Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

Home Archives for Christianity and Culture

Truth is an arrow and the gate is narrow

Posted on Written by 6 Comments

The Culture

Over the last week or so, I’ve tweeted about several stories regarding proposed or approved concessions that the “main line” denominations would make to the prevailing culture. For example is this one:

As Rev. Emily Heath writes in that article:

For Christians in the mainline Protestant denominations, this has been an interesting summer. First, the Presbyterian Church (USA) rejected an amendment that would have opened the church up to blessing same-sex marriages. Then, less than a week later, the Episcopal Church approved a new liturgy to bless same-sex unions and also affirmed the ministry of transgender clergy.

The PCUSA rejection of that amendment was a narrow victory for those who desire to stay true to Scripture.

The Truth

While Rev. Heath and others are euphoric over these monumental changes. I am reminded of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13–14, NASB)

Truth is Narrow
Image via freefoto.com

Truth, is by its very nature narrow. The description of an object is always narrow as compared to what it is not. I have on my wrist a watch, it is not a hammer or a motorcycle or a puppy or a yacht. It is one thing and there are an infinite number of things it is not.

When the New Testament uses the word homosexual, the Greek word from which it is translated is a very graphic term which describes a sex act between men. You can work around this all that you want, but it is the homosexual act that is condemned. The word means one thing and no amount of wrangling of words can make it mean something different. The definition is narrow and specific.

Furthermore, Jesus himself tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. According to Jesus, it is for the purpose of being married to a woman that a man will leave his father and mother.

Some would see support for homosexual union in an argument from silence because Jesus does not specifically speak against same sex pairing. Yet I would argue that the silence cuts the other way because Jesus specifically identifies a union between a man and a woman as the relationship that God ordains and God blesses. Nowhere can you find any such blessing for a homosexual union. So the argument that Jesus was silent on homosexuality is a sham.

The definition of marriage is narrow. I understand that for those with same sex attraction, this is very difficult. Yet, the difficulty does not relieve us of the burden of proclaiming the truth.

All sin is condemned in Scripture. For example, the Bible condemns religious pride. Those of us who have grown up in the church can look down on others who have less knowledge of Scripture and Christian principles. Scripture condemns this pride and I am wrong when I practice it. When I am proud, no excuse or explanation will make that pride less wrong.

We cannot lightly set aside the clear teaching of Scripture just because we have a desire and a  proclivity toward a certain behavior. Whether it be pride or homosexuality, we cannot aquiesce into acceptance no matter how much pressure there is from inside and outside the church.

The Gate

As Bob Dylan so eloquently tells us, “Truth is an arrow and the gate is narrow that it passes through.”

The Truth hurts all of us, but the wound is ultimately for our benefit if we are willing to yield.

Rev. Emily C. Heath: Jesus, Bullies on the Bus and the Rest of Us

Posted on Written by Leave a Comment

No BulliesReverend Emily Heath recently wrote a commentary on the incident where some boys harassed a bus monitor and posted the video on YouTube. The article can be found here: Rev. Emily C. Heath: Jesus, Bullies on the Bus and the Rest of Us.

I would like to make a pair of points in response to the article.

First, the article purports to be be a Christian response to bullies in general and that instance of bullying in particular. Emily rightly points out that Christians are to be agents of healing and we are called to live above such behavior. I agree with this and applaud it.

My problem is that nowhere in the article does Rev. Heath explain how we can do this. Notably absent is any assessment of the root cause of bullying. That root cause is our sin nature. There is a bully in each and every one of us which can only be conquered through the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. It is Jesus’ death that makes the way for sin to be subdued. It is our individual taking up of our own cross that allows us to live in the freedom from that inner bully.

While culture, upbringing and peer selection can influence a child’s behavior, these are all external and do not deal with the internal problem. Only God through the work of Jesus Christ can begin transformation and transformational change. The Apostle Paul tells us that we are in need of transformation (Romans 12:2) and that transformation comes as a result of surrender on the basis of God’s mercy.

The second issue I have is where Rev. Emily states, “I want to be clear here for a minute that I am not saying this should become a country of Christians.”

Now if she is saying that she does not want the state to force anyone into claiming Christianity then I am completely with her. I do think that our founding fathers were wise in preventing America from having a state church. Every time the church has gotten political power it has been a train wreck for the church and for the people.

Now if she is saying that she does not have the desire for everyone to become a Christian then I must disagree with her. If we have the Truth, then why would we not want everyone to know it and be liberated by it? Yes, we should honor the wishes of those who do not want to hear our message. No-one should be forced to hear what we have to say. But respecting someone’s boundaries does not meant that I cannot wish them to be other than they are.

Our Gospel is truly good news or it is a false hope. If it is not true, they why should I bother believing it? If it is true, how could I not wish others to share the same joy that I have found? If Christianity is just one more social club or one more religious expression then count me out. If Christianity is just one way to gain spiritual enlightenment I don’t want it. I am not a Christian because it is convenient or easy.

I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ truly is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). If he is that then I am compelled to present him as the only way the ultimate truth and the path to life. If he is not then Heaven help us, we have nothing to offer.

One flesh and inseparable – does your church view marriage this way?

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

It was not by accident that the first recorded miracle of Jesus happened at a wedding. Jesus was at the first wedding recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis and he chose to be at the wedding in Cana of John 2. Weddings are important to God because marriage is important to him. In Scripture, marriage is an oft repeated picture God uses to illustrate His relationship with his people. God takes marriage very seriously.

There is a danger in American churches that we are inadvertently contributing to marital strife through busyness and the emphasis upon service to the congregation. In some cases one spouse in a marriage is so busy at church that the other spouse can feel neglected. The church should never be the agent of separation in a marriage, yet sometimes this is the case.

When the divorce rate in the church approaches that of the society at large, we must conclude that something is wrong with the way we are presenting or living out the Gospel. When our marriages are not noticeably different than those of the non-believers around us, then a little bit of self assessment is in order.

As church leaders, we should be doing everything possible to make sure that we are supporting marriages and not doing anything to strain them. We should not be giving responsibilities to people that put stress on marriage and family life. Since God takes marriage seriously, church leaders will be called to give an account of how they supported the marriages in their care. While we may not be able to prevent divorce in our congregations, we certainly should not be adding stress which contributes to it.

Can we take the time to reassess all the activities in the church to be sure that they are necessary? Can we reassess each program and ministry to see if it is achieving the desired result? Can we be bold enough to stop doing the stuff that really doesn’t need to be done? Can we make sure that what is getting done is not taking a toll on marriages and family?

Here are some questions that should be asked when church activities are straining a marriage:

  • Who are you serving? Jesus said that a marriage was put together by God (Matthew 19:6). Are you really serving God if your ministry causes division in your marriage?
  • Who are you avoiding? Are you using ministry to avoid relationship with your spouse? Workaholism in the church is no better than workaholism in the business world.
  • Who are you helping? By creating tension in your marriage, who are you really helping? Can you really be used by God to minister to others when you are neglecting your spouse?

We can’t ignore signs of difficulty because the stuff that is getting done makes our lives easier. When ministry is having a negative impact on marriage, the leaders must take action. To do anything less is negligence.

Getting caught in the blame game – Part 1

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

Blaming OthersI am neither brilliant nor a philosopher so I make no claims toward brilliant philosophy. Yet I have observed a behavior in humans that I would like to explore. This being a presidential election year, examples of this behavior abound. I am writing about the behavior of blaming others. Where does this need to blame come from?

My question is this: if naturalism, the belief that we are products of natural processes and not the product of divine intervention, is true, they why is there so much effort wasted in finding someone to blame whenever anything goes wrong?

I have a puppy which displays normal puppy behavior. Specifically she likes to chew things and dig. Even when she chews things that are unacceptable (such as human fingers and clothing) I see no sense of remorse in her or the need to blame anyone for the behavior. Another dog of ours felt the need to chase a skunk and displayed no remorse when he came back to the house bearing an odor from the encounter. He ran right into the house as if nothing was wrong or out of the ordinary.

In the case of dogs, one could argue that they act in the way they are wired to act. While humans can change that behavior somewhat, the extent of change is limited. The bulk of their behavior is determined by their DNA.

Humans have the distinction of not only being able to understand and respond to what is, but having a sense of what ought to be. Chance and genetics might explain what is, but they cannot explain why we often think that things should be different than they are.

If we believe that what we are is determined by our DNA, then why bother assessing blame? Why spend so much effort in figuring out who made the mistake, who made the bad choice, who pushed the wrong button?

I will take it one step further. We send future executives to colleges and graduate schools that teach them that they are products of evolution and that there are no absolute standards of right and wrong. They are taught that they make their own rules and no-one can tell them how to live. Then when they live this way in the business world we throw them in jail because they violate insider trading laws or cook the books and bilk millions out of unsuspecting investors. Is this not a double standard?

Why all the angst in the recent “occupy” micro-movement? If Wall Street executives are doing what they are programmed to do, why bother to protest? If naturalism and evolution are true, on what basis are you protesting anyway? On what basis are you claiming unfairness if there are no absolute standards of right and wrong? If strength and cunning are the means of survival, then why protest when the strong and cunning violate the weak and ignorant?

This post will be continued in part two where I will explore how the Bible speaks to these issues and provides a reasonable explanation of what we observe in humanity.

This post is continued in Part 2

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama