What Works

Pastor Shuck has been part of a whole bunch of postings in the blogosphere for his controversial positions on matters while being a pastor in good standing with the PCUSA. I've even commented on a couple of things. Right now over at his blog site there is a discussion between a Calvinist pastor (who believes the Bible is the Word of God) and Pastor Shuck (who doesn't) regarding such issues as homosexuality and the authority of the Bible. In one recent post, Pastor Shuck said this:

And the bottom line for me is I really don't care what the Bible or Reformed Theology says about this or that or if its opinion on this or that is presumptuous enough to tell me how to live my life. I can make my own decisions. I am impetuously autonomous and an incorrigible smart-ass.

This means that...

* if even 500 verses of the Bible and
* if Jesus himself proclaimed on the Mount of Transfiguration and
* if Jesus appeared to me on my back deck in the glory of his resuscitated corpse and

stated to me as clearly as the four p.m. sun is hot, that homoerotic love is a sin and that if I support gays and lesbians in their relationships I would join them in the fires of hell, I would look him in his piercing eyes and say (if I had the courage of my convictions):

"Fine then. Send me to your hell. You are wrong, Jesus."

Why? Because I know Tony and Mike. Because I know dozens of other couples and individuals and I know who they are and that what they do is as good and sacred as what anyone else does.

I know. Mind-boggling, isn't it? "I consider myself a Christian ... but I don't care what Christ thinks." To be fair, I'm quite certain that his perspective is more accurately stated, "I cannot imagine Jesus telling me this." He claims that it's hyperbole. Okay. Still, the whole thing is disturbing when you're talking about a pastor. But enough people have raised that concern enough times, so I'm not going there. And Pastor Bob, the pastor with whom Pastor Shuck is having the dialog, seems to be doing a fine job of defending the truth, so I'm not going there, either. It's not even Pastor Shuck that I'm thinking about here. It's the idea.

How many people determine right and wrong from "what works"? The good pastor determined that Jesus was wrong because "I know Tony and Mike." He decided that the Bible couldn't possibly teach that homosexual behavior is a sin because "I know dozens of other couples and individuals and I know who they are and that what they do is as good and sacred as what anyone else does." There is no definition of "good" or "sacred". There is no source for that at all. It is simply being decided based on what works. "Tony and Mike are nice guys. They are committed to each other. They aren't child molesters or murderers or bank robbers or some such. They come to church and they smile at people and they're nice. How can it be wrong?"

The problem is multifaceted. First, by allowing a purely subjective definition of "good" and "sacred", they become meaningless. A "good husband" is not the same as a "good assassin". A good husband doesn't kill people while a "good assassin" is an expert at it. "Sacred" is completely meaningless in this context, since "sacred" is supposed to mean "that which is set apart for God", but the position requires that God's opinion is ignored. Indeed, it replaces God as the one who defines good. ("I will be like the Most High.") And if "good and sacred" are purely subjective, then the whole concept becomes unusable. There are atheists who are "good" people. They try to be nice. They aren't child-molesters or thieves or murderers. They are true to their spouses and care about their children and do all the other things that we might call "good". So, when Jesus said, "He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18), well, He was just plain and simple wrong. Why? "Because I know atheists who are good people."

We don't get the option of defining "good". That is something that is outside of us, something to which we must conform. And "it works" is not a valid measurement of what is good. Joseph Stalin formed a nice, quiet, well-mannered country by executing millions of dissidents. It works, right? Must be okay. Of course not. I'm not comparing John Shuck to Stalin. I'm using the outlandishly obvious evil of Stalin to point to the fact that "what works" doesn't define what's good. And, in the final analysis, "what works" can only be agreement with God, not defiance of God.