Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi
Every once in a while, I will cruise through social media and read something that puts a bee in my bonnet that won't settle down. It happened this week. Something that, on its surface, seemed to be a warm and fuzzy proclamation about the goodness and the mercy of God.
However, from the wording and the spin on the warm and fuzzy post (the WAFP, for brevity), it was pretty obvious that there was an agenda there. The subtle spin insinuates 'the Bible clearly
says [xyz] but look, this disproves [xyz], so you can't use "the Bible
clearly says" to support any position.' The more direct conclusion is, 'See...God clearly said [xyz is bad] here, but there...look, he accepts [xyz] and so has shown his people to move from prejudice, discrimination and animosity to openness, welcoming, affirmation and inclusion!'
The only problem was...that warm and fuzzy thought wasn't the message in the selected passages at all.
The message was...individuals who serve God from a pure heart are always accepted by him.
Let's look at it in detail.
First, the implication that the story of Ruth means that God was relenting in his judgment against the Moabites and the Ammonites. The Moabites and the Ammonites were descended from Lot...they were the descendants of the sons he fathered on his own daughters while in a drunken state. It's an ugly story. Now, that in and of itself was not a reason for God to pronounce that ten generations of their descendants could not be accepted into the assembly of God's people (Deut. 23). No, the reason God rejected them as a people was that they did not welcome or give aid to the Israelites when they returned from Egypt and instead hired Balaam to curse them. The Israelites were to make no treaty with them. But the Moabitess Ruth, who willingly left her people and put herself under the care of the God of Naomi's people, was accepted. Did this mean God had relented on His judgement against Moab and Ammon, implied in the WAFP? No...it meant that he valued the faith of the one who left all to serve. God always receives the one who leaves all to come to him. This wasn't about a change of decree...this was about an individual heart. The edict against Ammon and Moab had not changed...just as the judgment against Jericho wasn't averted because one lady renounced her people and their gods and put her trust into the care of the Israelites and their God. Her true faith brought her into the lineage of kings...just like Ruth.
The WAFP claims that the people from Uz were evil , citing Jer. 25, but...Job, who was from Uz, was one of the most righteous men that ever lived! So God has surely relented in his condemnation of Uz! Now, we have a serious non-sequitur. Job is likely the oldest book in the Bible; based on the content, scholars believe it predates the writings of Moses (not the events in Genesis...Moses' recording of it, just to be clear). So it's pretty obvious that Job had lived centuries before the judgment pronounced in the book of Jeremiah and whatever evils were being done at that time had nothing to do with Job. But, beyond that, the judgment against Uz mentioned in Jer. 25 did not single them out as being any more wicked than any of the other nations that were mentioned in that passage...which included Judah. In fact, it mentions all the known kingdoms of the area. You could substitute ANY righteous person who lived in ANY country at that time to try and make the same point the WAFP made and it would support the 'openness, welcoming, affirmation and inclusion' surmise to the same degree...which is to say, not at all.
And then...the WAFP mentions the Ethiopian eunuch, who, being both emasculated AND a foreigner and excluded from the assembly in Deut 23, was clearly accepted in Acts 8. I will agree that there is a shift there to be inclusive and accepting, but perhaps not in the way that was intended by the WAFP. Here, we are looking at the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant...and anyone who has spent any time reading the writings of Paul knows fully well that the Old Covenant was about the Jews living under the Law and the New Covenant is about all people becoming one in Christ. The Ethiopian believed what Philip told him about Jesus and wanted to be baptized to mark the change in his life...and, if tradition is correct, went back to Ethiopia and led many to faith in Christ. His life was changed.
Finally, the WAFP offers up the Good Samaritan as evidence of God moving his people from prejudice to acceptance because, 'God's people hated the Samaritans' but Jesus 'told a story about a good Samaritan.' The WAFP is probably closest to right on this one; although in reality, Jesus wasn't trying to improve the general opinion of the Samaritans specifically as much as he was sharing an example we should all follow in considering everyone worthy of compassion.
Now, please don't think I'm trying to disprove the point that God is open, welcoming, affirming and inclusive. He accepts all who come to him, regardless of their gender, their nationality, their ethnic background, their past history of wrong behavior, or any other factor. All that matters is they come to him and allow him to remake them.
See, there is one story of a guy that Jesus didn't receive, because he laid down too strict a requirement. It's in Matthew 19. A young man came up to Jesus and asked him what to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should obey the commandments. 'Which ones?' the young man asked.
That question has always dumbfounded me. Like, the guy seriously expected Jesus to tell him there were some commandments he didn't have to keep? But Jesus didn't rebuke him...he replied with the commandments that deal with how we are treat one another. 'Oh, I do that,' the young man replied. So Jesus upped the ante a bit. Remember when he was asked a bit later what the two greatest commandments were (Matt 22:37-40) he replied 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind and...love your neighbor as yourself....all the Law the Prophets hang on these two." (Notice...he slipped 'Love your neighbor as yourself' in the first set of instructions he gave the young man in 19:19), So when the young man said he kept all the commandments regarding his relationship with other people, Jesus pointed out one more. "Go sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me." See... Jesus pinpointed the commandment he wasn't keeping by naming the one thing the young man loved more than God. He was wealthy. He had nice stuff. He had a comfortable lifestyle. He went away sad because he couldn't bring himself to give it up. Here's the deal...Jesus wanted him to become one of his disciples. He was willing to receive him...but he required something, and he didn't change the requirement because the guy was unwilling to change to meet it. Jesus was sad to watch him walk away...but he let him walk away. The guy wasn't willing to change his lifestyle to follow him. Think of all the people that came to Jesus, and Jesus healed them, or blessed them, or delivered them...and he told them to 'go and sin no more' or, in other translations, 'leave your life of sin.' Jesus changes lives.
This is the problem that I have with a message that just wants to say how loving and accepting and inclusive God is...because so often the message implies that there is no stuff that has to be left behind, no lifestyle changes necessary, if one wants to become a disciple of Jesus. CS Lewis said, 'If we accept Heaven we shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell.' We can't just add God and His love onto what we crave from life; we have to let him completely remake us and our desires. He will, indeed, accept any one in any sort of state of disrepute...but He doesn't allow them to stay there.
It is a misrepresentation of the Gospel to imply otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment