Permit me to announce my rejection of Christ. For if Christianity is as the United Church of Christ (UCC) suggests in its recent TV commercial, then I have no interest in being a Christian. Such religiosity is anathema to me; and I'm anathema to it.
The commercial in question - Bouncer - depicts people queueing up outside a church. Each person is subjected to a security screening by two black-garbed musclemen determining each person's legitimacy. A homosexual couple is tossed aside, as is a young, jewelry-pierced man, apparently hispanic. Also rejected is an African-American child; and even a young man in a wheelchair. Finally the screen fades to black and the words 'Jesus didn't turn people away ... Neither do we,' appear in white. Then a male voice-over: 'The United Church of Christ. No matter who you are, or where you are in life's journey, you are welcome here.' (To see the ad for yourself, go here and follow the links.)
When I first saw the UCC ad (stumbled upon while sifting through sundry TV channels), I genuinely thought it was a parody, perhaps created by The Daily Show; for the piece is that laughable and absurd. But my first impression was quickly replaced by shock when I saw the official UCC logo emblazoned on the screen, topped with these words: God is still speaking.
Yeah, sure he is.
The important point presented in the commercial is of Christ's acceptance. It is the claim that Christ accepts all people 'no matter who they are.' But one wonders what this means. If we know anything about Christ, he rebuked the self-righteous, condemned not only adultery but even lust (a very biological drive), castigated 'money changers' in the holy temple, and exorcized demons from disturbed people.
(I wonder if the UCC's Jesus demonstrated expansive tolerance with his disciple Peter. One need only recall Christ's gentle, approving words issued to that first Bishop of Rome: 'Get thee behind me, Satan.')
Yeah, Jesus just accepted everybody.
What's disgusting is that if the UCC is about openness, its doors are rather closed; closed to people who are Christian fundamentalists, or alleged homophobes, or members of the Boy Scouts. Each of these is not permitted to cross the UCC's tolerant threshold. But maybe that's unfair. A homophobe, for example, is no doubt welcome on the condition that he or she doesn't seek a position of leadership in the UCC, unless such a person changes.
(Apparently some people can and must change.)
Remember, according to the UCC, where ever you are in life's journey, you are accepted by the UCC, unless, of course, you are an unacceptable person. With compassion like that, it seems the UCC might actually keep the real Jesus out of its churches, the man who was rejected and despised for the sins of the world.
Contrary to the UCC, there has never been a church that has tossed out people before they even enter. Until now. After all, the Christian Church has always been about saving people from their sins. It's only a gross misunderstanding that the Church is the household of the whole. Rather, it's the household of the broken. So to suggest that people were banned for being sinners is absurd.
But that's not the suggestion, is it? The suggestion is that homosexuality, for example, is normal, and that homophobia is sin. But with the UCC's ban on homophobic Boy Scouts now well known, it's clear that the only church to ban sinners, for the first time in history, is the United Church of Christ.
Let's assume the UCC is right: churches are un-Christlike. But if Christ taught anything, it is the love of one's enemies. How then does the UCC's commercial demonstrate its love for those people with whom it categorically disagrees? It invokes Christ in a slick TV ad, using him to mock and rebuke the UCC's neighbors. Shame!
Give me a Christ that wants to smash the world to bits. That's a Christ worth following. For love is ferocious, if it's anything. I've no interest in a deity that is neither loving nor divine. A Christ that accepts everyone as they are is worthless.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: United Church of Christ, Bouncer Advertisement
6 comments:
Though having such a church be so divisive on this issue may be new, the issue here is not new. The issue to me comes down to one word with two definitions. One group protests rightly defintion A, and the other counters, rightly, with definition B. Somehow it seems nobody has noticed that in the heart of the matter they are speaking about two different words. The word? Judge.
One meaning is to discern. Judge for yourselves if this is not true: we make this kind of judgement every day. Using our thoughts and feelings we must arrive at some conclusion, and we make a judgement call: When driving I must use judgement to determine whether I have missed my turn. Criteria from the angle of the sun, the mileage on the odometer, amount of time traveled, etc. inform the decision, but what it all means calls for judgement, or discernment, a take-your-best guess choice. This kind of judgement for the issues in your article are good. We must decide if homosexuality is good, we must decide on abortion, and if one is a Christian then certainly what the Bible has to say would be the first source of information consulted while we make the call.
The other meaning of judge I perceive is the spirit of condemnation. To be judged in this sense is to be condemned. Evil will be judged, criminals are judged. The implication here is that some consequences are meted out for some action. This doesn't feel too nice for the judgee.
A judge in a courtroom delivers both forms in some cases, and in others a jury does the perceiving while the judge does the condemning. In God's case he alone will do both.
So here's the conflict. When Jesus said "do not judge", what he was in fact saying was do not condemn. This is where love is: as a parent loves their child even when the child is naughty, so the Lord loves us and we ought love others. When people say: "quit judging me", I would agree. There is but one judge, and it's not us. However if they are asking me condone their behavior and say it is not morally wrong, then they are trying to get me to NOT do as they have already done: use the resources available me and make a decision. They have decided their behavior is right, I have decided the same behavior is wrong, yet I am not judging (condemning) nor even viewing them as lesser people.
The basic conflict is that the various groups keep saying "do not judge me", and what they appear in fact to be asking is that not only do we not condemn them, but also that we do not discern moral behavior. The former I agree with; the latter I cannot do, nor will I be falsely shamed into it by the campaigns of many.
John is right. There is a difference between judgement and condemnation.
The lessons about judgement found in the Sermon on the Mount (particularly), in the Gospel of Matthew, chapters 5-7, do indeed make this distinction. Right after Jesus says, "Do not judge", he warns that his disciples should not throw pearls before swine. It's hard to know how one is expected to discern what is a pearl and what is a swine without being judgemental. How too, do I remove the speck from my brother's eye and the log from my own if I am not to make a judgement as to what a brother, an eye, a speck, and a log, look like?
Yes, we are to be judgemental, in the right sort of way. We are not called to be damners.
Peace!
Contratimes
All of the above presupposes that the average Christian has the ability, life experiences, and judgement to be able to "discern" if the rest of us great unwashed are being "sinners",never mind the oddity of letting Christians act as self-appointed judges for us non-Christians based solely on the claims which they interpret from their supposedly infallible, holy book. We don't let the Mullahs for the Muslim faith do so in America, so why allow the "born again", for example among the Christian faith, act as America's self-appointed judges based on their religious creed, a creed which is also just composed of theories and promises as is Islam? (Its not like anyone can test for life life after death in a scientific lab or a archeology dig)Given all of the ummmm..."facts" that conservative Christians have put out on the Web about Transsexuals, for example, most of it which makes the Narnia stories look as factual as Einsteins Theory of Relativity by comparison, I for one will pass on the notion of letting
conservative Christians have the same judging power in society as their Islamic counterparts, the Mullahs, do in Iran. What I see going on in Iran gives me enough nightmares as it is.
Danni Lee
Dear Danni Lee,
I don't know what an "average Christian" might look like, but I do know that if there is a scale on which Christians are graded, those who visit this website are far above average.
You seem to think that I am advocating judging people outside the Church; that I wish to sit in judgment on people in the public square. I don't think I do. But what I think and what I do are often confused. I am not interested in shaping America into a Christian state. I am not really even that interested in the state. If anything, I am interested in making the American church a Christian church. My forays into politics at Contratimes are arguments against deceptions, and against idols. And I challenge fallacies, be they religious, political or social. I may do all that imperfectly. But that is what I do.
I take issue with your suggestion that anyone here has posited that all decisions, and all truths, are to be judged by some "infallible, holy book." Who here has done or suggested that? Only you, I think.
Few readers will not know the sequence of discussions you and I have had at this site. But I need to remind you that whatever you think you know about me, you can't possibly draw much information about who I am or what I believe from the minutes' worth of conversations we had in high school. You do not know my religious beliefs re: the Bible. I am confident that even if you should make ten guesses as to what I believe you would miss the mark. I surely will make no assumptions about who you are, what you believe, or what is dear to you. I know that I do not know you at all. That's a fair assessment, don't you think? You can be or believe whatever you like. You are welcome to share yourself with me here. I invite you to be yourself.
But try and understand that I am not myself here, if you think I am who I was 25 years ago. You have made several references to who I am in previous comments and, while you are welcome to say whatever you darn well please, try not to confuse your memories of me, or even your experience of me here, with who I actually am. To do so is to fall prey to the worst thing in life: To confuse one's experience of a person with who that person actually is.
Do you really think that folks here are equivalent to the "Mullahs" in Iran, as you say?
Peace and mirth,
BG
People seem to forget that the real Jesus Christ called sin for what it is... sin, and then called all to repentance, and told all of us to go and sin no more.
The false compassion and tolerance found today among those who tell others not to judge, but to accept, are actually telling us to accept sin, to never call anyone to a Higher Standard as did Jesus Himself.
Jesus never left any individual He came into contact with in the same state of Sin He found them in, unless they themselves chose to remain there. Then, He was saddened... "Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem..."
The tolerance of today forgets that there is a natural law. The tolerance of today forgets that we are called to admonish the sinners (while still loving the individuals) in order to draw them into holiness. While we are removing the beam from our own eye... we are still allowed to help to remove the splinter from another's.
Jesus clearly called Sin for what it is, and clearly told His followers to 'Go, and Sin no more'. He tolerated the person, while NOT tolerating the sin that person was mired in. He was not selective about this. It mattered not to Him if the sinner was one of the Pharisee's, part of Rome or ... one of His followers.
While He loves all persons, He does not love Sin. And He held a Standard for all to emulate, beginning with... Go, and Sin no more...
God bless!
Yes, yes. Wonderfully said.
Peace,
BG
Post a Comment