Further thoughts on the matters I discussed last night.



The issue of religious cooperation between groups that differ theologically is a velcro-ish one. I have come to a view of my own, which I’ll outline here. Use it if you find it helpful. If not, no big deal.

Cooperation looks very different today than it did when I was young. In those easy times (easy from a social point of view), Christians had the luxury of being stand-offish with each other. A Lutheran church might very reasonably refuse to participate in, say, a community event where a Baptist preacher spoke (though my own people were pretty tolerant of Billy Graham). Even the Baptists understood that. In its way, it was a statement of respect for Baptist exceptionalism.

And cooperating with Catholics? Well, that would only happen in the face of something very big. A community tragedy, perhaps. And even then the Lutherans would take some steps to make it clear they weren’t giving tacit assent to the idea of the authority of the pope.

It’s different now. Christians who actually believe the historic faith are a small remnant, with our backs to the wall, fighting for survival. In general (there are exceptions), if somebody throws us an ammunition belt or shares his canteen, we don’t ask which division he comes from. We have much greater differences with those guys over there who are trying to kill us.

Still, there are limits. Politics is different from faith. I won’t pray with some people, though I’d vote for them. It would be untrue to my own creed, and condescending to theirs.

In my Bible study some years back, I came across what I judge to be Jesus Christ’s principle in these matters.

First of all, there’s Matthew 12:30, where Jesus says, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”

A hard statement, beloved of stern sectarians (like me, I suppose). This verse falls like a cleaver, chopping humanity into two segments.

But there’s another statement, similar but intriguingly different, in Mark 9:39-40: “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad against me, for whoever is not against us is for us.”

“What’s this?” I used to wonder. “Isn’t this a contradiction?”

Then I read closely, and realized it’s not a contradiction at all. Jesus is discussing two different things.

In Matthew, He says that whoever is not with Him is against Him.

In Mark, He says that whoever is not against us is for us.

The difference is in the pronouns.

I think Jesus is setting up a hierarchy of values here. The crucial thing is what someone confesses about Jesus. That’s an in or out matter; faith in Him is central and determinative.

But when it comes to being for or against “us” (our group within the Christian community), the standard is lower. I don’t have to demand that someone else share my group’s every point of theology in order to accept them as brethren.

I need to carefully examine what they say about Jesus—don’t get me wrong on that. But once I’m satisfied that they believe in the Christ of Scripture and the creeds, then I can agree to disagree on other stuff.

This is my own interpretation. I am willing to be corrected by wiser souls.

Giovanni di Paolo, Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane

Thoughts thought during my Bible reading today:

I’ve been reading Mark 14. This dramatic chapter covers the anointing of Jesus by the woman at Bethany, the Last Supper, the Garden of Gethsemane, and His trial before the Sanhedrin.

The anointing incident kicks the crisis off by pitting Judas against Jesus (we know from another gospel that Christ rebuked him personally). Immediately after that he goes to the priests to offer his services as a button man. Then–from a human point of view–the whole thing heads rapidly downhill. Judas is just the first defection in what will become a general rout.

Jesus warns the disciples that they will “all fall away.” Peter emphatically denies the possibility and gets his own denial predicted in detail. While Jesus prays in the Garden, all the disciples fall asleep. Jesus is saddened by their weakness (Mark 14:37-38). But He’s not surprised, and He’s not discouraged.

The disciples are utter, complete failures.

But from the point of view of Christ’s mission, this sad fact is entirely irrelevant.

Because it doesn’t depend on them.

This is the lesson I keep coming away with, as I study this chapter. We ought to do right. Our failure to do so grieves the Lord.

But it doesn’t affect the outcome, because that’s His work, and His work is perfect.

I shouldn’t take too much comfort in this. That would tend to make me complacent (a sin to which I am prone).

But it’s a great comfort nevertheless.

I’d like to direct your attention to a couple of links before I have another say of my own on the issue of homosexual marriage.

First of all, Ed Veith at Cranach links to an article by an Australian sociologist, from The Australian:

Phillips’s use of language implies opponents of gay marriage are likely to be motivated by “old-time religion”, which is by definition “incompatible with modern society”. From this standpoint, criticism or the questioning of the moral status of gay marriage violates the cultural standards of “modern society”. What we have here is the casual affirmation of a double standard: tolerance towards supporters of gay marriage and intolerance directed towards its opponents.

Then, from World Magazine, a report on an effort by military chaplains to get legal protection for their right to believe, and to express their belief, that homosexual behavior is sinful.

And that, I think, goes to the heart of the matter. The true goal of the “gay” movement, I believe, is more than just to end restrictions on homosexuality and homosexual behavior. It is to marginalize, and then criminalize, traditional religious beliefs.

Any religion that holds to the authority of Scripture, whether directly (as in the case of Orthodox Jews) or mediated through the New Testament (as with Christians) is a threat to the spirit of the age. The installation of the “gay” agenda in our laws, and the demand that everyone must respect homosexuality on penalty of law, provides an opportunity to turn matters of faith into matters of statute.

Muslims are a special problem. I’m not sure how Muslims will be handled. The Muslim conundrum (for the Left) may in fact be the only thing to prevent the disasters I see coming.

This is what I see—First, more and more people will lose their jobs on account of their religious beliefs, and they will find they have no recourse to law.

The slogan will be (I’m almost sure it will be worded this way) “There Is No Right To Hate!”

Once that step has been accomplished, the imprisonment and “reeducation” of dissenters will follow, sooner or later. No appeal to constitutional rights can prevail, because “There Is No Right To Hate!”

The church will go underground. Maybe some of us will be able to flee to China, or parts of Africa, where (one hopes) there will by then be some measure of freedom of religion.

I’m not saying true Christianity will disappear. The church will always exist, if only in a persecuted remnant, until the return of the Lord.

Still, I think more and more often of Luke 18:8, “However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”