ReGrace Page 10

  In April 2012, I wrote a blog post using the title of this chapter. The post went viral. It seemed to have hit a nerve as well as give language to how countless Christians around the world feel about the incessant bickering over doctrinal and political issues among God’s people.

  I’m including it here because I believe it sums up the main point of this book.

  Why the Christian Right Won’t Adopt Me

  Like F. F. Bruce, I believe words like plenary and inerrant are unnecessary when speaking about the truthfulness of Scripture.

  I don’t believe the Bible clearly addresses the question of the eternal destiny of those who have never heard or understood the gospel of Jesus Christ.

  I don’t believe Scripture answers every question posed to it. And there are many questions, including theological ones, which are shrouded in mystery.

  I believe that racism and sexism are serious problems in the USA and shouldn’t be viewed as “lesser” than other moral evils.

  I believe that slander, hatred, greed, and fits of rage are just as sinful as fornication and stealing (so did Paul—1 Corinthians 6:10–11; Galatians 5:19–21).

  I don’t know whether to whistle or wind my watch, to laugh or cry at The American Patriot’s Bible.

  I believe that God loves the poor and taking care of them should be just as high a priority as other social issues, if not more.

  While I don’t believe the theory of evolution with respect to human origins is airtight, many genuine and devout Christians (past and present) believe it to be fact (“theistic evolution”). And because Christ has received them, so do I.

  I believe a narrative approach to the Bible is a far superior way to understand Scripture than a systematic approach.

  While I disagree with him on many things, I find some of what Brian McLaren teaches to be valuable.

  Why the Christian Left Won’t Adopt Me

  I believe the Bible—all of it—is divinely inspired, completely true, fully authoritative, and wholly reliable.

  I believe that when Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man comes to the Father but by Him, He wasn’t lying. Nor was He being narrow-minded. (And I believe Jesus of Nazareth actually uttered those words.)

  Though I possess neither, I don’t believe it is a sin to own a Cadillac Escalade or a private jet.

  I believe that accusing people of racism and sexism when they aren’t racist or sexist is just as wrong as racism and sexism.

  I sometimes think there is too much talk about rights and not enough talk about taking responsibility.

  I believe that Paul’s words about work in 2 Thessalonians 3:10–12 still hold true today.

  Postmodern deconstructionism, while helpful in discounting modernity (whose fundamental tenets challenge Christianity), is inadequate for bringing one to the Truth, who is Christ.

  I believe there is a big difference between the world system and the ekklesia; and the former is God’s enemy (1 John 2:15–17).

  There are still many first-rate scholars who argue that there are sound historical and scientific reasons for believing that Adam was a real, historical person. And it is wrong to ridicule and scorn them.

  While I disagree with him on many things, I find some of what John MacArthur teaches to be valuable.

  The Family to Which I Belong

  Note that I could easily lengthen the list and expand each point.

  Of course, not everyone who aligns themselves with the Christian Right affirms each point I’ve listed above. Yet many do. The same is true for those who align themselves with the Christian Left. Yet many do.

  And just for good measure, I don’t believe in making a fetish out of political or theological centrism.

  That said, it’s okay if the Christian Left and the Christian Right movements won’t adopt me. You see, I belong to the Family of God, which is made up of all who have the Lord’s life within them. And that includes my sisters and brothers in Christ who are on the left and the right.

  It may surprise some that I have close friends and family members who are on the far right on the political and theological spectrum, and they are intensely and passionately involved in the political process.

  I also have close friends and family members who are on the far left on the political and theological spectrum, and they are intensely and passionately involved in the political process.

  I’m glad they are following their vision, conscience, and passion, as I believe all believers should.

  Let me say two things parenthetically at this point:

  (1) It’s fascinating to me that people who are part of the Christian Left and the Christian Right routinely accuse one another of accommodating the culture and supporting Caesar and Empire.

  (2) As a generality, the Left believes in speaking to “power.” However, when it does, it’s usually in the areas of contra racism, alleviating poverty, protesting against unjust war, etc. In general, the Right also believes in speaking to “power.” However, when it does, it’s usually in the areas of the fight against abortion, pornography, and other moral issues.

  Very rarely do we see leaders or movements today in the spirit of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, who advocated “the seamless garment,” protesting against abortion as well as the causes which produce poverty and unjust war. To Bernardin, to fight against abortion, war, poverty, and the death penalty was to be consistently pro-life.

  Let me add a postscript: Being a liberal Democrat doesn’t make one “cool” any more than being a conservative Republican makes one “moral.” So it seems to me anyway.

  End of parenthetical statement.

  Again, I’ve always encouraged Christians to follow their vision, conscience, and passion regarding what they believe God’s will is for the world. And I applaud believers who are laboring in the trenches with respect to God’s kingdom work. As I’ve written and spoken elsewhere, such work is important to me, and it’s something in which I’m actively engaged myself.

  For that reason, while I may disagree with my friends and family members on various theological, social, and political points, we love, respect, and support one another. Especially in the work of helping those who are needy and suffering, both on the justice side and on the mercy side.

  And our differences have never affected our relationship.

  So even if the Right and Left movements won’t adopt me, I happily declare that I am kin to all genuine followers of Jesus, regardless of their political or theological bent.

  And they will know we are Christians by our love for one another.

  They drew a circle that shut me out—a heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had the wit to win. We drew a circle that took them in.

  ~ Edwin Markham

  The Loss of Civility

  In closing, I really appreciate what Rick Warren said in an interview with ABC News:

  The coarsening of our culture and the loss of civility in our civilization is one of the things that concerns me most about our nation. We don’t know how to disagree without being disagreeable. The fact is, you can—you can walk hand in hand without seeing eye-to-eye. And what we need in our country is unity, not uniformity. There are major differences, politically, religiously, economically in our nation. We have many different streams in our nation. . . . What is solvable is how we treat each other with our differences. . . . In fact, the Bible tells me in 1 Peter, show respect to everyone, even people I totally disagree with. So I’m coming from that viewpoint in that we must return civility to our civilization in order to get on. But the reason I do that is because of the deeper reason, there’s a spiritual root to my reason for civility.1

  18

  So You Think You Disagree?

  Men often stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry on as if nothing happened.

  ~ Winston Churchill

  If you have ever had someone disagree with something you’ve said or written . . . or you’ve disagreed with what someone has ever said or
written, then this chapter is for you.

  Three things by way of introduction. When people disagree with you . . .

  Some will be charitable in their disagreement.

  Others will be defamatory.

  Sometimes many of the people who think they disagree with you really don’t. But because “Christians” often fail to do that which Jesus taught—which is to go straight to the person with whom you think you disagree and ask them questions—misrepresentations abound (Matthew 7:12).

  To be sure, there are genuine disagreements. And we should welcome them. It’s one way to fine-tune our thinking.

  None of us can claim infallibility.

  But in all the years that I’ve been writing books, blogging, and speaking, I’ve discovered that after having a respectful conversation with a reasonable person, we often learn that there is no substantive disagreement.

  In my experience at least, this happens approximately 75 percent of the time.

  That said, here are four reasons why a person may think they disagree with you when they really don’t. Note that I’m using the word “author” here to refer to the human source of any piece of writing or speech.

  1. The author wasn’t clear in making his point, so his points were misunderstood.

  When it comes to articulating our thoughts, we all have room for improvement. For myself, I’m constantly honing my writing, restating things, rewording sentences, nuancing ideas, and reworking my material to be as clear as possible. Yet I’m rarely satisfied with what I’ve written. Winston Churchill perfectly describes my experience when he said,

  Writing a book is an adventure. To begin with, it is a toy and an amusement; then it becomes a mistress, and then it becomes a master, and then a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster, and fling him out to the public.

  Sometimes, our words lend themselves to misunderstanding. In such cases, there is no substantive disagreement, just a misunderstanding.

  Takeaway: Ask the author for clarification if you think you may be misunderstanding him or her.

  2. The author’s statements have been taken out of context and misrepresented, then spread to others.

  This happens more than you know.

  The little red book that I wrote with George Barna in 2008 is reported to be “the most reviewed book by those who’ve never read it.”*

  This provoked us to create a special Q&A page for readers on PaganChristianity.org where we respond to objections and critiques. Potential readers can clearly see what we say in the book and what we don’t say.

  Unfortunately, some people will intentionally misrepresent another person’s words. One sure sign of this is when a person criticizes a work, but they won’t post a clickable link to the source they are criticizing. This is done so that those reading the critique cannot easily check to see if the critique is accurate or not. (This is especially true for online blogs, audios, and articles.)

  Takeaway: If someone critiques a piece of writing or talk, be sure to read or listen to the object of the critique yourself. This way you will know if the critique is accurate or not. Never believe a negative critique without first reading the actual source that’s being critiqued. Even if there are direct quotations in the critique, that doesn’t make it accurate. Quotations are like sound bytes that can be easily taken out of context. People do this when misrepresenting the Bible all the time.

  3. The author’s statements are filtered through the reader’s experience.

  Sometimes people read their own experiences and assumptions into what they read and hear. The net effect is that the intended meaning the author had in mind is changed.

  Take the word prophetic, for instance. Some people understand that word to mean God directly gives an individual His exact words. Others understand it to mean a challenging word in the style of the Old Testament prophets. Others view it as a word that reveals Jesus Christ. Others understand it to be a word that predicts the future.

  See what I mean? Words like organic, missional, and church are routinely used to mean very different things by many different people.

  Takeaway: Find out what an author means by a certain word before drawing a conclusion.

  4. The author’s statements are misunderstood due to a differing spiritual conversational style.

  In Revise Us Again, I introduce readers to the three main spiritual conversational styles. Ever try talking spirituality or theology with another Christian who uses a different spiritual conversational style than you? The result: popcorn. People think they disagree when they really don’t. Your discussion was shanghaied by a differing conversation style.†

  Takeaway: Recognize that your disagreement may be rooted in a differing conversational style.

  A Word to Readers

  Again, I repeat this important point: If you read a critique that disturbs or concerns you, always, always, always go directly to the source that’s being critiqued. Read the original work yourself. And if necessary, ask the author directly what she or he believes.

  A Word to Writers

  If you are a writer who is turning the sod on an issue, you and your work will be misrepresented at some point.

  How you react, however, reveals volumes about your spiritual stature.

  I’ve watched too many authors and bloggers return fire on those who attack them or misrepresent their work. This is the way of the flesh and shows nothing of the cross of Jesus Christ.

  Trust the Lord with the matter. In most cases, those who are discerning will go to bat for you and defend your work. You don’t have to defend yourself. Let God do the defending.

  Taking the high road, the road of our Lord Jesus, often means remaining silent when under attack.

  To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. (1 Peter 2:21–23)

  In addition, as a writer, you should make yourself accessible to your readers. Even if it’s through a personal assistant.

  Inaccessibility is the outstanding trait of the celebrity. Try writing to Kim Kardashian or Justin Bieber and getting a response. The same holds true for some Christian authors today. Not that there’s anything wrong with that (to quote Seinfeld) . . . if being a celebrity is the way you want to roll.

  But in my judgment, for a Christian leader, you should be accessible to answer questions about your work from people who are open-minded, think the best of you, and genuinely want to understand what you’re saying. Not just for their sake, but also for your own. (Trolls are the exception, of course. Never feed them.)

  *Referencing Frank Viola and George Barna, Pagan Christianity (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2008). The misrepresentations surrounding that book were so outlandish that they would make Star Trek’s Mr. Spock blush. (That’s saying something, because Spock has seen everything in the universe.)

  †This point differs from the previous one in that conversational styles are about how one communicates over against the meaning one ascribes to certain words.

  19

  The Art of Being a Jerk Online

  The difference between you and God is that God doesn’t think He’s you.

  ~ Anne Lamott

  If you’re past the age of Mosaics and Busters, you might want to make sure you’re sitting down. In fact, you may want to hold on to your chair real tight. I’m using a style of language here that some may misinterpret. I’m doing it to make a point. So “Frankie says relax” before you read on . . .

  Jerk: Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.

  It’s not a cuss word.

  According to recent studies (you know, the same ones that show that research is known to cause cancer in rats), if two Christians disagree with one another onl
ine for more than three consecutive days, there is a 97.3 percent chance that one of them will end up calling the other a “child of Satan” or a near equivalent.

  With that in mind, here are ten surefire ways to perfect the art of being a jerk online.

  1. Move from arguing the substance of a disagreement to attacking the person with whom you disagree.

  This is called an ad hominem argument. Attack the messenger when you disagree with his message. People often do this when they can’t win an argument.

  Example: “I just read your view on the atonement of Christ. You are a first-class heretic, obviously someone who has a black heart. In fact, my discernment tells me that you are the spawn of Satan. May God have mercy on your soul!”

  2. Assume what other people think and believe rather than asking them directly.

  And state your assumption about what they think and believe as though it were gospel fact to others. (Too many Christians assume what other people believe without actually going to them and asking. I’m always amazed when Christians do this.)

  3. Write things to or about your fellow sistas and bruthas in Christ that you would never have the gall to say to their faces.

  In other words, play the part of a gutless wonder and a spineless coward.

  4. Don’t read a blog post or comment carefully.

  Instead, read “into it,” jump to conclusions, then go off (or go snarky) on the blogger or commenter. To be more specific, never ask clarifying questions about something you just read (such as, “Maybe I’m not understanding you correctly, but are you saying xyz?” . . . or “If what you’re saying is true, what is your response to abc?”). Nope. Just lay into the person after you’ve “read into” their post or comment. Ask no questions in a gracious manner, only make statements and accusations.

  5. Write something online when you are angry or your feelings have just been hurt.