A common line-of-argument is,
The church is hypocritical because it does X (whatever that is). If Jesus were here, he would absolutely positively not do X. In fact, he would do Y.
Now, I think I know where these people are coming from. I appreciate that they disagree with something that the church is doing and are willing to root that debate in their understanding of the nature of Christ. In fact, many times I agree with them on the issue.
However, I find the argument to be rather superficial. Their logic seems to be that they have some special knowledge of Jesus that has escaped all the "irrational, organized religion folks" and is only apparent to them...in their private, mystical setting.
I just don't get it.
Why do people feel that they a clearer understanding of Jesus simply because they haven't bothered with the challenges of gaining agreement with others in an organized fashion? Two quick examples here...
- one friend recently posted their perspective on the Lambeth Conference of the Episcopal/Anglican Church. At issue here was that the Anglican Church asked the first openly gay bishop to stay home from the conference to reduce some of the hostility that was already present over the issue. My friend argued that what "Jesus would do" is to accept and embrace the bishop, not shun him.
- Another friend recently forwarded an email from a very conservative political organization that argued that Sen. Obama was unfit for the Presidency because he took too liberal a view of scripture. The material on the related web-site had one quote that especially troubled me. "I can assure you, Sen. Obama. Christ would never turn the other cheek to terrorists and enemies of America".
The point is that both of these lines of argument--though taken from opposite sides of the political/social spectrum--are rhetorically the same.
They both argue that the "real Jesus" would behave differently than other believers think he would. This is a very weak argument that merely plays to the audience's emotional desire to "be like Jesus" with any evidence or rhetoric that supports the intellectual journey to arrive at the preferred destination.
So the next time you feel passionately about a subject, try to avoid the "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do) type of argument...after all, "HDYK" (How Do You Know)?
Seeing that I'm the "friend", I thought I better respond. You go out on vacation, and I leave you for a few weeks, and I end up on the blog. haha
ReplyDeleteI encourage you to go back and read my blog. I actually didn't say what you said that I said :)
The point of my blog was not that the Lambeth Conference should "embrace and accept" Robinson. I pointed out what I thought ... based on what appears to me to be a weight of Scriptural evidence ... that Jesus would find a third way.
Organized religion does tend to see things in blacks and whites, either shun or embrace. That's because institutions typically will be forced into one of these two positions because a third way is much more humane but does not hold up in public relations.
The third way is "Neither do I condemn you, but go and sin no more". It is grace and truth. It is to be able to hold people in your presence and treat them with dignity until you discover truth together without either "side" alienating each other.
I stand by everything I said. That is the Jesus way. I have no idea what Jesus would say about gay bishops. That's not the point. I never said in the blog that Jesus would embrace gay bishops.
The point is that I do believe Jesus is sometimes best known in the presence of those who most challenge our views of the extent of God's love ("outside the camp" to quote Hebrews). The whole weight of the Gospels is on my side on that point.
In Philippians 2:5-11, Paul felt comfortable saying that there is a way Jesus does things. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John also presented a concrete and consistent character of Jesus. Paul reflected on that same character over and over again in his letters. I claim none of the authority of those, but there is a Jesus way.
But if we are going to claim Jesus for our cause, we should do so humbly and open to being corrected. That's why we need community so that we can discover the Jesus way together. And you're right ... sometimes that community is "organized."
I was just glad to see I was not one of the 'friends!' : ) I love this Mike, always annoys me too. What drives me nuts about it is that it always seems to be people who either are not bothering to participate in a community of faith that seem to know what Jesus would do, or people that may be right about the point they are making but are skipping so many of the other things Jesus would likely be doing that it makes the point mute. So thanks for putting words to one of my pet peeves. And I am totally stealing that response - HDYK?
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. I've never been a big fan of the JWD statements unless it's a really obvious situation. And for that matter, I'm often surprised and a bit confused by Jesus's statements or responses in the Bible. How often does he just say what we would think a righteous person would say?
ReplyDeleteWell said, Michael!
ReplyDelete