Declaration or Distraction?

A journalist I am not!  I lack the ability to digest the latest “story” and then quickly organize my own thoughts in time for it to be “hot”.  That’s Ok though, because one of the pros with web based content is that it is persistent.  Enough on that however…

I’ve been listening in and reading comments regarding the  Manhattan Declaration for the past week or so; the equivalence of grabbing TV sound-bites I guess you could say? Yesterday, I listened to the perspective held by Apologetics.com, a resource that I’m usually in agreeance with.  Yesterday was not however one of those usual moments.  On the principle of Christian integrity, specifically to the message of the gospel, I have to disagree with Apologetics.com’s position here.  I realize that it probably gets old hearing that same old song about “the gospel”, and I may even come off as being dogmatic and narrow minded, so be it.  Fell free to disagree and to weigh in with reasons why you may think that I’m off-base.

The MD addresses 3 specific concerns: Life, Marriage & Religious Liberty.  It is a gathering/declaration of Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians as individuals on those 3 principles.

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

It’s not my intention to critique and dissect the entire MD.  This post is merely me expressing views and concerns as to why I think the MD is flawed and thus a bad idea for one professing to be a Christian to sign.  To be clear, by “sign”, I mean to put your personal stamp of approval on; which in my opinion is not a separate act from being a Christian.  Then again, my argument is that there’s nothing in the life of a Christian that does not carry spiritual implications. As I see it, and it is hopefully through biblical lenses…  what’s at stake is Christian integrity, specifically to the gospel of Christ.  The reasoning for this view is that for all of the MD’s poetic flair for words; the MD is in essence another spin on “gather round the camp fire and sing Kumbaya”.

Problem #1 is the opening sentence.  The sections of text in bold are meant to highlight a backtracking of ideas and premises.  I don’t mean to insinuate that this structure was a deliberate, I do have to “ask” myself though.. Who is “we”, what exactly, is being said here?  The statement continues with “which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.” Does anyone else see a problem here?  The MD is saying “we” or “us” two times to establish a unity (of something) and then erases the entire statement with “not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.”

OK, well if “it” really is a case of “speaking to and from our communities”, here’s a question…  “What then, is the need to rally around the declaration (as individuals)?”  I pose these thought and questions for the reader:

• Couldn’t these individuals continue to declare these principles individually to their communities?
• What “power”, authority and authenticity does this declaration manifest?
• Does signing the declaration somehow make “the message” (sarcasm) louder and easier to understand?

Warning, now shifting into Uber-sarcasm mode.  Follow up those questions with this… “Where in the Bible does Jesus Christ, His disciples or Paul the Apostle put their stamp of approval ie; shook hands in agreement in a like manner”.  Picture if you will the first segment of the Manhattan Declaration reading…

We, as Saduccees, Pharisees, and a small band of dudes and dudettes following this Carpenter guy around, have gathered, beginning in Temple on this day of 31 A.D., to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.

Problem #2  and 2.5, located sentence 2 is another one of those pesky “we” statements, followed by what?  A Social gospel?

We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.

Am I off on identifying that latter section as such?  I appreciate the sentiment in that last section however, I believe a question that needs to be asked is.. “Is that what Christianity(emphasis) is about; hath God really said “to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.”?  Consider the following passages…

James 1:19-27
19My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. 21Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Here’s where I see Problem #3.

We call up
on all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

“We” to these ears is starting to sound alot  like “Yeah, God’s got some good ideas going on, but “we” want to stress the issues that “we” think are pressing.”   “We think that if we appeal to the moral goodness and kindness within all people, we can make some headway in society; that’s all we’re sayin’”.  Hmm… “appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God!?!?”, I wonder since even believers sin, how one is expected to appeal to the conscience of a non-believer in the sight of God?

Problem #4 from the same section of text from the MD concerns conscience and “critical” reflection. Conscience??  What conscience might that be? Are we talking about the same conscience that can deny God’s existence?

Romans 1:28-31
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

As for critical reflection, I see problem even defining what the outcome of that might be since it’s a group of “individuals” that are also appealing to non-believers.  I think it’s a big leap of faith here by the MD to assume that believers and non-believers alike are going to agree on any or all of the 3 points.  Then again, as a Christian, does one really think that coming together to agree on any of these principles has implication of salvation?   How for example does the believer and non-believer dialog, on these matters.  Will the non-believer readily accept the believer’s Biblical worldview on marriage?  Maybe the believer “backs off” on the marriage issue?  More food for thought.

1st Corinthians 2:6-16
6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
   "No eye has seen,
      no ear has heard,
   no mind has conceived
   what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
      The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
      that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

James 4:4
4You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? 6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
   "God opposes the proud
      but gives grace to the humble."

This post has run longer than anticipated.  I want to close by saying that the ideas that the MD “proposes” are not “bad”.  The issue is not the ideas, but rather the fact that under the pretense that others are called to “sign” on, it leaves in my opinion ambiguity, and leaves out the gospel of Christ which is as Paul says… “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved,…” .

A final thought from 1st Thessalonians, which speaks of the power of the Holy Spirit, the gospel, and conversion within a society.

1st Thessalonians 1:4-10
4For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. 6You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. 7And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. 8The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, 9for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

Grace and peace be with you.

Post #200: Worldview Wedding Worries

I vaguely recall when the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) was “in”.  As I wasn’t a practicing Christian during that time it never really caught on with me.  I’ve always been a bit leary of getting caught up in catchy phrases tied to God, Christ or Christianity.  Call it marketing phobia I suppose.  Take Got-Fruit(?) for example… what’s that all about!? 😉

Back on topic, I came across an interesting read this evening that posed the WWJD question.  Hat tip to Wickle.  The post titled: What Would Jesus Do If Invited to a Gay Wedding?  by John Shore,poses the question of how should a Christian respond to an invite to a gay wedding.  Shore a Christian, author and blogger presents his dilemma, to attend the wedding thereby enhancing his relationship with his gay friends or to not attend the wedding because of his Christian values and risk damaging the relationship.

At last count around 10 pm (CST) there were over 225 comments to Shore’s post so be forewarned, it’s a long read.  My initial reaction was to pop off with my own two cents worth, however Holy Spirit led restraint prevailed as I instead have opted to give my own commentary here.

 

I’ll start off first by stating that I’m not sure where the dilemma is, if taken from a Biblical perspective, meaning I wouldn’t attend if in the same situation. Shore presents some verses from Matthew 23 that appear to lead him to believe that the right thing to do is to attend the marital union between two gay people.  To keep focus on the topic at hand which is the propriety of a Christian attending a  “Gay wedding”, I’ll try to reiterate as much as possible that this post is not about attacking people who choose to submit to homosexual temptations nor their sexual orientation.  The point also is not to zone in on the fact that homosexuals are sinners, everyone is a sinner, however I do want to state that my opinions and views (shaped by my reading and understanding of the Bible) shouldn’t be confused with a universalistic type philosophy, world view or politically correct definition of tolerance either.   Just calling it as I see it.

As stated earlier, Shore uses the following verses from Matthew 23 to meditate upon:

Matthew 23:13,15,24
13″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

15″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

23″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Those verses from Matthew 23 do seem to have “some” weight to them if the intention is to sell compassion and not being a hypocrite, however I think that in their context they aren’t really applicable to Shore’s dilemma.  Firstly those verses from Matthew seem to be directly pointed to the religious hypocrisy of teachers, I just don’t see them addressing Shore’s dilemma which in my opinion comes down to a question of spiritual integrity to God’s Word.  I’ll qualify my position with Scripture…

Again the question is, “As a Christian, should one attend the marital union/”wedding” between two homosexuals?”  From my perspective, the answer again is “no”, based on the following reasoning from Scripture.  Please note that some of the longer references are abbreviated (…) for the sake of post length, please refer to your Bible or the supplied link for completeness and context.  The bold text within the following verses is emphasized to make the Biblical point against how a gay marriage goes against God’s Word in the context of a Christian attending/supporting such union.

 

1. God defines marriage as the union between man and woman.

Genesis 2:18-24
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” … 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.  25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Matthew 19:3-6
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”  (Jesus speaking)

1st Corinthians 7:1-3
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
(Foot note from the NIV [Zondervan} Study Bible regarding  “duty”: Married coupes should have regular sexual relations. Permanent abstention deprives the other partner of his or her natural right.)

In 1st Corinthians 11 Paul speaks of propriety in worship yet notice that he reiterates what God has already established as natural:

1st Corinthians 11:8-9
8For man…; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

2. God defines sexual immorality (the focus is on homosexuality explicitly, as it relates to Scripture invalidating gay marriage as being a recognized union by God)

Leviticus 18
20 ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 ” ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD
22 ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (See note on 1st Corinthians 7:1-2)

Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Galatians 5:16-21
16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.  19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

See also Acts 15:20, & 1st Corinthians 6:12-20

 

My apologies for slamming you all with such a long post, I wanted to provide at least 3 Biblical points of view to address the players in marriage (man & woman) and marital sexuality as sub components.  I felt it important to make sure that marriage is properly understood from what God’s Word says, because as I read Scripture I can’t see how there could possibly be a “legal” wedding if it’s not qualified first.

Since by Biblical definition a gay wedding doesn’t resemble how and what God’s defines and designed (man and woman united as one in flesh), sexuality issues are thrown out because the first term isn’t met.
If one doesn’t agree with the first qualifier (marriage = man+woman, these are God’s rules by the way not mine),  arguing that a gay marriage does not imply sexual relationship runs into a problem then with what Paul says in:

1st Corinthians 7:3
3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

So?  What would Jesus do if invited to a gay wedding, which should answer the question “What should I do if invited to a gay wedding?”  I think the quickest way to solve this riddle is to not suppose on what would Jesus do, but what did Jesus do?

• Jesus was locked in on doing the will of His Father – not pleasing man  Hebrews 10:5-7
• Jesus carried His own “cross” – alienation from friends might be yours
• Jesus didn’t let pressure from family or friends derail Him from his mission – salvation is through Christ, not popularity
• Jesus wasn’t intimidated by world views – He was sent here to save the world from itself
• Jesus deferred to Scripture: “It is written” See Luke 4:4,8; 19:46

Jesus… honored His Father, which to me means honoring Him in deed as well as with lips.  Taking part in an event or action that is contradictory to God’s Word undermines a Christian’s integrity/credibility.

 

Matthew 16:24-26
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

Grace and peace be with you.