My son and I went to see the BBC live production of Walking with Dinosaurs, which is admittedly a kids show, but Jon and I haven't lost all of our childlike wonder. It was a cool show.
Of course, while we were waiting for everything to begin we started talking about one of our pet peeves, that being the inability of many evangelical Christians to accept evolution as a true mechanism and the inability of fundamentalist Darwinians to consider the possibility that God and the Bible might have something to say about it all. So my brain was going while watching a full size T-Rex chase the announcer around the stage. (I said it was cool, didn't I). I've known that the Genesis story and the theory of evolution were not necessary exclusionary but I hadn't really put it together. At the end, it suddenly hit me.
Louis Leakey, late in his life, made one final fossil discovery in Africa and came out with a theory that caused no small controversy in scientific circles and was not widely published. Of course, since I thought his work was so awesome I always kept up with it. The theory was that man did not evolve from ape, but that ape and man evolved from a common ancestor. Now this statement put to an end the Creationist problem of being descended from apes and monkeys. I've known this for several decades.
But this is what hit me as I watched the show. The Bible says humans, as we know them, were the last step in creation and they were given dominion over the earth. We know from the fossil records that humanity is a very young species on this planet, essentially the last one to show up in the planet's history.
And if Dr. Leakey is right, and if Mr Darwin is right, the reason ape and man evolved separately was because they were in different environments, which required different attributes. If God placed man in a particular geographical location, then he created him to thrive in that environment. Apes evolved as they did because of their environment, where they were placed by a supreme intelligence.
The thing is, the Bible was never meant to be a science textbook, but just because it wasn't scientific doesn't mean it was wrong. There is always room for truth, we just have to find where the pieces fit.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
A life of Grace is not easy
Some people think grace is the easy way out. They think it means holding no one accountable; that it's a free ride. They couldn't be more wrong. Walking a life of grace is the hardest thing of all.
Living under law means everything is clear, black and white. Those people are right and those over there are wrong. Law puts clear boundaries between the people who think like you and the people who don't. Grace blurs the lines. It takes away the easy answers and leaves you wholly dependent on someone else; a much higher authority. It means finding a path to acceptance without necessarily approving.
I started writing this while on business in Scotland and it's taken me a while to get my thoughts clear.
There was a significant moral debate going on in the United Kingdom regarding assisted suicide. Two UK citizens have traveled to Switzerland where a medical clinic provides the means for people to end their lives, regardless if their condition is immediately terminal. One was a young man in his 20s that was paralyzed from the neck down in a rugby training exercise. The second was a man in his 50s with a neurological condition that affects his ability to breath.
As can be expected, right-to-life groups and, specifically, Christians in the UK are protesting the decisions and are pressuring the government to take action. (Hey, it's not just America!) The lines are pretty well drawn in this discussion, just as they are in the case of abortion, gay lifestyles, global warming, etc. People are either for or against to varying degrees. But grace makes that determination much more difficult for the individual. Here's what I mean.
I am morally opposed to suicide, assisted or otherwise. My immediate reaction to the concept is that taking your life is selfish and cowardly. I'm probably not alone. There is a moral question on taking a human life, even if it is your own. But that is not an absolute position. We've all heard the stories of soldiers falling on hand grenades to save their comrades. The soldier that does that is killing himself. Nothing selfish or cowardly about that, is there? That's selfless and brave. So a decision to end your life is not always right or wrong
The young rugby player said he did not want to live "a second-class life." The older man said he did not want to be a burden on his family. Now both of those reasons are questionable.
Was the young man saying people in wheelchairs are second class people? That's insensitive and an insult to handicapped people, isn't it? What's probably more accurate is that he defined his life by his ability to play sports and now he lacked definition. Or is he correct when he sees the way handicapped people live and was just being realistic.
The older man apparently thinks his family is incapable of making a sacrifice for his life, or he doesn't think he is worth the trouble. Shouldn't he check with his family to see if they feel he's a burden? Of course, they aren't going to say it, but he should check. Or maybe he knows the financial and emotional limits of his family and he's absolutely selfless in the decision.
How can we know the real reason for their decisions? Well, we have to be omniscient. I'm not. Are you? In fact, I only know one person who is. And he usually doesn't let me in on that kind of information.
If you live a life directed by law, you don't have to ask those questions. The whole thing is black and white; right and wrong. In a life of grace, you can't make that decision. But you can ask a question and you can take an action.
When I read the articles about both men, I thought first how said life can be for some people. The young man was vibrant and committed to a sport that he loved and that was taken from him before he could completely explore his passion. The older man was a scientist and his curiosity curtailed by an inability to breathe unassisted. I felt for them. I also grieved that they no longer saw life, in any form, worth living. And then I asked, "Are the ready for what comes next?"
I didn't have an answer for that, anymore than I had a clear understanding of their motives. But I did have something I could be sure of.
I asked God to send someone to both of these men before they committed suicide to tell them that they were loved, that they were forgiven, and that, if they wanted, they could spend eternity with Him.
In a life of grace, that may be all we can do and be assured that He will do whatever it takes to make that happen. In some cases, He might even send me. Knowing that call could come anytime for me makes my life worth living everyday. And I don't even have to get morally outraged. What a time and energy saver that is.
Living under law means everything is clear, black and white. Those people are right and those over there are wrong. Law puts clear boundaries between the people who think like you and the people who don't. Grace blurs the lines. It takes away the easy answers and leaves you wholly dependent on someone else; a much higher authority. It means finding a path to acceptance without necessarily approving.
I started writing this while on business in Scotland and it's taken me a while to get my thoughts clear.
There was a significant moral debate going on in the United Kingdom regarding assisted suicide. Two UK citizens have traveled to Switzerland where a medical clinic provides the means for people to end their lives, regardless if their condition is immediately terminal. One was a young man in his 20s that was paralyzed from the neck down in a rugby training exercise. The second was a man in his 50s with a neurological condition that affects his ability to breath.
As can be expected, right-to-life groups and, specifically, Christians in the UK are protesting the decisions and are pressuring the government to take action. (Hey, it's not just America!) The lines are pretty well drawn in this discussion, just as they are in the case of abortion, gay lifestyles, global warming, etc. People are either for or against to varying degrees. But grace makes that determination much more difficult for the individual. Here's what I mean.
I am morally opposed to suicide, assisted or otherwise. My immediate reaction to the concept is that taking your life is selfish and cowardly. I'm probably not alone. There is a moral question on taking a human life, even if it is your own. But that is not an absolute position. We've all heard the stories of soldiers falling on hand grenades to save their comrades. The soldier that does that is killing himself. Nothing selfish or cowardly about that, is there? That's selfless and brave. So a decision to end your life is not always right or wrong
The young rugby player said he did not want to live "a second-class life." The older man said he did not want to be a burden on his family. Now both of those reasons are questionable.
Was the young man saying people in wheelchairs are second class people? That's insensitive and an insult to handicapped people, isn't it? What's probably more accurate is that he defined his life by his ability to play sports and now he lacked definition. Or is he correct when he sees the way handicapped people live and was just being realistic.
The older man apparently thinks his family is incapable of making a sacrifice for his life, or he doesn't think he is worth the trouble. Shouldn't he check with his family to see if they feel he's a burden? Of course, they aren't going to say it, but he should check. Or maybe he knows the financial and emotional limits of his family and he's absolutely selfless in the decision.
How can we know the real reason for their decisions? Well, we have to be omniscient. I'm not. Are you? In fact, I only know one person who is. And he usually doesn't let me in on that kind of information.
If you live a life directed by law, you don't have to ask those questions. The whole thing is black and white; right and wrong. In a life of grace, you can't make that decision. But you can ask a question and you can take an action.
When I read the articles about both men, I thought first how said life can be for some people. The young man was vibrant and committed to a sport that he loved and that was taken from him before he could completely explore his passion. The older man was a scientist and his curiosity curtailed by an inability to breathe unassisted. I felt for them. I also grieved that they no longer saw life, in any form, worth living. And then I asked, "Are the ready for what comes next?"
I didn't have an answer for that, anymore than I had a clear understanding of their motives. But I did have something I could be sure of.
I asked God to send someone to both of these men before they committed suicide to tell them that they were loved, that they were forgiven, and that, if they wanted, they could spend eternity with Him.
In a life of grace, that may be all we can do and be assured that He will do whatever it takes to make that happen. In some cases, He might even send me. Knowing that call could come anytime for me makes my life worth living everyday. And I don't even have to get morally outraged. What a time and energy saver that is.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Saved. Knowing God. Two different things.
I've been mulling over something for a long time now, waiting for the pieces to fall into place, and they did last night just as I crawled into bed and passed out for the night. I think I'm on to something because it didn't leave my head when I woke up 7 hours later.
This is really going to piss off a lot of people. Here goes.
You can be "saved" and your sins forgiven and not know God. You can be practicing any sort of sinful lifestyle and still be on the path to heaven, but you may never know it or be able to enjoy the trip, because you don't know God.
This came to me while reading 1 John 2 where the apostle writes, "If anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
OK, do you get that? All sin, everyone's sin, past, present and future has been paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Does that mean we stop sinful practices? Maybe, if we really understand what that sacrifice meant. But how many people really understand what it means? How many people really know what that means. Well, John goes on to say, "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."
Does John say, that anyone truly saved obeys the commandments? No, he says if we know and love God, then we obey. This is a clear distinction between the act of salvation and what some people call "the witness."
We have to understand that we have NOTHING to do with the salvation process. That is all in Jesus. He did it for us. They only thing we have to do to get on the train is say, "Yes, I want to be saved and not go to hell."
Many people do exactly that and then go on to lead the most horrendous lifestyle. For example, Fred Phelps, the Idaho pastor that travels around the country making ugly anti-gay protests. Almost every Christian I know thinks what he does is an abomination. They do not call his lifestyle Christian. Yet, they all know that Fred made a commitment to Christ and is therefore a Christian.
The problem is, Fred is a very bad witness and no one wants to be associated with him. Why, because Fred really doesn't know God and his lifestyle shows it. Still going to heaven, but not someone to be around.
To know God, you have to spend some time with him. That's why we need to read the Bible and pray. That doesn't mean reading a book about what someone else says the Bible says; that doesn't mean listing to Christian radio or watching Christian TV; it doesn't mean listening to sermons. None of that is bad, but it does not replace reading God's "letters" to you and talking directly to him. That's how you get to know him. And when you get to know him, you find out how much he loves you. You find out what he had to give up to get you into a relationship with him. And you find yourself becoming more and more grateful and want to find out what you can possibly do for him. And what does he tell you to do?
He says, be safe; don't do harm to yourself or others, and spend more time with him. That's the heart of the Bible. All of it.
OK, so some Christians are really pissed off right now saying I'm taking this all out of context. Let me give you some context. Read all of Romans in one sitting. Don't stop after a couple of chapters. Take it all in at one time. Do the same with Galatians. Then read all of John's Epistles in one sitting. You can do all of that in a single day.
Then read Luke 17:11-19. Oh, heck, I'll just give it to you.
"Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, 'Jesus, Master, have pity on us!' When he saw them, he said, 'Go, show yourselves to the priests.' And as they went, they were cleansed. One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him - and he was a Samaritan. Jesus asked, 'Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?' Then he said to him, 'Rise and go; your faith has made you well.'"
The question I have for you is how many of the lepers were "saved" from their disease? Was it only the one who came back or all 10? Only one decided to find out more about the man who saved him. The other nine went on their way, continuing in the life they had before they met Jesus. (By the way, at that time, Samaritans to Jews where the equivalent of gays to evangelicals).
Let me give you a couple of other examples from the Old Testament. Abraham lied and cheated his way through life. So did his grandson Jacob. So did his descendent David, King of Israel. Yet those three spent time with God and knew him. They had relationship with him. Those are only three I'm mentioning.
Yet Jesus and all the apostles say that when Jesus rose from the dead, he brought with him everyone who was in Hell who wanted to come. They are all with God now, regardless of how they lived their life and whether they knew God.
Your lifestyle doesn't keep you from being saved. It can just keep you from enjoying your life. Don't believe me? Start reading the Bible. You'll see.
This is really going to piss off a lot of people. Here goes.
You can be "saved" and your sins forgiven and not know God. You can be practicing any sort of sinful lifestyle and still be on the path to heaven, but you may never know it or be able to enjoy the trip, because you don't know God.
This came to me while reading 1 John 2 where the apostle writes, "If anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
OK, do you get that? All sin, everyone's sin, past, present and future has been paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Does that mean we stop sinful practices? Maybe, if we really understand what that sacrifice meant. But how many people really understand what it means? How many people really know what that means. Well, John goes on to say, "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."
Does John say, that anyone truly saved obeys the commandments? No, he says if we know and love God, then we obey. This is a clear distinction between the act of salvation and what some people call "the witness."
We have to understand that we have NOTHING to do with the salvation process. That is all in Jesus. He did it for us. They only thing we have to do to get on the train is say, "Yes, I want to be saved and not go to hell."
Many people do exactly that and then go on to lead the most horrendous lifestyle. For example, Fred Phelps, the Idaho pastor that travels around the country making ugly anti-gay protests. Almost every Christian I know thinks what he does is an abomination. They do not call his lifestyle Christian. Yet, they all know that Fred made a commitment to Christ and is therefore a Christian.
The problem is, Fred is a very bad witness and no one wants to be associated with him. Why, because Fred really doesn't know God and his lifestyle shows it. Still going to heaven, but not someone to be around.
To know God, you have to spend some time with him. That's why we need to read the Bible and pray. That doesn't mean reading a book about what someone else says the Bible says; that doesn't mean listing to Christian radio or watching Christian TV; it doesn't mean listening to sermons. None of that is bad, but it does not replace reading God's "letters" to you and talking directly to him. That's how you get to know him. And when you get to know him, you find out how much he loves you. You find out what he had to give up to get you into a relationship with him. And you find yourself becoming more and more grateful and want to find out what you can possibly do for him. And what does he tell you to do?
He says, be safe; don't do harm to yourself or others, and spend more time with him. That's the heart of the Bible. All of it.
OK, so some Christians are really pissed off right now saying I'm taking this all out of context. Let me give you some context. Read all of Romans in one sitting. Don't stop after a couple of chapters. Take it all in at one time. Do the same with Galatians. Then read all of John's Epistles in one sitting. You can do all of that in a single day.
Then read Luke 17:11-19. Oh, heck, I'll just give it to you.
"Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, 'Jesus, Master, have pity on us!' When he saw them, he said, 'Go, show yourselves to the priests.' And as they went, they were cleansed. One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him - and he was a Samaritan. Jesus asked, 'Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?' Then he said to him, 'Rise and go; your faith has made you well.'"
The question I have for you is how many of the lepers were "saved" from their disease? Was it only the one who came back or all 10? Only one decided to find out more about the man who saved him. The other nine went on their way, continuing in the life they had before they met Jesus. (By the way, at that time, Samaritans to Jews where the equivalent of gays to evangelicals).
Let me give you a couple of other examples from the Old Testament. Abraham lied and cheated his way through life. So did his grandson Jacob. So did his descendent David, King of Israel. Yet those three spent time with God and knew him. They had relationship with him. Those are only three I'm mentioning.
Yet Jesus and all the apostles say that when Jesus rose from the dead, he brought with him everyone who was in Hell who wanted to come. They are all with God now, regardless of how they lived their life and whether they knew God.
Your lifestyle doesn't keep you from being saved. It can just keep you from enjoying your life. Don't believe me? Start reading the Bible. You'll see.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Getting the job done
As I pointed out previously, the controversy over gay marriage in the US, especially in California, has isolated the faith community from those that community wants to reach. The gay population, in particular, will have nothing to do with the evangelical churches and have virtually closed their minds to the potential of ever joining that community, regardless of what any evangelical Christian might say.
And that's good news. Evangelicals, for most of the past 100 years, have relied on government to enforce its view of morality. They've done it through blue laws that hampered commerce on Sundays (except for restaurants that evangelicals like to visit for lunch after church). The laws sought by evangelicals are designed to control lifestyle choices that evangelicals look down on and generally avoid by practice, like alcohol and drug use, pornography, prostitution and, of course, homosexual practices. These are the bad sins. For the latter they like to point to Romans 1:27 as the justification for that point of view. But they conveniently look away from Romans 1:29-32. That passage points out that those that practice envy, strife, deceit and malice, gossips, betrayal, bullying and boasting are guilty of the same "sin" hoomosexuality.
Now of course we're not going to push for laws for those things...because we haven't been able to stop doing them. After all, gossip is part of our human nature, isn't it? It's not a choice, is it?
OK, I'm getting snarky here. The point is that we Christians have a responsibility to be examples, not sources of legislative direction. Jesus gave us the commission in Matthew 28 to go into the world and be examples of Christ. Some translations say "preach the Gospel" but the original definition of "preach" to demonstrate. That means example. He didn't say "get laws passed." He said to be examples. We have forgotten that. Oh, we try to be examples to the people in our church. In other words, we put on the image of being holy. But we rarely show the example of Christ to people outside the church.
1 John 2:6 says "Anyone who claims to be intimate with God ought to live the same kind of life Jesus lived." How exactly did he live? Well, for one he never condemned anyone's lifestyle; not prostitutes, not thieves, not even corrupt rulers. Oh, wait. He did condemn one lifestyle. He condemned religious leaders and what we would call, holiness people. He would even insult them when he sat down to eat with them. Why? Because people who set a hard line on how people live close any discussion about the relative value of lifestyle decisions.
Second, when it comes to law, Jesus said in Matthew 22 that there are two laws that take precedence in life: Love God with everything you have and love your neighbor as yourself. He said that in those two commandments is "ALL the law and the prophets. If that is all we concentrate on, everything else falls into place. We don't need any more laws in life. We need grace.
Our job, as representatives of the body of Christ, are to open the doors to relationship with Christ; to opening the opportunity to talk about destructive lifestyles and how to escape them; and demonstrating the same kind of tolerance (not acceptance or approval) that Jesus showed to people of all types.
The motto for the modern church needs to be: Get them saved and let God sort them out.
And that's good news. Evangelicals, for most of the past 100 years, have relied on government to enforce its view of morality. They've done it through blue laws that hampered commerce on Sundays (except for restaurants that evangelicals like to visit for lunch after church). The laws sought by evangelicals are designed to control lifestyle choices that evangelicals look down on and generally avoid by practice, like alcohol and drug use, pornography, prostitution and, of course, homosexual practices. These are the bad sins. For the latter they like to point to Romans 1:27 as the justification for that point of view. But they conveniently look away from Romans 1:29-32. That passage points out that those that practice envy, strife, deceit and malice, gossips, betrayal, bullying and boasting are guilty of the same "sin" hoomosexuality.
Now of course we're not going to push for laws for those things...because we haven't been able to stop doing them. After all, gossip is part of our human nature, isn't it? It's not a choice, is it?
OK, I'm getting snarky here. The point is that we Christians have a responsibility to be examples, not sources of legislative direction. Jesus gave us the commission in Matthew 28 to go into the world and be examples of Christ. Some translations say "preach the Gospel" but the original definition of "preach" to demonstrate. That means example. He didn't say "get laws passed." He said to be examples. We have forgotten that. Oh, we try to be examples to the people in our church. In other words, we put on the image of being holy. But we rarely show the example of Christ to people outside the church.
1 John 2:6 says "Anyone who claims to be intimate with God ought to live the same kind of life Jesus lived." How exactly did he live? Well, for one he never condemned anyone's lifestyle; not prostitutes, not thieves, not even corrupt rulers. Oh, wait. He did condemn one lifestyle. He condemned religious leaders and what we would call, holiness people. He would even insult them when he sat down to eat with them. Why? Because people who set a hard line on how people live close any discussion about the relative value of lifestyle decisions.
Second, when it comes to law, Jesus said in Matthew 22 that there are two laws that take precedence in life: Love God with everything you have and love your neighbor as yourself. He said that in those two commandments is "ALL the law and the prophets. If that is all we concentrate on, everything else falls into place. We don't need any more laws in life. We need grace.
Our job, as representatives of the body of Christ, are to open the doors to relationship with Christ; to opening the opportunity to talk about destructive lifestyles and how to escape them; and demonstrating the same kind of tolerance (not acceptance or approval) that Jesus showed to people of all types.
The motto for the modern church needs to be: Get them saved and let God sort them out.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Self-inflicted wounds with purpose
In the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul sets out the premise that "God chose what is nonsense in the world to make the wise feel ashamed. God chose what is weak in the world to make the strong feel ashamed." It's a wrap of a longer section on division and how to get around it. After almost 2000 years, the church (organized) is still trying to figure it out. If we're all lucky, they may never figure it out.
When you read the history of organized religion, you wonder how it has lasted this long. Seems very silly. The controversy over gay marriage is but the latest round. The thing is, gay marriage is just the symptom of the real issue. the real issue is over the preeminence of law or grace. The bad news is that law always "seems" to win because law is always the basis of worldly "wisdom." That wisdom, however, is what God considers to be foolishness.
Organized religion has relied on government for 1700 years to enforce it's view of morality. As I mentioned before, it started fairly innocently with Constantine's request of the church to police marriage (looks like we've come almost full circle on that one). That passed on the through the growth of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Martin Luther tried to bring grace back into dominance, but reformers like Knox brought law right back.
In modern times, the church required the government to ban the teaching of evolution (The church won the Scopes Monkey Trial, you know) formed the anti-abortion lobby and now is fighting gay marriage. But if the church had been doing its job, none of these controversies would be with us right now. Abortion would be legal but much rarer than it is today. Creationism would be taught in school alongside evolution and even gay rights would cease to be an issue. All of these controversies were brought about by the church relying on the government to protect it's view of morality. Initially they were successful. but every time the church gave over its moral authority to the government, their position was weakened and a wall between the church and the society it tries to reach grew thicker and taller.
"What the heck is the church's job, then?" I hear some people ask. Good question. I'l answer that next.
When you read the history of organized religion, you wonder how it has lasted this long. Seems very silly. The controversy over gay marriage is but the latest round. The thing is, gay marriage is just the symptom of the real issue. the real issue is over the preeminence of law or grace. The bad news is that law always "seems" to win because law is always the basis of worldly "wisdom." That wisdom, however, is what God considers to be foolishness.
Organized religion has relied on government for 1700 years to enforce it's view of morality. As I mentioned before, it started fairly innocently with Constantine's request of the church to police marriage (looks like we've come almost full circle on that one). That passed on the through the growth of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Martin Luther tried to bring grace back into dominance, but reformers like Knox brought law right back.
In modern times, the church required the government to ban the teaching of evolution (The church won the Scopes Monkey Trial, you know) formed the anti-abortion lobby and now is fighting gay marriage. But if the church had been doing its job, none of these controversies would be with us right now. Abortion would be legal but much rarer than it is today. Creationism would be taught in school alongside evolution and even gay rights would cease to be an issue. All of these controversies were brought about by the church relying on the government to protect it's view of morality. Initially they were successful. but every time the church gave over its moral authority to the government, their position was weakened and a wall between the church and the society it tries to reach grew thicker and taller.
"What the heck is the church's job, then?" I hear some people ask. Good question. I'l answer that next.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The camel's in the tent
There's an old Arab proverb that you should not allow a camel to get his nose in your tent, because soon after, the camel will take over the tent.
I feel very much like that in the issue about Proposition 8 in California.
One of the primary arguments for Prop 8 was that the definition of marriage was laid out in the Bible. That's a fallacy of course, because what the Bible lays out is the relationship between men and women, not the definition of marriage. A Biblical interpretation encourages polygamy (for example, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc.)
What we know as the traditional form of marriage was codified under the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine had a problem. Romans were marrying and divorcing with alarming alacrity. the tenuous nature of marriage made it difficult to know who owned what when marriages failed and people remarried. And that meant it became difficult to know who to tax. So Constantine looked around the empire for an answer and noticed that Christian and Jewish families were absolutely rock stable. He called the leaders of those communities in and said he was going to put the power to define, monitor and perform marriage in the empire. The idea was to put the fear of God into the populace. It worked, of course. Divorces dropped precipitously. Soon after Constantine converted, and the Holy Roman Empire was off and running.
That's where we got the modern definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and what the fight is over. Not the Bible.
For almost 1800 years the definition of marriage has resided in the religious community of the Western world... Until Tuesday, November 4, 2008. On that day, the church gave the definition back to the states of California, Arizona and Florida.
The next step is the definition of what is a man and what is a woman. Think I'm crazy? Coming up on ABC, Barbara Walters is going to be doing a special on Thomas Beatie, a former woman who got a sex change operation, but kept the reproductive organs. It's title is: "What is a man? What is a woman?"
As a Christian, are you weirded out by that? If you voted for Proposition 8, too bad. You no longer have a say. You gave it to the state. Now that the state has the authority to define marriage, it has to define gender now. Without the input of the church. And with that, the camel is in the tent.
More to come...
I feel very much like that in the issue about Proposition 8 in California.
One of the primary arguments for Prop 8 was that the definition of marriage was laid out in the Bible. That's a fallacy of course, because what the Bible lays out is the relationship between men and women, not the definition of marriage. A Biblical interpretation encourages polygamy (for example, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc.)
What we know as the traditional form of marriage was codified under the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine had a problem. Romans were marrying and divorcing with alarming alacrity. the tenuous nature of marriage made it difficult to know who owned what when marriages failed and people remarried. And that meant it became difficult to know who to tax. So Constantine looked around the empire for an answer and noticed that Christian and Jewish families were absolutely rock stable. He called the leaders of those communities in and said he was going to put the power to define, monitor and perform marriage in the empire. The idea was to put the fear of God into the populace. It worked, of course. Divorces dropped precipitously. Soon after Constantine converted, and the Holy Roman Empire was off and running.
That's where we got the modern definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and what the fight is over. Not the Bible.
For almost 1800 years the definition of marriage has resided in the religious community of the Western world... Until Tuesday, November 4, 2008. On that day, the church gave the definition back to the states of California, Arizona and Florida.
The next step is the definition of what is a man and what is a woman. Think I'm crazy? Coming up on ABC, Barbara Walters is going to be doing a special on Thomas Beatie, a former woman who got a sex change operation, but kept the reproductive organs. It's title is: "What is a man? What is a woman?"
As a Christian, are you weirded out by that? If you voted for Proposition 8, too bad. You no longer have a say. You gave it to the state. Now that the state has the authority to define marriage, it has to define gender now. Without the input of the church. And with that, the camel is in the tent.
More to come...
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Stumbling blocks and millstones
This blog will have several subject to deal with in coming months, but I'm going to camp out for a while in these inaugural posts on the issue of gay marriage in the United States.
Proposition affecting the legitimization of gay unions passed in California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas on Tuesday, largely, but not entirely due to support from religious groups in the conservative evangelical, Mormon and Catholic communities. Significant support also came from African American, Asian and Hispanic voting blocks. What was at stake was a societal approval of gay and lesbian unions against a moral standard of what turned out to be a majority of people in those states.
So we (an I'm including myself in this because I am a conservative evangelical) won the battle. Gay marriage is not approved in our state and still seems to be looked down upon throughout most of the nation. We won...but at what cost?
Ostensibly, Christians are supposed to be about "winning souls for Christ" by our example. What is the example we have set in this battle? And in winning the battle, have we lost the war for a group of people we know need the love of Christ so desperately?
Right now, regardless of what you think about the sexual orientation, we have prohibited a group of people from solemnizing their hope for a committed relationship. We believe we have halted any attempt to teach our children that these type of unions are acceptable (although I really doubt this will stop teachers from teaching that in Bay Area schools). We have held firm to our principals.
But in the process, not only is the gay community taking to the streets in protest, but hundreds of thousands on heterosexual supporters are joining them, all with a common perception: that the religious community isn't serious when they say that the death of Jesus on the cross paid for all sin for all time; that grace only goes so far; and the God only loves them when they live a certain way.
I'm in the business of communication and we have an adage: perception is reality. It doesn't matter what the truth is when the general perception is opposite from what you might know to be true. So It doesn't matter if we all really believe that Jesus loves everyone and doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. The public perception is that the church is primarily a place of condemnation. As a result there are many people who will now reject the gospel because it has no place in t heir reality.
In Luke 17, Jesus said to his disciples, “It is inevitable that temptations to sin will come, but how terrible it will be for the person through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."
So we won the battle, as I have said, and we have built a wall to protect us from the sinners' lifestyles. My question to all of you is, how do we overcome that wall now?
Proposition affecting the legitimization of gay unions passed in California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas on Tuesday, largely, but not entirely due to support from religious groups in the conservative evangelical, Mormon and Catholic communities. Significant support also came from African American, Asian and Hispanic voting blocks. What was at stake was a societal approval of gay and lesbian unions against a moral standard of what turned out to be a majority of people in those states.
So we (an I'm including myself in this because I am a conservative evangelical) won the battle. Gay marriage is not approved in our state and still seems to be looked down upon throughout most of the nation. We won...but at what cost?
Ostensibly, Christians are supposed to be about "winning souls for Christ" by our example. What is the example we have set in this battle? And in winning the battle, have we lost the war for a group of people we know need the love of Christ so desperately?
Right now, regardless of what you think about the sexual orientation, we have prohibited a group of people from solemnizing their hope for a committed relationship. We believe we have halted any attempt to teach our children that these type of unions are acceptable (although I really doubt this will stop teachers from teaching that in Bay Area schools). We have held firm to our principals.
But in the process, not only is the gay community taking to the streets in protest, but hundreds of thousands on heterosexual supporters are joining them, all with a common perception: that the religious community isn't serious when they say that the death of Jesus on the cross paid for all sin for all time; that grace only goes so far; and the God only loves them when they live a certain way.
I'm in the business of communication and we have an adage: perception is reality. It doesn't matter what the truth is when the general perception is opposite from what you might know to be true. So It doesn't matter if we all really believe that Jesus loves everyone and doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. The public perception is that the church is primarily a place of condemnation. As a result there are many people who will now reject the gospel because it has no place in t heir reality.
In Luke 17, Jesus said to his disciples, “It is inevitable that temptations to sin will come, but how terrible it will be for the person through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."
So we won the battle, as I have said, and we have built a wall to protect us from the sinners' lifestyles. My question to all of you is, how do we overcome that wall now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
