With another law passed from the supreme bench in our country some have started to speak out more about rebellion. But what is all this rebellion business about?
The obvious example is the civil war but is that what we really want?
Well the question is of course at what point should the church stand up to a corrupt government? You know because of Nazi Germany? Well how about instead of going to that extreme which may be a legitimate barometer for a culture to at least reference, let's instead ask how should a Christian think about this?
I am not so interested in how a republic should respond to this type of losing of its rights; I will leave that aspect to the political scientists. Since the government is not a Christian institution how should it act fair in this instance? How do you legislate for a people of differing values? differing worldviews? How should both anti-discrimination laws and free speech work? It can become so nuanced that someone is going to feel violated at some point; probably making an executive judicial ruling in favor of one over the other without the input of the people is not such a great idea, but here we are. I am no lawyer so I can only speak to the faith of those who feel like they are living in an increasingly sinful world with no help from a system they thought would help them.
So if using the system doesn't work as many feel in this case what does a Christian do? Do we grab our guns and religion and start a revolution? I sure hope not, and here's why.
We should always look at how those who resisted in the Bible did it. We are called to live at peace with everyone after-all. Christians do not go to war for their rights. They do not even go to war over the Gospel, they peacefully present it and they accept the consequences.
But even Biblically speaking there is precedent to run for our lives but never, never to kill for them. We have too many times in history taken principles in the Bible and have turned them into reasons to kill for and quite frankly we have been wrong every time. Vengeance is God's.
We have to of course deal with what Jesus said to Peter about the sword. In preparedness Jesus told the disciples that a time was coming where they may need to buy swords, but was this for going on the offensive? When the time came for Jesus to be taken away one of the disciples decided that that was the purpose of the sword and rose to the occasion. But what was the outcome?
When this account happens in John:
Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?"
It was more important that God's will be done even when they were threatened with physical violence.
Luke records the same event. Luke 22:47-53
This time Jesus rebukes his disciples when this happened and even goes so far as to heal the man's ear. He did not want his disciples engaging in acts of violence and even restored the person.
Mathew records it this way.
52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
53Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?
Jesus teaches that if one wants to live in such a way that he takes justice into his own hands then he will be opening himself to that kind of death. He also reminds Peter of God's own sovereignty and plan.
So yes he did tell them to obtain a sword, but was it to go on the offense? It seems that this was not what he was getting at. It seems he was simply acknowledging it may be dangerous out there and be prepared, an object lesson perhaps?
So let's understand the context they are in the process of putting Christ to death and he was not at all interested in the self-righteousness of even his own protection from this with acts of violence from his followers. Ah but that was for a pivitol time in redemptive history, what about when something not as essential as Jesus dying on the cross is happening? Well if the answer is not already in the question then let's look at the New Testament.
Paul writes to the church is Rome. Now when we hear Rome we think of cool ruins and exotics locals over in Italy and that awesome movie Hudson Hawk. Nice. But think about what that culture was really like. I was just in Italy last year I walked the halls of the Vatican, strolled over the canals of Venice, and the stood in the middle of the Roman Colosseum. The Roman Colosseum was a system in place for the sport and entertainment of the people. But the sport was brutal fights to the death, often with Christians and simple slaves trying to stay alive. Not only this but the system supported cults, temple prostitution, and yes homosexual lovers was common. You could also be jailed with no supply or care for your lively-hood for speaking against the Caesar. He used Christians as human torches for his garden parties and blamed the fire of Rome on Christians to incorporate open and free persecution of them. There were so many religions and gods that if you violated one of them you could bring the ire of the whole community down on you. You could say sin abounded. In fact Paul points out the state, not of just humanity, but of Rome in the beginning of his letter to the Romans.
So let's understand the context that Paul writes when he pens Romans 13.
1Let
every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by
God.
2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Remember this is the government that eventually puts Paul to death. To further the example the new Jewish converts had to live through John the baptist being beheaded, James the brother of John being beheaded. Phillip the evangelist being stoned to death and let's not forget Jesus was put to death as well, he rose again thankfully. If you read Fox's book of martyrs the traditions are that almost all of the disciples had their end in this way. But the persecution was never a reason to get organize and raise the capitol. In fact the disciples had a reputation of rejoicing when they were persecuted for the Gospel's sake. The only other response that came about from persecution was a scattering and a spreading of the Gospel.
The resurrection took the power out of violence. What is the point of physical striving with arms when there is a resurrection of the dead to look forward to?
In other words the response of Christians to a corrupt government is a doubling down on the preaching of the Gospel. The message is reinforced by Paul telling the people to "Owe no one anything except love." Now love did have stipulations for living for sure, but for Christians. We see in the rest of chapter 13 that the responsibility was to display love nonetheless. I mean Paul reminds them to keep paying taxes. It would be nice that if I can't go to war at least I can stop supporting them financially. But Paul seems to think that the Christian should continue to love and support God's avenger.
If
part of our system of government is to allow dissent then we are still
in fullfillment of Romans 13 by using the system as given to us. This is what Paul did in appelaing to Rome, he did not simply let the system silence him he used it for the gospel's sake. But when a
system changes for the worse all we can do is thank God for time that he
gave us to establish his kingdom in the way we were able to do and then
continue to do so under a stricter hand.
Part of the rub for us I know is that we live in a society that grants us a voice of dissent. In fact our free society was based on a voice of dissent. We are blessed to live in a country that started out honoring God and thus adopted some tenets of freedom. But unrestrained and undefined freedom will always consume itself. It will leave behind all those good intentions of the people who believed that man was somehow better than he actually is.
See if our anthropology is that people are basically good then we will think that ultimate freedom will lead to utopia. But an anthropology that reflects true human nature reveals that when we are given more freedom we use it selfishly, sinful humans with ultimate freedom leads to more moral decline and the collapse of society or at least one that wants to live in opposition to God. That is why our founding Father's though wanting to establish a free society still recognized the need for laws and even laws to protect the people from the newly instituted government. The separation of church and state as Thomas Jefferson penned it, not in the constitution I might add, was to prevent government interference with religion not prohibit it. Now somehow it is interpreted backwards. But if God's deems our plight
worthy of an exodus then he will provide his own Angel of Death, he doesn't need us for that role, but if not
and probably not, we must continue to be faithful and humble ourselves. All
we can do is pray for our leaders to change or for the Maker to return.
If our prayer leads us to anger and temptation to rise up then our focus is wrongheaded and we are not resting in the one who has both the power to raise up kingdoms and bring them down.
Daniel 2 reminds
“Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,
to whom belong wisdom and might.
21He changes times and seasons;
he removes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to those who have understanding;
When commanding Jeremiah the prophet God tells him of his power over the nations
1:10See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms,
to pluck up and to break down,
to destroy and to overthrow,
to build and to plant.”
Psalm 75 is also about this.
The last point is simply this. We are not Israel, so we are not a true theocracy and we do not get to act as his sword. He did that under a different covenant for judgement, but at this point in history he has reserved all judgment to the Son, who when he returns will administer it all. As I said before all we can do is know that they will give account, even the very avengers that we had a hard time living under that God allowed for a time.
This is a hard truth no doubt. It takes humility to let God handle his own affairs in the realms of men but they are his affairs. His affairs are justice, mine are obedience. The only warfare Christians wage are on their knees humbly before God. So maybe we should we should enact some warfare: take it to the Lord in prayer.
thanks
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Upon the Bible can I only claim
I was hoping to mop up all the messiness from the last entry in a self contained blog. But this problem is so big that it could not all fit in one entry. I hope I made the case that our current problem is our need to be accepted on both sides of the debate. It was inevitable that Christians would be outed as having issue with sin. But Christians have fallen for the very thing that homosexuals want: cultural acceptance.
This blog is for Christians to understand the Biblical view of this, if this was for homosexuals the conversation would be very different. Not in truth but in presentation. The Gospel trumps discussion of mastering personal sin.
This was never supposed to be about this specific sin but the way the cultural war has gone we cannot but comment at this point because we will inadvertently being backing a specific world view. At this point if we do not stand on the Bible on this issue we will be backing the worldview that makes it out to be not that big of a deal. This is about acceptance, if it would stay there that would be one thing but it will not and has not. It is coming to the point where Christians either cave or are bigots, as if honest communication is not an option anymore. Well it will not be if we continue to only capitulate or say nothing.
As I mentioned we all want to be accepted and all want to fit in. That is normal. And the Christian job is not to make people feel uncomfortable, however it may be that we are being called to that discomfort ourselves. If we stand for something that the culture does not like we should expect blow-back. The way we know this is because the Bible calls for us to be humble on what it teaches. It says we will suffer as he did. We are not free to seek comfort over what God asks of us. So let's look at why we are not free to capitulate on a topic that is so culturally hot that we would want to.
1 Thessalonians 2:4
But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.
Proverbs 29:25
The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.
John 12:43
For they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.
Homosexuality is a hot topic not just because it is current but it affects the very lives of people, the very lives of people in a very intimate way. As I said before it also speaks to where we are culturally. This is something that the church has failed to recognize. We think it is a simple sin issue but it affects the way people view themselves and the way they find intimacy. It also is indicative that the culture is already in quite a different place. This is why we need to be clear on why we believe what we do, because it has such impact. And when we communicate it to non-believers we have to understand the sub-text of what we are saying and the depth that is affects people.
It is difficult, yes. It was a thing in the nineties to say that Christianity was counter cultural. It was fun and almost cool to say that, but well, it finally is.
But God doesn't ask people to combat sin, that is why he conquered sin in death himself. The Gospel is not "Straighten out your life and then come to me!" The message is "You can't straighten out yourself so you need to come to me." It does involve addressing the sin for sure but if we tell people about their sin problem as if it is something they need to fix without presenting it humbly within the context of the Gospel we leave people in a feeling of helplessness. If this is something that someone identifies with an identity then they are going to feel doubly lost aren't they? In order to present the Gospel to homosexuals or anyone really we have to understand what the Bible says about it. Why they need the Gospel.
So what does it say, is it really a sin?
Now a common objection is that the command against homosexual activity is given in the Old Testament. The Old Testament! case closed, right? Why aren't we more upset about all those other silly laws? This objection is not the smoking gun that is assumed. A lot of Americas saw the program West Wing when the fictional president gave this very objection to the fictional conservative talk show host condemning her to also focus on pigskins and mixing fabrics, oh my! So unless we want to impose all those other uncomfortable laws we are out of luck, or at least hypocrites?
Well the issue is this, not only does the New Testament reiterate this specific command, but the very issue of what Old Testament laws gentiles-Christians needed to follow was addressed in the Jerusalem council in the book of Acts chapter 15. Also Paul also wrote a book about it called Galatians because this was a big topic in the first century. The conclusion of the council was this:
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
The apostles teach that new converts still must uphold and continue to avoid idolatry, sexual immorality, and food that was strangled and from blood. Idolatry is continued to be avoided by the church and rightfully so. As far as strangulation and blood, the issue was a strangled animal would not have been drained of blood. So drain the blood and then cook it, we pretty much already do this. But Paul speaks to this as well, if we do not know about the food preparation do not make inquiry unless a weaker brother is conflicted. In order for unity and love to continue.
But the central issue here is the gentile Christians are still to hold to the rules of sexual immorality. The question is where do rules for sexual immorality come from? Well rules for immoral sexual practice come from Leviticus 18 and 20 and there are rules for marriage covenants as well, which is always between a man and a woman. This is where the Jewish person is going to go for these instructions, this is where the Jewish person would point the Gentile wondering what defines sexual immorality. The Law does inform these practices. This is why Paul reiterates homosexuality, and why Jesus repeats adultery, and why Paul gets mad at the Corinthian church for allowing a man to have his Father's wife. Why not simply allow this if they are loving consenting adults? Why not let grace abound on this Paul? Paul knows that this act is specifically mentioned in this list. This is also why incest and bestiality is also still prohibited, despite what interests our culture.
To argue that this list is not still in vogue is to tell Paul he can't be mad about adultery, incest, bestiality, and specifically this episode from first Corinthians. This is to tell Paul that when he mentions homosexuality many times that he doesn't understand grace and certainly not love. Jesus furthers clarifies this list when speaking to the underlining problem of lust. Lust makes them all out of bounds, this is why pornography is also a problem. Lust makes sex about us. Lust means we throw off the commands of love and sex and demand our own ways. Lust says "This is how I feel", not what is right. Lust means we want it our way and we do not care about what the creator of our bodies and of sex says. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul further tells us that sexual sin seems to have a special problem for all people:
The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
This type of sin, sins against the temple of the Lord. The questions is are you a temple of the Lord or not? If so then you should avoid sexual immoral practices all the more. The non-Christian doesn't believe they are a temple so why belabor the point? Paul even mentions homosexuality specifically in the lists of sins that people who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God. This should be scary enough to avoid. But if a homosexual does not believe in God or the Bible then they should simply say "Well I don't believe that." But instead what we get is reasons why it should be OK. Well to a Christian I have all the reasons I need. Just as I have all the reasons to believe that Jesus is Lord. If God created us then he gets to set the standard. If he is Lord then he gets to tell me "Yes" or "No" . Again these are Christian truths based on a Christian worldview.
As a Christian I have to agree with what God says about the way he designed sex to work. As I Christian I am not allowed to practice homosexual sex. As a Christian I am not allowed to practice adultery. As a Christian I am not supposed to have sex outside of the marital covenant. As a Christian I am not allowed to have sex with animals. As a Christian I am not allowed to have incestuous sex. If any of these pose a temptation, we have to recognize that and give it to God to be nailed to the cross, not identify with it.
13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
This doesn't mean you will not fail but that there is a way out, if you are interested. And we remember...
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
There it is! The problem is that the wadges of sin is death. So the answer to our why question is that sin distances us from God and leaves us in eternal separation form him. The message here is not "God hates Fags!" It is that God hates people to die without relationship to him. He desires that none should perish. The reason that God has such strong language against sin is because it robs people of relationship with him.
If people are unwilling to even acknowledge sin, then they aren't going to be interested in the savior from it.
If homosexual sin is enticing to you, then that is your temptation, but you have to face it the same way a heterosexual man or woman faces their own sexual temptations: in obedience or rebellion, in humility or pride. As a Christian I have a responsibility of obedience because I am not the King, and the good news is when I fail there is a God who forgives. But a Christian needs to hold to what the Bible teaches on such matters. A non-Christian does not, that is their choice.
But our sinful proclivities do not excuse our acquiescence to them. God is inviting us all to himself if we will only come.
thanks
This blog is for Christians to understand the Biblical view of this, if this was for homosexuals the conversation would be very different. Not in truth but in presentation. The Gospel trumps discussion of mastering personal sin.
This was never supposed to be about this specific sin but the way the cultural war has gone we cannot but comment at this point because we will inadvertently being backing a specific world view. At this point if we do not stand on the Bible on this issue we will be backing the worldview that makes it out to be not that big of a deal. This is about acceptance, if it would stay there that would be one thing but it will not and has not. It is coming to the point where Christians either cave or are bigots, as if honest communication is not an option anymore. Well it will not be if we continue to only capitulate or say nothing.
As I mentioned we all want to be accepted and all want to fit in. That is normal. And the Christian job is not to make people feel uncomfortable, however it may be that we are being called to that discomfort ourselves. If we stand for something that the culture does not like we should expect blow-back. The way we know this is because the Bible calls for us to be humble on what it teaches. It says we will suffer as he did. We are not free to seek comfort over what God asks of us. So let's look at why we are not free to capitulate on a topic that is so culturally hot that we would want to.
1 Thessalonians 2:4
But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.
Proverbs 29:25
The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.
John 12:43
For they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.
Homosexuality is a hot topic not just because it is current but it affects the very lives of people, the very lives of people in a very intimate way. As I said before it also speaks to where we are culturally. This is something that the church has failed to recognize. We think it is a simple sin issue but it affects the way people view themselves and the way they find intimacy. It also is indicative that the culture is already in quite a different place. This is why we need to be clear on why we believe what we do, because it has such impact. And when we communicate it to non-believers we have to understand the sub-text of what we are saying and the depth that is affects people.
It is difficult, yes. It was a thing in the nineties to say that Christianity was counter cultural. It was fun and almost cool to say that, but well, it finally is.
But God doesn't ask people to combat sin, that is why he conquered sin in death himself. The Gospel is not "Straighten out your life and then come to me!" The message is "You can't straighten out yourself so you need to come to me." It does involve addressing the sin for sure but if we tell people about their sin problem as if it is something they need to fix without presenting it humbly within the context of the Gospel we leave people in a feeling of helplessness. If this is something that someone identifies with an identity then they are going to feel doubly lost aren't they? In order to present the Gospel to homosexuals or anyone really we have to understand what the Bible says about it. Why they need the Gospel.
So what does it say, is it really a sin?
Now a common objection is that the command against homosexual activity is given in the Old Testament. The Old Testament! case closed, right? Why aren't we more upset about all those other silly laws? This objection is not the smoking gun that is assumed. A lot of Americas saw the program West Wing when the fictional president gave this very objection to the fictional conservative talk show host condemning her to also focus on pigskins and mixing fabrics, oh my! So unless we want to impose all those other uncomfortable laws we are out of luck, or at least hypocrites?
Well the issue is this, not only does the New Testament reiterate this specific command, but the very issue of what Old Testament laws gentiles-Christians needed to follow was addressed in the Jerusalem council in the book of Acts chapter 15. Also Paul also wrote a book about it called Galatians because this was a big topic in the first century. The conclusion of the council was this:
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
The apostles teach that new converts still must uphold and continue to avoid idolatry, sexual immorality, and food that was strangled and from blood. Idolatry is continued to be avoided by the church and rightfully so. As far as strangulation and blood, the issue was a strangled animal would not have been drained of blood. So drain the blood and then cook it, we pretty much already do this. But Paul speaks to this as well, if we do not know about the food preparation do not make inquiry unless a weaker brother is conflicted. In order for unity and love to continue.
But the central issue here is the gentile Christians are still to hold to the rules of sexual immorality. The question is where do rules for sexual immorality come from? Well rules for immoral sexual practice come from Leviticus 18 and 20 and there are rules for marriage covenants as well, which is always between a man and a woman. This is where the Jewish person is going to go for these instructions, this is where the Jewish person would point the Gentile wondering what defines sexual immorality. The Law does inform these practices. This is why Paul reiterates homosexuality, and why Jesus repeats adultery, and why Paul gets mad at the Corinthian church for allowing a man to have his Father's wife. Why not simply allow this if they are loving consenting adults? Why not let grace abound on this Paul? Paul knows that this act is specifically mentioned in this list. This is also why incest and bestiality is also still prohibited, despite what interests our culture.
To argue that this list is not still in vogue is to tell Paul he can't be mad about adultery, incest, bestiality, and specifically this episode from first Corinthians. This is to tell Paul that when he mentions homosexuality many times that he doesn't understand grace and certainly not love. Jesus furthers clarifies this list when speaking to the underlining problem of lust. Lust makes them all out of bounds, this is why pornography is also a problem. Lust makes sex about us. Lust means we throw off the commands of love and sex and demand our own ways. Lust says "This is how I feel", not what is right. Lust means we want it our way and we do not care about what the creator of our bodies and of sex says. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul further tells us that sexual sin seems to have a special problem for all people:
The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
This type of sin, sins against the temple of the Lord. The questions is are you a temple of the Lord or not? If so then you should avoid sexual immoral practices all the more. The non-Christian doesn't believe they are a temple so why belabor the point? Paul even mentions homosexuality specifically in the lists of sins that people who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God. This should be scary enough to avoid. But if a homosexual does not believe in God or the Bible then they should simply say "Well I don't believe that." But instead what we get is reasons why it should be OK. Well to a Christian I have all the reasons I need. Just as I have all the reasons to believe that Jesus is Lord. If God created us then he gets to set the standard. If he is Lord then he gets to tell me "Yes" or "No" . Again these are Christian truths based on a Christian worldview.
As a Christian I have to agree with what God says about the way he designed sex to work. As I Christian I am not allowed to practice homosexual sex. As a Christian I am not allowed to practice adultery. As a Christian I am not supposed to have sex outside of the marital covenant. As a Christian I am not allowed to have sex with animals. As a Christian I am not allowed to have incestuous sex. If any of these pose a temptation, we have to recognize that and give it to God to be nailed to the cross, not identify with it.
13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
This doesn't mean you will not fail but that there is a way out, if you are interested. And we remember...
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
There it is! The problem is that the wadges of sin is death. So the answer to our why question is that sin distances us from God and leaves us in eternal separation form him. The message here is not "God hates Fags!" It is that God hates people to die without relationship to him. He desires that none should perish. The reason that God has such strong language against sin is because it robs people of relationship with him.
If people are unwilling to even acknowledge sin, then they aren't going to be interested in the savior from it.
If homosexual sin is enticing to you, then that is your temptation, but you have to face it the same way a heterosexual man or woman faces their own sexual temptations: in obedience or rebellion, in humility or pride. As a Christian I have a responsibility of obedience because I am not the King, and the good news is when I fail there is a God who forgives. But a Christian needs to hold to what the Bible teaches on such matters. A non-Christian does not, that is their choice.
But our sinful proclivities do not excuse our acquiescence to them. God is inviting us all to himself if we will only come.
thanks
Thursday, May 28, 2015
It was Inevitible
Before I begin let me say that enough ire has been exchanged and if possible I want to avoid that and be as cordial as possible. But some things need to be said when others have been already. This conversation has been clouded for so long that nothing of substance gets through our passions much anymore. But in an effort to bring something new to the table I will say that I harbor no resentment for the opposition. But a Christian must take a stand because we will all give account.
Now having said that I don't usually like to comment on trends and politics specifically, but this one is so inherently Christian that I knew eventually I would write about it at some point and that time is now. I am not trying to be melodramatic but once again Rob Bell has stepped into the light and shared what he knows will be popular with society and rub the Christian community the wrong way. Thankfully I wasn't blogging back when Love Wins came out so I was then spared a comment, but that and this share a common theme. Now I don't want to judge the guy's heart because I do not know him, but his technique seems to consistently be based around gathering a following rather than presenting the true Christian way of thinking.
And that is the problem for me anyway, not him, but the way that Christianity is affected. The Gospel's primary message is that because of Adam's sin mankind is infected and needs a redeemer. Part of the way that God draws people to repentance is his goodness to us in the offering of his Son. This was for the payment of our sins if we will only turn to him. Christianity, you know John 3:16?
So Rob Bell says "We're moments away, [from accepting gay marriage]" "I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense..."
Hmm...If the church's primary concern was cultural relevance than he is right. If the church's primary goal was mass appeal then he is right. If the church's primary goal is making friends and networking then he is right. But if the church's primary concern is the promulgation of the Gospel then he is wrong. And while we are at it, the Gospel's best defense is also from letters 2000 year ago, should we abandon this cultural irrelevance as well?
See part of the problem is that this should be an in-house discussion. Sin in the world is always going to be there, it is not the church's job to run around cleaning everyone's nose. And if we are prepared to alter the Bible based on what an on-looking and free-commenting world says then our Bible will end up being much smaller. Thomas Jefferson already did this with the miraculous, the Jesus seminar did this with beads, now do we really want to do this with social justice issues? So because this is an in-house discussion it shouldn't matter what the world, or society, or fallen man thinks about it. But the church needs to understand it's own doctrine. When God is clear on something then his people need to fall in line. That is if they want to be a part of the kingdom. If not then that is your choice, but stop standing up under the banner of Christendom and muddying the waters.
I know that this discussion, if I can call it that, is so polarizing that it hurts and distances people. I know that the church has had a big part in that. We have taken the healing balm of the Gospel and sometimes fashioned it into a hammer. We have failed to allow the Holy Spirit to do his job and convict the world of sin. Instead we have sometimes taken up the banner of the sin police and tried to force our worldview onto people who were not asking. Hearing that your sin distances you from God when you are not looking for God is angering to say the least. The problem is now that the discussion is so out in the open that we cannot communicate it in such a way that it doesn't sound like an imposition or an attack.
I know that this is will not be popular for me to say. My intention is not to harm but I have a responsibility to clarify when the Bible is misrepresented on issues the world would rather not be said. But this is especially true when the problem is so linked to what distances people from God. Paul speaks in Romans of homosexuality as the capstone of fallen man in his journey away from God. This is not to say that homosexuality is the worst possible sin and there is no hope. That is not the message! But the sin of homosexuality is a hallmark of a society that has turned its back on God. Our society is in trouble and that is why the Gospel is so important.
The church's current problem in America is that the country is responding to the Gospel as it was always going to, as Jesus promised the world would, with hate. Now unfortunately though, there is a bigger problem, it has been unmasked and revealed in our hearts. It is that we as Christians do not like that fact that Christianity is now historically on the unpopular side of culture. That's it. We loved being Christians when it was cool and popular and our politics felt so God honoring and uplifting and our wars felt like God's hand was behind them all. But what has happened is we are no longer honored in the public eye. We are pariah. We do not like it. But then we are in danger of Galatians 1:10
For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Rather than recognize the inevitability that the Gospel was always going to be at odds with the world, we have instead decided we have a PR problem. Why? because we want mass appeal again. But the Gospel is only going to reach those who the Spirit draws. In doing so it may just leave many of us without friends as Jesus has already said to his followers. Mathew 10:16-25
Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
The solution is not to soften the Gospel and hire a PR agent, but to realize the stakes of what we signed up for. The answer is not to capitulate like Rob Bell is predicting the church will do. Unfortunately though he is right in that some have already and some will continue to do so. But that is not the Biblical response. Paul does not pull punches when he presents the condition of the world and it's need for Christ. This is the problem, Rob Bell isn't telling the world what the Bible says, he is telling people what they want to hear. He is trying to be a church PR representative and he is succeeding, at least for his own cause. But it is not a Christian position to ignore sin. Sin is what points people to God's goodness which leads them to repentance and them being born again. God's goodness is in his receiving sinners.
This is the point. I wish we could all be honest and say "This is Christian truth and you don't have to believe it". Instead we want to have our Christian cake and eat it too. We somehow think that disciples are supposed to be liked by the world, but Christ himself told us that we would not. We make the false dichotomy that because Jesus was liked by his followers that therefore everyone should like us. But the truth of the matter is that those who were following Jesus liked him, and those who were not following him did not. He was put to death remember? In the end more hated him than followed him. We should not be overly concerned with being liked, because Jesus wasn't liked.
But, when we are it should be for the right reasons. Because people are hearing the same message, the one that they didn't agree with when Jesus spoke it. Part of being a Christian is being at odds with the world, because we are jerks? No. But because our testimony is as Jesus' was; that all people need a savior from their futures apart from Christ. Jesus calls us to take up a cross remember?
In the same vein I wish homosexuals would be honest and say "This is the life we want to live and it doesn't matter what you believe." But instead they also want to be accepted and, rightfully so, doesn't everybody? But they shouldn't expect us to fault on our Biblical truth any more than we should expect them to want to fault on their lifestyle. We should not expect non-Christians to live as Christians. Nor should they expect Christians to agree with non-Christians especially about sin.
Where we are in society is where the church was inevitably going to be in relationship with the culture, on opposing sides.
Might we actually achieve a more peaceful tolerance if we were more honest with our positions? But the demand that the other side agree or accept the other side will only continue the fighting, or worse as Rob Bell predicted make hypocrites of those who capitulate to societal whims. When does the church ever give into societal pressure on issues of sin? I know the common argument is what about slavery? Well the obvious answers is those using the Bible to defend slavery were wrong. The Biblical system of slavery was to handle debt and included a time of jubilee (freedom) It was different. It included rules for treating the slaves (humanely). It was different. Paul encourages Philemon to grant freedom to Onesimus. It was different. Owner's were encouraged to treat slaves well and slaves were encouraged to get their freedom if legally possible. The New Testament furthers these treatments. Slavery was a reality in the world but the Biblical way to handle slaves was very different. Remember, those wanting to end slavery were using the Bible as well, just better.
We have been fighting a cultural war and loosing, as we were always going to. The battlefront for the Christian is not in public relations but in presentation of the gospel. All we can do is hold to it whether society likes it or not.
Now this is turning out to be longer than I had hoped but let me take a moment to talk about rightfully placed ire in regards to Christians. This is not an excuse for what has also happened; where Christians forget that their truth is supposed to be seasoned with salt. That is love. Christians do not get a free ticket to bulldoze those who don't agree. If we cannot communicate in Christian love than we deserve all the ire we get. If we treat people poorly then expect opposition. Also if we desire to be loved and accepted when we bring a message that Jesus tells us is offensive, we will be frustrated. But, if we get anger as the result of an honest and humble presentation of the Gospel, all we can do is thank God for the opportunity to share.
Thank God for the opportunity to share
Now having said that I don't usually like to comment on trends and politics specifically, but this one is so inherently Christian that I knew eventually I would write about it at some point and that time is now. I am not trying to be melodramatic but once again Rob Bell has stepped into the light and shared what he knows will be popular with society and rub the Christian community the wrong way. Thankfully I wasn't blogging back when Love Wins came out so I was then spared a comment, but that and this share a common theme. Now I don't want to judge the guy's heart because I do not know him, but his technique seems to consistently be based around gathering a following rather than presenting the true Christian way of thinking.
And that is the problem for me anyway, not him, but the way that Christianity is affected. The Gospel's primary message is that because of Adam's sin mankind is infected and needs a redeemer. Part of the way that God draws people to repentance is his goodness to us in the offering of his Son. This was for the payment of our sins if we will only turn to him. Christianity, you know John 3:16?
So Rob Bell says "We're moments away, [from accepting gay marriage]" "I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense..."
Hmm...If the church's primary concern was cultural relevance than he is right. If the church's primary goal was mass appeal then he is right. If the church's primary goal is making friends and networking then he is right. But if the church's primary concern is the promulgation of the Gospel then he is wrong. And while we are at it, the Gospel's best defense is also from letters 2000 year ago, should we abandon this cultural irrelevance as well?
See part of the problem is that this should be an in-house discussion. Sin in the world is always going to be there, it is not the church's job to run around cleaning everyone's nose. And if we are prepared to alter the Bible based on what an on-looking and free-commenting world says then our Bible will end up being much smaller. Thomas Jefferson already did this with the miraculous, the Jesus seminar did this with beads, now do we really want to do this with social justice issues? So because this is an in-house discussion it shouldn't matter what the world, or society, or fallen man thinks about it. But the church needs to understand it's own doctrine. When God is clear on something then his people need to fall in line. That is if they want to be a part of the kingdom. If not then that is your choice, but stop standing up under the banner of Christendom and muddying the waters.
I know that this discussion, if I can call it that, is so polarizing that it hurts and distances people. I know that the church has had a big part in that. We have taken the healing balm of the Gospel and sometimes fashioned it into a hammer. We have failed to allow the Holy Spirit to do his job and convict the world of sin. Instead we have sometimes taken up the banner of the sin police and tried to force our worldview onto people who were not asking. Hearing that your sin distances you from God when you are not looking for God is angering to say the least. The problem is now that the discussion is so out in the open that we cannot communicate it in such a way that it doesn't sound like an imposition or an attack.
I know that this is will not be popular for me to say. My intention is not to harm but I have a responsibility to clarify when the Bible is misrepresented on issues the world would rather not be said. But this is especially true when the problem is so linked to what distances people from God. Paul speaks in Romans of homosexuality as the capstone of fallen man in his journey away from God. This is not to say that homosexuality is the worst possible sin and there is no hope. That is not the message! But the sin of homosexuality is a hallmark of a society that has turned its back on God. Our society is in trouble and that is why the Gospel is so important.
The church's current problem in America is that the country is responding to the Gospel as it was always going to, as Jesus promised the world would, with hate. Now unfortunately though, there is a bigger problem, it has been unmasked and revealed in our hearts. It is that we as Christians do not like that fact that Christianity is now historically on the unpopular side of culture. That's it. We loved being Christians when it was cool and popular and our politics felt so God honoring and uplifting and our wars felt like God's hand was behind them all. But what has happened is we are no longer honored in the public eye. We are pariah. We do not like it. But then we are in danger of Galatians 1:10
For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Rather than recognize the inevitability that the Gospel was always going to be at odds with the world, we have instead decided we have a PR problem. Why? because we want mass appeal again. But the Gospel is only going to reach those who the Spirit draws. In doing so it may just leave many of us without friends as Jesus has already said to his followers. Mathew 10:16-25
Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.
The solution is not to soften the Gospel and hire a PR agent, but to realize the stakes of what we signed up for. The answer is not to capitulate like Rob Bell is predicting the church will do. Unfortunately though he is right in that some have already and some will continue to do so. But that is not the Biblical response. Paul does not pull punches when he presents the condition of the world and it's need for Christ. This is the problem, Rob Bell isn't telling the world what the Bible says, he is telling people what they want to hear. He is trying to be a church PR representative and he is succeeding, at least for his own cause. But it is not a Christian position to ignore sin. Sin is what points people to God's goodness which leads them to repentance and them being born again. God's goodness is in his receiving sinners.
This is the point. I wish we could all be honest and say "This is Christian truth and you don't have to believe it". Instead we want to have our Christian cake and eat it too. We somehow think that disciples are supposed to be liked by the world, but Christ himself told us that we would not. We make the false dichotomy that because Jesus was liked by his followers that therefore everyone should like us. But the truth of the matter is that those who were following Jesus liked him, and those who were not following him did not. He was put to death remember? In the end more hated him than followed him. We should not be overly concerned with being liked, because Jesus wasn't liked.
But, when we are it should be for the right reasons. Because people are hearing the same message, the one that they didn't agree with when Jesus spoke it. Part of being a Christian is being at odds with the world, because we are jerks? No. But because our testimony is as Jesus' was; that all people need a savior from their futures apart from Christ. Jesus calls us to take up a cross remember?
In the same vein I wish homosexuals would be honest and say "This is the life we want to live and it doesn't matter what you believe." But instead they also want to be accepted and, rightfully so, doesn't everybody? But they shouldn't expect us to fault on our Biblical truth any more than we should expect them to want to fault on their lifestyle. We should not expect non-Christians to live as Christians. Nor should they expect Christians to agree with non-Christians especially about sin.
Where we are in society is where the church was inevitably going to be in relationship with the culture, on opposing sides.
Might we actually achieve a more peaceful tolerance if we were more honest with our positions? But the demand that the other side agree or accept the other side will only continue the fighting, or worse as Rob Bell predicted make hypocrites of those who capitulate to societal whims. When does the church ever give into societal pressure on issues of sin? I know the common argument is what about slavery? Well the obvious answers is those using the Bible to defend slavery were wrong. The Biblical system of slavery was to handle debt and included a time of jubilee (freedom) It was different. It included rules for treating the slaves (humanely). It was different. Paul encourages Philemon to grant freedom to Onesimus. It was different. Owner's were encouraged to treat slaves well and slaves were encouraged to get their freedom if legally possible. The New Testament furthers these treatments. Slavery was a reality in the world but the Biblical way to handle slaves was very different. Remember, those wanting to end slavery were using the Bible as well, just better.
We have been fighting a cultural war and loosing, as we were always going to. The battlefront for the Christian is not in public relations but in presentation of the gospel. All we can do is hold to it whether society likes it or not.
Now this is turning out to be longer than I had hoped but let me take a moment to talk about rightfully placed ire in regards to Christians. This is not an excuse for what has also happened; where Christians forget that their truth is supposed to be seasoned with salt. That is love. Christians do not get a free ticket to bulldoze those who don't agree. If we cannot communicate in Christian love than we deserve all the ire we get. If we treat people poorly then expect opposition. Also if we desire to be loved and accepted when we bring a message that Jesus tells us is offensive, we will be frustrated. But, if we get anger as the result of an honest and humble presentation of the Gospel, all we can do is thank God for the opportunity to share.
Thank God for the opportunity to share
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)