Not Overreacting to Terrorist Attacks

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris understandably there was and still is tremendous alarm, fear, and anger. The threat of ongoing attacks have left the world waiting for the other shoe to drop. In the United States this weekend, especially in major cities, many will shop with trepidation in their hearts over more than just spending too much. Tensions are running high, and the potential for overreaction is high as well.

After the 9/11 attacks here in America hostility toward Muslim Americans in general boiled. In one case as an apparent act of retaliation someone shot a man wearing a turban. Lost on the perpetrator was the fact that the man wearing a turban wasn’t Muslim; he was a Sikh, of a different religion altogether. Even if he was a Muslim it would still just be murder, plain and simple, a deplorable act of seeking revenge against an innocent victim.

Whether the perpetrator claimed to be Christian, I don’t know. But Christians should never seek vengeance at all, much less commit cold blooded murder against a random person who looks like they might be Muslim. Christians should leave room for justice to be carried out through the God ordained governing authorities, not take matters into their own hands (Romans 12:9-13:7).

Neither should we stir up any generalized hatred for Muslims. It should go without saying that not all Muslims are terrorists; Muslims that groups like Isis consider to be compromised, hypocritical, or apostate are targeted along with Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims. They need our prayers and support too, including the refugees, which I believe our churches, Christian ministries, and government can help compassionately and cautiously.

Although there are millions of Muslims who are radical or very sympathetic toward the cause of Isis, most are people who just want to live their lives and make a better life for their families while they follow a religious tradition that they hold dear. There are Muslims such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi who are calling for reform within Islam. Many more need to stand with people like them to thwart the radical vision of militant jihadists.

Overreaction, however, can work in more than one way. Christians should absolutely discourage and denounce hatred and bigotry against Muslims simply because they are Muslims, and, instead, encourage and promote compassion toward them. We shouldn’t, however, go overboard by understating the very stark differences between Islam and Christianity. We can be pro Muslim without being pro Islam; by which I mean we can have respect and compassion for Muslim people without giving credence to Islam.

In the wake of the Paris attacks some Muslim apologists were quick to denounce the terrorists. Some quoted a verse from the Quran in their denunciation, Surah 5:32. Really they only quoted a small portion of the verse. I saw a meme being shared on Facebook in defense of Islam, which contained this partial verse a couple of times at least. It read, “…Whosoever kills one innocent human being, it shall be as if he killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he saved all of mankind...”

I have been reading a translation of the Quran by Muhammad Asad, formerly Leopold Weiss, a Austrian-Polish Jew who converted to Islam, over the past few months. It was sent to my church to my attention earlier this year by CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations). A couple of days before the attacks in Paris, I had read through Surah 5. When I saw the postings of that verse I immediately recognized that something was missing. A couple of days later a fellow Methodist minister also posted a similar meme with the same partial verse in defense of the majority of peaceful Muslims. But to only quote that small part of the verse is misleading and really doesn’t help to allay the fears and suspicions those doing the quoting hope to allay when people find out that verse also contains a major exception clause to that statement. Here’s Surah 5:32 in its entirety with my explanatory comments in parentheses:

“Because of this (the context is a telling of the story of Cain killing Abel) did We (Allah – plural of majesty) ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being – unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind

And, indeed, there came unto them Our (Allah’s) apostles with all evidence of the truth: yet, behold, notwithstanding all this, many of them go on committing all manner of excesses on earth.” (Muhammad Asad’s translation)

Some point out that this verse is talking about a command that Allah gave to the Jews and suggest that it doesn’t apply to Muslims. I don’t think that is really the case here. My reading of the Quran suggests to me that this would be considered a universal principle revealed by Allah to the Jews but is applicable to all people. Nevertheless, did you notice the exception clause, which I put in bold?! Those who object to capital punishment altogether notwithstanding, the exception for punishment in cases of murder is understandable, but what about “spreading corruption on earth”?  (some translations say “mischief”) What exactly does that mean?

The last part of verse 32 indicates an indictment against those Jews who rejected the truth purportedly revealed by Allah who continued to commit all manner of excesses (Asad’s commentary says i.e. “crimes”) on earth. The following verse, 33, is very telling with regards to what the details of the punishment clause might entail.

“It  is but a just recompense for those who make war on God and His apostle, and endeavor to spread corruption on earth that they are being slain in great numbers or crucified in great numbers, or have, in result of their perverseness, their hands and feet cut off in great numbers, or are being [entirely] banished from the face of the earth; such is their ignominy in this world. But in the life to come [yet more] awesome suffering awaits them (Surah 5:33) (verse 34 does offer reprieve to those who repent though)

Asad, who in other places argues that Islamic warfare is only acceptable in cases of defense against aggression, here notes that “to make war on God and His apostle” means “a hostile opposition to, and willful disregard of, the ethical precepts ordained by God and explained by all His apostles combined with the conscious endeavor to destroy or undermine other people’s belief in God as well.” Moreover, the phrase “spreading corruption on earth” does come up enough in the Quran to give much more insight into just how broadly it can be interpreted.

Surah 5:64 specifically identifies Jews and Christians, who have rejected the claims of the prophet Muhammad, and who, throughout the Quran, are accused of proclaiming a corrupted version of the original revelation given by other prophets of Islam, which includes Moses and Jesus, as those who “spread corruption on earth.” The Quran teaches that it is the Quran that preserves the purity of what remains of the original revelation given to Moses and Jesus, among others, before their later followers corrupted it (i.e. Surah 2:97; 12:111)  The phrase “spreading corruption on earth” comes up enough to see that at its heart is a denial of what the Quran teaches is true and promoting teaching which is contrary thereto, especially ascribing divinity to things or beings other than Allah (See Surah 2:7-12; 2:25-27; 2:60-61). The end of Surah 18:15 asks, “who could be more wicked than he who invents a lie about God?” So the terms of the exception clause are very broad and can easily be interpreted to include speech or writing which is critical of Islam, the teachings of the Quran, and the prophet Muhammad. Many millions of Muslims do interpret it this way.

In  an effort to discourage others from categorizing all Muslims as terrorists or even terrorist sympathizers we shouldn’t overreact and intentionally or unintentionally bear false witness about what the Quran actually teaches. Neither should we overreact and promote the idea that there are not serious and very fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam – or the idea that all religions are really the same and have the same ultimate goals. Muslim and Christian dialogue is very important and I would like to see much more of it, but not at the expense of downplaying the differences, which come down to some very central and crucial issues.

The differences between Islam and Christianity go to the heart of both worldviews, striking at the core of identity for both faiths. Take John 3:16 as a very poignant case in point.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (KJV)

According to Christianity, this is the gospel, the good news; according to Islam it is blasphemy.

“O followers of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God’s Apostle – [the fulfillment of] His promise which he had conveyed unto Mary – and a soul created by Him. Believe, then in God and His apostles, and do not say, ‘[God is] a trinity. Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God” (Surah 4:171)

Countless are the times the Quran condemns the sin of shirk, the attributing of divinity to anything or anyone, especially including Jesus, other than Allah. According to Islam John 3:16, as well as most of the rest of the the Gospel of John must be a corruption of the original Gospel that was given to Jesus himself. The difference here could not be any starker. There are competing claims that are diametrically opposed to each other. Both could be false, but only one can be true. Is John 3:16 a beautiful summary of the Gospel or is it a blasphemous corruption? Obviously I believe the former; it is the good news of God’s love revealed in His Son, Jesus Christ, who was the Divine Word, who was God, who became a human being who gave His life as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world on the cross (John 1:1 …) (By the way, the Quran also denies the crucifixion of Jesus and Muslim theologians dismiss any kind of substitutionary atonement as it teaches repeatedly and frequently salvation and forgiveness by faith in the absolute oneness of Allah and righteous deeds).

I was once also a denier of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ (read about my testimony at Wall to Wall Faith, Hope, and Love – scroll down to the first post to begin reading my story or find  summary short summary here). I remember reading about the teachings of Islam regarding Jesus when I believed that Jesus was merely a man, a perfect man conceived of a virgin, but still just a man. I remember thinking that if Muslims only knew that the Bible really didn’t teach the Trinity or that Jesus was God in the flesh, maybe they would become Christian, as I then understood the term. It was also interesting to read the autobiography of Malcom X and see the similarities between his own arguments against the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus and mine – not to mention his journey from a quirky sect of Islam, the Nation of Islam, to mainstream Islam. The other day I also watched a video of Muhammad Asad explaining why he became a Muslim and why he rejected Christianity. His basic argument was once mine as well. Malcom X, Muhammad Asad, I,  and countless others have rejected the Trinity because it seemed to go against reason.

The word Islam could be defined as peace through submission to the revelation of God. In my case I realized that I really didn’t have peace with God because I refused to submit to the revelation of God found in the Bible, especially the New Testament. The truth is the New Testament hasn’t been misinterpreted to teach the concept that came to be called the Trinity, as I once believed, nor has its contents been so badly corrupted as to obscure the original teachings of Jesus or his earliest followers beyond recognition. To finally be at peace with God I had to surrender to the revelation of the New Testament that testifies that God gave His Divine Son to save me from my sins. I had to confess Jesus as my Lord and my God (John 20:28) and surrender my life to Him through faith to be forgiven and filled with His Spirit. I had to cast down the arguments that I had exalted above the revelation of God’s word. I had to believe even though I could not see, fully comprehend, how it all could be. I believe Muslims must do the same.

Yes we must be careful not to overreact when radical Islamists commit terrorist attacks. That also includes not downplaying the stark differences between Islam and Christianity. We Christians must be willing to stick our necks out to proclaim the Good News of the love of God revealed in and through His Son, Jesus the Messiah and our Lord and to talk about these differences with our Muslim neighbors and friends, even at the risk of being condemned for being politically incorrect or for “spreading corruption on earth.” Bullets and bombs won’t ultimately defeat terrorism, but I believe the love of God revealed in His Son Jesus Christ will.

Racism and the Power of the Gospel

The events in Ferguson Missouri have certainly sent shock waves through our nation. As a result some very dark and ugly things from our past and in our present have been unearthed – things that many would prefer to remain buried. Regardless of where one may stand with regards to whether Officer Darren Wilson should have been indicted (for the record based on everything I’ve heard and read I respect the grand jury’s decision in this case but please don’t stop reading if you disagree), the reality is that America has a sordid history of racism that needs to be aired out in court, so to speak. We need to have an honest conversation about racism in all its hideous forms and get to the heart of the matter; and hopefully to the heart of its solution.

As a rural white southerner I am very familiar with racism. I literally grew up in a small country store on a long country road in a community in the hills of North Carolina. Since my mother and father’s store was a community gathering place I heard a lot of things that young ears should not hear I suppose. Some of what I heard was blatantly racist. The N-word was common parlance whether directed toward African Americans or fellow whites as a jovial or malicious insult. Mimicking our superiors we kids, including me, sometimes used it as an insult as well. In “mixed company” however, we knew enough to restrain our use of the word. At school, when tempers flared out of control, however, some white kids would hurl the word toward one of our black classmates. Quite often this resulted in fisticuffs.

Our schools weren’t segregated, but many of our homes and most, if not all, of our churches certainly were. Many white southerners knew intuitively if it hadn’t been stated overtly that having black friends at school was one thing, but bringing one home with you was a different story. To say that interracial dating was discouraged would be an understatement; to say that it could be among white parents’ worst nightmares wouldn’t.

Especially by the time I was in high school, basketball had helped me form closer friendships with African Americans than I ever had before. After a game one Friday night, I invited a black friend to spend the night with me so we could hang out and play some ball together on Saturday. The next morning I could tell my father was not pleased – a fact that he would make all the more evident once my friend was gone.

Why did my father think this way? Was it because he was a mean, cruel, and hateful person? No. While he certainly had his fair share of imperfections, by all accounts he was a kind and generous soul. At his funeral 10 years ago two people stood among the congregation to share their thoughts and sentiments. One was one a Midwestern retired transplant and one of the wealthiest members of the community; the other was a poor black woman named Oka Lee, who drove over thirty miles to attend the service. Oka Lee tearfully spoke of how much she loved my father and how good he was to her and her family when she was growing up. I recognized the dichotomy in my father growing up.

Daddy was probably more concerned about what others might think. He was steeped in a culture of boundaries that for much of his life (he was born in 1928) were more overtly and strictly enforced, but still pervaded the culture even though the lines shifted enough to make room for some official public integration. Yet even though I knew he wasn’t an evil man, he said some things that morning that were quite revolting. In the retrospective light of more life-experience and a better understanding of history, however, it was understandable – not right but understandable. I had broken an unspoken rule, not one of which I was totally unaware. Before I finished high school I would push the boundaries a bit more by showing just an inkling of romantic affection for an African American girl. Some of my white classmates were quick to remind me that she was a n… (well, you know), and that I was encroaching dangerous territory.

Some may feel that I am dishonoring my father by discussing this. I understand some of those concerns. Nevertheless, I am more committed to the truth than I am to saving face for family. I believe Jesus is the truth and he said, “whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” As I alluded above, as with many in America, my father sincerely believed what he had been led to believe by the culture in which he grew up. So for him this was a sin of ignorance in the Biblical sense of the phrase. My commitment to truth and to the gospel of Jesus overrides any family ties; nevertheless what I experienced with my father and with my friends was the resilient power of propaganda. Unjust systems run on lies. One of the biggest and most insidious lies to support racism goes back to the days of the African slave trade and continued long past the Civil Rights struggles of the last half of the last century and lingers among some still today. That is the lie that blacks are not fully human in its most sinister form; or, in its more subtle form, that blacks are inherently inferior, especially intellectually.

It is this lie and the racist ideology that it supports that led to the propagation of slavery, Jim Crow segregation laws in the south after slavery, and in many ways the eugenics movement. This lie also led many to doubt that the Washington Redskins could win the Super Bowl in 1988 with an African American Quarterback, Doug Williams, at the helm. (Not only did they win in convincing fashion; Williams was named MVP after breaking a few Super Bowl records.) The same lie, nevertheless, led a stranger who was talking to me in a Sears store in the late 1990’s to refer to the Book “The Bell Curve” to argue that blacks were simply genetically inferior; although the authors never purported to have solved the nature verses nurture puzzle by stating that it was genetics alone that determined intelligence scores. The Bible too has suffered interpretive distortions because of this white supremacist ideology.

In order to “prove” blacks as less than human in the past some found justification in the story of Noah’s ark surmising that the eight “souls” that were accounted for in the ark were Noah and his family and since blacks are obviously among us, they must have numbered along with the animals! The Canaanite’s relegation to slave status after the flood was also preposterously applied to blacks by wildly concluding that the Canaanites must have had black skin.

Over the years I have had to address a few Biblical misunderstandings myself. Even today there are people who believe that the Bible condemns interracial marriage. I saw a video of a white southern preacher ranting against it just a couple of months ago. While some still believe that the Bible condemns interracial marriage, even a cursory reading of Scripture should reveal that it was interreligious marriage that was the concern for the people of God. I have also had conversations with some, who were obviously influenced by the aforementioned lie, who were adamantly opposed to blacks and whites even worshipping together and were genuinely surprised to learn that both blacks and whites, as well as an innumerable multitude “from every nation, tribe, people, and language”(Rev 7:9), will be worshipping God together in the eternal kingdom.

In college heterodox religion (my sophomore year of college I joined an anti-Trinitarian group) brought me into close bonds of friendship with an African American man. We became roommates and the best of friends. He was a groomsman in my wedding and I was the best man in his. He married a Mexican American a fact that stirred up some consternation in whites, blacks, and Hispanics – even among some of his family and hers. He and his wife invited me and my wife to be with them in the delivery room when they delivered their first child, a beautiful baby girl. Obviously we were very close. Over the years I discerned that the misgivings that some had about their relationship were far more visceral than they were Biblical or rational.

Other conversations that I have had have been very telling. Many older white Americans actually consciously recognize the difference between their feelings that are rooted in the aforementioned propaganda and their rational reflections based on other experiences and biblical evidence that contradict those sentiments. I have heard very visceral racist rants laced with choruses of rational reflection that goes something like this: “I know it might just be the way I was brought up that is causing me to feel this way.” But the feelings fueled by the propaganda tend to dominate the song. What is needed is another song – a new song inspired by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
All of these and similar sentiments have exerted tremendous influence over the minds of countless millions of whites throughout America’s history, thereby ironically enslaving them to an anti-Christian racist ideology and blinding far too many to the racial harmony that is to be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. While some will argue that the Bible is really just altogether a part of the problem, I really believe that in its pages we will not only find part of the solution to racial and ethnic hostilities – I believe we will find the solution. It is only a distorted and ill-informed interpretation of the Bible bereft of the illumination of the Holy Spirit that is part of the problem. Self-interested ideology readily lends itself to cherry-picking and proof-texting, whether it be with regards to science or theology. The Bible actually diagnoses the problem and reveals the solution.

Undoubtedly it is sin that is the root problem. The essence of sin is pride and selfishness. Out of self-interest humans exalt themselves and their own desires above the will of God and the needs of others. Who could doubt that prideful European ethnocentrism mixed with greed in cold and callous hearts propelled the African slave ships longer and farther than the Atlantic breezes? Jesus said that all kinds of evil flow from the human heart, and it is the human heart (a Hebraic metaphor for the essence a person) that is the problem. Sin is more than just the wrong actions that we take, it is also the death-force that inspires and compels us to those actions. The Bible diagnoses the heart as sinful – wicked and deceitful (Jer 17:9) – and the first person it deceives is the person to whom it belongs. Sin compels us to actions that seem right, but in the end lead to disaster. Our sinful hearts compel us to declare war against God, and to hostility with each other. Sin alienated us from God and estranged us from each other.

If Genesis is telling us anything, it is telling us that we all come from one God, the Creator, and that we are all related to each other – all of us. Because of sin we were separated from God in a sea of idolatry and from each other on a battlefield of ethnic hostility. In mercy God devised a plan of redemption and reconciliation. He chose to reintroduce himself to an alienated humanity by calling and commissioning Abraham. Through Abraham’s descendants through Isaac and Jacob, Israel, God promised to bless all nations of the earth. Through Christ, the ultimate seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16), God’s promise was fulfilled and through faith in him salvation and membership in the household of God is available for both Jew and Gentile alike (Rom 1:16; Eph 2). Moreover, through the blood of Christ the long awaited promise of the new covenant was ratified (see Heb 9-10), and along with it the fulfillment of the promise of a new obedient heart (Heb 10:16).

Jesus’ identification of the human heart being the source of evil was and is not incidental to the gospel; indeed it is central to it. The law (Deut 30:6) and the prophets (Jer 31:33-34; Ezk 36:26-27) both attest to the promise of a new heart of obedience, and through faith in Christ all, Jew and Gentile, may receive this blessing through Abraham’s seed. Faith in Christ brings forgiveness of sins and through the new birth a new heart of ever-increasing obedience to God. Being reconciled to God naturally means also being reconciled to others. We have peace with God and with each other. This is good news! And Jesus commands us to share it with all nations and invite all people to be a part of the same family of God in Christ through the obedience of faith. All other distinctions of ethnicity, class, or gender – while not disappearing nor becoming completely irrelevant – necessarily become secondary to our membership as brothers and sisters in the family of God (Gal 3:28) and as vitally connected members of the body of Christ. It all begins with forgiveness and heart transformation. This is not to say that sin is only a matter of individual hearts. While sin flows from individual hearts, it also may permeate the collective consciousness of entire people groups manifested quite starkly in culture; it also may become codified in a nation’s laws. So Christians must seek to preach the gospel to change hearts, teach the word of God with an eye toward transformation of culture, and seek justice by advocating for just laws – “to make disciples for the transformation of the world,” if you will. The later, however, should never replace or even take priority over the former lest the gospel, the word, and the church become domesticated shells – hollowed out of their divine design and intended meaning – to promote an ulterior agenda.

While some doubt it, I believe the gospel is more than enough. “It is the power of God” (Rom 1:16); of it we should not be ashamed. Hasn’t the Bible been used to justify slavery and other bad things? For sure it has, but only by a shallow and superficial understanding of it. John Wesley was adamantly opposed to slavery and the racism that undergirded it; he was also deeply formed and shaped by Scripture. For the Bible he had the highest regard as the inspired word of God, and believed that it should shape every fiber of a Christian’s being – thoughts, words, tempers, and actions. I have no doubt that he was opposed to slavery and racism not in spite of Scripture, but because of it. The New Testament reveals a Spirit-inspired form of slavery that is characteristic of true discipleship that not only delivers us from the slavery of sin, but also witnesses against and undermines the sinful societal systems of domination that stem from the flesh. Jesus calls us into a kingdom in which there are no masters but one, and even he became a slave for others (see Philp 2:5-11). Christians are called to be slaves to one another in love (Gal 5:13) and this turns all worldly relationships based on domination and manipulation on their head – upside down and therefore right side up. This too is central to the gospel (See also Mark 9:33-37; 10:35-45; & John 13).

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. It is enough to reconcile us to God and one another. In Jesus we meet a man who was rejected by his own people. They called him a Samaritan (for a first century Jew an insult roughly equivalent to the N-word) and dismissed him as a demoniac (John 8:48). They handed him over to the Gentiles whom they despised who in turn callously crucified him on their behalf. He was despised and rejected by all; yet it is in him and through him that we must receive salvation. The Jew must find salvation in the one that was rejected as a Samaritan; the Samaritan and the Gentile must find it in the one who was ethnically a Jew. In Jesus we find redemption and reconciliation. In Jesus we find God; we also find each other – our long lost relatives from every tribe and tongue.

Churches of all places should reflect most vividly the multi-ethnic, multi-racial reconciled family of God. To say that we haven’t done so well in America would be an understatement! This failure to bridge the racial divide, to heal this damaged relationship, and to genuinely seek forgiveness and reconciliation has left us vulnerable to those who would seek to exploit and stoke racial tensions for ulterior political ends. I suspect the calls for a “new system” arise more from political ideology and expediency than from the gospel. It is the gospel that is the answer, not the political philosophies of the left or the right.

Several weeks ago someone asked me how we should address racism in the church – in our local congregations. I said we should handle racism by preaching the gospel and teaching the Bible – by speaking the truth in love and exposing the lies of the evil one. To seek to justify racial segregation in worship and church fellowship is antithetical to the gospel itself. Paul’s rebuke of Peter for avoiding table fellowship with Gentiles makes that clear (Gal 2). Christ commanded us to go to all nations, all peoples, to baptize and teach and to form faith communities that are a foretaste of the kingdom of God. The gospel is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and it is a gospel of reconciliation. In Christ Jews and Samaritans and Gentiles of all tribes and tongues are reconciled to the one true God and each other in the one family of God. We all come from one God and we are all related; in the kingdom of God we will all live and worship together. If someone doesn’t want any part of that now, why would they want any part of that for eternity? A gospel with segregation of any degree is no gospel at all! So, how do we address racism in the church?

On a Maundy Thursday several years ago I held the answer in my hand. I pastored a church that was founded in 1762 as an Anglican parish. At the height of the Revolutionary War the congregation joined with the fledgling Methodist movement, becoming one of the Methodist Episcopal Church’s original congregations at the Christmas Conference in 1784. Until the end of the Civil War slaves could come there for worship, but they couldn’t come in. They had to listen to the service from outside the windows as the sanctuary didn’t have a balcony for blacks. After the war someone granted the former slaves their own plot of land just across the road on which to build their own church. Thus was the founding of Union Chapel AME Zion. While I pastored the original church I sought out opportunities to fellowship and worship with our brothers and sisters across the road. Their pastor preached at our church – the first time one of their pastors had ever preached in the church that their ancestors couldn’t even set foot in. I preached at theirs. Both worship services were preceded by fellowship meals. We ate together; we prayed together; we worshiped together. The following year I invited them to join us for our Maundy service. It was at that service that I held the answer in my hand; it was the foot, the black foot that I held in one hand as I washed it with the other. Let’s pray that this becomes more than just an occasional occurrence in an isolated place here and there.

“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Amen.

 

How the Church Should Welcome All People

This week I received a very colorful and beautiful brochure inviting me to join Reconciling Ministries Network “in making all our congregations, even if we disagree about human sexuality and gender identity, places where all God’s children are welcomed, love and grace are unconditional, and every person’s gifts are affirmed.”  Rev. Dr. James Howell of Myers Park UMC in Charlotte, NC was prominently pictured and quoted in three different places.  The theme of each quote from Dr. Howell and the brochure in general is that all people should be welcomed in our churches.  One of Dr. Howell’s quotes even seems to imply that not being open to LGBT behavior as a good thing, at least a possible good thing, would put one in the same category with those who killed Jesus instead of welcoming him because “his way was so out of their holiness box.”  In so many ways, however, it was Jesus’ intensification of holiness, especially when it comes to sexual ethics regarding marriage, adultery, and divorce that put him at odds with other religious leaders. Jesus didn’t really lower the bar.  He called his disciples to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, after all (Matt 5:20).  Nonetheless, I don’t think the question is whether all people are welcomed, but exactly how the church should welcome all people including people who identify as L,G,B, or T.

Should the church welcome a bisexual, for instance, the same way they should welcome someone with green eyes, or should the church welcome the bisexual the same way they should welcome the unmarried young man who is having sex with his girlfriend?   Should the church welcome the bisexual the same way they would welcome someone of another race or the same way they would welcome the couple who enjoys having an open relationship and, as a matter of fact wouldn’t mind including a couple of other people that they really “love” in their relationship?

The premise underlying much of the rhetoric that we hear from the LGBT activists is that being L,G,B, or T is a heritable trait along the lines of eye color, 100% genetically predetermined and absolutely immutable.  This is most certainly a false premise, but it’s one that’s been repeated often enough and loud enough that it has become an unquestionable presupposition in some quarters. Just a few months ago while watching the Winter Olympic games I saw this same premise promoted shamelessly on an official spot on one of the channels carrying the games.  This premise is also repeated quite frequently when gay marriage is compared to interracial marriage.  It’s the “born that way” argument. Of course people in the LGBT community didn’t choose their desires, just like none of us choose our desires, whether they be good, bad, or morally neutral. We don’t, neither can we choose our desires, but we all choose whether or not to act on unchosen desires all the time.

The logic is that since a person is born homosexual or bisexual just like someone is born with blue eyes then it must be an immutable trait and accepted as such without question.  We even have at least two states now that use this line of thinking to ban teenagers who experience same sex attraction from receiving any kind of change therapy.  However, quite often the same people argue that a transgender man, for instance, who was clearly born with male genitalia, should be allowed, encouraged, and supported to go through therapy and even surgery to change the body that they were quite obviously born with.  Political momentum aside, the premise is still false, and provably so, and our bodies do matter and should not be disregarded as if they really tell us nothing about our created identity.

The plan B argument seems to be the one of “love = love.”  The premise here seems to be that you can’t help who you love and if you’re in love with someone, even if they are of the same sex then it must be ok to have sex with them and marry them.  This was the argument of the preacher at my Divinity School graduation in 2012, Rev. Dr. Sam Wells, when he chastised the 2012 United Methodist General Conference, and all of us, including Dean Richard Hays, in the audience who agreed with the UMGC, for “discriminating against people because of who they love.”  Many progressives insist that they just want to allow for “loving, monogamous relationships” between any two people regardless of gender.  There is a glaring problem with this however on two counts.  The first being if you assume that “sexual orientation” is absolutely predetermined then what would you say to a “bisexual” who would like to marry a man and a woman?  Based on the premise, assuming for examples sake that it’s true, how could you deny such a person the ability to be able to marry two people?  What’s more based on the “love = love” argument how could you deny polyamorous marriages in general, such as the recent case of the three lesbians in Massachusetts, or marriage between two brothers or two sisters for that matter, or any other possible permutation of consensual union?  We’re already seeing that the slippery slope, which progressives used to insist didn’t really exist, is looking more and more like a water slide at an amusement park.

Another major problem is that the so-called moderate “agree to disagree” ideology assumes that the disagreement is really over an indifferent matter on par with the issue of food sacrificed to idols that you find in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. But we are most certainly not talking about an indifferent matter.  According to 1 Corinthians 6:9 sexual immorality in general and homosexual behavior in particular without repentance will keep people from inheriting the kingdom of God.  Doesn’t sound at all indifferent to me!  What good is it to welcome people to church in a way that will leave them comfortable with sin of any sort that could exclude them from the kingdom of God?

I know, I know, that’s just Paul. I know many progressives don’t take him all that seriously, at least on this controversial issue.  “It’s just Paul, it’s not Jesus”, as Tex Sample would say.  Others, undoubtedly, will argue that we have just misunderstood Paul for the past 2000 years, and Paul never had consensual forms of homosexual relationships in view.  Believe that if you want, but you will have to do so against a mountain of evidence from the historical context to the contrary (see the exhaustive work of Robert Gagnon http://www.robgagnon.net).  Progressives seem to forget that Paul claims to have been called, commissioned, empowered, and guided in his ministry by Jesus himself; and Luke, whose Gospel is usually a progressive favorite because its tone is a bit harsher toward the wealthy, corroborates this regarding Paul’s call and ministry in Acts.  Considering the historical context and Jesus’ own intensification of sexual purity and reference to marriage as God’s created design for a life-long union between a man and a woman (Mark 10; Matt 19), there is no good reason to believe that Paul somehow went off the rails with regards to sexual immorality in general or homosexual behavior in particular.

Yes, the church should welcome all people.  No one should be left out of the invitation and nobody should be singled out as worse than or less deserving than others.  All should be welcomed to hear the good news that Jesus Christ died to take away the sin of the world, not to make us more comfortable with it.  We should welcome all to hear the good news that God raised him from the dead, thus vindicating him as the world’s true Lord and rightful judge, and that in him we can have forgiveness of sins and receive the power to be born again from above and become a new creation fit for the new creation.  Yes, we should welcome all to join us as we follow Jesus on the hard road that leads to life (Matt 7:13-14) with a cross of self-denial in tow (Matt 16:24), knowing full well that it’s not going to be easy for any of us.  We should welcome all sinners to receive new life in him, to become more than we ever imagined we could be, through being washed, sanctified, and justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11, also see the wider context).    If we fail to do this, then we ourselves may find anything but a welcome when we stand in judgment before the Lord of all the earth, who warns:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:21-23 NIV)

May we be faithful not to bury the gospel with which we have been entrusted out of fear, but to invest it through bold proclamation so that one day we may hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!” (Matthew 25:14-30).  That’s the ultimate welcome I want all people to receive.