So too Paul says that when we judge others we are passing judgment on ourselves, for we are as guilty as any we would care to judge (Rom. 2:1). James says that when we judge we are acting like God himself. “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy,” he says. “So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:12).
This applies especially to the way Christians view those yet outside the kingdom community. As we noted above, while Paul acknowledges a role Christian leaders must play in discerning and correcting behavior within their congregations, he denied he had any right, ability, or interest in judging “those outside [the church]” (1 Cor. 5:12). Like Jesus, no part of Paul’s kingdom ministry involved trying to tweak the morality of the culture at large. Like Jesus, his only concern was that kingdom people consistently live out the new life they have within the kingdom, for only when they do this will they offer the culture at large a beautiful, kingdom alternative to their present, sinful, self-centered, and, ultimately, destructive way of living.
AN UGLY REPUTATION
Third, and closely related to this, when the church sets itself up as the moral police of the culture, we earn the reputation of being self-righteous judgers rather than loving, self-sacrificial servants—the one reputation we are called to have. While tax collectors and prostitutes gravitated to Jesus because of his magnetic kingdom love, these sorts of sinners steer clear of the church, just as they did the Pharisees, and for the exact same reasons: they do not experience unconditional love and acceptance in our midst—they experience judgment.
The brutal fact is that we Christians are not generally known for our love—for the simple reason that we, like the Pharisees of old, generally judge more than we love. Ask any random sampling of pagans in America what first comes to their mind when you say the words evangelical or born again Christian, and chances are close to zero that anything like “outrageous, sacrificial love” will be the first thing out of their mouths. Ask them to list the first ten things that come into their mind, and chances are still close to zero that “outrageous, sacrificial love” will be on any of their lists. Indeed, a recent survey demonstrated that, when asked to rank people groups in terms of their respectability, “evangelical Christians” were ranked one notch above the bottom, just above prostitutes.4
This is nothing short of catastrophic! Love is the all-or-nothing of the kingdom of God. Above all we are to love (Col. 3:14; 1 Peter 4:8). Everything we do is to be done in love and, thus, communicate love (1 Cor. 16:14). We are to imitate God by living in Christlike love (Eph. 5:1–2), and if we do this, we fulfill the whole law (Matt. 22:37–40; Rom. 13:8–10). If we lack this, everything else we do is devoid of kingdom value, however impressive it might otherwise be (1 Cor. 13:1–3). Not only this, but God has leveraged the expansion of his kingdom on the church loving like Christ loves (John 13:35; 17:20–26). By God’s own design, the corporate “body of Christ” is to grow as the corporate body does exactly what the incarnate body of Christ did—dying for those who crucified him.
For the church to lack love is for the church to lack everything. No heresy could conceivably be worse!
Despite our widespread reputation, of course, we evangelical Christians often insist that we are loving; it’s just that the world is so sinful they can’t see it—or so we tell ourselves. They don’t understand what “true love” is. That attitude is frankly as arrogant as it is tragic. People in the first century were not less sinful than people in the twenty-first, yet God expected to win first-century people by the sheer beauty of Christ’s love shining on Calvary and radiating through his corporate body. Why think anything has changed? If contemporary people don’t see in us what ancient people saw in Christ, it can only be because the love that was present in Christ isn’t present in us. And if they see in us what they saw in ancient Pharisees, it can only be because the self-righteousness found in the Pharisees is found in us.
Our comical insistence that we are loving, despite our reputation, is a bit like a man insisting he’s a perfectly loving husband when his wife, kids, and all who know him insist he’s an unloving, self-righteous jerk. If he persists in his self-serving opinion of himself, insisting that his wife, kids, and all who know him don’t understand what “true love” is, it simply confirms the perspective these others have of him. This, I submit, is precisely the position much of the evangelical church of America is in. Until the culture at large instinctively identifies us as loving, humble servants, and until the tax collectors and prostitutes of our day are beating down our doors to hang out with us as they did with Jesus, we have every reason to accept our culture’s judgment of us as correct. We are indeed more pharisaic than we are Christlike.
If we would simply internalize Jesus’ teaching that we are to consider our own sin to be tree trunks in our eyes and other people’s sin—whatever it is—to be a mere dust particle, we would quickly become known not as self-righteous judgers but as the most humble, self-effacing people on the planet. Paul’s cry will be our cry: “We are the worst of sinners” (see 1 Tim. 1:15). If we would combine this humility with a resolve to simply love as Jesus loved—love as we have been loved by Christ—we would become known as a people who make no claim for themselves, but who simply live to serve others. We are slaves of Jesus Christ (Eph. 6:6); we are slaves to a love that compels us (2 Cor. 5:14). And because of this, we are humble servants of humanity.
While the ugliness of self-serving, judgmental religion pushes people away from the kingdom, the beauty of humble, Calvary-quality love pulls them in. If we lived in love as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, we would in time possibly find tax collectors and prostitutes hanging out with us, just as they did Jesus. For only in a kingdom context such as this can they experience an unconditional love, worth, and acceptance they can’t find anywhere else.
THE HYPOCRISY OF OUR JUDGMENT
Fourth, when people assume the position of moral guardians of the culture, they invite—they earn!—the charge of hypocrisy. For all judgment, save the judgment of the omniscient and holy God, involves hypocrisy. Whenever we “eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”—that is, whenever we find some element of worth, significance, and purpose in contrasting ourselves as “good” with others we deem “evil”—we do so in a self-serving and selective manner. We always bend the tree, as it were, to our own advantage and, as a result, we do the exact opposite of what Jesus taught us to do. Instead of seeing our own sins as worse than others, we invariably set up a list of sins in which our sins are deemed minor while other people’s sins are deemed major. We may have dust particles in our eyes, we reason, but at least we don’t have tree trunks like “those people.” Unlike the tax collector who made no moral claims for himself, we thank the Lord we are not like other people just as the Pharisee did (Luke 18:9–14).
Our grading of sins has nothing to do with Scripture, of course, for Scripture not only has no such graded list of sins; it specifically teaches against such a notion. A major point of Jesus’ teaching was to lop us all off at the knees on the sin issue. As it concerns our standing before God, the person who insults someone once is in as dire a spot as the serial killer (Matt. 5:21–22). No, our graded sin lists have nothing to do with Scripture but are rather rooted in a fallen but primal need to feel secure in our own righteousness. However imperfect we may be, we want to believe that we are not as bad as others.
We feed our self-righteousness with this illusory contrast by ascribing ourselves worth at the expense of others. But “the others” we feed off of see the self-serving hypocrisy of the self-righteous and self-serving exercise, even if we don’t.
To illustrate, more than a few have noticed the comic irony in the fact that the group most vocal about “the sanctity of marriage,” namely evangelical Christians, happens to be the group with the highest number of divorces in the United States, which itself has the highest divorce rate in the world!5 Numerous explanations have been offered by Christians to minimize this embar
rassment, but none of them are convincing—or even relevant. Whatever our excuses, outsiders legitimately wonder, “If evangelicals want to enforce by law the ‘the sanctity of marriage,’ why don’t they try to outlaw divorce and remarriage? Better yet, why don’t they stop worrying about laws to regulate others’ behavior and spend their time and energy sanctifying their own marriages?”
Do evangelicals fear gay marriage in particular because the Bible is much more clear about the wrongfulness of gay marriage than it is about the wrongfulness of divorce and remarriage? No, for the Bible actually says a good deal more against divorce and remarriage than it does against monogamous gay relationships. Do they go after this particular sin because the research shows that gay marriage is more damaging to society than divorce and remarriage? It seems not, for while one might grant that neither is ideal, there’s no clear evidence that the former is socially more harmful than the latter—especially given the fact that divorce and remarriage is far more widespread than gay marriage. But in any case, this point is completely irrelevant since the present issue isn’t over gay unions. The issue is only over whether these unions should be called “marriages.” To the best of my knowledge, no one has shown that the social welfare of our nation is significantly harmed by what monogamous gay unions are called.
Why then are so many evangelicals publicly obsessed with cracking down on this particular sin? There are undoubtedly a number of reasons, not least of which is that the loss of the traditional definition of marriage is a poignantly symbolic indication that the quasi-Christian civil religion of America is on the wane. And as we’ve said, many evangelicals believe that preserving and recovering this civil religion is their central kingdom duty. Whatever the reasons, however, outsiders have the impression that evangelicals go after this sin because it’s one they don’t generally have.
We evangelicals may be divorced and remarried several times; we may be as greedy and as unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others in our culture; we may be more self-righteous and as rude as others in our culture—we may even lack love more than others in the culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we’re not gay!
So despite the paucity of references to homosexuality relative to the sins we minimize or ignore, and despite empirical evidence that some of the sins we minimize are far more harmful to people and to society than this sin (for instance, greed and gluttony arguably kill millions!), this is the sin evangelicals as a group have decided to take a public stand on. Why? Because by drawing a line in the sand on this point we can feel that we’re doing something righteous. We’re standing up for truth and godliness; we’re defending “God and country”; we’re playing the role of moral guardian that (we believe) God has called us to play.6
Tragically, the self-serving and hypocritical nature of this moral posturing is apparent to nearly everyone—except those who do the posturing. And just as tragically, it causes multitudes to want nothing to do with the good news we have to offer. While the church was supposed to be the central means by which people became convinced that Jesus is for real, activity like this has made the church into the central reason many are convinced he’s not for real. If I had ten dollars for every time I’ve encountered someone who resisted submitting to Christ simply because they “can’t stand Christians,” I’d have a fairly robust bank account.
There’s nothing beautiful or attractive about this sort of self-serving, hypocritical behavior. The beauty of the cross and the magnetic quality of Calvary-quality love has been smothered in a blanket of self-righteous, self-serving, moralistic posturing.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the church should publicly take a stand for gay marriage, nor am I trying to influence how evangelicals vote. Some may feel it best for society to outlaw gay marriages—others to allow it. In a democracy you’re asked to give your opinion on such matters, so give it according to your conscience. I’m simply maintaining that, in our role as public representatives of the kingdom of God, Christians should stick to replicating Calvary toward gay people (as toward all people), and trust that their loving service will do more to transform people than laws ever could.
If your particular burden is to free people from their homosexuality, then go about it in a Calvary-like fashion. Commit to suspending judgment, start befriending gays, and then serve them in love—for years. Perhaps your loving kindness will lead some of them to faith and open doors for dialogue as God gently works in their lives—just as he works in yours. You may eventually develop a trusting, committed relationship in which you are invited to address issues in a gay person’s life as you invite them to address issues in your life, for God uses relationships like this to lead us all into greater conformity to Jesus Christ.
OUR INCOMPETENCE AS MORAL GUARDIANS
The fifth fundamental problem with the church being the moral guardian of society is that, throughout history, the church has proven itself to be a very poor moral guardian. As we noted in chapter 4, whenever the church exercises the power of Caesar to enforce its doctrine and convictions, the result has usually been at least as bad as any non-Christian version of the kingdom of the world. Even more concerning, it’s been far more damaging to the kingdom of God than any other version of the kingdom of the world—precisely because in this instance the name of Christ was associated with the result.
There is no indication that the church is better qualified for the position of moral guardian today than it has been in the past. Not only have we not earned the right to be heard by consistently coming under others in love, but the arbitrary way many evangelicals seem to decide what needs addressing and what doesn’t undermines our credibility as moral spokespeople. The fact that many evangelicals are publicly more upset about gay marriage than about divorce and remarriage, greed, gluttony, violence, and many other things is a case in point. But the arbitrariness can be extended much further.
For example, several days before the 2004 Super Bowl, a friend of mine who works with people in extreme poverty, including the dangerous ministry of rescuing children from forced prostitution, came back to the U.S. from Cambodia. On the night he returned to the U.S., he happened to catch a special that aired on television exposing the tragedy of childhood prostitution in Cambodia and Thailand, the very area where he works. The show accurately reported that approximately thirty thousand children are at any given time sold into sexual slavery in the region and that this business is financed primarily by Western “clients.” I too along with several million others, saw this documentary and found it a horrifying, gut-wrenching presentation. There was, however, no public reaction on the part of evangelical Christians.
A few days later my friend watched the infamous Super Bowl in which Janet Jackson exposed her breast for several seconds during the halftime show. This caused Christians to react! The moralistic outcry was heard around the nation—for weeks. Through email, radio, magazines, pulpits, and a variety of other venues, individuals and congregations were urged to call their senators, boycott the stations and the products that support these stations, write letters to station managers and the FCC, and so on.
Of course, my friend too finds Janet Jackson’s behavior juvenile and disgusting. What drove him to despair, however, was the fact that Christians seemed far more upset by a breast exposed for five seconds than by thirty thousand kids sold into sexual slavery. He and others justifiably wonder about the viability of the evangelical moral compass. Granted, many more watched the Super Bowl than watched the documentary on child sexual slavery, but this is really beside the point. Had Janet Jackson exposed her breast on the TV special rather than the Super Bowl, it would certainly have elicited much more of a reaction than the facts about childhood sexual slavery elicited.
This is hardly an isolated case, which leads many people to view the moral compass of the evangelical church, as a whole, to be quite bizarre. Issues rela
ted to sex get massive amounts of attention while issues related to corporate greed, societal greed, homelessness, poverty, racism, the environment, racial injustice, genocide, war, and the treatment of animals (the original divine mandate given to humans in Gen. 1:28) typically get little attention. Going into the sociological explanation for this odd prioritization would take us outside the scope of this work, but the fact that it exists calls into question the credibility of the evangelical church to be any kind of moral guardian. When evangelicals assume the posture of knowing what is best for society, it only serves to further undermine the credibility of the good news we are commissioned to proclaim, and it hinders the advancement of the kingdom of God.
Does this mean that evangelical Christians shouldn’t speak out publicly on moral issues? Absolutely not! We should speak out, but we should do so in a distinctly kingdom way. We should speak with self-sacrificial actions more than with words. We should speak not as moral superiors but as self-confessing moral inferiors. We should call attention to issues by entering into solidarity with those who suffer injustice. We should seek to free people from sin by serving them, not by trying to lord it over them. And we should trust that God will use our Calvary-like service to others to advance his kingdom in the world.
Again, as citizens of a free country who are invited to give our opinions, we may enter the fray of conflicting political opinions as we see fit. But as public representatives of the kingdom of God, our confidence is to lie solely in God’s promise to build his kingdom through Jesus’ Spirit at work in and through us. This is where our focus must be, and this is what we must be willing to bleed for.
A KINGDOM APPROACH TO ABORTION
To illustrate, consider the highly charged and divisive issue of abortion. Whether one should vote pro-life or pro-choice is clearly an important question for all citizens to consider. Because all kingdom-of-the-world issues come in complex political packages, numerous complex considerations will affect how one votes on this issue.
The Myth of a Christian Nation Page 14