A Christian “But”

David Orendorff · Mark 7:1-8 · September 3, 2006

Today’s scripture has launched me into what may be dangerous territory. I take a stand on some current issues. I am trying not to make it political, but I think it does have political implications. It certainly takes a religious stance that is counter cultural and may offend some. Because of the nature of this sermon I will make myself available up front here for conversation with any of you, should you feel the need.

You don’t have to agree with me. I do not claim absolute certainty about what I say. But I do feel strongly about it and I believe what I say is consistent with Jesus’ teaching. You are free to think otherwise.

Today we are in a great struggle for what it means to be Christian, for the heart of Christianity. You have heard no doubt about the woman who went to her pastor and said, “I am tired of being a Christian “but.” She was tired of announcing her Christianity with a “but” attached, saying “I am a Christian but I don’t condemn to hell Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, gay folks or pro-life advocates. I am a Christian but I am not a Biblical literalist or a moral absolutist. I am a Christian but I don’t vote a straight ticket.”

When folks get to know me and find out I am a Christian and a pastor they often make many assumptions about me. I find myself needing to explain and defend my faith understanding both to non-believers and to other Christians because I am Christian “but.”

An adult class starting on September 17 will look in depth at just this issue using Marcus Borg’s book, “The Heart of Christianity.” It is a thoughtful and well written commentary on the struggle of the Christian “buts” to reclaim the heart and soul of Christianity.

I will context my analysis in a tool from the Phenomenology of Religion. It is a tool used in comparative religion studies. It sometimes seems that we Christians are not just denominations with some minor differences, a sort of variation on a theme, but that we are not even of the same religion. This tool will be helpful in looking at the differences.

The Phenomenology of Religion folks look at various religions using three questions. What is the core story or scripture of a religion? What are the core rituals of a religion? And what are its core ethics?

“What is the core story?” Though the Christian Right and I agree that the Bible, and particularly the gospels, present our core story, we read scripture in very different ways. They tend to read scripture in a literal and absolutist sort of way. This makes no sense to me. I could go into a long dissertation about this since I have spent my life at it. But it is sufficient to say that the Bible is, for me, a family record of human interactions with and understandings about God. And though I try to base all I believe and am on scripture I do not consider scripture to be without error, metaphor or myth. I do believe in the broadest sense that it is inspired by God and therefore demands my careful attention more than any other book ever written.

Nor do the Christian Right and I agree on how scripture is to be interpreted or used. They tend to see scripture as a law book with grace as one of the laws. I tend to see scripture as a book of grace with law as potentially one of the graces.

The second question of the Phenomenology of Religion folks is “What are the core rituals?” Here I lean toward agreement with the Christian Right. The core rituals are Baptism, Communion and Worship of God. I agree that they are mysterious in that we don’t really know how they work, and that when we share in the rituals there is an inbreaking of God into our lives, and we are transformed toward being like Jesus. What I don’t agree with is the exclusive use of these rituals in a way that limits worship or communion to the “right kind of people,” however that gets defined. I believe in open communion, open worship, the universal love of God as embodied in our sacred acts.

Finally, what are the core ethics of Christianity? My response to today’s scripture really started in my reaction to the ethics of the Pharisees and the scribes. They are concerned with ethical conformity to the rituals and laws of Moses and a Biblical priestly view of what it means to be faithful to God. They, straight out of the book of Leviticus in the Bible, find it an abomination worthy of death that the followers of Jesus eat with unwashed hands.

Jesus is not concerned, nor does he believe God is primarily concerned about the right washing of hands as about the washing of the heart, the baptism of the soul. Jesus is concerned that his followers are fed more than he is concerned with whether they washed their hands in the right way or washed them at all. Jesus is not primarily concerned with keeping all the strange rules of the Leviticus’ priests as he is with keeping the law of the prophets. So Jesus quotes Isaiah to show the hypocrisy of those who worry about the rules and not about the people.

Jesus may have been thinking of the often quoted line from the prophet Micah when Micah writes:

(God) has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God.1 Micah 6:8 NRSV

For the orthodox Christian Right the core ethics come to social and political stances. A Christian for them is pro-life, against marriage of same sex folks, is pro-capitalism and anti-socialism, supports a holy war concept, most often supports the agenda of the right end of the Republican Party and believes people who do not agree with them about these things end up in hell.

I know I am drawing a caricature and that all of the Christian Right does not fit into this picture. But I do think it fair to say that the vast majority of the Christian Right and its political/social agenda is accurately portrayed in this.

I think Jesus was not so much pro-cause of any kind as he was pro people and pro creation. Jesus’ issues were all around agape love, a servant love of compassion and justice. Jesus cared first about the hungry of his students and of all nations and all religions. He wanted the hungry fed, the naked clothed, the widow and orphan cared for, the prisoner visited, the ill healed, the lost found. Thus his commandment was not to an ethical conformity around particular issues, but an ethical conformity that sought to be servant love in all situations.

For me, to spell this out in one of many issues, that means that abortion is neither always right nor always wrong. It all depends on the particular circumstances and what is the loving thing to do. I like what our United Methodist Social Principles have to say. Remember, they which are guidelines not law and are adopted by General Conference every four years. Currently a very strong majority of the delegates to General Conference believe:

Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.

This position on abortion makes pro-lifers uncomfortable. It also makes the strict pro-choice folks uncomfortable. It is too wishy washy and not absolute in its guidance. But for me it speaks to issue of law and grace. It is grace that leads and not law.

There is more that makes the position clearer but I leave that to the adult class on the Social Principles beginning September 17.

Now we both know folks who to some degree understand Christianity as it is defined by the Christian Right. And some of these, even many of these folks, also have hearts for compassion and justice. I believe that it is not their belief in the values of the Christian Right that makes them Christian but their hearts for justice, kindness and humility. But when the heart of the gospel is not in them they are hypocrites obeying human commandments and not the commandment of God.

And before you folks on the Christian left start cheering. We also know folks who believe that God is love and is full of grace; folks who look to the commandment to love God, neighbor and self as the corner stone of our faith. But their hearts are hard. They talk justice but do not attempt it, they talk kindness but only reluctantly give it, and humility is not in them. Again it is the heart for compassion and justice that define them as Christian, not their theology. And among these too are hypocrites whose lips speak truth but whose lives are false to the truth.

To all of us who are Christians “but” it is imperative that we live what we speak as gospel. It is imperative that we give our lives to do justice, love kindness and to walk humbly with our God. And where we fail, for we do fail, we recognize our hypocrisy and ask for both the forgiveness of our God and the healing of the Holy Spirit.

I pray someday no Christian has to add a “but” and that great diversities of Christians proclaim our allegiance because we are living the truth that God is love and the kingdom has come. I pray that one day we will not have to apologize or explain who we are, Right or Left, but that the world knows us for the love of Jesus, the compassion of our hearts, the kindness of our deeds, and the humility with which we are obedient to God.

Shalom and Amen.