Love Your Neighbor as Yourself?

Yes, I know the statement is not usually followed by a question mark, but stick with me for a minute or two.

This morning, I saw a Facebook meme with St. Paul's quotation of this teaching from the book of Galatians chapter 5 verse 14, "For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

It is quite intriguing that in the midst of a diatribe against those who are trying to impose the Law upon others, Paul quotes the Law, is it not?  In fact, Paul is trying to walk a delicate balance in this book.  He is trying to show that because of what Jesus has done, we are free from the Law.  We are no longer under its discipline, but we certainly do not have a license to do whatever we please--"lest we devour one another."

Paul unflinchingly says in this book that the Law cannot bring life.  The Law cannot justify.  This is quite a telling statement given that "love your neighbor as yourself" is indeed a command, a law.  And this command cannot bring life.  It cannot bring justification.

I puzzled over this for a while this morning as I looked at that Facebook meme.  For the fulfillment of the law seems to be contingent upon how we love ourselves.  I mean, look at it carefully.  Love your neighbor as  you love  yourself. 

How do you love yourself? 

When you look in the mirror, what do you see?

If you are like most in this world in which we live, you probably see one of two things:

1.  You see something despicable.  Don't stop reading.  Hear me out.  When you look at yourself and who you have become and compare it to what the rest of society says you should be; what you should look like; and how you should act, you see something despicable.  I mean, in my own case as a white male (depending upon which circles you run in), I should:

• have a sense of guilt because of white, male privilege
• have a six pack on my abs because I should be taking care of my body
• have a six figure salary
• have changed the world
• be sensitive to those around me
• be strong at all times
• be the perfect father, husband, friend
• work like a dog, but still have plenty of time for my wife and kids

Well, I have none of those things.  I am a tremendous failure.  If  you measure yourself by what society says you should be, you will have a great sense of that.  You will despise yourself, so how can you love others if you despise yourself?

2. Which leads to the second thing that you might feel when you look in the mirror.  You see someone who is fine just the way they are.  You don't care what the rest of the world says.  You are comfortable in your skin and see no need to change.  It is the rest of the world that needs to accommodate you not vice-versa. 

So, what is the problem with this?  Isn't that what we try to instill in our kids?  A sense of personal well being and satisfaction?  A sense that it doesn't matter what anyone says about you?  That you are perfect and deserving of love just as you are?  What is wrong with this?

This: a teacher I know spoke about two girls who had been caught shoplifting at a local store.  They were prosecuted and received probation.  Did they have any regret?  Did they feel any remorse for their actions?  No.  They laughed about it.  They blamed the store employee for turning them in.  They had done something, which in their eyes was harmless, and they felt nothing; no shame; nothing.  If you think you are fine just the way you are, this is the inevitable result: narcissism.  Complete self-centeredness.  And how can you love others when you are so completely and totally in love with yourself?  How can you practice the sacrifice loving another requires when you have no humility?

You can't.

Rarely does anyone get caught at the extremes of these positions.  Generally, we vacillate between the two poles: sometimes feeling down and depressed that we aren't who we should be; sometimes feeling we can take on the world; sometimes self-righteous that we have accomplished much; sometimes self-depreciating because we don't feel we have accomplished enough.  Back and forth.  Back and forth.  Is there no end?

It reminds me of a poem one of my members wrote before he died. 

Take a look–I’ve got it all
A great wife, health
Bank account that’s not small
Yet what is that sporadic, niggling burr
that nestles underneath my saddle?
Is it the ebbing of the physical
or a flaw in my gear box?
Maybe nature’s perverse trick to ruffle my feathers
Or one last long squall before the water calms.
I wrestle with this wisp of unease
It pins me more than not
A twinge of craziness asks
Am I a gerbil on a treadmill?
A captive in a cosmic joke?
A malcontent without a cause?
Is my chain being yanked because I care?
Maybe it is a plague of self absorption?
Blind faith would–could–be a lifeline
But for whatever reason no solace there.
Is the question unanswerable?
A maddening changing of the guard
Truth unacceptable
An accelerating slide down a slope
To a place I don’t want to go.  --Mark Chapman

I remember vividly a few weeks before Mark had a massive stroke he spoke up when I asked for prayer requests from the congregation, "That we may come to understand the theology you are preaching."

This request came a few months in after a complete change in my preaching style: a change in focus from what we are supposed to do to what Jesus has already done.  A switch in pointing out what we should do to proclaiming the Gospel of grace.  For it is grace that changes a heart, ends the back and forth battle between despair and arrogance, and brings final fulfillment to the Law.

For you see, the Gospel states that you are an unmitigated failure.
It also says you are deeply loved.

The God who judges all has condemned you because you haven't fulfilled His commands.
The God who judges all has taken on human flesh to die for you because He deeply loves you.

You cannot become arrogant because you have failed.
You cannot despair because you are deeply loved.

You cannot love yourself too much because in God's eyes, you are unlovable.
You cannot love yourself too little because you are the apple of God's eyes.

Such a realization instills a deep, deep sense of humility.  No longer do you look upon your neighbor with contempt or pity.  You look upon them with love and mercy.  You know they are broken--just as you are broken.  You know that they are loved--just like you are loved.  You see that your neighbor is just like you; loved just like you, and you can indeed love them just as you are loved.

The fulfillment of this command cannot come by sheer force of will, it comes only through the grace of God shown through Jesus.

The Primary Relationship

Last Thursday, my youth director and I attended a seminar on boundaries.

For the most part, the seminar was okay.  It was quite predictable.  Much of the material was essentially common sense thought in how to prevent abuse--sexual and otherwise.

But there were a couple of things that rubbed me a bit raw.

1. The power issue.  I belong to a denomination that is obsessed with power.  The ELCA has bought into the dichotomous thinking of liberation theologies where the world is viewed through the lens of oppressor/oppressed, and sense God has a preferential disposition toward the oppressed, the voices of the oppressed must be valued, raised up, etc.  Hence, there is no shortage of identity based theologies clamoring for ascendancy: Latin American Liberation Theology, Black Theology, Feminist Theology, Native American Liberation Theology, GLBTQ Theology, and the like.

There are a whole host of problems with this particular theological view, but now is not the time to go into such problems on a theological level.  I want to address something on a more practical level, particularly as it related to this course.  As we discussed the role of a clergy or a "professional" we were told that we, by virtue of our position are those in the power position.  (Never mind the conflict with Jesus' particular view that in order to be great in the kingdom--which we proclaim--we are actually last of all and servant of all.)  This differs from a marriage or dating relationship where two people come together as equals.

But wait!!!  If feminist liberation theologians are correct, then a marriage relationship or dating relationship is not of equals!!!  Males have the power!!!  Women do not!!!  How can we make a distinction between relationships if power dynamics govern both in such a manner?  Seems like we need to rethink our theology or our worldview in order to have a more solid basis when discussing boundaries.

2. Perhaps the most laughable line of the gathering was the emphasis that boundaries actually give freedom.  Not so much.

I mean, I'm going to split hairs here for just a moment because it is what I like to do.  :-)

I give my kids rules for a reason.  I tell them, "Don't play in the street," for a reason.  It's a limitation on their freedom, not for freedom, but for safety.  Within the boundaries (i.e. in the yard up to the sidewalk) they can run and play and go bananas--because they are safe.  They are not free.  There is a difference.

In this seminar, we were basically encouraged to make up more rules.  Make up more policies.  In theological speak, it was, "Make up more laws."

Newsflash: laws do not make you free.  They shackle you.  Martin Luther, the great reformer said, "The Law always kills."  There is a reason he said this.

First off, no one follows the Laws totally and completely.  No one.  In one part of the seminar, there was a list of rules to follow when it came to certain interactions.  I commented to my youth director, "I've probably broken nearly all of those."  Why?  Because many of those particular rules are broken each and every day in our relationships with each other as we laugh and joke and play with each other.  All one need do is turn on the television for a few minutes to see more than a few boundary violations.  Is it any coincidence that the rise in people getting offended has paralleled our loss of humor as a society?  We have failed to add context to what goes on in interaction, and that has led to some scary situations.

Among those scary situations is a societal trend of emotional reasoning.   Essentially this means a person allows his or her emotions to guide his or her interpretation of reality.  Some celebrate this; however, it is not to be celebrated.  It is actually a cognitive distortion.  (Leahy, Holland, McGinn, Treatment Plans and Interventions for Depression and Anxiety Disorders)  Just because you or I see something as reality does not mean it is actually reality.  A pastor who gently places his hand on a crying woman's shoulder--for all intent and purposes--is likely trying to offer compassion; however, that woman may have been a victim of physical abuse, and she interprets the actions as abusive or sexual in nature.  Who is right?  This pastor's life could be upset for years if this woman presses charges--even though her interpretation of reality is not reality.  The answer is not: more policies and more laws.  For heaven's sake, there were 613 commands in the Old Testament, and the people couldn't follow them!!  The laws and commands are not the problem.  The problem will be addressed below.

Secondly, if someone actually thinks he or she can and does follow the laws, commands, and policies, it almost always leads to a sense of self-righteousness, smugness, and confidence in one's ability to be morally upright and superior to others--almost always.  This leads to an "if I can do it, you should do it too" attitude.  Of course, the problem with this is two-fold.  Self-righteous people are almost always seen as a$$holes by regular folks.  (I speak from personal experience as one who has traveled long upon the self-righteousness road.)  Secondly, when such a person falls, and there have been many (think televangelists who get caught engaging in extra-marital sex) then great damage is not only done to that person's credibility--there is also great damage done to the institution of the Church.  Self-righteousness also leads to an us/them mentality.  We pure, upright, honest people are doing it right versus those heathens over there who can't get their proverbial $h!t together.  Such an attitude is hardly what we are called to espouse and set forth as Christians.

Both of these paths are "killer" paths.  They damage individuals.  They damage the Church.  They damage the soul.  More laws are not the answer.  More policies are not the answer.  What is?  Onto the third and final point.

3. The money comment which was made during this seminar was the following, "Abuse of boundaries takes place when there is a problem in the primary relationship."

Please re-read that comment again, because I think it is of vital importance.

But here is my fear: my greatest fear is that most people in the room thought the primary relationship had to do with their spouse or significant other.  My fear is that the "primary relationship" centered upon wife or husband or partner or boyfriend or girlfriend or the like.  And that is not the primary relationship.  It cannot be.  Why?

There are always problems with that relationship.  Always.  There are no perfect marriages.  There are no perfect relationships.  There is always going to be some sort of conflict.  There is always going to be some sort of animosity or anger or jealousy.  Two imperfect people cannot ever and will not ever come together to make something that is perfect.  And if those two imperfect people have added a couple of little imperfect people into the mix...well, then that just adds another whole layer or two or ten of imperfection, stress, anxiety, and the like--things that lead to boundary violations.

You see, our marriages, our friendships were never meant to satisfy us.  They were never meant to give us fullness or completeness.  They were never made to give us our identity or well being.  Imagine if you expect your closest relationship to bear all of those things.  Imagine if you thought your relationship with your spouse was capable of giving you all of those things even when your spouse or significant other is having a really, really bad day.  Is it any wonder so many marriages fail these days?

The problem isn't necessarily with marriage.  The problem is the focus on the wrong relationship.  The relationship with a spouse isn't the primary relationship.  The primary relationship is the one with one's Creator.  The primary relationship we have is with God.  We should know this in the church--should.

And so we return to that important statement: when something is wrong with the primary relationship, boundary violations occur.

Which raises the question: how do you make sure the primary relationship is right?  How do you make sure you are right with God?

Well, now we get to the heart of the Gospel.  For if we are orthodox in our belief, we confess that there is nothing we can do to make that relationship right.  There is nothing we can do on our part to make that relationship whole.  If we could--then we would become extremely self-righteous.  If we could, we would be able to follow every Law and command.  If we could, then there would never have been any need for Jesus and the cross.  We cannot make that relationship right.

But God already has.

Through the incarnation.  Through the cross.  Through the blood of Jesus, we are made right with God.

That relationship has been made right when you were unable to do it.  That relationship has been made right by sheer grace--by God's action and not your own.

Therefore, you have no room to boast or become self-righteous.
You have no room to become arrogant.

And...

You have no need to find your identity, your fulfillment, your sense of well-being from anything but God.  When you are seeking these things elsewhere, that means you are not trusting in what God has done--instead you are trusting in yourself--in what you think you have to do.

When you violate boundaries, it means you are not trusting in what God has accomplished for you.  You are returning to works/righteousness instead of the Gospel of grace.  The answer to the problem of boundaries is not make more boundaries.  It's trust God more.  He is and has made the primary relationship whole.

I learned this lesson the hard way.  My hope and prayer is that others might have an easier time.

Pat Robertson, Texas Floods, and the Why Question

Okay,  I know Pat Robertson really didn't say he was stuck in a quandary trying to figure out why God sent flooding to my home state.  Snopes is a wonderful tool to help wade through some of the garbage which surfaces on the www.   But Robertson and others have, in their history, made comments about natural disasters and God's wrath being administered through those disasters.  There are those who both cheer and jeer such pronouncements, and with good reason.

At the heart of such matters is the question of why such disasters happen.  From a atheistic perspective, the question is irrelevant.  Such flooding is simply part of the way the world works.  There is no rhyme or reason for the randomness.  It just happens.  Deal with it.  Cope with it.  Get over it.  If you lost loved ones or property, grieve--we will help you get back on your feet, but don't ask about any greater purpose or reason behind such matters.  There is none.  This answer is satisfactory for some.

For people of faith, the rejection of a "why" answer is not satisfactory.  We wrestle with the nature of such events.  We want to know if there is a purpose behind them. We want to know whether or not hope springs eternal.  For in the atheist answer, you have resolved the problem of suffering, but you have removed hope.  What hope is there for those who lost loved ones in this flooding?  What hope is there for those who have lost everything to flood damage--who believed they needed no insurance because they were high enough above the flood plain?  Those seeking hope want and need answers.

They are not always easy to find.

The Punishment Answer

Robertson and others have used the punishment answer in regards to natural disasters numerous times.  The idea is that society in general or some people in particular have committed grievous sin, and God is extending His wrath upon society with such disaster.

This answer is not without precedent.  In fact, it is found in Scripture on numerous occasion.  The great flood recorded in the Bible is one instance of divine punishment upon the evil of humanity.  An earthquake swallowing up a great deal many Israelites for betraying the covenant is another instance.  Venomous serpents in the desert is another.  In all occasions, God punishes sin by natural occurrences.

This does raise a bit of a quandary for those of us who believe God is a God of love.  Why would God punish people in such a manner--even "innocent" women and children?  Sometimes, the response leaves one scratching one's head.  "That's the God of the Old Testament, not the God of the New Testament."  (That argument was rejected by the early Church long ago and was deemed heresy.)  "God didn't really do those things.  Those things just happened, and the bibilcal writers just theologized the event."  (Well, you could do that to every single event in Scripture then.  That would make the Bible just a bunch of human events that people projected onto God.  Hello Freud.)

Punishment is a very effective tool for changing behavior.  Just ask any parent.  We use it all the time.  "If you don't stop hitting your brother, you will get a spanking!"  "If you don't clean your room, you will lose your ipod."  "If you do not eat your food, you will not be allowed to go outside and play."  And so on and so forth.  The threat of punishment, and the subsequent follow through is still used by the legal system today.  This is why we have speed limit signs, anti-discriminatory laws, and the like.  There are behaviors which must be curbed.

Throughout the Old Testament, God effectively uses punishment to change the behaviors of people who are failing to follow His commands and live according to His will and His way.  When people commit idolatry: God punishes.  When people fail to live justly, God punishes.  When people abuse the poor and downtrodden, God punishes.  God cannot stand the sight of sin, and to get people back on the right path, He sent punishment.

One can effectively argue that with each and every disaster, natural and otherwise, that God is punishing society and individuals for their sin.  For no one is innocent. 

There are those who might dispute that last comment, but I would like to remind you of the biblical nature of sin.  Sin is not simply the things that we do--it goes beyond that.  It is the condition of the human heart, and the human heart is naturally turned toward itself.  It naturally seeks self-preservation.  It naturally seeks self-gain.  It naturally seeks its own self-interests.  As Nietzsche once put it: we all seek our own will to power.  In this light, no one can escape guilt.  As the reformer Martin Luther put it: we are in bondage to sin.  It is the condition of our hearts.  Therefore, God is justified in punishing such sin.

The Problem with Punishment

But there is a problem with simply punishing.  For while punishment changes behavior, it does not change hearts.  What do I mean by that?

Whenever the threat of punishment disappears, people go right back to doing whatever it was they were doing to begin with.  Kids will wreck havoc when parents go away because the threat is gone.  Their fear is gone.  Therefore, they push through boundaries thinking they will not get caught.  Behavioral change was only temporary.  It was not lasting. 

On the other hand, if someone loves and respects the ruling authorities, then following the rules is a joy.  Following the law is a delight.  Why?  Because one knows that in following the rules, one is bringing delight to one's superiors. 

But how do you get another person to love you?  How do you get another person to see how much you care for them?

Jesus gave us the ultimate answer to that one, "No one has greater life than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends."  Jesus wasn't the first one to say that.  Others had said it before, but this was the first time in history when God took on human flesh and not only said such a thing, but did it.  Every other time the gods came down to earth, it was to wreck destruction and mayhem or because they were interested in satisfying some sort of perverse desire.  Jesus took on flesh to die--not only for His friends but for His enemies as well.  No greater love has ever been shown.

The Cross

And, of course, that death took place on a cross.  It was the worst sort of death.  The Romans had perfected the art of killing someone so that a person not only died but died without dignity and in massive amounts of pain.  This was the death that Jesus experienced--the same Jesus who did not deserve to die; who was completely and utterly innocent; whose heart was perfectly attuned to His Father's will. 

There is a bastardized understanding of Christianity that flows around the world these days.  It's the proclamation that if one just believes in Jesus and seeks to follow Him and has enough faith, then one will experience healing of every sort.  One will be completely whole in finances, health, and relationships.  God will grant victory in bank accounts, bedrooms, social relationships, and hospitals if one simply begins believing.

The cross destroys such ideology.  Jesus' lived the perfect life, and He was crucified.  The earliest disciples--who saw Jesus raised from the dead, met their demise in persecution, suffering, exile, and imprisonment.  Christianity does not promise a life without suffering, but it does offer eternal hope.  It offers consolation when suffering occurs.  It offers the knowledge that when the worst happens, God will have the last say.

The Resurrection

For the cross was not the end of the story.  Three days later, Jesus rose from the dead and proclaimed that all who trust in His work will share with Him in this resurrection.  Two things are important: the work of Jesus and the future hope.

The Work of Jesus

The cross for Christians is not only the result of humanity's worst.  It is not simply a man being hanged because He dared challenge the power structures of the day.  Jesus certainly did that; however there was more to it; much more.

In the context of the Jewish sacrificial system, Jesus became the perfect sacrifice--the perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world.  Theological jargon, I know, but let's try and break it down a little.  Mind you, there have been books written about this.  I'm trying to get it done in a blog post. 

Whenever sin occurred, one had to justify oneself toward God.  Atonement had to be made.  This isn't as foreign as it might seem to us living so far removed from the situation.  How so?  Well, whenever someone wrongs you, you demand justice.  You demand recompense.  You demand that things be made right.  Whenever you pay for goods, and those goods do not meet specifications, you demand your money back or that the goods be fixed.  Things must be made right.  In relationships, if you are hurt by another person, you demand an apology.  You demand that the person fix the pain caused. 

Yet, if you forgive another person, you bear the cost of that forgiveness.  You bear the cost of the broken goods.  You bear the pain of broken relationships.  On the cross, Jesus bore the cost of our brokenness with God.  He bore the cost of our hearts being focused on ourselves.  He bore the cost of our actions that break God's laws and commands.  He took the punishment so that we do not have to fear it, and instead of fearing God's wrath, we can look toward God's love and promise.

The Future Hope

Being assured of God's love and freed from worry about His wrath, we can now live lives honoring God.  We can be free of fear of death and destruction.  We know Who holds our future, and our lives are built upon Him.

The reformer Martin Luther summarized this in one of the stanzas to the hymn "A Mighty Fortress:"

Were they to take our house,
Goods, honor, child, or spouse,
Though life be swept away,
They cannot win the day,
The Kingdom's ours forever.

Wrapped up in this verse is the knowledge that suffering will occur.  There is the knowledge that it is not God who brings such suffering upon us.  We still don't have the answer for that; however, just because we don't have the answer to "why", we are free to ask the question, and we are free to know what the ultimate solution will be.  We are free to know the ultimate and final say will be a new heaven and a new earth where all bad things will be undone.  This is the promise of the cross and the resurrection. 

As flood victims are striving to put their lives together, the outpouring of support and love will do wonders to bring healing.  It is my hope that well intentioned people will not try to solve the why question, but instead will point to the God who suffers with and then turns mourning into dancing--the God who took suffering upon Himself and then transformed death into life. 

Only the Cross

I find myself in a bit of a pickle as I think long and hard about my relationship with the larger church (ELCA).  I love my church.  There is no doubt about this.  I want her to grow and thrive.  I want the God-awful state of decline she has been in to reverse itself and for people to fill her pews on a given Sunday morning.  I long for the day when all of our congregation's pews: Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, and the like are filled to overflowing as people come from far and wide to worship.

I do not wish for any church body to decline and die.

And yet, many are.  Some slowly.  Some spiraling out of control.

Now, this is not some sort of "the Church must change or die" sort of post.  God knows, I've heard so many of those lectures and read so many of those blogs that I have started tuning them out.

That goes for those folks who say that we need to become more moralistic.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to focus more on justice.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to change our doctrines.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so liberal.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to stop being so conservative.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement more programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to implement less programs.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "contemporary"/modern worship.
That goes for those folks who say that we need to have more "traditional" worship.

In each and every one of these things, we are focusing on ourselves.  We are trying to figure out what the surrounding culture wants and give it to them.  It's as if we believe the Church is here to satisfy the needs and desires of the culture, and if we want our pews to be full, then we need to be giving the culture what it wants.

I can see the early Church trying to take such action. 

"Well, you see those Jews over there.  They expect a Messiah who will come and establish power and peace by military force.  The Messiah will overthrow the Romans and free the nation of Israel.  Let's shun the cross and what Jesus did and talk about such power and might.  Let's give them what they want."

"Well, you see those Gentiles over there.  They want comfort and security.  They want a god who is omniscient and omnipotent who can favor them.  Let's get rid of the cross where God dies and give them a god who allows them joy and pleasure in their lives."

"For the cross is a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles."  --1 Corinthians 1:23.

Indeed, the cross still is foolishness.  It must be.  That's the only reason I can think of that it didn't make an appearance at the Synod Assembly I attended last week.  Can you imagine a Synod Assembly whose focus was intended to be evangelism that didn't mention the cross?  That didn't mention the acts of God on that cross?  Can you imagine a Lutheran Synod Assembly whose focus was supposedly evangelism--whose founder espoused and coined the phrase the theology of the cross--who didn't spend a single minute asking the question, "How do we convey the message of the cross in this day and age?  How do we talk about God's reconciling the world unto Himself in this postmodern age?"

So, what was the Synod Assembly focused on? 

Essentially, it was one giant pep-rally trying to get us to do good things.  Yep, that was it.  Work hard at being especially nice.  Work hard at listening to your neighbors.  Work hard at loving everyone.  That is evangelism.  Your works are evangelism.  What you do is evangelism.

So, you might ask, what is the problem with that?  I'd like you to read the following quote from a young man who served on a panel of young adults at the Synod Assembly.  He leans atheist/agnostic, and he offered this scathing criticism of the church:

But the part of me that lives on the edges has to stop and ask this...why?  Why is the christian church trying to recruit "youths ages 18-35 who make up the blah blah blah???  What does having more people in church do?

The people I asked to help me with this do amazing things, why doesn't the church stop trying to pull them into their crowd and instead go out and be with them? ...The question I want answered is, when will the church stop trying to make itself the center of everyone's world and go out and do something like so many 18-35 year olds are doing, because I have to tell you, we are just waiting for the day the church joins us.

What response can one give to such a scathing criticism IF the church's job is "doing good things?" 

There is no response.  The criticism stands, and the Church is convicted.  (Although to be fair, in the omitted examples this gentleman listed in his screed where he asked "Where is the Church?", in all reality, the Church was already in all of those places.  One can easily ask the question: why can't you see it there?)

In fact, as I was debriefing with one of my members, I was brutally honest.  I said, "I don't want this guy in my church.  He reminds me of myself not too long ago.  Arrogant.  Self-righteous.  He'd be a troublemaker.  But it doesn't matter if I want him in church or not.  There is One who does want Him.  There is One who wants His heart and soul."

Indeed, there is one part of the young man's criticism that is Truth: the Church should never try and make itself the center of everyone's world.  Never.  Ever!  At the center of everyone's world should be a cross with a suffering God who is stretching His arms out to suffer and die to make sure the world is reconciled to their Heavenly Father.  At the center of everyone's world should be Jesus.

If anyone in the Christian Church disputes this, then I simply think you cannot call yourself a Christian.  (Read my extended quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer from a few days ago.)  If at the center of your world is anything less than Jesus, then you are committing idolatry.  You have a false god.

And so, the answer to the young man's question is Jesus.  The Church doesn't want you, sir.  Jesus does.  The Church will go on without you too, but there is One who doesn't want to go on without you.  There is one who was willing to die for you.  I know you probably don't see that or get that.  You are completely and totally focused on your actions and the actions of the world and the Church.  You want to make a difference.  I understand that.  I really do.  I wanted to change the world myself.

But I found out something.  It was a hard lesson.  A very hard one.  I couldn't make that difference.  I couldn't change people.  I couldn't change the world.  I might be able to feed a person for a day.  I might be able to lobby government officials.  I might even be able to lead a movement to change laws, but I can never, ever change someone's heart.  I can't make people love each other.  I can't make people get along and see each other a fully human.  I can't convince people to stop looking out for their own interests and look out for the interests of another. 

I know you are a studious sort of person.  It came across very strongly in your presentation.  Read Nietzsche?  You understand, don't you, that if there is no transcendence, no God, then everything we do are simply power plays, right?  You do understand that essentially we are all working out our own wills to power even if we say we are looking out for another?  You could argue that you aren't looking out for yourself, but Nietzsche would scoff at you and say, "Yeah right.  The only reason you are trying to help others is because you get some benefit.

You see, there is One who indeed came and lived for no benefit to Himself.  Jesus didn't need anything from us.  He was totally satisfied, loved, and glorified in His relationship with His Father and the Spirit.  He needed and needs nothing from us.  Yet, He came to us for a reason--to change our hearts that we might experience the same kind of love He knows living with the Father and the Spirit.  He came that we might be able to love one another without any sort of contempt or anger towards those who are different than we are.  And He showed that not with power and might but with a cross.

It's all about Jesus and the cross.  If you can't get someone to the foot of the cross, then...well, you might be doing some good things, but you are not doing evangelism.  And if the Church exists solely for doing good things, then we have no need of worship.  We have no need for buildings and Bible Study.  All we essentially need is to have someone urge us, remind us, sometimes whip us into submission to "Love our neighbors as we love ourselves."

But Christianity isn't about that.  Evangelism isn't about that.  It's all about Jesus.  It's focal point is the cross. 

Somehow, this has been pushed to the periphery.  No longer is it at the center.  

To our detriment.

What will it take to reclaim our cross-centeredness? 

I frankly don't know, but I know what I will do from henceforth:

When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. ²For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.  -- 1 Corinthians 2:1-2.

If that message changed hearts then, it will still change hearts now.  Here I stand...