Posts tagged ‘Truth’
Listening to Jesus
It can be difficult to listen to Jesus – especially when you don’t like what He has to say. Peter learned this lesson firsthand when Jesus prophesied that:
He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matthew 16:21-23)
Peter could not fathom that the man he thought to be the Messiah would have to suffer and die. He struggled to hear what Jesus had to say.
Six days after this exchange between Peter and Jesus, Jesus takes Peter, along with James and John, up a mountain where His appearance is transfigured. Moses and Elijah appear along with Jesus and a voice booms from heaven:
“This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased. Listen to Him!” (Matthew 17:5)
“Listen to Him.”
After just struggling to listen to Jesus, Peter needed a reminder. We do, too, because we can struggle to listen to Jesus, too. Do we struggle to listen to Jesus when He tells us:
To love our enemies? (Matthew 5:44)
To keep not only our actions, but our hearts, pure? (Matthew 5:28)
To not hold too tightly to the treasures of this world? (Matthew 6:19)
That He loves us unconditionally, even when we feel valueless or unlovable? (Luke 12:7)
The Gospel writer John opens His Gospel by calling Jesus “the Word” (John 1:1). With a title like this, it stands to reason that Jesus has a lot to say. Which means that we have a lot to learn from Him.So, even when it’s hard, let’s listen to Him. What He says matters.
A “Giant” Exaggeration
Yesterday, at the church where I serve, we kicked off a summer-long series on Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is situated at the end of the Israelites’ forty-year wandering in the wilderness and records Moses’ final instructions to them before his death.
As the book opens, Moses begins by reminding the Israelites that they have not always done so well honoring God. Indeed, the reason it has taken them forty years to arrive at the Promised Land from Egypt is because, when they first came to the Promised Land, they refused to go in. After sending a reconnaissance team of Israelite spies to check out their new home, the team issued a frightening report about the people living there, which Moses recounts:
The people are stronger and taller than we are; the cities are large, with walls up to the sky. We even saw the Anakites there. (Deuteronomy 1:28)
The fact that the reconnaissance team saw Anakites there is interesting, to say the least. In their first-hand account, which we read in Numbers, the spies give us some more information about the lineage of the Anakites:
We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them. (Numbers 13:33)
Hold on a second. They saw descendants of the Nephilim? That seems curious.
We first meet the Nephilim in Genesis 6:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days. (Genesis 6:4)
They are described as a wicked people and as part of the reason God sends a catastrophic flood to destroy humanity:
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created – and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground – for I regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:5-7)
This begs a question: if God sends a catastrophic flood to, in part, wipe out the Nephilim in their wickedness, what are they doing in the Promised Land during the time of Moses long after the flood?
It seems as though this reconnaissance team is engaging in a little exaggeration. This becomes apparent when the spies describe the size of the people they see in the Promised Land: “We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13:33). The average grasshopper is an inch tall. I’m five feet ten inches tall. This means, using my modest height as a standard sample, these men would have been 69 times my size, or nearly 397 feet tall.
Uh-huh.
So often, when there is something we don’t want to do – or, for that matter, when there is something we do want to do – we’ll exaggerate in an attempt to get our way. We’ll exaggerate and put the worst construction on what someone has said instead of a more plausible construction. We’ll exaggerate and only emphasize the positives of a purchase instead of taking a realistic look at the cost of what we want to purchase and soberly analyzing whether it is a smart financial move. We’ll exaggerate on social media and make our life or our vacation look better than it really is.
Let us learn from the Israelite spies and their very implausible description of the giants who were drowned in a flood. Exaggeration hurts us and those around us. We are called to be people of the truth. We do, after all, follow a Man who called Himself “the truth” (John 14:6). No exaggeration is needed with Him.
Considering Cancel Culture
It used to be a term reserved for struggling sitcoms. Now, it’s something that happens to businesspeople, politicians, stars, and journalists.
Cancellation.
Recently, a variety of voices have expressed concern over what has become known as the “cancel culture” that seems to be running roughshod over our society. “Cancellation” refers to an attempt by one group to destroy and discredit some person or some other group with whom they disagree.
In a letter published in Harper’s Magazine, a group of progressive luminaries expressed their concern that:
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
It turns out that this letter caused such a stir that some signatories asked for their names to be removed. Why? Because some others who read the letter wanted to destroy and discredit those who signed it. They wanted to cancel those who expressed concern over cancel culture.
Just days after the above letter was published in Harper’s Magazine, an opinion columnist for The New York Times, Beri Weiss, published a scathing public resignation letter, also decrying the pernicious “cancel culture” she perceived to be prevalent and personally directed toward her within the halls of America’s paper of record:
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
It is critical to understand that “cancel culture” is not the coin of just one particular political party, culture, or time period. Humans have been cruel to each other and tried to destroy each other when they have disagreed with each other for a very long time. The question is: what do we do about it?
In one sense, we must begin with ourselves. We cannot stop the unscrupulous from being cruel, but we can be measured in how we respond to the unscrupulous. Here are some responses to cancellation to consider:
- Love. Responding to those who hate you with love is not only biblically orthodox, it’s generally wise. Responding kindly instead of in kind to those who want to destroy your reputation or livelihood will almost certainly throw your enemies off because it is not the response they want or expect. Speaking well of your enemies disarms them and garners the goodwill of others toward you.
- Humility. If others are angry with you for something you have said or believe, it is worth it to ask: Do they have a point? This question does not assume that the person who is upset with you is completely correct, nor does it imply that they are handling their disagreement with you well. It simply means that they could be right on something even if they are wrong on many things. And if they are right at all, you want to learn from them. As strange as it sounds, those who hate you can also be those who teach you. Whether you’re willing to learn is up to you.
- Truth. Responding with love and humility does not mean you forsake what you believe to be the truth. Love and humility do not equal appeasement. Even if the person who is trying to “cancel” you refuses to listen to you, others will. Don’t be afraid to make your case.
- Gentleness. Sometimes, people become offended not so much by what someone has to say, but by how they say it. Don’t argue a point with the deleterious intent of triggering or offending someone else. Instead, argue a point in the hope of coming to a consensus with someone else. A little bit of gentleness in how you argue can prevent a lot of cancellation when you argue.
- Empathy. As easy as it is to become defensive and upset when someone angrily disagrees with you, it can be just as easy to become cold and calculating when you disagree with someone else. You secretly wish them ill rather than well. You dream of humiliating them in a debate. When they fall prey to calamity, you feel a spark of schadenfreude. Resist these urges. Listen to and learn from those with whom you vehemently disagree. If you want others to give you a hearing, you need to give them a hearing. Cancellation is no better from you than it is for you.
With all this being said, we must admit that certain people and philosophies do hold views that are deplorable and unacceptable. But more often than not, destroying people’s lives does not lead to the destruction of their views. Their views, when confronted in anger and vitriol, often wind up being merely hardened. So, instead of trying to cancel those with whom we disagree, we could try something else: we could try persuading them. And we could remember: debating ideas does not mean demeaning people.
People are more than their positions.
Hatred, Kindness, Truth, and Love
This past Wednesday, Jews across the world celebrated Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement. But things turned deadly for a group who gathered to celebrate at a synagogue in Halle, Germany, when a gunman tried to force his way into the house of worship. He was not able to breech the doors, but still managed to kill two people nearby. The gunman has since confessed that he was driven by anti-Semitic beliefs.
This shooting, of course, is deeply saddening – not only because of the devastation the community of Halle has endured, but because it really isn’t that shocking that this shooting occurred. Shootings like these have become all too frequent as hatred like this shooter’s has become all too common.
But hatred does not need to carry the day.
In another story that made the rounds this week, talk show host Ellen DeGeneres was criticized when she was spotted sitting next to former President George W. Bush at an NFL game last weekend. Some accused Ellen of betraying her politically and morally progressive bona fides by being friendly with a conservative former politician. For her part, Ellen vigorously defended her friendship with Mr. Bush, explaining on her show:
I’m friends with George Bush. In fact, I’m friends with a lot of people who don’t share the same beliefs that I have … Just because I don’t agree with someone on everything doesn’t mean that I’m not going to be friends with them. When I say, “Be kind to one another,” I don’t mean only the people that think the same way that you do. I mean, “Be kind to everyone, it doesn’t matter.”
I believe Ellen is generally correct here. But I also know that Jesus’ call goes much further than Ellen’s comments. He not only calls us to be kind to others regardless of whether we are like or unlike them, but to actually “love our enemies” (Matthew 5:44). Ellen confronted her detractors with a commendation of kindness. Jesus challenges the world with His command to love.
Love, of course, does not mean that we cannot vigorously debate and disagree. Indeed, we should. The truth is worth our debates and disagreements. But defending the truth and loving others are not mutually exclusive propositions.
This takes us back to the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement reminded Israel of a dark truth: they were sinners who deserved death. Animals were sacrificed on this day as a picture of what human sin deserves. But the Day of Atonement also revealed to Israel God’s great love for them. For He gave to them what they did not deserve and could not earn – forgiveness and life. Truth and love met on the Day of Atonement.
As a Christian, I, too, have a Day of Atonement. But it did not happen on Wednesday of this last week, or on a special day that rolls around once a year. Rather, it happened on a Friday 2,000 years ago and serves as the once-for-all atonement that I need for every one of my sins and that the world needs for every one of its sins. The apostle Paul describes this Day of Atonement thusly: “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of His blood – to be received by faith” (Romans 3:28). The cross was my Day of Atonement. And Jesus is my sacrifice of atonement.
What truth does Jesus’ atonement teach me? That I am a sinner in need of forgiveness. As Paul writes, just verses earlier: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Why did Jesus become a sacrifice of atonement for me? Because He loves me: “This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). In Jesus’ work on the cross, truth and love meet.
It strikes me that the synagogue shooter could have used both some truth and love. The truth is that his anti-Semitism is deeply sinful. He needs to know that. But he also needs love – a love that would lead him to put down a gun and instead pick up a cross and follow the One who loves everyone.
How the Church Can Change
“The God I know is not concrete or specific,” wrote Bishop John Shelby Spong in the opening to his famous and controversial 1999 book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die. He continued by outlining a litany of grievances against Christian orthodoxy. For instance, calling God “Father” bothered the bishop, who labeled this title as “so male, so dated,” and accused Christianity of using this title to “consistently justify its rampant discrimination against women as the will of this patriarchal deity.” He also took issue with the idea that God would be omniscient, writing:
The Bible, the Church’s sacred textbook, portrays the God of antiquity as acting in ways that violate both our knowledge and our sensibilities today. If an all-knowing God had really made many of the assumptions that the Bible makes, then this God would be revealed as hopelessly ignorant. For many biblical assumptions are today dismissed as quite simply wrong. Sickness, for example, does not result from sin being punished. Nor does a cure result from our prayers for God’s intervention or from the sense that we have been sufficiently chastised so that the punishment of our sickness might cease.
The only solution, in Bishop Spong’s opinion, was to give up on Theism in search of “another God language.” In other words, everything in the Christian faith, right down to God Himself, had to change.
Bishop Spong’s two-decade-old sentiments continue to influence our contemporary conversations. Take, for instance, the comment from California Democratic Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi who, when debating the different ways in which people address same-sex attraction, said, “The faith community, like anyone else, needs to evolve with the times.”
The argument that the Christian faith must change is regularly bolstered by the assertion that the Christian message already has changed. “Christians used to support slavery,” one person might say, “and they changed their view on that. So why shouldn’t they change their view on ____________?” One can fill in the blank with whatever fashionable cause célèbre they want. The divinity of Christ. The ethics of human life. The call to love the marginalized. The contours of human sexuality.
It is true that some Christians have changed their views – not only on slavery, but on other things as well. But this does not mean that the teachings of Christ have changed. Christ, for instance, did not celebrate oppressive systems like slavery. He came, instead, to bring us out of slavery into a new exodus, accomplished by the cross (cf. Luke 9:31). Christ, then, never changed His view on the evils of slavery. Christians, however, have been changed by the teachings of Christ.
There are two ways to understand how change in the Church should work. Either the Christian faith itself should be revised to keep up with the times or Christians themselves can be refined as they study timeless truth in Scripture. The first understanding makes the faith subservient to the times and its narcissistic celebration of self. The second understanding makes Christians subservient to the Scriptures and their forming work throughout the centuries. The Scriptures make it clear which understanding of change they support:
Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:2)
Christians should continually be “transformed into Christ’s image with ever-increasing glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18). It would be a tragedy if we were the same people today that we were a decade ago. By God’s grace and the Spirit’s power, our love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control should all be growing. Christians should change. The Christian faith, however, should not.
The motto of the Reformation was 1 Peter 1:25: Verbum Domini manet in aeternum. “The Word of the Lord endures forever.” The Reformers did not want to change the faith, but they did want people to be changed by the faith. Their goal was to proclaim and explain the faith as it stood – and as it still stands – in the Word of the Lord to the blessing and benefit of all who would receive it.
So, as the Church continues to change, let’s make sure the right thing in the Church is changing – us.
When Your Family Becomes Your Enemy
Jesus proffers plenty of tough challenges over the course of His ministry, but one of His toughest moments comes when He warns His disciples:
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36)
Jesus’ words here make me grimace every time I think about giving a sweet wake-up kiss to my daughter or hoisting my son up over my head as he squeals with delight. I love my family fiercely. I would guess that you do, too. Jesus’ words sound harsh. And yet, Jesus’ words are also needed. Here’s why.
Part of the background for Jesus’ teaching comes from God’s instruction to Moses:
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-8)
God loves families. But He also knows that family structures, like everything else in creation, are marked and marred by sin. Even family members can lead us astray. Some family members can lead other family members into idolatry. God’s worship, Deuteronomy 13 reminds us, must trump even our own family’s wishes.
Sometimes, then, as Jesus warns, we may fight with our families. Our own family members may, at times, feel like our enemies. We may put faith first while other family members do not. We may declare, “Jesus is Lord,” while other family members live as if they are their own lords. Such faith divisions can cause relational frictions. And yet, fighting with our family over such transcendent questions can, ultimately, prove to be fighting for our family. Because we love our family, we want our family members to experience true hope. Because we love our family, we want our family members to experience true peace. Because we love our family, we want our family members to experience God’s promise of and invitation to life. And so, even when it’s tough and even though rejection is a real possibility, we are called to carry the gospel to everyone – including our own family.
Over my years in ministry, I have had to encourage more than one parent who had a wayward child to draw boundaries and demand accountability. Yes, this would mean that a parent might have to fight with their child. But this would also mean that a parent was fighting for their child because they love their child and want what is best for their child – even if the child doesn’t want what is best for their own self.
Over the course of His ministry, Jesus was willing to make a lot of enemies. The religious leaders hated Him. The Roman government was suspicious of Him. Even one of His own disciples betrayed Him. Yet, Jesus was never afraid to speak tough truth to His enemies – not because He wanted to fight with them, but because He wanted to fight for them. Jesus loved His enemies and wanted what was best for them – even if they didn’t want what was best for their own selves.
Jesus’ words about family continue to be challenging. No one likes to fight with their family. No one wants their family members to become their enemies. But even if our family members’ response to our commitment to Christ is rejection, our response to them can be drawn from our commitment to Christ: “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44).
Just because someone is mad at you doesn’t mean you can’t love them. And love, after all, is what being a family is all about.
The Case of Jussie Smollett
Credit: Wikipedia
An affirmation of the inherent dignity of humanity is a bedrock in any functioning society. This is why our nation’s founders unapologetically argued, “All men are created equal.” This is why Scripture – from front to back, from creation to restoration – celebrates and upholds the value of every life. People are created, Scripture says, “in God’s image” (Genesis 1:27) and are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). The dignity of humanity is part of the reasoning behind Jesus’ golden rule: “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12). Just as we expect to be treated with respect and esteem by virtue of our humanity, we ought to treat others likewise.
Sadly, the same human dignity the Bible upholds has been the dignity we, as humans, have violated. Racism in the forms of sketchy shootings and startling yearbook photos has violated human dignity. So has homophobia in the forms of bullying and lynching. We have plenty of work to do when it comes to loving each other better.
There is a difference, however, between uncovering evidence of racist and homophobic problems and creating evidence of these problems. This is what Jussie Smollett, an actor in the hit show “Empire,” is accused of doing. Mr. Smollett initially claimed that, while walking home one night in Chicago, two men attacked him by wrapping a rope around his neck and pouring bleach on his face, all while shouting racist and homophobic slurs. The story, on its face, was shocking and deeply disturbing. No one should ever be attacked because of their race or sexual orientation. But it didn’t take long for Mr. Smollett’s story to begin to unravel. Prosecutors now say that Mr. Smollett staged the attack, paying these two men to jump him, and even sent himself a threatening letter laced with slurs beforehand, all in an attempt to boost his acting career and command a higher salary. This, of course, presents us with a whole new set of problems.
In the twentieth century, there lived a self-styled archaeologist named Ron Wyatt. Mr. Wyatt claimed to have found everything from the Ark or the Covenant to chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, which he dated from the time of the Pharaoh during the Israelite exodus. These would have been spectacular finds – if they were real. But they weren’t. To this day, people debate whether Mr. Wyatt was sincere and incompetent or a charlatan and malicious. Either way, his fake archaeological finds, even if his intent was to bring attention to the truthfulness of Scripture, did not bolster Scripture’s credibility. They only provided fodder for those who doubted Scripture’s accuracy.
What is true of fake archaeological finds that supposedly support the Bible is also true of staged racist and homophobic attacks. A manufactured instance of racism and homophobia does not help the case for the reality of a broader racism and homophobia.
People often have very deep feelings, on all sides, on the current state of race relations and the treatment of those who identify as LBGTQ. It is incumbent upon Christians to seek to understand people’s feelings and positions and to engage in sensitive, non-combative conversation, drenched in love, for the sake of mutual understanding and societal reconciliation. But it is also okay, as a part of these conversations, to study and analyze facts around evils like racism and homophobia, as best as we can know them. Facts are our friends. And facts do not need our help. Our job is not to create facts, as Mr. Smollett has done. Our job is listen to them and learn from them. For when we understand reality better, we can love each other deeper – both by empathizing with each other’s pain and by speaking to each other the truth, even when that truth is difficult, in the name of the One who is the truth (John 14:6).
Both our charity and our honesty are needed if we hope to move toward a better society.
Another Revelation Rocks Willow Creek
This year was one unlike any other for the Willow Creek Association’s Global Leadership Summit, which was held last week. The annual event, which began in 1995 at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, has drawn some of the biggest names in the world as its speakers – from U2’s Bono to President Bill Clinton to Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Summit is broadcast all over the world, including at over 600 locations in the U.S. alone. But when the Chicago Tribune published an expose last March accusing the Summit’s founder and former Senior Pastor at Willow Creek, Bill Hybels, of making sexually inappropriate advances toward multiple women over a period of decades, the event found itself facing an unprecedented crisis. Over 100 congregations withdrew as satellite host sites. Speakers who were scheduled to teach at the Summit, including Denzel Washington, cancelled their appearances.
This past week, the Summit and Willow Creek suffered yet another blow as the New York Times published its own bombshell report chronicling a new story of another woman accusing Mr. Hybels of making sexually illicit advances toward her. The revelations were so shocking that the church’s lead teaching pastor, Steve Carter, resigned his position the next day, citing his grave concern about the:
…church’s official response, and its ongoing approach to these painful issues. After many frank conversations with our elders, it became clear that there is a fundamental difference in judgment between what I believe is necessary for Willow Creek to move in a positive direction, and what they think is best.
This past Wednesday, the congregation’s other lead pastor, Heather Larson, along with the elder board, resigned their positions after apologizing for not more sensitively and thoroughly addressing and investigating the accusations leveled against Mr. Hybels. A church that was once the gold standard for leadership, witness, teaching, and worship has been laid low in a matter of months.
As I have written before, Willow Creek has had a formative influence on me in my ministry. I am thankful for all the congregation has given the worldwide Church. Unfortunately, it is now offering the Church a lesson it certainly never planned or wanted to – a first-hand warning of what happens when hypocrisy and secrecy overtakes integrity and transparency. The results speak for themselves.
Several years ago, Bill Hybels wrote a book titled, Who You Are When No One’s Looking. In it, he extolled the value of character, which he defined as “what we do when no one is looking.” Character is being the same person in private as you present yourself to be in public. He was right in what he wrote. It appears he was very wrong in how he lived. And now, not only are he and his legacy left in tatters, the church and Summit he founded, the staff he led, and the family who thought they knew him are paying an inestimably steep price. Lapses in integrity never affect only the perpetrator.
Because we are all sinful, none of us live with full integrity. We are all, to one extent or another, hypocrites. The best way to deal with inevitable lapses in integrity is to tell the truth about them fully and immediately. Sin is killed by confession. Unfortunately, our reflex is not to confess our sin, but to cover it up. When Adam and Eve committed history’s first sin by eating fruit from a tree of which God had commanded they should not, Genesis 3:8 says, “They hid from the LORD.” Adam and Eve thought it would be better to keep the secret of their sin than to tell the truth about their sin. They were wrong – a fact to which all of history is still testifying as we endure the effects of their first sin and cover-up.
Secrets, especially when they cover shameful realities, can be awfully easy to keep. And the truth, when it is embarrassing and damaging, can be awfully hard to tell. But secrets come with a steep price, as Willow Creek is painfully learning. The truth, however, even when it is tough to tell, comes with a blessed return of freedom. Which, in the long run, do you think is better?
The Supreme Court Takes the Cake
Credit: Ted Eytan
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court rendered a verdict on a case that pitted a cake shop owner against a same-sex couple. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado declined to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins when, in 2012, they married in Massachusetts and asked Mr. Phillips to craft a cake to celebrate their union. Mr. Phillips cited his Christian commitments concerning marriage as the reason he could not, in good conscience, provide a custom cake for this particular celebration. The case went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in favor of Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins. The verdict was subsequently appealed and finally found its way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found in favor of Mr. Phillips, but also took great pains to offer an extremely narrow ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned:
The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment …
Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality … When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.
Justice Kennedy cited an example of the State’s lack of “religious neutrality” by quoting one of the persons on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who first heard this case:
Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be – I mean, we – we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.
Justice Kennedy responded to this characterization of Mr. Phillips’ faith with a stinging decrial:
To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical –something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law – a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.
This case is yet another example of the tension between Christians’ desires to live and operate, both at home and in the workplace, in ways that respect historic Christian norms concerning human sexuality and same-sex couples’ desires to freely practice their views concerning human sexuality, which includes the ability to ask a business to create a product that accords with their views and serves their needs. This ruling does not resolve this tension. Instead, it leaves the tension squarely intact while siding with Mr. Phillips in this instance seemingly simply because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission denigrated Mr. Phillips’ faith in an egregious and offensive way.
Christians will most certainly continue to be faced with these kinds of cases, questions, and tensions. How we respond is critical – both for the sake of our faithfulness and for the sake of our witness. Here, then, are two things to keep in mind when these cases, questions, and tensions arise.
First, we must remember to respect everyone simply because they are someone. Regardless of how a Christian may feel about same-sex intimate relationships theologically and personally, respecting others with whom a Christian may disagree is not only generally kind, but explicitly commanded in Scripture: “Show proper respect to everyone” (1 Peter 2:17). A Christian’s basic respect for others and gregarious treatment of others should not be fundamentally contingent upon others’ belief systems or moral commitments. Instead, it should be first based on their foundational statuses as creatures crafted in God’s image. As the philosopher Charles Taylor puts it in his book, Sources of the Self:
The original Christian notion of agape is of a love that God has for humans which is connected with their goodness as creatures … There is a divine affirmation of the creature, which is captured in the repeated phrase in Genesis 1 about each stage of creation, “and God saw that it was good.”
The simple fact that God has made someone should be enough to command a certain amount of respect, for everyone is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).
Second, we must remember to be empathetic to those with whom we disagree. I have had many conversations with Christians who are scared that those in LGBTQ communities are out to trample their rights and destroy their faith. This leads them to sometimes marginalize and demonize these communities. I also know many in LGBTQ communities who worry that some Christians are out to destroy their communities and condemn them to hell. They do not see Christianity’s objection to same-sex practices as part of a broad ethical stance on human sexuality generally, but as an attack on the very core of their identity specifically.
What would happen if we entered into each other’s fears? Might it change our fears? Might it move us beyond myopic court battles over whether it is legally necessary to bake cakes for each other? I have no doubt that some Christians are out to get LGBTQ people and that some in LGBTQ communities are out to get Christians. For the rest of us, however, a little empathy can go a long way. Christians can advocate for a certain set of sexual ethics while still comforting those who feel threatened or marginalized. Those in LGBTQ communities can continue to advocate for fair and respectful treatment for themselves without attacking the sincerity of Christians who have questions and concerns about the helpfulness and morality of the sexual revolution.
Christians must continue to tell the truth and live according to the truth in a world that is full of confusion. The truth is that human sexuality is not indefinitely malleable. It is a gift from God that is to be celebrated guardedly and gladly in the context of a commitment in marriage between a man and a woman. But at the same time Christians must care about this truth, we also must care for people. This means sharing God’s truth, modeling God’s truth in our actions and decisions, listening to others’ fears and, yes, even objections to this truth, and loving them – not because they always do the right thing, but because love is the right thing to do.
Mr. Zuckerberg Goes To Washington
Credit: NBC News
Last week, Mark Zuckerberg found himself in the hot seat as he faced Congress, who, as The New York Times reports, turned their interview with him into:
…something of a pointed gripe session, with both Democratic and Republican senators attacking Facebook for failing to protect users’ data and stop Russian election interference, and raising questions about whether Facebook should be more heavily regulated.
Along with broad calls for heavier regulations for the sake of people’s privacy came concerns that Facebook might also regulate people’s posts, especially in light of the many contested “fake news” posts that circulated during the 2016 presidential election on social media. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska highlighted this concern, telling Mr. Zuckerberg:
Facebook may decide it needs to police a whole bunch of speech that I think America may be better off not having policed by one company that has a really big and powerful platform … Adults need to engage in vigorous debates.
At issue for Senator Sasse is whether or not a corporation like Facebook will be able to responsibly regulate all kinds of posts that, regardless of their intellectual and logical quality, are politically, though not necessarily corporately, protected under the First Amendment. Senator Sasse is concerned that Facebook may simply begin regulating speech with which Facebook management does not agree. The senator offered the example the abortion debate as a potential flashpoint if social media speech regulations were to be instituted:
There are some really passionately held views about the abortion issue on this panel today. Can you imagine a world where you might decide that pro-lifers are prohibited from speaking about their abortion view on your platform?
Mr. Zuckerberg responded that he “certainly would not want that to be the case.”
Corporate regulation of speech is indeed a concern, for even the best regulatory intentions often come with unintended – and sometimes awful – consequences. At the same time, for Christians, a devotion to free speech must never become an excuse for reckless speech, for reckless speech can be dangerously damaging. As Jesus’ brother, James, reminds us:
The tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. (James 3:5-6)
Thus, with this in mind, it is worth it to reflect for a moment on how we exercise our tongues – on social media, and in all circumstances. In our speech – and in our posts – Scripture calls us to two things.
First, we must love the truth.
When the apostle Paul writes to a pastor named Timothy, he exhorts him:
What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you – guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. (2 Timothy 1:13-14)
The Greek verb that Paul uses for “guard” is philasso, from which we get the English word “philosophy.” “Philosophy” is a word that, etymologically, translates as “love of truth.” As Christians, we are called to love the truth. We do this by expecting the truth from ourselves, by defending the truth when we see lies, and by seeking the truth so we are not duped by deceit. In the sometimes wild world of social media, do we tell the truth about ourselves, or do we paint an intentionally deceptive portrait of ourselves with carefully curated posts? Do we defend the truth when we see others being defamed, or do we pile on because we find certain insults humorous? Do we seek the truth before we post, or do we pass on what we read indiscriminately because it fits our preconceived biases? As people who follow the One who calls Himself “the truth,” we must love the truth.
Second, we must speak with grace.
Not only is what we say important, how we say it is important as well. The apostle Paul explains it like this: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone” (Colossians 4:6). There are times when communicating the truth can be difficult. But even in these times, we must be careful to apply the truth as a scalpel and not swing it as a club. The truth is best used when it cuts for the sake of healing instead of when it bludgeons for the thrill of winning. This is what it means to speak the truth with grace. Paul is clear that he wants the truth proclaimed “clearly” (Colossians 4:4), but part of being clear is being careful. When anger, hyperbole, and self-righteousness become hallmarks of “telling it like it is,” we can be sure that we are no longer actually “telling it like it is.” Instead, we are obfuscating the truth under a layer of vitriol and rash rants.
Facebook has a lot to answer for as investigations into its handling of people’s privacy continue. It appears as though the company may not have been completely forthcoming in how it operates. And their deceit in this regard is getting them into trouble. Let’s make sure we don’t fall into the same trap. Let’s be people of the truth – on social media and everywhere.
Pastor Zach's Blog 