A Reminder of Consistency

This morning, I my phone told me to read 1 Samuel 12:1-25.  On Saturday, it ruined the Lochte-Phelps 400 IM race, so it knew I was angry with it.  I think it redeemed itself.  I get impression that folks look at Genesis and Leviticus and see discrepancy in the nature of God between the Old and New Testaments.  My personal opinion is that any sort of legal document is going to be a complicated view of a people.  That's really what Leviticus is, after all. 

The Law was written to show us that God is Holy and we are not.  The rest of the Bible is written, basically, to tell us that the Law is not to be our God.  1 Samuel 12:20-22 illustrates this:

 “Do not be afraid,” Samuel replied. “You have done all this evil; yet do not turn away from the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart. ²¹ Do not turn away after useless idols. They can do you no good, nor can they rescue you, because they are useless. ²² For the sake of his great name the Lord will not reject his people, because the Lord was pleased to make you his own."

Even at this point in God's story, He is telling a story of forgiveness.  ("All this evil" follows a catalogue of the history of defying God from the Exodus forward, culminating in the request for a king.)  Two other places in the Old Testament, in the Minor Prophets (they are minor because they are short and responding to a specific problem, not like the Mediocre Presidents from the Simpsons' musical) we get a little more on the theme:  

 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
    And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
    and to walk humbly^[a] with your God. 

Micah 6:8

and 

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Hosea 6:6

The Hosea verse was even quoted by Jesus at the conclusion of Matthew 9:9-13, a story criticizing the aloofness and exclusion practiced by the Pharisees.  Most importantly, it's a reminder that a relationship with God is accessible; there is no sin that puts us so far out of God's reach that we are lost.  This is the message that starts in the Garden and continues through the Resurrection.  We get to be a part of that story, no matter what our history.  So, thanks phone, for that reminder.

From the lion's mouth

I like going to weddings now.  It's a party with food and music and drinks and sometimes friends you know and other times friend you know.  It's especially good having a built in date, because stressing over whether or not you're serious enough to invite a girl to a wedding, especially if it's far a way, is some jive I just don't need.  It just stinks when Dr. Sighted can't make it, because while you can dance to My Humps in a group, Can't Help Falling In Love doesn't really work the same way.

The reception isn't all that's nice about it, though.  The weddings themselves are part of what makes them good, too.  The ceremony serves as a reminder of the seriousness and sanctity of my own marriage, and how nice it is that Dr. Sighted will be Dr. Sighted forever.  (Answer: pretty darn nice.)

We traveled to, of all places, North Carolina for a wedding this weekend (man and woman, of course) and with all the talk that's been going on about the amendment and the Dan Savage video flying around facebook and what not, thinking about my own marriage is not the only heady topic that came up this time.


On the drive up here, Dr. Sighted asked me, "Why do people who aren't [religious] even want to get married anyway?"  Hers is a more cynical view that if you are not asking for God's blessing on a permanent union, then what difference does it make anyway, aside from tax and medical conveniences.  It really amounts to, I think, that when religious people say the word "marriage" they mean something different than when the non-religious do.

I'm not sure whether marriage was first a religious or civil institution, but the modern Western conception of marriage is clearly so colored by its religious character that it's hard to say it's not a religious one now.  Religious marriage is a joining of a man and woman before God that is severable only by death or, in bad cases, "sexual immorality," as per Matthew 19:1-11 (which also is a part where Jesus expounds on what marriage means).  For Kim Kardashian, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, marriage means something else.  And shame on us for letting people like that abuse the institution without calling them out on it.

There is, though, in addition to this religious ceremony a package of civil benefits that goes along with that because it was in the state's interest to encourage this sort of association.  That package of benefits got called marriage too because most everyone who got them also did the religious thing, too, so there wasn't really any trouble.  I think that we as religious people may have done a disservice to the institution of marriage by allowing the package of associational benefits to be conflated (in name, certainly) with the promise to spouse and God.

The discussion this week has been not just about preventing gay "marriage" but also the package of associational benefits as well in the state I am in right now.  I don't think there is really any Biblical basis for a Christian religious marriage between two people of the same sex.  I don't really see why there shouldn't be a contractual means for creating a package of benefits for, really, any pair of people for inheritance, medical and some other benefits.

The rest of it -- the dancing, the music, the drinks -- is a celebration mostly for show.  Just ask Kim Kardashian.  And there has been nothing stopping anybody from throwing a party for any reason they want.

It is finished

There are seven Biblical phrases that Jesus said while on the cross and, of course, "It is finished" is one of them.  It was a declaration that His earthly mission was complete, He had accepted our sin and served as sacrifice on Good Friday.  This would be a marvelous story of self-sacrifice and an example how to treat each other if the story ended there.  But it's not where the story ended.

Three days later, on a Sunday like today, Christ rose.  He predicted this (Mark 8:31-37, Luke 18:31-35).  He told His disciples what was necessary and what would happen -- like the Scripture has told us what is necessary and what will happen -- and they did not understand.  I can't say I blame them; we still have trouble understanding now.

The importance of the Resurrection is a demonstration of both His power over death (symbolically important for us, since we no longer have to fear death) and His faithfulness (more immediately important to us because He fulfills promises).  He promises us the Spirit, the counselor, in John 14:15-21.  In Matthew 28:20, He states, "And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."  (The preacher at my church in Clemson used to end his sermons with that, and it gave me goosebumps every time.)

The Bible is a series of promises that God lays out and fulfills.  His track record is pretty hard to beat.  This, though, is the realization of the most important one.  Today is the anniversary of the Resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, the fulfillment of the promise that in addition to all the things laid on for Good Friday, that He is with us.  That He is trustworthy.  That He is more powerful than death.  I can get behind that.  Happy Easter!

On a mssion

Nicholas Kristof, columnist for the NY Times who is famous for being an all around good guy and doing stuff like personally buying a freeing sex slaves, wrote a column on Wednesday about how in addition to not agreeing with conservative values, liberals don't really understand them, either.  The column is pretty interesting, but I'm always leery when people start asserting that we are hardwired towards philosophical attitudes like he does towards the end though.  What is more serious, though, (as usual) is the commentary from the blokes on the internet.

Aside from the clear demonstration of the fluid definitions of "liberal' and "conservative" and the repeated assertions from each camp that you must be brain dead in order to belong to the other, the thing that jumped out to me most is the attitude repeated by more than one poster that giving money to churches isn't really charity because churches don't really care for the poor.  This is troubling for a couple of reasons: there is a fundamental misunderstanding of people out there of what churches and other religious communities missions' actually are or those communities are not fulfilling them.

Make no mistake: caring for the poor is absolutely and unmistakably a mission of the Christian church.  It is also a mission of just about every other religious community as well, but the tenor of the commentary of the article is largely American and largely focused at Christians, so I will focus on that from here on out.  Helping the poor, though, is intrinsically wrapped up in Christian identity, starting with the Old Testament.  (Leviticus 19:10, 23:22, Deuteronomy 15:7, 15:11, 24:14-15, 24:17-18, Matthew 6:1-3, Luke 4:18-21, 14:7-14.  I could go on...)  One specific example, though, is the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) which is an excellent summary of the position and the inspiration for a fun Cake song.

In the parable, Jesus, after His return, will separate people into two categories -- sheep and goats.  The sheep will be blessed and given the inheritance of the Kingdom of God because "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink..." there are a few other needs that the sheep satisfied, but ultimately, it comes down to the fact that they took care of the earthly needs of those who were needy.  The goats, on the other hand, are cursed and rejected from the inheritance because they did not do those things.  "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Now, if the churches are not doing those things, then we are failing at one of our missions.  If people don't know that this is part of what Christians are charged to do, then we are also failing on another mission -- one so important that it is known as the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) -- to teach "all nations" what Christ taught.  I hope it's the second one, because that's easier to fix.

Sins are bad, mmkay

One of the prongs of a recent political discussion has been clanging around in my head, and I have not been able to quite put it to rest.  It comes from the role of faith in politics and the perception that its presence leads to  oppression, if not specifically targeted at disadvantaged groups, then effectively so -- primarily women and homosexuals.  Since this discussion was concerning American politics, it was really in regards to Christianity.


It bugged me, because Christianity, if properly understood, has no room for that.  When it enters politics, though, that's a different story -- Theodosius's decision to establish Christianity in the 4th Century created a new privileged class within the Roman Empire and Europe hasn't been the same since and, unfortunately, frequently not for the better.  This gets to the issue of "religion" vs. "faith" and, while seemingly nuanced, is significant.


This is important to me because this image that became presented, one of an oppressive and restricting Christianity is not the same image that I have of it in my experience.  Christianity is primarily about love and forgiveness, because each of us has found love and forgiveness through Christ based on His mercy and nothing to do with our actions.  That mercy extends to anyone who seeks it -- regardless of color, gender, sexual preference, or behavioral history.  That is, it is entirely inclusive to anyone, so long as a relationship with Christ is pursued.  That's at the heart of John 3:16, the verse that nearly everyone has heard at least once. Additionally, when asked what the most important commandment is, Jesus answers with love God -- and the second, love your neighbors (Matthew 22:35-40).  


Christianity has no inherent political aims within its scripture, really highlighted by Matthew 22:21, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."  We have applied a rather crude litmus test to our politics to require the appearance of Christian faith from our leaders whether they really believe it or not.  It is very important to note that there are a number of ways that belief manifests itself, we are all sinners and no one really knows another's heart, so it is difficult to say who falls in which category, but the more vocal certainly get tougher scrutiny.


Rick Perry is an example of such a candidate.  One of the issues that he put front and center in his ad entitled, "Strong" is one that really gives credence, unfortunately, to the position I am trying to argue against.  He opens with a volley against homosexuals, which is a controversial subject.  I think that Christians and homosexuals frequently get hung up on another way out of proportion to the need.  While there is ample scriptural evidence that points to homosexual behavior as being sinful, it's also important to note other common things that are sinful: divorce, gossip, not giving freely, greed, and putting God to the test.  There aren't really protests of objection against divorce courts, celebrity tabloids, politicians who claim to be faithful but are not with their money when their tax returns are released, television shows that have a character make a deal with God or threaten Him with unbelief unless some desired outcome is reached with nearly the enthusiasm that religious people go after homosexuals.


This sort of public reaction that we do see begs the question that some sins are worse than others.  That is a rather nuanced theological question, but ultimately, sin is failing to meet God's expectations, and failure is failure.  In order to reach fellowship with God, we need forgiveness from that failure, and Christ is the vehicle God provided to achieve that, out of God the Father's love for humanity.  (See Romans 6:23.)  Every sin is a source of separation from God -- a lack of Christlike perfection -- so we are all in this boat together.  The very powerful story of Jesus and the sinful woman in John 8:2-11 shows us that we are not able to judge and should not.  By judging, we are assuming for ourselves the role of God the Son, which is also sinful.

Now, this isn't to say that we shouldn't object to sinful behavior.  The charge for Christians to share our story (Matthew 28:16-20) is based on a sense that we have something valuable -- a relationship with Christ, a loving God -- that others might want.  It is a path to redemption, truth, and freedom.  Sinful behavior is an obstacle to achieving that relationship, and not loving people is unmistakably contrary to God's will.