Category Archives: Principles

Don’t Die on the Wrong Hill

Posted on by
Reply

The battle that so-called “Christianity” in America is waging against same-sex marriage is a wrong hill to die on–not just a bad hill or an undeserving one, a wrong one.

While homosexuality is clearly defined as immoral in the Bible, the response from the American “church” is entirely unlike Christ. Satan has suckered us into a position where we are fighting a selfish battle we deserve to lose and, truly, had already lost before it was ever really begun, both spiritually and in the popular mind.

First, what is the Christian response to homosexuality?

I begin here by reiterating a point that no Christian should need to hear twice, because scripture is clear. Homosexuality IS immoral. (See 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1. If you really follow Christ, this should be enough to lay that question to rest.)

That said, how would a real Christian respond to a claim of homosexuality in a brother or sister? I promise, it wouldn’t begin with a call to repent, or with a finger pointed in blame ( far less with acceptance). Such a claim should be met with the question “where have we gone wrong?”

This must be belabored, because too many people do not have eyes to see it. Homosexuality is an EFFECT, not a cause. It is an immorality that people are given over to as an indication of other CAUSAL sins. (This is stated plainly in Romans 1.)

As always, brothers and sisters must see each other with love, and love is always the closest possible friend. Homosexuality is no worse a sin than adultery, and far less a sin than pride or contempt or manipulation. If you are confronted with the sin of homosexuality, approach it in another the same way you would approach a sin that you personally are prone to. If you cannot do so, then it is YOU who are in error.

When you see one brother approach another with a pointed finger, beware. That brother is in the hand of Satan.

Now, what was that about the wrong hill?

It would be unjust if the church in America won a battle to strip freedom from others, even the freedom to do wrong. Our country was founded by Christian men on the principle that all men are given the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness BY God. …Those rights are not amended because we disapprove of the mistakes other people make on that pursuit. Why would God listen to us when we demand it be removed so that we can put others back under the law?

We are ASKING God to lend a hand in whitewashing what we know to be a tomb. Do you really think He is such a fool?

There are about a million ways in which that battle could have been fought justly–or at least not unjustly. The freedom of worship, for example, would have been a rock on which this battle might have been fought–instead of a sad footnote, left broken and near death in the wreckage.

The American church has branded itself with the iron of the pharisees, and it hasn’t even the secular power to make its decrees meaningful.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

When it comes right down to it, the ONLY effect the church has achieved by dying on this hill is to make God look weak and petty before all the world by association. This was not His battle the church just lost, or He would have fought it and won, but it IS His name that we’re dragging through the mud.

It seems to me that if the church is so apostate that it is willing to swallow camels and swat at gnats, a good dose of the fear of God is due us.

Yes, our nation is due a judgment, but it is NOT because of a sin like homosexuality as some would have you believe. It is because we, like Sodom, have “…pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease…” Ezekiel 16:49

In fact, America is in precisely the same position the house of Israel was in, as seen in Ezekiel 16. Let that sink in a bit. It’s scary.

Woe be unto America, but even more, woe be unto the body of the American church that has fought to whitewash this tomb instead of opening it up for cleansing.

The Second Principle

Posted on by
Reply

As I discussed in The First Principle, I do believe that all opinions are based on a basic faith–whether that’s faith in something that we just believe in or faith in something that we sense with our senses.

That leads me to the second principle.

2. There is a creator who designed this universe and particularly our world.

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
– Albert Einstein

I believe in God. I believe without reservation or (as far as I can imagine) any possibility of truly recanting. My belief in God is a part of me and it informs and determines everything that I do, say, believe, think and, to a lesser extent, feel. This is the basis for my worldview: “He Is.” (or more properly, “I Am.” as stated by God.) He exists without reference or regard to anything else that exists. Everything does not make Him or influence His being. He exists apart from and independent of it except as He chooses to be influenced.

…But. …Just saying I believe it isn’t enough for me. I have questioned that belief, deeply. In doing so, I have found what I find to be a logically unassailable argument for His existence.

(I would also note that I need to write a post on worldview and how it determines the nature of our thought and how deeply it influences what we believe. Objectivity is a myth. …Also “except as He chooses to be influenced” is a phrase that sets me apart from as much as half of the people who consider themselves to be Christian. That, too, is worth exploring.)

At any rate, moving on to why I think that God cannot possibly not exist.

The concept behind this is actually so simple that it can not rightly be expressed, only grasped, like a rope thrown to a drowning man by the hand of God himself. I use that analogy because without God opening our eyes, I don’t believe we can actually understand concepts like this one. We might nibble around the edges of it, but it takes divine inspiration to grasp it, and even once grasped, it cannot be fully understood, because the reprocussions of such a thoroughly simple concept are too massive for the mind to comprehend.

It is impossible to see that something exists without something that is else to contrast it with.

An easy example is light and darkness (or light and the absence of light, to be exact). If one of those two concepts was not real, then how would you know that the other was real? If everything was totally without light, how would we know that there was such a thing as light? …If everything was totally lit, how could it be possible that there be an absence of light?

Taking the first example: If there was no light in the world, then how could we conceive of such a concept as darkness? Without something that is different to compare the darkness to, it may exist, but it simply can not be compared, and so cannot be understood or expressed.

It seems obvious to us that everything around us is constantly changing. From something as small as a dust mote floating through the air to something as massive as the planets in the solar system, change is everywhere.

A friend of mine once remarked, while we were in the depths of a discussion on just this subject, that he believes the only true constant in reality is change. My response (muddled at the time) was the question: If there is no great constant that is not change, then how could we even understand that change existed? Without anything to compare to, how could one conceptualize change?

He said, after some consideration, that he admitted, there was no place in his conception of reality for such an immutable constant.

And that, in my mind, is the crux of the matter. If such a force exists, it must be something that we would perceive as God–and, logically and reasonably, it seems to me that God must exist. (His nature is another question–one that I suspect I will spend my entire life exploring.)

Incidentally, at that point, I thought that my friend was admitting that his perception of reality did not mesh with what reality must be (I still think so, though I’m not so sure now that he was saying so.) And so, as Ayn Rand wrote, “To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.”

Another, derivative argument is somewhat less cerebral and theoretical and more practical.

We can observe that in this reality in which we live, systems tend toward chaos rather than order. Some call it entropy. It is enshrined in the second law of thermodynamics (Though the law falls short of the “Truth” itself somewhat, it does pull out an essential part of it.) This is so true that any system in which energy is not spent constantly to bring about order, chaos immediately destroys everything that is ordered in the system. You can see it in anything from nature to government.

…And yet, all around us is order. The universe is divided into galaxies, which are composed of stars and planets and, in our case a world and civilization that is incredibly complex and ordered–it has to be in order to survive.

I know this point is often used in the “creation/evolution” debate, and so be it, but the point that is missed (intentionally and willfully in my opinion) is that the SCALE of the order that we see in reality requires a force of unimaginable magnitude to build it. Any action causes an equal and opposite reaction. Corollary: Any ordered system requires a creative force of requisite magnitude to build it.

The bottom line is that, looked at from a high-level perspective, it is not possible to have such a marvelously, intricately ordered reality without some force to create the order.

This goes beyond the simple, obvious manifestations of planets rotating around stars into the very laws that govern the universe. This is a case of having light and no darkness to compare to, but bear with me. What determines the freezing and boiling temperatures of water? (They are a basic part of the nature of reality as we understand it.) …But what if they were different? What if the percentage of heat absorption (albedo) of a certain color were slightly less? What if there was no such state as solid, but only liquid and gas and plasma? What if…

The “Ifs” are innumerable. The question is simple. What could possibly create so much order in a system that demonstrably and inexorably devolves into chaos? …What could create the rules that order such a system? Wouldn’t the rules themselves tend to fall to chaos? Simply stating that the rules exist as an aspect of the nature of reality isn’t enough. WHY?

“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” Colossians 1: 17

Make no mistake, this is not strictly deductive logic. In both the former case, of universal constants, and this case, order vs chaos, taken from a rational perspective, the only likely (and arguably the only possible) cause for such order is a Creator, namely God.

Also, don’t lose yourself in the “what if.” Instead ask “what IS?” In the “what if” mindset, of course you can conceive of God not existing and even argue for that, but to do so is to avoid considering fully what IS real and what you can see and hear and taste and understand about what IS. There are complexities and subtleties in the very fabric of reality that would simply be impossible without intelligent, intentional outside influence.

This is a similar argument to that of irreducible complexity. It asks for a creator because no force short of an intelligent designer is capable of creating something that shows the characteristics of intelligent design.

Circular reasoning should teach us something

Is the reasoning circular? At base certainly, but so is any reasoning. Nothing can be “proved.” The only proof-positive test is the “I believe” test, and simply believing something leaves us, as human beings capable of reason and rationality, so far short of our potential. …So think, reason and understand. Be honest and refuse to look away from reality. Everything I’ve experienced in life suggests to me that a really honest look at reality requires us to acknowledge its creator.

…Of course the simple fact that we can choose to live in a realm different from reality (and we can, obviously) should tell us something about reality itself, like what defines the nature of what is in the first place.

Light AND Salt

Posted on by
Reply

Disagreement is not hatred. Judgment is not condemnation.

1. “Don’t Judge Me, Man!”

I am getting unspeakably sick of the judgment-phobia that our society wears on its sleeve that is infecting how most people, even most Christians, approach society.

The latest example that caught my eye was indirectly related to the hullabaloo about Chick-fil-A. It was this quote:

“Christians go WAY out of their way to “hate the sin”–i.e., by voting against gay marriage, voting against civil unions, voicing their angst about gay people adopting children (just to list a few). Is it possible that Christians lose the ability to truly “love the sinner” because they’re so busy “hating the sin”? Do Christians put anywhere near the energy into “loving the sinner” as they do “hating the sin”?”

Every time I read that, it makes me feel a little sicker to my stomach. Why? Well that takes some explaining. On the surface, that paragraph is thoughtful, helpful, cautionary… and totally misses a huge part of what it means to be a Christian.

Taking from the example of Christ, we see, indeed, that He loved the people He came in contact with. He was marvelously, wonderfully forgiving and gentle. He forgave everything from adultery to a life spent thieving. This is one side of the story.

As Christians we are called, not to blind acceptance and forgiveness, but to LOVE.

In love, Christ called one of his closest disciples Satan, with such a sharp rebuke that it must have nearly crushed Peter’s spirit. Why? Because Peter was, misguidedly, trying to be encouraging. (Seem a bit extreme?) This same Christ absolutely RAILED against the generation of people in which he lived. He didn’t say “Oh you mean and unfriendly pharisees” or “oh you unloving and hateful government.” Christ said “Oh, you wicked and adulterous generation!”

Christ, the most loving and forgiving person in history, who forgave even the people who put him to death (something that I personally question whether I would be able to do, if it came right down to it) WAS NOT AFRAID TO CALL WICKEDNESS BY ITS NAME AND REBUKE IT.

In regard to this particular example: the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. Sit and consider that word for just a second. Homosexuality is an abomination before God. That is a heavy word. Trying to put that statement into other words is difficult because in English no word is sacred–you can use just about anything lightly if you want to. That word is not used lightly in this case. Homosexuality makes God sick to his stomach.

As a Christian and a citizen of the USA, I have not just a right but a responsibility to call it like it is–that is what it takes to build and preserve a free society. I HAVE to call homesexuality an abomination before God and the world.

When I was going to college, I had a friend who was gay. Yes, he really was a friend. Yes he really was gay. (He even tried to convince me that I was gay at one point–I’m the guy you could use to straighten lazers.) At first, this friend hid the fact that he was gay. He didn’t want me to pass judgment on him. I suspected anyway, and one time I overheard him talking to another friend (they didn’t realize I was in the room) about the fact that he was a homosexual. It was a bit of an uncomfortable situation, but it gave me an amazing opportunity.

I told my friend that yes, I had suspected he was gay, and no it didn’t change anything. I still considered him a friend. I still cared about him and I wasn’t going to reject him. …At the same time, I also told him that I disagreed with that choice (we had to argue about whether it was genetic lifestyle, or a choice at all–of course). I told him that I thought it was wrong and that he was seriously hurting himself by living that way. (And he was. His life was a mess in every sense of the word.) …Aren’t those the people who need our love most? …Aren’t those the people who need the TRUTH most?? My friend was, in a sense, the epitome of my calling as a Christian.

I seriously doubt that I changed his mind, but that was never my purpose. In that regard, at most I planted a seed, but I do hope that maybe God was able to shine a little light into his life that day when he realized that I could see how messed up he was and love him regardless–because THAT was the message I sent that day when I told him that I thought he was wrong and I loved him anyway.

What lies at the center of that incident, though, wasn’t just the light of love. It was also the salt of truth.

The majority of our society is afraid to deal with hard issues. We are afraid to rock the boat. We are afraid of the truth, sometimes for what it is and sometimes because of the rejection or hurt it may bring against us when we stand up and speak it. …The majority of society is afraid to be the salt, and when a few people stand up and prove that they can be salt, that majority is offended.

I will have none of it.

It is my responsibility–my CALLING as a Christian–to judge righteous judgments and to speak the truth. Always.

2. “I hope the gays go hungry.”

I hadn’t planned to go over this side of things, but in the course of writing this post, another article and its corresponding attitude were brought to my attention… And to really bring the point of what I’m saying into focus, I saw that I needed to bring the flip side of judgment to the forefront. This one was written by a LGBT employee of Chick-fil-A. Here’s a paragraph from the article:

“The people I work alongside kept going on and on about how powerful it was to be part of such a righteous movement, and how encouraged they were to know that there were so many people who agree with Dan Cathy. They went on at great length about how it was wrong not just for gays to marry, but to exist. One kid, age 19, said ‘I hope the gays go hungry.'”

Personally, I wonder if the self-rightous fool who made that statement has any idea that he isn’t a Christian?

I daresay, Christ might ask forgiveness for that 19-year-old fool, but would He think of that boy ANY differently than He would the poor woman who had to be exposed to the boy’s misrepresentation of all that Christ stood for? Actually I think He would. He would put that boy (A man by most societies’ reckoning) in the same category as the pharisees, whose sin was pride. …At least the 19-year-old didn’t have the authority the pharisees did (something a good many “church” leaders can’t say, even while they indulge themselves–granted more subtly–in the same unthinking venom). It was the responsibility of every adult Christian in earshot to answer that fool according to his folly and I’m pretty sure they didn’t.

What’s my point?

My point is that there is no excuse for a Christian (Christ-follower) to indulge in the kind of mindless bigotry (read hatred) that crushes the spirit of the people we are charged with lifting up into His arms. Forget excuses like “He’s just a kid” or “He got carried away.” If I know anything of the mind of God from my years of crawling along Christ’s back trail, it’s that while homosexuality may make Him sick to His stomach, he HATES arrogance. (In fact, if the people who went “on and on about how powerful it was to be part of such a righteous movement” had taken the time, in their euphoria, to look around them and lift up the obviously-frustrated and harassed person in their midst–whether they knew about her homosexuality or not, the message would have been even more powerful for good than it was for ill. Instead they, too, were too self-absorbed to see what they needed to do.)

We, as Christians, are called to love many times. We are NEVER called to hate, and the arrogance that leads to hatred is far worse than any sin against which the hatred and arrogance lash out.

3. Christianity is NOT a paradox

So we are called to judge righteous judgments, but we are told to leave the condemnation to God. It’s the same thing right?

Wrong.

Have you ever asked yourself why Christ told us to let the Father to take vengeance, even when we are right and our enemies are wrong?

I daresay, the Father who loves His children perfectly is going to give much more grace than those of us whose instinct is to one-up each other with our self-righteousness. When the time comes, though, is that perfect love going to stop Him from judging righteously or destroying wickedness? No it isn’t. The Father has promised to destroy the wicked. (That word–destroy–has a certain finality, when used in context, by the way. It’s another word that isn’t used lightly.)

It is that perfect love that gives Him the Right to condemn us when all is said and done (which begs the question of what condemnation is, but that’s another story). That means that we have exactly as much right to call condemnation down upon others than we have perfect love for them. How much right is that? None.

What we DO have a right–and a responsibility–to do is to judge righteous judgments about the society, behavior and manner of the people around us. Then we have the responsibility to aggressively stand up for the things that are right. This is what it means to be salt.

We also have the responsibility to love the people around us. This doesn’t mean accepting their bad behavior. It means not rejecting them because of that behavior. It means giving them emotional and mental support to overcome their problems, and not being so self-absorbed that we can’t see that others have problems. This is what it means to be light.

As a follower of Christ, I have a responsibility to be both salt and light. Not one or the other.

Final thoughts:

Most rants and raves are a reaction to something. Most of what drives us in life, especially when we come up against something that we think of as an enemy (such as growing up in a restrictive home, dealing with injustice in other people or forces like the government, etc), is just such a reaction. …Usually a reaction that’s based in a desire to fix what we see as a problem. (Often driven to the point where it’s a NEED to fix the problem.)

Many times, that reaction carries the pendulum (that pendulum being us many times) too far in the opposite direction. As Christians, it is our responsibility to judge righteous judgments–in essence, to get past the reaction and see God’s truth–then to speak that truth. Getting caught up in a reaction to what we see as being wrong is setting us to follow the same pattern as the boy who hoped that gays were hungry that day.

In the interest of transparency, I think it only fair to say that this post was motivated by my own reaction to the “judgment-phobia” of our culture. I can only hope that, in stopping to think about the situation, I made righteous judgments, both about what our culture is and about what it should be. Reaction is a great motivator, but a poor fellow for judgment.

I’d also like to muse a bit (as a sort of post-script) on the idea that judging righteous judgments does not need to set us at odds with one another as Christians. …One of the most difficult parts of life is getting past the point where disagreeing with someone makes them an enemy and to the point where that makes them a valuable friend. Another of my friends in college was an asatru (a worshipper of the norse Gods) and throughout my life, it has been with friends like him who I have had some of the most challenging, interesting, and useful discussions of my life. We are still friends. Granted he isn’t a Christian, but if I can disagree profitably with him, how much more should that be true of brothers and sisters?

Something that I didn’t want to complicate the above thoughts with but which, really, was the whole basis of my post was the simple fact that our society has degenerated to the point where disagreement is considered hateful and saying that someone is wrong is hate speech.

…And THERE are two subjects worth exploring sometime…
1. Freedom: the bedrock of the reality in which we live
2. The incalculable value of disagreement