Understanding the Times

What I am about to write will be misunderstood by some people. There will almost certainly be people who do not read carefully and they will miss the finer nuance of what I want to say. In spite of this risk, I want to tackle the subject of Phil Robertson's comments and the church's reaction again. My earlier posts (Just Stop It! and Here Comes the Judge) have had wider than normal readership, so I suspect this is a topic "with legs" as they say in the news business. My third shot will be a response to a response.

Franklin Graham, son of the renowned evangelist, Billy Graham, has commented on the church's response by lamenting the failure of some people to support Robertson. Without being specific, Graham says some even condemned Robertson. He suggests that, "Some churches have fallen into the trap of being politically correct under the guise of tolerance." Conservatives of all types and Christians especially know that "tolerance" is merely a buzz word used by the left to identify a fraternity of like-minded individuals. The left cannot tolerate anyone who does not agree with their program.

I am not about to suggest that the church should "tolerate" sin. God forbid. However, the approach recommended by Graham is as intolerant as anything the left has come up with. He seems to be suggesting a return to hell-fire and brimstone preaching as the best course in our cultural context. With all due respect to Franklin Graham and his family heritage, I doubt that a Jonathon Edwards (or Billy Graham) message will resonate with today's unbelievers. They have lost the language to understand a proposition based on their sinfulness or separation from God. They don't believe in God, so how can a call to repent of their sin and seek divine favor ring any bells.

I am immersed in two books right now which together have begun to recast my thinking about how to reach the 21st century unbeliever. One is Center Church, by Timothy Keller, and the other is God Space, by Doug Pollock. One of Keller's recommendations for effective outreach is that the church must develop an appreciation of its cultural context. He does not mean that we partake or condone what culture encourages, rather that we understand where they are coming from. Pollock ask that Christians "wonder" their way into conversations; by this he means questioning how our target audience has come to the conclusions they have. If I understand him, he would have us meet them where they are.

This approach sounds suspiciously like the one used by Jesus, the friend of sinners. He went to parties; he hung out with riff-raff. He was accused of being a drunkard by his detractors. He understood the times, like the men of Issachar David chose to fight with him. Perhaps he was being all things to all people so that the chance to win some would occur. Franklin Graham is right about sin and right that many churches need to get a little closer to the Bible when they speak. But in this context where the pagan culture is watching us spar over what Phil Robertson said, thumping the Bible and sounding scary will just leave more people wondering what planet we came from. 

Man the Lifeboats! Repost

Imagine a lifeboat drifting away from a ship that just slipped below the surface of a stormy sea. Imagine the lifeboat has a capacity of 20 and there are already 30 people in it. Imagine that because of the extra load, waves regularly wash over the gunwales into the boat, making it necessary to bail constantly to remain afloat. Imagine that you are huddled in that lifeboat with your family, and suddenly someone sees other people in the water swimming toward your boat. You must decide whether to try to rescue them or to avoid them.

In that lifeboat scenario, overloading the boat any more would almost certainly cause it to capsize or sink immediately. Even if the waves subsided and the boat did not founder right away, there would not be enough emergency supplies for the increased number of people if landfall or rescue were more than a few days away. The only way to save some of the people would be for some to remain unsaved. That could mean either leaving those swimming out of the boat, or it could mean exchanging some of the lives in the boat for those in the water. You could offer to put you and your family back in the water so that others could take your place.

This imaginary scene is not as unreal as it may seem. The danger is not from being cast from a sinking ship. Instead it is a sinking economy that has made survival less than certain. By survival, I mean the continuance of the standard of living to which people have become accustomed. The swimmers are immigrants wishing to climb aboard a healthy economy and escape their sinking state. This could apply to the Irish fleeing famine in the 1800's. There have been several scenes like this in Africa lately. The country I have immediately in mind is Great Britain according to a recent story in The Guardian. 

The Brits are discussing a serious problem with immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria, particularly. These two recent additions to the European Economic Community (EEC) have very poor conditions economically. The EEC demands that member nations allow unrestricted immigration from fellow members. Britain fears that a wave of unsavory types would result from continuation of this policy, so they are debating the wisdom of remaining in the EEC. In other words, they are thinking about rowing away from the sinking ship and letting the swimmers fend for themselves rather than sink their own boat.

The parallels to the US immigration situation are obvious. We don't have an outside body dictating open borders, but the social and political climate in the US often seem to dictate just such a thing. It is a complex issue, but one wonders if some employers aren't suggesting tossing a few of us out of the boat in favor of some swimmers. (See Byron York article.) La Raza and other pro-immigration groups like to paint emotional pictures of underprivileged souls looking for a better life in the land of opportunity.

The problem is that we no longer have the seemingly unlimited opportunities we once dreamed. Our ship is foundering. If you take the national debt seriously, some would say we are already taking on water at a rate that makes survival impossible. The true unemployment rate is nearly twice the 7.3% that is currently listed. Cities and even states are either bankrupt (think Detroit) or heading there. None of our social welfare programs have financial sustainability; Social Security runs out of funds in 2033, and Medicare sooner than that. Bringing in more people will simply accelerate the disaster.

The real question is who is responsible. Is Great Britain responsible for the Romanians? Is the rest of Africa responsible for the Sudanese? Is America responsible for everyone in the world? Do the rich have a responsibility to the poor? The answer in the abstract is yes, of course. Practically speaking, it comes down to how much we are willing to give up to provide for those less fortunate than we. The people of Great Britain and the US are filthy rich compared to most of the world's people. The dilemma is that if we let everyone into the boat, we will all drown. If you were expecting me to answer this dilemma, you will be disappointed. I cannot. I know what the church must do. Nations?

Here Comes the Judge

If you have been under a rock for the last week or so, you didn't hear about the ruckus raised by Phil Robertson of the TV phenomenon, Duck Dynasty, when he expressed his belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I blogged on it a few days ago, but I cannot resist another shot at the subject. Every pundit and his self-righteous brother is talking or writing about it. The ignorance on display spans several spheres of thinking. One of those in particular bothers me most.

It is no concern (or surprise) that several commercial entities are joining A&E in their own versions of chastising Robertson. Nor is it any less expected that spokespersons for the GLBT lobby are mouthing their outrage.  Even some detractors who point out Robertson's First Amendment right to say what he wishes are on pretty safe territory. Although I have been surprised that few are calling for criminal charges under "hate speech" guidelines. What bothers me is the level of biblical ignorance displayed by some of Robertson's supporters.

Those of you who read me at all regularly know I often mention Fox News' Bill O'Reilly in a positive light. I appreciate his self-described culture warrior status. He is usually on what I consider the right side of most cultural battles. He was more or less right about Robertson. What I found appalling was his level of ineptitude at applying a popular Scriptural principle. In his "Talking Points" monologue on Friday he specifically mentioned Luke 6:37, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged." He chided Robertson and anyone else who similarly "judged" sinners.

It doesn't seem to me like you need to be a Bible scholar to see what's wrong with that position. If you take the time to read the entire interview of Robertson in GQ (which I did), you will notice that Robertson never "judged" anyone. He simply stated his opinion that the Bible calls some things sin. Repeating a clear biblical position regarding human behavior and divine judgment is not, in itself, human judgment; it is merely a profession of belief in what the Scripture says on the subject.

On a more theological note, there is another level of ignorance in O'Reilly's misapplication. The behavior Jesus was condemning in the Luke passage was not simple discernment; rather he was proscribing judgment in the sense of condemnation. No human (except the one perfect Jesus) can sentence another person to hell. That is God's prerogative, and his alone. Christians are commanded to "judge" in the discerning sense in several Bible passages. Some people call it being "fruit inspectors."

If you want a fuller understanding of how I think Christians should relate to homosexuals, I recommend "The Uncomfortable Subject", a post of mine from several weeks ago. If you have an hour or two there is a good sermon series on the topic "The Gospel and Sexuality" at the Calvary Church, Muskegon web site. It will suffice to say here that the rule is always love the sinner; hate the sin. Furthermore, having a desire is not a sin; acting on it is. It is wrong to "judge" a sinner if that means condemning him to hell. But please, Mr. O'Reilly, we must "judge" whether certain behavior is righteous by biblical standards; it's part of what being Christian means.

I know I cannot count on any celebrity, or anyone for that matter, to perfectly reflect the truth as I see it. But it makes me wince when an otherwise respectable spokesman for Christian views misapprehends a clear Scriptural teaching. I have always known that O'Reilly's connection to the Word is tenuous, like so many people with Roman Catholic backgrounds. It really hurts when "the most watched cable show" presents such a misguided view of the truth. Perhaps I should just be happy that the Bible got prime time "air". Now if I had a TV show...

Just Stop It!

I am not a Duck Dynasty watcher. I hear it is hilarious,  but my TV time is limited, so I haven't put the homeboys from LA on my schedule. However, the recent flap over patriarch Phil Robertson's remarks demands a response. Robertson didn't say anything that any number of conservative commentators haven't repeatedly: accepting one type of perverted sexual behavior leads to the acceptance of other types of perverted sexual behavior. If morality is a hurdle, then Robertson is correct in implying that the bar is getting lower and lower.

As for Robertson's choice of venues for his remarks, one might wonder what he was doing at GQ in the first place. I know he is an entrepreneur, and marketing is the Dynasty strong suit, but GQ? Can you think of two more polar opposites than GQ and Duck Dynasty? I wonder what the Neilsen audience for Dynasty is in Manhattan. A recent show had 9.6 million viewers, but I can't imagine many of them were in the Big Apple. Those who were watching in NYC were probably not GQ subscribers.

Why should I care who watches anyway? I am reading Timothy Keller's Center Church right now. In the book Keller makes a strong point that the church often shoots itself in the foot (nod to duck hunters) by coming off as totally weird and disconnected from the issues that concern most unbelievers. Robertson's core constituency probably won't be terribly upset with his comments about homosexuality. But most unbelievers will be. That is why I think it is important to consider where we say what. In the GQ interview, Drew Magary sounded like a guy from Manhattan getting his first ATV ride with Phil. And he said plainly that Phil was being more open than he could be on the A&E network show. I just think Robertson should have been more thoughtful in his comments.

It is impossible to say whether Magary was letting a little snide sneak into his reporting or not. It would be wrong for me to assume he was an unbeliever and to hear sarcasm where none was intended. But I have heard plenty of city boys like him mocking religion and condescending like a shuttle on reentry. Keller is right to encourage us to find ways to talk to unbelievers without lighting their fuse or tweaking their sanctimonious funny bone. We don't have to change what we believe; we just need to season what we say with the audience in mind. You don't serve five alarm chili to a dinner guest with ulcers.

I'm just sayin' ... Stop it, already. Stop insisting that we have to be weird to be counter-cultural. I think the church should be counter-cultural, but in a winsome way. That may sound like an oxymoron (winsome counter-culture), but like so many other paradoxes in the faith, I believe it is exactly right. Just because Phil Robertson looks like Moses doesn't mean he should be as out of touch as the Lawgiver would doubtless feel today. We don't have to coddle the golden calf makers, but we can't just throw stone tablets at them either.

The Uncomfortable Subject

I recently came across a blog by Michael Craven on his site, Battle for Truth. He did a series called “Defense of Marriage” which I thought was a good attempt to stake out some ground in the gay marriage debate that did not require any Biblical quotations. It got me thinking about the inordinate amount of time, energy and media output that is devoted to the issue of homosexual behavior, given the small number of the affected population. It is understandably difficult to get a precise number, but the latest estimate of the gay population in the US is about 1.7% of the total. That’s 17 people in 1,000 or 5.3 million in the US.

I know five million sounds like a large number, but in a country of three hundred million, it’s not just a minority, it’s a tiny minority. So my question is where did they get such a loud voice. There are a similar number of Muslims in the US, yet you seldom hear from them unless they blow something up, which may be an instructive parallel, since the Muslim jihad probably has about the same percentage of adherents as the gays have activists. If that comparison is accurate, it means that less than one tenth of either group is responsible for their notoriety. That makes their “spokesmen” one tenth of one percent of total population. A minuscule minority.

I have a theory about this (as you knew I would). It is easy to see why the enemy of God would want to promote Islam, especially radical Islam. It calls for the conversion of the world to a false religion. It calls for the elimination of all who don’t comply. The battle lines here are obvious. But can one imagine the same kind of strategy behind the gay agenda. Look closely. The LGBT agenda calls for the acceptance of a “lifestyle” that would shatter traditional family values and structures. This is not only detrimental to the foundation of society, as Craven asserts, but it is theologically explosive as well.

In Genesis’ first chapter, God is said to have made humans in his own image; the language specifically says that male and female (together) were representative of his image. The second chapter of Genesis corroborates this by insisting that Adam was not complete without Eve. Adam and Steve don’t create the same complementary whole. A few verses later it cements the idea by calling the union of husband and wife a “one flesh” creation. I don’t wish to be salacious, but no matter what you put where, only the biologically complementary nature of male and female makes sense of this picture.

It goes without saying that the command to be fruitful and multiply is not within the realm of homosexual possibilities. But I think there is more to this than meets the biologist’s eye. I believe God was still thinking of his image when he built the family. In my opinion, the father/mother/child triad most fully represents the image of God in humans. A man or woman alone remains an image bearer, but the best reflection of a triune God is the triad of family.

As a further testament to God’s interest in promoting family, note his emphasis in Old Testament law.  Fully one half of capital crimes were for sexual perversion and family related acts; the remainder was for religious infractions or violent acts. I believe the emphasis on sex and family reflects God’s concern for purity in this area. Like so many of God’s commands, we learn (sometimes too late) that there are practical reasons why he proscribed certain things while prescribing others. The breakdown of the family leads to the break-up of society. This was the point made by Craven. What a surprise to learn once again that God had our best interests in mind when he made the rules.

Even though the gay population is small, it is one that should not be ignored. The median size church in America has 75 attendees on a given Sunday, so that means there would be 1.2 gays. Given the sad statistics on divorce and extra-marital sex among Christians, there are probably far more adulterers and fornicators in any given church than gays. Let’s not even consider the number of gossips, gluttons, disobedient children, and greedy or covetous persons seated in the pews. The church should have one message: any sex outside of marriage is wrong, but Christ welcomes all sinners of all types to come to the Cross. At the foot of that tree, any repentant heart can find redemption and release. Maybe the real question should be why the other sinners don’t feel as uncomfortable as the gays.