On Hate, Love and the Sinner

He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee. ~ Fredrich Nietzsche, Chapter IV: Apophthegms and Interludes, #146.

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1

Over the past three to six months, I’ve become increasingly aware of the controversy surrounding the use of Mahatma Gandhi’s now hackneyed line, 'Hate the sin, love the sinner.' While, like most slogans, it seems rather sound and has a certain popular authoritative quality to it, I also get the feeling that something fallacious lurks below said authority and popularity. Is it used to obfuscate the true intentions of the user? I’ve honestly never really had a problem with this saying, so it struck me as odd the way certain people were so quick to dismiss it. Then again, I’ve never really thought about it either.

My first refuge for answers on this is the Bible. I attempted to approach the question from a New Testament perspective (as we Christians seem to be the most likely to bandy this phrase) in an open-minded way. I wondered if 'Hate the sin, but love the sinner' is a true Christian attitude reflected in the words and actions of Jesus and the New Testament writers.

I won't dwell on the Old Testament, because there is clearly a different ethic going on. God, as depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures, seems to have a rather heavy hand; there are long lists of things that He hates (Proverbs 6:17-19) but there are a few passages that seem analogous to Gandhi’s phrase. For example, Amos 5:14-15 which reads:

Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say He is. Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.

While this is not exactly what Gandhi had in mind, I think, someone who esteems the Bible could make a case from the Old Testament that God wants us to hate sin but be just (love, perhaps?) the transgressor (and maybe, just maybe He won't squash you like a bug). It also seems that the case can be made that Old Testament God hates the sinner as well. Nonetheless, there are things that God clearly hates.

But for a Christian, we must seek the example of Jesus. How does the character and actions of Jesus guide us? Did Jesus hate sin, but love the sinner? Would this be a motto He might have lived by in His dealings with others? I think these questions are answered depending on how you see Jesus: Is He your Friend, Rabbi or Judge? There are, of course, other ways of thinking about Jesus’ character—rebel, healer, savior, for example—but the three categories I have chosen seem to bear most closely on this issue.

For some people, Jesus is a groovy dude who, were he alive today, would have the world’s record for the number of Facebook friends. He laughed, told jokes and horsed around with everyone He encountered. This version of Jesus is often summed up in another slogan (which probably invites some examination itself): 'He accepts me just as I am'. Jesus got into quite a bit of trouble for hanging out with sinners (man oh man, are tax collectors evil or what?). Jesus was available to anyone who seemed to really want to know God, despite how messed up their thinking or their lives were. This Jesus is the Jesus of love, compassion, camaraderie and forgiveness. His main emphasis was friendship and nonjudgmentalism. For people who see Jesus in this way, judging others is the highest form of antichristian behavior. They are likely to passionately quote Matthew 7:1 ('Judge not, that ye be not judged.') and likely will have the entire chapter committed to memory (Matthew 7). Likewise, a person who prefers to see Jesus in this nonjudgmental light will cite the example of Jesus and the adulteress (John 8:1-11) which has an interesting tag in final verse).

For others, Jesus is seen as the completely just judge. He is quick to right wrongs and punish sin. He is seen as the Temple cleanser and guardian of righteousness. He demands that we be morally outstanding, to live our lives even more true than the most religious of the religious. He cast judgment on people, places and things, even whole towns), proclaiming 'Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' (Matt 4:17). For people who choose to see Jesus in this way, Mark’s (Mark 11: 15-17) account of Him cleansing the Temple of moneychangers shows that Jesus can become angry and, perhaps, hateful of sin.

Finally, Jesus is seen as a sort of ultra-wise Socratic mystic. He is their 'favorite philosopher'; He is Rabbi Yeshua. He was here to reveal the Truth and to be the Truth. His job was to enlighten. On moral issues, he was revolutionary, teaching a strict personal ethic combined with a nuanced philosophy of the ‘Kingdom of God’.

In my mind, this Jesus is more balanced (if still simplistic) and, therefore, probably the more helpful image in relation to this issue. Clearly, He teaches that we need repentance (Luke 5:32) but warns that we should not put burdens on others (Luke 11:46-47) that we ourselves cannot shoulder. He warns that we should love our enemies (Matt 5:43-48), but to take care to avoid rubbing shoulders with evil too much (Matt. 7:6).

When we say 'hate the sin, love the sinner', we need to be careful who we are judging here. The New Testament makes it clear that we should not judge those outside of the Church. I Cor. 5:12-13 asks: 'What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked man from among you.'' We should cast out heretics (I’m using the word in a very technical sense) as 2 John 1:10 suggests; our primary focus as Christians is inward and upward therefore. We need to clean our own house before we judge the world (and we all know how much effort that takes). Jesus did not come to judge the world (that will be later), and, we Christians, being imitators of God, should do the same (2 cor 5:19-20, Eph 5:1-2). Love first (see I Cor 13), forgive (we are commanded to forgive and forgive and forgive, Matt 6:12, Matt 18:15-35), then finally turn the sinner from his ways (James 5:20).

When St. Paul says 'Hate what is evil; cling to what is good', I think it is clear that he is referring to a personal struggle.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. (Romans 12:9-16)

Christianity is a relationship with God and a radically ethical lifestyle (see Matt 5:20 for example). Both of these aspects are difficult (don’t I know it!) but having a 'Christian' lifestyle is what provides evidence to the outside world that our relationship is true. Jesus saved us to be better people, to be better citizens, neighbors, and friends, not to harp on others’ sins and make their lives more miserable. First see to the sins in your own life, then we can talk about the moral failings in your neighbor’s life (Matthew 7:3).

That is certainly not to say that we ignore the evils around us. There are evils that people do that should not be ignored. Where evil exists, it should be despised and combated, for I think that is also a Christian duty. Tolerance, in this sense, should not be our standard. As St. Augustine said,

Any and every unrighteous man must be the object of our hatred in respect of his unrighteousness and the object of our love in respect of his humanity; that by reproving the fault in him which rightly earns our hatred, we may liberate that in him which rightly earns our love, that is to say the human nature itself, and set right every fault in it.

We are, indeed, required to work toward removing sin in others’ life and in the world in general (Jude 1:22-23), but that must be tempered with the fact that we are not God, whatever God we attempt to imitate.

Following a Jesus who is the Judge may give intolerant and militant Christians 'permission' to go on elaborate and hurtful crusades against a particular sin or sins. The monster I pursue with such passion may spawn other monsters in my soul.

While, seeing Jesus as merely a Friend also has it's dangers. Those who focus too much on these aspects of Jesus may find that they begin to become more open to moral lapses. The abyss will open up to them, beckoning them toward lukewarmness, making excuses for sin in others and in themselves.

While we may be better served with a slogan more along the lines of ‘hate the sin in me, love all sinners as brothers and sisters’, in the end, I do think the phrase ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner’ has a certain utility to it. But it cannot be used to justify our own personal crusades against ‘unrighteousness’. We cannot attack the sin outside before we attack it on the inside.

Happy Halloween

This year will be rather subdued compared to other years. I didn’t really do much decorating. In fact, I only yesterday decided to bring down some of my props and set up a little display out in the back yard. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to set them up even if we don't plan on being around tonight. So this is tucked away in a corner of my backyard (for those of you who've been back there, please note the huge new two-story house in the far background that was shoved into my neighbor's backyard . . . why in the world they thought that was a good idea, I have no idea.)

We’re planning on being out tonight (over at our church’s “Halloween Extravaganza”) so I didn’t feel like making a to-do for a dark and candy-less house.

I’ll just leave y'all with some thoughts on Halloween and ghosties from last year:

• On Halloween
• Ghosts and Christians

Have a safe and enjoyable Halloween!

On Being a 'Thoughtful' Christian

I started writing about my Christianity a couple of years ago while in the middle of a crippling bout of depression. My councilor wanted me to double check some of my assumptions, history and associations I had to see if anything in Christian life, either due to faulty thinking or unhealthy habit, may be contributing to those dark thoughts. What follows is the concluding remarks from my 'book' on how I became a Christian.

Rightly or wrongly, I, probably, will always be a little suspicious of people who have been Christians their whole life. They were born Christian and will die Christian. I wonder, hopefully not too cynically, whether they have actually made a choice to become a Christian or was that simply the default setting, as it were? Did they ever come to a point when they made Christianity their own? Have they ever really had to struggle with the difficulties involved in accepting the Bible the way I have? Have they ever been “bad” enough to realize what they’ve been saved from? Do they ever actually philosophize about their faith or is it a purely reflexive worldview? Granted, this suspicion may, in some part, be born out of a sense of envy; I wish sometimes that I didn’t have to struggle as much as I do with my faith. I wish it was as easy as some Christians seem to want me to believe, especially when I so often feel like a weird space alien where ever I go.

Dr. Brian Leftow, professor of philosophy at Forham University, says “I am a philosopher because I am Christian.”[1] I suspect for many modern people that makes little or no sense, but to me, I could never see it any other way. This claim, of course, is a problem for both the theologian and the philosopher. Philosophers tend to think religion isn’t worth the trouble, and theologians tend to think philosophy is more trouble than it’s worth. Philosophy is an act of the mind and will, which is often seen as unreliable “fleshly wisdom” by the religious. Religion, on the other hand, is seen as too subjective to be rationally examined by the philosopher. Both sides, though, are equally guilty of calling out the Thought Police. In Christian circles, it is quite alright to think and question, as long as you think correctly and quickly accept the right answers to your questions, and, in philosophic circles, is quite alright to be Christian as long as your faith does not contaminate your intellect and interfere with your quest for the “truth”. Both sides eye each other with suspicion and both sides too often take their point to an absurd extreme.

I seem to be reasonably well suited to live with uncertainty. I have always been fairly pessimistic about the world, people, the future, but I have always been able to navigate the tensions between my Christian faith and the rigors of reason in an almost aloof sort of way even as faith and reason seem to be polar opposites.[2] For example:

• Faith is stable, eternal. While reason is always tentative, speculative, probing.
• Christianity is orthodoxy. Reason requires testing new ideas; it requires avoiding the crowd (Kierkegaard) or herd (Nietzsche) mentality and anything that interferes with sober thinking (Marx).
• Faith is seen as the opposite of reason. Faith is the evidence of things unseen, while reason requires evidence and argument. Faith is subjective; reason is objective.
• Intellectual pursuits are often seen as unimportant in the light of God’s eternity.
• Intellectuals are seen (often rightly) as the enemy of the Church.
  

It is sometimes difficult to maintain a sense of worth when you “sit on the fence” the way that I do. While Church and Academia so often stand in open hostility, the world at large generally isn’t much help either to the self image of a philosophically minded person. Popular culture is extremely pragmatic; it wants to know how to get something done. Being a “thoughtful” Christian doesn’t usually produce anything of practical use. The education we all receive in school is extremely utilitarian; you need to learn enough to get a job. Thought life is not necessarily entertaining, quick or upwardly mobile. So, my questions are generally kept to myself. I have to pick and choose my battles, and make sense of all this religion-talk as well as I can away from the prying eyes of the Church, Academia and the world at large.

My questioning is sometimes more accepted in secular circles, though. In the Church, I often am met with offended stares if I openly raise questions or present opposing viewpoints. (Though I think in some circles this is becoming less of an issue.) I’ve been told by very well meaning Christians, that my methods are completely wrong. That I just need to stop questioning and “surrender to Jesus”. OK, so how should I do that, I ask. The answer usually is something like: just read the Bible and all your questions will be answered.

This solution to the problem is, for me, entirely insufficient.

While obviously I believe the Bible is the “Word of God”, I still struggle with some of the same old questions about its authenticity, accuracy, legitimacy and its moral lessons. Some parts of the Bible are easy to grasp and accept. Others are not. If we are honest, we all have our favorite books, passages and verses in the Bible and (if we are being honest with ourselves, right?) we are guilty of completely ignoring certain passages in the Bible that are difficult to understand, or that the meaning is at odds with our current views. We act as if certain passages are divine commands for everyone and at all times, yet deliberately break others. We take verses and parts of verses out of context to fit our own needs. Indeed, whole religions and denominations have sprung up because of this tendency. For example, I seriously doubt the Mormon Church would be what it is today if John 10:16 (“And other sheep have I, which are not of this fold . . .”) did not exist.

That said, it should come as no surprise that I believe that this isn’t always a bad thing. Every human being is different, with different backgrounds, needs and desires, giftings and purposes. For myself, I will honestly say there are things about being a Christian (and being a Christian probably means, in the final analysis, believing what the Bible has to say) that are anything from mildly disagreeable to down-right offensive (rightly or wrongly, I’m still working that out). There are things also that seem to completely contradict what I think the rest of the Bible is saying about God. There are things in the Bible that I don’t understand and there are others that I flat out don’t agree with (at least as far as I understand them). And, I firmly believe, that’s OK with God. Our Christian-hood does not rest, in general, on our philosophical views, our ability to comfortably interpret key biblical passages or even our wants and desires. But I think we should recognize that certain passages are absolutely meant for us for a particular time and place in our lives. There are others that we simply won’t understand. Our lack of understanding may be due to any number of things, including pride, mistranslations, poor study and prayer habits, or God may be withholding understanding for a particular time. We may be resistant to abandon a “black and white” perspective to more fully understand the truth, such as when we tackle “loving the sinner yet hating the sin” or “consumer Christianity”. We may need to look at a variety of issues and Bible passages from radically different points of view that we may really understand them. In other words, the Bible is not accessible without interpretation and application. Sometimes, this requires others to highlight parts of the Bible that are meant for us at a particular time. This is why I spend so much time reading, not only the Bible but also, what people have to say about it. That means dealing with the, more often than it ever should be, evil and inefficient organization called The Church.

My feelings about religious organizations have not changed much since my atheist days. The people who comprise the Body of Christ continue to, on the one hand, disappoint and appall me, and, on the other, educate and inspire me. (That doesn’t surprise me though!) Where would I be without Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Kant, Lewis, McGee, Swaggart and, despite the fact that I think he’s completely off his rocker, John Shelby Spong? Where would I be without Lucile [a woman I met just after becoming a Christian who really taught me alot about the Bible, prayer and Christian love], or that nameless librarian [who helped me to become a Christian by pointing me to a stack of really great books]? Where would I be without my pastors and friends at Greater Portland Bible Church? The most likely answer is a complete mess, or, just as likely, dead. Obviously, I now hold that the Church is a God-inspired organism, created as an instrument of salvation, authentic spirituality and physical healing, comfort and reconciliation on earth. But,

The parallel reality, however, is that at the same time the church is an institution which operates, consciously or not, like other human institutions. The primary goal of all institutions and subcultures is self-preservation. Preserving the faith is central to God’s plan for human history; preserving particular religious institutions is not. Do not expect those who run the institutions to be sensitive to the difference. God needs no particular person, church, denomination, creed, or organization to accomplish His purpose. He will make use of those, in all their diversity, who are ready to be used, but will leave to themselves those who labor for their own ends.

Nonetheless, questioning the institution is synonymous, for many, with attacking God—something not long to be tolerated. Supposedly, they are protecting God, an almost humorous notion if its consequences were not so hurtful. Apparently God is fragile, His feelings easily hurt, sort of like Mr. Suffleupagus on “Sesame Street” who feels sad and frustrated when people don’t believe he exists. Actually, they are protecting themselves, their view of the world, and their sense of security. The religious institution has given them meaning, a sense of purpose, and, in some cases, careers. Anyone perceived as a threat to these things is a threat indeed.">[3]

This tension between the needs of the earthly institution and the authentic Will of God is so often a difficult and narrow path (as all members of my church can attest to over the past couple years). On the one hand, we can begin to see that church is really all about our own individuality and start to demand that it tolerate anything we have a notion to complain about. On the other, it is tempting to circle the wagons and burn the heretics. The intellectually lazy notions of conformity so often squash the awesomely sublime reality of biblical unity. Authoritarian unanimity can be manufactured, measured and enforced, while biblical unity is a mystical phenomenon that transcends all outward identifiers. The true Church is a product of unity, not conformity. In my case, conformity actually did its best to destroy my chances of experiencing unity.

For me, the intellectual life is one of the major ways I combat uniformity and selfishness. It is also how I attempt to promote biblical freedom. More often than not, thoughtful consideration on a deeply philosophic level is what makes religion tolerable for me. It makes God seem more real to me. It helps me live a moral life, one pleasing to God. It roots me in the full meaning of Christian life, allowing me more fully grasp the awesome realities God may hide from those who may just skim through the Bible, or simply “do their time” Sunday morning. It helps me reconcile what I see with my eyes with what I see with my spirit. There really are bad reasons for being a Christian; hopefully, reason itself helps me to properly evaluate them for what they are. All in all, I could never be a “good Christian” unless I led a questioning and examined life.

Are there dangers of the so-called intellectual life? Of course. An over-examined life really isn't much better than an unexamined one. The Bible is full of warnings against overly intellectualizing the spiritual, of rationalizing our wants, excusing our sin and relying too heavily on our own thinking. These should be heeded. Thinking too much may cause all sorts of problems, such as:

• Pride, we know the mind of God
• Lording it over people, we are better than those who are not as intellectually curious.
• Objectification of God.

If you think about it though, over-emphasizing any aspect of ourselves (mind, heart or body) will get you into trouble, but it may be more tempting for “thoughtful” Christians, like myself, to feel superior to “emotional” Christians or those who are always seem to be doing something (the Martha Syndrome, different hang-up, same sin). We can start to believe that a “simple” faith isn't really faith at all. Because we've “studied” and are “smarter” than those who seem to blindly accept and are so easily swept up by their emotions, we can easily start to believe that God has favored us. Worse still, we can begin to believe that our methods are somehow a particular blessing to God, a blessing that feeling and working can’t even begin to compare. We can even set ourselves up to be the very priests of Truth.

Sometimes this can go beyond simple pride when it turns into cancerous suspicion (something I myself must take steps to actively avoid). When someone talks of a miracle, revelation or some blessing from God, I often immediately wonder if it is really true. Is this person looking for some kind of undeserved attention? Are they making it up, or are they completely fooled by their unreliable emotions? There’s nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism, but when it becomes reflexive and cynical, then we have problems, especially when we can help to destroy the fragile faith of others (or my own faith, let me tell you!). Of course, we sometimes find it difficult to realize that our own over-analysis can come off as arrogant or unintelligible to those who have a less cluttered (for lack of a better word) faith until we get smacked in the face with that fact. Sometimes, people like me put our faith in our ability to reason, rather that faith in the Living God, which, of course, defeats the whole project of Christianity.

The final point is probably much more insidious and difficult to correct than simple pride. Philosophy is, in the final analysis, the act of defining things. For all practical purposes, each of the four major branches of philosophy tries to “box up” a single word. Epistemology tries to define the word “knowledge”, ethics the word “good”, aesthetics the word “beauty” and metaphysics the word “real”. Theology, or the philosophy of religion, tries to tell us what the word “god” means, among other things. (True spirituality and devotion, on the other hand, is the act of trying to get “god” out of a box.) We might end up knowing a lot about God, but we only think about “god” as long as “it” is safely under a microscope. And, before long, we can entirely loose sight of the object of our study and begin an endless and sometimes pointlessly destructive obsession with the microscope itself. We loose sight of the fact that our theology, our world view, our philosophy, the handy box we put God in (the microscope) is only a tool. We wake up one day completely unable to tell the difference between the eternal God of the Universe and the divisive philosophies we hold so dearly. In trying so hard to understand Christianity, we can entirely miss the point of even being a Christian.

Does that mean we should just give up trying to understand God? God forbid. While, there may be a very thin line between thinking too much and thinking too little, I believe God created human beings complete with (or later grants us, I’m not sure which) a set of mental and spiritual tools for determining truth and (re?) discovering Him. (If not, then free will is a sham, right?) For me, that means always questioning, testing and having the courage to abandon ideas that I once held sacred. I will give up any untrue belief I have because I believe God still holds me to my first prayer. In order to do that though, I must always test whether I have become complacent in my thought life. Have I taken something for granted? Do my beliefs justify something impure in myself? Do my philosophies help others backslide?

And this approach has served me well from the very beginning. Through loneliness, joblessness, deaths, injuries, disappointments and suicidal thoughts, I have never encountered a new fact or perspective that has lead me to believe that my decision to become a Christian was ever in vain.

Granted, there have been times when I needed more than a little help. These are times when religion, that old self-absorbed emasculator of truth, actually fulfils the purpose for which it was created. If allowed to step in from time to time (in prudent doses, of course!), it allows one to see God in action in a concrete way and reinvigorate failing faith. For me, this is especially helpful when I don’t particularly feel like being a Christian. Other people who share my convictions can encourage and support me (and I them in turn, hopefully). These are other people who maybe, just maybe, know something I don’t, who have powerfully experienced the truth recently and can help me to reclaim that vision for myself again. So, the trick is to avoid having faith in my own mental abilities and rely on the help of other people, and, more importantly God Himself.

In the end, the “thoughtful life” is only a set of tools, not the solution itself.

As the years have passed along, I have become increasingly aware of the fact that these tools cause me to do a good deal of fence sitting. I know it and it quickly becomes apparent to anyone who gets to know me. I've been told it’s a bad thing; I've been told it’s a good thing. Perhaps, it’s really the fate of all people who live east of Eden. Some of us embrace it more than others. In the end, it probably just is. It will remain a source of constant torment for me while continually spurring me on toward the full and joyful knowledge of God. It’s just who I am and how I deal with the world.

[1] Morris, Thomas V., ed., God and the Philosophers: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, p. 189.
[2] Williams, Clifford, The Life of the Mind: A Christian Perspective, Baker Academic, Michigan, 2002, pp. 61-70.
[3] Taylor, Daniel, The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian & the Risk of Commitment, InterVarsity Press, Illinois, 1992, pp. 29-30.
[4] Deuteronomy 6:5, see Matthew 22:37.
[5] Ephesians 4:4-6.

Denominationalism

Over the years, I've struggled with the my relationship with religion, especially as it relates to my relationship with God. Considering my background, I've always been at war with religion, as I firmly believe it is the biggest impediment to real spiritual transformation.

That said, I realized as I coming home from church the other day, as much as I hate religion, I hate denominationalism even more. We all have different needs, wants, comfort zones and tastes. It is clear to me that God made us all different for some purpose (what that purpose is, I’m stilly trying to understand). When we congregate or begin to think about spiritual issues, it's natural, even necessary to associate with others of a like mind. I suspect that is just the way human beings are made. I further suspect that this is the byproduct of sin; we seek to find others who will excuse, accept or even encourage our idiosyncratic selfishness.

These idiosyncrasies are what create denominationalism. Mind you, I don’t think peculiarities of thought or action are, in themselves, sinful. It only becomes sinful, when we assume that our way is the right way or when we require others to behave or think the same way we do. Denominationalism is, to me, the artificial distinctions between believers that supposedly our outwardly different traits, attitudes and practices make us more 'Christian' than others. When we take the excesses of our own religious cherry picking too seriously, we become dead to the Spirit. We become nothing more than a clique, despite our best efforts to be 'open', 'honest' or 'spiritual'. As I said before, I have absolutely no problem with differences in the Church in terms of our biases, practices, clothing, word choice, even biblical emphasis; we are all different and those differences need not be eliminated.

The bottom line: if you are a Christian, be yourself, who ever it is you are designed by God to be.

Romans 14 and Church Music

Since reading David Wilkerson's "Confessions of a Rock n Roll Hater!", I've had some more time to contemplate the relationship between musical style and its religious meaning. As Wilkerson points out, Romans 14 is an important passage for understanding our Christian responses to other styles or, what we consider, ungodly activities. I've reproduced the passage in question in its entirety here. As you read, I would encourage you to replace the words "meat" and "eating" with whatever issue seems important to you, whether that is loud rock music, Stephen King novels, long hair on men, Dungeons & Dragons, or anything else that might be an issue with you.

Romans 14 reads:

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

From the very beginning, differences of opinion has been a part of Church life. The Jewish converts believed that one must be circumcised to become a Christians, while to the Gentiles, this seemed unnecessary and ritualistic. Others believed that the Jewish Sabbath was the holy day of the week, while others felt that Sunday was. In the context of Romans 14, food dedicated to idols was a major issue. Should we, Christians, eat meat that was sanctified for pagan gods? Obviously, we are talking about issues of secondary importance here. Paul is not allowing for a radical reinterpretation the Easter experience, nor is he suggesting that the diminishment of the centrality of Jesus in Christian life should be tolerated. He's talking about preferences, style, personal liberty and a wider perspective on ownership of our lives.

In the context of Wilkerson's tract on church music, it is important to note that, in applying this passage, people are free to choose whatever music they wish. One person may like all music; others cannot even begin to concentrate on worship when the music is played a certain way. No one should look down on anyone based on his or her preference of music. If a certain song is worshipful for a person, then it is worshipful. If not, then it is not. This, in no way, reflects on the actual spiritual value or quality of the music (though there may be objective standards in terms of musicianship and sound design). While each person must make a determination about the “cleanliness” of any given music, all music can be good. It is still wrong to force someone to “enjoy” something that will cause them to stumble in the faith.

In the end, if the music is annoying to you, then it is annoying and you should speak to God about it. If you finally believe that a certain music style, volume or instrumentation is “unclean”, then you are completely justified in your beliefs and should feel no guilt whatsoever if you do not like the kind of music at your church. This, of course, does not mean that it is unclean for everyone else.

Whether we over-extend Romans 14 to cover church music is, in my mind, within the realm of possibility, but it is clear to me that Christians should always assume a posture of tolerance in dealing with other Christians’ preferences, whether that be in worship days, food and drink, secular music or other leisure activities. As long as those activities do not cause others to loose faith and we are sincerely convinced in our own minds of the ethical value of those activities, then we have no fear of condemnation.

Romans 14 Commentaries

• Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
• Clarke's Commentary
• BibleGateway.com
• Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament
• Commentary

On "Confessions of a Rock n Roll Hater!"

Today at church, our worship pastor allowed up an opportunity to read and discuss David Wilkerson's tract, "Confessions of a Rock and Roll Hater!". I will be giving it some more thought over the following days and weeks as it specifically relates to our church, but I just wanted to get down some first impressions before they drift away.

Essentially, the tract follows Wilkerson's journey from a fierce hater of rock music to someone who could set aside judgment and allow substance to trump style in our church music. Wilkerson recounts his journey as "seven steps toward balance in music" (bullet points are every so important!). They read as follows:

• STEP ONE--The Music offered to God must be solemn.
• STEP TWO--All music must be sung as if in the direct presence of the Lord
• STEP THREE--Loud music is encouraged by the Lord!
• STEP FOUR--It is unscriptural to criticize another's taste in music!
• STEP FIVE--There is nothing wrong with rightfully using that which has been served to idols!
• STEP SIX--There is a risk in offending others by our music!
• STEP SEVEN--There is a better way--above all controversy!

Step One seems the most obvious. Of course, if the musicians and singers are not solemn, then it makes no sense to call our music "religious" or even "Christian". Solemn music is often, but not always, joyful, and it must be designed to touch the hearts and minds of those who hear it.

The most important step, from my point of view, number two. We cannot be considered worship leaders if we do not realize that our only audience is God alone. We must be able to guiltlessly sing our song and play our instruments before God. "Just as I [Wilkerson] must give an account for all my preaching, so must musicians give an account for all their singing."

The issue of music volume in our modern, amp'ed up world can be tricky and I'll have to give this some more consideration before I write on this subject, so, I won't say much about step three here and now.

Step four seems so obvious to me that it almost doesn't warrant being said. I find it difficult to believe that people believe that the music they LIKE is Godly, while the music they don't is "the Devil's heartbeat". Music, in an of itself, is meaningless. Music is simply sounds (maybe noise) set to time. Our judgements about music are deeply cultural, personal, and, while there may be objective measures for good music in an aesthetic sense, are all individual expressions of emotion and thought.

Step five specifically addresses the idea that rock music was originally intended, perhaps, as praise "offered up to idols". Rock n Roll music (the name itself is derived from an immoral act) has been used or was an outgrowth of immoral, perhaps even demonic, behavior. But, as mentioned above, nothing in music itself is "clean" or "unclean". We as Christians are not bound by a religion of ritual, thus allowing us to use even those very things the Devil has made for our demise.

Because music is a cultural and personal thing, a matter of taste and preference, sooner or later, you will offend someone by our choice in music. If we use discretion and intelligence in our choices, without pandering, we will avoid most offenses, because we have gotten to know our audience. But that certainly doesn't mean we should apologize for every choice we make. "Mostly, God wants you to be free to enjoy what you do, and cause God's people to enjoy it as well."

Finally, there is a better way . . . be creative and bring YOU to the music. We don't have to borrow from the world. We should be the ones with the cutting edge music, the new and exciting, the heartfelt and meaningful music.

I honestly didn't find much new in the tract, nothing terribly ground shaking or awe-inspiring. But our church is still going through some transitions where basic conversation about music seems to be appropriate and necessary. I just hope that in the future, we can avoid lock-step unanimity--by forcing everyone to like the same music--and get back to a more basic reason for having music at church in the first place.

Preference, Priorities and the Committed Churchgoer

Because I believe people get confused and begin to lump healthy discernment or muddle personal preferences in with selfishness (and because I have an unhealthy attraction to definitions in general!), I think it best to begin by defining “consumer Christianity”. According to the Berean Call, Consumer Christianity is, generally,

any attempt to build the kingdom of God or build up the individual Christian (or attract the potential convert to Christianity) by means and methods that appeal to the flesh, i.e., the deceitful and self-serving heart of man.

When we use business and Hollywood strategies to bring us closer to God, we are leaning on our own power. We attempt to make the world’s ways, God’s ways. This is where Church leadership over the past decade or two is at fault. In an honest attempt to feed their flocks, they set into motion a cycle of dependency and, instead of helping Christians to grow, end up making them short-sighted and weak.

We shop for churches, pastors, the slickest presentations, the newest fads in worship music and universal get-God-quick programs (what I call "Top Ten Christianity"). Consumer Christianity turns honest, God-seeking Christians into McChristians. The Church tries to offer what McDonalds does:

• Lot's of menu choices designed to please our appetites and personal tastes. Give the people what they want.
• Hold down the price of commitment in time and money.
• The tendency to avoid intimacy. That's why many people love the mega-church environment where they can be anonymous consumers. You never have to get to know anyone!

The Church is dying of its addiction to spiritual fast food. Indeed, as historian Thomas C. Reeves says

Christianity in modern America . . . tends to be easy, upbeat, convenient, and compatible. It does not require self-sacrifice, discipline, humility, an otherworldly outlook, a zeal for souls, a fear as well as love of God. There is little guilt and no punishment, and the payoff in heaven is virtually certain. What we now have might best be labeled 'Consumer Christianity.' The cost is low and customer satisfaction seems guaranteed."

So, as you can see, by this definition Consumer Christianity is not what Jesus had in mind for His Church, for, if “anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it" (Luke 9:23-24, Matthew 16:24-26).

But can someone seek to maximize his or her well-being, edification or, even, comfort in church without being a Consumer Christian? Is it, essentially, ungodly to enjoy, even look forward to, the blessings of God that flow from a personally helpful sermon, a familiar song, or a favorite program? Is it wrong to seek fulfillment, renewal, and personal growth in church? Can we continue to offer various alternatives and choices in church, yet continually disparage the very act of choosing? Are we required to endure an intolerable church experience, just to avoid being labeled “consumer Christians”?

Let’s be clear here, I am not suggesting that our church experience should merely be judged on a value basis. Church life is not monadic, it is communal, it is spiritual, it is for others. A mature churchgoer will recognize this. A mature and committed Christian will recognize that being equipped, renewed and revived is also an important part of going to church.

Here lies the balancing act between our personal preferences and our biblical priorities. Our preferences are just that, preferences; it's the way we like things. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with wanting things to be one way or another. It just means that we prefer what we prefer, in an aesthetic sense. We all prefer a certain way of worshipping God and serving others. And, under those circumstances, we may just fulfil our God-given purposes at an optimal level.

The committed churchgoer is just that: committed. He or she is committed to growing in Jesus and finding ways to serve others. The committed Christian is also committed to looking into themselves with the aid of the Holy Spirit to discern what things in our church life that are just preferences (the way we like it) and those things that a biblical priorities worth speaking up for.

One final point to keep in mind: if a person leaves a church please don't simply write them off as "Consumer Christians". It may well be that they are, but, on the other hand, God may be using a certain situation in their church life to compel them to move on to other opportunities for growth and ministry. We are all made very differently; we are all on our own separate journeys.

Halloween

As a Christian, I sometimes struggle with how to celebrate (or not celebrate) Halloween. On the one hand, I have a great number of very good memories of Halloweens past. My mom loved Halloween and she always took great pains to make it a very fun opportunity for friends and family to gather and enjoy each other. Halloween was a big costume party that was a shared community event. I also recognize that Halloween was the eve of All Saint’s Day, a Christian celebration in honor of all the saints, known and unknown.

On the other hand, Halloween’s roots is actually Celtic, the festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in). Halloween

marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31, they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth. In addition to causing trouble and damaging crops, Celts thought that the presence of the otherworldly spirits made it easier for the Druids, or Celtic priests, to make predictions about the future.

Halloween was a very spiritual time of the year.

Does it bother me that any holiday celebration has pagan roots? Not really. I am not necessarily concerned that Halloween has pagan origins. My only concern is that Halloween may glamorize or trivialize death and evil. In fact, the older traditions did nothing of the kind. Rather, our modern skeptical worldview has created a Halloween where death and evil are celebrated.

We no longer think evil actually exists. Evil is seen as a state of mind rather than a real and hungry power. It is an aberration, a bump along the path of progress, a temporary hindrance to our human potential.

Evil is real; it lies in wait for us (Gen. 4:7, I Peter 5:8). And it should not be so quickly dismissed.

That said, our response to evil and death is very important. Do we cower in fear or do we acknowledge its reality with confidence and courage? Maybe Halloween is a time to thumb our noses at Satan. Tell him that I think all of his powers and strategies are "cute" and harmless like the little ghoulies in bedsheets. In a very real way, dressing up and decorating the house in a "scary" way mocks Death and Satan and, as a Christian, proclaims that they have no power of me or my life.

Jesus, the Only Way?

I was considering the claim that Christians are arrogant for believing Jesus is the only way to God today. I've always recognized that there are a lot of things that can really only be done way, but I've never been able to formalize that thought as a counter-argument to Christian arrogance. Today, I may have found a solution.

Let's say someone says that Christians are arrogant for claiming that they are the possessors of the "only way to God" and I respond, in turn, that there are, indeed, many things that require only one solution. The most common retort would be to create an analogy: "Are you saying that there is only one way to get from Portland, Oregon to Washington, D.C.?"

I believe, if my understanding of "getting to God" is correct (i.e. a walk), then my surprising answer is yes, there is only one way to get to Washington, D.C.: You must move from Portland, Oregon. Whether you drive I-5 south and take a left in San Diego or take a more direct route by flying from PDX to Ronald Reagan Washington National airport, you still MUST leave Portland. If my understanding of Christianity is correct (it may not be), then leaving sin ("Portland", yeah, analogies suck! hehe) is the only first step possible. God is not a simple destination. Rather, God will meet you as soon as you do that one thing, the only thing possible.

I will have to give this argument some more thought. While I think it's essentially sound, there are some holes. To be continued . . .