Posts filed under ‘Current Trends’
The Marriage Recession
I’m not surprised, but I am saddened. A recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center confirms what we already know: the estate of marriage has been in decline now for decades and it continues to decline. Richard Fry summarizes the study’s findings:
In 2011, 4.2 million adults were newly married, about the same number as in 2010 and sharply lower than the 4.5 million newlyweds estimated in 2008…The decline in nuptials from 2008 to 2011 is in keeping with a general trend away from marriage in the U.S. Barely half of adults (51%) were married in 2011, according to ACS data, compared with 72% in 1960. Marriage increasingly is being replaced by cohabitation, single-person households and other adult living arrangements.[1]
Two things are striking about Fry’s summary. First, the rapid decline of married households from 1960 to 2011 is astonishing. It represents nothing less than a seismic shift in premium our culture places on marriage. Clearly, the value that people place on marriage has taken a precipitous fall. Second, Fry’s observation that “marriage is increasingly being replaced by cohabitation” is also tremendously significant, for it marks a radical departure from God’s ideal of a covenanted relationship between one man and one woman who share and confront life together (cf. Genesis 2:24).
Of course, there are some who applaud this shift away from marriage toward cohabitation as the inevitable unleashing of a long-suppressed epicurean desire that has finally managed to shake itself free from the asphyxiating antiquated constraints of Victorian mores. What these jubilant celebrants who eagerly preside over marriage’s funeral fail to notice, however, is the disturbing darkness that the decline of marriage reveals in the hearts of humans, not only as it pertains to sexual passions, but as it pertains to a basic lack of concern for others.
One of the blessings of marriage is the commitment it demands. Rather than arbitrarily living with someone to whom there is no formal, long-term, and, indeed, life-long commitment, marriage demands the kind of fidelity that does not shift with better times or with worse times, with riches or with poverty, with sickness or with health. The promises a person makes in his or her marriage vows are to remain firm even when everything else in life is in continual flux. Thus, marriage vows are not primarily for the benefit of the one who makes them, though there are certainly blessings to be found in God-pleasing vows, but for the one who receives what they promise, for the vows focus especially on the interests of the partner to whom they are made. A refusal to make these vows and instead cohabitate can allow some couples to unscrupulously hop from one relationship to the next, discarding any lover who a person feels no longer “meets their needs.” In its worst form, then, cohabitation can amount to little more than rank selfishness on display.
Ultimately, at the same time marriage forges our character, it also reveals our character. Marriage forges our character because it calls us to remain committed to another person even when our natural inclination would tend toward severing a relationship. Marriage reveals our character because whether or not we are willing to enter into such a relationship in the first place says a lot about how willing we are to trade our own self-interest for service to another. Marriage matters – not just because it safeguards the romantic relationships we have, but because it exposes the kind of people we are. My prayer is that more and more people commit to be individuals of fidelity and service rather than sensuality and selfishness.
[1] Richard Fry, “No Reversal in Decline of Marriage,” Pew Research Center (11.20.12).
Where is God in Natural Disasters?
Credit: Charles Sykes, Associated Press
$30 billion. That’s the amount of damage that Superstorm Sandy inflicted on just the state of New York. New Jersey is still tallying the cost of the storm for them. Of course, that is only the price of Sandy in dollars. The price of Sandy in human terms is much higher. More than 110 people lost their lives to the storm. There is also the suffering of the survivors. There is still no power in some areas. Gas, though no longer rationed, is still in short supply. People are still scavenging for basic supplies like toiletries and food. And residents are still picking up the pieces of their shattered homesteads.
Whenever a storm of such magnitude hits, many people begin to wax metaphysical and ask, “Why?” Why did this storm do so much damage? Why did this storm hit in the first place? Why did this storm hit me and ruin my life? Why?
Over the years, Christians have had no shortage of answers – some good and some not-so-good – to the question, “Why?” In Puritan New England, earthquakes were quite common. In 1727, an earthquake of 5.5 on the Richter scale struck the Boston area. In 1755, an even stronger earthquake of 6.2 struck. The pastors of that day took these earthquakes signs of God’s judgment and called people to repent of their sins, specifically the sin of greed. For these clergy, the answer to the “Why?” of natural disasters was quite: God was angry at unrepentant Puritans.[1]
Blessedly, the theological answers given today are usually more nuanced and biblically sensitive, though this is not always the case. (One thinks of Pat Robertson’s theologically inept comments following the Haiti earthquake of 2010 when he claimed the disaster specifically and Haiti’s poverty generally was the result of a pact that Haitians made the with the devil back in 1791.)[2] Generally, however, Christians do not subscribe to such a tit for tat theory of divine retribution. After all, the story of Job unmistakably undermines such a crassly simplistic and moralistic view of retribution.
So what is the answer to the “Why?” of natural disasters, at least as far as God’s involvement is concerned? Two points that will help us gain clarity concerning this question, even it is not fully answerable, are in order.
First, though it is treacherous to point to specific sins as causes of natural disasters, we can point to sin in general as playing a role in natural disasters. This much is clear simply by turning the story of history’s first sin. After Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God says to Adam, “Cursed is the ground because of you…It will produce thorns and thistles for you” (Genesis 3:17-18). Thorns and thistles, hurricanes and tornados, earthquakes and blizzards are all due to the sinfulness of this world. Before the Fall, such things were of no concern. In this way, natural disasters are not natural at all, but unnatural results of sin.
Second, we must remember that our Lord is concerned about and helps those who suffer the devastating effects of natural disasters. I cannot help but think of the short, but poignant, story of Jesus’ disciples when they were caught in a violent storm:
Then Jesus got into the boat and his disciples followed Him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke Him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey Him!” (Matthew 8:23-27)
Jesus’ peaceful sleep while the waves are breaking over the bow of the disciples’ boat is a picture that grips me. For, on the one hand, such a picture encapsulates the feeling of many when a natural disaster devastates their lives. “Where was Jesus when this disaster hit? Why didn’t He stop it? It feels like He was sleeping on the job!” The disciples of the first century, just like us disciples of the twenty-first century, wrestled with such quandaries. But on the other hand, Jesus’ peaceful sleep can be of great comfort. For it reminds us that Jesus is not rattled or roused by the storms and disasters of this world because such storms and disasters have no power over Him. Quite the contrary. He has power over them! This is why, with one little word of rebuke, He can calm the raging wind and waves.
Because Jesus has prevailing sovereignty over creation, we can take refuge in Him, for we know that, even when natural disasters strike, Jesus has everything under control. As the Psalmist reminds us:
God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging. (Psalm 46:1-3)
The earth may give way, the mountains may fall, the storms may come, but this is still our Father’s world. He has it under His control and, even more importantly, He has it under His care.
Do not be afraid.
[1] For a brief history of the Puritan response to natural disasters, see John Fea, “Seeing the Hand of God in Natural Disasters,” Patheos Evangelical (8.31.2011).
[2] For Pat Robertson’s comments, see Ryan Smith, Pat Robertson: “Haiti ‘Cursed’ After ‘Pact to the Devil,’” CBS News (1.13.2010).
A Nation Divided
The headline I saw the day after last Tuesday’s election says it all: “The Divided States of America.” It’s true. We are a nation deeply divided. For evidence of this, I simply had to peruse my Facebook news feed. Wednesday morning, some people were ecstatic and even gloating. Other people were somber and even angry. What made the difference as to how these people felt? Two letters: “R” and “D.” The “D’s” won. And they were happy. The “R’s” lost. And they were, well, you get the picture.
The division in our nation unsettles me. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Remember e pluribus unum? Before 1956, when “In God we trust” was adopted, this was the de facto motto of our country. If only the Latin rang true. But it doesn’t. Partisanship prevails. When I survey our country’s political landscape, I see not e pluribus unum, but e pluribus plures. “Out of many, many.” We are many. And we act like it. We can’t seem to agree on much of anything.
I suppose it was bound to happen. Trying to unify disparate constituencies with such dissimilar ideologies is no small feat. And even if such a conglomerate of communities is unified for a time, such unity never lasts. For humans, thanks to sin, have a proclivity to fracture from each other rather than to walk with each other.
There is an old story about a man who is marooned on a desert island for nearly a decade. One day, mercifully, some rescuers finally come along. Upon arriving, the rescuers find two shacks. Thinking there is another castaway on the island, they ask the man, “Why are there two shacks? Is someone else with you?” “No,” replies the man. “I sleep under the stars. The shack is where I go to church.” “What about the other shack?” inquire the rescuers. “What’s that for?” “Oh,” replies the man with an edge of indignation, “That’s where I used to go to church.” E pluribus plures. It seems humans will always find a way to fracture from each other – even when there’s only one human.
Our nation wants unity. Our unofficial motto preaches it. But it continually eludes us. So what do we do? Where do we go from here?
As Christians, we go to Scripture. For like our nation, the authors of Scripture held unity in high regard. Consider the apostle Paul’s admonition: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). Paul wants us to have unity. The difference between Scripture’s call to unity and our nation’s motto of unity, however, is that whereas our nation takes the many and in vain tries to make them one, Scripture begins with One – God – and looks to Him to unify many. Paul continues in Ephesians:
There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to one hope when you were called – one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)
Paul uses the word “one” seven times in these verses. For Paul knows that God’s dream and desire for us is that we would be “one” – that we would be unified. But rather than taking disparate, dissident factions and striving to unify them by human effort, Paul knows that God unifies people by beginning with Himself – the perfectly unified Godhead who can bring even the most dis-unified people together. True unity is found not in politics, but in our Lord.
Rally around Him.
Election Day 2012 – It’s Almost Here
Election Day is tomorrow. I am, as I’m sure you are, praying for our country and for her leaders. I am also praying that much of the fear that surrounds this election will be calmed by the peace of God that transcends all human understanding (cf. Philippians 4:7).
This week, my blog is a simple one. Yesterday in Adult Bible Class, I talked about Mark 12:13-17 with a special emphasis on what Jesus says about paying taxes and honoring God in verse 17: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” I wanted to put into transcript form (with some slight editing for the sake of readability) my conclusion from Adult Bible Class. For as we head into voting booths across our land, I think it’s important to reiterate what we talked about – that no matter who occupies the Oval Office, there is only one Occupant on the throne of heaven. And that alone should be enough to quell our fears and give us hope. Here is what I said:
I’m going to go on the record today and say that I think it’s time for us to have a smaller government. But when I say that – before you get too excited or too angry depending on your political persuasion – I’m not talking about tax policy and how we’re going to pay for this or that government program. I’m not talking about what social programs we should or should not keep. I’m not talking about whether we should be for or against the Affordable Health Care Act. I’m not talking about the size of government in Washington at all. I’m talking about the size of government in our imaginations. For government – and its attendant greatness or ghoulishness – has captured far too large a place in our hearts and minds.
Here’s what’s happened: whether Republican or Democrat, many people have bought into this myth that if the wrong guy makes it into office – which always happens to be the guy they’re not voting for – that’s the end of the line. That’s the demise of our nation. That’s the disintegration of everything good and moral and noble and righteous in our world. And people get all revved up and riled up, determined to save what is most important to them by getting their guy into office.
Folks, when this happens, you’re not voting for a president, you’re seeking a Messiah. And that job has already been filled.
I love what a New York Times columnist named Ross Douthat writes about this:
The party in power claims to be restoring American greatness; the party out of power insists that the current administration is actually deeply un-American – heretics in the holy temple of the U.S.A., you might say – and promises to take our country back…And the country keeps cycling through savior figures, hoping each time that this one will be the One that we’ve been waiting for.[1]
Folks, the One we’ve been waiting for has already come. And His name is not Barack Obama. His name is not Mitt Romney. His name is Jesus Christ. And, by the way, not only has He come, He’ll come again.
So cast your vote. Be a good citizen. But remember that even if Caesar gets the coins, Jesus holds your heart.
And that’s what matters most.
[1] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (New York: Free Press, 2012), 269.
Being Pharisaical About Being Pharisaical
The other day, I came across an experiment. It was conducted by a Christian guy named Timothy Kurek who, by his own admission, wanted to “shock the Pharisee out of himself.” He had been raised with a quintessentially fundamentalist pedigree, even attending Jerry Falwell’s famed Liberty University as a college student. But something in his fundamentalist upbringing proved profoundly unsettling to him. So he left everything he had known and feigned coming out of the closet as a gay man to his friends and family in an effort to see how his Christian friends would respond to him. Some were loving. Others, sadly, but predictably, skewered him.[1]
As I learned about his experiment, I came to appreciate his moving and sometimes heart-rending experience. What I found somewhat troubling, however, was his characterization of the Pharisees. Tim spoke many of times of his “inner Pharisee” – this voice deep inside his soul full of accusations and vitriol. By the end of his journey, TIm went from having an inner Pharisee to calling himself a “recovering Pharisee.” Part of this journey seems to have included a radical change concerning his conception of sin. He is not nearly so comfortable calling things that have been traditionally called sins, “sins.” After all, this is what Pharisees do. They talk way too much about sin. And he doesn’t want to be like them.
This past weekend at Concordia, we talked about Jesus’ Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. The Pharisee, in Jesus’ telling, represents everything we have come to hate about these religious elites. He comes across as arrogant, judgmental, and outright smarmy in the prayer he offers on the steps of the Jerusalem temple: “God, I thank You that I am not like other men – robbers, evildoers, adulterers – or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get” (Luke 18:11-12). This guy’s bluster is palpable. Yuck.
Did I mention the irony is also deep? Our reflexive response to this parable all too often sounds something like this: “God, I thank You that I am not like other religious hypocrites – Pharisees, Sadducees, creationists – or even like those unenlightened, bigoted fundies who attend Liberty University. I judge not and am smart enough to realize that my Christian witness to the world has to be nuanced and Huffington Post appropriate.”
Somehow, I’m not sure this is what Jesus intended for us to get out of this parable.
The problem with the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable was not that he was religiously conservative, nor was it that he was concerned with sinfulness. Both of those things are fine and, in many instances, even desirable. The problem was that this Pharisee trusted in the wrong righteousness – his own. Luke’s setup of Jesus’ parable makes this clear enough: “To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable” (Luke 12:9).
Sadly, many people see the road to killing their inner Pharisee as one paved by downplaying certain sins, thereby demonstrating themselves in-tune and in-touch with our culture’s zeitgeist. But the road to killing our inner Pharisee cannot be paved in this way. Indeed, Jesus Himself was quite comfortable with much of what the Pharisees said about sin and, many times, thought they did not understand sin deeply enough. Just read the Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or His discussion on human sexuality in Matthew 19:1-12 to see how seriously Jesus took sin. Killing our inner Pharisee is not about redefining sin, but about killing sin by the cross.
So let’s stop trying to slay Pharisees by diminishing sinfulness. That’s simply swapping one form of Pharisee-ism for another. It’s swapping a religious self-righteousness for a cultural self-righteousness. And that simply will not do. For we do not need self-righteousness, we need Jesus’ righteousness. Only His righteousness can cure a Pharisee and save a sinner.
Even a Pharisee and sinner like me.
[1] To learn more of Tim’s story, see Url Scaramanga, “Ur Video: Straight Christian Lives as Gay Man,” outofur.com (10.19.12) and “Timothy Kurek, Straight Christian Man, ‘Comes Out’ And Pretends To Be Gay For A Year,” The Huffington Post (10.13.12).
Your Opinion Doesn’t Matter To Jesus
Last week, I stumbled across a blog post by Matt Chambers that struck me:
Could you imagine what Jesus’ ministry would have looked like if after giving “The Sermon on the Mount” He immediately checked social media to see how many retweets He got, or if #beatitudes was trending?
Or, before riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, He sat down with His creative team to map out exactly how to create a moment people would remember for thousands of years. (#TriumphalEntry, anyone?)
I wonder what opinion polls would have looked like after the crucifixion…or a big throw down with Pharisees…or a mass healing session. What if He healed certain people more than others because data showed healing someone with leprosy went viral (heh, viral) faster than healing the blind?[1]
As we enter into the home stretch of yet another presidential election, it’s important to value and pray for our leaders, for they are given to us by God as Romans 13:1 so aptly reminds us. But it also doesn’t hurt to chuckle a little at the human avenues and inroads that our politicians regularly leverage to try to garner and sustain power – opinion polls being one of them.
I especially appreciate Matt’s reference to Jesus’ Triumphal Entry (cf. John 12:12-15) and trying “to create a moment people would remember for thousands of years.” This year, both political parties tried – using plenty of opinion polls about their presidential candidates’ relative strengths and weaknesses – to do exactly that at their conventions. Though only time will tell, I doubt memories from these conventions will last thousands of days, much less thousands of years. Jesus, as Matt so wryly notes, took no opinion polls, yet Christians across the world still celebrate Palm Sunday to this day. Apparently, Jesus can create a long-lasting moment without consulting polls on what people think of Him.
Currently, I am teaching a Bible study to a couple of different groups on the Old Testament book of Daniel. In chapter two, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon has a dream where he sees a statue made of gold, silver, bronze, and iron mixed with clay. Nebuchadnezzar knows his dream is of consequence, but his astrologers and soothsayers are not able to offer any interpretation of his dream. But Daniel, a Hebrew exile to Babylon, can. Daniel explains that the different materials in the statue represent different kingdoms – the gold being the Babylonian Kingdom, the silver being the Persian Kingdom, the bronze being the Kingdom of Alexander the Great, with the bronze and clay finally signifying the Roman Empire. Most important to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, however, is what happens to all of these kingdoms: “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever” (Daniel 2:44).
Human kingdoms, no matter how many opinion polls their leaders may consult, never manage to endure. The Kingdom of God, ushered in by Jesus, crushes them all, itself enduring forever – even without the benefit of opinion polls. In fact, it endures in spite of really bad opinion polls – opinion polls so poor, in fact, that they got Jesus nailed to a cross.
As Election Day draws near, we’ll watch kingdoms be built and coalitions of constituents be congealed. But in the midst of all the political intrigue, let’s not forget to which Kingdom we pledge our ultimate allegiance. For that Kingdom has staying power that will last far beyond November 6. That Kingdom will last forever.
[1] Matt Chambers, “First Church of Public Opinion,” www.outofur.com (9.25.12).
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
From CBS News: “An armed man waves his rifle as buildings and cars are engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11, 2012.”
Libya. Yemen. Egypt. Last week was a rough one on the other side of the world. First, in an attack deliberately timed to correspond to the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, Libyan Islamists staged a military-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, killing the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, along with three other Americans. On Thursday, Islamist protesters stormed the U.S. Embassy in Yemen. Riots also erupted in Egypt, with people climbing into the embassy compound in central Cairo and ripping down the American flag.
One of the inciting factors of these protests is an obscure movie with a less than positive portrayal of the Muslim prophet Muhammad titled, “The Innocence of Muslims.” Clips from the low-budget film have been making their rounds in cyberspace for weeks. In the movie, Muhammad is portrayed a womanizing, homosexual, child-abuser. For many Muslims, any depiction of Muhammad is blasphemous – hence, the reason for these violent protests.
As I have watched these protests unfold, two things have struck me. First, I have been struck by the fact that our Constitutional right to free speech does not carry with it a guarantee that such speech will be charitable or even accurate. As Christians, we are called speak charitably and accurately to and about others not because our Constitution legislates it, but because Holy Scripture commands it. As the apostle Peter reminds us, “In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. 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” (1 Peter 3:15). Patently offensive and inflammatory caricatures of other religions, though not civically illegal, are certainly theologically sinful. After all, we, as Christians, do not appreciate having our faith lambasted by flimsy straw-men half-truths. So we ought never do the same thing to other faiths nor should we encourage others who do.
Second, I have been struck by the intolerance – in fact, the violent intolerance – of these Islamist protesters. These protestors breach embassies and kill ambassadors who have no relation whatsoever to those who made this outlandish film except that they all happen to be citizens of the same country. This makes no sense to me. And yet, for a few too many people, it seems to make all too much sense. The headlines tell the story.
In the face of such intolerance, it is important to remember that Christians uphold the value of tolerance and its significance in public life. Granted, the Christian conception of tolerance is not that same as its secular counter-conception. Christians consistently do and have accepted the existence of different points of view. We know that not everyone believes as we do. Moreover, in general, we do not support the suppression – especially the violent suppression – of different points of view. In this sense, then, we believe in “free speech.” What is troublesome for Christians is not tolerance in this sense, but the secular conception of tolerance which not only advocates for acceptance of the existence of different views, but demands the acceptance of the truthfulness of these different views. D.A. Carson explains this tolerance well:
The new [secular] tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid.[1]
Of course, the great irony of this tolerance is that if one refuses to accept this definition of tolerance or play by its rules, that person will not be tolerated! As Leslie Armour, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Ottawa, wryly noted, “Our idea is that to be a virtuous citizen is to be one who tolerates everything except intolerance.”[2]
One of the most striking lessons in true tolerance comes from Jesus in His Parable of the Weeds. Jesus tells of a master who plants some wheat. But while everyone is sleeping, the master’s enemy sneaks in and sows weeds with the wheat. When the master’s servants see what has happened, they ask, “Do you want us to go and pull them up?” But the master replies, “Let both grow together until the harvest” (Matthew 13:28, 30). The master in this parable, of course, is Jesus. The wheat are those who trust in Him while the weeds are those who reject Him. But rather than immediately destroying those who reject Him, Jesus is tolerant: He allows the weeds to grow with the wheat. Martin Luther comments on this parable:
Observe what raging and furious people we have been these many years, in that we desired to force others to believe; the Turks with the sword, heretics with fire, the Jews with death, and thus outroot the tares by our own power, as if we were the ones who could reign over hearts and spirits, and make them pious and right, which God’s Word alone must do.[3]
Violent oppression of those with whom we disagree is not an option for the Christian, Luther asserts. He goes on to state that if we violently deal with someone who is not a Christian and kill him or her, we take away that person’s chance to trust Christ and be saved by Him. We thus work against the gospel rather than for it. This echoes Paul’s sentiment in Romans where he speaks of God’s tolerance as kindness which leads to repentance (cf. Romans 2:4).
Finally, Christianity teaches an even higher virtue than just tolerance – it teaches love. And after a week that has seen so much hatred, perhaps that is what we need to share with our world.
Sex That Shouldn’t Sell…But It Does
It may be a cliché, but it is most certainly true: sex sells. Just ask Barnes and Noble. Jeffrey Trachtenberg of The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the quarterly sales of the last remaining brick and mortar chain bookstore giant and noted that the numbers of its retail stores were up – 2% to $1.1 billion. Trachtenberg cites two reasons for this impressive growth. First, Barnes and Noble is reaping the benefits of the recent bankruptcy and closure of Borders. Apparently, many Borders’ customers have found their way to Barnes and Noble. But the second cause has nothing to do with corporate competition. Instead, it has everything to do with sexual infatuation. E.L. James’ bestselling hotly erotic trilogy with its flagship novel, Fifty Shades of Grey, is cited by the company in a public report as “a key revenue driver at its retail stores.”[1] A racy trilogy is singlehandedly driving sales at a major book retailer…way up. And that book retailer explains in an official ccorporate report that a racy trilogy is driving its sales way up…gladly.
This report from Barnes and Noble is sadly indicative of the spirit of our society. It is not just that we are fascinated by sex, it is that we are fascinated by that which has been traditionally sexually forbidden. The racier and the raunchier something is, the more piqued our collective cultural curiosity becomes.
What is especially notable about Fifty Shades is that it is erotica aimed at women. Traditionally, pornography has been marketed to men, with stunningly and sadly successful results. Indeed, pornography addiction has been generally considered to be a male problem rather than a female one. With the Fifty Shades trilogy, however, we learn that women seem to be just as vulnerable to the pornography industry, though instead of featuring lewd pictures, this pornography finds its hook in spicy storylines.
Now more than ever, Christian believers must stand up for a biblical sexual ethic – and not because we can self-righteously claim to be free from sexual sin, for Jesus makes it clear in His Sermon on the Mount that none of us are innocent of sexual immorality (cf. Matthew 5:27-28), but because the Christian sexual ethic tells the truth about human sexuality. Contrary to the vulgar verbal voyeurism encouraged by explicit bestselling novels, sex is more than biological arousal and satisfaction. Instead, it is meant to be an expression of fidelity and unity, blessing husbands and wives with the gift of not only pleasure, but children. Sex is meant to be a valuable gift rather than a cheap thrill. And it is supposed to honor human dignity rather than degrade it (cf. Romans 1:24).
Perhaps the heart and soul of the Bible’s sexual ethic is best summed up in a single verb: “know.” Time and time again, the Bible uses this verb as a euphemistic way to refer to sexual intimacy:
- “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain” (Genesis 4:1).
- “Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch” (Genesis 4:17).
- “Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the LORD remembered her” (1 Samuel 1:19).
This verb reminds us that sex is meant for husbands and wives to know each other more deeply and connect to each other more intimately. It is not meant for near strangers to grope each other in quest of some cut-rate erotic fantasy. Sex is far more valuable than that. And so are the people who engage in it. Will you stand up for the value of sex and for the dignity of the people whom God has created as sexual beings?
[1] Jeffrey Trachtenberg, “‘Fifty Shades’ of Books” (The Wall Street Journal, 8.21.12).
Chafed Over Chick-fil-A
The firestorm is burning white hot. And it didn’t take much to spark it either. All it took was a passing statement from Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy in an interview with the Baptist Press:
We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.[1]
Cathy’s qualification of “family” as “the biblical definition of the family unit” upset and offended many of those who support same-sex marriage, which, by all traditional Christian accounts, falls outside the pale of “the biblical definition of the family unit.”[2] But Cathy wasn’t backing down. In an appearance on “The Ken Coleman Show,” Cathy solidified his stance:
I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, “We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage,” and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.[3]
The reactions to these two statements have predictably ranged from the genuinely offended to the bombastically outrageous. Equality Illinois, an LGBT advocacy group, plans a “kiss-in,” akin to the “sit-ins” of the 1960’s civil rights movement, in front of selected Chick-fil-A’s to protest Cathy’s statements. The group has also launched a “Flick the Hate” campaign, saying, “Rather than spend money at hateful businesses like Chick-fil-A, support businesses that support LGBT rights.”[4] Rosanne Barr tweeted, “Anyone who eats *Expletive* Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ.”[5] She later apologized for her incendiary statement. Then there was Juliet Jeske, a comedian, who posed the perennial hermeneutical quandary: “I don’t quite understand how Christians who cite these six scant verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality conveniently ignore some of the more extreme laws. How is one verse the ‘WORD OF GOD’ and another discarded as being out-of-date?”[6] She cites a slew of peculiar-sounding passages from Leviticus and opines on why Christians no longer follow the Good Book’s restrictions concerning menstruating women and clothing made of more than one fabric while insisting on following the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexuality. If she is interested in the answer to her conundrum, I would suggest she read Tim Keller’s insightful article, “Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency.’” Considering how many times this question concerning the so-called “inconsistent” application of the Bible has been raised, however, and how many times it has been answered – quite well, I would add – I have begun to wonder if this article, and others like it, is not more of a cheap shot at Christian biblical interpretation rather than a genuine question about Christian biblical interpretation.
What disturbs me most about the Chick-fil-A controversy is not Cathy’s statements, for the immorality of all sex outside the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman is a longstanding Christian tenant. Nor do the objections of many in the LGBT community to Cathy’s statement disturb me, for such objections are to be expected. What disturbs me most about this controversy is the eventual response of Chick-fil-A as a corporation to the stir. The company issued a statement that read in part, “Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”[7] Though people may debate whether or not it is prudent for COO’s of large corporations to express their theological convictions to news outlets that often make a habit out of subjecting theological convictions to the acerbic accusations of public opinion, I would submit that Chick-fil-A made precisely the wrong move when it so willingly relinquished this debate to the arena of government and politics.
At its heart, the debate over homosexuality and gay marriage is not a political debate, but a moral one. To relegate this debate to the realm of politics and wrangling legislators is to cheapen it and, ultimately, to give it less consideration and credence than it deserves. Moral debate should not be settled by majority vote, but by robust and respectful conversation grounded in something steadier and more transcultural than November’s ballot box – something like Holy Scripture for Christians, or, in broader society, natural, moral law.[8] Morality by democracy can lead only to disaster, for it encourages people to breezily act according to what is right in their own eyes (cf. Judges 17:6).
The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, had it at least partially right when he said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.”[9] Though, as a Christian, I heartily disagree with Rahm Emanuel’s values as they pertain to same-sex marriage, on this much we find common ground: this is about values and morals, not politics and opinion polls. Let’s not turn it into anything less.
[1] K. Allan Blume, “‘Guilty as charged,’ Cathy says of Chick-fil-A’s stand on biblical & family values,” Baptist Press (7.16.12).
[2] Read Concordia’s stance on same-sex marriage in “A Pastoral Statement on President Obama’s Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage.”
[3] As cited in “Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President, On Anti-Gay Stance: ‘Guilty As Charged,’” The Huffington Post (7.17.12).
[5] Cited in Paul Bond, “Roseanne Barr Responds to Critics After Controversial Chick-fil-A Tweet,” The Hollywood Reporter (7.26.12).
[6] Juliet Jeske, “Chick-Fil-A, Do You Really Want to Run Your Company on Biblical Values?” The Huffington Post (7.26.12).
[7] Cited in Shan Li, “Chick-fil-A steps out of public debate on gay marriage,” The Los Angeles Times (7.19.12).
[8] An examination of same-sex marriage in light of natural, moral law can be found in “A Pastoral Statement on President Obama’s Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage.”
[9] Cited in Bill Barrow, “Chick-fil-A sandwiches become a political symbol,” The Associated Press (7.27.12).
Hope in the Midst of a Colorado Tragedy
The Century 16 Theatre at which James Holmes opened fire during the movie, “Batman: The Dark Knight Rises.”
When 24 year-old neuroscience Ph.D. candidate dropout James Holmes burst into an Aurora, Colorado theatre at a midnight premier of “Batman: The Dark Knight Rises” in full tactical gear with a semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol, packing as many as 6,000 rounds, the carnage was nearly instant. Twelve are dead. Over fifty are wounded.
Almost immediately, investigators sprung into action, trying to answer the same question they always try to answer after an act of senseless violence like this: “Why?” So far, Holmes hasn’t left us much to go on.
One of the things that strikes me about this mass shooting is how utterly elusive Holmes’ motive seems to be. He has no Facebook page to scour for clues. He has no Twitter account to review. He didn’t host a blog. He wasn’t connected to anyone on LinkedIn. In an era of ubiquitous social media, investigators have not been able to turn to any of these standard-fare communal clearinghouses for insight into this man’s mind. His police record has left investigators just as mystified. One traffic violation in 2011. That’s it. No arrests. No prior investigations. Nothing that would lead officers to believe this man could or would explode in a rampage of mass murder.
The L.A. Times has been hard at work trying to understand Holmes’ motive, interviewing several people who knew him, albeit not very well. Here is how they describe him:
- “A generally pleasant guy…James was certainly not someone I would have ever imagined shooting somebody.” – James Goodwin, high school classmate
- “He was very quiet…He was a nice guy when you did occasionally talk to him. But he was definitely more introverted.” – Tori Burton, fellow with the National Institutes of Health
- “A super-nice kid…kinda quiet…really smart…He didn’t seem like a troublemaker at all. He just seemed like he wanted to get in and out, and go to college.” – Dan Kim, UC San Diego student[1]
The portrait of Holmes, even if not particularly profound, is incredibly consistent. He was nice. He was smart. He was studious. He was introverted. And he did what? He massacred how many?
Jesus says to the religious leaders of His day, “On the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness” (Matthew 23:28). Jesus knew the goodness a person presents on the outside often conflicts with the darkness he harbors on the inside. And as it was with the religious leaders, so it is with James Holmes. On the outside, Holmes looked like a bright, promising Ph.D. student. But on the inside, as we are now learning, he was full of dark aspiration.
The Bible has a word for this conflict between a person’s externally righteous appearance and his internally depraved heart: hypocrisy. This is why Jesus begins His diatribe against the religious leaders by saying, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites” (Matthew 23:13)! In the ancient world, a “hypocrite” was an actor – someone who put on a mask to perform in a play. Though the actor presented himself as one person on stage, he was, in reality, another person in his day-to-day life.
What is so sad about James Holmes is that, as he burst into that theatre filled with moviegoers, he was not necessarily being hypocritical, at least in a theological sense. Instead, he was – as the doctrine of human depravity makes all too horrifyingly clear – just being himself. He was carrying out in a shower of gunfire the sin that, exacerbated by what seems to be an apparent mental illness, had been smoldering in his heart for a long time. And lest we pontificate on Holmes’ wickedness from a position of self-righteous arrogance, we must remember that the same depraved root of sinfulness that lives in Holmes’ heart lives in every human heart – even in our hearts. As the prophet Jeremiah soberly says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it” (Jeremiah 17:9)?
In a situation as devastating as this one, Christians are in a unique position both to minister to the hurting on the one hand and to speak honestly about the depth of human wickedness on the other. To the hurting – especially to those who have lost loved ones – we can offer a shoulder to cry on and a message of hope: “Christ conquers death!” To those who ask “Why?” we can respond with one, simple word: “sin.” Sin led to this act. Sin leads to all wicked acts. Sin leads to our wicked acts. But, like with death, Christ conquers sin.
As this story continues to unfold, we are sure to learn more about the gunman – his background, his possible motive, and, perhaps, his personal demons. But no matter how much we may learn about his past, we cannot change the past. Loved ones will still be lost. Survivors will still bear physical and emotional scars from that dreadful night. And the hearts of so many will still be broken. The past will stand as it is right now: tragic. Only Christ can take this terrible moment from our past and redeem it in the future – when He calls those who trust in Him to rise from death to eternal life, unscarred and unmarred even by a gunman’s bullets. And so in our distress, we hope and trust in Him. What else can we do?
[1] “Complex portrait emerges of suspected Colorado gunman James Holmes,” Los Angeles Times (7.20.12).
Pastor Zach's Blog 