Christian *Love, (*conditions apply)

I remember when the church loved me a lot more. I was perfectly obedient and known to be sweet and gentle. I knew the Bible exactly as much as I was supposed to – which was everything they taught me or everything from previously approved materials, trusted authors, and competent ministries. Most of all, I believed exactly what I was taught from the pastors and deacons and elders and teachers as they taught it without question. Everyone would point to me as an example of someone who “does it right” and “has it together.” Christianity loved me most when I was it’s ideal, when I fit completely in it’s narrative.

But something changed. I remained myself, consistent and true – but the church seemed to like me less and less. Perhaps it was because I was still single and they couldn’t figure out why. After all, I was supposed to have met him by now they taught, gotten married by now they taught, and have had kids by now if I was doing everything right they taught. They probably thought there was some rebellion in my heart, some sin that God alone knew of that was the reason why I wasn’t ready to meet him, or something or other to explain it. Their attitude toward me started to cool as I had fallen out of favor. It was puzzling to know that those younger girls who had been told to follow my example were now being pointed to as an example for me to follow, “Don’t be so picky, you’ll marry and be happy like they are soon enough if you lower your standards. But seriously, don’t settle for anything less than the guy God has selected just for you or there will be terrible consequences.” (Thanks for that confusing message, just one of many.)

To be honest, it felt an awful lot like moving the goalposts. Or perhaps, having lost something important you used to have and you miss a lot. A sense of belonging that had been there for the longest time seems to up and vanish. For all the talk that love is unconditional, it’s just human to love those who are on the same page you are. It’s human to love those who follow the same team you do and to dislike those who follow your team’s rival. And this is a day and age where ideals divide more sharply than ever before. We end friendships and relationships due to similar disagreements all the time. Perhaps we have never truly learned to accept people we disagree with. In a Christianity famous for dividing itself into denominations over anything and everything – we never really got into the practice of being okay with different opinions and beliefs among us because there’s this tiny fear that we could wind up on a wrong turn and miss the way to Heaven.

I don’t think it was really on purpose either, but when everything you do is geared around doing it just one way, the same way, each and every time, then it results in a religious environment that has not bothered to create spaces for doing different things in different ways and naturally excludes everyone who is into doing things in different ways. Then, of course, you fall victim to expectation. When you do the same things the same way for long enough, it becomes the traditional thing. Doing something different would be turning your back on the way it is supposed to be done and has been and should be done … though you know not why. Well, anyone who turns their back on that is turning their back on God or how God would have things done in the biblically prescribed manner. Anyway, you can’t love someone as well if they don’t believe the same things you do. You can like them, you can think well of them (except for those particular faults), but because the two of you don’t see eye to eye, they will always be unlovable in some regard or another.

It is really hard to make space for people who don’t agree with you in your church. Your church is your church because it’s just the way you like it … changing it up to offer something for people who like other things means having to have less of the things that you like about it in the first place and it ceases to be your church; it becomes theirs – I guess “ours” was never truly an option. It’s not something we’d like to admit – that it really does come down to taste because it’s not supposed to – so we cloak it in terms of “proper” and “biblical” and “gospel” – it’s merely a coincidence that our tastes just so happen to align with the proper biblical expression of the gospel and how other people do church in other ways is never proper, not biblical, and it certainly isn’t the way the gospel should be.

In the process, we lose sight of what love was originally meant to be. We do believe in a sort of unconditional love, we love everyone who is just like us unconditionally, but we love others who are not like us conditionally. That’s the only explanation I can come up for to describe the difference in my own church experience. I guess I can’t help how other people can’t love me because we believe different things, but I can understand this failing and do my best to ensure I don’t fall victim to the same tendency myself and as a result treat others who are not like my as if they’re inferior in any way. Who knows, they might be right, after all.

An Untrustworthy Compass

Most of us live by a moral compass that tells whether what were doing falls into the “right” or “wrong” category. We know the difference between a guilty conscience and a clear one. We like to punish guilt and praise innocence. That’s just how our society works.

Jesus’ society was that of an an honor/shame dynamic. For them, that which was honorable was right, that which was shameful was wrong. It often also took an outside party to confirm honor or shame as being of good esteem and well-known, or having a bad reputation and being infamous, depending on your perceived character.

Being in an honor/shame society is a tricky proposition for those who are outsiders. After all, whatever restores honor is right, whatever tarnishes honor is wrong. So some actions our society would declare wrong could be viewed as right in that culture. Somehow, our society’s morality was informed by the ideals found in Scripture and it diverged from honor/shame into guilt/innocence. Our moral compass changed.

And it’s still changing. I was reading a conversation where a Christian drew up a scenario where a home was being invaded and it’s owner had two options: kill or be killed. It was obvious the answer the Christian was looking for was that the home owner should kill the invaders. But I began to wonder: Is that the only option? What reasons motivate the invasion in the first place? Can the invaders be reasoned with? Would being disabled or wounded be a better option? I wondered why the thought of hypothetically assisting God render his verdict of eternal condemnation and torture in Hell by speeding criminals to the afterlife didn’t register even the slightest moral concern on their radar. This value happened to be the opposite of the early Christians who were so sure of their eternal salvation, they wouldn’t kill others, giving them as long of a chance as possible to repent and join them in heaven, where they could forgive them for murdering them as they ate together around the Lord’s table. Think about it – Saul persecuted Christians, was on the wrong side of Stephen’s martyrdom, believed and became Paul, and will spend eternity in Heaven with Stephen. Quite a turnaround!

Likewise, I’ve seen Christians get so riled over their side of their favorite cause, they loose sight of the individuals who would be affected by their ideas and the circumstances involved. Sometimes there aren’t easy one-size-fits-all solutions or answers to the toughest questions of all and it’s marginalizing to decide for other people what they get to choose from without any direct interaction with those who are most affected by the decisions being made. Unique individuals become part of some faceless crowd, “the victims” or “the sinners” or whatever label they want to use to describe them this week – and their whole story gets erased alongside with their identity, as well as any desire to be respectful because of the distance involved from the matter because it’s all being argued on some higher hypothetical plain that we forget affects everyday people who sometimes live a lot closer to us than we think.

We have this big cosmic battle of changing morality playing out in this very day and age. Things that were utterly immoral not that long ago have found a measure of acceptance as we question the original assumptions about what’s right and wrong. And we’ll continue to question and change our minds about morality as the years go on. It seems that we’re finally asking the right questions. One of my favorite moral teachers is Martin Luther King, Jr. who had quite a bit to say on the subject said it best during his sermon explaining his opposition to the Vietnam War:

“A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. And when I speak of love I’m not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: “Let us love one another, for God is love. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.” “

I so wish Christians would learn to erase the divisions and shift their loyalties and learn to see the world as an “all of us, together” kind of people. Sadly, I’ve read so many End Times stories where any attempt to unite the world, declare peace, put an end to famine and poverty and feed the hungry is viewed with the utmost suspicion that the Anti-Christ is somewhere active in the world and is just about to take it over. I’ve seen regular Christians talk about the Mark of the Beast as if it’s just a day away from being something real and tangible.

And I wonder what’s become of Christian morality, that broken compass that swings wildly as if it’s confused and lost it’s way. Each believer seems to read it differently and point to a different direction to head in as the true way to salvation; but I’m not so sure that any of us have it right.

In Good Company

(It’s hard to believe that it’s been seven years since I had the honor of visiting The Church of the Company of Jesus in Quito, Ecuador. When I arrived, I was given a pamphlet about the church which I had never read – until today. The fact that it’s in Spanish isn’t a problem given that my Spanish has finally gotten usable and for the most part I understand what it’s saying. For those of you who don’t speak Spanish, I’ve included the Google Translate version towards the end – with some minor corrections as there were some flaws.)

Iglesia de la Compañia de Jesús

Quito, Ecuador

La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús

Quito – Ecuador

La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús, cumbre del barroco latinoamericano, construido por vario jesuitas entre 1605 y 1765, fue inspirada en dos emblemáticos templos jesuitas romanos: Il Gesú y San Ignacio.
El templo tiene planta de cruz latina, nave central, norte y sur, transepto, crucero, presbiterio, antesacristía, sacristía y capilla. La nave central cubiera por una bóveda de 26 m de altura, realiza con ladrillo y piedra pómez y finalmente decorada con yesería, policromía y pan de oro en estilo mudéjar, es un importante aporte a la arquitectura colonial quiteña del Hermano jesuita italiano Marcos Guerra, quen colaboró también con la construcción de las cúpulas ubicadas in las naves laterales y en la cúpula mayor del crucero.
El templo de la Compañía fue levantado con las manos de innumerables artistas de la Escuela Quiteña, quenes perpetuaron su habilidad y entrega para tallar y dorar con fina lámina de oro de 23 kilates cada centímetro de la iglesia.
Durante 160 años se edificó y decoró la iglesia con magníficas obras de arte; muestra de ello son los 16 Javier Goríbar, artista quiteño del siglo XVIII. Al pincel de Hernando de la Cruz se le atribuyen los dos grandes lienzos originales del Infierno y del Juicio FInal, obras Alejandro Salas en el siglo XIX hoy se ubican en los extremos norte y sur de la iglesia. Se admiran en las enjustas sobre los arcos de medio punto de la nave central las escenas bíblias de Sansón y Dalila, y de José, hijo de Jacob, obras anónimas del siglo SVIII. En las naves laterales se destacan 6 imponentes retablos atribidos a la afamada escuela de arte quiteño del siglo XVIII: el de San José, El Calvario, y San Luis Gonzaga en la nave norte y La Virgen de Loreto, La Inmaculada y San Estanislao de Kostka en la nave sur. En los transeptos norte y sur sobresalen los retablos gemelos de San Francisco Javier y San Ignacio respectivamente, atribuidos también a Marcos Guerra, y en el presbiterio destaca el dorado del retablo mayer realizado por el tran imaginero colonial quiteño Bernardo de Legarda.
La fachada de la iglesia es una sobresaliente obra de estilo barroco, construida toda en piedra gris de origen volcánico. Tiene cada espacio cubierto con el más mínimo detalle finalmente labrado; así se admiran flores, ángeles, arcángeles, símbolos eclesiásticos y varias imágenes representativas entre las que se descubren: …
Dos hechos religiosos importantes están ligados a la Iglesia de la Compañía: uno de estos fue el fugaz paso de Mariana de Jesús, la primera santa ecuatoriana que se consagró en este templo y lo escogió para morar para siempre; Mariana murió en 1645 (siglo XVII) y es en el altar mayor donde ahora se veneran sus restos. El milagro de la imagen de la Virgen Dolorosa del Colegio, es también un hecho de fe profunda sucedido en el comedor del antiguo Colegio San Gabriel en el interior del edificio jesuita, el 20 de abril de 1906.
La torre de la iglesia, en época colonial reconocida como la más alta de la ciudad, sufrió dos embates telúricos: en 1859 el primero, luego de lo cual fe reconstruida, y en 1868 , año desde el que permanece tal como lo conecemos.
Durante los últimos diecinueve años, 1987-2005, la iglesia ha vivido un importante proceso de restauración integral, el mismo que ha sido reconocido por el profesionalismo con el que instituciones nacionales así como centenares de técnicos, arquitectos, restauradores, y obreros realizaron, con abnegado trabajo y mística personal para alcanzar la total restaución del templo.
La Residencia San Ignacio y la Fundación Iglesia de la Compañía encargadas de la conservación y mantenimiento del templo le invitan a admirar la iglesia y de esta forma apoyar en la promoción del compromiso que como ecuatorianos tenemos de preservar este legado cultural.


The Church of the Company of Jesus
Quito, Ecuador
The Church of the Company of Jesus, serves as a peak example of the Latin American baroque church, was built by several Jesuits between 1605 and 1765, and was inspired by two emblematic Roman Jesuit temples: Il Gesu and San Ignacio.
The temple has a Latin cross plant, central nave, north and south, transept, transept, presbytery, antechrist, sacristy and chapel. The central nave was covered by a vault of 26 m high, made with brick and pumice stone and finally decorated with plasterwork, polychrome and gold leaf in Mudejar style, is an important contribution to the colonial architecture of the Italian Jesuit Brother Marcos Guerra, Who also collaborated with the construction of the domes located in the lateral naves and in the greater dome of the transept.
The Temple of the Company was erected with the hands of countless artists of the Quito School, who perpetuated their ability and delivery to carve and gild with a fine 23-karat gold foil on every inch of the church.
For 160 years the church was built and decorated with magnificent works of art; 16 Javier Goríbar, an eighteenth-century artist from Quito. Hernando de la Cruz’s brush is attributed the two great original canvases of Hell and Final Judgment, the works of Alejandro Salas in the nineteenth century today are located at the north and south ends of the church. The bible scenes of Samson and Delilah, and Joseph, son of Jacob, as well as anonymous works of the SVIII century, are admired in the area over the arches of the central nave of the central nave. In the side aisles there are 6 imposing altarpieces attributed to the famous eighteenth-century Quito school of art: San José, El Calvario, and San Luis Gonzaga in the north nave and La Virgen de Loreto, La Inmaculada and San Estanislao de Kostka in the southern nave. In the northern and southern transepts, the twin altarpieces of San Francisco Javier and San Ignacio, respectively, also attributed to Marcos Guerra, and in the presbytery stands out the gold of the greater altarpiece made by the visionary colonial of Quito, Bernardo de Legarda.
The facade of the church is an outstanding work of Baroque style, all built in gray stone of volcanic origin. It has each space covered with the finest detail exquisitely worked; Flowers, angels, archangels, ecclesiastical symbols and several representative images among which are discovered: …
Two important religious events are linked to the Church of the Company: one of these was the fleeting passage of Mariana de Jesus, the first Ecuadorian saint to be consecrated in this temple and chose to live forever; Mariana died in 1645 (seventeenth century) and it is on the main altar where her remains are now venerated. The miracle of the image of the Sorrowful Virgin of the College is also a fact of deep faith happened in the dining room of the old San Gabriel College inside the Jesuit building, on April 20, 1906.
The tower of the church, in colonial times was recognized as the highest of the city, suffered two earthquakes: in 1859 the first, after which was rebuilt faithfully, and in  the year 1868, from which it remains as we now know it.
During the last nineteen years, 1987-2005, the church has undergone an important process of integral restoration, which has been recognized by the professionalism with which national institutions as well as hundreds of technicians, architects, restorers and selfless workers and church ministers to achieve the total restoration of the temple.
The San Ignacio Residence and the Church Foundation of the Company in charge of the conservation and maintenance of the temple invite you to admire the church and in this way support in the promotion of the commitment that we as Ecuadorians have to preserve this cultural legacy.

Love is Obedience

Sometimes it’s so strange to listen to my co-workers freely talk about drinking alcoholic beverages. Half of our conversations seem to be which drinks I’ve never drunk or the fact that I’ve never been drunk. At most, I’ve been able to have a sip or two of various kids of drinks – but I could never bring myself to drink more than that. Even when an opportunity presented itself to go out drinking; I passed it up. I always do.

I remember listening to a young believer talk about the Bible’s prohibition against the evils of drinking; she could quote any negative verse on the subject. But she wasn’t quite sure what to make of the verses that were neutral or mentioned that people should drink under specific circumstances; it was almost as if she didn’t even know that they were there. Indeed; in the era of the Bible, not drinking was not an option – the water wasn’t always the safest thing to drink and that’s why Paul advised Timothy drink a little wine to help him feel better. Drinking was okay and even necessary; drinking to excess and drunkenness was to be avoided.

Even though that I know that much of the rules against alcohol is a result of a human tendency to make rules out of everything; I still find it a hard one to break. For many, drinking is just a good time – letting loose and hanging out with trusted friends. But I don’t know what sort of drunk I’d be and truthfully, I don’t have people I’d trust when I’m in a drunken state and lack self-control or any sense of inhibition. So for me, I’m afraid that I’d say or do something that would ruin a perfectly decent relationship or at the very least be awkward.

Jesus had this reputation of being a drunken party-goer yet he has this entire denomination of followers that’s anything but. That same young believer who was against drinking talked about how she couldn’t stand parties as they were too loud and the music was so unchristian. She was so uncomfortable – as if she knew that if God caught her there, he might send her to Hell for being somewhere sin was so prevalent. Being raised in that mindset is extremely hard to overcome.

These rules may not be in God’s word, but they are made from God’s word. Disobeying God’s word is a sure-fire ticket to an eternity in an extremely hot environment. Your salvation is at stake. What did Pastor Sproul say? “Sometimes, after we have studied the background of a text thoroughly, we are still not sure whether it is giving us a principle or a custom. But it is better to treat a custom as a principle than a principle as a custom. If we think a custom is a principle, we are only guilty of being overtly scrupulous. However, in disregarding what is really a principle because we say it is a custom, we disobey God. When faced with unclarity, treat the biblical teaching as if it is a principle. “ Erring on the side of caution in an attempt to be better safe than sorry seems to have made rules that go beyond what is written; adding to the word extra commandments.

It’s something we have done of old, it’s something we still do even now, and will continue to do as the future stretches before us – until the very end of the last second of all the time that there will ever be. A concept like modesty is a prime example: we have varying and conflicting rules about what is modest and what isn’t. Now the Bible doesn’t say in so many words that a particular item is immodest; but so long as something causes a weaker brother to stumble by inciting lust – that breaks the rule and is added to the list of forbidden items and by now we have a pretty big list.

Those are just those “thou shalt not” rules – don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t chew, don’t curse, don’t dance, don’t be immodest; but there are also “thou shalt” rules as well; ways of living that are according to a biblically-informed way of life. It’s that erring on the side of caution thing I mentioned; because if it’s bad to do something the Bible says not to do; it’s even worse not doing something the Bible says ought to be done. But I can’t help but wonder, is it really the Bible that says this is how I ought to live; or some interpretation or teaching based on the word of a person who is fearful and overly scrupulous who has made commandments where none are to be found and who is trying to bind my conscious to something that was never meant to be? Does God only want me to pass the test of being obedient to unwritten rules?

Everyone talks about how if God really wanted obedience, he could have made Adam and Eve as robots and hard-wired them to obey him. But that’s not what he was after. He gave them free will – a choice. Does he want us to choose to obey? Is having free will a means to an end? Why bother giving people free will if the test of Christianity is to give it up and just obey? And yet – how is it today that obedience and submission seem to be the end-all and be-all of Christianity? Are we misreading God’s Word?

It seems to be a darned if you don’t and a darned if you do situation; somebody reads the Bible and makes a teaching that’s accepted enough to become a custom or at least a principle. At which point it must be obeyed because it’s from God’s Word. It gets added to as people flesh it out in the day-to-day living. If you don’t, then you’re being disobedient and that proves you don’t believe in God and aren’t saved. If you do, then at worst you might be overly scrupulous, but you’re certain to go to heaven – and you must obey everything without exception or question because it’s in the Bible somehow or other. Because that’s how you prove you love God and are saved.

Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. – Jesus, John 14:23-24

Soul Repair

Growing up, I had been taught that Christians can lose pieces of their heart through broken soul ties. It was a fancy way of saying that anyone who has premarital sex has seriously sinned. I still have the little booklet with the picture of a heart on one page that has missing pieces, ripped out and cut out alike. I eventually discovered that pretty much every Christian kid of my generation had the same speech in some way, shape, or form. Some were taught that they became like “damaged goods”, a doughnut that’s been passed around, a package of candy somebody else opened, a wad of gum left over that somebody else chewed. Ultimately, as people we would be worthless and soulless. The next page of that booklet featured some strange math that basically meant the more you give away your love, the less love you have to give.

“It doesn’t matter how many new haircuts you get, or gyms you join, or how many glasses of chardonnay you drink with your girlfriends… you still go to bed every night going over every detail and wonder what you did wrong or how you could have misunderstood. And how in the hell for that brief moment you could think that you were that happy. And sometimes you can even convince yourself that he’ll see the light and show up at your door. And after all that, however long all that may be, you’ll go somewhere new. And you’ll meet people who make you feel worthwhile again. And little pieces of your soul will finally come back. And all that fuzzy stuff, those years of your life that you wasted, that will eventually begin to fade.” – Iris, “The Holiday”

When I heard this monologue, I realized that it had a hopeful thought: “pieces of your soul come back.” That’s not something that churches taught. We were taught that in Christ, we had forgiveness, but we could never have wholeness. Only recently have I learned that the origin of the “pieces of heart” teaching is from Bill Gothard’s ministry. If this teaching is evidence of whether or not the tree is good – then it is proof positive that the tree is a very bad one. There’s no shortage of stories on the internet about members of my generation who believed that they were worthless, who lived in fear, who filled themselves up with pride for being fully obedient while others gave into the temptation to sin. To this day, many struggle with love because everything they were taught about it was wrong.

Ultimately, this teaching damages one’s own self-esteem. It tells you that your ability to love is limited; you only have so much to give and then there’ll be no love left to live on. It tells you that worth or value is dependent on your behavior; that if you act the wrong way that God will love you less than if you acted the right way. Anybody could see that as a horrible misinterpretation of Scripture in any other context:

“Your ability to tell the truth is limited. You only have so much truth to give, then you only have lies left to live on. Your worth is dependent on you telling the truth. The more lies you tell, the less God loves you.”

Anyone would say: “No, God loves everyone regardless of their sin.” “Your worth isn’t dependent on how you behave, to God you’re worth dying for just because he loves you.” “Love never fails.” But when it comes in the context of dating and relationships, this bad teaching goes unchallenged and unchecked.

And now that an entire generation has grown up under it’s flawed guidance, we can see the result – extremely high rates of singleness, most young people putting off marriage, some even deciding against getting married at all, and even the mostly “godly” marriages fraught with as many problems as regular marriages. Sadly, there are many out there who still teach these things, perpetuating the destruction of self-esteem and pouring onto those open wounds with guilt and shame.

This bad tree has planted the seeds of a horrible forest, please stop trying to be guides through it – rather, let it go and find another way – a better way – a less destructive way. Help us to put our souls back together and to not to live in fear of losing them in the first place.

My Worst Post, Ever.

listen

The worst post I have ever written is something nobody has ever called me out on. It’s the sort of thing that still gets something of a free pass in the circles I used to haunt. I could easily leave it alone, forget about it, and know that nobody really cares. It’s as easy as saying: “You can’t hold that against me, it’s not like I’ve done anything —ist recently.” But I think that an outstanding track record that says I’ve been on my best behavior never excuses the worst behavior I’ve ever had even if it was from years ago.

The thinking that underlies the post is that of someone who was raised in Christianity to believe certain things were unquestionably true – among them, the interpretation of Scripture as elaborated upon by the pastor of my church. That’s not to say that my pastor was the sort to say racist or sexist or whatever comments from the pulpit; but he wasn’t the sort of person to stress that one shouldn’t say such things either. I was taught that I was a righteous believer who would go to heaven when I die and anyone who wasn’t a believer would be eternally tormented in heaven. In order to save unbelievers from their fate, they would have confront the fact that they were sinners in need of salvation – anyone who doesn’t see themselves as a sinner will never understand the depth of their need for salvation.

This story was always punctuated by the story of the guy on the boat. You’ve probably heard it, but here it goes anyway: There’s this guy and his house is flooding. So his neighbor floats on by in his canoe and says, “Hey buddy, I’ve got a way out, come with me.” and the guy with the flooding house says: “No man, I’ve got this guy coming for me. You go on alone.” So the flood gets bad and the guy moves on up to the second story of his house. He’s sitting on his window ledge and this guy on a raft happens to float on by and says: “Dude, I’ve got plenty of room on this raft, hop on board and we’ll head for dry land.” The guy on the window shakes his head and says: “Thanks, but no thanks. My friend is coming for me and he promised that he won’t fail. Go help other people who really need it. I’ll be fine.” Things go downhill fast – and soon the guy is sitting on his roof, watching the water slowly rise. Finally, a boat comes by: “I’m your last chance, get on board if you want to live.” But the guy on his roof was adamant that he had help on the way. The guy on the boat didn’t stick around to see if he would change his mind. That night, the water rose and swept him away. As he approached the gates of heaven, he asked God: “Why didn’t you send me help?” To which God said: “I sent you the canoe, the raft, and the boat – it was you who refused to be saved and perished.

The point was that as Christians, we were the canoes, rafts, and boats that God was sending to the foolish sinners to tell them what they needed to know in order for them to be saved. Anyone who was so caught up in their own sin that they refused to see the obvious truth before them was deserving of the destruction that God had prepared for them. Now when I had written the worst post ever, it was during the height of the animosity against a group of sinning sinners who stood opposed to the plain truth of the scriptures. We were taught that love wasn’t to accept the sin that a person was up to, but to stage something like an intervention – make it clear that the behavior was unacceptable and harmful; after all, their eternal soul was at stake and a little discomfort here on the earthly plain was far better than eternal torture. In this way, equating the wrong behavior to an actual wrong behavior was much the same thing – we were taught that sin is lawlessness, and breaking the law – by a white lie or by premeditated murder were equal offenses in God’s law-book; and since both the smallest and greatest act of lawbreaking had the same punishment, then so would every sin in-between. So breaking God’s moral law was the same as breaking a regular law – particularly when the regular law was likely based from God’s moral law – so far as I was taught. It seems worth noting that these ideas weren’t elaborated as such, but more or less blanks that each believer was expected to fill on his or her own once they had been trained to think just the right way.
This is the worst post I have ever written.

it shows me how far I’ve come and how much further I have yet to go; but it worries me most knowing that there’s this strain of thinking that goes unchecked in Christianity because it acceptable. It’s not in just one church in just one town in just one state – but it’s like a little yeast that has been worked throughout the whole dough – bloating it. Because we think of sin and wrongness in these certain terms, then being holy and righteous becomes a free pass to take whatever measures are necessary to wipe the slate clean.

Since nobody has called me out on it, I choose to call myself out on it. I was wrong; I’m so very deeply sorry about the lies I used to believe and spread about people I had never met and had no way of knowing how many of them were kind, decent, honest people just like me and in some cases far better and more gracious than me. I was just parroting what I was taught. I wasn’t thinking for myself. A lot has changed in seven years – most notably the passage of the Marriage Equality Act – but long before then my perspective had begun to change. Even as I was being taught about how evil those unrepentant sinners were, I had begun to get to know one. From the first day I walked into school as the new kid, everybody told me that Brock was one of them. His friends were my friends, which sort of made him my friend. He was also very open about it, talking about guys the same way that the girls did. I remember listening as one boy told him: “When you first came out, all I wanted to do was to pound your face in … but now, I don’t feel that way anymore.” Brock would be about my age today – had he not committed suicide. He never saw the Marriage Equality Act passed.

Then, of course, there was that house. The one where the murder had taken place that had something to do with that sin or so the rumor went. Every day to and from school we’d glance over and see the ever-present “For Sale – Reduced Price!” sign. Even nearly two decades after the crime it haunted the community. I had to ask – how was it loving for a Christian’s first reaction to be to beat someone up? How was it loving to ostracize people who didn’t fit in or measure up to our expectations? How was it loving to spread rumors that others were one of them without ever really getting to know them in the first place?

Even as all this played it’s part, there was also the mounting tension in Christianity – watching Westboro Church march around the country using language even I would not use – derogatory words meant to insult and shame people … I couldn’t see that as being loving or working as an effort to scare people to stop sinning and sign up for heaven. The Boy Scouts had changed their policies, which resulted in a great many churches pulling out their support, kicking them out of their building, and creating an alternative that taught only the things that met with Christian approval. As well as the reverse on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. From what I could tell, the secular world was realizing that to some degree it had been participating in oppressing a group of people and were trying to make amends, the Church, on the other hand, were trying to keep their power intact at the expense of oppressing others.

Then there were Bible study books that my church elder lead – “Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong” by John MacArthur’s ministry team and “Tipping the Scales” by Dr. James Kennedy’s ministry team. The former says: “It should be noted that I am using the descriptive term ‘Christian’ with qualification. I fully understand that a person who is homosexual or effeminate is not a true believer no matter how passionate their claim (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).” – the bulk of the chapter argues that the two are mutually exclusive identities. It advises: “Then bridges need to be burned in that person’s life to make the repetition of the sin difficult (cf. Mark 9:42-50). If the person has friends (even so-called Christians) who encourage this sin, those friendships must end immediately. If the bridge is a co-worker or the work environment, the person needs to change jobs. Any pipeline that fuels the sin of homosexuality must be severed. Of course, the counselee must then focus on friends, activities, and thinking that will facilitate righteousness (cf. Colossians 3:5-11).” Sure, Christianity could be interpreted to say that it applies to all sorts of sinners, liars, tax evaders, people who abuse their authority over others – all it would require is to isolate everyone on an island and cut off all human contact. It rounds out the chapter with the charge that sexual relationships are a matter of worship and not being complementarian is akin to idolatry. The latter features two chapters were former homosexual sinners and now fully heterosexual Christians spoke about their experiences and the efforts of the gay agenda as it relates to their actions in Washington D.C. affecting the laws and policies that were being made at the time the conference was given – when Bill Clinton was president.It’s almost a picture of us vs. them locked in a David vs. Goliath battle of saints trying to lovingly rescue sinners.

It took getting to know a few members of the LGBT community as friends and relatives for me to begin to see that my churches weren’t being entirely honest. They had interpreted scripture by twisting verses out of context and erasing any cultural or historical background from the Bible that allowed for other valid interpretations that they would rather ignore than admit the possibility that they have got it wrong. They made it a point not to say anything overtly racist or sexist or whatever, but they also made it a point not to call out anyone who did – as evidenced by nobody calling me out on my post that I had written years ago. They had so effectively poisoned the well that I almost didn’t give those sinners a chance to be my friend lest they contaminate me and cause me to lose my salvation – it’s a good thing that God foiled the church’s questionable teaching. The church has come a long way, but not long enough to stop itself from doing damage. It’s responsible for every child a parent kicks out of their home in the name of tough love, every time a kid beats up another kid because the saint wants to show his love for the sinner, for every broken relationship in the name of fixing a “counselee” – this and so much more hateful things have been done in the name of a sort of love that isn’t really love at all – because love does no harm and this love is nothing but harm.

There is one thing I did get right in my worst post ever, that there is a greater law that all of us are going to answer to. What I failed to understand back then that there’s no law involved – but grace as a result of true love – this kind of love: ” Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

Forsaking All

Growing up, I learned the ABCs (Admit, Believe, Confess) of FAITH (Forsaking All, I Trust Him). So long as I admit that Jesus is my savior, believe that Jesus is my savior, confess that Jesus is my savior and forsake all others as I trust Him alone, then my salvation is assured. It’s a pretty individualistic message; usually individualistic given that it’s not uncommon for stories in the Bible to report the conversion of one person to Christianity usually meant the rest of his or her household also converted into Christianity. Faith was a collective experience. Not only you and your family shared the same faith, but with any luck, so did everyone else around you; same faith and same values.

We’re an individualistic society – that’s how we read and apply the Bible. God’s promise to captive Israelites being marched to Babylon is interpreted as God’s promise to each and every one of us to give us a good life, to protect us, to provide for us no matter what happens – he has our backs. So we would view the promise of salvation as saving ourselves – whereas the ancient believers would have turned down any concept of salvation where their entire family couldn’t be saved as well.

This tendency creates a sort of righteous isolation – I’m being saved, I have the truth, I will go to heaven; who cares about the unsaved, who don’t have the truth and who won’t go to heaven? Something of this thinking gives people permission to cut out from their lives anyone that could jeopardize their salvation – an inconvenient relative or friend who just doesn’t share their values or makes them question their own faith or doesn’t get how important faith is. Such thinking would never have been possible in the ancient world – where families were strongly connected, where communities were closely bound, where friends were as family, where clients where as family, where relationships were at the core of everything.

Walking away from those relationships was to lose one’s identity, one’s security, one’s future, one’s past, one’s hope – yet Jesus promised new relationships to replace the ones that had been lost for those who would believe in him; for giving up a flesh-and-blood family, they would be part of a greater spiritual family with one father – God himself. Our culture doesn’t give us many parallels – perhaps during the Civil War when brother fought brother, or during the Civil Rights era when one marched on one side and the other fought to hold down traditions. Perhaps it’s the cutting off of a LGBTQ teenager to show him or her tough love to snap them back to their senses and return home as the prodigal children that they are. For some reason, many Christians feel justified in sacrificing some relationships for the church. Forsaking all others indeed.

I wish that shared faith wasn’t a non-negotiable prerequisite to be associated with them for these people – because it’s so strange to stand across the table from somebody I used to know from church and from somebody who used to know me from church knowing that I haven’t changed and they haven’t changed, but the relationship we had isn’t the same. Trying to talk politely around the church issue without broaching the subject. Perhaps this spiritual family is too much like a flesh-and-blood family and when relatives are on opposite sides – you know the saying, a house divided falls.