The recent hullabaloo/blowout over the Chick-Fil-A (CFA) controversy bears remarking on ... I had thought to leave the issue alone, perhaps because it was so hot a topic, and no sense adding heat. But then someone resuscitated the thingy (in another form) from the pulpit, and broadcasted it on the net and on the radio, and ... well here I am with my first blog posting.
My inclination is to shoot, and, in a previous life, the bullets have mostly borne a Fundamentalist stripe. I'm trying to change my ammo ... and to keep my gun holstered, to boot.
The crux of the matter turned out to be homosexuality (although I understand that it was not so in the initial stages).
I always respected CFA for their unusual and uncommon practice of closing on Sundays. This is a fast-food place; fast, lower prices, greater turnover = profit. A Sunday close (weekend, mind you) hurts that. I admire it because it shows respect for the commonly acknowledged Christian holy day, allowing for and promoting gathering as churches to celebrate God, fellowship with one another, and share God's wisdom. Cool. (As an aside, please note that those who tout Sunday closings need to consider the propriety of themselves eating out on Sundays, and, for that matter, any other activity that involves buying, for they thereby hypocriticize their position.)
But CFA went a bit further. Apparrently it takes an avowed anti-gay stand, and funds anti-gay organizations.
While CFA has the 'right' to close its doors on Sundays as a mark of respect for Christianity, and while the individuals that own CFA have their individual 'rights' to support anti-gay activity, engaging the law in support of a religious philosophy is, at least questionable. In this, from my vantage point, CFA crosses the road from business under the law to Christianity under God, and runs the risk of being run over by oncoming Christians, gays, liberal, conservatives, and government too. It stands in no-man's land.
I have, at this stage anyway, a couple of things in mind: (1) Christian marriage as defined by God (2) Christian marriage is not a legal construct (3) Jesus' approach to life.
I daresay the vast majority of marriages, including Christian marriages, are a far cry from what God intended. God-marriage is the very unique love two people have for each other that engages an intimacy on the human level that far surpasses any other human relationship. This love is unique to lovers. It is well described by God in Song of Songs. Unfortunately Christianity itself, in the personage of its theologians and pulpiteers, has re-tuned the Song of Songs melody and produced an analogy typifying the relationship between Christ and the church. While the analogy can and should be made, the obvious intent of the text is clear; and the reason for the analogizing is clear, to me, anyway: most marriages do not come close to the passion portrayed in Song of Songs; therefore rationalize it away. How sad. We seldom go to this book in personal reading or from the pulpit, even in the face of the dread state of lovers' relationships.
Secondly, God's intention for marriage is outside and above law. Human government and laws cannot encode God's intention. Marriage is defined by God, and is under his authority, and no human law can create or nullify a marriage. For Christians then to bow to the authority of government as to what constitutes marriage is puzzling. In fact it disses the authority of God himself.
To look to legalize a Christian perspective (or some particular form of it, as there are many) is to look for a theocracy. Further, to seek to impose on the general citizenry of the nation, through government, a Christian definition of marriage is untenable. America is not a Christian nation: no such nation exists. The only nation to ever fall directly under God's authority is Israel, and he created that nation.
In fact, this speaks to to the ' same ol' same ol' ' ... the historic adultery of the church in its relationship to Earthly governments. Wherever this unnatural bond has existed there has been nothing short of injury and damage to the cause of Messiah Jesus, from Constantine to the Roman church to Calvin. How can we seek to impose a Heavenly wisdom on an Earthly system? The twain shall never meet. "My kingdom is not of this world", Jesus said. Have we forgotten? Has he changed his mind? How can we expect an unbelieving nation to live under the moral law of God?
The fact is that Christianity has (and still does) relinquished its role in the Earth to government. It wants the government to legislate its own brand of morality, and school teachers to substitute for parents. Morals should be taught in the home by the parents, and Biblical instruction begins there, supported by the church. Whether or not the government or school supports your morality is beside the point, and escapism to boot.
The 'church' is, in fact, a groundswell of counter-culturality. It exists within the culture, at ground-level, but operates in a most un-cultural fashion, to demonstrate love to the culture, and to illustrate the Way of Jesus, to grow his kingdom. It takes the parabolic form of the mustard seed.
That leads to this: what would Jesus' approach to this anti-gay church stance look like? I contend it would look quite different from the picture painted across the nation over the last month or so. In fact, I envision Jesus shaking his head in bewilderment and disappointment at the damage done to his reputation by 'the church', and the injury inflicted on the people he loves and died for.
The Gospels portray Jesus as a loving, caring person who was non-discriminatory in his embrace of humanity, non-judgmental in his declarations, and decidedly for the oppressed, the down-trodden, the abused, the damaged, the out-of-the-way, the alien, the widow, the fatherless, the prostitute ... It is a matter of record that the only people he condemned and castigated were the religious authorities! What does that say to us today, in our churches, in our safe-houses, and in our approach to those people, the people out there, in our neighborhood, and the neighborhood next door?
Jesus never came to judge or to condemn (John 3); his ministry was one of healing, restoration, building-up, and declaring the love of God to all peoples. And the people loved him, because he loved them first, wholeheartedly. He ate and drank with 'sinners'. He embraced the hated tax collector, Zacchaeus. His chosen apostles were fishermen, tax collectors and Zealots. His greatest admirer was a whore. He was, in summary, the friend of sinners.
Does that shock you (me)? But ... why does it? Am I reading a different Gospels than others? I read just that in them: accounts of a man who was sent by God, was, in fact, the perfect imprint of God on a human person, and who fed hungry people, healed sick people, reprimanded and cast-out demons, and fought against spiritual oppression of all kinds for the good of the people, to declare the acceptable day of the Lord, and demonstrate His authority in the Earth and over all spiritual wickedness in heavenly places and wherever else they operate.
That's the Jesus I know. And to the extent that I look like, smell like, sound like, taste like that Jesus, to that extent I assess myself his follower. Anything else suffers under the guise of anti-Christ; and I use that term purposefully, for I am convinced that Christianity, as it in manifested today, is precisely opposed to the Way of Jesus, and needs to be called-out in just those terms. Anything that works against the person and mission of Jesus is anti-Christ, particularly that which seeks to look like him, wolves dressed in sheep's clothing, disguising themselves as angels of light.
So, I've ended on a rather stern note. Forgive me; I suffer from pent-up anger at what calls itself 'Christianity' today, and some leaks out.
I simply cannot see the point in the 'church' in this country coming out against the gay community, and virtually slamming their doors in their faces. If I am gay and am disowned by my parents, shunned by my friends, etc., where is the one place I should feel secure, the one group of people that will accept me, with open arms and judge-less attitudes, in love?
Is it not to be the church that Jesus built?
I have, at this stage anyway, a couple of things in mind: (1) Christian marriage as defined by God (2) Christian marriage is not a legal construct (3) Jesus' approach to life.
I daresay the vast majority of marriages, including Christian marriages, are a far cry from what God intended. God-marriage is the very unique love two people have for each other that engages an intimacy on the human level that far surpasses any other human relationship. This love is unique to lovers. It is well described by God in Song of Songs. Unfortunately Christianity itself, in the personage of its theologians and pulpiteers, has re-tuned the Song of Songs melody and produced an analogy typifying the relationship between Christ and the church. While the analogy can and should be made, the obvious intent of the text is clear; and the reason for the analogizing is clear, to me, anyway: most marriages do not come close to the passion portrayed in Song of Songs; therefore rationalize it away. How sad. We seldom go to this book in personal reading or from the pulpit, even in the face of the dread state of lovers' relationships.
Secondly, God's intention for marriage is outside and above law. Human government and laws cannot encode God's intention. Marriage is defined by God, and is under his authority, and no human law can create or nullify a marriage. For Christians then to bow to the authority of government as to what constitutes marriage is puzzling. In fact it disses the authority of God himself.
To look to legalize a Christian perspective (or some particular form of it, as there are many) is to look for a theocracy. Further, to seek to impose on the general citizenry of the nation, through government, a Christian definition of marriage is untenable. America is not a Christian nation: no such nation exists. The only nation to ever fall directly under God's authority is Israel, and he created that nation.
In fact, this speaks to to the ' same ol' same ol' ' ... the historic adultery of the church in its relationship to Earthly governments. Wherever this unnatural bond has existed there has been nothing short of injury and damage to the cause of Messiah Jesus, from Constantine to the Roman church to Calvin. How can we seek to impose a Heavenly wisdom on an Earthly system? The twain shall never meet. "My kingdom is not of this world", Jesus said. Have we forgotten? Has he changed his mind? How can we expect an unbelieving nation to live under the moral law of God?
The fact is that Christianity has (and still does) relinquished its role in the Earth to government. It wants the government to legislate its own brand of morality, and school teachers to substitute for parents. Morals should be taught in the home by the parents, and Biblical instruction begins there, supported by the church. Whether or not the government or school supports your morality is beside the point, and escapism to boot.
The 'church' is, in fact, a groundswell of counter-culturality. It exists within the culture, at ground-level, but operates in a most un-cultural fashion, to demonstrate love to the culture, and to illustrate the Way of Jesus, to grow his kingdom. It takes the parabolic form of the mustard seed.
That leads to this: what would Jesus' approach to this anti-gay church stance look like? I contend it would look quite different from the picture painted across the nation over the last month or so. In fact, I envision Jesus shaking his head in bewilderment and disappointment at the damage done to his reputation by 'the church', and the injury inflicted on the people he loves and died for.
The Gospels portray Jesus as a loving, caring person who was non-discriminatory in his embrace of humanity, non-judgmental in his declarations, and decidedly for the oppressed, the down-trodden, the abused, the damaged, the out-of-the-way, the alien, the widow, the fatherless, the prostitute ... It is a matter of record that the only people he condemned and castigated were the religious authorities! What does that say to us today, in our churches, in our safe-houses, and in our approach to those people, the people out there, in our neighborhood, and the neighborhood next door?
Jesus never came to judge or to condemn (John 3); his ministry was one of healing, restoration, building-up, and declaring the love of God to all peoples. And the people loved him, because he loved them first, wholeheartedly. He ate and drank with 'sinners'. He embraced the hated tax collector, Zacchaeus. His chosen apostles were fishermen, tax collectors and Zealots. His greatest admirer was a whore. He was, in summary, the friend of sinners.
Does that shock you (me)? But ... why does it? Am I reading a different Gospels than others? I read just that in them: accounts of a man who was sent by God, was, in fact, the perfect imprint of God on a human person, and who fed hungry people, healed sick people, reprimanded and cast-out demons, and fought against spiritual oppression of all kinds for the good of the people, to declare the acceptable day of the Lord, and demonstrate His authority in the Earth and over all spiritual wickedness in heavenly places and wherever else they operate.
That's the Jesus I know. And to the extent that I look like, smell like, sound like, taste like that Jesus, to that extent I assess myself his follower. Anything else suffers under the guise of anti-Christ; and I use that term purposefully, for I am convinced that Christianity, as it in manifested today, is precisely opposed to the Way of Jesus, and needs to be called-out in just those terms. Anything that works against the person and mission of Jesus is anti-Christ, particularly that which seeks to look like him, wolves dressed in sheep's clothing, disguising themselves as angels of light.
So, I've ended on a rather stern note. Forgive me; I suffer from pent-up anger at what calls itself 'Christianity' today, and some leaks out.
I simply cannot see the point in the 'church' in this country coming out against the gay community, and virtually slamming their doors in their faces. If I am gay and am disowned by my parents, shunned by my friends, etc., where is the one place I should feel secure, the one group of people that will accept me, with open arms and judge-less attitudes, in love?
Is it not to be the church that Jesus built?
