Battling Materialism at Christmas

Christmas is a great time to give and receive gifts. More importantly, it is a time in the calendar to reflect on the great doctrine of the incarnation.  As strange as it may sound, it is also a dangerous time for the soul.

The love of riches and material things can (and if left unchecked will) lead us away from God (1 Tim. 6:10, Matt. 6:19-24). And in our wealthy culture, our flesh constantly faces the temptation towards loving things too much (materialism). Advertisements are flying fast and furious like shrapnel.  These advertisements generally work by tempting us to make our desires into needs. And needs quickly become things my heart demands and focuses on and thinks I can't live without.

The solution isn't to go hide in a cave or to mute all the commercials (though the latter isn't a bad idea).  I think the solution is to be more focused on God and His kingdom. We should center our thinking and conversations and desires around God and his rule in our lives and the world. As we see God as our ultimate treasure our hearts are free to enjoy good gifts without turning them into objects of need and worship (Matt. 6:31-33).

During war, you would do well to be alert and ready to fight. The same is true spiritually. In an effort to prepare your soul for this battle, I encourage you to listen to this short (4 minute) clip of John Piper answering the question "What is the danger in being a middle-class, comfortable Christian?".

Thoughts on The Election

Dr. Russel Moore has some good thoughts on the recent election and how we as Christians should respond. Here is an excerpt.

Christians, above all people, should pray for and show respect for our President and all of our elected officials. After all, unlike those who see politics as ultimate, we recognize that our political structures are important, but temporal, before an inbreaking kingdom of Christ. We don’t then need to be fomented into the kind of faux outrage that passes for much of contemporary political discourse. And, unlike those who see history as impersonal or capricious, we see behind everything a God who is sovereign over his universe.

So let’s pray for President Obama. Let’s not give ourselves to terms of disrespect, or every crazy conspiracy theory that floats across the Internet.

That doesn’t mean slavish obedience. In a democratic republic, the President and the Congress govern by the consent of the governed. We appeal to our elected officials, and lobby them for the common good, expressing disagreement when we must. But we do this, as Paul does before Felix and Agrippa, with respect and honor, even as he seeks to persuade them of the need for religious liberty and as he preaches “righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment” (Acts 24:25).

"A Prayer for America on Election Day"

Dr. Al Mohler has some great insights on how we can pray for our nation on this election day at his blog.  Below are the ten things he mentions

First, we should pray that God will bless America with leaders better than we deserve.  Democratic systems inevitably reflect the electorate’s decisions, and these decisions reveal underlying worldviews.  And, truth be told, all we can expect from democracy is the government we deserve.  We must pray for a government and for leaders better than we deserve.  May God grant us mercy as he reigns and rules over all things, including this election.

Second, we should pray that Americans will be motivated to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship, yet also that we will be stripped of an unhealthy and idolatrous confidence in the power of government to save us.  God has given us the gift of rulers and governments in order to restrain evil, uphold righteousness, and provide for civil order.  No human ruler can save.  No government official or office holder can heal the human heart, solve the sin problem, or accomplish final justice.  These powers belong to God and God alone.

Third, we must pray that Americans will vote by conscience, not merely on the basis of celebrity or emotion.  Christian citizens must vote to uphold righteousness and contend for righteous and just laws.  But, at the same time, we must repent of moralism and the tacit assumption that better laws would produce better people.

Fourth, we must pray that Americans will vote to defend the least among us — and especially those who have no vote.  This starts, but does not end, with concern for the unborn and for the recovery of respect for the dignity and sanctity of every single human life at every stage of development, from conception until natural death.

Fifth, we should pray that God will prick the conscience of the nation on issues of morality, righteousness, and respect for marriage as the central institution of human civilization.  So much ground appears to have been lost on these issues.  We need to pray that much ground can be regained. Marriage itself is on the ballot this year, both in the presidential election and in specific measures in four states. There is much work to be done, and so much is at stake.

Sixth, we should pray that God will protect these candidates and their families.  They have been through an arduous ordeal and now face the deadline of the vote.  They are physically exhausted and now face the judgment of the people.  They are public figures, but they are also flesh and blood human beings, who are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters.  Their families have withstood much.  We should pray for their marriages and their children.  May God protect them.

Seventh, we should pray that the election is conducted with honor, civility, respect, and justice.  We must pray that we do not face another round of litigation after an election.  This brings democracy into disrepute.  May there be a clear winner, not a contested result.

Eighth, we must pray that Americans will be prepared to accept the results of the election with respect and kindness.  This will be no time for rancor, condemnations, and conspiracy theories.  Instead, we must pray that God will settle the hearts of the people.  May Christians be ready to respond with prayer, respect for office, and a gentle spirit.  Others will be watching.

Ninth, we should pray that this election would lead to even greater opportunities to preach the Gospel, and that the freedom of the church will be respected, honored, and protected.

Tenth, we must pray for the church, praying that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ would be strengthened in the truth, grounded in the faith, and empowered for witness and ministry.  May the church, the sign of the coming kingdom, be faithful to declare the Gospel — knowing that this is the only message that will save.

Sermons on Christianity and Politics

This Sunday, pastor Rod preached a sermon on Christianity and politics. If you  missed it you should check it out at www.gcot.org (it should be up later this week).

If you were here, I encourage you to follow it up with this sermon by Mark Dever (Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington DC) on Mark 12:13-17 called "Jesus Paid Taxes." It is a great lesson on the Christian understanding of politics.

How Should We Think of Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest, and The Safety of a Mother?

Al Mohler has a thoughtful article on "the Mourdock moment" in which he discuss the controversial comments made by US Senate candidate Richard Mourdock in regards to abortion. The whole article is worth a read and points out how the media twists things and how we must be careful to communicate the pro-life position in a way that is forthright but also well explained.

Near the end of the article, Dr. Mohler address the common exceptions many pro-life candidates argue for. It is a brief and helpful treatment of the topic and one which we should all think through.

The three exceptions most often proposed call for abortion to be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. These are the exceptions currently affirmed by Mitt Romney in his presidential campaign. What should we think of these? 

First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare. 

Next, when speaking of cases involving rape and incest, we must affirm the sinful tragedy of such acts and sympathize without reservation with the victims. We must then make the argument that the unborn child that has resulted from such a heinous act should not be added to the list of victims. That child possesses no less dignity than a child conceived in any other context. 

How should we think of these questions in light of our current cultural and political context? We must contend for the full dignity and humanity of every single human life at every point of development and life from conception until natural death, and we cannot rest from this cause so long as the threat to the dignity and sanctity of any life remains. 

In the meantime, we are informed by the fact that, as the Gallup organization affirmed just months ago, the vast majority of Americans are willing to support increased restrictions on abortion so long as those exceptions are allowed. We should gladly accept and eagerly support such laws and the candidates who support them, knowing that such a law would save the life of over a million unborn children in the nation each year. 

Can we be satisfied with such a law? Of course not, and we cannot be disingenuous in our public statements. But we can eagerly support a law that would save the vast majority of unborn children now threatened by abortion, even as we seek to convince our fellow Americans that this is not enough. 

We must argue for the dignity, humanity, and right to life of every unborn child, regardless of the context of its conception, but we must argue well and make our arguments carefully....

Politics and Abortion

Amy Hall, writing at Stand to Reason blog, gives her take on how she wishes a pro-life candidate would respond to the question of how his religious views influence his take on abortion. I think she is on to something.

Saying that life begins at conception isn’t a controversial statement. It’s a question of science. Ask any embryologist and he can tell you that what’s growing in the mother’s womb is a whole, living, human boy or girl at his or her earliest stage of development, with his or her own unique DNA that will remain the same through all stages of development, from conception to death.

What’s controversial is that I think every human being is valuable simply because he or she is a member of the valuable human race. I don’t think human beings have to earn their rights by having certain characteristics like the “correct” race, or gender, or size, or ability, or age.
In other words, it’s the fact that I think we ought to be upholding universal human rights that’s the controversial position.

Now as a Christian, I do believe it’s my duty to protect the natural rights of human beings—to protect universal human rights—because human beings are the kind of being that’s valuable. But one doesn’t have to be a Christian to agree with universal human rights. There are many people of other religions, or no religion, who also want to uphold universal human rights.

The idea that we’re all created equal and equally possess unalienable rights regardless of our differences (race, size, age, ability, etc.) is a founding principle of this nation. Sadly, in the past, we allowed the government to define some human beings out of the human family by requiring they have certain preferred characteristics (like white skin) in order to qualify for protection.

Our failures in the past to hold our government accountable to our professed principle of unalienable rights for every human being led to serious human rights violations. I don’t want to repeat that same mistake. Instead, I would like to hold us to that founding principle.

You asked for a personal answer, and I agree that there are many emotions involved on all sides of this question. But I don’t want to confuse the issue by giving the impression that this is a matter of personal preference. Regulating subjective preferences is not the role of government, so answering as if the abortion issue were merely personal wouldn’t clarify what’s at stake. The issue of human rights is a public issue, and the protection of the lives of human beings is an area of public life that requires the government’s involvement.

Naturalism

“If we think we came into existence simply by accidental process, then we may feel accountable to no one. Yet such freedom is lonely. It is purposeless. And it is false. It is the freedom that ignores evidence of design in the world, that rejects the idea that people are special to God, and that clones human beings only to grow spare parts with them and then discard them. This is what we call naturalism. Naturalism is the philosophy that says, since God did not make us, we are only as special as we want to think of ourselves as being. So we kill babies in the womb and old people in nursing homes for our own convenience” (Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament: Promises Made, pg. 69).