Roundup on righteousness

A few days ago I linked to a fine post by Catez Stevens titled Share the Love: City on a Hill or Salt of the Earth? Catez thoughtfully commented on ways in which Christians deport themselves in the world, i.e., the way they conduct themselves among others, both Christian and not. I stated that I hoped to write commentary of my own on this subject and am still hoping to do so in some depth; it is an issue I am working through myself. In the meantime, though, I would like to call attention to some other posts that I’ve seen related to the topic and offer a few general thoughts.

The first thought is that proper behavior and speech flow from a proper attitude of heart and mind, that of utter dependence upon God for one’s sense of well-being. Not terribly easy to achieve for any of us, which is why we must constantly be turning our hearts and minds toward Him – not for our salvation but for the working out of our salvation, our service to Him, and our pleasing of Him. We must not require the proper behavior of others such that, without it, our sense of well-being is threatened; we should not require it in order to feel a sense of our own worth, or power, or authority. Nor is the righting of every wrong up to us – if the world is going to h*ll in a handbasket...let it! God is omnipotent. We need to make sure that we ourselves are not in that handbasket, that’s all.

This requires honesty in heart, mind, and dealings with others. Our initial motivations may be pure, yet when it comes to expressing our concerns we may take a less than transparent approach. This lack of sincerity, which is really a form of pride, may not result in a message that communicates our real concern or the godly truth that we hope to communicate. Yet of course communication is racked with human foibles – it can be difficult to express clearly what we really mean. It may be difficult for the receiver to understand what’s being communicated, either due to the means or his/her own differences in use and understanding of language. But we must try for honest and forthright, yet gracious, communication.

(Do I consistently do the good I speak of in these two paragraphs? No, I don't. But please pray for me and I’ll pray for you, ‘K?)

Now for the roundup:

1) Alan at Thinklings asks, Was There Any Compassion in the Church Before Brian McLaren? He quotes David Chilton:

“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).
This means that true religion, as well as showing compassion, must demonstrate a firm commitment to biblical standards. We must now allow ourselves to capitulate to pagan ways of thinking and acting. [my emphasis]

as well as George Grant and Mark Horne, who say:

It is the sad tendency of modern men to either do the right thing in the wrong way or to do the wrong thing in the right way. We either hold to the truth obnoxiously or we hold to a lie graciously. We are either a rude angel or a polite devil. Often what poses as a cruel orthodoxy is defeated by what poses as a kind heresy.

. . . Those that hold to the Biblical standard are often anything but the picture of Christian decorum. While those that play fast and free with the moral tenor of the faith are often generous to a fault.

2) Pastor David Wayne, the Jollyblogger, whom I respect immensely, addresses the manner in which Christian disagreement sometimes takes place, i.e., with a view towards utter depravity, as well as the manner in which it ought to take place, i.e., with a view toward total depravity, in Depravity and Disagreements.

Total depravity means that sin has permeated every aspect of our being. Utter depravity means that sin has so permeated us that everything we do is fully evil, we are always as bad as we can possibly be.

...(paraphrase)“It never occurs to anyone that those on 'the other side' of the theological divide, or of the issue of the moment, are merely wrong, they must be evil, stupid, apostate or some combination of these.”

...Using utter depravity as an evaluative lens is easy. You can deem a particular error or set of errors to be so serious that you can write the person in question [or their view – my insertion] off forever (this is what people want to do with N. T. Wright). This way you can move on and never have to deal with them again.

Or you can acknowledge total depravity - recognize that sin is present in everyone on their best days, while realizing the image of God and common grace remain. This means you have to do the often long and laborious work of addressing issues on a case by case basis. It also means that you will sometimes be thought to be speaking out of both side of your mouth because you may be pointing out flaws one day and praising a person the next. But I do think that is a better way.

Amen.

I’d like to add that I think that Christians can sometimes view their fellow believers in a “Jekyll & Hyde” sort of way. If they are in agreement, then total depravity (or maybe even temporary-suspension-of-any-kind-of-depravity) may reign in their attitude. However, if they are in disagreement, “wrong” may indeed equate with “utterly depraved,” and not necessarily of the person but of their view.

3) On the WorldMagBlog, we read of Brokeback backlash for star. Michelle Williams plays the wife of one of the main characters in Brokeback Mountain. Says the headmaster of Santa Fe Christian school, which Williams attended,

We don’t want to have anything to do with her in relation to that movie. Michelle doesn’t represent the values of this institution...We’d like not to be tied to Brokeback Mountain.

The headmaster, Jim Hopson, could’ve perhaps chosen his words better (said something like, “We admire her acting ability and achievements but don’t support her decision to star in ‘Dawson’s Creek’ and Brokeback Mountain; these shows are not representative of our values.”) But there is nothing wrong with making clear where the school stands, while not condemning Williams herself.

Was Hopson wrong to turn down “a request from a Union-Tribune reporter to visit the school and chat with students about the movies and one of their own being up for an Academy Award?” Yes, perhaps. The school could’ve been hospitable, discussing and expressing support for acting careers and acting success while still making a statement about the importance of choosing roles in a morally upright manner. I’m sure that such dialogue is or should be happening among Christians both associated with the school and aware of Williams’ activity, and it wouldn’t have hurt to involve the reporter in that either.

The news article linked in the post quotes Williams’ mother as saying that some Santa Fe Christian staff and faculty members have called to congratulate her and Michelle. Is this appropriate or necessary? Probably not. However, were one to run into Michelle in person, it would be rude not to congratulate her on her acting success.

One might equate this with, say, running into an old friend who happens to be gay and has just gotten “married.” What would be the appropriate response, were he/she to inform you of that fact? To ignore, or condemn it right then and there? I think not. Would congratulating your friend in a polite way communicate approval of the marriage? I don’t think so necessarily. And why put up a wall where there needn’t be one by failing to acknowledge it? I don’t think doing so would accomplish anything for the kingdom of God.

A closing thought:

We must not curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness, with the same tongue (or heart, or mind) with which we praise our Lord and Father. (James 3:9).

Likewise, we must never revel in the downfall of someone who has fallen because of their sin. Is it right for another person to revel when we ourselves reap what we sow? Isn't the reaping itself enough reproach? None of us owns our own righteousness; it is imputed to us by God alone. It is His transforming work within us that grants us any rightness we have, else, as the saying goes, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Righteousness does not merely consist of not committing the “big sins,” i.e., cheating, lying, stealing, killing, abusing, being sexually immoral, etc.; it consists of right attitudes towards God, ourselves, and others.