What will Jesus change?

There is no political solution
To our troubled evolution
Have no faith in constitutions
There is no bloody revolution

I wouldn't normally think of Sting, the singer/songwriter who penned those words for his then-band the Police, as a prophet. Especially since the song they came from, "Spirits in the Material World," represents the kind of despairing cynicism that we Christians are supposed to reject.

But if you look at our world today -- even more so than 30 years ago, when the song appeared on the band's "Ghost in the Machine" album -- you have to marvel at his prescience. Especially in considering our "dysfunctional" Federal government, which people can't say get anything done. If Washington could only fix itself, people believe.

Well, as I've written before, "Washington" is not, never has been and never will be, the problem.

It really boils down to our basic selfishness as human beings, believing that everything revolves around us. We want the power to change things but not the responsibility of doing so. We consider how things affect us personally but not the other guy. We denounce people who don't agree with us as fundamentally evil, perhaps not considering that they just might feel the same way about us.

Given the uncertainty in today's world, my pastor during sermons has asked on a couple of occasions if this might be the time that Jesus actually returns. Let me say something sobering: It could be that His Second Coming might, in the long run, be the last thing some people want.

What?! Yep. As I said, folks want everyone else to change, often forgetting that they too are in need of deep repentance. And should He return in the next few years, let's keep in mind that we're not going to dictate to Him just how things should be. Indeed, it's likely that we simply won't be able even to stand before Him in all His utter holiness; He barks a command and our only response will be, "You want it, You got it."

Remember, friends, that Jesus will determine what He wants done with the money entrusted to us. He will determine the best, most equitable policies. He will determine how people will run their businesses. Indeed, we won't even have a "democracy" anymore because there will be only one vote. "Freedom"? Irrelevant. There will be only justice.

Let's also not forget the part of the "LORD's Prayer," "Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." So, to add a twist on the old saying, "Be careful what you pray for -- you will get it." And it may not be what you expect.

Rick Perry -- "called" to be president?

Recently a number of readers of the Los Angeles Times wrote in with their choice to be president -- Rick Perry, current governor of Texas and an overt evangelical who has called for statewide prayer. At least two people have convinced themselves that he can beat Obama next year, and some believe that Perry is "called" of God.

I can understand their preference, but "called of God?" That's theologically dubious at best, for two reasons.

Let's consider their context of "calling": This nation is under the spell of evil liberals and liberalism, so we need to find a champion who will defeat [choose the target of your choice] and restore our nation to greatness -- you know, "the way it used to be."

We've seen that one before -- Palestine in the first century. Recall that the Jewish people of that day were living under the rule of Rome, which they resented deeply and wanted overthrown and understood well the prophecy of a Messiah, who they believed would be the person who would kick the Romans out.

But in their desire for political freedom they missed what Jesus, who of course was the Messiah, came to do -- change the entire calculus in showing the world Who God really was. They ended up rejecting Him because He turned out not to be the political leader they wanted.

Two, "calling" in this context is connected to service and sacrifice, not as a will to power. It's perfectly appropriate to "call" a pastor or other spiritual leader to a place of authority; however, in such cases he or she has been specifically raised up to give of him/herself, not simply to be "in charge" and push people around. (See John Eldredge's description of the "King" in the book "Fathered by God.")

Those Christians who want Perry to be president have missed that point. You see, they have always sought someone who will fight the battle against what they consider demonic forces (read: Those who disagree with them politically) so that they can go about their lives and not have to engage in spiritual warfare themselves -- something that God will never allow. To wit, they want the "blessings" of God but not really to know Him personally and permit Him to change who they are, making Him in their image in the process.

They have also forgotten that God Himself raises up and takes down leaders for His purposes; I'm convinced that Barack Obama and, before him, Bill Clinton became president at least in part to demonstrate to politically conservative Christians that He is, and they are not, running the show. Sadly, some still don't understand that concept -- just before the general election of 2008 I received an emergency e-mail asking folks to pray that, by some miracle, Obama would be defeated. (I responded by saying that it was inappropriate.)

This is why "anointing" a presidential candidate -- keep in mind that the term "Messiah" means "anointed one" -- is flatly dangerous. And if Perry does decide to run, he needs to understand that he would lead all the people of this great country, not simply those who agree with his politics. Sadly, I don't think he does based on his speeches and record, which is why the "calling" is bogus.

The imminent revival -- part 4

Now that I've proclaimed in previous entries that revival is coming soon (and in some places has already started), the question comes up: How will we recognize it?

In good Jewish fashion, let me ask another question: What's the focus?

If it's on personal peace and happiness, cultural issues, church growth or putting on a show, walk away from that. If it's on desiring Christ's kingdom, freedom from sin, a craving to know truth and an emphasis on service to the world and in His church, you're getting warm. Let's keep in mind that God made us to glorify Himself and no other.

That said, here are some things to consider:

1) Folks 30 and younger will drive this revival. The reason is simple: Right now, the generation directly behind mine doesn't really have its own "move of God"; it's either submerged in parents' faith or running away from it. Therefore, it needs to reach its own generation in the way He dictates, and it needs to hear that. A couple of years ago at dinner I had the honor of telling a then-29-year-old man, "You're the next wave." The temptation for us in the "baby boom" generation, more culture-bound than we realize, will be to discount the ways in which God is moving in that generation; however, if it doesn't contradict the Scriptures we, like Gamaliel, should wait and see if this has staying power.

2) It will be interracial and multi-cultural. The generation behind mine was reared with "diversity" and this is used to it; as a result, it doesn't have the racial hang-ups that previous generations did. It will be the first generation to live Martin Luther King Jr.'s words about being "judged [not] by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." As a result, the faith will be taken places we've been afraid to go.

3) Abortion will be addressed and dealt with but only as part of a consistenly "pro-life" ethic. The biggest mistake that the anti-abortion movement made was to link itself to the modern conservative movement, which was interested only in defeating the other side for its own sake. Since that movement is, despite all the noise it makes, on its last legs, its eventual collapse will free us who oppose legal abortion to expand our reach to issues of poverty, the environment and other issues of social justice. In addition, the image of Margaret Sanger, the late founder of what is now Planned Parenthood, will undergo a makeover in large part because folks are now learning that, contrary to popular opinion, she was actually staunchly anti-abortion. (And that may actually help to split PP!)

4) The "evangelical left" will play a surprisingly large role. One thing God has always done is reach out to the marginalized and make them into His trophies of grace, and the evangelical left certainly has been marginalized by much of the rest of the church for not being "politically correct." However, it has always been close to the heart of God because of its love for people and its desire to change systems that hold people in bondage. Dr. King will be recognized as a true prophet of God, as will such luminaries as Ron Sider, Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo.

5) The church will get back to the Scriptures' true teaching on homosexuality. That is to say, it will be recognized as an outward sign of inward rebellion against almighty God -- no more, no less. Those "conservative" churches who teach and preach homophobia and the liberal ones who affirm homosexual behavior as a legitimate lifestyle will both become irrelevant.

6) Folks will reconcile with each other. As they comb through their lives and recognize the wreckage that their sin has caused they will seek to make amends on both a personal and institutional level. Doing so will strengthen the church because it will break long-standing barriers that have kept them apart.

7) Persecution will come -- from, believe it or not, "conservatives." Keep in mind that the movement at its heart always was secular and extremely combative and doesn't take kindly to disagreement. Not only that, they operate from a default attitude of fear, the exact opposite of faith.

If there are more, I will list them here.

My "favorite" misintepreted Scripture passages

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of Scripture to make points that it simply doesn't because of either misunderstanding its context or distorting its meaning to make a cheap political point. Below represent some I'm aware of:

1) "The poor you will always have with you ... " -- Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8

These words of Jesus are often used to suggest that nothing should be done for the poor on a political/structural level and that the truly Biblical way to deal with the poor should always be through private charity.

However, consider the background: All the references make clear that a woman had anointed Jesus with some extremely expensive perfume as a symbol of his upcoming burial; in response, His disciple Judas Iscariot had complained that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Indeed, the rest of Mark 14:7 reads: " ... and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have Me." Nothing at all concerning the "justice vs. charity" argument.

2) "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.' " -- 2 Thessalonians 3:10

This passage is often used to say that people should find work and not mooch off others or the government. However, the church of that day was convinced that Jesus would be returning in the next few years, so a few folks were just sitting around and waiting, not being active in any way. While telling people to find work is a good thing, it's not provable using this specific reference.

3) "No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again ... " -- John 3:3

Two problems with this passage. One, I understand that the original Greek renders the phrase "born again" as "born from above." Two, we often misinterpret it as accessing the afterlife. But it's clear from the conversation with Nicodemus, who as a Jew wouldn't have focused on that, was trying to pay Jesus a compliment by saying "You must be from God because Your teachings are first-rate"; Jesus responded, "If you don't look at things from His perspective, you won't recognize what He's doing in the here and now." Essentially, He was telling Nicodemus, "You miss the point."

4) The woman caught in adultery, John 8.

Here, Jesus is often referred to as being merciful toward her by telling the Pharisees who were about to stone her to death, "Let him without sin cast the first stone." However, this was a case where He went completely "by the book."

First, the Law made clear that her partner in crime was also to be stoned to death but, conveniently, was nowhere to be found. Second, to accuse someone of a capital crime you had to have at least two eyewitnesses; however, to watch people actually having sexual relations also was illegal, leading me to believe that it was a "sting" operation. Third, and most obscure, according to Leviticus 15:18: "When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening" -- that is, assuming that her partner had an ejaculation, they brought a ceremonially unclean woman into the temple, where Jesus was teaching. Bottom line, the Pharisees, who were trying to nail Jesus in a Catch-22, instead were forced to withdraw the accusation.

That's what I have -- anyone have any others?

Here we go ...

The great conservative meltdown I was predicting for 2012 got started a little earlier than even I would have expected. Like this year.

With Republican governors in a number of states slashing budgets for basically political reasons and seriously angering much of the public in the process, it's only a matter of time before a real grass-roots movement from the political left sweeps out many of those right-wing politicians that seem hell-bent on sabotaging the governing process. A number of Republican senators in Wisconsin, which just passed that anti-union bill now tied up in court, are in danger of being recalled, and folks in states such as Ohio, Indiana and my own Pennsylvania are making similar noise.

But let's look at the big picture: You can't simply bully people on a consistent basis and expect them not to react; at some point they will say "No more!" And I think we may be there now.

Going back to Wisconsin, the bill that sharply restricted collective bargaining for unionized state employees and which caused the Democratic members of the Senate to flee the state to deny the body a quorum turned out not to be about economics at all. The majority leader admitted on the Fox News Channel a couple of weeks ago that its real intent was to sabotage union funding for an upcoming reelection campaign for President Obama. (As if that will make that much difference given Obama's fund-raising capability -- he's likely to bankrupt any candidate that would run against him.)

That fact is one reason why no clear front-runner has emerged for the GOP nomination. With Sarah Palin sinking, Mike Huckabee treading water and only long-shots Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum set to announce, it's clear to me that the conservatives who run the party really have nothing to run upon except that none of them are Obama. That's not good enough, especially since recent economic news favors him, if just slightly -- and let's keep in mind that economics rules during these days of a "jobless recovery."

But let's go back to Wisconsin, a state with a very long history of progressive politics, for a moment. The shenanigans of Gov. Scott Walker and the other Republicans have only energized the Democratic Party in that state, which is leading the recall campaign, and GOP operatives in that state are moaning that they can't get the funds to fight it. Also consider that large number of anti-Walker demonstrators that took over the capitol building in Madison left fired-up and ready to act. They apparently hope that they'll inspire people in other states to do the same, and they might be right.

But here's the issue: The Wisconsin Senate passed that bill and Walker, who by numerous reports is an evangelical Christian, signed it with no debate and no willingness to compromise or work with the opposition, and I would suggest that such an attitude is doing more to get its GOP members run out of office than its actual passing. "Well, we need to maintain 'core principles' that we can't change," they may say.

No, they don't need to do that -- not even Jesus did.

It's no surprise then that Jesus did battle most often with the Pharisees, who were sticklers for the "law" but missed that the very concept of law represents a framework of relationships. That is, take away the relational aspect of law and it just becomes a bunch of lifeless pronouncements without any context that have no power to assure the pursuit of justice. That's why religion devoid of true relationship ultimately becomes worthless -- it just doesn't work.

And that's also why, in the words of conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, "The big [conservative] defeat is coming." The political right will eventually fail to make its case that following its principles will lead to economic prosperity (and in fact have likely already done so), and simply "saying it louder" won't help matters. What it needs to do is to work across the aisle to find solutions that benefit everyone; however, its own mentality assures that it will never happen.

Single men in ministry

Monday's New York Times ran a story about the Rev. Mark Almlie, an ordained minister in the Evangelical Covenant Church who has expressed frustration because he can't find a flock to shepherd. Reason? He's single and childless while many, if not most, evangelical churches specifically seek a husband and father as a pastor.

But where he sees discrimination, which I understand and appreciate, I see safeguards from inappropriate entanglement.

For several years I participated in one of my church's home groups; after asking me to take a turn in leading the group's semimonthly Bible study, hosted by a couple, and apparently impressed on more than one occasion with the job I did, the man, now an elder, suggested that I consider leading one of my own.

Yes, I have the heart, knowledge and skills to be a lay leader in this or any church. But I will not do so as a single man in part due to my own emotional vulnerabilities; in the mid-1980s I experienced being fawned over by a woman I knew to be unhappily married (though I never responded to it). And since we Christians are instructed to avoid even the hint of evil, becoming an elder would simply not be a good move on my part because that means I would likely have to do some counseling with such women. I'd just rather not deal with that temptation.

The article also quoted a Jackson W. Carroll, an emeritus professor of religion at Duke University, as saying that, in insisting that pastors be married with children, "evangelicals are responding to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, which they saw as a real threat to the family." And while he was specifically speaking of pastors, the same could probably be said about lay leadership in the church.

Many singles refer to Paul's passages on singleness, saying that not having a spouse would mean more freedom to do ministry. They must be taken in context, however -- Paul and much of the church of that day believed that Jesus would return at any moment or at least in their lifetimes, in which case marital status wouldn't matter. It's also true that Jesus Himself was never married but because, in His culture obsessed with ethnic purity, no good Jewish father would give his daughter in marriage to Jesus not knowing who His earthly father was.

I won't say that marriage will simply and completely remove such temptations; my present and two past churches have experienced adultery among staff. I just don't want to be another statistic just for the sake of having power and authority in the congregation.

And if you're wondering -- yes, I am looking.

Love wins?

I have yet to read "Love Wins," the controversial book by Rob Bell, founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Mich. and who stars in Nooma videos. Bell, of course, has been accused of "universalism," with other, more "orthodox" teachers suggesting that Bell doesn't believe in an eternal hell and that he believes that all persons will be saved regardless of their position in Christ. As such, I'm not prepared to analyze his theology.

One thing I will say, however -- having read some interviews with him, one thing Bell gets right is that Jesus can, and does, save from what some may call a "living hell." And it could be that focusing on an eternal hell may completely miss that point.

Here's why. Jesus came to give not an improvement on your current life but a replacement for it -- which should be obvious, considering that the earthly life without Christ is by necessity full of bad stuff. Whether you're using drugs, addicted to work, having marriage problems or feeling that you've just plain "messed up," there's is nothing about your life that He can improve; He has to destroy it and then give you a whole new one. No "orthodox" teacher will tell you anything different. Thing is, the Bible doesn't focus all that much on eternal punishment.

I know that from personal experience. I first heard the Gospel when I was around 10 or 11 (although it didn't began to sink in until my freshman year in high school). What made the difference for me, however, was the difference in the lives of the Christians I knew back then compared with my family, which was focused on ... well, it wasn't focused on anything except maintaining a middle-class existence. Whatever it was, it just wasn't working.

And then I noticed that my parents' marriage was failing.

The day before the school district picnic toward the end of my senior year, my father called my brother and me over and informed us that my mother had threatened to leave him. I knew why -- he was insanely jealous and so obsessed with her that he was in one sense strangling her, which was connected to his refusal to allow God to run his life. So at that picnic the next day and seeing no alternative, I bowed to the inevitable and threw in my lot with Jesus. (Note: It had nothing to do with my trying to avoid hell; I consider doing so a "fringe benefit.")

Anyway, merely trying to escape eternal punishment doesn't suffice for two reasons: Legalism and licentiousness, both of which ignore the primary gift of God through Christ: His grace.

The first is dangerous because you may feel you need to "perform" -- keep certain rules -- to maintain God's favor. My church belongs to a denomination with a fairly legalistic past; for instance, contemporaries who grew up in it weren't permitted to attend high-school proms. Going the other way, some people believe that once you get saved there's no more that needs to be done -- you can live anyway you want and God will welcome you. Either way, the focus is on the "afterlife," not loving and following Jesus in the here and now. (That's what He meant when He told Nicodemus that "you must be born again" -- that was the only way he would recognize God's work in this world.)

Based on what I know about Bell, he gets that part right.

A close friend of mine is suffering right now, watching her 20-something nephew engaged in full-blown rebellion against his Christian upbringing. I can't help but recall, however, her telling me that her brother and sister-in-law sent their children to a Christian school so that they could "avoid hell." While I don't intend to criticize their choice, the reality is that Jesus mentioned hell mostly to the Pharisees -- the religious elite of that day -- because they were focused upon religion without relationship. But Jesus mentioned the two great commandments, which would even supersede the Ten: "You will love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."

Perhaps that explains the title of Bell's book.

Hating Jesus

The Huffington Post recently published a piece "Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus" by California professors Phil Zuckerman and Dan Cady; they write that "White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture."

I don't have any reason to believe that they write from an avowed Christian perspective, but they have it right. And here's why: Much of the American evangelical world is focused more on "pie in the sky" and that a "personal relationship with Jesus" doesn't really change their lives all that much. And as much as we talk about "magnifying" and "glorifying" Him, the truth is that we don't spend all that much energy, let alone thought, on obeying Him. In fact, I would say that a lot of us appreciate His "saving grace" but refuse to accept Him as absolute, unconditional LORD.

An insult? Maybe. But if Jesus truly were LORD of our lives there are some things we wouldn't do. First, our mission would be focused not on changing the culture around us so that we can live in it (and hope to avoid spiritual warfare in the process). Fewer of us would live in the country or the suburbs, realizing that we truly need to be "salt" and "light" in the very places that need a true Gospel witness. We wouldn't be concerned with such inconsequential things as property values and being in the "right" neighborhood. We wouldn't have all these independent mega-churches with no accountability to any larger body. We wouldn't have so many racists in our ranks, and we wouldn't complain about "persecution" from the world. (Indeed, most of what we call "persecution" we actually provoke through our own arrogance.) Above all, Jesus calls us to sacrifice for His Kingdom, which runs counter to our culture.

Whether you agree or not with the professors' interpretation of what Jesus taught, much of evangelical Christianity has completely missed the intent of Jesus' Gospel: Reconciliation -- not only with God through the cross of Christ but also with each other. It's not just about "personal salvation" or "personal holiness"; we're "saved" as part of a larger Body to do work that bears witness to His reign, now and in the future. The way we relate to each other should be different. The way we look at the world should be "But for the grace of God ... " But we often end up as Pharisees, poring over the Scriptures basically to buttress our own prejudices. No wonder we as a church are weak.

I don't think that it's any coincidence that, spiritually speaking, the strongest church we've ever had in this country was the African-American church in the South in the 1950s, which did all these things because, even though it didn't have (and in fact, couldn't get) the theological training that white churches did, it sought to obey God. The civil-rights movement, which came out of it, actually began as prayer and revival meetings in such churches, and at the appointed time God raised up a prophet out of Atlanta via Montgomery, Ala. named Martin Luther King Jr., who is still hated in some "Christian" circles for causing change. (But that's part of the risk -- and now virtually everyone knows that he was ultimately right.)

There's a reason that Jesus said, "Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for My sake will find it." Jesus is not a value-added commodity to ensure an after-life; He is life itself. And if we evangelicals truly found and committed to that ... well, watch out.

Reconciliation -- a mandate, not an option

I had the honor of delivering my testimony at church two weeks ago; I had asked to do it in recognition of the birthday celebration of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which officially was the next day, because he initially sparked my interest in the Scriptures. King, of course, was despised in his day in some circles and ignored by most evangelicals for not being sufficiently pious and focusing on "soul-winning."

When I first "encountered" him in the fifth grade, however, I realized that he was onto something. Really, really big that most people that most "religious" people, especially in that day, were missing. And what was that?

The very heart of the gospel -- reconciliation.

Now, most of us evangelicals have believed and taught that the primary focus of the Christian life should be studying the Scriptures and living one's earthly existence as "godly" as possible and, at its end, being accepted into heaven. The trouble is that, in such an atmosphere, faith becomes privatized and cultural and doesn't really cause that much change in the culture.

On the other hand, if you see the Gospel as being about reconciliation, it clearly has all kinds of ramifications for not only the individual Christian but also the church in general and the surrounding culture.

You see, if you focus on reconciliation, you're assuming a breach to be mended, starting with fellowship between man and God broken by man's sin, his inability to do anything about that and being in danger of perdition without a remedy. And this is where we get the first part correct, because Jesus did give His life on the cross so that we could come to God and establish that fellowship that He intended.

But there's more.

You see, that propensity toward sin also leads to a disconnect with other people, whether in or outside the church. Whether a church or denominational split, an over-reliance or lack of focus on theology, a disdain for others for being "less than" or an emphasis on such things of the world as money or political power, there's no shortage of ways in which even God's people can suffer from broken fellowship with each other. One thing of which the church should always be ashamed is that the civil-rights movement, which came out of Southern African-American churches, pitted one set of Christians against another set of Christians, which sabotaged our collective witness. (It's especially galling in light of Jesus' two great commandments, my paraphrase: Worship God with everything you have and do right by others.)

Thing is, God has called us believers in Jesus to belong to one family, one church, one nation under His rule, and that means that we will need to put our differences, pride and anger aside to focus on that spiritual goal. Fortunately, He will help us do that if we allow ourselves to be transformed.

The early church had no choice in that matter because it was a culturally and ethnically diverse underground movement with few friends that was targeted for extinction by the political and religious authorities of that day. Put another way, following Jesus quite literally cost some folks everything, including their lives; thus, they learned to suffer together and became "one in heart and mind." And while it did have to deal with some factionalism in its ranks, still its membership clung to Jesus -- and to each other.

Things, of course, are different today; Americans live in a nation built in part on freedom of worship. But since the church has become part of the "establishment" it has fallen prey to the same fault lines as the rest of the world -- race, economics, social class, ethnicity. That's why we need to focus upon reconciliation -- if all we understand is the way our little clique does things we miss the lessons that other groups, churches, theologies, denominations can teach us about Who God is and His eternal purpose.

Former South African president Nelson Mandela brought out this point in a 1995 speech he made honoring the late Bram Fischer, an anti-apartheid activist of Afrikaner stock who originally believed that black and white should live separately, albeit as "equals." In rebuttal, a veteran member of the African National Congress, Mandela's party, told Fischer, "If you place the races of one country in two camps and cut off contact between them, those in each camp will begin to forget that those in the other are ordinary human beings, that each lives and laughs the same way, that each expresses joy or sorrow, pride or humiliation for the same reasons. Thereby each becomes suspicious of the other and each eventually fears the other, which is the basis of all racism."

We're at that point now. It's time that we allow God to come in and heal the breach, so in His Name, let's reconcile.

Why Jesus never talked about homosexuality

Since last week I've been embroiled in an on-line controversy -- which, for those of you know know me well, is not abnormal. This time, however, it's with gay-rights and gay-marriage supporters who are trying to justify their stances using the Scripture and with whom I've figuratively gone to the mat. (My own view is that homosexuality has no business in the church due to "worldliness" and that same-gender matrimony cheapens it because it's necessarily based on hormones rather than on partnership.)

Anyway, one of my opponents, trying to paint Jesus as someone who accepted people no matter what they did, said -- correctly -- that He never brought up the subject.

The reason He didn't? It wasn't necessary.

If that sounds glib, consider His original audience: The Jewish people of that day, who simply weren't doing it. How do I know? Well, they still held to most of the tenets of Mosaic law, with the Pharisees, the lay group, out front. Furthermore, Jewish law all but required a considerable amount of cultural accountability, with everyone "in each other's business" to a degree that would chafe us Westerners, who by contrast are more individualistic. (This is part of the reason why Jesus let the "woman caught in adultery," referred to in John 8, go -- He recognized it as a setup.) And while I have no proof of this, I suspect that one of the reasons the Jews of that day hated Rome so much was due to its licentiousness, with (according to the singles pastor of my church) 70 percent of Romans involved in homosexuality -- not terribly surprising when you consider that 1) there were few women/girls around because infanticide was also common and 2) it was largely a society of leisure. This is why homosexuality was primarily considered "of the world" -- it was always a cultural distinctive, something that God's people just didn't do.

That also was the reason the Apostle Paul, whose ministry was primarily to Gentiles, did have to address the issue, most notably in Romans 1 -- many of them had participated in such. But even here, it was not so much a moral issue but also one of distinctiveness from the world of that day.

Today, however, the church of Jesus Christ has more cultural authority, making, among other things, infanticide of female babies culturally unacceptable wherever it has had influence. It's probably also the reason why homosexuality is seen as a particularly heinous sin (but going beyond the parameters of Scripture in the process). I would suggest that such is the root of the struggle over gay rights in general and gay marriage in particular, with their supporters trying to persuade the country about the righteousness of their cause. Some have even gone so far to invoke Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and '60s, ignoring that he focused on not just "rights" but reconciliation. Others claim that there were no spiritual "lepers" with Him, never mind His calls for repentance (He told the woman caught in adultery, "Don't sin any more").

In short, my argument with the people who try to use the Scripture to support their contention that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle for the Christian is that they miss the point that God is utterly holy and doesn't trifle with sin. In the book "The Holiness of God," author R.C. Sproul related the story that a seminary student asked him why God didn't zap him even though he deserved it -- a contrast from the other students who were horrified by the way he treated Israelites who had committed what appeared to be trivial offenses.

That's the point. As much as my opponents want to appeal to the grace of God, it really has no meaning unless you have an understanding of your sin.

But for the grace of God ...

Yesterday was Good Friday, the day we Christians commemorate the death of Jesus Christ, and on the Sojourners blog yesterday a couple of the discussions centered on the old question "Who was responsible for His death?" Of course that's a thorny issue because the issue is murky and fraught with political and religious implications. (I have to watch my words carefully here because I belong to a historically-Jewish fraternity and some of my brothers may be reading this.)

This much we do know. Jesus was born during a time of super-patriotism among the Jewish people of that day similar to today's "tea parties" and, while they understood the Old Testament prophecies about the coming "Messiah" (translated "anointed one"), they believed that he would overthrow the then-occupying Roman government. (This is why he rarely used the word.) And there was precedent -- after all, a couple of centuries earlier they had stood up to the Greeks, which is why to this day they observe Chanukah. That said, His fresh teachings, outreach to the outcasts in that society and withering criticism of the religious establishment certainly didn't endear him to the leadership of that day, which understandably saw him as a threat to its authority.

Only at that point did Rome get involved. Some time earlier the Jewish religious leaders had cut a deal with the Roman government, which had outlawed execution for all but civil charges, so the religious leaders were actually finding an excuse to hand Jesus over to the Romans to have Him taken out -- when He started referring to Himself as a king, that gave them the opening. Add to that His refusal to take on Rome directly and it's obvious why virtually everyone had turned on Him. (There's a delicious irony in that, when Pontius Pilate asked if He were their king, some of the people responded, "We have no king but Caesar.")

But here's the rub. While on that cross Jesus said, "Father, forgive them -- because they don't know what they're doing." I get that. And it would be arrogant for me to assume that, had I been a Jew at that time, I would have recognized who He was. (Those people who have said that such things as the Holocaust represent judgment on the Jewish people for rejecting Jesus are not only dangerously wrong but miss the point.)

In January of 1984, the lowest point of my life, I attended a church retreat at which Christian singer-songwriter Michael Kelly Blanchard, who was friends with the previous campus pastor, was the speaker. The only thing I really remember about it, however, was the pre-lunch communion service, during which I completely broke down; afterward, I returned to my room and sobbed some more. What happened? For the first time in my life, I got a glimpse of the gravity of my own sin. (Keep in mind that I had already been a Christian for not quite five years, so I already had an intellectual understanding that it would no longer be held against me.) Later on during a small group discussion one of the women, who understood my tears, referred to Jesus "whom we killed."

I think that's the point. Trying to find a "scapegoat" for His being nailed to the cross isn't really the issue -- it's the recognition that He represented the ultimate sacrifice to pay for the sin of mankind, which was God's plan all along. Rather, let's consider the grace that He showed us in the process, realizing that we fall short of His standards and that he has the right to zap us at any moment but doesn't, because He has a greater purpose.