The Government's Role in Society

On the right side of the political spectrum, we have people saying that it is not the government's job to provide for the poor.  On the left side we have people saying that we need to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.  These are not opposing positions.  For anyone on the right to speak in such terms, they must add without any pause whatsoever that they themselves will be the ones responsible.  For those of us in the church, it is us who are charged with the care of the poor, orphans, and widows.  No, for my part I do not believe it is the government's role to take care of people.  I believe it is my job as a follower of Christ to take care of my neighbor, whether they be next door or in the next town, or the next country.  No, I cannot do it on my own, but I am just one member of a larger body.  It is this body that is charged with spreading the kingdom of God throughout the world in word and deed.  It is not even on the lowest realms of our agenda to promote our own wealth.  In fact, to do so is to deny our savior.

Keeping sexuality in its place

One of the great issues that our culture will live or die on is the issue of sexuality.  To be sure sexuality is a powerful force in nature.  But it is our willingness to let it dominate our identities and actions that is causing such a problem.  One of the chief causes of this is, of course, biological.  Most humans are born with the desire to reproduce.  Thus we have a desire for sex.  We also have an innate desire for love.  This is nothing new of course, but what we have difficulty understanding is that sex does not necessarily equal love.  Don't misunderstand, sex is emotional and involves love but love does not in itself necessitate sex.  The fact that we believe it does is to give our sexuality too much credit for its role in our lives.  Do we really want to be dominated by our sex instinct?  Do we want that to be making the decisions for our lives?
I would hope for most people the answer would be no, and in fact, I believe it is, at least on some level.  God's love for us is unconditional, whether we be sinners, saints, or a mixture of the two.  There is so much love that comes to us without involving our sexuality.  Quite often when people feel devoid of love from other sources, they will seek to fill that void by fabricating love through a sex act.  This equation of sex and love has to be resolved in our culture, because it is threatening so much of our existence.  "Free love" (meaning sex) sounds great until you deal with all of the unwanted babies, diseases, and emotional trauma involved.  As Phil Vischer says, "we worship at the altar of romantic love" in this culture and because of this we have a lot of social issues to deal with which we wouldn't if we didn't place such monumental importance on eros.
The problem here is that even romantic love takes a back seat to other forms of love.  Even the love of a longstanding marriage isn't necessarily always a romantic one.  Obviously it is often romantic, but any good couple will tell you there are times they love by choice rather than instinct.
But our culture's desire to have romance at any and all costs is destroying too much, and it is time we stood up and took notice.  Marriages are lost to romance, families are torn apart, teenagers are lost to it, and indeed every area of society is affected by it.  Even a non-religious humanist would have to admit that allowing one force, which should be a lesser one in our lives, to dominate our lives with no recourse to responsibility, commitments, or even prudence is ultimately a destructive force.  This is how we have to frame our discussions about love.  Romance and affection, while great, is not the most important thing in life. Ultimately, while it is a gift from God, it is not meant to be enjoyed however or whenever we want.  To do so throws the life out of balance.

What Jesus meant by "do not judge."

It is commonplace to quote Jesus when he says, "Do not judge."  This is taken to mean that no person can have anything to say about what another person does, as in, whether or not it is right or wrong.  At first glance, this seems well intentioned.  For one, it is absurdly impractical if followed in this sense.  For another, it misses the real point of the message and has the unintended effect of creating the same situation which the teaching is aimed to prevent.
That our culture is widely hypocritical in most of its notions is well understood by many who even briefly observe culture.  We judge everyday, and we must, for without it, there is no law and order, and the structure of our society would fall apart.  We view some things as acceptable, and others as punishable.  There are, of course, a great many degrees in between, but even a casual observer will note that our society would cease to function under an ideal that allows no idea of good to take precedence over another.  The litmus test in this case is often on an action's effect on people other than the one (or ones) involved.  But even such an idea is ignorant to the real interconnectedness of our lives.  What we do in private affects others, whether we admit it or not.  A drug addict's habits affects more than just their own personal, private time.  Every decision or action, in some way, whether major or minor, affects the community at large.  Something as simple as taxes demonstrates this idea.  The rich are taxed more because most people believe the rich should contribute more to society.  But is this not a way of imposing one group's judgments upon another?  Is this not judging in some way?  Our society has determined that such a tax structure is right, even though a great many people disagree.  Their opinion is judged wrong in the eyes of society.
Really what we mean by this principle is a bit more selfish.  Essentially we mean, "don't tell me to do/not do anything that I do not or do want to do."  Often we may speak on the behalf of others, but the drive behind it is still very much the same.
But is this even what Jesus meant by this?  It is not.  Clearly what Jesus means is the notion of condemning.  For someone that knows little of the Bible, the difference here seems to be non-existent.  But the idea of condemning in the Bible has much more of an eternal significance than a situational one.  To extrapolate, the idea is something like, "do not condemn others to hell or you to will be condemned to hell (or risk being condemned to hell)."  But again, what's the difference.  To be clear, there is a big difference between saying an action or attitude is evil/wrong/worthy of hell and saying that because of said action, a person is condemned to hell.  The first is to recognize that we all make evil choices.  The second is to suggest that such evil choices are irredeemable and that the person is no longer worth trying to save.
Everything we do may be forgiven.  Jesus makes reference to only one unforgivable sin, and it is not intolerance, homosexuality, greed, sexism, racism, hatred, or any such thing.  It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  (This is, depending on your perspective, to deny the work of the Holy Spirit and remain against God.  Various other perspectives exist on this issue, but they are not relevant here.)
So if this is the intended message, how does the popular interpretation undermine the original intent?  They do not initially seem that far off, so how could they be polar opposites?  The problem with "Do not judge," as our culture sees it, is that it creates a sense of apathy towards the spiritual lives of others.  Whether that apathy springs from condemnation which pronounces a person as beyond all hope, or if it comes from the mistaken idea that we have no right to tell people that they may not do as they please, the effect is the same. The condemning/not judging person has ceased to be a light in the world for the love of God.  Neither is acceptable, and both go against what Jesus taught.

Religious freedom

Religious freedom is under attack these days.  The immediate question is of course, "In an age of tolerance, how can such a claim be made?"  It is this demand of tolerance from our culture that is causing the problem.  As yet there are few legal restrictions on religion.  There is one crucial one that I will mention in a moment.  Tolerance in its truest form is to allow people to believe what they wish without forcing others to believe as we do.  (This, it should be noted, is the real sense of the first amendment)  In its more modern form, tolerance is the idea that a person's belief is irrelevant to the rest of the world, thus it is not open to censure, nor is it allowed to influence others. 
To start, this is a very ignorant stance.  The mere fact that we have multiple political parties with differing beliefs illusrates this point perfectly.  Whether Democrat, Republican, or any other strain, adherents to a political party view their beliefs as true, others as wrong, and each side does its best to win the day.  All of life functions this way.  We believe what we believe, whether it be in science, business, art, and every sphere of life.  At times it is clearer than others, but such an idea is always present.  Where would science be if scientists didn't debate issues.  How well would business function if everyone were allowed to approach their work however they saw fit?  How would anyone choose, for example, a piece of art to sit in the town square if no one was allowed debate on what was proper?
So why is religion and religious-like belief treated any differently?  It is partly because deep down most people in our culture who claim such a stance believe that any religious idea is bogus anyway.  I would argue that this is true of a large number of adherents to the various religions.  There is some sense in this, because if none of what we believe is true, then there is no reason for us to try and change anyone else, or to help our culture reflect our religious values.
Regardless of the specific religion, There are broad implications to each belief structure.  If one's belief is that all babies should be destroyed except for a few born under specific circumstances, then that person would promote that in a larger societal context.  If one's belief is the opposite, that all babies should be allowed to be born and prosper as much as possible, then obviously they will try and promote that.  To claim to believe something and yet do nothing about it is a falsehood with which our culture is far too comfortable.  If you believe a building is on fire, what kind of person would you be if you took no steps to remedy the situation simply because others disagreed?  That would be ludicrous.  I am a Christian and because of this, I believe that Jesus Christ offers the only way to know God and to be saved from our sinful selves.  If I am right, when the final judgement occurs, what would we think of a person who knew Jesus Christ all along, and yet did not share with those around them because of some notion of tolerance?  Hindsight would indeed be 20/20 and we would not think well of such a person.  This is not a redressing of Pascal's wager but a reminder that if we believe that what we believe has consequence for the world at large, we would be a truly deplorable person to not somehow impact the world according to those beliefs.
This has led to one of the few concrete instances of a law limiting the freedom of religion.  Not surprisingly, this law centers around money.  It is law that non-profits (including religious centers) are barred from political activism or they will lose their non-profit status and be obliged to pay taxes as a religious entity.  While there certainly is room for debate about whether churches should pay taxes anyway, this is nto the point in question.  The point here is that churches are essentially instructed by the state to remain silent on political issues.  This at the very least should offend our idea of constitutional freedoms.  But it also implies that whatever political convictions may arise from our religious beliefs have no inherent right to a place in the political sphere, in fact it denies in a way that religions should have political implications. 
And this is the true attack on religious freedom, the idea that religion is not allowed to speak a word to the culture at large, and that it can only speak to an individual's personal life.  Such a religion is not worth having.  Such a belief would only set up such hypocrisy in a person that most of us would find objectionable.
So am I then dooming us to religious intolerance?  Are we destined for holy war?  I don't believe so.  If we can truly love each other enough to both share our faith, speak our mind, and yet be respectful, then we will more appropriately be practicing tolerance.  Just because people disagree, or even find another's actions to be wrong, does not mean that there is hatred.

Gay Marriage Debate

In the debate on gay marriage, one side is constantly accused of trying to push its morality and ideology on the other. What the accusing side fails to realize is that they are in fact doing the exact same thing.  A common question usually brought up is "What does it have to do with anyone else, this is an issue of freedom?"  While that may be true on the surface, upon further investigation, we discover that it is not true at all.  When gay marriage is approved in various contexts, the actual marriage of same-sex couples has very little to do with anyone outside that couple.  But, by granting that relationship the legal status of marriage, people are unwillingly forced into accepting that relationship whether they agree with it or not.  Should a faith-based institution such as a hospital or social service center be forced to give healthcare coverage to a homosexual partner?  By doing so, aren't we forcing them to live as if they believe there is nothing wrong with that?  It is not enough to say simply that this is not a moral question.  It very much is a moral question.  Our sexuality and the way we express it is very much wrapped up in our whole life and our attitudes towards God, sin, life, death, right and wrong.
A "live and let live" type of mentality does no good, because a person who truly is moral to the core will live an integrated life in which all of their morals interact with each other and inform each other.  Thus, for the gay marriage supporter, they would be hypocritical if they did not in some way promote the "normalcy" of homosexuality in the hopes that everyone would accept it.  For the opposition, it would be hypocritical to decry homosexuality as a sin and yet treat a homosexual partner as a spouse.
Perhaps the only real solution that satisfies a notion of American freedom as well as the Christian ideal of not judging those outside the church is to allow for people not to accept homosexual unions as valid.  Practically this would mean that employers could choose not to cover the spouses in such a case.  Of course, they can also choose not to cover heterosexual spouses either.
We have a horrible notion in America that people have a right to believe what they believe as long as it does not impact their dealings with anyone else.  Frankly, that is stupid.  If you elect a Christian to a political post, it is wrong to ask them to set aside their religious convictions while in that office.  If our religion is worth anything (whatever that may be) it has to impact all areas of our life, including the political, economic, and social spheres.  What the constitution says is that as a nation, we will not choose one religion over another and force everyone else to follow it.  It does not ban religion from the political sphere, for to do so would require all politicians to become less of a person and separate their beliefs from their actions, which, if done, means beliefs are worthless.

Complexity of the Universe

It is interesting in a way that as science progresses, it finds that our universe keeps getting more and more complex.  This week, a new subatomic particle was confirmed.  Though I do not pretend to understand everything involved (I have long since been out of that game), I am impressed at the things we are able to discover.  The thing that really gets me is that as we discover the universe to be more complex than we imagined, we can still look at the world and say that it all happened by chance.  There are so many presuppositions that must be stacked on top of each other to make for a completely natural universe that it is astounding that would be our conclusion.  And yet it is.  Quarks, neutrons, protons, etc. are so complex that the vast majority of people can't understand them without years of study.  Yet it is the assumption of many people that these all came together through random/lucky processes to form matter and eventually life.  Bravo, that is an incredible act of faith indeed!

Love is/not

There are a lot of notions going around about what love is or isn’t, what love does or does not do.  A very common statement in our culture is, “love accepts someone the way they are.”  With all deference to my postmodern contemporaries, this simply is not true.  Allow me to modify the statement so I may prove my point.  “Love loves someone as they are.”  Semantics?  No, it is much deeper than that.  The reality of love is that it never allows someone to stay the way they are.  Or at least, it never hopes to leave them as they are.  It does not accept their present situation/actions/thoughts/feelings, without beckoning them to change.  True love helps someone to become the best version of who they can be.  So if someone is living in sin, love calls them out of it.  Does this sound judgmental? Hateful?  At first glance perhaps it does.  After all, who are we to tell someone they are living in sin?  Paul says it very clearly.  We are Christ’s ambassadors.  In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting the world’s sins against them (2 Corinthians 5).  And that’s as much the point as anything.  God isn’t counting our sins against us.  But he is beckoning us to come be reconciled to him and be healed. 

What kind of parent would let their child grow up to be a monster because they accept them the way they are?  What kind of a master would let their dog jump, bite, bark and terrorize people because that’s the way they are?  What kind of spouse would watch their husband or wife spiral down into depression while they just accept them the way they are?

Love that asks nothing of the other person is merely affection.  Affection idealizes the other person.  It fails to see them as they are, which is a broken, hurt, sinful, wonderful person that needs help (as we all do) to become the person God created us to be.