Intellectuelle

Not to mix this up with another issue altogether right away, but this seems to be the emergent church's philosophy on being in and not of the world - it's okay, even suggested, that you look exactly like the people you're ministering to (or among, to be more precise), as long as you're "doing the work of Christ." It seems like the increasingly accepted opinion is that personal holiness is secondary to ministry to the lost, but this is so backwards. It's not that there's some standard of holiness we have to reach before we're qualified to minister to people, but is it not obvious that personal growth in grace is directly correspondent with the authenticity of your outreach? So what I'm wondering is, if the effectiveness of your witness is not really that dependent on personal discipline in the means of grace...what does it depend on? Hrm.

I keep seeing this issue coming up over and over again all over the place, in various forms. It's the issue of 'disputable matters'. And while it is wrong to be judging our brother for things that are not clearly forbidden in scripture---Romans 14 makes it clear that it is equally wrong to look down on and judge those who have decided that a certain practice is wrong for them. We go from one extreme to the other. On the one extreme you have Believers who sit in judgement of fellow believers who either out of ignorance, or whose conscience, faith, and culture may allow them to, smoke, drink, etc. Then we have the other extreme, condemning and feeling morally superior, to those who out of faith and love have determined that certain things are unhealthy and/or wrong for them.
I am disappointed with Gresham's response, but I partly blame the interviewer for asking such a question. The question assumes that Lewis's smoking and drinking was something many of his conservative Christian fans might consider problematic. As an evangelical, I never even thought much about the fact that Lewis smoked and drank. I recognized it as part of his social culture. (Yes, it could be considered unhealthy--but then so are the eating habits of most Americans.;-)) So it never occurred to me to condemn him for those things---and I don't think most other evangelical Lewis admirers do, either.
And then Gresham responds by, rather nastily, criticizing this supposed body of condemning American Puritans and emphasizes his point with a little profanity. How's that judgemental attitude any better than the other?

"For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." When you look at the heart, what you eat and drink and wear is just as important as anything else you do or don't do--for it is our hearts and our motives for doing or not doing that are judged by God.

One last comment: Even if we do consider Lewis' drinking, eating and ribald humor to be weaknesses--imagine someone asking this question:

"Christians love the Psalms of King David, and yet here's a guy who was an adulterer and murderer and in general, wouldn't fit what we think of as the "typical evangelical." And yet we've all wrapped our arms around him. Why is that?"

Truth is Truth, even out of the mouths and from the pens of sinners.

I should have said:

Truth is Truth, even out of the mouths and from the pens of our fellow sinners.

I'm not sure that Gresham's analysis of American evangelical hangups is exactly right, but it's close. You do have to admit that we tend to hold up as examples men and women who have both unimpeachable character and impeccable personal habits. e.g. Billy Graham, Pastor Rick Warren. Do such people rise to the top because having it all together makes them better Christians, or does the church simply hold back those who don't have it all together?

To a much greater degree than in England, American evangelicals have wrapped up their rules for personal holiness into the definition of what it means to be "saved." The church has gained a reputation as a place where you can only belong if you are willing to give up smoking, drinking, doping, and bad language. Tatoos and body piercings are iffy. Watching certain TV shows or enjoying certain music is verboten. Many of these things are seen as incompatible with true faith.

One of the complaints about Jesus related to his personal habits. Some of that was guilt by association, but it isn't clear that all of it was.

American religious culture really did grow out of Puritanism and has retained some of those beliefs. Clearly we are called to holiness, but we don't always agree on where to draw the lines. As Paul Simon used to sing, "One man's ceiling is another man's floor."

To be a bit controversial, I take Gresham's point. I agree with Bonnie and others that his classification of issues of personal holiness is not mere "triviality", but by overstating such a point -- saying that Jesus doesn't "give two hoots about that sort of thing" -- it does rhetorically drive home his point. As I said, I don't agree with that statement if we take it 100% literally. What I do agree with is the sentiment behind it. I think that indeed he is bang on with the admission that Christians do seem more concerned in contemporary evangelicalism (broadly speaking) with issues of "not" -- not drinking, not having premarital sex, not dancing in some circles, etc.

We indeed have lost what the gospel *is* and have rather emphasised morality -- that has lost its foundation in Christ -- completely in tune with a modernistic worldview. That is where some (and mind you, very little) is helpful with the emergent/pomo group: they realise the destructive power of the way in which our Christianity has become inherently Modern; now, I don't think what they replace this with is what's needed. Rather the gospel needs to be reclaimed in all its sting and grace. Then and only then will debates about personal holiness fit into proper place.

Charlie, I agree with you about our American religious culture being partially influenced by Puritanism. But I'm just not seeing as much of the stereotypical fundamentalism these days as some people would have us believe. Yes, we admire Billy Graham & Rick Warren--but I don't think it's just because of their impeccable reputations. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, who is set to take over his ministry has a background of 'drugs, sex and rock and roll' in his early years. (You could use that as a black mark against Billy Graham's parenting if you wanted to judge.) Yet Franklin Graham is greatly admired and his lost years are not held against him. Most Christians have long seen the great men of faith in the Bible being flawed sinners just like the rest of us. They also recognize that cultural and individual differences do make a difference in how Christians maintain a Christlike character in many of their lifestyle choices. In the same way, I have never run across any fan of Lewis that had the least problem with his typical English, Anglican lifestyle (and I run in some very conservative circles). I'm not saying it doesn't exist and that it isn't a serious problem--but I think the extent and degree of evangelicals' so-called Puritan judgementalism is greatly overblown. And I still maintain that looking down on those whose faith is weak and judging those who differ with us on matters of conscience are equally bad. Whether we consider our position to be the one of strong faith or weak doesn't matter. The rules for dealing with one another in love, without judgement, are the same regardless of our position on these things.

Newsweek gleefully reports that Lewis drank (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9863783/site/newsweek/).

The subtext of the Gresham interview is the beatification of Lewis into an Evangelical saint, and how evangelicals get wigged out when they find out he was human

I agree with all the comments here (including Gresham's--and understood his use of the word b.s. as a means for punctuating his point) Legalism and a focus on these things to the neglect of the spirit of the Gospel of Love is a serious problem. But I am seeing more of a neglect of the Spirit of the Gospel coming from a neglect of understanding the principles we need to make these decisions than from focusing on these issues. Yes, some think if the externals are all in line then everything is terrific. But far more of what I am seeing are Christians who have no idea how to actually make a decision about these things based on faith and love. They simply bow to whatever cultural influences are greatest in their lives. That, not the externals, is what concerns me.

Whether you drink, smoke, dance whatever---or abstain from all those things, if the Law of God's Love and Faith are not the driving force behind the decisions, whatever you do, really doesn't matter. "if I have not Love, I gain nothing...."

The subtext of the Gresham interview is the beatification of Lewis into an Evangelical saint, and how evangelicals get wigged out when they find out he was human

I guess I just have trouble seeing how anyone who has read enough of Lewis to know what an amazing Believer and writer he was and come to admire him, could not know he was a human being with flaws like the rest of us, enjoyed his friendships, pints and smokes, etc...His life is an open book (literally :-) ).

I guess I have to say that I honestly don't think Jesus would care about what we do or say. He always cared more about the attitude of a person's heart. And since that is the one thing we can never know, we tend to get sidetracked by the visible things we can judge, like words and actions.

Jesus certainly seemed to care about what the Pharisees said and did, and what the people selling in the temple were doing and even the woman caught in adultery that he saved from stoning, He told to go and sin no more. Even though He didn't come just to be a great moral teacher, Jesus had a whole lot to say about what people said and did.

What we say and do not only reflects what is in our hearts---but can effect others in either a loving or hurtful way. "Love one another' was His command and we do this through more than just feelings and attitudes--we do it through what we say and do.
I agree that there is a danger in making moral issues the Gospel. But there is an equal danger in divorcing the Gospel from morality. The Gospel is about being given power over sin, power to finally fulfill the Law of Love that commands us to love the Lord, our God, with all our hearts, minds and strength and to love our neighbor as ourself. And, although it begins in the heart, what we say and do either reflects that love or it doesn't.

I can't judge anyone's heart. But yes, actions I can judge--I am supposed to discern right from wrong. But I can only judge actions that God has told us are wrong. Everything else falls into the category of 'disputable matters', matters of personal conscience.

Forget C.S. Lewis, I think the question we should be asking is how the American evangelical church can embrace Jesus Christ, who imbibed with enough frequency to be accused of being a drunkard, who re-wrote numerous laws related to "personal holiness" and whose teaching on wealth would turn the American economy on its ear.

Certainly personal habits are an area of one's life that must be surrendered to the reign of Christ. ONE area. If you ask me, the way that (broadly speaking) American Christians emphasize not smoking or swearing at the expense of obedience in how we spend our money or how we care for the poor, or any number of other issues, is a terrible sin.

Wow, this has been a busy thread! Thanks, guys.

I would think that personal morality involves both ministry and personal habits. If a person's habits are out of hand, said person is probably not in the best shape to minister. It's one thing to enjoy something as a way to rest and restore, but another to live as if all one's little pleasures are things to retreat back to after doing one's good deeds for the day.

I guess the point I'd like to emphasize is that the "disputable matters" issue must be dug into more deeply. I see and hear plenty of discussion that misses the point to one extreme or the other, which just encourages abuses to either extreme. As I said in the post:

Looking at the examples Gresham gives, i.e., smoking, drinking, using bad language, and dressing inappropriately in church, these things themselves aren’t the issue as much as why anyone is doing those things, what those things mean to them, how those things affect them, and how others are affected.

Debra has stated this as well, in her own words.

Even disputability itself must be examined properly. Some matters are truly disputable; others are more complex. For example, there is nothing healthy or unhealthy about preferring (in moderation, of course ;-) ) vinagriette as opposed to French dressing on one’s salad; yet there are other matters that do affect health, such as smoking.

There’s also a difference between discerning what may be harmful for someone and judging them for it. You may know someone who smokes, and feel bad for them because of their health. You may want them to stop, not to feel some sort of vindication, but because you love them and want them to be healthy! But the choice is theirs to make, not yours.

But then, not to complicate things (!), I suppose one could argue whether or not God wants us to be healthy. So what if a person smokes and therefore dies an early death from emphysema, but during their lifetime proves a real help to those in need? Should we even care about each other's health, or our own?

I think the question we should be asking is how the American evangelical church can embrace Jesus Christ who imbibed with enough frequency to be accused of being a drunkard,

I don't think the majority of evangelicals have a problem with Jesus', or anyone else's moderate drinking--including in some cases, their own. Moderate drinking has been shown to be healthy--and if it does not cause us or anyone else to stumble you will find few evangelicals who view that as a sin. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I really think that it is a myth that the majority of evangelical churches are going around having fits over drinking. Many do care about habits that may effect the physical or spiritual health of those we love--but shouldn't we all?

...who re-wrote numerous laws related to "personal holiness"
Jesus stated specifically that He did not come to 'rewrite' or abolish the laws on personal holiness--He came to fulfill and to explain them. Like children, they were meeting the basic, literal requirements of the law and missing the whole principal of Love and Truth behind the laws. Each thing in the Sermon on the Mount He mentioned like adultery, murder, oath taking, loving your neighbor--He tells us 'good' is not good enough. It's not good enough to just not commit adultery, even looking with lust is wrong. You can't just not murder, even saying 'you, Fool!' puts us in danger. You don't just go one mile--you go two! You love not just those who love you---but your enemies as well. Be perfect He tells us. He told them that the Spirit of the Law actually required much more than they were giving. I read a great poem about this:

To run and work the law commands
But gives me neither feet nor hands
But better news the Gospel brings
It bids me fly, and gives me wings.

The Gospel is not about the law no longer being as important--it's about giving us the power to Love through truly understanding and fulfilling the Law. When the Law of Love is fulfilled it effects personal habits, how we spend our money, how we treat others, how we help the poor, every aspect of our lives. If Christ's teachings were followed, it would not be just our economy, but our whole life that would be turned on it's ear.

Well, Christ himself drank and he was without sin. This is our example, not some neurotic fundy.

Even disputability itself must be examined properly. Some matters are truly disputable; others are more complex. For example, there is nothing healthy or unhealthy about preferring (in moderation, of course ;-) ) vinagriette as opposed to French dressing on one’s salad; yet there are other matters that do affect health, such as smoking.

Bonnie, I agree with you that the issue of what is disputable and what isn't is very important--and usually complex. And there is a difference between things that are simply a matter of personal preference and disputable matters. Disputable matters refer to things that may indeed be wrong for a particular person or situation but not necessarily for all persons or situations. Neither is it to be confused with situational ethics. In situational ethics, the situation and personal desires drive the person's decision. With disputable matters, as described in Romans 14, the principles of faith, love and not being a stumbling block to others determines what is right or wrong.

But we never hear of Christ telling a ribald joke.

Good point, Samantha.

Which gets to the issue of placing our fellow sinners on pedestals. I can remember in my younger years looking up to someone that I thought was some amazing Believer, only to find out sooner or later that, lo and behold, they were human beings!

Lewis would have been the first to admit his weaknesses and his need for the regeneration and sanctification of Christ. He would never have wanted all the attention and admiration that mass popularity brings. He would have been the first to point out how wrong we are to look to anyone but Jesus Christ for our example.

I don't think Lewis would have considered any of his weaknesses or sins trivial--but simply inevitable, until Christ was perfected in him.

Bob, thanks for the Newsweek link. An interesting bit of hyperbole there. But maybe it’ll intrigue folks enough to motivate them to look into Lewis’ life for themselves and thus be drawn in to his witness. The statement that “In 1949, the year he finished writing 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,' C. S. Lewis was leading at least four different lives” is a bit irresponsible, though. Four different lives? Come on. Anything to titillate. And so what if he had a housekeeper?

I think I know what the real problem with American society, and perhaps some Evangelicals too, is: utter, abject, 21st-century myopia! Anachronistic understanding of everything from other cultures to Biblical writings. Yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same, but sheesh, let’s figure out how to distinguish between the two. (Not that I’m accusing anyone specifically!)

(End of rant :-) )

This really gets to the heart of Christianity. Perhaps the central problem, for me, is that I don't take Christ as my hero, but someone else. That philosopher, Charles Barkley, once said, in another context, something like "I'm not a role model. Your parents should be." C. S. Lewis shouldn't be my role model, Christ should be. It's easy for me to point fingers at others who seem to take political figures, authors, etc., as role models, but the question really is who I have taken as one. I hope it's the right one.

Thanks, Bonnie.

C. S. Lewis shouldn't be my role model, Christ should be.

Yes.

On another note (the alcohol) - I was talking with a friend and said that I felt like telling the teetotalers(for religion's sake) that maybe God should set up two feast tables in heaven. They can sit at the one with no alcohol. I'll be at the one with Christ - eating the bread and drinking the wine.

Debra, I forgot to thank you for clarifying the distinction between personal preference and disputable matters. I do think that there can be some overlap in the two categories, but the specific example I used (of preference in salad dressing) would not be a disputable matter. (I hope! LOL)

But if there was wine in the salad dressing...
:-)