1. Does it really surprise anyone that Christians aren't able to live up to the moral standards they profess to believe. King David couldn't, the apostle Peter couldn't, the apostle Paul couldn't (Romans 7 anyone?). So why should we be surprised when someone like Ted Haggard has such a fall?
2. In light of the above, this illustrates the folly of Christians who campaign on a platform of moral authority. Morality is a very "law based" thing, and as Romans 8:3ff illustrate, law (and moral standards?) is uniquely ill-equipped to combat sin.
3. In light of both of the above the thing that distinguishes Christians from others is not our moral superiority or moral authority, it is our identity as recipients of grace.
4. Christians are never perfect, but nor are we merely "just forgiven" as the old bumper sticker says. We are forgiven, but the grace that forgives also enables us to say no to sin, and our lives, including our moral lives, are necessarily improving. Yet, we are always simul justus et peccator as the old theologians used to say, simultaneously justified and sinful. While we are always to be growing in grace, we are always to be reminded of the presence of and battle with indwelling sin.
5. In my own humble opinion, this may partially explain some of these "falls" we see. Moral crusaders tend to see sin as something external to the individual, so their lives get wrapped up in building external restraints against sin. I wonder if they lose sight of the fact that the greatest battle with sin in our day is the battle with the sin in their own hearts?
6. This does not negate civic responsibility. I am not sure, but this may be a place where I diverge a bit with Phil Johnson, but I do think there is a proper place for Christian civic responsibility and Christian involvement in politics. But such involvement is based on love of neighbor and a desire to promote the common civic good, not Christian triumphalism or any misguided notion that law, apart from grace, can really restrain sin in the larger society.
7. Back to #5 - I sometimes wonder if the moral crusaders make proper use of the means of grace. I don't want to overstate my case here because, as I mentioned before with the apostle Paul, use of the means of grace does not guarantee you will never sin. I am quite sure Paul made use of the means of grace yet he still had the Romans 7 struggle with sin. But when I think about people like Ted Haggard, and the Mike Trout's and Gil Moegerle's and John Paulk's of the world, I see people who probably spend lots of time travelling, speaking and engaging in worthwhile ministries. But I wonder how often they were away from a home church on Sundays before their falls. I wonder if they were in a small group or Sunday School class where they were fed the Word of God and could develop deep relationships with fellow believers who could love them and pray for them and hold them accountable. I wonder if, in prep for their speaking engagements and other ministry opportunities, they gave greater attention to the pressing issues of the day than to the Word of God. Maybe they did, but I do wonder.
8. And bringing this all back around, the upshot of everything I have said is simply this - Christian engagement with the world (whether political, social, evangelisitc or otherwise) is not based on a position of moral authority. It is based on grace. Our "common ground" or "bridge" to a non-Christian world is our shared humanity, our shared sin nature, not our moral excellence. Again, I hope we are growing in moral excellence, but we are just too sinful to ever make that our platform or basis for engagement.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Ted Haggard reflections
Jollyblogger has some good reflections on the Ted Haggard news:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
He's wrong on most all counts. Maybe wrong is a bit strong. He hasn't really read scripture is more like it. He's too guided by some vision of morality that is scant is scripture, and the way he reads scripture is misguided.
1. Is David's problem with his sin a warrant for us to say "we can't be any better"? Really?
2. Most scholars recognize that Romans 7 is not about Paul, but a rhetorical device to make a point about the need for Christ in light of the sinful human nature. It is not an argument to be used to say that Paul could not live up to some moral standard (read 1 Corinthians 5-6).
3. Has not this guy read 1 Peter? The running theme throughout the book is "doing good"--it is the thing which sets Christians apart from all others so that whatever Christians are chastized for, it isn't moral laxity.
4. Let's not forget the Sermon on the Mount--Christian morality rooted in Christ is EVERYTHING as pertains to how a Christian lives in the world. Has Christ really called us to live in the world as mere sinners like everyone else? Or is that just the starting point for our engagement with a sinful world which Christ has called us to turn on its head? True, we have and continue to fall short of the glory of god, but I don't think we just leave it there. There's much more to the story than that.
His first point is the most offensive to me: "Does it really surprise anyone that Christians aren't able to live up to the moral standards they profess to believe." Hell yes, it surprises me. So according to his statement, either we stop professing these moral standards--thus ignoring or explaining away much of the NT teaching on living as a Christian--or, we admit we are wrong and the spirit of Christ in us really isn't that effective. I am often shocked and angered at the moral laxity of Christianity today, and find it to be much of the problem why Christianity simply is not effective in our world--we are no different from anyone else in our standards of living, but are often a bunch of hypocrites who use Christ of all people as our excuse. Oprah Winfrey is more moral than most Christians--that is a problem.
Now, concerning grace--I agree that grace is essential to our proclamation to the world. But, let's not forget that the grace offered in Christ carries a responsibility with it, so that the grace given and received can not be divorced from the right living to which we are called post-grace. We are not in the kingdom fully yet, and it is still to be inherited (1 Cor 5-6). Grace is not a "free-ride" (sorry to the great Christian band Audio Adrenaline). Matthew 7 and 25:31-46 should be clear enough; or James' "faith without works is dead." I don't know why this guy feels the need to defend Haggard...there is no defense for Haggard except to confess that he did not act as a Christian, he does not represent Christianity, and needs to fall again to Christ and seek forgiveness, which no doubt will and should be offered. After that, he loses all place he had in the church and starts sitting in the first pew every Sunday to re-learn what following Christ means. There is no excusing this sort of behavior by wrongly appealing to scripture to make the argument that moral spueriority is not expected of Christians.
Ky-Ky -
I think (if I am reading him correctly) he is saying that we can't come to the world and in effect say "I am morally superior to you" thus you need to listen to me. That is the point.
"Does it really surprise anyone that Christians aren't able to live up to the moral standards they profess to believe." Hell yes, it surprises me. - you said.
So, do you suprise yourself at your lack of obedience, or are you completely sanctified?
I think his only point in citing David and Peter and Paul is to point to the fact that we are all in need of grace - not that we should be lacking in obedience so that "grace may increase".
Another point might be helpful that our pastor reminded us of this morning - Ted might not even BE a christian. We'll never know, but we know biblically that it is a possibility.
Might want to chill on the public rebuke of this guy and his Bible knowledge unless you really know him and have talked to him about it. You are assuming a lot here.
Post a Comment