John H Armstrong

The Stain That Stays: How Should We Respond to the Sexual Misconduct of Pastors/Leaders?

What should happen to pastors who fall into sexual misconduct? Should they return, repentant, to their pulpits/leadership within weeks or months - or should they return at all?

Around the world sexual misconduct is defeating ministers and destroying ministries. As the numbers of fallen leaders grow it is crucial to know what should happen to them - for their good and for the good of the Church. Does the Bible and church history give us any help with these kinds of questions?

In the 1990s, when sexual misconduct among some rather well-known evangelical pastors in America reached major proportions, I began to question the practices of various churches and organizations in how they handled a major moral problem. I also studied abundant evidence that suggested this problem was massive in scale and scope. Very few were interested then but the evidence I gave then has only grown more obvious over time. We have a crisis and few want to talk about it. I remain curious as to why this is true. 

I am persuaded, more than a decade after writing The Stain That Stays, that this book is more needed now than it was then (the first edition appeared in 1995). I seek to provide a biblical, historical, theological and ethical framework for dealing with morally fallen leaders. I make some rather bold suggestions about a correct response. I do not think I would change more than a paragraph or two if I wrote this book in 2012. Sadly, it is needed more than ever. 

Though this book is extremely valuable for elders/deacons (church leaders) who are required to deal with the issue in hard times the real value is that all leaders read and study it in advance of a failure. When it first appeared several seminaries used it to train future leaders. Sadly, I see no class on pastoral theology or practice that even deals with this problem now. Is it me or is this still a major problem that we wish would go away? We seem to have little or no conviction about dealing with it before or after the breakdown. 

For the record, mainline churches deal with this problem better, and more easily, than evangelical and extremely conservative churches. I have some theories about why this is so but I would love to hear what you think. Copies are available from Amazon at $17.99. I encourage leadership groups to study it. I would love to help you if you ask. 

 

Justice, the Kingdom of God and Reading the Bible

A recent article on the Christianity Today web site brought considerable surprise to many. The article revealed that a recent poll sponsored by LifeWay Research found that owning a Bible is quite different from reading it. Most polls, surveys, and studies that have examined the Bible's influence in America have looked at views of its inspiration and various methods of interpretation. Gallup, for example, has routinely asked Americans how literally the Bible should be taken. But almost no research has looked into what happens when people actually read the Bible. This new research, conducted by Baylor University, indicates that reading the Bible on one's own makes a real difference but the difference is one that some did not see coming.

First, frequent Bible reading does have some predictable effects. It increases opposition to abortion as well as to homosexual unions. It also boosts a belief that science helps reveal God's glory. It also diminishes hopes that science will eventually solve humanity's problems. But unlike some other religious practices, reading the Bible more often has some other (much less expected) effects. Christianity Today suggested that these effects are more akin to liberal political beliefs than conservative ones. They also noted that the research shows us that this is true even when you account for factors such as political beliefs, education level, income level, gender, race, and religious measures (like which religious tradition one affiliates with, and one's views of biblical literalism). You can read the whole story for yourself.

Frequent Bible reading influences one’s views about criminal justice, opposition to the death penalty, national security, the war on terrorism, the environment and a number of related (not so politically conservative) issues. And the way Bible reading influences how people think about these issues is what shocked some readers. The more someone reads the Bible, the more likely he or she is, for example, to believe science and religion are compatible. But some of the most interesting findings related to moral attitudes. "How important is it," the survey asked, "to actively seek social and economic justice in order to be a good person?" As you might expect, those with more liberal political leanings were more likely to say it's very or somewhat important. But those who read the Bible more often were more likely to agree. Indeed, they were almost 35 percent more likely to agree at each point used on Baylor University’s five-point scale. Christianity Today adds, “That may be bad news for Glenn Beck, who last year told believers to leave their churches if they hear ‘social justice’ language being used.” (I’ll say no more about Glenn Beck resisting the temptation to tell you what I really think about him!)

These results do not surprise me at all. I talk to younger Christians almost every day. I can tell you that they think for themselves and that they read their Bible for themselves. (There are dangers here, I acknowledge, since evangelicals read their Bible without concern for the larger church and the ancient faith!) But these Bible readers also ask great questions that most political conservatives either ignore or trash in the public diatribes of our day.

The reason I believe this is happening is that a new concern for justice is growing as Christians read the Bible more holistically. When open minded people really read the Bible, and do not simply listen to their politically conservative churches tell them how to think about every single issue, they find real surprises in the Scripture. And they are willing to think outside the box much more than my generation.

Clearly, one of the overwhelming concerns of the biblical text, and of Jesus' teaching in particular, is for social justice and the plight of the poor. A growing change in attitudes about this truth is also reflected in the growth of better missiology joined with real concerns about how the gospel addresses personal and systemic sin. When wealthy and middle-class Christians read the Bible with a conservative political perspective they miss whole elements of the gospel itself, reducing the good news to the question of how to get my soul saved and then get into heaven when I die. Apparently new Bible readers who actually bother to listen to the text see other concerns besides those of a politically conservative way of thinking.

In the end this comes back to the issue of discipleship. Put more particularly, are mission, personal discipleship and social justice (all three) intimately connected in the  Bible or are they separate and unequal paradigms? The relationship between these three is very clear when you read the Bible for all its worth and not repeat conservative political mantras. I would submit that even the terms liberal and conservative are rather meaningless if you read the Bible properly. I think the Spirit is up to something here. I am ready to embrace where I believe the Lord is leading us in understanding and applying the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel that I grew up with was racist, elitist and closed to corporate repentance in profound ways. I welcome this recovery of the gospel of the kingdom and await what God will now do with new leaders that I get the privilege of teaching and sharing with almost daily. I am doubly blest to have this joy. These are exciting times in which to live the good news of the kingdom. If you feel otherwise you will likely grow weary and succumb to one or more of the regnant theories of eschatology and culture that fosters pessimism.

“God’s Preferential Option for the Poor”

Over the last two centuries wealth has grown in the West. Now it spreads to other parts of the world through a growing globalized economic system. I am a huge proponent of this growth and believe one way of addressing the issues of poverty is through global business and the growth of education and jobs that go along with it. At the same time there are serious dangers associated with wealth, especially in the absence of true virtue.

Yesterday I referred to the way modern Western Christians began to read the Bible statements about the poor metaphorically once wealth increased and more Christians had more income. This problem has resulted in a number of aberrant responses, one of which was Latin American liberation theology.

I refer often to recently published The Cape Town Commitment. I believe it is the most important global mission statement in the twenty-first century. Here is an important excerpt, addressing the dangers of prosperity emphasis from the West, taken from Section IIE of the document:

We affirm that there is a biblical vision of human prospering, and that the Bible includes material welfare (both health and wealth) within its teaching about the blessing of God. However, we deny as unbiblical the teaching that spiritual welfare can be measured in terms of material welfare, or that wealth is always a sign of God’s blessing. The Bible shows that wealth can often be obtained by oppression, deceit or corruption. We also deny that poverty, illness or early death are always a sign of God’s curse, or evidence of lack of faith, or the result of human curses, since the Bible rejects such simplistic explanations

We accept that it is good to exalt the power and victory of God. But we believe that the teachings of many who vigorously promote the prosperity gospel seriously distort the Bible; that their practices and lifestyle are often unethical and un-Christlike; that they commonly replace genuine evangelism with miracle-seeking, and replace the call to repentance with the call to give money to the preacher’s organization. We grieve that the impact of this teaching on many Churches is pastorally damaging and spiritually unhealthy. We gladly and strongly affirm every initiative in Christ’s name that seeks to bring healing to the sick, or lasting deliverance from poverty and suffering. The prosperity gospel offers no lasting solution to poverty, and can deflect people from the true message and means of eternal salvation. For these reasons it can be soberly described as a false gospel. We therefore reject the excesses of prosperity teaching as incompatible with balanced biblical Christianity.

Where prosperity teaching happens in the context of poverty, we must counter it with authentic compassion and action to bring justice and lasting transformation for the poor. Above all we must replace self-interest and greed with the biblical teaching on self-sacrifice and generous giving as the marks of true discipleship to Christ. We affirm Lausanne's historic call for simpler lifestyles.

I titled this blog “God’s Preferential Option for the Poor.” It must be stated, in complete candor, that this expression comes from the published preceedings of a Catholic conference held in Mexico in 1979, right in the midst of the strongest influence of liberation theology. I happen to agree with this way of putting it and thus would like to show you why and what difference this emphasis and understanding might have in reforming the thought and life of churches and Christians.

First, you will note that the statement does not say that God is only interested in the poor. The word used is “option.” This does not mean “optional.” The point here is that in the kingdom of God the poor are the first, though clearly not the only ones, on which God’s attention is focused. For this reason the church should also focus on the poor by demonstrating deep solidarity with them in their plight.

But there is a real danger here. In suggesting that there is “a church for others” (in this case for the poor) instead of a “church with others” we can give money and aid to the poor but not embrace them as Jesus in our midst. All this reflects on what I wrote yesterday about having the genuinely poor inside our churches when we gather.

The point I am making here must not be missed. It is not so much a case of the poor needing the church as it is that the church needs the poor. Why? If we wish to stay close to our Lord then we need to stay close to the poor. The poor are not the objects of our mission or the means but the agents and bearers of our message. God has a predilection for the weak and the abused of human history and we stand with the Son of God when we share in his predilection!

The Gospel of Luke seems to make this point in numerous ways. In the third Gospel the poor are a kind of “all-embracing category for those who were the victims of society” (David Bosch, Transforming Mission, 436). The poor are “marginalized and this marginality comprises all spheres of life and is often so extensive that people feel that they have no resources to do anything about it” (Bosch, 436-7). Women, widows and orphans get the same place in Luke.

There can be no doubt that in both the Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus there is a significant emphasis upon the poor and their plight. Much of this was preserved in the first three centuries of church history. Basil the Great was “an indefatigable champion of the poor” thus a misiologist in our lifetime could write, “the rediscovery of the poor . . . is also a reaffirmation of an ancient theological tradition.” (Bosch, 436).

Traditionally, Western theology emphasizes one’s relationship with the poor in terms of ethics, not of theology or epistemology. I believe theology and ethics cannot be separated in this way. Simply put, once we recognize that Jesus lived among the ,and loved the poor so deeply, we can no longer consider our own relationship to the poor as a matter of simple ethics when it is really a gospel/mission question.

This does not mean that God loves only the poor. He loves the rich too. But the conversion of the wealthy calls them to humble themselves in a way that leads them to turn away from the idols they have made of their wealth (money), race and prestigious positions of power.

An Ecumenical Document of Historic Consequence: Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World

The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the Vatican’s Pontifical Council on Inter-religious Dialogue (PCID) recently released (June 28) an historic document on the ethics of Christian mission – Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct. This document is in part a response to criticisms leveled at Christians by some religious communities. These leaders perceive that Christians sometimes use unethical methods in their attempts to do evangelism. In some case these objections have led to anti-conversion laws and violence, especially in Muslim areas. The three main world Christian bodies have responded to this problem with a thoughtful document that not only identifies the biblical call to continue to do evangelism but outlines specific ethical mandates related to the Gospel and how we proclaim it.

This document was launched in late June by statements of endorsement made by Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe (photo), Secretary General of the WEA, Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, General Secretary of the WCC, and Cardinal Tauran of the PCID, at the headquarters of the WCC in Geneva, Switzerland. If you pray for the whole church, as I do every day, this news in itself should thrill you.

The document is the result of a five-year collaboration between the WEA, WCC and the Vatican. It is worth noting that together these three entities represent over 90 percent of the world’s total Christian population. This is the first document, with such broad approval, in the history of the Christian Church. (At least since 1054 A.D.)

Please read the last two sentences of my previous paragraph again. 90 percent of the world’s total Christian population is represented by this statement. And no document, and I do mean no document, like it has been issued in modern history.

There are three main parts to the Recommendations for Conduct. The first, “The Basis for Christian Mission,” lays out the biblical foundations for mission; it asserts that Jesus Christ is the example for Christians in witnessing to others; it outlines the church’s participation in God’s mission. It reflects the growing consensus of leaders around the world regarding the kingdom of God and the missional nature of the entire church.

The second section, “Principles,” outlines 12 principles that Christians are called to follow in witnessing of Christ in a manner consistent with the Gospel. These include:

• Acting in God’s love.
• Living with integrity, compassion and humility.
• Rejecting any form of violence.
• Offering genuine respect to all people.

The text concludes with six recommendations to all Christians, church bodies, mission organizations and agencies. These recommendations are:

• Study the document carefully.
• Build respect and trust with people of all religions.
• Strengthen religious identity and faith while at the same time deepening knowledge and understanding of different religions.
• Advocate justice and respect for the common good
• Call on governments and representatives to ensure religious freedom for all people.
• Pray for the well-being of neighbors, recognizing prayer is integral to the Christian life and of Christian mission.

Geoff Tunnicliffe, Secretary General of the WEA spoke as a world representative for evangelicals by saying: “In some places dynamic public witness to Jesus Christ has been accompanied by misunderstanding and tension. This document is a valuable resource for church and ministry leaders for reflection and practice on how to best witness in ways faithful to the call of Christ and in line with the life and Spirit of Jesus.”

I am personally thrilled to see the WEA become a major contributor to both the process and the writing of such a major document. The WEA will translate the document into a number of languages which will be distributed to the national, regional and local alliances, as well as to seminaries, universities and colleges worldwide. This is amazingly good news.

The WEA further calls on evangelicals to study the document and examine how it can be applied and adapted to particular needs and in various contexts. The WEA leadership has expressed its hope that this document will stir up desire for greater Christian mission and evangelism in obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you click here you can view Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe's speech made at the announcement of the document.

If you click here you can view the entire Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World document for yourself.

I believe we should all pray that this new document helps to bring about a new day for both ethical response to others and faithfulness to the proclamation of the gospel to the whole world. The truth is that this can only happen when missional-ecumenism becomes the norm, not the unusual stance, of the church.

Just War and U.S. Military Action in Libya

It appears that the recent U. S. involvement in Libya ended almost as abruptly as it began. For this I am frankly grateful.

Confusion about our involvement in Libya reigns since it is very hard to know exactly what our strategy really was in this conflict. A March 29 Gallup Poll said 75% of Americans supported some U.S. military involvement in Libya. Frankly, that number surprised me.

What’s a Christian, who believes that there is such a thing as “just war,” to make of this recent engagement? Shouldn’t we at least have a conversation unless we have accepted the premise that our leaders can take us into any war they want and we should never ask hard questions?

One of the traditional requirements for a “just war” is that the war can be legitimately waged only if there is a reasonable hope of success. As an example, a war fought with an overwhelmingly more powerful opponent would have little chance for success and thus would not qualify as a “just war.” But another reason for questioning the justice of a war is whether or not there is a clearly defined mission and purpose. So far as I can tell there was none offered for our recent military engagement in Libya. If there is no clearly defined mission and purpose for using our military then how would we know if we won? A poorly defined war is, by definition, unjust. I believe many of our recent American wars have not been clearly defined. And it seems that even when some wars have been defined both the Congress and the people have not been told the real truth about the war’s purpose.

Based on this argument alone, and I could site several more, I have strong misgivings about waging war in (or over) Libya. I admit I detest the present ruler in Libya but are we, the United States, obliged to use force to defeat him? I wonder how many members of your church endorsed this war before they even had a clue as to what it was really about? I am shocked at how quickly so many Christians rush to embrace a war as just when the end is extremely questionable. Our sense of empire in the world needs to be regularly challenged on the basis of what an appropriate moral response actually entails. It is one thing to pray for our soldiers, which I do faithfully, and quite another to approve our leaders use of military force in unjust conflicts. If Christians will not raise such objections then where will the conscience of the nation be found in the future?

My Relationship with Acton Institute

About seven or eight years ago I came across a poster about a small conference on freedom and virtue. This unique event attracted young leaders from many backgrounds and professions. Most were still graduate students. There were thirty students in the group and four teachers. I was allowed to sit on the edge of the circle and observe. I felt like I had wandered in from the cold. As I listened to Catholic and Protestant scholars explain the freedom of markets and governments, all rooted in virtue, I felt as if I was drinking from a fountain that I had been searching for over the course of my whole life. I was frankly tired of political partisanship as a way to change culture. I wanted to connect with people who saw a better way to make a real difference in society without overtly linking their vision and efforts to raw party politics. I also wanted a different paradigm for understanding principles of economic freedom that was not rooted in the modern ideas of socialism, capitalism, etc. (Capitalism is not the same thing as economic freedom and a free market!)

Founded in 1990, through the efforts of the president, Fr. Robert Sirico, and the executive director, Kris Mauren,  the Acton Institute is located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. There is also an international office in Rome, where I spoke for Acton just this past week. The Acton Institute was named in honor of the famous Catholic layman, Lord John Acton (1834-1902). Acton made the history of liberty his life’s work. Indeed, the most notable conclusion of his work is that political liberty is the essential condition and guardian of religious liberty. He thereby points to the union of faith and liberty, which has been the inspiration for the mission of the Acton Institute from 1990 to the present.

It is also Lord Acton who is known for one of the most frequently quoted, and often misused, statements about power you've heard: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The Acton mission and perspective is summed up on their website by this statement:

The mission of the Acton Institute is to promote a free, virtuous, and humane society. This direction recognizes the benefits of a limited government, but also the beneficent consequences of a free market. It embraces an objective framework of moral values, but also recognizes and appreciates the subjective nature of economic value. It views justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and wants. In order to promote a more profound understanding of the coming together of faith and liberty, the Institute involves members of religious, business, and academic spheres in its various seminars, publications, and academic activities. It is our hope that by demonstrating the compatibility of faith, liberty, and free economic activity, religious leaders and entrepreneurs can contribute by helping to shape a society that is secure, free, and virtuous.

Acton Institute has several core values that are deeply rooted in their teaching and mission. The first two of these core values are the foundation for everything they do.

1. The dignity of the person - The human person, created in the image of God, is individually unique, rational, the subject of moral agency, and a co-creator. Accordingly, he possesses intrinsic value and dignity, implying certain rights and duties both for himself and other persons. These truths about the dignity of the human person are known through revelation, but they are also discernible through reason.

2. The social nature of the person - Although persons find ultimate fulfillment only in communion with God, one essential aspect of the development of persons is our social nature and capacity to act for disinterested ends. The person is fulfilled by interacting with other persons and by participating in moral goods. There are voluntary relations of exchange, such as market transactions that realize economic value. These transactions may give rise to moral value as well. There are also voluntary relations of mutual dependence, such as promises, friendships, marriages, and the family, which are moral goods. These, too, may have other sorts of value, such as religious, economic, aesthetic, and so on.

I will be teaching at the Acton University this June in Grand Rapids. I hope some of you will check this out and even make plans to attend. If the cost is a problem please contact Acton to see if they can help you in this regard. Certain qualified younger people can attend on scholarship.

The Sermon on the Mount: Indicative or Imperative?

One of those oft discussed books which has enough weight about it to remain important twenty years after publication is Resident Aliens, by Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon. Even if you have read it I encourage you to read it again. It is that kind of book. I do not share the neo-Anabaptist vision of the authors yet a great deal of their appeal still rings true with much of what I have come to understand about culture and the church.

The authors root Christians ethics in the Christian church, not in moral commands for the culture. They argue that ethically speaking when Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount with the beatitudes something very significant is happening that we all too easily miss. Jesus does not ask us to do anything, rather he gives us a vision of what we are before we are given any instruction about what we should do. This means the indicative comes before the imperative, a common New Testament appeal to us. We are told what God has done for us in the beatitudes before we are told how we should live in the kingdom in what follows.

Hauerwas and Willimon write:

Imagine a sermon that begins: “Blessed are you poor. Blessed are those of you who are hungry. Blessed are those of you who are unemployed. Blessed are those going through martial separation. Blessed are those who are terminally ill.”

The congregation does a double take. What is this? In the kingdom of the world, if you are unemployed, people treat you as if you have some sort of social disease. In the world’s kingdom, terminally ill people become an embarrassment to our health-care system, people to be put away, out of sight. How can they be blessed?

The preacher responds, “I’m sorry. I should have been more clear. I am not talking about the way of the world’s kingdom. I am talking about God’s kingdom. In God’s kingdom, the poor are royalty, the sick are blesses. I was trying to get you to see something other than that to which you have become accustomed.”

The Sermon on the Mount rests on the theological assumption that if the preacher can first enable us to see whom God blesses we will be on the road to God’s blessing. The point here is essential: “Vision is the necessary prerequisite for ethics. So the Beatitudes are not a strategy for achieving a better society, they are an indication, a picture” (84).

When we privatize the beatitudes to personal maxims about positive thinking or to new rules for how to experience the deeper life we miss the point. I have heard, like many of you, one moralistic sermon after another based on these beatitudes. They have been fertile ground for such preaching.

Homiletics professor Richard Lischer asks, “But why should the Teacher be crucified for reinforcing what everyone already knows” (85)?

What if this is really a picture of the way God is rather than a list of stringent rules? What if most of the Bible’s message is about who God is, not about what we are supposed to do. The basis for the Sermon on the Mount is not “what works” but rather “the way God is” (85). To use but one illustration, we turn the other cheek because God is merciful to his enemies thus we should be merciful to our enemies because we know God. We seek reconciliation because our God is a reconciling God. On and on you can go with this line of thinking if you follow my point. In fact, reconciliation is what God is doing in Christ in the world right now. Let us grasp the picture and we shall then be transformed into kingdom children, brothers and sisters of Jesus who walk in his steps. We’ll never get there through moralizing rules but rather by seeing a new vision of God, the vision revealed to us in and by Jesus alone.

The Party Movement and Christian Social Teaching

The tea party movement has grabbed a great deal of attention over the last twelve months. With an election looming a number of tea party candidates will face the choice of the electorate in the first major election since this popular movement arose.

The questions I have about this movement have more to do with Christian social theology than politics, which I do not much care about.

One must understand that this is a movement, not a centralized party or the part of a political party. It is, if you read these blogs, a “starfish” organization. In fact, leaders have used this book to frame the tea party in its development. The movement focuses primarily on limited government and reduced taxation. It combines elements of political libertarianism and populism. While populist movements have grown out of a number of social factors in America’s past one thing makes the tea party movement different---it is not anti-Catholic. In fact, it is big enough to be religiously inclusive since a leading Mormon, Glenn Beck, is a darling to this movement. One recent survey showed that 28% of those in the tea party are Roman Catholics.

What seems to drive this movement is deep anxiety about the future. David O’Brien, professor of faith and culture at the University of Dayton (Catholic) says, “I don’t recall a broad-based Catholic populist upsurge of anything of this variety [in the past].”

Catholic social teaching, which I believe is sound at this point, sees an inseparable link between rights and responsibilities for both citizens and the government. Both should promote “the common good.” The tea party movement argues for rights based on liberty, not so much on responsibility. Catholic theology argues that government and citizen are their “brother’s keeper” in a balanced and healthy way.

As an example the U. S. Catholic Bishops have supported universal health care, though not precisely the bill that finally passed. The tea party movement opposes all such ideas. And tea party activists take strong oppositional stands on issues like Social Security, immigration and the government’s involvement in correcting racial discrimination by businesses. Catholic theology promotes an idea called “solidarity” which addresses the concerns of Christians and the church for the common good and the political order. This principle, broadly misunderstood and misused, focuses upon the dignity of the human person.

But there are also important Catholic voices that do not completely agree with what the U. S. Bishops have said about this subject. My good friend, Father Robert Sirico, the president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, believes a good deal of the tea party’s emphasis is close to the Catholic view called “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity, which I agree with in general, favors doing things on a more simplified level. In short, governments should favor local solutions that remain in touch with real people and not complex, centralized organizations that often harm the real delivery of help to those who most need it. The debate here is not that government has no role in such issues but rather about how we should understand and define that role. Sirico adds, “I think the majority of people who are involved in the tea party movement prefer things to be done at the most local level.”

Many tea party advocates believe that government is overreaching in its present role in both education and health care. This is consistent with what Sirico also believes about subsidiarity. But, he is quick to add that many tea party advocates need a deeper understanding of Christian social theory as well. he says this is especially true with regard to the pro-life issue, which the movement has not taken a clear stand on.

Father Sirico has taught me a great deal over the last decade. He does once again on this thorny issue. He adds:

The thing Catholics could teach the tea party is that not every social obligation needs to be viewed with suspicion. We recognize that human nature is social as well as individual, and we balance these things out. To say I have an obligation to the poor is [to say] society has an obligation to the poor. It’s not to say that the government should be the first resort for those problems but I think some of the tea party are a little too quick to just dismiss social justice out of hand.

This is why I have so often learned more about Christian social theory from Catholics, especially Catholics like Father Sirico, than from my evangelical friends and sources. Evangelicals, until quite recently, almost never developed such a theology since they were so busy rescuing people from the sinking ship of this cursed world. This strikes me as a primary reason why they jump into movements like the tea party and never stop to ask the kind of questions that thoughtful Catholics are asking. By this I find another compelling reason to embrace missional-ecumenism.

Whose Gospel? An Argument for Progressive Christianity

Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr. is the founder and president of the Healing of the Nations Foundation and the senior minister emeritus of the famous Riverside Church in New York City. He was also a professor at Union Theological Seminary and has hosted The Time Is Now on Air America Radio. Forbes is a social and political liberal who preaches faith in Jesus with great passion. I have never heard him speak in person but I have heard CDs of his preaching. I can testify to his incredible story-telling ability. I happen to like Forbes and would happily sit down with him for a cup of coffee or a meal. We would have some interesting disagreements but on much we would find common ground. Newsweek calls Forbes “one of the twelve most effective preachers in the English-speaking world.”

James Forbes has long been a strong voice for civil rights. He even gave a stirring address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He served as pastor of the well-known Riverside Church for eighteen years. His insights about pastoral ministry, teaching and mentoring are often brilliant and his judgment is seasoned and prudent. But Forbes is an honest-to-goodness liberal Christian and makes no effort to defend the kind of conservatism that many readers of this blog embrace. So why do I tell you this about James A. Forbes, Jr.?

Browsing in my public library a few weeks ago I came across Forbes’ newest book: Whose Gospel? A Concise Guide to Progressive Protestantism (New York: The New Press, 2010). I read the book with real interest and found much to like about it. I also found a great deal to disagree with for reasons rooted in how I read Scripture and the Christian tradition, both of which are at the core of my mission.

First, the parts of Forbes’ book that I do not like. Forbes allows Scripture to have a clear role in shaping both faith and moral response. But he allows cultural controversies and social opinions to hold an even greater role in his ultimate conclusions about what the Scripture says regarding controversial moral debates; e.g. sexuality, war, ecology and economics. His views on these issues sound more like the views of the Democratic Party than anything one could get from careful exegetical biblical study. In fact, careful exegesis is not the strong and clear basis for much of what Forbes concludes regarding the gospel of progressive Christianity. This, it seems to me, is the real underlying problem in progressive/liberal Christianity. The debate has always been, and still remains, about Scripture and what constitutes normative confessional tradition. Is the Bible simply an ancient book that gives us stories that we are fairly free to change (reinterpret) regarding doctrinal/moral conclusions? As we “progress” into new discoveries in science, sociology and sexuality can we use these discoveries to change revealed moral norms?

Forbes takes a clear stand on homosexuality that will please those who sincerely believe the Scripture has not definitively spoken on this point. Like all who take a progressive view here Forbes believes the church changed its view of women and slavery thus really important “rights” issue today should bring about more changes in the Christian response to this ongoing modern debate. He is partly right. Christians who believe that Scripture does speak clearly about sexual morality (adultery, fornication, homosexual practice, etc.) could learn something important from hearing what he says here but in the end they will not be unlikely to reach the same conclusion.

Second, there are parts of Forbes’ stance that I do like very much. He takes a dim view of most wars and presents some rather compelling arguments for how he reached his conclusion. He argues that we should always cultivate “prophetic patriotism” if we are Christians. I have come to love that phrase and will use it. I want to be a “prophetic patriot.” He tells how The Riverside Church has handled the issue of peace while they have also faithfully served military personnel over the years. The balance here is intriguing and one that I think useful to both sides in this debate. The Riverside Church has taught pacifism but nurtured the life of soldiers with dignity and grace. Forbes carried on this tradition.

Forbes frames his own pastoral ministry in terms of healing. He writes about his relationship with charismatic healers, naming Katherine Kuhlman as “a woman with extraordinary spiritual gifts” whom he met and prayed with personally. When she prayed over him he experienced power that he believes came from God. During one of Forbes’ sermons, in this same time period, God touched a man by granting him his hearing. Forbes wrestled with this demonstration of power but in time concluded that his own call to healing had more to do with relationships than physical miracles. Again, this is one of the most appealing parts of his story. It transcends liberal and conservative debates because it is so obviously central to the core teaching of the New Testament.

Here are a few vintage Forbes quotes:

Jesus was progressive. He was open to having his understanding of both truth and love broadened. In Luke 2:52, we read, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor.” Much later, we find Jesus’ own well-formulated religious viewpoint changed by a Syropheonician woman who challenged Him after he first refused to help her daughter (Mark 7:24-30).

We all need healing and wholeness. We need to progress as individuals and as communities out of the brokenness, fragmentation, destruction, and disease in our lives and in our world. We are not on this journey alone (2-3).

Forbes doesn’t want us to think that his progressive views regarding the application of the faith mean that he believes Jesus is one with his complete understanding of all these various issues. Yet his progressive Jesus is treated as the real Jesus that we encounter in Scripture. I find this claim slightly disingenuous. My problem is simple: Jesus was not a liberal, a progressive, a conservative or a libertarian. He was/is Lord of heaven and earth. These terms that we use to address difficult modern (political and social) issues just do not fit the New Testament that easily. I think Forbes would have to agree if we were drinking our coffee together and not defending our stance on a particular issue.

This leads to the most positive chapter in the book, which ironically is also the most negative one at the same time. I refer to the chapter on sexuality. It is filled with great insights, wisdom and grace. Most conservative Christians would learn a lot about how their understanding of sexuality is defective by reading a book like this one. Forbes argues for a mature, humane understanding of the power and place of human sexuality. But, and this is extremely important, he fails to define or defend anything remotely like a moral law in terms of the right and wrong context for God-honoring sexual expression. Unsurprisingly his moral understanding is thus powerfully shaped by the present-day debates, not by the Bible or the Christian tradition.

Here is one illustration of my point. When Forbes deals with war he uses the Ten Commandments as the grid to explain why each commandment is actually broken by war. (I do not agree with his progressive pacifism but I do think far too many Christians see war as a solution without admitting that it always contains consequences, unintended and otherwise, that break down society in numerous ways.) The point here is that Forbes appeals to the Ten Commandments as abiding moral law rooted in God’s revealed character. But when he comes to sexual practice the law is seen as irrelevant to his stance. It seems obvious that you can’t have your cake and ice cream in this case. The law does apply to moral reasoning and decision making or it does not. Forbes conclusions about sexual practice are thus unreasonable and lack careful biblical nuance regarding the text.

So what do I do with a book like this one? I read it in order listen and learn. I read it to hear a great preacher speak out of his lifelong experience and his treatment of modern concerns. I read it knowing the author as one who has shown real love for Christ and people. But I read it impressed that the gospel can never be limited to the ideology of the left or the right. Forbes disappoints me, in the end, as much as many on the right disappoint me. They describe the elephant as if they were wearing a blindfold and had felt a few parts and thus understood the whole. But then conservatives often do the same thing. Maybe reading Forbes reminded me of the very blind spot that I have. I hope so.

Finally, here are a few final observations from Forbes that I found immensely insightful:

At the heart of our faith is “radical relationality” (150). Such people have a rectifying and reconciling spirit (150). Our advanced technology brings with it an increased responsibility to study as best we can the effects of the actions we take and the innovations that we call progress.

We need a paradigm shift from adversarial and exploitative relationships with our environment to a respectful and mutually regarding care for one another. “Learning to love our neighbors in the whole ecosystem is the order of the day” (151).

Some years ago I walked into the office of a well-known evangelical pastor/author who was reading a book that frankly shocked me. I asked him why he was reading this book when I knew he would clearly disagree with it. His answer has influenced me for more than thirty-five years. “Why should I read a book that I already know I agree with when I can learn from someone I am quite sure will say things very differently?”

Random Reflections on Life from Donald G. Bloesch

Yesterday I told you the story of my friendship with the late theologian Donald G. Bloesch and his widow Brenda. Donald is best known for his major works in theology, ethics and spirituality. He was a master at processing a ton of information and putting his conclusions into a context that kept the gospel central to everything.

Recently I went back to Donald Bloesch’s book, Freedom for Obedience (Harper & Row: New York 1987). Bloesch writes: “The Christian ethic is an ethic . . . that cannot be assimilated into the moral consensus of the wider community. . . . The way of the cross cannot be reconciled with the way of the world, just as the gospel cannot be conjoined with the laws that give stability to social order.” How I wish an entire generation of men like Falwell, Robertson and Dobson (to name only a few) would have understood that simple, but profound point. You cannot paste Christian ethics into the culture and expect the wider community to embrace “Christian ethics.” It seems so obvious but an entire generation of conservatives have gone astray at this precise point. This man, who personally knew just how much liberalism had destroyed his beloved mainline church, understood that conservatism was the new threat to the more evangelical churches. Bloesch understood that ideology, left or right, was no substitute for the gospel of Christ. I came to understand this point primarily because of Don Bloesch.

But Don Bloesch was more than a great theologian. He was a great Christian. Perhaps his least known written work contains evidence of this very point. He wrote private spiritual journals over the course of his life and three of these were eventually published as Theological Notebooks. I have each of them signed as gifts from Don. They continually feed my mind and soul. Here are some insights from Theological Notebook, Volume One (1960-1964). Don was a single man, and only in his early thirties, when he wrote these words:

“Discipline in most circles today is conceived of in terms of punishment rather than training.”

“Before we can go further we must go deeper. Church renewal cannot take place apart from theological renewal.”

“To be ‘catholic’ means to be a citizen of the kingdom that extends beyond this world. . . . The catholic identifies with the poor and despised of the world and is motivated not by human sympathy but by self-giving love.”

“The Christian way is not the ‘middle way’ between extremes but the ‘narrow way’ between precipices.”

“The Christian alternative to Pharisaism is not Publicanism but costly discipleship. The laxity of the Publican is just as repugnant to God as the self-righteousness of the Pharisee. In the parable it is not the Publican as such but the repentant Publican who is praised.”

“God does not will everything that happens, but He wills something in everything that happens.”

“Evil is to be located neither in the heart of God nor in the heart of the universe but in the heart of the self.”

“All people are our neighbors, but only Christians are our brothers and sisters.”

“Happiness is dependent neither on external circumstances not on outward appearance, but rather on the interior relationship with God.”

My friend is gone now. But such writing will feed my soul for the rest of my days. I am filled with joy that the man who wrote such things took the time to encourage and guide me to be a more faithful servant of Christ. Don was a wonderful conversationalist and a great theological resource. Glory be to God for the gift of this dear man to the whole church.