CYPRESSWOOD CHURCH OF CHRIST

April 9, 2006

LIFT UP IN PRAYER THE FOLLOWING:

Our congregation                                                                 Our nation, leaders and military

Our students                                                                         Various friends, relatives and co-workers

James and Leon in the Army

COMING UP: After the assembly on April 30, the King’s have invited us to a party/house warming/shower for Travis and Rose at the King’s.  Start making plans.

A SORT OF CHRISTIAN

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).

Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas in Austin.  Over the years he has written in opposition to the war on terrorism, claimed that America continues to be overtly racist, and is generally considered to be very liberal in his political views.  Not too long ago, he penned the following editorial entitled “Why this atheist is a Christian (sort of)” (Houston Chronicle, 3/12/06).  It is an interesting read in a postmodern mindset.

Jensen opens the article this way: “I don’t believe in God.  I don’t believe Jesus Christ was the son of God that I don’t believe in, nor do I believe Jesus rose from the dead to ascend to a heaven that I don’t believe exists.  Given these positions, this year I did the only thing that seemed sensible: I formally joined a Christian church.”  To many of us this makes no sense.  He goes on to say that he affirmed to endorse the core principles in Christ’s teachings, to deepen his understanding and practice of universal love which is at the heart of those principles and pledged to be a responsible member of both the church and the community.  He goes on to say that the congregation he joined understood that he “didn’t convert in a theological sense but joined a moral and political community” or as he said earlier in the article, a political act.  He also sees that a Hindu, an atheist, or anyone can be a Christian.   He understands that he lives in a country that is very religious and that the dominant religion is Christianity. 

This is based on a view of the Bible that sees it “more realistically read symbolically and not literally.”  “What if the resurrection is metaphor?”  He finds that other religions and people have similar statements to what is found in scripture.  “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself (Islam).”  “Act only on the maxim that you can will a universal law (Kant).”  “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.  That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.  Go and study it” (the Jewish Rabbi Hillel).  His concern is for social-justice issues which he has written about at other times .  “The deeper struggle is over whether Christianity is to be understood as a closed set of answers that leads to the intensification of these boundaries, or as an invitation to explore questions that help people transcend boundaries.  Such a struggles is going on not only within Christianity, but in all the major world religions.”  He asks “Where can this lead?”  We will return to that question later.

Before we reject this fellow out-of-hand, we might want to consider some things he says.  First, this article is clearly an example of postmodern writing.  He has taken a perfect good word, “Christian,” and redefined it to what he wants it to be, attempting to make it meaningless.  One can be a Christian but does not have to believe in Christ.  It is a pick-and-chose style of religion, not unlike the infamous Jesus Seminar that examined the gospels and picked what Jesus said and what He didn’t say, and came to the conclusion that very little recorded in the gospels was spoken or done by Jesus.  He does state that “If one can be a Christian without accepting the resurrection, then calling oneself Christian would have no meaning beyond an expression of support for some basic moral principles that are near universal.”

He wants to affirm the core principles of Jesus’ teachings and sees these as social issues rather than spiritual.  Jesus’ purpose was to come and die, giving His life as a ransom for many, shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sins.  It was reconciling a lost and sinful creation to the Creator.  He wants to deepen his understanding of love but does not define it.  We understand that love is seeking what is best for another even if it means dying for them.  He indeed might have this idea in mind but maybe his idea is more of tolerating anything that scripture opposes, hence the need for a metaphorical view of the texts. 

In all of this, he does see value in the social-justice issues in scripture.  He is not alone in his opposition to war in general and the war on terror in particular.  In previous articles we have looked at some of the discussion coming from brothers and sisters in Christ.  Defining what is and isn’t a social-justice issue and what side one is on usually, but not always, goes along politically conservative and liberal lines.  For instance, a conservative would see abortion and gay-marriage as moral and social-justice issues.  A liberal would see feeding the poor, peace, caring for AIDS disease, and anti-war as such issues.  Stereotypes in the media and politics states that if you support one view and oppose another, then you must be this or that.  If one opposes abortion, then one is not concerned for women.  If one doesn’t support the raising of taxes, then one is not concerned for the poor.  Unfortunately, many have bought into such stereotypes but do not examine the reality.  One can always find an extreme example in any issue.  Since the media is somewhat biased in its views, it rarely, if ever, reports on what the opposite view is doing.  We hear of Chuck Colson in the light of Watergate but not much about his founding and working in Prison Fellowship worldwide.  We hear of those who picket abortion clinics but rarely, if ever, about those who help pregnant women find ways to cope with or put out for adoption babies they struggle with.  The recent “natural disasters” have shown many “conservative” Christian groups going to those areas to help with recovery.  One could easily ask, “where are the liberal groups?’  The media certainly would have emphasized their efforts, wouldn’t they? 

He asks, “Where can this lead?”  He wants more dialogue, which I agree is a good thing.  The problem though is not to give up one’s moral or doctrinal commitments so that “we can all just get along.”  He wants a universal acceptance of basic social-justice issues but doesn’t see the reality that not everyone or every religion views those issues in the same way.  The quote above from Islam could be interpreted as a Muslim wanting what is good for another in the thinking of Jesus or that he wants what Allah wants and it means death to the one who will not positively respond. 

In all of this discussion, he fails to grasp an extremely important issue: sin.  He wants, and even sees, the good in others, but is blinded by the fact that all people are sinners in God’s sight.  This isn’t metaphorical, this is reality.  People will not changed until hearts are changed in Christ.  How does he describe what is evil?  In his view from his many articles is that America conservative social-justice views are evil because they do not agree with his.  What about radical Islam terrorists that kill innocent women and children?  It’s our fault; if only we understood them better, minded our own business, or because of all our past sins.   Not everyone wants to get along, rather they want to dominate.  

He does recognize the influence of Christianity in America.  That influence has brought about change in a number of areas.  Education, hospitals, slavery, child labor laws are just some that were influenced because Christians became involved.  He states that we need to be more open to others.  This he should apply to himself.  We all have biases that we must recognize and understand when in discussions.  Paul made that effort in Athens in approaching the philosophers (Acts 17).  Jensen might just be where he needs to be, in church.  While he now claims he does not believe in God, that could change, just like the eighty year old philosopher who moved from a atheistic to a deistic view.  In reading scripture, he might find that it is not all metaphor or symbolic, but speaks God’s truth to him.

I appreciate the article and what Jensen had to say.  It can open up discussion and an examination of scripture for all of us.  It does give us a glimpse into current thinking and a challenge in approaching such thinking.  I don’t agree with him but if he and others are willing to be open, then so am I.  Rather than talking past, ignoring, or going by stereotypes, we need to make an effort to “hear” what others are saying.  It is too easy to assume what one or another believes, to label and name call, and to use any means to win an argument.  What we want to do is bring glory to God in Christ.  We can overreact to anything.  None of this means we are giving up our beliefs.  I don’t agree with some of my brethren on any number of subjects, but they are still my brethren.  I don’t agree with a politically liberal perspective, but if we can get past the rhetoric, we could learn that there is more than one way to address social-justice issues.  We can also learn that even though we do not agree in certain areas, we can still work and worship together. 

However there are limits.  While Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, that did not mean He approved of sinful actions.  He made that clear (see John 4 and 8).  There is nothing wrong with reexamining our beliefs and developing a deeper and stronger faith.  Here is an interesting example.  A homosexual group out of Washington D.C. (can anything good come out of D.C.?) is traveling to Christian college campuses of all groups across the nation.  There goal is to explain a homosexual view of scripture and how harsh words and actions have hurt them.  One of the campuses they will be visiting is Abilene Christian University (ACU).  I can see some just going ballistic about this.  Now I do not agree with or think that scripture has anything positive to say in support of homosexuality.  It does say that one in this lifestyle can change in Christ (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  How should we approach such people?  How will calling them derogatory names accomplish anything positive?  How will labeling ACU something it is not be a positive move?  Jesus ate with those sinners and maybe we need to take another look at that idea.  See the past two bulletin articles as well as the next couple.  Does this mean that ACU is going to give up its core beliefs?  No.  In fact, they doubt it will have much impact at all, other than listening to what they have to say.  In a positive sense, in visiting all these campuses, they actually might find that what they have thought about Christians is different than what they find on these campuses, much like the Muslim world has seen a different America up close and personal in Iraq and various disaster relief efforts.

Hopefully this will help with understanding Jensen, and coming up, the movie “The Da Vinci Code.”  We will visit that at a later date as well and see what we can learn.

                                                                                                                                George B. Mearns