Skip to main content
Category

Liberalism

The Danger of False Positives

By Christian Living, Discipleship, Faithfulness, Grace, Liberalism, Peace, Pluralism, Truth, Uncategorized No Comments

Though it’s been several years ago now, I still remember one of the more exciting trips to St. Jude Hospital with my son during his battle with childhood leukemia. Back in those days we lived in Mobile, Alabama, requiring us to fly for weekly chemotherapy in Memphis. Over a three-year period, we made 128 consecutive trips in order to jumpstart and protect my son’s remission from cancer.

While passing through security on our return trip, a Ziploc bag containing a bottle of medication tested positive for a small amount of glycerin, which can be used to make explosives. Quickly, TSA workers surrounded us with a bomb sniffing dog. They pulled us aside and began a battery of tests. Thankfully, our faces were familiar and employees recognized us. My son’s glistening, bald head gave away our recent trip to the hospital

Still, it was only after several minutes of awkward suspicion and investigation that we were allowed to pass through the security checkpoint. Turns out it was a false positive caused by a melting icepack that was cooling the medication. The whole ordeal got me to thinking about the misleading consequences of false impressions, which can leave us happy or scared depending on what they report.

For example, you might be overjoyed initially only to be disappointed later if a pregnancy test falsely reveals that the child you’ve prayed for is on the way. Or, you might be immediately frightened when airport security suspects foul play as you travel, even if you are able to laugh about it afterward. The problem, though, is that neither reaction is trustworthy. False positives are dangerous because they invite us to live outside of reality based upon something that is not true.

Unfortunately, American Christianity has its share of false positives. Many Bible teachers are anxious to assure their listeners that God’s primary goal is our personal happiness. Others insist that hell cannot be real because a loving God would never allow anyone to go there. Notions of remaining in sin while following Jesus is the most damning false positive of all. These untruthful assertions are usually received with enthusiasm, but they create a false narrative about WHO Jesus is and WHAT He came to do.

The historical reality that God would sacrifice His Son to deal with our sin problem is insulting to some and downright barbaric to others. Retired Methodist theologian, William Willimon, fairly critiqued, “If you listen to much of our preaching, you get the impression that Jesus was some sort of itinerant therapist who, for free, traveled about helping people feel better.”

Thankfully, Jesus had a way of turning our temporal ambitions on their head in order to focus on what we really need. Take, for example, the familiar story of Jesus healing the paralytic (Matt. 9:1-8). Without question, this man’s burdens were significant. He could not walk, eat, or bathe without the help of others and, by consequence, he was an outcast in society. We can hardly blame his friends for attempting to help him.

Rather than heal the man immediately, though, Jesus said to him, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven (Matt. 9:2).” By doing so, Jesus reminded us that our temporal burdens are merely symptoms of our greatest needs. He is not a Savior who came to improve the quality of our lives (though He often does), but who came to forgive our sins. Yet, popular false positives deceive us into believing that God solving our earthly problems is more important than His addressing our eternal condition.

Because the scribes accused Jesus of blasphemy (Matt. 9:3), He immediately exposed their blindness with a piercing question. Is it easier to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or “Get up, and walk (Matt. 9:5)?” Amazingly, Jesus chose to heal the paralytic in order to demonstrate His authority to forgive sins, not distract from it (Matt. 9:6). The real goal was much bigger than the man’s physical healing. In fact, had Jesus only forgiven the paralytic’s transgressions it would have solved his greatest threat.

I am not suggesting that we should not seek God’s intervention when trials come. During my son’s fight against cancer, I repeatedly begged the Lord to heal him. Yet, we often equate our present comforts as an indicator of our eternal health. Our desperation for temporary relief from earthly troubles often far exceeds our concern about spiritual matters. Even worse, we sometimes reduce God’s faithfulness to His meeting our immediate needs.

God, show me a miracle and prove you’re real.

God, answer this prayer and prove you’re real.

God, give me what I want and prove you’re real.

God, heal me and prove you’re real.

God, open this door and prove you’re real

Tragically, expressions of temporary grace often grip us more than eternal realities. Our need for forgiveness, though, is so urgent that we ought to be willing to lose this life entirely in order to receive it from Christ (Matt. 16:24-27). Nothing is more necessary, and nothing is more remarkable than the glorious truth that Jesus would come to seek and to save the lost!

Adam B. Dooley
November 29, 2024

The Selective Separation of Church and State

By America, Christian Living, Liberalism, Politics, Separation Church and State No Comments

(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

The Selective Separation of Church and State

I recently watched with amusement as Vice-President Kamala Harris spoke at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta on Sunday where she was likened to the biblical Esther because of her readiness to rescue her people from annihilation. Pastor Jamal Bryant went on to address what he perceived as the threatening policy agendas of the Republican ticket before insisting that Harris was born to be president and to lead a nation for such a time as this. The pastor then claimed that God had “anointed” them to flip Georgia in 2020 and that He would do so again.

When the Vice-President assumed the podium, she declared that our country is at a crossroads and that we should all ask what kind of nation we want to live in. Our answer, she asserted, must come by way of action and voting rather than mere words. Remarkably, the presiding pastor also chastised black men who were unwilling to support a sister in an effort to drum up additional support for the Democratic presidential nominee.

Now, to be clear, the arguments being made were not what made the scene humorous to me, nor did I find it offensive. Admittedly, I see the vision of the Democratic platform as a contradiction to the Christian faith rather than its fulfillment. In my view, comparing Mrs. Harris to Esther is laughable. Yet, these disagreements notwithstanding, I maintain the right of any politician and any pastor to contend their point of view with others. What is mindboggling, however, is how many secular elites on the left bemoan what they call a lack of separation between church and state for everyone but themselves. By doing so they remind us of what we already knew, namely – you cannot separate morality from policy.

Historically, Baptists have been the greatest proponents of the “the separation between church and state,” but few phrases suffer more misuse than this one. If you expose the atrocities of the abortion industry, offer a biblical definition of marriage and gender, or appeal to the morality of any public policy, many will quickly lament the mixture of religion and politics as if the two cannot coexist. Ironically, the loudest voices claiming that the church is becoming too political have no problem at all when their politics becomes more and more theological.

Though the First Amendment guarantees that Congress will pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion, it also guards against prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Sadly, many recklessly abuse this sacred right by insisting on the freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion. Today’s common refrain is that faith has no place whatsoever in the public square.

We need to acknowledge that the concept of “separation between church and state” is not found anywhere in our U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase in 1802 while writing to Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. These believers expressed concern that the ratification of the First Amendment did not go far enough in protecting religious minorities from governmental intrusion.

Remember, many of America’s earliest citizens sought freedom from the oppression of the state sanctioned Church of England, and Baptists in particular were fearful of similar overreach in their new land. For smaller denominations, the rising influence of early Congregationalists and the taxes funneled to them felt eerily similar to the missteps of their previous experience.

Thus, Jefferson sought to reassure these Christians of their freedom to practice and verbalize their faith without interruption from the government. Rather than exile Christian ideas out of political debate, our third president sought to preserve their expression by eliminating the fear of legal blowback. From his perspective, the First Amendment successfully prevented the federal government from espousing a preference of religion without eliminating the presence of religion from our budding republic.

Tragically, our modern sensibilities erroneously maintain, contrary to Jefferson, that Christian influence is more dangerous than governmental interference. Religious liberty is the foundational cornerstone upon which our nation was built. Our founders understood that the best ideas will rise to the top when we persuade, not punish, those with whom we disagree. Discriminating against distinctly Christian ideas because of their morality is a failure to recognize that a code of ethics governs ALL expressed views. Even the most secular adherents are often quite religious about their atheism!

Christians rightly understand that government is a gift from God established for the good and safety of society (Rom. 13:1-7). The kingdom of God, however, is not of this world (John 18:36), so the former has no jurisdiction over the latter. As salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16), followers of Jesus are to contend for the souls of men and women first (Matt. 28:19-20), followed by the welfare of the cities wherein they live (Jer. 29:7). We have every right to express our views concerning morality, legislation, and the people who lead us. The world would be even more frightening if we did not. Regardless of outcomes, we should rest knowing that the kingdom of our God will prevail over the kingdoms of this world (Rev. 11:15).

Adam B. Dooley

October 23, 2024