There is one theme which permeates the pages of Scripture from beginning to end. This theme is that of salvation. From the opening chapters of Genesis, the stage is set. God created everything, including man. Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden and God Almighty was in relationship with them. Something happened though, all of that changed. There was one rule given to Adam and Eve—do not eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When this one rule was broken, so was the relationship between God and humanity. There was a punishment which had to be satisfied; for the rule also contained a consequence if broken. With the disobedience of Adam and Eve, sin entered the world and marred the relationship of the creation with the Creator.

Salvation is the plan of action God implemented in order to restore that relationship. Jesus Christ, God himself, put on the flesh of humanity and died upon the cross. His death paid the price for our sins and paved the way for the gift of salvation. The Scriptures make all of this plain. There is no person not stained from sin: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This creates a very real problem for us. Without forgiveness for our sins we are doomed to eternity in hell; we are unable to enter the presence of our Holy God in our present sinful state (1 Corinthians 6:9). The Bible further makes plain the way we receive this forgiveness is “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Therefore, salvation is a willful participation of one’s self with the death of Christ on the cross. In doing so, we are counted as righteous before God because Christ accomplished what we are unable to do.

Anyone reading the whole of Scripture cannot, in good conscience, come away with any other understanding of salvation. It is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8) found only in Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12) that grants salvation to any person that would accept him as Lord and Savior (Acts 2:38, Romans 10:13).

Even though this is clear, there is a point where this causes us trepidation. It causes us to question if this is how salvation always works. Tragedy is often the source of much questioning concerning God and the Bible. So it should be no surprise that tragedy is what brings about this question. The death of a child is a tragedy, which to the grieving parents, cannot be eclipsed by many others. During this time of loss, our hearts and minds often turn to the fate of that child—to his/her eternal destiny.

While this seems at first glance a simple question to answer, it is somewhat difficult. One reason for this is that Scripture does not explicitly address the eternal destiny of the unborn, infants, and young children. Another reason is that Scripture is clear the unborn, infants, and young children are not innocent either. For example, Psalm 51:5 explains that we are sinful from conception, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalm 58:3 also articulates this, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.” Romans 3:23, quoted above, as well as many other Scriptures substantiate the clear teaching that humanity is in a state of sin from conception and as such, doomed to eternal punishment in hell unless one accepts Christ. I’m sure you are beginning to see the problem at this point. How can the unborn, infants, and young children accept Christ?—they cannot talk nor can they understand their need for salvation. This is where the point of contention lies.

The answer to this question and the teaching which surrounds it is often referred to as “the age of accountability.” This phrase refers to the belief that God does not hold us morally accountable for our sins until we reach a specific age. This is not uncommon though. For Jews, this is associated with Bar mitzvah. This is when Jewish children are held accountable to Torah. When Amish children reach sixteen they enter into “Rumspringa;” a time when they are allowed to decide if they are going to remain in the Amish church or leave for the world outside their community. Once the decision is made though, the children are held accountable.

The question remains though, does God grant a continuance per se? One method of answering this is to simply assert that they are in heaven. This answer, however, is simply a sentimental attempt at resolving the problem at hand. It is born out of what we want concerning these little ones; we want them to be in heaven. It completely ignores Scripture and lacks even an attempt at seeking an answer there. A second manner of answering this is that they are doomed to eternal punishment in hell. This answer is unsettling; although it attempts at drawing in the biblical understanding of our sinful state. A third vein claims that only those children who have been baptized will enter into heaven, but this answer places too much importance of the act of baptism. So what is the answer to this question?

Considering the understanding of how salvation normally works, it is important to first look at how it might be possible for the unborn, infants, and young children to be forgiven of their sins without cognitively accepting Christ. The atonement is of premier importance. Christ’s death on the cross was the atoning sacrifice sufficient for the forgiveness of sins for all of humanity. First John 2:2 describes this succinctly, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (cf. 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 5:15; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Heb 9:26; John 1:29, 12:32-33). In other words, Christ paid the price for all sins to be forgiven; however, that forgiveness is applied to us individually as we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior recognizing that we are unable to atone for our sins as he has.

While many believe the Scriptures do not have much to say on this topic, there is much to glean from the pages of the Bible. The starting point is Jeremiah 31:29-30, “In those days people will no longer say, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.” The prophet Jeremiah was writing about the new covenant. This is different from the old covenant God made with the Jews. In that covenant, the Law was the mediating factor in the relationship between God and his people. The new covenant is different because it was to be a law written on the hearts and minds of the people rather than stone tablets and parchment. It was to be a relationship. That our hearts desire is to please the God whom we love, not to follow a set of rules. We enjoy the new covenant and under this new covenant every individual is responsible for their actions before the Lord—whether that be for good or for bad. A lengthy passage in Ezekiel expounds upon this understanding, but ends with a clear point that is salient to the discussion at hand. “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” declares the Sovereign LORD. “Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23). God does not derive any pleasure from sending the wicked to hell; instead, he finds pleasure in people repenting and placing their trust in Jesus. The problem still remains though as this passage bolsters the position that there must be an acceptance of salvation, a willful repenting from one’s sins.

The Old Testament book of 2 Samuel contains much of David’s life as the king of Israel. It also contains one of David’s biggest failures as king. He commits adultery with Bathsheba and has her husband murdered to cover up the resulting pregnancy. Part of David’s punishment is the death of that child conceived by the adulterous relationship. When the child becomes ill and during the entire time of the child’s illness, David fasts, weeps, and prays for the child. However, when the child dies, he gets up and goes on with life. This bewilders his attendants and advisers. David explained his actions by stating,

“While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:22-23, emphasis added).

David clearly believed that he would be reunited with his child in the presence of the Lord. He doesn’t go into detail about why he believes this, there is just a simple trust in the Lord at this point.

Jesus, however, is not so silent on the matter. The parable contained in Matthew 18:10-14 is very illuminating:

“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost”

Immediately preceding this parable, Jesus has a young child come and stand among he and the disciples (as a visual aid if you will). In his words to the disciples he makes it clear that God does is not willing that any of these should be lost. A similar passage, Mark 10:13-16, explains that the disciples were actually attempting to prevent children from “bothering” Jesus. This upsets Jesus and prompts him to chastise the disciples with his statement in verses 14-15, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” So we have two statements by Jesus Christ. The first is that God is not willing for any child to be lost. The second is that the kingdom of God belongs to children. Combining these two statements by Jesus with David’s statement, it becomes clear that God makes a way for the unborn, infants, and young children to enter heaven.

This is clearly an act of God’s grace (Romans 5:15, Ephesians 2:1-10), because the child has not done anything to deserve it. What then does this mean in terms of judgment? That is an important question because Scripture is clear that mankind will face the judgment of God. It means that there has to come a point in one’s life where God does hold us accountable for our sin. Otherwise, we quickly fall into the heresy that everyone will eventually make it into heaven. This is a teaching that is refuted by an overwhelming tide of Scripture which explains there is an eternal punishment for the wicked and eternal life for the righteous.

Where does this point exists? At what age do we become accountable? The Bible does not establish a specific age. Rather, one’s ability to understand the basic problem of sin and the need for salvation determines accountability before God (Romans 1:19-20; Acts 28:23-31). Therefore, a specific age cannot be established. This is especially true considering that every person mentally matures at a different rate. Likewise, I think this gift of God’s grace also extends to the mentally handicapped (at least those unable to reach this stage of understanding). Since there is no specific age established in Scripture nor is there any passage which expounds upon this matter in depth, we must be careful not to make this a dogmatic doctrine upon which we judge one’s position to be heretical or orthodox. Rather, we must simply trust God. For as Abraham exclaimed, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25). Consider Psalm 116:5 as well, “The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is full of compassion.” The evidence from Scripture indicates that God extends his grace and mercy to the unborn, the infant, the young child, and the mentally handicap in order to bring them into eternal life—and we must trust God as the righteous judge, the Creator of the universe.

There was an article yesterday by Michael Coogan on CNN’s belief blog. The title of the article was “Bible has some shocking ‘family values’”. I was rather intrigued by this title and immediately recognized that it was meant to grab one’s attention and suggested that something about the Bible’s “true” family values would be revealed in the article that you wouldn’t hear any Christian professing as biblical family values. This simply wasn’t the case in the article. Yet, it was still a scintillating piece which I would like to address because the author got a few things out-and-out incorrect concerning the Bible and the principles contained therein.

He starts out with the statement: “When talking about so-called family values, pastors, popes, and politicians routinely quote the Bible as if it were an unassailable divine authority—after all, they assume, God wrote the Bible, and therefore it is absolutely and literally true.” There are a number of disturbing remarks contained in this sentence. First, he hints that family values are something that people don’t understand or which don’t truly exist by referring to them as “so-called.” The second major problem is his straw man tactic. He paints everyone that would call his/herself a Christian with one broad stroke. It is true that there are some Christians who would fall into the belief that the Bible is absolutely and literally true, but this does not characterize all or even most.

Let me explain. Most Christians are not complete bumbling idiots as he ever so slightly indicates by writing, “But that [God writing the Bible] is a misconception. As the Bible itself makes clear, its authors were human beings”. We know that the Bible was written by human beings. The doctrine concerning biblical inspiration does not revolve around God himself penning the Bible. We understand that it was penned at the hands of men. When most Christians speak of inspiration it is in terms of God inspiring those human authors. This, we believe, was accomplished by God in a fashion that was not God dictating what to write, nor was it God possessing the authors so as to remove their individuality and humanity from the process, nor was it free reign to write their own thoughts or opinions. Rather, it was a process where God used human authors to convey his message. This is expressed in 2 Peter 1:20-21, “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” So Mr. Coogan is completely off base in his statement that the biblical authors’ “writings reflect their own views and the values they shared with their contemporaries.” In fact, the authors’ own views regularly stood in stark contrast to their contemporaries.

The article continued down this road of biblical unfamiliarity by stating that Jews and Christians have traditionally agreed on the Bible’s authority in principle but not in practice. Citing as an example of this agreeing in principle but not practice, Mr. Coogan references slavery stating it is “a divinely sanctioned institution.” I’m not sure how he came to this conclusion. Perhaps it is because of the regulations the Bible places on slavery. Surely he does not take the Bible’s directives on how people should address slavery as its creation and/or stamp of approval upon it. Perhaps he misunderstands slavery allowing our American conception of it to skew his opinion. The most common form of slavery in ages past was indentured servitude. This occurred when someone sold themselves into slavery as a way to pay for a debt they otherwise had no other means of repaying. The other way slaves came about was through the conquering of another nation. These forms of slavery were around long before the Jews became a people or the biblical directives were given. The Jews understood slavery all too well being slaves in Egypt before becoming a sovereign nation. In fact, God reminds them of this fact as a means to understand the regulations placed upon them concerning slavery (Deut 24:22).

Furthermore, he suggests that the Bible addresses women as men’s property and upholding the practice of polygamy. Neither of these are accurate. The Bible does contain clear gender roles, but in no way does it place women in the position of property. Neither does the Bible condone polygamy. One could say that it condemns it (Deut 17:17). Even though this directive is aimed at the king, he was to be an example for the nation.

In short, he is advocating a discarding of the Bible’s “shocking” family values by recognizing “that the values of the biblical writers are no longer necessarily our own.” Instead, Mr. Coogan advocates that we “attempt to determine what its [the Bible] underlying values are.” What does he consider these to be? He pronounces that the Bible’s underlying message is: “Equal, even loving, treatment of all persons, regardless of their age, gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.”

That sounds really good though. I don’t think any Christian would disagree with that statement on the surface; however, it is couched in an article that is clearly dismissive of the Bible and aimed at bringing Christians into compromising on their convictions. Not too mention this is not in hopes of bringing the two opposing views some honest common ground, but to get Christians to completely abandon their views to embrace those opposite their own using thoroughly deceptive, misinformed points and straw man tactics.

The Supreme Court handed down a ruling today that should interest religious groups operating on college campuses in particular and in a broader context as well. The Christian Legal Society was denied official recognition by the University of California’s law school in San Francisco.

What was the deciding factor in the Supreme Court’s ruling—the school’s policy concerning campus organizations. It essentially limits official recognition by the criteria that groups may not reject anyone because of sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or other criteria protected under federal and state law.

The main point of debate is whether or not it is discrimination to preclude individuals from membership based upon sexual orientation. This is a point on which the Supreme Court’s decision did not specifically address. The group is distinctly a Christian organization and therefore, should have no appeal to those of other religious beliefs or those with sexual orientations contrary to the groups expressed beliefs. My question is this, if this were a Muslim, Jewish, or etc. group, would the decision have been the same? I venture to think not.


I would like to hear your thoughts on two points:

(1) Do you think it is discrimination for this group to limit membership to those of like belief resulting in non-heterosexuals being precluded from membership?

(2) Do you think this a serious blow to religious expression?

This post was written by Demian Farnworth, who authors Fallen and Flawed, at the beginning of this month. I have re-posted it here in its entirety with his permission. Please head to his site to leave comments.

Ben Affleck never read the Bible as a child.

So, as an adult he expected it to be loaded with fire and brimstone…

Ripe with weeping and gnashing teeth.

Naturally this notion was only reinforced as he encountered one angry, hateful person after another who claimed to represent all Christians.

This stereotype held until he actually read the Bible.

In fact, this is what he said about reading the Gospel According to Matthew in an August 2008 Oprah magazine:

“Reading the Bible disabused me of any sense that a hateful person could represent this faith. The book is beautiful and exquisitely written–but it is characterized by one quality that colors every page: love.”

He went on to say that reading the Bible made it harder for him to accept the “damaging and small minded beliefs” that people promote in the name of Christian values.

I wonder if he had Fred Phelps in mind when he said that.

Where I’m Going with This

Often on this blog I here non-believers write the Bible off as a collection of hallucinogenic babbling from the mental fringe.

Indeed in my own experience as a non-believer I made outlandish claims about the perversity of the Bible…without ever reading it…so I’m inclined to believe neither have they.

At least not carefully.

Yet honest people like Richard Dawkins read the OT and shake their head in disbelief at what they deem a volatile, childish tyrant.

What gives? The New Testament gives.

Sinclair Ferguson writes, “You cannot open the pages of the New Testament without realizing that one of the things that makes it so ‘new’, in every way, is that here men and women call God ‘Father.’”

This conviction of intimacy with the creator of the universe lies at the heart of our faith. And it suggest we humbly read the Bible in it’s entirety…

And we understand the OT through the lens of Christ.

Reading Matthew obviously had an impact on Ben Affleck. But I don’t know if Ben Affleck is a true believer.

To be sure, he anticipates the question in the article when he says he considers his religious beliefs private matters.

But he nonetheless is moved by it. Perhaps no more than a deep interest in social justice as indicated by his involvement in genocide recovery.

Your Turn

But what about you: What was your first encounter with the Bible like? With the New Testament? With a particular Gospel?

Did you view it as a majestic piece of literature that can stand on it’s own feet [as I once did during a "Bible as Literature" course]?

Or were you appalled by what you read?

Or did you tear your clothes in grief like Josiah who said, “For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us”?

Last week I placed a poll up and those of you who voted made it clear that you would like there to be a series on the myths of Christmas. I am planning to tackle as many of them as I can before Christmas, as it is upon us. So be watching for the posts in the coming days and weeks ahead.

If you have any suggestions or something you've always wondered about Christmas, please feel free to leave them in the comments section of this post.


Posts in this Series:

• Were There Three Wise Men?
• Was Jesus Born on December 25th?
• Christmas Trees
  

It seems to me that the attacks on Christianity today come with greater frequency and greater fervency than I have ever before seen. There are attacks from the “New Atheists.” There are attacks from “science.” There are attacks from the pop-culture. The list could go on, but what is surprising is the veracity of those attacking. It seems that those opposing Christianity are no longer satisfied with simply stating their problem with the Christian faith and then leaving it at that. No, they would prefer to see the Christian faith exterminated. As though it were a rat infestation at a restaurant. However, these attacks have almost always existed since the dawn of the Christian faith. One of the pot shots that have somehow managed to survive through the decades is that the Church has always opposed science and tried to suppress its advancement. A very common example of this today is the notion that the mid-evil church believed that the earth was flat. The common story told in school textbooks is that this is why Christopher Columbus’ voyage was opposed; they were afraid he would sail of the edge of the earth. However, this is a fraudulent myth that has no place in history textbooks. There were no serious scholars (secular or religious) that believed the earth was flat during the Middle Ages. Matt Flanagan has posted an excellent article on his blog MandM that goes through the details of this myth and exposes for the propaganda that it is. I highly recommend following the link over to his blog and reading the entire article.

Last week I posted “Jedism: Latest Up and Coming Religion?” It was somewhat of a funny tongue-in-cheek post. I would like to address an anonymous comment that was left which stated:

There was an article last week in the Huffington Post by Jay Michaelson titled Will Spirituality Ever Be Serious? It is an intriguing piece that deserves looking at in full. The purpose of this article by the author is to point out two reasons that spirituality is viewed in a poor light and then offer some ways to correct this.

First, I need to point out that Jay Michaelson makes a distinction between spirituality and religion. Most Christians wouldn’t really see a difference between these two. From what I read in his article the difference between the two mainly seems to revolve around the notion that religion requires some form of regular attendance at a Church, Synagogue, Mosque, etc. Whereas a spiritual practice is something an individual can practice completely on their own. Remember, these are not necessarily his definitions of the two, but that are what I gathered from reading his article.

The first reason he gives for spirituality not being taken seriously is this that “spirituality makes claims to transformation” and he defines transformation as “a growth beyond one’s previous limits.” The problem that he sees is very often that this transformation is really nothing more than a way to please one’s self. In other words, a person deludes his or herself into thinking they are doing this spiritual thing to grow spiritually when all they are truly doing it for is to enjoy one’s self. The second problem that he noted with current spirituality is that it often times “involves a lot of hoo-hah.” Interestingly, he doesn’t just dismiss hoo-hah in spirituality, but criticizes those who “rush to supernatural explanations for entirely natural phenomena.”

Following his diagnosis of these two problems of “messy thinking and self-aggrandizement,” he offers four tips to help bring some seriousness back to spirituality. The first tip he gives is that there must be an understanding that “spiritual work is part of being a well-rounded person.” Part of his explanation of this seems to imply that a person cannot be well rounded if they lack spirituality in their lives.

“If we are serious about spirituality’s worth, then we should be serious about doing it” is Jay Michaelson’s second tip. He believes that people should be as serious about their spirituality as they are about going to the gym; that spirituality is not to be viewed as a hobby.

His third pointer is that “spiritual integrity and intellectual integrity should be allies, not enemies.” In other words, one should be intellectually honest about their spirituality. This means that those who are spiritual should critically evaluate claims from gurus and holistic healers.

His last big piece of advice is that those practicing spirituality need to realize that “the self is the object of the practice.” He likens it to going to the gym; the body is the focus of the workout so people go to the gym even when they don’t feel like it. So to should people practice their spirituality even when they don’t feel like it.

Now, there are some things to note about his article. One thing to take away from this is that spirituality is alive and well in America. There seems to be a pervasive understanding that religion is dead in America and that all too often makes Christians squirm mish. It is very easy to begin a discussion about spiritual matters because a lot of people are still “spiritual” although they may not be religious. I think that Christians will begin to have much more success in their talks about Christianity if they would first begin by only talking about spirituality. After the discussion progresses enough, then one can lead into Christianity in particular.

Likewise, many people believe and want to be better people (a.k.a. well-rounded). If this is why they pursue their particular spiritual practice, push them on this a little. Ask them how that’s going for them? Ask them why that matters? What goal do they have in mind by becoming a better person? Most likely, these will all be difficult questions for them to answer.

And there are a couple of ways to build common ground. He points out that spiritual integrity and intellectual integrity should coexist. I think most Christians would agree with this statement. We see no conflict between spiritual integrity and intellectual integrity. In fact, most Christians I know desire for their to be unity in these two areas because it brings a peace to one’s mind about their beliefs. If we read in the Bible that things were one way and then observed that they were not so, then that would cause doubts and an unsettled faith. His last point can also be used to build common ground. Not because we believe that self is the object of practice, but because we believe that one’s faith/spirituality should be taken seriously.

There was only one thing I really took exception with in his article. About half way through the article, he seems to imply that “fundamentalists” are not taken seriously because they too “interpret their experiences incautiously.” My first problem is with his use of the term fundamentalist. This is a term that seems to be thrown out there a lot in the mainstream media and I think that the understanding of the term by non-religious people is far different than what the term actually means in religious circles. For example, anyone who believed that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven is labeled a fundamentalist by the mainstream media. However, this is almost a universal belief of Christianity—regardless of denomination. Fundamentalism in Christianity is one who believes a particular point of doctrine is essential to salvation. For example, there are some that believe that a person is not saved until they are baptized. This is a “fundamentalist” view. Likewise, there are some that believe only a certain translation of the Bible can be used because all other versions are heretical; this is a “fundamentalist” view. So there is a vast difference between what Christians label as fundamentalists and what mainstream media labels fundamentalists.

I am not so naïve to believe that there are not Christians who do interpret their experiences incautiously, but I do not think that Christians as a whole make this mistake. Any more than I would look at spiritualists who lack a real commitment and then cast all spiritualists in that light. Furthermore, even if the vast majority of Christians did this; it does not make the claims of Christianity false.

This is the religion better known as the Jedi Church. You read that right--like Luke, Obi-Wan, and Yoda were in Star Wars. I came across this interesting fact by reading an article in The Sun and The Daily Mail that reported the founder of the Jedi Church in England was thrown out of Tesco (supermarket chain in Europe) because he refused to remove his hood.

I almost didn't believe that this could be true, but it is. The Daily Mail article reports that the Jedi Church has an estimated 500,000 followers worldwide. That number doesn't put it on par with Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, etc. but it is still a pretty significant number.

I stumbled upon something truly interesting as I browsed the website of the Jedi Church. Attempting to answer the question--Is the Jedi religion fiction?--the website boasts:

There is a lot of buzz in the media about a study recently released by Trinity College. The report is titled “American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population.” The study reports that 15% of America’s population claims no religious affiliation. One other important note about the Nones is that they are not overwhelmingly atheists as many might suspect. Rather, the majority of Nones (59%) are agnostic or deists. This means that many in this group will profess a belief in God, but do not attend any organized faith services.

Some might be wondering where the motivation for this study came from. It grew out of the study by the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) released in March of 2009. An interesting point in this study by Trinity was their effort to try and determine the religious upbringing or lack thereof of the Nones. They discovered that roughly 73% of the Nones were raised in religious homes—that is homes where both parents identified with the same or different religions, but both parents were religious.

This brings up two concerns. It could be concluded from this study that religious parents are not passing on their faith. Is this because the church has failed to teach them how to disciple their children? Is this because the parents are living hypocritical lives? Is this because the parents didn’t discuss opposing and critical viewpoints with their children? There is not way to know the answer to these questions for sure, but it can be taken as a warning sign to parents today. These are important thing to do with your children. It is important that if you profess the Christian faith that you live it out at home just as faithfully as you do “at church.” It is important to teach the soundness of the Christian faith and not feed them doctrines without the foundation for them. If we fail to do these things, we are only setting our children up for failure in regard to faith. Is it possible that so many walk away from “church” is because we are leaving them spiritually bankrupt?

There are a lot of people who believe in God—82% of Americans and 51% of the Nones. Yet, FACT2008 reported that the American church is in decline. How can it be that a large section of Americans believe in God but the church is shrinking? This is the second concern. This points out the obvious fact that there is a disconnect between the church and the majority of Americans. We need to be asking what has caused this disconnect and what can we do to correct the problem? Has this occurred because the church has become outdated and irrelevant to the culture? Has this occurred because we are not discipling our congregations? These are the kind of questions that need to be asked.

What do you think about these concerns? Do you think parents have dropped the ball (or what ways do you think you as a parent can prepare your children)? What do you think churches can do differently to begin reaching the public again?

Related Links:

• The Pew Forum
• Fox News
• Ed Stetzer
• USA Today

There has been a lot of buzz in my local community of Santa Rosa County (and nationally) about the ACLU lawsuit against the school board and the charges brought against Frank Lay and Robert Freeman. There has also been a lot of misunderstanding about what the “Consent Decree and Order” consists of in regard to school officials and students leading in prayer. I have already written two posts on this matter regarding the original lawsuit and the hearing against Lay and Freeman. In this post, however, I want to actually address the Consent Decree alone. I still think the decree is good in its overall goal, but I think there are some areas that need to be challenged and refined. I have read the Consent Decree in its entirety, unlike many in the community who have voiced opinions about it. It is available for anyone to download and read by clicking HERE and HERE. Likewise, I am sure that you can obtain a copy of the decree from the Santa Rosa County School Board because they are required to distribute it to all faculty members and include it in the Student Code of Conduct manuals until January 1, 2015. I originally understood that this decree would not infringe upon the students’ right to express their religious beliefs and practices, but after reading the details of the Consent Decree I believe there are a few points that do infringe upon the students’ rights as well as those of the faculty.

The first place I believe the decree needs to be challenged is: Permanent Injunction 5. Prayer at School Events, (e) “If a School Official elects to review or may by policy review the content of a student’s or any other person’s planned address during or in conjunction with a School Event, then School Officials shall prohibit the person making the address from offering a Prayer.” I do not believe that this is in line with the U.S. Constitution that states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” I believe this is prohibiting the free exercise of religion of the students. Now, what should be clarified at this point is that students should not be selected to make such a speech based upon their religious affiliation. In other words, if the valedictorian wants to offer a prayer in their speech at graduation, then they should be allowed to do so regardless of their religious affiliation. I understand this point in the consent decree. It would be all too easy for school administrators to use students as “surrogates” to promote religion. They could select only those students they knew would offer “Christian prayer” and therefore exclude prayers from other religious groups. I would not want that to take place either, but I don’t want to prohibit a student from sharing their belief with other students.

Second point of challenge: Permanent Injunction, 5. Prayer at School Events, (h) “To the extent that School Officials permit a person during or in conjunction with School Events to give an address that a School Official can or does shape, review, or edit for content, substance, message, style, or theme, then School Officials shall instruct the person that the person’s address must exclude Prayer.” This is essentially the same order as above except that it applies to speakers other than students, so my complaint would be the same. Speakers should not have their religious liberties restricted as long as they are not chosen as a speaker based upon their religious affiliations.

Third point of challenge: Permanent Injunction, 6. Religious Services (Baccalaureate), (c) “School officials during or in conjunction with a School Event shall not require or encourage students to attend any Religious Service, including Baccalaureate. School Officials shall prohibit a school band or choir from performing at a Religious Service, including baccalaureate. Provided however, that individual students, in their personal capacity, may not be prohibited from such performance.” This I think needs to be rewritten so as not to “prohibit” students from these performances so much as to prohibit the requirement of students in the band or choir to perform at these events. For example, if the band at the local high school is asked to perform at baccalaureate, then they should be free to do so provided that members of the band are allowed not to participate without repercussion(s).

Fourth point of challenge: Permanent Injunction, 8. Promotion of Personal Religious Beliefs, (a) “School Officials shall not participate in any way in a Prayer with students during or in conjunction with instructional periods or a School Event. During or in conjunction with a School Event, School Officials shall not offer a Prayer, recite a Prayer alongside or with students, or posture in a manner that is likely to be perceived as an endorsement of the Prayer, e.g. bowing their heads, kneeling, or folding their hands.” This also seems to infringe upon the rights of the school faculty. I have a problem with them inciting religious practices, but if the valedictorian prayers during his/her speech and a school employee shares that belief, then they should not be prohibited from joining in that prayer—that’s ludicrous. Likewise, if a teacher is overseeing the Fellowship of Christian Students (FCS) and during that meeting the students lead in prayer (without input from the teacher), that teacher should be free to join in that prayer. I believe this point of the injunction goes too far.

Fifth point of challenge: Permanent Injunction, 8. Promotion of Personal Religious Beliefs, (e) “School Officials shall not orally express personal religious beliefs to students during or in conjunction with instructional time or a School Event…” I think this point needs to be further clarified. If a student asks a teacher about his/her personal religious beliefs, the teacher should be able to explain their beliefs without offering an invitation to join their faith. Likewise, this could even be relevant to the lesson in a class such as East and West Heritage or a class that covers the major religions of the world from an unbiased viewpoint. As it currently stands, a faculty member would not be allowed to answer a question about his/her personal religious beliefs even it was as simple a question as, “Are you a Christian?”

An important note is that these points of the Consent Decree can be challenged and changed without nullifying the entire decree. From Other Orders, 14 “…If any court of competent jurisdiction determines that any provision contained in this Order, or any part thereof, cannot be enforced, the parties agree that such determination shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of the Order.” This means we can challenge and refine the decree to protect the students’ rights to religious expression while also protecting them from being coerced into participating in the religious beliefs of school officials.

I also understand that the Consent Decree is “designed to ensure that the School District’s practices and policies do not violate, either currently or in the future, the First Amendment rights of students in the School District,” but I believe that it does just that in some areas and; therefore, needs to be challenged on these points in a legal proceeding. I also believe that if the faculty will use some common sense, they will know whether or not they are violating the law regarding religion in schools. I also believe that the school officials need to comply with the decree as long as it does not violate their religious beliefs; the only area I believe this might be the case is being forbidden to bow their heads, etc. when a student is leading in prayer. I think school officials have every right to express their faith in this was as long as the student initiated the prayer without any coercion.

I have already asked about the Consent Decree in another post, but after hearing all the facts and being able to read it for your self do you think the Consent Decree should be thrown out all together or challenged on some points? And if so why and/or what points

Ever wonder which religion is right? Have you ever struggled with how to share your Christian faith with someone else? These are the kind of tough questions tackled here at Mr. Hyde’s Blog. I grapple with these tough topics and dig deep to uncover the truth resulting in a "no holds barred" blog about all things spiritual.

Why I started Mr. Hyde's Blog
I am a pastor at a Southern Baptist church in Florida. I didn’t start my blog because I wanted to become famous or make a lot of money from it. You will never have to pay for anything offered on my blog and that’s why you don’t see ads on my blog either. This blog is completely about helping you—the reader. It's not about making money.

The reason I launched my own blog was that there was something that really began bothering me the more I thought about it. What was it? I noticed that many Christians couldn’t share their faith nor defend their faith in any meaningful way. As I began brainstorming ways to really help equip Christians to engage the culture around them, I came up with the idea to begin writing a blog. Writing my own blog became a way that I could help equip Christians throughout the world with ways to better share and defend their faith.

For this reason, comments and suggestions are welcome. Although comments are moderated (see Commenting Policy). If you have a question about a topic, then I would love to hear from you. Think about this, if you never ask the question, then you’ll probably never get the answer. If you never get the answer, then you can never grow in knowledge and understanding. As far as the Christian faith goes, we are commanded in the Bible to grow in the knowledge and understanding of God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16-4:5).

A Quick Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed on this blog are those of Mr. Hyde and are not necessarily those of any particular church or denomination.

Book Reviews
I review a lot of books here on Mr. Hyde’s Blog. Several different publishers send me many books free of charge. However, my reviews of these books are given completely independent of whether or not I purchase(d) the book. You will receive nothing but my honest critique of a book—good or bad.

On the other hand, I will begin to note whether or not I purchased a book or if it was sent to me from a publisher. And if I recommend you to purchase a book, you can rest assured that it’s not because I was paid to do so (see above about profiting from this blog).

If you would like to suggest a book to me, please feel free. Just know that if you suggest a book, it may or may not be reviewed on this blog.

Tired of coming back to the site and not finding anything new posted? Me too—not really since I am the guy who puts up all those posts you keep looking for. Want an easier way to know when a new post has been made? Well look no further than the subscription options for Mr. Hyde’s Blog.
Whenever you subscribe to Mr. Hyde’s Blog, every new post is delivered straight to you. How much does that cost you might ask? Absolutely nothing. Okay, hold on for one more minute before you go click happy on the subscription options.

There are currently three ways to subscribe to Mr. Hyde’s Blog—RSS feed readers, Email, and Facebook.

What on earth is a RSS feed reader?
A feed reader is simply a program that will go out for you and collect all of your subscriptions (like to Mr. Hyde’s Blog) and bring them back to one place (aggregate). There are a lot of feed readers available out there. Probably the most widely used is Google Reader. If you use iGoogle, you can place Google Reader as a widget on your home screen. You can even set Mr. Hyde’s Blog as its own widget on your iGoogle page! Some of the other popular feed readers are FeedReader3, FeedDemon, Bloglines, and NewsGator. If all of this is making your head spin, watch the video below.


What’s the next step?
Just like the video said, you need to sign up for a feed reader. I suggest Google Reader (that is what I use). Then come back here and click on the RSS icon on the home page. Once you subscribe, all of my posts will automatically show up in your reader.

What about email?
Maybe you just want to receive Mr. Hyde’s Blog and not a whole bunch of other feeds (Hooray for me!). Well you can do that too through email subscription. When you click on the email subscription icon, you will be taken to another page where you will then enter your email address and a captcha code (prevents spam requests). After submitting your email address, you will then receive a confirmation email to make sure that you entered your address correctly and not someone else’s by mistake. Click on the confirmation link in the email and voila, you will receive the new posts from Mr. Hyde’s Blog in your email inbox.

Oh, and I will never sell, rent, or otherwise distribute your email. You can unsubscribe at anytime by clicking the “unsubscribe now” link at the bottom of the email.

You’re on Facebook?
Yes, my blog is on Facebook. However, when you subscribe to my blog on Facebook, it will not automatically send the new posts to you. You will still have to manually visit Mr. Hyde’s Blog. I hope that they soon correct this and allow blogs you follow to show up in your notifications or something similar. So if you don’t subscribe on Facebook, I understand.