Recently I have been thinking about the concepts of forgiveness, justice and how they relate to Christian responsibility in the world. There is absolutely no question regarding the Christian imperative to forgive others. In fact Jesus, Himself tells us that if we do not forgive others God will not forgive us (Matthew 6:14-15). Forgiveness is a way of life for Christians. Because God has reconciled all things to himself and made peace with humanity (Colossians 1:20), the church is privileged to be working as God's ambassadors of His Kingdom. In 2 Corinthians 5:17-19 Paul writes "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." Forgiveness and reconciling God's creation to Himself are deeply important to Him and to His church. The Church has been given the ministry of reconciliation, that is proclaiming that Christ has conquered the power of sin and made possible the restoration of a broken relationship with humanity. And what I mean by the church, is the same thing Paul means in his epistles; not just the institutional church, but every one of us who make it up. We are given the ministry of reconciliation. The gospel is for all human beings everywhere at all times and proclaiming it is the purpose of the church. As Christians, we simply cannot afford to carry any grudge or ill-feeling toward anybody anywhere, even when they have hurt us, our loved ones, or our way of life deeply.
I think of this because the ninth anniversary of the September 11th attacks are coming up within a few days. That was a day that many people believed changed the world permanently (However, Stanley Hauerwas makes the correct point that Easter was the only day that changed the world permanently. 9-11 was just another instance of the world's rejection of the gospel). The immense hatred and evil we saw displayed on that day against the United States of America and the Western world has sent us Americans and Westerners spiraling into a struggle against the forces of Radical Islamic terrorists. The question is, how are we as Christians supposed to carry out God's mission of reconciliation when our societies are at war.
I approach this subject with a very great deal of trepidation. Whenever one begins to talk of forgiving a group or country that has done terrible evil, their is the risk of being accused as being uncaring, unpatriotic, a pacifist, or a variety of other politically unpopular names. However, the point I am about to make is not based on a political ideology, but simply on what I believe the responsibility of Christian is, according to the command of Christ.
I have seen among Christians a great deal of animosity and fear toward Muslims. Of course, this makes a lot of logical sense. Among the general population that attitude is common. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the subsequent attempts at terrorism in the last several years have lent to us very good reason to be fearful of the enemies of our nation. However, being that we are at war against "Terror," attitudes of viewing the enemies of our nation as enemies of the body of Christ naturally creep in. This should not be so. I must also say I am as guilty as anyone else for developing and "us vs. them" mindset and falling short of Christ's command to forgive.
If as Christians we are required to forgive those who have sinned against us and to leave vengeance up to the Lord, we are required to forgive the terrorists. On September 11 this year, a Christian group in Florida will burn copies of the Koran, and that caused me to think. Has the church made a formal stand against Terrorism by saying "We forgive you?" In my own conversations about the current conflict, do I reflect the forgiveness I am required to give? Am I carrying out the mission of God's reconciliation in the world as the Bible commands? As the church, that is our role. We need to make a public stand before our friends and neighbors that we have forgiven the sins committed against our fellow countrymen.
Now I know the response to this will be "You're just saying we should let the terrorists do whatever they want and just keep on forgiving?" The answer is no. The terrorists have committed an offense against the nation we live in and it is justifiable, I believe, to go after the ones responsible. Romans 13 explains that the state is ordained by God to bear the sword as a way to keep the peace. As the ruler of the nation, the president or king has the charge to keep order within a lawless society. This involves the execution of justice against evildoers.
However, on the flip side, Romans 12 gives directions for the way Christians are to deal with their enemies. Christians are to repay evil with good, to leave room for the vengeance of God, and to defeat evil through love. It is in this way that Christians carry out the work of reconciliation. We imitate Christ, who defeated evil by Godly love. Therefore, as Christians, when we have a perceived enemy, we cannot treat them like an enemy. We must forgive and proclaim that forgiveness God has given the world through his son.
So in regards to forgiveness, justice, and the terrorist enemy, the answer is somewhat complex. We Christians are not only required to support the victims of the terrorists and the war on terror, but also to forgive the enemy that did so. We cannot in our hearts harbor un-forgiveness, even against such monstrous evil. We must pray for their conversion and remember that they are simply doing what the world does when it rejects the peace of Christ. In our conversation we must try to express our wish that they will be led to Christ. We must, when others are burning Korans say "We forgive you for the wrongs you have done."
As for Christians in the military or law enforcement, they are serving the state and its execution of justice. Nowhere in the Bible does it say a Christian cannot serve the state in such a way. But I do believe there is a way to execute justice and forgiveness at the same time. As a Christian one must forgive and not hold any ill-will against an enemy, but in the interest of keeping the peace the evil-doers must be put away. In fact, having Christians doing these jobs who are committed to following the commands of Christ could serve to make for a much more merciful and effective peace-keeping tool. Only what is necessary to restrain evil would be done. By the act of forgiving and loving one's enemies, much of the nastier horrors of war or peace-keeping could be avoided while still carrying out justice in the name of security.
So let us remind ourselves to forgive those who terrorize us and our fellow citizens. It is hard, it is scary, but it is the mission of a Christian. Let us pray for the gospel to go out to all the world. Let us reveal in our speech the forgiveness of Christ to all men. Let us remember that justice is to be carried out with compassion. After all, God gave us not justice, but mercy in the cross and requires us to do the same.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
John Piper on the "End Times"
Misgivings About Hal Lindsay’s “Planet Earth”
Download:
By John Piper March 1, 1974
I have no doubts about Hal Lindsay’s faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, nor do I doubt that God uses his lecturing to bring people to Christ. I talked with one Campus Crusade girl who told me how she had been changed by such a talk on prophecy. Nor does he take any doctrinal position which would cause me to break off fellowship with him as a brother in Christ. Nevertheless, I have strong misgivings about the basic attitude toward the future which his book The Late Great Planet Earth contains and fosters. Besides that, I disagree with many of his single points of interpretations which falsely construe the New Testament texts.
I. The Basic Attitude Toward the Future
Lindsay and thousands with him have a desire “to pinpoint the time” (p. 51). For them “it is of paramount importance to identify the time…” (p. 60). Their desire is to fit current and future events together “into a precise pattern of predicted events” (p. 80, my italics). This, I believe, is an unhealthy attitude in our churches. Why?
1. The more detailed one attempts to map out the future, the more inferences one must make which are not explicit in the Scripture. Therefore, the tendency of the imagination to fill the gaps increases and the probability of erroneous calculation grows.
2. The stress on the present course of events attracts a great deal of attention from fascinated Christians, for, as Lindsay says, “People have been obsessed [from the beginning of time] with the desire to know what is going to happen in the future” (p. 11). The description of a particular sequence of current events as a manifestation of God’s faithfulness to his predictions creates an emotional and intellectual connection between the Christian’s faith and the events around him. The result, too often, is that the ups and downs of his life of faith are caused by the fluctuations of world affairs and his ability or inability to fit these into a complex eschatological pattern.
Since speculation increases as one constructs his “precise pattern” of world events, therefore, the more one sets his hopes on this particular pattern taking place, the more fragile and liable to frustration this hope will be. (That people do in fact tend to set their hopes on their calculations of future events is evident from how “spiritually turned on” some people get when they can fit a new current event into their scheme. The Six-Day War was a “spiritual high” for many a calculator.)
God will surely remain faithful, but we may well miscalculate. Lindsay thinks prophecy is becoming clearer as the end approaches, but Paul still says we know only in part and I think this is also true of the future course of events.
3. When a person thinks he knows exactly what role a nation is going to play in God’s battle plan, which must all take place within the next 15 years (cf. p. 54), then he tends to think less responsibly as a citizen who is to pray for all rulers (1 Timothy 2:2) and seek peace with all men (Romans 12:18). He loses interest in such things as trade agreements, arms talks, currency stability, world food problems, etc.
In short, the effort to combat injustice and suffering in the world seems nonsense since we know what the fate of most nations will be anyway and that it all must happen very soon. This is, in part, the result of closing a chapter with the empty and misleading admonition: “We should be living like persons who don’t expect to be around much longer” (p. 145).
It is sadly ironic that the predictions of the prophets thus have the effect of nullifying the great commands of the prophets: to “do justice and love kindness and walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8); “to hate evil, love good and establish justice in the gate” (Amos 5:15); “to hold fast to love and justice and wait continually for your God” (Hosea 12:6); “to cease to do evil, to learn to do good, seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:16-17).
I know Lindsay’s book has this effect because I met a hippie-type fellow and his wife passing through Munich on their way from Kansas City to Israel as missionaries who told me how they had been captivated by this kind of calculation of the future, but later were so convicted about their attitude toward the powers of the world that they had to confess their sin and ask for repentance.
4. This is the most important: among those who calculate about the time and sequence of the coming events and who try to give detailed descriptions of how it will be, there is, I think, a fundamentally wrong focus, a dislocation of our “blessed hope.” Throughout the New Testament the all-important focus of our hope is personal fellowship with God and our Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 21:3; 1 Peter 5:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Philippians 1:23; John 14:3).
The hope of the Christian springs from an intense love of his God and Savior (1 Peter 1:9) so that he says with the psalmist, “Whom have I in heaven but thee? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Psalm 73:25-26).
But for the calculator of the end times this all-important personal focus of our hope gets blurred in a mass of secondary (often speculative) details. What is the effect of Lindsay’s forecasts on the hope of the believer? What becomes important when one gets caught up in the mapping out of the future? This: “The big question is, Will you be here during this seven-year countdown?” (p. 137). That is not “the big question” in the New Testament. The big question in 1 Peter , for example, is, Will we be willing to share the sufferings of Christ in order that we may rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed (4:13, cf. 14-18)?
The one who maps out the end times tends to focus his hope on things (the escaping of bad things and the receiving of good things), not on the all-important “with the Lord.” This dislocation of hope is not always intended; it is something that can happen almost unconsciously in a group or in a church which becomes infatuated with thinking about how it will all take place.
When our future perspective becomes chronological instead of theological, then faith is endangered. For faith is nurtured not by fitting tomorrow’s headlines into a probable scheme, but by being rooted in the faithfulness of God manifest in the death and resurrection of our Lord and by hoping in him alone (1 Peter 1:21), whatever may come. “In thy presence there is fullness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures forever more (Psalm 16:11).” That is our blessed hope.
II. Single Points of Interpretation
I must resist the temptation to go into every detailed exegetical problem I see in Lindsay’s approach. To yield to such a temptation would involve me in a similar preoccupation with calculation. There is too much to be learned from God’s Word for faith for me to let it become a source book for the construction of battle maps (pp. 155 and 159) and time tables. Therefore, I will only mention briefly four points of disagreement.
1. The anticipation of a pre-tribulation rapture (ch. 11) is, I believe, not only an erroneous inference from the New Testament (an inference because nowhere is the coming of our Lord explicitly divided into two events), but also could be the cause of a great apostasy. Lindsay says (p. 144) with mild sarcasm that he will have to say to some of his post-tribulationist friends on that day, “I told you so friend!”
I wonder if he has considered how many people’s confidence in the mercy of God will be shattered when times of great tribulation come upon them from which they thought God would deliver them? Then Christ may say to Hal Lindsay, “Why didn’t you tell them so, friend?” As Peter Beyerhaus wrote in the April 13, 1973 issue of Christianity Today, “The widespread teaching of a rapture that dodges this serious reality must be refuted as a dangerous distortion of New Testament eschatology” (p. 56). The reasons for this view are laid out clearly in Dr. Ladd’s The Blessed Hope (Eerdmans, 1966).
While it is not decisive for what one believes, it is good to know that “we can find no trace of pretribulationism in the early church; and no modern pretribulationist has successfully proved that this particular doctrine was held by any of the church fathers or students of the Word before the nineteenth century,” (Ladd, p. 31). It was not asserted until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when through an “utterance” it was thought to come from the Spirit in a Plymouth Brethren meeting (cf. S. P. Tregelles, The Hope of Christ’s Second Coming, 1864). It has found amazing acceptance in America and England largely because of the Scofield Reference Bible.
2. Lindsay’s treatment of Matthew 24 in general (cf. p. 53) is improper, for, instead of letting the text speak for itself out of its own situation, he imposes on it a structure which he has deciphered elsewhere. For example, he arbitrarily refers the fig tree to the nation of Israel (Matthew 24:32ff) and postulates that on May 14, 1948 the fig tree put forth its first leaves.
Then, of course, it follows from these two assumptions that “this generation” (Matthew 24:34) refers to the generation from 1948 on. This is not exegesis; it is speculation and it makes nonsense out of Jesus’ words for those who were listening to them there on the Mount of Olives.
There are other and better ways to understand Jesus’ words here, but Lindsay never mentions them and gives his ideas as gospel truth.
3. On page 173 he violates his own hermeneutical principle stated on page 50 by changing the clear “natural” meaning of “clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62; Revelation 1:7; cf. Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27) into “myriads of believers.” He omits the text reference here (as he does at other trouble spots) so it’s hard to check him out.
This is not a major issue; it just shows where a speculative orientation to the future leads and how even Lindsay will abandon his hermeneutical guidelines in order to add another detail to the vivid drama of the end times.
4. His last paragraph (p. 188) represents inexcusable ignorance by a man with a seminary education. “Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:21—again he doesn’t give a reference) does not mean “the Lord is coming soon.” It is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic for “Lord, come!” It is probably the Aramaic behind the prayer in Revelation 22:20, “Come, Lord Jesus.”
It is a comparatively small thing when one calculates a “precise pattern of predicted events,” for to do this and even to believe it, one need not even be redeemed. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name…?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers!’” The one who enters the kingdom will be “the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21-23).
Download:
By John Piper March 1, 1974
I have no doubts about Hal Lindsay’s faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, nor do I doubt that God uses his lecturing to bring people to Christ. I talked with one Campus Crusade girl who told me how she had been changed by such a talk on prophecy. Nor does he take any doctrinal position which would cause me to break off fellowship with him as a brother in Christ. Nevertheless, I have strong misgivings about the basic attitude toward the future which his book The Late Great Planet Earth contains and fosters. Besides that, I disagree with many of his single points of interpretations which falsely construe the New Testament texts.
I. The Basic Attitude Toward the Future
Lindsay and thousands with him have a desire “to pinpoint the time” (p. 51). For them “it is of paramount importance to identify the time…” (p. 60). Their desire is to fit current and future events together “into a precise pattern of predicted events” (p. 80, my italics). This, I believe, is an unhealthy attitude in our churches. Why?
1. The more detailed one attempts to map out the future, the more inferences one must make which are not explicit in the Scripture. Therefore, the tendency of the imagination to fill the gaps increases and the probability of erroneous calculation grows.
2. The stress on the present course of events attracts a great deal of attention from fascinated Christians, for, as Lindsay says, “People have been obsessed [from the beginning of time] with the desire to know what is going to happen in the future” (p. 11). The description of a particular sequence of current events as a manifestation of God’s faithfulness to his predictions creates an emotional and intellectual connection between the Christian’s faith and the events around him. The result, too often, is that the ups and downs of his life of faith are caused by the fluctuations of world affairs and his ability or inability to fit these into a complex eschatological pattern.
Since speculation increases as one constructs his “precise pattern” of world events, therefore, the more one sets his hopes on this particular pattern taking place, the more fragile and liable to frustration this hope will be. (That people do in fact tend to set their hopes on their calculations of future events is evident from how “spiritually turned on” some people get when they can fit a new current event into their scheme. The Six-Day War was a “spiritual high” for many a calculator.)
God will surely remain faithful, but we may well miscalculate. Lindsay thinks prophecy is becoming clearer as the end approaches, but Paul still says we know only in part and I think this is also true of the future course of events.
3. When a person thinks he knows exactly what role a nation is going to play in God’s battle plan, which must all take place within the next 15 years (cf. p. 54), then he tends to think less responsibly as a citizen who is to pray for all rulers (1 Timothy 2:2) and seek peace with all men (Romans 12:18). He loses interest in such things as trade agreements, arms talks, currency stability, world food problems, etc.
In short, the effort to combat injustice and suffering in the world seems nonsense since we know what the fate of most nations will be anyway and that it all must happen very soon. This is, in part, the result of closing a chapter with the empty and misleading admonition: “We should be living like persons who don’t expect to be around much longer” (p. 145).
It is sadly ironic that the predictions of the prophets thus have the effect of nullifying the great commands of the prophets: to “do justice and love kindness and walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8); “to hate evil, love good and establish justice in the gate” (Amos 5:15); “to hold fast to love and justice and wait continually for your God” (Hosea 12:6); “to cease to do evil, to learn to do good, seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:16-17).
I know Lindsay’s book has this effect because I met a hippie-type fellow and his wife passing through Munich on their way from Kansas City to Israel as missionaries who told me how they had been captivated by this kind of calculation of the future, but later were so convicted about their attitude toward the powers of the world that they had to confess their sin and ask for repentance.
4. This is the most important: among those who calculate about the time and sequence of the coming events and who try to give detailed descriptions of how it will be, there is, I think, a fundamentally wrong focus, a dislocation of our “blessed hope.” Throughout the New Testament the all-important focus of our hope is personal fellowship with God and our Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 21:3; 1 Peter 5:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Philippians 1:23; John 14:3).
The hope of the Christian springs from an intense love of his God and Savior (1 Peter 1:9) so that he says with the psalmist, “Whom have I in heaven but thee? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Psalm 73:25-26).
But for the calculator of the end times this all-important personal focus of our hope gets blurred in a mass of secondary (often speculative) details. What is the effect of Lindsay’s forecasts on the hope of the believer? What becomes important when one gets caught up in the mapping out of the future? This: “The big question is, Will you be here during this seven-year countdown?” (p. 137). That is not “the big question” in the New Testament. The big question in 1 Peter , for example, is, Will we be willing to share the sufferings of Christ in order that we may rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed (4:13, cf. 14-18)?
The one who maps out the end times tends to focus his hope on things (the escaping of bad things and the receiving of good things), not on the all-important “with the Lord.” This dislocation of hope is not always intended; it is something that can happen almost unconsciously in a group or in a church which becomes infatuated with thinking about how it will all take place.
When our future perspective becomes chronological instead of theological, then faith is endangered. For faith is nurtured not by fitting tomorrow’s headlines into a probable scheme, but by being rooted in the faithfulness of God manifest in the death and resurrection of our Lord and by hoping in him alone (1 Peter 1:21), whatever may come. “In thy presence there is fullness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures forever more (Psalm 16:11).” That is our blessed hope.
II. Single Points of Interpretation
I must resist the temptation to go into every detailed exegetical problem I see in Lindsay’s approach. To yield to such a temptation would involve me in a similar preoccupation with calculation. There is too much to be learned from God’s Word for faith for me to let it become a source book for the construction of battle maps (pp. 155 and 159) and time tables. Therefore, I will only mention briefly four points of disagreement.
1. The anticipation of a pre-tribulation rapture (ch. 11) is, I believe, not only an erroneous inference from the New Testament (an inference because nowhere is the coming of our Lord explicitly divided into two events), but also could be the cause of a great apostasy. Lindsay says (p. 144) with mild sarcasm that he will have to say to some of his post-tribulationist friends on that day, “I told you so friend!”
I wonder if he has considered how many people’s confidence in the mercy of God will be shattered when times of great tribulation come upon them from which they thought God would deliver them? Then Christ may say to Hal Lindsay, “Why didn’t you tell them so, friend?” As Peter Beyerhaus wrote in the April 13, 1973 issue of Christianity Today, “The widespread teaching of a rapture that dodges this serious reality must be refuted as a dangerous distortion of New Testament eschatology” (p. 56). The reasons for this view are laid out clearly in Dr. Ladd’s The Blessed Hope (Eerdmans, 1966).
While it is not decisive for what one believes, it is good to know that “we can find no trace of pretribulationism in the early church; and no modern pretribulationist has successfully proved that this particular doctrine was held by any of the church fathers or students of the Word before the nineteenth century,” (Ladd, p. 31). It was not asserted until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when through an “utterance” it was thought to come from the Spirit in a Plymouth Brethren meeting (cf. S. P. Tregelles, The Hope of Christ’s Second Coming, 1864). It has found amazing acceptance in America and England largely because of the Scofield Reference Bible.
2. Lindsay’s treatment of Matthew 24 in general (cf. p. 53) is improper, for, instead of letting the text speak for itself out of its own situation, he imposes on it a structure which he has deciphered elsewhere. For example, he arbitrarily refers the fig tree to the nation of Israel (Matthew 24:32ff) and postulates that on May 14, 1948 the fig tree put forth its first leaves.
Then, of course, it follows from these two assumptions that “this generation” (Matthew 24:34) refers to the generation from 1948 on. This is not exegesis; it is speculation and it makes nonsense out of Jesus’ words for those who were listening to them there on the Mount of Olives.
There are other and better ways to understand Jesus’ words here, but Lindsay never mentions them and gives his ideas as gospel truth.
3. On page 173 he violates his own hermeneutical principle stated on page 50 by changing the clear “natural” meaning of “clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62; Revelation 1:7; cf. Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27) into “myriads of believers.” He omits the text reference here (as he does at other trouble spots) so it’s hard to check him out.
This is not a major issue; it just shows where a speculative orientation to the future leads and how even Lindsay will abandon his hermeneutical guidelines in order to add another detail to the vivid drama of the end times.
4. His last paragraph (p. 188) represents inexcusable ignorance by a man with a seminary education. “Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:21—again he doesn’t give a reference) does not mean “the Lord is coming soon.” It is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic for “Lord, come!” It is probably the Aramaic behind the prayer in Revelation 22:20, “Come, Lord Jesus.”
It is a comparatively small thing when one calculates a “precise pattern of predicted events,” for to do this and even to believe it, one need not even be redeemed. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name…?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers!’” The one who enters the kingdom will be “the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21-23).
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Still Not Marriage
Today, as many of us know, a Supreme Court judge in California overturned Proposition 8. The state voted on Proposition 8 in November of 2008, determining that the state can only recognize marriage as between two heterosexuals. This was a bill that the citizens of California had already voted on previous to the 2008 election and was overturned by Supreme Court judges as it was today. On a political level, this is simply outrageous that one judge can overturn what the people voted as law. However, my aim in this post is not to address the politics and the misuses of power that we are witnessing in this event. Rather, what I would like to do is examine how we Christians are to view this apparently disturbing turn of events.
If this second instance of a judge ignoring the will of the people has taught the church anything, it has been the well-needed reminder that the body of Christ cannot put any hope in politics for the preservation of and/or change to godly values in the society God places us in. The church, by definition, is not a kingdom of this world, and therefore cannot expect the kingdoms of the world to do things that are compatible with the Kingdom of God. While God has ordained earthly governments to keep the peace and provide stability within society (Romans 13), governments are made up of human beings who are lost in sense and tend to reject the offer of peace and godliness that God makes available to humankind through Christ Jesus. When people are lost in sin, we should not be surprised when governments try to legitimize sinful lifestyles or break their own laws (as in the case of the judges overruling the will or the people). If the church is going to try to affect the world, our hope simply cannot be in our votes. While I believe we should vote for the most godly options when we have the chance, we must realize that unless the minds and hearts of the people living on this planet are changed toward Christ, godly values will not prevail. The judge overturning something we worked so hard to pass should remind us that we cannot create change through the powers of this world.
However, the question remains, how are we Christians supposed to handle this? I think the most important thing to remember is that marriage is a man and woman making a commitment before God to live together permanently and to pour love into each other, two becoming one flesh as God Himself is three in one. The image of God, according to the first Chapters of Genesis exists in our distinct male and femaleness. That image of God is complemented in marriage. Homosexual relations, like premarital relations, are simply off limits in God's eyes. The good news about this is that even if the state recognizes homosexual unions, it still is not marriage in God's eyes. The Godly model of a family is still preserved simply because homosexual "marriage" can never be godly anymore than premarital heterosexual sex can be godly.
Another thing we must remember is that a constitutional amendment is not going to stop the misuse of sex! I do not believe that because gay marriage is legal, will everyone suddenly begin engaging in homosexual behavior. What will change is something on the couples' tax forms (something that I'm not sure is really all that relevant). However, the homosexual lifestyle will end up being promoted as a valid alternative in public schools. What that means is that Christian students will have yet another worldly lifestyle being promoted as good. Our public schools are not places to learn sexual ethics anyways, and for the simple fact that they are being run by people without Christ. We would do well to remember that Christianity came into a world full of Roman sexual immorality. The issues regarding sexuality today are not new. Many of the Christians in Corinth, according to Paul, had lived lives of sexual immorality (I Cor. 6), before coming to Christ. We are not unprepared.
What I would like to do in ending this post is to reaffirm the fact that God loves homosexuals. The sin of homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. Jesus paid for all sin at all time and is fully capable of cleansing everyone who comes to him. As Christians we cannot pick on homosexuals or homosexuality. We need to love them as Christ loves us in our sin. We need to be the kind of Christians a friend who is struggling with homosexuality can come out to. We need to love and support those of us who struggle with it while maintaining our Christian standards. It is my personal belief that rather than going on the campaign trail and trying to change the law again (which will be overturned again), our Christian mission would be best carried out by doing the work of spreading the gospel. Find the nearest person who is homosexual and be their friend. Love them like Jesus. Hang out with them, help them paint their house or mow their grass. Win them to Christ because he loves them.
If this second instance of a judge ignoring the will of the people has taught the church anything, it has been the well-needed reminder that the body of Christ cannot put any hope in politics for the preservation of and/or change to godly values in the society God places us in. The church, by definition, is not a kingdom of this world, and therefore cannot expect the kingdoms of the world to do things that are compatible with the Kingdom of God. While God has ordained earthly governments to keep the peace and provide stability within society (Romans 13), governments are made up of human beings who are lost in sense and tend to reject the offer of peace and godliness that God makes available to humankind through Christ Jesus. When people are lost in sin, we should not be surprised when governments try to legitimize sinful lifestyles or break their own laws (as in the case of the judges overruling the will or the people). If the church is going to try to affect the world, our hope simply cannot be in our votes. While I believe we should vote for the most godly options when we have the chance, we must realize that unless the minds and hearts of the people living on this planet are changed toward Christ, godly values will not prevail. The judge overturning something we worked so hard to pass should remind us that we cannot create change through the powers of this world.
However, the question remains, how are we Christians supposed to handle this? I think the most important thing to remember is that marriage is a man and woman making a commitment before God to live together permanently and to pour love into each other, two becoming one flesh as God Himself is three in one. The image of God, according to the first Chapters of Genesis exists in our distinct male and femaleness. That image of God is complemented in marriage. Homosexual relations, like premarital relations, are simply off limits in God's eyes. The good news about this is that even if the state recognizes homosexual unions, it still is not marriage in God's eyes. The Godly model of a family is still preserved simply because homosexual "marriage" can never be godly anymore than premarital heterosexual sex can be godly.
Another thing we must remember is that a constitutional amendment is not going to stop the misuse of sex! I do not believe that because gay marriage is legal, will everyone suddenly begin engaging in homosexual behavior. What will change is something on the couples' tax forms (something that I'm not sure is really all that relevant). However, the homosexual lifestyle will end up being promoted as a valid alternative in public schools. What that means is that Christian students will have yet another worldly lifestyle being promoted as good. Our public schools are not places to learn sexual ethics anyways, and for the simple fact that they are being run by people without Christ. We would do well to remember that Christianity came into a world full of Roman sexual immorality. The issues regarding sexuality today are not new. Many of the Christians in Corinth, according to Paul, had lived lives of sexual immorality (I Cor. 6), before coming to Christ. We are not unprepared.
What I would like to do in ending this post is to reaffirm the fact that God loves homosexuals. The sin of homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. Jesus paid for all sin at all time and is fully capable of cleansing everyone who comes to him. As Christians we cannot pick on homosexuals or homosexuality. We need to love them as Christ loves us in our sin. We need to be the kind of Christians a friend who is struggling with homosexuality can come out to. We need to love and support those of us who struggle with it while maintaining our Christian standards. It is my personal belief that rather than going on the campaign trail and trying to change the law again (which will be overturned again), our Christian mission would be best carried out by doing the work of spreading the gospel. Find the nearest person who is homosexual and be their friend. Love them like Jesus. Hang out with them, help them paint their house or mow their grass. Win them to Christ because he loves them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)