Sad Story, Happy Ending

"All have deserted me, only Luke is with me"

Sad words from one of the greatest and most influential men who have ever lived. For all of his exploits, theological ranting, masterful arguing, and brilliant scholarship, the apostle Paul comes to the end of his life with one friend at his side. The man who virtually subterfuged the Hebraic and Western Worlds, who still holds dominion over Western thought, died, perhaps like the rest of us, alone. When Jesus told his disciples to take up their cross, deny themselves, and follow him, is this what it looked like for Paul? Paul's personal mission of conformity to the image of Christ was realized here in the analogistic solitude of desertment. His vindication came not from the mouths of either his followers or the rulers who ordered his execution but, but from his resurrected body's ascension into the presence of Christ when he died. He suffered and died just like Christ, and therefore in a very real way knew, and as we speak, knows Christ. Somewhere in each of us we know that God calls us to a similar fate. Somewhere in each of us we know, that this burden is lighter than the burden we now carry, despite what it seems. But why can't we do it? Why can't we make the leap of faith? How does community play a role in encouraging us to take risks, for there is of course, safety in numbers? But Paul, the preacher of reconciliation, not just between God and humanity, but between Jew and Gentile, young and old, rich and poor, man and woman; Paul the herald of unity, the captain of community, ended up alone, deserted. The truth is that not everyone in the community is willing to "resist to the point of shedding blood". Still, we may able to avoid abandonment, if we all our courageous, and exhortative. I believe Paul's fate is not necessarily every true believer's fate. Paul did not try to be a hermit. He tried the opposite. But he tried to be like Christ. He pined to be like Christ, and behold, he was like Christ. There is no way of understanding the joy of this if we are not becoming conformed to the image of Christ, being made conformable to his death, the fellowship of his sufferings, the vindication of his resurrection. To deny everything for the sake of Christ is too risky, potentially stupid, and possibly foolish. In this vein Paul declares; "If there is no resurrection, we are too be pitied above all men" Are we willing to risk the misunderstanding of our fellow man, the desertment by our "friends", the prestige of our positions, the security of our relationships, the comfort of the community if they will not join us for the sake of knowing Christ; really for the sake of the gospel.

"He had no form or majesty
that we should look at him"
"nothing in his appearance
that we should desire him"
"He was despised and rejected by others: a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity
and as one from whom others hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him of no account"

"He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb led to the slaughter and like a sheep that before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth"
"By perversion of justice he was taken away
Who could've imagined his future?"
"For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgressions of my people."

"Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors"

More on Homosexuality

I have definetely bit off more than I can chew. It's been a while since we talked about this. I was hoping for more discussion. Also, this issue has led me to see my own struggle with ethics more clearly. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, because I believe that the Bible says so. The Bible does not say so in a clearly imperative way, but the Apostle Paul makes a strikingly convincing argument against it. I base my ethical system on the truth conveyed in the Bible. But I also believe that we use our reason to access its truth. This leads to several paradoxes and philosophical conundrums, but if you see my position on philosophy in an earlier post, I am at least consistent to my own worldview. I am afraid that homsexual sympathizers will not be willing to listen to anything I say or write because I base my belief in the immorality of homosexuality on the Scriptures. I request their patience, and respect their right to disagree. I refuse to oppose them in any activist way. I don't believe that would be becoming of a follower of Jesus. I will continue to uphold my own position however. I hope that I may still have homosexual friends. Sure, I am saying their lifestyle is an offense to God, but isn't all of ours at some point. I bring up the issue not because I am afraid of homosexuality, not because I am homophobic, but because homosexuals need to hear the other side of the issue, partly because of their own ignorance and narrow mindedness, but mostly because of truly unbibical actions perpetrated by so called bible believers under the name of Christians. I don't want them to be representatives of Christianity or the Bible, because the truth is that they are poor representatives, and bear the brunt of the responsibility for any homosexual resentment. I hope to make my opinion seem reasonable to all, worth hearing, honest, but overflowing with authentic love. The truth is that homosexuals are human, made in the image of God. Bible-thumping fundamentalists are equally human, equally made in the image of God. And I am included. This means that sometimes some of us are wrong and some of us are right. And when we know we're right we can still be friends with the ones who are wrong. I believe that this debate is multilayered. It is a debate that for homosexuals is very personal, and non-homosexuals need to be sensitive to that. It is a debate that is religious, political, theological, and is at its base, philosophical, more specifically epistemological. The main reason I am anti-homosexuality is that I believe the Bible is authoritative for morals, and that it makes an anti-homosexuality argument I find impossible to misinterpret or refute. To accuse me of reading into the Bible my homophobia would be judgmental, unfair, and untrue. If anything it is much easier to demonstrate homosexuals reading their homosexuality into the text. I have more respect for the person who throws out the biblical worldview alltogether recognizing its incompatability with their own worldview than the one who trys to make the Bible adhere to their own worldview. And by the way, if you have enough respect for the Bible that you wish to make it agree with you, then you ought to have enough respect for the Bible to let it speak for itself. If I say to you, "I believe that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says..." And you say to me..."no, this is what the Bible actually says..." , then our debate is theological, and I think I could demonstrate that you have barely a theological leg to stand on, I think. But try me. However, I say to you, "I believe homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says..." and you say to me, I don't believe the Bible is right on this one..." well then we have a philosophical debate on our hand. To be perfectly honest, that's what I think this debate is at the end of the day, an epistmelogical debate. In other words, why do people believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality? What worldview is supporting them? It cannot be the Biblical worldview.
I wish to demonstrate in these upcoming posts how a "plain hermenutic" when it comes to interpreting Scripture leads rather naturally to an anit-homosexuality position. For the sake of focus I will not delve into a discussion of the liberal point of view on this topic, or the moderate point of view. For what its worth, the liberal point of view is definitely susceptible to accusations of eisegesis. I invite homosexual sympathizers to take another listen to a sincere Christian with a conservative point of view on this issue, and not dismiss it out of hand. I offer an argument for love along with a rebuke for some so called Christians for their repugnant attitudes towards homosexuality or lack of candor in communicating their opinions. I wish to show that disagreement and intolerance are not the same thing. I also wish to motivate Christians to consider whether or not they look like Christ to all all the time, and how looking like Christ to homosexuals and other" liberals" has been lacking lately. All in all, I wish to make progress in this discussion. If these means that we agree to disagree, and that's all, well at least that's a start. Most importantly, thereis any oppurtunity here for love and tolerance to flourish, for redemption to happen, and for the re-thinking of worldviews to have their proper place.

Christian Theology

The other day a very honest man sat down with me at a coffee shop, bought me a tea, and proceeded to be very honest with me. This man is a career military man. This man is a Christian, one who holds unswerviingly to the docrine of the sacrifical atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ. the deity of Christ, and the unconditionalitty of our common salvation. In short, we believed the same basic things about the universe, except that it seems we live in different universes. He is of course career military. I am of course a pacifist. How two people can serve the same God, follow the same faith, believe the same Bible, and see world events so differently is really interesting, and potentially upsetting. The key word is potentially. To be sure, my pascifism. upset my military friend. He made this plain to me. But in an honest way, a straightforward, congenial, respectable way, and for this I am honestly grateful. Sometimes, not even my closest friends,with whom I share a universe, want to express their discontent with me. Sometimes, even my closest friends would rather tell other friends about their discontent with me, and wait until it gets to me in its distorted and hurtful form. Sometimes, I do this to my closest friends. But for once somebody came to me with an honest complaint, and he didn't come to simply express an opinion, but to ask questions, to try to understand, but to vent as well, which is perfectly allowable if one is open minded. Open-mindedness is a virtue not so easily found among the "tolerant" generation. I hope I have expressed due appreciation. In the cafe' we bantered back and forth. But we also told our stories, and this helped quell any animosity. We had the kind of discussion I only barely believed was possible. Honest, emotionally and intellectually, but courteous, respectfu,and open minded. And when it was over after an hour, I left feeling like I'd gained a brother. And that is what's important.
But of less foundational matters, how can two people read the same Bible and have such two different opinions as to what it says about war, and what does this say about the Christian claim to the Bible as authoritative, and inspired, a position we both hold to different degrees I assume? And how much can we disagree on before its too much, and what does that look like? In no way will I answer any of these questions exhaustively or even mostly in this post. If anything, I will merely make some perspectival suggestions and will refrain from absolute objectivity. Perhaps simply bringing up the question will suffice. Here's what I believe to be true. This man and I are both Christians. I am right to be a pacifist, and am not sure if he is wrong not to be. Our discussion was profitable. Some things, dare I say most things are not simple in this life, and this applies no less to Christianity. But love covers a multitude of sin, and love can look like listening to someone from another universe whether or not that universe is parallel, or irrevocably different. The man and I, I should say, are in universes parallel, paradoxically with similar lines that we will not cross. Lines that pertain to the gospel. When you read this, note that while I have made suggestions that to you seem to be on shaky ground, I have not offered any conclusions. Let this spark discussion. How may Christians converse, get along, and do theology in a Christlike and redemptive way even when they disagree or live in parallel universes? I think my military friend's example deserves notice and duplication, and is an answer to this dilemma. Christians can converse, get along, and do theology in a Christlike and redemptive way even when they disagree or live in parallel universes by being honest, having the courage to tell somebody how they feel with boldness by having the fortitude to stick by their conviction or change their mind when it's called for, by listening, and not judging, and finally by seeking to learn, not to prove.