Good Friday: Religious Freedom and the Crucified Christ

Every week I drive into the same local Shell gas station to buy gas because this is where the cheapest gas prices are in town. The manager is a Muslim and I think he originates from Pakistan. Then about once a month I get my hair cut at one particular barber shop because the barber not only does a good job but also offers the cheapest price for a haircut in town. The barber is a Buddhist who migrated to the United States from the nation of Laos.

I wonder how I would feel if either that gas station manager or the barber refused to do business with me because as a Christian, my religious and moral values differ in some way from their own convictions? How would you feel if either of these businesses refused service to you because they do not share your Christian religious and moral convictions… because in doing so, they feel they would be violating their own religious convictions?

Us vs. Them

As you most likely know, their is a firestorm erupting in American culture over the State of Indiana’s passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). You can read the bill, officially known as Senate Act 101, right here. Whatever the intention of this bill actually is, which is still not entirely clear (evidenced by the fact that Indiana legislators have already amended the law), the application of the law seems to single out LBGQT people over the issue of gay marriage. Consequently, a restaurant owner has the right to refuse catering service for a gay wedding because doing so violates the religious conviction of the restaurant owner who believes that gay marriage is morally wrong.

The firestorm has continued to spread with one restaurant owner, who professes to be a Christian, calling into a radio station to freely admit that he does discriminate against gay people. Then another restaurant owner, responding to a hypothetical question (which seems unwise), has said according to this article “If a gay couple was to come and they wanted us to bring pizzas to their wedding, we’d have to say no.”

So it seems that regardless of the RFRA intention, the issue has singled out the moral issue of homosexuality. That is, once again some Christians have found another way to elevate the moral issue of homosexuality above other moral issues and religious convictions. I wonder if those same Christians would refuse to provide catering to a wedding should they learn that the ceremony will include something such as a Wiccan prayer ritual or if the reception to follow should have alcohol where inevitably some people will become drunk? My point is simply to say that by singling out gays and gay marriage, something else appears at work beside mere religious and moral conviction. That something else is a cultural war waged by political power that continues fostering an “Us vs. Them” scenario where exclusion  − both implicitly and explicitly − is the result.

This is a Christian problem! Some Christians seem to insist upon the rest of society conforming to their beliefs and values, even if it means relying upon state political power to ensure that conformity. Those within society that do not embrace the beliefs and values of these Christians are then marked for exclusion. This was the way of the Pharisees and other religious leaders in Jesus’ day, who were quite accustomed to practicing exclusion themselves. Yet the more that Christians embrace an exclusionary practice, the more Christianity drifts further and further from Jesus. Only this time this drifting is not due to the theological liberalism that characterized some mainline Protestant Denominations throughout the 20th century; this drifting comes from Christians  maintain the political privilege of a Christendom culture is coming to an end.

Good Friday and the Gospel

It seems as though the gospel is failing among us… the gospel that was and is salvation for both the Jew and Gentile (cf. Rom 1:16)

Today is Good Friday. It’s the day when Jesus was nailed to the cross for the sake of the world, to set the world free from the burden of sin and death. Jesus’ death was that inclusive moment when God destroyed the barrier that excluded Gentile from Jew, by making the two into one…

But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and to reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed. – Ephesians 2:13-16

Jesus’ death was that act of grace on the part of God that said my sin and your sin will no longer separate us from God or each other. It doesn’t negate the fact that we are sinners, as we most certainly are, it just means that Jesus has atoned our sin by making peace through his death so that our sin would no longer exclude us.

We praise God for that act of grace, as we should. We gather together around the Lord’s Table to sing hymns, offer up prayers, hear from God’s word, and ultimately remember through the partaking of bread and wine, which represents the body and blood of Jesus, that we are now included. So why then should we turn around and maintain a practice of exclusion, singling out certain people for their religious, moral, and lifestyle choices? Do we think their behavior somehow taints us, indicts us as guilty? Or do we just need to keep our culture sanitized of that which offends our Christian sensibilities? Were these the concerns of Jesus  when he embraced the sinner… when he was lifted up upon the cross as a scandalous and shameful spectacle?

True Religious Freedom

Jesus died to include those whom his followers sometimes exclude. This has to change. Here’s how…

In his book Exclusion and EmbraceMiroslav Volf writes, “We would most profoundly misunderstand the Eucharist, however, if we thought of it only as a sacrament of God’s embrace of which we are simply the fortunate beneficiaries. Inscribed on the very heart of God’s grace is the rule that we can be its recipients only if do not resist being made into its agents; what happens to us must be done by us” (p.129). That is to say that as we gather around the Lord’s Table to remember the very grace of God which includes us who are sinners, we must also become practitioners of this inclusionary grace. We are to be agents of this grace with our fellow believers whom we are communing with around the Lord’s Table and with our neighbors, regardless of whether or not they are believers… or whether they share our same beliefs and moral values. However, the way we live as agents of this grace will differ in each particular setting we find ourselves in.

When it comes to discerning how we should live as agents of this inclusionary grace in the market place, we should look at how Jesus, whom we follow, did this in his life. For the sake of space, let’s just recall that Jesus sat among and engaged in life with the “sinners and tax-collectors.” In doing this, Jesus was neither approving of their sin nor becoming participants in their sin and it seems that should be the case with us. Neither by eating a meal with a gay person nor by providing them with a meal, even in a gay-marriage or same-sex civil union, means approval or participation in the actual relationship. To say otherwise is believe in guilt by association and it that’s true then we are guilty of another sin just about every time we engage someone else with just a simple smile. Rather than incurring guilt participating in life with someone who is gay, what we are doing is removing the “Us vs. Them” barrier that we have built up. We are saying that even though we may not agree with their certain aspects of their life, we will not let it become a hostile barrier that stands between us because our God let his Son, Jesus the Messiah, be crucified to demolish such barriers.

As we, who profess to be Christian, remember the death and resurrection of Jesus on this Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday, let us become conduits of the very grace we are recipients of. Let us give up the political power we use as an attempt in conforming the rest of society to the beliefs and values we choose to live by… And let us instead serve our neighbors regardless of whether we agree with their lifestyle choices. For to do is to embrace true  religious freedom!

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” – Galatians 5:22-23.

“So we must not grow weary in doing good, for in due time we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who belong to the family of faith.” – Galatians 6:9-10.

May it be so among our neighbors whether they be Christian or not, White or Black, Strait or Gay!

Advertisements

8 responses to “Good Friday: Religious Freedom and the Crucified Christ

  1. Jimmy C. Smith

    THANK YOU!

    Sent from my iPad Jimmy C. Smith

    >

  2. You raise good questions. Mary and I helped feed a Lesbian couples cat. We loved them. At work the lady was among the most principled. Yes, raising one moral issue above another. But, on the other hand, the Apostle Paul seems to do that in Romans 1. But in Isaiah we are told that the sin of Sodom was prosperous ease and surfeit of food. What if we failed to serve hambugers to fat people because it was the sin of Sodom? What does love enjoin us; how do we show them the Savior? I want them to know His love. I do not feel led to engage them politically as if Christendom were still in existence. Let them meet Jesus as the woman caught in adultery did. The Mystery of His Presence. May the Lord grant us Himself that they may be won to him.

  3. Respectful Dissent

    Our good intentions will be the end of us.

    Perhaps we need to call all sin sin, rather than slink on another issue, such as homosexuality. The time is now to simply endure persecution for what we know is the truth – homosexuality is sin and we should not support it. Neither should we support drunkenness. Neither should we support war or abortion. Perhaps instead of creating laws, we should just endure the persecution that comes from refusing to comply with the culture.

  4. Well argued, Rex.
    Our first duty as Christ’s ambassadors is to love.
    The only sin that Jesus put above any other is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
    Yes, sin is sin, but only within the context of a loving relationship can I begin to consider helping someone with the “mote In his eye” without wacking him in the head with the gigantic “beam” sticking out of my own eye.
    In other words, I will not take it upon myself to label someone else’s sin unless I have established a loving relationship with that person.

    • Very well said. I love this statement… “Yes, sin is sin, but only within the context of a loving relationship can I begin to consider helping someone with the “mote In his eye” without wacking him in the head with the gigantic “beam” sticking out of my own eye.”

  5. The essence of sin is injustice. If no one is being treated unjustly then no sin is committed. The familiar expressions of homosexuality in the first century were prostitution, promiscuity, pederasty and coercion (such as masters commonly using their slaves for sex). No wonder Paul spoke out against homosexuality! Even a cursory reading of Romans 1 reveals no resemblance whatsoever between those Paul condemned and gays today in committed relationships. To equate the two is to totally disregard context- like those who take the rhetorical question of Paul about having your own houses to eat in as forbidding eating in a church building today. It is commendable to take a stand against sin but, first, we should be careful to ensure that what we are condemning is actually sin.

    By the way, 1 Corinthians 6 does not support the conservative position on homosexuality. In the course of a half century three teams of all conservative NIV Bible translators could not agree on the proper translation of arsenokoites and malakos. I would encourage anyone who is interested to read Dale Martin’so excellent essay on this subject. This is off the top of my head but I believe the title is, “Arsenokoites and Malakos: Interpretations and Consequences.” It is available online. Martin is a graduate of Abilene Christian and teaches at Yale Divinity School.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s