Pope Time

As most of you are aware, a few weeks ago the Catholic Church elected a new pope, Francis, to the head of their church. I've heard a variety of views upon this event and the Catholic church as a whole. Here's a few of the significant remarks I've heard or thought of.

First of all, let's motivate this blog. The fact that this new pope is in a position of leadership of over 1 billion people (approx. 1/8 of the world's population), it is an understatement to say that he has a significant amount of power/influence, which, in my opinion, surpasses that of most, if not all, political/social leaders of the modern world. That being the case, anytime a significant change occurs with this position, the shear authority that accompanies the role demands, in my opinion, that I take a look and heed attention towards the event.

Thought 1: This is my favorite thought, I am in wonder of the impact that this man has. That whatever he says is treated as the word of God (or a shade shy of it). I was in awe of the impact on world that one simple command from him could have. That if he declared that in order to be a 'good catholic' one must share the Gospel (perhaps on a timely basis like once a month). I was in wonder of how many people would a) have to know the biblical Gospel and be able to give an account (1 Peter) and b) would hear the Gospel (perhaps for the first time, perhaps just another time leading them closer to the truth)

Thought 2: The second thought was 'what is different between this man and I?'. I came to a few answers to this question. First, he wears funny clothes and a point hat (though I do wear funny clothes sometime, I do not have a pointy hat). Second, he is in a position of authority of a whole bunch of people. I am not, I may have authority over a few people, but it is nowhere near his scope. Third, he has had a significantly more time to study the scripture and preach to God's people. Then I asked, 'spiritually speaking, what's the difference?', we're both sinners in desperate need of a savior. If he's been redeemed through the cross I will happily call him brother and I look forward to his leading of people towards a biblical Gospel. (though some of my friends have expressed doubt that a Gospel focused person will ever be able to lead in the Vatican, I have hope that God for his word does not return void)

Thought 3: What role does the pope play in the life of the average Catholic? I could go into an extended example, but I'll cut to the chase, is he an idol? Is he, in effect, worshiped by the practicing Catholic? I know that official doctrine is adamantly against this claim, but what is the de facto belief?

Thought 4: Though closely related to thought 3, is he an intercessor? Is one of his roles to be a liaison from God to humankind? I have gotten this sense from some of my Catholic friends and I would like to directly challenge it. If his role is to intermediate from God to man, then that is a perfect modern-day example of the Judaic-temple religion under the rule of the Pharisees. The parallels between the New Testament Pharisee religion and the modern-day Catholic religion were so surprising and accurate that I was taken aback.

What are you thoughts on the new pope or the papacy in general?

Homosexuality and the Bible: Part II

Howdy all,

Given the recent surge in facebook for support of homosexual marriage I have felt the need to write a new note regarding the topic. If you want to read my first note here's the link: http://www.facebook.com/notes/travis-ray/homosexuality-and-the-bible/10151768580730567, or you can find it with my other notes.

My previous note was mostly focused on Homosexuality itself, this note will be aimed more so at the specific case of Homosexual marriage. As with last time, I have become slightly annoyed with both sides of the argument and I'm hoping to present both sides in a fair mannered way. Feel free to comment with a thought provoking idea or question at the end. 

First I'll discuss the religious side. The main argument I see from this camp is rooted in the definition of marriage, that is, 'A man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife' (Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5). And a deviation from these kinds of relationships (namely in a sexual manner) is 'unnatural' (Rom 1) and is often an indicator of other forms of sin, such as with Sodom and Gomorrah. So, for a Christian it seems difficult to justify a personal indulgence in homosexual marriage.

The thing that I see happens next is that the church takes this stance that it holds and attempts to make it a blanket law for all people. My concern with this is that they are trying to force people who are not under the heavenly law to obey God's laws. And they have resisted, afterall, why should they bother following the laws and decress of a God they don't believe in. As I was abroad last week I had a realization that telling a native of Mexico to obey a law that was specific to the US would sound like foolishness to them. In the same way telling a person who has not been redeemed by the cross to obey the heavenly laws is asking them to do something that they cannont (and probably don't want to) do, a law from someone that they have no allegiance to. That being the case, I do not have the authority to rebuke an unsaved person for their sins. Do they sin? Yes, but their sin has not yet been revealed to them (Rom 7). 

As for homosexual marriage, if the person is unsaved, God has 'handed them over to their sinful desires' (Rom 1). If an unsaved person wants to get a gay marriage, I have no grounds to tell them no because they are dwelling in sin. (In fact, the greatest thing I could do is not to criticize their gay relationships, but to share with them the Gospel of the risen savior Jesus Christ). However, if a person is claiming to have been redeemed by the cross and are practicing these lifestyles, then I have a responsibility to call them out on their sin. As for the passage of a law, the government can do whatever it wants and I am under their authority. Though I will not indulge in gay marriage I will rebuke only those who are claiming to follow the Lord and yet practice things contrary to scripture. 

Now for the other side of the argument. Again, I'm quite dissapointed that there has been a wholesome lack of legitimate arguments from this side and that they have reverted to satire and mockery to elevate themselves above the opposition. There are some good, biblical and culture reasons for gay marriage, yet most people don't invoke or extrapolate upon these arguments. I won't spend time going into the biblical arguments (mostly becuase I don't think they hold much water), but here's a site that shows a pro-homosexual biblical viewpoint with a rebuttal: http://www.christianpost.com/news/what-the-bible-really-still-says-about-homosexuality-75108/

There are two main themes that I've been getting out from the cultural side of this argument, tolerance and human rights. Firstly, I believe that the working definition of tolerance has changed over the centuries. The tolerance that was brought by the pilgrams and founding fathers was something like 'if we don't believe the same thing, I'll accept you as a human being and won't seek out to persecute you.' Nowadays when people invoke tolerance it almost seems like the implication is 'if we don't believe the same thing, I'll accept your beliefs as being of equal weight and validity as my own' (ironically people who don't hold this belief are often called intolerant, as is the case we are discussing). Here's a through provoking quote I read from a friend recently:

Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear them 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. - Rick Warren

As for the idea of human rights, what are human rights? I feel that a lot of people put their arguments under the broad umbrella of 'human rights' with the implication that if I disagree with their point, then I am against human rights. And because American ideology is based on the idea of human rights/freedom I am also somehow speaking out against my country. One point I would make is if this whole homosexual marriage debate is about human rights, then why not attempt to get civil unions? They give you all of the legal rights of a married couple, but without any of the spiritual backing behind a marriage (which is, biblically speak, a spiritual act as much as, or more so than, a physical act). I know that the legal rights are not exactly the same, but I think that upping the status of civil unions would be a much simpler task than taking on the establishment of marriage. At least, I feel that if civil rights were the main goal of this camp then civil unions would be the simplest and most common-sensical choice. (Side thought:  marriage is, in part, a spiritual act, so should we consider spiritual rights instead of civil rights?)

This is getting fairly long, so I'll wrap it up. In my opinion the bible is opposed to homosexuality, an extension of which is gay marriage. For those who are unsaved, I have no grounds to call them out on their sin for God has not made their sin known to them. I am called to love on those who are unsaved just as Christ did, he never condoned their sinful actions, but if they became aware of their depravity he would point them to repentance, likewise were are to point people to repentance and salvation through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. For those who are redeemed by the cross (to which I would include churches) I would expect them to not participate in homosexual marriage and those who do should be treated with church discipline (Matt 18). Also, not partaking in such an act were it made legal would allow us another opportunity to be set apart and holy within this world. 

Leave any comments or questions and I'll try to get back to you.

Live for Him,

Travis Ray