I recently spoke at a Junior High retreat where I was responsible for communicating the gopsel message to a group of teenagers. By the end of the retreat there was an opportunity to say yes to the gospel (pretty standard formula) and many responded.
Often times, at retreats like these someone will tell those who made "first time decisions" that if they died tomorrow they would now go to heaven. This statement is made assuming that they do not stop following Jesus or believing that he is Lord. This is the context into which I was first introduced into the Kingdom of God and while I have my own issues with it, I do not deny that this kind of experience affected the outcome of my life completely and totally.
Flash forward to adulthood.
We now have huge divisions in the Church over sexuality (especially the Episcopal tradition). We even find ourselves saying that those who believe that same-sex unions are valid and God ordained are not Christians and do not follow Jesus anymore. The funny thing is, many of them probably came into the Church much like those kids this weekend and much like me. When they told us we were going to heaven as long as we continued to follow Jesus, it wasn't dependent upon our interpretation of passages in Leviticus or Romans about sexuality, it was on our interpretation of certain passages in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and some less controversial passages in Romans).
I am finding a discrepancy in the reasoning of the Evangelical tradition that tells a seventh grader, "if you were to die tomorrow you would go to heaven," and then tells them when they are adults, "you think homosexuality is okay so you cannot be a Christian, you clearly do not believe in the authority of scripture or Jesus." What about the verses in Leviticus about wearing clothes of two materials or those in Corinthinas and Timothy about women in ministry? How can we be so quick to cast people out of the church when they have not renounced Jesus or his forgiveness on account of his death and resurrection? Are there not things we do now that we will find out later were sinful even though we thought the Bible was okay with it? Does that mean we no longer love Jesus and that we can no longer be part of the same church or serve under their authority if they happen to be a bishop?
If this is the way we are going to handle the church entrusted to us, maybe those evangelical retreats need to be long enough to make sure new believers know every correct interpretation of the scriptures before they leave the building. Since this is not possible by any means, should we then start telling them that they need to make sure they come up with the right interpretation as they study the scriptures and walk through life lest they run the risk of educating themselves out of the Kingdom?
We need to trust that God is in control of his church and that those who faithfully follow him will be led into all truth. Otherwise we are lost.
Beyond the Outer Limits
3 hours ago
3 comments:
Interesting post and blog. I sympathize a great deal with this post and I do think, as you say, that there is a major discrepancy in Evangelical reasoning. I wonder, though, if the error lies somewhere other than where you suggest.
“Saying yes” to the gospel - in my mind - is being baptized, confirmed, taking the Eucharist, and imitating Christ. In short, “saying yes” to the gospel is participating in the Church. An essential part of that participation – or, to saying it as you said it, “following Jesus [and] believing that he is Lord” – is relocating your source of authority from yourself to the Church of Jesus Christ. That’s just part of the deal and a part that I think people should be made aware of if they want to become a Christian.
The issue you bring up – “those who believe that same-sex unions are valid and God ordained” – is a nice illustration. As you set the problem up, it seems that one could hold any number of interpretations of Scripture and still “have not renounced Jesus or his forgiveness on account of his death and resurrection.” I think setting it up that way may have skewed the answer a bit.
As it turns out, accepting Jesus and His forgiveness is accepting His Church and Her teachings. I think that is why – at least on interpretive issues that have always and everywhere, regardless of culture, time, or denomination been constant – we have to hold particular interpretations and views in order to be Christians. It isn’t so much what we believe about a particular issue, but that we haven’t relinquished authority to Christ sufficiently to be Christians in a proper sense. We aren’t believing as we ought, which, at least to a certain degree, means that we aren’t believing.
In short, you become a Christian by being a Christian, which entails accepting a diminished view of your own authority and an augmented view of Christ’s (the Church’s) authority. That is demonstrated by believing certain things because the Church (Christ) teaches certain things. So, maybe seventh graders should be given a new “standard formula” for saying yes to the gospel. It makes retreat weekends harder, but maybe better.
Your points are well taken. I am curious about what "believing as we ought" looks like. If you could elaborate more one this I would appreciate it.
I would also like to clarify my thoughts a bit. As I mentioned, there was a difficult period after I became a Christian where few would have looked at my life and agreed that I was a Christian. However, I do not believe I was ever out of God's grasp or any less a Christian than I am today (not that many more people would look at my life and consider me a Christian). I had very different views on scripture and Jesus then than I do now. Am I more right than I was before? Is that the goal of theology? Or is it instead a collective conversation about what it means to love and serve the Lord? Whether or not it is right to marry someone of the same gender, does doing so, or believing in its practice, exclude one from such a conversation or from the Kingdom at large?
I guess I am wondering why it seems that hot button topics tip the scales more than anything else?
K
because we live in a society of systems and hierarchy.
As Christians our system is God/Jesus/Holy Spirit first, everything else last. But our worldly parts can't seem to get away from rating all of those other 'last' things. If you are extremely over weight and continue to eat fried chicken and ice cream every day are you not sinning against your own body, God's vessel? But for some reason we are more okay with that than with issues about sexuality. We don't ask people who aren't living a nutritionally healthy lifestyle to leave the church.
I'm with you Kris..we were indocrinated in the same groups 10 years ago and while my life was changed dramatically I have also changed my views a lot since then...especially being a youth director now.
I like what Dixon said on his blog once, "with more uncertainty about things, comes bigger faith" or something like that... I used to be so certain about everything.
j.morgan- i agree with you that people should be made aware of the larger church they are engaging in when they say 'yes' to the gospel, but i'm not sure about the relocation of your source of authority. I think the point of saying 'yes' as a christian is saying 'yes' to Jesus. And then that makes you a part of the church, but authority still lies in Christ. The church gets things wrong. So I would say that full authority lies in Christ and the daily interpretation of that authority lies in the collective conversation of the entire church body.
"Whether or not it is right to marry someone of the same gender, does doing so, or believing in its practice, exclude one from such a conversation or from the Kingdom at large?"-Kris
If one of my friends makes the decision to marry or be in relationship with someone of the same sex, I do not exclude them from myself, so why should/does the church?
-emily
Post a Comment