Hey, Christians, here's a news flash! Christianity is in danger. According to Jay Bakker and Marc Brown, if Christians don't avoid political trappings, the very survival of Christianity is threatened. Now that's news!
Bakker (the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker) and Brown wonder "when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today?" Instead of urging people to be what they should be, we are supposed to "love others just as they are, without an agenda." One of their big complaints is the "screaming", angry Christians, reflected in words like "spewed forth".
I was not aware of this problem in Christianity. I wasn't aware that we were required to offer "unconditional love". Christ didn't offer "unconditional love". Ask the Pharisees. Ask the moneychangers at the Temple. God doesn't offer "unconditional love". Ask those who choose Hell over Heaven. Or, easier yet, ask Esau. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:13). This is not to suggest that we ought to "hate and condemn", but I think the concept of "unconditional love" isn't quite accurate. Nor was I aware that Jesus had no agenda except to love others just as they are. Again, He seemed to have a message for the moneychangers that was not "just as you are". He seemed to suggest that the Pharisees were headed in the wrong direction. And when He met the woman "caught in adultery" (we can debate that another time), He didn't say "Just go on as you are." He told her to change directions: "Go, and from now on sin no more" (John 8:11).
This account of the woman is an excellent example of what I'm suggesting. Bakker and Brown have suggested two extremes. Either we "love unconditionally" or we "spew forth hate and condemnation". Obviously the second is wrong. We must do the first. While Jesus didn't "spew forth hate and condemnation", neither did He simply nod at sin. He told the woman, "Neither do I condemn you" followed by "Go, and from now on sin no more" (John 8:11). The two concepts -- a clear handle on what is right and wrong, recognition of sin, and avoiding hate -- are not mutually exclusive.
I think the boys are right when they call on Christians not to "hate and condemn". I think they're right when they warn against "screaming" Christians. I think they're right that we should be able to talk to believers and unbelievers alike without cruelty, anger, or hate. And I think they're right when they say we're not doing that well. In many cases this is true.
But I have a couple of problems with their suggestions. The first problem I have is in the notion that we should have no agenda. We are commanded to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20). That is not "no agenda". It is, instead, a huge agenda. It doesn't include "beat sinners over the head to make them good people." It doesn't include trying to force a "Christian society". But it is not "no agenda".
The second problem I have is the biggest problem. The very survival of Christianity is threatened by bad Christians. Assuming this is true, it is my opinion that Christianity ought to go away. Apparently it is only a human force, operating under human power, existing only as long as it is "acceptable" or "worthwhile". That's all well and good ... but it is not TRUTH. As such, it is not of any ultimate value on the field of ideas. On the other hand, if Christianity is what we believe it to be -- God's Truth -- then what possible action on the part of Christians, good or bad, could advance or decline Christianity? If Christianity is God's own, then it does not depend on Man. If Christ was right about His Church, He said, "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
We can agree, I think, that many people do bad things in the name of Christianity. I don't need to list them -- others have done an admirable job. I think we can even agree that many Christians today are not doing a good job of displaying the primary factor that Jesus said heralded our discipleship -- love (John 13:35). Most of us would agree that we don't need to "spew forth hate and condemnation." Most of us would agree that this very act among Christians is getting too much press and, as such, too much validation. But I would hope that most of us wouldn't fall for this "death nell" plea that if we don't stop being bad Christians, Christianity is threatened. God doesn't need our proper following to maintain His truth. Even Hell cannot defend itself against this truth. And the real "Christianity" isn't about political involvement, unconditional or even conditional love, "no agenda", or morality. The real Christianity is about knowing or rather being known by God (John 17:3; Gal. 4:9), a relationship that changes hearts and lives (1 John 3:9, etc.). It doesn't depend on us.
5 comments:
Excellent response, Stan.
What the Bakker boys see as only two Jesuses, Buddy Jesus and Bully Jesus, is incorrect. There is the true Jesus that you identify with great clarity here.
It's ironic that the same folks who publicly abhor all things "black and white" keep "spewing forth" such silly B&W bile as Buddy Jesus/Bully Jesus. Thanks for keeping your focus firmly on the real Jesus!
Bakker calls himself a "punk preacher". I'm trying to figure out what that means. Perhaps language fails me, but "punk" can mean a few things. It may refer to an anti-establishment rock music style or the subculture associated with that style. To be "punked" means to have a cruel prank played on you. A "punk" used to mean an aggresive, violent young criminal. There are "punk ideologies" which, according to wikipedia, include such things as anti-authoritarianism, non-conformity, secularism, and anti-nationalism. The two running themes of "punk" are anger and rebellion. None of these are consistent with biblical Christianity, so I wonder what version of "punk preacher" Bakker considers himself?
(Note to anyone reading: I am not suggesting anything wrong about Bakker. I'm asking a question. I assume he doesn't mean he is anti-biblical, anti-authority, or pro-rebellion. I wonder what he means by the term.)
I love Jim's comment about "Buddy Jesus/Bully Jesus!" You know this article today makes me realize how much this is exactly what we are having crammed down our throats and it is not the truth. They take some truth and run with it leaving behind all the other teachings that give us the complete picture. Thanks guys for the reminder!
I didn't see anywhere in the article where Bakker said that Christianity is in danger of not surviving. He asked valid questions and came to some valid conclusions. Jesus absolutely preached a message of "come as you are, not as you should be." Yes, you then have to change directions, but it's silly to think that you have to change before you seek Jesus.
The "agenda" Bakker was referring to when he said, "Christians should be able to look past their differences and agree to disagree. This allows people to discuss issues with respect for one another. Christians are called to love others just as they are, without an agenda" is clearly not the same kind of agenda that you're describing here in this post. The agenda that you propose here is what we are to do with nonbelievers. Bakker was specifically talking about those who are already believers when he said we should have no agenda...and his implication was clear: he meant no politial agendas. In context, he was specifically speaking about how Christians get all up in arms over the issues of abortion and gay marriage and the "screaming" that is done.
I can't help but feel that you've taken Bakker completely out of context with this argument against him and what he stands for.
Amanda, I tried not to misrepresent them. Here is a direct quote from the article:
"Jay Bakker, left, and Marc Brown, right, argue that Christianity needs to avoid political trappings lest its very survival be threatened."
Now, the threat to Christianity's survival is not directly quoted, but the writer of the article had to get it from somewhere. I assume it was part of the interview not documented.
And I can't help thinking that "no agenda" makes no sense in any context. We shouldn't care about sin? We shouldn't be concerned about the effects of sin? We shouldn't bother about Christians who are in sin? We should just be all-inclusive, warm, and loving and not mention that abortion is murder? It sounds like love without love. "Yes, I know that violating God's commands does serious damage, but it's not my place to notice that you're violating God's commands. I just want to give you a hug."
I believe that Bakker and his "Revolution Church" have offered a false dichotomy that says, "You can't notice sin without being unloving." It's a popular false dichotomy.
Post a Comment