Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 3)

Posted on April 24, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Governments pass laws. Ideally, the purpose of these laws should be for society to have greater peace, protection, and order. Some of these laws concern non-Biblical issues (example: traffic laws). Such laws, when passed, do become laws which God expects us to follow (Romans 13:1-2; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17). Other laws concern matters on which the Bible also directly speaks (example: murder).

Governments are authorized by God to punish those who violate their laws (Romans 13:1-ff; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Thomas Hobbes has listed five categories of punishment used by man: (1) Corporal—that is, bodily punishment. This includes capital punishment. The word capital has to do with the head being removed. It has been more generally used for the death penalty, no mater the method of death. (2) Pecuniary—that is, the deprivation of a sum of money, or property. (3) Ignominy—that is, the removal of badges, titles, offices and the like. (4) Imprisonment—that is, deprivation of freedom of movement, the restriction of movement. (5) Exile—that is, forced departure out of the land, or a portion of it. (Leviathan, chapter 28). Governments have historically used all of these methods to punish lawbreakers. Capital punishment has been used to punish violators of the most serious of crimes.

Many governments no longer use capital punishment. Wikipedia indicates that: “58 countries maintain the death penalty in both law and practice; 95 have abolished it; 9 retain it for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as in time of war); 35 permit its use for ordinary crimes, but have not used it for at least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions or is under a moratorium.” Thirteen states/territories in the U.S.A. are without the death penalty option: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia is also without this option (www.clarkprosecutor.org. This list is as of April 1, 2008).

What should the Christian think about the death penalty? What does the Bible say on this subject, and particularly, what does the New Covenant say?

1. The Old Covenant prescribed the death penalty for 23 offenses. Let’s divide these offenses into the following broad categories: [A.] Serious crimes against others—(1) murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:16-21); (2) rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). (3) kidnapping (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7); (4) False testimony that could result in the death of another (Deuteronomy 19:16-19); (5) Striking or cursing parents (Exodus 21:15; Leviticus 20:9). [B.] Reckless or negligent behavior resulting in death—(1) home owners negligence (Deuteronomy 20:8); (2) animal owners negligence (Exodus 21:29); (3) causing miscarriage (Exodus 21:22-25). [C.] Sexual sins—(1) adultery (Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 22:22). (2) pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:14-21; Lev. 21:9); (3) incest (Leviticus 18:16-17; 20:11-12); (4) homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). (5) bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16). [D.] Religious Sins—(1) human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2); (2) sacrifice unto false gods (Exodus 22:26). (3) false prophesy (Deuteronomy 13:1-8; 18:20); (4) divination/witchcraft (Exodus 22:18: Leviticus 19:20, 31; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14); (5) violating the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36); (6) unauthorized individuals touching the holy furnishings of the temple (Numbers 4:15); (7) drunkenness of a priest (Leviticus 10:8-9); (8) blasphemy of God (Leviticus 24:10-16, 23). [E.] Presumptuous rebellion against authority—(1) against priest (Deuteronomy 17:12); (2) against parents accompanied with living as a glutton and drunkard (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

Moreover, it was not just the nation of Israel. Jesus recognized the authority of Rome to execute (Jn. 19:10-11).

There are some things we can learn, and some things we cannot learn from the first point. We can learn that God is not intrinsically opposed to the death penalty. We cannot, however, learn whether or not governments are so authorized under the New Covenant.

2. The New Covenant authorizes governments to use the death penalty. Consider the following passages: [A.] Acts 25:13-19. (1) Paul recognized the authority of Roman officials to judge saying, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged” (25:10a). (2) He implied that there were things worthy of the death penalty, and that the government had such authority to execute. He said, “If I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying” (25:11a). (3) He again recognized Rome’s authority by saying “but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me … I appeal to Caesar” (25:11b). [B.] Romans 13:1-5. We’re instructed to be subject to governing authorities. Paul explained, “he is God’s minister to you for good.  But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (13:4). Swords are not mere switches or rulers which smart. Swords kill!

Questions.

1. Doesn’t the Bible say that we are not to kill? Yes, it does (Exodus 20:13; Matthew 5:21-22; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John 3:15). Brother Kerry Duke has written, “The Decalogue warned, “You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13), yet the law required the death penalty (Exodus 21:12-17; Leviticus 20:1-21). In fact, divine authorization for capital punishment was given before Moses … (Genesis 9:6)… A common approach to reconciling these passages emphasizes the distinction between the English words ‘kill’ and ‘murder’ … An examination of Hebrew words and phrases denoting the taking of life, however, reveals the weakness of this argument… At least four categories of taking human life emerge from the Old Testament teaching: (1) the intentional, malicious taking of human life (Numbers 35:20-21); (2) the unpremeditated taking of human life, perhaps from a fight (Numbers 35:22-23); (3) the accidental causing of death (Deuteronomy 19:4-6). (4) The intentional infliction of death as a deserved form of punishment… (Deuteronomy 21:22). The killing involved in the first type is the act prohibited in the Decalogue. The other three types qualify the application of this prohibition. Also, the second and third type qualifies the application of the death penalty, since this punishment was not ordered in cases of unpremeditated or accidental killing” (ox in the Ditch, p. 26-28). This same qualifying principle must be in place in the New Covenant.

2. Does the death penalty really deter? (a) God indicates that it does (Deuteronomy 13:11; 17:13; 21:21). (b) American statistics do not seem to indicate that it does. However, this may be due to the fact that very few criminals, even murderers are actually executed, and of those who are the process is very slow (Eccl. 8:11). Numbers: in 2004 there were 16,137 murders/non-negligent manslaughters in the U.S.A. 62.6% of these cases were cleared, or 10,102 (askyahoo.com). That same year there were only 59 executions (www.deathinfo.org). Only 2% of those on death row are executed each year (Freakonomics). (c) It should also be remembered that retribution is also a goal not just deterrence (Romans 13:4).

3. Isn’t life in prison a worse punishment than the death penalty? Ann Coulter has written, “Evidently not to the murderers on death row who regularly fight their executions tooth and nail” (Godless, p.27).

4. What if the wrong man were convicted? It no doubt has happened. Example: Charles Hudspeth was executed in 1892 for killing George Watkins. Watkins had disappeared. Watkin’s wife, Rebecca, was romantically involved with Hudspeth and testified that Hudspeth had murdered her husband to clear the way for them. Nearly a year after Hudspeth was executed, Watkin’s reappeared (www.bogley.com). The story reminds us that a high standard of proof needs to be required before using the death penalty. It does not mean that it should never be used.

Posted in Ethics, Government, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 2)

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Man living in what John Locke has described as “the State of Nature,” that is man living without earthly government has great freedom. He is amenable to God’s law. He, in certain relationships, is to be in subjection to others: (1) Children to parents (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20). This is an involuntarily entered relationship as far as the children are concerned. This subjection is to continue until the leaving (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Galatians 4:1-2). (2) Wives to their own husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-ff). This is a voluntarily entered relationship. The subjection is to continue as long as the marriage continues, ideally for life (Romans 7:2 cf. Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). (3) Employees to employers (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25). This subjection should continue so long as this relationship exits. (4) Church members to the eldership of the local church (Hebrews 13:7, 17; 1 Peter 5:5a). Moreover, (5) all are to have a humble, submissive spirit one toward another (1 Peter 5:5b). However, He is not subject to the laws of an earthly government.

Societies form and earthly governments develop for protection, order and mutual benefit. Man living under earthly government gives up some of his freedom for these benefits.

Citizens’ and Residents Responsibilities

1. Submit.

We are to live submissively under the government’s authority. Consider the following words: (a) “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men” (Titus 3:1-2). (b) “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to the governors … for this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men… Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God.Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13-17). Watch the fact that different levels of government are mentioned in this passage. (c) “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities of God, and those who resist will bring punishment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-2).

What if I do not like a law? The general rule is that we are to submit to the government. My personal dislike of a law is not, in itself, justification for my disregarding of that law.

Are there any exceptions? There are two exceptions to this general rule: (1) When the government orders me to do what God does not want me to do, then I am not to submit myself to the government. (2) When the government forbids me to do what God wants me to do, then I am not to submit myself to the government (Acts 4:19; 5:29). The reason for this is sometimes explained that God’s law is higher than man’s law. Therefore, if the two are in conflict, we should follow God’s law. Brother, Kerry Duke has offered this—“The appeal to a higher/lower law distinction … ignores the fact that obedience to rulers is a part of God’s law… (The real answer is) Rulers have no right to contest any item of divine legislation. When they do so, they have overstepped the bounds of delegated authority. (However) As long as they operate within the confines of this realm, they function as agents of God” (ox in the Ditch, p. 83-84). All authority resides with God. He has given government certain authority. When they do things contrary to His authority, they are claiming power He has not given them.

2. Obey the King.

We should understand from where authority comes (see the last paragraph under the previous point). Jesus has all authority (Matthew 28:18; John 17:2a). He is “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; 19:16).

Earthly governments typically have layers of officials (I Peter 2:13-14). The lesser official has delegated authority from the greater authority. The lesser authority is subject to the greater. The United States of America has no human being as king. However, we do have a Constitution to which earthly officials are subject. The Constitution serves as “king.” The officials in the government have overstepped their bounds if they operate plainly outside the authority the Constitution gives them. However, as Christians we are to “bend over backwards” to live peaceably. We are to “pursue peace” (Hebrew 12:14). “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). We are to “go the second mile” (Matthew 5:41).

One other thought, just because something is not listed as criminal behavior by an earthly government does not necessarily mean that it is not sinful. Earthly governments pass laws to maintain peace, safety, and order. They, likely, will not criminalize all sinful behavior. Such would not be practical or feasible. Moreover, God’s law concerns itself with not just external behavior, but also internal thoughts. John Quincy Adams remarked, “Human legislators can undertake only to prescribe the actions of man … the Legislator gave them rules not only for action but for the government of the heart” (David Barton, Original Intent, p. 327).

3. Pay Taxes.

The government is funded by tax revenue. We’re instructed in God’s word to pay the taxes we owe to the government. Consider: (a) “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:7). Note: The first word is a general term; the second word refers more specifically to taxes on imports and exports. (b) “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). The word “therefore” connects these words with the previous stated fact that Caesar’s image was stamped on the coins they were using. Healthy economies have a universally recognized and trusted system of exchange. Jesus’ point was that they were using Roman coins and thus they should pay taxes. If you accept government services, then shouldn’t you pay taxes? However, watch the words “… and to God the things that are God’s.” Man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; James 3:9). He created us. We belong to Him. We owe Him far more than we owe earthly governments. We owe Him our very being. “All things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16).

What if the government is corrupt? (Please, tell me what government isn’t in some way!). The ESV Study Bible contains this comment on Romans 13:6-7: “Christians must not refuse to pay taxes simply because they think some of the money is used unjustly, for the Roman Empire surely did not use all of its money for godly purposes!” God will judge government leaders for any corrupt use of tax revenue. However, we are to pay our taxes. I find no biblically justified exceptions. If things get so bad that one can’t in good conscience support the government, then maybe it is time to renounce citizenship and remove to another’s jurisdiction (many emigrated from Nazi Germany for this very reason).

4. Prayer.

Christians are instructed to pray for government officials (1 Timothy 2:1-2 cf. Jeremiah 29:4-7). The reasons we are to pray for the government rulers are mentioned: (1) “that we may live a quiet and peaceable life” (1 Timothy 2:2). The Jews of old were instructed to pray for Babylon while in Babylon “for in its peace, you will have peace” (Jeremiah 29:7). Christian’s prayer is not primarily about “the good of the human ruler, but the Christian subjects” (David Lipscomb, Civil Government, p. 80). (2) God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Timothy 2:4). We’re praying for an environment which provides maximum opportunities to preach the gospel.

5. Honor.

We’re to honor and respect government officials for their position (1 Peter 2:17; Romans 13:7). Men of old knelt and bowed before kings and those in great authority (Genesis 37:7, 10; 41:42-43; 43:28; Mt. 27:39). We do not have a human king. We do not bow before our government officials in this country. However, we are to respect their position. We don’t want to be among those who “reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.” (Jude 8)

6. Motives.

Why should we so behave? (1) Such behavior gives us a clear conscience before God (Rom. 13:5 cf. 13:2). (2) Such behavior avoids wrath (Romans 13:2, 4-5). (3) Such behavior properly represents Christianity (1 Peter 2:14 cf. 2:12-14).

Posted in Ethics, Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Government and Citizenship (Part 1)

Posted on April 20, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Man could live without earthly governments. It likely would be chaotic. John Locke has written, “Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them is properly the State of Nature. But force, or a declared design of forces upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the State of War” (Two Treaties of Government 2:19:5-10). Perhaps, it is  this chaotic situation which is hinted at with the words “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes” [(Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) Note: For ‘an alternative view of this wording ask For B. H. bulletin Oct. 23, 2005].

Societies form and government develops for protection and mutual benefit. Thomas Hobbs has written, “The introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life” (Leviathan, p. 129). John Locke said that civil society was formed by men “for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another” (2:95:1-10).

God has authorized the formation of governments. Ancient Israel is unique.  God, Himself, established Israel. However, it is clear that He approves of the existence of other earthly governments (Matthew 22:16-21; Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17).

Government Responsibilities

1. Protect and Defend.

Society collectively, and individuals, especially the weak and vulnerable need to be protected. The old covenant said of a righteous king, “He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight” (Psalm 72:13-14 ESV). Earthly judges were told “Give justice to the weak and fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82:3-4 ESV). The proper role of government is to be “God’s minister to you for good … an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4). Though, history is full of examples of governments abusing power, the government should not be “a terror to good works, but to evil” (Romans 13:3 cf. 1 Peter 2:13-14).

Included under this first point could be included the idea of caring for the general welfare. Remember Joseph’s roll down in Egypt (Genesis 41-ff).

2. Punish.

Laws not backed up by the teeth of law enforcement, and the punishment of violators will not be respected by most. God has given teeth to the government. God has authorized governments not only to make laws, but to enforce those laws, and to punish those who violate those laws (Romans 13:1-ff; 1 Peter 2:13-14).

Wise governments: (a) Punish unlawful actions (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Montesquieu has written, “A certain Marsyas dreamed he cut the throat of Dionysius. Dionysius had him put to death, saying that Marsyas would not have dreamed it at night if he had not thought it during the day. This was a great tyranny: for, even if he had thought it, he had not attempted it. Laws are charged with punishing only external actions” (The Spirit of The Law, 12:11). (b) Have high level of proof required before convicting anyone [(Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:5; Mt. 18:6; 1 Timothy 5:19, 22 cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21) Note: Evidence can be considered a “witness” see—John 5:31-36; 1 John 5:9; 2 Peter 1:18-19]. (c) Practices Lex Talionis, that is they punish according to the crime (Exodus 21:24-25; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21; Also—Luke 12:42-48).

Interesting observation: under the old covenant, if a city did not see that justice was done in a murder case, then guilt was upon the city leaders (watch the words “put away the guilt of innocent blood”: Deuteronomy 21:1-9 cf.  Numbers 35:31-34; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:11-13; 1 Kings 2:31). The punishment of a murderer was not optional. It was duty.

Note: The issue of the death penalty will not be dealt with in this article. It will be a part of this series in a later article.

3. Make Just Laws.

Many examples could be given of oppressive, unjust legislation. Montesquieu wrote “The Carthaginians, in order to make the Sardinians and the Corsicans more dependent, prohibited them from planting, sowing, or doing anything of the like on the penalty of death; they sent them their food from Africa” (book 21).

The Bible speaks of those who misused their position in the government. Israel’s lawmakers were rebuked “woe to those who declare unrighteous decrees, who write misfortune, which they have prescribed to rob the needy of justice, and to take what is right from the poor of My people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless” (Isaiah 10:1-2). They had made laws so they could “legally” rob people of their possessions. Others make laws, and pass judgments for bribes. Notice—“The king establishes the land by justice, But he who receives bribes overthrows it” (Proverbs 29:4). Numerous passages speak against taking bribes (Deuteronomy 16:18-19); 1 Samuel 8:1-3; 12:3; Isaiah 5:23; 10:1-2; 33:14-15; Amos 5:12).

Lawmakers should not make laws to receive gifts from special interest groups, or to “legally” rob someone. Such behavior violates the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12), and their God ordained role as “ministers to you for good” (Romans 13:4).

4. Impartiality.

The law should be applied fairly to all. The judges of old were told, “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor hand the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:15; Also—Exodus 23:3; Deuteronomy 16:19; 2 Chronicles 19:6-7). They were admonished, “Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but the Lord…” (2 Chronicles 19:6). Jesus’ Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) demands impartial judgment.

Posted in Ethics, Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 4)

Posted on April 18, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

This is the final part on race and prejudice.  In this article, we will deal with a couple of points left untouched to this point…

One Race

The term “race” can be used to mean different things.  It can mean: “(1) A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.  (2) A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality or geographic distribution: the German race.  (3) A genealogical lineage.  (4) Humans considered as a group (www. thefreedictionary.com).  There is only one human race, if we use definition number three and four.

The Bible affirms a common lineage.  (1) The name “Eve” means “life”.  She was so named “because she was the mother of all living” [(Genesis 3:20) Note: This is said in prospect, a figure of speech known as prolepsis, much like the name “Abraham” cf. Genesis 17:5].  (2) God “made from (lit. “out of“, ek) one [(the work is masculine gender and is thus rendered “one man” by the ESV).  Note: Some manuscripts read “one blood”.  Adam Clark, “Often used by the best writers for race, stock, kindred: So Homer, Iliad, vi. ver. 211… So Virgil AEn. viii. ver. 142…], every nation.

Is such possible?  Is it possible that all the genetic variety which exists today among humanity could have come from some common ancestry?  Absolutely!  Wonderful, detailed material on this point can be found in the book The Truth About Human Origins by Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson (Chapter 9: The Problem of Skin Color and Blood Types, pp. 429-462), and in briefer detail in the book Convicted by Brad Harrub [Chapter 13: Where Did Man Come From? (part 2), pp. 199-200].  Here is a summary of their color – (a) If Adam and Eve had only dominated genes (AABB), they would have been dark colored, and would have produced only dark skinned offspring.  (b) If they had only recessive genes (aabb), they would have been light skinned, and would have produced only light-skinned offspring.  (c) “If Adam and Eve had been ‘heterozygous (AaBb; two dominate, two recessive genes), they would have been middle – brown in color.  And from them – in one generation – racial difference could have occurred” (The Truth About Human Origins p. 445).  (2) Concerning blood type, they write “The variations that we see in blood types fit easily into the biblical account, once we understand the possibilities.  From the four phenotypic blood groups (A, B, AB and O), there are six possible genotypes: AA, AO, BB, BO, AB, OO.  No medical difference exists between AA, and AO; both are considered type ‘A,’ and behave the same.  In similar manner, there is no significance to BB or BO; they are classified as type “B.”  Types ‘A’ and ‘B’ are said to be co-dominate.  That is, they take precedence over ‘O’ if it is also present… so if mother and father are types AO and BO, then the blood type of their offspring can be: A, B, AB, or O… If Adam was type AO and Eve was type BO, then all four blood types would be possible in their offspring” (ibid, p. 458).

Caution

We should not be rash in concluding that an action or decision is due to racism, misogyny, or discrimination against the poor.  This may not be the issue.

Examples:

1.  The composition of a sports team may or may not be the result of racism.

Clearly, prior to Jackie Robinson breaking MLB’s color barrier in 1947, there were black players talented enough to have been given the opportunity to play MLB.  They were not provided that opportunity due to racial discrimination.

However, the fact that during the 2008-2009 NBA season, 82% of all NBA players were black is not due to racial discrimination.  It is due to ability.  In this day, any NBA team would be foolish not to be starting the best players available regardless of race.  There have been several white players who’ve played very well: e.g. Larry Bird, John Stockton, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, etc.

2.  The police questioning one of a certain race may, or may not, be due to a dislike of that race.

It could be due to a dislike of a particular race.  Imagine, a police officer stopping and detaining all Arabs because they were Arabs and he dislike the Arab people.  Such would be a clear case of racism.

However, suppose a police officer responds to a APB to be on the lookout for a person of a certain race and certain height, certain gender and weight, etc. and he stops you.  He is not prejudging your guilt.  He is not motivated out of a hatred of your race.  He is simply looking for someone and you fit the description.

3.  Variance between the wages of men and women may, or may not, be due to misogyny.

It seems to be a fact that women earn less on average, than do men.  One source indicates that a woman earns on average 78.5 cents for every dollar earned my a man (John Stossel, Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, p. 40).  Another source has said that for women twenty-five years and older who hold at least a bachelor’s degree and work full time, the national median income is about $47,000.  While similar men make about $66,000 (Super Freakonomics, Steven Levit and Stephen Dubner, p. 21).

Is it possible that some employer would hire men at a higher wage than women to do exactly the same job with the same out-put? Certainly. I am sure that it happens. Though, such would be economically foolish. Why would anyone hire any man when he could hire a woman for less?

There are many reasons why the wage variance exists. (1) Part of the explanation may be in the kind of jobs men and women are willing to take (Stossel, p.40) . (2) “Women are more likely to leave the workforce or down shift their careers to raise a family” (Levit and Dubner, p. 21). Thomas Sowell has written, “Most women give birth to children at some point in their lives and many stay out of the labor force until their children reach an age when they can be put into some form of day care… These interruptions of their career cost women workplace experience and seniority… However, as far back as 1971, American women who worked continuously from high school through their thirties earned slightly more than men of the same description” (Basic Economics, p. 198).

4.  The fact that certain goods cost more in one neighborhood than in another may not have anything to do with unjust discrimination.

The varying cost could be due to a number of things such as: (1) Transportation costs.  (2) Security costs.  “Although businesses in some American communities must incur the extra expense of heavy grates for protection from thieves and vandalism while closed, and security guards for protection while opened, businesses in other American communities have no such expenses and are therefore able to operate profitably which charging lower prices” ibid, p. 378).  (3) Insurance cost.  (4) Government bureaucracy/or corruption.

If Discriminated Against...

Conduct yourself in an honorable way.  Branch Rickey of the Dodgers told Jackie Robinson, “This will not be easy… there will be fans in the stands who will yell awful things at you.  Even some of the umpires will be against you, and will not give you fair calls… You cannot lose your temper and get into a fight.  That’s what they want you to do.  It will give them an excuse to throw you out of baseball… No, you must have the guts to fight back in another way.  The only way to fight is by keeping your temper, and playing the best baseball you can” (ed. William J. Bennett, The Children’s Book of Heroes, p. 30).  As Christians, we must approach life similarly.  “This is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15 cf. 2:12).

Posted in Ethics, Race, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 3)

Posted on April 16, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Unjust prejudice exits all over this earth. Some times it takes the form of ethnocentrism, which is prejudice based on cultural differences. “Even people who look very similar can have improper attitudes toward each other… The Irish and the English… The Koreans and the Japanese are two examples that come to mind” (Trevor Major and Richard Melson, A Christian Response to Racism, a tract published by A. P.). Some times it takes the form of racism, which can be defined as “discrimination or prejudism based on race” (education.yahoo.com/reference;dictionary). Christians should shun such prejudism. We should see the individual, and not lump the individual into a stereotypical grouping. We shouldn’t judge the individual by our pre-conceived thoughts about the group.

In this article, we will explore some of the ways racism has been defended. Even the Bible has been misused by some to defend such.

Darwinism

The original title of Charles Darwin’s book was “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection — or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life.” Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley, remarked, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts believes that the average Negro is equal, still less the superior of the white man” (Brad Harrub, Convicted, p. 198). Adolph Hitler parroted Darwin saying, “Nature … chooses from the excess number of individuals the best as worthy of living… A stronger race will drive out the weak” (Mein Kampf, p. 132). This thinking was also a part of the early eugenics/birth-control/sterilization movements of the 20th century. “Thus in the progressive era of the early twentieth century, racial and ethnic minorities were viewed in largely negative terms and the progressive support of the eugenics movement was not unrelated to the presumed desirability of preventing these minorities for propagating too many of their own kind” (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 111).

Here are some things to remember: (a) We’re all human beings. Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub have written, “We constitute a single biological species. Men and women with familial and cultural ties on different continents can meet, marry, and have families of their own — a fact that frustrates any attempt to parcel the world’s population into distinct subspecies or well-defined races” (The Truth About Human Origins, p. 436). (b) Moreover, some have confused education with ability “As late as the First World War, white soldiers from Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi scored lower on mental tests than black soldiers from Ohio, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania” (Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, p. 23). However, “As late as the 1930s, only 7 percent of black youngsters of high school age were attending high school in Mississippi” (ibid., p. 230). The education of blacks was outlawed or discouraged in the South for many years.

Mormons

The Mormons have a long history of racism. (1) They teach that the Lamanites were once “white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome” (2 Nephi 5:21). However, “because of their iniquity” and “that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21cf. Alma 3:6; Mormon 5:15). (2) The mixing of the seed between races was forbidden (2 Nephi 5:23). (3) However, if the Lamanites would repent they could be removed from the curse of their blackness (2 Nephi 5:22 cf. 3 Nephi 2:14-16). (4) It wasn’t until September 30, 1978 blacks were allowed into the Mormon priesthood.

The Bible nowhere teaches such a doctrine as is taught within the book of Mormon.

Bible

1. Cain’s Mark.   The Bible speaks of a mark being placed upon Cain (Genesis 4:15). Some have suggested that the mark was dark skin.  The Bible does not say this. One has as much evidence to say it was dark skin, as another does to say it was white skin and blue eyes. Moreover, the mark was not a sign of condemnation. Instead, the mark was provided to protect Cain’s life. Finally, if the mark were black skin, and if this mark did pass on to Cain’s descendants, such would not have one thing to do with how Cain’s descendants should be treated, today. (Ezekiel 18).

2. Curse of Canaan.  Some desperate to find justification for their racism have inferred without adequate evidence that the curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:18-27) was dark skin. Nothing in the text implies such.

Some have suggested that the curse was not only upon Canaan, but also upon Canaan’s father, Ham (cf. Genesis 9:18, 22). Then, it is claimed that the name “Ham” means “swarthy.” However, we should remember: (a) The curse is said to be upon Canaan, not Ham. (b) The name “Ham” does not seem to have originated with the curse (Genesis 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18; 9:22). (c) It is far from certain that the name “Ham” has anything to do with blackness. The term may mean “warm” or “hot” (Strong’s, B-D-B-G) or “submissive one” (ed. Curtis Cates, 35th Annual MSOP  Lectureship, p. 177). Scholarship does not support the idea of blackness to be a part of this word.

3. Inter-racial Marriages Forbidden.  Moses (a descendant of Shem cf. Gen. 10:21-ff; 11:14-ff) married an Ethiopian or Cushite (a descendant of Ham Genesis 10:6-ff; Numbers 12:1-ff). Note: Their skin color must have been distinct from Israel’s. Remember, Jeremiah asking, “can the Ethiopian change his skin?” (Jeremiah 13:23). Miriam and Aaron murmured about this, or at least used this as a pretense to complain against Moses. Yet, God upheld the leadership of Moses (Numbers 12:1-ff).

It is true that God instructed the Israelites not to marry the Canaanites (Exodus 34:11-16; Deuteronomy 7:2-4; Joshua 23:12-13 cf. Judges 3:5-6). However, a careful reading will reveal that the concern was not of race or color, but of religious and spiritual influence. Canaanites who submitted to the one true God seem to have been accepted (Rahab Matthew 1:5 cf. Joshua 2 cf. Joshua 24:31; Judges 2:7, 10). Moreover, it should be realized that there is no listing of nations or races that are forbidden to inter-marry in the New Covenant.

 4. The Jews Killed Jesus.  Many Jews were not pleased with the filming of “The Passion of the Christ”. They were afraid that the film would stir up anti-Semitic feelings and hatred. It was feared that the movie would make the Jewish people responsible for the death of Jesus.

The truth is clear. The facts cannot be denied. Jewish people were responsible (John 19:11; Matthew 27:24-25; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15). These who delivered Jesus to Pilate were guilty of “greater sin” (John 19:11). Alas, this has been used to justify mistreatment of the Jewish people.

Things to remember: (a) Jesus was an Israelite (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-28; Romans 1:3, etc.). (b) The twelve were Israelites (Acts 1:11; 2:7). (c) Paul was an Israelite (Romans 1:11; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:5; Acts 21:39). (d) The early church was composed exclusively of Israelites and Jewish proselytes until the conversion of Cornelius’ house (Acts 2:4-ff; 11:19 cf. 15:7). (e) It was the Israelites who carried the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11; 13:45-46; 18:5-6; Romans 1:14-16). (f) The fact that God removed His hedge of protection from the nation of Israel has no bearing upon whether individual Israelites could be saved (Romans 1:16).

Posted in Ethics, History, Marriage, mormon, Mormons, Race | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 2)

Posted on April 14, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

In an ideal world, justice would be blind. People should be judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin, or the fatness of their wallet. Joseph Addison said, “Justice discards party, friendship, kindred, and is always, therefore, represented as blind.” The Law of Moses instructed such blind justice (Exodus 23:3; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19; 27:19; Proverbs 24:23). The New Covenant teaches us “The Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12), and that we are not to be “judges with evil thoughts” (James 2:4, cf. Deuteronomy 1:17; Leviticus 19:15).

However, life is not always ideal. Economic prejudism does exist. It exists for a variety of reasons: (1) Sometimes it exists due to a feeling of superiority. (2) Sometimes there is a belief that all poor people are poor due to their own faults, or their lack of right standing with God. It is thought that if they were right with God, they wouldn’t be poor. (3) Sometimes there is a belief that the rich are all crooks, or that they have unfairly enriched themselves at other’s expense.

Bible

James 2:1-4, “My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and say to the poor man, ‘You stand there’ or, ‘Sit here at my footstool,’ have you not shown partiality among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (cf. Deuteronomy 1:17; Leviticus 19:15). Economic prejudice is nothing new. Guy Woods commented on James 2:1 “‛Hold not’ is me echete, present active imperative of echo, with the negative; i.e., quit having the habit of holding the faith in such fashion” (A Commentary on the Epistle of James, p. 106).

(1) Many despise the poor. The Proverbs say: “The poor man is hated even by his own neighbors, But the rich has many friends… Wealth makes many friends, But the poor is separated from his friends… All the brothers of the poor hate him; How much more do his friends go from him! He may pursue them with words, yet they abandon him” (Proverbs 14:20; 19:4; 19:7 cf. Job 19:13; 42:11).

Some have made the error of equating all poverty and misfortune with personal foolishness or sinfulness (Job 8:5-7; 11:13-20; John 9:1-2; Acts 28:3-4). Such thinking is still common today. It is true that sometimes (even many times) the poor are poor due to their own choices. Some common causes of poverty are: (a) laziness (Proverbs 10:4-5; 19:15; 24:30-34; 28:19); (b) wastefulness (Proverbs 12:27; 21:17; 23:20-21 cf. the Prodigal son of Luke 15); (c) improper use of credit (Proverbs 22:7; 6:1-5). (d) lack of preparation for the future (Proverbs 6:6-11). However, poverty is not always the result of such.  Some other causes of poverty include: (a) health issues (cf. Job; Acts 3:1-3); (b) natural disaster (cf. Job); (c) evil men, thieves (cf. Job); (d) evil corrupt government; (f) persecution (cf. Revelation 2:9). Clearly, there are biblical examples of the spiritually righteous being in material poverty [Job; Lazarus (of The rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16), the church in Smyrna (Revelation 2:9)].

(2) Others despise the rich. This is nothing new. The Law of Moses instructed, “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor… You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute” (Leviticus 19:15; Exodus 23:3).

Some have made the error of concluding that all rich are dishonest and evil beings. It is true that some rich do cheat, oppress, and run roughshod over others (Proverbs 22:16; 30:14; James 2:6; 5:4 cf. Leviticus 19:13 cf. Deuteronomy 24:15). It is true that some rich use their wealth to wrongfully influence, and pervert judgment (Exodus 23:6 cf. Deuteronomy 16:19 cf. Amos 5:12). However, the Bible does speak of some who were materially rich and spiritually righteous [(Job (Job 1:3); Abraham (Genesis 13:2); Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57)]. Wealth itself is not condemned. The rich are instructed, “Not to be haughty, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God” and to “do good … be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share” (1 Timothy 6:17-18). We should thank God for the rich who so behave.

Some have a flawed understanding of economics. They assume that one man’s increase necessarily means another man’s loss. This simply isn’t so. Thomas Sowell has illustrated, “individuals who stand in the relationship of employer and employee, or landlord and tenant, would never have entered into such relationship in the first place unless both sides expected to become better off than they would have been if they had not entered into those relationships. In other words, it is not zero-sum activity” (Basic Economics, p. 421). The idea of turning a profit is not viewed in the Bible as something sinful (Proverbs 31:16, 18, 24; Matthew 25:14-30; Acts 18:3, you don’t think that they sold the tents for the exact same amount as the materials cost that went into the tents, do you?)

Remember

1. Look at the individual, and don’t generalize all into a class stereotype. Not all poor are sinful bums, or prodigals. Not all rich are rapists of society. “Do not judge according to appearance but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

2. Remember the words, “Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in the faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (James 2:5).

3. Let us strive to be rid of envy (1 Peter 2:1), such thinking is not from above (James 3:14-15). Politicians often play upon class envy. Let us be careful not to be demagogued.

4. If one is right with God, one is rich indeed (James 2:5).

5. The righteous should not be envious of the wicked who are materially rich (Psalm 37:1-2; 73:3, 17; Proverbs 3:31-33; 23:17-18; 24:1, 19-20 cf. Luke 16:19-26). We need to understand their end (Psalm 73:17).

6. “The rich and the poor have this in common, the Lord is the maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2).

Posted in Ethics, Money, Race, Textual study, Wealth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Race and Prejudice (Part 1)

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

An ideal world, justice would be blind. We should be judged by the content of our character, and not the color of our skin or our socio-economic level.

However, life is not always idea. Racism exists around the globe. The Jews have been the object of racial hatred in Europe, the Chinese minorities in southeast Asia, the Armenians in the Ottoman empire, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Japanese in Peru, the Indians in Burma, the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, natives and blacks in America.

Racism exists for a variety of reasons. (1) Sometimes it exists due to a feeling of superiority. (2) Sometimes it exists due to fear. (3) Sometimes it exists due to some historical event.

Biblical Example

Racial or ethnic tensions certainly existed between the Jews and the Samaritans of the First Century A.D.. there were several reasons for this: (1) The Samaritans were a mixed breed, and not of pure Jewish lineage. After Assyrian conquered Israel (722-721 B.C.), a remnant of Israelites remained in the land (Amos 5:1-3; 2 Chronicles 30:5-9; Luke 2:36). The King of Assyria then moved foreigners into the land (2 Kings 17:24-26; Ezra 4:2, 8-10). It seems that in time, many from the remnant intermarried with the foreigners. (2) The Jews rejection of Samaritan help in rebuilding the temple. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians (586 B.C.). The Jews returned from Babylonian captivity (536 B.C.). The Samaritans offered their help in rebuilding the temple. However, their offer was rejected (Ezra 4:1-3). The reason for this rejection is not specified. Was it due to Samaritan idolatry? Was it due to some Samaritan plot to hinder the work? (3) The Samaritans became a great opponent of Jewish efforts to rebuild. They: (a) Lobbied Persia, lying about the Jews (Ezra 4:4-24; Nehemiah 6:6-9). Josephus says that the Samaritans told Persia that it wasn’t a temple, but more of a military fortress which was being built (The Essential Writings, p. 188). These lobbying efforts continued for about sixteen years and even brought the work to a complete halt for about two years (Ezra 4:4-7, 23-24). (b) Mocked (Nehemiah 4:1-6). (c) Plotted violence (Nehemiah 4:7-16). Joseph indicates, “They killed many of them (workers B.H.) and hired foreigners to assassinate Nehemiah. But Nehemiah surrounded himself with bodyguards and was not deterred (ibid, p. 191 cf. Nehemiah 6:1-4). (4) The Samaritans established a rival temple in Samaria (cf. John 4:20). One from the Jews, from the priestly tribe, married a daughter of Sanballat, a Samaritan and fierce opponent of the Jews (Nehemiah 2:10, 19; 4:1-3, 7-8; 6:1-3; 5-ff). Nehemiah said, “I drove him from me. Remember them, O my God because they have defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Thus I cleansed them of everything pagan” (Neh. 13:28-30). Josephus writes, “Whereupon Manasseh came to his father-in-law, Sanballat… Sanballat promised him not only to preserve him the honor of his priesthood, but to procure for him the power and dignity of a high priest… He also told him further, that he would build him a temple like that at Jerusalem, upon Mount Gerizim, which is the highest of all mountains that are in Samaria” (ed. Dub McClish, Studies in Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, p. 268 quoting Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, pp. 348-349). (5) The Samaritan’s behavior before Antiochus (167 B.C.). Josephus writes, “Antichos came back to Jerusalem… when he treated the inhabitants with great cruelty… He dismantled the walls of Jerusalem, burning the finest parts of the city, and stationed a Macedonian garrison in a citadel overlooking the temple. He carried away the golden vessels and treasures on the temple, putting a stop to the sacrifices. He polluted the altar by offering up a swine on it, knowing that this was against the law of Moses. he compelled the Jews to give up their worship of God and to stop circumcising their children. Those who persisted were mutilated, strangled, or crucified, with their children hung from their necks. When the Samaritans (emp. mine) saw the Jews suffering these cruelties, they sent letters to Antiochus denying any Jewish relationship. They also asked that their temple ‘temple without a name’ on Mt. Gerizim be known as that of Zeus Hellenias (Antiochus’ god B.H.)” (The Essential Writings, pp.209-210).

In Jesus’ day, The Jews had “no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9). Robert Taylor Jr. writes, “Jews usually avoided traveling in Samaria thus crossing Jordan below the southern Samaria boundary, traveling north in trans-Jordan and crossing Jordan again when past Samaria’s northern boundary. Though about twice as far as the shorter route, they gladly did it due to the Samaritan alienation they felt with deep intensity” (Studies in John, p. 54). The term “Samaritan” came to be used much as some use the “N” word today (see John 8:48). The Samaritans were not always too fond of the Jews (Luke 9:51-56). Hatred existed on both sides.

However, Jesus was different. He traveled through Samaria (John 4;1-ff; Luke 9:51-56; 17:11-ff). He spoke with Samaritans (John 4:7-ff; 4:39-42; Luke 17:11-ff). He healed a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19). Though, collectively the Samaritans may have done many evils, Jesus pointed out that we should consider the individual. He told a story showing that even a Samaritan could be kind and helpful (Luke 10:25-37). He pointed out the gratitude in a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19).

Moreover, it was just the Samaritans. Jesus pointed out good in Romans (Matthew 8:5-10, esp. v. 10), and Greeks (Matthew 15:21-28, esp. v.28; Mark 7:26 tells us that this woman was Greek), and in Syrians (Luke 4:21-28). “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35).

Posted in Bible History, Ethics, History, Jesus, Race | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: Sex (Part 2)

Posted on April 9, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

America’s view of homosexuality has radically changed through the years. Did you know that at Valley Forge Lieut. Enslin was court-martialed for attempting sodomy with a soldier, John Monhort? George Washington wrote that he “approves the sentence with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes (and) orders Lieut. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning … never to return” (David Barten, Original Intent, p. 306). Did you know that Thomas Jefferson authored a Virginia bill punishing sodomy by castration (ibid.)? Did you know that prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a psychiatric illness (Jeffery Stinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Chapter One)? Today homosexuality is no longer seen as evil, or even illness by many. A CBS News/N.Y. Times poll suggests that 42% of the Americans support the right of same sex couples to marry (www.cbsnews.com).

Homosexuality is gaining acceptance around the world. Ten countries now allow same-sex marriages: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden (www.cbc.ca). Five U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriages: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont (Wikipedia).

Old Covenant

1. Genesis 19 tells us how the men of Sodom wanted to know Lots guests (Note: a similar thing happened later in history. See Judges 19). It also records the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Defenders of homosexuality have claimed that Sodom’s destruction wasn’t the result of homosexuality. Instead, it was the result of: (1) long-standing sinful behavior (Genesis 13:13; 18:20-ff; 2 Peter 2:7-8). (2) inhospitality and pride (cf. Ezekiel 16:48-49). (3) The situation in Genesis 19 involves not simply homosexual behavior, but attempted homosexual rape. (4) Some claim the issue was not the desire for these men, but the desire for angels.

It is true that those of Sodom had a long-standing history of sin (Genesis 13; Genesis 18; 2 Peter 2:7-8). It is true that they were guilty of many sins including inhospitality (cf. Ezekiel 16:48-49). However, they were also guilty of “having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7). Note: The men of Sodom did not know that the guests were angels. They thought that they were men (cf. Genesis 19:5). They desired their flesh (Jude 7). Yet, angels do not have flesh. These angels appeared like men.

The attempted rape argument might seem a possible way around this passage. However, one still needs Biblical authorization for homosexuality.

2. Leviticus 18:22 reads, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Defenders of homosexuality say that it is not homosexuality that is being forbidden here. Instead, they insist that it is the treatment of a man as an inferior. One man illustrated it this way saying, “When Moses said, ‘do not lie with a male as a woman,’… Moses means exactly the same as if he had said ‘do not talk to a king as with a slave…’” (Dr. Paul R. Johnson, Eaves-Johnson’s: A Debate on Homosexuality, p.36-37). In other words, it is not a sin to talk to a king, but to talk to him as a slave. It is not wrong to lie with a man. It is wrong to lie with him as if he were a woman.

In response: (1) Read Leviticus 20:13. The same phrase “as with a woman” appears. Notice that whatever this sin is, it involves both parties. It is not rape that is in view. (2) Where, we ask, is the passage authorizing homosexual relations? (3) Compare Leviticus 18:22-23 with Leviticus 20:10-13. Is it attitude or act being condemned? Notice that bestiality is discussed in context.

Some defenders of homosexuality have argued that what really is being condemned in old covenant passages such as Leviticus 18:22 is not homosexuality itself. Instead, it is homosexuality connected with idol worship.

However, read Leviticus 18:20, 23 cf. 18:22. Let’s ask, “Should we conclude that adultery and bestiality are permitted so long as these do not involve pagan idol worship?

New Covenant

1. It is claimed that Jesus never spoke on this subject. Therefore, such must have been acceptable to him.

It is true that Jesus never explicitly dealt with the subject, at least not, in what has been recorded for us in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He never explicitly taught on bestiality, rape and a host of other things.

However, He did say: (1) that fornication was sinful (Matthew 15:19-20). The word fornication refers to “illicit sexual intercourse” (Vine’s); “Every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse” (Arndt-Gingrich). Homosexuality is not authorized. Therefore, it is under the category of fornication. (2) The apostles would be guided into all truth (John 16:13).

2. Romans 1:26-27 reads, “Even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”

Defenders of homosexuality claim that sexual inversion is the issue in this passage. That is, heterosexuals who turn against their natural inclinations and become homosexual in behavior. It is not speaking of those whom God created homosexuals.

This argument would suggest that God made some homosexual. Questions: (1) Where is the passage which suggests that God made anyone homosexual? (2) Where is the passage which suggests that God ever approves of homosexuality? The bottom line is there is no authority for such behavior.

3. I Corinthians 6:9-11 reads, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Do not be deceived. Neither … homosexual [(NKJV (effeminate KJV)] nor sodomites [NKJV (abusers of themselves with mankind KJV)] … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Defenders of homosexuality sometimes claim, without any legitimate proof, that this passage is not condemning homosexuality itself. Instead, it is claimed that the issue is promiscuous behavior, or some other issue (which is not implied by the text).

The first word means: “soft … esp. of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness” (Thayer); “soft … esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually” (B-A-G).

The second word means: “One who lies with a man as with a female, a sodomite” (Thayer); “a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite ((B-A-G).

The ESV joins these two items together by simply using the wording “men who practice homosexuality.” A footnote is supplied saying “the two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the positive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.”

4. The real issue is authority. No matter how one explains the passages we’ve listed, there is still the issue of “where is the passage which clearly authorizes such?”

Biblical Examples

Many couples are mentioned in scripture. We read that God created Adam and Eve. We read of Joseph and Mary, Aquilla and Priscilla, and other great couples. Where is the homosexual couple that is approved of by God?

Some think that they have found such approval. Consider:

1. Some have appealed to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi (recorded in the book of Ruth).

Read the book. There is nothing in the account about such a relationship being homosexual. It simply is not there. Naomi wanted Orpah and Ruth to find husbands (Ruth 1:9-ff; 3:1-ff cf. 4:13).

2. The relationship between Jonathan and David is a common appeal. (See 1 Samuel 18:1-4; 20:17, 30, 41; 23:16-18; 2 Samuel 1:25-26).

(a) They kissed (1 Samuel 20:41). This is true. Kissing was a common form of greeting. It occurred between those of the same gender (Genesis 27:26-27; 33:4; 45:15; 48:10; 50:1; Exodus 4:27; 18:7; Ruth 1:9; 1 Samuel 20:41; 2 Samuel 14:33; 1 Kings 19:20; Luke 7:45; 15:20; Matthew 26:49). It occurred between those of different genders (1 Kings 19:20; Luke 7:38). It occurred between relatives (Genesis 27:26-27; 33:4; 45:15). It occurred between friends (1 Samuel 20:41; 2 Samuel 19:39). The fact that they kissed proves nothing.

(b) Their souls were “knit” together (1 Samuel 18:1 cf. 20:17). This word is used elsewhere for a strong attachment between a father and a son (Genesis 44:30). There is nothing in this word which demands homosexuality.

(c) David indicates that Jonathan was “very pleasant” to him (2 Samuel 1:26). There is nothing inherently sexual in this word (cf. Psalm 133:1).

(d) The word “love” is used to describe their relationship (2 Samuel 1:26). This word is used in a variety of ways in the Bible (e.g., it is used of a father’s love of a son: Genesis 22:2; 25:28; 37:3, 4; 44:20; etc.).

(e) This love was said to be “surpassing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). This may mean: (1) that David or Jonathan had a close relationship unusual to men, a relationship closer than women have one with another. (2) that Jonathan was a better friend to David than even his wives had been.

Remember: (1) Jonathan had a son (1 Chronicles 8:34; 2 Samuel 4:4: 9:3-ff; 21:7). (2) David had at least eight wives (1 Samuel 18:27; 25:42-43; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9) and ten concubines (2 Samuel 15:16). He had at least nineteen sons (2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-14; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9), plus daughters (2 Samuel 5:13; 13:1; 19:5; 1 Chronicles 3:9). They clearly were not homosexuals.

3. Some have appealed to the relationship between Jesus and John.

(a) John is referred to as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). What about it? Jesus had an especially close relationship with Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37; Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 13:3; Matthew 26:36-46).

(b) John leaned upon Jesus’ breast (John 13:23, 25; 21:20). Guy Woods has written “in keeping with customs then prevailing not only in the Jewish world but also among the Romans, the Persians and Greeks, the disciples were reclining at the table… It was customary to stretch one’s self out on a couch, the left arm supporting the body, leaving the right hand free to use in eating. Situated next to Jesus at the table was the disciple ‘whom Jesus loved’… John was on the right side of Jesus, his head level with the bosom of Jesus” (A Commentary on The Gospel According to John, p. 292-293). John was situated the closest to Jesus. Being in the bosom of another, was synonymous with closeness (cf. John 1:18; Luke 16:23), not homosexuality.

One can imagine homosexual relationships into the Biblical text. However, the truth is there is not one passage which can be used to establish an approved example of homosexuality in the scriptures.

Genetics?

A common argument is that the homosexual can’t help it. He/she was genetically programmed that way.

The facts: (1) No “gay gene” has been found. (2) If the answer were purely genetic then one would expect consistency in identical twins. One study by J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard found a concordance rate for non-twin brothers of 9.2 percent. The concordance rate for non-identical twins of 22 percent (remember that non-identical twins have the same degree of genetic similarity as non-twin siblings). The concordance of identical twins was 48 percent (though, they are 100 percent genetically the same). Clearly, genetics alone is not an adequate explanation (Jeffery Staninover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 82-ff).

There was a study in 1991 by Dr. Simon Levay at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies that has been appealed to by many. The study found subtle differences in the post-mortem brain tissue of homosexuals and heterosexuals. (1) A cluster of neurons (INHA) was found to be smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. In fact, they were of similar size to those in women. The thing to keep in mind is that all nineteen of the homosexual subjects died of complications from AIDS, a disease which decreases testosterone levels resulting in smaller INAH (Brad Harrub and Dave Miller, This is the way God made me, Reason and Revelation, Aug. 2004). (2) The study also found another cluster (INAH3) was twice as large in the homosexual man as in heterosexual men or in women. This does not explain how this area became so large. “One fascinating NIH study found that in people reading Braille after becoming blind, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger grew larger (Satinover, p. 79). (3) The study was based upon the assumption that the non-AID subjects were heterosexual. The study thus is questionable. (4) Levay himself said, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I didn’t prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way…” (Harrub, Miller).

Ten Percent?

Alfred Kinsey published a survey in 1948 indicating that 10% of American males were homosexual. Kinsey’s sample was flawed. He got his information mostly from institutional settings and not the general population. “Newsweek’s Patrick Rogers reports ‘New evidence … suggests that ideology, not sound science, has perpetuated a 1-in-10 myth. In nearly half a century since Kinsey, no survey has come close to duplication his findings. Most recent surveys place gays and lesbians at somewhere between 1 and 3 percent’” (F. LaGard Smith, Sodom’s Second Coming, p. 42 quoting from Patrick Rogers, How Many Gays Are There, Newsweek Feb. 15, 1993). The ten percent figure is used to demonstrate that this is not that abnormal.

Remember this point “Morality … has absolutely nothing to do with statistics … no amount of Nazi consensus in Germany could justify Hitler’s systematic slaughter… If gays constituted 99 percent of the general population, their case for moral legitimacy would not improve by even one percent” (ibid. p. 51-52).

Health

Homosexuality is not a healthy life style. The average age of death for a homosexual man is between 39-42 (Harrub, Miller). “The American Psychiatric Association Press reports that ‘30 percent of all 20 year old gay men will be HIV positive or dead of Aids by the time they are 30’” (Satinover, p. 17).

Good News

Homosexuals can be saved. They can change (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Though one may have certain inclinations such doesn’t have to be turned into action. Both those with heterosexual desires and those with homosexual desires must learn to manage these desires so as to avoid sin.

Posted in Ethics, History, Homosexuality, Sex, Stats, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ethics: Sex (part 1)

Posted on April 7, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

Sex is very much a part of the American life. “The Pill” was introduced to American married women in 1960. Since 1972, “The Pill” has been available to both married and non-married women. “In 2008, Americans spent $3.5 billion on birth control pills” (www.dddmag.com/new-The-Pill-Turning-50 year old). One can hardly turn on the T.V. without being exposed to an E.D. commercial. E.D. drugs became available to men in 1998. Sales have now “hit $1.5 billion or 19 million prescriptions a year” (U.S. News and World Report, Sept. 15-22, 2008, p. 52).

Sex has always been a part of the American life, but American sexual morals seem to have changed. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dunbar write: “Why has the prostitutes wage fallen so far?” Because demand has fallen dramatically… Prostitution, like any industry, is vulnerable to competition. What poses the greatest threat to prostitutes? Simple: any woman who is willing to have sex with a man for free. It is no secret that sexual morals have evolved substantially in recent decades. The phrase “casual sex” didn’t exist a century ago (to say nothing of ‘friends with benefits’)… Imagine a young man … not ready to settle down, who wants to have sex. In decades past, prostitution was a likely option… At least 20 percent of American men born between 1933 and 1942 had their first sexual intercourse with a prostitute. Now imagine the same young man twenty years later. The shift in sexual morals has given him a much greater supply of unpaid sex. In his generation, only 5 percent of men lose their virginity to a prostitute. Moreover, it’s not because he and his friends are saving themselves for marriage. More than 70 percent of the men in his generation have sex before they marry, compared with just 33 percent in the earlier generation…. As the demand for paid sex decreased, so too the wages of the people who provide it (Super Freakonomics, p. 30-31).

Pre-Marital Sex

The average age for first marriages in this country is now 26 for women and 27 for men (www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-11-16-young-wed). However, “Americans start having sex in their teens: 63 percent said they lost their virginity at eighteen years or younger” (Dr. Frank Luntz, What Americans Really Want … Really, p. 42). “Cohabitation, once rare, is now the norm… More than half (54 percent) of all first marriages between 1990 and 1994 began with unmarried cohabitation”  (www.marriage.about.com/od/cohabitation). The percent of all births to unmarried women: 38.5% (www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried).

Things to Remember:

1. Pre-marital sex is sinful (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 6:9-ff; Galatians 5:19-ff; 1 Thessalonians 4:3).

2. Pre-marital sex sometimes has physical consequences.

       (a) “By age 24, at least one in three sexually active people are estimated to have an STD” (Marilyn Morris, Teens Sex and Choice, p. 77). Some of these STDs can have terrible consequences (Chlamydia and gonorrhea can scar the female reproductive system leaving the woman infertile. Syphilis and Aids can kill you).

       (b) “About 1 million teenage girls get pregnant each year. That is 1 out of 5 sexually active girls. Pregnancy is the top reason why teenage girls are hospitalized” (Marilyn Morris, ABC’s of the Birds and Bees, p. 151).

3. Pre-marital sex sometimes has financial consequences.

       (a) “About 50 percent of all unwed mothers go on welfare within one year of the birth of the first child. More than 75 percent … within five years” (Bill Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, p. 65).

       (b) “Children of single parents are six times as likely to be poor.” (Rush Limbaugh, See I Told You So, p. 98).

4. Pre-marital sex sometimes has family consequences.

       (a) “When daughters of teen mothers grow up they are 50 percent more likely to have children before they marry.

       (b) When sons of teen mothers grow up, they are 2.7 times more likely to spend time in prison than sons of mothers who delayed childbearing until their early twenties” (ABC’s, p. 151).

5. Giving into your boy friend or girl friend may not bring about a lasting relationship (Read 2 Samuel 13). It may just be the conquest that is truly desired. After he’s had you, he may be on to the next conquest.

6. Cohabitation does not improve marriage. “Sociologist at the University of Wisconsin stated ‘recent national studies in Canada, Sweden and the U.S. found that cohabitation increased rather than decreased the risk of marital disillusion’… Another study documented in the Journal of Marriage and the Family stated that the divorce rate is 50% higher among those who lived together before marriage… An Australian study found that couples who cohabitated before marriage were more likely to divorce than those who did not cohabitate before marriage…” (ABC’s, p. 41).

Extra-Marital Sex

High profile infidelity makes news: Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, John Edwards, Jon Gosselin, Tiger Woods. However, it is not just celebrities who are unfaithful. One study from the University of Chicago reported that 25% of men and 17% of women have had an extra-marital affair (www.infidelity-etc.com). Parade Magazine puts the figure at 19% for men and 11% for women (Sept. 21, 2008). Whatever the true figure, it is clear that infidelity is not rare.

Things to Remember:

1. Adultery is sin (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:9-ff; Galatians 5:19-ff). Moreover, it often leads to other sins (remember David?).

2. Adultery can destroy your marriage. Your spouse may divorce you with God’s approval (Mt. 19:9). “Only 35% of unions survive an extra-marital affair” (www.infidelity-etc.com).

3. Adultery exposes you and your spouse to the possibility of contracting an STD.

4. Adultery could result in unexpected pregnancy (2 Samuel 11:4-5).

5. Adultery can destroy reputation and influence (2 Samuel 12:14).

6. Adultery could bring the wrath of a jealous spouse (Proverbs 6:33-34).

7. Adultery could tie one to an unstable person. Remember the movie Fatal Attraction?

8. One does not have to commit the adulterous act to have improperly acted. Caitin Flanagan writes, “When a married man begins a secret, solicitous correspondence with a beautiful and emotionally needy single woman, he has already begun to cheat on his wife” (Time, July 13, 2009, Why Marriage Matters).

Posted in Ethics, History, Sex, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics: The Environment and Animals

Posted on April 5, 2013 by Bryan Hodge

There is a great divide in humanity over man’s usage of the environment and animals.  This divide has led to terrorism.  “During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism, and harassment, causing over $100 million in damage… Automobile dealerships, housing developments, forestry companies, corporate and university based medical research laboratories, restaurants, fur farms and other industries are targeted across the country” (www.adl.org/ext_us/Ecoterroism.asl).  In 1994, one animal rights group (ARM) “Sent letters… to the Safeway and Save-On Foods grocery store chains advising that rat poison had been injected into frozen turkeys which resulted in the birds on their shelves being thrown away and… over 30,000 returned by customers.   The letters were a hoax, but cost the stores over $1 million” (Terry Hightower, 2005 Contending For The Faith Lectureship: Morals For God or Man?, p. 159).

There are those who no longer seem to recognize a difference between man and animal.  Bill Maher, “To those people who say, ‘My father is alive because of animal experimentation, I say, yeah, well good for you.  This dog died so your father could live.’  Sorry, but I am not behind that kind of trade-off” (ibid, p. 132).  Chris DeRose, “If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn’t make any difference to me” (ibid).  “Cleveland Amory, when asked on Larry King Live show if he would kill a lamb in order to get insulin needed to save his own child’s life that was dying of diabetes responded, ‘I would not knowingly have an animal hurt for me, or my children, or anyone else'” (ibid, p. 141).  Tom Regan, author of “The Case of Animal Rights,” answered when asked if he was aboard a lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized, which he would rescue?  Regan replied, “If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I’d save the dog.”  (ibid, p. 142).

What should a Christian think about his relationship with the environment and with animals?

Principles

1.  Man is a steward over God’s creation.  It is His world (Psalm 24:1; 50:10-12).  God gave man the responsibility of caring for the created world.  We’re told, “The LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress [tend (NKJV); cultivate (NASB); work (ESV)] it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15 KJV).

2.  Various passages suggest that God cares how we treat His creation (see: Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 20:19-20; 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverb 12:10; Matthew 14:20; 15:37; Mark 6:43; 8:8; Luke 9:17; John 6:12-13; 1 Corinthians 9:9-10; 1 Timothy 5:17-18).  We should not be cruel, or torturous of animals (Proverbs 12:10).  We should not be wasteful (Matthew 14:20; 15:37; Mark 6:43; 8:8; Luke 9:17; John 6:12-13).

3.  God has given man dominion over nature (Genesis 1:28-30; Psalm 8:5-8).  (a) Man may use the land: (1) to cultivate (Genesis 2:5; 3:19; 4:2; Job 1:14; 1 Kings 19:19; Jeremiah 4:3; Hosea 10:12; Matthew 13:3-ff; James 5:2.   (2) to build (Jeremiah 29:5; Matthew 21:33, etc.).  (3) to extract resources (Genesis 21:25-ff; John 4:6-ff; Job 3:21 cf. Proverbs 2:4).  (b) Man may use plants: (1) for food (Genesis 1:29; 3:2; Deuteronomy 20:6; Luke 13:6-ff; Matthew 21:19-20; 1 Corinthians 9:7).  (2) for shade (1 Kings 4:25; Micah 4:4).  (3) for lumber (Deuteronomy 19:5; 1 Kings 5:6; Isaiah 44:14-15).  (4) for fire (Isaiah 44:14-15).  (c) Man may use animals: (1) for food (Genesis 9:3; Proverbs 27:27; Luke 11:11-12; John 21:15-ff; Acts 10:9-ff; 1 Timothy 4:1-5, etc).  (2) for clothing (Genesis 3:21; Job 31:20; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6. etc).  (3) for their produce, e.g. milk, eggs, wool (Genesis 18:8; Proverbs 27:27; Luke 11:12 cf. Job 6:6; Proverbs 31:13).  (4) for work (Deuteronomy 25:4; 1 Kings 19:19; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18).  (5) Transportation (John 12:14-15; Acts 8:27-ff, etc.).  (6) Observe—man is even allowed to kill animals to protect and defend property (Exodus 21:28; 23:29; 1 Samuel 17:34-37).  Man is not completely distinct from nature.  He lives in a natural world.  He has natural needs.  He has been authorized to use nature to satisfy his desires and needs within the framework of God’s teachings.

4.  Man is of greater worth than animal life (see Matthew 6:26; 10:29-31; 12:11-12; 18:12-14; Luke 13:15-16; 14:1-5; 15:1-7).  This point is also evident from the record of Mark 5:1-13.  Any equating of animal life and human life to be of equal value is dangerously wrong, and a perversion of God’s design.

Other points

1. Man’s care of the environment can have an affect on his well-being. It was once the rule for major cities to have their streets filled with horse manure “Milwaukee, in 1967 had a population of 350,000 and a horse population of 12,500. It had a daily problem of 133 tons of manure… In 1908, when New York’s population was 4,777,000 it had 120,000 horses. Chicago in 1900 had 83,330 horses. Consider what happens to all of that naturally occurring equine pollution when it rains, or when the sun dries it out and the dust that would be created when the thousands of horses and wagon wheels ran over it and a breeze blew” (Gene Hill, The Sixth Annual Shenandoah Lectures, Biblical Ethics, p. 589). “Up to the close of the eighteenth century, hygienic provisions, even in the great capitals, were quite primitive. It was the rule for excrement to be dumped into the streets which were unpaved and filthy… It was a heyday for flies as they bred in the filth and spread intestinal disease that filled millions… deadly epidemics of typhoid, cholera, and dysentery” (S. L. McMillen, None of These Diseases, p. 13).

2. Man is not going to destroy all human life from the earth before the Lord’s return (1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thes. 4:17). Let us ever live “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13). Eternity is coming. This earth is not man’s eternal home.

Posted in Ethics, History, Nature, Stats, stewardship, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment