Last night as I was listening to Christian radio (usually my first mistake), I happened upon a sermon by John McArthur entitled "The Sinfulness of Sin." Its aim was, in the speaker's p.o.v., to remind listeners that without an adequate understanding of sin and its just punishment, no one can fully understand grace. Its text (and some of you will doubtless sigh along with me here) was Jesus' discourse on fulfilling the law and the subsequent discourse on murder/hate, adultery/lust, divorce/adultery, oaths/truth, vengeance/love for enemies from Matthew 5, verses 17-48.
At this point, I would like to say that when it comes to 'fessing up to the truth of who you are and who you've been, I think that recognizing one's sins for what they are (and not making excuses for them) is a key part of growing up and acting like an adult (to say nothing of being a Christian), so I don't have a problem with a preacher who wants to talk about the power and deadliness of sin in people's lives.
However, this particular speaker was, from what I heard, operating on two very shaky assumptions: (1) that people who sin don't know the destructiveness of their sin, and (2) that God's grace is something people can mistake for a "get out of jail free" card that allows them to do whatever they want.
I've met a lot of colorful people in my life (thus far), and I have yet to meet one alcoholic, drug addict, or [insert name of sin here] who does not face, with every waking moment, the devastating reality--and consequences, potential and present--of his/her behavior. As a matter of fact, I have yet to meet one person in general, outside of Christianity, who doesn't know, intimately, what sin is and how it can destroy them. Not everyone may agree with the Christian way of dealing with sin (in fact, most people around the world don't), but they know that (1) it exists and (2) it is lethal--spiritually and emotionally, if not physically.
It is because of this intimate understanding of sin's destructiveness that I doubt if I will find anyone who, upon accepting the grace of God, would hesitate to consider it a tremendous gift--and lease--on life, worthy of a complete spiritual and emotional change on their part. I have yet to meet anyone outside of Christianity who would look upon this grace with disdain or as a license to do whatever they want or as a simple "get out of jail free" card. Most people outside Christendom would welcome the intervention of a God who gives them the kind of purpose and drive to prompt them to make positive changes in their lives--though, again, they might not agree with a Christian about what god, or gods, or divine force that should be, or what process they should take in reconciling themselves to him/her/it/them.
Be that as it may, I listened, grudgingly, to the radio preacher's sermon.
He began to lose me at the point where, when he was describing Jesus' trek through different sins (and standards for evaluating sin), he said that Jesus juxtaposed fornication to lust. (Of course, anyone who has read that scripture knows that it is not talking about fornication but adultery, which is not necessarily the same thing.) It's a typical mistake, and I hear conservative preachers make it all the time, so I was more irritated than anything else. :)
Where I began (literally) arguing with the radio, however, was when McArthur began saying that in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5, verses 3-10), Jesus started off talking about God's grace, and then, in Matthew 5, verses 17-48, switched over to talking about God's law and standard for judging sin. Immediately in my mind's eye, I saw some poor, barely churched Christian sitting in the pew and saying "amen" to something that could cause his/her own personal spiritual and emotional self-destruction.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you know someone who is an aspiring Bible college/seminary student, would you share this little bit of advice with them?
Please . . . for the love of God . . . do not go around saying things that make Jesus (or God) look like a dithering schoolmarm who can't make up his mind. The statement I mentioned above (which I quoted almost verbatim) is exactly the kind of statement from the pulpits of America that prompts people to come to the conclusion that the Bible is a patchwork collection of texts put together by madmen.
Worse than McArthur's implication that Jesus was not able to speak on a coherent topic was the fact that, like many preachers, McArthur apparently missed the point of Matthew 5, which is (as the rest of the Sermon on the Mount was) a withering deconstruction of the religious caste system and its use of spiritual and emotional terror to keep the masses in line. I imagine Christ, standing at the Mount of Olives, speaking to the masses, and looking at the Pharisees and religious leaders who were there every time he said "But I say to you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" or "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment" or "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress".
You see, it is the principle tendency of religious elites to think of everyone else as their personal property, and Jesus was going after the ways in which the religious elites of first century Judaea treated the people of Judaea as their personal property, while telling everyone else (on pain of ostracization and eternal damnation) that they needed to follow their codes to the strictest letter. Grace, in short, was at the heart of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5--it is the sum and substance of what Jesus was trying to introduce to people on the Mount of Olives.
The problem with most church-types like McArthur (and I've heard quite a few of his sermons) is that they don't get what it's like to be outside the full-time ministry, let alone what it's like not to be a Christian. On top of that, whenever you're dealing with someone who has a tape ministry, like McArthur, you have to wonder if his enthusiasm for what he is saying is driven by a real desire to come closer to God . . . or a desire to divest believers of time and money on his way to producing a TV show.
Personally, I'd rather that preachers spend a little more time focusing on the health and well-being of their churches (which is usually poor) than trying to put their faces on a wide array of collectible merchandise. Not only would half the church's credibility problems be solved . . . but I suspect that we'd probably hear better preaching. :)
At this point, I would like to say that when it comes to 'fessing up to the truth of who you are and who you've been, I think that recognizing one's sins for what they are (and not making excuses for them) is a key part of growing up and acting like an adult (to say nothing of being a Christian), so I don't have a problem with a preacher who wants to talk about the power and deadliness of sin in people's lives.
However, this particular speaker was, from what I heard, operating on two very shaky assumptions: (1) that people who sin don't know the destructiveness of their sin, and (2) that God's grace is something people can mistake for a "get out of jail free" card that allows them to do whatever they want.
I've met a lot of colorful people in my life (thus far), and I have yet to meet one alcoholic, drug addict, or [insert name of sin here] who does not face, with every waking moment, the devastating reality--and consequences, potential and present--of his/her behavior. As a matter of fact, I have yet to meet one person in general, outside of Christianity, who doesn't know, intimately, what sin is and how it can destroy them. Not everyone may agree with the Christian way of dealing with sin (in fact, most people around the world don't), but they know that (1) it exists and (2) it is lethal--spiritually and emotionally, if not physically.
It is because of this intimate understanding of sin's destructiveness that I doubt if I will find anyone who, upon accepting the grace of God, would hesitate to consider it a tremendous gift--and lease--on life, worthy of a complete spiritual and emotional change on their part. I have yet to meet anyone outside of Christianity who would look upon this grace with disdain or as a license to do whatever they want or as a simple "get out of jail free" card. Most people outside Christendom would welcome the intervention of a God who gives them the kind of purpose and drive to prompt them to make positive changes in their lives--though, again, they might not agree with a Christian about what god, or gods, or divine force that should be, or what process they should take in reconciling themselves to him/her/it/them.
Be that as it may, I listened, grudgingly, to the radio preacher's sermon.
He began to lose me at the point where, when he was describing Jesus' trek through different sins (and standards for evaluating sin), he said that Jesus juxtaposed fornication to lust. (Of course, anyone who has read that scripture knows that it is not talking about fornication but adultery, which is not necessarily the same thing.) It's a typical mistake, and I hear conservative preachers make it all the time, so I was more irritated than anything else. :)
Where I began (literally) arguing with the radio, however, was when McArthur began saying that in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5, verses 3-10), Jesus started off talking about God's grace, and then, in Matthew 5, verses 17-48, switched over to talking about God's law and standard for judging sin. Immediately in my mind's eye, I saw some poor, barely churched Christian sitting in the pew and saying "amen" to something that could cause his/her own personal spiritual and emotional self-destruction.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you know someone who is an aspiring Bible college/seminary student, would you share this little bit of advice with them?
Please . . . for the love of God . . . do not go around saying things that make Jesus (or God) look like a dithering schoolmarm who can't make up his mind. The statement I mentioned above (which I quoted almost verbatim) is exactly the kind of statement from the pulpits of America that prompts people to come to the conclusion that the Bible is a patchwork collection of texts put together by madmen.
Worse than McArthur's implication that Jesus was not able to speak on a coherent topic was the fact that, like many preachers, McArthur apparently missed the point of Matthew 5, which is (as the rest of the Sermon on the Mount was) a withering deconstruction of the religious caste system and its use of spiritual and emotional terror to keep the masses in line. I imagine Christ, standing at the Mount of Olives, speaking to the masses, and looking at the Pharisees and religious leaders who were there every time he said "But I say to you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" or "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment" or "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress".
You see, it is the principle tendency of religious elites to think of everyone else as their personal property, and Jesus was going after the ways in which the religious elites of first century Judaea treated the people of Judaea as their personal property, while telling everyone else (on pain of ostracization and eternal damnation) that they needed to follow their codes to the strictest letter. Grace, in short, was at the heart of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5--it is the sum and substance of what Jesus was trying to introduce to people on the Mount of Olives.
The problem with most church-types like McArthur (and I've heard quite a few of his sermons) is that they don't get what it's like to be outside the full-time ministry, let alone what it's like not to be a Christian. On top of that, whenever you're dealing with someone who has a tape ministry, like McArthur, you have to wonder if his enthusiasm for what he is saying is driven by a real desire to come closer to God . . . or a desire to divest believers of time and money on his way to producing a TV show.
Personally, I'd rather that preachers spend a little more time focusing on the health and well-being of their churches (which is usually poor) than trying to put their faces on a wide array of collectible merchandise. Not only would half the church's credibility problems be solved . . . but I suspect that we'd probably hear better preaching. :)
posted by Brian Bly at 12:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home