On arguing

August 13, 2013

Argument, Blogging, Christian life, Uncategorized

My wife commented the other day on how it seems like a required part of being a Christian is being able and willing to argue with other Christians about the validity of your beliefs. It sounds kind of silly when it is phrased like that, but in my experience, it’s generally true.

No matter what belief you may adhere to at any particular time, it seems a given that if you make it public in any sort of forum, there is bound to be at least one person who will take issue with it- and often you, as a result.

I have been both the “confronted” and the “confronter” in time gone by. When confronted- as in recent times regarding my blog posts- I have found myself rolling my eyes at the urgency with which my confronters have “corrected” my wrong beliefs with the obviously clear truth of Scripture, which, in my stubbornness and carelessness, I have blasphemously set to the side. Like, come on- I’m an adult; I have the ability to critically think and read the Bible for myself. Give me some credit.

And then I find myself showing the exact same ignorance and insensitivity to another person.

How can this person believe such a thing when Scripture is so clear about this?

This person is not reading the Bible for themselves.

And whether they or I brashly and openly disagree with the heretic and uncritical thinker in question and confront their heresy with the inerrant truth of Scripture, or simply gently communicate a certain concern for their eternal well-being, such confrontations are often unproductive, at least in my experience.

In response to one of my previous posts, “My gay agenda“, two different people confronted me about my position, and in each case, we went back and forth numerous times, refuting each others’ points and then refuting each others’ refutations. I felt that my points trumped theirs; I’m sure they felt the same about their own points. In the end, in each debate, neither of us budged an inch on our respective positions.

What was accomplished by engaging in debate with each other? Neither of us changed our perspective at all. It was probably safe to say we had our minds- for the most part- made up before we even read what the other person had to say. With both of us evidently being passionate enough on the subject to engage in lengthy debate with another, we had heard the others’ arguments many times before and we only rolled our eyes as we read each others’ responses and churned out our by-now automatic response to the popular criticisms of our perspective. Of course, I can only speak on behalf of myself- if my fellow combatants in Holy debate were not rolling their eyes, then they were better men than I.

I heard a great quote from Philip Yancy a while ago:

“No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument.”

In this case, one might say, “no one ever changed their views on homosexuality because they lost an argument to an anonymous blogger/random commenter on the internet.”

One might argue- hehe- that this is too absolute of a statement, but I feel like it reflects some truth at least.

I left the aforementioned arguments not with a changed perspective but with an even tighter grip on the one I had had before. I left not feeling closer to this fellow human being on the other side of the internet, but more distant and at unavoidable odds with. We hadn’t connected, but only confronted. I left the argument only feeling annoyed, bitter, and exhausted. Nothing positive was gained out of this interaction, except for a temporary boost to my ego after I let fly another great set of refutations to the others’ arguments- a feeling which is really not that positive at all in the grand scheme of things anyways.

I guess I just wonder if engaging in debates about sensitive and humungous issues is really worthwhile. In my experience, bitterness, frustration, and tension are more likely to result from such debates than one combatant conceding defeat and changing their perspective right there on the spot.

So why have them?

Getting frustrated with a fellow Christian’s supposed ignorance or misguided theology never makes me feel closer to God or to my fellow human (which come hand in hand for me).

Yet when I chat with a person near me in the lounge at school and we connect on even the most casual of levels, the fact that their theology is different than mine suddenly doesn’t matter anymore, because I have just connected with them as a fellow human being.

It’s not denial, it’s not like I am pretending that we don’t disagree on the issue of homosexuality or the interpretation of Scripture or whatever- it’s just realizing that really, in the big picture, there are more important things in life. Like viewing other people as human beings who want to be treated the same way as you- with love, compassion, and empathy.

Now what to do going forward..

here’s an idea: What if I never stated my opinion on something unless it was asked for? (Guess I’d have to stop blogging…)

Or what if I just lived my opinion- however cliche that may sound? After all, haven’t I said in previous posts that I believe the gospel centers on love? And haven’t I said that nothing reflects one’s true beliefs more than what they do? Maybe I should just start, you know, loving others instead of arguing with them.

I know- conversation about sticky issues is good, and it would seem foolish to do away with all of it. But I guess just in my experience, when I start “conversing” with people of a very different opinion on a hotly contested issue, I quickly lose my feelings of empathy and love for them, and just as quickly gain ones of bitterness and frustration. And then it’s not worth it.

I quoted these principles of effective argumentation in my first post:

1) Use the principles of argumentation with compassion.

2) Reaffirm your opponent’s sense of competence.

3) Emphasize equality.

4) Emphasize shared attitudes.

5) Show opponents you are interested in their views.

6) Allow your opponents to save face.

This is definitely my ideal for argumentation, but it has been very difficult to achieve. “Emphasizing equality” and “shared attitudes” would be a lot easier if we weren’t in a debate.

I think I’m at the point now where I just want out. I’m over it. I don’t want to argue for my particular position and I don’t want to cram my brain for refutations to your every point against it. I don’t want to feel bitter, I don’t want to feel frustrated, I don’t want to roll my eyes at you. I don’t want to feel at odds with you. I don’t want to identify you by your theology, but only by your humanity.

I don’t want to argue with you about God, I just want to see him in you.

Any thoughts? Am I overreacting? Is there a balance to be found? Let me know, and let’s see if we can talk together instead of at each other.

-j

All you need is love, part 2

August 1, 2013

Bible, Christian life, Christianity, Theology, Uncategorized

Leave a comment

As a follow up to my last post, “All you need is love”, I’d like to share my thoughts on a certain New Testament passage that I believe will serve as a fitting application for what I said previously. The text in question is Matthew 11:25-30, and most of my thoughts here will be taken and adjusted from a sermon I preached last fall in one of my classes.

I freely admit my exegesis and hermenutics here may be way off, but I will say that going into writing the sermon, I had no preconceived ideas about what the first three verses of this passage were talking about- and in particular, how they were related to the last three, so I hope at least that helps my credibility a bit.

Just before this passage, Jesus had spent a decent chunk of time letting go of some frustration and proclaiming “woe” on some of the previous towns he had visited, where they hadn’t listened to or been affected by what he said in the slightest. Now here, Jesus abruptly breaks into a short prayer- and whereas before he seemed frustrated as a result of his run-ins with unbelief and apathy, here he seems content, at peace, and even joyful:

“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned” (Matt. 11:25).

Taken in context, I would presume “these things” to refer to the gospel message Jesus had been preaching in the area, including the towns he had condemned earlier. And God has hidden such things from the wise and learned. And as we read on, we discover that he has revealed them instead to children! Take a look:

“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children” (Matt. 11:25).

And he seems pumped about it too:

“Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do” (Matt. 11:26).

Then Jesus starts addressing the people again and says that these things- all of them- have been entrusted to him by God:

“All things have been committed to me by my Father” (Matt. 11:27).

So let me break this down:

1. God entrusts Jesus with these things. Seems reasonable.

2. Jesus hides them. From who? From the wise and learned- i.e. the responsible, the knowledgeable! This doesn’t seem so reasonable.

3. Instead of giving them to the wise, Jesus gives them to children– i.e. the irresponsible, the uneducated! Ridiculous! Yet Jesus goes on:

“No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27).

And as we know by now, “those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” are none other than children.

Now, this whole business of “hiding”: Is this really a purposeful concealment of the good news? Or does this reflect more the actual nature of the gospel message than the explicit intentions the Father and the Son have in sharing it?

Reflecting more upon this question, I would actually say these things are one in the same: After all, what reflects the nature of the good news about God more than the nature of God himself? And what reflects the nature of God more than what he does? So I arrive at this pertinent question: Does the good news, perhaps, simply lend itself to the understanding of children and not to that of the wise and educated?

Looking at the rest of the gospels, this would seem to be the case: The Pharisees, knowledgeable in the Scriptures, learned, wise– they never seem to fully grasp what Jesus teaches, they reject him outright as the son of God, and they are continually scolded and condemned by Jesus for their stubborn unbelief.

Children, meanwhile, don’t seem to have to do anything to earn Jesus’ approval, or entry into the kingdom of God, for that matter:

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Mark 10:14).

The Kingdom of God belongs to little children? Not thoughtful theologians, or articulate authors? Not passionate, educated Bible-college students? Not bible-blathering bloggers?

“Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15).

Clearly, there are giant implications here. I believe Jesus has made it clear here that the gospel is such that it can only be understood as a child and consequently- as illustrated in this passage- has been concealed from the wise and the educated. And if our understanding of the gospel is the key to our salvation, we need to seriously ponder three big questions:

1. What is it about the gospel message that enables children to understand it and hinders the wise and the educated from doing so?

2. What is it about children that enables their understanding?

3. What is it about the wise and the educated that hinders their understanding?

First question:

What is it exactly about the gospel message that caters to this upside-down hierarchy in which children are the enlightened ones while the wise and the educated are not? What is it about the gospel that empowers not only children, but also the poor, and the meek, and in turn, confounds the wise, rejects the rich, and humbles the proud? What is it about this message?

My answer is love. I believe that the gospel Jesus brought is love, and I explain this position more thoroughly in my previous post.

Now whether you reject or accept my definition of the gospel, the fact also remains that Jesus says it is accepted by children and rejected by the wise and the educated, and let’s face it- most of us reading and writing this would fit more into the latter category than the former- if only by the process of elimination.. 🙂

So why do we reject it? Why do we reject a truth so simple that children can accept it? Why do Bible colleges like the one I go to exist when Jesus said his way was easy (in verse 30), and when simple-minded individuals like children can attain salvation and acceptance from Jesus without having to do anything? Again, I propose it is because the gospel, at its core, is love- and this is what makes children enlightened and the educated in the dark. Let me flesh this out further by addressing the second question:

What do children have that the educated do not that enables their understanding of the gospel? In short, I think they have an innocent and soaring faith, which gives them great love- pure, unadulterated love- which again, I believe is the heart of the gospel. With hardly any head knowledge, they live purely from the heart, from the spirit. Their faith is not bogged down by reality, it is free and unhindered. And thus, so is their love- children will love anyone! They do not have any biases, stereotypes, prejudices, laws, traditions, or religions to keep them from doing otherwise! It is only when these aforementioned things begin to build and take shape within them that they start to mimic the adults in their lives and put conditions and stipulations on love- “I don’t hang out with him, he does drugs.” “If we let them come to church, we’re condoning their lifestyle.” In short, I think that in general, children have a simple, unwavering faith that fosters unprejudiced love- which I believe to be the core of the gospel.

Moving on to the third question- what is it about us, the educated, that prevents us from accepting this message? What exactly is our problem? I believe there are three things.

First, because of the sinful, vague, uncertain reality we live in, our faith has become a religion, with holy, defined and unshakable laws and traditions. These in turn have created within us a set of prejudices and biases that prevent us from loving unconditionally like children.

Second, these laws and traditions have replaced Jesus- love incarnate- as the basis and of our faith. We find strength in our well-articulated theological doctrines instead of in Jesus- and I’m as guilty of this as anyone; it’s probably evident here.

Third, we value intellectual knowledge and moral proficiency over faith and love. We view our minds as more reliable than our hearts. We look down upon those “free-spirited”, hippie-types that just “follow their hearts” and refuse to be pinned down by any letters of the law that restrict their spirit. We’ll take the infallible and rock solid systematic theology we’ve grown up with over that hippie Holy Spirit any day.

Here’s where I’m coming from: I married one of those free-spirited hippie types, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. I came into the relationship with a defined religion and a moral structure well-formulated in my mind; she came into it with an openness to all religions and a heart that guided her morality. But it turned out that the spirit that led her in her life was the same spirit that lay beneath my religion and moral structure. The only difference between our ways of living was that she found it much easier to love without limits than I did. I’m so proud of her.

I’m not saying that thinking theologically, making defined statements about our faith, or creating moral structures is a bad thing- I’m simply saying these should not make up the basis of our faith- the root of our faith should always be- from my perspective- Jesus, God, i.e. love. I think we should let our love define our morals and our faith statements instead of the other way around. Laws and morals do not give birth to love, it’s the other way around, so let’s start with love, because from my experience, at least, it has been substantially more difficult for me to set aside and redefine my structures in favour of love then it has been for my wife to build structures out of love.

Now that I’ve said all of this, I want to finally touch upon the three concluding verses in this passage from Matthew. Immediately after saying how his message of good news will only be received by children, Jesus gives a surprisingly open invitation to his listeners to receive this good news:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened” (Matt. 11:28).

Now in light of all the differences between the children and the wise that I discussed earlier, who do you think this invitation is directed to? Who are the weary and the burdened? Not children, surely- what burdens them? What makes them weary? They have spirits that are free and hearts that are light!

I think that perhaps this invitation is directed towards the Pharisees- those wise and educated men from whom the gospel is hidden. I think it is a plea from Jesus, imploring the Pharisees to let go of the burdens of the law that they stubbornly carry as proofs of righteousness, to relax their weary minds that are constantly enforcing every last detail of the law like their lives depended on it, to release their cold and musty hearts from captivity, and to realize that the way to salvation is not as complicated as they make it for themselves. I’ve always thought Matthew 11:28-30 was one of the most beautiful bits of text in the Bible, and I think it even more so now, as I realize its relevance in my life. I imagine Jesus saying this with his arms wide open: “Guys! It doesn’t have to be this hard!”

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).

Now as I outlined in my responses to the last two questions I proposed, the way of Jesus- the way of Love- may be easy for children, but it is not so at all for the “wise and the learned”. We have constructed around ourselves walls of stacked Bibles so tall and suffocating that our heart has no way of breaking through and connecting in a real, soteriological way to all those around us. Forgive my egregious metaphor, but I really think we just need to relax.

We need to find our inner child- that part of us that has a faith that defies reality and a love that breaks the rules.

So let’s stop talking about “speaking the truth in love” and speak the truth- live the truth- that is love.

Let us do all these things so that when we meet Jesus face-to-face and our minds struggle to accept him as our Lord and Saviour- as the Pharisees’ “wise and educated” minds did- our hearts will recognize him as the one who is love- the one who was present in every act of love they gave, received, and witnessed.

-j

ps. to keep my lengthy and very un-relaxed sermon about the joyful simplicity of the Gospel from being too ironic, here’s a cute video of a little girl singing about about the very same thing. 🙂

All you need is love

July 23, 2013

Bible, Christian life, Christianity, Theology

10 Comments

My brilliant friend Garret Menges wrote a blog post a while ago entitled “The Functionality of Religion”, in which he stated the following:

“I have come to believe that how one’s beliefs function practically in day to day experience is more important than the beliefs themselves. In other words, right belief takes a back seat to believing in the right way…

I would stop short of identifying as a full blown relativist, however. I still believe that some beliefs are better than others. Not all worldviews are created equal. My criterion for deciding whether or not a particular worldview is good is how well the belief under consideration yields compassion in the believer.”

I am very much in the same boat, and I would like to further flesh out this particular conviction by advocating for my own religious mantra, “all you need is love”, in which the word “love” is simply a substitute for the word “compassion”, as found in Garret’s philosophy.

I believe the concept of love transcends any human constructs or divisions we have made in order to differentiate ourselves from one another- including that of religion.

In the same way that God transcends all of these things- even religion, for the latter is only a set of beliefs about the former- so does love, for God is love (1 John 4:8, 16), and love is God: 1 Corinthians 13 says love is greater than even faith and hope. The latter two can describe the relationship between humanity and the Divine; the former is the Divine. I believe this is why it is greater than the other two, and why it transcends all human constructs.

And if God is love, then Jesus surely was love too, for Jesus was God incarnate! And read what Paul says about this Jesus Christ, who was Love, first in his epistle to the Galatians-

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus[/love]” (Galatians 3:28)

– and again, here in his epistle to the Colossians:

“Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ[/love] is all, and is in all” (Colossians 3:11).

No Gentile or Jew? These were two opposing worldviews in many people’s eyes at the time. Circumcision distinguished those who practiced the Jewish religion from those who didn’t, and yet Jesus did away with it! Here we see Jesus not only abolishing the most cemented of the social constructs humanity divided itself with- male and female??- but abolishing the dividing line of religion as well- doing all of this in favour of the new religion he brought to earth- that of Love: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34).

And so we are given the principle of Love from Love himself to unify ourselves. Have followers of Jesus stuck with this one principle over the years? Our exclusivity based upon things like fear instead of upon love tells me we have not. Have we sought to unite humanity in the love that we all look for, or have we sought to divide humanity based upon whether we are “Gentile” or “Jew”, “circumcised” or “uncircumcised”…? Perhaps we could paraphrase Paul’s words as a reminder for us today:

“There is neither Christian nor non-Christian… for you are all one in Jesus, who is Love.”

In this way, as Menges puts it, “right beliefs takes a back seat to believing in the right way”. The action of love- not the belief in a particular set of doctrines- is what unites humanity under Christ, who is love.

But what about Jesus’ many calls to believe? What about Jesus’ claim that he was the “Way, Truth, and Life“? Doesn’t this exclude those people who hold to a Jesus-less doctrine? I think I have hinted at my answer to this already, but I’ll spell it out more clearly.

To answer this question regarding “belief in Jesus”, I think we need to think about what we mean when we talk about “belief” and about “Jesus”. If by belief you simply mean mental assent, and if by Jesus you mean an ancient Near-Eastern name or simply another god who demands our worship and sacrifice in exchange for our well-being- well then, I think you have a very strong case against my mantra, “all you need is love.”

But here’s what I think: I think nothing more truly reflects belief than action. And nothing more truly reflects Jesus, God incarnate, than love. So here is my logic: If what we do reflects what we truly believe, then if we actively love, we truly believe in Jesus, for Jesus is love. As a matter of fact, John says as much in his first epistle:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love…No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us” (1 John 4:7-8, 11-12, emphasis added).

So when Jesus said he was “The Way, the Truth, and the Life”, I don’t think he was saying that a mental and verbal confession of himself as “The Way”, etc. was necessary to reach God. I think he was saying that the only way to reach God is to be like God… to be like Jesus, to love- in fact, the term “way” here implies acting/being instead of just “believing”. I think it is logical to say that to love– to put others before yourself, as Jesus did- this is to have Jesus as your Way, your Truth, and your Life, whether you call yourself a Christian or not.

We Christians are quick to point out the hypocrisy of those who “believe” in God but do not act like it: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8). Why are we not so quick to point out those who do act like they believe in God, who is love, even if they do not express as much in theological or biblical language? For “everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 John 4:7).

I went to a church service with my wife and my mother-in-law a couple weekends ago. The sermon was very good- it was preached by another brilliant blogging friend of mine, Jordan Shaw, who preached a sermon entitled “Patriotism to Yahweh“, a sermon which I will have to unfairly summarize in one sentence for the purpose of the story; essentially, it was about how we should be pledging allegiance ultimately not to a country, but to God, and showing love and hospitality to all of our neighbours is how we should do this. Anyways, I was very much engaged during the sermon, and being a Bible college student, I caught all of his biblical references and understood his Christian language.

Afterwards, however, my wife told me that during the sermon, a woman sitting in front of my mother-in-law had been coughing violently and consistently throughout. The woman had looked frantically through her purse, presumably for a cough drop or some water, when my mother-in-law immediately noticed her distress and quickly opened her own purse to look for something that could be of aid to her. She soon found a cough drop and gave it to the woman, who took it thankfully.

I found this to be terribly ironic- I had been so engaged in this sermon about loving your neighbour that I hadn’t even noticed this woman coughing, never mind done anything about it. I may have been able to give my enthusiastic mental assent to Jordan’s message about loving your neighbour, biblical references and all, but I hadn’t even noticed the neighbour in need of “love” nearby. My mother-in-law, however- a non-Christian who wouldn’t be able to catch a reference to Deuteronomy, never mind The Shema- she had noticed the neighbour, and she acted out the sermon, even if she didn’t mentally understand every part of it.

As an aside, Jordan also mentioned in his sermon how one specific way we could love our neighbours would be to pick up hitchhikers- Jordan’s dad had done so numerous times, and had even invited them over for dinner- and unsurprisingly, my wife informed after the sermon that my mother-in-law had also picked up a hitchhiker just last week!

However trivial the cough drop situation in particular may sound- and I can assure you, the love my mother-in-law shows for her neighbours is not limited to giving them cough drops- it is a good example of what I am trying to get across here. Who would Jesus be more pleased with in that instance? Myself, whom was able to give an enthusiastic and biblically-rooted assent- “Yes, I agree, Jordan, we should love our neighbour!”- or my mother-in-law, who actually did so?

And if you want to get all eschatological up in here, this is a scene that I am picturing:

My mother-in-law, Debie, after she passes away, is standing before Jesus at his throne.

Jesus says to her, “Debie, come here, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For when my throat was dry and I could find no relief, you gave me a cough drop. When I was stranded on the highway, you pulled over and gave me a ride.”

Debie, thoroughly overwhelmed and unfamiliar with Matthew 25:31-46, asks Jesus, “Jesus, when did I see you suffering from a dry throat and give you a cough drop? When did I see you stranded on the highway and give you a ride?”

And Jesus replies, “Truly, Debie, I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

And then he opens his arms wide and welcomes her into the Kingdom of Love she had already been participating in during her time on earth.

-j

My gay agenda

July 12, 2013

Christian life, Christianity, Theology

19 Comments

I have a gay agenda.

I am a Christian and I want non-heterosexual orientations and relationships to be accepted and blessed within the Christian community as much as heterosexual relationships are.

I do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. I don’t think the Bible says it is one either; in fact, I don’t think it talks about homosexuality- as it is currently being advocated for- at all. As most Christians probably already know (and consequently, most non-Christians as well in this case- we’re an obnoxious bunch), there are a few verses in our holy scriptures that do seem to condemn homosexuality as sinful. Most Christians simply accept these verses at face-value, and while there are those who have dug deeper into the context of these verses and still come up with the same conclusion, there are also many Christians- with an equal respect for the Bible- who come up with a different conclusion- namely, that homosexuality is not condemned by God. I will not go into the arguments here, as many others have already done so quite adequately, here, here, and here, just to name a few places.

The point is, I feel like many Christians simply assume that of course the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, when truly, it is not so black and white. There is another perspective, and a perfectly reasonable one at that.

I’m biased, no doubt, and that’s totally why I hold to this “other” Christian perspective on homosexuality, and also why I choose to interpret all of those infamous verses as not against homosexuality.

Here’s my bias: I believe that the totality of the good news of God and Jesus and that hippie Holy Spirit can be encapsulated in LOVE, and I don’t care how many Bible verses about God’s wrath you quote to me. I believe that God is love and love comes from God (there is a verse for that one- phew!) and so when people love each other here on earth, God is here on earth. And here’s a little bit about what love is, according to the apostle Paul:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. (1 Corinthians 13:4-5).

I see absolutely no reason why two people of the same sex cannot share between them this exact same love.

At this point, I plead with you to empty your mind of those traditional Biblical interpretations of Leviticus 19:11, etc. and just listen to your heart as it engages the reality of the world.

Get to know a gay person or two and you’ll most likely learn that they did not choose their orientation anymore than I chose my heterosexual orientation.

Learn how they have the same need for relationships, romantic and platonic, and the same need for affection and companionship.

Learn how so many gay couples show the same amount (if not more, because of the persecution they typically undergo) of the selfless, mutual, committed love that we so readily accept is possible for heterosexual couples to show.

Talk to a gay person and realize that they’re just another God-made human being like you who simply desires the sexual and romantic love and companionship of someone of their same sex instead of of the opposite sex.

Do all of this, and then go back to the Bible and see what it says about what you’ve seen and experienced. I believe it says a lot of things about love, and relationships, and how it is in these things God works, but I don’t think it says anything about other-sexual love not being the same sort of love.

With an open mind and heart, go get to know some gay people, go back and read the Bible, and then tell me how being gay is a sin.

Tell me how a mutual, loving, and committed relationship between two people suddenly becomes an abomination when it is between two members of the same sex instead of two members of the opposite sex.

Is it because they can’t procreate? Is it because it is against God’s original “design”? It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! But the Creation account was just that- a story about creation, and how God created the world and all of the people in it. Adam and Eve- a procreating couple- would naturally be central to it. I don’t believe it is a story that intends to limit the extent of human romantic relationships. What about heterosexual couples that can’t procreate? Or don’t choose to? What about single people?

Look into your heart and tell me how a loving and faithful relationship between two members of the same sex hinders God’s kingdom and work that is so utterly defined by love and faithfulness throughout the OT and the NT.

Tell me how such a relationship does not glorify the God I believe in, the God who I believe is defined not by race, nationality, or social status, nor gender, nor sexual orientation, but by love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and self-control. And against these things there is no law. So tell me why you seek to make laws forbidding these fruits from growing in a relationship just because it is homosexual.

I say all these things with the knowledge that I have only experienced so much and only read so much of the Bible. My beliefs about God and the world have changed so much in the last couple years, and I am sure they will continue to change even more in years to come. I also say this with the knowledge that everyone else on this planet has different experiences under their belt and a different worldview to boot. Some may be convinced that the Holy Spirit is telling them that homosexuality is a sin. Others may be convinced the Holy Spirit is telling them the opposite. I, for one, am convinced of this:

God is Love, and this love knows no boundaries.

This Love is Love, no matter whom it is between.

SAME LOVE.

-j

ps. I have been passionate and insistent upon the truth of my beliefs on this issue throughout this post, but I in no way want to discourage any further conversation. As I said, others will be equally convinced of an opposite truth! Humble me as you wish.

pps. for those of you with further questions about homosexuality and would love a gay perspective, Justin Lee is a great resource. As a gay Christian, he also has a lot to say about the relationship between Christianity, the Bible, and homosexuality. I find him to be amazingly open, humble, and gracious, I would encourage you to check him out.

ppps. My wife has pointed out to me how tragically unfair it is that the homosexuality talked about within any Christian sentiment in support of it must be specified as that which is seen in the context of a “loving, committed, mutual relationship” (as it is in my post). This is not unfair because of the actual moral standard itself, but simply because heterosexuality never needs to be so carefully specified under this standard in order for it to be argued as legitimate within the Christian community. That it is a legitimate and acceptable sexuality is a given. All I’m saying is that, I too, despite the language in my post, eagerly await the day when homosexuality will be seen in the same light and be viewed as just as normal as heterosexuality.

re: Christian defensiveness and playground apologetics

July 9, 2013

Christian life, Theology, Uncategorized

4 Comments

In one of my classes at Bible college a couple years ago, it was brought up by the teacher how a common criticism of Christians was that we are intolerant. Our teacher provided us with a good response to this criticism by saying that such critics are also intolerant- of our intolerance!

It was a clever bit of logic that I have seen and heard repeated in various facebook threads or conversations among Christians, but to me, it is immature, defensive, and even unnecessary.

It seems to reflect the sort of playground “eye for an eye” mentality that ultimately accomplishes nothing constructive in a conflict. It doesn’t negate or even acknowledge the critic’s point whatsoever but simply deflects it back to them, implicitly attempting to justify the noted criticism on account of the same fault being present in the critic. It is an attempt to save face- as all defensiveness is- even if it is at the expense of the other.

Defensiveness is common and even encouraged within Christian circles, however! The popular Christian discipline of apologetics is simply the practice of defending one’s faith, and it will actually be offered as a full credit class next semester at the bible college where I attend. There was also recently a large apologetics conference in the city which I live, which was attended by many of my schoolmates. And on the final exam of the aforementioned class, one question asked how we would respond to someone who criticized us for being intolerant, presumably expecting us to echo back the clever retort we had been given in class (in fairness to the teacher, I gave a much different answer- in the same vein as this blog post- and still received full marks and an echoed sentiment).

Admittedly, I too was greatly intrigued and inspired by apologetics at one point. In my Christian theology class, I remember getting super pumped on all the different arguments for the existence of God- the cosmological one, the moral one- authored by C.S. Lewis, no less!- etc. A couple years later, in one of my youth work classes, a cool-looking guy in his early 30s was a guest speaker for a day, and he wowed us with a fast-moving presentation that tackled each of what he said were the 5 biggest questions young people had about Christianity today- How does an all-loving God allow so many bad things to happen in the world, etc. He was smart, smooth, and he had great-sounding answers. I think most of us were pretty impressed. He even had free books up for grabs- “The Case for Christ” and “The Case for Faith”, both by Lee Strobel. Finally, I had ammunition for even the toughest, most scientific or rationalistic arguments against my faith which I held so dear! This need for ammunition, however, stemmed purely from insecurity and an unnecessary desire to prove my faith legtimate on every possible level.

What I can appreciate about apologetics- as much as I have been exposed to- is its willingness to tackle the tough questions. To respond to criticisms of Christianity is surely preferable to not responding at all. What I do not appreciate about apologetics, however, is its stubborn persistance upon giving answers and its unwillingness to say “I don’t know.” To me, that is obnoxious. To admit that one does not know the answer to a question- particularly to one as massive as “Why do bad things happen?”- or to at least to acknowledge the difficulty presented by such questions as well as the wide array of possible answers out there- this is humility, and it’s beautiful to me. While the openly unsure pastor may not be as flashy as the smooth-talking apologist, they connect on heart level and not just a mind one. While the words “I don’t know” may be much more unsettling in our brains than a rock-solid discourse from C.S. Lewis, they are much more freeing and much more relatable to anyone outside of Christian circles.

So here’s my proposal:

How about instead of resorting to playground apologetics in the face of every critic that confronts us, we listen to their criticism and consider their points, being “quick to listen” and “slow to speak”? (James 1:19).

How about instead of childishly criticizing those who accuse us of being intolerant, we change our attitudes accordingly and realize that the criticisms Jesus endured here on earth were those accusing him of being too tolerant rather than not enough?

How about instead of simply quoting John 14:6 in the face of growing pluralistic sentiments, we 1) seek to learn from other religions, 2) listen to other voices as we would want to be listened to, and 3) get our heads out of our asses and realize that nearly 70% of the world’s population (over 4 billion people) affliate themselves with other religions (or no religion at all), and they are by-and-large perfectly reasonable people who have plenty of solid reasons for believing what they do, just as we do?

Taking a breath..

Let’s just stop being so defensive- I’ve been guilty of it many a time, particularly in theological conversations with my wife, and it never gets me anywhere. It only damages the relationship and makes me look like an idiot when my “defence” is revealed to be nothing more than spoon-fed Christianese that I really haven’t thought critically about. So call me out on that shit if I’ve ended up doing that here!

-j

you know, that first blog post about starting a blog

July 9, 2013

Uncategorized

2 Comments

This blog world intimidates me. It’s huge. Even when I narrow down my selection of blogs to just those interweaving the subjects of theology and “life” (sounds so relevant!), I find myself overwhelmed by the many voices all giving their two cents worth. There is an enormous conversation out there on a variety of topics, and there is a lot of disagreement. It is this tension and argument that makes me want to withdrawal from the conversation altogether, despite how much I want to refute all those people whom I deem to be wrong. If only I could toot my horn and have it be joined only by instruments playing in the same key! Unfortunately for my ego, there are bound to be those who insist my key of choice is much too low or too high, or even those who insist that I am playing the wrong song entirely (if I can be presumptuous enough to assume at least a few people will care to read this blog and comment).

Fortunately, I have had enough experiences with people that have disagreed with me (my wife being one of them) to realize that such experiences can be even more inspiring and impacting for one’s worldview than an experience with someone who simply shares your viewpoint and perhaps only expresses it more eloquently.

So, dear readers, disagreements are welcome! I have a six conditions, however, which I hope we can agree upon. They are taken from Infante’s 9 keys to effective argumentation, as quoted in one of my former textbooks, Interpersonal Conflict, by William Wilmot (what a great name) and Joyce Hocker. Each of the six conditions I will list here initially seem to reflect merely common sense and simple human decency. Yet as tears nearly came to my eyes as I read the list once again, I realized that such things are often far removed from my consciousness when I am engaged in a passionate argument with someone else, whether it be a stranger or even my wife. My wife and I actually just thought it prudent to post this list up in our house somewhere to remind us always of what is truly precious in an argument- the people, not the point. Let us all take these words from Infante to heart as we engage in argument with others around the blogosphere and in our homes:

1) Use the principles of argumentation with compassion.

2) Reaffirm your opponent’s sense of competence.

3) Emphasize equality.

4) Emphasize shared attitudes.

5) Show opponents you are interested in their views.

6) Allow your opponents to save face.

Beautiful.

Cheers!

-j

—

______________________________