As the Apostle Paul reminds us:
For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. [Romans 12:3]
Atheists Attempt Public Relations
Posted: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 4:46 am ET
|
|
The Irish poet Brendan Behan once quipped, "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your obituary." Some atheists evidently disagree, and they want to help atheism get over a rather significant public relations problem.
As Tom Krattenmaker reports in USA Today, "Being an atheist is not easy in this age of great public religiosity in America. Not when the overwhelming majority of Americans profess some form of belief in God. Not when many believers equate non-belief with immorality."
Furthermore, many atheists recognize that well known atheist celebrities such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have shown an abrasive and belligerent face of atheism to the public. Add to that Bill Maher's film "Religulous" and the lingering memory of militant atheists of the last century such as Madalyn Murray O'Hair. They do have a problem.
Some also have a strategy, as Krattenmaker explains:
But if Margaret Downey keeps making progress with her campaign to show a different face of atheism, it's possible to imagine the day when avowing one's non-belief will not be political suicide. (It seems to be just that today, given that only one member of Congress, Rep. Pete Stark of California, has revealed that he does not believe in a deity; in view of polling data suggesting that some 5% to 15% of Americans are atheists and agnostics, it seems certain there are at least a few more non-believing senators and representatives in the halls — and closets — of Congress.)
Downey, having recently finished a stint as president of the Atheist Alliance International, is now organizing a non-believers' unity convention to take place in 2011. She is the poster person for positive atheism, a term she uses for a new face of atheism that emphasizes the good things in which non-believers do believe.
In other words, Downey wants atheists to be known more for what they do believe rather than for what they deny. It's going to be a tough sell. Krattenmaker nevertheless reports that there is a spirit of "positive atheism" among many atheist groups now.
In his words:
The spirit of positive atheism infused this fall's convention of the Atheist Alliance, which comprises nearly 60 U.S. atheist groups with combined membership of about 5,000. Attendees gave blood and had their hair shorn for use in cancer patients' wigs. At last year's convention, Downey presided over a baby-naming ceremony, where parents and their supporters exalted wisdom, love, honesty and the beauty of nature, and the newborns were given not godparents, but "guideparents."
All this makes for interesting reading and media attention, but it's hard to see that the average American will see this new approach as reassuring. The fact remains that atheism, by definition, is a worldview based on the denial of God's existence. Atheists may attempt to create rituals, ceremonies, and practices that mimic Christian traditions, but this serves only to point to the infinite emptiness at the heart of the atheist worldview.
I think I can understand why atheists are concerned about public relations. A kinder, gentler atheism might sell better in the public square. But it remains what it is -- a worldview that denies the existence of a divine Creator, Redeemer, or Judge.
As Tom Krattenmaker acknowledges, one key sticking point is the fact that a recent poll indicated that most Americans believe that an atheist should not serve as President of the United States.
Now, there is no legal or constitutional barrier to an atheist serving as President. The problem for an atheist candidate is the reluctance of the electorate. It seems that a majority of Americans believes that belief in God -- a divine Creator, Redeemer, and Judge -- is an important qualification for leadership. No public relations strategy is going to overcome that.
Defender of Faith? Throne Language for the Postmodern Prince
Posted: Monday, November 17, 2008 at 6:33 am ET
|
|
HRH Charles, Prince of Wales, turned 60 last week. This makes Prince Charles the longest-living heir to the throne in British history. It also raises the question of whether he will ever be king. After all, if Queen Elizabeth II lives only as long as her mother, that means adding another twenty years to her reign. The Man who Would Be King would then be 80 himself. The math is not on his side.
Even so, the Prince has been working on changes he proposes to the 1953 Royal Titles Act. The most significant proposal is this -- Prince Charles, if crowned as King, wants to be known as "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith." This represents a seismic shift, but it perfectly fits the postmodern Prince.
As The Telegraph [London] reported:
The Prince caused controversy within the Anglican church when he floated the idea several years ago of becoming Defender of the Faiths in an attempt to embrace the other religions in Britain.
In a compromise he has now opted for Defender of Faith which he hopes will unite the different strands of society, and their beliefs, at his Coronation.
The original title, Defender of the Faith, was granted to King Henry VIII in 1521. Pope Leo X was impressed by King Henry's defense of the Catholic faith against the Lutheran threat, granting him the title as a reward. King Henry had written The Defense of the Seven Sacraments as an indictment of Martin Luther and his theology. But, of course, a later pope would have a very different view of Henry VIII after the king broke with Rome and established the Church of England with himself as its supreme head. Henry VIII and future monarchs would retain the title, "Defender of the Faith," as a seal of their primacy within the Anglican church.
But, of course, this means defending a very specific form of a very specific faith -- the Christian faith. Pope Leo did not designate Henry VIII as the defender of religion, nor of faith in general (impossible conceptions in the sixteenth century) but as Defender of the Faith.
Prince Charles is, even by the standards of British royalty, something of an odd duck. When his engagement to Lady Diana Spencer was announced in 1981, the Prince was asked if he was in love with Diana. Yes, he answered, "whatever that means." It was not a good sign that Prince Charles evidently did not know what falling in love means.
Now, he desires to be known, as king, as Defender of Faith. Faith, in other words, "whatever that means."
Some years ago, Prince Charles began to display patterns of thought that are distinctly New Age. He is known to be influenced by the writings and personal influence of the late Laurens van der Post, a major New Age thinker. When the Prince of Wales speaks on issues of public importance, he often sounds like a New Age intellectual. In other words, he is often virtually impossible to understand.
The issue of the investiture and coronation language is very easy to understand, however. A future King Charles does not want to defend the Christian faith, but all faiths -- even faith itself.
As The Telegraph reported,
A Clarence House spokesman said: "There has been work done on the accession planning as you would expect however there has been no planning of the Coronation or its contents." The Prince has been advised on the accession by Sir Stephen Lamport, his former Private Secretary, who was a senior civil servant.
Vernon Bogdanor, the constitutionalist who is Professor of Government at Oxford University, said: "In 1952, when the Queen came to the throne, it was very much an Anglican society. The Prince of Wales will become head of a nation which is multi-denominational.
"The Prince has said that he wants to be seen as a defender of all religious faiths and not just the Anglican church but the Coronation is an Anglican ceremony. Any change would require legislation."
Prince Charles originally wanted to be known as "Defender of Faiths," but will now settle for "Defender of Faith," according to sources close to the Prince. Just a few years ago, Prince Charles commented:
All the great prophets, all the great thinkers, all those who have achieved an awareness of the aspects of life which lie beneath the surface, all have showed the same understanding of the universe or the nature of God or the purpose of our existence--and that is why I think it is so important to understand the common threads which link us in one great and important tapestry.
Anyone who looks closely at this statement will recognize immediately that it is false. The various religions of the world are not talking about the same divine reality, nor revealing "the same understanding of the universe or the nature of God or the purpose of our existence." To the contrary, there is no generic "faith" in any meaningful sense of the word.
This news out of Great Britain tells us a great deal about the future of the House of Windsor and, in its own way, about the future of the British people. The public decline of the Church of England is nothing less than tragic, but grave theological compromises preceded its statistical free fall.
Nevertheless, far beyond the green and pleasant land of Britain, this news also tells us a great deal about how so many people understand faith. They see it as a substance or stance without any necessary object or referent. In this view, it all comes down to mere faith, and faith in faith -- and faith in any faith.
Christianity makes a claim to being the faith, indeed the faith "once for all delivered to the saints" [Jude 3]. That is the faith that deserves our defense, for it is faith in Christ, and in Christ alone, that saves.
_________________________
Photo credit, HRH The Prince of Wales, photographed by Hugo Burnand, courtesy of www.royal.gov.uk.
The Aftermath -- Two Media Angles
Posted: Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 5:10 am ET
|
|
In the aftermath of the recent election the media, along with the rest of the society, are scrambling to make sense of it all. This has led to some interesting approaches and news stories. I recently was asked by TIME magazine and The Wall Street Journal to comment on the issues of same-sex marriage and abortion in the aftermath of November 4.
Michael Lindenberger of TIME wanted to talk about what the election meant for the issue of same-sex marriage. His questions came right after proponents of gay marriage, stung by their defeat on California's Proposition 8 vote, appealed to the court to overturn the amendment.
He reported:
The request is directed at the same court that in May issued one of the most sweeping declarations of fundamental gay rights in U.S. legal history, making same-sex marriage legal by a 4-3 vote. The Republican-dominated court could decide by the end of this week whether to rule on the request for a stay or send it to a lower court first. But whatever the merits of the legal challenge, the court will face enormous pressure as it deliberates.
"If the California Supreme Court were to issue a ruling that would invalidate the will of the people, the consequences for the court would be momentous," the Rev. Albert Mohler told TIME over the weekend. Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and one of the nation's leading Evangelical voices, called such a "usurpation" hard to fathom. Imagine, he said, how much more controversial Roe v. Wade would be now had the court issued the decision after more than half the states had held statewide elections on the issue. "Tuesday's rulings have made it much more costly for any court to reach a conclusion in favor of gay marriage," he said.
I stand by that statement. The California Supreme Court is expected to respond to the question within the week, and that will tell us a great deal about where this issue now goes in California.
In a fascinating twist, Lindenberger reports that some gay rights activists now want the issue to be dropped in favor of other priorities. He reported on a phone call that included more than 100 activists and legal scholars who support same-sex marriage. "The mood was dour," he revealed. But this is the really interesting part of this section of his article:
Longtime gay rights advocate Dean Trantalis of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and others on the conference call expressed concern that the gay rights movement had become too focused on marriage, and is now paying the price in other more critical areas. "Marriage was never our issue," Trantalis said. "It was thrust upon us by the other side, and they've done a very good job of beating us up over it.
What is Dean Trantalis saying here? Is he saying that opponents of same-sex marriage "thrust" the issue upon gay rights activists? The "other side" forced the issue? I have no idea what he could be talking about here. Defenders of natural marriage did not force this issue upon anyone.
I do understand what he means when he says that "the gay rights movement had become too focused on marriage." It was this movement that made marriage the flash point, hoping that acceptance of same-sex marriage would break down remaining barriers to the full normalization of homosexuality within the society.
Stephanie Simon of The Wall Street Journal wanted to talk about the abortion issue. She is certainly correct to point out that the pro-life movement (which she calls the "anti-abortion movement") "was dealt sharp setbacks in last week's election."
Not only was a pro-abortion candidate elected President, but all three state ballot questions related to abortion were shot down. Ms. Simon describes the divide now evident between those in the movement who still intend to work for the outlawing of abortion and those who now call for a softer approach, hoping to reduce the number of abortions through social programs and counseling.
As she reported my comments:
"It could be we're at a tipping point in this culture," said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "Ignoring the obvious will not help."
Count me among those who believe that we cannot now step back and negotiate how many abortions we are willing to settle for in order for this issue to just go away. I reject the argument put forth by those who say we should now just step back and accept legal abortion on demand as a permanent reality and move on.
My friend Mark Dever put that argument in its place in his comments included in the article:
"It's like saying, 'Let's work to make sure they kill fewer Jews in the concentration camps this year,"' said the Rev. Mark Dever, a pastor in Washington D.C.
Who could live with that? We should rejoice when any mother chooses to keep her child, but this is not where we can stop. Fewer abortions is not good enough.
These articles indicate something of the soul-searching that has begun among those on all sides of these contentious issues. This is no time to take a sabbatical from attention to these crucial questions.
Is it Legitimate to Question God?
Posted: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 5:51 am ET
|
|
A recent caller to my radio program raised an issue of obvious personal urgency. He explained that he and his wife had recently experienced the death of a young child. He spoke of his faith in Christ and of his desire to be obedient. "But, can we question God?" he asked.
Of all possible tragedies, the death of a child is singularly horrific. The caller did not relate details of this tragedy, but we all heard enough to feel the unspeakable grief experienced by this young Christian couple. Do they have a right to question God?
It seems to me that the answer is both yes and no. Beginning with the biblical affirmation that God is omnipotent and omniscient, sovereign and ever-reigning, we start with the understanding that whatever comes to pass does so by the express command, ordination, or permission of the Father. Thus, the Creator is at all times responsible for his creation -- and for his creatures.
So, is it legitimate to question God?
Perhaps we should consider how God has revealed himself to us as Father. Considering a human father for a moment, we can recognize two different ways of questioning his ways. The first way would be to rest secure in his love and fatherly care, but to express confusion over his ways. Even the most faithful and trusting children wonder about their parents at times. What are they up to? Why did they make that decision rather than the other? What was the purpose of that action? As close as children are to parents, parents often perplex children by acting like adults. In this mode of questioning, the child never questions the father's love and faithful disposition, but does admit confusion -- and perhaps even disappointment.
The other way of questioning a human father is to question his character, his faithfulness, or the authenticity of his love. This is an altogether different mode of questioning. In this second pattern of questioning, the child questions the father's heart, not merely his actions and ways.
Now, move from considering these two different modes of questioning a human father to a parallel set of approaches to questioning our heavenly Father. It is not unfaithful to admit and to articulate a sense of perplexity and pain in observing the ways of God. There are times when we cannot offer an explanation of God's ways. At times, we cannot even detect any possibility of a purpose. We can admit this to ourselves, to our brothers and sisters in Christ, and to our heavenly Father.
The other mode of questioning God, on the other hand, constitutes sin and implies unbelief. We cannot remain faithful and question God's own faithfulness. His love for those who are in Christ is beyond question. His character is a constant and his love never fails. He is not loving and gracious toward believers at one moment, only to turn into a malevolent deity the next. He never changes.
In this light, it would be sin to question God in this second sense -- the sense in which we might question whether God really loves us, or if He is really faithful to his promises. This is not the questioning worthy of a believer, but of an unbeliever.
In Numbers 23:19 we read: "God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has He spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" To question God's faithfulness is to assault his character. Finite human beings are incapable of understanding the wisdom of God, except when that wisdom is mediated to us through the miracle of revelation. We are not promised that all of our questions will be answered on earth.
We are promised, however, that on the Day of the Lord every believer's eyes will be dry, and every tear will be wiped away. We will understand all things in a transformed light. We will know in a fully revealed sense what it means when we are promised that nothing can separate us from the love of God. On that day will not be God's interrogators or questioners, but worshipers who will see him face to face.
Is it legitimate for a believer to question God? Yes and no. Even the Apostle Paul admitted to being perplexed [2 Corinthians 4:8], but by his own affirmation he was not crushed. We have no right to question the steadfast love of God for us, however, because this insinuates that God is either unable nor unwilling to keep his word. As the Bible reveals, He is neither unable or unwilling. He is ever faithful, even as his ways are "past finding out" [Romans 11:33].
One day, we will be beyond asking any questions about God's ways. Until then, it may help to remember that even the Apostle Paul was sometimes perplexed. Perplexed, that is, but not unfaithful.
The Challenge We Face
Posted: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 2:29 am ET
|
|
The challenge of defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman was on full public display on November 4. The immediate news was very encouraging indeed. Voters in Arizona, Florida, and California all passed measures defending marriage and prohibiting same-sex marriages in their states. These three states, added to the over twenty others that had already passed similar constitutional amendments or similar provisions, have made a massive public statement in support of marriage.
Without question, that is good news. The vote in California was especially significant, as Proposition 8 allowed the citizens of the nation's most populous state to take the issue back from the state's Supreme Court, which had arrogantly usurped the authority of the people in a 4/3 decision back in May. The 52-48 vote was a clear win for marriage, and a geographical vote distribution chart shows that same-sex marriage has support mainly in the Bay area of San Francisco and neighboring communities. The win in Florida was important because the measure needed 60 percent of the votes in order to pass. It received 62 percent of the votes cast. The Arizona vote was similarly significant -- in this case because that state had been the only state to date to have turned down a similar measure in a previous election.
Nevertheless, legal challenges were quickly filed in California. The most threatening of these asks the California Supreme Court to rule the measure as unconstitutional because it "revises" rather than "amends" the state's constitution. The claim is specious, but so was the argument accepted by the court back in May. This much is clear -- any court that would overrule a mandate from the people in this manner will undermine its own legitimacy.
In other developments, statements from two prominent politicians made news on the issue. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger encouraged same-sex marriage advocates to press ahead. He even expressed hope that the state's Supreme Court would overrule the voice of the people. "It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
As The Los Angeles Times reported:
Schwarzenegger publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
On Sunday, he urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. "I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done ."
What makes this especially interesting is that Schwarzenegger had run for office opposing same-sex marriage. He is not now a candidate for re-election. As the paper observed, "With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor's thinking appears to have evolved on the issue."
Meanwhile, Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi told The San Francisco Chronicle that voters just have misunderstood the measure. In a stunning demonstration of political condescension, Rep. Pelosi argued: "Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was . . . . I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state." If anything, the wording of the proposition, controversial in itself, makes the Speaker's point even more ludicrous. Is she seriously suggesting that the voters of her home state cannot be taken seriously when they defend marriage? It appears so.
In yet other developments, protesters marched in front of the Mormon Temple on Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles and across the street from Saddleback Community Church. The Mormon church was the largest single financial contributor to the fight for Proposition 8, and major Evangelical churches were behind the effort as well, joined by many Roman Catholics.
On the other hand, as reported in The Los Angeles Times:
"We will continue to bless same-sex unions here until we can legally celebrate same-sex unions again," the Rev. Ed Bacon told 1,000 congregants during Sunday services at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, which has blessed same-sex unions for 16 years.
After the service, Bacon and other clergy members held a news conference on the church steps. They were surrounded by gay and lesbian couples, some standing with young children.
"I know these couples. I know their relationships," Bacon said, addressing a phalanx of television cameras. "They should be celebrated, rather than disparaged. . . . In the eyes of God, these people are married."
This struggle isn't over -- not even close.
America Has Chosen a President
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 at 5:04 am ET
|
|
The election of Sen. Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States came as a bang, not a whimper. The tremors had been perceptible for days, maybe even weeks. On Tuesday, America experienced nothing less than a political and cultural earthquake.
The margin of victory for the Democratic ticket was clear. Americans voted in record numbers and with tangible enthusiasm. By the end of the day, it was clear that Barack Obama would be elected with a majority of the popular vote and a near landslide in the Electoral College. When President-Elect Obama greeted the throngs of his supporters in Chicago's Grant Park, he basked in the glory of electoral energy.
For many of us, the end of the night brought disappointment. In this case, the disappointment is compounded by the sense that the issues that did not allow us to support Sen. Obama are matters of life and death -- not just political issues of heated debate. Furthermore, the margin of victory and sense of a shift in the political landscape point to greater disappointments ahead. We all knew that so much was at stake.
For others, the night was magical and momentous. Young and old cried tears of amazement and victory as America elected its first African-American President -- and elected him overwhelmingly. Just forty years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, an African-American stood to claim victory as President-Elect of the nation. As Sen. Obama assured the crowd in Chicago and the watching nation, "We will get there. We will get there." No one hearing those words could fail to hear the refrain of plaintive words spoken in Memphis four decades ago. President-Elect Obama would stand upon the mountaintop that Dr. King had foreseen.
That victory is a hallmark moment in history for all Americans -- not just for those who voted for Sen. Obama. As a nation, we will never think of ourselves the same way again. Americans rich and poor, black and white, old and young, will look to an African-American man and know him as President of the United States. The President. The only President. The elected President. Our President.
Every American should be moved by the sight of young African-Americans who -- for the first time -- now believe that they have a purchase in American democracy. Old men and old women, grandsons and granddaughters of slaves and slaveholders, will look to an African-American as President.
Regardless of politics, could anyone remain unmoved by the sight of Jesse Jackson crying alone amidst the crowd in Chicago? This dimension of Election Day transcends politics and touches the heart of the American people.
Yet, the issues and the politics remain. Given the scale of the Democratic victory, the political landscape will be completely reshaped. The fight for the dignity and sanctity of unborn human beings has been set back by a great loss, and by the election of a President who has announced his intention to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law. The struggle to protect marriage against its destruction by redefinition is now complicated by the election of a President who has declared his aim to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. On issue after issue, we face a longer, harder, and more protracted struggle than ever before.
Still, we must press on as advocates for the unborn, for the elderly, for the infirm, and for the vulnerable. We must redouble our efforts to defend marriage and the integrity of the family. We must be vigilant to protect religious liberty and the freedom of the pulpit. We face awesome battles ahead.
At the same time, we must be honest and recognize that the political maps are being redrawn before our eyes. Will the Republican Party decide that conservative Christians are just too troublesome for the party and see the pro-life movement as a liability? There is the real danger that the Republicans, stung by this defeat, will adopt a libertarian approach to divisive moral issues and show conservative Christians the door.
Others will declare these struggles over, arguing that the election of Sen. Obama means that Americans in general -- and many younger Evangelicals in particular -- are ready to "move on" to other issues. This is no time for surrender or the abandonment of our core principles. We face a much harder struggle ahead, but we have no right to abandon the struggle.
We should look for opportunities to work with the new President and his administration where we can. We must hope that he will lead and govern as the bridge-builder he claimed to be in his campaign. We must confront and oppose the Obama administration where conscience demands, but work together where conscience allows.
Evangelical Christians face another challenge with the election of Sen. Obama, and a failure to rise to this challenge will bring disrepute upon the Gospel, as well as upon ourselves. There must be absolutely no denial of the legitimacy of President-Elect Obama's election and no failure to accord this new President the respect and honor due to anyone elected to that high office. Failure in this responsibility is disobedience to a clear biblical command.
Beyond this, we must commit ourselves to pray for this new President, for his wife and family, for his administration, and for the nation. We are commanded to pray for rulers, and this new President faces challenges that are not only daunting but potentially disastrous. May God grant him wisdom. He and his family will face new challenges and the pressures of this office. May God protect them, give them joy in their family life, and hold them close together.
We must pray that God will protect this nation even as the new President settles into his role as Commander in Chief, and that God will grant peace as he leads the nation through times of trial and international conflict and tension.
We must pray that God would change President-Elect Obama's mind and heart on issues of our crucial concern. May God change his heart and open his eyes to see abortion as the murder of the innocent unborn, to see marriage as an institution to be defended, and to see a host of issues in a new light. We must pray this from this day until the day he leaves office. God is sovereign, after all.
Without doubt, we face hard days ahead. Realistically, we must expect to be frustrated and disappointed. We may find ourselves to be defeated and discouraged. We must keep ever in mind that it is God who raises up nations and pulls them down, and who judges both nations and rulers. We must not act or think as unbelievers, or as those who do not trust God.
America has chosen a President. President-Elect Barack Obama is that choice, and he faces a breathtaking array of challenges and choices in days ahead. This is the time for Christians to begin praying in earnest for our new President. There is no time to lose.
Read past blogs
