None left behind

I did not see this story about disgraced pastor Ted Haggard when it first came out, but I am glad I did. It is a story about reaching out to Haggard and raising questions about why we Christians seem to turn our backs on the fallen among us.

The author finds himself reflecting on the words of friends who had told him that they will reject him if he reaches out to Haggard. And that stirs thoughts of Huck Finn.

The Ted Haggard issue reminds me of a scene in Mark Twain’s, Huckleberry Finn. Huck is told that if he doesn’t turn in his friend, a runaway slave named Jim, he will surely burn in hell. So one day Huck, not wanting to lose his soul to Satan, writes a letter to Jim’s owner telling her of Jim’s whereabouts. After folding the letter, he starts to think about what his friend has meant to him, how Jim took the night watch so he could sleep, how they laughed and survived together. Jim is his friend and that is worth reconsideration. Huck realizes that it’s either Jim’s friendship or hell. Then the great Mark Twain writes such wonderful words of resolve. Huck rips the paper and says, “Alright then, I guess I’ll go to hell.”

Twain did not believe in Hell, so far as I can tell, so I’m not sure what Twain thought of Huck’s sacrifice. Did he think Huck was taking an actual risk? I also note that the preacher or person who told Huck he’d go to Hell for not turning in Jim was wrong. But all that aside, the author of the article saw this as a case of sacrificial love in the mode of Jesus himself. Huck was willing to risk Hell to remain loyal to Jim.

I may be wrong, but I think this is the kind of sensibility folks such as the Rev. Dr. Thomas Ogletree have about their choices regarding church law and discipline. Loyalty matters more than consequences. I reflect on this because I am working on a post about Ogletree’s argument that takes a look at the structure of his argument (look for it tomorrow). The Haggard story reminds me that these are affairs of the heart, maybe primarily so.

In case you are interested, here is a video of Ted Haggard talking about how Christians become arrogant. Listen and you’ll hear him say “All means all.”

Can we resist God’s love?

I was reading one of the hundreds of instant-Internet pastoral responses to the Boston explosions, and I came across this line:

Love always wins. I believe that because I believe that God is love, and I believe that God’s love is ultimately impossible to resist.*

It was not Rob Bell, but it reminded me of Rob Bell’s famous book. And I was struck for the first time how Calvinistic that statement is. Maybe it is because this author used a word (impossible) that reminded me of the word “irresistible.”

God’s love is irresistible is what the author is saying. We cannot resist it. In this formulation it is irresistible because it is relentless rather than overpowering in its first rush. But the implication is the same. We cannot hold out against God’s love and grace. Sooner or later, God batters down our resistance. God is sovereign.

What I’m offered by by this claim is irresistible grace combined with unlimited atonement. God will save everyone. And, since that clearly does not happen in this life, we have to move the final acts of the play behind the curtain and backstage.

But what if I am an Arminian? What, in other words, if I believe the testimony of Scripture is that we can, in fact, resist grace and turn our back on God? What if my best understanding of the biblical witness is that some people do and can reject God?That does not mean God stops loving, of course. Arminians would say God’s love is never ending, but that is not exactly the same thing as saying it is impossible to resist it.

The Calvinists object to the “love wins” argument, in part, because they do not accept the unlimited atonement piece. Arminians, it seems to me, have another ground for finding the claims of the argument suspect. Wesley wrote that there were moments when God’s grace was irresistible, but his entire pastoral theology and soteriology were based on the belief that grace was for all but grace could be resisted and rejected.

Isn’t saying that God’s love is irresistible in effect the same as saying that all of Wesleyan and Methodist theology and practice has been built upon sand?

---

*To be fair to the point the author was making, her argument appears to be much more about the power of human memory and will than the salvation of souls, but the form of her argument is what triggered my thoughts of similar statements.

How does sin matter?

I cannot retrace the path by which I came up Greg Boyd’s “sermonette” on Christians voting on secular political ballot measures regarding gay marriage, but I was watching it this morning. (See bottom of this post for video.)

Boyd’s “open theism” is controversial in evangelical Christianity, but Arminian thinkers such as Roger Olson argue it should be included within the larger family of theology that includes Wesleyan theology.

Boyd’s primary argument comes down to “leave the judging to God,” “we all sin,” and “our only job is to love.” He also hits hard on the notion the biggest sins in the church are the ones we talk least about.

Late in the talk he does compare other Christians to the Taliban, which strikes me as a violation of his own principles. He also makes an argument that does not seem terribly in keeping with biblical practice. He says no one should ever point out a sin to another unless they are in a small group covenant to do that. Both Jesus and the epistles, though, speak of how we should approach and speak to those who sin. The Old Testament, of course, has very strong examples of ways of speaking about sin and to sinners.

Near the end of the video, Boyd almost seems to enter a contract with the congregation. He points out that nearly all of them are sinning by the way they hoard up their wealth instead of distributing it to the poor. But instead of pressing that point on them, he — to my ears — offers a deal. He won’t make a big deal about that if they don’t make a big deal about other sins.

I think the video captures perfectly the arguments and accommodations that many of us make with sins of all sorts. What I struggle with — in the end — is whether that is loving, as Boyd argues it is. He begins the video by stating that lots of ways Americans have sex are sin, but, in the end, he does not appear to believe that much is at stake in that. He appears to think most or all of his congregation are sinning by the way they use money, but he does not seem to think they are put at risk by that, at least not grave risk.

I presume Boyd would not take such a laid back attitude if he knew someone were drinking arsenic. I presume he would permit us to stop someone if we saw them stumbling into traffic. Maybe I am wrong about that.

As the focus of this blog is Wesleyan theology, I will note here that John Wesley would argue that it is loving to call people to attention to their sin, for if people die in their sin they die eternally. He wrote often, in fact, that to remain silent in the face of sin was the opposite of love.

If I understand Boyd, he would see Wesley’s approach as judgmental.

How does one adopt a radical attitude toward judgment (never tell someone they are doing something wrong) and still treat sin as if it were a grave and dangerous thing?

If you have some ideas about what I am misunderstanding or mishearing in Boyd, I’d appreciate knowing what you hear.

Love fulfills the law

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8-10, NIV)

Paul writes in Romans that the law is fulfilled when we love our neighbor. We cannot love a person and also desire to take his car or his donkey from him. We cannot love her and kill her. We cannot love him and have sex with his wife.

So, is this saying that all the laws of the Old Testament that cannot be framed in terms of love of neighbor are void? And does that mean that we need to understand other laws as being primarily about the damage they do or intend to another person?

For instance, in what way is fornication a violation of the love of neighbor? In ancient Israel and early Christianity, I think, a young woman who had sex prior to marriage was no longer a prospect for a good marriage. She might go unmarried. Her family would never collect her bride price and remain obligated to feed her. Is this the reason fornication was considered a sin? It did harm to the woman and her family. Is it cultural? And if so, does that mean that God’s desires for our life are determined by culture? In a culture in which casual sex does not cause social or economic harm to either party, is it still a violation of the law that is fulfilled by love?

How is your heart today?

In 1751, John Wesley received letter from one who was concerned about the plague of antinomianism among the Methodists. It included these words:

All our preaching at first was pointed at the heart, and almost all our conversation. ‘Do you feel the love of God in your heart? Do you walk in the Spirit? Is that mind in you which was in Christ?’ were frequent questions among us. But while these Preachers to the heart were going on gloriously in the work of Christ, the false Apostles stepped in, laughed at all the heart-work, and laughed many of us out of our spiritual senses: For, according to them, we were neither to see, hear, feel, nor taste the powers of the world to come; but to rest contented with what was done for us seventeen hundred years ago. ‘The dear Lamb,’ said they, ‘has done all for us: We have nothing to do but believe.’ Here was a stroke at the whole work of God in the heart! And ever since this German spirit hath wrought among us, and caused many to rest in a barren, notional faith, void of that inward power of God unto salvation.”

A recent mass e-mail from the Confessing Movement recounted the way evangelical members of the United Methodist Church often get criticized by other evangelicals for hanging out with our liberal and compromised denomination. I think the e-mail misses an important point, though. If we were true to our traditions, most of the evangelicals out there would probably be giving us grief for entirely different reasons. Methodist heart religion has always stirred up trouble.

We confuse ourselves for generic American evangelicals because we use much of the same language. But the Methodist accent often falls on different notes than the Baptist or Calvinist or non-denominational versions of the faith. Justification or “being saved” or “born again” is but the first dawning of Christianity in the soul of a person. It is important, but only as a starting point. If it is not the beginning of a new life and growing holiness of heart and life, then it loses its value. We can unmake ourselves and be unborn. The old self that dies in Christ is a vampire. It will rise again if we allow it.

For many Christians, the key question is something like “When were you saved?” For the Methodist, the key question is always “How is it with your heart?” Our “once saved, always saved” brothers and sisters often speak as if the most important thing in our faith is something that happened in the past. Methodists believe the most important thing in our faith is what we are doing today, right now.

So, I ask myself and ask you: “Do you feel the love of God in your heart?”

God, marriage, and eternal life

A woman who has no faith in God writes in the New York Times about God and marriage.

I don’t have time today to engage in a careful reading and reaction, but I was struck by the way the writer struggled when her husband abandoned his Deism.

Christians and religious zealots might say that deep down I was searching for a sense of peace that only the Lord can provide. Maybe, but I doubt it. I know myself enough to know that I can’t fuse my intellectual knowledge with a blind faith in a supreme deity. It just won’t ever happen.

But I did realize I liked the comfort of other people believing, especially my other half. It made me feel safe. Not believing in something, or not being steadfast in what you’re told to believe, can be frightening. It makes those pesky existential questions in life more difficult to answer, particularly when you wake up at 4 a.m., short of breath from contemplating the finality of death.

Fred’s faith was my safety net, just in case this whole God thing really was the way. With him, there was always the chance that when I got to the bouncer at Heaven’s door and my name wasn’t on the list, I could say, “Hey! I know someone inside.”

I’m struck by how the “cosmic fire insurance” view of faith can be held so firmly by those inside and outside the church. Many in the pews on Sunday would argue the best reason to be in church is to get exactly the kind of ticket to heaven’s gate that she makes a bit of a nervous joke about.

By the end of the article, her doubts are settled down by the realization that she and her husband have a common bond in their disbelief.

It sounds like she would not be much up for talking to a pastor, but I do find myself wondering how I would respond to her thoughts and questions if she came to my church one day with her son, as the article ponders at one point, looking to give him some grounding in spirituality and religion.

Bishop Schol affirms loving, committed same-sex relationships

In the wake of General Conference, some United Methodist bishops are making their own declarations in opposition to the General Conference on matters of sexuality.

Baltimore-Washington area Bishop John Schol made these remarks in his episcopal address to the annual conference:

Today I also want to share with you some thoughts and feelings about the Scriptures and homosexuality. I do this in light of my recent experience at General Conference, the fact that this continues to be a sensitive and difficult issue for our denomination, and also from what I am hearing from non- and nominally religious young people.

The Bible has passages that speak clearly about homosexuality. General Conference has been consistent for the past 40 years in saying that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching and there is no indication that General Conference will change its position in the future. Some wonder if continual conversation about homosexuality just makes things worse for us.

I also understand those who are frustrated because the General Conference votes to keep the same policies and you refuse to accept the General Conference’s decision. I understand that there are those of you who are hurt by the policies of the church and that your humanity is turned into an issue rather than seeing you as a child of God.

I am convicted, however, by what I am hearing from non- and nominally religious people. They, by in large, do not understand our preoccupation with human sexuality. They even believe we “hate gays and lesbians.” They believe we hate people.

Our inability as a church to hold civil conversations and the reality that our debates communicate more hatred than love is a big problem. To us on the inside, our conversations appear important and clarifying. But to those we seek to reach, to those we want to welcome into a loving relationship with Jesus Christ, it appears that we are preoccupied with one group of people. We appear to be single-minded, and maybe even narrow-minded.

Frankly, I was disappointed that General Conference could not even agree to disagree. I think there is a Christ-like path that we, as The United Methodist Church, have failed to find. I feel that, as a denomination, we have not been Christ-like in our discussions about homosexuality.

Here in the Baltimore-Washington Conference we have done a lot better than the rest of the denomination. Our engagement on this issue as a conference two years ago, which provided open conversation that was not condemning but mutually respectful, was one the most Christ-like things we have done.

As our denomination has debated policy on homosexuality, I have not participated in the debate. Rather, I have worked to create space for healthy conversation. Because of our denomination’s inability to admit we disagree and because we are alienating those we seek to reach, I’ve decided to share with you my personal beliefs and how I intend to lead in light of our differences. I do this in the spirit that faithful Christians and good United Methodists will disagree on this and a number of people will disagree with my understanding. I am not trying to change anybody’s opinions or beliefs. I just want to let you know my personal thoughts and feelings, my own struggles and how I will lead when we disagree.

I am not a biblical literalist. I do not believe the earth is only 7,000 years old. I think some of the Bible’s teachings about the place and role of women, cultural and racial practices, polygamy, concubines, slavery, marriage and divorce reflect the context and thinking of the time in which Scripture was written and not the timeless truth of God.

Historically, and in some denominations still today, a literal interpretation of Scripture has prevented women from being ordained, people of different races from marrying each other, and divorced people from remarrying or serving in ministry. A strict reading of Scripture might cause some to suppose that women should not wear jewelry or cut their hair short and men should not wear long hair or have tattoos.

The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God for my salvation. Exegesis and hermeneutics, or in other words, knowing what Scripture meant in its original context and then interpreting it for today, is the work of every Christian.

Contrary to a literal biblical interpretation, I believe that sometimes couples become estranged beyond reconciliation, divorce happens and the divorced people can find Christ-like love with another partner. I believe that women and men are fully equal. I believe that menstruation is part of the normal cycle of a healthy body and that women are not unclean.

I also personally believe that gay and lesbian people are children of God, loved by God and saved through the love of Jesus Christ. I believe that gays and lesbians can live in loving committed relationships that reflect God’s grace-filled love.

I love the Bible. My entire life is centered in studying the Bible and living in faithful obedience to the God revealed in the Bible. It was Scripture that led me to a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Scripture brought me to my knees as a sinner, humbled me through repentance, lifted me in the utter conviction that I have been saved through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and convicted me to join a long and continual discipleship adventure that continues to sanctify my heart.

I do not understand all of the mysteries of human sexuality. I believe that our sexuality is a gift from the Creator to be shared in loving committed relationships. I believe this is true whether we are heterosexual or homosexual.

Good people, faithful Christians, good United Methodists will disagree on this. I want you to know what I think and feel. I want to be open and honest with you rather than to appear not to have an opinion.

I want us not to condemn each other when we disagree. I want us to be able to be open and honest with one another and be willing to listen respectfully to one another. So let it begin with me.

As a bishop of the church, I recognize that I have a responsibility to uphold our Book of Discipline. I will fulfill my responsibilities as a bishop to uphold the Book of Discipline.

I also want our pastors to be pastoral to the needs of the people in their communities they serve. I recognize that this may create a conflict. We all need to do the best we can.

I am not asking anybody to change their beliefs or opinions. I want us to listen to each other and respect each other. And I want us to continue to study and learn.

Today I pledge to you that I will continue to study and discern and make corrections as the Holy Spirit and my study lead me. I also pledge to you that I will treat all people, every individual, as a child of God and as a gift from God. I pledge to be a bishop of the whole church and to lead by respecting all people.

Cornel West, jazz Jesus man

And for something completely different from the previous post … Brother Cornel West talking faith on a talk show.