4 Semi-Related Thoughts

The thing I’m having the most trouble acclimating to in this Brave New World is the new face of sin.  I’m not that old, but I am all the same versed in the old norms and taboos of our formerly Christian culture.  But those old classifications of sin have been replaced by new, sexier definitions – chrome plated so they’re rust and logic resistant.  Granted, the chrome doesn’t really remove logic, but in a world without logic it’s logical to think it does, don’t you agree?

These days you’re scorned for driving your SUV down the same road that barely clothed men prance upon to music and applause.  Something about car exhaust being more polluting than fornication on parade, I think.  So to absolve ourselves we fork over for our secular indulgences.  Mustn’t forget to pay your carbon tax, taken from you for the remission of all your sins of emission.

The Bible pronounces woe on those who call evil “good” and good “evil”, dark “light” and light “dark”.  When we find a country so opposed to the honesty of yesteryear, when sweet was still sweet and bitter was still bitter – as ours is – one does get the impression that there’s a limited shelf life on this whole thing.  After all, there usually is some kind of expiration date involved when the flavors in your pantry start to transmute into their opposites.

We find ourselves in a culture seeking to classify its beating heart as a vestigial organ, and which is on those grounds lobbying to have it surgically removed.  You don’t have to work in a hospital to know how that case is going to end.  Though, I admit, with Obamacare it didn’t stand much of a chance in the first place.

Finding “Relevance” in Quality, Not Quantity

It is certainly with much frustration that conservative Lutherans are seeing so many children of families who have grown up with us running off in search of more “relevant” congregations; sometimes, in an amazing example of the tail wagging the dog, dragging their parents along with them.  This can cause some measure of confusion for we who are left behind, as we scratch our heads and think (rightly), “How can they leave, citing a ‘lack of relevance’, when the preaching of the Word and the Sacraments rightly administered are the most relevant things of all?”

Truly Christ and the Church are of the utmost, incomprehensible relevance.  The example is often given that if you have a sin problem – and we all do – Christ is as relevant as the lifesaving medicine for the dying man.  I think we Lutherans do a really really good job of proclaiming this.  And it’s good and appropriate, if slightly incomplete.

The problem shows up in what often comes next for us sinful humans.  When, like with medicine, we end up writing a little label on Christ – one more med for one more malady – and stuff Him in the cabinet along with all the other pills we have for our plethora of pathologies.  Maybe we take a dose every Sunday… or maybe only at Christmas and Easter.  Or, if we feel like we’re in remission, maybe only when we feel the symptoms every great once and a while.  In any case, Jesus is safely contained and organized so He doesn’t get in the way or take up undue counter space, and we can get back to living our lives feeling much better now, thank you.  But then all of a sudden you have a Jesus who is only narrowly relevant, and then only when that old conscience starts acting up on you.

Meanwhile, there are churches out there who will tell you that not only is Jesus good for your sin problem, but also your bank account problem, your cockroach infestation problem… heck, he could probably get you whiter teeth and fresher breath while you’re at it!  They’ll say, “See?  This Jesus thing has even wider applications than household vinegar, or even the wonderful snake oil we were peddling yesterday!”

Boom, now Jesus is relevant again.  And in a much broader way (supposedly) than when we thought he was just good for sin splints.

But it’s a sham.  And we know it’s a sham.  Ironically, it’s a sham in precisely the same place as the “Jesus is simply the solution to my sin problem” view is a sham.  They both view Christ principally as the means to an end, the only difference between them comes in at the point of answering what that end (or ends) is.

People don’t need just another pill to take.  They don’t need just one more solution to one more problem.  Though if they did, it sure makes sense to go with the interpretation of the solution that solves the most problems; the one that is therefore “more relevant”.  We Americans in particular are partial towards efficiency, after all.

People need a dead-and-risen Savior who, far from being pigeonholed as Mr. Fix-It, is the very substance of “It” itself.

People need a conquering Christ because, let’s face it, we’re not strong enough to overcome that death thing.  And Frodo can cower behind all the distractions he can stack up against that terrible eye, but it will find him wherever he hides, unless he is hidden in Christ.

And most especially, people need a sovereign Lord who is relevant to all because He created all, and still upholds it by the word of His power.

What needs to be done with those leaving our Churches in search of a Jesus that is more “relevant” is simply this: we need to catch them on the way out, explain to them that they will not find relevance in a Jesus who is simply some off-brand theological duct tape – as if relevance was measured in the quantity of problems He is “good for”.  Rather, they can only find relevance in the unique quality He possesses, that of being the Creator and Redeemer of all things.  Not merely a problem-fixer, but a promise.

“…they’re children wherever they are.”

There has been much ado on various conservative media outlets today about Nancy Pelosi’s recounting of a conversation alleged to have taken place between Madam Pelosi and her grandson recently on the subject of Syria.  (please take a look at the minute-and-a-half clip here if you haven’t already seen it; it’ll make my comments more understandable)  So far a lot of the commentary has had to do with the dubious claim that a 5 year old has such a sophisticated grasp of this kind of issue, but I’m perfectly willing to grant that Madam Pelosi has a descendant who might be a little precocious and above average intelligence.  Sometimes these things skip a couple of generations, after all.  (oh my, how uncharitable of me)

So rather than jump on that bandwagon, I want to key in on what one of the most pro-abortion members of the upper echelons of our government said to justify the United States taking military action in Syria:

“…you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they’ve killed hundreds of children there.”

But Madam Pelosi, surely it’s that country’s right to kill its children?  I mean, we make the argument about abortion all the time that it’s the woman’s choice what to do with her babies – we can’t criticize what she does with her own body, amiright?  And this is Syria’s territory we’re talking about here, after all, so surely the abortion advocate’s “mind your own business and keep your rules off my stuff” applies?

But as Madam Pelosi goes on to say, in response to the kid’s questioning whether these are American children:

“No, but they’re children wherever they are.”

Is that so?  Wherever?  Wherever… but in the womb?

So let me get this straight.  The argument is that children are valuable and should be taken care of and allowed to live, and that this applies to children across the board, wherever they may be found, and that killing several hundred of them is a crime justifiable of being punished by military action from another country, half the world away?

So then, Madam Pelosi, how is it that you continue to advocate for the wholesale slaughter of the children of the United States – the ones your grandchild was asking about?  The ones who are (according to your standards) still children, regardless of where they are (in the womb or outside)?  The number of those having been killed reaching well into the millions?  And doesn’t it follow, based on your own reasoning, that we would be justified in expecting some kind of well-deserved wrathful vengeance for this act to descend upon us at any time?

Of course not.  After all, children are children wherever they are; unless of course you’re in the womb, in which case we must kill you in a manner even more horrific than chemical weapons.

…for we are the nation of schizophrenics.

Gay Mirage Conversations pt.2

So, about the time the previous conversation ended I posted this, saying “Jordan and Jon, this might get my point across better.”  The balance of the conversation that then followed is copied below.  A good, respectful, encouraging dialogue all said, I think.

________________________________

Charles:
Gay marriage, creates moral anarchy?

Jordan:
I see the point, I just disagree with the premise. It’s fine for the Bible to be used as the definition of marriage for a religious organization. If Christians don’t want to marry gay couples, I’ve got no problem. But the state should not define marriage based solely on the Bible/a religious interpretation of marriage, since this is essentially taking one world view and making it law for people of various cultures and beliefs.

Charles:
Gay so-called “marriage” is a product of moral anarchy.

Charles:
So morals that are not your own are moral anarchy?

Tom:
Jordan… Would you say it’s ok for a Church that took the position that miscegenation is wrong to not marry mixed race couples? I’m not equating them, as to our previous conversation on that, but since you do, I’m wondering if you’re consistent in your application of the “civil rights” schema.

That said, at the end of the say, one worldview has to win out. Someone’s interpretation of marriage has to win out (and I notice you never answered my question on the other thread of what yours is). You’re saying a Christian one is ruled out from the outset, but you really can’t believe that gay marriage advocates are NOT trying to take their worldview and make it law for various cultures and beliefs.

In fact, just in making that assertion (“the state should not define marriage based solely on the Bible/a religious interpretation of marriage”) you, my friend, are seeking to impose your worldview on the state, and all its citizens. You see, it is inescapable at some level when it comes to policy. That doesn’t mean we need to make laws that all men need to believe this or that, but we can make laws to restrict their actions, and we have done so.

Tom:
Charles, let’s try the experiment from the article: do you believe in objective morality?

Charles:
I don’t presume to know if or what morals are absolutes. I have moral standards that I hold myself accountable for and hope to see met in the world around me. That being said, my morals are not someone else’s morals. So until a third party’s ability to exercise their morals is harmed, what they’re doing could be way more moral than what I do.

Jordan:
How is allowing gay marriage forcing their world view on to you? No one is making you get gay married to anyone.

Yes, if a church wants to be prejudice against interracial marriage, that is their call. The state is not to discriminate against race, so an interracial couple can and should be given marriage privileges in accordance with law.

I’ve been really busy this week so sorry for not responding yet to the other issues raised.

Jordan:
The moral argument in a very simple form:

1. If God does not exist, morality does not exist.

2. Morality exists.

3. Therefore, God exists.

While the deductive reasoning here is valid, the argument is entirely based on its premise, namely point #1. Point 1 is not necessarily proven to be true and is disputable.

What definition do you use for morality? That is the clear starting point.

Tom:
Charles… Several things.

1) I should first point out that you have expressed the very essence of moral anarchy. “I don’t know, and neither do you, so let’s just all do what we think is right for ourselves.” It’s making your own rules.

2) Society cannot exist in a coherent fashion with moral anarchy. There needs to be a common set of objective standards to adhere to, or else the door is open to anything. Your “stealing” becomes someone else’s “charity,” etc.

3) When you say “more” moral, you are implicitly accepting that there is such a thing as absolute morality. You can not make comparative statements (more, less, equal to) without an absolute standard to judge by.

4) In the end, given what you have expressed, you have no “morality” to judge by, you only have preferences. That is, you may not like it when someone tortures children for fun, but based on a lack of absolute morality, you can’t tell me that it’s “wrong”, all you can say is “well I don’t prefer it.”

Bottom line, you know in your heart of hearts that without question moral absolutes exist. How far you will go to deny that truth is the question.

Tom:
Jordan… If my worldview says that it is a good and proper thing for the government to have civil laws concerning who can and cannot be a romantic/sexual coupling – such as, mothers/sons, fathers/daughters, brothers/sisters, fathers/sons, men/horses, women/Statue of Liberty, or men/men women/women – for the preservation of decency and standards in society, yes, it is forcing someone else’s worldview on me to make those things not just legal, but even praiseworthy. And if you disagree with that, then my insistence that they not be considered “marriage” is not forcing my worldview on anyone, nor would making it policy do that. It’s one or the other.

Ok, just checking, thank’s for humoring me.

No sweat, man, I know the feeling.

Charles:
Cool, I’m a moral anarchist. On your 2). If I understand correctly, those are laws. The “stealing” to “charity” case violates that of practicing your own morals until they infringe upon someone else’s morals or rights. Thus, laws should be least restrictive in order to enable everyone to practice their own morality, until the point it harms someone else or thee ability to exercise morals. On your point 3). There could be moral absolutes. I however have no way of knowing them to be absolute. Thus, to disrespect someone else’s morals would be disrespecting their ability to achieve those moral absolutes. It also could be disrespecting those absolutes if they are practicing them. Point 4), prefer is what I like and dislike. Morality, while open to interpretation, can’t be compromised on a personal level. E.g. if someone’s torturing children, it first violates my moral code which if I remain inactive I can no longer consider myself a “good” person. More importantly, torture would be violating those least restrictive laws that draws the line at harming others and their ability to exercise their morals. Moral anarchy doesn’t create legal anarchy. I don’t doubt they exist. I doubt my, or anyone else’s ability to know them beyond reasonable doubt, thus, I’ll respect anyone else’s moral quest until it harms someone else(‘s).

Tom:
As to the moral argument, in my way of approaching it, God is a precondition for the intelligibility of moral claims. That is, unless you start with “God exists and has spoken” and derive your morals from there, all moral claims are inherently meaningless. You might find this to be a good representation of where I’m coming from, should you want a more full elaboration than I can give here: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2011/09/if-morality-then-god.html

You’re right, the definition of morality is important. Off the top of my head I would say it’s an absolute standard of what is right and wrong that transcends culture or race (or any other consideration).

Tom:
Gotta run to get lunch – I’ll try to get back with you this afternoon if possible, Charles.

Tom:
Charles…

//”laws should be least restrictive in order to enable everyone to practice their own morality, until the point it harms someone else or [their] ability to exercise morals”//

Ok, so you don’t know what morals are absolute, if any, but you are claiming that violating another person in a way that prohibits them from practicing THEIR morals is immoral. Which raises the question: is it absolutely immoral, or is that just your preference?

//”if someone’s torturing children, it first violates my moral code which if I remain inactive I can no longer consider myself a “good” person.”//

If someone’s torturing children, what gives you the right to interfere with their right to practice their own morality? Since when did your personal morality trump theirs?

//”There could be moral absolutes. I however have no way of knowing them to be absolute Thus, to disrespect someone else’s morals would be disrespecting their ability to achieve those moral absolutes.”//

//”I doubt my, or anyone else’s ability to know [absolute morality] beyond reasonable doubt, thus, I’ll respect anyone else’s moral quest until it harms someone else(‘s).)”//

So let me get this straight: you don’t know any absolute morality beyond reasonable doubt, but you claim it is absolutely immoral to interfere with someone else’s “moral quest”. Am I missing something?

Jordan:

//”If my world view says that it is a good and proper thing for the government to have civil laws concerning who can and cannot be a romantic/sexual coupling – such as, mothers/sons, fathers/daughters…”

This appears to be more of a statement that one of two world views will be offended, not forced upon the other. For instance, it may offend your world view for homosexual couples to be allowed to marry, and it may offend theirs for you to not want them to be allowed to marry.

However, the difference for ‘imposing’ a world view in this scenario is this: if gay marriage is legal, while it may be abominable to some, they are not required to have any association with same-sex marriage. However, if it is banned, then one world view is saying ‘you cannot do this because I believe you should not’. The difference is the latter is one group explicitly denying privileges they currently enjoy to a group of people simply because they don’t think they should.

It’s important to note that no one is advocating legalizing incestuous or interspecies marriage, or marriage between humans and objects made of inorganic materials. This argument, while a popular one, is a slippery slope fallacy.

With regard to absolute morality: You are asserting that there is absolute morality (and there very well may be). Further, you’re saying that this absolute morality comes from God.

One issue this raises is, under divine command theory, we are not acting ‘morally’ in the sense that we make moral determinations or moral judgments. We are simply following commands. For instance, if God decides that torturing children is something that we should do, how would you know if this is ‘good’ or not? By definition (God’s commands are intrinsically moral), this would make this action automatically moral. This basically takes the entire idea of morality away from us (God is not a precursor to morality, he IS morality, and following his commands is what makes you moral). The only difference between moral people and immoral people, then, is whether or not they obey certain commands.

Another issue this raises: Whose interpretation of God’s command is correct and moral? Surely someone claiming ‘God told me’ will not suffice. Do we take the commandments from the Bible, or the Qu’ran? Which is correct, how do we know for sure, and even if we do, whose interpretation of which commands are correct? If it is determined that the Bible serves as the best source of morality, then should we not return to a theocratic system of government and laws laid out as described therein?

Tom:
Sorry for the delay, I’ve not had time to respond till now.

This is where I think you’re going wrong with your reasoning: in talking about a “gay marriage ban.” There is no such thing, that’s like saying there’s a ban on married bachelors – or any other oxymoronic/nonexistent thing. It doesn’t even hold together as a concept unless you totally hollow out the word “marriage” to make room for a new meaning. And yes, it is imposing a worldview on a culture to legislate that a certain union be recognized as “marriage” in defiance of that culture’s views on marriage. Not that I’m making an argument that culture determines morality, just demonstrating my point about worldview imposition.

If I could point you towards sources for those, would you retract that statement? Regardless, I’m not applying it in the sense of the slippery slope fallacy. Instead, I’m wanting to look for consistency, as is my custom. See, the arguments for incestuous relationships (to single that out as the example) are the same as the arguments for homosexual relationships. “We’re two consenting adults.” “We’re not hurting anybody.” “We just want our love to be recognized as being as legitimate as that of any non-related couple.” “You’re denying me my right to marry/have a family with the one I love.” On and on. Are you prepared to grant those arguments the same standing for incest as you do for homosexuality? If not, that’s inconsistency, and it’s not the slippery slope fallacy to point that out.

//”With regard to absolute morality: You are asserting that there is absolute morality (and there very well may be). Further, you’re saying that this absolute morality comes from God.”//

That is exactly what I’m asserting, yes. In fact, let me flesh it out a bit more. You are right to say that God is, in a sense, morality. The way I would say it is that as humans, we are created in the Image of God. Given that reality, we are to reflect His nature to the world, and when we act in a way contrary to the nature of God, that amounts to lying about Him and defaming His character. We are to be perfect, as our Heavenly Father is perfect, and anything short of that or contrary to that perfection we call sin (which is, at it’s root, enmity with God). So what God calls sin is not arbitrary – commanding this or that for the heck of it as you seem to indicate in your torturing children example – but completely grounded in who He is, and He is Good. That’s why, for example, it is a sin to lie – because in Him there is no variation or shifting shadow, and He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

//”One issue this raises is, under divine command theory, we are not acting ‘morally’ in the sense that we make moral determinations or moral judgments. We are simply following commands. //”

The same complaint could be registered against any social theory of morality, insofar as, if the consensus of society sets the standard for “morality”, then we do not make moral determinations of moral judgements, the cultural zeitgeist does, and we are simply following its dictums. (For instance, if society decides that torturing children is something that we should do, how would you know if this is ‘good’ or not? By definition [society’s standards are intrinsically moral], this would make this action automatically moral.) Or if some blind evolutionary process sets the standard for morality (as Jon tried to argue), then there again we don’t make moral determinations/judgements, those have already been made, and we are moral if we follow them, and immoral if not.

And this is where we get even more theological, because you say that “The only difference between moral people and immoral people, then, is whether or not they obey certain commands.” My response would be that there is no such thing as a moral person, because we have all fallen short of the glory of God. No such thing, save Jesus that is, because He always does what pleases the Father, and is the perfect Image of God. Therefore, it is only those who have been justified by grace through faith – not because we walked the walk, but because His righteousness was applied to our account – who can be called the righteousness of God

Anyway, I’m sure you knew that, not trying to preach a sermon, just wanted the record to be clear on it. Point being, I would rather talk about moral actions and immoral actions than moral and immoral people in this context.

Now, in your final paragraph you ask some interesting questions, and they deserve to be responded to in turn. Unfortunately, my brain is absolutely fried for the moment. I’ll try to put some things down this evening so I can respond the next time I have internet access (tomorrow or Sat).

Jordan:
No worries on not responding, I’m in the same boat of time constraints for random facebook discussions. I do find your responses very interesting and you’re one of the few people I can disagree with and at the same time learn a lot from what you have to say.

I simply fail to see how allowing same-sex couples that are already together in a relationship to have their union recognized by the state as marriage is going to affect my life, the meaning or importance of my marriage, or how seriously I take it. It literally has no bearing on my life. In no ways will it alter how I view the world, or how I think my family ought to exist as a unit. I’m not suddenly forced with a ‘gay world view’ or my values are somehow crushed under the weight of the ‘gay agenda’. If it makes same-sex couples happier to have the same access to the ‘institution of marriage’ I do, I simply have no problem with it—it doesn’t devalue my marriage in any way. So I suppose we just simply see this issue through a different lens, and that’s okay.

//”If I could point you towards sources for those, would you retract that statement? Regardless, I’m not applying it in the sense of the slippery slope fallacy…”

Incestuous relationships in fact are hurting somebody, because of the negative effects of inbreeding, along with the likelihood of psychological damage to at least one party (as many incestuous relationships may be the result of abuse), and including the physiological damage of the offspring of continual incestuous unions. The biggest issue here, is no one is calling for incest marriage. I found it humorous that the example given of the slippery slope fallacy on this site is the same argument we’re discussing here (not that this site is some perfect authority on fallacies):

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I think the root of our disagreement on this issue is how we perceive homosexuality. A lot of people consider sexual orientation a choice, such as choosing to love a monkey or your sister or something. I’m not convinced that there aren’t more things at play than just a preference—there may be more going on with these individuals’ biology that led to their sexual orientation. The fact is I don’t know—as a heterosexual it makes no sense to me why someone would choose to be gay, and I have no idea what their individual life experiences were that led to who they are. However, in either case, as long as their actions don’t affect me directly, it’s really not an issue for me that they be happy in their relationships.

//”The same complaint could be registered against any social theory of morality…”

You are correct here and I’m actually with you on this one. I’m in fact not an advocate of a social theory of morality. I do believe that various large groups and cultures assert their own ideas of morality and what is acceptable based on their cultural norms. I think this is just the same issue—doing something just because the majority of people find it acceptable doesn’t make it moral or good. I tend to agree there are things that are objectively moral or immoral. I personally think that, wherever you may believe morality comes from, it ultimately finds its way to how it affects conscious creatures (humans, animals).

For instance (and this is a bit of a shallow example), I find bull fights immoral, because you are torturing a living conscious creature for the purpose of entertainment. However, cultural norms of societies that enjoy bull-fighting find it perfectly acceptable (here comes social morality)–BUT I think there’s a fair point to say, whether or not it is okay to do, does not depend on what society finds acceptable.

Where objective morality gets a bit fuzzy to me is when people assert that they know for fact about objective morality, but then use subjective interpretations of, say, the Bible or personal revelation to support their claim. It seems to me we should determine a more objective means to find objective answers, especially with respect to such an important issue like morality. Because, for instance, you can have different faith-based claims about objective morality—let’s say a mormon claim, a muslim claim, and a protestant christian claim. They may all agree that objective morality exists and comes from God, but their respective theologies on the matters may lead to different answers to the same moral questions. How do you know which is right and which is wrong?
Your logical fallacy is slippery slope
Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen too, therefore A should not happen.

Tom:
Thanks man, that’s much appreciated! And I appreciate that you approach the discussion without vitriol or any such thing and actually try to engage instead of resorting to scoffing.

So I got my response to your other points done, but it looks like I’m still behind, lol. I’m sitting at the grocery store using the wifi to post my response, but I need to get off and do some shopping, so I’ll continue to respond as opportunity grants me the ability.

Tom:
Looks like I’m gonna have to split this up to post it all, so here goes:

I hope you don’t mind me paraphrasing to some extent and rearranging them in an order that I think flows better progression-wise.

1) Which source of Divine revelation do we follow?

First, I’d like to suggest that every human being already knows the answer to this question. Some may have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, but they do know who is God (as per Romans chapter 1, vv. 18 on).

But I realize that you do not accept the “God told me” line of reasoning (although, if you think about it, would that not be the highest possible testimony on the matter? But I understand the need for discernment), so for the sake of discussion, I’ll go on a bit in the answer to the next question.

Tom:
2) Do we take the commandments from the Bible, or the Koran?

The Koran appeals to the Bible and tells Christians to judge by what is contained therein (ch.5 vv. 46-47, and others), so right off the bat we have the Koran pointing to the Bible as reliable material. That’s first. What’s more, you have it claiming that the Injil (Gospels) and Torah are the word of God (3:3-4). It also says that the word of God cannot be lost or changed (ch. 6 v. 115; also 18:27). It also says that Jesus was not crucified (4:157).

The Gospels claim that Jesus was crucified for the sins of man. If we believe the Koran when it says that Jesus was not crucified, we have to reject the Gospels as an inaccurate record of Jesus, but to do this is to reject the Koran’s testimony about the Gospels being the word of God that does not change. And if we accept from the Koran that the Gospels are the word of God and cannot change, we have to reject its testimony concerning the cross.

That’s just one example of how the Koran tries to point to the Bible but then ends up cornered in a dilemma. It also says that the followers of Jesus (i.e. Christians) would be superior to those who disbelieve from the time Jesus was taken into heaven until the day of resurrection (ch. 3 v. 55). Then of course you have the Koran abandoning that standpoint in later Surahs and saying that Jews and Christians are the “worst of creatures” (98:6) and other fun things (see link 1 below).

Given the choice between these two, I’d suggest that the Koran disqualifies itself from consideration. For more on this if you’re interested I’ll link to this podcast I’ve had for forever which deals with the “Islamic Dilemma”, which may be of additional interest to you as it also deals with the question of harmony between Old and New Testaments on the question of a Divine Messiah: (see link 2 below)

Tom:
Link 1: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Fisher/Topical/ch20.htm

Link 2: https://thechifiles.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/the-prophets-have-spoken_-the-messiah-is-divine-and-died-to-save-humanity.m4a

Tom:
3) “Whose interpretation of God’s command is correct and moral?”

First, for the purposes of this question, I’m assuming at this point that we understand that the Bible is our source, and not the Koran, at least for the sake of argument.

Second, I will note that the issue of interpretation is far from unique to Biblical law; rather it’s something that comes up with any written document, indeed any form of communication. In the case of the Constitution, for instance, when we as moderners attempt to discern whether or not something is Constitutional, we first consult the actual text. Sometimes there is enough clarity there to banish all questions, but sometimes additional understanding is helpful in determining application. At that point, it’s the job of Constitutional lawyers to consult sources contemporaneous with the Constitution (the Federalist Papers and other correspondences, state constitutions of the original 13, etc.) to determine what the original intent of the law/statute/rule or whatever was, and then seek to apply it in that manner, even if it means that it takes on a slightly different form in practice today than it did in its original setting due to a change in conditions at large (such as freedom of speech extending to an internet that didn’t exist back then). In some cases it’s even helpful to consult precedent, to see how the law was understood and applied in times past, which hopefully match more closely with the intent of the original law.

So when it comes to Biblical law we have, for instance, a command to put a guardrail around the perimeter of the roof so as not to have blood on our hands. Well, we today might wonder what the heck is up with that, but we can look at contemporaneous documents (some even in the Bible) and learn that people in that time and place generally entertained and slept and sometimes even bathed on the roof, so we understand that the point of the law was not to have a terrace around roofs, in and of itself, but to protect against loss of life. In our day this would more take the form of having fences around swimming pools, or on balconies, etc., while our roofs bear no such need since we’re really not up there. And of course there are multiple laws that we can look at the New Testament’s treatment of, and Old Testament sections as well, for precedent. Not to mention Christian and Hebrew precedent from our history.

Third, there is an element of wisdom involved as well when it comes to interpretation and application. Obviously we seek to nominate only the wisest individuals to the Supreme Court and respective lower courts, so that their application of the law and its due penalties is one that can account for different circumstances and situations, and simultaneously have a grasp on the core principles of the law instead of getting confused with all the different details that pop up on a case-by-case basis so as to avoid being arbitrary in their judgements, while at the same time showing mercy as appropriate.

In the same way, understanding of and application of Biblical law requires a God-given wisdom, which you will recognize as a concept highly valued and praised in the Biblical text. In fact, many scholars believe that the book of Proverbs was originally used within the royal family as a didactic tool for the new king, hence in the first chapter we have the son being addressed with entreaties to not forsake Wisdom, and specifically that of his father(s) (who ostensibly ruled before him).

Tom:
4) If it is determined that the Bible serves as the best source of morality, then should we not return to a theocratic system of government and laws laid out as described therein?

Well, only objective source, anyway. The law is written on our hearts, too, but consciences can be suppressed; and besides, they only have the force of opinion when expressed. Therefore it’s the written law of the Bible that must have the final say. As the bearer of the authoritative written code, God’s Word has the power to excuse/loose our consciences (if what we believe is wrong is actually not: e.g. drinking, dancing, card playing) or convict/bind them (if they have repressed the fact that we are doing what is evil: e.g. fornication, abortion).

That said, I’ll admit that I’m still working through this question and have been for some time, so I can’t give you anything as simple as a yes or no answer at this point. However, I’ll give you my present thoughts for consideration. I’m going to be a little wordy to get across what I want to get across, so forgive me for that, but I do think it will make sense better this way.

In the first place, I’ll note that even a theocratic system can become corrupt and fall into decay and be overcome by enemies. The Hebrew nation of Israel (classically speaking; that is, not contemporary Israel) always ended up turning away from the law, and they always suffered the consequences, eventually resulting in the dispersion, which we are only now after ~2500 years of history seeing the ostensible reversal of. Which is to say, merely having a theocratic system based on the Bible in-and-of-itself is no guarantee of perpetual flourishing and whatnot.

And this is because merely possessing the law – having it on the books, shall we say – is not enough. Indeed, as Paul says, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers who will be justified.” see Rom 2:25-29 (and lest one conclude that the doing of the law saves, Paul goes on to say that no one is a doer of the law save Christ, and those who are in Him do seek to walk as He walked, though we stumble and require forgiveness) Sin, ultimately, corrodes the culture, turning the hearts of the people away one by one until the nation has joined in the practices of the nations around it and forgot how to do what is right by its own law. (we see a parallel of this in our own situation as the constitution lies somewhat abandoned in favor of pursuing a globalist agenda)

So, what I’m getting at is that outward circumcision (that is, belonging to the nation that is a theocracy) is of no value if one’s heart is far from doing what is right. Rather, inward circumcision (that is, the desire to do what is right by God) by the Spirit of God is what enables and, yes, compels a man to walk uprightly. When you have a non-theocratic society/culture filled with people who have inward circumcision, it will be much more lawful than the society/culture that is a theocracy, but which is only circumcised outwardly and not inwardly.

I’ll give you an example: consider how the Muslim countries have seen riot after riot when someone with any amount of press dares to insult their faith. Draw Muhammed? Incite a riot. Name a teddy bear Muhammed? Incite a riot. Burn a Koran? Incite a riot. And during these riots, it is a documented fact that Muslims were falling victim to other Muslims and dying. (not saying we should be going by the Koran, as discussed in points 1 and 2 above, just making the point that their own law has penalties against murder, and yet there you go) Compare that with the Christian reaction to the “Piss Christ”, the so-called “art” of a crucifix in a bottle of urine from a couple years back. Peaceful expression of disagreement – that is, no riots – and no one died.

Ok, so the balance of what I’m aiming at is that theonomy is not going to fix our problems. Or, better said, it would, but that would require a people of circumcised hearts to walk in it. To get circumcised hearts we need God’s mercy on the land, to pour out His Spirit and show people to Christ. His chosen instrument to lead the nations to Christ is the Church, preaching His word, which is the Law (which convicts the heart of sin and our need for a savior) and the Gospel (which is the news of the power of God to save to the uttermost those who draw near to Him in Christ). Paul is right on the money here when he says,

“…for if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” Rom 3:21b-22

My desire (and I think the desire of all understanding Christians) is to see the entire world have such circumcised hearts from saving faith in Jesus; but the accomplishment of this is not by might, nor by power (as in the Islamic paradigm), but by God’s Spirit. The very Spirit, incidentally, who appears as a dove – the symbol of peace – at Jesus’ baptism; and indeed He works neither by coercion nor by any kind of force, but simply by the proclamation of the word of God, which is why the freedom of speech is so precious to Christians, because as long as we have that, we have all that is needed.

So, the bottom line for me at this point is that God’s laws do show us what makes good policy (all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work – 2 Tim 16-17), but all the good policy in the world will not avail us when the people it is supposed to govern only desire what is evil. Kinda like the gun laws debates of our time, where it is rightly pointed out that making laws prohibitive against owning weapons will not stop the criminals, who will break the law anyway. Laws only work for law-abiding citizens. When you have an entire nation of criminals who only want to do what is right in their own eyes, laws are to no avail, however good and right they might be.

And for the record, I actually think the Constitution is a fantastic example of taking the truths of God’s word to craft a system of government to oversee policy and codifying it for modern use. But it has to be understood that way, or the anarchy of men’s hearts WILL be the ruin of our nation. To again quote John Adams, who is right in line with my perspective here: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

Tom:
By the way, I’ve been thinking about this through the day, and I just wanted to point out that we’ve made somewhat of a shift from talking about the moral law to the civil law (and I’ve probably been guilty of mixing these categories in my own talking on it so far).

The distinction needs to be kept in mind, because not all civil laws are in-and-of-themselves “moral” per se (the law to put a fence on the roof is not because fence roofs are a moral absolute, though it is and must be based on a moral precept – protecting life), and not all moral laws should be incorporated into the civil law (looking at another with lust is immoral, but from a legislative perspective good luck enforcing that in any way).

This adds a whole different dimension to things, but I’ll leave that for later.

Jordan:
Thanks Thomas. I just finished reading through your posts and I appreciate your being so thorough. There is a lot to chew here so I will process it and respond as soon as I can. I will say that off the bat I find your response very reasonable and your conclusions with regard to theocratic governance seem to be in line with how I feel about the topic. I’ll be more in-depth as soon as I can take the time to write a worthwhile response to each point made.

Tom:
Sounds good man. And I’ll get to the other stuff you said above once this very busy week is behind me!

Tom:
Caught up, finally! This one will be in several installments too.

________________________________________________________

I’m not arguing whether or not it will have an impact upon your individual life. The life of the culture? That’s a different story. The lives of your children who grow up in that culture? That too. And what of Christian churches who continue to refuse to recognize it on religious grounds? Will there be lawsuits? You bet. Will there be hell to pay? You bet. This has much more far-reaching ramifications than you seem to want to grant. The fact is that once it is recognized as “marriage” there will be no dissent allowed, and no quarter given to those who dare to read aloud Biblical passages addressing it (as in Canada: http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/ ). Yes, we do see through a different lens here, and that is ok, but I’m begging you not to simply shrug it off as a trivial matter.

Besides, “I don’t care, it doesn’t affect me,” is not a meaningful argument in any sphere of morality. It might have some limited application in administration of civil law, but if such a thing as objective morality exists, then whether you care or not of whether it does or does not directly affect you is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether it is in fact moral or immoral.

Tom:

//” Incestuous relationships in fact are hurting somebody, because of the negative effects of inbreeding, along with the likelihood of psychological damage to at least one party (as many incestuous relationships may be the result of abuse), and including the physiological damage of the offspring of continual incestuous unions.”//

Several things.

1) I note your objections to incestuous relationships to be based upon the premise that they are hurting somebody (see the next section for my comments on that), and you break down the specific types of harm as follows: A. negative effects of inbreeding. B. psychological damage (unclear whether you mean from prior abuse that led to incestuous behavior, or that the incestuous relationship itself may be abusive [such as a father/daughter scenario]). I consider your last clause to fall under “A”.

2) Re: “A” (the negative effects of inbreeding) it’s simple. Mandatory sterilization for the couple as a requirement to wed. Two close relatives show up to get their marriage certificate, and must provide proof of such sterilization. Not an issue in the slightest. Or, failing that, it seems like you are at least leaving the door open to same-sex incest, by your reasoning here, right? No inbreeding to worry about there!

3) Re: “B” (the psychological damage to at least one party) I would like to try once again to call you to consistency here. There are many reasons to believe that many (most?) homosexual urges are the result of abuse ( http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/childhood-sexual-abuse-and-male-homosexuality/ ), not to mention that many homosexual relationships themselves are abusive (Jerry Sandusky, need I say more?). If homosexuality is not thus ruled out on those grounds, as you are trying to rule out incest because of them, what accounts for the difference?

4) Let’s up the ante and also point out all of the physical damage homosexuality doles out on those who practice it. ( http://www.home60515.com/4.html ) Surely that is hurting somebody? Or consider the negative consequences adoption by homosexual couples has on children. ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/96719068/Regnerus-Study ) Surely that is hurting somebody? Again, what I’m seeing here is a double standard. Why are you not applying the same set of standards to homosexuality that you use to rule out incest?

Tom:

//”The biggest issue here, is no one is calling for incest marriage.”//

Behold: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/legalize-incest-suggestion-shocks-lawmakers

(Sorry to throw all those links at you man. I don’t expect you to follow all of them, I just like to make citations to back myself up on some of this stuff so it’s on the record that I’m not making stuff up)

As for the logical fallacy assertion, here is what the website says:

“You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.”

The example offered? “Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.”

That’s not my argument. If you’ll look back, you’ll see that my argument is:

“X is considered a meaningful argument in favor of homosexuality.
X is equally applicable to incest as to homosexuality.
Therefore, X should be considered a meaningful argument in favor of incest.”

BUT, it’s not, for some reason. What I’m identifying is a double-standard, NOT a slippery slope.

Tom:

//////”I think the root of our disagreement on this issue is how we perceive homosexuality. A lot of people consider sexual orientation a choice, such as choosing to love a monkey or your sister or something. I’m not convinced that there aren’t more things at play than just a preference—there may be more going on with these individuals’ biology that led to their sexual orientation. The fact is I don’t know—as a heterosexual it makes no sense to me why someone would choose to be gay, and I have no idea what their individual life experiences were that led to who they are. However, in either case, as long as their actions don’t affect me directly, it’s really not an issue for me that they be happy in their relationships.”//////

Forgive me a cavalier response, but it’s probably something more going on in a murderer’s biology that led to their desire to kill (Adam Lanza would be a candidate for that, lemme tell ya). Does that therefore excuse the action, or mean that it wasn’t a “choice”? I mean, you are using an argument here that, if applied to any other moral question (stealing, rape, you name it), would be instantly recognized as utterly irrelevant. Or, short of that, only relevant to the point where we ask whether we should have a little more mercy on that person since they had a defect that led down that path. But the one thing it would never do is legitimize the action itself, or even, God-forbid, normalize it.

And also I will note again what seems to be the theme you are running on, your core ideology as far as I can tell, “as long as their actions don’t affect me directly.” I wonder, are you a fan of John Stuart Mill? It’s interesting to me that in the first place above you argue that since homosexual “marriage” won’t hurt /you/ it should be allowed to carry on. Then you argued that if incestuous relationships are hurting somebody else (one would assume not you based on the phrasing) it is bad (wrong?). You seem to be working off of some form of the harm principle; help me understand your paradigm here, because I can’t tell if you’re being consistent.

The problem is that you’re still positing that morality has a source outside of you as an individual; i.e. one that is objective. You reject God as the source, and you tell me you reject society as the source as well, but unless you yourself are the source (and even if so, but that is to complicate things unnecessarily at this point) then it still fits neatly as “X” in your paradigm. That is, “if ‘X’ sets the standard for morality, then we do not make moral determinations or moral judgements, X does, and we are simply following its decree. So, if X decides that torturing children is something that we should do, how would you know if this is ‘good’ or not? By definition (X’s standards are intrinsically moral), this would make this action automatically moral.”

Point being, the only thing that resolves this tension is a God who is in His very nature GOOD. And that means a source of morality that is neither arbitrary, nor subordinate to an external source of goodness, but rather is by nature entirely good, and issues decrees that are perfectly consistent with that nature of goodness (for God cannot deny Himself, 2 Tim 2:13).

So what objective standard are you setting forth, anyway?

And as to your “how do you know which is right and wrong?” question at the end, I think I’ve addressed that since you posted it. If you need elaboration please let me know.

Jordan:
Doh! I’ve been drowning in work this week. I should have some time this weekend to sit down and address the points you’ve raised.

Tom:
Right on man. Take your time.

fin

_________________________________

And that’s where it sits for now.  Hope someone finds it worthwhile enough to have even read to this point!

Gay Mirage Conversations pt.1

Back in March I had a facebook conversation with some friends pertaining to the Supreme Court’s announcement that they would be hearing (and have now recently ruled on) several cases on gay mirage (not a typo, thank Doug Wilson).  It was a pretty good back-and-forth, if I do say so myself, so rather than let it all get lost forever on facebook’s impossible-to-navigate timeline, I’m putting it up here.

(Sorry about the length; I will be putting it up in 2 separate posts to cut down on that)

It all started when I posted this link, saying it was the most cogent thing I’d seen on the subject…

______________________

Jon:
So we should ban same-sex marriage because it would offend your religion? I didn’t realize we had removed the First Amendment.

Tom:
I don’t recall making that statement, and I don’t find it in the article.

Jon:
“To do that, they must reject the natural law, the Old Testament, the New Testament and more than 2,000 years of Western tradition. They must teach that the God of Genesis, who created all things, was wrong about marriage. They must teach that Jesus Christ was wrong about marriage.” – sure seems like it to me.

Tom:
You should have included the next paragraph as well: “And they must teach that the Declaration of Independence was wrong when it insisted our rights come from our Creator.”

He’s not making an argument based on an “offense” to this-or-that religion, but on the same premise that the Declaration of Independence uses to argue for inalienable rights. Deny that premise, and you lose inalienable rights. That’s the point.

Jimmy:
God’s judgement is all that matters in the end.

Jon:
The First Amendment still says that the government cannot establish or prohibit a religion. The government banning same-sex marriage because of religious arguments is unconstitutional. The rights and benefits that accompany marriage should either be equally applied or not applied at all. The government should marry same-sex couples or not marry anybody.

Tom:
Who’s making a religious argument? I’m making a philosophical one. Tell me, how do you account for inalienable rights?

And for the record, for my part I’d prefer if the Federal Government would back the heck off on the question of marriage and leave it to the States; so, the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply.

Jon:
Your “philosophical” argument is just an excuse to shoehorn religion into law. Denying that is just silly.

Tom:
Jon, have you ever read the founders on religion? Or the part it played in the Declaration and the Constitution? Cause it seems like you think they are sterile secular documents. Heck, even the 1st Amendment had a religious basis (i.e. the founders believed that the God of the Bible did not want belief in Him imposed by force or coercion on others).

But I notice you avoided my question, so I’ll repeat myself: how do you account for inalienable rights in a secular system?

Kurt:
I felt like this was also fairly cogent.
Homosexual Marriage is an Insult to Homosexuals 

Jon:
Unalienable rights are quite easy to account for. Every human has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We shouldn’t need religion to keep us in line with that extremely basic morality.

As to the religious views of the founders, Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a deist. He believed that God existed but didn’t really play a role in our lives.

Tom:
You just asserted the rights, you didn’t account for them. Let’s simplify this to the question of right to life: why is it wrong to murder someone?

That’s a pretty simplistic view of Jefferson. Church now, more to say later.

Interesting article, Kurt, thanks for sharing!

Tom:
Ok Jon, try this:

“The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809

That’s Jefferson endorsing the discourses of Jesus, including the one where He defines marriage as between a man and a woman (Chapter 11 of the Jefferson bible). Yes, Jefferson was kinda weird about the miracles and the Deity of Christ, but he was absolutely ENAMORED with the morality of the Bible, and recommended it highly.

Tom:
That said, you might be interested in this quote by John Adams:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

Jordan:
Where in the Bible does Jesus discuss marriage between one man and one woman–and where does he discuss homosexuality at all?

I’ll just butt in to say that there is no evidence to confirm that the founding fathers were certainly Christian, nor that the founding documents are based on the Christian faith. Jefferson may have liked a lot about the Bible and what Jesus said, but he did not endorse Christianity as the basis for the government of the United States.

You can argue philosophy all day, but the wall of separation between Church and State is explicit in the Constitution.

Most of the founding fathers were on the deist perspective of God and less on the Christian perspective. But even if they were, it would not matter, since the Constitution explicitly separates church and state. Making laws based on religious belief is unconstitutional.

With regard to states rights–there are federal benefits to marriage, so ‘leave it to the states’ is fine, if you will leave every part of marriage to the states. Currently the federal government recognizes only certain marriages–this violates the principles of equality.

Regardless of most Christians’ assertion that we are ‘founded on Christian principles’, this is simply not the case. Where does Christianity assert a democratic republic as an acceptable form of government?

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible…Some books on Deism fell into my hands…It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared much stronger than the refutations; in short I soon became a thorough deist.”

-Benjamin Franklin, “Toward the Mystery” (autobiography)

“When the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice….he never did say a word of it in any of his public papers…Governor Morris has often told me that General Washington believed no more of that (Christian) system than he himself did.

-Thomas Jefferson, diary entry, 2/1/1799

“I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten…The delusion…on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favourite hope of an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own…the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion of their hopes and they (the preachers) believe that any portion of power confided to me (such as being elected president), will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: FOR I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD, ETERNAL HOSTILITY AGAINST EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN.”

-Thomas Jefferson, personal letter to Benjamin Rush (all-caps are also on Jefferson memorial)

Jon:
It just IS wrong to murder somebody. If somebody needs God to keep them from murdering, then they’re a pretty terrible person. Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on morals.

Tom:
Jordan, I’m not denying a deistic perspective on the part of several founders (I think “most” is quite a stretch), I’m saying that they got their morality from the Bible, and that’s pretty well attested. And I don’t find the phrase “separation of Church and State” in the Constitution, rather, when I study the 1st Amendment I find it to be more about keeping the State out of the Church, not the Church out of the State. They didn’t want a repeat of the Church of England, and the Bill of Rights was written to restrict the Government from having tyranny over the people, not to keep the people from influencing their government.

And founded on Christian principles does not mean we need a text establishing a democracy, that would be like saying that Darwin didn’t teach evolution since that word is not in the first printing of “On the Origin of Species.” The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are Christian principles, as is the depravity of man, all of which are fundamental to the founding.

Tom:
As I thought, Jon, you’re stuck at bare assertion. I could do likewise and just say, “It just IS wrong to engage in homosexual activity. If somebody needs God to keep them from engaging in homosexual activity, then they’re a pretty terrible person.”* Would that make my case? No? Then why should I take your word for it on murder? Hitler thought it was a fantastic idea to commit genocide; what makes him wrong and you right? Can you do better than arbitrary assertion?

*(disclaimer: not saying homosexuals are terrible people here, just using your construction for maximum impact)

Jordan:
Woah Godwin’s law and the moral argument already?

The idea that separation of church and state is not what the founders intended is objectively false. Jefferson makes this abundantly clear when he talks about the wall of separation.

When did Christianity have a monopoly on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Prior to the US founding, Christianity taught that monarchy was Gods preferred method of governance. A religion cannot claim a monopoly on such abstract ideas as they are found elsewhere in other religions and in philosophy.

Tom:
lol, It serves to make the point, insert your own example if you like.

So let’s run with that, does it mean that Christians can’t hold office or vote their principles? Because that’s what I see this coming down to.

Ah, so as long as the ideas are not unique to a single religion, they get a pass when it comes to the separation of Church and State? That’s interesting, since teaching against homosexuality is not unique to Christianity. Islam does, Judaism does, Buddhism does. Heck, even neoDarwinianism does insofar as the only “morality” in that system is to pass on your genes to the next generation or die trying. So I guess this isn’t quite the separation issue ya’ll keep saying it is. From what I am seeing (and please correct me of any misapprehensions), your end-game here is that only secular ideals get to make policy, and others be damned, whoever they may be.

So let’s refocus on that. That is, why is it only secular ideals that get to make policy, even if, democratically speaking, they get voted down in favor of traditional morality, as in prop 8 in California? And of course I still await Jon’s answer on morality.

Jordan:
Thomas, that’s a straw man.

No one says that Christians can’t hold office or that they can’t vote their ideals. Where it becomes a problem is when voting their ideals keeps keeps others from having equal rights,

Some examples include slavery and segregation. At the time, the major arguments for maintaining them were religious ones. In retrospect, this way of thinking is wrong because it keeps people from being treated equally by the government. That’s where the line is drawn.

“…ALL MEN are created equal..” – does this mean it’s okay to deny some men/women the same rights as you because you disagree with their lifestyle choices? Nope.

Tom:
It’s not a straw man, it’s illustrative. I’m saying we have 2 people here who differ in their idea of what is moral. The question is who is right, and I’m asking if Jon can tell me without resorting to “well, I just am.”

Equal rights are already in place. I can marry a woman, not a man, and the same is true of any other American man. And just by invoking “rights” you open the door right back to the question of what they are and where they come from. I do not accept bare assertion as a foundation for rights.

Pseudo religious, I would argue. After all, it was religion – Christianity – that was largely responsible for emancipation. Christians were behind the abolition of the British slave trade and the underground railroads, for instance. But that is to distract from the point, which is…

…equal rights are already in place, as already stated. I haven’t heard from you or Jon a foundation for a right of same sex “marriage” so-called, or any right for that matter. It’s all ipse dixit so far. Tell me, how do you derive gay marriage from “all men are created equal?”

Jon:
Thomas, Hitler was a “Christian”. Also, in the Old Testament God loves committing genocide.

As to the secular origins of morality, humans have a biological imperative to be moral. Our ability to be social creatures who can work together to a degree unmatched by other species has given us a clear evolutionary advantage. People evolved to exhibit social (being kind to one another, not murdering, etc.) behaviors. Antisocial (murder, assault, rape, etc.) behaviors still exist, but we are moral creatures at our core.

Jordan:
By that logic, we had equal marriage rights under the law when we couldn’t have interracial marriage.

Every man is free to marry a woman within his race. That’s equal, isn’t it?

I also said that arguments for slavery and segregation were religious ones, not that they represented a correct view of Christianity or that all Christians believed that. Another bonus of separation of church and state is it keeps pseudoreligious ideas at bay.

I’ll respond to the moral argument in a minute when I’m not on my phone.

Tom:
Sorry for the delay folks, no internet at the apartment right now so I get on when I can.

Jon… that’s a whole discussion in and of itself, but noting my disagreement will have to suffice for now.

So morality is just a biological chemical reaction? If I shake up Sprite and Mentos on one hand, and vinegar and baking soda on the other, one can fizz the right way and the other can fizz the wrong way?

Or, to be a bit more charitable, are you saying morality is just whatever increases survival odds of the species as a whole? If that’s the case, why don’t we kill off the disabled, or at least forcibly sterilize them so that they don’t use our resources and create more disabled who can be an even bigger drag on our resources? You’re going to have to be more clear.

Tom:
Jordan… not at all, because miscegenation does not fundamentally alter the definition of marriage – once universally held to be between members of opposite sex with at least the ostensible capacity for procreation. To say that there is such a thing as gay “marriage” one has to accept a definition based on an association marked by abstract feelings and a malleable concept of “family”. Tell me, how do you define, “marriage”? And what word should we use for a contractual 2 party relationship between members of the opposite sex with the ostensible capacity for procreation, in your view? Because with all the other distinctions our wonderful language can make, you’d think there would be a unique label for that. Start applying that label too loosely and you have to recognize the potential for an Orwellian style “Newspeak” where to make right and proper distinctions is frowned upon and even prosecuted.

But see, secular regimes can also mean trouble for “equal rights,” so again the question presents itself, where do these human rights come from? And really that is the only question. If the article and the Founders are right, and they come from God, then to assert a right that God has not given (and calls an outright immorality) is to say that the government (in this case democratic, at least in theory) can create them out of whole cloth. And once you make the government the arbiter of rights instead of the respecter of them, it can take them away.

So, I think this is the moral argument you said you would get to, but I’m interested to know the answer: how do you derive gay marriage from “all men are created equal?”

A Nation of Schizophrenics

Schizophrenia: a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception,inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and sense of mental fragmentation.
(in general use) a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements.

_______________________________________________

When my brother and I were kids, we’d sometimes get treated to family trips to the Omniplex (now Science Museum Oklahoma).  We’d go on a saturday and look at all the fancy plastic dioramas of how the earth supposedly looked 5 million, 10 million, 100 million years ago, and marvel at what a different place it was, totally taken in by the presentation.  My dad would point out that there was no such thing as even a million year old earth (and we’d go to church the next day and hear that message reaffirmed), and we believed this fervently as well.

We had what can be called a “felicitous inconsistency”, and that with minimal to no cognitive dissonance.  That is: totally trusting in two blatantly contradictory versions of history, completely and simultaneously, questioning neither.

It might sound impossible that we could at one moment believe both the diorama in front of us, and our father behind us, both presenting their opposing messages into our little skulls full of mush at the same time.  Obviously this would require that we refrain from holding the competing ideas next to one another in order to recognize that only one can be true at a time; this is what happened, and it truly was a feat.

But we did it, thanks to compartmentalization.  We mentally filed the diorama under “physical science facts”, and my dad’s words under “religious facts”, so that the two existed in separate realms, safely removed from ever having to interact.  And yes, as you might have surmised, we were also the kids whose peas and carrots had to be safely corralled on separate sides of the plate.

We’ve grown past this for the most part, praise be to God, and thanks to the worldview training of our parents have realized that all facts (natural science, religious, or otherwise) belong to God, since He created all that is.  And, as a result, every fact bears a relation to every other fact if only in the reality that they are created by and belong to God.  This realization avoids the radical compartmentalization and resultant dissociation of facts that characterizes the mind of a schizophrenic.

Unfortunately, it seems that as we were maturing and leaving behind our childish thinking, the western world (and I usually talk specifically about America while recognizing that we are but one part of that world) has by-and-large returned to it.  This is most especially clear in the rulers and judges of our land.  In the words of Isaiah 3:12, “My people – infants are their oppressors…”

Examples could be multiplied until we’re here all day, but permit me one paragraph of illustration.

Commonly used though it is, the phrase “you can’t judge me, I was born this way” carries no freight in a nation that has killed millions before they could even be born.  We’ll kill a baby while it’s still in the womb for a physical defect, but if we object to a moral defect in a person who has been born for years we are told that that birth is so important as to sanctify their behavior.  And for all the demagoguing about how we “deny citizen status to millions of ‘undocumented’ individuals'”, we routinely deny citizenship to millions more who want to enter – not one more country among many – but the world of the living.

Is there any word for this but schizophrenic?

 

Why I Want To Be “Seeker-Sensitive”

Much ado has been made in contemporary American Christianity regarding the idea of being “seeker-sensitive”.  That is, the idea promoted in pop-evangelical circles that the Church must reach out to the unchurched (unwashed [i.e. unbaptized]?) masses in a manner sensitive to their “felt needs.”  Often this takes the form of knocking on doors in the community to poll folks about what they want in a church, and then incorporating those suggestions into their practice in the hopes of drawing more members in.

It’s no secret that this practice has tended towards supremely absurd results.  Chris Rosebrough documents them regularly on his radio program, for those who are curious.  And anyone who has done much reading on this (woefully neglected) blog certainly knows of my own distaste for such things.

However, deep as my disapproval of the pop-evangelical practice referred to as being “seeker-sensitive” is, I can’t help but approve of the phrase itself.  I hear people on my side utter those words with a sneer or a sigh, but I find myself wanting to use the phrase positively.  See, it’s not a bad idea to be seeker-sensitive really, so long as we’re clear on the identity of the seeker, and the nature of that which is sought.  Unfortunately, that’s just where we often get things wrong.

Scripture tells us that “None is righteous, no not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Rom 3:10b-12; bold mine) When we imagine the unchurched to be in the position of “seeker” and God in the position of “sought”, we deny these very words.

Scripture presents the opposite paradigm altogether, as we see in Ezekiel 34:16a, when the LORD says: “I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed..”  Or in Jesus’ words to Zacchaeus: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Lk 19:10)  The Biblical image is of God as the seeker, and his lost ones (sheep, coins, sons) as the sought.

Now I will ask, in light of this understanding, who wouldn’t want to be seeker-sensitive?  And in this seeker-sensitive model, it’s not the straying pseudo-seekers calling the shots, but the true Shepherd and Overseer of souls Himself.

Being truly seeker-sensitive, then, means being sensitive to what precisely is being sought by God.  As stated above, the basic answer is people.  But I think further reflection will be required to flesh this out.  God is looking for a specific type of people: His people.

What this means, and particularly what it means for us who desire to be seeker-sensitive, will have to wait for another post.

Does the internet have a non-smoking section?

One of the most interesting passages to me in the Gospel according to Mark has always been ch. 14 vv. 57-59.

And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even about this their testimony did not agree.

Which is of course because it reminds one of John 2:19, where we do indeed find Jesus saying something very much like this:

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

And yet these witnesses are still called “false.”  Even though they’re talking about an event that really did happen, at least in some sense.*  Why?

Because one does not need to make up bogus stories out of whole cloth to be a false witness.  No, they only need to twist a true story just enough off of it’s foundations that the import of it is perceived differently, more negatively, than it should by rights have been.  They only need to change a word or two – or even none, if the backdrop and context of the words can be changed instead – that were spoken so that the substance of the message is altered in order to condemn the innocent.  On the whole, a structure composed of the girders of actions and words may be left very much intact by the false witness, who only needs to erect a different facade for people to view it through.

This is what I find so frustrating about trying to communicate in our age: the proliferation of false witnesses.  As I listen to talk radio, read facebook exchanges, peruse blog comments, and just generally experience the world, I see a lot of people perfectly willing to twist what has been said and done to allow for the worst of possible interpretations, just to have ammo for their pet cause.  Just to rally their base.  Just to condemn the innocent, to diminish their neighbor, so that they might increase and justify themselves.

I love Martin Luther’s explanation to the 8th Commandment in his small catechism:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

“What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, nor defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.”

It cuts through all of the excuses of someone who is not speaking rightly about their neighbor, yet claiming to be no false witness.  It points out that the need to speak rightly about one’s neighbor does not mean finding the worst, most offensive way possible to interpret their words, much less when this involves putting additional words in their mouth (again as per Jesus’ accusers).  But it also points out that slandering him under the pretext of “using his own words” – when those words are placed in an interpretive paradigm wholly foreign to their speaker’s intended use by him who wishes to find fault in them at all costs – is likewise off base.

The best construction is to be placed on everything.  We are to show mercy and seek to understand one another.  Misrepresenting one’s neighbor in any capacity, even if you feel he is on the wrong side of an issue, amounts to bearing false witness.  So let’s call the folks of our age (and ourselves) to a higher standard.  Because the smoke from all these straw men is making my eyes water.

________________________________________________

*In Jesus’ trial, his accusers made it to sound as though he threatened to break down Herod’s temple himself, and raise another, different one in its place.  This was a spin on Jesus’ actual statement, where he bid his questioners among the Jews to be the ones to destroy “this temple” (a covert reference to his body we are told by John), and promised that that which he raised would be the same one as that which was destroyed, not another as his accusers plainly made him out to have said.  But the fact remains, the false witnesses were appealing to an event that had actually happened, and words that had actually been said, to make their case.  The falseness came in how they fabricated a way to twist the words and add in their own to the mix to make them malicious in nature and to condemn the innocent.

3 Thoughts on Eschatology

Eschatology is not an issue I have sought to do much thinking and study on in my lifetime.  Admittedly, I tend not to have much patience for theoreticals, which is to me what eschatology tends to be full of.  Furthermore, the realm of eschatology has been so inundated with wide-eyed crackpot speculations in our time, and it really seems that the predominant category of people interested and invested in studying eschatology anymore is filled with people who end up displaying cult-like behavior; or, at the very least, tend to be a little too high strung.  And no one wants to be that guy.

As a result, I’m not very hip to the eschatology terms.  I have a very general understanding of what it means to be an amillennialist (like I consider myself), premillenialist, and postmillenialist, but once you start talking dispensational, preterist, futurist, and et cetera and so on, I’m just kind of sitting here playing with my lip.

On the other hand, this is an important issue, and one that does end up impacting my pet subject, apologetics, in different ways.  For this reason, I have spent a fair amount of time in the past year thinking about how to think about eschatology in preparation for maybe tackling the subject a bit more wholeheartedly in the future (and I’ll probably start with Kim Riddlebarger’s stuff – from what I’ve heard from him he seems to be in the same general place as me).  For this post, I wanted to go ahead and address 3 things that I tend to hear a lot in the amillenialist circles in which I run when this subject comes up, and which I have come to disagree with during my thinking – kind of as a way to dip my foot in the river really.  Constructive criticisms are of course welcome.

 1) “I don’t see the point in thinking or talking about eschatology; doesn’t it just stir up fear and distract from Christ?”

This is the kind of statement I have a lot of sympathy for.  In the first place, I’ve already pointed out above that a lot of eschatological discussions in our time tend to happen with wide eyed men who you are fairly convinced own a subterranean bunker stocked with mostly expresso and are clearly more interested and predicting and surviving the apocalypse than finding comfort in Christ.  At least in my limited experience.

However, I absolutely reject the idea that talk of and study of eschatology must necessarily devolve into head-for-the-hills panic and to forgetting Christ’s place as ruler of all things.  For one thing, why did God see fit to inspire such prophesies in the first place if by looking into them we automatically drift from our proper roots?

But to me it comes down to this: how are we to approach prophetic texts which are not full of warm fuzzies?  I propose we let Jesus teach us.

In Luke chapter 21 we have Christ instructing about bad things to come.  He talks about the destruction of the temple, and of Jerusalem, and many would also see connections to the end of this world as well.  He says,

There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Truly terrifying stuff is being predicted here.  Yet after all of this we have what should be read as words of comfort.

And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.

I think all study of eschatology needs to focus on this, first and foremost, and over and over throughout.  The truth is that, whatever the days to come might look like, we are promised that even the most terrifying happenings are to us a sign that our redemption is near at hand.  What that does is dispel fear by the very fact that it points us to the Son of Man who is our redemption.

2) “Most of what we think of as end-time prophesies were fulfilled almost immediately after they were written.”*

I’ve heard this one a lot, often followed by, “and the only prophesy left to be fulfilled is for Jesus to come back and the resurrection to commence.”  As indicated by the fact that I’ve put it in this list, I think it is overly simplistic, at best, and downright misleading at worst.

One example of this is those who say that the Beast of Revelation fame is Nero, the 1st century Roman Caesar.  This is because the name of Nero Caesar (in Greek) transliterated into Hebrew has the numeric value 666 (or 616 for the Latin name transliterated, which some manuscripts reflect).  Fair enough, I agree.  But upon these grounds an eschatological fulfillment of the beast is said by some to be ruled out.  It refers singularly to Nero, it will be said, and cannot be applied to any other – final days – entity.

My problem with this idea stems from being someone who has done a lot of reading on Jewish apologetics, along with some limited discussion with Jewish folk.  What I find is that to adopt this method of reading and interpreting Biblical prophesy virtually undercuts my ability to use Old Testament prophetic texts which point to Christ; and not only mine but the New Testament writers’ use as well.  Let’s make Isaiah 7:14b the example.

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew in ch. 1 vv. 22-23 tells us that the birth of Jesus was in fulfillment of this prophesy.  However, if you try to raise this text with a Jew who denies that Jesus is the Christ the answer you will get is that, no, it couldn’t be so, because the fulfillment of the prophesy actually takes place in the very next chapter of Isaiah, where in the 3rd verse we read:

And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son.

Like it or not, I think we forfeit an important argument against this (and other such texts the Jews say were fulfilled much before Christ) if we read Biblical prophesy with a short-term one-and-done type of paradigm.**  Rather, what we have to get our Jewish friend to recognize is that Biblical prophesies are often given with a short-term “incomplete” fulfillment, which serves as a “type” of the greater fulfillment which is to come.

And this is something the Jewish people have recognized at least as far back as the Exodus, when Moses had prophesied of a prophet like him to come who would lead the people (Deut 18:15-18).  They recognized that this was not merely fulfilled in Joshua, who assumed command after Moses.  Nor indeed merely in the prophets to come later – even Elijah or Elisha.  Certainly they were all types and shadows, fulfilling in part but pointing forward to a still greater and final fulfillment to come, which many Jews even today would claim for the Messiah.

Therefore, I think we need to be cautious in limiting a text to a short-term fulfillment and utterly voiding the possibility of an eschatological fulfillment.  That’s not to say that we can’t ever look at a prophetic text and say that it is as fulfilled as fulfilled can be – I think we certainly could in the case of Isaiah 53, among many others.  But it is to say that there needs to be an awareness of the existence of types and shadows in these matters, and ruling out an eschatological fulfillment on the grounds that X, Y, or Z happened in the short-term does not necessarily always follow, since (again) it may be that the short-term fulfillment was simply a prefiguring of a later, greater fulfillment.

3) “Don’t read the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other when it comes to prophesy.”

I can actually completely agree, or strongly disagree with this statement, depending upon the direction it is aimed.

If, for instance, the point is that we should not become like William Tapley, trying to read waayyyyy too far between the lines and losing the forest for the Ents, then I agree wholeheartedly and in an unqualified manner.

If, on the other hand, the idea is that there is no point upon which Biblical prophesy can instruct us as to the signs of the times we are currently in, then I think Jesus’ words to the Pharisees and Sadducees when they demanded signs of him serve as an appropriate response.

He answered them,
“When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’  You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.”
– Matthew 16:2-3

Here’s the thing: if we grant my premises as expounded above – namely that there are quite possibly prophetic texts yet to be fulfilled in an ultimate sense – then it follows that when the time comes for their fulfillment the signs will be public.  Might even make the nightly news, so to speak.

But again, this is not to encourage massive speculation and paranoid news checking (see point 1 above).  There have been certain members of every generation since Christ to think that they live in the last days.  And of course, in one sense they were all correct (Hebrews 1:1-2), but so far none have been correct who have speculated on the imminent return of Christ in their lifetimes.  Maybe the current generation’s speculators will be, but just as likely not.

At any rate, my point here is that I think it’s a mistake to rule out prophetic eschatological fulfillments showing up in the paper and being recognized as such (if such they truly are) by Christians.  However it must be stressed that Biblical prophesy tends to be most clear in the rearview mirror, and chicken-littleism is definitely to be discouraged.

Anyway, that’s my foray into the world of eschatology for now.  Overall I think I’ll stick with apologetics, but I hope my preliminary thoughts on eschatology are either worth something when it comes to my personal building a foundation for later study, or else quickly corrected by someone with more learning so I don’t get further afield than I need to if they aren’t.

____________________________________________

*Admittedly, not all amillenialists say this (though Hank Hanegraaff does, and as he claims to be an amillenialist I think a lot of people just follow him here), and to my knowledge it is more strongly pushed by preterists and so-called partial-preterists (which is about all I know regarding preterism).

**Granted that in the case of this text we are still left with the argument that the Hebrew “almah” should be understood to mean a virgin, and therefore cannot be referring in principle to Isaiah’s wife.  Unfortunately, many Jews today prefer to emphasize the fact that “almah” has as its primary reference a young woman of marriageable age and does not necessarily connote virginity, and upon these grounds assert that the prophesy was fulfilled in Isaiah’s son.  It may be rightly pointed out of course that the Septuagint translator(s) of Isaiah thought “virgin” the proper understanding and translated it in the same way as Matthew (parthenos), hundreds of years before Christ, but many Jews today disavow this interpretation to avoid the obvious implications.  That all said, it seems to me that the original Hebrew text leaves room enough for both interpretations: a partial, “near”, fulfillment in Isaiah 8, and a complete, “ultimate”, fulfillment in the advent of Christ.

Darned if you do, darned if you don’t

Just got off the phone with someone very close to me whose brother is in prison.  Apparently he is schizophrenic and today their mother received a very nasty latter from him, as has happened before many times despite the support she gives him.  My mental precesses working the way they do, I immediately reached out for a solution, for a way to fix the situation.

But then I thought again (something that happens with increasing regularity as I age), because there is nothing that will fix it.  Either this woman can distance herself from the son she loves – a sacrifice – in order to preserve her own emotional energies, or she can continue to pour those emotional energies into him in exchange for abuse – another sacrifice.  Either way, sacrifices would have to be made.  Either way, things would be less than, well, perfect.  Actually, they would and do suck.

And this is why I cannot get into a theology of glory, and why I glory in the theology of the cross.  Because either in loving and helping one’s neighbor, or in taking a Sabbath rest to help oneself, there are sacrifices, and perfection of circumstances in this life remains only an expectation of the most zealous idealist.

This is the reality of sin, which poisons everything we do and everything we are like so much atomic fallout since that initial bomb went off in mankind’s long war against God.  Praise God for His Son who comes to save us, not in a HAZMAT suit, but in swaddling clothes, the form of a servant, the likeness of men.  Praise God for Christ Jesus, who comes not in a containment vehicle to shield him from our sickness, but in bread and wine to cure it.