Lynn Green

Author: Lynn Green

  • Is it illegal for me to say what I believe?

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    A Christian family bakery in Northern Ireland decided that they could not, in good conscience, decorate a cake with a slogan that promoted homosexual relationships.  They were sued and lost their case this week and that provides the occasion for publishing this blog. The picture of Bert and Ernie, with its slogan is what they would not produce on the cake.

    Phobia means fear.  I am neither afraid of homosexuals, nor of homosexuality.  So, I guess I am not homophobic.

    So,therefore I must be in favour of same-sex marriage; I must think that homosexual relations are to be admired and promoted. Right?

    Our news media assumes that all of us have to be one or the other–in favour of homosexual marriage or afraid of it which usually implies that such a person is hateful. But the issue does not fall neatly into those two categories. So let’s not use them. Let’s have the discussions on this complex subject without fear and without demonizing those who think differently than you or I do.

    There is so much that could be said on this subject without stirring up hatred towards homosexual people. There is far too much of that. I would be wise for us to remember that no one has the ability to directly choose their sexual orientation. But, sexual orientation is not my primary concern here. Let’s, rather, think about how we decide what is right and wrong; what should be legal or illegal because in the case sited above it is about law, how it changes and why.

    Doesn’t it seem odd to you that just a couple of decades ago most people in the UK, USA, Germany etc. believed that homosexual marriage didn’t make sense because marriage was between a man and a woman. If we still believe that now, are we somehow dangerous?  Did we really all change our opinions in such a short time?

    I think a significant percentage of us, whether we claim to be religious or not, still think that sexual morality is important and that homosexual acts are not what we were designed for. If that significant percentage of people had a choice, I think they would prefer that their children would not have same-sex relations. Some people think that way because of religious convictions–whether Christian or Muslim or otherwise–and some people think that way because of a range of  issues that accompany wide-spread homosexual activities.

    But that is not my point.

    There is a bigger question behind this specific issue.  What is the basis for law?  Do we derive it from social opinions?  If people change their mind about an issue, should the law change? If enough people vote one way on a moral issue, does that make all the others wrong and their opinions illegal–or illegal to express?

    Let’s think about another example in my home state of Colorado in the USA. A sufficient number of citizens in Colorado voted to legalize marijuana, so the law changed. Now the consequences have begun to be felt, many of which were not anticipated. Driving under the influence of weed has been demonstrated to be dangerous, but unlike alcohol, there is no immediate way for traffic police to test if a person’s ability is impaired by marijuana. In light of that, it is still illegal to drive while impaired by consuming too much alcohol, but it is okay to drive while impaired by the effects of smoking marijuana. Neighbouring states are angry about trafficking of weed into their territory and are threatening court action against the state of Colorado. There is long list of consequences that most voters were unaware of when they went to the polls. Is a majority vote always good and right? Is morality determined by votes? Sometimes only 30-40% of voters turn out, so as few as 20% of citizens can change law. Is this the tyranny of the politically active and powerful minority?

    If society’s opinion is the basis for law, then with the help of good funding for campaigns and the cooperation of key figures in the media, social opinion can be manipulated (that can happen quickly, or it might take a few years) so the law or laws can be changed to agree with those who have the power of influence.

    Is there another more reliable foundation for our laws?

    From the beginning of Western Civilizations, for the first 500 years or more, the laws of Western nations were grounded in “Natural Law”. Natural law was assumed to be universal values that were grounded in God’s nature and character as revealed in Biblical commandments. Of course, many people were not practising Christians, in fact active believers were rarely in the majority. But, people generally agreed about what was right and what was wrong. The values and opinions of society were based upon a higher source than majority opinion.

    Michael Sandel, the philosophy professor, maintains that we must derive our morality from a “higher source”. He skilfully points out that without that higher source we are simply too vulnerable to manipulation followed by tyranny.

    Yes, I think we have been manipulated, not just on the subject of same sex marriage, but on many moral issues and how the law reflects them. The recent decision in Northern Ireland confirms that the latest whim in relation to sexual behaviour has triumphed over long-held beliefs and, it is now illegal for citizens to act according to previously held normative beliefs.

    If we stay on this path, where are we going? In most of our nations there is only one area of private sexual behaviour that is illegal–sex with children. But even that value is being subjected to the same erosive forces that swept aside all the previous laws relating to fornication, adultery, prostitution and same-sex acts…. Those forces will continue to persist until they have repeatedly reduced the age of consent and finally eradicated that idea all together. Eventually the idea that young children can give their consent will prevail.

    The last 60 years of “legal evolution” have taken us in directions that would few would have predicted or wanted if we had “sampled public opinion” back then. Are we sure we want to continue with this dangerous experiment?

  • What Happened In Japan

    What Happened In Japan

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    How do we know when there has been a breakthrough in “the heavenlies”? 

    We know various scriptures refer to fighting “principalities and powers” and that Old Testament stories sometimes refer to, or illustrate, that idea.  But for most of us, the spiritual realm, or the heavenlies, is hard to understand.

    In spite of my limited understanding of this dimension, I can say with some confidence that there was a spiritual breakthrough in Japan during the first week of May, 2015.  Though the population of Christians in Japan has been stuck for many decades at less than one percent, that is about to change.  Watch this nation because many more people are going to become followers of Jesus.

    Just a few decades ago the Church in China was also stuck at less than one percent with persecution and martyrdom eroding the numbers fast.  In spite of those very hard times, the Chinese church has grown more than 100-fold. So it will be in Japan.

    My confidence is based upon what we experienced in Kobe, Japan over a period of four days.  The four thousand people who gathered spent the great majority of the time in worship, and the Chinese setting the tone with their love for Jesus.  They were there in good numbers and for the first time so were the Koreans.  (These nations have invaded, dominated and plundered one another for centuries with Japan usually being the most powerful.)  The worship flowed into times of repentance, forgiveness and commitments to love one another.

    Their mutual commitments were formalized in a statement in all three languages by which they covenanted to love on another no matter what politics, media or any other influence might do.  There were hundreds of pastors from all three nations and also from Taiwan and other East Asian nations all hugging one another in heart-felt commitment.

    There were other breakthroughs too.  These cultures have not had loving family models.  Most men are aloof, harsh husbands and fathers.  People in leadership positions are expected to be even more stoic and inscrutable.  So when a senior Japanese pastor talked humbly and transparently about his failings as a father, it softened everyone.  When his two sons joined him on stage to express their forgiveness and their admiration, we could sense how their humility was changing a culture for the better.

    This year marks the 70th year since WWII and 400 years since thousands of Japanese Christians were martyred.  Israel was exiled in Babylon for 70 years, and then restoration began.  So it will be with Japan.  With leading believers from China, Japan and Korea joining together in unity, we can expect extraordinary growth in the Kingdom of God in all of the Far East.

    On a more personal note, I was surprised and deeply moved by a conversation with a leading Chinese “father”.  He is the senior leader of the largest network of churches in China and he greeted me with a big hug and tears.  Through an interpreter, he explained that our presence at the Hong Kong Gathering in August of 2013 had imparted a new level of missionary vision for the Body of Christ in China.  We had already been told that the government had given him a passport for the first time in his life, so the trip to Japan was his first time to be allowed out of the country.  (He has been in prison for much of his adult life.)  He went on to say that the government in Beijing has had a change of mind about the role of the Church and about foreign missionaries— at least partly based upon viewing the video of our act of repentance for the Opium Wars at that same event in 2013.  I was amazed!!

    This entire journey with the Church in East Asia has been another illustration of a powerful truth:   God often presents us with a task that seems sacrificial, but when we say yes, He makes it a joy and also makes it more fruitful than we could ever imagine.  God is good—all the time!

    Lynn Green

  • MERCY KILLING?

    MERCY KILLING?

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    I just returned home to England from spending a week with my parents in Colorado.  As they approach their next birthdays, my Dad will be 92 and my Mom 89.  Mom has declined quite a lot and Dad, though mentally very clear, is weakening.  Life is difficult for both of them, especially since Mom needs more specialist care so they are separated.  Dad visits her for a couple of hours twice a day, but there are still a lot of lonely hours in each 24.

    I remember talking to them, perhaps five years ago, about their “living will”; they were both very clear that they did not (and still do not) want to be resuscitated in an emergency and did not want their lives to be artificially prolonged.

    So, should we have also considered euthanasia, or mercy killing?  As committed Christians with deep respect for the image of God in every person, that subject doesn’t need discussion; it is thoroughly and simply covered by the sixth commandment, “Though shalt do no murder”.  Is that commandment still absolute, in light of our medical ability to prolong life?  Each of my parents has had health problems that would have proven fatal in an earlier generation, but we are now able to treat pneumonia, hip fractures, infections etc.  So we prolong life, but should we also intervene to end life?

    We read about people who have made their plans to end their lives and one of my sons recently said (in jest, I think), “If I ever get to the point of senility, I hope someone will put me out of my misery.”  Do we need to re-examine mercy killing?  I think we do.

    That is one of the things I was thinking about during my visit, and I concluded that I could not imagine myself ever giving the order, or approving someone else’s order to kill anyone!  It is one thing to anticipate later years, imagine what weakness and senility would be and then conclude that you would rather die.  It is another thing altogether to give the order when the day arrives.  I know I could never do that.

    I also note that, though my parents are not living an easy life, neither one of them is even close to asking anyone to kill them.  It’s unthinkable!  We are all hardwired to protect life and to respect the image of God in us and in others.

    Periodically, there are high-profile cases of people who have decided they want to die rather than face the consequences of some terrible, progressive disease.  I wonder how they feel when the day comes.  It is one thing to think you want to die at some particular time in the future, but do they still feel that way when the sun rises on that day?

    For me, these are very real and personal considerations.  There are other issues too, especially what might happen to the medical professionals if they are taking the lives of some and preserving the lives of others.  If we put them in the position where they are no longer taking the oath to “do no harm”, can we expect them to perform as well as they do now?  This and other, wider cultural issues that have been considered elsewhere need to be taken into account,.

    There is one other personal and very practical issue I should address.  The prolonged care required by my parents is consuming their estate and we must sell their house to pay the mounting bills.  They owned and operated a very profitable construction company and paid large amounts into the social security system and other taxes, but that doesn’t really matter now.  The system in America is set up so that the estates of many (most?) elderly people are siphoned off into the medical professions for services rendered.

    If my siblings and I were greedy, this would be a problem.  If we felt that we should inherit as much money as possible from our parents, we would be angry at all the expenses being racked up but we don’t feel that way at all; we want them to live long and comfortably and the money is not that important.

    Does money influence the rising call for euthanasia? In the Biblical story, one of the dire consequences of idolatry was the willingness to sacrifice life for prosperity.  We have already entered that territory when children are aborted because the parents don’t think they can afford them.  Is that same thinking driving the politicians and others who are promoting mercy killing?

    I am not in a position to know the motives of others, but the questions are worth asking.  The bottom line for me is that my ongoing experience with my parents, to whom I owe so much, strongly reinforces my foundational conviction that human life is sacred and we cannot make decisions to take it.

  • Are We Being Misled?

    Are We Being Misled?

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

    President Obama has very carefully avoided speaking about Islamic terrorism and has repeatedly stated that “we are not at war with Islam!”  But the Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, recently said,

    ‘France has been struck very much at its heart by terrorism—jihadist terrorism and radical Islamism, because let us call things like they are.”

    (Read the whole article, it is worth the time:  http://www.wsj.com/article_email/sohrab-ahmari-frances-anti-terror-free-market-socialist-1425080405-lMyQjAxMTA1NjI5ODcyOTgzWj)

    What’s going on?  Who is trying to mislead us?

    I don’t really think Mr Obama is attempting to deceive us, but he might be under-estimating our ability to understand the divisions within Islam.  It is not really that complicated until you attempt to get into the detail, but we don’t need to for our purposes here.

    I also want to give him the benefit of the doubt, given his responsibilities and who he has been meeting with.  He recently hosted a summit meeting on terrorism and gave his most comprehensive speech right after it finished last week.  He made a very strong point of saying that we are not at war with Islam and that this is not about religion.  For that he received repeated applause from those who had just emerged from the summit with him.

    I have been in meetings like that.  In fact my Reconciliation Walk team hosted symposia with all the senior religious leaders in Beirut, Damascus and Jerusalem.  Some years later, I was at the Common Word event at Yale University.  These were each very interesting and helpful, but I have to admit that only the people we call “moderates” turn out to events of this nature.  I met some really interesting people at these meetings and made friends that have lasted for years.

    On several occasions at these events, when the subject of violence and terror came up, I heard the confident assertion, “that is not Islam”.  These were the moderates speaking.  They come from very different schools of interpretation from those who identify with ISIS or Al Qaeda or Al Shabaab or Boko Haram or the countless other violent splinter groups that we have yet to hear from.

    We can understand that position.  For example, I was born into a Pentecostal church.  This was a movement that exploded into view in the first decade of the 20th century and by 1912 had been rejected by the Roman Catholics and all the main Protestant denominations.  The Protestants met together and decided that the movement was demonically inspired, so not worthy of the name “Christian”.  The Pentecostals defended themselves by quoting the Bible and claiming that they were more Biblical than the others.  A hundred years later, Pentecostalism is accepted as part, a very large part, of the Christian faith.

    I appreciate those Muslims who are revolted by the violence of ISIS and I am sympathetic when they say, “that is not Islam!”  But the self-appointed Caliph of ISIS, a man with a PhD in Islamic Law, will refute that claim by quoting the Koran and Muslim traditions.  He and his followers will confidently claim that they are the only true Muslims because true Islam requires territory and people ruled by the strictest interpretation of Sharia and presided over by an all-powerful Caliph.  That is what they now have in parts of Iraq and Syria.

    So, back to the question:  Is President Obama attempting to mislead us?  No, I don’t think so.  He just wants us all to be clear that Muslims are not our enemies.  There really are a lot more peace loving Muslims than violent ones.  However, he inadvertently misleads us when he says the terrorists are not Muslims.  We cannot say that and it doesn’t help to try.  These  violent groups are comprised of people who are convinced that they are living out the mandate of the Prophet Mohammed more accurately than any people on earth.

    We are not at war with Islam and we are not at war with all Muslims, but some Muslims are definitely at war with us!