I’m in a pretty sour mood right now. At first it was because I’ve been hurting for that poor girl in Florida who got beat up for a YouTube video. Now I’m ticked off at her dad.

Her parents blamed the Internet for the incident.

“These Web sites are creating a space for criminal activity, beating, fights,” Patrick Lindsay said. [...]

“I’m very upset with these Internet sites,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, MySpace is the anti-Christ for children. I’m going to carry this as far as I can.”

Talk about tilting at windmills. How about blaming the girls that did this? How about blaming the people who watch the videos, thereby encouraging things like this? Even some indirect blame on the parents would have been acceptable…but blaming the internet and MySpace?

Granted, there’s plenty wrong with MySpace, which is why my profile still has a picture of my wife about 4 months pregnant. But when it comes to six people deciding to beat up an innocent person - Hell, even a guilty person - let’s place the blame squarely where it belongs: on the perpetrators.

Ok, now that I’m over that, here’s the real point of this post. There are some Christians who believe that the task of the Church is to restore the world, whether that be through service or control. The group who truly believes that we are to do it by control (Dominionism) is so small that it barely merits discussion. Sure, you’ll hear people, particularly those like Andrew Sullivan (though he prefers the term “christianist”), attribute these qualities to “many evangelicals”…that’s bollocks.

Those who believe that we are to do it through service and love have a larger following. They believe that as a result of the influence of Christians, and good people from other religions (or no religion), the world is getting better. Progress has been, is being, and will be made. They are Progressives. (continue reading…)

One of the biggest problems affecting “conversation” and “dialogue” between progressives and conservatives, especially when Christians are involved, is that no one seems to understand the difference between social ethics and Christian morality.

The left is convinced that the church needs to adhere to contemporary Western culture’s ethical standards. Wherever they go, the church should go as well. The right is likewise convinced that the church needs to make society conform to (its particular version of) Christian morality. Both sides are wrong.

“Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world…” Paul’s statement in Romans is something that progressives would do well to focus on. The left wing of the church is getting co-opted by liberal ideals. Pluralism, feminism, reversed or merged gender roles and altered gender identity…all these have moved from society to the church.

There’s no place in the church for the acceptance of other gods or religious practices. And for any official church leader to say that there is salvation outside of Christ is…brace yourself…heresy. We don’t like to use that word; there’s just something about clearly calling out someone’s error that bothers our contemporary sensibilities.

God lays out pretty particular roles for the genders. They’re clear in Scripture and biology. Men are called and created to lead, protect, to be the head of woman as Christ is the head of the church. There’s more, but that argument is for another place. Western feminism though, is pushing for not only gender equality, but for the total interchangeability of the sexes. That’s led to the progressive Christian movement ordaining women as a norm rather than an exception, against the example of Scripture.

As with Newton’s Third Law (”For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”), the right has done the same type of stupid stuff. Pushing for things such as school prayer, making same-sex unions illegal, and making women feel as though they “should” (read: must) be stay-at-home moms are ridiculous intrusions into the pluralistic world of civil ethics.

Ethics deals with right and wrong in our society, which is a mishmash of cultures and religions, and we need to be conscious of those around us with different beliefs. Christian morality is based in the Bible, and for believers there can be no other standard; but while that standard comes from the God of all mankind, we only apply it to those who’ve heard and accepted His truth, because the unregenerate mind is incapable of accepting it.

These two concepts can interact just fine in society today. For me it looks something like this: The Bible speaks negatively about the issue of homosexuality. It receives no positive treatment in Scripture. On top of that, the examples of Scripture support a marriage of one man and one woman (1 Cor 7). However, I can think of no ethical reason to deny homosexuals the right to enter into a contract similar to marriage. But the church should not bless same-sex unions. This is just one example.

My biggest pet peeve is that both sides claim the moral high ground in living as Christ wanted, but no one is following the most important of Jesus commands. The right would say that the most important part of Christianity is to “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” while the left would say loving our neighbor is most important. They’re both wrong.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment.” Matt. 22:36-38

Loving God is more important than loving our neighbor. It’s more important than personal holiness. Without a surpassing love for God, neither of those things means anything. How do we love God? We obey His commands. We glorify His name. We love the good, shun evil, and devote ourselves entirely to the Kingdom.

Loving our neighbor is an idol to the left. It’s taken on a whole new meaning. To the progressive movement it means accepting them and their sins. But if we truly love them we’ll confront their sinfulness, so they can repent and turn to God. Holiness is an idol to the right. But it manifests itself not in true holiness, which is characterized by servanthood and humility, but in the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. Pretending to have no struggles is not holiness.

Both sides have a long way to go in understanding the meaning of love and holiness.

“For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” If we raise someone out of poverty, but don’t teach her to love and follow God, and to keep his commands, she is still lost to eternity. Likewise if we teach someone to follow all of the rules but they don’t have love for God or compassion for others, he is also lost to eternity.

Until we start talking about the same things, our debates will continue to be meaningless posturing and shouting matches. Let’s get on the same page.

This commenter at God’s Politics made me laugh, and cry, and fume, and…

Whatever our sect of Christianity, we’re all supposed to follow our conscience, and if we think leaders are wrong, we are supposed to speak up.

In my view…

The most well known example I can think of was Martin Luther. He was a Catholic priest who pointed out that for the Vatican to be selling indulgences and other practices in place at that time were wrong. My wild guess is that he was not the only one to see the error in that practice. Others on this blog have pointed out that some leaders of Islam treat women unjustly. In my view, the Catholic church is treating women unjustly, and to its own detriment.

The issue of expenditures that could be provided to those who are “thirsty”, “hungry”, and “naked” for church building “sanctuary spaces” that are used once a week goes beyond the Catholic church and beyond Christianity. It accounts for a substantial percentage of the contributions we all make to our churches, synagoges, mosques, temples, and so on. I don’t think Jesus would approve. I’m less familiar with Abraham and Moses and Mohammed and Budda and others, but from what little I understand of their guidance for living a good life, I think they would disapprove.

In my view…

Mike Hayes

Those who assist persons who are “thirsty”, “hungry”, “naked” will be saved and those who do not provide that assistance will not be saved. Those who do those charities to persons in those circumstances do them for God and to God. The sum and substance of what God expects of us is that we love God and love our neighbor. In my view, that is what God expects us to do.

In my view…

Mike Hayes

I had to respond, I couldn’t resist. I got so into it that my comment was the length of a post. So it now is a post:

_____________________________

What does God expect from us? More than loving God and loving our neighbor in the modern feel-good sense. Jesus said that to love God is the greatest command. To love others is second and subordinate to the first command. It seems that those who push the social gospel ignore the true meaning of loving God, and instead teach that loving your neighbor is loving God. But loving God means committing wholly to him. Jesus said that if our love for our own families doesn’t seem like hate in comparison to our love for him, we have no place in the kingdom.

Loving your neighbor is more than just allowing or helping them do whatever they want. If you truly love someone you will want them to live a Scriptural, Spirit-filled life. You will clothe the naked and feed the hungry, but you won’t leave it at that…you’ll point them to the cross. When you see a brother or sister in error, you’ll correct them. And when you sense that they’re beginning to be “conformed to the pattern of this world”, you’ll confront them. That’s what it is to love your neighbor.

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 seems to be the basis of your statements here. You erroneously claim that it is “the sum and substance of what God expects of us”. To say that ignores most of the New Testament. I can do that too. Based on the Parable of the Talents, directly preceding, all I have to do to get into heaven is make money. What do you think of that? Or, according to the Parable of the Ten Virgins (again, directly preceding the last), I just have to be prepared and vigilant. I can even say, “Hey, if I give you some of mine I won’t make it!” Hording goods and being stingy can get me into heaven.

It’s clear that taking one parable out of it’s context is bad theology. Yes, Jesus makes many statements about the poor (Wallis says 2000 verses, for now I’ll take him at his word). But there’s an entire Gospel written with the sole purpose of getting us to believe…something the social gospel ignores.

There are also a great many verses about holiness and righteousness. They’re in the Gospels (”For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees…”), and in Paul’s epistles (”Be holy as your heavenly father is holy…”), and throughout the OT. Our service, our benevolence, our love for our neighbor, means nothing if it is not based in our acceptance and reflection of God’s holiness.

One of the ways we reflect that holiness, is to acknowledge the roles that God clearly set out for men and women. I’m sure you will disagree with my view of gender roles, so I won’t argue it with you. Suffice it to say that an objective view of Scripture and anthropology clearly shows that men were meant to lead. It is not simply a patriarchal conspiracy.

Finally, as a church employee it ticks me off when people act like the church is only used one day a week. Yes the sanctuary is typically used one day a week, except during Lent at my church. But on the other six days the lights and the heat are off, so there’s no maintenance cost associated with it. The rest of the church is bustling 7 days and nights a week…all year.On top of that, building costs (utilities, repairs, maintenance, mortgage, etc.) are less than 5% of our contribution. I can’t say that is the same for every church, but it’s true here. If you’re going to say something is a “substantial percentage”, get some real numbers, because 5% is in no way substantial.

And are you seriously comparing the way many Muslims mistreat women to the exclusion of women from the priesthood and diaconate? Are there rooms in Catholic churches where the women get knocked around for not wearing their rosaries? I bet not. You sound like Charlize Theron saying that there is as much a problem with freedom of speech in the US as in Cuba. Are you for real? _______________________

While I was writing this, he posted again in response to someone else:

In a more perfect world, women would not have to repeatedly try to push a stone up a hill (that males never encounter). And parishoners would not have to be inconvenienced by the obstinancy of a male dominated group of decision makers. If the trend persists, it is possible that poorly utilized, antiquated buildings will be abandoned and the cost savings might be transferred to support poor persons.

It is possible… whether it is likely is another story… I can hope… and my hope is that women will be ordained and that a greater percentage of the contributions we all make to our churches will instead go to support of poor persons… here and abroad…

Best wishes…

Mike Hayes

Why would you push a stone up a hill? And why assume that in a “more perfect world” women would still be pursuing societal leadership roles? I think that in a more perfect world, men and women would exist in a harmony that allowed men to led and women to submit in a Biblical manner without anyone thinking that men were “oppressing” or “overpowering” women. It would be the perfect picture of Christ and the church from Ephesians. I think of this, now that I’ve invoked that image: Man is the head of woman as Christ is the head of the church. Should the church ever think of trying to lead Christ? Uhh…no. That’s a new thought, so don’t put too much stock in it.

Man, some people…

Check out this recent post from God’s Politics by Ryan Beiler, Does God Hate?

The crux is this: “As Stephen Colbert might say: ‘God hates or God loves? Pick a side � we’re at war.’ Or is such black-and-white, either/or thinking offensive to the nuanced and paradox-embracing mind of the progressive intellectual Christian? Discuss.”

And many did, here’s my response:

I think the problem with people’s perceptions of this is that they seem to think that God can only love or only hate. Well, Scripture seems to say he can do both. Why can’t we be comfortable with the idea that God loves the things that he created, and hates the perversions we’ve made of them?

The word nuanced is overused…in progressive circles it’s starting to translate to “convoluted”. The paradox-embracing Christian (progressive or conservative) should be perfectly at home with the idea that God is capable of both love and hate. If you can’t accept that how can you understand the tension between law and gospel, holiness and grace, and Jesus incarnation as fully God and fully man?

And my favorites from other readers:

As I understand it (but would appreciate if I was corrected), when the word “hate” is used in the bible it is taken as meaning “rejection”. Hence why God “loved” Jacob but “hated” Esau. God still blessed Esau, and didn’t hate him in a despicable way. He simply chose Jacob over Esau for his inheritance (since Esau treated it with contempt).

However I must say it is a simple and flawed theology to deduct that God must love everything because “God is love”. Love is not simply an emotion nor is it a wilfully naive. It is more of a choice, choosing to love something that is unlovely.

Perhaps study in to the original Hebrew and/or Greek texts would shed some light from time to time.

Alex Fear | Homepage

I agree with Alex on this point.

God is indeed love, but His love is very different from human conceptions of love. It is not mushy sentimentality, which is not to say that it is not personal and compassionate. But His love is indeed a different kind of “love” that is multi-faceted. A good resource for this would be D. A. Carson’s book ‘The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God’.

Another note - God’s love is informed (for lack of a better term) by His holiness. Holy love cannot “love” evil. It cannot “love” sin. God’s holiness means He cannot dwell with sin - and thus Christ’s atoning sacrifice is our entry into God’s presence because through His death, we have been clothed with His righteousness. God’s love was demonstrated in His dealing with the sin that separated us from Him through the death of His Son. But that sacrifice also demonstrated God’s justice, which will not allow sin and evil to go unpunished (Romans 3 is a good reference for this). You have to have both in mind to have a balanced view of God’s love.

That God hates sin is not a negative idea insofar as it speaks of the absolute holiness of God in which He will not “love” sin or evil.

We are informed by the Bible that when Christ returns He will judge the world for unrighteousness. We stand between the First and Second Advent of our Lord. Sin still dwells in the world, but God will deal with it definitively when Christ returns to consummate His Kingdom. We must keep that in mind when thinking of God’s hatred of sin and evil.

pollyanna | Homepage

Last month an ELCA pastor from Atlanta was tried by the church for breaking denominational rules: He is in a (committed) homosexual relationship. You can find plenty of information about it here. The decision was handed down this week. You can find the full text of it here. As usual, I get most of my major ELCA news from Bob @ I Am A Christian Too(it’s surprising how little information gets to the church staff).

I don’t know where to start, with the commentary from the panel, or with Bob’s commentary on the panel. So I’ll go with stream of consciousness. Aannnnnd…begin:

In the event that the Committee on Appeals determines that paragraph b.4) of Definitions and Guidelines is unconstitutional[!], then this committee would find, with near unanimity, that there is nothing about Pastor Schmeling’s acknowledged and stipulated homosexual relationship that would impede the proclamation of the gospel or the right administration of the sacraments. If relieved of the specific requirements of Definitions and Guidelines and permitted to decide this case under the standards of constitution chapters seven and twenty, this committee would find almost unanimously that Pastor Schmeling is not engaged in conduct that is incompatible with the ministerial office, and would find with near unanimity that no discipline of any sort should be imposed against him.

Schmeling Discipline Hearing Committee

And Bob’s comment:

Translating: Pastor Schmeling is morally fit to be a pastor, it’s just the current rules that get in the way. Whether the rules are set aside on appeal or not, they recommend that the Churchwide Assembly change the Definitions and Guidelines and Visions and Expections, the two documents governing behavior of ELCA clergy, to remove the prohibition against committed same-sex relationships. This is so cool!

Sooo…he’s morally fit, except that the rules get in the way? Doesn’t morality imply following the rules? “Ken Lay was an upright individual, it’s just that the current laws against embezzlement get in the way.” Yeah, sounds great.

Bob then employs the “human face on the problem” argument. “It is easy to argue against gay rights or for a scriptural basis for condemning gays when it is in the abstract, but when someone that you know and love comes out as gay, it’s not so easy.” I believe that this is true for many people. But two things about it are notable: one, it wouldn’t be as easy, but we don’t do the right thing because it’s easy, we do it because it’s right. This is the problem too many conservative/orthodox churches and church-goers have…the easy way to deal with homosexuality is to condemn all homosexual persons on spec, whether they are abstaining and devout or not. The right thing is to love and accept everyone and “teach them to obey everything [Jesus has] commanded.” It’s obviously much harder.

The second thing: the fact that many people would rethink and even decide that one of the philosophical shams that passes for Christian theology is true based on the sexuality of a friend or family member speaks volumes about the moral character of the West. We have a whole society raised to believe that if something feels good, it is good. That’s what this comes down to. Pastor Brad is a nice man and has become loved by his congregation, and this makes him happy…how could it be wrong? This kind of reasoning has already gotten the church and the rest of society into all kinds of trouble. If you think about it hard enough you’ll recognize it’s effects.

Since, in my opinion, this can’t be said enough, I think it’s a wonderful testimony to the grace and power of God that Pr. Schemling’s sexuality hasn’t negatively affected his ministry. It’s not his sexuality that is the problem here; it’s his open, outspoken, and unapologetic defiance of the clear context for sexual activity set out in Scripture.

In reading up on this issue I’ve come across several theological arguments attempting to demonstrate God’s acceptance of homosexual union. These arguments, more than any other, highlight the underlying theologies of the progressive Christian movement. These theologies are characterized by a number of ideas, including that the Bible is written in a mythological form that uses miracles and the supernatural to convey “deeper truths” about God, and that the earliest Christians didn’t believe Jesus was God. Marcus Borg, one of the world’s leading progressive theologians, denies the divinity of Christ and his resurrection.

Next Page »