GOD SUBSTITUTES: COMPETING WITH GOD

We sense that true equality is the ideal, and we desperately attempt to achieve it through income equality, thinking that this will produce a true equality where love reigns supreme.

However, this noble goal has easily eluded our grasp. Communism has tried to achieve it by equalizing our material existence at a disastrous cost of 100,000,000 exterminated lives. But even after this prohibitive cost, love has remained a far-away ideal.

Perhaps the voluntary Israeli Kibbutz came closest. Clothing, food, work, children, and even sexual partners were equally shared. However, love was fleeting and the entire experiment proved unsustainable.

However, a real and sustainable love, equality, and brotherhood require more than an outward rearrangement of materials and circumstances. They require the hand of God. The Apostle Paul wrote that Our God is able to put us together in a way that achieves a true equality and love for one another:

• “The parts [members] of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.” (1 Corinthians 12:22-26)

While we are correct to think in terms of equality, true equality can only be achieved through substantive internal change achieved by the hand of God. To try to achieve this on our own is to force a rose bud to bloom by prying its pedals apart before its appointed time. It is the difference between rape and consensual love. It is the gift of God alone.

Challenging the Racial Divide: Fight or Flight

T.D. Jakes was being interviewed on Racism by the 700 Club. He said some important things:

1.     Racism is endemic in the USA today.

2.     The Black community continues to suffer.

3.     The Church should be playing a leading role.

4.     However, racism remains the elephant in the closet. The Church will not touch it.

5.     Separation remains.

Indeed, the interview reflected this very problem. The interviewer played it safe rather than to do the risky – to enter into a genuine and needful exchange of perspectives. He declined to challenge Jakes’ ensuing narrative of Black victimization, opting instead for superficiality and avoidance. Result – the distance remains.

This reminded me of a film I attended in the mid-eighties, while in seminary. It presented us with a vivid portrait of the problems that plague the African American community.

During the subsequent discussion, I naively asked, “What can I do?” I was essentially slapped-down. The white speaker explained that this isn’t what it’s all about. It wasn’t to provide an avenue for the white to conveniently expiate for his guilt. And admittedly, there had been horrible injustices perpetrated against African Americans.

Well, what was the purpose for showing the film? I mulled over this issue for years. I finally concluded that it was about being shamed and made to suffer for what “we” have done to our African American brothers. It was a matter of accepting our corporate guilt by virtue of our skin color – a narrative that seems to lie at the heart of our increasingly polarized culture. Besides, it is an absolute conversation-stopper.

This is a narrative that many Whites just cannot receive. After all, they hadn’t been proponents of slavery or even Jim Crow. Why then should they have to bear the guilt! And even if they did play a role, doesn’t the blood of Christ bring forgiveness and cleansing from all sin once we confess?

Therefore, many Whites remain on the sidelines. Others remain on the “sidelines” in a different way. Instead of engaging the liberal and inflammatory narrative that the US is still the same racist nation, trying to keep Blacks down, they embrace it entirely for the sake of “peace” and “love.” But is this love? Will it bridge the racial divide or will it further isolate and disenfranchise the Black community?

I recalled talking to a tour-guide in East Germany. I had asked her what she felt about all of the suffering that had been inflicted upon the German people after the war. She passionlessly stated, “We deserve it!”

I was shocked! Yes, there are just consequences of sin and criminality. However, she and many Germans are still bearing the guilt and shame of the Nazi era.

Is this healthy? Well, it has certainly led to hard work and economic advancement. But does it lead to brotherhood and love? While shame can lead to needful self-examination, can persistent shame lead to other-centeredness or does it lead us to retreat into a “safe” and controlled cocoon, containing only people who think like you?

Persistent shame leads to flight. If we cannot find comfort within ourselves, we cannot find it in the presence of others, especially those who refuse to accept us. I tried to engage our tour-guide further, but it seemed fruitless.

What will it take to build the Body of Christ? We cannot run from this question. This is central to the heart of our Savior. He prayed to the Father:

·       "My prayer is… that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

What is the answer? Prayer! Also, we must embrace, to the fullest, the concerns of our Savior for love and unity, especially among the races, so that the world will believe. This determination must take precedence over our desires for comfort, of being right, of wanting to punish, of resentment, of jealousy, and of everything else.

Meanwhile, we have followed the world. Instead of trying to honestly hack our way through barriers, speaking truth in love, fearful of the consequences, we have taken the safe way – the way that has replaced comfortable platitudes for real engagement and relationship.

We have to say, “I want to be your brother, but will you let me be me? Will you allow me to speak honestly in love, even if I say painful things that you don’t agree with?” Why? We will never agree on all issues, right? However, love doesn’t depend on that. My wife and I don’t always agree, but we can still love each other. Why then do we have to deal with these divisive issues?

These are festering pustules that must be lanced by the medicine of true Christian brotherhood. Without this, the distrust, cynicism, and distance remain unchecked. I think that the old ways – the superficial affirmations and platitudes – haven’t worked. It seems that they have even contributed to the distance. Instead, we have to commit ourselves to prayer and to His Word:

·       Speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Ephesians 4:15-16)

Even though speaking the “truth [of the Gospel] in love” is central to this context, it also pertains to the truth of our feelings and convictions, as Paul later reflected:

·       Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Ephesians 4:29)

Let us lead the way showing forth honest, yet respectful and loving dialogue. Let us show the world that, for the sake of our Savior, we can disagree and still love.

ADDENDUM

Now, let’s bring all of this theology home where it belongs. An elderly black woman friend recently called me aside. “I don’t have a racist bone in my body!” she confided with a smile. She knew her statement would lure me in, and it did!

She continued, “I needed to buy a house, the same house where I still reside and where I raised my children, but I didn’t have the money for the down-payment. It was a white woman who co-signed for me!”

For my friend, that was the deal-maker. What influence - the transforming power of a single act of love!

Full Acceptance for the Homosexual but not for Homosexuality: Does this Compromise Work?

Today, many pastors are trying to strike a compromise between their biblical calling and social changes/pressures. Kristyn Komarnicki summarizes interview for Prism with one such Vineyard pastor:

• Evangelical pastor Ken Wilson explains why churches should be inclusive [of gays and the gay lifestyle] but not affirming, why we don’t have to agree in order to have unity, and what life looks like from “out on the limb.”

Wilson believes that the church can grant full acceptance to active gays without affirming their lifestyle:

• Granting full acceptance to gay people is not about following a social trend—“hey, the millennials are much more accepting of gays so we need to get with the program if we’re going to hold on to our market share in the marketplace of ideas.” No, it’s about a new way of belonging—to God and each other, through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah.

What does it mean to be faithful to Jesus and to love our neighbor? Many today claim that Jesus accepted all, and so our churches need to do the same. However, according to Jesus, repentance is a necessary part of the equation:

• I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:3-5)

For Jesus, loving our neighbor wasn’t about hiding uncomfortable biblical truths. Instead, it was about comforting others with their need to repent of their sins, lancing the wound, and exposing it to the healing Light.

If we truly love, we will warn our friends about spiritual dangers. If we don’t love, we will not stir the water but simply enable. This doesn’t mean that we confront the gay person with their sins as soon as they walk into church. Love requires sensitivity and timing.

Wilson believes that the church should be about “granting full acceptance to gay people.” However, he stops short of declaring gay sex and gay marriage as biblically acceptable. But what does this look like?

It is one thing to welcome sinners into church. It is another thing “granting full acceptance to gay people.” For one thing, if a “believer” refuses to repent of their sins, they should be subject to church discipline and possible expulsion. However, it is clear that Wilson would be opposed to this.

Wilson also seems to be ignoring the many verses that teach against “granting full acceptance to” unrepentant sinners. Instead of accepting all into brotherhood, we are to bear in mind a sharp biblical distinction:

• Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. (2 Cor. 6:14-16)

Practically speaking, to grant the unrepentant “full acceptance” is also to grant them leadership. To not do so after granting the unrepentant “full acceptance” would be hypocritical! However, this would destroy the teaching ministry and the character of Christ’s church. Meanwhile, Paul warned that a little leaven (sinful examples or teachings), will corrupt the entire church (Gal. 5:9).

Our silence regarding certain sins speaks loudly. It proclaims, “These behaviors are okay! If they weren’t, we’d be preaching against them.” Clearly, this is not the way to protect those entrusted to us.

However, Wilson believes that the gay controversy needs to be silenced:

• I think the controversy itself is something like a demonic construct; it’s a supra-human phenomenon that is not from the Holy Spirit but has its origin in the dark spirit. It has an anti-human effect, and pastors have a responsibility to discern the impact of the controversy, resist the spiritual oppression, and protect the most vulnerable members of their congregation, who are gay and lesbian and transgender people—whether they’re out or not—and the people who love them. And in their own way those who hold the traditional view also experience anguish as a result of this intense controversy.

Should we apply this “logic” to every sinful controversy? Does it also represent “spiritual oppression” to call adultery “sin?” Or domestic violence or child abuse? Why should we not apply the healing balm of Jesus’ Gospel to the sin of homosexuality but instead to other sins – adultery, domestic violence, theft, child abuse…? Why should the sin of homosexuality go uncorrected but not other sins?

Wilson seems to make an unbiblical allowance for homosexuality:

• I think sexuality is a very complex phenomenon, and it’s ultimately up to the individual person led by the Holy Spirit to discern what is the best path forward for them.

However, it seems that the Spirit is very clear in His denunciations of sexual sins:

• Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. (1 Corinthians 6:15-18)

How does Wilson defend his sexually permissive stance? By being “pastoral”:

• And I have to grant that same dignity to the person who chooses a monogamous same-sex partnership as a faithful path to Jesus—unless I see some clear indication that it is clearly not a life-giving choice for them.

However, Scripture already gives us many “clear indications” against this lifestyle. Jesus taught the sanctity of heterosexual marriage (Matthew 19:1-8; 5:27-30). In fact, there is not one verse in the Bible that could possibly be used to sanction homosexuality. Meanwhile, there are many against it.

Will same-sex marriage “grant… dignity?” Not if the stats can be trusted! They show that homosexuality destroys. This lifestyle is associated with highly elevated levels of domestic violence, drug abuse, mental health issues, suicide, and greatly attenuated lifespans.

However, Wilson believes that homosexual sex is one of the uncertain areas of Scripture:

• Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. (Romans 14:1)

However, according to Scripture, there is nothing “disputable” about homosexual sex! Nor is it an area where we are given freedom to choose!

By extending “full acceptance” to unrepentant gays, Wilson has set his church on a well-lubricated slippery slope. His argumentation has already prepared the way for the full acceptance and endorsement of all manner of sexual sin.