An Open and Honest Discussion

                Or, “Give me what I want, not what I asked for.”

It happened again.  Another article about some person who has left the main-stream church—or, in this case, church entirely—and is hoping that their speaking out will cause churches to finally talk about the issues, or have a dialogue, or some such contemporary catch phrase.

Yes, I am treating their desire lightly.  Because I have serious doubts that it’s what they want.

Telluride in the summer

Years ago, I saw a documentary about a prominent and popular singer who had a reputation for, shall we say, something less than sobriety.  He was a professing believer, or so he professed, and used to even teach Sunday school but had quit the church because they had some kind of wacky objection to him being high while teaching the youngsters.  He was convinced that the attitude was the church’s problem to overcome rather than his own.

And he’s such a good singer that, well, we’ve got to listen to him, right?

The more recent article was about another singer who had left the church because she had decided to engage in a sexual lifestyle that ran counter to what the church she had been attending taught.  She claimed to only want said church to have an honest and open dialogue about her proclivities.

Call me skeptical.  I don’t know the woman—which is one of the reasons I am not mentioning her name here—but I have a sneaking suspicion that she only wants a dialogue if she’s pretty certain the outcome will favor her and her lifestyle.  Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe she’ll sit down one day with the leaders of that church and they’ll all have a calm, reasonable, loving discussion about the issue.

How will she react if the church finally says, “Ms. Entertainer, we have enjoyed getting to visit like this with and we love you, but after careful study of Scripture we still believe the lifestyle choices you have brought before us are sinful and, therefore, we cannot condone them.  We humbly entreat you to repent of them and we would love to be here to help you fight these temptations—just as we would like to have you help us fight ours.  However, if you cannot admit that these actions are sinful and refuse to make any effort to submit them to the Holy Spirit, we’re going to have to ask you to leave.”

I realize that last paragraph started with a question, so there should be a question mark somewhere, but I’m not sure where to put it.  How about here?: ?

Anyway, how do you think she would react?  Is it unreasonable for a church to behave as I have just described?

What I have found is that a lot a lot of people want a middle ground.  They don’t mind if the church teaches that their particular vice is a sin, just so long as no one calls them personally on it or does anything about it.

So they go in search of a church that will uplift them (somehow) with appreciated music and encouraging speakers but won’t ever trouble them with any kind of “thou shalt not”s.

Now personally, I am not a fan of the pulpit-pounding-brimstone version of church oratory.  I like to be encouraged.  I like uplifting tunes.  I am also a great believer in and fan of grace—that free gift from God that none of us can earn.

What if, however, having accepted God’s grace and submitted to the Lordship of his son, there is an expected life to be led?  Not in a “how close can I get to the edge without falling out of God’s favor?” but as in a “how close can I live to God?!?”

What if these churches are not trying to be nefarious but are actually doing the best they know how to lift their people closer to God?  I don't deny that there have been abuses in the name of God, but in the modern era I am convinced that such infractions are the vast minority.  Unless you are of the opinion that anyone who tells you "no" is somehow infringing on your rights or just harshing on your mellow, the most harmful thing done to anyone today by the church is probably to leave them alone.

Living better involves eliminating some things from our pre-saved life and I just don’t think a church that doesn’t encourage all it’s members to strive to live better, to daily climb back up on that altar and offer ourselves as living sacrifices, is worth being a part of.

My reply to some wonderful comments (below): Thanks C.D. and D.S. for great comments.  We live in an age when more and more people are turning hostile to the gospel, while claiming it was the gospel that turned hostile to them!  For a case in point, read this article I found just this morning: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-ferraro/dont-judge-a-catholic-sch_b_6714886.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592  The author is honest enough to admit, though, that if the church changed she probably still wouldn't attend.  Could that be because she knows that a church that waters down it's message to meet a fickle public isn't worth the bother.

Evolutionary Sin

The citizens of Springfield overwhelmingly voted to allow gambling in their city, but before the vote could be final, everyone in the hall turned to Marge because she seemed the person most likely to throw a wet blanket on the idea.  Marge stood up and said, “Once society declares something to be OK, it’s no longer a sin.”*  Everyone cheered and gambling was OK’d for Springfield.

It is said that the best humor is founded in the truth, but is there truth in what Marge said?  Not really.  It is true that society acts that way—even the society within the church—but there’s no indication in Scripture that God acts that way.

Do we want him to?  At first blush, the answer could seem like “yes”.  See, I want God to evolve where my sins are concerned, but not where yours are.  Well, if you’re a good friend of mine, I’ll be magnanimous and let your sins slide, but let’s be careful ‘cause there’s that guy over there who I can’t stand and I’m kinda hoping God will hold his sin against him!

I was recently pointed to a blog by a pastor who was setting out in four easy steps what he would do if his child were found to be overcome by a sinful lifestyle.  The four steps were:

1]  You’ll know it.  i.e. he wouldn’t hide his child’s sinfulness from the world, but broadcast it for all to see.  In other words, he wouldn’t pretend that his child wasn’t sinful.

2]  I’ll pray for them.  Because this is what a loving parent does.  (Can I get an “amen”?)

3]  I’ll love them.  See the last numbered point.

4]  Most likely, I already have sinful children.  It is the pastor/blogger’s opinion that his child was born with the sin already a marked part of his/her personality and there’s nothing that can be done to change that.

OK, I have to admit here that I have fudged the facts of the dude’s blog just a little.  He never referred to the behavior in question as a sin.  Either he—like Marge—has decided that since society has deemed it OK it’s not a sin anymore, or, maybe it is still a sin but God’s not going to be as uptight about such things as he used to be.

Either way, that’s a mighty big leap.  Now, I will admit that the church has treated as sinful things that the Bible doesn’t say are.  [Gambling’s a good example.  I think gambling’s a waste of money and I see no good coming from it, but there is no where in Scripture a “thou shalt not gamble” commandment or anything that even comes close.]  We’ve also had a bad habit of engaging in things that the Bible specifically says are sins, like gossip and slander.  So I can’t get on any moral high horse and claim “we of the church are always right about this!”

Still, look back at that fourth point (with a glance at the first one).  What if Biblical scholars of the last two thousand years are correct and the behavior in question is sinful?  I’ve seen some pretty tortured reasoning to say it’s not, but let’s say that—in this case—the scholars were right and the sin is still a sin?  What should we do?

2 & 3 are spot on!  I’ve got two kids myself and both of them are sinners.  (They come by it naturally: their parents are sinners, too.)  I pray for them on a daily basis (waking time, I pray for them on an hourly basis, sometimes minutely).  I love them.  I always will.  But I won’t accept the sin in their lives.  One of the things I’ll always pray about for them is that God will convict them of their sin—GOD will convict—and they will repent out of their love for him.

What I won’t do is parade their sin in front of others.  I have no desire to either shame them, or pretend that their sin isn’t sin (which is what I believe the point of #1 is).  As to #4, our modern culture tells us that we are born with or genetically predisposed to some behaviors, therefore they are not sinful.  It’s a comforting thought, but it’s a non sequitur.  Just because you can’t help gossiping or murdering does not make you any less culpable.  And that old non-Biblical saw of “love the sinner, hate the sin” gets easier every time we downgrade a sin to “possibly a less-than-ideal idea”.

“Wait, Sam!  You mean my son Willard, who was born with a need to gossip, is going to be held accountable for that?!?  That’s not fair!”

Why not?  Willard is a human being, right?  He’s not a hound dog, unable to resist the siren call of a female in heat.  Sure, it might mean that he feels a little unfulfilled for the rest of his life because he is morally bound to not gratify his every whim, but a] that’s a small price to pay for eternity and 2] we of his family (physical and congregational) should try to lift him up and help him find fulfillment and love in non-sinful ways.  Willard might go to his grave still lusting after a juicy bit of gossip, but not getting gossip won’t kill him.  (This seems terribly unfair to our modern ears and sensibilities, where we expect every desire to be met—and quickly!  “30 minutes or it’s free”, that’s our motto.)

I’ve gotta admit: I love God’s grace, but it sure is confusing!  You mean God doesn’t want to hold any of my sins against me?  But wait, you’re saying he also doesn’t want me to continue in sin?  Wouldn’t it be easier for me to pile up the sins so he could show me more grace?  (See Romans 6 for an answer to that question!)

Our culture is going to continue to call what is sinful not.  Grace is going to continue to be watered down—who needs it if the behavior isn’t really sinful, after all?

So, as much as I love grace, I understand the appeal of legalism.  [See my blog on the topic at http://garisonfitch.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-appeal-of-legalism.html]  It’d be easier to just pronounce judgment on all sinners … except that, to paraphrase the great Andy Taylor, “If I was to throw out all sinners I’d better reach around and get a holt of my own britches!”

There’s not an easy solution here because everyone I know is a sinner, and me most of all.  It’s not my place to condemn anyone.  It’s also not my place to let the people around me continue in sin.  So every day is a tightrope walk between loving acceptance and Godly challenge … and maybe that’s the beginning of the key: instead of always chastising someone for their sin, challenge them (and me) to live upward.  Let’s don’t any of us settle for what we are, but strive to let God work us into what we should become.

*May not be an exact quote, but I’m sure I’m pretty close.

Is He Truly Evangelical?

Someone sent me an article last week about “6 Questions Evangelicals Are Going to Have to Answer” (or some such title).  They followed it up with another one, under a title like “50 Products Evangelicals Are Going to Have to Stop Buying.”

Note: that second article was rather sarcastic, poking fun at people who have boycotted one company because of their stance on some moral issue but continuing to patronize other companies with the same stance.

The articles were almost interesting enough to read all the way through, but they both assumed, as might be said on a lawyerly TV show, facts not in evidence.  Mainly, that I do not now and never have claimed to be an evangelical.  In fact, in 20+ years of ministry, I have only had one conversation about being evangelical.  It went something like this:

Church member: Well it just seems that if we’re going to call ourselves an evangelical church—

Me:  What?  When did we do that?

It was reminiscent of another time when a man who had been visiting the church for quite a while (along with his family, his son even playing on the “worship team”) asked me to come over to his house to talk about some thing.  I did and he began to bring up a point of doctrine he had heard me express in a sermon recently that he didn’t agree with.  He gave his view, I stated mine, then he said—with something like consternation—“But I’ve been in Baptist churches all my life and even went to a Baptist college and this is how it’s always done!”

I calmly told him, “But this isn’t a Baptist church and I’m not a Baptist.”  He had no idea what I meant.  In his mind, there was only one denomination in America: Baptists; and everyone believed the same.  Surprisingly, he continued to come to church with us but I’m not sure we ever convinced him we weren’t a Baptist church.

So, anyway, I read the articles with varying degrees of interest about which prominent preachers have or have not left “evangelicalism”.  Some of them I find interesting because the salient points are interesting: is this guy preaching universalism? Has this guy denied the virgin birth?  Is this guy saying that some sins aren’t sins anymore?  How come that one guy swears during interviews?  Isn’t he smart enough to think of better words?

In my own mind, I might ask the question, “Is what this guy (or gal) is teaching sound doctrine?”  If the answer seems to me—from my understanding of Scripture—to be “no” … I don’t know that I doubt their salvation but I do start taking anything else they have said or written with a grain of salt.  Are they still “good evangelicals”, though?  I don’t care.

“Evangelical” is not a Scriptural term.  And while it might have had some value and meaning at one time, in reality it’s just another buzz word that may well have outlived its shelf life because it no longer has an agreed-upon meaning.  Like “missional” or “seeker friendly” or “GWRBI”.

If someone asks me if I think Pastor __________ (fill in the blank of the favorite pastor flavor du jour) has left the evangelical reservation, I’ll ask what specific doctrinal point has them troubled and go from there.  If they call me “evangelical” (I don’t know why they would start now as I don’t think anyone ever has), I won’t be offended.  At most, I might ask them what they mean by it.  If they say I have left evangelicalism, I’ll do my best Jerry Seinfeld imitation and ask (at the top of my lungs), “How can I be outed?  I was never in!”

What do I call myself, if not evangelical, missional, or daoist (or whatever, I don’t mean to insult any daoists out there)?  It may be a cliché, but I like the old saying: “We are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only.”