In Which I Rant. Again.

"God did not instruct the church to force the rest of the world to have the appearance of the church."

I'm going to warn you right off the bat: this post will be long, it will be ranty, it will be confusing. It will be my thoughts as of the moment I post it, which are not necessarily set in stone. I welcome opposing viewpoints as long as they aren't attacking me as a person.

I was doing my normal thing, reading through a day's worth of Facebook posts, when I came across the above quotation. Right away, I knew I wasn't going to get much done other than thinking about the implications of the above statement. It comes from this article, also a popular share on my news feed.

Yesterday, as you know, the Supreme Court was hearing arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act. I have friends on both sides of this debate. Actually, there are about fifty sides to the debate. There's an "I think all people everywhere aside from me and mine are going to hell" camp, a "God is love so free love for everyone" camp, a "I am morally opposed to this but afraid saying so will alienate me" camp, an "I really don't care let's get tacos" camp, a "What's with all the equal signs" camp... You name it, there's a camp for it.

But in most of the media I've digested, there's an attempt to get people to believe there are only two sides: "Yes, gay people should be allowed to get married because all are equal in the sight of the law and people who disagree are homophobic hatemongers (probably so-called 'Christians') who are out to create a new Third Reich"; and "No, gay people should not be allowed to get married because it's morally reprehensible and God doesn't love everyone and how far are you taking this, are we going to let people marry their dogs now?"

Do these camps exist? Yes. I personally know people who hold these opinions. But why do we have to take an all-or-nothing approach to this? In the article I mentioned, the author seems to take the approach that, because the Church has done a terrible job of conveying what it means to be the Church, they need to roll over and be the kind of church that people want - which is apparently an all-inclusive love-fest that is a social/political/economical activist and our mother rolled into one. Or in other words, a better government than our government.

A lot of Christians have spoken out about this matter. Some (the loudest) are of the God-hates-gays variety. Others are extremely cautious in their disapproval. Most try to side-step actually answering the question. Like Rick Warren. He showed up in my newsfeed a lot, too, saying "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

And it's true. An individual does not have to compromise convictions to be compassionate. But that message isn't getting across to a lot of people. The Church in America is being forced into the political realm, kicking and screaming, and they don't know how to deal with that. People suddenly have to decide if religion is going to dictate their morality.

This is a foreign concept in the rest of the world. Europe has already experienced the Enlightenment, a mass overthrow of their religious overlords, the beginning of the end of the Catholic Church. Self became the new god, until people realized where that could lead without some kind of check, and then Government (in defense of Self) took over manning the moral compass. And if you're not in Europe or Australia, then there's no question that religion or tradition rules.

Enter America. We're young, we're sure of ourselves, and we're founded on two opposing principles. One: God is our guide. Two: Man defines his own freedom. We tried merging the two ideas for a while, but when that didn't work, we decided to keep them completely separate. The Church doesn't tell the Government what to do, and the Government doesn't interfere with the Church.

And this position is no longer viable.

Over the years, there have been other clashes, and both sides have taken hits and given them, somehow emerging with their foundations mostly intact, a little worse for wear but mostly preserved. But I'm worried that this isn't going to be the case this time. This may be the start of the American Enlightenment. And you know why? Because for all the media tries to tell us it's true, the fact of that matter is that gay marriage is not a polarizing issue.

Why not let gay people get married? What real harm does it do? It's not really going to affect me, so what's the big deal? Look at all these cute old people finally allowed to be open about their love. What's so wrong with that? Maybe if we stop arguing about this, the church can finally choose "to focus on real problems with serious consequences, like unnecessary war, sex trafficking, extreme global poverty, gender inequality, our prison industrial complex, increasing poverty at home, growing income inequality, greed, rampant corruption and an unlawful and unaccountable federal government."

After all, "God did not instruct the church to force the rest of the world to have the appearance of the church."

You're right. God didn't tell the Church to force the rest of the world to become drones. God told the Church to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Here's where I have to define terms. Because there's the Church, and then there's the church. The Church, in my mind, is the global community of believers, followers of Christ, people devoted to doing what Jesus commanded them. The church is a building. It's a corporate identity and a social club, devoted to doing some nice things for people because that's just the right thing to do.

So yes, the church will probably roll over and conform to whatever role the Government gives them. And by Government, I mean the world, the individual quest for freedom from any kind of moral constraint, the desire to not have anyone telling you what to do outside of the collective consciousness of 'society.'

But the Church needs to realize that the battle lines have been drawn. This is the hill on which they must decide whether or not to die. And they need to choose well, because we're living in the age of scorched earth.

I actually agree with parts of the article. The church isn't doing a good job of taking care of its people, and the Church is struggling with a lot of dead weight.

I don't know where I want to go with this. I find myself struggling with so many different versions of truth, when really, Truth has not changed and never will.

It goes back to the serpent in Eden. "Did God really say that? And even if he did, is that what really what he meant?"

That's all it takes. That one moment of doubt. And I think what really bothers people with the Church is that fact that believing one thing, one simple Truth that there is a God and his Son Jesus is the only way to Heaven, demands a radical change, and suddenly you have to be accountable for your actions.

And apparently, that's just unthinkable.



I did warn you. I didn't even make half the points I set out to. Because for me, it always comes down to Truth. And the absence of it.