Sunday, March 26, 2006
WHAT'S THE WORD-A-GOD FER?
PROLOGUE TO A "READING THE BIBLE ARIGHT" SERIES
I have been thinking a lot lately about how to interpret the Bible, and in what ways is it inspired, and in what ways is it not. While reading a book called "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology" (see here), I had a huge surprise. This is going to take some setting up, though.
HISTORY LESSON
The book chronicles the rise of the Christian Fundamentalist movement, and then the rise and current course of the Evangelical movement. I described some of the history involved here, in a post called About "Separation" and Christian Bubbles. In a nutshell, the "Fundamentalists" were the defenders of the faith versus the liberal "Modernists" who were taking over denominations and schools around the first 40 years of the 20th century. The Fundamentalists ended up losing the battle. BIG TIME. They became very mean spirited and condemned everybody who didn't believe everything that they did. Later, a group of former Fundamentalists came along, who tried to engage the culture again, instead of hiding in Fundamentalist schools that had been formed when the liberals kicked them out of all the existing ones. This group was called the Evangelicals, and included Billy Graham and Fuller Seminary. And they were condemned by the Fundamentalists as well.
THE FUNDAMENTALIST'S PROOF FOR THE GOSPEL
A mild shock came over what all the battles were about: the inerrancy of Scripture. This was basically the WHOLE issue. Not whether miracles were real, whether God existed, whether Jesus rose from the dead, whether drums belong in church . It was over whether or not every word and idea in the Bible was without error.
The REAL shock came in finding out WHY "inerrancy" was THE CRUCIAL ISSUE:
Because the Fundamentalists said that if the Bible was NOT completely infallible, then Christianity falls to the ground.
Stop and think a moment. I was always under the impression that this was a liberal accusation: "Since I can find errors in the Bible, I don't believe that it's true when it says that Jesus rose from the dead." Therefore, the Fundamentalists (rightly) tried to defend the Bible, showing how it is inspired by God, and how many "contradictions" disappear when it is interpreted correctly. That's one of the reasons I was writing about how to interpret the Bible.
But I was WRONG. Liberals had never really made this charge very often yet. Fundamentalists like J. Gresham Machen asserted the infallibility of Scripture as THE PROOF that the gospel was true. And it was the same Fundamentalists who asserted that if the Bible is not infallible in EVERY thing it says, whether about God, Jesus, astronomy, biology, botany, or history, then Christianity was FALSE. Hence, the doctrine of inerrancy became THE test of whether or not you were faithful or not. Depart one inch from full inerrancy, and you were called LIBERAL and condemned.
Some Christians at the time saw this as suicide. "Wait, you're telling people that if they look at the Bible and see errors in it, then they should not believe anything it says?! Are you nuts?" And indeed, the Bible has lost much of its prestige in the culture since that time. All it took was for someone to point out that Jesus was not technically right when he asserted that "the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds," and then they would reject the Bible. Or some other such "mistake," whether real or imagined.
THE CLASSICAL PROTESTANT POSITION
However, the book I am reading asserts that this was not the historic Protestant position, though I haven't checked his sources yet to confirm this. He claims that such stalwarts of faith from Martin Luther to John Calvin to John Wesley did not believe in inerrancy that way. Instead, they all pointed to 2 Timothy 3:16-
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Those rejecting Fundamentalist Innerancy would say that the Bible itself says that it is useful for training in "righteousness," not in biology or astronomy.
A funny example mentioned in the book concerns Calvin, who said that the Bible uses the ideas that people of the time the books were written would have believed. He claims that the Bible says that the moon is bigger than Saturn, which is clearly wrong, but that it does not affect faith because the bible is not meant to teach astronomy. (Well, I thought it was funny, because I have no clue what verse he's referring to!)
In this view, the inspiration of the Bible instead pertains to what we should believe about God, Jesus, the Spirit, sin, atonement and salvation. Wesley supposedly makes a similar comment in regards to botany, probably referring to the mustard seed verses. Obviously, these ideas would also apply to how a Christian interprets Genesis 1 and then responds to evolutionary theory. Darwin may indeed be in need of debunking, but perhaps not by asserting that "God made all the creatures during the six days of creation, and none of them evolved from any other." In other words, the Bible gives us a Theology of Creation, but it may not give us the details of how God did it.
On a side note, the Fundamentalists came up with terms for these positions. They call their position "Unlimited Inerrancy," and the older position "Limited Inerrancy." They chose those terms because "limited" sounds like less faithful.
FINDING WHERE I FIT?
It seems that the rules on interpreting the Bible that I have learned point to what the Fundamentalists would call "Limited Inerrency", since I put the biblical author's intention above everything else. As Gordon Fee pointed out, if the author was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the author's intention behind what he wrote will also be God's intention for that part of the Bible. So, our first question is always, "What seems to be the author's intention in writing this passage?" For example, looking at Genesis 1, if it seems that it was Moses' intention to accurately describe the details of creation, then teaching about biology and geology would be part of the Bible's intention here. ("God created the world in 6 days of 24 hours each, and we should burn Darwin's books!") However, if Moses' intention seems to be to show how God's Hand was guiding everything from Day 1, and he is expressing that in a poetic way that is not meant to be taken as a strict scientific account, then teaching the details biology and geology were NOT God's intention here.
However, I am leaning towards the classical Protestant position, for a few reasons. First, the Bible does not say it is infallible. It just says it is good for training in righteousness. Second, the Bible does not point to itself as the proof of the gospel. The gospel itself was always asserting itself upon people who heard it preached. (That's a simpler way of saying what theologians mean when they say that the Bible is "self-authenticating."). Romans 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."
THEN VERSUS NOW
In the gospels and Acts, the miracles of Jesus, and his followers were proof that the Kingdom of God had come. 1)People were to see the miracles, and then extend their belief to what they had not seen: the resurrection of Jesus. 2)They would have the ability to do this as they heard the gospel preached, which came with the divine convicting power of the Spirit. 3)Once believing, they would have the experiential confirming presence of the Holy Spirit as proof that they had entered the Kingdom of God. This pattern did not always happen this way exactly, but it's a pretty good summary of how things went. Nowhere is there mention of believing that the Bible is infallible.
But it's pretty obvious to see why Christians would retreat to the position that inerrancy was the key. 1) Nobody believed anymore that the gospel should be preached along with demonstrations of the Spirit's power (ie. miracles of healing and deliverance). That was just for the "apostlic age." 2) And nobody believed that the Spirit provided a confirmation after believing, except the Pentecostals (and they thought it could only be tongues, of course, which was close to the biblical pattern but not exact) and their forefathers in the Wesleyan/Holiness groups (Wesley's "witness of the Spirit" also hit on some of the biblical idea, but not completely). Of course, both of these groups were considered theologically beneath the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, so here was another experiential proof of the gospel lost. 3) The only thing remaining was the Spirit's convicting power shown whenever the gospel itself was preached, and that was certainly seen in the evangelistic campaigns of D.L. Moody and Billy Graham. But even here, as many Christians did not even know how to communicate the gospel to their neighbors in words that were current and relevant, the thought of relying on this may have seemed hopeless.
But to construct a philosophical/theological system that rested everything on the truthfullness of the Bible? That seemed doable! Isn't that why we send our brightest believers to seminary and teach them as much philosophy and logic as their brains can handle? We can proove the gospel that way, and we'll never have to answer any messy questions like why didn't somebody get healed. And no one will ridicule us by calling us "holy rollers."
Whatever I believe about inerrancy, I cannot agree that the Christian faith stands or falls on how infallible the Bible is. The apostle Paul asserted that there was actually a thing that would cause Christianity to fall apart: "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). The resurrection of the Son of God is what Christianity stands or falls on, not competing views of the Bible.
I have been thinking a lot lately about how to interpret the Bible, and in what ways is it inspired, and in what ways is it not. While reading a book called "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology" (see here), I had a huge surprise. This is going to take some setting up, though.
HISTORY LESSON
The book chronicles the rise of the Christian Fundamentalist movement, and then the rise and current course of the Evangelical movement. I described some of the history involved here, in a post called About "Separation" and Christian Bubbles. In a nutshell, the "Fundamentalists" were the defenders of the faith versus the liberal "Modernists" who were taking over denominations and schools around the first 40 years of the 20th century. The Fundamentalists ended up losing the battle. BIG TIME. They became very mean spirited and condemned everybody who didn't believe everything that they did. Later, a group of former Fundamentalists came along, who tried to engage the culture again, instead of hiding in Fundamentalist schools that had been formed when the liberals kicked them out of all the existing ones. This group was called the Evangelicals, and included Billy Graham and Fuller Seminary. And they were condemned by the Fundamentalists as well.
THE FUNDAMENTALIST'S PROOF FOR THE GOSPEL
A mild shock came over what all the battles were about: the inerrancy of Scripture. This was basically the WHOLE issue. Not whether miracles were real, whether God existed, whether Jesus rose from the dead, whether drums belong in church . It was over whether or not every word and idea in the Bible was without error.
The REAL shock came in finding out WHY "inerrancy" was THE CRUCIAL ISSUE:
Because the Fundamentalists said that if the Bible was NOT completely infallible, then Christianity falls to the ground.
Stop and think a moment. I was always under the impression that this was a liberal accusation: "Since I can find errors in the Bible, I don't believe that it's true when it says that Jesus rose from the dead." Therefore, the Fundamentalists (rightly) tried to defend the Bible, showing how it is inspired by God, and how many "contradictions" disappear when it is interpreted correctly. That's one of the reasons I was writing about how to interpret the Bible.
But I was WRONG. Liberals had never really made this charge very often yet. Fundamentalists like J. Gresham Machen asserted the infallibility of Scripture as THE PROOF that the gospel was true. And it was the same Fundamentalists who asserted that if the Bible is not infallible in EVERY thing it says, whether about God, Jesus, astronomy, biology, botany, or history, then Christianity was FALSE. Hence, the doctrine of inerrancy became THE test of whether or not you were faithful or not. Depart one inch from full inerrancy, and you were called LIBERAL and condemned.
Some Christians at the time saw this as suicide. "Wait, you're telling people that if they look at the Bible and see errors in it, then they should not believe anything it says?! Are you nuts?" And indeed, the Bible has lost much of its prestige in the culture since that time. All it took was for someone to point out that Jesus was not technically right when he asserted that "the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds," and then they would reject the Bible. Or some other such "mistake," whether real or imagined.
THE CLASSICAL PROTESTANT POSITION
However, the book I am reading asserts that this was not the historic Protestant position, though I haven't checked his sources yet to confirm this. He claims that such stalwarts of faith from Martin Luther to John Calvin to John Wesley did not believe in inerrancy that way. Instead, they all pointed to 2 Timothy 3:16-
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Those rejecting Fundamentalist Innerancy would say that the Bible itself says that it is useful for training in "righteousness," not in biology or astronomy.
A funny example mentioned in the book concerns Calvin, who said that the Bible uses the ideas that people of the time the books were written would have believed. He claims that the Bible says that the moon is bigger than Saturn, which is clearly wrong, but that it does not affect faith because the bible is not meant to teach astronomy. (Well, I thought it was funny, because I have no clue what verse he's referring to!)
In this view, the inspiration of the Bible instead pertains to what we should believe about God, Jesus, the Spirit, sin, atonement and salvation. Wesley supposedly makes a similar comment in regards to botany, probably referring to the mustard seed verses. Obviously, these ideas would also apply to how a Christian interprets Genesis 1 and then responds to evolutionary theory. Darwin may indeed be in need of debunking, but perhaps not by asserting that "God made all the creatures during the six days of creation, and none of them evolved from any other." In other words, the Bible gives us a Theology of Creation, but it may not give us the details of how God did it.
On a side note, the Fundamentalists came up with terms for these positions. They call their position "Unlimited Inerrancy," and the older position "Limited Inerrancy." They chose those terms because "limited" sounds like less faithful.
FINDING WHERE I FIT?
It seems that the rules on interpreting the Bible that I have learned point to what the Fundamentalists would call "Limited Inerrency", since I put the biblical author's intention above everything else. As Gordon Fee pointed out, if the author was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the author's intention behind what he wrote will also be God's intention for that part of the Bible. So, our first question is always, "What seems to be the author's intention in writing this passage?" For example, looking at Genesis 1, if it seems that it was Moses' intention to accurately describe the details of creation, then teaching about biology and geology would be part of the Bible's intention here. ("God created the world in 6 days of 24 hours each, and we should burn Darwin's books!") However, if Moses' intention seems to be to show how God's Hand was guiding everything from Day 1, and he is expressing that in a poetic way that is not meant to be taken as a strict scientific account, then teaching the details biology and geology were NOT God's intention here.
However, I am leaning towards the classical Protestant position, for a few reasons. First, the Bible does not say it is infallible. It just says it is good for training in righteousness. Second, the Bible does not point to itself as the proof of the gospel. The gospel itself was always asserting itself upon people who heard it preached. (That's a simpler way of saying what theologians mean when they say that the Bible is "self-authenticating."). Romans 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."
THEN VERSUS NOW
In the gospels and Acts, the miracles of Jesus, and his followers were proof that the Kingdom of God had come. 1)People were to see the miracles, and then extend their belief to what they had not seen: the resurrection of Jesus. 2)They would have the ability to do this as they heard the gospel preached, which came with the divine convicting power of the Spirit. 3)Once believing, they would have the experiential confirming presence of the Holy Spirit as proof that they had entered the Kingdom of God. This pattern did not always happen this way exactly, but it's a pretty good summary of how things went. Nowhere is there mention of believing that the Bible is infallible.
But it's pretty obvious to see why Christians would retreat to the position that inerrancy was the key. 1) Nobody believed anymore that the gospel should be preached along with demonstrations of the Spirit's power (ie. miracles of healing and deliverance). That was just for the "apostlic age." 2) And nobody believed that the Spirit provided a confirmation after believing, except the Pentecostals (and they thought it could only be tongues, of course, which was close to the biblical pattern but not exact) and their forefathers in the Wesleyan/Holiness groups (Wesley's "witness of the Spirit" also hit on some of the biblical idea, but not completely). Of course, both of these groups were considered theologically beneath the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, so here was another experiential proof of the gospel lost. 3) The only thing remaining was the Spirit's convicting power shown whenever the gospel itself was preached, and that was certainly seen in the evangelistic campaigns of D.L. Moody and Billy Graham. But even here, as many Christians did not even know how to communicate the gospel to their neighbors in words that were current and relevant, the thought of relying on this may have seemed hopeless.
But to construct a philosophical/theological system that rested everything on the truthfullness of the Bible? That seemed doable! Isn't that why we send our brightest believers to seminary and teach them as much philosophy and logic as their brains can handle? We can proove the gospel that way, and we'll never have to answer any messy questions like why didn't somebody get healed. And no one will ridicule us by calling us "holy rollers."
Whatever I believe about inerrancy, I cannot agree that the Christian faith stands or falls on how infallible the Bible is. The apostle Paul asserted that there was actually a thing that would cause Christianity to fall apart: "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). The resurrection of the Son of God is what Christianity stands or falls on, not competing views of the Bible.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
WHAT'S WITH YUCKABUCK AND POLITICS LATELY?
REPLY TO THROWALL
See his comment here.
I do not think Jesus "changed his message or standards to avoid offending sinners or even religious leaders." But He was very clear on what His message was, and did not get bogged down in side issues. He was called the "scandalon," the "stumbling block," because His message itself was offensive to many and still is.
To use a current Christian cliche, I believe that we should be concentrating on offending people with "the offense of the gospel." Of course we cannot avoid offending people over various things, which is why the Spirit leads Christians to be full of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). But we should try to offend the most over the gospel, and the least over other things.
Sometimes there is a definite conflict. For example, some people may be offended at the anti-abortion stance of most Christians. Even though the pro-life issue is only tangentially related to the gospel, it is still a very important thing that I believe we must stand up for. But I believe some other things have been blown out of proportion by a modern day desire of some Christians to return to "Christendom," when Christians had all political power in Europe and the church ruled society.
To borrow and then twist Throwall's words, I am saying that, "If we are not careful, we will be responsible for sinners dying in sin because we" found too many ways "of offending them." To use a less controversial example (to the world but not to the church!!!), it is obvious that if certain people are turned off of the gospel because they attended a church service where people were singing songs in a style from the 1800's, then perhaps it would be wise to have another church service where the worship style is at least from the 1900's. I do not want to be responsible for people going to hell because I demanded they swallow "Here I raise mine Ebenezer; hither by thy help I'm come" and "Heavenly portals loud with hosannas ring!."
The gospel is crucial. Jesus did not say," Believe that I am the son of God, I died for you, and also believe that drums and guitars are evil; and you shall be saved." He also did not say. "Believe that I am the son of God, I died for you, and pass the Defense of Marriage Act; and you shall be saved." But I think many Christians are going about in a manner that is unwise, and giving exactly that idea to unbelievers. I am a conservative republican, but my politics are way, way less important than whether or not my neighbor meets Jesus.
My biblical basis for this is spelled out in the updates to the same-sex marriage post (here). In a nutshell, it seems to have been the apostle Paul's practice to place everything at the disposal of making the gospel "attractive" (Titus 2:10). For example, Paul engaged in a huge battle with people who said that gentiles should be circumcised in order to continue the christian walk that they had begun by faith alone (see Galatians). He even says that he hopes God damns to hell those who were spreading this idea (Galatians 1:9, what the greek literally means)! However, when Paul wants to take Timothy along with him, he circumcises him "because of the Jews who lived in that area" (Acts 16:3)! Paul did not change his personal beliefs or standards, but he saw that whether or not Timothy was circumcised was not very important in the light of whether or not the Jews in the area would accept the gospel.
Paul sums it up nicely in 2 Timothy 2:4, "No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs--he wants to please his commanding officer." In the marriage post, I tried to give a rationale for why I think many have gotten in too deep with politics. Paul opened a door for us to engage in changing injust social structures such as slavery, and so we went through it, but don't know when to stop. It is a simple fact that in today's polarized political atmosphere, many people see "Christian" as synonymous with "Republican." And responsibility for that lies at the feet of Christians in the church who have put politics ahead of the gospel.
Around 1993-1994, I thought that if Republicans could just take over the Congress and White House, then God would have His way in our country like we haven't seen in years. Well, they did. And not too much has changed! I am not removing myself from politics or voting. But I want my life to be an example of the gospel, not Republican ideals. I'm not perfect and I may offend somebody. Fine, I will humbly repent. But they might also be offended because they saw that I had given my life over to a crucified man who claimed to be the son of God dying to restore my standing before God. Now THAT'S something for them to be offended by! And I won't apologize or compromise on that.
See his comment here.
I do not think Jesus "changed his message or standards to avoid offending sinners or even religious leaders." But He was very clear on what His message was, and did not get bogged down in side issues. He was called the "scandalon," the "stumbling block," because His message itself was offensive to many and still is.
To use a current Christian cliche, I believe that we should be concentrating on offending people with "the offense of the gospel." Of course we cannot avoid offending people over various things, which is why the Spirit leads Christians to be full of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). But we should try to offend the most over the gospel, and the least over other things.
Sometimes there is a definite conflict. For example, some people may be offended at the anti-abortion stance of most Christians. Even though the pro-life issue is only tangentially related to the gospel, it is still a very important thing that I believe we must stand up for. But I believe some other things have been blown out of proportion by a modern day desire of some Christians to return to "Christendom," when Christians had all political power in Europe and the church ruled society.
To borrow and then twist Throwall's words, I am saying that, "If we are not careful, we will be responsible for sinners dying in sin because we" found too many ways "of offending them." To use a less controversial example (to the world but not to the church!!!), it is obvious that if certain people are turned off of the gospel because they attended a church service where people were singing songs in a style from the 1800's, then perhaps it would be wise to have another church service where the worship style is at least from the 1900's. I do not want to be responsible for people going to hell because I demanded they swallow "Here I raise mine Ebenezer; hither by thy help I'm come" and "Heavenly portals loud with hosannas ring!."
The gospel is crucial. Jesus did not say," Believe that I am the son of God, I died for you, and also believe that drums and guitars are evil; and you shall be saved." He also did not say. "Believe that I am the son of God, I died for you, and pass the Defense of Marriage Act; and you shall be saved." But I think many Christians are going about in a manner that is unwise, and giving exactly that idea to unbelievers. I am a conservative republican, but my politics are way, way less important than whether or not my neighbor meets Jesus.
My biblical basis for this is spelled out in the updates to the same-sex marriage post (here). In a nutshell, it seems to have been the apostle Paul's practice to place everything at the disposal of making the gospel "attractive" (Titus 2:10). For example, Paul engaged in a huge battle with people who said that gentiles should be circumcised in order to continue the christian walk that they had begun by faith alone (see Galatians). He even says that he hopes God damns to hell those who were spreading this idea (Galatians 1:9, what the greek literally means)! However, when Paul wants to take Timothy along with him, he circumcises him "because of the Jews who lived in that area" (Acts 16:3)! Paul did not change his personal beliefs or standards, but he saw that whether or not Timothy was circumcised was not very important in the light of whether or not the Jews in the area would accept the gospel.
Paul sums it up nicely in 2 Timothy 2:4, "No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs--he wants to please his commanding officer." In the marriage post, I tried to give a rationale for why I think many have gotten in too deep with politics. Paul opened a door for us to engage in changing injust social structures such as slavery, and so we went through it, but don't know when to stop. It is a simple fact that in today's polarized political atmosphere, many people see "Christian" as synonymous with "Republican." And responsibility for that lies at the feet of Christians in the church who have put politics ahead of the gospel.
Around 1993-1994, I thought that if Republicans could just take over the Congress and White House, then God would have His way in our country like we haven't seen in years. Well, they did. And not too much has changed! I am not removing myself from politics or voting. But I want my life to be an example of the gospel, not Republican ideals. I'm not perfect and I may offend somebody. Fine, I will humbly repent. But they might also be offended because they saw that I had given my life over to a crucified man who claimed to be the son of God dying to restore my standing before God. Now THAT'S something for them to be offended by! And I won't apologize or compromise on that.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Capital punishment from the perspective of a confused Christian
This is meant as a riff off of Dr. Ben Witherington's post, which can be found here . It began as a comment, but was obviously too long, so I moved it here and expanded it so as not to sound too incoherent. I have been struggling with the issue of a Christian's involvement in politics, rethinking previously held assumptions, so I am looking more at what a Christian who is in political office should do, rather than only whether something is right or wrong in the abstract. Indeed, the flaw in many Christian debates over capital punishment (CP) is that there is much talk about whether CP is morally justified, but not much about whether it can be justly administered as well. (Dr. Witherington does address this, see below.) We could see CP as morally justified, but never carry it out because we are unable to carry it out justly. These are actually TWO separate arguments, not one. (Much of this was influenced years ago in college by Norman Geisler's book on Christian Ethics.)
Comman Christian arguments for capital punishment:
1) The Bible commands it in Genesis 9:6, predating the Old Testament law.
2) The Old Testament Mosaic law commands it.
3) CP. should be carried out in order to keep the person from murdering again.
4) CP. should be carried out as a deterrence, ie. it keeps others from murdering because of a fear of punishment.
It should be noted that number 1 is a strictly theological reason. While it is definitely true that murder is "killing God in effigy" (for the one killed was made in the image of God), that is not a valid reason for someone in a political office in a pluralistic country. To be logically consistent, we would also have to ban ALL non-Christian religions, as well as atheism, and then explicitly set up a Christian theocracy. (Which leads to point number 2...)
It seems to me that the entire OT law (number 2) is designed to bring about a theocracy, "the Kingdom of God on earth," so to speak. That's why its ethic is absolute and uncompromising. Unless there is an absolutely perfect people, then God will not "dwell among them." The people were to show that they could (on their own) meet the demands of the covenant. If they did, then all of the promised ("eschatological") blessings of Deut. 28 will acrue. If not, then the promised curses would instead appear. That's why every every adulterer must be immediately stoned- otherwise God would not continue to dwell in the community, but would reject the people, as He ultimately did anyway.
(Note to biblical theologians: Of course "eschatalogical" is an anachronism here, for we are not dealing with true eschatology in Deut., but this is the stuff that later biblical themes of promise/fulfillment will come out of.)
What this means for the Christian is that he or she should not use an appeal to the OT to justify capital punishment, for it would be ripping the idea out of its explicitly theological context. We are not to "purge the evil from among you" in the way it is meant in Deut. 13:5! (Lest we become Christian Crusaders or Jihadis!)
But we also should not use an utilitarian argument (no. 3 and 4), such as saying that we should employ capital punishment in order to "keep others from being killed." The end does not justify the means. This would be faulty logic, not to mention destructive if applied to other areas of life as well. (Yes, the "end" of using an "end justifies the means" argument does not justify the means of using it. Got that? I have no clue what I just wrote!) I cannot accept strictly utilitarian arguments.
So, what does a Christian in government do, who is charged with overseeing the safety and security of the people who he or she represents??? If one wishes to support capital punishment, you can't resort to relativism. You can't appeal to Genesis 9:6 ("murder is killing God in effigy"), nor to the OT covenant, which are guidelines for setting up a theocracy, as decribed above.
Common Christian arguments against capital punishment
:1) Christ calls us to non-retaliation in the sermon on the mount.
2) CP is premeditated murder itself.
3) Human life is infintely sacred and valuable.
4) The application of CP is unjust.
5) The culprit may accept Christ later in life.
If one wishes to oppose capital punishment, your choices also seem to be lacking. Christ calls us to personal non-retaliation, but Matt 5 is not addressing the proper actions of government. His ethical admonitions all flow from the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God (see here), which when it comes in fullness, will almost by definition supercede all other governments. While there are different interpretations of speculative eschatology, surely none of them have a direct one-one application to our modern political systems! Number 1 falls.
Not being an expert in Hebrew, I'm told that the word used for murder in Ex 20:13 refers to an action with malicious intent. It does not refer to the dispassionate exercise of punishment carried out by the state. Nix on number 2.
Number 3 is NOT a biblical argument. There are things more valuable than human life, such as serving God. If not, then it would be wrong of me to ever die for my faith. (And it would have been morally wrong for Christ to die on the cross for our sins, because his human life would have been more sacred and valuable than our salvation.)
Number 5 is another utilitarian argument ("the end of this person getting saved years from now justifies the means of his NOT experiencing full punishment for his crime now"). This is also another theological argument which seems to say that an unsaved life is more valuable than anything else. (This avoids the problem of Christian martyrdom: A Christian's service to God is more important than their life, but an unsaved person's continuing on in this world is more important than anything because they may yet become Christian.) A problem with this argument is its inherent uncertainty. The person MAY become Christian, but they may not; and IF it is morally justifiable to exercise CP for other reasons, then to refrain here may actually be a morally wrong action, ie. a "sin of ommission."
Also, as a theological argument, it begs the question of what other theological agendas we should pursue in politics. If we campaign for transmuting death sentences because of the importance of conversion, should we also campaign for the lawful establishment of Christianity, and for the removal of all reference to other religions or at least to overtly secular ideas in media? If our children were not exposed to other religions, or even modern pop music, won't they be more receptive to Christianity?
Also, it is possible to employ utilitarian arguments regarding the application of CP (number 4), as Dr. Witherington does in his post:
"In the first place a good case can be made that many innocent persons have been put on death row and executed. Can the executing of even one genuine killer justify the repeated taking of innocent life (since we are not all-knowing and make mistakes in our judgments of others)?"
While being very true, this is stated as an utilitarian argument, and is therefore logically suspect in my opinion. What if we have proven conclusively that we have caught the guilty person? Perhaps we should say that CP should never be caried out unless it has been proven beyond a doubt that we have the guily person? (And a high threshhold of guit would have to be determined!) Yet, this means that we might sometime actually exercise CP in rare cases, so it does not address the issue of CP being morally right or wrong in itself.
AN ANSWER????????
At this point I throw up my hands and confess that I really don't know what the answer is.Is CP right? Is CP wrong? Is CP right in itself, but wrong in its application? Should our agnosticism (both in the rightness of CP, as well as the guilt or innocence of culprits) make us reject CP as too final a solution?
Perhaps one solution is to ask what it would mean in this situation to "go the extra mile?" I'm not referring to going the extra mile with culprits, but with the culture. Jesus and Paul spoke of Christians "choosing to be cheated," so to speak. Choosing to endure injustice, so that the gospel would gain a hearing. (see here for an explanation of this principle, as applied to the debate over same-sex marriage). Earlier I said that IF CP was actually morally justified, then it might be a "sin of ommission" to seek not to carry it out appropriately. But what if that is the price of the cross? What if not seeing justice done "completely" in this life is the extra burden we place on ourselves, in order that the wider culture may see the gospel in a different light?
In other words, if we are in a culture that is more liberal, we should forego seeing it carried out, so that we will not bring reproach on the gospel. If we are in a more conservative culture, then we should emphasize that CP is always wrong unless we have ruled out completely that the person may be innocent. How this would work out in modern America, which is so polarized politically, I have absolutely no idea...
This is meant as a riff off of Dr. Ben Witherington's post, which can be found here . It began as a comment, but was obviously too long, so I moved it here and expanded it so as not to sound too incoherent. I have been struggling with the issue of a Christian's involvement in politics, rethinking previously held assumptions, so I am looking more at what a Christian who is in political office should do, rather than only whether something is right or wrong in the abstract. Indeed, the flaw in many Christian debates over capital punishment (CP) is that there is much talk about whether CP is morally justified, but not much about whether it can be justly administered as well. (Dr. Witherington does address this, see below.) We could see CP as morally justified, but never carry it out because we are unable to carry it out justly. These are actually TWO separate arguments, not one. (Much of this was influenced years ago in college by Norman Geisler's book on Christian Ethics.)
Comman Christian arguments for capital punishment:
1) The Bible commands it in Genesis 9:6, predating the Old Testament law.
2) The Old Testament Mosaic law commands it.
3) CP. should be carried out in order to keep the person from murdering again.
4) CP. should be carried out as a deterrence, ie. it keeps others from murdering because of a fear of punishment.
It should be noted that number 1 is a strictly theological reason. While it is definitely true that murder is "killing God in effigy" (for the one killed was made in the image of God), that is not a valid reason for someone in a political office in a pluralistic country. To be logically consistent, we would also have to ban ALL non-Christian religions, as well as atheism, and then explicitly set up a Christian theocracy. (Which leads to point number 2...)
It seems to me that the entire OT law (number 2) is designed to bring about a theocracy, "the Kingdom of God on earth," so to speak. That's why its ethic is absolute and uncompromising. Unless there is an absolutely perfect people, then God will not "dwell among them." The people were to show that they could (on their own) meet the demands of the covenant. If they did, then all of the promised ("eschatological") blessings of Deut. 28 will acrue. If not, then the promised curses would instead appear. That's why every every adulterer must be immediately stoned- otherwise God would not continue to dwell in the community, but would reject the people, as He ultimately did anyway.
(Note to biblical theologians: Of course "eschatalogical" is an anachronism here, for we are not dealing with true eschatology in Deut., but this is the stuff that later biblical themes of promise/fulfillment will come out of.)
What this means for the Christian is that he or she should not use an appeal to the OT to justify capital punishment, for it would be ripping the idea out of its explicitly theological context. We are not to "purge the evil from among you" in the way it is meant in Deut. 13:5! (Lest we become Christian Crusaders or Jihadis!)
But we also should not use an utilitarian argument (no. 3 and 4), such as saying that we should employ capital punishment in order to "keep others from being killed." The end does not justify the means. This would be faulty logic, not to mention destructive if applied to other areas of life as well. (Yes, the "end" of using an "end justifies the means" argument does not justify the means of using it. Got that? I have no clue what I just wrote!) I cannot accept strictly utilitarian arguments.
So, what does a Christian in government do, who is charged with overseeing the safety and security of the people who he or she represents??? If one wishes to support capital punishment, you can't resort to relativism. You can't appeal to Genesis 9:6 ("murder is killing God in effigy"), nor to the OT covenant, which are guidelines for setting up a theocracy, as decribed above.
Common Christian arguments against capital punishment
:1) Christ calls us to non-retaliation in the sermon on the mount.
2) CP is premeditated murder itself.
3) Human life is infintely sacred and valuable.
4) The application of CP is unjust.
5) The culprit may accept Christ later in life.
If one wishes to oppose capital punishment, your choices also seem to be lacking. Christ calls us to personal non-retaliation, but Matt 5 is not addressing the proper actions of government. His ethical admonitions all flow from the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God (see here), which when it comes in fullness, will almost by definition supercede all other governments. While there are different interpretations of speculative eschatology, surely none of them have a direct one-one application to our modern political systems! Number 1 falls.
Not being an expert in Hebrew, I'm told that the word used for murder in Ex 20:13 refers to an action with malicious intent. It does not refer to the dispassionate exercise of punishment carried out by the state. Nix on number 2.
Number 3 is NOT a biblical argument. There are things more valuable than human life, such as serving God. If not, then it would be wrong of me to ever die for my faith. (And it would have been morally wrong for Christ to die on the cross for our sins, because his human life would have been more sacred and valuable than our salvation.)
Number 5 is another utilitarian argument ("the end of this person getting saved years from now justifies the means of his NOT experiencing full punishment for his crime now"). This is also another theological argument which seems to say that an unsaved life is more valuable than anything else. (This avoids the problem of Christian martyrdom: A Christian's service to God is more important than their life, but an unsaved person's continuing on in this world is more important than anything because they may yet become Christian.) A problem with this argument is its inherent uncertainty. The person MAY become Christian, but they may not; and IF it is morally justifiable to exercise CP for other reasons, then to refrain here may actually be a morally wrong action, ie. a "sin of ommission."
Also, as a theological argument, it begs the question of what other theological agendas we should pursue in politics. If we campaign for transmuting death sentences because of the importance of conversion, should we also campaign for the lawful establishment of Christianity, and for the removal of all reference to other religions or at least to overtly secular ideas in media? If our children were not exposed to other religions, or even modern pop music, won't they be more receptive to Christianity?
Also, it is possible to employ utilitarian arguments regarding the application of CP (number 4), as Dr. Witherington does in his post:
"In the first place a good case can be made that many innocent persons have been put on death row and executed. Can the executing of even one genuine killer justify the repeated taking of innocent life (since we are not all-knowing and make mistakes in our judgments of others)?"
While being very true, this is stated as an utilitarian argument, and is therefore logically suspect in my opinion. What if we have proven conclusively that we have caught the guilty person? Perhaps we should say that CP should never be caried out unless it has been proven beyond a doubt that we have the guily person? (And a high threshhold of guit would have to be determined!) Yet, this means that we might sometime actually exercise CP in rare cases, so it does not address the issue of CP being morally right or wrong in itself.
AN ANSWER????????
At this point I throw up my hands and confess that I really don't know what the answer is.Is CP right? Is CP wrong? Is CP right in itself, but wrong in its application? Should our agnosticism (both in the rightness of CP, as well as the guilt or innocence of culprits) make us reject CP as too final a solution?
Perhaps one solution is to ask what it would mean in this situation to "go the extra mile?" I'm not referring to going the extra mile with culprits, but with the culture. Jesus and Paul spoke of Christians "choosing to be cheated," so to speak. Choosing to endure injustice, so that the gospel would gain a hearing. (see here for an explanation of this principle, as applied to the debate over same-sex marriage). Earlier I said that IF CP was actually morally justified, then it might be a "sin of ommission" to seek not to carry it out appropriately. But what if that is the price of the cross? What if not seeing justice done "completely" in this life is the extra burden we place on ourselves, in order that the wider culture may see the gospel in a different light?
In other words, if we are in a culture that is more liberal, we should forego seeing it carried out, so that we will not bring reproach on the gospel. If we are in a more conservative culture, then we should emphasize that CP is always wrong unless we have ruled out completely that the person may be innocent. How this would work out in modern America, which is so polarized politically, I have absolutely no idea...
ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE IMITATION OF CHRIST
Thanks to Amanda Warren for stimulating my thinking on this topic.
1) My "old" position, at the beginning of this post:
The "traditional" definition of marriage is too ingrained in the institutions and ideas of our American culture to helpfully be changed to include homosexual unions. Therefore I think that there should be "civil unions" which give same-sex couples all of the legal rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage, but does not encroach on the "traditional" definition of marriage. This would also ensure that no lawsuits would be brought against Christian churches who refuse to perform "marriage" ceremonies for same-sex couples, thereby protecting their freedom of religion.
2) What would Jesus do?
MT 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Jesus would not have been upset about the so-called "homosexual agenda," and would not have defended the "traditional" definition of marriage. (Though He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union.) He would not have resisted the homosexual advocates, but would have gone the "extra mile."
What would the extra mile have looked like today? For all the churches to say, "Okay, fine. Broaden the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions." But then also say, "We no longer perform 'marriages,' but we do perform 'Christian unions,' which are only between heterosexual couples and do not confer any worldly benefits at all. If a Christian couple is still interested in the legal benefits of 'marriage,' they should also see a Justice of the Peace to have the appropriate ceremony performed."
3) The point?
Many Christians today demand that the same-sex couple be the ones to bend. Either they must, A) never have anything that commpares to marriage, or B) have something that compares to marriage, but it should be given a new, made-up name like "civil unions."
But didn't Jesus call Christians to sacrifice themselves for the world? Aren't Christians to be the ones to take it on the chin? Shouldn't we be the ones to change our "name" for something? Why turn people away from Christ over an eight letter word? Even if we called it "potato," wouldn't it be the same concept of a union before God of two people committed to each other? The apostle Paul says,
1CO 6:7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
Shouldn't we "die to ourselves," in order that the world would see the love of God in us? Of course, for this to work, all the churches in the country would have to be onboard. I guess that's the rub. How many churches out there really have Christ as their pattern? and how many have given up on the path of Christ, and are instead trying to win the "culture war" using the political weapons of their particular party, whether Republican or Democrat.
Perhaps I will give up my current position, which is only based on pragmatism and a cynical distrust of the ability of American churches to actually put the interests of others before themselves?
***********************UPDATES************************
4) Jesus and Marriage
Of course Jesus wouldn't back down from sin, or change His idea of what God commanded. I am not saying that we change our ideas of what is sinful or allowed for Christians. I did say, "He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union." However, my point is that He would not have gone to the lengths that many Christians are going today. He would have affirmed marriage as between a woman and a man, but would He have stood in the way of the world wanting to change the definition? (That is what I meant by "defending the traditional definition.")
For example, in Matthew 19:2-12, Jesus responds to a similar quibble about marriage, namely divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses allows a man to divorce a woman "who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her." The dispute at the time was between the two rabbinnic schools of Shammai and Hillel. Shammai emphasised "something indecent," meaning unfaithfulness of various sorts. Hillel emphasised "becomes displeasing," which could be something as small as she burned his dinner. Jesus very clearly teaches on the topic, and clearly sides with Shammai (and God).
However, Jesus did not embark on a political campaign to restrict how Moses' decree of divorce was interpreted. He did not seek to pass any laws regarding divorce. Instead, He proclaimed and taught about the Kingdom of God (and Himself as the doorway to it), and expeceted those who responded to the call to have a righteousness that "surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law" (Matthew 5:20). Perhaps we should do the same in our current situation? There is a difference between affirming what God says, and passing laws that affect how everybody, Christian or not, should live.
5) Our first stumbling stone- the apostle Paul opens a door
Where did we get our interest in political activity? Instead of giving a long historical lecture, I would like to look at some verses that open a door for Christians to engage in the political world.
1CO 7:17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.... 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
To me, this passage is critical. Paul is frequently faulted for "supporting slavery." He did no such thing. But he pointedly did NOT embark on a political campaign to end it. He was preaching the gospel, and thought that was more important. But in this text, he adds a caveat- IF you can get your freedon, then do so. At this point the door has been cracked open. We are not to mindlessly "remain as we are," for if the situation changes we can change with it. (See also Paul's letter to Philemon, where the escaped slave who has become a Christian decides to return to his master, but Paul entreats the master to not take him back as a slave, but as a brother.)
Should the situation change to where we can procure freedom for all slaves, then we should do it. In the 18th and 19th century, political developements such as democracy in America and England allowed for full abolition. These were Christians who were leading the way, such as William Wilberforce in England (spurred on by John Wesley). These were good political campaigns that were spurred on by love of neighbor.
But where does it end? At what point have we gone too far?
6) Our second stumbling stone- the apostle Paul puts up a doorstop
For Paul, there was a definite boundary on our activity in the world- namely , we should not bring reproach to the gospel. If people are going to be upset at us, it should be because they do not like the message of Jesus' salvation for all, purchased through His death and resurrection. For example, Paul's letter to Titus says:
TIT 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. TIT 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. TIT 2:6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. TIT 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Some would like say that these commands are given because they are God's "traditional roles," and are God's ideals for all cultures, particulary the part about wives being "subject to their husbands." But seeing all of these as norms for all time would contradict the previous verse where Paul tells slaves that they can obtain freedom if the chance arrives. The text clearly says what Paul's motivation is for telling Christians to generally live in line with the patterns of the society of his time, except where it would be sinful.
-so that no one will malign the word of God (probably meaning the gospel, not the Bible- see here, part 2)
-so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us
-so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
For Paul, the advance of the gospel was of paramount importance. For example, after arguing in many of his letters that believers do not have to obey the Law of Moses anymore, he himself tells us that "To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law" (1 Cor 9:20). Not only that, but when he prepares to take Timothy with him on his missionary trip in Acts 16:3, he has Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews who lived in that area." In Acts 21, he joins in some Jewish ritual purifications in order to keep peace with the "many thousands of Jews (who) have believed." His priority is clear:
"On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ." (1 Cor 9:12)
7) The American church today and the idol of Christendom
We have given up putting our hopes in the spread of the gospel, and are instead interested in "winning the cultural war." But I have some things to say that might be hard for many American Christians. First of all, we have never been "a Christian country" (see here ). We certainly were founded by many who were Christians, and Christian ideas were certainly involved, but that is not the same as being a "Christian country."
This one is going to be rough: The promise in 2 Chronicles 7:14 has NO application to America:
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
This clearly refers to Israel, who are "called by God's name," and it was based on the promises of Deuteronomy, where God says He will establish them as a people in the land He will give them.
Ever since the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, Christians have flirted with the idea that we can take over governmental power and impose a kingdom of God on earth. It is an idol that we must destroy.
I believe that many Christians in America today see their only hope in politics. George W. Bush, or the Republican party will save us. Nobody says this, but many live like it. I used to. But is is a false gospel, which should be rejected. I am not saying that we should not be involved in politics (the apostle Paul gave us an open door), but I think many are in over their heads and need to step back. It has been shown that when people in America hear "Christian," they also think "Republican," and vice versa. This did not happen through mere political involvement, but through desparate and uncritical political involvement. And it surely impedes the advance of the gospel. The apostle Paul would pull his hair out. And Jesus mourns for those who will never consider the claims of the gospel because they see it tied to a certain poltical agenda.
8) Love the sinner, hate the sin
We are always told that we should hate the sin, but love the sinner. But how does one actually do that? I am trying to define a way where we can actually do that. Let's show homosexuals that we really do love them. I have always seen the threat of lawsuits against churches as one result of legalizing same-sex "marriages," and so I opposed them. "Let them have their own category, called civil unions." But this where I was brought up short by the Sermon on the Mount. WE are the ones who should be inconvenienced (willingly!). WE are the ones who should put others first. Therefore, why don't WE change? If the connection of a legal contract ("marriage") and a religious union ("marriage before God") causes problems, then why don't we choose to give up our privileges (1 Cor 9:12,15,19, Matthew 5:38-42)? We will no longer perform "marriages" but will still join (heterosexual) couples together in the eyes of God.
If we say we are defending the "traditional definition" of marriage, then why aren't we also seeking to outlaw all divorce, except for "unfaithfullness?"
If we would go the "extra mile" with same-sex marriage, THEN the country would know that we are not invested in politics, but in the gospel. THEN they might choose to consider its claims. And THAT is what Jesus and the apostle Paul and the Bible wants above all.
When Jesus returns and sets up the Kingdom of God, HE will enforce the traditional definition of marriage. But I think we have gone through the open door Paul gave us too far. We have neglected the other side of the coin. For in the same passage that Paul tells slaves to get their freedom "if they can," he also says:
1CO 7:29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
We should use the things of this world (politics), as if not engrossed in them. Are we?
1) My "old" position, at the beginning of this post:
The "traditional" definition of marriage is too ingrained in the institutions and ideas of our American culture to helpfully be changed to include homosexual unions. Therefore I think that there should be "civil unions" which give same-sex couples all of the legal rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage, but does not encroach on the "traditional" definition of marriage. This would also ensure that no lawsuits would be brought against Christian churches who refuse to perform "marriage" ceremonies for same-sex couples, thereby protecting their freedom of religion.
2) What would Jesus do?
MT 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Jesus would not have been upset about the so-called "homosexual agenda," and would not have defended the "traditional" definition of marriage. (Though He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union.) He would not have resisted the homosexual advocates, but would have gone the "extra mile."
What would the extra mile have looked like today? For all the churches to say, "Okay, fine. Broaden the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions." But then also say, "We no longer perform 'marriages,' but we do perform 'Christian unions,' which are only between heterosexual couples and do not confer any worldly benefits at all. If a Christian couple is still interested in the legal benefits of 'marriage,' they should also see a Justice of the Peace to have the appropriate ceremony performed."
3) The point?
Many Christians today demand that the same-sex couple be the ones to bend. Either they must, A) never have anything that commpares to marriage, or B) have something that compares to marriage, but it should be given a new, made-up name like "civil unions."
But didn't Jesus call Christians to sacrifice themselves for the world? Aren't Christians to be the ones to take it on the chin? Shouldn't we be the ones to change our "name" for something? Why turn people away from Christ over an eight letter word? Even if we called it "potato," wouldn't it be the same concept of a union before God of two people committed to each other? The apostle Paul says,
1CO 6:7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
Shouldn't we "die to ourselves," in order that the world would see the love of God in us? Of course, for this to work, all the churches in the country would have to be onboard. I guess that's the rub. How many churches out there really have Christ as their pattern? and how many have given up on the path of Christ, and are instead trying to win the "culture war" using the political weapons of their particular party, whether Republican or Democrat.
Perhaps I will give up my current position, which is only based on pragmatism and a cynical distrust of the ability of American churches to actually put the interests of others before themselves?
***********************UPDATES************************
4) Jesus and Marriage
Of course Jesus wouldn't back down from sin, or change His idea of what God commanded. I am not saying that we change our ideas of what is sinful or allowed for Christians. I did say, "He surely would have taught on why God's ideal is a heterosexual union." However, my point is that He would not have gone to the lengths that many Christians are going today. He would have affirmed marriage as between a woman and a man, but would He have stood in the way of the world wanting to change the definition? (That is what I meant by "defending the traditional definition.")
For example, in Matthew 19:2-12, Jesus responds to a similar quibble about marriage, namely divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses allows a man to divorce a woman "who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her." The dispute at the time was between the two rabbinnic schools of Shammai and Hillel. Shammai emphasised "something indecent," meaning unfaithfulness of various sorts. Hillel emphasised "becomes displeasing," which could be something as small as she burned his dinner. Jesus very clearly teaches on the topic, and clearly sides with Shammai (and God).
However, Jesus did not embark on a political campaign to restrict how Moses' decree of divorce was interpreted. He did not seek to pass any laws regarding divorce. Instead, He proclaimed and taught about the Kingdom of God (and Himself as the doorway to it), and expeceted those who responded to the call to have a righteousness that "surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law" (Matthew 5:20). Perhaps we should do the same in our current situation? There is a difference between affirming what God says, and passing laws that affect how everybody, Christian or not, should live.
5) Our first stumbling stone- the apostle Paul opens a door
Where did we get our interest in political activity? Instead of giving a long historical lecture, I would like to look at some verses that open a door for Christians to engage in the political world.
1CO 7:17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.... 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
To me, this passage is critical. Paul is frequently faulted for "supporting slavery." He did no such thing. But he pointedly did NOT embark on a political campaign to end it. He was preaching the gospel, and thought that was more important. But in this text, he adds a caveat- IF you can get your freedon, then do so. At this point the door has been cracked open. We are not to mindlessly "remain as we are," for if the situation changes we can change with it. (See also Paul's letter to Philemon, where the escaped slave who has become a Christian decides to return to his master, but Paul entreats the master to not take him back as a slave, but as a brother.)
Should the situation change to where we can procure freedom for all slaves, then we should do it. In the 18th and 19th century, political developements such as democracy in America and England allowed for full abolition. These were Christians who were leading the way, such as William Wilberforce in England (spurred on by John Wesley). These were good political campaigns that were spurred on by love of neighbor.
But where does it end? At what point have we gone too far?
6) Our second stumbling stone- the apostle Paul puts up a doorstop
For Paul, there was a definite boundary on our activity in the world- namely , we should not bring reproach to the gospel. If people are going to be upset at us, it should be because they do not like the message of Jesus' salvation for all, purchased through His death and resurrection. For example, Paul's letter to Titus says:
TIT 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. TIT 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. TIT 2:6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. TIT 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Some would like say that these commands are given because they are God's "traditional roles," and are God's ideals for all cultures, particulary the part about wives being "subject to their husbands." But seeing all of these as norms for all time would contradict the previous verse where Paul tells slaves that they can obtain freedom if the chance arrives. The text clearly says what Paul's motivation is for telling Christians to generally live in line with the patterns of the society of his time, except where it would be sinful.
-so that no one will malign the word of God (probably meaning the gospel, not the Bible- see here, part 2)
-so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us
-so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
For Paul, the advance of the gospel was of paramount importance. For example, after arguing in many of his letters that believers do not have to obey the Law of Moses anymore, he himself tells us that "To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law" (1 Cor 9:20). Not only that, but when he prepares to take Timothy with him on his missionary trip in Acts 16:3, he has Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews who lived in that area." In Acts 21, he joins in some Jewish ritual purifications in order to keep peace with the "many thousands of Jews (who) have believed." His priority is clear:
"On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ." (1 Cor 9:12)
7) The American church today and the idol of Christendom
We have given up putting our hopes in the spread of the gospel, and are instead interested in "winning the cultural war." But I have some things to say that might be hard for many American Christians. First of all, we have never been "a Christian country" (see here ). We certainly were founded by many who were Christians, and Christian ideas were certainly involved, but that is not the same as being a "Christian country."
This one is going to be rough: The promise in 2 Chronicles 7:14 has NO application to America:
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
This clearly refers to Israel, who are "called by God's name," and it was based on the promises of Deuteronomy, where God says He will establish them as a people in the land He will give them.
Ever since the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, Christians have flirted with the idea that we can take over governmental power and impose a kingdom of God on earth. It is an idol that we must destroy.
I believe that many Christians in America today see their only hope in politics. George W. Bush, or the Republican party will save us. Nobody says this, but many live like it. I used to. But is is a false gospel, which should be rejected. I am not saying that we should not be involved in politics (the apostle Paul gave us an open door), but I think many are in over their heads and need to step back. It has been shown that when people in America hear "Christian," they also think "Republican," and vice versa. This did not happen through mere political involvement, but through desparate and uncritical political involvement. And it surely impedes the advance of the gospel. The apostle Paul would pull his hair out. And Jesus mourns for those who will never consider the claims of the gospel because they see it tied to a certain poltical agenda.
8) Love the sinner, hate the sin
We are always told that we should hate the sin, but love the sinner. But how does one actually do that? I am trying to define a way where we can actually do that. Let's show homosexuals that we really do love them. I have always seen the threat of lawsuits against churches as one result of legalizing same-sex "marriages," and so I opposed them. "Let them have their own category, called civil unions." But this where I was brought up short by the Sermon on the Mount. WE are the ones who should be inconvenienced (willingly!). WE are the ones who should put others first. Therefore, why don't WE change? If the connection of a legal contract ("marriage") and a religious union ("marriage before God") causes problems, then why don't we choose to give up our privileges (1 Cor 9:12,15,19, Matthew 5:38-42)? We will no longer perform "marriages" but will still join (heterosexual) couples together in the eyes of God.
If we say we are defending the "traditional definition" of marriage, then why aren't we also seeking to outlaw all divorce, except for "unfaithfullness?"
If we would go the "extra mile" with same-sex marriage, THEN the country would know that we are not invested in politics, but in the gospel. THEN they might choose to consider its claims. And THAT is what Jesus and the apostle Paul and the Bible wants above all.
When Jesus returns and sets up the Kingdom of God, HE will enforce the traditional definition of marriage. But I think we have gone through the open door Paul gave us too far. We have neglected the other side of the coin. For in the same passage that Paul tells slaves to get their freedom "if they can," he also says:
1CO 7:29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
We should use the things of this world (politics), as if not engrossed in them. Are we?
