Christians and Our Martyr Complex

A poll taken earlier this year gives us a new perspective on the attitude towards Christians in the community of higher learning. This poll was designed and conducted by a Jewish group to gauge feelings of anti-Semitism in American universities, but what they found was far from their expected results. 53 percent of its sample of 1,200 college and university faculty members said they have "unfavorable" feelings toward evangelical Christians.

Said chief pollster Gary Tobin, "If a majority of faculty said they did not feel warmly about Muslims or Jews . . . there would be an outcry. No one would attempt to justify or explain those feelings." As Dr. Jim Eckman observed, "since higher education is training the next generation of leaders and is instilling them with a worldview, that worldview is biased against biblical Christianity".

I don't doubt, if polled, we would see a similar bais against Christianity mirrored in many other circles (politics, media, the sciences, etc.) as well. This results in a double standard when it comes to the public response to conflicts surrounding Christianity. Case in point: Kathy Griffin's "Suck it, Jesus" comment during this year's Emmys. I am fairly certain there would have been a much larger outcry had she degraded any other religion and their deity/s. However, I am inclined to point the finger at Christianity before I point it at others.

One of my biggest pet peeves is hearing Christians cry "martyr" the moment we feel slighted. We instantly play the "persecution" card and chalk it up as suffering for Jesus to avoid any self-evaluation about how we are presenting (and representing) Christ and the Gospel. Bypassing introspection, we charge on bull-headed in behavior that we think honors God simply because non-Christians react negatively to it. While Christ promised His followers they would receive hostile responses just as He did, such a response is not an instant endorsement that you are conducting yourself in a Christ-like manner. We must make certain that the tension rises out of the pure Gospel and not as result of an attitude that is abusive, ignorant, or self-righteous.

We should be constantly striving for a Christianity that is graceful and winsome rather than judgemental and overbearing. We should be studying to be intelligent and articulate in our presentation of Christ and the Christian worldview rather than close-minded and shallow. From religious issues (God, sin, etc.) to scientific issues (Intelligent Design, stem cell research, etc.) to social issues (homosexuality, abortion, etc.), we need to be prepared to give a more satisfying answer than "The Bible says so". The Gospel is offensive enough on its own, there is no need for us to add more offense to it. Instead, we should be administering a constant gut & heart check to make sure that the "persecution" we receive is brought on by the Gospel and not our own foolishness.

Why is there pain?

This question grows out of one of my previous posts entitled The Victims of Tyranny and Tragedy. The question arises: why must the fallen world be so painful? The answer is similar to my previous blog in that it is rooted in the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man (neither of which do we grasp the depth and severity of). However, these are only two of the factors and a third may surprise you. One of the main reasons this world is so painful is because of God's great love and compassion for us.

I know, this sounds ridiculous and contradictory but let me explain. As children, we learn what our bodies were not made for through pain (our hands were not made for the stove, etc.). In a similar way, God is trying to teach us as spiritual children that we were not made for this world. More precisely, we were not made primarily for any desire in this world but rather were made to desire God above all else.

This, in fact, is how the whole pain thing started. In the garden, man and woman rejected God as their supreme desire and chose the desire for autonomy and freedom from God (in the form of choosing the forbidden fruit) instead. Through this act, not only did man sin and become fallen, but the world was subjected to bondage to corruption and futility. Because of this, creation has not functioned in the perfect harmony that it was intended for.

Why? Why did God do this to the world? Why so many children with heart-wrenching disabilities? Why natural disasters that take so many lives? Why famines and diseases? As John Piper puts it, God put the world under a curse so that the physical horror we see around us would become a vivid picture of how horrible sin is. In other words, natural evil is a signpost to the unspeakable wickedness of moral evil. God allowed the disorder of the natural world to match the disorder of the moral and spiritual world. Diseases and deformities are God's portraits of what sin is like in the spiritual realm and that is true even though some of the most Godly people bear the most horrible deformities.

Yet we don't feel it! In our present, fallen condition our hearts are so numb and so blinded we seldom feel the gravity of our sin. Almost no one feels the abhorrence that sin is or feels repulsed or nauseated at how they scorn the glory of God. We should feel as deeply about sin as we do about a friend's disability. We should feel as intense and bad about our immorality as we do about starvation. O, that we could feel how offensive and repugnant and abominable it is to prefer anything to your Maker! To plagiarize John Piper once more, the natural world is shot through with horrors that aim to wake us up from the dream world of thinking demeaning God is no big deal.

Thus, if there were not the pain that there now is, it would be far too easy to forget God and how we have spurned Him. It would be far too easy to prefer all the temporary pleasures that this world offers rather than prefer the eternal joy in Christ. To quote C.S. Lewis, "We are half-hearted creatures like an ignorant child wants to go making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the beach. We are far too easily pleased."

The Charges Against Christians

There are many names thrown at modern-day Christians but there are a select few that seem to be more common than the rest and seem to stick unusually well. Unfortunately, I have to admit that we have all too often earned them.

"Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay" says David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group and author of UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity. He continues, "What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves 'Christians' because of the baggage that accompanies the label." So let me address these charges from former to latter.

Of being anti-gay, I believe the church has sorely mishandled this issue. I have never understood why we treat homosexuality (inside or outside the church) as any different than any other sexual sin (adultery, premarital sex, etc.). They are all the same in the eyes of God. As Paul said, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?" Yet we have flipped them around, trying to change the lifestyle (of an outsider) before changing the heart (and bringing them within the church). Up until that point, we need to love them and witness to them in word and deed (just like every other lost person). If and when a conversion takes place, then the issue of homosexuality can be approached in a sensitive but uncompromising biblical approach with the assistance of the Holy Spirit working in their lives. Public policy is another matter and one I have addressed in a previous blog (see below).

To the charge of being hypocritical, I think most people use this word quite poorly. A hypocrite is one who professes beliefs of one sort but privately (or not so privately) practices the opposite without any attempt at change. For instance, no one would call a recovering alcoholic who disapproves of (and discourages others away from) alcoholism a hypocrite for having a momentary relapse. In the same way, Christians who discourage others away from and disapprove of a vice or sin but slip up and fall in that area don't quite fit the definition of hypocrite. The key is in the fight, the struggle, the effort to overcome. When the sin or vice becomes habitual, accepted or even celebrated then one crosses into hypocrisy. Unfortunately, there have been some very high-profile Christians who have been guilty of just that.

Addressing judgmentalism, I feel I've already said a bit. To the Christians, why are we judging those outside the church? To the rest, are we really guilty of as much hypocrisy as we're accused of? If we as Christians are to come under fire and garner a negative image , it should at least be for the right (and righteous) reasons. As Jesus said, "No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also." This is not golden ticket to interpret every bit of "persecution" as a sign you are doing the will of Jesus, only a proper understanding of Scripture will prove that in the end. Instead, too often we see a superficial "religion" in the guise of Christianity used to promote a person's bigotry, hatred, and self-righteousness. I don't expect John and Jane Doe to know the Bible well enough to see the duplicitousness of these individuals, so the burden falls on the true believers to live in a way that is lovingly and gracefully biblical and thereby reveal the disparity between the two. Only then will we be able to wear the label of "Christian" without being afraid of the stigma attached and knuckleheads who brought it upon us.

What is the unborn?

There is one question that makes or breaks the entire abortion issue for both sides. What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations. All arguments are either made irrelevant (if it is not a human person) or insufficient (if it is a human person). All the arguments reduce to this issue and either find their grounding or their nullification here. This argument was brought to my attention through a podcast that I cannot recommend highly enough (link below).

---

"Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate."
- Greg Koukl, founder of Stand To Reason Ministries

---

This argument may seem too simplistic to some, but I would suggest that it seems this way because we have made the issue too complicated. Arguments are presented regarding the health of the fetus, the relationship between the parents (i.e. rape, incest) and the rights of the mother. However, while these arguments do have issues that must be dealt with, they are secondary if the fetus in question is a person.

Every person's response should be obvious. No matter what side of the argument you fall on, there seems to be a clear burden on every person to answer this question. Any one who votes, who has any impact on public policy, should feel obligated to research enough to know whether or not a fetus is a human being.

http://www.str.org/

Who's forcing their views on whom?

I write this blog with more than a little trepidation of being mistaken as a bigot. So let me instead address the Christian community first. We have shot ourselves in the foot when it comes to the gay and lesbian community. We have largely remained silent about the love and forgiveness and life change available through Christ. Instead, we've blown homosexuality out of proportion and consider it somehow worse than the other sexual sins of premarital sex, adultery and pornography (sins occurring within the church). When we pick on homosexuality and turn a blind eye to these other sexual sins in the church, we are hypocrites. Unfortunately, the most vocal ones are the extremists who do not represent the majority of Christianity but form much of the public's opinion of Christianity. They are decidedly unbiblical in their bigoted thought and hateful speech and give no evidence of the grace and life change that a genuine conversion brings. My suspicion is that they are not part of the true body of Christ at all.

However, the homosexual community is committing one of the same errors that we as Christians tend to make. We seem to expect them to live by the same set of morals and values that we do without accepting our source for those values. In other words, we expect them to live up to Christian community standards without accepting Christ. We are guilty of trying to force them to live as if they accept our beliefs.

Yet they are doing the same thing, and on a much greater scale. The homosexual political lobby has exerted all it's strength to force it's view on the rest of society. They seek to pass laws or have judgements made in courts to force other people who have conscience concerns to the contrary to live as if they thought that same sex unions are exactly the same (naturally, socially, morally) as heterosexual unions. The majority of the people in this country do not adhere to such a stance, so to enforce something like same sex marriage statutes is to enforce such that is contrary to the public will.

It is not the religious side forcing it's views on gay community in this conflict, the Christian response has been largely on the defensive. The religious right would not be reacting if the homosexual lobbyists were not pressing to change laws to force people to accept their beliefs. Notice, there are no laws against homosexual relationships or unions, but there are also no allowances or exemptions for it. No rights are being infringed, but neither are any provisions being made. It seems to me that it's not the Christians who are forcing their views on the homosexual community, but rather the opposite.

The Victims of Tyranny and Tragedy

Living in a fallen, sinful world, it is easy to start thinking of one's self only in degrees of comparison to others. When we compare our own lives and behavior to those of the criminals and devils we see on the news and in history, the tendency is to begin to feel pretty good about ourselves. However, this sort of grading on a scale is dangerous and misleading and can have eternal consequences.

No matter what your position is on the state of man's sinfulness and the degree to which we are in bondage to it, only a liar can claim to be sinless and perfect (don't miss the irony in that). Indeed, every human being is guilty before God, every human being owes a debt. Consider these verses, then, to be a litmus test of your perception of the extent of man's guilt and God's holiness. If Jesus' response in this passage shocks you as much as it did me, please give new reflection not only to how high you esteem God as holy and just but also how low you esteem us as sinful and guilty.

---

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who lived in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Luke 13:1-5

---

Are you not shocked at the response of Jesus? He is informed that a group of Galileans (biblical historians estimate there were nearly 6,000 of them) were murdered in cold blood by the resident Roman thug. This act had cultural significance as well: not only were the Galileans killed but their remains were desecrated by the mixing of their blood with a pagan sacrifice. We expect Jesus to say they didn't deserve this, that they will be rewarded for enduring such a heinous crime. Or we expect Jesus to tell us that they were all actually exceptional sinners and earned this above and beyond other sinners. Either way, we expect Jesus to either defend or "excuse" God in allowing this to occur.

The last thing we expect is the response that Jesus gives. In fact, Jesus doesn't even stop at the retelling of such tyranny, He goes a step further and brings up His own example. He recounts another event that has no villain, an event that was simply a tragedy. If the crowd blamed Pilate for the first event, who could the crowd blame but God for the falling of a tower? If the crowd felt God needed vindication in their eyes in the first case, He certainly (and doubly) needed vindication in the second case. Undoubtedly Jesus would seek to absolve and exonerate God in the peoples' minds. Yet Jesus responds to both accounts of tyranny and tragedy with an identical answer.

"Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Jesus' response is quite the opposite from what we anticipate. God needs no justification to anyone in allowing these things, and others deserve no less if they do not repent. This didn't happen because the departed were greater sinners, and others were not spared because they were lesser sinners. However, just because these victims could claim innocence in these situations did not mean they were innocent altogether. Both events were rooted in this fallen world and happened to sinful man. The crux of the situation was not the amount of sin in the lives of the victims, but rather the sinfulness of both victims and hearers alike. Again, if this surprises you or strikes you as harsh, consider if what I've said seems true to the text, then consider your own presuppositions on man's sinfulness and God's holiness.

I know there are probably contemporary parallels that come to your mind that mirror the two situations Jesus addresses. I know there are several I've thought of. Tyranny and tragedy still occur on a daily basis. They fill our newspapers. If my words sound harsh, please do not mistake it for taking lightly the lives lost. No, it is not that the lives should be taken lightly, but that the glory and holiness and righteousness of God should be taken seriously.

I don't believe it is a stretching of the text to say that if any of us today don't repent, we will all likewise perish. Of course, I don't mean that we will all be slaughtered or crushed by a falling tower, but what things are true of all the unrepentant, both in Jesus' day and ours? Death is a permanent, final loss that is permitted(and therefore ordained) by God as an end of one's time given to either seek God and repentance or live in rebellion to Him.

Our response should be the same Jesus called his hearers to, repent! Find the forgiveness of God in Jesus Christ. For not only is God perfectly holy and just, He is perfectly merciful and gracious as well. For those who feel that God, rather than Pilate, is the tyrant in this account, God's response is the offering up of His Son. Much like the Galileans, Jesus' blood was shed in a pagan ritual and His blood was desecrated, but it was done to pay our debt to God. For God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The true tyranny of any life is denying Christ, the true tragedy is rejecting His grace.

God's Warriors . . . but which God?

CNN has just finished airing a three-day television event highlighting the religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity (including the most militant factions of each). Of course, this has been a hot topic ever since the events of 9/11 when the Islamic worldview was thrust to center stage in the American mind. In true postmodernist fashion, Christiane Amanpour presented these religions as three sides of the same coin (gotta love those three-sided coins), three equally valid worldviews that have more similarities than differences.

Before I go on, let me make one caution: be careful you do not judge a worldview or a religion by its abuses. This is a form of guilt by association and is a logical fallacy. I myself have been guilty of this in the past, decrying Islam on the basis of the terrorists and suicide bombers acting in the name of Allah. In the same way, I felt many of the quotes used during the segment on Christianity were taken out of context or simply not in keeping with biblical Christianity. Instead, one must judge a worldview by what it asserts and the founder who asserts it (in other words, deal with the ideas themselves). There is nothing left to believe if we rule out every worldview that is held (or twisted to fit an ulterior motive) by a murderer, a bigot or a moron. So I must resist my knee-jerk reaction, the same reaction of most Americans, to discount Islam based simply on what we've seen these past few years.

CNN and Christiane Amanpour went out of their way to present these religions as compatible worldviews that sympathetic characters use for discipline, humility, and self-betterment and that extremists use for hate, violence, and fear. This is not uncommon. Many people think that all religions are different only on the surface, but at the core are all the same. They cite the moral codes as proof, that they're all about "loving your neighbor".

In fact, quite the opposite is true! We should not be surprised that such similar moral codes appear in so many world religions. This moral code has been "written in their hearts" by our Creator, and it is here that the similarities end. In reality, the world religions are similar only on the surface, but at the core are vastly different. When the big questions are asked, questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny, the differences quickly come to the surface. Where did everything come from? What is man's purpose? How do we determine right and wrong? Where do we go when I die?

One line of questioning that is immediately relevant to the three religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity concerns Jesus. Who is/was He? Did He rise from the dead? What do we believe about His teachings? Through Jesus alone and by grace alone, Christianity guarantees eternal life, while Islam and Judaism deny salvation through Christ and can only offer the hope of salvation only through a strict adherence to a moral code. While this may seem exclusive (but isn't truth itself exclusive?*), the teachings of these religions stand in direct contrast of each other. It is clear, as you take a closer look, that all religions are not as similar or compatible as pop culture and CNN would have us believe.

*To assert that anything is true is to assert that the inverse is not true at the same time in the same relationship. For example, to say "I am here at the computer" is a true statement is to imply at the same time and in the same relationship that "I am not here at the computer" is a false statement. So to believe that anything is true is by default to believe that some things are not true, and this is the exclusivity I am speaking of.