Same-Sex Marriage Legalization

Earlier this week, the United States supreme court ordered that all states within the union now legalize same-sex marriages.  This week, I want to address this issue.

I’ll talk about how the Bible is explicitly against same-sex marriages later, but for now I want to spend some time talking about why I think this shouldn’t be a big deal for the contemporary Christian.

First, we have to realize that there is a difference between legal and ethical laws.  There is a commonwealth in the United States that makes it illegal to buy a bicycle on Sundays, but tricycles are fine.  In certain countries, non-consensual sex between married persons isn’t rape.  In the first case, buying a bicycle or tricycle on a Sunday is not really an ethical question (but obeying a law of government is), and in the latter, I’d (hopefully) think that you’d consider rape in any circumstance as wrong.

So legal and ethical laws don’t always align, but in an American’s pleasantly homogenous and relatively safe experience, we often assume that laws made and enforced by a governing authority are the same.  And that’s not entirely incorrect.

In America, we believe that murder is an objectionable offense; same as theft, rape, sexual assault, and child molestation.  We also believe that people should have the right to speak their mind, to participate in the country’s political arena, and to make a decent living.  How we go about enforcing and monitoring these processes I’ll leave to more informed minds than mine, but the point is that the majority of the laws (I feel) pretty much align with the rights that should be recognized and protected in every individual.  So what about same-sex marriage?

Well, the Bible doesn’t 1) Outline the conduct and behavior of people in a same-sex union, and 2) is directly opposed to same-sex romantic relationships.  So if anyone uses the Bible as their standard of morality, then they can safely assume that same-sex marriages are ethically wrong.  But that doesn’t mean they are legally wrong.

Christians live in a dual existence—we live in the world but we are not of the world.  While the laws in America may have changed to accommodate those who do not wish to follow the Bible, the laws of the Bible itself has not changed.  Same-sex unions are legally permissible but morally illegal.

This brings me to the next point: just because people call themselves Christians doesn’t mean that someone IS a Christian.  I can buy a gun and a set of handcuffs, and then run around telling everyone that I’m a cop, but that doesn’t make me a police officer.  Same thing with being a Christian, and I feel that we can all agree on this: just because you own a Bible, go to church on Sunday, and call yourself a Christian, doesn’t mean that you are a Christian.  Sorry ‘bout that. 

Despite personal statements to one’s religious affiliation, saying that you are a Christian doesn’t make you one, and I think willfully going against what the Bible directly says would certainly be a blatant black mark against any statement you could make to the contrary.  But this doesn’t help the majority of the Christian population: What can the contemporary Christian do with people who have a union recognized by the state as a marriage?  1 Corinthians 5:12 says:

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?  Are you not to judge those inside?”

If you’re not a Christian, then I can’t hold you to the same standards as one.  That’s like trying to give a red card from soccer to someone who’s playing golf: those rules just don’t apply.

What’s more is that the verse after 1 Corinthians 5:13 gives us detail on how to react to people doing things contrary to God’s laws, and who is responsible for enforcing them.

“God will judge those outside.  Expel the wicked person from among you.”

Someone’s doing something contrary to God’s directives?  Let God handle it.  Someone calling themselves a Christian but doing decidedly un-Christ-like things? Expel them.  Of course, there is a difference between a wicked person and someone deeply mistaken, and there is a method and a process that needs to be done before disfellowshipping someone, but my main point remains true: people who don’t belong to Christ can’t be held accountable to God’s laws, and people making direct efforts to go against God’s laws shouldn’t continue communing with God’s Church.

Tomorrow I’ll go back to talking about how awesome Ruth is, but in an effort to stay relevant I had to address this issue.

See you tomorrow.

The Loyalty of Ruth

In last week’s post I described how Ruth trumped Esther in pretty much every category that mattered when it came to who was a better role model.  This week I want to explain why I admire her so much.

To set the scene:

Naomi was married to a dude named Elimelek.  They had two sons (Mahlon and Kilion), who married the Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah.  Through circumstances that aren’t described in the book, all the husbands die, and Ruth and Orpah (not Oprah, though that would’ve been awesome) accompany Naomi to the border of the Moabite lands.

Ruth and Orpah are Naomi’s daughters-in-law, but not even that because they aren’t married to anyone who is related to Naomi.  Despite this, when Naomi encourages her ex-daughters-in-law to leave her, everyone bursts into tears (Ruth 1:9-10, 14).  We don’t know how much time they spent together before their respective husbands died, but we do know that they had a deep relationship and were deeply grieved to be separated.

Orpah leaves Naomi, and returns to her people and gods.  Ruth wants to stay.  Naomi pleads with Ruth, “your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods.  Go back with her.”  Then we hear Ruth’s response, and one of the most beautiful declarations of loyalty in the scriptures:

“Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you.  Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay.  Your people will be my people and your God my God.  Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.  May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.”

Wow.  Just, wow.

Ruth is willing to leave behind everything she knows, either because she is convinced that Naomi’s god is the true God, or that by Naomi’s example she’s become convinced that she must help this wonderful woman.  Both Ruth and Naomi are widows now, and they both know that their lives will be very hard from here on out, yet Ruth’s response isn’t a “let’s pool our resources”, it’s a “I’m sticking with you, whatever the cost, life or death, I’m with you.” 

I think that having someone to constantly back you up isn’t a necessity of life, but it sure helps to know you’ve got someone in your corner, not because they need to be there, but because they want to be.  That’s awesome.

Do you have someone in your life like that?  Someone who says “life or death, I’m with you”?

Are you that type of person to someone else?

We’ll continue talking about Ruth next week.  See you there.

Esther was a punk; Ruth was a CHAMP

I get kinda frustrated and disappointed when I ask one of my sisters-in-christ who their favorite bible character is, and they answer with “Esther”.

Esther, the chick who effectively just stood there and looked pretty for a king so she could get married to him.

Esther, who’s greatest heroic action was to save her people from annihilation (very good), because her uncle Mordecai told her to (well, at least she was dutiful), risking death by approaching the king unsummoned, (okay, that’s heroic), by buttering up the pagan king for three days (okay, less risky), then buttering him up for two more days (alright, much less risky), by asking a favor of the king on behalf of herself and her national-hero uncle (are you serious?), to please, please, please, don’t kill her people.

Really?  That’s your favorite bible character?

Granted, there might be more going on there that I am not aware of, but at least from my cursory look at the circumstances, Esther isn’t really that impressive to me.

Ruth though, hoo boy Ruth.  She’s not just heroic, she’s heroinic.

Let’s start by setting up the scene for you:

Ruth was written after Judges, when the Isrealites were in the Promised Land, but before the coronation of David.  It was believed that Ruth was written in defense of David's right as king.

Ruth was a Moabite, and there was an injunction against Moabites from joining Israel up to the tenth generation.  David was Ruth’s great-grandson, and therefore not technically allowed to join isreal for at least another six generations.  This poses a conundrum to someone who is to be the new leader of Isarel.

But Ruth isn’t your typical Moabite: she abandons her gods, her ancestral home, and her family to stick with her mother-in-law, even after her mother-in-law’s son has died and Ruth has no reason to stay around (indeed, Naomi’s other daughter-in-law, Orpah, leaves Naomi, and Orpah is in deep distress to go, but she still takes her chance to exit when she could). 

Ruth is different: she is deeply convinced that Naomi’s god is the true god, and throughout the narative she understands that she has no right to the benefits available to Abraham’s descendents, and respects that boundary between the two peoples.  The sin of Moab was abandoning the Israelites when they most needed them, the righteousness of Ruth was completely distancing herself from her people, and staying with an Israelite even when she was asked again and again to leave.

A lot of people say God won’t make exceptions to extraordinary people.  For Ruth, God made the exception, and raised one of her descendents to be king of Israel, and later, the King of Kings.

Luke and Matthew record the genealogy of Jesus, and in Matthew (the gospel most likely written for a Jewish audience),Ruth is also included in the in this list (Matthew 1:5).  Most people accuse Christianity and Judiasm as being chauvenistic, but the fact that Matthew included women in the genealogy of the world’s savior shows that these women contributed greatly to the nation of Israel. Compounded with the fact that the genealogy is also pretty much a “highlight reel” of Jesus’s most important ancestors, this doubles the emphasis of Ruth’s importance to Israel’s history and Jesus’s heritage. (Also worth noting is that Esther doesn’t show up in there.)

Ruth was faithful, humble, diligent, and deeply loyal, enough to be included in the genealogy of Jesus and to exempt David from the injunction against the Moabites.  Next week, I’ll show you why this is true.

See you there.

Christians in the Military, Pt 2

Last week we talked about the strong historical evidence of Christians in the military, the reasons why modern-day Christians believe that Christians should be in the military, and that the earliest recorded Christians were unanimously against Christians being the military or committing any violent acts.  This week we’ll look at scriptures that talk about how Christians should conduct themselves in times of war. Let’s begin.

We all know that Christ had two Advents (when he would appear to the world and save it).  The first, obivously, was when God came in human form and died on the cross.  The second will bring an everlasting peace, and when that everlasting peace will come, is more debateable.

All Christians believe that there will be an “End Times”, and that during this period people will live in harmony with each other.

He will judge between the nations
And will settle disputes for many peoples
They will beat their swords into plowshares
Nation will not take up sword against nation
Nor will they train for war anymore.
Isaiah 2:4

The wolf will ive with the lamb,the leopard will lie down with the goat,
The calf and the lion and the yearling together
And a little child will lead them.
Isaiah 11:6

And we also know that after Jesus left for the first time, that there would still be conflict.

You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed.  Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.  Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.  There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
Matthew 24:6-7

So for right now there will be war, but later on there will be peace.  What should a Christian do during times of war?

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’  But I tell you the truth, do not resist an evil person.  If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also.
Matthew 5:38-39

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Matthew 26:52

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world.  If my kingdom were of this world, my servant would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here.
John 18:36

Most perplexing though, is that before Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, he asked his disciples to sell their cloak (a most precious possession if you tend to live outside most of your life) to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38).

Whether this was to allow Jesus to later heal a man who was harmed by Peter so he could say “those who live by the sword will die by the sword”, or that Jesus gave permission for his follows to arm themselves, is not clear to me.  Personally, I’d rather not have to give an accounting to why I killed someone, especially if God holds all life to be sacred.

Next week I’m going to talk about Ruth.  See you there.

Christianity and Military Service

There seems to be a popular view that the Christian thing to do in America is to join the military.  I don’t agree on that.

Let me perface this by saying that two of my uncles (one a drill sergeant, the other a chinook mechanic), an aunt (military police), two cousins (army engineer and medic), my father (twenty years as a forward air controller), my brother (175th and 82nd, airborne/air assault), myself (four years as a navigator), and my great uncle (Marine jet mechanic, and survivor of the Pearl Harbor attacks) were in the military.  I know I’m not the most qualified when it comes to talking about the military, but I think it’s fair to say that I know a thing or two about it.

I think a lot of people believe that Christians can or should join the military because of the culture they grew up with than from an actual biblical basis.  Granted, there are exceptions to this rule (much like any rule being applied to people), and there are some reasonable arguments for Christians in the military, but from my experience it seems like the majority of people who believe this haven’t been exposed to either: they just assumed that’s the Christian thing to do.

There’s also a historical basis to this concept too: the ancient Israelites went to war with many peoples, God is described as a warrior (Exodus 15:3), America decided to violently cede from England because rights “Endowed by Our Creator” were not being recognized, and the Union forces believed that the Civil War was a righteous battle to free the slaves (listen to “The Battle Hymm of the Republic” in this context and you’ll get a deeper understanding to this concept).  Kings, queens, and other royalty believed that they were given permission to rule because of God, and thus spoke for God (hence why they used to the “royal we”), adding another piece of historical evidence of Christians participating in the political process.

It is also worth noting that Mormons accept members of the military (Joseph Smith even died while escaping jail and firing his pistols, and the “Saints and Soldiers” franchise was funded by many Mormons), and CS Lewis stated in Mere Christianity that military was appropriate and that if two Christians killed each other, then because they were obeying the orders above them, they would not be blamed for killing, and would eventually meet each other up in heaven.

The problem, and the main reason why I don’t believe that Christians should participate in the military, is that if you go far back enough, the majority of the Christian writers during the early portion of the Church’s history were unanimously opposed to Christians in the military.  Here’s a list that I’ve found:

• Justin Martyr in 160 CE
• Athenagoras in 175 CE
• Irenaeus in 180 CE
• Clement of Alexandria in 195 CE
• Tertullian in 197 CE (and again in 200 CE and in 207, 211, and 212 CE)
• Origen in 248 CE
• Cyprian in 250 CE
• Lactantius 304-313CE
• Arnobius in 305 CE

Nine different church fathers, across two and a half centuries (longer than America has existed), all of them the closest to the people who heard the words of Jesus himself, all in opposition to war.  David W. Bercot mentions that while Christians DID exist in the military early in the church’s history, they were either converted while serving, and then vowed to not take up the sword, or tried to leave the service shortly after conversion.  If anything, there is an even older tradition of Christian acting as pascifists than as soldiers.

The real crux of the problem is whether or not Jesus felt that the battle for the souls of the world was JUST spiritual, or spiritual AND physical.  The scriptures, unfortunately, are not completely clear on this matter.  And we’ll talk about that next week.  See you there.