Gnostic America: A Reading of Comtemporary American Culture & Religion according to Christianity's Oldest Heresy – by Rev. Peter M. Burfeind (LCMS)

---

From the paper,
Why is this Happening to Us? How the culture wars become religious wars among us
delivered at the
2012 Conference of Intrepid Lutherans
“As is continuously the case even in our own age, already before the first generation of post-Apostolic Christianity had come to an end, heterodox interpretations of New Testament teaching were being disseminated by false teachers, along with fraudulent writings purported to be those of the Apostles. Therefore, in addition to preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ, the task soon fell upon those descending from direct contact with the Apostles to defend orthodox teaching and differentiate between genuine and false Scriptures. An early example of one such false teacher is Valentinus (d. A.D. 160) – the most influential Gnostic teacher in history, who received his training in Alexandria before coming to Rome. Another early Gnostic teacher, based in Rome, was Cerdon – he was a disciple of Simon Magus (mentioned in Acts 8:9-24).

When gnosticism came in touch with Christianity, it rapidly adopted the outward garb of the latter (1) by using the Christian forms of thought, (2) by borrowing its nomenclature, (3) by acknowledging Christ dualistically as the Saviour of the world, (4) by simulating the Christian sacraments, (5) by pretending to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and his apostles, (6) by producing a great number of apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelations (apocalypses). Although gnosticism was utterly the opposite of Christianity, it was so well camouflaged by this borrowed garb that it appeared to the unwary as a modification or refinement of Christianity. In fact it soon claimed to be the only true form of Christianity, set apart for the elect, unfit for the vulgar crowd. Gnosticism, highly aggressive, became so widely diffused throughout the Christian churches that for several centuries, especially from the second to the fourth, it threatened to stifle Christianity altogether. Many of the early Church Fathers, especially Irenæus, made great effort to suppress and uproot it. The gnostic leaders were excluded from membership in churches, while gnosticism was denounced as heresy by the Church as a whole.

“However, it was the teaching of Cerdon’s student, Marcion of Pontus (d. A.D. 160), being closely related to that of Gnosticism, which was regarded as enormously and immediately dangerous to Christianity. According to the 4^th Century church historian, Eusebius of Cæsarea (d. A.D. 339), Justin Martyr defended against the heresies of Marcion in writing, from which Irenæus (d. A.D. 202), a disciple of Polycarp, quotes in one of his own works, as well. And Polycarp himself was active against the Gnostic heretics. Irenæus recounted the mission of Polycarp to Rome in order to defend orthodoxy in the face of Valentinus and Marcion, as follows:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth... a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles – that, namely, which he also handed down to the Church.

“And this was the key to maintaining orthodoxy in the face of false teachers, their fraudulent scriptures and their resulting heresy:

1. validating one’s Scripture sources as having come directly from the apostles, and
2. validating one’s teaching as descending only from those Scriptures.

“...These works of polemic – defenses of orthodoxy and documentation of the Scripture’s sources – were required of Irenæus, Polycarp and others, as a result of pressure from the world and from worldly heterodox teachers.

Amid the general confusion ushered in by the gnostics, the Church was obliged to set up certain standards to be acknowledged by anyone who claimed to be Christian. These standards included the Apostles’ Creed, the formation of the New Testament Canon, and the Apostolic Office, or the historic Episcopate... [while] the defense of the Christian faith lead to the formation of Christian dogma...

“So, very early in the life of the New Testament church, in order to protect the Scriptures and the Christian message from corruption, the genuine apostolic writings had to be identified and defended as genuine.”

---

As readers of Intrepid Lutherans may be aware, the philosophy of post-Modernism is a relatively frequent topic on these pages. A related, and perhaps more important topic, is the re-emergence of a religious movement which seems to share in some sort of symbiosis with post-Modernism: the rise of Gnosticism in the West. In the words quoted above (and as they were expanded in the footnotes of that paper), the false religion of Gnosticism received brief treatment, and later in that paper, under headings such as “Gnosticism and Pagan Teaching, Monasticism and Aristocratic Merit before God” and “Gnostic Challenges, Pragmatic Issues of Governance, and the Romanization of the Church,” was identified as a primary cause of lasting corruption in the Church. To my knowledge, this is the extent of attention Gnosticism has received from Intrepid Lutherans. But it hasn’t been otherwise unknown to us.

More than once in the recent past has the fact been impressed upon me that the ideal of a secular society – often argued by Christian quietists who’d prefer that Christians squelch their religious convictions and disregard their Christian identity in the public square – is pure myth, long disproven by demographics studies since the early 1980’s, not much more than one decade after Western (and Lutheran) social scientists issued its initial hypothesis. This fact veritably forces one to admit that, like it or not, religious conviction and practice is fundamental to the establishment of any social order, and thus also forces one question: what affirmative and ascendant religious motivation stands behind the radical social changes we witness today, and behind the popular, near-militant anti-Christian sentiment we now experience in Western society? That is, since religion WILL function as a primary ordering force in society, which religion does it look likely to be, going forward? In answer to this, more than once have I heard Lutherans and other Christians forcefully warn of the re-emergence of Gnosticism.


Gnostic America
A Reading of Contemporary American Culture & Religion
according to Christianity’s Oldest Heresy

by Rev. Peter M. Burfeind
Rev. Peter M. Burfeind (LCMS) is one of those Lutherans who has personally warned me of this re-emergence. And now he is warning more broadly in his new book, Gnostic America: A Reading of Contemporary American Culture & Religion according to Christianity’s Oldest Heresy. An operator of Pax Domini Press, many of our readers may be familiar with his involvement with Sunday School curricula like A.D. The Acceptable Year of the Lord (a curriculum for ages 4-12 on the Gospel texts from the Historic Lectionary) or A New Song unto the Lord (a curriculum on the Biblical texts supporting the liturgy), and several Vacation Bible School programs. Pax Domini Press is one of those publishers that has been on our list of publishers since we first put that list in the column on the right. Having met him personally on a number of occasions, I recall the conversation we had the last time we had met. It was a broad conversation on the topic of gnostic manifestations in the church and in society today, which lasted into the early morning hours. It was during this conversation that he not only made apparent to me his concern, but revealed to me his ongoing research on the topic, mentioning that he had composed some material that he had shown to another pastor, who then encouraged him to continue developing his work into a book. Since then, I’ve thought of our conversation that evening, and as recently as this Summer, wondered if he had continued working or even completed his work. I received an email in late August announcing that his book, Gnostic America, is finally complete. I purchased a copy as soon as it was available on Amazon, and am currently about one-third of the way through it. At 362 pages, 16 chapters and 915 endnotes, one may expect that this book is rendered in painfully academic prose. Quite the opposite, however, being written by a parish pastor with a living concern for the laity (rather than a professional theologian, who daily functions outside of that environment), it is very accessibly written, without also being so “accessible” as to be insulting or condescending to literate adults – Rev. Burfeind is having a very serious conversation with his readers. I can say, even at only one-third through the book, that Gnostic America is a book which every Christian layman in America must read, especially if he wants a fuller understanding of currents in American and Western culture in terms of religious influence. With the influence of Christianity at a sharply contracting ebb, the influence of Gnosticism, which has always been a strong undercurrent, has risen to the surface again, and seems to now be directing the course of society. To give readers of Intrepid Lutherans a brief view into the subtle yet pernicious and pervasive influence that Gnosticism now has in Western Society (and with written permission from Rev. Burfeind), I quote extensively from the Introduction of Gnostic America:

Spiritual Artifacts of our Times“Easter, 2012. The audience gazed on in eager expectation, sitting in the stadium seating at the newest campus of the local mega-church. A giant screen towered over them. It revealed the countdown: four minutes forty-three seconds til the service... People filed in, they moved hastily to their seats ushered by well-trained worship attendants. The feeling was electric... Three...two...one.... The show began. The praise band stormed on the stage and churned the audience into a clapping, swaying, hand-waving throng... Then came the climax of the service. At the point where Christians have reverently received the Eucharist for two millenia, a song by Contemporary artist Chris Tomlin filled the building... As the singer, an attractive young female, segued into the final phrase of the song, she gave out a long impassioned moan, typical of the pop-vibrato style: ooooo ahhhhhh oooo ooooo ooooo. On cue the audience broke out into clapping and dance. The service ended.

“Harold Bloom went so far as to call the scene Orphic, referring to the ancient mystery cult where flutists worked initiates into an emotional froth, and then priests leveraged the emotion toward the desired goal, the vision of the mystery... In the history of the church, there is no precedent for this sort of emotion-laden, sacrament-less, erotically-charged religiosity. There is, however, a precedent outside the walls of the Church.

“That tradition is the Gnostic one.

“...[Drawing from philosophizing comments of a blogger, following the death of J.D. Salinger, author of Catcher in the Rye] Everyone is fake...the world is a product of the meaning I impose on it...sleep and dreaming is where the real stuff is at...death is release... The blogger asks: Is there anyone who is truly authentic?

“Authentic. The word is everywhere. It’s the new pious , which traditionally was the proper state of mind one should have toward his deity. When God is distinct from me, my state of mind toward this other Being is that of piety. But what happens when my Self is God? Then the goal is authenticity. Being ‘true to my Self’ replaces ‘deny yourself’... Authenticity, or creating one’s Self, is the chief piety [of Existentialism, ‘the atheist's religion’]. Choice is [this religion’s] sacrament. It’s how creation of Self happens. In fact, there is a whole lexicon of words we use – authenticity, choice, freedom, Self, culture, values – whose meanings are shaped by this atheistic philosophy. But we have forgotten the philosophical contexts in which these terms arose, so we don’t question their premises. Why don’t we question their premises? Because that’s how faith works. It’s premises just are.

“Faith is far from on the decline in America. It’s held more fervently than ever, and its premises are more blindly adhered to and more absolutely grounded on thin air than Christianity ever was.

“A Neo-evangelical praise service, the anticipation of a progressive Utopian Age, the musings of an existentialist/New Age blogger, a young person’s discomfort with his/her gender, these are spiritual artifacts of our times, detritus from the spiritual path our culture is carving out of our age. They don’t stand out because no one notices the smell of the house they live in. They point to a dominant religious footprint so large no one notices it. The argument of this book is that the traits of ancient Gnosticism best explain this religious orientation.”

Gnosticism 101“What is Gnosticism? The Gnosticism 101 answer is, it was an ancient movement centered on esoteric knowledge. It held to a dualistic understanding of the cosmos, in which an evil, lesser god created all things material, and only those who had attained gnosis (knowledge) about their true Source (the higher deity) understood the bodiless Self-ness of their existence. Its salvation program of one of escape, escape of Self from materiality and this oppressive world order.

“Gnosticism’s major offense to traditional Christianity... is its rejection of nature, nature’s laws, and natures God. The gnostic is ever in rebellion against nature and... natural forms. Such naturally-arising concepts as gender, national boundaries, the cold hard realities of economics, cultural institutions like family and church (especially its rituals), marriage, even language, are deceptive impositions, says that Gnostic, of a foreign God upon which should be the authentic Self liberated from all impositions of form, freed to transcend them altogether.

“The Judeo-Christian orientation [however] centers on created forms. God’s first action was to separate the ‘formless and void’ of creation and bring about the various species ‘each according to its kind.’ After separating the elements he named them, which is to say: language arose out of the creation of forms... Gnostics reject this entire premise. The God who established forms ‘each according to its kind’ they consider an evil usurping god, a false tyrant deceptively thought to be the one true God, the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. The true God, says the Gnostic, transcends all form, all that can be thought, all being, everything. Celebrating formless spirituality, Gnosticism rejects those formal things, peoples, and institutions marking traditional Christianity: the Church, its sacramental life, and its ministry. It despises the Jewish God and its regard for language and grammar, anything mooring spirituality to something so profane as a text.

“Thus the Gnosticism 101 summary, but where things get interesting (and pernicious) is where the Gnostic movement works its program through culture, politics and religion. Precisely because Gnosticism doesn’t have marked doctrines or creedal statements, being more a ‘spiritual orientation,’ it can easily be co-opted in non-religious arenas – in politics, marketing and media – without fear of being accused of religious imposition, when in fact this is exactly what it is.”

Irony & Nihilism
De-constructing Western mores & institutions; Re-constructing with the religion of Gnosticism“Gnosticism naturally rises out of nihilism, and ours is a nihilistic age. Nihilism is the view that nothing matters... [it] is the wrecking ball of society, an iconoclastic force tearing down traditional institutions, traditional moralities, traditional rituals, traditional habits, traditional customs, traditional grammar, traditional language and traditional reasoning. Nihilism begins in despair and cynicism, despair because these traditions seemed to fail human aspiration, cynicism that they could have ever satisfied it in the first place. To the nihilist, every institution is run by the ‘powers that be,’ or the ‘rulers of the universe,’ by people who only concern is control: power for its own sake.

“Nihilism often masquerades as a bitter sense of irony. Irony fits nihilism because it discharges any challenge to nihilism. Irony can cut anything good and beautiful down to size. It also raises the bad and ugly just enough to prove the high and great weren’t that high or great in the first place. Irony levels everything so that nothing has meaning.

“...Why is this sort of irony necessary? Because nihilism has taken root in the American mind. The moment any traditional institution or form or convention or custom – the nation, marriage, the Church, gender roles, freedom, the free market – is seen to have some worth or beauty or goodness (to say nothing of basic truth) attached to it, the demon of nihilism has a ready quip to deflate its pretenses. Hence the modern iconoclasm toward these institutions, their sentenced de-construction.

“But the human soul cannot tolerate such emptiness, the vacuum created by nihilism. Something must fill the vacated domain. Something must be re-constructed. Hollywood understands this. At the same time they manufacture irony toward traditional notions, they craft new fantastical realities... [But] irony, though fun and funny, is ultimately jejune and doesn’t satisfy. Hollywood cannot end with irony; it must offer new, transcendent realities... [which suggest that one has] tapped into something more real than life. The soul enters into the dark tunnel of nihilism, but finds a light at the end of the tunnel, on ...projection screens, ...television commercials, ...the internet, and in the other accepted conduits of reconstructed truth.

“The path from nihilism to meaning has a parallel in the history of philosophy. The most virulent, anti-Christian, atheist philosophers almost always ended up with some sort of spirituality. They must make some appeal to the transcendent, else they’d have no reason to lay down their philosophies in the first place. What is the transcendent, after all, but whatever I believe it true for more than just myself? That transcendency, then, soon takes on the characteristics of spirituality.

“Some simply end at irony, like philosopher Richard Rorty. But even Nietzsche, as ‘he assails the reason he will be enlisting,’ at the same time ‘ironizes a discourse that at the same time struggles beyond irony’... The quest for truth cannot end at irony; there must be something beyond.

“Heidegger displays the same tension between nihilism and transcendence. He too, like Nietzsche, saw the West coming to a nihilistic end because being, as understood in the Western philosophical heritage, disintegrated when the Christian and classical traditions propelling that heritage ran out of steam. Heidegger also didn’t leave it at that, at nihilism. In the words of political philosopher Michael Gillespie, ‘he believes he discerns in its depths the dawning light of a new revelation of Being.’ Nihilism, rather, is the ‘dawning recognition of Being.’ We must go through nihilism before getting to the new understanding of Being. At the same time, we face both ‘utter degradation and the possibility of salvation in a new revelation of Being.’ In other words, it’s as we’ve been contemplating: the point of nihilistic breakdown is also the point of new possibilities.”

The Structure of this Book
“This book is divided into four parts... The first part [being four chapters] introduces the basics of Gnosticism, with a brief outline of its mythologies, teachings and practices. These might be interesting on an academic level, to some, but far more interesting and important is how Gnosticism works through modern spirituality, how the Gnostic traits in its ancient version echo yet today. Considerable space, then, is devoted to the Gnostic traits. Finally, a history of Gnostic movements is given, taking us from the ancient world to today... The second part [being three chapters] explores Gnosticism in culture. It begins with the Existentialist understanding of the Self and goes on to the role media and music play in the development of Self... The third part [also being three chapters] tackles Gnostic politic, finding common themes in the totalitarian movements of the modern era. The central thesis driving this part is that a specific theological outlook of the Middle Ages – millenarian, Anabaptist, Pietist and Puritan – has laid the foundation for modern progressive politics... [and] the fourth part [being six chapters] deals with Gnosticism in religion, discussing how the Neo-evangelical movement has essential become the New Age wing of the Christian church.”

An important work on a subject little understood in our era, and almost never mentioned, I encourage our readers to purchase and read it.

Ahead of Convention: “Issues Facing Confessional Lutheranism Today”

The following podcast is a July 12, 2013, Issues, Etc. interview of Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) President Rev. Dr. Matt Harrison, ahead of the 2013 Triennial LCMS Convention (July 20-25, 2013). Heading into our own WELS Convention next week, SP Harrison's remarks are a good reminder of the issues underlying the challenges we face, as well.

 

This podcast is taken from the July 12, 2013 edition of Issues, Etc.
(Right-click here to save MP3)
Listen to this podcast to hear how SP Harrison characterizes the Issues listed below:

Worldwide Issues...
• Human Sexuality
• Ordination of Women
• Gay Marriage
• Natural Law
• Culture Wars
  
• Gospel Reductionism
• Historical Critical Method
• Death of Systematic Theology
  
• Biblical Inerrancy
• Confessional Integrity
• Unionism
• Open Heterodoxy

Issues within LCMS (and maybe WELS, too?)
• Too many pastors languishing in CRM status
• Two tier pastorate (“called & ordained” -vs- “staff minister”)
• Roles of Men & Women
• Church Growth Movement

Are there Synodical or other fundamental issues that were not directly addressed by SP Harrison in this interview, that confessional Lutherans in America ought to concern ourselves with? Yes, of course. A couple that come to mind – which seem to currently be on prominent display on the LCMS website – are:

• National Rural and Small Town Mission Conference: The plight of the small rural congregation is a serious concern. In some corners of LCMS, there seems to be a concerted effort to strengthen rural congregations, to keep them serving Lutherans into the future instead of abandoning them and forcing rural Lutherans to travel inordinate distances each week to attend suburban mega-churches. I know of two rural LCMS congregations nearby that are languishing (one of which is hanging on by its fingernails, with basically only a couple large dedicated families remaining), and another in a nearby small town (a “small town” that is actually the largest town in the county) that can't get a pastor and is very near giving up – and will be giving up a nice masonry gothic structure on main street, as well. The local pentecostals will thank them for the building. Far too many rural WELS congregations are being counciled to close up shop, and sell their property, as well (and again, it's usually the renegade pentecostals that gobble up that property). I know of two in my own vicinity that have been so counciled, and continue to refuse – but finding pastors to serve them seems to be getting more and more difficult. I know of another nearby rural congregation that left WELS for a more accommodating Lutheran church body, after being pressured to merge with a larger WELS congregation.


• How can we as Lutherans live in but not succumb to the culture?: Too many Lutherans are under the mistaken impression that “being in the world but not of it” really means “look like you're of the world in every possible way, but deny it when asked and act offended when a fellow Christian mistakes you for being worldly.” Perhaps there was a time when Christianity was of such positive and overwhelming influence in society, that it was hard to distinguish being “of the world” from merely “being in it.” Not anymore. Society has progressed so far beyond what Christian liberty can justify, that there can now be no possible way of maintaining fidelity to our faith while also adopting the World Views and Worldly Ways of unregenerate society. We are called out by God from among them, such that now there can be no mistaking, “being in the world but not of it” means that, as we continue to live in all Christian propriety, we actually appear differently to our unregenerate neighbors. Much like the early Christians in pagan culture were noticeably different – yes, even weird, though in a curious and endearing way – as they helped those around them in their various forms of need.

What other fundamental issues can you identify?

 

Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART V.5 (FINAL)

(Continued from PART V.4) PART V.5 (FINAL)
This is the final installment of my Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod. It requires a bit of an auto-biographical preamble before getting to the two remaining reviews.


Born and raised in a Christian home, with what I would say was an essentially sound Christian training, including six years of Christian day-school, I finally graduated from a public high-school, and was released to the world (many readers may be interested to know, as I was happy to learn nearly twenty years after the fact, that my high-school principal was a WELS man. Principal John Wyatt. He left a couple years after I graduated to become either a Principal or Superintendent of another school, in the La Crosse, WI, area, I think. It may have been a private school, but I don't remember knowing for sure).

After graduation, my mother wanted me to go to a Lutheran Bible school before going to college, and to set my sights on becoming a paster. There are many missionaries and pastors on her side of the family, and she had worked for Lutheran Bible Institute (LBI) in Golden Valley, MN, before it had converted to a Junior College in the late 1960's. The only Lutheran Bible school left in the country when I graduated high-school (and today, I believe), was the Association Free Lutheran Bible School (AFLBS), in Medicine Lake, MN. I wanted to go, too. I knew that, before going into the world (“before being returned to the parish to assist in the ministry of the congregation,” as Augsburg Seminary Professors Sverdrup and Oftedahl put it in their congregation-centric theory of Christian Education – yes, there were lots of other Lutherans in America during the 19^th Century, other than General Synod, Norwegian Synod, and various German Lutherans), two years of studying only the Bible would be an invaluable capstone to my secondary education experience. But I was also interested in science. And philosophy. And law. I thought about it, and gave serious consideration to my mother's advice and wishes. But decided to go to University, instead. I was not prepared.

The Average Layman is Defenseless!

Today, we reprise a lecture we featured twice in 2011 under the title, 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease: Lectures by Dr. Walter Martin, but with a different emphasis. After the facts exposed in last week's post, Do any Lutherans want to be Dresden Lutherans? Meanwhile, the Groeschelites continue their agenda..., it is abundantly clear that our Synod is wracked with division and, as a consequence, is in steep decline right along with the rest of the visible Church. And with the Church, so goes Western Civilization itself, whose political, legal and educational structures were built upon the framework of Christian teaching.

Stating as much in our conclusion to that post (the section entitled The Collective Descent of American Lutheranism), we submitted that the time of inaction, the time of armchair lamentation over the state of our Synod and of American Lutheranism, the time of complacent Synod watching as if it were a mere spectator sport, has come to a close. Yesterday was the time to act. Today is the time to do so feverishly. Tomorrow will be too late. After tomorrow, it will be time to separate and start over. The following will suggest one of the more potent actions laymen can take, but the reader will have to read to the end to discover what it is, and why it is among the most potent forms of action.

Dr. Walter R. Martin (d. 1989) was an expert on the occult, and from the 1960’s onward, disseminated countercultic and apologetic information through his organization, Christian Research Institute (CRI). At least one of Dr. Martin’s works, The Kingdom of the Cults, remains a very valuable resource, one which I consult with semi-regularity as need arises. An associate of Dr. Rod Rosenblatt and Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, Dr. Martin was, like they, an influential Christian intellectual, a man with the courage and ability to engage in public debate with his opponents, and, as a fierce defender of Christian orthodoxy in the face of truly diabolical liberal Christianity, more than equipped to defeat them.

Over the past three years, several of Dr. Martin’s lectures have been featured by Chris Rosebrough on his internet radio show, Fighting for the Faith – a daily program in the lineup of Pirate Christian Radio (PCR). I remember these PCR features, since I am of about the same age as Mr. Rosebrough, and remember Dr. Martin’s voice and manner of teaching from my youth, in a way similar to Rosebrough’s reminiscences. We confessional Lutherans would be mistaken if we should think that our struggles are unique to us. Others have already gone through the struggle that is now hard upon us. We would be fools not to learn from their experience and take their advice.

---

Dr. Walter Martin on the Cult of Liberalism

 

(lecture begins @~58min, 30sec)
A Cue to Theological Change: A Change in the Terms used by the Church
“Any person who does not know that today in the United States, and in denominational structures worldwide, we are in an accelerating apostasy, does not know, I repeat, does not know what is going on...” (1hr 12min)

“They were using all of our terminology... What you have to understand is very hard... the major denominational structures on the United States today have pumped all of the meaning out of Christian terminology, and have nothing but a hollow shell. And people are attracted by the shell...” (1hr 28min 50sec and following)

Questions:

1. What happens over the course of a generation or two when the church begins to use old familiar terms with subtly, though increasingly, different emphasis?
2. Or, what happens when entirely new words, words previously unfamiliar in Church usage, words with less precise meaning, words with less established theological meaning, replace the old, precise, established and familiar terms? Is the deprecating declaration, “these terms are synonymous,” a sufficient explanation?
3. What happens when well established ecclesiastical terms, having widely understood meaning, are simply dropped from use?
4. What ecclesiastical terms can you identify which meet the above three conditions?
5. If we are to heed Dr. Walter Martin's warnings, ought laymen to be suspicious whenever pastors or theologians use the authority of the church to push their language games as authoritatively binding on the laity?

---

The Average Layman is Defenseless!
“You can see these people in the cults and the occult if you have any degree of discernment at all, because they are outside the church. But how do you see the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith! When it is the devil behind the pulpit, not the victim in the pew, that's responsible for it!...” (1hr 36min 12sec)

“That is why I am concerned about the cult of liberalism as never before. We can identify the other cults, but how do you identify somebody that looks like you, acts like you, sounds like you...? Do you want the answer? ...1 Thessalonians 5:14ff ...put everything to the test, cling tenaciously to what is good...” (1hr 38min 30sec)

Questions:

1. Is it proper for the layman to assume that ALL pastors who may serve him, or that ALL theologians who may serve his church body, are orthodox on every point of Scripture teaching?
2. When St. Paul commended the Bereans for verifying his teaching by searching the Scriptures, what was he commending if it was not a cautious reception of his words? Was he commending an open and uncritical reception of his teaching?
3. How can a layman identify potential theological corruption in his pastor or his church's theologians? Unfamiliar terminology, or unfamiliar use of familiar terminology, perhaps?
4. How then does the layman examine a pastor or theologian who, by definition, by virtue of the Office he holds, is not allowed to wrong, about anything, ever?
5. How does a layman examine a Minister of the Word, whose operating assumption is that he is always orthodox and that laymen always need guidance and correction? Will a personal conversation bring about correction in the Minister's theology? Will writing a letter suffice?

---

Theological Language Games and the Destruction of Orthodoxy
“British theology was corrupted by German theology – Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, David Strauss – and finally [it came] to America... Where do you think we got the God is Dead Theology from? From historic Christianity?... We did not! We got it from a good solid Baptist theological seminary, known as Colgate Rochester in New York, which was absolutely orthodox, but which sold out to liberalism! And when it did, they embraced the theology of Paul Tillich, and ended up with God is Dead. It was called at the time, The Gospel of Christian Atheism – did you ever hear such linguistic nonsense in your life!?” (1hr 40min 30sec)

Questions:

This is at least the third point in Dr. Walter Martin's lecture where he emphasizes the language games of theologians as evidence of changing theology.

1. How can changes in the use of language possibly result in changes to one's theology, if one's use of language doesn't change the way he thinks about theology?
2. What is the potential threat to the Christian when his pastors and theologians defend dramatic changes in the language he ought to use when contemplating and expressing his Christian convictions?
3. From what primary source might Christians be most vulnerable to subtle, or even overt, changes in language use and the threat of its impact on their theology?
4. Why is it safest to stay with historical and well-established terminology of the church?
5. If the concern is that our "contemporary generation" doesn't use historic ecclesiastical terminology in everyday conversation and therefore doesn't understand it,
   1. Was there ever a time when ecclesiastical terminology was in such wide use in everyday conversation that it was understood on the basis of its everyday usage?
   2. How might catechesis have helped people understand the church's use of language in the past?
   3. How might catechesis help in the same way, today?

Dr. Walter Martin also makes the strong suggestion here that not only can "orthodox" seminaries go liberal, but gives evidence that they have done so.

6. Is it possible for an orthodox Lutheran seminary to go liberal?
7. How can a Lutheran layman know, or even suspect, that his seminary is going liberal?
8. What can the Lutheran layman do to correct problems in his Synod's seminary, if he suspects, or if it is confirmed that such problems exist? Will a personal conversation bring about the desired correction? Will writing a letter suffice?

Finally, Dr. Walter Martin singled out three Germans – European liberal theologians from the era of 19^th Century European Evangelicalism – as having ruined British and American theology. Surely, these German theologians had no impact on 19^th Century American Confessional Lutheranism... did they?

---

A Declining Regard for the Scriptures: Spiritual Death and Social Destruction
“[Liberalism] is a cult because it follows every outlining structure of cultism. It has its own revelation, its own gurus, and its denial, systematically, of all sound systematic Christian theology. It is a cult, because it passes its leadership on to the next group, that takes over either modifying, expanding or contracting the same heresies, dressing them up in different language, and passing them on. It is theologically corrupt, because it is bibliologically corrupt; it denies the authority of Scripture and ruins its own theology. And, it ends in immorality. Because the only way you could have gotten to this 'homosexual,' morally relativistic garbage, which is today in our denominational structures, is if the leadership of those denominations divide the authority of the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ as Lord. That is the only way we've gotten there.” (2hr 28min 50sec)

Questions:

1. How does the Christian's view of the inspiration, inerrancy and perspicuity of the Scriptures impact his theology?
2. How does the teaching of the church impact society in general – that is, apart from its immediate impact on the people who sit in the pews and hear it directly?
3. How might false doctrine, therefore, in addition to destroying faith, also become a social evil?
4. Given that most liberal churches have abandoned orthodoxy, and have embraced the "social gospel" in place of the "Gospel of Jesus Christ," can their fixation on issues of "social justice" be classified as precisely the opposite? Not as the "good" they would have it to be, but as an unmitigated evil perpetrated by liberal churches, which result, rather, in gross injustice?

---

Immunizing Christians against Theological Poison
“Every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of biblical doctrine... Corrupt Bibliology led them to the next step. Theology began to be touched by it... And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content, and simply were using the outward shell so that they could go on collecting money from the people and the churches, because they knew that if the people in the pews knew that they were apostate they'd throw them out. So the strategy was: hang on to the trust funds, hang on to the money that we've got, hang on to the properties we control, we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology. And then, finally, we will take control of everything. This is the gradual process of feeding you theological poison, until you become immunized enough so that you don't know what is happening to you. And when you wake up to what is happening to you, it's too late. They've got everything...” (1hr 26min 10sec)

“Look what happened... Look at the votes. We were very subtly, systematically, squeezed out. All of the positions of leadership were given to people who denied the foundations of the faith...” (1hr 30min 35sec)

Questions:

1. The fixation of liberals is what:
   1. Preserving sound teaching? ...or
   2. Preserving the organization as an institution?
2. The process of changing theology while maintaining the organization requires that liberals retain the laity while retraining them "gradually" – through a use of familiar terms with subtly, though increasingly, different emphasis, by introducing foreign terms and dropping common ecclesiastical terms.
   1. Why do they need to retain the laity? What does the laity offer them?
   2. Why is the change gradual?
   3. Why is changing the organization's language the best way to change the thinking of those in the organization?
3. Is it possible for an orthodox Lutheran Synod to go liberal?
4. How can a Lutheran layman know, or even suspect, that his Synod is going liberal?
5. If sound teaching is not valued by a liberal Synod as highly as the organization itself, what does the Lutheran layman have that would be so sufficiently valuable that a corrupt organization would pay heed to the orthodox advice of a layman?
   1. Merely his orthodox advice? ...or
   2. His money?
6. Can organizational change which laymen must purchase with their money be relied upon as genuine?

The Queen James Bible: The next stage of "interpretive ambiguity"

Round and round and round it goes.
     Where it'll stop, who really knows?
          Or cares?

The strictures of gender-neutrality placed on the translation of the NIV 2011 superimpose a feminist worldview on the entire text of the Bible. But this is old news. The next controversial phase of attacks on God's Word is to superimpose a homosexual worldview on the Bible. How long will it be before confessional Lutherans join this movement? From the Product Description on Amazon:

A Gay Bible
The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation.

Homosexuality in The Bible
Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this - only interpretations have been made. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!

The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.

Who is Queen James?
The King James Bible is the most popular Bible of all time, and arguably the most important English language document of all time. It is the brainchild and namesake of King James I, who wanted an English language Bible that all could own and read. The KJV, as it is called, has been in print for over 400 years and has brought more people to Christ than any other Bible translation. Commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most Christians, King James I was a well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as "Queen James." It is in his great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so...

[bold emphasis is mine]

Are confessional Lutherans ready for this? It only changes eight verses. How could that be so bad? Some confessional Lutherans are more than ready, I'm sure, but my guess is, most are not. Give it time, though. That's the way change takes place. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, but little by little until new ideas take hold and become normative. Give it a couple decades or so for a more emancipated social consciousness to work its way into the leadership and schools of confessional Lutherans. Maybe then they'll be ready for a Bible such as "The Queen James Bible." For now, I am sure that the ELCA is ready to endorse it as a translation which can be used with "a high degree of confidence," and that should be good enough to encourage the beginning and continuation of changes elsewhere.

Cultural Change and the Church
As Koehler pointed out to us in defending the Historical Disciplines (see the Introduction to my Conference paper, Why is this Happening to Us?), the only way to tell that change has occurred and is impacting the Church is to examine the past:

The truth must remain unchanged but the method must vary in order always to remain the spontaneous expression of the truth. Today we are confronted by new situations... They can be covered with one term, the intrusion of worldly ways into the church... It won’t do to go into isolation and pretend that problems do not exist... But neither is anything accomplished by making compromises and bringing the world into the church... What counts is that we actually stay with the truth in doctrine and conduct and actually shut our church against worldliness. What is the remedy?... In our case it is the historical studies that indicate that a change is taking place, and it is highly important that we do not remain inactive and let it dominate us so that our church may not be harmed by it.

[Koehler, J.P. (1997). The Importance of the Historical Disciplines for the American Lutheran Church of the Present. In C. Jahn (Ed.), Wauwatosa Theology, Vol. 3 (I. Habeck, Trans., 1975). Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. (Original work published in German, 1904). pp. 436 - 437]

But once harmful change has taken root, it's too late. It's probably too late to reverse many harmful changes hindsight has been revealing to us, especially since the resolution is to bring "clarity" to confusion, while the harmful changes we see often have their root in a love for the power and independence that "ambiguity" brings to the individual.

As I stated in my last post, How does one interpret language in a post-Modern Age? What about the language of the Bible?, it used to be that among confessional Lutherans, "all doctrine was taken from direct positive statements of Scripture, only," – a grammatical definition – but now, "all doctrine is taken only from "clear statements" of Scripture" – a relative definition. It may seem like this sort of thing happens by accident. And maybe it does. But the strategic use of "ambiguity" is also a weapon, used by man to wage war against the clarity of the Scriptures. In fact, I concluded a previous post entitled, When the Third Use of the Law pre-dominates..., which characterized the decline of sound doctrine in the ELCA as a decline in the perceived "clarity" of the Scriptures, with the phrase, "Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny," and used that phrase as the title of two successive posts:

“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part One
“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two

These posts briefly examine the debate between Erasmus and Luther in their works on Human Will (Freedom of the Will and Bondage of the Will respectively), and focus on Erasmus' appeal to "the ambiguity of the Scriptures – to maintain the freedom and authority of man over against Scripture," characterizing such appeals as essentially the same sin of Satan himself – the sin of pride and of desiring equality with God (Ge. 3:1-19). Deliberately making wholesale changes to God's Word, even deliberately changing His Word in only eight places, to satisfy what seems to be laudable values of contemporary social consciousness, only vaunts ambiguity in Scripture in order to employ the freedom of man's arbitrative rights and obligations. Indeed, it often succeeds at inventing such ambiguity in the face of Scripture's clarity, in order that ambiguity can be claimed and strategically used to put man, and what man wants, in the place of God and what He says. This is a childish game played by man from a heart of sinful pride and a desirous love for freedom from Authority. And as the ELCA has amply demonstrated, ambiguity empowers this love, mightily.

Shall confessional Lutherans follow them?

God, Marriage, and The State In Our World Today

The Current Situation
(NOTE: This post is continued from an article posted last week, entitled Homosexuality, God, and The Bible)

A few years ago the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state government cannot prevent two persons of the same gender from marrying one another. They further directed the State Legislature to in some way provide statutory regulations, or written guidelines and procedures, to counties and municipalities, so as to implement this ruling within the next 180 days. There are similar cases before the Supreme Courts of a number of States, and it is certain that the Federal Supreme Court will have to address this issue before too long.

Obviously, the Massachusetts’ ruling is a controversial one, as it runs counter to the customs and traditions of not just Western civilization, but the societal norms of the vast majority of the world over most of recorded history. Even the pagan governments of Greece and Rome did not formally sanction homosexual marriage.

Many well-meaning and sincere Christians would like to obviate the rulings of any Court on this subject by adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict the definition of marriage to only a union of one man and one woman. To this end they seek the support of the President, the Congress, and many others.

While such efforts are understandable, and certainly permissible in our system of government, it begs the question of whether or not the State should be in the business of regulating marriage in the first place, and if it should, to what extent it is empowered by God to do so.

The Bible’s Definition of Marriage

Holy Scripture consistently gives only one definition for marriage: A man and a woman, are brought together by or under the authority of God, or His representatives, and agree to look upon one another as husband and wife, with all the rights and all the responsibilities of such an estate, for as long as they continue their earthly existence. That’s it; no more, no less.

While there are many wedding feasts and banquets described in the Bible, no actual marriage ceremonies are recorded anywhere in God’s Word. In both Old Testament and New Testament times, marriage was usually arranged by parents, and the betrothal or engagement announced to the people of the town or village. The actual marriage took place simply when the man was able to take care of the woman, and took her from her father’s house to his house. The Bible has only three requirements for a God-pleasing union of man and woman: 1.) Mutual consent, freely given,  2.) fulfill the responsibilities of husband and wife toward each other, and  3.) that this commitment be for life.

Thus, from the start, it should be clearly understood that there are not a host of different requirements or definitions for marriage as far as God is concerned. What the State may or may not add is irrelevant and immaterial to this simple basic definition.

Note the following passages from the Bible:

In the Old Testament –

Genesis 2:22 & 24 “Then the LORD God made a woman . . . and He brought her to the man. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”  God established marriage during the Creation Week, before the Fall into sin. Thus, in its original institution, it too was perfect.

Genesis 24:57, 58, & 67  “Then they said, ‘Let’s call the girl and ask her about it.’ So they called Rebekah and asked her, ‘Will you go with this man?’ ‘I will go,’ she said. Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife.” Note here that consent is sought from Rebekah and given by her. Note also there is no other rite or ceremony. This consent confirms the marriage.

Genesis 29:21   “Then Jacob said to Laban, ‘Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to lie with her.’” Jacob had an agreement with Rachel and her father that she would be his wife after he worked for Laban for seven years. This already made her his wife. Note that he does not ask Laban, “Give me Rachel to be my wife.” When the agreed upon time was up he wanted only to consummate the marriage.

Ruth 4:13  “So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife.”  Ruth and Boaz had made an agreement that if no one else in Boaz’ family wanted to fulfill the duty of being a “kinsman-redeemer,” and raise up children with her, he would do so and marry her. When no one else came forward they regarded themselves, and were regarded, as husband and wife, no other procedure was necessary.

First Samuel 25:39 & 42  “Then David sent word to Abigail, asking her to become his wife. Abigail quickly got on a donkey and, . . . went with David’s messengers and became his wife.” Again note the consent requested and then given. By giving her consent, Abigail becomes David’s wife, even though he is already married. Thus, even a concurrent marriage to someone else does not abrogate this mutual agreement with a new wife.

Hosea 1:2 & 3  “The LORD said to him, ‘Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife . . . So he married Gomer. . .’” God commanded one of His prophets to actually marry himself to a prostitute, in order to graphically demonstrate to Israel what they were doing to their relationship with Him by their idol-worship. Gomer accepts this arrangement and becomes Hosea’s wife, as shown by the fact that she bears him a number of children.

In the New Testament –

Matthew 1:18 & 19  “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.” Notice that even though they are only “pledged,” that is, engaged or betrothed, Mary and Joseph are referred to here as already married. However, the Bible makes it clear that the marriage was simply not consummated as yet. And, if Joseph wanted to dissolve the marriage, he would have to formally divorce Mary.

Matthew 19:6  “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Jesus makes it clear that God intends marriage to be ended only by the death (separation) of one or another of those He has joined.

First Corinthians 7:11 & 39  “A husband must not divorce his wife. A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.” Simply put, marriage is supposed to last “for as long as you both shall live!”

To sum up:

- God created the estate of marriage.

- Sexual relations alone do not establish a marriage.

- Merely living together does not establish a marriage.  

- Individual marriages are established only by the authority of God, either directly, or indirectly through His representatives, and by the agreement of those involved to look upon one another and treat one another as husband and wife.

- This agreement is also done in public so everyone will know that this man and woman are no longer available for marriage to someone else, and as a witness to their permanent commitment. Marriage is rightfully ended only by earthly death.

NOTE: Naturally, when a betrothal or engagement is based on this Biblical understanding, the man and woman involved are correctly referred to as “married in the eyes of God.” In this way, and this way alone, betrothal is indeed what is referred to as “tantamount” to marriage. This point will be important for us to remember a bit later on in the discussion.

It also goes without saying that all examples of marriage in the Bible are unions between men and women. While homosexuality is mentioned, as noted, even pagan cultures did not consider such relationships to be equal with marriage.

What Does This Mean For Us Today?

One area of application comes up most often with regard to the various types of regulations of marriage. Simply put, the question is: If marriage is established by God according to the guidelines set forth in the Bible, why then is the government even involved with marriage at all?

The Involvement of the Government Is By God’s Design

To answer this question, it is important to remember that God also created government, and human society produces governments, mainly for the purpose of protection; that is, to provide defense against those outside the society who would invade it for some nefarious purpose, and to keep order inside that society. Indeed, God wants people to be protected from physical attack from without and also from within the society. (See Romans 13) He also wants the things they acquire or produce to be safe from such attack, so that people can use and enjoy them, or pass them on to their descendants. (i.e. The Seventh Commandment) Therefore it is both God’s will, and in the interest of society, to have rules to protect men and women from other women and men; including rules about who is “off limits” as a potential partner. (see also Sixth Commandment) 

Even societies that allow plural marriage more often than not still regulate the number of husbands/wives, and who may be taken as an additional husband/wife. Thus, the government produced by a particular society is then called upon to enforce these rules with formal public laws, and real and meaningful punishments for those who break these laws.

The same is true when it comes time to pass on what a person has produced or acquired during life to their progeny. It is understood that a union of a man and a woman can and often does produce children. In addition, every society has rules about who is and who is not a “legitimate” child or “heir,” and thus able to receive part or all of what a person leaves behind when he dies.

Not just anyone should be able to step forward and claim some part of a person’s estate. If that were the case, then no one’s possessions would be safe after they were dead, and there would be little incentive for people to work to produce things of lasting value within that society. So again, the government is called upon to make laws about inheritance, and again to back up such laws with force if need be.

Therefore, it is necessary that the government of a society formally declare not only who can be married to whom, but also who is or can be considered a legal descendant of another individual for inheritance purposes. This in turn involves whether or not a particular descendant was produced within the framework of a legitimate or legal union of a man and a woman.

Thus it is that the safety, orderliness, and stability of a society is dependant in large measure upon the government of that society promulgating and enforcing rules about marriage and the subsequent sexual activity which could produce children. Indeed, the government, as a servant of God and society, has very good and necessary reasons for regulating marriage and therefore also reproduction.

Sadly, however, as we will see, the government is slowly but surely abrogating its duty to regulate marriage and the sexual relations that can produce offspring. But more about that later.

Until 1996, Marriage In America Was Solely A State, Not A Federal Matter

In the United States, the regulation of marriage is one of those matters originally left to the jurisdictions of the various States by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. To my knowledge, until 1996 there had only been one attempt at making marriage regulations a matter of Federal Law. In the early part of the last century a Constitutional Amendment was proposed to formally and permanently outlaw polygamy. However, this attempt was derailed by President Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican leadership in exchange for political support from the heavily Mormon state of Utah. Recently, as noted earlier, due to the increase in demand for same-sex marriage in some areas of the country, there have been renewed calls for the Federal government to define marriage by way of a Constitutional Amendment as a union of one man and one woman.

However, in 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton, ironically the most promiscuous President in modern American history, signed into law the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (known as "DOMA" today). The Act reads in part:

CHAPTER 115 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1738C.

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 1, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THE FOLLOWING:

7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

While this Act does not dictate to the States how they must define marriage, it puts this one civil action outside the framework of the so-called “good faith and credit” clause of the Constitution. Therefore, regardless of any Court findings or laws passed in other States regarding same-sex marriage, the rest of the States would not be forced to recognize such unions. Of course, this Act has not yet had the opportunity to be tested. Many legal scholars doubt it could survive a U.S. Supreme Court challenge. For now, it is a mere “paper tiger.”

As for the regulations of the various States concerning marriage; in general, the laws of most States mandate that unrelated persons of the opposite sex who wish to live together, procure a license to marry from the County in which they reside, and have their marriage solemnized by a person authorized by that State to do so. However, with regard to specifics there is a great deal of difference among and between the States with regard to this basic activity of human life. Many States have fairly conservative laws concerning marriage and sex, while others are considerably more liberal.

Common-Law Marriage Is Also Biblical Marriage

One aspect of State regulation in particular actually involves what could rightfully be called a very simple Scriptural definition of marriage, and can very well prove enlightening to our topic. At this time fourteen States provide for what is called “Common-Law” marriage. However, here again, the regulations governing this type of union vary a great deal among those same States. For example, some have residency requirements, others do not. A few, though by no means most, also have a time requirement. In addition, there is no requirement for the couple to provide some kind of reason for procuring a common-law union as opposed to one established by a State-sanctioned individual.

Still, the requirements for Common-Law marriage in those States that provide for them in their statutes are basically the same:

A verbal public commitment, freely made, to look upon each other as husband and wife for as long as they live;

To actually cohabit in some way; and

To present themselves as married to the public. This can be done in any number of ways; telling people they are married, holding joint ownership of land or other property such are automobiles and the like, or maintaining joint financial arrangements, among others.

It will be noted that these requirements mirror quite closely those found in Holy Scripture. Thus, wherever they are provided for by law, there is no valid Scriptural reason why we should not look upon also Common Law marriages as legal, binding, and valid before both God and man.

The States that specifically allow for Common-Law marriage to be contracted within their borders are: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington, D.C.

Still, a complicating factor is that, pursuant to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and again that “good faith and credit” clause, all States must recognize not only a regular marriage contracted in any other State of the Union, but also a Common-Law marriage contracted in another State where such is legal.

In other words, a State that does not permit Common-Law marriage within its own body of laws is required to accept as legitimate any such unions from States where such arrangements are acceptable. For example, the actual law concerning Common Law marriage in Arizona reads:

“Under common law, Arizona will recognize a common-law marriage contracted in another state, provided parties establish a connection with the other state of kind and duration which will minimize the evils of common-law marriage; however, parties need not, unless that state requires it, have been domiciled in a state which recognizes common-law marriage.” [Arizona Statute 25-111.2]

The problem here is that there is currently no way for authorities in a State without a Common-Law provision itself to ascertain whether or not any particular Common-Law union now residing in that State was done according to the regulations of the State where the Common-Law marriage was supposed to have been made in the first place. Thus, a couple could claim to have a Common-Law marriage contracted in a State where such is legal, and there would be no way to concretely check the veracity of such a claim.

Also, as already mentioned, and contrary to popular belief, most Common-Law States have no specific time requirements, or even residency requirements to establish this union. For example, many people are under the mistaken impression that there is a fairly universal rule in the United States that living together for seven years constitutes a Common Law Marriage. Yet that particular provision does not exist at all among any of the fourteen States that recognize this form of civil wedlock.

So, as we have seen, the definition of Common Law marriage is almost the same and just as simple as the Scriptural definition of marriage itself, which, as we have also noted applies to a true betrothal. Therefore, since a true betrothal is tantamount to marriage in God’s eyes, Common Law Marriage is certainly even more so!

The Consequences of Having No Unchanging Standards for the Legal Regulation of Marriage

Much has been written about the use of such things as The Ten Commandments, Natural Law, and Christian principles in formulating the various legal regulations of a given society. Suffice it to say that while, as Christian citizens, we can hope, encourage, and even expect that such Biblical guidelines will be made use of by our lawmakers, we cannot demand, nor should we force them to do so. Even a cursory study of nations living under Islamic law should convince us of this!

Unfortunately, in our world today, without some kind of firm, objective guidelines to go by, the regulations of the various States can often cause more confusion and problems than they solve. For example, in the foolish rush to be seen as “politically correct,” many states have abrogated laws against certain sexual practices regarding homosexuality. However, in doing so they have also affected laws governing heterosexual relationships. Since Arizona is where we live and carry on our ministry, I will limit myself to this state’s laws. However, much of what applies to Arizona also applies to most if not all states.

Basically, as of 2002, almost any sexual contact, up to and including intercourse, between persons eighteen years of age and older, whether of the opposite or same gender, and whether or not they are married to one another, is legal in the State of Arizona. The exceptions are: prostitution, also called “concubinage” (AZ Statutes, Title 13, Chapter 32), polygamy, incest (Title 13, Chapter 36), and adultery (Title 25, Chapter 14). Yet, even of these, adultery is seldom persecuted, there have been many calls for legalizing prostitution, and court cases are now pending to force the government to allow for polygamy.

Also, any sexual contact between someone over 18 and another under that age is still illegal unless they are married. However, strangely enough, sexual contact between two person who are both under 18 is not illegal. Thus, if the couple are both over 18, or both under that age for that matter, and they engage in sexual relations, whether they are of different genders or not, with or without a wedding ceremony, the laws of the State do not come into consideration. In other words, what they are doing is not actually illegal anymore!

The Conclusion – The Gospel, Not the Law, Will Change Hearts, Minds, and Actions!

So, where does that leave us? As we noted, God makes it clear in Holy Scripture what His requirements are for marriage. And, for the reasons stated earlier, it remains in the interest of citizens for the States to continue to regulate marriage. Whether it is wise for the federal branch of our government to involve itself with this aspect of civil life is a political question, best left to that arena. But, it seems we can safely say that some kind of governmental regulation of marriage is good, and necessary, and God-pleasing.

But, what form should those regulations take, and upon what cultural norms should they be based? As we said, it would be wonderful for the government to base these laws on Holy Scripture, but that is problematical at best. For, whose interpretation of the Bible will be codified into law? Certainly not an orthodox, conservative, historical Lutheran view; of that you can be sure! And would we want, say, Catholic, or Mormon theology as the basis for marriage laws imposed upon us? I think not. One would suppose that the government should be able to come to an agreement on a simple, basic definition of marriage from a few clear passages of Scripture. But even that is beyond the realm of possibility in the politically charged and polarizing atmosphere in the halls of power today.

We are left with the very distinct probability that the government will eventually authorize same-sex marriage. In addition, polygamy cases in both Utah and Arizona are being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, partially on the basis of recent State court ruling on various laws outlawing homosexual practices or marriage. We must admit that it would be inconsistent and illogical for the Supreme Court to give legal standing to same-sex marriage, but not to plural marriage, especially if the later were presented as an intrinsic part of a religious practice, as it is with fundamentalistic Latter-Day Saints.

Once again we see that the law is powerless to change behavior, or to force correct, God-pleasing actions. Certainly we can and must hold forth God’s perfect Word as a rule and guide for our government. But even if our State and Federal governments were to codify the entire old Mosaic Law Code, it would not stop all sins against God’s will for marriage. Indeed, we know better, don’t we! Only the Gospel, with its soul-saving, and life-changing power can cause people to live as God intended in any area of life, marriage or otherwise. Therefore, let us re-double out efforts at proclaiming the pure Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ as the real, true, and only antidote to any and all social, moral, or institutional evils. In this way, and this way alone, we will be fulfilling the command of our Lord and Savior, and the will of His Father for all people.

Pastor Spencer

Homosexuality, God, and The Bible

The Whole Truth!

There has been much discussion and debate about homosexuality, not just in the secular world, but also within various Christian denominations. In all this, the most important consideration must be what God says on the issue. Therefore, the question for all Christians must be: What Does God say about homosexuality in the Bible?

Human Questions – Divine Answers

Question: Isn’t the Bible silent about homosexuality, or isn’t it true that what is written does not show it to be against God’s will, and not really sinful?

Answer: Actually, the Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality in such passages as Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26 & 27, First Corinthians 6:9, and First Timothy 1:10, where homosexuality is called sin.

Question: But do these passages really talk about what we know as homosexuality?

Answer: In the Leviticus passage God forbids a man to “lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” The word for “lie” is the Hebrew word for bed, and is also used for marriage, and the act of consummating a marriage; therefore, there can be no doubt as to what Moses is referring; for a man to have intercourse with a man as he would with a woman is disgusting to God! Indeed, there are numerous Old Testament passages, that all condemn homosexuality: Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17; Judges 19; and First Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46.

Question: But the Old Testament laws are no longer binding on New Testament Christians, right?

Answer: True enough for the most part, but then we have the passages in St. Paul’s letters, given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These are certainly authoritative to any who would claim to be Christians!
- In Romans 1: 26 and 27, Paul speaks of “shameful lusts,” and describes this as happening when “women exchanged natural relations for un-natural ones,” and also “men committed indecent acts with other men.” The term “unnatural” literally means “against the natural order of things.” As for what that natural order is, all we need to do is look back to Creation. In Genesis 2:24 we see that the natural order is that of husband and wife (i.e., male and female) becoming “one flesh.” Therefore, according to the One who created humans, any sexual intercourse aside from male and female is un-natural - not the natural or intended use of the Creator - in other words, wrong! Please forgive the bluntness here, but it is necessary so as to leave no doubt as to what the Bible is talking about. The term “indecent acts” means any “deed of shame having to do with one’s genitalia.” Since Paul says these acts are being done between men and men and between women and women, the meaning is clear to anyone who is willing to see it: the use of one’s genitals with those of the same sex is shameful to God.
- In First Corinthians 6:9 God condemns “homosexual offenders” and “male prostitutes.” The first term comes from the Greek word for “soft, weak, sick,” and was often used for “effeminate” men, and especially for catamites; i.e. men and boys who allowed themselves to be sexually used or even abused for money or goods. The second word was very commonly used for a sodomite, someone engaging in homosexual anal intercourse; or pederast, someone using young children, usually boys, for sexual purposes. The same word is used in First Timothy 1:10; only there, the NIV translates it as “pervert.” The term is a compound word from two Greek words meaning “male,” and “marriage act, bed, or intercourse.” Again, sorry for the explicit language, but the meaning could not be more understandable and to-the-point; male to male, or female to female sexual activity is sinful, period.

Question: But isn’t it really just homosexual “activity” that’s condemned in the Bible, not homosexual “orientation?” Isn’t it possible that a person can be a “non-practicing homosexual,” like being a non-practicing Catholic or Jew?

Answer: The main definition of homosexuality is “sexual desire for those of the same sex” (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Jesus teaches us clearly that sin begins in the “heart,” or mind (Matthew 5:27,28). Thus, the very attraction itself to members of one’s own gender is just as sinful as attraction to someone other than your own spouse, whether any overt action takes place or not. Thus, the Bible is clear that so-called “homosexual orientation” is sinful also.

Question: Isn’t it possible that certain people are born as homosexuals; and therefore God cannot condemn them because He created them that way?

Answer: We have already seen that God does indeed proclaim homosexual thoughts and actions as contrary to His will, and therefore wrong, morally sinful, and thus certainly imperfect. Yet, when we look back at creation, Genesis 1:31 tells us, “God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.” The Hebrew word here means “good in every way; totally perfect.” Thus, it is completely impossible for God to create homosexuals. The fact is, God does not create or make homosexuals anymore than He creates or makes any other kind of sinner!

Question: If that’s the case, then what is the origin of homosexuality?

Answer: In Mark 7:21-23 Christ says, “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.” And St. James reminds us, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, not does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” (1:13-15)

Question: Does this mean that all homosexuals are lost and condemned to hell for all eternity, with no hope of salvation?

Answer: Absolutely not!
- Yes, the Bible does speak out strongly against both homosexual desire and activity. Indeed, the Holy Scriptures are crystal clear – one could even say quite open and blunt – on the subject. Simply put, homosexual thoughts or acts are definitely against God’s will and therefore sinful, pure and simple.
- However, they are no different from any other sin. They have been completely paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross and can be forgiven. Homosexuality is not the one and only “unforgivable sin,” and homosexuals should not be shunned or looked upon as hopelessly condemned to hell.

Question: How can homosexuals be saved?

Answer: Just like every other sinner – faith in Jesus Christ as Savior!
- However, so that a person may receive the eternal benefits of this free forgiveness, the truthfulness of God’s condemnation of homosexuality needs to be acknowledged. People cannot claim to believe in Jesus, but then also say He was and is a liar on a particular subject!
- And unfortunately, homosexuals are not going to admit they are wrong, confess their sin, and repent of their soul-destroying life-style if they are told that what they are doing or thinking its fine with God and not a sin, and thus “natural,” and “normal.”
- It is, therefore, a great tragedy that the leaders of most church bodies today deny the clear teaching of the Bible and allow for – or even promote – homosexuality as normal and natural and not sinful.
- Such people are actually leading homosexuals away from forgiveness and salvation, and thus shall themselves receive a terrible judgment from God. Jesus said in Matthew 18:6 and 7, “If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!”

Summary: Our Savior wants everyone to repent, believe in Him, and be saved. That includes people caught in the sin of homosexuality. It is the church’s duty to proclaim this truth. May God help us to always do so clearly, for the salvation of many!

Pastor Spencer
 
On Tuesday, look for -

God, Marriage, and the State in Our World Today