Ambassadorship

There have been a couple of high profile cases concerning homosexual lifestyle in the news recently, one of which was of national importance, and the other was more locally centered. Of course, the one concerning the State's role in determining marriage will go before the Supreme Court, while the local one, where a graduate student at Augusta State University sued the school over the ability to enforce a professional code of conduct as a condition of graduation – nominally about her vocalized opinions over homosexuality.

There are a variety of questions these raised, and I will do my best to stay focused. The things with which I am concerned are the issues about Christians presenting themselves to the world and the targeted importance of homosexuality.

I will go in reverse order, as I frequently do. I think that I must acknowledge that there is rather explicit Scripture to describe homosexuality as less than ideal (Mark 10:5-9, Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:9), to put it charitably. However, there is no shortage of other behaviors, much more socially acceptable, that are fall into similarly explicit categories. That Mark passage is pretty specific about divorce as well; but that is a touchy subject – I myself am a product of divorce: my mom is my dad's second wife. Being irresponsible with your resources is also very clearly considered sinful (Matt 25). Not taking care of “the least of these” is also a direct command from Christ in that chapter.

I could make this list of issues that come up that are not addressed with the same fervor as homosexuality gets in the media and is also explicitly dealt with in the New Testament. That is not to imply that homosexuality is some sort of lesser sin, rather it is to say that there is no distinction between severities of sin. We are all failures to meet God's expectations; that is why Christ came in the first place. I do not think that we should give homosexuals a pass because of this, but abject condemnation does not help – there is no doubt in the public consciousness that there is a disapproval of homosexual behavior by the church at large. If the church speaks out in an effort to help people – not necessarily to 'reform' them, but to really meet their needs on a personal level, whatever they are – then that is different. Telling someone that they are going to Hell is rarely constructive.

Our messages, at least, those to whom the media pay attention, frequently portray negative messages – Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Fallwell. At least, those are the messages that get to the public. The totality of their message is almost irrelevant if it does not get out, sadly. (There is, after all, a Biblical Mandate to spread the good news. If the dialogue gets hung up on all the kinds of things that Christians disapprove of, then we sound like stodgy grandparents with arms crossed and brows furrowed looking down our horn-rimmed glasses rather than messengers of an Almighty and loving God with the path to salvation out of a dying world, and our message is ultimately discredited.)

I cannot say that I have a great answer to how we should look at some of these behaviors that are considered sinful. The very nature of the Law was that it pointed out that satisfying it was unachievable, demonstrating our need for God in our lives. We all fall short of it. That does not mean we should not try to pursue a life concordant with God's Will, I do think it means we need to use some perspective on the matter, though.

We also need to be aware of the fact that our actions matter. People are watching us, and if our words say “God is love,” but our actions say, “but not for them,” then we fail. We fail each other, we fail the people who need help, and we fail Christ. As it stands, homosexuals are a marginalized segment of society, and those are the very people to whom we are called to reach out, do not forget.

I did not talk specifically about the issues surrounding the two cases I mentioned at the beginning because I do not want this space to be used for political discussion. I do not believe there is Scriptural support for Christians creating a government that enforces rules making it illegal not to be Christian, and is important not to forget that, too.

Could it be... SATAN????!!!!

Our most recent discussion as a fellowship was Satan. We quickly realized that none of us had a very clear understanding of the problem we faced by having Satan be an ever present and unwanted guest in our lives. We do not have theology degrees, and, of course, we are only familiar with our own comfortable lives, really, even as we press on to become more familiar with the nature of God. There is an undeniable value in understanding the way your enemy operates; Sun Tzu made a pretty clear argument for that.

Satan, however, is very difficult to observe. We have a very extensive bit of scripture describing the nature of God, but describing Satan is not the same level of priority. Christ mentions him a lot, and the presentation of him in Job makes me scratch my head. The serpent, whom we all recognize by tradition as being if not identical, very closely related with, Satan himself is a little confusing, too. The whole Fall of Man confuses me, but that's a story for another post.

You might say that "He's the bad guy, and that's all we need to worry about," but that is not any more helpful than than saying, "God is the good guy and that's it." I was never a fan of the "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." bumper sticker because while it is a demonstration of resolute faith, it is of a rather immature sort. Ultimately, because we are choosing to stand with God, it is important to know against whom we are standing and what their business is.

There are a couple of explanations that are commonly held about Satan. The simplest is that he is what God is not; if God is love, forgiveness and justice, then Satan is selfishness, guilt and arbitrariness. The trouble with this is that Satan is not just the bad equivalent of God. He does not possess the same qualities of omnipresence and powers that God does in the negative or else he would be God -- just a fouled and terrible one. The next simplest is to draw an analogy with darkness and heat, defining them by what they lack. Satan is the absence of God or evil is the absence of good. God, however, is omnipresent and all powerful, so this is hard to reconcile. Another possibility is that there is no Satan at all, and it is just a metaphor for our own failings as men. Both of these are tricky, as they do not account for the active nature of evil, and require pretty creative interpretations of scripture and disagreement with Paul. The most common understanding is that Satan is a creature, with an agenda, out to do us harm. Being a creature, though, requires a creator, and why would God create Satan for the sole purpose of opposition? Can God even create something that is evil?

We accept that Satan is evil and just evil. Is Satan really just evil, though? God created men, and men are evil, but not purely so. We were created in His image, after all. So, can Satan be similar? Evil, but not purely so? Satan's name means Adversary. One who opposes. That is action. I think that the source of man's evil is weakness, as shown in the Fall. Adam did not want to oppose God, he just did not have sufficient faith to win the spiritual battle. The serpent opposed God, on purpose. This distinction is no small matter. Men rarely oppose God directly; there are plenty who oppose religion. Atheists oppose the way we worship, but almost none of them oppose love, forgiveness, justice, charity, peace or patience. God is all of those things.

Is Satan not? I do not think we know. Satan's temptations of Christ in the desert showed us the strength of God in the face of man's weakness. Man failed when offered a piece of fruit; Christ was offered a good deal more -- escape from hunger, deliverance from suffering and physical dominion over all He could see. He turned them all down. Satan also entered Judas Iscariot to cause the betrayal, which started the immediate events that led to the Crucifixion, which was tragic of course; but it ended with the salvation of humanity. That was a pretty positive outcome from a Satanic deed. Christ's words, though, about how "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (sounds so much nicer in the KJV) shows that while productive, these actions are not of God. I make the point to say so because the relationship between Satan and God in Job seems oddly chummy, given the understanding of being cosmic nemeses.

I think we can all agree that Satan has skills and knowledge that we do not. The discussion that Daniel has with the divine vision about the Prince of Persia [who is opposing God's messenger] implies that Satan, or his surrogate, is powerful to detain individual actors on God's behalf. (I am hesitant to say angels, because there is an interpretation that Daniel was speaking to a preborn manifestation of the Son of God, I think.) However, he might not have understood the outcome of the execution of Christ. Undoubtedly, Satan had at least the same access to the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah that Jesus did. The worldly understanding of power and the Jewish reading leads to an expectation of political authority, or at least some other earthly exercise of strength. I cannot say that anyone would have been able to predict exactly the nature of Christ's message -- that the whole of the Kingdom of Heaven would be made accessible to anyone simply by asking for it with sincerity, and the forgiveness of the very sin that separated men from God in the first place, which was instigated by the serpent.

This raises a handful of other questions in my mind. Is Satan the sole source of opposition to God? While men may not purposefully oppose God in intent, frequently we do in action. The prophecies in Daniel and Revelation about the Endtimes discuss evil men and creatures rising up and demanding worship, and we naturally associate them with Satan. I do not know if that necessarily has to be true; those men could very easily be just men. Are there other supernatural beings also in opposition of God, like Beelzebub, the Dragon, Screwtape and Wormwood? Christ calls Satan and Beelzebub by name (at least in my NIV translation), are they names for the same thing or distinct? What would that mean? One question that my last paragraph raises that we did not discuss is can Satan be saved? If he repents of his opposition, can he be welcomed into the Kingdom? How much worse is he than the rest of us, anyway?

We, of course, did not come up with any definitive explanations or even new strategies to avoid his spiritual traps. I do feel like we left with a better understanding of God, though. We know that Satan, whatever else he is, is the Adversary to the Will of God. Since God seeks relationship with us and clearly wants triumph over opposition to His own will, He must support us to triumph over that adversity -- or at least be able to survive it. Based on the Book of Daniel and Christ's example, that struggle is real and power and continuous, so must His support for us to overcome it be. That is something I can get behind.

Persecuted for the faith? Really?

I don't really know what it's like to suffer. I have lived in the United States my whole life, have great parents, went to private college and graduate school, so have scarcely seen real suffering, let alone experienced it. James, though, tells us that trials are good, as it develops us and makes us more like Christ. So, even if the magnitude of things like not having a girl like you might count if you use that as an opportunity to appreciate God's work in your life surrounding those circumstances. Sometimes her not liking you turns out to be a blessing in the end, right? Just ask Garth Brooks.

I don't really know what it's like to be persecuted, either. I think a lot of pop-Christian outlets make a bigger show of the worldly anti-Christian bias than is really the case, because those who are persecuted get credit for it (Matthew 5:10). Wal-Mart greeters wishing you Happy Holidays aside, the US is an awfully permissive place, and thankfully so. We are reminded in Sunday School videos and sermons that there are places where it is actually illegal to own a Bible or to preach, and the rights that guarantee our ability to that are preserved in our founding national documents.

In the face of that, I think the difficulty we American Christians face is, quite simply, a lack of difficulty. It is pretty easy not to lean on the Lord as your shepherd when you don't want anyway. That is something I find myself struggling with often, because to counteract that, you need discipline. As my flagging gym attendance indicates, a few cracks can lead to a flood of inactivity. In my mind, one of the most effective tools in the Adversary's arsenal is comfort.

Can you think of a time when Jesus said, "You're doing fine, just keep it up"? No, from Peter and Andrew to the Rich Young Ruler, He challenged and pushed them to be uncomfortable, of ten times with the only apparent motivation being to make the feel that way. While much of what Christ had to say was provocative like this and not easy to hear, shock was not, as we know from the context, ever His sole purpose. The initial intent is to say that you cannot follow Him and live as you were. The Holy Spirit changes you forever, and without exception, for the better.

As Christ pushed Peter and Andrew and tRYR away from their familiarity in fishing and wealth, the long term message is once you change, the Peace of God will reach you, even as your earthly comfort may not. We don't really know what happened to tRYR, but I think he was invariably different (as were Peter and Andrew) after his revelation. At least, I hope so, because want to be rich (and young, for that matter)?

So are we helpless then? Do we have it too easy, unlike our grandparents who had to walk uphill in the snow both ways to school? Are we so spiritually soft that we mistake not having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse as actual persecution? We should be secure enough in faith that our visible behavior will be sufficient to show those who wish it removed that we are living symbols of Christ, and do not require icons at work to spread the Word. That would make life more comfortable, though, to surround yourself with pictures that blend into the scenery rather than actually make you need to do anything, wouldn't it?

That, I think, is why suffering is good. That is why persecution is good. The challenge to live Christlike becomes more palatable when life otherwise isn't so cushy. The improvement is so dramatic, that the hesitation is quashed. Like the sinful woman who washed Jesus's feet in front of the Pharisee, for whom much is delivered, the greater the gratefulness. We are in peril of missing key parts of knowing Christ because we have cable television.

Not that I am in any particular place to judge; my life is extraordinarily comfortable. My discipline is considerably poorer than I want, and of course I do not pray for suffering to improve it. I do, however, want the passion that comes with defending something duly earned, like the first car you bought with your own money. I don't know if there is another way to reach that level, though, without first being afflicted with the scars.

I don't plan on canceling my satellite subscription, throwing my cell phone away or moving into a monastery. I am very much like tRYR. I am superlatively comfortable. While I don't necessarily think I have to give those things up, I must seek the challenge to escape them in the way Christ demanded of all of us, and I think that is one thing that joining a community of believers can help you do -- challenge one another in productive ways to do better. I hope that this prompts you to try something, like service you would not have otherwise considered, and that you readers (assuming there are any...) can help challenge me, too.

For every action...

My mom has a memory like an elephant. She particularly remembers critical comments, especially when aimed at our family from years (and in some cases, decades) ago. It's kind of a joke at this point in our lives, but it has served as a reminder throughout our whole lives of how small, often off-hand comments (like one time a 'friend,' I guess, said that my dad's brother "got all the looks in the family" and that's why friend gets single quotes) can make a really big impact, and for a long time, too. It's not just Mom, though. My dad is a local politician and one of my sister's ex-boyfriends made the indefensible claim that he doesn't make real laws; her husband likes to quote that one still.

Sometimes, if you're not careful, this leads to real grudges. More often than not, of course, those off-hand comments are not really laced with the venom we think they are. One of those moments happened to me at work this week about something rather insignificant. It still made me defensive, though, because, well, engineers are engineers because they are good at math, not diplomacy. He fit that bill. Really, he meant well, but sometimes that just isn't enough to keep me from getting a little irritated. Of course, though, there was nothing I could do about his attitude, and the most recent sermon at church was on self-control, I begrudgingly gritted my teeth and said "thank you" and his comments. I was aware of the relevance of the moment, which is something, I guess.

I guess it was a start, but my heart wasn't exactly in the right place. The only thing I can control is my reaction, and luckily, that's really all God asks of us, as far as I can tell. (If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5:39, What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' Matthew 15:11). It is rarely that straightforward, though. I have never been punched in the face at all, let alone the cheek. The second one, though, has always been rather significant to me, not just because I really like scallops. I come from a family of communicators: not only is my dad a politician, so was his dad; his brother is an attorney, mine is about to become one; I like to think of myself as a writer and quite frankly, not to toot our own horns, but we say (or write) matters. The words everyone says matter (James 3 outlines that pretty clearly.) I can distinctly remember people telling me they were turned off by Christianity because of a something like a bad date with a jerk who said he was a Baptist. (Gandhi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.") It's a lot of pressure when you think about it.

I don't really know what to do about it, specifically. Breathing exercises? Count to ten? I guess, try to be good and practice in the efforts you want to perfect are the short answers, but the details are what get you. The guy from earlier in the story was trying to do his job, and I took it a little personally, due to his delivery. How much of that is on me and my attitude, and how much is rightfully on him? I think this might be one of those "Who cares?" situations. I think there are a lot more of those in Christian application (if not theology) than we like to admit (hopefully this will be a revisited theme in this blog). The fact remains that I can only address my own attitude. Does my reaction really change that much? John 9:1-5 and Matthew 7:1-6 kind of tells us not to worry about what other people do, so probably not. Now, how do I get to the point where I actually react that way all the time? I am just glad that shrimp and barbecue aren't off the table.