Recently after reading a recent blog post, a friend of ours sent us this quote from a missionary. It's full of depth and reflection. What do think? Leave a comment, or message me.
…in our contemporary society, where the Christian faith is tolerated as private opinion but is not permitted a role in public debate about public issues, the individual is relieved of responsibility. He or she can affirm the Gospel as private belief, but is not expected to proclaim it as public truth which all people ought to believe because it is true. In a society where the Christian faith has been privatized, we are free to affirm it within the security of our churches and our homes. We are not called upon constantly to test it by exposure to all the truth claims that come from the whole human enterprise of learning – whether secular or religious. But to hold it thus as private belief is an implicit denial of its truth. We can only hold it to be true if we are willing to proclaim it in every human context, in every human culture, and in every kind of human discipline.
That is truth. We are called to proclaim the good news of the gospel in word and deed. Indeed, not only our words but every action we undertake should proclaim the gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ requires "doing". When we only do so in the privacy of our homes and churches we tend to not acknowledge Him in all things making it easy to slip into worldly thinking that we are in control and deserve the glory. Having spent my lifetime in the Bible Belt, it has been easy to assume that everyone around me must believe-after all when I was a child it was mostly true. I have not completely shed this assumption in a rapidly changing world even though intellectually I know it is now false. You know, because it is easier for me to stay in my comfort zone of quietly doing. Clearly the time for apathy, comfort zones and conformity is far past. Persecuters will not allow their beliefs to be privitized so it is even more important that we not allow ours to be.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your insight, sweet girl. I'm so grateful for your models of mercy and service. I've seen it you and James since I first knew you. You are a gift!
DeleteThis is Jeffrey, not Anna, just so everyone knows.
ReplyDelete"but is not permitted a role in public debate about public issues"
Still thinking about the quotation as a whole, but I do not think that this claim above can be demonstrated in the context of the United States today. Iran, maybe. A mere cursory view of the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of public Christian blogs and websites which focus on anything from devotional life to culture to politics is enough to rebut the claim. As are the thousands if not tens of thousands of parachurch or independent Christian think tanks, political organizations, and voluntary associations whose representatives are not only permitted, but in fact invited, to appear on national news and opinion programs and write op eds for even left-leaning newspapers. They hold public rallies and prayer vigils, are permitted to protest outside of abortion clinics, and meet with elected representatives from the city councilmen on up to the POTUS. Yes, even Obama has met with conservative and evangelical Christian leaders. And of course, when Bush was in the White House, the White House Christian fellowship, open to any number of pols and various other individuals, was held every single week, and Bush was openly an evangelical. Christian faith informs the policies and proposed legislation of quite a large number of our elected representatives in this country at every level, and many of them are quite open about it. Rick Santorum anyone? Christian groups are permitted to meet and worship on almost all of our college campuses, and we're talking State Us here as well. Christian students and professors all across our country, at universities big and small, public and private, are representing the Christian position both inside and outside the classroom. Yes, at times, they are treated unfairly and it may even rise to the level of persecution, but many of them have fought back legally and in other ways, and many win the day, securing not only their own First Amendment rights, but those of other students, regardless of their beliefs and values. I could go on, but I don't want to belabor the point.
Please don't hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that unfair treatment and even at times persecution (though I hate to use that word lightly in light of our brothers and sisters in many other parts of the world who are as I type this in prison, having their churches burned down, being murdered, and being forced to flee their homeland because of their faith in Jesus) is not an issue here. This is in fact an ever-present reality wherever the church is and we are promised it by our Lord himself and told by Peter not to be surprised when it comes.
Our society is probably becoming less tolerant of our faith than in the fairly recent past, but I do think the language used above exaggerates the problem and is a bit histrionic. And I think the oversensitive among us need to realize that being offended, shocked, and outraged by what someone we disagree with believes, says, or does in the context of a public debate is not equivalent to Christianity "not being permitted a role in public debate about public issues." We need to pull up our big boy and big girl underwear and realize that living in this particular constitutional republic means giving offense and being offended are part of life.
J, thank you so much. You're so insightful, and I do think your reflection on this particular part gives pause. We are heavily cushioned in what we feel we are entitled to, even in our faith.
DeleteJeffrey again, not my sweet, non-controversial wife Anna. OK, now I've thought about the post as a whole a little more as well. The overall message and intent, I think, is a sound and Biblical one. Leaders should admonish us to contend for the faith in public as well as private. However, if we take a historical view of this, then we'll see that Christians have always struggled with that great snare, the fear of man, and staying silent when they know they should have spoken up. This is nothing new. It is part and parcel of being an exile and a pilgrim in this world, so I don't know if the supposition that this problem is particularly acute in our current context holds up historically.
ReplyDeleteThe post, or at least the excerpt we have, also threatens to oversimplify the issue. Scripture reveals to us the much maligned and forgotten category of Christian discernment that must be applied to a whole host of problems and messy, complicated situations that we face as redeemed sinners in a fallen world. Fundamentalists banish the category by making Everything, including whether to "drink, smoke, or chew, or go with girls who do", into a Biblically mandated right or wrong. Movies? Bad. Don't go. Ever. Girls wearing pants? Bad. First step on the slippery slope to godless feminism, and while we're at it, cut your hair and wipe off that makeup or you're going to Hell. Liberals ironically banish the category by expanding it far beyond its Biblical bounds and in fact by absolutizing it. Everything becomes a matter of discernment, even those things that are crystal-clear non-negotiables in Scripture, such as Christ offering the only way of salvation or ethical norms. But Christians should not fall prey to either temptation. We are called to use our minds, renewed by Word and Spirit, and the wise counsel of others, and the Spirit's power and promptings, and our own consciences, to negotiate the decisions and problems facing us everyday, both large and small, that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture. In the context of this discussion, I would say that when to speak and when to remain silent in the public square is a matter of Christian discernment. We are to be wise as serpents, but innocent as doves. Wise in the way we interact with outsiders. Sensitive to our own and others' consciences. We are not to cast pearls before swine. Jesus even commends shrewdness in one of his parables. We are also, of course, to share and proclaim the Gospel, publically and privately and apply it to all of life. But when and where and how we do so is an issue of discernment and conscience.
In light of the above, and bringing it back to the post that brought on this post, attending or not attending the Chick-fil-A appreciation day or not should have been a matter of discernment and conscience for each Christian who participated or stayed home, and we owe each other, as those for whom Christ died, a judgment of charity, regardless of the decision. My concern is that posts and opinions like the one above can heap on the guilt and make those who did not believe it wise or good to speak up, as it were, on this particular occasion--and extrapolating out, other public occasions-- as guilty of "an implicit denial of its truth [the truth of Christianity]." The REAL Christians are the ones out protesting in this view. That's the fundamentalist error, and I think it is unloving and unhelpful to fellow believers, and it has the tendency to make us forget that our real enemy is not flesh and blood.
To conclude, in my experience, as I have grown and matured in Christ, my faith becomes public naturally, in organic ways that I couldn't have planned, as Christ lives his life through me.
J, thank you so much for your heart. Thank you so much for your insight. I'm so grateful for your heart, your commitment to the Gospel of Christ in its Biblical Truth, not cultural interpretations.
Delete