targets in the church

From NakedPastor:

This doesn’t always necessarily happen all the time. But it does happen most of the time. I heard from 6 different people yesterday who have experienced this very phenomenon. When someone decides or discovers they don’t fit the group’s norm and pronounce it, a subtle separation occurs. The red represents the embarrassment or even the deep sense of shame the person feels when they experience alienation from the group. It does take a lot of courage to examine oneself, know oneself, and be oneself.

David Hayward is someone I've followed in the blogsphere for quite some time now and over time I continue to understand less of what he is saying and disagree more with what I think he is saying. In this post, I am making assumptions regarding his points and commenting on those assumptions. If these are not his intent fine, just apply them where possible and don't extrapolate some made up issue between David and myself.

Regarding the cartoon, David often pokes at the "gay issue". I understand homosexuality is a sin. I don't know David's position and this is important for further analysis. If it is that homosexuality is a sin and his cartoon is a commentary on the Christian response to someone declaring they want to live a sinful lifestyle, that's one thing. If it is that homosexuality is a sin and his cartoon is a commentary on the Christian response to someone declaring they are struggling with temptation in that area that is another thing. If it is that homosexuality is not a sin and his cartoon is a commentary on the Christian response to those who are different than the group norm that is yet another thing.

Since I'm convinced from Scripture that homosexuality is sin, I'll approach this from the first two angles and ignore the third. With that said, I'm frustrated that we respond to some sin issues different than others. That is, David could have placed any sin in this cartoon. The larger question is whether or not the individual is defending his sin/temptation or confessing it and seeking redemption. If the former, the person needs loving confrontation with the Gospel and sadly, if they are a rebel, then they will feel the "target effect" David depicts regardless of the true behavior and intentions of the Christian community. In this case the diagram on the right may actually be the correct response. At some point, the rebellious brother may need to be made clear that he is really not accepted into the community until he repents (1 Cor 5.9-12). To be clear, this should not be the immediate reaction but if one is adamant that their sin is not sin and persists in its practice, then I see no other proper Biblical response. And to restate, I am not limiting this to a specific sin ... apply where appropriate. My main point is this, many who are ensnared in sin and given to it perceive the church responding as if they are a "target" independent of what the church has actually said or done. If the right course has been taken, the church should not feel ashamed or wrong for this.

So to the point, we want loving redemption and reconciliation. We ought to be careful that we don't single out some sins as ugly and others and normative and acceptable (resulting in David's "target effect"). All need the healing that comes only through Christ. We need to take that approach without shrinking from our call to be a holy people set apart for glorifying our great King. This requires no compromise.

David is correct in that it takes courage to examine oneself and to know oneself. I think he is wrong on his last point. Relative to the alternative, it is weakness to be oneself ... and it is weakness to accept those doing so. I think it takes real courage to change oneself and to be part of helping someone achieve that the transforming power of the Spirit of God. This is courage - not the opposite.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, homosexuality