“How Do We Use the Bible as a Legal and Moral Guide?”

         Or “To Bible or Not to Bible”

So there is a principle that says “You can prove anything from the Bible.”  That is not a theological principle, that is a worldly cultural principle.  Because the Bible has been used to justify some extraordinarily cruel and vicious things.  Like Slavery.  Like Fascism.  Like Extremist Terror.  Like highly sexist, genderist, and misogynist principles of behavior ‘in the imitation of Christ’.

          So what do we do about that?  On the one hand, the Bible is ‘the Word as inspired by God’.  Even that will cause a ruckus about how best to state what ‘inspiration’ is, what ‘literal meaning’ is, what kind of absolutism can be adopted in how we interpret the Scriptures. 

          The push of this post is a conversation with a lovely couple who have run into issues of their public participation in the commercial and personal life of their community because they are both female.  The reaction to their purchasing a business was that it was being taken over by a ‘gang of lesbians’ that would tarnish the reputation and memory of the previous owner, all from a Christian and Christian guided means of thinking.

          So what do we do?  Because there are verses in the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior on first sight.  This is not a place where I am going to go verse by verse.  “The Children are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley is a resource to look at six key Scriptures used in condemnation of homosexuality and verses that bring consolation to those so injured by misinterpretation of the Bible’s message.

          My place of focus is not the Torah, but the Sermon on the Mount.  It is not the Beatitudes, probably the most iconic sermon opening in the history of sermon openings.  Rather, I want to go to Matthew 5:18, where Jesus doubles down on the law.  “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”  The earlier translation goes ‘not a jot or tittle shall pass away…”

          But the thesis statement of this section of the sermon, this portion that tightens up laws concerning murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, and retaliation to insurmountable sins of people’s thoughts and desires-not their actions, it begins with “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”

          For me, it all turns on the phrase of ‘fulfill’ the law.  Jesus takes us from the actions to the personal motivations for the actions, what sparks the actions, what in the heart and mind presses sinful thoughts that lead to sinful actions.  What was Jesus’ fulfillment of the law?  Punishment.  Taken upon himself.  For every punishment of the law-for sin-back to its original motivation.  This is to give every sinner (all of us) several things:

1.   A fresh start.

2.   Assurance of pardon (the promise of Jesus’ forgiveness)

3.   The primacy of faith unto salvation (we are not working our way into heaven)

This fulfillment of the law in Christ realigns our perspective to understand Jesus’ summary of that law, “Love God with all, love neighbor as ourselves.”

This is so important because love does not change, but the law does.  Oops, there is the other key piece.  The law changes.  How many death penalty offences are to be found in the Law of Moses?  According to Google, citing a BBC source, there are 36 capital offences.  A piece I had not drawn together, from a Google lead citing Wikipedia, is that there are four means of execution, stoning, burning, strangulation, and beheading. 

36.  For the morbidly minded, the Bible is there for you to read about them, the law of Moses being the first five books, Genesis to Deuteronomy.

But what is legal and what is illegal, broadly, and what is a capital offence and what is not, has shifted in time and place.  The civil authorities, whom we are called upon to obey, represent different sets of legal systems and codes over time.  What does not change is love.

Now, there is a lot more detail that could be argued over.  But, for me, the law as understood in the bible, is the means by which we understand what is NOT loving behavior.  And our knowledge of the power of love has only been enhanced over time. 

So, Rule 1 when invoking law and the bible, where is the love?  That becomes the measure for everything else.

Peter Hofstra

So Where DOES Politics Belong in Worship?

          Last Sunday, the sermon considered the question of the place of national politics in the worship life of the Church.  The conclusion, for me, was in the Prayer of Confession.  That is the place where we can confess the sinful behaviors and attitudes that are so integral to the polarized political landscape of the present day.  But that was not enough for me.  There were questions and issues remaining.  Where does one step off the pulpit and into life?

          Honestly, what I have been seeking is a theologically and heartfelt place of comfort for the church in this political landscape. 

          There was a triggering event.  On June 1, 2020, former President Trump walked across Lafayette Park, cleared of protesters ahead of time by law enforcement, for his photo op at St. John’s church with a bible in his hand.  Until that moment, compartmentalizing things of politics and things of faith was manageable.  But through the remainder of his term in office, into the insanity that was the transitional process, through the present time, I have struggled to fit these things together. 

          I have very strong beliefs politically.  I will make no secret of that.  But there was a huge disconnect.  I know what Jesus teaches-not to every jot and nuance, but love God and love neighbor is a summary of a way of new living in Jesus Christ.  But to preach about the political mud pit is to get pulled into the political mud pit. 

          Our political system is classic high-level conflict.  It is not about issues, which marks a low level of conflict, and one where compromise can lead to solutions.  It is about personalities.  Once it gets there, a huge will to find resolution is needed to move things back to a place where we can talk about things without attacking one another. 

          That’s where Jesus’ power is needed.  The sinfulness of this political climate of name calling, lies, and horrible personal attacks needs something more.  That’s the stuff we need to leave at the door of the sanctuary when coming to worship the Living God. 

          Humanity sins, God forgives.  Then God brings resolution in ways we cannot even imagine.  What’s a Christian to do?  Open the doors wide to forgiveness.

Peter Hofstra

What if Christianity Became the Mark of a Political Point of View?

           So here is a premise that has been pulling at my mind.  There are certain Christian sectors that are highly identified with certain political beliefs.  More evangelical and fundamentalist streams of Christian thought and expression have been deliberately identified with the Republican right by Republican strategists.  Karl Rove is the name that I remember best in constructing this connection.

          But it is certainly not as simple as that, but that is the most visible connection I see.

          So here is the thing.  My understanding is that it was a political strategy on the right to intentionally court the vote and voice of this Christian stream of thought.  Honestly, it has left me very uncomfortable on a number of occasions to hear the defense and unconsidered approval of evangelical Christianity for President Trump. 

          But what if the evangelical church no longer serves as a secure and extended voting block for the political right, but becomes a marker of the political right?  What do I mean?  What if being a church member in that particular stream of thought becomes a litmus test for a Republican candidate?  What if it moves beyond simply being able to say that one is a Christian of the evangelical stream of thought, to having to have that proof, that congregation who claims their membership?  Who can speak to the faith foundation of the one seeking office?  What influence over a candidate does that offer?

          And I tell you, that scares me because there is a judicial theology concerning gender roles and identity, masculine authority, very broad considerations of application of the death penalty, and justification of defiance of democratic authority if it runs against this judicial theology, a theology that, in my mind, coopts the authority of God into the hands of fallen humanity with the hubris to speak in God’s name.  A literal cherry picked interpretation of the law of Moses as presently binding could pronounce the death penalty for homosexuality.

          To consider the Ten Commandments, as it stands now, "Thou shalt not murder" is the only one that is linked to the death penalty in our current judicial thought.  But making idols, using God's name in vain, and adultery all carry the death penalty in the law of Moses.

          History of both church and state are filled with the abuses of well-meaning Christian leaders (and exploitative Christian leaders) doing things for the political ‘good’ that are horrendous.  John Calvin, a leading theological thinker in my stream of Christian thought, was involved in a death penalty case in his tenure in Geneva. 

          The potential for such religious exploitation has been explored in novels like “The Handmaid’s Tale”. 

          The KKK was based in a very specific Christian theological stream of thought (a terrifying one!).  Christianity in this country divided when the nation divided over slavery at the time of the Civil War.

          There is a double-edged sword to a Christian lead in blending with a political ideology.  The first is that theology will be warped and twisted to provide support for aspects of that political ideology because they have been coopted into what defines ‘the faith’.  The second is that a judicial theology that can be absolutely brutal, especially in the face of having the power of the state to back it up, can twist a political platform that is still designed for a democracy into something authoritarian, even draconian.

          Doomsayer…I suppose I am.

Peter Hofstra

Is A Christian Political Agenda Even A Thing?

          So, Titus 3:2 and the Fairness Doctrine.  Be calm and tell the truth.  Not so much a political agenda as a dream for a better, calmer political landscape?  What then is the basis for a Christian Political Agenda-if we are going to use the language of the day?  Is that even a reasonable expectation?

          In the mainline, of which I am of a Presbyterian persuasion, Matthew 25, verses 31 to the end offers a pretty good template. 

31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, ³³and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. ³⁴Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ³⁵for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? ³⁸And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ³⁹And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” ⁴⁰And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” ⁴¹Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; ⁴²for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” ⁴⁴Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” ⁴⁵Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” ⁴⁶And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

          It is such a good template that it has been the basis of worship resources from the PCUSA for her churches to use. 

          This is a scene from the final judgement.  Now, I grew up with the image that every person will appear before the throne of grace and will be put on trial for their lives.  That image comes from a Christian tract, a mini-comic where the sinner has been walked through the evil of their lives before being cast into the fiery pits of hell, very Hieronymus Bosch in its visual presentation.  It is also highly personalized.  The one panel that sticks in my memory is the one where the man on trial cries out when ‘the dirtiest joke he ever heard’, told to a friend on earth, is being rebroadcast in the Throne room of the Lord.

          So, to avoid hell, let the love of Jesus be expressed in the loving behavior of personal daily living.

          (It is SO tempting to get sidelined into a theological discussion of faith and works, but not today).

          But in Matthew, the schedule of proper and improper behavior is not the behavior of personal daily living, it’s living life in relation to others, by definition it seems, less blessed than we.  To play off a Buddhist metaphor, this is a ‘six fold path’, to feed the hungry, to slake the need of the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned.  To whom is this carried out?  To the least of one of my family (“My” being personal pronoun for God).  It is sort of an applied ‘love of neighbor’.

          It is an agenda of love and justice.  “Peacemaking” is huge for us. It is also a corporate vision. 

          For me, I have preached on how the expression of our love of neighbor, our love being defined in terms of what happens in Matthew 25, being an expression of our love of God. 

          Here’s another bite as food for thought.  Borrowing the Buddhist metaphor, we find the same call to care of others in that faith-maybe more powerfully focused than in our own faith.  If we are going to gather these all into a group we call ‘charity’, it expresses one of the pillars of Islam.  And one does not need a faith-based reason to carry out such behavior.

          Sounds like the basis of a “political platform” that would find broader appeal than just to a Christian base.  Or would it be more appropriate that this expression of ‘love of neighbor’ being the “platform” of good living?

          I do not think a Christian Political Platform can even be a thing.  So what else is there? 

Peter Hofstra

The Fairness Doctrine

           My verse of political exchange as a Christian: Titus 3:2, “Remind them…to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show every courtesy to everyone.”  How might we manage that?  Perhaps by the “Fairness Doctrine”.

So here is something interesting, at least to me.  We used to have efforts to keep the news correct and balanced in this country.  According to a USA Today “Fact Check” report, from Nov. 28, 2020,

“The Federal Communications Commission has long been charged with issuing broadcast licenses to radio and television stations that operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," per its website.

In 1949, the FCC issued a report that established the duty of broadcast licensees to cover controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. That obligation was termed the Fairness Doctrine.”

What is the “Fairness Doctrine”?  As described in the article, it goes something like this:

“Its basic requirements were that broadcasters "devote a reasonable portion of broadcast time to the discussion and consideration of controversial issues of public importance" and "affirmatively endeavor to make ... facilities available for the expression of contrasting viewpoints held by responsible elements with respect to the controversial issues," per a report by the Congressional Research Service.

"In practice, it required broadcasters to identify issues of public importance, decide to cover those issues, and then to afford the best representatives of the opposing views on the issue the opportunity to present their case to the community," the report explains.”

But that is not where we are now.  I went looking at the FCC website to see what they said ‘officially’.  Did not find the Fairness Doctrine per se, but here are the limits of broadcast journalism when it comes to ‘the truth’:

News Distortion.  The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover.  For the reasons noted previously, the Commission generally will not intervene in these cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own.  However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news.  The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”  The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news.  Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news.  However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene.  (copied and pasted 1/25/22)

It seems that the Fairness Doctrine was taken down as basis of FCC work in 2011 and more particular applications of how the process can be abused, as with hoaxes or this, news distortion, took its place.

I got interested in this after reading a report that President Ronald Reagan did away with ‘the Fairness Doctrine’, the immediate result of which was the rise of partisan news outlets, in particular, Fox News.  But that is not the case.  The FCC has jurisdiction over licensees on the public airwaves.  Fox News and CNN and most present news comes on cable, unregulated.  Kind of like the newspapers in this country in the 19^th century. 

If you want to know more in that regard, my source is “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln”, where Doris Kearns Goodwin traces the politics leading up to the election of President Lincoln.  A significant portion of that is how each side had its newspapers to get its partisan message out to the electorate-sounds a lot like online news and cable news today.

So, to return to the USA Today Article,

“The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast licenses.

The report by the Congressional Research Service notes that broadcast is "distinct from cable, satellite, and the Internet, which are all services for which consumers must pay.

"It does not appear that the Fairness Doctrine may be applied constitutionally to cable or satellite service providers," it continues.”

My knee jerk reaction is to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.  But who then would get to interpret what that means?  According to the article, the Democratic Congress attempted to codify this into federal law in 1987, but it was vetoed by President Reagan.  That may be a good thing, especially in this political climate.

          If I read this right, whichever side held the White House holds the strings to the FCC regulatory base because the FCC is in the Executive Branch.  And whichever side held the Congress could attempt to legislate how the Fairness Doctrine applies.  Or, far more easily, either party could simply ignore the Doctrine for their own benefit had they the political clout to do so.

          Without the Fairness Doctrine, the limits of ‘news reporting’ seems to run to the edges of what is acceptable under the First Amendment.  In a country where spending money has been deemed ‘free speech’, that is a little intimidating. 

          This is all patriotic me.  This is me worrying after the future of our democracy in the United States.  What about the Christian me?

          Are their ‘biblical boundaries’ to the First Amendment?  Boundaries that we, as Christians, would voluntarily hold ourselves to as people of faith?  Do the tenets of the “Fairness Doctrine” provide Christians as a way to bring together the First Amendment and Titus 3:2 (the Biblical basis for my argument on what political speech should look like)?

          Can I go any further without putting people completely to sleep?  More to come. 

Peter Hofstra

On Politics and the Church

Where do politics fit into the church?  Since hearing a story on NPR contrasting 2 churches, one essentially a church based on a brand of partisan patriotism that practically elevates Donald Trump to the status of the divine and the other a mainline Protestant denominational church pressing for acceptance of all gender stances, both admitting that there is very little for them to talk about, I have been haunted by this question.

I am not for a church that either theologically folds into a political point of view or one that declares everything political as somehow off limits.  The first possibility submerges the church to the political mudslinging of our nation.  The second practically cripples our ability to function.  As an analogy, Interpol, the international police force (yes, there is one of those actually, not just in the movies), has its hands tied against anything ‘political’.  It leaves a rather narrow slice of crime for their work.  To avoid any topic that might be construed as ‘politically motivated’, leaves us with a very narrow slice of the world to operate in.

I am also not one who believes that the sphere of the church is limited to the transcendent, esoteric, end of all mindset that we need to be ‘preparing’ for at the expense of the world around us.

So Sunday, our core verse was Titus 3:2 which is, with the lead in from verse one: “Remind them…to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show every courtesy to everyone.”  Around this is built a two-fold argument by Paul that 1. The Lord Jesus does not need our works of righteousness for our salvation and 2. The divisive individual effectively gets a ‘three strike’ rule to stop arguing for the sake of arguing before they are turned out of the church.

That was written in a time when the church was still effectively an organization with a single voice.  Nowadays, someone does not like our church's point of view on something, there is sure to be another congregation not too far off that will draw them in.   

What this draws down to is not so much a question of political belief but the expression thereof.  Jesus said love our enemies.  Paul is telling us to be nice to them.  So this is a matter of what is appropriate behavior for the Christian.  That brings us back to verse 2.  Be nice.  There is a line from a movie that goes “Be nice…until it is time not to be nice…”  The follow up was ‘when is that time?’  Jesus knows that one, not us.

To coopt a phrase that has practically become anathema to my own political thinking, “make America great again”, that is only going to happen from the side of Christianity when we lay down our anger and rhetoric, all the tools of negative political campaigning and mudslinging, and we come to the table using the rules Paul has laid out for us, in the name of Jesus. 

          The way I see that happening is for all Christians to confess their attitudes and their behaviors and their opinions of their opponents to the Lord, to lay them down at the cross, and to return to the behavior Jesus expects of us so we can really “do” in the manner of people saved in Jesus Christ.

Pastor Pete