Love Wins (It does!)

Today is one of those spiritual days for me. It started early this morning. God called me to prayer. And God just didn't stop calling me into God's presence.

I have to confess something here. Sometimes -oft-times- my heart just gets overwhelmed in prayer. Sometimes it is just love and worship toward God, and other times, my soul is troubled and I don't know how to pray. So, my spirit groans with mutterings to deep for words and I read in Romans that when this  happens, the Holy Spirit of God mixes in (in what feels like perfect harmony) and W/we pray together according to the perfect will of God.

That happened this morning, and at times the Holy Spirit sort of gives me an inkling of what it was all about. Today's was about love, joy, admiration and gratitude to God. It was worship in community, I believe it was just as Jesus promised us it would be.

During that time, my mind focused on loving the gay men God has given me in my life. Some of them call me "Pastor." And that is an huge responsibility, but it isn't a burden.

Those of us who speak for God do well to examine both ourselves and our doctrine. So, I examined my positional change toward advocating for gay marriage, and my own personal decision to perform Christian weddings for every couple that loves, cherishes and respects each other regardless of their sexual identity. Regardless.

So, as my prayer time continued, I thought of those in my life whom I love dearly who posit a different opinion than me. Was I respecting them? (Regardless of the way they treat me?) And just as important to me, did I have anything to learn from them? Should I imagine their conversation with me and then take time to actually LISTEN respectfully to them? To listen before I answered? To listen and pray?

Is it sin? Is it the way God created people? Is it a problem? Or, is it something to celebrate? (I tend to think the latter.)

But how was I loving those who would say "yes" to the first question in the previous paragraph?

I am pastor and everyone needs love. Even though I am do not call it sin, it is irrelevant to the privilege I have of being pastor. I want to be married, I cannot deny anyone else the same right. To me, the commandment to love my neighbor takes precedent over any other theological construct.

That is my answer, still. When I again re-concluded that this is what I firmly believed, I heard, or maybe thought, but I am pretty sure that I heard the Spirit of God say: "Love Wins." I took it to mean that love wins over sin, over what people call sin, over what people say about others about sin, over people who deny sin even exists...

At 10:00, the beginning of Diane Rehm on NPR, the newscaster announced that SCOTUS just announced that it had legalized same sex marriage in all 50 states. Praise God. I sent a text to one of the gay men that I love.

Friday on Diane Rehm is national politics round table. It is always really good. There is a left leaning, a right leaning, and a moderate panelist. The left leaning panelist was praising the President's "4th quarter" accomplishments as well as the ACA, Iran Nuclear negotions, etc.. He said: "he may be one of the most influential Presidents ever..."

I got to thinking about him and since the day was going well, and it was still a day of prayer, I started praying for him and thanking God for him. I thank God for President Obama.

At 11:00, the newscaster said this: "in a few minutes the President will address the nation about the SCOTUS affirmation of same sex marriage, but the first thing that the President did, the reporter said, was tweet this: "yada yada yada about equality... "LOVE WINS."

The Spirit of God is speaking!

Either I am a troll, or we are going to hell in a handbasket

Someone asked me lately if I believe that America is going to hell in a hand-basket because of the election results from November 4, 2014. I realize that at times, my online persona is that of a troll. I feel bad about it. But I am passionate about my faith and the way it informs my politics.

So, I may be a troll all the time, or, I may have a passion.

But I do believe that perhaps we are going to hell in a hand-basket. Or at least, we are setting ourselves up, as a nation for the judgment of God. I believe that many things are said in the name of Christianity are not biblical and do not reflect the teachings of Jesus.

I see a progression since 2008, when the President was elected. And I see it mainly in four areas. There is much, much more for me to comment on. And this is long. But, it is as abridged as I care to make it.

The first tidbit of rhetoric that I perceive will bring the judgment of God on the USA.

1). Marginalizing the poor: Isaiah 58. When believers "point their fingers at the poor," God denies them the blessing of revival.

Let us use Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Pastor John Hagey as examples. The three are powerful spokesmen for the Conservative and Religious right respectively.

I don't believe that it is an exaggeration for me to say that they make it sound as if the reason why our country is in dire trouble is because of the entitlements for the poor. I see them as people who are marginalizing the poor.

And that is just unchristian. It reminds me of what one of our Theologically and Religiously Conservative Brethren ministers said: "I hate the way Rush Limbaugh says what I believe." I overheard him say this while I as a ditto-head. I was offended by his remarks. But then, I started listening to the way Rush Limbaugh made his statements and I realized that I agreed that his speech was causing a divide. Once I began questioning his methods, I also began questioning his conclusions and I realized that he was only exposing one side of the argument. And, he was doing it with satire and ridicule. There wasn't much substance to his logic. I understand enough of logic to realize that his arguments are Ad Hominem: The logical fallacy of attacking the character of your (debating) opponent instead of his or her conclusions. To me. Ad Hominem amounts to a admission of defeat since the argument is no longer based on the merits of the respective side. However, it is one of the primary devices used by those engaged in Political Science.

So, my questions to the right are these: Do you see the marginalization of the poor in right wing rhetoric? And do you see how I can consider it as grossly unchristian rhetoric and as a preacher, feel a strong motivation to confront Christians about this kind of speech? Do you understand that not all, even most of, the poor are not lazy?

(Remember, I see this as a progression) This segues into:

2). Economic policies, Small versus large government, a debate since the inception of the Constitution.

2.a The great recession of 2008:

Following the string of "logic" from the previous point, the political right seemed to yell about the debt -a metaphor for a smaller government- and imply that the real problem with our nation is the staggering amount of debt created by entitlements. At least, that is what was heard, a lot, on FOX news.

I believe that it is an intentional mis-direction of the problem. The great recession was not caused by entitlements. The great recession was caused by deregulation of the banking industry. And, correct me if I am wrong, this might be the hyperbole from the left speaking, but it seems to me that one of the values voters embraced in this last landslide election was "smaller government." I.E. More deregulation. That was the problem. It seems to me that since this whole thing started, the Right has tried to change the story to blaming the poor instead of Wall Street.

(And, a point against my logic, but one I need to concede because it really is the bigger problem: the real problem is Wall Street's control of both the Democrats and Republicans. Both sides are in bed with them and they -as the Bible says- are the real oppressors.)

2.b Policies designed to strengthen the lower and middle classes (as opposed to the wealthy classes):

Let me give my own version of an example of how Keynesian economics works:

For numbers sake only, suppose I make $5,000,000 per year. How much of that can I spend? Let us imagine it is $1,000,000, for the sake of the example. The other $4,000,000 goes into savings and accumulates wealth. It is used for investments to help others and etc, but it isn't turned over in the economy like this second example.

Imagine I make $50,000 per year. How much to I spend? Pretty close to $50,000. All of that money is poured directly back into the economy. The grocer I buy from makes $50,000 and he spends all of his money, the gas station owner makes $50,000 and he spends all of his money. That income has now been taxed 3 times.

Because it isn't spent, the other $4,000,000 the wealthy guy has is not being used to buy gas, groceries, widgets and thing-a-ma-bobs.

(To be fair, I must say that Investments are not evil. Savings do get used to create investments and without it, the grocer, the gas station owner, etc. can't invest in their business in the first place, so I concede it is necessary -but economic policies must be balanced to ensure the survival of the middle class, and as a just, or righteous nation, the policies must also work to address systemic poverty.)

But if the guy making $50,000 per now makes $40,000, his ability to stimulate the economy is lessened, the rich guy, who owns the company that makes the thing-a-ma-bobs and widgets all of a sudden starts selling less. He lays off other (now) $40,000 per year guys, who now aren't buying the widgets and stuff, and more people get laid off and the cycle spirals downward.

Now, real life examples about the actual negative cost of the rhetoric of smaller government in this last election cycle. For example. Indiana has become a small government state. FWCS decided to outsource the janitorial services for all the school buildings. Politicians bragged that they saved the city over $3,000.000. The company that won the contract fired all the janitors and let them re-apply for their jobs. They were fired from $20 to $25 per hour jobs and re-hired at $13 to $15 per. They lost their houses, their cars, their pensions. Did the big businesses profit by this loss? I believe the overall impact to the entire economy was negative.

Governor Pence, small-government administrator, laid off many Highway workers and closed many InDOT "igloos." Then Indiana had a bad winter and there was not money, salt, budget or employees to clear the roads. As a result, many businesses were forced to close, losing revenue. Now I know the grocers sold as much food as they would, but the gas station, the restaurants didn't. Contracts that were dependent on critical time weren't finished. The economy lost. And, the biggest "savings" being wages for the snow-truck drivers, also meant reduced amount of money for people to buy the widgets, thing-a-ma-bobs and etc. Blue collar government jobs stimulate the economy, build vital infrastructure, and since the wages are relatively low, all that money goes right back into the economy. I remember an economics teacher in High School explaining to us that because the money is turned over 3-4 times a year, more is returned in tax revenue than is spent by the government. But, if it is solely kept in banks for investment purposes -building the war chests of the rich- it turns over less and its over economic stimulus is reduced.

Personal small points about this. My son, Tim, works in a "small government" county in Maryland. His contract ensures that he gets a nominal raise every year. The small government county commissioners refuse to honor his contract. My other son, John, has a different, but similar potential problem. When guys like Gov. Walker, of Wisconsin got elected by decrying the pensions of civic employees, civil employees lose. These small government types have publicly stated that they will not stop until they take away my son John's pension. To them -they are on the record as saying this- John is to lose his pension. Two of the people I love more than anything else in this world are actually harmed (Timmy right now, and John if they get to follow through on this rhetoric) by this idea of smaller government. And for what? Again, the payout is recuperated if and when there is a strong middle class.

I understand that people do not feel the economic recovery we have made. That is mainly because wages have stagnated while real costs have gone up. So, the average middle class worker has less buying power. Again, this is a negative cycle because less and less widgets and thing-a-ma-bobs are being produced (rich people lose) and the middle class has less money to buy them (poor people lose). The same has happened to me, but maybe for other reasons. My retirement investments are doing great, better than I projected. But I will have to delay because the height of my earning potential years have grossly stagnated. We are earning 30% less than what we anticipated earning at this age.

How did Gov Walker get elected by the people whose pensions he cut? It seems to me that he did it by creating moral outrage over the quality of benefits that civil employees get. (At least, I heard conservatives decry the pensions that civil employees get). Again, this directly affects two of my children who have entered civil service as careers. Why should they be denied basic retirement benefits? Why do police officers, teachers, fire-fighters and other unionized civil servants vote for those who promise to bust their unions and their collective bargaining rights? That will be showed in my third point. Remember, these are all only my perceptions of the facts. These are my opinions. I welcome yours. I do.

So, my questions to those on the right are these: Do you embrace the implications that the problems with our economy were MAINLY caused by entitlements or by deregulation? What is the biggest driver of our debt, is it entitlements, or wars fought on credit cards? And, if the debt is such an evil, then why put wars on credit cards?

This segues into:

3). Marginalization of the rest of the others:

Blue collar workers vote against themselves because they are outraged by the actions of the others and Conservatives promise to deal with them.

This addresses what I believe to be unchristian values by the religious right. These are those who are marginalized.

3.a. "Illegals." Simply put, Jesus would have us call them neighbor. Leviticus 19:33-34 gives us a spiritual principle of justice. Essentially, God said, "you were aliens once and I protected you, therefore, you must protect others." And then God said: "I AM THE LORD." That statement, I am the LORD is a warning: "I am watching how well you do this." The implication is that God's blessings will be given or withheld based on our obedience to this Spiritual Principle."

3.b. Homosexuals. Romans 1, and Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us that God gave them over to their homosexual lifestyles because of Idolatry and rampant materialism respectively. God created them as a judgment. It is another spiritual principle, If people refuse to follow God, then God takes away our ability to reproduce. When Abimelech took Sarah as wife, all the women in his kingdom could not conceive. Terminal sexual deviations (sexual deviations that do not lead to reproduction -abortion, pornography and etc.) are the judgment, not the reason why we are judged.

(Note, added later. Two good friends called me out on this. Their comments -received via email- are copied to the comment section. Everyone needs to hear what they have said. I have an apology and response to this in the comment section as well. And I am working on a different paradigm for myself that is more generous and loving.)

And yet, the religious pundits cite these deviations as the cause, not the result. They fear-monger about coming judgment. But my whole attitude toward homosexuals changes when I view them as the victims of sin, just like medical conditions are a result of the fall. Therefore, to me, I must ensure that they are as loved and cared for, protected by, both the church and society. I, just like Jesus, love homosexual people. I will never say about them; “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” I embrace them for everything they are because the Bible says that God made them that way. 

I want abortion to stop because I believe in justice for the unborn. But to fight it, I must -I am compelled- to preach against injustice everywhere. Christians cannot be single issue voters. Women, as well as the unborn, must have justice. If I want revival to break out, according to Isaiah 58 then I must "cry loudly and not hold back...."

3.c. Islam. Jesus loves Moslems.

3.d. Palestinians. Jesus loves Palestinians.

3.e. Racism. I am a police Chaplain. I believe in and support the police. If it were up to me, only the police would legally own handguns. They are trained to use them. They take this job to place themselves in the line of fire in order to protect the rest of us. I do not personally know any police who are racists and abuse this trust. If they are out there, they are very few and by far the exception rather than the rule. And our media, a media that makes its living on hyperbole and mass hysteria, sensationalizes the times that it happens and by so doing, they create terrible problems for the 99.99% of honest, dedicated peace officers.

Having said that. And this has nothing to do with the police. I believe that Trayvon Martin would be alive if he were white. I believe that Zimmerman killed him because of racial fear. And the fact of that, to me, proves that racism still exists.

My great change happened when I realized that I was paying to high a biblical price in the war against abortion.

Why do we have to embrace all the values of the Republican party to stop abortion? Does Jesus want us to respond to the border crisis by calling undocumented residents: "Neighbor?" Does the US constitution guarantee civil rights for Homosexuals, Moslems and everyone else who we consider "the other?"

And finally, this segues into:

4). Fear mongering by the right.

"Homosexuals are going to ruin this nation." Nope, biblically, idolatry (in our case, the worship of money) and marginalization of the poor are the reasons why God judges nations.

"Illegals are taking away jobs from us." Undocumented residents are working the jobs that we wont work. They stimulate the economy (years ago, someone paid Rush Limbaugh himself to say this. I heard it back when I was a ditto-head.)

The other emotional capital used to cause this landslide victory, according to pundits, was Ebola and Isis.

One person in the US has died from Ebola. One other person has it. And yet, they were able to frame an argument against the President based on this. It seems to be fear-mongering to me.

ISIS. ISIL is a problem and I wish we had a clearer strategy on it. But, I believe the President's policy of forcing Iraq to deal with it with their troops instead of our troops is what is needed. If we go in and clean them out, they will just come back, either as ISIL or some other form of Al-Qeada. Iraq ignored the Sunni's, they reverted back to the tribalism that has defined them for thousands of years.

I blame Bush. We should not have gone there in the first place. We have to figure out a way to embrace governmental systems that are not our form of Democracy.

But fear-mongering makes it happen.

The Power of the Story

On June 8, I shared the story of how a person, who may have been an angel transformed my attitude toward poor people. I met a man who seemed to be lying to me in order to gain my sympathy so that I would give him some money. And the man proved to be telling the truth. I failed to mention how I got to know the man in the process of helping him repair his vehicle and get on his way. When I regarded the man's humanity, my attitude toward him changed.

Jesus defended Himself for healing a woman on the Sabbath by telling those who would accuse Him, “this woman is a daughter of Abraham.” (Luke 13:16) He constantly forced people to look past the ideology of their religious and secular positions to the human consequences of their judgment. Jesus reclined at supper in the house of Simon the Pharisee and while Simon was judging Jesus for letting a prostitute touch Him, Jesus was considering the woman. He knew Simon's mind and although Simon correctly knew who and what the woman was, Jesus asked him to go beyond his judgment and said: “do you see this woman?” (Luke 7:44)

Jesus taught us a new way of perceiving one another. He taught us to look at people as individuals and see their needs instead of judging them by our own worldview. We can get so caught up in our own perceptions that we forget what it is like to be someone who is different.

As a child, I developed my love for reading through the autobiographies of some of our nations great leaders. One of the most poignant stories I read was Benjamin Franklin's. Franklin let this axiom guide his life, taken from a Native American proverb: “Never judge a man until you walk a mile in his shoes (moccasins).” Understanding people comes from knowing their story. And the story transforms us from judgmental to loving Christians.

When I regard the marginalized in our society, the minorities, the majority, the poor, the rich, the right, the left, the undocumented, those with different gender identities, and every one else who is ostracized by one group or another I remember that every one of them has a story that has shaped their lives. And my first allegiance is to the Kingdom of God and the King calls them “neighbor” and “brother/sister.” I/we must do the same.

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