Photo by Brandon Harrell on Scopio
For a podcast version of this with some revisions, follow this link.
It is easy for each generation to look at social changes and view them as negative changes in morality. Whether it is the development of more revealing clothing, more open use of swearing and crude words, the legalization of pot, or any other number of changes - it can seem to an older generation that the sky is falling. But at the same time, there are changes which happen socially that clearly fall within the moral realm. Loosened sexual ethics, sentimental spirituality refusing to plug into a church body, or the increasing acceptance of certain birth control methods, like the day after pill, are all examples of social changes which, from a historical Christian standpoint, clearly cross the threshold of immorality. While I could harp on any one of these issues and bemoan the degradation of modern, liberal Christianity, I instead want to point fingers at my own group and ask for our personal reflection as I highlight what I think is a troubling trend which undermines our ability to critique modern culture.
It is easy for each generation to look at social changes and view them as negative changes in morality. Whether it is the development of more revealing clothing, more open use of swearing and crude words, the legalization of pot, or any other number of changes - it can seem to an older generation that the sky is falling. But at the same time, there are changes which happen socially that clearly fall within the moral realm. Loosened sexual ethics, sentimental spirituality refusing to plug into a church body, or the increasing acceptance of certain birth control methods, like the day after pill, are all examples of social changes which, from a historical Christian standpoint, clearly cross the threshold of immorality. While I could harp on any one of these issues and bemoan the degradation of modern, liberal Christianity, I instead want to point fingers at my own group and ask for our personal reflection as I highlight what I think is a troubling trend which undermines our ability to critique modern culture.
Modern conservative Christianity, at least in the States, is quite often a religion of comfort and convenience. Many of us who are in the fold were born into the fold, and our family and surrounding culture make it easy for us to remain as we are - apparent Christians. Though some things are changing, our society also has laws and expectations which often overlap with aspects of Christian morality. For instance, having a child out of wedlock is far more acceptable than it was fifty years ago, but there is still a bit of stigma that comes along with unintended pregnancies. Conservative Christianity also sees itself as extremely patriotic, so it often embeds one deeper into the culture by underwriting the nation, its actions in the world, and its processes. To walk among Christians has without a doubt been historically convenient in the United States.
But when religion becomes cultural - when it becomes convenient - impediments to convenience are often discarded. Limiting factors and inhibitors have to be tossed to the side in order to keep the swell of converts and maintenance power. This is by no means just a religious thing. We see it in something as simple as the video game world as well. Those who are extremely dedicated or long-time players who have received advantages due to the time they've invested and the skills they've developed would prevent any newcomers from feeling as though there was easy and enjoyable entry into the game. The newcomer would have to go through a steep learning curve, invest a lot of time, and go through many games of disappointment before being able to compete with those who came ahead of him. So, the video game industry tears down impediments to convenience. It offers "pay-to-win" packages which allows newcomers to buy experience or weapons to help their character which would have otherwise taken time and skill to acquire. They offer double experience sessions every now and then or, after some time, they sell their game with an automatic level-up to X for those who are new buyers. Whereas such a strategy may be reasonable at times when discussing a video game whose purpose is entertainment, the impact of doing this in the Christian realm is very different. For the remainder of the article I want to look at five ways the modern church has dumbed down entry to being a disciple of Christ, and explore the impact that has on our witness to the world.
Inhibitors of Suffering:
1. Submission to Government: This is an issue which seems apparently clear from Romans 13 (thought to be written under the rule of Nero the persecutor), I Peter 2, and the early church. It doesn't matter who is in charge, God is sovereign. In light of God's power and control, we bear up under hardship and persecution and submit to governmental authorities. If the early church was univocal on this under rulers such as the nefarious Nero and Diocletian, surely Colonials should have been submissive to the British government. Violent revolutions and seeking to overthrow a government is not biblical or in accord with early church teachings.
2. Love of Enemies: Jesus clearly taught us to love our enemies. He wasn't telling us simply to love our obnoxious neighbors, but he had in view the worst of the worst in his day - the Romans and the Samaritans. These were people so theologically and morally corrupted in the eyes of Jews that they couldn't even imagine such things. The Ante-Nicene fathers are univocal on this issue. Image bearers of God are not to be killed in self-defense, in capital punishment, in war, or as disposable fetuses or newborns. Life and vengeance are not ours to take. Jesus demonstrated this the best when he submitted to unjust Jewish and Roman authorities, was tortured, and died while loving and forgiving those who killed him.
3. Divorce: The Bible is pretty clear on divorce. Jesus says that divorce was allowed in the Old Testament because of the hardness of Israel's heart, but that the only reason it should occur in the New Testament is for adultery. Paul seems to expound on this a bit by including what many call "abandonment." But even adultery and abandonment didn't require one to divorce. A number of Ante-Nicene fathers indicate that if repentance was sought by the spouse, that the marriage should be maintained. And as we'll repeat in "remarriage," this is part of the reason they saw the biblical command not to remarry as important. If I divorce my wife for adultery and don't remarry, then if she should turn and repent, I am able to right that wrong and take her back because what God has put together should not be torn asunder.
Of course a modern question is always, "what about cases of abuse?" This isn't a question to be taken lightly, not only due to the gravity of the circumstance, but because it tends to disproportionately affect women. Nevertheless, I think I Peter 3 is insightful here. Peter just finished telling slaves to bear up under their masters, even if those masters are "harsh." Knowing what we know about Roman society, that could be pretty bad - including not only physical beatings, but sexual assaults. When we get to I Peter 3, immediately following the slave section, Peter tells wives to submit to their husbands "in the same way."
When you look at what the Ante-Nicene fathers were saying about this, many acknowledged that the only legitimate reason for divorce was infidelity. But there is a particular quote from Origen that I like in which he applies the same to husbands. Origen asks whether or not a man should divorce his wife if he finds out that she's been trying to poison him, or if he comes home and he discovers that she has killed their newborn. Origen declares that these things seem far worse than infidelity, but that the command of Christ is clear on divorce. We are to bear up under hardship - not because we are masochists- but because, as the end of I Peter 2 shows us, this is what Christ is like. Cross is to be expected as a Christian, and that cross often comes when we are faced with loving our enemies.
4. Remarriage: Going along with divorce is the issue of remarriage. The Bible and the early church fathers are extremely clear on the issue of remarriage. It is not to be done. We could discuss whether there was an allowance for remarriage if one was the victim of a spouse's infidelity, but other than that more gray area, the Bible is clear. Most, if not all of the early church fathers thought that remarriage was inappropriate, and many claimed that it was even inappropriate for those who were victims of infidelity. Part of this is not only because they were made one flesh and should seek no other (apart from death), but the other reason was because it allowed room for potential reconciliation in the future. No matter how you look at it, remarriage was nowhere close to being accepted in the way it is today.
5. Slavery: We don't really have legal slavery today, so this one is difficult to parse out. Perhaps instead of thinking of slaves we should think of prisoners, who are essentially legal slaves under the 13th Amendment. However you imagine this playing out today, the Bible and the early church tell slaves over and over again to submit to masters - even harsh masters. True, it also tells masters to treat slaves as brothers and sons, but we're focused on the oppressed groups in this article. Slaves were to bear up and serve well even under severe treatment. If one were legally enslaved in a country today, or if one is a prisoner (even unjustly), it seems like the biblical and early church consensus would be to live to the best of your ability in your station and love submissively.
The Grounding of Suffering:
You'll notice that none of the five issues above sound very good to us - especially to us as American Christians. Some of them seem only like an inconvenience {i.e. remarriage), whereas others sound like they are actually morally reprehensible (i.e. bearing up under slavery or difficult marriages). Would we really ask an abused spouse not to divorce? Would we really tell a North Korean to submit to their government? I understand those struggles, and we could discuss those in much more depth. However, the Bible and the Ante-Nicene church provide us with nearly univocal sentiment on each of those issues. What's difficult for us to understand in our "rights" culture is that first, our rights perspective is unique in the history of the world. Few other cultures have had the rights or the say that we do. But second, we have to understand that Jesus didn't come to prop up rights. He came to lay them down and call us to lay ours down as well.
Philippians 2 gives us a beautiful picture of what a Christian ought to be. The vast majority of what it calls us to do is relational. They're things which look out from ourselves and towards another.
1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
Importantly, the grounding for our focus on other and looking away from ourselves is Jesus Christ. Philippians 2 and I Peter 2 are some of the clearest passages which ground how we are to live. Because Jesus humbled himself and emptied himself, because he submitted to unjust authorities, and because he was willing to be tortured and killed, so it should be with us.
Philippians 2:5-11
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I Peter 2:21-23
21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;
Consequences of a Refusal to Suffer
I have pointed out five ways in which Jesus and the Ante-Nicene church taught us to accept suffering, which we have largely thrown off as Christians today. I could discuss the implications this has on the quality of the visible church, the implications it has for our walk with Christ, etc. All of those things are important, but I want to instead focus on an implication which I think will hit closer to home for conservative Christians. I want to show how our hypocrisy on a willingness to suffer undermines our ability to prevent what many conservative Christians view as extreme social degradation in the case of sexual and gender ethics.
Conservative Christians declare that the Bible teaches there is a distinction of the sexes - male and female. Conservative Christians also teach that the Bible is very clear on the immorality of homosexuality. Because of the clarity of scripture, conservative Christians are vehemently opposed to transgendered lifestyles, homosexuality, sex changes, etc. And what do we Christians tell those who feel a strong, natural attraction to the same sex, or who feel like they are a woman trapped in a man's body? We tell them that such is their station in life. It may be a hard life, and we can feel the utmost compassion for them. It is a tragedy that a same-sex attracted person will not be able to fulfill the desires of their heart, to start a family, and to find togetherness with someone else. It is heartbreaking that a woman who feels like a man has to live every waking hour of her life in disorientation. But doing the right thing isn't always easy and doesn't always make sense. Such is the Christian life - the mortification of the flesh and the pursuit of Christ-likeness.
If, after all of our discussion on modern Christian compromises you were able to read that last paragraph without any sense of dissonance, then that underscores a significant problem. We have accepted five clear compromises of what our Lord asks us to do in order to be like Christ - five areas where Jesus asks us to bear up under unjust suffering in order to show the world that we are like him - and yet we demonize the Christian LGBTQ+ community for their refusal to bear up under suffering for the sake of Christ. They, unlike us, are morally compromised in our eyes.
Modern Christianity, through our compromised teaching and lifestyle, has in part created the situation we're in. We've taught the world that Jesus is about our rights - our right to divorce, to overthrow tyrants, and to kill enemies who seek our harm. We haven't adequately taught or shown how the Bible is a call to elevate our relationship with Christ above all else and humbly submit, even in the most difficult of suffering. Gay Christians don't want to suffer because we've taught them that suffering and cross are to be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of moral compromise in the light of clear scriptural teaching. We call them to sacrifice while jettisoning our own call to sacrifice.
My point in all this is not to talk about how bad Christians are or how acceptable alternative lifestyles are. To err is human, and every culture and every generation fashions religion in its own image to some extent. The question isn't "how far have we erred?," but rather, "where do we go from here?" For the Christian there is only one possible answer. We go to Christ. As we turn to him and run to him, we find that he is calling us to live lives parallel to his. We live with our thoughts continually about other, even and especially when loving the other involves our suffering. Suffering perfects us not because each bruise and beating creates calluses on our bodies and souls, but because each stripe we receive is a reflection of our master, and an indication of our humility. How much suffering should we be willing to take before we become like Christ? I would imagine that he set the bar for that. He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
But when religion becomes cultural - when it becomes convenient - impediments to convenience are often discarded. Limiting factors and inhibitors have to be tossed to the side in order to keep the swell of converts and maintenance power. This is by no means just a religious thing. We see it in something as simple as the video game world as well. Those who are extremely dedicated or long-time players who have received advantages due to the time they've invested and the skills they've developed would prevent any newcomers from feeling as though there was easy and enjoyable entry into the game. The newcomer would have to go through a steep learning curve, invest a lot of time, and go through many games of disappointment before being able to compete with those who came ahead of him. So, the video game industry tears down impediments to convenience. It offers "pay-to-win" packages which allows newcomers to buy experience or weapons to help their character which would have otherwise taken time and skill to acquire. They offer double experience sessions every now and then or, after some time, they sell their game with an automatic level-up to X for those who are new buyers. Whereas such a strategy may be reasonable at times when discussing a video game whose purpose is entertainment, the impact of doing this in the Christian realm is very different. For the remainder of the article I want to look at five ways the modern church has dumbed down entry to being a disciple of Christ, and explore the impact that has on our witness to the world.
Inhibitors of Suffering:
1. Submission to Government: This is an issue which seems apparently clear from Romans 13 (thought to be written under the rule of Nero the persecutor), I Peter 2, and the early church. It doesn't matter who is in charge, God is sovereign. In light of God's power and control, we bear up under hardship and persecution and submit to governmental authorities. If the early church was univocal on this under rulers such as the nefarious Nero and Diocletian, surely Colonials should have been submissive to the British government. Violent revolutions and seeking to overthrow a government is not biblical or in accord with early church teachings.
2. Love of Enemies: Jesus clearly taught us to love our enemies. He wasn't telling us simply to love our obnoxious neighbors, but he had in view the worst of the worst in his day - the Romans and the Samaritans. These were people so theologically and morally corrupted in the eyes of Jews that they couldn't even imagine such things. The Ante-Nicene fathers are univocal on this issue. Image bearers of God are not to be killed in self-defense, in capital punishment, in war, or as disposable fetuses or newborns. Life and vengeance are not ours to take. Jesus demonstrated this the best when he submitted to unjust Jewish and Roman authorities, was tortured, and died while loving and forgiving those who killed him.
3. Divorce: The Bible is pretty clear on divorce. Jesus says that divorce was allowed in the Old Testament because of the hardness of Israel's heart, but that the only reason it should occur in the New Testament is for adultery. Paul seems to expound on this a bit by including what many call "abandonment." But even adultery and abandonment didn't require one to divorce. A number of Ante-Nicene fathers indicate that if repentance was sought by the spouse, that the marriage should be maintained. And as we'll repeat in "remarriage," this is part of the reason they saw the biblical command not to remarry as important. If I divorce my wife for adultery and don't remarry, then if she should turn and repent, I am able to right that wrong and take her back because what God has put together should not be torn asunder.
Of course a modern question is always, "what about cases of abuse?" This isn't a question to be taken lightly, not only due to the gravity of the circumstance, but because it tends to disproportionately affect women. Nevertheless, I think I Peter 3 is insightful here. Peter just finished telling slaves to bear up under their masters, even if those masters are "harsh." Knowing what we know about Roman society, that could be pretty bad - including not only physical beatings, but sexual assaults. When we get to I Peter 3, immediately following the slave section, Peter tells wives to submit to their husbands "in the same way."
When you look at what the Ante-Nicene fathers were saying about this, many acknowledged that the only legitimate reason for divorce was infidelity. But there is a particular quote from Origen that I like in which he applies the same to husbands. Origen asks whether or not a man should divorce his wife if he finds out that she's been trying to poison him, or if he comes home and he discovers that she has killed their newborn. Origen declares that these things seem far worse than infidelity, but that the command of Christ is clear on divorce. We are to bear up under hardship - not because we are masochists- but because, as the end of I Peter 2 shows us, this is what Christ is like. Cross is to be expected as a Christian, and that cross often comes when we are faced with loving our enemies.
4. Remarriage: Going along with divorce is the issue of remarriage. The Bible and the early church fathers are extremely clear on the issue of remarriage. It is not to be done. We could discuss whether there was an allowance for remarriage if one was the victim of a spouse's infidelity, but other than that more gray area, the Bible is clear. Most, if not all of the early church fathers thought that remarriage was inappropriate, and many claimed that it was even inappropriate for those who were victims of infidelity. Part of this is not only because they were made one flesh and should seek no other (apart from death), but the other reason was because it allowed room for potential reconciliation in the future. No matter how you look at it, remarriage was nowhere close to being accepted in the way it is today.
5. Slavery: We don't really have legal slavery today, so this one is difficult to parse out. Perhaps instead of thinking of slaves we should think of prisoners, who are essentially legal slaves under the 13th Amendment. However you imagine this playing out today, the Bible and the early church tell slaves over and over again to submit to masters - even harsh masters. True, it also tells masters to treat slaves as brothers and sons, but we're focused on the oppressed groups in this article. Slaves were to bear up and serve well even under severe treatment. If one were legally enslaved in a country today, or if one is a prisoner (even unjustly), it seems like the biblical and early church consensus would be to live to the best of your ability in your station and love submissively.
The Grounding of Suffering:
You'll notice that none of the five issues above sound very good to us - especially to us as American Christians. Some of them seem only like an inconvenience {i.e. remarriage), whereas others sound like they are actually morally reprehensible (i.e. bearing up under slavery or difficult marriages). Would we really ask an abused spouse not to divorce? Would we really tell a North Korean to submit to their government? I understand those struggles, and we could discuss those in much more depth. However, the Bible and the Ante-Nicene church provide us with nearly univocal sentiment on each of those issues. What's difficult for us to understand in our "rights" culture is that first, our rights perspective is unique in the history of the world. Few other cultures have had the rights or the say that we do. But second, we have to understand that Jesus didn't come to prop up rights. He came to lay them down and call us to lay ours down as well.
Philippians 2 gives us a beautiful picture of what a Christian ought to be. The vast majority of what it calls us to do is relational. They're things which look out from ourselves and towards another.
1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
Importantly, the grounding for our focus on other and looking away from ourselves is Jesus Christ. Philippians 2 and I Peter 2 are some of the clearest passages which ground how we are to live. Because Jesus humbled himself and emptied himself, because he submitted to unjust authorities, and because he was willing to be tortured and killed, so it should be with us.
Philippians 2:5-11
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I Peter 2:21-23
21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;
Consequences of a Refusal to Suffer
I have pointed out five ways in which Jesus and the Ante-Nicene church taught us to accept suffering, which we have largely thrown off as Christians today. I could discuss the implications this has on the quality of the visible church, the implications it has for our walk with Christ, etc. All of those things are important, but I want to instead focus on an implication which I think will hit closer to home for conservative Christians. I want to show how our hypocrisy on a willingness to suffer undermines our ability to prevent what many conservative Christians view as extreme social degradation in the case of sexual and gender ethics.
Conservative Christians declare that the Bible teaches there is a distinction of the sexes - male and female. Conservative Christians also teach that the Bible is very clear on the immorality of homosexuality. Because of the clarity of scripture, conservative Christians are vehemently opposed to transgendered lifestyles, homosexuality, sex changes, etc. And what do we Christians tell those who feel a strong, natural attraction to the same sex, or who feel like they are a woman trapped in a man's body? We tell them that such is their station in life. It may be a hard life, and we can feel the utmost compassion for them. It is a tragedy that a same-sex attracted person will not be able to fulfill the desires of their heart, to start a family, and to find togetherness with someone else. It is heartbreaking that a woman who feels like a man has to live every waking hour of her life in disorientation. But doing the right thing isn't always easy and doesn't always make sense. Such is the Christian life - the mortification of the flesh and the pursuit of Christ-likeness.
If, after all of our discussion on modern Christian compromises you were able to read that last paragraph without any sense of dissonance, then that underscores a significant problem. We have accepted five clear compromises of what our Lord asks us to do in order to be like Christ - five areas where Jesus asks us to bear up under unjust suffering in order to show the world that we are like him - and yet we demonize the Christian LGBTQ+ community for their refusal to bear up under suffering for the sake of Christ. They, unlike us, are morally compromised in our eyes.
Modern Christianity, through our compromised teaching and lifestyle, has in part created the situation we're in. We've taught the world that Jesus is about our rights - our right to divorce, to overthrow tyrants, and to kill enemies who seek our harm. We haven't adequately taught or shown how the Bible is a call to elevate our relationship with Christ above all else and humbly submit, even in the most difficult of suffering. Gay Christians don't want to suffer because we've taught them that suffering and cross are to be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of moral compromise in the light of clear scriptural teaching. We call them to sacrifice while jettisoning our own call to sacrifice.
My point in all this is not to talk about how bad Christians are or how acceptable alternative lifestyles are. To err is human, and every culture and every generation fashions religion in its own image to some extent. The question isn't "how far have we erred?," but rather, "where do we go from here?" For the Christian there is only one possible answer. We go to Christ. As we turn to him and run to him, we find that he is calling us to live lives parallel to his. We live with our thoughts continually about other, even and especially when loving the other involves our suffering. Suffering perfects us not because each bruise and beating creates calluses on our bodies and souls, but because each stripe we receive is a reflection of our master, and an indication of our humility. How much suffering should we be willing to take before we become like Christ? I would imagine that he set the bar for that. He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
RSS Feed