Biography of Adoniram Judson

Beware of desperate steps; the darkest day,
(Live till tomorrow), will have passed away.

From the biography, Adoniram Judson: Devoted For Life
Chapter 37 - A Sudden Tornado in a Sunny Day

The Meaning of Marriage

In a post-christian, highly secularizing America, there are those who want to maintain the trappings of religion and even, in this sense, a legally ordained clergy, without any theology whatsoever. Without any doctrine. Without any binding moral authority. Freedman cites Andrew Cherlin, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins who said, "it shows a very personal, individualistic attitude towards marriage. Yet, even secular Americans still think that a religious presence matters. And having an online ordained friend gives you more control over the ceremony than bowing to the restrictions that a real clergyman would impose." Well, that Professor Cherlin, is exactly the point, isn't it? Here you have the intentional effort to try to escape the binding moral authority, the moral judgments, the doctrine, the theology of any church that is tied to orthodox biblical christianity. That's exactly what's going on here. But professor Cherlin actually in this article also offered an indictment of so many weddings that indeed are held in more traditional churches and are overseen and celebrated by more traditional ministers. He writes, "The ceremony is now a personal celebration. Marriage used to be the first step into adulthood, nows it's the last step. And when people do it, they want to celebrate how well they are doing in their lives. But that can't explain it all. There are couples who still want a thin veneer of religion on what's essentially a secular ceremony. It matters somehow that the officiant has a religious connection." Once again, that's actually an amazing insightful statement. It's actually more insightful I think than Professor Cherlin intended in terms of his statement to the New York Times. That is exactly what's going on, and my point is that's actually whats going on amongst many people who haven't turned to a so-called Universal Life minister to officiate at their weddings, but instead think they're having a christian wedding. But it's simply because they are standing in what is identified as a christian building. There are far too many weddings that people would identify as christian weddings that are just as secular as the secular weddings overseen by ministers of the Universal Life Church. That's an even greater tragedy.

[emphasis mine]

- Albert Mohler

The Briefing 6/30/2015 (13:34 - 15:36)

Quoting from: Couples Personalizing Role of Religion in Wedding Ceremonies - NYT

Prosperity Gospel

As I have pointed out many times, the main problem with the prosperity theology isn't that it promises too much; it's that it promises too little. Wealth and prosperity are passing - at their very best - and they are illusory and dangerous.

- Albert Mohler
The Briefing 6/8/2015 (20:39 - 20:54)

Walk Your Talk

If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values.  They're hobbies.

 - Jon Stewart

The Intolerance of Politically Correct

Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate.
...
But this pointlessness is exactly the point: Political correctness makes debate irrelevant and frequently impossible.
...
If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. ... There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous.
...
It is true that liberals and leftists both want to make society more economically and socially egalitarian. But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace. (So, for that matter, do most conservatives.)

The Marxist left has always dismissed liberalism’s commitment to protecting the rights of its political opponents — you know, the old line often misattributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” — as hopelessly naïve. If you maintain equal political rights for the oppressive capitalists and their proletarian victims, this will simply keep in place society’s unequal power relations. Why respect the rights of the class whose power you’re trying to smash? And so, according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to.

The modern far left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones.
...
Politics in a democracy is still based on getting people to agree with you, not making them afraid to disagree. The historical record of political movements that sought to expand freedom for the oppressed by eliminating it for their enemies is dismal.

Source: New York Magazine, Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say by Jonathon Chait


Interesting perspective of someone from the left (Chait), talking about people that are even further left than he is. Also, a brief glimpse at the comments section of the article shows the irony in that some (many?) people obviously did not understand the points that Chait was making, because they are doing the exact things that he lambastes.

I first heard about this article from Albert Mohler's podcast, The Briefing. He talks about it here from 6:58 - 12:10.