Last night, Ben Stein came to Biola Univeristy to promote his new film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  In the film, Ben Stein invenstigates the employment termination of several University science professors due to their doubts about Darwinism and support of Intelligent Design.  Find out more about the film here. 

Recently, Dr. R. C. Sproul interviewed Ben Stein about the new film on his radio show, Renewing Your Mind. 

Listen to Part One.

Listen to Part Two. 

I just couldn't resist.  For someone who grew up reading Calvin & Hobbes comics and is now a philosophy/theology nerd...this is priceless. 

Prints are available from the artist.

During a "town hall" style meeting this past Sunday at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Senator Obama was asked to reconcile his social policies (which many evangelicals are attracted to) with his positions on same-sex unions and abortion.  The questioner didn't specifically refer to those two issues by name, but called them "litmus test" issues for many Christian voters.  This was Obama's response on abortion:


This sounds like a very sensible strategy, but like most liberal responses in the past decade on this issue, it completely misses the point.  Obama readily admits that abortion is a "tragedy", but he doesn't say why.  Is it a tragedy because the unborn child is a human person and abortion would constitute murder?  If so, what could someone's pastor or doctor possibly say to change that?  In the end, Obama's answer amounts to little more than evasive rhetoric. 

And his response on same-sex marriage:

This is, by far, the most interesting political statement I've ever heard.  A Presidential candidate engaged in bad theology. 

The obvious question to ask here is what the Sermon on the Mount has to do with same-sex unions?  The report at crosswalk.com suggests some possibilities:  perhaps he's referring to the Golden Rule, or maybe Jesus' oft-quoted command not to judge.  In any event, the better question to ask is what's so "obscure" about the passage in Romans?  It's the very first chapter of what most evangelicals would consider to be Paul's most important epistle.  Not only that, but the passage in question is extremely clear in its condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural and sinful.

Now, I actually find myself in agreement with Obama on a few points.  C. S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity that Christians shouldn't be trying outlaw divorce by legislation.  The church is clear on its position, he said, and we would know who was really a follower of Christ and who wasn't by their conduct, so there was no point in trying to force people to obey Christian morality.  After all, he went on, we wouldn't like it very much if the "Mohammadans" came in and tried to outlaw alcohol! 

These comments by Lewis should be, at the very least, thought provoking, if not downright controversial (he was talking about divorce, but there is an obvious application to gay marriage lurking around the corner).  I'm not entirely sure I agree with him.  But there is at least a ring of truth there.  And the same goes for Obama.  I may not support gay marriage, but there does seem to be something wrong with not allowing a gay person to visit his/her significant other in the hospital, simply because they're gay.  And it will only hurt our witness to the gay community if we persist in denying them such rights. 

Obama is certainly unique as a liberal candidate in his simultaneous support of same-sex "unions" and opposition to same-sex "marriage."  There is definately something seductive about this position to the evangelical community.  The only question I still have is whether or not this is a distinction without a difference.  What are we really protecting if the only difference is the name? 

One only need flip a few chapters ahead in Matthew to Jesus' trial and death before the head scratching begins.  How exactly is Jesus' burden light?  Easy??  And just one chapter back (and again in chapter 16) Jesus tells his disciples that they must take up their crosses in order to follow him (not an image that evokes thoughts of ease and lightness!).

And if we turn to Acts things get even worse.  The Apostles spend the majority of their lives suffering for the cause of Christ.  Many of them are executed (some in unpleasant ways).  All things considered, their lives appeared to get much harder after Pentecost, not easier. 

It light of all this, it seems very unlikely that Jesus means to suggest that following Him will be a walk on the beach.  Enjoying the best life now is never something that Jesus Himself nor His closest followers ever had in mind (unless by "best life" you mean "a life of sacrifice devoted to furthering the Kingdom and always looking forward to the life yet to come").

But consider Jesus' words from a slightly different angle.  He is calling out to all those who are "weary" and "heavy laden."  It's doubtful that Jesus only has in mind those who do physical labor for a living.  More likely, He is calling out to all men.  And what is it that burdens all men? 

Sin.

Jesus is offering freedom.  Freedom from sin.  It is one of the many paradoxes of Scripture that we are to become "slaves" to God in order to be "free."  By taking Jesus' yoke upon ourselves, we throw off the yoke of sin.  And it is sin that weighs us down.  It is sin that makes us always weary, always burdened.

Compared to sin, Jesus is freedom.  Sin is heavy, Jesus is light.