Subscribe to Posts
we’ve turned half the country into samaritans
If I were a thoughtful reader of this blog, I could imagine being annoyed by the message coming through. What’s got this guy so hot and bothered? Why does he even bother to identify as evangelical if he’s got such a withering critique of American evangelicalism? He talks as if he’s a Jesus freak, but most of the time (lately) he’s talking about issues: climate change, birth control, Darwin, and the rest. Why doesn’t he just listen to NPR instead of criticizing evangelicals for tuning in to Rush so often? I can imagine being annoyed by this, not because I have such empathy skills, but because I have dear friends who wonder about me. People I respect and have the highest regard for. So here’s what’s bothering me: I think without really intending to, American evangelicals, as a movement, have turned half the country into the new Samaritans.
There he goes again, these outrageous generalizations. Yes, I’m trying to gain your attention. I’m trying to convey some of the passion that I think Jesus feels about this issue. And I know that sounds high minded of me, but it’s a also a daring thing to believe or to think one might be in touch with the heart of Jesus.
So give me a 40% discount. But then hear me.
how have we done this?
How is that we’ve made half the country into Samaritans? The Samaritans were the people who claimed to be descended from the tribes of Joseph but didn’t buy the need to worship in the temple at Jerusalem as the only legitimate temple. I suppose they might be like the Mormons of our day from a more Orthodox Christian perspective.
But a Samaritan would expect to feel a certain prickly relational tension in the presence of a Jewish person from the South where Judaism was centered. Why would you ask me for a drink? asked a Samaritan woman to a Jewish man.
I think many of the people on the outside of evangelical faith looking in–at least half the population in the United States–has reason to expect or actually feel that prickly tension around American evangelicals. I think it’s the expectation of that prickly tension that keeps them from ever visiting an evangelical church, even if there are other things about evangelicals that they might be drawn (like Jesus.)
So what is it? Where does this come from? It comes from a set of shared cultural perspectives that tend to characterize the American evangelical community as a whole. The issues are disparate, but they are linked in people’s minds, I think. An evangelical, it is thought, is probably someone who is skeptical about climate change science. Is likely to prefer Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, maybe even Mark Levin, to NPR. An evangelical is convinced that gay marriage is THE greatest threat to the institution of marriage and considers it a religious duty to stop gay marriage from happening. An evangelical is pro-life, but in a way that is extreme: they don’t want to be any part of distributing condoms in Africa or elsewhere as a way of slowing the spread of HIV. And evangelicals think Charles Darwin is responsible for a great deal of evil in the world. So don’t even mention the word “evolution” around an evangelical. They will narrow their eyes, even if they are smiling at you.
we lose the snap judgments every time
Human beings make snap judgments about people they don’t know well. So if an evangelical in casual conversation says, “This climate change hysteria is ridiculous, isn’t it?” to someone outside the evangelical sub-culture, the person outside the sub-culture may well make the snap judgment that they have the equivalent views on all the issues I just mentioned. They may not care about the climate change issue, but they really care about one of the others. Let’s say they have a sister who is lesbian and this lady is a kind, caring woman in a lifelong partnership with another woman and they have adopted a couple of kids out of the foster care system. The person on the outside of the evangelical sub-culture just assumes that in order to attend the church that this evangelical goes to, they would have to view their beloved sister differently.
It’ not any one issue in isolation, it’s the fact that these issues come in a package. They are culturally linked. Currently, the are culturally linked to one political party. So it’s easy for a non evangelical to think, “In order to be an evangelical in good standing–really on the inside–you have to be a Republican, and I could never imagine myself being a Republican.”
Now, those of us IN the evangelical sub-culture might protest, “That’s not true!” But I think we are giving the sub-culture every benefit of the doubt when we respond that way.
So, to be fair, maybe we haven’t turned half the country into Samaritans. Maybe what we’ve done is given half the country grounds to feel as though they would be regarded as Samaritans in the evangelical community.
Either way, it keeps people out.
why an evangelical might care
If you’re not an evangelical, you could care less about this state of affairs. But I am one. And it bothers me. In fact, it is something that angers me. I’ve cried over this, extensively. Like bawling my eyes out. Can you believe that? And here’s the rub: when I have been balling my eyes out, I have felt very close to the heart of Jesus, as though this pain is a pain he feels and understands.
So what does that mean if you are an evangelical who thinks climate change is bogus, thinks Darwin is dangerous, and agrees that gay marriage is the biggest threat to the institution of marriage on the horizon? I think it means that there is a place for you in the evangelical community. It means you are not disqualified from my love or respect or high regard. But I think it places a burden on you to be extra gracious in order to make room for people who don’t share your views. To no longer assume that these views and these views only are the legitimate views for an evangelical to hold.
I know that I am asking a lot. Perhaps too much to bear. But my appeal is to your evangelical heart.
If you’re about the gospel, which I think you do, and the greatest pain you feel in your heart is toward those who are missing God, who are living without him but would be so much better off if they could live reconciled to him, then I would ask you to consider what I’m saying. To ask Jesus about it. To ask, “Are you calling me, Jesus, to make space for these people or not?”
his heart was filled with pain
Because Jesus favored the Samaritans. Jesus created tension within his group of disciples because of the room he made for Samaritans, even when the Samaritans treated him like crap. He made a Samaritan the hero in one of his parables. He disclosed the messianic secret to a Samaritan woman–before disclosing it to his disciples. He traveled through their land on his way to Jerusalem, when others would have found a different route.
Jesus, the one we love, did this. Jesus, to whom we owe our very lives did this.
We don’t have to suffer for our faith like those who live in many Muslim nations do. But maybe we could take on this suffering for Jesus’ sake: Making a real place within our evangelical culture for these Samaritans. Or for these people who might think that we would regard them as Samaritans.
Tags: abortion, birth control, climate change, condoms, culture, culture wars, darwin, evolution, gospel, homosexuality, Jesus, NPR, rush limbaug, samaritans, unchristian
March 9th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Ken, maybe the way you are framing the issues, I am assuming intentionally, has much to do with some of the responses. You have repeatedly framed the pro-life issue in our country with condoms in Africa. I have read your posts on this, and this seems to trivialize the position that many pro-life Christians share. In this country most abortions have very little to do with access to condoms. It is all about a woman’s right to choose and supposedly what she can do with her body, but at a great cost to another’s body. As you have stated in the past, if just the people that claim to be Christians stopped having abortions in this nation, we could cut the rate in half. This seems to be a better position than always framing the issue with condoms in Africa.
“But I think it places a burden on you to be extra gracious in order to make room for people who don’t share your views.”
March 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I struggle with being a persnickety evangelical.
My conscience is much more comfy inside the sub-culture part of church and I have never been a very good culture warrior except maybe on election days.
That tension Jesus created between his disciples and the Samaritans that is like having an anniversary party for two people years and years after a divorce. So very awkward to us culturally and yet beautifully counter-cultural!
We are all divorcee’s from heaven. Either past or presently right?
God help me be a bit less persnickety and get over the illusion of a comfy conscience and learn to be clumsy for Christ’s sake in culture.
(This is going to get messy isn’t it?)
March 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Here’s just some food for thought for you, Ken.
You said, “I’m trying to convey some of the passion that I think Jesus feels about this issue. And I know that sounds high minded of me, but it’s a also a daring thing to believe or to think one might be in touch with the heart of Jesus.”
Okay, Ken, since you brought it up, here goes:
I have known you since you were 22 years old, and I have seen you grow up a lot, but I have to admit that you still seem to me to have the same personality type that you had in 1974. In general, throughout your adult life, you have at times been too intense and emotional about your beliefs, which has sometimes resulted in you evidencing a certain degree of spiritual pride, spiritual elitism, spiritual conceit, and spiritual arrogance. I’ve known you for 35 years, and that’s my rational evaluation of who you are.
On a lighter note, how are all of those wonderful grandchildren of yours doing lately? I, for one, would like to see more pictures of your grandkids with you… maybe that would make you seem less intense and more human.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Ken, what would be the recommendation to an evangelical who agrees with your premise above intellectually, but whose heart feels a measure of contempt for the ’samaritans’ belief system?
It’s funny, but the contempt level seems to rise as I listen to proponents of both sides. If its a speaker on the right, the disdain in me rises because of what is said about how the left is ‘destroying’ the nation, if I listen to a speaker from the left, the disdain also rises because now, they mock my beliefs.
So I’ve stopped listening to talk radio and started listening to U2, or worship music or similar and I find my levels of annoyance decreasing and my compassion increasing.
Maybe I answered my own question.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
chris,
i have not known ken since he was 22 but i can not imagine what your evaluation of who he is has to do with this blog? and i wonder why you would want to read the writing of someone so prone to spiritual elitisim and overly intense feelings? i guess i just see this blog as a conversation about various ideas and it seems to me that its not the place for public evaluations of the writers charachter? as for pictures with his grand kids I can’t imagine why he’d want to do that–again not sure what they’d have to do with anything and if I were him I’d be concerned with readers feeling the need to give “rational evaluations” say of their cuteness…
March 9th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Ken, I haven’t know you very long so I’m not sure what you were like before, but I’m thinking that God is doing something very powerful with you. I’m not sure why, but I feel it. And although in this blog, I completely agree with you. I have for a while now thought that these “trends” in American Evangelism is causing rifts between us as Christians and between Evangelicals and the rest of the United States. Again I refer back to the book “UnChristian” because it is the perfect depiction of what is happening to the perception of our churches and of us as evangelicals. It is all very fascinating and very book worthy…if you are even interested in pairing with an almost sociologist! Great blog Ken, I look forward to them:) Have a great day!
March 10th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Ken,
I remember hearing about a church that began to have transgendered individuals in attendance. In order to “make room” for them, the church realized it needed a family bathroom to accommodate their bathroom needs. I wonder if you have any ideas about how the church body could make room for the GLBT community. I have friends who are homosexual and it breaks my heart that they can’t find welcome inside a church setting.
I appreciate the analogy of the Samaritans of our day. Loving the outsiders was what Jesus did best.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Sarah, perhaps the Metropolitan Community Churches denomination has a local church within commuting distance of one or more of your friends. They are very welcoming to everyone there, LGBT and straight.
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home
Here’s their list of locations:
http://www.mccchurch.org/Content/NavigationMenu/FindanMCC/USAandPuertoRico/USA_and_Puerto_Rico.htm
March 10th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Ken, I love the story of the Samaritan woman. She had everything going against her. She was a Samaritan, she was a woman and was living in a sinful relationship. Most would point to this story and use it as an illustration of the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ; how he reaches out the outcast. This is certainly true and I’ve experienced an unbelievable measure of his grace and mercy in my own life when he saved me from my sin.
However, I also think it quite interesting that Jesus challenged her sinful lifestyle in their very first conversation.
“Please, sir,” the woman said, “give me this water! Then I’ll never be thirsty again, and I won’t have to come here to get water.”
“Go and get your husband,” Jesus told her.
“I don’t have a husband,” the woman replied.
Jesus said, “You’re right! You don’t have a husband—for you have had five husbands, and you aren’t even married to the man you’re living with now. You certainly spoke the truth!”
Jesus’ challenge of her sinful life was the very thing that caused her to recognize that he was a prophet. He could have said “Your mother’s maiden name is Cohn and you have a scar on the bottom of your foot from stepping on a broken pot when you were five years old”. But he didn’t.
This flies in the face of every seeker sensitive mode of operation. He who is love, loved her enough to point out the wrong direction of her life. He didn’t pour out judgment and condemnation. But he didn’t avoid the conversation of her sinful choices either. This mindset that until we have a life of sinlessness in our hearts, we can’t preach or teach about the sinful choices our society is embracing is ridiculous. I would offer that it IS possible to preach against the killing of innocent life, homosexuality, greed, pride and pollution in a compassionate and honest way.
John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus. His message was simple. Repent, for the Kingdom of the Heavens is at hand!” We associate the word “repent” with so many negative connotations. But the word is very positive. It’s a directional term meaning to turn around and go the other direction. The great news is that when we turn “from” sin we turn “toward” our loving Father.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am
sarah, I think some of the larger vineyard churches have make these kind of accomodations for bathroom facilities
March 10th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Chris-I find it offensive that you are sending Sarah’s friends to a different church where they will be “welcome”. Is that to say that they are not welcome at the Vineyard? Odd, I thought we were supposed to judge only our own behavior and love one another as ourselves.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:46 am
gem and happylad, the main point of my post is the American evangelicalism has done a great job of focusing on the sinful behaviors of others; in fact, in the last 30 years evangelicals in the U.S (not elsewhere so much) have led with this note in it’s approach to the surrounding culture. The emphasis has been deafening. Literally. This emphasis has been joined to a political strategy which is not necessarily driven by the Spirit, serving interests that are not necessarily rooted in the kingdom of God. (Which is in the nature of political “parties,” they are “partisan.” If we had hitched up with the Democratic party it would be the same problem) Evangelicals, as a result have, for example been virtually silent on the fact that the political lobby with which they are associated, has hindered efforts to save lives by reducing the transmission of HIV. We have teachers in our church who provide “abstinence only” sex education, which means they are not ABLE to provide information on how to reduce the risk of HIV if one is sexually active–this in public school where it is well known that about 50% of the students will be sexually active at some point. Talk to these teachers: they will tell you how inadequate that is for their students. These are teachers who very much want their students to remain abstinent. Thoughtful outsiders know this, and wonder how this is a “pro-life” approach to anything. It’s not enough to oppose abortion. It is also important and I think in the long run more effective to exert efforts now to reduce the number of teenagers getting pregnant, or to reduce the liklihood that dread diseases will be spread. I think the Bible paints a clear picture on the human condition which indicates that it will be difficult for human beings to do the right thing. Assuming that we can deal with these public health nightmares by simply telling people what the right thing is, is biblically naive.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Ken, I will not be pulled into who is “biblically naïve” or not. I am referencing how you frame the issues. Abortion ends a human life. Go flood the world with condoms, focus on healthcare as sex education, but start fighting for those that have no voice.
I am surprised to see you say that “American evangelicalism has done a great job of focusing on the sinful behaviors of others,” based on HappyLad’s comments and my previous comments, I think they have done a terrible job of focusing on sinful behavior. We must be compassionate and honest. Just like Jesus. And because we haven’t been, we have lost the opportunity to see that “love covers a multitude of sins.”
The way you describe Evangelicals makes me want to shun the label. The problem with my feelings on that is this; the most compassionate people I have ever known have been evangelicals. They love Jesus, people, and the scriptures. Maybe we should all stop talking politics, government this and that, and just start helping each other.
“But I think it places a burden on you to be extra gracious in order to make room for people who don’t share your views.”
March 10th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I agree with you that most compassionate people I have ever known are evangelicals. That’s why I don’t shun the label myself. I think the things that I am critiquing, and I recognize the sharpness of the critique, are from influences that are not truly evangelical. I think in order to deal with them we need to discern them as such. I think that some of the ways these issues are currently framed–and I thinking here of the way the message is perceived by those who are not themselves evangelical–are driven by political coalitions and considerations too much.
So, I think we actually have shared concerns, gem, but perhaps we’re looking at the problem from different angles. Which is why we need each other as we grapple with these things.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Ken, I’m so glad you’re my pastor.
For the past 7-8 years, I’ve seen myself as personally conservative and socially liberal. I am a young woman who has always been chaste, and thus never had an abortion, and who happens to be straight. I try to live according to the Word to the best of my knowledge and ability.
What made me socially liberal was becoming a teacher of teens. I was blessed enough to be born again at age 16, after growing up in a pretty strict household. Therefore, by the time I might have gotten into trouble, I was already under the dispensation of grace. But as a teacher of wonderful, brilliant adolescents, many of them had been born and raised in situations where they wouldn’t even understand that certain things that I took for granted were options. These young people were dealing with their raging hormones, hungry — no starved — for affection, love, and human touch. Their homes provided no answers, their community was in shambles, the schools were silent, and the culture provided extremely mixed and confusing messages.
I feel as if the American church and American conservatives are not honest about the root causes of these selected social vices. And as I told my former pastor, there isn’t some great Sliding Scale of Sin. I deeply believed in 2002/2003, and deeply believe now, that the war in Iraq was sinful… that does NOT cast aspersions on the young men and women who are following orders (several of whom are my former students), but on the leadership at the time. I am the proud daughter of a Vietnam veteran who TAUGHT me that the war he participated in for four years was absolutely wrong, and that the last just war in American history was perhaps WWII. He taught me to LOVE my country but to question and analyze everything. Well, once the war began, I put away my picket signs and buttons and began to support the troops with $ and prayers. But I thought that the church would be better served by tending to the needs of the Iraqi people instead of cheerleading and puppeting politicians. We forfeited our prophetic voice, and now, it’s difficult to have credibility when we criticize the current administration, which needs critique.
The church risks too much when it chooses partisanship.
For expressing my sentiments, I was ostracized out of a congregation. I never thought I would be a churchgoer again. I loved Jesus and was resolved to follow His will and His way, but I found most evangelical Christians frightening. There was no love in what they espouses, only fear and trembling. There was no compassion, no reason to “Go and sin no more”… only condemnation.
But it was love that changed my life, not contempt and hatred. I am able to live a Christian life because of the grace and mercy of God and the compassion of my brothers and sisters, not because someone guilted me into it.
Ken, I pray for you and Nancy and for our pastors often. I can’t imagine what you might be risking within the Christian set by sharing the treasure buried in the field – the lost coin – the pearl of great price – with those whom many American evangelicals deem swine. But there are NO human swine in God’s eyes. People get very angry with me when I point out that there might be mass murderers who have repented in heaven, or other people we think are vile. That’s because I believe that God’s grace and mercy is deep and wide enough for us all. It breaks my heart to know that certain other Christians do not believe in this, or at least, have a lack of understanding about the kingdom message.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Chris, I did check the website and it looks like that church not only welcomes LGBT people, but outright encourages the behavior.
If a person is to have a chance of being freed from a besetting sin, certainly sending them to a place that encourages it would not be the best advice I’d give.
I completely agree it’s hard to keep that balance between accepting sinners, yet encouraging repentance.
In my own life, I have sins that I need to repent from on a continual basis (my small group knows about them) and expect to struggle with them, hopefully to a lesser extent as time and Jesus have their way with me, but I don’t think placing myself in an environment that encourages my sins can be constructive.
What I need and what I hope the Ann Arbor Vineyard seeks to become is a safe place where all people are welcome, regardless of what they struggle with, but are always lovingly encouraged to shed more and more of their sinful lifestyle issues as they become closer and closer to the center, that is Jesus.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Ken, as I read Ebony’s comments I thought I would share my morning with you because she mentioned praying for you. I start my day out with prayer, mostly because I need him so much in my life and because I am weak. This morning my heart shifted to you and I began to weep. As a former Marine and former tough guy, tears for me have mostly been when Jesus touches me and I sense his presence. This has put me in some embarrassing situations in the past!!! So I prayed for you and for what you are trying to do. I was moved with compassion and prayed for your protection and guidance. Please let nothing that I have ever said in this blog take away from the wonder of the love that he has given us. You don’t have to post this, since some may not understand.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Ebony, Reading your post left me with tears in my eyes–the humbled, I-feel-close-to-Jesus kind of tears. Keep praying and thanks for sharing.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Chris and Joao- Let me just be clear on this – being born a homosexual person and loving the people God intended you to love (because he created us all) is a sin? I don’t want to get my feathers all ruffled before knowing what you are asserting here. If so, some words from Jesus supporting your view would be helpful.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Jack,
Jesus asserted that “I and the Father are one”. They are one in purpose and they are one in thought. Jesus is in full agreement with the Father concerning the restrictions set out for sexual expression in the old covenant. Just because Jesus didn’t address it outright doesn’t mean he’s not for or against something. He also didn’t mention a prohibition against molesting children or beating your wife, but I’m pretty sure that he would be against such things.
Jesus defined marriage as being between one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-6.
“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Paul addresses the confines of human sexual expression throughout his epistles. Again, this is the same Paul who was given the revelation of Jesus Christ.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Tom, you probably didn’t actually mean this “Jesus is in full agreement with the Father concerning the restrictions set out for sexual expression in the old covenant.” as of course there are things in the torah regarding sexual expression that Christians don’t hold to today (avoidance of intercourse before-during-after a woman’s period; there must be some allowance of concubines, given king david’s practices, kinsmens-redeemer provisions etc.)
March 11th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Happylad- Let us put that quote in context. Jesus was responding to a question about divorce from the Pharisees: “The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”. So yes, this is his definition of marriage, but it does not address his views on the expression of human sexuality.
I find it interesting that you compare homosexuality to molesting children or beating your wife. These are both crimes punishable under the laws created by man and universally accepted as wrong, regardless of religious affiliation. In contrast, a majority of Americans stated that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle: “In 1982, Gallup distinguished between Americans’ personal feelings about homosexuality from their opinions about its legality by asking this question: “Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle or not?” At that time, just 34% said yes. Public acceptance on this measure has increased incrementally since that point, and our latest poll (2003) shows that a small majority, 54%, now agrees that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle.” Hmm.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Ken,
This particular post and the replies to it really get to the heart of the concern I think many evangelicals have. I can endorse virtually everything you say regarding the church needing to be welcoming to homosexuals, etc. But it seems that many of those who agree with your posts go beyond being welcoming to homosexuals and actually go to the point of affirming the homosexual lifestyle. And your responses to people who write upholding the view that Scripture doesn’t affirm the homosexual lifestyle is usually to disagree with them on some narrow or technical point rather than to affirm that Scripture clearly identifies homosexuality as sin in both the Old and New Testament. This leaves people like me agreeing with you regarding being welcoming but feeling like there is more you aren’t saying. To me, your posts and responses to others gives the impression that you may be moving, or at least wrestling with the possiblity of moving, from being ‘welcoming’ to ‘affirming.’ If this is true, a simple acknowledgement would be good. If this is not true, a clear statement indicating such would be helpful. I’m guessing you’ll feel you don’t owe anyone that…but you’d sure help the comfort level of folks like me who want to agree with much of what you say but feel you may be headed somewhere we can’t go. If you’re really interested in getting evangelicals on board with you, a little reassurance isn’t asking too much, in my opinion.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Brian, I think I agree with you. I have been having similar feelings but you expressed them well.
Jack, I don’t really think one should judge whether something is moral based on what the majority thinks. Even if 100% of Americans think a particular behaviour is acceptable, it does not necessarily follow that it is acceptable in the eyes of God. I wonder what the polls would have indicated in the past century about americans’ agreement with black slavery. Yet I believe that, though Jesus never mentioned slavery in the negative, nor do I claim to know what He really thinks, I am reasonably secure in sayinh He may not look kindly on the type of purely racial based slavery that was practiced then.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
For those of us unfamiliar with these terms of art, what is the difference between “welcoming” and “affirming”? I am assuming that the meanings are different in a church context than what the average person would conclude. Thank you.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Ken, you said:
“Tom, you probably didn’t actually mean this “Jesus is in full agreement with the Father concerning the restrictions set out for sexual expression in the old covenant.” as of course there are things in the torah regarding sexual expression that Christians don’t hold to today (avoidance of intercourse before-during-after a woman’s period; there must be some allowance of concubines, given king david’s practices, kinsmens-redeemer provisions etc.”
Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say. God the Father gave the law to Moses. Jesus did not come to destroy the law. He came to fulfill the law. The laws concerning when to have sex would produce the greatest chance of conception. It also taught self-control (not a particularly popular virtue these days). Also, you will not find God approving multiple wives or concubines. He permitted such things, but the end result was almost always disastrous.
What Jesus held to and what “Christians” hold to are completely different. I don’t evaluate my following of the scriptures by other Christians, nor by the opinion polls of the masses, but by the life of Jesus Christ and the scriptures themselves.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Jack,
My view of the difference between welcoming and affirming…
‘Welcoming’ would be a church that loves homosexuals and treats them with respect and dignity but continues to clearly teach that the practice of homosexuality is inconsistent with Scripture and would lovingly encourage people away from that particular sin just as it would discourage people away from any other sin.
‘Affirming’ would be a church that views homosexuality as being an acceptable lifestyle for a Christian and would likely claim that Scripture doesn’t consider homosexual practice sinful.
I’m not sure all in a church context would define these terms the same way, but I’m fairly certain Ken, to whom I was directly responding, would have understood my use of those terms in this way.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I’m not an evangelical. And the nature of the conversation that has developed here is why I’m not. As far as I can tell, Jesus boiled everything down quite nicely for even the simple-minded like myself: Love one another, Love God, take direction from the holy spirit, and spread the good news.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“Let us put that quote in context. Jesus was responding to a question about divorce from the Pharisees: So yes, this is his definition of marriage, but it does not address his views on the expression of human sexuality.”
It’s kind of hard to separate that out, unless you have an agenda. He IS in fact talking about divorce, but he’s making it quite CLEAR not muddled what are SANCTIONED sexual relationships between humans and it is DECIDEDLY btw men & women.
“I find it interesting that you compare homosexuality to molesting children or beating your wife.”
That’s a rhetorical cheap trick. He’s just saying that the common logic used by those with an agenda is to ask “Why didn’t Jesus say anything about it?”
And the correct answer, as was stated is:
1) Jesus didn’t say anything about A LOT of things.
That alone says nothing
2) Jesus DID say ‘If you’ve seen the father you’ve seen me.’ He also said the scripture cannot be broken and called it WISDOM from God amongst other high praises. And, of course, the ’scripture’ he was talking about was the Old Testament since the New Testament had not yet been written!
Public sentiment alone should NEVER be a gauge.
There was a time in this country that the majority felt laws prohibiting miscegenation were legitimate. In fact, not too long ago. Does that mean they were in fact OK?
BD
March 12th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“I have known you since you were 22 years old… You…have the same personality…throughout your adult life…too emotional…which has sometimes resulted in you evidencing …spiritual PRIDE, spiritual ELITISM! spiritual CONCEIT!! and spiritual ARROGANCE!!
I’ve known you for 35 years, and that’s …WHO YOU ARE!!!”
Good God, Ken!
And I thought I was being harsh…
haha
BD
PS And at least I called you ‘Good God, Ken’!
PPS On a lighter note, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln…
March 12th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Billabong,
Have you read the Sermon on the Mount lately? Cause Jesus lays out a whole lot more than love one another and love God. We tend to like to oversimplify so that we can ignore the hard sayings of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and James.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Billabong – Right on, brother.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Billabong
You are right, Jesus’s message was extremely simple.
Besides the 4 points you mentioned, though, there was also the plea to turn away from sin.
Humanity does have the tendency to complicate things, but the totality of the good news does involve forgiveness of sins, which would not be needed if there were no sin.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Certainly Jesus was aware of sin and its importance. That’s the point of his passion. That’s the point of love. That’s the point of the holy spirit. All of these bring God to us. Make him available to us. Infuse us with God’s salvific presence. They enable us to find him here on earth. They give us an alternative to the evil one. But we are not Jesus. We are not God. We are merely human. And we do sin. We will sin, whether we like it or not. Our focus, Jesus taught us, is not sin. It is God and one another in love. Our job is not to judge. Our job is to love. And this is particularly true of the worst sinners of the age. It was these Jesus loved the most. It was these who he paid the most attention to. It was these he sacrificed himself for. It was not the people–who he called the righteous–who tried to avoid the appearance of sin, who looked down upon the prostitutes and tax collectors. He sacrificed his life for the deeply sinful. He spent time with them. He loved them. He drew them to him and did not alienate them. If he alienated anyone, it was the righteous, the theologically arrogant, the saved of the time, the priestly class. If anyone was deserving of Jesus’s rebuke it was the religiously arrogant, the religiously oppressive, the religiously powerful who focused all or almost all of their attention on sin, rather than on him. Rather than on God. People who would rather hold sinners in contempt than in love.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Apart from debating the merits of this or that moral issue, is anyone else concerned that evangelicalism has successfully given half the population in the United States (the half least likely to attend church, especially an evangelical one) reason to believe that they are regarded as the samaritans were regarded by the first generation of disciples? Where is the evangelical impulse in evangelicalism?
March 13th, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Where is the evangelical impulse in evangelicalism?”
Evangelicals used to preach the Gospel in public in Ann Arbor – on The Diag and out by the old Second Chance (now Necto)
But that ‘turned people off’, so we quit.
Then we used to address issues that affected people on a more practical level – the corrosive influence of unGodly elements on our popular culture – TV, movies and music.
But that ‘turned people off’, so we quit.
Then we decided to take a stand politically. Enough! we said. We had sat idly by while a very liberal Supreme Ct unilaterally decided that ALL 50 states MUST legalize abortion despite numerous state referendums where the people voted the opposite. We ran for political office, school boards and tried to mobilize other Christians to be involved politically.
But that ‘turned people off’ so we quit.
What’s next? Not sure. Maybe we’ll go back to preaching what the Bible says about various subjects.
But you know what?
That turns people off…
BD
March 13th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I agree with you Ken….
As a youth growing up in the conservative belt of California I did not know that there was such a divide within the church. I was raised with a social justice view, one that gives people the benefit of the doubt. Helps people in need, not with words, but with actions. My father served / serves with Habitat for Humanity each Saturday, but won’t go to church on Sunday. He taught me the importance of showing people what you believe through your loving actions, not through scornfull words.
As I got older and began attending a local college group at a conservative church, I really did not know that my views were so different until I got to know the people. I was treated like an outsider until the day I left. I tried hard to fit in for a long time (8 year), but never made many inroads. I hated church going to Church and I became rebelious. I’ll never forget the time I brought a 6pack of beer to a mens bible study/potluck. Good times!
March 13th, 2009 at 11:33 am
BD- What turns people on? Maybe we should start from there
I think Billabong has a taste of it in his post #33.
I say we keep failing until we get it right. How we’ll know whether we got it right…not sure, I guess that’s part of the ride.
Ken, I don’t have a good answer to your question, but it does feel like the tone and message provided by those with the largest media microphones (dial in your radio to 103.5 mid-afternoon) has been more closely aligned to something the Pharisees would hold onto rather than the voice of Jesus. But then again, the evangelicals I am surrounded by continue to bless my family and me through the roof in our struggles and pain.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Ken, it is your premise about the Samaritans. Maybe you are wrong.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Everyone is assuming here that to insist on a traditional Christian moral framework is to be Pharisaical. Why is that? Was Jesus being Pharisaical when after He healed the blind guy, he warned him to stop sinning or something worse could happen to him?
It is very possible to hold on to Biblical values and also love and accept those who do not hold them. We don’t have to reject what is taught in the Bible as right or wrong simply to attract the ’samaritans’. To quote a much maligned Christian talk show host mentioned above for his news shows @ noon, ‘I can walk and chew gum at the same time’.
Sure, there are many evangelicals who do judge those outside the ‘fold’ as untouchables and that is a real problem that needs to be dealt with by observing how Jesus did it.
But I think this discussion seems to be leading towards throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I have been learning a lot about this through a good friendship I have with an agnostic the last 15 years. He is one of my closest friends (you met him @ the blues concert, Ken).
We have been through many discussions and arguments about moral issues and spiritual matters, some of which have gotten very hot and have tested the friendship and though I certainly have not been even close to perfect in my delivery of Jesus’ message to him, I have attempted to find common grounds between us (and he with me) despite all our differences, starting with the belief in a personal God.
So he knows my stand on homosexual behavior as inapropriate, adultery as always being wrong, divorce as something that happens far too often in this society, abortion as being 100% wrong and the value of serving the poor. He definitely disagrees with me except for divorce (his marriage is healthier than many christians’ I know) and serving the poor (he has donated a car to a single mom from our church).
Yet, we have a great relationship, he tells me he appreciates that though I disagree with him on many issues, I stand firm in my beliefs and am relatively consistent with them. I discuss these issues with him intelligently, I listen to his take on it, have even changed my mind on some, but I still managed to retain my positions on Biblical truth AND my friendship with him.
I have explained many times to him (and hopefully lived it) that our church has Republicans and Democrats, even ‘greenies’, our pastor regularly pisses off right wing folks (whom he does not like) with his sermons on evolution, and that faith in Jesus is simple, not fraught with rules.
The reason he won’t darken the door of a church (I have repeatedly invited him) has nothing to do with ‘evangelicalism’ but with the fact he cannot accept the premise of a personal god as something logical. He finds it absurd.
Yet again, he does not feel rejected by my ‘evangelicalism’. We are still friends, I was his best man in his wedding and I still pray for him to hopefully one day come to Christ.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Joao, I love your posts. Ken, you just don’t like right wing people, “our pastor regularly pisses off right wing folks (whom he does not like)”, not that we couldn’t tell that from your blog
).
March 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Good post, joao
March 13th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
gem, actually I have lots of close friends who are politically conservative (think gov’t should be as small as possible, taxes as low as possible, etc.) and I myself have a lot of respect for the conservative political viewpoint. I like David Brooks, one of my favorite columnists. I enjoy George Will, though don’t always agree with him. What I don’t like is the mixture of fundamentalist religion and politics that is the religious right, and the assumption (currently widespread in the evangelical church in America) that “conservative” = faithful to God and “liberal” = unfaithful to God.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I am so sorry for my poor English.
My note ‘our pastor regularly pisses off right wing folks (whom he does not like) with his sermons on evolution’ was poorly written.
I meant that my friend was the one who ‘does not like right wing folks’, not Ken. Sorry, Ken. Mea culpa. I need some more ESL classes.
And I agree with the premise that conservative and liberal does not necessarily relate to one’s faithfulness to God. My dad, whom I consider to be a faithful believer is definitely more liberal than most evangelicals, and actually sees conservatism as less ‘Christian’ than liberalism due to the former’s overemphasis on the rich, which dad sees as incompatible with how he sees Jesus in the Bible. Being relatively well off himself, he already sees himself as less ‘worthy’ of heaven than someone like mother teresa, who chose to live a poor person’s life.
I’ll shut up now.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“What I don’t like is the mixture of fundamentalist religion and politics …and the assumption …that
“conservative” = faithful to God and
“liberal” = unfaithful to God.”
Ouch!
A DIRECT hit. On…
BD
March 13th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
It’s ok Joao, it was still a heartfelt and good post. We will accept your explanation and just keep the “our pastor regularly pisses off right wing folks…,” which Ken does on his blog all the time anyway. And just for clarification, I am not pissed off right now as I write this and I hope Ken saw some of the humor in the post.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Why on these issues do we continually get pulled into the public square to debate what should only be shared only with the church? Homosexuality, what do we believe and teach to the children of God? I don’t care what the culture thinks. Abortion, what do we believe and teach to the body of Christ? I don’t care what the culture thinks. Sex education in public schools; what do we believe and teach to the little ones that Jesus brings to us? I don’t care what the culture thinks. We can add any number of issues here. Judgment begins in the house of God; quit comparing our morals, values, and relationships to the standards of the world. Maybe the salt would have a little more flavor.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
>
Ken,
Do any of the following thoughts fit into your personal theology in any way, to any degree? Just curious…
“There never was a time, either literally or metaphorically, when there was a perfect and finished creation. That biblical idea is simply wrong. It is not even symbolically valid. It is an inaccurate idea that has helped to set the stage for the development of a guilt-producing, dependency-seeking neurotic religion…
“Whatever else we know about creation, we are now certain that it is an ongoing, evolving and still-incomplete process. A further insight follows quickly from this: we can no longer properly conceive of God as resting from the divine labors of creation and pronouncing good all that God has made.
“Since there was no perfect beginning, no Garden of Eden and no first man and woman who walked with God in perfect communion, there can also be no fall into sin and thus no act of disobedience that destroyed the perfection of God’s world. These details cannot be true even as symbols. They constitute, rather, an inaccurate perception of human origins…
“Creation must now be seen as an unfinished process. God cannot be accurately portrayed as resting from divine labors which are unending. There was no original perfection from which human life could fall into sin. Life has always been evolving…
-retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong
March 13th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
gem, in many ways I agree with you. What has happened in the last 30 years is that the church in America has put an enormous effort into advocating changes in public policy and law while not demonstrating much of a transformed life within the church (eg rates of premarital sex, abortion, divorce etc.) I think the church would have a stronger voice in the culture if we could demonstrate a transformed life. Instead we do poorly on that AND insist that those who aren’t believers abide by the rules we’re not keeping well ourselves. This is toxic combination.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
.
Amen, Ken. It is a toxic combination. But it is more than that. In my opinion, it is…
Hypocrisy
–noun
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Mark, I must admit I’m not a big fan of Bishop Spong. I’ve had what I can only believe (or choose to believe) is an experience of a Jesus I understand to be alive. I won’t try to defend that to you, but I’m rather stuck with it myself. And Bishop Spong I think doesn’t accept a risen Jesus to the best of my sketchy knowledge of the man. Having said that, I think much of our reading of Genesis is influenced by a Greek mindset that posits a static perfection where the Hebrew Bible speaks of something different than that. For example Genesis 1 speaks of creation being “good” not perfect. Very good. Genesis 2 speaks of a “not good” present before the humans violate trust (man’s aloneness). And of course evil is present in the garden from the beginning. I don’t think this is consistent with the Greek notion of perfection that is so much part of the cartoonish understanding of Genesis 1 & 2. The Bible speaks of God sustaining all things, inferring that there is a constant sustaining work of God. I don’t think Sabbath means that everything is complete in a static sense. A careful reading of Genesis 2 doesn’t demonstrate what Spong calls a perfect relationship between God and the humans. The first conversation in the garden is between Eve and the serpent. God speaks to Adam but he doesn’t say anything back. So I think Spong is responding to a kind of straw man reading of Genesis, albeit one that has had widespread play at a popular level in the church. You might enjoy reading the Robert Alter translation of Genesis. Also Leon Kass has a pretty interesting book on Genesis: The Beginning of Wisdom.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
.
Ken, Thanks much for your reply!
March 13th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Ken, loved your entry #48!
I love how you put some thoughts in words!
I’m going to quote that to my agnostic friend sometime.
Do you like, practice public speaking a lot?
March 13th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Vineyard does not have a welcoming attitude toward gays. Just look at what they write. Google “Vineyard homosexuality” and see what pops up. They’re anti-gay.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Hi Gem,
I am with you in thinking that these topics are for the church.
“Why on these issues do we continually get pulled into the public square to debate what should only be shared only with the church?”
Hmmmm……I think you answered that a few sentences down when you said, ” Sex education in public schools; what do we believe and teach to the little ones that Jesus brings to us?”
The common word is “Public”. My humble opinion is that the boomers have been in a battle to own the public square since the 60’s. On one side you have Liberals and the other you have Conservatives. Liberals care about X,Y,Z and Conservatives are for A, B, C, and lower taxes. As a young dude, this whole right/left and blue/red thing has not been part of my paradigm for very long and I am already sick of it and I want to strap on a boot and kick it to the moon.
As for my convictions and beliefs towards the topics of homosexuality, abstinence, abortion, etc….I keep them to myself, my family and my small group; those whom which I work out my thoughts, ideas and prayers on a regular basis.
I guess my hope is that we throw the whole tub of political entanglement out of the church. I think this is a trap more than a platform for the gospel. I think it creates more samaritans and unfortunately it keeps the new generation of tree huggers (for example) who identify themselves as Liberal far from the church doors, although their heart and deeds may be closer to the Father’s will than our own.
Joao, I’ll follow your lead and shut up now
Have a nice weekend y’all!
March 15th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Robin (#53), I took up on your suggestion to Google “Vineyard homosexuality” and read what came up. Based on what I see here, I cannot agree that “Vineyard does not have a welcoming attitude toward gays.” None of the references that popped up on the first page come from national official sources of the Vineyard denomination, and each congregation has some of its own character and focus. Yet, each of these examples I felt were quite representative of the Vineyard attitude toward gays (except one).
The first one to pop up, a long, evaluative piece written by someone at a Vineyard in Los Angeles, I thought was a well-written, careful examination of Vineyard’s approach. I think core to this is the sense of community it presents, emphasizing that all of us in American culture share a distorted view of sexuality, and that we are in the same boat with gays; as such, there is no room for finger-pointing but instead we need humility. I felt this article was a very good representative sample of Vineyard attitude.
In another link on the Google page was someone’s statement of why they believe gay marriage should be legalized. This person says, “Even churches that do not condone homosexuality, such as many Vineyard churches, have begun to take an open approach to their dealings with homosexuals and other ’sinners’.” This open approach is what I would classify as a welcoming attitude.
Another link is to a Vineyard church in Columbus, where the pastor writes, “That’s why here at Vineyard we sponsor Christ-centered healing ministries for people involved in a variety of sexual sins including homosexuality. And we express profound love to individual homosexuals and to the homosexual community, by devoting a significant amount of financial resource and volunteerism toward befriending and caring for AIDS sufferers and those who carry the HIV virus. Our involvement with the AIDS community has been an incredibly powerful way of practicing the welcome of Christ towards the least, the last and the lost.” This goes beyond just an attitude to action, helping the very ones many reject.
Another one is written by an Assembly of God pastor about the ministry of a Vineyard church in Santa Monica, where they seek to welcome gays, particularly aiming to help Christian gays who have been rejected elsewhere. The language this author uses is not typical of Vineyard, but notice what he describes of the Vineyard ministry’s actions.
The only link on the first page that I thought did not exemplify typical Vineyard attitude was the last one, which was a statement from a Vineyard church in South Africa.
Your final comment was that Vineyard is anti-gay. That’s a little different from your first one. I assume by that that you mean Vineyard does not affirm homosexual relationships as acceptable for Christians. Yes, this is true, but that’s different from not having a welcoming attitude. Your equating the lack of condoning with bad attitude and being “anti-gay” sounds like the other side of the kinds of things Ken is talking about here regarding evangelicals–oversimplifying things and being quick to compartmentalize and label. This is what happens in the culture war. Look more carefully at these writings, especially the first one…there is truly a sense of wanting to empathize and commune with gays. Please consider the Vineyard attitude more carefully.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Ken, I’d like to respond to this one–” the person outside the sub-culture may well make the snap judgment that they have the equivalent views on all the issues I just mentioned” with a story that’s a little off topic (but not too much).
In a recent class I was teaching, I don’t remember how we got there, but somehow in the course of discussing something or other, I happened to mention my doubts about global warming. One of my students, a man from Mali, said incredulously, “So you don’t believe in science?” Wow, express doubt on one issue and suddenly I’m categorized as someone who doesn’t believe in science!
I explained to him my views on the politicization of science, how it boils down to money. The researchers who get the government grant money are the ones who are going to do research to support the latest hot topic. Those who want to do research against the hot topic face an uphill battle, since popular belief is that these opposers are barking up the wrong tree, so nobody wants to give them money. Meanwhile, the press perpetuates the popular belief by highlighting stories that fit their script, thus making it seem even more “true” what these well-funded studies present.
I could go on about that, and do so specifically in relation to the global warming issue, but let me get back to the blog posting. I am an evangelical. So how do I fit into your points of the stereotypical evangelical?
“…is probably someone who is skeptical about climate change science.” Yes, I have doubts about the severity and surety of global warming claimed by some, but because of the reasons above. I see no harm, though, in making a push to make our energy consumption to create less greenhouse gases.
“…is likely to prefer Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, maybe even Mark Levin, to NPR.” I CAN’T STAND Rush Limbaugh. Sometimes I watch Sean Hannity just to hear the other side of news issues, but the guy clearly sees things only through Republican lenses. I’ve never heard of Mark Levin. My main TV news source is BBC America, and my favorite news personalities are Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper.
“An evangelical is convinced that gay marriage is THE greatest threat to the institution of marriage and considers it a religious duty to stop gay marriage from happening.” No, I don’t see how 4% of the population’s getting married will have more of a devastating effect on society than the 50% divorce rate. But it does make me angry when the homosexual activists want to force people to accept their views, such as in forcing religious organizations to hire gays, or the way activists are harassing churches and political donors in California, and refusing to accept the validity of TWO statewide votes.
“An evangelical is pro-life, but in a way that is extreme: they don’t want to be any part of distributing condoms in Africa or elsewhere as a way of slowing the spread of HIV.” Those who take this view think that to give out condoms is to give mixed messages, the same reason they support abstinence education in American schools. I see their point, but I see yours too. I guess I’m fairly neutral on this particular issue, but I am staunchly pro-life in terms of prohibiting abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia.
“And evangelicals think Charles Darwin is responsible for a great deal of evil in the world. So don’t even mention the word ‘evolution’ around an evangelical.” I used to feel that evolution was one of the greatest evils in the world. Used to, as in earlier this decade. I have less certitude on that currently, almost exclusively due to the influence of you, Ken Wilson. But young earth creationism still makes tons more sense to me than macroevolution does. Sure, genetic drift exists, but not to THAT degree.
So it looks like I pretty much fit your stereotype of an evangelical. And your response to that? “I think it means that there is a place for you in the evangelical community. It means you are not disqualified from my love or respect or high regard. But I think it places a burden on you to be extra gracious in order to make room for people who don’t share your views.” To the first part of that, I say thank you very much. To the second part of that, I say, this is something I believe I’ve always practiced at least to someone’s face, if not always to my choir (“preaching to the choir”–ranting to those who I know agree with me). I know that people come to believe the things they do not because they are stupid, but because they have looked at their life experiences and formulated a theory of what life is like around them, a theory of what is right and wrong, desirable and not, important and not.
It grieves me to see someone calling someone else stupid or an idiot because they see things differently. This is something that comes from both right and left, atheist and Christian. No one should be so contemptuous, but particularly not those who hold the banner of Jesus.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:16 am
J Lee,
Very well put. I liked your post !!
March 17th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Jesus did make room for everyone (Rich or poor, sick or well, tax collectors, prostitutes, sinners, religious folks, etc…), as you point out.
If we are to make room for everyone, does this mean, we need to make it so people will want to stick around, otherwise no room has been made?
If we preach what the bible says and people leave church because they are uncomfortable or feel rejected, have we made room for them?
If we knowingly omit preaching on certain topics because it makes people not feel welcome, are we being loyal to the MESSAGE?
On the other hand, did people get upset with Jesus and what he was saying and leave the area so they could go on with their lives being comfortable in their sin since they don’t want to stop sinning?
Is it better for us to make room for “all types” of sinners because it’s better that they be in church than not go to church at all?
Do we need to make sure the “FISH” are clean before they come to church or is that JESUS’s job?
If we welcome sinners into our church and they don’t “quit” sinning on our timing do we kick them out for continuing in sin? After all we only see the sins that are outward, what about those that are inward?
Thoughts anyone?
March 17th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Sunflowerae.
All good questions. I think we are to accept sinners, like you said, make room, not try to clean them up before they come in, but let Jesus do it.
The only thing I don’t have an answer for but it lies at the crux of my concern about this debate is your question:
“If we welcome sinners into our church and they don’t “quit” sinning on our timing do we kick them out for continuing in sin?”
The timing question is difficult. Maybe blatant unrepented, repeated sin like adultery, or open, proud homosexual behavior or drug use or violent behavior would be ‘grounds for dismissal’? Maybe those involved in the leadership of the church are to me more closely scrutinized?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:20 am
Reading this ongoing conversation, I’m starting to worry a bit.
Because, you know, there was a time when the social debate among Christians wasn’t about gay marriage or abortion. 150 years ago, this debate was about slavery… and up until 200 years ago… yes, a long time ago, but only 8 generations before today puts it into more perspective… back then, it was the job of “good Christians” to civilize heathens like my ancestors by any means necessary. Sure, sure… we fought a major war and hundreds of thousands of people died, but it still took another 100 years to get things right.
These weren’t primitive misguided folks, mind. They also had really hard issues to contend with in the life of the church. Such as, should master and slave worship together? What about freedmen? Is their mental, emotional, and intellectual condition really inferior? How about styles of worship? Where do you draw the line?
“But it’s not the same,” well-meaning friends tell me.
Are we really so superior to our ancestors, then? Are we superior to the apostles and the “founding fathers” of the church?
I think the focus on pet social issues has replaced the slow, hard work of actually getting to know people, sharing the gospel through word and deed, and being patient enough to let the Holy Spirit work. Just my opinion…
March 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Why do we have to distinguish between open sin seen by people and closed sin that is within (like our thoughts)?
Jesus himself said if a man looks unto a woman with lust in his eyes he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So to me this is saying they are one and the same.
Seems like a double standard.
Everyone still sins even though they go to church and love Jesus. We change from Glory to Glory daily. The day I was saved I was not instantly perfect as Jesus, but through his Word I learn how to live holy and I keep learning more and more. So we need to continually work out our salvation becoming more and more like Jesus.
I feel like if everyone stopped pretending that they were perfect and be more transparent then we would be able to be healed from our sins (james 5:16). But our current American church environment says to us that those who sin are not welcome, so if they aren’t welcome, then we tell ourselves there is no way in heck I would disclose my personal “hidden” sins for fear of the same outcome.
I have disclosed “hidden” sin to my husband and sinners who don’t go to church since I know they won’t judge me or get all superspiritual on me.
If the proud homosexual or unrepentant adulterous person comes to church should we rejoice because they might learn something that could help them be more like Jesus?
Is it more important that they draw closer to Jesus and start becoming more holy although other sins remain – or – is it more important that they get preached at about the behavior which they currently are unwilling/unable to change – and so stop coming to church?
Does the bible say expel the wicked from among you? Yes. But then who would be in church?
I tend to think that if someone is in church they know that they are missing something that Jesus offers and that is a step in the right direction. I don’t have the answer for all of my questions, does anyone feel they can shed some light on these or others in my previous post?
I found this while pondering: It’s more harsh than I like but then again am I to bend myself to the bible or bend my bible to me?
I think the former although it’s not so simple.
http://hstrial-dtuck.homestead.com/Confronting_Sin_in_Others-_Riggs.htm * ((this is not completely my point of view))*
I’d appreciate another look at this from someone with a different point of view.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
No time to respond now, except to say that I think we’re missing the God boat in this particular conversation on morality involving sexuality in particular.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Ken, our sexuality is very essential to who we are as humans. Saint Paul had quite a few things to say on this topic, as I recall. I don’t think it’s a side issue.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
A change happened in me this past weekend. The thoughts here were largely from Saturday, before I read the last two blog posts and before hearing Ken’s sermon 4/5/09. I am convicted to take a stand affirming homosexuals in celibate, marriage and marriage-like relationships, to the transgender community, to scientists who love and seek the truth, and those of us with fewer areas of absolute certainty.
I was digging a drainage ditch yesterday and kept hearing the phrase, “The desire for righteousness, insidiously infected and secretly driven by fear, propagates murderers.” I had watched the film, Milk, the night before. Christians have allowed their certainty about issues to be a means to justify hidden fear of the “other”—those that think, look, and live differently than our faith/scripture justified standard. Are we not now the Jews, afraid to be contaminated by and ready to exclude those sinners and enemies of the faith; the new gentiles-scientists and homosexuals?
Why are we afraid to have what we know as truth to be challenged and be interpreted another way? Are we afraid to find out we were missing more truth that would force us to change our thinking. Do any of us still think the universe revolves around the earth? Do we not want our understanding to grow and develop? Does the bible not breath freedom? Do we impose a hierarchy of sins? What was important to Jesus? Our precise and correct interpretation, fulfillment and enforcement of the law? OR Love God, neighbor, tax collectors, sinners, enemies……What about– do justice, love kindness, walk humbly? What about the wedding feast and who makes it to the party? Who are the Jews and who are the gentiles now?
Why do we worry about where truth comes from, instead of seeking the wisdom to see how truth’s many facets combine some day and in some way to give us the whole truth picture. The secular book, Snow Falling On Cedars does an excellent job of showing how certainty based on solid facts can be completely wrong when a little part of the whole truth is still missing. When Christians know full well, that we only know in part, isn’t acknowledging our uncertainty over issues and doctrine healthy and shouldn’t it be a great source of material to debate and reason with God about? Why are we invited then to, “Come let us reason together?”
Why can’t scientists contribute freely to truth and help us understand more about our ourselves and even faith; and visa versa? Why have Christians labeled scientists, homosexuals and other humans as wrong and the enemy? Why do so many of these same people view the Christian church as their enemy? I think it is because in response to our “certainty” we have effectively built huge stumbling blocks and labeled other human beings as evil. No wonder they hate us and write nasty things about our faith. We drive them to it! Yes– we do need to apologize… and not just about Darwin.
We are all wrong some of the time. If I am to be wrong, I want it to be because I loved, included, welcomed, tolerated, and was uncertain too much. Not because I defended the faith by judging, condemning, excluding, and murdering the potential for faith in those who are honest about who they are, free and open in their quest for truth, and are in need of some good news.
The day has come for the Gospel of Jesus to be good news for all people. I want a kid and his two moms (or dads) to feel at home in the church. I want a cellular biologist to be filled by the holy spirit. I want a Jew to see me as a friend and brother. AND, I want to stop praying,” Father, forgive us for what we do to one another.”
Thank you Ken. Keep pressing on.
April 6th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Most brilliant post Kirk. Maybe we can start discussing how to maximize our love for our brother, neighbor and enemy versus mobilizing a taskforce to minimize the amount of sin that is perceived in our culture. Love will conquer.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I listened to Ken’s sermon as well and what I heard is that Zacchaeus, a notorious sinner, threw a banquet which Jesus attended. Jesus got a lot of flack for it from the religious elite. However, Zacchaeus also recognized the wrongful life he had led and repented. Repentance has gotten a bad rap in the religious world. It actually is a directional term that you are going the wrong way. To repent is to recognize you’re going in the wrong direction and you need to turn around and go the other way. Nothing negative. You just won’t find the right destination if you keep heading in the wrong direction.
We can love those struggling with sin without embracing the sin. What you’re suggesting is that we throw out a large part of the Old and New Testament in order to “make room” for people (that includes those of us in the church and those outside the church), without showing them the right direction. I don’t see Jesus discipling Zacchaeus over the long haul and waiting for him to “discover” his sin. Something in the message of Jesus caused Zac to see his condition.
Embracing and affirming sinful conditions, whether that be gossip, greed, harming the earth, homosexuality or rage doesn’t benefit anyone. We will remain in an infantile state, unchallenged in our brokenness. And that is something Jesus never did.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Kirk Asks: “Are we not now THE JEWS, afraid to be contaminated by and ready to exclude those sinners and enemies of the faith???”
Wow! You guys are Anti-Semitic now, too.
That explains Ken’s recent GRATUITOUS cheap shot slipped in to his sermon on the Samaritans FALSELY connecting them to modern day Palestinians by saying they lived in “Gaza, the West Bank..and other places.”
Yeah Ken…especially OTHER places. lol
Don’t think we aren’t watching your every word even as you insidiously SLANDER modern day Israelis while you DISTORT the Bible’s message.
not B.acking D.own
PS For those of you who heard Ken’s otherwise interesting sermon on the Samaritans, ask him why he didn’t mention that, in Matthew 10:5, Jesus himself, when instructing his disciples as to how they should spread the word, Jesus tells them NOT to visit any Samaritan city.
That’s pretty cold, Ken. Do you want to correct HIM too?
April 8th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
BD– very sad to see your interpretation of my comments re: jews/gentiles. It was stated to question traditional insiders/outsiders vs. contemporary insiders/outsiders. We Christians have made some others, outsiders ( the contemporary gentile).
We live in a fallen world. As we draw closer to Jesus, we hopefully start changing. For me, it has been a process of casting out condemnation of others. My hope is that the holy spirit works on people and renews their lives. Part of that is to move away from sin, like greed, gossip and sexual promiscuity. For me before my God, I say welcome to people living honestly and receptive to what God wills in their life. As another person stated, Jesus didn’t tell Zac what he had to do. That came as Zac’s supernatural response to a radical and socially unacceptable no strings attached welcome by Jesus. I think Jesus’s example is worth copying.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Happylad,
Why are you putting quotations around “Make room”. Is this referring to a particular message our pastor gave? I completely agree with your post #9.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:31 am
“the very ones who are unwanted and driven from among us are the ones we most need to lead” from The Barbarian Way: Unleash the Untamed Faith Within By Erwin Raphael McManus… jesus did not die on the cross so that we could run around deciding who is and who is not righteous enough to follow jesus…also remember the Plank…the Plank…