One of my best friends in Seminary was from Haiti. He never ceased to be surprised by our ways in America. He used to say, “Why does anyone in this country have a nose, since there are no smells here?” He was quite terrified of the way we made sport of Halloween. If someone protested that it was all innocent fun, he would reply, “Then why must you x-ray the candy before you let your children eat it?” He was particularly amused by our national anthem. “Why do you glorify your flag?  You even pledge allegiance to the flag, not to the constitution.”

            I explained to him that that point of the song was that the flag still flew – that the nation had survived. I told him that we had many other patriotic songs not about the flag; that it wasn’t until 1931 that the Star Spangled Banner was officially designated our national anthem, and that another song was nearly chosen instead. “What song was that?” he asked. “The Stars and Stripes Forever,” I replied.

            To me, there is no replacement for our national anthem - not even Sousa’s ebullient march.  The tune by John Stafford Smith is the grandest of all national anthems. I am reminded of this every Olympics when our anthem gets played alongside the ditties and drearies of other nations. If I had to choose a replacement, though, it would be “God Bless America.”

            Written in 1918 by Irving Berlin, “God Bless America” has a tune almost as stately and grand as “The Star Spangled Banner,” and its lyric is superior (in my opinion) to that of our national anthem. “God Bless America” is a prayer.  It is a Biblical prayer consistent with the commands of I Timothy 2.1-3.  It is a prayer which has been answered abundantly. God has blessed America with riches of resources, rights, and opportunities.  No other nation has enjoyed such abundance ever.

            America is blessed – uniquely blessed – and we should be thankful to God for those blessings. The United States of America, however, has not been chosen as God’s special nation.

            Nowhere in the Bible does God look forward to a time when He will establish a democracy on a new continent. Jesus never sent his disciples to spread democracy and capitalism. God’s kingdom is the Church, not any particular nation. When John Winthrop preached his sermon on Christian Charity in 1630, and called the Puritan colony in Massachusetts a “City on a Hill,” he was calling his fellow settlers to be an example to the world (Matthew 5.13-16), not endorsing some notion that the nation which would be established a century-and-a-half later would bear the imprimatur of God.

            So can we please stop culling out all those Old Testament passages about Israel being true to God and applying them to the Unites States?  If those passages apply at all today they apply to the Church, not to any nation state.  We know this. We have a straightforward, reasonable approach to scripture – not a millennial or dispensationalist one.

            So why is it that so many of the articles and essays I read by our brethren which deal with the culture wars begin with II Chronicles 7.14, or some other Old Testament jeremiad?  That passage says: (if) My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and will heal their land. The writer usually goes on to describe in lurid detail the sexual sins of our nation, threaten the wrath of God, and promise some sort of Divine cupcake party if we’d behave.  While I agree that the consequences of sin have the same inevitability and the consequences of gravity, such an application of II Chronicles 7.14 and similar passages amounts to a grave abuse of scripture.

            America is not “called” by God’s name – nor are Americans “His” people any more than Uruguayans or Indonesians.  We cannot make a true call to repentance by misapplying scripture. So please, let’s stop misapplying it.

            The tough, taciturn hero is a well-recognized figure in American culture. George Washington was a man of few, well-chosen words. Ernest Hemmingway popularized such heroes in his novels, and especially in his Nick Adams stories. In film we idolized Gary Cooper when he refused to expand upon his “yup,” and “nope.” Clint Eastwood seemed content to just grimace much of the time.  There are times when words will not suffice. The Bible says so (Romans 8.26). And there are times when an action or expression communicates better than words ever could. I am reminded of Myrna Loy’s face in The Best Years of Our Lives, when she realizes the knock at the door is her husband home from the war, or Tom Hank’s look of astonishment, wonder, and unconditional love when he realizes, in Forrest Gump, that he has a son. No script-writer could improve on those moments.

            We like the strong, silent type and tend to associate verbosity with weakness.  Everyone knows who would win in a fist-fight between Clint Eastwood and Woody Allen.  This is true, at least for men. We tend, however, to associate verbosity in women with assertiveness. Nearly all the strong women who come to mind these last hundred years – from Simone Beauvoir to Margaret Thatcher, from Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Barbara Jordan – have been talkers. We do not naturally associate taciturnity in women with strength.  In fact the opposite is true - we associate a paucity of words with weakness. This is unfair.

            There are many strong women in the Bible. Some are strong and good (Abigail, Ruth), some are strong and sometimes good (Sarah, Michal), and some are strong and never good (Delilah, Jezebel).  Perhaps the strongest one of all never had an original thing to say, but what she communicated with deeds took, perhaps, more courage than any other man or woman had to muster.

            When we think of Mary and Martha of Bethany, we usually think of Martha as the strong one. She is the older sister.  She is in charge of things every time we meet her. She is assertive. She is the only person in the Gospels who looks Jesus in the eye and challenges His handling of things (“Tell my sister to help me!” Luke 10.40; “If you had been here our brother would not have died.” John 11.21). She is the one who makes the most complete and absolute confession of Jesus in scripture (John 11.27). She is strong. Martha is stronger than any of the male disciples. I would like to argue that her silent sister Mary is stronger still.

            Although no one allows women to learn alongside men – or to even be in the room when they were learning, she quietly, boldly takes her place at the feet of Jesus (Luke 10.38-42). Although no respectable man will publicly speak to a woman (nor will they touch or be touched by one), she brazenly wipes Jesus’ feet with her hair (John 12.1-8).  We are doing these stories for VBS this year, and Mary’s act of wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair is so intimate, and at the same time so shocking that it is hard to stage - even in our immodest culture. You can’t just ask any woman to wipe a man’s feet with her hair (we will have newlyweds playing both parts).  Martha asserts herself to fulfill her responsibilities within the norms of her culture.  Mary asserts herself to break these norms.  Jesus loves, understands, and appreciates them both.

            Mary says only one line in all of scripture – a word-for-word repetition of what her sister has already said about Jesus’ dilatory arrival (John 11.32). But Jesus told us to never forget what she communicated (Mark 14.3-9).

            Strength doesn’t come from silence or chattiness. Volume has no connection to it. Martha, who uses words and Mary who uses deeds to communicate are both strong because of their unwavering faith that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God.

A lady called the office a few years ago and demanded, “Does your church embrace homosexuals.” “Sure,” I replied, “If they need a hug.” She slammed the receiver down. I was immediately ashamed at being so glib with her, but my default key is sarcasm. The tone of voice, with which she asked her question was filled with such resentment and judgment that I responded impulsively, and not in love and patience. Upon reflection though, I believe that it is the correct answer.

            I have studied and counseled with several gay men over the years. I put a lot of thought into just what to say to men who were thus oriented, and interested in being obedient to the Word. I came up with this line, which has always proved effective: “You are attracted to people God says you can’t have relations with – welcome to the human race – this is the human condition.” This comment emphasizes that we all deal with temptation – that the gay man with whom I’m speaking is not some freak or fluke, but a fellow traveler dealing with struggles of the same sort as the rest of us. It has always been received this way – often with tears of appreciation. It has always seemed to be a good line, the right thing to say.  Upon reflection, I now realize that this line is glib.

            The line is glib because the temptations I face are different in one very important way. I am married to the love of my life. I have a life partner besides whom all temptations wither away.  A gay man, and a lesbian woman are denied this relationship by the Bible.

            Let us be clear. Despite anything the Supreme Court says, or how badly some try to make the Bible to say otherwise, same gender sex is forbidden in scripture (Leviticus 18.22, 20.13; Romans 1.26-27, I Corinthians 6.9-11).  In the two passages from Leviticus, the act itself is forbidden. The two New Testament passages are given in the context of idolatrous practices and the attendant prostitution and pederasty common in the Greco-Roman world. If we detect a note of disgust in either passage let us remember that Paul is not describing a gay electrician, a nurse, an engineer, a firefighter, or an accountant who wants to be married and faithful. Paul is describing boy-prostitutes and the men who visit them.

            Some of those male prostitutes, and their clients became Christians – Paul says so in I Corinthians 6.9. I wonder how they came to know about Christ. Maybe they stumbled onto the Corinthian Church of Christ website. Or maybe Christians shared the gospel one on one.

            The Bible prohibits a gay man, or a lesbian woman from marrying the love of his/her life. This is a fact. It is a fact that should make us compassionate towards gay men and lesbian women. Most of the folks who rejoiced at the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage were not prostitutes, or drag-queens, or child molesters. Most were just work-a-day folks who wanted to marry the person they loved.

            The Bible says they can’t. We can’t say otherwise. But we can be supportive, prayerful, understanding, and encouraging. If that is the definition of “embracing” homosexuals, then yes – it is what we must do. We are, all of us sinners. We are, all of us saved by grace or not at all. Let us never forget that. Is a hateful person morally superior to a gay person? Let each of us take care of the beam in our own eye before presuming to help our brother with the speck in his.  Let us always be kind, and overcome evil with good.  

 

            For now we see through a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully, even as I have been known fully. I Corinthians 13.12

            But we, brethren, having been bereft from you by a short while – in person not in spirit – were all the more eager with great desire to see your face. I Thessalonians 2.17

            We keep earnestly praying, night and day, that we may see your face and may complete what is lacking in your faith. I Thessalonians 3.10

            Having many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink, but I hope to come and speak to you face to face, that your joy may be made full. 2 John 1.12

            The passages above are about Christian communication. Each of them assumes that face to face communication is superior to other forms, and should be sought if possible. In the first Paul asserts that until he can see God face to face, he will not fully know (see also I John 3.2). John, in II John tells the “chosen lady” to whom he writes that he has things to communicate for which paper and ink will be insufficient tools. He needs to speak to her “face to face.” In the original Greek text he actually says “mouth to mouth.”  Paul and John were unfortunate in that they had no smart phones, nor full access to texting and tweeting, and could not add emojis to their written communication. If they had these modern tools they wouldn’t feel burdened with actually looking someone in the eye when they communicate.

            I suppose you know I’m being sarcastic J. Perhaps “snarky” is a more precise word to use. If we were speaking face to face you could tell from my tone, and the way I roll my eyes that “snarky” is certainly a better word to use than “sarcastic.”

            I am writing to confess that I recently blew up a panel discussion on young people and social media.  The title of the discussion was “Protecting our Children from Social Media.” The two hipsters (I use that term affectionately J) who presided over the panel told us we should learn to stop worrying and love pinterest. Social Media was presented as a modern manifestation and fulfillment of that Coca Cola commercial where young people held hands on the mountainside and sang about wanting to teach the world to sing. Sitting front and center, I commented that what they said about the advantages of social media was so obvious it was cliché. Anything that helps us cast a broader net helps us share the gospel better. But they were tasked with talking about “protecting” young people – which seemed unnecessary, according to them.

            “My big problem,” I said, “is not so much the temptations on the internet, but the way that no one looks another person in the eye. No one ever looks up from their phones for any reason - which, to me, is NOT communicating, and IS disrespectful.”  Those poor young men, unprepared for this argument, were set to squirming in their skinny jeans while the audience (most of whom were old enough to have voted for Reagan) rallied behind me like the townspeople who set out to hunt down Frankenstein.

            I feel embarrassed (a little L), for blitzkrieging these well-informed, well-intentioned young men. But I am not backing down from my contention that two people sitting together in an otherwise empty room should talk, not text to each other. I believe that when someone is talking to me, and I keep my face in a screen I am not showing any interest, or attention to that person.  What I am showing them is disrespect.

            I believe that in the same way Christians used the brand new technology of the book (instead of the old technology of the scroll) to share the gospel, we should use every tool we can to better communicate. I also believe – as did Paul and John, that face to face communication cannot be replaced by tools and technologies.