What it’s like to be a Counter-Cultural Christian

I asked the friendly woman next to me what she liked about this Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). She forthrightly explained that this church was more friendly and inviting than her prior church. It felt more like family. Indeed, the first two precepts of “Mission Statement” affirmed the very thing that she was experiencing:

• Acting as a beacon of love and hope to others;

• Providing spiritual and emotional nurture in an environment of acceptance for all people.

Essentially, this was their “statement of faith” – nothing about the essence of God, sin, humankind, or salvation, just love, compassion and justice.

Claire (not her real name) had been going to a Bible-centered church, but she found it to big, impersonal, and unresponsive to her as a person:

“I wanted to volunteer for one of their ministries, but there were so many obstacles. I had to take a lengthy training course and…”

I grieved within, knowing that her experience was reflective of many Bible (God)-centered churches. They generally do not have the flexibility to be fully people-centered. Their “statements of faith” contain many Biblical specifications regarding what people must believe, in order to serve. Essentially, they have to reflect the doctrine of their church, and understandably so.

Many of us are so deeply pierced by this national tragedy - We have lost all of our older colleges to secularism – all of the Ivy League schools. Many, which remain, are deeply compromised. We have seen our mainline churches depart as quickly as the freshness of springtime, taking with them all of the stately properties, engineered by the Biblical faith. This ubiquitous usurpation has left many churches scrambling to rent storefronts or space at the public schools, from which they are now also being ejected.

Perhaps our concern to preserve Biblical orthodoxy leaves us less wiggle-room to be responsive to people’s feelings than Claire’s church, which was clearly reveling in inclusive hugs. They even seemed confident that they were embracing the light. In fact, almost the entire surrounding culture reassured them that they were walking in the light. Indeed, people-centered churches are able to go-with-the-flow of feelings, proclivities, and the prevailing culture. They are free to tap into the popular sentiments of the age.

Claire confided, “It just feels right being here. Inclusiveness seems to be the answer.” She seemed to be such a warm, caring and sincere person. It therefore hurt me to question her sense of “rightness.”

“Sometimes what feels right to us may just be the effect of our cultural conditioning. After all, in many cultures, even the mention of homosexuality conjures up negative feelings.” I tried to say this as sensitively as I could, but I knew that I was fighting against a cultural tsunami, and I wouldn’t score any points, at least, not enough.

“I think that people can be too judgmental,” she gently responded. I assured her that this was true, but that this church was also judgmental. Before the sermon, a woman announced the meeting of a group devoted to combating “homophobia.”

“This church would judge me as ‘homophobic’ and shun me. Everyone judges; everyone draws a line somewhere! No group can be inclusive of every lifestyle. In regards to the gay lifestyle, there are great, statistically-established costs involved. I therefore think that love would require us to warn and not indulge.” Perhaps I should have just called homosexuality “sin,” but I was afraid that such a judgment would readily put me out-of-step with cultural norms, and allow others to prematurely dismiss me.

I was fighting a loosing battle. I cast my prayer-bottle upon the waters, but the tsunami drove it back in my face. I recalled the lament of the Prophet Jeremiah:

• Concerning the [false] prophets: My heart is broken within me; all my bones tremble… The land is full of adulterers; because of the curse the land lies parched and the pastures in the desert are withered. The prophets follow an evil course and use their power unjustly. (Jeremiah 23:9-10)

This is followed by the Lord’s own lament:

• This is what the Lord Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. They keep saying to those who despise me, 'The Lord says: You will have peace.' And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts they say, 'No harm will come to you.'” (Jeremiah 23:16-17)

The false prophet could always out-compete the genuine prophet. He was free from theological constraint to market his message solely according to the appetites of his consumers. They wanted to be assured that they would continue to enjoy peace and prosperity despite their lifestyles, and this was the very assurances that the false prophet would serve them. However, he had left the Lord out of his equation:

• But which of them has stood in the council of the Lord to see or to hear his word?      Who has listened and heard his word? See, the storm of the Lord will burst out in wrath…I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, they would have proclaimed my words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways and from their evil deeds. (Jer. 23:18-22

The false message is temporarily comforting, but it fails to bring the necessary healing. It doesn’t turn people from their evil. In contrast, love is far-sighted. It looks beyond the immediate comforts and desires to the coming tragedy and warns.

The true prophet almost always presented an uncomfortable message – one that wouldn’t feel right. The prophet would put his finger on sin - something which had to be confessed. It was confession and repentance that would bring about their reconciliation with the Source of Life.

Claire conceded that this probably wasn’t the church for me. “You have to find the church that feels right for you.” She said this in such a concerned way, that I didn’t want to dispute her assessment, but I knew that I had to.

“Claire, it’s not so much a matter of what feels right for me, but what is right before our God.” I felt her pain and cringed inside at my own words. I knew how she would receive these words – that I didn’t think that she was primarily concerned about God and truth. I had probably alienated her and failed at being people-centered, that is, Claire-centered. Perhaps, I was beginning to understand the lot of the Hebrew Prophets.

   

   

Radical Inclusiveness and the Bible

We have a futon couch. With just a minor adjustment, it becomes a bed. With just a little “adjustment,” we can do the same thing with Biblical interpretation and derive almost anything we want.

We visited a Presbyterian church in downtown Manhattan this Sunday. The pastor taught about eunuchs, citing Deuteronomy 23:

·        No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord. No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, even down to the tenth generation. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord…(Deut. 23:1-3)   

He then cited Isaiah – writing 700 years later – to show the egalitarian “evolution” of the Israelite religion:

·        Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the Lord say, "The Lord will surely exclude me from his people." And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree." For this is what the Lord says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-- to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial…” (Isaiah 56:3-5)

For this pastor, Isaiah’s understanding had evolved far beyond Moses’. I guess Moses must have misheard the Lord at Sinai, and the Lord, in disgust, allowed Moses to promote his errant message.

The pastor then brought his portrait of Biblical evolution into the modern times of the Gospel, where we find Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch into the body of Christ. The pastor concluded that the religion of the Hebrews had finally achieved inclusiveness.

Predictably, he applied this lesson of inclusiveness to those living out the homosexual life, gaily proclaiming that he and those of his understanding had achieved the radical inclusiveness envisioned by Jesus. However, he warned that there are still “Pharisees” – the Evangelicals - within the church. So much for inclusiveness! I guess he didn’t see his inconsistency.

Hadn’t he converted a bed into something it wasn’t – a reclining chair? Was Moses really so adverse to inclusivism? It seems not! Although the Passover could not be celebrated by non-Israelites, God explained upon His great deliverance from Egypt that this could be remedied:

·        The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: ‘No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker [who remain uncircumcised] may not eat of it.’” (Exodus 12:43-45)

Circumcision was the entry ticket, as it had been for all Israelites! This represented radical inclusiveness – even for the despised slave. There were no literacy, income or racial requirements. However, the included had to abide by the same standards as the native-born Israelites. God affirmed that there wouldn’t be any distinctions:

·        “The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you." (Exodus 12:49).

How then would we reconcile this with the restrictions of Deuteronomy 23? Clearly, the eunuch and the various foreigners hadn’t become circumcised! Had they, the doors would have swung open.

In light of this understanding, Isaiah would gladly shake hands with Moses. In fact, he and all the prophets never suggested that they had any differences with the Mosaic Law. However, with just a twist here and an adjustment there, the Bible can be made to say almost anything.

However, I was glad to hear the pastor’s preamble to the Lord’s Supper. He explained that it was open to any “who sincerely turned their back on their sins.” Clearly, being a eunuch wasn’t a matter of sin. It isn’t an action but a physical condition. However, the homosexual lifestyle does represent both choice and action. Many have proved this by actually turning their back on this self-destructive lifestyle.

I was wondering how the pastor had convinced himself that homosexual behavior wasn’t a sin that required repentance. I had supposed that he regarded pedophilia, adultery and extra-marital sexual behavior as sin. Why then not homosexual behavior?

I went to the coffee hour hoping to pigeon-hole the pastor. However, neither he nor his associate pastors came – not exactly the ideal modeling of inclusiveness. However, I did corner a defenseless woman who was overseeing a sign-up table. I shared with her my perplexity, and asked her how the pastor could be sure that homosexuality wasn’t a sin in view of the many verses forbidding it. She couldn’t answer, but expressed her hope that the pastor would soon come for his coffee. Evidently, he had found coffee elsewhere.