Speaking the Truth in Love: A Response to Benjamin Sledge

A Facebook friend recently requested feedback on an online post by Benjamin Sledge entitled "Let's Stop Pretending Christianity Is Actually Relevant, Okay?"   The post actually is similar to some other articles I have recently read, so I think it is especially worthwhile to consider Mr. Sledge's point of view.

The Good Points

I think the article makes some good points but I also disagree strongly at some points.  Since this is intended as a response to the article, I am going to spend most of my time discussing the points of disagreement.  However, I like what Mr. Sledge has to say about how radical Christians in Roman times were in living out their faith, holding to Biblical morality in sharp contrast to the culture around them and demonstrating astonishing love and compassion at great personal risk toward those suffering from the plague.  He is right that we can learn much from the early Church's commitment to Christ.  I also agree with his point about the importance of Christians today demonstrating Christ's love and grace toward others by our words and actions and how that can attract people to Christianity.  And he makes a great point about the fact that for a long time there has been a cultural Christianity in this country which has resulted in a lot of professing Christians that are not genuinely followers of Jesus.  The increasing hostility of our culture toward evangelical Christianity is resulting in healthier churches, since the only people likely to identify with the Church in the future are genuine believers in Christ.  God has always used persecution and hardship to strengthen His Church.

Being Judgmental or Being Biblical?

However, there are many things about the article that concern me as well.  I don't care for the author's occasional use of curse words and rather snarky style.  While the post purports to be speaking to other Christians, the way it is written makes me think that it is actually intended as a reassurance to non-believers that the author is not one of those mean, judgmental Christians that they've heard about and seen posting on Facebook.  Mr. Sledge uses the word "we" but at times it seems fairly obvious that he really means "they."  It's ironic to me that right after acknowledging that the early Church was viciously persecuted for their counter-cultural moral and theological beliefs, he seems to be trying very hard to avoid persecution from the present culture by being pegged as one of those narrow-minded bigoted Christians.

Here is a major red flag for me.  Mr. Sledge refers derogatorily to Christians "reminding people of what the Bible teaches (which, just for clarification, the church is currently split over)."  The author is implying that biblical teaching regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage is not clear, and this is simply untrue.  As my pastor pointed out very clearly on Sunday, biblical teaching on homosexuality and marriage is actually very clear, and the Christian Church throughout the ages as well as all Bible-believing Christian denominations in the present day remain committed to to that clear counter-cultural teaching.  Yes, certain churches have recently changed their opinion on these issues (and the way the author writes makes me wonder if he belongs in that category), but those churches almost exclusively belong to mainline denominations that have also departed from the Bible in many other areas including those fundamental to the Gospel.  And, while it is certainly possible to remind people of Biblical teaching in an inappropriate way or at an inappropriate time/place, I think in general that affirming Scriptural teaching is deserving of praise rather than condemnation.  And when is affirming Scriptural teaching on a particular topic more relevant than when the entire culture is already discussing that topic?

Whose Values Are Being Forced on Whom?

The author makes a big deal about how Christians think they need to force their values on others even though non-Christians never try to force their values on us.  He must have been living under a rock for the past ten years to make this extremely misguided claim.  The truth is that gay pride is being shoved in our face at every turn.  You cannot watch most TV shows or movies, or log onto Google, or work at a large corporation, or watch TV advertisements, or view the Grammy awards, without being treated to a celebration of homosexuality.  The White House was lit up in rainbow colors following the Supreme Court decision, and people's Facebook feeds were filled with rainbow profile pictures.  And I'm not sure what Mr. Sledge thinks about people losing their jobs due to their beliefs about same-sex marriage, or photographers, florists, and bakers facing lawsuits, six-digit government-imposed fines, and mandatory sensitivity training for declining to participate in same-sex weddings based on their religious beliefs, or Christian adoption agences being forced to shut down for declining to place children with same-sex parents, or Christian institutions facing loss of accreditation because of their beliefs about homosexuality, or Christian groups being kicked off college campuses because of their beliefs about homosexuality -- but I would define all of those as examples of the non-Christian culture forcing their beliefs on us.  Some now are actually calling for churches and religious schools to lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform same-sex weddings or condone homosexuality.

None of this is to say that Christians should lash out in anger or behave in a hateful and condemnatory way in response.  But I feel it is entirely appropriate, and even necessary at times, for Christians to publicly decline to participate in this cultural tide ("flood of debauchery," as 1 Peter would say).  And while the author makes it sound like any Christian who comments on social media on the Supreme Court decision is trying to force their values on others, in fact I saw many of my Christian friends on Facebook post about the topic and they were almost without exception very respectful and gracious rather than being rude and judgmental.  The author also laments that Christianity has been tainted so much that "people think 'republican, homophobe, bigot' instead of 'servant, loving, and gracious.'"  But the truth is that for many people, believing the Bible's teaching about homosexuality is in itself homophobic and bigoted, regardless of how graciously a believer might express such a belief.  Consider Mr. Sledge's example of the early Church.  Christians in the days of the Roman Empire were accused of all kinds of horrible things, including cannibalism (based on their participation in the Lord's Supper) and gross immorality (due to their intimate fellowship and secret meetings).  We cannot always control what people think or say about us.  Nor can we always control what fringe groups may preach hate in the name of Christ and thus tarnish true Christianity in the minds of the public (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church).  Maintaining a good reputation in the community is important, but living in obedience to Christ and His Word is of first importance.  God is our Audience of One.  In other words, we should be most concerned about making sure we are loving and faithful servants of Christ rather than hateful bigots, and less concerned about the names people may call us and whether some people may believe us to be hateful bigots.

Christians and Same-Sex Marriage

Now, there is a difference between the public policy issue in our nation relating to same-sex marriage and the theological issue in our churches relating to homosexuality and marriage.  It is unfortunate that many Christians blur this distinction to a greater or lesser degree.  You will sometimes hear Christians quote Scripture as evidence for why the public definition of marriage in our country should be between a man and a woman, which not surprisingly convinces no one outside of the evangelical Christian community and generally provokes a backlash and accusations of Christians imposing their religious beliefs on others.  I am certain that this is what the author is referring to when he says, "It’s actually quite strange to ask people who don’t hold the same beliefs as you to suddenly act on your values because you quoted a book they don’t read."  While "because the Bible says so" is an extremely good basis for personal beliefs and church doctrine with regard to marriage and homosexuality, it is not an acceptable basis (in my opinion) for opposing same-sex marriage from a public policy standpoint.

However, there are a number of compelling public policy reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that should be understandable and accessible to everyone, regardless of whether one is an evangelical Christian or even religious.  These reasons are beyond the scope of this post, but I wrote about some of them a few years ago here and have since become convinced of some additional ones.  While these arguments are rooted in public policy considerations and not Biblical doctrine, Christians are often the ones who are most aware of these arguments and most willing to advance them, since many of them are rooted in religious liberty and in the significance of the institution of marriage which are issues which have long been of special importance to Christians (although beneficial to all of society).  My religious beliefs prompted me to dig much deeper into the same-sex marriage issue a few years ago, and I was amazed at what I discovered when I started going beyond the shallow media talking points about "legalizing love" and "marriage equality."  Christians are not the only people who hold moral beliefs and ethical values, and all people including Christians should be free to express their moral beliefs and advocate for their values in a free society.  Indeed, any honest reader of Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the same-sex marriage case would have to acknowledge that the opinion consists almost exclusively of moral and philosophical argument rather than legal or Constitutional argument.  Same-sex marriage advocates have long employed moral and values-based arguments to rally people to their cause, and there is no reason why Christians should be denied the right to do the same in the public square.  It is sad to see Mr. Sledge reacting so negatively to religious believers expressing their opinions in public and failing to acknowledge that there are plenty of valid arguments that should be made -- and are being made -- by religious believers against same-sex marriage that do not amount to imposing their religion on others.

Some Christians can become unkind and judgmental in their interactions with others on these issues, and that is a serious problem.  We need to repent of our anger toward others and guard our words and actions to ensure that we do not bring reproach on the name of Christ.  However, other Christians simply refrain from talking about their beliefs altogether, often out of fear of being criticized or laughed at or out of a desire to be accepted by others.  And I personally believe this is an even worse failure, because it demonstrates moral and spiritual cowardice.  I have been guilty of both extremes at different times and in different ways.

The author tips his hand regarding his own viewpoint on same-sex marriage when he says, early in the article, "A few days later the Supreme Court announces that gay couples have the same civil rights as other Americans and are allowed to legally marry."  Gay activists couldn't have said it better themselves, and this exact belief is a substantial threat to religious liberty.  Newsflash: Homosexuals have always had equal access to the institution of marriage.  Indeed, since the racist bans on interracial marriage were removed, all adults have had equal access to the institution of marriage.  However, there has always been a definition of marriage, predating the birth of the U.S. government by thousands of years and rooted in fundamental human realities regarding the complementary nature of male and female and reproduction.  A homosexual man has the same equal access to the institution of marriage as any other adult human, but he is not free to marry outside the definition of marriage (i.e., another man, or a child, or two women).  The notion that the timeless definition of marriage as between one man and one woman violates the civil and Constitutional rights of homosexuals was virtually unheard of prior to the year 2000 and was invented out of whole cloth by same-sex marriage activists over the past 10 to 15 years.  Indeed, no known society throughout all of human history has believed in such a fundamental human right, since same-sex marriage has never existed in any culture or society until the year 2000.  Such a definition of civil rights inevitably leads to the marginalization and persecution of any person, organization, or institution that maintains a "discriminatory" belief in marriage as between a man and a woman, including religious adoption agencies, schools, campus groups, and churches.  Does Mr. Sledge realize this?  While the Bible does tell us to rejoice when facing persecution for our faith, I don't think this means that we should be complicit in or indifferent to the persecution of our fellow-believers, especially if we have the ability to help prevent it.

People's Perceptions or God's Perspective?

The author disapprovingly cites a Barna survey finding that "only 18% of Millenials find Christianity even relevant to their lives."  While some of the suggested reasons he provides for this are worth thinking about, I think he is again focusing too much on people's perceptions versus God's perspective.  What matters is not whether the culture believes us to be relevant.  What matters is whether we are in fact living in faithfulness to Christ and demonstrating the Gospel with words and actions.  If we are doing this, then we can be sure that we are presenting a message to the world that is not only relevant, but desperately needed.  This message obviously involves radical love and self-sacrifice, both towards fellow believers and the larger community, but it also involves speaking truth and presenting the whole Gospel including the unpleasant parts about sin and coming judgment.  The fact that many feel this message is not only irrelevant, but outdated, narrow-minded, and hateful, should not deter us, although we should make sure that the point of offense is the Gospel and not our own judgmental or unloving spirit.

The author's conclusion is actually pretty well-stated.  He notes that "Christians were never relevant or cool to begin with....  Culture at large will see the things we do and traditions we follow as silly myths.  But the love, grace, and acceptance we extend they won't be able to argue with if we truly begin to live the life of Jesus to others.  So while it may never be relevant or cool, here's what it will be: Attractive."  I think there is a lot of truth in these words.  Treating others with love, grace, and acceptance is required of us by Scripture and is very attractive to others.  However, love and grace did not shield Jesus or the early Church from being hated, slandered, and persecuted, and we should not expect any different treatment from the world ourselves.  The times call for followers of Christ who are both gracious and courageous, willing to speak the truth but always in love, uncowed by slander but unwilling to give in to cynicism and anger.  May God enable us to be exactly that type of Christian!

Hark! The Herald Angels Sing!

[I saved what I believe is the greatest hymn ever written about the birth of Christ for Christmas Day.]

Hark! The herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King;
Peace on earth, and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled!”
Joyful, all ye nations rise,
Join the triumph of the skies;
With th’angelic host proclaim,
“Christ is born in Bethlehem!”

Hark! The herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”

 

Christ, by highest Heav’n adored;
Christ the everlasting Lord;
Late in time, behold Him come,
Offspring of a virgin’s womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th’incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with men to dwell,
Jesus our Emmanuel.
Hark! The herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”

Hail the heav’n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings,
Ris’n with healing in His wings.
Mild He lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth,
Born to give them second birth.
Hark! The herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”

             ~Charles Wesley, 1739

Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence

Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
Our full homage to demand.

King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heavenly food.

Rank on rank the host of heaven
Spreads its vanguard on the way
As the Light of light descendeth
From the realms of endless day,
That the powers of hell may vanish
As the darkness clears away.

At His feet the six wingèd seraph,
Cherubim with sleepless eye,
Veil their faces to the Presence,
As with ceaseless voice they cry:
Alleluia, Alleluia,
Alleluia, Lord Most High!

              ~Liturgy of St. James, 4th century

The Promise

The Lord God said when time was full
He would shine His light in the darkness;
He said a virgin would conceive
And give birth to the Promise.
For a thousand years the dreamers dreamt
And hoped to see His love,
But the Promise showed their wildest dreams
Had simply not been wild enough;
The Promise showed their wildest dreams
Had simply not been wild enough.

The Promise was love and the Promise was life,
The Promise meant light to the world;
Living proof that Yahweh saves,
For the name of the Promise was Jesus.

The Faithful One saw time was full
And the ancient pledge was honored;
So God the Son, the Incarnate One,
His final Word, His own Son
Was born in Bethlehem,
But came into our hearts to live.
What more could God have given,
Tell me, what more did He have to give?
What more could God have given,
Tell me, what more did He have to give?

The Promise was love and the Promise was life,
The Promise meant light to the world;
Living proof that Yahweh saves,
For the name of the Promise was Jesus.
Living proof that Yahweh saves

For the name of the Promise was Jesus.

                   ~Michael Card, 1986

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear.

 

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, O come, great Lord of might,
Who to Thy tribes on Sinai’s height
In ancient times once gave the law
In cloud and majesty and awe.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan’s tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people save,
And give them victory over the grave.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Dayspring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here;
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death’s dark shadows put to flight.

 

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Key of David, come,
And open wide our heavenly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.

 

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

 

            ~12th century Latin hymn

Here With Us

It's still a mystery to me
That the hands of God could be so small;
How tiny fingers reaching in the night
Were the very hands that measured the sky.

Hallelujah, hallelujah,
Heaven's love reaching down to save the world;
Hallelujah, hallelujah,

Son of God, Servant King,
Here with us
You're here with us.

It's still a mystery to me
How His infant eyes have seen the dawn of time;
How His ears have heard an angel's symphony,
But still Mary had to rock her Savior to sleep.

Jesus the Christ, born in Bethlehem,
A baby born to save the souls of man.

Hallelujah, hallelujah,
Heaven's love reaching down to save the world;
Hallelujah, hallelujah,
Son of God, Servant King,
Here with us
You're here with us.

         ~Jason Ingram, Ben Glover, & Joy Williams, 2005

My Thoughts on the Phil Robertson Controversy

[I originally posted this article on Facebook and then decided to repost it on the blog.  For anyone who might not be aware of this story at all, Phil Robertson is the patriarch of the Robertson family, who are the stars of an extremely popular reality TV show on A&E called Duck Dynasty.  Phil Robertson got himself in big trouble this week as a result of comments he made about homosexuality in an interview with GQ Magazine.]

Last night I took some time to read through a bunch of the comments and links that my friends had posted on Facebook regarding the indefinite suspension of Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, as well to reread what Phil actually said in the interview with GQ that caused all the controversy.  I think it's safe to say that most of the people who commented were strongly in support of Phil Robertson, but there were a vocal few who either said Christians should not get involved in this controversy at all or that A&E was justified in firing Phil because his statement was crude and offensive.

Here are my thoughts on the matter, for anyone who cares.  First, certain portions of Phil's comments were crude, as even his family has acknowledged in a statement.  But there wasn't anything hateful or nasty about them, unless you think that the Bible's teaching regarding homosexuality is hateful (which many people obviously do).  His comments were a response to a question about sin, and he mentioned homosexuality, bestiality, and "sleeping around with this woman and that woman."  So he didn't single out homosexuality but mentioned it along with adultery and/or pre-marital sex.  He then quoted a passage from Corinthians accurately which lists a large number of sins, including homosexuality, which prevent people from inheriting the kingdom of God.  OK so far -- nothing but traditional Christian belief is being expressed.  The next comments were the crude part, where Phil says the following: "It seems to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus.  That's just me.  I'm just thinking, 'There's more there! She's got more to offer.'  I mean, come on, dudes!  You know what I'm saying?  But hey, sin: it's not logical, my man.  It's just not logical."  Yes, it's coarse and graphic and unnecessary.  But it's not hateful; it's probably expressing what pretty much every heterosexual guy has thought many times over.  And the way it's worded, I strongly suspect he was making an attempt at humor that fell very flat.  The wording reminds me very much of the kind of jokes that Phil tells on Duck Dynasty.  He's a humorous guy and also not particularly refined or given to nuance -- that's his persona in both the show and in real life I think.  The other thing to mention about the comment is that it fails to understand the point that many homosexuals did not make a conscious choice about their sexual orientation and their sexual desires feel completely natural to them -- so Phil telling them that it makes no sense is meaningless to them.  It certainly isn't how a Christian psychologist or pastor should talk about homosexuality -- but Phil isn't either of those things.  He's a redneck and a outdoorsman who made his fortune off of making duck calls.  You can't reasonably expect him to articulate all the nuances of the issue (although it would have been better if he had).  He was asked his opinion, and he gave it very honestly.

What Phil said next, in the same interview, got a lot less attention but is extremely important to understand the full context of his opinion on the subject.  He went on to say, "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell.  That's the Almighty's job. We just love 'em - give 'em the good news about Jesus - whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists.  We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"  He went on to add that his family "believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and...everything would turn around."  This doesn't sound like an angry hater who wants to condemn all homosexuals to hell.  It sounds like a guy who holds strong beliefs on sexual morality but who also thinks we should love everyone without condemning them blanketly to hell and believes that the good news of the Gospel is for everyone, including gays.  If he explicitly says that he loves gays rather than hating them, then to conclude that he hates gays is to claim exactly the opposite of what he said in the initial interview.  And his subsequent clarification, issued before A&E said anything about the controversy, is even better: "I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior.  My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.  However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty, and like Him, I love all of humanity.  We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."  Yes, it would have been better if his initial comments had struck exactly that tone, but how many times have all of us said things that did not come out the way we intended?

Is the outrage about Phil's comments really about how he said what he said?  I don't think so.  I think it's about the fact that he holds to a biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin.  When the gay rights group GLAAD issued a statement about Phil's comments, they chose to highlight the issue of same-sex marriage, which indicates that their beef with Phil is that he doesn't tow the politically correct position on gay rights.  Would they have been just as outraged and just as convinced he was a gay hater if he had quoted the biblical passage about homosexuality being a sin and stopped there?  I think so, and I think they would have still put pressure on A&E to fire him.  The offense here is really about Phil's moral beliefs, not the way he expressed them.  This is just the latest of a long line of examples of people getting viciously attacked for expressing a traditional Biblical view of homosexuality and/or marriage.

Is this issue really about free speech?  Well, yes and no.  It is not about free speech, in the sense that A&E is a private company that has the right to fire anyone who is employed by their network for saying something that they feel is detrimental to their organization.  They are not violating the 1st Amendment in any direct sense by firing Phil.  However, I think there is a deeper free speech issue here because we are starting to see a pattern where the self-appointed tolerance police are trying to deliberately eliminate any dissenting voices regarding homosexuality from the public square.  A few years ago, I remember reading the story of Matt Barber, an Allstate manager who wrote a letter or an article for a newspaper or magazine (can't remember the exact circumstances) expressing his support for traditional marriage between one man and one woman.  The article was not hateful or extreme in any way.  He wrote the article expressing his own private views on his own time and Allstate's name was in no way connected to it.  Gay activists researched his name, found out he worked for Allstate, and convinced Allstate to fire him for his hateful views.  The same thing happened in California after Proposition 8 passed.  Gay activists tracked down the people who offered financial support for Proposition 8 and targeted their homes and businesses.  Chick-Fil-A was targeted simply because the founder of the business expressed Christian beliefs about homosexuality.  The Boy Scouts have been relentlessly targed.  These are just a few examples but the trend is clear.  Many people in this country think that people who hold traditional Christian beliefs about homosexuality are hateful, bigoted people who deserve to lose their employment and be driven out of polite society.  They want to shout us down, silence us, keep us from expressing our beliefs and opinions.  I think that's a threat to free speech, and it could become a much bigger threat down the road.  Just look at Canada, where any expression of disapproval against homosexuality is a human rights violation that could subject the offender to heavy fines or worse.  Pastors can be prosecuted under Canadian law simply for preaching from the Bible about homosexuality.  I assure you, that can happen here too.

So maybe Phil didn't express himself as clearly as he could have on the issue.  Maybe he should have been a little more empathetic and nuanced in his comments.  But kudos to him for expressing his religious beliefs with boldness and not kowtowing to the speech police who want to silence anyone who holds to traditional biblical morality.  Yes, we can learn some lessons about being careful how we express our beliefs as Christians and making sure we say what we say with love and grace.  But we should also be aware that there is a cost to being a follower of Jesus, and sometimes speaking the truth and standing for God's Word will cost you no matter how lovingly you say it.  I hope if any of us ever have the opportunity to have a national platform, we will be as bold and open about our faith in the Gospel as Phil and the rest of the Robertson clan have been.