Josiah Concept Ministries

Although this lawsuit is filed with a specific political agenda in mind, it is interesting for its theological considerations as well.

I thought that I’d take a moment to ruminate on the possibility of actually suing God and winning. The reason is that, by necessity, I have been studying the philosophical aspects of the Trinity in order to write a much more serious article in response to Dave Armstrong than this humorous and philosophically entertaining one. The primary concept that I’ve been looking into is perichoresis–the inherent coexistence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and their indwelling within the elect. It is this indwelling that creates God’s omnipresence. This lawsuit states that, since God is omnipresent, He is therefore present in Douglas county (which is the venue of the suit).

That is very true. God created the universe, so He is not contained by it. In fact, the universe is contained within Him, and it is in Him that the universe takes its identity and in Him that the universe finds its being. He is the only reality, our reality is only at His will and pleasure. As a result, to borrow a simpler way of putting it from my brother-in-law Nate, “God is the only reality, and we are ‘less real’ by comparison.” Truly, we can only define ourselves in relation to Him.

This is God’s Sovereignty. The Bible makes it clear that we derive everything from Him (Gen 1:26): our identity, our dominion of land and animals, our likenesses. Everything was His first, and He gifted some of it to us. As I’ve often said, “We owe Him everything; He owes us nothing.”

So, if He is the perfection that we aspire to become but cannot attain, if He is the only way by which we can define ourselves and the Ultimate Cause of Everything, how are we able to properly obtain an injunction against that which is His divine work? More importantly, how could this injunction possibly be enforced?

We are gifted with a limited sovereignty over God’s creation–He gifted that to us. He defined the relationship we have to the rest of the earth, and we use His Ultimate Sovereignty as the model for the limited sovereignty He gave us. The point is that He is the One who defines these rules–in fact, our laws are only a model of the divine laws He gave us in His word, the Bible. We don’t just exist because of Him, the way we live is defined in relation to Him.

He shouldn’t be subject to our laws or even our ideals of Him. Doing so is trying to contain Him. But we don’t contain God, He contains us while penetrating and surrounding us–that is the essence of perichoresis (which, according to Wikipedia, is Greek for “envelope”). This model of creation is derived from the Trinity itself: each member of the Trinity surrounds, penetrates, and contains each other member. All are God, and God is all. But each has a unique ministry that the others are present and take active roles in as a consequence and extension of their identity as a Trinity. This is the same way creation is expressed: God is in and through all of it as a consequence of His identity as God, the creator, container, and sustainer of this all.

It is as beautiful as it is mysterious, and it gives me a greater sense of wonder as I worship God, my Creator (Father), my Savior (Son), and my Helper and Comforter (Holy Spirit).

The Penitent Atheist says:

As it turned out, the issue of homosexuality, among others, helped me see that the Bible, and Christianity, were false. It is very simple, really. If homosexuality is not a choice, then Christianity is wrong. And it is patently clear that homosexuality is not a choice; it is no more a choice than is heterosexuality. (source)

And then:

Someone will counter my arguments here by asking if we should also be tolerant of pedophiles. After all, one might argue, they don’t choose their sexual preference either. But there is a very significant difference between homosexual sex between two consenting adults and sex between an adult and a child. The child does not, cannot, consent, and is severely harmed psychologically by the experience. The vast disparity of power between an adult and a child, both physical and psychological, makes it sexual activity harmful.

Actually, I wouldn’t counter the argument by arguing for pedophilia. But I’m glad that our penitent friend recognizes that lack of choice in the manner or method of sexual attraction does not equate to said manner or method being correct behavior. That will form the foundation of my counter-argument.

I will assume that a lack of a conscious choice in the matter will mean a genetic predisposition toward the behavior, in this case, homosexuality. The penitent atheist, in his reverse example, doesn’t consider environmental factors so I believe that I’m safe in assuming that he is primarily arguing on genetics. So, let’s ask ourselves: Does a genetic predisposition to something automatically mean that this is a desirable state of being? Consider that alcoholism (or any addictive behavior, for that matter), heart disease, high blood pressure, emphysema, rage, Down’s syndrome, and cancer are all influenced by genetics. That is why this line of reasoning is fallacious. There are many negative traits that are also genetic.

The entire “homosexuality isn’t a choice” argument automatically assumes that because something is hard wired into our being that it is a good thing. That is clearly and demonstrably false. I struggle with an addiction. I have anger management issues. I’ve survived cancer. These things are likely hard wired into my DNA, but I don’t believe that any of those things affect me positively, and I certainly won’t submit to addiction or just tell my wife that she’ll have to deal with my rage because that stuff is genetic and I don’t have a choice in the matter.

The truth is that I do have a choice in the matter. I can recognize those attributes, such as addiction and rage, for the corrupting influences that they are. Homosexuality, whether it is hard wired or a personal preference, is no different. The homosexual must realize, first, that this behavior is a corrupting influence. Then, he or she must act on this realization and surrender to the authority of God through Christ Jesus. That is only the first step. I do now and always will struggle with my addiction. So will these saints. But they will be saved by the same grace that saved me, and in time, they will come to terms with that sin as I have. They will struggle with it, but they will be equipped to face it head-on.

But don’t take my word for it. Read the testimonies of people who have been positively impacted by taking those steps with homosexuality, and now embrace freedom in Jesus Christ.

There isn’t a cure for homosexuality. No one is trying to claim that. But there is hope for those that struggle with it. The feelings won’t go away, but over time these feelings can be dealt with in a positive, God-glorifying way.

I was scanning the blogosphere this morning and found this gem from The Atheocracy:

Why would sexuality seemingly be the one preference in human existence where there’s just one right choice, and it’s black or white? Humans are complex creatures. Our preferences for foods, drinks, friends, TV shows, movies and even, yes, blogs are pretty fluid. They change over time; they aren’t usually extreme (”That new Ben Affleck movie sucked, but it didn’t suck quite as much as his previous movie”). Our minds don’t tend to think of preferences in black/white terms. It’s all shades of constant grays.

So why would we think sexuality is different? It’s one of a very few acts that connects us with our most distant ancestors. Every human who has ever lived past the age of about 8 has experienced some sort of sexual desire (And some earlier than that … shout out to my Kindergarten girlfriend, Melissa. Rawr!). I believe these desires are just as fluid and gray as any others. The ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality are created by humans in a society that would prefer to label people in this manner. In the human mind, those labels don’t exist. It’s all situational. It’s all genetics. Even Christians can’t seriously claim humans should have sex only for procreation. (source)

I actually agree with Jeff right up to this point.  However, he concludes that “. . . if there are other reasons for sex, there is no reason to restrict which consenting adults can have sex with each other.”  Huh?  Now that sounds like Jeff has just concluded what a person with an evolutionary mindset would conclude.

Let me explain.  Starting from the premise that we are nothing more than animals–highly evolved ones, but animals nonetheless–we look at how the other animals handle sex and monogamy.  Well, except for certain birds, monogamy is all but unheard of.  Sex is had wherever, whenever, and with whomever it is desired.  Now, since we evolved from animals and are really animals ourselves, then there is no reason to obey any sort of etiquette about sex–especially when it’s derived from a 4000 year old book.  We’re so much smarter now.

So much smarter, in fact, that we are removing restrictions placed on which consenting adults can have sex, and thus stepping backwards to behavior found in lower forms of life?

Interesting.

Paul Pruett from Pensées, another apologetic blog, had this thought in a recent entry:

In all my interactions with atheists I have noticed a curious thing: they are very keen to be thought of as “good” people and insist that it does not require a deity in order to seek to act morally. Indeed, they claim that it is nobler to be good for its own sake than to be good for the sake of rewards gained or punishments avoided, which they believe theism entails. (source)

This is true, and I have had several interactions with atheists–most notable in my mind PariahJane from the RRS–on that topic.  Jane reported that she was quick to do “the right thing” for her friends or acquaintances, whatever it may be in that situation.  If memory serves, the specific situation was giving a friend some money which she never expected to be paid back, and she does things like that frequently.  Jane believes her actions to be much more “moral” than a Christian faced with a similar situation who would do the same thing, simply because she expects annihilation after death while the Christian simply expects a reward after death for the good he did in this life.

It is true that we, as Christians, are going to be rewarded after death.  But that shouldn’t be the motivation behind doing “the right thing” in this life.  God knows our hearts and is not impressed by outward shows of salvation when our hearts are only after a perceived reward (cf. Mat 7:21-23).  God is impressed by a sincere desire to please Him.  Only a part of that is doing “the right thing.”

What we come back to, once again, is how exactly Jane can claim to know what morality is.  On what authority is something deemed “good” or something else considered “evil?”  Is good merely someone’s point of view, as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (a wholly evil character, by the way!) contends in Revenge of the Sith?

I’ve seen some atheists contend that evolution gives us our sense of morality.  That morality has evolved on its own accord throughout the many societies that have existed on this planet.   But if evolution gave birth to this morality and it has evolved based on human need, Pruett observes:

The only universally descriptive axiom regarding human behavior is, “Nobody’s perfect.” Such a statement only begins to make sense if there is some “perfection” to which humans fail to conform. But if humans define the standard, and all humans fail it, from whence comes the impossible scale? (source)

If I do another post in this current series, I promise to think of another title.  But, let’s face it, it really was a clever title, and coming up with titles is my weakest area as a writer.

I’m writing in response to Jeff Haws, webmaster of The Atheocracy, self-described “irreverent journalist, atheist, political junkie, golfer, outdoors lover, sports fan, beer drinker and movie/music snob, along with many other things.”  Hmmm.  I’m not a professional journalist, but I’m surely irreverent.  I’m not an atheist.  I hate politics.  My dad is a golfer, and I love the outdoors, sports, beer, and movies.  It seems Jeff and I are just the sort of people who could get into a very interesting debate.  Jeff commented on a recent post, and I thought I’d take a look at what he has to say.

You’re absolutely right that, without the Bible, morality is left in some part up to the individual. But that’s not what you said in your earlier post. You asked (and this is a paraphrase because I’m, typically, too lazy to go back and get the exact quote) “Without God, what reason would you have to be moral?” Why not just say, “Without God, your life is largely up to you” instead of inferring that Atheists have no reason to be good people? I think this was what caught my eye in your post.

What Jeff has demonstrated here–entirely without realizing it–is the real objection to theism from atheists.  He draws an a distinction where I never intended one: between the statements that without God, morality is up to the individual and that without God there is no reason to be moral.  I believe both statements are true, but I also believe that they are related to one another.  I suppose that is why I fail to make a clear distinction between the two.

From my perspective, the real objection to theism from atheists has nothing to do with rational disproofs of God’s existence, nor with rejection of traditional history, but with the obedience component that necessarily flows from being a created being.  In fact, atheists want to live their lives their way with no “invisible daddy” hovering over them and telling them how to live.

There is no argument in this paragraph, so I will leave what I have said thus far alone for now, perhaps expounding on it in a future article.  Suffice it to say, I will draw a clearer distinction between the prospects of individualistic morality vs. reasons for morality in future writing.  This is why I pay attention to honest critiques:  to become a better and clearer writer.

The question that comes up with a lot of this “morality” is who decides it’s wrong. You’re making an invisible man the authority on what you should and shouldn’t do. Why? Why do we need a consistent set of morals across a society? We certainly have laws to regulate much of what you might consider in that realm (no alcohol on Sundays in Georgia, no gay marriage, no beastiality, etc.).

Were you a Christian, you would accept the authority of God to define morality for His creation.  So the question of “who decides” isn’t a question at all for the Christian, only for the atheist who rejects God’s authority indirectly by rejecting the very idea that God exists.

Asking why we need a consistent set of morals underpins the point I made above: you want to live life your way, not God’s way.  If you want to cheat on your wife, a consistent set of Christian morals says that that is not the right thing to do.  If you aren’t attracted to your wife anymore, and want nothing further to do with your kids, the Christian ethic would be to swallow your selfishness and realize that life ain’t always about you.

But, on Planet Relativistic Morality, it’s okay to cheat on your wife and abandon your kids because your wife put on too much weight, your daughter won’t listen to you about the convicted felon she’s dating, and your son just came out of the closet and his boyfriend is coming over for dinner on Friday to meet the family.  Forget denying your selfish impulses and dealing with your family crisis; on Planet Relativistic Morality, you need a break from all of that in the arms of a young and slender redhead who “understands you.”

On the flip side of this issue, I’m not saying that the Christian in that situation wouldn’t sleep with the redhead.  But the Christian would have the words of the Apostle Paul to guide him:

[H]usbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.  (Eph 5:28-32)

If that were your guide, an affair is out of the question.

Those laws Jeff mentions, by the way, were written when this country did subscribe to the Bible.

And when I said “I don’t know” what’s considered sexually immoral, I meant I don’t know what he meant as sexually immoral. I know what it means to me, but I have no way of knowing what it means to him without him telling me.

Exactly!  You don’t know what he considers sexually immoral, he doesn’t know what you consider sexually immoral.  If you’re married, what does your wife consider sexually immoral?  Now, the Bible is clear on what matters are moral and immoral.  If that is your guide, you eliminate the need to even ask the question.

Thanks again for commenting on my post, Cory. Feel free to visit my site any time. It’s always good to receive some counterpoints rather than it being a big Atheist Hugfest. Have a great weekend.

I’ve subscribed to your feed.  The only way to write contrary to something is to understand its positions, which is why I participate on the RRS boards and why I read atheist blogs.  I desire to understand atheism, not necessarily to refute it or to convert its adherents, but to further the goals of this ministry in providing reasonable counterpoints to what is out there.