The Blessing of Religious Liberty in America

An important lesson from history is lost when we don’t recognize the significance of America’s founding principles. We should not think that America was founded as a Christian nation as some people try to say. However, the founders did look to a unique source for political authority. The Declaration of Independence declares that proper human government stems from “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” It was their intention to establish political authority based on Judeo-Christian tradition without establishing state approved church.

What the American founding fathers created was something unknown in human history. All ancient civilizations were theistic, and they believed their gods ruled over their daily lives. If they had a poor harvest, it was because their god was not pleased. If they lost a war, it was their god who was defeated by the rival god. We see vestiges of this in the Old Testament when Israel’s God “defeated” the various Egyptian gods as demonstrated by the ten plagues. We see it again when the Philistines captured the Israelite’s “god” and took the Ark of the Covenant into their temple. If you remember, that didn’t work out too well for their god, Dagon.

At the time of Christ’s advent, the Roman emperor held his position as one of the gods his subjects were required to worship. Political and religious authority were invested in one man. When Christianity spread throughout the empire, a conflict arose because Christians refused to worship the emperor. That issue was solved when Theodosius made Christianity the state religion in 380 AD. With the fall of Rome to the Barbarians soon after, the Roman church, led by its pope, inherited both civil and religious authority.

That situation continued throughout Europe almost universally until the Protestant Reformation. The church wasn’t the only thing that got reformed in the sixteenth century; when the Roman church was weakened, local authority rose to fill the vacuum. Many of the European states chose a brand of Protestantism to continue the church/state rule that Rome had modeled for centuries. It was revolt against those state churches that brought many of the first pilgrims to America in the seventeenth century.

In 1776, the descendants of those early pilgrims rejected the right of English rule the colonies in America. While their revolution was not based entirely on religious principles, they realized the need to form a government that would not perpetuate the errors of the Europeans. They did not deny the need for religious principles as a foundation for civil government; they simply wished to prevent the government from insisting on a certain type of religious observance. It was John Adams who said that the experiment he and his peers were embarking on would not succeed without moral and religious citizens.

Now we have come two centuries later to a situation where a faction of government is again trying to dictate a certain type of religion: secular humanism. The proponents of this modern religion may flinch at the assertion that their policies are religious, but the fact remains that the progressive political agenda has all the trappings of religion. They demand adherence to a dogma known as DEI: diversity, equity, and inclusion. They espouse critical race theory. They believe they can alter human nature by supporting gender reassignment. They attack traditional family values by approving same-sex marriage. They consider opposition to their mandates to be heresy. They call anyone who differs with them haters.

These practices are reminiscent of the totalitarian religions of the past. They are also in direct conflict with the principles which our founding fathers enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The task facing Christians in America today is not to form a Christian government. That would be Christian Nationalism, and it is not what the founders of this country wanted. What they wanted, and what we must fight for, was identified by Glenn Ellmers in a recent speech at Hillsdale College. “The American Founders’ invocation of the transcendent moral authority of nature is one of the most remarkable acts of statesmanship in human history.” Bear in mind that Ellmers considers “nature” to be the creation of God, and its “moral authority” to be Bible based.

It is often said that you can’t legislate morality. While that is true, it does not preclude the establishment of a legal framework that dictates moral boundaries. Legislation that follows the last six of the Ten Commandments, for example, commend moral behaviors and are not unique to Judeo-Christian thinking. Aristotle recommended very similar things, quite apart from any religious framework. You can go as far back as the Code of Hammurabi and find the same injunctions. These things are true and right because they comport with what Ellmers called “the moral authority of nature.”

What we need in our leaders and our laws is respect for some type of moral authority. They don’t have to be “Christian” to meet those criteria. For over two hundred years, America has prospered while remaining tied to that kind of authority. Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs have come to this country and prospered under that kind of authority.  What we have endured for that last few decades is an attempt to abolish any sort of moral authority and the establishment of a kind of moral and even civil anarchy. I do not believe that granting religious freedom goes as far as condoning anarchy – civil or moral.

I believe that John Adams was correct: we cannot survive as a country without moral citizens. You don’t have to be religious to appreciate that need and to fight for it. However, as Christians, we should be “religiously” committed to seeing the tradition of American religious freedom maintained. If the country keeps going in the direction the progressive element in America is headed, our freedom to practice our religion will be outlawed and replaced with the tenets of secular humanism. All that is necessary for that to happen is for “good men to do nothing.”

As they were preparing to enter the Promised Land, Moses told the Israelites, “Observe [God’s laws] carefully, for thus will you give evidence of your wisdom and intelligence to the nations, who will hear of all these statutes and say, ‘This great nation is truly a wise and intelligent people.’” (Dt. 4:6 NAB) They used to say that about America. Not so much anymore, I think.

Related Posts: Christian Nationalism; How to Pray for America; The Best of Times; The Worst of Times; Diogenes Shrugged; Critical Race Theory

Things God Did Not Say

I recently published an article titled, “The Bible on Homosexuality.” My reason for writing was to clarify for myself (and my readers) what the Bible says on this controversial subject. One reason I enjoy writing is because it forces me to gather my thoughts in an orderly way. The reason I wanted to do this with the topic of homosexuality is because a friend and former pastor has challenged my position since he has fallen under the influence of the LGBTQ+ teaching that approves of intimate same gender relationships. I wanted to clarify for myself the core biblical principles that are the foundation of my belief. When my friend read my post, he accused me of committing the logical fallacy of assuming my conclusion. This means he believes my opinion that God prohibits homosexual behavior colors my interpretation of the Bible passages that treat the subject.

My friend’s accusation is ironic because it is exactly what I accuse the LGBTQ+ interpreters of doing. Simply put, they claim that God never prohibited loving, monogamous, covenantal relationships between two people of the same gender. Then they overlay this opinion on the few Bible passages on the subject and interpret them in their own unique way. For example, they say that the verses in Leviticus 18 and 19 which say a man shall not lay with a man as with a woman are in the same passage as the prohibition of adultery. Therefore, since the context of the passage is about adultery, only married men are prohibited from lying with men. The passage says nothing about single men lying with men in a loving, monogamous relationship. So they say.

The LGBTQ+ view of Paul’s condemnation in of men lying with men Romans chapter one takes a similar turn. They take Paul to mean that God’s wrath is revealed against ungodliness (v. 18), and He condemns ungodly men for lying with men. They say that Paul says nothing about godly men lying with men, so that situation is neither approved nor disapproved. God did not openly state that godly men could not lie with men in a loving, monogamous relationship. Hmm.

These defenders of men lying with men hear Paul’s injunction in 1 Corinthians concerning pedophilia to be aimed at men who force themselves on children. They say what God disapproves of is anyone using a position of power over another to take advantage of them. God says nothing about children who consent to lying with older men. The LGBTQ+ interpreters make a similar claim about the men of Sodom raping Lot’s guests. They say it was not homosexual behavior that God condemned in Sodom; it was the gang rape committed by heterosexual men against other men. They claim that nothing specific is said against Sodomites who willingly practiced same gender intimacy. Really.

I could almost accept these different interpretations as examples of debates over disputable issues. Almost. However, when I consider the larger implications of their position, I have real trouble believing it is a dispute over a gray area of Scripture. For example, if the passage in Leviticus is primarily about adultery which then controls the rest of the prohibitions, that means an unmarried man could lie with an animal. The same goes for incest which is mentioned in the same passage. A brother could lie with his sister as long as neither is married. I don’t think so.

The same trouble arises with the LBGTQ+ interpretation of Paul. God said nothing about godly men lying with other men; God said nothing about willing children lying with older men. They maintain that because these situations are not mentioned, we must assume they are neither approved nor disapproved. If they are not disapproved, they must be acceptable to God under certain conditions. This is how my friend comes up with his opinion that men are allowed to lie with men in a loving, monogamous relationship. This is the logical result of saying that if God didn’t specifically prohibit something, it implies tacit approval. That is nonsense.

For one thing, that position stretches credibility to the breaking point. Are we really expected to believe God approves of incest or beastiality in some situations? Are we really expected to believe pedophilia is alright if the child consents? It is true that some issues are not explicitly covered by the Scripture. When we encounter one of those issues, we must use our knowledge of the broader scope of God’s Word to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Christian tradition has always interpreted Leviticus and Paul to mean that God considers homosexual behavior to be sinful. As Hodge says, “We are governed by this tradition of truth running through the whole sacred volume. All is consistent. One part cannot contradict another. Each part must be interpreted so as to bring it into harmony with the whole. This is only saying that Scripture must explain Scripture.”^[1]

I am going to repeat what I wrote previously. “While it is true that first century culture was very different from ours, I believe the reason both Old and New Testament passages express God’s disgust with homosexual behavior is not simply cultural; I believe that all sexual perversion tears at the fabric of God’s intention for sexual intimacy…. God created male and female humans in His image and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. That alone eliminates the possibility that same sex relations would fulfill God’s intention. Beyond that, God established the bond of marriage between man and woman as a ‘one flesh’ union.” Paul uses this to explain why sexual sin is in a different category from all others.

We are on shaky ground when we build a theology on what God did not say. If we believe that God’s Word is eternally true, no amount of cultural difference will alter the basic truth it teaches. My friend likes to point out that Christian tradition has been proven wrong on several occasions throughout history. The Crusades represent a centuries-long misinterpretation. The supporters of slavery claimed biblical foundation for their error. Yet when these views were corrected, it was by a large majority of the church which brought unity through its general acceptance. Today’s argument in favor of homosexual behavior is being put forth by a tiny minority, and it is causing broken fellowship wherever it is accepted.

As I wrote years ago in “The Uncomfortable Subject,” the church has a poor track record dealing with sexual sin. We sit alongside gluttons and gossips and scofflaws with little thought for their sins. Yet we recoil at the mention of reaching out to homosexuals with the gospel; perish the thought that we might invite them to join us in the pew. I do not agree with my friend that we must reinterpret the Bible on this sensitive topic. I do agree that the church must find ways to embrace all sinners while not denying God’s judgment of their sin. God does say we should do that.

Related Posts: The Uncomfortable Subject; The Importance of Being Right; Disagree Agreeably

---

^[1] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 113.

The Bible on Homosexuality

God did not – could not have – directed the Bible to our generation or any specific generation except the one to whom it was originally delivered. So, when we say that we believe the Bible was inspired in every word (plenary verbal inspiration) in its original form, we mean that the Holy Spirit prompted the writers to use words that could be understood by their contemporary readers and applied to their situation. Beyond that, we must draw inferences that will apply God’s inspired Word to our modern situation. This is what we call Bible interpretation. To interpret a passage properly, we must consider the context: historical, literary, linguistic, and thematic (the theme of all Scripture).

Some of the thorniest interpretive difficulties arise when we are attempting to make moral applications from the ancient biblical text. The principle of reading in context still applies, but we must be careful how we move from the original situation to our own. A perfect example of this is raging through the modern church like a California wildfire. What does the Bible say about homosexuality? The Old Testament law delivered through Moses is unambiguous. The Hebrew text in Leviticus 18:22 literally says, “You [men] must not lie with a man as bedding a woman.” Going to bed with someone meant the same thing then as it does now; it implies sexual relations. Men were forbidden to have sex with men.

There are two important factors to consider when interpreting Old Testament law in our modern context. First, we ask if it is something that was unique to the Mosaic Covenant that no longer applies, or is it a universal principle that became encoded in the written law? Regarding homosexuality, there is a cultural issue that was present in ancient Israel. The cultures they were going to displace did practice all manner of perverted sex; it may be that God wanted this prohibition stated explicitly to keep His people from following the ways of their neighbors. This makes sense, but I believe there is a more general basis for God’s prohibition in this case as I will explain momentarily.

The second factor that must be considered when interpreting the Old Testament is whether the subject is treated in the New Testament. In the case of homosexuality, there are three passages in Paul’s epistles that clearly state God’s opinion of the behavior. (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) The interpretive difficulty we are facing today arises from the efforts of the LGBTQ+ community to redefine the biblical proscription of same sex relations. The main thrust of their argument asserts that Paul wrote to a culture radically different from our own. They believe that Paul was referring to the cultish pagan practices of his day when he declared that God’s wrath was upon those who practiced perverted sexual behaviors. They maintain that not all modern homosexuals fall under God’s judgment.

While it is true that first century culture was very different from ours, I believe the reason both Old and New Testament passages express God’s disgust with homosexual behavior is not simply cultural; I believe that all sexual perversion tears at the fabric of God’s intention for sexual intimacy. This understanding encompasses the larger biblical context of God’s relationship with us. God created male and female humans in His image and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. That alone eliminates the possibility that same sex relations would fulfill God’s intention. Beyond that, God established the bond of marriage between man and woman as a “one flesh” union. Jesus carried that concept into the New Testament in His discourse on divorce saying that what God has joined together, man should not attempt to separate.

Paul singled out inappropriate sexual intercourse as different from all other sin because it has a spiritual component. He says that when a believer (a vessel of the Holy Spirit) joins himself to a prostitute, he is entwining Jesus Christ in the process. While Paul does not mention homosexual unions in this passage, it does raise questions about the nature of any sexual encounter outside of the biblical institution of marriage. Sexual intercourse creates a oneness that is spiritually similar to the oneness of God in His trinitarian nature. Any time we pervert the husband/wife (male/female) intimacy God designed, I believe we diminish the image of God. That is my interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Anyone who spends much time in discussion of God’s Word will eventually hear “That’s just your interpretation” at some point. In his seminal work, Systemic Theology, Charles Hodge explains why this is true. “It is admitted that theologians are not infallible in the interpretation of Scripture. It may, therefore, happen in the future, as it has in the past, that interpretations of the Bible, long confidently received, must be modified or abandoned, to bring revelation into harmony with what God teaches in his works. This change of view as to the true meaning of the Bible may be a painful trial to the Church, but it does not in the least impair the authority of the Scriptures. They remain infallible; we are merely convicted of having mistaken their meaning.” (p.59)

I believe the LGBTQ+ community has mistaken the meaning of God’s words concerning homosexual behavior. As Hodge predicted, we are going through a painful trial in the church over this. There are other important positions based on differing interpretations that are troubling the church: the meaning of inspiration; doubts about biblical inerrancy; how Jesus will return; the nature of heavenly existence; the reality of hell. Unfortunately, it is never enough to say, “I believe the Bible.” What you believe the Bible says is a result of your interpretation. Pray that God will give you the wisdom and spiritual guidance to discover the original intent of God’s Word.

Related Posts: The Uncomfortable Subject; Here Comes the Judge; Truth Dysphoria; Clobber the Argument; You Have Heard That it was Said; How do you Read Paul

How to NOT Watch TV

Some friends recommended a TV series called Black Sails; they said they really enjoyed it. We found the first episode and started watching it. I should have stopped as soon as I saw “18+” in the introduction. Apparently, that means X-rated in Netflix language. The series pretends to portray the life of pirates in the 18^th century Caribbean. For all we know, their depictions may be accurate; the behaviors of Sodom and Gomorrah did not disappear from human society after God’s judgment fell on those wicked cities. Sadly, there are pockets even in today’s “enlightened” culture where their debauchery is still celebrated.

I was enjoying the first few scenes of the old square-riggers sailing the bounding main. I love watching anything that reminds me of one of my greatest pleasures. Unfortunately, the drama soon left the sea scenes and focused on the lives of the pirates. The violence depicted in Black Sails is no worse than many current popular dramas; truthfully, it was tame compared to some. I refuse to watch the really gruesome scenes typical of many R-rated movies – even some TV dramas have become rather bloody. While they may be honest depictions of real life, I don’t find it entertaining to watch.

Studies show that the increasing violence portrayed on screens large and small is responsible for mass desensitizing of our society. A disturbed teenager can walk into his school and wreak bloody havoc on his peers and teachers without a qualm. The same goes for the rampant gang violence that scars our cities, although I suspect their embrace of violent behavior is due more to direct exposure in their underworld culture than to media influence. In whatever way they come to it, their apparent lack of conscience regarding violent behavior is the devil’s work to undermine natural human disgust. I don’t need to bathe in muddy water to know it won’t cleanse me.

Black Sails reveals another of the devil’s schemes to turn men to his ends: greed. From what I saw in my short exposure to this drama, the theme seems to be that greed is the motivating force in their culture. Greed pushes the pirates to seek treasure without regard for either law or conscience. Sinking ships and mutilating or abandoning the crews is done without a trace of regret or shame. When the goal is treasure, the milk of human kindness is swapped for the blood of their unfortunate targets. It would be comforting to think that that kind of behavior died with the last pirate, but one look at Wall Street or Capitol Hill quashes that idea. The enemy of our souls doesn’t need drama to feed the flame of greed in the human heart. There is good reason why greed is one of the seven deadly sins.

Another type of slime that pours out of the TV from Black Sails is uncensored filthy language. Listening to unsavory speech has a subtle effect on its hearers. The more we hear something, the more likely it is that it will slip into our vocabulary. I can attest to this from my experience as a truck driver. Many of my fellow drivers and almost every dock worker would find it difficult to form a sentence without words beginning with the letter “F.” Coupled with this, their continual reference to sexual subjects either directly or indirectly made it uncomfortable for anyone with a moral compass. The Bible warns against “coarse language” for good reason. Hear enough of it, and you will begin saying it yourself.

The only thing that might trump greed or violence in Black Sails' theme is sexual lust. There was enough inuendo, frontal nudity, and gratuitous sex in the first half-hour of the season opener to satisfy any porn addict. I am ashamed to say I watched as long as I did. I certainly won’t be watching another episode. Sadly, you don’t have to venture into the “freedom” of cable networks to find fornication, adultery, and all forms of perverted sex on TV. It has become so ubiquitous that even commercials on broadcast television feature same-sex intimacy. Advertisers proudly declare that their products allow homosexuals to have sex without fear of transmitting HIV. How wonderful for them! Some advertisements for women’s clothing approach the level of soft porn.

 There used to be safe places to go on TV, but most of them have fallen into the disgusting pit of violence and debauchery. Disney long ago abandoned Walt’s family-oriented programing. Even safer alternatives like Hallmark and Lifetime are slipping somewhat. The woke culture is so pervasive that everyone seems to think they must portray intimate homosexual and extra-marital relationships positively or be branded hatemongers.

I am not a hatemonger, but I am a truth lover, and the truth is that television has become fraught with all things worldly and demonic. I say this plainly because Scripture says that in the end times, the doctrines of demons will be taught to God’s people. James says that worldly wisdom fills our souls with demonic ideas. We should not be surprised because Paul said, “we are not ignorant of [the devil’s] schemes.” Unfortunately, I think “we” are, in fact, largely ignorant today.

God instructed the Israelites to slay all the Canaanites in the Promised Land. He said explicitly that this was to remove the evil influence from their lives. You have only to read their history to see what effect the failure to complete God’s command wrought among them. Time and again they were drawn into idolatry and sinful behavior because of the worldly people they didn’t exterminate. We need to use the remote to exterminate the vermin that would infect our homes with worldly, demonic “entertainment.” By doing that judiciously, you will be following the command to do everything to the glory of God as most television falls woefully short of that aim.

Truthfully though, the only entirely safe way for a Christian to watch TV is to unplug it. When you get tired of looking at the blank screen, pick up your Bible or some other wholesome literature and read. Paul says that when we understand what it means to live for Christ, we must cease being conformed to this world and become transformed by the renewing of our mind. Scripture is the source of that renewal. There is precious little on TV that will accomplish that.

Related posts: How to Watch TV series: (1) -  (2) -  (3) – (4); Woke TV