When I think about what church must've been like prior to the "Jesus" revivals in the 1970s, those four words come to mind. After all, the 1970s revivals brought a number of new phrases, new credoes: "what would Jesus do?" "Let go and let God." And so on. A lot more emphasis seemed to be on the Gospels and specifically on Jesus' teachings. And sure, that's what our faith as Christians should be, in a nutshell: following Jesus, right?
I heard a sermon at my previous church not long before I left it, where it addressed an apparently common sentiment: "I like Jesus but I don't like Paul." The sermon went on to say that Apostle Paul was legitimate, in part because he fasted and prayed for three days after encountering Jesus directly. Not to mention he had scales on his eyes and was unable to see during that time.
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
[First I'll address the donkey in the room: Saul in this passage = Apostle Paul. He did not change his name; his name was simply "Saul" in one language, and "Paul" in another.]
So, what was happening in those three days? Well, according to the sermon I heard, Paul likely was talking to Jesus the whole time, and, given that Paul had been a Pharisee, the two likely spent a LOT of time talking about the Law and the Prophets (because the Pharisees knew the Law word-for-word). I bet Paul had lots of questions for Jesus regarding as much, each of which He answered. After that encounter, Paul was never the same. So, yes, Paul was very much a legitimate follower of Jesus, and just as importantly, legitimate as canonical scripture are all his letters, which comprise much of the New Testament.
But for some reason, the 1970s revivals must not have focused on Paul's teachings, which is largely a rewording of Jesus' teachings, just expressed through a different person. Churches gravitated toward things explicitly written in the Gospels, such as the golden principle ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), toward turning the other cheek, and churches gravitated toward seeing and portraying Jesus as a lamb, and so on. Get along with everyone. Jesus loves you. Be peacemakers. And so on.
Thing is, these aren't bad teachings. If anything, they are excellent teachings. After all, they're in the Bible, and their context isn't "Satan said" or anything like it, which means they're true. And for there to be such an emphasis on these particular things tells me that, prior to these revivals, the church must have been lacking in teaching these areas.
So then, what were the churches all about? What were they preaching, if not that Jesus loves us?
Cue the phrase "I told you so."
Let's take it out of a religious context. When does someone say that? When they're right. When they tell someone else something that's true, even when that other person doesn't want to hear it. Then, when the other person does what they want, despite the warning from the first not to do it (or maybe to do something that the other person didn't want to do; it could work either way), and then it blows up in the second person's face, it would absolutely appear that the first person was right.
"I told you so."
And yet, over the course of the next five decades, it seems we did everything in our power to avoiding even getting close to that point. In the meantime, as we saw and heard truth being preached less and less, except for the few things that people would be more open to hearing, we also saw something else begin to arise: "my truth." "Your truth." "His truth." "Her truth." Therapy was beginning to no longer be taboo. One thing that I suspect helped was a rise in divorces, thereby breaking family units. Even in certain situations where a divorce may have been necessary, but largely in cases where it really wasn't, we saw a surge in cases of personal trauma that was no longer confined to cases of abuse or violence. Enter therapy to the rescue. People now had the freedom to express "my truth" in ways and in frequency that may not have been available to previous generations. "My truth", "your truth", "his truth", and "her truth" was "in". But what was no longer "in" was "the truth." I mean, who wants to hear that when "my truth" is so, so important?? 😡
We need a truth revival. One that says that there is indeed life after death (aka the soul passing away out of the body), that heaven is real, that hell is real, and that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to heaven.
I know a thing or two about "my truth." Discovering "my truth" became very important as I was trying to come to grips with what was at the time a failed adulthood, along with all the pain that led me to expend all my energy on merely surviving my entire life up to that point. Changing "my truth" then became just as essential as I finally grew and began rewriting my story. "My truth" is still a very important part of my life, but as I grow in relationship with Jesus more and more, His truth also needs to become more important. After all, in any relationship, let alone one with Jesus, it can no longer be only about my truth. And in fact, with Jesus, it needs to move to a place where it's more and more about His truth (aka the Bible) and less and less about my truth. And whether with Jesus or with another person, having both "my truth" and "your truth" become very important pieces of allowing both sides to be heard while having an argument. Short of absolute truth, that is.
You see, the place I went to go get healing, called "The Baldwin Center," preached "my truth." But it was also Christian. "How is this possible?" you may ask. Because the structure of the healing work, and all components that came with it, was framed by Scripture. Scripture was also strategically preached, to prepare each participant as he dared to bare open his wounds and finally get a different experience. It was a place where the God of the Bible truly could show up as each participant dared to take such a risk.
Contrast that with another healing center called "the Mankind Project." They did a lot of the same things that the Baldwin Center did: weekends, groups, and even I'm told many of the same exercises were present at both places (I've had friends who went on weekends and attended groups there). They too preached "my truth."
But--where the two places differed was the one place also preached absolute truth, an absolute standard by which all, including the leaders and facilitators, would be held accountable, and the other didn't. I confronted a friend once -- a scary risk for me to do -- over wrong behavior that he was frankly in denial of doing until the entire church called him out for it. He and I had a number of one-on-one conversations around this. These conversations primarily consisted of me having to lay the same boundary with him over and over regarding my role in a ministry where I was a leader and he was a member (specifically that, when it came to anything directly related to this ministry, my responsibility was to fulfill my role as a leader first, ahead of our friendship). But part of my discussion with him was also specifically tied to a conviction I had that the healing that he boasted (the Mankind Project) wasn't enough in terms of sufficient healing. He still needed Jesus, and he didn't have Him. After all, he boasted about "all the work he's done" and how mature he seemed to himself, and yet he defiantly resisted correction, until he realized he stood absolutely alone on the issue of his behavior and stood to lose everything if he didn't change. The Mankind Project, while boasting a very impressive array of options and opportunities for personal growth, still lacked one key thing: the necessity of absolute truth, a standard by which all could be held accountable. Consider the following situation without that absolute standard: what happens when there's an argument that needs to come to a resolution, and no one is willing to budge? What happens if one of the leaders is getting arrogant and treating the participants like garbage, and upon being called out, responds: "well, my truth is that YOU..."
We need a truth revival. We've overcorrected from "I told you so" and instead along the "God is love" and "turn the other cheek" lines, so much so that we turn the other cheek even if someone persists in being prideful, selfish, arrogant, idolatrous, or any of the other evils that the Bible rightly calls evil.
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
We've overcorrected so much that, according to our society, it's now considered wrong to hate. And yet the Bible says differently:
There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
Not to mention we've overcorrected so much that calling sins sins is now considered wrong, rather than the sins themselves.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
In the end, I don't want to be the one saying "I told you so", because I'd rather be the one saying "I'm telling you so." But if I must, then I must, because we need a truth revival.
No comments:
Post a Comment