Context can be literal!

In discussing same-sex marriage, we should recognise that we've all been here before with the 30-odd year church re-marriage debate. The indissolubility of marriage in the Anglican Church was overturned by the moral consensus approach to theology, but only after the emphatic statements of Christ against divorce were re-interpreted as out of character and equivocal.

Paul had to wrestle with the post-conversion validity of heathen marriages: an issue that Jesus did not address directly in His answers to Jews on divorce.

The apostle was no conservative: quite happy to dispense with the most fundamental Jewish initiation rite for his new converts. Yet, he was hindered by Christ from fitting his marital theology into a relaxed consensus derived from the wider society.

Paul's revelation from Christ echoed and maintained consistent position on the indissolubility of marriage to a fundamentally different Gentile audience and in a completely new context. The prohibition against divorce was re-iterated to him by the Lord: 'Let not the wife depart from the husband' (1 Cor. 7:10). How unprogressive!

Depressingly, Paul even declared that a sacramental quality is imparted to these mismatched marriages that might have been left for dead: 'For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband.' (vs. 14)

In contrast to this method, we are now given assurances that the correct interpretation is to apply the consensus on ethics derived from the wider society in order to overturn any challenge arising from the ‘plain meaning’ of canon law or the scripture upon which it is based.

Any interpretation apart from this is declared by detractors as a literalist imposition of personal views on others. Yet, the apostle's contextual interpretation sustained Christ's declaration on divorce as applicable beyond its initial Jewish context to Gentile converts as well. How should we describe his approach in today's terms? Consistent, but restrictive? Invalid? Too literal?

What does 'built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone' (Eph. 2:20) really mean, if we only pay lip-service to the apostle's recorded contextual approach to scripture?

The irony of tyranny

In the first chapters of Job, we are provided with a celestial backdrop to human adversity. The rest of the book is characterised by dramatic irony.

In real life today, there is the same dramatic irony, but we can see little of the backdrop by unaided insight. We are much like Job's 'comforters', only more inclined to blame God, rather than our tragic heroes, the poor, for sudden or sustained misfortune.

The truth is that even poor men, like Job, fail to see their latent capacity for self-righteous self-deception. How does Cromwell overthrow Royalists, only to accept £100,000 a year as Lord Protector and accept the customary address of 'Your Highness'?

Poverty in itself is not virtue, nor is it retribution. It is temporal, it can be largely undone by the blessing of human fairness and decency. It can even be viewed as a blessing by those who see the deception of worldly wealth and the potential for tyranny in the humblest human soul.

Of course, this does not exonerate the classes and nations that ignore the poverty that they impose on their neighbours, nor should victims of poverty endure it interminably without any relief that we can provide.

The Gospel of God!

It started 2000 years ago, with the miraculous healing and forgiveness ministry of Jesus Christ. At that time, God began a bold new initiative (that continues to this day) to exercise His love towards Man and His limitless supremacy over natural hardships and supernatural evil, overturning every imaginable kind of harm. Salvation is God's great and final rescue mission: eternal amnesty and healing through His Son, the Messiah Jesus. I don't care how big the problem is: whether health, money, or most of all your own conscience, God can fix it when you rely upon His Son, Jesus to guide your thoughts to the answer.

Jesus described His Father's loving outreach towards you, me and a largely thankless world saying, ''the Kingdom of God is at hand'. God, graciously looking beyond our failure to live by the rule of loving equality: the LAW OF EVERY CONSCIENCE. God: confronting and overcoming the resulting corruption of our health, morality and social fabric, the world as we know it. God: exercising extraordinary power through ordinary messengers, like me, to transform lives, one soul at a time. God: supernaturally empowering us to reach a new and higher personal relationship with Him and each other. The goal: to restore us and bestow eternal greatness on our complete humanity (body, mind and spirit), saved at last from the finality of mortal destruction.

This higher Father-Son relationship with God will transform and captivate your life forever. It gives a new beginning to those who might, like you, be open to change, undoing all the fear and despair that confront our fragile humanity.

I'm sure that the numerous miracles of Jesus challenged the assumptions of his contemporaries (as they do, ours) about the remoteness of an angry, distant God who we might think has abandoned man to the misery of  depravity and destruction.

The good news is that the whole of mankind's destiny isn’t total annihilation. The good news is that we can be saved from destruction. When an alcoholic turns from bottle to bible, it's good news! When a prostitute turns from perversion to the Prince of Peace, it’s good news! When a prideful churchman is humbled enough to abandon empty rituals for a relationship with God, it’s good news! When those who are largely thoughtless of God begin to think about Him again, it’s good news!

Most of all, the gospel proves that mankind is wrong about the character of the true and living God. We have accepted the twisted notions that God is either too soft to impose exact justice, or only angry and waiting for us to mess up. However, the true and living God is really only waiting for us to despair of our relentless desire to plunder HIs providence for selfish gain and to rule without His guidance. He waits for us to ask in prayer for the chance to come back under His protection. He's never stopped loving us.

That is every true prophet's cry: Come to your senses and realise that God wants a restored relationship in your thoughts and actions. He wants to overturn and surpass our frail human circumstances forever. It's an immense opportunity. Seize the moment to make things right with God: to wipe the slate clean and clear your conscience.

Look at the rich and powerful and ask yourself whether they are truly secure. They are panicked by anything that affects the state of the economy. They fear their own mortality. They fear the envious. They fear dispossession. Worldly ambition is fragile and futile at best. Only further inevitable harm and total deprivation lies in that direction. Surely, you can see how this works at cross-purposes to God's desire for loving equality among us all.

If your desire is to free your conscience, join God's family in the rite of baptism, calling upon Jesus, who opened the door to God for you through the amnesty of His sinless blood. As you pray through Jesus, admit those selfish wrongs that have weighed down your conscience. Restore anything you’ve taken from others. In so doing, you will find moral cleansing, empowerment to do right and eternal peace with God.

By choice or by nature

So we now have a British court ruling in favour of homosexual civil partners, who were refused a double-bed room by the Bulls, B&B owners in Cornwall.

What should Christians make of this? Firstly, that British statute law places sexual orientation on an equal footing with race and creed and that the distinction between same-sex civil partnership and marriage is legally blurred.

To many Christians who accept the biblical record of creation, homosexuality represents the final act of contempt against divine order in nature. God specifically created male and female for the purpose of maintaining lifelong companionship and procreation. It is far too reductive to separate the goal of lifelong marital companionship that is crucial to development of stable society from the divinely bestowed complementary sexual and behavioural functions of a man and woman in marriage. Sex is not merely for procreation, it is a central to the original and divinely instituted process of developing a permanent earthly bond within a marriage: ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder’  (Mark 10:9)

Homosexual acts may appear to simulate these complementary roles, yet they directly subvert the complementary function of the genders. The harm is that the behaviour maintains a subversive defiance of God’s order for marriage.

Paul was clear that a heterosexual relationship with a godless heathen could still be transformed into a holy union through the Christian partner’s patience, prayer and exemplary behaviour. ‘But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away’ (1 Cor. 7:12) The same can’t be said of homosexual relationships.

Nevertheless, the main issue raised in this case is not whether we are free to disapprove of homosexuality. It is whether we are free to withhold business services from certain groups that we consider immoral.

If I advertise a prayer room in my hotel, can I be selective about which faiths can use it? If I’m building an extension for someone, can I stop work if I find out that it will provide a home for a lesbian couple? Is providing a roof over their heads tantamount to aiding and abetting their lifestyle.

It does seem that if we carried this through to its logical conclusion, we would end up rejecting the call of Christ to: ‘Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you’ (Luke 6:27 – 31)

Paul highlights a distinction between maintaining church discipline and isolation from external contact: ‘I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.’ (1 Cor. 5:9 – 11)

So, Paul distinguishes separation that preserves internal church discipline from a complete withdrawal from the wider society. We cannot and should not minimize all non-Christian contact. If a Muslim comes into your printing establishment and asks for a quote for publishing a book, do you refuse point-blank on the assumption that it might be extremely critical of Christianity? Or do you see it as an opportunity to engage in a good-natured conversation, possibly leading you to highlight the eternal merits of the risen Christ?

Some people consider that anything short of hostility is a compromise. Let’s be honest, the compromise begins when we fail to be forthright and decisive in our opposition to godless behaviour. Satan cannot entice a heart filled with devotion to God. We are not so much contaminated by the influence of outsiders as we are by our own flagging resolve and desire for mainstream acceptance.

Also, by shunning unbelievers at every turn, we lose a valuable opportunity to influence them for good. The value of quiet, godly and kind interaction is more important than avoiding the threat of moral contamination: ‘You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.’ (1 John 4:4)

Perhaps our practical hospitality and service will help refute the idea that Christians are ‘too heavenly minded to be any earthly good’.

The overriding fear expressed by committed Christians who interact with the wider society, is that of providing tacit endorsement to impenitent sinners. Paul was clear that we should set a good example, be respectfully candid in challenging evil on all fronts and not waste significant amounts of our discretionary time/effort on those who claim to be Christian, but perpetually reject the gospel by their worldly behaviour.

However, your business does not involve discretionary time or effort. Once you accept the request for a service or product, you are under an obligation to deliver it to the best of your ability. We can and should still challenge immorality thoughtfully and respectfully, but why single out homosexuals more than any other group? The gospel roundly condemns all forms of godlessness: ‘Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;’ (Titus 2:12)

For centuries, Christianity enjoyed an ascendant position within our legal framework. The moral stance of the major Christian denominations was equated with public standards of decency. This is no longer the case. However, it also was never the case in first-century Palestine.

In the early church, a converted slave would be obliged to render service towards even the immoral and deviant guests of his owner. He might have to clean up after a night of revelry. As long as service does not demand that the Christian participate in or encourage immoral behaviour, Paul words are clear: ‘Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.’ (Eph. 6:5)

So the rule is that, once you are under a contractual obligation to someone (even by spoken commitment), you should fulfil it, once it does not require your own participation in or encouragement of wrongdoing. To be under an imposition to merely provide a benefit, (but without the foreknowledge that it will actually be misused) cannot be considered to aid and abet wrongdoing. In the publishing example, if you felt it that the requested publication might be an incitement to religious or racial hatred, you might mention that you would need to send a proof copy to the police. ‘Be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves’

It’s intrusive to assume the worst and try to police a customer’s behaviour, even if it is offensive. People are won over by freely responding to the truth, not by hounding them with censorious restrictions. As long as you are unequivocal about your commitment to Christ’s position on the matter, you have discharged your obligation.

So, it is one thing to respond diligently to a business obligation (even though you realise that the benefit that you provide could be misused). It is quite another to attract a niche of openly immoral clients through pro-active marketing, or to behave in a manner that celebrates, supports, encourages or ignores their continued defiance of God.

May God help us to respect and maintain this distinction.

Christ and Consumption

In a recent survey of 2000 households, over a quarter indicated that unsecured credit card debt had become a problem. Although the average credit card debt was placed at £1747 per person in April this year, the average interest charged on credit cards (16.68 per cent) bears little relation to current loan rates (approx. 8.5%) or the fairly modest Bank of England base rate of 0.5 per cent.

It was reported in May this year, that one in seven credit card holders is relying on plastic to pay for household bills, such as utilities. Yet, around half were reported to be also using them to fund big ticket purchases, such as TVs and DVD players. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/credit-cards/article.html?in_article_id=505276&in_page_id=53936

Given that these two groups are not mutually exclusive, we can conclude that some households are purchasing these expensive consumer goods and yet paying some of their monthly household bills on credit.

Men have an average of £3,425 in personal debts, compared with £3,353 for women. This is an interesting statistic given the gender income disparity. A uSwitch survey reported worryingly that female shopaholics spend 19% of their income on debt repayments, compared to a national average of 8. What proportion of your pay goes to pay off debt? It takes shopaholics approximately seven months to clear a debt. How long does it take you?

http://www.ismartsolutions.co.uk/iblog/debt-management/shopaholic-brits-rack-up-almost-24-billion-debt/

So what is the truth behind the intrinsic value of consumer goods? Well, let’s look at the current icon of consumer electronics, the iPhone. Its market share rose from 8.2 per cent in 2008 to 14.4 per cent in 2009. You can buy a SIM-free iPhone 4 for about £450. Alternatively, you can get one for £99 under a 2 year £35 per month (Total = £939).

But what does it cost to manufacture an iPhone? An article published in January 2007 indicated a 50 per cent gross margin on each iPhone sale in the US :

Based on a preliminary functional Bill of Materials (BoM) estimate, the firm calculates that the 4Gbyte version of the Apple iPhone will carry a $229.85 materials and manufacturing cost and a $245.83 total expense, yielding a 50.7 percent margin on each unit sold at the $499 retail price. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/18/apple_may_see_50_percent_margin_on_each_iphone_sale.html

If anything, the unit cost of iPhone manufacture would have decreased as production ramped up and R&D, start-up costs were absorbed. In contrast, the unit price has increased.  So how do you manage to sustain this sort of margin in the competitive smartphone market? In two words: YOU ADVERTISE.

In 2007 Apple’s advertising budget was $467 million and much of it was allocated specifically to market the iPhone. The result is that the iPhone was responsible for 39% of the company's revenues in Q4 2008.

A key part of the advertising strategy is positioning. The iPhone is provided to a variety of high-profile music and sports stars free of charge. As we watch these widely-admired celebrities using these products, we assume that these products are part of that charmed world of leisurely success that they enjoy. We buy into that image and it is this assumption that drives consumer demand. It is this distinctive emotional connection called BRAND that advertisers try to build in our minds.

So what has this to do with Christ? Definitively, Jesus said ‘You cannot serve God and Mammon’. (Matt. 6:24) Mammon is the personification of worldly success and material security. It is BRAND objectified. A brand image distorts our values, so that an item that only cost $250 to manufacture is purchased for $499. If it’s bought on unsecured credit, at the typical 16.68 per cent interest, the overall cost to the consumer is extortionate. The image of success is a deception aimed at making us part with money we don’t have, in order to demonstrate that we’ve achieved a status that we can’t really afford.

These things have no power to keep us safe from hardship, or harm. They are fragile and yet we look to them for security. As Christ said: ‘Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness,
for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions’ (Luke 12:15)

‘For the love of money (wealth) is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money (wealth), have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.’ (1 Tim. 6:10) Many a debt counsellor would attest to the truth of this scripture.

Paul speaks of what repentance meant for the first-century Christians, ‘how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God’ (1 Thess. 1:9)

The clear teaching of Christianity is for us to renounce the idolatry of paying inflated prices for fragile goods that simply maintain our successful persona, especially when it becomes an extravagant abuse of borrowed money. By all means get a decent mobile phone with good reception, but when advertising influences you to pay or borrow 70 per cent of a typical monthly house payment at 17 per cent interest (or spend more than £900 in phone charges over 2 years), you have to question whether Apple or any other technology company deserves a 50 per cent gross margin.

Of course, once you’re hooked on spending that sort of money through consumer credit, there’s little left over for personal or anyone else’s emergencies.

Marriage and the Three-Legged Race

When I think of marriage and its challenges, I think the curious analogy of a three-legged race is a useful one. The ideal pairing for winning this race is a set of identical partners. However, in real life, there is no perfect match. Instead, you are joined to a runner who has little knowledge of your stride pattern or gait. However, it’s only when you start running that you realise that there's a mismatch and the faster that you try to run, the worse it gets.

You scream at each other to keep to the same pace, and then to stop shouting because (I’ve been told) ‘SHOUTING DOESN’T HELP!’ The combined movement is more akin to a sputtering engine than a well-oiled machine. Of course, ever so often, you're meant to stop to adjust the tie that binds you together carefully and gently.

At some point, one or both partners may say (or think), 'What's the point? I'm faster or at least happier by myself. I'm almost carrying you and that's not fair. If I had known you had shorter/longer legs than mine or your tendency to lose your temper or give up so easily, I would have chosen someone else. I was conned. I don't know why I was paired with a total opposite. Obviously to turn me into a complete laughing stock!'

So, you start to either fix the bond carelessly, or forget the bonding altogether. So, with no need to pause, running seems easier. You don't even have to look at each other or match stride patterns. As freer individuals, you both seem to be passing other more closely attached couples who, by comparison, are only plodding slowly. I should know: I did this for years.

Some time before the end of the race, the bond is lost. However, not before the contempt-laden accusation is levelled: 'You’re not even making an effort!'

You can now see other solitary runners making their way up to the finish line ahead of the paired ones. You might even size up one of those running alone as a potential future partner. This one better matches your stride pattern and appears more suited for the long haul. Of course, if you’re partnered on the finish line, It will look as though you still respect and play by the rules.

At least for a while, with the new partner, you might seem more synchronised. You believe you can reach the finish line way ahead of the competition, and feel like a winner.That is, until one of you gets fatigue and slows down. And anyway, you will only find yourself disqualified at the end for cheating.

In contrast, for those who arrive at the finish line alone, the only acceptable excuse (I’ve been told) is that their partner’s run was ended by severe illness or that the other person ran off along the way. Of course, the race footage is a perfect record of when and how the partner was supposed to have 'run off' and how the bond was lost. It shamefully reveals that you were both already running at cross-purposes beforehand!

The whole purpose of this type of race (and marriage) is to challenge us to find cleverer ways to merge our styles. You won't be partnered with a perfect match. You might start out looking slow and awkward. People will laugh at your plodding efforts to make headway. Perhaps they will encourage you to give up altogether.

If you want to make it to the finish together, you have to slow down and make major adjustments to your own individuality, pace or stride pattern. You must be prepared to accommodate the good and bad peculiarities of the other runner gradually WITH A MUTUALLY AGREED AGENDA FOR CHANGE. This is the crux of the problem: NEITHER PARTNER WANTS TO SLOW DOWN.

So I guess, couples in crisis (‘been there, done that’) have to decide whether they want to explain to God how and why the bond was lost and be disqualified at the end of that long race that we call ‘life’. Or they might both submit to a mutually agreed agenda for slow, deliberate change. One that enables them to accommodate each other without compromising their core individuality and values about life.

Questions for each partner to ask themselves might be: 'Should the world just accept that I have no great desire to change my behaviour for anyone? How much am I prepared to change as an individual in order to match my partner's stride pattern? Do I think that the prize of lifelong marital harmony is worth the sacrifice and discomfort of changing my ingrained behaviour and approach to life? Do we need to seek outside help in order to effect the personal change needed to achieve harmony?’

However you choose to answer those questions, remember the wise words of Ecclesiastes:

‘I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favour to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.’ Time and chance will thwart the advancement of those who end their marriages for selfish and mercenary reasons.That’s just how God’s universe works!

If you think that God won’t get you…

Continuing the theme of overcoming selfish desires, I remember that Dolly Parton penned a great tune many years ago about the effect of illicit obsession as it corrodes the conscience. She weaves in the titles of great gospel and country music.

The tender love lyrics remind me of the Song of Solomon. Of course, it’s not a hymn, but a ballad of forbidden love describing how it plays on the mind. Dolly truly articulates the pangs of guilt and moral contradictions that we know can only be purified by recognising the price paid to remove them: the blood of Christ. It’s a reminder that sin’s pay packet (wage) is really an intolerable expense to the mind and soul in this life (as well as the next) that no-one escapes without repentance. I read this as a challenge to my own bad choices. I hope you do too:

Sometimes in my sleep I hold you close against my skin,
Waking’ up I wish that I could sleep and dream again,
Because only in my dreams can I know how it might have been,
But cheaters never win, their heartaches never end,
But sometimes I get crazy as lovers often do,
Trying to please him and wondering if she’s pleasin’ you
Though they have every right to any part of us they choose,
I still live just for you and our secret rendezvous

Chorus:
‘Torn between two lovers’ on the jukebox,
I’m thinkin’ how I could have wrote that song,
Wonderin’ if God loves us when we’re cheatin’?
Oh, but why he lets us feel things, if it’s wrong,
And I guess I should be singin’ "Rock of Ages"
"Amazing Grace" and some of those good songs,
But my ‘cheatin’ heart will tell on me tomorrow’
If you think that God won’t get you, well you’re wrong!

Thou shalt not commit it, it’s written in the ten
The spirit’s always willin’, but the flesh is weak again,
And you’re as close to heaven as I might ever fly
And angel in disguise
A wrong that feels so right

Chorus:
‘Torn between two lovers’ just keeps playin’ 
‘I don’t want to be right if loving you is wrong’,
Wonderin’ if God loves us when we’re cheatin’?
Oh, but why he lets us feel things, if it’s wrong,
And I guess I should be singin’ "Rock of Ages"
"Amazing Grace" and some of those good songs,
But my ‘cheatin’ heart will tell on me tomorrow’
If you think that God won’t get you, well you’re wrong!

TRUTH!