Dum de dum dee dumm…..we finally arrive at # 15 in my trek through ruminations and explanations of the 15 Undeniable Truths For Theological Reflection. This has been an entertaining little jaunt down memory lane for me (some of these truths date back many years) and I hope these posts have at the least stimulated some thoughts for you.
Here is #15 and its corollary:
15. The practice of doing theology requires the honest appropriation of lessons learned from history. We cannot handle the text of Scripture honestly today if we ignore, or even worse, disparage the work of theologians in our near or ancient past. This is true both of those theologians with whom we agree, and with whom we disagree. To borrow a phrase, “Those who do not learn from history (or past theology) are doomed to repeat it.” History is a beautiful thing.
15a. However, the above truth does not mean that we slavishly follow every conclusion reached by earlier theologians. We must read theology with a discerning eye, knowing that all humans are capable of great spiritual insight, and all humans are capable of great sin. We are to respect our forefathers and foremothers, not worship them.
Those who read this blog regularly know that I am a member of, and minister to, congregations of individuals associated with the churches of Christ. At our best moments we live out the ideal of non-denominational Christianity, simply taking the Bible as the Word of God and, without adding to it or taking from it, we seek to follow all that God has revealed in the Bible. However, when we fail to live up to that ideal our failure is, well, spectacular. In many respects we have turned a movement of non-denominationalism into one of the most hardened denominations you can possibly imagine. Some of our more vociferous leaders have mouthed the words, “we speak where the Bible speaks and we are silent where the Bible is silent” only to speak volumes where the Bible is silent and to remain utterly silent where the Bible shouts. But, I dare you to find ANY religious body ANYWHERE that lives up to its stated goals and aspirations. I would far rather associate with a group that fails to meet heavenly goals than one that meets every earthly goal with absolute perfection. It does not take any courage to curse the darkness. It takes some real vision to light a lamp. I want to be one that lights a lamp.
Oops, kind of got off on a tangent there…
What I wanted to point out was that like many different groups, the Churches of Christ in America have all too often been guilty of a sense of “historylessness” that has crippled it as a movement. If you have a bent sense of humor such as mine this can and does make itself manifest in the strangest of ways. For example, a generation or two ago one of the most prickly invectives you could use against a member of the Church of Christ was to call him or her a “Campbellite.” This is because of the powerful influence Alexander Campbell had in the creation of what has been labeled the “American Restoration Movement.” This movement spawned three related religious groups – the Disciples of Christ, the Conservative Christian Church and the Church of Christ. So, to label a member of the Church of Christ as a “Campbellite” was a real slur, seeing as how Campbell never wanted his name to be associated with his efforts to restore New Testament Christianity, and indeed his goal was to go back to the New Testament and simply live those teachings. Now, what is funny today is that if you called a member of the Church of Christ (especially someone under the age of 40 or so) a “Campbellite” they would stare at you like you had a third eyeball right in the middle of your forehead. The irony is palpable. Older members do not want to be called “Campbellites” because they do not want to be tied to an early 18th century historical figure, younger members are absolutely clueless as to the existence of this early 18th century figure. And so many members of a group with one of the most richest, interesting, and provocative stories in the history of religion in the United States simply do not know of or they refuse to acknowledge their diverse and compelling history.
Hence my 15th Undeniable Truth For Theological Reflection. This one is for me – a reminder of who I am and what my brightest stars call me to be. I need to acknowledge the fact that I could not see as far as I can see if I were not standing on the shoulders of giants. I cannot read my Bible today without hearing the voice of my mentors – some of whom have joined that “cloud of witnesses” that awaits their final reward. But those men (and women!) all heard the voice of their mentors when they read Scripture, and on and on it goes back throughout all of history. You can only read the Bible once as if you had never read it before. Every other time your reading is influenced by your first reading, other teachers, other books, other influences. If we attempt to excise those influences we rip the fabric of our story – our history - and we lose far more than we gain in the process.
The more that I read of Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone and Moses Lard and “Racoon” John Smith and David Lipscomb and many others the more I am enthralled by their courage and their spiritual insights. These men were truly prophets crying in the wilderness. They saw something that was truly unique, and they attempted to get others to see, to understand, and to accept their vision. Their goal was a united church, one that could stand only on the pages of the New Testament, without all of the competing creeds and confessions of faith and human structures. They differed on a great many issues, some of which were substantial. For example, Barton W. Stone never felt comfortable with the concept of the Trinity, because he felt like that was a human word and not a divine word. They differed on the exact meaning of baptism (Campbell was more precise than Stone) and on the invitation to the Lord’s supper (Stone was a little more generous) but they all agreed that if we could return to the New Testament teachings then we could return to a pure church.
In addition to my closest spiritual relatives, however, I am also captivated by the insights of some more distant cousins. I love reading the Roman Catholic Henry Nouwen, and the Anglican C.S. Lewis wrote the second largest section of books in my library. The largest section in my library was written by the Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I also have selections from Ignatius of Loyola, St. John of the Cross, Thomas a Kempis, Julian of Norwich, Thomas Merton, Eugene Peterson, Richard Foster, and Richard Peace. In other words, I try to read as broadly and as deeply as I can, realizing that no one single group has a corner on truth, and that for all of their mistakes and misunderstandings, these men and women all communicated some profound spiritual truths. If the teaching initially comes from Scripture, I am not particularly concerned about who God uses to put it in words I can understand.
But now for the corollary - I must and do recognize that all of these men and women, Campbell and Stone included, are all merely mortal human beings. Yes, they all communicated some great spiritual truths. But they all had failings as well. Campbell and Stone were both blind to the fact that they were creatures of history, and that it was impossible to erase 17 hundred years of history to “restore” a culture that was long dead and buried. As much as I am transfixed by the spiritual insights of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I recognize that he had his blind spots as well. The moment we place anyone, in any time period, as THE model for our teachings or behavior we have created an idol, and God will have nothing of our idolatrous worship.
AND THAT INCLUDES MY INTERPRETATIONS AS WELL!
When everything is said and done I have one redeemer, one savior, one messiah – Jesus. I have one God, the Father and creator of all. The Bible is not to be an idol I worship, but a sign and a pointer to Jesus and His Father. It is they whom I am to worship, not my leather-bound Bible, nor my immediate mentors, nor my long distant and dead mentors. I can learn from all men – some more than others but none exclusively. I can give thanks to God for their insights, but I can never put any of them on a pedestal.
I have a rich history, and you can take it from me when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. I will not surrender an inch, nor a decade, of what has been given to me. My parents gave me something that cannot be bought, measured or sold. They gave me a faith that is over 20 centuries old and is as new as the dew on the grass this morning. It is as real as my daughter’s gentle kiss and as profound as the love of my wife. I will never understand it, but I will always live in its shadow. And that might be my greatest undeniable truth of all.
As I have been working through the subject of pacifism and what it means to be a disciple of the Prince of Peace I have been struck by how easily the conversation can become one sided. That is, it seems a disciple claims to be either an absolute pacifist or a fire-breathing militarist. In my own journey I have come to see how Churches of Christ have moved from a general view of pacifism to a flag-waving, patriotic militarism. There were many reasons for this move, but the end result is that we have lost much of our early message. Now, we are just one small voice in a vast crowd. We have gained political respectability at the cost of biblical authenticity.
To speak of pacifism in the Church of Christ today is to be a lonely voice indeed.
But, on the other hand, to speak of the need for a strong defensive military is to be excluded from those who view any form of power to be a sin. Patriarchy, capitalism, the military – every “ism” that is seen as setting one person against another is a sin. To defend any use of power is to be a heretic in the church of the postmodernist.
So, you are sent to Hades if you do, and condemned to Gehenna if you don’t. That leaves a very thin margin if you want to be in the middle.
Disjointed thought #1 – is power always a sin? Let’s look at this another way. Is sex always a sin? Is eating or drinking always a sin? Is industry and hard work always a sin? The answer is no! Sexual relations, bounded by God’s intent and infused with his blessing, are never a sin. Outside of those bounds sexual relations are a sin. Eating and drinking, for the purpose of enjoyment and to replenish the needs of the body, cannot be described as a sin. Gluttony and drunkenness are sins. Working to provide for yourself and for your family is not a sin. Working to feed your greed and avarice is a sin. Why should power be viewed any differently? Power, when bounded by God’s intent and when infused with his blessing is a righteous gift. Power, used outside of that intent and devoid of his blessing is satanic. But the concept of power itself is neutral.
Jesus, while on this earth, exercised power. He taught his disciples. He cast out demons. He rebuked the Pharisees. He cleansed the temple of the money changers. He demanded allegiance from his followers. He rebuked Satan and Peter. He used the power God gave him, within the bounds God set for him, and for the purpose of achieving the goals set before him. Power in and of itself cannot be viewed as a sin.
A police force that uses its power to abuse, threaten and persecute the citizens it is supposed to protect has violated its invested power. A military that uses its weapons in an offensive, “strike first, kill them all and let God sort them out” mentality has violated its invested power. But a military unit, just like a police force, that uses its power to liberate an oppressed people, or to prevent war from breaking out or from escalating is using its power in a necessary manner. It would be far better to need neither a police force nor a military. But show me a city or town without a police force or county sheriff. It cannot be done. Sin exists. Violence exists. Rape, murder, theft, assault, even traffic violations exist. Remove the police and you would have anarchy and vigilantism. Remove a properly assembled and properly defined military and the same would result on a world-wide scale. Or, at least, that is how I see it.
Disjointed thought #2 – Can violence ever be redemptive? In other words, is violence always a sin, can nothing ever good come from violence? On the one hand this question seems so easy to answer. Never! Violence always begets violence. Spank a child and create a mass murderer (or so goes the common thinking). Violence and redemption are two diametrically opposite concepts, and never the twain shall meet.
Except, is that true? Or, more to the point, is it biblical? Does that thought come from the word of God?
Abram rescued Lot with violence. God “redeemed” the land by destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. God redeemed his people from Egypt in a series of violent interdictions. God punished the people of Canaan by the conquest of the Israelites. God “redeemed” his people by punishing them with the Assyrian and Babylonian armies.
And, the coup de grace, God redeemed the world through the violent death of his Son.
Yes, I know, that last example is one of selfless surrender on the part of Jesus. Jesus willingly went to the cross, and the crucifixion is hardly the example of a necessary police force or a military unit. But, you cannot speak of the atonement without coming face to face with the fact of redemptive violence. It just does not work. Without the cross there would be no redemption, and to argue that God could have worked it without the death of his son is specious. Yes he could have, but he did not. Jesus absorbed all the violence of the violent world to teach us that we should not have to resort to violence any more.
But the rapist and the burglar and the murderer and the drunk driver still exist. Therefore we need a functioning police force that has been given the right to use appropriate power to apprehend the rapist and the murderer and the drunk driver. And the Saddam Husseins and the Adolf Hitlers of the world still exist, and as much as we hate to admit it, they want to murder entire nations of people. Are we to let them exterminate the Jewish nation simply because Jesus said, “Love your enemy?” How exactly does loving Iran or Iraq mean that I have to hate the Jews?
Until someone can prove to me by reference to Scripture and by clear human experience that violence can never be redemptive, I will argue that while it should always be the avenue of last resort, sometimes violence must be employed to redeem an oppressed and victimized people.
Disjointed thought #3 – I see blatant hypocrisy on both sides of the issue. On the one hand are the militarists that claim to only want peace, but their actions prove that all they want is a new nuclear submarine or the carpet bombing of some third world country to solve a civil war in which we should not even be involved. On the other hand are the absolute pacifists who decry the use of any kind of military force, yet will call the local police to break up a domestic dispute down the street. Although hypocrisy is the blight of virtually all human endeavor, we must be constantly on the lookout for it, lest its hidden power rob us of our greatest arguments.
David Lipscomb was absolutely correct, in my opinion, in passionately arguing against the Civil War. Christians simply should not have gone to war and killed other Christians over what was, at least initially, a purely political question. However, beneath that political question was a deeply moral one, and that was the question of slavery. Had Christians followed the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, there would have been no slavery question. Here is where I see the pacifist view as being the correct one. Those individuals most deeply imbued with the spirit of shalom had come to the conclusion that owning slaves was sinful. They freed their slaves and refused to do business with those who owned slaves. Slavery could have been ended without a single shot being fired. However, nationalism and economics trumped theology, and hundreds of thousands of Americans died trying to prove God was on their side.
I am not so sure about Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, Benito Mussolini and World War II. Perhaps it could have been averted. Certainly the allies did not have to levy such oppressive reparations against Germany at the end of the first World War. If the Christians in Germany had rejected Hitler the war would never have started. If Neville Chamberlain had stood up against Hitler maybe he would have backed down. If Winston Churchill had listened to Bishop George Bell and others maybe an agreement with the conspirators in Germany could have been reached and Hitler could have been arrested and tried on grounds of treason or insanity. If, if, if, if, if. Obviously the best time to end a war is before it ever begins. But, what happens when a war does start? What happens when the concentration camps start filling up? What happens when the rape camps open? What then?
I don’t have all the answers. I never claimed to have all the answers. I am reading some good books written by some devout Christians who are leading and shaping my thoughts even as I write this series of posts. My position will evolve over time as I am presented with arguments, both good and bad. I simply want to call for an end to the acrimony in this debate. The absolute pacifists need to declare a truce in their war on the flag waving militarists. And the war hawks need to put their swords back in their sheaths and quit beating the drums. Unless we start talking to each other our arguments are not going to have any effect.
As the preacher once said, (to paraphrase a bit), of the study of pacifism and militarism there is no end. However, at least for the time being, this series does have and end.
May God lead our conversations to the foot of the cross. Amen.
After taking an admittedly all too brief survey of both the Old and New Testaments and what I believe to be one of the over-arching themes of the Bible, I came to the conclusion that what was missing in my re-evaluation of pacifism was the context of my own story. So, although I had originally intended this series to only have four parts, I am going to have to alter that somewhat, and address a couple of issues I had not originally planned to discuss. So, in this post I will share my own journey as it relates to the subject, and then hopefully my next post will focus on what I consider to be a real crux in the matter of pacifism vs. militarism.
I came of age politically during the dark days of the Nixon presidency and the even darker days of the Carter debacle. Nixon was morally challenged; Carter appeared to be morally sound yet was vacuous when it came to leadership skills. Nixon taught us that power without morals was disastrous; Carter taught us that morals without power was no better. Enter, then, Ronald Reagan. I was truly a Reagan believer. When I heard Reagan I felt America had the leader it needed – one with firm moral convictions and yet had the power and the will to lead. It was heady times. America was to be blessed with a new dawn. With the right guy at the controls everything would be straightened out. How could it not be?
Except, it wasn’t. Reagan (and his understudy, Bush) left and we had eight years of Bill Clinton – a lying, promiscuous opportunist who had all the charisma of Reagan with all the moral failings of Nixon. The country veered sharply back to the right and Bush’s son George W. By this time politics had utterly demoralized me. I came to realize that power, regardless of whether it had a moral foundation or not, was not to be trusted. Barack Obama was the final nail in my political coffin. Whether the nation swings back to the right and elects Mitt Romney is, on a fundamental level, inconsequential. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I see no political solution to our problem. Our problem is moral. Our problem is not liberalism nor conservatism. Our problem is SIN.
It was exactly during this period of time in which the political pendulum was experiencing such radical swings that I was introduced to the writings of Barton Stone, and more importantly, David Lipscomb. I read Lipscomb’s Civil Government and was transfixed. I had never read, or heard, an explanation of human government such as Lipscomb’s. But it fit. Lipscomb explained the late 20th century perfectly, even though he was writing at the end of the 19th century. I experienced a second transformation that was every bit as liberating as my first. But, come to find out, I had not arrived at my final destination.
Sometime during all of this “metamorphosis” I was introduced to yet another theologian, this time a young German Lutheran pastor named Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As I read Bonhoeffer another light bulb came on. Something just clicked. Here was the “yang” to Lipscomb’s “yin.” Where David Lipscomb provided a correction to my one-sided and dangerous views of American politics, Bonhoeffer gave correction to Lipscomb’s one-sided (and just as dangerous) spiritual isolationism. It was not that I decided Lipscomb was wrong. Far from it. I believe Lipscomb was closer to the heart of Jesus than any theologian since the apostle John. I just believe that Lipscomb, as are all of us, was a child of his times and he did not stop to consider the extremes to which his position could be taken. In brief, Lipscomb never could have imagined an Adolf Hitler.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood Hitler. And, as I read Bonhoeffer I see a man struggling to want to believe what Lipscomb taught (although Bonhoeffer never read Lipscomb), but was also struggling to deal with the personification of evil itself. Bonhoeffer realized that to do nothing was, in effect, to give free reign to evil. But, the only solution that eventually was open to Bonhoeffer and his co-conspirators was assassination. Bonhoeffer’s most anguished writings concern this very question – not right vs. wrong, but is it ever acceptable in order to achieve some measure of good to do an evil act.
You see, the biggest problem I have with the whole “pacifism vs. militarism” question is that we have created a false dichotomy. The greatest danger is not that we are pacifists or militarists, the greatest danger is that we believe that these are the only two choices. A position of absolute pacifism denies the ability to engage the world exactly in the place it needs to be engaged – where evil seeks to destroy that which is good. On the other hand an absolute militarist does not seek to engage the world either! The militarist only seeks to exercise brutal power to achieve his (or her) goals. The absolute militarist annihilates, the absolute pacifist capitulates. Neither one truly engages the world.
This dichotomy has human legs. Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler and had the murdering little corporal sign a document that Chamberlain heralded as “peace in our time.” Chamberlain was, in one way, responsible for more deaths than Winston Churchill. And yet, and this is a part of World War 2 history that not many people know, Winston Churchill could have saved the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of human beings if he had simply listened to the voices in Germany that were calling for his help. If he had simply responded, in a quiet and back-door method, to the conspirators in Germany that he would be willing to deal with the conspirators if they could eliminate Hitler then the war would have ended years sooner. It might not have even meant the assassination of Hitler, simply his arrest and eventual trial. But NO, Churchill was bent on the utter destruction of Germany. He got his wish. Germany was crushed. But the world lost one of the clearest voices for peace and pacifism that it has ever been blessed to hear. The world does not care much for prophets. Lipscomb’s writings have been all but expunged from the approved teachings of the American Restoration Movement. Bonhoeffer is viewed as a quaint, but somehow misguided and therefore dangerous, Lutheran misfit.
In my ongoing journey as a disciple of Christ I am becoming more and more convinced that Lipscomb and Bonhoeffer were on the right path. Neither was perfectly correct (as no mortal can be). But these theologians, separated by an ocean and just a few decades in time, shared one deep conviction that brought them very close together. They both believed that as disciples of Christ we are to be pulled forward by our vision of the reign of the Prince of Peace. If the crucified one is the vision before our eyes, we cannot be ignorant of, nor uncaring toward, his mission to deliver this world of evil. Sometimes that means we love our brothers and sisters (who might temporally be called our enemies) to the point that we refuse to take up the sword (Lipscomb), and sometimes that means that we love our brothers and sisters so deeply that we have to take up the sword to defend and deliver them, even though the use of that sword brings us under the judgment of God (Bonhoeffer).
I am, and I must be, a pacifist, as I understand it in the biblical and New Testament sense of the word. I am not an isolationist, as I believe that to be “salt and light” in the world I must actively seek to replace evil with good wherever I find it. But neither am I an absolute militarist, as there is really very little that separates the actions of Barack Obama from a Saddam Hussein or an Adolf Hitler. Yes, that is harsh. But if we do not challenge Obama in his indiscriminate use of targeted assassinations and armed Predator drones, when will we challenge him? And at what cost? Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. I want Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s death at the hands of the Gestapo in 1945 to mean more than that. But, even his death is meaningless if we fail to learn the lesson of the death of Jesus the Messiah at the hands of the Jewish leadership and the Roman legions 1900 years before that.
So, you have my story, and I have but one more chapter to add to this discussion. Next up, the myth of the myth of redemptive violence.
In the past several weeks I have been engaged with the related concepts of pacifism and discipleship in a number of ways. One, in reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer for a guided study in my doctoral work I have obviously been dealing with a theologian who had to struggle with the concepts of pacifism and militarism in a way in which few of us can even fathom. Second, in the same course of study I have been reading David Lipscomb, a third generation leader in the American Restoration Movement and a voice who helped shape the southern Churches of Christ as perhaps no one else did. Finally, over the past several months I have read various other authors who have advocated the view the disciples cannot follow Christ and take up the sword. As I have read, studied and mentally debated with these giants of my faith I have been forced to think, and to rethink, my understanding and my conclusions on this subject. Over the next few posts I will share with you my convictions, and the Scriptural and theological foundations which underlie those convictions. While I do not expect anyone to adopt my position simply because I hold it, I do hope that I will raise the right questions, and perhaps lead the right discussion that will allow a person to come to a more informed decision regarding this critical and far too often neglected aspect of our Christian walk. I do not offer these opinions as binding on anyone – except, of course, as that person may find them based solidly in Scripture. The Word is binding, my understanding and interpretation of that Word is not. I pray my journey will be valuable, whether you ultimately agree with me or not. As I usually say as I begin my classes (with my tongue firmly in my cheek) – if you do not want to agree with me you do not have to; if you want to be wrong I am more than happy to let you.
Here is the outline of my thoughts (at least as I have them formulated at this time. As I put pixels onto my computer screen this outline might change) -
- Definitions and positions
- Old Testament foundations
- New Testament clarifications
- Summation: The Disciple and the civil government
To begin with I must provide you with the definitions with which I will be working. If you do not understand how I am using a word or phrase you will not be able to follow me, and you will think you agree with me when you do not, or you think I am a heretic when we are actually in total agreement. So, to begin in the most pedantic way possible, here is how I understand and use these terms.
Pacifism – the conviction that God’s divine presence is preferable to his unbearable absence, and the process by which Disciples of Christ are supposed to reveal the reality of God’s presence in this world. Peace has two dimensions. One is the reality that at its most fundamental level, mankind cannot create peace. We can only accept the peace that God creates and then offers to us. However, the other dimension that needs to be stressed is that peace does not simply float down from heaven as some ethereal cloud. The work of pacifism is the labor that first must prepare someone’s heart for God’s peace, and then must offer that peace to those who are willing to accept it. I consider my self a pacifist in the sense that I want God’s peace to be with all people – beginning with myself, but extending to my family, my nation, and the world I call home.
Absolute pacifism - There is a branch of pacifism that is, to pardon the paradox, militaristic. Individuals who are absolute pacifists are so pacifistic that they get angry and react strongly when their viewpoint is challenged. They also tend to be anti-nationalistic. They cannot stand to see anyone in a military uniform and will leave if anything even remotely patriotic is said. I must say that I do not understand these people. If they are Americans, they live in a land where virtually every single freedom they enjoy, especially the freedom to criticize the government they claim is too militaristic, has been bought and paid for by the blood of soliers. When I write about the strand of pacifism that I disagree with the most fervently, it is this group to whom I am referring.
Isolationism – Another aspect of pacifism that is seldom discussed but is a major component of many people’s understanding of pacifism is isolationism. This is the view that no country should ever be involved in the affairs of another country. Pacifism and isolationism are not synonymous – you can be (and I will argue you must be to a certain degree) a pacifist and not an isolationist. However, I believe it is philosophically impossible to be an isolationist and not be a pacifist. Pacifism is a required first step toward isolationism.
Peace – I hold the Old Testament conviction that shalom (peace) means far more than an absence of conflict. The word shalom is rich with many different shades of meaning, but I feel that I would not be far wrong to suggest that shalom carries the meaning of an all-consuming surrender of one’s heart and mind to the will of God. If God’s presence is real and active in a person’s life, then shalom is present, whether conflict exists or not. Of course, in a perfect situation this shalom should lead to a cessation of conflict, but this world is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, shalom does not depend upon one’s outward situation, but only upon one’s inward relationship with God. One can be horribly conflicted and at war even in solitude, and in the worst of battles and/or conflicts a person can be utterly and completely at peace. While the image is harder to communicate in a communal sense, I believe this is also true of nations. I hope to be able to illustrate this later.
Passivism – This is a concept that all too many people confuse with pacifism. Pacifism as a lifestyle demands hard work. I will get into both Old and New Testament passages in some detail later, but let me say here that Jesus said, “Blessed are the peace makers”, and the process by which peace is created in this world is both laborious and dangerous. It is no accident that Jesus goes on to state in the next beatitude, “Blessed are you when you are persecuted.” I believe it is absolutely critical that we separate the concept of passively sitting on the sidelines, watching and hoping that something good happens, from actively being down on the field working to promote and create peace. Pacifism requires enormous amounts of courage. Passivism is sometimes the result of laziness, but it is also very frequently the result of a consuming cowardice.
Militarism – I suppose I should also include here a description of what I am talking about when I mention militarism. Just as with pacifism, there are several different degrees of militarism. Some, like myself, believe a strong military is necessary for the defense of a nation, just as a police force is necessary for the safety and well being of any community. However, there are also those who are rabid militarists, and they believe there is no problem so small that a good dose of gunpowder and lead will not solve it. As the old saying goes, if you carry around a hammer all the time, eventually everything begins to look like a nail. I fear that America in particular has carried the hammer of being super power for so long that every foreign issue has become a nail. This is one of the reasons I have begun to think, and to re-think, my views of pacifism and the military.
Evil/Good - These are not so much critical in terms of definition, but I must state that in order to adequately deal with the subject of pacifism we must deal with the underlying issues of evil and good. We cannot have the indwelling presence of God as long as we harbor evil in our life. We also cannot share God’s presence where evil is allowed to flourish. One basic premise that I will be working with is that evil must be dealt with in order for there to be any real, genuine peace. Sometimes this evil is relatively easy to confront, sometimes it is not. This is true of individuals as well as communities. Therefore, as we will note as we take our journey through the canonical story of Scripture, sometimes drastic action is required to achieve peace. In terms of nations this means military action at times. This is a fervently debated issue, and I respect those who hold a differing opinion, but (obviously) I believe that one of the themes of Scripture is that God expects his disciples to work with him in the eradication of evil in this world. This is a multi-faceted issue, however, and I hope that I will adequately explain my position in posts to come.
In response to a recent post on Pacifism and the Sermon on the Mount my good friend Tim Archer provided some good feedback and raised some excellent questions. I responded to him that this issue has kind of consumed me over the past few weeks, and that hopefully I would have something more constructive to say in the next few weeks. Well, for better or for worse I offer these next few posts as the fruit of my thinking. I obviously do not have all the answers. I am a pilgrim on the journey of faith – I am an apprentice in the art of theology and preaching. However, it is my belief that I have arrived at a point at which I do have something to add to the conversation. How much, and how valuable, is up to you, my good reader, to decide. I welcome your feedback, push-backs, and questions.
I apologize if this post seems a little stormy. Right now I feel my life is coming apart at the seams and very often this place allows me to sort some thoughts out. I hope that this exercise will be valuable to you as much as it is cathartic to me.
As I have mentioned several times earlier, I am working on a Doctor of Ministry degree, and my last seminar will be focused on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I know there is a great temptation for any scholar to view his work as being the most critical and profound for his day, and at the risk of being overly dramatic, I am seeing more and more parallels between Bonhoeffer’s culture in the 1930′s and 1940′s with our culture today. Not in terms of political powers (I do not want to elevate Obama to the level of Hitler; Obama is just a little pipsqueak) but I do see some parallels between the church Bonhoeffer was trying to save and the church in America. Let me illustrate:
- The Lutheran church in Germany was being pressured profoundly by the National Socialists (Nazis), overtly in some cases and covertly in others. The most overt pressure was in terms of anti-Semitism. This hatred of the Jews was tied to the later writings of Luther, who wrote some viciously anti-Semitic rants toward the end of his life. Once the Nazis had their toe-hold through a mutual hatred of the Jews, they could make sure other, more objectionable, laws were passed without raising too much opposition. Our increasingly secular government is pressuring the church in the same way. First the government attacks those godless terrorists (read “Muslims”) and before long we lose our freedom to speak in dissention to the government or to challenge its authority. First government guarantees the “freedom” for a woman to control her own body, and then the government is forcing religious institutions to pay for elective abortions and abortive drugs. Give a godless government an inch and before you can say “separation of church and state” the state has made every effort to eliminate the church from the people. In this regard I do hold President Obama personally responsible. I believe he is intentionally attempting to tear down the bulwark of religion in America for the purpose of advancing his Marxist/Socialist agenda. If the church remains silent we only have ourselves to blame when we have lost the legal right to speak out.
- The Lutheran church in Germany had long been conditioned through the teachings of Martin Luther to view the world in terms of “two kingdoms.” Therefore, many in the Lutheran church, and especially among the leadership, did not want to challenge Hitler when he first came to power because they felt it was not biblically appropriate to do so. They wanted to take care of the church, and allow Hitler to take care of the government. Bonhoeffer saw the tremendous weakness of this viewpoint. While he never would have proposed a theocracy, he did very much want his church to speak out against the abuses of the government. In America today the situation is almost completely reversed, but the end result is virtually identical. What one group (loosely organized) provides the loudest voice for American nationalism? If you said, “Conservative Evangelicals” you get the prize. We have “national prayer days” in which we pray for God to “bless America” as if America was the only place on earth for God to bless. We pray before our meals and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag before we start school. The party for whom one votes becomes a litmus test as to the orthodoxy of one’s religious beliefs. Lest you think I am making all of this up, I was once asked in the middle of an interview for a preaching position whether I was a registered Republican or a Democrat. For the record, I am neither. I am a Christian. My citizenship is in heaven. Instead of surrendering the reign of Christ to the government, in many ways we have attempted to make the reign of Christ coterminous with the American government. We have fallen off of the other side of the cliff that Bonhoeffer saw his church fall off. The Lutherans would not speak out against the Nazis because of the separation of the two kingdoms. We won’t speak out against the abuses of the American government because we want the church=America=the church. What we must recover is the freedom of the church to speak critically of the government and to stand in opposition to the godless direction it is leading our nation. In this regard I see a very strong connection between Bonhoeffer and David Lipscomb. I would heartily recommend you to read Lipscomb’s “Civil Government” if you have not already done so. Lipscomb and Bonhoeffer approached the relationship of the sacred and the secular government from different perspectives, but their destination is remarkably similar: if the church is to be the church we must maintain our separation from the government, and at the same time exercise our responsibility to critique and challenge that government.
So there you have a brief part of my tortured thoughts for today. Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw his church slipping off into the abyss and despite his best efforts (and the efforts of a many others, I might add) his church did not wake up until they had the deaths of 6 million human beings on their hands. Today the comfortable church in America is in real danger of slipping off into the same abyss, and what are we concerned about? Forming praise teams to keep us entertained during our insipid worship services? Failing that, forming a praise band to wake us up from our consumerist induced stupor? Turning the lights out and lighting a few candles and some incense to make our prayers a little more “spiritual”?
Are you kidding me?
One passage of Scripture that was very meaningful to Dietrich Bonhoeffer was 2 Chronicles 20:12, which says in the second phrase, “For we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you.” (NIV, emphasis mine).
I personally do not think we are smart enough to think or act our way out of this current spiritual catastrophe. I pray we lift our eyes upon God, and pray for his grace to move us back to him. It is the church’s only hope.
Have you ever stopped to consider why airplanes have no rearview mirrors? Actually, I believe there was a model that was produced with a rearview mirror, but it was kind of a novelty. Give up? Airplanes are designed to go in only one direction – forward. If you are worried about what is behind you, just kick the rudder a little and turn your head. Airplanes are designed strictly for optimists and visionaries. Historians need not apply.
I believe therein lies a great message for the church of Christ. As heirs of the American Restoration Movement we look back on our history (at least since the days of B.W. Stone and the Campbells) with pride. Before that, not so much, until we get back to the days of the first century church. So, you might say we have a pair of binoculars attached to our rearview mirror. We are not so much focused on the road behind us, but the distant horizon is a definite attraction.
In one way this is a good thing. “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” We must be constantly reminded of our history, even more so than we claim to pay attention to it today. (As an aside, I would also argue that we need to add the time from from 100 AD to 1800 AD as well.) Just think of how the Israelites were not just encouraged, but COMMANDED to review and even to relive their past. The feasts of Passover and Booths were not just fun holidays – they were actual re-creations of a rich, powerful, and theologically centered past. So, let us be unequivocal here – knowing and valuing ones history is critical for a healthy and sane future.
But I return to my analogy above. You cannot drive a car, much less fly an airplane, by staring in the rearview mirror. Especially difficult would be to do so with a pair of binoculars attached to the mirror. While a healthy knowledge of, and participation in, ones past is critical for the development of one’s future; the goal, the vision, has to be forward. Just stop and consider how the New Testament writers describe the major processes of discipleship: it is a growing, a transformation, a becoming, a renewal. These are all forward looking verbs. It is no mystery to me that the final book of the Bible is an apocalypse – a deeply metaphorical look into the future. But don’t just focus on Revelation. The author of the book of Hebrews says it all in one terse little sentence, “Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.” Look forward, not back. Our rearview mirror is important, but it is to be small and narrowly focused. It is an appendage to the church, not the primary means of navigation. We live our life in the eager expectation of Christ’s return, not in woeful recollection of his temporary death.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said it this way: here and now we live in the penultimate, but we are created by our faith in the ultimate. It is not the penultimate that gives the ultimate its meaning, it is the ultimate that gives the penultimate its meaning. I believe Barton W. Stone and David Lipscomb lived this focus on the ultimate far more passionately than did Alexander Campbell, and it is instructive that as the Churches of Christ have made their peace with this world they have moved further and further from the Stone/Lipscomb tradition and more and more into the Campbell tradition. You cannot have your eyes focused solely upon God’s kingdom and believe yourself to be anything other than a stranger and a pilgrim on this earth. Stone, and later, Lipscomb were pilgrims. Campbell came to make his peace with the powers of this world, and as he did so he took down his tent and built a house. He ultimately became a very much a citizen of this world.
I love the history of the American Restoration Movement. I also love reformation history, medieval history, and both pre-and post Nicene history. But history can only be instructive, it can never be determinative! We must learn to cast our eyes upon the ultimate, upon the “last days,” so that we can truly live as God’s people and Christ’s disciples in our own age. The ultimate gives meaning to the penultimate. Christ’s return teaches us how to live today.
I will never remove my rearview mirror. But I am never going to try to fly in the fog by watching what is behind me. I want to keep the pointy end going forward, and the shiny side up. I want to take as many people with me as I can, too.
I don’t know why it is exactly, but I tend to think in dialectic terms. That is to say I will think of something and write about it, and no sooner than I complete the post I think of how the post could be taken to extremes and misused. So I come up with my own counter-point, or a post to balance the sheet, so-to-speak. So, this post is really a follow-up and extension of my last post, which is basically a lament that (within the Churches of Christ especially) we hire men to do our preaching and teaching for us, and then reject and ridicule his efforts because everyone in the pew is just as qualified as he is. Except, of course, they are not!
What is the reverse of the situation in which a preacher is accorded no authority at all? In my mind it is the man who is granted the authority that comes with education, age and experience and then abuses it by denying the fundamental doctrines that define the congregation for whom he works. He is, in the apostle Paul’s words, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
This can be manifest in many different ways. I do not want to join the chorus of reactionary minds who reject the concept of “change agents,” because I believe our history is full of change agents, beginning with Jesus himself and continuing through Barton W. Stone, Alexander Campbell, David Lipscomb and a whole host of others. But, though I may not denigrate the term, I will say that there are individuals within our fellowship that should have the courage of their convictions and they should leave it. They do not believe in the vision or the principles of the Restoration Movement, they denigrate our past with their sarcastic speeches and books, and they actively attempt to lead others away from this spiritual movement.
I would even go so far as to say that a substantial number of them do not believe in the basic truths of Christianity: the virgin birth of Jesus, the resurrection, the miracles, the proclaimed second coming of Jesus. They may say they believe in the inspiration of Scripture, but to read their books you come away with the feeling that they believe Scripture is inspiring but a long way from inspired. Many have accepted without reservation the “assured results of scholarship” which need to be revised on a continual basis because the scholarship on which the results are based is flawed and the results are anything but assured. In short, many are obviously brilliant scholars and simply bereft of the Christian faith.
It is one thing to love someone or some group of people and work tirelessly to change and improve them. I know a host of ministers and elders who deeply love the church and who work tirelessly as “change agents” because they see their congregations and the members that make up those congregations as losing their first love and their devotion to Christ. My life has been a roller-coaster of emotions as I have loved, then hated, then loved, then hated the human manifestation of God’s chosen people on earth. I love the church with all my heart, and at the same time it drives me nuts. Anyone who feels called to ministry feels the same way.
However, it is another thing entirely to no longer hold to the basic beliefs of a group of people and yet continue to receive your living from those people and at the same time try to turn those people from their beliefs. I would say the same thing to a Catholic who no longer believes in the Magisterium, a Baptist, Presbyterian or Reformed who no longer accepts Calvinism, and the Lutheran who can no longer support Lutheranism. If you can no longer hold to your confession of faith, however formal or informal it is, you need to stand up, declare your independence, and leave that fellowship. The path of staying in your fellowship and masking your true feelings and intentions is the path of a coward, a traitor, a Judas.
In my opinion, within the Churches of Christ we have entirely too many Judases. We are paying men who no longer believe what the members in the pew believe and who no longer accept our vision of the church nor our vision of Scripture and the damage that they are causing is irreparable. If they stood in the pulpit and spoke their most heart-felt convictions they would be fired on the spot. They know this, so they preach just enough of what the congregation wants to hear to be kept on the payroll, but just enough of what they believe so that they can go to sleep at night.
Once again I want to thank the congregations where I have served. They have given me tremendous freedom to express my convictions, and in return I try my very best to give them every bit of evidence that I can for the conclusions that I hold. At times we have had genuine disagreements. Because of my education I cannot hold every teaching that was considered rock-solid certain back in the 1950′s and 1960′s. My (admittedly limited) knowledge of Hebrew and Greek has opened doors of understanding to the text that I realize few will have the opportunity to walk through. But I do try my best to explain difficult concepts and my changing point of view. And one thing I do repeatedly: I am up front and very vocal about my understanding of the inspiration of Scripture and how my role as an exegete and theologian is to stand under that text, not to stand over it. My audience may disagree with me about some fine points about the text, but I hope that none have the idea that I doubt any of the truths recorded in the text.
So, my dialectical view of the position of authority and education within the church is this: One, if we are going to hire a man with a set higher degree of education we need to give him the freedom to share that knowledge. In fact, we should encourage him to obtain more. But two, if that man no longer believes what he knows his congregation believes he should confess that lack of belief and pack his bags and get out. Judas betrayed the Son of God, and then at least had the courage to kill himself.
We are plagued with church members who disparage education and do all they can to make sure the men who preach for them are only educated in a few narrowly selected “sound” Bible schools that only seek to promote a level of learning that was meaningful a century ago. On the other hand we are plagued with men who do not even have the courage to resign an affluent position as pulpit minister for a church they no longer love, believe in, or seek to promote.
I am really not sure which is worse. I do know the solution: we need highly educated men who are totally dedicated to Jesus Christ as their Lord and to the inspired Word of God, and to the Church of Jesus Christ as his very body here on earth. It has been done before, it can be done again. Do we have the faith to see that it is done?
(sorry for the length of this post – I guess I got a little preachy!)
Before I leave the subject of pacifism and the church I have just a few more comments to make, or perhaps repeat, to sum up.
I believe that Richard Hughes and Leonard Allen have done a wonderful job of describing how the Churches of Christ have moved from a pacifistic orientation to a hawkish one. Hughes in particular has documented how the church moved away from the apocalypticism of Barton W. Stone and David Lipscomb. As it did so it lost a major component of Old and New Testament theology. We started thinking more in terms of the politics of this world and less about the kingdom of God. This occurred primarily during World War I, and the change was virtually complete by the time World War II started. Today it is difficult to separate military triumphalism from Christian worship. It is because of this mentality that I believe Lee C. Camp’s book Mere Discipleship is so important. We need to hear his corrective to our militaristic attitude.
Second, I think it is critical that disciples of Christ reexamine the change in the use of the military over the past 50 years, especially within the past decade. The last time a president declared war according to the US Constitution was WWII. Korea, Vietnam, numerous smaller skirmishes, the first Gulf conflict, the second Gulf conflict, and the invasion of Afghanistan – none have officially been declared as wars. However, what separates Korea and Vietnam from the most recent uses of the military is that, at least on one level, they were defensive in nature. We were supposedly defending South Korea and South Vietnam from aggressors, just as we were called upon to support Kuwait against Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf “war.” President George Bush changed all of that, perhaps forever, when he attacked Iraq with nothing but a promise that we would find weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them against our allies. It turns out that neither was found, and for the first time in a century, if not ever, the US attacked a non-combatant country. We lost far more than the lives of our servicemen and women in that conflict. We lost the moral high ground. We became the aggressors.
President Obama has taken that perogative and has multiplied it. With the use of Predator drones, primarily used by the CIA, Obama has called for the killing of certain individuals, one of which was arguably a US citizen and was killed because he was supposed to have been connected to various terrorist activities. It should be profoundly troubling to a disciple of Christ that the President of the US would order such a strike against anyone who has not been absolutely confirmed to have been a combatant against the US, but to do so against someone born in the States and without the due process of law is blood chilling.
So I turn now to the question that forms the title of this post. If young person came to me with this question today, my counsel would be to consider seriously the duty you may be called to perform. In the words of the commercial, this is not your father’s military. The military today is being used as a political billy club to achieve goals set by the President and his closest advisors. If the last time a legal war was declared was in 1941, that should be enough of a warning that it would be very difficult for a Christian to argue for the concept of a just war. It cannot be just if it was not legally declared by the Congress of the United States. If the modern assignments that a young person is called to perform are aggressive and no longer defensive then we need to reconsider if a Christian can serve in good conscience.
However, if young person does decide to serve in the military then I would have the following advice. Serve your country honorably. Remember you are a child of God. Work to restore or expand the honor that comes from your oath to your country. There are still functions that the military serves that can be used to further God’s kingdom. Choose your path of service wisely. Be a beacon of light in your company. Share the love of Jesus everywhere you go. Remember you are a prisoner of Jesus before you are a soldier or sailor. And remember that you have a higher calling than your immediate superior, and if you receive a command that violates your confession of Jesus as Lord you are bound to refuse that order, whatever the consequences. Do not lose your faith or your humanity over the whims of a human commander in chief.
And finally, I must question the consistency in thought and behavior of absolute pacifists who live in safe, protected country and yet complain about the use of force, whether it be the police department that keeps them and their families safe at night, or the men and women who wear their country’s military uniform and perform the same function. Obviously they have the right to proclaim their beliefs – and our country is built upon the principle of freedom of speech. But to me it sounds just a little hypocritical for me to use a police force and a military to keep me safe, and then for me to criticize that police department and military as being un-Christian and therefore demonic. To protest the illegitimate use of that force is one thing – to argue that it should not even exist is something entirely different and, in my understanding, goes beyond the teaching of Scripture.
I do not like the use that the two most recent presidents have made of our military. I believe they have betrayed the mission of the US military. But I honor and respect the men and women who proudly wear the uniform and make it possible for me to type this blog in freedom. Many disciples of Christ wear the uniform of their country, and I can find no Scripture that denies them that right. They carry the cross where it otherwise might not go, and for that I pray for them and ask God’s protection for them.
In my last post I mentioned that I was reading Lee C. Camp’s book, Mere Disicpleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World (Brazos Press, 2008). I made it clear that I do not believe an absolute pacifism can pass a consistent theological test. I believe the Biblical message (including, but not solely limited to Matthew 5-7) is far more nuanced and requires a greater degree of reflection than a “one size fits all” rejection of force, which I believe Camp falls prey to.
However, as I mentioned in my post, I believe Camp gives a thoughtful presentation of his views, and I believe he must be heard. This is not an easy subject, and while I believe Camp’s conclusions are flawed, that does not mean that his message is without value. Hopefully I can explain these views adequately.
Camp is right to point out the radical nature of the Sermon on the Mount. I agree with him that if modern disciples of Christ would fully live with that sermon in their minds and on their hearts it would profoundly change the church in America and throughout the world. I especially liked Camp’s chapter on baptism and the radical change that it should make in a person’s life. Even among Churches of Christ we have taught the necessity of baptism without fully exploring the meaning of the practice as it relates to discipleship. Camp’s call for Radical Christianity is reminiscent of John R.W. Stott’s call for counter-cultural Christianity, again based on the Sermon on the Mount. My problem with Camp is not where he started, or what he said after he started. My problem with his theology is that he stopped far too early. He never placed Jesus within the larger context of the Biblical story, especially that of the prophets. And he did not (in my opinion) adequately deal with Paul and Peter’s later instructions via the Holy Spirit as to how the Christian is to relate to the kingdom of this world.
The prophets never criticized the Israelite or foreign leadership because they held authority. They did not criticize them for exercising that authority, even when it was exercised in the form of battle. Where the prophets criticized the Israelite and foreign leaders was when they used their authority to hurt innocent victims or when they failed to use that authority to protect the innocent. This is a nuance that Camp and absolute pacifists completely miss. God entrusted human governments with authority in order to maintain basic human dignity. When that dignity is destroyed God reacted in judgment, whether it was against Israel, Judah, Syria, Assyria, Babylon or Egypt (see especially the first chapter and a half of the prophet Amos). The relationship to false religion was not to be missed. When you worship false gods you abuse people. When you worship the true God you protect and nurture people.
The same message should be preached today. As I tried to point out in my last post, the use of force is not the issue that absolute pacifists try to make it out to be. They want all force to be abolished, not fully comprehending that if that were to take place the world would fall into absolute anarchy (literally, no rule). We need (and I believe Camp would ultimately have to agree) a police force, and they need to be given the right to use necessary force to detain, arrest and prosecute offenders. So with a military. We need to have a military to protect and defend our peaceful existance.
Now, has that military been used for illegitimate reasons? Absolutely! In the past decade we have witnessed a staggering increase in the power of the president and a corresponding decrease in the willingness of the Congress to enforce our constitution. President Bush attacked a nation that had not attacked this country, and was far from being able to even seriously threaten it. President Obama has expanded the power of the presidency to include killing certain individuals, even citizens of the US, who have been deemed to be a threat, regardless of any legal protections they may or may not deserve. We have come a long, long way from defending the country against imperialist aggressors such as Hitler and Hirohito to using unmanned drones to assassinate suspected terrorists, all for political gain.
We need a national discussion on this topic, one that is equal parts Biblical, theological, and practical. Absolutes simply will not work. The biblical record is far too nuanced to be summarized in one three chapter sermon, even if that sermon was given by Jesus. The question that Camp raises is legitimate and he gives a compelling defense of his position. I heartily recommend everyone read this book. Whether you agree with Camp or not you will benefit from wrestling with the issue.
David Lipscomb wrestled long and hard with this issue, particularly because he lived during the darkest days of the Civil War. I have read and deeply respect Lipscomb’s views on the role of the citizen disciple. But Lipscomb was writing to Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Lipscomb was never confronted by Heinrich Himmler or Adolf Hitler. We have seen the holocaust of the Civil War and the holocaust of Nazi Germany. Somewhere between those two extremes I believe we must find the theologically sound prism by which we can discern how to respond to an evil aggressor in this world.
Peace and wisdom to all.
Just some random thoughts on a Monday morning…
I just wonder how many “Christians” are going to be disappointed when on the judgment day God does not use the latest polling data or the latest issue of the American Journal of Psychology to define “sin.”
The more I read David Lipscomb the more I am convinced that he had things right. A lot of things right. More things right than many (if not most) of his contemporaries.
The more I read Dietrich Bonhoeffer the more I am convinced that he had things right. A lot of things right. More things right than many (if not most) of his contemporaries.
Just call me a David-Dietrich BonLipscombHoeffer fan. Oh, and add C.S. Lewis too. And John R.W. Stott.
One concept that Lipscomb and Bonhoeffer shared was the unshakeable belief that the Kingdom of God was not to be confused with this world. The disciple of Christ was to be radically different. Bonhoeffer especially made this clear with his emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount. Lipscomb was ridiculed and even black-balled for his insistence that the disciple of Christ should avoid political entanglements and focus entirely on the Kingdom of God. One of the first books I read on the Sermon on the Mount was Stott’s commentary entitled “Christian Counter-Culture.” When a conservative preacher for the Church of Christ, a Lutheran, and two Anglicans can all agree on something, you just have a feeling that they were all right. More right than many (if not most) Christians realize today.
When “Christians” today depend on the polling data of George Gallup, when they consider the proclamations of modern medical journals to be more trustworthy than the inspired Scriptures, when they are willing to re-invent the church so that no one has their feelings hurt or that no one is excluded then I really wonder…is it Christ they are following or culture?
I forget his name, who was it that said, “You have heard it said … but I say unto you?” Some Galilean carpenter. Shook a lot of people up. In fact, he died for saying it. I’m pretty sure it was not George Gallup, or Sigmund Freud.