My last several posts have strongly indicated what I believe the best general social response to the current question of how to address homosexual relationships in society, now I would like to address the Christian rationale behind my position. My position hinges on three concepts: the order of God, the necessity of love, and the reality of sin. Because God has designed the world with a specific order in mind, one that is physical, logical, relational, and moral, there is an optimal social and moral order that is best for all humans to live under. Because of God's mercy he has revealed to us the best way to interact with one another, and that is through loving relationships. But, because of the reality of sin love cannot exist without both confrontation and correction, and so we as Christians should embrace these aspects of relationship and work to build up one another and society. There is a specific rationale that leads me to conclude that culture is best served by strengthening marriage as an institution and limiting it to monogamous heterosexual couples, and I intend to demonstrate that this rationale is derived from the Word of God and not simply my personal preferences.
Is there evidence in Scripture that God has designed the universe with certain physical, logical, social, and moral laws? Certainly there is no doubt that God has designed the universe with certain physical and logical laws. For instance, in Genesis 1 God creates light, the separates light and darkness, so that the two are not intermingled, he then does the same with the waters, (the exact meaning of this event is disputed, maybe food for a future post?) and then does the same with the oceans and the land. Likewise we see in Jeremiah 51:15 that God created the earth with power, wisdom, and understanding. The world was not made to be chaotic, but to have form and function, and God, as a The world was not made to be chaotic, but to have form and function, and God, as a God of order, placed within creation certain physical and logical laws that cannot be broken.
But, just as God created the world with certain physical and logical laws, such that we ignore them at our own peril, (you cannot jump off a building and claim it is God's fault you got hurt because you ignored either the laws of gravity or the laws of logic that dictated that your jump would result in pain) so also he created the world with certain social and moral laws. For instance the 10 Commandments, and the law as it is explained to the people of Israel, explain not only forms of worship, but also social norms that should govern them. Theft, for instance, is not only a religious wrong, it is also a civil wrong, and so the laws discussing theft deal primarily not with the right sacrifices for atonement before God, but how the thief should be made right with his neighbor. Likewise with the other commandments. What we see is not necessarily that we should adopt the law and punishment system that was dictated to Israel, which was given to a certain nation at a certain time and assumed a covenantal relationship that we do not have with God, but that the principles behind the system--that there are social and moral laws that we should seek to uphold--these apply to all people at all times, whether Jewish, or Greek, or Christian or pagan.
I do not want to go into a long examination of exactly what principles we can derive from the law so as to govern our behavior, but I would be willing to bet that most of us in the West today would be able to quickly agree on the majority of those principles. For instance, who would want to argue that theft, adultery, chattel slavery, (yes the bible condemns man-stealing) and arson should ever be acceptable? We may cite certain extreme situations, such that an immoral action was compelled from an individual under threat of torture, death, or some other horror, but in such situations we still recognize the evil of the person who compelled the action. Immorality is generally easily recognized and we do not debate it, even though some may wish to argue for moral relativity, no one actually lives in a committed fashion as though morals were anything other than absolute.
Well, what do we do with this then? How do these principles dictate that Christians should engage with society? For an answer to that, we look to what Christ said about the law. In probably one of the most over quoted and misused passages of Scripture (second to John 3:16) Christ says, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." In addition we read, "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Thus, as a quick shorthand for any situation, we can understand that our obligation, as Christians, is to love others; and what love looks like is doing to others what we would have them do to us.
While we practice love, though, we must be aware of the reality of sin. For instance we read in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," and in Romans 1:28, "God gave them up to a debased mind, to do what ought not to be done." What we must conclude, therefore, is that even if we act in love, people will not always receive what we do as loving. And, even if something is wrong, that does not mean that culture will always recognize that it is wrong. Moreover, if culture does recognize that something is wrong, it is possible that our culture will act in a manner that is far harsher than we should act, such that even though the culture is right in proclaiming something to be immoral, the response is wrong. I would argue that the latter is what we see in Muslim societies when a thief has his hand cut off, which further prevents him from being able to work to provide for himself or to repay society for his theft. Likewise, I would argue that those who argue for things like killing homosexuals, killing adulterers, and similar arguments, are going beyond what the Scriptures would have us do and are abandoning the requirement we have to love one another.
Yet, because humans are sinful, we will produce societies that encourage at least some level of sinfulness. For instance, who could argue that modern American society encourages promiscuity, lust, and covetousness? All of these are seen as immoral from a biblical perspective, yet our society embraces them and lifts them up as either virtues or, at best, non-moral issues. Our response to such situations ought to be both loving and honest. In fact if we are not honest, if we do not tell those with whom we have the opportunity to engage, can we even say that we are being loving? Therefore, what is the best society that we can promote for the sake of love?
The best society we can create is that society which most recognizes sin as sin, but, at the same time, promotes love as the highest standard for interpersonal relationships. For instance, I would maintain that Christians are best served, society is best served, and all individuals are best served, by promoting a society in which homosexuality is still seen as immoral, but at the same time promotes a loving response to homosexual individuals. What this loving response means will vary from situation to situation: in families it may mean a loving confrontation and in church it may require discipline to bring about repentance, while at work and in most civil areas, such as shopping and engaging in day-to-day life, it should be no one's business.
The reason that this is the best society is because it most promotes our opportunities, as Christians, to share the gospel, while also allowing for the greatest amount of personal freedom for individuals to live that does not restrict the rights of others. Our opportunities for sharing the gospel are maximized because we do not have to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to prove to people that they have sinned. By promoting a strong ethical code people will be able to recognize sin in their own lives and others. This then allows us to quickly move on to the reality of the sacrificial death of Christ, that he died for sinners, that whoever places their faith in him may be saved. From that, of course, we can move to the resurrection and the promise of this new life to those who come to Christ, that the sinner may be reborn and enter into a right relationship with God. Conversely, if we promote a society with loose moral values then we promote the idea that people are innocent, they have done nothing wrong, and there will be no future judgment for sin.
Every man who lives in a society with a strong ethical foundation will still be a sinner, but at least more people in such a society may recognize sin. In a society wherein the ethical code is very lax and most people have rationalized away the reality of sin, Christians will have to spend more time proving the reality of sin in order to make people understand the necessity of salvation. It is because of our sinfulness that we need Christ, and to offer salvation without first getting someone to realize that there is condemnation seems backwards. After all, what is it the man is being saved from? For what purpose has he placed his faith in Christ? A man may know that Christ lived, died on the cross, and rose from the dead, but, if that man does not know that he has sinned, then how can he ask for forgiveness so that he can be made right with God?
My argument is not that this is how society has been, nor it is that this is what we can bring society to be, but that this is what we should see as the ideal, and therefore is that for which we should aim. That society which best conforms to the reality of the world as we see it in Scripture is going to be the best society. Because we are called to love one another, we should promote a society in which love between individuals is encouraged. Because all people are sinful, we should promote a society that recognizes sin and hold people accountable for their sin. As Christians in America today we have the opportunity to exercise influence in society in many ways, shouldn't we aim for the best society possible?
No comments:
Post a Comment