The Church and the world

As I grow older there are more and more things that I see changing.  Some are for the better, and others not so much.  This week, for instance, the Supreme Court of the United States is reviewing two cases which may change the face of America.   Those two cases have to do with the California Prop 8 ban of same-sex marriage and the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  With a wide range of possible outcomes depending on individual rulings, there is a pretty good likelihood that the Court will strike down at least some of the restrictions put into place.  It is even possible that a ruling will strike down all state bans and make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.  So, what does this mean to Christians, and to the Church in particular?

• First, my personal opinion is that I do not care who, what or how many you sleep with, within limits of course...such as being of the age of consent. 

• Second, if you are a Christian, I expect you to hold to God's Word.  Period. 

These statements are going to be offensive to perhaps everyone on some level, which I consider good.  I think it is time to stand up and be offensive.  For the typical Christian, to say, "I don't care who you sleep with" is tantamount to saying "I agree with same-sex marriage".  To be perfectly frank I do NOT agree with it, but I believe our government has backed itself into a corner and has become stupid in the extreme.  Think of it as taking a laudable but flawed premise to the logical conclusion. I believe it is inevitable that same-sex marriage will become the law of the land. 

What no one seems to see is the landslide that will follow.  When marriage ceases to be based on biology and historical norms, the door is opened to define marriage any way one chooses.  Why not define marriage as encompassing unions between multiple partners (polygamy/polyandry/group marriage), between currently proscribed ages (adult-child marriages), interspecies marriages (bestiality) or between animate and inanimate (objectisexuality).  The problem lies in that the SAME arguments made for same-sex marriage can be made for each of these different 'lifestyles'.  In fact, it is already happening.  In the Netherlands one can form a cohabitation agreement called a 'samenlevingscontract' between multiple partners, and others have broken down the prohibition of bigamy through the court system using the same arguments used for same-sex marriage.  The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand and Saskatchewan, Canada recognize polygamous marriages formed elsewhere.  On TV here in the US we have a popular television show called 'Sister Wives' in which a man showcases his life with four wives and their families.  In Paris, a woman performs a marriage ceremony with the Eiffel Tower. An organization in the USA has actively advocated relationships of adult men with underage boys.  

Even traditional psychology and biology are under attack, now.  Current gender theory points to either ONE gender, differentiated, or many gender flavors defined by physical, psychological and other factors.  Neither theory believes there are two distinct genders, male and female.

So, tell me again...why should we not allow two men, one dog and three women to marry?  On what basis do you make that decision, if not biology or Western definition?  Eventually, in the current environment, marriage itself will become meaningless in the eyes of the world.

The second assertion that will irritate people is I expect Christians to hold to the Word of God.  In effect, this means we are going to be out of step with the world...and in my opinion this is a very good thing.  We ARE different from the world.  If we were not different, then what is the point of our faith?  It also means the world is likely to become even more critical of the Church.  For one thing, although we may recognize that the world has given legal authority to same-sex marriage, the Church cannot give God's blessing to something that is outside His Word.  Despite the efforts of some theologians to legitimize so-called 'Gay Theology', the Bible is very clear that this is not a correct interpretation. In the Church of the Nazarene in particular we are forbidden from performing same-sex marriage blessings or ceremonies.  Even if this were not so, any local church which I pastor will never perform such a ceremony...I will resign first. Gays and lesbians are welcome in my church, but they must realize that our church is not, and will not ever be, 'open and affirming'.

During the Civil Union legislation passed in Vermont in the early 2000's, the legislation was narrowly modified, largely due to the efforts of one of our Vermont pastors, to exclude religious organizations from having to cater to same-sex couples.  For instance, if a local church refused to perform a wedding or host a reception on it's grounds which it felt was inappropriate, then it would not be allowed to do so for anyone at all under the guise of 'equal public accomodation'. Eventually that situation might change.  It might even become defined as 'hate speech' for a pastor to say any of this.  If so, the church might be driven underground. 

The idea behind this post is simple.  I want to point out that no matter what the world does, the Church cannot expect Christian behavior out of people who are not Christians. Our standards are not the standards of the world.  We are held to a higher standard.  Paul says all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial or constructive.   We are called to do that which builds up, that which is good for people and what God has told us is beneficial.   No matter what the issue is...abortion, same-sex marriage, pornography, theft of intellectual property, terrorism...we don't expect non-believers to act like believers and we do expect believers to act as God wants them.  Maybe we need to be less concerned with the world's outrageous behavior and more concerned with doing God's will.


“ 'I have the right to do anything,' you say—but not everything is beneficial. 'I have the right to do anything'—but not everything is constructive."  1 Cor 10:23 (NIV)

.

Ad Hominem

'Ad Hominem'. If you've ever taken a philosophy class or been in a debate club this term will be familiar to you. An "Ad Hominem" is a personal attack upon a person or group which bears no relation to the argument at hand and is therefore termed a 'fallacious argument'. Usually the technique is reserved to those who have exhausted all other means of winning the debate and are trying desperately to wrest some measure of satisfaction from the exchange.

In addition to being a 'fallacious' technique, it is mean-spirited and cruel. In it's most vicious form it results in a physical assault upon the other individual, or angers the other enough to provoke them likewise. Think of the little kid who loses an argument and throws dirt clods at the other child.

It seems to me that I am seeing more and more this kind of behavior. I read an article this week wherein a liberal commentator referred to his conservative opponent as a 'republi-tard', and another comment which referred to the conservative side as a 're-puke'. Showing their true colors the liberal commentator in the first case, who would likely advocate for minority groups, uses an insult which denigrates people who are mentally handicapped. In a sense, they shoot themselves in the foot with their own remarks.

I have had such attacks used against me. They are frustrating, annoying and vicious. They are also a sign that I probably have already won the debate, but that does not make them any more pleasant to experience.

My point is this: we should never resort to 'ad hominem' attacks. They do not work and we usually hurt ourselves when we use them. If you find yourself at the point where you are tempted to use one, re-think your position. Is there something you have missed, or do you need to consider changing your viewpoint? Insulting someone's mother or ancestry does not mean that you have won the argument, it means you have already lost.

"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." 2 Tim 2:23 NIV

.

Taking his ball home

There are times when you have a discussion with someone of an opposing viewpoint and you wonder if it did any good whatsoever. I had one of those discussions yesterday. I was reading a post where the author, an avowed conservative, was saying that Wisconsin had a small victory for gay marriage advocates. I disagreed with an assertion it was not possible to oppose gay marriage without resorting to the Bible, and therefore any opposition is invalid.

To refute this argument I simply stated one of his premises and then broke it down logically, showing what the basis for current law is, and then what would happen if that basis was removed to allow gay marriage. He responded and we were off and running. However, despite the logic of the position, he refused to acknowledge the weak points in his arguments and even at one point 'put words in my mouth'. He never did address the primary issue. Final conclusion? He stated that I was wrong and said he was going to stop responding to me. In other words, he couldn't argue with my statements, so he took his ball and went home.

We in the church need to be aware of one of the points I was trying to drive home with him. Many issues we deal with, both individually and publicly are not driven by logic, but by emotion. "I'm right because I say so!". When faced with logical or even physical proof that they are wrong or mistaken, the evidence is ignored because emotion trumps everything else. I am a big believer in the usefulness of the 'apologetic' method. However, many people will not be swayed by logic. Even those who might be swayed will take a long time to come to their own conclusions.Bottom line, they must OWN the decision they make, not go on someone else's arguments. "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Cor 4:4 It is the work of the Holy Spirit to change people's hearts and minds, not ours. We can present the truth, but only God can change a heart.

The Tower of Babel

In the book of Genesis 1 there is a story about how the people’s of the earth decided to get together and build a large tower to reach to the heavens. God knew their pride and folly and decided to confound them. Now He could have simply reached down and swatted them like flies, but He chose a more subtle approach…He made them unable to communicate with each other by giving them multiple languages to speak. As they grew frustrated they eventually wandered off in language groups to found their own nations and the Tower of Babel was forgotten.

In a Sunday sermon a few weeks ago I told the church that ‘we have lost it’. What is ‘it’ and who are ‘we’? ‘We’ are the church and “it’ is the ability to speak to the outside world. We have become so insulated in our own little cocoon that we have forgotten how to speak to the people around us. When we get together we have a special ‘church language’ we speak and everyone knows what we mean. Even more, when we present our (very valid) concerns to the people outside the walls of the church, we present them in the same way we might discuss things with someone inside the church, and the person doesn’t understand. A month or so ago in Vermont we urged our people to contact their representatives concerning the issue of same-sex or genderless marriage. When I called my representatives one of them asked me why I felt the way I did. I gave her three relevant and valid concerns she could evaluate and weigh, and in language she could understand. What I did NOT do was quote scripture to her and tell her I did not believe in genderless marriage because the Bible says it is wrong. That would have been correct, but she would not have cared for nor understood the arguments. She would simply have put me down as a religious crackpot.

I have related on this blog discussions with my doctor concerning my diet in relation to my colitis. I understand where he is coming from, what arguments he can accept and those he cannot accept. If I speak outside of those terms he will dismiss me out-of-hand. When I present an argument to him in favor of the SCD diet in terms he can relate to, citing formal studies supporting it, he is more understanding and receptive.

The whole point is this…no matter what the issue, we need to understand that speaking to an unbeliever as though they were a believer is pointless. Like Paul before the Areopagus in Acts 2, we present the argument in terms that our listener can understand. That means we must not only know the Scripture, but we must know the meaning behind it and be able to relate it to everyday life in the 21st Century in our cultural setting.

Yes, we’ve lost it. But we CAN find it again…indeed we MUST find our collective voices again, or face being marginalized.

1 Genesis 11:1-9
2 Acts 17:16-34

.

Like Lemmings Off A Cliff

There are many things about being a minister that are not apparent at first blush. The amount of work that is required is one thing. Another is the amount of emotional energy (and sometimes physical energy) that it takes. Hazards include the likelihood of embarrassment while speaking in front of crowds. And caution is needed in dealing with people because of the possibility of lawsuits for giving bad advice or simply being in the in ’wrong place at the right time’ and having people jump to conclusions. Another hazard is saying the wrong thing during an election season and potentially losing the church’s tax-exempt status. Well, it is election season, and I will refrain from making any rash statements either from the pulpit or from this forum that would be construed as supporting a particular candidate or party.

However, one of my previous posts dealt with the subject of the right and duty of a citizen to vote. Maybe it is just me as I get older but I am noticing more things this election season that have managed to make e upset than in any previous election. For instance, does anyone know the name of the Libertarian Party candidate? Green Party? Constitution Party? Have you seen an ad for them or has one of the third party candidates been included in any of the debates with the Republicans or Democrats? The last time I looked the United States was a multi-party republic, not a two-party system. Yet the third party candidates are ignored.

The mainstream media has long been demonized in this regard. They do not seek out such third party candidates since they are not as popular and won’t generate as good ratings as the major party candidates. To be fair, people don’t seem to realize that media, although it carries a burden for public service, is a business and as such it seeks out customers who will generate the greatest revenue. The major parties have money to spend and people want to hear them, so they get the lion’s share of attention.

One subtle influence that the media does carry though is the capability to sway an election. It is subtle because even the observing and reporting of public opinion can change the atmosphere. The way it works is this…a media outlet conducts a poll, which shows that politician “A” has a 5-point lead over politician “B”. People listen to the results of this poll and some give in to the natural reaction to want to be ‘on the winning side’. So when the poll is repeated the following week politician “A” has a 10-percent lead. People begin to doubt the ability of “B” to win, so some more decide to vote for “A”. This is a natural thing for people to do who want to be on ‘the winning side’, yet if the media had not performed and publicized those polls, maybe the election would have been closer or the results different.

What happens to an election when the media begin reporting those same poll results and predicting which states will go with which candidate and allocate electoral college votes weeks, perhaps month in advance of the election? Such and such state is solidly Party A and so all those electoral college votes go to them, while this state and that one are solidly behind Party B. The feeling people have is that they should vote in a certain way, or that their vote doesn’t matter anyway since their state is expected to go in a particular direction. Essentially the media is determining through use of polls the results of an election that hasn’t even been held yet!

What else am I doing here besides complaining? There is only one thing which can stem the tide of these influences, and that is for an educated voter base to resist going with the crowd simply for the sake of going with the crowd. I am encouraging you to look beyond the polls, look beyond reporting by the mainstream media, get educated in the platforms of not just the two major parties, but the minor parties as well. And above all, vote for who you really want in office despite potentially being on the ‘losing side’.

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.
Samuel Adams

The fact is that if we all follow each other like lemmings off a cliff, ultimately we are all losers in this contest.

Putting in our “two (per)cent’s worth”

It is September 11, 2008, now seven years since that fateful day in 2001. I can still remember exactly what I as doing as I watched the reports on television of the plane hitting the first tower and watching in disbelief as the second one hit. It seems that so many things happened and we said that the United States would never be the same. One thing that happened was that people suddenly became interested in world events and politics. People began to pay attention.

This last Tuesday was Primary Day in Vermont. There were four ballots this time….Republican, Democrat, Liberty Union and Green parties. I left work, went to the grocery store and headed home. My wife and I headed to the polls at 6pm; they were due to close at 7pm and we hoped we wouldn’t have to wait too long in line to vote. After all, a lot of people wait until after work to vote. We needn’t have worried.

When we walked in, we were greeted cheerily by the three poll workers. No one else was voting. As we turned in our three unused ballots and submitted our used one, the man at the ballot box told us that we were numbers sixty and sixty-one for the day. “Sixty and sixty-one? You’ve got to be kidding”, I said. “No”, he replied, “ you and your wife represent about two percent of the total vote for your precinct”. Doing the math, it actually comes out to slightly over three percent. Our precincts cover quite a bit of territory and there are only TWO polling places for our town and neighboring town precincts.

What happened to “we’ll never be the same again” after 9-11? I think people went back to the thought that their individual lives matter more than the impact that they might have voting. The life of the community is secondary. Maybe they feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference. It was disturbing too that the ballot we took had numerous spots where no one was running for office, and not a single office on the ballot was contested!

As a minister I cannot use my position to endorse a candidate or a party. But my faith and beliefs also tell me that voting is not simply a citizen’s right, but it their duty to vote. Our freedoms depend on people getting involved, perhaps especially as people of faith! I don’t care how you vote or who you vote for, but get out and get involved! You may not feel you have the time or knowledge to run for an office but your vote is needed. My wife and I represented over three percent of the vote from that precinct. Elections have been won or lost on less than that.

Don't just vote for who you think will win, simply to be on "the winning side", vote for who you believe is right. If appropriate, vote for a third party!

Another thing, when someone is elected, don’t simply criticize them. Pray for them and remember what we are told in Titus 1:1-2, “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”

We had a wakeup call in 2001. Let’s not waste it.