Persecution Archives - Page 2 of 2

As you no doubt know, the last few weeks have seen one of the most egregious examples in recent years of persecution in our country by the religious left. Government officials, who are paid by tax dollars to uphold the rule of law and the constitution, have decided that they will oppose businesses and limit their right to engage in commerce on the basis of their religious beliefs. Mayors of major cities (Boston, Chicago, San Francisco) have threatened Chick-fil-A because its owners have expressed a belief in the biblical view of marriage.

In addition to being incredibly “intolerant” (from groups who claim to oppose such intolerance), such government opposition is a flagrant violation of the first amendment. Indeed, the violation of the first amendment is so clear that even the ACLU has come out publicly to oppose the bullying tactics of these government officials.

As a result, many folks are eating at Chick-fil-A today in order to demonstrate their commitment to biblical marriage and their commitment to defending a Christian group or individual who is suffering unjust treatment for their faith.

I was surprised, however, to discover the article by Barnabas Piper in World Magazine which opposed this Chick-fil-A appreciation day as a “bold mistake.” Now, I would certainly agree that eating at Chick-fil-A today is not going to solve the world’s problems. Nor is it an exhaustive and comprehensive response to the issue of homosexual marriage. Nor are Christians required or obligated to participate. But is it really a “bold mistake”? I think not.

The primary argument made by Piper is that “The 452,000 people supporting Chick-fil-A are delivering more than one message, and the message the homosexual community and its supporters see is ‘us versus you.’” He then goes on to say, “The event also sends a message of separatism and territorialism… a collective action easily seen as a shaking of the fist or a wagging of the finger.” And finally, he argues, “The separation of believers and unbelievers, when it happens, must be a last resort or an unavoidable result. Actions to the contrary, those that clearly promote an ‘us versus them’ mentality, are most often unhelpful.”

However, I confess I find this whole line of argumentation problematic on many levels. Let me mention a few:

1. Such reasoning would require us to avoid all public displays of support for contentious moral issues. Couldn’t we make the same argument about abortion? Should we stop all pro-life rallies (or public events) because it might make pro-choice people think its “us vs. you”?

2. I suppose that some people might see support for Chick-fil-A as “shaking the fist” or “wagging the finger.” But, I am not sure that is a reason not to show it. Any public display of support for biblical marriage would be construed as “shaking the fist” or “wagging the finger.” The media is quick to portray any public event where biblical issues are defended as bigoted, hateful, and intolerant—even if they are done with respect, sensitivity, and courtesy. In fact, I would argue that Piper’s reticence about the Chick-fil-A event is good evidence that such tactics are quite effective. We are all afraid of how we might look. But, I do not see how such a fear is a solid basis for suggesting that a display of public support for a biblical position is a “bold mistake.” Indeed, one might argue the contrary, namely that it would be a “bold mistake” to stop public events on the basis of such fears.

3. Piper argues that a public show of support for Chick-fil-A would create a “separation of believers and unbelievers” which “must be a last resort.” But, I confess I don’t understand what he means be “separation” of believers and unbelievers. Sure, making public declarations about truth certainly can cause division between us and those who disagree. But that is inevitable when you proclaim the truth. The only alternative is that we don’t ever make public declarations! Since Piper surely doesn’t mean this, I can only surmise that his main advice is essentially “don’t go around picking fights.” Fair enough, but I don’t think eating at Chick-fil-A can be construed as picking a fight. Rather it is standing up for biblical truth and against some of the most blatant anti-Christian aggression from government officials that we have seen in quite a while.

Piper asks the rhetorical question at the end, “How is the Kingdom of God served by this?” He never really answers it (presumably because he thinks God’s Kingdom is not served). I think there are a number of ways this serves the Kingdom, but let me mention just one here: such an event can encourage other believers. It can remind us that we are not alone. It can embolden us to stand up for truth in the midst of a hostile world. And it can encourage a Christian business that is suffering unjust treatment.

Does this mean Christians are required to eat at Chick-fil-A today? Of course not. I would not chide Christians for not participating. But, I also think we should not chide Christians for participating.

Not long ago a friend sent me the Jesus film entitled The Gospel of John. This is a movie that tells the story of Jesus through the lens of John’s gospel. I don’t typically watch Jesus movies, but he assured me this was worth my time. So, one afternoon I put in the DVD and sat down to watch. It was a well done film and, generally speaking, very faithful to the gospel of John. But, as I watched the movie, something struck me at a level of depth that I had never experienced before: Jesus was very unpopular.

Of course, this is a truth we all know well—so well, in fact, that we often forget it. But, it was abundantly clear in the film version of John’s gospel. We rarely sit down and read a gospel through in one sitting anymore. We just don’t take the time to do it. But in the film version, I got the gospel in one large dose. And I was blown away by the amount of arguing, debating, and polemical interactions that Jesus experienced.

There was yelling, screaming, and shouting. Accusations and charges. Heated exchanges. And there was Jesus, right in the middle of all of it. He kicked it off himself by the aggressive move of cleansing the temple (2:13-22). The Jews grumbled about his teachings (6:41), found him to be rather ordinary (6:42), and considered his words to be offensive (6:52). They plotted against him and tried to arrest him (7:25-30). They called him a liar (8:13), a Samaritan (8:48), one who is demon possessed (8:52), and picked up stones to stone him on several occasions (8:59, 10:31). And they eventually murdered him by nailing him to a cross (19:18).

Measured by standard human criteria, Jesus had a remarkably unpopular and ineffective ministry. Most people simply weren’t persuaded. They were not convinced. They saw Jesus (and his teachings) as ridiculous, absurd, and offensive.

If so, then the way we measure the success of our own ministries needs a serious recalibration. A few take aways:

1. We need to adjust our expectations about how people will receive our message. Often when the message of Christ is rejected, we wonder whether we have presented it with enough sophistication and clarity—perhaps we needed to be more articulate. While we certainly want to improve the manner in which we present the message, we must remember that there was no better and clearer communicator of the truth than Christ himself.

If the son of God himself delivered a message, with the clarity and profundity that only he could achieve, and yet people still found it to be unpersuasive, then we can only conclude there is something else keeping people from the truth. Indeed, Paul tells us what this thing is: “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing” (1 Cor 1:18). People are darkened by their own sinful hearts.

2. We need to prepare ourselves for ministry marked by conflict and hostility. When students graduate from seminary and consider the average ministerial calling, they do not expect one that would be marked by persecution and rejection. But, our world is changing. It is clear now that we live in a world that doesn’t just practice immorality, but demands that every American citizen show approval and acceptance of that immorality. Make no mistake, the gay movement in this country is not interested in just freedom to be gay—they want a stamp of approval from the government and all of its citizens.

It is not all that different from the way the Roman Empire required all its citizens to bow down to the image of the emperor and pay homage. Christians would not do this and were killed by the thousands. We need to prepare for a serious stage of persecution in this country. The question isn’t whether it’s coming. The question is whether we are ready.

But, it’s not just external conflict that is a challenge. Pastors need to be prepared to receive opposition from members of their own congregations. People in our own flocks will be offended by our faithful stand on controversial issues—and may even hate us as a result. In the world of the celebrity pastor who is lauded by thousands, this will be difficult to take. But, we must again remember that the bulk of the opposition to Jesus was from the nation of Israel, God’s own people.

3. We need to remember that there is a proper place for debate and disagreement in our ministries. One thing that modern ministry has lacked is a proper understanding of the role of polemics. The number one goal for most of our ministries is to avoid conflict as much as possible. And in many ways that is a positive; we certainly shouldn’t seek conflict. However, there is a right biblical place for debate and disagreement—exemplified by Jesus himself in the gospel of John. Indeed, if a ministry has no conflict at all, one might wonder whether it is really presenting the same message that Jesus himself presented. A servant is not greater than his master.