Abandoning Love

Are you a Christian who shares the following observation about the current state of the body of Christ?

"The most basic tenet of Christianity is love; yet, how many Christians, especially in my home country of the United States, actually embrace that tenet? Every day, I see people who claim to be Christ's followers deny other people acceptance into the fold because of what they wear, how they look, and where they are from. The Bible says many will be deceived. I used to think the Church as a whole would be on the right side of things, but now, I wonder if the majority of Christians are the deceived. We cannot follow Christ without love. Has the Church abandoned love for the sake of worldly things such as wealth and [a] political agenda?"

I understand where this person is coming from, in general. However, there is an assumption that the person saying these things understands the subject matter they are addressing. For example, what is a tenet? By definition, a tenet is a "doctrine, principle, or position held as part of a philosophy, religion, or field of endeavor." Do Christians live by tenets? I would say that we do not. Tenets are outside influences designed to modify our behavior. In other words, they are laws. Laws can and do dictate how we act, but they do little to change our hearts. You can motivate a person to behave a certain way through force, manipulation, the promise of rewards, or threat of punishment. What does the recipient of these actions see as your motivation? To me, it would come across as fake and not genuine. Therefore, the desired effect would be lost. 

Continuing on, what does this person mean by "people who claim to be Christ followers?" Basically, it means Christians. But, when I read the phrase "Christ follower," the mental picture is that Jesus Christ is in front of a person, and that person is trying to imitate the actions of the Lord. Once again, this gives the impression that a person is being instructed on how to act instead of living instinctively in response to the Holy Spirit's leading through a changed heart. There is a popular ministry called, "I am Second." The implication is that Jesus or God is "first" in a person's life, and they are "second." However, it is this thought process that robs Christianity and the Gospel of its central meaning. That being, "Christ in you, the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27)." We are not necessarily following Jesus Christ as we are being led by Him from within. Being led symbolizes the idea that Christ is our life, not that He is first and we are second. He changes our hearts, and that changes our behavior. 

Generally speaking, as Christians, we should accept others even if we disagree with them. However, from my experience, what people wear, where they are from, and how they look could indicate what they believe. There is a difference between acceptance and tolerance. Acceptance means that you understand that everybody is different and has different experiences. In this case, you are trying to meet them and forge a bond on agreement points. Whereas tolerance could mean that you could be compromising the truth to get along. If that is the case, then denying people "acceptance into the fold" may have some merit. You cannot have unity with each other "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13)."

The Bible does say that many will be deceived, including Christians. However, this is usually due to unbelievers or believers being led astray by "false Christs and false prophets (Matthew 24:24)" performing signs and wonders. But, to stand in judgment of people in this way without giving examples of what you are determining to be deception can make you out to be the bad guy. Who is to say that the one making the judgment isn't the one who is deceived? The apostle Paul said, "Brothers if someone is caught in a trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him with a spirit of gentleness. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted (Galatians 6:1)."It is this attitude that we should have towards our fellow Christian brothers and sisters. If they are guilty of being deceived and have fallen into sin, go to them and restore them gently, but be on guard to not fall into the same sin. 

There may be a point about the church abandoning "love for the sake of worldly things such as wealth and [a] political agenda." The prosperity gospel comes to mind when mentioning the pursuit of worldly things. Throughout history, the Church has sought to place its mark on society. At times, however, it does seem that Christians equate political agendas with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The idea that God's ability to reach the lost and hurting world with the message of Jesus Christ is tied to political success is not true and a bit arrogant on our part. Politics is the fruit of one's faith, but faith in Jesus Christ is not dependent on the political climate of a given moment in time. Ultimately, we have to define love. Love means different things to different people. As Christians, we have to use God's definition of love and then allow that to dictate how we engage the world around us. 

"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails ... (1 Corinthians 13:4-8)" These attributes of love are examples of the fruit of the Spirit. God shares His love with us through the indwelling Holy Spirit. As we mature in our relationship with God in Christ, we will bear these fruits to the world around us. When we do this, love will not be a tenet that we embrace. It will be a natural expression of a heart changed by an encounter with the living God. A heart changed by God will abandon the world to be a part of God's agenda in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Uncle Tom

No other slanderous put down carries more weight than to be called an "Uncle Tom." In short, the term "Uncle Tom" is used to describe "a black man considered to be excessively obedient or servile." However, as is often the case, most people do not know who Uncle Tom truly was. Here is a transcript of a conversation between two black men, George and Uncle Ward, from an old television show called "The Jeffersons" breaking down the truth about Uncle Tom. The particular episode from which this is taken from is described as "Louise's Uncle Ward visits the Jeffersons, but George derisively refers to him as an "Uncle Tom" for having worked as a butler for many years." Here is the conversation:

Uncle Ward: Do you mind if I serve myself a cup of coffee?
George:  Nobody serves better than you! (Laughter)
Uncle Ward: Tell me something, George. You like to use the words "Uncle Tom" a lot.
George: Only when it fits.
Uncle Ward: Do you know who Uncle Tom really was?
George: Sure, he was that dumb n****r who used to thank Simon Legree for whipping him. (Laughter)
Uncle Ward:  Wrong! That's another one of those lies about our people that's been accepted as truth.
George:  Who was he then? Superfly in disguise? (Laughter)
Uncle Ward:  No, George. In real life, Uncle Tom was a slave named Josiah Henson who escaped and walked all the way from Kentucky to Canada with his wife and children. And there he started the first manual training school for our people.
George:  How you know that (sic)?
Uncle Ward:  I read. Sometimes I listen. You could do the same thing.
George:  (Grunts an acknowledgment)
Uncle Ward:  Have you heard of the Underground Railroad?
George:  Sure.
Uncle Ward:  Well, Josiah Henson helped a hundred slaves escape up north even before there was an Underground Railroad. He was a brave man. A great leader. And I'll tell you something else, George. I'd never call you an Uncle Tom. (Audience moans)
George: (Gives a humbling smirk) (Audience applauds)

Now, it is disputed whether or not Josiah Henson was the inspiration for Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin. However, it is pretty clear that "Uncle Tom" is far from the derogatory character most today believe him to be. In today's society, from my understanding, the term, "Uncle Tom," is used to tear down black men who have a conservative view of politics and social issues. Personally, as a conservative, I have never been called an "Uncle Tom." However, I have been called a "white apologist," "sheltered," that I voted for "The Antichrist," and was once asked, "Do you have white friends?" And all of these insults came from my own relatives. Now, I don't say this to try and bring myself attention, or even to put down those people I am referring to, but to show you that these things are real. But, the slander doesn't stop there. It even finds its way into the subject of one's faith.

As a Christian who believes in what has been called the "Finality of the Cross" and the "Reality of the Resurrection," those who disagree with me can sometimes resort to their own brand of name-calling. In case you are unfamiliar with what these terms mean, it is simple. The "Finality of the Cross," just means that I believe a Christian doesn't have to ask God to forgive their sins. The "Reality of the Resurrection" is another way of saying that salvation is God restoring His Holy Spirit to a person when they accept Jesus Christ as their savior because Jesus' Resurrection makes it possible. Unfortunately, I have found that when you believe this way, especially the part about not having to ask God to forgive your sins, fellow Christians can begin hurling their own insults at you. A friend once told me that I was "preaching a license to sin." Others have said that I don't "believe in the Old Testament" because I don't believe Christians are obligated to obey the Law of Moses. Along those same lines, a pastor once called me an "Antinomian;" a fancy word for saying I am "against the Law." A fellow Christian said I am living a "dangerous life" because of my stance on forgiveness. Having been a Christian for over 20 years now, I have learned that these types of insults come with the territory of standing for my beliefs. It is no different with my social and political beliefs which are a fruit of my Christian beliefs. Jesus Christ said, "A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household (Matthew 10:36)." The Apostle Paul wrote, regarding his sufferings, that he was "in dangers from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers (2 Corinthians 11:26)." Basically, when you believe something that others don't you can have enemies in your own home and face dangers from everywhere else. And what can't go unnoticed is the fact that all of this hostility stems from a misconception. In the case of "Uncle Tom," he was believed to be a traitor to his own people when in fact he was the exact opposite. Those who have come against me are slandering me because they incorrectly believe I am teaching something that I am not. While I haven't always responded in a loving manner, my prayer is that those who come against me and those who share my beliefs, would take the advice of Uncle Ward and read and listen. Read the Bible, history and listen to the Holy Spirit. That is what I have done and try to continue to do. It is why I believe as I do. If that means I am an Uncle Tom, then I proudly accept the compliment. I would rather believe and share the truth at the cost of losing my family and friends, then to lie about what God has taught me and have to answer to Him.

Life and Death

Last night I was talking to a lady about a variety of topics centering around this upcoming Presidential Election. Given the fact that we both claim to be Christians, it is natural that the topic of life and death would arise. In other words, the emotional issues of abortion and the death penalty. I assume, based on her comments, that this lady is a Democrat or, at least, sides with the positions that the Party has held. Those positions being Pro-Choice and anti-capital punishment. She made it clear that conservative Christians and Republicans are being hypocritical because they claim to be pro-life, yet support the death penalty. I have often wondered how someone, who claims to be a Christian, can't see the difference between the two positions. Oddly enough, she was espousing the same position a relative of mine has about the two subjects. Although, to the best of my knowledge, my relative is not a Christian. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that they would hold those positions. Personally, the inability to see the difference between protecting the life of an unborn child and taking the life of a murderer is evidence of a lack of biblical understanding. 

 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." Romans 13:1-5

In the Old Testament, God commanded death as the punishment for a multitude of sins. If you read through the book of Exodus, you will find that the death penalty was the punishment for murder, kidnapping and bestiality. Adultery, prostitution, and homosexuality are punishable by death according to the book of Leviticus. Deuteronomy says that the sins of rape and being a false prophet deserve death. It is clear that the wages of sin is death. Basically, every sin deserves to be punished by death. I think people forget that God created life. Therefore, when someone takes a life or uses the life they have been given to corrupt and mislead others, amongst other things, then taking their life is actually necessary to honor life itself. In Genesis, we see where God destroyed the entire population of the world, except for eight souls, during the Global Flood. He also destroyed two entire cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, because of their descent into the depths of sin and debauchery. 

There are countless other examples where God either destroyed life Himself or did so through one of His chosen instruments in order to punish unbelievers and sinners for their transgressions. If we don't have a death penalty as an option to punish individuals, what does that say about our respect for life? It says that a perpetrator can take a life knowing that, if captured, their life will be spared regardless of how heinous the crime. Christians against capital punishment are not coming to that conclusion from a biblical perspective. It is the byproduct of being swayed by the opinions of the world and reliance on our feelings. The "sword" the government yields is the authority to pass judgement on those who violate the laws of the land. Even if that judgment is the taking of one's life. What many seem to forget is that all of us are under a death sentence. And if it were not for the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, that sentence would have been carried out and we would have no hope. 

 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25 

We often hear the argument for those favoring abortion that you are not ending a human life when you perform an abortion. For my Christian friend, she seemed to equate the death penalty with abortion. Again, I must ask how is the taking of innocent life, that life which hasn't even seen the light of day, the same as the taking of guilty life? It is not. I remember the murder trial of Scott Peterson. Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife, Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant with their son, Conner. At the time, I remember asking "How is it that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is convicted of taking two lives, but if the mother had decided to "end" her pregnancy, it is choice?" It doesn't make sense. But, this particular case shows the difference between the taking of innocent life and the life of a murderer. Scott Peterson chose to take the life of his wife and son against their will. Because of this crime he was sentenced to die by lethal injection as punishment for his crime. I, and many Christians, do not see any contradiction in this verdict. You take innocent life, we take your life as payment. One wanted life lost. One unwanted life lost. A just society is preserved and the citizens are not burdened with the responsibility of having to pay to house a person nobody wants walking the streets where they could murder again. This is not a hypocritical stance, but one that lines up consistently with scripture.

 "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." Matthew 1: 18-21

Senator Barack Obama was asked at "what point does a baby get human rights?" Senator Obama, a self-described Christian, responded by saying, "answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." As a friend of my joked, "When Michele (Obama's wife) told him she was pregnant, he knew when life began!" Since Obama claims to be a Christian, he should know of Joseph's reaction when he found out Mary was pregnant. He planned to "divorce her quietly" because he believed she was pregnant with another man's child. He knew when life began. And as the angel of the Lord confirmed, life begins at conception, not when it is convenient for us to acknowledge it or not. This is why the lady I was speaking with is the one being hypocritical in their stance. Being a supporter of the Democratic ticket proves that she has the responsibility of lining up her beliefs with those of scripture. I am not one to say, like some believe, that she will have to "answer to God" for her political decisions. But, if she claims to be a Christian, her worldview should be filtered through the lens of scripture as much as possible. In this particular instance, the issues of life and death, when it begins and when to end it, are quite clear from the Bible's point of view.