Is Jesus or the Bible first?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the relationship between Jesus and the Bible:

 Q:  Do Christians believe the Bible because it is endorsed by Jesus, or do Christians believe in Jesus because the Bible says so?  Which comes first?

It is important to begin by remembering that salvation and the faith which receives it are completely gifts of God through the Holy Spirit.  No person can claim to have received God’s forgiveness based on their own philosophical strivings or efforts at discovering truth.  Instead, sinners hear the message of God’s forgiveness through trusting in Jesus as their substitute, and they rely on that truth to save them. 

This might seem like a bit of a chicken-and-egg question at first, but it does have important implications.  For those who are already Christians, it can be important to learn why their trust in Jesus is reasonable and be equipped to defend this truth against those who would seek to undermine it.   These kind of considerations play a part in answering the objections of opponents of Christianity who reject the truth claims of the Bible based on inaccurate preconceptions or faulty scholarship. 

This discipline is called apologetics (meaning to explain the faith), and this question addressed here falls into a category called epistemology.  Epistemology is the study of truth—specifically, answering the question, “How do we know what we know?”  So here, we ask, “Do we rely on the events of Jesus’ life because the Bible says so, or do we rely on the Bible, because Jesus endorses its contents?” 

Christian teachers over the centuries have been split over the question of the logical priority of the personal revelation of Jesus and written revelation of the Bible.  Some have reasoned that the Bible is primary.  This is reflected in the words of the children’s song, “Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so.”  According to this understanding, belief in Jesus is reasonable, because the Bible says so. 

This is true when it comes to the question of how people are initially saved.  Ordinarily, whenever a person trusts in Jesus, they do so because they have heard his story in the Bible or because a person has preached or described this story to them.  They begin with the Bible and move to Jesus.  The weakness of this approach, though, is that a book becomes the center of Christianity instead of a person (Jesus) and the relevant events of His life (particularly the resurrection). 

Consequently, under this approach, opponents are given the opportunity to challenge Christians’ reliance on Jesus by way of undermining the reliability of the Bible or by deceptively using the Bible against those who are not well-educated in its claims and teachings. 

Historically, the more common and more stable approach to this question has been to begin with the events of Jesus’ life, especially the Resurrection, and build from there.  If Jesus rose, then the rest of His teachings are then confirmed.  This is based on the criteria that Jesus, Himself set for believing in His truthfulness when He told his opponents to “tear down this temple, [His body] “and I will raise it up again on the third day.”  What this means is that if Jesus rises after being crucified, He is to be believed, including his endorsement of the Old Testament and of the Apostles’ who would write the New after His Ascension. 

This brings the entire question down to the Resurrection.  If Jesus stayed dead, the whole Bible is to be disregarded, and Christians should abandon their churches.  If Jesus was alive again on Sunday after His crucifixion on Friday.  Christians believe, based on the testimony of hundreds of witnesses, some of which are recorded in the Bible, that Jesus did rise; therefore they believe in both Jesus and the Scripture that He endorsed. 

Is Pacifism Christian?

My post from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Pacifism:

Q:  Is strict Pacifism a stance that Christians are required to take by the Bible?  If not, when is it acceptable for a Christian to use force—even lethal force—against another person?

The question of pacifism—if and when Christians may use violent resistance in defense of themselves or another has been debated throughout the history of Christianity.  On very rare occasions, small groups of Christians have claimed a case for strict pacifism:  that Christians ought not resort to force under any circumstances.  The majority of Christians throughout history, however, have maintained the propriety of the use of force by Christians in certain circumstances. 

There are very clear verses in Scripture which prohibit violent revenge, vigilantism, and rebellion against lawful government.  Beyond this, further clarity on the issue revolves around the meaning of certain passages such as Jesus’ admonitions to “Love your neighbor,” “turn the other cheek,” and that “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” 

On the surface, these verses might appear to advocate that Christians passively suffer any violence and injustice brought against them, but there are others where Jesus Himself uses a whip to cleanse the temple of greedy merchants, and allows and instructs His disciples to carry swords (although on one occasion correcting Peter for his overzealous use of it).  Both Peter and John the Baptizer preside over the conversion of soldiers and centurions without instructing them to leave their vocations, which Jesus did instruct in the case of dishonest or immoral professions like prostitution and tax-collecting. 

So, if those words of Jesus demand strict pacifism, then the Bible contradicts itself.  On the other hand, when these passages are viewed within their context and when the reader takes the time to ensure he is not reading his personal biases into the text, we find that the Bible prohibits the use of force as a response to non-dangerous offenses (such as a slap on the cheek), as acts of revenge after danger has passed, or when the matter could be handled by the proper authorities.  On the other hand, it has nothing to say prohibiting the use of force in defense of oneself or others from immediate danger. 

In fact, even the strict Old Testament law excuses from punishment those who kill in defending against murder, rape, and robbery.  When ancient church fathers prohibited military service, it was because it required idolatry by worshipping and sacrificing to Caesar, not because it involved the use of force.  Later on, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and an assortment of popes all wrote affirming that Christians may be soldiers in good conscience and that not only may they use force in self-defense, but even that they have the duty to use force in the defense of their wives and children if it becomes necessary. 

The question then, is not whether one is to love one’s neighbor, but which neighbor they are to love.  Does a man who is confronted by another who seeks to harm his daughter “love” the attacker while allowing his daughter to be kidnapped, killed, or raped, or does he love his daughter precisely by the act of slaying the attacker?  Likewise, does a man love the thief who seeks to steal from him while his children starve and suffer, or does he love his children by dispatching the robber?  Does he allow himself to be beaten into disability so that his family loses their support, or does he love them by preserving through self-defense his ability to provide for them?  The same principle would apply similarly to Christian soldiers or police officers, whose authority flows from the Biblical command to obey father and mother. 

God desires that all people would live peaceably with one another.  He institutes government to punish those who would interfere with this intention, and warns Christians about the dangers of rebellion, revenge, and the offensive use of force.  But on occasions when these all break down, he authorizes the use of force in defense of self, wife, children, neighbors, or property, precisely as an act of love for those under our care and in keeping with the justice of His own character.

Gun Control

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines regarding Gun Control:

Q:  Is there a Christian position regarding Gun control, and what principles would guide Christians in their consideration of this question in our nation?

It is only very rarely that I encounter someone who is neutral and has not formed an opinion on one side or the other of this topic.  Among Christians, those on both sides of the issue seem to think that their opinion is the same as God’s position on the matter.

As we consult the Bible on this matter, it is important that we first recognize, as with many issues, firearms were not present in Bible times.  This is the reason we will find no verse actually giving a definitive answer on this subject.  However, other forms of weapons, such as swords, and questions regarding self-defense are addressed in Christian ethics. 

A tradition does exist within Christianity called Pacifism.  This tradition holds that Christians should not engage in violence for any reason even self-defense.  The assumption here is that God will defend the Christian if that is His will, and that if He does not defend them, whatever does happen was His will. 

Those who hold this position would cite such things as Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek” when slapped by a rival or His warning to Peter that “those who live by the sword will also die by the sword.” 

While this tradition is primarily found in small numbers, such as Quakers and certain monastic communities, there has frequently been questioning among Christians about the propriety of Christians engaging in warfare and other forms of violence, even for honorable reasons such as military service to their nation. 

The broader consensus over the course of Christian history and among Christian ethicists, though, has been that self-defense is a permissible Christian action, that military service is an honorable Christian vocation, and that in some instances, such as a father defending his family, a man is required to resist, even to the point of death in defense of his wife, daughters, or others for whom he is responsible. 

In this case, it would be contended that Jesus’ admonition about turning the other cheek regards those who insult or humiliate a person, and not those who pose a credible threat.  They would point to scriptures such as Paul’s instructions in Romans 13 to honor the government, which acknowledge that governments “bear the sword” in God’s service and for the good of their citizens. 

With the exception of governmental commands that require Christians to sin, it is the New Testament’s consistent position that Christians are to obey their government and work for and within good order in their societies.  For Americans, this means honoring the constitution to which our nation is committed and upon which it is founded.  Whatever position Americans take, it ought to honor the constitutional protections provided or to work only through lawful means to amend them to fit present circumstances. 

Ultimately, we cannot say that there is a single, universal, Christian position on gun control.  This is not an issue where we are deciding between sin and righteousness, but rather one where we are faced with the contrast between wise and unwise action.  In such cases, different Christians will be equally convinced in their own positions.  I firmly believe in the wisdom of one side of this argument, but another Christian might believe firmly in the wisdom of the opposite stance, and in the end, there is not a Biblical command as to which of us is right or wrong.

The Christian’s concern in such circumstances would not be for defending his own position or his own self-interest, but instead to work in the interest of enacting the wisest possible solution within the boundaries set by the laws and constitution of the nation.

Do Dead People Become Angels?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about dead people becoming angels:

Q:  Do people become angels when they die, when they arrive in heaven, or at any time?

This is an idea that has been an undercurrent of American spirituality for as long as many can remember.  Consider all the art, drama, satire, and other art forms that have portrayed heaven as a collection of people who have gained wings and dwell in residences of cloud. 

Perhaps this is a product of artistic attempts to use wings as a visual device for portraying otherworldly souls who have departed their physical bodies.  Perhaps it is somehow connected (whether by cause or by effect, I do not know) to “It’s a Wonderful Life,” and its well-known saying, “Every time a bell rings, an Angel gets its wings.” 

Whatever the source, this is more American mythology that Christian theological truth.  What we do know about the Angels from Biblical revelation includes that they are uniquely designed spiritual creatures who lack physical bodies.  They serve God, and at His command serve believing humans.  They were created without the capability to reproduce and thus their number is permanently set, and while a third of them did rebel, and are now known as demons, they are not different creatures, but rather, angels-gone-bad. 

On the other hand, we know that when a human dies, their body is buried (or perhaps left behind on earth in some other form, such as results from cremation), and their soul lives on, either in the presence of Jesus or separated from Him, until He comes to judge the living and the dead. 

Another potential source of this confusion may be the misunderstanding about the eternal status of the human soul.  Many mistakenly believe that the heavenly existence where the soul rests with Jesus is the ultimate goal of a person’s journey through birth, growth, life, and death; but in fact, it is only another stop on the way to eternal life—a permanent existence where the faithful live forever in restored and resurrected bodies.  The Bible describes this existence as a “new creation” and a “city of God,” complete with very physical elements and characteristics. 

If one is not familiar with these descriptions and the concept of a resurrection of the body on the last day, though, it is easy to see how the life of angels and that of deceased humans could be easily confused.  If a person is thought to live in a permanent state of non-physical life in God’s presence, and that is the same existence which angels live, than the two would become difficult to distinguish. 

Ultimately, the Bible never speaks of a human becoming an angel, nor does it speak of the reverse, nor does it speak of any hybrid being which blends the two.  Instead, it always speaks of them as permanently distinct creations with their own roles, characteristics, abilities, and callings.  At points, such as in a section of the book of Hebrews, it even compares and contrasts them—a fact which itself reinforces the permanent distinction between the two. 

Rather than seeking the greener grass of angelic life, the Bible instead encourages Christians to look toward the resurrection of their bodies and those of all the faithful—past all the pain, sorrow, and suffering of this world—and instead of a life freed from the body, to a life with our bodies restored to live forever under His care.

End Times Predictions

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about End Times Predictions:

Q:  With all the different predictions and scenarios circulating these days, how can a person know what is true about how and when the “end of the world” will occur?

Let’s start with a piece of good news:  Since the first newspaper edition this article is intended to be in will be dated December 27, the fact that you are reading this means that the Mayan Calendar hysteria turned out to be false. 

Beginning with Charles Wesley in 1796, continuing with repeated Adventist and Jehovah’s Witness predictions throughout the 19^th and early 20^th Centuries, followed by a variety of Y2K-induced predictions between 1996 and 2006, and carried on most recently by the predictions of Harold Camping, English-speaking students of the Bible have had a fascination with predicting the date of Jesus return. 

However, Jesus Himself says on one occasion, “No one knows the day or the hour of the coming of the Son of Man,” (Matthew 24:36) and on another, “the Son of Man is coming at a time when no one expects Him.” (Luke 12:40)  Based on these verses, Christians can be confident that the world cannot end until Jesus returns, and anyone setting dates, or even years, for the return of Jesus is most certainly not speaking the truth.  Jokingly, I even give a “no-Second-Coming Guarantee,” based on Jesus’ words above, on any date that a major media-publicized end times event has been predicted. 

For about the last 150 years, another trend has been for certain preachers to lay out elaborate timelines of events surrounding the Second Coming.  The sequence and duration of these events varies, but they have the common characteristic of dividing the end times in to a multi-stage event with segments lasting from seven to a thousand years. 

Prior to that time, it had been the common understanding among Christians that the “Last Day” (a more preferred term among Christians than “end of the world”) would come instantly and unexpectedly.  At the moment of Jesus’ return, it would be universally known that it was occurring, and the following events would occur without delay and without the possibility of being prevented.  This agrees completely with the warnings of Jesus in Matthew 24-25. 

Any scenario that proposes particular dates or warning-shot events (such as the disappearance of large numbers of people or the formation of a nation) are the beginning of a count-down before the end of which Jesus will return, is extremely problematic from a Biblical perspective, because it necessitates either that people will know in advance when Jesus is coming again or that Jesus return will somehow be separated from His judgment of the living and the dead.  Either of these possibilities (usually based on the books of Daniel or Revelation, which have particular literary challenges for modern readers who must rely only on English translations) eventually run contrary to the clearer statements of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 

Christians can take confidence in this:  The return of Jesus will be nothing but blessing for those who trust in Him, so they need not fear its arrival.  Additionally, our preparedness does not rest on our own ability and foresight, but in His provision by the Holy Spirit through the Word, so we can go about the business of serving in our vocations in eager anticipation, rather than fearful anxiety about the end—whenever it comes.

Sermon for Advent 3 (Dec. 16), 2012

Zephaniah, John the Baptizer, and the Connecticut shootings combined this past Sunday to make for what might be my most offensive sermon ever.

St. John's Lutheran Church - Burt, IA: Sermon Archive - Advent 3, 2012

Does God Hate America?

My article fromt his week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Divine Punishment

Q:  When soldiers die and natural disasters occur, are these things a sign of God’s judgment on America for immoral lifestyles or lack of religious belief?

Even though this sort of conclusion is believed by only a small minority of Americans, several times in recent years, those small, but vocal, few have drawn media attention for their claims.  After hurricane Katrina, two prominent religious leaders insisted it was God’s judgment against New Orleans for its sins.  When another hurricane threatened the same area recently, one of them claimed it was for the same reason.  Another group insists that the death of U.S. Soldiers abroad is God’s punishment against the United States because our nation’s laws fail to punish certain types of immorality.

The thing about this, though, is that God got out of the business of having a favorite nation which were “his people” as of the death and resurrection of Jesus.  From that point forward, the New Testament is very clear that God’s people (now known as Christians or the Church) come from every nation.  God no longer works by supporting or destroying nations because of their religious convictions.  Instead, He desires that governments would provide safe and free societies where His Church can do the work of convincing people regarding morality and religious teaching. 

When Jesus is presented with a blind man in John 9, the Pharisees, and even His own followers, speculate over whose sin caused this man to be born blind.  Some said it was his own sin.  Others said it was his parents’, but Jesus responded, “It was not that this man sinned or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him,” and He says in Matthew 5, “[God] makes His sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust.” 

Much like God’s earthly blessings and provision do not come only to Christians, but to all people regardless of spiritual standing, tragedy occurs in the same way.  All people suffer various kinds of illness and disaster.  There are devoted Christians who suffer immensely in this life while there are notoriously immoral people who are wealthy and strong.  When these tragic circumstances come upon a person or a city, it is not because God is particularly displeased with them, but rather because human sin has broken the world and thrown it off course from God’s will for it.

So, when a soldier is killed it is the result of the sin of the enemy who attacked him, not because God is displeased with him and his nation.  Likewise when a hurricane, earthquake, or tsunami threaten or destroy a city or a whole region, it is not because God is particularly displeased with them, but rather because the collective sin of humanity has brought destruction even as far as nature itself, which then returns on us—not as compensation for specific sins, but similar to a car whose driver is asleep at the wheel and takes out anyone, righteous or unrighteous, in its path. 

So, when we are healthy and have plenty, we ought not think it is because we are more worthy, and when we suffer pain and need, or even death itself, we ought not think it is because we are less worthy.  Instead, Christian teaching acknowledges that God is the author of every blessing, while humanity and its rebellious disobedience are solely and collectively responsible for all of the evils of nature and our fellow man which we face. 

Ecumenical Worship

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Ecumenical Worship

Q:  Why is it that some local congregations do not take part in ecumenical services and their pastors do not participate publicly in events which involve the clergy of other denominations? 

Questions of church fellowship, such as joint worship or communion participation can become especially sensitive in small, closely-connected communities like those found in Kossuth County.  For people in many congregations, refraining from participation in joint worship might seem quite foreign, if not offensive, and because of the strong ecumenical tendencies of many denominations over the past two generations, many might wonder why others do not participate jointly like their churches and pastors do. 

Because Christianity was largely united under one or two large communions for approximately its first 1500 years, it was not until after the Reformation that it became common for Christians of different types to live in the same area, and therefore find themselves in a position to struggle with this question. 

The consensus at that time was that it would be inappropriate for Christians of different types (Lutheran and Reformed, Roman and Anabaptist, etc.) to engage jointly in worship or other official acts until they had resolved their differences.  This remained the consensus until a movement arose in the United States in the 19^th century which sought to focus on the things Christians had in common and disregard the teachings on which they disagreed. 

Some might be familiar with the saying, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”  This approach has been popular among many segments of Christianity, because the framework allows them to focus on the commonalities while avoiding disagreement over differences.  While the idea, especially its inclination toward civility and tolerance, is appealing, it also raises the question of what teachings constitute essentials and who gets to decide. 

So, for example, there are groups of Christians who desire to affirm every doctrinal distinctive, and even some things that are mere opinions, as essentials, and therefore insist on dividing, even over the most intricate of minutia.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, others consider nothing essential and place even the most foundational teachings of Christianity under the judgment of the individual to understand as they deem appropriate.

Often, observers are under the impression that pastors and congregations to decline to participate in joint worship or other ecumenical activities do so out of a sense of superiority or elitism—as if they believed their brand of Christians would be the only ones in heaven, as I’ve often heard it described.  While there are occasionally instances where that is the case, they are truly rare, and it is typically not true. 

Most pastors I know who make the decision not to participate do so out of a desire for clarity and because they do not want to confuse observers or give the impression that doctrinal differences are insignificant.  They are not typically seeking to defend their ideological purity or avoid defiling themselves by contact with others, but rather to prevent misunderstandings regarding the nature of the various churches’ positions. 

I know many Christians who are very passionate about a teaching they once believed wrongly, but later learned otherwise, and as a result saw a transformation from despair to inexpressible relief.  For them, the concern that others not undergo the same experience takes precedence over the impulse to participate in joint worship with their neighbors. 

For others, they desire so strongly for all Christians to become truly unified (“of one mind” as Paul says in Philippians 2:2) that they believe separation furthers that goal by giving an incentive to discuss and resolve differences.  This would be comparable to the observation that it is healthier for married couples to resolve their differences rather than merely overlook them. 

I know that in our area, a majority of congregations, even those who do not participate ecumenically in public worship, sustain beneficial connections to their broader communities, and that most of their pastors engage in positive professional relationships with other local clergy and even participate behind the scenes to achieve common goals and satisfy charitable needs in the community—attempting contribute to the good of the community in any way possible, yet without compromising their own convictions.

Health or Pleasure?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about caring for the body.

Q:  What is more valuable in Christianity, to enjoy life or to keep one’s body healthy?  If Christians are going to heaven anyway, why should we be concerned about our bodies while we are here on earth?

I know of a pastor who used to be criticized for promoting bacon in his sermons, because of its health implications.  As much as I question the relevance of bacon-eating as a point in Christian preaching, I do think that his answer reveals how easy it is for Christians to lose balance on this issue.  His answer was, “Of course I’ll die.  I’ll die and go to heaven…full of bacon!”

On one hand, Christians recognize that God has given everything in this world to be used for our benefit.  That fact that this world contains things that we are able to enjoy is a reason to give thanks to God.  Paul addresses this problem in 1 Timothy 4, by saying,

“…The Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to… the insincerity of liars… who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving… For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving…”

On another occasion, in the book of Acts, God offers Peter a meal from any of the animals of the earth, and when Peter refuses, God responds by saying, “Do not call anything unclean that God has made clean.”  (Acts 10)

God wants Christians to enjoy and appreciate the things of this world.  Jesus revealed that what harms a person spiritually is not the foods or drinks that they consume, but the worlds and actions that flow out, from within their hearts and minds.  (Mark 7) 

On the other hand, because our desires are corrupted by sin, we desire to overindulge and therefore harm ourselves and others, and God has placed limits on the pleasures of this world (like possessions, life, intimacy, reputation, and authority) in order to protect us. 

The same is true when we deal with our bodies.  Our bodies are a part of the person that God has created, and he desires us to receive them with the same thanks and honor them with the same care as any other blessing He gives.  This becomes especially clear that we do not merely die and go to heaven to live forever as disembodied spirits, but rather the souls in heaven await the Last Day when they will live forever in resurrected bodies.

Much like Christians have recently discovered that it is important to care for the world and not waste its resources unnecessarily, it has also become clear in the present generation that the same is true for the body.  In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul points out that the body of the Christian is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.  While we might be tempted, to jokingly respond that God deserves the largest temple we can build, we have to ultimately acknowledge that this truth has implications for the way we care for our bodies.  Christian stewardship leads us to conclude that we should not waste or damage any blessing God has given—especially our bodies, and the knowledge that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christians leads us to the truth that our bodies are intended to be treated with the highest respect. 

While leisure, fine food, and even adult beverages are given by God to be received with thanks, the Christian lives in such a way as not to abuse these blessings.  So, we work with intensity while stopping short of a level of stress which would harm our body and its ability to continue serving others.  We enjoy leisure while still maintaining the healthy activity our bodies need to preserve health.  We may enjoy the freedom to choose many foods and drinks—even bacon or adult beverages on occasion—which God has created for us to enjoy, but as part of a balanced life that allows pleasure, without endangering the health and longevity which are also His gifts. 

Political Candidates' Religions

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Candidates' Religion:

Q:  Is it a religious requirement for Christians to vote for a candidate who shares their religious identity?  If a non-Christian candidate shares many ideological principles in common with the voter, would it be wrong for the Christian to vote for him over a Christian with whom they disagree?

 

Even though our constitution prohibits the government from imposing any religious test for candidacy, it does not prohibit citizens from using religion as a factor in their decision regarding their vote, and even though many people do feel more comfortable voting for candidates who share their religious identity, it is not morally required of Christians to do so. 

The preference for candidates of one’s own religion probably has to do with a tendency among Americans to see the president as a spiritual leader.  Some even feel that he is something like a pastor-in-chief of American religion, much like his duty as commander-in-chief of the American military.  So, in a time of natural disaster or national tragedy, they want the president’s response to share their spiritual values. 

This has increasingly become a topic of discussion during this year’s election cycle, because in many prominent races, one or sometimes both, candidates are either members of a non-Christian religion or religiously unaffiliated, causing many Christians to express concern about how to respond to such a situation.  Whether they find themselves largely in agreement with one candidate on the issues, but concerned about his religious affiliation, or whether they see both positive and negative elements in each candidate’s views, but wonder whether they might be obligated to vote for the Christian, such important decisions are sure to be approached with great care regarding their ethical implications.

Although the exact source of the quote is uncertain, it has often been reported that Martin Luther expressed the sentiment that if he were forced to choose between being ruled by a wise non-Christian or a foolish Christian, he would choose the wise man above the foolish Christian.  This approach—to consider a candidate’s capabilities and ideology rather than merely his religious affiliation—might prove very relevant for many when approaching the sort of scenarios described above.

This is because neither the Christian Church’s hope nor its health rest on having elected officials who are members of it.  The Bible doesn’t speak of national officials as spiritual leaders, but instead as those who “bear the sword” (Romans 13) for the purpose of keeping the people under their rule secure and free—an environment in which the Church can then do its work of proclaiming the Gospel and convincing people of the Truth. 

We see evidence of this in history, as the religious affiliation of governing officials does not necessarily correlate with the advance or decline of Christian influence.  The fastest growth in Church history occurred during the first three centuries following the Resurrection, when the Church was under the rule of a hostile Roman government which outlawed Christianity.  In contrast, Europe in the middle ages, where the emperors were affiliated with Christianity and the Popes were integral to policy decisions, proved to be some of the darkest days in history for the Church.  Present insights have begun to reveal that the state-church system of Northern Europe may have even been a contributing factor in the collapse in church participation on the continent of Europe. 

As Christians participate in next week’s election, and hear (whether with delight or disappointment) its results, we remember that our hope is not found in having leaders who check the same box on the “religion” line of the census.  Instead, even though Christians desire to contribute to the good of the nation and participate as citizens for the good of all, we acknowledge that our true hope is in the Crucified King and forgiveness of sins delivered by Him in our congregations.

Church Unity

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Church Unity:

Q:  If Jesus desires, as He prayed in John 17:21, that His followers would be one, why are there so many different churches and denominations instead of all Christians joining together as one?  As long as we all believe in Jesus, shouldn’t we overlook our differences on other matters?

John 17, often known as Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer, has been the object of growing interest during the past century.  As denominations and individual Christians have increasingly sought to transcend denominational boundaries and definitions, they have often turned to several verses from this chapter as support for their effort. 

In this prayer, it is correct to conclude that Jesus desires unity for His Church.  He expresses this desire not just once, but three times, in the course of the prayer, asking His Father “…that they may be one…” as He speaks, first of His eleven remaining disciples, then of those who would hear their message, then of all future Christians. 

This could appear, before more careful study, to justify the idea that there should be no denominations or divisions within Christianity, and that Christians should overlook their differences to form a single, visibly-united, world-wide church.  However, as we look more carefully at Jesus’ language, as well as statements made elsewhere in the New Testament, we see that the truth is slightly more nuanced than that. 

It is clear from this text, as well as from supporting passages elsewhere, that Jesus does desire a unified Church, without divisions or disagreements.  In fact, the New Testament almost unanimously speaks, not of “churches,” but of “the Church,” and seems to speak of the unity of the Church as an accomplished fact.  This is not only because it was true at the time, but because it is irrevocably true at all times and places. 

This is because the unity of the Church is not based on our effort or ability, but rather on our One Lord.  Because the Church trusts Jesus, it is united—across nations, races, languages, and even denominational differences.  However, this unity is invisible.  It is a spiritual unity based not on human organizations, but upon the accomplished fact of Jesus’ redemption of Christians as their substitute in living a God-pleasing life and dying to bear the punishment of the world’s sin.  When the Bible speaks of The Church, it is speaking of all people of all times and places who trust in Jesus. 

At the same time, we live in the reality where there are many churches, and The Church is hidden from our view.  This is a reality that, this side of the Last Day, we will continue to experience.  These divisions exist because some have departed from the pure truth.  While all people who recognize God as a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who acknowledge Jesus as fully God and fully human, and who trust only in Him to forgive their sins, are Christians, various denominations have diverged on many questions beyond this point, and this is the reason that Christianity became, and remains, divided. 

Jesus makes it clear in His prayer that the unity He prays for is not one where people agree to disagree, but rather where they “agree” and are of “one mind” as the apostle Paul later phrases the idea.  Jesus does this by praying that His followers would “be one, even as we are one.”  Jesus desired that the unity of Christians in the Church would be as close as that which He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit experience with one another in the Trinity.

In 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that differences had already arisen in the Church during His time, even explaining to Christians that such a thing was necessary, “so that the genuine among you may be recognized.”  Jesus, Paul, and the other New Testament authors desire a united Church, but they desire that this unity be one of agreement and common teaching, not one where each individual believes their own thing under a broad umbrella. 

While The Church is already united by Jesus Himself, and while we certainly desire to make this unity more and more visible, we do a disservice to all people if we achieve this by masking our differences rather than resolving them, and while churches may be more or less divided at various times, it is only on the Last Day, when Jesus returns to judge the living and the dead, that the One, united, Church will become a visible reality. 

David and Jonathan

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about David and Jonathan:

Q:  Was the relationship between King David and his friend Jonathan, which is described in the book of 1 Samuel, a close platonic friendship, or was it really a romantic relationship?  If these two men were romantically involved, how can this be reconciled with the Old Testament laws forbidding such relationships?

It has become more common lately for some authors to envision the relationship between David and Jonathan as being a homosexual romance.  However, it is important to note that this is a very recent development.  My research has not revealed evidence that this was proposed by anyone earlier than the 1950s, and even then it seems to have been proposed only rarely and theoretically, and not seriously considered until well after 1970. 

This alone ought to raise skepticism regarding the claim, because whenever we encounter a 40-years-young assumption about a 3000 year old piece of literature, it is highly unlikely that the assumption has any credibility. 

Yet historicity alone is not the only difficulty with this view of the relationship.  The verse that is most frequently the focus of these claims is 2 Samuel 1:26, in which David, while lamenting Jonathan’s death, describes his friendship with Jonathan as “greater than the love of a woman.”  For a reader without a background in Hebrew, I can see how the imagination might seem to suggest a romantic relationship.  However, two linguistic clues lead us to consider other options.

First, the language used in this verse about David and Jonathan’s friendship is that of “love.”  Hebrew does not use the word “love” to refer to a sexual relationship.  In fact, it does not even use it to refer to an emotional feeling.  Instead, to love is to sacrificially and selflessly place another’s interests ahead of one’s own, such as when Jonathan acknowledged God’s will that David be king (1 Samuel 18) rather than clinging to the idea that the throne should rightfully be his own.  In Hebrew it is, instead, the word “know” that is used to refer to a sexual relationship.  Throughout the Old Testament, when a couple consummates an intimate relationship, it uses the language of knowing and not the language of loving.

Additionally, David’s words are set in the context of Hebrew poetry, which was not based on rhyme, as we are used to, but rather on structure and on parallelism.  What we see in 2 Samuel 1:26 is a parallel that is meant to emphasize the difference between the parallel subjects.  So, David is not saying that he relates sexually to both Jonathan and to women and comparing the two experiences.  Instead, He is saying that the friendship he enjoys with Jonathan is not only superior to any relationship he might enjoy with a woman, but that it is of a completely distinct kind.   

Even if it were plausible that the relationship between David and Jonathan were intimate rather than platonic, it would be very difficult to prove with certainty.  On the other hand, the legal prohibitions set forth in Leviticus are very clear.  One of the most basic principles of Bible reading is that the clear passages shed light on the unclear ones, and not the reverse.  Therefore we would have to conclude that the clear prohibitions earlier in the Bible make it impossible that David and Jonathan’s relationship could be simultaneously romantic and honorable in the Old Testament’s worldview. 

Even if this relationship were to be as asserted in the recent opinions, it would not lead to the conclusion that the relationship was moral.  For example, the Bible also describes David’s acts of adultery and murder later in life, but the fact that they are described does not lead to the conclusion that they were exemplary acts.  Elsewhere in the Old Testament, Job’s friends give him all manner of wrong answers about his suffering, but this does not mean that the answers are divinely approved, but rather merely descriptions of the events. 

In any case, regardless of one’s position on homosexual behavior, the fact is that this story is simply not relevant to the question.  The language and context make it quite clear that the relationship was anything but sexual, but even if the potential existed that it were, the mere description of the situation by the Biblical authors would not render it divinely approved, meaning that an intellectually honest person on either side of the question of homosexual relationships will simply have to look elsewhere for their evidence.