Marriage and the Bible -- Part 16 -- The Law of Moses

Looking Back at the Law of Moses concerning the issue of marriage I think it is safe to say we can make the following observations:

1. In many ways marriage can be defined in the Law a a contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of having and raising children.

2. This definition is significantly different from the idea of a man and woman becoming 'one flesh'. To be husband and wife in this sense goes a little beyond just having a contract to have children. The idea of being open and intimate with each other start right at the beginning 'naked and unashamed' is what Adam and Eve were before sin enters the picture.

3. As human history unfolds, the nature of marriage changes in many ways. a) Very quickly on we realize incest as we know it must not have existed because Cain and Seth would have had to marry their sisters, but at this time this is not forbidden by the law. Only later is the idea of incestuous marriages introduced by the Law. b) Polygamy is introduced very early one as an acceptable form of marriage. It becomes one of the chief characteristics of many of the characters in Genesis -- Lamech, Abraham, Jacob and Esau all follow this model. In some senses polygamy almost seems to a necessity in the producing of children in case the first couple fails to conceive, the handmaiden can be brought into the mix to produce a child.

4. Marriages are often arranged by others. There is little of romantic love involved. This is not a bust however as many of the arranged marriages work out.

5.One issue is intermarrying between the godly lines and the ungodly ones. The results are often disastrous so in the end the Law forbids the children of Israel from intermarrying.

6. One law that puts an interesting wrinkle on things is the law of an older brother's seed being preserved through a younger brother. It really brings home the 'sexual contract' only view of marriage.

7. Another Law is the law that requires a man to marry a woman if he seduces her and in so doing gives up his right to divorce.

8. That brings about the issue of divorce -- marriage as contract whose obligations can be set aside by the husband.

The thing that is sure is that at the beginning you have a situation where marriage does not exist so much as two people become one flesh but once sin enters it seems necessary to provide marriage as a way of enforcing the idea. This contract idea begins to express itself in different ways but always culture intrudes to bury the original intent of 'husband and wife".

Next: Giving Brides as Prizes

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 4 -- Brain Transplant -- Effective Immortality

Probably the most sticky questions of Science Fiction are raised when medical ethics and technology are discussed. One thing has always been organ transplant. Now many of the medical procedures that do this where originally some form of Science fiction; now many are science fact. One that remains fiction in brain transplant. Perhaps it would be better to say central nervous system transplant. Robert Heinlein postulated this in his book "I Will Fear No Evil". In it a rich beyond billionaire transplants his brain into another body. The big issue though is the body is female and is young, sensual and pretty. By so doing the man extends his life into another.

This of course leads to a whole host of ethical questions:
1. Who is the person then? The brain or the body or both.
2. Does this really constitute a sex change? Not really in a sense but this could be used to do it.
3. Who would be a donor body for this?

Now what get really frightening is when you couple this idea with cloning.
1. Could we then keep spare bodies around when we get tired of the one were in? Effective youth and immortality.
2. Are such clones persons when their only function is to be the next shell?
3. What happens to -- a man is appointed once to die and then the judgment?

Gets interesting and sticky doesn't it?

Next: The Information Hyper Highway

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 1 -- The Challenges

New Series to break things up a bit and have a little fun.

The issues science fiction has brought to theology are numerous. People may say 'why bother' but science fiction has an alarming way of becoming science fact in a quick hurry. Robots, cell phones, landing on the moon, space stations all have moved across this line. Probably more alarming are some of the medical ones -- cloning, regenerative medicine and others.

Theology, unfortunately, always seems to be reactive to these issues mostly because we have have this 'stay in the real world' mentality. The problem is the real world has a rapid way of turning into the sci-fi one. Then we're always scrambling.

Some of the issues out there are:
1. Aliens -- existence and who.
2. Alien Religion -- if aliens do exist what about their beliefs?
3. Brain transplant -- effective immortality?
4. The continued advance of information and the spread of information.
5. Space Travel -- moral questions abound about (marriage, children and colonization)
6. Cryo sleep -- what do we do with people who sleep through centuries?
7. What does all these things do to our understanding of the Scriptures?

Next: Do Aliens Exist?

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 20 -- Other Things to Consiider -- Nakedness and External Religion vs. Living Faith

Now I want people to understand that I am not picking on Islamic people here. The issue is religion vs. faith in the context of nakedness and you can find dress codes all over the place for am multitude of reasons. Substitute any faith for 'Islamic' and you have the idea.

There is nothing more worthy of contempt that a person whose faith is only outward and has no living nature to it. Religiousness does this.

Jesus had no love for religious practice without heart. The Pharisees often were his favorite target. Why? Because to everyone else they were both righteous and religious, to Jesus they were whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones. They controlled people's outward behavior -- what they ate, what they did on the Sabbath, what they wore, etc. They had no living relationship with God.

When I look at how the church views nakedness, I see more and more how this issue has become about the control of behavior. There are those in the church who want to define modest and nakedness for others and then tell them how to dress. They may be well meaning but in the end they tell other people what nakedness is (whether it is Biblical or not is not the issue) and then condemn those who do not live to their code. Probably the most heinous example of this is how men in the church tell women what to wear so they will not be tempted to lust. I love it when men, or women put up to it by men, start telling Christian women that if they do not dress a certain way they are acting like prostitutes or being sensual. They are inciting men to lust by how they dress. The real aim is control. I am going to also level the accusation that such men are actually guilty of lust and by trying to control women's dress they are admitting their weakness to it. I wonder why none of them looking the mirror and say -- 'I have to change'? Because they have a self righteous belief in the rightness of their opinion. "My lust is not my problem it is all these women running around 'naked' that are the problem".

Living Faith differs from this in that a person is dedicated to a relationship with God. it is not about religious codes or following rules as it is about love. Love toward God; love toward neighbor. Physical nakedness should not affect a person acting in in living faith and love. When a man sees a woman, regardless of dress, he will either choose to love who she is or treat her like an object. When religious people look at a woman and say "Did you see how she was immodestly dressed' they are not acting in love. They are simply bringing someone else down to justify themselves.

Living faith understands that their is a genuine difference between admiration of a person' body and lusting after a person's body.

One example in Scripture is Esther 2:7 where Esther is declared to be by the writer to be 'lovely of both form and features'. In short she had a great figure and a beautiful face. This is sincere admiration and does not diminish Esther's personhood one bit. The writer is not lusting his is simply pointing out that Esther was beautiful.

Another case of someone respecting the personhood of a woman is Jesus with the woman caught in adultery. Because she was caught in the 'very act' of adultery, one thing can be surmised -she was probably dragged naked to Jesus. Sorry, they did not give her time to dress -- their whole purpose is to humiliate both her and Jesus. As she is dragged naked through the streets, her exposure and shame (true nakedness) would have been more pronounced. Honestly, I don't think the mystery of what Jesus wrote on the ground is as fascinating as how Jesus acts. He looks down to write -- respecting her nakedness. He only faces her to forgive her, once no one condemns her and he does not either. Her exposure and shame evaporates and she heads home with neither, even though the physical state of her dress has not changed. Of course someone probalby covered that up as well, but only after she has already been forgiven.

My point is that living faith based on love is not conscious of a persons physical nakedness but the spiritual nakedness of others. Then it seeks to cover that nakedness with the grace of Christ. Some of the most spiritually naked people I have met have been wearing the most modest of dress. While others I have seen are spiritually covered by god but were wearing little in the way of clothes.

Next: The Final Word on the the Bible and Nakedness.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 16 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World

Here in North America one thing is becoming clear -- skin is becoming more and more common. Christians still have to live and minister in this world, but it is becoming more clear that as we do we are going to see more public nudity and it is going to become more prevalent. The questions are course of action ones. We have one state that already has topless laws that allow women to be topless in the same places men can be and several others that have laws that allow these things in certain situations. I predict it is only the beginning.

The traditional 'conservative' position is one of isolation and an attempt at stopping the skin from showing as much as possible through political action. With the prevailing wind being that the church is supposed to stand for 'traditional morality' including women and men keeping their clothes on, it becomes difficult to kind of stand against that wind but here I go.

1) To be blunt, there is no Biblical support to the idea that nakedness, in and of itself is evil or sinful, and if we are going to maintain credibility we need to acknowledge this. The fact is our views on nudity, toplessness and other related issues reflect more of a holiness movement cultural mentality than an honest Biblical assessment.

2) I see this issue being used more as another reason to isolate ourselves from people who need the gospel. The nude beach sign above is humorous in its own way but there are real ones in certain states that warn of areas where nude sunbathers might be. On the streets and everywhere else in New York State, in any place a man can go without a shirt so can a woman. In many places, people are not a squeamish about showing their bodies to public consumption. The church's reaction has been one of hiding and avoiding or trying to reverse political decisions on enact moral legislation.

Looking at the book of Acts, I do not see the apostles doing this. As Paul ministered in Corinth he would have been greeted with sexual perversion on a grand scale. Nudity was in abundance in Corinth. I find it telling that Paul does not start a petition with the government to get it stopped. He does not stay away from areas where the temple prostitutes are showing themselves and their services. He does not lead a moral crusade against the nude temple statues and mosaics depicting nudity. He does none of that -- he ministers right in the middle of it all. He simply preaches the gospel and disciples those who believe. Even when the church is established his focus is the ethics and morality of the church -- not those outside of it. It is almost as if he expects sinners to sin -- imagine that.

I think the American church's failure in this country continues to be compounded because we act as America's moral police rather than engaging the message of Christ. When we do pop out of our holes we seem to call down curses from our ivory towers and then disappear back into our holes. So much for compassion for the lost -- we continue to want to meet the sinner on our terms instead of his or hers. To do this may require us to walk down the streets of cities where women are walking around topless, go to nude beaches and visit places where nudity in both reality and art are present. Why? Because it may be our only opportunity to minister to some people.

3) The current 'conservative' position fails to understand the nature of the lust problem in this country is not the prevalence of nude images. Nude images are the result of an already existing lust in people. The fact is there is a current philosophy among many church folks that in order to stop sin is to eliminate external temptation but this does not take James 1:13-15 into account. Temptation comes from our own flesh. It does not come from externals it comes from our heart. Why then do we think we will rid the world of evil by getting rid of externals -- eliminating pornography and making women cover up will no more get rid of lust than standing on your head.

Next: The Church and Nudity -- A Prediction.

What Makes Ministry Worth It.

I suppose I have asked this question many times and I guess when you do a lot of ministry you to try to find your motivation. I have eliminated many things:

1. Money -- contrary to popular opinion about preachers most of us struggle or work a second job. Many retire in poverty. Even if you get a good salary, money fades with time anyway.

2. Prestige -- fame, prestige and all that rot are not going to happen for most of us. Even so --they to disappear with time.

This is true with every thing that is in this world -- two things work against us -- death and time. Both rob us of everything. Any motivation that involves this world benefits will not be enough.

What's left.
1. The glory of God
2. Eternal life.

Yeah, I can see that.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 7 -- Women's Breasts

I suppose that one might argue that I seem to have a fascination with this topic and maybe an obsession. I could argue -- "Yeah, I am a guy. Get over it, guys are fascinated with the subject." What I don't think most Christian men and women understand about this issue is that it is a current issue. One State of the United States, New York already has a law about this subject -- anywhere a man can appear without a top so can a woman. Similar laws exist in in about 7 other states in certain situations (beaches and other areas). In Europe, there are many places where a woman can appear topless -- the fact is Europeans don't have as many hang ups about nudity in general as we do in the US. Many local cities, towns, etc. have their own laws because most states leave the issue to local government to deal with on their own. For instance Columbus, OH has a very similar law to the one in New York state. The point is in certain places a Christian can be walking down the street and see a woman topless (or topfree if you prefer) and they really can't call the cops -- in fact calling the cops in New York can get you and the cops sued. So what do you do? You can't avoid everything.

I all states and places though the problem is that a woman is only considered indecent if she shows her nipples. That still leaves a lot of room on a woman's breast.

At this point in going through Bible I am looking for how the Bible refers to nakedness. In the issue of women's breasts at this point I would have to say the Bible is silent other than a few references to nursing. Now as we get past David and begin to look at the rest of the Bible -- nothing till the book of Job. The fact is the poetic literature of the Bible has a lot to say about the subject of women's breasts. Job makes mention of them, Song of Solomon as well (9 separate verses). Job makes mention of the motherly aspects of women's breasts. No sexual connotation at all. Song of Solomon is a different story.

In the context of Song of Solomon, the subject is the desire the couple has for each other. In chapters 1-7 the mention of breasts is one of admiration. That is the man is admiring his future bride's breasts and commenting on them. In short, he is saying his bride has a nice pair. 8:1 mentions the motherly aspects of women's breasts again much like Job. In Chapter 8 verses 8 and 10 the woman in the story mentions her own breasts as a symbol of her virtue -- she has kept her virginity to her wedding night referring to her breast as acting like towers. In this case they are symbolic of her virtue but it is not mentioned how that is so other than to say she was not a women who just put out for anyone. Probably no one has touched them. Seen them? Well it does not say.

What can be said at this point when dealing with the subject of the Bible and women's breasts:

1. When women's breasts are mentioned, the most common reference is to nursing or the motherly aspect of the breasts or women. It is about nurturing.

2. In Song of Solomon we have an unmarried couple and the man makes continued reference to how much he admires -- not only his future wife's body but her breasts in particular. Wonder how he knew what all this looked like in a middle eastern culture? So is admiration a sin? Not with these verses -- they got into the Bible and no sin is mentioned.

3. In all cases, it is never stated that a woman showing her breasts is sinful or shameful. if anything the virtues of women's breasts are set forward and they are not presented in a negative light.

Next: Job and Isaiah Naked.

What It Means to Be a Congregationalist.

I suppose some people have passed by a congregational church and wondered what that is about -- I mean what in the world is a congregational church in the first place. Well in short it has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with government. In a Congregational church the congregation rules. The Council in many way has the ultimate power and they are elected by the congregation. The pastor's role is clearly defined as spiritual and in the end he can overruled. Risky but worth it -- It truly demonstrates a balance of responsibilities and power.

Having looked at my church for over a year now I can tell you I like the concept. The issue is to be independent but at the same time respectful of other people's beliefs

As an example, when Hersey Congregational Church was founded, eight people met that represented five different denominations including, as I remember,: Baptist, Free Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal. They founded the church in 1870 and next year the church will celebrate its 140th year.

Some years ago, my church demonstrated it independence by leaving the UCC and becoming non-denominational. The congregation disliked how the United Church of Christ was embracing homosexuality as acceptable and they voted themselves out.

Respect is something that requires a little work. Like the original congregation of eight, I have varied theological and doctrinal opinions sitting in front of me when I preach and I think that is why the doctrinal statement is so short. Respect means to be able to disagree and yet walk out brothers and sisters in Christ who love one another. Dialogue becomes key.

Every council meeting I am reminded of this fact. Dialogue is in abundance and opinions are varied on every issue. It is actually rare to get immediate consensus but when the discussion ends we usually have some sort of decision that all can at least in some measure support. Because of this what we do is often limited in scope but powerful because everyone is behind it.

Independence and respect -- I like it.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 3 -- Sundry Verses on Breasts and Priests

A few things first before I begin. I want to address two issues: 1) Why I talk about this -- my personal motivation and 2) some things I have seen regarding Noah (last week's post on this topic) that I think are bad interpretations.

Why? Well I can tell you what it is not -- I am not trying to find justification for myself because I have some habit that I am trying to justify. I know my limits because I have been down that road before and no its pitfalls. Nor am I seeking to justify those who do such things as well. What i am doing is looking at our world and realizing that some day in the very near future it may be impossible not to look at other people's 'nakedness'. I simply want to know what that constitutes nakedness Biblically so i know when to truly turn my head and avoid sin. I also am a weightlifter following a bodybuilding style and I like feedback. To this end i have started posting pictures of myself at Bodybuilding.com and I don't want to be a stumbling block to others, but i am, beginning to see that most Christians' problem with nakedness and nudity involves a bad definition of what nakedness is.

Regarding Noah. One thing I saw was an interpretation that it is a sin to see some one's nakedness because of what happened to Ham. I submit to you Ham seeing his Fathers nakedness was not a sin but what he did about it afterwards that was a sin -- he exposed his father's nakedness.

For instance, if I walk into a bathroom in some one's home not thinking anyone is there and upon opening the door I see my neighbor's wife standing there naked because she has just got out of the shower and forgot to lock the door, have I sinned? No. It was an accident. I sin if I lust after her because of it or expose my neighbor's wife to shame by my reporting it to others. The godly things to do is quickly shut the door and apologize to her through it and then not mention it to anyone and cover her. Ham does not do this toward his father. His father is laying there naked and if he had looked away and then did what his brothers did and covered his father's nakedness he would be remembered as one of the righteous and blessed by his father. The looking on some one's nakedness in and of itself is not a sin. It is the lust and/or desire to expose that nakedness to others that is sin. Sorry to be so technical but I have had a few things happen to me where I have seen other women naked in part or in whole with no intention of doing so -- it just happened. I don't think this is sin. It is lust and slander that are the sin here.

That said as we continue on through the Bible we hit our issue in a multitude of quick things in various verses

Genesis 49:25 talks about the blessing of the womb and breasts. It is Jacob blessing his son Joseph and it is about blessing the tow aspects of motherhood -- the womb and the breasts. It actually does support the notion that when it comes to female breasts that the Bible seems to link them with motherhood and not sexuality of the female. It does not talk about the breasts in a negative way.

Exodus 20:26 talks about the fact that God wants no steps to his altar because he does not want his priests to expose themselves walking up them. This is a clear case of defining nakedness as the lower half of a man -- probably his genitalia. Exodus 28:42 talks about covering the bare flesh of Aaron and his sons as they minister before the Lord. The problem with both of these is that they are very specific in their context -- the priests in ministry before the Lord in the tabernacle. This may provide a principle for being dressed in church but then again it does not help us in the discussion of nakedness in society otherwise.

Next: Uncovering the Nakedness of Others

The Law, Christians and the Selective Authority of Scripture

I have often been amazed at how selective Christians can be in applying the law of Moses when it comes to issues in the culture. In two incidents one recently encountered and one an old one we can see this.

1) Many years ago a doctor refused to treat a young girl because her mother had a tattoo. The basis for this was Leviticus 19:28. The interesting thing is that his white robe is made of blended fabric which is also against the law of God. In the same chapter, God forbids his people to trim their beards -- I wonder if he refused to treat someone who shaved?

2) Recently I was reading a work of fiction where the main character is a wizard that is confronted by Exodus 22:18 -- suffer not a witch to live. He returns that the same passage also says that a person should not lend money at interest, that whoever lies with a virgin should marry her and that people should be killed that have sex with animals, worship any other god but Jehovah and oppresses orphans. He then pointed out to the people he is talking to how selective people are about the Bible. He has a point.

I have found an interesting but common phenomena among Christians. When we are arguing about something that we are trying to bring about in our culture we have no fear about quoting the Law of Moses, but then when someone confronts us in the fact that we also practice things that are against the Law of Moses, we are quick to point out that we are not under the law but under grace. I think this is why no one listens to us that much any more.

I know thousands of Christians that have no problem with eating pork any day of the week but use the tattoo passage on their kids. I know many who do not have a problem with working on Saturday (the Sabbath) but will absolutely insist that their family be in church on Sunday.

The point is that most Christians are selective in what they consider authoritative. When a verse confirms our behaviour or more importantly condemns what we think is bad behavior we are quick to embrace it, but when a verse contradicts our own behavior we are quick to call upon grace. It is this hypocrisy and lack of a consistent mode of Biblical interpretation that continues to be a our down fall.

If you are going to insist that people are going to keep all the law then do so yourself -- GOOD LUCK because the whole point of Christ is that we need grace cause we all fail to obey the law.

If you are going to give yourself the grace argument you better be willing to give grace to others on other things of the same nature. Anything else smacks of self righteousness. And self righteousness is what Got the Pharisees in trouble. Make no mistake, I do not believe that we should sin that grace may abound but it not our job to be the moral watchdogs of society -- it is our job to live the grace and holiness of God. as Christians. Part of that is to be consistent in what we consider the authority of Scripture to be over our lives. It is also our job, to recognize what parts of the Word are authoritative because we fall under that particular covenant and what parts have changed because of the new covenant with Christ. It is also required for us to love our neighbor as our self -- something the doctor forgot.

Apologetics -- Defending the Faith

Apologetics. The art and science of defending the faith has been around almost as soon as the faith began to go public. The idea of offering up reasons for why the faith of Christianity is true became necessary as soon as someone questioned the authenticity of Christianity and its message.

In the early days apologetics centered on two defences -- against paganism on the one hand and philosophy on the other.

Today apologetics usually centers on defending the faith against atheism and agnosticism with evolution as their basis. The truth is though that our culture has changed to the point that even paganism is making a comeback -- numerous religions have now found their place in American culture including pagan cults and full blown polytheism. Magic and Wicca also are present in ever increasing numbers. If there was ever a need to give an answer of the hope that is within us -- it is today. The problem is that the number of answers needed has been greatly multiplied and we no longer have home court advantage.

My chief concern is that I have in my own lifetime watch the Christian church in America go from being the dominate force in American culture to being a subculture that is fighting to survive. Now we are typical of most people groups that this happens too we do two things that are not helpful : 1) We blame others and 2) We fail to look at our own behavior as a cause.

Over the weeks to come I want to look at apologetics, not to offer a better apologetics but to ask if the current ways of doing apologetics are effective. To me, apologetics isn't just something you argue -- you live it.

In short, I think the church has largely forgotten one quote when it comes to apologetics:

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians. People who profess Christ in the pews and then walk out the door and deny it by their lifestyle."

Hopefully as I discuss this we may find something better.

Sexuality, The Church and America -- Part 7 -- How Should the Church React to All This?

To begin with let us recap the issues I have dealt with in this series:

1. Public Nudity
2. Pornography
3. Homosexual Marriage
4. Friends with Fringe Benefits
5. Polygamy
6. Legalized Prostitution

All of these issues are hot button topics and if you ask your average Christian religious right person about these issues you would get the traditional -- "Well I'm Against Them". This of course causes the left to respond with a loud voice saying -- "Well, how typically knee jerk of you" and "Isn't it just like Christians to try to control peoples' lives and behavior". It wouldn't so bad but many times they are right.

Compounding the problem is the fact that most Christians when dealing with these issues have never really examined them for themselves with Bible in hand. Most of the time it is group psychology thing where because 'the pastor and church say it's wrong, I am going too as well'. Hate to say it but the accusation by the left that Christians do not think through issues but religiously follow traditions is in many cases true. We also have a tendency to be dogmatic about these things even when faced with Biblical evidence that our views might be faulty in some way. We cling to our views and then try to find a new interpretation of the passages in question to keep them. This is BAD! Our response to any issue including the sexual ones of our culture should be based on the following factors:

1. What is the Biblical view of the issue:
2. What are the realities of the issue and how do they differ from the Bible
3. What does the Bible recommend as a course of action in dealing with the issue

In doing so we need to remember that the United States is not Israel of the Old Testament and the notion that somehow our jobs as Christians is to create a holy state here in the west is nonsense. Even if this so, it is obvious to me our tactics are not working because over the last 50 years we have watched the Christians go from being the dominate force in the culture to being a mere subculture. Every time there has been a change in our culture, we have reacted in such a way as to drive people from the pews. Why? Because in almost every case we have looked very religious and very self righteous. This is not going to win friends and influence people.

When it comes to the Bible on these issues we actually only have clear Bible on 3 and 4 -- Homosexual marriage and Friends with Fringe Benefits. Both are declared as sins by the Bible so it is not difficult to say these are wrong and should be avoided. The others are not so clear.

Nakedness for instance is very difficult to define Biblically and thus affects the issues of Public Nudity and Pornography. Nakedness and modesty are spiritual conditions based on the passages we do find on the subject, not a state of dress or undress. Particularly, when it comes to women going topless the Bible is remarkably silent in equalizing nudity with women's breasts. We are not to look at someone with lust in our hearts and thus commit adultery with them, but where does this lust come from? Nakedness and Pornography? The Bible does not indicate this as the source but our own hearts. If this is the case, then is the battle really with society or with the hearts of men and women including our own? I think it is with human hearts.

Polygamy makes the situation even worse because Biblically we actually have some support for the practice. It becomes difficult to look down our noses when some of the great characters were polygamous.

Legalized prostitution Biblically of course has its problems in that it promotes the two big no-nos for the Christian adultery and fornication. At the same time, how do you get rid of it being that it is so pervasive in every culture? As long as people have lusts in their hearts and want to control their time and place of sin, there will be prostitution. I take an interesting approach to the problem because I do not think outlawing it will stop it or hinder it. The is no surer way to curb a behavior than to legalize it, regulate it and tax it. You could do something similar with pornography.

The action to take on these things I am going to propose is not going to sit well with most Christians but at the same time I think it is Biblical.

1. Where the Bible is silent or supportive -- let it go. I think toplessness for women and polygamy fall in this category. If you are not standing on the Word on these issues where are you standing? These two simply have no way to fight them with Biblical justification it is simple a matter of what is tolerated by the culture.

2. Where the Bible is clearly against a behavior, make sure it is dealt with internally before turning external. The biggest failure of Christianity in America is the fact we are very quick to notice the motes in society's eyes while ignoring planks in our own. The rate of pornography use, infidelity and divorce is just as high in the church as it is outside of it. Who are we to judge others when the problem is in ourselves. The prophet who stands and decries his society and then does the same things himself is a hypocrite.

3. We need to get it into our head that people in the world who are not Christians are going to do what they do - sin. The resulting attitude that we as Christians should have is not to be self righteous about it, but to look at them as Jesus did -- with compassion. See Jesus Luke 7:36-50 in particular when dealing with sins of this nature. So as we turn external it should be with an attitude of 'if not for the grace of God, there go I" not this 'I am better than you because I don't do that" attitude that turns people off.

4. Quit relying on carnal weapons. Christians turn quicker to petitions, picket lines and political action that they do prayer and supplication to God. One of the greatest weapons we have is the gospel itself that changes peoples' hearts. We do not use it nearly as much as the others that are worldly.

5. Act as a citizen when you can but be humble about it. I vote and I am not saying that a Christian should not be active in his or her country but that is not ultimately how you are going to change a society. What you will get is a bunch of people who think their freedoms have been infringed upon again by those nutty Christians. I am not against mobilizing, but go find people that agree and motivate them, don't try to persuade or coerce those that oppose you with self righteous and judgmental tactics.

Over the coming weeks we may dive into some or all of these issues further but this series was to lay it our there to see what we could find initially.

Finis

Politics of the Week: The Politics of Fair Play

Sportsmanship. Civility. Both seem to be topics of the week involving this concept of 'fair'; whatever that is? Two incidents caught my eye this week and it illustrates how things have gotten out of control.

1. Taylor Swift accepts award and Kayne west Interrupts.

2. Chaminade-Madonna defeats Pampano Beach 83-0 in High School Football down in Florida.

Now I am taking a different take on both.

In the West-Swift incident everyone has been talking about how uncivil it was for West to steal Swifts moment by interrupting and interjecting that he thought some other video should have won. West thought it was Unfair. The reason he was uncivil is not that he was a jerk necessarily but that he has been indoctrinated with this false notion of 'fair'. it was not fair that Taylor won and his candidate did not.

In the second, it is apparently OK to win but not be too much. It is not fair when a team beats a team by too much, but what is too much? Talk about nebulous.

What gets me here is the hypocrisy. On the one hand, in entertainment if a loser or their fans cries foul it is uncivil. If the loser of a sports contest cries foul, it is OK. See the problem.

Sorry, both Taylor and the C-M football team work hard, set goals for themselves and went out to achieve them. Both succeeded I great ways and both should be applauded. The fact is it is the nebulous concept of 'fair' that everyone has that seems to be to blame.

What is a coach supposed to do? 'Now guys if we get up by 40 or more were just going to knee the ball and give it to the other team.' Come on. You coach kids in football to play well so that you can win. Some of those Backups who played late for C-M got not only a chance to play but score and their thunder should not be stolen from them for some stupid concept of fair. In the case of C-M football they did all things well -- offense, defense and special teams. There should be line out the coach's door to ask him -- "how do you do it coach so we can be a better team?" Instead, the man is defending himself for being TOO SUCCESSFUL. As I read Dallas Jacksons story and the coach defended his action I said a hearty 'Amen' after every line he said.

A note to the media -- quit whining. Dallas Jackson get a life, this story shouldn't be about how unfair things were it should have been about how great a program C-M is. It is also unsportsmanlike to whine as a loser too. Quit whining for them.

For the story go here: http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=989089

If I was Kayne or Pampano Beach I would not whine. It is not the time for whining; it is the time for introspection. What can we do to be better?

I know Kayne West was whining about Beyonce but that isn't his job. He should have been asking himself what he could have done to help Beyonce be better next time so she can win, not stealing Taylor's thunder.

For Pampano Beach, I would ask this of myself -- what can we do better so that this never happens again. Take it as an opportunity to change yourself. Remember: TO WHINE ABOUT A LOSS IS UNSPORTSMANLIKE!

Like it or not competition makes us better -- win or lose. No matter what the score was.

Rant of the Week: The Greed of the Welfare State

Capitalism, like democracy, is a great system when it works. To make it work, people need to take action and develop both themselves and their business.

Currently the Left in this country have been assaulting rich people and corporations for their greed. I admit that in capitalism the possibilities for greed are good but greed is not limited to any one type of economics nor is it limited to any social class.

One thing no one talks about is the greed of the welfare class because apparently because they are on welfare they can't be greedy. Greed is a spiritual state that results from the relentless pursuit of your own wealth or pleasure at another's expense. It is when you use your position to take somethings that does not belong to you to further your own agenda and selfish desires that one becomes greedy

What can be more selfish that to deem yourself so important that because you live others should take care of your basic needs and you shouldn't have to do anything to earn that support but fill out paperwork. But, I can't work I have 'X'. It is amazing how many 'X's are accepted these days. It is also interesting how many families all have these 'X's in the entire family. For three generations even. Sorry, the I have looked for a job excuse doesn't work for me either. I have seen applications these people fill out -- they sign their name but there are a lot of blank spots or they give false information that actually drives an employer away from them. Or they claim some medical condition or injury. Now I have seen people who are legitimately hurt at work and need help and I have no beef with them, but many times it is not legitimate. It is just excuse

I am now personally convinced that poverty is not a state of economics, it is a state of mind. To be rich you have to do a few Biblical things:
1. Save your money, sacrificing a few things of comfort to get to larger goals. It is amazing how many poor people when they do get some sort of windfall waste it by buying junk entertainment items. Thus, they waste any opportunity to better themselves long term -- it is a pleasure now mentality in the poor.
2. Stay out of debt. I can't count the number of people I have heard that are poor that have both a credit card and are on a first name basis with the telemarketers on the shopping network. Many elderly poor and struggling are of this class. But also you do have those who run up cards and then bail on the debt on purpose.
3. Work hard: There is no shortcut to success -- you have to work hard to get there. most poor folks are just plain lazy and they will blame it on fate or other people who have done them ill. I have seen it. The people that are successful in life have one thing in common -- a good work ethic. Yeah they have nice things and enjoy them but they have earned them.

It wouldn't be so bad but I hear social workers complain that they need more money for programs or the rich don't do their fair share. I hate that. One, I once asked a social worker where in their office they have a board where they show the numbers of people they have helped off welfare into a productive state. She stared at me with a blank look on her face. Sorry folks, the system is not designed to do this. Social workers do not really help people become better people, they are mainly distributors from the haves to the have nots. Any person who leaves the welfare rosters often does so because they have decided to change not because of anything a social worker did. It is also not in the best interest of a social work to get a person off welfare. The more welfare recipients their are the more job security they have.

The odd things is the sense of entitlement the welfare state has. 'We deserve better than this and someone else should pay for it' is the mentality.

Another thing I hate as a pastor is when people use the church and the Bible to try to justify this. They point to all the passages about rich people for ammo. But the Bible is not silent of why poverty exists either. Read Proverbs sometimes -- poverty has a willful cause, the mindset of those who are poor. I would also point out the welfare in the Bible that is provided for in the law required the poor to work. 1) The rich were to leave the corners of their fields and leave grain that fell behind for gleaning by the poor, but the poor still had to go out and harvest it themselves. 2) Every third year, an additional tithe was given for the poor but it was distributed by the priests and that required the poor to come to the temple an ask a priest for it -- personal connection. There is nothing personal about the current welfare system. 3) As much as Jesus talked about helping the poor, when the disciples yelled at Mary for anointing the feet of Jesus his response was one of 'the poor you have always'. Indictating the problem of poverty will never end but it is not an economic problem. It is a question of which expression of greed you can see. 4) Much of the Biblical message is about taking personal responsibility for yourself so you are not a burden to others. It is a message of helping one another to be sure, but the best help you can be to others is to limit how much of a burden you are to others. 5) I also find it interesting in how many people I have helped with church money or programs who complain about how much or the quality they receive. Isn't it a form of greed to think you deserve more when your getting a freebie? It did cost something to someone else you know?

I have been on welfare, when I was in school and in the early days with a young family. It was a hand up to me because I didn't look at it as permanent -- there was a little shame to it for me and I have worked very hard to not need it. Now I am making too much money but it takes two jobs. The one thing I see with many however is generation after generation who have a system of gaining support and money for doing nothing. That also is a form of greed. It is gain at someone elses' expense. I leave you with some famous words that more need to take to heart:
'There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch'. (TANSTAFL).

Ministry and Politics -- Uneasy combination?

Fellowship after church today involved a political conversation regarding conservative values verses liberal values. Liberals loose in my church every time. Nature of the beast around here -- people are very conservative.

There is a school of thought that says that religious people and leaders should not be involved in politics. I break that rule away from the pulpit. I have run for School Board and I speak freely of political issues. I make no secret of my disdain for the direction Barack Obama is taking this country and how he has a contempt for his own country. I try to be considerate but firm in my own convictions.

In the pulpit, my politics takes a back seat. I concern myself only with the politics of the kingdom of God. Issues come up and I attempt to provide a Biblical answer. From the pulpit I can still be conservative in ethics but I do not mention politics. The issue is God not me and my beliefs.

There is a balance I try to maintain, but the real problem is not to be unpolitical. The trick is to be political in the right places.

Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 5 -- Polygamy

There is one supreme difficulty in saying polygamy is not Biblical -- so many heroes of the faith were in polygamist relationships: Abraham, Jacob, Caleb, David, Solomon, for the guys along with many others. Sarah, Leah, Hannah, Abigail for the girls along with others. Fact is multiple wives with one guy is quite common in the Old Testament.

The New Testament is completely silent other than the mention by Paul that church officers should be the husband of one wife. The fact is in the ideal of the New Testament both in the teaching of Christ and Paul is one man and one woman for life. However, polygamy is never condemned in either Testament.

The best we can say is that the Bible does not promote or condemn polygamy but holds up monogamy as the ideal standard. Nothing is said about one woman with multiple guys but then again it does not appear at all in Scripture -- prohibition by silence? The issue back then is parentage and when a woman has a child there is no doubt who the mother is but the father can only be verified by the husband being the only guy to 'know' his wife.

Bible aside, are there any good reasons for polygamy, Let's list the pros and cons.

Pro: Defence Against Infertility: in fact this seems to be one of the reasons it was allowed in the society of Abraham and Sarah because in the case of infertility the man had a second option to produce and heir. Today we have a lot of science to do this kind of thing be even that does not always work. If there is the option to do like Sarah did, would some couples take it today? They might because not everyone is comfort able with the unknown donor or adoption.

Con: Spousal Rivalry: Not every biblical account has this but many do: Sarah/Hagar, Leah/Rachel, Hannah/Peninnah are but three notable examples. There are some cases however of of seemingly peaceful polygamy, even in the present day. Can happen but also could be absent.

Pro: Women taken care of in Later Life: Much as I hate to say it this one isn't mine, but a woman I talked to, who was elderly, once told me that she would not mind having to share a husband because having a man around part of the time was better than having no man at all and the loneliness that goes with it. Given that women outlive men this is what happens most of the time. She cited being taken care of and occasional companionship as reasons.

Con: Woman Used As Property: In many places around the world this is the case with polygamy, it is basically another asset to the men to have multiple wives but none of them are loved just used. Would that be the case in freely entered into polygamy? Well, doesn't abuse exist in monogamy too. Either way this does not help and maybe having more than one wife would soften some men. Also with more than one woman, abuse might not go unreported as much. The truth is that even though abuse is often expected both toward women and and children in polygamist relationships, it is actually rarer than in monogamous ones.

Pro: Another Option Instead of Being an Unwed Mother: The standard sad story is boy meets girl, girl and boy have sex, girl gets pregnant, boy feels trapped, boy takes off leaving girl alone. Polygamy might eliminate the 'boy feels trapped' part and thus the girl left alone. Biblically, the guy is obligated to marry the girl and provide for her and her children, also however, if he works hard and can afford it he could take another wife later. Double motivation? As a Variant to this -- Polygamy as an option to divorce.

Con: Complicated Family History: "Yeah this is my oldest son by my third wife" comes to mind. One thing though is that the kids would have two parents in stead of one but the legalities of this are going to get complicated.

Pro: Shared Motherly Resources: This is another one from a woman. Wouldn't it be nice to take turns watching the children and taking care of them. One breastfeeding mother said it would also be nice to have more than her small breasts to feed her child. One wife acting as wet nurse so to speak. Additionally, in our career minded world -- one woman works and the other does child care. Or you could alternate working and child care with three jobs. The possibilities get long as long as you have a group of wives who work together well.

Con: Not the Ideal: Polygamy is not ideal Biblically. In the end it becomes a state where the love Christ has for a church (which is supposed to be reflected in marriage) really does not exist.

In America this notion of polygamy is gaining popularity and a lot of the reasons I gave above are from a simple 'legalized polygamy" search. Lots of hits, so if you are look for more pros and cons just do that search yourself.

Can I make a call about it as a theologian. The Christian should aim at faithful monogamy as the ideal, but a can see no way to preach or teach against polygamy. To each their own, but the most practical thing I can say is -- Can You Really Handle Two or More Women? No Thanks.

Next: Legalized Prostitution (yeah, I thought of another one)

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 4 -- 'Establish Justice'

Justice -- there are a lot of definitions for this word, but the framers were looking at justice in a very idealistic light, as well they should. The idea that there should be rightness in all dealings where everyone would received what they deserve and were wrongs could be righted.

The problems the framers were facing is that a person could commit a murder in one state and hop over the border to another state and the law from the first state could not pursue them and the central power was too weak to do anything. The framers sought to change this by creating a national court with real power to administer justice even if a fugitive crossed state lines. The original supreme court was about this idea -- to administer the existing laws and not make law from the bench.

Justice is ultimately about rightness, and what the people wanted was a way so both victims of crimes could receive justice. It was also about where those accused would be tried fairly.

Justice is a very Biblical concept starting with the Law of Moses. In fact it is this basis that formed the original courts opinions about what justice was -- "eye for and eye, tooth fora tooth' when applied to justice and not vengeance (what Jesus was correcting in the Sermon on the Mount) as actually a great slogan. Justice then is about restoration. If a man lost an eye the one who made him lose that eye lost his own eye. The thief who stole had to return what he took plus double -- if he couldn't pay he had to work for the one he stole from unlit the debt was paid. The victims in a nation with justice receive back what they lost plus interest. Today, victims remain victimised even if the criminal in convicted because no restitution is ever made to the victim only the state. So much for actual justice. Maybe they should have been clearer about what they meant, but justice is in the heart of anyone who has been wronged.

As an example: A woman is raped. Her assailant is captured -- what would be justice too her? In restitution justice, like what is found in the Bible, what is taken from her is her virtue, her peace of mind and her feeling of safety. As long as the rapist walk on planet earth, this will be true. What is of equal value to these things? They are priceless in the eyes of the Law of God and so the only thing the rapist has of equal value is his own life, which is forfeited as restitution to the victim. Today the rapist is locked up and might get parole. I submit this is not justice becasue the victim remains victimized.

The framers sought to establish justice, but in reality it is only just living men that can do so. At least the Constitution offers a framework to work in, but it does not help us understand what justice really is. That is between God and us.

Next: Insure Domestic Tranquility

Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 4 -- Friends with Fringe Benefits

I first heard the term 'friends with fringe benefits' back about ten years ago but it seems to have gained steam over the years. The term basically refers to a couple or other situation that people are not considering any long term relationship but are willing to have casual sex. In my ministry, I have encountered several couples who had this sort of relationship. 'Were just friends' but then a long passionate kiss or comment later and it is clear that the friendship is more than platonic. It is a sexual friendship with no expectation that it will be anything other than that.

Casual sex is making a comeback of sorts. The sexual revolution of the 70s was big but the AIDS issue of the 80s slowed things down a bit. Recently though it seems it is getting larger again, probably do to the fact of increasingly open sexual education, a topic of mine for an earlier post, but for now lets deal with the existence of casual sex and who it affects. Well, just about everybody. Since I have turned forty, my e-mail has had no less than three spam type e-mails inviting me to join sites that for all practical purposes are not about relationships but casual sex. Also my advertising that gets place in front of me while I am getting my e-mail has much the same thing in the sidebar from time to time. Don't think this is odd, I hear it happens to everybody because the assumption is that once you hit mid life you want to take chances and do something different and one of the areas this happens most often is sex.

Why is this dangerous? Because it assumes that sex is purely a physical act for fun with no other possible consequences other than pregnancy (which can be avoided through birth control) or a STD (avoided through condom use). These two issues aside, the fact is there is something going on here that goes larger than just the physical.

What exactly happens when a couple has sexual intercourse? The Bible describes this in a couple of ways:
1. 'Knowing' -- Adam knew his wife.... -- more than just sex it is a knowing of the other person in a way you cannot know someone without sex. From personal experience I can tell you there are things I know about my wife's spirit, emotions, mind and body that no one else knows because I have had sex with her and she with me. These things no one else will every know unless we violate our marriage covenant. Which I have no plans on doing, of course, but such a violation causes such knowledge to leak out to others who have no business knowing what we know, should it take place.
2. Becoming one flesh. The union of husband and wife is called this but Paul also uses this term do describe the actions of a man and and a harlot -- 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 (verses 15-16 in particular).

Looking at sexual intercourse theologically this means that something happens every time sexual intercourse takes place that is a knowing of the other person on all levels that binds a person to the other and makes them one flesh. When sin is committed in sex, it usually involves not respecting this union and the spiritual and mental/emotional side of it as well.

This is why the Law of Moses prescribed automatic marriage for couples caught in fornication. 'Dad I'm pregnant and Jake is the father" had automatic consequences -- the man and woman were married immediately and the man lost his option to divorce the girl. (I wonder what would happen if we enforced that one today?). The union was assumed and sex is what caused it to happen.

Paul comments directly on this in relationship to fornication (in his case fornication was the casual sex involved in pagan rites of worship) and makes the following points in 1 Corinthians 6:
1. The body is for the Lord
2. God has raised us up by His power
3. Our bodies are thus members of Christ
4. If we join in fornication with someone we are making the body of Christ joined with that person in fornication -- in his case he says by doing this a person was making the body of Christ a member with a harlot.
5. Regardless if there is a marriage covenant or not, sexual intercourse makes two people one in the spirit as well as flesh.
6. Fornication is a sin against a person's own body for we are joined to Christ
7. Our body is the temple of the holy Spirit we should treat it accordingly.
8. Because we have been bought with a price, including our bodies, we should glorify the Lord in our bodies.

Now, lets get back to this friends with fringe benefits thing. The fact is that when you and you friend have sex you are joining yourself to at all levels (spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically). This has an affect on all these areas because once you come apart from each other and go different ways you will never be the same because you know the other person in a way others do not on all levels. That is until you or they have sex with someone else. Regardless of what you think is happening this is what the Bible says is happening. Our society and culture may have changed, but the Word of God has not. This why, no matter what people may say about it, people are unhappy about their casual sexual relationships over time. Because there you are 'knowing' someone intimately but forcing yourself to deny it. It is this denial that something is wrong and our effective treating each other as objects for sexual gratification that cause this -- SIN.

Now I have no problem with the idea that sex is fun and should be fun. What I have a problem with is that you can have fun with sex without commitment in marriage without spiritual and other consequences before yourself and God and your relationship to him will suffer for it. When you first treat the person as a person by committing yourself to them for life in marriage and then explore the fun of sex, then the 'knowing' gained can be shared in complete confidence and trust.

For the Christian there can be no such thing as 'friends with fringe benefits'. The church therefore must take an active stand against such relationships in any way it can without being a bunch of moral judges that condemn people. This sin is pardonable and once true salvation enters, then and only then does the law of God really come in force. My personal stance has always been to tell such couples to forget me marrying them and just head to the justice of the peace, magistrate or whatever and get the piece of paper. You are already married just let the law know it.

IMHO

Next: Polygamy

Whose Health is It Anyway?

In the ongoing debate on health care one thing seems very much lost in the shuffle -- Who's health is it anyway? The reason I ask this is because once we establish who owns the health of an individual does that not define who is responsible for that health?

1. My health belongs to me. It is my responsibility to both maintain and provide for.
2. I must take this responsibility, it is not some other person's or organization's responsibility.
3. No one has the right to take charge of my health from me.

Given these things I find two things reprehensible in the debate:
1. How many people think that someone else should be responsible for their health care. This continued passing the buck has been around since Genesis 3 but the fact is its you health quit looking to someone else to take care of it.
2. The government's continued think that they have the right to take control of my health care as if it belongs to them. Once my health is taken into their care what else are they going to take control of? Under Obama and a liberal Congress is their no end to the power they want to take away from the people and give to themselves?
3. The belief that good health care is a right. It is not a right, but a privilege of and advanced society and a person's ability to provide it for themselves through whatever means they can find.

My health is my own and if in the end I don't have the ability to pay for it that is my fault. What we have in this is a bunch of people who think they are going to live forever, so they do not provide for themselves the means to have heath care. Then when they get sick someone other than themselves must pay for it. One incompetence leads to another.

I like private insurance because it means I get to shop around and I get to provide for myself. The government always makes things difficult and they never do anything that has any true quality to it other than the military. If we give health care to them the quality will diminish and you can bet it will get very expensive for the already overburdened taxpayers. You know if we continue to tax the rich they will live somewhere else and that will ultimately be bad as they are the ones who dive the prosperity of the economy not the government.

The real solution 1) Kill Medicare altogether and 2) put limits on tort so the cost of health care can stay low.

IMHO

Church Antagonism -- Part 7 -- Recovering from Antagonism -- Church

Churches suffer in antagonism. During and antagonistic bought you will see people leave, rarely will people stay if they visit. Those that get to the end survive and ultimately have to face the future. There is a long list of things the church and individuals should not do after antagonism has been defeated:
1. Don't stop ministry for a rest period. Many people in both my churches who had been under the gun and then suddenly the problem went away did this. Ministry is a lot like prayer and other things that provide spiritual growth and healing, when you stop doing it you lose that avenue for growth and healing.
2. Don't take a break from the vision of the church. The vision God has given the leadership for you church actually can be your saving grace. What it does is allows you focus on something other than the hurt at least for a little while and if done with the Spirit can bring to your church the one thing that is needed above all else -- new people.
3. Don't sweep the thing under the rug and move on. I know that this seems to contradict the two above but to think you can just dump the soul crushing pain of conflict gone bad and move on is not wise. There must be a plan to rebuild relationships and hearts.
4. Become defensive. Many people after surviving antagonism decided to build a bunch of walls and systems to keep it from happening again. The real thing is not to prevent this by defensive measures but offensive. To make sure people are prepared to DO what is right in the face of these things, not just shield themselves.

Some things that do need to be done: (now, these are mine from a long process of thinking on how to get people in a church past antagonism to life)
1. Establish small groups -- not just any small groups, but ones that hold people accountable for their spiritual walk and prayer together. If I could I would make it mandatory for every member to be a part of it. Why? To reestablish relationships and recover from damage. Like it or not people are hurting and they need an outlet to be prayed for and ministered to.
2. Develop a proactive and health approach to dealing with conflict. Conflict is normal and teaching Biblical principles on conflict resolution is very helpful. When you can teach people to focus on the issue at hand rather than the persons involved you have done your church a great service. Leadership needs to model this at all levels.
3. Never let an issue simmer -- deal with it as an issue and get a resolution on it especially if someone gets angry. To many times we let the devil wedge in his agenda through unresolved issues or anger.
4. Be prepared to counsel on all areas -- things happen and like ministers people do a lot of things to cope and often they are sinful and destructive. Be prepared to open your heart to whatever counseling is needed to help these people.

FINIS