Monday, November 22, 2010

Choosing Herod's way or Jesus' Way

God made himself weak for one purpose: to let human beings choose freely for themselves what to do with him.
Philip Yancey

Another provocative quote from Yancey. This is only provocative because Christians do not typically follow this kind of thinking. For some reason, Christians have since Christianity's inception, believed that compulsion was the necessary method for bringing people to Christ. The method of compulsion has differed through the years, taking such forms as violence, argument, and today, providing a sense of shame and guilt for sin. If sin is prominent in an outsider, we refuse to talk with them and instead curse them and ridicule them and try to fix them. If they are an insider, we shun them and remove them from our circle of friends and kick them out of church. We refuse to associate with them until they have proven they have quit their sin.

Yancey in his book The Jesus I Never Knew, shows us a portrait of Jesus that is unrecognizable to most churches, yet is the most accurate portrayal of Jesus since the Bible was written. Maybe it is not that people have a misperception of who Jesus was/is, but instead choose to ignore him because his method seems weak (see Ivan's story in the Brothers Karamozov). Either way, we need to follow Jesus' technique. His method for bringing people to him was weak, but that is because that is the only way genuine relationship can develop, by putting the ball in the court of the person you want a relationship with. Jesus came and showed love to people of every class and character without discrimination. Yancey tells us, "In short, Jesus honored the dignity of people, whether he agreed with them or not. He would not found a kingdom on the basis of race or class or other such divisions. Anyone, even a half-breed with five husbands (the Samaritan woman from John 3) or a thief dying on a cross, was welcome to join his kingdom. The person was more important than any category or label" (Yancey, 245). Jesus loved all people. He did not come to people by force, but came to them to provide for their needs. He came to them to love them, and if they wanted to follow him, that was their choice, not his. Yet we come at people with shouts of "you sinner," "you faggot," "you baby killer." Can you imagine these words coming out of Jesus' mouth? Jesus never once labeled a person a sinner (other than religious leaders). Yet he was ready and willing to forgive people.

In discussing Jesus' temptations in the wilderness, Yancey explained that Jesus had the opportunity to compel people to follow him by strength. He had the option to obtain power by giving everyone bread, he had the opportunity to compel people by ruling over every kingdom, and he had the opportunity to compel people by an amazing feat. Jesus could have, three years later, chosen to call forth all of the angels to destroy the Roman empire; instead he chose to die on a cross. Jesus chose the weak way, and we have chosen the strong way. Jesus chose to bring love to people, we have chosen the way of power. Jesus chose to forgive, we have chosen to hate. In the words of Yancey, "Despite Jesus' plain example, many of his followers have been unable to resist choosing the way of Herod over that of Jesus" (Yancey, 246). Herod's way was to kill everybody who did not follow him. Jesus' way was to love and forgive everyone who did not follow him. It is not our responsibility to bring people to Christ. My call to Christians is to stop bearing the heavy burden that the salvation of humanity rests on you. Christians make for poor saviors. Jesus Christ makes for a perfect Savior. Let him do the work. Do the work that you were called to do, "love your neighbor as yourself," "love your enemy," etc... This is what we were called to do.
God bless.
-Brandon

Monday, November 15, 2010

Is the Christian God to be Feared?

"In Jesus, God found a way of relating to human beings that did not involve fear."
Philip Yancey

Yancey's statement is a beautiful sentiment that needs some explaining. Until Jesus walked the earth, the only perception of God that existed was that he was a fearful, angry being that one needed to appease in order not to be punished. One only needs to look at the ancient depictions of the Babylonian, Mesopotamian, or Egyptian gods to see there animalistic faces with sharp teeth and blood dripping from their mouths to understand what I mean. One reads the ancient mythologies and discovers that people were fearful of the gods, some of whom might be warring against them. Then we come to the Hebrew Scriptures and we read, “Thus says the Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel: Why do you commit this great evil against yourselves? . . . Why do you provoke Me to anger?” (Jer 44:7-8) (cited from blog entitled "My God is an Angry God"; an excellent blog showing God's depiction as angry in Hebrew poetry). We read other verses such as: "Even at Horeb you provoked the Lord to wrath, and the Lord was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you," (Deuteronomy 9:8), "Then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from off the good land that he has given to you" ( Joshua 23:16), "Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it" (Isaiah 13:9), and "While the food was still in their mouths, the anger of God rose against them, and he killed the strongest of them and laid low the young men of Israel" (Psalm 78:30-31) (cited from "An Angry God"). Prior to Jesus, God was seen as an angry and judgmental God. Essentially he had what they would call in the Public Relations department a "perception problem."

Then came Jesus. What is unique about Jesus (one of the many things) is that he came on the scene in a very unexpected way. He was born into a dirt poor family in a dirt poor environment. He was an illegitimate child living in a neighborhood where rumors swirled about who his "real father" was (We often read the account of the response Jesus got when he returned home as a positive response, which is ironic since the people nearly threw him off a cliff. Reread Matthew 13:54-56, but put a nasty tone into the people's mouths and you will really understand what they thought of Jesus' family life). Jesus was incarnated into the situation in which he was, so that he could relate to people in that same situation, and so he could approach people as God without them fearing Him. Philip Yancey gives us this wonderful illustration where he talks about how the fish in his aquarium react to him. He feeds them and makes sure their water stays clean. He is the sole reason they are alive, yet everytime he nears them, they react like he is about to murder everyone of them. This is how people have responded to God. We do not understand him, and so we have depicted him as this giant, nasty, evil, angry, wrathful, vengeful God. He finally decided it was time to become like one of us so that we would not run away at his approach. What was Adam's first response to God after the first sin, he hid because he was afraid. When Adam and Eve sinned, we no longer understood God's love and compassion. It was not until Jesus came along, gentle and loving, caring and compassionate, that we became free to approach God once again without fear.

So why do Christians still perpetuate this image of God being a God to fear. Being an angry, malicious, wrathful God? Why is it that so many people are so afraid to approach Christianity? We have forgotten what Jesus represents. We have misrepresented his teachings. Jesus came to say to everyone, "come unto me, for I love you and want to be with you." Many Christians perpetuate this message: "stop sinning or you'll go to hell." Jesus' emphasis was never on hell. He mentioned a place like hell occasionally, but it is my belief that on these occasions, Jesus was speaking about the religious leaders of his day that were going down to hades due to their oppression of the people. Hell was never intended as a motivation to turn to Jesus. Jesus' love and the lack of fear that he brings to those who come to him was all the incentive he needed. Yet, as Feuerbach said, "It is owing to the egoism, the vanity, the self complacency of Christians, that they can see the motes in the faith of non-Christian nations, but cannot perceive the beam in their own." Rev. Dr. Jerry states the problem eloquently in his blog "Hate-Mongering Among Professing Christians" when he says, "The ignorance and biases of the haters and hate-mongers who claim to speak for God, the Bible, and Christians hammer home God’s plea to each and every one of His children, 'O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.'" (Isaiah 3:12) We need to remember that Jesus was not a representative of fear against those perceived as sinners. Jesus was a representative of love and kindness and acceptance for those perceived as sinners. To read how Christians are perceived by non-Christians, to read how people view Christianity and "sin" as incompatible, read the blog: Not all Christians are to blame, but Christianity is. It is a shame that Christianity is perceived as incompatible with those we were intended to bring love and acceptance to. Let us work together to change that perception.
God bless,
-Brandon

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

A Call to Christian Leaders

I have spent much of this afternoon reading through various blog posts about the recent gay suicides that just occurred. There is much consensus that church leaders need to do something to help stop the hurtful bullying that is directed toward homosexuals. Some of the blogs (e.g. Religious Gays tell Teens, "It Gets Better") explain how some church leaders are doing their part in speaking words of encouragement to the gay community. I have discussed in many of my past blogs how Christians are at least partly (I would say much) to blame for the anti-gay attitude that is prominent in the world today. This has much to do with explicit anti-gay treatment of church leaders (which I define loosely enough to include anyone who represents the Church and knows better than to act in such judgmental ways). One of my readers explained to me how 2 of her women co-workers consistently tell a lesbian coworker that she is going to hell. One of the things I am going to continue to explore in this blog and am writing about in my book is where this behavior and attitude came from. What is important for this post is that the only people Jesus ever said were going to go to hell were the religious leaders of his day who were treating people the way those 2 women are treating their lesbian co-worker. The religious leaders of Jesus' day were constantly going around and judging people for their sinful behavior. Jesus purposed to put to a stop to that, saying things like, "do not judge lest you want to be judged," "do not attempt to take the splinter out of your brother's eye before you have first taken the log out of your own eye," and why he told the parable of the good Samaritan. The parable was intended to show that we are to love all people, regardless of whether we agree with their beliefs (The Jews and the Samaritans were notorious enemies because of opposing religious beliefs). Jesus was saying that it does not matter if the person laying on the ground is someone whom you disagree with; you pick him up, you place him on your horse, and you get him help, meeting his need. In this parable, Jesus is speaking to a crowd of Jews who hate Samaritans. By making the hated Samaritan the hero of the story, Jesus is saying that the Samaritan is more worthy of the love of God than the priest and the Levite in the story. Place today's Church leaders in the story as the Levite and the priest and place a gay man in the story as the Samaritan, and we can understand the story as it relates to us today. (Who says the bible is not relevant anymore). Dr. Janet Edwards talks about the Good Samaritan parable in her blog Gay Teen Suicides: People of Faith, Step up for our Youth. In it she rightly calls many of today's church leaders the priest and Levite from the parable that step around and avoid the man laying on the road. And I think this is the other problem.

The first problem is Church leaders speaking out explicitly against homosexuals. The second problem is that the Church leaders who are for showing love and compassion to the glbt (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) community are complicit because they avoid the issue and remain silent. They do not speak out against the gay lifestyle, but they do nothing to speak out against the anti-gay rhetoric of the church. Many Church leaders choose to remain silent because they do not want to offend anyone in their church. But by remaining silent, they are offending the glbt community and remain accomplices in the offenses of the Church leaders who speak out loudly against the gay population. Whenever I see a situation in which people are afraid to speak out against an issue, I think how between President Andrew Jackson and President Abraham Lincoln, there was not a single two term president. Andrew Jackson served from 1829 to 1837 and there were eight single term presidents until Lincoln was elected in 1860 and elected again for a second term in 1860. The reason no president won a second term between these two presidents was because not one of them had the courage to stand up against slavery. It was not until Abraham Lincoln came onto the scene that someone spoke out boldly against slavery. We need church leaders to be bold today and to stand up with a loud voice and decry the bullying that is being directed at the gay community. We need church leaders today who have the character and integrity to stand up for what is right and preach the gospel of love for our neighbor that Jesus preached, which means preaching love to all people, regardless of beliefs, background or sexual orientation. Church leaders need to do what Rabbi Jason Miller writes about in his blog and Preach Tolerance, Compassion Toward LGBT Community.

Here is my call to Church leaders around the country; I'm asking you to do 3 things. Stand up as representatives of the church and apologize on behalf of the Church for failing the gay community and being complicit in the bullying of the GBLT community that led to the suicides a month ago and to countless other suicides. Bishop Gene Robinson, in his blog How Religion is Killing our Most Vulnerable Youth, says in an extremely powerful way, These bullying behaviors would not exist without the undergirding and the patina of respect provided by religious fervor against LGBT people. It's time for "tolerant" religious people to acknowledge the straight line between the official anti-gay theologies of their denominations and the deaths of these young people. Secondly, reach out to the gay community and invite them into your churches, allowing them to be a part of your church community; giving them an environment of love and care that will foster much needed healing in their lives. Finally, as much as you can, educate the your churches and the public about the fact that Jesus never preached a message of hate or intolerance towards sinner, but that he never showed anything less than the greatest love for all people, regardless of whether they followed the letter of the law or not. As a matter of fact, the people Jesus showed the most love towards were the greatest sinners in the community. He ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, those considered the most unholy by the religious leaders. So as one Church leader to others, I am calling to you, come forward and do these three things. It will make for a more Christ-centered nation.
God bless,
Brandon

For further resources, go to the following blog which I was not able to cite in the post: Christians and Bullying: Standing with Gays and Lesbians and The Christian Call to Civility.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Christians: Take Responsibility So You can be the Cure

It is the greatest feeling to finish another chapter, and I just finished the fifth chapter in my book, discussing how Christians today should interact with contemporary outsiders. One area where our interactions have fallen short of the desire of Christ, is in our interactions with the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender crowd. Ask anyone on the street what the Christian perspective on homosexuality is, and they will say Christians view homosexuals as sinners who are going to hell. This comes from the outspokenness of Christians about gays being responsible for all of the tragedy's that have taken place in the last ten or more years. 9/11 was blamed on the gay population, Katrina was blamed, the death of American soldiers over seas is blamed for the homosexuality in America. Christians have a bad reputation when it comes to how we interact with the gay population.

Jim Daly has a wonderful article entitled "My Take: Christianity not to Blame for Anti-Gay Bullying" in which he says that Christianity is the cure for this type of anti-gay treatment of homosexuals. He is referring to the recent suicides of some gay teenagers that made the news last month. I agree with Jim that Christianity, as it was meant to be, is the cure. But I highly disagree (can one mildly disagree I wonder) with him that Christianity is not to blame. I think the biggest problem is that the Church is not standing up and taking responsibility for itself. The blaming of homosexuals for the recent disasters in our country was done by prominent church leaders, not merely nominalist Christians. If Christians cannot stand up and take at least some of the blame for the anti-gay treatment, taking responsibility for its part, it will never be able to take the position as the cure for the accepting of gays and lesbians. When Christian leaders can stand up and say, "we are sorry for preaching hatred and judgment against homosexuals, and we ask for your forgiveness so we can begin the healing process," Christians can then begin to be the cure by exemplifying Christ Jesus in showing long deserved love and compassion to the gay and lesbian, the bisexual and transgender population of the United States. This is what Rev. Mark Tidd, Sr. Pastor of the Highlands Church in Denver, Colorado did. You can read about his remarkable transformation in a blog entitled Evangelical Changes His Views on Homosexuality and Church Grows as a Result. This pastor was deeply effected when he experienced first hand the love God had for a family with a gay child in his congregation. He changed his views and his church grew from 80 to 300. That is a stamp of approval from God on this pastor and his change of belief if I ever saw one. Remember, God loves and embraces all of humankind, whether it be straight or gay, black or white; He accepts all who desire to enter into His kingdom.
God bless.
-Brandon

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Christians: Voting without Judging

It has been nearly a week since my last post and I left you all with a difficult question to ponder: "How can I reconcile my voting record with my faith and my treatment of others?" In other words, if I think homosexuality is a sin, would it not be wrong for me to vote to allow gay marriage at the polls. But if I vote to ban gay marriage, how can I look my gay friend in the face again? How can I treat him or her with compassion when it seems I have voted in such a judgmental way? I think the answer is simpler than it might first appear. I want to look at 3 things mentioned in another blog I came across by Tom Davis called Where do I vote? Election Day 2010:

The first thing to understand is that as a Christian one of our responsibilities is to vote according to our heart. If you do not feel right voting against gay marriage, then do not vote against it. If you do not feel right voting for gay marriage, do not vote for it. No one can judge you for voting according to what feels right to you. That does not mean that if it is a difficult issue, that you should not wrestle with it. Wrestling with difficult issues just shows how much you really want to do the right thing. But ultimately a country's laws are guided by its individual's personal beliefs and values which are largely shaped by their religious beliefs (see: Jim Daly's Voting an American right, a Christian responsibility)

The second thing is that you should pray about how you should vote. As a Christian we are not led purely by rational thinking (which is finite) or by our feelings (which can be faulty), but by God. Let the Spirit guide you in the right direction as far as your vote goes.

Finally, whatever the results of the election, know that God is in charge and that regardless of whether you won or lost, God is still watching over our country and ultimately will guide in the right direction.

The other issue is how can you remain non-judgmental when your vote seems judgmental. Forgive me for quoting this oft too used cliche, but it is true, "Love the sinner, not the sin." You can be loving toward homosexuals, you can be loving toward pro-choicers without giving up your beliefs. In this blog, we are talking about how we treat these individuals regardless of whether or not we think their behavior is a sin. What too often has happened is that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and end up treating the homosexual like the spawn of satan; we want nothing to do with them. Jesus taught that regardless of the wrongfulness or rightfulness of a person's behavior, they should be treated with love and compassion. So do not be afraid to vote according to what your heart is telling you. But we should be cognizant of our behavior towards individuals we perceive as sinful and make sure we are not treating them judgmentally or with any sort of condemnation.
God bless.
-Brandon

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Toward a Christianity of Common Sense


The problem is that this passage is continuously taken out of context to condemn homosexuality as if it is an unforgivable sin. In Paul's letters you have to to see each chapter as a premise working it's way up to a conclusion. Paul, in Romans, is speaking directly to the Jewish Christians in the Roman church who feel superior to the Gentile Christians because they feel they are pure because they have obeyed the law while the Gentile Christians are impure because they have disobeyed the law. In Romans 1 Paul is appealing to this Jewish outlook to set them up for Chapter 2. Paul is trying to put the Jews into their judgmental mindset against the Gentiles to say in Chapter 2:1 "therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." Paul is trying to point out to the Jews that just because they don't do some sins doesn't mean they're on a superior level. The fact that they judge means they are as condemned as the Gentiles. Chapters 1 and 2 of Romans reflects a Pre-Jesus situation where all are condemned. Paul is working to the conclusion that "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Jesus"(8:1). This means that homosexuality, and all sin, is no longer condemned for those who are in Jesus. Visit my blog at whatjesusd­iddo.blogs­pot.com
About Christianity
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Friday, October 29, 2010

Christianity and Culture

As I have been working through my research and writing my book and these blogs, one question has been eating at me: "How can we treat all people with love, and still be responsible citizens and advocate for the right laws?" In other words, how can we be non-judgmental and loving toward someone who has had, or is contemplating having an abortion, and still vote for anti-abortion laws? Or, how can we be loving and compassionate toward gays and lesbians, and yet still deny them the right to marry? I think these are very challenging questions that have to be answered in order for us not be internally divided. As whole and complete human beings it is important for our health and well being, not to allow us to become internally divided, thinking one thing while doing another, or doing one thing in one situation while doing a completely different thing in another situation. And the questions needs to be asked, "can I treat gays and lesbians, women who have had abortions, and others with compassion and love, while voting for anti-gay and anti-abortion laws?"

Think about it this way: If you have a friend or an acquaintance who is either gay or has had an abortion, and they have just received judgment and harsh words from someone and need consoling, and you are that person who is giving them extra love and allowing them to vent and cry, how would you respond if they ask you if you think gay marriage or abortion should be legalized, or if God is going to judge them for their behavior? How can you show them the love they need, and answer their question honestly? It will be important for you and me to sort these problems out if we are going to be the salt of the earth and the light on a hill for these people.

What I would like to do before I give my thoughts on this is to hear from you the reader. I think this is an excellent topic for a discussion among us and so I would like very much to hear what you have to say on this topic. I'm sure some of you that read this believe that you can show love and compassion while voting in an anti-gay/anti-abortion way. Some of you think this is impossible and the two cannot be reconciled; you either have to be judgmental toward gays while continuing to vote anti-gay, or show love to them and vote pro-gay. Whatever your view, please give your reasoning in argument form. Please post your comments below and look for a followup post in the coming days where I will give you my thoughts on how to respond to this difficult issue.
God bless.
-Brandon

Repentance of an Anti-Gay Bigot


Thank you, Mark, for this excellent post that gives people like me hope that Christians can change for the better. You bring out an important point which is that, once a relationship is built with a gay, lesbian, or transgender person, it becomes impossible to judge them. It is because of our distance from them that many Christians so easily bring judgment on these people. We look at Jesus in Scripture and realize that his task was to build relationships. That is, therefore, our task in making disciples of all nations. Instead of treating Matthew 28:19-20 as an injunction to go out and judge all people, we should look at this passage for what it is: a request to go out and develop relationships with people, bringing them the love of Christ. That is what those gay friends of yours did with you, and their love for you transformed you into a more Christ-like person. For those of your desiring to make a change like Mark did, follow my blog at http://wha­tjesusdidd­o.blogspot­.com and see how you can change the way you interact with others, responding in the way Jesus really did.

God bless.

-Brandon
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Being Compassionate without Ulterior Motives

What I love most about the way Jesus responded to those who were not students of his (see my previous blog post) was that he showed them the greatest compassion without any ulterior motives. Think about how many Christians respond to outsiders today. We view them as a body, a number to be gained for the church. Our desire is to convert them. This was the big thing on my college campus. Out on the square, I would see Christians each day going up to people and asking, "are you a Christian?" This is the first thing they would say to them. No "hello," no introduction, just "are you a Christian?" If the answer was "no" the evangelizer would start going into a speech about how they need to become a Christian because of their sins. I see the same thing from time to time when I am out and about. Going into Starbucks the patron may ask the barista "Are you a Christian?" Sitting in Barnes and Noble, two people sitting next to each other may strike up a conversation. Not too far into it one asks the other "Are you a Christian?" I think I mentioned in a past blog that I was reading a book by a psychologist who had a woman in his office crying about some distress. This was her visit, and the very first question the psychologist asked the woman was, "Are you a Christian?"

Since when did conversion become the task of Christianity. Matthew 28:19-20 does not say "go and make converts of all men," it says, "go and make disciples." A disciple is literally a student, someone who spends time learning from you. Yet we act like we are to convince a person of the truth of Jesus and once that is accomplished we can walk away and leave the convert to find a church of their own. (Or if we are lucky, convince them to go to our church). I liked Jesus' method of making disciples. He did not ask them first time around, "do you believe in me." How could they? He did not yet have a relationship with them. And that is the key. Jesus spent time with people. He cared about them and showed them how much he cared. He would spend time with people without asking about their background, without finding out about their religious affiliation. The Centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant and Jesus was willing to go immediately to his home. Jesus spent time with people and did not have any pretense. The greatest part is that Jesus did not try to convince people to follow him. From time to time he would ask them to follow him, in special cases, like with the twelve. But mostly, people followed him without him needing to do a thing but care. If people chose not to follow Jesus after Jesus spent time with him, he was fine with that and never pushed the issue. If people wanted to follow, he was fine with that. (There is the rare exception where Jesus asked a person not to follow, but this was always because that person had a greater purpose where they were at).

In our interactions with outsiders today, we need to possess the attitude of Jesus, caring about people and developing relationships with them. We needn't bring up the issue of religion with people until it seems right, appropriate in the context of conversation and relationship. After all, we do not know what kind of attitude a person has toward Christianity until we have developed a relationship with them. If we open up with, "Are you a Christian," we might get a fist in our face and lose the person for good. But if we develop a good, trusting relationship with them, then we can bring up the subject of Christ in a safe and secure environment where they can explain their anger and hurt toward Christianity in a relationship where they know they won't be judged and where maybe some mutually understanding can arise. This is true discipleship and what Jesus desired when he asked us to make disciples of all nations in Matthew 28.
God bless.
-Brandon

Friday, October 22, 2010

Gay Teen Suicides, Bullying and Christianity: A Talk with the Trevor Project Director


Thank you very much for this post John. It is unfortunate that Christians have responded, not only to those who differ in their sexual orientation, but anyone they perceive as sinful, with such hostility and disdain. We have forgotten that we are all sinners and we all fall short of the glory of God. It does not even matter if homosexuality is a sin or not. If it is a sin, we need to remember that God forgives all sin. If it is not, then Christians are just acting unbiblically. And look at what this condemnatory behavior is driving gays and lesbians to do; end their own life. Can anyone imagine Jesus doing anything that would drive someone to end their own life. Jesus accepted everyone for who they were without questioning their background or sexual orientation or religious beliefs. He showed love to all people regardless of who they were (aside from the religious leaders of his day who were just as bad as the religious leaders of our day). This is the exact thing I am looking to correct in my upcoming book, and my blog: whatjesusd­iddo.blogs­pot.com

God bless.

-Brandon
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jesus Shows Compassion to Outsiders

Good day to everyone out there in cyber world. I hope you are having a good day. I have been really looking forward to today's post as much of what I say hear on out hinges on today's topic. Yesterday we learned who the outsider's were (I did not go into as much detail as I could have because of the nature of the blogosphere. I will let everyone know when my book comes out. In it I explore in much more detail who the outsiders were and why that is important for us today). Now that we know to look for Jewish, Gentile, and Samaritan outsiders in Scripture, let us see how Jesus actually responds to the outsiders in Scripture.

Let's look first at Matthew 8:5-13, the story of the Centurion who had great faith (Yesterday I said we would look at Luke's version in chapter 7, but I decided this version would be more fun). I will not write out the whole story hear, but in it Jesus is walking with his disciples in Capernaum when a Centurion comes up to Jesus and request that Jesus heal his servant who is extremely sick and dying. Jesus, without hesitation, offers to come to the man's home and heal the servant. The Centurion, however, feels shamed and tells Jesus that he is not worthy to have the Lord come under his roof. So Jesus, again without hesitation, heals the servant then and there. What is remarkable about this story is that Jesus does not question the Centurion one bit about the sins in his life or his background or religion. Jesus does not say "do you believe in me" or "have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior." Jesus, without the slightest questioning or concern for how this man lead his life, responds to the request and heals his servant. (I am reminded of a book a read by two Christian psychologists who explained that when a patient comes in and is experiencing a great deal of distress, the first question they ask is "are you a Christian?" That is not the most compassionate or caring way to work with someone having emotional issues). It is important to understand that the Centurion was likely a Zoroastrian which many of the Roman soldiers were (if not a stoic) who believed in dualism (two gods of equal power, one good and one evil) and was not even close to being Jewish. Jesus had no concern for that; the fulfillment of the request came immediately after the request, no questions asked. It was this non-Jew, this man who was apparently such a sinner that he was ashamed to have Jesus under his roof, that we are told has greater faith than anyone Jesus has seen in Israel. Imagine Jesus today saying about a non-Christian, "I have not seen greater faith than this man's in all of America."

The Next story takes place in Luke 7:11-17 and is the story of the widow of Nain's son raised from the dead. As the story goes, Jesus and his disciples were journeying toward the city of Nain where a funeral procession was coming from, having a dead boy/man (the story does not indicate the age) with a grieving mother at his side. We are told in v 13 that as soon as he saw her he had compassion on her. Immediately he healed the son. Again we have a situation where Jesus saw a person in great need, in great distress, and had no concern for her background, nor did he question her at all. He simply, having compassion on her, healed the son. He did not question what religion she was or what sins she has committed. Jesus did not ask her to confess her sins first. He simply saw a need and immediately met it.

The first story was of a Gentile outsider (we know this because he was a Centurion), the second was a Jew (we know this because the funeral rituals resembled that of a Jewish funeral), so let us now look at a Samaritan outsider in Luke 17:11-19. In this story Jesus is approached by 10 men who have leprosy and when they see Jesus approach, they shout out to him, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!" Immediately Jesus shouted to them to "Go and show yourselves to the priests." Immediately these men were healed. What is striking about this story is that only one came back to thank Jesus, and this we are told was a Samaritan (v 16). What is even more striking is that the other nine were Jews, indicated by the fact that Jesus singled this man out as a "foreigner" against all the rest (v 18). The Jews did not return to glorify Jesus, but the Samaritan did. Again we have a story where Jesus did not question the background or the religion, or the sinfulness of the lepers, but was made aware of a need, and immediately met the need.

This just goes to show the compassion with which Jesus treated people. When there was a person hurting and someone in need, Jesus did not hesitate to help that person out, to meet the need where the person was at. He did not ask anything of them. He did not give them any requirement they had to follow. He did not request their conversion or devotion. He simply met the need with compassion and went his way. Sometimes the outsider followed him and became a disciples, sometimes he/she did not. But it did not matter to Jesus. His concern was to show them love and compassion regardless of what they had done in their life or what they believed or what their nationality was; and we see this time and again in Scripture without exception. Is this the example we have been following? Is this the example the church has been following? In my next blog I will look at who today's outsiders are.
God bless.
-Brandon

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Unbelievers in the Bible

I am back today and would like to discuss outsiders. Now, before I get any backlash about that term, it is not meant as derogatory whatsoever. It is simply a term denoting the position of a group or groups of people. When I talk about outsiders, I am simply talking about those people who were not followers of Jesus. Everyone of Jesus' followers was an outsider before becoming an insider (a follower of Jesus). So who were the outsiders in the bible. They fall into three separate groups.

First, there were Gentile outsiders. These were people who were not of the Jewish faith. Jesus did not encounter many Gentiles during his ministry, mainly because there were not nearly as many Gentiles in Palestine during Jesus' lifetime as there were Jews. Jesus came into contact with the Gentiles in one of two ways. They either came to him while he was in Jew territory, such as when the Centurion came to Jesus to ask him to heal his servant (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10), or he went to a pocket of Gentile territory and encountered them there; such as when he went with some of his disciples to Gerasa/Gadara and ran into the man with a legion of demons (Matt 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-40).

Secondly, Jesus ran into Samaritan outsiders. We see this in John 4:5-38 where Jesus encounters the Samaritan woman at the well. What is so remarkable about Jesus' encounters with the Samaritans is that the Jews and the Samaritans were essentially at war with each other. There was no military fighting going on, but each claimed to be the right religious heirs to the kingdom of God. The Samaritans claimed to be the lost northern kingdom that had been captured by the Assyrians in the 7th century B.C. and had never been seen again. The Jews claimed that was a lie. So the two groups hated each other. Jesus only runs into this group when going through the land of Samaria which is between Jerusalem and Galilee.

The third kind of outsider would be the obvious Jewish outsider. Being in the land of the Jews, Jesus encountered many Jews who were not yet (some did not become) followers of his. If the person Jesus encounters is not specifically called a Samaritan, or somehow identified (by region or occupation) as a Gentile, then it is safe to assume that they are a Jew.

Jesus' encounters with all of these outsiders is remarkable, and as I will discuss in the next series of blogs, the traditional Christian way of communicating to and with outsiders completely counters the way Jesus communicated with them in Scripture. We will see that where Jesus welcomes and accepts, we often exclude and reject. In the next post I will be discussing Luke 7:1-10; 7:11-17; and 17:11-19 if you want to read ahead.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Interacting with Contemporary Church Leaders

I have another chapter finished. I guess I should say, "I have a another first draft finished." I have already done 3 drafts on two other chapters and a second draft on a third. It may be awhile before these chapters are technically "finished," as the editing process can take a very long time. After all, the book needs to look good for a publisher to want it. So I will go through the proper steps. But I feel good about finishing this draft, mainly because when I began the chapter (as with every chapter) it does not look like it will be finished for quite some time. It can feel like it will take months or years. It always comes as a bit of surprise to me when I finish a chapter, like I was not expecting to finish it. But this is the process of writing.

Now, about interacting with contemporary religious leaders, we need to remember that unlike Jesus' time, the church today allows for a wider circle of leaders. Anyone placed in a position where there are leading at least one person, acting as a representative of the body of Christ, is considered to be a leader. In most cases this means they receive the proper training and education to lead in the role they are given. And most of the leaders in the church I think are doing a fair job and do not behave in an unbiblical way. But many leaders in the church today, have entered into behavior that reflects that of the religious leader of Jesus' day. Being in a position to know they place impossible burdens on people, asking the gay man to change his ways before allowing him into the body of Christ, or asking an elderly woman with little money to provide an offering that she cannot afford, or excluding a woman from the group because she has had an abortion (something she cannot undo now). The Church leaders manipulate scripture to bring judgment on people, as I discussed in the post below. Others exclude people, rather than include them in their small group, bible study, prayer group, etc. because they have a purple mohawk, or are living with their boyfriend, etc. But remember, Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, he had adulterers as disciples, because his mission was to include, not exclude. So many of these people in church leadership positions, act counter to the biblical message with regard to people they see as "sinners." So, using Jesus as our guide, how do we interact with these leaders today.

One thing to understand is that, even though Jesus is our guide, he is God and so he does hold a special authority that we do not have. It is because of Jesus' authority that he could speak to the religious leaders so harshly and heap judgment upon them. We read in Mark 1:22 that the people Jesus was teaching in the synagogue "were astounded at [Jesus'] teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Now remember, the Scribes were the authority on Scripture when Jesus was around. But Jesus' authority was so great, that he made the Scribes look like they had no authority at all. It was because of Jesus' status as God that he could speak so harshly to them. And yet, biblically speaking, when we are confronted with a church leader who is in the wrong, we are given a duty to respond to them.

As Jesus spoke to them boldly, we are to be bold; the difference is that we are required to be respectful. The biblical precedent for this is Romans 13, among other passages, which teach us to be respectful to all authority. They are in a leadership role, and because of this our respect is due. The problem in the past is that we have given too much respect to the leaders in our church, placing them on a pedestal above us. We have forgotten that there is really no difference between the pastor and us, or other church leaders and us. We respect them and make them inerrant, trusting everything they say because of their position. But there is no difference between church leaders and us. Respect is due to them because of their leadership role, but they are not to be seen as omniscient and perfect. It is because of this that people are so often shocked when a pastor does fail in some way. The higher up on a pedestal you place a church leader, the harder they will fall when they sin. But we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, even church leaders. Leora is right, in a comment below, to point this out and say that grace is due even to church leaders. That is why the principle I discuss below is important in confronting church leaders who have acted like Pharisees.

First I want to direct the reader to Acts 4:1-22 and Acts 5:17-42. This is a great example of how the disciples responded to the wrongs of the Church leaders. In both cases Peter and John were brought before the religious counsel because they were teaching that Jesus was the promised Messiah. In each case Peter showed nothing but respect and stated only the facts concerning what they had experienced as Jesus' disciples. In Acts 5 when Peter is told to stop teaching about Jesus, he responds by respecting their authority when he says, "we will let you judge whether we are right or wrong," and then he proceeds to answer boldly and directly by saying, "we know what we saw with Jesus and we cannot in good conscious stop teaching about him." They were direct, they were bold in answering them, but they remained respectful of who they were speaking to.

The principle to follow in speaking to today's religious leaders is an old one but a good one, it comes from Matthew 18:15-20 which reads:

[15] “If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. [16] But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. [18] Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. [19] Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. [20] For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

This is a simple 4 step process. First you go directly to the leader, alone, to address the wrong with him or her. This prevents embarrassment, It avoids the sense that the leader is being ganged up on. It is the gentlest way of handling the situation. If he or she listens and apologizes to the person wronged, and corrects the situation, great. If not, you go to step two and bring one or two people with you to corroborate the fact that you are not simply advocating your opinion that they really are in the wrong. If this doesn't work, you get the church involved. This might bring about a little more embarrassment, but it still allows for the reconciling of this person and allows him or her to maintain their leadership role. If the person is still stubborn and refuses to accept correction, the person must be dismissed from their position for the health of the people of the church. This is the best way to approach a leader who has taken the wrong path, allowing for respect, but facilitating boldness and directness. Below is an excerpt from my latest chapter where I give an example of how this might look in practice.

"As a quick example, imagine a member of your small group admits to being gay. Upon hearing this the leader of the small group exclaims, “in order to remain in our group, in the church, and in God’s good graces, you need to renounce being gay, ask God and the church members for forgiveness, and refrain from engaging in homosexual behavior from this point on!” Besides not following the Matthew 18 principle, this leader has greatly embarrassed this man who, in spite of his fear, just confessed in front of everyone that he is gay. He got exactly the reaction he was afraid of receiving, judgment and condemnation. In order to correct this wrong, you first go talk to the man who has just confessed to being gay, and show him God’s grace through acceptance and love, and you tell him not to worry about what the leader has just said, that the Bible promises that those who accept Jesus as their savior are put right in God’s eyes. You then approach the leader, after you have brought comfort to the injured man, and in private you tell him that whether homosexuality is a sin or not, that is no way to talk to a fellow believer of Christ, and that Jesus would not have responded to a confession like that in the way he had. You tell the leader that we are all sinners and need God’s love and acceptance to help us overcome sin in our lives and that if homosexuality is a sin, it is unreasonable to ask this man to quit it before he is allowed back into the body of believers. If he listens and apologizes to the hurt man, then your job has been accomplished. If not, you follow the chain of command as it is presented in Matthew 18, eventually dismissing the leader if it is necessary."

God Bless
-Brandon

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Jesus and the Religious Leaders in the Bible

In the past few posts I have been focused on contemporary church leaders and their interactions with certain groups of people. I will be discussing in future posts how we should be interacting with contemporary church leaders; but Jesus is our example and we therefore need to look at how Jesus interacted with religious leaders of his day. So let us do this in the next few days, and then we can proceed to look at how we should interact with our church leaders based off of how Jesus did with his.

In Scripture, there are three kinds of church leaders Jesus interacted with: Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees. So when you are reading scripture and you read that one of these groups is being addressed by Jesus, you need to know that Jesus' harshness in his response is because he is talking to these religious leaders. The Pharisees were a group that had expanded on the Torah (the original law of Judaism and the first five books of the bible). Starting in the 6th century B.C. the scribes had begun writing commentaries about the Torah which became a text known as the Mishna. Many of the laws that developed in Judiasm are from the Mishna, NOT the Torah. This means that much of the law is based off of human interpretation and not the law itself. We see this in Mark 7:1-23 where the Pharisees scold Jesus' disciples for not washing their hands prior to eating. There is no such prohibition in the Torah, but in the Mishna we find a very detailed list of how to properly cleanse your hands before eating, or sleeping, or doing any activity. The Pharisees were scolding the disciples, therefore, not because of an actual law in Scripture, but because of their made up version of the law. We see this often in the Bible. The Pharisees were known for patrolling communities in search of people who were violating their law. That is why we often find Jesus and his disciples walking through town, and being sought out by the Pharisees for some offense.

The scribes, though a separate group, are often linked with the Pharisees. The Pharisees and the scribes were the more educated of the religious leaders.

The Sadducees were a group in opposition with the Pharisees, though they teamed up with the Pharisees against Jesus. They were associated with Temple worship, being in charge of the sacrificial system in Judaism. Therefore, since they were always at the Temple in Jerusalem, we rarely see them confronting Jesus. But the few times they are in Scripture, they do question Jesus' authority, and Jesus calls them on it. They are not as educated as the scribes and Pharisees, but still have some level of education, and receive their position through heredity. They are known for linking themselves with the Roman occupation, giving much of their money to the Roman authorities, in exchange for a leadership position within the government, over the Jews. Needless to say, they were the corrupt politicians of their day.

All of these groups were bringing oppression on the common people and acted in opposition to God's desire to bring the people into relationship with him. The Pharisees excluded people by making them follow laws that were not part of the actual law. They were placing impossible burdens on people. They would not associate with the people who needed God's help the most, like the prostitutes and tax collectors. This is the meaning of Matthew 9:9-13. Jesus is eating with sinners and the Pharisees criticize Jesus for it, the Pharisees having no association with them because they were unclean according to their laws. Jesus, however, would associate with them because they were the ones who needed God the most. And later on in Matthew 21:31 Jesus tells them that the prostitutes and the tax collectors would enter heaven before them, because they believed Jesus message while the religious leaders neglected it. The Pharisees were also twisting Scripture in with the Mishna, which excluded people from the Kingdom of God, when God desired to include people. For all of these reasons, and because the religious leaders with their education were in a position to know better than behave in the way they were behaving, Jesus treated them with harshness.

It is because of the corrupt behavior of the leaders described above that Jesus speaks to them so boldly and harshly and as he does in Matthew 23. It is the Pharisees and Scribes that Jesus calls "hypocrites" and "blind guides" because of their distortion of Scripture and oppression of certain groups of Jews. It is this kind of response that we often see Christians make towards gays and lesbians, towards those who have had abortions, and towards those who have tattoos, drink, or smoke. But to those in Scripture, as we shall see in upcoming posts, who parallel these groups today, Jesus only treated with love, kindness and acceptance. Jesus' interactions with these leaders in Scripture should guide our interactions with the leaders of today, and this will be the topic of my next post.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Manipulating Scripture

Today was one of those days the my writing seemed to flow. As I wrote it just seemed that I knew exactly where I wanted to go with my writing. The problem with this is that that is when I make my most grammatical errors, and those are usually the areas where I need to include more support. So I am sure I will be editing those pages I wrote today, quite a bit.

I wrote last time about how one of the ways Church leaders can be corrupt today is by placing unbearable burdens on people, creating standards they could not possibly live up to. Today I wrote about how Church leaders manipulate scripture, causing people to feel alienated. The best example I can think of for the moment is Romans 1 which leaders time and time again point to, to condemn homosexuals as sinners. The passage explicitly says men are not to lay with men, and women are not to lay with women. The leaders then proceed to condemn gay men and women to hellfire. The problem is that that passage is taken totally out of context. That passage is describing all of human kind and describes sins that everybody has been partakers in. Yet for some reason Church leaders single out the "sin" of homosexuality and neglect everything else in the passage. If they did their studying, these leaders would know that this passage is discussing the whole need for Jesus Christ to reconcile human kind to God and is a description of every single human being. This passage is not describing what behavior one needs to rid themselves of before becoming a Christian. It is a list of behavior written to show everyone why they need to turn to Christ. I do know that Scripture tells us to remove the log from our eye before pointing at the splinter in our neighbor's eye. The twist to this is that the removal of the log in our eye is a lifelong thing. Therefore, we should never be pointing out the splinter in our neighbor's eye.

I hope that before believing passively what your Pastor or other Church leader tells you, you do some digging of your own to see if the passage he or she is quoting from was taken out of context or not. You never know when you have the opportunity to correct one of their errors.
God Bless.
-Brandon

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Gay Christians

I'm having a difficult time writing today. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, I am still writing about contemporary church leaders and how some act out of Christian character. This is kind of a negative topic and whenever someone writes about negative things, it can be draining. The second reason is that I don't think the idea I am advocating in today's topic is a popular idea. This means I have spend extra time finding support for my argument. This too can be draining.

What I was writing about in the chapter today was how Christian leaders, much like the religious leaders of Jesus' time, sometimes place impossible burdens on people today. Basically, a lot of leaders consider themselves Christian police officers that have to make sure people are free of sin in their lives. The problem with this is that no is free from sin. We read in Romans 3:23 that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We also read that there is only one unforgivable sin, and that is rejecting the Holy Spirit. Yet for some reason, a lot of Christian leaders (and Christians in general) treat homosexuality like it is the unforgivable sin. Certain Christian leaders (which will not be named) called 9/11 and Katrina punishments from God for the gay population in America. How do we know it wasn't from the sins of those pastors who made those statements? The God I have read about in the bible is a God of mercy and grace and would not commit such a terrible punishment. There are in fact al of gay Christians. And if being gay is a sin, it is not any worse than any sin I have committed or anyone else has committed. If a homosexual loves Jesus and attempts to follow him on a daily basis, who am I to say that he or she is not forgiven.

By placing an impossible burden on gay men and women, the burden of becoming someone they genetically cannot be, Christian leaders are excluding people from the kingdom of God. But God desires that no one should be lost but that all should be saved (I Timothy 2:3-4). Shouldn't we then do our best to include gays and lesbians into our churches and show them the love and compassion that Jesus has shown us? I think we owe it to them and to Jesus.

God bless,
-Brandon

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Contemporary Church Leaders

Writing is a strange thing. There are some days when I can sit at the computer for hours and end up writing one sentence. That would be called writer's block. Then there are other days where I sit at the computer and can't stop writing (by the way, I prefer those kind of days). It is a blessing to write when it seems like there are resources upon resources to cite from, and I love especially when I already have those resources. I spent an hour today looking for a book I thought I had only to check my seller account on amazon after all the searching around the house, to find that I sold that book a year ago.

Today I spent my time writing about contemporary church leaders. What is it that makes someone a leader in the church today? Is it a title? Is it their level of education? In past centuries the leader was the one man who spoke from the pulpit on Sundays. He was the guy in charge. This is not so today. The model of leadership most churches are adapting today recognize that anyone in the church is a leader. What makes people leaders? There are essentially 3 things that make a person a leader in their church. They have a particular giftedness, some talent that God gave them which allows them to excel in a particular area, even without training. Second, they have a desire to lead and go through the proper training in order to be allowed to lead a particular ministry. Third, they lead a particular ministry. This does not mean they need to be in charge of 30 or 40 people to be considered a leader. A person is a leader even if they have one follower.

What this means for that leader is that they are in a position of great responsibility to lead people in a good way. The problem is that many of these leaders, though they are in a position to know better, end up leading people astray because they have become corrupt in some way. Many of the negative labels Christians receive today like "judgmental," "critical," or "hypocritical" come from these kinds of leaders who misrepresent the gospel.

For those of us who are leaders in our churches, we have a responsibility to hold ourselves accountable and make sure we are portraying the message of Jesus accurately and honestly. We need to think of way we can continue our own education to make sure we ourselves have not gone astray. And we need to find ways of staying accountable such as getting people to be our accountability partners.

God Bless.
-Brandon

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Writing a book

A few months ago I began writing a book. It started with a simple enough idea: Christians are often perceived as hypocrites and judgmental because of the way we have tended to treat people who we perceive as "sinners." This common treatment is based on a misperception of how Jesus treated sinners in the Bible. This book of mine attempts to correct this misperception by distinguishing three categories of people Jesus interacted with in Scripture and how, based on these interactions, Christians are meant to interact with similar groups today.

What began as a simple project has turned out to be a Pandora's Box. The deeper I dig in my research, the more I am finding needs to be dug after, the bigger the cobweb of information is spreading. Not only that, but the project is getting bigger. Before the book even comes out I have lecture series planned in different churches where I will be presenting my ideas and giving people a better way of interacting with individuals today. What started as a book is turning into something much bigger.

My hope is that as I write this blog, do lecture series, and finish and publish this book, Christians everywhere will gain insight in how Jesus interacted with people in his day, and how we should interacted with those kinds of people today. My idea is basic: Jesus treated those who were not part of his group and those who were part of his group with love, mercy, and grace without concern one bit for their background. There was only one group he treated with contempt and criticism, the religious leaders of his day.

I hope you will continue to follow this blog as I write about my progress on the book and some of the difficulties I face along the way. Of course I will also share some of the information I find that might be useful to those following along.

God Bless,
-Brandon