Last time we looked at the idea in the first part of this century stemming from postmodernism (which was in motion far before then) that truth was relative to the individual and that we should somehow tolerate that idea and each other’s truths. We also looked at some of why that didn’t and doesn’t work out well. Today I want to look at how we might lead as Christians in the current context resulting from the failure of that idea.
First as a society, Christian or not, we need to understand this. At this point, we either have to figure out how to rescue absolute truth or we will have a continual war between the “truths”. Those truths will battle to become the absolute truths of society. Because that is how it works. Always.
As Christians what we need to do is a couple of things. Mainly we need to lead with actual Christian truth. All of it. Not part of it. Not the parts that line up with my “truths” but all of it.
I’ve been writing a lot about what Christian leadership might look like in our current context. When I say current context I mean mainly within the American culture and Church. Of course part of the problem is that in America there is no “the Church” per se, but that is something to be addressed at a later time.
One of the things that happens all the time in the current cultural conversation over Christianity is that we tend to set things that appear opposed against each other. Or another approach is to take two Christian ideas and say that we need to balance them.
Today I want to continue to think about how we view history as a Christian. Last time I wrote about the idea that we are called to love the dead. In other words when we study people of the past we are called to study them with love in our hearts towards them. Each and every person who has ever lived was created in the image of God. When Jesus says to love our neighbor that includes everyone. It includes our enemy. It includes every person in history. Basically the idea is that the dead are our neighbors and we should treat them as such.
That alone is a major game changer. It means that I don’t get to sit in some sort of superior, self righteous place as I judge the people of the past. It means we should not act as if we are better, smarter or somehow more morally superior to those in the past. Because quite clearly we are not. Any fair reading of history along with any fair assessment of our own culture will tell you this. And that goes for all cultures.
This leads me to my second thought on how we should view history from a Christian worldview. This is also going to be uncomfortable by the way. Here it is. We should read history as if we are the perpetrators.
A few weeks ago I wrote a 5 part study on the parable of the Samaritan. Following that in a related post we looked at the idea of what it might mean to love our enemies. In a way this all points toward the idea of loving our neighbor.
Jesus uses the parable of the Samaritan in response to a Jewish lawyer who had asked what the greatest commandment was. Jesus answered that the greatest commandment was to love God with all of our heart, strength and mind. The second follows; that is to love our neighbor. The lawyer then asks who is our neighbor. Jesus uses the parable to make the point that every person, yes even our enemy, is our neighbor.
Many of you may remember the movie Jerry Maguire. In it Jerry is a sports agent and his assistant Dorothy falls in love with him. Jerry at first loves her but isn’t what one might call “in love” with her.** But at the end, Jerry realizes that he and Dorothy belong together. He goes to her and says, “You complete me.” They live happily ever after.
Now from a theological standpoint, there’s all sorts of things wrong here. As I’ve mentioned over and over here, what we often do in Christian culture is just take secular beliefs and dress them up into Christian ones. For example we take the romantic idea of the one, dress it up and turn it into the “one God has for us.” These examples go on and on.
But today I want to talk about the idea of two people completing each other. We talk about this all the time. Many times we hear how a person couldn’t be who they are without their spouse. We talk about how a person couldn’t do the ministry work they do without their spouse.
We have been looking for the last few posts at celibacy with what Jesus teaches in Matthew 19 as the background. We have looked at the overall picture, those that are born in a way that makes them celibate for life (either physically incapable or without the mental capacity for marriage), made that way by the fall or those that choose Celibacy for the Kingdom.
Last time we started to look that the second category – those “made that way by the fall of man“. In that post I promised a post about those that are attracted to the same sex but remain celibate. Today that is exactly what I want to talk about.
One of the things we have to do is our Christian culture and language is rescue the idea of Celibacy. I’ve tried to write quite a bit about this in the past but I realize that we need to talk about it even more. The good news is that more people are talking about it. The bad news is that a lot of us don’t realize what we are talking about including most of our “leaders”. We are going to need a more full theological and biblical understanding if we are going to lead in this conversation.
Most people tend to start in 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul talks about marriage, celibacy and the gifts. But I believe a better place to start is Matthew 19 where Jesus discusses the three eunuchs.
Recently I attended a conference on healthy sexuality. It was very well done and the spirit of the event was super encouraging to say the least. Within the many different topics and conversations was of course the discussion of how a person who is attracted to the same sex should live out their life.
Now this wasn’t a conference where people were demanding that anyone live a certain way and it was all non-confrontational, but the general answer was that from a biblical perspective that person should not be engaged in a same sex sexual relationship. In other words they should live a celibate life.
In response to this, one person said, “So basically we are condemning them to a life of loneliness and isolation.” I’m quite sure that this person was far from the only one in the room thinking that way.
In my last post I shared some thoughts in response to what Scott Sauls wrote at Relevant’s site about why we in the Church focus so much on the nuclear family. The focus of that post was to point out that we need to focus on God’s family not the nuclear family. Simply saying that the nuclear family is not the savior or necessary for salvation is not a good enough starting point.
Today, I want to talk about the idea that God is running every aspect of our dating lives.
I want to again say that I’m not trying to go after Scott but simply saying that what he writes, while better than what a lot of Church leaders are doing, is frankly not enough. I believe he represents what many people in leadership are thinking. There are assumptions here that I believe are at best short sighted.
This last week I was able to check out a couple of sermons on singleness. Let me say this before I challenge some stuff. I actually do feel like the church is starting to get a clue. One of the sermons a listened to talked about the fact that 66% of unchurched folks are single. The pastor basically said that we need to get a grip on this if we are going to go after them. We need to treat them as equals in Christ. Amen! I’m glad that people are trying to talk about it more.
In a separate deal I saw, they were teaching kids about dating and at least mentioned celibacy. So that’s something.
But here’s where we keep setting ourselves up for problems. We need a better theology of celibacy because if we keep getting it wrong, we end up hurting everyone.