July 22, 1997
Mandy shut her eyes and shouted, “There, you’re gone. I made you disappear.”
Her pesky brother laughed back, “You wish!”
Major segments of the population wouldn’t last long if shutting our eyes could make them go away. Neither would any other offensive realities. Nevertheless, recently elected members of the Michigan Board of Education have decided to try it anyway.
They voted five to three against certain portions of their mission statement. The unwanted and offensive parts “thanked God for the blessings of freedom,” and said “children are created by God” and “religion is necessary for good government.” Those statements are supposedly “a violation of laws concerning separation of church and state.”
Is that really the intent of that mission statement and those laws? By its nature, the church (at least as described in the Bible) is a group of people under the sovereign rule of Jesus Christ. It cannot be ruled by anyone else and still be the church. However, in the days of the Roman Empire, the emperors were declared head of the church regardless of their spiritual qualifications. They ruled as they pleased. This often resulted in not only bad government but in serious spiritual deterioration in the church. More recently, Christians have welcomed laws that protect the church’s unique submission to Christ from being undermined by ungodly political entities.
At the same time, the Bible teaches that we are to “submit to the governing authorities” unless they demand we disobey God. In a normal sense, “they are God’s servants to do us good” (Romans 13). The idea is that political leaders should also submit themselves to God so their rule is wise and just. God had no intention that leaders abandon a genuine, biblical religion.
Even though political abuse of God’s principles once motivated laws to protect the church from political domination, now the church is considered a threat to political entities. In an odd turnabout, leaders are using these same laws to keep God and God-fearing people from having a voice in the way they govern. This has gone so far as to strike mention of God and religion from anything remotely connected to government activities and documents. It is as if they think that by putting both out of sight, God and religion will simply disappear.
Apart from using separation of church and state to keep God from political and legal arenas, many individuals also try to shut their eyes to God. While they may want a God who is there when they need Him, as in tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes, they push Him out of day-to-day decision making. Unless disaster strikes, both individuals and governing bodies would rather try and make Him disappear than admit any need for help from Him.
The psalmist observed a similar foolishness in his day. He asks, “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against His Anointed One. ‘Let us break their chains,’ they say...”
He goes on, “The One enthroned in heaven laughs. . . I have installed my King on Zion...”
God has firmly established Christ as Sovereign King over all. Shutting our eyes or pretending He does not exist will not make Him vanish. According to God, He is Lord, whether we say so or not.
As for religion, people who “thank God for the blessings of freedom” should appreciate and safeguard that freedom. People who know they are “children created by God” should respect themselves and others. People who feel that “religion is necessary for good government” should bring godly wisdom and fairness into their political activities.
Shutting out God will not make Him go away but what will happen if closing our eyes to Him instead shuts out freedom, respect, and justice?
Showing posts with label identify truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label identify truth. Show all posts
Friday, March 17, 2017
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
God’s love is not the same as ours ................ Parables 339
October 13, 1992
A letter to the editor of a small publication claimed that homosexuality was not offensive to God. The writer reasoned that God would not “condemn anyone who committed themselves to a loving, life-long relationship.”
To some, this sounds good. After all, the Bible says we are to love one another. First John even says: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” and “No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.”
The letter writer even alluded to these verses in her defense of homosexuality. She reasoned that since the parties involved “loved” each other, they could claim God’s abiding presence and that their relationship was of Him. What she did not do was read the rest of 1 John. Why was John making these statements and what kind of arguments was he refuting when he challenged the level of love in his readers?
Attacks against the teachings of the Apostles were common in the first Century. That comes as no surprise since Christ Himself was misunderstood and attacked, even eventually crucified for what He taught. People did not like hearing a message that condemned their previously held ideas about God and how to approach Him. When John wrote his letters, he also had to counter false teaching. Some were saying true spirituality was not in any way related to material things. That is, God was too pure to inhabit a human body thus Christ was not God in the flesh. They also taught that people either did not sin at all ever, or if any did sin, it was only the physical part of them that sinned and their spiritual being remained unstained and pure.
Furthermore, these false teachers at first infiltrated the church but they eventually left. Because they did not agree with the true gospel (that man is sinful and Jesus was the Christ, come in the flesh to die for their sin, and give them His righteousness), they did not care for Christians, even hated them, so did not want to be around them.
First John is a rebuke to both this false teaching and lack of love. John affirms that a true teacher from God can be identified by correct doctrine about Christ, by a moral life that hates sin and does not habitually continue to sin, and by love for other Christians. This love is characterized by self-sacrifice (just as God’s love is sacrificial), by a desire for the other person’s eternal and present well-being, and by a freedom from fear of God’s judgment.
Put in context, this love that demonstrates that a person is “of God” is not referring to the relationship between a man and a woman, never mind same-sex relationships. It is referring to a love for Christians, and even beyond that, a love for righteousness and for the only One who is truly righteous, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not condoning relationships that the Bible elsewhere condemns.
It is sad that people dismiss the Bible as having any authority over their morals. It is not God or the Gospel that is harmed but they themselves. The wages of immorality is grief, guilt, and eventual eternal loss.
It is an even greater grief that some will rewrite God’s definitions of holiness and of godly love so they can use it (or should I say mis-use it) to support immorality. Those who advocate such contradictions bring destruction not only to themselves but to others who are gullible enough or uninformed enough to believe what they say.
A letter to the editor of a small publication claimed that homosexuality was not offensive to God. The writer reasoned that God would not “condemn anyone who committed themselves to a loving, life-long relationship.”
To some, this sounds good. After all, the Bible says we are to love one another. First John even says: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” and “No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.”
The letter writer even alluded to these verses in her defense of homosexuality. She reasoned that since the parties involved “loved” each other, they could claim God’s abiding presence and that their relationship was of Him. What she did not do was read the rest of 1 John. Why was John making these statements and what kind of arguments was he refuting when he challenged the level of love in his readers?
Attacks against the teachings of the Apostles were common in the first Century. That comes as no surprise since Christ Himself was misunderstood and attacked, even eventually crucified for what He taught. People did not like hearing a message that condemned their previously held ideas about God and how to approach Him. When John wrote his letters, he also had to counter false teaching. Some were saying true spirituality was not in any way related to material things. That is, God was too pure to inhabit a human body thus Christ was not God in the flesh. They also taught that people either did not sin at all ever, or if any did sin, it was only the physical part of them that sinned and their spiritual being remained unstained and pure.
Furthermore, these false teachers at first infiltrated the church but they eventually left. Because they did not agree with the true gospel (that man is sinful and Jesus was the Christ, come in the flesh to die for their sin, and give them His righteousness), they did not care for Christians, even hated them, so did not want to be around them.
First John is a rebuke to both this false teaching and lack of love. John affirms that a true teacher from God can be identified by correct doctrine about Christ, by a moral life that hates sin and does not habitually continue to sin, and by love for other Christians. This love is characterized by self-sacrifice (just as God’s love is sacrificial), by a desire for the other person’s eternal and present well-being, and by a freedom from fear of God’s judgment.
Put in context, this love that demonstrates that a person is “of God” is not referring to the relationship between a man and a woman, never mind same-sex relationships. It is referring to a love for Christians, and even beyond that, a love for righteousness and for the only One who is truly righteous, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not condoning relationships that the Bible elsewhere condemns.
It is sad that people dismiss the Bible as having any authority over their morals. It is not God or the Gospel that is harmed but they themselves. The wages of immorality is grief, guilt, and eventual eternal loss.
It is an even greater grief that some will rewrite God’s definitions of holiness and of godly love so they can use it (or should I say mis-use it) to support immorality. Those who advocate such contradictions bring destruction not only to themselves but to others who are gullible enough or uninformed enough to believe what they say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)