Maturity and the Christian Faith

This week I turn thirty and I thought it would be fun to look at the changes in my own belief system and the influences that have brought about such significant changes. I hope this can be educational to show that one's belief system should not grow stagnant and remain the same throughout a person's life, but that as a person matures so should their faith.

I was raised in a Christian home with a fundamentalist bent. I was taught to read the bible, to love Jesus, to pray, and to go to church every Sunday. I was taught that I was a sinner who needed forgiveness and that without Jesus I could not be saved. I went to a conservative church growing up that taught us to "witness" to people (a term that means proselytizing, or gaining converts). I was taught to feel guilty about my sins and to always ask Jesus for forgiveness when I sinned.

My first major crisis of faith came when I was a senior in high school. I was raised in a religious bubble where I just assumed that what I was taught was right and was never exposed to anything beyond my Christianity. Imagine my surprise when searching the internet one day I came across a website that "proved" the bible wrong. I felt like the earth was crumbling around me and I didn't know what to believe; my faith had never been challenged before. My bible teacher in high school (I went to a conservative Christian high school) introduced me to Josh McDowell, thus beginning a major shift in my belief system where I fell in love with Christian apologetics (defending one's faith) and desired to become something of a theologian.

During this period in my life, while in my early 20s, I was an outspoken fundamentalist college student, defending such doctrines as the trinity, the inerrancy of the bible, and the salvation only of Protestant Christians. When someone supported a belief I felt was unbiblical, I jumped on them with such an attack that I'd make Pat Robertson proud. I was outspoken against gay marriage, against abortion, and against any religion that was not remotely close to looking like orthodox Christianity. Then would come the most significant moment in my life.

In 2009 I became a hospice chaplain and would meet my mentor Dr. Lynn Euzenas. Both have had the biggest impact in my life. Ministering directly with the sick and dying has made me change my priorities in life. For the first time in my life I was in a position where my heart would be impacted even more so than my head. As I have worked with those who are sick and dying I have realized that many of the arguments for particular doctrines do not matter because what is important to God is not right teaching but right love. I Corinthians 13 teaches that love is the most important attribute of a Christian, and I finally understood what that meant. What is right doctrine without love of one's fellow human being? What kind of Christian are we if we would rather criticize a gay man for his orientation than love him for being a child of God? This is what I learned from my mentor and this is what I have learned from my ministry with those who are in the greatest need of love, those who are sick and hurting and fearful.

I no longer find it necessary to focus on sin, mine or another's. I still believe in the trinity but don't feel that God needs much defending. I think he's got a thick skin and can handle things himself. I no longer believe in the inerrancy of the bible because, frankly, it talks about the sun rotating around the earth which is scientifically incorrect. I no longer believe homosexuality is a sin and instead feel it important to show my love to my gay brothers and sisters in Christ because they are as much children of God as I am. I still believe abortion is wrong, but I will love those who have had and who have performed abortions as much as I love anyone else, because that is what Jesus says is right.

What I hope we can learn from this is that by sticking with a particular belief for the sake of being right we end up wrong in the end. By holding to a belief for one's entire life a person is so arrogant as to believe that he cannot possibly be wrong. We cannot grow stagnant in our beliefs but must constantly monitor for outmoded beliefs that especially hold us back from loving anyone. Our guideline for tossing out a doctrine should be this question: "is this doctrine preventing me from showing love to my fellow human being." If it is the case that a doctrine is causing love to be held back, we must toss it out and forget it, because it is not what Jesus would want us to believe. Let us therefore be mature believers and love one another as Jesus has loved us.

Blessings,

-Brandon

P.S. Don't forget to stop by amazon.com and purchase my book What Did Jesus Do for your kindle. It is still free for the next four days.

Judge Not: Jesus, Homosexuality, and the Bible

I'm not sure at what point Christians decided to take upon themselves the task of cleansing other people from their sins. But at some point it happened: Christianity saw itself become the moral police who would call out people for their sins and institute practices such as excommunication. It became the task of each individual Christian to make people aware of their sins and bar them from participation in certain church activities such as being involved in leadership. Now, obviously if someone is involved in sinful activities that could actually do harm to someone else, those people should be barred from participation. However, we as Christians haved missed a crucial teaching of Jesus' that often goes unheeded. That injunction was to not judge sinners, and that we should remove the log from our eye before focussing on the splinter in someone else's eye.

 

Jesus was clear that when he spoke against sin, we were to take the information he provided us as a way of being self corrective instead of being critical of others for their sins. That of course does not mean we need to be guilt laden, since Jesus' death and resurrection atone for our sins. But we are to take the commands of the Bible as ways of instilling obedience in our own lives, not other people's.

 

When Jesus criticizes us for "looking at the speck in our brother's eye instead of focusing on the plank in our own eye" in Matthew 7:3, he is criticizing those who condemn others for what they perceive to be sin while ignoring the very real sins in their own lives. It is important to remember that God will judge us the way we judge others, which means that if we judge people for sinning, God will remove his grace from us and judge us for our sins. The converse of this is that the more we show compassion and acceptance to others, the more compassion and acceptance God will show to us.

 

I just read an article which discusses an ad that the mayor of London rightly removed which praised the curing of homosexuality. The ad was placed by conservative Christians who call homosexuality a sin and work to cure homosexuals of what they call the "disease" of homosexuality. This is a direct violation of Jesus' words in Matthew 7 asking us not to judge others. This is a more prominent form of what happens in the Church everyday. There is a profound problem in the Church today involving the criticism of other people's sins and the desire among Christians to "fix" sinners. Many of us make it our role to be the moral police of our community. It is important that we realize that regardless of what we perceive to be a sin in another person's life, that which is in our eye is always bigger than that which is another person's. Therefore, we should do our best to focus on improving our own lives instead of obsessing over the sins of others.

Blessings,

-Brandon

 

Does Paul Condemn Homosexuality?

In celebration of my soon to be released book, What Did Jesus Do, I am posting a portion from chapter three, discussing how Christian leaders have mis-represented the Bible at times, interpreting it in ways it was not intended. In this section I discuss how Romans 1 is so often used to condemn homosexual behavior, when that is not the purpose of the passage at all. Here I go in-depth explaining what Paul's purpose is and how we can better interpret the Bible today. Enjoy!

One of the most commonly twisted passages in Scripture today comes from Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

This passage is often quoted in order to bring judgment and condemnation on homosexuals for their behavior which, in turn, makes them feel alienated from the Church. When Christian leaders speak out against homosexuality, and are asked, “where is homosexuality prohibited in the bible?” they invariably point to these verses as the authority that once and for all condemns homosexuality as a sin.

I will not deny that this passage is describing same sex behavior. There is no doubt that this passage says women and men traded natural relations with the opposing sex for unnatural relations with the same sex. What is important is to take this passage in its context. Within the book of Romans, Paul is engaged in an argument in which he is describing God’s saving activity in which He brings humankind back into a right relationship with himself. He is laying out a logical argument in which he is showing why the saving act of Jesus dying on the cross was necessary for us to be brought back into the intended relationship with God. Paul is arguing in Romans 1-7 that the reason we need Jesus to be brought back into right relationship with God is because all of humankind has lost this right relationship by entering into sin. This passage is understood better when we go back earlier in the first chapter of Romans. The crux of Paul’s argument comes in vv 17-18 where Paul begins, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith,’” and then goes on to say, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.” Beginning verse 18 with “for” Paul is using verse 18 to support verse 17 (Moo, 1996, 99). The righteousness of God is God’s saving activity to bring all of humankind back into a right relationship with him.32 This saving activity, as it is revealed later in Romans, was Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection (Romans 3:22, 24, 26; 4:24; 5:1, 11, 15, 17, 21; 6:3, 11, 23; 8:1, 2, 11, 34, 39; 10:9). If verse 18 is supporting verse 17, then what this passage is saying is that God’s righteousness was revealed in Jesus because of the wickedness of men and women which revealed God’s wrath. Because of God’s wrath being revealed in the wickedness of humankind, God’s righteousness was revealed through Jesus’ death and resurrection. In other words, because of the wickedness of humankind, God’s wrath filled the earth. In order to end His wrath, it was necessary to send Jesus to die on the cross and rise from the dead in order to bring humankind back into right relationship with God.

What is important is that in verse 18 we read, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness” (emphasis added). Paul is not singling anyone out in the list of sinful behavior that follows. Paul is trying to point to the underlying sin in all humankind that makes God’s saving act in Jesus necessary. We read in Moo’s commentary that “Verse 18...begins with a universal indictment: all people stand condemned under the wrath of God” (Moo, 1996, 97). So Paul is going to argue for universal condemnation as the state of humankind prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Romans is a letter directed mainly to the Jewish Christians in the Roman church, and one of the issues Paul is addressing is the feeling of superiority the Jewish Christians had over the Gentile Christians.33 Essentially, Paul is laying out an argument that will put the Jewish Christians on an equal plane with the Gentiles. The way Paul does this is by setting up a case against the Gentiles in chapter one, placing the Jews in a superior, yet vulnerable, position, and then pulling their superiority out from under them. Paul, then, begins his argument at the end of chapter one, which serves to condemn the Gentiles. Moo supports this with two points: 1. “the passage is reminiscent of Jewish apologetic arguments in which Gentile idolatry was derided and the moral sins of the Gentile world were traced to that idolatry,” and 2. “the knowledge of God rejected by those depicted in 1:18-32 comes solely through ‘natural revelation’” whereas the Jews were “responsible for the special revelation they have been given in the law” (Moo, 1996, 97). So Paul is trying to bait the Jewish Christians in Rome to feel condemning of the Gentiles for their “sinful” behavior because he is trying to prove a point. The point comes with a twist in Romans 2:1 where Paul says, “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” (emphasis mine). The situation Paul is describing in chapters one and two is the situation as it would look before the saving act of Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul is trying to tell the church in Rome that all are condemned without Jesus regardless of what their behavior is. We are all on an equal footing without Jesus, and we are therefore all on an equal footing with Jesus. So what we have in Romans 1-2 is a depiction of the sinful state of humanity as a whole (the Gentile and the Jew) which, therefore, needs the saving grace of God through the act of Jesus’ death and resurrection. We are smart to remember that Paul goes on to say in Romans that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). Paul was not singling out any sin in Romans as wrong, or as being worse than any other. In fact what he was doing was placing all sins on an equal plane. He was simply describing the state of fallen human kind. Therefore it manipulates Scripture to point to Romans 1 as a prohibition of homosexuality and, therefore, a justification of excluding them from worship in our churches. We might as well exclude everyone from worship in our churches since all have sinned.

It is really interesting that the passage many Church leaders point to as a judgment against homosexuality is a passage which, in its context, condemns those who judge sinful behavior. This passage says there is no difference between sinners. Moo discusses the fact that homosexuality being singled out in Romans 1 has to do with the fact that this is not something Jews would have participated in because of how ingrained it was in their culture that homosexual behavior was impure and sinful. Yet Paul says that the Jews, in their own sinfulness, have done the same things (Romans 2:1; Moo, 1996, 113-117). What this passage in Romans does, more than anything, is condemn us today for doing the same thing the Jews were doing in the church in Rome, considering ourselves superior because we have the law on our side, when in fact the sins we have committed have made us just as guilty.

Again, the point of Paul's letters is not to condemn people, but to show people how truly loving, and merciful, and compassionate God is. Let us begin showing this side of God to people.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Easter and the Crucifixion of Jesus

With Easter coming up on Sunday I've been thinking a lot about Jesus' death and what he died for. I think it is often helpful in my spiritual walk at times to try and reframe some of my beliefs, not necessarily to overrule them, but to help me think of new ways a particular doctrine might be relevant.

Jesus' death is often associated with salvation for wrongs done. The question arises "why did Jesus die on the cross," and the answers come pouring in: "he took on himself the sins of the world," "he received the punishment that was due us," "he paid the debt we owed." And so it goes that the most often given answer for the reason of Jesus' death was to somehow atone for wrongs done.

Now, if you read my last blog, you know that I had a way of reframing sin as a person's hurts rather than bad behavior. This view causes us to feel empathy toward "sinners" rather than condemnation. What if we used this reframing as a way of looking at Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus did not die to atone for sins but to bear our pains and our burdens. Jesus wasn't receiving punishment, but was taking upon himself the hurts of humankind.

We read in Isaiah 53:4 that the Messiah would "[take] up our pain and [bare] our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted." This prophetic passage even addresses that we will miss part of the point of the death of Jesus. Now, I do not deny that Jesus' death was in part done to atone for our sins. I am simply looking at an additional way his death can be viewed.

This view makes God the Father less of a cruel God who would make his son take on the punishment of the world, and more of a compassionate God that would allow his son to bear our pain and our suffering; maybe because he knows Jesus can take it.

Each one of us has a burden to bare that brings us pain. Sometimes this results in addiction, sometimes behavioral problems, and sometimes mental problems. I want all of you to know that you are good just the way you are and that God has felt our pain by suffering on the cross. By his resurrection, he showed that with him we can overcome the burdens we bare. Unlike the message we so often receive from the Christian Church, Jesus is full of love and compassion and cares about each one of us with no amount of judgment or criticism.
Blessings and happy Easter,
-Brandon

Sin: It's Not What You Think It Is

During much of this past week I've been thinking a lot about the concept of sin. I understand that sin is a concept that is clearly addressed in the Bible, but I am wondering how much that concept has been misinterpreted and misused over the past two thousand years. Traditionally the term sin has denoted wrongs committed and has been used for the purpose of condemnation and has caused the alienation of many people because of the so-called sins they have committed. So how can we look at sin differently that might help clear things up and portray scripture in a more accurate light?

Last week I discussed sin as being a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself. What if we look at sin this week as a hurt or a pain that one experiences? One of the definitions for the Greek word typically translated as sin is "to miss the mark," or "to be without a share in." These are both things that cause a great deal of distress and pain in the person who misses the mark and is without a share in. So it is reasonable that "sin" refers to a hurt of some kind which may result in bad behavior.

I think this is a better definition because it doesn't allow for the exclusion of someone because of a sin, but instead welcomes greater love and compassion toward sinners. Defined the traditional way, sin tends to bring about criticism by people for the way a sinner might live his or her life. If you are gay you are seen as a sinner by many in the church who will then shun you. If you have had an abortion, you will be excluded from certain church groups. The pastor gets up to the pulpit on Sundays and preaches against sin, bringing about a feeling of condemnation in those who are in the pews.

Defined in this new way, sin breeds a sense of empathy from those who sense the pain of the "sinner". Instead of creating an atmosphere of exclusion, sin now brings people together because people want to help those who are in pain. When we view sin not as a wrong committed but a pain felt, it lends itself to a more loving church body that wants to bring in sinners instead of keeping them away.

This interpretation also changes how we interpret the saving act of Jesus's crucifixion. Instead of Jesus being punished for our sins, an interpretation which breeds more guilt in me than relief, Jesus bears our burdens and our pain, making what we bear a little less burdensome. This accords with the words of Scripture where Jesus tells us that his yoke is easy and his burden light, easing our burdens. It also is in tune with Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic passage about the Messiah, which reads, "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.". Not only does this prophetic passage interpret sin in the new way we have interpreted it here, but it also predicts that we would interpret sin in the traditional way in which we have by calling the crucifixion a punishment from God for our sins. It seems to me this newer way of interpreting sin is more biblical than the traditional way.

But what about those passages in the Bible where Jesus and John the Baptist are telling people to repent and turn away from their sin? Here is how that comes to be translated. The term "repent" means to turn away from one thing and towards another. What these men are saying is that I can turn away from my pain and face Jesus where I will receive comfort. When repentance is called upon by us, it is repentance from our hurts toward a man of compassion, Jesus Christ, from whom we can be healed and comforted from all of the pain that we experience in this life. Won't you repent with me and turn away from what is causing you pain, to receiving the ultimate healing from Jesus?
Blessings,
-Brandon

What Religion Am I?

For many of you the answer to the title question may seem obvious; you would say I am a Christian. If you had asked me a year or more ago what religion I belong to, I would have said Christian also. But I'm not sure this label fits me anymore, and let me tell you why: it is because I do not believe that Jesus himself accepted any labels for himself, and I believe that labels represent everything that Jesus was against. It creates a me-against-them mentality that Jesus was adamantly opposed too. Search in the Bible and tell me where Jesus claims a religion for himself. You can't because he doesn't. Sure, Paul labels himself a Jew, but the famous mantra is not "what would Paul do" but "what would Jesus do," and Jesus did not accept labels.

I do not want anyone to be mistaken; I believe in Jesus, I read the Bible, and I pray to God. But I am open to people of other faiths. I make no attempt to convert people from their belief to mine. How arrogant is it of me to say "I am right and you are wrong." Instead, I want to be like Jesus who accepted the Mithra worshipping Centurion who had more faith than anyone in Israel (Matthew 8:5-13). I want to be like Jesus who accepted the pagan Gentile woman with whom he had the longest dialogue in all of Scripture whose faith was so great (Matthew 15:21-28). Jesus applauded these people who worshipped a different god than he did, yet ridiculed the religious leaders of his day who belonged to his own religion.

By claiming a religion, I am doing that which Jesus worked so hard against: building boundaries. Jesus worked to tear down the boundaries that his religious group set up. His religious group set up boundaries between those who were clean and those who were unclean. Lepers could not remain in the city or have any contact with their family or friends. They were required to remain on the fringe of the city. Jesus allowed for them to reenter once he healed them. The clean were not supposed to dine with the unclean, yet that is exactly what Jesus did, and he was rebuked for it. Yet he wanted to establish that there was no boundary to be placed between the clean and unclean. Jesus overthrew the moneychangers at the Temple in Jerusalem because of the broken Temple system which created such boundaries that the farther in you go into the Temple, the less types of people were allowed in, until finally only the high priest could enter into the Holy of Holies. It was upon Jesus's death that the curtain of the temple was torn, thus tearing down the final boundary that was established by the Jews between humankind and God.

Now, think about the kind of boundaries one is setting up by calling themselves Christian. They are placing themselves in a position opposing other groups, such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. The immediate connotation that enters the head of one who hears that someone else is a Christian is, "oh, he/she thinks they are right and I am wrong." Immediately there is a sense that that person has that he/she needs to defend him/herself. One then turns to think of all of the cruelty that has been done in the name of Christianity. It is rare anymore for a non-Christian to hear the label "Christian" and think in positive terms. Instead the term works to build walls instead of bridges. To conclude, I do not know what to call myself, but I can no longer call myself a Christian. I do not deny Jesus the Christ. What I do denounce is this label which has become a term not of respect, but of derision.
Sincerely,
-Brandon

All You Need is Love

The title of this post reflects a popular song by the Beatles, but it also reflects the key component that was intended to fuel the Church: love. Somewhere along the line Christians have fallen into the trap that all we need is right and wrong. But believe it or not, the purpose of the Bible is not to teach morality; it's purpose is to teach love.

The problem comes from such passages as Matthew 5 where, after a long string of apparent do's and don'ts, Jesus says, "be perfect as my father in heaven is perfect," or other passages which seem to explicitly tell us to be holy as God is holy. These passages have confused a lot of people through the years. Some have wanted to just throw them out of the bible or downplay them saying Jesus was exaggerating for dramatic effect. Others have taken these passages literally, pointing to them and saying, "see, we need to do good. Good works are important." I think there has just been a gross misunderstanding of these passages.

The Matthew 5 passage uses the Greek term teleios which literally means, "complete" or "finished." It does not mean perfect. Jesus wants us to be complete. In order to be complete, or to work towards the proper end (purpose) for which we were created (which is how this passage should be translated), we must love one another. Jesus says the two greatest commandments are to love God and love one another. Jesus said that his followers will be known by their love. Jesus said that we need to love our enemies. Our proper end is love, and the admonitions that preceded Jesus' command to "be perfect" describe how this kind of radical love works.

The passages that ask us to be holy have the very same purpose. Western culture has taught us that holiness means to follow the rules perfectly. The less we follow the rules, the less holy we are. But this is not what holiness was in the Bible. Holiness was love. Holiness was having a proper relationship with God in love that spilled out into your love for your fellow human being. When Jesus told us to be holy, he was telling us to have a deep, loving relationship with God, and to let that spill over into our relationships with one another.

I do not know where churches got the idea that Christians were to be the moral police and that being a Christian was about doing right and abstaining from wrong. If a person's focus is on sin, they will fall into sin. If a person's focus is on love, it is amazing what good they will do. The focus of the gospel time and time again was on love. The example Jesus gives us in his interactions with such people as the lady caught in adultery, or the Samaritan woman at the well, or the woman who bled for twelve straight years, or the Centurion, or a thousand other people is the example of love. The fact that Jesus showed love to everyone he came across and made them feel welcome and accepted should wake us up to the way the Church should be today.

While listening to Dr. Tony Campolo, a sociologist and Christian social activist, he told a story that really touched me. You can find the video imbedded below and I encourage you to watch it. He tells a story of being down in Hawaii and going for breakfast at 3:00 in the morning. While at this restaurant some prostitutes came in and sat beside him. One said to the other that tomorrow will be her birthday. The other one gave her some grief about it, and the birthday girl, Agnes, revealed that in her 39 years of life, she has never had a birthday party. So Tony planned a birthday party for her at 3:30 the next morning in the restaurant. Over thirty prostitutes showed up and they threw her her very first birthday party. She was so touched she couldn't even describe it. Tony ended up leading the prostitutes in prayer, to the shock of everyone there. When asked what kind of church Tony belonged to, he responded, "the kind of church that throws birthday parties for whores at 3:30 in the morning." That is the kind of church I want to belong to. Not the kind that would say, "you shouldn't do that, prostitutes are bad people." If whores are worthy enough for my Lord, Jesus Christ to eat with, then certainly I am wrong to exclude them from my dinner table. In my Bible, Jesus teaches us to bring love to those who are unloved and to throw celebrations for those who don't feel they have anything to celebrate.

Jesus never taught that the church should be the moral police. Jesus never taught that we need to focus on doing right and avoiding wrong. Jesus reprimanded those who did such things and taught them that the law was about love, justice, and mercy, not rule (Matthew 23). Jesus taught that we are supposed to love on another. And that is what I am trying to practice. And that is what I think the Church should practice too.
Blessings,
-Brandon

The Good Samaritan: A Reinterpretation

In Luke 10:25-37 Jesus tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan in response to the question "Lord, who is our neighbor?" Jesus had just told the crowd that the second greatest commandment was to "love your neighbor as yourself." Whether the Scribe who asked Jesus who his neighbor was, was trying to trip Jesus up, or if he genuinely wanted to hear Jesus' answer, I cannot say. The text says the original intent of the Scribe was to "test" Jesus and that the follow-up question was to justify his original question, so we cannot truly say why he asked; but it will become evident that he needed to know. Unfortunately, Jesus uses an illustration that is better suited for biblical times than our own. This may explain why so many Christians seem to forget who their neighbor is today. That is why I am giving an updated version of this wonderful parable, instead of simply explaining the parable, in hopes that whoever may come across it, may gain some valuable insight into and a fresh perspective from these classic words of Jesus. Enjoy!

A Christian man was taking the subway in New York, going from Brooklyn up to Queens late one night, when he was jumped by a group of muggers. He was beaten very badly, beyond recognition as a matter of fact, and was barely breathing. The muggers grabbed everything and left him for dead.

Not far from where this man was left, bleeding and bruised, a Catholic priest was leaving his rectory. It had been a long day. He made no less than four visitations that day, providing the sacrament of the sick to some shut-ins, and providing counseling to a couple that was contemplating divorce. He was tired and had one last visit he had to make before he could end his day. As he passed the beaten man, he contemplated stopping for help, but knew he just did not have the energy in him, and he had to get to his visit. "Mustn't keep people waiting" he thought to himself as he day dreamed about the comfortable bed he hoped to get to soon.

At the same time as the priest had crossed this man's path, a Baptist preacher was leaving a death visit where he had helped a family cope as their loved one passed away. For him also it had been a long day. Between board meetings and sermon preparation, he barely had time to gather his thoughts. Not to mention his time spent counseling a young drug addict, and writing up a short article for the local paper about why gay marriage should not be allowed in America. He too saw this fellow brother in Christ laying near death, but decided not to stop because God would bring by someone to help soon. After all, he had done plenty that day and needed to think about himself at this point. "Whatever happened" he thought, "it must have been for a reason."

Not long after the preacher passed by the young, dying man, two men who were on their honeymoon (having just been married in Massachusetts) were approaching the young man. These two men, raised Christian but currently agnostic, had quite the day themselves. As they ate breakfast they attracted quite a few dirty looks and few slurs from some of the patrons at the restaurant. They were threatened as they walked down the street holding hands that day and nearly escaped with their lives. The very man who was beaten and bruised was involved in a protest that same evening that these men walked by, and it was this man's spit that landed on the two gay men. But this couple looked on this man with compassion as they saw him clinging to life. They thought about his own family who must be wondering where he is. They thought about this man's emotions and the terror that must have been running through him as he lay close to death all alone in the subway tunnel. So they lifted this man up and took him to the nearest emergency room. They paid for all of his medical bills and stayed with him until they were sure he could speak for himself and oversee his own care. The gay couple never asked for anything and, when the man was well enough to take care of himself, they went off into anonymity.

You see, what makes this story so remarkable, and what makes it still so relevant for us and necessary for us to learn, is that the hero of the story, our neighbor, is always the person/people we typically most hate. It is this person we are told to love, and this is the second greatest commandment, right behind the command to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." Any group can be placed in the role of the Good Samaritan: Muslims, Abortion Doctors, Illegal Immigrants, etc. But the story does not end there. Many people miss the very end of the parable where Jesus says, "now go and do likewise." The only thing Jesus could be referring to is to be like the Good Samaritan. So we are to view those we tend to hate the most as those who are willing to help out when no one else will. But we are also to help out everyone, even those we consider our worst enemies, just as the Good Samaritan helped out the man beaten along the roadside. In other words, our examples for doing rightly, are the very people we often consider to be the worst sinners. Isn't it amazing how Jesus turns our traditional morality on its head? It is my prayer and my desire for us no longer to consider others our enemies, but to remember when we start to feel that way, that these people are in fact our greatest examples, and those neighbors to which we are supposed to love so deeply. That is what Jesus did.
Blessings,
-Brandon

How To Treat Our Enemies the Way Jesus Did

Within the last century or so, Christians have been perceived as more and more judgmental. The media shows images of Christians in the United States protesting at funerals and abortion clinics, as well as outside of LGBT events. We are quoted in newspapers and on the internet saying we won't allow homosexuals to lead ministries or even participate in worship, and calling pro-choicers "baby killers." Christians use what many would consider hate speach and justifying it by quoting Scripture. It is no wonder there is a sense that Christians are condemning and hypocritical. But what did Jesus do? What example does Jesus provide us with on how to treat our "enemies?"

Gay Rights and Freedom of Religion

I read an article today entitled Religious Liberty vs. Same-Sex Marriage: Is There Really a Conflict? in which the author, Marianne T. Duddy-Burke discusses the latest rhetoric against the promotion of LGBT rights and gay marriage. Christians everywhere in the U.S. cry foul against their religious freedoms claiming they will be infringed upon if gays get their rights. Marianne comes at this from more of a political perspective. Today I will approach this from a Christ-followers perspective.

The issue many Christians are concerned about is what will happen to them legally if members of the gay community are allowed to marry. If the church in which the gay couple want to be married doesn't believe gays should be married and refuses to provide the service, can that church be sued? If the florist or photographer or cakist (I assume that is what a wedding cake baker is called) refuse service to a gay couple, will the gay couple have legal rights against those businesses? If an organization is strongly opposed to a gay couple, do they have the right to refuse service, or can discrimination be claimed. Marianne states that she thinks legislation can be written in a certain way so as to allow homosexuals the freedom to marry while protecting Christian organizations that oppose gay rights from being sued for refusing to serve them. I think this could take place as well, but then "separate but equal" comes to mind. You see, to say that legislation can allow the freedom of gays to marry while protecting Christian business from having to service them is like saying we will free the slaves but businesses are not required to service them. I can see "straights only" signs being placed up around floral departments and churches. Instead of the Jim Crowe laws, perhaps we could have the Elton John laws (he is a gay Christian by the way). It would certainly be legal to implement such laws, but is that what Jesus did do? Absolutely not.

Christian Hypocrites

One of the most common critiques of Christianity about its adherents that I hear coming from the mouths of detractors is that "Christians are hypocrites." Christians, of course, are aghast at being called hypocrites, thinking our antagonists are claiming that we continue in our sin when we adamantly admonish the sins of others. This may be where some of the criticism comes from, however I believe there is a lot more to it than that, and that Christians are completely blind to why others are calling us hypocritical.

The term "hypocrite" comes from the ancient Greek and was the term used for an actor. A hypocrite was one who put on a mask and acted in the Greek dramas or comedies. A hypocrite has therefore come to be known as someone who is putting on false airs about them. It is someone who acts in a way opposed to who they really are.

Therefore, it does not seem to me that we Christians are being accused of hypocrisy for admonishing sins in others while we are being sinful ourselves. One thing Christians are really good at is admitting our own sinfulness. (Admittedly, we are also really good at pointing out the sins of others also). What would be hypocritical is claiming ourselves to be perfect (putting on the air of perfection) when in fact we were out lying, stealing, cheating, and doing all kinds of sordid behavior. But this is not what is going on. We admit our sinfulness while also admonishing the sins in others, which is not what makes us hypocritical. So what do we do as Christians that others see as so hypocritical?

Christians are hypocritical in that while claiming God's grace for ourselves, we neglect it when it comes to other people. We consider ourselves to be saved by the grace of God, while withholding his grace from others when we see them as sinful. Even though we claim God's grace for ourselves, affirming that "even though I am still a sinner I know that God's grace provides me with forgiveness and salvation anyways," we deny it to others who we perceive to be sinners, such as homosexuals, illegal immigrants, those who have had abortions, and so on saying that they cannot be part of the body of Christ and be saved without first giving up their sinful behavior. How can I affirm God's salvation apart from works for me while denying it to another who I think is a sinner? I cannot do this without appearing the hypocrite.

But maybe you will say to me, "how is this putting on an air? How is this acting in a way opposed to who we really are?" This hypocriticism takes place in two ways. First off, we are putting on the air that others cannot receive salvation without first putting an end to their sin. The foundation of Christian doctrine is that we are sinners and need God's grace apart from our works to save us. So when we tell "sinners" that they need to stop sinning (which is usually what we wrongly mean by "repent and be saved") we are acting in a way opposed to who we really are. We make the claim that we are so unworthy and need Jesus' free forgiveness to save us, and then demand others to save themselves before Jesus can; this is hypocrisy.

The second way in which this is hypocrisy is that when we claim grace for ourselves while denying it for others, we are really denying grace for ourselves also. If I make the claim that I am saved freely by the grace of God, but ask another person to change before they can enter into the body of Christ or be saved, I am really hindering God's grace to work in my life. I said in the previous post, To Be Forgiven, We Must Forgive that we are told by Jesus that if we do not forgive another, God cannot forgive us (Matthew 6:14-15). In the same way, if we do not show grace and acceptance to others, we do not allow God to show us grace and acceptance. Therefore, when we claim for ourselves grace while denying it to others, we are really putting on an air of grace that we in reality are denying to ourselves.


So how do we end this hypocricy of ours? The first thing we must do is to truly experience the infinite love and unconditional acceptance Christ has for us. When we can truly look at ourselves and the things we have done, and can see that God still forgives us, even when we are continuing on with our bad behavior, we can come to a full understanding of God's awsome compassion. Having done that, we then need to practice having that same compassion for others, doing our best to show them the unconditional love and acceptance that Jesus has for us. If this is a struggle, make this issue a part of your daily prayers to God. It is too important of an issue not to pray about. Maybe if we can all practice this in our lives, we will no longer be seen as hypocrites, but as genuine and loving people who provide support and comfort when no one else will.
Blessings,
-Brandon

To Be Forgiven, We Must Forgive

"And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."

These are some of the hardest words of Jesus for us to accept as Christians. They are difficult because it not only means forgiving our family and friends for minor offenses such as lying, breaking promises, or calling us names, it also means forgiving those we consider our enemies for offenses we consider outrageous and terribly sinful. It means that we no longer let their offense bother us no matter how wrong their action or behavior. It means considering themselves reconciled to us, even when it seems unfair. This seems especially difficult when we are asked if we must forgive Hitler or Bin Laden for their misdeeds. Let me assure you that forgiveness does not mean forgetting, or, if someone's offense is a crime, letting them off Scott free (who is Scott and why is he free anyways). If someone is killing people or molesting children, they need to go to prison for obvious reasons. Forgiveness is letting go of the hold another person's offense has on you. Lewis Smedes puts it this way, “You will know that forgiveness has begun when you recall those who hurt you and feel the power to wish them well.”

What we learn from the above words of Jesus is that in order to receive forgiveness, we must forgive the sins of others. He is very clear, if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven. So what does forgiveness look like?

I am not going to address forgiveness for major crimes or criminals in this post because I do not think that is the most difficult area of forgiveness for Christians. I think the most difficult area of forgiveness for Christians is forgiving what we perceive to be sin, even minor sin, in other people. Premarital sex is no crime, but how difficult is it for us to forgive such an offense. If the Church finds out the youth pastor has been engaging in premarital sex with his fiance, he gets relieved of duty. Even though the plan is to for the couple to get married, and even when the youth pastor is repentant, we cannot forgive even though God does.

If we find out one of the ladies in our bible study has had an abortion, it is all over, she will be run out of that bible study so fast no one will know what happened. She may be feeling devastated about the abortion. She may be repentant every day and forgiven by God. But she is immediately and forever condemned by us.

If two women walk into the Church holding hands, we stare viciously at them and, like a scene from Forest Gump, tell them "this seat is taken," even though no one has sat in that pew for twenty years. (For those wondering, I continue in the idea that homosexuality is not a sin, and will continue to lead people to my post Is Homosexuality a Sin? as long as I am alive. But the majority of Christians will continue to think of homosexuality as a sin, and so I am speaking to them from their world-view). These women are forgiven of their sins by God, but not by the body of Christ.

We are told in Scripture that the gate to heaven is narrow. I do not think this is because of the vast amount of sinners there are in the world. I think it is because of the vast amount of grudges people hold. I think it is because even Christians are not willing to forgive people of their sins unless they are their own. I think a large amount of Christians will not enter into the kingdom of heaven because they are not willing to forgive people for what they perceive to be sin (not everything Christians condemn as "sin" are really sins in the Bible. Many churches consider long hair on women to be a sin, while other churches consider short hair on women to be a sin. Some churches consider smoking to be a sin. Some consider drinking alcohol to be a sin. None of these things are in fact sins in the Bible). If the Church continues in its lack of forgiveness, that gate will be much narrower than we ever thought.

Jesus commands us to be forgiving. This means that we will not let it bother us if a Christian is struggling with sin. Show me a Christian who is not struggling with sin. And if you come forward telling me about how above reproach your pastor is, my guess is he or she would be relieved of duty if his/her sins were found out. No Christian is free from sin...that is unless we practice forgiveness.

You see, Jesus died on the cross, he paid it all because our debt was too great to pay. The only way to sever our debt was to provide a way for that debt to be forgiven of us, instead of paid by us. And if God can forgive us of our sin, shouldn't our appreciation be shown by forgiving others of their sins. To illustrate this, Jesus tells this parable in response to a question from Peter in Matthew 18:

Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
"For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.
"When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
"But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.
"So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.'
"And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.
"But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.'
"So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.'
"But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
"So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
"Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

It is obvious in this parable that the lord of the servant represents God. The amount of time it would have taken the servant to work in order to pay back the debt would have been 130,000 years, according to David Jeremiah in Prayer, The Great Adventure. In other words, this debt was impossible for him to pay off. And yet the lord forgave it. Because of his great generosity, it was expected that the servant would have shown this same kind of generosity. But instead he threw a fellow servant in prison for a debt that would have taken a few months of work to pay back. The moral of this story is that the sin God forgives in us, is greater than any sin we will ever have to forgive in another. God asks that we show the same generosity for lesser debt that he showed us for an impossible debt to pay back.

What this means for us today is that when we see someone entering our church who we perceive to be a sinner (whether their behavior is actually sin or not) we must treat them as forgiven members of the body of Christ, just like we are. In other words, God forgives and forgets their sin, counting them innocent and guiltless; therefore we should as well. Whether a person is gay or straight, has had an abortion or not, has engaged in premarital sex or not, they are no longer considered sinners before God; they should therefore no longer be condemned by us.

Finally, this means that those of us who experience harsh judgment and criticism from the Church, as difficult as it may be, must learn to forgive also. Part of the healing for those of you in the LGBT community and for those who have had abortions or are part of other communities that Christians judge and condemn, is to let go of the hurt caused by forgiving those who persecute us. As always, know that Jesus loves you and I love you.

Please enjoy the video below which was made by Intersections International as part of a movement they are calling Believe Out Loud. I think you will like it.
Blessings,
-Brandon

How Can the "Judged" Respond to the Church

I have spoken frequently about how the Church should respond to certain situations and certain groups, but I have yet to speak on how certain groups should respond to the Church. As much as we try to advocate for marginalized groups and attempt to reform the Church to return to its Biblical roots in Jesus Christ, the fact is many churches (and many Christians) will not respond to reform and will continue to act according to prejudice and bias. This is to be expected for, as the saying goes, “a leopard cannot change its spots.” I am not saying this to justify the Church’s (or individual Christian’s) behavior, and I am certainly not throwing in the towel and giving up on Church reform. The vote by the Presbyterian church a couple of days ago, allowing for the ordination of gay men and women, is a huge step forward and shows that reform is possible. But it is difficult and can take many years for broad reform to occur. In the meantime, what are those who are typically marginalized by the Church to do in response to condemnation and criticism? How is the gay man or woman to respond to an unwelcoming Church? How is the woman who has had an abortion to respond to a judgmental Christian? How is the tattooed, ripped jeans, twenty-something to respond to the turns of the head he receives when he walks through the church doors?

First and foremost, it is important to remember that these attitudes you experience coming from “Christians” and coming from the Church are not representative of Christ. Jesus’ desire was to still the fear and trepidation people had when coming into God’s presence. Before Jesus came, only the High Priest was allowed to enter into God’s presence in the Holy of Holies. He was only allowed to do this once a year, on the Day of Atonement, and he had to go through a special ceremony in order to come before the Creator. Coming into God’s presence was an extremely terrifying thing, and it was reserved only for the select few. Jesus wanted to put an end to this, and so he came, and he opened the doors to the kingdom of heaven for all of humankind. Jesus’ big complaint against the religious leaders (the Pharisees) of his day, was that they shut the doors to the kingdom of heaven on many of the people. So when you encounter these judgmental attitudes from people in the Church, know that they are being representative of the Pharisees and not of Jesus.

Second, pray consistently that God will help you to truly feel the grace and acceptance you have in Jesus Christ. If you have first-hand experience of that acceptance from Jesus Christ, the judgment and condemnation you experience from others will not sting as much. It may well still sting, but knowing that they are not representing Christ, and truly knowing the acceptance you really do have in Jesus, you will not experience the sting to the severity you would without such knowledge.

Third, pray for those who judge you. Jesus says to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). This is certainly not an easy task and one that will require a lot of spiritual discipline on our parts. But I strongly believe in the power of prayer and believe that if we devote ourselves to praying for those who marginalize us (especially those in the Church) God really will work in their lives and will transform their hearts. Remember, as terrible as those “Christians” may be sometimes, it is wrong for us to wish harm on them, and if we can win them over through love and prayer, it will be a victory for us. I have not always believed as I am currently blogging. I used to be one of those that heaped loads of judgment on people such as those in the LGBT community. One of my constant prayers was that God would continue to help me grow and to learn his will and his love more and more. Through constant prayer and study, I was finally won over to understand God’s love and acceptance for all people.

Fourth, be loving and gentle towards those who persecute you. Before I expand on this statement, let me say that I believe whole heartedly in self-defense if those persecuting you are being physically abusive. I do not believe Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek” applies to physical violence. So know that I am not saying to stand there and take a beating if that is what is happening. Instead, if your physical well-being is in danger, get out of there if at all possible, and if not, fight for your life. With that said, I do believe Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek” is related to non-physical attacks. Remember, Jesus liked to speak in hyperbole. When your “honor” or your “pride” is being attacked, do your best to show the attacker love and acceptance, being gentle with them, and showing them the true nature of Jesus. If someone is calling you names or heaping words of judgment on you, do not attack back. This simply adds fuel to the fire. The best means of disarming a person is to be gentle and loving towards them. They will not want to fight back. All arguing back at them is going to do, is increase the tension and increase the anger in both you and them.

Finally, if it is at all reasonable, use the Matthew 18 principle on them. If the Church or a believer is being unChrist-like toward you, approach the offender in privacy (remembering to be safe and not placing yourself in a dangerous situation) and tell them of their offence. If they will not listen, bring one or two witnesses. If they still will not listen, go to the Church itself, the governing authority, and let them know of the offence. If the matter does not get resolved, consider the person or the Church to be outside of God’s will and direction, and move on to another church.

There are plenty of good churches out there that are aligned with God’s will and that will accept you for who you are. Do not characterize Christianity based on these fallen churches. Find Christians who genuinely represent the character of Christ and show acceptance and love to all people; they are out there, I promise. Find churches that embody these characteristics of Christ. Know that Jesus loves you and I love you.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Gays in Church Leadership

The question of who should be allowed into Church leadership has always been a heavily debated topic. For a long time only the most educated men of the higher classes were allowed to partake in Church leadership. It was in the 16th century that Martin Luther advocated for the "priesthood of all believers" (so long as they weren't women). It was not until nearly 500 years later that women were allowed into leadership positions in the Church; and many churches today still will not allow a woman into the pulpit. Only recently have certain churches from the Presbyterian and Episcopal denominations begun allowing gays into the pulpit. But of course today "Church leadership" means something far different from "pastor" or "priest."

The new model of Church leadership enlists qualified (or semi-qualified) people from the congregation and plants them into a ministry. Usually a governing board, or some other authority in the church, finds a person with the giftings required for a particular ministry, and places them in the leadership role over that ministry. The leader is given a crash course in leadership and ministry and then kicked out of the nest to fly. This undermines the past system where the Senior Pastor or Priest was head over the entire church. I think this is a good model of Church leadership for two reasons: 1. A pastor/priest is not a jack of all trades and will not function well as a leader over every ministry, 2. This was the model Jesus used. Jesus did not hoard the leadership responsibilities but passed them around to his disciples. Just look at the story of the feeding of the five-thousand. Did Jesus feed the five-thousand all by himself? Absolutely not. Jesus had some of his disciples in charge of the dining room ministry where they divided up the people and had them sit in particular groups. He had some of his disciples lead the kitchen ministry where they took the food from the little boy and gave it to Jesus, and then passed it out when it was blessed. He had some over the left-over committee, and so on. We know that Judas was in charge of their money as the treasurer of the disciples. So when we do church leadership in this way, it seems perfectly biblical.

But now we get into the question of who should be allowed into Church leadership. This is a broad based question that will require more than this blog can handle in order to answer. We know there are certain regulations Paul places down in 1 Timothy 3 in order for one to be an "overseer" of the church. I will not address the difficulties with translating "overseer" here. What I will say is that Paul's regulations are relevant to his culture, and that they are a step backward from what Jesus did. First of all, Paul states that the overseer must by the husband of one wife (v 2), assuming that the overseer can only be a man. But we know that Jesus placed disciples in leadership positions that were either not married or that were women. Mary and Martha, Lazarus' sisters were disciples of Jesus and hosted gatherings, very obviously acting in some leadership capacity. Mary Magdalene certainly held a leadership position in Jesus' Church. When we get into the book of Acts and into some of Paul's letters, we even read that Priscilla was the leader over a house Church. So it is obvious that a person's sexual orientation did not matter to Jesus when placing a person in a leadership role; what mattered was that person's devotion to him. If a person was devoted to Jesus and worked to please him in every way, the persons sexual orientation did not matter to him. Placing only straight men in leadership roles in the Church until recently has been a purely cultural thing based on our Western patriarchal society, and not on the model Jesus gave us.

In the post Is Homosexuality a Sin? I showed that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible. But I am realistic enough to know that many churches are not evolved enough to acknowledge this truth. So the next strand of my argument is particularly for those churches. When we look at the individual people Jesus used as the future leaders of his Church, we see a bunch of rag-tag people, men and women, who were viewed as the most sinful of people in his culture. We see prostitutes and tax collectors. We even see murderers (in Paul and I might even argue in Peter). And if that is not enough, Jesus picked someone he knew would steal and cheat and betray him to oversee their finances: Judas Iscariot. So a person's sins did not matter to Jesus when he enlisted them into his kingdom. Public perception, to Jesus, especially the perception of the religious leaders of his time effected him in that he turned those perspectives on their heads. If the religious leaders called someone a sinner, Jesus called them saved. If the religious leaders called someone unworthy, he called them most valuable of all.

Looking at today's situation, it is the gays who the religious leaders are calling unworthy to take up leadership roles. It is the gays who the religious leaders are calling most sinful of all. From my analysis, then, it is the gays who are most valuable to be leaders in the church and it is the gays who are the most saved. The Christian gay population today, the Christians of LGBT community are dying to take up leadership roles in the Church. They long to serve the LORD in such deep and intimate ways. I know if Jesus was around today, because of the way the current Church leadership is treating the gay population, it would be them who he would pick to lead the ministries he set up. It's time the Church stopped following the tradition of men and looked at what Jesus did.
Blessings,
-Brandon

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

The Jesus Response to Homosexuals

I was reading through the forums today and happened across a post from a Christian man who is struggling with his sexuality. His question was essentially this: "how do I come out to my straight Christian friends without losing their friendship?" Let me say how heart-wrenching it is for me to hear someone fear losing a friendship for being true to himself. No one should have to fear ending a relationship for being oneself; especially if one's friend is a professed Christian. Jesus of all people felt the hurts of humankind and grew closer to people in such a situations, instead of moving away from them. If you are a Christian and have shown any sort of judgment on a person for being gay or for having had an abortion or for having gotten divorced or for anything, if you have acted in a way that pushed someone from the Church, know that Jesus would have reacted differently, and that he calls us to act contrary to that. Jesus calls us to support other people and love them, even if we disagree with something they do.

I would like first to address Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin and who, therefore, feel it necessary to exclude the LGBT community from worship and/or leadership. I am not going to argue with you here that homosexuality is not a sin. If you want to see my argument you can go to Is Homosexuality a Sin? What I am going to argue is that we are interacting with so-called sinners in a completely unbiblical way. We are treating homosexuality as an unforgivable sin that precludes a gay person from being a Christian. When a Christian comes out of the closet we immediately void their Christian membership card and exclude them from all things Church related. I know a man who was involved in a Church ministry who as soon as he came out of the closet was expelled from that ministry and banned from leading any ministry from that point on. But did Jesus exclude people from ministry because of sin? Absolutely not, that was the job of the Pharisees. That was what Jesus criticized the Pharisees for doing. We read in Matthew 23:13 (if you haven't figured out yet, one of my favorite chapters in the Bible) "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in." This applies not only to the afterlife, but to this life as well. When Jesus describes cutting people off from the kingdom of heaven, he is also describing cutting people off from the Church, which is what we tend to do with sinners.

Jesus dined with all kinds of sinners and selected them as his inner circle of twelve. I described in the post Reaching Out to the LGBT Community that Jesus selected tax collectors and prostitutes (the worst of all "sinners" in Jesus' time) as his closest disciples. So why do we pick out a particular group, call them sinners, and treat them differently from all other sinners. For instance, we call divorce a sin, yet we allow two divorced people to marry. We consider premarital sex a sin, yet we allow two people who have partaken in "fornication" to marry. Why do we not allow gay people to marry? Why do we lift up one group of people as sinners, and place them above every other group of sinners?

But most importantly, why do we create an atmosphere where gay people do not feel comfortable being honest with us? Why do we create an environment where no sinner feels comfortable coming clean. Sinners had no difficulty coming to Jesus with their sin, and that is because Jesus did not treat them with condemnation or judgment. That is because Jesus did not respond with shock and awe at their sin. Jesus simply smiled, told them all was forgiven, and changed the subject. Jesus showed love and compassion and made people feel comfortable and safe to be honest around him. And that is what we need to do as Christians.

For my gay brothers and sisters, I know that it is difficult being honest with your straight brothers and sisters about who you really are; and I am sorry that is the environment we have created for you to come out in. You know that I do not believe homosexuality is a sin and you can use my article on that when discussing your homosexuality with your straight brethren. I want you to know that I am here to support you when you make the leap of faith to come out to your friends, and that I know of many other Christians, gay and straight, who are here to support you too. Most importantly, know that Jesus is here to support you and he will not ever let go of his tender grasp on you. He will hold you up forever.

Let me suggest that when you come out to your brothers and sisters in Christ, that you do it individually with each one. Let me suggest that you make them aware of how difficult this is for you and how much you need their support. Let me suggest that you tell them the acceptance you have experienced from Jesus and how much you need their compassion and love as you make this difficult step in coming out. Let me suggest that you then pray together. Be completely honest with yourself and with them during this process. If they accept you, then all is well and you can ask for their support as you tell others. But if they do not accept you, do not argue with them. Do not fight with them. Give them some time to think and some time to come to an acceptance of what they have heard. If they do not, and they desire to end the relationship, grieve over the loss of the friendship. But do not give up hope in finding a community of believers that will accept you and love you for who you are. If it at all helps, you may use my letter entitled A Letter to My Gay Brothers and Sisters as a tool to assist you and support you.

To all of my readers, know that I love you and that Jesus loves you.
Blessings,
-Brandon

Banning Gay Marriage is Today's Slavery

As I sat down to write this post, I was heavily debating if I should write about Osama Bin Laden's death or the issue of banning gay marriage. I am glad that everyone else decided to write a blog on Bin Laden today, because that gives me the excuse to shy away from such a difficult topic. So, on to the easy topic of gay marriage then.

As Minnesota (and many other states) pushes to bring the issue of banning gay marriage before the voters in next year's election, many gay couples are praying for the same freedom and acceptance that women received in 1920 when they got the right to vote, and the same freedom that African Americans began to have in 1865 (I realize that in our history, African Americans did not really gain full freedom until the 1960s; and I realize that there are some parts of the country where they are still trying to gain acceptance).

If you ask most supporter of a ban on gay marriage, why they support the ban, they will say it is because of religious grounds. The Christian right and the Church of Latter Day Saints are the greatest opponents of gay equality in the United States and they justify their opposition on Biblical grounds. I have proved elsewhere why this thinking is based on a poor interpretation of the Bible, and you can find that at, Is Homosexuality a Sin. Well, you know what they say: "those who do not know history are bound to repeat it." Apparently all of these supporters of the ban on gay marriage forgot that our institution of slavery was also supported wrongly from a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the Bible. And if I am not mistaken, those who were against women's right to vote also supported their beliefs on a biblical basis. That is why it is important for us not to proof text (taking a passage out of its context) or to read things into Scripture, manipulating it to support our beliefs, because it always results in the subjection and exclusion of a particular group of people.

Jesus was a person who broke down boundaries and included instead of excluding people. Jesus opposed the religious leaders because they were then they way today's Church leaders are: they patrol the community looking for people that do not fit the mold they have designed and they exclude them from their group until they are willing to change to fit the mold.

The religious leaders of Jesus' time would not associate with prostitutes or tax collectors, they would exclude those who "broke the Sabbath" or ignored the laws for ritual cleansing, simply because they did not fit the mold. Then Jesus came. He, being one who, in contrast to the religious leaders, had authority, welcomed everyone into his fold. Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, he allowed the breaking of the Sabbath and the ignoring of the cleansing laws because he understood the human need. Jesus never devalued any group or excluded them on any basis or for any reason, and when we start reading Scripture and using it to justify inequalities and exclusion, we need to read it another way and know that our interpretation is wrong.

God himself ordained the institution of marriage, and my gay brothers and sisters should not be held back from enjoying that institution. And please do not quote to me that "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." That was a different time and God needed to create a man and woman in the beginning for the purpose of procreation. I think at this point the world is well populated and what matters most to God is that two loving people, are allowed to enjoy the institution that so many straight couples have been able to enjoy for many years.

So how does the LGBT community go about doing that. It certainly begins with prayer. Paul tells us that we "can do all things through Christ who strengthens us." Second, we need to enlighten people to the true way of reading Scripture so they do not continue to repeat history by using the Bible to restore boundaries that Jesus tore down long ago. And finally, you need to be courageous, and find a courageous leader who will stand up and advocate for you, who will help bring a resolution once and for all that brings about gay rights. Remember what God said to Joshua in Joshua 1:9, "Be strong and courageous! Do not tremble or be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go." God will be with you and will fight on your side. But remember, this cannot be done with a hateful attitude. We need to do this with the attitude of love and compassion that the other side is so unwilling to give you. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will make straight your paths." Do what Abraham Lincoln did with slavery, do what Susan B. Anthony did with women's suffrage. Fight hard for your freedom and you will earn it. Say what Paul was able to say at the end of his long hard struggle: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith."
God bless,
-Brandon

Related Posts

Is Homosexuality a Sin

Reaching Out to the LGBT Community

Homosexuality, Robert Schuller, the Crystal Cathedral, and What Jesus Did

Being Compassionate without Ulterior Motives

Jesus Shows Compassion to Outsiders

Manipulating Scripture

Gay Christians

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