No, the WHOLE body of Christ.
We tend to congregate as one body part in order to do and be and believe what feels comfortable – heads act all heady, hearts all hearty, hands all handy, feet all footy, arms all army, legs all leggy. And this division is recognised and bemoaned in many ways, but where there is theological division, it is considered justified.
I’d like to suggest that the church suffers through “justified” division and that churches – more than that, Christians – with diverse theological understandings need each other desperately.
How to achieve this?
The concept of a City Church appeals to me, and I think this concept has biblical and historical support. Biblically churches have always been referred to by their location, not their theological/ecclesiological/practical differences. Letters within the NT testify to competing gropus within churches, but never is there a suggestion that anyone leave to form “another” church. Historically, every branch of the church in the world operates with a city church model (though the model usually extends wider than the city to the world!). Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox and so on, though they themselves split from each other, all of them maintained a “big tent” view of Church, allowing incredible diversity in their congregations even while calling them to a standard. The exception is Protestent Christianity.
In Protestantism we see the most tragic division of Christ’s body. Almost anything is reason enough to begin another church. And there is benefit in this. Instead of doing the agonising work of unity among diverse voices and belief, creating a new church achieves instant unity, frees people to concentrate on evangelism and other areas of church life, and to specialise. I think it right to say, also, that there have been more revivals in Protestant Christianity than in other wings of the Church, but I also believe it has been in spite of the sin of factionalism. One of the things Protestants do right is take doctrine and ecclesiology seriously enough to follow their convictions.
However, drawbacks are also evident. In general, conservatives preserve biblical truth, but often fail to be and hear prophetic voices in society or to be effectively self-critical. Liberals put their finger on necessary issues, but often fail to hold onto truth.
What is needed is engagement and big tent church to expose blind spots and breed humility for the building up of the church and the establishment of true kingdom principals in the world. Let us have specialisations in City Churches, not among different churches.
This is easier said than done. The main question Protestants would ask is: Where is the line for necessary division? It’s true that sometimes true, though mistaken, Christians are separated from the Church for the health of the Church. So are those who prove not to be Christians at all. But where is the line? A denial of Christ, yes, but explicit or implicit? And still we must listen to voices outside the church. Are there other issues? Not as many as we think (1 Cor, Rev 2-3).
A noteworthy post on gender – complementarian but very thoughtfully so.
http://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/some-lengthy-thoughts-on-women-leadership/#comments
What would Jesus do about same-sex marriage?
This post is written to evangelical Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God. Feel free to read and interact if you are not the intended audience, but realise that this is written to a specific people with presuppositions that you may not share.
[Please forgive the poor editing. Will tidy things up as I'm able.]
With the Labor Party’s National Conference this weekend, it seems appropriate to write something about how we as Christians can address the aggressive push to legislate same-sex marriage. I very much appreciate Christians who put across a biblical perspective on the issue in the public square, yet the strategies that I have seen so far don’t go too much further than a secular lobby group – petitions, letters to and meetings with MP’s, rallying public support and sending out press releases. Is there something more we can throw into the mix? Is there a “Jesus-way” to address same-sex marriage?
Perhaps. Here are some ideas.
1. Repent.
Jesus never needed to repent for his own sin, but if we are to become more like him, we definitely do. Unfortunately, when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage we tend to adopt a “we’re good/they’re bad” paradigm. This is not only inaccurate, it’s Pharisaical. What to do?
I think we need to see the push for same-sex marriage as part of God’s judgment already falling on Australia. God uses an increase in sin as a form of judgment (Genesis 3:16b, Deut 28:53-57, 64, Romans 1:24-32) and I don’t see it as illegitimate to understand this push for same-sex marriage as one of the signs of judgment in Australia at this time. Certainly Australia, as much as I love this country, has enough pride, arrogance, injustice, and corruption to warrant God acting in judgment.
So what is the Church to do? We wake up and repent. Surely we don’t think we share no responsibility for the sins of this nation! Let’s see this push for same-sex marriage as a wake-up call to our own complicity in the sins of Australia and go to the Lord in repentance. And as we recognise ourselves as sinners fighting against the spiritual forces of darkness that blind other sinners who push for same-sex marriage, let’s trust God to help us let go of some of our self-righteousness.
Two cautions.
- We need to seek the Lord about where we direct our repentance. It is incredibly tempting to use corporate calls for repentance to say, “I told you so”, but it’s not just “the Church” that needs to repent, we the Church need to repent. And I suspect our basic sin will turn out to be a something akin to that of Laodicea (Revelations 3:14-22).
- Repentance may well avert the introduction of same-sex marriage legislation in Australia (Jonah 3:10). And it may not. We can hope for the ultimate defeat of the same-sex marriage campaign, but we need to make sure we repent because this issue has opened our eyes to the need to repent, not just because we want God to stop such legislation going through. Even if Australia does adopt same-sex marriage legislation, the church needs to continue its repentance in prayer and deed.
2. Re-tool.
Jesus spoke in a way that people understood. We need to give supporters of traditional marriage – right down to Joe Blogs of the General Public – the tools to express their opposition to same-sex marriage. As it stands, the explanations we give clash with our culture’s strongest moral categories. What do I mean?
In our hyper-individualistic culture the greatest good is being true to yourself. The most powerful moral arguments are therefore centred around the concepts of the freedom or oppression of the individual. This creates a no-win situation for those of us who continue to operate with an external standard of right and wrong. We only have to use the words, “wrong” or “bad” or “deny” or “restrict” in relation to the idea of same-sex marriage and we are on the side of Hitler, Stalin and whatever other oppressor you care to mention.
For that reason, we have to learn to re-phrase our arguments to avoid those connotations. I don’t mean we avoid saying same-sex marriage is wrong. We say, “Yes, same-sex marriage is wrong, but that is not all we have to say,” and then we present our arguments using the same moral framework of the culture. For example:
We don’t agree with same-sex marriage because it traps people into a relationship that stops them from being true to themselves. Same-sex marriage would institutionalise the conflict of people’s sexual activity with the biological design of their body (genitalia, hormones etc).
We can also add the culturally acceptable and biblical categories of health and ill-health. Here is an example explanation about the effect of same-sex marriage on society.
We also disagree with same-sex marriage because it would have a detrimental effect on society. To legislate in favour of same-sex marriage is to institutionalise an unhealthy conflict within an individual rather than encouraging their healthy, holistic integration. A society that promotes the ill-health of the individual cannot itself be considered a healthy society. We want a healthy society.
We would win no prizes from the pro-same-sex marriage campaigners for such arguments – they disagree with us, after all – but by using the heart concepts of the culture to explain our position means some of the extra negative baggage we have been saddled with up to this point is greatly diminished. Those not committed to same-sex marriage will also find themselves empowered to disagree.
Note: I have been encouraged by the ACL using concepts of freedom and oppression as relates to the children in their arguments against same-sex marriage, but while that has had some positive effect, they are arguing one step removed from the most powerful moral argument in our culture, i.e., the freedom of the individual. In our culture children are important, but I’m afraid they lose out to the “oppression” of individual homosexuals when oppression of children seems theoretical and future. It is for the “rights” of the individual that the proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing. We also need to talk about the individual in order to be persuasive.
A couple of extra points:
- using culturally appropriate terminology would be useful whatever the outcome of the push for same-sex marriage legislation. We will still need to explain to people why we do not agree with same-sex marriage and even homosexuality whether same-sex marriage is created as a legal institution or not.
- it is not just those supporting same-sex marriage who need to be spoken to in cultural categories, we need to speak to Christians in our culture in the same way. Otherwise, there will continue to develop an internal conflict within the Christian who believes what the Bible teaches, but can’t help but interpret commands and talk of good and evil as oppressive.
(To read more about these ideas, click here.)
3. Resist.
Jesus’ singleminded pursuit of his Father’s will didn’t include a political career or appealing to authorities for favourable laws, but some of his followers are called to be salt and light in the political arena, and in countries like ours that are governed by constitutional democracies, we all have some political responsibility. Lobby groups like the Australian Christian Lobby work to represent evangelical Christian interests in the political realm and help us to make our voices heard. It’s right to support their work and lend our voice through their petitions and campaigns.
However, some cautions about such activism:
- political victory does not change hearts. Nor does it bring people to Jesus. What it does do, though, is provide societal structures where righteousness can more readily flourish and where discipleship is to some degree supported by a basic understanding of righteousness people in society grow up with.
- the motive behind such action should not be the anger or fear of people fighting for what they think they are entitled to, but that of love for others – both individuals and society.
- the Church’s main mission is not to transform society through politics, but to transform society through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This mission is not to be overtaken by political activism.
(To read more about these ideas, click here.)
4. Redirect.
Jesus didn’t just preach morality, he changed people by redirecting them to him. For us to merely say same-sex marriage is harmful to people and society is unhelpful. We need also to be able to provide the opportunity for people to be transformed through Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, much of the church seems unable to effectively redirect people to Jesus. Therefore, it is important that when churches speak out about same-sex marriage that they also have easily accessible resources to help them. Some ministries that are out there are listed below:
Some extra points:
- this whole area is very volatile. Gay activists often targeting and trying to discredit these types of ministries and pick up and broadcast real and imagined failures. To engage in this type of ministry can be at times a lesson in responding in love in the face of very aggressive opposition.
- overcoming homosexual sin is like overcoming other sin – different people respond differently to help offered. This does not negate the possibility of change, but highlights the reality that Jesus sometimes helps us manage the remaining sin in our lives instead of rooting it completely out. Sanctification should progress, but it is truly progressive sanctification.
- in my small involvement with Living Waters, the emphasis has not been solely on homosexuality, but all types of sexual and relational brokenness. In fact, Ron Brookman, the Australian director of Living Waters, sees the programme as a discipleship programme where the focus is on learning to apply the basic Christian disciplines in order to grow in Christ. There need be no significant sexual and relational brokenness for anyone to participate in the programme, though many enter the programme for those very reasons. Growth in Christ is the ultimate goal of these resources, not overcoming sin.
Is this what Jesus would do?
Are these four points really what Jesus would do?
Repent.
Re-tool.
Resist.
Re-direct.
Yes, with allowances made for our sinfulness and his sinlessness, I think it can be shown he did or taught all these things. And all four of these points are to be applied whether same-sex marriage legislation is passed or not. A bigger question, though, is how are we to apply these things within the over-arching paradoxical kingdom principles which culminate in the death and resurrection of Jesus – overcoming by turning the other cheek, responding to hate by loving our enemies, dying to live, losing to win?
Ah, but that is a question for another post.
(To read an earlier series of posts called “How to talk about homosexuality” click here.)
Love the sinner; hate the sin – where is this from?
It’s often said that the phrase, “Love the sinner; hate the sin” is from Gandhi. Mark Driscoll and Gary Breshears said it in “Death by Love” so it must be true! (Good book, by the way). However, a good 1600 years before Gandhi, Augustine said it in his “The City of God“, book 14, chapter 6 (read this whole quote – it unpacks it well).
…Wherefore the man who lives according to God, and not according to man, ought to be a lover of good, and therefore a hater of evil. And since no one is evil by nature, but whoever is evil is evil by vice, he who lives according to God ought to cherish towards evil men a perfect hatred, so that he shall neither hate the man because of his vice, nor love the vice because of the man, but hate the vice and love the man. For the vice being cursed, all that ought to be loved, and nothing that ought to be hated, will remain.
It’s also found in Augustine’s Letter 211 (HT).
Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, proving, and punishing of all other faults.
And perhaps elsewhere. It comes from Augustine’s conviction that God created no evil, and so even evil people, though corrupted, are in some senses good, and we should love them on that account.
Not too high and not too low: A thought or two on baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29).
People tend to have either too high a view of baptism or too low a view. Too high, and baptism becomes the way a person is regenerated. You go through the waters and you come out the other side a new person. Too low, and baptism is just an act of obedience. This is what God has said to do, so do it.
A more biblical view is that baptism is the formal response dictated by God to the offer of the gospel. As I’ve written elsewhere, Read more…
About a book: The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde.
I confess Philistine credentials in that the first I heard of Dorian Gray was in the movie The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The concept fascinated me, even though the movie took a few liberties with the idea (e.g. that Dorian Gray was actually still alive!)
Oh, I guess I missed an opportunity for a spoiler alert there. For the book. Not the movie. Read more…
Largely unacknowledged acts of child neglect.
If children are not familiar with Winnie the Pooh stories, they are suffering child neglect.
If children are not at least exposed to Paddington Bear, they will be damaged for life.
If little girls have no exposure to Barbie dolls they will be spared years of therapy.
If children are not introduced to any of Mo Willems’ books, they are at a distinct disadvantage in today’s world.
If little boys never eat mud, they will not be able to appreciate my cooking.
If children are not told about Jesus in a real and life-giving way by parents who know him in a real and life-giving way, they are more likely to walk away from him.
Proverbs 13:1
A wise son hears his father’s instruction,
but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.
Depending who you are, you’ll read this in different ways. Read more…
Three good videos.
As has been asked, is this irony? I honestly don’t know, but it’s good…
And this one via Glenn’s blog…
This is Discipling from The Foursquare Church on Vimeo.
This from Wendy Francisco (via Jonathan)…
K&E Links XIII.
Well, the last K&E Links pointers to post-secular resources didn’t turn out to be too helpful, though had a little bit of information. Here are some more substantial links.
- How was Genesis One meant to be read? Read this, whatever your view of the beginnings of the world.
- David Wayne puts his life under the microscope and identifies other kinds of cancer besides the one ravaging his body. Convicting and so applicable to my life. You too?
- Do Christians need a Christian Prime Minister? Answer: No.
- The Hidden Gifts of Helping. A life-long Episcopalian (of what stripe, I don’t know) takes biblical thoughts to mainstream society.
- The Beyond is Near: A Rainbow Spirituality & Two Ends of a Rainbow: Australia – Syria. One approach to Christianity through Aboriginal symbolism.
The hilarious origins of “helpmeet”.
For those who think the KJV is the best and only needed English Bible, read Jeremy Pierce’s post on the origins of the word “helpmeet”.
Even if you don’t think that, go read it. It’s funny.
Pedant Alert! When a preacher gets it wrong.
It’s me. I’m the pedant
Recently I’ve heard two sermons where the preachers, both successfully touching people’s hearts with the gospel, missed the main point of the scriptures they were referring to.
The first was a comment about John 8:36:
So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
“The word ‘indeed’”, said the preacher, “is talking about deeds, doing. So, when Jesus sets you free, he sets you free to do something!”
This was not the only example of totally missing the point of the verse, but it is a good illustration of this preacher’s way of approaching the Scripture. There is an unfortunate lack of knowledge about the Scriptures here, let alone a lack of knowledge about the English language. And it’s not even that he is completely wrong – Jesus does free us to do something – but this preacher limited the verse to one type of freedom and ignored the full-orbed truth in Jesus’ words. The word “indeed” is not talking about actions, it is saying, “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free, truly.”
The second sermon was based on the parable of the persistent widow found in Luke 18:1-8.
And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. 2 He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man. 3 And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ 4 For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’” 6 And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. 7 And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? 8 I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
The preacher unpacked it by putting listeners in the place of the judge, the widow and emphasised the need to keep asking God, even when it seems he’s not listening.
Unfortunately, this preacher overlooked the main point of the passage; i.e. that we are to keep praying for Jesus’ return when all the injustices of the world will be put to right. This is so clear when you back up and read it in context: Luke 17:20-18:14. Yes, there was mention of justice, but the main thrust of the message was to keep praying for what you ask for.
These two preachers are successful as preachers go. Both draw people who wouldn’t normally come to church, and see people come to Christ and changed. And yet, their messages are not telling people what the Bible actually says, at least in those verses and passages they are preaching from. It bugs me, but God is using them and so I guess I have to accept again that God uses very fallible servants, and that, while it would be nice for these preachers to be more careful and accurate, as long as the central message of the gospel gets through, God will work.
Praise him.
K&E Links XII.
Thanks to Becky Garrison’s comment at Tall Skinny Kiwi, I’ve decided to look up the term “post-secular”. I’ve been aware for a good while about the demise of “post-modern” as a useful term, but I haven’t kept up with the next one. So, mainly for my own reference, here are some links to read and ponder as time permits.
Andrew Jones’s original post is worth a read too. A lot of practical wisdom. I can relate well to this particular quote:
People are wary of being swamped by a large organization or a charismatic leader. No one wants to support an egomaniac lest they become one of his numbers. …Christian leaders on a quest to build mega ministries that outnumber those of their peers.
Robert Martin and Missing Comments.
Apologies to Robert Martin and many other people…I seem to have accidentally deleted a good number of comments. I’m not even sure how! There were some good comments among them too.
K&E Links XI.
- This is the best thing I have ever read on family. No joke. It’s incomplete (a work in progress) but worth reading all the same. If you’d rather listen than read, there’s an mp3 called “Family-based Disciple-making” that contains some of the same ideas.
- Carl Trueman speaks out about Christian celebrity worship and gets people’s backs up. Still, I think he’s right, and so do a number of others, including Tim Challies (who provides a list of the various posts Trueman has dealing with the issue). Zach Nielsen suggests some solutions, but I, for one, think the whole system stinks. Band aids don’t cure cancer.
- A very telling critique of a church planter’s rules of entry. Good on you Chaplain Mike.
- Congratulations to Prince William and Catherine. Thank you Jon Birch for your contribution.
- I’ve already pointed out that David Wilkerson has passed away. What I can’t understand is why so few people on my blog roll even mention it. What’s wrong with you people?
“Jesus will kill us!” (Joshua 8, part 2).
A number of weeks ago I spoke on Joshua 8, the destruction of Ai. I thought I’d post the talk here in three parts (there being three points): part 1, part 2 (this post), and part 3. Instead of reproducing the whole of Joshua 8 here, I decided to suggest you go and read the chapter here before going on. But I know most of you won’t.
What Joshua 8 means for the future. Read more…