Same-Sex Marriage, Transgenderism, and Oppression
It was the fourth-century church father Gregory of Nazianzus who wrote of God:
The three most ancient conceptions concerning God are Anarchia, Polyarchia, and Monarchia … Anarchy is a thing without order; and Polyarchy is like civil war, and thus anarchical, and thus disorderly. For both of these tend toward the same thing, namely disorder; and this to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution. But Monarchy is that which we hold in honor.[1]
Gregory is speaking here of the Trinity and is making the point that the persons of the Godhead are not independent of each other and unconcerned with each other in a kind of divine anarchy, nor are they vying for power against each other as in a polyarchy. Rather, God is a monarchy – at perfect peace in Himself as three persons and one God. This is why the apostle Paul can describe the nature of God as “not a God of disorder but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Order is essential to the nature and character of God. And the order of God shows up in that which He creates. What God creates during the first three days of creation, for instance, are filled in a very orderly fashion by what He creates in the second three days of creation (cf. Genesis 1:1-26). When God makes human beings, he orders them as “male and female” (Genesis 1:27). When God assigns humans work, He creates an order that places people as the crown and the stewards of what He has made (cf. Genesis 1:28-30). And when God creates human relations, He outlines an order by which “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
Recently, the transgender movement has been grabbing headline after headline. A simple search on The New York Times website revealed that, in one 24-hour period, the paper ran 19 stories dealing with transgender concerns. This comes on the heels of a pitched battle over same-sex marriage last year. In both cases, these battles have been framed in terms of oppression. To deprive gay couples of the ability to legally marry was oppressive, same-sex marriage advocates argued. To ask questions about whether or not a person’s internal gender identification can be unflinchingly determinative of someone’s being as a male or female has also been called oppressive and discriminatory. In light of such oppression, the argument has gone, what is needed is freedom – freedom to marry whoever you like and freedom to be the gender you perceive yourself as, even if your biological sex does not match your internal orientation.
Because freedom is such an integral part of the American ethos, to argue against freedom – whether that be the freedom to marry or the freedom to transition from a male to a female or a female to a male – seems almost sacrilegious. But what if our starting category for these debates over same-sex marriage and transgenderism needs shifting? What if we need to begin by asking questions not about oppression, but about order? What if the orderliness of God and of His creation really does have a bearing on the way we order our lives – not in an oppressive way, but in a graciously protective way?
If not being able to marry who you want and live as the gender you internally identify as is oppressive, then it makes sense to push toward freedom. Freedom is, after all, generally a good thing. But if these strictures are not about oppression, but about order, then to push against them is not to strive for freedom, but to create chaos. And chaos can be disastrous.
Scripture is clear that true freedom must be guided by Godly order. In the words of the apostle Paul, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17). It is the orderly Spirit who must be present to give and to guide good freedom. Freedom without such order degenerates into chaos. And, as any number of Middle Eastern countries can tell you, chaos makes a society ripe for an oppressor. To deny a Godly order is to invite an oppressive orderer.
In our current discussions over transgenderism and same-sex marriage, it is perhaps worth it to ask ourselves as Christians: for what are we striving? Are we striving to oppress, marginalize, and stigmatize the LGBT community, which has, sadly, admittedly happened in the past, or are we striving to call all people to a helpful order for their lives? The first goal is clearly self-righteous and sinful. But the second is Godly and needed – even if many outside the Church don’t see it that way.
_______________________
[1] Gregory of Naziansus, Select Orations 29:2
The Baylor Scandal: Reflections on Human Sexuality
Credit: sportsday.dallasnews.com
Art Briles began his career at Baylor in 2007 when the football program was the pitiable laughingstock of the Big 12. But since 2011, Briles led the Bears to a 50-15 record. The team went from being the doormats of the Big 12 to being the darlings. But while he was winning games, Briles was also covering up sexual assaults by his players.
The details of Baylor University’s sexual assault scandal are shocking. ESPN’s Outside the Lines reports that, in several instances:
School officials either failed to investigate, or failed to adequately investigate, allegations of sexual violence. In many cases, officials did not provide support to those who reported assaults, in apparent violation of Title IX federal law … Baylor did not investigate a sexual assault report made against football players Tre’Von Armstead and Shamycheal Chatman for more than two years, despite the school’s obligation to do so under federal law. They never faced charges.[1]
In another report, Outside the Lines told the story of a victim who, when she reported to university officials that she had been assaulted, was told, “There is nothing we can do, because the assault happened off campus.”[2] In a particularly disturbing twist, it was also revealed that Baylor recruited defensive end Sam Ukwuachu, even though “officials either knew, or should have known, that Ukwuachu had a history of violent incidents at Boise State.”[3]
All this has led not only to Art Briles’ dismissal, but to Athletic Director Ian McCaw’s sanctioning and to University President Ken Starr’s demotion. It seems as though a desire to win football games overshadowed the basic moral imperative to make sure the players of the team behaved nobly – both on and off the field. Human dignity and decency was sacrificed at the altar of winning seasons and bids to bowl games.
It is a tragedy that the university administration did not address these horrific acts of sexual violence quickly and forcefully. But it is an even deeper tragedy that such acts happened in the first place. That any person is ever raped betrays the fact that our society fundamentally misunderstands and distorts sex. It is time for us to remember what sex is and what it is for. So let me state this as a clearly as I can:
Sex is meant and designed by God to be a servant.
All too often, sex is treated as an end to itself. It is a pleasure to be chased. It is a thrill to be had. In the case of these Baylor football players, it seems as though it became a right to be demanded. In the wake of the LGBT movement, sex has become a cornerstone of a person’s identity to be celebrated. But sex is none of these things.
Sex is meant and designed by God to be a servant.
Sex was never designed by God to be an end all or a be all. Instead, it was given to us by Him to serve other, greater purposes. Here are three of those other, greater purposes.
1. Sex is meant and designed by God to serve unity.
There is a reason why, when the apostle Paul warns against committing sexual immorality with prostitutes, he asks, “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body” (1 Corinthians 6:16)? Paul asks this because he knows that sexual intimacy unites people in a powerful way. Despising such unification by sleeping around before marriage or committing adultery while married does not empower people sexually. It diminishes their dignity.
2. Sex is meant and designed by God to serve procreation.
The biology of this statement is self-evident enough, as a bit of reflection on our very existence, in conjunction with a visit to the maternity ward of any hospital, will reveal. But this biological reality has its roots in a divine creative arrangement. When God creates men and women, He commands them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). God gives sex, at least in part, for procreation. And though sex does not always result in children, to casually reject sex’s procreative possibility altogether is to reject one of God’s goals for sex itself.
3. Sex is meant and designed by God to serve your spouse.
This, finally, is why rape is so dreadful. Rape is heinously and hideously selfish. An intimacy that is meant to be a way to serve, honor, love, and cherish one’s spouse is taken as a way to engorge and indulge a lustful desire. Such a use of sex is tragic – and evil.
Ultimately, the Baylor sexual assaults – along with their concealment – are only symptoms of a deeper problem. Our culture’s view of human sexuality has turned selfish. We don’t want to serve unity, so we have sex outside of marriage. We don’t want to be bothered with children, so we go to extraordinary lengths to prevent – or even to terminate – pregnancy. We don’t even want to serve the very person with whom we are being intimate, so we rape or, at the very least, engage in listless, loveless, mechanical sex. This is where selfish sex has gotten us.
Baylor’s administration covered up sexual assault. And now, many in that administration are forced to pay a steep price for their sins with their jobs, their reputations, and their futures. Perhaps it is time for us, as a society, to stop making excuses for and covering up selfish sex before we too incur a steep price for our sins. For selfish sex cannot only take a toll on our bodies in the forms of pain and disease, but on our souls in the forms of broken hearts and regret.
Sex is meant for better than that. And we are in need of better than that.
________________________
[1] Paula Lavigne and Mark Schlabach, “Police records detail several more violence allegations against Baylor football players,” ESPN (5.19.2016).
[2] Paula Lavigne, “Baylor faces accusations of ignoring sex assault victims,” ESPN (2.2.2016).
[3] Jessica Luther and Dan Solomon, “Silence at Baylor,” Texas Monthly (8.20.2015).
Venezuelan Victims
As our national attention is riveted on a myriad of local stories, most of which are political in nature, the people of Venezuela are languishing. In what is perhaps one of the most underreported stories of this year, Venezuelans are on the brink of staging an all out revolt. Tensions are so high in this volatile South American nation that even the future of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro is uncertain.
A confluence of calamities has brought the country to the brink of collapse. Plummeting crude oil prices have pilfered Venezuela’s economy and a severe drought has strained the nation’s hydroelectric power supply, forcing the government to enact rolling blackouts and enforce a two-day work week just to save power. Along with these troubles, food is becoming scarce and medical care is becoming even poorer than it already was. A headline from The New York Times says it all: “Dying Infants and No Medicine: Inside Venezuela’s Failing Hospitals.”
Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis is something that deserves and demands our attention and thoughtfulness. There are lessons to be learned here.
We can learn that corruption – no matter how powerful it may seem for a season – cannot stand. Like Hugo Chavez before him, Mr. Maduro is a corrupt head of a corrupt government. By one count, government officials there have stolen some $350 billion public tax dollars, using them to line their personal pockets. Outside economic factors certainly play a roll in Venezuela’s high poverty rate, but the government isn’t helping matters. Venezuela’s politicians are stealing from their own people, taxing them into poverty while they live in luxury. And the people have had enough. And they are revolting.
The apostle Paul reminds us that the government is “that which God has established” (Romans 13:1). And this is certainly true. God establishes governing authorities and we are to respect and pray for them. But, to borrow a phrase from Job, “The LORD gives, and the LORD takes away” (Job 1:21). If history is any indication, the Lord has no problem wresting power from governments that would misuse and abuse their authority against their own people. And the Venezuelan government’s turn for downfall – with Mr. Maduro at its head – may be coming soon.
It is also important to point out that human crises, no matter how foreign or far away they may seem from our perspective, cry out for our compassion and attention. Scenes of cold incubators and critically wounded people in squalid conditions betray not only the incompetence and corruption of a government that demands our repudiation, but the pain and fear of a people who deserve our compassion. Stories of people’s pain – even if they’re a hemisphere away – demand our engagement.
All this is to say that Venezuela needs a change. What is happening there now cannot continue. Americans, understandably, have not been all too friendly with the Venezuelan government. And this is wise. Cozying up to corruption, after all, only breeds and makes one complicit in further corruption. Furthermore, sending relief to the Venezuelan people is complicated. What we send often ends up in the wrong hands. But even with these complicating factors, the Venezuelan people are hurting. And as such, they deserve our notice – and our prayers.
May they find the relief, the resources, and the freedom they seek.
Of Quibbles and Quarrels
Last week, I had the privilege of having dinner with a well-known Christian author. I talked to him about his career, what inspired him to get into writing, and what he’s thinking about these days. I also talked to him about his most popular book, which was published several years ago. In it, he addresses some of the challenging questions the Church needs to answer as our society continues to drift into a morally post-Christian morass. As we were talking about his book and the challenges he raises in it, he shared that he had received plenty of hate mail when his book was first published, accusing him of everything from heresy to being a tool of the devil himself. I couldn’t help but grimace. I myself do not agree with everything this author has written, but I hardly think of him as a heretic or a spawn of Satan. I simply process some of the challenges the Church is facing a little differently than he does.
Sadly, the ways we address differences in our society have become increasingly polemicized as our ability to have civil, thoughtful, and helpful conversations has become progressively nominalized. This is especially true in politics, as any comments section on a political article or political Facebook post will indicate. But it is also true in other areas that span from philosophy to morality to theology. We are no longer able to respond measuredly to someone with whom we disagree.
It is useful to remember that there is a difference between a quibble and a quarrel. A quibble is a point of concern that needs to be addressed. A quarrel is spawned by a dangerous and damaging falsity that demands a repudiation. People who are willing to quibble, rather than quarrel, with us are important because they serve to sharpen our thinking and hone our worldview. Solomon explains the value of quibbling with a metaphor: “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). Quibbling can, at times, seem to be little more than nitpicking. But when it is received graciously, it can be invaluably helpful.
The problem is that too many people are too quick to take quibbles and turn them into quarrels. Among some Christians, for instance, heresy is no longer defined by teachings that fly in the face of the ecumenical creeds, but by whether a person uses a version of the Bible that is not King James or by whether a person believes that it’s okay for a congregation to be even selectively purpose-driven. In these instances, we would do well to remember the words the apostle Paul: “Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9). In other words, don’t take quibbles and turn them into quarrels.
In the case of the author with whom I had dinner, most of the quarrels about his book centered around his critiques of the Church, in which he can seem to imply, at times, a decrease in the Church’s value. Frankly, I too am concerned by any argument that would somehow diminish the Church. The Church is, after all, the Bride of Christ. I still don’t think, however, that this author is a spawn of Satan. I also know, if the fruit of his career is any indication, that he loves the Church and seeks to serve the Church with everything in him, even as he critiques it. Indeed, his love for the Church is probably why he critiques it. So perhaps a robust discussion of the nuances of his ecclesiology is needed before we launch into accusations of heresy.
Ultimately, making a quarrel out of a quibble robs us of the opportunity sharpen each other because we’re too busy bludgeoning each other. So if you aspire to serve the Lord, keep these words in mind: “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful” (2 Timothy 2:24).
The next time you disagree with someone, there’s a verse to remember – and practice.
The Price of Mercy
If I was David, I would have been tempted to say, “The devil made me do it.”
When “Satan rises up against Israel and incites David to take a census of Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:1), David can’t resist the opportunity to figure out just how big and powerful his empire really is. David, it seems, has become more prone to glorifying his nation than he is to glorifying his God. But the Lord is not pleased. So “He punishes Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:7).
David may be easily conned by folly, but, in this instance, he is also a man of quick repentance: “I have sinned greatly by doing this. Now, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing” (1 Chronicles 21:8). God answers by giving David three options for punishment. Israel can (1) endure three years of famine; (2) endure three months of attacks from surrounding enemies; or (3) suffer three days of attacks by the Lord Himself against Israel. David chooses option three, citing this reasoning: “Let me fall into the hands of the LORD, for His mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into human hands” (1 Chronicles 21:13).
God gets to work. In a flash, 70,000 people die. David’s census numbers must be amended. God then sends His angel to destroy Jerusalem, but “as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, ‘Enough! Withdraw your hand’” (1 Chronicles 21:15). It is at this point that it becomes clear that what David has said about God is true of God: His mercy really is very great. Three days would have been more than enough time for God to destroy everything. But instead, God preserves most things.
David, however, is not convinced that God’s tour of destruction has ended. So he cries out to God, “Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I, the shepherd, have sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? LORD my God, let Your hand fall on me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on Your people” (1 Chronicles 21:17). To a God who David has just called “merciful,” David offers his blood. David may say God is merciful, but he doesn’t really seem to trust in His mercy.
But God does have mercy – even for David. Indeed, God, mercifully, does not ask for David’s blood. But He does ask for an altar and a sacrifice: “Then the angel of the LORD ordered Gad to tell David to go up and build an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite” (1 Chronicles 21:18). So David goes to Araunah who offers both his land and all the materials needed as a gift to David so he can make his offering. But David refuses Araunah’s gift: “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the LORD what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering that costs me nothing” (1 Chronicles 21:24). David deems it unacceptable to offer to God a sacrifice that costs him nothing.
But why?
Abraham didn’t seem to have any problem offering God a sacrifice that cost him nothing when, in place of his son Isaac, he offered a ram caught in the thicket – a ram that God Himself provided. And the very sacrifice to end all sacrifices – the sacrifice of God’s Son – cost humanity nothing even as it cost God everything. The best sacrifices, it seems, are the ones that come as gifts.
God acts mercifully toward David when He tells him to go the field of a man who will offer everything David needs to make a sacrifice, but David can’t quite bring himself to receive the gift. He’d rather pay. David may call God merciful, but again, he doesn’t really seem ready to rejoice in His mercy.
It is true that sacrifices can be costly for those who offer them. Indeed, sometimes, sacrifices should be costly for those who offer them. Such sacrifices can stretch us and help us grow in our faith. But sacrifices can also come as free gifts. And it’s not wise to despise a gift.
How often do we, like David, confess God to be merciful as a matter of doctrinal truth, but then refuse the very mercy that God tries to give? We’d rather pay.
God received David’s sacrifice, even though David did not receive Araunah’s gift: “The LORD answered David with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering” (1 Chronicles 21:26). But I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if rather than saying to Araunah, “Let me pay!” David simply said, “Thank you.” I can’t help but wonder if God would have been pleased with David’s sacrifice just the same.
The apostle Paul writes, “I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your true and proper worship” (Romans 12:1). A holy and pleasing sacrifice does not require a payment from us. Rather, a holy and pleasing sacrifice can simply flow from the mercy of God.
So the next time God is merciful to you (which should be in no time at all), remember to receive His mercy. You don’t need to pay. You can just say, “Thank you.”
Ministry Myth: Jesus Always Addressed Felt Needs
A while back, I was in a meeting with church leaders from across the country who are devoted to bringing Christ’s gospel to all nations. In our discussions, one of these leaders pointed out that, as important as church programs and friendly atmospheres may be for engaging people who don’t know Christ, ultimately, what reaches people is the preaching of the gospel. “It is the Word of God,” he said, “that touches and transforms hearts.” To this, another person replied, “Yes, the gospel is important. But we can’t start with the gospel because the gospel alone won’t reach people. We need to begin with people’s felt needs. Jesus always began with people’s felt needs.”
Well, yes He did…except when He didn’t.
Like the time a paralytic’s friends brought him to Jesus. Jesus saw that they had faith enough to bring their friend to Him for healing. But He did not respond to their felt need for healing – at least not right away. Instead, He said, “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). Jesus dealt with this man’s deeper need – his need for forgiveness – before He dealt with this man’s felt need – his need to be healed from his paralysis.
Or how about the time one of Jesus’ dearest friends – a man named Lazarus – fell ill? His sisters, Mary and Martha, begged Jesus to hurry over and heal him. But Jesus did not meet their need. Instead, He intentionally let His dear friend die. Why? So that Jesus could address humanity’s deeper need – the need to be rescued from death – which far outweighs the felt need of being temporarily healed from a frustrating ailment. This is why Jesus says to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in Me will never die” (John 11:25-26).
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that Jesus never began by addressing people’s felt needs. After all, He fed a crowd of 5,000 by miraculously multiplying loaves of bread before declaring Himself to be the bread of life (cf. John 6:1-35). He began with a felt need for physical food before He moved to a deeper need for heavenly food. Jesus does sometimes initiate an engagement by addressing people’s felt needs. However, Jesus does not always begin this way. Indeed, sometimes, He flat out denies people’s felt needs as He challenges them with their deeper needs.
The problem with felt needs is that, often, felt needs are not helpful needs. Sometimes, felt needs can even be sinfully selfish needs. Jesus has little interest in meeting our felt needs for riches, for ease, and even for happiness. Thus, for us to begin and base our ministries on what people think they need, and then to try to meet those needs before we share Jesus, can devolve, if we are not careful, into merely enabling sin.
I have learned over the years that Jesus has a funny way of resisting the easy ministry models we like to apply to Him. To those who say that Jesus always begins by addressing people’s felt needs so they will be open to the gospel, I must say, “I think you’re wrong.” But then again, to those who say that Jesus never begins by addressing people’s felt needs as a foray to share the gospel, I also must say, “I think you’re wrong.” Jesus does both.
We should too.
Perhaps we would do well to learn to pray a slightly modified version of Reinhold Niebuhr’s famous, though contested, Serenity Prayer as we seek to faithfully reach the world with the gospel: “God, grant me the tenderness to address people’s felt needs at certain times, the boldness to challenge them with their deepest needs at other times, and the wisdom to know when to do which.”
That’s my prayer as I seek to reach out with the gospel. Will you join me in praying the same?
It’s Not About Gay Rights Versus Religious Freedom
Frank Bruni, columnist for The New York Times, has written a refreshingly honest, even if somewhat frightening, piece in response to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana, which was signed into law last month by Governor Mike Pence. The Act prohibits “a governmental entity [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion.”[1] LGBT groups are furious, arguing that this Act will open the door for Christian business owners to discriminate against LGBT people by refusing to offer them certain services because these business owners will be able to claim that offering these services, particularly services that have to do with same-sex weddings, would violate their religious tenets.
Mr. Bruni offers the following take:
The drama in Indiana last week and the larger debate over so-called religious freedom laws in other states portray homosexuality and devout Christianity as forces in fierce collision.
They’re not – at least not in several prominent denominations, which have come to a new understanding of what the Bible does and doesn’t decree, of what people can and cannot divine in regard to God’s will …
In the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing …
So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.[2]
Mr. Bruni is not only interested in whether a Christian small business owner should be forced to, let’s say, bake a cake for a gay wedding, he also launches into a critique of traditional Christian theology as a whole, stating that the faith should be “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.” This assumes, of course, that modernity is, in fact, enlightened – an assertion that Mr. Bruni seems to feel little need to defend. This also assumes that the Western version of modernity that embraces LGBT beliefs about human sexuality is the rightful moral pacesetter of our world, something with which many modernized Eastern nations may take issue. This also assumes that Christians should not only love LGBT individuals, but endorse LGBT lifestyles as morally acceptable.
The irony is not lost on me that although Mr. Bruni does address “the florists and bakers who want to turn [LGBT customers] away” because of the owners’ moral convictions, he is silent concerning the many businesses that are jettisoning the state of Indiana in light of its religious freedom law because of their owners’ moral convictions. Why the inconsistency? Because, for Mr. Bruni, this is not an issue of religious freedom or even of gay rights. This is an issue of what version of morality should hold sway in our society. In Mr. Bruni’s worldview, for a Christian to try to avoid baking a cake for a gay wedding is morally reprehensible. For a business to avoid a state because of a religious freedom act is morally commendable. Thus, it is not inconsistent that one business, whose owners are working out of a set of traditional Christian moral convictions, should not be able to avoid providing services for a same-sex wedding while another business, whose owners have more secularized moral convictions, should be able to dump a whole state. After all, the Christian set of moral convictions is, for Mr. Bruni, immoral! And immorality must be squelched.
Pastor Timothy Keller explains the necessary moral entailments of the debate over gay marriage using a brilliant analogy:
Imagine an Anglo-Saxon warrior in Britain in AD 800. He has two very strong inner impulses and feelings. One is aggression. He loves to smash and kill people when they show him disrespect. Living in a shame-and-honor culture with its warrior ethic, he will identify with that feeling. He will say to himself, That’s me! That’s who I am! I will express that. The other feeling he senses is same-sex attraction. To that he will say, That’s not me. I will control and suppress that impulse. Now imagine a young man walking around Manhattan today. He has the same two inward impulses, both equally strong, both difficult to control. What will he say? He will look at the aggression and think, This is not who I want to be, and will seek deliverance in therapy and anger-management programs. He will look at his sexual desire, however, and conclude, That is who I am.
What does this thought experiment show us? Primarily it reveals that we do not get our identity simply from within. Rather, we receive some interpretive moral grid, lay it down over our various feelings and impulses, and sift them through it. This grid helps us decide which feelings are “me” and should be expressed – and which are not and should not be.[3]
Being LGBT has often been cast in terms of identity. Pastor Keller argues that the issue at hand is really about morality. Is it acceptable or unacceptable to be a violent aggressor? Is it noble or troublesome to be in a same-sex relationship? Feelings and impulses do not give us the answers to these questions. Only moral grids do.
Frank Bruni offers some refreshing candor in his column. He knows that, ultimately, the fight over gay rights and religious freedom isn’t a fight over gay rights and religious freedom. It is a fight over what’s moral. And his conclusion bears witness to his moral conviction:
Creech and Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry.”
Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”
His commandment is worthy – and warranted.
Mr. Bruni is clear. Christians must be made to accept homosexuality. To settle for anything less would be unworthy and unwarranted. In other words, it would be immoral.
I would beg to differ.
But at least we know where he stands.
__________________________
[1] S.B. 101, 119th Leg., 1st sess. (Indiana 2015)
[2] Frank Bruni, “Bigotry, the Bible and the Lessons of Indiana,” The New York Times (4.3.2016).
[3] Timothy Keller, Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Viking, 2015), 135-136.
The Panama Pilferage
It used to be that Switzerland was the place to hide money. Now, apparently, Panama is the place.
A week ago Sunday, a massive cache of some 11 million financial documents from the Panamaniam law firm, Mossack Fonseca, was leaked to the media. These files contained information about an “extensive worldwide network of offshore ‘shell’ companies – including ones with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin – that allow the wealthy to hide their assets from taxes and, in some cases, to launder billions in cash.”[1] Several world leaders are implicated in this leak including the prime ministers of Iceland, Argentina, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, and the former prime ministers of Georgia, Jordan, and Qatar. According to Lexi Finnigan of The Telegraph, the files “also contain new details of offshore dealings by the late father of British Prime Minister David Cameron.”[2]
Some of what has happened in these offshore accounts may be legal. As Ms. Finnigan explains in her article:
There is nothing unlawful about the use of offshore companies. However, the disclosures raise questions about the ways in which the system can be used – and abused. More than half of the 300,000 firms said to have used Mossack Fonseca are registered in British-administered tax havens, which Mr. Cameron has vowed to crack down on. And in one instance, an American millionaire was apparently offered fake ownership records to hide money from the authorities.
What has happened here is certainly troubling, even if it is not, at least for me, particularly surprising. Giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s may be a biblical mandate, but it is not a pleasant experience – even, as it turns out, when you happen to be Caesar. Nobody wants to pay taxes.
It should be reiterated that, in some instances, what appears to have happened with some of these accounts is little more than tax sheltering, which is legal and, according to many accountants, advisable. Others, however, have crossed a line into tax evasion, which is a crime. Still others have out and out used offshore accounts to try to launder dirty money.
Most world leaders are certainly not poor. So why would such a number of them be so allergic to paying the very taxes that ensure their gainful employment and continued power that they would engage in shady offshore deals? Perhaps it’s because Solomon was right: “Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income” (Ecclesiastes 5:10). Even a lot of money is never enough money when a person loves money.
Lust for more, of course, is not only a problem for world leaders, it is a problem for many people. Studies have shown that, proportionally, those who have higher financial means give less, as a percentage of their income, than those who have lower financial means. As Ken Stern reports for The Atlantic:
In 2011, the wealthiest Americans – those with earnings in the top 20 percent – contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid—those in the bottom 20 percent –donated 3.2 percent of their income. The relative generosity of lower-income Americans is accentuated by the fact that, unlike middle-class and wealthy donors, most of them cannot take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, because they do not itemize deductions on their income-tax returns.[3]
Just because a person has more doesn’t mean he will give more. Indeed, oftentimes, the more a person has, the more a person seems to think he needs, so the less he gives.
Perhaps we should keep in mind what Solomon says about money and the love thereof right after he explains that people who love money always want more money. He writes, “This too is meaningless.”
The love of money may be tempting, but it is not meaningful. It is not fulfilling. It is not worthwhile. This is a lesson, I fear, that these world leaders may have learned too late. May their folly be our warning.
_________________________
[1] Greg Toppo, “Massive data leak in Panama reveals money rings of global leaders,” USA Today (4.5.2016).
[2] Lexi Finnigan, “What are the Panama Papers, who is involved and what is a tax haven?” The Telegraph (4.7.2016).
[3] Ken Stern, “Why the Rich Don’t Give to Charity,” The Atlantic (April 2013).
The Art of Manliness
“I see some men that are men in mind and body and a great many that are only men in body.”[1] So said a Union soldier who fought in the Civil War.
In her book, The Gentlemen and the Roughs, Lorien Foote, professor of history of Texas A&M University, outlines two distinct types of masculinity prevalent during the Civil War. One was a gentlemanly type of masculinity, centered on self-control, character, and faithfulness. This type of masculinity embodied what we might think of today as “the family man.” The other type of masculinity was that of the “roughs” – those who are “rough around the edges,” so to speak. This type of masculinity focused on physical domination and sexual exploitation.
Writing for The New York Times, David Brooks outlines these same two types of masculinities when he writes:
The ideal man, at least in polite society, gracefully achieves a series of balances. He is steady and strong, but also verbal and vulnerable. He is emotionally open and willing to cry, but also restrained and resilient. He is physical, and also intellectual.
Today’s ideal man honors the women in his life in whatever they want to do. He treats them with respect in the workplace and romance in the bedroom. He is successful in the competitive world of the marketplace but enthusiastic in the kitchen and gentle during kids’ bath time.
This new masculine ideal is an unalloyed improvement on all the earlier masculine ideals. It’s a great achievement of our culture. But it is demanding and involves reconciling a difficult series of tensions. And it has sparked a bad-boy protest movement and counterculture.[2]
Brooks’ “new masculine ideal” is not really all that new. It shares much in common with the older masculine ideal of what it means to be a gentleman. Foote, in her book, writes about Francis Lieber, a nineteenth century political philosopher who outlined some rules for warfare that eventually came to serve as the basis for the Geneva Convention. Along with rules for warfare, Lieber also outlined traits essential to being a gentleman that included “self-possession,” “calmness of mind,” “a studious avoidance of giving offense to others,” and a refusal to indulge “in careless vulgarity, unmanly exaggeration, or violent coarseness.” The New York Illustrated News, in a fawning review of Lieber’s gentlemanly characteristics, wrote, “Let us have a new chivalry instituted – a new order of intellectual and moral knighthood.”[3] Lieber’s ideal masculinity was nothing short of a perfectly balanced chivalry that shares much, though not everything, in common with Brooks’ “new masculine ideal.”
There is much for us, as Christians, to learn from these two types of masculinity. Although neither comports perfectly with what it means to be a Christian man, one certainly comports better. A masculinity that is crude, sexually exploitive, and ostentatious not only does not make a man, it hurts a man because it is flatly sinful. On the other hand, masculinity cannot simply be reduced to a list of traits, as Lieber and Brooks attempt to do, no matter how virtuous those traits may be. After all, not every man is the same, so different men will inevitably display different traits, and not every life situation calls for the same masculine characteristics. Ultimately, to be a Christian man is much more about living out a vocation – a divine calling – than it is about living up to a checklist of virtues that inevitably changes, both in content and in emphasis, with each successive generation. To be a Christian man means to reflect Christ. To hearken back to the Union solider quoted at the beginning of this blog, being a man is not about only your body biologically, it is also about your mind. You can be a man in body without being a man whose mind has been renewed by Christ (cf. Romans 12:2).
In his column, David Brooks’ concern lies in how faulty masculinities affect the political arena. He notes that in this election cycle, there has been “a revolution in manners, a rejection of the civility codes.” This is certainly true and it is certainly troublesome. But what is even more troublesome is not how faulty masculinities affect our politics, but how they affect our families. Study after study has shown how men who reject their vocation to reflect Christ adversely affect their families. Faulty masculinities do not just plague national elections, they plague your neighbors down the street. And, if you’re really honest, they may even plague you.
So gentlemen – and I hope you do fashion yourself as and aspire to be gentlemen – the next time are tempted toward a masculinity that does not reflect your Savior, remember, to quote one more time from David Brooks, “This is the world your daughters are going to grow up in.”
That alone should be enough to make you stop and think.
__________________________
[1] Cited in Lorien Foote, The Gentlemen and the Roughs: Violence, Honor, and Manhood in the Union Army (New York: New York University Press, 2010), 3.
[2] David Brooks, “The Sexual Politics of 2016,” The New York Times (3.29.2016).
[3] Lorien Foote, The Gentlemen and the Roughs, 55.
Blessed Are Those Who Mourn
The women on that first Easter went to the tomb to mourn. They went to mourn the loss of their friend. They went to mourn the loss of, for one of the women, a family member. They went to mourn the loss of hope. Of course, when they arrived the tomb, they got something they had never bargained for. They were greeted by a glorious being with an unlikely message: “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; He has risen, just as He said” (Matthew 28:5-6).
It was on Easter morning that these women, to use the words of the prophet Jeremiah, had their “mourning [turned] into gladness” and received “comfort and joy instead of sorrow” (Jeremiah 31:13).
Mourning may not be pleasant, but it is needed. In many ways, I would argue that we don’t mourn enough. At funerals, rather than addressing the reality of death, people will often try to dull the pain of a loss by casting the service in terms of a celebration of the person who has died. A eulogist will say something like, “This person wouldn’t have wanted us to be sad!” Mourning, which is nothing other than the natural and inescapable response to something as heinous as death, is dismissed, downplayed, and depressed in favor of a skin-deep smile.
To make matters worse, when we are not mourning something as intense as the loss of a loved one, we can wind up jettisoning mourning altogether. We not only try to moderate our mourning, we can replace our mourning with something different entirely.
There is plenty that should command our mournfulness. Greed, corruption, malfeasance, and general godlessness should pain us all. Sadly, rather than mourning these things, we often trade mourning for grumbling. This seems especially true in the political arena. We grumble about health care. We grumble about immigration. We grumble about political constituencies that are not our political constituencies. But replacing mourning with grumbling is dangerous.
The ancient Israelites were experts at grumbling. Exodus 16:2 says, “In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron.” Numbers 14:2 repeats the same refrain: “All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the whole assembly said to them, ‘If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this wilderness!’” The ancient Israelites were experts at grumbling. But their grumbling carried with it consequences. The Psalmist recounts the story of Israel during her wandering in the wilderness and says: “They grumbled in their tents and did not obey the LORD. So He swore to them with uplifted hand that He would make them fall in the wilderness” (Psalm 106:25-26). The apostle Paul admonishes his readers to “not grumble, as some of [the Israelites] did – and were killed by the destroying angel” (1 Corinthians 10:10). Clearly, God has little time or tolerance for grumbling. Why? Because grumbling leads nowhere good. It leads to rebellion. The Israelites grumbled about God and then built a golden calf in rebellion against God. It leads to revenge. Cain grumbled about his brother Abel’s sacrifice to God right before he killed his brother. Grumbling leads to sin. James puts it quite succinctly when he writes, “Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged” (James 5:9).
There is plenty for us, in our day, to mourn. But sincere mourning over sin is quite different from self-righteous grumbling against sinners. One perpetuates sin by doing little more than whining about it. The other fights sin by asking the Lord to rescue us from it.
In a world filled with grumbling, may we remember how to mourn. And may we also believe Christ’s promise: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted” (Matthew 5:4). Mourning, Jesus says, is blessed. Grumbling, Scripture warns, is condemned. Let’s make sure we’re doing what God blesses rather than falling prey to what He condemns.
Pastor Zach's Blog 