When Jesus told his followers to go and make disciples, what exactly did he have in mind? As far as I know, Jesus only gave one defining template. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another (John 13:35). Were they loving each other or not? It would be easy to tell. Who is serving others? Who is laying down their life for another? Who is turning the other cheek? Who is feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, visiting orphans and widows, and praying for their enemies? Christ commissioned his disciples to love one another and go help others love one another. This they could do best by sharing wherever they went the good news of God’s reconciling love toward everyone through Jesus Christ and modeling that love in deed and word. Simple.
Tragically, history tells us that, from the earliest days of Christianity, many claiming to be followers of Jesus decided loving one another was an unsatisfactory measurement of who should be considered a fellow disciple. In a very short time, agreeing with “us” became much more important than simply loving us and others. The sorting out questions turned the focus to discovering who thinks like we think and cooperates with our ways of doing things rather than assessing if love was present.
Now, as everybody knows today, “loving one another” is way down on a long list of other “true disciple” identifiers such as saying specific words in a certain way, showing up regularly at church services, resorting to “acceptable” Bible interpretations as ones basis of belief, voting Republican or maybe conservative Democrat, supporting pro-family values causes, listening to Christian radio, and being disdainful of everyone who sins differently than “we” do. Loving one another may be all Jesus looks for in a disciple, but I can assure you it takes a great deal more to be recognized as a member in good standing on most church membership lists today.
Whether we will admit it or not, many churches have long ago abandoned making converts to loveful living and are, instead, devoting their time and money to getting people to conform to rules and habits of doing things religious the way they like them done.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
HORNS OF A DILEMMA
It looks like the Republicans and their buddies, the religious right, have a dilemma. The two candidates currently in the forefront of Republican presidential politics, Rudy Giuliani & Mitt Romney, have some big negatives for religious conservatives. Giuliani is supportive of abortion and gay rights. Romney is a Mormon who at one time was also aggressively pro-abortion rights (although, since he decided to run for president, he claims he’s changed his mind about that). What an ideological conundrum for the morality crowd.
Being pro-life has been a “non-negotiable” litmus test for anyone the religious right has endorsed. And, almost every evangelical who has attended an adult Sunday school class for more than a couple of years has received indoctrination showing Mormonism to be a false cult, dangerous and threatening to anyone holding forth the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Evangelicals, who make up the largest segment of the religious right, also espouse Biblical authority as a non-negotiable.
The old saying is that “politics makes strange bedfellows.” It will be fascinating to watch which of these two candidates (assuming they continue to be the frontrunners) the religious right will go to bed with. If anyone who has claimed to be pro-life and believes in the authority of the Bible ends up supporting either of these two candidates, they may be rightly criticized as a hypocrite. Their supposed non-negotiables will have been put aside for the sake of winning an election and occupying the seats of power. Never mind what the Bible cautions about those who clamor for earthly power.
I’m all for participating in the political process. But, as soon as one claims to have views that are godlier, more biblical, traditional, or whatever other morally superior label you want to give them, only to later put them on the back burner in order to secure power; they can be sure they are on the road to getting caught in embarrassing hypocrisy. That’s a mistake I hope to avoid making this time around.
Being pro-life has been a “non-negotiable” litmus test for anyone the religious right has endorsed. And, almost every evangelical who has attended an adult Sunday school class for more than a couple of years has received indoctrination showing Mormonism to be a false cult, dangerous and threatening to anyone holding forth the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Evangelicals, who make up the largest segment of the religious right, also espouse Biblical authority as a non-negotiable.
The old saying is that “politics makes strange bedfellows.” It will be fascinating to watch which of these two candidates (assuming they continue to be the frontrunners) the religious right will go to bed with. If anyone who has claimed to be pro-life and believes in the authority of the Bible ends up supporting either of these two candidates, they may be rightly criticized as a hypocrite. Their supposed non-negotiables will have been put aside for the sake of winning an election and occupying the seats of power. Never mind what the Bible cautions about those who clamor for earthly power.
I’m all for participating in the political process. But, as soon as one claims to have views that are godlier, more biblical, traditional, or whatever other morally superior label you want to give them, only to later put them on the back burner in order to secure power; they can be sure they are on the road to getting caught in embarrassing hypocrisy. That’s a mistake I hope to avoid making this time around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)