Is Homosexuality a Sin?

Friends,
I have been called to task for making claims in my previous posts that the passages used to show the sinfulness of homosexuality are taken out of context, without explaining what context they should be taken in. Those who have pointed this out are right to keep me accountable, since baseless claims should be taken with a grain of salt. So let me provide a base for these claims.

Before I do this, however, I must make clear that whether homosexuality is a sin or not, the Christian Church has handled the issue poorly. We have tolerated other "sins" in people, such as lying and lusting and judging others, while remaining completely intolerant of other so called "sins," such as homosexuality and abortion (I place "sins" in quotation marks because the Church has always had a larger vice list than all of the vice lists in the Bible combined). When Jesus was faced with a sinner, he showed them mercy and grace, he showed them acceptance when the religious leaders would not, and he did not ever point out their sin to them (that is excepting the religious leaders, the only group Jesus was ever intolerant of. For more on Jesus' interactions with the religious leaders, go to Jesus and the Religious Leaders in the Bible). So even if homosexuality is a sin it is totally unScriptural to think they should not be allowed to participate in worship or even be allowed to lead a ministry. As Paul says in Romans 3:23, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If no one is free from sin, then why are some sinners allowed to lead and participate in worship while others are not? No sin, unless it puts others in danger, should exclude someone from the body of believers or exclude someone from leading a ministry. It is because of a person's sin that they need to be included.

Now, to the topic at hand. The most commonly cited passage in Christian circles when it comes to condemning homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." I do not deny that this passage is referring to same sex behavior, and at first glance seems to be condemning it. But one needs to understand the argument Paul is giving. Paul, the author of the Letter to the Romans, writes his letters in argument form, working to a conclusion. That is why it is extremely dangerous to take a couple of verses from one of his letters in order to formulate a doctrine; because he may be using what may look like a claim of his own, as a rhetorical device to bait his readers in order to prove a point, and that is what is happening here. Not every statement made by Paul is necessarily believed by Paul or meant as a conclusion. Some statements he makes are used to make a point, some are used to create a counterpoint, and so on.

The Roman church, at the time of Paul's writing this letter, consisted of a mix of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. The church initially was founded by Jewish Christians, but became fully Gentile when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. When Claudius died and the Jews were allowed to re-enter Rome, the church accrued a minority Jewish population that had an attitude of superiority over the Gentile Christians, and treated the Gentiles like the Jews were better and more holy than them. Paul was writing the letter mainly to the Jewish Christians in Rome who had this attitude of superiority, purposing to show them that Jews and Gentiles alike have an equal need for Jesus (thus the "all have sinned" passage).

In order to accomplish this task, Paul knew he had to bait them into a feeling of superiority and judgment in order to get his point accross. Knowing that homosexuality was something the Jews considered a sin that was exclusive to Gentiles, he used that as his bait. The latter half of Romans 1 was about inciting the Jewish Christians to a sense of judgment and condemnation so he could set them up for the big blow in Romans 2:1 where he tells them, "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." Paul used Romans 1:26-27 to throw the judgment of the Jewish Christians in their face. So, when we use Romans 1:26-27 to judge homosexuality, we are really condemning ourselves.

Romans 1:26-27 does not show us the sinfulness of homosexuality, it shows us the sinfulness of judging the actions of others. Romans 2 proves that to be Paul's purpose. We must not forget the thesis Paul is arguing for in Romans, that can be found in Romans 8:1: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

There are only two other passages where the word "homosexual" is included in vice lists of Paul, seemingly condemning homosexuality (a vice list being a list of "sins" that contain no explanation, such as Colossians 3:8). (The following is from the article Homosexuality in the Christian Scriptures) In both passages (I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10), Paul makes up the Greek term arsenokoitai. Prior to Paul, there is no record of this term ever being used. It is made up of the words arsen, meaning man, and koitai, meaning beds. So right away we can see that the term, if it refers to homosexuality, only refers to male homosexuality and not to female homosexuality, so you can see where that would be a problem. It would be strange for Paul to condemn male homosexuality but not female homosexuality.

The other issue is that there was already a common term used during Paul's time for homosexuality: paiderasste. If Paul really intended to refer to homosexuality, he would have used this common term instead of making one up. It was not even until some of the most recent translations that the term "homosexual" was used in these passages. The KJV uses "abusers of themselves with mankind" and "for them that defile themselves with mankind" respectively. During Luther's time, the term was thought to refer to masturbation. During the time of the early church fathers the term was through to denote male temple prostitutes.

I certainly think the term is too vague to know for certain that it refers to homosexuality. Therefore, since homosexuality is only mentioned in the New Testament once (if we take the Greek term in I Corinthians and I Timothy to mean something else) and since that one time has been shown to possess a different meaning than the one often given it, I conclude that nowhere does the New Testament condemn homosexuality. I think it is also of great significance that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality himself.

The final passages that I want to reference are found in the Old Testament, and, more specifically, in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13). I contend that the Leviticus passages were not commandments that if broken separated a person from God, but God's desire for the Jewish people in order to promote their expansion as a people. Leviticus 18:22 states, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." At first this seems very damning. But when we read elsewhere in the passage we find that verse 19 tells a man not to sleep with a woman during her period. I do not think any of us, except maybe the most extreme Christian, would consider this a sin; so why do we use the same chapter to condemn homosexuality. I think the requirements the Lord lays out in this passage are so that the Jewish people could reproduce and grow itself as it was still a small nation. I certainly think much in that passage is good for us to abide by today. But verse 19 and verse 22 are in no way relevant for us today. Those are requirements of the law that no longer apply to God's people.

Moving on to Leviticus 20:13, the passage says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." This passage certainly sounds condemning of homosexuality, but let me ask you, does any reasonable person think homosexuality is deserving of death? Absolutely not. So, if you are willing to consider that portion of the passage irrelevant for today, why not consider the injunction against homosexuality no longer relevant either. For whatever reason, we pick and choose what commandments we want to subject other people to, without realizing the absurdity of our selectiveness. Leviticus 19:19 calls wearing an outfit with mixed fabric a sin. I don't know about you, but I have very few outfits that are 100% cotton. Am I sinning? I am certainly not.

So, I have covered every passage in Scripture used to condemn homosexuality. Considering there are only five in the entire bible (three if you agree with me about the Greek term in I Corinthians and I Timothy), I do not think it was (or is) a major issue for God. I do not think it should, therefore, be an issue for the Church any longer. It seems to me that the Bible really is clear that being gay is not a sin. What I do know for sure is that whether homosexuality is a sin or not, Jesus loves the homosexual unconditionally, accepts them for who they are, and provides them with the same free grace that I have received for my sins.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Hell: What Is It Good For

I have often been accused of beating a dead horse until it was unrecognizable. For fear of losing this reputation I have decided once again to speak on the topic of hell. The subject of the eternal place of fiery torment for those who haven’t accepted Christ was resurrected (excuse the pun) when Rob Bell wrote his book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. I do not intend to rehash anything here that I have discussed in previous blogs (to see those previous blogs see: Related Posts below). I am writing on the topic again because of the numerous debates I have had with people recently who are so certain the Bible is clear that when unbelievers die, they go to a place of eternal torment. I have decided to do some research on the Christian doctrine of hell and have made some interesting finds. And so I present the findings of this research today.

First off, there was not an official doctrine of hell until 500 years after Jesus’ death in 543 AD at the Council of Constantinople. Before that time, the early Church Fathers were mixed as to what hell was. Geoffrey Bromiley tells us in an article in his International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Concerning [hell’s] nature, many early fathers, including the apologist Justin, and the Latin fathers Tertullian and Jerome, assumed a fiery hell. Origen, on the other hand, gave it a spiritualized sense, in which the emphasis fell on remorse and separation from God…Origen…introduced the possibility of a remedial hell that might form a final stage of reclamation even for demons.” Some of Origen’s (an early church father who lived from 185-254 AD) quotes worth noting are as follows:

“We find in the prophet Isaiah, that the fire with which each one is punished is described as his own; for he says, ‘Walk in the light of your own fire, and in the flame which ye have kindled’ (Is 1:11). By these words it seems to be indicated that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is not plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or was in existence before himself” (De Principiis II, 10, IV).

“And again, if, by means of many severe administrations of punishment, they are able at some future time to recover their senses, and gradually attempt to find healing for their wounds, they may, on ceasing from their wickedness, be restored to a state of goodness” (De Principiis III, 1, XXI).

From the first quote we can see that Origen did not believe in an actual hell, but saw hell as a place we create for ourselves when we engage in sinful behavior, as it makes life difficult for us. From the second quote we can see that Origen believes in a place of purification one who has rejected Jesus goes, where they can be restored because of the punishment they have endured. This is in line with the idea I discussed in Rob Bell, “Love Wins,” and the Universalist in which a punishment must be corrective and therefore cannot be eternal. So as one can tell, the doctrine of hell was not clearly spelled out to the early church fathers, and so there were many different theories to begin with, and it wasn’t until 500 years after Jesus’ death that one theory was picked as orthodox.

But what about the bible itself, doesn’t it say that when people die they will be in eternal torment? The answer to that question is “no.” Hell did not develop as a concept until the intertestamental period after the last book of the Old Testament was written, but before the first book of the New Testament was. When the Old Testament speaks of where the wicked will go after dying, it speaks mainly of Sheol. Sheol, translated from the Hebrew, means “grave” and is the place both the good and the bad go after they die. It was a place void of consciousness, as can be attested from Psalm 6:5, “For there is no mention of You in death; In Sheol who will give You thanks.” In the Old Testament, there is no hell, only Sheol. And Sheol is a place where consciousness does not exist. As the idea of the afterlife began to evolve, Sheol began taking on some aspects that make it seem like a possible hell, such as Daniel 12:2 which says, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” But any concept of hell such as we have today of a fiery, eternally conscious torment, placed in the Old Testament is wrong as it places a future idea into the minds of those in the past.

There are only a handful of places in the Bible that mention anything resembling an eternal torment: Daniel 12:2 (quoted above) and Matthew 25:46 which says, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." I know that the phrases “everlasting contempt” and “eternal punishment” seem damning to my argument, but we often read our pre-set beliefs into passages such as these. We have been conditioned to believe in an eternally tormenting hell and so we simply read into passages like these that concept of hell. But notice they do not say “eternal torment.” When it says “eternal punishment” and “everlasting contempt” it is just as likely that these passages mean that the person who chooses to reject God will be eternally separated from him without consciousness. Essentially, they will eternally cease to exist. The punishment is not being aloud to live in God’s kingdom for all of eternity, instead of being sent to a fiery, tormenting hell. An article which discusses the original Greek in the Matthew passage can be found at "Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language and discusses that this is the only passage that has the two words “eternal” and “punishment” together, making for a compelling case against the idea of an eternal hell. He also mentions how the term translated “eternal” does not always mean eternal, and can simply mean an indefinite period of time. This makes for a more coherent belief in an all-loving God. It also makes for a more accurate reading of the Bible.

When you read in Scripture any of the passages that refer to a punishment for the wicked after death, you will see that not one of those passage indicates it is eternally conscious, leaving open the option that hell is a place where one can be restored, and for those who are passed the point of restoration there is the option of ceasing to exist for all of eternity. Any indication that hell is eternal, is read into the Bible because of tradition, and cannot be read out of Scripture objectively. Below are some passages that you can read on hell, and you can see for yourself that no indication of eternality can be found (Matthew 8:11-12; Matthew 13:41-42; Matthew 13:49-50; Matthew 22:12-13; Matthew 24:50-51; Matthew 25:29-30; Luke 13:27-28).

I want to end by explaining why I chose to write about this subject on a blog about engaging our society based on how Jesus engaged his. One of the things Jesus fought the Pharisees on was their strict adherence to certain biblical precepts that in the long run excluded people from the kingdom of God, and did not accord with God’s will (Matthew 23). I believe there are certain doctrines that Christians need to stand strong on without budging: the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus, and so on. But there are other beliefs from which we do not budge that in the long run will exclude people from the kingdom of God. If the eternity of hell were something that was clearly in Scripture, I would say we need to adhere to the doctrine regardless of how wicked it seems. But the Bible is not clear. It is everything but clear. And since it keeps so many people away from Jesus, I think it is a doctrine we as Christians need to be prepared to scrap. We need to stop fighting people as if this is the sole doctrine on which Christianity rests, and do more to bring the doctrines of love and grace to the forefront. Who knows, maybe in the long run we will bring more people to Christ that way.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Related Posts:
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/threat-of-punishment-or-promise-of-love.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/rob-bell-love-wins-and-universalist.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-christian-god-to-be-feared.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/interacting-with-contemporary-church.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/jesus-and-religious-leaders-in-bible.html

http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/10/manipulating-scripture.html

Now Go and Sin No More

Recently I was involved in a debate with some other Christians regarding how to address the problem of sin. An acquaintance of ours was struggling with a particular sin and explained that he was discouraged because he has done everything his Christian friends have told him to do and nothing seems to be helping; he is enslaved to this sin. The advice he received was classic. He was told numerous times by numerous people that he just needed to try harder and give it up to Jesus and that he would overcome his sin. When the other Christians whom I was debating with heard this, their response was as classic: they said that sin is bad and that he needs to keep trying and to have self-discipline in order for him to overcome it. I agree that sin is bad, but telling someone to keep trying harder when they have tried as hard as they can and are at their wit’s end is like telling someone who is falling out of a tall building to not to get so close to the windows; it may be true but that is not what they need to hear right now. As the saying goes, Christians too often shoot their wounded. David Kinnaman relates this story in his book, UnChristian: He tells of a woman, Lisa, who went to a Christian event and was sitting with some of her Christian friends at a table discussing the topic of pregnancy. At one point Lisa brought up that she had a friend who was pregnant and really going through a rough time. Her boyfriend left her and there were some other things going on in her life. When Lisa told them that her friend was contemplating abortion and that she, herself, could empathize with her, Lisa’s friends turned on her. They condemned the friend for wanting an abortion and condemned Lisa for her empathy. Lisa was left out of the conversation for the rest of the event. Lisa had not even told them that she had an abortion earlier in life (Kinnaman, 2009, 181f). Instead of showing compassion to Lisa and her friend, the women immediately jumped on her saying that it is a sin even to empathize with a woman wanting an abortion. There are other situations in churches where a person reveals a sin of theirs, already feeling bad about it, and then is immediately jumped for being such a sinner.

What is wrong with this way of approaching people? Aren’t we to help out other people if they are sinning and point them in the right direction? Isn’t that one of the jobs of a Christian? Absolutely not. That does not mean I believe we ought to go on sinning because, hey, we are saved by faith not by works, right? I believe as a Christian it should be our goal to overcome our sins. Notice I said “our sins,” not “other people’s sins.” As Christians, we are so ready to point to other people’s sins and tell them they need to try harder so they can stop sinning, while at the same time we continue on with our sins, as hard as we are trying to give it to Jesus and overcome it. I think Matthew 7:3-5 is helpful here: “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 eye? You hypocrite, first take the log our of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” But people most often interpret this passage to mean that once you no longer have a log in your eye, you can help another person take the speck out of theirs. This assumes, however that we can remove the log from our eye. I believe, however, that we are intended to understand that as long as we are alive, we will have a log in our eye. Therefore, we will never be in a position to tell another person that they need to stop sinning or to try harder, because we will always have a log in our eye until we leave this earthly life.

Romans is particularly relevant here. Reading through Romans 7, Paul is clear that while we live, there will be a constant struggle between the spirit and the flesh. He was honest about his own struggles, saying, “I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate” (v 15). Paul could not overcome sin in his own life. It is this statement he uses to build up to the conclusion of his argument where he says in Romans 8:1 “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” We will always have sin in our life. There will be times when we are doing better; there will be times when we are doing worse. What will help us get through the difficult times is the knowledge that my sin in no way affects the amount of love God has for us. God love and accepts us just for who we are, and no sin can limit in any way God’s love for us. If we have sin in our lives, all our lives, we have the confidence to know that there is no condemnation.

But what about when Jesus tells a person to “go and sin no more?” Shouldn’t we follow that as our example? This is one situation where I would say no. Jesus taught us not to judge another person or to point out their sins (unless it directly relates to you, and you need to speak to that person as directed in Matt 18). Jesus could deal with people’s sins because he was perfect and sinless. But notice how Jesus did deal with people’ sins: he dealt with people and their sins in a very gentle and loving way. He did not push anyone to try harder or to have a stronger faith. Jesus simply told people to “go and sin no more.” But this was after he showed them no condemnation. The best example of this is found in John with the adulteress woman who was brought to Jesus by the religious leaders. Jesus stated, “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” When they had all walked away and Jesus had asked the woman, “has no one condemned you?” She responded, “no” to which Jesus replied, “then I do not condemn you either.” Let us no longer condemn people for their sins, as if they separate a person from God. If they are stuck in sin, the best way to help them out is not to tell them to try harder, or to give up completely to Jesus; the best thing we can do is give them an environment of grace where they are loved despite their sin. A person cannot overcome sin in the midst of pressure to overcome it. A person overcomes sin only when they are shown the love and grace that Jesus himself showed to people.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Related Links
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/church-and-society-to-judge-or-not-to.html
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/charlie-sheen-grace-of-god-and.html
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/threat-of-punishment-or-promise-of-love.html
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2011/03/rob-bell-love-wins-and-universalist.html
http://whatjesusdiddo.blogspot.com/2010/11/christians-voting-without-judging.html

Charlie Sheen, the Grace of God, and Compassion of Jesus

Forgive me for riding on the coat tails of the recent spotlight Charlie Sheen was in. I realize that it has been two weeks or more since he held the attention of America as he seemed to spiral more and more out of control. But I thought this would be a great opportunity to illustrate the grace of God and compassion of Jesus in a contemporary setting. I am sure that Christians everywhere who were paying attention to the news looked at the life Charlie was living and in harmony shouted what a sinner he is. I am sure that in certain circles an abundance of condemnation and judgment were heaped upon him for his misdeeds.

But is this the biblical approach to how we should respond to Charlie Sheen? Looking at Scripture, Jesus spent his time with, and gathered his followers from those perceived to be the worst in society. It was scandalous that Jesus spent his time with adulterers and prostitutes. The Pharisees even asked Jesus' disciples why he spent time with such vile people. Jesus' response was classic, "those who are seek need the physician, not those who are well." It would later be understood that no one is truly well enough not to need a physician. Paul wrote, "all have sinned and have fallen short." Jesus spent time with these "wretched" people because they needed him. He did not avoid them because of what they did. Jesus befriended and showed love and compassion to these "worst of sinners" because no one else would.

But these people, you might object, repented of their sins, which is why he spent time with them, right? Actually, the answer is "no." These "sinners" only repented after Jesus showed them love and compassion. Let us look at the story of Zacchaeus from Luke 19:1-10. In this story, it was not until Jesus accepted an invitation from the tax collector to come eat with him, and it was not until Jesus had spent some time with Zacchaeus, that he agreed to give his ill gotten earnings back, and to give some to the poor. It was not a requirement that Zacchaeus repent before Jesus would accept his invitation. It was only when Jesus showed him love and acceptance without ulterior motives that the man repented.

That is interesting because in today's Church, we expect repentence to come before a person is accepted in. But it seems that in Jesus' day, acceptence came first, followed by repentence. Maybe that is why the Church is losing numbers today, we have things backwords. We expect people to change their lives, showing them judgment and condemnation, which does the counter of what we want by preventing them from changing their lives. We see someone like Charlie Sheen and critize and ridicule him, and then are surprised when he gets worse. If Jesus were around today, Charlie Sheen would be the one Jesus would be spending time with, showing love and compassion, even accepting his two "girl friends" into the fold, knowing that by showing him that love and grace, the true medicine of the physician, Charlie would find the healing he so desperately needs for his wounds. Meanwhile, I am sure that Jesus would reprimand many within the Church for being so condemning, and for not providing the much needed medicine of love, mercy, and grace.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Threat of Punishment or Promise of Love as a Method of Evangelism

As I have been surfing the blogs and reading what people have been saying regarding Rob Bell's recent book, "Love Wins," I have been startled by the amount of gross condemnation that is clothed in the language of love. Many Christians are arguing that preaching hell and eternal punishment is done out of love for their fellow human being and that Jesus preached hell out of love. One poster made this claim: "Jesus demonstrated love in everything he did. Including preaching on hell." If one reads the verses where hell is preached, it sure doesn't seem to be out of love. It seems more to be out of anger for abusing the Scriptures and oppressing the people. But I have made my view on hell and Jesus' purpose for preaching it clear in "Rob Bell, 'Love Wins,' and the Universalist." I want to devote this post to discussing why preaching punishment is not done out of love, and why it is not an effective method for evangelism.

The same poster who I quoted above, also made this statement: "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom...(a), Psalm 111:10. I know I do things sometimes out of fear of the Lord. He's got the power, and I know it. It's a parent/child relationship. My children do things so they don't get punished by mom or dad. Same principle." And it is this mindset that guides much Christian evangelism today. We tell a person how bad they are, we convince them of their sin, we threaten them with eternal punishment, and then we present the solution of Jesus Christ. We therefore create good, God-fearing Christians who will go to heaven when they die. But does this foster the deepest possible relationship with Jesus? Let's look at the illustration our poster uses of a parent/child type relationship (after all, this is the model Jesus uses when illustrating our relationship with God). He makes the claim that when a parent threatens a child with punishment for certain behavior, let's say eating a cookie before dinner, and that child obeys the parent, then that parent has done a good job. But what has that parent really done? That parent has taught that child that the reason he should not eat the cookie before dinner is because if he does, that child will be punished. In other words, that child abstains from eating the cookie because he fears being caught. It is the threat of punishment that prevents that child from doing that behavior, or rather fear of getting caught, and not because of some intrinsic good. What this results in is that the child, when the fear of getting caught is removed, eats the cookie. It also fosters resentment in the child toward the father for being so cruel.

Let's relate the above story to the popular method of evangelism in which threat of hell for bad behavior is so often employed. Perhaps a person is convinced of their great sin and their need for repentance. When that person first becomes a Christian, the honeymoon period begins and she willingly abstains from past sins because of the newfound joy she has encountered. But after some time, when the thrill has begun to wear off, temptation begins to set in again. She goes to a party which she has not been to for awhile and finds herself drinking too much. She goes home, mortified by the guilt she is feeling. She is horrified that she may receive harsh punishment for backsliding. She begs God for forgiveness, because she fears punishment. This woman, as she continues her Christian walk, finds temptation harder and harder to resist, and finds herself aware of more and more sin in her life. She continues to plead for forgiveness and ask for help from God to overcome the sin, but it does not seem to be working. All she knows is that if she continues in this sin, she will be punished. After awhile, she begins resenting God, seeing him no longer as a being which forgives, but which threatens punishment, even when it seems the sin is out of her control. Eventually she stops trying to resist temptation, because, as many Christians turned ex-Christians have said, "what's the use." Instead of being brought to Jesus because of his love and the healing he provides for our hurts, this woman was taught that Jesus was necessary because without him, she would be punished. What happened was, like the child in the above paragraph, this woman refrained from sin only because she feared being caught. Her motives were wrong which prevented her from really being able to overcome much of the sins in her life. As she continued to sin, she began to resent God who was always there, preventing her from ever "getting away" with the sin. The threat of punishment was always looming and weighed her down, which is not what Jesus wanted.

Let's contrast that with the child who raised to love, honor, and respect his parents. The father shows unconditional love for his son and even forgives the son when he is truly sorry for doing wrong. The father does punish his son occasionally, as it is necessary, but saves punishment for real serious issues, and doesn't make it the main reason for abstaining from bad behavior. Instead, the father fosters in his son the understanding that good behavior is to be done, and bad behavior avoided, because of the love he has for his father, not because of the threat of punishment. In this case, when there is no threat of being caught, the son nonetheless has the knowledge and understanding that he loves his father and his father loves him, and that grabbing the cookie before dinner will be disrespectful of his father and will make him feel ashamed for doing something that his father would not be pleased with. In the long run, this fosters a more stable morality in a person.

This goes the same when we approach people with Jesus. When method of evangelism is to bring the love of Jesus to people, by showing them his unconditional love, accepting them for who they are, bringing the promise of healing instead of the threat of punishment, this will do more to help people fall in love with Jesus, helping them to develop a genuine relationship with him, which will provide more stability and a stronger defense against temptation.

I understand that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." But most people know that "fear" in this context means respect and love. When we have respect and love for the Lord, then we begin to have wisdom. Jesus came, as I showed in "Is the Christian God to be Feared," Jesus came to remove the fear people had when approaching God. He came so that we may no longer fear God. When Jesus approached people, it was out of love for them. He wanted to heal their hurts. We see this with the abundance of compassion Jesus showed to people as he was approached by them. In the story of the woman who had an issue that ran for 12 years (Mark 5:25-34), we see this kind of compassion and the removal of fear that Jesus promised. In this story, Jesus was surrounded by a crowd, so much so that people were running into him. A woman, who had been bleeding continuously for 12 years and had been seen by many physicians to no avail, was following Jesus in hopes of being healed by him. But the story implies she feared approaching him. We read, "after hearing about Jesus, she came up in the crowd behind Him and touched His cloak. For she thought, 'If I just touch His garments, I will get well'” (vv 27-28). She was afraid to approach him for fear he would reject her perhaps. Or maybe she felt she would be condemned by him as he might blame some sin for her health issues (a common belief back then). So she attempted to be healed without getting caught. But Jesus immediately knew what had happened, so he stopped and searched for the person who had taken power from him. The woman, I can imagine, came forward like a dog who cowers, knowing they have been found out. But instead of being reprimanded, the woman received a response she was not expecting: "And [Jesus] said to her, 'Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your affliction'" (v 34). Instead of punishment, the woman received love and compassion.

Let me say that I know that there is a time for punishment. I am not so unrealistic that I deny the need for punishment, believing that all a child needs is love in order to behave well. At times punishment is necessary. But if punishment becomes the main focus of our parenting, what kind of child are we going to raise? Punishment has become the main focus of our message to unbelievers, which goes against the message of Jesus in Scripture. Another important thing to understand about punishment is that its purpose is corrective. Which means that punishment must end so that the corrected behavior can begin. This is the only kind of punishment that can be understood in the context of love. That is why I do not believe the message of hell coheres with the message of an all loving God. It cannot be corrective being that there is no end. It can only be masochistic which goes against everything I know about God. Therefore, for those who resist the love and grace of God, I must believe that when they die, they either cease to exist, or go to a temporary place of severe punishment in order to bring about the correction of one's behavior.

When our message is anything other love and compassion, if we teach that the reason we need Christ is because we are bad and will be punished without him, we divert from the true message of Scripture which is that Jesus provides us with the love, hope, and healing that we need in our lives. The message that Jesus preached was that there was no need to fear God, but that he loves us unconditionally: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life."
Blessings,
-Brandon

Rob Bell, "Love Wins," and the Universalist

Let me start out by saying that I have not read Rob Bell's book "Love Wins." Let me also say that it is my intention to read Rob Bell's book "Love Wins." I have, however, been reading a lot of articles about Rob Bell and his recent book in which he argues against the existence of a hell, stating basically that the idea of a loving, caring, Father God, precludes the idea that a place of eternal punishment exists. For a good explanation of Bell's book, see the blogs at the end of my article. Many are crying that Rob Bell is a heretic, that he is a universalist, and that he needs to be excommunicated from the Church. Those who argue for excommunication apparently do not realize Bell is not a Catholic and therefore cannot be excommunicated. Bell denies being a universalist (the belief that all dogs, and all people, go to heaven regardless of their religion). Whether his argument implies universalism or not, I cannot say, only Bell can. And if he denies being a universalist, I have to accept him for his word. He is probably like me in saying that we really cannot say who God does and does not save. That he is a heretic, is what I here plan on disproving.
Bell is doing what more Christians need to do, he is emphasizing love over hate, grace over judgment. Bell believes that the idea of God's unconditional love contradicts the kind of hell we have come to believe in, a place of eternal, never ending punishment for those who deny Christ. How can an all-loving, merciful God send anyone to such a place? How can a Father do such a thing to His child? What if someone never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus? Do they go to hell? What if someone was horribly abused by a Christian who claimed to be abusing in the name of Christ? Does such a person go to hell? If we can argue that hell does not exist, the problem goes away.
We also have the problem of many evangelicals going around and using hell as a motivator to join the Body of Christ. "If you do not believe in Jesus, you're going to hell," they say. "If you continue in your sin, you won't make it into heaven, but will be punished forever, others say." Jesus says, "love your neighbor as yourself." God says, "I desire that all will be saved." Paul says, "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." So as you can see, our current language does not match up with the love language of Scripture. If we can disprove the existence of hell, then maybe we can get Christians to stop abusing hell for their own gain. When Jesus spoke, love was always his first and foremost concern. The biggest thing Jesus wanted his followers to understand was the importance of showing love and compassion towards others, not hate. What is happening today, however, is that love has been placed in the background so a message of hellfire and brimstone can scare people into becoming Christians. I've said it once and I'll say it again, when Jesus spoke to people, it was out of love and concern for them, not so he could convince them to follow him. If Jesus left an encounter and the person did not want to follow Jesus, or believe in him, that was ok with Jesus. Their freedom was more important to Jesus than getting them "saved."
So what about hell? What are we to believe? Certainly the bible speaks of such a place, doesn't it? There is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in which, upon dying, the rich man sees Lazarus across a vast space and resting in Abraham's bosom. The rich man is obviously suffering and Lazarus is obviously in bliss. Jesus speaks of a place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And of course there is the imagery in the Revelation. So what are we to think? Let me first say that in the Old Testament, there is no talk of hell. There is talk of "Sheol" which just means the grave and was not a location of the afterlife. There is talk of "Abaddon" which can be interpreted in multiple ways, and is traditionally interpreted as a place of suffering, but without necessary connection to the afterlife. So, the idea of hell (as well as the Devil) was a much later idea and did not start developing until the Jews were exiled in Babylon where they were influenced by the pagan beliefs.
Later on we have 7 passages where Jesus speaks of the children of the Kingdom being exiled to a place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 8:11-12; 13:41-42, 49-50; 22:12-13; 24:50-51; 25:29-30; and Luke 13:27-28). First, let me point out that none of these passages refers to this place as being eternal. So, whatever this place may be, it may simply be a temporary thing. One of the problems with the idea of a place of eternal punishment is that punishment is a corrective thing. What is the point of correcting someone, if there is no chance to be restored. When a parent punishes their child, the intention is to correct a behavior so they no longer behave in that way. It seems to me that eternal "punishment," therefore, cannot truly serve its purpose and is just cruel. What we know about God is that is not a God of cruelty, but a God of love. If God is love, how can He eternally punish someone. Perhaps, then, this place of weeping and gnashing of teeth is a temporary place to punish person, making them ready for heaven. From my studies, I have not yet found a reference to this place we call hell, being eternal. And Jesus does not use this language to scare just anyone. Again, if you look carefully, these speeches are directed at those who should know better, the religious authorities of Israel. Those were the people Jesus was always fighting with, those were the people that were oppressive and misused the Word of God. These verses are directed at those who should know better than to teach and preach what they are teaching and preaching.
Finally, let me direct you to Jesus' actions. His actions were far from condemning of people. Jesus showed nothing but grace and love to others. A good example of this was to the Roman centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant who was deathly sick. Jesus immediately obliged and even attempted to go with the centurion to help him. He declined having Jesus come into his home because he felt unworthy. Instead he told Jesus that he knew he could heal the servant without setting foot in the home. Jesus said this Roman had a stronger faith than any he had ever known, even within Israel. What is remarkable about this story is that this Roman centurion, would have been a follower of Mithras, a pagan god. He wasn't even a Jew, let alone a follower of Jesus. And yet this man had more faith than Jesus had ever seen. Who are we, as Christians, to say who can and cannot be saved, who goes to hell and who does not? If God desires all to be saved, if God wants none to suffer, why is it so bad saying that either there is no hell and those who do not want to spend eternity with God simply cease to exist, or to say that hell is a place of temporary punishment to prepare the worst of sinners to see God face to face. What is most important is that we stop using hell as a scare tactic and start showing the kind of love for others Jesus has for them. My prayer is that everyone I encounter may know the love of Christ from being with me.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Is Bell Into Hell, a Review of "Love Wins"
The Rob Bell Controversy: Does Anyone Go To Hell?
The Heretical Rob Bell and Why Love Wins

The Power of Presence

Friends,
When the angel Gabriel told Mary she was going to have a baby, conceived of the Holy Spirit, we read in Matthew 1:23 that he says, "'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,' which means, 'God is with us.'” Jesus represented God in our midst, he brought God's presence to the world. As we read in Scripture of Jesus' life, we come to realize that the greatest gift he gave to humankind was not any miracle he performed, it was not any word that he spoke, but the greatest gift Jesus gave to us was his presence. Sure he performed many miraculous things: healing the blind and the lame, bringing the dead back to life, and turning water into wine. But the purpose of God's incarnation in Jesus was not to heal physical ailments or make a boring party more exciting. Jesus' purpose in becoming one of us was to give us spiritual healing through the gift of God's presence. One of the examples of this in Scripture can be found in John 4 where we read about Jesus' visitation with the woman at the well. Jesus did not perform any miraculous healing in this story, and he didn't even provide any kind of teaching. Jesus gave his presence and brought acceptance to a woman who, as we read about her many husbands and how she was currently living with a man that was not her husband, we realize was not familiar with acceptance. She probably had many people in her village that did not accept her because they saw her as an adulteress because of her lifestyle. But Jesus showed her acceptance, kindness, and love; and most importantly, he showed her God. By providing his presence, God's presence, he gave the woman spiritual healing. Another story that illustrates this is found in John 8 when the religious leaders of Jesus' day brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery, before Jesus. They questioned Jesus about stoning her, since that is what their interpretation of the law required. Jesus' reply was, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." When Jesus had looked away, and then looked back, he saw that there was no religious leader to condemn her. Jesus then asked, "did no one condemn you." Upon hearing the woman reply "no," Jesus responded, "then I do not condemn you either." Once again, Jesus does not perform any miraculous healing or provide any fantastic teaching, he simply gives himself, giving the gift of God's presence, by showing compassion and mercy. By being present with others, Jesus gave the gift of the presence of God, which encompasses love, compassion, and mercy.
One of the metaphors used in Scripture to refer to the presence of God is the Temple. In the Old Testament, the Temple represented God's presence in the midst of Israel. When the Temple was built by Solomon, we read in 1 Kings 8 that upon completion of the Temple, and once the Ark of the Covenant was placed inside, "It happened that went the priests came from the holy place, the cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD. Then Solomon said, 'The LORD has said that He would dwell in the thick cloud'" (vv 10-12). To the Jews, the Temple held God's presence in the midst of Israel. When Jesus, in all four gospels ransacked the Temple, overthrowing the money changers and announced that he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days, he was illustrating that God's presence no longer dwelled in the Temple, but dwelled in himself. Jesus was announcing that wherever he was, God was. But something remarkable happens when Jesus dies, resurrects, and ascends. He told the disciples that his death and resurrection and ascension would be necessary in order for us to receive the Holy Spirit. We read in I Corinthians 3:16 "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" Paul tells the Christians in Corinth that because we have received the Holy Spirit, that we are now the Temple of God. In other words, being Christ-followers, we now house God's presence bring God's presence into the world wherever we go.
What this means for us is that as we interact with other people, it is our responsibility as Christians, as those who house the presence of God, to bring compassion, love, and mercy to others. This means that instead of the judgmental, condemning attitude Christians often bring to others, it is our duty to bring mercy and compassion, bringing God's presence to others by showing them his infinite, unconditional love. It also means that we can stop trying to fix every problem, and help people to rest in God's presence despite the problem they are in. It seems that we too often, when we have no solution and no ability to solve a person's problem, we try to solve it anyway by giving advice and trying to work out a solution, instead of helping the person to rest in God's peaceful presence. As a Hospice Chaplain, I often visit people who are moments from passing. Often what is manifested is what is called "terminal agitation." This means that just prior to dying a person will experience high anxiety and become restless. The typical response is to try and do something to help them. Caregivers will run around like a chicken with their head cut off trying to come up with a solution. Medication is given, blankets are put on them, blankets are taken off them, 911 is sometimes called. The best thing to do in this situation is just simply to be with the person. To provide one's own presence, thus providing God's presence, without trying to perform some miraculous cure or relief, is the best gift a person can give. Sometimes just being their is all that is needed in many situations. Stop trying to give a miracle, stop trying to give the best advice, and learn to simply be. The power of presence, and the relief it can give is amazing and is truly the greatest of all miracles if we just give it a try.
-Brandon

How Christians have Strayed

Hi Friends,
Sorry I have not posted for some time. I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. For those who are wondering, I have now completed 7 out of 8 chapters of my book and will begin working on the final chapter next week. Of course, this does not mean they are ready for the printers yet, as their is much editing that will need to be done. For today, I would like to share chapter 1 with you. Please remember this is copywritten material and any reproduction of it can only be done with permission from the author. If you use ideas from this chapter, please provide a direct link from your site. Thank you very much and God bless:

Chapter 1 How Christians have Strayed.

Mary felt ashamed because of what she was about to do, but she did not feel like she had a choice. Her husband had left her and her family had disowned her and she had no means of making any money. She had to eat. Her children had to eat. “I have to do whatever is necessary to feed me and my children,” Mary reasoned. But it did not take away the shame that she felt as a prostitute. It was not the job she wanted to be in and she despised doing what she did. She tried getting other jobs, she tried earning money in a more legitimate way, but times were hard and the system was broken. The only other option left for her, so she thought, was prostitution.
As Mary was preparing to engage in an act that would have brought her shame for years to come, something even more shameful occurred, she was caught by her religious authorities about to partake in a terribly sinful act, causing another to commit adultery. They seized her and dragged her off to a man whom, if he was who he said he was (so they thought), would condemn her and enact the appropriate punishment: capital punishment. He then began to write in the dirt, building the anticipation of the religious authorities, as they thought they had trapped him. Instead, he displayed grace in a most extreme way, he instructed that the one among them who had not sinned should begin the process of putting the woman to death. After writing in the dirt one last time, Jesus looked up to find only the woman. Jesus asked her, “Did no one condemn you?" When she answered that they had not, Jesus responded, “I do not condemn you either.” Though we do not really know the name of the woman in this story (which takes place in John 8), or her back story, the remainder of it is true, and it illustrates an attitude that is no longer reflected well in the Christian culture: the attitude of grace that Jesus possessed so strongly in his ministry on earth.
In Jesus’ time the worst of the sinners were prostitutes, adulterers, and tax collectors. Yet these were the exact people he spent the most time with. We read of Jesus sitting and dining with prostitutes, adulterers, and tax collectors and telling the religious authorities who opposed him that “the kingdom of God was made up of people [like them].” Jesus took those who were considered the most sinful of his time, and gave them the highest place in heaven. This is the common reversal we see in Scripture that Jesus often made of the received norms of his time, encompassed in such sayings as “So the last shall be first, and the first last” (Matt 20:16). Jesus showed grace and mercy to people who never received grace and mercy from anyone else, exemplifying what he wanted from his followers. We see from Jesus over and over again throughout the Bible this forgiving attitude reflected in the way he approached people, bringing compassion instead of condemnation, love instead of judgment. When Jesus was here on earth sinners flocked to him, wanting to be with him, because he accepted them for who they were. Sinners felt Jesus’ love and compassion for them which is why they wanted to be around him.
Yet today, Christians who are supposed to represent Christ on earth, reflecting his attitude, are viewed as judgmental, critical, and condemning of others (Christian and non-Christian alike). Among the vast majority of non-Christians, Christians are viewed as judgmental and condemning. This is backed up by polling done by Christians themselves through the Barna group and discussed in David Kinnaman’s book, UnChristian. Within the abundant amount of polling done by the Barna group in its research of the view of non-Christians of Christians, the three most common negative perceptions about Christianity among non-Christians aged 16-29 are that it is antihomosexual (91% of those polled), judgmental (87%), and hypocritical (85%) (Kinnaman, 2009, 27-28). Eighty-seven percent of those outside Christianity, view Christians as judgmental. I understand that some will argue that it should not matter what others think and that it was prophesied that Christians would be judged and condemned and the target of much ridicule; but when eighty-seven percent of non-Christians feel that they or others are heavily judged by a group that is supposed to be exemplifying Jesus’ grace and forgiveness, we have to question whether we have been approaching non-Christians appropriately. Christians, then, are placed in the role of the religious leaders in the above story, as opposed to the role of Christ. Instead of exemplifying Christ on earth through grace, forgiveness, and love, it seems that Christians are exemplifying the condemnation of the religious leaders who Christ so often came up against.
We find that those most viewed as sinners in our culture feel judged and rejected by the Church. The number one negative perception among outsiders of Christians, as seen from the poll above, is that we are anti-homosexual. Homosexuality is highly attacked today by the Church as one of the most prominent sins in the world today. Popular evangelists blame natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and acts of humankind such as 9/11 on the sinful behavior of homosexuals, calling those acts punishments for our toleration of such sins. We occasionally read of the members of Westboro Baptist Church protesting outside a veteran’s memorial service with banners that say, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” because they believe the death of our soldiers is God’s way of punishing the United States for tolerating homosexuality.
This majority perception of outsiders is not based on fiction, but is based on actual, widespread, judgmental behavior within the Church of which the examples in the above paragraph are just a sample. In the movie I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, the main characters who are faking a homosexual relationship are leaving a gay pride event where outside a man is yelling slurs on a bull horn and surrounded by people carrying signs indicating that gays are going to hell. As it turns out, the man yelling the slurs through the bull horn is the pastor of a church and those with him are the members of his congregation. This is not a mere caricature of the Church, but an accurate (and a sad) portrayal of the way most churches function.
We see this type of condemnation on a large scale where Christian leaders state in large venues their negative view of certain sinful behavior or where other Christian leaders perform acts of terror such as the bombing of abortion clinics. We see this also on a smaller scale within our own churches where a person is shunned if a particular sin is revealed or where a Christian speaks words of condemnation against an outsider in a context outside of the church. Regardless, this type of judgmental attitude is widespread among Christians, as evidenced by the poll already cited by the Barna group. Christians, instead of showing forgiveness and love, are casting stones first. The Church, instead of being a place outsiders and insiders (Christians) want to come and be a part of, is a place seen as unwelcoming and unloving that many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, want to avoid.
How did Christians go from being the source of grace and love and forgiveness, to being the source of judgment and condemnation, the moral police of society? How did Christianity transition from being such a welcoming and accepting group, a group all people ran to be a part of, to being an unwelcoming, alienating group that many people, now, want nothing to do with? These are the questions this book intends to answer and the problem it intends to correct.
This condemning attitude now so prominent within Christianity is due to a misunderstanding of how Jesus interacts with different people in Scripture. In the Gospels, Jesus interacts with three main groups of people: 1. The religious leaders of his day, 2. Outsiders, and 3. Insiders. This group can be divided differently by different people for different purposes; different groups can be added, some can be taken away. But in the Bible, we find that Jesus interacts with three different kinds of people: 1. Those who associate themselves with the religious elite, 2. Those who choose not to associate themselves with Jesus’ group, and 3. Those who do associate themselves with Jesus’ group. When reading how Jesus responds in different circumstances, we find that he is interacting with one, two, or all three of these groups.
Who Jesus interacts with determines his style of interaction. This point is often lost on those interpreting Scripture. They simply see how Jesus interacted without consideration of who Jesus was interacting with, leading to false assumptions about how Jesus wants us to interact with people today. So when people read passages where he is being condemning and judgmental, without noticing who Jesus is interacting with, they create a universal rule which says this is how we should react at all times, using Jesus as their example.
I will discuss throughout how to identify each group as Jesus responds to them in Scripture, and how we should translate that interaction in the Bible to our interactions with the same category of people today. This is necessary because of a “category mistake” we have made. We see Jesus interacting with a certain category of people in one way, and use that as our model for interacting with a completely different kind of person in our day. This has created a culture in which secular society and Christ-followers alike label Christians as hypocritical, judgmental, unfriendly, anti-homosexual, and the like because we are interacting with people in an unintended way, mixing up categories of people in our everyday interactions. This book aims to fix this category mistake.
Many remember the popular Christian mantra of the 1990’s when faced with a dilemma: “what would Jesus do?” I am sure some of the readers wore bracelets or necklaces with the saying or wrote WWJD on your backpacks. I remember friends who would recite the question to me without elaboration when I brought a problem to them, as if they had just given me the whole secret of life. My response? Well, I would nod back to them just like they gave me the whole secret of life. As I look back, I see the well meaning intention behind the trend. Jesus is our ultimate example of how we should behave and interact with people. Asking the question, “what would Jesus do?” to help bring clarity regarding a tough decision is admirable. The problem is that the direction of the question is wrong. The question should not be asked, “what would Jesus do in this situation,” but “what did Jesus actually do?” The first question assumes we already know what Jesus actually did. But as we look at many of the actions the Church has backed through the years, from slavery to apartheid, from the crusades to the inquisition, from violent attacks against abortion clinics to hated protests against gays; we can see that often we have not answered that first question correctly. As we hear or read today of Christian leaders speaking in judgment and condemnation against a person or group, as we hear the news stories of Christian groups protesting and name calling and acting out violently in the name of Jesus, as we perpetrate some of these actions ourselves, we will see the need to ask the second question: “what did Jesus actually do?”
As we look at the different groups Jesus interacts with and discuss the ways he interacts with each group, we will start to see that Jesus is consistent with the way he responds to each group. To the religious leaders of his day, he is consistently harsh because of the way they have abused their power in first century Palestine. To the outsiders Jesus is consistently gracious and merciful, concerned more about the person than what they have done in the past or who they have associated with. To the insider, Jesus again is consistently loving and gracious, concerned with their growth and well-being as they remain with him. As we discover the consistency of Jesus’ response towards others, we too will become consistent in the way we treat other people. We will no longer need to ask the question “what would Jesus do” because the answer to the question “what did Jesus do” will make clear what we should do, and will ring through our lives like the clang through a church bell.
As we explore Jesus’ approach in his interaction with the insiders and outsiders, we will notice that Jesus’ approach is never aggressive, never judgmental, never exclusionary. Instead, Jesus’ approach consistently is inclusive, welcoming and accepting of everyone, breaking down boundaries so others would feel his love. Nothing in a person’s past or present excluded them from being welcomed into the arms of Christ. Jesus’ approach was consistently filled with grace, not counting a person’s misdeeds against them, but instead showing them mercy and love, not even considering their failings. Finally, Jesus’ approach was consistently gentle, never forcing anything upon another person that they were not ready to accept. Jesus did not aggressively try to “win converts” but gently tried to help people feel loved and important and cared for. His approach was consistently characterized by one word: “compassion.” Jesus cared nothing about his own agenda, but instead sympathized with others, feeling what they felt, hurting when they hurt.
Beginning in the following chapter I will discuss how Jesus interacted with each group mentioned above: 1. Religious leaders, 2. Outsiders, and 3. Insiders. After we look at how and why Jesus interacted with a particular group, we will then look at how we can identify the contemporary version of that group. We will then formulate a method of approach for that group of today that is wholly and completely based on the way Jesus approached each group of his day. In the end, we will have a clear picture for the proper Christian approach to people in our day; an approach that comes straight from Scripture, direct from the method of the ultimate example himself, Jesus Christ.

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

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

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