Jared Byas

Love Tenaciously

Dr. Mohler By Faith Alone

This week Dr. Al Mohler, the President of a Southern Baptist Seminary, reminds us that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church that teaches a false gospel.

His reason?

“First and foremost, evangelicals must affirm that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is an essential, because that is the very definition of the gospel itself, and there is nothing more core, central and essential than the gospel. The reformers were absolutely right in saying that any understanding of justification – even the understanding that justification is by faith and something else — is another gospel, is anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ,” Mohler said. “The only way of understanding salvation by grace alone through faith alone is defining justification as the Scripture defines it, and that is justification by faith alone.”

Please tell me if I’m missing something here (I mean that sincerely) but the logic seems to be this:

The core of the gospel is justification by faith alone.
If you don’t believe that then you are believing a “false gospel.”

Is that what he’s saying? If so, I have a question about this logic. Isn’t the insistence that I must believe in the doctrine of “justification by faith alone” to be a faithful Christian a contradiction?

It sounds to me like Mohler is doing the exact thing he is accusing Catholics of doing. Isn’t he basically saying that “Justification is by faith alone AND your belief that justification is by faith alone”? In that case, neither the Catholics nor Mohler are saying that justification is by faith alone.

So, to sum up:

If the Catholic Church says the core of the gospel is faith + works, it’s heresy.

If Mohler says the core of the gospel is faith + correct beliefs about faith, it’s orthodoxy.

Got it.

We Should Be Against the Freedom of Religion

I have thought about this for a while, and this seems to be the conclusion we must come to if we are a Christian who is opposed to gay marriage: “We should be against the Freedom of Religion.”

When I ask Christians why they are against gay marriage, the reason most often cited is “because I believe it’s sinful. Why would I advocate for something I find wrong?”

This logic seems to be based on this principle:

“As a Christian, it is wrong to advocate for the government to allow for something I find sinful.”

Okay, so let’s take that principle and apply it to the freedom of religion.

Isn’t that advocating for the government to allow other people to worship other gods?

And isn’t that practice also sinful, what the Bible calls idolatry?

In fact, while homosexuality is a topic that comes up in the Bible a handful of times, idolatry is mentioned thousands of times, univocally pronouncing the worship of other gods a sin, a great wrongdoing to the one true God.

So, if your reason for being against gay marriage is that you do not want to government to allow others to practice something you find sinful, then it stands to reason that you should also be against the freedom of religion in our country.

If you are unwilling to follow your own logic then we might rightly call that mental inconsistency at best, hypocrisy at worst, but in any case, do not expect me to be convinced by it.

 

3 Things Pastors Say But Don't Mean

If you know me, you know I love irony. Why? For the most part, because irony reveals a place of disconnect. If you find irony, you have found a place where, though we don’t realize it (which is what makes it ironic), our words don’t match our actions. That is, we aren’t being consistent. Who we say we are, and who we really are, just isn’t adding up.

If I realize the disconnect but do it anyway, I am guilty of hypocrisy. But if I do not realize the disconnect, I am a victim of irony.

And I think church leadership says some things that are pretty ironic. Their actions reveal that they don’t actually believe what they are saying. And what makes it ironic is that I’m not sure they even realize it.

Here is my list of the top three:

Ironic Saying #1: “Every Member is a Minister.”

How you know they don’t mean it: They get paid & you don’t.

When we begin to actually live out “every member is a minister” we quickly realize that many pastors only want us to exercise our “minister”-ness in areas they are both comfortable with and in areas that do not threaten their authority or position.

Because, if every member really was a minister, then why are we paying them so much money to do something we are all supposed to be doing? To protect their roles (and paychecks) there is created a “first among equals” mentality, which can be very confusing for people who are told that “every member is a minister.” In what ways? And why don’t we get paid for it but you do?

So, if pastors actually acted on what they said, their own positions might be in question.

Ironic Saying #2: “Worship happens 7 days a week.”

How you know they don’t mean it: They aren’t okay with you not coming to their building on Sundays.

When we begin to actually live out “worship is every day,” and thus skip church on Sundays because we are getting it Monday-Saturday, we are told “Well, that’s not what we meant.” But then we are left with vacuous statements that “don’t really” mean anything. Again, we end up with a “first among equals” situation, which is very confusing. If Monday is just as important as Sunday, why do I get judged for not coming on Sunday but no one holds me accountable for what I do on Monday?

At least for me, I took “worship happens 7 days a week” very seriously. So then I wondered what made showing up to a building once a week unique.

Ironic Saying #3: “We welcome everyone.”

How you know they don’t mean it: They have statements of belief & requirements for membership.

We’ve already talked about this but here is a recap. When we say “everyone is welcome” we mean “you can come in the door just as you are,” but the expectation will always be that you soon adopt our particular set of beliefs. Why? Well, since the Church is defined by its beliefs, every person who doesn’t adhere to our beliefs dilutes our identity. So, for the health of the whole, you need to be absorbed as quickly as possible (through being taught or rebuked) or you risk being asked to leave altogether.

What’s my point in discussing these three sayings? There are two points.

First, as usual, I’m not saying these phrases are wrong. Nor am I saying these behaviors are wrong. I’m simply pointing out an inconsistency between the two. And far too often I’ve seen these inconsistencies lead to a lack of communication between a pastor and a person in the congregation, which leads to many people getting hurt by church leadership.

It’s not because pastors are evil. And it’s not because those people are sinful. Perhaps it’s because we aren’t being honest about what we believe and living those beliefs out in a consistent way, often because we don’t want to admit to ourselves the implications of our beliefs, whichever way they fall. Let’s work on that.

Second, we have to work on better communication. Yes, a lot of pastors aren’t aware of these inconsistencies. But many are. They have recognized them but have spent years justifying them. For instance, they know exactly why “ever member is a minister” but why they alone should they get a paycheck. They have found Bible verses to support their position and a stockpile of Bible experts to back them up.

Maybe they have good reasons. Or maybe they make up reasons because they need there to be a reason, to keep their jobs and to support their families. But either way, communicate those reasons to your congregation! They deserve to know why what you are saying seems incompatible with your behavior.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
-Upton Sinclair

The Gay Checklist for the Church*

There are many churches who are currently wrestling with what to do about the growing number of LGBTQ in their community. Some of these churches believe that being gay is a choice. Others say it’s not. Some of them believe that being gay is a sin. Other say it’s not. But in my tradition almost all of them agree that gay sex, even within a long-term monogamous relationship**, is sinful.

Okay. Let’s suppose it is. What should our churches do about the gays in their midst?

Inspired by the ethic of Jesus, who asks us to work on the plank in our own eye before trying to remove the gay speck in that gay dude’s eye, I have created a basic checklist for when it seems legitimate to single out a gay person in your church and tell them they have to repent or leave, thereby making them feel like they don’t belong or are a second-class citizen in your church:

As a church, we have asked every unmarried couple in our congregation if they are having sex. If so, we must ask them to stop. If they refuse, we must subject them to “church discipline” that leads to either repentance or excommunication or they leave on their own as a result of our passive-aggressive behavior toward them as we question whether or not they are even Christian.

As a church, we have looked over every person’s checkbook to see if they are greedy and/or lovers of money. If so, we must ask them to agree to a plan to be more generous. If they refuse, we must subject them to “church discipline” that leads to either repentance or excommunication or they leave on their own as a result of our passive-aggressive behavior toward them as we question whether or not they are even Christian..

As a church, we have looked at every male’s computer to see if they have watched porn in the past month. If they have, we must ask them to agree to accountability and a password protected internet. And give their mothers & wives the password. If they refuse, we must “love the sinner but hate the sin,” that is, subject them to “church discipline” that leads to either repentance or excommunication or they leave on their own as a result of our passive-aggressive behavior toward them as we question whether or not they are even Christian..

As a church, we have looked at every member of the congregation’s schedule to determine what idols are in their lives, the things that are more important than God. If they have even one, we must stone them (sorry, Old Testament) remind them that they “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). If they refuse to repent, we must subject them to “church discipline” that leads to either repentance or excommunication or they leave on their own as a result of our passive-aggressive behavior toward them as we question whether or not they are even Christian..

As a church, we have looked into our own hearts to see if we are being judgmental and hypocritical, discriminating against sins that are “obvious” and/or do not affect us (the speck) while not taking seriously the sins that do (the plank).

If we say every sin is the same, perhaps our churches should start acting like it in the way they treat people.

*This is a revision of a previous post
**Or as we heteros call this type of relationship, “marriage.”

Why Certain People Don't Belong in Church

As Christians, and more particularly, as Evangelicals, we want to provide a place where all people belong no matter what.

What we have to realize is that this is a promise/marketing message most Evangelical congregations can’t deliver because it contradicts its very identity.  And once again, we unwittingly participate in hypocrisy, or what Brene Brown calls the Disengagement Gap.

When a group bases its identity on a common set of beliefs, the group itself is threatened by anyone that does not hold that common set of beliefs. By definition. If we are defined by our beliefs, then the more people we have in our midst who do not hold to those beliefs, the more our identity is diluted and unclear.

Our desire to be a place where “everyone is welcome” might be enough to let someone in the door without having that set of beliefs but the expectation will always be that you soon adopt those beliefs. After all if the majority of people were like “you,” that is didn’t hold to these core beliefs about God, salvation, the Bible, etc, then in what sense are we even a church?

As such, there is always the chance that if you no longer share those beliefs, or take too long in “confessing” you hold to those beliefs, you are either restricted to a “lesser” form of “belonging” (for instance, not getting to be a member, forever stuck in “attender” status) or you risk being asked to leave altogether, for the health of the whole.

My point is that this isn’t the fault of the congregation for not being “accepting enough” or “loving the outsider enough.” If we did what we promised, based on how most congregations think of “Church,” then the very essence of that church would be compromised.

And if that is true, then congregations are doomed to this hypocrisy unless they (1) change their marketing, (2) change their views on the church, or (3) admit this inconsistency but do it for the sake of the movement. I am not sure I see another way (perhaps someone can help me). My point at this point is not to say that one of these options is more “right” than the other, only that when we don’t choose, we can’t be surprised when the culture finds Christians hypocritical.

If you want to see this in action, talk to someone who has accidentally questioned one of the assumed-but-often-unspoken beliefs in a church, things like:

1. The Bible is inerrant.
2. Gay sex is the worst sin
3. You should give a tithe (10% of your income)
4. The leadership of this church is God-ordained & therefore cannot be questioned

Of course, if you have ever accidentally questioned one of these things, you know what I’m talking about. You might be allowed to stray from these beliefs for a little while, but it puts strain on everyone around you, leading to awkward small groups, uncomfortable conversations with your pastor who found out about your disbelief through your small group leader, absolutely condescending “I’ll pray for you’s” from a family member. Why? Because in your very questions you are threatening the identity of the group. And the strain on the group can only be sustained for so long before it must be removed, either by requiring repentance or removal.

I am, ironically, often criticized for being too critical, for tearing down without building up. So I will vaguely show my hand to conclude: Perhaps Christians need to stop finding so much of their identity in mentally-checked-off beliefs rather than the person of Jesus.

Sure, to identify core beliefs other than the centrality of Christ in life & practice creates movement, alignment, focus, and growth. But it excludes, oppresses, and marginalizes the seekers among us, narrows the mission of God in the world, and creates idols out of doctrine. May we stop trying to control the family of God and allow Christ to do his work of grace in all of us, especially those who already belong.