CRN.Info and Analysis

There has been a bit of furor this week over Christian blogger, Rev. Scottie, going undercover using an alias in order to prove the lie behind the commenting policy at an ODM site. In fairness, it is similar in methodology as the brouhaha when that same ODM site created an pseudonymous “ECM” site while falsely accusing other sites of hiding behind anonymity.

Very little of the back-and-forth regarding the latest incident has been all that interesting or fruitful: Rev. Scottie proved that water is wet, while creating unnecessarily additional animosity from the already siege-minded ODM site. Yes, I laughed, initially, but then I had a bit of pause when considering all the issues.

However, during this a question arose which I think could be discussed, and I believe is relevant to living in modern society: Can Christians work in jobs in which some level of deception is required? Some examples:

Security: Police and federal investigators often must go undercover to either investigate crimes which have occurred, or - more importantly - to prevent larger crimes from occurring. There have been numerous examples in recent years of terrorist plots foiled by undercover work. Necessarily, those going undercover must live a completely different life, and live it convincingly enough to keep their physical lives intact. Can a Christian work in such a job while maintaining a life of holiness? Can our society maintain law and order - and prevent mass murder and/or chaos - without such jobs?

Journalism: Oft-times in the private and/or public sector, there are crimes or serious injustices occurring which would never see the light of day without some degree of undercover journalism or undercover private detective work. Once again, individuals have to pretend to be someone they are not in a convincing manner. Without this function, as well, our society would be in danger.

War-time: During times of war, sometimes the best intelligence is obtained through HUMINT (human intelligence), a nice word for spying - which, too, requires deception, sometimes to a great degree. Additionally, families may be faced with moral decisions, such as Christian families in Germany who hid Jews from pogroms and concentrations camps. In doing so, they were certainly forced to lie in the service of greater good.

The Stage: Theater, TV, and movie professions all require a level of ‘deception’ (though most people are in on the deception from the get-go). The very word ‘hypocrite’ is derived from a description of an actor on a stage who says one thing, but in real life is something different. Is this ‘deception’, no matter how mild, still deception?

What is the line between sin and service?

If we look at Jesus’ day, there were entire classes of people who professionally were ’sinners’ - in fact, that is what they were called, “sinners”. These were Jews who were, in one way or another, in the employ of Rome, many of whom collected taxes - which meant they would touch money with graven images on it. These “sinners” were considered unclean and, therefore, could not enter the temple grounds. They were still considered to be part of God’s chosen people, the Jews, but they were still disenfranchised. Yet, we know that Jesus singled them out and ate with them, amid protests from the religious authorities of the day.

So, as we look at the complex times of today - which we have made so - and the question still arises, must we have a professional class of “sinners”, or is there another way to view professions of deception?

One of our recent posts was thread-jacked with a completely undrelated discussion on homosexuality and homosexual practice and Mars Hill/Rob Bell’s treatment of the issue. 

I debated whether or not to reward the threadjacking with its own post, since it seemed to come at a time that the previous and unrelated discussion had reached a point where the threadjacker had run out of logic.  However, Julie has kindly suggested a couple of times that the issues being discussed merited their own post, so here is it for you, Jules (can I call you Jules, or does that conjure up something unforgivable?)

Just to note, we’ve discussed this a couple of times previously, so please check these articles/threads for a more thorough discussion up to this point.

Back in February, Bell was asked a question about homosexuality (not homosexual practice), which he said he would not delve into in a public forum.  When pressed, he answered that Jesus never addressed homosexuality. (NOTE: For those of you who do not often work with people struggling with homosexual temptations, ‘homosexuality’ is the term for this set of attractions/temptations, while ‘homosexual practice’ is actively engaging in homosexual sex).  While his answer was rather inelegant and against his normal M.O. of tackling tough questions, his church’s orthopraxy and one-on-one response to this particular issue is both orthodox and loving - something hard to balance in this area which is fumbled by most churches today in one direction or the other.  Bell also made the comment that you should not be speaking publicly on homosexuality if you have not been involved with helping a friend/family member through it.

Let’s be clear, first, as this is an easy mistake to make (I did in the first article back in January).  The Bible does not show that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible shows that committing homosexual acts is a sin. We in the church do a pretty good job separating temptation to sin from acting upon that temptation - except for the glaring inconsistency with homosexuality and homosexual practice.

The threadjacker was rather insistent that we must not treat homosexual sin differently than other sins, and I would suggest that we are forced to because we already treat the sinner differently.  We don’t call someone who is tempted to steal a thief. We don’t call a man who is tempted to have oral sex with a woman but does not, a fornicator or an adulterer. However, we do call someone who is tempted with an attraction to the same sex a homosexual, whether or not they ever fall to that temptation.

So, our threadjacker then created a straw man with which to argue:

So, following Bell’s example, we could say,

“You can’t say anything about oral sex before marriage unless you actually know someone who is practicing it, and understand their struggles.”

“Jesus didn’t say anything about oral sex.”

Going back to the point above, homosexuality, itself, is not a sin - it is a temptation.  Oral sex, on the other hand, would be.  Thus, her logic does not wash.

How do I know that Bell understands this distinction?  I look at the practice in his church, as explained by one of his co-pastors, and at the reasons why Mars Hill does not talk about homosexuality from the pulpit - and why some other prominent churches do not - but choose to address it one-on-one.

Mars Hill does not have a “stance” about homosexuality.  However, if someone wishes to become a member and to follow Christ, they are encouraged to become part of a group that specializes in helping people leave sexual addictions, and they are brought to understand that an active homosexual lifestyle is not compatible with following Christ.  Why?  A friend explained it to me this way:

When people ask you about your ’stance’ on homosexuality in a public setting, they’re typically in one of two camps:

1) They are Christians looking to see if you are ‘orthodox’, looking to get a public affirmation, which then can be used as a club of sorts. They already know what the scripture says on the topic, and that practicing homosexuality is a sin - the same as lying, stealing, adultery, speeding and cheating on your taxes. However, many of them hold homosexuality as something higher, more insidious, than these other sins.

2) They are active homosexuals, friends of active homosexuals, or someone struggling with homosexual temptations. Often, these people are either searching for help, or looking for initial reasons to reject Christianity.

My friend says that his response to both of these - in public fora - are the same. He won’t answer. In the first case, he won’t feed the beast. In the second case, he won’t give a person a cause to reject Christ before they have heard the message. However, if they wish to follow Christ, his church has a program, similar to Rob Bell’s and Bob Hyatt’s, which will help individuals struggling with sexual sin (homo-, hereto- and bi-) to leave these sins behind when they accept Christ.

So, Bell was being consistent with this particular philosophy which is both orthodox AND loving.  Meanwhile, we’ve got the beast begging to be fed, so please, by all means, discuss away…

Recently, there was an incident at my church in which signs in each bathroom stall mysteriously appeared which said, “please flush when you are finished, we don’t want to see your deposits”. I immediately tore down each and every one of them before Sunday rolled around. While the intentions of the sign maker were good, the execution was not. Every time a church puts up a sign it is communicating, not just the intended message, but also something about the church. In this case what was being communicated is 1. This church has problems with basic hygiene, and 2. This church expects to be able to tell you what you do in your more private moments. (As an aside, these posters appeared just after VBS, so I suspect the non-flushers were under 4 feet tall).

These posters, produced by Phil Johnson, over at Team Pyro have been described as funny, and clever. The problem is, they’ve also communicated something about the author. They’ve communicated that the author is nasty, and is willing to misrepresent the views of those they don’t agree with (or is just ignorant of their views, or, less charitably, is too stupid to understand those views).

And ultimately that’s the problem. Phil Johnson’s posters communicate to us that he’s clever, and funny. The problem is God doesn’t call for us to be clever and funny. But He does call for us to be free from slander, and to be gentle, and merciful, something completely and totally lacking in these posters.

Editor’s note: In the name of honesty this is a toned down version of the original which appeared for a few minutes. It was edited after deciding the original was communicating more harshly than I intended. Apologies to any offended parties.

This morning, a story I’ve read a number of times came to mind:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

As I thought over this particular story, I remembered what my Jewish Christian friends stress, as well - that “inherit eternal life” is not only a future state, but a state that begins now, in this world, and continues on past death.  As such, there are portions of ‘eternal life’ which apply to this worlds which are then perfected in the next, as part of the kingdom of God.

In this story (and others), we see Jesus affirming the two overriding themes, the greatest commandments, from which all other Torah comes.

Unfortunately, many Christians - of all stripes, be it Reformed, Catholic, Emerging, Evangelical, Emergent, etc. - read these two commands and then supply their own definition of ‘love’ to them.

The new definitions:

Love your God: Determine what it means for you to obey God, based heavily on tradition or your own social mores and - possibly - the Bible (insofar as the Ten Commandments are concerned), and then expect everyone else to “obey God” based on your definition.  If they don’t, they are somewhere between mistaken and apostate.  Additionally, to love God means to know exactly how He works and does not work and to know all the ‘Christianese’ terms which define these workings, along with all the right soteriology, and to then expect everyone else to understand God exactly the way you do.  If they don’t, they are somewhere between mistaken and apostate.

Love your Neighbor: Step 1: If your ‘neighbor’ is somewhere between mistaken and apostate (see “Love your God”), your first and foremost duty is to make them see the error of their ways, and if they do not, to warn everybody else that they are somewhere between mistaken and apostate, and by all means mock them and distort anything/everything that makes them mistaken or apostate in your eyes.  Step 2: If they are still around after Step 1, and if they are in need, it might be a nice thing to do to help them out.

In line with these modern definitions of “love”, we now have an artist who has decided to Photoshop “motivational posters” dealing with emerging Christians.  Unfortunately, whether humorous or not, these posters serve to do nothing but create strawmen out of serious issues for discussion and openly ridicule and mock other Christians, and give a perfect example of one wasting talents given by God for an ungodly purpose. 

(Personally, I think that despair.com, one of my favorite sites for gifts, has a much better sense of art, flair and humor containing a bit more truth, as well.  It appears that the ODM Photoshopper’s “creativity” was also pulled from depair.com.  Compare this to the original.  Also, lest any ‘emerging’ folks’ heads get too big on the part of mockery, let’s not forget the Christian vs. Christ-follower videos…)

I’ve already had someone ask me if I’d thought of doing something similar for the Totally Reformed (TR) crowd, and - to be completely honest - the thought did cross my mind.  Not only that, but I could almost hear some emerging/emergent folks rushing to their keyboards to head to BigHugeLabs or Photoshop to do something similar.

This post is a plea for them - and anyone else considering it - to STOP and step away from the keyboard and remember Jesus’ teaching.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So, in short, let’s not return crassness for those who have already decided to be crass and unloving and un-Christlike and, instead, avoid doing these same sorts of things.  ‘

Instead, let’s find a creative way to accept and affirm that Christ exists in both Reformed and Emerging (and Evangelical) traditions, and that each has enough logs in its own eye to address before mocking those in the other’s.  Instead, let’s find a way to love, even if love is not returned. 

Instead, let’s find a way to say ‘Grace to you’ and actually mean it.