Couldn't Help Noticing

Separation of church and state

In Briefing 316, Tony Payne pointed out the increasingly common argument being used to silence the Christian perspective in public debate: “the separation of church and state” argument.

Here is another example, this time from Canada.

According to the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Pierre Pettigrew, the Church should keep its nose out of the government's same-sex marriage legislation.

“I find that the separation of the Church and the state is one of the most beautiful inventions of modern times,” he said.

Mr Pettigrew may well find his convenient doctrine of “the separation of church and state” a beautiful thing. Problem is, as Tony Payne pointed out, the separation of church and state “emphatically does not mean the separation of religious, moral or spiritual convictions from the conduct of public life, as if such a thing were possible. It never has meant that, nor could it possibly mean that. Every person in public life brings their own philosophical, moral and spiritual commitments with them to the task of public leadership and legislation”.

The truth of this is abundantly evident in Mr Pettigrew's comments about his support for the same-sex marriage legislation. He describes his support as a “question of principle for me”. Really, Mr Pettigrew? Are you the only one who is allowed to have ‘principles’?

Mild at heart

In my daily round of the internet news outposts this morning, I couldn't help noticing this review in the UK Times about Wild at Heart, the latest book to take churches in the US by storm, a book that encourages men to “recover their masculine soul”. Or, to quote from the website, “This is a message about the recovery and release of a man's heart, his passions, which he has been given by God.”

If you're anything like my (admittedly fairly cynical) self, then your alarm bells will be ringing at any book that has proven to be a runaway hit after being out for three months. Is it popular because it is truly advocating a godly lifestyle that involves hard work and dedication to the kingdom of God, or because it's touting a solution that gives an easy and popular solution to life troubles? I know my alarm bells certainly don't stop ringing when I read that there's already a Wild at Heart Field Manual available. Oh, and a Wild at Heart: A Band of Brothers Video Series. Not to mention the Wild at Heart Boot Camp Retreats.

I'll reserve my full judgement until I've read a copy for myself, but these two reviews don't give me too much more confidence. There's just something not quite right when the first chapter of a book based on God's Word quotes a proverb out of context.

When not to write about same-sex marriage

Found an excellent post over at the evangelical outpost, which briefly discusses an evangelical view of sex and marriage, and covering similar ground to The Hard Ask from the January Briefing.

I especially liked that where the article would naturally lead into a railing against same-sex marriage, he instead writes: “A far greater threat to the sanctity of ‘one-flesh unions’ comes from heterosexuals in the form of divorce. ... For every post and op-ed we write railing against ‘same-sex’ marriage, we should write one highlighting the damages to society caused by divorce. Maybe then we will have a firmer moral foundation on which to stand.”

Read the original post.

Hillsong: Religion-lite

I couldn't help noticing Lisa Pryor's SMH article, ‘Add a little optimism to reconnect with the young ones’ (January 24, 2005).

She explores the ways in which the union movement could learn from the success Hillsong has had reaching today's youth. The Hillsong approach is optimistic and forward-looking and taps into the aspirations of young people. But as Lisa comments, “The downside to this approach is that it could increase [union] membership only by forsaking the ideals of the institution. Religion-lite can be attractive because it provides personal comfort without challenging some of the materialistic or individualistic values of modern life, and the union movement could fall into this trap.”

The true test of genuine, evangelical Christianity must be that not only does it add nothing to the gospel, but it takes away nothing. A gospel which does not confront our selfish desires is no gospel at all. And the real gospel comfort is not that we remain unchallenged, but that in the midst of the helplessness of our sin and depravity Christ died for the ungodly. Thank God there is no such thing as Christianity-lite!

Gay marriage ‘rights’

Thought this was a well-expressed assessment of the gay marriage issue:

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what ‘consenting adults’ do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

Thomas Sowell, . Read the full article here.