Circumcising Adiaphora

For this week's newspapers, I answered the final follow-up in a series of 3 about what makes and does not make a person sinful by answering how a Christian chooses about what to do when the action is neither commanded nor forbidden by genuine divine laws:  

Q:  If it is not the things we consume or touch, or even our actions, that determine our status before God, then how do Christians choose a course of action in decisions which involve things beyond the Ten Commandments?

When a person understands the fact that their status with God the Father is determined by Jesus and His perfect life and crucified death rather than their own performance, it can be a difficult adjustment because it seems at first to leave a vacuum in the area of ethics and morality. 

However, the Christian still honors God’s law, and even desires to keep it, but as a result of God’s goodness to them rather than as a condition of salvation.  When it regards which actions are a sin, this is guided by the Ten Commandments, as understood in the light of all of Scripture, but there are many choices where none of the options would seem to violate one of these commandments, but a choice still remains to be made. 

Sometimes, there are clear New Testament instructions on a matter, usually dealing with matters of the way the Church carries out its work.  One of the clearest examples of this is Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus about the qualifications for pastors and elders. 

In another instance, there was a question about whether the gentile Christians should eat certain meats or do other things that were forbidden by the Old Testament ceremonial law.  The result was that the apostles held a council at Jerusalem and determined that these laws did not apply to Gentiles when they became Christians, but that they should observe a few customs out of respect for their Jewish Christian neighbors. 

Paul Himself had to make a choice about the law of circumcision when he began to enlist the help of non-Jewish men as associates in the mission.  On one occasion, he decided that Timothy should be circumcised like the Jews were according to their law, but on another, he refused to allow Barnabas to be circumcised. 

This is because it was neither commanded nor forbidden that gentiles to be circumcised like Jewish people were before Jesus came, so Paul chose what best taught the people what they needed to understand.  This is what he means when he talks about “becoming all things to all men” in 1 Corinthians 9. 

Because Timothy would be serving in a setting where he would be among Jews, Paul allowed for him to be circumcised so that it would not be an obstacle to his congregation hearing and believing the Gospel.  On the other hand, Barnabas would be serving in a time and place where Judaizers were seeking to force the Old Testament law upon Christians, so Paul refused to allow his circumcision in order to demonstrate the Christians’ freedom from Old Testament ceremonial laws. 

In both cases, Paul made the decision that most clearly provided a path for people to hear and believe the Gospel without the corruption of false teaching—making concessions for the sake of those who might be weak, but standing firmly against those whose pride undermined the Gospel. 

Christians are called to similar commitments when faced with present customs and behaviors that are matters of controversy, but don’t relate to the sins specified in the Ten Commandments.  This would include things like alcohol or tobacco use, many expressions of language, and displays of wealth, among many others.  The Christian’s goal is to make such choices in the way that avoids being an obstacle for the Gospel or which tears down obstacles placed by others. 

So, when we make choices, we try to do what would be least confrontational to our neighbors who are offended by certain things because they are misinformed or fearful, but when confronted with opponents who seek to enforce their choices upon us out of pride, then we are called to stand against them so that our neighbors’ freedom and confidence in the Gospel would not be assaulted. 

Questions may be submitted by email to revjpeterson@stjohnsburt.org or sent to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA  50522.

Rev. Jason P. Peterson

Pastor, St. John’s Lutheran Church – Burt

Abusing the Root of All Prohibition

For this week's newspapers, I answered a follow-up question to last week's answer about whether physical things can be inherently sinful:  

Q:  If it is not certain substances or objects which are the source of sinfulness, then what about alcohol, drugs, tobacco, gambling, and other things which play a role in so many problems in society?  Does the same method apply to examining the morality of actions? 

This question has made frequent appearance in English-speaking Christianity, particularly here in the United States.  Since so many societal ills involve abuse of alcohol, drugs, or other substances, people sometimes conclude that if you could rid society of the substance, you could eliminate the problem. 

Likewise, with actions, they often conclude that since an action has caused problems for some people in some circumstances, that the action itself must be evil—or at least in decrying the abuse of the action, they give the appearance that the action itself is a sin. 

However, such an approach is not in step with the worldview of Scripture or of the historic way the Church has approached such question.  Instead, honest analysis reveals that the problem is not with objects, or in some cases actions, but rather with the impure desires and motivations which drive people to misuse them.    The problem is not in the use or possession of the things, or the performance of many actions, but in their abuse. 

So, for example, the Old Testament frequently used wine as an illustration of joy and celebration and made other positive references to alcohol consumption, and St. Paul even instructed Timothy to use wine to aid with digestion.  Meanwhile, in the very same books of the Bible, the authors warned against drunkenness—the misuse of alcohol. 

Similarly, there are many prescription medications that are beneficial when used as prescribed, but harmful if misused.  Even in the case of illicit drugs, it is not as if sin was written into the chemical compound, but because the person is harming their own body by their use (5^th Commandment), disobeying lawful authority (4^th commandment), and treating God’s blessing of the body in a wasteful manner (7^th Commandment). 

Sexual intimacy provides an excellent example where this idea can be applied to an action.  When it occurs between a husband and a wife in the context of marriage, it is a blessed thing which results in numerous benefits to the relationship of the couple, the foremost of which is the potential of conceiving a child. 

In contrast, when it is used in any other context, it results in spiritual harm, as well as increased risk of several kinds of physical and emotional consequences.  Similar to the way it is with things above, it is not the action which is sin, but the wrong use of the action. 

Consider also the popular saying that “Money is the root of all evil.”  This thought by many to be a saying from the Bible, but in reality it is a misquotation of a Biblical statement, which really says, “The love of money is the root of all evil.”  The misquoted statement attributes the sin to the object of money, but the genuine statement rightly blames its wrong use, by loving it, as the real problem. 

The Prohibition era in our country provides an excellent case study in this principle.  The Temperance movement advanced the idea that ridding the country of alcohol would result in a utopian society that was free of the problems people felt were most pressing at the time.  In reality, people obtained alcohol in other ways, discovered other substances to abuse in its place, and violent organized crime began to flourish as a direct result of what was intended to be a beneficial reform. 

Ultimately, it is this way with all sins.  Scholars of the commandments have rightly observed that every other commandment really points back to the First, “You shall have no other gods.”  Whenever a person misuses an object or an action, they are treating it as a god—no different than someone who bows down before a carved idol. 

The 2^nd through 8^th Commandments describe particular ways in which this occurs, and the final commandments about coveting bring the idea full circle by revealing that even the desire to have or do those things which one does not have the right to have or do is itself a sin even though the thing has not been obtained or the action accomplished. 

Do not Handle, Do not Taste, Do not Touch!

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about whether there are certain things that can make a Christian unrighteous by having contact with them:

Q:  Are there certain things that would be sinful for Christians to consume, hear, see, or come into contact with like there were in the Old Testament?  If so, what would those be? 

It seems that human understand instinctively that something has gone wrong in this world and that living here comes with a certain degree of spiritual danger.  In an effort to remedy this, prohibitions on contact with certain items in the physical world are a common feature among religions throughout the world. 

A common example is eating the meat of certain animals, or meat at all.  For others, they see certain places as forbidden or certain words that should never be uttered.  They may even propose that those who hear forbidden words or see others committing a forbidden act or come too close to a forbidden thing are made unholy or unclean by their contact. 

The Old Testament laws given to Israel bear a resemblance to the description above, but those who read them closely will discover that there is a distinct difference in the way that they approach this compared to the religions of the world. 

To begin with, Genesis describes several centuries where the Law of Moses is not in force, yet people like Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons are not regarded as any less accepted because they do not have it or follow it.  This seems to indicate that these laws are for a certain time, place and purpose rather than being universal decrees.  

In addition, the objects and actions they forbid are not treated as defective in themselves, but they are to be avoided to teach a greater truth about sin.  So the people avoid touching lepers or certain animals and they follow certain grooming rituals as a way of showing them that sin corrupts them and must be cleansed. 

The ultimate goal of all of this was a promise given as early as the third chapter of Genesis that a particular descendent of Eve would one day arise to provide the permanent remedy for sin. 

When Jesus arrives, he disregards all of the extra regulations the Pharisees had made regarding what to avoid and how to wash if one might have contacted something or someone who was unclean.  He tells them, “There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him… Whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”

We also never see him go to the priests or the temple to be cleansed after he touches and heals a leper or someone with an unclean discharge or a demon.  This would have been required not only by the Pharisees but also the Law of Moses.  However, Jesus could not be made unclean, therefor had no need for cleansing.  Instead, his inherent cleanness flowed out to the person to heal them rather than their uncleanness being transferred to him. 

When the Apostle Paul was confronted with people who thought that Christians ought to avoid consuming or coming into contact with certain things, he responds by writing, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink... “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” …These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” 

Jesus and Paul both demonstrate that what causes our problem with God is not what comes into us from outside but what comes out of our own hearts and desires.  For Christians, it is not a thing itself that is bad, such as food, drink, sexual intimacy, or any other earthly element, but rather when it is used in a way that is inconsistent with the Creator’s will.  The sin comes not from the earthly thing, but from our sinful desire to misuse it against our neighbors, against our own physical and spiritual well-being, and against the Lord who gave it. 

Sins, Debts, and Trespasses

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about the different lengths and translations of the Lord's Prayer in English-speaking churches:

Q:  Why do some churches say the Lord’s Prayer with the line, “Forgive us our debts” while others use “Forgive us our trespasses,” and why do some stop with “deliver us from evil” while others have an additional line afterward?

While the Lord’s Prayer is considered the universal prayer among Christians because it was given by our Lord Himself, the differences noted in the question are matters of text and translation. 

The account of the giving of the Lord’s Prayer is told twice in the Bible—once by Matthew, and once by Luke.  Many ancient manuscripts of Matthew’s account include the line “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever.  Amen” at the end of the prayer.  The ancient manuscripts of Luke, in comparison, do not typically show this line.  In fact, many of the manuscripts of Luke are also missing the line, “but deliver us from evil.” 

These differences between Matthew and Luke’s recording of the Lord’s Prayer account for the diversity of length in the prayer.  The most likely explanation is that the line, “deliver us from evil” is original to the prayer, but that those who copied Luke’s Gospel accidentally omitted it on a few occasions. 

The longer ending of Matthew’s prayer probably arises because as it was used in the liturgies of the early church of the first century, similar to the way that “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.  Amen.”  is typically added to the end of Psalms among Christians. 

Since Matthew’s Gospel was intended as a catechism for instructing people who had come to Christianity from Judaism, he would likely have included the prayer in the form it was said in the liturgy.  Some liturgies of the time even included an even longer ending “…and the glory, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for ever.  Amen.”  And on rare occasions, an ancient copy of Matthew is even found with this very long ending included in the prayer. 

So, when churches use a longer or shorter version of the Lord’s Prayer, it is primarily just the difference between the version of the prayer recorded in Matthew and the version recorded in Luke—and both are Biblical. 

The difference between “forgive us our debts” and “forgive us our trespasses” is one of translation in addition to synonyms used for sin by Matthew and Luke.  The Matthew version uses a Greek word very similar to the English word “debt,” while the Luke version uses the word that is the typical word for “sins” in the New Testament.  Some more modern attempts at translating the Lord’s Prayer have even attempted to use the translation “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us,” but they have not been widely accepted. 

When the word “debts” is used in the Lord’s Prayer, it is because that particular translation is based on the King James tradition of translating the Gospel of Matthew.  The translation of “trespasses” has its roots in the Tyndale Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, which pre-date the King James Bible by several decades, so it is actually the older translation into English, although it may seem new to some who grew up hearing the petition with the word “debts.” 

Because of its use in the Book of Common Prayer for Anglican worship, “trespasses” became the default translation of all the natively-English traditions of Christianity.  For Lutherans (who spoke German upon arriving in America) and Catholics (who conducted the Mass in Latin until recent years), they also picked up the translation “trespasses” upon beginning to worship in English, making it the majority version of the prayer in the present day. 

Regardless of the translation, though, the meaning of the petition is the same.  When we sin, we trespass against the boundary of God’s law, and sins committed by humans create a debt that we owe both to God and the neighbors we sin against, which can only be paid back by Jesus crucified death.  Each of the words emphasizes a different nuance of this truth, but all point to the same problem and the same Savior who is its remedy. 

Flagolatry?

For this week's newspapers, I answered a reader question about displaying flags in church:  

Q:  Why is the American flag often displayed in the sanctuary of churches?  Is it appropriate to have a symbol of the nation in the midst of the worship of God, or does it violate the separation of church and state? 

In spite of the fact that flags have been present for as long as most presently-living individuals can remember, the installation of flags in church sanctuaries is actually a relatively recent and primarily American development. 

The earliest Christians would certainly not have had national symbols among them when they gathered, because they were considered criminals by the Roman Empire for refusing to worship Caesar as god, and throughout Medieval Europe, flags and other national symbols were typically considered something for the ruling classes, and not displayed among the common people or in their churches. 

When the American Revolution began, patriotic sentiments rose among citizens, churches with a more uniquely American ethos began to see the flag displayed outside of churches, sometimes draped from the pulpit for certain occasions and carried in Sunday School or Vacation Bible School processions.  This grew in frequency during the Civil War, but was still not common among more internationally oriented churches, such as Lutherans, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. 

The two World Wars of the 20^th century, and the racial and ethnic biases that accompanied them, are largely responsible for the wider acceptance of flag display inside of church buildings, even moving them from the entryways or fellowship halls right up into the front of the church itself.  Today, there is no Canon Law regarding flag display, and it is left to the Diocese or Congregation to decide among Roman Catholics.  Flag display is more disputed among the Orthodox, who do not typically have as close a relationship with governments as the Roman Church. 

For Lutherans, who were some of the last holdouts against flag display, and other people who were ethnically German, World War 1 was the advent of flag display in their churches as a way of refuting accusations that they were sympathizers with the Kaiser in Germany because they still conducted services in German.  In World War 2, flag display became nearly universal in order to avoid similar accusations, and German worship also declined rapidly at this time in favor of English. 

The final volley which cemented flag display in churches was the Flag Day proclamation in 1954, in which President Eisenhower signed the act adding the words “under god” to the Pledge of Allegiance.  Coupled with the patriotism which accompanied the Cold War, this convinced most of the remaining holdouts to end their opposition to flag display in churches, and the Russian Orthodox also began adopting flag display at this time because of accusations of Soviet sympathies for conducting services in Russian. 

Today, support for flag display in churches is common, but not as common as it was in the Cold War era.  One concern raised about the display of flags in churches is that it gives the appearance that the nation or its government are being worshipped or that they have a place equal to or nearly-equal to God.  Others raise the objection that the Church is an international body which is composed of all nations, and therefore the appearance of loyalty to a particular nation is inappropriate. 

Others are uneasy with the possibility of giving the appearance that the church endorses the actions of the nation.  This fear arose in the past during wars which might have been considered unjust.  Similar concerns are rising again today when the laws of the nation are becoming more at odds with the teachings of the Church, and the likelihood that the government will become openly hostile to certain churches and their members is rising. 

On the other hand, some point to the fact that obedience to lawful authority is a virtue promoted in the Fourth Commandment and that the New Testament encourages believers to submit to governing authorities, assuming it obvious that obedience to God outweighs loyalty to the nation. 

Today, with a population of pastors and members who are farther removed from the two World Wars and the Cold War, we may very well see more careful examination of the practice of displaying the national flag in churches, but the ultimate conclusion and how that will impact continued display of the flag remains to be seen.  

Can Yoga be Baptized?

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about Christians doing Yoga:

Q:  What is the source for Yoga exercise and are there any spiritual components to it?  Are there any concerns that Christians should have with engaging in Yoga?

When many North Americans think of Yoga, the image that comes to mind is the slow movements, static postures, and controlled breathing of demonstration videos and popular exercise classes found in the Western world.  Although this discipline gives a first impression of the foreign and exotic, most would not immediately detect anything obviously spiritual about these exercises. 

However, the origins of Yoga are deeply spiritual.  They originate in India and the surrounding area centuries ago, and served as a method of spiritual advancement in the Hindu religion.  In Hinduism, it is taught that people experience many lifetimes in this world through reincarnation, and their experience of subsequent lives is based on Karma—a measurement of guilt they build up based on their actions in previous lives.

Because adherents to Hinduism desire to have a better life in their next incarnation or to escape the cycle of reincarnation entirely and give up their individual identity and be reabsorbed into the divine, they developed a set of spiritual disciplines called Yogas which they believe will achieve that goal. 

The Yoga exercise with which we are familiar in North America is one of those disciplines, called Hatha Yoga.  There are at least 5 other disciplines that involve meditation, knowledge, work, and spiritual devotion, and a final yoga that uses the methods of the others together to achieve the goal of higher consciousness and realization of the divine. 

Hatha Yoga was originally developed with the understanding that one could use positions of the body to achieve spiritual results.  In particular, by imitating the shapes or postures of elements of nature, Hindus understand that they can appropriate the characteristics of those entities for themselves. 

In light of this, and the growing popularity of Yoga as exercise in our country, many Christians have faced the need to evaluate whether Yoga is advisable for Christians, or whether those who participate are flirting with or actually committing idolatry by engaging in the worship of a non-Christian religion. 

Some have proposed that Yoga can be sanitized of its spiritual elements so that a person can attain the physical and emotional benefits that it claims to offer without concerns of spiritual transgression.  Some have even developed “Christian Yoga” classes that replace the Hindu spiritual elements with Scripture or prayer.  Detractors have responded that athletic science is able to formulate a program of exercise that will achieve superior results without the concerns of the spiritual origins of Yoga. 

Other Christians advocate that Yoga should be avoided completely regardless of emotional or physical benefits it might offer, because it is tainted by its spiritual origins, and that attempts to sanitize it do not render it spiritually neutral.  They argue that because spiritual evil is behind all non-Christian religions, any association with their forms of devotion introduces the risk of spiritual harm, and therefore they are to be avoided. 

They also raise concerns about implications for the witness of Christians to the world, because they believe it gives the appearance of blending religions and communicates that many religions lead to the True God or that divine truth can be accessed apart from Jesus. 

For the Christian, the answer can never be “It’s just exercise, isn’t it?” Instead, it is necessary to contemplate the wisdom of engaging with this spiritual practice of Hinduism in light of their own beliefs about the spiritual world and make an informed evaluation about the effectiveness of sanitizing it of spiritual elements before they conclude how those answers compare to their own conscience as guided by the First Commandment – “You shall have no other gods in my presence.” 

Contemplate or Meditate?

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about Meditation:

Q:  Is Meditation something that is compatible with the spiritual life of a Christian, or is it a practice that could pose potential spiritual harm?

The word meditation can be found in many English translations of the Bible, the majority of which are in the Psalms, particularly Psalm 119.  Even though the word is used, its context in the Psalms reflects that this is something dramatically different from what we typically mean when we think of meditation today. 

The practice that the word meditation typically refers to is a spiritual exercise which has its source in Eastern religions, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism.  These religions have a fundamentally different understanding of the way that the spiritual world functions than Christians do, and this is reflected in their practice of meditation. 

Meditation as performed and taught in these Eastern religions has diverse outward appearances, and may follow a variety of methods, but their goal and the mechanism by which they purport to function reflects an opposite understanding of the direction in which spiritual ills are cured. 

In Biblical thought, the spiritual problem lies within humans, manifested in such things as selfishness, violence, lust, hatred, and other forms of evil; and the solution to spiritual ills is found outside of us in the cross and resurrection of Jesus, the benefits of which are delivered through God’s Word and the Sacraments. 

In Hindu and Buddhist thought, it is proposed that humans are really one with the divine and the realization of this is found by looking inward through such things as meditation.  So, if the Christian realizes that inside of ourselves we find nothing but sin, filth, and evil, it would be counter-productive to try to seek solutions by looking within oneself. 

The meditation described in the psalms also differs dramatically from Eastern forms of meditation in that it is a thought-filled meditation where one consciously contemplates the content of Scripture to better understand it and discern its message, while Eastern forms of meditation encourage the practitioner to empty oneself of thought to achieve the goal of reaching a supposed higher form of consciousness or awareness which is not accessible through ordinary means.  In fact, contemplation would probably be a more accurate translation of the word the Psalms use, rather than meditation. 

This is also understood by Eastern practitioners to occur because this empty-minded state is said to open one up to the spiritual world around them, which openness then provides a form of enlightenment through interaction with the divine.  However, such a proposition assumes that everything spiritual is good.  In contrast, a Biblical understanding of the spiritual world sees that there are harmful elements in the spiritual world which would deceive and lead us away from what is true, and Scripture repeatedly admonishes people to be watchful and on guard against such things—a state which would not be compatible with the state of spiritual vulnerability created by Eastern meditation. 

While Christian might desire some of the auxiliary benefits often attributed to Eastern meditation, such as relaxation, mental focus, or stress relief, the use of a spiritual exercise from a foreign spirituality which contradicts Christianity would not be and advisable avenue by which to achieve them.  Instead, Spiritual practices like prayer and Scriptural contemplation, along with non-spiritual relaxation and stress-relief techniques from the medical sciences are a more appropriate way to achieve these goals without violating their Biblically-informed conscience or compromising spiritual truth. 

To Re-Baptize or not to Re-Baptize:

My article for this week's newspapers answers a question about re-baptizing:

Q:  I recently began attending church for the first time in my adult life.  If my parents had me baptized as a baby in a different kind of church, should I be baptized again in my new church?

In most situations, the answer would be a clear “no,” regardless of whether the original Baptism occurred as an adult, a child, or an infant. 

A small number of situations could exist where a Baptism would need to be performed, but the only cause for this would be if the first Baptism was invalid for one of two reasons:  The first cause that would render the original Baptism invalid would be if it was performed in the context of a non-Trinitarian religion, such as Mormonism, a Oneness church, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

The Second circumstance that would cause a Baptism to be invalid is if it were performed using a different formula than the Trinitarian form given in Scripture:  “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  If it was performed under any other formula, such as “in the name of Jesus,” or used alternate titles for God, such as “parent, child, and comforter,” or “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier,” then it would be cause to question its validity and responsible spiritual care would dictate that the person be Baptized. 

In cases where the original baptismal ceremony was determined to be invalid, the church administering Baptism to the individual would not consider it a re-Baptism, but rather as the first Baptism, because an invalid Baptism would be understood as being no Baptism at all. 

Often people ask if they need to be re-baptized when joining a new denomination of Christianity, and this is typically not necessary.  All of the Trinitarian denominations which baptize babies recognize each other’s Baptisms as valid Baptisms, and would not see a need to repeat the ceremony, even for adult converts who were Baptized elsewhere as infants. 

The only case in which church leaders might require a Baptism be performed would be if the newly-adopted church practices adult-only Baptism.  This requirement would be made because such churches understand Baptism to be a work that people do in order to show their devotion to God, which requires conscious knowledge and articulation of belief.  As merely an outward acknowledgement of faith by the believer, they do not understand it to deliver grace, forgiveness, or faith from God to the person being baptized. 

On the other hand, a church that sees Baptism as a gift that God gives to a person in order to deliver forgiveness, grace, and salvation, would see it unnecessary to repeat or replace the original Baptism.  This is because the Baptism is understood to be God’s gift to deliver faith in Jesus and the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross to individuals, and therefore not dependent on the ability of the person being Baptized. 

Instead, even if the person doing the Baptism or the church in which it was performed were not in full agreement, or even did not properly understand Baptism, God’s work is not hindered.  Since it relies on God’s faithfulness and not on man’s performance, and God’s work is always complete and effective, and they would acknowledge all Baptisms performed by the correct formula in connection with a Trinitarian church.  They would then instruct the new member in the teachings of their church as drawn from Scripture, and welcome them into membership through Confirmation or another similar ceremony. 

A Safe Bet? Gambling, Lotteries, Raffles, and Games of Chance

My article from this week's newspapers answers a reader question about Christian participation in gambling and other games of chance:

Q:  Are gambling and other games of chance a sin, and what does the Bible have to say about them?

Many people raise concerns about gambling for both moral and practical reasons.  Perhaps this has something to do with the historic connection between gambling, organized crime, and bootlegging during the Prohibition era, and the tendency of some types of Christians to group smoking, dancing, gambling (or even just card-playing) , and alcohol consumption together as sort of a family of evils. 

Other concerns arise more from social justice, because the poor often suffer the greatest losses from gambling while the rich are most likely to benefit from the industry, or because abuse of gambling or unrealistic expectations have had the consequence of financial tragedy for many families. 

In contrast, the perceived connection between Bingo and religious institutions is a familiar cultural element, and raffles or other contests where a donation carries the potential to win money or merchandise is a common way of fundraising for some charitable organizations like religious schools.   

Relying on chance to make decisions does not seem to be spoken against in the Bible.  In fact, we even see an example of this when the Disciples choose a replacement for Judas after the Resurrection by drawing lots among the qualified candidates, and I have encountered a handful of Christian congregations who choose their lay officers or call their new pastor in a similar fashion, by drawing the names from among the qualifying candidates rather than by using a vote as a means of selection. 

An activity that bears a resemblance to betting or wagering is daily fantasy sports, where players deposit money in an account and use it to enter contests based on player performance in various sports.  While there is the potential to win or lose money based on the results, most states consider this a game of skill, like entering a bowling tournament with a cash prize, rather than a game of chance.  Because of the skill and attention involved, as opposed to random chance, this can be a wholesome form of recreation, provided participation is done responsibly. While this means it is technically not gambling, it is subject to some of the same dangers as gambling if a person develops an unhealthy habitual attachment to it or seeks to solve all of their financial problems by means of it.  

No clear, concise statement can be found in Scripture, either for or against the pure-chance sort of gambling, like lotteries and casino games, that we encounter today.  However, several of the Ten Commandments to address issues which might be relevant to a Christian’s decision about whether to engage in particular types of gambling. 

The First Commandment would be the most significant of these.  It forbids having other gods, which is not limited to carved or sculpted idols or deities of other religions, but includes anything from which the person honors or seeks blessing from more highly than God.  It is easy to conceive how gambling or the gains one hopes to achieve from it might become a higher priority to a person than their love, respect, and trust for God.  In this case, gambling, and any other part of human life, can become a false god for a person and therefore sinful. 

If gambling keeps a person from attending services or if one gambles in a way that is illegal, these would be obvious sins against the Third Commandment regarding the Sabbath and the Fourth Commandment which requires obedience to those in authority. 

The commandments which apply the most specifically to gambling are the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth, which forbid stealing, other forms of dishonest gain, and coveting.  Because the odds in any game of chance are always stacked in favor of the house, those who operate for-profit gambling establishments are very likely taking advantage of their neighbors by their business. 

Likewise those who believe they will get rich quick by gambling are attempting to gain for themselves at the expense of their neighbors who have lost, and those who seek to gain from gambling what they cannot achieve by other conventional means could easily be coveting—seeking to gain something that is not rightfully theirs because they are not content with what they have been given. 

Even if one did not consider gambling a sin, the Bible frequently admonishes believers to use their earthly resources wisely, and this argument from wisdom may be the most compelling reason for Christians either to limit their participation in games of chance to purely recreational levels, or refrain entirely.  For example, a person might use a sum of money for gambling, which they could multiply by a win, but will more likely lose entirely. 

If they were to invest this same sum, they would have a much higher probability of short-term gain and a near-certain likelihood of gain in the long-term.  Similarly, if they were to donate it to a charitable cause, they might give up the potential for multiplication, but would ensure that some person or some cause would be helped by it. 

So, while the Bible does not contain a particular allowance or prohibition toward games of chance, they are certainly sinful if they become idolatrous or a means for dishonest gain, and in the majority of cases, participation in for-profit gambling would be ill-advised on the grounds of being unwise if it goes beyond a minimal cost for purely recreational purposes. 

To Lodge or not to Lodge...

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about what would keep a Christian from joining or participating in a lodge or other fraternal organization, such as the Masons, Eastern Star, Shriners, Odd Fellows, Eagles, Elks, Moose, etc.  

Q:  Why do some churches forbid their members from joining lodges, secret societies, or other fraternal organizations?

While the reasons behind prohibitions on lodge membership by some churches are explained in diverse ways, they all relate to the common theme of concerns about compromising spiritual convictions. 

In the cases where the organization does not have any decidedly spiritual or ritual elements to their activity as a club, there would typically be no concerns, and members of most churches would be free to participate in organizations like the Lions, Kiwanis, or Rotary.  Only a very small number of churches would raise any objection to participation in these kinds of community service organizations.  When they do it is usually because they do not believe in praying with people outside of their own denomination, but this could usually be resolved by the member excusing himself during the meeting’s opening prayer. 

Other times, the activities of an organization take on such an obviously spiritual quality that a church or denomination classifies them as a religion in their own right, which means that an individual could not be a member of both that organization and his church, because it would amount to being a member of two different religions.  In other cases, the secrecy of the organization’s rituals creates an environment where they are forbidden to members of a church out of caution. 

In the majority of cases, it is a particular element of what is known about a lodge or other organization’s activity and rituals which results in members of a church being forbidden from joining it. 

One example of such concerns would be if a lodge ritual involves prayers where people whose religions worship different gods engage in joint prayer as if they were addressing the same god, or they actively promote all religions as equally valid before god or imply that all religions are just different paths to a common deity.  In such cases, many churches would prohibit their members from participation on the grounds that it would constitute idolatry. 

In other cases, membership in a lodge might involve making promises or acknowledging ideas in membership oaths with contradict Scripture or the teachings of the church.  In these cases, the Christian could not have loyalty to both and would ultimately be left to choose between his lodge and his church. 

These organizations often have a concept of afterlife that is promoted in their rituals, and if that concept contradicts what is taught in Scripture, the Christian could not in good conscience promote the ideas of the lodge against those of his church.  Similarly, there are often ideas promoted about how one reaches the proposed afterlife destination, which usually include upholding the virtues and principles of the lodge, which would be a contradiction to the Christian teaching that salvation comes only through trusting Jesus.  Likewise here, the Christian could not in good conscience promote the ideas of that lodge and remain consistent with the teachings of his church. 

When any of the above are taught or practiced by a lodge or other fraternal organization, it causes a conflict of conscience for Christians of many denominations and creates an environment where membership in it contradicts the teachings of a member’s church.  In such cases, many churches consider lodge participation to be incompatible with Christian teaching and church membership.  

Are holidays and religious festivals suitable for Christians?

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about whether it is appropriate for Christians to set aside certain days to commemorate people or events of a religious or civic nature:

Q:  I’ve heard accusations recently that it is unbiblical for Christians to celebrate certain days or seasons as an observance of people or events from church or national history.  When, if ever, is it acceptable for Christians to do this?

We can find evidence that humans have set aside certain days of the year as commemorations throughout history, even when their only tool to do so was the angles of the sunlight shining down on the earth.  In Bible history, we see the same pattern, as the Lord forbids Israel from joining in the religious festivals of their unbelieving neighbors, but also gives them a calendar for their own commemoration of His deeds in history. 

They remembered God’s act of creation on the New Year, the forgiveness of sins on the Day of Atonement, and the giving of the Law on Pentecost.  The Passover was not only instituted to save the people of Israel from the tenth plague upon Egypt, but also given as a yearly commemoration of God’s deliverance from death and from Egyptian slavery.  After the Israelites settled in the Promised Land, they celebrated the Feast of Booths as a commemoration of their ancestors’ 40 years of wandering the wilderness on their way from Egypt, and later, the festivals of Purim and Hanukkah marked other events of God’s deliverance. 

In similar fashion, the Christian Church also holds a yearly cycle of festivals remembering the life of Jesus and His provision for the Church.  Nearly all Christians celebrate Christmas and Resurrection as a minimum.  The most historic churches spend the first half of their liturgical year remembering the major events in our Lord’s earthly life, and the remainder focusing on His teachings as they have been handed down to the Church which preserves and proclaims them.   

While the date and number of these festivals is not given in the New Testament, we do know that the Church began to read Scripture in a predictable pattern from very early on.  Historical documents from outside of Scripture also indicate that the Resurrection was celebrated at the same time as Passover within the lifetime of the Apostles, that Lent became a time of preparation for this festival by the end of the First Century A.D. and that Christmas was a common festival by the first half of the Second Century, giving a strong indication that this tradition of the Church in commemorating feasts and festivals was approved by the Apostles themselves and is an ancient part of the Church’s life. 

We also see today that the Church commemorates other events in the lives of Biblical saints such as the Annunciation, when our Lord’s conception was proclaimed to Mary by the Angel Gabriel, and the Confession of St. Peter, who boldly proclaimed Jesus as the promised Savior.  In addition, other Biblical saints and their roles in the Scriptures are remembered on the dates of their deaths, and other important figures in Christian history are commemorated for their exemplary contributions to the life of the Church. 

The types of feasts, festivals, and commemorations listed above would all be an ancient and acceptable part of Christian tradition, along with other events such as the anniversary of a congregation, when Christians might gather to thank God for providing in a particular way.  The only caution regarding these festivals would be to ensure that they are held in thanksgiving for what God has done, rather than being transformed into worship of the human persons involved in God’s works. 

National and civic commemorations are also appropriate for Christians to engage in outside of their congregations, provided that they do not involve idolatrous worship or a compromise to their confession of Christ to the world.  However, in most cases it is inadvisable to make these commemorations a part of the church’s worship life, but rather to let the nation’s festivals be celebrated by the nation and the Church’s be celebrated by the Church, and allow the members to participate in both according to their vocation. 

The Who, What and Why of prayer:

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about to whom and for what we should pray:

Q:  When Christians pray, who should they pray to, and what things should they pray for?

The typical formula by which Christians pray is a prayer to God the Father, through or for the sake of Jesus – God the Son, and guided by God the Holy Spirit.  This sort of prayer includes the whole Trinity, and acknowledges that we have no right to approach God in prayer, except because His Son Jesus had died in our place, forgiven our sins, and reconciled us to His Father, and that it is only by the Holy Spirit that we can trust in Him and rely on this. 

The public prayers of several liturgical traditions reflect this by ending with the words, “…through Jesus Christ, Your Son our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.  Amen.” 

Sometimes less-formal prayers simply shorten by praying to God “in Jesus’ name,” and other prayers might pray to Jesus Himself without mentioning the other members of the Trinity.  Although permissible in theory, prayers directed toward the Holy Spirit are only rarely seen in the history of Christian prayer. 

Because the Triune God forbids those who trust in Him from mixing His worship with that of other gods, it would be inappropriate for Christians to pray to any god other than the persons of the Holy Trinity, such as the Muslim Allah, the many Hindu gods, or local ancestral deities, or to direct prayers to demons or to lesser spirits associated with other religions. 

Prayers to creatures that are real and good, but are not God Himself would also be prohibited.  This would include prayers directed toward angels, other Bible characters, and Christians who have died before us.  This is made clear in Scripture when St. Paul writes to Timothy that “there is one God and one mediator between God and men – the man Jesus Christ.” 

At some times and places, a compromise has been suggested that, even though we may not pray to deceased Christians, it is permissible to ask them to pray for us from Heaven instead, much like we would ask a living neighbor to pray for us. 

Even though this idea recognizes that our deceased brothers and sisters still live with the Lord as members of the Church, and some Scriptures even lean toward implying that they do pray for us there, this has typically been discouraged in most times and places.  This is the case because there is not a direct Biblical instruction for us to ask them do so, because it has a significant danger of crossing the line into worshipping the dead, either by confusion or carelessness, and because we have the privilege of asking Jesus Himself intercede for us is, which is of infinitely higher importance. 

In a related note, Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Tax collector also teaches us that the length and number of prayers and those offering them is not an indication of God’s answer, so confining our requests for prayer to the living congregation of believers does not impair God’s ability to answer.  Instead, although persistence in prayer is a virtue, we recognize that the brief prayer offered once is just as likely to be answered as the prayer of thousands offered repeatedly. 

This is because prayer is answered purely as a gift because of Jesus and not because of our effort or worthiness.  In fact, in Jesus perfect prayer given to the Church, He instructs His followers to pray for several things that God has already promised to do and which will happen even without prayer.  Yet we pray for them out of confidence that they will happen, rather than in order to cause them to happen. 

Christians may pray for these things that God has already promised with the certainty that He will grant them.  They may also pray for any other good thing in God’s creation—both earthly and spiritual—even if He has not promised that He will certainly give it.  In such cases, we recognize that God may grant it, or He may know in His infinite wisdom that we are better not to have it, and therefore withhold it for our benefit. 

The number of things for which Christians may not pray is a short list:  They may not pray for those who already died apart from Jesus to receive forgiveness and be saved, and they may not pray for sinful things or things that are harmful to themselves or others.  In such cases, we can be certain that God will not grant what is asked for, because it is contrary to His revealed will.