Twinkie Salad

 It’s become chic to say Christians should be known more by what we’re for  than what we’re against. Usually the phrase is employed to criticize believers who openly stand against abortion, homosexuality, pornography or unclean entertainment. (Though interestingly enough, if the same believers stand against human trafficking or child abuse, no one pulls out the For and Against line.) And to a point I agree. If our primary message has been a one-note tirade against select sins, then yeah, we blew it. That’s Law without Gospel, obsession with one vice over another, a set of Thou Shalt Nots with no remedy offered.

But is that really what’s happened? Apart from the Westboro Baptist cartoon characters who wave God Hates Fags banners, are Christians who openly oppose certain things thereby obsessed with those things? If they talk about something at times, does it logically follow that they talk about nothing else? Or could it be that when believers – prominent ones, especially – mention their opposition to a sin, that statement alone gets picked up, thrown into the 24-hour news cycle, and repeated ad infinitum, leaving the public to assume the believer talked of nothing else?

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty is a good example. He did a lengthy interview with GQ Magazine in December. I’ll bet you know he said homosexuality is sin. I’ll bet you don’t know much else of what he said, though the interview is pages long, covering a range of topics. Radio therapist Dr. Laura Schlessinger is still reviled as an anti-gay wicked witch because of statements she made in the late 90’s though the overwhelming bulk of her work has centered on parenting, marriage and relationships. And while you’re no doubt aware the late Dr. Jerry Falwell openly condemned abortion, pre-marital sex and same sex union, did you also know he ran one of the premier homes in America for unwed mothers? There’s the rub: we seem to be swallowing the image the media paints of conservative Christians, then reacting to that image rather than the facts.

Because the fact is, you can’t be for something without being against something else. If you’re for love, you oppose hate. If you’re pro-Democracy, you’re anti-Communist. That’s no indicator you dwell on what you’re against; it only clarifies your position. So it’s absurd to presume that just because we say some things are wrong, we thereby think of nothing else. Or, for that matter, that we can logically say we’re for Item A without declaring, by implication alone, our opposition to items B through Z. If you know me as being for the traditional family, you cannot help knowing I’m also against redefining it or violating its boundaries. If you know I support child protection, that’s a clear statement I’m also against the neglect, abuse or exploitation of kids. I can’t say what I’m for without also stating, directly or not, what I’m against. Asking me to choose between the two makes little sense.

Put another way: If you’re on a diet, it’s largely defined by what you’re not eating. It’s called a Lo-Carb diet, or Low Calorie diet, on Non-Starch diet, named by what it’s against as well as what it’s for. Any decent explanation of the diet will clarify both, so yes, you’re for veggies, no, you’re against Twinkies. Could you ever be silly enough to say, “I’m for veggies!” then add some Twinkies to your salad bowl, presuming you don’t have to be against any unhealthy food, as long as you’re for the healthy stuff?

So being salt and light compels open allegiance to some things, clear opposition to others. Jesus said “I am the way” (John 14:6) a clear expression of what he was for. He wasn’t shy about also adding, “All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers” (John 10:8) . Paul said, “This is the will of God, your sanctification” (I Thessalonians 4:3) a pretty simple “for” statement. Yet he also warned, “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you.” (Ephesians 5:3)  making his Against points as sharp as his For ones. And while King David sweetly sang “I love the Lord” (Psalm 116:1)  he made no bones about what he didn’t love:  “Do I not hate them who hate Thee? ” (Psalm 139:21) Try chiding any of those guys for being known by what they were against and I suspect you wouldn’t have gotten far.

I’m glad we’re at least reflective enough to question the way we’ve expressed sacred truths, and in that area, I’ve got a pretty long list of corrections we could make. Some of us have been borderline blow-hards in the way we’ve condemned without balance, and nothing good comes from that. But by and large, at least for my part, I cannot see any way to express God’s heart and mind on current issues without stating support for some things, disagreement with others, and overt opposition to some. Can’t be helped.

So this weekend I’m reminded that, to be relevant and faithful in the America of 2014, I need to know the Word of God, seek the Heart of God, and express, clearly and without compromise, both. Whatever the results, I figure that alone will determine what sort of steward I’ve been.

Hope you have a terrific weekend! Thanks for being here.

Love, Joe