God and Sports: Are winners more blessed?

Frank

I’m a total sports nut, and I’ve had draft after draft of blog posts dedicated to this subject, but I never seem to get around to posting them. Well, here’s my overdue post on the role of God in sports, motivated courtesy of Mark Kriegel and Foxsports. (My friend Krazywakfunky just pm’ed me that Jime Rome and Dan Patrick also talked about this on their radio programs this week)

This is a hot topic right now because of the building media hype leading up to the Super Bowl, magnified by Tony Dungy’s retirement and Tim Tebow winning yet another BC$ Championship. If you’re not as much of a nerd as me, let me give you a quick rundown. Kurt Warner, the blue-collar come-from-nowhere Super Bowl Champion quarterback is back with a new team and another shot at glory. He isn’t shy about the role his faith has played in motivating him through tough times, of which he’s had many. Tony Dungy is retiring from coaching the Indianapolis Colts, whom he led to the 2007 Super Bowl. A well-respected and regarded coach with high expectations, he too would give credit where credit was due and was criticized following his Super Bowl win by boasting that he and his opposing coach, Lovie Smith, were the first to “d0 it the right way” supposedly by not cussing and being religious, implying that the other 30 coaches in the NFL do it the wrong way. (This is not meant as a knock on Dungy at all, just the way the media responded. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for him and would cheer for the Colts because of him. He is definitely a fine example to follow as summarized in this article from the Praying Fields at OnFaith.) Finally, Tim Tebow is a a phenom-quarterback at the University of Florida who not only thanks God for his accomplishments (only a couple of championships and Heisman trophies but who’s counting?), but even goes on mission trips.

Of course it’s no surprise that these outward displays of faith make others like Kriegel uncomfortable. If God has no place in our government or our public square, then certainly God has no place in sports, right? Faith is even harder to reconcile in sports, where there is a clear winner and loser. Who’s to say God favored one over the other? Does God really care who wins a championship? (If he did, the Cubs would’ve won it all last year, but I digress) Some denominations recognize this and even go so far as prohibiting sports because not only does competition bring out the worst of us (just go watch your church’s local softball team) but it also puts God in a box, forcing Him to choose a favorite. Of course, the Bible tells us over and over that God doesn’t play favorites, so this would be a sin on our part.

The rivalry game between the University of Utah and BYU is called the Holy War (really, only recently so when both teams have been good enough to generate national attention). Does God really care who wins that game? What if Baylor (a Baptist school) plays Notre Dame? Does God care if the baseball player that crosses himself before his at bat strikes out or hits a home run?

Of course, most Christians in sports treat this humbly by crediting God for their talents and their health. They don’t pray to win, they pray to glorify God and for there to be no injuries. It’s usually the fans (and some knucklehead players with misinformed theology, see below) who take it overboard. But even crediting God for talents and opportunities makes others uncomfortable. Look no further than critics of President Bush who never did understand what he meant when he claimed that he believed God chose him to be president. This wasn’t a boast, but a humble reference to Romans 13:1. We can joke that Obama is the ‘chosen one’ but again, referencing Romans and conceding that God has a hand in all things, he really is. But then we’re back to the problem with sports- was Florida ‘chosen’? If so, where’s free will?

So there’s a danger in all of this. There’s no problem with thanking God, for that’s what the Bible commands us to do “in everything” (Phil 4:6) and “in all circumstances” (1 Thes 5:18). But we need to draw a line between divine providence (opportunity and talent) and divine intervention. This is where some fans and athletes cross the line. I mentioned BYU earlier and I’m not shy in saying that I absolutely hate them. But last year, there was a “miracle catch” to beat Utah as time expired and later a “miracle block” to beat UCLA in their bowl game. Their receiver, after this miracle catch was quoted as saying, “Obviously, if you do what’s right on and off the field, I think the Lord steps in and plays a part in it. Magic happens.” But what about the thugs and cheats that permeate professional sports who are successful? See where this theology leads? (this is also a problem with Prosperity Doctrine, but that’s another post for another day)

This isn’t a new problem. Look at how David lamented on the success of the wicked in the Psalms. Solomon did the same in Ecclesiastes. Or even the apostles who wondered why a man was born blind. Righteous living does not equate success in this life despite what our favorite athletes might say. We need to look no further than Jesus’ reply to reconcile our faith with prosperity, or in our case victory: “[T]his happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” (John 9:3)

The “his” above could be “us” or “them” with regards to our own success or that of our favorite (or least favorite even) team. Give God the glory. Give him thanks. And humbly recognize that whether you win or lose, God is in control.

(For entertainment, check out this article from a year ago that gives a list of sports colliding with faith. See if you can tell the difference between most of the quotes- the most obvious exception being the boxer- and what the BYU player said.)

In Memorium: Father Neuhaus

Frank

I should do a better job keeping up on headlines, though I’m surprised this didn’t turn up as I browsed my typical blog roll. But Father Richard John Neuhaus, founder of First Things, author, spiritual advisor to the President, and possibly one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the last century passed away January 8 at the full age of 72.

I regret to know little about him other than reputation. I also regret that I never did add First Things to my links, though I often meant to. Father Neuhaus was always good for a quote, and the Christian blogosphere could count on his wisdom on social and political issues. The obituary in Newsweek gives a better description than I ever could. In fact, I pray that some of the same can be said of me when I shuffle off this mortal coil.

But in the spirit of this blog, I want to pull some quotes from the article that we all can and should apply to our lives as Public Christians.

To begin with, he was a thoroughgoing Christian radical, meaning that he believed that the truth of Christian faith was not just truth-for-Christians, but the truth of the world, period. As with his hero, John Paul II (and contrary to the conventional wisdom on “tolerance”), that conviction opened him up to serious conversation with others, rather than shutting down the argument. Yet his basic theological and philosophical convictions, and the intellectual sophistication he brought to their defense, had resonances far beyond the boundaries of the religious world…

Neuhaus’s position was that the two pieces of the First Amendment’s provisions on religious freedom were in fact one “religion clause,” in which “no establishment” of religion served the “free exercise” of religion. There was to be no established national church, precisely in order to create the free space for the robust exchange of religious ideas and the free expression of religious practices. In making this case, Neuhaus changed the terms of the contemporary American church-state debate, arguing that the Supreme Court had been getting things wrong for more than half a century by pitting “no establishment” against “free exercise,” with the latter increasingly being forced into the constitutional back seat…

Neuhaus’s convictions about the meaning of religious freedom in America also reflected his consistent defense of popular piety and the religious sensibilities of those whom others might consider “simple” or “uninformed.” If 90 percent of the American people professed belief in the God of the Bible, he argued, then there was something profoundly undemocratic about denying those people—a super-majority if ever there was one—the right to bring the sources of their deepest moral convictions into public debate, even if they sometimes did so in clumsy ways…

[T]hese Big Ideas… intersected in what Richard Neuhaus, public intellectual, thought of as his life’s project: the creation of a “religiously informed public philosophy for the American experiment in ordered liberty,” as he frequently put it. (emphasis mine)

I couldn’t think of a better description or better example of Public Christianity in America today. But his theology wasn’t half-bad either. I’ll close with this quote, from his book Death on a Friday Afternoon (courtesy of internet monk).

When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers throughout my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of justification by faith alone,” although I will thank God that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood formulation was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways—these and all other gifts I have received I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will, with Dysmas, look to Christ and Christ alone.

Then I hope to hear him say, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” as I hope with all my being—because, although looking to him alone, I am not alone—he will say to all.

A Simple Faith

Frank

I was listening to Mighty to Save recently (I’m repenting of my prejudice against Christian music) and a line jumped out at me and I’ve been thinking of it ever since. The bridge, “Shine your light and, let the whole world see. We’re singing, for the Glory, of the risen King.” The risen King. It’s too early for Easter (I still have my Christmas lights up outside), but that truth resonates with me. It reminds me of a time of simpler faith, when the image of “the risen King” was inspiring instead of cynical.

We will sometimes talk about how our Jesus isn’t the Jesus in Sunday school pictures- handsome, surrounded by children, holding a lamb. Instead, our Jesus challenged authority, was rugged, wasn’t afraid to call someone out on their sin. But both can be true. That’s what’s so amazing about Jesus, he is a theological and philosophical paradox- God and man, fierce and gentle, loved and feared. And the image of the risen King is the same- how could the ruler of the coming kingdom be victorious in a brutal public death?

When I heard this line I thought of Aslan in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The king who was slain in order to save his people. To me, that’s a childish image. But it shouldn’t be. Jesus is my king, and there’s nothing childish about that. It’s encouraging to know that the King of the Universe cares enough about little ole me to save me and give me a seat next to him in his kingdom.

But while this line inspired me, I was saddened by how cynical my faith has become. Maybe I’m too logical? If you’ve read more than one of my posts, maybe you’ve come to the same conclusion. Instead, I should be more like Jesus himself instructed:

“I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 18:3-4)

So this has inspired me to simplify my faith and get back to the basics. Jesus is Lord. So who is Jesus? I plan on starting the year digging deep into Jesus’ life, and instead of trying to overthink everything and come up with some deep theology, reflect instead of his life and how he saved mine. Corny? Maybe. But sometimes we need a simple faith.

The Culture War Never Ends

Frank
I didn’t get as far as I wanted with my ‘Culture War’ posts. There are still a lot of topics still to be covered, but instead of regurgitating a stream of posts in a mad dash to meet a deadline I’ll post those when I get the chance. I’m going to start using labels for my posts too, so topics can easily be found.

That said, the Culture War isn’t over just because Christmas is. Sure, there were the typical battles over public Nativity scenes, vandalized decorations, and so on. In the Washington State Capitol, for example, atheists placed a proclamation against organized religion and belief in God in general next to their Nativity. What rubs me wrong the most, is how the atheist argument relies on belittling the religious by claiming that “reason” comes to the conclusion that there is no God. In other words, faith in God is unreasonable. But I prefer this instead, “A fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)

That argument is repeated in a series of billboards that are beginning to spring up, intentionally coinciding with the holidays.
But like I said, just because Christmas is over doesn’t mean that the Culture War is over. Michael Newdow (you might remember him for suing to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance) is suing over the oath to be taken by President-elect Barak Obama, which will be taken with a Bible closing with the words “so help me God”. This is his third lawsuit over the presidential inauguration so the lawsuit isn’t taken very seriously. Neither the ACLU nor the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ, known from the radio show Jay Sekulow Live) make any mention of this suit on their home pages (follow the links on the right).
What’s interesting though, is the motivation for the suit. As quoted from the article:

Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.

“Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny,” according to the lawsuit.

I’m a recovering addict, so should I sue the Super Bowl for their Budweiser ads because I feel stigmatized? Or as a Christian, don’t I feel excluded by most television programming that espouses worldly values contrary to my own? Should I sue NBC or the FCC?
It was debated after Obama’s victory whether that would embolden the far-left. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. The past administration has done plenty to invigorate that base. But there is in increasing hostility towards religion that if it continues unchecked, could result in our own rights being curbed for the sake of Political Correctness.

Culture War: Marketing

Frank

I’ve talked about “marketing the Gospel” a couple of times before, but in the commercial spirit of Christmas it’s worth bringing up again. I admire those who emphasize the theological roots of Christmas by giving religious themed cards and gifts. One of the many Christmas letters I’ve received from family was actually divided into two parts- one giving the usual year-in-review, and the other encouraging us with the spiritual perspective. I’ve always wanted to be one who gives the religious card, but I find most to be cheesy. Of course, that’s my problem- I have a regrettable bias against the overtly religious. So I got quite the kick when I saw this advertised at Family Christian. If you’re in need of a last-minute Christmas gift, you can thank me later for the idea.

I love Guitar Hero. Ok, you got me, I can’t play it. But I love watching it. I’m a total classic rock nerd. But some of the “satanic” stereotypes of rock and roll are overplayed in that game. If it’s not the demon on steroids playing bass, it’s the inflatable devil ripped right from Spinal Tap. So I thought a Christian version of the game would be pretty cool. Except that I can’t think of any really rockin‘ Christian music. Sure, the game has P.O.D. and Thousand Foot Krutch, but also tobyMac, really? There are some I haven’t heard of, of course (darn you XM radio for cutting The Torch station!) so one of my coworkers humored me and let me listen to his Pillar playlist on his MP3 player. Hmmm, not bad. But not Skynyrd or Rush.

Maybe I need to embrace this more. There are tons of products that are geared away from the World and I’m a sucker for what the major media cranks out. And who knows, maybe I’d be better trying to shred a Kutless lick instead of trying to imitate Hendrix.

Culture War: Ministry

Frank

If you’ve been out shopping this weekend, you’ve undoubtedly seen the bell-ringers for the Salvation Army who’ve become as much a part of the Christmas atmosphere as Courier and Ives and Santa Claus. There was a big flap a couple of years ago when some major retailers stopped allowing the bell-ringers to collect in front of their doors. The ban was in the name of political correctness and the infamous ‘war on Christmas’. It just isn’t the same for the bell-ringers to wish you happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas. But when all the fuss was going on, few made an issue of the little acknowledged, and seemingly little known, fact that the Salvation Army is more than a philanthropic organization, it’s a church.

And that fact makes those kettles even more important in ‘keeping the Christ in Christmas’. Those anonymous bell-ringers shine Christ’s light brighter than I ever could. That’s because as a church, their ministry extends beyond Christmas. Watch the second video- the 1901 San Francisco Earthquake, Third World disaster relief, soup kitchens- these have nothing to do with Christmas the holiday, but have everything to do with spirit of Christmas. What about your own personal ministry? Opportunities abound for charity during the holiday season- Toys for Tots, Angel Trees, Adopt-a-family, hosting Christmas dinners for the needy, serving at soup kitchens- in fact it’s well known that charitable giving and volunteerism increases during the holidays. But what about the rest of the year? The needy that you feed this week will still be needy six months from now. But does your personal ministry reach out then as much as now?

Charity always, ministry to all. That is the spirit of Christmas, and is not limited by a calendar. Jesus said it is more blessed to give than to receive with no mention of when or how. If you’re giving to the needy this Christmas, or serving in some way, use the opportunity to turn it into something consistent that continues throughout the year.

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ (Acts 20:35)

Culture War: Priorities

Frank

There are only a few shopping days left before Christmas. You’re likely going to brave the weekend crowds at the mall, scramble to find something off the shelves that have been picked clean, struggle to come up with what to get your in-laws, and all the while forget why you’re doing this to begin with. Then you’ll head home, look at the pile of dishes in the sink and think about the family coming over in just a couple of days and all the cleaning and rearranging of furniture that needs to be done before then. And if you’re like me, you still need to get that last string of lights up on the house and decorate the tree.

Can you relate? Do you feel hurried, stressed, overwhelmed? Do you wish there was just one more week before Christmas? I do. But then I’m a lot like Martha, who in Luke 10 is described as being “distracted by all the preparations that [have] to be made.” (Luke 10:40) But then we forget what we’re preparing for. Yes, we want Christmas to be memorable for our children and we want them to have everything they asked Santa for (within reason). We want to be warm and hospitable towards our family and friends. But what about “the reason for the season?” What about Jesus?

Are we reflecting Christ when we lose our patience at the store? Do we show the love of Jesus to our children when we lose our temper as they try to get into every present that’s already been wrapped and hunt for the ones that aren’t? Are we really being a witness to our families when what’s most important to us is getting everything done?

I write this for myself. My wife reminded me this morning that we needed to take time and get into God’s word, lean on Him in our stress, and not be overwhelmed with our “to dos”. I need to be more like Mary, who knew that “only one thing was needed.” (Luke 10:42)

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”

“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42)

Culture War: Be Prepared- Gay Marriage, Continued

Frank

This is my last post on this subject. I hear Santa in the distance and I have a lot more ground to cover in the next week. But there are still some open arguments regarding Newsweek making the “Religious Case for Gay Marriage” that I haven’t covered.

My first post went over the all too often poor examples of marriage in the Bible. I made the case that just because the examples aren’t what we’d call today “traditional marriage” doesn’t mean that we should discard the Biblical commands regarding marriage. I also defended these same commands against the argument of cultural relevancy- that the rules were for the time, and don’t apply to us today.

My last post then went to define marriage both civilly and religiously using examples from the Bible for each. I left with the conclusion that because of the nature of the sacrament of Marriage, that there can be no Biblical justification for gay marriage.

Yet the author, Lisa Miller, makes the claim that, “scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be married – and a number of excellent reasons why they should.” I already pointed out that scriptures actually do give us good reasons why gays and lesbians should not be married, but now I want to look at why you could make the argument that scriptures do, in fact, give many reasons why they should.

  • Old versus New Covenant

The first argument for the Bible not disallowing gay marriage is the fault of the Religious Right and their narrow reading of the Bible. Levitical Law calls homosexuality an “abomination” (Lev 18:22 -‘detestable’ in the NIV) but calls eating shellfish (creatures of the sea without fins and scales) the same. Yet, I doubt those who proclaim “God hates fags” would also say that God hates Red Lobster and everyone eating there. It is important to remember that we are not under Levitical Law. Jesus died “once for all” (Heb 10:10) and established a “new covenant” (Lk 22:20) and “fulfill[ed] them [the law]” (Mt 5:17) so the Levitical Law no longer applies to us today.

That’s not to say there’s not wisdom in those laws. These laws were written thousands of years before we understood disease and bacteria, yet there were laws about isolating contagious lesions, avoiding coming in contact with blood, not eating animals that died because of disease, not eating scavenger birds (also an abomination), or pork that we know today carries trichinosis.

So do we throw those laws out? Not if they’re affirmed in the New Covenant. I already noted that Jesus explicitly defined marriage, affirming the Genesis account of a man leaving his family and becoming one with his wife. But Jesus never explicitly discussed homosexuality. Paul, on the other hand, does. In Romans, Paul describes how the sinful nature has driven those who have chosen to reject God and explicitly calls out homosexuality:

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom 1:26-27)

It’s worth pointing out after quoting this, that Ms Miller notes that the Anchor Bible Dictionary comments that the Bible never refers to sex between women. Yet the above passage does exactly that. She wants to use that reference to claim that the “unnatural relations” described above don’t necessarily mean monogamous homosexuality. I’ve heard this argument elsewhere. Either it’s claimed that this scripture refers to homosexual prostitution related to pagan ceremonies, or that it refers to homosexual acts between heterosexuals (that’s a tough one to prove since homosexuality, as our culture defines it today, is never defined in the Bible).

She goes on in her argument that Paul’s condemnation is “really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery.” Funny, those words could be used to define the culture around homosexuality today. But she quotes the scholar Neil Elliott who argues that Paul is referring specifically to the Roman emperors Nero and Caligula and that the condemnation isn’t against someone who commits any of these acts individually, but rather those who commit these acts collectively. Uh, huh. I won’t quote it here for space, but read the first chapter of Romans and tell me honestly if you can reach the same conclusion. Besides, Paul can’t be referring to specific people in this passage. This passage sets up the definition of our sinful nature and our shared need for salvation. If this only applied to Nero and Caligula, then I guess he’s writing the whole book of Romans just so those two can be saved. I wonder then why he talks about Mosaic Law since neither of them were Jews. Hmmm.

  • David and Jonathan

It’s an old argument that David and Jonathan had something else going on than just fighting along side one another. The quote “he loved him as he loved himself” shows up a couple of times in 1 Samuel 18 and again in 20 referring to Jonathan’s affection for David. However, isn’t that phrase just a re-wording of the Golden Rule? And is it that uncommon for two people who share battle to develop a kinship that words cannot describe? Ask a veteran of WWII if they “loved” any of their fellow soldiers in this way and I’ll bet you’d get a unanimous response. Besides, there’s nothing wrong, or even unexpected, for men to have bonds with other men that seem to go beyond the bond these men have with the opposite sex. Think about drinking buddies, bowling night, Monday Night Football, paintball, MMA, and so on and so on. There’s just something about bonding with the same sex and it has nothing to do with sexuality. Women have it too- gossip, fashion, scrapbooking, etc. You can then relate to David’s feelings upon hearing his best friend had died. “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

  • The Gospel of Inclusion

Perhaps the strongest case for permitting homosexuality is the inclusion preached by both Jesus and Paul. It is often pointed out that Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery in John 8. That is then used as a blanket example that Jesus does not condemn sin. Yet that ignores the ending of the story where Jesus explicitly tells the woman, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (Jn 8:11)

Paul wrote, “there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ” (Gal 3:28). Biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann is quoted in the article using this scripture to support gay marriage. I guess if we’re neither male nor female, then it doesn’t matter who we marry. But again, that is contrary to the sacrament of marriage, as described earlier. In addition, that also takes that quote out of context because Paul is relating that the New Covenant applies to all, not just Jews, and that supersedes the Jewish customs of circumcision and diet.

Yes, the Gospel of Jesus is inclusive. He did not tolerate sin however, and neither did Paul. “What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” (Rom 6:1-2) “But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature.” (Gal 5:13) God’s grace that comes from Jesus’ death on the cross is the Gospel of inclusion. Jesus died for all, and that includes homosexuals. But he also called on all of us to repent of our sinful nature, whatever that may be. There is no religious case for gay marriage, and to argue that there is ignores much of the Bible and reads meaning into verses that isn’t there. But in order to refute that, you need to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (1 Pt 3:15-16)

Culture War: Be Prepared- Gay Marriage, Continued

Frank

I left off with the notion that we discard the whole Bible, since if it’s culturally irrelevant in a few things doesn’t that make it irrelevant in all things? That’s not really what the Newsweek author meant. A better way of putting it would be that the specifics of the Bible aren’t culturally relevant, but the general themes are. That’s a dangerous argument to make, for where do you draw the line? Many want to discard Paul for his teachings about women’s roles in church. But if you throw him out completely, you lose the linchpin of Evangelical theology regarding salvation- faith alone. Martin Luther actually wanted to get rid of the book of James because it focused too much on works- “faith without deeds is useless” (James 2:20) And Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Gospels omitting all of Jesus’ miracles and claims of deity, leaving Jesus as no different than Confucius. And if Jesus is just a good man who taught some good things that we should generally apply to be good people, then I’m wasting my time on Sundays and hundreds of martyrs throughout history died for nothing.

  • The definition of marriage

If the Biblical definitions of marriage are culturally outdated (Ms Miller calls them “throwaway lines”), and the teachings of Jesus are reduced to good advice, then how do we define marriage? Ms Miller would argue that we cannot rely on the Bible for our definition since neither Jesus nor the Bible as a whole “explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman.” Although she quotes where the Bible does, in fact, define marriage: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24, Mt 19:5, Mk 10:7, Eph 5:31) If this doesn’t define marriage as between a man and a woman, then I don’t know what does. But Ms Miller makes the strong statement that, “scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married- and a number of excellent reasons why they should.” Yet, I failed to see these numbers of excellent reasons. Instead I only saw justifications and reading meaning into the text that isn’t there.

But she does bring up a good point that marriage has two definitions- civil and religious. Let’s look at each.

  • Civil marriage

The article does well to spell out the civil benefits to marriage, none of which by the way are denied where there are “Civil Unions”. And the only Biblical references to civil marriage are related to dowries and divorce laws. Neither of which are good examples. Dowries were common at the time (and for a few more centuries) but are rare now. (I know I’m contradicting myself on the argument of cultural relevancy, but I’ll go into this more when I talk about the Old Covenant.) Yet our Biblical definition of marriage is of the man leaving his family, contrary to the custom of a dowry and even contrary to our current convention of the wife taking the husband’s name. As for divorce, it was never meant to be an easy option, and definitely not “no fault” as it’s legally argued today. In fact, Jesus had to correct the current practice of divorce because it strayed from its original intent. And I can’t help but agree the author that we, as Christians, don’t exactly set the bar high with our own marriages. But I don’t think that means we should have no say in the matter.

  • Religious marriage

This one is hard to define Biblically, especially since good examples are few and far between. So we need to look beyond example and look at the theology of marriage. Ms Miller calls it the “frustrating, semantic question,” which I certainly agree. She goes on and asks, “should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are?” What’s important here, is how you choose to define ‘sacrament’. (And I admit in advance, that I am as far as you can get from a seminary student.) If you’re Catholic, there are seven sacraments during which (and I can’t think of a better way to put this) something supernatural happens. More generally, sacraments are earthly attempts to participate in spiritual ‘mysteries’. This eliminates Holy Order, Anointing of the Sick, and Last Rights which leaves us with Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, and Marriage.

For the sake of this argument, I’ll lump Confirmation in with Baptism. Each of these are physical rights, or ceremonies, that reflect spiritual realities that are beyond (easy) explanation, hence, a mystery. In the case of Baptism, this is a physical act that represents our spiritual transformation as being ‘born again’ (reference Romans 6:3-4 among others). (I’ll spare the baptism for salvation argument.) For Marriage, the physical relationship between a husband and wife reflects the relationship between Jesus and his church. Ms Miller defines it where “two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them.” This is a great definition, except that it intentionally leaves out genders for the sake of her argument. But Ephesians 5 specifically relate the role of the husband to Christ (sacrificial, providing) and the wife to the Church (submission and respect). In gay marriage, there is no husband and wife, so the definition breaks down and the sacrament can’t reflect the spiritual truth of Jesus and the Church.

So from this I the case can be made that there is no Biblical justification for gay marriage, in the religious sense. A case could be made however for gay marriage in the civil sense, or at least you can’t make a clear-cut case against it. But there’s still more to the story- the relationship between David and Johnathan, Old vs New Covenant, and both Jesus and Paul preaching about inclusion. I’ll cover those next time.

Culture War: Be Prepared- Gay Marriage

Frank

The Cover Story of this week’s Newsweek is titled, “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.” Of course we should expect magazine covers to invoke sensationalism in order to catch our eye, and there’s really no more sensational a headline than using the inspired word of God to defend a social change that I believe is contrary to not only the letter of God’s Word, but also the Spirit. It would be one thing if that was the headline on a journal of theology, where such a headline would be appropriate, but this is one of the “big three” main-stream media news magazines. The headline raises this issue to the same level of newsworthiness as war or the economy. By doing so, requires Christians to be able to defend their opinions on this issue and we cannot do so unless we know our Bible.

The portal, On Faith, has several responses to this article from authors, ministers, rabbis, and theologians. For a balanced and reasoned response, I recommend reading Susan Jacoby’s and Irwin Kula’s. I read Al Mohler’s first, expecting to agree with his case. But I think he glossed over the arguments and as several comments noted, he also cherry-picked his use of scriptures to justify his position. Truth is, both sides are cherry-picking, and neither acknowledges the broader theological implications of gay marriage.

In an effort to avoid cherry-picking myself, I’m going to address “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage” point by point. In advance though, I need to define my own ground rules. I’m not a Sunday pew-filler, or a cafeteria Christian. Nor am I a literalist fundi, or a Bible-thumper. I do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, but that doesn’t mean I take it all as literal (for example, see this post from one of the primary debates). I also hold to the scripture that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Heb 13:8) And that “the word of the Lord stands forever.” (1 Pt 1:25, Is 40:6-8) Most importantly, I believe the underlying purpose of the entirety of the Bible is to relate God’s attempt to have a heart-felt relationship with his creation. Because of that, I don’t look at it as a set of rules, or of ancient anecdotes, but instead of a comprehensive history of the relationship between Him and his people.

I also want to throw out a couple quotes from On Faith that also helps set the tone:

“Faith-based arguments on behalf of gay marriage actually give aid and comfort to the sort of right-wing religious groups… because they legitimize the idea that religious belief is a proper test for determining legal rights.” –Susan Jacoby from On Faith

“There is a difference between what the Bible prescribes and what it describes.” –Leith Anderson from On Faith

“Here is the sad truth about the unimportant, uninteresting, irrelevant, add no value and unfortunately polarizing and divisive way in which religion and scripture is used in contemporary culture. Everyone simply brings their religious views and their scriptural passages to prove, legitimate, and affirm their already held political and psychological positions. This is religion as apologetics and proof texting.” Which, he later says, “basically makes contemporary religion a whore for political positions whether liberal or conservative.” -Irwin Kuls from On Faith

All that said, I humbly submit my takes on the points Lisa Miller makes in the article. This ran long, so I’m going to split it up.

  • The Old Testament Example

Lisa Miller opens up by giving the examples of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon as a case of the Bible not endorsing what we consider today to be “traditional marriage”. Each were polygamists and in some cases were deliberately unfaithful. But as the quote above notes, just because it’s described, doesn’t mean it’s permitted. In fact, the polygamy of David led directly to his struggles with his sons and Solomon’s willingness to marry for political gain compromised Israel’s spirituality and ultimately resulted in the country’s split. There are more examples than can be counted of God’s people not obeying God’s Law. She tries to turn the argument around when she uses the cases of Moses and Esther who disobeyed God’s law against marrying foreigners as examples of breaking convention that ultimately benefited the greater community. But these cases are the exception, not the rule, as there are several books in the Bible dedicated to the poor examples of Israel’s kings who, more often than not, disobeyed these rules on marriage.

  • The New Testament Example

Just because Jesus wasn’t married doesn’t mean that he didn’t value marriage. Remember his first miracle was at a wedding (I don’t believe in coincidences in the Bible) and also that an angel had to intervene to convince Joseph to marry his pregnant fiance, Mary (so marriage was obviously important to someone). And Jesus’ statements “against” family (Mk 3:31-35, Lk 9:57-62) were really to stress the importance of the spiritual over the temporal.

As for Paul, it is argued whether he actually was married at one time. But despite that, why would he speak so strongly against marriage in only one of his letters (1 Corinthians) yet give explicit instructions regarding marriage in several (1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Timothy) if he was opposed to it? Any an examination of what Paul writes about marriage (beyond what Ms Miller limits to 1 Corinthians 7) affirms, not denies, traditional marriage.

  • The cultural example

Ms Miller asks who in this day and age would “turn to the Bible as a how-to script?” But isn’t that what every couple who is married in a church does? Isn’t there a sermon, or a brief message, or at least an invocation in every religious marriage ceremony that uses the Bible as a guideline for marriage? And I also know from personal experience that some denominations recommend The Song of Songs (or Solomon, depending on your translation) as honeymoon reading.

She later comments that, “the Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.” This is a common argument for everything from gay marriage to ordaining women and even including the abolition of slavery. But think about what this statement implies. It is essentially saying that since our world is so far removed from what God intended, that God’s word is irrelevant today. But if we are striving to do God’s will and seeking a relationship with him, shouldn’t the opposite be true? Shouldn’t we long for the world to be as God intended and shape our lives to conform to that? (This is different than forcing others to conform, which is a fundamental difference from the Religious Right.)

This is sobering, considering how far our world today as strayed from God’s ideal. Gay marriage aside, regardless of denomination, liberal or conservative, fundamentalist or casual, it’s hard to argue that our culture isn’t overly materialistic (you can’t argue recent headlines), sexual (turn on prime-time TV, or listen to popular music), and selfish (do you know your neighbors by name). Does that mean we should just throw out the Bible altogether? From Ms Miller’s argument, we might as well.

More to come later….