Samson

Yesterday, at church with the kids, we looked at the start of Samson's story. It sort of seems harmless enough until you actually open your Bible at Judges 13 and start to read.

It all starts well - the people of Israel have forgotten about God. They are now bearing the consequences in the form of oppression by the neighbouring Philistines. God announces to a barren woman that she will have a son who will start to save Israel from its enemies.

Great news! Can't wait.

Then we get onto chapters 14-16, and we meet Samson grown up. At his wedding, he makes a bet with 30 of the guests. When they win, he goes off an kills 30 other people to cover the gambling debt. Then he storms off from the wedding in a huff, leaving his wife to sleep with the best man. Later, he gets his knickers in a knot about his wife's affair with the best man, and burns down all the farms around the town. They attack his missus and her old man, so he strikes back. The body count rapidly mounts over the thousand mark, and we're only at the end of chapter 14!

This guy's life is an absolute train wreck, and this is the man God put in charge of the Israelites for 20 years?

How on earth can I make sense of that for the kids?

It seems to me that there are two big ideas to come out of Samson's sagas:

1. This sort of leader can't be the height of God's plan. Samson is not the sort of man I want to follow, which sends me back looking for someone I am willing to follow and trust. I'd look in vain through the history of Israel's kings (although some are better than others). There's no-one else in the rest of world history that I can follow unconditionally. I'm driven, as ever, to Jesus - he is the only king worthy of allegiance; the only hero worth praising; the only role-model I can adopt without reservation.
2. God can still use messed-up people to put his plans into action. As I look at myself, at our leaders in government, religion and business, this is a comforting thought. God isn't limited to working through perfect people - if he can work through Samson, he can work through anyone.

Motivation

(I am writing this post to my Christian brothers and sisters.  Unless you know Jesus, and follow him as saviour and Lord, then much of what I say here will be somewhat meaningless.  If you do follow him, then I think that you're in the same position as me - bound by our relationship with Jesus to follow his way, speak his truth and to obey his commands.
At the same time, I hope that non-Christian readers will understand my motivation in opposing same-sex marriage.  I am not a hate-filled bigot.  I am simply not content to leave one of God's creatures in a snare if anything I say or write can help that.)

The gay marriage debate comes over as fundamentally selfish. I'm not talking primarily about proponents, but about many opponents of gay marriage, often professing Christians.  I don't know if this facebook commenter is a Christian (probably not, given the way he talks about "you" and "your"), but this is the tenor of a lot of the discussion on the topic:

... if you are an orthodox christian with problems about Gay marriage follow your own Dam book and turn the other cheek, it is not going to affect you or your place "in God's Kingdom". Or a decidedly more Australian way to put it "Take a teaspoon of cement and harden the F$%k up!"

In other words: "It's not going to affect you", so shut up about it all.


And often our response is "yes it will affect us, and this is how...".  It is a self-centred response.


But let's leave that to one side for now and assume that an amendment permitting same-sex marriages would not affect anyone except those people entering into a same-sex marriage.  What then?  Would we all hold our peace and get on with our (self-centred) lives?

Why we can't just turn the other cheek

The phrase that the commenter refered to comes from Jesus' teaching about the right response when someone wrongs you in Matthew 5:38-48.  Jesus' refers to the Old Testament rules about punishment and retribution ("an eye for an eye"), which was always a limiting rule - any punishment or retaliation must not exceed the measure of the original wrong.  Jesus then turns it on its head, saying that we should prefer to suffer double wrong than to seek any measure of retribution.  He goes on to command his followers to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecute them.

So immediately we can see two things:

1. Jesus' words about turning the other cheek apply when we are wronged.  I cannot see how it has any application to the content of the marriage debate in Australia. (Although there may be plenty of opportunity to practice this teaching in responding to personal attacks during the debate!)   The debate itself about setting future public policy.  
2. Jesus' words about loving our enemies still have general application.  (At least, I assume they do - I consider those opposed to me in the debate as opponents rather than enemies, but I see no reason that the principle would be any different).  What does it mean to "love my enemies" in the context of the marriage debate?

The common understanding of being loving towards others (at least as that applies in the context of the marriage debate) is of leaving the other in peace to live life by his own lights, or according to his own choices.  It is most usually expressed in secular debate by the word "tolerance".  But tolerance falls very far short of love.  One can only tolerate something or someone of whom one doesn't approve.  You might tolerate someone else's whiny, smelly, grasping and selfish toddler; you don't tolerate your own - you love her.  So you take care to correct the whiny, selfish behaviour.  You stoop to the indignity of changing the dirty nappy and cleaning up your child.  Tolerance, or leaving someone in peace, does not show love - it shows indifference.

So I do not show love to my opponent in the marriage debate by leaving them alone, by tolerating their argument.  How do I show love in this context?  And why?

What is love?

I've already claimed that love is not the same as tolerance.  So what is love?


Biblically, love is most vividly in God's actions, as Father and Son, to restore the rebellious humanity to a relationship with him.  We are told in the bible that God created all things good (Genesis 1 and 2), but that humanity rebelled against its creator, choosing instead to follow its own lights and to try to become like God (Genesis 3 onwards!).  Humans wilfully obscured their knowledge of God.  They deserved to be rejected by God, and left to dwindle and die, cut off from the source of life, goodness and joy.


But God pursued his creation, refusing to see them left in the snare of their conceit and pride.  He chose a specific people group in the middle east (the Israelites, descended from Abraham: Genesis 12), and promised that from these people, a blessing for all the world would come. Notwithstanding that privileged relationship, Israel continued to rebel against God.


Ultimately, God himself came to earth: Jesus Christ.  He lived amongst the people he created, taught amongst them, healed them, drove out demons, and fed them.  Jesus lived a life of perfect obedience and submission to God's word - that life that all humanity should have lived.  


But the people still rejected God, and put Jesus to death in a painful, humiliating fashion reserved only for the worst of criminals.  Jesus willingly accepted this death, as the means of restoring his people to God.  By this self-sacrifice, Jesus made his perfect record of obedience to anyone that would cast their lot in with him.  He took on himself the rejection and death that our rebellion deserved.  It was a place swap, like Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton in Charles Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, only infinitely greater.


And then the seal on the whole arrangement: God raised Jesus from death.  Those who have (and continue to) cast their lot in with him are beyond the clutches of rebellion (sin) and its consequences (death), and enjoy a restored relationship with God.  In fact we are called children of God!  This is a completely free gift - not earned at all by its recipients (us), and in fact entirely beyond our capacity to earn.


So this is love: God's action in laying down his own honour, glory, comfort, and life, for the sake of his creatures who deserve the reverse.

What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

Sadly there are many who refuse the gift, and prefer instead the lesser status of a petty King in their own life.  Many do so, blinded by things or ideas that continue to promise: this will make you happy, will give you control, will give you security, will give you comfort, will let you regulate your own life by your own lights, will make you like a little god in your own world.

• Some people are caught by wealth, spending their lives pursuing more things, more money, more financial security.
• Some are caught by a desire for novelty - travel, food, leisure activities.  Always pursuing the next thing that will distract from the reality of life.
• Some are caught by addictions - drugs, alcohol etc.
• Some are caught by sex - promiscuity, adultery, homosexual behaviour.

The bible, in multiple passages, warns that these are all snares that can and do trap people, distracting them from God and causing them to reject the free gift of a friendship with God through trusting Jesus.  As such, the snares are deadly - unless a person is freed from such a snare, the result is alienation from God and, ultimately, death.  Or, to use another metaphor, they are all poisonous fruit of the same poisoned tree.  That tree is the rebellion against God that is a deep-seated part of human nature; the fruit are the various "sins" that are spoken of.  Christians have a responsibility to warn people of these dangers - to do otherwise is neglectful and unloving.


So the link with the same-sex marriage debate is this: I believe that all expressions of sexual conduct outside of biblically defined marriage are forms of this trap that leads to death.  Society generally does not accept this, and is permissive of many different sexual arrangements. But in so doing, society contributes to the strength of the trap by rendering it less visible.  That is so, because a person will not seek an escape until she perceives a danger.  In the same-sex marriage context, a societal sanction of homosexual unions by equating them with marriage removes one of the warning signs that shows it to be a snare, drawing a person away from God.  


So one of the roles of the church, of the Christian, is to point out the danger, and to resist the gently lullaby by which society tranquilises those who are ensnared.  Specifically, this means arguing against same-sex marriage, and constantly pointing to the need for Jesus.

Some objections

Non-christian, heterosexual marriages.  

One facebook commenter wrote:

If gay marriage devalues the institution of marriage to Christians as it is a "Christian Tradition" then by the same token so must Hindi, Muslim, Taoist unions must be similarly abhorrent to your god. Marriage is a tradition that predates Christianity (if you believe in Science) and to claim ownership over what is considered by most (these days) as a legally binding union (not an anthropomorphic bound union) seems unfair.

I think this objection misunderstands both the Christian claims about marriage, and the Christian motivation for opposing gay marriage.

1. Christianity claims that marriage was ordained by God at the beginning of humanity's existence as being a union between one man and one woman, until ended by death, to the exclusion of all others.  It was a gift given to all of humanity, not just to the Christian community.  It was a gift given before the Christian church began, and before Jesus walked the earth.  As such, marriages contracted in other societies and religious traditions are still valid marriages, as they adhere to the "creation ordinance".  Gay marriage simply doesn't.  As Christians believe that marriage was created by God, they believe that humanity is not free to redefine it.
2. Some of the Christian discussion about gay marriage is about the risk it poses of devaluing marriage as an institution.  I note that some non-Christian opponents to same-sex marriage make a similar point.  It may well be the case (although I've assume not for the purpose of this blog post only!).  My point is that, whether it does or not, Christians will continue to oppose it - not because it's abhorrent to God and he needs the caped crusaders to come in a fight on his side.  We will oppose it because of the danger it poses to those caught in the trap of the idolisation of sex.  We oppose it, therefore, for the same reason that we oppose all rebellion against God - out of love and concern for the rebels.

The bible might be true for you, but not for me

Throughout this post, I have referred often (albeit generally) to the bible, and it should be clear that I accord it a very high authority.  I am aware that most people do not, and so much of my argument rests on assumptions that will be rejected.  But my purpose is not to convince you of the strength of my argument, but to show that my motivation for opposing same-sex marriage is not hatred, but love.  My purpose is to show that, given my assumptions and the evidence I accept as trustworthy, my claim is supportable by reason.  You might disagree with my actions, my words and my conclusions, but please have the decency and honesty to accept that I act out of love, not hatred or fear.

It is unloving to force your morality on me - Jesus never did that

I agree.  Jesus did not force other people to live moral lives.  Jesus did not exercise political power.  But Jesus never drew back from telling the truth.  Having saved the woman caught in adultery from stoning, he told her to "go, and sin no more".  During his trial, when Jesus was struck by one of the guards, he did not retaliate (ie, he turned the other cheek), but he also challenged the man: 

"If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong.  But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

So in arguing for the traditional description of marriage, I am following Jesus' example in telling the truth, even where that is unpopular.


Am I forcing morality on someone?  No.  I see a danger.  I warn of consequences.  I do what I can to keep the cultural undergrowth from obscuring the snare.  The freedom of others to choose their actions is intact.


And if the laws change?  Well, as I argued here, the nature of our democracy is such that all citizens have a right and obligation to argue their viewpoints, and that our institutions are strongest when that occurs.  Participation in those democratic processes is not force.

Conclusion (finally)

This has been a long post.  I suspect that it will have persuaded no-one to change their opinion on same-sex marriage.  But I do hope that those of us who follow Jesus can see the importance of standing up for our beliefs - not for our own benefit, or to defend God's honour or our social way of life, but out of love and concern for those who are perishing.

And I hope that those who disagree with me might nonetheless be able to see that, from within my own worldview, I am acting out of love, not hate.

A gentle conquest

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.  And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.  So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

Luke 4:5-8 

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

Luke 13:34 

"[God] cannot ravish.  He can only woo."

C. S. Lewis: The Screwtape Letters 

Jesus had a genuine opportunity to obtain, in an instant, all the kingdoms of the world (Jerusalem with her children included).  The devil's claim that he can give Jesus all those kingdoms is bold.  But Jesus does not deny the truth of that claim.  He does deny the legitimacy of the devil's methods.


Jesus goes even further, though, in his lament over Jerusalem.  He longs to gather up the children of Jerusalem, but cannot because "You were not willing".  Truly he will not ravish - he will only woo.


This struck me powerfully this week, as I've been thinking about how we raise the kids in the church where I work, and consequently how I raise my own kids.  I know that Jesus' words are life and light; I know that he is the only way, life and truth; I long for my children to know and love and follow Jesus; I long for my children to experience the joy I have in following Him.


But all that is entirely outside of my control.  If Jesus will not ravish - will not gather against the will of those to be gathered - how can I?  "Outside my control" is very hard for a Dad to handle.  But by God's grace, two things give me comfort - influence and influence.


I have the very great privilege to be able to influence God through prayer.  In writing that I immediately balk at the claim, but I cannot escape the clear words of Jesus:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. John 15:16

I can and do pray frequently that my children will come to a loving, living relationship with Jesus.  And I believe that this is truly His will for my kids.


I also have the great privilege to be a role model for my kids.  I hope and pray I'm a good role model.  I know that I will mostly fall short, but I pray that I will pass on some of the great hope and joy of life with Jesus.  In this way, I hope that my kids get a taste of the love and goodness and richness of Christian life - of eternal, joyful life-to-the-full.  I hope they will choose freely to surrender to the rightful claims of their God, King and Saviour.  I pray that they choose the gentle conquest that leads to true freedom.

Chicken, chicken or chicken?

To my Middle Child, everything is chicken.  We had a beef curry tonight, and she asked for more chicken.  We eat roast lamb and her favourite part is the chicken.  We eat grilled salmon and she wants more ... you guessed it ... chicken.  When we have murgh makhani ... you get the picture.


So I guess we ate a lot of chicken dishes when she was forming her view of dinner.  And every time we said "eat some more chicken", it cemented the idea more firmly that the delicious protein-laden stuff in her bowl is chicken.


Which got me thinking about other word associations we use - most pressingly "God" and "Father".  God, in his wisdom, revealed himself in the Bible as "Father".  Since having kids of my own, the sheer weight of that floors me every now and again.  For better or worse, their view of God will be significantly shaped by the way I speak and act.  


Dads: your child's first view of God will be a version of your behaviour toward them and toward others in their presence.  There might be time for their view of God to mature, but you are their starting point.


Will our children see God as absent?  Distant?  Stern?  Loving?  Only interested in rules?  A weak pushover without rules?  Cruel or abusive?  Consistent (or in-)?  Honest?  Selfish (or -less)?

... whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.       Matt 18:6

The Coles car park miracle

I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway.  Romans 7:18-19

You know it's going to be a memorable meltdown when it happens in the middle of the Coles car park.  


Go back about an hour, and peace reigns.  We're just arriving at the car park.  My two daughters have agreed to swap car seats on the return journey.


In the present, we have climbed back into the car and Eldest's promise of swapping seats is forgotten.  Each of my little princesses is implacable and very vocal.  The volume is rising rapidly.  It's clear that I need to hold Eldest to her word, and restore peace soon.  But what to do?


The larger part of me is gearing up to issue the ultimatum.  My imagination whirs as I reach for some consequence for disobedience that will secure compliance and quiet.  But for some reason, I pause.


"You know what the right thing is to do, don't you?"  I ask Eldest.
"Yes," she says.  "But I just don't want to do it.  It's too hard."  Her voice is small.  How can she fight herself? She is evenly matched.
So we pray.  All four of us pray together that Eldest will have the strength to do what's right.  We pray that her will can overcome her desires.  That we will wait patiently while she wages this battle.  


Number Two is not quite five, and things are dragging a bit.  I can hear the complaint making its way from her mind to her mouth ...
"Just wait, honey," I interrupt her.  "We need to give Eldest some time.  This is really important.  It's about the sort of person she will grow up to be."
So we wait; and Eldest prays and wrestles.


Then as quickly as it all blew up, it's over.  "You can have my seat."  She speaks quietly, but decidedly.


Battle over; battle won.  Thank you Holy Spirit.

what does Mum want with my tooth?

"The tooth fairy isn't made up.  She really exists!  I mean, it's not like your parents take your tooth."

The wisdom and logic of one of my daughter's seven-year-old friends.  Little blonde and brunette heads all nodded sagely along.  I mean, there really is only two ways to explain the missing teeth and miraculous money: parents or tooth fairy.  And we can't see any reason why the parents would want the teeth, can we ...?

I overheard this conversation without joining it.  There are all sorts of awkward ramifications in shattering the childhood illusions of children outside ones jurisdiction.  But it did get me thinking - what is my position on the tooth fairy or santa claus?  If I encourage my kids to believe in them, am I lying?  Will that jeopardise their later belief in Jesus?  Or is it all an innocent childhood stage that my kids will pass through unscathed, happy to have had some childhood magic to look back upon?

So, of course, I consulted the blogosphere.  What a variety of opinions!  There was an atheist blogger who worried that the tooth fairy and santa claus stories were somehow a trojan horse that would make it more likely that kids would believe in God.  There were Christian bloggers and commenters who worried that telling their kids about santa would cause them later to discard belief in God.  (Surely both can't be right!).  One mother is content to go along with her sons' imaginations (as she does for fictitious super heroes etc), and to use the result as raw material in the cut and thrust of raising kids.  And a number of atheist sites (here, here and here) airily proclaimed that the tooth fairy, santa claus, god and the easter bunny are all the same - inventions for which there is no rational evidence.

To my mind, there are two big issues that I need to sort out:

1. Truth-telling, and modelling truth-telling.
2. Giving my kids a reason for the hope that I have (see 1 Peter 3:15)

First: truth-telling.  I want to tell the truth, because only telling the truth will honour God.  I also want my children to be people of integrity and truth as they grow up.  This will have to inform how I approach the issue with my kids - I don't think I can tell them that the tooth fairy will turn up and give them money for their teeth. Is it different if they want to put a tooth under the pillow for the tooth fairy, and I replace the tooth with money: playing along?  What if the whole tooth fairy conversation is understood as imagination and make-believe, in the same manner that we play pirates or princesses?  I guess this is an issue that each parent (and each couple) must grapple with, focusing on the underlying principles of telling the truth and honouring God.  It will depend as much on the culture in my family as on the character of my children.

Secondly: the evidence.  I think that the atheist blogs have the solution to the problem half-right.  That is, they demand that a belief have a basis in evidence for it to be rational, and will discard the belief if not satisfied with the evidence.  In my opinion, they go wrong in claiming that there is no evidence for a belief in God.  There is ample evidence all around that God exists, and significant evidence in the historical record that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and is one with God.  That he died and rose again to life.  This is material for another post, and many people have already dealt with this subject far better than I ever will (for example, Lee Strobel with his "Case for" series; Dr John Dickson's "The Christ Files"; the Centre for Public Christianity).

So I suppose, over the coming 9+ years of teeth loss in my family, I have the dual challenge of maintaining childhood magic for my children without lying to them; and giving them the evidential basis and critical thinking capacity to distinguish between the fairytales and the truth of the gospel.

Grandfather prays in Hebrew ...

I was reading Judges 2:10-15 recently, and was struck by how quickly the Israelites turned away from God.  I mean, their grandfathers had seen the 10 plagues in Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea.  Their fathers had wandered in the desert, been fed miraculously by manna from heaven, and had seen the miraculous conquest of the promised land.  Yet this generation "knew neither the LORD, nor what he had done for Israel" and "did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals."  And that incurred God's wrath.


It put me in mind of a comment attributed to Rabbi Jonathan Sachs:  "Grandfather prays in Hebrew, Father prays in English, Son no longer prays and Grandson is no longer Jewish".  (Gotta love the internet!)


I guess the pressure to be just like everyone else is pretty strong wherever and whenever you live.


What's the solution?  Please let me know - my own kids are too young yet for me to know if they will keep the infant faith they are showing now.  I pray they will!


One man (with kids now in their early 20s) told me that he and his wife tried to show that their faith in Christ was real and living - it made a difference to how they lived.  So these parents would read their bibles in the common parts of the house, where the kids would see.  They prayed with and for their kids.  I guess, as time went by, they explained decisions based on their faith in Jesus.


What has your experience been?

Getting Started ...

I became a Dad 6 years, 10 months and 10 days ago.  I had no qualifications (apart from the obvious), and no experience.  I had some good role modelling from my own parents and parents-in-law, but hadn't really developed my own style or identity as Dad.

I still remember the confusion of checking my wife into the hospital, and being sent home.  The sleepless night waiting for the phone to ring.  The utter bewilderment of getting to the hospital unable to find where they'd stashed the soon-to-be-mother of my soon-to-be-child.

And when my eldest daughter was born, the tidal surges of emotion, worry, and anxiety subsided, like a storm being calmed.  Holding my tiny, fragile girl.  Looking at my exhausted, beaming wife.  Peace.  Wholeness.  Goodness.

It seemed like some unaccountable mistake when we were allowed to take her home a few days later.  I felt so very small in our rented federation house in Bendigo, wife and daughter beside me.  What now?

There have been 6 years, 10 months and 10 days of "what now"s, and another daughter and son into the mix. I have had Dad moments when I've felt like the soloist in the Symphony - riding the music of the other musicians, borne aloft by it, song flowing immediately from idea to actuality.  And there have been Dad moments when I've felt like the tympanist (all "boom boom, duh duh boom").

This page is my place to process some of what happens in my family, to reflect on what happened in my family of origin, and to work out how God wants to lead and grow us.

Enjoy the music ...