A Call to Christian Humanism?

This is clearly just a rant from my personal journal, cut and pasted here without the thought of developing a thesis. So pardon the jumbled thoughts, please.

Today I am in angst over a TV show. I am watching this series on Netflix called “Orange is the new black.” It is about a debutante whose childish crimes catch up with her 8 years later when she is sentenced to 18 mos of prison. She is a good person, but like all dramas, not perfect, just basically good. And she is a victim of oppression by a corrupt prison system. I feel guilty. I feel like somehow her mistreatment is my fault. It is just a show, and there is nothing to be done about it. But I know enough about the system to believe that this abuse happens. Most people are in prison because of mental illness. The system is wrong. The only way to survive is to be involved in the wrong.

I believe that part of the reason the sexual predator at Bear Creek got off was because of me being to honest of a witness. He got caught in his evil, but evil is inside all of us. I would tell both sides. And the prosecutor decided not to go to trial a second time with me as the primary witness. Even though the man ruined my life, I recognize my own propensity for evil and I cannot judge another.

Are people basically good or evil? Many years ago, a bicycle was stolen from my garage. I paid less than $50, but its retail price was over $100. There was no way to be honest and tell the insurance what I lost. As hard as I tried not to, I had to accept the $100 payout of the insurance claim. The world is evil and there are a few of us who want to do right, in the heart, always. And according to this TV show, it is impossible.

But here is the bigger question: Why do I hate injustice so much? Why the angst? Why do I feel guilty that my tax dollars support such a corrupt system? And, injustices range the entire gamut of our culture. And if we permit one, we permit them all. And why aren't other people upset? Why did my colleagues in ministry imply that I should have gone along to get along? But the biggest is still, why do injustices cause such angst that I lose my own peace?

Is this not my Father's world? And tho' the wrong seems oft' so strong, is God not the ruler yet? Lord, Help me. He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.

But my big question to myself is this, does this angst, this lack of peace, this anger and hatred toward injustice mean that there is something wrong with me? Am I wrong for caring so much?

When I see George Zimmerman get acquitted for killing Trayvon Martin, I am ashamed. I feel guilty. I feel as if it is my fault. When I hear Sarah Palin cry “death panel” about the ACA, I blame myself. Is it white shame? Is it Christian shame? Am I about to lose my faith all together? Is this me, Lord, losing my religion?

I guess one has to believe in the basic evil of humanity, or the basic good of humanity.

The show, “Orange is the New Black” has this woman who describes herself as a secular humanist when a crazy Christian is trying to convert her. It portrays secular humanism as the only moral world view. This show, along with COSMOS seem to attack Christianity. COSMOS does not need to ridicule faith in order to get its views across. They could get to the same science and include Christians like me. Why the attack?

I suppose that we Christians have brought it upon ourselves. And, worse off, we see the extreme fruits of our dogma in the fanaticism that blames the problems of unrestrained capitalism and over consumption as the judgment of God because of the so called gay agenda, entitlements and abortion.

I guess this is a call to Christian Humanism. “Imago Dei,” see Christ in every person. How do we re-create the narrative and explain our belief in people? Is it even true? Maybe all there is are people who are oriented toward believing in basic good, or people who are orientated toward believing in basic bad. Does the Bible support “basic bad” in the doctrine of original sin? Or, does the unbelievers basic God-given conscience, explained in Romans 2 mean that we are basically good? We are both. But, we can live in competition or we can live in community.

Lord, it is frustrating. It is hard. It is difficult to shine a light instead of curse the darkness. Maybe my angst is completely in sync with God's heart over a broken world. Maybe my angst is best assuaged in the redemption story. God, grant me your peace and give me the strength to persevere.

Three Days for Us

Three Days for Us.

It's Lent. It is the time for the Three Days. Remember? Jesus spent three years teaching us how to live. Then He spent three days atoning for our sins. Jesus spent three days redeeming humanity from its brokenness and separation from God. This is the atonement. This is what lent is all about.

There is an interesting transitional verse in the Bible between the three years and the three days. In John's gospel, Jesus is praying for the disciples in the upper room. In His prayer He says this: I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. (John 17:4) Isn't that odd? Right before He leaves to submit Himself to His death on our behalf, He tells God that He has finished....

Let us ponder that phrase. Let us wonder: “How can He be finished when His most important work, being the sacrifice that bridges the gap between God and humanity, has yet to be accomplished?” What does He mean: finished?

During those three years of Jesus' teaching ministry, Jesus, as God/man, was working for God the Father. He was working the God part of His God/man existence by teaching us how to live and love each other. He showed us how to love. He showed humanity how much God loves even the least of all people. He was a friend to sinners. He invited the little children to Himself. He included women, people of other races, people from the upper classes and people from the lower classes. He invited everyone. And that was His work for God. It is intended as a way of life for us.

Then, for three days, the man part of the God/man worked on behalf of humanity. He provided the sacrifice for us. His sacrifice was not designed to shame or condemn us (John 3:16-17). Jesus' work for us on the cross was designed to restore humanity to God. He spent three years working on behalf of God, three days working on behalf of humankind.

So, here we are in Lent. Lent focuses us on Christ's atoning sacrifice. On Sunday mornings we have been looking at salvation, or as I like to put it: Restoration. I like that word because it includes everything. It isn't merely a fire escape from hell, but it speaks of the holistic restoration of Spirit, Soul, Mind, Body and Emotion. The restoration is first to our loving God and then to each other.

The Bible gives two signs that this restoration has happened. The first is internal: we get to experience first hand his love through the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of us -restored to God. The second is external: we are reconciled with each other -restored to humanity, even to our enemies if we permit it. What a witness!

This Lenten season, focus on how God has drawn us back to Himself. Let us experience the fullness of the atonement. And let us be restored to one another because God has restored us to Himself.

Pastor Phil

DANCING UPON INJUSTICE

Chris Tomlin, at Passion 2007, performed a song titled "Did You Feel the Mountains Tremble?" It is one of my favorite songs. But there is a line in the chorus that puzzles me. He pictures the Church as "dancers who dance upon injustice."

What a peculiar visual image. How does one dance upon injustice? In the bible, there are many stories and parables that describe injustice. I get the feeling that our reaction to them is supposed to be anger. After all, how will positive change happen if people are content to let injustice survive? Isn't our moral exception to injustice the basis of human law? Doesn't God command us to establish government with justice?

But the book of Jonah tells us a different story. You know the Sunday School version of the story. Nineveh was doing wrong and they were about to be judged by God. But God, in His love for humanity, sent one of His prophets, Jonah, to warn them. Jonah didn't want to go so he set sail on a ship heading the opposite direction. The waves came; Jonah confessed; he was thrown overboard; the fish swallowed him; Jonah repented and God landed him on the beach in front of Nineveh. He preached and the city repented. We emphasize the miracle of Jonah surviving three days in the belly of the fish (yes, I believe it). But that isn't the point of the story.

Here is the rest of the story. Jonah was upset and angry with God because Nineveh repented. He said: “I am mad enough to die.” Israel and Nineveh were enemies. Jonah didn't want to go to Nineveh because he didn't want them spared from God's wrath. But God said 'There are 600,000 young age children....” The Spiritual principle that we find in the book of Jonah tells is that God alone is God, God loves everyone and God does not play favorites among the nations.

So how do Christians dance upon injustice? The answer is simple: with the gospel. God's news is good news. Jonah suffered three days in the belly of a fish because he confused his religion with his politics. God doesn't care about human political systems that always create winners and losers. His desire is for everyone to win. His desire is for everyone to be blessed. God wants to bless the entire world with no exceptions. That is why God came to us in Jesus Christ. Jesus said: I came that you might have life to the full. (John 10:10).

The gospel does not get political. The gospel tells a different story than politics. The gospel seeks to redeem everyone involved. Unconditional love melts hard hearts. Unconditional love raises up those who believe they are trapped in despair. Unconditional love creates generosity. The good news helps people no matter what station their life possesses. God loves saving the world.

We are the church. We have the same power inside of us. Romans 1:16 tells us that the good news is like dynamite that releases the power of God to transform anyone. Therefore, I am apolitical. And I have to remind myself that God loves every side as much as He loves me.

The mental image “dancing upon injustice” is different than “stomping out injustice.” Yes, the dancer is on top, but the dancer is celebrating God's love. And the celebration of God's love lifts the injustice up to the point of celebration. And that is the place where the Good News redeems us all.

Praise God!

Pastor or Prophet?

-->

As a pastor, I worry that I have failed. As a prophet, I believe that I have received a prophet's reward -persecution. And those who embrace those prophetic messages with me are marginalized as well. But the thing is this: My entire ministry has been overshadowed by this nagging feeling that we are preaching a doctrine that promotes Empire instead of the gospel of the Kingdom.

And, Calvinism has made it much more palatable to our consciences. If one had to draw a line in the sand, I am going to end up on the Calvinist side, but that isn't the point. The point is the doctrine of the elect, combined with the doctrine that no works can purchase our salvation can lead to a whole group of people who do not believe that Jesus was serious when He said that he would deny the Kingdom of God to those who refuse to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner and etc. In their opinion, Jesus couldn't have been serious because that would lead to a “works” based righteousness.

And Brother Paul, and the book of Romans, enters into this debate. Jesus said: “I have more truth to tell you, but you cannot abide it now, but the Holy Spirit, when He comes will reveal to you more truth.” Many have said that Jesus was intentionally incomplete in His teaching of the gospel. Others have said that this establishes two different gospels. 

Here is what we agree on: Jesus' words force us to combine works with faith. Here is what we disagree on: Paul's words debunk the concept that Jesus couldn't have been serious in Matthew 25. There are those who say that Paul's concept of “no works can save us” trumps Jesus words in Matthew 25. And, that this is what Jesus was referring to when He said that there was more to this to be later revealed.

Of course, I am saying nothing new here when I say this: “shouldn't Paul be interpreted in the light of Jesus rather than Jesus in the light of Paul?”

Before I get attacked, let me clear this up. Do I believe that salvation is by faith? Of course I do. Do I believe that if a work could save me then Jesus would have died in vain? Of course I do. But I also believe that apart from works, faith is dead.

If one holds to a strict interpretation of justification by faith alone, without works, then one throws out the three years of Jesus teaching. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come and convince people about Him. That must mean about Him and His teaching and His atonement. We can't throw out His teaching in favor of His atonement.

And I know the concept that if we are truly born again, our response will be good works, out of gratitude, not compulsion. But the thing is, good works are not just acts of gratitude, they are commands placed upon us.

Paul does not trump Jesus. And that was never Paul's intention. Remember when he met with the elders in Antioch? They agreed on every point about Paul's gospel, a gospel that required none of the Jewish law religious rules. The only thing they spoke of was this: “That Paul remember the poor, the very thing that he was eager to do.” Paul made it clear of his commitment to the poor. And yet, somehow this concept of election and faith alone has indeed worked itself into a doctrine where the poor are not as important to the faith as they were to Jesus.

What do we do?

Dikaios, the right word, translated the wrong way. Part of my journey toward a more just form of NT Christianity

It's the right word, but it is used the wrong way. Here is how the Church begins to divorce itself from the life and ministry of Jesus Christ: just change the way we translate one word. Justice, Righteousness. Dikaios.

So what is the right word used the wrong way? The translation of the word Dikaios. It can be translated either as Righteous/Righteousness or Just/Justice. Are we to be known more by the fact that we are righteous, or by the way we do justice? I loved studying the doctrine of salvation, I got to take an entire course in it when I was preparing for ministry. We looked at salvation from what I thought was every possible angle. We leaned big words like harmatology (the doctrine of sin) and pithy phrases like “Justified means `just as if I'd' never sinned.” I remember learning how, in Romans 4&5, the written decree of our own sin was canceled by the blood that Jesus shed on our behalf. One good man, the perfect man, died for sinners. He describes how these sinners were actually enemies when Jesus died for them. I remember the incredible sense of gratitude I felt toward God when, not only did the Holy Spirit give me a sense of personal assurance that yes, indeed, my sins were forgiven. But I also understood it. I felt privileged that God was giving me a glimpse into His mysteries. It seemed that when the mystery was explained to me I had a complete picture of theology because I felt it; I sensed it by the power of the Holy Spirit and now I also knew it. What joy to experience that level of trust from God, to me! I wanted to shout it from the rooftops! I couldn't wait to get into the pulpit and proclaim not only the mystery, but also the knowledge of God's salvation. Dikaios! I knew that word! I understood it. I imagined Paul writing these chapters under the power of the Holy Spirit and experiencing the same, almost drunk feeling of being overwhelmed by the intimacy and glory He was experiencing. I wondered if that is what it must have felt like for Moses to be coming down from the mountain after hearing the Word of the Lord first-hand.

I was the righteous. I don't remember feeling condescension toward those who were not “the righteous.” When I considered their fate, most often it was with a sense of sadness. Not the sadness that I was the righteous and they weren't, or the sadness that I was going to attend a party upstairs while they were burning in the basement.* I never had the thought that they were getting what they deserved. My only real gut feeling was a profound sense of worship because I was lucky enough to have believed the message. I never felt like I was “the elect” as if God for some unknown reason had given me the faith to believe the report about Jesus. 

*From Brian McLaren: "The Last Word and the Word After That."

I felt guilty that I was the elect if “the elect” were chosen by God. Who am I that God should love me? I know my heart and its quick ability to deceive me. I know how far from deserving I have ever come. I have never gotten close to earning it. So why me? I confess a lingering doubt, nagging in the corners of my mind where unknown fears can somehow take root that maybe something was missing from this “complete” construct of theology. The complete construct didn't allow for the unfairness that somehow God gave me the faith to believe and then excluded someone else.

There were some theological underpinnings that worked for a while to assuage that doubt, or guilt. Things like: the people who question the fairness of God do so only because they love the darkness rather than the light and this is their excuse to keep on sinning. Or: when a person chooses to reject God, then there is a good chance that they will not teach their children and those children won't teach their children and that initial person's rebellion has consequences for generations.... That almost works. Except. God loves every one of those children as much as He loves me and I am still lucky. So, what do I do with this nagging sense in the corners of my mind? What do I do with this concept that the God of love, God, God who defines justice, God who defines unconditional love can allow something unfair to happen? “The Soul that sins will die,” but what about their children? What sin did they commit? Ezekiel makes it clear that righteousness is imputed to the one who acts with justice. Righteousness and justice cannot be divorced.

So, lets get back to the translation of the word: Dikaios. Then next five paragraphs are for the theologians and Bible scholars out there. The rest of you can ignore them if you care.

In the NASB, OT, the root word for righteous is also translated both ways. However, in the OT, only 4 out of 41 times is it translated as righteous in the New Living Translation. It is almost always translated as some form of Just, and a few times, as a form of vindication. See here.

In the New Testament, the word Dikaios is used 79 times in the NASB. See here. 8 times it is translated with a form of justice, 71 times as righteousness. I submit that for the most part, in Romans, righteous/righteousness is clearly the preferred word usage (14 times). But in the gospels, by the standard of context, just/justice as a translation makes sense more often than not. This isn't Paul's fault because of the doctrine set forth in Romans. It is the interpretation of the translators.

How does it change our perspective of justice when we substitute the word “just” or “justice” every time we can? In so doing, we keep faith with the three years of Jesus' teaching, the witness of the prophets and the theology of justice behind the OT law. It is important to do so because it keeps faith with the rest of scripture.

What actually is the historical and literary uses of the word? Dikaios' root word is Dike. Dike was the name of the goddess of Justice, the goddess of revenge. Dike is never translated as righteous in the NT. But because it is a legal term dealing with retribution for evil in the Greek/Roman world, and the rendering of Romans 4 and 5 that God wiped out the legal decree against us through the death of Jesus, translators preferred righteous over justice. However, a Dikaios person, in Greek culture was a “just” person. Matthew 1:19: Joseph was a just (Dikaios) man so he had mercy on Mary. Matthew 5:45, God causes rain to fall on the evil and the good (Dikaios). Matthew 13:49*, God will separate the wicked from the good (Dikaios). Matthew 20:4, you also go into the vineyard and work and whatever is right (Dikaios) I will give you. The culture translated the word as people who do the right thing to others. 

*This is a great example of interpretative translation. The contrast in almost all translations is wicked verses righteous. But “wicked” should be contrasted by “good,” or “just” when we let the context do the translating. Here is the problem if we follow that logic, we could twist it to mean that everyone who is not righteous (saved) is wicked. I know some very moral and just non-Christians.

So, consider the word Dikaios to be a coin. On one side, the head if you will, we have the word translated as "Just," on the other side, we have the word translated as "Righteous." They cannot be divorced from each other. They are inseparable. And the anomaly is, we have been using a mis-struck coin. For the most part, Western Christianity has a coin that is struck with two tails.

Jesus spent three years teaching His disciples how to be just. He confronted the injustices done by the religious leaders and by so doing declared them unrighteous people simply because they were unjust. Jesus spent three days making us righteous, three years teaching justice.

From Jesus' teaching, one could easily say that an unjust person cannot be a righteous person. The two go hand in hand. The recent evangelical push toward justice, social justice, is a work of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 25 makes it very clear that if justice is not synonymous with righteousness, then there is no righteousness. Unjust Christians will be separated by the angels at the end of the age and thrown into the fire.

So what has that done to my joy? It makes it greater. No longer do I have this nagging doubt about the fairness of it all. I still believe in Jesus. But Jesus gave this parable, and I hang God's perfect fairness on Jesus' own words:

Matthew 21:28-32

The Story of Two Sons

²⁸"Tell me what you think of this story: A man had two sons. He went up to the first and said, 'Son, go out for the day and work in the vineyard.'

²⁹"The son answered, 'I don't want to.' Later on he thought better of it and went.

³⁰"The father gave the same command to the second son. He answered, 'Sure, glad to.' But he never went.

^31-32"Which of the two sons did what the father asked?"

They said, "The first."

Jesus said, "Yes, and I tell you that crooks and whores are going to precede you into God's kingdom. John came to you showing you the right road. You turned up your noses at him, but the crooks and whores believed him. Even when you saw their changed lives, you didn't care enough to change and believe him.

God is and always will be just and fair. It is no longer my problem to worry about who is in and who is out of His family. God wants everyone back.

You may be asking the question: Why bother pointing all this out? Are you speaking of universal restoration? Are you saying that Jesus is not the only way?

Maybe, and nope. Neither is my point at all. I point it out because the way we translate that word informs the way we do justice. I am more interested in this question: Did the King James Translators deliberately use righteous/righteousness instead of just/justice in order to rationalize Imperialism? Does that distortion still affect the NT perspective on Justice?

When a nation sees itself as a righteous nation because it is called Christian, does that excuse whatever impact they have on other nations? Do we believe in American Exceptionalism because we are the righteous -and therefore God's favored, or because we are just? 

It happens both as a collective as well as individuals. If my righteousness makes me more just, then my decisions will not be about what is good for me, but what is good for all. The impact of my decisions both on future generations and my neighbors is just as important as the impact on me. That is justice. But if I am merely the righteous (and not also the just), and therefore God's favored person, then the impact it has on me is more important than the impact it has on others. And that can lead to me attempting to justify unjust actions. (Does anybody else cringe when they hear that sometimes, 20-40 innocents, including women and children, are killed during a US predator drone strike in order to take out just one suspected terrorist?)

We do indeed try to be just, but our language needs to change in order to accomplish NT justice. Language affects our actions. What if, in consistency with Jesus teaching, we also translate the word as just/justice as often as possible? How would that begin to affect our for actions?

Here is just one example of language influencing justice: In 2008, Senator Bob Casey ran against the incumbent, Senator Rick Santorum.  It was a race between two strong Christians. At a ministerial alliance meeting, one dear colleague of mine was begging us to vote for Santorum. In defense of Santorum he said: When the righteous rule, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan. Proverbs 29:2. (Notice again how the opposite of “wicked” is righteous instead of “good,” or “just.”)

His statement was given in the form of a prayer request and as it turned out, I was the one leading in prayer. So, when I prayed, I translated the passage he referred to without the imperialistic interpretation and prayed: “When the just rule, the people rejoice, when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

Casey ended up winning that election. And I am not angry at my colleague for his subtle confusion of scripture. We remain good friends. I point this out to see how subtly the Good news of God's Kingdom has been misshapen for by the language used.

The campaigns were, as usual, a battle of sound bites designed to appeal to the constituencies.  Santorum was running on a Christian values platform. He had three main items to work with, pro-life, anti-terrorism and illegal aliens. Since every one is anti-terrorism, he couldn't distinguish himself with that cause. Since his opponent was also pro-life, he couldn't distinguish himself with that cause. So, he chose “illegals.” But bashing a minority group of people because of who they are and where they are born is not a Christian value. The Bible is clear in Leviticus 19:33-34 that the alien is to be treated as our neighbor. He choose to call people who are undocumented as "illegals." Jesus calls them "neighbor." Language changes the way we think.

Enter into that debate with someone and ask them, are they "neighbor" or are they "illegals?" I would guess that one who is more comfortable translating dikaos as Just would also call them neighbor. What would Jesus do?

Author's Note: this was written June 1, 2011, it is now March 20, 2014. I just returned from a breakfast meeting for clergy with Brian McLaren and he spoke about how we mistranslate Diakonos. I felt good -as I always do when I read McLaren because I am not alone in my struggles. But he went right to Romans, and he suggested we translate "righteous" with "Restorative justice." He was also quick to point out that he doesn't mean payback, but forgiveness as a reaction to God's forgiveness of us. God's forgiveness is what restored us to God and the righteous standing -the standing of being restored to God by God- is what Paul is speaking of in the book of Romans. Praise God!

I made you hungry in order that you may learn.... ...to love and forgive.

I am musing on Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. What are the nature of the tests we receive?

In the first two tests Satan introduces them with the words: "If you are the Son of God..." Part of Satan's trick is for Jesus to prove Himself, or defend Himself. Why would Jesus need to defend Himself in front of Satan? Jesus knows who He is.

Jesus' answer for the first test, to turn the stones into bread, comes from Deuteronomy 8:3. "I humbled you... ...I made you hungry... ...mankind lives by God's Word."

God tested the Israelites. First He humbled them. Second, God made them hungry.

Perhaps one of the first things that must go, if we are to overcome a test is our pride. We will not pass if we are not willing to let go of our pride. Do we need to be proven right in the eyes of man? Or in the eyes of God?

But also, God made them hungry. At the time, they were really hungry. They were three days without food. The people were wondering if this plan to escape slavery into the desert was a good idea. They complained against God and Moses.


But, they really were hungry.  Their complaint was legitimate. They had a real grievance.


The point? A test is not a test unless it is real. A soldier who is learning to craw on his belly and accurately return fire is not going to develop the discipline to do that unless the training involves live fire. This was said of the Emperor Tiberius when he was general over his troops: "His drills are bloodless battles and his battles are bloody drills."

So what about the test of loving one another? Loving one another above anything we say, above any creed we confess, above any doctrine we espouse, above any spiritual gift we manifest, above any singular -or lifetime of- religious activity is the only legitimate proof of our Christian faith. (Also 1 John 4:7-21)

Right now, there is a real test going on as to the discipline of loving one another, both here on my blog -as we discuss church politics- and also on my listserve -as we discuss evangelism in post-modernity and modernity. Just as God made the Israelites hungry in the wilderness, God has placed us in positions where we feel that we feel we have been legitimately wronged.

It is a test. And just like Jesus in the wilderness and the Israelites in the desert, we need humility first, and then obedience:

I am a sinner who still needs a Saviour. I want to be forgiven by God. And, in order to do that, I must forgive. Without condition. I do forgive. "Lord Jesus, for my part, do not hold anyone guilty on my behalf. Love and forgive them, I pray, just as You love and forgive me."

Some suggested that I go to people that I have forgiven and tell them that I forgive them. I believe that action would be an insult to them. Forgiveness of others is a transaction between God and me, not them and me. All I can do is ask for forgiveness.  For my part, please forgive if I have harmed you. What people do with that request is also a transaction between God and them.

"I thank you Lord God that you made me to be offended in order to give me the chance to forgive and prove that we live by Your Word above anything else. May the name of the Lord be praised forever."

The H Question, remix

Okay, maybe what I have to say isn’t important enough to restate it. But I just re-read the previous blog, and even I didn’t get it anymore. It was wordy. It could be expanded to a book, or reduced to some principles. When I wrote it, I was full of it. So here goes with the simple attempt:

Our denomination is fighting over the question of Homosexuality in respect to the question, can LGBTQ people be in significant roles of leadership?

And to answer that question, we have to answer a whole slew of other questions: Is LGBTQ practice sin? Does God love the LGBTQ person? Is it fair, or Christ-like, to single out the actions of LGBTQ people over the actions of others? Can we learn anything by the lack of any reference to LGBTQ in the gospels?

And underneath those questions are some classic battles defined by these questions: Does Sin exist, and if so, what is it? Is there absolute truth? Is the Bible authoritative? Is God, or the idea of God, dead? Can Science and Reason answer our questions of morality? Does “not standing against” LGBTQ activity mean we are condoning it? How can we stand FOR “good news, redemption and transformation” while we are standing against a GROUP of people?

I believe the argument about the LGBTQ question is one we shouldn’t be having because it no longer makes a real difference. The point is moot. Yep, I said it. And here is why:

When Nietzsche said “God is dead” he declared that humankind didn’t need the superstitious notions of God anymore. He believed that science and reason could solve the problems of the world. Evangelical, and the more conservative bible-believing theologians reacted strongly to those words. I reacted.

For me, I asked Jesus to come into my heart and save me from my sins. And He did. In ministry, I have seen demons cast out, I have seen the blind receive their sight, I have actually seen the dead raised back to life. One day, I felt this burning sensation at the back of my throat, and afterwards, I started speaking in an angelic tongue. When I pray in that tongue, I see mountains move. I can attest, God is not dead.

So here was Christianity, with its back up against the wall, the Cold War was raging and those “godless commies” threatened our very existence and faith. We had a fight on our hands.

We had to prove that God existed to those who rejected him in favor of Science and Reason ONLY. And one of the biggest arguments used was the fact of sin, the Biblical declarations of it, and the Atoning sacrifice of Christ to free us from the curse of sin.

In order to prove the fact of God, we proved the fact of sin, and Christianity as the sole refuge for sin.

All of those arguments were statements, propositions, designed to win the battle against the statements, propositions, of “science and reason are all we need.” It was a battle of words and ideas. Both sides became further and further entrenched in their propositions.

And then, the vast majority of the culture realized that science and reason did not provide all the answers. Without discarding the value and importance of science and reason, we admitted that we needed some sort of spiritual guidance to help us. We became students of our own history. We realized that just because we could do something, it didn’t mean we should. We question: “Should be have used the A-bomb?”

So, the culture changed and as it turned out, God wasn’t dead after all. Culture admitted that science and reason alone cannot provide moral guidance.

The Church has a chance to get back to the table as a partner in forming culture. We lost our seat when the Church reacted to its loss of significance by creating its own sub-culture. That sub-culture became so entrenched in the arguments that it didn’t notice the world wasn’t listening. Instead of trying harder to influence culture in a way that would make a real difference, it shouted out louder and louder, to itself -against one another, its propositions. The culture reacted with a reinforced view that it had become less and less relevant. They stopped listening.

But then, in spite of us, culture confesses its need for God and yes, what we call sin. Some even call it sin. Some call it brokenness. Some call it “influenced by evil” and some may reduce it to “a lack of evolutionary altruism.” But the overwhelming majority recognizes that we need spiritual as well as scientific guidance.

So here is the solution for us: We need to realize that the LGBTQ question changed along with the culture. The questions are no longer: “is there really such a thing as sin?” “Is LGBTQ sin?” Those questions addressed the proposition: “we no longer need God.”

Today, however, the questions are: “How does God love the LGBTQ Person?” “How does God want us to love the LGBTQ Person?” These questions place the emphasis on God’s loving relationship to humankind instead of the propositions of the culture. It is almost as if we have to change from defending “the fact of God” to defending “the love of God.”

Brethren, can we forgive each other the passions of the past, look beyond who won or lost the argument and get back to being God’s Kingdom ON EARTH and heaven instead of just in heaven? 

Author's note: I don't substitute the word Homosexual or Homosexuality lightly. For some, the substitution may seem as if I am trying to take away the very human face of Homosexual persons. I assure you, I am not. A big part says to me: "leave the entire word(s) in so that people can realize that we are talking about real people, people whom we know and love." But I find that too many other people use the Homosexual and Homosexuality as a derogative. So, when ever you see "H" in this blog and it refers to Homosexuals, try replacing it with "someone else that Jesus gave His life for -just like me."

Author’s note: In finding community with LGBTQ people who have accepted me, a former enemy to their civil rights, I learned to replace what was originally posted as “H people” with LGBTQ. That might explain my previous author’s note!

The H Question:

Homosexuality, the H Question.

Because of the current levels of debate, there is no short answer to this question, especially for preachers.

But, I am going to put my perspective down in bullet points because I think you will get most of it in that framework. And, these are merely my theological, psychological and physiological understandings.

But before that, there are 4 terms I am going to use:

1. Secular Modernity: The world view that only science and reason can answer our questions, religion is a form of naiveté that the age of science and reason will eventually conquer. It includes Secular Humanism and allows for Social Darwinism.
2. Christian Modernity: The World view and apologetics that contrasted and strove for Christ and against Secular Modernity and its attempt to deny the existence of God. On the evangelical side the scripture behind it is Romans 10:14-15 or 2 Timothy 4:3 –both scriptures emphasize the importance of preaching true to the Word.
3. Secular Post-Modernity: The predominant current world view that distrusts the Church, and most dominant faiths (by dominant, I mean “in power” like Islam and Christianity) because of their domination of others. It includes pluralism, neo-pluralism (My term –in my opinion it is actually part of the neo-pagan movement, which is not an “in power” religion, but a resurgence of Druidism. It is called Wicca. For a good look at its history in developing European culture, read the novel “That Hideous Strength” by CS Lewis.) and syncretism. It values relationship above anything else. It sees humanity as a Community  in various degrees, according to the individuals “taste.”
4. Christian Post-Modernism: (My view) A world view that is highly Christocentric, even its description of salvation through Jesus Christ,  but is less interested in taking a stand against Secular Modernity and all its propositions and is more interested in bringing people into a relationship with God, who reconciled us to Him through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The defining scripture is the “gentleness and respect” of 1 Peter 3:15.

It is important to note that the imperative behind Modernity is propositions. The propositions of Secular Modernity and Christian Modernity clubbed each other over the head with their truths as they wrestled for domination in the ideological views of the Western Culture. The problem was, the clubbing each other over the head didn’t work at all, nations continued to fight, the Cold War ensued. Then the Church itself fell into this mindset and began attacking each other in its own subculture and became culturally irrelevant because it stopped doing the Work of Jesus. It was easier to argue than it is to sacrificially serve. Peter said: “Arm yourselves with a willingness to be like Christ.”

In my opinion, this paved the way for Post-Modernity whose imperative is relational over propositional. This world view is not as fractured as the world view of Modernity, but then, it is just beginning (and some say is already dying in favor of Nihilism).

All of that is important for me to explain where I think the debate on the H word is currently at:

• Modernity versus Post–Modernity on the question of Homosexuality. There is a fundamental difference in what the question even means:
  • Modernity, Is there a God?:
    • In modernity, the “propositions of truth” and “taking a stand for the truth” was necessary because Secular Modernity denied the existence of God, the moral judge.
    • In Secular modernity right and wrong, morality, was made up by the consensus of society.
    • Only in Modernity is the question asked: Is Homosexuality a sin?
    • Therefore Homosexuality from Christian modernity is described as sin.
    • Evangelism was propositional instead of relational and the Holy Spirit blessed the propositional preaching. It fit the need for the time.
  • Post Modernity, Who or What fills this spiritual space we all feel? (Notice, the fundamental difference in the question):
    • In Post-Modernity, we are no longer arguing (in apologetic fashion) the existence of God, we are discussing the nature of God.
    • It may be a fundamental understanding of the difference between whether or not God is a God of wrath, or a God of love?
    • The concept of right and wrong, or sin, are in context of “since there is a Spiritual reality what does and doesn’t describe sin, or moral verses immoral actions?”
    • And the question is not so much: “Is homosexuality a sin?” but rather “What does God do and think about the homosexual person?”
    • My answer is three-fold:
      • Jesus loves everyone so much he died for all, including me AND people with same-sex attractions (notice the name change).
      • Sin is either and both (at different times) a result of the fall (brokenness) and deliberate choices for disobedience.
      • Given the stigma and pain involved, I don’t believe that a person would choose a same-sex attraction as an act of rebellion toward God. (In that case, I would describe their “sin” as “brokenness.”) I can imagine a sinful choice to be bi-sexual as an act of rebellion, or a purely hedonistic desire for pleasure. In that case, I would call the action sin. Note: Brokenness is not God’s ideal or desire for humanity, it is a result of the fall.
    • To be clear, in my post-modern understanding of where the Holy Spirit is leading evangelicals like me, in most cases, same-sex attraction does not make one an unbeliever –you understand the difference being either a direct act of rebellion (sin/hedonism) or a result of brokenness (same-sex attraction).
    • Those who have same-sex attractions are loved even more by God, because He knows their hearts.
    • Evangelism is now relational instead of propositional, and the Holy Spirit is blessing those who do relational evangelism, it works according to His plan.
    • (I believe the only people arguing the question of whether or not homosexuality is sin are the people who are still addressing and reacting to evangelism from the mindset of the culture of modernity. But we are now in a culture of post-modernity.)
• Does sin exist?
  • I believe the answer, in both Modernity and Post-Modernity is very similar, with maybe a “lesser state of sin” (brokenness) in Christian Post-Modernism.
  • In the debate over Homosexuality, the real question, and the reason why it is such an inflammatory issue is because it is a culture war between the concept of the inherent evil inside all of us, or the inherent good in all of us.
  • Modernity’s answer to “inherited and corrupt sinful nature” was Secular Humanism. In that concept the more a society progresses, it will have greater ability to address social problems and bring out the good in everyone.
  • However, most of Secular Post-Modernity seems to have accepted this Secular Humanism dogma as a working principle (probably because that question really hasn’t been discussed yet). It is a principle that is contrary to atonement theology.
  • The debate has been going in Western theater.
    • The iconography of science fiction movies seems to support both future scenarios. Contrast Star Trek (Secular Humanism) with Avatar (an inherited corrupt human nature). The narratives are polar opposites. The pre-industrial Native Americans lived in harmony with the world as they do in Avatar and the industrialized society refused to allow their moral compasses to mitigate their use of power. Essentially, if they can do it, then it it must be moral. This is the aspect of Social Darwinism that threw New Testament morality under the bus. Sadly, in Civil Christianity, when Christianity is the “in power” religion, the question of whether we can, or whether we should is asked less often, or asked only in the areas that justify ourselves. (I.E. Slavery, US border policy, the use of Nuclear weapons, the plight of Native Americans…)
    • This is contrasted with Star Trek’s invention of a WARP drive that ushered in an age of human prosperity that seemed to perfect us. Every civilization they visited that was less advanced had worse moral ethics and every civilization that was more advanced had better moral ethics.
    • Of course, Avatar leaves out the Christophanys of ET, Cool Hand Luke, and Braveheart where the protagonist is crucified and comes back to life in one form or another.
    • Star wars has a personal redemption theme without the atonement. Its perspective isn’t Christian, it is actually Wiccan in the way Vader redeems himself.
  • That brings us to atonement theology.
  • We cannot forgo the importance of the cross (the last three days of Jesus’ incarnation) and we cannot forgo the importance of Jesus’ teachings (the first three years of Jesus’ teaching). BOTH are equally important. John 17:4, Jesus prays “I have accomplished the work you sent me to do…” This is before the cross. Jesus, as God’s representative finished the imperative of His teaching. But then, as the representative of Humanity, He became the sacrifice for our sins.
  • Because of the questions: “does God exist?” and “is there such a thing as sin?” Christian Modernity focused mainly on the last 3 days of Christ’s mission on earth.
  • The culture of Post-Modernism sees the inequitable balance in Jesus ministry and begs the question: “Is the Church genuine and authentically following Jesus?” Many rejected Christianity, but not Jesus, or at least the idea of Jesus.
  • So, in Christian Post Modernity, the narrative of atonement hasn’t changed, but the narrative of Jesus’ life on earth as the representative of God, His passion for justice, love, mercy and compassion has been added. Praise God! It is a step away from Civil religion into NT Christianity.
  • Peter Gomes, in his book “The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus” describes, in the eight chapter, what I call the “neo-social justice gospel.” During the height of modernity, Christians were either into social justice (the first 3 years) or saving souls (the last 3 days), but now, Gomes himself holds to the gospel of Jesus that includes social justice and personal salvation.
• So, from this perspective of Post-Modern Christianity, is Homosexuality a sin?
  • Yes and no. (And I am not waffling on the fence).
  • Same sex attraction is not a choice made as an act of rebellion against God, therefore it doesn’t fall into the category of “not loving God with all our heart, and not loving our neighbor as ourselves.” In the case of the deliberate choice to go against heterosexual attraction, then yes it is a sin.
  • What about same-sex attractions? Are they a sin? No –not in the concept of rebellion against God. But it is brokenness. It is less than God’s ideal. But for those who have it, and didn’t want it, it isn’t sin to them. It is similar to my diabetes. I didn’t choose it, but it is less than God’s design. Does that mean that Homosexuals are diseased? Not quite. I wince at the pejorative implication in my metaphor, but I just don’t have a good metaphor except the brokenness of the fall. (Help me, please!) Except maybe in the concept of cancer (which is not a sin). Cancer is excessive production of the wrong kind of cell. Cancer is amoral. But the point is, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, ulcers, skin problems and even obesity are all a result of the fall AND THEY AFFECT BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS ALIKE.
• So, how do we answer the question is homosexuality a sin?
  • To the Secular Modernist and Post-Modernist: “I am a sinner. H, if you want to, you may call it sin. But in this context I will call it part of the universal brokenness. It is no less or no more than my brokenness and sin. I need a Savior. Jesus loves H as much, if not more, than He loves me.” (Because He is specially tuned to the outcast and marginalized in society.)
  • To the Modern and Post-Modern homosexual: Jesus loves you and wants you in His family. He is the one who will walk with you either in, or out, of your lifestyle. It starts with Christ.
  • To the Christian Modernist: “I am going to deal with people who have same sex attractions exactly the way Jesus did, I am going to treat them as a neighbor.” When they press me for a definitive answer on whether or not they are sinners, I will walk away. (Because, in my view, it is the propositions of modernity clubbing one another and that has proven to be ineffective.)
  • To the post-modern Christian: “Open your arms and invite them into the family of God; enjoy their presence in this great adventure!”
  • To the Homosexual Christian Post-modernist: “what can I learn from that will help me on my own journey?”
  • To the Homosexual Secular Modernist: “I am sorry for the way you have been marginalized, I hope you can see in me, the Jesus that loves you and accepts you just the way you are.”
• Taking a Stand –how the propositions of modernity failed (and are still crippling our forward progress). I alluded to this in the introduction:
  • Because Modernity was a propositional argument about the nature, source and even existence of absolute truth (Secular Post Modernity is still wrestling with that), both sides did well in delivering their propositions. And every proposition was a reaction to the other side and the propositions became more and more insular and divisive.
  • Today, the pro-H groups are doing a very good job of making it a relational issue and are moving away from the propositional arguments. They are making people think about whether or not God loves the H.
  • The worse part of this, is that in Christian Modernity, verses all three other categories (Secular Modernity, Christian PO-MO, Secular PO-MO) the propositions became so important they were “an end unto themselves.”
    • The preacher, church, or denomination that had the stronger stand against “equated themselves to be more righteous than others.”
    • So, denominations divided, argued over forms of baptism, tongues, versions of translation, eternal security, and etc. All of this was to prove to God they were faithful.
    • It became a sort of Christian competition, and the secular world laughed, ridiculed and worse, ignored the Church as irrelevant.
    • In fighting Modernity, we fought amongst ourselves in order to prove something to somebody (who?).
    • We fell victim to our own significance and lost our seat at the table in Modern World view.
    • I believe that since the last election, provocateurs have resurged some of that old debate in order to manipulate POLITICS with fear and rhetoric. How sad. The more this goes on, the more we all will be marginalized.
    • I believe this is the biggest reason why youth are leaving the Church.
• What about the fact that Jesus didn’t mention H?
  • The Modernity debate has used that as one of its clubbing points.
  • One side says: “Since Jesus didn’t mention it, is must be okay.”
  • The other side says, “Of course He did: `A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife…’” as a proposition for hetero relations only. And then, of course, there is Sodom and Gomorrah, Romans 1 (a result of judgment, not the cause as Conservative Christian Modernists claim –same with Sodom and Gomorrah, Ezekiel 16:49-50).
    • The argument from Conservative Christian Modernity –that God will judge us for allowing the gay agenda- has it backward.
    • Materialism and Consumerism are the sins, and terminal sexual deviations (which results in the failure of a society to reproduce and survive) is the judgment.
    • And again, I am not saying that H people are under a special and worse curse. They share with everyone in the broken nature of this world. And I believe this: “At the point of our brokenness, the place where we are the most afraid that Jesus would appear, is exactly the place that He loves us the most.” We are saved by grace.
    • So, the “gay agenda” rhetoric published by the religious right is merely the work of provocateurs who exploit our fear in order to raise funds for their “righteous defenses” of God. It isn’t a slippery slope to perdition, it is grain elevator pumping more and more money onto their piles of gold. 
    • When Jesus didn’t mention it, it wasn’t because He was endorsing brokenness. No. Jesus didn’t mention it because it wasn’t important enough to fight over.
    • He was soon to provide the atoning sacrifice to restore the broken to Him.
    • Jesus was and still is about redemption, restoration, healing, and reconciliation between God, man and each other.
  • Then there is the whole imperialism, kingdom to come instead of the Kingdom here and now issue.
    • Post-Modernity distrusts “in power” faiths because of the way they have achieved and maintain control.
    • That is why Nihilism is emerging.
    • Nihilism is a reaction to the abuse of authority. It is: disestablishmentarianism taken to the up to the level of politics and national leadership.
    • Post-modernity perceives (whether or not it is true is still a debate, the perception is real to those who hold it) an historical connection between religion and the abuse of power. I suppose in the Christian context, it began with Constantine and his refusal to allow his sword arm be baptized when he “converted.”
    • He believed that his religion gave him the power to subdue others, after all they were/are merely pagans whose destiny is perdition.
    • I think the controversy right now about the “Ground Zero Mosque”, and the systemic perceptions behind 9/11 –right or wrong- indicate the fallacy of having a civil religion (like American Evangelical Christianity, or the theocratic nature of some of the more radical Muslim countries).
    • How does this relate to the H question?
    • If we are allowed to marginalize the H people, then we can also marginalize and abuse “the other” -anyone who isn’t like us.
    • Post-Modernity wonders if Christian endorsement (from the beginning of the slave trade to the election of President of Obama and beyond…) of racism and the current increasing-in-popularity evil  Christian Identity movement is any different from the reaction to the gay agenda? Without the framework of scripture, it appears to them to be the same imperialistic viewpoints.
    • And here is the worse part about it: Taking a stand against the SIN OF OTHERS to prove your righteousness while you allow suffering, injustice, marginalization of others is a far cry from the righteousness that Jesus described by “taking up your cross and following Him.”
    • “Taking a stand against” is a sacrifice that costs us little in comparison to taking up our cross. In the mega-church hysteria and manipulation for profit by the national Christian media, that “supposed sacrifice” is actually a benefit because it gains the applause of others in the Church and increases the coiffures by creating an enemy out there. In essence it is no different than Goebbels  demonizing the Jewish race in order to garner support for National Socialism.
    • It is not a real sacrifice- not while believers continue a life of over-consumption and going to church to get a commodity instead of  taking up our crosses to follow Christ. Remember, that was the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

So, if you ask me “is H a sin?” My response is “why do you ask?”

That is nor a pejorative response. If  you truly want to know how I think the Holy Spirit is leading the church in its reaction to this debate, then praise God! I applaud your willingness to seek God instead of merely listening to the rhetoric. Search yourself and inform me as well. I don’t have all the answers.

However, if one wants to prove to himself or  herself that I am either less or more biblical or spiritual than them in my ability to take a stand… …well, I won’t say it and I will repent for the temptation to think it, instead I will say in complete sincerity, without mockery: “God bless you.”

Phil Reynolds is an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren. He considers himself Bible Believing and still identifies as an Evangelical, but has distanced himself from the American Evangelical movement because he perceives that it has become a Political entity, manipulated by provocateurs, that has exchanged New Testament Christianity for Western Civil religion.

I have two people who I have to apologize to because I realize that I have left you completely out of my categories. I just don’t know what to do with you yet. One is a good friend and I love her dearly: SQM: “You have taught me more than you can imagine. I deeply respect the sincerity by which you have achieved your world view. I am sorry I haven’t figured out a response to the Christian Post-modern who does not see the atonement as crucial to their faith. So, I ask you to forgive me for leaving you out of my categories. When I figure out how your integrity and sincerity fits into my narrow world-view, I’ll figure out a way to include you in the categories. Again, please forgive me.

And to another man, JWB: “I deeply respect your perspective. I have  learned a lot from you. I see you as moving from Modernity to Post-Modernity in the way that you speak more of the human cost that the H controversy creates than the propositions that kept us all divided. I hope to someday visit with  you and become your friend. I hope you know that I love you. Really. I just want to hug you, and figure out a way to get through this together.”

I mentioned Gomes Book: “The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus?” Gomes, an H person writes of what I call neo-social justice Christian. He decries the lines that separated the liberals from the conservatives in the age of modernity and sees a genuine revival taking place that is both Christocentric and also Just. It is a Kingdom here, and a Kingdom to come, enjoined together.

Technorati Tags: homosexuality,post modernity,modernity,imperiallism,post-modern christianity,pluralism,biblical authority,gay agenda

The Theology Of Libertarianism, OR “On The Origin of the Speci… …al Interests.”

Last September NPR ran a tribute to Charles Darwin on the celebration of his 200th birthday. I greatly appreciate his work and the scientific nature of his studies. He was a brilliant man and I believe he was a non-biased scientist. He himself was amazed by the impact of his book “On the Origin of the Species.” It seems to me that he was just as surprised as others by his conclusions. I am not going to vilify him. He is a fact of history.

The tribute interested me as they described the levels of impact his publication had on British/Western culture. I read that Darwin was “reluctant to publish” because of the way he thought it would negatively influence the status quo of the Church/State relationship in England. The biggest surprise being that he was buried in Westminster Abbey, right next to Sir Isaac Newton. Three years before, when I saw that stone in Westminster Abbey, I wondered: “just why he would be buried here? Didn’t he offend the Church?” Apparently not. There was a hint to why in the NPR account as they showed how his theory of the survival of the fittest resonated with the British Culture on a subconscious level.

In my opinion, Westminster Abbey is not focused on worshiping the God of the Bible. Although, there is a recent addition directly above  the Western Entrance (the primary entrance) of the abbey that has statues of 20th Century martyrs. One is not a Christian at all. One is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and one is a woman. Kudos for that! But that is not what the Abbey seems to be about. In my opinion, it is a tribute to, and and attempt at justifying, British Imperialism “in the name of Christ.” The oldest tomb is of King Edward. It dates back to the 11th Century. King Edward, The Confessor’s legacy was as a Saxon, displacing the indigenous population with brute force. To me, Westminster Abbey proclaims “The Doctrine of the Empire” not “the gospel of the Kingdom.” Luke 4:18-19 explains The good news of the Kingdom. They killed Jesus for preaching this message.

So, the tribute confirmed a suspicion that I had been researching since I went to Westminster Abbey. I contacted NPR and asked the question; “Did the concept of (Social) Darwinism resonate with the Imperialistic, Colonial mindset of the British Empire? Did it justify Imperialism?” (No answer).

In the 5th edition, Darwin changed the title of his work to: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured (sic) Races in the Struggle for Life.”

You know where that went. The title change tells it all. The Eugenics and Aryan propaganda of the Hitler regime was based on the concept of Social Darwinism, the concept that society also evolved. If you want to be truly alarmed, follow this link and the links at the end of it. You will see how the Aryan race ideology is resurfacing in the American so called white identity movement and its ties to Tea Party people. (But wait until after you finish this.) It will scare you as to where the current political rhetoric is heading.

To be fair, John Hoogland does discuss the evolution of altruism as a benefit from natural selection. But the fact is, it has never been played out in human society. Human society has almost always denigrated to the justification of the survival of the fittest. It is humanity in its worse context.

So, the theology behind Libertarianism is Social Darwinism. if you want to imagine how it plays out, read Robert Heinlein’s science fiction series. Read especially “Friday” and “The Cat who walks through walls.” Or, some more recent books from the Political Science Fiction genre: William Z. Williamson: Freehold. Libertarianism contradicts NT Christianity in the fact that it sides with the Pharisee who says to Jesus: And just who is my neighbor?” (The parable of the Good Samaritan.)

I posit this question to believers: How can we reject NT Christianity in favor of a political system that justifies ignoring the plight of the poor? When Paul sought to reconcile his gospel to the Gentiles with the Gospel to the Jewish people, and the Jewish leaders of the Christian faith, didn’t they say only one important thing: “Remember the poor.” Libertarianism believes that the free market will always correct itself. (Of course, it has no explanation for slavery, the need for unions, child labor laws etc.) The free market cannot be trusted. The free market creates Oligarchies and Monopolies that control the supply and demand of a society. Just look at the $5 per gallon gas prices in 2008 and Sub-prime mortgages scandals (I know they say the Democrats forced them to lend to the poor –there is a clinical term for that).

The fact is, we need a government big enough to protect us from special interests whose conscience is “if it is good for me, then it is good, regardless of how it affects others.” I love the principles of business given in Proverbs. You can sum it up in one statement: “Just business practices must be a “win-win” for both parties.

Competition in the market place does drive us to excel. But when competition is designed to destroy the other, it is harmful. Let business compete ethically by doing good, by doing better, by improving product, not by figuring out ways to control the market for ourselves or harm the competition, the poor, the planet, the third world and the infidels.

To end this rant. Isn’t it ironic that the Conservative right, citing the Christian religion, uses Darwin to justify their politics? Isn’t it sad that these politics are so unlike the teachings of Christ?

People who love me dearly are concerned that I am leaving Christ behind in my advocacy on behalf of the poor. I want to remind everyone that Jesus spent 3 days redeeming humanity so that they can be reconciled back into God’s family and 3 years teaching the religious folk to be kind to the poor and marginalized. Which is more important to Jesus? Neither. The good news must include both. Remember, Jesus gave His life as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, but THEY TOOK HIS LIFE to silence Him because He confronted their abuse of the poor.

So ask yourself: Do you believe in the Good News (Gospel) of the Kingdom of God, or do you believe in the Doctrine of the Empire?

Come Holy Spirit

Praise God for Pentecost, the birthday of the Church. Several people have commented and questioned me about what a genuine move of the Holy Spirit looks like. Thank you!

One man told me that before the Vietnam war ended, he went with Pastor Liechty to Virginia to join in a circle of prayer around the Pentagon to pray for peace. He told me that when he came back here to Bear Creek, he felt a very strong urge to write Senator John Glenn to help stop the war. He said, “I am no writer; I am very shy, but I felt something stirring inside me when I wrote that letter and the end result was something much more than what I have the ability to do myself.”

Senator Glenn personally responded to his letter, told him he was moved by what he read and secured a three day moratorium on the war. Jesus told us that if we speak to a mountain, it will be cast into the sea. This brother, from right here at Bear Creek was moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke truth to power, and God did a miracle. God touched the heart of the Senator. With God all things are possible.

I know that this man’s story is one of many from here in this church. The interesting thing is, this man really wants to be incognito about what God lead him to do. Why? Because it isn’t about his ability to hear from God, it’s about God bringing glory to Jesus by sending His Holy Spirit into him. I like that approach.

My mom and I were talking about revival yesterday. God is leading her to pray for it. She asked me: “What do you think needs to happen to have revival?” My answer was simple, “God has to do it.” The questions: Is it a result of a lot of prayer? Is it a result of faithfulness of the people? Is it a result of our self-sacrifice? Is it a result of forgiveness? Is it a result of our humility? Is it a result of our repentance? Those are all good questions, and I think I can point to an historical revival somewhere when one or several of those actions by the church community were involved in the revival.

But, all of those actions are the result of revival, not the cause. The cause is God. Revival is about God, not about us. I say this: “Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of faithful and kindle in us the fire of your love. Send your Spirit and we shall be created and you shall renew the face of the earth.”

Come Holy Spirit.

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck about Jim Wallis.

Beck's perversion of truth has tried to distort the meaning of what Social Justice. He is trying to imply that it means Marxism. Marxism is Godless Socialism. Socialism is not illegal, immoral or even unconstitutional. It is even partly Biblical. Acts 4 gives the description of an early Christian commune. But, I don’t think a purely socialistic society could work. Even the Early Christian commune had its own problems with the human sin of greed. It probably will never work this side of heaven. Jim Wallis, me and Social Justice Christians are not advocating socialism. The Bible is full of passages exalting the need and necessity and rewards for hard industrious work. The claim that we believe in “forced redistribution of the wealth” is a lie. But, forced redistribution of the wealth every 50 years itself is in itself a Biblical concept Leviticus 25:8-55. Beck’s claims are merely inflammatory distortions of the truth. Wallis has been asking him to have a public forum for a long time now. All Beck wants to do is yell.

Many sincere believers who are trying to sort out this issue say that social justice is the responsibility of the Church, not the government. I agree with the ethos behind that statement. I will even take that farther: The third century Church abdicated that responsibility to the government when the the Emperor Constantine, “got saved.” Until that time, 95% to %100% of the tithe went to the poor. Look at this link. That is one of the biggest reasons why Christianity grew so fast in those early centuries. Outsiders saw the sincere and sacrificial love of believers and converted to a faith that proved itself to be truly just.

But when Constantine had his conversion experience, he funded the Church, and then the Government indirectly funded Social Welfare. Unfortunately that has been the SOP handed down to the Church ever since. It got worse: the Church became wealthy and the means to political power, so it attracted less than sincere converts. With the wealth, and the way the government took over the welfare, believers were more and more isolated from the poor and their early roots. As the wealth of society grew, Christians became more and more dependant on their wealth and much less willing to share it. The cycle goes on. People accuse the poor of being lazy, and some are, but if one goes to an impoverished nation, or even the poor in the US and most of the time they will find, in the poor, the most generous people they ever met. They share an empathetic bond. I have witnessed it many times. Their generosity puts me to shame. We need to break that cycle.

So, the sincere believers who are trying to sort out what is right in this debate realize the mistake made by the State Church. They do not want to encourage sloth, but at the same time, their hearts have genuine compassion. So, the kindest statement made by those who oppose Social Justice Christians is that it should have been done by the Church. I agree that Social Welfare is the responsibility of the Church. The earlier link gives us an action plan for making that happen.

But it grieves me that too many believers have expressed nothing less than hatred toward the President that God gave us. Glenn Beck is dead wrong and is trying to confuse the issue. So, in order to take away his dishonest representation, we will have to change our language for a moment to help him see. let me break it down into two categories. Social WELFARE is the blessing of ministry that God lets the Church do. Social JUSTICE is mandated by God for the government to enact. Christians have responsibility in both arenas. (For those following me on Facebook, I started this week saying that Social Justice is the responsibility of the Church. But that was BBIR {Before Beck’s Ignorant Remarks}. I expect you to understand why I had to break down the issue.)

I am not condoning laziness, just ask my children. According to Isaiah 58, Social welfare is to be enacted by believers without the accusations of sloth, embezzlement, etc. But the arguments against health care reform that come to the front today, even from Christians, are primarily arguments about liberty, freedom, patriotism, the Constitution, and good ol' American resolve. These are noble things and I dearly hold those truths to be self evident, but they are second place to the teachings of Jesus. The bulk of the attacks against the Christian Social Justice position comes in the guise of Patriotic slogans.

On Thursday, March 11, I had the privilege of hearing Brother Jim Wallis at Cedarville College in Ohio. It was a debate between Rev. Wallis and Marvin Olasky the founder and Editor of World Magazine. The theme was: “A Critical Evaluation of Christian Responses to Poverty and Affluence.” Jim Wallis said: The Church should feed the poor, but the Church cannot build the levies.” I would add, the Church couldn't pass the laws that ended slavery. Among the student body, a fairly conservative Evangelical school, there were a few times that clapping broke out in support of one or the other. Most often, the clapping that broke out was in favor of Jim Wallis. It was supposed to be a "Biblical" debate. However, Marvin Olasky made a weak case for "trickle down" recovery (Isn't that what Bush41 called "Voodoo Economics?) based on Micah 6:8. His point was that the government was less than humble in its aspirations to help the poor and therefore violated the Spirit of "walking humbly." That, my friends is bad Hermeneutics. The rest of the substance of his arguments were patriotic sound-bites (one of those got the loudest and longest clap). Those sound bites implied that if you disagreed with him you were un-American and therefore, probably unchristian as well. All the while those “America is Great statements” were said, he ironically mixed them with the claim "you can't trust the government."

In my opinion, what little Scripture he used was out of context. His substance came from emotional sound-bites, some positive and some very negative. Of course, he can’t make a Biblical case against Social Justice; one simply cannot take Social Justice out of the Bible. Jim Wallis told us the story of how his study group at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois (one of the more conservative Seminaries in the nation) did an academic study of Biblical passages that referred to Social Justice, helping the poor, caring for the least of these and found at least 2,000 Biblical references.

I know that the extreme right's position states that in order for it to be Christian it must be voluntary, not compulsory. And the believers referred to in the first paragraph who think that it is "only the responsibility of the Church" are correct in the fact that the Church dropped the ball when Constantine "got saved" and Christian Social Welfare became a function of the State Church. (BTW, Christians Social Welfare by the State Church in England works very well. Jim Wallis' Spiritual advisorship to our President has mainly to do with ways that we can maintain constitutional freedoms and still support "faith based initiatives." Isn't it ironic that the Red Party, who decried the limitation of Faith Based initiatives during their won administration is now in effect lining up AGAINST THEM?)

Likewise, the church cannot pass the law to provide health care to the 30+ million Americans who do not have it. The government has responsibility for social justice, and it is Biblical. Look at this scripture about the greedy of King of Judah as Jeremiah compares him to his Father and talks about why God blessed his father: Jeremiah 22:15-16 "Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.

Christians, do you want to see revival? Then embrace God’s Word:

Amos 5:24 (The Message)

^21-24"I can't stand your religious meetings.
I'm fed up with your conferences and conventions.
I want nothing to do with your religion projects,
your pretentious slogans and goals.
I'm sick of your fund-raising schemes,
your public relations and image making.
I've had all I can take of your noisy ego-music.
When was the last time you sang to me?
Do you know what I want?
I want justice—oceans of it.
I want fairness—rivers of it.
That's what I want. That's all I want.

And:

Isaiah 58 (The Message)

Isaiah 58

Your Prayers Won't Get Off the Ground

^1-3 "Shout! A full-throated shout! Hold nothing back—a trumpet-blast shout!
Tell my people what's wrong with their lives,
face my family Jacob with their sins!
They're busy, busy, busy at worship,
and love studying all about me.
To all appearances they're a nation of right-living people—
law-abiding, God-honoring.
They ask me, 'What's the right thing to do?'
and love having me on their side.
But they also complain,
'Why do we fast and you don't look our way?
Why do we humble ourselves and you don't even notice?'
^3-5"Well, here's why:

"The bottom line on your 'fast days' is profit.
You drive your employees much too hard.
You fast, but at the same time you bicker and fight.
You fast, but you swing a mean fist.
The kind of fasting you do
won't get your prayers off the ground.
Do you think this is the kind of fast day I'm after:
a day to show off humility?
To put on a pious long face
and parade around solemnly in black?
Do you call that fasting,
a fast day that I, God, would like?

^6-9"This is the kind of fast day I'm after:
to break the chains of injustice,
get rid of exploitation in the workplace,
free the oppressed,
cancel debts.
What I'm interested in seeing you do is:
sharing your food with the hungry,
inviting the homeless poor into your homes,
putting clothes on the shivering ill-clad,
being available to your own families.
Do this and the lights will turn on,
and your lives will turn around at once.
Your righteousness will pave your way.
The God of glory will secure your passage.
Then when you pray, God will answer.
You'll call out for help and I'll say, 'Here I am.'

A Full Life in the Emptiest of Places

^9-12"If you get rid of unfair practices,
quit blaming victims,
quit gossiping about other people's sins,
If you are generous with the hungry
and start giving yourselves to the down-and-out,
Your lives will begin to glow in the darkness,
your shadowed lives will be bathed in sunlight.
I will always show you where to go.
I'll give you a full life in the emptiest of places—
firm muscles, strong bones.
You'll be like a well-watered garden,
a gurgling spring that never runs dry.
You'll use the old rubble of past lives to build anew,
rebuild the foundations from out of your past.
You'll be known as those who can fix anything,
restore old ruins, rebuild and renovate,
make the community livable again.

^13-14"If you watch your step on the Sabbath
and don't use my holy day for personal advantage,
If you treat the Sabbath as a day of joy,
God's holy day as a celebration,
If you honor it by refusing 'business as usual,'
making money, running here and there—
Then you'll be free to enjoy God!
Oh, I'll make you ride high and soar above it all.
I'll make you feast on the inheritance of your ancestor Jacob."
Yes! God says so!