To catch up on this series you can read the first part, and the second part.

When writing on the subject of abortion, I somehow feel it necessary to defend myself before I even get started. Not from those with a pro-abortion/pro-choice stand, but from some pro-lifers who seem to have a litmus test of whether one is pro-life enough. So, let me establish some street cred as it were.

I have donated money to pro-life causes, was a member of the Moral Majority (card carrying-literally), and regularly picketed the worst abortiatorium in the entire state of Georgia: Midtown Hospital (in Atlanta before being shut down). For I don’t know how many times on Saturday mornings I and others stood on the sidewalk handing out literature to women and girls who were heading in to have an abortion. We prayed for them, talked with a few and saw a few change their minds. But, it was a noticeable minority.

I know they were having abortions because it was the only medical procedure done at Midtown Hospital as far as we were ever able to ascertain.

I encouraged a church I attended to show The Silent Scream narrated by former abortionist Bernard Nathansen, participated in Sanctity of Life Sundays, went to marches at the state capital, preached and taught against abortion, and read an uncountable number of books and articles about life. I have been a supporter of the pro-life movement and the unborn with my words, actions and money.

With this background, I now hope to encourage Christ followers to consider voting for Ron Paul as an authentic, consistent, pro-life candidate.

Because Ron Paul has so many libertarian views many people assume that he is pro-abortion/pro-choice. I’ve seen this in more than one comment thread. But, this is incorrect. (The official platform of the Libertarian Party is that “abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” This is insufficient, but it is what it is.) Not only is Ron Paul pro-life, he is the only candidate whose positions have any remote chance of effectively reducing the number of abortions performed in America.

Since the imposition of Roe v. Wade upon the United States population in 1973, 10s of millions of babies have been killed while in the safety and security of their mother’s womb. Dr. Paul’s stirring testimony of witnessing the attempted abortion of a baby while a resident physician is chilling. In that operating room, the baby was delivered alive then placed into a bucket to die. In an operating room just beside that one, many doctors and nurses were actively trying to deliver another baby. The only difference, as pro-lifers have argued for years, is that one is wanted and the other not. [See video at the end of this post.]

Paul understands a quote I read years ago:

We do not enjoy life so that we might exploit liberty. We enjoy liberty that we might respect and protect life.

Abortion on demand is not an affirmation of liberty in any respect. It is an exploitation of liberty to the detriment of humanity. The false conflation of a “woman’s right to choose” with a supposed “right to privacy” is one of the greatest blights on our nation’s history.

In America almost every crime of violence is a state issue. Rape, murder, assault, and the like are charged and prosecuted at the state level, not the federal level. Abortion is a violent assault. If the legality and regulation of abortion is returned to the authority of the states (as it was before Roe) then at least some states will restrict abortion even if they choose not to outlaw it. Likely, some states like California and New York will allow abortions as long as the baby’s little toe remains in the birth canal. Others might restrict it severely with still others scattered philosophically and legally between those to ends.

I am not of the opinion that Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. It is accepted by the judiciary as the law of the land. Shall we continue to allow abortion to continue unabated, providing only adoption options and support to struggling mothers, or should we try for what is actually possible?

In the years following Roe, the primary strategy to see abortion eliminated from American culture has been to nominate justices to the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn it. However, even “pro-life” presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush, were not able to tilt the balance of the court, and in some cases, did not even appear to try. For years the court was composed of people who were practically on life support and it was never overturned. Now we have younger, more diverse justices, but the balance has never created a condition that led to a reversal.

The other strategy has been to have a Life Amendment to the constitution. Potential candidates for office have been evaluated as to how they support a Life Amendment that would declare all human life protected from the moment of conception. There are only two ways to add an amendment to the constitution, neither of which, in my opinion, will ever happen. First is for an amendment to be passed on capitol hill (by 2/3 in both houses), then approved by 3/4 (37) of the states. The Equal Rights Amendment was the last to come by this method, but it failed because the time for ratification lapsed.

The second way an amendment can be added is for a constitutional convention to be requested by 3/4 of the state legislatures at which time amendments can be added. This has happened exactly zero (“0″) times since THE Constitutional Convention, so pro-lifers will turn all different shades of blue if they hold their breath waiting on this one.

Ron Paul’s position, while not removing abortion, would almost certainly guarantee a reduction in the number of abortions in the United States.

A problem that I have seen with the pro-life movement in America is how many see it as an all or nothing venture. I perceive that a significant reduction would not be enough for some even though the absolute outlawing of abortion on the U.S. is about as likely as finding a family of Bigfoots living in my basement. This seems a dangerously radical position that has the actual effect of working against the goal.

As you might expect, Ron Paul opposes the use of tax money for abortions. From his website:

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

Would Ron Paul’s view of abortion as a states’ issue ever be implemented? I do not know. Would he be able to accomplish anything even if he tried? I do not know. But, would he try? I believe he would, and likely more diligently than any president we’ve ever had. And were he to be successful we might even see a substantial reduction of abortions in the United States.

Below the video are links to three books on life. Rachel Weeping is out of print, but is the best book ever written on the subject if you can get a used copy.

My last post chronicled how I changed from being a dyed-in-the-wool Republican to an Independent who supports Ron Paul for president. In this post and the next one, I’ll be writing about some of Ron Paul’s positions that seem most misunderstood or misrepresented: foreign policy

The narrative of foreign policy options during the last two decades or so has not been whether we should be engaged in multiple conflicts around the globe simultaneously, but how many can we finance at the same time? Whether Democrat or Republican in office or the majority party there seems to be full, functional agreement on the use of military force around the world. From the MAD arms race of the 60s-80s we now stand at a place where the United States spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined (see video at the end of this post). Truth be told, we are spending much less on defense then we are on offense.

Foreign policy biblically, I believe, does fall under the realm of responsibility of the national government, and in our country the president has a major role. In meeting with heads of state, appointing the secretary of state and various ambassadors the president’s goal should be, through these appointees, to put America’s best foot forward to the world. It is a justifiably important discussion and rightly belongs front and center of debates.

No single area of Ron Paul’s political stances is more misunderstood than his foreign policy. He is commonly described as an isolationist, which is factually incorrect. An isolationist chooses not to be engaged on any level, to withdraw into one’s own borders, cut off trade and refuse communication with the rest of the world. Paul’s stance is that of non-intervention which is a different animal.

Do the stories of Somalia, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Lebanon or China, Albania or Iran ring a bell? Those actions all started as interventions in problematic areas and resulted in the loss of many lives, some American some not. In some cases we overthrew one freely elected president and installed a friendly dictator only to turn around years later and support an opponent of his. (Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been involved in around six dozen military or covert operations under the auspice of interventions. For a list from 1945-1999 see here.)

Depending on the year, the United States has between 700 and 900 military installations around the world, and those are just the ones that the Pentagon will acknowledge publicly. The number of CIA shadow bases around the world is unknown. What is known is we have spent nearly a trillion dollars over the last 10 years supporting the multiple wars in which we are now engaged while running up a national debt of $15T. This is utterly unsustainable.

What is incredible about this is that Americans do not seem to put 2 and 2 together on this. We are rightfully furious about the past several years of unrestrained borrowing and spending, yet are not willing to cut back on our sprawling military adventures. There is a reason why Ron Paul receives more donations from active military personnel than all other Republican candidates combined.

Ron Paul addresses the Rally for the Republic in Minnesota in 2008

What Paul also understands that no other candidate will acknowledge is this: if the shoe were on the other foot we would respond both negatively and violently. If Chinese soldiers were occupying Alaska, would we stand idly by? Or, for a more historical perspective, when England’s grand king attempted to impose his will on our ancestors while they were still British subjects, did they stand idly by? On the contrary, so vehement was their complaint it became known as The American Revolution.

Exporting democracy is neither a biblical nor a constitutional imperative. Since it is not, I do not get why so many Christians feel compelled to support a war-machine.

Early in 2011 I was traveling in Russia. In one of their large, university cities I dined with an English speaking student who was born into one of the 42 ethnic minorities in China. His family remained there as he studied in Russia. We asked, “How is the United States perceived in your home town?” He answered in a way unfathomable to most Americans: “We are afraid that America might come attack China.”

Our reputation matters, and continual warmongering damages our reputation internationally. When Jesus said, “There will be wars and rumors of wars,” I do not think He intended it to be the Neo-con foreign policy handbook. It is time Christians understand something: When the government of the United States makes America look bad internationally, it affects the ability and perceptions of Americans who are on mission with God. Warmongering can create for American Christian missionaries a constant need to explain the actions of the government when they want to be fielding questions about God’s kingdom. As a Christ follower I will no longer support the actions of worldly kings who perpetuate actions designed to expand an earthly empire at the expense of the gospel. Ron Paul’s non-interventionist stance on foreign policy will restore American to a place of peace and protection of our own land that the founders must have envisioned when assembling the constitution.

(I am aware that not all internationals feel this way and that many around the world still–rightfully so–see America as the land of hope and opportunity. I love America. It’s our government that frustrates me.)

In his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto (available below), Ron Paul notes about former Republican Senator Robert Taft:

War, Taft perceived, was the enemy of constitution, liberty, economic security, and the cake of custom. . . . Though he was no theoretical pacifist, he insisted that every other possibility must be exhausted before resort to military action. War would make the American President a virtual dictator, diminish the constitutional powers of Congress, contract civil liberties, injure the habitual self-reliance and self-government of the American people, distort the economy, sink the federal government in debt, break in upon private and public morality. Emphasis mine.

Can any seriously suggest that this is not precisely what we see happening, and can anyone seriously suggest this is not what Ron Paul argues against with every opportunity?

No discussion of American foreign policy could be full without considering our relationship to and support of Israel.

As our closest ally in the middle east, Israel, stands alone as a democracy in an ocean of kings, princes, queens and Sharia Law. Since 1948 we have stood with them, have sold them bazillions of dollars in weaponry and given many billions more. A strain of conservative Christians remain convinced that without our support of Israel God will “remove His hand of blessing from America.” For years I was taught that the “last days” would be inaugurated when Russia (Gog and Magog of the book of Ezekiel) plowed through the countries in between to take over Israel.

The point of this is not to argue theology, but to argue that there is more than one way to “support” Israel. From the U.S. budget more money goes to Israel’s sworn enemies every year than to Israel. Honestly: What kind of support is that? That is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s paying Paul to leave Peter alone, while pressuring Peter not to act is his own best interests since we give him money, too. A Ron Paul presidency would mean that the U.S. government would not longer be keeping countries on the teet of the American tax dollar, and that Israel would continue to buy the arms she needs if she even needs them. I have not seen a biblical argument yet that “supporting Israel” has anything to do with foreign aid.

Below is a grassroots ad created to explain just a fraction of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. It’s about 13 minutes long, but features a bit of history, the present and some insight from recently discharged military personnel. If you’ve thought about Ron Paul, but wondered about his “unique” or “naive” foreign policy, this might help you see another side.

[If the video doesn't load, click here.]

A long time ago in a lifetime far, far away, I was a Republican. I stood in line for an hour or so–and was happy to do it–to be able to cast my first presidential vote for Ronald Reagan against the dangerous Walter Mondale. The primary reason he was dangerous, I guess, is because he was perceived as weak on defense issues. He was socially liberal being for everything I was against and against everything I was for. Back in those days, I would read the party platforms (if I could find them in that Information Dark Age). The Democratic Party platform was something out of my weirdest nightmare. I agreed with almost nothing in it.

I regularly wrote letters to the editor and once wrote a letter to the editor of a county paper in which I called our liberal Georgia senator, Wyche Fowler, “a southern-fried Ted Kennedy.” (I still think that is a good line, because he really was.)

Over the years, I have remained pro-life, pro-1st and 2nd amendment, pro-church, pro-business. In many elections, especially early on, I voted straight Republican tickets, even down to the judges and state utility advisers (or whatever it is those people do). I would not have voted Democrat if you put the proverbial gun to my head. Or a real one, either.

Then, a few years back I began to notice some things, the main one being that when you got right down to it there really isn’t a hair’s breadth of difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party if you look at what they do, rather than listen to what they say. To listen to them talk you’d think they could never agree on anything, but they agree on some very, very important issues.

The main two or three issues upon which Democrats and Republicans agree–especially if they are the party in power–is that bigger government is to be preferred over smaller government, spending money we don’t have and never will have to build said government is the best way to go about it, and that various special interests (banking, military, oil, etc) should have their campaign contributions rewarded with favorable legislation, lavish government contracts, and, when possible, lax prosecution when criminal behavior occurs.

As a believer I had always believed, and still do, that God blesses nations, though I might think about it differently now than then. I was convinced that God was not going to bless “us” (the United States) if we allowed abortion, gay-rights and the like to be part of our culture. The problem was that I cherry-picked the stances I thought God would judge and ignored quite a few others that God judged in the Bible. But it really didn’t matter because those were “liberal” causes.

So, I found myself in somewhat of a dilemma. The positions that were of crucial importance to me found little or no progress, while the country continued down a financial path that seemed problematic no matter who sat in the White House or held a majority on the Hill. For the first time in my life, I thought about not voting.

In the second half of George W. Bush’s presidency it was obvious to me that Republicans were going to have a very difficult time overcoming his low approval rating and keep the White House. Sure enough, they propped John McCain up and invited him to get run over by the Obama Train.

My daughter, who had always been interested in politics, said to me, “Why don’t you check out Ron Paul?” I, along with most Americans in 2007 outside of Texans and gold coin buyers, said, “Who?” “You need to check out Ron Paul,” she insisted.

So, slowly and somewhat reluctantly I began to delve into researching this rumpled looking little man with white hair, black eyebrows, and an unfailing tendency to take any subject directly, unerringly to a screed on the Federal Reserve Bank.

She even drug me off one night in 2008 into north Hall County, Georgia, to a “meet-up” with other Paulites. Everyone was nice and there were a number of Dr. Paul’s books in supply along with signs and bumper stickers. Some of those folks kinds scared me, though, like all their household plumbing was filled with cans of pork-n-beans and beef stew waiting for the zombie apocalypse.

“Oh, boy,” I thought. “Who is this guy?”

But, every time I questioned something, she would correct me. My problem was that I was thinking of him like a typical Republican, which I absolutely should not have done.

So, I started listening to his speeches and interviews on YouTube. I didn’t depend on his debate performances, because it was pretty clear he wasn’t the best debater in the world in presentation (but the substance was there for anyone who would pay attention). There was a moment, very early in the 2008 election cycle when he introduced himself to the debate audience saying “I’m Ron Paul, and I’m the champion of the Constitution.” That one sentence set him apart in my mind from any other candidate. They didn’t act like they knew what the Constitution was.

It also reminded me that I’m an American, and the Constitution means something. It is supposed to be the track upon which this country runs, freeing the people to power the engine. It is the primary document that protects the people from the excesses of the government, the founders gift to “our posterity” to help protect them from what they were experiencing from the King of England. It’s now more commonly used for a doormat and toilet paper on Capitol Hill.

I also learned to pay attention to the rest of the Bill of Rights, not only the first two. There really was more to being an American than having freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom to own guns.

There were his warnings (and again in the debate on December 15, 2011) about the centralizing of power in the Legislative Branch, a complete violation of the Constitution. His concise and accurate arguments against the Federal Reserve Banking System are devastating, but most Americans are not paying enough attention to make understand them.

He’s the only candidate in either party who makes any attempt at all to bring actual Biblical principles to bear on how things should work, rather than just quoting a scripture here and there in a speech. But, because he rightly believes that the Constitution is the guiding document for United States government, even people who don’t care for the Bible still support him.

All my life I’ve heard, “Where are the statesmen? All these stupid politicians; just once I’d like to see a statesman.” Ron Paul is the closes thing to a statesman running for president that I am likely to see in my lifetime. I think the problem is that it’s been so long since we’ve seen one, we’ve forgotten what they look like.

It seems to me, that if we will not vote for him, we probably would not have voted for Washington, Adams or Jefferson, either. I think that says more about us than it does about Ron Paul.
You do not have to take my word for it. Check out Ron Paul from his own writings.

“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined… could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” – Abraham Lincoln, 1838

“A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Each year for the last 48 of them the United States government has passed the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that provides funding for the Department of Defense. As with any other bill in Washington, D.C., it can be innocuous–just a means of channeling tax receipts and borrowed money. This year, however, there are additions to it that will forever change what it means to live in America, because it changes the essence of what America is. Martial law takes place of the rule of law. The President takes place of the constitution.

Originally passing the House of Representatives in May, the bill, last known as S. 1867, passed the Senate earlier this month and now waits on President Obama’s desk where it awaits his signature. The parts needing the greatest scrutiny are in sections 1013 and 1032, drafted by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) and supported on the Senate floor by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who said,

the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland. (Emphasis mine.)

Designating “the homeland” as a battlefield gives the power to President Obama and any future president to call out members of any branch of the service against any American citizen to arrest and detail without trial anywhere in the world including your own back yard. Or front yard if you prefer.

President Obama’s threat of a veto, apparently, was only to get modifications to the bill which grant the Executive Branch of the government even greater power. Under the last two presidents the constitutional undermining and power grabbing of authority has been so fierce and so overt it would make a bunch of middle school, in-crowd, “mean girls” blush.

Normal American citizens who once enjoyed freedom of speech are not only potential enemy combatants, but have already been placed on the battlefield. And our own government has defined all the terms and written all the rules. Liberty has already lost.

Constitutional expert and civil-rights attorney, John Whitehead, has recently written,

America has indeed become the new battleground in the war on terror. In light of this, you can rest assured that there will be no restoration of the civil liberties jeopardized by the USA Patriot Act and other equally subversive legislation. Instead, those in power will continue to sanction ongoing violations of our rights, relying on bureaucratic legalese to sidestep any concerns that might be raised. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which was passed by the Senate with a vote of 93 – 7, is a perfect example of this. Contained within this massive defense bill is a provision crafted by Democrat Charles Levin and Republican John McCain which mandates that anyone suspected of terrorism against the United States be held in military custody indefinitely. This provision extends to American citizens on American territory. The bill also renews the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) which was passed in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks. In addition to renewing the AUMF, it extends its provisions to include military action against those who “substantially support” Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces.” And to cap it off, the bill enhances restrictions against transferring detainees being held in Guantanamo Bay to the continental United States.

Taken collectively, these provisions re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the rule of law—our U.S. Constitution, becomes the map by which we navigate life in the United States. In short, this defense bill not only decimates the due process of law and habeas corpus for anyone perceived to be an enemy of the United States, but it radically expands the definition of who may be considered the legitimate target of military action. If signed into law by President Obama, this bill will not only ensure that we remain in a perpetual state of war—with this being a war against the American people—but it will also institute de facto martial law in the United States. Although the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act placed strong restrictions on how and when the U.S. military may be used on American soil, the language of this bill supersedes Posse Comitatus, empowering the president to unilaterally impose martial law at any time of his choosing. This legislation signals the end of the rule of law in America.

(It’s worth your time to read the entire piece.)

In my younger years I would have urged people to write, call, or email their congressman or woman. But note this passed the Senate with only 7 (SEVEN) against votes. It has been clear from some time that the people in Washington don’t listen to the people who send them there, so don’t waste your time.

When “Barack Obama” is signed on the NDAA of 2012 it will be just as sad a day as when “George W. Bush” was signed across the Patriot Act. But people all over the land will still be arguing about whether Tim Tebow is getting mistreated by John Elway, whether Kim Kardashian was ever serious about her marriage, or who is the most selfish NBA players or owners.

We deserve exactly what we’re getting. Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.

This is something Sonya, my wife, posted on her Facebook this week. I thought it pretty profound, and thoroughly biblical.

(For those of you who do not know her, my wife is not in this picture.)

Discipleship is not easy. It is time-intensive. It is labor-intensive. It will cost you. it is not done in a day or a week. Throwing out spiritual platitudes is not the way to disciple someone. Criticizing their legitimate questions is not discipleship; it just drives those questions underground. Admitting you still have your own questions shows that you, also, are still a disciple and still in need of growth. Guess what? If you are still walking this earth, you haven’t arrived yet. In a good discipling relationship, there is no room for spiritual pride.

It rather reminds me of something else I read a while back from this missionary guy named Paul. Writing to believers in Thessolonica, Greece, he said,

Although we could have been a burden as Christ’s apostles, instead we were gentle among you, as a nursing mother nurtures her own children. We cared so much for you that we were pleased to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us. For you remember our labor and hardship, brothers. Working night and day so that we would not burden any of you, we preached God’s gospel to you…As you know, like a father with his own children, we encouraged, comforted, and implored each one of you to walk worthy of God, who calls you into His own kingdom and glory. (1 Thessalonians 2:7-9, 11-12, HCSB)

]]> http://www.martyduren.com/2011/11/18/wise-words-on-discipleship/feed/ 5 http://www.martyduren.com/2011/11/17/when-injustice-is-enough-justice-parsing-theology-into-nothingness/ http://www.martyduren.com/2011/11/17/when-injustice-is-enough-justice-parsing-theology-into-nothingness/#comments Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:45:28 +0000 Marty Duren http://www.martyduren.com/?p=1685

Part of this post deals with the terrible situation at Penn State University that broke in recent days. Because my website crashed and was down for several days I was unable to write a full post and was limited to expressing my outrage on Twitter and a few Facebook status updates. Suffice it to say that I am thoroughly disgusted with what happened to the boys involved and the cover-up that allowed former coach Jerry Sandusky to continue his pattern of child rape. That he used the auspices of a “benevolent” organization like the Second Mile Foundation to bring young boys into his sights is a most grotesque kind of evil.

Even with this in view I have friends who are utterly off the sports grid. Two of them had no idea who Joe Paterno was and had not heard this news at all even after Paterno was fired. My concerns as expressed here would not, as it will become clear, apply to such people.

In my last post I wrote a little about the current discussion as to whether justice is essential to the gospel, using a debate between Southern Seminary president Al Mohler and Sojourners president Jim Wallis as a launching point. That ongoing discussion, of which their debate is merely a microcosm, concerns the nature of the gospel itself. That is the reason why people on both sides tend to respond with such passion, and well it should be.

There is in the landscape of theological perspectives today a movement that is commonly referenced as “gospel-centered.” Many, if not most of the people in this movement, would align themselves with Mohler’s position, i.e., that justice issues are not essential to the gospel. These are opposed to any attempts to “add” anything to “the gospel” and define any kind of stand against injustice as works that spring from the gospel instead being integral to the gospel itself.

In the wake of the Penn State revelations I was looking to various people from the gospel-centered movement who would speak in defense of the victims, a need which took on growing importance when, following the firing of Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier, Penn State students rioted in support of Paterno (who was fired over potential complicity to the situation). For many of the students was the face of Penn State, and certainly of its football program. I thought of all the people online, of all who had an audience, the gospel-centered writers, bloggers and pastors would have been spearheading a call for justice for the victims. Or, a demand that well known people not be allowed to get away unscathed simply because they were famous or important to the financial position of Penn State. Or, given their strong and encouraging support of adoption, a defense of the defenseless, calling for a full and thorough investigation of those involved at Penn State for sure and The Second Mile if need be.

So, I waited. And waited. And waited.

Al Mohler wrote a piece that appeared on his website Thursday, November 10, 2011, as did Thom Rainer on his on the same date (but Rainer is not generally recognized as one of the “gospel-centered” bloggers). Then on Saturday, November 12, 2011, an article appeared on The Gospel Coalition blog entitled, Love Notices Wet Hair, which decried the Penn State abuses. The title came from a reported situation in which a young boy came home with wet hair after showering with Jerry Sandusky. His mother became suspicious, and, after confirming with her son what had happened, called the police. It was an important piece, but it wasn’t written by one of the big name bloggers at The Gospel Coalition website. It was written by Tim Henderson, the campus director for Cru at Penn State University.

I am not calling out a particular individual, because no blogger, writer or pastor can address every single issue that arises. But we are talking about the biggest American sports story of this year, and the most harmful story of any kind in the history of PSU. This was a story that dominated both sports channels and non-sports channels for days, and continues to do so with every new revelation. Counted among the gospel-centered heavy weights are rabid sports fans in general and college football fans in particular.

How is it that the most well known members of an entire movement have written almost nothing on their websites and blogs or have precious few tweets concerning it? I searched the terms “Penn State,” “Jerry Sandusky,” and “Joe Paterno” with every name or website I could remember, plus the term “gospel centered” and found, other than the two mentioned above, no quotes, articles or posts from the biggest most influential names in the movement. If I missed one it wasn’t for lack of trying.

I can only imagine how swift and thunderous would have been the response had Rob Bell suddenly endorsed NAMBLA as a legitimate expression of biblical love. Fifty-page pdf denunciations would have been published within hours. But why the near complete silence from this same group when pedophelia and child rape take place on the campus of a major university? It is this blanket of silence that is of concern. If those seeking to be gospel-centered are not motivated by that gospel to make their voices heard on such an issue, then one is forced to ask, “Why does this theology not, through the love of Christ, compel its adherents to speak out?” How in the world can adoption be a gospel issue, but the victims of pedophiles not be?

If gospel-centeredness does not lead to a vocal, biblical response to injustice of all kinds, then it has become perilously close an exercise in theological parsing. And, like water flowing downhill, extreme theological parsing leads to fundamentalism where the de facto result is striving to be more right than the next guy philosophically with no concern about it practically. If being gospel-centered creates a spiritual state in which adherents are not moved to speak out against such an atrocity as what we’ve seen at Penn State, then how could any serious follower of Jesus take seriously the gospel-centered position? If, as Al Mohler contends, justice is merely an expectation of the gospel, then, at least in the Penn State case, gospel-centered has proven to be a theological assemblage to which some issues of justice do not raise flags. When justice, which is a pronounced concern of God’s, becomes an optional expectation of the gospel in the real world then that theology, no matter how systematically astute, ignores the very gospel around which it purports to be centered.

]]> http://www.martyduren.com/2011/11/17/when-injustice-is-enough-justice-parsing-theology-into-nothingness/feed/ 6 http://www.martyduren.com/2011/11/14/the-gospel-and-the-social/ http://www.martyduren.com/2011/11/14/the-gospel-and-the-social/#comments Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:20:32 +0000 Marty Duren http://www.martyduren.com/?p=1687

I recently spent a couple of hours watching the Al Mohler/Jim Wallis debate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School’s Henry Center for Theological Understanding. The resolved was that social justice is integral to the gospel. Wallis took the affirmative, while Mohler, reluctantly in his own admission, took the “no” position.

Mohler rightly stated that the term social justice is not mentioned in the Bible. Neither, I might add, is economic justice, civic justice, or the Justice League of America. However, the word that these phrases share–justice–is mentioned. In fact the mentioned phrases are all more than implied in scripture, they are clearly addressed numerous times (well, not the last one). The Bible does address how God’s people are to relate to the poor, it does address how we are address the orphans and widows, it does address systems of economy that are unjust. About this most people do not argue. As a group the minor prophets rail against the disobedience to God that was so often demonstrated by injustice. Numerous of them specify mistreatment of the poor, the needy and the widows and children. Whenever a form of injustice is mentioned as happening “at the gate” or “in the gate” it refers to embedded, systemic abuse or oppression by those in power; i.e., legalized injustice.

Nearing the time of His betrayal Jesus disciples expressed their desire to help the poor. When Jesus told them to stay near Him he reminded them, “The poor you have with you always, but me you do not have with you always.” In this Jesus isn’t saying it isn’t important to help the poor, but that once He was not longer with them they would have plenty of opportunity to fulfill those ministry opportunities. (Perhaps Jesus is referencing Deuteronomy 15:11, which states, “There will never cease to be poor people in the land; that is why I am commanding you, ‘You must willingly open your hand to your afflicted and poor brother in your land’” HCSB.)

The question, and an implication from it that I will further address in my next post, is “Does it matter whether these things are integral with the good news of Jesus Christ, and what is a practical effect of separating the two?” When Jesus came proclaiming the “good news of the Kingdom,” was seeking to right injustice part and parcel to His message, or were (and are) these things merely expectations of behaviors that would spring from that message? If it is the “good news” (gospel) of the Kingdom then does speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves, standing against admittedly fallen economic systems that oppress the poor, and working against tyrannical leaders who brutalize their own people for their own wicked, self-aggrandizement or monetary benefit constitute “good news”? If it is good news of “the Kingdom” what does the King Himself expect as the ethic of His reign? Can we hold to the King while disparaging or ignoring the realities of His kingdom? Put another way, “Can we parse the ‘good news’ into integral and additional?”

If justice is part of righteousness, how can it not be integral to the gospel? Does the righteousness of God include His justice? If it does, why does our imputed righteousness not include a call to seek justice as well? If justice is not a part of our righteousness in Christ, what is the point of “judging with righteous judgment” as Jesus instructed, or how can we even do that? It seems to me that justice is the activity of God’s being just. If so, then how can we be clothed in the righteousness of Christ and it not include the characteristic of being just like He is just with the integrated activity of seeking to overturn injustice in all its forms?

I’m not sure I know the answers to all those questions or any of them for that matter. While Wallis argued that social justice is integral to the gospel and Mohler said it wasn’t, Mohler was quick to note that even though it wasn’t it was certainly the responsibility to every believer. In my paraphrase, “It isn’t integral with the gospel, but it is so much a fruit of righteousness it might as well be.” His humorously expressed displeasure with taking the “no” position was because no Christian wants to be viewed as against injustice!

The question is not whether issues of social justice should be addressed by Christians; only from where that impulse should come?

Thoughts? Are justice issues–abortion, the sex trade, socio-economic oppression–part of the gospel itself?

]]> http://www.martyduren.com/2011/11/14/the-gospel-and-the-social/feed/ 9 http://www.martyduren.com/2011/08/13/memories-of-ernie-johnson-sr/ http://www.martyduren.com/2011/08/13/memories-of-ernie-johnson-sr/#comments Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:57:42 +0000 Marty Duren http://www.martyduren.com/?p=1604

Former Braves player and announcer, Ernie Johnson, Sr.

An integral part of my childhood faded away last night when retired, long-time Atlanta Braves player and broadcaster, Ernie Johnson, Sr., died at the age of 87. It wouldn’t be possible to count the number of hours his voice filled my ears either from radio or TV, usually channel 17 (WTCG before it was WTBS). With little to work with on the field for so many years, it was entertaining to listen to he and his on air partner, Skip Caray, keep themselves and the rest of us entertained.

There are three broadcast moments that come to my mind, two I heard live and the third was recounted by Caray (I think). None are earth shattering like Jim McKay’s turn during the Munich Olympics; they were just ordinary moments in otherwise dull games. Perhaps none will seem funny to you, but they still cheer my memory.

The first occurred as Johnson and Caray were discussing a no-hitter that had just happened in another game, perhaps the night before.
Johnson: “Y’know, I had a no-hitter going once.”
Caray: “Oh, yeah?”
Johnson: “Yeah…then a guy singled off of me in the top of the second.”

The second isn’t really even funny. It just struck me as funny and I remember laughing and laughing in the car as I was driving. I swear, I think this happened as I was listening to the Braves game on the way home from church on a Wednesday night. This was when the Braves were really bad.
Johnson: [as the crowd is really booing] “Well, the boo-birds are really out tonight. [Pause] BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!”

I’m not sure whether it was just the way he sounded or that he was imitating the boo-birds, but I laugh even today when I think about hearing that.

The third took place at a moment during the broadcast when Caray was doing the play-by-play. Phillies great, Mike Schmidt, has come to bat. Unfortunately, when Caray introduced him, he mispronounced his last name as “Sh-t.” Knowing his own mistake, he immediately launched into a long, long soliloquy to draw attention away from what he had said. Finally, after getting well beyond his original error, he finished.

With perfect comedic timing, Ernie says, “What did you say his name was again?”

The truck had to cut off their mics due to the laughter.

I haven’t kept up with the Braves in years, really. Maybe even longer than a decade. I’m also not really one big on nastalgia. But, we’ll miss you Ernie. I already did.

Feel free to add your favorite Ernieism or memory as a comment.

]]> http://www.martyduren.com/2011/08/13/memories-of-ernie-johnson-sr/feed/ 1 http://www.martyduren.com/2011/08/08/how-long-is-too-long-when-preaching-a-sermon/ http://www.martyduren.com/2011/08/08/how-long-is-too-long-when-preaching-a-sermon/#comments Mon, 08 Aug 2011 23:06:26 +0000 Marty Duren http://www.martyduren.com/?p=1595

A recent post by pastor Brian Croft asks, “How long should my sermons be when I preach?” He listed three criteria: 1) Based on where your people are, not where you think they should be, 2) Based on how good and seasoned a preacher you are, and 3) To leave your people longing for more, not less.

A reader of his blog, Curt, suggested this humorous methodology he borrowed from another pastor:

1. The minister should rate themselves on a scale of 1 – 10 (with 10 being excellent).
2. Subtract one from that number (because most ministers/preachers have an inflated view of how good they really are).
3. Multiply that number by 5 (that’s the number of minutes a sermon should be).
Example: Rate myself a 7 – 1 = 6 x 5 = 30 minutes

I still like and would agree with that – but I’m also almost to the point that I think we should subtract 2 from the original number because it seems like the guys I listen to think they’re a lot better than they really are.

How long a pastor should preach is a pretty important subject for church goers. I’ve suffered along with many of you while attempting to listen to someone who has little to say but doesn’t seem to realize it. (There are probably some who would say the same of me.) I believe preachers/teachers are given time by their congregation as a trust, and it is a trust that should be respected. It’s an insult to a congregation and an abuse of my trust from God, to act as if people should listen just because I am talking.

Brian’s post got me to thinking about the subject of preaching, with which I have some experience. I’ll add these thoughts for your consideration.

1) Actually study enough to have something to say. Going into the pulpit (or onto the stage) week after week without being prepared is truly a sin. To preach God’s word is, as it always has been, a sacred trust to be taken with the utmost of seriousness.

2) Commit to only preach/speak as long as the Holy Spirit is using you in that moment. Simply because a pastor feels comfortable with the sermon he has prepared does not mean God intends to use all of it, most of it, or any of it.

3) Stop when you are done even if you have more notes. Sometimes it just isn’t happening. I believe it is better to be respectful of your people’s time. If you will stop when you have nothing to say, they will stay with you when you have more to say than normal.

4) Be willing to preach/teach the best you can do even if you “aren’t feeling it.” Some of the greatest affirmation I’ve ever received was after delivering a message I was sure had bombed. God’s Word is what has power. You’ve always been an instrument. Don’t live as if it depends primarily on your exceptionable abilities.

5) Don’t fake it. There is nothing wrong with saying to your congregation occasionally, “I had a very hectic week and did not have as much time a usual to prepare. I realize this will be much to your chagrin, but the message will only be about 20 minutes or so this morning.” Nobody ever leaves early from a 20 minute sermon. (It should be noted that recurring hectic weeks that interfere with sermon preparation indicate a need to create a different schedule.)

6) If you know the message will be longer than normal, let your people know at the beginning. “You all know that I try not to preach just to hear myself talk. After studying this week, I know this message will be a little longer than normal. If you’ll try and hang with it, I think you’ll be glad you did in the end.” When people begin to think, “I wonder if he knows how long he’s been talking?” you’ve quenched the Holy Spirit all by yourself.

7) If you are actively reaching lost, unchurched and de-churched people, you cannot only evaluate a sermons length based on the spiritual maturity of the believers. Some consideration must be given to whether you can connect with a newcomer after their butt has gone to sleep.

8) Be honest about your abilities as a communicator (from Brian’s #2 above). Some people are not gifted speakers, and, although it is a skill that can be honed and improved, care should be taken to accurately recognize one’s gift. If you are slowly developing or have reached a limit, then preach to that point and not further until your skills increase. God can use a short, Biblical, prayer drenched sermon on one or two verses just as good as He can use a 90 minute oration over a paragraph in the original languages.

The most vivid example of knowing giftedness came from a pastor I heard in Brazil. After preaching a powerful messsage, he reached the invitation portion and stopped. He then turned over the entire invitation/response to his associate pastor, who was obviously gifted to present the gospel. I’ve never seen any other pastor, in any church or continent stop a message at the beginning of the invitation and turn it over to another pastor. But this was his practice because his associate was gifted in this way.

9) Don’t chase rabbits; shoot’em.

10) Only use new, fresh illustrations at least 99.9% of the time. If your people have been saved any length of time at all, they’ve heard all the preacher stories. Using old worn out stories–especially theological urban legends–is a sure way to kill the power of the message. If you must use an oldie but goodie, let your congregation know that you know it: “I know this is an old illustration, but it perfectly shows the point.” Even then, make them a rarity. As soon as your listeners think, “He said this last Sunday/month/year” you’ve lost them.

]]> http://www.martyduren.com/2011/08/08/how-long-is-too-long-when-preaching-a-sermon/feed/ 4 http://www.martyduren.com/2011/06/06/president-eisenhower-on-the-military-industrial-complex/ http://www.martyduren.com/2011/06/06/president-eisenhower-on-the-military-industrial-complex/#comments Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:10:55 +0000 Marty Duren http://www.martyduren.com/?p=1577

Though I had heard the term “military-industrial complex,” I had never know its origin. Had speculation been brewing “some liberal, probably” would have been my guess. It was a shock to find that President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term using it in his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961.

To call his observations prescient would be correct, but almost underwhelming. Were Eisenhower to have witnessed the rise of said complex, the old soldier might very well rise up and launch another Operation Overlord this time aimed at McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing, KBR and the like. What follows is an excerpt.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

]]> http://www.martyduren.com/2011/06/06/president-eisenhower-on-the-military-industrial-complex/feed/ 0