All posts by Dick Lentz

Is our misunderstanding of the 1st amendment, the one dealing with freedom of speech, contributing to school shootings?

(I wrote this following the recent school shooting in Florida. It was published in the Longmont Times-call on February 25, 2018 under the title, “Addressing gun violence with a better understanding of freedom of religion.”)

In the aftermath of the latest school shooting, there will undoubtedly be lots of discussion about the second amendment, the one that has to do with our right to bear arms. But though finding reasonable ways to keep guns out the hands of those inclined to violence may be helpful, it doesn’t solve the root cause of the problem. Ultimately the root problem is not having too many guns or having easy access to them; it is our failure to help people like Nicholas Cruz to find more constructive ways to deal with their internal struggles.

I believe that our misunderstanding and subsequent misapplication of the first amendment contributes to this failure. This amendment reads in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” The original intent of this amendment was to prevent Congress from establishing a national religion while preserving the rights of citizens to express their own views about God freely – to have the freedom of religion. This amendment has been interpreted in recent decades however as an imperative to keep religion totally separate from government – to keep government free from religion – by removing all references to God, the Bible, and religion from our public venues.

I believe that our efforts to interpret and apply the first amendment in this fashion has done more harm than good. For one thing, it inadvertently communicates to those who may know little about God that He doesn’t exist, or if He does that He doesn’t care about our troubles, or that it doesn’t matter what we believe about Him. In an environment like this where expressions of faith are discouraged rather than applauded, people like Cruz who may be struggling with a myriad of internal conflicts are left with the notion that they have few alternatives for dealing with their inner turmoil other than to express their anger or frustration in destructive ways.

The Bible and its expression through the Christian faith has much to offer in this respect. It teaches that we are all broken people who pretty much can’t fix ourselves. It reminds us that God did something to remedy this and that when His Son Jesus was crucified, He provided a path to both personal and spiritual redemption. It promises that we can find true peace and joy by having a personal relationship with Jesus and that even in our darkest moments He will always love us and remain with us. It also communicates that there are significant consequences, some of them eternal, for those who refuse to acknowledge their need for Him or who give into their inclination towards violence or evil.

I don’t know if Cruz ever heard this message or if he did, how he responded to it. But if encouraging expressions of faith like this in our public places could have motivated him or others like him to consider making a different and better choice in dealing with their inner turmoil, wouldn’t it be worth it even if some may have been offended by hearing that message?

Maybe it’s time to change our understanding and application of the first amendment so that there are more opportunities for people to hear about the redemptive work of Jesus, even if it results in increased expressions of faith in our public spaces.

Why my “old self” isn’t really gone – 2 Corinthians 5:17

The bad News: my “old self” isn’t actually gone; the good news: it isn’t being held against me.

One of the verses that has troubled me for a long time is this one: 

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has    come (2 Corinthians 5:17)!”

Although I like the sentiment of this verse – that having a relationship with Christ can be so transforming that we no longer have a desire to do what displeases God – that our old sinful self is truly dead and gone – in reality I continue to struggle to do what is right in God’s eyes. And that troubles me. I identify more with Paul in this respect when he wrote,

“So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law, but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death. (Romans 7:21-24)” 

In sharp contrast to what he said in 2 Corinthians 5:17, it seems that Paul was saying in Romans 7:21-24 that his sinful self wasn’t gone at all and that his desire to do what God says is right was constantly at war with something inside him that desired to do what is sinful.

Some attempt to reconcile Paul’s statement in Romans 7:21-24 with what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17 by concluding that what he was describing in Romans 7 was his struggle with sin prior to making a commitment to follow Jesus. But there is no indication in Romans that what Paul was talking about in Romans 7:21-24 was his life before becoming a Christian. In context, it seems to me that he was describing something he was experiencing at the time he was writing to the believers in Rome.  If this is so, then Paul was saying that he continued to struggle to do what is right in God’s eyes even after putting his trust in Jesus.

But if Christians today struggle to do the same – if they struggle as well to do what is right in God’s eyes even though they’ve made a commitment to follow Jesus – then how do we make sense of the statement Paul made in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that the old is gone – that it has passed away?

What It Is There For 

One help in unlocking the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:17 is noting that Paul began the verse with “therefore” and then asking what it is “there for”. What it seems to indicate is that this verse is tied intrinsically with what precedes it and that the verse can’t be properly understood without taking into consideration what comes before it.

Here’s a bit of what comes before:

 “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. So, from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ this way, we do so no longer. (2 Corinthians 5:14-16)” 

What Paul seemed to be describing in these verses are some things that ought to be different as a result of our relationship with Jesus. One thing that ought to be different is whom or what we are living for. Because Christ died for us, we should no longer be living for ourselves but instead should be living for Him. Another thing that should be different is how we view others as well as ourselves. Paul said, “From now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view (vs. 16).”

And so what should be different in how we view others? To answer that we need to take a look at what comes after 2 Corinthians 5:17.

What Follows Is Important

Noting what follows 2 Corinthian 5:17 is just as important as noting what precedes it if we want to fully understand what Paul was trying to tell us in this verse.  Here is a bit of what comes after it:

“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (vs. 18-21)” 

Note that the word “reconciliation” or a form of it is used five times in these verses. I have underlined them. This indicates that the central theme of 2 Corinthians 5:11-21 probably has something to do with reconciliation. In context, the issue seems to be what reconciles us to God and what the effect of that should be.

Paul said that because of Christ’s death, God no longer counts our sins against us (vs. 19). This does not mean that God actually remove our sin nature from us. But by making Him who had no sin become sin for us (vs. 21), God removed the issue of sin so that we are no longer separated from Him because of it.

Paul explained what we should do in response to this. First, we need to “be reconciled to God” (vs. 20). One way we can do this is by coming into His presence with confidence that in spite of our sin God accepts us just as we are – just as if were new creatures where the old is gone. Second, Paul said that we are to be ambassadors who are committed to sharing God’s message of reconciliation with others, perhaps by telling those who are lost or who don’t understand the extent of God’s grace that Jesus did what was required to forgive them for all their sins so they can have a personal relationship with Him.

Based on what becomes before and after 2 Corinthians 5:17, I believe it is describing what ought to be different in how we view those who have made a decision to trust their lives and their salvation to Jesus, including how we view ourselves. Although a person who follows Christ may sin or may continue to have a desire to do so, the fact that they do should not cloud how we view them. Paul was saying that we should see those who follow Christ in the same way that God sees them by not counting their sins against them – by seeing them as new creatures where the old has passed away.

There No Condemnation For Those Who Are in Christ

After describing his personal struggles with sin in Romans 7:21-24, Paul said this:

”Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1)” 

This  is similar to the point I believe Paul was making in 2 Corinthians 5:11-21. Although Paul found himself frequently desiring to do what displeased God, because Jesus died for his sins, he knew that he was no longer under condemnation for them. And because God no longer held his sins against him, he was inclined to offer the same hand of reconciliation to others that God had extended to him by not counting others’ sins against them, just as if their old sinful ways were gone.

That’s my understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:17, at least as I see it today.

Who are the rightful heirs of the land of Israel?

My response to Stephen Sizer’s article, “Bible Prophecy – Promised Return of Impending Exile”,  regarding the return of the Jews to Israel

A number of years ago I read an article written by Stephen Sizer, a former vicar of the Anglican Church in England, regarding Christian Zionism. Christian Zionists believe that the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 is a direct fulfillment of Bible prophecy and that the tensions we are witnessing that region today can be attributed to this and other end time prophecies regarding Israel. Sizer who is known for his opposition to Christian Zionism believes that what is happening in Israel has little if anything to do with Bible prophecy.

The following are some statements Sizer made regarding this and my response to them. The page numbers refer to an article Sizer wrote regarding Christian Zionism that was published by the Christian Research Journal in 2006. A copy of his article can be found at the link above.

 A growing number of Christians…are left uneasy about the idea that God would bring the Jews back to Palestine while they are in unbelief since that is why they were exiled from it in the first place. (Page 35)

Here are some passages in the Bible that bear on this:

  1. God’s covenant with Abraham, the “Abrahamic covenant”, which included a promise that they would be given the land in and surrounding modern day Israel, was unconditional (Genesis 15). God asked Abraham to split a calf in two and to let its blood run down a channel between the two halves. In those days two parties making a covenant in this fashion would walk through the blood shed by the calf signifying that if either broke the covenant, the other could do to one violating the covenant what had been done to the calf. In Genesis 15:17, God, symbolized by a smoking pot, was the only one who passed between the halves signifying that He alone was responsible for upholding the covenant.
  1. God’s covenant with Abraham was never revoked. Galatians 3:17-18 says, “The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise, but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.”
  1. Another covenant was introduced through Moses. It is referred to as the “Sinaic covenant” as it was at Mount Sinai where it was given and confirmed. The Sinaic covenant was conditional. The Israelites had to obey the laws of God to reap its rewards. It is impossible to obey every aspect of God’s laws however. Jesus did something to remedy this. When He was crucified, the law was symbolically nailed to the Cross negating the power it and the Sinaic covenant, the Old Covenant, had to condemn people of sin (Colossians 2:13-15). The Sinaic covenant was replaced by a new covenant based on faith (Ephesians 2:8).
  1. One effect of the New Covenant is that that the Jews were no longer going to be held accountable collectively for their sin. Confirmation of this can be found in Jeremiah 31:27-37. Once the New Covenant was in effect, judgment for national sin would cease and “instead, everyone will die for his own sin” (vs. 30). When speaking about the effect of Jesus’ sacrificial death, the writer of Hebrews drew from this passage when he said, “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds … Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more (Hebrews 10:16-17 and Jeremiah 31:33-34).”
  1. Zechariah said that the Jews would experience a time when they would no longer be under collective judgment for their sin (Zechariah 3). Speaking for God, Zechariah said, “I will remove the sin of this land in a single day (3:9).” This “single day” seems in context to be referring to the day that Jesus was crucified.
  1. God did not bring the Jews back to the land of Israel for their sake or because they were good. God did it for His sake (Ezekiel 36). Ezekiel 37 describes the return of both Israel and Judah, the names of the northern and southern kingdoms after Israel split into two nations following the death of Solomon, to the land of Israel. In the process the “two sticks” become one once again (37:15-17). In describing this, Ezekiel speaking for God said, “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my name which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among them. Then these nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes (36:22-23).” What God does to restore the Israelites to the land of Israel has more to do with Him then with them. He promised He would restore them to the land in spite of their disobedience so that He could be glorified.
  1. Zechariah prophesies that its opposition to the Jews after they’ve returned to Israel that ultimately leads to their collective spiritual redemption. Zechariah 12 describes a day when the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem are surrounded by those who want to destroy them and God miraculously saves them by destroying their enemies. When the Jews see that their victory has come from God, they end up mourning “the one whom they have pierced (12:10).” This may be the event Jesus had in mind when He wept on the Mount of Olives above Jerusalem a few days before His crucifixion and said, “You will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Matthew. 23:37-39).’”

I believe that the Jews as a nation were forgiven when Jesus died on the Cross, perhaps at the moment when He said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34).” Although the suffering they’ve experienced since then could be due to their collective disbelief, I believe that what they’ve experienced is simply an extension of Satan’s continued efforts to undermine the work of God by destroying the ones God has chosen to represent Him. I believe that the Jews’ return to the land of Israel is part of God’s plan to reveal His nature to the world through the way He fulfills His covenant with Abraham. It also may be the beginning of God’s final efforts to redeem the Jews individually and corporately.

The covenant was primarily relational, not material (page 36)

It’s unclear when Sizer makes this claim if he is referring to the Abrahamic covenant or the Sinaic one. The covenant with Moses, the Sinaic one, does have material and relational aspects to it. The Jews had to be obedient to God in order to reap its benefits. But as pointed out earlier, this covenant was revoked when Jesus was crucified and it was symbolically nailed to the Cross (Colossians 2:14). There is no biblical evidence that the Abrahamic covenant was ever revoked. It was unconditional and depended on God’s character alone.

This does not mean that the Abrahamic covenant does not have some relational aspects to. But some of it is clearly material. God promised to give the land of Israel to the Jews as an eternal possession, and God said that if He doesn’t fulfill His promises that He is not God.

God stipulated through blessings and curses that repentance is always a condition of return (page 38)

Leviticus 26 does state that Israel would face exile if they refused to obey God (vs. 27-35). Daniel drew from portions of Leviticus 26:40-45 in a prayer he made on the Jews’s behalf when they were living in exile in Babylon (Daniel 9:1-19). Daniel understood that their  exile was going to last 70 years and near the end of this period asked for God to forgive his people.

God responded by telling Daniel that the Jews’ guilt for their transgressions would be removed but that it would take 490 years (seventy weeks of seven) “to atone for wickedness [and] to bring in everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24).” The beginning point of this time frame was “the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (9:25),” an event that occurred in 453 B.C. when Cyrus gave Nehemiah permission to return to Jerusalem so the city could be rebuilt (Nehemiah 1-2). 490 years after this would be 36 A.D. Most scholars agree that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred sometime between 30 and 36 A.D. It was at this point that both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 10 indicate that the nation as a whole would no longer be held accountable for its sin. Somewhere in this time frame or shortly afterwards could be the end of the 490-year period Daniel prophesied about.

Also, as noted earlier, the conditions described in Leviticus 26 are part of the Sinaic covenant and this covenant was canceled on the Cross (Colossians 2:13-15). Since the Sinaic covenant is no longer in effect, there is no longer any conditions the Jews have or had to meet in order to return to the land of Israel.

It is no longer appropriate to describe the Jews as God’s “chosen people” (page 39)

 Paul addresses this in Romans 9-11. Here’s a bit of what he said:

  1. Speaking for God he said, “All day long, I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” (10:21)
  1. “Did God reject his people? By no means … God did not reject his people.” (11:1,2)
  1. “All Israel will be saved. The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” (11:26-27)
  1. “As far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” (11:28-29)

One thing that is consistent throughout the Old and New Testaments is God’s unconditional commitment to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham and his descendants. Jeremiah 31:35-36 says this, “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight, declares the Lord, will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.” It’s as if God was saying, “If I don’t do what I’ve said I’m going to do for the children of Abraham, then I’m not God.”

Through the New Covenant, the exalted Christ rules sovereign over the entire world, from the heavenly Jerusalem. (Page 40) 

Sizer suggests that the Jews were never given an unconditional promise of a physical kingdom and that passages describing Christ’s eternal reign over one need to be interpreted figuratively rather than literally. But if references regarding the future Jerusalem and the eternal throne of Christ are figurative rather than literal – if they are only heavenly places and not real ones – then how do we make sense of the following verses?

  1. “The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven which said, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever’ (Revelation 11:15).”
  1. “I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it…Then the Lord will go out and fight against these nations…On that day there will be no light, no cold, no frost… On that day, living water will flow out from Jerusalem…[and] The lord will be king over the whole earth (Zechariah 14:1-9).”

There are numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments that connect the coming of a messiah or the return of Jesus with a throne and a reign on earth. Although some of these could be interpreted figuratively, most cannot without significantly changing the context in which these promises were given. In addition, many don’t seem to fit events that have already occurred but seem to be referring to ones that happen in the future.

Jesus’ disciples were looking forward to the day when the kingdom God promised to the Israelites would be restored (Luke 24).  Many followed Jesus hoping that He was the one who would establish that kingdom. Their concept about this kingdom was not wrong. They just didn’t understand its timing. Isaiah prophesied about a time when God would sacrifice a lamb in order to forgive the sins of mankind (Isaiah 53). Jesus was that lamb. He was “the lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus’ disciples didn’t initially understand that this sacrifice must take place first. But their error doesn’t invalidate God’s promise that the Israelites would one day have a physical kingdom overseen by an actual ruler sitting on a real throne.

Why it Matters 

Speaking to Abraham God said, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse (Genesis 12:3).” I believe that this is a declaration by God that it matters how we respond to the promises He made to Abraham and his descendants. Believing that the Jews were given all of the land of Israel should not result in turning a blind eye towards what they’ve done to protect themselves if what they’ve done is unjust. But it should give us a better understanding from a biblical perspective of what’s happening in that region of the world and perhaps more important, why it’s happening.

That is as I see it today.

 

A Christians’ call to action may not be what we think it is

A guest opinion I wrote in response to an editorial by George Saurwein titled, “A Christian call to action,” was published recently in the Longmont Times-Call. In it I show why I disagree with Saurwein’s claim that Christians have a call to take back the moral authority of their culture and support what I believe Christians’ call to action actually is, to be salt and light in the world in which we live so that people will glorify the One who lives within us.

Saurwein’s editorial can be found here: “A Christian call to action.”

My response can be found here: “Christians’ call to action isn’t what writer thinks.”

Here is a text version of my response:

——————————

I am writing in response to George Saurwein’s  guest opinion on August 9 titled, “A Christian call to action.” In my studies of the Bible, I have found no “Christian call to action,” at least as Saurwein describes it, a call for Christians to “take back [their] moral authority” and to “unite as Christians and put the word of God back into the public forum.” Instead of a call for Christians to change their culture and its moral standards, what I have found in the Bible is a call for a change within, one that can happen only by having a personal relationship with Jesus.

I believe that Saurwein errors in this respect by focusing more on actions, on “collective ways of living,” rather than on what’s within our hearts. His quote from Matthew 5:19, “And so if anyone breaks the least commandment, and teaches others to, he shall be least in the Kingdom of Heaven,” ignores both the context and intent of Jesus’ words. The religious leaders at the time, the Pharisees, were telling people that they had to be obedient to the laws of God if they wanted the messiah to come and the kingdom of God to be established. The leaders then came up with an extensive list of rules people had obey if they wanted this to happen. Jesus attacked the Pharisees and their concept of what it meant to be holy by first telling the people that God’s standards of righteousness were so high that they had to exceed the standards of the Pharisees if they wanted to enter God’s kingdom (Matthew 5:20). Jesus then gave several examples of this by saying among others things that God equates anger with murder and lust with adultery (Matthew 5:21-47). Lest they miss the point, Jesus concluded by telling them all they had to do (if they wanted to enter the kingdom of God) was to “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)” This of course was impossible. The Apostle Paul understood this and pointed out in Romans 3:11-22, “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.”

Jesus’ as well as Paul’s purpose in pointing this out wasn’t to establish new rules of behavior that if followed would somehow garner God’s favor. It was to show that a rules-based relationship with God is futile. It was to counter and sometimes attack those who continued to say, “Act this way and you will be right with God.” It was to show people that they couldn’t redeem themselves and to introduce a new concept of salvation based not on what they could or had to do for God but instead was based entirely on what God did for them in order to save them.

That doesn’t mean that following God’s instructions isn’t a good thing to do. We should love others, be committed to our spouses, and avoid entertainment venues that corrupt or harden our hearts. We should use biblical guidelines to help guide our political processes and other decisions we make in life. Paul confirmed this by noting that though ignoring God’s instructions may be permissible, it is not always beneficial (1 Corinthians 6:12). And clergy do have a responsibility to clearly articulate this. Jesus and Paul emphasized however that our ability or desire to be obedient to God has very little if anything to do with our standing with Him since none of us can meet God’s standards of righteousness.

Christians do have a “Call to action” in this respect. It isn’t to change the morals of their culture, however. As I see it, the primary call of Christians is to “let their lights shine before men so that [others] can see their good works and glorify their Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 5:16)” It is also to communicate boldly and unambiguously that without Jesus and what He accomplished by dying for our sins on a cross (John 3:16), no one would be able enter the kingdom of God.

 

 

 

 

The Value of “Small Churches”

In the 1980’s,  I helped re-organize the adult Sunday School department at Fair Oaks Baptist Church in Walnut Creek, California into what we called “Small Churches.” Instead of adults attending classes oriented around a topic or teacher of interest, we asked leaders and members to see each group as a “small church” headed by a pastor-teacher whose goal it was to equip members for the work of a church. This same concept was adopted by Calvary Church in Longmont beginning in 1993. Calvary called these groups “flocks” instead of “small churches” and called the leaders “shepherds” instead of “pastor-teachers.” I became a flock-leader at Calvary in 1994 and still serve in that capacity today.

This paper, written in the late 1980’s as a result of the changes at Fair Oaks, describes both the philosophy and the value of “Small Churches.”

The Value of Small Churches

A Lack of moral compass can send us adrift

I wrote this in response to an article published in the Boulder Daily Camera on August 1, 2015 titled, “Founders’ Religious Beliefs.” My published response can be found at this link:

Daily Camera: Lack of moral compass can send us adrift

The article I was responding to can be found at this link:

Spencer Nelson: Founders’ religious beliefs

Spencer Nelson’s guest opinion August 1 titled “Founders’ Religious Beliefs” though well-written seems to be a bit misleading regarding what our founding fathers actually believed about God. Though many of our nation’s founders may have been influenced by Deism, trying to put them all in the same boat regarding their beliefs about God, Jesus or Christianity is a bit disingenuous. George Washington for example seems to have been a devoted member of the Anglican church but was very private with regards to his personal faith. Although he frequently used “Providence” in lieu of “God” when referring to God in his communications, it seems that he did believe in God’s personal involvement in the affairs of man and that humans were not passive actors when it came to discerning and following His will. His infrequent references to the name of Jesus in private correspondence may have more to do with the conventions of his day and the traditions of his faith rather than his personal beliefs about Jesus.

Regarding Thomas Jefferson’s statement that a “wall of separation exists between church and state,” this phrase shows up in a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists in 1802. The purpose of this letter was to reassure Baptists that “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions.” The 2nd amendment which says that the government may “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” created according to Jefferson a “wall of separation between church and state” that was meant to keep the government from intruding into religion, matters that lie solely “between a Man and his God.” It wasn’t until the middle of last century that this phrase was reinterpreted as a mandate to keep the church from affecting the state rather than as a promise to protect the church by the state and in some cases, from it.

Nelson credited John Adams with a statement that “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” The origin of this statement does not appear to be from John Adams himself, however, but is found in translations of a treaty between the Barbary Pirates and the United States in 1797 that was originally written in Arabic. The purpose of this statement was not to describe the founding principles of our nation but was to reassure the Muslim state that secular laws and not Christian views would be used to interpret and enforce the treaty. This phrase was controversial even in its day and was dropped in a later version of the treaty between the two parties ratified by Congress in 1805 that superseded and effectively nullified what was written and approved earlier.

Nelson said that the founders of our nation “were resolute that ours be a secular government devoid of religious influence of any kind.” But in his farewell address delivered in 1796, George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports… Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion … Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”        George Washington recognized the important part religious views play in making moral decisions; that good governments must be moral but that morality cannot exist in the absence of religious principles. It seems to me that religious views serve as a moral compass for a nation, one that if absent can leave a nation rudderless and send it adrift. If this is true, then the question is not should religious views affect our political decisions but rather which ones do we need to take into consideration.

Benjamin Franklin who Nelson says “did not adhere to Christianity at all or [if so] did so only lightly” thought that the moral teachings of Jesus are “the best the world has ever seen.” If this is so, then maybe the teachings of Jesus ought to be play a bigger part in the process we use for making moral decisions today, not less.

 

Gay Marriage: God may grant our wish to be left alone.

Link to the original article published in Times-Call, Longmont, Colorado

I have to be honest. Though I am a Christian and believe that God’s design for marriage is one man and one woman, the recent Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriage does not anger me. I believe that people ought to have the right to pursue committed relationships in whatever fashion suits their mindset as long as it doesn’t harm those not involved in the relationship. But all the celebrating that has accompanied this decision does make me sad. I’m sad because accepting that same-sex marriage is the same as the marriage between one man and one woman requires one to reject the authority of the Word of God on this matter and that rejecting God and what He says in His Word about human relationships doesn’t result in the better good for anyone.

God said in Genesis 2:18-25 that He understands the need for intimate human relationships.  He said, “It is not good that man be alone.” He then created a woman, one who He considered to be the perfect companion and help mate for man, and said that these two would now become one flesh. God created a bond between a man and a woman at this point that was to serve as the foundation for all family relationships. The fact that a number of people mentioned in the Bible did not follow this standard does not negate its validity. Jesus confirmed that marriage is to be between one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-6 when He said in effect, “Don’t you know that from the beginning that this is how God designed these relationships to occur?”

When we say that same-sex marriage ought to be the same as the marriage between one man and one woman, it is tantamount to saying that God was wrong regarding this matter. It’s a rejection of God’s foundation for human relationships, at least the one established in the book of Genesis and confirmed by Jesus, and saying that our ideas about this are somehow superior to His. It’s saying that we don’t need God to tell us how to live our lives and that we can figure it out for ourselves. It’s in effect telling God and those who support His view on marriage to shut up about this matter and to quit reminding us that our ideas about how to develop fulfilling human relationships are somehow flawed.

I have a fear that accompanies this sadness. It’s a fear that God will listen to these demands for silence and back away from us entirely.  We have the freedom to choose to have a relationship with God that redeems us from ourselves or to follow a path paved with self-developed solutions for the issues we face in life. We have the freedom to say “No” to God and to tell Him to leave us alone so that we can go  our own way. We have the freedom to accept or reject the yardstick given in the Bible that shows the error of our ways and describes our path to redemption. The freedom to reject God and His standards comes with consequences, however. At some point, if we push God away too many times, He may throw up His arms and say, “Ok, if that’s that way you want it, then I will leave you alone.” I fear that this day is fast approaching and dread what will come if God decides to grant this wish to be left alone.

I don’t believe that God defines the foundation for marriage as one man and one woman in order to restrain us. I believe He does so in order to protect us.  I believe that He wants to save us from ourselves and the thought that we know better than Him about how to make our lives better.  And I believe that when we reject God’s foundation for human relationships and build one of our own making that we do so at our own peril.

What makes me sad is that so many believe that God’s way is no longer relevant or best and that their way, a way defined by flawed and imperfect men, is somehow better.