Most of us can think of a time where we have been hurt by an individual or a group who represent Christ. For some of us that has been enough to walk away from the Church, stating "They're all a bunch of hypocrites". Bob Dylan, a folk philosopher and spiritualist (more known for his unique music), rejected Christianity after his "conversion" in the 80s because of the "hypocrisy he experienced in the church".
I think this charge of hypocrisy many times is birthed out of hurt that results from us adding on to salvation requirements. People are introduced to this Jesus of love and compassion, who died for their sin and overcame death so that they could have a relationship with him. However, it's not long after they start to come to church and spend time with other Christians that they start to get told how horrible they are and how if they "have not done this" or if they "have done that" then they aren't really "saved" or they have "lost their salvation". Before long this yoke that is easy and burden that is light has had a check list piled on. This relationship they entered into has been turned into religion that they have been buried under.
When I look back to the Jewish religious culture Jesus was born into and compare it to the Church culture of today I see many similarities. Primarily, I see a people who have taken the revelation of God and formed it into religion. In James letter to "the twelve tribes" he is very clear that "true religion" leads to action. He does not, however, say it is our responsibility to "fix people" because they do not act the way we think they should or believe exactly the same things we do.
We add on to "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31) for us to consider someone a brother or sister. We create divisions within our family pitting brothers and sisters against each other. When people look at our family they see the Hatfields and McCoys. People still love Jesus, but when they meet his bride, they think she's a real........."piece of work".
As I have read some Emergent Church people, I have found their benefit and contribution to the Church has been in their Ecclessiology. In their simpleness they have gotten back to the heart of God, which is to be in relationship with his children and for his children to be in relationship with others. Going to an Ecumenical School (lots of different churches working together) began to open me up to a "simple Gospel", and the Emergent Church has blown the doors wide open on this. When we begin to add requirements onto "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved", I believe we begin to add to the Gospel and turn this relationship God desires into a structured religion of rituals that serve to distance us from God.
This is not an assault on theology. I believe theology is crucial to our relationship with God and that it is through God revealing himself to us by various means that we enter into more intimate relationship with him. This is not a call to "abandon the church, and start our own "church". This an assault on the religion we have formed and a call to speak this "Simple Gospel" through the life we live as the Church. I have lost my Religion and I have grabbed hold of the "Simple Gospel".
TSB VIII
2 months ago
10 comments:
DId Jesus get mad at the leaders for piling extra burdens on those trying to connect with God? And didn't the early church leaders decide that extra requirements (such as circumcision - a symbol of the old covenant and all of it's requirements) were unnecessary for new believers? So often we forget those facts and try to force people into what we assume a perfect christian should be, denying the person that God has chosen to love
Thank you, Dave. You know, it's only after leaving the southern theological bubble (which is almost has narrow as the Bethany bubble...no offense to Bethany meant) and coming back that I've realized how much of a "simpler gospel" I now know is right. There's a lot of narrowminded people in the world, especially down south, who think it's their job to turn converts into what THEY think God wants them to be, without really getting there themselves.
As Max Lucado (whom I absolutely love as a writer, even though he is in that narrowminded tradition) said, "Salvation is God's business. Grace is His idea, His work, and His expense. He offers it to whom He desires. Our job in the process is to inform the people, not screen the people."
Dylan has never rejected Christianity.
http://dylangospel.blogspot.com/
Dave,
You are really hitting on some things happening in my life right now, although mainly from the opposite side.
The Jesus of love and compassion also called people to repentance whose sin is what his sacrificial death covers. The Jesus of love and compassion is the one who is the Lamb whose wrath is coming--no doubt against those who "pile it on" and against elements of my own life.
I have realized that in my own life I have often lived in a way that sought people's reaction to me to be "He's a nice guy." I didn't talk to people about sin in their life; I didn't call on things I thought were hurtful--to ourselves. There had to be a change. Some have considered this to be a mean streak or to be saying hurtful things. So, I guess I'm wondering how you might talk of calls to repentance and holiness. Calls to transformation. Effort given to our spiritual lives. Any thoughts?
AP: I definitely think we do need to recognize sin as sin and encourage people to pursue a life reflective of Christ.
I do not think that the way to do this is to focus on everything people do wrong, but to focus on what they are doing right and encourage them in that.
We can take stances on issues without it being the only thing people hear or see. I think of how Paul says without love we're a "clanging gong". What I see is an emphasis on behavior modification and getting people "up to snuff" instead of genuine concern for the person.
Do you think there is genuine care for a person if a church were to exercise some form of discipline? (I cannot think of such an exercise that I've heard of.) I have in mind the many New Testament passages that aren't just encouraging, but also a strict condemnation of certain action.
I think there is a place for church discipline. However, I think many times we too often offer words of rebuke over words of love. I do not think people who have just met Jesus need to be brought before a church council, nor do I think a public "hearing" should be the 1st step in "restoring someone". When we do offer rebuke and correction it needs to be done 1st and foremost out of love, rather than judgment.
For the most part my concern in this post is not over "addressing sin" it's about adding to the gift of salvation.
Very well said Dancin.
However, I don't think the Church (or individual Christians) add on because they don't love but because they do. It seems we can't get over the idea that there is a Christian "mold.” We want so much for baby Chrisians to fit in. This is nothing new and Romans 14 deals with this.
The problem comes when we confuse the add-ons with the things God abhors - sin.
The Church becomes impotent because if we deal with sin (and we don't see it happen very often these days) we are seen as unloving and judgemental.
So I agree with you (imagine that) there is a big difference between addressing sin and adding to grace.
Unfortunately, we often blur the lines.
I guess where I would push--not back, but in a new direction--is to offer less abstract thoughts and more concrete examples. I don't think you'd find anyone who wants to add to a person's "list," and everyone, as msl said, wants to act in love.
So, I'll offer an example. A baby Christian--by lack of maturity, not by lack of time in the church--is in a position of leadership. They are content with attitudes and habits in their life that are less than godly and hurtful to people they minister with. They have some very evident gifts and a certain for the people they minister to.
My questions, Is it hypocritical to call this person to a higher standard, while recognizing they could do the same to you?
The issues that others notice in this person's leadership are undoubtedly effected by their own conditions. Do they have a responsibility to speak their opinion?
Is it possible to couch not confronting issues in terms of "grace" and "love"?
(Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," Jesus said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.")
I want to point out that the primary concern of this post is not in regards to "church discipline" but how we often add on requirements to salvation and make salvation a matter of being the "right kind of Christian".
With that said, here is my response to your hypothetical situation.
I do think there is away to bring rebuke and correction to people in a loving manner. In regards to your example, my 1st question is "how did a baby end up in a position of leadership?" This should be something we strive to avoid, however, I realize that a reality of our family is some times people end up in leadership before one might think they should be so here is my response.
I do think it's appropriate to offer guidance and direction to people, no matter what point they are at in their journey. My concern is how we do it. Rigidity and condemnation has never gotten us very far. Jesus didn't come into the world to condemn it (John 3:17).
There does come a time for tough love in which we have to discipline those we love. I feel many times we reach too quickly for the rod of discipline and fail to extend the hand of grace and love.
Post a Comment