The Renewed Mind

“In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” – Judges 17:16

The mindset of the era in which the book of Judges is set can be summed up by the contemporary phrase “if it feels right do it” or as the Nike ads say, “just do it”.  We, as the Israelites in the book of Judges, are living in a very hedonistic world.

Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Basically, hedonism strives to maximize pleasure. This concept could be sum up in the words of  Aleister Crowley - ”Do what thou wilt’ as the sum of the law.”.

  ”Do what thou wilt’ as the sum of the law.”- Aleister Crowley

Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) was an English occultist, mystic, ceremonial magician, poet, bisexual, recreational drug experimenter, and social critic.  He came to believe he was a prophet of a new age and founded of the religious philosophy of Thelema.  It is founded upon the idea that the 20th century marked the beginning of the Aeon of Horus, in which a new ethical code would be followed; “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.

We only need to open any magazine or turn the TV to quickly see how right mr. Crowley was that he was seeing the beginning of a new era, the era of self and that ”Do what thou wilt” has become “the whole of the Law”.

Take for example one of the most popular TV shows from the CW Network, Hart of Dixie. Just after watching a few episode you can see that what each character is after is their own pleasure regardless of how that plays out on someone else life. Just look at how easy is to exchange sexual partner and “fall in love”.

And this TV show is not the only one. About any TV show in the universe of channels promotes  the ”Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” philosophy of life.

But the Bible calls ”Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life and clarify that these are not from God but from the world (1 john 2: 2:16). God tells us:

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1 John 2:15

Under Joshua the people had been faithful unto God (Josh. 23:8) thus ensuring themselves God’s protection. But after Joshua’s death, things began to change and going after other gods, to do what they please, to not follow God’s commandments. They rejected God as their king and now we hear God’s indictment: ”In those days everyone did what was right in their own eyes”. That indictment was repeated three more times in the book of Judges: 18:1; 19:1 and 21:25.

We see that same pattern clearly today. Everyone has their own opinion of how things should be. They have no king. And even those who claim to be christian, place their opinions over what God says in His word. The truth is that this “christians” are more concern with acceptance from those around them than to do what they know that God is telling them. How can they call themselves christian if they have abandon the truth and are more concern of others opinion of them than obeying God? How dare them call Jesus Lord to then not follow Him?  That is not Christianity but religion. And religion do not save.

They have become a type of “Christian hedonists”, more concern for their own pleasure that for truth, righteousness, goodness, and God. They do not want to offend anyone thinking that they are being loving. They want to be friend to everyone and enemy of none. Yes, the Bible teaches that we have to strive to live in peace with as many people as we can, but to not to be fools as we know – because Jesus told us- that we will be hated for following Jesus.

The story of each major judge is presented in a precise formula involving sin, judgment, repentance, and deliverance. When the people sin, God sends punishment in the form of a foreign conqueror who oppresses Israel for a number of years. When adversity ultimately causes the nation to repent, the Lord sends a judge who throws off the yoke of the oppressor. Unfortunately a restoration of prosperity regularly entices Israel to return to her sinful ways, and the cycle begins again. Are we going through the same process? Just look at who really owns the United States of America. We are being conquered from outside. The US is so in debt that who owns the loans are foreign powers.

But there still time. There is a way out of this. We need to repent as a nation. We need to return to God’s lordship over our lives, private and public, civil and political. Unless the Lod builds the house it will not stand. And sadly He is not being allowed to build it. “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today— every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes— (Deuteronomy 12:8).  Repent and do your first work.

“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.” Rev. 2:5

Last week many were paying close attention to the United States Supreme Court as they heard oral arguments on two potentially landmark cases challenging the traditional definition of marriage as to be between a man and a woman and that would recognized the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

In one case against Proposition 8, the amendment that prohibits gay marriage in California, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law whose main provisions exempt states from giving full faith and credit to gay marriage from states that allow them and define marriage as to be between a man and a woman, denying same-sex couples the same federal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Never before has the court heard two significant gay rights cases simultaneously, and its rulings in these cases (expected in late June 2013)  are seen as a defining moment for the definition of marriage.

While the judges heard oral arguments inside the Court, thousands of demonstrators on both sides rallied outside. While some recent polls show growing support among Americans for gay marriage, only nine states recognize it, while 30 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting it.

The Proposition 8 Case

Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state election by a margin of 52% yes to 47% no.  The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.

California voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008 after the California Supreme Court had interpreted the state constitution to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry, and Prop 8 amended the constitution to eliminate that right.

Many challenged the proposition validity but the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).

Proposition 8 Challenged

In May 2009, the Alameda County Clerk-Registrar, Patrick O’Connell, denied Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple. The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and two officials in the Department of Public Health on Federal district court.

Attorney General Jerry Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment and should be struck down. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also declined to participate in the defense but said it was appropriate for the courts to hear the case and “resolve the merits of this action expeditiously” because it “presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination.

On November 2, 2010, Brown was elected governor and Kamala Harris was elected attorney general. Both ran on platforms promising not to defend the proposition, so despite the change of administration, the state continued to decline defending Proposition 8 in court.

In my opinion, none have the right nor the authority to choose not to defend it. They were nor defending a proposition but the Constitution of the State of California.  When they are sworn into their respective offices they take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. They failed to do so and willingly chose to ignore their constitutional mandate and as such should be disqualified from serving as elected officials.

“I (Governor’s name) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

A California Court of Appeals dismissed an emergency request by the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal organization, to force Schwarzenegger and Brown to defend the case on appeal without a hearing, followed by the California Supreme Court on September 8, 2010, who denied without explanation. To me, this demonstrate that this judges have their mind made up before hearing any arguments. The citizens of the state of California have the right to require their elected official to obey the law and their Constitution. If any of us would have violated the law or Constitution would be quickly placed in jail. But in this case, the courts sanctioned illegality. This is the current state of affairs in our country.

The court allowed the official proponents of Proposition 8, ProtectMarriage.com, led by Dennis Hollingsworth, to intervene, filling the void left by the state officials’ acquiescence. But denied the participation of Imperial County in the basis that the filed late. Of course, one could argue that by Judge Walker, a homosexual, allowing a third party to fill the vacuum left by the State ilegal and unconstitutional conduct, and by denying the participation by a party with legal standing, Imperial County, they assure that the case would be dismiss at the Supreme Court level by a finding that the defendant lacked standing before the court and only the State had such standing. Judge Walker should have recused himself from judging over the case to shield the decision from any appearances of partiality. But it is clear that in the world we live, this does not matter anymore.

As we heard the Justices last week, they seemed skeptical about whether they should be hearing the case at all as they question the standing of those who defended the constitution.

This shows the importance that Christian are involved in politics, law, culture. No to impose our religious beliefe but to guard truth, legality, justice.

As expected and no surprise to anyone, on August 4, 2010, Judge Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:

“An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.”

He further noted that Proposition 8 was based on traditional notions of opposite-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. He noted that gays and lesbians are exactly the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect.

Decision is Appealed

As the case arrived to the Ninth Circuit court, two main issues surfaced. First, a motion was filed asking to disqualify Judge Reinhardt from hearing the case because his wife, Ramona Ripston, is the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California and thus put his impartiality into question. The request was denied.

Later, the Court certified a question to the California Supreme Court. Because California officials had declined to defend the law, the federal court asked the state court to decide whether the backers of a challenged initiative had “a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity” that would permit them to defend the law when state officials refuse to do so. The California Supreme Court in an unanimous opinion said yes, that in the past they have been allowed.

On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker’s decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. They also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware’s holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay and continued the stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals.

The case arrived to the US Supreme Court as Hollingsworth v. Perry. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case on December 7, 2012, ordering the parties to brief and argue the additional question of whether supporters of Prop. 8 have standing, i.e., a legal right to be involved in the case, under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

As we heard last week during the arguments and as expressed by the court by requesting brief on standing, in this case the justices seemed skeptical about whether they should be hearing the case at all as several justices seemed to think the proponents had no personal injury at stake and thus no “standing” to sue.

Defense of Marriage Act

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)  is a United States federal law that restricts federal marriage benefits and required inter-state marriage recognition to only opposite-sex marriages in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court.

In 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples because he thought DOMA vulnerable: “After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

Proponents of Same-sex marriage argue that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection under the law as well as the full faith and credit clauses of the Constitution. They also argue that “A person’s fundamental right to marry, and to have the highest state recognition and protection for their relationship, depended upon their humanity — and their humanity alone — not on any external factor as to the class of people to which they could be categorized.”

DOMA is a can or worms…

Full Faith and Credit Clause

Full faith and credit clause is the familiar name given to article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. This article outlines  the duties states have to each other, as well as those the federal government has to the states. Section 1 addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” – Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution

Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, the full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize. This could be a defining case that would extend the clause as to apply to same-sex marriages to all 50 states. Even if a state does not accept same sex marriage, if the full faith and credit clause is applied, that state would be force to recognize same-sex marriage. This would further create a constitutional dilemma for that state as they would be force to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage performed outside their juridiction while not allowing the same right and recognition to its own citizens.  I suspect that the Court is not prepare to go that far, yet, although we could be surprised.

Seems that some of the judges are questioning if the Federal Government have any business of defining marriage, but the problem they face is that if they rule that if a state define marriage as to include same-sex couples then the federal government has to extend the same federal benefits to same-sex couples as enjoyed by hetereo-sexual couples then, they in fact, have forced the federal government to redefine marriage by accepting each state definition.

And worst, if the court rule that if has to extend the benefit to only those same-sex couples whose state legally recognize their marriages then,  it will cause a constitutional crisis under the equal protection under the law.

I believe the court has a difficult task and has opened a can of worm to which cannot back-off.

It may very well solves for state rights and invalidate the part of DOMA that is in conflict with it (federal definition of marriage) and allow the rest to survive or may strike the entire law as unconstitutional.  I believe the court will go all the way and will declare DOMA unconstitutional standing upon state right to each define marriage within their jurisdiction.

I do believe that this summer we will witness the redefinition of marriage in the United States.

Many people think that when we become Christian everything becomes perfect, that we experience a life without obstacles or suffering or pain. Some even go as far as to teach that now that we are Christian we have the right to become a total success in life, rich and sickness free. And if we don’t or even if we have problems we cannot let anyone know, we always have to have a pretty smile plastered in our faces as if us having problem was a signed of God’s weakness or lack of faith or that we are living in sin.

If you watch “christian” tv for any period of time you may even conclude that for these people God is a genie in a bottle, at out disposal day or night to do as we command.

But is that what the Bible teaches about God and the Christian life? A quick review of the words whom God Himself called “a man after God own heart”, David, of whom the Bible calls the wisest man to ever live, or the words of the apostle who spearheaded the conversion of the Gentiles, Paul or even the words of Jesus, we discover that these people are wrong.

It is true that Jesus declared that He came to gives us life abundantly (John 10:10). But we need to see this with the context in which Christ said it and within heaven’s perspective.  It certainly does not mean that every Christian will be rich and prosperous. There are many people who are not christians at all an yet experience great prosperity and wealth. The Bible declares that it rains the same over the righteous as well as the wicked.

There are many people who call themselves christians and are very prosperous, wealthy and healthy and yet their lives declare that they do not really follow Jesus. And there are other that are poor, needy, sickling and persecuted and are a beautiful example of Christ.

In the book of Matthew we are told of a scribe that came to Jesus and declared “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”   To what Jesus responded:

And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” - Matthew 8:19-20.

Jesus went even further when He told His disciples that those who follow Jesus will be persecuted. Not that you may but that you will be persecuted:

Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. – John 15:20-21

James, the half-brother of Jesus tells us to count it all joy when we are met with trials and difficulties:

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. – James 1:2-3

Paul himself declare that he gave up all of his material wealth for the sake of the gospel. This is contrary to most of what TV preachers tell us.

One day a young guy approached Jesus and asked Him “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Then Jesus answered him by asking if he kept the commandments. ”Yes, I have kept them all from my youth.” he responded.

Jesus responded that one thing he lacked and commanded him to sell everything he own and gave the money to the poor. The Bible tells us that the young guy left very sad for he was extremely rich.

This passage in Luke 18:18-22 clearly illustrate that there are two perspective in life: a heavenly and human. Our is limited by our limitations and the heavenly one is seen through God’s eyes and explain to us in His Word. It is also illustrate that is not God’s purpose that we all be wealthy and that prosperity, wealth and health are not signs of spirituality. And thirdly, that we are not just living for the persent but for heaven.

The Christian life is much more that possible blessings in this life. We are here for a higher purpose. God has much more in store for us when He declare that He comes to give us abundant life.

To me is clear that the Bible teaches that we may or may no experience wealth, prosperity or health. That life is much more that those three things. And that those who get stuck pursuing those are missing the greater picture.

Later this week we wil discuss what happens when things aren’t going our way. Should we complain? look sad?