tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27297322927628621562024-03-13T11:34:47.236-05:00Country Preacher's CornerA Lutheran preacher in rural Texas examines the Christian faith and life in general.Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.comBlogger1218125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-21678923393874195692023-08-28T14:26:00.003-05:002023-08-29T16:31:59.136-05:00When the School Band is Kicked Out of the Fair Parade<p> “I’m so mad that we got kicked out of the parade!”</p><p>Those words coming out of my daughter, who is a high school senior this year, caught me off guard this Friday after the Gillespie County Fair Parade.</p><p>“What?” I stammered. “Why?”</p><p>“They said we were going too slow.”</p><p>For the first time in the history of the Gillespie County Fair Parade, the Fredericksburg High School Marching Band was asked to leave the parade because they were unable to keep up with the floats in front of them, and a one block gap had developed.</p><p>Police officers had communicated with the band director multiple times to close the gap, but it was an impossibility for them to do so. Instead of finishing the parade, the band was told to exit five blocks before the finish.</p><p>I was none too happy with what happened, so I began doing some investigating. I found out shortly that I was not the only one who had extreme displeasure with what had happened. The anger that part of the Fredericksburg community felt was palpable, and it gushed forth on several local Facebook pages.</p><p>Here is what I have been able to piece together so far. Every year, one of the two Gillespie County High School bands leads the parade. This year, it was the Harper Band’s turn. They started off and set the pace. The Fredericksburg Band was entry number 50, well back in the line.</p><p>The Parade Route starts off at the intersection of Adams and Main Streets in Fredericksburg and then heads east to the intersection of Washington and Main. At this intersection, the parade makes a u-turn and then processes west through downtown Fredericksburg and finishes at the intersection of Bowie and Main. </p><p>When the parade makes the u-turn, floats and vehicles slow down, and gaps are created. The patrol officers, from many eyewitnesses, were urging floats and vehicles to speed up and close those gaps. Perhaps this would not have been an issue if the band were earlier in the parade, but by the time the band began its march, the Harper band was almost or entirely finished and was no longer setting the pace. The patrol officers hurrying the floats and vehicles along were setting that pace. Simple laws of physics, motion, acceleration, and horse power will tell you that vehicles close gaps much quicker than 130 high school students can while marching and carrying heavy instruments in the heat, and the urging of vehicles forward only created a bigger gap for the band to have to close.</p><p>Each entry in the parade does agree to a set of rules when they enter. There is no dispute about that; however, I have been unable to acquire a copy of those rules at this time. I do know there is something in there about keeping a reasonable distance between one entry to the next. What I do not know is how specific that rule is. And if the terminology is simply stating that a “reasonable distance” must be kept, then that is a matter of judgment. The question becomes: is one block an unreasonable distance?</p><p>Especially when one considers:</p><p>•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The hard work that the band kids and directors put in.</p><p>•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The fact that school is out on fair parade day, and the kids are giving up their free time to march (with a little bit of arm twisting, of course).</p><p>•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The long standing tradition and place of honor the band holds in this and the Christmas parade.</p><p>•<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The many parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members and friends who came to the parade to watch their kids march and cheer them on.</p><p>These are all important things to consider. Very important. </p><p>But we also must balance these things with the fact that we don’t want to go around bashing our local law enforcement officials. From everything I have seen, they thought they were doing their jobs. They knew the rules. They know that if too large of gaps appear, some will think the parade is over and begin entering the parade route and messing things up royally. They have to keep things as safe as possible.</p><p>But again, there are questions. Are they trained to speed things up? Are they trained to balance the power of vehicles alongside the fact that bands can only move between 2 and 3 miles per hour? These questions are important and are ones of consideration for the future. The Fredericksburg Police Department and County Fair Association will be having some intense conversations about this, and I am very happy to report that the Police Department has promised to take all community feedback into consideration at the event debriefing meeting.</p><p>But, in my mind, there is something deeper going on than these logistical issues. As I look at what is happening, not only in Fredericksburg, TX, but around the nation, there is a definite clash of values going on. I mean, can anyone say that 10 or even 15 years ago, that a small town’s high school band would ever be kicked out of the fair parade? Never. No one would ever consider it. Why?</p><p>Because the values that the community held, and the importance of the town’s history, tradition, and treatment of its kids–especially those giving of their time to march and be seen in the parade–would have trumped any sort of distance or gap issues. But that didn't happen here. So, why didn't it? What is happening?</p><p>Nothing that hasn’t happened before in other communities and small towns, and I grieve it. In 1984, my grandparents moved to Bella Vista, Arkansas. It was, at the time, a retirement community in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains. My immediate family traveled to see grandpa and grandma at least once a year, and I came to love the area. And I remember very well what the community was like when my grandparents first moved there. It may be politically incorrect to say it, but it was Hillbilly!!! And it was actually something the local folks played into.</p><p>Restaurants prided themselves in serving Hillbilly fare. The local hole in the wall places prided themselves in having the best biscuits and gravy and collard greens around. I still remember going to the “Ozark Mountain Jamboree,” a music venue which featured blue grass, country, and old fashioned Gospel music. Antique shops dotted the landscape oftentimes sitting right next to venues where local artists and craftsmen sold their home made works. The pace was slow. So was the southern drawl of the local conversations, and there was great suspicion towards outsiders. And I was okay with that. It was their culture. It was their tradition, and I loved being a part of it for those visits.</p><p>Then, Wal-Mart moved its headquarters to Rodgers, Arkansas, just a hop, skip, and a jump from Bella Vista. The transformation of the area had begun. Now, when you go to Bella Vista, the culture is completely different. There is no longer any hillbilly “feel” at all. The pace has drastically increased. Fast food chains have replaced all the mom and pop restaurants. There is now a completely new value system in place which has totally replaced the old. I don’t like it.</p><p>I grew up in a small town, and I have lived in small town/rural communities all my life. I can tell you unequivocally, there are both good and bad things about such places. In my estimation, the good far outweighs the bad. I mean, hey, it is highly likely I will forever be considered an Auslander in certain circles here in Fredericksburg because I didn’t grow up here. I moved here five years ago to serve as a pastor in one of the community’s churches. While I will have some respect because of my position, it will not carry the same respect that I would have had if I were born here. And I’m okay with that. I am. I get it.</p><p>I’m willing to accept that because I know that each and every place has its own traditions and culture. It has its own set of values and understandings. When you grow up in a place, you just absorb these things and live them like a fish in water. You don’t know any better. When you move in, you don't know these things. You have to learn them--and have a willingness to learn them.</p><p>These days, there are more than a few who don’t understand this, and what’s more, there is a sense among some that “I don’t have to conform to others. Others have to conform to me.” Small town values are not their values, and rather than be changed by the culture to which they enter, they want the culture to adapt to them.</p><p>I have learned to do the exact opposite. For the past five years, I have been learning about Fredericksburg’s history, cultures, and values. Believe me, I have A LOT more to learn. I am far from being an expert. I am far from knowing all the customs and traditions and values. But I want to learn them, and not only that, I want to honor them and uphold them. Why?</p><p>Because if I, and others don’t, they will disappear, just like they did up in Bella Vista. Other interests will root them out and replace them with a different set of values. Then, the community will lose its uniqueness. It will lose its connection to the past. It will become something altogether different.</p><p>I worry that this might be happening here. That’s why, I think the unthinkable happened and the band was asked to exit the parade. The values that once held sway are being replaced with others, and I’m not sure that is a good thing. At all. </p><p>Oh, I know: PROGRESS!! The revenue that the wine and tourist industry brings to our community is a boon, that is for certain. New businesses have replaced old and storied ones. That has happened in the past, but the values didn’t change. Those still held sway. There were traditions that remained untouched because they were honored. The Fredericksburg culture still held sway. Can that still be the case? I think so. In theory. In theory, we can still be a tourist destination. In theory, we can still embrace the wineries–as long as we ensure that our values, culture, and traditions are upheld and valued. I hope that is the case–again, I am still learning, and I hope I’m not overstepping my bounds by suggesting so. There are people who have been here longer who may and likely do have very different thoughts about this. But I am ever the eternal optimist who believes that timeless values, traditions and cultures can hold on even when other things change.</p><p>I hope such things are taken into account as everyone processes and reviews what happened in the parade, and I would like to invite everyone in this community to take a moment and think about what makes our community unique. How do we honor and uphold these very important things? What are those values, those traditions, and those cultural nuances that are non-negotiable which help us decide how things should be handled? Are they even still there?</p><p>Friday evening, I had the privilege of announcing the band as they marched at the football game. I let the band director know that I was going off script, and that I was going to try and bring some encouragement to the band and the band parents after the hurt and frustration they experienced that morning. As I announced from the press box, I could not see the crowd or the effect my words had, but later I saw the video. I saw the vast majority of people standing up, cheering, clapping, and raising their voices in support. I could see the kids stand up a bit straighter as they saw those in the bleachers rallying around them, supporting them, encouraging them, and acknowledging the long-standing tradition they are now a part of. The values of Fredericksburg, Texas were on full display at that moment. The question was resoundingly answered. Those small town values are still very much alive and well. Let’s not lose them.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-81989601524041194412023-07-25T08:54:00.000-05:002023-07-25T08:54:46.319-05:00On Christian Nationalism<p><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">Santino Burrola recorded a video and posted it to
TikTok.</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">He was fired from his job at a
grocery store for the offense.</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">What did
he do wrong?</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">Inappropriately filming
someone in the restroom?</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">Dancing in the
aisles while on the clock?</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">No.</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">He recorded thieves stealing from the
store.</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">He peeled aluminum foil off the
license plate of the get-away vehicle so that it would become visible.</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">Hoping that the culprits would be caught, he
posted the video, and at least one of the thieves was caught.</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">For his actions in trying to stop people from
stealing, he was fired.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The
store cited its policy that employees should not interfere with people
shoplifting to “minimize the risk to our associates.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">[i]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">If you
read the title to this piece, you may be wondering how this story relates to
Christian Nationalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It doesn’t seem
to tie in at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please bear with me,
and I will try to show you how.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is
a Christian Nationalism which should be rejected and condemned vociferously,
but there are also some thoughts and ideas which are labeled “Christian
Nationalism” in an attempt to smear those who offer them as well as to dismiss
those ideas without having to engage them and understand why they are held; and
those thoughts and ideas directly relate to the Santio Burrola situation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">First,
we must define Christian Nationalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is no firm definition, at least that I have found.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In our postmodern society, this is par for
the course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The muddier we can make
definitions, the more we can apply or deny them to a given situation, group, or
movement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">But I
don’t play those games.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Muddying the
waters only sows confusion and chaos.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Therefore, you do not need to guess my operating definition of Christian
Nationalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is this: <i>The belief
that God has given the U.S. a special blessing and destiny, and that to be
American means to be explicitly Christian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Therefore United States should impose the Christian faith upon its
population in public life including in its understanding and application of the
law.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many would call my definition
too limited, and they would like to add several caveats to it including the
following:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 1in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .5in 1.0in; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -1in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">•<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> <span> </span></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The U.S. was established to be an explicitly Christian
nation.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">[ii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 1in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .5in 1.0in; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -1in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">•<span> </span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">That Christianity should have a privileged position in
society.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">[iii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 0in 1in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .5in 1.0in; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -1in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">•<span> </span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">That it provides cover for white supremacy and racial
subjugation.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">[iv]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">[v]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">I reject these caveats and additions, and I will give
reason for below for some, but I believe it is important to say unequivocally
that the definition which I have set forth must indeed be rejected and
condemned vociferously by Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">For two substantial reasons: First, Christianity is
invitational, not impositional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Plain
and simple.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nowhere does Jesus ever
suggest that anyone be forced to become a Christian or follow Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, when people reject Jesus, He lets
them go.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He doesn’t zap them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He doesn’t punish them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He allows them to walk away to follow their
own whims.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He focuses His attention on
those who do accept the invitation to follow Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Faith in Christ does not come by forcing people to follow
Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith comes by hearing the Word
of God and having one’s heart transformed by the power of the Good News of
Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is our only and sole
weapon of transformation and bringing of the Kingdom of God to earth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imposing the Christian faith by fiat does not
change a heart, and the times when it has been tried have led to disaster.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Secondly, the Kingdom of God is in the world, but it is
not of the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Martin Luther writes
about this eloquently in his short piece<i> Temporal Authority: To what Extent
it Should be Obeyed</i>, “What would be the result of an attempt to rule the
world by the Gospel and the abolition of earthly law and force? It would be
loosing savage beasts from their chains. The wicked, under cover of the
Christian name would make unjust use of their Gospel freedom.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">[vi]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The Kingdom of God operates by grace, and those who enter
into it have no need of temporal law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Law of God is written upon their hearts, and so they actually go
above and beyond what temporal authority calls for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, as Luther states, there are very few
true Christians, so temporal law is necessary to curb sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Those who seek to impose the Kingdom of God by following
the belief of Christian Nationalism do not fundamentally understand
Christianity, and, perhaps this is why, as the authors of <i>Taking American
Back for God</i> found, the religiously devout do not adhere to those beliefs.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_edn7" name="_ednref7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">[vii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">It would appear that a rejection of Christian Nationalism
on these terms would be satisfactory, and we could simply bury the subject
altogether; however, we cannot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
topic actually becomes a bit muddier when one considers there are people within
society, and within the church, who use Christian Nationalism as a pejorative
towards those who believe that a) the United States was founded upon Christian
principles and b) that Christianity should have a privileged place in society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Let me state unequivocally before I continue, I do not
believe that Christianity should have a legally privileged place in
society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is both unconstitutional
in the U.S. and would actually fall under Christian Nationalism; however, when
I speak of a privileged position in society, I speak from understanding two
things: 1) That, as a Christian and particularly a Lutheran, I believe that all
temporal authority comes from God, and 2) without grounding the fundamental
rights of humanity as well as both values and morals, in a transcendent reality/worldview—specifically
a reality/worldview that also allows respectful disagreement alongside those
rights, values and morals--then a society will descend into chaos and
eventually fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Explanation is in
order.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">In the United States, it is understood that every
individual human being is endowed with certain rights, and the founders of our
nation stated clearly in the <i>Declaration of Independence,</i> those rights
are self-evidently endowed by the Creator.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>One must ask oneself two questions: 1) Where did this idea of
fundamental human rights come from? and 2) Why say that they are endowed by the
Creator?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The answer to the first of these questions is:
fundamental human rights including that each human had inherent value and worth
came from the Judeo-Christian tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is not a made up claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You
can read the histories and practices of ancient civilizations and find that
only within the Judeo-Christian tradition does one find that each and every
person has worth and value; each and every person is created in the image of
God; each and every person is allotted certain protections no matter if they
are an insider or an outsider.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is
the pertinent question: can a society hold onto fundamental beliefs when
throwing out the very belief system that brought those beliefs into the world? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The answer to the second of these questions is: they are
endowed by the Creator because if they were endowed by society or the
government, then they can be taken away at the whim of society or the
government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rights that are endowed by
the transcendent can only be removed by the transcendent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rights that are endowed by the immanent can easily
be removed by the immanent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reason
the Civil Rights’ Movement in the U.S. was successful is that an appeal was
made to transcendent rights which superseded laws that society had
implemented.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without such transcendence,
one could have simply said, “The majority has spoken.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your rights are granted by the state, nothing
more.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There would have been no counter
argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another pertinent question:
Can a society which removes the underpinning of human rights from a
transcendent Creator maintain human rights for everyone?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">The answers to these two questions begin pointing us
towards the reason Christianity should have a privileged place in society,
however, there is one more addition that must be made.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Christianity not only ensures fundamental
human rights and grounds those rights in a transcendent reality, it also
provides a moral framework which allows for disagreement and respect towards
those who hold different positions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Christians understand that we treat fellow Christians as family–this
language permeates the New Testament, but what about those who are not in our
Christian family?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are our neighbors,
and we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves–love being agape, the
Greek word for a self-sacrificial love which calls for sacrificing ourselves
for the sake of our neighbor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a
further call to love one’s enemies--again using the same Greek word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hatred and demonization of enemies; of the
other; of someone outside one’s preferred group, is forbidden within Christian
thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is there another philosophy or
religion which goes so far?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Certainly not the godless, postmodern society which is
rapidly gaining ground within our culture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Postmodern thought has removed the idea of transcendence and has made
everything immanent, and, unfortunately, even some within the church buy into
this particular philosophical framework.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is much to society’s detriment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Let us return to the opening story of this article:
Santino Burrola and his subsequent firing for wanting to stop thieves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What philosophy/worldview undergirds the idea
that thieves should be allowed to take goods unchecked?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What philosophy/ worldview undergirds the
idea that those who seek to stop stealing should be punished?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not the Christian worldview.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not the worldview which undergirded the
United States from its inception.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
is something else at play.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is
another stream of thought which is being privileged. In this case, it is the
postmodern worldview/philosophy which somehow has accepted theft and demeaned
those who try to stop it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would seem
self-evident that privileging this philosophy/worldview is not good for society
in the long run.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, it will lead
to chaos.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">As the great Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterson once
said, “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in
nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_edn8" name="_ednref8" style="mso-endnote-id: edn8;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">[viii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A culture or society which does not believe
in God, or at least have human rights rooted in a transcendent Creator, will
then become capable of believing anything including that theft should be
allowed and those who seek to protect another’s property should be punished.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">It would behoove those who try to lump those who strongly
adhere to the beliefs that the United States was founded upon Christian
principles and that Christianity should have a privileged place in society to
understand why we say such things and not simply dismiss us by pejoratively
calling us Christian Nationalists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’re
not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’re Christians, Lutherans, and
citizens who love our country and what it stands for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We want our country to be a place where
justice, fairness, and freedom thrive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We are convinced that in order for this to happen, we must have a shared
understanding of human rights, values, and morals; and we are convinced by
history, philosophy, and faith that this will be impossible without this being
grounded in a transcendent reality which allows for disagreement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: skip; text-autospace: none;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;">Is there a better grounding than Christianity?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t think so.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[i]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/king-soopers-employee-fired-video-theft/" target="_blank">https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/king-soopers-employee-fired-video-theft/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[ii]</span></span></span></a> <a href="https://sas.rutgers.edu/news-a-events/news/newsroom/faculty/3406-religious-nationalism" target="_blank">https://sas.rutgers.edu/news-a-events/news/newsroom/faculty/3406-religious-nationalism</a></p></div><div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;"><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p><a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[iii]</span></span></span></a>
Ibid.</p></div><div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;"><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p><a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[iv]</span></span></span></a> <a href="https://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/7996" target="_blank">https://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/7996</a></p></div><div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;"><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p><a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[v]</span></span></span></a> I do not deal with this caveat in the article
as it is not a theological point; however, this Pew article
(<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/views-of-the-u-s-as-a-christian-nation-and-opinions-about-christian-nationalism/" target="_blank">https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/views-of-the-u-s-as-a-christian-nation-and-opinions-about-christian-nationalism/</a>)
shows that even within the African-American and Hispanic communities a majority
of members of those communities support the statement that the founders of the
U.S. meant for this to be a Christian Nation. Not only that, the majority of
African-American Protestants believe that the U.S. should be a Christian
nation. This caveat is actually not
based in reality, but is based in an attempt to simply discredit Christian
Nationalism by tying it to white supremacy without actually dealing with any
arguments.</p></div><div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;"><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p><a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_ednref6" name="_edn6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[vi]</span></span></span></a>
Luther, Martin. Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed. Luther’s Works Volume 45. P.91.</p></div><div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;"><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_ednref7" name="_edn7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[vii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <a href="https://learn.elca.org/jle/taking-america-back-for-god-christian-nationalism-in-the-united-states-and-andrew-l-whitehead-and-samuel-l-perry/" target="_blank">https://learn.elca.org/jle/taking-america-back-for-god-christian-nationalism-in-the-united-states-and-andrew-l-whitehead-and-samuel-l-perry/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p> </o:p><a href="file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Haug/Documents/Apologetics/On%20Christian%20Nationalism.docx#_ednref8" name="_edn8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[viii]</span></span></span></a>
<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/44015-when-men-choose-not-to-believe-in-god-they-do" target="_blank">https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/44015-when-men-choose-not-to-believe-in-god-they-do</a></p></div><div id="edn8" style="mso-element: endnote;"><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-33411834584064472062023-07-03T16:10:00.014-05:002023-07-06T14:27:53.463-05:00The Creeds Don't "Sparkle"<p>“Pastor, what are we going to do about this?”</p><p>Those words were spoken by one of my octogenarians after she heard two news stories about the “Sparkle creed”, a statement that received national attention because of its use at an ELCA Lutheran Church in Minnesota. The congregation recited it at worship, posted the video online, and it went viral.</p><p>The "Sparkle creed” has actually been around for a year or two, but it was not until conservative news sites and blogs discovered it that it caused a bit of an uproar, and that uprorar is not without merit. However, care needs to be taken when addressing this issue. I will attempt to show why.</p><p>First, let me define creed as a statement of belief.</p><p>In a very real way, everyone has a creed of some sort. Individuals have creeds. Organizations have creeds. Individual congregations have creeds. In fact, many biblical scholars say that the first creed was quite simple: Jesus is Lord. Those three words actually led to the death of Christians who would not say the Roman creed: Caesar is Lord. </p><p>Because everyone has a creed, one could argue that having a creed is actually a neutral concept. People believe all sorts of things. That they believe them is undisputed and neutral, but what they believe can be problematic and either good or bad. For instance, if I believe that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with fundamental rights, then that is a creedal statement. And, I would happily argue that it is a good creedal statement for various reasons. Someone could hold a different position: that human beings are not endowed with rights from a Creator, but that governments decide what rights a person should or should not have. I would argue that this isn't a very good position to take, but that doesn't prevent some nations and people from holding it. </p><p>To change positions literally requires a conversion process as many, if not most, creedal beliefs are actually statements of faith not statements of science. For instance, science is practiced by using the scientific method: state a hypothesis; test and measure to see if the hypothesis holds water; formulate a theory; test the theory repeatedly. Is the scientific method a true way of getting knowledge? Well, you have to assume that it is. You have to trust that it is. You cannot test the scientific method by using the scientific method. Philosophers call this circular reasoning. Trusting that the scientific method is an accurate way of obtaining knowledge is a creedal belief. It is a deep, foundational belief, but it is a belief none-the-less, and one does not change those sorts of beliefs easily.</p><p>Which brings us to the Creeds of the Church, and I am intentionally capitalizing the letter C on both of those words. There is a reason for this as I shall get into shortly. </p><p>Within the Christian Church, there are three, recognized, orthodox Creeds: the Apostles' Creed; the Nicean Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, and what you need to realize about these statements of faith is this: these Creeds were recognized by the whole Church as true affirmations of the Christian faith. They were based in Scripture. They were developed over time or argued over or carefully thought through. They were not put together in a pastor's office to make a particular group or segment of society feel welcomed or accepted.</p><p>In general, they were written to stomp out heresy. They were written to unify a divided Church. They were written to solidify and codify what the Church believed about God the Father; Christ the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And as such, they are not to be trifled with.</p><p>Imagine for a minute if you will, gathering with a group of Christians circa 250 A.D. You are in hiding because Christianity is still not a recognized religion of the Roman Empire. It is the Easter Vigil, the time that it has become traditional for converts to be baptized into the faith. As the baptismal liturgy begins, the presider looks into the eyes of the converts. He begins addressing them and asks them three questions: Do you believe in God the Father? Do you believe in God the Son? Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit? And the converts begin reciting what they have been taught about who God is; who Jesus is; and who the Holy Spirit is. These statements have come together over decades of persecution and trial. Speaking them would immediately set these converts apart from the dominant culture and could lead to arrest and persecution. Such is the nature of the Apostles’ Creed.</p><p>Or consider a church divided by various sects all claiming to represent the one true faith. Yet, those beliefs are contradictory at times. Some are not grounded in scripture. Some are off the charts. What does it mean to be a Christian? What are the foundational beliefs? Is this world truly, totally evil? Does only the spiritual count? Was Jesus indeed fully human and fully diving or a really good human being only adopted by God and infused with the divine Spirit? What do you Christians truly believe? And bishops from far and wide gather to hammer such things out. They consult deeply with the scriptures; argue their points vehemently and passionately; and put together a statement of faith which declares: this is it. These are the non-negotiables. It is accepted by the church council and has stood the test of time for centuries. Such is the nature of the Nicene Creed.</p><p>The "Sparkle creed" shares none of this history. It was written for entirely different reasons and has not even come close to being vetted by the whole Christian Church on earth. In fact, the majority of the Christian Church on earth would out right reject it. </p><p>Therefore, it follows, that it has no standing to replace the Creeds in worship. </p><p>I mean: if someone wants to say that they adhere to the "Sparkle creed," then they can personally say that they believe exactly what is in that statement. If a congregation wants to go so far as to use this creed in worship, then they are free to do so, but I strongly believe it should be introduced as a statement of that individual congregation, not of the Christian Church–it is not “the faith of the Church, the faith in which we baptize.” </p><p>For to use it in such a manner is to actually separate one's self and congregation from the global Church. It is to become myopic and rather self-centered. Arguably, it is creating one’s own personal faith and religion–dare I say one’s own god.</p><p>And yes, I am quite aware that I belong to a denomination whose founder separated himself and then many congregations from the larger Church body of the time. The irony is not lost on me; however, Luther didn't mess with the Creeds. He affirmed them and what they stood for repeatedly. He didn't tinker with the Creeds or try to change them for he never wanted to split with the Church of Rome. These statements of belief were not up for negotiation or reformation. They were good “as is.”</p><p>They still are. They are meant to hold us together despite our disagreements on secondary issues. Trying to put "sparkle" in them only causes more division. </p><p>Leave the Creeds alone.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-28619960408622248042023-06-19T11:47:00.004-05:002023-06-19T14:29:33.085-05:00On Toxic Masculinity<p>Yesterday was Father's Day, and my family treated me very well. There were several moments of reflection as it was the second Father's Day since my dad died, and I thought long and hard about how privileged I was to have had my dad. </p><p>He taught me how to be a father. It wasn't in classroom instruction or in long talks about what to do and what not to do with raising children, but it was with his actions; with his presence; with his discipline; with his forcing me to do things I didn't want to do. It was the right amount of challenge and love. It was pushing me beyond what I thought I could do.</p><p>I talked with my mom about one of those times. We were reflecting on how old her house is. They moved into it in 1980, and there are numerous things in need of repair. But we reflected on when it was being built. And while it was being constructed--a project that we did on our own--I had one of the most traumatic experiences of my life. Dad made me get on the roof. </p><p>You can laugh all you want. I don't care. It scared the bejeezus out of me. I'm five years old and terrified of heights. Terrified. Still get queazy. Dad made me get up on the roof as we were installing the plywood decking. I'm sitting up there crying my eyes out. I want down. My sister is up there having the time of her life while I'm white as a sheet. Dad wouldn't let me down. Dad made me stay up there. He wouldn't let me down until I drove a nail in the plywood and hammered it into a stud. Have you ever tried to swing a hammer while you were bawling your eyes out? Bet you haven't. It was one of the hardest things I ever did, but I did it. And I got down off that roof as fast as my shaking legs would let me down that ladder.</p><p>A day or so later, dad had me get back on that roof. Wasn't thrilled with the proposition. Still scared. But took a few steps. Didn't shed any tears. Tentatively made made my way around as decking was completed and tar paper was being nailed in place.</p><p>A day or so later, when shingles were being installed, dad had me up there once again. This time, I helped out. I was walking around the roof. Progress. </p><p>Now, I have no problem up on roofs. I can manage it. Even enjoy it.</p><p>Some would argue that dad shouldn't have done that to me. They would say that he pushed me too hard and that I should have been allowed to go at my own pace. You are entitled to your opinion. My dad was doing something that needed to be done: he made me face my fears. He made me overcome them. He made me become more of a man--at five years old. He made me find something important: courage.</p><p>I've had to call on that courage numerous times in my adult life. It has helped me face situations that I otherwise might have cowered from--especially as a father. Now, I am working to pass that same courage onto my children. They aren't always happy about it, but they are learning. And they are successfully facing things that they otherwise might have been willing to back away from if they hadn't had my influence.</p><p>Among some, what my dad did and what I am doing is called "toxic masculinity." I don't find it particularly toxic.</p><p>Although, let me be clear, I do think there is such a thing as toxic masculinity. I would prefer to call it immaturity, personally. It's men who act like boys. They treat others with disrespect and distain. They will look at women as objects meant to fulfill their own sexual gratification. They look down upon the weak and prey upon them. They believe that rules do not apply to them, and they are inherently selfish. That's toxic masculinity.</p><p>But here is the thing, at least from my perspective. The cure for toxic masculinity is not to make men feminine. That's not what needs to be changed. The noun does not need to be changed, the adjective does. Instead of toxic masculinity, we need healthy masculinity. </p><p>Femininity is not the opposite of masculinity. They are complimentary.</p><p>Healthiness is the opposite of toxicity. Plain and simple.</p><p>We need healthy masculinity. The studies are bearing that out, and they have borne that out for decades. Warren Farrell writes about it deeply in his book <i>The Boy Crisis</i>. Christina Hoff Summers also corroborates in her book <i>The War Against Boys</i>. They cite a plethora of studies that have been done on boys, men, and what the lack of fathers is doing in our society. Even<a href="https://communio.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/COMMUNIO_Survey-of-Faith-and-Relationships-1.pdf" target="_blank"> more studies </a>have shown how religion has been affected by the rejection of positive masculinity. </p><p>The world needs good men. Men who are responsible. Men who are willing to push others to do better than they thought they could otherwise. Men who are strong and who make others stronger. Men who teach courage. Men who teach honor. Men who teach respect. </p><p>It's time to man up.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-73352390539469057432023-06-07T11:40:00.000-05:002023-06-07T11:40:09.435-05:00Arnold Schwarzenegger, Heaven, and the Reality of What He Said<p> I saw the clickbait headlines, and I clicked. </p><p>That's what they are there for, right? </p><p>And when a famous movie star says that heaven is a fantasy and that those who say we won't get to be reunited with those who have died are effing liars...well, that makes news.</p><p>And, boy, was I formulating a response. Was I ready to jump into the fray and hammer what was reportedly said. I had it all laid out and ready to go.</p><p>But, the thing about clickbait headlines and the articles that follow is: they often are misleading. They pull quotations out of their context and create a narrative that may or may not be true to the initial setting.</p><p>So, before I decided to open up with both barrels, I decided to search for the original commentary in <a href="https://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/arnold-schwarzenegger-and-danny-devito-on-life-and-death" target="_blank">Interview Magazine</a>. Please read it if you have not. It is worthwhile if you are interested in this story as I am--particularly as a pastor, theologian, and someone who preaches the reality of heaven.</p><p>As I read through the interview, I see a man whose life experiences have led him to a place where it is natural to question the existence of heaven. Just read about what Schwarzenegger's life was like in Austria. The guy knows poverty. He knows what it means to struggle. He had to use an outhouse and dream of having music in his home. (These are things that many of us in the U.S. have no clue--no friggin' clue--about. </p><p>Schwarzenegger found a pathway out of that poverty through weight training, joining the military, obtaining his passport, and coming to the U.S. He was given opportunity through the generosity and care of famous gym owners. </p><p>Schwarzenegger recognizes that he is no self-made man. He knows there were people who gave him breaks. He knows there are people who helped him along the way. The tribute he gives to these people is packed with emotion.</p><p>And he is grateful. Extremely grateful for everything that he has. From extreme poverty to absolute wealth, the contrast he has experienced in his life is amazing. And here is the thing: if you take into account where he started to where he is now, he has passed from hell into heaven. From a house with no electricity and no running water to sitting down with famous people, smoking Cuban cigars, able to buy whatever he wants. How could it get any better for him? I mean, really, how could it get any better?</p><p>He went from the lowest of low to achieving the highest possible position of power that he could achieve in the U.S.--as the governor of California; the highest possible position of fame--a Hollywood movie star who has been in multiple blockbuster movies; to one of the wealthiest people in the world. What more is there to look forward to? How could heaven possibly be better?</p><p>And that's likely why death scares him, in my opinion.</p><p>Arnold claims to be no spiritual expert, and that comes through in his conversation in the interview. As I read it, he is wrestling back and forth with the concepts of nihilism, hope, spirituality, body, soul, and how it all might work out. It's much more nuanced than many of the headlines and articles report.</p><p>And I am thankful for his wrestling. I wish the news articles would have highlighted that more, and I'd love to have a conversation with Arnold regarding these matters. It might be difficult to persuade him, but on the other hand, it might not be.</p><p>Because I would like to ask him what his perspective might be if he had never gotten out of Austria; if he had never become Mr. Universe and a movie star; if he had never achieved the status that he had achieved. Would he be as enamored with this life now? Would he think that there could be nothing better than this life? How does he grapple with the billions of humans who never come close to experiencing the life he has? How does he deal with the fact that millions upon millions of people never experience justice, satisfaction, fulfillment, and the like? </p><p>Would he look at a mother and father who are burying their still born child and say that the person who tells them they will see their child again in heaven are liars? Would he tell them that the child is simply going to disintegrate, to get over it? Would he say the same to a mother and father staring down into the casket looking at their daughter's body for what seems like an eternity, not wanting to close that casket because when they do, it rams home the reality that they will never see her dance, sing, or laugh again? Would he look into the eyes of a widow or widower who has just lost their spouse of 50+ years and now has to think of what life will be like without that person; who wonders how they will move on and deny the existence of heaven? Will he look down on a person suffering from cancer whose every breath is painful; who is wondering why this disease has come upon her and wondering if this is all that life has to offer; and say that someone telling them about heaven is an effing liar?<br /><br />I don't think so. I don't think he would at all. He's mad that we die. That comes across plain and clear in his interview. He doesn't want it to be that way. He wants someone or something to blame. But he also has no clear way to resolve these thoughts. Intellectually, he is in a rough space.</p><p>He is not alone. He's not the only person who wrestles with such things. Lots of people do.</p><p>Those of us who are Christians have a resolution to these problems: answers that have been passed down for over 2000 years. They are still very good answers, but they are also best shared in person; face to face; over coffee, beer, lunch, dinner, and the like. Not likely that any such meeting would ever take place between me and Arnold, but I have had those conversations numerous times. Some of them took place with the examples I shared earlier--those weren't made up. They were situations I found myself in as a pastor, and I cannot express how the Christian view empowered each and every one of them to face the days ahead with a sure and certain hope. I hope Arnold has someone who can sit down with him and help him see it too.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-39827447802678396682022-01-17T15:09:00.002-06:002022-01-17T15:09:39.352-06:00What do Kids Need to Know?<p> It is interesting reading the debate about what children are taught in schools.</p><p>Should parents dictate what their kids are taught?</p><p>Should schools be the ones who decide what is taught?</p><p>Drawing the either/or here is a great mistake in my opinion.</p><p>Parents are vital in a child's education, and they should definitely be involved in the process of their child's learning. I have been personally frustrated with the schooling of my children because they oftentimes bring home work, and I have difficulty helping them. Not because I am unintelligent, but because there are no text books and no worksheets showing the methodology. My kids aren't necessarily the greatest at taking notes, so I struggle to find out how a problem should be worked. During the time schools went virtual during the early stages of the pandemic, I was able to follow along with the methodologies being taught, and then pass them onto my kids. Since they have returned to in-person class, I am now unable to follow along. Yes. Technology is great. Yes. Saving space on textbooks is helpful, but at what cost. We who are parents are no longer able to read along with our kids. Engage with textbooks like we used to, and help teachers with the methodologies being taught. That is a major downside, and I think also a contributor to the problem between parents and schools.</p><p>Because, when parents cannot see what is being taught, and sometimes, are stonewalled when they ask what is being taught, suspicion gets raised. Secrecy is not a good thing in education. Our brains love to fill in the gaps with information that may or may not be accurate. We will literally make stuff up to make things make sense, and if we are not being told what is being taught--we conjure up all sorts of reasons why. And a lot of times, those reasons are negative. Having some sort of open access to what kids are taught might make all the difference in the world with some of this issue.</p><p>But so will a realization that neither parents nor schools themselves are the sole arbiters of what children should be taught. There is a mutual engagement that needs to take place in this arena, particularly in the society we find ourselves navigating. Too often, there are forces looking to indoctrinate rather than inform. There are too many forces trying to tell kids what to think instead of giving them the tools to search out data and then interpret that data. There are too many forces trying to limit which facts are taught in schools in favor of the facts which are particular to their own narratives.</p><p>This is why parents and schools must work together. Parents and schools must fill in the blanks and ensure that as many facts as possible are given whatever subject matter is taught. And perhaps we desperately need to agree upon what the overall goal of an education is. What are we trying to ensure when we teach children. Are we giving them life skills to help them survive in the business world? Are we strictly trying to prepare them for college? Are we working towards giving them the basic tools necessary to be a good citizen in the U.S.? Is it a bit of all of it? </p><p>I know that as a parent, I would like my children to walk out of high school with the basic skills necessary to enter into the workforce as well as an understanding of what our country is and what it means to be a citizen of the U.S. I think this means they should be able to read, write, and have some mathematical comprehension as well as have a basic understanding of U.S. history and civics. If they have the ability to research, gather data, and draw conclusions based on that data in a critical fashion--even better. I feel rather fortunate to live in a community where these values are greatly shared by the school system, but I know that is not the case everywhere. The news stories bear this out.</p><p>But instead of shouting it out at school board meetings, perhaps we need to realize just how collaborative an effort education is. </p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-85670168834338018812021-12-21T13:22:00.000-06:002021-12-21T13:22:51.265-06:00No. We Will not Defeat COVID-19<p> Can we please stop the insanity?</p><p>We are not going to defeat COVID-19. </p><p>This isn't a defeatest statement. </p><p>It's a statement of reality.</p><p>We. Are. Not. Going. To. Defeat. COVID-19.</p><p>We have to learn to live with it. </p><p>Period.</p><p>Unfortunately, those in power and in control aren't willing to say this. I have my thoughts as to why, but they are speculation. Maybe I will do a little bit of that later. But, for now, we need to consider the evidence. And there is only once conclusion to draw from the evidence.</p><p>We will not eradicate COVID-19 by vaccination. From all the evidence, vaccines will reduce your chances of hospitalization and death immensely, but they will not completely prevent you from getting the virus, nor will they keep you from spreading it. By now, you probably know someone who has had a breakthrough case. I have had a breakthrough case. After being fully vaccinated, I caught the Delta variant. After about a week of feeling like I had a balloon in my head and losing my sense of smell, I was well. I had a mild case. Would I have ended up in the hospital without the vaccination? Who knows? I am thankful that I didn't. I am not the only one with a breakthrough case. I could point out at least 20 others in my congregation alone who caught COVID after being fully vaccinated. Let's dissolve ourselves of the idea that these vaccines will stop this disease in its tracks. It won't.</p><p>And the breakthrough cases are not the only evidence we have to know that vaccination will not defeat COVID. The news media has at least indirectly given us another piece of information which helps us in our quest of the truth. COVID is not restricted to human hosts. Animals get it. Stories abound from zoos where animals have contracted the virus and even died from it. As a hunter, numerous stories were written telling us to mask up and wear gloves when field dressing our deer because they were infected with COVID. What is significant about this news? The virus has hosts to replicate and mutate in outside of humans. This means, our vaccines will eventually be rendered useless and must be continually updated to deal with the mutations. The reason we have been able to nearly eradicate measles, mumps, and other such diseases is that they are human specific. The reason we have not been able to eradicate the common cold or flu--they are not human specific and continually mutate.</p><p>This evidence is hard evidence. It is not circumstantial. You cannot explain it away.</p><p>And lock-downs are ineffective. Just look at the data. In the U.S. look at the graphs of states who were strict about lockdowns and mask mandates. Compare them to states who were more lenient. Any difference? No. Not at all. I know there are more than a few studies that suggest lockdowns worked and that mask mandates meant fewer cases. Not by the hard data. Not by what you see with your own eyes on the graphs. COVID spreads. Like a common cold. It's that infectious, and there isn't much we are going to be able to do to stop it.</p><p>The insanity is thinking that we can. </p><p>The logical conclusion given the hard data is that COVID-19 will become and indeed might already be endemic. We won't defeat it. We will have to live and manage with it. Vaccines will help mitigate the severity of the disease--especially for the most vulnerable. Medications will arrive which will also help. Folks who take care of their own physical health--COVID seems to really have an adverse effect on people who are overweight/obese--will be in good stead. </p><p>Some may choose to remove themselves from society to protect themselves. That is their choice.</p><p>Others will choose to engage in the world and live taking the risk. That is their choice as well.</p><p>But let's stop the insanity of thinking that we are going to defeat this thing. Ain't happening. There are things that are beyond our control. This is one of them. Deal with it. </p><p><br /></p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-1619312170956819282021-07-21T10:04:00.002-05:002021-07-21T10:04:16.013-05:00What Happened to "The Call"?<p> At a recent council meeting, we discussed several trends affecting the church in 2021. We discussed how many churches are now hybrid congregations: having both an online and in-person presence. We breeched the subject of how we might conduct Holy Communion with people in their homes and in small groups.</p><p>At this point, I raised a concern regarding such things. "Whatever we do, I just want to make sure the meaning and understanding of the sacrament is not diminished."</p><p>Not that the sacrament can be diminished. It's the real presence of Jesus. You can't diminish that in and of itself. But it can be diminished in peoples' hearts and minds. This is why Martin Luther wrote certain explanations in regards to petitions of the Lord's Prayer in the following manner: the will of God; the kingdom of God; certainly comes without our prayer, but in this prayer we pray that it may come to us... The kingdom of God; the will of God are certainly undeterred by us, but we don't want such things diminished by our failure to see them or bow before them or even work against them. </p><p>My colleague offered some insight into this as he shared that in a very real way, administering the sacrament of Holy Communion is the only thing that really sets clergy apart from everyone else in the church. For those who do not know the terminology, the church is broken down into clergy (pastors, priests, etc.) and lay folks (congregation members, teachers, elders, etc.). Lay folks certainly preach and teach. Lay folks can administer the sacrament of Baptism in special circumstances. Lay folks forgive sins; lead worship; read Scripture; and so on and so forth. In all of these things, there is not much distinction between clergy and lay!! And the line has become even more diminished.</p><p>There are some internet sites which offer people "ordination" so they may preside at weddings of family members and others. Therefore, with no training; no formal education; no discernment, a person can become an ordained minister.</p><p>Now, I am no fool. I know there are plenty of pastors and ministers who have gone though the ordination process who probably should not have made it. The numbers of clergy who have committed heinous sins of sexuality attest to that. The numbers of clergy fired from their churches for financial mismanagement attest to that too. Pastors who have bullied their congregations or people in their congregations add to the numbers. A theological education is no guarantee that an ordained minister is going to perform the duties of the office well.</p><p>But there is something that will: a calling. Perhaps I am just too isolated in the setting I serve, but I remember a time when we talked deeply about a sense of calling in the church. We talked about sensing a call to the ordained ministry. This was a deep feeling/sense/intuition that God had set you apart to proclaim His Word and lead His people. This call could have come dramatically (as did mine), or it could have risen in bits and pieces over a long period of time until you knew this was what God had given you as a vocation in life. </p><p>But simply sensing this call was not enough. The larger church took it upon itself to examine whether or not it believed the call you sensed was genuine. Along with seminary training, we had to go through a candidacy process. There was psychological evaluation. There was evaluation of your prayer and spiritual life. Was there evidence of the Spirit working in your life? Was there evidence of the Spirit working in your preaching and teaching? Did you exhibit compassion? Were you able to comprehend theological concepts? Did you adhere to the doctrine of the Lutheran Church? All of these things were evaluated to see if indeed God had called you and set you apart for ordained ministry.</p><p>I get the sense that this understanding of calling is greatly diminished. For certain in our society. For suspicion in our churches. One of the last recruitment videos I watched put out by my own denomination never asked the question, "Are you called?" Yes, there was language about God calling a person, but the main, driving question was, "Do you want to change the world?" Note to ELCA seminaries: The hard truth is that no one really changes the world; they can hardly change a congregation; and you will be lucky if you can even change yourself. The calling to serve as an ordained pastor isn't about changing the world. It's about proclaiming Christ and Him crucified. </p><p>The calling to become an ordained pastor isn't about wanting to officiate at a loved one's wedding. It's about proclaiming Christ and Him crucified.</p><p>The calling to become an ordained pastor is about serving the church, but it is in the capacity of proclaiming Christ and Him crucified.</p><p>"Are you called?" That's the question. It is a wonderful, terrible question to wrestle with. And I wonder how often it is being asked.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-65652523416674334472021-07-14T15:06:00.000-05:002021-07-14T15:06:17.236-05:00Cancel Culture must be Cancelled<p> Even I recognize the irony and hypocrisy in the title of this post because I am a strong proponent, ardent defender, and principled believer in the concept of freedom of speech. You would come to the logical conclusion that I would want no one cancelled; that I would embrace allowing folks' to articulate their positions without fear of negative consequence.</p><p>And I would, and I do.</p><p>And it would seem that such a position would be incompatible with calling for the cancellation of a train of thought or "culture" as it seems.</p><p>But one must dig deeper into this virus that has infected our society and realize just what we are dealing with. For we are dealing with two very incompatible ideals.</p><p>One ideal seeks a society of the open interchange of ideas. It seeks robust debate and argumentation. It gives people ample opportunity to speak their minds and then change them if convinced otherwise. Therefore, it allows mistakes, stupid comments, ignorant comments, and even repulsive comments with the thought, hope, and knowledge that a person's position can (and often is) swayed by argument, logic, reason, and understanding.</p><p>The other ideal seeks a society where only certain ideas are accepted and allowed to be spoken. It is punitive and does not allow mistakes, ignorance, stupidity, or repulsiveness. And such mistakes, ignorance, stupidity, or repulsiveness is defined only by the powers that be--not by any particular, objective standard. Make one misstep, and you can lose your job, status, and well being. There is no free interchange of ideas. There is imposition of the correct ideas.</p><p>These two positions are totally and completely incompatible. And one of these positions will consume the other if it is not checked. Totalitarians don't stop unless they are overthrown.</p><p>Oh, and I have heard the arguments regarding the limits of free speech. "You cannot cry fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire." Indeed. That is lying. One can easily prove such speech false, and one can be punished for the consequences of lying.</p><p>Yet, such a comparison is not the same as stating one's position on gay marriage, for instance. It is not the same as pointing out the statistics of police officer shootings of unarmed black men. It is not the same as support of a particular political candidate. In all of these things, well articulated arguments backed up by statistics and facts or reasonable opinions have led to cancellation of individuals. And they are not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater. </p><p>Unfortunately, in this particular situation, we are at a point where we can liken it to bullying or even warfare. One side wants peace and freedom. The other side wants imposition and to control. One side deeply values peace and freedom and wants to uphold it, but in order to prevent the other side from taking over, it must stand firm and even fight. (No, masters of technology. I am not arguing for guns and fists and knives and the like. If you try to cancel this blog because of your reading into the text something that is not there, you will face a lawsuit.) We must be willing to cancel the cancel culture. We must be willing to undermine it. We must be willing to argue vehemently against it. We must be willing to use the tactics of seizing power to ensure the free exchange of ideas. If the two "sides" were compatible in some measure, we would not have to do this. We could peacefully coexist. But because they are logically incompatible and contradictory, one must emerge victorious. </p><p>One of these positions has been shown throughout history to provide human flourishing.</p><p>The other has been shown to lead to human misery and suffering.</p><p>If you have studied history, you know which, but for the ignorant, I will be blunt. It's not cancel culture. It's the free interchange of ideas.</p><p>Stand and fight for it.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-39874242117130765922021-06-15T17:09:00.000-05:002021-06-15T17:09:17.677-05:00Loving Jesus but Hating the Church<p> For some reason, the title of this blog has stuck with me for a few days. I've heard sentiments like it phrased in several different ways. And, of course, there are rebuttals.</p><p>But I began to question if such a thing is possible.</p><p>And I know that oftentimes our rebuttals to such things tend to be quite soft; intended to change minds and "win" someone over.</p><p>But I wonder if the reality is a bit harsher.</p><p>I wonder if the response to this isn't more a matter of laying down the law.</p><p>Because I think the reality is this: if you don't love the church, you don't love Jesus.</p><p>Because when you love Jesus, you love the church.</p><p>The church has been and will continue to be the "bride of Christ."</p><p>And ugly bride though she may be, for the criticisms of the church are often dead accurate, she is still the bride of Christ.</p><p>And Christ loves her. Warts and all.</p><p>Just like Christ loves us, warts and all.</p><p>And that is, I think, central to the matter. For oftentimes, a distaste of the church is rooted in a sense of moral superiority. It's rooted in a sense of finger pointing. It's rooted in a sense of self-righteousness. It's rooted in a lack of forgiveness.</p><p>And I know that people have been hurt by the church. I know that people have been hurt by people in the church. I know that people have been hurt by leaders in the church.</p><p>So have I. </p><p>So. Have. I.</p><p>I still bear a few wounds that are not completely healed as well as some major scars. I have been falsely accused of things. I have had my reputation drug through the mud. I have had my family attacked. Rumors spread about my supposed infidelity. Children called unspeakable names. All by "upstanding church members." And I have had church leaders shrug their shoulders, offer little to no support and be all too happy when I pulled my stakes and headed to a different venue. I have every reason to dislike the church and some of the people in it.</p><p>But I can't love Jesus and not love the church.</p><p>Because all of those things that were done to me, at some point in my life, I am sure that I have done to others; and not only done to others but done to Christ Himself. </p><p>And despite my callousness towards Christ, He has never stopped loving me.</p><p>He has never turned His back on me</p><p>He has never rejected me.</p><p>He has only and ever reached out his arms and died for me.</p><p>He has only and ever forgiven me</p><p>He has only and ever extended grace to me and a love that is completely and totally undeserved.</p><p>Can I do anything less for His bride?</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-12701194629329904622021-05-26T15:23:00.005-05:002021-05-26T15:23:51.880-05:00The Bible is Inspired, but Your Interpretation Isn't<p> Apparently the title of this blog is an <a href="https://notthebee.com/article/a-popular-phrase-from-the-pit-of-hell?fbclid=IwAR2zdUaXr-jc7AMjTmVcr2VPWnsLd_9IsYg6hTyuPJwgUJNrRfYQxU7LdxM">argument being used </a>against folks who share certain thoughts about what the Bible says.</p><p>I am curious as to which interpretations are being called into question? The linked article referenced human sexuality. But I wonder if any others. I ask because I have actually never heard anyone say this.</p><p>However, even though I have not heard it said, I think it worth responding to--even if it might be to simply get ahead of the curve.</p><p>There are several things that come to mind:</p><p>First, the idea that our interpretations are not inspired by God is a bit of a fallacious argument. A Christian who has been born from above (John 3) has the very Spirit of God dwelling within: calling, enlightening, sanctifying, and preserving that person. When guided by this Spirit, the interpretations are indeed inspired.</p><p>Second, we must always temper this with the knowledge that we are sinful, imperfect beings. Therefore, we must always measure our interpretations against and with others whom history has shown to be faithful. Our interpretations are bound to the intent of the authors of the Scriptures, and, thankfully, we have Greek and Hebrew studies as well as historical/cultural studies to guide us. When in constant dialogue with those who have been found to be faithful as well as the scholarship of ancient languages and cultures, we can be relatively sure our interpretations are correct.</p><p>Third, making the blanket statement, "your interpretations are not (inspired)," is actually a self-defeating statement. It applies to any person's interpretation. Any. Person's. Let that sink in. If you want to tell someone, "Your interpretation's wrong," on what basis do you do so? That's your interpretation, and it's not inspired. If you want to agree with another person's interpretation, it is simply a matter of your opinion. It's not because that interpretation is right or true. It's just that it fits your taste. There is no need to actually do any hard work in trying to figure out what the biblical writers tried to convey to their audience. None of that matters because none of it is inspired. It's all relative.</p><p>Finally, is it really that hard to interpret certain portions of Scripture? I mean, really. Certainly there are places in the Bible that are metaphor. They are not to be taken literally, and interpretation is warranted. There are also stories and parables that require interpretation to make application. However, there are also some very straight forward sayings that do not require a high degree of interpretation. "You shall have no other gods before me." What's difficult to interpret about that? "Love your enemies and bless those who persecute you." Trouble understanding that? Applying it might be a bit difficult, but the interpretation is pretty clear. "You shall not murder." Again, how hard is that to interpret? It's not. And in my estimation, if you are making it difficult, you are simply trying to justify a behavior that the Scriptures forbids.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-3963451699701392822021-04-19T09:43:00.000-05:002021-04-19T09:43:03.801-05:00The Proper Use of Doubt<p> Luke 24:36-49</p><p><br /></p><p>36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.' 37They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. 38He said to them, ‘Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.' 40And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?' 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate in their presence.</p><p>44 Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.' 45Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, 47and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.'</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The week after Easter, as I was browsing through my Facebook feed, I saw that someone had posted an article in one of the groups I belong to. The name of the group should tell you everything you need to know. The name of the group is: The Lutheran Nerd Clan. Yes, it is everything both Lutheran and nerdy, and I am a proud member. But that is beside the point. The point is the article that was posted, and it’s title immediately intrigued me: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/science/particle-physics-muon-fermilab-brookhaven.html">“A Tiny Particle’s Wobble Could Upend the Known Laws of Physics.”</a> It was a science article in the New York Times. I love science, and I know that oftentimes, science points us towards the majesty, wonder, and beauty of God. Really. If someone ever told you there was a conflict between science and faith, they are misguided. Not just misguided. They are wrong. There is no conflict in the least, but that’s not the topic of this sermon. The topic of this sermon has to do with what this article in the New York Times was all about.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Let me quote the article here, “Evidence is mounting that a tiny subatomic particle seems to be disobeying the known laws of physics, scientists announced on Wednesday, a finding that would open a vast and tantalizing hole in our understanding of the universe.”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Again, quoting the article, “The particle célèbre is the muon, which is akin to an electron but far heavier, and is an integral element of the cosmos. Dr. Polly and his colleagues — an international team of 200 physicists from seven countries — found that muons did not behave as predicted when shot through an intense magnetic field at Fermilab.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The aberrant behavior poses a firm challenge to the Standard Model, the suite of equations that enumerates the fundamental particles in the universe (17, at last count) and how they interact.”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Now, that’s all of the article I am going to read. Don’t worry, I’m not going to push the science any further. Some of you may be going, “Wow! This is cool,” but I know there are others out there who are thinking, “Man, I hated science. Why in the world am I hearing about science at church? I thought I was done with this stuff. What in the world does this have to do with my life and my relationship with God?” Patience. I am getting there. Really. I am getting there because this experiment along with another one which had similar results back in 2001 has shaken the scientific community. It has caused a lot of doubt. Whereas they once thought they had most of physics figured out, it might turn out that they have to completely and totally rethink how they believed the atomic world operated. There is still much data to be waded through, but if this experiment is confirmed, it will turn everything topsy turvy. And now, there is much debate within the community about this matter.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The results of this experiment are very much like the results of Jesus coming and sitting in the room with the disciples on that first Easter evening. Our Gospel lesson this morning is Luke’s account of Jesus’ first appearance to the disciples after the resurrection. You may recall that last week, we heard the Gospel of John’s account of this appearance, and there are many, many points of connection between the two accounts. The major difference between those two accounts is that John emphasizes the reaction of Thomas, one of the disciples. That account is often referred to as the doubting Thomas account. But as Pastor Casey said last week, we would do better to call it the disbelieving Thomas account. The Greek is pretty clear there. Thomas didn’t doubt, he was disbelieving. In today’s account, there is a much better example of doubt. We actually have the doubting disciples, and this time, the Greek wording matches up.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Let’s set the scene. Again, like in John’s account, the disciples are huddled behind closed doors. The disciples who Jesus met on the road to Emmaus have just arrived and have shared their account. Everyone is talking about this, and suddenly, Jesus appears. Like in John, Jesus’ first words are words of peace, “Peace be with you.” A bit of chaos ensues. The disciples are startled and terrified. That’s the wording that is used. They think they have seen a ghost. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Jesus then works to convince them that they aren’t seeing things. He is real, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?” Let’s stop there because here is where the word doubts actually comes into play. The Greek word here is dialogismoi, which has the definition of discussion, consideration, or debate. Perhaps a literal translation would be, “Why are you frightened and why do you debate with yourselves in your hearts?” This is true doubt. This isn’t a “I believe!” And this isn’t a “I don’t believe.” This is a “I really am not sure what to do with this information. If this is real, then everything that I have once thought I knew is now topsy turvy!” I told you, this biblical passage is very much like what happened with the results of those scientific experiments.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But the disciples were having quite the difficulty coming to grips with Jesus being there. They weren’t sure about what was happening. So, Jesus keeps pushing. He keeps giving them evidence. Look at my hands and my feet. Touch me. See, I am real. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And again, we are told that the disciples were “in their joy disbelieving.” Probably a better translation for us would be, “They thought this was too good to be true.” So, once again, Jesus takes another step to show that he is real; that he is not a ghost. He asks for something to eat and eats it right in front of them.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Now, I want to take just a moment before continuing to point out something that the Bible is showing us. Sometimes, there are folks today who dismiss ancient people. They will say things like: ancient people weren’t as advanced as we are today; ancient people were not as skeptical as we are today; ancient people were not as scientifically minded and so they would accept things back then that we would never accept today. They just didn’t know any better. And while that is true about some things, that is not true about every thing. Just because ancient people didn’t know about atoms and protons and electrons, they knew that people didn’t just rise from the dead and appear. They knew that once someone had been crucified and was buried, they stayed dead and buried. The Bible here does not show the disciples just accepting the resurrection of Jesus without any thought or skepticism or doubt. I mean, for heaven’s sake, Jesus appeared to them. Jesus was in the room with them, and they didn’t just automatically believe it. They didn’t just automatically accept it. They doubted. They wrestled. They tried to figure all of this out. They didn’t turn their brains off. Instead, when confronted with this new reality; when confronted with this new information; when confronted with the risen Jesus; they turned their brains on and tried to figure it out. They questioned. They debated. They wondered. Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that we are more advanced than they were. They were just as skeptical as we are.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But they had one advantage over us. They had Jesus with them there in that room. And Jesus took the time to convince them. Jesus took the time to get them through their doubts. Of course, we already heard that Jesus showed his hands and feed. We heard that Jesus had them touch him. We heard that Jesus ate food in front of them. But that wasn’t quite enough. There was more that was needed, and Jesus gave that to them too. He opened the Scriptures up to them. He explained the Scriptures to them. He showed them how the entire Old Testament pointed to him and was fulfilled by him. As Jesus taught these things, the disciples were convicted. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Step by step, Jesus showed them that the Messiah was destined to come into this world and live the life that they were supposed to live. Jesus showed them how he alone fulfilled the commands of God. Jesus showed them how he loved the Father with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength. Jesus showed them how he loved his neighbor as himself. Jesus showed them how he was the spotless lamb of God who had come to take away the sin of the world. He was the sacrifice of atonement to end all sacrifices. He was the one who had come to give his life as a ransom for many. Step by step, he showed them that it was necessary for him to die for them; to take their sins upon himself and then give to them his righteousness. He then showed them how his resurrection has defeated sin, death and the devil. The gap that once existed between humanity and God is no more. All of this Jesus showed them as he opened God’s Word to them.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>As he spoke, I am certain the disciples’ hearts began to burn within them. Their eyes were opened. Their doubts turned to belief. And here is the crucial thing about doubts. Doubts are healthy–they poke at us and make us think deeply. They make us consider things we may not have considered before. They make us ask questions that we may have been afraid to ask. But, doubts are meant to lead us to answers. Doubts are meant to lead us to find truth. You don’t just say, “Oh, I doubt that.” and then stay in your doubts. That’s pure laziness. The disciples didn’t stay in their doubts. When Jesus offered them evidence; when Jesus opened their minds to the scriptures; they believed. Their hearts became convinced.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And now, let’s bring this home. Let’s talk about the Christian faith in the midst of life in the 21st Century. Let’s talk about faith in a culture full of skepticism and unbelief and competing truths. Let’s acknowledge that it is okay for us to have doubts. Let’s acknowledge that it’s okay to wrestle with things deeply. Even scientists who once thought they had things figured out have to do that in the light of new evidence. But let’s not use that as an excuse to reject the tenets of Christianity. Let’s not use doubt as an excuse to turn to internet atheists and others who claim to be more enlightened. For you see, doubt is nothing new. The disciples faced them, and Jesus answered them. And throughout history, the church has faced doubters, and very smart people have been led by the Spirit of God to have answers to those questions as well. How do I know? Well, I have doubted. I have sought. I have found answers. And I have been asked questions. Sometimes I didn’t know the answers, so I had to learn. And the more I have learned, the more I have studied the scriptures, the more I am convinced of the truth of Christianity. The more I long for a chance to be a witness to the Gospel-just like he called the disciples to be in that room long ago.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I remember shortly after I started going to college and had started taking theology classes, I went home to visit my folks. I remember going to church on Sunday and sitting in on the confirmation class. One of the young men there asked me a terribly difficult question, “Why did God pick such a lame way to save the world?” What I wouldn’t give to be able to respond to him now. I had never wrestled with that question until he asked it. I didn’t have a good answer. I had nothing. He wasn’t satisfied with my pastor’s answer, and I knew he wasn’t satisfied with mine–and I wish I could remember exactly how I answered it then. I don’t. I just remember it wasn’t good.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But through my doubts, I have had a chance to study. I have had a chance to learn. And if I had the chance to talk to that young man again, this is what I would say, “I don’t believe it was a lame way to save the world at all. In fact, I think it was beautiful. God cannot let sin go unpunished. When you do something wrong, you deserve to face the consequences of your actions–that’s justice. And you and I both know that we have sinned. You and I both know that we haven’t done the things we should do and been the people we should be. Deep down, we know that we are not right and have not done right. We know that we deserve punishment–we deserve justice, and God should probably toast us. But God also loves us. God doesn’t want to have us be punished because that would mean complete separation from Him. And so he somehow has to find a way to bring both love and justice together. And here is how he does it. Instead of punishing us; he takes the punishment for us. That’s what Jesus does on the cross. Jesus is God taking the punishment that we deserve. It’s like a parent paying to replace a broken lamp that their kid has destroyed. The kid can’t pay the price and replace it, but the parent can. Our heavenly parent pays for our sin by dying in our place. And when you understand that. When you understand what God has done for you, and for the world, you will see that as a thing of beauty. If you doubt this; if you are debating in your heart; seek the answers. When you do, I know that you too will be convinced. That Christ has died. Christ is risen. And Christ will come again. Amen.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-27091790214560722762021-04-06T16:16:00.000-05:002021-04-06T16:16:36.801-05:00The Story Continues: Dealing with The Gospel of Mark's Abrupt Ending <p> <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Well. What a horrid way to end a Gospel. Really. I mean, picture this: Jerusalem 33 A.D. Jesus has been crucified, died, buried. This Jesus on whom so many had pinned their hopes and dreams. They had either seen or heard the stories of his miraculous abilities. The ability to calm storms. The ability to produce food out of thin air. The ability to heal the sick. The ability to cast our demons. The ability to make the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, and the blind to see. The ability to raise the dead. That was power. That was authority. Surely he was the promised Messiah–the promised one that was to bring about wholeness and peace and God’s kingdom on earth. Ah, but all of that had been discarded; cast away; trashed. This Jesus had been betrayed, arrested, condemned. Hung on a cross to die on that hill called Calvary. Wrapped in burial cloths. Laid in a tomb. Dead. The movement he had started was all but finished. Cut the head off a snake, and the rest of the body dies. It had happened before. It would happen this time.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But some women went to the tomb. They didn’t have time to prepare Jesus’ body for burial after he had been taken down from the cross. It was a rush to get even the body buried before the Sabbath’s restrictions on work kicked in. So, now, they would come and do the job they would have done had it not been for those restrictions. They would anoint his body. They would place spices on it. They would grieve appropriately. And they found something they did not expect. The stone that had sealed the tomb–an object of concern because of its size and weight; an object that stood in the way of these women’s mission was now rolled away. The tomb was not sealed. It was open. And walking into the tomb, they did not see the body of Jesus. They did not see the body of the one who walked on water. They did not see the body of the one who rode into Jerusalem on the donkey. They did not see the bloody, torn flesh; the thorn pierced forehead, the nail pierced feet and hands. No. There was no body. There was only a young man; a young man dressed in white and sitting on the right hand side. Who was he? Was he an agent of Pontius Pilate there to catch any of Jesus’ followers and have them prosecuted? Was he an agent of the Jewish Religious Leaders–there to spy out those who might be unfaithful; who they could charge with blasphemy and cast them out of the Jewish faith? Were they in danger?</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>No. Not by a long shot. The young man looked at them with a look of peace; with a look of confidence; with a look of unfettered excitement. “Don’t be afraid. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. He has been raised.” Let that sink in for a minute, y’all. It’s the reason we are here this morning. It’s the news that changed the world. It’s the most shocking thing that has happened in all of history. “He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place that they laid him.” Oh my; oh my. Oh my, oh my. If this is true; if this is real; then oh my, the implications are astounding. Reality is changed. If he is raised, then everything he said was true; every teaching he pronounced was trustworthy; he was and is the Messiah; he was and is the redeemer of the world; that teaching about giving his life as a ransom for many; well, that’s true too. Oh my, oh my. This, this is too good to be true. This is an amazing occurrence. He is not here, he is risen. Death could not hold him down. God has righted the injustice that was committed against Him, and wait...if God righted the injustice against him and death could not hold him down, does that now mean that the same thing will happen to all of his followers? Does that mean that we too will be raised from the dead? Does that mean that we too will have our injustices reversed? Surely it does!! Surely this is good news! Surely this good news demands that we tell it.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Well, that’s exactly what that young man says. That’s exactly what that young man calls upon those women to do. “Go. For God’s sake. Go! Go and tell his followers and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee. Go! There you will see him, just as he told you!! Go! Go and tell! Let them all know!! Stop waiting around here!! Go!”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And they went. Yes, they went. They hurried away from the tomb for terror and amazement had seized them. They were overwhelmed. And they went and told...they went and told...no one. Wait. What? This can’t be right. That can’t be the ending. They went and told no one? Possibly the most earth shattering news they had ever come across; quite possibly the most hopeful thing that they would ever encounter, and they told no one? Are you kidding me? By God, they must have been Lutheran! Okay, that’s a joke. Please don’t take it personally. But you gotta admit, it’s kind of funny. I mean, we do have a reputation out there. They make jokes about us. What do you get when you cross a Jehovah’s witness and a Lutheran? Someone who goes around knocking on everyone’s door but doesn’t know what to say. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Okay, enough poking fun. Gonna stop that. It’s Easter. We are not here to be made to feel guilty. We are not here to be made fun of. We are here to hear the proclamation of the Good News that Christ is risen! And we hear it. Loudly and clearly, we hear it. We hear it in the spoken word. We hear it in our hymns. We hear it in our lessons. We hear it. Yes, we hear it just like those women heard it, but I have a nagging question. I have a question that bothers me some. Why didn’t those women go tell the disciples? Why didn’t they burst forth with excitement? With this earth shattering news, why did they tremble in fear? Why do we?</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I mean, maybe they thought everyone would think they were crazy. Maybe they thought that everyone would look down on them. Maybe they thought no one would believe them. It’s all a possibility. But maybe, just maybe it was something else. Maybe just maybe it wasn’t a matter of fear of how others would react. Maybe it was because things hadn’t sunk in yet. I mean, despite the evidence they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears, it wasn’t enough to convince their hearts. Despite seeing the evidence of the stone rolled away; the absence of the body; the words of the young man; the teachings that Jesus himself had told them; despite all this evidence, it didn’t sink in. It didn’t hit them deep down within their soul. I mean, I am sure they wanted to believe it. They wanted to believe that their Lord had conquered the grave. They wanted to believe that he was risen, but they just couldn’t get there. They just couldn’t bring themselves to that point. Their fear was too great.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And I think many of us can resonate with those women. Many of us struggle too. I mean, let’s be honest. Let’s be truthful. Let’s be real. Some of us have heard this news for years–since we have been small. And we know we should be telling the story; we know we should be engaging others with the Gospel, but when we think about even starting that conversation our insides turn to absolute mush. We are sore afraid. And for others, I mean, some of you out there might not be so sure about this whole Christianity thing. You might think that this resurrection business is simply something we believe without evidence. And that’s not true. In fact, there is some pretty good, reasonable evidence to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. But event that won’t necessarily bring anyone around. Even that won’t necessarily convince anyone to walk out of here with bravery and bravado to engage those who are not worshiping this morning. I mean, I can stand up here and share with you those very good reasons why the resurrection is an actual historical event. I can lay out the evidence: first, there was an empty tomb–all the authorities would have had to do is produce the body, and the movement would have ended. Second, the authors of the Gospels said that women were the first witnesses–if you were writing fiction back in that day, you would have never used women. Their testimony wasn’t even allowed in court. You would have used men if you were writing fiction. Third, the disciples believed they saw Jesus raised from the dead. You could excuse one or two of them, but hundreds, as Paul tells us about in Corinthians? No. Mass hallucinations like that just don’t happen. Fourth, those same disciples died without recanting. Have you ever, ever heard of a lie being kept so well. Yeah, me neither. Criminal justice folks will tell you someone always cracks. And finally, every single other Messianic movement died out; went away; disappeared after the Messiah figure was arrested or killed. Every. Single. One. There is only one that didn’t. The Jesus movement. All of these things are historical fact. All of them. And the question is: What overarching story puts all of these facts together? What does all of this evidence point to? The simplest and best possible explanation is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Jesus was resurrected by God the Father. That’s the best possible explanation by far. It’s the explanation that fits the evidence. You would be hard pressed to come up with better.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But, like I said, even this evidence; even all of this put together cannot make you or me go out into the world and tell all. Even though our heads right now might be thinking, “Oh, yes. I can see this. Jesus really did rise from the dead. He is alive. The things he said must be true...” Even though our heads might be thinking this, when we head out into the world and confront the world, knowing we might face hostility; knowing we might be laughed at; knowing we might face rejection; we clam up. We stay silent. We tell no one because we are afraid. Oh, my, we are just like those women.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And that’s just great. I’ve just come to the same place as the ending of the Gospel of Mark. And this would be a horrible way to end the sermon. Ah, but wait. Just wait. There is more. Sorry if you are disappointed. The ending is not quite here. It will be here shortly, but there is just a little bit more that we have to put forth.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> You see, even though the women sitting in fear and telling no one was the ending of the Gospel of Mark, it was not the end of the story. For you see, those women didn’t stay huddled in fear. Eventually, their hearts were convicted. Eventually, their fear disappeared, and they went to Galilee. They and the disciples saw the risen Christ. Their hearts became convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But they were still afraid. They still did not move out into the world. Their fear was still too great. Because even though they had seen the evidence; even though they had seen Jesus; something still had to give them the conviction and the fortitude to move out into the world. Something more had to happen, and eventually, that something did.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It was the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost that transformed their fear into boldness. The Spirit moved among them and in them, and they unlocked their doors; they stopped trembling; the knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection and his redemption of the world by grace moved from their heads into their hearts and they fearlessly proclaimed it to the world. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>They were persecuted. They were killed. They were hunted. And yet, they kept proclaiming. They faced rejection. They faced skepticism. They faced scorn, but they kept proclaiming. Why? Despite all the resistence, why did they persist? Because of what St. Paul says in the book of Romans: faith comes through hearing. Faith comes by hearing the good news. Yes, we point to the evidence, as I did earlier, but for the Gospel to move from your head to your heart, you must hear it over and over and over again. And that is why countless people have passed this good news down throughout history. Beginning with those women, and then the disciples, and then the evangelists; and then the Church Mothers and Fathers; and then countless pastors and preachers, teachers and mothers and fathers, and grandparents and aunts and uncles–all of them kept telling the story. They kept passing down the good news. And even though it took time for people to believe; even though it sometimes took months or years or decades, they kept preaching and teaching. Their conviction led them into the streets; they went into the synagogues; they climbed into pulpits over and over and over again. They read and prayed to their children and grandchildren. They taught children and adults who seemed to be preoccupied with other things. And slowly, but surely, they watched hearts change; and they saw courage build. New generations became convinced that this news was true, and then they stepped forward to tell the news. And so the story continued, and it continues. The good news continues to be announced by those who are convinced that through His life, death and resurrection, Jesus has changed the world and that He is the only hope of the world. And that is why I stand before you today. And that is why you are here this morning: to hear the proclamation and have ours heart convicted as we become the next generation to continue the story; to continue the announcement of the good news: Christ is Risen!! Christ is Risen indeed!! Amen. Alleluia!!</p><div><br /></div>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-25250071318000174562021-03-24T09:51:00.001-05:002021-03-24T09:51:24.140-05:00An Alternative to Cancel Culture<p> <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In 2018, scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon published a report titled, <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_report-2.pdf">“Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape.”</a> In that report, they shared the data collected from a nationally representative poll with 8,000 respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups. And what did they find? They found this: 80 percent of those in that representative group believe that political correctness is a problem. Let that sink in for a minute. If this study is truly representative, 80 percent of the U.S. believes that political correctness is a problem.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Now, I know that we pastors are supposed to keep politics from the pulpit. I know that we are not supposed to tell folks who to vote for or which political party to support. I know that we are supposed to essentially stay neutral on such matters, but it has come to a point where such matters must be addressed. And not only because six Dr. Seuss books, including one of my childhood favorites “To Think that I Saw it on Mulberry St.” were taken out of publication; Pepe Le Pew will no longer be seen; and they are trying to remove Speedy Gonzales. My entire childhood is in danger of vanishing!! No. It’s not just because of that. There is more. Just this past week, I posted the Lord’s Prayer to my Facebook feed, and it was fact checked. I didn’t include anything about Facebook trying to censor the Lord’s Prayer. I made no commentary what-so-ever. It was just the Lord’s Prayer. And it was fact checked. Whether we believe it or not, this stuff is having and will have a direct effect on our ability to be the church in society these days. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And there is some bad news that goes along with this. And the bad news is this: we are not going to convince that 20% to change. I hate to say that, but we won’t. And the other piece of bad news is that there is always a chance that we could become the next target of those who are subscribing to this train of thought. You never know what is going to catch their eye and draw their ire.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>So, what do we as the church do? How do we deal with this movement within our culture and society? At this point, I am tempted to be like Lucy in the Charlie Brown comic strip who went up to Charlie Brown one day and said, “Discouraged again, eh, Charlie Brown?" "You know what your whole trouble is? The whole trouble with you is that you're you!"</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Charlie asks, "Well, what in the world can I do about that?"</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Lucy answers, "I don't pretend to be able to give advice...I merely point out the trouble!"</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Yeah. I don’t pretend to be able to give advice...I merely point out the trouble.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But that is also a cop out, I think. It’s a cop out to simply point to a problem and then tell everyone, “Well, you need to do some thing about this,” without a willingness to engage in the process of problem solving. And so, what I would like to entertain this morning is how we might bring our faith to bear against this cultural movement, and instead of directly combating the movement; we offer an alternative. Instead of going to war against cancel culture, we offer a different vision; a different mood of living; a different set of values that will actually lead to a more just and whole society. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And I think that this is important to say. Because when it comes down to it, cancel culture wants a just society. They want justice. They want folks to feel included; that everyone has value. But here is the question: how do they bring such a thing about? How do they try to bring about this type of society? By punishing and banning anything that is perceived to perpetuate injustice. If a cartoon character represents oppression, it must be banned. If a person makes a certain hand symbol that is deemed inappropriate, they should be forced to resign their job or the company should be made to fire them. If a song is thought to have racist roots, it must be banned completely (U.T. fans know that one.). So, to be inclusive and bring in the Aggies, if a college president was a member of the confederate army, their statue should be removed. If a comment is perceived to be a threat or is perceived to be racist, one is removed from a social media platform or is shadow banned for presenting such thoughts. The idea is: if we continually point out the injustice; if we continually shame someone; if we continually ban offensive content; then, at some point people will change, systems will change, and we will have a just society. Now, I am trying to be very careful in my analysis here because it is very easy to caricature this movement, and indeed, I may have oversimplified. But I don’t think by much. These are the things that we have seen happening around us, and they seem to have intensified.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>So, what is the alternative? What is the response to this? Well, let’s first acknowledge that Christianity also seeks a just society. We also want folks to feel included, and we want everyone to know that they have value. In this we are not different from cancel culture. And sadly, in our history, the Church has also practiced a cancel culture of its own. We have also participated in book burning and censorship. The namesake of our own denomination: Martin Luther was threatened if he did not recant his writings; and the Spanish Inquisition was notorious for persecuting those who did not toe the line. This is much to our shame as an institution because we did not practice the heart of our faith in these things. We did not practice those things which Scripture brings about a change of heart and a just society. And what are those things?</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>They are at the heart of the Gospel: forgiveness and redemption.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Let me paint the picture for you using our Bible texts this morning from the book of John and from the book of Ephesians. You see, Christianity starts with the premise that all human beings are flawed. It starts with the premise that the world is flawed. And not just flawed. No, humankind and the world are in open rebellion against God. Paul writes in Ephesians, “You were dead through the trespasses and sins 2in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. 3All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else.” And when you read the Gospel of John, you will notice that the world is never looked upon with favor. The world is always referenced as evil; preferring to live in the darkness of ignorance and selfishness instead of entering into the light of God. The world hates God because it wants to do its own thing; go its own way; and it finds God to be placing boundaries which prevent it from being its own boss. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cancel culture, if it held to this train of thought would see every person and every entity in the world worthy of cancellation; worthy of condemnation. According to the tenets of cancel culture, the world and the people in it should be destroyed! Canceled! </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But here is the difference. Here is the major difference. For you see, even though God could have destroyed the world. Even though God could have canceled the world. God loved the world. God loved the people in the world. God loved you. And God loved me. He knew that we deserved cancellation. He knew that we deserved punishment. But instead, He offered something quite different. He offered forgiveness and redemption.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through Him.” That’s the Gospel in a nutshell. And Ephesians fleshes this out even more, “4But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us 5even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Let me break this down for you and show you what Christianity says. Christianity says that we are sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God. We owe God a debt due to our sin, and it is a debt that we can never pay. We are too caught up on ourselves. We are too willing to fall into temptation. We are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. We cannot live the perfect life. We cannot overcome racism. We cannot love our neighbor as ourselves. We deserve punishment. We deserve cancellation, but Jesus steps in. Jesus says, “You can’t live the life you are supposed to live. But I can. You can’t love your neighbor like you should. But I can. You can’t follow the commands of God, but I can.” And he does. He lives the life that we should have lived, and then he pays the debt that we owe. He gives himself in exchange for us and dies for us on the cross to cancel not us, but to cancel our debt! Instead of giving us deserved punishment, we receive grace. We don’t lose our job. We don’t get deplatformed. We aren’t shamed into submission. We are given a love that is unimaginable! </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And that is all well and good, but the critics of cancel culture will say, “But where is the justice? Where is the change in society and the change in people? You talk of this grace and forgiveness, but it is just a way for you to justify your injustice!”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>No. Not in the least. This is a horrendous misunderstanding of grace, because this is what happens. When you understand grace; when you stop trusting in yourself for your righteousness. When you stop trying to justify yourself and trust in Jesus justification; to the extent you trust in Jesus’ work and not your own, your life will be totally and completely transformed. You will sin less. You will work for justice more. You will extend compassion and forgiveness and redemption.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Which means, you will know that no person or institution or book or anything for that matter in the course of history is perfect. A song can have racist origins but be changed into a song that unites an institution. A confederate general can institute reforms as a governor including the beginning of a home for blind, deaf African-American children and as a university president including working for the inclusion of women at said university. A cartoon character can be used to teach important lessons. The list is endless. Redemption is endless. Transformation is endless.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And that means, the way to salvation is open to everyone. The way of transformation is open to everyone. Yes, Christianity has certain boundaries. Christianity has certain expectations of behavior, but when someone crosses those boundaries; when someone fails to live up to those expectations, we now respond with the same grace that we have been given. We respond without condemning the person. We respond knowing that God wants this person included in the Kingdom, and the best possible way to bring them into the Kingdom is not through punishment, but by grace. And therefore, we treat others with respect, kindness, compassion and integrity. We invite. We do not impose. In short, forgiveness and redemption accomplishes exactly what cancel culture seeks to accomplish–justice, acceptance and value for all, but Christianity does it with love, grace, and compassion instead of punishment and shame.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The contrast is stark. And it is a contrast that I think we must be willing to promote as strongly as possible. But there is a great risk. A great risk indeed. For cancel culture could come for us. It could try to silence our message of grace and forgiveness and redemption. It could try and deplatform us. But, again, that’s nothing new to Christianity. They tried to do the same thing to Jesus. They tried to shut him up. They tried to cancel him by putting him on a cross and then in a tomb. And we all know how that turned out. Not so well for cancel culture. Because our God is mighty to save and as author of salvation, He has conquered the grave. And let us now shine the light. A light that shines on a different path. A path of forgiveness. A path of redemption. A path of transformation. Let us shine the light of Amazing Grace. Amen.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-70010316533640493892021-03-01T14:08:00.000-06:002021-03-01T14:08:04.081-06:00Really Tired?<p> Facebook is an interesting animal.</p><p>The other day, I commented on an article that one of my friends had posted--an article by John Pavlovitz. And what should come up in my suggested articles' feed: another article by John Pavlovitz. And I clicked it. </p><p>Well played FB. Well played.</p><p>Now, full disclosure, I am not a fan of John Pavlovitz. John is a card-carrying member of the Progressive Christianity movement. It is a movement that has aligned itself with progressive politics, and while its themes of compassion, care, and kingdom building are themes that I share, this movement is little more than legalistic fundamentalism from a different angle. Hence, I reject it because it redefines the New Testament concept of grace, and turns Christianity from a focus on what God has done into a focus on what I have to do. </p><p>Which leads me directly to respond to the article Facebook suggested, John's article titled, "<a href="https://johnpavlovitz.com/2020/01/16/im-tired-of-hatred/">I'm Really Tired of Hatred.</a>"</p><p>John is tired of seeing hate in the world.</p><p>And John is tired of how hate in the world makes him hate and is slowly, and I will use my own view here, destroying him from the inside.</p><p>He doesn't use that terminology, but that's what is making him tired. He knows he is supposed to be full of love and joy and peace, but he is full of anything but those things. "<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">I’m trying to make sure I stay a loving person opposing things that make me angry, and not a perpetually angry person—but it’s difficult to tell when you’re swimming in so much enmity every day."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">John, I hate to tell you this, but the world has been swimming in enmity for a long, long time. While our technological advances are numerous and quite amazing, our progress in becoming better people continues to run up against the same hindrance it always has. And interestingly enough, without naming it, John alludes to it:</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="blast mmt-sentence" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">"I want to leave a legacy of kindness, a compassionate wake in the waters of this world so that other people who are similarly fatigued by the hatred they encounter here, find rest in</span><b><i><u> me</u></i></b><span style="font-style: inherit;">." (emphasis mine)</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="blast mmt-sentence" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">I don't think John is meaning to, but this is actually quite self-centered. John wants people to find rest in him, but is John capable of being other peoples' peace? </span></span></span></span></p><p>Well, from a biblical perspective--not a chance.</p><p>We find peace in Jesus--God incarnate. Not in anyone or anything else. Other people were never meant to bear the weight of our need. Other people were never meant to fulfill the deep emotional holes within us. They can't. They are imperfect, fallible, sometimes angry, sometimes needy, and sometimes down-right stubborn and nasty. That's human nature.</p><p>And if you are trying to bear the weight of such a thing, geez, no wonder you are tired. John, quit trying to get people to find peace in you. Get them to Jesus!!!</p><p>Because it is also in Jesus that we find the answers to all the other things you are tired of, John. You are tired of people hating other people? You are tired of trying to get politicians to listen to you (are you really that important, John)? You are tired of real and manufactured crises? You are tired of judging people when you walk into a room?</p><p>It's all a result of self-centeredness.</p><p>It's all a result of people putting themselves in the place of God.</p><p>It's all a result of a state of being that we are all born into: we are sinners wanting to reject the authority of the Creator and ruling over our own creation.</p><p>And that's another reason you are so tired, John. You are trying to control things you have no control over. Might want to stop that. You might want to give orthodox Christianity a try.</p><p>Because orthodox Christianity says that I am a sinner who needs a savior.</p><p>Orthodox Christianity says that a Savior has come and redeemed me by grace.</p><p>Orthodox Christianity says that only by encountering that grace can hearts change.</p><p>Orthodox Christianity says that once hearts change, amazing things happen: the poor get cared for, hatred disappears, love abounds, fulfillment reigns, respect grows, self-righteousness evaporates.</p><p>Orthodox Christianity replaces me with Thee, and so I no longer live for myself (which is less tiresome but a detriment to others) nor do I live for others I (which is very tiresome and a detriment to myself), but I live for God which enables me to care for myself and others because a proper perspective is kept.</p><p>And orthodox Christianity commissions me to make the world a better place by pointing to Jesus and not myself. I'm not all that and a bag of chips. I'm imperfect, fallible, sometimes angry, sometimes needy, and sometimes down-right stubborn and nasty. People don't need me. They need Jesus.</p><p>And I'll tell you something, John, I never, ever get tired of pointing to Jesus. I never, ever get tired of telling others what He has done for them. I never get worried if I walk into a room wondering how many folks support one political party or the other. I never worry about what I may or may not say at family gatherings. I'm not caught up in drawing those lines of demarcation because I know that each and every person in that room needs a Savior just like I need a Savior. And I know that I cannot change them or their hearts, but God can. </p><p>It's not your or my responsibility to change this world, John. We aren't going to bring the Kingdom of God. Trying so will just leave you frustrated and tired because you are trying to do something that is above your paygrade. Let God handle what God is supposed to handle. Work within your sphere of influence. Bring a word of God's grace into people's lives.</p><p>The real grace, not the redefined grace that progressive Christianity likes to use. You know, the grace that says that I stood condemned before God before Christ interceded and bought me with his holy and precious blood; taking my place and dying the death that I deserved and giving me his righteousness. That's good news. Focus on it instead of yourself.</p><p>Might find yourself energized.</p><p>Peaceful.</p><p>Loving.</p><p>The kind of person you want to be instead of the person you are right now.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-12321125676546300692021-02-08T15:20:00.006-06:002021-02-08T15:20:55.997-06:00What if You Had the Answer?<p> <span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/15QtRnvoSCM5jDxuPuCoMVo4Sn3v2lKhO/view?usp=sharing">Sermon Audio</a></span></p><p><i>1 Corinthians 9:16-23</i></p><p><i>16If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe betide me if I do not proclaim the gospel! 17For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. 18What then is my reward? Just this: that in my proclamation I may make the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel. 19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. 23I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.</i><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Some of you may remember the name Paul Harvey. For some of you that name brings warm memories and a longing for a much simpler time–at least it seemed simpler. Paul Harvey was a radio news man who was famous for storytelling. Millions of people, including yours truly, would tune in to hear his, “The Rest of the Story.” Fortunately, you can find many of his stories collected on YouTube and throughout the internet. And one of his most famous stories was told over and over again on Christmas.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I will not go into all of the details of the story, but it is titled “The Man and the Birds.” At its core, it is a story about a farmer who was staying home one Christmas Eve instead of going to church with his wife and kids. As he sat warm and comfortable in his home, snow began to fall. As he sat he began to hear a repeated thump against his house. He investigated and found that a flock of birds had gotten caught in the snowstorm. They were trying to fly through his picture window to get out of the snow. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Of course, the farmer was not going to let the birds into his house, but he thought of the barn where the kids kept their ponies. That would provide a warm, safe spot for the birds. He went out and opened the door to the barn, and then proceeded to try and get the birds to go to the barn. He brought bread crumbs out of the house and made a trail. It didn’t work. He circled around them and tried to drive them to the barn. It didn’t work. He tried to catch them and carry them to the barn. They flew away. Nothing he tried could work. The birds were simply too scared of him.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And pausing, the farmer thought, “If only I were a bird. If only I were able to be among them and communicate with them. If only I were able to show them to safety because they understood me.”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It doesn’t end with that, and I am not going to give the ending to you just yet, but even the portion that I have shared with you thus far is very powerful. And at this point, what I would like to invite you to do is put yourself into the place of the farmer, except I want to change the parameters. I want to change the story a bit and invite you to believe that instead of a flock of birds that needs to be brought to safety in a barn; I want to invite you to believe that you have discovered the answer to some of the major problems that humanity faces. Imagine you have discovered the answer to poverty; to hatred; to racism, sexism, and all other isms. Imagine you have discovered the answer to greed, self-righteousness, and even self-loathing. Imagine you have discovered the answer to despair and hopelessness. Imagine you discovered the answer to the questions of “Why am I here?” and “Does my life have a purpose?” Imagine that this answer could bring an end to war and division bringing complete and total transformation to individual lives as well as entire societies. What would you do to try and get people to understand? What would you do to try to communicate that answer?</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>If you can understand this; if you can imagine this; you have just stepped into the mind-set of the disciples who saw Jesus’ raised from the dead. If you can understand this; if you can imagine this; you have just stepped into the mind-set of St. Paul to whom Jesus appeared on the road to Damascus. If you can understand this; if you can imagine this; you have just stepped into the mind-set of Martin Luther who was grasped by the Gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. These things were absolutely earth shattering; they were absolutely mind blowing; they were absolutely transformational, and once these folks experienced these things–once the Gospel grasped them, they were compelled to spread the news. And I use that word compelled on purpose. When you are grasped by the Gospel, you don’t feel like you have a choice in the matter. It has such a hold on you, that you must spread the news.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>This is Paul’s point in our lesson today from 1 Corinthians chapter 9. Paul is explaining to the Corinthians why he does the things that he does. He wants them to understand his calling as an apostle. Now, Paul tends to get rather wordy. He is also very logical and tedious. So, when we read him today, we are oftentimes scratching our heads. Therefore, I am not going to read through this text step by step, I am going to explain the teaching and then give the application for our lives.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Now, we need to begin with Paul’s understanding that because of the Gospel; he is radically free. You see, one of the consequences of the Gospel is that you no longer have to justify yourself to anyone. You get your justification from God alone. You don’t have to prove your value. You don’t have to prove your worth. You don’t have to bow at the feet of anyone for approval. God has already given all of this to you, so you don’t need to go seeking such things from anyone. The downside of this is that you could get a big head; you could get arrogant thinking that God loves you so much and approves of you so much that you don’t have to care about anyone. But not so fast. You see, Paul knows this danger, and that is why he tempers his writings with a couple of other notes. He knows that he has no room to boast. Why?</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Well, because he knows that he was not justified by his actions. He knows he was not accepted because of anything he did. He knows that he was a major sinner. He knows that he persecuted the Church and persecuted Christians. His actions had led to the deaths of Christians. He knows that there is no way Jesus should love him, and yet, Jesus died for him. Remembering that he was a sinner kept Paul humble. That applies to each and every one of us too, folks. We have our ultimate freedom and approval because of Christ and yet are absolutely humble because we are sinners.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But not only this...not only this. With St. Paul there is something more. The Gospel is so life changing; the Gospel is so compelling; it is something that Paul knows will reshape the world, that he feels absolutely obligated to share it. This isn’t like adding sprinkles to your ice cream down at Clear River. This isn’t like fixing dessert for a meal. The Gospel isn’t an add on. It is central and core to Paul’s life so much so that he now is obligated to share it. He doesn’t sense that he has a choice in its proclamation. He has to preach the gospel. He somehow has to communicate this marvelous; wondrous; amazing; beautiful; transformational news to the world. It has become his sole purpose in life: to share what God has done in Jesus Christ. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Now, here is the question? How is he going to do this? You need to understand, the Roman empire was not an empire with uniformity. It was composed of a wide diversity of people. It was composed of a wide variety of thought and practice. There were all kinds of differences in cultures; in people; and in belief. How could Paul possibly share the Gospel amongst so many different folks?</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Paul’s answer: I became a slave to all of them.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>At first this comment might take us aback. The idea of slavery leaves a bad taste in our mouths given the situation that our country faced, but we also need to know that the slavery Paul is talking about is nothing like the slavery that our country went through. For you see, slavery in the New Testament was almost always voluntary. If you went into debt and could not pay your debt, you would sell yourself into slavery. Your master would purchase your debt, and then you would work your way out of it. You were not owned. Your debt was. Once your debt was worked off, you were free. This is the type of slavery Paul was talking about.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But here is the question: why would Paul talk like this? Why would Paul say he would become a slave when he did not owe any debt? Just this: when a slave became a part of a household, then that slave would be expected to learn the customs; the traditions; the way that household functioned. He or she would have to learn the culture of that household to be able to function within it with the aim of doing one’s job and pleasing the master.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And here is where the rubber hits the road for Paul. This is where his obligation to spread the gospel comes into play. This is where living in the Roman empire with all of its diversity comes into play. Paul says I became a slave to everyone:</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>To those under the law, I became as one under the law–even though I am not under the law. In other words, I moved within the Jewish culture. I made sure I understood how it functioned. I grasped its logic and its nature. I understood its people’s hopes, dreams and aspirations. I am absolutely free from all of those things, but I put myself under them so that I could win some Jews.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>To those outside the law, I became as one outside the law, even though I am under Christ’s law. In other words, I moved within the Gentile culture. I made sure I understood how it functioned. I grasped its logic and its nature. I understood its peoples hopes and dreams and aspirations. I stuck to my principles as a follower of Jesus–I did not compromise my faith, but I rubbed elbows with folks who didn’t know Christ so that I could win some Gentiles.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I became all things to all people–I became a slave to all people to learn what makes them tick; to learn their language and their culture; to learn their reasoning and hopes and dreams and aspirations. I will not compromise my Christian faith. I will not seek to sin or bring dishonor to God, but I will do whatever it takes to spread the Gospel. I will spend as much time as it is needed so I can find points of entry; points of connection; points where I can communicate how their hopes and dreams and aspirations can only be fulfilled by Christ. I will show how their culture falls far short and how their culture can never deliver what it promises. I will make sure I know the language, customs, and traditions so that I can gain some credibility; some trust; some authority, so that at the very least, I may bring a few to the salvation of Christ. I may bring a few into this reality of the Gospel–this reality that is absolutely life-changing.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I hope that the application of this text is not hard to see. The application has momentous consequences for our lives and for the life of the church. And it is wrapped up in this question: are we willing to become slaves to everyone? Are we willing to learn the language, culture, traditions, hopes, dreams and aspirations of all the groups in society? Are we willing to learn the language culture, traditions, hopes dreams, and aspirations of Democrats and Republicans? Are we willing to learn the language culture, traditions, hopes, dreams and aspirations of liberals and conservatives? Are we wiling to learn the language, culture, traditions, hopes, dreams, and aspirations of social justice warriors and alt-right wingers? Are we willing to learn the language, culture, traditions, hopes, dreams, and aspirations of atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others? Are we willing to learn the language, culture, traditions, hopes, dreams and desires of Hispanics, African-Americans, Germans, Norwegians, and other ethnicities? Not with the thought of absolutely affirming all of these things, but with the understanding that by doing so, we can make connections in order to spread the good news of Jesus Christ.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“But Pastor Kevin, why? Why would I want to do such a thing? Why would I want to think about and learn the culture of some of these groups that I absolutely cannot stand? Why would I want to subject myself to these horrendous thoughts and ideas?”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Remember the story about the farmer and the birds? Remember how I told you the farmer had skipped going to Christmas Eve services with his wife and children? Well, it was because he couldn’t bring himself to believe the Christian message. Why would God, if there were a God, become human? </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Let me tell the story in the words of Paul Harvey: </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“If only I could be a bird,” he thought to himself, “and mingle with them and speak their language. Then I could tell them not to be afraid. Then I could show them the way to safety, warm…to the safe warm barn. But I would have to be one of them so they could see, and hear and understand.”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>At that moment the church bells began to ring. The sound reached his ears above the sounds of the wind. And he stood there listening to the bells – Adeste Fidelis – listening to the bells pealing the glad tidings of Christmas.</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And he sank to his knees in the snow.”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>You see, Jesus looked down at humanity. He saw our sinfulness. He saw how far from God we truly were. He saw our hatred and envy and self-righteousness and anger. He saw what we hoped; what we dreamed; what we aspired to. He saw our inability to find safety, and security, hope and fulfillment. Despite our ugliness and horrendous thoughts and ideas, he loved us. “If only I could be one of them. If only I could communicate with them. If only I could show them the way and give them a hope and a promise and a vision of the Kingdom of God.”</p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>And so the word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Son of Man entered into the world not to be served but to serve. He did not sin. He did not compromise what it meant to be holy, but he lived the life that we were supposed to live. Then he died the death that we deserved. He took our sin upon himself, and gave to us his righteousness. He gave to us an everlasting hope as he was raised from the dead. </p><p><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Is that hope alive in you? Is that hope alive in this church? Has your heart been claimed by the grace of God? Have we seen the glory of God and seen the beauty of the Gospel? Do you believe that this Gospel is the hope of the world? Do you believe that this Gospel has the power to transform both individual lives and society at large? If so, then let us join the disciples; let us join St. Paul; let us join Martin Luther and all of the saints who also believed. Let us venture forth to become all things to all people telling the old, old story, that we might save some. Amen.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-11405704633141898372021-02-03T12:10:00.003-06:002021-02-03T12:10:36.212-06:00When Heroes Fall<p><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Well, to each his own. I chose my path, you chose the way of the hero. And they found you amusing for a while, the people of this city. But the one thing they love more than a hero is to see a hero fail, fall, die trying. In spite of everything you've done for them, eventually they will hate you. Why bother? --The Green Goblin, Spiderman</i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Heroes fall.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">All the time.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Especially in the church.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">The list is a long one from televangelists to ordinary, everyday pastors. Something comes along and knocks us down. Two of the biggest hero slayers: sex and money. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Recently, one of my heroes of the faith was knocked down: Ravi Zacharias. If you travel in the circles of apologetics, you know who I am talking about. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Ravi was world renown. He preached and lectured throughout the world. He was seen on university campuses. He was invited to lecture halls. He spoke in large congregations and at conferences. He portrayed himself as a man of integrity; a man who had been radically changed by God's grace; a man who often said that his "hungers" had been changed drastically.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">And I have no doubt that this was the case. I have no doubt that Ravi had been radically changed. I have no doubt in the sincerity of his commentary.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">But there was a secret Ravi kept; a secret hidden where very few saw. There was a hunger that still ate at him and gnawed in his being. It was a hunger that only was revealed after his death, and he was not able to speak to it or deal with the consequences of it. He will no doubt answer to Almighty God, and I hope that he was truly convicted of God's grace--for that grace will cover him as it covers all of us who are both saint and sinner at the same time.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Sexually inappropriate behavior now haunts the legacy of Ravi and has tainted much of his work. It shouldn't, but purity codes die hard. Public Christians are still held to a different standard than others. And when you break those standards, it can be brutal.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Again, it shouldn't be, but this is reality. It is a reality that we clergy must face head on. No matter how many times we want to say that we are just like everyone else, and we are; we are not held to the same standards. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">And I think we should be as open and honest as possible to tell folks, "Look, we know that we are supposed to be above reproach. We know we should be pillars of morality, justice, and a model of the godly life. We know every bit of this, but we are still saints and sinners. We will eventually break those high standards." </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">You see, sometimes a spotlight shines into the inner darkness where we hide those secret sins, and they are brought into the open. It's not a pleasant experience for us or for those who look up to us. And so we must admit our imperfection. We must admit our brokenness. We must continue to admit our status as redeemed sinners, not perfected sinners.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">This is one of the reasons I am glad to reside in the Lutheran faith tradition. Our namesake, Martin Luther had sins of his own even after his transformation due to grasping the knowledge of grace. A quote is often attributed to him, "I know in baptism the Old Adam is to be drowned, but I discovered that he is a good swimmer."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Indeed, the Old Adam is a good swimmer. Even though our appetites are changed by grace, the sinful appetites still reside, and they depart waiting for an opportune time. And when they hit, they are merciless! It does us no good to pretend that they are not there. It does us no good to tell others that we are not tempted. It does no good to tell others that we are completely and totally transformed.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">We are saint, but we are also still sinner. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">So, why bother? If we are still a sinner; if we are bound to fall; if we are bound to face public scrutiny for that falling and failing; why preach? Why teach? Why continue to put ourselves out there in the public's eye?</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Because it's right.--Spiderman, in response to the Green Goblin</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Because it is the right thing to do, especially if you have experienced the grace of God; especially if you have experienced the call of God; especially if you know that your life has been radically altered by the love of God in Christ Jesus. It's the right thing to do.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5;">God uses sinful human beings to convey His message, not because we are perfect but precisely because of the opposite: because we are imperfect. Face it, the vast majority of people know their imperfections. They cannot (and they oftentimes do not) relate to someone who believes they are perfect. They know (despite the lie that they are often told), that they are not perfect the way they are, and they want someone who understands that. They need to see that there is hope for imperfect people; that there is redemption; that there is acceptance and love. Not that anyone's flaws are ignored or even condoned, but that those flaws are eventually transformed into absolute beauty.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5;">The Christian message is taken by imperfect people to other imperfect people. Imperfect people who have been imbued with a sure and certain hope that even though at this time they are still imperfect; they still struggle with sin and desire; they still do not measure up; God has radically changed them by grace, and they do not rely on themselves in becoming perfect. They rely on God changing them. Sometimes slowly. Sometimes rapidly. And in their imperfection, they point to and give glory to God.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5;">Because it's right.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5;">Even if they fall.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5;">Because God picks them up.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5;">Every time.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5;">Every.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5;">Single.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial;"><span style="background-color: #f6f6f5;">Time.</span></span></p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-90272170924700012802021-01-27T13:29:00.002-06:002021-01-27T13:29:40.923-06:00Back in the Saddle<p> It feels good to be blogging again.</p><p>I have no idea if I will garner an audience again. Over two years of silence is not conducive to building your brand. 😜 </p><p>But I am no longer blogging to build a brand anyway. Lots has changed since I began this blog. Lots will no doubt change in the years ahead. In a very real way, there has been a great reset, and that is why I also deleted all comments from my previous blogs and will no longer allow comments on future blogs. I am not interested in internet battles which have no victors. Most folks, as am I, are so seeped in our own convictions that we do not hear arguments. I know that is the case for me in the past. Reading old comments has taught me that. If you want to dispute something I say, I am fine with that. Write a blog tearing down my arguments. I welcome that. Perhaps we shall actually further debate that way. Likely not, but that is a conversation for another time.</p><p>At this time, I would like to write a word or two for those who may happen upon my blog and have some curiosity as to why there is over a two year gap between posts. Was it because I lost a love for writing, or for talking about the Christian faith, or did not have thoughts on current events? Not in the least. I voluntarily silenced myself because of church conflict.</p><p>Fortunately, I had been prepared for such a thing by mentors and classes that I had taken. But classroom learning and deep conversations only take you so far. When you are hit by wave upon wave of false accusations, lies, innuendo, and outright demonic behavior, your mental, physical, and spiritual health suffer. I am thankful that my health did not suffer as bad as it could have. There are still moments...</p><p>Perhaps one day, I will describe the details of what happened to end my tenure at St. John Lutheran Church of Cat Spring. Perhaps I will describe what happened to end a relationship that I held dear--for a pastor serving in a congregation is oftentimes like a marriage. I loved that little church, and still do even though I fell out of favor with a small minority of people there. Those people made my life and my family's life a living nightmare for a year or so, and that is why I stopped blogging.</p><p>There were several reasons contributing to my decision. The first of which is that it was awful tempting to go into attack mode and air all my grievances. Perhaps in decades past this would have been acceptable: to call out those who were attacking me; to strive to set the record straight. Recently, I came upon a quote by John Calvin, "A pastor needs two voices: one to gather the sheep, and the other to drive off the wolves and thieves." I think this is oh so true, but in our day and age, and in my particular denomination, a pastor who dare use a voice of driving away wolves and thieves would be considered angry, hostile, and unfit for ministry. The days of a Luther who rebuffed his attackers with driving words and cagey insults are gone. Instead, the Luthers of the world have been replaced by bishops and administrators who would prefer you to get scratched, bitten and eaten instead of defending yourself. I provided undisputable proof of the lies that were told about me, and...crickets. So, with no one to defend you and actually receiving criticism if you defend yourself, and the when anger builds...sometimes it is better for self-preservation to slide into silence. Sometimes it is better to keep thoughts to yourself that you would like to express. Sometimes it is better to just let things pan out instead of go on the offensive. </p><p>In the big picture of things, I cannot complain. The Lord led me to a place of soft landing--to a congregation where I can use more of my gifts for ministry; to a wonderful, picturesque setting, to being a part of a team of people who work together using strengths and weaknesses effectively for ministry. I marvel at how our ministry team works together--a function that I had not been able to experience until now. And so far, I do not have to worry about the other reason I muzzled myself.</p><p>No one is taking my words and warping them for their own purposes. Geez, that happened so many times by those seeking my departure, it was not even funny. Things that are of truth: comparing sin to cancer that grows and kills; saying that a portion of the book of Romans is a bit dark; apologizing that an air conditioning unit needed to be replaced. All of these things were used against me to portray me as unfit; evil; uncaring; dictatorial. Ah, and not to mention that some things were brought into public that were meant to be kept in confidence--nothing, mind you, that even crossed the line into inappropriate behavior. There was a moment when I was fending off the wolves in a meeting that went into executive session... But, it was still used against me. When patterns of behavior develop in such a fashion; when your words are warped beyond the context you spoke them and they are used by people who should know better, when boundaries are crossed and confidentiality is broken, it is better to refrain from using words and allowing them to be misappropriated. It is better to keep your mouth shut and speak only those things you are required to say. There was enough material in my sermons to enrage those who were attacking me--not that I was trying to expose them in the least. I wasn't. The Law does a good enough job of that without my help, and as a Law/Gospel preacher...well, I hope you get the gist.</p><p>It has taken a couple of years to overcome the fear of speaking and writing once again. It has taken that long to become comfortable in thought that the attacks will not come. Perhaps they will. Perhaps the reach of the internet will stoke the anger of those who attacked me, and once again they will become infuriated. </p><p>But maybe not. Maybe I now have an opportunity to type once again. To share thoughts once again. To reflect once again. My words may indeed be warped, but comments are off, and I know what I said and what I meant. And I will remember that as I climb back in the saddle. I hope there will not be such a pause again...at least until I decide to retire from the ride.</p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-34806820661685965562021-01-26T16:13:00.003-06:002021-01-26T16:13:31.585-06:00The Ability to Speak"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent." Qui Gon Jinn<div><br /></div><div>Those words have become a reminder to me during this crazy time. A time of pandemic. A time of civil unrest. A time of political division and sometimes outright hatred of opposing views. </div><div><br /></div><div>As a pastor, there is an awful temptation to speak to all of these things. There is an awful temptation to grab an event; a riot; a political action; you name it, and speak to it. Pontificate. In churchy language, "Bring faith to bear on it." And you have to do it fast! Get ahead of everyone else who is ready to chime in. </div><div><br /></div><div>And chime in, we do. We speak. And speak. And speak. And speak.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oftentimes before we think it through.</div><div>Oftentimes before we hear relevant facts.</div><div>Oftentimes based upon questionable sources.</div><div>Oftentimes because it confirms a particular narrative or ideology we adhere to.</div><div><br /></div><div>But none of that matters: we have the right to speak!</div><div>And, now, because of the internet and Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and Instagram and blogs and comment sections on articles, we can use our voices as much as we want.</div><div><br /></div><div>But "the ability to speak does not make you intelligent."</div><div><br /></div><div>No. It doesn't. </div><div><br /></div><div>But we are made to feel as though our voices are important. We are told that our voices count.</div><div><br /></div><div>I once told my bishop that I was not going to attend a Synod Assembly, and his comment was, "Your voice is important."</div><div><br /></div><div>I responded, "In what fashion? (Because of my positions on many issues in our church...) As a foil so that people can say, 'Oh my, I can't believe that someone in this church believes that! We have so much work to do.'? No thank you."</div><div><br /></div><div>You see, it is a fallacy that our voices always count--at least in the way that we think they should. We think that they should be considered; that they should be respected; that they should be honored and given dignity. But they aren't. Not by everyone. Not by a long shot. We are all guilty of tuning certain voices out. All of us.</div><div><br /></div><div>And I think I have been in the process of learning, especially over the last year, that sometimes, it is much more important to bite my tongue; to wait an indefinite amount of time before speaking or typing or posting. </div><div><br /></div><div>And maybe, just maybe, when I open my mouth to speak, it might just sound intelligent.</div>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0Texas, USA31.9685988 -99.90181313.6583649638211533 -135.0580631 60.278832636178848 -64.7455631tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-33512414698752414092021-01-19T08:57:00.009-06:002021-01-19T08:57:58.329-06:00A Response to Justin's View: A Defense of Christian Marriage<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><!--[if supportFields]><span
lang=EN-CA style='mso-ansi-language:EN-CA'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1</span><![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]-->I have been urged by a friend
and colleague to write a response to many of the arguments set forth in a
popular article about the Bible and Homosexuality: The Great Debate: Justin’s
View.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her urging is due to a re-opening
of sorts<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>on seminary campuses of the
debate about LGBTQ+ marriage and its place in the church, particularly in my
own denomination: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since 2009, my denomination has affirmed LGBTQ+
pastors in “committed life-long relationships,” and since that vote took place,
it could be said that more “conservative”/orthodox voices have been silenced in
the debate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am encouraged that other
voices are seemingly being asked to rejoin the conversation, and I hope to contribute
to that conversation in some small manner.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>My friend
directed me to Justin’s article, and I read it.
There were numerous points that caught my attention that I thought
deserved rebuttal, and I will do that shortly.
But before I do so, I want to lay out a few of my assumptions which guide
my arguments.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>1. I consider
the Bible to be God’s revelation to humankind about who God is and what God has
done. I do not view the Bible as
humankind’s thoughts about God or ideas about God. To view the Bible in this
second capacity opens up the Pandora’s box of allowing me to shape God into my
own image instead of the other way around.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>2. I view the
Bible through the lens of Christ and the “chief article of faith.” In Lutheran-speak, this means Christ is the
center of the biblical message, and that message centers on the justification
of sinful humans as they are reconciled to God through the work of Jesus. There are a lot of theologically loaded terms
in that last statement, ones that would need a lot of unpacking in a longer
essay, but be that as I am trying to keep this one as short as possible, I will
not unpack them now.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>3. I also
operate under the principle that scripture interprets scripture–that the best
methodology of understanding certain words and texts are to look to other
similar words and texts within the Bible itself and then secondly to outside
sources.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>4. I also
deeply respect and honor the historical situation these books were written
into. I believe the author’s intent is
primary and that we should not be imposing modern definitions on the Greek and
Hebrew words.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>5. While I hold
no PhDs in biblical interpretation, I tend to spend quite a bit of time doing
exegetical research, particularly in the New Testament. On my bookshelf are numerous commentaries
from the following series: Pillar New Testament, Word, New International
Commentary of the New Testament, Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, and
Expositor’s Bible Commentary. I’ve also
read N.T. Wright’s Matthew-Romans “For Everyone” Series. These commentaries
make up the bulk of my biblical studies along with numerous lectures from
scholars on YouTube. I am much more
comfortable with New Testament scholarship than Old Testament scholarship, yet
there are still some places where I have studied deeply. You will see some of that commentary later. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>6. I also hope
to do justice to Justin’s arguments and commentary. If I have misunderstood them or
misrepresented them, please call me out on it.
Too often, in my estimation, arguments today are geared towards what we
think was said and not what was said. I
oftentimes see people talk past each other and not fully engage with what was
said. I will try my best to NOT do this
but rather to engage the scope of what I hope is being said. Again, I hope you will critique me should I
miss the mark.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>Justin’s View
can be read in its fullness here:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p><a href="https://geekyjustin.com/great-debate/?fbclid=IwAR2jg_">https://geekyjustin.com/great-debate/?fbclid=IwAR2jg_</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>I am pleased
that Justin is what I would call a moderate supporter of the LGBTQ+ position;
although he would call himself a conservative/evangelical. He is conservative in that he believes that
proper sexual expression be expressed within the bounds of “a committed,
loving, monogamous, lifelong, Christ-centered relationship.” There are some these days who believe this
definition to be too narrow and want to do away with any sort of boundary for
sexual expression. I side with Justin on
this one. Sexual relationships have
certain boundaries. In this, we are in
full agreement.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>I am also in
full agreement with Justin that many heterosexual marriages do not meet the
standard that he sets forth. Many
heterosexual marriages are not Christ-centered, and many are certainly not
life-long. The divorce rate is just as
terrible among Christians as it is among those outside the Church. This is a huge black-eye for the Church and
makes Christians look like hypocrites when we speak about the sanctity of
marriage. And yet, perhaps we shall
touch upon this as we continue through this essay.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>Where Justin
and I are not in agreement is his argument that the gender of the people
involved in “committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong Christ-centered
relationships” is unimportant. This takes him squarely away from the position
of a conservative/evangelical which is why I would call him moderate. Justin takes some time to argue why he holds
this position pointing out perceived flaws in the traditional argument for
marriage between a man and a woman before offering his apologetics for LGBTQ+
marriage.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p> I will first take a look at some of Justin’s
rebuttals to what he calls traditional arguments. I will rebut some of his biblical
interpretation, and I will seek to give a defense of traditional marriage which
is not based in any of Justin’s criticism.
Rather, my argument is based on a response to the grace of God given
through Jesus Christ.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>First, let’s
take a look at Justin’s rebuttal of the four major arguments that
Traditionalists offer. I will not print
out any of Justin’s arguments themselves.
You can read them for yourself on his post. Instead, I will respond with simply my
rebuttals/agreement.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p><u>Argument #1
“Our bodies were designed for heterosexuality.”</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>Justin tries to
refute this argument by offering the following premise: just because our bodies
were designed one way does not mean using them another way is sinful. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>He uses this
argument to support this premise. 1)
Sometimes the design does not work correctly.
2) When we use alternative means to overcome the malfunction, no one
deems this sinful. 3) If using things to overcome the malfunction were sinful,
we would have to outlaw a whole lot of things. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>I agree that
sometimes the design malfunctions and does not work as intended. There are a host of ways this happens, some
through our own actions and some through no fault of our own. And I also agree that using methods to
overcome these malfunctions are not sinful.
But if Justin is saying that homosexual urges are malfunctions and not
part of the design, then it would follow that one does not seek to enhance the
malfunction, but to find a way to mitigate its effects. A deaf person (in Justin’s own example) uses
sign language to communicate. A
paralyzed person uses a wheel chair to become mobile. A surgeon does open-heart surgery to fix a
malfunctioning valve or bypass a clot.
But Justin isn’t suggesting that those with homosexual inclinations do
such a thing. He is not arguing that
they use external assistance to correct or mitigate the malfunction. He is arguing that the malfunction be
accepted and engaged in.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>Because
Justin’s conclusion does not follow from his premises, his refutation of
Argument #1 falls far short. However,
Justin does have a legitimate question, and I will attempt to answer it when I
give my reasons against LGBTQ+ marriage below.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p><u>Argument #2:
Sex is for procreation.</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>I agree with
Justin on this point. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p><u>Argument #3:
There are no examples of same-sex marriage in the Bible</u>.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>I also agree
with Justin on this point as well.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p><u>Argument #4:
Because God says so. (a.k.a. There’s a rule against it.)</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>Justin argues
that this is what the whole argument comes down to. Actually, it isn’t, but again, I will deal
with that in my apology for heterosexual marriage below. Yet, it is important to deal with Justin’s
use and interpretation of the biblical texts that he cites. He makes four points under this argument. I will not deal with points #1 and #3. The story of Sodom (point #1) does deal more
with a lack of hospitality and the threat of violence than it does
homosexuality, and “arsenokoitai” (point #3) has just enough mystery around it
since Paul made that word up (although there are still some solid exegetical
reasons for using it). So, let’s delve
into the other two texts:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p><u>Romans 1:</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>Justin argues
that Paul begins this passage looking at all of humanity and then narrows it
down to idol worshipers in Rome who belong to fertility cults. Therefore, this passage does not apply to all
of humanity, but is geared towards a specific situation that Paul’s readers
would have easily understood and known beyond a shadow of a doubt was
sinful. Justin’s interpretation (based
upon very recent scholarship) allows wiggle room for homosexual behavior
outside of fertility cult worship.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>However, Justin
(and the scholars who follow this interpretation) miss the bigger picture of
what Paul is trying to accomplish in the second half of Romans chapter 1,
chapter 2, and first half of chapter 3.
Paul is laying out his argument for the necessity of the Gospel which he
articulates in Chapter 3 verses 27-28.
Paul intends to show that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God. Paul uses chapter 1 to show how ALL
Gentiles have fallen short, and then uses chapter 2 and part of 3 to show how
ALL Jews have fallen short. This text in
chapter 1 is meant to apply to all of humanity.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>The question
that arises is this: if this text is meant to apply to all of humanity, then
why did Paul choose homosexual acts as the defining sin of idolatry? Why didn’t he choose one or more of the Ten
Commandments? He could have easily
chosen stealing or murder or lying or coveting.
Why not these?</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>The answer is:
Paul is dealing with what we might call the natural law and natural order. “What can be known about God is plain to
them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine
nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the
things he has made.” Romans 1:19-20,
NRSV.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>Paul has in
mind here Genesis chapter 1 and the creation of humanity. He also has the first command of God ever
recorded in the Torah–a command that was not given on tablets of stone, but was
written into the very fabric of creation: Be fruitful and multiply. This command is known throughout every
culture and every society. It is as
natural as the air we breathe. It
extends to plants and animals alike. And
once the creation exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling
a human being or animals; once humanity began glorifying the creation instead
of the creator, even the most basic command was broken. Then, everything else went to the proverbial
hell in a handbasket to the point where “They know God’s decree, that those who
practice such things deserve to die–yet they not only do them but even applaud
others who practice them.” This statement
would not have been specific to Roman fertility cults, but to the corruption of
all of humankind. For ALL have
sinned. That’s Paul’s point. And homosexual behavior is a part of that sin
as it breaks the first command recorded in the Bible.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p><u>Leviticus
18-20</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p>Justin’s foray
into biblical interpretation here is ripe with problems. Justin lumps all of these laws as “given to
keep the Israelites pure and separate from the polytheistic culture around
them.” And since these laws served that
purpose, they have fulfilled their purpose and gone the way of the
dinosaur. Furthermore, he argues no one
looks to Leviticus for morality. So,
let’s put this to the test and look at a few more of those laws given to “keep
the Israelites pure and separate them from the polytheistic culture around them.<br /><br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie to one another. Leviticus 19:11</li><li>You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning. Leviticus 19:13</li><li>You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. Leviticus 19:18 </li><li>When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:33-34 (All NRSV)</li></ul><p></p><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
</ul><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">I
could quote a few others, but here is the question, at least according to Justin’s
logic: shall we throw out these commands and consider them “side dishes at a
buffet?”, picking them because they look good while others do not?</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">I would hope not.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">And just to make it abundantly clear, when
asked for the most important commands of Scripture, Jesus quoted first
Deuteronomy 6:5 and then Leviticus 19:18.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Jesus himself looked to Leviticus while offering moral guidance.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Perhaps we should as well.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>I
do need to take a moment here to point out that oftentimes, Lutherans have been
accused of (well, because we do) oftentimes separate the Old Testament Law
into: moral laws, ceremonial laws, and civic laws. The Leviticus 18 passage is often viewed as a
ceremonial/purity law so that the people of Israel will not be like the
Canaanites who are living in the land who have defiled it—and so that the land
doesn’t “vomit them out.” I truly wonder
exactly how the land would do such a thing…but, well, that’s beside the point.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Let’s
consider this argument for a moment.
Verses six through 18 offer a gigantic list of people who you “should
not uncover the nakedness of” (NRSV).
This is actually a Hebrew euphemism which means have sexual relations,
which is why the NIV translates it as such.
Reading through that list, one has to ask if these prohibitions were
simply put in place to differentiate the Israelites from the Canaanites or if
having sexual relations with your mother, sister, aunt, granddaughter, etc. are
meant to be more universal? Perhaps that
is a rhetorical question. These commands
are not simply ritualistic commands intended to keep the Israelites away from
fertility cults, but part of the moral law, and they are very close to the
commands regarding men lying with men and women lying with women.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>It
is also important to note that scholars oftentimes refer to this section of
Leviticus as the “Holiness Code.” (Based
on Leviticus 19:2) The purpose behind
this section is to have a people who mirror the holiness of God—not simply set
apart from the ritualistic worship of surrounding cultures, but set apart from
the ethics and morals of those same cultures.
As such, this text is not simply about purity, but about holiness and
mirroring the holiness of God. Justin’s
rebuttal does not take these things into account, and when these things are
brought forward, his rebuttal seems overly simplistic and very shallow. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>As
far as I can tell, given the weakness of Justin’s refutations of these two
biblical texts, the “God says so” rules still apply. But, and you may be surprised at this, I
would not use these texts as evidence against gay marriage. I believe they point out that homosexual
behavior is a sin according to the Law of God.
But, you see, Christians are no longer under the Law...</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>And
this may be a very good place to deal with Justin’s major objection to what he
might call the Traditionalist’s major problem: there is no “clear, consistent
standard that we can apply across the board.”</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Paul
actually gives us this standard in the book of Romans chapter 6. This is a very difficult chapter to
understand because it involves a way of thinking that is quite foreign to us
but was not foreign at all to the ancient world. Paul begins with what we might call
representative thought.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Essentially,
it boils down to this: whatever happens to Christ happens to us. Christ is our new representative–as compared
to Adam who is our old representative.
What does this mean?</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>I
think I can best sum it up with the Old Testament story of David and Goliath.
Goliath was the champion of the Philistine army, and every day he would
challenge someone in the Israelite army to come and fight him. The fear of fighting this giant went far
beyond simply individual combat, for you see, the person who accepted Goliath’s
challenge wasn’t just fighting for himself.
He was fighting for the entire nation of Israel. If the Israelite lost to Goliath, that meant
the entire nation lost, and vice versa.
This was one of the methods armies used to avoid massive death and blood
shed.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Goliath
represented the country of the Philistines.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">David
represented the country of Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">David
won/Israel won.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s how it worked.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>In
a like manner, Jesus becomes our representative when we place our trust in
Him. And Paul lays it out: what happens to
Jesus also then happens to us. Jesus
died, and he died to sin. Therefore, we
have died to ourselves and died to sin.
Jesus was raised from the dead to live a new life. Therefore, we are raised to live a new
life. The life Jesus lives, he lives for
God. Therefore, the life we live, we
live for God. And since we live for God,
we do not seek to sin.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Paul
then fleshes out what this means even further in the second half of Romans
6. Paul says we have a new master. We were once enslaved to Sin. We were curved in on ourselves, but because
of our new life in Christ, we are now slaves to God. (Yes, I know the language is problematic for
some today, but there are two important points here. First, the slavery mentioned in the New
Testament is nothing like the slavery practiced during the African slave
trade. Slavery in the New Testament was
something someone voluntarily entered into so that he or she could pay off
accumulated debt. When the debt was paid
off, the slave was now free. And, of
course, someone could redeem you or pay off your debt and set you free. Secondly, whether we know it or not, we are
all slaves to something—usually our heart’s greatest desire. If that desire is not God, you have an
idol—an idol that will demand your very life.
The only Master who grants you freedom through servitude is God.) And being slaves to God, we long to honor and
serve our Master with our entire being.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>How
does that play in dealing with homosexual relationships? There are two salient points here. The first is realizing the importance of the
design of humanity, and the second is honoring the Designer.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>To
realize the importance of the design, we must turn to Genesis chapter 2. I know that there are many who appreciate
Genesis 1 and treat God’s calling of the creation (including humanity) very
good as serious business, but who turn around and ignore and call Genesis 2
& 3 a myth. As far as I can tell,
Justin doesn’t do such a thing. Justin
admits to a very high appreciation and understanding of scripture. He appeals to its authority. This is why he spends so much time trying to
interpret it in a fashion that justifies his position. And while his interpretation may be lacking,
his stance on its authority is not.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Therefore,
we turn to Genesis 2 and the creation of
humanity recorded there. Hopefully you
are familiar with the story. Man does
not have a suitable helper and is alone.
God recognizes that this situation is not optimal, so God creates the
animals. None is found to be
“suitable.” I included quotation marks
around the word suitable because the connotation of this word is not simply
relational in the sense of companionship—it is also relational in the sense of
sexual. One can imagine Adam looking at
a rhinoceros and saying, “Nope. Don’t think so.
Try again.” (Paul uses this understanding in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 when he argues against prostitution.)</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Therefore,
God causes a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and God removes a rib to create
woman. There is something very
significant about this. We must remember
that ancient Jews viewed God as perfect; whole.
Therefore anything in creation that was not whole was actually
diminished and further from God. If
someone lost a hand or foot in battle, they were considered diminished and
further from God. If someone was
deformed by leprosy or illness, they were diminished and further from God. If a eunuch, well, you get the idea.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>But
here in the creative process, God diminishes His own creation and makes Adam
less than whole. And woman, who is taken
out of man is also less than whole. But
when they are joined together...well, that wholeness returns. “For this reason a man leaves his mother and
is joined to his wife.” Something quite
marvelous is taking place in this union, and it is why Jesus offers the council,
“Therefore what God has joined together, let no human tear apart!”</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>I
am Lutheran and believe in 2 ½ sacraments, but the Roman Catholics may be onto
something in their calling marriage a sacrament. There is definitely something very holy
taking place here–something that can only take place between a man and a woman—not
only relationally, but sexually as the word “suitable” suggests. That’s the way it was designed.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>And
it goes beyond relationships involving people of the same sex. Men are missing something that was taken out
of them. Two men share the same lack—at
least according to this part of the creation story. Two women share the same lack. Only through the relationship between a man
and a woman can this lack be filled.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>This
understanding of marriage takes us much deeper than those who argue that
marriage is a cornerstone of society especially for raising children. I agree that marriage is this, but this
definition does not capture marriage fully because there are many families that
struggle with conceiving children (like my own) or who choose to not have
children or who are unable to have children.
Their relationships are still marriage despite exclusion from the
raising children/cornerstone ofsociety definition.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>This
understanding of marriage also takes us further than those who propose it as
the means where you express your love (and receive love) as a part of personal
fulfillment. While marriage does have an
aspect of this, relying on this definition alone is problematic especially when
love fails—as it does often. It is much
easier to seek fulfillment and love elsewhere when relationships become
problematic than it is to work to mend relationships and grow through
problems. Personal fulfillment is
inherently selfish and is likely the primary reason for the high divorce
rate. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>The
understanding of marriage that I propose found in Genesis 2 and affirmed by
Jesus in his teaching of divorce provides a very deep, very powerful,
foundation for understanding the reason we get married and work to stay
married. It also provides the reason
marriage is between a man and a woman.
Man and woman are meant to complete each other. That’s the design.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>But,
we must now deal with Justin’s objection: just because our bodies are designed
one way, is using them in another way sinful? </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>I
want to remind us here, that we are no longer under the Law. Paul even agrees with the Corinthians who
write to him and say, “All things are Lawful.”
Paul’s retort: all things are Lawful, but not all things are beneficial. And here is how they are not beneficial. I will begin with an analogy–even though all
analogies are not perfect, but this one is quite understandable for many.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>A
treadmill is a wonderful tool that was invented so that we can exercise
indoors; however, many folks use treadmills to hang dirty or even clean clothes
on for extended periods of time. Is such
an act sinful? </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Well,
we would say no. Not in the least. We might do it all the time. But is this beneficial for us? Well, no.
We should be using the treadmill for that which it was designed. It is healthier for us to do so. There is definitely self-interest for us in
doing so–even if we don’t feel like exercising or are not attracted to
exercising.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>But,
there is another reason that goes beyond our own self-interest. In using the treadmill for its purpose, we honor
its creator. I mean, what if the
inventor of the treadmill walked into a house and saw his wonderful, intricate
creation being used as a clothes rack?
Would he be disappointed?
Outraged? Upset? Would he shake his head in bewilderment that
his design was being coopted and corrupted in such a fashion? I mean, he knows he doesn’t own it. He knows
people are free to do with things as they choose, (and we are) but does that
diminish his disappointment or frustration in those who abuse this freedom (of
course it does)? And of course, we are
free to hang clothes on that treadmill if we choose. We have complete and total freedom, but are
we bringing honor to the one who made it for a different purpose? Of course we are not.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>In
a like manner, we know the original design for marriage. We know God’s original design for our bodies,
and we bring honor to God by using them as they were intended. We do not bring honor to God by using them as
they were not intended. This is why
Justin’s argument about two couples who are living godly lives in all things
except for one being heterosexual and one being homosexual fails. They may each be producing fruit, but one of
these is not bringing honor to God.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Before
we begin using this standard to deal with many of Justin’s examples of problems
with the Traditional view, we need to also deal with the purpose of the
Law. Justin argues that God’s Laws (or
rules as he states) have a purpose behind them.
Once those laws fulfill their purpose, they become irrelevant. Therefore, each law should be looked at one
by one to see which ones have been fulfilled and are no longer relevant. (Interestingly enough, Justin does not show
how the laws/rules regarding homosexuality have been fulfilled.) </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Yet,
orthodox Christianity has taught from very near the beginning that the Law of
God; the Rules of God serve two purposes–purposes that are ongoing and never
fully fulfilled by us. Mind you, they
have been fulfilled by Christ, but not by us.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>The
first use of the law is to reveal our sin. Romans 3: 19-20 (NRSV), “Now we know
that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that
every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to
God. For ‘no human being will be justified in his sight’ by deeds prescribed by
the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.” The Law is constantly revealing our sin to
us. It never stops doing this to us. It condemns us all the time. When we fail to care for our neighbor, the
Law convicts. Whenever we think evil
thoughts, the Law convicts. Whenever we
fail to worship, the Law convicts. The
Law will always point out our sin. It’s
purpose is ongoing. It’s purpose is to
drive us to the Gospel.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Yet,
there is a second use of the Law. To restrain
evil. In our ongoing battle with sin, we
need to know the boundaries. We need to
know what is right and what is wrong. We
need to know when sin is operating within us to lead us astray. The Law gives us those boundaries. And when we transgress those boundaries, use
number one kicks in.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>And
now we must remember the Gospel: that we are now justified by grace as a gift,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a
sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. (Romans 3:27-28) We are not saved by our own
actions, but by Jesus’ actions. We are
not saved by our following the Law, but by Jesus’ following the Law and then
imparting his righteousness to us. And
in thankfulness to that righteousness, we seek to bring honor and glory to
Jesus; to God; through our daily living. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Keeping
all this in mind, we now turn to Justin’s difficulties with the traditional
view and dealing with the biblical issues he points out:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p><u>Head
Coverings</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>There
are definitely some interesting exegetical issues with 1 Corinthians 11, not
the least of them being “because of the angels.” It’s also tough to know whether or not Paul
is talking about head coverings or hair styles.
And let’s throw the monkey wrench in there about whether or not praying
and prophesying is a compound meaning worship or if this is simply praying and
prophesying. It’s a tough passage!! But knowing that Paul is dealing with a cultural
issue is not one of the difficult exegetical issues. Scholars are pretty sure that Paul is dealing
with Roman, cultic issues trickling into the church, and he is trying to draw a
hard line to keep those outside influences, well, outside!</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>When
Christian practices looked like idol worship, that certainly was not honoring
God. Christians were separating
themselves from the “spirit of the age,” and were living and worshiping in a
different manner. Such a thing was God
honoring. So, it made sense for Paul to
draw that line hard and fast.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>But
what about us? Does it still make sense
in light of the Gospel? Does it still
make sense knowing that our righteousness and our purity does not come from any
external sources, but it is what comes out of our hearts that makes us impure
(Mark 7:14-23)? The clothing we place
upon our heads does not make us pure (neither does what we eat), but it is what
comes out of us that glorifies God. In
that situation–in Corinth, the outward dress was not glorifying God–just as we
might object to someone wearing a satanic shirt or Hindu priestly garb or
Buddhist priestly garb to our worship. Comparing this to homosexual marriage
isn’t even close.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p><u>Romans
13:1</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>As
I said early in this document, I adhere to the supposition that Scripture helps
interpret scripture, and it is this principle which helps us with this
text. Justin doesn’t seem to be applying
this principle, so he misses a very important caveat in scripture. This is not the only place where obeying
government authorities is talked about.
In Acts chapter 5, the Apostles were brought before the civil
authorities who had ordered them to stop preaching the name of Jesus. The apostles didn’t hesitate in their reply,
“We must obey God rather than men.”</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>This
governing principle has always been in effect for Christians. Their calling is to honor God above any civil
commands, and this is why Martin Luther King, Jr. and southern black churches
were at the head of the civil rights movement.
They knew they were following God’s command even though society’s laws
were against them. It was also the reason many Christians turned against the
slave trade and worked to outlaw it. (Justin’s continued references to slavery
in the Bible actually deserve some response, but I will not do so in this
paper. I will point you to Paul Copan’s
book <i>Is God a Moral Monster </i>for some understandable and thorough reading
on the subject–reading that will open your eyes if you believe that slavery was
always accepted by the Church.) Obeying
civil law when it contradicts God’s commands does not bring honor to God.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p><u>Romans
13:8-10</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p> </o:p>Justin
calls this section a problem for the traditional view. However, in reality, Romans 13:8-10 is
actually problematic for Justin’s view because what Paul is saying is that when
one is full of agape—what he calls the deep, abiding, unconditional love that
comes from God—one is obedient to the commands of God. As Timothy Keller says in his commentary on
the book of Romans:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><i>In other words, Paul refuses to pit love and law against each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The obedient thing is the loving thing; the loving
thing is the obedient thing!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we want
to love others, we will obey God’s commands.<sup>1</sup><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">And
God’s commands on same-sex sexual relations are pretty clear, at least as I
have outlined above. Therefore, once
again, Justin’s argument fails. “But
wait – the very definition of the Traditional View says that even when two
relationships are equally loving – even when they’re motivated by the exact
same selfless desires and the exact same servant hearts – that one of them can
be ruled sinful just because of a person’s gender.” </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">The
two relationships might be equally loving between the partners, but they are
not equally loving towards God. One of
those relationships is breaking the commands of God and not honoring God. The criteria from Romans 6 once again defines
one of those relationships as sinful.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><u>Sabbath
Law Breaking</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">Justin
misses Matthew’s point terribly in his commentary regarding Sabbath Law
breaking. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">First,
he misses the fact that the Pharisees had instituted a whole lot of human laws
regulating what it meant to work on the Sabbath. Those weren’t dictated by the Torah but by
the religious institution.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">Secondly,
Justin misses the crux of the argument Jesus puts forward. Jesus does not indicate that it is okay to
violate the letter of the Law. Jesus
tells the Pharisees what the Law means because He is “Lord of the Sabbath.”
(Verse 8)</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">After
all, Jesus was there from the beginning of creation, and through Him all things
were made. Jesus knows the proper
understanding of what the Sabbath is to be about, and he is pointing out that
the Pharisees had it all wrong. Their understanding of the Law was backwards. It is not okay to violate the letter of the Law. Neither is it okay to misinterpret it. That is certainly not honoring God.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">Because
of some questionable biblical interpretation, a failure to realize the purpose
of the Law, and a failure to realize that the Traditional view is not based
simply on “God said so,” Justin fails in his attempts to undermine the Traditional
arguments. So, let us now look at some
of Justin’s reasoning for promoting LGBTQ+ relationships and marriage.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><u>Exegesis
versus Eisegesis</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">Justin
makes the assertion that we can glean from the biblical text deeper meanings
than even the authors themselves intended.
“But the abolitionists argued that Paul was writing under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that there was a deeper meaning here that
even Paul himself might not have realized.
It’s a great argument, and I agree 100%.” This is a dangerous game to
play–in fact it is a game that has been played many times throughout history
oftentimes with disastrous results. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">The
Roman Church played this game long and hard before the Protestant Reformation
using allegorical interpretations of the text to subjugate people and keep
itself in power. This is why they fought
so hard to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common folks. When you read
things into the text that are not intended by the author, you can manipulate
the masses very easily.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">In
our own day, we have televangelists who do this very well. Prosperity gospel preachers add their own
“spirit filled” interpretations to the text giving ideas and thoughts to the
text that the original authors never imagined, and they have led many astray.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">Here’s
a helpful thought: you don’t need to use Galatians 3:27-28 to build a biblical
case against slavery. All you need is
the book of Philemon. When, as Justin
says, Paul was using this text to help readers understand their identity in
Christ and that nothing should divide them: not race, social status, or gender,
that interpretation is enough. There is
no need to look for deeper meaning. All
one should do at that point is say, “What conclusions can we draw from this
meaning.”</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><u>The
Final Argument</u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">Justin’s
final argument is based on the good fruit that homosexual relationships
bear. But Justin misses something
entirely: there are many people and things which are outside of God’s purview
that bear good fruit.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">I
mean, I have known some atheists whose morality and generosity far exceeds my
own. I have known Hindus and Buddhists
and Jews and Muslims who are some of the kindest and gentlest people on the
planet. In the church, we call this
common grace. It is not saving grace.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">Saving
grace takes a person and transforms them. Saving grace takes a person and
reframes their vision and their attitudes.
Saving grace takes them away from themselves and leads them to a life of
honoring God. I do not know Justin and
am not sure what he would say at this moment, but I have heard other homosexual
Christians claim that their sexuality is central to their identity; that their
attractions to the same sex are something they were given by God and to be
blessed by God. Such a claim is making
an idol out of their sexuality. While
they produce other fruits, they do not honor God in continuing to give in to
their sinful nature which basically says, “I’ll give up everything for you
except this.”</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-list: skip;">Am I calling anyone
who says such a thing a sinner?
Yes. Join the club. I am, too.
And I’ll invite you to put your trust in Jesus like I have. I’ll invite you to go through the heart
wrenching transformation of grace that will tear you apart, bring death to your
self, destroy all the things that you once thought were important and made you
who you thought you were, and then reconstruct you into a totally different
being. It’s a terrible process to go through,
but in the reconstruction, you will find a totally different way of being. And you will desire to honor God in all
things.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><sup>1</sup>Keller,
Timothy. <i>Romans 8-16 For You</i>. USA, The Good Book Company, 2015, p. 141</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-56237971730036707982019-05-23T15:12:00.001-05:002019-05-23T15:12:17.831-05:00Religion Versus RelationshipIt took a while for the thought to finally solidify, but since it has, it's going to be preached--starting this Sunday. I know it may not be wise putting this out there before I preach it, but I'm going to do it anyway because I finally have a defeater for one of the most annoying sayings I have come across. The meme below says it all:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DAs81wxaS1w/XOb7ttxka1I/AAAAAAAAFE8/4y2shlJFwu40FUKak6mCY4_4M9ZfJvLYACLcBGAs/s1600/Religion%2Bversus%2BRelationship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="350" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DAs81wxaS1w/XOb7ttxka1I/AAAAAAAAFE8/4y2shlJFwu40FUKak6mCY4_4M9ZfJvLYACLcBGAs/s320/Religion%2Bversus%2BRelationship.jpg" width="212" /></a></div>
<br />
I've always said that both of these examples are bogus. But I've had a hard time conveying why the final thought is bogus. <br />
<br />
Can't we find God out in nature?<br />
<br />
Can't we be with God while we are (insert whatever activity you like here)?<br />
<br />
And the answer is: of course you can find God out in nature. And of course, you can be with God while you are doing whatever activity you choose. But, the question is: Is this a real relationship?<br />
<br />
Here is the answer, not in a point by point philosophical discourse, but in the form of an experiment--an experiment I dare anyone to try.<br />
<br />
The next time there is an important family date: an anniversary; a birthday; etc. walk up to the person whose day is celebrated, look them right in the eye and say, "You know, hon, tomorrow is our anniversary, so I've decided to spend the whole day fishing. Don't worry, though, the entire time I'm out there, I will be thinking of you."<br />
<br />
Not going to go over so well, will it.<br />
<br />
Why? Because you aren't really thinking of the other person. You are thinking about yourself.<br />
<br />
A real relationship makes demands on you.<br />
<br />
It costs you time.<br />
<br />
It costs you money.<br />
<br />
It costs you thinking outside of getting what you want and giving adoration and care to someone else.<br />
<br />
It costs you because you allow yourself to be vulnerable and changed by the person with whom you are in a relationship. Because you care, you change to accommodate the other person, and you become different. And the only way you can know what changes to make is to listen to the other person and find out what brings them joy.<br />
<br />
A real relationship with God means:<br />
<br />
1. You take time out for God.<br />
2. You give money to God.<br />
3. You adore and praise God.<br />
4. You listen to God when He speaks.<br />
<br />
All four of those things take place in worship. <br />
<br />
1. We carve out a sacred time for God.<br />
2. We offer our tithes and offerings to God.<br />
3. We adore and praise God through song and response.<br />
4. We listen to God's Word as we read the Bible, pray, and listen to sermons.<br />
<br />
Religion is a guy sitting in church thinking about fishing.<br />
A superficial relationship is a guy fishing thinking about God.<br />
A real, transformational relationship is a person worshiping God with heart, soul, mind and strength and raising his or her voice in glorious praise.Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-34032088591552541512019-04-30T15:08:00.002-05:002019-05-02T08:11:07.803-05:00God Help UsSometimes, I wish this stuff were all a joke.<br />
<br />
The headline read "<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><a href="https://religionnews.com/2019/04/29/protesting-methodist-lgbtq-policy-confirmation-class-takes-a-pass/?fbclid=IwAR2imBA1ypd0du1fZuU-a0jJYVup_2Q9OlQnHgnjQ0klAkwQcvQ4yy2hNgw" target="_blank">Protesting Methodist LGBTQ policy, confirmation class takes a pass"</a>. It appeared on my Facebook thread posted by a friend who was celebrating this action.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">I can't. There is no way that I can, at least in the manner that I understand confirmation.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">I mean, maybe the Methodists understand things differently, but confirmation is much, much more than simply becoming a member of a church. Confirmation is first and foremost affirming your faith. Confirmation is saying, "When I was an infant, my parents had me baptized. Because I was unable to make any promises before God myself, my parents made them for me. They promised to raise me as a Christian--to teach me the tenets of the Christian faith; to prepare me for the day when I could make those promises myself and say loudly and clearly, 'You know those promises my parents made for me? Those promises are no longer my parents' promises. They are mine!! I no longer follow Christ because my parents want me to. I follow Christ because I want to!'"</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">These teens stood in front of their congregation and said, "No. Not now."</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">No. I don't want to affirm my baptism.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">No. I don't want to follow Christ.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">No. I don't want to adhere to the tenets of the Christian faith.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">Because I (myopically) disagree with my denomination, I won't become a Christian.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">And the congregation gave them a standing ovation.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">Let that sink in.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">I wish this were all a joke. A very bad joke at that.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">If this is the "church" (and I use that word very, very loosely) that is emerging in the U.S., then let it die. Let it go the way of the dinosaur. It deserves nothing less than death and condemnation for it applauds when kids walk away from the faith. It is the part of the vine which needs pruning and badly.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">Don't want to join a church? Fine.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">Don't want to be a part of a denomination? Find another.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">Don't like your current denomination's policies? Reform or start your own. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "roboto";"><span style="background-color: white;">Applaud when kids refuse to confirm the faith? God help us. </span></span><br />
<br />
<br />Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-48116810071289753912019-04-18T16:45:00.001-05:002019-04-18T16:45:37.558-05:00Offensive to ChristianityPeople take shots at Christianity all the time, and of course, the news media wants Christians to become offended. Perhaps this is why <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/brockmire-hank-azaria-jesus-auschwitz" target="_blank">THIS STORY</a> actually garnered a headline. <br />
<br />
I don't watch television. Didn't even know who Hank Azaria was until I read the article. Yeah, I fell for the clickbait.<br />
<br />
But get offended? Not in the least. <br />
<br />
Apparently, the show in question raised numerous issues with faith and belief in God. <br />
<br />
From the article:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>His sponsor, Shirley, played by Martha Plimpton, suggests going to church, but Brockmire calls the Catholic church the "real life Slytherin," and says, "at least with Mormons you get magic underwear and your own planet."</i></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Well, I'm not Catholic, and I know that the Catholic church has issues--some big ones at that. But what is missing here is any sort of counter balance to what the Catholic church has done and is doing throughout the world. Catholics have been at the forefront of anti-poverty movements and healthcare movements throughout history. <a href="https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/" target="_blank">Catholic Charities</a> has been and is one of the most recognized, world-wide organizations that brings relief and care to the poorest of the poor. To offer no counter-balance to such claims does a great disservice to the Catholic church. Perhaps in later episodes, such balance will be provided, but controversy and offense sells.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Mormonism is a horse of a different color. I have my own criticisms of their beliefs and practices because I don't adhere to the Book of Mormon. And neither am I versed as well in their organization and its structures, so I'm not apt in providing any sort of defense.</span></span><br />
<br /><i>After he brings up the Holocaust, the two storm out of the church early. "Why did you bring up the Holocaust?" Gabby asked. "Well, the priest is the one who brought up a benevolent God. I thought that called for a rebuttal witness," Brockmire replied."No, you called Jesus the Mayor of Auschwitz," she said.</i><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This criticism of God is well known and warranted. It actually is the most problematic question of faith: if God is good, then why the problem of evil. It is quite unfortunate that such television series don't engage some of the top thinkers when putting together such programs. People of faith have wrestled with this question for centuries, and there are some good responses to such questions. But the answers cannot be spouted in 30 seconds. They won't fit in 140 characters. They can't be bumper stickered. Yet, that's what television is built for. Those who put together television programs oftentimes think of themselves as deep thinkers and cultural critics, but the stuff they put on television is quite intellectually shallow--one of the primary reasons I don't watch it.</div>
<br /><i>"Well, I don't wanna work with some thin-skinned God who can't handle a little criticism," he replied.</i><div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
Probably one of the best lines in the article. I agree with it whole-heartedly. And perhaps the writers of this series know that there are those who welcome such criticisms. Perhaps the writers of this show will delve into such criticisms later. I'm not necessarily hopeful. That wouldn't necessarily make money or get views. Who wants to engage and help folks understand one another when it's much easier to caricature and slam the caricature which bears only a slight resemblance to the real deal? Then, we can always walk away smugly in our self-righteousness believing we have defeated our foes. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Any room for nuance and true engagement out there?</div>
<br /><i>Later in the episode, when he becomes desperate enough, he attempts to pray to God. "All right, Sky Daddy, let's do this thing...Oh, my God. I feel something. Oh, it's like a pressure deep down inside of me. Oh, s---. I just have to pee."</i><div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
Old guy with bladder problems. I get it, and on one level, this is kind of funny, but it misses out on the nature of prayer. It also misses out on the nature of faith.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Faith isn't simply believing in God intellectually. It's also believing God. Those are two very different things.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Believing in something is not the same as believing it. I can easily say that I believe in the <a href="https://www.venganza.org/" target="_blank">Flying Spaghetti Monster</a>. But here is the rub: do I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has given me commands for a way of living? Do I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has any power or authority? Do I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the capability of changing my life and how it is orientated? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Obviously, the Pastafarians don't either. They are spoofing belief--faith without evidence. That's not the concept of Biblical faith. Biblical faith is synonymous with trust. I don't just believe in God, I trust God.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which brings us to prayer. Prayer is not going to some "Sky Daddy" who may or may not give us what we ask for. Prayer is placing one's complete and utter trust in God. Prayer is recognizing that there are things that are above and beyond our control or influence. Prayer is recognizing our complete dependence upon God for everything. It is a recognition that even the most powerful entities and institutions in the world are flawed and unable to adequately deal with the problems of the world (because of their own corruption, and dare I say sin?). It is a recognition that we need someone outside of ourselves to bring about "salvation." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If there is anything that I think I can be confident of, I think I can say that despite our best efforts, we still haven't been able to bring about peace, justice, contentment, and the like. We've tried every type of government and its variations. We've thrown money at every problem and invented program after program to try and deal with it. We've made progress in some areas, but have failed in others. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And even though we are living in one of the most prosperous, peaceful times in the history of our world, you would never know it because of how angry, disappointed, and unfulfilled many people are. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Prayer taps us into the One who is beyond ourselves and helps us recognize our dependence on Him. And recognizing this and putting our trust in One beyond ourselves instills a deep sense of peace within. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This isn't something that our contemporary culture readily deals with. We like to think that we can solve everything ourselves. Until we can't. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maybe, just maybe this show will try to deal with such issues. They've certainly laid the groundwork to perhaps wrestle with things on a deeper level. Maybe they've caught a few folks' attention. If so, mission accomplished. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But if I can offer any advice to my Christian brothers and sisters who may be feeling outrage or victimization because of this: don't. Don't take the bait. Respond with deep thinking. Respond with prayer. Acknowledge that some people actually feel this way and have such questions. Walk with them through those questions and point them in the direction of Jesus. Point them in the direction of Christian thinkers who have wrestled deeply with such questions and ask them to engage such thinkers. Lead them through superficial quips into the deep water of Christian spirituality and thought. Criticism can often be seen as a form of pursuit. Folks who criticize us want to be in a relationship with us. It just remains to be seen whether or not that relationship entails true dialogue or a willingness to actually learn together. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Indeed, the Church has had its moments of dogmatism and has responded to such things with imposition instead of invitation. Let's not become what we despise. Let's use these moments for engagement instead of furthering the divisions we see within our nation.<br /><div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-30733821466479227622019-03-05T08:34:00.001-06:002019-03-05T08:34:41.122-06:00Dad, are You Addicted to that Game?Yesterday, as I was hovering over my Samsung Tablet playing a game, my son asked, "Dad, are you addicted to that game?"<br />
<br />
Without hesitation, I said, "Yes."<br />
<br />
I've always had a weakness for video games. I longed to play Pac-Man when arcade games were the rage. I always hoped my folks would graciously give me a quarter to satisfy my longing. I had fun, but I was no gamer. I never was able to figure out the patterns or any such things. But I still loved to play.<br />
<br />
And then, my folks got an Atari. Oh my. That was fun.<br />
<br />
Gaming has come very far in the 20+ years since I started playing, and now, with cell phone technology, we have games at our fingertips. Throughout the years, I've found myself addicted to several games--several of which I still would love to go back and play.<br />
<br />
My latest addiction is a game called Empire and Puzzles. It's part strategy; part puzzle (think Bejeweled with a twist); part frustrating because the odds of getting where you would like to go are terribly high (designed that way I am sure by the programmers to ensure that you will spend a lot of money to progress through the game faster). It's actually tailor made for me--especially that last part which feeds into my stubbornness to win at the game without paying money. Yes, I've spent hours of free time playing this game.<br />
<br />
"Because, you are on that game every morning and every night."<br />
<br />
Leave it to my youngest to point out the obvious. And he's right.<br />
<br />
"Can you give up the game for a day? I dare you to give it up tomorrow."<br />
<br />
Little turkey. Challenge accepted, but I'm no patsy. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. My son shares in such addictions too.<br />
<br />
"I'll give up the game tomorrow if you give up YouTube tomorrow."<br />
<br />
Got him. But my son, like me, will take a challenge. "Deal!" We shook on it.<br />
<br />
I could have rejected his challenge. As the adult and as the parent, it's my prerogative. I could have just told the kid, "Nope, I enjoy the game, and I'm going to keep playing it."<br />
<br />
But I want to teach my kids something. (Don't think for a moment that my girls aren't tuning in to this little deal.) For, it is my belief that we are all addicted to something. I believe each and every person has some sort of addiction, and in my own lifetime, I have been addicted to numerous things:<br />
<br />
success, video games, athletics, academics, the need for acceptance by peers, the desire for sex, affirmation from the opposite sex, the desire for success in my profession, the desire to be right, wealth, status, Facebook, blogging, etc.<br />
<br />
As one addiction would pass, another one would take its place. I don't think there has been a time when I wasn't addicted to something. <br />
<br />
But I have often asked myself the questions: does your addiction have mastery over you? Are you controlled by your addiction? I hope to never answer in the affirmative.<br />
<br />
Which is why I readily accepted my son's challenge. It's personal: to ensure that this game does not have mastery over me. It's relational: to teach my children to have mastery over their own addictions as well.<br />
<br />
I know that we live in a society which tells us to indulge our desires. I know that we live in a society which tells us to embrace the wants and desires of our hearts. "As long as it's not hurting anyone, why not enjoy it?"<br />
<br />
Nice philosophy in some regards, but what if it is hurting yourself? What if your addiction is effecting your family and friends and you are too stubborn to notice? What if your addiction has mastered you so that it holds your thoughts and heart more than anything else? What if you are being mastered by your desires and are enslaved to them?<br />
<br />
The ancient thinkers believed and taught that if you truly wanted happiness and joy in your life, you should not be self indulgent. You must master your cravings. You must not let your cravings and addictions control you. You should strive to know yourself as deeply as possible so that you could understand why you do what you do--and then not allow anything to control what you do.<br />
<br />
The problem with their thinking was: your heart always gets captured by something. There's always an addiction out there trying to weasel its way into your being, and our hearts are easily ensnared. <br />
<br />
Which is why, in the Christian tradition, self-control is a spiritual gift. It is something given by God to those who follow Him. For the Christian's heart is not captured by earthly desires and wants; the Christian's heart is captured by Jesus Christ. The Christian's heart ultimately longs for Jesus, and this ultimate desire displaces all other desires.<br />
<br />
Does that mean addictions no longer have an effect on us? No. They still try to weasel their way in. It's only 8:30 in the morning, and I am incessantly curious about my Empires and Puzzles status. I'd love to pull it up on my tablet and check it out.<br />
<br />
But does it control me? <br />
<br />
Or do I have the gift of self-control? <br />
<br />
"Daddy, are you addicted to that game?"<br />
<br />
"Yes, I am. But I will not be mastered by it. It will not capture my heart. That belongs to Jesus. And I will walk away from this game because you challenged me. This game is not more important than Jesus or than teaching you that you do not need to let such things have mastery over you."<br />
<br />
I hope he learns that lesson.Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2729732292762862156.post-2049327778308608472019-02-26T08:55:00.003-06:002019-02-26T08:55:38.281-06:00Pain Avoidance and Pain AcceptanceI have been following closely the events taking place at the Special Session of the United Methodist General Conference being held in St. Louis, MO.<br />
<br />
This conference is struggling with the same issue my own denomination, the ELCA dealt with in 2009: homosexuality in the church. At the time of my writing, the UMC looks like it will stick with the traditional, orthodox Christian understanding of sexuality and not allow non-celibate homosexuals to become ministers. A vote was taken where this traditional stance will go before the voting assembly while other options were voted down. This does not mean that the other possibilities are gone--they can still come forward in a minority report, but they may not be accepted into the polity of the church.<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see my Facebook feed's reaction to the news. First off, not too many folks on my feed are even aware of this conference--that must be duly noted. But secondly, those who are aware have had some eye catching responses. Consider the following:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I have a heavy, heavy heart for the UMC right now. To all my UMC LGBTQIA siblings, I see you/we see you; to UMC clergy allies, the same.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li>I am most concerned for my beloved LGBTQIA+ siblings who are so personally hurt by the church, and today many of you are having old scars re-opened. I am so, so sorry. You are not alone in this. I encourage you to find a moment of connection with God, in music, in the promises of scripture, a moment outside to breathe deeply, or something else that connects your spirit with God's spirit. This is and will be the source of healing for all of us.-- I do not want to diminish the reality of this pain or the need for change in this broken system. I do want to point to the God who already goes beyond it.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li>I am so sorry for the moments in which church leaders limit God’s vision for the Christian movement. I’m left with deep sadness because of the broken relationships that reinforce a smaller view of who is welcome at the leadership table. I’m praying for my LGBTQI siblings in the United Methodist church. God’s love is always bigger than any of us can imagine.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What I find most interesting in the comments is a feeling of hurt and pain. There is a sense of "the church has hurt these folks, and we need to take away the hurt." This tends to be a thread running through the culture of the U.S.--we don't like pain.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And there is a tendency in some folks to see someone in pain and rush to alleviate that pain. My child is failing a course, so I will go talk to the teacher; I will spend hours with my child making them do homework; I will do whatever it takes so my child will not experience having a failing grade. If my child is benched while playing sports, I will call up the coach and argue as to why my child deserves to play and needs to be spared the pain of sitting on the bench. If my child is overweight and unhealthy, I will reinforce that he/she is beautiful and allow him/her to eat whatever he/she wants. If my child is being bullied, I will remove him/her from the situation or work with others to make the bullying stop so my child doesn't have to experience the pain. This doesn't have to just be about children--we carry these tendencies into our adulthood; sometimes we even look for someone or a group to help out because they are in pain. We need to alleviate it!!!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But is this always wise? What lessons are we teaching? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Over the past couple of years, I have gained a bit too much weight. Because of a stressful situation in my former congregation and going through conflict, I stopped exercising, and I ate and drank in excess things I should have limited. Last week, I started doing a bit of exercising after reading an article about doing 40 push ups a day (I'll spare you the details). I think you are supposed to do all 40 push ups at once, but I'm not there, so I spread those 40 push ups out over the entire day. And, it hurts. Really. It hurts. My back hurts. My shoulders hurt. My core hurts. There is pain, and it would be nice to avoid it. It would be nice to take away the source of my pain, but if I do that, then I don't move towards health.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In fact, I think that when it comes to life, to be healthy, we must experience pain. We must experience the pain of hunger to lose excess weight. We must experience the pain of exercise to stay in shape. We must exercise the pain of delayed gratification in order to see our bodies transformed into a healthier state.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And I think this holds true of our mental and spiritual state as well. I have two bi-racial daughters, and they have experienced bullying because of their skin color. Have I rushed to make other kids stop? Have I removed them from their situation? No. I've told them to stand up for themselves. I've told them to be tough and stand up to the comments. Why? I can't stop people from saying things, but I can help them cope and deal with mean people. The more they stand up to bullying, the stronger they will become. Likewise with my kids' grades. Sometimes, they struggle with work, but I'm not going to rescue them. They will have to figure it out on their own and suffer the consequences for their actions. I had a daughter fail a class once. She suffered the consequences, decided she didn't like those consequences and hasn't fails a class since. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When it comes to spirituality, we become stronger when we are confronted with our sin. And that causes us pain. God, it causes pain. It is one of the most unpleasant things that we have to do in our relationship with God, because our sin infects our very being, our very core, our very identity. And it is unpleasant to hear that the remedy is death--death to our self; death to our identity; death to our wants and our desires. It's painful. And I'm not talking theoretical. I'm talking as one who has been through it. When God revealed the depths of my sinfulness, it rocked me to the core. I could have avoided it. I could have sought out those who made me feel affirmed and loved. I could have walked away from the teaching that was being presented to me. I could have rejected the pain and gone on with my life--perfectly satisfied with who I was. But, instead, I accepted the pain. I accepted the rebuke. I accepted the confrontation of my sinfulness.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And then what Christ did on the cross became real. That's a difficult statement to type as someone who was raised a Christian all his life. I've never known a time when I didn't understand I was a child of God. I've never known a time when I didn't realize that Jesus died for my sins. I've never known a time when I didn't believe in God. But even though I knew all of these things in an intellectual kind of way, I never knew them down into the depths of my soul. I never knew them at a radical, life-changing level. I had to go through the pain to find the grace.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Too often, in our culture, we aren't willing to do that. Too often, we're willing to walk away. Go start our own churches. Find a different preacher who will tell us what we like. Move to a new congregation. Associate with those who are just like us and believe exactly like we do. Maybe there is a time and a place for that. Constant pain isn't good. It must be tempered with grace and mercy. If you are only getting acceptance without challenge, that isn't good. If you are only getting challenge without acceptance, that isn't good either. Grace brings those two things together. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But you've got to be willing to accept the pain. Just like Jesus was willing to accept the cross.</div>
Kevin Haughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09461850822251132071noreply@blogger.com0