Thursday, May 5, 2011

Should the Christian Church Police the World?

In today's world whenever there is a question regarding the ethical implications of anything, you can be sure the Church (Catholic or Protestant) will have something to say about it. When Osama bin Laden was killed the other day, every Christian blog (including mine: Osama bin Laden's Death and the Christian Response) had something to say about it. The pope was quick to provide a response as well. With any contemporary issue, the Church is quick to provide their moral view and will do anything and pay anything to get their ethical code sanctioned by the law. We see this with issues such as gay marriage and abortion today.

But is the purpose of the Church to get laws passed and to tell people how to live their lives? Has God commissioned the Church to be the moral police of the world? Or does the Church have a different purpose that it is avoiding? To answer these questions we must go back and see what Jesus did.

In the Bible, whenever Jesus is walking around with his disciples, somehow or another they end up breaking some moral rule imposed by the Jewish Church. We have one example in Mark 2:23-28 where Jesus is walking through the grain fields with his disciples on the Sabbath and the disciples, who were hungry, began picking the grain to eat. As they always seemed to at the right time, the Pharisees arrived acting as the Jewish moral police. They questioned Jesus about why he allowed his disciples to break the Sabbath the way that they did. The Pharisees acted on behalf of the Jews to patrol the cities and villages and make sure that the Jewish laws were not being broken. They did this because in their mindset it was the role of the Jew to remain set apart and distinct from the Roman occupation. The only way to keep separate was to remain obedient to their laws. The second reason the Pharisees did this was because they felt that the more law abiding their community was, the better chance there was of the Messiah coming to rescue them.

But Jesus was not happy with the moral patrolling of the Pharisees, and he condemned them for misrepresenting the law. Jesus scolded them and reminded them that the Sabbath was made for human kind, not human kind for the Sabbath.

A second story we read can be found in Mark 7:1-23. In this story Jesus is sitting around with his disciples eating. The Pharisees who again were in the right place at the right time argued with Jesus about the hand washing technique of his disciples. They were not ritually cleansing their hands the way the law stated they should. Again, what we have is Jesus scolding the Pharisees for misrepresenting the law and for following the tradition of man rather than the true heart of the law.

Jesus did not like the concept of moral police. Jesus was against his followers patrolling the streets to make sure the rules were being kept. The main reason it seems that Jesus was so against that was was the risk of humankind misinterpreting the law and misrepresenting it. There is always the chance that the ethical code we are trying to make law, is based on our own bias and our own prejudice, rather than on what the law actually requires. It would be a dangerous thing if we caused laws to pass based on our own presuppositions, thinking the Bible justifies it, only to find out we misinterpreted the Bible.

The second reason Jesus was against policing people (notice he did not police the towns either) was because he was inaugurating a new time. Jesus was inaugurating a time where our sins no longer mattered because he offered forgiveness since perfection was not possible. Why would we go around establishing laws based on our religious perspective if our religious perspective preached grace and forgiveness? This kind of reasoning just seems absurd.

So, Jesus desired that his followers do not become moral police. That was not the mission of the body of Christ. So when Christians are out there bombing abortion clinics, picketing funerals, holding marches, and funding propositions against gay marriage, we are acting in opposition to Jesus' Scriptural example. When we act as the moral police within our own congregations, telling people what sinners they are and that they need to do this or that, we are acting unChrist-like. (The one exception to this is when someone sins against you personally, you are to use the Matthew 18 principle, something I will describe at another time).

You see, Jesus says, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:3-5). And the truth of this statement is this: no one reaches perfection in this world. As long as we remain imperfect, all of us will have a log in our eye. We will never, in this lifetime, be in a position where we can see clearly enough to get the speck out of someone else's eye. Therefore, it is not the Church's job to legislate or to tell people when they are not living up to God's expectations (notice I did not say potential. When working with people, it is important for us to help them live up to their potential. This is more of an uplifting and empowering message than the message that you are not fulfilling God's expectations).

So, what is the Church's purpose? James, Jesus' own step brother, tells us: "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (James 1:27). The first purpose described in this passage is for us to take care of the widows and orphans. Those two groups were the most neglected in Biblical times and so those who were closest with God used widows and orphans to illustrate the need for the Church to take care of marginalized groups, bringing them love and compassion and care.

A great example of this occurs late in the Roman empire when the plagues wiped out a great deal of the population. Most groups ran away from the their loved ones to try and escape the plagues and save themselves. It was the Christians who stuck around and cared for those who were dying. This was one of the major reasons the Church gained so many converts. The people saw that Christians cared about others, loved others, and took care of others. The Church was not out preaching to refrain from sin. The Church was not patrolling the streets making sure everyone was doing what Jesus taught. The Church simply lived the love they were called to spread.

We can apply this today by stepping down from our moral high horse and refraining from telling everyone how to live their lives. We can apply this by letting the LGBT community have their marriages and closing our mouths when it comes to morality. We can apply this by reaching out to marginalized communities like the LGBT folks and show them love, compassion, and care.

The second thing involved in James' statement about the Church is to "keep oneself unstained from the world." Notice how it says "oneself" and not "others." It is not the Church's responsibility to keep other people from sin. It is our own responsibility to keep ourselves from sin. We are to remove the log from our own eye before helping others with the speck in their own.

So now we know. It is not the purpose of the Church to be the moral police, for that was what the Pharisees did, and Jesus was quite displeased with them. Instead, it is our job to take care of the widows and the orphans (for today can we say the gays and the poor?) and to keep our individual selves unstained from the world.
Blessings,
-Brandon

9 comments:

  1. Of course they shouldn't!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting read and thanks for posting this. I think it's very true about what you are saying but here's the thing you are not understanding. People blame christianity or religion as a whole as a major problem. Why do they say theses things? Simply because of the hypocritical actions people do. Here's my argument. People as a whole are capable of producing good deeds as well as bad deeds. It's in our nature to flop back and forth. The bible teaches us to love one another as ourselves and to love God. Is it right to say christianity is the problem? Of course not and here's why. It doesn't matter the faith background or an atheist background the fact is people will fight, argue, insult, abuse others, lie, cheat, steal, kill and etc. Can we really single out Christianity for the choices that person makes? Its like saying you have a son whom you love and raise to the best way you possibly can to instruct him to do things morally right. If that son decides to do the things against your teachings does that you mean you as a parent or your family is the problem? No of course not that would be illogical. You would punish and correct your son. You can't blame an entire faith based on people's actions especially if the teachings goes against it. What you are saying in your blog is self centered people are the problem. Now if the teachings itself promotes violence or force your faith on people then you can have a strong argument but you don't. The actions of people is the issue not the faith. God will judge all those who reject His word and His Son according to the way He sees fit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am sorry if you understood from my blog that I was blaming Christianity for people's actions. I do not think Christian's should be blamed for the bad behavior in other people. What I do think Christianity should be faulted for is trying to legislate Christian values and traditions and for trying to be the moral police of the world. It is not the calling of the Christian Church to tell people how to live their lives, but instead to live selflessly and care for the uncared for population. I am sorry if you did not understand my point.

    I would also be careful about telling people about God being judgmental, because we do not have a clear idea of how his judgment works. We do know that God loves all and wants to provide an opportunity for all to receive his comfort and love. The Bible says that he desires all to be saved and none to be lost. Instead of preaching a message of God's judgment, I think we need to focus on preaching the message of God's love, acceptance, and care.
    Blessings,
    -Brandon

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brandon -

    Thanks for the post, it was a fun read - though I would have to say some of your points you kinda cheated. I get where your going but some your own biases have seem to get in the way of having a fair discussion on this topic. I could - and would love to have a dialogue about this article - going through point b point, - however I only like doing this with fair minded people. Are you open minded and fair? we could do it right here I would love to dialogue this with you here in the comment section - And I promise not to call names or make false accusations - and would expect the same from you. So if you up to it we could start

    ReplyDelete
  5. My whole purpose of this blog is to open up lines of communication with people and to allow for civil dialogue. Of course I am open minded to the point that I am willing to listen to other point of views without harsh judgment. I will be the first to admit that I allow my own biases to enter my writing, but who doesn't. I am always willing to have a good conversation provided it does not become uncivil. So be my guest and begin.

    ReplyDelete
  6. cool - thanks, I appreciate your openness -

    Great question by the way "Should the Christian Church Police the World?"

    Answer: NO, last I check no one organization polices anything - which I think both of us would agree on -

    Except, I think we both need to define "Church" - so we don't cloud the case of free speech and censorship.

    The "Church\Churches" you slam in the first paragraph are actually institutions - the "Church" the Bible speaks about (ecclesia) is a church made without hands, its the "Body of Christ" made up of the believers of Christ -

    You seem to come down pretty hard on the "Church" institutions for promoting their opinion or free speech - which in America - they have the right to do. Just as the Gay Lesbian Bisexual institutions do. Both have a right to speak and to debate in the arena of ideas. Both have the right to speak, - neither have the right to silence each other. I get the impression from your writing, - you think it's ok to make the "Church" institutions be commanded to shut up.. but allowing the GLB institution to speak freely

    You mentioned that the

    "the Church is quick to provide their moral view and will do anything and pay anything to get their ethical code sanctioned by the law

    In fact the "Church" institutions do - But, - so do the Gay Bisexual and transgendered institutions -

    So my question here is why is ok for the the Gay Lesbian Bisexual group to promote their values - but you wont allow the "Church" institutions to promote theirs?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You make some interesting points, Eric, which I think will help me to clarify my point.

    I agree that we need to distinguish "Church." However, it is both the institution and the body of believers that stand up and try to legislate their values, which are often based more on tradition than the Bible. I see the body of believers, separate from the institution, picketing outside of abortion clinics and gay events. So it is not just the institution of the Church that is guilty of doing this.

    I agree with you that in the United States it is the Church's right to speak out on these issues (I have a pretty broad readership that extends outside of the U.S. so I tried keeping this post all inclusive as far as nations go). But just because it the Church's right to do something, doesn't mean the Church should engage in it. Yes, the Church can speak out on these issues, however it goes completely against the Church's purpose and is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Just look at the Westboro Baptist Church; it is within their rights to picket funerals with signs saying "God hates fags" and "thank God for dead soldiers," but it goes completely against what the Bible teaches.

    Finally, you ask "why is it okay for the Gay Lesbian Bisexual group to promote their values - but you won't allow the "Church" institutions to promote theirs?" I think this is an excellent question, and I have two answers. First, it is LGBT group that is being offended against and are, therefore, being forced into a position where they have to advocate for themselves. The Church is in no such position. Secondly, it goes against the purposes of the Church to try and legislate their values. But like the slaves of 19th century, and the women of the early 20th century, even though many LGBT are Christians, theirs is a group who, right now, has a purpose separate from the church: to gain acceptance in a community where they are no accepted. If the Church was ever a marginalized group that was prevented from having certain rights, it would be their obligation to speak out for Church rights. So, what I am against is the Church's attempts at taking away rights from certain groups. What I am for is the LGBT's attempts at gaining rights for themselves.
    Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify.
    Blessings,
    -Brandon

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hear you - that's not to say I think everything you just said is accurate, but you have already honestly admitted your writings carry a certain bias

    - Im so with you on one very important thing - "The Church" and what is it designed for and its purpose

    You are so very right that the same sin that started this whole mess is something members of the "Church" and the "Church institutions" get sucked into doing.

    That damn tree in the garden "knowledge of good and evil" - the enemy so knew if he could get mankind focused on the "Knowledge of good and evil" they would never EAT from the tree of life - I would so love to blame Eve for that, but Adam was distracted as well, - and standing right next to her -

    Its as you stated Brandon, members of the "Church" or the "Body of Christ" still seem to get sucked into creating, publishing and telling everyone whats good and evil- instead of sharing the "Life" that is only found in Christ.

    With that said - could I ask a couple more questions of you to help me understand you remarks?

    1. Are you a a christian? (i'm not being an ass, but I was referred here by a friend and don't know you personally)

    2. You mention that its not the churches job to protect what they believe to be right or wrong - so what should they do? Or what is their role?

    3. Is the Bible the final source of authority for you or do you base your beliefs on other writing or traditions?

    PSS - ss

    I just need to share a piece of my heart here, I have a 14 year old boy, whose name is Nathaniel - Which means gift from God, and he was, and is - my wife and I could not have children - and the day I cut his umbilical and set him on my chest, God made very sure I new he was my son - that Nathaniel was adopted into my family as God adopted me to him - So though I have never protested at an abortion clinic and have never threaten any doctor that performs abortions - Im so very thankful that Nathaniel's birth mom felt it more Christ like - to lay down 9 months of her life for another life - Which is now my son Nathaniel John - An looking into his eyes each day, and yelling at him in lacrosse practice and holding him tight when bad crap happens - makes it forever impossible to be silenced that abortion has a price - it's price is life - and im certain "Thats what Jesus did" - he came to give life and life more abundantly........

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eric, thank you for the questions.

    1. Yes, I am a Christian. As a matter of fact I am a pastor and a hospice chaplain.

    2. Since the role of the Church is not to tell society what to do, I believe as I established in my post, the role of the Church is to bring love, healing, and acceptance to people. The role of the Church is to help people, not tell them what to do.

    3. I take the Bible to be my primary source, but also believe reason is necessary in order for us to iron some of the difficult to understand doctrines in Scripture.

    In response to you final comment, I know how precious life is. I am personally a pro-lifer and have not yet dealt with abortion in my blog. What I will say here is that, like with many other things, the Church has gotten it wrong with how it interacts with pro-choicers and those who have had abortions. I believe we need to be more gentle and loving and accepting of that group of people also. I think I will blog on this issue soon.
    Blessings,
    -Brandon

    ReplyDelete