Yesterday was Memorial Day, a day set aside to commemorate those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in preserving this country’s freedom. If there is one word that sums up America more than any other, it is liberty. We have the Statue of Liberty, Liberty Bell, and ‘liberty’ printed on our money. We enjoy the liberty of ideas, liberty from foreign oppression, and liberty of religion. And yet, despite an overwhelming emphasis upon liberty, it recently occurred to me as I was reading a book by the late Rev. D. James Kennedy, there is one area of our society where liberty is not appreciated. In fact, it is not only ‘not appreciated,’ but the mere suggestion that liberty exists is met with enraged outcry. “Liberty” seems to have very little place within human sexuality.

Of course, those who practice aberrant sexuality claim to want and desire liberty, most often meaning the liberty to live as they wish and do what they want without any type of moral authority attempting to tell them otherwise. But on the other hand, it would seem that the defense most often given by those who are engaged in alternate sexuality is that they were ‘born this way.’ Consider Lady Gaga’s song “Born this Way” where she states No matter gay, straight or bi  /  Lesbian, transgendered life / I’m on the right track, baby / I was born to survive. / I’m beautiful in my way’ / Cause God makes no mistakes / I’m on the right track, baby / I was born this way. Yet, in the midst of so-called sexual liberation, one has to ask if there is true freedom and liberation if being born a certain way means an inability to change? Lady Gaga states in the same song “Ooh, there ain’t no other way, baby, I was born this way!” It would appear that those championing the thought of ‘born this way’ are actually celebrating a loss of liberty since they apparently are not ‘free’ to change!

On the one hand, I would fully agree. Those who choose immoral sexual practices are spiritually trapped in their sin without the grace of God. On the other hand, it seems almost anti-American to suggest that a group of people do not have the freedom to change. This flies in the face of every rags-to-riches story ever told or the American dream of how if you simply put your mind to it you can do anything. Apparently, change is possible, even demanded, even used as a political slogan we can all believe in, but is not possible when it comes to human sexuality. Instead, those who are in less than popular sexual lifestyles are trapped there without any hope because they were ‘born this way.’

Of course, those within these particular sexual lifestyles in question would certainly deny they are trapped. But to borrow the age old expression “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” Either they are indeed trapped or they are free to change. And if they are free to change, then their decision to stay a particular way is just that, a decision. Sadly, there is a growing trend in our country to deny decision and instead blame everything on external forces. Just recently, I passed a sign in Wisconsin which read “Obesity is not a decision, it is a disease.” Again, these poor overweight people seem trapped. They did not decide to be this way, they simple are.

Which leaves the Christian with two possible responses. The first is to point out, as the title above suggests, this idea of being trapped does not have to be true. Instead, freedom is a possibility and can be a reality because people can change through the working of God in their heart. We as Christians continue to uphold the American traditions of liberty and freedom, believing that liberation from these lifestyles is a possibility, not necessarily easy, but possible by the grace of God. And we as Christians are standing by to help.

The second possible response is to point out that while homosexuals and others claim they cannot change, they have painted themselves into a corner. EIther they truly cannot change, in which case we can offer them liberation in Christ, or they can change but simply do not want to give up their lifestyle. The rhetoric which uses “I was born this way” as an explanation or defense is tragically and logically flawed. There are those who may suggest they are ‘being true to themselves’ from an existential perspective, but this would imply that all change is being “untrue to oneself,” such as losing weight, coloring one’s hair, etc. The “I was born this way” excuse has become just that, an excuse. But rather than simply allowing the excuse to stand, Christians have the opportunity to point out the logical inconsistencies of the statement and either offer liberation or at least demonstrate that aberrant lifestyles are a choice.

Just a few days ago I sat watching a Quentin Tarantino film dealing with a freed slave turned bounty hunter. The movie was quite entertaining (in a Tarantino kind of way), but as the movie went on I tried to think of all the slavery movies I have either seen or know about. There is, of course, Roots, Amistad, and although not entirely about slavery, The Color Purple. Beyond those films, there seem to be very few movies about the history of slavery, which is a bit of puzzle to me. There is a plethora of films about just about every major and minor event in American history, from the good to the bad to the ugly. Which is why it seems odd that very few movies have been made about slavery. On the one hand, this lack of decent films on the topic may be because cinema exists primarily to entertain, and being reminded about the millions of slaves who died in this country or en route to this country is somewhat of a downer. On the other hand, Hollywood enjoys reminding its viewers about parts of American history that make us uncomfortable.  So why the few movies about slavery?

I would propose that there are two explanations. First, Hollywood makes “historical” movies primarily about recent history, where at least some of the viewers watching the film can recall the time frame of the film or know someone who can. For instance, compare the number of World War 2 movies made recently with the number of films about World War 1. Consider how many movies have been made in the last ten to fifteen years about George Washington? To my knowledge, none. There have been only three movies made recently about Abraham Lincoln, and one of those involved vampires! A survey of historic movies would probably reveal more movies made in the last decade about British history than American history. The most recent movie about slavery, Amazing Grace, was not about American slavery but British! Hollywood makes historical movies that Americans want to see and what America wants to see is movies about times they recall, like Argo and the Iranian hostage crisis. When Hollywood wants to remind America about a difficult time in our nation’s history, they normally choose a recent event, like Vietnam or racial desegregation, times that people who watch movies can remember. Obviously, very few alive today remember anyone who owned slaves.

This pattern of filming more recent history is not a new pattern in American cinema. There was a time when Hollywood made many films about World War 1, such as The Fighting Sixty Ninth, All Quiet on the Western Front, and many others. When World War 2 ended, Hollywood began making World War 2 movies like The Longest Day and World War 1 films slowly disappeared. Thus, if there were films made about slavery, one would expect them in the early part of the last century in the years closest to slavery. But racism as a national phenomenon was an issue well into recent years, so the last thing that a predominately white movie going culture wanted to see in the first half of the last century was movies about slavery. Which is why there seems to be very few movies about slavery, with the exception of the ones mentioned above. Slavery is not recent, and when it was, people did not want to see films about it.

None of which should be a surprise. Hollywood is not really trying to educate our society but entertain it. Even when they do wish to educate, movie makers will choose recent events like the Holocaust over 19th century slavery. The lack of movies reminding Americans about the heinousness of slavery is not due to modern racism, but due to the racism of the first half of the 20th century when it was not a topic anyone wanted to see a film about. On the other hand, Hollywood has not done a great job of filling in this gap, which means that there are still no movies being made currently about slavery. As our culture continues to grow more and more visual and remembers its history primarily from film, one wonders if Americans will simply forget over time about the horrific history of slavery, a time that probably deserves more films than any other.

Recently I have been preaching through the book Acts, just in the last few weeks covering the key stories of Stephen and Philip. I’ve had this nagging question in the back of my mind ever since–Have we set the bar too low for deacons?

Technically, Stephen and Philip are never referred to as ‘deacons.’ However, most churches today consider the seven men of Acts 6 chosen to assist the early Apostles with caring for the Hellenistic widows as being the first deacons. Deacons, though, are mentioned in several others places in scripture, such as Philippians, which is addressed to overseers or bishops and deacons, and 1 Timothy 3 which lays out the qualifications for deacons. However, none of these passages gives specific duties for deacons.

Which leaves the church at somewhat of an impasse. The one passage that many consider to be a job description for deacons, Acts 6, never actually calls the men selected ‘deacons’ and only mentions caring for widows. On the other hand, the passages addressing deacons never give job duties. The church has solved the impasse by combining the passages and concluding that deacons are called to assist the elders (overseers) of the church. But what does it really mean to ‘assist?’

In many churches, it means caring for the church building. In other churches, it involves handling the mercy ministry of the church, caring for widows and orphans etc. What continues to nag at me is that Stephen and Philip, the first of the ‘deacons,’ are never recorded as actually caring for widows. Sure, that’s what they are commissioned to do, but Acts 6-8, nearly three whole chapters, is all about Stephen and Philip preaching! Stephen preaches to the Sandhedrin. Philip takes the gospel to the Samaritans first and then to the Cushite Eunuch before heading along the coast to Caesarea. Philip is probably “Philip the Evangelist” mentioned later in Acts. All of which raises the question, “Why don’t we expect our deacons to teach?”

In today’s church, we seem to have structured the offices of the church to be elders who shepherd and deacons who serve. However, the unspoken assumption in many churches is that elders are the teachers and the deacons are the handymen. But is this in keeping with the Biblical evidence? Stephen and Philip were not handymen but incredible evangelists! The fact that these men had to be filled with the Holy Spirit to be chosen and were commissioned through the laying on of hands leads me to think the church is guilty of setting the bar far too low if we only expect our deacons to care for the church building.

While the Bible is not extremely specific about what a deacon is called to do, the modern church needs to carefully consider that God gave the power of the Holy Spirit in a very special way to a specific group of people for a higher calling then just being handymen or only caring for the occasional material need. Should we be allowing and expecting deacons to put their God given gifts in action or are we holding them back from their Biblical task by setting the bar of expectation too low?

Recently, Rod Dreher over at the American Conservative posted a fabulous article entitled Sex after Christianity, where he argues that Americans have largely rejected any moral authority other than themselves. Notions of a god have become passe and competing moral authorities, such as when my ideas conflict with yours, are not considered by our post-modern culture to actually contradict. You can be your authority and I can be mine.

Dreher’s article was still tumbling around in my mind last night as I watched Donald Trump’s The Celebrity Apprentice on television. One of the celebrities still on the show is comedian and magician Penn Jillette, who according to his own admission is “beyond atheism.” Atheists, he claims, don’t believe in God. He, on the other hand, believes there is no God. Instead, Jillette holds to Ayn Rand’s objectivism “with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute (from Atlas Shrugged).” While we can certainly debate how many Americans actually care about the latter two parts of this definition, it is pretty obvious from observation and Dreher’s article that most Americans do base their moral decisions on themselves and their own happiness.

The vast majority of the laws made in this country are to protect one’s happiness. That also seems to be the greatest argument being made in the homosexual debate. What right, so the argument goes, does the government have to stop my free choice of consensual homosexual behavior if it makes me happy? The government does have responsibility to protect non-consensual behavior (as that would violate someone else’s happiness), but since morality is based on individual happiness, everything else is morally okay as long as one does not violate someone else’s happiness.

In many ways, this seems very close to existentialism. In fact, Rynd considered that name rather than objectivism, but the name was already taken. In existentialism, the highest good is not happiness but authenticity to self. Elements of this can be seen in the homosexuality debate as well as proponents argue that this is who they are. Current thought and feeling towards morality seems to be that any theistic or transcendent worldview is antiquated. Yet, instead of falling into nihilistic depression, American culture has jumped past nihilism into a twisted self-actualizing form of existentialism based upon one’s own happiness.

But there in lies the open door for discussion. American’s are not truly basing their morality upon what makes them happy but upon what THEY THINK makes them happy NOW. For instance, smoking in public places is all but banned in most parts of this country because of the health concerns. Yes, smoking makes you happy now as the nicotine slowly poisons your brain, which leads to great unhappiness later. Thus, the work of so many against cigarettes, including the US Surgeon General. The same is true of so many behaviors that would be Biblically classified as immoral. They do offer a fleeting, immediate gratification of some desire, which gives an immediate sense of happiness. But the end result is anything but. Instead, our lives are torn apart by our immoral decisions and we discover too late that it was a false happiness which we gave in too.

The truth is that many people, including homosexuals, are trapped in the happiness lie which offers nothing but a sham. They think they have found happiness, but it will not last. True joy is found in following God and His guide for living.  And because all Americans are looking for true joy, Christians have the opportunity to show that happiness does not come from listening to ourselves and our own moral determinations but from following an absolute morality which is interwoven with the created natural order of our world. And, as we share with those around us that we were created as humans for true joy, we can also point out that sixty years of supposed hedonist pleasure in this lifetime pales in comparison with an eternity of unhappiness.

Those who would follow objectivism or existentialism do not realize that they were made for far more than fleeting pleasure. Instead, a lifetime of true soul-fulfilling joy can be theirs. As many other posts on HT have argued, Christians should do things better, and I would add, they should also do it with more joy, a joy that can be contagious and shared with those around who are truly searching for unending happiness. Let us not leave our neighbors to their unhappy fate but instead be the guides to true joy.

Here at Hang Together our stated goal is to create moral consensus, finding those areas of morality on which we all as Americans can agree regardless of political or religious differences. Over the last few months, many conservatives have been scrambling to find this moral consensus over the issue of gay marriage, only to discover that there is little shared ground upon which to build. Much of the country rejects the Bible and anything it has to say about sexuality. Christians especially are left scratching their heads and wondering how to talk to supporters of homosexuality. But the issue is deeper than many realize. The dividing line is not simply over gay marriage, but over the very idea of moral consensus. Most of our culture has bought into the postmodern idea of personal morality, a morality which makes no impact whatsoever on your personal morality. Morality is no longer cultural but personal.

Rod Dreher over at the American Conservative discusses this in his fabulous article Sex after Christianity. In his article, Mr. Dreher points out that American culture does not simply disagree on sexuality but on the very idea of a transcendent authority that has the right to tell me what to do. Most Americans do not believe such an authority exists. And that transcendent authority does not even have to be a ‘god.’ Instead, the only authority is self. Americans reject anything other than the self and the supreme authority of the self to tell me what is ‘moral.’ The very idea of a moral consensus is ridiculous to many Americans because you have to listen to yourself as I listen to myself. We are own authorities and it matters very little if we agree or disagree! You cannot tell me what is ‘moral’ and I cannot tell you what is ‘moral.’ The only ‘immoral’ act is for you to declare what my self has declared ‘moral.’

Sadly, much of Dreher’s article is a review of book by Philip Rief from 1966. This is sad because Rief saw the pattern decades ago which would eventually lead to gay marriage today. Both Dreher and Rief are correct that the issue of gay marriage is not one of sexuality, but as they put it, cosmology. The American view of the world is one of extreme individualism which denies anyone the right to say anything to anyone else about morality. Most of American culture rejects the idea that anyone can say anything about the morality of homosexuality except those who are homosexual! Dreher and Rief is stating that American culture has become an ‘anti-culture.’ Culture has no ability or authority to declare what is right or wrong, only the self. We must engage the discuss of homosexuality, not just on the level of morality and sexuality but also cosmology and issues of who is the authority.