The scriptures we call the Bible appear to have three different types of expression of how we relate to God and the world: Prescriptive, descriptive and core principles from which attitudes can be derived. Prescriptive commands are obvious, descriptive more difficult to interpret sometimes. And an example of the third is that the nature of God is love, so we interpret all we read in light of that nature.
We also see Jesus living in a dual culture, both secular (Roman) and religious (Jewish) which gives us a model on how to live in a bi-cultural 21st century. Not everything is secular and not everything is religious and some things overlap. However, when Jesus said 'give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's' he was clearly separating the two cultures. These two cultures had previously been integrated into a theocratic synthesis: The Jewish people had centuries earlier asked for a king, God had warned them that they would not like it but permitted it nevertheless, demonstrating a core principle that He allows political structures that are both less optimal and not His intention. He also demonstrates that He works through these far from than ideal structures.
Around the world there have been debates and heated arguments over same sex marriage. This is one area where the two cultures clash. In Scripture we see marriage as being God ordained (prescriptive) but also polygamous (descriptive). Early community leaders in the New Testament were constrained to be the 'husband of one wife'. Whether that was referring to sequential or parallel polygamy is ambiguous: Western society tends to practice sequential polygamy whereas near east society tends to practice parallel polygamy.
There is variation between Western and Eastern rite churches over how people are married: Western churches tend to focus on the vows of the people concerned, whereas in Eastern churches there are no vows, but the priest confirms to the congregation that God has brought these two people together. There is one line in the Western service, and here I like the old wording, that is similar to the Eastern rite, and is quoting Matthew 19:6 'Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder'. We don't use words like twain and asunder today, but I like the way it is expressed.
The church historically has seen marriage as man-woman. It's a lot about heterosexual sex. If you go through the marriage service, but don't have sex you cannot be divorced, but the marriage can be annulled. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer describes the primary reasons for marriage in these terms 'First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of contingency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.'
On the other hand secular society doesn't really care much about sex, but sees marriage in terms of taxation, control of children, and a dose of inheritance law mixed in for good measure. It also allows for the partner to make decisions as the 'next of kin' in some medical matters. It's a very different outlook. Sex is something between consenting adults behind closed doors.
Let's step back for a moment and look at how some elderly people want to share their lives, but with no sexual connotations at all. Two women or two men might wish to have the taxation and next of kin legal and societal benefits and obligations without any sexual relationship.
So it seems to me that Jesus comments about giving to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is His comes into play -- a God ordained sexual union is very different from a legal civil partnership. It's time society and the Body of Christ saw them as different and didn't try to muddle them together. Let's have a more Eastern rite style of commending the sexual union God has done in bringing a man and a woman together for having kids and avoiding fornication and western style vows as a secular civil partnership.
In this post I haven't clearly come down against or for same-sex marriage or unions. (Despite my own feelings in this matter.) That's because the secular and religious have differing needs and differing demands and because one of the reasons the stress is happening is because we have confused the secular and religious in a way that is mutually detrimental.
In this post I haven't clearly come down against or for same-sex marriage or unions. (Despite my own feelings in this matter.) That's because the secular and religious have differing needs and differing demands and because one of the reasons the stress is happening is because we have confused the secular and religious in a way that is mutually detrimental.
Where does this lead us with respect the other hot potato -- to war and military action? Again I see a total separation between religion and secular.
As a follower of the Messiah I start with Jesus command to love your enemies and do good to those that persecute you. Now, I'm not pretending it's easy. I remember sitting in Iraq looking at two cases being sent back to the grieving relatives of four colleagues shot dead a few days earlier. What does loving your enemies look like in those days? Does it work? I remember walking through the Auschwitz gas chambers and wondering what loving your enemies was like to them... It really isn't easy!
Since the fall of man our Father has been working to bring about reconciliation between Him and us. He sent prophets proclaiming doom and gloom towards those who turned their back on Him. It worked, with people turning back to God for a while but not long term. To bring about reconciliation eventually sent His son. In order to bring about permanent reconciliation His Son had to stand in the gap... and be killed for it. It didn't work the rather simplistic way Matthew 18 suggests it should! And Scripture records that He could have called legions of Angels to come and defend Him. But He didn't. He died. Winning the war was not brought about killing but about dying! When Jesus said 'Pick up your cross and follow me' this is what he meant.
Now, this is not just a New Testament thing, when God said he would bless Abraham's descendants He said it so that 'they could bless all nations'. From the beginning we have been called to bless. Not merely those who bless us, but all people, every nation without working out if they are nice people or not!
So back to the secular. A government is supposed to defend it citizens from attack, and uses violence to do so. For secular society much of the debate is about whether civilians are killed or not... or at least how many. Enemies are enemies. Much of the logic is still an 'eye for an eye', which in its day was actually limiting how much retribution could be applied! People talk about a 'just war'; about defending the defenceless. There is horror at what we now call terrorism. In secular belief violence in the form of terrorism is and should be responded to by 'just' violence. To those on the receiving end of this just violence it feels like terrorism, it's terrorism vs terrorism. My terrorism is bigger and stronger than your terrorism so I win.
However, not everyone agrees with this even from a secular point of view. There is an example of a person held by Daish who argues that we have to respond in love as the only way of defeating them.
Generally, however, this secular view is completely the opposite of the way of Christ and hence why we who follow the Messiah don't really fit in with secular society.
This is partly because I believe the modern nation state is not something God ordained. Like when the Jews wanted a king and God permitted them to discover what it was like, so the modern nation state has arisen out of God's permissive rather than prescriptive will.
In some ways it appears that the modern nation state has become almost a mutual society rather than community. We pay money into United Kingdom PLC expecting benefits. We pay for health care, schools, security... some of these are insurance related and some of them assurance related. But unlike our insurance companies where we can pick and chose the policies we wish to purchase we have little choice except through elections as to how it works. We might, for instance, believe in an army for defence, but not for offensive operations in another country. We cannot pay for one and not the other. This causes many of the protest movements, which I perceive are likely to increase over the next few years.
For followers of the Messiah our primary loyalty is to God's Kingdom and not to the kingdoms of this world. We are 'sojourners in a strange land'. So we will never truly fit in with a secular society.
The problems become exacerbated when followers of the Messiah end up creating a parallel society and not attempting to fit in with the secular host society. Some places you can find communities where the churches have their own schools, housing estates and even shopping malls. We are called to be salt and light in society, rather than 'fitting in', but though there is Scriptural criticism when salt has lost its saltiness, salt is also useless kept in a jar away from the food and never coming into contact with it!
I recognise too that not all followers of the Messiah read Scripture the way we do. Some read it in a way that appears to be closer to the secular from our point of view. But even with the secular we must understand that God, in His infinite wisdom, gave us free will. It's an important attribute and what actually enables us to love Him. As such I quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall citing the attitude of Voltaire: 'Though I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it'.
The problem comes when what people are saying is not merely a difference of opinion but something satanic as would be the case for supporters of Daish. I define satanic as being something designed to 'kill, steal or destroy' as cited in John 10:10. Personally I'd like to see Daish completely stopped from using the media to communicate their satanic views. But in doing so we would set a censorship principle that could be dangerous. Already in the UK the government is labelling those who disagree with their views as pro-terrorist even if they are not! Linguistically this gets difficult since we are called to love our enemies, hence to love Daish even when we believe what they are doing is satanic!
So how do we become salt and light within the society while at the same time being sojourners in a strange land and therefore not totally part of that society? This is a conundrum that followers of the Messiah have faced since the beginning. And since the early church years people have been confused as to how to react to them. My perception is that in the coming years this confusion and dilemma will increase with some followers of the Messiah aligning more with the secular and some being more separatist and some, in picking up their cross, being crucified by both!
As a follower of the Messiah I start with Jesus command to love your enemies and do good to those that persecute you. Now, I'm not pretending it's easy. I remember sitting in Iraq looking at two cases being sent back to the grieving relatives of four colleagues shot dead a few days earlier. What does loving your enemies look like in those days? Does it work? I remember walking through the Auschwitz gas chambers and wondering what loving your enemies was like to them... It really isn't easy!
Since the fall of man our Father has been working to bring about reconciliation between Him and us. He sent prophets proclaiming doom and gloom towards those who turned their back on Him. It worked, with people turning back to God for a while but not long term. To bring about reconciliation eventually sent His son. In order to bring about permanent reconciliation His Son had to stand in the gap... and be killed for it. It didn't work the rather simplistic way Matthew 18 suggests it should! And Scripture records that He could have called legions of Angels to come and defend Him. But He didn't. He died. Winning the war was not brought about killing but about dying! When Jesus said 'Pick up your cross and follow me' this is what he meant.
Now, this is not just a New Testament thing, when God said he would bless Abraham's descendants He said it so that 'they could bless all nations'. From the beginning we have been called to bless. Not merely those who bless us, but all people, every nation without working out if they are nice people or not!
So back to the secular. A government is supposed to defend it citizens from attack, and uses violence to do so. For secular society much of the debate is about whether civilians are killed or not... or at least how many. Enemies are enemies. Much of the logic is still an 'eye for an eye', which in its day was actually limiting how much retribution could be applied! People talk about a 'just war'; about defending the defenceless. There is horror at what we now call terrorism. In secular belief violence in the form of terrorism is and should be responded to by 'just' violence. To those on the receiving end of this just violence it feels like terrorism, it's terrorism vs terrorism. My terrorism is bigger and stronger than your terrorism so I win.
However, not everyone agrees with this even from a secular point of view. There is an example of a person held by Daish who argues that we have to respond in love as the only way of defeating them.
Generally, however, this secular view is completely the opposite of the way of Christ and hence why we who follow the Messiah don't really fit in with secular society.
This is partly because I believe the modern nation state is not something God ordained. Like when the Jews wanted a king and God permitted them to discover what it was like, so the modern nation state has arisen out of God's permissive rather than prescriptive will.
In some ways it appears that the modern nation state has become almost a mutual society rather than community. We pay money into United Kingdom PLC expecting benefits. We pay for health care, schools, security... some of these are insurance related and some of them assurance related. But unlike our insurance companies where we can pick and chose the policies we wish to purchase we have little choice except through elections as to how it works. We might, for instance, believe in an army for defence, but not for offensive operations in another country. We cannot pay for one and not the other. This causes many of the protest movements, which I perceive are likely to increase over the next few years.
For followers of the Messiah our primary loyalty is to God's Kingdom and not to the kingdoms of this world. We are 'sojourners in a strange land'. So we will never truly fit in with a secular society.
The problems become exacerbated when followers of the Messiah end up creating a parallel society and not attempting to fit in with the secular host society. Some places you can find communities where the churches have their own schools, housing estates and even shopping malls. We are called to be salt and light in society, rather than 'fitting in', but though there is Scriptural criticism when salt has lost its saltiness, salt is also useless kept in a jar away from the food and never coming into contact with it!
I recognise too that not all followers of the Messiah read Scripture the way we do. Some read it in a way that appears to be closer to the secular from our point of view. But even with the secular we must understand that God, in His infinite wisdom, gave us free will. It's an important attribute and what actually enables us to love Him. As such I quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall citing the attitude of Voltaire: 'Though I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it'.
The problem comes when what people are saying is not merely a difference of opinion but something satanic as would be the case for supporters of Daish. I define satanic as being something designed to 'kill, steal or destroy' as cited in John 10:10. Personally I'd like to see Daish completely stopped from using the media to communicate their satanic views. But in doing so we would set a censorship principle that could be dangerous. Already in the UK the government is labelling those who disagree with their views as pro-terrorist even if they are not! Linguistically this gets difficult since we are called to love our enemies, hence to love Daish even when we believe what they are doing is satanic!
So how do we become salt and light within the society while at the same time being sojourners in a strange land and therefore not totally part of that society? This is a conundrum that followers of the Messiah have faced since the beginning. And since the early church years people have been confused as to how to react to them. My perception is that in the coming years this confusion and dilemma will increase with some followers of the Messiah aligning more with the secular and some being more separatist and some, in picking up their cross, being crucified by both!
