Sanctity of Human Life Sunday: Reflections

January 22, 2017November 25, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Our society worships the gods of sex, convenience, and freedom and makes human sacrifices on the altars of abortion. I know it’s controversial. But we need to call it what it is — murder. And deep down, I’m convinced we know exactly what we’re doing.

At the same time, none of this can be used to ignore for one moment the very real, tough, and distressing situations that many expectant mothers face — the sort of circumstances that prompt so many mothers to consider abortions in the first place. As much as we care for the life the baby, we should care about the welfare of the mother. And we should extend grace to those who have had abortions.

Finally, as evangelicals, we must work towards a more wholistic and consistent ethic of life. “Sanctity of life” should mean all life, certainly pre-born babies’ lives, but not *just* pre-born babies’ lives. Until we do so, our fervent cries on behalf of life will ring hollow with the reverberations of hypocrisy.

Ethics. Compassion. Consistency. #SOHLS

73-17 from Desiring God on Vimeo.

Goodreads Review of Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson

January 7, 2017November 26, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Helpful in unpacking the complexities of the issues. Less satisfying when it comes to a constructive project of setting forth a positive way forward (besides generalities, i.e., Biblical theology)

View all my reviews

The Importance of Integrity vs. Compromise and Political Power-Plays

January 4, 2017November 25, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Integrity matters. If you want to serve as a testimony to Christian ethics, then you’re actually going to need to hold them, and that means holding them with consistency. Hypocrisy and double-standards will effectively serve to mute your witness.

It’s hard to cry out against a sin in one instance when, in another instance, you’ve excused, blown-off, or chosen to overlooked that sin.

What if the sort of “power” and influence Jesus intended for his followers wasn’t one of ends-justify-the-means ethical compromise and political power-plays, but witness to a “revolutionary”-like ethic like that of Mt 5-7, with all the integrity, lowliness, and self-sacrifice involved therein (5:13-16)?

Many advocate ethical compromise for the sake of “the greater good” (or “the lesser of two evils”). But what shall it profit the church if it gains a whole election but loses its witness? What if the church’s witness is the actual means of its impact?

RECOMMENDED: Can the Religious Right Be Saved? by Russell Moore

January 4, 2017November 26, 2017Kirk E. Miller

This was an excellent lecture. Russell Moore, as always, nails it.

Access the video here.

Access a full transcript of the lecture here.

Can the Religious Right Be Saved? Presented by Russell D. Moore from First Things on Vimeo.

Goodreads Review of Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views by H. Wayne House

January 1, 2017November 26, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views by H. Wayne House
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Good, substantive discussions (minus Richards, see below).

Laney provides a great survey of the texts, although I wish he had engaged the main “issues” more.

Heth is on point. Superb scholarly work here. (Note: Heth later changed his view, so lots of respect for this guy given his willingness to go where he thinks the text leads despite the sacrifice involved — his previously scholarly stand, e.g., his contribution here.)

Edgar is a juggernaut of destruction, ripping other authors and arguments to shreds. He’s good; but his tone is unfortunate. He also succumbs to building lots of straw man and frequently overstates his case. (Laney and Heth rightly take note of this.)

Richards… Oh, Richards. I don’t know how his piece made it past the editor. How did this guy get invited to contribute to this project? He only cites two sources… two endnotes! (compare that to Heth’s 106 endnotes). Seriously. Horrible exegesis. Loads of eisegesis.

He basically argues (and this is no exaggeration) that all divorce and remarriage is wrong, but people can do it anyway and we shouldn’t judge since that’d be legalistic. … Antinomianism would be a better title for his position!

Besides Richard’s though, lots of good stuff here.

(The following evaluation of each author’s contribution is not necessarily reflective of whether I agree or disagree with their position, but is based on the quality of their contribution, regardless of whether I agree with them.)

View all my reviews