Indefinite hiatus

Published on January 3, 2011. 1 Comment

I started this blog in an attempt to apply what I understand as Biblical Law to current events. The first post here was on the stem cell policy, in April of 2009, and since that time I have only posted a grand total of seven items.

Certainly, working through Biblical applications is time consuming, since I wanted to be quite certain and convinced that what I was saying meshed entirely with the Bible, and I was (and remain) unsatisfied with merely quoting the great number of theologians and other authors I read as my reference for authority. “Sola Scriptura” is my cry.

But there has been another reason I have been slow to post, and that particularly was brought about with the most recent post on public health care.

While the debate of public health care raged on and everyone was quick to share their opinion, I often took the opportunity to turn the conversation to the Bible, and requested the speaker defend their political stance using Scripture. The discussions that followed were mostly quite helpful to me, and I learned of several areas of theology in which I am quite ignorant.

This lack of understanding on my part has been, for the last year or so, inhibiting my ability to discuss Biblical Law, and thus the reason I have not posted on here since then. I feel that while I learned of Biblical Law, I glossed over a few fundamental points, and until I understand them more I cannot continue.

Thank you for your patience.

Sola Scriptura.

On public health care (part 1)

Published on March 26, 2010. 10 Comments Tags: , , , , .

The recent bouts of earthquakes and other natural disasters have definitely taken a lot of air time, but especially since a few days ago the current hot topic in the US is definitely the Health Care Bill. I have read many arguments for and against, but few, if any, have approached the issue from a strictly Biblical stance, so I thought I would make an attempt. Because there are many theological implications involved in this discussion, it is a little longer than normal.

I don’t think that there is much argument in the church over whether Christians should be compassionate to the needy. Plenty of verses deal with this, from the the command to be generous to the poor in Deuteronomy 15:

I command you, saying, “You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.” (Deuteronomy 15:11)

To the release from slavery in the same chapter:

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14)

To the command to do good “to all people”:

Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Galatians 6:10)

Probably the main verse which calls Christians to care for the poor and needy is:

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

In fact, this point cannot be stressed enough. Consider the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities utterly destroyed for Lawlessness of every kind, but see what caused them to be given over to their own sinful ways, which ultimately led to their complete destruction:

Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)

Throughout the Bible there are commands to Christians to care for the poor, to care for the needy, and especially, to care for the widow and orphan. So I don’t think it’s useful at all, or correct, to argue that the poor are “undeserving”, or that, since they wasted their lives in unhealthy ways that we are not required to help them. “Let us do good to all people”, it says.

In arguing for public health-care, many Christians focus entirely on this point, and I think this is due to the churches recent lack of involvement in caring for the needy. This lack of involvement has not always been the case, many hospitals were at one time largely funded by churches—usually a whole denomination would pool resources together, since a single church would not have the necessary backing—as is evidenced by such largely known hospitals as the Methodist Hospital common to many towns, among others.

But a distinction must be made, for in reading various blog posts I noted that many Christians say that a government health care system is an acceptable substitute for Christians helping the poor. In fact, one blogger said that it was right to fund health care from taxes, because taxes were equatable with tithing:

“So not only is universal health care right, but it is right to fund it out of taxes (“tithes”).” (Khanya)

This equating of taxes with tithes is certainly esoteric, and most assuredly wrong: Biblically, tithe was always directed toward the church and never toward a government. Taxes of various kinds were levied throughout the whole of the Bible, but those funds always went to the government, while the church has always been the one commanded to care for the poor.

Governments may or may not be able to successfully assist the poor, in some countries it is done within a tolerable degree, but in other countries it is done so poorly that the whole idea should be scrapped. This inconsistency only serves as a reminder that our view of whether a government should do something cannot be based on whether a government is able to do something, or on how well the government can accomplish it. Our standard must be the Bible, and it alone.

Which brings me to the most important point: Public health care is entirely consistent with a theology that rejects the authority of the Bible to the area of civil governance. This point cannot be stressed enough, and will, I hope serve to bring attention to the fact that modern “Christianity” has rejected the Bible as the ultimate authority in every area of life.

Most people who argue against the public health care bill (even most Christians) do so from humanist principles. “It will never work, governments are too bloated.” “Taxing the people to pay for irresponsible behavior only yields more irresponsible behavior.” The list of quotes grows tall rather quickly, but all of them are lacking a true and consistent Biblical approach—all of them rely only on man-centered logic.

The arguments supporting public health care are only slightly better, and are marked frequently by such statements as “I believe…” and “I don’t like…”. At best, they might say something like “Jesus cared for the poor and sick, therefore we also should”, or perhaps “the general theme of the Bible is to care for those less fortunate”. This statement seems to summarize the whole argument:

The Gospels overflow with stories of Jesus caring for people in need–not only the fortunate few, but whole gatherings of people–hungry masses, gaggles of children, and scores of the infirm. In one instance, Jesus healed too many to count (Luke 4:40). If we take Jesus seriously, then our obligations to the naked, hungry, beaten, suffering, and vulnerable are hard to deny. (Washington Post, Aana Marie Vigen)

This argument, if only this section is analyzed, cannot be refuted. Jesus cared for the needy, for the sick, for the poor. As mentioned at the beginning, Christians are commanded quite clearly and in multiple passages to care for the needy. However, the argument goes “proof A, therefore B”. More specifically, “Christians must help the needy, therefore governments must help the needy”.

But this argument is entirely illogical as defined–it would be just as reasonable to say “foxes need food, therefore computers need food”. There is no necessary connection between the two, and the argument is particularly interesting when it is noted that the people arguing this point are also the same group of people who argue in favor of the “separation of church and state”.

Summary:

In part one we see that the Bible is ultimately clear that it is an individuals responsibility to care for the poor and needy. This personal responsibility is shown throughout all scripture, from James 1:27 stating that we must “visit orphans and widows in their trouble”, to Deuteronomy 15:11 which says “you shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land”. We also saw that the general argument for government control of “caring for the poor and needy” is illogical (although to be sure, other more careful arguments do exist) and faulty.

In the next part, I hope to explore more thoroughly the Biblical arguments in support of government run health care, and the theological errors (some of them stemming from clear heresy) which drive these arguments. Finally, since we apparently now have government run health care, I hope to present some Biblical principles for how we as Christians can go forward.

Movie Review: Law Abiding citizen

Published on March 20, 2010. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

The movie came out in October of 2009 but I just now watched “Law Abiding Citizen”. I’ll be talking about the plot a bit, so if you have managed to avoid hearing about it and don’t want it spoiled, you’d better go somewhere else for a little while.

Many interesting points came up through the movie, but I’ll focus on a few points of the story which I thought were hyper-critical. The first point is that the father, Clyde, claims that the justice system is broken and his main purpose is to tear it down; I assume he thinks something better will come in its place.

This is a common theme, found also in the French Revolution: The only way to make things better is to create chaos. By tearing everything down, we are able to build something better. The French revolution was an attempt to overthrow the current legal system, and this desire came from a belief that not only was the current system corrupt (which it was, for various reasons), but also from the belief that a better system would inevitably emerge from the chaos.

Common to this view of chaos-to-order is the belief that mankind is basically good, at the core. “Current government systems are corrupt only because they have had the power too long.” By removing the current power, the innate goodness of mankind will create a government system that is better. Certainly it would not be likely that this created government system be perfect, but at least better.

This view was shown in the character Clyde, who could see the injustice present in the legal system, and thought that by tearing it down it could be rebuilt in a more fair way. However, can this really occur? Certainly, if one assumes the human nature to be basically good, it could be reasonably argued that such a thing is possible. Of course, Clyde might be going about it the wrong way, but his basic idea of chaos leading to good would have been right.

This view is held by the Roman church in general, and by many Baptists apparently. In fact, I would say that this view is one which has become pervasive through all political parties. But it is an entirely indefensible view: Scripture is quite clear in an overwhelming way, that the nature of man is to be predisposed toward sin. This predisposition has gone by many names, but the most common is what the reformers called “total depravity”—all of mankind is naturally inclined toward sin. This view is most clear in the following passage:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Romans 3:10-12)

The second view presented in the film is the answer to the question “What is justice?”, which is presented throughout in direct question by Clyde, but also in the willingness of the lawyers and mayor to “bend” the law in order to fulfill “justice”.

Clyde’s family was killed by terrible people and, according to Exodus 21:12 (and many other verses), the murderer deserved the death penalty:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” (Genesis 9:6) “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10) “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:12)

But in the case of this movie, the one who murdered did not get the death penalty, while the one who did not do the murdering did get the death penalty. The question of whether Clyde had authority to carry out the death penalty on the actual murderer will show us several other hidden problems with the current legal system.

Did Clyde have the authority? Consider this: Clyde directly witnessed the murder of his family, Clyde was (obviously) the direct and nearest relative to his family, thereby satisfying the requirements to be the “Avenger of Blood” mentioned in Deuteronomy 19:11-13 and others, and allowing for Clyde to legally kill the murderer. However, the Bible also requires for there to be “cities of refuge”, as mentioned in Numbers 35:25 and others, and in the United States we don’t really have those. Clyde says that the justice system is faulty, and he is right, but his reasons are wrong: The current legal system is at fault because it does not follow God’s Law, which gives Clyde the authority to kill the murderer if the murderer has not fled to a city of refuge.

However, even the avenger of blood had to follow legal proceedings so it could be said that, after the court decided that the actual murderer was not guilty of murder, Clyde could not legally kill him. But even in this we see a fault in our legal system, namely, if the murderer was truly found guilty of murder, the death penalty would still stand.

The final error in Clyde’s thinking was that a true justice system would be one which punishes all criminals. This argument is truly impossible: It is impossible to know in every case that a person is guilty or innocent, and it is true that in any system guilty people occasionally go free and innocent people are punished. This is even true in the legal system presented in the Bible, leading to the question I have heard from an atheist: “If God’s Law is not perfect, why do you support it so much?” But I would never say that “God’s Law is not perfect”, rather David says quite clearly that it is perfect!

Humans always have imperfect knowledge, and to expect that we will always be able to correctly carry out justice is to assume that we would somehow have perfect knowledge. We could, of course, simply execute anyone who is accused of a crime (much like the French Revolution period) but we would be in danger of killing people who were innocent. Likewise, we could let people do as they choose (pure anarchy) but we would have a society which would be entirely unsafe. Where is the balance? What is the right method of law?

Was Clyde right in desiring to kill the person who murdered his family. The Bible is quite clear that the answer is yes, Clyde’s desire was right.

Was Clyde right in what he did? The Bible is also quite clear that the answer is a resounding no. Even had the death penalty been able to be carried out, Clyde’s action was not to simply carry out the death penalty, but to exact maximum pain, both physical and emotional. This is not a Biblically allowed method.

In which I claim torture is not allowed

Published on October 12, 2009. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

From the Associated Press comes the report that the CIA’s harsh interrogation techniques likely damaged the brain of terrorist suspects. Generally, the response by professor of neuroscience Shane O’Mara seems to be only that the techniques used were primitive and relied on older understandings of neurology.

In London, a secret agent apparently reported that torture was being used within Britain, prompting William Hague, the foreign affairs spokesman of the opposition Conservative Party, to speak out: “Torture or complicity in torture is unacceptable, immoral, and counterproductive.”

And last, the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at then-president George Bush, was finally released after being in jail for nine months. The reporter, al-Zeidi, claims to have been tortured during his stay in prison.

Proponents of waterboarding have argued that the information gathered from it makes it an acceptable thing. In fact, torture in general is arguably an effective tool for gathering information. Despite the arguments contrary, torture does actually produce useable results, especially when done carefully by experts who have advanced understanding of neuroscience.

Of course, we can’t just say “It’s effective, therefore acceptable.” In an extreme case, we might argue that burning down an entire village is an acceptable cost, since a terrorist is hiding inside and no one knows where he is. Of course, in any thing we must view the Bible and attempt to apply it, so let us do so with torture:

There are two times, in general, where torture is used: Before and after a trial. In the case of pre-trial, which is where almost all cases of torture occur, the Bible is quite clear on the issue: Physical torture of any kind is simply not allowed. In Deuteronomy 25, the law is being recited regarding what to do in cases of disputes. In verse 1-3 it says:

“If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court … then it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him … to be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. Forty blows he may give him and no more… lest … your brother be humiliated in your sight.” Deuteronomy 25:1-3

From this passage we can understand three principles which should guide our view of torture:
1: Any beating (in this discussion, torture) is to be done after the judge finds the person guilty. In general, torture is carried out on people who are being held under suspicion, but who haven’t been convicted of crime. This is not allowed.
2: The beating must occur within the rpesence of the judge. Even if a person were to be condemned by the judge, the beating must be applied on location. Again, general torture is taken place in rooms far seperated from any judge who may have delivered judgement. This also is not allowed.
3: The guilty person can only be beaten according to his guilt, with a maximum set number of blows. The goal of the beatings is punishment, the restriction is that the criminal is not humiliated. This would preclude almost any general form of torture immediately, even if the person was found guilty.

An argument in response might say that this law applied only to Israelites, therefore it isn’t applicable to those outside one’s nation, however, Leviticus 19:34 says that “The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you”, that is, the Jew and Gentile are to be treated the same. Even more direct is Leviticus 24:22 “You shall have the same law for the stranger and for the one from your own country.”

Additional arguments can obviously be made by either side, but I think the basic premise of the Law stands: A person cannot be beaten (tortured) unless duly convicted, and even then the beatings cannot be too excessive. This Law stands for citizens or non-citizens both. This alone will remove the legality of most uses of torture.

Is “Natural Law” sufficient?

Published on September 19, 2009. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

In the argument over homosexuality, people have argued to me that, since the act can be found in nature, it must be a natural thing. I think this argument is primarily a response to the argument I have heard many Christians make: Homosexuality is “not natural”, therefore it must be immoral.

However, both of these arguments are essentially arguing for the same point: What is found in nature is the foundation for morality. The pro-homosexuality side says “because it was found in nature, therefore it is morally acceptable”, while the anti-homosexuality side says “Because it was not found in nature, therefore it is not morally acceptable.”

But the implied argument, often unrealized, from the anti side is that if it were found in nature, it would be morally acceptable. Of course, both sides of the party are in a veritable pickle: If all things found in nature were somehow morally justifiable, such things as murder and non-consensual sex would be also morally justifiable, since they are found quite commonly in nature.

If we, as Christians or non-Christians, use nature as our guide for what is moral or immoral, neither of us will have any ground to stand on when we discuss homosexuality or any other action. To be fully consistent, all of us must argue from a foundation of where our authority comes from to be able to call something moral or immoral, right or wrong.

For a non-Christian, that authority comes from another religion or from an implied social contract, but a Christian must argue from the fundamental authority of God’s revealed Word, the Bible. I believe this is true whether we speak of general abstract morality, or specific actions being acceptable, or political views being reasonable.

The Law regarding homosexuality

Published on July 10, 2009. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

In the last post, I discussed the fact that the Bible views homosexuality as a sin. The act of homosexuality is a sin, and, like heterosexual lust, it is even a sin to lust in a homosexual manner.

Of course, whether something is a moral sin and whether it is an act of criminality are two different points. The Bible says that if I lust in my heart after a woman it is the sin of adultery, yet it would be impossible to enforce a law regarding one’s thought life. The proposition that all moral laws are civil laws is an absurd one indeed!

The question proposed is this: Should homosexuality be illegal? If so, in what way? If not, should Christians be “doing something about it”?

Let me try to give context to the first verse I want to reference. The book of Leviticus is generally thought to be divided into a few sections, the first part being ceremonial laws concerning the sacrifices and purification rites. This section goes on until chapter 18, in which the laws concerning sacrifices end, and the general civil law begins. This next section of Leviticus deals with things requiring civil punishment, and speaks on issues ranging from general theft requiring restitution, through to where we are stopping. Here, couched between a list of other sexual sins including bestiality and incest, is the law concerning homosexuality:

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)

In my previous post concerning whether homosexuality was a sin, I said that this verse should, at the least, remind us that homosexuality was not considered something small. Now, even further than a personal moral law, it seems clear that this law is clear when it states that homosexuality is a civil offense requiring the death penalty.

The objection made by Christians at this point is generally the argument that the law is no longer valid, that when Christ came we entered a new era, an era of “love”. However, if we are to take the Bible systematically, we cannot simply wish for some difficult part to be dissolved.

Unless you can show somewhere in the Bible where it says that the Old Testament law has completely passed away, that view (of a “new era”) is simply not Biblical. This would be much like a child arguing that, since father had not told him he could not play in the street today, means that yesterday’s command to not play in the street is nullified.

Now certainly, the death penalty for homosexuals seems a rather strict one, especially in an age where the sexually deviant are not only accepted but encouraged, but if we are to be honest Christians we must see what we can make out of this seemingly uncomfortable law.

First, how is such a law implemented? What restrictions are put on such a law? It would be a terrifying world, indeed, if one could get put to death by a person wildly accusing you of homosexuality! Can a person practicing homosexuality in the privacy of their home be convicted?

Thankfully, the book of Deuteronomy (the other book of law) does not leave us too much “in the lurch”, but goes on to put a major restriction on the death penalty:

“On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witness must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.” Deuteronomy 17:6-7 (NIV) See also Deuteronomy 19:15

Here we find our first major restriction on any death penalty: There must be multiple witnesses. This point seems an obvious one in a country where a trial by jury and a slew of witnesses are generally required, however, this right has not always been recognized, and ancient Israel was quite the opposite of the surrounding countries which could kill you without reason or witnesses.

If this is not enough, later in Deuteronomy it speaks of the problem of false witnesses, that they are given the punishment which would have been (or already was) given to the person standing trial. Enacting this law alone would reduce lawsuits greatly, and would not allow “evidence” such as DNA and fingerprints to stand as a witness at a trial.

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother.” Deuteronomy 19:16-19 (NIV)

The next point brought up, generally by the secular person although at times by the Christian, is that we will have people snooping around, spying in the windows. The claim comes down to an argument that “what stays in the private of home should be of no concern”, at least as far as the law goes. As a blanket statement concerning all events, this argument is false: If a murder occurs in someone’s home, it is certainly of concern!

It seems that this principle could be drawn out a bit more: Considering that the Bible requires the death penalty for homosexuality, it seems that it is something which, even if done in the privacy of one’s home, is something at least “of concern”. However, even though we are concerned with murder occurring in the privacy of a home, we don’t set up security cameras or go peering in the windows of our neighbor’s home at night. It seems that the same practice of respecting privacy should be applied in this area as well.

While this idea of respecting privacy is all fine, this section of Deuteronomy indicates that, even if an act is done in private, once it is found out it must be investigated:

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take that man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.” Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 (NIV)

While this command refers especially to worshiping other gods, it’s first phrase “doing evil in the eyes of the Lord” seems to refer to any evil act deserving the death penalty. However, recall the first two rules required and apply them here: If you were bringing false witness, you would get the death penalty, and you would also need at least another witness.

In the dozen or more people who responded to the survey I sent out, the main part of which were conservative Christians, the major thought of the comments was that homosexuality should be illegal, at least in some general sense. I did not ask specifically whether homosexuality should be punishable by death, so we can let the comments speak on that.

Finally, even though many conservatives and many Christians feel that homosexuality should be made illegal, the question still must always come down to: On what basis do you argue this?

If the Bible is not the ultimate foundation for our law, than the only thing remaining is human thought. That human thought is the same which created legal systems which sent numberless Jews to concentration camps, which sent innocent Christians to be torn apart by lions for entertainment, and the same law which chops off the hands of thieves and only punishes the woman–refusing to punish the man–for cases of adultery.

Sola Scriptura

Can a Christian be a homosexual?

Published on June 5, 2009. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

The issue of homosexuality is a divisive one, especially in America, where the recently passed “Proposition 8″ in California outlawed homosexual marriage. In Iowa, a recent decision by the State’s Supreme Court interpreted the law as allowing homosexual marriage, although the United States Supreme Court would likely rule the decision as not Constitutional for various reasons. New Hampshire legislatures signed in a bill on June 3rd which legalizes homosexual marriage, that bill will be enacted January 1, 2010.

The question I will pose today is not whether people agree that homosexual marriage is acceptable, but a deeper theological question, one which I have heard posed in various forms from many Christians: Can a person who claims to be a homosexual also truthfully claim to be a Christian?

First of all, for the benefit of those less studied, I think it is wise to establish what, if anything, the Bible says about homosexuality. I am not going into a full exegesis, so let me point out the major verses. Leviticus 18:22-24 states that a man shall not lie with another man as with a female, i.e., no homosexual actions. The same book, Leviticus 20:13, says that if a man lies with another man as with a woman, he shall be put to death. This should, at least, note that homosexuality was not something trivial, since it required the death penalty. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 say quite clearly that homosexuality is a sin, that those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God. Romans 1:26-27 says that homosexuality is a “degrading passion”, it is not a “natural function” and it is an “indecent act”. Additional implicative verses can be found in Jude 6-7, Genesis 19:5-7, and more.

Is homosexuality different, in a moral way, from other sins like heterosexual adultery or murder? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 places homosexuality in the same list as idolatry, theft, and general sexual immorality. This is why I think it is safe to say that homosexuality is like most other sins; it is condemned like other sins, and it is forgivable like other sins.

This leads to the heart of the subject: Since homosexuality is like other sins, shouldn’t we treat it like other sins? When a Christian is practicing gossip, a sin on par with murder, why do we treat them differently than someone who practices homosexuality? Should we treat them differently?

One distinct difference (and then I will turn to the Bible) is an issue of something I will call “popular heresy”: It is not so much homosexuality itself that is more despicable than other sins, it is the refusal of many churches to call it a sin, coupled with homosexual activists calling Christians like myself (who dare call it sin) “hatemongers” and the like. Christians should speak out against homosexuality in the same way that they should speak out against a church preaching heresy, being mindful that homosexuality is a sin into which they could be tempted as well.

In studying the Bible on the subject, I have found only one distinction of homosexuality as compared to other since, this is found in Romans 1:21-28, quoted here from the NAS, although most other translations are the same in the relevant terms:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. … For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind,” Romans 1:21, 26-28

Paul speaks of the gospel and the righteousness of God, that certain people, “when they knew God” , were not regenerate but rather were “vain in their imaginations” and so God “gave them up to vile affections”, i.e., God gave them up to homosexual desires. I have heard this passage to argue that homosexuals are not able to be saved, but I don’t think that is the point: In a later verse, Paul says the people he refers to, “32 knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

The word “pleasure”, in the phrase “have pleasure in them”, is the Greek word suneudokeo (Strongs 4909) which has a sense of approval. So it seems Paul is not speaking of people who struggle and resist homosexual thoughts, but rather those who practice homosexuality and approve it, that is, they deny that it is a sin. (A slight aside: If you are a Christian, and you struggle with homosexual desires, take heed to Romans 1:21 ” when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful”, confess immediately any sin of pride, give all glory to God.)

So then, the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, and implies that it is even a punishment. Can a Christian be a homosexual? It depends on what you mean. We could divide all “homosexuals” cases into two general cases: Those who disapprove of the thing, who know it is a sin, and those who approve of it, who claim it is not a sin. It could be claimed that there is a third group: those who do not know. But those people are only waiting to be told the scripture, and then they will decide in their hearts.

The case of the latter, those who claim it is not sin, is the case of the condemned or reprobate. The question becomes: Does God allow a Christian to be “given over” to sin? Perhaps for a time, but not forever. Ephesians 1:13-14 says that, as a believer, you are marked with a seal (the Holy Spirit) who is a mark of the guarantee of our salvation, implying that a Christians salvation is guaranteed. 1 Peter 1:5 says that God, in His power, keeps us in salvation. Finally, John 10:28 says that a Christian can never be taken from God’s hand.

The case of the first, the homosexual who knows it is a sin and calls it such, is much more hopeful: Homosexuality is a sin which can be repented of, just like murder. Can a Christian commit murder? Certainly, and they must face the consequences of that sin. Likewise, a Christian can be tempted by homosexuality, and even commit homosexual acts, but they will then face the consequences.

Obama’s fetal stem cell policy.

Published on April 10, 2009. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

On Tuesday, March 9th 2009, Obama rescinded Bush’s policy which banned federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and at the same time rescinded Executive Order 13435, which required funding for alternate methods of stem cell research.

These alternate methods included the “induced pluripotent stem cells” (IPSC), which can be retrieved from living adults, from skin, fat, and even some of the tissue hiding in the nose. The IPSC research has been the most promising, and avoids the ethical and moral issue of embryo destruction.

Obama’s annulment of the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research has been met with a great deal of anger from the pro-life community, for understandable reasons, since the harvesting of embryonic stem cells almost always comes at the cost of the death of the still-forming baby.

Additionally, adult stem cell research has made huge contributions to medicine, contributing to significant and serious potential cures for things ranging from sickle cell anemia to fibromyalgia and paralysis. Many in the scientific community are presumably upset over the removal of federal funding, although the few I attempted to contact could not respond in time for this writing.

Overall, the annoyance of the pro-life party is focused on two things, namely, the approval of actual embryonic stem cell research, and the removal of funding for other alternate studies in stem cell uses: Adult stem cell research should be funded, they argue, because it is less ethically dangerous than embryonic stem cell research.

It is not my intention to disparage the pro-life movement, I support them in their mission of removing the abortion industry. However, while I am fully in agreement with the dispute against allowing and funding embryonic stem cell research at the cost of a human life, I am also against the governmental funding of adult stem cell research. The government has no authority to take my money to fund such research in the first place, and we as Christians should be pushing to remove federal funding from both embryonic and adult stem cell research.

The Bible does not give the government unlimited authority over it’s citizens, in fact the role of the government is quite clear in many verses–the most-used verse being Romans 13 which says that the purpose of a ruler is to be a “terror … to the evil” and that if you do evil you should “be afraid; for he bears no the sword in vain.”

That is, the governments role is not of a provider, but of an enforcer. Enforcing the law of the Bible, laid out in the first five books, was the role of the government in the Old Testament and it is still the role of government, although it is monumentally failing at this role.

Many people oppose the idea of the Old Testament government system as a model for an ideal government, so let me explain a few details and thoughts concerning the subject.

Most Christians recognize that the Bible is a source of guidelines for our behavior, but question it’s use in forming governmental decisions. The main question which I would have is, if the Bible cannot direct our political views, what should? Will it be the latest opinion of the political scientists? My point, which I hope is clear, is that if we do not rest our political views on true Biblical arguments our views will never last, and are often detrimental.

Throughout the entire Old Testament, from the very founding of civil government starting in 1 Samuel 14, through Israel’s entire history, the government had a specific limited role and was not allowed to step out of that role. Quite clearly, the government stepped out of it’s role at times, but always was required ultimately to answer to God. The establishment of the king was a planned even; 1 Samuel 12:14 says that if the people and the king follow God’s Law they will be blessed.

When we in America, or in any other country, want the government to fund things such as medical research, we are yielding more authority than they should have. It is not the duty of the government to work for the physical health of the citizen, and every country that has tried this has failed to do so. It is, instead, the duty of the government to punish evil by using just punishment described in the Bible.

In my personal conversations with many pro-life individuals I have found that the goal of stopping abortion comes first, even before understanding or following any of God’s laws concerning government authority. For example, while a majority of pro-lifers are Christian, they would be hard pressed to present a solid Biblical argument for or against the death penalty, in fact many would be hard pressed to present a solid Biblical argument on why abortion, the very thing they are fighting, is wrong.

I don’t say all this to be hyper-critical, or to assume myself better, but rather as a calling out to the Christian pro-life movement. I have heard many an argument against abortion that boils down to “just being wrong”, but if that is the strongest argument we pro-lifers can make we are very bad off. Even further, if we can only apply the Bible to our personal lives and not to guiding governmental policies, we don’t have a leg to stand on when we argue things like homosexual marriages not being legally allowed.

Summary: Read your Bible with a view of politics as well. Know why laws and governmental actions are allowed or restricted, from a strictly Biblical sense.

Extra: My eyes were opened up to the very practical way the Bible guides government policy when I read R.J. Rushdoony’s book, “Law and Liberty”. If the ideas of Biblical government intrigue you, try reading this book as a primer to the subject. Each chapter is roughly 4-8 pages long, and can be read in a twenty minute stretch, twice that if you have to look up words in the dictionary.

The reason for this blog.

Published on October 2, 2008. 0 Comments

Today on the Religious Politic, I thought I would open with a reason for it’s existence. That is specifically, why does this blog exist, and what is it’s goal?

The beliefs of myself are varied, but inevitably they are founded on the Bible. As should be obvious, I am not claiming that my beliefs right now are entirely in line, but rather, that my goal personally is to do so. With that as a backdrop, let me examine a key verse in the Bible:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (NIV)

The issue at stake is this: While it is a common practice to argue politics endlessly, from things like imminent domain to taxation, what is often missing is the element of a Biblical basis. That is, why taxation should exist, or how much it should be, are argued into infinite detail, but hardly ever argued from a Biblical stance.

It is my position, and I can argue this position Biblically, that all views must be subjected to scripture. There can be no “thing” in life where scripture does not penetrate. From romance, to philosophy, to meal preparation, to school education, to news reporting, and (this blogs purpose) also in politics. In my interactions, I have found a desire by fellow Christians to understand how to apply scripture to politics, and I hope this blog will serve that purpose.

In my personal studies I have found that my own understanding of scripture has been not only flawed by misunderstanding, but by a total ignorance on the issue. When I try to understand taxation, I am asking myself: Why can a country levy a tax in the first place? If it can Biblically, what is it’s limit? And so on. This blog’s purpose is to apply Biblical principles as much as possible to every area of politics.