An Essay

“On the Moral Condition of the United States, and the Social and Political Pressures which Prevent it from Improving.”

After yet another example of mass-murder I believe it would be safe to say that there is no one in the United States who would deny there is a serious, and perhaps even systemic, moral problem in the United States. Yet, in spite of this virtually universal acceptance of the reality of the problem, there is an equally universal lack of understanding of the cause of the problem, let alone how to repair the problem. Solutions are usually presented along the lines of liberal / conservative; Democrat / Republican, but even within these disparate and hostile camps there is not much agreement. What follows is obviously just one person’s opinion, but I also believe it to be based on solid theological and sociological foundations.

The root source of our moral collapse in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is the Constitution of the United States, and the closely related document, the Bill of Rights. Designed to be a hedge against the totalitarian regimes of the dictatorships of Europe, these documents enshrined the basic tenets of secular humanism and rationalism, both held in check by the veneer of a “Christian” worldview. That is to say, in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the individual human is the ultimate reality; but the documents are so infused with deistic, and intentionally latent Christian, language that the conservative nature of the primarily Christian culture managed to subdue what we can now see is the inevitable outcome of these documents.

When the Constitution and related founding documents are read through the lens of at least a formally “Christian” understanding, the pervasive individualism and rationalism are muted. The deistic “creator” of the Bill of Rights is naturally assumed to be the Creating and Redeeming God of the Old and New Testament. “All men are created equal” easily becomes “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” What is so quickly overlooked is that in 1776, slaves of any race were not considered to be fully human, therefore not “men.” Neither, it should be pointed out, were women, who were denied the freedom to vote. But, while the documents themselves were not Christian, those who interpreted them were at least nominally Christian, and the force of biblical morality gave the documents at least an appearance of divine approval.

All of this evaporated when the United States shed the illusion of being a Christian nation in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In the new millennium the ability of biblical morality to restrict the inevitable results of the secular humanism disappeared. Now we can clearly see the fault lines of the founding documents of our country. When the individual is the supreme and final judge of morality – of even such basic human characteristics as his/her gender – why is is it a surprise that such a human can wantonly kill dozens of other citizens because of a real or perceived slight in his or her childhood? When the power of a community to discipline – and even physically remove such a person through capital punishment – is removed, there is no recourse for that community to discipline such deviant behavior. Even worse, when the fruit of secular humanism fully ripens, even the desire for such discipline evaporates. This is not a hypothetical statement. Even today there are apologists who speak for the monsters who murder children in their school rooms, suggesting that it is the very idea of communal boundaries that explains such deviant behavior (“he can’t be held responsible – he was abused/bullied/repressed”).

There are those who suggest that what is needed to reverse this trend is to re-establish a Christian identity for the United States. I simply do not see that cat crawling back into the bag. There is simply too much political and sociological pressure to maintain the hegemony of the individual to allow that to happen. In other words, we have become what the founders of our country destined us to become, even though they would be horrified to know what became of their grand experiment in human governance. We can argue until the cows come home by themselves about whether the Constitution is a living or dead document, about a literalist or a dynamic interpretation of the law, or of a dozen more questions. But until we understand and accept that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are simply human documents, and display all the frailty of every other human document, we will never have the ability to overcome the trajectory of our increasingly narcissistic and violent culture.

There are, of course, a number of issues that relate tangentially to this question: our seemingly pathological love affair with increasingly powerful weapons of personal destruction, our equally pathological unwillingness to effectively enforce laws which, at least theoretically, could circumvent some instances of mass-murder, and our innate refusal to accept any responsibility for our own feelings of anger and hate.

We are, of a certainty, all fallen human beings.

Is there a political solution? Perhaps, but as I see it that would involve a new  constitutional convention in which the existing Constitution would have to be radically altered to give the community (whether it be the nation, the state, or each community) far more authority that it currently has (basically, the justice system would have to be created from scratch, and the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” would have to be replaced with a concept of justice as a pure and impartial search for truth). Frankly this is a ridiculous fantasy, as in, it just is not going to happen.

So, is there a religious, or better yet, a faith solution? Yes, and it is here that I revert to my understanding of Barton W. Stone, David Lipscomb, and many others. Their view of the world was decidedly eschatological, and some would say apocalyptic. They knew, or at least believed, that the thoughts and plans of mankind were only evil, and that humans were not going to think or legislate themselves out of the mess that they thought and legislated themselves into. In sharp distinction from the millennial optimism of Alexander Campbell, they believed that all human governments were, and are, inherently opposed to God’s rule, and Christians should in no way, shape, or  form, put their trust in such systems. In the words of Jesus, Christians are not to cast their pearls before the swine of secular government, whether it be a monarchy or a democracy. In the face of such hostile governments what is a Christian to do? Exactly what the New Testament taught: pray for such governments in that they allow for peaceful existence, pay whatever taxes or dues are mandated by such governments, and beyond that to love the Lord your God and serve Christ’s church with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. This meant feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the poor and imprisoned, and striving in every way possible to demonstrate the presence of the Kingdom of God on earth. Imagine what would happen if every Christian church believed, and acted, as if God, and not the government, is in charge. If Christians do not believe it, why should the world?

The solution to our narcissistic, and increasingly violent, culture is not to be found in the passage of more laws. It is not to be found in the proliferation of more, and more powerful, weapons. It is not to be found in turning our Constitution into an idol. The solution to this problem is to be found in the crushing realization that we cannot solve this problem. We are the problem, and until we are transformed into the image of Christ, the problem will never be solved.

Making It Real

There is an old saying that has renewed relevance in today’s religious world. I grew up hearing of Christians who were “so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly good.” It was a sharp comment; it needs to be pulled out and sharpened a little bit more. All across America, and indeed throughout the Western world, authentic biblical Christianity is taking a beating. Not only is the philosophy of humanistic atheism experiencing somewhat of a rebound, but people are leaving churches by the scores. What is occurring, and why it is occurring, are questions that occupy both sociologists and theologians. I think one answer that deserves some examination is the idea that for far too many people Christianity has simply become a concept to think about, a few doctrines and principles to believe. However, for real life, one must turn to philosophy, and increasingly that philosophy is rooted in the self. This is true of both secularists and Christians!

I want to illustrate my argument with a common scene – one that I encounter quite frequently but one that I am sure any of my readers have experienced as well. Maybe even you are guilty. But picture a class or discussion where the teacher is really getting personal – really getting down to “brass tacks” and laying things out “where the rubber meets the road.” He, or she, can begin to see some light bulbs come on, and there are some signs that the class is beginning to formulate some honest-to-goodness concrete applications for the lesson. Then, just as some real work is about to take place, the resident Pharisee blows the entire discussion up with a comment that, on the surface appears to be a profound addition to the conversation, but in reality shifts the entire focus off of a concrete (and therefore possibly costly) application and places it in the realm of a “spiritual” application that is utterly worthless.

You see, the Pharisees (or perhaps to be fair, at least a sizable majority of them) had no problem with spiritual application of the biblical text of their day. The Pharisee that came to test Jesus knew the greatest command of the law, and the second as well. It was no problem to assert that one was to love God, and to love one’s neighbor. The Pharisee just could not get his mind wrapped around the idea that a Samaritan, of all people, might actually be the example of biblical love that God was commanding, and that waylaid, half-dead travelers might actually be the necessary recipient of  such love.

What is going on that so many people are leaving the church, and why so many people are hesitant to consider becoming a part of the church? Another “preacher’s story” might help. A little boy and his father were discussing the sermon they had just heard. The little boy asked his father, “Daddy, what is a Christian?” The father went into great detail about how a Christian is one who has dedicated his life to Jesus, who lives according to God’s word, who tries in many ways to make the world a better place, and who realizes he is not perfect but still tries to be the kind of person that God wants him or her to be. The little boy was quiet for a while and then said, “Wow, daddy – do we know any Christians?”

I have to confess that for far too long I have been a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. It is far too easy for me to retreat into the “spiritual” so that the “real” does not cost me anything. Also, when someone attempts to blow up my classes with a “Sunday School Answer” that is meant to spiritualize the application instead of making it explicit and verifiable, I acquiesce far too easily.

Let’s be honest here – I want the Pharisee’s answer, not Jesus’s.

One of the things I have learned from reading the Old Testament carefully and meditatively (my “spiritual” side) is that God was really, seriously concerned that hungry people be fed, that naked people be clothed, that poor people be given the chance to earn their keep, that issues of justice be administered fairly without any fear of bribery or other manipulation. I am utterly convinced that Jesus, the twelve apostles, Paul, Luke, and the Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament authors are just as vitally concerned about those issues.

A man cannot hear the gospel if his stomach is growling.

What we call “spirituality” and the concrete issues of social, racial, economic, and environmental justice are not polar opposites. The church has been duped into thinking that we either focus on “saving someone’s soul” or making sure they have a decent job, adequate clothing and enough food on the table. Why should anyone pay any attention to our pleas that they be baptized if they know we steadfastly support efforts to deny them basic God-given rights?

I have been asked what is the greatest problem facing the church today. I have been asked what my thoughts are as to how we can reverse the trend of people leaving the church. I honestly do not have the perfect answer, but I think I have a clue: If we want people to fall in love with Jesus to the point that they will commit their lives to him and become active, productive members of his body, maybe, just maybe, his body needs to start caring about what God cares about and behaving like Jesus behaved.

Philippians 2:1-17, anyone?

Christ and the Law [Uncertain Inferences Series]

At the outset here let me make some things absolutely clear:

  1. I know I’m going to be misunderstood. I will try to make myself as clear as I possibly can, but I cannot control those who misread or intentionally distort what I write.
  2. I want to state unequivocally that I believe Christians live under the covenant that Christ established on the cross. In no way do I believe that Christians are bound by the ceremonial regulations of the Mosaic code.
  3. I do, however, firmly believe that Christians are just as bound to obey the moral/ethical commandments as given in the Mosaic code, (explained in part by the 10 Commandments) just as the people living before Moses were bound by those same moral/ethical teachings. (Read, for example, Genesis 26:4-5, and ask yourself what laws and commandments Abraham was expected to obey?)

The point I want to make today is that we can be correct in understanding a biblical concept, and be wrong in applying passages of Scripture to defend those correct conclusions. In other words, we can abuse Scripture by incorrectly appealing to proof-texts to defend perfectly legitimate doctrines. I do not want to teach false doctrines, but just as important, I do not want to teach correct doctrines by falsely appealing to the use of unwarranted Scriptures.

The correct doctrine that I want to point out in this article is the New Testament teaching that the covenant established by Christ has superseded the Sinai covenant described in the books of Exodus-Deuteronomy. In order to defend this doctrine, overly zealous preachers have gone beyond the biblical teaching and have used phrases such as “Christ abolished the Old Testament” or “Christ nailed the 10 Commandments to the cross.” To support their claims reference is frequently made to two passages of Scripture. One passage supports the idea that the cross does indeed invalidate certain aspects of the Mosaic covenant, but in a context that is completely incompatible with the manner in which it is used today. The other passage simply does not support the teaching that Christ has “abolished” law of Moses. A third passage of Scripture flatly rejects the teaching that Jesus abolished the law. Let’s examine these in reverse order.

First, Jesus himself plainly rejects the idea that he came to abolish the law of Moses – Matthew 5:17. Any preacher or teacher who suggests otherwise MUST explain this passage, in context, can be ignored or refuted.

Second, appeal is made to Colossians 2:14, which states (in the King James Version), “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” The “handwriting of ordinances” is usually inferred to be the Old Testament, or the Mosaic law at the very least. But, note, if that was Paul’s intent, he could have used the word “law” here. He did not. He chose a unique expression (used only here in the New Testament) to make clear he was NOT talking about the Mosaic law. Note how more recent translators have worked to translate that phrase:

New Living Translation – “record of charges against us”
NET Bible – “certificate of indebtedness”
Common English Bible – “record of the debt”
God’s Word Translation – “charges brought against us” (by the written laws God had established)
Holman Christian Standard Bible – “certificate of debt with its obligations”
English Standard Version – “record of debt”
The Message (Eugene Peterson) – “old arrest warrant”

It is obvious that these committee translations (Peterson’s work is a paraphrase, not a translation) all want to convey that what Paul is talking about here is not the law of Moses in and of itself. The subject is the debt, or the charges made against us, because of humanity’s inability to obey the law (which the God’s Word translation makes clear through its next explanatory phrase, which is not in the Greek). Part of the difficulty in translating this section is determining the referent to the pronoun “he.” The ESV makes the issue fairly clear by providing God as the subject, but the word “God” is not in the Greek text. To me it makes the most sense, as Jesus did not nail anything to the cross – he was nailed to the cross!

I just do not see any way forward by using this text to argue that Jesus abolished the Old Law, the Old Testament, and certainly not the 10 Commandments.

Third, the passage that does teach that Christ abolished the certain aspects of the law, but which has been taken completely out of its original context to teach something it does not teach, is Ephesians 2:15, “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.” In this text we see how a passage which teaches one thing can be wrested out of its context to teach something entirely foreign to the author, and would not have been considered by the original audience.

Read in the immediate context of chapter 2 and the larger context of the Ephesian letter, Paul is refuting the idea that there can be two bodies, two “churches” of Christ. There is no “Jewish” church and “Gentile” church. There is ONE body – and Jews cannot claim superiority and Gentiles cannot thumb their noses at Jewish practices. Through the cross God (and Christ) have “abolished” or “broken down” the barrier, or the dividing wall of hostility that was crystalized in the ceremonial aspects of the law of Moses – Paul elsewhere points to circumcision, certain dietary laws, and specific days of worship.

Paul’s understanding of the law of Moses is multi-faceted.  On the one hand he can say, “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good,” (Rom. 7:12); but he also knows that, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his [God’s] sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). In his letter to the Ephesians Paul is not giving his readers a finely tuned, carefully crafted explication of the old covenant versus the new covenant. He is emphatically telling both Jew and Gentile that neither side can use the law of Moses as a battering ram to bludgeon the opposing side. The cross has nullified the one single barrier that stood as a point of division between Jew and Gentile, and that was the ceremonial, or nationalistic, components of the law of Moses.

So, I return to my opening thoughts. Has the covenant of Christ established on the cross superseded the covenant established on Sinai? Absolutely. Did Jesus “nail” the Old Testament to the cross? No. Are Christians today still bound by the moral/ethical demands of the law? In my opinion, yes. Nowhere in the New Testament are such demands nullified, voided, abolished, or superseded. I believe such moral demands were in place long before Moses ascended Mt. Sinai, and I believe such demands are still in place. If you doubt me, please consider Genesis 26:4-5, as well as Matthew 5:17, and the numerous moral/ethical catalogs given by Paul, Peter, James and John in the New Testament letters.

Charlottesville, Racism, and a Chilling Prospect

Trigger alert: the following blog post contains some truths that may be difficult for little snowflakes to handle. If you cannot consider any opinions that differ from your rigid worldview, you might want to skip this one.

I’m sure the topic of the Charlottesville, VA riots were the topic of many sermon addresses this morning. I happened to think my thoughts on the book of Job were more appropriate for the moment, but that does not mean I do not have some thoughts on the events of the weekend. My reaction is threefold:

  1.  The rhetoric and the beliefs which underlie the white supremacist movement are vile, repugnant. That much is without question and every Christian of every ethnic background should be loud and clear in denouncing the “alt-right” movement, the KKK, and every other neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology. I have been pleased that the response of virtually every Christian leader that I have seen has been uniform and unequivocal. There can be no quarter given in opposing this worldview.
  2. However, the most troubling response to me is the one I have NOT seen, not after this weekend nor for the past eight years. For these eight years, and largely with the complicity of the sitting president, there has been a racist movement that has rioted, looted, destroyed property, and ruined lives. Throughout these same eight years, I have been told that these racists are fully justified in their actions, that I should wring my hands in horror at the “injustice” they have be subject to, and that I share in the guilt of the nation simply because of the color of my skin. The very spiritual leaders that are (correctly) denouncing white supremacy were either stone cold silent as the rioters destroyed homes and businesses, or they symbolically joined in, trying to absolve themselves of the guilt of their “white advantage.”

Well, folks, racism is racism, no matter what the color or ethnic background of the racist. I am glad to see some preachers, editors, and other spiritual leaders denounce the “alt-right” and their ignorant minions, but their complicity and silence as the “BLM” movement terrorized large portions of a number of cities is deplorable. Why is the racism emanating from one race acceptable, if racism from another race is to be deplored?

3. Beyond the hypocrisy of an astounding number of individuals, there is another terrifying aspect to the events over the weekend. Many are calling for a ban on the freedom for certain groups to be able to speak. This is a chilling development, and if it is not opposed with the most vehement objections we can mark this point in history as the beginning of the end of the United States. I vehemently reject the hate and violence of the “alt-right,” the KKK and the BLM movements. But, as the classic saying goes, I must defend their right to speak (speak, not perpetrate violence) to my dying breath. If they do not have the right to speak their lies, how am I to be guaranteed that I can speak my truth to their lies?

It has already been proposed in many places that limits should be placed on “hate speech” that would include denouncing sexual perversion as a sin. If hate-mongers can be legally muzzled simply because we object to their tirades, what will prevent the prohibition of the preaching of biblical truth? The “slippery slope” argument is an argument that is fraught with danger, but there is another danger here that is real and profound. We must not, we cannot, prevent some idiot from speaking just because we think his words idiotic.

What would have happened this past weekend if those who disagreed with the white supremacists had simply moved to a different part of town and held a counter demonstration, replete with racial unity and a vehement, but peaceful, denunciation of the weirdos across town? But, no – hatred was met with hatred; violence was met with violence, and the world must wonder what ever happened to the great American dream.

As much as I do not want to hear them, I have to allow the bigots to have their say. But I do not have to listen. Let them march – and vacate the entire region around them. Let their words fall on empty streets and vacant buildings. Ignore them – but not their hate! Ignore their presence, but reject their ideology!

Christians must unite to condemn racism. All racism, no exceptions, no excuses.

[editor’s note: I had to correct the location of the riots – sorry, I have been a little distracted, and did not pay close attention to where the riots happened.]

How NOT to Handle a Controversy (Apparently)

A follow-up to the unfolding saga of Eugene Peterson and the confession that never was. Here is what I have been able to discover so far. (All of this can be easily confirmed – I subscribe to Christianity Today online, and all relevant links are embedded in the stories)

  1.  Eugene Peterson was approached about conducting a phone interview by Jonathan Merritt. He agreed, and agreed to having the interview tape recorded. The interview lasted approximately 33 minutes
  2. Merritt had some hints (the language here gets kind of nebulous) that Peterson no longer held the traditional view of homosexuality (if he ever did) and that he now endorsed homosexual marriage. At the conclusion of the interview Merritt posed two specific questions regarding this possibility.
  3. Peterson answered the first question (regarding homosexuality) in somewhat of a rambling answer, basically saying that culture has evolved, the question of homosexuality has been answered, and he had no problem in accepting practicing homosexuals in his church. He even mentioned his acceptance of a practicing homosexual as music minister for the church where he had recently retired.
  4. Merritt then asked if he was approached to perform a same-sex marriage, would Peterson perform the ceremony. Peterson responded with an unequivocal, “yes.”
  5. When Merritt published the interview an instant storm blew up, and one of the largest Christian booksellers threatened to pull Peterson’s books off of the shelves – this was no idle threat. Lifeway Books does not mess around with authors they feel have rejected clear biblical teaching.
  6. A day after the interview went public, Peterson had a strange “Damascus Road” moment of conversion, recanted what he had said about homosexuality and same-sex marriage, claimed to have been distracted by a flurry of hypothetical questions, and concluded with perhaps one of the biggest equivocations in history, “I affirm a biblical view of everything.”
  7. Apparently (I have not viewed the video), Merritt responded to the recantation by providing a video in which Peterson certainly leaves the door open that his views on homosexuality were changing.
  8. Somehow or another, as is so often the case in these situations, Merritt is being made to look like the bad guy, when all he did was report on an interview that was pre-arranged and was in no way coercive or deceitful.

I have some additional thoughts to my post of yesterday.

  1.  Peterson’s mea culpa sounds forced and overly affective. What in the world does “I affirm a biblical view of everything” mean? Why, if Peterson does not accept the traditional view of homosexuality (as being aberrant and a human perversion) would he approve of a practicing and unrepentant homosexual being hired as a congregational music minister? But, why, if he thought the issue was decided in favor of committed, faithful homosexual relationships, would he then so emphatically deny he accepted homosexual behavior as being blessed by God? Why even attempt such a nebulous statement like, “I affirm a biblical view of everything?”
  2. It really bothers me that Merritt has been attacked as being the heavy here. Peterson has such a cult following that, apparently, some people cannot stand to see the altar of Baal being destroyed. Instead of searching their own culpability in the situation, they want to kill the messenger (see Judges 6, also 1 Sam. 5). As I wrote yesterday, it should not come as any shock at all that Peterson accepts the homosexual lifestyle as being compatible with Christianity. Although he may nowhere confess such a belief, it is thoroughly reconcilable with his voluminous writings.
  3. Peterson’s defense that he was temporarily confused or distracted by a hypothetical question has got to rate in the top five of all sophistic statements of all time – right up there with Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman.” If Peterson was a pastor for a large congregation in the Presbyterian Church, he was inundated with hypothetical questions every week, if not every day. He cannot argue that one fairly straightforward question somehow tripped him up – unless he is dealing with the onset of dementia, and that is something that no one is suggesting. I hate hypothetical questions – but I learned how to recognize them a LONG time ago. If I knew that an interview was being taped, and I sniffed out a hypothetical question that was virtually impossible to answer (and Merritt’s question was really very direct), I would have blown it up. If Peterson is only half as intelligent as his defenders claim, that question should have caused no problems at all. And, that is exactly my point. At the time of the interview, Peterson answered with a direct, unequivocal “yes,” indicating he understood the question about conducting a same-sex marriage and his willingness to officiate such ceremonies.
  4. All of this goes to demonstrate how NOT to handle a controversy. Peterson’s original answers have caused a tidal wave of accusations, counter-accusations, recriminations and other fall-out that directly relates to the esteemed position he holds in the minds of many. His recantation sounds forced and artificial. Merritt’s motives and his integrity have been impugned. He has further angered many with his attempts to defend his initial reasons for asking Peterson the questions he did.

No one knows how this whole sordid affair will end. Quite possibly it will dissipate as does a little tempest in a tea-pot, with everyone going away licking their wounds and vowing never to trust the “enemy” again. There may be some residual damage to either Peterson or Merritt or both. But it does illustrate that the best policy is to state what you believe with conviction, defend your convictions with the facts you hold to be true, and when challenged, answer with grace and humility.

Eugene Peterson, Homosexuality, and the Cult of Popularity

[As I note at the bottom of this piece, Peterson has since recanted his statements in the first interview. I have attempted to locate the full text of his correction. In the original interview his statements seem lucid, reasoned, and not forced in any manner. Now he claims confusion and the equivalent of being misunderstood. I am sure in the days and weeks to come this story will continue to develop. As more information comes to light I will update as appropriate.]

Yesterday my twitter feed exploded as word got around that Eugene Peterson publicly admitted he supported gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle in general. Peterson is an evangelical pastor/author hero, perhaps best known for his translation, or paraphrase, or misinterpretation (depending on your theological position) of the Bible called The Message. Now, all kinds of other evangelical pastors/authors etc., are all agog trying to figure out how such a paragon of evangelical virtue could risk becoming a pariah. I, for one, am shocked that everyone else is so shocked.

Like just about every theology student who attended school in the late 20th century or early 21st century, I was handed a steady diet of Peterson books (I think the total number of his books is over 30). My memory is kind of hazy, but I think my first exposure to Peterson came with his book, Working the Angles or maybe The Contemplative Pastor. Having read Peterson I am struck with a couple of observations. One, he is a wordsmith, of that you cannot deny. He can say absolutely nothing in such flowery and impressive language that you really think he has said something. But his content is much like cotton candy – sweet, but nothing there. Second, his theology begins with his feelings and ends with his emotions. To wit, he defends the right of women to preach and to lead in churches. What is his evidence – to what does he refer in defense of his position? His mother was a pastor. That’s it. Well, not entirely. His mother was a much maligned pastor, those who disagreed with her “pastorate” were “bullies.” So it was doubly incumbent upon Peterson to defend her (and every other woman’s) right to be a “pastor” and lead a congregation. It comes as absolutely no shock to me that his defense for accepting the homosexual lifestyle and for approving of gay marriage is – he knows some really, really nice homosexuals.

Peterson is just another in a long line of individuals who illustrate the truth that “narrow is the path that leads to eternal life, and few there are that find it.” Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Eugene Peterson – unmistakable luminaries in the evangelical and/or emerging church fold who have “shocked” the religious world with their “discovery” that homosexual behavior is something to be embraced and promoted. Their paths are  unique to each individual, but share some remarkable similarities. That is to be expected. When you sell your soul to the cult of popularity, there really is very little room for originality. I expect there will be many more to come – and increasingly there will be progressives within the Churches of Christ to join their ranks. Too many of “our” luminaries have hitched their wagons to the McLarens and Bells and Petersons of this world to risk denouncing them now.

Earlier today I posted a long quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, asking a serious question: why is the church so insipid today? Why has the church lost it’s power? His answer is compelling – and indicting. The news that one of the most popular evangelical writers today has rejected the plain teaching of Scripture, as evidenced by 2,000 years of near-universal consent, is simple evidence as to the truth of Bonhoeffer’s reflection.

To borrow a phrase from Peterson’s The Message, enjoy your fame, folks, because when “all hell breaks loose” on the day of God’s wrath, there are going to be some really “shocked” best-selling authors – and disillusioned followers.

NOTE: Within minutes of posting this original article, I happened to check my twitter feed (again) and lo and behold, Peterson is renouncing his aforementioned declaration. HOWEVER, in reading his “retraction” I am thoroughly unconvinced. His answers in the original interview were direct and unequivocal – he welcomed a practicing, unrepentant homosexual to lead his congregation’s music ministry, and he unequivocally affirmed that he would perform a same-sex marriage. Now, he is claiming some sort of misunderstanding due to all of the “hypothetical language” that was used in the interview. Really? Is it too difficult to answer a simple question – would you perform a same sex marriage? Whether his original declaration or his retraction is genuine, it is going to be really, really interesting to see how the LGBTQ lobby handles this brouhaha.

As they say in the news bidness, stand by for updates.

Jury Duty?

I suppose of all modern problems, serving on a jury rates pretty low on the list. Never-the-less, the envelope that carries my jury duty summons has to rate at the very top of my least favorite to receive. The entire process of jury duty selection and service is among the most distasteful, and in my humble opinion, spiritually vexed problems that I face.

Many Christians view serving on a jury as a sacred honor – a privilege second only to active service in the military or law enforcement. I am thoroughly ambivalent. I understand all the flowery defense of the need for juries and the responsibility we have to serve. I just cannot get away from a nagging question – can a Christian participate in a flawed system and not thereby share in its guilt? To what extent is the cog just as guilty as the entire machine?

The jury summons that recently crossed my desk contains the following paragraph:

The right to trial by jury is guaranteed to all persons by both the United States and ********* Constitutions. The success of the jury system depends upon citizens performing their solemn duty to serve as jurors, while acting with integrity in discharging this responsibility.

Pretty high commendation. Just two questions – Is it true? and Is it Christian?

Let’s start phrase by phrase. A trial by jury is guaranteed to all persons. Check. No doubt, and no problem with that at all. Second, the success of the jury system depends on citizens (note the distinct lack of any qualifying adjectives) performing their solemn duty. Okay, well that one is a little more slippery. The trial of a racial minority by a racist jury is no success at all – it is a travesty and a crime itself. A trial involving a complicated legal question by an uninformed and basically ignorant jury is an equal travesty. So – the success of the jury trial system depends upon an educated and completely dispassionate jury. Such are rare, if not completely extinct. Third, the jurors must act with integrity. Here is where you lose me completely. Judges are not compelled to act with integrity – only to correctly apply the law. The suppression of critical evidence, the permission to allow certain witnesses – all may be legally correct, but integrity goes far and above legality. Defense attorneys are especially exempt from acting with integrity – it matters not at all to a defense attorney if his or her client is actually guilty, only that he or she be defended to the fullest extent of the law. And what about the state – can anyone say with a straight face that the state is required to act with integrity? It seems like every month, if not every week, a prisoner has been released after serving years, if not decades, in prison for crimes they did not commit. How many innocent individuals have been executed? All of these variables are somehow mitigated by a jury that acts with integrity? In many trials the only way a jury could act with integrity is to throw the entire court into jail for 30 days.

You see, the entire purpose of a legal system is to adjudicate truth and responsibility. If judges only have to dot “i”s and cross “t”s from a legal standpoint, if defense attorneys have to aggressively defend a client regardless of their guilt or innocence, and if the state’s attorneys can massage and/or withhold exculpatory evidence – how in the world can a jury be said to “act in integrity”?

Of course the rejoinder is that the jury is not responsible for the judge and his or her decisions, the jury is to weigh the merits of the case and not pay attention to the defense or prosecution attorneys. But, if the jury is misled, if the jury does not get to hear all of the pertinent evidence, if the jury is manipulated by high-sounding but vacuous rhetoric – how can the end result be said to have integrity? If the jury acquits the guilty, or if they convict the innocent – is it not thereby guilty of a gross crime, regardless of whether they acted “in integrity” according to some vague regulation?

The justice system must be based on a search for the truth, and as a protection for the immediate victim and for society at large. Our system is upside down. The entire system is designed to protect the rights of the accused; and the victim and society be . . . well, you get the picture.

As I said – I am utterly ambivalent. I know the importance of our legal system. As someone once said, it may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. But because of my experience both as a participant in the system and as a more than casual observer I see how bent and broken the system is. I also know that I am utterly powerless to effect any kind of change.

So – by law I am required to show up for jury duty, and to obey the law of the land I will comply. And if forced to serve, I will serve as dispassionately and with as much integrity as I can muster.

And, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer so eloquently argued, I will pray with all my heart and soul that God’s mercies can forgive the sins of those forced to do what their conscience objects to.