Some readers of my blog know that it is usually a re-posting of a column I write for the West Plains Daily Quill. After my "Sin and the Law" column appeared in The Quill (see
Feb. 22 religion page or my Feb. 24 blog post), a letter was sent to the editor, in which the writer presented his
reasons for disagreeing with my comments which had centered on my confusion over why certain
sins, as defined by scripture, are targeted by some Christians to be
against the law of the land when other sins are overlooked.
Online subscribers of The Quill can read the full text of the letter on page 7 of the March 7 edition, but in his letter, the writer asserted that I
implied, “Christians should not talk against sin or try to get laws
made.” First, I ask did Jesus tell us to “get laws made?” Second, I
certainly believe anyone, Christians and non-Christians, should be able
to say whatever they want, in accordance with freedom of speech.
One area where the writer and I agree is that sin is damaging. Where we likely
disagree is that I believe scripture is meant to show Christians the way
to be happy and blessed when we follow the mandates of the New
Testament, (by not sinning) rather than as an instrument of meting out
judgment against others.
Certainly
Christians are instructed to share the gospel with others outside our
faith. However, forcing non-Christians to abide by biblical law is
simply not a concept Jesus promoted. If New Testament scripture can be
found, in context, which points to Jesus saying his teachings should
become the law of Rome, the government of his day, I would like to see
the reference.
Aside from that,
my main point in the column in question is: If Christians are to
identify certain sins which should be against the law of the land, how
is it decided which sins to target? The letter writer avoids directly
answering this question.
In my original post, I did not mention
specific issues, but the writer does. He talks of the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) which prohibits same-sex marriage and is rather
ironically named, in my opinion. It is a prime example of my expressed
confusion. If marriage is to be defended, can we permit divorce? About
half of all marriages, including those between professing Christians,
end in divorce. If marriage needs defending, perhaps, bear with me, we
should start with banning divorce.
We can’t outlaw
divorce, some might say, there are legitimate reasons for it. Let us
accept that premise. Divorce becomes legal only in the case of a
spouse being abused or cheated on. I believe those would be the only
legitimate reasons in scripture for getting divorced. (There is never, I repeat never, a legitimate reason or scriptural
defense for committing adultery. Those being cheated on have recourse.
Those doing the cheating do not. God does not ever give Christians
permission to
have affairs. Although, thankfully, he offers forgiveness when they
do.) What if we try to
“fix” the underlying adultery issue which causes divorce, by passing laws?
Shall we go back
to the days of “The Scarlet Letter” and make adultery a crime? If
adultery is against the law, can we assume individuals will stop
cheating on their spouses? Actually, we can already surmise the answer
would be “no,” as adultery is already a crime in about half the states
in the union, but it is one of the least-enforced offenses on the books. (The letter writer presents a list of laws which
he asserts “our so called leaders” have determined “do not have to be
enforced.” Included in his list: DOMA, voter fraud, immigration, perjury, "some drug laws" and gun laws.) He did not include adultery in the list. Maybe he thinks adultery should be criminalized, but I
contend it’s a good thing adultery laws are not enforced, because the
jails would be filled up in a hurry.
How and why can Christians target
same-sex marriage but not divorce and adultery? This is an example of
how the letter writer's reasoning plays out when taken to its extreme.
I have also gone
to an extreme to make a point. I obviously do not think divorce, or
adultery for that matter, should be against the law. I have friends and
family members who have been divorced and are now remarried. Several of
them, in fact, who were before and are since in the ministry. I know it
has been agonizing for them to go through the process, but I would not
deny them the freedom to choose the path they believe is best for them,
for whatever reason. (Although there is a pretty good case to made, based on New Testament scripture, that those who are divorced should not be in leadership positions in the church.)
And I have
friends who are homosexuals who want to choose a path they also believe
is best for them. How can we, in good conscience, look at how the Church behaves and try to claim the moral high
ground by denying anyone the chance to wed, and then, add insult to
injury by saying we are defending marriage?
The letter writer says, "I think that we are now in a position where we need some laws to protect moral values."
It brings me to
my second point. If morality is legislated, who gets to write the laws?
Do Christians decide for everyone else? Do we convene a panel of
sadducees and pharisees? Does the letter writer get to decide? What about me? I
can make a pretty good case for what should be against the law, based
solely on scripture, but I doubt he would agree with my ideas.
For example: Jesus said to
love our enemies, bless and pray for them, and “turn the other cheek.”
In Romans 12:20-21, we are told, “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed
him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals
of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with
good.” The “coals” we are to
heap on the heads of enemies are not bombs, we are to heap good on them.
That would seem to be a reasonable argument to ban war, from a biblical
view, wouldn’t you think? Maybe we should pass laws immediately ceasing all hostilities and shutting down the huge war machine in the U.S.
And if we try to
incorporate the teachings of Jesus in his “Sermon on the Mount” into the
law of the land, we’re all really sunk, because at the very least, the
following could easily be criminalized: being angry at a “brother;”
calling someone a fool; not only committing adultery, but “looking
lustfully” at women; praying in public (that’s an interesting one, isn’t
it?) and having a savings account, just to name a few.
My goal is not to try to claim that I am right and the letter writer and those who share his views are wrong. My goal has always been, by expressing my opinions
in this space for the past several years, to make us all think.
Specifically, to make those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus
think about how we have arrived at what we believe. I am often concerned
that our Christian views have been too much influenced by sources other
than the teachings of Jesus.
