A friend recently e-mailed me that he was anxiously awaiting my analysis and comments on my blog on The Manhattan Declaration. I wrote back and told him that I hadn’t planned on commenting on it on my blog; in fact, I hadn’t even heard of it.
I Googled it and found there were over 206,000 entries on it, so I don’t think what I have to say will add much to what has already been said. I read it rather hastily and made a few comments which I e-mailed to my friend, asking for his thoughts, which he sent back to me.
I have now printed it out and studied it, along with some (very few) of the 206,000 posts. However, before I give my analysis and comments, here’s a brief summary and description of the document.
It is called THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION: A Call of Christian Conscience. It claims to be a joint effort of Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Christians. It was released on November 20, 2009. It has a long and impressive list of signers, many of whom are well-known religious leaders and scholars, whom I greatly respect.
It begins with a historical Preamble, tracing Christian moral stands and actions through the centuries.
The actual body of the Declaration begins by stating that the signers are signing as individuals and not as representatives of their organizations.
In the second paragraph “the whole scope of Christian moral concern” is mentioned, but in the third paragraph narrows these to three which it affirms:
1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life;
2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society; and
3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignify of human beings created in the divine image.
The signers say they “affirm … embrace our obligation – to speak and act in defense of these truths.” They claim “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness …”
There follow three sections.
The first is entitled Life and while it pays brief attention to a few life issues, it concentrates chiefly on abortion.
The second is entitled Marriage and does a pretty thorough job of defining the biblical/theological basis for marriage. It addresses the other problem areas of sexual morality but then homes in on homosexual marriage as though this were the major problem
The third section is entitled Religious Liberty. It states that “The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself.” It criticizes recent trends in our country to “weaken or eliminate conscience clauses,” and thus force pro-life health workers and others to take part in actions that violate their conscience. This section concludes by advocating civil disobedience in various cases.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Now for my comments, for what they’re worth, though I doubt if I’ll say anything that hasn’t already been said.
First, were it not for the fact that I hold many of the signers in high regard, I would probably be tempted to simply ignore the Declaration. I feel uncomfortable with joint efforts at making moral/political pronouncements.
I am also left wondering as to the specific purpose of the Declaration. Is it a political manifesto, an ethical treatise, a call to Christian unity on certain issues, a call to civil disobedience, a line in the sand?
The drafters/signers claim that they “sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.” I’m not quite sure what that means. They “call upon people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike.” They speak of “our fellow citizens, including some Christians.” So along with the lack of specific purpose, it seems to lack a specific target audience. This makes it appear overall to be not much more than an opinion piece.
The Preamble contains, as my friend noted, “distorted revisionist history.” Its rewriting of history is almost shameful. How can we “claim the heritage” of some Christians while ignoring “the heritage” of others? How can we commend “Christians who combated the evil of slavery” while ignoring the fact that it was practiced and justified among Christians from medieval days right up into the 19th century?
It is almost laughable to say that “Christians challenged the divine claims of kings” while ignoring the fact that other Christians used “biblical” arguments to enforce those rights. And how can we as evangelicals claim credit for the civil rights’ crusades of the 50s and 60s when (white) evangelicals in the South fought them tooth-and-nail, while evangelicals in the North turned our backs?
And what about other areas of church history that have been completely ignored? -- the inquisition? The bloody wars of the Reformation?
The Preamble starts the Declaration off on a triumphalist note. I believe it would have been better to have begun with a confession than what almost reads like a boast. It is not enough to speak of “the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages”; I believe we should recognize and confess them as sins.
As I read the section on Life, I find myself in essential agreement on the ethical issues addressed. Yet, I find the directions it takes rather disturbing. Why is the focus narrowed to abortion? Did the “license to kill” really begin “with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion”? Abortion is horrible, but we could make a pretty good case that the “license to kill” is programmed into our (sinful) nature. Remember Cain? What about America’s murderous history and her bloody wars of extermination of native peoples?
Though in the last paragraphs the issues are expanded to include global concerns, such as genocide, sexual trafficking and other related matters, there still seems to be an effort to link these to abortion.
Similarly, while I agree with most of the arguments in the long section on Marriage, why is the issue of homosexual marriage singled out for such fears?
Also, I am troubled by what appears to me to be a not-so-subtle hidden agenda: the overemphasis on reproduction. In contending against “same-sex and polyamorous relationships,” the claims are made that marriage “includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit,” that “the spouses become one flesh … by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation,” etc. etc. Uni and I are in our 70s. Did our one-flesh relationship cease when we ceased being a “reproductive unit”?
This is one area where, I believe, the Evangelical signers have conceded too much to their Roman Catholic counterparts. Sexual morality, in or out of marriage is not based, and should not be based on how it contributes to procreation.
I am in essential agreement with the arguments of Religious Liberty. It is “grounded in the character … of the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ.” Every believer in Jesus Christ is free, no matter what his/her external circumstances. Our religious liberties as guaranteed in the U. S. Constitution are not, however, the same as our rights as believers in Christ. The fact that sometimes these rights have been taken away is well illustrated in the Declaration, though I do not share the signers’ fears concerning proposed hate crime laws.
The call to civil disobedience is commendable, though again, it is narrowed down to certain areas concerning abortion and related issues and homosexual marriage.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Some final thoughts.
First, despite claims to the contrary on the website, it seems to be as much a political statement as a religious/ethical one. The criticism of “the present administration,” “the President,” “many in Congress” makes that clear, as well as the fact it selects to primarily address the issues of abortion and homosexuality while giving only token attention to others. What about war? Poverty? The environment? The integrity, sexual and otherwise of our Christian and political leaders? If we make a declaration on only certain moral issues, we tip our hand and show that our political position has influenced our choices.
Secondly, and perhaps this should be first, what about the Gospel? The signers claim to be from three very different backgrounds. We are told that “Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace,” we aren’t told exactly what that Gospel is. There are great differences between the three groups as to what the nature of the Gospel is. When we gloss over these differences, we are in danger of compromise, by basing our Christianity on a moral code rather than on the finished work of Christ appropriated by faith alone.
Bill Ball
12/3/2009
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
A BELIEVER WHO COULDN’T BE TRUSTED
There are many passages in the Scripture that are difficult to understand. And some of these, even though they seem clear, just don’t “fit.” Even after following all the rules of biblical interpretation – taking into account context, definitions, grammar, etc. – they just don’t fit into our understanding – our theology.
One such passage is John 2:23-25: “Now when He (Jesus) was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many trusted in His name, because they were observing the signs that He was doing. But Jesus Himself was not trusting Himself to them because He knew all, and because He did not have need that anyone should testify concerning a person, for He Himself knew what was in a person.”
The Greek word translated “trusted” and “trusting” is pisteuo and is used 99 times in John’s Gospel. Every translation I know of translates this word consistently as “believe” except for the one time in this passage where it is used of Jesus “trusting” or “entrusting” Himself.
Who are these people who “trusted in His name” and yet could not be trusted by Jesus? The commentaries that I have read are unanimous that these are not really true believers. Some comments: “They were superficially impressed”; “There are two levels of believing”; “Not all faith is saving faith”; “Belief without trust”; “The faith which was born of wonder would be likely to cease when the wonder ceased”; “To these believers the miracles were not signs indicative of the true nature of Jesus”; and, blah, blah, blah.
The problem is that none of the commentators presents even one shred of evidence for their dogmatic statements.
In chapter 1, verses 12 and 13 of this same Gospel, John the author equates “those who believe in His name” with those “who were born … of God” and with “as many as received Him.”
“But to as many as received Him, He gave the right to become children of God – to those who believe in His name, who were born not from bloods, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of a man, but of God.”
The same expression is used in 3:18, where it is used to separate those who are “not judged” from those who are “already judged.” In John’s First Epistle, he tells his readers: “I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life!”
Another protest is that these people merely believed because they “saw the signs that He was doing.” (“Signs” is John’s word for miracles.) This is supposed to tell us that they had some lesser type of faith. But again, neither Jesus nor John makes any distinction. In fact, John tells us in 20:30, 31 that he recorded these signs so that people would believe!
“Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples which have not been written in this book. But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God so that by believing you may have life in His name.”
There is no other qualifier or disqualifier here. Reading the above definition into 2:23-25 tells us that these were “saved people” – “born again” – “they have eternal life.”
So if these are genuine “born again believers,” the question is, what does it mean that Jesus wasn’t “trusting Himself to them”? And why didn’t He? There doesn’t seem to be an immediate answer, but there is, I believe, a specific example.
The chapter divisions in our Bible are not part of the inspired text, but were added later. And sometimes they break up the thought in a confused fashion. The division between chapters 2 and 3 of John’s Gospel is one such incident. If we ignore the chapter division here, we have (2:25b-3:1a): “… He did not have need that anyone should testify concerning a person, for He Himself knew what was in a person. Now there was a person …” (The word translated “person” is anthropos; though it is usually translated “man,” it has the meaning of “human being” – “man” as a class or race, as distinct from animals.)
So this person named Nicodemus is John’s illustration of a truster who couldn’t be trusted. The dialog in John 3:1ff seems to bring this out.
Nicodemus, we are told was “of the Pharisees” and a “ruler of the Jews” (3:1), which undoubtedly means that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, the official Jewish council on religious and governmental matters. Later Jesus refers to him as “the teacher of the Jews” (The definite article is used in the Greek text) and chides him for his ignorance of certain matters (3:10).
He comes to Jesus by night (3:2), which may simply be because it is the only convenient time he had, or more likely it suggests that this was a clandestine meeting. John’s other uses of the word “night” seem to suggest something a bit sinister (9:4; 11:10; 13:30; 19:39; even 21:3).
Jesus carries on what appears a rather cryptic conversation regarding the New Birth and faith in Himself (3:3-21, although it’s not quite clear where Jesus’ words end and those of John, the author begin).
The story has no nice clear resolution. We are left wondering what happened to Nicodemus. Did he come to faith in Christ? Was he “born again”? Yes. Though there is no neat ending, we can conclude from 2:23 that he was one of the many who “believed in His name.” And I believe that his later actions show why Jesus didn’t trust Himself to him.
The next time we meet Nicodemus is in chapter 7. The council has determined to arrest Jesus and sent officers to arrest Him, but the officers return empty handed. They have been totally disarmed by Jesus’ teaching (7:32, 45, 46). While the council members are raging (verses 47-49), Nicodemus (cautiously?) speaks up.
“Nicodemus (the one who came to Him before, being one of them) says to them, ‘Our Law doesn’t judge a person unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?’” (Verses 50 and 51) bringing down a rebuke from the others (verse 52). Again we are left to wonder, was that all he said? Did he clam up out of fear and let the council go on with their scheming? I know this is an argument from silence, but it would seem so.
The last thing we read about Nicodemus is in chapter 19:38-42. Jesus has been crucified and a man named Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for Jesus’ body, takes it, wraps it in linen with spices and buries it. Joseph is mentioned in all four Gospels (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-36; Luke 23:50-53). The other Gospels tell us that Joseph was a member of the council. John tells us that he was “a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because of fear of the Jews” (verse 38). John also tells us that Nicodemus also was there contributing the spices and that “they took the body of Jesus,” wrapped it and buried it (verses 39-42).
So we may conclude that Nicodemus was, like his friend Joseph, a secret disciple. As a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, he could attempt to add a voice of reason, but to openly confess his faith in Christ would have cost him his position and probably much more. He didn’t openly betray or deny Christ, but like many today, he kept his faith to himself.
But when the chips were down, when all but one of the original 12 had fled-- one had betrayed Christ-- one had denied Him--, Nicodemus’ faith came out clearly into the open.
Are there believers today like those in John 2:23-25, like Nicodemus, like Joseph? People who have genuinely believed in Christ, but are fearful of confessing Him publicly? People whom Jesus cannot trust Himself to? Yes, I believe there are. I’ve been one myself at times.
The question we need to ask ourselves now is am I a person who can be trusted by my Savior? Or am I a “secret disciple” to most of my friends and neighbors?
Bill Ball
12/1/2009
One such passage is John 2:23-25: “Now when He (Jesus) was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many trusted in His name, because they were observing the signs that He was doing. But Jesus Himself was not trusting Himself to them because He knew all, and because He did not have need that anyone should testify concerning a person, for He Himself knew what was in a person.”
The Greek word translated “trusted” and “trusting” is pisteuo and is used 99 times in John’s Gospel. Every translation I know of translates this word consistently as “believe” except for the one time in this passage where it is used of Jesus “trusting” or “entrusting” Himself.
Who are these people who “trusted in His name” and yet could not be trusted by Jesus? The commentaries that I have read are unanimous that these are not really true believers. Some comments: “They were superficially impressed”; “There are two levels of believing”; “Not all faith is saving faith”; “Belief without trust”; “The faith which was born of wonder would be likely to cease when the wonder ceased”; “To these believers the miracles were not signs indicative of the true nature of Jesus”; and, blah, blah, blah.
The problem is that none of the commentators presents even one shred of evidence for their dogmatic statements.
In chapter 1, verses 12 and 13 of this same Gospel, John the author equates “those who believe in His name” with those “who were born … of God” and with “as many as received Him.”
“But to as many as received Him, He gave the right to become children of God – to those who believe in His name, who were born not from bloods, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of a man, but of God.”
The same expression is used in 3:18, where it is used to separate those who are “not judged” from those who are “already judged.” In John’s First Epistle, he tells his readers: “I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life!”
Another protest is that these people merely believed because they “saw the signs that He was doing.” (“Signs” is John’s word for miracles.) This is supposed to tell us that they had some lesser type of faith. But again, neither Jesus nor John makes any distinction. In fact, John tells us in 20:30, 31 that he recorded these signs so that people would believe!
“Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples which have not been written in this book. But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God so that by believing you may have life in His name.”
There is no other qualifier or disqualifier here. Reading the above definition into 2:23-25 tells us that these were “saved people” – “born again” – “they have eternal life.”
So if these are genuine “born again believers,” the question is, what does it mean that Jesus wasn’t “trusting Himself to them”? And why didn’t He? There doesn’t seem to be an immediate answer, but there is, I believe, a specific example.
The chapter divisions in our Bible are not part of the inspired text, but were added later. And sometimes they break up the thought in a confused fashion. The division between chapters 2 and 3 of John’s Gospel is one such incident. If we ignore the chapter division here, we have (2:25b-3:1a): “… He did not have need that anyone should testify concerning a person, for He Himself knew what was in a person. Now there was a person …” (The word translated “person” is anthropos; though it is usually translated “man,” it has the meaning of “human being” – “man” as a class or race, as distinct from animals.)
So this person named Nicodemus is John’s illustration of a truster who couldn’t be trusted. The dialog in John 3:1ff seems to bring this out.
Nicodemus, we are told was “of the Pharisees” and a “ruler of the Jews” (3:1), which undoubtedly means that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, the official Jewish council on religious and governmental matters. Later Jesus refers to him as “the teacher of the Jews” (The definite article is used in the Greek text) and chides him for his ignorance of certain matters (3:10).
He comes to Jesus by night (3:2), which may simply be because it is the only convenient time he had, or more likely it suggests that this was a clandestine meeting. John’s other uses of the word “night” seem to suggest something a bit sinister (9:4; 11:10; 13:30; 19:39; even 21:3).
Jesus carries on what appears a rather cryptic conversation regarding the New Birth and faith in Himself (3:3-21, although it’s not quite clear where Jesus’ words end and those of John, the author begin).
The story has no nice clear resolution. We are left wondering what happened to Nicodemus. Did he come to faith in Christ? Was he “born again”? Yes. Though there is no neat ending, we can conclude from 2:23 that he was one of the many who “believed in His name.” And I believe that his later actions show why Jesus didn’t trust Himself to him.
The next time we meet Nicodemus is in chapter 7. The council has determined to arrest Jesus and sent officers to arrest Him, but the officers return empty handed. They have been totally disarmed by Jesus’ teaching (7:32, 45, 46). While the council members are raging (verses 47-49), Nicodemus (cautiously?) speaks up.
“Nicodemus (the one who came to Him before, being one of them) says to them, ‘Our Law doesn’t judge a person unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?’” (Verses 50 and 51) bringing down a rebuke from the others (verse 52). Again we are left to wonder, was that all he said? Did he clam up out of fear and let the council go on with their scheming? I know this is an argument from silence, but it would seem so.
The last thing we read about Nicodemus is in chapter 19:38-42. Jesus has been crucified and a man named Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for Jesus’ body, takes it, wraps it in linen with spices and buries it. Joseph is mentioned in all four Gospels (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-36; Luke 23:50-53). The other Gospels tell us that Joseph was a member of the council. John tells us that he was “a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because of fear of the Jews” (verse 38). John also tells us that Nicodemus also was there contributing the spices and that “they took the body of Jesus,” wrapped it and buried it (verses 39-42).
So we may conclude that Nicodemus was, like his friend Joseph, a secret disciple. As a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, he could attempt to add a voice of reason, but to openly confess his faith in Christ would have cost him his position and probably much more. He didn’t openly betray or deny Christ, but like many today, he kept his faith to himself.
But when the chips were down, when all but one of the original 12 had fled-- one had betrayed Christ-- one had denied Him--, Nicodemus’ faith came out clearly into the open.
Are there believers today like those in John 2:23-25, like Nicodemus, like Joseph? People who have genuinely believed in Christ, but are fearful of confessing Him publicly? People whom Jesus cannot trust Himself to? Yes, I believe there are. I’ve been one myself at times.
The question we need to ask ourselves now is am I a person who can be trusted by my Savior? Or am I a “secret disciple” to most of my friends and neighbors?
Bill Ball
12/1/2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
Further thoughts based on John’s comments on previous blog.
I agree that the WWJD fad has bothered me for some time. I would definitely add it to my list of FAD DOCTRINES. Teenagers and wannabe teenagers wearing those little arm bracelets with the letters on them (these were later found to contain lead and to be harmful to wearer’s health), caps, t-shirts, etc. The letters of course stood for “What Would Jesus Do?” but those who weren’t in the know were left to wonder. Weren’t these the call letters of a Chicago radio station that broadcast country music late at night when I was a kid?
I have seen “What Would Jesus Do?” used as an argument in term papers by some of my college students as well as heard it used in discussions and arguments in areas of disagreement. The argument usually follows this pattern (thought not expressed quite this clearly): “Paul says this, the Old Testament says this and Jesus didn’t address the topic at all. But I believe He would have disagreed with the others and agreed with my position.” Thus any position, no matter how bizarre, can be proven. Who can argue with “Jesus”?
I also agree that the critical question is “What Did Jesus Do?” His life stands as a pattern for us of intimacy with God and His death on the cross made our eternal life with God possible. Theologians refer to these as His active and passive obedience.
But as I said in my previous post, I believe that the question is a legitimate question. I have asked this question of myself quite a few times. I suspect that the questioner may have been the Holy Spirit.
The first time I met someone with AIDS, 20 years ago, the question came to my mind. (See: MY FRIEND.) It would have been easy to rationalize refusing to touch him. After all, when Jesus told us to love our neighbor, He didn’t tell us how close we had to get to him in order to love him?
What about those of another race or culture? What about those who are prejudiced against me? What about those who hate me?
Jesus modeled more than intimacy with God. He also modeled a life of love and compassion for others. In my walk, especially in my relationships with others, I find that the question needs to be asked over and over. Not as some sort of mantra, but to give direction to my behavior.
I believe if we’d ask it more often and seek to answer it honestly, we wouldn’t have near the divisiveness among Christians that we have.
(Also see: WHAT DID JESUS MEAN?.)
Bill Ball
11/13/2009
I agree that the WWJD fad has bothered me for some time. I would definitely add it to my list of FAD DOCTRINES. Teenagers and wannabe teenagers wearing those little arm bracelets with the letters on them (these were later found to contain lead and to be harmful to wearer’s health), caps, t-shirts, etc. The letters of course stood for “What Would Jesus Do?” but those who weren’t in the know were left to wonder. Weren’t these the call letters of a Chicago radio station that broadcast country music late at night when I was a kid?
I have seen “What Would Jesus Do?” used as an argument in term papers by some of my college students as well as heard it used in discussions and arguments in areas of disagreement. The argument usually follows this pattern (thought not expressed quite this clearly): “Paul says this, the Old Testament says this and Jesus didn’t address the topic at all. But I believe He would have disagreed with the others and agreed with my position.” Thus any position, no matter how bizarre, can be proven. Who can argue with “Jesus”?
I also agree that the critical question is “What Did Jesus Do?” His life stands as a pattern for us of intimacy with God and His death on the cross made our eternal life with God possible. Theologians refer to these as His active and passive obedience.
But as I said in my previous post, I believe that the question is a legitimate question. I have asked this question of myself quite a few times. I suspect that the questioner may have been the Holy Spirit.
The first time I met someone with AIDS, 20 years ago, the question came to my mind. (See: MY FRIEND.) It would have been easy to rationalize refusing to touch him. After all, when Jesus told us to love our neighbor, He didn’t tell us how close we had to get to him in order to love him?
What about those of another race or culture? What about those who are prejudiced against me? What about those who hate me?
Jesus modeled more than intimacy with God. He also modeled a life of love and compassion for others. In my walk, especially in my relationships with others, I find that the question needs to be asked over and over. Not as some sort of mantra, but to give direction to my behavior.
I believe if we’d ask it more often and seek to answer it honestly, we wouldn’t have near the divisiveness among Christians that we have.
(Also see: WHAT DID JESUS MEAN?.)
Bill Ball
11/13/2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
LIVING LIKE JESUS
When I saw Ed Dobson’s book, “The Year of Living Like Jesus: My Journey of Discovering What Jesus Would Really Do” I was intrigued. Dobson (no kin to the Focus on the Family guy) is pastor emeritus of Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, MI. I had read a previous book of his, “Blinded by Might” written in conjunction with Cal Thomas, describing his pilgrimage from the Religious Right and I had recognized him as a kindred spirit. Now I hoped this book would tell me more about his continuing spiritual journey.
Dobson spent the year of 2008 attempting to live as he felt Jesus would live in the 21st century and has recorded many of his actions and reflections in his book. He is very open and honest and frequently humorous. His pilgrimage is complicated by the fact that he is suffering from ALS and weakened by it.
He attempts to live by the Torah. He eats kosher food and keeps Shabbat; he observes the Jewish holidays; he wears a fringed t-shirt; he grows a beard. He listens to the Gospels over and over on his iPod.
But then he does some rather strange things. He recites the Catholic rosary as well as Orthodox and Anglican prayer rituals. I fail to see how living like Jesus involves these things. He observes Jewish traditions. Would Jesus do this? Jesus in the Gospels flaunted the extra-biblical traditions. He didn’t fit in with the Jewish orthodoxy of His day and I doubt if He’d fit in with much of today’s Jewish (or Christian) tradition.
Jesus ate and drank with sinners, so Dobson attempts to do the same. Some of the most entertaining parts of the book are his stories about his time spent in bars. He’d belly up, have a beer and strike up conversations with the bartender and whoever else was there. And he’d talk about Jesus.
He struggles with voting in the presidential election. Should he vote? What criteria should he use in choosing the right candidate? In the end he makes a choice that brings criticism, even rejection, from many of his conservative Christian friends.
His conclusions are refreshing. The section entitled, “What Have I Learned?” is worth the price of the book. He sees this year as “the next step in my journey of trying to follow Jesus more closely.” It’s clear that Dobson has been on this journey for a long time – much longer than this one year – and that he will continue to draw closer to his Savior and Lord.
I read this book as a conversation. As I read I found myself carrying on a dialogue with Dobson. Though I’ve never met him I found myself and much of my journey in his book.
I’ve known Jesus for most of my life. He was part of the conversation in my world since I was a child (although sometimes His name was heard as an expression of astonishment or anger). But it wasn’t till I was 18 years old that I personally put my faith in Him. I became part of a church where “salvation by grace through faith” was preached. That’s how one “got saved.”
The problem was that all of us “saved” people were not taught how to be followers of Jesus. We were rather given legalistic rules and moralistic sermons as our resources for “living the Christian life.” We sang: “Be like Jesus this my song …”; “Oh to be like Thee …”; “Take up thy cross and follow Me …”; but somehow we – perhaps I should say I – did not see this as a goal in life and especially as an end in itself.
Yet isn’t that God’s purpose for us? To be “conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29)?
Like Dobson, as I have grown in my knowledge of and walk with Jesus, I have found that in many ways “living like Jesus” puts me out of step and even at odds with traditional Evangelicals and Evangelicalism. I’ve come to realize that this is a radical way of life.
I’m not claiming that I’ve got it made. I’m still growing. It’s just that certain actions I’ve taken, that I felt were “what Jesus would do” have been interpreted differently by my traditional friends: befriending the “wrong” kind of people – hippies, blacks, AIDS victims; bringing them to church; taking political or ethical positions that are out of line with current “orthodox” positions – even questioning such positions; emphasizing certain theological positions and de-emphasizing others; speaking out on any of the above .
Of course there are many things Jesus did that I haven’t done and don’t plan on doing: I haven’t driven anyone out of a church with a whip; I haven’t stood up in church and called someone a hypocrite; I haven’t performed any miracles; and I definitely haven’t challenged anyone to convict me of sin if he can.
I have been accused by some of being self-righteous, condescending, arrogant and rebellious. I hope I’ve not been any of these, though I probably have been such at times. If I have, I pray that God will reveal that to me. I’ve also been accused of being contrarian and “liberal.” I don’t know if I am, but I’ll accept that without apology or defense.
Some further thoughts on the “how-to” of living like Jesus. We tend to become like the person we spend the most time with, especially our close friends and those we feel are more mature. (See: IMITATE ME.) The best way to become more like Jesus is to spend time with Him. I believe this is what Dobson was trying to do by listening over and over to the Gospels. I haven’t done that, but I have tried to read through them on a regular basis, marking Jesus’ actions, emotions and demands.
We also need to spend time with Him in prayer. I believe that we need to keep a running conversation with Jesus/God going in our minds. Jesus must be part of our thought life and brought into every decision we make.
And the question, “What would Jesus do?” is a legitimate question. If there are clear moral imperatives or prohibitions this should not be a problem. But sometimes there are not. It is then that this question must be asked. And we need to remember that He always acted in love and truth.
There was a time when I thought I had it all put together. I now realize that the life of a believer involves constant change, that I must constantly reexamine many of my convictions. I hope that as I change, it is in the direction of becoming more like Jesus.
Bill Ball
11/10/2009
Dobson spent the year of 2008 attempting to live as he felt Jesus would live in the 21st century and has recorded many of his actions and reflections in his book. He is very open and honest and frequently humorous. His pilgrimage is complicated by the fact that he is suffering from ALS and weakened by it.
He attempts to live by the Torah. He eats kosher food and keeps Shabbat; he observes the Jewish holidays; he wears a fringed t-shirt; he grows a beard. He listens to the Gospels over and over on his iPod.
But then he does some rather strange things. He recites the Catholic rosary as well as Orthodox and Anglican prayer rituals. I fail to see how living like Jesus involves these things. He observes Jewish traditions. Would Jesus do this? Jesus in the Gospels flaunted the extra-biblical traditions. He didn’t fit in with the Jewish orthodoxy of His day and I doubt if He’d fit in with much of today’s Jewish (or Christian) tradition.
Jesus ate and drank with sinners, so Dobson attempts to do the same. Some of the most entertaining parts of the book are his stories about his time spent in bars. He’d belly up, have a beer and strike up conversations with the bartender and whoever else was there. And he’d talk about Jesus.
He struggles with voting in the presidential election. Should he vote? What criteria should he use in choosing the right candidate? In the end he makes a choice that brings criticism, even rejection, from many of his conservative Christian friends.
His conclusions are refreshing. The section entitled, “What Have I Learned?” is worth the price of the book. He sees this year as “the next step in my journey of trying to follow Jesus more closely.” It’s clear that Dobson has been on this journey for a long time – much longer than this one year – and that he will continue to draw closer to his Savior and Lord.
I read this book as a conversation. As I read I found myself carrying on a dialogue with Dobson. Though I’ve never met him I found myself and much of my journey in his book.
I’ve known Jesus for most of my life. He was part of the conversation in my world since I was a child (although sometimes His name was heard as an expression of astonishment or anger). But it wasn’t till I was 18 years old that I personally put my faith in Him. I became part of a church where “salvation by grace through faith” was preached. That’s how one “got saved.”
The problem was that all of us “saved” people were not taught how to be followers of Jesus. We were rather given legalistic rules and moralistic sermons as our resources for “living the Christian life.” We sang: “Be like Jesus this my song …”; “Oh to be like Thee …”; “Take up thy cross and follow Me …”; but somehow we – perhaps I should say I – did not see this as a goal in life and especially as an end in itself.
Yet isn’t that God’s purpose for us? To be “conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29)?
Like Dobson, as I have grown in my knowledge of and walk with Jesus, I have found that in many ways “living like Jesus” puts me out of step and even at odds with traditional Evangelicals and Evangelicalism. I’ve come to realize that this is a radical way of life.
I’m not claiming that I’ve got it made. I’m still growing. It’s just that certain actions I’ve taken, that I felt were “what Jesus would do” have been interpreted differently by my traditional friends: befriending the “wrong” kind of people – hippies, blacks, AIDS victims; bringing them to church; taking political or ethical positions that are out of line with current “orthodox” positions – even questioning such positions; emphasizing certain theological positions and de-emphasizing others; speaking out on any of the above .
Of course there are many things Jesus did that I haven’t done and don’t plan on doing: I haven’t driven anyone out of a church with a whip; I haven’t stood up in church and called someone a hypocrite; I haven’t performed any miracles; and I definitely haven’t challenged anyone to convict me of sin if he can.
I have been accused by some of being self-righteous, condescending, arrogant and rebellious. I hope I’ve not been any of these, though I probably have been such at times. If I have, I pray that God will reveal that to me. I’ve also been accused of being contrarian and “liberal.” I don’t know if I am, but I’ll accept that without apology or defense.
Some further thoughts on the “how-to” of living like Jesus. We tend to become like the person we spend the most time with, especially our close friends and those we feel are more mature. (See: IMITATE ME.) The best way to become more like Jesus is to spend time with Him. I believe this is what Dobson was trying to do by listening over and over to the Gospels. I haven’t done that, but I have tried to read through them on a regular basis, marking Jesus’ actions, emotions and demands.
We also need to spend time with Him in prayer. I believe that we need to keep a running conversation with Jesus/God going in our minds. Jesus must be part of our thought life and brought into every decision we make.
And the question, “What would Jesus do?” is a legitimate question. If there are clear moral imperatives or prohibitions this should not be a problem. But sometimes there are not. It is then that this question must be asked. And we need to remember that He always acted in love and truth.
There was a time when I thought I had it all put together. I now realize that the life of a believer involves constant change, that I must constantly reexamine many of my convictions. I hope that as I change, it is in the direction of becoming more like Jesus.
Bill Ball
11/10/2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
HAVEN’T YOU READ? PART 2
Some further thoughts regarding the comments by Josh.
Thanks, Josh.
The passages are so different that it's hard to make a blanket statement. But I believe all are rebukes to those who professed to be knowledgeable.
I agree that the key to understanding is the recognition of Christ. At least that's the case in Matthew 21:42 (Mark 12:10). It's interesting, however, that He rebuked them for their ignorance of Psalm 118:22, but not for not getting His interpretation of Isaiah 5:1-7. I do think He was holding them accountable, not for their exegesis, but for failing to recognize Him. This makes sense, since Psalm 118 was regarded as Messianic, while I can’t find any evidence that Isaiah 5 was.
In Matthew 12:3-5, it is not clear to me what the case is. He could simply be showing from the references to David and the priests that His disciples' behavior was justifiable. However, He may also be subtly asserting that He is the Greater David and that they should have understood His actions in this light.
In Matthew 19:4, He seems to be rebuking them for ignoring the creation account in their arguments about divorce. In this case and in the following, He is asserting Himself as the Great Teacher of the Law, speaking authoritatively as He did in the Sermon on the Mount in chapter 5:27 ff.
In Matthew 22:29, 31 (Mark 12:26), He is doing something similar to the Sadducees, though His interpretation might have been easier for them to miss. It is interesting, however, that He quotes from Exodus 3 when speaking of the resurrection, rather than Ezekiel or Daniel. This is most likely because the Sadducees apparently only accepted the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) as authoritative.
So I agree with you, Josh. It was about their recognition of Him as the Christ. They were the scholars. He seems to have been holding them accountable for not connecting what they saw in Him with their knowledge of the prophetic Scriptures. It was as though they hadn’t even read them. They were not able to “discern the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3).
I have to admit, however, that I was wrong when I said that I couldn’t find one place where He rebuked others for their ignorance. He did!
Luke 24:25: “And He said to them (his disciples), ‘You stupid and slow in your hearts to believe everything that the prophets said.’”
In fact, in all the resurrection accounts He rebuked His disciples for not only failing to believe the Scriptures, but for failing to believe the evidence that was right in front of them – The risen Christ Himself.
Thanks again for forcing me to think harder!
Bill Ball
11/2/2009
Thanks, Josh.
The passages are so different that it's hard to make a blanket statement. But I believe all are rebukes to those who professed to be knowledgeable.
I agree that the key to understanding is the recognition of Christ. At least that's the case in Matthew 21:42 (Mark 12:10). It's interesting, however, that He rebuked them for their ignorance of Psalm 118:22, but not for not getting His interpretation of Isaiah 5:1-7. I do think He was holding them accountable, not for their exegesis, but for failing to recognize Him. This makes sense, since Psalm 118 was regarded as Messianic, while I can’t find any evidence that Isaiah 5 was.
In Matthew 12:3-5, it is not clear to me what the case is. He could simply be showing from the references to David and the priests that His disciples' behavior was justifiable. However, He may also be subtly asserting that He is the Greater David and that they should have understood His actions in this light.
In Matthew 19:4, He seems to be rebuking them for ignoring the creation account in their arguments about divorce. In this case and in the following, He is asserting Himself as the Great Teacher of the Law, speaking authoritatively as He did in the Sermon on the Mount in chapter 5:27 ff.
In Matthew 22:29, 31 (Mark 12:26), He is doing something similar to the Sadducees, though His interpretation might have been easier for them to miss. It is interesting, however, that He quotes from Exodus 3 when speaking of the resurrection, rather than Ezekiel or Daniel. This is most likely because the Sadducees apparently only accepted the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) as authoritative.
So I agree with you, Josh. It was about their recognition of Him as the Christ. They were the scholars. He seems to have been holding them accountable for not connecting what they saw in Him with their knowledge of the prophetic Scriptures. It was as though they hadn’t even read them. They were not able to “discern the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3).
I have to admit, however, that I was wrong when I said that I couldn’t find one place where He rebuked others for their ignorance. He did!
Luke 24:25: “And He said to them (his disciples), ‘You stupid and slow in your hearts to believe everything that the prophets said.’”
In fact, in all the resurrection accounts He rebuked His disciples for not only failing to believe the Scriptures, but for failing to believe the evidence that was right in front of them – The risen Christ Himself.
Thanks again for forcing me to think harder!
Bill Ball
11/2/2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
HAVEN’T YOU READ?
When Jesus’ teachings or actions were questioned by the religious leaders of His day, He always had an answer that they couldn’t refute. Often His answer made reference to their ignorance of Scripture even though they were supposed to be experts in Old Testament Law: High Priests, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. Jesus seemed to delight in pointing out their ignorance of the subject of their studies. We can almost see the smile on His face as He asks His favorite question: “Haven’t you read …?” Six times we read this question or something similar in the gospels, along with other retorts. The following quotes are mostly from Matthew’s gospel. Mark and Luke give some of the same, with variations. The quote from John’s gospel is unique.
“Haven’t you read what David did …?” (Matthew 12:3; also Mark 2:25; Luke 6:3).
“… or haven’t you read in the Law that …?” (Matthew 12:5).
“Haven’t you read that …?” (Matthew 19:4).
“Haven’t you ever read that …?” (Matthew 21:16).
“Haven’t you ever read in the Scriptures …?” (Matthew 21:42; also Mark 12:10).
You are deceived, because you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God!” (Matthew 22:29).
“… haven’t you read what was spoken to you by God that …?” (Matthew 22:31; also Mark 12:26).
“And you don’t have His word abiding in you …! You search the Scriptures because you suppose that you have eternal life in them …” (John 5:38, 39).
But these guys were theological/biblical experts! Many of them had committed great portions of their Bible (the Old Testament) to memory. They were the PhDs of their day. They had answers for questions that others weren’t even knowledgeable enough to ask. And they looked down on Jesus’ followers as ignorant riff-raff:
“No one of the rulers or of the Pharisees (i.e. us) has believed on Him has he? But this crowd that doesn’t know the law is cursed!” (John 7:48, 49).
The people that Jesus hung around with – fishermen, tax collectors, sinners, prostitutes – probably really were ignorant of the Scriptures, but I can’t find one place where we read of Jesus calling them down for their ignorance. What gives?
The question is not about the words of the Bible. I’m sure the Pharisees and Scribes had often read the words Jesus quoted in the questions. (I have too.) But apparently they hadn’t understood them. And they had obviously not seen their relevance to the situations they were in.
When we hear the bizarre statements of TV preachers; when we hear the Bible twisting of religio-political spokesmen, we sometimes have to wonder, “Haven’t they read the Scriptures they quote or the Bible they thump?”
We hear many religious opinions dogmatically pronounced on theological and moral issues, but we hear very little examination of these issues from a biblical viewpoint. It seems almost as if those who speak out on abortion, homosexuality, poverty, war and government have decided that the truth of their position is settled and there is no need to inquire of the Scriptures.
And the question that keeps popping up in my mind is, “Would Jesus hit me with the same rebukes? After all, I have a Master’s Degree in Theology. I’ve read through my Bible many times in the original languages. I’ve taught Bible and Theology in college. I’ve often been the “expert” that others have come to with their questions. Would Jesus say to me, “Haven’t you read …?” Well, I suppose He might. What would I say?
Bill Ball
10/26/2009
“Haven’t you read what David did …?” (Matthew 12:3; also Mark 2:25; Luke 6:3).
“… or haven’t you read in the Law that …?” (Matthew 12:5).
“Haven’t you read that …?” (Matthew 19:4).
“Haven’t you ever read that …?” (Matthew 21:16).
“Haven’t you ever read in the Scriptures …?” (Matthew 21:42; also Mark 12:10).
You are deceived, because you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God!” (Matthew 22:29).
“… haven’t you read what was spoken to you by God that …?” (Matthew 22:31; also Mark 12:26).
“And you don’t have His word abiding in you …! You search the Scriptures because you suppose that you have eternal life in them …” (John 5:38, 39).
But these guys were theological/biblical experts! Many of them had committed great portions of their Bible (the Old Testament) to memory. They were the PhDs of their day. They had answers for questions that others weren’t even knowledgeable enough to ask. And they looked down on Jesus’ followers as ignorant riff-raff:
“No one of the rulers or of the Pharisees (i.e. us) has believed on Him has he? But this crowd that doesn’t know the law is cursed!” (John 7:48, 49).
The people that Jesus hung around with – fishermen, tax collectors, sinners, prostitutes – probably really were ignorant of the Scriptures, but I can’t find one place where we read of Jesus calling them down for their ignorance. What gives?
The question is not about the words of the Bible. I’m sure the Pharisees and Scribes had often read the words Jesus quoted in the questions. (I have too.) But apparently they hadn’t understood them. And they had obviously not seen their relevance to the situations they were in.
When we hear the bizarre statements of TV preachers; when we hear the Bible twisting of religio-political spokesmen, we sometimes have to wonder, “Haven’t they read the Scriptures they quote or the Bible they thump?”
We hear many religious opinions dogmatically pronounced on theological and moral issues, but we hear very little examination of these issues from a biblical viewpoint. It seems almost as if those who speak out on abortion, homosexuality, poverty, war and government have decided that the truth of their position is settled and there is no need to inquire of the Scriptures.
And the question that keeps popping up in my mind is, “Would Jesus hit me with the same rebukes? After all, I have a Master’s Degree in Theology. I’ve read through my Bible many times in the original languages. I’ve taught Bible and Theology in college. I’ve often been the “expert” that others have come to with their questions. Would Jesus say to me, “Haven’t you read …?” Well, I suppose He might. What would I say?
Bill Ball
10/26/2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
A STEP IN FAITH
Sherry sent me a link to an article with the above title in NEWSWEEK (http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/51847/Merrifield_InsufficientLand_51847.pdf). She simply said, “Your Thoughts?”
The article begins by telling us, “Evangelical Christian Brent Childers explains his journey from believing that homosexuality was an abomination to marching in a pro-gay march on Washington.” We’re told that Mr. Childers is “speaking out against the harm caused by religion-based bigotry” and that he was once “one of those bigots … a man who condemned homosexuality as a threat to children and society, told his own son that being gay is a ticket to hell,” and that “once I walked away from the Church’s teaching of rejection and condemnation, my relationship with God transcended to a higher spiritual plateau.”
Mr. Childers is now the executive director of an organization devoted to promoting understanding in this area. The article is worth reading by every evangelical Christian who is concerned about these issues.
I am in sympathy with Mr. Childers and agree with much of his argument. However, what causes me discomfort is that although he is labeled an evangelical, he doesn’t base his argument on Scripture, but on an inner voice. In fact, he pretty much ignores Scripture.
In his book, THE TRUE BELIEVER, written well over a half-century ago, Eric Hoffer deals with a phenomenon seen in mass movements. He tells us that, “All movements, however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherents from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of mind.” He also says that, “The frustrated predominate among the early adherents of all mass movements …” and that “… frustration of itself … can generate most of the characteristics of the true believer …”
Now, I’m not a psychiatrist, nor a sociologist like Mr. Hoffer, but I am very tempted to label Mr. Childers as a “true believer,” one who is totally committed to his cause or “movement” and yet one who can, once convinced of the error of his cause, do a complete 180 degree turn. As Mr. Hoffer says, “It takes a Saul to make a Paul.” There is no middle ground. There seems to be an inability to live with tension or unresolved conflict. I’ve been around long enough to see this tendency in history and politics and even in my day: many European Communists were former Nazis; many Neoconservatives were former liberals. I’ve seen it as well in many of my own acquaintances (and in myself to a certain extent), as well as in movements within the church, having to do with theology and practice.
I believe the problem that Mr. Childers is caught up in is really much larger than the question of gay rights. If I may oversimplify, it is the perceived tension between the ethics of Jesus and the ethics of the whole rest of the Scriptures. It may be stated in many ways, such as “love versus doctrine,” “Jesus versus Paul,” etc. It is sometimes stated as “What would Jesus do,” versus the clear commands given elsewhere in the Scriptures.
But is there really a conflict? Am I forced to choose between marching down the street in a Gay Pride parade and standing on the curb holding up a placard stating “God Hates Fags”? I don’t think so!
Over and over in the Gospels, we see Jesus rubbing shoulders with sinners in apparently an unjudgmental manner.
“And it happened that He was reclining (at dinner) in the house and many tax-gatherers and sinners came and were reclining together with Jesus and His disciples” (Mathew 9:10). I wonder if there were any homosexuals in that crowd.
“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look a glutton and a wine guzzler, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (Mathew 11:19).
“Amen! I’m telling you (the religious folks) that the tax-collectors and whores will get into the Kingdom of God ahead of you!” (Mathew 21:31).
Is this a conflict with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, “Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived, neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor perverts, nor homosexuals (or a whole bunch of others) … shall inherit the Kingdom of God”?
If we believe that all Scripture is God-breathed and inerrant then we have to say no. But we also have to interpret each in the light of the other. We don’t need to become “red letter Christians.” We have to recognize that the red letters are no more and no less inspired than the black letters.
We should notice that when Jesus socialized with sinners, they were still sinners; He himself even referred to them as such. He was not condoning their behavior, but neither was He condemning them. He told a woman caught in the act of adultery (a capital offense under the Old Testament Law), “neither do I condemn you” – though He did add, “Go and from now on sin no more!” (John 8:11). Rather than condoning, He was transforming.
Though Paul wrote about different topics, there is no contradiction with Jesus’ ministry. One could even say that it was assumed that Christ’s followers would behave as He did.
“If someone of the unbelievers should invite you over and you want to go …” (1 Corinthians 10:27).
“I wrote to you in my (previous) letter not to associate with fornicators. However, I didn’t mean the fornicators of the world, or greedy people or swindlers or idolaters – because then you’d have to get out of the world!” (1 Corinthians 5:10).
He goes on to say that his readers should disassociate from people like that who claim to be “brothers” (verse 11). In other words we should be doing like Jesus did – hanging out with sinners, but avoiding religious hypocrites!
So what should we say about Mr. Childers’ change of heart? Should we have a similar change? If we are card-carrying gay bashers, yes, I believe we should. Nowhere in the Gospels, nor anywhere else in the New Testament are we given the right or responsibility to hate people that we perceive as sinners. We are to love them and seek their transformation through faith in Christ.
As far as the church, we already tolerate, even ignore all sorts of other sexual misbehavior – adultery, fornication, unbiblical divorce; so why do we get bent out of shape about this one? Shouldn’t we be dealing with the sins within the church? Shouldn’t we be helping sinners to recover?
And, as I’ve contended before, the church and America are two separate entities. I believe we need to reconsider our “stands” on issues. Should not the homosexual citizen have similar rights to those of the heterosexual?
As for myself, I won’t be marching in the parade, nor will I be carrying a placard!
See SIN, POLITICS AND RELIGION.
Bill Ball
10/9/2009
The article begins by telling us, “Evangelical Christian Brent Childers explains his journey from believing that homosexuality was an abomination to marching in a pro-gay march on Washington.” We’re told that Mr. Childers is “speaking out against the harm caused by religion-based bigotry” and that he was once “one of those bigots … a man who condemned homosexuality as a threat to children and society, told his own son that being gay is a ticket to hell,” and that “once I walked away from the Church’s teaching of rejection and condemnation, my relationship with God transcended to a higher spiritual plateau.”
Mr. Childers is now the executive director of an organization devoted to promoting understanding in this area. The article is worth reading by every evangelical Christian who is concerned about these issues.
I am in sympathy with Mr. Childers and agree with much of his argument. However, what causes me discomfort is that although he is labeled an evangelical, he doesn’t base his argument on Scripture, but on an inner voice. In fact, he pretty much ignores Scripture.
In his book, THE TRUE BELIEVER, written well over a half-century ago, Eric Hoffer deals with a phenomenon seen in mass movements. He tells us that, “All movements, however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherents from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of mind.” He also says that, “The frustrated predominate among the early adherents of all mass movements …” and that “… frustration of itself … can generate most of the characteristics of the true believer …”
Now, I’m not a psychiatrist, nor a sociologist like Mr. Hoffer, but I am very tempted to label Mr. Childers as a “true believer,” one who is totally committed to his cause or “movement” and yet one who can, once convinced of the error of his cause, do a complete 180 degree turn. As Mr. Hoffer says, “It takes a Saul to make a Paul.” There is no middle ground. There seems to be an inability to live with tension or unresolved conflict. I’ve been around long enough to see this tendency in history and politics and even in my day: many European Communists were former Nazis; many Neoconservatives were former liberals. I’ve seen it as well in many of my own acquaintances (and in myself to a certain extent), as well as in movements within the church, having to do with theology and practice.
I believe the problem that Mr. Childers is caught up in is really much larger than the question of gay rights. If I may oversimplify, it is the perceived tension between the ethics of Jesus and the ethics of the whole rest of the Scriptures. It may be stated in many ways, such as “love versus doctrine,” “Jesus versus Paul,” etc. It is sometimes stated as “What would Jesus do,” versus the clear commands given elsewhere in the Scriptures.
But is there really a conflict? Am I forced to choose between marching down the street in a Gay Pride parade and standing on the curb holding up a placard stating “God Hates Fags”? I don’t think so!
Over and over in the Gospels, we see Jesus rubbing shoulders with sinners in apparently an unjudgmental manner.
“And it happened that He was reclining (at dinner) in the house and many tax-gatherers and sinners came and were reclining together with Jesus and His disciples” (Mathew 9:10). I wonder if there were any homosexuals in that crowd.
“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look a glutton and a wine guzzler, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (Mathew 11:19).
“Amen! I’m telling you (the religious folks) that the tax-collectors and whores will get into the Kingdom of God ahead of you!” (Mathew 21:31).
Is this a conflict with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, “Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived, neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor perverts, nor homosexuals (or a whole bunch of others) … shall inherit the Kingdom of God”?
If we believe that all Scripture is God-breathed and inerrant then we have to say no. But we also have to interpret each in the light of the other. We don’t need to become “red letter Christians.” We have to recognize that the red letters are no more and no less inspired than the black letters.
We should notice that when Jesus socialized with sinners, they were still sinners; He himself even referred to them as such. He was not condoning their behavior, but neither was He condemning them. He told a woman caught in the act of adultery (a capital offense under the Old Testament Law), “neither do I condemn you” – though He did add, “Go and from now on sin no more!” (John 8:11). Rather than condoning, He was transforming.
Though Paul wrote about different topics, there is no contradiction with Jesus’ ministry. One could even say that it was assumed that Christ’s followers would behave as He did.
“If someone of the unbelievers should invite you over and you want to go …” (1 Corinthians 10:27).
“I wrote to you in my (previous) letter not to associate with fornicators. However, I didn’t mean the fornicators of the world, or greedy people or swindlers or idolaters – because then you’d have to get out of the world!” (1 Corinthians 5:10).
He goes on to say that his readers should disassociate from people like that who claim to be “brothers” (verse 11). In other words we should be doing like Jesus did – hanging out with sinners, but avoiding religious hypocrites!
So what should we say about Mr. Childers’ change of heart? Should we have a similar change? If we are card-carrying gay bashers, yes, I believe we should. Nowhere in the Gospels, nor anywhere else in the New Testament are we given the right or responsibility to hate people that we perceive as sinners. We are to love them and seek their transformation through faith in Christ.
As far as the church, we already tolerate, even ignore all sorts of other sexual misbehavior – adultery, fornication, unbiblical divorce; so why do we get bent out of shape about this one? Shouldn’t we be dealing with the sins within the church? Shouldn’t we be helping sinners to recover?
And, as I’ve contended before, the church and America are two separate entities. I believe we need to reconsider our “stands” on issues. Should not the homosexual citizen have similar rights to those of the heterosexual?
As for myself, I won’t be marching in the parade, nor will I be carrying a placard!
See SIN, POLITICS AND RELIGION.
Bill Ball
10/9/2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
