The uncensored Gospel: Responding to Micah J. Murray

This is a long one, folks.  Stay with me.

I have struggled over how exactly to approach this subject; I've probably started and deleted at least three previous posts on this over the last couple weeks.  I think, perhaps, that it's a good thing that I typically don't get around to writing about current event type stuff until it's somewhat settled and done, because it means I've had time to consider and digest information, to see how things have shaken out a bit.  There was a time, after all, where rushing to be the first to respond to and report on an event was not the primary goal, but rather, thoughtful discourse was the word of the day.  It is my hope to provide that, here, on the subject of homosexuality as it is working itself out as an issue in our country today and in the public sphere.

Of course, this is not a new topic, but the latest fire set on this issue came when Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame gave an interview to GQ.  Robertson is a believer and a long-time member of the Church of Christ, and while there are some soteriological issues such as baptismal regeneration that we would disagree over, from his words and actions I have no doubt that he is a brother in Christ.  I wouldn't want him to be my lead pastor, but I'll pray with and for the man with no fear of rebuke.  If you aren't familiar with his story, you should check it out.

However, I'm not wanting to talk about reality TV, the Robertson clan, or freedom of speech issues as they relate to employment, but rather the visceral reaction that came as a result of his quoting scripture that names, among other sins, homosexuality explicitly as sinful and rejected by God.  We've had posts saying that it is "morally irresponsible" to speak to the issue of sin as it relates to homosexuality, but what I want to respond to here is a post from the HuffPo called, "Why I Can't Say 'Love the Sinner/Hate the Sin' Anymore," by Micah J. Murray.  It's been a while since I've done what's known in the blogosphere as a "fisking," and I don't feel like that's exactly what I'm doing; my desire is to discuss, in love and rooted in Scripture, why I disagree with this author and believe his argument to be based, not in truth, but in emotionalism and a desire to avoid confronting others in their sin.  But I want to break this down and examine his argument; if Christians are going to truly understand why God rejects sin and why He sent His Son to die to atone for it, if we are going to understand the magnificent gift that He has given and be able to preach the Gospel to everyone, not just the people who will hear it without anger, then his position demands refutation.

I'm done.
I can't look my gay brother in the eye anymore and say "I love the sinner but hate the sin." I can't keep drawing circles in the sand.
I thought I just needed to try harder. Maybe I needed to focus more on loving the sinner, and less on protesting the sin. But even if I was able to fully live up to that "ideal," I'd still be wrong. I'd still be viewing him as something other, something different.
Not human. Not friend. Not Christian. Not brother.
Sinner.
And despite all my theological disclaimers about how I'm just as much a sinner too, it's not the same. We don't use that phrase for everybody else. Only them. Only "the gays." That's the only place where we make "sinner" the all-encompassing identity.
Then we try to reach them, to evangelize them. We speak of "the gays" in words reminiscent of the "savages" from those old missionary stories -- foreign and different and far away, the ultimate conquest for the church to tame and colonize and save.
Maybe we accept them in our midst. But even then, it's sinners in our midst -- branded with a rainbow-colored scarlet letter. They aren't truly part of us.

To which I respond: What is this in response to? Who is saying this?  Because if there really are Christians who say things like "Gays are worse sinners than others" or something equivalent, I would like to know so that I can be responding to them here as well: obviously, such a claim would be unbiblical and wrong.  Now, as has been pointed out, many within the church have not done well engaging people who struggle with same-sex attraction, for a variety of reasons: it's not a terribly common issue so to most, those who struggle in such a way really are "the others" they don't interact with, and because it's not common it's easy for those of us who are far away from such issues in our hearts to not have the compassion and understanding we should. 

But abuse of a doctrine is not a refutation of it; the answer is not to reject the idea of sexual sin, but rather to continue preaching the Gospel to all whether believer or unbeliever.  Believers need to hear it and hear in it that we need to be loving, patient, understanding and kind towards all, because our sins were paid for upon the cross and so, as Paul says in Romans, we are "debtors," and the debt we owe is one of love and service to those who need to know the truth.  But unlike the debt of sinfulness which can only be repaid in Christ's sacrifice and otherwise leads to death and destruction, this is a debt joyfully paid by word and deed glorifying our Lord Jesus Christ.

As to "they are not a part of us," again it's a question of the bad behavior of particular Christians versus what the Bible actually says:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.--1 Corinthians 6:9-11

And if we cannot accept the full counsel of Scripture--and I will get into what full really means--then I don't know how you can hope to walk in the freedom accorded us in Christ.

We resume:

They say Jesus was a friend of sinners, but he didn't describe himself that way.
His motto wasn't "eating and drinking with prostitutes and tax collectors." Those were the labels used by the religious community, by the disapproving onlookers. What's amazing about Jesus is that when he hung out with sinners, he didn't act like they were sinners. They weren't a "project," a "mission field." They were his friends. People with names. Defined as beloved children of the Creator, not defined by their sins. Icons of God's image. His brothers and sisters.
It was the Pharisees who looked at them and scrawled "sinner" on their foreheads. It was the accusers who drew circles in the sand with themselves on the inside and "those sinners" on the outside.
Those words -- "a friend of sinners" -- were spoken with an upturned nose and a self-righteous sneer. And that's the same phrase the church has adopted to speak of our own brothers and sisters -- "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

But Jesus did not say "You aren't really sinners, you're actually righteous" to those who were self-identifying as sinners around him.  Rather, He said "You are sinners, but if you follow Me, you have life."  He said that those who made Him their food and drink would truly live.  He set people free from their sin, He did not endorse or excuse it.  Now, to be fair, Micah never directly says "and all of this means that I think being gay is fine and you can be walking in this unrepentantly and still be assured of salvation."  But if you're going to actually show love to those who are sinners, and he shows later on that he is aware of that status for himself and others, then it is incumbent to follow that through to its logical conclusion: if we are sinners, our natural desires are tainted by sin and we need to put them all before the measuring rod of Scripture and surrender those that the Word calls wicked and evil.

It's the same self-righteous sneer heard in the words of those who dragged the woman caught in adultery to Jesus: "What should we do with such a woman?" They defined her by a moment. She was "one of those." Not a sister. Not a human. Just a pawn in a political debate. A sinner.
But Jesus knelt with her in the sand. Unafraid to get dirty. Unafraid to affirm her humanity. "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."
He could have said "You're a sinner, but I love you anyways." But she knew she was a sinner. Those voices were loud and near and they held rocks above her head.

He is referring, of course, to John 7:53 to 8:11, where Jesus will not condemn a woman to death by stoning who was, according to her accusers, caught in adultery.  I won't get into the issues surrounding whether this passage actually belongs in Scripture, but I want to say that I hear what he's getting at here.  Self-righteousness is destructive to both parties because the Pharisees had no standing to claim righteousness for themselves.  Jesus, who did have such a standing, did what they would never do in speaking to this woman by showing her love--but he does not say "You didn't do anything wrong."  He says "Go and sin no more."  The beginning of the gospel and the beginning of understanding our true relationship with God is an understanding that we have sinned.  I feel like while Micah is able to admit that about himself, he is somewhat confused as to exactly how that relates to others or at least unwilling to speak on the full counsel of Scripture on the matter.

Jesus refused to let his voice join theirs. By telling her "go and sin no more," he affirmed that sin is not her deepest identity. It's not how he saw her. It's not who she was at the core of the being.

This much I can stand with him in agreement on: sin is destructive to our true identities as children of God, as imago dei created to display Christ's glory in our lives.  Where I suspect we would part ways, however, is in what that means practically and biblically: if we are actually going to live out what Scripture says being created in the image of God means, it means that all of us, no matter what our sins and struggles are, need to repent of them and turn to God in Christ.  That is the basic message of the Gospel: we are sinful, in need of salvation from the wrath of God which we by our nature deserve, but God in His love has shown us mercy by letting His Son atone for our sins and absorb that wrath.  Now we are able to walk in our true identity as children of God, we are able to turn from our sin and walk in freedom, and we are able to actually do good because our deeds are done with hands cleansed by the blood of Christ.

Micah sort of says this, but in a way that still raises many questions about what exactly he believes and what he is trying to say:

I am a sinner.
But before I was a sinner, I was created in the image of God. While sin has twisted and smudged that image, it can't erase it. Sin is so terrible that it killed Jesus. But it doesn't define me any longer. I am a new creation.
Because of Jesus, "sinner" is not how God sees me. It's not how I see myself. And it shouldn't be how I see my brothers and sisters in the church.
There is no condemnation for those who are in Jesus. To look at my gay Christian brother and say "God loves the sinner" is to set myself against Jesus and bring condemnation again to those he's already redeemed.

Right until the last couple lines we are together.  But at the end I have to ask him: do you believe that someone can walk unrepentantly in homosexuality (or any sin) and still be saved?  If by "gay Christian brother" he is talking about people who have repented and still carry with them the scars of struggle with same-sex attraction, I can understand that; I have known men and women who have been through that.  It is a struggle, day by day, just as it is for all of us that walk through God's loving sanctification, but we take heart every day knowing that Christ has borne the ultimate burden and we are able to reject our wicked desires; we do not have to say "yes" to our sin, because our old selves are dead on the cross.  But the problem is that, I suspect that's not what Micah means.  If I'm wrong then I will humbly submit to correction, but given where he is writing and the general language, I suspect strongly that he believes that it is possible for someone to unrepentantly embrace something the Bible calls sinful and promises that those who do partake of it "will not inherit the kingdom of God," yet still be able to call themselves a believer and saved. 

We already saw this passage above: 

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

So let's pick something else from that particular list of sins that isn't exactly controversial as to its immorality: thievery.  If we are going to be consistent in this application of philosophy (and you know we will), then we should be able to say "[Stealing] is not bad, [stealing] is a lifestyle choice that is legitimate and something that is a part of themselves.  They can't help [wanting to steal], so we shouldn't condemn them for what's natural to them.  After all, God made them [thieves.]"  There are, after all, kleptomaniacs that feel compelled to steal even if there is no good reason.  There are people who by their nature are inclined to substance addiction of one sort or another, yet the Bible says that drunkards--those who are controlled by drink, or by logical extension any other substance, will not inherit the Kingdom.  Is the Bible being "hateful?"  No, it is identifying that we cannot follow after two different rulers in our life.  We cannot pursue Christ while also following after desires that, by their nature, reject Him.

And the thing to take note of next in this passage: Paul points out that those he is writing to used to do exactly the same things he is listing out here.  Now, however, they have cast that aside: not that struggle is gone, not that perfection is upon them, but that they can take heart in knowing where their identity lies: in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.  And this is a message that we can take to anyone and everyone and say "No matter how you feel, no matter what desires or fears or obsessions or anything else control you, you can be free.  You can experience the life God intended for us and walk in the freedom of knowing that no circumstance, no desire, no person can give you a different identity than the one you have in Christ: redeemed, made clean and whole, walking into an eternal weight of glory beyond imagination." 

But this also involves something that most will reject wholesale: bending the knee to Christ, submitting our will to His.  This is something that our sinful natures reject and refuse to do; we want to do what we want to do.  What the Holy Spirit does is set us free from our slavery to sinfulness and allow us to actually do this; being able to surrender to Christ is itself a gift of God. 

I'm done with "Love the sinner, but hate the sin."
I won't say it anymore.
I'm done with speaking as if I'm different, better than you.
We are icons. We are children of the Creator, redeemed by Jesus. We are brothers and sisters.
And today, that's enough.

 It is not my intention to argue against a Rob Bell strawman here, but this sounds remarkably like Bell's "Can't we just take the bread and the wine and call ourselves one church" theology, which falls far short of what Christ actually said.  Once again, if I'm misreading I will apologize, but that is certainly what it reads like.  I want to again emphasize my agreement with his call to reject self-righteousness.  It is death, and it is the opposite of what Christ called us to: we can hardly embrace the Gospel if we believe ourselves to have innate righteousness. 

I realize Twitter is not exactly a way to get a deep understanding of a person's theology, but the theme I see in what he writes is that he desires people to come to know and love Jesus as their savior and Lord and enjoy Him forever.  For example: "'Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!' It's an invitation, not a threat. There's a better way to live."  Well, that's true but only so far--and this is the problem with "seeker sensitivity."  You can't preach just enough of the Gospel to bring people to Jesus without offending them.  People are going to reject it because it's not what they want to hear; their sinful natures demand self-satisfaction.  And it doesn't matter whether it's homosexuality, or stealing, or substance addiction, or fear of losing what you believe is really important--as long as we try to hold our idols just out of Jesus' reach, to maintain them in secret rather than make unyielding war on them, we cannot be free and we cannot embrace the hope of Christ. 

So what is the real answer?  The real answer is a desperate cry; we look to the parable Jesus told about the Pharisee and the tax collector:

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”--Luke 18:9-14

 The tax collector throws himself on God's mercy, mercy which Jesus says is readily given.  Just like David in writing Psalm 51, knowing he has sinned greatly and crying out for mercy and forgiveness:

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
    and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from your presence,
    and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
    and uphold me with a willing spirit.
[...]
For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
    you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
    a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. 

 The Holy Spirit breaks our hearts over our sin and incredible unworthiness before a holy and just God, and at the same time, lets our eyes be open to the beauty and incredible love God offers us, to the joy of knowing and walking with Jesus.  And we rejoice, because He takes joy in doing so!  This is the value of understanding the truth in what Micah is saying: Jesus does love sinners, because He gave up His life so that they could walk free of their sin, not so they could continue to wallow in it. 

I desire truth to open eyes, to be used by the Spirit to set hearts free from sin as He set mine free.  I've given my testimony here before, and doubtlessly I will again.  Friends, readers, this is not an "anti-gay" screed.  This is not an attack on anyone.  This is a call to a man who I will take at his word as being a fellow believer to embrace the whole counsel of Scripture, and to all who find themselves enslaved to sin to follow the example of the tax collector, of the accused adulteress, of many of the other sinners who found themselves face to face with Jesus in the Gospel accounts: do not try to hold on to your idols, your sins, the weights that are dragging you down into death and hell.  Let them go, and let Jesus give you renewed life:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.--Galatians 5:16-24