The Demands of Idols

This past Sunday at Life Bible Fellowship Church, Pastor Gary Keith spoke on the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). One of the acts of the flesh is idolatry. As he spoke, the concept of idolatry really stuck with me.
Today very few of us bow down before pieces of wood or stone or gold. The whole concept seems silly to us. So, we may feel convicted when Paul talks about sexual immorality, jealousy, malice, or drunkenness. But when he speaks of idolatry, we get a pass.
Or do we?
In his book Counterfeit Gods, Tim Keller says this:

The Bible often speaks of idols using the religious metaphor. God should be our true Savior, but we look to personal achievement or financial prosperity to give us the peace and security we need. Idols give us a sense of being in control, and we can locate them by looking at our nightmares. What do we fear the most? What if we lost it, would make life not worth living? We make "sacrifices" to appease and please our gods, who we believe will protect us. We look to our idols to provide us with a sense of confidence and safety.

For me, the most striking part of this quotation is when he says that we make sacrifices to appease and please our idols. Gods demand sacrifices. Throughout the Old Testament, and in many religions throughout history, animals have been sacrificed in order to appease the gods. When we think of an idol as something that demands a sacrifice, we can more easily identify the idols of our hearts.

If my idol is money, then I am willing to sacrifice my integrity in order to rake it in. I will cut corners, cheat on my taxes, and embezzle from my company. I will sacrifice the needs of my church or people who have run into hard times because I need the money for myself.
If my idol is success, then I am willing to sacrifice my relationships with loved ones in order to climb the ladder. I will work non-stop, compete with everyone, and neglect my family in order to fill my tank with the accolades that come along with being successful.
If my idol is my family, then I am willing to sacrifice the broader world in order to give them everything possible. Involvement in church and in God's work will take a back seat to recitals, sporting events, and other activities. The great irony of this idol is that it is deceptively selfish. We tell ourselves that we are putting our family first, but it is really a way for us to fill our own tank at their expense. By placing too high a value on our family we end up ruining it.
If my idol is the approval of others, then I will sacrifice truth and authenticity in order to get it. I won't tell anyone that they are wrong. I will smile and nod and approve and reinforce. I will sacrifice even my own identity so that this god can give me the approval for which I so desperately crave.
Idolatry is not a problem of the past or of tribal communities. It is a problem for all of us.
What are your idols? And what sacrifices have you offered to them?

The great news when we come to the gospel is not that God doesn't demand a sacrifice, but instead that he himself has provided the sacrifice that he demands. He sent his Son in order to fulfill all that he requires. The true God, the one and only, invites us to a peace-filled relationship based on the sacrifice that Jesus offered for us all. This is why he is the only God worthy of trust and worship.

Jerry, Jim, and Justification

Today I was listening to a sports talk show called Max and Marcellus, and I heard a conversation that captured my attention. The co-hosts were talking about Jerry Buss (the former Lakers owner) and his son Jim Buss, who is currently guiding the Laker franchise.

Jerry Buss was one of the most successful owners in sports history. Max and Marcellus were discussing the fact that, even though Jim Buss has been involved with Laker management during a number of championship teams, he will only receive credit for what he accomplishes after his father's death (which took place this past February).
You can listen to the conversation here, with the pertinent conversation taking place from about 25:30 to 26:45.
Max said this about Jim Buss: "The tragedy for him is that he will only be judged on what he does without his father. So if he wants to validate his existence, he had to wait for the person he loved most in the world to die." He then lamented the difficult situation this creates for Jim Buss. He wants to grieve his father's death, but he also wants to validate his existence. This is a deep conflict because, as Max went on to say, "There has to be a wish somewhere in you--I want to show everybody what I'm worth."

I thought the comments were poignant. They apply not just to sports, but to all of life. We all want validation. We all want to matter. We all want to prove what we are worth. We all long to have our existence justified.
But what if your existence can only be justified through the death of someone else?
I couldn't help but revel in the irony. The conclusion was that it is up to each of us to justify our existence. And in some cases, the justification requires the death of another. The gospel of Jesus is all about justification. But the message is not about someone dying so that we could justify ourselves. The message is about someone dying so that, through him, we can be justified. He justifies us, and that justification comes only through his death.

Justification is much deeper than simply forgiveness. Justification gives us access to God. It allows us to approach God's throne with boldness instead of cowering in fear. Romans 5:1-2 says, Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. True justification is not simply being able to stand before other people and feel good about ourselves. True justification is when God is okay with us, and when we can stand before him without shame.
But Max is absolutely right about the fact that we all, deep down inside, long to be validated. We long to be shown to be worth something. We long to be valuable. We long to matter. The gospel of Jesus tells us that we matter, but not because we have accomplished something great. We have not proven ourselves to be especially smart or talented or diligent or virtuous. Quite the opposite. The gospel of Jesus tells us that we matter because God has made us matter. We can only enjoy justification if we plunge into the humble pie of grace. We shouldn't matter--but we do!

Whether we find ourselves in the shadow of someone great, or whether we are simply trying to make our way in the world, we all long for justification. I pray that we can all experience this justification that is only given, and never earned.

Are We All Label-Makers?

The Scenario
Imagine that you are the head of an organization that promotes pacifism. For some of you this is easy; others of you would find a triathalon easier. Still, stick with me.
You are the head of a pacifist organization and you open up a magazine to read the following quote from the celebrity:
"I am a pacifist. That said, I do think that war is okay in certain cases. For example, if our nation is attacked first, then we have the right to respond in kind. And I actually think there are cases when we must go to war in order to protect ourselves, even if we haven't been attacked. On top of this, I also think it can be valid to go to war if our financial interests are threatened to the point that our economy could be in peril. But I want to impress upon you that I am a pacifist. From the bottom of my heart I hold to pacifism, and I deny anyone to say otherwise."
As you begin to process what you have just read, you receive a phone call asking for your comments on what this celebrity has said. You respond in a way that is simple and succinct: "The person who said this is not a pacifist."
The next day the celebrity gives a press conference to respond to your comments about him not being a pacifist. He looks deeply hurt. "I am shocked at the hurtful nature of the comments that were made against me, " he begins. "The comments are arrogant. How dare anyone else judge what is in my heart! I know, deep down in my heart, that I am a pacifist. No one else has the right to say otherwise!"
Again, asked for comment, you might respond like this:
"I am not in any way judging the sincerity of this man. I am not even saying that his position is wrong or immoral. I am simply saying that he is not a pacifist. If he wants to be labeled a pacifist, he must change his views about war and retaliation. If he doesn't, then it is simply inappropriate to give him the label. After all, being a pacifist has to mean something."

The Logic of Labels
I think most of us can follow this logic. Most people would not think that you were arrogant to say that the celebrity was not a pacifist. You were not judging their heart, but rather stating a fact. He simply doesn't meet the criteria of the label. You don't get to be a pacifist and still support war in that way. You don't get to be a vegetarian and still eat meat all the time. You don't get to be pro-life and yet support abortion-on-demand. You don't get to be Green and yet support the destruction of certain protected areas or species. If our labels don't mean something, then they are worthless labels.

Who Decides What a Christian Is?
It seems that we grasp this reality in many areas of life, but not when it comes to Christianity. It seems increasingly common for people to take it upon themselves to define Christianity on their own terms. Oddly enough, it does not seem to be as prevalent with other religions. With Christianity, however, a person can deny the historic creedal or moral realities that have gone hand in hand with defining Christianity, and yet still claim to be a Christian. "I'm a Christian, but I think that people can get to God through other religious expressions and not just through Jesus." "I'm a Christian, but I think that in the end God will not send anyone to hell, but will save everyone." "I'm a Christian, but I don't think there is anything wrong with pre-marital sex, homosexuality, or getting drunk every once in a while."
If a pacifist is supporting a war, it would not seem out of bounds to say to him, "You are not a pacifist." At the very least you would seem justified in saying, "You are not acting in line with pacifism." But, culturally speaking, it is absolutely out of bounds to say, "You are not a Christian," to someone who claims to be one. The typical response is, "Who are you to judge me?! How can you know what is in my heart?!"
The pacifist is not judging the celebrity for saying that he is not a pacifist. The celebrity is free to believe whatever he wants. And he can take a shot at convincing the pacifist that he is right. But he needs to drop the label. The simple fact is that he is not a pacifist. Those of us who are Christians need to realize that we are not creating Christianity. We don't create what the Bible means, nor do we create who Jesus is or what he did. Those of us who are Christians simply decide that we want to embrace Jesus, embrace his gospel, and embrace a way of belief and conduct that was handed down. The label means something; the label existed before us; and we must value the meaning of the label if it is going to have any significance.

Implications
Those of us who are Christians are compelled to find productive ways to talk to others about Jesus and the gospel. But we must not fall into the trap of accepting everyone's definition of what it means to be a Christian. We are subject to the gospel of Jesus, to Scripture, to God himself, and to historical Christianity (to a certain level). We must find ways to gently call others not to define their own version of Christianity. We must find ways to say to others, "You are certainly free to believe that, but that is not a Christian belief."
And all of us, Christian or not, would do well to rediscover the value of objective labels. If our communication is going to mean anything, then we must submit ourselves to the meaning of words and labels. It is meaningless for me to call myself a pacifist if I mean something different than what everyone else means. Similarly, it is meaningless to call myself a Christian if I reject some (or several) of the historical and biblical definition of what it means to be a Christian.

Our labels must mean something. A label is only significant if its meaning transcends individual definition.

Questioning the Old Testament: Ananias and Sapphia, Life after Death, and Judgment on the Sins of Christians

I wrote a previous post that followed up on a Deeper event at Life Bible Fellowship Church. The event was about the connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament. You can listen to it in its entirety through our podcast, either through iTunes or on our website. The event ended with a Question/Answer time, and I am blogging about some of the questions that we didn't get to. I hit the biggest (and most common) question in the previous post. In this post, I will hit three others.

Assuming that Ananias and Sapphira were believers, did they lost their salvation when they were judged?
In order to demonstrate the continuity between the OT and NT, I mentioned that judgments by God show up in the NT also. Ananias and Sapphira (in Acts 5) are a prime example of this. In the story, Ananias and Sapphira sell their property and give a portion of the price to the church. There was nothing wrong with them only giving a portion of what they received. The problem was that they deceptively said that they were giving the whole price. They were bringing deceit into Jesus' church, and pumping themselves up falsely.
The Holy Spirit allows Peter to discern their deceit, and both Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead instantly.
So, the question is whether or not they "lost their salvation." This begs the bigger question about whether or not a person can lose their salvation.
We all know people who at one time appeared to be Christians. Then, later on in life they live in such a way that makes us wonder if they are truly Christians. Others live in open defiance of God and don't even claim to be Christians any more. What do you conclude about these people? There are three basic options:
1. They were Christians at one point, and now they are not Christians. They "lost" their salvation.
2. They were Christians and they are still Christians. Once you believe in Jesus, nothing can undo that, even if you openly deny believing in Jesus.
3. They appeared to be Christians, but now they have revealed that they are not Christians.
Without making this too long, I believe that the third option is the most biblical. Speaking of "losing" your salvation is a strange concept. We come to God only by his grace. We receive salvation as a gift. It seems odd that, since we did nothing in order to gain our salvation, we could do something that would allow us to lose it. At the same time, it is thoroughly unbiblical to call someone a Christian when they themselves are not even claiming to be a Christian.
So, that said, back to Ananias and Sapphira. In this case, we have to plead ignorance to some extent. The story is not about the nature of salvation. It is about the purity of the church and the seriousness of sin within the church. Ananias and Sapphira may have been true believers who sinned and ended their lives badly. They would not be the first. One of the best kings in the OT (Uzziah) was judged by God and struck with leprosy late in life. Other believers throughout history have made bad decisions that lead to their death. This does not mean that they were sent to hell.
When we talk about Ananias and Sapphira, we might be tempted to say, "Their sin at the end of their life did not undercut their godly lives before then." This is the wrong way to think about the issue. The better statement would be, "Jesus died for the sins of his people. That covers the sins in the past, the sins in the present, and the sins in the future. If you die as a result of a sin that you commit, that sin is not somehow outside of the covering sacrifice of Jesus."

Why does the Old Testament say so little about the afterlife?

The New Testament gives us a good amount of information about what we can anticipate after death. Believers anticipate being "with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8) in a place that is "much better by far" (Philippians 1:23). In Revelation we see scenes of believers in the presence of God, worshiping and enjoying rest and comfort. And the final Christian hope is that our bodies will be raised, just as Jesus' body was raised. We will be given new, redeemed bodies and we will live on a new, redeemed earth in the presence of God forever.
The Old Testament is a bit more fuzzy on its own. In fact, in Jesus' day the Jews were divided. The conservatives, the Pharisees, believed that there would be a final resurrection. The liberals, the Sadducees, believed that there was no afterlife. This debate comes to the forefront in at least two passages (Matthew 22: 23-33 and Acts 23:6-10).
Jesus clearly affirms that there is life after death. There is a resurrection to come. While it doesn't seem quite fair to say that the OT is clear on this, there are hints about it. Job 19:27, Isaiah 26:19, and Daniel 12:2 are some of the most prominent.
So, why was it not more clearly laid out? Again, we have to plead a bit of ignorance. There have been many things that were not revealed to the patriarchs. Then there were many things that were not revealed to the Israelites. Then there were many things that were not revealed to the prophets. Then there were many things that were not revealed to the apostles. There are many things that are not revealed to us. God has always revealed himself, but he has done so gradually. He knows what we need to know in order to trust him.
As a quick note, Jesus seemed to think that the Jews should have known that there was a resurrection. He says that the Sadducees know neither the Scripture nor the power of God when they deny the resurrection. We may think that the OT is fuzzy on this, but Jesus thought it was clear enough for people to understand.

As Christians we still sin. What judgment is there for the sins of Christians?
As part of the Deeper event, I talked about the fact that people in the Old Testament were not saved from their sins by obeying the law. They were not forgiven through the sacrifices. They were saved, ultimately, through faith in God. And each believer (OT or NT) only receives forgiveness from sins through the sacrifice of Jesus. So, all the sins of OT believers were judged when Jesus died for them.
But what about us? For those of us living on the other side of the cross, the case is the same. Our sins, past and present and future, are all forgiven because Jesus died for them on the cross. This does not simply mean that Jesus was judged for the sins that we committed as non-Christians. He also died for the sins that we would (and will) commit as Christians.
This is the glory of the cross. It revealed God's grace and his justice. When Jesus returns there will be a final judgment. Every person's sin demands judgment. We will either be judged for our own sins, or our sins will be judged at the cross. All believers, before Christ or after Christ, are free from the penalty of our sins because Jesus was judged for all of them!

I thought I would include one more somewhat-mystifying question:
Do you mean that we should not put criminals in prison or have our soldiers fight against evil?
This question is odd to me. I am not sure where it came from. My best guess is that this comes as a result of the teaching that God is the ultimate judge. He promises to avenge, so that we don't have to. The context of this point was to show that it is not bad news that God judges sin. It is good news. We don't have to take revenge because God is the judge.
This does not mean that we don't still have laws, punishments, and order in our society. This is an important distinction between the OT and the NT. In the OT, God's people were a nation. They had their own laws, borders, army, and legislative system. In the NT, God's people are the church. In some sense we have our own sphere and domain, but in another sense we live as citizens of our individual cities and states and countries. So then, the question is how we should conduct ourselves as citizens of God's kingdom, but also as citizens of the United States (or any other earthly nation).
Just a quick plug. We did a series called "American Christian or Christian American" at Life Bible Fellowship Church, and we covered this subject through the 10-week series. You can check it out in our sermon archives. The series took place in September-November of 2012.
In short, does God's promise to be the final judge mean that Christians should oppose prisons, war, the death penalty, etc.? The answer is "not necessarily." Christians should not always be in favor of war, nor should we always be in favor of the death penalty or other criminal punishments. God is a God of order. He is not opposed to people looking to set up order. A necessary component of order in a fallen world is punishments and even the instigation of death (through war or other means).
This is messy and we must take each case on its own. In the bigger picture, though, we should differentiate between a desire for order and justice and a desire for revenge and retaliation. As a Christian, I want criminals to be caught and punished. But I am free from agony if this doesn't happen. Why? Because God will judge. As a Christian, I want those who have wronged me to be held accountable and experience appropriate consequences. But I have been given the freedom to proceed in life if they never admit their wrongs and never suffer consequences. Why? Because God is just and he will take care of it.
Christians have a valuable role in society as lawmakers, police officers, soldiers, and judges. But we all proceed in our lives, seeking a semblance of order and justice, knowing that God is the ultimate judge and that this is a sobering and hope-giving reality.

Questioning the Old Testament: The Children Punished for the Parents' Sin

This past Sunday we had our fourth Deeper event at Life Bible Fellowship Church. This one revolved around the connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The two key questions were
(1) Is the God of the Old Testament the same God that Jesus revealed?
(2) Is the path to God revealed in the Old Testament the same path that is revealed in the New Testament.
We finished with a Question/Answer time, and I was not able to get to all the questions. For the next few posts, I will be answering some of the remaining questions.
Here is the question for this post:
In reference to Exodus 34:6-7, why would God punish someone for someone else's sin?
Here is the text for Exodus 34:6-7: And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation."

There are multiple instances in the Old Testament of a person's sins having consequences for other people. Whole families or nations are punished because of the actions of a father or a king or a small group of people. This seems unjust to us. Shouldn't people simply be punished for their own sins? Why should someone else's sin impact me?
There are a few factors that can help us to understand this reality.
1. No man is an island. Throughout both the Old and the New Testaments is the idea that people's actions impact others, for better or for worse. There is not only guilt for individuals, but guilt for nations, guilt for families, and guilt for clans. This is often called corporate guilt.
The fact is that we all know that our actions have an impact on others. This is especially true for those who are in authority. If parents make poor decisions, whether financial or legal or moral, this brings consequences on children. If military leaders make poor decisions, this has a significant (and even fatal) impact on the soldiers under their charge. If kings or presidents make poor decisions, this can have a crippling impact on an entire nation (or multiple nations).
While this might not give us a final answer on why God would enforce consequences on the descendants of those who sin, and why he told Israelites to wipe out entire nations, including non-combatants like women and children, it can help us to understand that corporate guilt and consequences are a normal way of life in a world in which we are all connected to one another.
2. No one is innocent. Often we will talk about the immorality of innocent people being punished for the sins of the guilty. We need to be careful when we say this. We are not as innocent as we think we are. And, often, the people being punished for the sins of others are not innocent at all. Often the nations that are punished have partaken in the sins the bring guilt of their kings. Often the children that are punished have taken part in the sins of their parents. We need to be careful not to assume that the punished group is innocent, just because they are being punished for the sin of their representative.
This, of course, does not solve the problem of a future generation being punished for the sins of their ancestors. Clearly, the future generation is not yet guilty of the sin for which they will suffer consequences. But a wider context for Exodus 34:6-7 might help us with this. God says something similar in Exodus 20:5-6 when the Ten Commandments are given. Here God says: I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to the thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
It is not too big a stretch to wonder if this context speaks into Exodus 34:6-7. Is it reasonable to think that perhaps the "of those who hate me" can be read into the third and fourth generation? After all, this is what he says earlier in the same book.
Whatever the case, though, we must always be careful when we talk about people being innocent. Every person has guilt before God. As much as we may see certain people as relatively innocent, but Scripture continues to point to our guilt. We must be willing to adjust our perspective to that of God.

3. Many punishments have far-reaching effect. If I robbed a bank and went to jail, I would be experiencing a punishment. But so would my wife and children. Without any special punishment from the state, they would experience natural consequences. My financial contribution to the family would stop. My presence as a husband and father would be compromised. There might be public shame that they would experience. The point is that my family might complain, "You are punishing us!" And, in a certain sense, they would be right. My actions would not only impact my children, but also my children's children. Sometimes our consequences necessarily impact people who were not a part of our crime.
It is worth considering the fact that the punishment given by God to these original sinners might simply be a punishment that, by definition, has an impact on future generations. If the punishment was loss of land or poverty or military loss, then this punishment might still be impacting people generations later. Sometimes a nation will lose a war and have the pay reparations. Or they may lose some land. Or they may simply be crushed by the loss of life. Sometimes our actions have natural consequences on our descendants.
4. Representations, for better or worse, is a key part of the gospel. It seems unfair to many of us that one person would be punished because of someone else's sin. But this not only happens occasionally in the Old Testament, this is what has happened to all humanity. Romans 5 teaches that we all are counted guilty because of Adam's sin. We were all in Adam, he was humanity's representative, and when he fell into guilt, we all fell into guilt. If we don't like this, then we need to be careful. After all, Paul goes on to say in Romans 5 that we all gain life through a different representative: Christ. We find ourselves guilty for the sin of a representative (although each of us has sinned enough to earn our own guilt), and we find ourselves justified for the obedience of a representative (even though we had no righteousness of our own). This is core to the gospel. What we see in the Old Testament is consistent with it.

I find the above four points to be really helpful. That said, I recognize that this does not eliminate the fact that this question is tough for us. I don't assume that these points fully resolve the issue. In addition to these thoughts, we must always show a willingness to trust God. Sometimes his actions will make perfect sense to us. Other times they won't. But through his gift of his Son, we have embraced that he is good, he is gracious, and he is trustworthy. This doesn't mean that we don't look for answers, but it does mean that we do so with the backdrop of trust.

Chris Broussard, Starbucks, and Mismatched Conversations

In the News
If you are a sports fan (like me), or even if you aren't, you have probably heard about Jason Collins coming out on Monday. It is news because he is a professional basketball player. His announcement makes him the first active, male, American, team-sports, professional athlete to come out as gay.
Overall, there has been an outpouring of support for Collins, who is a veteran player in the NBA. In fact, ESPN did a special episode on him in their show Outside the Lines.
Here is where it gets interesting (at least to me). On the episode of Outside the Lines, ESPN interviewed Chris Broussard, who is a frequent NBA analyst on ESPN and other sports stations. Broussard was asked many questions, but the one that is getting the most attention is when he was asked what he, as a Christian, thought of the fact that Jason Collins also claimed to be a Christian.
I didn't know about Chris Broussard's Christianity, but have since become aware of the fact that he has been outspoken about his faith, and that he is a big supporter of Christian Hip Hop and urban Christian ministries.
You can watch Broussard's comments below, but I will sum them up here. He did his best to articulate that homosexuality was one of many things that are called sin in the Bible. He worked hard to communicate that it was not worse than other sins like pre-marital sex between heterosexuals, but that it was a sin nonetheless. He said that he had a hard time considering Jason Collins to be a Christian because, by choosing an active homosexual lifestyle, he was living in open rebellion to God. Again, he reiterated that he would say the same about someone who was choosing to practice any other sin.

There are many things that I want to say about this interaction, but I will limit myself in this post to one area. At least one other post will certainly follow.

Mismatched Conversations
Not surprisingly, Chris Broussard has taken an intense amount of heat since his comments on Monday. I don't know if he will lose his job over this (I hope not), but he has been lambasted by many of his colleagues, as well as many bloggers and other people who disagree with him.
I am not taken aback by the fact that many disagree with Broussard. He communicated the basic Christian position on homosexuality (I actually think he communicated it quite well, considering the sound-bite context of his comments). The Christian position on homosexuality is becoming increasingly unpopular. Many people have pointed to the bravery of Jason Collins for coming out. While I do accept the Bible's teaching on homosexuality, I don't discount that there was something brave about Collins' actions. Nonetheless, Broussard's words were also brave. He politely articulated what he knew to be a very unpopular position, and he did so in the public sphere.
Again, it doesn't surprise me that he is receiving backlash. Some call Broussard a bigot or a homophobe. I believe these to be misdirected comments. But more misdirected are the comments that ignore his actual statements and respond instead to statements that he never made.
Some seem to feel the need to remind Broussard that we don't live in a theocracy, and that he shouldn't force his religion on others. Those who make these comments only show that they are not listening very closely.
Broussard made no comment about same-sex marriage. He never said that homosexuality should be illegal, or that Jason Collins should not be allowed to play in the NBA. In fact, he did not initiate bringing his faith into the conversation. He was asked about it.
Here is the key: He was asked if he, as a Christian, thought that a person could be a Christian and a practicing homosexual at the same time.
Broussard's answer was that he does not consider a person to be a Christian if that person is living in open rebellion to any of God's ways. Not foisting his religious beliefs on anyone else, he simply articulated a Christian perspective on the question.
As I said, there are other parts of this issue that I look forward to addressing, but I have one point here: We must be careful to respond to what people are saying, not what they aren't saying.
For someone to remind Broussard that we don't live in a theocracy reveals that they think he said that we should outlaw homosexuality. This is the kind of argumentation and debate that does nothing to help understanding and conversation.
And this is not simply something that non-Christians do to Christians. Let me give another example.

Before Your Remove the Plank in Your Brother's Eye . . .
Other the past number of months I have seen several Christians cry out against Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz. Their problem with him is that he said that anyone who is against same-sex marriage can take their business elsewhere. What an arrogant and dismissive thing to say!
Except that he didn't say it.

When challenged by a shareholder who had a problem with Starbuck's support of same-sex marriage, Schultz simply communicated that this was the stance of Starbucks, that it wasn't going to change, and that if the shareholder felt strongly enough about it, he was welcome to invest elsewhere. Here is his exact quote:
"If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it's a free country. You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company."
Now, it is valid for a person to choose coffee other than Starbucks in response to their support of same-sex marriage. But it is not valid to say that Howard Schultz told anyone who disagrees with him that they can get their coffee elsewhere. When we do this, we do the same thing that we bemoan when it is done to us. We object to something that he never said.

As a Christian, I believe that Christians need to be involved in the public conversation about issues. We need to be thoughtful, gracious, articulate, and considerate. This is what I would love to receive from those who disagree with me. This is what Howard Schultz deserves. And this is what Chris Broussard deserves.
One final word: If you were Chris Broussard right now, you would probably appreciate thoughtful, grace-filled people who were coming to your defense. I am sure this is something that he would appreciate right now from those who understand his position and appreciate his boldness.

Boston Bombings, Kermit Gosnell, and the Role of Anger

I don't consider myself an angry man, but anger was my first response when I first heard about the bombings at the Boston Marathon on Monday. The anger built when it was reported that three people, including an 8 year-old boy, were killed as a result of the act of terror. My oldest son Matthew is 8 years old. Even as I write this post, I feel marred by the sadness and indignation of my emotions. The people impacted by the bombing were not combatants. The whole tragedy seems so senseless. It is hard even to write about it.
Speaking of things that are hard to write about, this week there has been a lot of chatter about Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist who is on trial for the brutal murder of seven live-born children. The gruesome details of Gosnell's abortion practices are stomach-churning. The subject of abortion is not new to me, but I have a hard time reading about the trial. I feel disturbed. I feel angry.
Those of us who are Christians can wrestle with the role of anger in our lives. Many passages warn us against anger:
James 1:19-20: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness God desires.
Ephesians 4:26-27: "In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.
Matthew 5:21-22: You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.
These passages can make anger seem like a open-and-shut case. Clearly, it seems, anger is sinful and it has no role in the life of the Christian.
At the same time, other passages seem to present the idea that anger has a place in our lives. We have Jesus cleansing the temple when merchants have used the Passover to oppress the poor and line their pockets. We also have consistent examples of God's anger and wrath. And we also have the first part of the Ephesians passage quoted above. The Apostle Paul doesn't tell us not to be angry, but not to sin in our anger.
Apparently, this is more complicated that it seems. But if we look to Scripture to guide us on the subject of anger, we can come up with some clear direction.

1. Anger is not necessarily sinful.
If we define anger as an emotion response to something or someone, then anger itself is not sinful. In fact, in certain cases anger would seem to be necessary. The utter lack of anger does not demonstrate that someone has reached some state of peace and spiritual tranquility. Instead it simply demonstrates indifference. It is appropriate to be indignant when terrorist bomb marathon runners, or when a licensed physician dismembers babies, or when any number of other atrocities (domestic violence, child abuse, rape, sex trafficking, etc.) are carried out. When we are angry, it proves that we care.

2. We should not automatically assume that our anger is well-founded.
Sometimes we get angry because of atrocities. Most of the time, though, we get angry because our plans are being thwarted. Someone else gets the promotion we want. Someone cuts in front of us on the freeway. Someone speaks a hurtful words to us. When we are slighted, anger often follows.
We must recognize that most of our anger is not the result of objective injustice and oppression. It is much more often the result of a personal offense. This kind of anger only shows that what is most important to us is . . . us. When we experience anger, we should always pause to check our motives, rather than automatically justifying our anger as "righteous."

3. None of us is the judge.
Sometimes anger is appropriate. That said, anger should not lead us to revenge or vigilante justice. This doesn't mean that it is wrong for us to have a legal system, to have prison, or even to have the death penalty. It simply means that it is not the job of any human being to dole out wrath. Scripture is clear on this. Perhaps the best summary passage on this subject is Romans 12:19: Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
Our appropriate anger over murder and rape and acts of terror should not cause us to conclude that we are qualified to take revenge on others. That is not our job. That is God's job. Paul gives us the comfort of knowing that the only perfect judge will sort all of this out in the end. God's wrath and judgment are always sobering realities, but they are also comforting realities. We can set aside revenge because someone else is going to sort things out.

4. We are not superior to others.
When I read about Kermit Gosnell or the Boston terrorists, it is easy for me to think of them as sub-human. Or at least to think of them as sub-Dan-Franklin. Since I have never done those things, I can disregard them as human beings and quickly condemn them to hell in my own heart.
It is not wrong for me to be angry, but it is misguided for me to forget that none of these guilty people need the gospel of Jesus any more than I need it. Russell Moore wrote a post about this reality last week. I confess that I did not enjoy reading it, but I needed it. In the post he reminds us all that the difference between us and Gosnell or the Boston bombers or Osama bin Laden is a matter of degree.
In other words, I must take a moment and remember that there are a lot of good reasons for God, and others, to be angry with me. I must be careful not to use the occasion of someone else's atrocity to make me feel like I am better than them. I am a broken sinner saved only by the sacrificial work of Jesus. We all come to God the same way, through the blood of Jesus.

If you find yourself responding to recent events with anger, you are not alone. You don't need to beat yourself up over it. At the very least your anger simply shows that you care. But you also don't need to assume that your mindset is completely justified. We all must humble ourselves and ask how God will guide us to respond to our anger.
And if we respond rightly to our anger, it will bring us exactly where we need to go: To the gospel of Jesus Christ.