My Favorite Half of Romans 14: On Judging and Being Judged

One of the most annoying experiences of ministry often comes, interestingly enough, after I've preached a message. It's that moment when I'm standing in the back of the church shaking hands, and someone comes up and says "great message Dr. Rainey. I wish _________ could have been here to hear it. They need it!"

Honestly, it's hard in moments like that to keep my temper at bay. I want to ask, in righteous indignation, "don't you need it too? What's wrong with you that you see faults in others before you see them in yourself? Haven't you read Matthew 7:1-5?? Are you an idiot?? . . . .

. . .but just before exploding, the Spirit reminds me that often, I too, am an idiot.

For example, many folks on my wife's side of the family come out of a Holiness background. Because of this, they hold strong convictions that I don't hold. I remember early in our dating life when Amy would say "don't talk about movies we have seen around the relatives. They believe going to the theater is sinful."

Of course, my instant reaction was to appeal to Romans 14. After all, Paul has given us clear instruction regarding how to relate to each other on "debatable" matters. There is nothing . . .absolutely NOTHING in Scripture that forbids me from seeing a good movie, especially one in which there is lots of gunplay, fast cars, and buildings blowing up in a hopelessly gratuitous fashion. There is liberty in Christ, and where "movies for guys who like movies" are concerned, I aim to exercise my liberty!!

Furthermore, those who would object to my affinity for fast cars and bullets on the silver screen should consider carefully the following verses from Romans 14:" . . .and let not the one who abstains pass judgement on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him." v.3b"Who are you to pass judgement on the servant of another?" v.4"Why do you pass judgement on your brother?" v.10"Therefore, let us not pass judgement on one another any longer." v.13a

Wow, if only my "weaker brother" were here to read these verses. He sure needs it!

Problem is, in quoting my preferred half of this text, I've totally ignored (i.e. violated) the parts that are addressed to me in an effort to point out those parts that are addressed to my weaker brother. Talk about irony!

As a "stronger brother" in this regard, I should instead be looking at the following passages:"Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains. . ." v.3a". . .but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." v.13b"For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died." v.15"It is not good to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble." v.21

Do such texts mean that I should totally abstain from seeing the "13 Hours" this week? Not necessarily. At the same time, it probably means I should keep quiet about it around certain folks out of deference for their convictions. OF course, they have their responsibilities as well. But I'm not responsible to fulfill my weaker brother's responsibilities. I'm responsible to fulfill mine.

The same is true for any other debatable issue. And within our churches, I’ve noticed a strange phenomenon: almost anytime a debatable issue divides the strong and weak, the weak come out on top in the form of additional rules. The strong are often warned against causing others to stumble. The weak are rarely called out for judging their stronger brothers.

Perhaps this explains, at least in part, why there are so many evangelical churches that are culturally unengaged—bordering on the isolationist. To be sure, some of my more aggressively evangelistic brothers sometimes do things, and go to lengths, that give me pause. But when comparing those I believe sometimes go too far with the multitude majority who don’t go far enough, I think we need more of the former!

The thing that interests me about any debatable issue is that most folks are just like me . . .they have a propensity to appeal to those sections of Romans 14 that are addressed to their opponents. The problem with this approach is that it not only ignores those texts most applicable to you, but it also violates the spirit of the very texts to which we appeal; a spirit that is best summarized by Paul's contention that "the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

"Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." (vv.17-18)

Appealing to my "preferred half" of Romans 14 is never conducive to the kind of peace and Kingdom thinking that Paul describes. To pursue peace, I have to appropriate the other half . . .the half that describes my responsibilities when it comes to debatable issues.

With this in mind, maybe I don't need to judge my brother who participates in activities I find I can't participate in without sinning. Conversely, perhaps I need to resist colorful descriptions of "13 Hours" in front of certain family members.

Maybe, just maybe, if we all practiced such things, righteousness and peace and joy would be seen more clearly in us by those who need to know Jesus. Just maybe, this is what Paul had in mind when he wrote Romans 14.

The Legacy of Bloodshed: Roe v. Wade After 43 Years

"Like the advocates of birth control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."  -Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1919

"There are times when abortion is necessary.  I know that.  Like when you have a black and a white...."  -President Richard Nixon, 1973

"Frankly, I had thought at the time 'Roe' was decided, there was concern about population growth, and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."  -Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2009

43 years ago today, nine black-robed justices handed down a decision that would forever change the moral landscape of the United States.  Since that time, more than 57 million human beings created in God's image and likeness have been murdered within the confines of their mother's wombs.

Is that too strong a statement?  Is it too negative a tone?  Is it too culturally divisive to employ such incendiary language?  Well, let me ask it this way.  If something is bad, do you use good words to describe it?

I understand the moral complexities that come into play where abortion is concerned.  As a pastor of 23 years, I have more experience counseling women through the gut-wrenching decisions our society forces them to make than any politician who has ever voted on this issue.  I've sat with the single mom whose budget is stretched thin.  I've sat with the woman who has just been told her baby has downs syndrome, or some other dreaded, chronic disease.  I've also sat with those who chose to have an abortion.  Women who have submitted to this procedure are 34% more likely to suffer from anxiety, 110% more prone to alcohol abuse, and 155% more likely to take their own lives, and I have seen the flesh and blood evidence of those statistics in my office.  Anyone who automatically equates being "pro-choice" with "pro-women" is either an idiot or a liar.

The emotional havoc that comes as a result of this now four-decade long culture of death should come as a surprise to no one.  Regardless of the circumstances that gave rise to each decision to  terminate a pregnancy, each abortion is the elimination of a human life.   This is not a matter of philosophical or even theological debate.  It is plain science.  Life begins at conception.  And for the past 43 years our nation has been busy eliminating more than 57 million of those lives.

57 million.

Let that number sink in, because its greater than the current populations of Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, North and South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming combined.    To kill that many people over a 42 year period, you must terminate a pregnancy every 20 seconds--and not stop killing for an entire generation.

Meanwhile, God continues to speak clearly.  "You shall not murder."

Anyone who objectively observes this bloodshed must come to the inescapable conclusion that abortion is not at heart a political issue.  It isn't even a philosophical issue.  It is, quite simply, Satanic.  In John 8:44, Jesus states that Satan's natural language is to lie, and his natural actions are to murder.  Anywhere there is deception and bloodshed on a massive scale, you can be sure our enemy is involved.  Whether it is Herod's murderous rage through a blood-soaked Bethlehem, Hitler's merciless and genocidal paranoia, or the lies of a U.S. President seeking to cast this issue as one of granting women "safe, affordable health care," death and deception can always be found holding hands.

Politicians who hide their moral cowardice with trite phrases like "reproductive freedom" and "women's rights" betray with their own incoherence the unvarnished reality that "I believe in a woman's right to choose" is half a sentence.  If you finish that sentence honestly, then what I've seen in the counseling room over the past 23 years begins to make perfect sense. And this bloodshed has happened on the watch of political leaders of both parties who value obfuscation over truth.  A generation ago, C.S. Lewis graphically yet accurately described the character of such leaders:

In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function.  We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Satan has lied to us by telling us that there is a quick way out of a tough situation.  He has convinced us that the presence of moral complexity means that there is no moral clarity.

Meanwhile, God continues to speak with abundant moral clarity. "You shall not murder."

Since 1973, we've been told that this was an issue of women's rights and freedom of choice.  We believed that lie, and the result is roughly 29 million females aborted--and having no "choice" in the matter.  We were told that abortion would be, in part, a solution to supposed population control that would result in great financial costs to society.  We believed that lie, and the result is a workforce that lacks roughly 30 million workers who would be contributing to a social safety net that wouldn't be under such financial constraints with their contributions.

And as these ripple effects of our bloodshed continue to puzzle us, God continues to call out and say "You shall not murder."

We wonder why there is such seeming disregard for human life in society.  Why are women increasingly victims of violence?  Why does it seem that men are increasingly unable to control their lusts?  Why do they eagerly seek sex but avoid marriage and commitment?  Why do they think its OK to abandon their children to poverty and all its effects?  Why all the senseless killing in our schools?  From whence comes this beastly ambivalence toward the sanctity of human life?

Once again, God connects the dots with this command. "You shall not murder."

Our nation is swimming in the blood of its own innocent, and we do so because we have believed the lies of our enemy, who wants to see the bloodshed continue.  There is one way to stop it.  Turn from the enemy.  Stop being complicit in his schemes, and return to Jesus.

This is the great news of the Gospel--that even hands covered with blood can be forgiven.  The single mom who killed her child because she thought there was no other way can have peace.  The punk who drove his girlfriend to the Planned Parenthood clinic because he wanted pleasure without responsibility can be forgiven. The doctor who made millions off of baby's bones can be forgiven.  And the nation guilty of purging 57 million of its most vulnerable citizens--largely for the mere sake of convenience--can be forgiven, healed, and restored.  But the bloodshed has to stop.  We cannot find healing in the one true God while still sacrificing our children to Molech.

43 years.  57 million children.  One simple command.

"You shall not murder."

What Martin Luther King Teaches us About People Who Change the World.

A civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan.  -Martin Luther King.

Today, our nation honors a Baptist preacher who changed the world.

But like so many other heroes we celebrate, we often sanitize their legacy, leaving out those parts of their story that traumatize us.  Everyone American loves a war hero, but no one wants to see a soldier laying on a beach with his major organs exposed.

Every Christian loves to hear the story about a powerful conversion of a meth-addict, but few are attracted to the "sanctification story" of the next year after his conversion.

Likewise, everyone loves Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.  But on this day, I wonder how many will truly think about the five years after that speech, and the cost involved in bringing about the change necessary for that dream to be realized?

But if you want to change the world for good, its going to cost you!  What follows are but five lessons we learn about people who change the world from the life of Dr. Martin Luther King:

1. You will find your ideas among the unpopular minority.  So many of the ideas Dr. King forwarded are merely assumed today.  Nearly every citizen in our nation is aghast at the thought of segregated lunch counters, burning crosses, and "separate but equal" schools and other institutions.  Yet just a moment ago in time, these things were all a reality, and accepted as the norm.  To that world, King's "dream" sounded more like a sick, Pink Floyd-inspired nightmare.  And the threats on his life, along with police brutality throughout the American south and the confrontation between federal and state governments are the chief evidence that his ideas were not readily accepted.

Standing on this side of that history, we tend to look at the romanticized version of King embodied in his famous 1963 speech in front of Lincoln's memorial.  Its nearly impossible to stand firmly within the 21st century and believe that his lofty picture of "the sons of slaves and the sone of slave owners" sitting down together was so opposed.  But great ideas are often not initially received as great ideas.

2. You must care about something much bigger than yourself.  His life was threatened.  His family was threatened.  He received multiple bomb-threats, and most of his letters were written from jail cells.  To endure such hardship, you have to look beyond your own comforts toward something bigger.  And you have to believe that bigger picture is possible.

3. You will be misunderstood--often.  I was experiencing my childhood less than a decade after King's death, and I remember many in the American south where I was raised speaking of King as a "troublemaker."  I remember asking--quite honestly--how wrong it is to seek equality between white and black.  The multiple answers I received from well-meaning but uninformed adults sounded something like this:

He stirred up things he didn't need to stir up

He caused so much unrest.  Surely there was a better way to do it.

He could have left well-enough alone.  Things weren't so bad. (Of course, it was my WHITE friends who said this.)

Change-agents are often seen as troublemakers.  Honestly, in the midst of any major societal shift people will confuse Martin Luther King with Bobby Seale, and that's what happened during King's life.

4. You may never live to see the change you created.  I was born in South Carolina less than 4 years after King's death, and marriage between white and black was and remained illegal until I was in high school.  Even today, King's dream continues to unfold, and he never lived to see most of it.  Such is often the case with initiators of change.

5. It may cost you your life.  King's life was horrifically, unjustly, and suddenly cut short on a motel balcony in 1968 because--to put it bluntly--people hated him.  Throughout his professional life, Dr. King seemed acutely aware of this possibility, and embraced it as part of the potential cost.  People who change the world are willing to die for the change they believe is necessary.

So who will be the next world-changer?  The next change-agent whose ideas make us a better society?  I'm not sure.  But on this day, I recognize that without the traits mentioned above, there is no hope of another MLK rising from among us.  God, give us more visionaries willing to count the cost--and pay it for the sake of something bigger than themselves.

Burns, Baltimore, and the Christian Response to the Oregon Protest

Yesterday morning, I sat in front of my television screen as a CNN reporter interviewed a member of an armed group of Protesters in Burns Oregon.  As these protesters continue their occupation of a federally-owned building, they claim that their armed resistance is their only present recourse at "fighting back" against government intrusion into their lives, and government oppression of their freedoms.

On the surface, this situation seems quite simple.  These men have broken the law and government should hold them accountable.  And rest assured, American mainstream media does love the "surface level" coverage of issues like this.  "Anti-government protesters" frequents the crawl on most media outlets already, and the tone and expression of reporters betrays the underlying assumption of most: they should leave.  They should be prosecuted.  And if they don't surrender, then these hicks deserve what's coming to them.

As I watched this story unfold yesterday morning, I couldn't help but remember another very different place--the city of Baltimore.  I've lived within the shadow of that great city for more than 11 years now.  And last year, that area too was subject to great unrest and the threat of an all-out street war between local police and the African American community.  The media rightfully struck a very different tone when reporting on the riots, but I couldn't help but notice others employing language similar to that being used to describe the men in Oregon.  "These protesters are out of line.  They should be quiet.  They should just obey the law.  And if they don't comply, then those thugs deserve what's coming to them."

Between Burns Oregon and Baltimore Maryland, there is little in common on the surface.  These are very different people living in very different environments.  Yet I can't help but think there is a link between the oppression of the former and the systemic injustice that affects the latter.  And that link is  the government itself.  In one environment, judicial fiat appears to have taken away land and grazing rights that many American western cultures depend on for their continued survival and growth.  In the other environment, decades old judicial tyranny enabled by executive enforcement of "Jim Crow" era systems has taken away opportunity and replaced it with poverty, violence, and a drug culture that continues to corrupt the city, the surrounding suburbs which purchase it, and the authorities who use it as a billy stick. (I've written more extensively about the issues in Baltimore here.)

But the "urban-rural" divide in our country--largely exacerbated by "red" and "blue" political gamesmanship that encourages the one to see the other as the enemy--may be the very thing that keeps us from seeing the real source of what ails us.  Winston Churchill is famously quoted as saying "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."  What Churchill was conveying in that quote was two-fold:  There is no better system of government in the modern world than the democratic form.  But even democracies can be compromised, and even corrupted.

What does this have to do with the Christian Gospel?  Followers of Jesus believe His Lordship doesn't stop at the church house door, but extends to the very ends of the earth, and inserts itself into every dominion (Colossians 1:15-16).  To use the language of urbanology, what Paul calls "dominions" the modern world refers to as "domains."  Domains are, quite simply, the various sectors of society that need to function well within themselves, and in cooperation with others, for the advancement of civilization and the promotion of human flourishing.  Arts, Agriculture, Science and Technology, Education, Health Care, Economics, and Human Government are all necessary for these ends, which means that Christians should have an interest in seeing each of these promoted and designed in such a way that they promote the advance of those created in God's very image.

Where Government is concerned, we have no ambitions toward theocracy, as our own nation's Founders understood.  Contrary to the claims of pseudo-historians like David Barton, America has never been a "Christian nation."  Though many of our nations founders were devout Christians who no doubt wielded the influence of their faith on the body politick, they too understood that government need not be distinctly Christian in order to serve God's purposes.  Freedom of religion--any religion--principled pluralism, the concept of a free church in a free state, and liberty of conscience all emanate from the Christian worldview, and are simultaneously compatible with the original principles of liberty laid down by the Founders of this nation who were equally intent that government give no specific endorsement or favoritism to any particular expression of religion.

And they understood this because Paul understood it.  When Paul writes in Romans 13 that government "is God's servant for your good," he was speaking, not of an Israelite theocracy, but the Roman republic; the same Roman republic that occupied Palestine as Paul pens this letter, and the same government that imprisoned Paul as he writes at least three other letters (Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians)  In that context, Paul called government a force for good, ordained by God Himself.  As a result, Christians owe earthly government their allegiance, their obedience in all things not contrary to the Gospel, and their taxes.

So just obey the law.  Enough said, right?  But before my liberal readers forward this post to their friends in Oregon, or before my conservative readers link to this post to share with their friends in Baltimore, let's look a little deeper.  Because before the end of the first century, another Apostle writing from political exile would speak of Rome in a quite different way:

"The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality.  and on her forehead was written a name of mystery, 'Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of the earth's abominations.'"  -Revelation 17:4-5

With very few exceptions on the theological fringe, the overwhelming consensus of evangelical scholarship contends that John was here speaking of Rome.  The same government entity described by Paul as a force for good is now, less than 30 years later, described by John as the whore of Babylon.  Apparently, some very significant changes had taken place.

The point?  Government, when it reflects the image of God, can be a force for good--justice, mercy, righteousness, peace, stability, and prosperity.  But government, when it reflects the fall, is like a prostitute that spreads STDs.  So how do we relate these principles to situations we have witnessed around our own country in the past year?

First, no Christian who genuinely follows Jesus and takes Scripture seriously is "anti-government."  What Christians want is "good government."  And in the context of democracy, the responsibility for the perpetuity of good government falls ultimately on the people themselves.  It also means that when government "of, for and by" the people expresses itself in a way that is "above, against, and opposite" the people, its time to speak out.

That means when we witness injustice in any form, we speak to it and advocate for those suffering from it.  Doing so in no way justifies all the actions of those who are oppressed.  This means addressing systemic racism in Baltimore is not equivalent to "hating cops" or putting your stamp of approval on looters and arsonists.  Additionally, addressing government over-reach in the American west is not equivalent to advocating all-out war between western ranchers and the US government, or condoning the armed takeover of a government facility.  It simply means contending for corrections in a human and thus imperfect system so that the system contributes to the advance of civilization.  And sometimes, advancing civilization means dismantling dysfunctional aspects of civil government.

Second, Christians never recognize human government as an ultimate authority.  That role belongs only to God.  That means the Christian response to Baltimore must be deeper than "those people just need to obey the law," and the Christian response to Burns must be deeper than "they just need to surrender."  This is a time when deeper questions need to be asked, because if they aren't, government will step into both scenarios with "solutions" that may actually make things worse.  Churchill was right, our form of government is the worst, except for all the others.  That means that overall, we have a great system of law and justice.  But it also means that its not perfect.  To employ the apostolic metaphor, sometimes the US government is like a whore.  Statism is a real threat, and through statism, our government is prostituting herself to her own harm and the harm of those in her path.  When she acts in such ways, Christians have a responsibility to point to the root of the problem, challenge the people to stop blaming each other, and encourage Americans from both parties to stop leaving money on the nightstand.

Third, Christians must seek unity and make peace.  "Choosing sides" is a politician's game.  Followers of Christ are called to something far greater than merely sitting in front of a TV using words like "thugs" and "hicks."  The roots of each are found in a creeping statism that is eager to be the "solution" to a problem that statism caused in the first place.  Through our spheres of influence, we should be pointing out the commonalities between Burns and Baltimore.  and rooting those commonalities in the Christian narrative, which explains these sorts of injustices by pointing to human sin, and offers the ultimate solution by pointing to Jesus.

One day, the Kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ. (Revelation 11:15).  On that day, America will not be the exception, and the stars and stripes will become a heap of ash along with every other Kingdom and nation-state.  But until that day, followers of Jesus must play their role in helping our nation be what Paul envisioned as the ideal for every human government--a force for good administering God's own authority on earth.

Less Isolation, More Incarnation: A Resolution for the New Year

Tomorrow morning, I'll make my first visit of 2016 to my local gym.  I dread that visit.

I don't dread it for the reasons you might think.  Actually, I've been faithful with daily exercise through the holidays (though I can't say the same for diet.  But who can at Christmas?)  I will pretty much hate going to the gym until around the end of March, because from now until then, the "New Year's Resolution crowd" will be blocking my access to the elliptical, the pool, the nautilus, and pretty much anything else I want access to.

I dread going to the gym tomorrow because it's the New Year, and I know there will be a million people there.  Why?  Because too many of them make a New Year's Resolution to "lose weight" or "get in better shape" and truly believe they will be able to do it in a matter of weeks.  Most will be gone by the end of February.

Its that time again for people to start making good on the promises they made to themselves on New Year's Eve.  Some want to lose weight.  Others want their hair back.  Still others want to start a different career path, further educate themselves, or improve a significant relationship.

With all that is going on it our world at present, I have a suggestion for those who follow Christ--a New Year's resolution that could, quite literally, change the world.  Here it is:

For 2016, I resolve to be less isolationist and more incarnational.  

From the time that I was a child, I remember hearing warnings about "hanging out with the wrong people."  To be sure, there is wisdom--especially in one's youth--about choosing one's close friends carefully.  But too often, that wisdom can devolve into a lifestyle of living in a bubble.  When that happens, you end up spending all your time reading "Christian" books, going only to "Christian" movies, going to a "Christian" school, and living your life in a way that makes every conversation happen in an echo chamber.

This doesn't just produce an ineffective disciple.  It results in a disobedient life.  Jesus didn't just stand on the precipice of heaven and preach a sermon while refusing to get his hands dirty.  Christians just celebrated a season that observes how God wrapped Himself in human flesh and lived among us.

The Gospel itself is a testament to the fact that Jesus intentionally and strategically invests His life among those who are in no way like Him.  And then, post-resurrection, He says this to His disciples:

"As the Father has sent me, so also do I send you."

In short, following Jesus means that we employ the same incarnational approach that He did.  Conversely, it means that isolationism from the world He died to save--refusing to befriend and invest your life in others who are not like you, don't share your religious, political, or cultural views, bear a different skin color, live on a different socioeconomic level--isn't just wrong.  Isolationism is antiChrist.

However, true incarnation doesn't involve minimizing differences, or compromising or diluting the faith until there is little of it left that is recognizable.  On the contrary, true incarnation is the counter-cultural presence of God.  That's precisely what the life of Jesus involved, and its precisely what we as His followers are called to do.  Some have mistakenly viewed isolation and syncretism as opposites.  The truth is that both share much more in common when it comes to their common, anti-Gospel roots.  Compromise on the clarity of the Gospel obscures the person and work of Jesus and is also antiChrist.

And antiChrist behavior will yield antiChrist results.  Isolation breeds ignorance, racism, xenophobia, cultural superiority, and number of other conditions that mar the image of God.  Conversely, Gospel incarnation breeds familiarity, fairness, clarity, and respect for every human being.

Isolation breeds war.

Syncretism breeds an uneasy detente.

Incarnation breeds peace.

Take a look around.  I think we could use some peace.  And as I survey the current cultural landscape that includes jihadists among us, armed militia taking control of government buildings, and a fiery election season characterized by two political parties poised for near-civil war, I think followers of Jesus may be the only people capable of bringing that peace.

But the art of peacemaking is, by default, the art of intentionally entering a world of conflict, and loving that divided world with the very affections displayed by Jesus on the cross as He bleeds on their behalf.

So that's my top resolution this year.  How about you?  Are you willing to walk across the street--or across the political isle--or across the tracks, and live intentionally in relationship with those different from you?  Will you love your neighbor of a different political party during what promises to be a divisive election season?  Will you love your neighbor of a different race?  Different religion?  That's what its going to take, if you want to truly live like Jesus.

Peace is a tall order in any context.  But the Gospel is powerful enough to bring it, and Gospel people are the only ones commissioned to take it.  Let's resolve that 2016 be the year followers of Christ committed to less isolation, and more incarnation.

Far as the Curse is Found: Celebrating Christmas in a World of Terror

I believe all of the Bible is God's inspired Word, but of all the books it contains, I personally love Isaiah the most!

Its beautiful literary structure is unmatched among his Biblical contemporaries.  His clarity and boldness in a context of people who found his words difficult to believe is refreshing and timely.  And the hope he describes--a hope that transcends his own day and is easily applicable to our own--is the reason I turn so often to this phenomenal piece of Divinely-inspired ancient wisdom.  And this is never more true than at Christmastime.

Our family celebrates Advent in our home every year, and I have purposefully kept us between the pages of Isaiah this year.  A couple of weeks ago, we were focused on the theme of "peace," and my 10-year-old son was given the assignment of reading from Isaiah 16:1-5.  Its a beautiful foretelling of a coming end to oppression.  In its immediate context, the prophet is speaking of the Moabites eventually seeking shelter, peace, and protection among God's people.  But this is a peace that comes as a result of a not-yet-established throne.  It is a throne that will be occupied by a descendant of David.  In other words, the peace that will come to the people of Judah will ultimately come from a Kingdom not yet manifest on earth.

The wider context of this passage (chapters 13-23) supports this by discouraging reliance on any other foreign powers.  Indeed, the main thrust of Isaiah's message to the people of his own day was quite simple:  Trust in the Lord for your security.  Do not trust in foreign alliances.

Something tells me that's a relevant subject for our own day.

We live in a world that is permeated with violence and terror.  Elementary schools get shot up in this world.  Christmas parties get interrupted with bloodshed in this world.  Movie theaters are attacked in this world.  And in the wake of every tragedy, our culture cries out for prevention.  How can we keep this from ever happening again?

Its an understandable question, but one that ultimately has no answer in this temporal world.  To be sure, precautions can be taken, vigilance can be assumed, and laws can even be passed that might help minimize the carnage.  But you can't legislate away the evil hearts which are the origin of these barbarous actions.  And evil hearts aren't confined only in the bodies of a few people who own guns, or a few others who follow radical Islam.  There is one present in each of us.

Yet still, we think the solution is to rely on alliances with certain methodologies and those who subscribe to them.  More recent discussions have revealed this to be an ever-present theme in this upcoming election year.  One party thinks banning guns is the answer.  The other party wants to ban Muslims--keep any more from coming into our country.  (I'm still waiting on someone to suggest banning white guys from movie theaters and public schools, but haven't heard that call just yet.  But I digress.)

And these ideologies teach us that there is a fine line between healthy vigilance and irrational fear.  Vigilance is good and wise.  Fear that moves us to place our ultimate trust in something other than God is useless, and sometimes can motivate us to do things to others that are, candidly, antiChrist.

And why do we behave in such ways?  Because we fall prey to the same sense of false security that was possessed by those in 8th century B.C. Judah.  We may have smart phones and cable news, but where human nature is concerned, it would appear not much has changed in the last 2800 years.

So perhaps when we read a book like Isaiah, we should see our reflection.  To a people that looked to political savy, and the right international relationships to forge security, Isaiah's message was clear for at least ten straight chapters.  Both Babylon and her king would crash like a star from heaven (Chapter 14).  Philistia will be undone from within (Chapter 14).  Moab will be stripped of her resources (Chapter 15).  Damascus will diminish into a heap of ruin (Chapter 17).  Cush will be quickly and suddenly defeated (Chapter 18).  Egypt's power will wane to the point of impotency (Chapter 19.)  Tyre will be reduced to a fishing village surrounded by rubble (Chapter 23).  One by one, as if marking off a regional map, the prophet says to God's people "that nation won't help you.  Those people can't protect you."  And the destruction doesn't stop until Jerusalem herself is consumed.

What is the lesson?  The only real security God's people have is God Himself.  And when we put our ultimate trust in other things--laws, restrictions, national security, alliances with others who promise to keep us safe--God reminds us that eventually, each of these will fail us.

So where does hope come from in an age of terror?

Politics?  "My" candidate will be elected, and he/she will protect me!  Yeah, if you are looking for security from any political leader, you're probably better off just finding a bed to hide under.

The military?  We have the best fighting force in the history of humanity, and I'm very grateful for the men and women who volunteer to defend our nation.  But let's be honest.  They can't protect us from everything.  In fact, if it happens in the homeland, they aren't supposed to!

Geography?  Perhaps there is someone reading this thinking to themselves; "but Joel lives near Washington, D.C.  I don't live there, or in New York, or Los Angeles.  No one even knows I'm here!  My inconspicuousness will be my security!"  Not so fast.  There are only 3000 people living in Bart Township PA, but the nondescript nature of that area did nothing to stop Charles Roberts from opening fire on a school in 2006.  Low population areas are just as prone to violence.

Laws?  "Maybe we should just ban guns."  Most firearms are already banned in Washington, D.C. and Chicago. Ask those cities how that's working out for them as they try to curb violence.  Talk to the residents of Paris and ask them whether a gun ban guarantees protection.  I'm not averse to a discussion about how to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but let's not kid ourselves by thinking we can take away any chance of violence by passing a law.  Conversely, while a lot of liberals would like to ban guns, too many conservatives are seriously musing about banning Muslims.  Not only would such an action confirm the narrative ISIS is trying to perpetuate, it fuels the lie that evil is found in any one particular religion.  ALL have sinned.  Evil resides in every heart, including yours and mine, and as long as we live among other people, we will have to contend with the possibility of evil, no matter the religious faith or weapon of choice.  If you don't believe that, try going to Macy's on Black Friday.  Our true nature as fallen human beings is never move obvious than when we are willing to trample another for a 15% discount.

Eschatology?  "We will be raptured out of here before the worst of it starts."  I'm not a "Left Behind" series kind of guy when it comes to the end of the age.  I actually hope my pre-tribulational brothers and sisters are right.  But even if they are, no rapture has yet to deliver us from 9/11, Aurora, Newtown, Paris, Mali, or San Bernadino

If Isaiah were still writing today, I think he might make mention of each of these, and along with Judah's hoped-for foreign alliances, remind us that eventually, they all fail us.  Hope can't be found here.  It can only be found in God.

In other words, genuine hope begins by recognizing and admitting that we are far more vulnerable  than we think we are.

The basis for our hope isn't that we can keep calamity from happening.  Our hope rests in a sovereign God who rules over it, and who 2000 years ago sent His Son into a world that was just as violent as our own.  He didn't seek protection from it.  He lived in it, died at its hand, rose from the dead in triumph over it, and offers His followers that same resurrection power--a power that can only be fully realized in the context of vulnerability.  That kind of hope produces a boldness that Martin Luther described many centuries ago:

Let goods and kindred go
this mortal life also
The body they may kill
God's Truth abideth still
His Kingdom is forever!

People who have placed their ultimate hope in Jesus can live like that.  And people who live like that can celebrate Christmas even in the worst of circumstances.  Because people who live like that know that eventually, the same Christ who incarnated Himself among us will return.  Those temporal things we have trusted to "keep us safe" will vanish, because they won't be needed.  As G.F. Handel wrote so eloquently:

No more let sins and sorrows grow
nor thorns infest the ground.
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found.  Far as the curse is found
Far as, far as the curse is found

Followers of Jesus can celebrate Christmas in hope and peace, no matter what transpires around us.  That is the promise of the Gospel for you and me this Christmas.  But its also a promise aimed at the rest of the world--a promise we have been entrusted to deliver through the greatest message in all of human history.  Don't be afraid.  Don't seek factitious peace in temporary assurances of your mortal safety.  Be wise and vigilant, not reactionary and paranoid.  And in the process, follow Jesus as He continues from heaven the mission He began in our history 2000 years ago; to bring blessing and peace.....

...far as the curse is found.

The Paris Attacks and American Christianity: A French Brother's Challenge

"Government should be set up so that no man need live in fear of another."  -Montesquieu

The recent terror attacks in Paris ignited a fresh debate among many western nations, including the United States, about how we should relate to one another, and more particularly, how do we balance civil liberties with national security?

For followers of Jesus, our questions must go deeper, and the questions we need to ask are impossible to answer without a comprehensive understanding of what transpired in France.  Some weeks ago, my office was contacted by Gilles Lisimaque, a brother in Christ who attends Upper Seneca Baptist Church in our Network.  

Born and raised just outside of Paris, Gilles has lived in the United States for the past 25 years and has been a US citizen for more than 17 years.   Professionally, Gilles is a security expert, partner with ID Technology, and has been involved for more than 28 years in developing smart cards which are now used in Bank cards and Government Identification Systems. Gilles has been involved in setting technical standards for identification and finance security nationally, and has been one of the world's leading experts in smart card specifications and applications.  Additionally, he has advised multiple US government agencies on matters of national security relative to the country's individual identification systems.

Gilles is a father of two, and grandfather of six, and is the proud patriarch of a multicultural family that now spans three generations.  He maintains close relationships in Paris with his family and contacted our office wanting to offer his perspective to American Christians--feeling that there is much that is misunderstood about what transpired in his home country that is fueling necessary fear in the United States.  Most importantly, he is concerned about the efficacy of Christian witness in America.

In short, Gilles' background involves striking the appropriate balance between security concerns relative to the preservation of liberty, and the Christian mandate to lovingly engage the world Jesus died for.  I was delighted through this interview to get to know a man who believes these concerns are not mutually exclusive, and my hope is that readers will gain a fresh perspective on what transpired in his country that will help Christians here better respond to the world in which we find ourselves.  An edited transcript of our conversation is below:  Please note that the San Bernadino terrorist attack was not mentioned in this interview.  This is because the interview took place just a few days prior to those events. That event and others will be discussed at a subsequent event this coming spring called "Loving Neighbor in an Age of Terrorism."  More information on that conference is below. 

___________________________________________________________________________

JR:  Let's jump right to the point of this conversation.  What is the biggest misconception Americans have about what happened in Paris?

GL: Since you and I spoke first, this has changed, because much more information has come out since then, nevertheless it does seem that the American perception hasn't really changed.  The biggest misconception is that the Paris terrorists were foreigners--that they were not Europeans but instead immigrants, when the facts are that they were French or Belgian citizens.  They were born in Europe, and were citizens by birth..  All these people had probably been helped by the social welfare of the state, but for some reason they did not integrate.  It seems they were raised in what we could call in the US a "ghetto", with people of the same origin and the same poverty level.  As I understand, similar things happen here in black neighborhoods, where there is little work, little help, little hope and a feeling of rejection, where hate and resentment is every day’s feeling, ending up in crime and use of weapons to kill each other.

JR: So you are saying that in that situation, a radical ideology gives them an identity?

GL:  Yes.  When I was young, I had an experience similar to this.  France, as you may know, is mainly a Catholic country.  I was raised in a Protestant family.  Devout Catholics in my neighborhood would not allow their children to play with me.  When that happens, you don't feel like you are integrated, acknowledged, and loved but ostracized.  And that was between Christians!  It’s probably because of that experience that growing up 20 Km from Paris I never felt I truly felt at ease  in such a culture. I must say not all French people are this way, it was more an exception than the rule, and it has changed for the better since I was young, but nevertheless it is an emotional scar you keep as a child.

I've been here in America for 25 years now, and I've never felt that kind of rejection.  But again, I'm Protestant who now live in a predominantly Protestant country.  So I can understand why those of a different faith than me might feel rejected, and as a result be hesitant to integrate into the larger society.  People won't seek to integrate if they feel no one wants them.

JR: So the result is that they created their own community that replicate their culture of origin because they feel as though they don't belong in French community at large?

GL:  Well, they stay together.  But the "ghetto" isn't something they always wanted to create.  Outside people create a wall around them because they don't want to go into it--in much the same way that a wall was built to separate the Jews from the rest of society in Europe decades ago.  People think "these people don't dress like me.  They don't think like me.  So they should stay there and I will stay over here."

JR:  That's surprising to me, because when I think of France as an American, I think of a very tolerant nation that's open to anyone and anything.

GL:  On one hand, that's true.  But on the other hand, we've had lots of immigrants, for example, from North Africa, and these movements created a cultural shock that decades later, we have not completely overcome.  Many (but not the majority yet) French people put up walls between themselves and immigrants to their country, and this fuels the isolation.

JR:  Are there any parallels that you see between what happened in France and what you are experiencing in America now?

GL:  When I came to America, I was very surprised by the racial divide.  The "black/white" divide that has been there since I moved here 25 years ago was very similar to the "French/North African" divide I had experienced in France.  Some had horrible attitudes toward black Americans; "they aren't civilized.  All they do is kill each other."  That sort of thing.  We allowed differences in culture, music, and other things to justify keep us isolated from each other.  The difference of course, between these scenarios, is that Black Americans by majority are Christian, so we share the same faith.  As a consequence, many leaders on both sides were able to appeal to that commonality to diffuse the situation.

JR: You are speaking of Martin Luther King and others?

GL: Precisely.  Christianity was the common faith that called us all together and helped quell the fights between black and white.  So in America it was about race, and in France it is about culture and faith, but this is just a "different difference."  Both are rooted in cultural differences.  And to me, that's the parallel.  When I was fulfilling my French military service, I was a police officer.  At that time, we were seeing numerous immigrants from North Africa, and a number of jokes arose among the police about them.  This was because we would get many complaint calls from residents whose North African neighbors were keeping goats on their balconies, or storing coal for heating in their bathtubs. It was a different way of living.  Not right or wrong, just different cultures, in different places.  But because we never tried to understand or befriend, only isolate and make fun that widened the divide.  This was fifty years ago and would not happen today. By then that stereotype was given to stigmatize the whole community.

And that was what I learned from my experience as a French police officer.  Ghettos are too often created by people on the outside of it that form a wall and inside the wall, it feels safer for those stigmatized as “different.” As I said before, it has created a posture that says "I don't know these people.  They don't look like me.  They don't dress like me.  They should just stay over there."

JR: That's actually a pretty devastating thought; that we "created" the ghetto.

GL: Yes, but I think that's really our problem as Christians.  We are unwilling to listen to differences because it could offend us, make us ask questions.  I don't know who they are, but why don't we listen?  Of course we have different beliefs, languages, and cultures, but we need to try to learn about each other.  When I came here, it was a challenge to learn about American culture and society, and try to figure things out.  I was able to do so because I was not rejected right away for being different. I had to listen a lot in order to do that, and I am still learning.

JR:  I'm sure, and we are a pretty loud bunch.

GL:  (laughter) Yes, that is the case with some, but I've learned that sometimes we make assumptions about how people behave because we simply don't know them.  For example, there is a stereotype I've heard that many Americans have, that says the French are rude.  This isn't as widely accepted an assumption as it was 10 years ago.  Often this opinion is formed because of the experiences Americans they had 20 years ago while traveling to Paris and visiting the various merchants.  This is because they don't understand a fundamental difference in our cultures.  In America, you browse from the inside of a store.  In France, you do it from the outside, and when you enter the store, you enter to buy.  And so if you enter the shop and don't buy anything, especially in a small one, you have taken the time of the retailer for nothing.

When Jesus met with the Samaritan woman, He talked about commonalities, and only after he listened to her he said "one day you will see worship happen everywhere, not just in Jerusalem." Proving an opening, hope, understanding, I think that's the way we should interact with people.

JR:  What are some practical ways to overcome the isolation that you would suggest?

GL:  First, information should always come from multiple sources, and those sources should be compared and contrasted.  We live in a world where we have access to American, British and European, Asian and Middle Eastern news sources.  If you only listen always to what you want to hear you can never form an intelligent, informed opinion.  You just believe to only one voice which may not be as open as they say they are. We need all those sources of information (different point of views) to form a....what is the English word I am looking for?

JR: Perspective?

GL:  No, I am thinking about......when you have two mountains and a valley in between there is a...

JR: Depth?

GL:  Yes, we need to understand the full depth of these issues.

JR:  Our English metaphors can be difficult.

GL:  (laughter) yes.  Well, this depth is important, because if we don't have it we will want to put whole groups of people in a silo, and then anyone identified in that way gets the same kind of treatment.  For example, there are in the US religious groups in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and or Ohio who decided, as a community, to live in with each other in a certain way.  It doesn't violate the law, so this is fine, this is not what I call a ghetto.  Here in Maryland, parts of Montgomery County were "dry" for years, because people there said "we want to live in community in a certain way."  It didn't mean you couldn't drink alcohol, only that you couldn't buy it in that community.  We should respect local communities and their identities, and we can do that if we govern by abiding by the majority.  The majority is what a democracy should be.  My freedom stops where the liberty of the other person starts.  That's not easy, and it’s impossible to do if we don't know each other, if we do not listen to the other person with respect.  Otherwise, we violate the liberty of others without even knowing it.

JR: And in a working democracy, the fleshing out of that is far more difficult than we admit.

GL: Oh it is difficult, because my liberty has to do with what I think I can do, and the other person has another way of thinking about the same right, and so where it starts and stops, has to do with respect, understanding, and knowledge of others become so important if we want to live in a democratic society.

JR: So, should Americans traveling to Paris be afraid?

GL:  Of who?  The French people?

JR: (laughter)  I know it’s a bit of a softball question, but when there is fear, you have to understand people will be asking questions like this.

GL:  Yes I understand, and I would say it’s no more dangerous than here in Washington, D.C.  I mean, come on!  You could be the victim of violence anywhere.  When you get on a plane, it might go down, you drive a car, and you may have an accident.  The probability is low, but it could happen.  We are Christians.  We use wisdom and assess risk, and know that we are ready to go if our time has come

Note:  This spring, we are following up this interview with a conference entitled "Loving Neighbor in an Age of Terrorism," in partnership with the Montgomery Baptist Association.  The conference will involve a panel discussion led by churches in that Association, which boasts the second most diverse ZIP code in the United States.  Details are forthcoming.

1. 
   

Why are You Afraid?

My wife will tell you that I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer, especially when it comes to quickly picking up on things.  But a trend is afoot in the American church that is so obvious, you'd have to be asleep to miss it.

And the trend is this:  Followers of Jesus in the west are increasingly filled with fear.

Never has this fear been seen more clearly than in the west's reaction to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris--and in particular in our disposition toward refugees seeking safety from that same wicked ideology.  From a political standpoint, followers of Jesus can, in good conscience, disagree regarding the best ways to care for these people, and we can also have differing opinions on how secure the vetting process is for refugees.  Followers of Jesus realize that compassion and wisdom are not mutually exclusive concepts.  But too much of what I've seen among American Christians has been fueled by fear and irrational disdain toward needy people.

But make no mistake: the reactions to Paris are merely the symptoms of a much deeper spiritual issue among too many Christians in the west.  As we witness the various changes taking place in our world, we are witnessing fear from those who once felt most secure in the old world.

This fear is manifest in several ways, but mostly, I see it coming out in a paranoid way through people--and sometimes entire ministries--dedicated to criticizing any attempt to engage culture.  Sure, we can cross the line and compromise Biblical principles, but between the guy who occasionally goes too far and has to repent, and the guy who does nothing because he fears going to far, put that first guy on my team!

Our world is changing, and doing so more rapidly than at any other time in human history.  For a church that was so sure of itself just decades ago because of the relatively prominent place we held in western society, these changes feel threatening, principally because they make us Unsure.  But as frightening as it may be to think of engaging the world in new and fresh ways, there is something we should fear even more.

The more I observe the modern paralysis in the western church, the more I'm reminded of a well-known parable of Jesus.  In Matthew 25, a landowner entrusts three of his servants with varying degrees of oversight--five talents to one, two to another, and one to the last. The first two went to work using the resources that had been given to them, and doubled their investment by their master's return, but the third buried his talent.

So when the master returns, he rewards the first two servants with more opportunity and responsibility, but took particular exception to the third, who told him "I know you.  Your'e a difficult man, reaping where you haven't sown and gathering where you haven't scattered seed.  So I was afraid, and went off and hid your talent in the ground."  (25:24-25, HCSB)

The thing about Mason jars is that while they protect money and keep it from getting dirty, they don't earn anything either.  And, this Master apparently didn't care if his money got a little dirty.  He wanted a return on his investment!

Keep in mind that this is one of three stories linked together to teach us about the Kingdom.  The point?  Our Master expects us to engage, and He expects us to produce.  And what is the one thing that kept the last servant from doing what his Master expected?  

Three words:  "I was afraid."

People driven by fear are actually pretty easy to spot:

1. They dismiss any expectations beyond "faithfulness."  "We aren't responsible for the results.  We are just supposed to be faithful."  Sounds great doesn't it?  Problem is, it just ain't true! Now, if by "results" you mean sheer numbers, then you may have a point.  God doesn't call every pastor to lead a mega-church, we are all gifted in different ways, and sometimes the results of our labors will look very different.  But a casual perusal of any parable about the Kingdom, or just reading the Sermon on the Mount, reveals quickly that Jesus expects results.  Salt can't help but preserve. Light naturally illuminates.  And when we are granted stewardship of the most powerful and effective story in history, you'd better believe Jesus expects us to do something with it that results in transformation.  Dismissing those demands by surface level appeals to 1 Corinthians 3:6 or other similar texts is the mental equivalent of putting the gifts God has given you 6 feet under for safe keeping. There is no "increase" without planting and watering, but the latter ALWAYS leads to the former in some form.

2. They see "compromise" in every attempt to engage.  In 1790, there was virtually no Christian presence that existed in the world that was further than 100 miles from the north Atlantic Ocean.  It was in that environment that a young William Carey realized the need for alternative means to reach people with the message of Jesus, and in spite of his hyper-Calvinist detractors, his efforts launched the modern missions movement.  Over the next century, the world would know of Jesus through rapid evangelism and church planting efforts that would eventually mean a Christian presence in most nations.  

Nearly 300 years later, the modern era has come to an end, and we are witnessing a massive and rapid shift  and collision of cultures like never before.  Where is the next William Carey?  My guess is he will emerge from one of the many being currently flayed by critics too afraid to join him in his efforts to engage the postmodern world.  Historically unprecedented global migration patterns, which came as a result of now inexpensive global travel and rapid technological advance, has "reset" boundaries of every sort and kind in this new world.  The modern world, which was marked by hard national, tribal, linguistic, religious and even ethic and racial lines is gone.  Everyone now lives everywhere, and thus the way we interact with the world has to reflect this new reality.  But those too anxious to hunch and feel their way through this new global arrangement tend to see compromise rather than effective engagement

3. They have little confidence in the efficacy of the Gospel.  Paul put it this way:  The Gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes."  I still believe this.  The grand story of God's redemptive mission by sending Jesus into the world has no equal in the universe!  No other vain, empty philosophy even comes close!  So if its really true, and it its really that powerful, why is there such fear among Christ followers just because the world has changed?

The only conclusion I can reach is one of tragic irony:  Too many followers of Jesus are actually afraid of the world He died to save!

Maybe its because we want the "old days" back when we sat in comfort atop the mountain of cultural superiority.  Maybe we long for the days when all the non-Christians were "over there," and even those who were "over here" didn't have that much influence.  

In this present world, when my neighbor is as likely to be a Hindu as a Presbyterian, its harder to be trite, simplistic, and distant from those who don't follow Jesus. "Sunday School" answers to their questions just won't cut it.  I'm actually going to have to use my head, and in the process, build a relationship with someone with a radically different worldview.

Yep, I can understand why we would prefer the old world.  But you and I live right here, right now, and Jesus has given us the world we have.  One day, He is coming back.  On that day, will you have your shovel in one hand, and a dirty Mason Jar in the other?  Or, will you have found ways to invest the Gospel in this brave new world in a way that will cause Him to say "well done, good and faithful servant."?

Jesus is Lord over the whole earth, and every part of it, and His is the most wonderful, and powerful story in all of human history, and He has given it to you.  What on earth are you afraid of?