« Ethical consumerism redux | Main | Er, [tap, tap, tap] is this thing on? »

God doesn’t need hit men

(or women :-) )

A good friend of mine (Rusty Lopez) referred me to a great article by John Fischer at Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint website. (thanks, Rusty) Fischer’s concern as expressed in The Separation of Church and Hate is similar to mine – there is far too much witness to The Enemy (Satan) than to Christ in some of the things that come out of Christians’ mouths or are committed by them. Yet I think he takes this idea’s complement, i.e., that non-Christians in essence may be more discerning in a Christlike way than Christians themselves, too far:

...there are a significant number of people who equate Christians in America with hate. Though I’m sure some of this can be blamed on the media and the resulting propaganda surrounding a culture war, that doesn’t explain everything. We must have given ample reason to make the connection.

...If Christians were consistently acting in loving ways toward each other and toward those who are not of the household of faith, this association could not have been made. (emphasis added)


Christians certainly have given ample reason to make the connection, although, at the same time, I’m not sure that Fischer’s final statement is true. I believe it’s possible that the sinful heart can make an association with hatred, or judgment of some kind, when none is exhibited. The association with hatred comes from the person’s own confused thinking. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Proverbs 1:7.

I am the first to say that Christians must not be guilty of what Fischer says here:

If we can’t face our own sin, then we become angry at sin, and angry with the sinner in order to avoid being angry with ourselves, which is where the focus on sin needs to be. When we fail to properly deal with our own sin, our guilt-fed anger always turns outward. It’s all about self-preservation.

As did C. S. Lewis, Fischer understands much about the human heart. But I think he tends to assume that the unsaved heart might be cleaner than the saved heart – how could so many Christians act so worldly while so many non-Christians see through it? Such a question leads many to question who the saved really are – they claim, and perhaps somewhat rightly so, that many who call themselves Christians really are not, and many who would not say that they are actually have more of a heart for God than the so-called Christians.

I think it’s closer to the truth to say that Christians, while saved, are still very far from being perfected from the sin from which they are ultimately saved. Many non-Christians, while being wise in many respects, are also deceived so that their accusations against Christians sometimes represent deceit itself, or at least lack of understanding. This deceit and darkness of mind as authored by Satan reigns in the human heart as a result of the Fall.

Some of this concern about the human heart goes back to issues that were raised by Fischer’s column of October 2003, Home for Halloween. In it, Fischer makes some very good points about non-participation in Halloween representing escapism:

It all comes down to why we are here. Are we here to enjoy life in as safe an environment as possible? Are we here to recreate the world as it should be, or as we might want it to be? Or are we here to bring Jesus to the world, however dangerous that might be? All this protective activity is counter-productive to the Gospel. We are trying to be safe from the world when Jesus has promised only to keep us safe in the world, while always assuming that it is a dangerous place to be. "My prayer," he said, "is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one" (John 17:15).

Yet he also asks,
But what about the Satan issue and the occult? We hear of practices on this day that use real blood, real seances, real calling up of the underworld. For some, this is serious business. But for every one house in my town that sees Halloween as this, there are hundreds who do not. Why allow those few to drive me away from my home on a night I am guaranteed to have visitors?

I would answer: #1, it’s not about being driven away from one’s home; it’s about a proactive refusal to participate in something that could cause someone to stumble. #2, in the parable of the lost sheep, Jesus is not concerned with the 99 sheep who are in the fold; He’s concerned about the one that is lost. If there is one lost “house” out there among even hundreds (and I doubt the ratio is as great as Fischer implies), is that one house less important than all the others for whom Halloween is “harmless”?

I don’t believe that we should brush off any harm that might be done someone by anything that we do. At the same time, we are not responsible for how our good acts may be received by others. But, in all of our actions and speech, we are to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16). (“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be...” said Jesus to the disciples.)

Fischer’s article (the first one) does list five cogent points that would well be heeded by every person who considers him/herself a Christian:

1) We have been more focused on sin than the sinner.

“Loving the sinner begins with me. I must admit my own hidden sin and need for forgiveness. Only then will I be able to love and forgive the sinner next to me. This is precisely what Jesus meant when He told us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.”

2) We have been selfishly more concerned with creating a society that is safe for our children and ourselves than with making a positive impact on culture.

“The more we leave the prevailing culture for the safety of a Christian alternative, the worse that culture becomes in our absence, further justifying our exodus...So rather than going into the world as Christ sent us, we now pit our Christian world against the world we left, and the cash registers of Christian stores ring with $4.2 billion of alternative product.”

3) We have bought into the notion that we could effect a change upon society through politics, so we all ended up on one side of a political battle already in progress, making us the immediate enemy of half of America without even trying.

"In short, we bought heavily into a polarized political system without counting the cost or realizing the limitations...we have slipped into a Christian coalition of power that seeks to influence the system by aligning with the more conservative party and letting a few do the thinking while the rest fall in line...We have entered the world of polarized politics at one pole and become entrenched there so all the accompanying hatred that goes along with a two-party system now is a part of our identity as Christians.” (emphasis added)

4) We have opted for morality over the gospel.

“Morality is cleaner and less threatening than the gospel. The gospel makes me admit my sin and welcome sinners. Morality lets me keep sin and sinners at bay. Morality deals in black and white—right and wrong. But representing morality breeds entitlement, self-righteousness, and condemnation.”

5) We have become the self-appointed last line of defense that God doesn’t need and never asked for.

“Keeping Christ in Christmas, God in the Pledge, prayer in the schools and the Ten Commandments on government lawns have become all-consuming, when all of these guarantee absolutely nothing in terms of what it means to follow Christ. We could win all these battles and still have a Godless nation and a Godless church.”

Read the whole article.

I will close by reproducing something (my own confession) I wrote to send to a friend that is in keeping with Fischer’s point (5):

“I have shot my trap off early and/or unwisely so many times in the past...after years and years of stupidity I finally learned to control my tongue and change my attitudes (heart). I learned the importance of establishing a relationship of sorts, a trust, with someone before becoming confrontational. I have finally learned how to be less selfishly and more graciously confrontational in my closer relationships. Sometimes it’s necessary to speak; other times it’s better to hold the peace until a better time, or to phrase things differently. In other words, I’m learning to keep my feelings where they belong and express them in a less self-indulgent and damaging way. I’ve learned how oftentimes my desire for another’s best good gets subsumed by my desire to feed my own pride. I’ve learned that God doesn’t need cheerleaders, supporters, or hit men.”

Comments

It would be interesting to see how non-Christians view this. I know that in my own experience it has been part of a process to listen to those concerns/complaints from non-Christians. I've found that often times a person needs to hear the counter balance - to hear some-one say that the projective angry stance is not one I agree with, and dare I say it not really what Jesus is about in terms of communication. (People love quoting Jesus responses to the Pharisees on this issue but they were the religious/legal authorities in the culture, not average Joe and Josephine who got curious and wanted to know more about Jesus). I hope we might communicate the spirit of what Jesus is about here on this blog and in our discussions.

I love the last part of your post - God doesn't need hit men or convoluted squabbling. I have been thinking about the shallow form of intellectualism which collapses into that. There is a place for listening - in fact without listening we cannot hear the real cry of the heart, pertinent questions, and may indeed be so busy cramming a political ideology down some-one's throat (in the guise of a "Christian perspective") that we completely miss the fact that they are seeking.

We cannot expect seekers to have well developed theology or to even understand certain principles that we ourselves mature in over years. I think very often the bar is set too high for engagement.

making us the immediate enemy of half of America without even trying.

Yes - I've observed that in action. And since this is not an American blog (right?) I'll add that it has an effect on those elsewhere too - when in fact it is not necessary to polarise in that way. I have experienced this through my own blogging - I've been called "left-leaning" on one blog (which later apologised for politically categorising me when I am not a poliblogger) and was add to a "Right" blogroll on another. I can't stand that sort of party spirit (and it is party spirit). Certainly a person may hold their political views - but the alienation of people on the basis of heavy handed political arguing is not the same thing as some-one being offended by the gospel, and in fact can be something which stands in the way of the gospel being communicated. As such it is a grievous misapplication in my view.


Posted by: Catez at April 6, 2006 11:38 PM

If we are hated because we are rude, ignorant and boneheaded, then we deserve it. If we are hated because we attempt to follow Jesus and at times that means saying hard things, then the hate is to be expected but is not deserved. As the perfect man, kind, truthful, patient, Jesus was still hated. As you said, Bonnie, truth begins with our own self-examination and confession. Once we are cleansed, (a daily, if not hourly event) we are able to go into the world with the good news. Even then, not every person will welcome it, or us. Living behind enemy lines is not easy, but it is invigorating.

Posted by: Barbara at April 7, 2006 2:36 PM

"...we bought heavily into a polarized political system without counting the cost or realizing the limitations..."

I think this is a valid criticism, but I doubt there are any alternatives. Politics is civilized argument, and argument exists because we are not unitied in our beliefs about anything that matters. Polarization is part of the fallen nature of man, so politics is polarized. It has always been thus.

So, do we wash our hands of all of this grimy polarization? We're supposed to be in the world (and in politics), but not of the world (somehow, we have to argue in a way that respects the valued humanity of our opponents).

We have no right to claim that Christ is head of one party and has abandoned another. We are deluded if we suppose that any party platform could have the approval of Christ. But even though politics is flawed, and limited by sin and the intrinsic limitations of power wielded badly by mortals, yet, we must try to be a light in the political arena as we are in every other venue in life.

And, without moralizing against sinners or alienating unbelievers, it should be possible for God to use politics -- or else we have to say that some things in life are simply beyond his redemptive powers. It should be possible for politics to become a means for making the world better and carrying out his will, even in a system of government that is deliberately secular.

Where we go wrong is in putting our hopes in political solutions rather than the transformational work of the Holy Spirit in humanity. And, we Christians are sometimes tempted to think that we can purify politics to the point where Christ himself would step in to govern us. We are tempted to think we can achieve a Utopian society through politics; and yet, we are the very ones who killed Christ.

Posted by: Charlie at April 7, 2006 7:49 PM

Catez, one thing about Jesus' rebuking of the Pharisees is that He was...Jesus, and had authority to do so. He knew their hearts. There is a place for rebuke in the Christian life as well but it must be done with utmost discernment and propriety. (That idea deserves an in-depth treatment -- anyone game?)

Great comment, Charlie. What I picked up on in Fischer's comments was the the need for discernment and thinking for oneself rather than swallowing any particular party line. Once an official is elected, we must be obedient to his/her authority, but in the process of informing our vote it is important to consider the issues in and of themselves. Fischer is speaking against unecessary polarization.

I think he is also making the last point you make (which was brilliantly put, btw) -- that some Christians wrongly put their hope in politics rather than in God, and try to purify the world via rule.

I absolutely agree that part of the way we care for our fellow human beings as Christians is through being responsible citizens and voting responsibly on election day.

Posted by: Bonnie at April 7, 2006 10:15 PM

I agree Bonnie. I wasn't advocating rebuke - I was giving the counter argument I've heard so often. I think you've made an important point - God knows the heart.

Hi Charlie!
on this:
yet, we must try to be a light in the political arena as we are in every other venue in life.

But not everyone is called to politics. I think it has become a default that is not actually a calling for many people. Nancy Pearcey has talked about how apologetics "collapses" into political activism. I agree.

Posted by: Catez at April 8, 2006 9:59 AM

I realise you weren't saying I was advocating that Bonnie - I expressed that poorly I think (my mind is on too many things). I was clarifying my previous comment as I think it didn't express the nutshell which you have provided. Thankyou!

That last paragraph in your post is awesome. I have been thinking about it. It is very challenging you know.

Posted by: Catez at April 8, 2006 1:00 PM

Barbara - I totally agree with this:
Living behind enemy lines is not easy, but it is invigorating.


Posted by: Catez at April 8, 2006 1:03 PM

If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.