Quicksilver Commentary

Arts and Crafts: How to Make a Diety

In a previous post, "The Fear of What God Might Become, if We Let Him," I wrote of my own journey from the Religious Right to wherever I am now, and of the way I tried my very hardest to make Christ accept the oh-so-logical-and-just set of beliefs that I worked for years to form.  Now though, I must say that I am quite sure I was never alone in my rebellion.  I can call out no individuals, and I will not, for the path they take is God's alone to decide for them; however, I have no problem with addressing the problems I see in a movement as a whole.  Thus I must speak to the Religious Right, though I doubt they will hear me (for I have yet to host a radio show). 

When I was a Republican, I am quite sure that I wanted nothing more than to create God in my own image.  I had imagined a God who expected everyone to make right choices (under the threat of eternal damnation), and who existed for nothing but the good of the entire world.  Indeed, anything bad that happened to anyone was surely the result of their own sin.

I was missing something though.  First, right choices don't come so easily to those who are utterly imperfect, and second, man (and least of all a teenager) has no concept of what is good for him.  However, I could not see this; I expected all men to do good things, and for God to reward us with lots of nice stuff, because "my God shall supply all my needs," you know. 

Both of these expectations, I believe, stemmed from where I live.  I live in a society where even many Christians believe in some way that man is "basically good"; that is, Christians might deny it, but they still imagine that a man who is sinful can do things that please God.  I know I did.  I knew all about freedom, and I knew that in the situation I had been raised in, I had found doing "good things" to be quite easy.  If someone else finds these things hard, then, I'd say they deserve whatever they get, whether their reward be poverty, jail time or an STD. 

My society had also taught me that "stuff" is good, and that more "stuff" is better.  You know what I mean; in the world we live in, "Excess is equated with success," as Switchfoot says.  I was conditioned to assume that getting money was a positive event, and that getting sick was a curse straight from the Devil.  Part of this was due to my religious training, but I believe that training itself was the result of the materialism of American society. 

You see, society had molded my beliefs to fit its image, and I in turn tried to mold God to fit my image.  Unsurprisingly, I didn't succeed.  But I did create a nice little god of my own to worship; he was an impotent god who never really did much for me, but I was quite sure that he at least wanted to give me lots of stuff and that he agreed with me that people with AIDS should have really been more careful about whom they slept with.

But what does this have to do with society?  Here's the connection.  American culture is quite materialistic, and America itself is exceedingly wealthy.  Oddly enough, I have found the Religious Right more likely to debate this than the Secular Left; the Right will say simply that "God has blessed us," while the Left will cry until they turn blue that we should spread our blessings around a bit.  Not that they actually spread their own blessings around, much less do it effectively, but despite their being mired in materialism, at least they are able to see that materialism and rail against it. 

But I digress.  Back to our wealth and materialism, consider this:  It is our materialism which causes us to consider "stuff" to be good, and it is our wealth which makes us look down on those who do not have "stuff."  Perhaps this is confusing, so I ask you this:  When a person considers a thing (be it money, health, or friends) virtuous, and he happens have more of this thing than others do, how does he come to think of other people?   Does he esteem them higher than himself (as Paul might counsel us), or does he think "Gee, I've sure got a lot of virtuous stuff going on here"? 

The materialism that makes us regard "stuff" as virtuous is subtle.  It is difficult to recognize, partly because we are so numb to it (it saturates every part of our lives), and also because it has quietly crept in to Christianity from its secular origins.  Chances are a person with plenty of stuff isn't going to admit to himself that he thinks he is better than a person with less stuff, because that would mean he would have to admit that people with more than him are better than him.  However, he still secretly holds to the belief that many in this democracy have:  the belief that everyone has an equal chance, and if one person does not have as much as another person, then it is an indication of poor choices at best, and vice at worst. 

Of course, not everyone has an equal chance of doing equal things for an equal reward.  I'm not talking about men making more money than women, or white people making more than black people.  I'm not speaking of inequality between salaries at all.  Instead, I'm talking about the hand that God plays in the reward of every man, and the hand that sin has in all of man's choices. For God is the rightful judge of what any man should receive, both in this world and the next, and sin affects the choices of all of us, especially those who know nothing but sin. 

Let me say a little bit more about God's dispensation of blessings.  We as humans are finite, flawed, and ultimately it can be said that we don't know very much.  So on what authority have we allowed ourselves to be convinced that material things are good?  To be certain, they are not evil unless there is such a thing as a necessary evil (for we are encouraged to ask for our daily bread), but how can we legitimately believe that any one thing is good? 

Now remember, it may not be a conscious thing that causes us to believe material success is good (or an indication of good), but it is a real belief nonetheless, and one that afflicts us all.  And yet, it is an unfounded belief.  God is the sole determiner of right and wrong, of what is good and what is evil.  He has not told us that a person with little should make better choices, or that a person with much has done many things right.  Instead, He has told us that rich and poor alike need the same thing, and that thing is Him. 

So why, then, has the Church begun seeking riches?  Why do we give money for our church to change lightbulbs and buy new video cameras?  Perhaps the Lost just really want to spend a couple of hours of their weekend listening to knock-off Chris Tomlin music and learning about things that have little or no bearing on their everyday life in a place that is well-lit and video taped.  If that is the case, then the money we give to the Church (secretly hoping that it will be returned thirty, sixty and a hundredfold) has been sown well.  But if the Lost have no interest in such things, and if we have done nothing with our seed to help the World see that their purpose can be found in more than this material world, then we have merely thrown money at God (or in his general direction) to see if He'd give us money in return. 

And perhaps that is our downfall.

We consider money and possessions to be good, even though we have no right to.  Now, what better to lead a person into sin than a false belief that something is good?  For man naturally pursues what seems most good to Him.  So I do believe it could be said that, while money can be a blessing for some who need it to survive, it can also be a curse to the man who believes it good.  And here in America, I find there are very many people indeed who believe it to be good. 

That is why I say our combination of materialism and wealth is a very dangerous one.  We view money as a blessing from God, when it very often may not come from Him at all.  For He will not lead us into temptation, and if money or "stuff" happens to be our vice (as is often the case with materialists like us), then maybe excess isn't in his plan for us. 

I dunno, just a thought. 

But do you see what has happened?  By recognizing materialism for what it is, we can then see that it's okay to have less than everything, and that people who happen to have less than we do are exactly the same as we are.  Their choices aren't their problem, it is their heart, for the heart makes the choices.  And when we recognize that we are materialistic beasts, we can finally begin to allow Christ to turn us into something else, something He can use to provide for the poor, if they need it, and humble the rich by living humble lives themselves. 

This is where I speak to the Church.  You can see for yourself the image of materialism, if you can bear to look upon yourself for a moment.  It's true that in the past, there were people who believed God would give no one any material blessing, but that does not justify your extreme reaction to their extreme position.  While material may or may not be evil, it is not something to be sought; only something to be given, first by God, and then by those who received it to those in need.  It can be nothing else without moving God from his rightful place in our doctrine.  Now you have seen how materialism has infiltrated your institution and affected your beliefs, assuming you are willing to look at yourself as Christ did, and perhaps you see what it has done.  You do not give the World the help they need, because you insist on forcing them to learn (apart from Christ) how to live rightly, when it is their heart of stone which you so happily ignore that causes them to sin and make poor choices.  For the sake of the Lost, for your own sake, and for the sake of the purpose we were all created to fulfill, lay down your possessions.  Give all you have to the poor, pick up your cross and truly follow Christ. 

Two Responses

Yeah, so I'm too lazy to write in my own comment box.  So sue me.  Here are my replies to the recent comments by Peter Wilson and Ubersehen on my "Slim, Laughable Possibility" post. 

Ubersehen said:

Fascinating stuff. Coming from a non-Christian standpoint, I find your approach refreshing, and entirely more honest than others I've encountered in the past.

That being said, you stated in this post that you felt that non-Christians were "not listening" when you presented them with the Christian message.

I tend to lean very strongly in an atheistic direction, as my current beliefs go. I'm not wholly comfortable, however, with the label of "atheist" because many interpret it to imply a dogmatic and absolute denial of the possibility of anything spiritual or that cannot be explained by scientific means. To digress a bit, I think that the term "atheist" is similar to "Christian" in that one who professes to fall under one of these categories can hold very different beliefs and possess equally diverse approaches to those beliefs in relation to others who claim the same title.

In any case, back to the point of this comment. I'm curious, since I feel as though I've always listened very carefully, and considered very closely, the beliefs and truth-claims of people of various religions, as to how you feel a person would need to behave to be viewed as really "listening" to your message.

I've often felt, when confronted about my skepticism of the Christian belief system (not necessarily limited to that system, though), that I would be required to first believe in the argued truth of the bible to be able to be convinced of the message being expressed to me.

Do you have any insight here?

 

...

A second comment to inquire about a few things Sam said above:

1. “One of the foremost laws in the country (as well as in the Bible) is against murder. And here's the kicker: if abortion truly is murder, then it should be illegal. Period.”

I agree on the premise of the argument:  If abortion is murder, it should be illegal. 

My question for Sam, and anyone else who'd like to jump in, is: At what point in the process of conception do you consider the fetus to be a human life? Once the fetus develops a heartbeat? Once the fetus develops the capacity to feel pain? Once the fetus develops a noticeably human form? From the moment of conception? I think what's lacking in a lot of the discussion is a clear and unanimous answer to this question.

2. “Homosexuality is shown to be irresolvably harmful to society at large, so it is not a thing that the government should promote by, for example, allowing them to get married and adopt children.”

How has homosexuality been shown as "irresolvably" harmful to society? I'm not currently aware of any research that has pointed to that conclusion, so I'm curious as to how you came to your belief on the matter.

Hi Ubersehen! Thanks for the comments.  I apologize if I am brief with these replies, I don't have much time to write. 

I'm afraid I was yet again unclear in something I said in my post.  I did say that non-Christians had ceased to listen to us, but you must understand that this post is directed toward Christians, and when I spoke of non-Christians not listening, I was not saying this to condemn them.  Rather, I was attempting to explain *why* non-Christians don't listen; I wasn't trying to make the point that non-Christians are especially obstinate, but rather that we have done a pathetic job of giving them reasons to listen to us.  So many Christians seem to reject logic altogether, or claim to be Christians when in fact their beliefs have nothing to do with the faith they say they follow.  Because of this, I would say that any non-Christian who does in fact listen well to Christian arguments and consider them has been kinder to Christians than they deserve.  At the same time, I would also say that to listen to many of those arguments as though they truly are *Christian* can easily paint a skewed picture of the Christian faith in the mind of a non-Christian.  Thus even those who are open enough to listen to us babble about the Ten Commandments for a while will be no closer to understanding the faith for their listening than someone who paid no heed at all.

As for the necessity of accepting the Bible before one can be convinced of the message of Christianity, you are correct, though I would say that the acceptance of the Bible itself is something that, if pursued intellectually, need not begin with a simple belief in spite of all evidence.  Indeed, inquiries into the truth of Christianity must start with the search for the existence of some supreme being.  I believe this can be readily proven by any number of philosophical arguments; it can't be proven out to mathematical certainty, of course, but very little in this world can.  Anyway, when (and if) a person comes to believe that there is a god, the question becomes one of what sort of nature that god has.  That is where religion comes in (though you no doubt know this); many religions make many different claims about God and his nature, and it is up to the individual to find out which set of beliefs about God's nature is most accurate.  Again, it's a highly philosophical pursuit, but not exclusively so; for there is little evidence for any religion's claims about the supernatural that is better than the religion making claims about nature that can be proven logically but could only have been revealed supernaturally. 

So in short, you will not likely accept many Christian beliefs if you do not accept the Bible, which is the source of those beliefs.  It is indeed silly to quote the Bible to an atheist, who does not accept the Bible in the first place; how can anyone expect the Bible to prove itself?  Instead, it is philosophy, logic, nature and history that proves the Bible (though again, not to mathematical certainty), and it is the Bible which makes claims about the God who created nature and had his hand in history.

To reply to your second comment, you are correct that we lack a clear and unanimous position on when life begins.  I do not know entirely where I believe, though I believe that when dealing with the issue of human life, it is our duty to be careful and consider more than simple consciousness to be evidence of life.  However, I believe that at present, it would be best to define life as being when there is a detectable heartbeat (after all, the first thing you do when you want to see if someone is alive is check their pulse).  From there, we can debate and study all we want, but I think it's important to at least make that first step, if people will listen.

And as for homosexuality, I see so much that is harmful to society from heterosexuality that I'm not entirely sure of where I stand on it anymore.  To be sure, I believe that the Bible condemns homosexual activity, but I don't believe it's my job to ensure that homosexuals are kept from doing the things that we allowed Brad and Angelina to do.  Indeed, is there any more harm to society in allowing two men to get married in the eyes of the state than allowing a man and a woman to get married and adopt children, only to divorce shortly thereafter?  Surely the institution of marriage and society as a whole suffers more from broken contracts than from an increase in the number of people who can enter into said contracts.

And now, I'd like to turn to Peter Wilson's comments and reply to them, which I failed to do for so long. 

Peter Wilson said:

I think now I see that I disagree with you in some respect.

You said "it seems to me that sin is a concept that can only be understood properly in spiritual terms, something the World cannot comprehend."

If I interpret you correctly, all the world knows of sin is its bad effects on the life we live now and absolutely nothing of eternal consequences. I will construct my ideas around this understanding.

you said "I would simply suggest that we not struggle too much with getting someone who by his very nature can't understand sin or its gravity to stop sinning."

I think that the issue is not that the world can't understand sin but rather that they don't understand sin. Truly, without God we would not have any sort of acknowledgement of the divine evil of our actions. But because God is a God of truth, he has given ALL human beings a General Revelation of the evil of their actions not just in terms of a bad aftermath of their actions, but of a divine law against transgressors. People, in their sin, suppress this truth. Romans 1:17-32 is clear that man's ignorance of sin is not because they can't understand it but because they "exchanged the truth about God for a lie."

Since, by God's grace, the world is in fact able to understand the gravity of their sin through general revelation, we as Christians should speak of it in spiritual terms. No one sees their need of salvation otherwise.

You also said "the World must simply trust us when we speak of grace."

Since I lived 14 years of my life becoming a proud child of the world, I think my point is valid when I say that my understanding of my need for grace did not come through a trust in my parents' assertion of my condition. I had listened to their lecture many times in the past with no effect on my soul. My conviction of sin came directly through the Holy Spirit who warned me of my doom. It was from this conviction that I understood and my life was saved. I believe that a conviction of sin does not come through trust in Christian but through God's self-revelation.

It is true that the gravity of one's sin will never occur to the world through our rantings on the evil of sin. Nor will it occur through any device of ours. It is purely by the grace of God that they will see such a need. But that does not excuse us from the task of speaking this truth. It simply means that God will in fact get the glory from all converted souls for it was His initiative that brought them to Himself. And we have been given the dignity to take part in his plan by being messengers of His truth. We should speak it word for word as it was given to us and God will change the heart of the world and show them their sin and His grace.

I respect you for thinking through this issue and I anticipate your response (I hope I didn't misunderstand you again). Thank you for seeking to be faithful with the gospel. God bless.

I would disagree with you that the world is capable of understanding the gravity of their sin, save through the Holy Spirit's act of regeneration, for in order to understand the gravity of one's sin, one must first understand what he is sinning against.  Now, if that were part of the "general revelation"; that is, if the world understood God and the nature of his infinite goodness (hence the infinite nature of our own evil) and simply turned away from it, where would be the need for salvation?    It would be as if mankind had never fallen, or falls individually. And how could man, in the face of the perfection he was created to enjoy for eternity, turn from it in defiance of his own nature?  For if man is fallen, I see no way that he can look upon God's perfection, and if he can't do that, then I don't believe he can understand the evil of his own sin, except through the Holy Spirit.  Even I as a Christian only understand God's goodness dimly; I can spout about infinity all I like, but I don't really understand it.  It is only a concept I use to remind myself of just how much greater God is than anything I know.

Now I think that we are taking two different paths to say the same thing, or nearly so.  For you would say that it is the Holy Spirit that reveals the true gravity of our sins to us, and I would say the same.  I never intended to suggest that we are the ones who convict others of their sins, only that we have a responsibility to speak the truth, and to speak it in such a way that it will be heard and listened to.  We are not the ones who save people, we only help the Father in much the same way that a child might "help" his earthly father build a house; the Father does not need our work, and we need his support and strength just to do our meager bit of work, which He still uses and delights in.

 

Now, you are right that sin must be spoken of in spiritual terms, for sin is a spiritual concept.  However, my point was that sin (and anything we know to be "spiritual") must not be addressed until we can be sure our message will be properly received; that is to say, we must first ensure that they trust us, and no amount of lecturing on that which is spiritual will yield such a result.

Now I think I get to agree with you, when you say that our understanding of the gravity of our own sin comes from God's self-revelation.  Indeed, it is the Holy Spirit, not us, that prompts a person to come to faith in Christ.  However, I was speaking strictly of our duty as Christians.  You see, I left out any mention of the Holy Spirit's work because (a) we can't affect when or how he acts, and (b) I believe He can work through us, revealing Christ in us.  However, since we can't alter what God does, I found it most expedient to focus on what we can alter, namely our actions and the way we present our message.

Thank you for your comments, and for getting me to think these issues through.  While I may not respect your blogging service (Xanga, har har) I do respect your grasp of these issues, and look forward to your response. 

The Fear of What God Might Become, If We Let Him

I'm afraid my thoughts aren't quite in order right now.  I just feel the urge to write something after listening to "Wilderness" by The OC Supertones, and I fear what I write will make no sense.  If you find this a laborious read, or just plain nonsensical, feel free to skip it or deride me in the comments section.  But don't do both; you may only deride me if you read the whole thing (which at this point, may end up being quite short).

I've been thinking recently about the time that I spent writing for my previous blog, and about my political and religious views back then.  How could I have left Christ out of my consideration of so many issues?  To be sure, there are a great many things I still leave Him out of, but the things I missed before. . . they seem so obvious.  I'm not entirely sure of myself even now, but to think that I had never even considered that the beliefs I now hold might be valid tends to cause a sense of shame; I feel as though I neglected my Savior and God for quite a long time, fantasizing that my own ideas about the world were somehow more applicable than His.  I am rather disappointed to know that I had that in me.

I would like to be able to say that the time I spent clutching beliefs I am now ashamed of was because someone had lied to me.  It would be nice to say that I was a puppet of the Republican Party, that I had been used, and that I was being indoctrinated; because then of course, it wouldn't have been my fault.  I would be able to cast the blame on someone other than myself for all the time that I spent ignoring Christ altogether.  But sadly, I wasn't spouting the ideas of other people, and I was by no means brainwashed.  The ideas I wrote about were mine, and I formed them on my own. 

And that, you see, is exactly the problem. 

When I formed my Republican views, I did so with good intentions.  It made sense:  Sin is bad, so we shouldn't do it, and we should make sure no one else does it either so God will be happy.  If someone does sin, even if they hurt no one, it's our job to ensure that the government punishes them, and that is somehow different than punishing them ourselves.  People who make bad choices just need to buck up and stop sinning, because Jesus told the adulteress to "sin no more."  Surely enforcing the philosophy of "sin no more" is the government's job, and if we can get people to just stop sinning, the world will be a much better place.

You see, the intentions behind this philosophy are good; I meant well, and I wholeheartedly believe that every Christian Republican means well when they vote.  But I do not believe they are right. 

Back to my experience, I formed my Republican views on my own, and I have said that that is why I was forced in the end to leave those views behind.  It was not because I refused to rely on other men for input, for no man is more infallible than another; rather, it was because I chose to found my philosophy on what I saw and what I knew, rather than on Christ.  To be sure, God was in there somewhere (hence my emphasis on sin), but my understanding of Christ was limited then even as it is now.  It was as if I had decided to form my worldview by myself, and then put a Jesus Fish on the back and call it Christian. 

I remember when I'd encounter people who were moderate or independent in their political beliefs because of their convictions as a Christian.  I used to scoff at them; they were wimps, afraid to really stand for anything.  They used Jesus as a cop-out, I thought. . . they used Him as an excuse to stay out of the "Culture War" because they were stupid, or they just didn't care.  I thought it quite funny that they'd use Jesus Christ as an excuse to cancel out such Biblical concepts as sin and the necessity of abstinence from it.  I thought they were crazy for not trying to get everyone to "be good." 

Now I see that they were right.  It isn't about abstaining from sin, it's about being made sinless.  It isn't about being good, it's about being made good.  But I wasn't about to admit that; I didn't understand it, and I didn't want to take the time to.  This is because I was afraid of what it might do to my carefully-constructed belief system.  I had worked so hard to form my Republican philosophy, and was so proud of the fact that no one had ever told me what to believe that I couldn't allow myself to examine its very foundation; if I did that, I knew it would collapse like a house of cards.

Any truly Christian philosophy must begin with Christ.  He is God revealed to us, and God is the source of all things.  In Him all things are complete, and without Him nothing can stand.  I knew, this, of course, and that's why I was continually inviting Him into my worldview; I'd make all the right references to justify what I was saying as "Christian," trying to create something good enough that He would bless it.  But that wasn't what God wanted; I had to give my philosophy to Him, so He could smash it along with all my silly notions of "being good," and start over with Christ as my guide and foundation.  I was afraid of this, afraid of what He might do to my petty intellectual "achievements" if I let Him, so for a very long time I refused to give Him the control to rebuild my philosophy from scratch. 

Now, I don't say any of this to convince you all that, upon changing, I have somehow now stumbled upon the "ultimate truth," or whatnot. . . I am aware of my own persistent limitations, and highly doubt I would know the "ultimate truth" if it kicked me in the face.  However, that is part of the reason that I believe I am at least improving in my pursuit of the truth:  When I wasn't striving to make Christ the center of all my beliefs, I was sure that what I believed was the absolute truth, but now that I am at least trying a little harder (though weakly, no doubt) to let Christ lead me, I have become uneasy with my beliefs, lest my own fallibility obscure my view of where Christ is leading. I now at least care whether or not I am following Him.  Again, I am not sure that everything I stand for is perfectly true, but of one thing I am sure:  I am chasing after the Truth.  I haven't caught it; my humanity prevents me from doing that.  But I am chasing it, and I hope I will be willing to go wherever my pursuit leads and that Christ would continually point me in the direction I must go. 

A Response to a Friend

This message was originally written to a friend who asked me what becomes of good people who are not Christians.  I did my best to explain it adequately before I was kicked off the computer by NetNanny, cruel fiend that she is.  Therefore, please forgive any spelling/grammar/punctuation/logic errors you find in this post, as my writing of it was a bit rushed.   My response was as follows:

...I believe you asked what happens according to Christianity to "virtuous sinners," as it were: people who act nicely, but do not follow Christ. 

To answer, I'll start by explaining what is required for "salvation", or entrance into Heaven.  "Salvation," you see, requires holiness; that is, it requires sinlessness or perfection.  This is because we as human beings were created by a holy and perfect God, and we were created to be holy and perfect (though limited compared to our Creator, as creations tend to be).  According to Christianity, mankind is no longer sinless; he is naturally sinful because God created him with a free will, and man misused that free will to rebel against God.  This submission to sin rather than God resulted in what we now call "sin nature," or the fact that man is, in his natural state, prone to sin and incapable of entering Heaven.

Man naturally sins against God, sin of course being the transgression against God's Law as revealed in the Ten Commandments.  You see, it may be that not every person murders, or steals, or commits adultery, but in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (which can be found in the book of Matthew), He makes two key points:  First, that the physical act of killing someone is not required for the sin of murder, for even to hate someone or wish them dead is to commit murder in one's heart; and second, He said that any man who breaks any part of the Law is as guilty as if he had broken the whole Law.  This is because a single act of sin is an expression of complete rebellion against and rejection of an infinitely holy God.  No one sin is any worse than any other, because they all represent the same thing: rebellion, like Adam's original rebellion or act of disobedience in Genesis. 
Now, if we know that even to hate is as much a sin as murder, and even to lust is as much a sin as adultery, if we know that a single sin signifies a complete turning from God, then it stands to reason that even people we see as "good" have sinned, and thus are not deserving of entrance to Heaven.  I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I've broken God's Law, and I really don't believe it is possible to keep God's Law.  This is supported by Romans Chapter 3, among other scriptures. 

This sounds like bad news, but from the Christian point of view, it's not.  The Law is unkeepable; that is, we aren't at all capable of doing what it takes to make ourselves holy and sinless.  However, I believe that God made a way for us to become holy and sinless.  According to the Bible, "The wages of sin is death"; that's why the Jews used to sacrifice animals as payment for their sins.  However, Christians believe that God became man in the form of Jesus Christ, and He offered himself as a sacrifice, to be killed as payment for our sins.  Thus it is possible for us to be made holy and perfect apart from keeping the Law, and thus be capable of entering Heaven.  And the great thing is that the only requirement for being made perfect is to believe in Jesus Christ as God incarnate, the Savior of mankind.  But I'm not talking about some half-stepping "if it'll get me out of Hell" prayer which is borne out of fear rather than belief.  I'm talking about true belief, belief that causes a person to act upon it.  For doesn't anything we really believe in drive us to some sort of action?

How to arrive at this belief is a matter that can only be dealt with on an individual level.  Some people can be brought to such a belief through a persuasive and logical argument, while others must experience something that to them proves God's existence.  I do not know how any person can be brought to belief; that's God's job.  I as a Christian can simply speak the truth as best I know how, and pray that God uses it to help someone begin to understand that He exists, and is worth knowing.  He is worth knowing because He provided a way out of sin, and into perfection.  He did, in fact, save us, and for that I believe He deserves everything I have to give, as little as that may be. 

Now, I say all this to explain for you how God can justly condemn someone who has done their best to be perfect. You see, it's not about doing your best at all; a virtuous sinner might have been a very nice person, but they still sinned, and furthermore they missed the entire point of God's offer of salvation.  It wasn't about being good, for no man can do that; it was about being made good, freely through Christ. 

The Slim, Laughable Possibility That Jesus Might Be Right

In my latest debates over my developing beliefs in the area of politics, I've run into an unprecedented amount of opposition from those who I thought trusted my reasoning ability.  Indeed, I am continually amazed at just how quickly people's opinions can turn when I stop saying what they want me to say.  But no matter, I still love those people, and very much hope they will not reject me for straying from the Republican party.  It would be nice if they would consider what I have to say, like they did when I wrote under the name "NeoFascist?," but my greatest concern is that they would not turn me away based on my political beliefs.  It has always been my policy that personal politics mean nothing compared to friendship, for I have met a great many people that I do not like from every political party, and some that I do like from every party as well.  I would hope that no one who reads this would judge me based on the fact that I am not a member of any political party; indeed, I can see no shame in standing alone, if one has the stomach for it.

I have spent a while trying to convince people that God might be best glorified apart from the Republican party, but it seems that I was operating under the assumption that my point of view would be respected thanks to my past writings, and my committment to follow wherever my search for truth has led me.  This assumption appears to be wrong, so I think it might be time to back up, repeat myself, and defend the thought process that has led me to believe that perhaps politics is not the answer to all of society's problems. 

My questioning of Republican ideals began when I, as a Christian, decided that it might be a good idea to do all I can to lead people to Christ.  Being the rather contemplative person that I am when confronted with a task, I began thinking about how best a person might be brought to Christ; I remained stuck there for quite some time, having been a Christian all my life, and not knowing what it is like to come into the faith from the outside.  However, it seemed quite logical that if any Christian wants to spread the Gospel, he would start by ensuring that what he says would be heard. 

A clever first step, and one I was quite proud of.  Assuming a person is a Christian and understands the Gospel, the first step in spreading his message is to figure out a way to get people to hear it.  Now, many Christians at many different times have used many different methods for getting their message to the world.  Some of them might put their message in music that sounds suspiciously like some popular band.  Others might decide to broadcast their message on television.  Still others might write books, or blog (as I do).  It seemed to me that there was no shortage of ways to get people to hear what one has to say; ways that ranged from interesting to attempted sneakiness, which simply makes one look desperate (yay, Relevance).  Indeed, when it comes to shouting loud enough to be heard, it seems that Christians have all their bases covered.

So where are all the converts?  It seems to me that there are quite a lot of people who are not Christians... people who may or may not believe in God, but seem to take an unbelievable amount of joy from the fact that they are not Christians and do not like Christians in the least.  My first reaction, back when I bought the Republican party platform hook, line and sinker, was to view such people as the problem, and debate them until they were nothing but a quivering pulp.  A good intellectual pummelling was what was needed to quiet those sinners down so that other sinners could hear our message, I thought. 

Slowly, the sheer absurdity of such a belief sunk in on me.  I was so focused on getting my way, and making the other side sit down and shut up that I had forgotten that they were the very people I was trying to reach.  The people I was arguing with were as much in need of the Gospel as anyone else, and they had been hearing my message, and the messages of other Christians for a very long time.  But they weren't converted. 

So it seemed that making oneself heard is not all that is required for reaching someone for Christ.  I puzzled over this for some time, until I realized that the problem wasn't that these non-Christians couldn't hear me... it was that they weren't listening.  So I thought I'd (yet again) argue them into listening.

That didn't work.  No matter how hard I tried, and no matter how many debates I won, I was amazed to find that non-Christians would not listen.  So it was back to the drawing board for me, as I thought intently about what it would take to get them to listen to me.  Now obviously, I am not them, so it was rather hard to figure out what I could do to get them to listen.  So my first step was to see what other Christians were doing to get the World to listen to their message.  It seemed that the tactic of choice among the majority of Evangelical Christians was to hide references to the Gospel in talk about Harry Potter, The Matrix or Survivor/Big Brother/Fear Factor/Elimidate/Extreme Makeover, and hope that this presentation of the Gospel was sneaky enough to get somebody saved. 

This clearly wasn't working.  Somehow, I found myself unsurprised by the fact that non-Christians don't want to listen to us when we insult their intelligence by trying to lure them into a church building to "get saved."  So I determined that Relevance wasn't the way to get non-Christians to listen to my message.

As I struggled to think of a way to present the Christian message in a way that sinners would listen to and appreciate, I was struck by something quite obvious:  I was every bit as insulted as the non-Christians were by so-called "Relevance," and I tended to listen more to preachers who did not restrict their sermons to sports analogies and Disney movies, so perhaps it could be said that non-Christians would be more likely to listen to a message that I would listen to.  That is to say, perhaps they'd listen to someone they respect, presenting a message that doesn't try to be sneaky.

This belief was backed up by a passage from First Thessalonians 4, a chapter which partially details the Christian life.  Verses 11 and 12 say this:

Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

So maybe it is a good idea to win the respect of those who do not understand our beliefs, I thought.  From there, the question is what on earth will they respect? 

I'm not entirely sure of the answer yet, but I can tell you part of it.  Many of them don't respect most Evangelical Christians.  Many more don't respect the Republican Party.  What they DO respect is a person who cares about the pain they're experiencing.  As unbelievable as it may seem to the Republican Party, those who oppose Republicans are entirely capable of respecting and considering an alternate point of view, if the person presenting that alternate point of view first proves that they are capable of caring about someone who isn't exactly like them.

Consider Christ's actions.  Everywhere He went, He drew followers, but He did so by first caring for their physical needs.  Once He had done that, the person He was helping would begin to trust Him to care for their spiritual needs as well.  This is only natural; a person who is in sin is only a physical being, knowing nothing of the spiritual.  Their physical and emotional world is all they know, and that world is full of pain.  Now we come to them preaching about a spiritual world, in which things we know to be joy and peace are seen by those outside our faith as pain and suffering, and we expect them to listen to our message as though we have proven ourselves trustworthy.  Indeed, we have no right to expect anything other than the scorn of the World until we have proven ourselves trustworthy to them, by caring for their physical and emotional pain as Christ did.  Once we have done that, then they will begin to trust us with other aspects of their being; when we have proven trustworthy with what is physical and emotional, then the World will trust us in the things which are spiritual, things they cannot yet see or feel.

This is where I began to consider leaving the Republican party.  I am a Christian, called to exhibit active compassion and gain the respect of outsiders, and I began to realize that I could not do either as a Republican, at least not as well as I could from outside the party.  You see, I can find very little real compassion in the Republican party platform; it is all about telling people how wrong they are, how they shouldn't be doing what they're doing, and how they should really be doing things our way.  I find little compassion with the way the party handles issues like abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration.  Instead, I find a lack of forgiveness and concern for people who are in sin.  It is as though the Republican party has taken it upon themselves to punish sinners, because God can't be trusted to do that Himself.  Maybe it isn't our place to pass judgment on women who have abortions; maybe it's just our job to help heal the part of her that caused her to need an abortion.  Maybe it's not our job to keep homosexuals from having relationships, or getting equal rights from a secular state; maybe it's just our job to love them, and perhaps eventually show them that they are not living as God would have them.  Maybe it's not our job to deport people who immigrate here illegally because they can't get in legally; maybe it's just our job to keep out as many illegals as we can, and turn the rest into productive citizens. 

All these things are more compassionate than standing around on street corners shouting about how abortion is murder, homosexual activity is wrong, and illegal immigrants are stupid and should be deported.  Maybe abortion is murder, and maybe homosexuality is wrong; heck, maybe illegal immigrants deserve to be deported.  But we as Christians are not commanded to punish those who do wrong; we are commanded to gain their respect, and let Christ change them from the inside out. 
It is no use saying that democracy excuses us from our obligation to gain the respect of outsiders.  In a representative democracy, the deportation of an illegal immigrant by your elected representatives is the same as if you had done the deporting yourself, because you used your vote to influence the government to punish someone you couldn't bring yourself to punish.  The same goes for abortion; many wish to end abortion, but can't bring themselves to do anything about it, so they just vote to make it illegal.  If that's compassion, then I imagine football coaches will all be sitting on Jesus' lap in heaven.  To exhibit true, active compassion would be to help the woman considering an abortion to find an alternative that is good for the child AND the woman herself.  This would require legislation as well as active involvement in the lives of such women.

And again I say, I see very little of this active compassion coming from the Republican party.  There are a few beacons of hope, most of whom work in abortion clinics or are just open-minded enough to realize that homosexuals are in fact still human, but the majority of Republicans seem to be blissfully unconcerned with being truly compassionate.  They do not vote with compassion, and they do not show active compassion in their everyday lives (unless, of course, the occasional "aww, that's sad" counts as compassion).  This isn't to say there is no truth within the Republican party... I do respect their efforts to live righteous lives, but their expectations of sinners do nothing to help them come to Christ.

Meanwhile, I've noticed that there is a more active sort of compassion coming from the Democratic party.  It's a sort of compassion that gives of itself (or others, if we're talking about government welfare), and does genuinely care for the physical wellbeing of others.  However, this sort of compassion is no truer than the Republican sort.  While Republicans exhibit a sadly passive kind of compassion, doing little of consequence to solve society's problems, Democrats exhibit an active compassion with no direction but emotion, and no concern or understanding of that which is spiritual.  The Republicans' compassion is the compassion of a Christian who has forgotten what it was like to be lost (and thus is of no use to the Lost), while the Democrats' compassion is the compassion of one lost person to another, which is active but offers no real help (thus it too is of no use to the Lost).  Thus I do not wish to claim either party.  Both hold a kernel of truth, but both are incapable of helping those in need of a Savior.

Now, there is an alarming number of people out there who would say that since I'm not a Republican, that means I must be a Liberal and a Democrat, thus I am not worth listening to.  I've been over this before, but let me reassure you one last time, I am neither a Liberal nor a Democrat. I accept the Bible in its entirety, as it is literally and contextually read, and I do not believe that morality is in any way subjective.  So there, I'm not a Democrat.  But I'm also not a Republican.  I'm a Christian, plain and simple, and that alone is enough.

So I began looking for the best way to bring people to Christ, and I reached a conclusion that placed me outside Republican party lines.  Am I wrong for not sticking with a party?  No.  I'm not here to please men.  My purpose is to glorify God; that is why we are all here, and it is the noblest cause conceivable.  I maintain that God is most glorified when a person comes to be by saved Christ's blood, as it is a testimony to the infinite goodness and grace of our omnipotent God, and I believe that if we are to concern ourselves with bringing others to Christ for the sole purpose of God's glory, then we must sever ourselves from any school of thought that emphasizes something other than glorifying God.  If that means leaving a political party, then so be it.  That's what I did, though that may or may not be God's call for other Christians. 

But whether you find yourself on the right side of the aisle or the left, if you are a fellow Christian, do not condemn me for standing in the middle.  I am firm in my convictions, and my beliefs do not change with the wind; I do not stand on the fence, except to proclaim the silliness of having a fence at all.  For though we are flesh and blood, our fight is not against flesh and blood, so it is quite unnecessary to separate ourselves from other flesh and blood that we might shout at them from the safety of our own side about how wrong and sinful they are.  That isn't Christlike, and it isn't right.  Christ didn't cut anyone off from himself; He got his hands dirty helping all those who would accept his help, whether they were gentiles, Roman soldiers, or adulterers.  He did not condemn those who sinned... He cared for their needs and helped them stop sinning, not by force or legislation, but by inner transformation. 

Maybe we should try that sometime.  Who knows, Jesus might have actually known what He was doing.

Imagine that.

Pro-Life To a Fault?

What makes a life?  Is it the heartbeat or brainwaves, the act of being born or a child's very conception?  Just when is it that life really begins?  These are the questions that drive what might have formerly been called the debate about abortion before it reached its current polarizing extremes of rhetoric.  Indeed, the two sides of the argument, in an effort to associate their views with some vague concept that is seen by most as overwhelmingly good, have dubbed themselves "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life," and encouraged the public to pigeonhole themselves by jumping onboard with one system of beliefs or the other, and to take up arms against the opposing side as though this battle of the heart were to be waged against flesh and blood by means of intellect and legislation. 

Both parties in this argument have taken the mindset of "if we can force the other side to do things our way, it won't matter if they see things our way," and this emphasis on enforcing conformity to a law (or a potential law) has succeeded only in causing a breakdown of communications between the so-called "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" crowds.  No longer can the issue be intelligently debated for the entire country to hear, if that were even possible to begin with; now everyone from Washington, D.C. to Berkeley, California has their own sound-bites that they like to repeat whenever the issue of a woman's right to choose happens to conflict with an infant's right to actually be born, and they will gladly repeat those sound-bites until they turn blue so long as it keeps them from considering that life may actually begin before a child takes his first breath, or that sometimes a woman has a legitimate reason for terminating a pregnancy.

But enough of this "both sides are stupid" crap.  I'm anti-abortion and you all know it, and quite frankly I think that the Republican party and Christians in general have done a spectacularly horrible job of protecting children's right to life and the mother's spiritual, emotional and physical well-being.  A colossal failure if ever there was one.  To be sure, I'm quite opposed to the point of view that says an unborn child may be freely disposed of, but if any Christian truly wishes to see some sin or social ill come to an end, he is denser than the whole of the Pro-Choice lobby if he thinks that can be achieved apart from the regenerative power of Christ.  Christ's blood is the only thing that can end sin, so would it not be considered idolatry to fancy that legislation and the government can usurp that power?

Imagine that the Pro-Lifers get what they want.  Laws are passed and enforced that ban all types of abortion, and life is good.  But have the social ills stopped?  Of course not!  In the wake of the phasing out of legal abortions will rise illegal abortions, and while this is certainly not a reason to halt all progress toward the protection of unborn children's rights, it does cause one to think that maybe there is an evil greater than the taking of innocent life at work in the country's abortion battle.  Maybe there's more to abortion than simply murder (something the Pro-Life lobby refuses to consider). 

Perhaps we can ban abortions, but the root cause of abortion will still remain, and it will continue to cause trouble and social ills forever if it is not confronted as it is.  To forbid abortions as things stand now would be like knocking a couple of leaves off of a weed in your front yard; if you hope to end your problem without destroying its root, you might as well not be working at all. When abortions end, unwanted pregnancies will remain. 

Indeed, you might wish to convince people to stop creating unwanted pregnancies by making them harder to deal with, but in the end it is not the consequences of his actions that cause a sinner to stop sinning. This has never worked, and it never will; if it did, then I'd probably be the first to start a mass exodus from Christianity to Islam.  The fact is, though, that we can never be made to keep the law apart from Christ, and while it is acceptable to keep a sinner from infringing upon the rights of others, it is not acceptable to keep a sinner from sinning in other ways.  I'm quite sorry to say it, but I do not believe Christians have the right to legislate against any sort of sex between consenting adults.  That doesn't mean that I believe "anything goes"; I place myself quite firmly in the moral absolutist camp.  I simply don't believe we can do any good by legislating against some sin that doesn't harm anyone except those who partake of it.

But I digress. . .

If as I said, abortion is only a problem that can be solved by first solving its root problem, that is, by eliminating the demand for abortions, what on earth can we do if it is wrong to legislate against sex between consenting adults?  Because after all, even if you wish to argue that such impropriety is harmful for the resulting child due to the situation he is born into, it is the conception of the child that leads to the demand for an abortion, not the sex itself.  The truth is that the solution to the problem of the demand for abortions is for Christians to stop trying to force sinners not to sin (that is, to not have sex outside marriage or conceive children they don't want), and start caring about both the unborn children and the sinners that find them inconvenient.

What a concept.  Christians caring about everybody. Maybe Jesus not only loves the little children, but also the adulterers, the fornicators, the gays, and the girls who were raped.  Maybe Christians should start caring for them too. 

You see, caring about someone does not mean telling them to buck up, that their child is a gift and if they don't want it they can carry it for nine months and give it up for adoption.  To my knowledge, Jesus didn't tell anyone who was hurting that they needed to "suck it up," though I might just be reading the wrong translation.  The Christian thing to do is not to enforce morality among the masses, who are too lost for it to do them any good.  The Christian thing to do would be to see and understand the pain of a girl who has been raped, or the needs of a girl who never knew her father, so she tries to fill that hole with other men who seem to keep getting her pregnant.  Would Christ tell either of these to keep their children?  It seems that both of them have some things they need to work through, and neither would be fit to raise a child; to force them to go through with their pregnancy would only compound their problems, hence the demand for abortions. 

And yet, as Christians we must object to abortion.  We believe that life begins either at conception, or sometime before a child is actually born, and thus we view abortion as the infringement of one individual upon another's right to life and a completely invalid way to end a pregnancy.  We have no trouble recognizing that abortion is the wrong way to terminate a pregnancy; we just can't seem to fathom that some pregnancies might in fact need to be terminated.  We think that surely a woman lost enough to have her third child out of wedlock with her third consecutive man has no right to end the pregnancy, whether for her sake or the child's.  At best, she should have to finish the pregnancy to "teach her a lesson," right?

Of course not.  If Jesus thought we needed to be taught lessons about how bad sin is, he would have let the adulteress be stoned.  As we know, though, He chose to rescue her rather than condemn her; He showed her He cared by rescuing her from the physical consequences of her sin, that she might trust Him to pay for the spiritual consequences as well.  For a sinner knows only the flesh and the things that are of the flesh, and if we do not rescue him from things that are of the flesh, then how will he ever begin to trust us or our Master in spiritual things which he knows nothing of?

So then, if it can be said that some pregnancies are unnecessary, and yet abortion is murder, and yet we cannot prevent unwanted pregnancies, what choice are we then left with except to provide an alternative to abortion?  Wouldn't it be great if we stopped working against all the hurting women who, in their minds, just don't want to have their kids, and started working with them toward a goal that would prove that we care about them, and help their children have a chance at life?  Wouldn't that be more effective at solving the problem of abortion and all the problems that would come with banning it (illegal abortions, infanticide, more neglected/abused children)?  I admit, I don't know what alternatives to abortion exist; adoption is indeed a legitimate one (and one which should be given far more emphasis than it is), and I seem to remember hearing something about the testing of artificial wombs, though I'm not sure if children could yet be transplanted into them. 

You see, I'm not condoning sin by seeking to help those in pain.  I'm not trying to tell anyone that it's perfectly okay to go out and make babies you don't want or can't feed. What I'm trying to do is make the point that sin and unwanted babies will always be with us, no matter how we may wish to make the unrighteous become righteous without God.  Our best bet is not to eradicate all sin in the world, but rather to cope with it, and use it that God's grace might be made evident.  Indeed, a world that is wallowing in and fully aware of their own depravity would be much more receptive to salvation than a people who have been forced to act as though they were saved all their lives. 

What I've just written is not Republican.  In fact, given what I keep hearing from the Right, it's probably not even Pro-Life, since it deals with the more effective solution of making abortion obsolete rather than legislating against it. What I've written isn't on any party platform that I know of; it is, quite simply, a solution from someone who may not be a Republican but is without a doubt a Christian.  Take it or leave it. 

A Brief Examination of Sin

Mad props to my friend Sarah Liz for getting me thinking further about this issue.  Why is it that I insist on blaming Christians for the way non-Christians act?  In my last post, I talked about the Ted Haggard fiasco, and how we deserve the way we are treated by the world because we are, sadly, rather inept in our preaching of the Gospel (or whatever message it is we are trying to spread).  But I think maybe I should say a little more about that while it's on my mind. 

Let's start from the beginning. . . We are all human beings, bent toward sin.  It's just something we do, it's our nature.  This is a problem that is common to all men.

Now, there are essentially two types of people that this post will deal with:  Christians and non-Christians.  The non-Christians are a group of people who are, as I have previously stated, bent toward sin.  They sin quite regularly, as is their nature, and they are regrettably (but justly) hellbound.  The Christians are a bit different though.  Christians are in fact bent toward sin, just like their non-believing counterparts, and they may theoretically even sin just as regularly (I know what you're about to say, hold that thought).  The difference though, is that Christians are heavenbound rather than hellbound, and this is not due to any amount of sin that they may have oh-so-righteously abstained from.  In fact, it is not the result of any physical action on their part; the sole thing that separates the Christians from the non-Christians is the acceptance of the revelation of Christ and his sacrifice. 

But what of our actions?  If it is God's grace alone that separates us as Christians from the rest of the world, then why not just keep on sinning?  Should we in fact seek further sin that God's grace might be further applied?  Not at all, for to seek further sin in light of God's grace would indicate that one has not received that grace to begin with.  James chapter two, when read with the understanding that it is by grace that we are saved through faith, implies that anything we truly believe will cause us to act upon it.  If we love ourselves above all, then we will seek our own gratification above all, but if we love God above all, then it will be Him that we seek to please.  Thus, our faith can and does to some extent influence our actions. 

That is why I say that it is only theoretically possible for a Christian to sin as much as a non-Christian.  Indeed, Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover any and all sin, so any sin that anyone commits can be forgiven, but it stands to reason according to James that someone who is a Christian will not seek to sin against God. 

But he will sin.  As I've said, it is the nature of all human beings to sin against God, because we all have a physical, natural body that is the product of a natural, fallen world.  We are made new creatures in Christ, it's true, but it is our spirit that is regenerated by this act; our flesh remains with us, and will continue to seek sin until we are finally separated from it in physical death.  Thus someone who is truly a Christian is not one who lacks a sin nature; instead, he is a being of a dual nature, one nature seeking its own gratification, and the other seeking to glorify God.  So it cannot be said of man that he is initially both good and bad, like in the story of Jekyll and Hyde; instead, man is thoroughly bad, and upon receiving Jesus Christ's saving grace, he becomes conflicted by nature, and perfectly good (or at least justified) by proxy.

Now, this concept of man's inherent badness, supernatural salvation and subsequent internal conflict goes hand in hand with another set of thoughts regarding sin.  I have already discussed man's nature, but now I must discuss the nature of his actions.  As I have mentioned already, a person's actions have no bearing on his eternal destination; that is to say, he can never abstain from sin entirely, and to break one part of the law is to break the entire law.  But the examination of the concept of sin must not end here. . .

Jesus told us in his Sermon on the Mount that it is in fact the heart of man that sins.  A person can commit some act, or not commit it, but he will be sinning all the same.  Conversely, I also believe that a man can have a pure heart and do any act without it being a sin.  Now, you might say to me that to murder is a sin, but I would say that most of what we call sin (such as murder) is a combination of two things:  An action (killing) and an attitude of the heart (malice), and it is only the attitude of the heart that determines whether or not we are sinning.  The action of killing someone can happen by accident, and can even be the fault of the person who was killed, but this doesn't make the action of killing a sin.  Similarly, it is not a sin to swing a baseball bat. . . however, it is a sin to swing a baseball bat at someone's head because he struck you out.  You see, in this situation we have the same action done twice, but only once was it a sin. 

This notion that sin is an action of the heart rather than the hands has two major implications upon our view of the nature of man's actions:  Firstly, it means that we cannot necessarily tell whether or not someone is saved based solely on their actions (since their actions may not betray the condition of their heart); and secondly, it means that we are doing sinners a great disservice by counseling them in Christ's name to avoid some particular sin.  This is because when we encourage those outside our religion to keep God's law, we are sending them a different message than what Christ would.  Christ did not say to keep any aspect of the law, but neither did He say to disregard it. . . in fact, all He told us was that we have all broken the law in an infinitely grave way, and that he came to fulfill that law for us so that we might not have to bear the eternal consequences of it. 

This is the message we are supposed to relay to non-Christians.  When we seek to convince them to act differently -- that is, to avoid sin -- we are painting a picture of a Savior who is concerned with the actions of one's hands more than the attitude of one's heart, even though Christ made it quite clear that it was man's heart that affects our sin and salvation.  Indeed, sin is a bad thing, but it is impossible to say that a sinner in fact shouldn't sin; you might as well give a lecture on how dirt should not be so dirty. 

You see, no one thinks a thing about the fact that dirt is "dirty," and no one tries to make it less dirty; it is not until a thing is made clean that anyone can rightly a fuss about it becoming unclean.  Likewise, it is outright insanity to say that a sinner ought not sin so much, for if he could stop sinning then he wouldn't be a sinner at all.  The real issue with a sinner is not that he should be made to sin less, because he can't.  Instead, the sinner must be transformed into something that is clean and pure in Christ; only then will it do the man any good to counsel him to avoid being dirtied by sin. 

And yet there are many well-meaning people in the church who would tell sinners that they really should stop that sinning business.  Many of these people would legislate it as well, independent of any considerations of the well-being of the general populace (which should be the government's only consideration).  This is in no way right.  Fine, if you find that a particular sinful act is harmful to others in society, go ahead and legislate against it, but do not say that something that is simply a sin should be illegal.  To do that is to misrepresent the Gospel.

Confused?  Think of it like this... We as Christians believe it is sin that separates us from God.  Therefore, whenever we address sin in the name of Christ to a non-Christian, they are left to assume that it is because we are trying to help them bridge the gap between them and God, which is in some way or another the purpose of all religions.  Thus by telling sinners not to sin, we have indirectly but undeniably told them that the way to bridge the gap between themselves and God is to avoid sin.  This stands in stark contrast to the Gospel, however, for it isn't through our abstention from sin that we can come to the Father, but rather through faith in the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That is the Gospel.  The fact that we can freely be saved from our sin and come to the Father thanks to the grace of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again.  And yet this is not the message so many in the world hear.  Instead, as I said in my last post, people see Christianity as an institution of rules and regulations, of adherence to a Law, and they would not do so if they were being taught otherwise.  Now, you might blame this misunderstanding on their hearts simply being hard, or the fact that they improperly infer things from the message we deliver, but I'm afraid that is simply a cop-out.  It is the responsibility of the teacher to educate those who do not understand.  If the lesson we seek to teach those who don't understand our faith is being received the wrong way, then perhaps we should consider finding a better way of teaching the lesson.  Indeed, the Gospel can be comprehended by all when properly taught (for if it couldn't then it would hardly be just), so I am left to wonder if it is our methods of preaching that are inadequate, not so much in terms of being irrelevant as being chaotic and well-nigh impossible to understand.  Perhaps the Great Commission would be more efficiently fulfilled if we were to emphasize grace for a change, instead of expecting those who by their very nature transgress against the Law to suddenly learn to keep it.  For is it not rather Pharisaical (not to mention stupid) to try to force someone into keeping the Law before they have been given the supernatural means to do so?  And if we ourselves can't always keep the Law, and yet we are justified in spite of it, can we really believe we are doing any good by conveying a message (whether intentionally or accidentally) that makes people believe conformity to God's Law is the path to salvation?

And there lies the root of my disgust with the Evangelical world's treatment of sin.  It is because it is both unreasonable and counterproductive to command sinners not to sin, and yet the majority of the stances that Evangelicals take on social issues are based on ensuring that sinners don't sin.  That is why I say we've asked for it whenever we get roasted on movies like Saved! or on the news when some Evangelical does the very thing he expects sinners not to do.  The problem isn't that people sin, it's that we think sin is a problem we need to take care of.  The truth is that we all sin, and we will sin until the day we die; this does not affect our salvation one way or the other.  The only thing that affects our salvation is our acceptance or rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who came to provide us with a way to the Father.  The sin is just evidence of our need for Him, and whether we keep sinning or not won't affect our access to the Father because no matter how much we sin, Christ's sacrifice has justified us in spite of it.  We are commanded not to sin, it's true, but if someone is in Christ then that is not something he will seek to do.  He may sin incidentally, but it is no longer what he seeks after because he now has a dual nature, one that is good to help counteract the one that is bad. 

So it is important that we remember that we are not to sin, but it is equally important to remember that we must not impress that upon non-believers.  For we ourselves are no longer bound in sin once we have become Christians, but if we wish to see others come to experience that same freedom, we must not make them think that it is their sin that now keeps them from God.  To be sure, it is their sin that causes them to be separated from Him, like rushing water might keep a man from crossing a river, but if there is a bridge for the man to cross, the water is no longer what keeps him from reaching the other side; it is only his hesitancy to use the bridge. 

This is the message the World needs to hear.  They must understand sin, without a doubt, but they must not in any way be led to believe that abstention from sin can save them.  Therefore it is our responsibility to teach them about God's Law and mankind's inherent inability to keep it, but we must only teach them this if we are also capable of teaching them that there is a way to the Father, and that that Way operates independently of whether or not we break God's Law. 

For as it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one." 

Evangelicals Gone Wild! AKA Too Hot for TV. . . Evangelism?

So yeah.  There's this dude in Colorado, and he's a big preacher man.  A lot of people like him, and go to his church because. . . Well, that's just what they do.  Anyways, his name is Ted Haggard, and he's recently been accused of some conduct which is rather, shall we say, unbecoming of a pastor.  Please don't be alarmed. . . This is a routine occurrence in evangelical circles (something similar even happened at my old church a while back), and we just need to understand that people mess up sometimes.  People sin, it's kinda their nature, so it's really absurd that the media would jump all over poor Teddy the minute he's accused of doing something that Jesus says is bad, right?

Eh... No, not really.  Granted, it's true that people sin thanks to their sin nature, even if they are great preachers that we need to tell us about God.  And yes, it's true that Ted Haggard is in fact a person (despite the image such preachers are given in the Evangelical community) rather than a holy super-human who doesn't do bad things.  The problem, of course, is that most Evangelicals conveniently ignore these facts about their own humanity until the time comes that they need forgiveness for something.  They're perfectly content to preach about the evils of homosexuality, cursing, abortion, drunkenness and immodesty as though these sins are worse than the slothfulness, pride, deceit, bitterness and idolatry in their own lives, and they'd far rather remind the world that it's necessary to keep God's law than remind the world that our humanity prevents us from keeping God's law (hence our need for salvation). 

Until one of 'em screws up, anyway.  Then the tone changes from "You shouldn't do things that God says are bad" to "We must all understand that even the best of us mess up sometimes."  In my experience as a lifelong Evangelical, this is the only time that humanity's inability to keep God's law is emphasized.  Why is it that we wait until one of our leaders has done something stupid to tell non-Christians "Oh yeah, we forgot to mention that everyone sins, and we should just be understanding and forgive as Jesus forgave?"  Isn't that the very core of the Gospel?  That Jesus died to save us from the consequences of being under a law we could never keep?

But this isn't the message we choose to spread.  Instead, we choose to tell everyone about how bad homosexuality is, and what a bad idea it is to have pre-marital sex.  We've created such a stigma against sin that it's no surprise the world jumps on us every time someone in the church does a no-no.  We've told them with our words and with our actions that sin is something we should always avoid, and should we happen to find ourselves caught up in it, covering it up is a pretty smart thing to do.  So then, with the way we point and sneer or gasp in holy indignation every time we see people breaking God's law, can we really be surprised when the world does the same thing to us when we break God's law?  Are we really so stupid that we think we don't deserve it?

Indeed, I'm afraid we are.  There are in fact some people who would say that Evangelicals do not preach a message of outward conformity to God's law in the absence of an inner transformation.  Some people might say that we do a great job of telling others about how Jesus Christ can save us from our inescapable sin. . . or uh, how he fills that "God-shaped hole" in our soul and makes everything better.  Same dif, right?

I have yet to understand those people.  Unfortunately, it's plain to see that the message we're sending the World is not the message of the Gospel; all you have to do is ask the World!  Believe it or not, there is a reason that non-Christians regard the Church as being an institution of rules and regulations, where going to church and smiling are integral parts of the faith and those who sin (that is, don't go to church or smile) are shunned.  We have given them that view of our faith, and we deserve every bit of their scorn.  Our message, one of keeping a law that isn't exactly "keepable," is every bit as realistic (and laughable) as the command to jump over the moon, and yet we as Christians never once stop to think about the fact that we're either presenting the World with the wrong message, or presenting the right message wrongly.  Instead, we just attribute rejection from non-Christians to the hardening of their hearts, and contently take our shots of grape juice with the knowledge that the fate of the lost is not our responsibility.  'Cause we've done our part, after all. . .

I don't know if Ted Haggard did drugs or had a gay. . . uh, fling.  It really doesn't matter that much.  What matters is the attitude that we see revealed in the World when an Evangelical leader goes down in flames, and that will only matter if we will stop pretending that we're doing everything right in our preaching of the Gospel.  We must realize that the world's reaction to scandal in the church is not a result of the fact that we will be hated for Christ's sake, or assurance that we're on the right track, because let's face it: unless we're actually delivering the message that Christ gave us, one of inescapable sin, justified damnation and a free and undeserved deliverance, we're not really being hated for Christ's sake. . .

We're being hated because we're being stupid.   And that's not reassuring.

Dear Christians

This post was originally an e-mail I wrote to all the Christians I know.  I have since posted it in various places around the internet, and I thought I'd re-post it here as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Hi everybody...

What I'm about to write to you will most likely seem a bit out of character for me. I'm not cutting up in this message, and I'm not inviting people to go paintballing or see a movie; instead, I'm writing a letter that I want all Christians to read. I am not trying to single anyone out with this message, but I hope everyone who reads it will think about it, and consider forwarding it to other Christians if they feel it would be prudent.

I challenge you to read the whole thing. It will be long, but it is full of words that have been on my heart for well over a year. If you are my friend, and truly wish to know my heart, then please read it when you get the time. No need to read it all at once, either, just as it is convenient.

So, to begin...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Part 1

I view you all as my brothers and sisters in Christ our Lord, who was born of a virgin, crucified, and rose from the dead. We are all members of the Church; though many of us hold different doctrinal beliefs, we are all followers of Christ, and strangers in this world. We are all residents of Heaven, and it is our commission to make the most of our time in this place by spreading the Gospel of Christ, that others may come to Heaven as well.

Jesus Christ is our Savior; He died for your sins and mine, and for the sins of all the world.  So my question to you is why doesn't the world know this? Why is it that we can be confident that Heaven is our destination, while the world is drowning in their sin and misery? Does the church not see the suffering? Have we gone deaf to their cries? Why doesn't the world know and understand the salvation we were all so freely given?

I believe the answer to that  question lies in what the world does know. The world knows that we in the Church sin, and go through pain and suffering just like they do. The world also knows that, unlike them, we try to cover up, ignore, and explain away our sin, and sugarcoat all our suffering ('cause gettin' saved will make everything better, right?). The world knows, then, that we in the church are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, sitting in pews and singing hymns (or Praise and Worship songs) to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we just can't live up to the standards we face. The world sees us, in all our wretchedness, and laughs when we tell them to conform to the same standards we ourselves fail to meet.

They know what we expect. We expect them to abstain from premarital sex. We expect them to not have abortions. We expect the homosexuals to magically become heterosexual. We expect them to not curse. We expect them to not lie. We expect them to be good, something that we ourselves cannot do apart from Christ (and even when He makes us good, we will not always do good). Are these not the expectations we've communicated to the world? Through legislation and our blissfully ignorant personal actions, we've made it clear to the world that we believe we're better than them because we like to pretend we don't do bad things (and we expect them to do the same).

I write this letter to you all as a sinner, wretched and ignorant. I have sinned simply for the sake of sinning, and I exulted in it. I have lied, cursed, cheated, lusted, and lusted some more. I have been arrogant, spiteful, disrespectful, manipulative, crude, divisive, and everything else that my fallen nature can conceive. I have committed many of the sins that males often fall into, and even so, I rejoice in my undeserved forgiveness. I rejoice because the state and destination of my spirit, in spite of what I've done, is a testimony to God's infinite love and forgiveness.

That is what our sin is supposed to be... a testimony. This doesn't mean we have license to sin with abandon, and claim it's because Christ has forgiven us; rather, it means that we can show the world all that we've done, and they can take comfort in the fact that Christ forgave our sin, and can forgive theirs too. But how will the world know this if we don't own up to our own sin? It is not nearly as harmful to the body of Christ for a member to sin as it is for member to sin, and then deny that sin. That is what causes the world to perceive us as hypocrites, and it is absolutely indefensible.

So I would urge you all to remember your sin, so you will never forget the magnitude of Christ's blessing and its ability to help even the most unlovely of the world. Jesus Christ isn't just the savior of the Christians; as Reese Roper said, He's the "Savior of the prostitutes, drunkards, rapists and the gays."

-----------------------------------------------------------
Part 2

There is another issue facing the Church (of which we are all members) today, which I feel I should address. Romans 12:2 says this:

"Be not conformed to the patterns this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God."

The question that must be asked is this: What are the patterns of this world? The short answer would be, quite obviously, "sin," as we are all born into it as a result of Adam's fall. The longer answer would detail exactly what is sin and what isn't, but I'm afraid that discussion is beyond the scope of this e-mail. Suffice it to say, though, that if there is a morally questionable behavior that the world indulges in, it is our "reasonable service" to God to stay away from it.

It saddens me, then, that statistically, the church is no different from the world. People who profess Christ have the same worldview as non-Christians; they do the same things, listen to the same music, use the same language, think about the same things, and believe the same lies that the world does, and they don't give it a second thought. Now I ask you, is this being "transformed by the renewing of our minds," or is it "conforming to the patterns of this world?" Go ahead, answer for yourself...

Now, you may point to Part 1 of my message, if you are hoping to maintain some pattern of the world to which you've grown particularly attached, and say "But Jacob, you're contradicting yourself! You just said that we should be proud of our sin so that it will be a testimony for non-believers!" Of course, that is not true. To essentially repeat what I said earlier, we are to use our sin as proof of the infinite nature of God's forgiveness; however, this does not mean we are to seek further sin. That's just plain ungrateful.

There is another group of Christians who might also attack my message, saying "Jacob, you Pharisee! By emphasizing our need to do good works, you are becoming legalistic, and attempting to impress your legalism on us!" To this, I would simply reply that James told us that "Faith without works is dead." I would say, then, that if someone professes Christ, but continually conforms to the patterns of this world without trying to glorify God, the quality of their faith is dreadfully low. I can't make a judgment about their salvation-- that is God's work, not mine-- but I am not ashamed to say that they are doing a very poor job as a Christian. That's not legalism, that's common sense.

Now, in addition to the fact that God commands it, we have another reason to avoid conforming to the patterns of this world (which I'm sure God was thinking of when He inspired Paul to write Romans 12:2). That reason is this: The world is watching everything we do. It is said that "actions speak louder than words," and it is true. The world knows this (smart people, they are), and they are watching us; they hear us profess Christ, and they watch to see if our actions bear the fruit of our faith. Again I say, faith without works is dead, as James 2:17 tells us, and if our own faith doesn't incite us to act upon it, then why would the world want that faith?

So are we acting on our faith, or suppressing it? Is it bearing fruit in our lives, or is it sitting there idly while we indulge our flesh with the same things the world uses to fill the holes in their own naturally depraved lives? I believe each and every one of us should take it upon ourselves to examine our actions and see if what we do bears the fruit of our faith, or our flesh. What we do reflects what is inside of us, so we should ask ourselves hard questions.

Do our words reflect our faith or our flesh?

Does the music we listen to reflect our faith or our flesh?

Does our attitude reflect our faith or our flesh?

If we are to lead the world to Christ, as is our commission, then we must strive to make every aspect of our lives reflect our faith in the One who is inside of us. This means we should put away from ourselves things like strife, envy, lust, and other carnal things, and instead we should take the advice Paul gave the Philippians:

"Whatever is true, whatever is honest, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
-Philippians 4:8

So these are the things we should focus on