One of the major issues confronting our world is its shrinkage. You may scratch your head for a moment on that comment thinking, “Isn’t the earth the same size as it has been for billions of years? There aren’t parts of it eroding into space, are there?” No. That’s not the kind of shrinkage I am talking about. It’s the shrinkage that has been ongoing since the development of more types and faster types of travel and communication. It is in this regard that I think the world is getting smaller.
Consider this, 150 years ago, if you wanted to know what was going on half-way around the world, you had to wait days, if not weeks or months to find out. Letters from overseas were carried upon horseback to an awaiting boat–most probably a sail boat although steam engines were beginning to arrive on the scene. The letter would arrive and be delivered on horseback to its location, but if you were very lucky, the railroad might be able to carry it a bit faster to your location. Communication took time–a long time. Travel took time–much longer than it does now. Today, we have instant communication anywhere in the world by satellite phone or internet. We can board an airplane today and in less than 24 hours can be sitting on the other side of the world. We can drive down to Katy in under an hour’s time whereas 100 years ago it would have taken half a day. The world has shrunk because of technology, and that has had some consequences.
Among those consequences is that we are now forced to rub shoulders with people who are vastly different than we are. We are now coming into contact with people of all sorts of races, religions, worldviews and identities. If you engage this world in any way, you will run into people who do not look like you, think like you, or act like you. Amazingly enough, we are doing a pretty good job of coexisting in this world without destroying each other; but there is quite a bit of tension–quite a bit of tension.
We see that tension rear its head in politics; in spirited debate; in the various wars around the world. There is heightened tension right now between Israel and Palestine. There is heightened tension between Democrats and Republicans. There is heightened tension between conservatives and liberals. There is heightened tension between those who believe in God and those who are atheist. There is heightened tension between Christians and Muslims. Various worldviews around the world are in a constant struggle to interact and offer people a sense of belonging and sense of understanding about the nature of reality. And there is a struggle for truth–which worldview is true and leads us to respect and honor one another?
Some have argued that no one worldview can have a hold on the truth. No one worldview or religion can grasp ultimate truth if that ultimate truth even exists. In fact, some use a rather fascinating illustration to show this. It’s an illustration called the “Blind Men and the Elephant.” Perhaps you have heard it. Depending on the version, five or six blind men encounter an elephant, and each of them touch a different part of the elephant. After their encounter, the men argue about what the elephant is like. One argues the elephant is like a rope–long, narrow, and stringy, because he touched the tail. One argues the elephant is like a wall because he touched the torso. One argues the elephant is like a tree truck as he touched the leg. One argues the elephant is like a hose because he touched the trunk. Another argues the elephant is like a spear, long and sharp because he touched the tusk. Round and round and round they argue–all of them, in one way right, and all of them in one way wrong. And, some argue, that’s the way with religions and worldviews. All of them get something right. All of them get something wrong. Leslie Newbigin gave a rebuttal of sorts to this parable as he realized something: you cannot say that all worldviews have something right and something wrong unless you can see the entire perspective of reality yourself. You cannot possibly know all worldviews have something right and something wrong unless you yourself know the truth! Therefore, people who try to tell you that reality is this way are simply trying to convert you to their way of thinking! They have no idea if it’s true or not. It is just another competing worldview.
The Christian worldview offers a particular way of looking at the world, and it is a way that unabashedly claims to know the truth while honoring and respecting those outside its belief system. It seeks converts but does not seek to harm or hurt those outside the faith. Now, that has not been the case because there are those who have warped Christianity’s teachings, but this morning, I would like to show you what Christianity teaches using this little snippet from Mark chapter nine.
This little piece begins with the disciple John coming up to Jesus and saying, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” Now, keep in mind the following points: first, remember that just a few verses earlier Mark recounted how the disciples were UNABLE to cast out a demon. So it is with no great irony that John is trying to stop someone else from successfully doing what the disciples were unsuccessful at accomplishing. Secondly, immediately preceding John’s statement was Jesus’ teaching on greatness. “Whoever wants to be first of all must be last of all and servant of all.” Does it strike you how John, who is speaking for the rest of the disciples as well, doesn’t quite seem to get humility? Finally, consider this last point which was rammed home to me by James Edwards in his commentary on this text. I never even considered this point until I read it, and it makes absolute sense to me now. Edwards says, “John’s report that the independent exorcist ‘was not following us’ is depressingly ironic. We should expect him to say ‘because he was not following you.’ Is it not a little presumptuous at this stage of discipleship for John to think himself and the other disciples as worthy of being followed?” I hope you caught Edwards’ gist there. John and the disciples are still quite consumed with themselves. They think they are something special because they follow Jesus. They rank themselves with Jesus, but in reality, it’s not about them!!! It’s never supposed to be about them or us!! It’s always supposed to be about Jesus!!!
Which is why Jesus replies to them, “‘Do not stop him [and the Greek gives you the sense of “do not stop him or anyone like him now or ever]; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me.” Now, I want to point out quickly here that the other exorcist was not casting out demons in the name of any other religion or in the name of any other god. Some might like to take Jesus’ words and expand them to all religions here. You cannot do that. Jesus said plainly and clearly that this was being done in His name. When someone does something in Jesus’ name, we are called to humbly step back. We are called to celebrate what they are doing. For anyone who does something in Jesus’ name is not against us. We are working toward the same goal and purpose–if we are working in. Jesus’. Name.
Of course, that now raises the question of, “Well, what if someone is not doing anything in Jesus’ name?”
Jesus continues, “41For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.” Some have massively misinterpreted this verse. They have suggested that if we are doing even the littlest of actions, then we will be rewarded. They suggest that Christianity is about doing all sorts of little things with great love, but you need to look very, very carefully at what Jesus says here. This is not about the actions of His disciples. This is about the actions of those who are outside the circle of Christianity. This is about those who are not following Jesus. “Whoever gives YOU a cup of water to drink BECAUSE YOU BEAR THE NAME OF CHRIST will by no means lose the reward.” If there are those outside the faith who welcome you; who embrace you; who are kind to you, Jesus sees that as a welcoming of Himself. Try to wrap your head around that for a moment. Even if someone does not believe in Him or trust Him, when they care for you, they are caring for Jesus, and Jesus honors that. Which means, if Jesus is honoring the actions of those who care for us in such a manner, should we not do the same? Of course we should, and I will return to this in just a minute after dealing with the final verse.
Jesus finishes, “‘If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.” This comment would have called up historical precedent because the Roman army had inflicted this exact punishment some Jewish Zealots who had tried to rebel against them under Judas the Galilean (Lane 346)1. Again, let me point out that Jesus is reinforcing the idea that we should not inhibit someone who is striving to do good in His name. In our zealous nature to make sure everyone does everything “right” we may cause others to stumble. We may cause others to fall. We may cause others to walk away from the faith, and Jesus says this would be cause for us to have a millstone hung around our necks and us be cast into the ocean.
Again, the problem confronted throughout this particular teaching by Jesus is the problem of self-righteousness. John and the other disciples thought they were better than this other exorcist because of their close association with Jesus. Humility was severely lacking. If we look down our noses at those who are outside of the Christian faith and treat them as less than those created in the image of God, this again is self-righteousness. If we go around criticizing others for trying to follow Christ in a manner that we think is wrong or undignified or less than perfect, then we are being self-righteous. And this self-righteousness comes from thinking that religion and following Jesus focuses on our actions.
This is exactly where Christianity diverges massively from the rest of the world’s religions. For the rest of the world’s religions focus on what we do. They say we must do the right things to be accepted. We must accomplish good works or the deity will turn against us. This leads us to either despair because we do not believe we can accomplish those works or it leads us to become self-righteous because we think we are accomplishing those works and others should do like we do.
But Christianity says we are not saved by our works. We are not saved by casting out demons. We are not saved by bringing cups of water. We are not saved by living perfectly, morally, and uprightly. We are not saved by telling everyone else how they should or should not act. We are saved totally and completely by sheer grace. Let me repeat that again, you are only saved by sheer grace. You are saved only and completely by Jesus and His actions on your behalf. You are saved only by what Jesus accomplished for you on the cross by dying the death you deserved. You have no righteousness to stand on.
St. Paul put it this way in the third chapter of the book of Philippians, “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. 7 Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. 8More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through trust in Christ, the righteousness from God based on trust.”
You see, Paul had every right to think that his works had guaranteed him righteousness with God, and Paul was indeed self-righteous. He persecuted the church because he thought he could accomplish the works of the law. But Jesus appeared to Paul and radically changed his worldview. Paul knew that Jesus came into the world and saved him by sheer grace. No longer could Paul trust in himself. Paul knew he must trust in Jesus.
And when you trust in Jesus, when you trust in His work on the cross, several things become abundantly clear. First, you know that you have seen God. You have seen the Truth. For you have seen the God who became flesh. Secondly, you are humbled because you know that you did nothing to deserve what you have been given. Your heart is no longer hardened because you know that Jesus died for you when you least deserved it and were living in sin. And finally, you have a heart for others. You cherish those who work in Jesus’ name, and you see those who do not work in Jesus’ name as those created in the image of God who God longs to bring into fellowship with Him. You long to bring them the news of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. For even though Jesus indeed died for you, you remember John 3:16 and 17.
“For God so loved the world–the WORLD–that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world–THE WORLD–not to condemn the world, but that the world–THE WORLD–might be saved through Him.” If we know that Jesus came to save the WORLD, we know that means all of the people in it. If your heart is touched by this, I invite you to delve further into the Christian worldview, for I think you will find within it the Truth who brings peace to this shrinking world. Amen.
1. New International Commentary on the New Testament. “The Gospel of Mark”. William Lane.
Showing posts with label Pluralism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pluralism. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2015
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Have Christians Lost the Culture War?
Todd Starns in a Fox News Opinion piece asks this very question.
He begins:
The culture war may be lost and religious liberty might not be that far behind, according to a new survey from LifeWay Research, the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Seventy percent of senior pastors at Protestant churches say religious liberty is on the decline in the United States, and 59 percent of Christians believe they are losing the culture war. Eleven percent considers that war already lost.
Some within some Christian denominations see this as a major, MAJOR problem.
It's actually long in coming. The only question I have is: what took it so long?
The real "problem" in my estimation is not that Christians are losing the "Culture War." There's a multitude of problems that Christians within the U.S. have just not dealt with very well.
#1. Complacency. For a long, long time, Christianity held a privileged position as the religion of choice within the U.S. With that privilege came certain "perks" among them that many were born into the church and expected to continue to attend church. No more. As secularism has continued almost unabated, this expectation fell by the wayside. Fewer made the commitment to worship. For the first few generations, this wasn't much of a problem because there were still sufficient numbers in pews. Yet, as older generations died out, the younger folks didn't replace them. The church suddenly could not rest upon the fact that they held a position of privilege. You couldn't just build a church and expect people to show up. Now, churches truly have to engage people and work at evangelism. Simply running into someone on the street and trying to convince them to come to worship won't work. Literal transformation of worldviews is now necessary. Complacent churches aren't able or oftentimes willing to put in this kind of work.
#2. The rise of the "Spiritual but not Religious." Most folks in the U.S. still self-identify as Christians, but a vast majority are almost non-practicing Christians. Many are "spiritual but not religious." Many are believers in the sense of ascribing to the belief that Jesus is a cool guy, maybe even the Son of God, but that belief rarely leads to visible transformation in a person's life. Such folks often say, "I don't need to worship in church to worship God. I can do very well under a tree in the middle of the woods." Unfortunately, the church rarely has any response to convince a person to worship--which leads to transformation. The church rarely has a good apologetic (outside of "churchy" language) to combat this rampant individualism of faith.
#3. The rise of religious pluralism. Pluralism in and of itself isn't a bad thing. A variety of views and understandings is a welcome thing as it prevents any one particular group from exercising evil. Mutual respect is key, but the church hasn't handled such a thing well. It has tended to vacillate between relativism (embracing various other religions as simply other paths to God) and religious snobbery (people of other faiths are completely wrong and not worth respect). Neither of these are particularly palatable or particularly biblical. It is extremely difficult to be comfortable enough in one's own Christian skin and still respect others.
#4. (This one could get me in trouble.) The Politicalization of the Faith. Yes, I am speaking about the "Religious Right" and the "Christian Left." These two political movements, in my estimation are deadly. They each basically assert, "You cannot be a true Christian if you don't vote either Democrat or Republican." They each assert their particular political party as more "Christian" than the other. I personally believe this is not a good thing. I personally believe such affiliations draw lines in the sand and lead to polarization--a polarization within the pews. Both groups seek to exercise power to influence voters and government. In their own ways, each group tries to establish God's Kingdom on earth through the passing of legislation. Last I checked, the church sought to transform society through POWERLESSNESS, not through power. Very bad things have happened in history when the church sought to use power in governmental rule. The church needs critical distance from each political party to be able to call sin for what it is: no matter who is committing it. When affiliating with a party, the church has lost its prophetic voice and alienated 1/2 of the people it is called to reach.
I could list more, but in my estimation, these things--these changes in society--have made folks in the church anxious. Rather than deal with the change in society, many have battened down the hatches and sought to preserve their "turf." They declared war oftentimes using the legislative process to accomplish their goals. Last I looked, Jesus wasn't about that kind of stuff. The only war He declared was against evil. When it came to society and people, Jesus sought reconciliation, forgiveness, and love--even of His enemies. He never attempted to change the laws of the Roman empire, but sought to change the hearts and minds of those whom He came into contact with through compassion. With one caveat--He was quite vociferous toward those of the religious establishment who should have known better.
The church in America would do well to drop this pretense of culture war and follow the example of its founder.
He begins:
The culture war may be lost and religious liberty might not be that far behind, according to a new survey from LifeWay Research, the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Seventy percent of senior pastors at Protestant churches say religious liberty is on the decline in the United States, and 59 percent of Christians believe they are losing the culture war. Eleven percent considers that war already lost.
Some within some Christian denominations see this as a major, MAJOR problem.
It's actually long in coming. The only question I have is: what took it so long?
The real "problem" in my estimation is not that Christians are losing the "Culture War." There's a multitude of problems that Christians within the U.S. have just not dealt with very well.
#1. Complacency. For a long, long time, Christianity held a privileged position as the religion of choice within the U.S. With that privilege came certain "perks" among them that many were born into the church and expected to continue to attend church. No more. As secularism has continued almost unabated, this expectation fell by the wayside. Fewer made the commitment to worship. For the first few generations, this wasn't much of a problem because there were still sufficient numbers in pews. Yet, as older generations died out, the younger folks didn't replace them. The church suddenly could not rest upon the fact that they held a position of privilege. You couldn't just build a church and expect people to show up. Now, churches truly have to engage people and work at evangelism. Simply running into someone on the street and trying to convince them to come to worship won't work. Literal transformation of worldviews is now necessary. Complacent churches aren't able or oftentimes willing to put in this kind of work.
#2. The rise of the "Spiritual but not Religious." Most folks in the U.S. still self-identify as Christians, but a vast majority are almost non-practicing Christians. Many are "spiritual but not religious." Many are believers in the sense of ascribing to the belief that Jesus is a cool guy, maybe even the Son of God, but that belief rarely leads to visible transformation in a person's life. Such folks often say, "I don't need to worship in church to worship God. I can do very well under a tree in the middle of the woods." Unfortunately, the church rarely has any response to convince a person to worship--which leads to transformation. The church rarely has a good apologetic (outside of "churchy" language) to combat this rampant individualism of faith.
#3. The rise of religious pluralism. Pluralism in and of itself isn't a bad thing. A variety of views and understandings is a welcome thing as it prevents any one particular group from exercising evil. Mutual respect is key, but the church hasn't handled such a thing well. It has tended to vacillate between relativism (embracing various other religions as simply other paths to God) and religious snobbery (people of other faiths are completely wrong and not worth respect). Neither of these are particularly palatable or particularly biblical. It is extremely difficult to be comfortable enough in one's own Christian skin and still respect others.
#4. (This one could get me in trouble.) The Politicalization of the Faith. Yes, I am speaking about the "Religious Right" and the "Christian Left." These two political movements, in my estimation are deadly. They each basically assert, "You cannot be a true Christian if you don't vote either Democrat or Republican." They each assert their particular political party as more "Christian" than the other. I personally believe this is not a good thing. I personally believe such affiliations draw lines in the sand and lead to polarization--a polarization within the pews. Both groups seek to exercise power to influence voters and government. In their own ways, each group tries to establish God's Kingdom on earth through the passing of legislation. Last I checked, the church sought to transform society through POWERLESSNESS, not through power. Very bad things have happened in history when the church sought to use power in governmental rule. The church needs critical distance from each political party to be able to call sin for what it is: no matter who is committing it. When affiliating with a party, the church has lost its prophetic voice and alienated 1/2 of the people it is called to reach.
I could list more, but in my estimation, these things--these changes in society--have made folks in the church anxious. Rather than deal with the change in society, many have battened down the hatches and sought to preserve their "turf." They declared war oftentimes using the legislative process to accomplish their goals. Last I looked, Jesus wasn't about that kind of stuff. The only war He declared was against evil. When it came to society and people, Jesus sought reconciliation, forgiveness, and love--even of His enemies. He never attempted to change the laws of the Roman empire, but sought to change the hearts and minds of those whom He came into contact with through compassion. With one caveat--He was quite vociferous toward those of the religious establishment who should have known better.
The church in America would do well to drop this pretense of culture war and follow the example of its founder.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Who is Welcome?
A Facebook colleague shared the following blog post:
When my abuser is welcome at the table and, I am not.
Pertinent quotes:
It’s the cool thing in more progressive branches of Christianity now to talk about how EVERYONE is welcome at the communion table. I should be glad about that, I guess...
But this trend in Christianity where EVERYONE is welcome scares me.
Maybe it’s because of the time when a former friend of Abe’s, who knew my back story, told Abe and I that we had to be grateful that Jesus forgives rapists. Who told us that because we could not see rapists as sinners just like us, we must not know Jesus like he does.
Or maybe it’s because of the people who cut off all ties to me because I’m not all that cheery and positive in my critiques of abusive systems and ideologies. Those same people who talk about how they long to sit down at the communion table with popular spiritually abusive leaders in a show of grace and forgiveness.
Or maybe it’s because of the way I see so-called progressive Christians in powerful positions react when my friends who are gay or trans* or disabled or people of color say, “Hey, this person/ideology is oppressing us.”
EVERYONE is welcome. But more and more it seems the “EVERYONE” that Christians are really going after is abusers.
And why not? How radical and Jesus-like does that sound? Abusers and survivors, sitting at the same table. Sharing the same bread and wine. The lion lying down next to the lamb.
Sure. That sounds great. Excuse me while I go have a panic attack or two.
I apologize for the length of that quote, but I do not want to diminish what Sarah Moon is saying. She's been abused. She's been raped. She's terrified of coming to a place where her abuser is welcomed, and she senses that she is not--not that she isn't welcome, she knows that, but where it seems like there is little compassion, comfort, or even safety for her.
Everyone is welcome. That is the mantra. No boundaries. Anything goes.
This is one of those responses to pluralism that has infected the church--yes, I used infected purposely.
The idea that everyone is welcome has never been embraced by orthodox Christianity. It wasn't embraced by Jesus. It wasn't embraced by Paul. So where did this idea come from? Where did people start buying into the idea EVERYONE is welcome at the table of the Lord?
It's About Grace
Progressive Protestantism is enamored with the concept of grace. I don't blame them in the least. I am too. When I hear the words of Romans 3
21 But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
and Ephesians 2
8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
my heart quickens. This central doctrine of Christianity is something I cling to and refuse to let go of.
But there is a dark side to the concept of grace. A dark side which reared its head in the early church and still rears its head even to this day. It's called antinomianism. That's the fancy word for it. The less fancy word is lawlessness or anti-law.
You see, Christianity is both law and gospel. The laws are the commands of God, the commands of Christ, the admonishments to live our lives according to God's will and do the works He commands. The gospel is the acclamation that since we are unable to accomplish living the commands of Christ to perfection, we are forgiven and set free to live our lives striving to achieve perfection (follow the law) without worrying about being punished when we fail.
There is a bit of tightrope walking that I am doing in that last paragraph. I hope you can see it. In no way, shape or form does grace git rid of the law. In no way, shape or form does grace nullify the commands of God or the commands of Jesus. They are still in effect. What is gone is that we are no longer under the discipline of that law should we fail. (Galatians 3:25). But that certainly does not mean we are allowed to simply break the law. Far be it. For the same person (St. Paul) who wrote that we are no longer under the DISCIPLINE of the law also wrote: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)
So, as Christians, we are free from the discipline of the law, but we still strive to uphold it. This is important for without the Law, there are no boundaries; and in Christianity, there are definitely boundaries.
Who is Out?
The idea that Jesus showed this radical love and accepted everyone regardless of who they were and what they did is simply asinine. It is a misreading of Jesus. The very fact that Jesus died for the world does not mean that He accepted everyone and believed everyone was welcome. There is a very important teaching to illustrate this point, and it applies to Sarah Moon's situation as well as to the understanding of boundaries in the church. From Matthew chapter 18:
Jesus teaches: 15 ‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. 18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Would that the church follow these instructions!! But alas, I can hope, can't I?
First off, we must recognize immediately Jesus saying, "If another member of the church sins against you..." There is definitely right and definitely wrong going on here. And how do we know what sin is? How do we know what is right and what is wrong? The Law. We cannot abolish the Law!!! It is necessary for clarity and boundaries and helping us know what is sin!!!
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.
That's the first step. Now, if I were counseling Sarah or any other woman or man who had been abused by another, I would never counsel them to go alone. There are exceptions to things, and this is one of them. I would counsel them to bypass this step and move to step two--for protection's sake and for courage's sake.
I know intimately people who have been abused. I know the pain inflicted upon them. I know their desire and want to avoid those whom have harmed them, but I also know that if one tries to avoid everyone and every situation that one might encounter an abuser, then the one who was abused becomes trapped. This is not good. The church, in whatever form that might take, should provide a safe place for someone who has been abused to find courage, strength, healing, support, a place to break down without judgement and other means of emotional, physical, and spiritual healing. We cannot diminish these things.
And one of those things is the courage to stand up to those who committed the abuse with the knowledge that person will not be allowed to harm him or her again--the courage to announce, "You sinned against me!"
Now, here is a very important piece. Jesus says, "If the person repents, you have gained a brother."
This might cause some consternation because forgiveness comes with difficulty. The healing is not necessarily done at that moment, but it none-the-less must take place. Reconciliation is hard--very hard. If you don't think so, just listen to some of the voices in minority communities these days when dealing with the effects of the Jim Crow laws. There are still demands for retribution--even given to generations born well after these laws were in effect. Forgiveness does not come easy. Forgetting never happens. Which is why support from those abused should never, ever be withdrawn until the abused say, "I am healed."
But that is just one scenario. "If he repents..."
What if he doesn't?
Well, there are a series of steps to continue on with including exposing the sinner to the entire church. Yeah, I know all about privacy laws and such things, but in order for infection to be dealt with, it must be exposed. In this case, if an unrepentant sinner refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing--refuses to come to grips with what he did to damage another, then the church must act.
"Treat that one as a Gentile or tax collector."
These were outsiders in the Jewish society. They were not allowed certain privileges when it came to worship and the holding of positions in Jewish society. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't come in contact with such folks. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't care about or love them. They were now restricted though. There were certain things they were not allowed to participate in.
In the early church and as the church grew, this meant excommunication--a refusal of the Lord's Supper. Until repentance was shown, the means of grace would not be allowed to this person.
Boundaries. They were important then. They are still important now.
St. Paul knew this--knew it well. He had to deal with a situation in Corinth which was not healthy, and once again, we see him drawing the lines in the sand with a particular church member:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ --1 Corinthians 5:9-13
How quickly we forget such admonitions from both Jesus and Paul. How quickly we forget that they drew boundaries, lines in the sand, which should not be crossed. How quickly we forget that radical grace meant radically new ways of living and transformation of the heart and soul.
Who is welcome? Well, all sinners are welcome. There is no doubt about that. But sinners who are accused of sinning against another and refusing to repent according to Matthew 18 are not. The church has had means of dealing with such things since its inception. Somehow, there are those who have forgotten.
When my abuser is welcome at the table and, I am not.
Pertinent quotes:
It’s the cool thing in more progressive branches of Christianity now to talk about how EVERYONE is welcome at the communion table. I should be glad about that, I guess...
But this trend in Christianity where EVERYONE is welcome scares me.
Maybe it’s because of the time when a former friend of Abe’s, who knew my back story, told Abe and I that we had to be grateful that Jesus forgives rapists. Who told us that because we could not see rapists as sinners just like us, we must not know Jesus like he does.
Or maybe it’s because of the people who cut off all ties to me because I’m not all that cheery and positive in my critiques of abusive systems and ideologies. Those same people who talk about how they long to sit down at the communion table with popular spiritually abusive leaders in a show of grace and forgiveness.
Or maybe it’s because of the way I see so-called progressive Christians in powerful positions react when my friends who are gay or trans* or disabled or people of color say, “Hey, this person/ideology is oppressing us.”
EVERYONE is welcome. But more and more it seems the “EVERYONE” that Christians are really going after is abusers.
And why not? How radical and Jesus-like does that sound? Abusers and survivors, sitting at the same table. Sharing the same bread and wine. The lion lying down next to the lamb.
Sure. That sounds great. Excuse me while I go have a panic attack or two.
I apologize for the length of that quote, but I do not want to diminish what Sarah Moon is saying. She's been abused. She's been raped. She's terrified of coming to a place where her abuser is welcomed, and she senses that she is not--not that she isn't welcome, she knows that, but where it seems like there is little compassion, comfort, or even safety for her.
Everyone is welcome. That is the mantra. No boundaries. Anything goes.
This is one of those responses to pluralism that has infected the church--yes, I used infected purposely.
The idea that everyone is welcome has never been embraced by orthodox Christianity. It wasn't embraced by Jesus. It wasn't embraced by Paul. So where did this idea come from? Where did people start buying into the idea EVERYONE is welcome at the table of the Lord?
It's About Grace
Progressive Protestantism is enamored with the concept of grace. I don't blame them in the least. I am too. When I hear the words of Romans 3
21 But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
and Ephesians 2
8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
my heart quickens. This central doctrine of Christianity is something I cling to and refuse to let go of.
But there is a dark side to the concept of grace. A dark side which reared its head in the early church and still rears its head even to this day. It's called antinomianism. That's the fancy word for it. The less fancy word is lawlessness or anti-law.
You see, Christianity is both law and gospel. The laws are the commands of God, the commands of Christ, the admonishments to live our lives according to God's will and do the works He commands. The gospel is the acclamation that since we are unable to accomplish living the commands of Christ to perfection, we are forgiven and set free to live our lives striving to achieve perfection (follow the law) without worrying about being punished when we fail.
There is a bit of tightrope walking that I am doing in that last paragraph. I hope you can see it. In no way, shape or form does grace git rid of the law. In no way, shape or form does grace nullify the commands of God or the commands of Jesus. They are still in effect. What is gone is that we are no longer under the discipline of that law should we fail. (Galatians 3:25). But that certainly does not mean we are allowed to simply break the law. Far be it. For the same person (St. Paul) who wrote that we are no longer under the DISCIPLINE of the law also wrote: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)
So, as Christians, we are free from the discipline of the law, but we still strive to uphold it. This is important for without the Law, there are no boundaries; and in Christianity, there are definitely boundaries.
Who is Out?
The idea that Jesus showed this radical love and accepted everyone regardless of who they were and what they did is simply asinine. It is a misreading of Jesus. The very fact that Jesus died for the world does not mean that He accepted everyone and believed everyone was welcome. There is a very important teaching to illustrate this point, and it applies to Sarah Moon's situation as well as to the understanding of boundaries in the church. From Matthew chapter 18:
Jesus teaches: 15 ‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. 18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Would that the church follow these instructions!! But alas, I can hope, can't I?
First off, we must recognize immediately Jesus saying, "If another member of the church sins against you..." There is definitely right and definitely wrong going on here. And how do we know what sin is? How do we know what is right and what is wrong? The Law. We cannot abolish the Law!!! It is necessary for clarity and boundaries and helping us know what is sin!!!
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.
That's the first step. Now, if I were counseling Sarah or any other woman or man who had been abused by another, I would never counsel them to go alone. There are exceptions to things, and this is one of them. I would counsel them to bypass this step and move to step two--for protection's sake and for courage's sake.
I know intimately people who have been abused. I know the pain inflicted upon them. I know their desire and want to avoid those whom have harmed them, but I also know that if one tries to avoid everyone and every situation that one might encounter an abuser, then the one who was abused becomes trapped. This is not good. The church, in whatever form that might take, should provide a safe place for someone who has been abused to find courage, strength, healing, support, a place to break down without judgement and other means of emotional, physical, and spiritual healing. We cannot diminish these things.
And one of those things is the courage to stand up to those who committed the abuse with the knowledge that person will not be allowed to harm him or her again--the courage to announce, "You sinned against me!"
Now, here is a very important piece. Jesus says, "If the person repents, you have gained a brother."
This might cause some consternation because forgiveness comes with difficulty. The healing is not necessarily done at that moment, but it none-the-less must take place. Reconciliation is hard--very hard. If you don't think so, just listen to some of the voices in minority communities these days when dealing with the effects of the Jim Crow laws. There are still demands for retribution--even given to generations born well after these laws were in effect. Forgiveness does not come easy. Forgetting never happens. Which is why support from those abused should never, ever be withdrawn until the abused say, "I am healed."
But that is just one scenario. "If he repents..."
What if he doesn't?
Well, there are a series of steps to continue on with including exposing the sinner to the entire church. Yeah, I know all about privacy laws and such things, but in order for infection to be dealt with, it must be exposed. In this case, if an unrepentant sinner refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing--refuses to come to grips with what he did to damage another, then the church must act.
"Treat that one as a Gentile or tax collector."
These were outsiders in the Jewish society. They were not allowed certain privileges when it came to worship and the holding of positions in Jewish society. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't come in contact with such folks. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't care about or love them. They were now restricted though. There were certain things they were not allowed to participate in.
In the early church and as the church grew, this meant excommunication--a refusal of the Lord's Supper. Until repentance was shown, the means of grace would not be allowed to this person.
Boundaries. They were important then. They are still important now.
St. Paul knew this--knew it well. He had to deal with a situation in Corinth which was not healthy, and once again, we see him drawing the lines in the sand with a particular church member:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ --1 Corinthians 5:9-13
How quickly we forget such admonitions from both Jesus and Paul. How quickly we forget that they drew boundaries, lines in the sand, which should not be crossed. How quickly we forget that radical grace meant radically new ways of living and transformation of the heart and soul.
Who is welcome? Well, all sinners are welcome. There is no doubt about that. But sinners who are accused of sinning against another and refusing to repent according to Matthew 18 are not. The church has had means of dealing with such things since its inception. Somehow, there are those who have forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)