Monthly Archives: July 2011

What good does it do when Christians are offended?

Posted on by
Reply

US Pledge of AllegianceDale Best has written a guest post, at Kurt Willems’ Pangea Blog, What Good Does It Do When Christians Are Offended?, copied from Dale’s own blog. The specific focus of the post is something I am not so interested in, the wording of the US Pledge of Allegiance. But the real point is much more important: that Christians should not be so quick to take offence.

Dale writes (in part):

I’m one of those Jesus followers who happened to not be offended. Because I don’t think it does any good. …

But how much good does it do? If we call ourselves Christians and we identify ourselves with the One who came and forsook his own rights and his own life and gave himself for others, should instances like removing “Under God” from a pledge really matter?

Jesus spent his time and influence and energy building a Kingdom that transcended anything this world had to offer. The world, essentially, has it’s own way of doing things and it never surprised him that things weren’t right. He came to reconcile those things that weren’t right … through serving and giving his life and ultimately defeating death.

Jesus didn’t come to tell everyone what he was against. He had one mission and that was to usher in His Kingdom to a world that was broken. He showed us love in a way that seemed so counter-cultural. He didn’t waste his time worrying about whether or not his Abba’s rules were posted in the town square. He taught that to be first, you have to be last. And to not expect the world to make it easy for you along the way.

Indeed. This ties up well with what I wrote about Calvin, Preacher of Legalism and about Why Christians should accept gay marriage. As Christians we shouldn’t expect the world to live by our standards, and we certainly shouldn’t take offence when they don’t.

It is right for us to be sad when we see such things, and for them to drive us to prayer. And sometimes it is right to speak out for truth and righteousness. But when instead we take offence and start complaining in a judgmental way, in fact we harm the cause of Christ, in the same way that Calvin did when he presided over a legalistic state in Geneva. This is true whether our offence is over the Pledge of Allegiance, over bad things we see in society, or over what some blogger has written.

How is this harmful? We give outsiders the false idea that Christianity is all about keeping rules and saying the right words. We make them feel condemned rather than loved by God. Instead of attracting them with the true gospel message, we repel them and cause them to reject any Christian faith that they might have. In short, we do great damage to the Kingdom of God.

Which Calvin has the better theology?

Posted on by
Reply

John CalvinCalvinIn case anyone is confused, the Calvin I was referring to in my post Calvin, Preacher of Legalism is the Reformer of Geneva, left, not the cute cartoon boy, right. But I’m not sure there is much to choose between their theologies as put into practice. One was profound but toxic, the other wrong but harmless.

Thanks to Jeremy Myers for informing me on the boy’s theology:

Calvin's theology

Free and Unrestricted Discipleship Resources

Posted on by
Reply

This is a great video from Door43 about how the church worldwide needs discipleship resources free from copyright restrictions. Copyright owners here in the West are seeking to enrich themselves while Third World churches are struggling for lack of the material they need. This is a scandal, but one which Door43 is working to overcome.

I note that among their projects is an Open Bible Translation, in English and to be released under an open licence.

The future of the global church is Open from Distant Shores Media on Vimeo.

Why Christians should accept gay marriage

Posted on by
33

Gay marriageJ. R. Daniel Kirk (no relation) put the cat among the pigeons last week when he blogged about Gay Marriage in New York and wrote:

As long as the state is in the marriage business, Christians should support gay marriage as an embodiment of our calling to love our neighbor as ourselves.

He then offered an explanation of his position, which he has summarised in a new post Gentiles and Homosexuals (Pt. 1) as follows:

I made the suggestion that Christians need to develop the habit of asking two separate questions, without predetermining what the relationship between them might be. The first is, “What does God require of us as God’s people?” and the second is, “What does this mean for our life in civil society populated by people who do not, and will not, agree with us?”

This is an important distinction, but one which is often lost. As Christians we should have high standards for our own personal morality, and for how we behave towards one another. But that does not give us the right to impose our own standards on others, whether believers or unbelievers. This is what Calvin completely lost sight of when he became a tyrant in Geneva.

Yes, there are certain rules, such as forbidding murder and theft, which a government needs to impose for a society to be properly ordered. And there is room for debate on how far such rules should go. But when they are extended too far, because of pressure from Christians, they become tyranny over other people’s consciences. They also become a stumbling block for the gospel because, whatever may be taught in the pulpit, the message that many hear is that they become acceptable to God, as well as to the church, not by grace but by keeping laws.

The real message which the church and individual Christians need to be putting across is that God accepts each one of us

Just as I am – without one plea,
But that [Jesus’] blood was shed for me.

Each one who comes to Jesus is a sinner in God’s eyes, whether an outwardly respectable church member or a gay rights activist. They will not be saved by following the moral rules we try to make them follow, and they will not be attracted towards the gospel by our attempts to impose them. Better that we allow elected governments to decide on matters like gay marriage, as a civil ceremony, and preach to homosexuals as to everyone else the message of God’s love and grace towards them.

Then, when they come to Jesus, we can expect the Holy Spirit to convict them of their sins and show them how they need to change their lives. But that is his work (John 16:7-11), not ours.

Furthermore, as I wrote in 2007 concerning Bishop Gene Robinson who “wanted to be a June bride”,

if he will not give up his gay union, it is best that he formally acknowledges it and pledges himself to being faithful to his partner

– and similarly for any gay or lesbian couple. But I do prefer that the word “marriage”, with its religious connotations, is avoided for such couples and the wording used is something like “civil partnership”, as here in the UK.

I don’t think I would go as far as Daniel in saying that “Christians should support gay marriage”, as that might be taken as implying campaigning actively in favour of it. But I would conclude that we Christians should accept gay and lesbian marriage, or civil partnership, and not campaign against it. I don’t mean that we should take it as an option for ourselves. But we should not be troubled if our governments allow it as an option for others. And we should not let ourselves be seen as more negative than we need to be, but present the positive message of God’s love and grace for all.

Why Americans don't like British roundabouts

Posted on by
13

A British roundaboutBBC News Magazine has an article Is the British roundabout conquering the US? And it seems the general answer is “No”, in spite of the popularity of these traffic circles in a few parts of America like Carmel, Indiana.

Apparently despite

on average a 40% decrease in all accidents and a 90% drop in fatal ones when a traffic intersection is replaced by a roundabout

there is a lot of resistance in the USA to making this change. The BBC reports the views of one American journalist who

thinks there is something deep in the American psyche which is fundamentally opposed to [roundabouts].

“This is a culture predicated on freedom and individualism, where spontaneous co-operation is difficult and regimentation is resisted.

“You see it in the way Americans get in line, or as the Brits say, queue. We don’t do that very well.

“Behind the wheel, we’re less likely to abide by an orderly pattern of merging that, though faster for the group, make require an individual to slow down or, God forbid, yield.”

Americans tend to be orthogonal in their thinking and behaviour, he says.

“We like right angles, yes and no answers, Manichean explanations. Roundabouts require more subtlety than we’re used to.”

Interesting. Is this true? I must say I find the way Americans handle four-way stop sign junctions (unknown in the UK) requires even more “spontaneous co-operation” than negotiating a roundabout. And as a Brit who also resists regimentation, I much prefer roundabouts to traffic lights or stop signs, at least unless the roads are very congested.

Meanwhile here in the UK the traditional roundabout is under threat. More and more are being rendered pointless by having traffic lights added to them. And here in Warrington a major roundabout is currently being ploughed up to be replaced by traffic lights. Perhaps in a few years they will found more often in America than in Britain.

As for Americans requiring “Manichean explanations” (something no British journalist would write expecting to be understood!), perhaps that explains a lot about their theology and their church life.