Milbank on Self-Sacrifice

Giving food to the hungry is good; sharing a meal with them is better.

So, if attention to the other is central for a sense of the ethical, it would appear that convivial enjoyment of another is more important than suffering on his behalf. Moreover, if a person can only be known as other via communication, then I cannot remove myself as a participant in this situation. The German Roman Catholic philosopher Robert Spaemann has expressed this point very well: giving food to those in need, he observes, can occur as a one-way gift from those who have to those who have not, or it can occur in a feast, where all eat together. In the feast egotism is mitigated, since here one eats only if one eats along with others; and yet at the same time one does eat, and so selfhood is not eradicated. This image of the feast suggests for Spaemann that what is supremely good is the ecstatic-not in the sense of departing from life, but in the sense of living life as departing from oneself while in this very departing receiving oneself back again. In other words, beyond the ancient Greek quest for happiness in security, he proposes living convivially through generosity to the other and through receiving back again from the other.

Blocking, Accepting, and Overaccepting

If I read a book superior to Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics in the next twelve months, 2011 will have been a vintage year. The chapters on accepting, blocking, and overaccepting are challenging and inspiring in equal measure. If, like me, you don't know what these technical terms mean, a story Wells tells will illuminate.

A concert pianist was performing at a packed venue. He vacated his chair in the middle of the performance to get a drink of water and stretch his legs. During the short interval a child wandered up on stage. The young boy sat on the pianist's stool and started hitting various keys in random fashion. The sound created was deeply unpleasant.

The pianist was now faced with three choices.

He could "block" the boy. That is, he could usher the child away from the piano and back to his parents in the crowd. He could stop this awful sound.

He could "accept" the boy. He could simply let the child continue until the boy decided of his own accord to stop playing.

The pianist decided on option three, however. He walked over to the piano and stood behind the boy, placing his hands down on the piano to the outside of the boy's. As the boy hit his random notes, the pianist began to play along, turning these notes into an improvised melody which delighted the crowd. He did not block the boy's playing. Neither did he merely accept it. He overaccepted it. He turned cacophony into symphony. He turned water into wine.

We face the choice between blocking and accepting every day, in ways small and big. We can kill the conversation with the old man on the bus who wants to talk about nothing in particular, or we can continue it. We can refuse to play with our eager nephew for "genuine" reasons like tiredness or more important things to be doing, or we can just play. There may of course be legitimate times to block and legitimate times to accept, but for Wells the dominant attitude of Christians should be overacceptance. This is because the dominant attitude of Christ was overacceptance.

The Sermon on the Mount is a string of overacceptance. Jesus does not block the law. He does not accept the law. He overaccepts it. If someone asks you to go one mile with them, don't say no. Don't say yes. Go two.

Then there is the adulerous woman. The Pharisees want her to be stoned to death in accordance with the law. Jesus does not block their demands, nor does not accept them. He overaccepts them - "The people who haven't sinned can throw the first stones at her". His overacceptance breeds the right kind of justice.

Think finally of Jesus's death. He does not block it. Neither does he merely accept it. He overaccepts death; he "out-narrates" it with an even bigger story of life. 

If even death can be overaccepted, what is beyond this attitude?

I strongly encourage you, Christian or not, to read this book. The choice is yours - block, accept, or overaccept!

A Recent Debate, A Sad Parable

Sometimes, Dutch homosexual Catholic priests know exactly what they're talking about:

"I have the impression that many of the debates within the Church around issues such as papacy, the ordination of women, the marriage of priests, homosexuality, birth control, abortion, and euthanasia take place primarily on a moral level. On that level, different parties battle about right or wrong. But that battle is often removed from the experience of God's first love which lies at the base of all human relationships. Words like right-wing, reactionary, conservative, liberal, and left-wing are used to describe people's opinions, and many discussions then seem more like political battles for power than spiritual searches for the truth.
Christian leaders cannot simply be persons who have well-informed opinions about the burning issues of our time. Their leadership must be rooted in the permanent, intimate relationship with the incarnate Word, Jesus, and they need to find there the source for their words, advice, and guidance."

I read this in the wake of a recent debate between uberBaptist Al Mohler (above, rightwing) and some members of the BioLogos Foundation. You can find a summary of goings on here and here.

Sadly, this debate is a parable for the kind of discussions that Nouwen criticises. It reflects a battle for knowledge/power rather than a "spiritual search for the truth" rooted "in the experience of God's first love". I am guilty of such a posture myself. I want to have the best, most defendable moral and intellectual knowledge, and so easily forget Paul's warning:

...if I...understand...all knowledge...but have not love, I am nothing.

Seek Professional Help

This might just be the silliest, most absurd question I've ever asked -- and I've asked a few in my time -- but here it goes anyway:

Is there a moral difference between killing someone in self-defense and raping someone in self-defense?

The notion of raping someone in self-defense is horriffic, of course, if not a downright impossibility. I won't pretent that such an action can actually exist. But then what of killing someone? How is that more morally justified than raping them? How can killing someone in self-defense justifiably exist?

In the words of William Munny,

It's a hell of a thing killin' a man. You take away all he's got, and all
he's ever gonna have.

Killing a man is the last straw. There's nothing you can do to him after that, or at least nothing he'll care about anyway. So why is it tolerated under certain conditions, either by law or our own consciences? Any suggestions, apart from urging me to seek professional help?

Killing In The Name Of - #6

“You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

- Jesus of Nazareth

Recall the six ways to interpret the above passage which aim at diminishing its countercultural, counterintuitive, and counter-Christendom claim on our lives today:

- It doesn’t apply yet.
- It only applied for a limited amount of time.
- It only deals with self-defense.
- It’s only for the select few.
- It’s a moral diagnosis to expose our sinfulness.
- It’s highly contextualised.

The argument of Professor Richard Hays is that the setting of this passage within the context of the entire Sermon and within the wider context of Matthew’s Gospel taken as a whole (both of which are outlined in the previous post) lays to rest five of the six interpretative strategies listed above. (I won’t go into Hays’s laying to rest of the sixth, which is too long-winded and complicated for present purposes.)

It doesn’t apply yet

It actually does. Through his own suffering in the face of enemy hostility, Jesus practiced what he preached. It was on an unknown hill that he spoke these words, and it was on the hill of Calvary that he definitively brought them to life. Moreover, his final message to his disciples is a call to teach all nations to obey his commandments, which includes the command to enemy-love. They (and we) are to continue on from where he left off, acting in the knowledge that he is with us always, empowering us to embody his sacrificial love.

It only applied for a limited amount of time

Matthew’s vision for radical discipleship is not short-term. Jesus is present with the church “until the end of the age”, and so the call to nonviolent enemy-love has not been revoked. As long as Jesus is alive, it still stands.

It only deals with self-defense

There is nothing in Matthew’s Gospel which limits the words of Jesus at the end of Matthew 5 to self-defense alone. Consider the events in Gethsemane, when Peter acts out of violence in defense not of himself, but of Jesus - the most righteous of sufferers. Jesus does not condone Peter’s “violence in defense of justice”, but warns him that “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52).

It’s only for the select few

The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) discredits this claim. As Hays notes, “All baptized believers are to be taught to observe all that Jesus commanded.”

It’s a moral diagnosis to expose our sinfulness

That it does this is beyond doubt, but that this is its primary function is refuted by the concluding words of the discourse. Jesus intends not only for us to hear these words and be convicted by them, but to hear these words and do them. “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock.” (Matt. 7:24)

******

With these hermeneutical escape hatches closed shut, we’re back to where we usually are when we first read the passage plainly: left scratching our heads at the impossible idealism of Jesus’ words, and despairing at the thought of having to take him seriously.

We can concede that he meant exactly what he said, but doing so leaves us hopeless…until we remember who said these things, and what happened next in Matthew’s story. Jesus is one who not simply has the authority to command, but the authority to bring into being what he commands. His words come with power - power to heal, power to restore, power to transform.

If relentless enemy-love is idealism, it is an idealism that was really realised in the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. His actions have re-defined reality, and he really intends for his disciples to enter into that new reality, where suffering for righteousness’ sake is not a tragic end, but the beginning of something beautiful that will last forever.

Killing In The Name Of - #5

The Sermon on the Mount is considered by Hays to be “Jesus’ basic training on the life of discipleship”. It is a disclosure of kingdom life. In light of Jesus teaching from a mountain a la Moses in the book of Exodus, Hays calls the contents of the Sermon a “new Torah” or “a definitive charter for the life of the new covenant community”. New Law? I don’t think so, but Hays’s basic point remains.

The sermon is addressed specifically to disciples of Jesus (Matt. 5:1-2) but within earshot of the crowds, who, we are told at the end of the discourse, “were astounded at his teaching” (7:28-9). As Hays perceptively notes,

The instruction for the disciples takes place openly before the crowd, emphasizing Matthew’s conviction that the community of disciples is called to be a light for the world (5:14-16). The disciples are called to live in accordance with the stringent standards articulated in the six antitheses precisely because of a concern to exemplify the reality of the kingdom of God in a pluralistic and sinful world.

Life in this kingdom is upside-down, or more accurately, rightside-up, with the meek, the poor in spirit, the persecuted all considered “blessed”. It is, in sum, a kingdom “full of surprises”, with perhaps the biggest surprise of all being the kingdom call to enemy love. Hays goes on to say,

Instead of wielding the power of violence, the community of Jesus’ disciples is to be meek, merciful, pure, devoted to peacemaking, and willing to suffer persecution -- and blessed precisely in its faithfulness to this paradoxical vision.

That, rather briefly, is the immediate context of our passage in question (Matthew 5:38-48).

What of the wider context - Matthew’s Gospel?

Hays cites some events in the life of Jesus which can be seen to embody his ethical teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 4 -- the temptation narrative -- Jesus renounces Satan’s view of a power-wielding messiahship, and instead dedicates himself to the humble service of God. There are also the three “passion predictions” (16:21-3; 17:22-3; 20:17-19) in which Jesus foretells of his being “persecuted for righteousness’ sake”, and bids any would-be disciples to follow in his footsteps (16:24-6). Most significantly, there is the passion narrative itself. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus aligns himself completely to the will of the Father, which is the way of the cross. As Hays remarks, “the death of Jesus exemplifies the same character qualities that are taught as normative for Jesus’ disciples in Matthew 5”.

The end of Matthew’s gospel -- while pointing forwards to the spread of the gospel into all nations -- also points backwards to the teachings of Jesus. The Great Commission involves, fundamentally, “teaching [all nations] to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20, my emphasis). As I said recently in another blog post, the resurrection of Jesus not only vindicated him as a person, but also vindicated his way of life, specifically his sacrificial love. Disciples of Jesus are now called to embody and re-enact that love, and to teach others what was taught by Jesus in word and deed. According to Hays,

This conclusion to the story makes it abundantly clear that Matthew does not regard the discipleship of the Sermon on the Mount as an impossible ideal. It is, rather, the way of life directly commanded by Jesus, who possesses “all authority in heaven and on earth.” The calling of discipleship is not impossible, for the powerful risen Lord is present in and with the community: “Remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (28:20b).

That is not to say that there will be perfection, for correction and forgiveness are to be hallmarks of the community of faith. If the life of discipleship admits to anything, it admits to failure and thus the need for forgiveness from God and from others.

Where does all of this leave the list of Sermon interpretations from a previous post? We’ll return to that (in light of the above) in the next installment.

Killing In The Name Of - #3

Professor Richard Hays begins his argument with a story of a picture. The canvas is a window in a small Washington D.C. church. It is a stained-glass window, portraying the Good Shepherd, Jesus, who is carrying a lamb in his arms. At the foot of the window we read, “Testimonial to the boys of the parish who served in the Great War.”

This picture (and many others like it in churches throughout Europe and North America) tells its own story. It bears silent witness to the reality that the church has accepted war as something which is sometimes necessary for Christians to engage in. It may be a lamented reality, a “sad duty”, but its fittingness as occasional Christian practice has rarely been brought into question by the church, according to Hays at least.

The sentiment of the stained-glass window is that the “boys” who fought -- and who possibly died -- in the war are safe in the comforting arms of Jesus. However, Hays highlights the unintentional irony of this iconography in the form of a question: Is it appropriate for those who profess to be followers of the gentle Shepherd to take up lethal weapons against enemies? Broadly speaking, the question being dealt with is the following:

Is it ever God’s will for Christians to employ violence in defense of justice?

Christians can and have come up with a positive answer to this question, albeit with some positive answers being more thought-out and informed than others. Hays cites Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s decision to participate in the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler as an example of one such informed answer, and also cites a less known story involving a less informed positive answer to balance the scales. This particular story was reported by a newspaper in 1986 as follows:

An Ozzy Osbourne concert has been cancelled after protests and threats against the singer’s life…in Tyler, Texas, where the controversial British rock star was to appear Saturday. Several groups, including religious leaders and the City Council of PTA’s, said Osbourne represented anti-Christian values… County Sheriff J.B. Smith told Osbourne’s security chief of anonymous threats against the singer, including the use of fire and dynamite.

As Hays muses, ‘When we hear threats to commit terrorist murder as a way of preventing a singer from representing “anti-Christian values”, we cannot help but wonder what “Christian” values are being defended’. Hays sees this mentality as an affliction derived from Cain - that affliction is the impulse to impose our will through violence.

The church has obeyed this impulse in obviously distorted and perverted ways. Pacifists and non-pacifists [?] will of course agree on that, and join together in condemnation of senseless murder - genocide, even (with the recent ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia given as an example of such perversion). “But what are we to say about the Catholic military chaplain who administered mass to the Catholic bomber pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki in 1945?”, asks Hays. This incident is quite close to home for us in the West, which is perhaps one of the reasons condemnation of these actions has not been universally meted out. Yet after reading the following penitent words of Father George Zabelka, it is hard to see why that remains the case.

To fail to speak to the utter moral corruption of the mass destruction of civilians was to fail as a Christian and as a priest as I see it…I was there, and I’ll tell you that the operational moral atmosphere in the church in relation to mass bombing of enemy civilians was totally indifferent, silent, and corrupt at best -- at worst it was religiously supportive of these activities by blessing those who did them…Catholics dropped the A-bomb on top of the largest and first Catholic city in Japan. One would have thought that I, as a Catholic priest, would have spoken out against the atomic bombing of nuns. One would have thought that I would have suggested that as a minimal standard of Catholic morality, Catholics shouldn’t bomb Catholic children. I didn’t. I, like the Catholic pilot of the Nagasaki plane, “The Great Artiste,” was heir to a Christianity that had for seventeen hundred years engaged in revenge, murder, torture, the pursuit of power, and prerogative violence, all in the name of our Lord.

I walked though the ruins of Nagasaki right after the war and visited the place where once stood the Urakami Cathedral. I picked up a piece of censer from the rubble. When I look at it today I pray that God forgives us for how we have distorted Christ’s teaching and destroyed his world by the distortion of that teaching. I was the Catholic chaplain who was there when this grotesque process that began with Constantine reached its lowest point - so far.

Aside from being a poignant example of repentance, these words speak loud and clearly against the Cainic [?] impulse to impose our will through violence that has so plagued the church for centuries. For Hays, these words of Father Zabelka bring to mind the story of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, because “the things that make for peace” were hidden from her eyes (Lk. 19:41-42).

Before getting into the key text in Matthew 5, Hays briefly touches on the “just war” tradition, which he says “was developed in Christian theology precisely as a check against the indiscriminate use of violence and, at the same time, as a way of articulating norms that would justify the participation of Christians in armed conflict under the authority of the state.” The question is, can the just war tradition be justified on the basis of New Testament teaching? Fr Zabelka’s answer is that the just war theory is “something that Christ never taught or even hinted at”. In turning next to the Sermon on the Mount, we will discover just what level of truth there is in that claim.

Killing In The Name Of - #2

Before we get stuck into some key biblical texts to do with violence or lack thereof, Professor Hays makes some important preliminary remarks on what he calls “The Pragmatic Task”, i.e. making specific judgments regarding ethical issues. This task is the fruit of Moral vision’s first three tasks: (1) surveying the moral visions of the NT writers, (2) examining their coherence, and (3) searching for a suitable way to interpret the texts. Each task builds up to (and is in fact meaningless without) some answers to Hays’s practical question, How shall the Christian community shape its life in obedience to the witness of the New Testament?

This is a question that is not often asked by our churches, or if it is asked, it is only asked in relation to certain issues we’re relatively comfortable in dealing with. This leads Hays to tangentially but accurately state that,

One reason that appeals to the authority of Scripture often seem unconvincing is that the church has been inconsistent in shaping its life according to Scripture. For example, some voices in the church have insisted stoutly on the normative authority of a few texts dealing with sexual morality while ignoring or finessing equally clear New Testament teachings on possessions and violence. In such circumstances, is it any wonder that the church’s witness is ineffectual? If the church is to have any credibility, any integrity, we must seek to be a Scripture-shaped community in all respects, not merely on selected issues of our own preference.

In dealing with the issue of pacifism, Hays does not claim to be speaking with utmost authority, and so if you disagree with him that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are wrong. What he offers are “discernments to the church in prayerful humility”. These are his own convictions (based on Scripture, of course), which are not put forth to excommunicate anyone but rather to persuade others of the biblical grounds for his ethical stance.

This may all sound a tad relative. That’s your ethic, this is my ethic, let’s agree to disagree. But the nature of the New Testament is such that it is easier to pin some things down than it is others. Hypothetically, if two Christians disagree on whether murder is right or wrong, then it is not simply a case of them having to agree to disagree. Analysis of the New Testament leaves one in no doubt that the person who is anti-murder is in the right, and so to be Scripture-shaped is to be un-murderous. The Christian who thinks murder isn’t so bad is in need of serious change, to put it mildly. “Repentance” might be the pertinent word. But what about, say, smoking? Some Christians will argue that believers shouldn’t smoke (your body is a temple, after all), and some will argue that it is perfectly acceptable behaviour (it is not what goes into a person that makes him unclean, but what comes out of him). Which side of that divide is Scripture-shaped? Or is it simply a matter of the individual’s conscience, as eating temple meat was in Paul’s day?

The point is that ethical issues are not as black and white as they are often painted out to be. On some things we can be sure; on others, we need to be open to dialogue, trusting that the Spirit of God will lead us into truth as we wrestle with ambiguous issues.

For Hays, pacifism is not akin to smoking, a matter of mere personal conscience perhaps. He nails his colours to the wall by saying “I will argue that the normative witness of the New Testament against armed violence is powerful, virtually univocal, and integrally related to the central moral vision of the New Testament texts”. He does not present a take-it-or-leave-it ethic; not on this particular issue. For Hays, the New Testament’s stance on violence (in all shapes and forms) is a whole lot closer to that for murder than it is for something at the opposite end of the seriousness spectrum, such as the aforementioned smoking. As we work our way through his argument, you may or may not end up seeing why.

Killing In The Name Of - #1

My first proper contact with the idea of pacifism came last year, when a friend of mine posed a hypothetical dilemma designed to force one to pick a side. The dilemma went something like this:

If an intruder burst into your home and was about to shoot your mother, would you use lethal violence in order to stop him? Or to attach a religious element to proceedings, would it be right or wrong for a Christian to resist the use of violence in this situation? In short, what would Jesus do? Christians should be utterly concerned about doing the right thing, so what is the right thing in this situation? Or, indeed, is there such a thing?

Well my friend -- a committed Christian whom I greatly respect -- had a very definite answer to what Jesus would do, or at least to what he would do as a 21st century follower of Jesus - he would stop the intruder from shooting his mother using any means necessary. He would employ violence in defense of justice, with “justice” in this case being his mother’s right to life. If for his mother to live an enemy -- a criminal -- had to die, then that was a price he was willing to pay.

Placing the dilemma in front of me, he looked for an ally. I mulled it over, but I could only offer a Switzerland-esque stance of neutrality. At that moment there existed an irresolvable tension between valuing the life of my mother and valuing the words of Scripture, particularly those found on the lips of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount about loving your enemy and turning the other cheek and so forth. I couldn’t commit to simply watching my mother be murdered, but I also couldn’t commit to killing in the name of justice - or at least my take on justice.

The matter of pacifism has lain dormant since then, awakened only by a chapter in The Moral vision of the New Testament which the deals with the issue head on. The question tackled is the following:

Is it ever God’s will for Christians to employ violence in defense of justice?

This series will present Richard Hays’s answer to that question, which is set forth as an answer rooted in the New Testament’s witness concerning Christian ethics. It may prove controversial, it may upset your theological and ethical applecart, but it’s an answer worth listening to, and perhaps -- perhaps -- an answer worth obeying. Let the reader decide.

Confusion With Regards Homosexuality

Following on from the previous post -- which oh so briefly outlined the corporate dimension of sexual behaviour within the church -- is the issue of homosexuality, which is the specific issue addressed by Hays in the quote I highlighted. His chapter on homosexuality is quite short and only skims the surface of what seems like such a large issue today, but it is food for thought nonetheless.

He makes it clear that the biblical view on homosexuality -- while sparse in terms of content (roughly 6 references) -- is that it is a sin. There are those who will claim otherwise by either ignoring the Bible or mistreating its texts, but Hays makes it clear that the biblical voice on this topic is univocal in its classification of homosexuality as something contrary to the created order. One of the most relevant passages in the discussion is Romans 1, where Paul writes that,

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

This may sound like a harsh condemnation of homosexuality; it being a thing which provokes the "wrath of God". However, as Hays argues, this passage isn't speaking of homosexuality as that which is a provocation of the wrath of God but rather as something which is a consequence of God deciding to "give them up" to their desires. But who are the "them"? Gay people? Well, yes, but certainly not exclusively. The "them" is those who refuse to acknowledge God as God; those who substitute created things for the Creator, which is the essence of sin. Homosexuality is therefore a symptom of that great exchange. But it is not the only one.

For Paul, the same exchange which leads to homosexual acts also leads to envy, strife, gossiping, dishonouring of parents, and other such things. This is why he can write in chapter 2,

"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things."

Note: He doesn't say those of you who gossip may judge homosexuals, since theirs is the more abominable sin. For Paul, the overarching sin of humanity is human beings substituting themselves for God. Homosexuality is a symptom of this substitution, but it doesn't appear to be any greater a symptom than lying. Is that not a sobering thought for those of us who pat ourselves on the back for at least having the right sexual orientation?

One could be forgiven for thinking that the above is not actually good news for homosexuals but simply bad news for everybody. However, as Hays rightly points out, God's "giving up" of sinful humanity, and specifically homosexuals, is not the last word. Our sin is substituting ourselves for God, but God has dealt with this by substituting Himself for us in the person of Christ. Romans, far from being a book concerned with condeming homosexuals, is a book about the gospel, and the gospel is good news about the love of God shown forth in Jesus, which is a love that reaches to gay people as much as it reaches to the rest of us. God's mercy does not cease when it encounters homosexuality. YHWH has been branded as a homophobe by some, but this accusation clearly fails to take into account the sacrificial death of Jesus on behalf of homosexuals. As Hays puts it, homosexual persons "are the objects of God's deeply sacrificial love". Not the first sentence you think of when Christianity and homosexuality collide, eh?

I write this as I grapple with my confusion with regards homosexuality. No no. Not that kind of confusion. Being straight may not have been a resounding success so far, but I'm not going to give up on it just yet. My area of confusion is rather dealing with the issue should it arise in my sphere of life, like say a friend who has homosexual tendencies looking to make an advance on me for some kind of advice from me. Thus far nothing like this has happened, but I honestly don't know how I'd say if it ever does, which is why I have turned to Hays' book on ethics. It certainly doesn't present me with all of the answers I'm looking for, and this post is by no means the final word on homosexual tendencies within the church, but I can sense a shift in my outlook as I wrestle with its contents. This shift is summed up in Hays' response to the question, "Can homosexual persons be members of the Christian church?":

"This is rather like asking, "Can envious persons be members of the church?" (cf. Rom. 1:29)...De facto, of course, they are. Unless we think that the church is a community of sinless perfection, we must ackowledge that persons of homosexual orientation are welcome along with other sinners in the company of those who trust in the God who justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). If they are not welcome, I will have to walk out the door along with them, leaving in the sanctuary only those entitled to cast the first stone."

Affects the Whole

The New Testament never considers sexual conduct a matter of purely private concern between consenting adults. According to Paul, everything that we do as Christians, including our sexual practices, affects the whole body of Christ.

Come to Christianity, where your sex life is a matter of public interest.

Not quite. In fact not at all, at least in my experience of church life. But for the apostle Paul, dealing with sexual ethics was part of the challenge he faced at Corinth. A son was sleeping with his mother-in-law, and some members of the church were making the most out of the high prostitution levels at Corinth. If something like that came out in a church today I'd imagine the building would be burned down along with everyone in it. But what did Paul do? Well he sent a letter, explaining that our sex lives matter to Christ and to those who belong to Him, so how about reflecting that in our behaviour people!? He put it more eloquently and more theologically than that, but his point was, as Hays wrote above,

"...everything we do, including our sexual practices, affects the whole body of Christ."

The consequences of this are legion, but to finish this late-night post here's one that springs to mind: When dealing with any kind of sexual misconduct within the church, love for a fellow member of Christ should be the motivation behind the words said and the actions taken. It's just unfortunate that that is not always the case.

Did God Really Say...?

Just in case your finger isn't on the pulse of pop music today, there is some 'big news' floating around which I was unaware of until yesterday. Now normally I like to keep myself abreast of all the goings on in the current stars' lives, but somehow this piece of information escaped me. The current big star in question, the pop star all the kids are talking about is of course one Sir Cliff Richard (as if I needed to tell you).

Sir Cliff, like pretty much every other person who considers themselves even remotely famous (I'm looking at you Jaap Stam), has written an autobiography. And if that simple fact isn't 'big news' enough for you, well there's more. It's what is contained within the pages that is the real news. Cliff (and forgive me if I'm about to shock any life-long fans of his), has, um, well, a male "companion". In teenage girl speak, he is now bff's with a former priest by the name of John McElynn. I'm not implying anything about their relationship; I'm just saying. And also, in completely unrelated news, Cliff also writes in his autobiography that the Church of England needs to allow gay marriages.

Like me, you may be a bit cynical about this. He has admitted to having a male companion (do people still use that word?) and also admitted to wanting a change in the Church's stance on homosexuality. The temptation here is of course to put two and two together. But since Cliff hasn't explicitly said he's gay, I'll refrain from making that seemingly glaring deduction.

What I will comment on are Cliff's in-no-way-self-serving views on homosexuality, as quoted in his autobiography. In fact, Cliff's views are possibly shared by many, so I shouldn't restrict them to being the views of only one man with an ex-priest as his companion. That would be narrow-minded of me.

Here's the extract I'll explore:

I think the Church must come round and see people as they are now. Gone are the days when we assumed loving relationships would be solely between men and women. It seems to me that commitment is the issue, and if anyone comes to me and says: 'This is my partner; we are committed to each other', then I don't care what their sexuality is. I'm not going to judge; I'll leave that to God.

Based on this extract, there is one prominent question in my mind, one question that everything hinges on, and that is, 'Does Cliff believe what the Bible has to say?' He talks about God, but does he believe God?

Cliff says that 'gone are the days when we assume loving relationships would be solely between a man and a woman'. Well, I feel I must remind or inform my reader that if you were to pick up a Bible and start from the very beginning, it would only take an hour, maybe less (depending on how quick a reader you are), to come across the days when relationships were no longer exclusively between a man and a woman. We're not told of any 'loving relationships' between men, but we do know that men were with men, so in all likelihood there were some 'loving relationships', whatever that means.

The point I'm getting at is that homosexuality isn't a modern phenomenon. It's not something that has been conjured up in the last 100 years. It's not something God just didn't see coming, and therefore He hasn't been able to make His views known on the matter. The days when men were exclusively with women are long gone. Cliff seems to think that 'sexual liberation' was something fashioned in the 60's, but if you believe the Bible (and if you don't, then you should really consider a different religion to Christianity), then you will be aware that free, hedonistic attitudes to sex have existed almost since the beginning of time.

So in one sense, Cliff is actually right. Gone are the days indeed. However, the days are long gone, and God has not remained silent on the issue. His Word has not left itself open to re-interpretation on homosexuality based on a cultural swing (which actually swung in Genesis 19). Therefore when Cliff states that "The Church needs to come round and see people as they are now", he is basically calling for an absolute truck-load of Scripture to be ignored, or to be dismissed as being culturally irrelevant. True there are many laws in the Bible that have been abolished by God based on cultural changes or the New Covenant, but we don't get to just pick and choose which ones to do away with and which ones to keep. We live under a theonomy, not an autonomy.

Based on faithful biblical interpretation, it's as clear as day that God's views on homosexuality were not cultural. I mean if you think they were, then you might as well say that lust is no longer a sin, because they didn't have widespread internet pornography back then, so Jesus didn't really take into account our culture today when he talked about this issue in the Sermon on the Mount. It's absurd to try and twist the Bible in order to justify ourselves, yet we are of course all guilty of this. From homosexuality to lying, we all try and excuse our actions by calling into question the Word of God. For this practice I certainly don't single Cliff out.

When we read about Satan's role in the Fall, the very first thing he says to Eve is 'Did God really say...?'. He didn't present sin in its true colours, he didn't tell Eve to flatly disobey God. He came to Eve and brought the Word of God into question. There is no device of the devil more devious than this, and so we are to be constantly on our guard, knowing unequivocally what God's Word teaches us.

No Church has the right or the power to change the Word of God. Or at least no Church should have the right or the power. Only Jesus Himself, the Head of the Church, can alter anything, but since He has already given us everything we need for life and godliness, there is no biblical reason for a change in the Church's stance towards homosexuality - just like there is no biblical reason to change our views on lust or lying, no matter how committed a liar you are.

Cliff goes on to say that "it seems to me that commitment is the issue'" "It seems to me"? Based on what, Cliff? Well we're not told why it seems to Cliff, but I'm guessing his autobiography doesn't go into his reasoning, so we're left in the dark. As a word of caution however, the phrase 'it seems to me' is a dangerous one when it's not backed up by anything but our own gut feelings or preferences. If you can point out instances in this blog when I say something like that but give no attempt at sound reasoning, then do please inform me, because I need to cut any of that nonsense out.

Anyway, Cliff seems to think that commitment is the issue. Not heterosexual marriage, not homosexual marriage, not even heterosexual commitment. Cliff has widened the path so much as to encourage every single person involved in a committed relationship to just keep it going, because commitment -- and nothing else -- is the issue.

This may sound very kind and loving and so forth, but it really isn't. By saying "I'm not going to judge; I'll leave that to God", we may think Cliff very noble and biblically minded. Not so.

Say a Christian friend of mine comes to me and says, "OK Declan. So I'm sleeping with my girlfriend, and I know the Bible doesn't actually approve of that, but we're committed to each other. Is this alright?". Would I be loving that person well if I just replied "Well, it's not my place to judge, so go ahead. After all, it seems to me that commmittment is the issue God is most concerned about". No, I wouldn't. In fact I'd be bringing judgement upon myself by saying such a thing (Isa. 5:20).

Loving that friend would involve setting him straight. It might not be the easiest of tasks, but it would demonstrate a heart that truly cared for him - a heart that wanted God's will for His life. I wouldn't be judging him by revealing God's Word to him, showing him the error of his ways, and strongly encouraging him to turn to Jesus in repentence and live a godly life. Judging is something entirely different. We are called to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15), and I would hope I have the courage to do so in such times.

Jesus said that He didn't come to judge the world, but to save it. He could have judged the world then and there and we wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, but He didn't. Instead He came to save us, which begs the question - Save us from what? Well, to cut a long story short, from the penalty of sin, which is the wrath of a holy and righteous God. If you want a passage that falsifies everything that Cliff Richard and others of a similar viewpoint say, then you need look no further than Romans chapter 1:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things...For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

It doesn't get much plainer than that. Of course we know that's not the end of the story. We know there is hope, despite the fact that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". As I mentioned earlier, Jesus came to save the world, not to judge it. But one day the whole world will be judged by God (as Sir Cliff rightly noted), and His wrath will be poured out on all unrighteous suppression of the truth.

However, the message that Cliff seems to be heralding is for us to exchange biblical truth for a lie, which is eternally damaging for all who believe it. He can sugar coat it with nice words, but that's what is at the heart of the little extract I quoted earlier, whether he intends it or not. And of course one cannot be saved if one doesn't acknowledge the truth.

Now I'm not saying that we go around telling practicing homosexuals that they are destined for hell a la Wetboro Baptist Church (who, for the record, are just flat out wrong in all that they do and teach). Though 'homosexuals end up in hell' (whatever that means) is found in the Bible (1. Cor 6:9), it is not the message that we are called to teach. We might as well go around preaching that coveters, liars and extortioners are on their way to hell too, if that's our job description. And what's more, we might as well go around preaching that everyone is going to hell, including us, because as Paul makes clear in the first three chapters of Romans, we all stand guilty before God as transgressors of His righteous law.

We are called to make disciples - to teach people. But not to just teach people according to our preferences or ideas. We are to teach people the truth, which is Jesus Christ - the Son of God who died for our sins and was raised to life. We are also to teach people what is true - as it is revealed in God's word - in the light of Christ's redemptive work.

Cliff Richard, in calling for a change on what God views as sin, is not teaching what is true. You may not think he's teaching at all, but unfortunately he is. When he says that he thinks commitment is the issue, he's teaching us his ideas, and some will read that and think, "You know, maybe Cliff is right". Well, if I haven't made it clear enough already, Cliff isn't right. Not because he's out of sync with my preferences. Not because 'it seems to me' he's not right. But because the Bible clearly teaches something different to what Cliff is teaching.

You may wonder, "Well so what if he's teaching this wrong view of sin? Isn't teaching faith in Jesus enough?". A short answer to that is 'no'. Jesus said that you will know who men follow by their fruits. You cannot encourage someone to profess a faith in Jesus without encouraging them to live godly lives. The two go hand in hand. Our faith alone saves us, but saving faith produces works and a desire to obey God, because Jesus is now Lord of your life. As James writes, 'Faith without works is dead'. By teaching wrong views on sin, you are not producing disciples of Jesus, but disciples of some other person who is like Jesus, but not the real thing.

As with Eve in the garden of Eden, the Word of God is being questioned when ideas like those of Sir Cliff Richard are put forth. Cliff might as well be asking, "Did God really say that homosexuality* is a sin?". It's a cunning question, and we must be careful to know just what exactly God does have to say on the matter, as unpalatable as it might be for some people.


* When I say 'homosexuality', I'm talking about someone who has given their life over to the practice. There are Christians who no doubt struggle with homosexual desires, but look to God to overcome them, just as there are Christians who battle with heterosexual lust (i.e. every single male Christian). And of those who have adopted the homosexual lifestyle, it's of course the Christian's job to love these people as our neighbours. This piece isn't supposed to act as a speech every Christian must say to gay people. After all, you can have all the correct doctrine in place, but if you have not love in your heart then it will profit you nothing