Irony of Ironies: Exchanging the Truth for a Lie!

How ironic that August 26^th was Women’s Equality Day!  It was on that day in 1920 that the US Constitution guaranteed women the right to vote.  That was a big step for women not just being treated fairly and equally, but also in acknowledging their personhood!  Now what is so ironic about that?  Ironic that the anniversary of a significant event for the personhood of women was the day after Miley Cyrus did everything possible to tear down the personhood of women and make them into nothing but sex objects and mere animals!

The world wants us to act like animals—give in to every desire we have!  And while the world may not want to admit it, we are not animals.  We are human beings.  There is a big difference.  We can speak.  We can think and rationalize and deduce in ways that the animal kingdom never will be able to.  We are moral creatures with a sense of values and right and wrong.  Humans have the capacity to design, construct, and use things for the betterment of other humans as well as every other creature on the planet.  Humans have the capacity to repair and heal not just the human body but even the bodies of every other creature in the world.  We have the ability, albeit constrained by sin, to change our behavior—how we think, speak, and act.  Animals cannot.  Animals, for all of their intelligence cannot come close to matching us in what we are able to become and accomplish.  We are so much more advanced!  We are on a much higher plane of living.  We can seek out all that is good and right and excellent and noble whereas the rest of creation cannot. 

Unfortunately, Miley Cyrus was not the first, and sadly she won’t be the last, to do what she did for the personlessness of her own gender—another irony:  for when women (as well as men) focus on sex for sex’s sake they lower and debase themselves into living like animals—reliant solely on the feelings and desires of the moment.  Sex becomes sex for sex’s sake, the fulfillment of mere animal lust and gratification and nothing else.  Call me a prude, call me old-fashion if you want, but I will take the Bible’s purpose for sex any day.  Sex isn’t for sex’s sake.  Sex is a precious gift given to a man and woman who are married to each other for the purpose of procreating children and expressing to one another their love for each other.  Sex isn’t love, but it is a way to express that love.

In marital sexual intercourse sex isn’t about what one is going to receive but about what one is going to give.  In marital sexual intercourse one worries not about themselves but about the other person.  Sexual intercourse becomes tender, caring, loving, compassionate, and selflessly giving of oneself to the other.  Why?  Because the woman sees her husband as a person and the husband sees his wife as a PERSON, not an animal.  And from a Scriptural standpoint, we can add that each person in the marriage sees the other as part of themselves because of the “two becoming one flesh.”  When Jesus calls us love one another; when Paul calls upon husbands to love their wives, they are calling us to the highest order of love!  God would have us go beyond feelings of affection and emotional connections.  God would have us rise to a level in which we see the greatest worth and value in our spouse, children, and anyone else that we come into contact with.  Love (I Corinthians 13:4-8) focuses not on self but on the other person!

It is that same love with which God loves us.  John 3:16 can never be over quoted:  God so loved the world that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life!”  Adam and Eve possessed life.  Satan deceived them into thinking otherwise.  As they reached out to grab onto life they threw it away; they exchanged life for death, the truth for a lie.  And today the world follows in their footsteps.  In order to gain equality and personhood we (especially women) are willing to throw it away for sex for sex’s sake. We are willing to exchange being human to become animals; exchanging truth for a lie, life for death.

Too Smart For Our Own Good

Recently a parishioner emailed me an online article entitled:  Religious People Are Less Intelligent than Atheists, Study Finds.  Some quotes from the article follow.

A team of researchers led by Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies. Even in extreme old age, intelligent people are less likely to believe, the researchers found.   The studies used in Zuckerman's paper included a life-long analysis of the beliefs of a group of 1,500 gifted children - those with IQs over 135 - in a study which began in 1921 and continues today.  As early as 1958, Michael Argyle concluded, “Although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs, and rather less likely to have pro-religious attitudes.”

A 1916 study quoted in Zuckerman’s paper (Leuba) found that, “58% of randomly selected scientists in the United States expressed disbelief in, or doubt regarding the existence of God; this proportion rose to nearly 70% for the most eminent scientists.”

The paper, published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, said “Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme—the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who “know better.” 

“Intelligent people typically spend more time in school—a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits,” the researchers write. “More intelligent people get higher level jobs (and better employment (and higher salary) may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.”

“Last, more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married (greater attachment), though for intelligent people, that too comes later in life. We therefore suggest that as intelligent people move from young adulthood to adulthood and then to middle age, the benefits of intelligence may continue to accrue.”

What’s in this article is nothing new.  It’s the same old rehash of anti-religion, anti-Christianity thought since time began.  Man invented religion because he didn’t know any better and needed a crutch to lean on.  But I would like to address some items in the article that people over the ages have used as an argument for not believing in God, anyway.

The amoeba is the most basic of life forms, and yet the amoeba has no knowledge or clue as to our existence.  Because amoebas can neither see us or communicate with us, doesn’t mean that we don’t exist.  It just means that we are a higher life form.  So when it comes to the existence of God, why can’t science hypothesize that we are like amoebas and God is like humans—a higher life form?  I am also amused at science and space exploration always in search of life (higher, more intelligent) forms on other planets and for.  Science hypothesized in 1969 that there must be higher, more intelligent life out there somewhere as NASA included a plaque on the legs of the first manned lunar lander with a drawing of humans and where we are in the solar system so that someday more intelligent beings would be able to find us.  So if science thinks the possibility exists that there are higher life forms out in the universe somewhere, then why can’t one of those higher life forms be God—a life form so much more intelligent than we are that it (He) created us?  That thought isn’t “irrational” but one of logical conclusion and common sense (at least to my puny little mind).

The Bible describes our sin as disobedience and rebelliousness.  Perhaps denial of religion and rejection of the concept of God has nothing to do with intelligence but everything to do with attitude and heart?  When children reach their teenage years they are at a time in their lives where they rebel against parental authority.  They find their parents rules to be a little too strict and lacking any sense; they find these rules to be restrictive and confining in terms of their preferred lifestyle.  They are also at that age where they don’t view their parents as cool—in fact, all too often they see their parents as a public embarrassment and try to distance themselves from them as much as possible lest their peers link them together and they be branded as uncool.  As I look back on the 60’s, wasn’t that the entire Baby Boomer generation acting the same way—rejection of the “establishment” as “old fashion” and “out of date”?  Wasn’t the 60’s the generation of forget the rules and do what you want to do as long as you don’t hurt anybody else?

Maybe, just maybe, the rejection of religion, particularly Christianity, isn’t so much about intelligence as it is a rebellious heart.  We want to do our own thing, go our own way.  Isaiah 53:6 does say “that we are like sheep, everyone going his own way”.  And Paul writes in Romans 1:18 . . .”men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.  For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped the created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.  Amen.”

People who reject religion may be smart, but perhaps too smart for their own good.

Much Ado About Nothing

The world is abuzz this morning over the Pope’s remarks yesterday (July 29, 2013) concerning gay people and the church.  The front page of the New York Times blares out in bold type:  On Gay Priests, Pope asks, “Who is to Judge?”  Then in lesser type a sub-headline:  No Change in Doctrine.  Then in even lesser type:  Comments From Francis Are Still a Departure From Benedict’s.  Some gay people are already commenting that maybe they will have to reassess their membership in the Catholic Church and come back home.  Is the Pope really signaling a change in church doctrine and attitude toward the gay lifestyle?  I hope not, I think not.

From this Lutheran pastor’s perspective and opinion, Francis seems to be a Pope who has a lot of personality, is very outgoing, and wants to engage with people in a discussion on theology and life in the church.  He is a people person.  People persons, in my view, are more apt to engage with those who are skeptical of the church and attempt to explain theology and the church in a way that comes across as more loving and compassionate.  The Pope seems to be speaking about homosexuality the way the Scriptures do; the way Jesus dealt with sinners.

Jesus gave a new command when he celebrated the Passover with his disciples on that first Maundy Thursday—Maundy coming from the Latin, meaning mandate or command.  The new command, “to love one another,” wasn’t really a new command but a reiterating of the commandments.  The first table of the Law (commandments 1-3) can be summarized by Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:39 “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”  The second table of the Law (commandments 4-10) can be summarized by Leviticus 19:18 and again, Matthew 22:39, “And a second is like it:  Love your neighbor as yourself.”  Thus Love summarizes all of the commandments. First and foremost we love everyone—whether they are Christians or not.  Jesus always spoke to people with love and respect; he always took people where they were and lovingly and gently led them in his direction.  (Check out his conversation in John 2 with the Samaritan woman; also note that Jesus hung out with people that the religious leaders of his day wouldn’t be caught dead with because of their self-righteousness—tax collectors and sinners.) 

And consider his conversation with the woman caught in adultery.  People love to quote from that account where Jesus says, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  In other words, we are all sinners and we shouldn’t be judging people.  But there is way more to this than meets the eye.  First off, Jesus is speaking to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees.  These men were not interested in redeeming this woman; they wanted to shame her and use her as “bait” in a conversation with Jesus so they could trap him and bring up some kind of charges against him.  Jesus was on to them.  Thus the words “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  This is much akin to Jesus saying elsewhere that before one can get the speck out of his brother’s eye he must first get the log out of his own.  After the woman’s accuser’s leave, Jesus turns his attention to the woman.  It is his words to her that nobody seems to ever remember let alone quote!  “Go and sin no more.”  Jesus doesn’t condemn her, he doesn’t berate her.  He treats her with love, respect, and compassion—and yet—he tells her that her lifestyle is wrong, sinful, and to repent and no longer engage in that behavior.

All we have to do is substitute gay for adulterer in John 8 and we would see how Jesus would deal with the issue of being gay.  It is not the church that mistreats gay people, but misguided and loveless Christians in the church who mistreat gay people.  God calls us to love one another as he has loved us.  Therefore we treat all people—even gay people—with love and respect.  We call their gay lifestyle exactly what God calls it in his inspired, inerrant Word:  SIN.  But we treat them lovingly, compassionately, and respectfully.  Jesus was not a hatemonger and he doesn’t call us to be hatemongers either.

I suspect that the Pope isn’t going to/ doesn’t want to change church doctrine, just the way he wants the church to relate to gay people; which brings me to a real sore spot with people who say that because I think homosexuality is wrong I am a bigot and a homophobe.  Why can’t I just see things differently than you do and yet still respect you and be nice to you?  Why does disagreeing with you mean I am afraid of you and your lifestyle?  Why does disagreeing with you mean that I hate you!  The gay person would say to Christians that we are judging them without knowing them.  But aren’t gay people doing the same thing to us?  I think Francis just wants people to dial down the rhetoric and be more Christ-like in their attitude toward gay people.

Stay tuned for part two . . . . .