My Thoughts on the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage

I have been hesitant to write anything about the SCOTUS ruling which disallowed States to ban gay marriage, simply because I have seen how social media has been so consumed by it, and it is clearly an issue which people have made a dividing line, which greatly saddens me. My initial feeling was that it is a lose-lose to write anything on the issue for these reasons, but I keep returning to the idea that I should share some thoughts, since the purpose of this blog is to give a pastor’s voice on happenings in society.

So here are some thoughts:

I’m not surprised by the decision. It didn’t happen overnight. This is the culmination of things which have been in the works for a long time. The debate is basically between identity and practice. For some time now in our society, there has been a movement pushing to see homosexuality as an identity which a person is inherently given, and therefore not to act on it would be to betray who they fundamentally are. The Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t say that homosexuality is a person’s fundamental identity, but that it is a practice – but not who a person is. A person may have inclinations towards certain behavior, but that doesn’t mean that they must act on those inclinations at risk of betraying who they are – rather every person must choose to deny certain inclinations and act on others, and the Bible says that homosexuality is a behavior which should be denied – not an identity which defines who a person is.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a change in the cultural climate – where now homosexuality is to be celebrated and anyone who doesn’t celebrate it will be marginalized. Whereas historically in America, for the most part churches and religious organizations have been regarded in a positive light, that is less and less the case, as they are increasingly being portrayed as “hate” groups, unless they are willing to compromise convictions held for thousands of years. This change of climate is something American Christians are not used to, although it does exist in other places in the world – namely Canada and France.

The biggest implication for churches will not be in the realm of officiating or hosting homosexual marriages. See this article for more details on that.  The biggest implication in the long term for churches will be in the area of tax exempt status. Just this past week, Time published an article in which the author stated that “Now’s the time to end tax exemptions for religious institutions”. The author references a 1983 court ruling from a case involving Bob Jones University, which stated that a school could lose tax-exempt status if its policies violated “fundamental national public policy,” and states that in light of the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, this might now be applied to religious organizations.
That prospect seems daunting to many Christians, and I personally wouldn’t like to see that happen – but I do keep in mind that the early Christians had no money, no tax exemptions, they were considered an illegal religion for hundreds of years and were considered radical in their statement that Jesus was the only way to heaven.  And yet, the message of the Gospel changed lives and brought about love and new life, whether it was legal or illegal, preached in a tax exempt mega-church or an underground meeting.
You may not agree with the direction things are changing, but we can have confidence both historically and eschatologically of the victory of Jesus and the ultimate need of every person in the world for the Good News of the Gospel to give them new life.

Should Christians Try to Improve Society?

Tomorrow morning I’ll be teaching on Jesus’ salt and light metaphors from the Sermon on the Mount, as part of our CounterCulture series at White Fields.

I found this quote in a book by John Stott, about the social responsibility of Christians as part of our identity as the salt of the Earth. Since salt has a healing and preserving effect, the idea is that Christians should have a healing and preserving effect on society.

There are some who would say, What’s the point in trying to make society better?  If Jesus could come back any minute, and this life is short anyway, then shouldn’t all our efforts be towards saving people out of this world, rather than “polishing a turd”, to put it crassly?

However, it seems to me that it is an inherent part of the calling of a Christian to make the world a better place, if for no other reason than to “let your light shine before others so that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

Here is that John Stott quote:

Too often evangelical Christians have interpreted their social responsibility in terms only of helping the casualties of a sick society, and have done nothing to change the structures which cause the casualties. Just as doctors are concerned not only with the treatment of patients but also with preventive medicine and public health, so we should concern ourselves with what might be called preventive social medicine and higher standards of moral hygiene. However small our part may be, we cannot opt out of seeking to create better social structures, which guarantee justice in legislation and law enforcement, the freedom and dignity of the individual, civil rights for minorities and the abolition of social and racial discrimination. We should neither despise these things nor avoid our responsibility for them. They are part of God’s purpose for his people. Whenever Christians are conscientious citizens, they are acting like salt in the community.

As Sir Frederick Catherwood put it:‘To try to improve society is not worldliness but love. To wash your hands of society is not love but worldliness.’

Stott goes on to say that SALT is not all that the world needs. The world also needs LIGHT – the truth of God, ultimately found in the Gospel.

The American Religion of Parenting

A few days ago I was scanning Twitter and was intrigued by the title of an article: How American parenting is killing the American marriage

The article is a very insightful critique of the culture of parenting – or “religion of parenting”, as the author calls it – in our society, and the results of it.

Of particular interest to me was how the author points out that there is an unspoken understanding in our society that the value of a human life peaks out at birth and diminishes from there.

The origins of the parenthood religion are obscure, but one of its first manifestations may have been the “baby on board” placards that became popular in the mid-1980s. Nobody would have placed such a sign on a car if it were not already understood by society that the life of a human achieves its peak value at birth and declines thereafter. A toddler is almost as precious as a baby, but a teenager less so, and by the time that baby turns fifty, it seems that nobody cares much anymore if someone crashes into her car. You don’t see a lot of vehicles with placards that read, “Middle-aged accountant on board.”

Today I talked with a great lady from our church who heads up an outreach called “Project Greatest Gift”, in which we provide Christmas gifts for children in foster care. Weld County told us that many of the children in foster care are living with elderly people, and they asked if we might be willing to provide gifts for the caretakers this year as well.
This seems like a great opportunity for us to show that we value all human life, both young and old.

Another important insight of the article is how this religion of parenting has led to a quickly rising divorce rate among empty nesters:

In the 21st century, most Americans marry for love. We choose partners who we hope will be our soulmates for life. When children come along, we believe that we can press pause on the soulmate narrative, because parenthood has become our new priority and religion. We raise our children as best we can, and we know that we have succeeded if they leave us, going out into the world to find partners and have children of their own. Once our gods have left us, we try to pick up the pieces of our long neglected marriages and find new purpose. Is it surprising that divorce rates are rising fastest for new empty nesters?

I think that one of the things the Christian church has done well is championing marriage. The writer to the Hebrews says: “Let marriage be held in honor among all.” (‭Hebrews‬ ‭13‬:‭4‬ ESV) I have had the privilege to see successful Christians marriages that thrived even after the kids left the house, because they made their marriage and not their children the center of their family.

How Does Marriage Affect Violence Against Women and Children?

How Does Marriage Affect Violence Against Women and Children?

This article in the Washington Post this week showed that statistically, women and children in married families suffer far less domestic violence than those in other situations.

Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.

As Christians, one of the best things we can do for society is to uphold and promote strong biblical ethics.

“The Dopest Job Ever”

IMG_2541

Yesterday, while riding the lift at Eldora, I had an interesting conversation with a guy who, like me, was up snowboarding alone.

He was from Boulder, probably in his late 20’s or early 30’s, and works in some area of the tech industry.

He was very interested when he found out I was a pastor, because he said he’d always been interested in what goes on in churches, but had never been to church himself.  Here’s how our conversation went:

  • “Wow, you’re a pastor?!  Like in a church?”
    • “Yeah”
  • “So, what do you do there?”
    • “I teach the Bible and counsel people and lead the church as an organization in all the endeavors we are involved in.”
  • “Do you like emcee the shows and stuff?”
    • “You mean the church services?  Yes, I lead the worship services.”
  • “So you’re kinda like an emcee!  That’s dope!”
  • “Wait, so you’re married?  (I had mentioned my wife and kids to him)
    • “Yeah, I’m married”
  • “I thought priests couldn’t get married”
    • “Well, that’s a rule in the Catholic church – but we’re not Catholic. In fact, even in the Catholic church, they only introduced that rule a couple hundred years after Jesus lived and established the church, so most Christians don’t follow that rule, and most pastors get married.”
  • “Wow. I always thought that would be a pretty dope job, but the one downside is that you couldn’t have girls. But, you know, if you can have girls, then that’s like the dopest job ever!”
    • “Well, I mean, as a pastor, you can’t just go around having lots of girls – you can have a wife and a family, but it has to be monogamous.”
      • “Yeah, but same thing – you get to have a girl. That’s dope!”

About this time the lift reached the top of the mountain – and I encouraged him that he should really check out a church sometime for himself, and that he ought to give some consideration to who Jesus was and what he taught. After that, we bid each other farewell and got off the lift, and went separate ways. Who knows if we’ll ever meet again.

It did surprise me though, how little this man knew about church and about Jesus. It served as a reminder that we live in a post-Christendom society. Boulder has long been considered a trend-setting, cultural hub for Colorado and the Western United States. That means that as Christians, increasingly we can no longer expect that most people in our society have a basic understanding of Christian doctrine and practice, and know who Jesus was and what God requires of them. More and more people in our society are growing up without that, and we as Christians need to be prepared to present Jesus and the message of the Gospel to people without the assumption that they have some basic background understanding of Christianity – because more and more do not.

Ga BleshU

Do you remember that Seinfeld episode where they talked about why we say “God bless you” when someone sneezes? One of them – I can't remember if it was Elain or Jerry – suggested was that instead we should say, “You're so good looking!”, because that would really make people feel better.

I saw this display at Sprouts in Longmont today:

Ga Ble Shu: You know, for when you're not really into God, but you feel like you should say something when people sneeze.

What do you think? Harmless advertising gimmick or a sign of the spiritual climate?

 

Atheist Mega-churches: What they mean and what we can learn from them

Image
Sunday Assembly in Los Angeles

Recently a new movement has been getting a lot of publicity. Dubbed “atheist mega-churches” – the movement is being spearheaded by two British comedians. They call their meetings “sunday assemblies,” and they have all of the look and feel of a contemporary Christian church service, without one key factor: God.

Co-founders, Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans have stated that their goal is to export the original concept, first started in London, around the world. They are currently on tour visiting 40 major cities; right now they are in the US, going from New York to Los Angeles, trying to establish Sunday Assemblies and propagating their message of humanist community gatherings.

At these Sunday assemblies, they do everything that your average Christian church does: they sing songs, they drink tea and coffee and chat in the lobby, they raise money for humanitarian causes – they take offerings, and they have a sermon each week! In an interview, Sanderson Jones answered the obvious question of what they preach on if they don’t have the Bible or another “sacred text”. His answer was astounding and something that should cause Christians everywhere some serious consideration. He said that ‘preaching without God isn’t hard at all – after all, most preaching in churches these days is basically tips and strategies about how to be a kinder, more balanced, well-rounded person; we embrace that whole heartedly, and we don’t believe we need God to do that.’

‘preaching without God isn’t hard at all – after all, most preaching in churches these days is basically tips and strategies about how to be a kinder, more balanced, well-rounded person; we embrace that whole heartedly, and we don’t believe we need God to do that.’

Here are my thoughts on these “atheist mega-churches”:

1. Mega-churches? Hardly.

Although they have been dubbed “mega-churches” by the media, if you look at the pictures, you will notice that if this were a Christian church, it would not be qualify as a “mega-church”. Furthermore, let’s not forget that the gatherings getting the most press are the ones in which Jones and Evans are present and leading the meetings – two British celebrities, who have been getting a lot of press attention lately for these Sunday Assemblies. This is a special event, not a church – not a committed community of people, and certainly not a mega-church. Even the original Sunday Assembly is not all that big. I understand that “mega-church” pops out on a page – but let’s make sure we’re not blowing this all out of proportion.

2. Novelty = Media Hype

“Atheist Mega-church” is a novelty of a phrase that grabs people’s attention. Perfect for the media. Is there much substance to it? Will we see this as a growing movement for years to come? I don’t think so. I don’t believe it is sustainable. In fact, if it hadn’t been started by two celebrities, I don’t think it would have ever gotten off the ground. I see this fizzling out in the weeks, months and years to come as media hype wears off and moves on to the next amusing story. The reason why “Christian music and movies” are never as good as the original is simply this: they are not original – they are trying to copy someone else’s idea and put a Christian twist on it. It is often second-rate as a result. This smacks of the same thing, only more so.

3. A Very Important Critique

The quote from Sanderson Jones above is a VERY important critique for Christians, and particularly church leaders. Because here’s the deal: ANYBODY can “do church”! And Sanderson is right – you don’t need God to just get together, drink some bad coffee, sing a few songs and hear an inspiring talk about 10 ways to have your best life now. YOU DON’T NEED GOD FOR THAT! He’s right!

ALL that we have as Christians is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we get away from that, then we have become nothing more than a community gathering – in which it doesn’t matter if God is there or not.

Recently I had someone come to our church, and they told me that they had been attending another church previously, but came to realize that the sermons that were being preached could have easily been speeches given at a high school graduation or by a politician. God’s name was mentioned, but if it hadn’t been, it wouldn’t have changed the substance of the message. In other words: it didn’t matter if God was there or not. They were giving tips and strategies for how to be a kinder, more-balanced, well-rounded person – and the fact is, that you don’t need God to do that.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Word of God are what we have as Christians. They are what we should major on, and never neglect in an effort to give practical advice. The Gospel is life-changing and transforming, and we must crank it up rather than water it down. Only then will people really be transformed.

What do you think of these atheist mega-churches and my estimation of them?  Are they just a flash in the pan, or are they here to stay?  And what does this mean for Christianity and society in general?

A “Christian Nation” and the End of an Era

Have you ever heard the term “Christendom”? I have often heard it used to refer to the “invisible community of Christians everywhere” – kind of along the lines of the term “blogosphere”.

While that use of Christendom isn’t wrong – it isn’t the historical use of the word either. Historically, Christendom referred to the “Christian nations.” It was a way of dividing up the globe, into “Christendom” and “heathendom”.

One of my professors from seminary, Llyod Pietersen, recently wrote a book titled Reading the Bible After Christendom.

In the book he includes two lists: the first is a list characterizing Constantinian Christianity and culture, and the second characterizes the shift away from it. They are particularly interesting in regard to thinking of the United States or the United Kingdom (or any country for that matter) in our modern era as a “Christian nation.”  Whether or not our founders were God-fearing people, or whether we have a history of movements of God in our country – we need to assess the reality of the modern situation. Sweden, for example, like a number of other European countries, is still technically a Christian nation, whilst practically they shifted away from Christendom long ago.

The other thing you realize from these lists is that maybe Christendom wasn’t actually as great as people think it was. One of the great downfalls of a “Christian nation” is that you give people a false sense of security in their salvation – simply because they were born into a “Christian” culture or society. At least in a pluralistic society (which is what we are in – but was also the situation Paul the Apostle and the Christians in the Book of Acts were in!) people realize the immediate and pressing need for them to make a choice to follow Jesus, and the radical implications that come with it!

Rather than bemoaning the end of Christendom, I believe that Christians are faced with a great new opportunity in pluralistic society – the opportunity to bring to bear on all people the challenges of the Gospel and the call to follow Jesus Christ, because being a Christian is no longer a “given”.

Here are those lists:

Characteristics of the shift to Christendom:

  • The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of city, state, or empire.
  • Movement of the church from the margins to the center of society.
  • The creation and progressive development of a Christian culture or civilization.
  • The assumption that all citizens (except Jews) were Christian by birth.
  • The development of a “sacral society,” corpus Christianum, where there was no freedom of religion and political power was divinely authenticated.
  • The definition of “orthodoxy” as the belief all shared, determined by powerful church leaders with state support.
  • Imposition, by legislation and custom, of a supposedly Christian morality on the entire society (though normally Old Testament morality was applied).
  • Infant baptism as the symbol of obligatory incorporation into Christian society.
  • The defense of Christianity by legal sanctions to restrain heresy, immorality, and schism.
  • A hierarchical ecclesiastical system based on a diocesan and parish arrangement, analogous to the state hierarchy and buttressed by state support.
  • A generic distinction between clergy and laity, and relegation of laity to a largely passive role.
  • Two-tier ethics, with higher standards of discipleship (“evangelical counsels”) expected of clergy and those in religious orders.
  • Sunday as an official holiday and obligatory church attendance, with penalties for non-compliance.
  • The requirement of oaths of allegiance and oaths in law court to encourage truth telling.
  • The construction of massive and ornate church buildings and the formation of huge congregations.
  • Increased wealth of the church and obligatory tithes to fund the system.
  • Division of the globe in “Christendom” and “heathendom” and wars waged in the name of Christ and the church.
  • Use of political and military force to impose Christianity, regardless of personal conviction.
  • Reliance on the Old Testament, rather than the New, to justify these changes.

Characteristics of the shift into post-Christendom:

  • The Christian story and churches have moved from the center to the margins.
  • Christians are now a minority.
  • Christians therefore no longer feel at home in the dominant culture.
  • Christians no longer enjoy automatic privileges but find themselves as one community among many in a plural society.
  • The church no longer exercises control over society but instead Christians can exercise influence only through faithful witness to the Christian story and its implications.
  • The emphasis is now no longer on maintaining the status quo but on mission in an contested environment.
  • Churches can no longer operate mainly in institutional mode, but must learn to operate once again as part of a movement.

 

What do you think?  Are there any Christian nations these days?  Do we really want to be one?

Jesus didn’t live in a Christian nation, neither did Paul. And I don’t think they thought our goal as Christians was to establish them either.