 [I recently received an anonymous email that criticized me for certain practices and convictions the individual didn't agree with. Though I attempted to engage the person in a more personal way, there was no response. Thinking it might be instructive to others, I'm posting both their email and my response. As always—eat the meat and spit out the bones. —Steve]
The Original Email: Greetings, Steve- I can understand your fervent desire to show the congregation your beliefs when it comes to politics. When you declare an opinion with strength and passion, people are drawn to you. But let's be clear- some of those things you profess with such conviction are opinions-- nothing more. There is no biblical evidence against abortions, for example, and neither is there biblical evidence proving that life begins at conception. However, there absolutely is text about issues like gay marriage, which brings me to my next, more important point. When you say things that are so explicitly condemning and intolerant, it doesn't draw to people to Christ and his love for us at all, on the contrary. Not only is it dangerous to sprinkle your own opinions into sermons, people living transgender or homosexual lives are driven away, not drawn in. Think on it. These choices and lifestyles are important, but in the grand scheme of things, do they matter enough that it should cost people their salvation? I believe that the answer is no. These people have been cast out countless times by society, sometimes wrongly in the name of the bible itself. We as a church should open our arms to these hurting people and show them Jesus's love, not join the crowd in turning our backs. When it comes down to it, are these the issues you want people to be driven away from God because of? These people are already wary and spiteful when it comes to religion; let us not add fuel to their suspicion. Jesus's followers and disciples were sinners, and he frequently dined with murderers and thieves. We should follow his example as Christians and show that Jesus's love surpasses all boundaries and definitions. It is not our place to pass judgement or rebuke those who are in need of Christ. Thank you, -Anonymous My Response: Hi Anonymous, Thank you for your note! Perhaps surprisingly, I enjoy—even welcome—a spirited and engaging discussion, and don't think disagreement is at all bad. Solomon reminds us that "as iron sharpens iron, so the countenance (i.e. face to face encounter) of one person sharpens another." Email is a poorer substitute to our getting together, listening carefully to each other, expressing convictions and questioning beliefs; but it's better than not interacting at all. I'm guessing you chose to remain anonymous for one of the following reasons: •You think that if I knew your identity and that you disagreed with me, it would affect our relationship, or my acceptance of you, or my estimation of you. (It wouldn't. I have lots of friends who disagree with me.) •You are in a position of responsibility, and you wonder if you could express these beliefs without having someone (me? others?) judge or reject you. •You've had painful experiences with others disagreeing with you, and you'd rather avoid that possibility with me. •You just didn't want to. No reason. Whatever the reason, I want to assure you that most people who interact with me over a table do not find me censorious, belittling, or angry. I am not Donald Trump. I do not know if you even want a response. Other than the encouragement to "think on it," you did not ask me to explain my opinions, or clarify my reasoning. I have given your email some thought (as I've had some downtime since being in the hospital), and decided I would email you back. Perhaps the easiest way for me to respond is to do so directly to your thoughts as you stated them. That way, I hopefully won't misstate what you said or misrepresent your ideas. (I'll copy and paste, then respond. Your thoughts are in red italics, mine follow.) Greetings, Steve. This is a warm and non-threatening welcome! Thank you! (See how this is going to work?) I can understand your fervent desire to show the congregation your beliefs when it comes to politics. When you declare an opinion with strength and passion, people are drawn to you. Actually, I was surprised at your opening salvo because I rarely state anything about politics in a message on the weekend. We usually think of politics as anything dealing with elections, or candidates, or trying to sway legislation regarding hot-potato social or economic issues. But politics, strictly speaking, deals with any of the activities that influence the policies and practices of a government. In common language today, politics also calls to mind the legislation itself surrounding those policies and practices. The distinction between the core beliefs and the politics that address them is an important one. I can hold a conviction but disagree with some legislation about it, or disagree with a belief, but endorse a law defending it. Years ago, I did not support a law regarding "the defense of marriage" (though I believe in traditional marriage), because I thought it was a poorly written law. These days, though I believe that marriage requires two consenting individuals of the opposite sex, I would oppose the government forbidding gay marriage or demanding that I recognize or perform gay marriages. My point is that my political opinions are distinct from my core convictions, which I hope are biblical. Redeemer's has made a point to avoid politics because it often confuses the issue with seekers who need to hear about Christ (your later point regarding gays in your email). You don't become a republican or a democrat and then become a Christian, or when you become a Christian, you don't also automatically become a member of a certain political party. You are a Christian first and foremost. You follow Christ wherever he leads. That isn't to say that all political issues are off limits: many have a moral core, and we may want to address that moral issue from a biblical viewpoint. For instance, Trump claiming to be a Christian, but denying that he has ever sinned or asked for forgiveness from God needs to be addressed and corrected, not because we forbid people to vote for him, but because the very definition of Christian is at stake. But let's be clear—some of those things you profess with such conviction are opinions-- nothing more. There is no biblical evidence against abortions, for example, and neither is there biblical evidence proving that life begins at conception. However, there absolutely is text about issues like gay marriage, which brings me to my next, more important point. This is where I get to probe. An opinion is a belief or judgment or position that you personally take. It is your opinion. Labeling something an opinion says nothing about its veracity, its truthfulness. It may be sober truth or sheer craziness; it may be rooted in facts or have no grounding in anything but an individual's imagination. So, yes. I have opinions. So do you. And certainly, you are expressing your opinion when you say that what I express with such conviction is nothing more than my opinion. It may or may not be the case. You may be saying, "I don't think what you express with such force is grounded in truth"—and you may be right. But simply because it is my opinion doesn't make it groundless or less true, any more than your opinion. Your statements about abortion is a bit startling because either you haven't read better arguments for and against abortion, or you've summarily dismissed the ones you disagree with. But theologians even from Century One, and scholars who have written voluminous commentaries on the texts of Scripture have concluded that there is a very strong case to be made that in the minds of the writers of Scripture, a person's existence begins at conception, and God's involvement with that person extends back into the womb. (Check out, for instance, Psalm 139.) Without any question, life begins at conception. Something is living. It's not a grain of sand, and it will never become a spoon or a Buick. It is living. I think you're trying to say, "It isn't human" or "it isn't yet a person" (and therefore can be destroyed like you might remove a wart or take out one's appendix). I understand the point. I do believe it is a person, an undeveloped human being—yet a human being nonetheless. There is no chance the mother will give birth to a puppy or a fish. Only a human will emerge from that womb. So, I do disagree with you that there is no biblical evidence at all against abortion, or "proof" that the biblical writers thought life began at conception. There clearly is. And from the early church fathers onward until the mid-twentieth century, this was the common position of the church. I do agree with your last sentence in that paragraph, "However, there absolutely is text about issues like gay marriage," but probably not the way you mean it. More about that in a minute. When you say things that are so explicitly condemning and intolerant, it doesn't draw to people to Christ and his love for us at all, on the contrary. Not only is it dangerous to sprinkle your own opinions into sermons, people living transgender or homosexual lives are driven away, not drawn in. First, let me agree with you. It is very dangerous to sprinkle my own opinions (if that is all they are) into a sermon. If you've been around Redeemer's, you've heard me teach about (what we call) "The Target of Convictions"—that not all beliefs have the same importance or certainty. Some things are absolutely certain and are to die for (the bullseye); there are things in the surrounding ring of the target that are very important and we're very convinced about, that we would divide over, but not die for. Christians can and do hold very different positions about issues that require us walking different directions. Outside that ring is another—things we debate over—things that are important but there is no need to divide over. Then in the outer ring are things we discuss—but we shouldn't even get hot about. All the other stuff (surrounding the target) doesn't matter. This helps us hold important convictions, but also recognize and cultivate humility. My point is simply that I agree with you, that not all convictions hold the same weight or importance, and it's confusing (and dangerous) to pretend that they do. Still, that doesn't mean we shy away from expressing any convictions that aren't in the bullseye. But I should point out, when appropriate, when there is significant disagreement or confusion about an issue. In fact, I often have said, even in a sermon, "Regarding the question of remarriage after divorce, nobody agrees. Read ten books, and you'll get fifteen positions." Sometimes I survey the other positions before giving my own; sometimes I don't. But I should admit that others disagree. During the series last year, The Naked Truth about Sex, I spoke about homosexuality. To prepare, I read the best books I could find that presented why homosexuality was not prohibited either in the Old or New Testaments, and that the texts that appeared to do so were misunderstood. If you go back and listen, you'll hear me give a fair presentation of each of those passages before explaining why I thought differently. The larger question of whether or not gay or transgender individuals are driven away by my teaching the Scriptures, and therefore miss God's love is troubling. I think you're saying that God loves people just as they are (He does), and that they should come to him just as they are (they should), but when they come to him, he has no expectation of changing their lives (which is not so). And I absolutely think that we should (and I do) love any person whatever their sexual orientation. That doesn't mean I won't tell them they ought not do certain behaviors. A couple living together unmarried and sexually active comes to Christ; will God expect them to stop engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage? Absolutely. Must it happen prior to coming to Christ? No. That isn't the foundational issue. But it will become an issue as God works to sanctify them (1Thessalonians 4:1ff). By the way, clearly reflecting biblical standards and values is not necessarily condemning and intolerant. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me." That might be considered condemning and intolerant—condemning because Jesus is judging every other religion to be a dead-end, and intolerant because he allows no other exceptions for any reasons. But I think your point might be how we hold to the positions: are we dismissive and angry and condemning, or are we compassionate, loving and accepting? Can we hold to the truth in love? Can we state the truth unwaveringly, but do so with humility, and mercy and grace? Think on it. These choices and lifestyles are important, but in the grand scheme of things, do they matter enough that it should cost people their salvation? I believe that the answer is no. These people have been cast out countless times by society, sometimes wrongly in the name of the bible itself. We as a church should open our arms to these hurting people and show them Jesus's love, not join the crowd in turning our backs. When it comes down to it, are these the issues you want people to be driven away from God because of? These people are already wary and spiteful when it comes to religion; let us not add fuel to their suspicion. This is probably the real reason you've written to me, and I sense either you or someone you love and care about has been poorly treated by a church. I grieve with you that we don't do better with this, and should. We should open our arms even more and show them Jesus' love. I've often thought that if the situation now present in many Muslim countries (tossing gays off of the roofs of buildings) ever happened here, I'd hide a gay person in my home and protect them with my life. We aren't perfect, and ought to do better. But one of the recent baptism candidates is gay and is trying to sort through how to follow Christ as a gay person—one with same sex desires. Like us, she doesn't have it all figured out either, but she is following Jesus to the best of her ability. We love her and are encouraging her. She is one story among many that I know of at Redeemer’s. I think you may be hoping that we should go public with a "gay doesn't matter" position. I suppose then we ought to precede it with, "Being sexually active with a straight partner doesn't matter" policy. In both cases, we are restricted by God who has made us male and female, and has more in mind than even our happiness these few decades we live on this earth. Salvation is not a ticket to heaven, but forgiveness for sin and transformation of the mind, the heart, and the behavior of the person over a lifetime of following Christ. Offering something else is something less. Jesus's followers and disciples were sinners, and he frequently dined with murderers and thieves. We should follow his example as Christians and show that Jesus's love surpasses all boundaries and definitions. It is not our place to pass judgement or rebuke those who are in need of Christ. I'm not sure where Jesus dined with a murderer (other than Saul of Tarsus), but I get your point. And absolutely, we ought never to restrict our interactions and outreach to the "respectable" people, whoever we think they might be. (But I hope you aren't equating gays with murderers or thieves.) I do think we ought to follow Jesus' example as you said; yet even he let the rich young ruler walk away. He called some of the religious leaders who refused to believe in him, "snakes" and "whitewashed tombs." He referred to false teachers as "dogs" and "pigs." But anyone who came to him on his terms in repentance and faith, he embraced. "Go and sin no more," he said to the adulterous woman; not "go and feel free to continue with your lifestyle." Is it our place to pass judgment on or rebuke those who are in need of Christ? Have you read the New Testament? He requires us to speak the truth, even when it hurts, but to do so lovingly. He will hold us responsible to proclaim "repentance and faith." Regardless of a person's past, or what they've done, or how they feel, or what's going on in their lives right now, Christ calls them—Christ calls them through us—to come to Him just as they are. Having done so, He will not leave them (or us) as they and we are. We are to become disciples...who learn to obey Him in everything (Matthew 28:19-20). And in that process, He will be with us and never leave or forsake us. Thankfully. Want coffee? I would welcome the time, and I promise you I will not argue with or discourage you. Warmly, Steve The high courts of the land are now considering the question of legalizing same-sex marriage on a federal level.
I’m not surprised. Facebook is a-Twitter about it. Television shows about finding places to live or renovating homes or cooking contests or designing clothes often portray homosexual relationships as completely acceptable and normal. Pro-gay advocates compare the struggle for gay rights to racial equality, and any resistance to complete endorsement of homosexuality to Klannish behavior. The recent four part miniseries on the History Channel, entitled, The Bible had no depiction of any homosexuality in its portrayal of Sodom and Gomorrah; (so absent was it that it made me re-read Genesis 19, and references to those twin cities elsewhere in the Scriptures). Rob Bell––a Christian, best-selling author and former pastor of renowned Mars Hill Church recently announced his support of same-sex marriage: “I believe God [is] pulling us ahead into greater and greater affirmation and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters and pastors and friends and neighbors and co-workers.” This mass movement is a seismic cultural shift primarily in the western world. (Much of the Muslim world condemns and even stones gays, and probably isn’t going to repent of that anytime soon.) Marriage, by definition, is a cultural institution recognized by society; so it will do no good to say, “live and let live” for those who want to be married as gays. The decision upon all of us as a culture is, “Live and show acceptance.” So actually, my question is not, “Why shouldn’t we give consenting gay couples marital status?” but, “Why stop there?” Most would agree that traditionally, marriage has been defined as a permanent, committed relationship of intimacy between a man and woman. Until recently, we have made certain assumptions about marriage: 1) Gender: It is between a male and a female. 2) Number: It is between two individuals. 3) Age: It is between responsible adults. 4) Willingness: The adults must be consenting. 5) Permanency: It is to last as long as both live. 6) Species: It is a distinctly human institution. If we feel free to tamper with and alter one component of marriage, why stop there? Why not start with a fresh sheet of paper, and redefine other components as well? 1) Gender: Marriage is not only for a man and a woman, but for a man and man, or woman and woman. (This we have already done.) 2) Number: We assume only two, but why not ménage et trios, or group marriage among four or five, or why not just one? “I love myself. I care about myself. I’m the most important person in my life. I can even have sex with myself. I want to spend the rest of my life with myself. So I’d like to marry myself, and receive double benefits!” 3) Age: Again, we assume that marriage is restricted to responsible adults, but why? Why not allow children to marry? Why not 40 year old and a 6 year old? If we’re starting with a blank sheet and aren’t restricted to traditional values, why not be inclusive? 4) Willingness: Why not forced marriages? (You may not like it. You may think it ridiculous, but why? Who’s to say?) 5) Permanency: Divorce has already shattered this one; but why not take it a step further? Why not 24 hour marriages with built in timers that expire with an automatic, predetermined divorce? (If you judge this a silly impossibility, be aware that in some current branches of Islam, clerics grant just that kind of relationship.) 6) Species: If you have a particularly close and affectionate relationship with your schnauzer, why not marry him or her? Why forbid the marriage between a man and a dog? Many have been worn down to think that we can redefine the gender restriction of marriage because to do so is “fair” or “compassionate” or “loving” or as an equal rights issue. Does anyone see it as a question of right and wrong? Could this not be part of the moral absolutes that rule human society? One cannot have it both ways; either there are absolutes, standards for every person’s behavior that solidify right and wrong, but judge us as well as guide us, or there are not--and no one is to judge, but nothing guides us and nothing but personal taste to which we appeal. Either marriage is defined by God, or it isn’t, and if it isn’t––we should feel free to tamper with it to our hearts’ content. And if we tamper with marriage, why stop there? Why not tamper with every other institution and value any of us deem unworthy? Comedian Bill Maher lampoons such “slippery slope” thinking: “Gay marriage won’t lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting...And for the record, all marriages are same sex marriages: You get married, and every night, it’s the same sex” (Bill Maher, New Rules). Bill is funny, but smirking is not the same as reasoning, and a denial that something won’t happen does not grant certainty. (Do you really think that as societal standards evolve, we will have any grounds to deny granting the marriage label to polygamists, trios or to anyone who desires it for whatever relationship they concoct?) When absolutes are ejected, there are no rules left to break, nothing to be outraged at, nothing at all but personal opinions, personal viewpoints, personal ‘druthers; we sink into the quicksand of nothing solid, nothing objective to stand on. What remains is the shadowy land of me-ism, where there is no guidance, no right and wrong, no truth and error, only subjectivism. Is suicide wrong? Murder? Stealing? Rape? Divorce? Homosexuality? Adultery? Lying? Gossip? Without absolutes, it is a matter of personal, and perhaps popular preference. If most people in a given time and place say it is prohibited, then so be it. If they change their minds, then we merely update morality. The western world has darkened into a perpetually gray place where definitions and requirements are elastic, constantly shifting and morphing to fit our current desires and sensibilities. Two values that do seem to remain absolute are fairness (by which we mean, absolute equality of means and ends), and non-judgmentalism. In the present debate about same-sex marriage, it is argued that it isn’t fair that some can marry and some cannot. (Actually, absolutely anyone can marry anyone else of the opposite sex who is currently unmarried, of proper age, with mutual consent. That is fair.) We all agree that fairness is not an issue when we exclude marriage from those who do not qualify by age (a six year old girl and a 44 year old man), or by species (a woman and a horse). These we nod in assent––but (only recently) we vigorously reject the notion that gender ought to be considered as a qualification. “That,” we argue, “is judgmental,” and violates our non-judgmental absolute value. We want to erase all judgment except the notion that something cannot be judgmental, which is judgmental (if you follow the logic). But why would anyone not want absolutes (even if it requires some judgment)? Because the existence of absolutes points to something outside of us as their creator—a God. A Creator who designs them. A Judge who enforces them. To the degree that we long for absolutes, we are evidencing that we have a moral fiber, that we were created with conscience, and that we cannot live in a moral vacuum. But to the degree that we do not wish God to be in our lives, we reject absolutes. In fact, the one absolute in a relative world is that there are no absolutes. We crave truth, right and wrong, purpose and meaning, but all the while running from the only One who grants those gifts. So as you listen to the daily chatter on talk shows, in supermarket lines, around coffee cups, or on Facebook postings, remember that it really isn’t about same-sex marriage. It’s about God. And whether life has any definition or design to it, or whether we are just making it all up as we go along. If a person rejects the notion that God exists or has anything to say about our lives, I can see why they’d advocate marriage for gays. I can see how a person who dismisses the Bible as irrelevant to modern culture would shake his head at this posting in my blog and think I’m hopelessly bigoted. (I’m really not.) And yes, I understand there are thorny issues about same-sex couples receiving equal economic benefits as heterosexual married couples. If two of the same gender wish to have a life-long sexual relationship, call it a “Civil Union,” or a “Gay Alliance” or even a “Gay Marriage” or something else honoring in their eyes. I wish not to simply call it, “Marriage”––and so dismantle the long-standing, defined relationship God has established from the beginning. |
Categories
All
Archives
March 2018
|
RSS Feed