I didn't plan on writing two posts today, but then I read the Des Moines Register and found some of the most dangerous and reckless words I think are possible. (see article: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090823/NEWS/908230354/1001&theme=/apps/pbcs.dll/oversikt?Dato=20090823Kategori=NEWS)
The article is about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's national assembly voting to allow sexually active homosexuals to be clergy in the church. And I want to begin this post by saying this isn't a post about homosexuality or gay marriage or culture wars. This post is about passionate faith.
The article quoted leaders and other members of the ELCA in support of this, and this is where I find the troubling statements:
1) "We have to acknowledge there are a variety of ways to interpret Scripture. Where we get in trouble is when someone says their's is the only way."
2) "The way that I interpret Scripture. . ."
3) "I just feel we need to be inclusive. . . It's about equality and honoring all people."
To number 1 & 2 above:
There are not a variety of ways to interpret Scripture. You can read it and decide it's true, or you can dismiss it. There is no responsible way to be in between. The Bible specifically discusses active homosexuality as a sin. To choose to ignore that part is effectively creating God in the image an individual wants God. You simply cannot pick and choose based on what you like. If you are a Christian (definition: Christ-follower), the Bible is fact. It is not to be altered. If you don't want to follow all of it, don't call yourself a Christian. Be a Buddhist, a Muslim, an atheist, or create your own title for what you are. But you can't have it both ways.
Are there difficult parts of the Bible? Absolutely. There are parts I didn't like for the longest time. No sex outside of marriage, for instance. Or the fact that God is sovereign, and that means he allows some awful things to happen to people when he could prevent it. Or the whole, "Love your enemy / Turn the other cheek / Forgive 70 times 7 times" idea. There are days I want to hold onto my hate, get even, or at the very least, complain to whoever will listen. Even homosexuality as a sin is burdensome. Wouldn't it be so much more convenient and easier to get people to follow Christ if they were allowed to live however they wanted?
But when I decided that Christ is in fact God, then the Bible became fact to me. I developed a passion and love for its words, even the parts I didn't understand or didn't like. Anything else would be lukewarm, convenient faith. And that would be a tragedy, for every individual, regardless of what they believe. I pray that those reading believe Christ or would come to believe Christ. But if you don't, don't carry around the title of Christian.
In Response to Number 3:
Inclusive? Really? Christ was anything but inclusive. Christ was demanding towards those who claimed they wanted to follow him. Therefore, I really don't think that the best place for "inclusion" is in choosing leaders for the church.
This is not a gay/straight issue. This is a sin issue. I don't believe anyone knowingly and remorselessly engaging in sin is fit to lead a congregation. If a man is not passionately seeking to love his wife sacrificially every day, I don't think he's fit to lead. Same with an individual who isn't married but is having sex. Same with someone driven by pride, regardless of how much good comes from the work from which they seek to put themselves on a platform. There are no perfect people. But a leader of a church should be repentant of the sin in their life and working towards Christ-likeness. A leader should be seeking to eradicate any way their life isn't Biblical. Is this demanding? Absolutely. And leadership should be demanding.
I pray I am writing this in humility and in reverence to the text I hold dearer than any other. I'm not trying to win an argument. I just don't believe lukewarm faith in anything is good for anyone. And I especially think it's dangerous for those who claim Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Knowing that different denominations have differing interpretations of the bible this seems like as good as opportunity as any to ask; "Does denomination matter?"
ReplyDeleteI have been wanting to ask you this for a while, we actually have touched on it before but I don't remember the particulars.
Your post leans towards the idea that if people do not believe as you do they should not be christians, that seems quite exclusory. Knowing you personally at the limited level we have I wouldn't say that is true.
Thoughts?
"Does denomination matter?"
ReplyDeleteResponse: Yes and no. I can see how my post was worded in a way that would lead to this question. Here's what I'll say: Denominations do exist because of differing views on issues in the Bible. The example I'll use is baptism, simply because I've studied this issue. Some denominations believe infants should be baptized, while others believe it should be reserved for those able to profess faith (called believer baptism). While I most certainly believe the Bible indicates believer baptism is the correct model, there is a Biblical argument to be made for infant baptism. Many people I respect hold this view; but I only respect their right to this view when they support it (though I feel weakly) with Scriptures.
There are some issues that could be described as cloudy in the Bible, and I believe those are where you see denominational differences. The best explanation I've heard on this is that there are two circles concerning what Christians believe. There is a circle of ideas inside which all Christians agree because of clear evidence in the Bible. Then there is an outer circle with things about which there is disagreement (baptism, predestination, role of women in leadership, activities on Sunday) that are not what we would call "salvation" issues. There are indiviudals who argue passionately about these, but their arguments are based on Scriptural evidence, not on convenience or the shifting sands of culture.
The difference between that and what the individuals I was criticizing in my last post are doing is that those I was critizing want to ignore blatant, clear statements in the Bible. They have, in my opinion, no Biblical leg to stand on. They want to create God in their image.
Do all need to believe what I believe to be called a Christian? Again, yes and no. There are core beliefs that are irrefutable Biblically. That probably accounts for 80% of my beliefs about Christianity. The other 20% of my beliefs involve ideas I can respectfully disagree with a fellow Christan. I don't believe drinking or playing blackjack in and of itself is evil - some do. I think I'm allowed to shop on a Sunday - some don't. As long as those beliefs come from close Biblical reading and not personal convenince, we both are responsible followers of Christ.
I'm sure there are many holes or confusing statements in this explanation. Please, both Beane and any others reading this, point out where I'm weak, confusing, or misleading.