with Brian Tubbs
Pastor Tubbs
Brian Tubbs is the pastor of Olney Baptist Church in Olney, Maryland. He is also the Feature Columnist for Protestantism at Suite101.com.
Posts by Pastor Tubbs
Obama Backs the Redefinition of Marriage
010 days
It’s now official: President Barack Obama backs gay marriage. During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama said: “I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman.” Today (May 9), now-President Barack Obama reversed that position, saying in an interview: “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
Obama says his change in position stems from the biblical admonition to “to treat others the way you would want to be treated.” Obama’s admiration for the Golden Rule conveniently ignores Jesus’ other teachings, including the Lord’s teaching on marriage (Matthew 19:1-12). Nevertheless, Obama’s shift away from Jesus’ statement that God “made them male and female” has been in the works for some time. In the last couple of years, Obama has moved closer to supporting same-sex marriage, telling the media that his views were “evolving,” a statement many took to mean (it turns out correctly) that he was on the verge of supporting same-sex marriage.
Obama’s shifting statements on gay marriage notwithstanding, the fact is that a growing number of Americans (now a slim majority of those surveyed) support same-sex marriage. If that trend continues, it is only a matter of time before all 50 states sanction gay marriage. Unfortunately, in our relativistic and hyper-emotional Postmodern Age, most people are not reflecting on the ramifications of what the redefinition of marriage will mean for our society. In years past, there was a recognition of and a respect for traditional understanding. Language had intrinsic meaning. Definitions meant something. In the case of marriage for instance, most civilized societies understood for centuries that marriage was an institution that superseded government and that it consisted of one man and one woman. Such respect for language and tradition is evaporating in our postmodern age. Lest you think this is a minor concern, I would point out that this debate isn’t over hospital visitation rights, estate rights, or anything along those lines. It is solely about definitions and linguistic meaning.
Abraham Lincoln once asked: “How many legs does a horse have if you call its tail a leg?” The answer: “Four.” As Lincoln points out, “Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” In Lincoln’s day, language had meaning. Definitions mattered. If only that were the case today, for we are fast becoming a society that would find Lincoln’s question ridiculous. In their minds, the answer would be “five.”
How to Get into Heaven? It’s Not a Matter of Opinion
019 days
Whether heaven is real or not is not something determined by a wish or an opinion. What’s more, whether I get into heaven or not is ultimately up to Someone whose opinions count a whole lot more than mine. When it comes to religion in general, particularly issues related to where a person spends eternity, the truth should matter more to us than whether feelings are hurt. Ultimately, when I close my eyes in death, I recognize that public opinion polls will have nothing to do with where I spend eternity. What matters is whether I’ve staked my eternal destiny on the truth.
While I believe that everyone (those who practice faith and those who do not) should be kind, polite, and gracious, it nevertheless irks me to hear people embrace relativistic perspectives when it comes to religious truth claims. There’s been a lot of that recently, given bestselling author and mega-church pastor Joel Osteen’s categorization of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama as being “Christian.” I’m not going to get into Osteen’s comments per se. I understand he was trying to be gracious and polite, and that he believes in giving others the benefit of the doubt. What really bothers me is the social pressure many people apply to such questions in the first place. It’s as if opinions are more important than facts and that it’s completely unacceptable for someone (including pastors) to hold opinions that might (heaven forbid) hurt other people’s feelings!
If God is real, then He is real, whether you believe in Him or not. If Jesus rose from the dead, then the resurrection is a historical event that you must come to terms with, whether you want to or not or whether you “believe” it or not. If heaven is real, then heaven is indeed real, whether you believe in it or not. And if it’s real, then whether you spend eternity in it or not is something that’s not exactly under your control, since you had nothing to do with creating it.
Sadly, in our postmodernist culture, we’ve lumped religion in with matters of taste, opinion, and preference. The religion we’ve embraced is often categorized as a “private matter” and we resent others telling us we might be wrong. I fully understand that religious beliefs are sensitive, and I absolutely agree we should be civil, kind, and polite when discussing religion. I’ve always tried to share my Christian beliefs in a respectful and kind manner. But we’ve jettisoned common sense altogether if we somehow think that opinions and wishes are what determine ultimate reality at the end of the day.
I believe I should have the legal, moral, and social right to embrace Christianity. And I believe I should be allowed to live in peace without government interference and without persecution for embracing Christianity. But, at the end of the day, Christianity is either true or false…period. It’s not “true for me” while being “false” for someone else. It’s either true or it’s not….period. And either I will go to heaven when I die or I won’t. My wishes and my opinions don’t determine heaven’s existence nor do they control access to it (not for me and not for anyone else).
In a few years, my daughter will be applying to colleges and universities. Whether she gets in or not will be up to the admissions boards of those respective institutions. Her opinions won’t determine whether she gets in or not. The admissions boards determine whether she gets in or not. If heaven is real (and I believe that it is), then it’s up to the “admissions board” (so to speak). It’s up to the Gatekeeper.
The Bible presents Jesus Christ as the “Door.” He is the One who determines who gets to the Father….and who does not. In the fourteenth chapter of John’s Gospel, Jesus is recorded as declaring: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me.” That is a pretty specific statement, and it’s one that’s either true or it’s not. Ultimately, questions about whether Joel Osteen or Brian Tubbs agree with that statement (and thus hurt the feelings of those who disagree with it) don’t matter. What Jews, Muslims, atheists, or even Christians think about that statement doesn’t really matter in terms of ultimate truth. These are the only questions that matter:
- Did Jesus say those words?
- Did Jesus have the authority to say those words?
- What does it take then to get Jesus to let us through to the Father?
Those are the ONLY questions that matter in relation to John 14:6 and the central claim of Christianity, namely that Jesus is the way of salvation.
Having said all the above, I respect and support the freedom of every human being to practice his or her faith according to his or her conscience and choice. I also respect the rights of those to practice no faith. I do not believe the government should force anyone to embrace a certain religion, nor do I believe that Christians should force Jesus on others. (I also don’t believe a valedictorian invoking the name of God in her graduation speech or a chaplain praying in Jesus’ name at a public prayer constitute forcing religion on anyone, but that’s for another post). Christians should offer Jesus to the world, but not force Jesus on the world. It’s up to each person ultimately whether he or she accepts or rejects the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.
My main purpose in this post is simply this: Truth is not determined by opinion. Whether heaven is real or not is not a matter of preference or opinion. Heaven is either real or it isn’t. You can’t wish it into existence, nor can you wish it out of existence. The same is true for hell, by the way. Whether you get into heaven or not depends on who (or I should say “Who”) controls access to it, and whether you’re doing what the Gatekeeper says is necessary to obtain said access. That is what matters. When it comes to your eternal soul, it’s the only thing that matters.
Crystal Dixon and the Continued Decline of Religious Freedom in America
032 days
Crystal Dixon is the latest casualty in what can safely be described as an ongoing campaign against religious freedom in America. Dixon was fired from her job at the University of Ohio in Toledo for writing a letter to the editor, under her own name (without mentioning her employment or staff position with the university), that expressed disagreement with homosexuality. The university president specifically cited Dixon’s letter when he fired her. There is no mistaking the fact that Dixon was fired for publicly expressing her biblical views concerning homosexuality. And the university as well as at least one judge in Ohio feel this is perfectly justified in light of the university’s desire for “diversity.”
Obviously, this “diversity” doesn’t include women or men with a biblical worldview. On the contrary, it is the view of those who fired Dixon that the rights of gays and lesbians to be fully accepted, validated, and made to feel comfortable trump the First Amendment rights of free speech and religion. Dixon isn’t alone. Ask Jennifer Keeton. Ask Frank Turek. Dixon is one of many, and I fear that number will continue to grow.
For the record, I believe that gays and lesbians should be treated with courtesy and respect just as anyone should be treated with courtesy and respect. I deplore gay bashing and hatred of any kind, but I am deeply troubled that we’re fast becoming a society where those who speak out for traditional marriage are automatically branded as bigots and homophobes and can have their jobs taken away and their careers ruined accordingly. If you care about religious freedom in America, you should be deeply troubled as well.
Was Jesus Crucified on Friday?
043 days
Most Christians take for granted that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, and have therefore embraced that the Friday before Easter should be celebrated as “Good Friday.” On this year’s Good Friday, it’s worth asking whether Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, crucified on a Friday. Many scholars say no, and they point to Wednesday as the more likely day of his crucifixion. For a good overview of the debate, check out…
“On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?”
GotQuestions.org is a great resource, with articles on many questions Christians often ask about the Bible, church history, or their daily lives. This article is but one example.
Happy Easter and God bless you!
How Can Christians be Effective Ambassadors for Christ?
045 days
In his second letter to the church at Corinth, the Apostle Paul referred to evangelism with a metaphor that everyone in the Roman world would have understood. The verse to which I refer goes like this: “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20, NKJV).
In this video excerpt from one of his talks, Christian author Greg Koukl explains how Christians can be effective “ambassadors” for Christ by arming themselves with knowledge and tactics. Koukl, who heads the organization Stand to Reason, believes that every Christian should learn to be an effective witness for Jesus Christ. To that end, he wrote an excellent book titled Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Watch Koukl explain the importance of tactics in discussing one’s faith…
Sadly, many Christians today oppose the use of apologetics in witnessing. They say we should just proclaim the Gospel and (to use another metaphor) “let the chips fall where they may.” In some cases, these are Calvinists who believe that God has already chosen who will accept Christ, and thus human strategy is unnecessary for evangelism. Interestingly, Koukl is a Calvinist, and he doesn’t buy into that kind of lazy, cop-out nonsense. Some of the greatest preachers and evangelists in history were Calvinist. Think Charles Spurgeon. I personally don’t embrace all five points of the classic TULIP outline, but I have no problem with any Calvinist who nonetheless embraces and supports evangelism. There’s no need to divide on the issue of Calvinism, so long as we all agree that God hasn’t told us who He’s chosen and that we need to take the Gospel to “every creature” (Mark 16:15).
The second and main group that opposes the use of apologetics and/or evangelism tactics is simply those Christians who are lazy. Many Christians don’t want to study. They don’t want to exert themselves. They just want to hand out tracts (if that), invite people to church (if that), and call it a day. This is not what being an ambassador is all about. As Jude says, we must “contend earnestly for the faith,” and that means thorough study, preparation, and engagement.
Take a few minutes to listen to Greg Koukl’s talk, check out his book Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, and then visit his website Stand to Reason for more information.
Dinesh D’Souza Lays Out Powerful Reasons to Embrace Christianity
047 days
by Pastor Tubbs
in Apologetics
Bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza explains some of the strongest arguments for the existence of God and the reasonable claims of Christianity. D’Souza points out that, while atheists are on the offensive, their arguments and premise are actually quite vulnerable to scrutiny.
For more on D’Souza’s arguments, check out his excellent book What’s So Great About Christianity?
Al Mohler Interviews Former President Jimmy Carter on the Bible, Hell, Jesus, Homosexuality, and More
049 days
Recently, Southern Baptist theologian Al Mohler had the privilege to discuss theology with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Mohler is a prolific writer, popular radio broadcaster, and the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Not long ago, Time magazine named him the “reigning intellectual” of evangelical Christianity. Though critical of Carter in the past, Mohler treated the 88-year old former President with great respect in this interview, which is to be both expected and commended.
Throughout his political career and presidency, James Earl Carter, Jr. has been quite open about his Christian faith. He is perhaps America’s most well-known Sunday school teacher, having taught for over sixty years. Recently, Carter collaborated with Zondervan to publish NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter. Promotion of Carter’s new Bible was the occasion for the interview with Mohler.
To read this very interesting exchange, click on the following link…
“Former President Jimmy Carter Discusses Religion and Homosexuality”
I want to commend President Carter for his heart, integrity, and spirit of cordiality. I nevertheless agree with Dr. Mohler that Carter’s theology is problematic at best. Once you allow yourself to become “subjective” in how you read the Bible, you are on a slippery slope to relativism, and that’s not a place to which Christians should go.
Dissing Tim Tebow: Why the Denver Broncos are (at this point) Not a Team Worth Cheering For
360 days
Peyton Manning is in and Tim Tebow is (apparently) out. That’s the news coming out of Denver, as the Broncos front office, led by former NFL quarterback John Elway, has lured the legendary quarterback Peyton Manning into their lineup. They will now send the promising Tim Tebow either to the bench or to another team. Supporters of this decision point to the greatness of Peyton Manning as well as Tebow’s less-than-stellar passing accuracy. Opponents of the decision (like me) point to the fact that Manning is coming off a major injury and several operations — something that kept him on the sidelines all last season. This makes the decision to bring in Manning a gamble at best. We likewise point to the fact that Tebow is a proven winner. Say what you will about his passing accuracy, the man can win football games. He took over as quarterback when the Broncos were 1-4 and led them into the playoffs.
There’s an old saying: “Stick with the one that brung ya.” Tebow is the workhorse that turned the Broncos around in the 2011 season and took them to the playoffs. He is a consummate student of the game and a relentless workaholic. He is a strong leader with solid character and a dedicated fan base that any NFL team should appreciate. An amazing athlete, Tebow has a bright future. He will get better in the areas he’s lacking. Barring some unforeseen tragedy, injury, or psychological setback (like a team he’s loyal to not being loyal to him), Tebow has all the makings of becoming a Hall of Fame quarterback himself one day. The Broncos had every reason to build their team around Tebow for the next few years and ride the “Tebow wave” back into the playoffs again and again. But rather than think long-term and invest a player that’s worth cheering for, they’ve chosen to chase the dream of instant gratification with Peyton Manning.
I understand that football is a business, and I understand that it’s tough to pass up on an opportunity to bring someone like Peyton Manning into your organization. What I object to is the way this is all being handled. One gets the impression that John Elway and Co. were never comfortable with Tim Tebow. They never really liked him. Is it his Christian faith? his high moral character? his solid work ethic? or the fact that legions of fans adore him, hungry for a sports role model they can believe in? Which of those things made Elway wince when Tebow would score a touchdown and do his “Tebow” thing to thunderous crowd approval?
Why is it that NFL teams are quick to support players with criminal records, off-the-field antics, brazen showmanship, and horrible morals, yet (at least in this case) are uncomfortable with a player that any kid in America should strive to emulate?
I understand the desire on the part of NFL front offices to put a winning team on the field. I get that. But, speaking as a fan, I feel we’ve lost something with the NFL. We’ve lost the “why.” Are we just supposed to root for teams that win? Is winning in-and-of-itself the end-all, be-all of which team to which we give our support? Do we want fans bouncing from team to team chasing the “winner” just as players now bounce from team to team chasing the money? If that’s what the NFL is now all about, count me out. I want to root for a team that’s worth rooting for — a team that supports its community and that has players who serve as true role models for the people in that community, especially its youngest citizens. I want a team with heart and a team with character, a team that’s proud (in a healthy way) to celebrate an honorable man like Tim Tebow.
We’re talking about a guy who invests his free time into charity work and helping those who need a helping hand. He’s raised money for numerous worthy causes, including pediatric cancer treatment, a children’s hospital in the Philippines, playrooms in children’s hospitals around the world, and sending disadvantaged kids on a Disney vacation. While some athletes spend their time gambling, boozing, doing drugs, sleeping around, partying at drunken orgies, committing felonies, or more, Tebow spends his with disabled children and veterans, prisoners who need a second change, and poor kids who need hope and encouragement. Please tell me why I shouldn’t believe in an athlete like that!? We’re talking about a guy who takes his status as a role model seriously and who cultivates that opportunity to serve and help as many people as he can. This is a guy worth believing in, and any team who is loyal to him is likewise a team worth believing in and cheering for.
Tim, keep your head high. You may not have the respect of greedy men like John Elway, but you have won the hearts of many football fans like me, who understand there’s more to life than getting a football across the goal line or cashing in on ticket sales. Hang in there. I’m praying for you, and I know God will bless you!
Why Does God Allow Suffering at the Hands of Evil Men Like Joseph Kony?
068 days
by Pastor Tubbs
in Apologetics
As a recently famous viral video Kony 2012 points out, Joseph Kony and his so-called “Lord’s Resistance Army” (LRA), a militant African guerrilla group, have inflicted horrific suffering on hundreds of thousands of people over the last two decades. Kony ranks toward the top of the International Criminal Court’s most wanted list for his barbaric human rights abuses, which include the kidnapping of children, murder, mutilation, and even cannibalism. He is evil personified, and for many, he represents one of the most graphic challenges to the notion that there exists an all-loving, all-powerful God who reigns over all the earth. How can a good God allow an evil man like Joseph Kony to cause such pain and suffering?
The same question of course can be asked of previous evil men, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and so many other nefarious characters of the 20th century, who left (in the words of Dinesh D’Souza) “mountains of bodies and an ocean of blood.” How can a good God allow all that? Even apart from the evil dictators and warlords, you have enough suffering inflicted by serial killers, murderers, rapists, child molesters, religious cult leaders, etc. How can God allow so much evil and so much pain and suffering? It’s a question that has troubled millions over the centuries, causing many to question God’s existence, renounce their faith, or at least resign themselves to never-ending doubt and frustration.
The answer to the question “Why does God allow suffering?” is found in the Bible. It may not be an answer that’s emotionally satisfying, certainly not to someone who is presently suffering or whose loved one is suffering, but the answer is there. And it’s one I’ve personally wrestled with and explored in the Amazon bestseller When Faith Doesn’t Take Away the Pain: Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen? And How Can Christians Cope With Pain and Suffering?
My mother was one of the most devout women of faith I’ve ever known. Yet I remember watching with great dismay and frustration her health deteriorate over the years, with God seemingly doing little but act as a spectator. It was a frustration that led me into two periods of intense doubt over my Christian faith. Yet I emerged from those periods of doubt, not because God cleaned everything up in my mom’s life or my life and wrapped everything up with nice pretty bows, but because I realized I was approaching the whole issue of pain and suffering from the wrong angle.
The Bible never promises a bed of roses in this life. In fact, the Bible tells us there will be pain and suffering, even for the righteous. In the New Testament, we’re told it will actually get worse as time marches on. We should not be surprised that there’s pain and suffering, nor should it cause us to question God’s existence. God tells us there will be pain and suffering. We may not like that, but it’s certainly not something that should cause us to question God’s reality or presence.
In the case of Joseph Kony, the book of James gives us insight as to what’s happening. The half-brother of Jesus writes: “From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (James 4:1, KJV). While James was not familiar with Joseph Kony, he knew all about the brutality of warfare. He knew of what he was speaking.
Sin hurts other people. And we live in a world full of 6 billion plus sinners! We will be affected by the sins of other people, just as others will often be affected by our sin. In some cases, the sins of others will be so grievous that the consequences will be horrendous in their scope and intensity. This may be unfair, from our emotional vantage point, but it’s the kind of world that we, the human race, have created.
For more on this subject, I hope you’ll check out When Faith Doesn’t Take Away the Pain.
God bless you.
Kony 2012: White Man’s Burden or Genuine International Concern Over a Real Problem?
071 days
If you’re at all tuned into the cyber world of social media, you’ve heard about Kony 2012, a new viral video about African warlord Joseph Kony and his barbaric legacy of suffering and devastation. Kony is the deranged leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a militant, cultish “army” which has been internationally denounced for severe human rights abuses, including murder, mutilation, child abduction, sexual enslavement of women, and more. The makers of the film, which has now racked up over 30 million views, have been praised in many circles for raising awareness about this truly evil despot, while also being criticized for inaccuracies, questionable financial practices, and fostering the “White Man’s Burden” view which Europeans previously used to justify colonialism in Africa.
African leaders, activists, and bloggers are among those criticizing Invisible Children for its apparent encouragement of the “White Man’s Burden” mindset. They say the filmmakers oversimplified the regional strife of which Kony is a part and that they are encouraging the type of “White Man’s Burden” mentality that led to years of European-driven colonialism and oppression. (See 14 African Reactions to the Kony 2012 Campaign). Many Americans agree. Writing for The Atlantic, Max Fisher charges the makers of Kony 2012 with “soft bigotry.” He writes, ”The viral video campaign reinforces a dangerous, centuries-old idea that Africans are helpless and that idealistic Westerners must save them.”
I have no problem with people, especially those living in Africa near where Kony operates, setting the record straight. In fact, I encourage it. But I find the whole “White Man’s Burden” allegation to be deeply distressing. This is not a situation where a bunch of white people in America are advocating colonialism in Africa. On the contrary, they are trying to raise awareness of a problem that should be on the world’s radar screen. This isn’t about colonialism. It’s about cooperation.
It strikes me as reprehensible that, on the one hand, the United States is criticized for not doing enough to help people in Africa. Then, when it does, it gets criticized for fostering the whole “White Man’s Burden” thing. If the makers of the film had said the U.S. needs to unilaterally send in troops and occupy the region, it would, at that point, be completely legitimate to play the “White Man’s Burden” card and accuse the filmmakers of bigotry. But that is not what’s happening here. They are simply calling on the U.S. government to help and they are calling on the world to pay attention and be willing to support the people of Africa who want to bring Kony to justice. There’s nothing wrong with this.
There have been other allegations made against Invisible Children. I just don’t have enough knowledge or information to weigh in on these charges. I will simply refer you to this post critiquing Kony 2012 and this post criticizing Invisible Children. And then, in fairness, here’s Invisible Children’s response. My post here is not about Invisible Children itself or its staff or its financials or fundraising practices. That is all beyond the scope of what I’m addressing here. I will leave it to others to debate those things. My concern is with the unjustified and unfortunate notion that Americans, specifically and especially white Americans, should not concern themselves with “African affairs” because to do so encourages bigotry and colonialism. It is that notion I wish to debunk.
Some Americans, while not necessarily raising the whole “White Man’s Burden” issue, are nevertheless arguing that we have enough problems here at home and we don’t need to be jumping on every trend about problems in different parts of the world. It’s a fair point, and we do need to be concerned about trendiness and misplaced priorities. We shouldn’t be too quick to jump on every bandwagon that comes along. We simply can’t get involved in every international situation. We do have our own share of problems here in America. But let’s not be isolationist in our compassion and concern. Yes, we need to police our own house, but we also need to be aware of what’s happening in other parts of the world, and we should care about those things. And we should, to at least some extent, be willing to lend a helping hand when needed.
Christians in particular should be praying and working for Kony’s reign of terror to come to an end. This is, after all, a deranged madman who claims some ties to Christianity and believes he is a spokesperson for God. We Christians should be making it abundantly clear to everyone who will listen that Joseph Kony is no Christian and that what he is doing (and has done) is morally reprehensible and categorically opposed to everything Jesus Christ stands for.
I believe the makers of Kony 2012 deserve credit for raising international awareness about Joseph Kony, a dangerous and evil terrorist who has brought way more pain and suffering than should be tolerated. There’s nothing racist about Kony 2012, and shame on those people who say otherwise. We need to put the race card away and instead unite around the need to bring Joseph Kony to justice and help bring relief and healing to a region of the world that desperately needs it.
