Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Are we headed "full circle?"

At the dawn of the Christian Church, the apostles faced some determined opposition in the Jewish Council, which met and agreed that this new sect of "The Way", as it became known, was getting too risky to just take a live-and-let-live policy. They brought in the ringleaders, Peter and John, and told them "not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus." (Acts 4:18) There was to be no attempts to enroll others in their religion, or they would risk prosecution and imprisonment; as did in fact happen.

2000 years later, the circle of intolerance seems to be coming around for Americans. Oh, it's not entirely new for Christians to get the crack-down from a government or competing religion. That kind of thing is routine in other nations, as Christians are persecuted by zealots and leaders of Muslim or Hindu religion, or a secular state like China. But America's constitutional freedoms of religion have precluded such discrimination.

But popular and prevailing culture is another force of opposition; less centralized and codified than government, but just as powerful in enforcing its will. And the evidence of current controversy in the forum of religious discussion and events suggests that an intolerance toward "speaking in the name of Jesus" is getting more and more of a foothold each year.

A current example of that is the uproar created by Fox News' Brit Hume, who "dared" to suggest that Tiger Woods should seek "forgiveness and redemption" which only the Christian religion offers. An editorial in today's Omaha paper points out the ire that's been aroused among liberal critics by such advice. Mr. Hume, say his critics, has crossed the line from a free exercise of religion to an unwelcome proselytizing that makes him, as one columnist said, a "sanctimonious busybody"; and so his conduct to another critic is "truly embarrassing."

At this point, Brit Hume is merely being scorned and ridiculed by his peers and others who reject any religious persuasion, and it seems Christian persuasion is especially rejected by a culture that insists that "all paths lead to God", and it's fine if my path leads nowhere at all. But how far will we need to proceed on this circle of intolerance toward evangelism before Christians are more than scorned and ridiculed by columnists, comedians and others who purport to speak for the majority culture?

We may or may not get to the point where our government explicitly forbids Christians to speak in the name of Jesus, as is already true in some places. But the tide of cultural disapproval of exclusive religion, insisting on "One Way" and "One Book", is continuing to rise around us. And those who challenge the standing policy of their culture will have to decide if they want to stand with Peter and John, who responded to the Council's prohibition by saying, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard. "(Acts 4:19-20)




Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Real men...

Every weekend of the Fall season, football fans get to watch their favorite gridiron gladiators battle for pigskin supremacy; or at least "show up" and do their very best against the opponent. Win or lose, every fan expects an all-out effort, to “leave it all on the field.” And even beyond the sports venue, this kind of effort and willingness to face up to any opponent, challenge or adversary is a key part of what most regard as “manliness”.

What it comes down to in practical terms is the "warrior" attitude that seeks to exert power, win the day, to remain un-bowed before whoever or whatever is confronting us in our quest for high-value objectives. There's a place for bravery and steadfast courage, but it gets easily confused in the human mind with raw power, especially the kind that's used for personal benefit.

So, when Paul tells the Church to Stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13), it might be natural for modern minds to think of this in similar terms to what we expect in sports, business or war. The modern stereotype of a man includes things like aggression, bravery and a willingness to stand up to any opponent. Most boys play some form of “King of the hill,” and take this assertive, power-play mentality into their grown-up life. Those who can’t or won’t are often branded with some kind of negative label, like “wimp”, “cupcake” or “momma’s boy”.

This might explain a lot of unnecessary conflicts that spoil relationships in the home, the church and the workplace. When maturity is confused with power and conquest, people see competition instead of partnership, and humility is labeled as weakness.

But such images and expectations come into direct conflict with the example of Jesus Christ, who openly and unapologetically declared, “I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29). I don’t think anyone who knew Jesus of Nazareth would have thought of Him as a “wimp”, or one who would back down from a confrontation with evil. The difference is that He stood up for God’s rights, not for His own. He bravely faced the cross without a hint of self-pity or reluctance, but stood silent before the accusations of Jerusalem’s leaders.

The “power-play” kind of manliness accounts for a great many church splits, many broken homes and other impaired relationships, and stands in stark contrast to the Bible’s image of “acting like men” (or mature women for that matter). Paul puts the whole matter of real maturity and strength into perspective, as he concludes his short exhortation in saying, “Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Corinthians 16:14). Real men know how to live with real love, just like the greatest Man who loved the world in the greatest way, when He went boldly and powerfully to the cross for sinful mankind.