The Old Preacher

Viewing the World through God's Word

Page 62 of 76

Faith and State

July 3, 2015 /

O PreacherListen to a beautiful presentation of “America the Beautiful” from the Hillside College Choir by clicking on the flag . . .

Listening makes me nostalgic.  Violence in our cities and division over race, politics and same-sex marriage  make that song sound like something from the “Leave It to Beaver” and “Little House on the Prairie” days.

But America had its problems then, too.

In 1950 the U.S. Senate authorized a wide-ranging investigation of homosexuals “and other moral perverts” working in government.  Two months earlier the Civil Service Commission intensified its efforts to find and fire lesbians and gay government employees.  Last week (just 65 years after the government hunt for homosexuals!) the U.S. Supreme Court mandated each state to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.  A swift, seismic societal shift!

Rick Segal commented on it in a “Desiring God” blog July 3rd . . .

“The 350-year marriage of Protestant Christian theology and American popular culture is over. Christianity, it may be sadly said, is no longer the preeminent social influence in American life. We Christians who dared to presume that America was ever all and only ours are, apart from some God-ordained awakening, unlikely to ‘get our country back.’ We will live and work henceforth, as do most other Christians around the world, amidst a public square hostile to our beliefs.”

The First Amendment, of course, guarantees religious freedom:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”  Nevertheless, here are a few ominous signs of what may be coming.

  • Oregon  bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein were fined $135,000, forcing them into bankruptcy, because (as they explained to their former gay customers), their faith forbade them from participating in a same-sex wedding.
  • Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman (a grandmother) is being prosecuted for refusing to provide services for a same-sex wedding.  She could lose her home and life’s savings.
  • Colorado baker Jack Phillips faces jail time if he violates a court order to bake cakes for a same-sex wedding.  (Source for the first three points “The Christian Post” http://www.christianpost.com/news/battle-lines-for-religious-liberty-and-same-sex-marriage-are-set-141179/
  • Mark Oppenheimer in “Time Magazine” (June 28th) called for the government to stop subsidizing religion and non-profits through tax exemptions (http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/).
  • Debate on “Fox News Sunday” (July 5th) between Kelly Shackelford (president of Liberty Institute) and Evan Wolfson (attorney and gay rights advocate) revealed the fierceness of the division.  Wolfson argued that no one has the right to let their faith impact how they run their business, claiming that one’s beliefs then become a license to discriminate.  Shackelford insisted that Wolfson and his allies want a license to discriminate against Christians.
  • Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his dissenting opinion, “The majority ‘graciously suggests’ that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage.  The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion.  Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.“
  • Supreme Court Justice Alito added this in his dissenting opinion:  “[This decision] will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy . . . this will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent . . . I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

I’m not confusing the kingdom of God (“My kingdom is not of this world”–Jesus, John 18:36) with the USA.  I do believe, however, that God shed his grace on America.  In my view, the recent Supreme Court decision is another example of America dismissing that grace.  And I sense that, because of it, Christian living will become costlier in this country.

In Mark 12:13 Jesus answered his enemies, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are Gods.”  Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999), a liberal Protestant theologian, said implicit in Jesus’ statement is this:  “Do not give Caesar more than his due!  Give him nothing that belongs to God.”  He went on to charge, “When the State demands what is God’s, it makes itself independent of God, absolutizes itself, deifies itself and becomes satanic.”

Certainly we’re not there—yet.  By God’s mercy, may we never be.  We still live in the Romans 13 phase of history where we’re to “be subject to the governing authorities.”  But one generation will live in the Revelation 13 phase where government becomes openly anti-Christ  and Caesar demands what is God’s alone. That’s the direction history is moving.

“If we are to enter God’s kingdom,
we must pass through many tribulations” (Acts 20:22). 

Are we ready?

 

 

 


Concern After the Court

July 2, 2015 /

O PreacherThe U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 Obergefell decision not merely allows all states to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, but mandates they do so.  Concern:  What does this mean for religious freedom?

Rather than my prophesying, let’s get it straight from five of the justices.  Under each opinionI’ve repeated what I considered their most-concerning remarks.  Warning!  This is a long blog.  Make a pit stop and grab a snack now.  And let’s read carefully to allow these words to hit us full force.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy devoted only one brief paragraph to the issue . . .

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

(Kennedy wrote that we may “advocate” and “teach” our faith-principles about marriage, but wrote nothing about our exercising or practicing those rights.  This implies that the baker and photographer may talk about unbliblical same-sex marriage, but they can’t refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding.)

Usually only one justice writes for the minority opinion.  In this case, all four dissenting justices did.  Here is what Chief Justice Roberts had to say . . .

“Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.”

(“Today’s decision . . . creates serious questions about religious liberty.”)

“Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

(“The First Amendment guarantees . . . the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion.  Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”)

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

(“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.“)

“Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same sex marriage. Ante, at 19. That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples. Ante, at 19. The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. Ante, at 17, 19, 22, 25. These apparent assaults on the character of fair-minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. See post, at 6–7 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted. Ante, at 19.”

(“It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”)

Justice Scalia opined nothing about religion, but his remarks clearly  warn about potential loss of liberty . .

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

(“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court . . . [This} robs the People of . . . the freedom to govern themselves.”)

“Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman. This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

(“A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”)

Justice Thomas’ dissent may be even more concerning . . .

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect…

“Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

“The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

“Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

(” . . . the majority’s decision threatens religious liberty . . . It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples . . . Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process.  Instead the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”)

Finally, Justice Alito warned . . .

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

“Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

“The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds. Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.”

(“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy . . .  I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools . . .  If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.”)

Concern:  What should we do?  Love the same-sex-marriage folks.  At the appropriate time, let them know we believe what the Bible commands.  But let’s do it as their friend, not their judge.  Let’s pray for them.  And let’s pray for those in authority over us (1 Timothy 2:1,2) and for our Father to have mercy on this nation.

Remember:
the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t have the final word.
The High King of Heaven does!

 

Jesus Amazed

July 2, 2015 /

O PreacherAmazed at what?  The people’s unbelief.  Given today’s world, is Jesus still amazed?  Or given how I sometimes react to disability, is Jesus amazed at my unbelief?  That unbelief especially strikes us in this next portion of Mark’s Gospel (6:1-6 below),  when contrasted with the faith of Jairus and of the bleeding woman in the preceding portion (5:21-43).

 1 Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples.
2 When the Sabbath came,
he began to teach in the synagogue,
and many who heard him were amazed.
“Where did this man get these things?” they asked.
“What’s this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles!
3 Isn’t this the carpenter?
Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?
Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown,
among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”
5 He could not do any miracles there,
except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.
6 And he was amazed at their lack of faith.
Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village.

Nazareth.  According to archaeologists, Nazareth was an inconsequential village of maybe 500 people.  It had been Jesus’ hometown since the family’s escape to Egypt after the slaughter at Bethlehem (Matthew 2:19-23).  No one expected anything good to come from  nondescript Nazareth (John 1:48a).

Synagogue.  On Sabbath Jesus  went to synagogue.  The hometown boy back for a visit was invited to read Scripture.  According to Luke 4:18,19 it was Isaiah 61:1,2.  Mark, in his usual bare-bones style, omits the Scripture content in order to focus on the congregation’s reaction.  They were “amazed”.  In this context, the Greek (ekplayso) is probably best translated “shocked”— shocked at his wisdom and shocked at his miracles.  But not good shocked!  This was Jesus of Nazareth.  The carpenter.  Mary’s boy.  James’, Joseph’s and Simon’s brother.  There were his sisters right there.

Scandal.“And they took offense at him.”  The Greek word is skandalizo.  They were scandalized.  It was shameful, unseemly, outrageous to claim what he did about himself!  (See Luke 4:18-21 for those claims.)  Who does he think he is?

Nobody’s scandalized by Jesus these days.   When Franklin Graham is interviewed on TV and (as he always does) squeezes in a word about Jesus dying for our sins, no one says, “How shameful, how outrageous that Graham should claim that about Jesus!”  Only by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit does an unbeliever even give it a thought.   Like the trodden-down path in Jesus’ parable, we’ve become so hardened that the seed of the Word doesn’t sink in at all.  So Satan steals it without breaking a sweat (Mark 4:14,15).

Rebuke.  The synagogue congregation certainly verbalized (probably shouted) their skandalizo.   But Jesus didn’t turn the other cheek.  Instead he turned the heat higher by answering his critics with a familiar proverb:  “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household” (6:4).  Just as Israel historically had rejected God’s prophets, so now the people of Nazareth were rejecting him whom God had sent.

Results.  That service didn’t end well.  Mark observes:  “And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.  And he marveled because of their unbelief.”  And he went about among the villages teaching (6:5-7).

What should we make of “And he could do no mighty work there . . . “?  Obviously “their unbelief” was why.  But are Jesus’ mighty works limited by our unbelief?  We’re afraid to say “yes”, because we don’t want to imply that we contribute to Jesus’ miracles.  We hesitate to give so-called “faith-teachers” more ammunition:  “Let me teach you how to have the kind of faith that Jesus must answer!”  But, to be true to the text,  we have to say “yes”, their unbelief stopped Jesus in his tracks.  But “yes” with this amendment:  This is how the sovereign God “set things up.”  ” . . . without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Hebrews 11:6).  Sure, Jesus drove the demons from the Gerasene graveyard-dweller without any faith from him—although the demons believed (5:1-8).  But normally Jesus responds to faith, even faith as simple as, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” (4:38).

Mark’s funny, isn’t he!  “And [Jesus] could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.”  I’d count a meeting where a few sick people were healed one of my crowning ministry moments.  For Jesus, healing just a few was the exception. 

But overall, Jesus was “amazed because of their unbelief” (6:6).  The tense of “amazed” (or, “marveled”) implies a sudden, overwhelming emotion:  Jesus was “slapped in the face by amazement because of their unbelief.”  We’re apt to say, “Jesus knows everything.  How could he be stunned by their unbelief?”  But Jesus was the God-Man.  Where deity stops and humanity starts, who can say?  But clearly here, the man Jesus was “blown away” by their unbelief.

Sad! How sad that he could do only a few healings there!  How sad that he then left to go to other villages, leaving the people of Nazareth stuck in the hardened cement of their faith-lessness!

When we reject Jesus
—when we don’t even trust him enough to go to him and say, “Don’t you care?”—
we close the door to the One with whom all things are possible!

 

Only Believe

June 29, 2015 /

O PreacherMiracles seem common at this point.  Half the pages of Mark’s Gospel  we’ve read so far contain them. (Remember those few pages do cover a year or more.)  In today’s section (5:21-43) Mark reports two more miracles.  Let’s see a summary of the narrative. (It’s too long to quote here, but why not take a few minutes to read it?)Then we’ll note a few unusual twists.

Jesus has boated with his disciples from the country of the Gerasenes (5:1-20).  Landing near Capernaum in the northwest corner of the Sea of Galilee, he’s mobbed by another crowd.  One man, Jairus, leader of the Capernaum synagogue, frantically pushes through, falls at Jesus’ feet and begs him to come heal his 12-year-old dying daughter.  Jesus goes.

But not alone.  The jostling mass follows.  A woman is swept along, but not unwillingly.  For 12 years she’s hemorrhaged.  Although she’s spent everything on doctors, she’s grown worse.  But, she tells herself, if I can even just touch Jesus’ clothes, I’ll be made well.  Determined to reach him, she bumps between the pack and finally gets close.  She thrusts her hand through and touches his tunic.  Immediately the bleeding stops and she feels healed.

Jesus feels something too—“that power had gone out from him” (5:30).  He stops.  The crowd jostles to a halt.  As Jesus’ eyes search the faces, the woman knows she’s been found out.  She comes trembling to him and tells her story.  “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your disease” (5:34).

At that moment, a messenger arrives from Jairus’ home.  His daughter has died; no need to trouble the Teacher now. Jesus assures him, “Do not fear; only believe” (5:36).  With that, Jesus allows only Peter, James and John to go with him.

Jairus’ house is filled with wailing mourners—until Jesus puts them all out.  Then he takes the girls’ parents and his three disciples to where the dead girl lay.  Like a father lightly lifting his daughter’s hand, he says in Aramaic, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.”  And immediately the girl got up and began walking around” (5:41,42).

Now for a few unusual twists.  (As if those miracles aren’t unusual enough!)

Jairus fell at Jesus’ feet.  The Gospel doesn’t tell us what this synagogue ruler thought of Jesus.  But even if he thought Jesus to be a charlatan, the crisis of his daughter dying drove this ruler to publicly prostrate himself before Jesus and beg for him to heal her.  How many today, I wonder, who never believed in Jesus, humbly beg him when in dire need?  Note that Jesus doesn’t condemn or interrogate Jairus–he graciously goes with him right away.

Some in the crowd were just curious.  I’m just guessing.  I base my guess on a Billy Graham meeting in Tampa maybe 20 years ago.  The football stadium was packed.  Graham gave the invitation.  I was among dozens of counselors on the field.  More than once I approached someone for prayer and was told, “I’m just here to get close to Billy.”  How sad that curiosity-seekers get so close, yet remain so far from Jesus!

Jesus was interrupted.  I believe God is sovereign.  Nevertheless, this interruption looks like sloppy scheduling.  Can you imagine how Jairus felt?  I doubt he cared about the woman.  If it weren’t so serious, the scene would have been comedic:  the anxious father wondering if he should tap Jesus on the shoulder and say, “Uh, Jesus, remember me?”  How he must have grieved when the messenger arrived with the death- news!  It’s a reminder that God’s time and ours aren’t always (often?) synchronized.

Jesus treated the woman with dignity.  Society was patriarch.  Shameful for a woman to touch a man in public like that.  If women weren’t second class, they were at least of secondary importance.  But Jesus cared about that unknown woman as much as he did the male synagogue ruler.  Jesus dignified women as God’s image-bearers.  No need to make God female or the Bible’s pronouns genderless to elevate women!

Power went out from Jesus.  This doesn’t lead to fear relic-worship!  If Jesus’ clothes had just been preserved . . . No, power went out from him.  That means power to heal was in him. 

Jesus raised the dead.  By “sleeping” (5:39) Jesus probably meant her death was temporary.  He didn’t come to wake her up, but to raise her up!  Death, of course,  marks the end of hope.  Jairus needed Jesus before his daughter died.  But Jesus’ power ruled over death.  And still does today.

Jesus told them to feed the raised-up girl (5:43b).  Was this a funny line for Jesus’ to make a suave exit?  He probably said it with a smile, but only because he cared about this girl’s hunger (and her parents were stunned still).

Jesus encouraged and defined faith.  That is, by his presence, his previous miracles, and his word, Jesus caused people to believe in him.  Certainly that was true of the woman.  And to Jairus, Jesus spoke faith-encouraging words.  “Do not fear; only believe” (5:36).   How did Jesus define faith?  At least here, he implicitly defined it as trusting him.  So called “faith-preachers” complicate faith, make it a code only they–and their true adherents–can know.  But faith was no secret code for the woman.  She simply trusted that touching Jesus would make her well.  And when Jesus urged Jairus, ” . . . only believe”, he simply meant “trust me.”

* * * * *

Perhaps that’s what Jesus encourages us all to do through this portion of the Gospel.  Trust him.  He has power over all diseases and even death itself.  When his timing seems “off”, he’s still got the power.  And he cares about the world’s “little” people (the woman) and about a little girl’s simple hunger whose name we’re not even told.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Confront or Cave?

June 27, 2015 /

O PreacherYesterday the Supreme Court gave approval to those who practice what God declares ought not to be done.

“For this reason (because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie)
God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women
and were consumed with passion for one another,
men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves
the due penalty for their error . . .
Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die,
they not only do them
but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:24,26,27,32).

By a vote of 5-4 the justices gave legal approval to those who practice what God says ought not to be done.

Of course, the Bible has no standing with the Court.  How could it in a nation that separates Church (i.e.  God) and State?  But why doesn’t at least historical, religious doctrine have standing?  Why didn’t the justices (without condoning any particular one) at least consider what religion has to offer on the matter?  Why must the Court be atheistic in its deliberations?  Why must it act as if man’s historical view of God would be partisan?  (As if the Court now is purely objective!)

A sizable percentage of Americans think the decision more political than legal.  For example, in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not a legal judgment.”

The majority of the Court disagrees.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “swing vote” of the five, argued, “ . . . the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex cannot be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

Really?  Do the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses provide “a fundamental right to marry”?  They say nothing about marriage, let alone same-sex marriage.  (With that in mind, why does the government have anything to do with marriage of any kind?)

We know where this is headed, right?  Those who believe in one-man-one-woman marriage will be (as we have already been) considered bigots.  More photographers, florists, bakers and others associated with weddings will be legally compelled to provide services for same-sex weddings—or penalized if they don’t.  It will be interesting to see if any bills in Congress protecting such penalties will gain traction.  If they do, it’ll be a stunning reversal of current practice and one that will make the same-sex marriage law virtually unenforceable.  Justice Samuel Alito stated bluntly that the decision “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”

Justice Antonin Scalia offered this rebuke to the Court majority.  “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative–indeed super-legislative-–power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government . . . A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”  Ah, but we still proudly calls ourselves one!

Furthermore, by virtue of Justice Kennedy’s reasoning (together with Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) the door is opened to other “marriages.”  Just today, Politico incredibly wrote, ” . . . the next step seems clear.  We should turn our efforts toward the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners.  It’s time to legalize polygamy.”  You can read the whole article here:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VY8ASVJ6j7M.  It’s inevitable.

The question before us Christians is:  will we confront or cave?  In the heat of this moment, we swear we’ll never cave.  But over time, as same-sex marriage becomes the new normal, and as polygamy and more extreme marriage “arrangements” are argued, it may become easier and easier to accept “gay” marriage.  If we do, we’ll join those who give approval to what God says ought not to be done.

Here we face a fundamental question:  Do we really believe the Bible is the true Word of the living God for all mankind or is it just “our” religious book?  I’m afraid there are some who say, “The Muslims have the Koran; Christians have the Bible.  To each his own.”  If we believe the Bible is God’s revelation for all mankind, we must not cave.

So how should we confront?  By refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding.  (I say that as a matter of personal conscience, not as a “Christian law”.)  By praying that this Court decision might be reversed in the future.  By working, with God’s grace, to make our biblical marriages healthy, strong and truly Christ-centered.  (It would be the height of hypocrisy for us to condemn a loving, happy same-sex marriage, while our “biblical” one is marked by selfishness and hostility!)  By loving same-sex couples and praying that any we know might come to see the truth.  (They aren’t our enemies—even if they were, we’re commanded to love them according to Matthew 5:44!)  It’s not our place to sit in judgment over them.  Finally (though this list isn’t exhaustive), by giving ourselves in serious, wholehearted devotion to Christ.  With the culture morally decaying all around us (racism, violence, sex, “gay marriage”, etc.), halfhearted “Christians” will fall away.  ” . . . when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away” (Mark 4:17).

As I sit here at my desk, being branded a bigot or persecuted for my marriage beliefs seem far-removed.  But they’re not—not from any of us.  “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).

So here’s the question:  Will we cave (give in to get along) or confront (speak and live the truth of Christ in the love of Christ)?  We are a shrinking minority.  But remember:  we follow the One who is Lord over all!  And he wins in the end!

believers in jesus christ is the bride of christ this is a mystery but ...