Thinking-Christianly

One of the most remarkable friendships in the Old Testament is that between David and Jonathan. When you look at the text carefully, it becomes evident that in many ways Jonathan was the leader in the relationship. He had much more to lose. He took more initiative. He expresses commitment to David more often. The apparent heir to the throne was a man of great character and great grace. He provoked the ire of his jealous dad, but stood with him in battle until the end.

Some modern commentators on the text contend that the relationship between David and Jonathan was more than one of deep friendship. They assert that it was a physical same-sex relationship.

1 Samuel 18:3 states “And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.” David says of Jonathan, “Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” One conclusion we sometimes hear is that these verses describe a sexual relationship. Does the text support that conclusion?

Both verses use the same word for love. What does that word mean? The Hebrew word translated love in these texts often (but not exclusively) refers to love between individuals. But it is not a sexual word. It describes Abraham’s love for his son Isaac (Genesis 22:2) or a slave’s commitment to his master that leads him to indenture himself (Exodus 21:8). It is the word used in the injunction of Leviticus 19:18 to “love your neighbor as yourself.” It’s the word the text uses to describe the relationship between Naomi and Ruth (Ruth 14:15). To argue that it is sexual in nature is to create a meaning foreign to the 35 times the word occurs in the Hebrew Old Testament texts.

When the Old Testament speaks of sexual love, it does use a Hebrew word translated “love” in English in Ezekiel 16:8. But it is a different word. Sexual relations are more often described (without the English word “love”) in terms of a Hebrew word sometimes translated as “to know,” as in Genesis 4:1.

The language of the Old Testament gives no support to those who wish to see a sexual same-sex relationship between David and Jonathan. Titus 1:15 states, “To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.” The presumption behind the assertion that David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship may reflect that principle at work. It does not reflect careful exegesis of the Hebrew text.

Some modern commentators look at the account of Genesis 18-19 and draw novel conclusions about the rationale behind God’s action against the inhabitants of the city. One of the more recent arguments is that the condemnation of Sodom and its destruction was because of the sin of inhospitality. Does the account support that conclusion?

In Genesis 18 the Lord gives clues about the upcoming act. Verse 20 states, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin is so grievous.” The following verse reinforces the fact that an outcry had reached God about some kind of behavior in the city. We are not told more specifics in that paragraph. If we were to stop here without additional information, it would be unlikely that we would assume that the issue that caused a cry of distress to God was the lack of hospitality. For example, the use of the word for “outcry” as in 1 Samuel 5:12 normally refers to something that is exceedingly grievous or painful. There are no parallel passages where complaints of inhospitality rise up from the residents of a city.

In the context, the misbehavior that led to divine destruction was occurring before the events of chapter 19, where the angels visit Lot. God’s response was not based on the events of that visit alone, although it may have been representative of the condition of the city.

Genesis 19:2-5 demonstrates that hospitality was indeed shown to the two visitors. It includes the washing of feet and the preparation of a meal. Lot was sitting at the gate of the city and responded immediately to them with a welcome spirit. One wonders how the two visitors could have received a better welcome than the one Lot provided.

The events of 19: 6-11 show no link to hospitality. Lot’s willingness to give his two virgin daughters to those outside the door is an extremely odd remedy for a lack of social graces. The euphemism “to know” as a synonym for sexual engagement in verse 5 is the same word Lot uses in verse 8 describing his daughters. (See also Genesis 4:1.) To recast this as some other kind of expectation is without warrant in this context.

The New Testament affirms the historicity of the event and the fact that the misbehavior was of a sexual nature and not simply a lack of hospitality. The author of the book of Jude (verse 7) certainly understood sexual immorality to be the issue in the city that brought about divine action. Jesus spoke of this historic incident as well. (See Matthew 11:23.)

The revised understanding of this incident may win points for creativity, but it is not justified by the text.

Western democracies strive to promote the value of racial equality. Progressive leaders rightly prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. They seek to destroy old stereotypes and convince people that we should act in such a way as to demonstrate that all people have the same inherent worth. There is no inherent inferiority or superiority on the basis of one’s racial heritage.

In this arena, followers of Christ who wish to live out their faith can be cobelligerents with likeminded individuals who fight for the dignity of all men without regard for race.

One advantage of the Christian perspective is that the revelation of God in the Bible gives an solid basis for the dignity of all men. Genesis chapter 10 describes the sons of Noah and offers a brief genealogy of some of their descendants. The summary ends in verse 32, which states, “These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.” The biblical account asserts that there is a shared genetic heritage behind the variations in the appearance of men and women across the globe. It would challenge anyone who would argue that one race is of a different order than another.

Every generation has seen individuals who have closed their eyes to this reality. Some who called themselves Christians ignored the teaching of scripture and embraced the myth of racial superiority. But the account of Genesis reminds us that modern humanity rose from a single family. (The same argument could be made from the account in Genesis chapter 2.) The variety that God designed in the appearance races of man is a tribute to his creativity. The uniqueness of each of us within our race and our immediate family tree point to the same spirit of innovation as God shapes individuals from the raw materials of the human genome. (See Psalm 139:15-16.)

We must give thanks that many people who do not accept the revelation of the Bible do embrace the value that men and women of all races share a common dignity. That is a good thing. Christians can be cobelligerents with agnostics and atheists on the issue of the value of all people regardless of race. Wilberforce lived out the consequences of this value in the face of huge commercial interests that sought to perpetuate slavery. And he had allies who did not share all of his theological convictions. But without the revelation of God in scripture, the equality of people regardless of race is only an arbitrary ideal. We saw in the last century that it could be supplanted by another arbitrary ideal–Aryan supremacy. Christians can fight for equality, not simply on the basis that it is socially useful at a given point in time in a particular culture. They fight for this value because it emerges from the revelation of God about His nature and the nature of man as made in His image.

Our culture seems incredibly adept at producing anxious people. Most newscasts contain fresh information to fuel concern for your safety, health, or financial security. Moments ago I randomly checked out the CNN website and discovered a story entitled, “Study: Candles smell good, but could be toxic.” You don’t have to look very hard to find some new threat to the tranquility of your life.

Some individuals live in a gloomy state of despair, despite the fact that the objective circumstances of their lives are relatively pleasant. Others just feel an angst that never seems to dissipate. You would not expect the residents of a rich and prosperous nation like ours to consume the quantities of anti-depressants we do, or to spend the millions we do on psychiatric assistance. The ability of the typical American to cope with life can be surprisingly low, especially compared with the spirit of those who homesteaded in the Midwest a few generations ago, or who made it through the dust bowl years, the depression, and World War II.

One of the variables that plays a key role in the cultural anxiety that characterizes today is the decay of authentic faith in God. America is still a nation where there is much God-language. It is not now a place where confidence in the God of the Bible is strong enough to be a primary factor in shaping attitudes, behavior, and values. Christ followers are not absent, but the vitality of their faith is not as strong at the moment as it was only fifty years ago. And as the culture has lost more of its spiritual moorings, it has drifted farther out into the turbulent seas of anxiety.

Part of the angst that characterizes much of our modern world results from a principle God established thousands of years ago. At the end of Leviticus God followed the pattern of what was known as a suzerainty treaty in the structure of his words through Moses. Chapter 26 deals with blessings and curses between God as the sovereign Lord of the Jews and the nation itself. Verses 1-13 outline the blessings the Jews will enjoy as God’s subjects if they trust and obey him. Verses 14-39 describe the negative consequences they will suffer if they become indifferent or disobedient.

Several of the negative consequences listed here could be descriptive of our culture today. For example, Leviticus 26:17 states, “You will flee even when no one is pursuing you.” It’s action based on worry, fear, or apprehension. It’s the termites of uncertainty that seem to plague much of modern thinking, chewing away at any durable peace, thankfulness, or joy.

The text states that in the face of persistent rebellion, God will give the land over to others and send his people back into exile. Leviticus 26:36 adds, “I will make their hearts so fearful in the lands of their enemies that the sound of a windblown leaf will put them to flight.” Even though we are not in exile, the nervousness and apprehension described here seems to mark much of the modern psyche. A spirit of fear that is disproportionate to reality fuels much of our public discourse, our legislative agenda, and our private conversations.

The answer is not more medication or censorship regarding “bad news.” It lies not in more psychologists in the elementary school or more government sponsored programs. Because our culture is increasingly alienated from the God who is there, it will find hope and tranquility only in returning to the revelation of God in scripture and in Christ. As Christ followers pursue Jesus, he empowers them to a different kind of thinking that elevates them above the morose emptiness that so easily marks the soul of man today.

It’s not natural to treat other people objectively. Homes are sometimes fractured when one child is the favorite of a father or mother. Students despise or envy the “teacher’s pet.” Workers have little respect for the manager who grants a promotion or financial perks to someone who feeds their ego or caters to their personal whims.

One of the principles God articulates in the code of Leviticus is the expectation for personal and societal objectivity. Leviticus 19:15 states, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” When we tilt the scale to people because of their social status, we dishonor God.

The American experiment has attempted to do that. Though the result has been far from perfect, the goal has been noteworthy. The traditional rendering of the figure of justice is blindfolded to indicate this kind of impartiality. But in recent years, it has been fashionable to ignore that standard. Though some are not treated fairly because of their low social status, an increasing number are discriminated against because of their high social status in America, especially in the area of taxation.

Because our culture has become drunk with the wine of affluence, we have stifled the compassionate use of accumulated wealth as a value. News stories that profile people of means revel in their indulgent spending. We chastise some, but crave to emulate others. In the 20^th century, one increasingly popular solution was to confiscate funds through taxation. The earned dollar of one man is treated differently than an earned dollar of another. But the variation in taxation does not change the materialism that corrupts people in all economic brackets.

The charge that there are two kinds of justice is too often true. God opposes any situation where social status produces an unjust outcome. He wants us to view each individual as a fallen man before a holy God, responsible to the same moral expectations and treated with fairness.

God calls culture to be vigilant. We cannot honor him while showing favoritism to the great. Likewise, we are forbidden to show partiality to the poor. Such a challenge requires a wisdom none of us naturally possess. In order to apply this truth—especially on a personal level—we must submit ourselves to the truth of God’s revelation so that we can measure our motives and our standards against God’s perfect plumb line. Only a culture thus oriented toward God can make progress in true objectivity. Any other loyalty leads only to fragmentation.

Newscasters personify the weather by referring to “Mother Nature.” Such a statement is little more than a figure of speech in most cases. In contrast, the Bible reminds us that the God who made and sustains all things controls such things as the weather. If God is sovereign, he can direct the forces of nature should he choose to do so.

We see glimpse of such divine authority in scripture. The disciples were amazed that the wind and the waves responded to Christ’s command. (See Mark 4:41.) God told Moses that he would demonstrate his power over Pharaoh and his kingdom by sending an unprecedented hailstorm the next day. (See Exodus 9:18.) He sent a drought on the land of his people in response to their disobedience. (See 1 Kings 17:1.)

Sometimes Christians look at weather related events and wonder if God is allowing or directing them to in order send a message. Unless God speaks through a prophet, we have no way of knowing what link, if any, there is between weather related events and our attitude toward God.

Even so, that is not a bad question to ask. When the Mayflower settlers suffered and died in the winter of 1620-1621, and looked at the prospect of no harvest the following summer because of drought, many examined their attitudes and turned to God for forgiveness and mercy. An aggressive pursuit of God is always a good thing, whether motivated by adversity or not.

Adversity can wake us up to our spiritual indifference. The book of Judges records seven occasions in which the Jews of the exodus took God for granted. He allowed their enemies to oppress them. In their pain they asked for mercy, and he sent a deliverer. But before long they became indifferent again and the cycle was repeated.

It’s ok to wonder if there may be a connection between adverse weather events and divine displeasure over unholy living. If that reflection prompts obedience, it can be a good thing. The problem comes when Christians make a definitive link between the two. Because we do not have prophets in the role of a Moses or Elijah we cannot answer that question authoritatively. We can speculate. We can even hazard a guess. But to make a declaration of a definite link is to assume a role that none has in the church in this age.

Unfortunately, John Piper went beyond speculation in linking a tornado that damaged the site of the ELCA conference in Minneapolis to the debate inside over the morality of homosexual behavior. He stated,

The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

Such a statement elevates a personal suspicion to a declaration of divine cause and effect. It presumes to understand the motives and plan of God in a moment in time. But it over reaches, and damages John Piper’s credibility. As a result, some Christians will groan. Some skeptics will mock.

In the end we cannot verify whether John Piper’s assumption is true. It may be. It may not be. I don’t know if we will ask God questions about the events of our day when we see him in eternity, or if such queries will be moot. But I suspect that if even if we are given an opportunity to seek understanding of such things, we won’t know much about specifics (like destructive weather) until then.

In the meantime, we can repeat the Bible’s call to morality, virtue, repentance, and faith. Such things are part of our message whether they are popular or not. But in declaring such things we must be careful not to indulge in too much speculation. When we do, the other things get lost. The preceding quote from Piper would be better expressed without the first 17 words.

Occasionally someone argues that churches were historically a drain on society and should be taxed to compensate for the financial burden they place on the taxpayers. Since churches in most cases are tax exempt regarding property taxes, some regard them as social parasites. Considered from a financial perspective, is that true? History suggests otherwise.

Effective church ministries inhibit costly decay within the family. By promoting Judeo-Christian values churches prevent some marriages from collapsing. Thus they reduce society’s burden to help broken families through AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) payments, housing subsidies, assistance to women, infants, and children, support of crisis and abuse centers, and other programs for the divorcee who is underemployed. The church reduces the demand for job training programs, food stamps, and subsidized health care. Family ministry can reduce the pressure on the police and court systems to handle more domestic disputes and track down deadbeat fathers.

Church ministries add value by positively impacting youngsters. By propagating biblical values they build qualities of a good citizenry, such as moral absolutes, a work ethic, and respect for people and property. Youth who embrace these ideals are less likely to enroll in recovery programs related to drug and alcohol addiction, to need rehabilitation through our criminal justice system, or become dependent upon government agencies.

Other services save the taxpayer money. Churches sponsor support groups for the grieving, and frequently allow civic groups to use their facilities. They sponsor fund-raisers for badly burned firemen and children with life-threatening illnesses. They even offer space for classrooms when public schools suffer damage. They open their facilities at no cost as places for voters to cast their ballots.

Churches have invested billions of dollars overseas to fund education, promote health care, and establish self-help programs. Such gifts of man power and money do not come from the American tax dollar. Each project is one less endeavor the average taxpayer does not have to fund.

The notion that the church is a burden to society suffers from a type of historical myopia that fails to take into account the full picture of what New Testament Christianity, when put into practice, contributes to the world.

My wife has a very thin necklace that looks great, but tends to become knotted. It takes a lot of care and patience to safely take out such small knots in something so delicate. Long extension cords are the other end of the spectrum. No matter how carefully I store them, they seem to get looped inside themselves when I need to use them. It’s not difficult to see how to slowly unravel them. It just takes time and patience. And I’ve never found a good way to store Christmas light so that they require no entangling when the next holiday season comes around.

Life is even more complex than strings of lights, copper wire, or jewelry. Life can become entangled in ways you cannot see. All you know is that things aren’t going smoothly; there are many conflicts; and progress feels painstakingly slow.

Our culture creates a sense of need that fosters entanglements. If we become convinced that we need all kinds of material goods or that we must taste certain kind of experiences to be fulfilled, we will force ourselves to cram more into our fully-packed lives. As we add pursuits to our lives, time, money, and relational conflicts multiply. We start to feel overburdened. This stress leads to bitterness, resentment, discouragement, and feelings of failure.

As Paul writes to the Corinthians, the Holy Spirit conveys a simple principle that can relieve us of some of the problems that come with entanglements. 1 Corinthians 7:31 states, “those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this word in its present form is passing away.”

In our consumer culture, it takes great wisdom to avoid getting engrossed in the enticing things that surround us. Our culture challenges responses like, “Enough,” “I don’t really need it.” “I can live without it.” “It’s not all that important.” “I don’t need to share your experiences.”

The text does not prohibit the use of things. But it calls us to fight the tendency to become engrossed in them. It invites us to detach our well-being from an experience or a tangible good. And the reason is that such things are transitory. They will come and go. They do not have substance in the long haul.

The call to live a clear, focused, and simple life is ultimately a call to dependence on God. I’ve discovered that I can’t do this on my own power. The attractiveness of the alternative things is just too magnetic. It’s gravity will pull me into the complexities that distort my priorities and confuse my thinking. But Paul reminds me that Christ can lead his people into a life not characterized by such unnecessary complexity. It requires trusting God rather than culture. And that is perhaps the biggest challenge of all.

I didn’t know his real name until I looked at his obituary. He referred to himself as “Bud” and so did his wife and all who knew him. But whether he went by “Bud” or his given name of Paul, there was something special about him.

Bud and his wife started attending our church this past April, a few weeks after I came on board. He had some mobility issues, requiring a cane, and later a walker. But no matter what kind of assistance he used, he entered the building briskly, and with purpose and eagerness. He impressed those around him with his enthusiasm and warmth. He was eager to worship Jesus Christ and to learn more of him. In the few months I knew Bud he never held an influential role, never spoke persuasively on an issue of substance, and never called attention to himself.

Bud stood out in my mind because of his genuine enthusiasm for Jesus Christ. Though not extremely talkative, he seemed to delight in the worship, praise, and learning that are parts of our Sunday morning assembly. There was something in his smile that conveyed a delight in being with other Christ followers. It was a joy that seemed to come from the heart. It radiated a sense of anticipation and satisfaction that touched those seated near him. In the quiet nature of his personality, this passion to know his creator and savior made an impression on many of us.

One of the forgotten components of faith in modern evangelicalism is that kind of spirit. We are awash with church growth methods, complex programs, and statistics-driven initiatives. These have value, but they cannot replace the simplicity and authenticity of a heart that is hungry for God.

I’m told Bud did not want to have a funeral because he did not believe anyone would attend. He was wrong about that. My guess is that there were parts of Bud’s life that were still raw and unfinished. Life on this planet for 86 years normally contains some unhappy chapters. But Bud’s attitude toward Christ in what came to be his last months was heartwarming. There is something special in a person who demonstrates joy in Jesus and a personal delight in responding to Christ’s love and knowing him better.

I’ll miss Bud. He reflected Psalm 119:77: “Let your compassion come to me that I may live, for your law is my delight.” In the short time I knew him he challenged me in his own quiet way to look on Jesus Christ with a wonder and joy that sometimes gets buried under the busyness of life in the kingdom.

Our world is filled with statistics. We are good at collecting data and drawing conclusions. Sports fans can calculate the probability of the Chicago Bears throwing a pass on the second down when they are 20 yards from the first down line. You can find out if you’re more likely to be struck by lightning or bitten by a shark. We know the five year cure rates for certain kinds of cancer. We can calculate the average damage cost to a Chevy Malibu in a 10 mph forward crash.

All these numbers give us a sense of security because they replace some uncertainties with probabilities. We know what may happen if we reduce our weight by 10%. We can approximate the value of an advance degree. We understand the ramifications of wearing a seat belt.

One of the downsides to the usefulness of statistics is that we come to believe that the numbers shape our future. We tend to view them as somewhat deterministic. Those currently looking for a job look at the unemployment rate and apply this statistic to their next interview. It’s natural to view life this way. But sometimes it leaves out the variable of God.

Christians tend to see their particular circumstances within the confines of the numbers to the point where they view God as limited. Certain tasks become more difficult for him because they are statistically less likely, if not impossible.

Judah’s King Hezekiah faced such a situation. The armies of Assyria under Sennacherib were marching southward toward Judah. Every walled city in the path of this military machine fell. But Hezekiah’s attitude was remarkable. He said to his leaders, “Do not be afraid or discouraged because of the king of Assyria and the vast army with him, for there is a greater power with us than with him. With him is only the arm of flesh, but with us is the Lord our God to help us and to fight our battles.” (See 2 Chronicles 32:7-8.)

Hezekiah understood the meaning of the numbers. He knew the odds made the situation look bleak. But he did not stop there. He understood the promises God had made to him and the nation and realized that God could do anything against this threat.

Faith does not call us to foolishness. Nehemiah armed the builders as he restored the walls of Jerusalem. He had a contingency plans should an attack come. But both Nehemiah and Hezekiah served a God who was not a servant of statistics. The odds did not shape the particular future God might have in store for them. Those of us who are Christ followers can be confident because God is not limited by the probable. He can work in our lives, our relationships, and our circumstances to bring about the most unlikely results. For me, it’s a reminder to trust him and not have my nose in the numbers quite as much. They are not the shepherds of my future. God is.