May 05
Soul Search:
An ongoing dialogue between The Toilet Paper and evangelical Christian
Rob Brendle, Associate Pastor at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.
Episode #1: The Basics
Noel Black: So first off, tell us a little bit about yourself, what you believe and why the hell you
agreed to do a column in The Toilet Paper.
Rob Brendle: I believe Lionel Ritchie’s comeback is for real. I believe KRCC was much better
before they fired Jerome. I believe Scott Peterson, Marilyn Manson, and Howard Stern all had horrible
parents. I believe if you keep eating things like salt or meat or carbs that they say are bad for
you, in ten years they’ll be saying they’re good for you and you’ll be fine. And I believe macrame,
while by all first impressions a colossal waste of time and fine motor attention, is worthy of a quirky
admiration.
NB: OK, so I guess I’m gonna play the straight man, Rob, and ask you to get down to the tenets of
your Christian beliefs.
RB: If you say so. Alright: I believe none of us is here by accident. You (dear Toilet Paper reader)
are not a mistake, you are not alive just because your mom and dad got together, and you are not the
result of a cataclysmically unlikely biological progression. You were thought of. You were designed.
You are intentional. And you are here, now, for a purpose. I
agreed to write for The Toilet Paper because I’m a closet liberal.
Just kidding. Actually, it was because I believe in the First
Amendment. What differentiates us (America) from Iran (and
Iraq a few months ago) is, oddly, The Toilet Paper, and The Wall
Street Journal, and The National Enquirer, and National
Review, and everything in between. You see, in much of the
world, people blow one another up to express their contrasting
ideas. The Taliban would take a dissenter into the center of a
stadium full of jeering men, put a bag over her head, and slit her throat. But the great American tradition and one of the chief benefits of freedom is to lock horns, to converge, to diverge, but by
all means to engage on the safe, cordial, government-protected playing field of public discourse. The
free exchange of ideas and the capacity simultaneously to disagree to my soul’s core with and still
respect the freedom of my ideological adversary that is our heritage, that is our privilege, and that
is why I’m writing. And I’d also like to persuade some of you to follow Jesus.
NB: Not to be too hasty in all of this, but let’s get to the Bible and how literal you take its words as
an evangelical. I always hear about the literal truth of the Bible and wonder what that means.
RB: There is a continuum on this subject within evangelical thought. On one pole is the notion that
every word of the Bible is absolutely inerrant. This view holds the Bible to the rigid standard of
inerrancy even in the matters of science and history. On the other end is the thought that it is more
the ideas and less the exact wording of the Bible that is fully true. This is closer to where I stand.
The Bible reveals what God is like and how he desires to interact with us, and as such is fully reliable
in all it asserts. I believe that what science and history the Bible propounds is true, but do not
consider it an exhaustive text on either subject.
NB: That’s interesting because I think a lot of non-evangelicals tend to perceive the evangelical
position on the inerrancy or infallibility or literal truth of the Bible to be a kind of an absolutist
position that frequently ignores the greater spiritual messages or greater truths of the Bible.
For example, organizations like Focus on the Family that have been in the news a lot recently, seem
to be obsessively fixated on lesser Biblical laws that have a lot
of political cache. Let’s take the most obvious example of
Leviticus 18:22, You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;
it is an abomination. There’s no disputing the ‘literal meaning’
of this, but what if God really meant: If you’re going to have
sex with someone of the same gender, be sure to do it in a different
position standing up, for example? I know that’s
ridiculous, but reading things ‘literally’ can get slippery
because language does not have fixed meanings. My point here
is not to spend a lot of time disputing Leviticus 18:22 (I’ll let somebody else do that), but to ask
why you don’t hear evangelicals in the media denouncing people who offer the blood of God’s sacrifice
with leaven as he specifically commands them not to do in Exodus 34:25. I mean, I feel a deep
moral outrage when I see people offering up the blood of God’s sacrifice with leaven! Don’t you?
Anyway, you see my point?
RB: I do see your point, and yes, undeniably people throughout Christian history have applied scriptural
truth non-uniformly. This is true, wouldn’t you say, of most every group of religious adherents?
Followers of fundamentalist Islam (or, you could say, evangelical Islam) place a disproportionate
emphasis on jihad and underemphasize other more prominent ideas from the Koran. It’s a sad throwing
out of the baby with the bathwater when people disqualify Jesus Christ because of their hesitation
over some of his followers application of some of his teachings. That said, there are some ideas
in the Bible that are absolute, non-negotiable core tenets of Christian faith. I should think even
detractors concede the validity of a faith group’s believing some things concretely. If the presumption
is that any system of absolute belief is automatically wrong that the only valid dogma is that
there is no absolute truth allowed then there’s really no point in further discussion. If, though, we
concede for the sake of discussion that people are not automatic idiots for believing some things to
be non-negotiably true, then we’ve got all kinds of interesting things to talk about. It’s funny if you
think about it: the common criticism is that people who believe in some sort of absolute truth are
closed-minded. It seems, rather, that a categorical denigration of people who believe something and
an unwillingness to discuss any ideas that have consequences is what’s truly closed-minded. So are
we proceeding from the perspective that absolute belief in something is stupid, or are we presuming
that the existence of some concrete truth is possible?
NB: I think non-uniformly would be putting it lightly. I’m talking about things like, again,
Leviticus 18:22 versus, say, The 10 Commandments in general, and Thou shalt not kill/murder in
particular. I mean, lots of evangelicals who support George Bush’s War in Iraq can’t wait to get on
a soapbox about how gays are supposedly threatening the institution of marriage (I like to call it a
‘gay jihad against marriage’). I would say that sending young fathers and husbands off to war with
the possibility that they will have to kill people and possibly die and possibly leave their families
destitute probably does a lot more harm to families than two people who happen to be of the same
gender sharing vows of love. Here I go again hammering the gay point! Nevertheless, why aren’t
evangelicals out protesting in front of businesses that are open during the Sabbath? The 10
Commandments seem like they might be what you’re calling ‘non-negotiable’ tenets of the Bible.
As to your question about are we proceeding from the perspective that absolute belief in something
is stupid, or are we presuming that the existence of some concrete truth is possible? I’d say that
absolute belief is stupid where matters of civil law are concerned. Surely we all have to agree to live
in a country governed by civil laws (which always come up for debate), many of which are derived
from Biblical laws that are essential tenets of any civilized society. However, we are not a strictly
Christian society and we are governed by the Constitution, not the Bible. So I do think that absolute
beliefs should be reserved for spiritual matters that cannot and should not be imposed on those who
don’t share those beliefs.
RB: I agree with you on the importance of distinguishing between moral or religious law and civil
law. A good example of this distinction is the 2003 Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas. At
issue was Texas long-standing sodomy prohibition. My moral conviction on this issue is informed
by the Bible, but I believe it is a fundamental mistake to make sexuality between consenting adults
a matter of civil law. How far do you take this? Should a just society make it a criminal offense to
commit adultery? To tell a lie? To take the name of the Lord in vain? We start down this road and
before long we’re back to branding people with the scarlet letter. It’s the role of the church to persuade
people to live morally; it’s the role of the government to protect people’s liberty. The road of
enforcing religious morality with the power of the state is a bloody one. Ask the people of
Afghanistan.
NB: Watch out there, Rob, a statement like that could get you branded a (gasp) liberal! If I’m following
your logic, you would probably agree that the US government should grant to homosexuals
equal protection under the law as mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? I’m not
saying you’d condone it morally, but that you’d find it hard to dispute that equal protection for all
includes the right to marriage or civil union as ?a matter of civil law?, right? Conservative pundits
are fond of calling equal protection ?special rights,? but they never seem to use this rhetoric against
disabled people or blacks because they ?didn?t choose? the color of their skin or their disability. But
if we?re to follow that line of thought, then what about those disabled people who wound up disabled
because of ?bad choices? (as they like to say at my son?s school)? Should we let them use
those pricey handicap ramps and get all the good parking spaces? And maybe being black is a
choice! I mean, they could dye their skin white if they really wanted to be like everyone else. It didn?t
quite work out for Michael Jackson, but it was worth a try. Still, they keep on choosing to be
black! (Note to stupid people who may be reading this: I?m being ironical for the sake of an argument).
All I?m saying in that regard is what my lesbian mom always used to say to me: ?Why would
anyone choose to be gay?? Because of all the presents and adulation
people will heap upon you when you tell them the great news?
Because of the fabulous ?lifestyle? that awaits you? Maybe. But
methinks not. Maybe the Hebrew God didn?t like homosexuality, but
it didn?t seem to be at the top of his list either. I mean he didn?t even
get around to it until well into Leviticus. And Jesus ? the guy evangelicals
get really excited about ? doesn?t even mention it! God didn?t
like lots of other things, as you pointed out, that we?d be fools to
try to enforce under our civil laws. My point is: even though people
of the same sex might sleep together, it doesn?t mean that they don?t generally follow the laws (or
even worship Jesus) like everyone else. Big deal. I mean, gays surely aren?t asking for the right to
amurder at will or … drive without insurance!
RB: Oh no, my friend, you never have to worry about that. But the mere mention of me and liberalism
highlights a common misunderstanding. Many (maybe most) critics of evangelical Christians
presume that to be an evangelical is to wish for theocracy. There is a contingent that believes
America was founded as a Christian nation and ought to return to our heritage, in the form of a
greater overlap of civil and moral law. The majority view, though, (and my own) is that America is
founded upon the enlightened ideals of freedom ? freedom of expression, freedom of assembly,
freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. I am as rigorously supportive of a Jew?s or Muslim?s
right to gather with others of like persuasion and worship according to his conscience as I am a
Christian?s. It?s the role of the state not to mandate any religion, but to protect people?s right to practice
whatever religion they choose. As to the 14th Amendment, I do advocate equal protection for
homosexuals, much as I disagree with their decisions as to how they use their freedom. In my view,
this protection stops short of marriage, though, because marriage is fundamentally a church and not
a state institution. A couple enters into the covenant of marriage before God, then the state ratifies
the contract. Two men can have an intentional relationship and call it marriage if they like, and I?m
not going to campaign to stop them, but that doesn?t make their relationship marriage any more than
my calling myself a nuclear physicist makes me a nuclear physicist or me calling myself black
makes me black.
NB: Fair enough. It?s interesting that we see eye to eye on some of
these things. The last thing I?d like to add is that I agree with you that
marriage is ?fundamentally a church and not a state institution,? but
the fact is that the government recognizes it between a man and
woman and not between two people of the same sex. Perhaps the solution
would be for the government to stop recognizing marriage altogether
and only acknowledge civil unions. It would then be up the
individual churches to decide what kind of marriages they want to
acknowledge.
RB: That?s true, and therein you are forced to confront the reality that, while ours is decidedly not
a ?Christian nation,? most of the men who wrote our governing documents were Christians.
NB: Last question: What is the evangelical stance on the relationship between the Old Testament
and the New Testament? I always thought that Jesus more or less brought the ?new covenant? and
softened the edges on his hard-ass old man, yes? So what are we to take from the Old T. and what
does the New T. cancel out?
RB: This is a great question on an often-misunderstood subject. You might consider the OT an encyclopedia
on God. Through historical accounts, poetry, and prophetic writings, the OT reveals the
nature and character of God and illuminates his intent for humanity. The NT is one volume in that
encyclopedia set. It elucidates one particular set of God’s attributes: his love and mercy, as exemplified
in the means of redemption he made available through Jesus Christ. The NT’s heavy emphasis
on grace and acceptance gives great insight into a particular aspect of God’s personality that is
of great relevance to us, but it doesn’t nullify his other attributes. There are some OT issues that find
resolution in the NT, such as the uncertainty of salvationin the NT, we learn that God made definite
access to himself available to all of us through Jesus Christ. Jesus himself said that he didn’t
come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. That statement, of course, begs the question: what portions
of OT scripture did Jesus fulfill, and what still stands? The fulfillment pertains to the laws
which were intended to set apart God’s people things like stringent dietary restrictions and sanitation
requirements. The purpose that these requirements accomplished in part, faith in Jesus Christ
accomplishes in full. What did not change from the OT to the NT is God’s character. Sinful tendencies
of human beings that angered God in the OT continue to anger him today. What did change is
the possibility of assurance we now know with certainty how we can be right with God.
(This column brought to you by Joe Coleman)
editor@toiletpaperonline.com
rbrendle@newlifechurch.org
Comments:
I thought that this one was more of a love-fest than the debate we saw over Darwinism. Rob consistently came back with far more liberal sounding responses than I was expecting. It is good to see that NLC has a pastor that is mindful and open in his theology, but does this mean that evangelicals, even within a single congregation, largely do not share common beliefs when you hit the finer points? Is that part of non-denonimationalism?
posted by Non Prophet : 4:29 PM
I find it odd, to say the least, that Rob distances himself from Biblical inerrancy when the Statement of Faith for New Life fully supports it
Holy Bible: The Holy Bible, and only the Bible, is the authoritative Word of God. It alone is the final authority for determining all doctrinal truths. In its original writing, the Bible is inspired, infallible and inerrant
posted by Chris : 6:46 PM
Posted by: darksandal in Soul Search | Permalink
Comments
Leave a Reply
