Growing health and effectiveness

A blog centered around The Addington Method, leadership, culture, organizational clarity, faith issues, teams, Emotional Intelligence, personal growth, dysfunctional and healthy leaders, boards and governance, church boards, organizational and congregational cultures, staff alignment, intentional results and missions.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Lessons from the Duck Dynasty controversey

I have been reflecting on the controversy surrounding the comments of Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty show in an interview with Gentlemen's Quarterly. His comments regarding sin have created a firestorm from the left because he labeled homosexuality, adultery, bestiality and so on as sinful behaviors. In fact, he was loosely quoting Paul from the New Testament in his comments. It did not go over well. He was fired from the show and it sounds like the show is now over which in the large scheme of things is not a bad thing if one is looking for culture on television.

However, I do think it raises some issues to consider. First, it is clear that the general public has moved so far from its Biblical moorings that even the suggestion that some behaviors labeled in Scripture as sin is controversial. 

We need to accept the fact that increasingly the convictions that those who take the Scriptures as truth are going to be marginalized when they speak about issues that our culture accepts as normal and appropriate. In case this bothers us we need to remember that God's truth has always been and always will be counter cultural. 

Many will appropriately raise the issue of "free speech" which is unfortunately not appreciated when it expresses convictions that are not politically correct. It is a good discussion to have as those who call for tolerance are in fact some of the most intolerant. It is unfortunate that one cannot express their convictions today without being attacked but it is reality. 

The left is not the only group that has been intolerant in their attitudes or unloving in how they express themselves. Many Christians are just as guilty. The fruit of the Spirit applies to how we engage our culture and those who we disagree with: love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness and self control.

Further, I was interested in what Phil went to when he was asked about a definition of sin. While I don't disagree with his list as it reflects biblical truth, there are many other sins that are equally sinful: lust, gossip, slander, angry words, racism, marginalizing of those who are not like us, all of which we struggle with on a daily basis. 

This raises the wisdom of labeling the sins of those who sin differently than us as egregious when each of us struggles with our own sinful nature. Sin is not simply those things that are sins of others. All of us struggle with our own demons which the Holy Spirit wants to conquer. It is easy to identify the sins of others and it makes me feel good that I don't do those things while not reflecting on my own sinfulness. There is a reason that many believers are seen as intolerant and angry - they rail against those things that they are against rather than communicating those things that they are for.

Then there is the issue being wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Here is the truth: I want to have influence for Jesus and that is rarely gained by getting in the face of others. Apart from the Pharisees, Jesus was remarkably loving and grace filled when he confronted those who were living in sin. He spoke with both grace and truth. 

As believers who want to influence our world for Him, we need to be deeply sensitive to how we interact with those who do not know Him. Public proclamations are rarely going to do that. Certainly there are times when the church needs to stand for righteousness, justice and mercy (we often do the first while downplaying the second and third) but it must be done in a loving and kind way that clearly demonstrates the grace of Jesus along with the truth of Jesus.

In the final analysis, our influence for Jesus is far more effective when we simply love those around us, identify with the struggles they have because we too struggle with sin, and demonstrate the grace of Jesus and when appropriate speak of the truth of Jesus. I am far more interested in helping people find Jesus and allowing the Holy Spirit to work in their lives as He has in mine than in labeling their sin and trying to fix them. That in the end is His work not mine.

Remember that when Paul wrote the words that Phil was loosely referencing, he was not writing an open letter to society but was talking to those who were in the family of God. We need to focus on the sanctification of our own lives and allow the Holy Spirit to so shine through us that others see the grace and truth of Jesus in our lives and open conversations that allow us to share with others. There are many ills of society but I need to remember that I suffer from many ills myself. I can influence society and should but I also need to be deeply conscious of my own brokenness and the need for daily grace to live the Jesus life. 

I have dear friends who live alternative lifestyles. What they need is what I need - a relationship with Jesus that leads to life transformation where the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin and leads us to the freedom of forgiveness and a life that reflects His grace and truth. Their sin may be different from mine but we are all sinners in need of His grace. How we love others and communicate the good news of Jesus will make all the difference in whether we are heard or ignored.



8 comments:

Unknown said...

Tim, you are also implying that "alternative lifestyles" (i.e. homosexuality) is sin and that some people "struggle" with it. Many people do not share that view. Culture leaders have worked hard to reshape norms. Are not Ezekiels (making little cities in the clay) and John Baptizers (calling respectable people as snakes) needed to challenge status quo? As you wrote, nobody appreciates a nay-sayer but prophets throughout the millennia have served various purposes.

The response is to love the sinner and even GLAAD is reported to have said, in a press relase, that Robertson, in his words, is not loving like Christians are supposed to be. It appears that there are at least two views of Christian loving behavior.

In my home town, a pastor was just voted off the island by the UMC leadership for conducting a same sex wedding. The societal shift to viewing same sex marriages and sexuality is pushing some godly people to make tough, "intolerant", and "unloving" decisions. If those decisions are not made, many Christ-followers will be discipled into assuming that the spirit of the age is probably biblically acceptable. Some may begin to assume that a smile and and nod to alternatives really is Christian loving. Perhaps the Dan Cathy's (Chick-fil-A) and Phil Robertsons are sticking their necks out and raising their voices in pugnacious ways. But maybe they are just trying to be a prophet voice. Interesting that it is the chicken griller and the duck hunter that are squawking about a major cultural issue. Seems the the UMC and Anglican (USA) are being pushed to take a stand as well. Our pastoral role includes guiding Christ-followers in ways to stand for holiness while humbly acknowledging our own proclivity to sin.

Unknown said...

Tim, you are also implying that "alternative lifestyles" (i.e. homosexuality) is sin and that some people "struggle" with it. Many people do not share that view. Culture leaders have worked hard to reshape norms. Are not Ezekiels (making little cities in the clay) and John Baptizers (calling respectable people as snakes) needed to challenge status quo? As you wrote, nobody appreciates a nay-sayer but prophets throughout the millennia have served various purposes.

The response is to love the sinner and even GLAAD is reported to have said, in a press relase, that Robertson, in his words, is not loving like Christians are supposed to be. It appears that there are at least two views of Christian loving behavior.

In my home town, a pastor was just voted off the island by the UMC leadership for conducting a same sex wedding. The societal shift to viewing same sex marriages and sexuality is pushing some godly people to make tough, "intolerant", and "unloving" decisions. If those decisions are not made, many Christ-followers will be discipled into assuming that the spirit of the age is probably biblically acceptable. Some may begin to assume that a smile and and nod to alternatives really is Christian loving. Perhaps the Dan Cathy's (Chick-fil-A) and Phil Robertsons are sticking their necks out and raising their voices in pugnacious ways. But maybe they are just trying to be a prophet voice. Interesting that it is the chicken griller and the duck hunter that are squawking about a major cultural issue. Seems the the UMC and Anglican (USA) are being pushed to take a stand as well. Our pastoral role includes guiding Christ-followers in ways to stand for holiness while humbly acknowledging our own proclivity to sin.

Unknown said...

Just yesterday a friend was telling me how he has been loved and not judged over a period many years by "a couple who lives a lifestyle like you"-meaning a godly life. Peace was reflected in his face as he spoke. We ARE challenged in this world- and they and we will know we are Christians by our love. They and we will see Jesus by the way we live more than what we say. Thanks for addressing this issue.

Dan Martin said...

Thanks for these important thoughts TJ. I would only add one thing, and that is I think the "Four Laws" style of evangelism has helped us to get the whole process of coming to Jesus backwards, and has for many led to Christians usurping the role of the Holy Spirit as the one who convicts of sin. Instead of inviting people to Jesus and trusting he'll deal with their sin in in his time, our Four Laws evangelism demands that people first admit their sin as the price of admission to Jesus. That's all wrong, because only when Jesus is Lord does the definition of sin have any meaning.

Dan Martin said...

Thanks for these excellent thoughts TJ. I would only add one thing, and that is I think the "Four Laws" style of evangelism has helped us to get the whole process of coming to Jesus backwards, and has for many led to Christians usurping the role of the Holy Spirit as the one who convicts of sin. Instead of inviting people to Jesus and trusting he'll deal with people's sin in his good time, our Four Laws evangelism demands that people first admit their sin as the price of admission to Jesus. That's all wrong, because only when Jesus is Lord does the definition of sin have any meaning.

T said...

Good article. Evangelism is not social reform, and believers are not called to convict the world of sin- the Holy Spirit does that. We simply declare the good news as He leads.

Curious, Dan Martin, ... what's your idea of evangelism? The four spiritual laws are not canon, and I have my own (very different) issues with them. The biblical formula is "repent and believe" But you seem to be saying we need to call people to Jesus without reference to sin. How do you do that?

Dan Martin said...

T, to your question "what's my idea of evangelism?," there isn't a simple reply. My short answer would be "introducing people to Jesus."

Obviously that answer begs a certain amount of unpacking, and I doubt my more-detailed answer will be entirely satisfactory, but here goes: I think that choosing to follow Jesus is, for most, a process rather than an event. Anything we do that causes people to pay a little more attention to Jesus, his teachings, and his claims, is evangelism; conversely, anything we do that causes people to *reject* Jesus is contra-evangelism. This is not to say we should water down the gospel to make it palable; it is, however, to say that we better be really sure if people are offended (biblically...turned away, not just upset), it's because of the gospel and not because we're being offensive, boorish people (which Christians all to frequently are).

A couple links that may shine a little light ... this one to an article I wrote Enough With Salvation Already! which points out that I think we've overemphasized "salvation" as though it was an end rather than a beginning of a whole life; and secondly to an excellent book by Carl Medearis Speaking of Jesus: The Art of Not-Evangelism that I think every Evangelical Christian ought to read. Carl's superb point is that if we spent more time introducing people to Jesus and less labeling and calling out what was wrong with them, more would actually come to Jesus. I think he's right.

Paul Spasic said...

Tim, your comments are very well rounded, affirming what ought to be affirmed and challenging what ought to be challenged. Well said.

Paul Spasic