Duck Dynasty, Power, & Jesus At Christmas

While i’m unconcerned with Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty I’m very concerned with the people who let the “controversy” involving the two distract them, particularly the Christians who have let the topic distract them.

Media explosions like this often distract us from Jesus. The fact that many people are being distracted in the name of Jesus and with the intentions of being disciples is what makes the issue even more complicated and concerning. Some of us feel the need to stand up publicly for Phil Robertson, for free speech, for persecuted Christians, and for the truth of God’s view on homosexuality. 

As I watch my friends jump into the chaos of internet debates, A&E boycotts, and starting campaigns centered around the latest Christian celebrity I ask myself “Why?”

A lot of the issue comes down to power. Western Christians have been born into a place of power and privilege (like it or not). In many ways, we are rich and blind to the realities Christians in other parts of the world (and of other races or social classes) so we continue living unaware. We must eventually admit that we’re use to having influence if not majority control.

Because we tend to live in a place of power we think we must have it. Because the culture and nation we live in values power highly we tend to think we ought to as well. Jesus, however, did not value power and he discouraged his followers from desiring it as well. In fact, Jesus encouraged his followers to prepare for suffering and to endure it with patience and kindness, choosing to be wronged rather than to wrong. This, more than anything, would be a witness to the world of who God is and what he is like (John 15).

We tend to desire power and fear suffering. We fear suffering so much we seek out power (we want to be right and we want control) so we has assurance that we won't be threatened by suffering. We see a small sign of persecution and we’re up in arms protesting with bullhorns from every possible angle imaginable and it’s usually not for the sake of justice or Jesus. It may be hard to hear but Phil Robertson getting pulled off a TV show for sharing his views on homosexuality (or perhaps the way in which he shared his views) is not persecution; it’s business and it is Hollywood. 

We need to learn to let go of controlling media, controlling politics, and dictating the operations and reputation of our society. We need to be okay with simply being in the society while we are faithful Christians. Let’s have good conduct full of patience, kindness, selflessness, as we avoid entitlement. Let’s stop placing value on reality television and focus more on good ol’ fashioned reality. 

What would our brothers and sisters say if they saw us standing on soap boxes about someone losing their role on a reality television series and calling it persecution when they’ve just watched their friend get their body mangled and destroyed for simply claiming Christ’s name in a country where that faith and its practices are outlawed? That’s a real dichotomy in this world and that’s a problem we must face.

Today is Christmas eve. Tomorrow we will celebrate the arrival of God in the form of a weak and poor human child. Jesus emptied himself of power and glory so as to enter into a lowly state, that he might rescue a wayward world. As we follow him, let us imitate him and loosen our grip of power and the pursuit of control. If Jesus wanted to find victory through power he’d have appeased Simon Peter and Satan by doing so (Matthew 4:8-11, 26:51-54) but he didn’t. So why should we?

Jesus suffered and we, if faithful, shall share those sufferings (it’s an unquestioned fact in the New Testament). Suffering isn’t the lack of a TV show or even an unwon internet debate. Suffering is losing limbs and friends, it is being burned, it is hurting physically, emotionally, mentally, and dying. It’s being imprisoned. It is being treated as less than human. Christian suffering is losing the only thing left to lose after you’ve offered all of your life to others (and even then it’s not losing). 

Even if we should suffer, we shouldn’t be troubled by it. We saw it coming. It’s the result of a good and loving life that is faithful to Christ’s way (1Peter). We would do well to rejoice in sharing Jesus’ sufferings. This is far greater than being right, being in power, or having the latest celebrity still on TV to represent Christians (as if Jesus’ kingdom needed mass media). 

No matter how you feel about some tv show, the gay-marriage debate, the “Christian” nature of the nation, or Jesus, one thing is certain: we’re called to live out a selfless love and imitate the Christ who chose to suffer instead of take up power when given the chance(s). As we celebrate Christmas let us ask the question “How am I pursuing power and how do I repent?” 

Then, let us answer with our lives by following Jesus’ teachings and example. Let us choose weakness and be pleased to sit in the manager with our victorious King who gives himself completely. More could be said about the many facets of this topic but this is where we should always land. We should live like Jesus as suffering servants who find true power in giving ourselves away.

Advent & Being Incarnational

Advent is the season in which we celebrate the incarnation. The incarnation is the title given to God becoming flesh. In Jesus, we see God become weak and enter into the world in the form of a human being. Not only does God become man and come to be with us but he does it in humility but entering into the world as a baby, through the womb of the virgin Mary. There is more beauty in this than I have time or ability to write but I pray the beauty finds you (perhaps in some great books, prayers, and songs).

The term incarnation is an important one for us. Sometimes we hear pastors, theologians, and communities say we, as Christians and churches, ought to be incarnational. “We need incarnational ministries” and the like. It’s a good word and it is also a buzzword. More than anything, it is a reality of grace and blessing. 

As we focus on Jesus’ incarnation during this advent season I challenge us to also think of what this incarnation means for us as a people and to see the incarnation as transcending the nativity. What I mean is that Jesus doesn’t stop being the incarnation after the opening chapters of the gospels and God doesn’t end his strategy of incarnation with the person of Jesus. No, there aren’t more incarnations. Rather, God continues incarnation with his covenant people known as the Church.

The Church is known as the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16, 12, Romans 7:4, 12:4-8). 1 John 4:17 states, “By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.” In other words, we are just like Jesus in this world. When Jesus ascending into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father he left us with his peace and his ministry of reconciliation (John 14:15-31, 2 Corinthians 5). When we partake of the bread and wine in the Eucharist (communion) we are united to Christ and one another as his very body on this earth. We look like him in conduct, as individuals and as a community, and we really truly are bound together with Christ through our conduct and the eucharist. We truly carry on his work in the world, as his ambassadors and his body. He do the work of God on earth, reconciling humans to one another and to their Creator.

But how does this connect to Advent? 

I often think of the words of Luke 2:14 when the angels proclaim the news of the incarnated messiah to shepherds in the field saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” (ESV, NASB). We have often heard the King James Version which states, “Peace on earth and good will towards men.” 

Mere days before the beginning of Advent, Black Friday proves that there is not a peace all over the earth or even a whole lot of good will towards men. The newspapers, TV stations, and blogs show us that we’re still in waiting for this to feel true. So why isn’t it true and what does this have to do with incarnation and the Church as a people?

It doesn’t feel true because 1) we live in a tension where God’s kingdom is “already/not yet.” This means that the kingdom has come but not in it’s entirety and we live in a world that has victory in Christ but an enemy that has yet to surrender or become fully destroyed (rest assured, it’s coming). We’re to live in the “already” aspect of this tension with faith and hope in the “not yet” aspect. That’s hard because the world doesn’t operate as heaven does and we’re expected to do it anyway. By the way, that’s not an impossibility with Christ, it’s just scary and hard. This is also why we don’t tend to feel as though we have peace on earth or good will towards men; we don’t live it. 

All Christ did himself he gave to us to also do. That doesn’t mean we save ourselves, it means we live as he lived and taught. It means we share his hope for the coming judgment when all people get what they deserve and all is made right. It means we are able to forgive instead of taking vengeance. It means we can choose suffering instead of power over others. In Christ, in the incarnation we are empowered to set aside fear and live in love. Christ came to earth to bring his peace (the Hebrew word is shalom and it means a holistic positive/proactive peace for all of life). Christ left earth and gave us his peace with his Spirit. 

If the peace is not present we must ask if we are being people of peace. Are we becoming weak as Christ became weak? Are we suffering instead of seeking power? Are we loving instead of fearing? I’m not just talking about the big scale of life. I’m talking about how we budget, make purchases, talk to stranger, interact with friends, handle conflict, encounter enemies, go to work, learn at school, eat our meals, and more. Are we being a people of peace?

That’s not an easy question. What does it even mean to be a people of peace? It looks like loving justice. It looks like Jesus on the cross and us accepting that same fate in every moment/decision of our lives. Will I dine with people when it’ll cause me suffering? Will I spend my money in a way that blesses others and doesn’t keep me comfortable? Will I refuse to treat my enemies in any way that isn’t truly kind and generous? 

It’s too easy for me to make this issue about nonviolence, and it’s about that at a point, but it is much more. It’s about embracing Jesus and the means of our holy God in all aspects of life. Nothing should be left untouched by the incarnational power of Christ. We must always choose to become empty and weak for the sake of others and we must always be generous, kind, and forgiving. We must be inclusive and welcoming all people into our arms, homes, and communities because we care about their peace. 

Originally I wanted to write this blog and bring it around to Christian pacifism but instead I find it better to simply say that the call to be incarnational goes beyond that and if we are truly incarnational we will have no choice but to abandon our willingness to resort to means of violence in any given situation just as we will abandon our greed, elitism, fear, and all other sinful ways that sent Jesus to weakness and the cross (though his love drove him to it equally as much as our sin). 

Let us live by hope and by joy and by peace and by love this Advent. Let us embrace the incarnation of Jesus by mirroring him in this world today together. May 1John 4:17 be true of us.

“By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.”

Mark Driscoll's Violent Jesus

After several verbal jabs and insults over the years, world famous pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill has finally has brought forth an argument against Christian pacifism. Interestingly, he anchors his argument around the 6th command “Thou shall not murder.” The blog is titled Is God a pacifist? and you can find it on The Resurgence website.

I find three major issues with Driscoll’s blog. 1) He clings to the Moasica Law far too much for Christian ethics and 2) He poorly interprets the New Testament witness of Jesus so as to turn the Saviour into a vengeful and violent person, and 3) He isn't all that kind about the matter. But before I start let me just say that this guy (Derek Vreeland) said some really beautiful things about this and you should read his blog more than mine. 

1) Let's start by saying that Driscoll shows rightly than the wording of the sixth commandment is dealing with a specific type of killing; a murderous type. He is also right that the Mosaic Law in Exodus allows for lethal self defense and capital punishment within the Israelite community. He is also right that God allows his people to kill enemies in war at many points in the Old Testament. That’s all scripturally obvious and undeniable. So we agree that God throughout scripture is not properly labelled as a pacifist. 

However, Driscoll is arguing that the Mosaic Law is still the expectation for believers today. In answering the question “What does the sixth commandment mean for us?” he claims that killing a person is often justified and even necessary (the Exodus passages are his support). He claims that “God’s prohibition against murder in the sixth commandment is not intended to apply to lawful taking of life, such as self-defense, capital punishment, and just war.” While the sixth commandment is specific in forbidding murder, the Mosaic Law commands capital punishment and self defense, and God sends Israel to war in the Old Testament, that doesn’t mean God has the same expectations for us today. While we must look at the Old Testament along with the New Testament to get an accurate picture of God, we must also understand that God has continued to reveal himself, kingdom, and will for his people through time and thus there is progression in ethics for believers. The finest place to find expectations for believers today is in Jesus who is the fullest revelation of God because he is God.This makes the gospels useful since they record Jesus' teachings and example.

Jesus tells us that we were given the law (seen in Exodus) because of our hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8, Mark 10:5). We weren’t meant to always live that way but rather meant to be freed to live in a greater righteousness (Matthew 5:20) and that is why Jesus tightens the reigns on a lot of teachings like “love your enemies” and “thou shall not murder” (not only can we not murder someone, we can’t be angry at them). 

The Apostle Paul teaches that we are not held to the Mosaic law (especially us Gentiles) because Christ has freed us from it and called us instead to the law of love as exampled by Christ. We are not meant to function the way ancient Israel functioned in the time of Exodus but rather we are meant to function like Jesus when he walked the earth (Ephesians 5:1). This is the picture of the early church who suffered mistreatment and were said to be imitators of Christ (1 Thessalonians 1:6, 2:14, Hebrews 6:12)

Jesus, though not claiming to be what would later be called “pacifist”, lived a life of nonresistance and nonviolence. He taught people to do good to enemies, to bless and not curse, to turn the other cheek, to put away their swords, and to embrace forgiveness and mercy as they suffered and endured wrongdoing so that in doing so they might be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect. Jesus told us that it is the peacemakers who will be called children of God. Then he allowed himself to be tortured and murdered unjustly, telling us to follow him with crosses on our back all the while. Maybe that’s not pacifism but sure it gives a lot less permission for violent and lethal action in the life of a believer than the Mosaic Law. Driscoll overlooks this migration from the Mosaic Law to the law of love.

2) Driscoll argues that the Prince of Peace is not a pacifist because he must "vanquish his enemies." The problem with this argument is that it must ignore the wisdom of scripture which shows that Jesus does overcome and defeat his enemies through his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. The victory is secure already and it came through nonviolent means. Jesus becomes our sin, suffers our sin, and covers it by the cross and resurrection. In the same way he absorbs our violence through the cross and shows it lacking as he defeats our violent ways in the resurrection. In that line of thinking, is it any wonder that his last words to us are “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you” (John14:27)?

The notion that Jesus can not be nonviolent because he must defeat his enemies implies that Jesus must employ violence to defeat his enemies but we know this is nonsensical in light of Jesus’ own words when he teaches, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36). And have we forgotten that Jesus could use all the force he wanted for his kingdom purposes but never did (Matthew 26:52-54)? Why would he when his/our enemy is not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:2) and his/our weapons are not ones made by men (2 Corinthians 6:7)?

It seems that Driscoll is still promoting his notion that Jesus “Jesus took a beating to atone for sin; on his next trip he will hand them out to unrepentant sinners instead” (source) Driscoll has described his view of Jesus before stating in a 2007 Relevant magazine interview, “...I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”*

He also stated that the book of Revelation chapter 19 shows that “Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down his leg, a sword in his hand and the commitment to make someone bleed.” (source) This is not exactly accurate and it shows that Driscoll takes a strictly literal interpretation of Revelation, which most notable theologians would rightly dismiss.** A few key things to know about this passage is that the blood Jesus is soaked in is his own because he shows up drenched in it (remember the cross) and the sword comes from his mouth and is most likely imagery for the Word of God which brings judgment and defeats evil with truth. The language may be violent but the Jesus it describes is not. It's the same Jesus John earlier described in his gospel. If one of those descriptions is wrapped in imagery and is confusing then it is best to refer to the more clear description.

Driscoll’s view of a violent Jesus is restated in this new blog about pacifism. He writes, “[Jesus] has a long wick, but the anger of his wrath is burning. Once the wick is burned up, he is saddling up on a white horse and coming to slaughter his enemies and usher in his kingdom. Blood will flow.” The slaughtering Jesus that Driscoll desires isn’t the Jesus described in Revelation. 

Again, Driscoll misreads the scriptures of Revelation when he comments on Revelation 14. He attributes all the slaughtering to Jesus but really the passage is imagery of harvest. It’s farming/vineyard language and it resembles Jesus’ parable about the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) or the wheat and chaff (Matthew 3:11-12). Driscoll misses that Jesus reaps only the good harvest and some other angel reaps the grapes for the winepress of God’s wrath. Also, the sickle is a farming tool and not a weapon (even in this passage). Driscoll wants Jesus to be the guy who hurts other people and brings about a river of blood but the scriptures don’t show that at all. Scripture shows a river of blood pouring from Jesus' hands, feet, side, and brow due to suffering the violence of evil men. The man Driscoll describes wasn’t on the cross but was the one that put the man on the cross. That's scary.

3) The absolute worst part of this blog is not the poor reading of Revelation or the lack of Gospel and Epistle passages*** from a man who is calling out pacifists for being selective in their use of scripture to support their position. The worst part is Driscoll’s inability to speak on the subject of Christian pacifism without insulting his brothers and sisters in Christ who live a lifestyle of nonviolence. Not only this, he can’t avoid insulting their attempt to worship Jesus. Even if we agree with Driscoll’s face-value interpretation of scripture we should disagree with his treatment of others (because it is completely unfaithful to Jesus’ way - pacifist or not).

Driscoll describes the Jesus worshipped by pacifists as “The European, long-haired, dress-wearing, hippie [created by]..a bad artist who mistook Jesus for a community college humanities professor.” This, of course, is an uncivil and unloving attempt at describing the pacifist position. Driscoll shows no intention to accurately represent those with whom he has disagreement. He chooses to insult them and attempt to shame them in Christian circles with this statement. He’s done this in the past when he stated in his blog championing MMA, “Their picture of Jesus is basically a guy in a dress with fabulous long hair, drinking decaf and in touch with his feelings, who would never hurt anyone.” A poor argument is often proved by attacking language. 

Driscoll ends his blog stating, "Some of those whose blood will flow... will be those who did not repent of their sin but did wrongly teach that Jesus was a pacifist. Jesus is no one to mess with." The implication is the threat that Jesus is coming to slaughter the pacifists in his wrath because they taught that Jesus promoted a lifestyle of nonviolence and they discouraged killing other people. 

Nevermind the fact that Jesus never did hurt anyone according to scripture, Driscoll's demands a violent Jesus. Even if Jesus isn’t a pacifist Driscoll is still wrong in how he treats his Christian brothers and sisters (and it is probably because he does a poor job of reading the scriptures in a coherent fashion). I'm not saying God doesn't have a wrath and that those choosing sin won't suffer it. I'm not saying God is unjust and that there is no condemnation for sin. That's what makes God's grace seen in Jesus so beautiful! I'm saying we need to rethink Driscoll's presentation of Jesus because it doesn't seem to match up with the full presentation in the New Testament.

As we all seek to know Jesus rightly, may we approach the entire scriptures with open hearts and minds. May we believe what Jesus has said as the ultimate truth and let his words and example guide us into his already ushered in kingdom. Even if Jesus doesn't turn us into pacifists, may he turn us into people who love everyone with the fruit of the Spirit, regardless of how weak or strong they may appear.  

*This is ironic since Driscoll (along with every other human being in history) did beat up Jesus and then killed him. And in the midst of it Jesus forgave him (and everyone else) before giving them peace and calling them to follow his way. 

**Driscoll shows these interpretation colors in his MMA Evaluation blog as well when he states, “Jesus said both to turn the other cheek and to bring a sword to defend oneself. So let’s not simply quote one thing he said as if it were the only thing he said.” Jesus said that first part but never the second. That’s a message Driscoll believes in implied by a command of Jesus that most scholars would say is metaphorical (and even promotes the teaching of nonviolence).

***Driscoll only references the gospels to point out a quoting of the sixth commandment (perhaps to suggest that the commandment is still in effect). The problem with this is that in those passages Jesus is explicitly saying that that teaching is not the ethical expectation for his followers but rather he calls them to an abandonment of simple anger or to move beyond law into relationship and sacrifice. The only Epistle references are to Romans 13 which is used in a way that dismisses Romans 12 and shirks the place of the sixth commandment in the life of a post-resurrection believer.

Christians Condemning Sinners

My previous post about the The Gospel Coalition’s “Gag Reflex” article has brought about some disagreement (not unexpectedly). I’m not going to defend against most of the arguments here but I will speak to one of the themes I saw in the feedback I received. One of the most interesting aspects of the disagreements is that the majority of the people who disagreed with me were fighting for the need to condemn others for their sin. Some felt that we need to temper love with condemnation. Others said we need to outright condemn in order to honor God. 

As a result I thought it would be helpful to look at the gospels and see what Jesus has to say about condemning sin and sinners (which describes us all). 

John 3:17-18 states, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” 

These words, along with several other NT passages (Galatians 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:12, 1 Timothy 3:6, 5:12, Titus 3:11) teach that people are presently living in condemnation and the future condemnation that comes upon them is of their own doing. Jesus, who is God in the flesh with us, does not come to us to condemn us for our sin but rather to do the exact opposite. He comes to save us from our condemnation and sin. None of these teachings give us the idea that we, as Christians, are to condemn others (especially if we are to imitate Jesus in as much as we are able). The condemned are already condemned. We can correct and we can love but we can not condemn unless we also desire to be condemned. 

In Luke 6:37-38 Jesus says, “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” 

We have a choice to condemn others, of course, but it is not a choice that will result in blessings. The contrast of judgement and condemnation with forgiveness and generosity in this teaching is strong and serves to show that we are to approach others with forgiveness and generosity (which is Christ-like love) instead of condemnation. That is fighting for the sinner instead of fighting against the sinner. If Christ died for us while we still against him by living in sin and if we are to imitate Christ then we must fight for the sinner and not against the sinner. But knowing what that looks like can be hard. 

There is an example of this in John 8:2-11: “Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more”

As John said five chapters earlier, Jesus does not come to condemn but to save. He brings forgiveness and generosity to the sinner (and as this passage proves we are all sinners). It is then no wonder that when Jesus encounters the adulterous woman and the religious mob that he makes it absolutely clear that nobody but Jesus himself is free to condemn sinners. In doing this he points out that all people are sinners. This includes the people who are believed to be the most righteous. Then, he refuses to condemn anyone when he has all authority to do so. Instead, he forgives the adulterous woman and calls her to repent as she lives her life in freedom.

That is forgiveness and generosity. That is love. That is what we Christians must be about. If we are eager to condemn or to be against people, to prove them wrong or disgusting then we’ve missed Jesus. As we are honest and bold in speech about the evil of this world and the sin that kills humanity let us do so without condemnation but rather with forgiveness and generosity. We can’t pussy-foot around the reality of sin, that would be unloving to both God and neighbor. However, Jesus shows us there is a way to address sin without condemning others. After all, if someone is in sin they are already condemned so our condemnation doesn’t help them. However, our forgiveness, generosity, and honest speech help. 

May God’s Spirit give us discernment to know what is good and what is harmful. May we see love rightly defined through Jesus and follow him into love so that we and others may find freedom and true repentance. May we learn to stand against sin as Jesus does through love and not condemnation.

The Gospel Coalition's Gagging Reflex

I was told this morning that The Gospel Coalition is once again under some attack for a blog they posted entitled The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage” by Thabiti Anyabwile. I read the article and I had several thoughts but when I finished writing my reaction I discovered a better thought.

Anyabwile wrote, that Christians in the gay-marriage debate must “Return the discussion to sexual behavior in all its yuckiest gag-inducing truth.” In an attempt to show what Anyabwile calls the “yuck factor” he describes homosexual acts. He then states, “That sense of moral outrage you’re now likely feeling–either at the descriptions above or at me for writing them–that gut-wrenching, jaw-clenching, hand-over-your-mouth, ‘I feel dirty’ moral outrage is the gag reflex. It’s what you quietly felt when you read “two men deep kissing” in the second paragraph. Your moral sensibilities have been provoked–and rightly so. That reflex triggered by an accurate description of homosexual behavior will be the beginning of the recovery of moral sense and sensibility when it comes to the so-called ‘gay marriage’ debate.”

Here is what I think:

The idea that we will make progress in reestablishing moral sensibilities through the development of reactions of disgust towards certain sexual acts is misguided and shortsighted. People who are easily grossed-out aren’t bound to be morally upstanding people. They may be sensitive (possibly even hypersensitive) to sinful acts but that doesn’t make them necessarily upstanding or send them on the path towards being morally upstanding. Weren’t the Pharisee’s disgusted when they encountered Jesus breaking the Mosaic Law or when they found a woman committing adultery? What good did it do them? And in contrast, how good was it for the Pharisee’s and the sinners to encounter the person of Jesus?

What we need is not to see certain sexual acts as “yucky” but rather to see sinful people as similar to us. We must learn to see others as God sees them and created them. Ultimately, this begins with us seeing ourselves as sinful (and whether or not our sin is “yucky” or not is relative).

This means we embrace the knowledge that all humans, gay and straight alike, chaste and promiscuous alike, are created in the very image of God. It means we acknowledge that we are ourselves sinners in need of the Father, Son, and Spirit. We focus on the log in our own eye so that we may be of assistance to those who have specks in their eye (something done delicately). My sin is a bigger issue than someone else’s sin and my fight against sin is within myself.

Our focus must always be on loving people because that is the command Jesus gave us. He told us to give up our own sinful ways and to love others. He didn’t tell us we need to see sinful acts as more disgusting, create a morally sensible population, or to win political debates. His focus isn’t on those things. So why is ours? Jesus tells us that his kingdom is subversive. It does not flourish by winning political quarrels or by the establishment of laws that suit the opinions of his people. More often his kingdom is found in the suffering of his people. Maybe we see the kingdom more when we are busy being with people instead of being busy being against people.

If we will faithfully read the words of Jesus in the gospels, I guarantee that we will not be focused on convincing others that homosexual acts are disgusting so that we can recover “moral sense and sensibilities” and as a result win a political or moral debate about gay-marriage. Rather, we will be focused on following Jesus into his upside down kingdom as humble people who fight sin in their own hearts and honor others in a way that makes them see the beauty and goodness of God and his Way so that they desire to also follow him.

I’m not saying we don’t call sin out for what it is. I’m not saying homosexual acts aren’t sinful. Scripture teaches that they are indeed sinful. But that doesn’t mean I should fight to be disgusted by other people’s sin or fight for other’s to be disgusted by other people’s sin. It means I should avoid that sin in my own life and be unafraid to call it sin when necessary as I deeply love others, no matter what sins they commit. 

If I’m disgusted or not doesn’t matter. What matters is if I am pure and loving in Christ Jesus. So perhaps the better aim and strategy is to love God and to love neighbors as ourselves. This means we talk less about homosexuals and talk more with homosexuals, and not about their sexuality but about everything in love. Less debate, more life. Eventually our focus won’t even be about homosexuals but rather about people. Let’s face it, people don’t want to be labels and projects anyway. People want to be embraced as people through love.