The Goodness of God and the Suffering of the Faithful

How do we reconcile the love of God with the suffering of the Church? How do we reconcile the idea that "all things work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose" with the fact that most Christians throughout the world are afflicted and --what's worse-- forgotten?

Need some answers? Here's an attempt...

The only way a deaf and blind world can hear and see the gospel message is by seeing it in our lives. The only way the life of Christ can reach the nations is by us following his incarnation, submitting to God's will, and presenting ourselves in all of our vulnerability.

Read more here.

A Refreshingly-Unadulterated Swing of the Axe at the Very Root of the Problem:

Thursday, July 02, 2009

SEX: GOOD, BABIES: BAD
By Kortney Blythe


This mindset seems to be the theme in this week’s news from the frontlines of the pro-death camp.

Take for instance, this quote by Elisabeth Garber-Paul in an article on the rise in sexual activity during this economic recession: "So join the rest of America in this exciting new trend. Save money, stay in, have sex—just don’t make a baby."

That’s right, Elisabeth, throw respect for yourself out the window and spit in the face of God by removing one of his intentions for intercourse. More babies will just make the economy worse, right? Wrong. In fact, one of the reasons we are even in this recession is because of the plummeting birthrate. There simply aren’t enough people to replace the retiring population in the workplace and pay for social security or to stimulate the economy.

Not that you’ll hear about that from the anti-human, overpopulation zealots. But, do your research. Watch Demographic Winter and Demographic Bomb, two documentaries which debunk the overpopulation myth and ask the very important question: IS IT POSSIBLE WE HAVE BEEN FAILED BY THE VERY IDEAS WE THOUGHT COULD SAVE US?

It goes without saying that abortion advocates think saving sex for marriage is ludicrous and archaic. ....Just check out the title of a book just released by radical feminist Jessica Valenti, The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women.

In an interview on RH Reality Check, the author, Valenti, purports that teaching and honoring purity is just as dangerous as the media’s “pressure on sexuality and the hypersexualization of women.” Oh really? So, protecting young people from the heartbreak and emptiness of pre-marital sex, not to mention a load of sexually transmitted diseases, is akin to the objectification of women, the result of which has been a generation of depressed, confused girls with eating disorders?

She goes on to say, “The purity myth is so embedded in our culture and our psyches…You don't have to be forcing your daughter to take a virginity pledge in order for the fiction of virginity to affect your life.” Really? Then, why does every Hollywood film end (or begin) with a couple jumping in bed together? If it’s so “embedded” in our culture then why are abortion, STD and teen pregnancy rates so high? (I’m not going to even legitimize her term “fiction of virginity” with a response).

As if that isn’t enough, in Greensboro, NC a new program is paying high school girls to not get pregnant. That’s right. For every day they stay baby-free, $1 is deposited into an account to be used for college. According to WXII12 news, the group was founded by Hazel Brown, a maternity nurse who thought too many teens were having babies. Ms. Brown, how about seeing the root of the problem - too many teens are having pre-marital sex. The problem is NOT the presence of a baby, but the actions of his mother, which resulted in his existence.

The three goals of this program, called College-Bound Sisters, are for the girls to “avoid pregnancy, graduate from high school and enroll in college,” Brown said. Oh, what lofty goals we have for our young people!....
Teenagers rise to the expectations that are set for them. If all we ask is that they avoid pregnancy (and bonus! we’ll pay you for it), what are we teaching girls about sex, relationships, the value of children or personal responsibility, for that matter?

Instead of urging purity and self-control and demonstrating the joys of a quiver full of children (Psalm 127:4-5) within marriage, this program bribes young girls. If those same girls were taught basic biblical morality they wouldn’t be having sex, and thus, there would be no chance of pregnancy.

The message of this program in a nutshell: Go ahead and sin against God by having damaging pre-marital sex, but just make sure you avoid one of the outcomes – babies.

If only young people knew the joy and blessings they are missing out on when they use sex for purely physical and selfish reasons! Then, and only then, they would cherish chastity as it should be.

To my unmarried friends reading this, please flee from this deadly mentality of me-first, pleasure seeking, sex without consequences. Seek righteousness, pursue holiness and practice chastity.

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.”
-2 Timothy 3:1-5

an update on Rush's "Brief Sermon"

[click the title.]

among all other things that might be said about him, one thing is for sure... rush doesn't back down. i applaud him on many issues, but this is great. major dittos!

"A Brief Sermon for the Archbishop of Canterbury" [link]

profound thoughts and words from the mind and mouth of el rushbo himself...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122007/content/01125110.guest.html

a call to arms -

For some time now, I have thought about the most recent front against the Christian Faith. To be quite honest, these attackers speak of being against faith in general (i.e., any theistic belief whatsoever); however, their attacks do seem to be quite intently targetted against the Church.

Personally, the most frustrating thing about these attackers is their snide tone and demeaning comments against those who proudly carry the banner of Jesus.

They present themselves as being the only ones in the debate who think rationally and speak intellectually, but often their efforts only consist mere cheap shots that are filled with anger. For instance - a simple look at the debate sponsored by - if my memory serves me well - "Dateline" only a few months back. When all the fluff was picked out, the front against the Faith was essentially an assumption that Christians must be ignorant and that - if there really is a divine One - He's just a big meanie.

Just this evening, I read a post on a discussion forum sponsored by Decapolis.com [see links]; in it, a guy [I'm assuming the male sex.] exasperatedly wrote about a friend falling away from the Faith after being first exposed to this great onslaught.

[I find it pretty funny that all afternoon long - and you can ask my wife - I have been walking around the homestead singing a quite fitting though all-too-simplistic hymn. Just a taste: "The devil tried to tell that the Bible was a lie, that Jesus didn't love me, and that I was doomed to die..."]

Below are my comments on Decapolis.com...

--- --- ---

voice,

i too have noticed a relatively recent onslaught. of course, in the scholarly world this onslaught is quite aged - historically, culture has always followed the pattern of the scholarly world only a few generations later.

now, the long-coming attack has finally hit the streets. this could quite possibly have something to do with the chaff among the wheat; nevertheless, the church must not remain silent and simply fold our hands in contempt. rather, christianity must answer its attackers, and unless we do so with profound coherence and internal consistency we are doomed to be laughed into oblivion.

i, for one, am quite annoyed by the vehement debunking, yet i know that i must not respond merely in anger.

still, the church today finds itself in great need to a polemic front that is sensible and well-developed. for the most part, though, it seems that most of the debunkers are what i personally call "angry atheists" - people who quite honestly are more mad at god than they are genuine disbelievers. they would probably not look too kindly at that characterization, though, but you can hear it in the tone of their words (both, spoken and written) - quite frankly, they are as mad as the anger of hell itself.

pray, we must. fight, we must. love, we must.

recently on decapolis...

Just a few days ago, I expectantly joined a forum for discussion on a site I enjoy checking every once in a while. As I had hoped, I stepped in on some interesting thoughts. Here is my latest input concerning the inescapability of theological thinking (i.e., dogma, doctrine, etc.)...

--- --- ---

"
so, basically, all you have said is that feeling and doubt are the basis of any knowledge, but - even there - any potential knowledge is merely some vague hope grounded upon nothing but subjective experience.

further, you speak of good and evil (i.e., pain and suffering) which tells me that - whether you like it or not - you do operate from some dogma.

i'll be honest in noting that i'm not familiar with momma t's writings. i suppose the same gutt-wrenching fears, doubts (?), and questions could be said of bonhoeffer - or even john the baptist for that matter. what about jeremiah or habakkuk? christ on the cross? i would assume that all of mankind - at some point or another - have experienced some form of dark night (st. john of the cross). that dark night, though, as in the case of each of these examples, never gives ground to remove all knowledge - real, genuine, subjectively objective knowledge - hard, attainable truth.

you are right in having a heart for the hurting, but why? because of dogma - like it or not. you may not want some nicely worked and worded systematic theology, but you cannot escape being a theologian of some sorts.

"tremendous liberty... in a spiritual fog of ambiguity and doubt"? sounds like transcendentalism.

and as for who is out there... he has made himself personally known. i suggest you start with jesus.

religion - the bible's term, not mine. but what do you call prayer, if not religious? scripture, if not religious? church - oh, that dreaded bore? to reject religion (true religion, that is) always leads to antinominanism and inherent hell - whether literal and eternal or subjective and still unmistakenly real. in fact, i would make the case that being left with nothing but my feelings, doubts, wishful thinking, and all-to-wanting kindnesses would be quite an unbearable hell itself.

my fear is going too far in rejecting what is known and can be known (true christian religion) merely for the sake of some fleeting thoughts.
"