Getting Facts Before You Judge (May 29, 2005)
A writer to "Dear Abby" complained that her son's friends never reciprocated invitations to their home. Someone later wrote to say that when she was a child she couldn't invite anyone to her house because her father was a violent drunk. She never dared explain why she wouldn't have people over. Friends just thought she was inhospitable.
A friend once told me how he berated a girl for looking away whenever he talked to her. She said, "I have a lazy eye." He felt awful and apologized.
Last night playing basketball at the Y one of our regulars complained to me about the behavior of a guest player. I said, "I think he's slow-witted."
Maybe he wasn't. But I remember one time when I was working as a security guard and an early-arriving kitchen worker fussed irritably about some door being locked and I almost said, "Good grief lady, would you lighten up?" I'm glad I didn't say that, because it soon became apparent that she was borderline retarded. A locked door had thrown her off routine, and she did not know how to cope.
I think of cases like these when it comes to interpreting the difficult words of Jesus in Matthew 7:1: "Do not judge." Do not judge? What can he mean? Open the Bible to almost any page at all and you will find judgment on it. In 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, St. Paul actually condemns the church for not judging its own. If the commandment, "Do not judge" were a simple absolute, then Jesus was the worst of hypocrites, since he was one of the most judgmental individuals you will ever see. (I laugh at people who say that Jesus was tolerant. They have not read his words.) Judgment is necessary. We must have police and courtrooms and judges and prisons; we must have teachers who maintain order and parents who discipline and friends who say, "You must not do that." Eliminating judgment altogether is a recipe for chaos.
But Christians must temper judgment with mercy. We are to extend grace as much as we can, and remember all those times when we were misunderstood (or worse, misunderstood others) because the accusers didn't have all the facts. We must be eager to forgive and happy to discover reasons why the bad behavior wasn't as bad as we thought.
So while it may be that the friend who failed to invite you was just inhospitable, the person who looked over your shoulder was rude, and the ballplayer who fouled you was mean, it might also be that they were less able to control things than you would have been. Assume that - assume that they all had good reasons, and you'll find yourself becoming a gracious person. Of course, if you gauge it wrong, you may just turn out to be a dupe. Even so, it is better to be a dupe than a crank.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Sunday, May 15, 2005
The Cowardice Of Shunning Controversy (May 15, 2005)
The pastor of one of America's biggest churches was asked by a journalist why he never addressed a certain highly-charged, biblical issue in the pulpit. He replied that he did not feel comfortable talking about it.
He needs to start feeling comfortable talking about it.
The sin of cowardice plagues our clergy today. The temptation isn't new - even St. Paul lamented his susceptibility to cowardice, which is why he begged the Ephesians to pray that "words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel...Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should" (Ephesians 6:19-20). That is a good prayer to pray for all spiritual leaders. Tell God to make us fearless. The dirty little secret of my vocation is that we ministers want to be liked, and, since our livelihoods partly depend on not ticking off too many people, the pressure to avoid saying anything that might alienate is extreme.
A church elder once told me that his pastor confided in him that he could never address the issue of divorce because so many people in his congregation were divorced. So what? We're sinners too - would he refuse to condemn sin? Would he shun the duty of calling us to repentance because some of us might not like that?
Look at the way John the Baptist stood toe-to-toe with Herod Antipas and said, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" (Mark 6:18). Surely he knew such a comment could lose him his public ministry (it did) and his life (it eventually did). Or look at St. Paul's incredible speech to the Athenians. Surrounded by pagan temples he said, "the Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples built by hands" (Acts 17:24). In the land of idols he affirmed, "We should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone" (Acts 17:24). No wonder that Greeks wanted to kill him (Acts 16:19-24; 19:23-34). And look at his declaration to fellow Jews in Acts 22:21-22, where he dared to say that God had called him to save Gentiles - the enemy. No wonder that Jews wanted to kill him too. And this ice-for-veins apostle wanted more courage? That is like Barry Bonds circa 2001 wanting more steroids!
If the apostles were ministering today, I wonder if we would disdain them as shameless provocateurs. They strike me as the sort who would go to Salt Lake City and call Joseph Smith a fraud; to San Francisco and say, "Those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom God"; to a Muslim community and say that Mohammed was a pedophile (he had sex with a nine-year-old); to anyplace at all and say, "There is salvation in no one but Jesus Christ" (Acts 4:12). I never see them evading tough issues of doctrine or practice with a dismissive "I don't feel comfortable talking about that." On the other hand, I am beginning to suspect that those traits we now honor as “tactful” and “winsome” might, in the light of apostolic courage, be shown to be nothing more than yellow-bellied, self-protecting cowardice.
May God give courage to all of us who dare to speak for him.
The pastor of one of America's biggest churches was asked by a journalist why he never addressed a certain highly-charged, biblical issue in the pulpit. He replied that he did not feel comfortable talking about it.
He needs to start feeling comfortable talking about it.
The sin of cowardice plagues our clergy today. The temptation isn't new - even St. Paul lamented his susceptibility to cowardice, which is why he begged the Ephesians to pray that "words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel...Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should" (Ephesians 6:19-20). That is a good prayer to pray for all spiritual leaders. Tell God to make us fearless. The dirty little secret of my vocation is that we ministers want to be liked, and, since our livelihoods partly depend on not ticking off too many people, the pressure to avoid saying anything that might alienate is extreme.
A church elder once told me that his pastor confided in him that he could never address the issue of divorce because so many people in his congregation were divorced. So what? We're sinners too - would he refuse to condemn sin? Would he shun the duty of calling us to repentance because some of us might not like that?
Look at the way John the Baptist stood toe-to-toe with Herod Antipas and said, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" (Mark 6:18). Surely he knew such a comment could lose him his public ministry (it did) and his life (it eventually did). Or look at St. Paul's incredible speech to the Athenians. Surrounded by pagan temples he said, "the Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples built by hands" (Acts 17:24). In the land of idols he affirmed, "We should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone" (Acts 17:24). No wonder that Greeks wanted to kill him (Acts 16:19-24; 19:23-34). And look at his declaration to fellow Jews in Acts 22:21-22, where he dared to say that God had called him to save Gentiles - the enemy. No wonder that Jews wanted to kill him too. And this ice-for-veins apostle wanted more courage? That is like Barry Bonds circa 2001 wanting more steroids!
If the apostles were ministering today, I wonder if we would disdain them as shameless provocateurs. They strike me as the sort who would go to Salt Lake City and call Joseph Smith a fraud; to San Francisco and say, "Those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom God"; to a Muslim community and say that Mohammed was a pedophile (he had sex with a nine-year-old); to anyplace at all and say, "There is salvation in no one but Jesus Christ" (Acts 4:12). I never see them evading tough issues of doctrine or practice with a dismissive "I don't feel comfortable talking about that." On the other hand, I am beginning to suspect that those traits we now honor as “tactful” and “winsome” might, in the light of apostolic courage, be shown to be nothing more than yellow-bellied, self-protecting cowardice.
May God give courage to all of us who dare to speak for him.
Sunday, May 8, 2005
Lighten Up, Ye Who Are Easily Ticked Off (May 8, 2005)
A radio program host was lauding Laura Bush for her generally well-received comedic skewering of her President husband. When a caller complained that the First Lady's comments were disgusting and inappropriate, the host said, "I have a question for you. Are you the kind of person who is easily offended?"
Great question! Too many people are too easily offended. They spend their days looking for something to tick them off. They wait like a starving Venus Fly Trap to snag offenses out of the air. God help you if you are married to one of these - like the saintly friend of mine who gets screamed at all the time by his offense-seeking missile of a wife. Some time ago he was awakened in the morning by one of her verbal tirades and he thought, "Man. I haven't even done anything yet."
Some years ago I was driving in a car with a (thankfully non-blood) relative and for whatever reason I was in a pretty good mood, but she shot that down pretty quick by looking out the window and dutifully recording everything she didn't like. Oh please. Lady. Lighten up.
Of course, I should talk. I'm a minister, and part of my duty before God is to get riled up by sin and channel that righteous anger into rebuke and warning and a call to repentance. Some things should offend us. Abraham's nephew Lot was "distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men" and "tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard" (2 Peter 2:7-8). Not to be offended by such sin is itself an offense.
So where do you draw the line between holy righteous anger and unholy over-sensitivity? I don't know - that is a tough one. I guess one general rule is to try to be as pleasant and agreeable and gracious as you can under the circumstances. Also, keep a mental tally of how many times you say "I can't stand" as opposed to "I just love." Say fewer of the former and more of the latter. And as for perceived insults to your person and character, just forget those. Smile and pretend not to notice.
A radio program host was lauding Laura Bush for her generally well-received comedic skewering of her President husband. When a caller complained that the First Lady's comments were disgusting and inappropriate, the host said, "I have a question for you. Are you the kind of person who is easily offended?"
Great question! Too many people are too easily offended. They spend their days looking for something to tick them off. They wait like a starving Venus Fly Trap to snag offenses out of the air. God help you if you are married to one of these - like the saintly friend of mine who gets screamed at all the time by his offense-seeking missile of a wife. Some time ago he was awakened in the morning by one of her verbal tirades and he thought, "Man. I haven't even done anything yet."
Some years ago I was driving in a car with a (thankfully non-blood) relative and for whatever reason I was in a pretty good mood, but she shot that down pretty quick by looking out the window and dutifully recording everything she didn't like. Oh please. Lady. Lighten up.
Of course, I should talk. I'm a minister, and part of my duty before God is to get riled up by sin and channel that righteous anger into rebuke and warning and a call to repentance. Some things should offend us. Abraham's nephew Lot was "distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men" and "tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard" (2 Peter 2:7-8). Not to be offended by such sin is itself an offense.
So where do you draw the line between holy righteous anger and unholy over-sensitivity? I don't know - that is a tough one. I guess one general rule is to try to be as pleasant and agreeable and gracious as you can under the circumstances. Also, keep a mental tally of how many times you say "I can't stand" as opposed to "I just love." Say fewer of the former and more of the latter. And as for perceived insults to your person and character, just forget those. Smile and pretend not to notice.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
PAFOTPOTC (Parents Against Fornication On The Part Of Their Children)
(May 1, 2005)
I have a modest proposal for Christian parents trying to keep their children from sexual immorality.
It's not getting them to sign a "True Love Waits" pledge card. I think those are a waste of time. Nearly two and a half million teens have signed the TLW pledge since the inception of the program in 1993. The pledge reads, “Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate, and my future children to be sexually abstinent from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship."
The content of this oath is very good. The problem is that oaths themselves are dangerous, as Jesus indicated when he told us to shun them (Matthew 5:33-37). Our perverse nature tempts us break promises simply because we made them. St. Paul noted a similar thing about the law: "Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died" (Romans 7:9). As a commandment provokes its own transgression, so a promise tempts its own disavowal.
And young people sure are breaking those chastity vows. A recent study from Columbia and Yale Universities surveyed 12,000 teenagers aged 12 to 18 and questioned them six years later. Of the young people who had pledged abstinence, 88 percent reported having sexual intercourse before marriage.
An 88 percent failure rate is unacceptable. Forget promises. What we need here is action. In Matthew 21:28-31, Jesus tells the story of two brothers, one of whom promised to work in his father's field but didn't, while the other one who didn't promise nevertheless went out and did the work. Obviously the second son is the obedient one. It is that obedience we are trying to elicit, not mere words of promise.
Can we guarantee our children's obedient chastity? No. But I think I know how to make it more likely. In a recent Sports Illustrated article where the author cast about for solutions to the steroid problem in baseball, he hit upon a successful model for reducing bad behavior in another area: drunk driving. He wrote,
A couple decades ago, when drunken-driving deaths in America were mounting at a terrifying rate but little public outcry was heard, a group of mothers organized and began pressuring legislatures, law-enforcement bodies, corporations and the mass media.
In the 25 years since Mothers Against Drunk Driving drew a line and went to war, alcohol-related traffic deaths have dropped by more than 40%, and since 1990 teen drunken-driving accidents have diminished by nearly 60%. The mothers did it by stigmatizing the behavior.
There it is! Stigmatize the behavior! If you want to reduce the frequency of a behavior, go to war against it. Load the sin down with consequences and fear and the threat of alienation. If it's drunk driving, stick the drunks in jail a long time. If it's steroids, kick he abusers out of baseball, rescind their awards, erase their records and keep them out of the Hall of Fame.
And if it's fornication, make the consequences as devastating as you can, and tell your children in advance what they will be. You won't pay his college bill if he is cohabiting with a girlfriend. (That will get his attention!) You will not allow her sin partner into your house. (She'll have to choose between her lover and you.) You won't pay for a church wedding or reception. (If by their sexual behavior they hold God in contempt, they have no business getting married in a church anyway - they should go to a judge.) And if a baby results, you're too old to raise a grandchild while your son or daughter gets his or her life together. They'll have to make do or put the baby up for adoption.
Is this cruel? Absolutely not. What is cruel is all the disease and divorce and abuse and fatherlessness and murder (abortion) that has resulted from our decades of unwillingness to stigmatize sexual misbehavior. Bad preachers have been urging us to affirm our offspring with unconditional love even when they become playboys and sluts - and we are shocked when these coddled youth continue to indulge their sin. Don't facilitate it. The great Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization didn't save thousands of lives by hugging drunks. They took a hard stand. Do likewise. Take a stand so strong with your children that, even if they don't fear God, at least they'll be scared to death of you. It is for their good.
(May 1, 2005)
I have a modest proposal for Christian parents trying to keep their children from sexual immorality.
It's not getting them to sign a "True Love Waits" pledge card. I think those are a waste of time. Nearly two and a half million teens have signed the TLW pledge since the inception of the program in 1993. The pledge reads, “Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate, and my future children to be sexually abstinent from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship."
The content of this oath is very good. The problem is that oaths themselves are dangerous, as Jesus indicated when he told us to shun them (Matthew 5:33-37). Our perverse nature tempts us break promises simply because we made them. St. Paul noted a similar thing about the law: "Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died" (Romans 7:9). As a commandment provokes its own transgression, so a promise tempts its own disavowal.
And young people sure are breaking those chastity vows. A recent study from Columbia and Yale Universities surveyed 12,000 teenagers aged 12 to 18 and questioned them six years later. Of the young people who had pledged abstinence, 88 percent reported having sexual intercourse before marriage.
An 88 percent failure rate is unacceptable. Forget promises. What we need here is action. In Matthew 21:28-31, Jesus tells the story of two brothers, one of whom promised to work in his father's field but didn't, while the other one who didn't promise nevertheless went out and did the work. Obviously the second son is the obedient one. It is that obedience we are trying to elicit, not mere words of promise.
Can we guarantee our children's obedient chastity? No. But I think I know how to make it more likely. In a recent Sports Illustrated article where the author cast about for solutions to the steroid problem in baseball, he hit upon a successful model for reducing bad behavior in another area: drunk driving. He wrote,
A couple decades ago, when drunken-driving deaths in America were mounting at a terrifying rate but little public outcry was heard, a group of mothers organized and began pressuring legislatures, law-enforcement bodies, corporations and the mass media.
In the 25 years since Mothers Against Drunk Driving drew a line and went to war, alcohol-related traffic deaths have dropped by more than 40%, and since 1990 teen drunken-driving accidents have diminished by nearly 60%. The mothers did it by stigmatizing the behavior.
There it is! Stigmatize the behavior! If you want to reduce the frequency of a behavior, go to war against it. Load the sin down with consequences and fear and the threat of alienation. If it's drunk driving, stick the drunks in jail a long time. If it's steroids, kick he abusers out of baseball, rescind their awards, erase their records and keep them out of the Hall of Fame.
And if it's fornication, make the consequences as devastating as you can, and tell your children in advance what they will be. You won't pay his college bill if he is cohabiting with a girlfriend. (That will get his attention!) You will not allow her sin partner into your house. (She'll have to choose between her lover and you.) You won't pay for a church wedding or reception. (If by their sexual behavior they hold God in contempt, they have no business getting married in a church anyway - they should go to a judge.) And if a baby results, you're too old to raise a grandchild while your son or daughter gets his or her life together. They'll have to make do or put the baby up for adoption.
Is this cruel? Absolutely not. What is cruel is all the disease and divorce and abuse and fatherlessness and murder (abortion) that has resulted from our decades of unwillingness to stigmatize sexual misbehavior. Bad preachers have been urging us to affirm our offspring with unconditional love even when they become playboys and sluts - and we are shocked when these coddled youth continue to indulge their sin. Don't facilitate it. The great Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization didn't save thousands of lives by hugging drunks. They took a hard stand. Do likewise. Take a stand so strong with your children that, even if they don't fear God, at least they'll be scared to death of you. It is for their good.
What You Are Not Permitted To Forget (April 24, 2005)
I saw on the news that yet another soloist at a sporting event forgot the words to the national anthem. Soprano Caroline Marcil mangled "The Star Spangled Banner" at a hockey exhibition in Quebec. But she had a good excuse: she's Canadian. (I don't know the words to "O Canada.") What I can't figure out is why so many American singers continue to screw up the song. Anthem anomalies are legendary and legion - my favorite is the one about some tenor at a baseball game who froze after "the rockets' red glare" and improvised "George Washington was there" before giving up. (Historical note: George Washington wasn't there.)
Polls show that only one-third of Americans know the words to Francis Scott Key's masterpiece. Included in the memory-challenged two-thirds are athletes and coaches who have heard the thing 10,000 times. Not to brag, but I even know the secondary stanzas ("Oh thus be it ever, when free men shall stand between their loved homes and the war's desolation") because I heard them in 7th grade.
On the other hand, my memory is so porous in other areas that people could think I'm brain damaged. When it comes to driving, I need directions to places I've been to many times before because I can't remember geographical squat. Faces are another problem - if I'm ever mugged, my attacker is in luck because I won't be able to give the police a description. ("Did he have facial hair?" "Umm." "Was he wearing glasses?" "Could be, could be." "Could you pick him out of a lineup?" "I could pick my wife and kids out of a lineup - after that it gets fuzzy.")
We forget different kinds of things, even important things. That is human nature and human folly. And that is why, as individuals and as community, we must work hard to thwart unholy amnesia from robbing us of all that is truly valuable.
This coming Sunday, as is the tradition in most evangelical churches on the first Sunday of the month, we will obey our Lord's command to remember him by celebrating communion. The Lord's Supper involves, among other things, a deliberate calling to mind of the sacrifice Jesus made to deliver us from sin and save our souls. Taking the bread and the cup, we give thanks for the blood-bought redemption that, perhaps, we seldom otherwise think about. It is good and right to partake and give thanks. If you are a Christian, remember to go to church this Sunday. Of course, you should go every Sunday, but especially when our Lord's suffering and death are commemorated. Don't forget.
I saw on the news that yet another soloist at a sporting event forgot the words to the national anthem. Soprano Caroline Marcil mangled "The Star Spangled Banner" at a hockey exhibition in Quebec. But she had a good excuse: she's Canadian. (I don't know the words to "O Canada.") What I can't figure out is why so many American singers continue to screw up the song. Anthem anomalies are legendary and legion - my favorite is the one about some tenor at a baseball game who froze after "the rockets' red glare" and improvised "George Washington was there" before giving up. (Historical note: George Washington wasn't there.)
Polls show that only one-third of Americans know the words to Francis Scott Key's masterpiece. Included in the memory-challenged two-thirds are athletes and coaches who have heard the thing 10,000 times. Not to brag, but I even know the secondary stanzas ("Oh thus be it ever, when free men shall stand between their loved homes and the war's desolation") because I heard them in 7th grade.
On the other hand, my memory is so porous in other areas that people could think I'm brain damaged. When it comes to driving, I need directions to places I've been to many times before because I can't remember geographical squat. Faces are another problem - if I'm ever mugged, my attacker is in luck because I won't be able to give the police a description. ("Did he have facial hair?" "Umm." "Was he wearing glasses?" "Could be, could be." "Could you pick him out of a lineup?" "I could pick my wife and kids out of a lineup - after that it gets fuzzy.")
We forget different kinds of things, even important things. That is human nature and human folly. And that is why, as individuals and as community, we must work hard to thwart unholy amnesia from robbing us of all that is truly valuable.
This coming Sunday, as is the tradition in most evangelical churches on the first Sunday of the month, we will obey our Lord's command to remember him by celebrating communion. The Lord's Supper involves, among other things, a deliberate calling to mind of the sacrifice Jesus made to deliver us from sin and save our souls. Taking the bread and the cup, we give thanks for the blood-bought redemption that, perhaps, we seldom otherwise think about. It is good and right to partake and give thanks. If you are a Christian, remember to go to church this Sunday. Of course, you should go every Sunday, but especially when our Lord's suffering and death are commemorated. Don't forget.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Is It The Catholics Or The Protestants Who Go To Hell? (April 17, 2005)
I met with some pastors yesterday, and one of them said that an elder in his church recently began his adult Sunday School class with, "I'm going to open a can of worms. Is Pope John Paul II in heaven?"
We laughed at the elder's audaciousness, but I could not resist asking the pastor the follow-up question: "So what was the answer?"
Apparently the answer was no! That surprised me, as did today's report in the Chicago Tribune that the new Pope, Benedict XVI, says that the Roman Catholic Church is the "only instrument of salvation," essentially leaving damned those outside Catholicism. But if the current Pope believes all us Protestants are going to hell, at least some of ours retaliate by saying, "Your predecessor is there already!"
Gentlemen, gentlemen. Please.
The Bible describes the doctrinal qualification for heaven very simply. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). I'm sure that Pope John Paul II believed in Jesus, called him Lord, and believed in his heart that God raised him from the dead. So on the surface it appears that Saint Paul would say that John Paul is saved.
Of course, beneath the surface, a fundamentalist-evangelical might say, "But the Pope also believed in works-righteousness!" or, "He regarded Mary as a co-mediatrix!" And this is just what I find so instructive. If you ask a conservative Protestant why some Catholic is in hell (or a conservative Catholic why some Protestant is in hell), the answer is always about doctrine and never about behavior. That is, they never say, "He was a drunk!" or "He was fornicator!" or "He did not provide for his family!" Instead they point to a doctrinal issue that divides Catholics from Protestants and note that the individual fell on the wrong side of the line.
But in the Scriptures, the line that separates damned from saved believers concerns their behavior. Here are some passages that I wish would receive much more attention in both Catholic and Protestant fellowships:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. I Corinthians 6:9-10.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord,jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5:8.
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars - their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. Revelation 21:8
I don't think these passages are hard to understand. Unrepentant cowards and liars and deadbeats and thieves and adulterers and witches and drag queens and rage-aholics are all going to hell - even if they once went forward at a Billy Graham crusade to receive Jesus into their hearts, even if they go to Mass every day. Behavior matters. It reveals what's in the heart. That is why Jesus said, "By their fruit [not by their words, not by their sectarian affiliation] you shall know them" (Matthew 7:20). Though I could write a book about my disagreements with Pope John Paul II, I can't deny that he believed in Jesus, and I certainly can't accuse him of being a bad man. Biblically, that computes to a heavenly destination. Hopefully, Ratzinger and those who succeed him will be able to say the same about non-Catholic Christians whom Pope John XXIII graciously called "our separated brethren."
And no matter what we think of each other, may God in heaven be merciful to us all.
I met with some pastors yesterday, and one of them said that an elder in his church recently began his adult Sunday School class with, "I'm going to open a can of worms. Is Pope John Paul II in heaven?"
We laughed at the elder's audaciousness, but I could not resist asking the pastor the follow-up question: "So what was the answer?"
Apparently the answer was no! That surprised me, as did today's report in the Chicago Tribune that the new Pope, Benedict XVI, says that the Roman Catholic Church is the "only instrument of salvation," essentially leaving damned those outside Catholicism. But if the current Pope believes all us Protestants are going to hell, at least some of ours retaliate by saying, "Your predecessor is there already!"
Gentlemen, gentlemen. Please.
The Bible describes the doctrinal qualification for heaven very simply. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). I'm sure that Pope John Paul II believed in Jesus, called him Lord, and believed in his heart that God raised him from the dead. So on the surface it appears that Saint Paul would say that John Paul is saved.
Of course, beneath the surface, a fundamentalist-evangelical might say, "But the Pope also believed in works-righteousness!" or, "He regarded Mary as a co-mediatrix!" And this is just what I find so instructive. If you ask a conservative Protestant why some Catholic is in hell (or a conservative Catholic why some Protestant is in hell), the answer is always about doctrine and never about behavior. That is, they never say, "He was a drunk!" or "He was fornicator!" or "He did not provide for his family!" Instead they point to a doctrinal issue that divides Catholics from Protestants and note that the individual fell on the wrong side of the line.
But in the Scriptures, the line that separates damned from saved believers concerns their behavior. Here are some passages that I wish would receive much more attention in both Catholic and Protestant fellowships:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. I Corinthians 6:9-10.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord,jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5:8.
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars - their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. Revelation 21:8
I don't think these passages are hard to understand. Unrepentant cowards and liars and deadbeats and thieves and adulterers and witches and drag queens and rage-aholics are all going to hell - even if they once went forward at a Billy Graham crusade to receive Jesus into their hearts, even if they go to Mass every day. Behavior matters. It reveals what's in the heart. That is why Jesus said, "By their fruit [not by their words, not by their sectarian affiliation] you shall know them" (Matthew 7:20). Though I could write a book about my disagreements with Pope John Paul II, I can't deny that he believed in Jesus, and I certainly can't accuse him of being a bad man. Biblically, that computes to a heavenly destination. Hopefully, Ratzinger and those who succeed him will be able to say the same about non-Catholic Christians whom Pope John XXIII graciously called "our separated brethren."
And no matter what we think of each other, may God in heaven be merciful to us all.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Stupid TV (April 10, 2005)
I once heard a sermon titled, "If I Had It To Do Over Again." It was about things the pastor had learned from his mistakes. I thought of that message when a friend asked me to come up with advice for a new father. My own children are teenagers now - if I could raise them again, would I do anything differently?
Yes, starting with the television set. I never should have let the fool thing in the house. When Linda and I were newly married, we deliberately had no TV. Several times people offered us their old sets, and we always refused. When we returned to the States after missionary service we remained TV-free until a fateful day in 1994 when some friends asked, "Do you want a television set?" and we said, "Well, o.k."
Rats, rats, rats. Can somebody zip me back in time so I can hold a cross before those well-meaning TV vampires and say, "Away, foul fiends of hell!" Now it is too late. I blew it. I fear my boys suffer the irreversible effects of screen-induced vegetonia. They quote Ashton Kutcher but not C. S. Lewis, and I find myself wondering why, bright as they are, they have not read the books I had read by the time I was their age. It is partly my fault - I let too many of their formative hours get eaten away by the electronic locust.
My older son tells me of a friend who is an extraordinary musician. He plays many instruments, all of them well. He has read philosophers and does not say "like" every fourth word. His dad has never allowed a TV in the house. Forgive me son - had I held the line on TV you might be less in awe of your friend's depth and talent, and better able to match it yourself.
Of course, I could still get rid of the TV now. Maybe I will. Maybe I am talking myself into it. But I know from experience - mine and others' - how hard it is to make those mid-course corrections. It is so much easier (and a thousand times better!) to set the course right in the first place and then just coast on it. You know what I mean - it is simple never to start smoking but it's the absolute dickens to quit. If you never had a TV your kids won't miss it, but if you take it away after they have grown accustomed you'll provoke the trauma of withdrawal.
Good luck raising your kids! May God grant that you get everything right the first time. And if you don't learn from my mistake and get rid of your TV, at least make sure that you turn it off a lot.
I once heard a sermon titled, "If I Had It To Do Over Again." It was about things the pastor had learned from his mistakes. I thought of that message when a friend asked me to come up with advice for a new father. My own children are teenagers now - if I could raise them again, would I do anything differently?
Yes, starting with the television set. I never should have let the fool thing in the house. When Linda and I were newly married, we deliberately had no TV. Several times people offered us their old sets, and we always refused. When we returned to the States after missionary service we remained TV-free until a fateful day in 1994 when some friends asked, "Do you want a television set?" and we said, "Well, o.k."
Rats, rats, rats. Can somebody zip me back in time so I can hold a cross before those well-meaning TV vampires and say, "Away, foul fiends of hell!" Now it is too late. I blew it. I fear my boys suffer the irreversible effects of screen-induced vegetonia. They quote Ashton Kutcher but not C. S. Lewis, and I find myself wondering why, bright as they are, they have not read the books I had read by the time I was their age. It is partly my fault - I let too many of their formative hours get eaten away by the electronic locust.
My older son tells me of a friend who is an extraordinary musician. He plays many instruments, all of them well. He has read philosophers and does not say "like" every fourth word. His dad has never allowed a TV in the house. Forgive me son - had I held the line on TV you might be less in awe of your friend's depth and talent, and better able to match it yourself.
Of course, I could still get rid of the TV now. Maybe I will. Maybe I am talking myself into it. But I know from experience - mine and others' - how hard it is to make those mid-course corrections. It is so much easier (and a thousand times better!) to set the course right in the first place and then just coast on it. You know what I mean - it is simple never to start smoking but it's the absolute dickens to quit. If you never had a TV your kids won't miss it, but if you take it away after they have grown accustomed you'll provoke the trauma of withdrawal.
Good luck raising your kids! May God grant that you get everything right the first time. And if you don't learn from my mistake and get rid of your TV, at least make sure that you turn it off a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)