Agabus (mark adams)

… It is unchristian.

Just read Dove World Outreach Center’s “5 More reasons to burn the Koran.” It’s author, Dave Ingram, offers five justifications:

1. “Shock the world into focus” — Burning the Koran is surely shocking, but I don’t see “shock,” for example, in the book of Acts. Now, if Ingram wants to join the ranks of “shock” jocks, perhaps he should start his own radio show. If he wants to usher Muslims into Christian faith, I suggest other means.

2. “Get people to start asking hard questions” — I suggest Ingram become a missionary to an Islamic country. I know many who are, and they are definitely asking hard questions. Burning the Koran from the comfort of your Florida home hardly seems noble.

3. “Remind the world that we still have freedom of speech” — Congratulations, you’re a jerk. Thanks for demonstrating that we Americans have this right.

(While I’m at it, freedom of speech also includes my right to dissent — you’re still a jerk.)

4. “Expose the truth” — Again, if Ingram is so passionate about “shocking” people in order to “expose the truth,” why not become a missionary? Or is that too difficult? Too costly?

5. “Force the world into action” — And while we’re at it, why don’t we just force people to convert?

You can read Ingram’s piece here: 5 More Reasons to Burn the Koran.

Now, if Ingram could give just one biblical reason…

© 2010, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.

Pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn the Koran on Sept. 11, is abhorrent. As regards the First Amendment, his is perfectly within his right to burn whatever he wants (yes, even the U.S. flag). But, as a matter of moral decency, he is flat-out wrong.

First, as this report states(see here), the proposed burning of the Koran is already stirring unrest in Afghanistan — Jones’ action could cost U.S. soldiers their lives as well as the lives of Afghanis (and possibly underground Christian missionaries). To incite people to violence simply to make a point is immoral.

Second, it’s hateful.

Consider Paul at Mars Hill (Acts 17:16-34). There he was, standing amongst idols. What was his tactic? Did he go out destroy idols in the city square? No, he reasoned with them: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.” Ultimately, his teaching on the resurrection was rejected by the Greeks, but the point is that Paul did not go with the purpose of offending. The only offense he afforded himself was the “offence” of the Cross. The result? “Some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.”

Jesus did not send his disciples into the world to offend, but to preach truth.

Lastly, it is painfully obvious that Jones is only seeking attention — his 15 minutes of infamy. Let’s “do the math” –

• Sept. 11
• Muslims
• The Koran
• Book burning

What purpose will this demonstration serve, except to inflame passions? If he wants to engage Muslims in a dialog, will burning the Koran serve this purpose?

I am certainly ready to engage Muslims in a religious conversation, even to debate. If speaking of the deity of Christ offends Muslims, I will offer that offense. If speaking of the Cross is upsetting, again, I am willing to offer that offense. But to offend simply to make oneself offensive is, well, offensive.

What concerns me is that there are missionaries doing real work among Muslims. Jones’ action places them at risk. Missionaries in Islamic nations are showing Christ’s love tangibly, though their presence there places them at risk. That a pastor should so carelessly desecrate this work is abominable.

© 2010, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.

RE: Soldier: You support the troops? Really?

Let’s bring them home.

One mornin’ at breakfast I said to my wife
We’ve been everywhere once and some places twice
As I had another helpin’ of country ham
she said “We haven’t never been to Vietnam
there’s a bunch of our boys over there”
So we went

Well we got a big welcome when we drove in
Through the gates of a placed named Long Ben
We checked in and everything got kinda quite
But a soldier boy said “Just wait til’ tonight
Things get noisy things start happening’
Big bad firecrackers”

Well that night we did about four shows for the boys
And they were livin’ it up with a whole lot of noise
We did our last song for the night
Then we crawled into bed for some peace and quite
But things weren’t peaceful things weren’t quite
Things were scary

Well for a few minutes June hadn’t spoken a word
Then I thought at first she hadn’t heard
Then a shell exploded not two miles away
She sat up in bed and I heard her say
“What was that” I said “That was a shell or a bomb”
She said “John I’m scared” I said “Me too”

Well all night long that noise kept on
And the noise would chill you right to the bone
The bullets and the shells and the atomic bombs
shook our bed and finally fell and it never let up
It was gonna get worse before it got any better

Well, the sun came up the noise died down
We got a few minutes sleep and we were sleepin’ sound
Then a soldier knocked on the door and said
“Last night we brought in seven dead and fourteen wounded!”
We were goin’ down to the base hospital
To see the boys Yeah

So we to the hospital day by day
And of the night we were singin’ away
Then the shells and the bombs again til’ dawn
And the helicopter brought in a wounded man
night after night day after day
comin’ and a goin’

So we sadly sang for them our last song
And reluctantly we said so long
We did our best to let them know that we cared
for every last one of them over there
Whether we belonged over there or not Ê
somebody loves them and needs them

Well now that’s about all there is to tell
about our little trip and the livin’ hell
and if I ever go back over there again
I hope there’s none of our boys to sing for
I hope this ol’ war’s over with and they’re all back home
To stay in peace

Cash’s Viet Nam reference: “I wear the black in mournin’ for the lives that could have been, Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.”

© 2010, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.

Though his tongue may be firmly planted in his cheek, John Marcotte has touched upon a sensitive issue. If laws prohibit homosexuals marrying, should not laws prohibit heterosexual couples from divorcing? After all, if the intention of Proposition 8 is to “protect” marriage, should we not protect marriage further? So Marcotte proposes that Californian voters advance a proposition banning divorce:

The man on a mission to ban divorce in California has reached a major goal and now will start collecting signatures to get his measure on the ballot for California voters.

John Marcotte, of Sacramento, is proposing the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act because, as his website, rescuemarriage.net, says, “Prop 8 did not go far enough in protecting traditional marriage.”

via New Effort Underway to Ban Divorce

Whether or not Marcotte is serious (he seems to be only making a point) is of little import. Democracy and marriage are a serious enterprises. Frankly, divorce should not be easy, though it should not be as difficult as Marcotte proposes. There are special circumstances: infidelity, spousal abuse, abandonment, etc. And it is not clear that Marcotte has seriously considered these issues. His website, rescuemarriage.net, is not operational, so I’m unable to know his position on these matters. He will, according to news reports, allow for annulments, which frankly seems to negate the purpose of his proposition altogether.

Ironically, Marcotte might find many religious conservatives willing to sign his petition. As divorce undermines the very fabric of society, it should be more difficult to obtain. However, banning divorce outright, without regard to key issues (adultery, spousal abuse, etc.) is unpalatable. Just as extending marriage rights to homosexuals is.

© 2010, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.

Tea Party? Liberalism? Am I serious? Considering that Sarah Palin, a Tea Party darling, is a Bible-believing Christian, such a question seems outrageous, but, ironically, it is not misplaced. Though many religious conservatives align themselves with the Tea Party, the Tea Party hardly aligns itself with conservative religious values. In fact, the movement almost exclusively focuses on fiscal issues. It’s motto — “fiscal responsibility, limited government, free market” — could very well be the Libertarian Party’s motto. What about abortion? Homosexual marriage? Or even basic morality?

In California, the Republican governor is pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage, as are many GOP governors and congresspeople around the nation. As religious conservatives question the GOP’s ability (or willingness) to push a conservative social agenda, are they not falling into an insidious trap?

This is especially troubling given the state of affairs in the United States. Youth are wrestling with a vastly different set of moral questions than those of yesteryear. They are inquiring into their “sexuality,” questioning their purpose, and struggling to find a “code.” What does the Tea Party have to say about these issues?

Nothing.

Tea Party Patriots offers a rather stark political agenda:

Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states’ rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government’s interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Source: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Mission.aspx

These may well be a fine set of political values, but that is all they are. If Christians are looking for a conservative alternative to the Republican Party, they will be sorely disappointed with the Tea Party. Here, I make no judgment about the Tea Party’s political agenda, except to note that it is devoid of morality concerns.

The New York Times has a good read on this subject: Tea Party Avoids Divisive Social Issues.

© 2010, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.

I have this message for conservatives: tired of hearing about global warming? — don’t care. Here’s a message for liberals: tired of conservatives denying global warming? — don’t care. Fact is, in a modern, mechanized society, our energy needs are phenomenal. Much of the Third World — China, India, Brazil, for example — is modernizing. Energy needs are increasing wildly.

Sorting recyclables, driving hybrids, replacing incandescent light bulbs with CFs or LEDs, scarcely makes a difference — not that these are unimportant, but they are inadequate. (See this story: Buying Green Won’t Make a Difference.) What’s needed is radical change. Apart from that, why should I care about global warming if no sufficient means are sought?

No, what the world needs is a massive shift toward alternative energy… toward nuclear energy.

Is nuclear energy safe? Yes, but it does come with risks; however, the “alternative,” fossil fuels, are riskier. More people have died because of pollution caused by fossil fuels and in wars in the name of fossil fuels than because of nuclear energy. I’m not speaking hypothetically. France gets between 75 and 80 percent of its energy from nuclear power; Japan gets 30 percent; and, the United States gets about 20 percent. Nuclear energy is already working. True, nuclear waste must be stored (one day we will be able to recycle it), and there is the Chernobyl incident (though that was caused by gross negligence), however fossil fuels are far more damaging.

It’s doubtful that man will return to the cave, that man will return to sustenance farming. We are living in an intensely modern world, energy consumption is fantastic. It’s time to embrace the atom.

© 2010, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.

If gay-rights activists have their way, Christianity will be deemed a hate religion. (I make this claim sincerely; I am no reactionary.) Christians will be stripped of their right of association and self-governance; churches will be excluded from civic activities; foster children will not be allowed to attend Bible camps; Christian groups will not be permitted to form officially-sanctioned clubs on campuses.

Already, the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco has refused to recognize the Christian Law Society, claiming the group’s Christian beliefs are discriminatory — its members must embrace “orthodox” Christianity. That, in one sense, excludes homosexuals and non-Christians, though not exactly because one could choose to adopt Christian orthodoxy.

The idea that a group receiving state funds might “exclude” others might sound disturbing, but I find the alternative more troubling: the government would tell people what to do and what to believe and with whom to associate. That is untenable. It is unacceptable.

One might ask, “What business does government have funding any group?” Why should the ski club, for example, receive state funds for promoting skiing? Why not basketball? Or poetry? Or Greek philosophy? The problem with this thinking, however, is that our society is not based on the government dictating to the people their interests and values, but rather the people dictating to the government. Reverse those roles, democracy becomes demagogy.

Should the Supreme Court ever decide people do not have a right to define themselves, all definitions will be lost. There no longer would be homosexual, for that would exclude heterosexual. Nor would there be Democrat, for that would exclude Republican. Or pro-choice, for that would exclude pro-life.

The Christian Law Society has sued Hastings College, and the Supreme Court will soon decide whether or not that group can receive funding, as other clubs do. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial supporting the Christian club:

PICTURE THIS: gay student organizations forced to accept those who believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Student political groups, such as Young Republicans or Young Democrats, compelled to allow members of the other party to vote on policy platforms. A law association for African American students being told that it must let white supremacists run for leadership posts. — source Politically correct, legally wrong

If this is what Hastings Law School demands, then no group should be allowed to associate, for views it adopts would be “discriminatory.” However, perhaps we misunderstand the meaning of the term. It would be discriminatory to say blacks could not form a group because they were black, but it would not be discriminatory for blacks to form an association about being black. The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, is made up exclusively of black member of congress. Would it be a black caucus if whites were permitted? Would it be a black caucus if the values of white supremacy were forced upon the group? Hardly not.

The Washington Post editorial poignantly concludes,

It is one thing to require that groups that accept school funds and use school facilities give every student the opportunity to attend meetings or explore the virtues of a particular organization. But it is altogether different to require groups to accept as members or leaders even those who disagree with its central beliefs. This cuts at the core of meaningful association; penalizing a group by withholding school benefits only exacerbates the harm.

© 2010, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.