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.

I am Judas

Yeah.  I took one of those cute Facebook quizzes.  Which disciple of Jesus are you?  What did I get?  Judas Iscariot.  A pastor gets Judas Iscariot.  Wonder how long it will be before I get asked to tender my resignation?

Here was the caption underneath the pic:

Black sheep, loner, ne’er-do-well, rebel… You’re the kind of person who’s never really fit in with the crowd and you’re okay with that. You do your own thing and live by your own rules. (Also, people don’t really seem to trust you for some reason. You might want to work on that.)

Black sheep?  Maybe.

Loner.  Definitely.

Ne'er-do-well.  Not so much.

Rebel.  Probably.

"You're the kind of person who's never really fit in with the crowd and you're okay with that?"  To a tee.

"You do your own thing and live by your own rules."  Kind of.

"People don't really seem to trust you."  Not so sure.  It seems like most of my congregation members do, but do I really know what is going on deep within the recesses of their brains?

Jokes aside, and I know this is a pithy quiz, but I am Judas.

How could I say such a thing?  Why not a Peter: a leader in the Church?  Why not a Matthew?  Or a Bartholomew?  Or a Thomas?  Why say you ARE Judas?

I'd like to think of myself more highly.  I really would.  I'd like to think of myself as one of the others who wasn't stealing from the community purse; or coming up with holy reasons for something (selling a bunch of perfume) when I am really self motivated (so I can have the profit); or who didn't betray the Lord for 30 pieces of silver.  I'd like to think that I'm better than that.  I'd like to think I would never, ever do such a thing.

But I betray Jesus each and every day.

Every time I sin in thought, word and deed, I crucify Christ once again.  And the Lord knows, I sin.  The Lord knows I like looking after myself.  The Lord knows I rebel against (not only those who want me to conform and toe any particular denominational party line) Him in the deepest recesses of my heart.  The Lord knows I oftentimes trust money over Him.  The Lord knows I want to come across as looking holy.

Yeah.  I am Judas.  Not proud of it, but I am.

And the question is: is there any hope for one such as I?  Is there hope for one scarred by sin, by selfishness, by rebellion?

I take great comfort in knowing that Jesus died for me while I was and still am a sinner.  I take great comfort in knowing His grace is sufficient for even me.  I take great comfort in the fact He who began a good work in me is not through just yet. 

I've got a long way to go.  Maybe one day I'll graduate up to Thaddeus or someone similar.

Freedom of Religion and Discrimination

Life gets rather messy when two incompatible objects butt heads.

Arizona has placed themselves right in the crosshairs with its bill to allow forms of discrimination based upon religious belief.

I am none too pleased with this particular bill as I believe it is a warping of the nature of religious freedom as preserved in the Constitution.  Not only this, I believe it flies in the face of Jesus' own teachings regarding how a Christian is called to interact in society.

First, let's deal with the issue of religious freedom.  I would like to make a distinction here between religious belief and religious practice.  It's not necessarily healthy to do such a thing because usually our practices flow from our beliefs.  Yet, there is a reason I want to make such a distinction at this time.

There are a lot of world religions.  There are the major five or six, but there are a host of others throughout the world.  Many of them have particular beliefs instilled in them--among those beliefs the secondary citizenship of women (many Islamic as well as Christian sects), the marginalization of the poor (the Hindu caste system), the severe punishment of homosexuals (many sects of Islam as well as some Christians).  There are other such beliefs to be covered, but I think these few are enough to highlight a substantial problem: when religious belief clashes with guaranteed rights endowed in the U.S. Constitution.  In our nation, we do not adhere to a caste system; we guarantee the rights of women and homosexuals despite what religions believe about them.  And since the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land, the Constitution takes precedence over religious belief.

There might be some who decry this, especially some of my more conservative brothers and sisters of the Christian faith.  YOU say that we should deny our religious beliefs and make them subservient to the U.S. Constitution?  Not your beliefs.  Your practices--especially ones which conflict with the basic understanding of human rights (more on this later as I will try to show that discrimination has no basis in Christian practice).  Why do I say such a thing?

Let's put it plain and simple.  What happens if a religion comes along that practices human sacrifice as per the ancient Mayan and Aztecs?  Let's just say theoretically a person comes along looking to re institute such a practice.  Because we have religious freedom, should we let that person go ahead with the plan?  Should we let the person claim that it is well in line with his religion to capture people and then sacrifice them to appease the gods?

I think most of us would revolt at the idea.  I also realize this is taking this to almost an absurd conclusion; however, complete and total religious freedom would allow for such a thing to take place.

On a more concrete note of possibilities, it would be quite easy for a store owner to put up a sign which said, "No blacks allowed.  It's against my religious belief."  Back to Jim Crow with legal underpinning.  Not good.  Not good at all.  On a practical level, this law has many, many problems, and while protecting individual freedom to believe is important--it should not trump the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Secondly, from my own faith tradition, I do not think such a law is compatible with how Jesus taught His followers to act.  Yes, as Christians we are to stand against sin.  Yes, as Christians we are to strive for perfection.  Yes, as Christians we are not to condone sinful behavior.  But we are called to give people freedom to sin.  We are called to give people freedom to go against God.  We are called to give people freedom to reject our beliefs and practices and do their own thing.  And we are called to keep loving them no matter what they do.

My favorite illustration to show this is the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  I think we should rename it as the Parable of the Prodigal Father personally, but that is beside the point.  The Father in this parable is the main focus--particularly in how He acts toward His sons.

The first one would be considered the one living in sin.  The youngest son comes to the Father and demands his inheritance early.  Basically, he tells the Father, "I wish you were dead so I can have my money now!"

What does the Father do?  Does the Father do what most of us dads would do?  Does He scoff at His son and tell him to get back to work under threat of punishment?  Does the Father scold the son and make him feel two inches tall?

No.

With a radical love, the Dad gives His son the portion of the inheritance and lets him go make his own way.  The consequences are dire!  The son squanders his money and has to work at a degrading job not making enough money to feed himself.  The son "comes to himself" and says, "I messed up.  I need to apologize.  I can go work for dad as a servant."

The son heads home, but before the kid has a chance to apologize, the Father comes running to embrace His son.  Before the kid has a chance to grovel, Dad is exuding love once again.  Dad even throws a party, much to the chagrin of the older son.  This welcome; this party; is an example of pure grace.

Interestingly enough, the older son, gets quite upset with Dad.  The older son refuses to go to the party Dad is throwing.  This is actually an insult to the Father as well.  The son might not necessarily be aware of it, but he is sinning just like his younger brother does.  And what does the Father do?  He comes out to the son and invites him to come in.  Grace is extended once again.

Both sons are sinful.  Both need the Father's love.  Grace rules the day.

I think one of the greatest points to be made in this parable is the Father reaches out to both of His sons and extends them love--not by telling them what to do; not by discriminating against them; not by trying to make them conform to His will, but by giving them freedom to pursue their own course.  He counts on His love being the thing which will bring them back under His roof.

This tells me a couple of things.  #1. I am not the Father.  I don't have that kind of love.  #2. This means, in all reality I am like son number one or son number two.  #3. I am either a wayward sinner or a self-righteous sinner.  #4. I am in need of the Father's love to get into the party one way or the other.  #5. If I need the Father to come to me to get me in, then I have no business being self-righteous or haughty.  Grace brought me in, not my own actions.

As Christians, we should know we are not the Father in this parable.  We should know we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  We should know we are still captive in sin and incapable of living the life God has called us to.  We should know we are no different than anyone else living in sin.

And what was Jesus' response to us when we were living in sin?  What did Jesus demand of us?  Did He say, "Get your stuff together, and then I will die for you?"  No.  He died for us while we were still sinners.

How many of us are willing to die for someone else we consider living in sin?  How many of us are willing to die to our own egos to show kindness to someone we disagree with vehemently?  How many of us are willing to be convicted by grace and humbled enough to serve someone who we consider to be breaking God's commands?

Jesus did that for us and then said, "Go and do likewise."  Through love people are brought to repentance, not through discrimination.

I, for one am hoping the law passed by the legislature in Arizona is vetoed.  I do not think it compatible with our Constitution or with Christianity.  I know others may vehemently disagree.  It's okay.  I still love you.

Striving for Perfection

    As per the church-wide email I sent out this past week, I need your help this morning as we begin into this sermon.  I asked everyone to consider what a perfect congregation might look like.  What are its character traits?  What are the things it does?  If you would, please share some of your thoughts this morning.  Those of you who did not get this email, please, off the tops of your heads, share your thoughts about what character traits the “perfect” church has and what things such a church would do.

(Other notables from the first service responses: freedom to express one's view without judgement; people pray for each other [response from a 9 year old], people listen to the contributions of youth; outreach oriented; no quarreling)

    O.K. So, these are the character traits and actions that those of us who are gathered here this morning see in a perfect congregation.  There might be a few more that we could add, but let’s say that this indeed represents a perfect congregation.  Now, let me ask you this: if this represents a perfect congregation, are there such things as perfect congregations around?  Has there ever been a congregation which in actuality meets this vision?

    Did you say no?  I’d be flabbergasted if you said yes.  You and I know there is no such thing as a perfect church or a perfect congregation.  You and I know that sin pervades every aspect of our lives here on this planet and is inescapable.  You and I know perfection is an unattainable reality until we pass the threshold of death.  This is something we cognitively know.  And so I must ask, if we know that we cannot reach perfection, why do we have a vision of it?  Why does such a vision even exist?  I mean if we can’t attain it, why even bother to think about it?

    Last Sunday, our Gospel lesson began with these words from Matthew Chapter 5, Jesus said, “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of heaven.”  Jesus then shows what it means to be more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees.  “You have heard it said to those of ancient times, you shall not murder.  But I tell you if you are angry with a brother or sister, you are liable to judgment...You have heard it said to those of ancient times you shall not commit adultery.  But I tell you if you look at a woman with lust in your heart you have committed adultery with her.  You have heard it said you may write a woman a certificate of divorce.  But I tell you if you divorce a woman you cause her to commit adultery and if you marry a woman who has been divorced you commit adultery.  You have heard it said do not swear falsely, but I say do not swear at all, by heaven, by earth, or by Jerusalem.  Let your word be yes, yes or no, no.  Anything else comes from the evil one.”

    Today, Jesus finishes out His sayings about true righteousness.  It doesn’t get any easier.  “You have heard it said an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth, but I say if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer them your left also.  Give your shirt as well as your cloak.  Go the extra mile.  You have heard it said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say love your enemy and bless those who persecute you so that you may be children of your Father in Heaven.  Be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

    There you have it.  This is true righteousness.  Perfection.  Just as God is perfect, you be perfect as well.  This concludes Jesus’ vision of what it means to be truly righteous.  As I said last time, true righteousness consists of having one’s heart in complete and total alignment with God’s heart.  True righteousness is a heart condition for out of one’s heart comes anger and lust and failure to commit and fear of saying simply yes, yes or no, no.  Out of the heart comes the desire for revenge and retribution.  Out of the heart comes the desire to hate one’s enemy.  Only a changed heart can defeat such things.  Only a heart that is completely and totally oriented toward God and toward what is good can accomplish what Jesus says in this Sermon on the Mount.

    And as I said last Sunday, so I say again.  We cannot do it.  We cannot willingly make ourselves good.  There is a part of us which seeks our own self-interest.  There is a part of us which continually seeks to take care of our own selves and those closest to us at the expense of others.  There is a part of us which puts our own ego; our own righteousness over others and sees others as less than us.  This part is constantly in rebellion against God and is constantly unleashing all those things Jesus warns us against.

    You know this.  You see it all the time.  You participate in it.  We all do.  None of us can escape it.  So if this is the case...  If we know we continue to have these things come out of our hearts despite our best efforts...  If indeed our righteousness cannot ever exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees and then therefore we cannot ever enter the Kingdom of heaven...then what’s the point?  If we cannot achieve perfection, then why does Jesus set it as the goal?

    I think there are at least two very good reasons for this.  The first reason is one I have articulated before, and it comes from sports.  The record holder for the highest career batting average is held by Ty Cobb.  His career batting average was, get this .366.  This meant, he got a hit generally 1 out of every three times he came to bat.  Mind you, he didn’t hit a home run every time he came to the plate–even though that would be the ideal.  He didn’t get on base every time he came to the plate to bat–even that would have been awesome.  He didn’t even get on base half the time he came to bat.  36% of the time he came to bat, he got on base.  And he’s in the baseball Hall of Fame.  Can you imagine giving a child a pat on the back for making a 36 on a test?  Yet, that’s what folks did with Ty Cobb.  They applauded him for his efforts.

    Now, do you think Ty became disgusted with the way he played by batting .366 for his career?  Do you think he became disgusted with himself because he couldn’t hit a home run every time he came up to bat?  Do you think he thought of quitting baseball because he wasn’t able to get on base every time he went to the plate to face a pitcher?  No.  Of course he didn’t because there was always the chance to hit the home run.  There was always the chance of achieving a little piece of perfection.  There was the goal, dangling out there begging to be reached.  Generally, we can approach humankind in a couple of fashions.  We can set the bar low, and believe me, folks will reach it and then stop.  Or, we can set the bar high and just see how close people come to reaching it.  One of these ways will unlock greater potential.  One of them won’t.  I’ll let you decide.

    The other reason for setting perfection as a goal is a little different.  It isn’t about unleashing potential–it’s about keeping a person humble.  You see, if God is the only one who can be perfect, and perfection is the only way to achieve true righteousness–true holiness, then I can never be holy on my own.  I can never be righteous on my own.  I will never reach the pinnacle of perfection.   Every time I try to reach it, I will fail.  By my own efforts I can never achieve it.  If I realize this, where does this leave me?  Where do I end up if I know I cannot achieve what is required of me?  Well, I will probably give up.  If it is something I want badly enough, I will probably get depressed and angry.  I will probably shake my fist and have tears well up in my eyes because I cannot get what I desire so badly.  And then I resign myself to my failure.  At this point, and only at this point am I willing to acknowledge my need for help.  At this point, God usually reveals to us something wonderful:

    For God so loved 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 not to condemn the world, but so that the world may be saved through Him.

    My achieving righteousness does not depend upon my work but on God’s work.  My holiness does not come about because I am superhumanly good, but it comes about because Christ is superhumanly good.  My salvation depends not on my righteousness but on Christ’s righteousness.  Only in my humility can I recognize this. 

    When perfection is the goal, when the bar is set high, we reach for it and are challenged by it.  When perfection is the goal, we are humbled by it and recognize our need for grace.  We may never be perfect people.  We may never be a perfect congregation, but we need that vision before us to challenge us, to humble us, and to help us live God’s Word daily. Amen.

Evidence of Natural Law?

An intriguing article from CNN: Are We Born with a Moral Code?

Some pertinent snippets:

Philosophers and psychologists have long believed that babies are born "blank slates," and that it is the role of parents and society to teach babies the difference between right and wrong; good and bad; mean and nice.

But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one.

And:

So what does this tell us? Paul Bloom, author of "Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil" and a professor of psychology at Yale, says these studies show that even before babies can speak or walk, they judge good and bad in the actions of others because they are born with a rudimentary sense of justice.  But Bloom, who is married to Wynn, says this sense of justice is "tragically limited." Although babies are born with an innate sense of morality, they are also born with flaws.

 

He writes: "We are by nature indifferent, even hostile to strangers; we are prone towards parochialism and bigotry. Some of our instinctive emotional responses, most notably disgust, spur us to do terrible things, including acts of genocide." And the role of parents and society is to overcome these limitations and further develop the innate moral beliefs that already exist in those baby minds.

 I personally could have saved them thousands of dollars and hours of time if they'd have listened to the Christian worldview.

#1. Everyone is born with a sense of the natural law.  We know there is a right and a wrong.  Kids pick up on injustice and unfairness at a very, very early age.  (Get two 18 month olds in a room.  Give one a piece of candy.  Don't give the other one a piece.  See what happens.  This study just took it back 15 months or so.)

#2.  Even our understanding of the natural law is limited.   "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."  "I know the good I ought to do, but I do the very opposite of what I know to be good."  (That's St. Paul, by the way.)

Now, I know this is a news story.   I know such stories are usually used to stir controversy.  I also do not know the numbers involved in the story.  The methodology seems to be pretty sound, but I don't know any of the margins of error or probabilities.  This may well be like other psychological studies that have often taken place: the initial study shows incredible results, but the next one has quite the diminished result and the next one even less.  More will need to be done.

However, the conclusions shouldn't be a mystery to anyone with a Christian worldview.

Of course, the next question which must be answered if indeed this study can be replicated:

If we have an innate sense of the natural law, from whence did it come?

Do We Have a Purpose?

This morning, as I was running, my thoughts turned to whether or not human beings have a purpose.

Of course, I believe we do.  As a believer in God, particularly the Christian God, I believe we were created for a reason which is highlighted in the Christian worldview.

But my thoughts actually turned to several debates I have watched on Youtube; particularly those debates involving Richard Dawkins.  Richard was asked questions about the purpose of human life several times, and (if I am remembering correctly) he seemingly dismisses them as absurd questions.

Many seem to be revolted at Dawkins' comments, but I think I understand them.  I think.

Dawkins, as a biologist does not think in terms of purpose.  Plants and animals don't have a purpose.  They are, and they strive to survive.  A dog does not think of itself as having a purpose.  Neither does a cat, dolphin, eagle, giraffe, whale, and so on and so forth.  As far as we know, no animal ever debates and wonders about why it is here.  IF (a big if) we are simply another animal in a long line of animals that has ever lived on this planet, then why should we be any different?  Why should we contemplate our purpose?  The question is actually irrelevant and not worth asking.  We are here.  We evolved from other animals.  We are driven to survive, and one day we will either evolve or die out.  End of story.  There is nothing more to contemplate.

IF, (as I said earlier) we are simply another animal.

Now, here is the rub, at least as I see it.

IF (a big if) we are simply like another animal, then what is to prevent us from acting like animals?  I mean, I study nature--not as a biologist, but as a hunter.  I know how animals act in nature--and even in domesticated settings.  They vie for power; for food; to be the apex predator or mate.  They cooperate, but only when it is in their best interest to cooperate--so that they can get something out of it.

• I had two female dogs who wanted to be dominant.  They fought constantly; horribly; terribly; over things my wife and I considered minor.  But any "minor" pack violation would set them off.  We ended up having to keep them separate for over 8 years.
• One day, while sitting in a deer blind, I heard the most God-awful sound.  A hawk swooped down out of the sky and killed a quail right before my eyes.  The strong killed the weak to devour it and gain strength.
• Oftentimes, the offspring of another male is killed by a dominant male looking to spread his genes.  Survival of the fittest and natural selection.
• Beta males and females turn to manipulative ways to further their advancement within particular colonies of species bypassing honesty and justice for self-serving need.
• Again, observations from a deer stand: one morning I watched 11 whitetail bucks in a field.  Half the time they spent eating the other half fighting for dominance.
• Nearly every animal species lives in a hierarchy.   There are those at the top and those at the bottom.  Those at the top live well.  Those at the bottom aren't so lucky.  That's just the way nature is organized for the most part.
• Polygamy is the rule in nature.  Monogamy is the exception.  

Why should we, as humans act any different?  Is there a good reason why we shouldn't perform any differently than what the vast majority of nature's species?  Here is one of the many places those who espouse Dawkins' worldview run into trouble.  IF we are nothing more than animals, then WHY shouldn't we simply act like them? 

I'm waiting...

And will remain waiting. 

Philosophers have wrestled for eons trying to figure out what distinguishes us from other animals.  Whenever something has seemed adequate, it is usually found lacking in some particular manner.  This is why Stephen Hawking famously said, "Philosophy is dead."  Philosophy hasn't been able to give us the answer. 

Hawking tries from a scientific perspective.  So does Dawkins.  In my estimation, they leave much wanting.  They fail to offer any insight as to why we should behave any differently than any other animal in the animal world. 

This is one of those reasons, I believe science is incomplete.  Because of its base assumptions, it cannot address these important questions.

Something more is needed.

I believe we need purpose.

Love Thy _____________ Neighbor

Perhaps you have seen the viral pic going around Facebook:

I don't disagree with the pic at all.

It's true.

I mean, Jesus didn't put any qualifications on His definition of neighbor.

So, why do so many Christians seemingly come across as intolerant and nasty toward their neighbors?

I've heard several basic reasons:

1. "I am showing them love by helping them see how sinful they are and how much they need to repent.  They must be convicted by the Law!"

2. "They must be repentant first.  They receive God's love when they repent.  (And, then I will love them once they repent.)"

3. "It is not loving to allow someone to continue to live in sin.  They must be confronted."

I'd like to offer another reason. 


The shirt is quoting Jesus who quoted a part of Leviticus 19:18, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Love your neighbor AS YOURSELF.

Some might argue that Christians who aren't loving one's neighbor are guilty of loving one's self too much.  I won't belabor that point because sin is often seen as a curving in toward one's self.  So why would Jesus quote Leviticus 19:18 then?  If loving one's self leads to curving in towards one's self, why quote it?

I think there is a profound difference between a narcissistic love of self (sin) and a love of self because one is loved purely by the grace of God.

Let me try and explain as best as I can.

If I believe I am saved by my works--works/righteousness, then I build my own ego up.  I am repentant.  I put God first in my life.  I strive to love the Lord my God with all my heart and soul and mind and strength.  I have to do this, so everyone else has to do what I do!  If they don't do the things I do, then they aren't doing it right!

If I am saved purely by the grace of God, my ego is shattered.  I cannot follow Christ's commands.  I cannot fulfill the Law.  I cannot be righteous.  Only Christ's righteousness can save me.  Only Christ's death can atone for my failure.  I can't love my neighbor because I am unlovable.

And it is in the midst of my being unlovable that God acts and has acted.  "For God so loved the world..."

When I realize Christ has died for me in my unrighteousness--that He died for me when I was unlovable, I find compassion.  I realize my deep need for Him to save me, and I realize that my neighbor has that same need.  I realize that it wasn't the Law that brought me to faith but Christ's compassion.  I realize that I am still broken and in need of healing--a healing only Christ can bring.  I am broken.  My neighbor is broken.  Christ loves me.  Christ loves my neighbor.  Christ loves me in my brokenness.  I can love me in my brokenness and realize God can still use my brokenness to accomplish His purposes.  I do not need to grovel on the ground like a worm--for God's grace has been bestowed upon me.  No longer am I narcissistic, but I marvel that God has redeemed me, and I have confidence in God's grace.  This confidence allows me to love myself in humility.

Narcissistic, self-righteous love is not capable of loving one's neighbor. 

Love of a self that has undergone transformation through the grace of God is.

In my estimation, there is too much of the first kind of love, and a great need for the second.