顯示具有 Albert Mohler 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Albert Mohler 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2017-03-27

作者: Albert Mohler  譯者: Maria Marta

    成年不僅僅是年齡的結果-------它是一件了不起的事。縱觀人類歷史,年青人都渴望邁入成人期,並努力去實現這一願望。人類社會有三個近乎普及化的成人標志,其中包括婚姻、經濟獨立、與準備生育。但現在,成年這一概念正面臨險境。

一項反覆研究發現,年青的美國人正在進入成年期,如果有這種情況的話,他們是遠遠早於現在的前幾代人。五十年前美國年青人的平均結婚年齡是二十多歲。現在趨向於接近30歲。

為什麽這對我們大家都很重要?一種穩定和功能性的文化需要建立穩定的婚姻和培育家庭。沒有健康的婚姻和家庭生活作基礎,持久和健康的社區就不能長期存在下去。

顯然,我們自己的社會暴露了遲婚與其後果的問題,但我們並非惟一出現遲婚問題的國家。隨著不祥的經濟、政治、與社會影響,許多歐洲國家亦顯露了類似的成年推遲的模式。

對於基督徒來說,這個問題絕不僅僅是社會學或經濟學的問題。首要問題是道德的問題。當我們大多數人在思想道德時,我們首先思想的是倫理規則和戒命,但基督徒的世界觀提醒我們,第一個道德關注總是造物主對我們,即作為祂的人類受造物------唯一按照祂的形象被造的受造物的期望。

聖經肯定婚姻的概念是人類的中心期望。早在聖經第二章,我們就讀到:「因此人要離開父母,和妻子連合,二人成為一體」(創二24新譯本)。

現在,聖經所肯定的事實正在變得越來越罕見。 在更大的社會中,未婚同居越來越普遍,甚至世俗觀察者也註意到,在大多數情況下,同居不再導致婚姻。 約翰霍普金斯大學(John Hopkins University)的謝林(Andrew Cherlin)教授最近告訴時代雜誌,美國年青人之間的大多數同居關系是短期的。 它不是婚前同居; 而同居而不結婚。

時代雜誌的故事還指出了另一種令人擔憂的模式:千禧代(Millennials)正擁有非婚生子的驚人比率。

此外,幾年前,威爾科克斯(W. Bradford Wilcox)根據懷特諾(Robert Wuthnow所作的研究,認為遲婚是世俗化的主要驅動力。遲婚與青春期延伸所造成的巨大,並常被忽視的影響緊密相聯。成年意味著成年人要肩負的責任,對於絕大多數年青人而言,成年意味著婚姻和為人父母。青春期延長至二十幾歲(甚至30歲),與世俗主義的興起和較低的教會出席率高度相關。

基督徒明白,我們被造成男人和女人,以彰顯上帝的榮耀,我們被賜予婚姻的禮物,作為一個獨特背景,在這背景下,上帝設計性這禮物,並賦予我們擁有與養育孩子的特權與命令。基於這些以及更多的原因,基督徒必須明白,除非得蒙獨身的呼召,否則,基督徒應該尊重婚姻,尋求結婚,在人生更早,而不是較後的階段,進入養育與肩負成年人的全部責任。

成年推遲並不符合聖經的人生觀,對於大多數年青的基督徒而言,婚姻應該是年青成年人的計劃,和對基督忠心的核心部分。當丈夫和妻子一起達到成年階段時,年青基督徒在混亂的世界面前見證上帝的計劃和恩賜。

基督徒明白不能將婚前與婚外性行為當作一個選項。同居與順服基督相抵觸。孩子是上帝的恩賜,應在在婚姻的盟約中欣然接受和接納。

很突出的一點是,文化世俗政府現在對年青人的遲婚表示擔心。時代雜志關注年輕美國人不結婚這一問題,基督徒更應倍加關注。

年青的美國人,包括年青的基督徒,在走向完全成年的過程中,面臨著一些非常現實的挑戰,毫無疑問,經濟因素扮演着一個重要的角色。但甚至世俗的觀察家也認識到,婚姻的轉變指向道德的根本轉變。坦白說,事實是,前幾代年青人面臨著甚至更大的經濟挑戰,但他們仍然找到通往成年和婚姻的道路。

基督教教會必須鼓勵年青基督徒朝著婚姻的目標邁進,並且必須清楚,在人生的每個階段和每個季節中,聖潔和順服基督的必要性。當我們周遭的人迷惑不解,詢問婚姻怎麽了時,基督徒必須在婚姻中展示上帝的榮耀,以及上帝在婚姻盟約中賜予我們的一切。

我們必須鼓勵年青的基督徒不要拖延婚姻,也不要草率結婚,而是要在成年早期的關鍵時期,將結婚置於優先位置。在這個問題上,我們沒有時間去等待。


本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年三月號


The Problem of Delaying Marriage
by Albert Mohler

Adulthood is not just a function of age—it is an achievement. Throughout human history, young people have aspired to achieve adulthood and have worked hard to get there. The three nearly universal marks of adulthood in human societies include marriage, financial independence, and readiness for parenthood. Now, the very concept of adulthood is in jeopardy.

Study after study reveals that young Americans are achieving adulthood, if at all, far later than previous generations now living. The average age of marriage for young Americans fifty years ago was in the very early twenties. Now, it is trending closer to age thirty.

Why is this important to us all? A stable and functional culture requires the establishment of stable marriages and the nurturing of families. Without a healthy marriage and family life as foundation, no lasting and healthy community can long survive.

Clearly, our own society reveals the delay of marriage and its consequences, but we are hardly alone. Many European nations display similar patterns of delayed adulthood, with ominous economic, political, and social implications.

For Christians, however, the issue is never merely sociological or economic. The primary issue is moral. When most of us think about morality, we think first of ethical rules and commandments, but the Christian worldview reminds us that the first moral concern is always what the Creator expects of us as His human creatures, the only creatures made in His own image.

The Bible affirms the concept of marriage as a central expectation for humanity. As early as the second chapter in the Bible we read: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Now, that reality is becoming more and more rare. In the larger society, cohabitation without marriage is increasingly the norm, but even secular observers note that cohabitation no longer even leads to marriage in most cases. Andrew Cherlin of John Hopkins University recently told Time magazine that most cohabiting relationships among young people in the United States are short term. This is not cohabiting before marriage; it is cohabiting instead of marriage.

The Time story also pointed to another worrying pattern: millennials are having children outside of marriage at astounding rates.

Furthermore, several years ago, W. Bradford Wilcox, relying on research conducted by Robert Wuthnow, argued that the delay of marriage is a primary driver of secularization. This goes hand in hand with the fact that the extension of adolescence comes with vast and often unnoticed effects. Adulthood is meant for adult responsibilities, and for the vast majority of young people, that will mean marriage and parenthood. The extension of adolescence into the twenties (and even the thirties) is highly correlated with the rise of secularism and with lower rates of church attendance.

Christians understand that we were created as male and female to demonstrate the glory of God, and that we were given the gift of marriage as the singular context for which God designed the sexual gift and granted us the privilege and command of having and raising children. For all these reasons and more, Christians must understand that, unless given the calling of celibacy, Christians should honor marriage and seek to marry and to move into parenting and the full responsibilities of adulthood earlier rather than later in life.

Delaying adulthood is not consistent with a biblical vision of life, and for most young Christians, marriage should be a central part of planning for young adulthood and faithfulness to Christ. As husband and wife achieving adulthood together, young Christians serve as a witness of God’s plan and God’s gift before a confused world.

Christians understand that sex before and outside of marriage is simply not an option. Cohabiting is inconsistent with obedience to Christ. Children are God’s gifts to be received and welcomed within the marriage covenant.

Tellingly, secular authorities in the culture are now expressing worry about the delay of marriage among young Americans. When Time magazine is concerned about young Americans not getting married, Christians must be doubly concerned.

Young Americans, and that includes young Christians, face some very real challenges in moving toward full adulthood, and there is no question that economic factors play a part. But even secular observers understand that a shift in marriage points to an underlying shift in morality. The blunt fact is that previous generations of young adults, facing even greater economic challenges, still found their way to adulthood and marriage.

The Christian church must encourage young Christians toward the goal of marriage and must be clear about the necessity of holiness and obedience to Christ at every stage and in every season of life. When the world around us is scratching its head, asking what has happened to marriage, Christians must display the glory of God in marriage and all that God gives to us in the marital covenant.

And we must encourage young Christians not to delay marriage, nor to marry in haste, but to make marriage a priority in the critical years of young adulthood. In that cause, we have no time to wait.




2017-03-07

作者: Albert Mohler  譯者: Maria Marta  

很遺憾許多美國基督徒對經濟學所知甚少。此外許多基督徒認為聖經根本沒有談及經濟。而實際上,一種符合聖經的世界觀,在經濟問題方面有大量的內容要教導我們。工作的意義、勞動的價值、以及其他的經濟問題都是聖經觀點的世界觀的一部分。基督徒必須容許以在聖經裡找到的經濟原則來陶塑我們的思想。以下十二條論題是關於基督徒的經濟認識所涵概的必須部份。

1.  它必須以上帝的榮耀作為它的最高目標。

對基督徒而言,所有的經濟理論都是以榮耀上帝的目標開始(林前十31)。我們有一個卓越的經濟權威。

2. 它必須尊重人的尊嚴。

無論何種信仰系統,無論工作的人知道與否,他們都在顯示上帝的榮耀。 人們可能相信他們是為自己的原因工作,但實際上他們都出於一種驅動,這種驅動是造物主為了祂的榮耀,將它放置在他們的內心的。

3. 它必须尊重私有财产和所有权。

有些经济制度把私有财产的观念视为问题。但圣经从不认为私有财产是需要解决的问题。圣经的私有财产观表明,拥有私有财产是人的劳动与管治的报酬。第八条和第十条诫命告诉我们,我们无权侵犯勤劳者的金钱回报。

4.  它必須對罪的勢力有足夠的估計。

充分考慮聖經關於罪的普遍影響,意味著我們預期,在每一種經濟體系裡壞事情都會發生。基督徒的經濟認識會竭力緩解罪惡的影響。

5. 它必須維護和獎勵正義(righteousness)。

每一種經濟和政體系統都包含激勵機制。這方面的一個例子是美國的稅務代碼,它刺激鼓勵所期望的經濟行為。它們是否得到貫徹實行,是一個無休止的,要在政治上一再校準的問題。然而,在基督徒的世界觀裡,這種「一再校準」必須繼續維護和獎勵正義。

6.  它必须奖励主动性、工业、与投资。

在基督徒的经济与神学詞彙中,主动性、工业、与投资是三个關鍵字眼。主动性超过行动。它是一种产生差别的行动。工业是人类协同完成的工作。投资是在圣经中找到的尊重私有财产的一部分。最终证实了投资与伊甸园一样古老。投资积累值是值得尊敬的,积累价值的驱动是值得尊敬的。因此,基督徒的经济理论控告任何不工作的体格健全的人,和任何不尊重私有财产或投资回报的人。

7. 它必須尋求獎勵和鼓勵節儉。

在一個墮落的世界,金錢和投資可能被迅速扭曲,變為偶像崇拜的目的。因此,節儉是基督徒世界觀中一個舉足輕重的議題。在墮落的世界裡,今天的充裕會轉變為明天的貧乏。在貧困時期,節儉能提供生存的資源。

8.  它必須維護家庭這種最基本的經濟單位。

思考一下植根於聖經開頭的經濟理論,管治的命令固然是核心,但神聖的婚姻制度也同樣重要。在創世記第二章描述的離開與連合的模式是我們的經濟認識的基礎。亞當和夏娃是第一個經濟單位。因此,聖經所定義的家庭是經濟最基本和最重要的單位。

9.  它必須尊重社區。

大多數世俗思想家和經濟學家都以社區為開始,然後在轉向家庭。然而,沿著較大到較小經濟單位這一思路,不僅在理論上行不通,而且在實踐上也是失敗的。從家庭單位開始,然後向社區進展是一個更明智的選擇。基層決定原則 (或稱輔助性原則  Subsidiarity) 的教義---------源自於自然法理論---------教導意義、真理、與權力屬於最小的,有意義的單位的可能性。如果家庭單位缺乏,沒有政府能滿足市民的需求。當家庭強大,政府可以弱小。

然而,當家庭弱小時,政府必須彌補其缺乏。借者對家庭的關注,我們尊重和改善社區。

10.  它必須獎勵慷慨與勝任的管家。

委身於上帝國度經濟和下一代益處的基督徒,必須活出面向未來的金融觀。我們每個人都有責任,不管我們擁有多少,我們務要慷慨,直到我們生命的年限。屬靈慷慨------在聖經中有如此清晰的教導-------對基督徒的經濟世界觀來說是必不可少的。

11. 它必須尊重教會和教會使命的優先順序。

基督徒必須擁抱經濟的優先順序,這是世上其余的人不能理解的。基督徒必須投資教會、神學院、與國際宣教使命。這些都是基督徒特別的財政承擔。我們最終的財務承擔並非為了我們自己,亦非為了我們自己的投資,而是為了基督的國度。因此,基督徒總要作好準備,經歷經濟優先次序與安排中的劇變,因為緊急的國度問題可能隨時會介入。

12.  它必須重視末世的審判和對末世的應許。

生命及其資源不能帶來最終的喜樂。基督徒的世界觀提醒我們,我們必須活出這種認識:我們要為我們的資源的管家職份向上帝交賬。同時,基督徒必須仰望新的天地這一末世應許,並視之為我們最終的經濟盼望。我們必須把財寶積聚在天上而非在地上。


本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年二月號

Toward a Christian View of Economics
by Albert Mohler
Regrettably, many American Christians know little about economics. Furthermore, many Christians assume that the Bible has nothing at all to say about economics. But a biblical worldview actually has a great deal to teach us on economic matters. The meaning of work, the value of labor, and other economic issues are all part of the biblical worldview. Christians must allow the economic principles found in Scripture to shape our thinking. Here, then, are twelve theses for what a Christian understanding of economics must do.

1. It must have God’s glory as its greatest aim.

For Christians, all economic theory begins with an aim to glorify God (1 Cor. 10:31). We have a transcendent economic authority.

2. It must respect human dignity.

No matter the belief system, those who work show God’s glory whether they know it or not. People may believe they are working for their own reasons, but they are actually working out of an impulse that was put into their hearts by the Creator for His glory.

3. It must respect private property and ownership.

Some economic systems treat the idea of private property as a problem. But Scripture never considers private property as a problem to be solved. Scripture’s view of private property implies that owning private property is the reward of someone’s labor and dominion. The eighth and tenth commandments teach us that we have no right to violate the financial rewards of the diligent.

4. It must take into full account the power of sin.

Taking the Bible’s teaching on the pervasive effects of sin into full account means that we expect bad things to happen in every economic system. A Christian economic understanding tries to ameliorate the effects of sin.

5. It must uphold and reward righteousness.

Every economic and government system comes with embedded incentives. An example of this is the American tax code, which incentivizes desired economic behaviors. Whether they work is an issue of endless political recalibration. However, in the Christian worldview, that recalibration must continue to uphold and reward righteousness.

6. It must reward initiative, industry, and investment.

Initiative, industry, and investment are three crucial words for the Christian’s economic and theological vocabulary. Initiative goes beyond action. It is the kind of action that makes a difference. Industry is human work done corporately. Investment is part of the respect for private property found in Scripture. Investment, as it turns out, is as old as the garden of Eden. That which accrues value is honorable, and the impulse to accrue that value is honorable. Thus, a Christian economic theory indicts any able-bodied person who won’t work and anyone who won’t respect private property or reward investment.

7. It must seek to reward and incentivize thrift.

In a fallen world, money and investments can quickly be distorted to idolatrous ends. For that reason, thrift is a very important issue in the Christian worldview. In a fallen world, abundance one day can turn into scarcity the next. Thrift may be what provides survival in times of poverty.

8. It must uphold the family as the most basic economic unit.

When thinking about economic theory embedded in the beginning of the Bible, the dominion mandate is central, but so is the divine institution of marriage. The pattern of leaving and cleaving described in Genesis 2 is fundamental to our economic understanding. Adam and Eve were the first economic unit. The result is that the family, biblically defined, is the most basic and essential unit of the economy.

9. It must respect community.

Most secular thinkers and economists begin with the community and then move to the family. However, thinking from larger to smaller economic units not only does not work in theory, it also fails in practice. Beginning with the family unit and then working out toward the community is a much smarter option. The doctrine of subsidiarity—which emerged out of natural law theory—teaches that meaning, truth, and authority reside in the smallest meaningful unit possible. If the family unit is deficient, no government can meet the need of its citizens. When the family is strong, government can be small.

When the family is weak, however, the government must compensate for the loss. By focusing on the family, we respect and better the community.

10. It must reward generosity and proper stewardship.

Christians who are committed to the economics of the kingdom and to the good of the next generation must live with a future-oriented financial perspective. We each have the responsibility, whether we own a lot or a little, to see that our generosity endures far beyond our lifespan. Spirited generosity, which is so clear in Scripture, is essential to a Christian economic worldview.

11. It must respect the priority of the church and its mission.

Christians must embrace economic priorities that the rest of the world simply will not understand. Christians must invest in churches, seminaries, and international missions. These are distinctive Christian nancial commitments. Our ultimate financial commitment is not to ourselves or to our own investments but to the kingdom of Christ. Thus, Christians should always be ready to experience upheaval in economic priorities and arrangements because urgent kingdom issues can intervene at any moment.

12. It must focus on eschatological judgment and eschatological promise.

This life and its resources cannot deliver ultimate joy. The Christian worldview reminds us that we must live with the recognition that we will give an account to the Lord for our stewardship of our resources. At the same time, Christians must look to the eschatological promise of the new heavens and earth as our ultimate economic hope. We must lay up treasures in heaven and not on earth.



2017-01-29

成為基督徒的權利 The Right to Be a Christian

作者: Albert Mohler    譯者:  Maria Marta

道德革命要求法律革命。對性革命以及性解放的各種成因來說這是毋庸置疑的事實。只有當法律結構與新道德的理解對準成一直線時,革命才算完成。「對準成一直線」恰好是美國公共生活在同性戀解放議題上所發生的情況。

每個社會都有一個系統結構,它要麽影響行為,要麽強制行為。社會為了與通常或至少在很大程度上被認為是道德正確和錯誤的標準對準,社會最終要朝著立法行為和規範行為的方向發展。沒有道德控制與影響的體系,文明是不會延續的。

縱觀幾乎所有的西方歷史,在較大的社會裡,這一發展過程是以一種對基督教教會和基督徒毫無威脅的方式出現的。只要文化的道德判斷與教會的信念和教義相配,教會和文化就不會在法庭上爭執。此外,在這樣條件下,要發現基督徒處在道德評估錯誤的那一面是不可能的。

在當今時代,當文化變得更加世俗化,西方社會逐漸遠離他們過去所擁抱的基督教道德時,一切開始發生變化。 這一代基督徒認識到,我們並不代表普遍存在於學術界、創造性文化,和法律領域的同一個道德框架。 公共生活的世俗化,和與基督教根源分離的社會,令到許多美國人似乎沒意識到這個事實:現在備受指責的基督教信仰和教義,曾經被認為不僅是主流信仰,而且對整個社會規劃更是必不可少的 隨著性革命對社會的入侵,隨著在致力同性戀解放和同性婚姻合法化过程中產生的問題的日益凸顯,基督徒現正面臨一系列宗教自由的挑戰,這是前幾代人無法想象的。

在其中一個最重要的這些案例中,法官裁定婚禮攝影師因拒絕為同性婚禮服務而違反法律。 在一個令人難以置信的決定中透露,法院聲稱,攝影師的宗教自由確實受到侵犯,因為他被強制參加同性婚禮。 雖然如此,法院仍斷定新道德戰勝了宗教自由上的顧慮。

同樣,我們看到宗教機構,特別是學院與學校,都要面對基於性、性行為,和性取向的不得歧視的要求,這些要求等於向性革命投降。在某些管轄區,立法者正在考慮將仇恨犯罪立法,即排斥並宣布與新道德共識相沖突的言論為非法。

現在我們面臨一場不可避免的抵觸自由的沖突。在劇烈、激進的道德轉變的背景下,這場沖突是難忍受、巨大,與顯著的。在這些情況下,抵觸自由的沖突意味著,新道德體制在法院和監管型政府的支持下,將優先考慮性愛自由,而非宗教自由。在過去的幾十年裏,我們看到性革命的到來。性愛自由被提升為一項權利,比宗教自由更基本的權利。現在,性愛自由排斥、顛覆,和抵銷宗教自由---------一種被這個國家的創建者和憲政秩序所高度珍視的自由。我們必須記住,憲法的制定者並不相信他們創造權利,而是承認「自然法」及「自然神的旨意」賦予全人類權利。

現在我們所面臨的對宗教自由的挑戰,託付給身處在性愛自由和宗教自由互相抵觸這一沖突領域的每一個信徒、每一個宗教機構,和每一個會眾。這一挑戰並沒有對「自由派神學」(theological liberals)以及他們的教會和宗派構成威脅,因為那些教會為了迎合新道德而作了自我調整,而且自我感覺相當良好。此外,一些這樣的自由宗派和教會給自己命名為新道德的捍衛者,和法律修改的真正擁護者,即擁護為限制更保守的教會和宗派的宗教自由的權利而對現行法律的某些部分進行修改。

有趣的是,勞赫(Jonathan Rauch),一個同性戀婚姻的早期倡導者,警告他那些道德革命者夥伴:你們也必須小心,以免踐踏良心的權利,和你們的敵手的宗教自由。在勞赫的著作《Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought》中,他表達了自己的擔憂:

「今天,我擔心在同性戀平等的問題上,許多與我站在同一陣線的人忘記了曾使我們得自由的體制對我們的恩情。一些同性戀者-------並非全部,也非大多數,而是相當一部份------想刪除歧視性的看法。『歧視是歧視,偏執是偏執,』 他們說:『歧視性的看法是無法忍受的,無論它們是否會碰巧成為某人的宗教或道德信條。』

勞赫還表示,「我希望當同性戀者-------和非同性戀者-------在遇到憎恨或歧視性的意見時,我們不是以力圖壓制或懲罰對方的方式作回應,而是以設法糾正他們的方式作回應」。沒有跡象表明勞赫的忠告被接受。對「宗教自由的挑戰」與「信仰堅定的基督徒的良心、行為,和信仰的權利」的對抗所作的檢查表明,這一切是多麽的嚴峻。我們可以肯定我們的戰爭還未結束,只是開始而已。


本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年一月號


The Right to Be a Christian
by Albert Mohler

Moral revolutions require legal revolutions. This is certainly the case with the sexual revolution and its various causes of sexual liberation. A revolution is only complete when the legal structure aligns itself with a new moral understanding. This alignment is exactly what is taking place in American public life on the issue of gay liberation.

Every society has a structure of systems that either influence or coerce behavior. Eventually, societies move to legislate and regulate behavior in order to align the society with what is commonly, or at least largely, considered morally right and wrong. Civilization could not survive without a system of moral controls and influences.

Throughout almost all of Western history, this process has played out in a non-threatening way for the Christian church and Christians in the larger society. So long as the moral judgment of the culture matched the convictions and teachings of the church, the church and culture were not at odds in the courts. Furthermore, under these conditions, to be found on the wrong side of a moral assessment was unlikely for Christians.

All that began to change in the modern age as the culture became more secularized and as Western societies moved more progressively distant from the Christian morality they had embraced in the past. Christians in this generation recognize that we do not represent the same moral framework now pervasively presented in academia, the creative culture, and the arena of law. The secularization of public life and the separation of society from its Christian roots have left many Americans seemingly unaware of the fact that the very beliefs and teachings for which Christians are now criticized were once considered not only mainstream beliefs, but essential to the entire project of society. As the sexual revolution pervades society, and as the issues raised by the efforts of gay liberation and the legalization of same-sex marriage come to the fore, Christians now face an array of religious liberty challenges that were inconceivable in previous generations.

In one of the most important of these cases, a judge found that a wedding photographer broke the law by refusing to serve at a same-sex wedding. In an incredibly revealing decision, the court stated that the religious liberties of the photographer would indeed be violated by coerced participation in a same-sex wedding. Nevertheless, the court found that the new morality trumped concern for religious liberty.

Similarly, we have seen religious institutions, especially colleges and schools, confronted by demands that amount to a surrender to the sexual revolution with regard to nondiscrimination on the basis of sex, sexual behavior, and sexual orientation. In some jurisdictions, lawmakers are contemplating hate crime legislation that would marginalize and criminalize speech that is in conflict with the new moral consensus.

We now face an inevitable conflict of liberties. In this context of acute and radical moral change, the conflict of liberties is excruciating, immense, and eminent. In this case, the conflict of liberties means that the new moral regime, with the backing of the courts and the regulatory state, will prioritize erotic liberty over religious liberty. Over the course of the last several decades, we have seen this revolution coming. Erotic liberty has been elevated as a right more fundamental than religious liberty. Erotic liberty now marginalizes, subverts, and neutralizes religious liberty—a liberty highly prized by the builders of this nation and its constitutional order. We must remember that the framers of the Constitution did not believe they were creating rights but rather acknowledging rights given to all humanity by “nature and nature’s God.”

The religious liberty challenge we now face consigns every believer, every religious institution, and every congregation in the arena of conflict where erotic liberty and religious liberty now clash. This poses no danger to theological liberals and their churches and denominations because those churches have accommodated themselves to the new morality and find themselves quite comfortable. Furthermore, some of these liberal denominations and churches style themselves as defenders of the new morality and actually advocate legal modifications that restrict the religious liberty rights of more conservative churches and denominations.

Interestingly, Jonathan Rauch, one of the early advocates of gay marriage, warned his fellow moral revolutionaries that they must be careful lest they trample upon the conscience rights and religious liberty of their adversaries. In his book, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, Rauch voiced his concern:

Today, I fear that many people on my side of the gay-equality question are forgetting our debt to the system that freed us. Some gay people—not all, not even most, but quite a few—want to expunge discriminatory views. “Discrimination is discrimination and bigotry is bigotry,” they say, “and they are intolerable whether or not they happen to be someone’s religion or moral creed.”


Rauch also stated, “I hope that when gay people—and non-gay people—encounter hateful or discriminatory opinions, we respond not by trying to silence or punish them but by trying to correct them.” There are few signs that Rauch’s admonition is being heard. A review of the religious liberty challenges already confronting the conscience, conduct, and belief rights of convictional Christians shows us how daunting all this really is. We can be sure this is not the end of our struggle. It is only the beginning.