I asked a question

As I prepare for ministry, I have been avidly reading articles, books, and blogs trying to learn from the great men in ministry who have gone before me. After 4 degrees from the seminary, I have been blessed to learn quite a bit, but Aristotle (in Apology) said it best: "I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others; but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing." After 8 years of wonderful seminary training, I continue to be blessed by and thankful for men of God who are willing to share their wisdom with others.

One of the blogs of respected authors and pastors that I follow is Practical Shepherding written by pastor Brian Croft. I decided that it couldn't hurt to email and ask Brian what life in ministry should look like in the first year. Here is his response. I was blessed by it and pray that you will be too. I am thankful for godly men who make time for younger, much less experienced brothers in the faith. Thank you Brian Croft for your ministry and answer!

A Response to the Chick-Fil-A Controversy

Recently, I was pointed to this blog: http://oddmanout.net/post/28484026012/chick-fil-activism  which is self described as "a blog about being Christian and gay by brent bailey."

I was challenged by what this man said. I read through Brent’s article, as well as his follow-up response to some criticism. I have been following the various articles, blogs, and news coverage of the Chick-fil-A controversy as well. I do not feel like I am an expert on these things, but I do have some thoughts. For what they are worth, here they are.

I took note of some particular quotes by Brent, but the first one to really capture my eye was this one:

"The problem is much bigger than chicken sandwiches and gay marriage, though; the growing trend I mentioned earlier is an unwillingness to suffer with the world in order to empower others to maintain the difficult, counter-cultural values certain Christians profess.  It’s much easier to vote against legalized abortions than it is to help a pregnant, impoverished teenager raise a child.  It’s less work to enforce stricter penalties on drug users than it is to walk with a friend through the torment of detoxing.  And it’s much easier to eat a chicken sandwich in support of traditional marriage than it is to navigate difficult questions about sexual identity and God’s will with actual human beings who experience nontraditional sexuality.  When we succeed in forcing Christian morality standards on others, regardless of their faith convictions, we can assign them all the blame for failing to meet those standards, and we can rest assured of our own impeccable righteousness when we do manage to play by those strict rules.  We don’t have to suffer with others because their suffering is their fault."

I think Brent misses that the Christian responsibility would likely be a both/and not an either/or type of situation. Christians should still vote their consciences, the same way that every other voter will given the chance, however, Brent does hit at a very important issue. Many Christians would rather outsource the issues that we do not want to address rather than hitting them head on in love. I’m not silly enough to think that everyone views confrontation of sin as loving, but I am assuming that there is a mutual understanding that we as conservative, evangelical Christians can hold to. The Bible calls it unloving to let others unknowingly continue in sin.  

Brent’s point seems much akin to the Pharisees dragging the woman from her adulteress bed (leaving the man with whom she was having the affair with in that same bed to escape condemnation) and throwing her at Jesus's feet. They wanted law, but a law applicable to everyone else’s folly. Jesus makes the statement, "He who is without sin cast the first stone.", but I have often wondered if the translation doesn't imply something bigger; something along the lines of "Any of you who hasn't also been adulterous, go ahead and kill her." The reality is that Jesus did get his hands dirty with sinners, tarnishing his reputation for the sake of offering reconciliation (see Zacchaeus, Samaritan woman at the Well, calling Matthew as a disciple, etc.). He didn't deny their sin, but he didn't put off the purposeful actions required in loving his neighbor either. In order to share Christ with others, we must interact with them. The concern would be that legislating morality would just ask the government to do what we are unwilling to plead with the Holy Spirit to do and what we as believers are unwilling to say to sinful neighbors. It's almost as if we are attempting to get unbelievers to a point of righteousness that we feel comfortable with inviting into our churches and engaging with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Obviously, that statement may seem extreme, but I have trouble of thinking of many other reasonable explanations to ascribe to our behavior. A potential response would be that we must preserve morality and Christian marriage for posterity. Saying that we must do these things to preserve a sense of morality for our children denies the very nature of the law written on our hearts in Romans 1-2. We are born with the deep knowledge that we are broken and wrong and in need of God. The argument of preservation of morality then can only go so far. I think there is something else entirely at play here.   

Brent goes on to say:   

"I would suggest, though, that those who are going to advocate loudly for a traditional view of marriage ought to go to great lengths to insure—not necessarily for the sake of reputation, but for the sake of integrity—they’ve submitted themselves to the full implications of the traditional view they’re espousing, because a traditional view of marriage certainly encompasses more than the “one man, one woman” definition to which current conversations have minimized it. "

In the wake of the amendment vote, I heard almost no preaching, teaching, or discipleship occurring regarding divorce in the Christian community, nor sexual deviancy, pornography, or adultery within the life of the Christian. Each of these events invites and celebrates a perversion of the Biblical view of marriage. Where has the response been? I think that the homosexual community, from the few that I have talked to (ashamedly not enough), have viewed our outcry of biblical marriage between one man-one woman as lacking with regard to biblical marriage. I fear that many of the protests are less about freedom of speech, less about God's definition of marriage, and more about an unspoken truth: homosexuality is "gross" and offensive to us and is viewed as a worse sin than others. 

Now, using words like "traditional" in describing a particular view of anything (let alone marriage) immediately brings to mind connotations of old-fashioned and archaic. In fact, C.S. Lewis stated it best when he said that we were prone to "chronological snobbery" when viewing the ways of the past. Just recently a friend of mine was describing why he felt that homosexual unions were okay despite the fact that the Bible clearly states otherwise. His answer: they didn't know what we do now. We are a silly and shallow people and we tend towards these types of statements as it protects us from responding to Biblical truth. I know that my idolatrous heart does the same thing about other issues. We cannot proclaim one truth boldly and then ignore other related truths in the same Bible. It send mixed messages when we have those who would proudly say that they waited for hours on end and then ate Christian chicken three times on an appreciation day, yet would not seek out a homosexual brother to dialogue about the Gospel.   

I was struck on the day of the appreciation at the tweet I saw from a respected friend, stating: "We should be fasting, not feasting." Indeed, that is what scripture commands us to do along with praying and engaging with love when we disagree with others (see Matt 5:38-48). I do not think the lost community is in a better position to understand what Christians believe. If they knew what we believed and what the Bible taught, it would come as no surprise that we vote and support the way that we do. I believe what baffles them is the way in which we disagree and the way we shout down those who disagree and persecute our beliefs. 

I support free speech or else I wouldn't have a blog and various other social media outlets. I think that Dan Cathy was right to say what he did. I support a company issuing a statement clarifying their particular beliefs and, obviously, I support one making statements grounded and backed by Biblical truth. I support the Biblical mandate for marriage and believe all sinners should be called to repentance and reconciliation. Myself at the top of that list. That being said, the appreciation day seemed less about reconciliation and repentance and more about flaunting an ideal, biblical or not. Ironically, it is the flaunting of things of this nature that often brought people to a place of boasting and idolatry that led to entire nations falling. Many a king in Israel has claimed to love God and then married a pagan foreigner or himself worshiped a false God (even the religion itself instead of the Father). My worry is not that we won't take a stand as believers, it is that we will stand for the wrong thing in the wrong way.  (1 Corinthians 10:12 "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall"). 

I appreciate your dialogue on this. I am in need of God's grace and I fear my heart is bent towards a cynical look towards the church that I all too often ascribe to "realistic" views. I desire to rest in hope that Christ can and will bring about glorious renewal in all of this world and that we as believers have been privileged to be allowed to be a part of that.