slippery slope (1)

Yes, this is cynical, but isn't it true that some people become worse after they become Christians? What's with that? If Jesus is all he's made out to be, shouldn't our lives be turned upside down when we decide to follow him?

Maybe the problem is that instead of following Jesus, we are following examples of western Christianity...

David Hayward has a great cartoon related to this:  "you were better before"

where's the rapture when you need it?

Growing up, the rapture was a big deal, especially in the Baptist churches which I frequented. Along with discussions about it, there were movies and comics giving scary previews of what it would be like. And yes, it was because of such stories (told by my best friend back then) that I first "gave my life to Jesus".

For the new millenium and with the end of the world rapidly approaching, here's a more recent twist on the rapture:

This cartoon was inspired by an ironic photo I saw online, where two gay men are wanting the rapture to happen now, in order to get rid of Christian protestors with their hateful signs and angry words:



Photo credit: Photo taken by "perfectionequalsoverrated" of her dad and step dad at LA Gay Pride. Original site of posting no longer online.

[the good son first to see prodigal]

Are we ready to invite others? Jay Bakker writes:

Imagine for a minute how differently the prodigal son story would have played out if the father hadn't been there to intervene. What if instead it had been the good son who greeted the prodigal?

There would have been no happy reunion. No hugs and kisses. You can be damned sure there'd be no fattened calf or homecoming party. The good son would have lain back and watched his brother approach, his indignation growing with every approaching step.

By the time the prodigal reached the front door, the good son's anger would have been boiling over, and his first words might have been something like this: "Look at you come crawling back. Why did you even bother? You used up your share of the inheritance. And what do you have to show for it? Nothing. Well, don't think you can share mine. There's nothing for you here. Everything Dad left is for me. I did all the hard work while you blew it off. I earned it and you don't deserve it. Dad wanted me to have it. Now go away and don't come back.....ever!"

In some ways the good son's mistake (thinking that he has earned his own salvation) is the more problematic one, because it makes it harder for the prodigal to return. Versions of this scene play out every day in real life between Christians. Half the reason people stay away from the church is because they know that the good sons and daughters are waiting at the door to judge and reject them when they try to enter.

From Jay Bakker's book Fall to Grace: a revolution of God, self and society, pages 91-92

Have you ever felt unwelcomed somewhere, because of who you are or what you've done?

How can the reality of the father, waiting with arms wide open, be lived out by those who follow Jesus?

standard reply

This is the standard reply that many Christians use to apply to those who are—in their eyes—"sinners."

I saw this just the other day on a friend's blog. She had posted about generous spaciousness and the invitation to rest, and one of the comments from a reader went as follows:

Steven said...

"Jesus, it is well known, had dinner with the wrong kind of people, touched the wrong kind of people, had conversation with the wrong kind of people, went to the wrong places, triggered and exposed social taboos, broke dividing walls, and announced a new kind of level playing field."

And then He told them to "go and sin no more".

July 15, 2012 9:10 PM source

Perhaps someone should have told Jesus to "go and sin no more," considering he was associating with the wrong people....

Let's unpack this a bit.

First, the reader repeatedly refers to "the wrong kind of people" without explanation or quotation marks. Consider the difference between the following two sentences:

1. Jesus had dinner with the wrong kind of people. Generally speaking, unless someone says more to qualify this, it means that they believe that these were indeed the wrong kind of people and perhaps even that Jesus should not have been having dinner with them at all. Think of Simon the Pharisee seeing the woman who was wiping Jesus' feet with her hair and perfume, who then said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.” (Luke 7:36-50 NIV).
2. Jesus had dinner with the "wrong kind" of people. The quotation marks indicate that while some think of these people as the wrong kind of people, the writer himself does not think so.

Not only does the reader not have quotation marks, but he makes no statements to indicate that he is in disagreement with these people being the wrong kind of people. Nothing is said about Jesus loving everyone regardless of what the general society thought of them, nor anything contrasting Jesus' treatment of them with how the religious people treated them.

And then we have the reader's statement that Jesus "told them to 'go and sin no more'." Biblically, we have only the account of the woman caught in adultery where Jesus says "go and sin no more." So to say "He told them" (emphasis added) is simply not correct. It takes personal bias and applies it to Jesus.

While I do not know the Steven who posted the comment, I would guess that most likely, he himself feels that these were the wrong kind of people for Jesus to be spending time with, and that perhaps exposing social taboos and breaking down dividing walls is not such a great idea.

A standard phrase like "go and sin no more" is pretty handy. I simply label someone as a sinner (based on the simple evaluation: are they like me, or not?) and then I tell them to go and sin no more. Black and white. No nuances. No consideration that perhaps we have different ways of understanding something, or different approaches.

But labelling someone and giving them a pat answer is not grace, it's not love, it's not compassion, and it's not what Jesus did.

Perhaps "go and sin no more" is one of those phrases that we should give up... forever.

[in or out]

I couldn't resist posting this image from www.postsecret.com (week of January 21/12). It illustrates how we sometimes judge people based on the silliest things.

FYI
Postsecret.com is a website to which people send their secrets on postcards. Each week, a selection of postcards is shown online. The postcards cover a wide range of topics and emotions. Richard Beck has written about postsecret.com on his blog, particularly from his perspective as a research psychologist. On his first post on the topic, Beck says,

No doubt, many with find PostSecret odd, exhibitionistic, ill, and voyeuristic. I think these adjectives do apply. But at its core I think PostSecret has touched a nerve and is meeting a need. A need for authenticity and acceptance that the church has failed to address.

enlightning

I doubt that when making his point, Pastor Stickman expected to have it illustrated so immediately or so aptly. Not only is god taking care of the sin, but the pastor is not exempted from being included as one of the sinners who should be loved.

Granted, perhaps his view of how god takes care of sin has been heavily influenced by Ananias and Sapphira (see Acts 5) and needs some adjusting to reflect more of the example of Jesus.

seek and destroy

This is usually not expressed so clearly, but it does happen. We identify the person with their sin instead of seeing their heart, and we seek to destroy them, in subtle or not so subtle ways. It could be the whispers behind their backs or the looks of disgust we cast in their direction. It could be less subtle, like standing outside an abortion clinic or at a gay parade, holding signs that label people.

Definitely some mixed messages here. The initial "so we love the sinner" gets completely neutralized / cancelled out by the idea that "hating the sin" is accomplished by identifying the source (namely, the sinner) and destroying it (him or her).

Would you read this differently?

[people of the second chance]

People of the Second Chance (overthrow judgment. liberate love) bills itself as "a global community of activists, imperfectionists and second chancers committed to unleashing radical grace everyday, in every moment, for everyone." They seem to be a "newer kid on the block", but have well-expressed mission and goals, and some interesting projects to show with more planned for the future.

They have just launched a new campaign called "Labels Lie: Don't Accept Them. Don't Use Them." Here's how they describe the campaign:

"The campaign’s focus is on being liberated from the prison of societies’ labels. We don’t have to live with the shame of what people have said about us. We don’t have to accept these statements as our true identity....

When we judge, label, diminish and criticize each other, this becomes the fuel for
shame and guilt to fester in our souls. A label says we are unworthy, flawed and unacceptable.

Sadly we live in a society driven by stereotyping, gossiping, labeling and blame…and it is destroying us. Words like ugly, stupid, adulterer, addict, illegal, failure, ex-con, slut, fag and other dehumanizing labels are thrown around with no regard for how they damage.

It is time to talk about shame and the toxic labels we believe about ourselves.

It is time to be liberated from the lies of labels and experience the powerful truth of who we really are…Loved…Worthy…Beautiful…Accepted. "

(from Mike Foster's introduction)

View entire set of Labels Lie posters

People of the Second Chance website

fred and his friends

Fred Phelps (not to be confused with Michael Fred Phelps the swimmer) is the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church, a small church comprised mostly of his family members. They are infamous for picketing at gay parades, funerals of gay people and soldiers, etc. Regrettably, they are the "face of Christianity" that some people see in the media -- full of hatred and bigotry and about the worst that a person can be. This Google images page will give you a visual idea of what they are all about (warning: disturbing images). Their main website is godhatesfags.com. They have been involved in this since the late '80s or so. They continue be active in picketing -- as recently as 2006, President Bush signed a Respect for America's Fallen Heros Act to stop them from picketing at military funerals.

You can also read about him on wikipedia. When I read the wikipedia article, I was quite surprised to read that Mr. Phelps is a lawyer who in his younger years was involved in fighting numerous civil rights cases on behalf of black clients. Kinda unexpected.

In any case, the cartoon takes him and his followers to the extreme. Content may be disturbing.

For the record, I have no idea as to whether Fred and his followers will make it to heaven or not. From an illustrative perspective, the angel is rather simplistic and I would in the long-run like to have a better "angel type" for my cartoons. Nonetheless, the idea is there.

reprobates

dictionary.reference.com defines the noun "reprobate" as:

1. a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person: a drunken reprobate.
2. a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation.

Clearly not a nice word to use for referring to another person. While I can certainly see churchgoers expressing the attitude shown in this cartoon, I can't imagine Jesus using it. While initially it's easy to think he never called anyone names, he actually did:

There's the time when in answer to a question, he obliquely referred to a Canaanite woman as a dog (Matthew 15:21-28). And the times that he called the Pharisees names.

From what I recall, the Pharisees were the religious people of His day. What might Jesus be calling the religious people of today if he came down to earth?

precious one

"They said you wouldn't let me in...."

Wow. Who are we to decide whether someone else gets into heaven or not? And then to have the audacity to tell other people that they won't get in! And it tends to be communicated in formats like "You are going to hell" or "Homosexuals will burn in hell."

I believe in grace. And I believe that somehow or other, millions and billions who were excluded here on earth will be welcomed into heaven, whether or not they heard about Jesus down here, whether they lived a good life or a bad life or the average life with small moments of brilliance and small moments of depravity that many of us live. I don't know how God will do it, but He can. I'm not saying there's no hell, nor am I saying that no one will end up in hell. I don't know about that. But if millions and billions are going to end up in hell, then that's not the God I want to be following. There we have it – my cards are on the table.

I believe in a big God with arms wide open. If I as an earthly father love my children no matter what, surely my heavenly Father loves us far more no matter what. Does that mean what we do here doesn't matter? Of course not. It matters immensely because what we do down here can help make the world a better place for everyone or a worse place for everyone.

I'd love to hear what your thoughts are on this....

---

David Hayward at the Naked Pastor has an interesting cartoon and commentary on this as well: which word doesn't belong?

Interested in reading more about the question of heaven and hell? Check out Rob Bell's new book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.Video: Introduction to Love Wins

lost gospels

Is the church a place for sinners? What about Jesus' words in Mark where he says, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” And in Luke 19:10 it says, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Are some sinners 'too bad' to be part of your church? Or perhaps it's that their sins are unacceptable to the majority? Who decides this?
How does the tone of the question of 'where is your husband?' contrast with a similar question that Jesus asked the woman at the well (John 4:1-26)?

By 'your kind', the church people are obviously not meaning 'humanoid'. So what do they mean by 'your kind?' How does it make it easier for them to reject the person if they think of zem as "your kind?"

What kinds of people are welcome at your church? What kinds of people are ignored, shunned or rejected?

How does the instruction to 'get a suit' reflect a desire to have everyone look good on the outside, to conform to the status quo?