Total Pageviews

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Love my neighbor? What?


I am very grateful to live in a country where our religious freedoms are so vast.  I am free to worship in any style of my choosing, to any god(s) of my choosing, or not to worship at all.

That is why it makes me so nervous that so many of my Christian brethren would willingly limit the religious freedoms of everyone else if they could.  In fact, many of them are so convinced of their worldviews (which they can, of course, back up with clear Scriptural references) that they feel they should be made into law, so that others, even if convicted of different religious tendencies, should have to obey them.

This level of hubris is disturbing.  To think that you can know the mind and will of God to such a great detail that you know what he wants for everyone, and for the nation in general.  To think that, in this country of all places, that MY religion is so much better than YOUR religion (or your LACK of religion) that all citizens should be affected by changing the laws of the land, so as to fit MY religious convictions, making some things  illegal that are currently legal, and preventing other things from becoming legal, even if they amount to more freedom - which seems strange, since, according to the apostle Paul, "where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom" (2 Corinthians 3:17).

It seems especially strange to me that my fellow Christians should take such concern in the laws of the land, especially since Jesus said "My kingdom is not from this world" (John 18:36).

Of course, all of these Christians behave this way out of the best of intentions.  I realize that.  But their efforts seem misplaced.  Their certainty in these matters also seems misplaced.  Yes, they can point to Scriptural examples to explain their stances on certain subjects, and I would never presume to say that those passages aren't real, or that they are misreading them.  However, being able to point to Scripture for precedent isn't necessarily all that it's cracked up to be.

After all, Job's friends certainly had evidence and conventional wisdom on their side when they argued that God rewards the righteous and punishes the transgressors, so OBVIOUSLY Job was misstating the truth when he insisted he had done nothing to deserve his various calamities.  All Job did was continually question God.  So when God finally shows up and blows Job's mind with a glimpse into the length and breadth of his perceptions, what does God say to Job's friends?  "My anger is stirred up against you and your two friends, because you have not spoken about me what is right, as my servant Job has" (Job 42:7).  They had all of the written and spoken evidence on their side, and Job only questioned God instead of making pronouncement about him, but they were wrong and he was right.

Also, the Pharisees and Sadducees  had a virtual monopoly on Scriptural exegesis in first-century Palestine; no one knew the Bible better than they did.  But Jesus countered them on every turn, telling them over and over again that they were wrong in their teachings.

I think that if we Christians just followed the teachings of Jesus (go figure), everyone would be better off.  Look at this passage from Luke 10: 25-37:

Now an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus, saying, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you understand it?” The expert answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and Love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus said to him,“You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”  
But the expert, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem  to Jericho  and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him up, and went off, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, but when he saw the injured man  he passed by on the other side. So too a Levite, when he came up to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan who was traveling came to where the injured man was, and when he saw him, he felt compassion for him. He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever else you spend, I will repay you when I come back this way.’ Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” The expert in religious law said, “The one who showed mercy to him.” So Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”
The story of the Good Samaritan is often thought of by many Christians as a wonderful example of how to help those in need, but that isn't the point of the story.  The whole point of the story is to provide an answer to the religious expert's question, "And who is my neighbor?"  And the answer is radical: your neighbor, whom you should love as yourself, is the person whom you most despise, with whom you disagree the most, whose lifestyle is one that you in no way approve or condone.  THAT is what a Samaritan was to a first-century Jew, and vice versa.  And THAT is who we should be neighbors to in this current age.  We should love our neighbors, not try to legislate against them.

Christians can still be the examples for the nation (and the world) that many of them so desperately want to be.  But for that to happen, we have to stop representing the worst facets of human nature, and instead represent the best.  We should live our lives in the Way that Jesus taught, by his examples and words, and stop browbeating our neighbors.  "You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill cannot be hidden. . . In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:14, 16).

7 comments:

  1. Excellent points Jeremy. I think we too often pride ourselves in thinking we can undermine the work of Christ. We are an extraordinarily sheltered faction of Christianity in America; and though I think we've yet to see the worst in terms of persecution in this country, we can take comfort in that we have something greater to live, and die for. But, to reiterate your point, we, as God's elect need to do a much better job of cleaning house rather than cleaning government. Reminds me of a poem about the resiliency of God's Word (I'll share if only to clutter up your page :)

    Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door
    And heard the anvil sing a vesper chime;
    Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor
    Old hammers, worn with blasting years of time.

    "How many anvils have you had," said I,
    "To wear and batter all these hammers so?'
    "Just ONE," said he; and then, with twinkling eye,
    "The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."

    And so I thought, the anvil of God's Word
    For ages, skeptic blows have been upon.
    Yest tho' noise of falling blows was heard
    The anvil is unharmed -- the hammers gone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jeremy,
    I suspect you probably know me well enough by now to know that I agree wholeheartedly with your perspective here. I certainly want people to have deeply-held convictions about truth, right and wrong, and so forth; however, it seems to me that we ought always to hold those convictions with what I might describe as "a light hand." History (and the Bible itself) are full of cases where people thought they had a clear view what God wanted - only to be called to repentance and change when God allowed "more light to break forth from His Word" (to paraphrase an early Baptist).

    From a pastoral perspective, part of how this translates for me is that we need to worry far less about what we're "against" and far more about what we're "for." How can we - as God' people - lead lives of such 'radiant goodness' and genuine love for our neighbor that others want to discover more of what we claim to have.

    Blessings, O Blogging One!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not sure that I've ever disagreed with a pastor on spiritual issues, but I'm fixin' to. The comment about, "we ought always to hold those convictions...with...a light hand", is disturbing a little. A conviction, by definition, is a deeply held belief, which, one would think that the directives of God's Word would be to a Christian. Therefore, if something is directed in God's Word, are we not obligated to share that information? Saul of Tarsus was stricken down by the conviction of God's Word by Christ himself and wasted no time in offending those who he once conspired with to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Are we held, or bound by the societal definition of "correctness" or "tolerance"? I think that the past 30 years or so of legalism has pushed us back into a realm of fear that prevents us from telling or sharing the truth of the gospel to others. Wrong is wrong. Right is defined and truth is not relative. God does not make exception for culture or popularity. The witness of the ones who perished in the Bible are only a tiny glimpse of the ones who have died horrible deaths proclaiming God's Word and the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God forgive us if we, due to political correctness and/or societal acceptance, fail to shine the light of the love of Christ to others. This is not a statement of argument, but one of discussion among God's people. May God help us to break the bonds of social acceptance, not in a way that turns people away, but in a way that makes us different (or a "a peculiar people") that would cause others to inquire of what we possess. Lord help us, Jesus guide us, and Holy Spirit give us the wisdom to change the world for Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not to speak for Alex, but I think I get what he means by a conviction held lightly. After all, in the examples I gave above, the friends of Job as well as the Sadducees and Pharisees had strong convictions - but were wrong. Likewise, you mentioned Saul of Tarsus, the first incarnation of Paul, who likewise had very strong convictions, until his "Damascus Road" experience convinced him that his earlier convictions were, in fact, wrong. Paul even wrote about not being a stumbling block to other people - even though you may be comfortable with a certain belief or action, you shouldn't make your comfort the important thing, but rather the possible discomfort of others. No matter how strong our convictions may be in any given area, we should also be prepared for the possibility that we could be wrong - as Saul found out himself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I suppose the definition of "conviction" comes into play, or at least the inferred meaning. I make the assumption that in the discussion above that conviction is a belief in Gospel truth, not an opinion. In that situation, I don't find that scripture allows me to be mindful of others misconceptions. Paul's "stumbling block" reference, is not one of other's interpretation..."but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Apologies, but your context is wrong in that. Paul's conviction's prior to conversion were incorrect, but only because he refused to see the prophecy of the old testament in which he was so very well versed, in that Jesus was, in fact the promised Messiah. Conviction, for the believer, grounded in truth, in God's Word, is not something we are entitled to soften or apologize for, it is something we are only to repeat. I do see the relevance of the intention, which is that our opinion on many social matters not related to the propagation of the gospel can turn others away. But, our fear of offending other cannot prevent the Christian from following through with his/her responsibility of our commission of spreading the gospel. This is a wonderful discussion by the way!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think Paul's incorrectness prior to conversion had anything to do with prophecy, but rather an adherence to a viewpoint of Law resting on rules and doctrines, precepts to be kept, rather than faith in God. That's why I'm not too hung up on phrases like "conviction." I don't see that word anywhere in the Gospels. Jesus didn't talk about convictions, he talked about faith. So no, I'm not hung up on doctrines and rules that supposedly define what "correct" Christian "belief" may or may not entail. For me, the word "faith" doesn't refer to any specific beliefs, but rather to commitment. That's why if you cheat in a relationship, you have been "unfaithful" - you have broken your commitment. The Hebrew Scriptures are full of references to the faithfulness of God - because he remained committed to the people of Israel. I have faith in Jesus. I have faith in God. Therefore, I am committed to living the way that Jesus told us to live, because in that commitment and living, I experience God. Beliefs vary among Christians; get together a group consisting of a Pentecostal, a Catholic, a Baptist, and a Seventh-Day Adventist and see what happens. But they all share the same faith. So we who share that faith should pay less attention to abstract doctrines that are derived from various interpretations of Scripture, and just do what Jesus said to do. The rest is details.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completely agree. Stop majoring in the minor, so they say. We know so little about the basics, yet vastness of God's love for us, it does seem silly to argue about some of the thing we do.

      Delete