Jesus, Sex, and Politics Revisited

So lately I've been memorizing the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew 5-7... This is a fantastic chunk of Jesus' teachings all crammed into one place, which gives such insight into the heart of his message.

His message was the gospel. Ever think about how big the gospel is? I mean, if I ask you what the gospel is what would you say? Because it's not just about Jesus and forgiveness. It's not just "the bridge" illustration. Jesus went from town to town preaching the "good news." What good news was he teaching? I mean, a cross and his death are mentioned, but they're clearly not the only thing there.

The good news concerned the coming kingdom of heaven. How do you get into it? Do you have to follow all the rules and be good enough? No, it's impossible to be righteous enough. Do the laws have to be thrown out? No- you have to know the one who fulfilled the laws. You have to ask, seek, knock. If the gatekeeper knows your name: you will receive, you will find, the door will be opened. God gives good things to his children- are you his child?

What is the kingdom of heaven? What does it look like? It's a place where those who mourn are comforted, where those who are gentle rule, where the citizens see God himself. It's a place seasoned with salt. It's full of light, rather than darkness. Everyone loves everyone. Nobody judges his neighbor. People give to anyone who asks them, and everyone's needs are met. No anxiety or worries. Treasure abounds, but it's not held as money. God is a good Father to everyone in it. And the most important thing: it is a kingdom, and God is it's king.

In the beginning God created the world to be good. The world has fallen, but the good news concerns its redemption. Redemption is a magnificent word. The gospel is about restoration. Return. Repair. Healing. Romans 8 talks about the whole world (even God's children) groaning as we wait for his kingdom to come. We are all broken and disordered inside, each and every one. Jesus taught about some of these disorders and gave us a picture of what restoration looks like. For example, he exposed the Jews' faulty version of love and explained what real love looks like.

Another example concerns sexuality and marriage. I'm not going to get into the details of what Jesus taught here because I did that last time I believe. But to sum up, marriage exists only as a union between one man and one woman. Also, that uniting is done by God- and we have no right to undo it. (no power to try)


I left off my last post with a big question hanging... Essentially, I was questioning what our role is in politics. It's all well and good for me to believe all these things about the kingdom of God. But what is my responsibility to my neighbor? To silently let him miss out completely or to do something he doesn't like? It's a tough position to be in.

A major argument that prevented me from feeling like I had a right or responsibility to assert my beliefs on others was an issue of "where to draw the line." And I think I've decided to put the line all the way at the end of the spectrum. Surely the line must be somewhere- even if there is not a universal rule for where it ought to be, certainly I have to draw it somewhere for my own decision making. I don't believe that the Bible contains a list of moral dos and don'ts for believers. (It does for Jews, under the old covenant. The new covenant established by Jesus is about returning to something greater, not making do with our brokenness.) And therefore, to put it somewhere in the middle of the "spectrum" would be entirely arbitrary. That doesn't seem right...

The greatest commandment after loving God is to love our neighbors. (In fact, Jesus said the entire Law given to the Jews hangs on these two commands being fulfilled) And to be honest, I cannot think of one single example of Biblical love which involved one man letting another go on his way to disaster. There is no form of love which allows someone to walk right past the kingdom of God without saying a word. Jonah may have been content to allow the Ninevites to suffer God's wrath, but God stopped at nothing to bring word to them. Peter may have hesitated to share the gospel with non-Jews, but God made it happen. If I believe that God's way is the best way, surely I have to reinforce that in the society I live in.

This implies many different things, but one of the biggest that struck me concerns divorce. See, Jesus spoke multiple times about divorce- more often and more absolutely than he did on homosexuality. I feel this deep conviction that, if I'm drawing the line on the far end of the spectrum and setting high a high bar for my political decisions, then divorce is more important than homosexuality. If Jesus struck down homosexuality and I'm going to support that politically, how much more should I support his standards for divorce?

But the idea of divorce being illegal, or at least being strongly disapproved of by Christians seems... comical. Sadly. But are you following my train of thought? If we're going to sit here and say, "No, homosexuality is not right," how can we possibly even stand the thought of quietly mumbling, "... yeah divorce is not a good thing, but you know its just sort of unavoidable sometimes..." Talk about double-standards- this is hypocrisy at its finest. I started digging around and realized/remembered that this is one of the biggest arguments that same sex marriage supporters make. When the 'Christians' say, "homosexuality is harmful to society, so it shouldn't be allowed," they say, "divorce is clearly more harmful to than homosexuality, but you seem to be okay with that..." How right they are. I completely agree. In fact, if we had healthy marriages in the first place we probably wouldn't even be dealing with the issue of same sex marriage.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying the church needs to start running around condemning divorced people, or anyone struggling with the idea of a divorce. Again, God and his Word are the judge- it's not our place. It is most definitely, always our place to love God, love our neighbor, and share God's Word. This is true of homosexuals. This is true of divorcees. This is true of prideful businessmen. This is true of murderers.

Does this mean I think we need to transition into some sort of theocracy? No. Politics is not the responsibility of the church. And the Bible exists for the church, not for the government. But, individuals who are part of the church do have responsibilities in politics and in their government. I am saying that believers (individually) should support politics which are in line with the kingdom of heaven. We certainly can't just slap a new law on everything. How can one broken human judge another broken human concerning... something like pride? You can't make pride illegal. It's not that simple. But when it is simple and clear (homosexuality, divorce, abortion, murder, rape, stealing...) our role is simple and clear.

I started to wonder... is it possible to have a culture with such a high regard of marriage? Or even just a christian sub-culture that does? Could he Christian view of divorce ever humble itself to this position?

I found an answer, and I was shocked... I'll be honest, I don't know much about divorce. I have been blessed with two magnificent parents who would never consider divorce as an option. To anyone in the same boat, "no-fault divorce" refers to divorce which has no real basis. There are other forms which take into account more legitimate reasons (Jesus seems to allow for divorce in the case of marital unfaithfulness). That's the realm where things get sticky and vague. But as for no-fault divorce... could we eliminate that from our society?

The answer: it was. In 1969s California became the first state to allow no-fault divorce (the law was signed by Ronald Reagan, who just forever lost any respect he may have had from me). Every other state followed right along until 1985. (The one exception being New York, which somehow held out until 2010. Though apparently they had some separation loophole that made it possible.) Maybe most of you reading this maybe knew these things... I did not. And I'm deeply saddened by it. How can people be okay with this? How can it be so swept under the rug that nobody even talks about it? How self-righteous do you have to be to support/pass a "Defense of Marriage Act" about homosexuality in the wake of that? It's embarrassing.


Anyways...

One last concern is about creating an over-controlling government (which, in general, I believe is a bad thing. broken people telling broken people what to do isn't good- Jesus affirms this in Matthew 7) But... when you see the brokenness of the world, and specifically our culture, as clearly as this... That hardly seems relevant. If the government one day begins to abuse power, it then becomes to responsibility of believers to correct that.

The kingdom of heaven is like a Master who left stewards in charge of His home. He will return, and expect His affairs to have been managed well. So the question is: are you going to go do what you can or go bury it in fear that things might not go as planned?

Jesus, Sex, and Politics

All of the news about gay marriage developments and all of the resulting Facebook activity has filled my mind with many thoughts and my heart with many emotions. And they're the sort you want to express to the world, not just stir around inside yourself. I started sharing some of them with Erin and a floodgate opened, so I decided it was time to blog.

One of the most interesting things I've heard is a comparison between these issues and the civil rights movement of the 60s. I had never thought of it this way, because for me they're quite different. The exact opposite in fact. Racial segregation and oppression is the fruit of sin. So is sexual immorality, including homosexuality. The Bible is the authority for all Christians (if not they are counterfeits) and it is quite clear on both of these subjects- despite what the radical conservative "Christians" claimed in the 60s, despite what any liberal "Christians" claim today.

Now, I have to stop for a moment on the subject of sin. Christians believe that God is good and God is love and God is life. We believe rebellion against God (sin) separates us from him (naturally). We believe Jesus came to restore that relationship and that he is the only means by which that is possible. If you disagree with this, that's a much bigger issue; I only explain it here for the sake of clarity. That's where we come from. So, homosexuality is rebellion against God. And, despite what popular opinion says, it isn't good. The popular opinion on racism in the South was once very warped. The current popular opinion on homosexuality is warped. Homosexuality is no different from any other sin- not lust or adultery or divorce, not greed or hate or pride... They are tempting. They seem desirable. From time to time, from culture to culture, a particular brand of sin may be overlooked, accepted, or even embraced. But sins are sins, no matter what society thinks of them. They separate us from God, and I cannot support something that separates someone from God.

I have some gay acquaintances and many friends who take their side, and I have deep compassion each and every one. But I cannot agree with what they say or approve of what they do. I hate that my opinions are equated with hate. If you think me hateful for what I believe, you are just as judgmental and ignorant as those you oppose. Take the log out of your eye. My beliefs are founded on purest love.

I've been thinking about marriage a lot as I prepare for my own in August. Been learning a lot- studying scripture, reading books, listening to sermons, observing others... Marriage is a beautiful thing, and yet our own understanding of its glory is vastly undersized. The Bible teaches that marriage is the highest expression of God's love for us. It is intended to honor him and amaze us in ways to deep and numerous for us to grasp. When Jesus taught about marriage, he spoke so highly of it that even the conservative Jews of the day said, "If what you say is true, it's better to not get married at all!" His standards were so high above the world's that he sounded absurd. Yet that's what we are invited into, and Jesus has paved the way. I have the opportunity to love Erin like Jesus loved us- the ultimate displace of sacrificial love. I have the opportunity to make a covenant of kindness and faithfulness to Erin that mirror's God's eternal covenant with his children.

Now, I'm not going to poke around and attempt understanding why God set things up the way he did. But in his wisdom, he made us male and female. And he established marriage to be what I've just tried to describe. Divorce, adultery, homosexuality... These (and any other form of sexual sin) mock God's design. They challenge his wisdom. They reject both his authority and his love. They are sin, and God calls us out of them- for our benefit and his glory.

The biggest thing that concerns me, out of everything in the last two days, is Obama. It would be one thing for him to be a president that permitted gay marriage in a political sense. But support is something different altogether, and he went so far as to say Jesus would have. That is... wrong. False, Mr. President. But, what bothers me is not whether he is right or wrong. What bothers me is that he claims to be a Christian, but does not represent Christ. Jesus showed a great deal of compassion for the broken, sinful people of the world. He had little patience for the arrogant shepherds who misguided the people on God's behalf. My heart is heavy for him. He is the epitome of blind leading the blind, and the one leading is the first to fall in the hole. I sure hope his eyes are opened...

That's the first thing I need to say.
Next is the political aspect.

I'm quite frustrated by the political issue that gay marriage presents because my political leanings are somewhat at odds with... the rest of me, in this case. At what point does my responsibility to God call me to act, and at what point does it call me to stand back. Surely I'm not supposed to waltz around telling everyone how to live their lives. Jesus didn't do that, and he spent plenty of time with people he could have easily started preaching to and correcting. But when IS it time to put a foot down?

Think of it this way... Should we start lobbying for laws that prohibit divorce or adultery? Make it illegal to get divorced without a valid reason? Pay a fine for cheating on your spouse? God knows these issues have done more damage to our society than homosexuality (so far), and Jesus' stance on them is clear. So what's the difference between outlawing these and outlawing gay marriage? Or what about pornography? Clearly it's no good and needs to go, in a spiritual sense. But does who gets to draw the line on government censorship, and where does it go? However, on the other end of the spectrum we have a similar problem. There are laws to prohibit sex between family members, sex with animals, public displays of sexual activity... If we allow gay marriage for the sake of freedom and equality, where does it stop? Do we have to lift the laws on polygamy or public nudity? If men can take their shirts off in public, why can't women? So you see, it's a rather large spectrum. There is no black & white here, and so the government's authority is not black & white either.  Where does it's jurisdiction begin and end? I'm not sure. More on this in just a bit.

To be clear, I do not support gay marriage at all. But I'm not entirely sure the government has any business concerning itself with the matter...

Quick rant...
The phrase "separation of church and state" was originally used to refer to the state not meddling with the church, not the other way around. As far as I know, it wasn't until JFK that the concept was flipped around the other way- some people worried his Catholicism would place him at odds with being president. The issue here concerns the church as an institution. Yes, the Catholic Church (or any other religious institution) should not come in and strong-arm the government. That does NOT mean we, as individuals or groups, shouldn't bring our beliefs into our politics. Please don't tell me not to.

So, back to the government's business... The growing, evolving political part of me thinks that this is an issue the government (at all levels) has NO business meddling with. Jesus said, " What God has joined together, let no man separate." God performs marriages people. (whether you believe it or not) I find it comical whenever I hear a wedding officiant spit out the whole "by the power vested in me by the state of wherever" spiel. Really? The state of Georgia has the final word on whether or not I'm married? On one hand I think it's cute. On the other I think it's offensive.

On top of this, I think it's dangerous for the government to start taking any strong social stances. If we give the government power to determine social issues today, who knows what it will do with that power 100 years from now. I think it's better to just say it's outside of the government's job description. But I'm an idealist. And unfortunately there are a number of practicalities involved with marriage which overlap with the government's jurisdiction. Which means the government has to somehow acknowledge marriages.

If the government does have to decide, I suppose I'm thankful for state governments. In the very least, it becomes a localized issue. Those people over there, from a different place with different values, can't tell me and my friends over here how we ought to live. That's mostly a good thing. I say mostly, because there are times when "those people over there" need to get up and do something about "me and my friends over here." This is true on many levels: internationally (America not being okay with the Holocaust) and nationally (the northern states not being okay with southern slavery). Is this one of those times? I don't know.

I think some of the questions that surround gay marriage boil down to the heart of government. To start, why does government exist? My opinion is that government exists because of sin. If we weren't sinful- perfect in compassion, kindness, humility, patience, self-control, godliness and living in an un-fallen world- there would be no need for a government. So government exists to protect us from broken people (each other) and a broken world, as best as it is able. It makes sense for the government to outlaw murder; that's one person direction taking from another. Plain and simple. Abortion is another where this comes out. The anti-abortionists believe a mother has no right to take the life of an unborn child. The pro-abortionists don't acknowledge the life of the child (or fetus or whatever they would say), and thus it becomes a non-issue (so much debating around abortion, but it's really that simple I think). So, does gay marriage directly harm another? I suppose not, in general. But then again, neither does public nudity (well... generally :)).  Another stalemate.

All this to say, I don't have an answer. I'm certain of my beliefs. But I'm unsure how to exercise them politically. I take comfort in knowing that the mission Jesus gave his followers is to "make disciples of all nations." Whatever the politics are, my mission is clear.

To be honest, especially after what I've seen and heard from my generation, I think those against gay marriage are fighting a losing battle. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather live in a country of people who, like Nineveh, repent and turn to God. I'd love to see it. But I'm not expecting to. Perhaps I should have more hope and faith? But then even the apostles expected sin to prevail in the world. It seems to me that America will be a... different place in 20 years.

But it hardly matters, in a sense. My mission is clear. It may be harder; I may suffer more persecution. But as David Platt tweeted the other day, "Mission without suffering is Christianity without a cross." My children may grow up in a particularly broken world... They wouldn't be the first. I'm convinced the world is little match for good, Christ-centered parents. My children will be my sheep to shepherd, and I will do it well. My path is set. Love God, love people, make disciples.

house church

Erin posted this link on my facebook today:
http://mikebreen.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/why-corporate-church-wont-work/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-3


The author of the article is part of a group in america called 3dm, and he talks about his opinions on what churches are doing wrong and what needs to change. In the last couple months i've been doing a lot of thinking myself about what an "ideal church" looks like. I was going to comment on facebook, but it started to get really long. And by the end i decided i felt like putting my thoughts up here....



I really like the bottom part about extended families. Churches are too big. Why are they so big? It doesn't make sense. Community is so much more effective in smaller groups.  I'm not talking about "small groups" here... Many big churches have "small groups" so that people can find a smaller community within the church to be part of. It's a nice patch. But, why have a church that big in the first place? What benefit is there? We keep Navigators going at Tech without a budget and without a full-time staff. That's largely possible because of our relative size. We're just a little community of people seeking Jesus together. An "extended family" does seem to be the right size. Small enough not to get lost in it, big enough to find authentic fellowship.

I also like his bit about how efficiency does not equal effectiveness when it comes to church. It may work that way in business, or pretty much anything else for that matter. But churches should be led by the Spirit. And the Spirit doesn't much care for the logical, efficient method. Jesus never heals people the same way twice. Jericho's walls didn't fall down because of sound military planning. Efficient, logical thinking isn't bad in general, but God simply doesn't work that way most of the time.

I looked at 3DM and I'm confused. Maybe they just need to work on their website, but I don't see what makes it unique, other than emphasis on discipleship. I don't see this extended family idea being played out. He uses this diagram...

He argues that "Movemental" is the best, but I think my opinion is more towards "organic" (whatever he means by that). My rebuttal to his downsides:
There wouldn't be few followers or leaders- they just aren't in the same place at the same time. They can certainly "move", I'm not sure why he thinks smaller groups don't send people into action. And as for vision, it's my opinion that churches don't need a unifying vision beyond Jesus. (individual churches ought to have unique vision, and perhaps local churches may sometimes come together with a shared vision. But for the most part it's silly to say churches need a unified vision)




I'll describe what I imagine to be my ideal church, based on my current opinions...

Extended family sized... say... 20-40 people. People of all ages that is, including children. Basically, it's big enough that everyone has a few people they can really connect with, but small enough that everyone knows each other (more than just names).

They would meet once a week (Sunday is perfect), preferably at someone's house. Eat together, worship together, pray together, some teaching and/or Bible study together. (not necessarily in that order) The key here is "together". Anyone can do all these things on their own. We need a church because we need a community of believers. You don't necessarily need a sermon, just biblical teaching of some kind.

Depending on the size, you may or may not need a full-time or part-time pastor. I can see that it would make sense to have one, if there's enough others to support him. His job would definitely be more about being a pastor (a shepherd, looking out for the members of the church) than the guy most churches hire to give sermons and lead.

There would be elders- a group of men who have been part of the church for a while. When the church needs to make decisions, particularly tough ones, it's their job. They're the leaders.

It would also be good for the church to be somewhat networked. The leaders at least. Particularly to other local churches. In fact, it would be best if those leaders got together occasionally. Plan together, build unity, share vision for your community...

Of course the church needs to reproduce. When one gets to a certain size and they feel called, a church will naturally divide in two. May be bittersweet, but it's good. It's how the world works... a family is formed when a couple marries and has children, multiplied when that couple's children mature and marry others, and dissolved as families grow apart to make room for new families.







I imagine they only really need to meet once a week, in an official sense. When I was younger, I loved having church stuff every night of the week. But as I get older I realize how precious time is. And as much as I love my church, I need to step out and minister to the world. Of course people will be friends, and will thus naturally spend time together more than once every Sunday. But programs and small groups and socials and service projects... it's easy to get lost in them and have no time to go into the world. The church may facilitate these to a point... particularly if it relates to a unique vision that church has. But I think (for the most part) churches ought to equip/encourage its members to go into the world and then step back and give them room to do it.



Discipleship is important. It needs to happen within families (parents discipling children) and between church members (older members discipling younger members).

Hmmm... that's all that comes to mind at the moment. Feel free to comment. I probably forgot some important aspect... I may have flawed thinking somewhere. :)

Anyways, I've just been frustrated with typical churches, and this is all something I think about more and more as I get closer to being a "real person" out in the world, looking for my own church to be part of.