I would like to recommend to you a lecture I was privileged to hear at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School via the Carl F.H. Henry Center. The lecture was presented by Dr. Paul Metzger and was entitled Downward Mobility and Trickle-Up Economics: A Trinitarian Reflection on Money and Power. In this lecture Metzger presented a critique and examination of the typical American evangelical-fundamentalist view of economics, namely capitalism, and calls for a “capitalism of a higher order.” For example, he states, “While evangelicals are engaging increasingly [in] enterprises towards the poor, they’re not advocating for political policies that would fight against the structures that make and keep people poor.” And he points out what he sees as an inconsistency between the Fundamentalist-Evangelical rejection of evolution and its survival of the fittest but acceptance of capitalism and its survival of the economic fittest.”But would it not be difficult to challenge genetic determinism and natural selection if the [evangelical-fundamentalist] movement is conflicted, promoting an equally deterministic and naturalistic [economic] system.” “Evangelicals as a movement could not be an outspoken opponent because it often assumes the free and unregulated market economic narratives as gospel truth and embraces it with blind faith. . . . Evangelicals don’t simply assume the the market’s gospel-truthfulness, they champion it.”
Worldview & Culture
Belief–The Only Valid Frame of Reference for the Resurrection of Christ
“The risen Jesus Christ cannot be discerned within the frame of the old conditions of life which by his resurrection he has transcended, and cannot be understood except within the context of the transformation which it has brought about. . . . The evidence for the resurrection can be handled and tested, appropriately, only within the orbit of its impact.”[1]
“We are not concerned here simply with what is often called ‘the hermeneutical circle’, but with the kind of circle which is posited by an ultimate fact which in the nature of the case cannot be brought within the same circle as other facts, but which stakes out the very grounds upon which experience and knowledge of it are possible.”[2]
“We Will Have to Change”
Recent events have caused us to rethink our society.[1] It has been said that “we [our nation] will have to change.” Many solutions have been proposed.
Before the Genesis-flood, God described humanity as such: “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Gen 6:5). “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways” (11, 12). One might find some parallels between this description and they way many individuals currently feel about our society.
Some Thoughts on Social Media
Disclaimer: Please note, by pointing out the following, I do not mean to suggest that I have used social media perfectly at all times. These are simply some observations and lessons learned from my own personal experience.
Pros
- First and foremost, most people enjoy social media because we are social people and we like to stay in touch.
- The tremendous opportunity and potential:
- Our culture is extremely bound up with social media. (If you disagree, you’re living under a rock; sorry.) Therefore, for Christians to abandon this new realm of social media would be, in a large sense, to disengage themselves from a significant sphere of our culture.
- In a similar way to how Christians used the invention of the printing press to advance the Gospel and Biblical thinking, the emergence of social media (obviously less significant than the invention of the printing press, but nonetheless–) provides us with a tremendous tool to do the same–advance the Gospel and Biblical thinking. Social media can be used to challenge and encourage other Christians and articulate the Gospel and other biblical truths to the lost. By simply creating a Facebook account, Twitter account, etc. (and assuming that you have some people who will “add” or “follow” you), you automatically have a “platform of influence,” a “public voice,” at least on some level. Whereas in previous times, to get something in print on a public level was somewhat difficult, now anyone can do it, which is both scary (con) and amazing (pro).
Continue reading
The Christian’s Proper Response to the Homosexuality Movement–Part 4
Vote Against “Gay Marriage”
In America, we have the amazing privilege of actually being a small portion of our government. But with this privilege comes the question of what we will do with the political movement that seeks to make homosexual marriage legal. Most conservative Christians would probably impulsively respond to this question by voting against laws to pass “gay marriage.” But let’s think through this, considering it is no light matter.
If homosexuality isn’t primarily a political issue but a spiritual one (see next point below), why should we be concerned with homosexuality on a political level at all? Isn’t it irrelevant whether homosexual marriage passes? If homosexuals already have the political right to practice homosexuality and live together with their homosexual partner, why should we disallow them from being seen as married in the government’s eyes? Are the said “government’s eyes” that important to us? There are several Christian moral standards that are not regulated by law for which Christians are not trying to push legislation (i.e., sex outside of marriage, lust, greed, using the Lord’s name as a curse word, homosexual practice, etc.) Is it the Christian’s duty to try to impose Christian ethics on others through the political realm? And if so, how do we determine which of our views we should seek to put into law as legal requirements? All of these questions are extremely good reasons not to immediately assume that we should vote against “gay marriage.”
Kirk E. Miller 