Tag: opinion

What Jerry Sandusky’s Fall Teaches Us about the Christian Basis for Morality

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Like most everyone else, my heart was sickened by all the news surrounding Jerry Sandusky. Now that he has been convicted on 45 counts of child sexual molestation, it seems that justice is served. Setting aside the questions of whether Penn State should have done more to ferret out Sandusky, his conviction offers an opportunity to ponder the moral impulse of our society. By and large, the general public is shocked and outraged by Sandusky’s behavior, especially since he was in a position of authority. Pedophilia is universally condemned, and this by people of many different world-views.

The Gospel Coalition blog alerted me to an excellent article in the Catholic World Report that explores why Sandusky is guilty in the public opinion. The answer is Christianity and its effect on our culture and its undergirding of our moral fibers for hundreds of years. Let me excerpt the article and encourage you to go read the whole thing.

This is 2012. Turn the historical clock back 2000 years, and find yourself in the pagan Roman Empire before Christianity arose, i.e., before the Christianization of the West. In Rome, as in ancient Greece, homosexuality was completely acceptable. To be more exact, homosexual activity was frowned on (but not very diligently) when it occurred between two free-born men, but it was cheerfully affirmed between a master and his slave, and even more, a man and a boy between the ripe ages of about 12 to 17—just the target age of Sandusky. The man generally presented himself as a kindly benefactor to the boy, taking him under his wing, so to speak, and (in return for sexual favors) helping him up the social ladder. Just like Sandusky.

If Sandusky would have lived 2000 years ago, he would not have been found guilty of anything. He would not even have been noticed. His actions would have been entirely unremarkable. There would have been no disgust, no anger. The verdict would have been innocent, and in fact, the notion that he was guilty of anything would have been unintelligible.

There is one and only one reason, 2000 years later, that Sandusky is guilty now…Our consciences, our minds, our hearts, our legal system in America have been formed by Christian moral teaching about sexuality. Subtract Christianity from history, and we would be back in Rome. In pagan Rome, Sandusky would be innocent.

The piece goes on to illustrate how natural morality, darwinianism, democracy, psychology and philosophy all fail to lead to a condemnation of the kinds of acts that Sandusky is convicted of. But the article concludes with a warning:

But again, here’s the problem. Our society is being successively and successfully de-Christianized. The moral formation is wearing off rapidly. Now that we’ve answered the why of Sandusky’s guilt, we’ve got one more question to ask: How long will we continue to feel guilty?

That is a good question indeed. But I would demur. We still have many Christian underpinnings in our society, and for that we should be thankful. I often bring up this free attitude toward pedophilia or even ritualistic sex that was so pervasive in Rome and Corinth, and other ancient cultures, when I encounter the widespread Christian pessimism about how bad things are getting today. Christianity thrived in the most pagan of cultures, and it will continue to thrive the darker it gets today. Saving our society and improving our secular culture shouldn’t be the primary focus of Christians. Living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its tranformative moral power should be. May God help us “be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom [we] shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life” (Phil. 2:15b-16a).

Book Briefs: “Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian” by John Piper

~ Bob Hayton

In Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, John Piper gives us a sober, challenging read which should shake some of us out of our lethargy, when it comes to racial harmony. Piper brings up his own past, of growing up in a segregated south where the conservative Church turned a blind eye to the black man’s struggle. He exposes his own racism, and labors to show how Scripture and specifically the gospel of Christ, cuts at the root of racism.

Piper is known for his rational thought and his Calvinism. While admitting that Calvinists have historically fared poorly if judged on racial concerns, he nevertheless builds a pretty strong case that each of the Calvinistic doctrinal points should lead toward a greater solidarity between races. None of us are favored because of our own actions, our race shouldn’t determine our fate, what’s more is that Jesus Christ died specifically to redeem men and women of every race. A multicolored and multi-ethnic throng surrounds the throne of the Lamb in Revelation 5. And that should be our goal, to make heaven’s will a reality here on earth.

Along the way, Piper discusses practical aspects for how to implement a culture that aims for racial harmony, and he counters numerous objections. He delves into a cultural analysis too of structural racism and white guilt, among other topics. I found some of the appendices most helpful. One was a detailed discussion of the curse of Ham, which has long been a fundamentalist rationale for rigid racial segregation and separation. Another appendix shared some of the vision and policy statements of Piper’s church, Bethlehem Baptist.

This book is accessible, and personal. It is also informative and provocative. I believe it is very helpful and may have a lasting impact on the church at large. This topic is worth thinking through and praying long and hard about, and John Piper is just the man to help us on this journey. His prayers and his struggles bleed through the pages of this weighty little book. I hope that people of all colors will pick up this book and see the vision for the multi-ethnic church that Christ died for. We all can learn from the wisdom in these pages. I highly recommend this book.

For some excerpts from this book which I shared already here on my blog, click here.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com, Amazon, or direct from Crossway.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

More Resources on Thinking Through the Homosexuality Issue

~ Bob Hayton

In my last post, I shared some of John Piper’s thoughts about homosexual marriage. He clearly does not endorse it, but he doesn’t want to officially hop on a political bandwagon promoting one particular legislative approach to dealing with this in our culture and society at large. The job of churches and pastors is to preach the Word and inform the laypeople with the effect that they apply biblical principles to their political and social activities in a way that honors God and upholds the mission of the church.

Here are some additional resources for dealing with homosexuality, which is an increasing problem for American evangelical Christians, churches and pastors.

First, I encourage you to read this moving testimony about a converted homosexual who served God in spite of his struggles and his AIDS. Next, I’d really encourage you to read my review of Wesley Hill’s book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. It will open your eyes to the struggles some Christians face regarding homosexuality and give you perspective in looking at others who have identified themselves as homosexual.

Another resource is The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality edited by Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche. You can read my review of that book, here.

I leave you with this video clip of Al Mohler discussing this issue with Mark Dever at this year’s Together 4 the Gospel conference.

John Piper’s Thoughts on Gay Marriage and Pastoral Ministry

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Recently, John Piper preached the following sermon: Let Marriage Be Held in Honor” — Thinking Biblically About So-Called Same-Sex Marriage. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune picked up on his sermon and claimed he was “opting out” of the marriage fight, referring to the proposed marriage amendment to the MN state constitution that is on the ballot this Fall (which defines marriage as between one man and one woman). Piper clarified his remarks, explaining he wasn’t opting out but rather helping his congregation think through the matter biblically. Still the fact remains that Piper has held back from overtly supporting the amendment, preferring not to politicize the church or give explicit weight to one legislative approach to dealing with homosexuality.

Here are some excerpts from that sermon which provide possible reasons for his coming up short of a full endorsement of the marriage amendment.

How should Christian citizens decide which of their views they should seek to put into law? Which moral convictions should Christians seek to pass as legal requirements? Christians believe it is immoral to covet and to steal. But we seek to pass laws against stealing, not against coveting. One of the principles at work here seems to be: the line connecting coveting with damage to the public good is not clear enough. No doubt there is such a connection. God can see it and the public good would, we believe, be greatly enhanced if covetousness were overcome. But finite humans can’t see it clearly enough to regulate coveting with laws and penalties. This is why we have to leave hundreds of immoral acts for Jesus to sort out when he comes.

Laws exist to preserve and enhance the public good. Which means that all laws are based on some conception of what is good for us. Which means that all legislation and all voting is a moral activity. It is based on choices about what is good for the public. And those choices are always informed by a world view. And in that worldview — whether conscious or not — there are views of ultimate reality that determine what a person thinks the public good is.

Which means that all legislation is the legislation of morality. Someone’s view of what is good — what is moral — wins the minds of the majority and carries the day. The question is: Which actions hurt the common good or enhance the common good so much that the one should be prohibited by law and the other should be required by law?

…

8. Don’t press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism. Pray that the church and her ministers would feed the flock of God with the word of God centered on the gospel of Christ crucified and risen. Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative initiatives, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word, and to the cross.

Please try to understand this: When I warn against the politicizing of the church, I do so not to diminish her power but to increase it. The impact of the church for the glory of Christ and the good of the world does not increase when she shifts her priorities from the worship of God and the winning of souls and the nurturing of faith and raising up of new generations of disciples.

If the whole counsel of God is preached with power week in and week out, Christians who are citizens of heaven and citizens of this democratic order will be energized as they ought to speak and act for the common good.

[quoted from the online transcript of Piper’s sermon dated June 16/17, 2012]

The Desiring God blog later posted a fuller transcript of Piper’s words surrounding point 8 from his sermon. Piper also went on to give a series of brief blog posts addressing the topic of homosexuality which I found very helpful. I provide links to these articles below.

I appreciate Piper’s resolve to not allow the church to become too politicized. We need to stand for God’s truth, but in matters of social policy and interacting with the fallen world in which we live, there are valid points to be made for competing visions of legislative strategy. I support marriage as being defined as between one man and one woman. But I also recognize the political reality of the fallen world we live in. There are legal and economic benefits of marriage that could be bestowed on civil unions, and if they want to call that “marriage”, why should I be surprised? Will legislating a definition of marriage fix the problem of the heart? Will it not only add fuel to the fire when it comes to the continuing the fight for “true equality” from our homosexual neighbors? Will it really solve anything?

Book Briefs: “The Best of The Reformed Journal” by James D. Bratt and Ronald A. Wells

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

The back cover of this handy book explains that The Reformed Journal “set the standard for top-notch, venturesome theological reflection on a broad range of issues.” Unfortunately, the journal was somewhat before my time: its print run spanning 1951 to 1990. This makes the anthology brought together by James D. Bratt and Ronald A. Wells all the more valuable. Wells was an editor of this journal at one point, and both of these men have a long history on the faculty at Calvin College, which published the journal.

The Best of The Reformed Journal collects poignant pieces from the history of the journal in an easy to browse collection, handily contained in a softcover volume. Arranged by topic and time period, the articles run the gamut from theology and politics, art and culture, to race and social concern. Cornelius Plantinga, Richard Mouw, Carl F. H. Henry, Mark Noll, George Marsden, Lewis Smedes, and Nicholas Wolterstorff are just some of the more well-known authors included in the collection.

These pages include reflections on Calvinism and democracy, the legacy of T.S. Eliot, reflections on the atomic bomb, commentary on the civil rights movement and Apartheid, and thoughts on pro-life issues and women’s liberation. Interesting article titles include “On Looking at Paintings”, “Common Grace versus Individualism”, “Navel Theology”, “Humanitarian Snobs?”, “Star Wars in Beulah Land”. The selections are usually abbreviated to be a page or two in length, sometimes more. And occasionally a series of articles that spans several Journal editions is found, such as the back and forth between Lewis Smedes, Carl F. H. Henry and Richard Mouw on “Evangelicalism and the Social Question”.

If you are looking for enlightened yet easy reading, or if you are up for a look back at how leading Christian thinkers were addressing the problems facing the last half of the 20th Century, then you should pick up this book. At the very least, it will stimulate your curiosity, and it may just add some context to the problems of today.

Pick up a copy of this book: ChristianBook.com, Amazon.com, or direct from the publisher.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Eerdmans Publishing Company. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.