Point/Counterpoint: Peter Terp vs. Punky Bakker

The italicized text is taken from a recent op-ed on CNN.com. The non-italicized text is my hasty response.

Editor's note: Jay Bakker, son of former Praise The Lord leaders Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, is minister of Revolution Church and subject of a new documentary series, "One Punk Under God," on Sundance Channel. Marc Brown is a Revolution staff member.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- What the hell happened? Where did we go wrong? How was Christianity co-opted by a political party? Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards? The answers to these questions are integral to the survival of Christianity.

Uhm...so the really Christian thing to do is to support laws that force us to live according to other people’s standards? That doesn’t even make sense to a Marxist. And it isn’t as if we claim prohibitions against homosexual unions or abortion to by “our” standards. It’s not like we’re just making this stuff up...unlike those who say that gay marriage and the mutilation of the unborn are  irrevocable and inherent human rights...(read on)

 

While the current state of Christianity might seem normal and business-as-usual to some, most see through the judgment and hypocrisy that has permeated the church for so long. People witness this and say to themselves, "Why would I want to be a part of that?" They are turned off by Christians and eventually, to Christianity altogether. We can't even count the number of times someone has given us a weird stare or completely brushed us off when they discover we work for a church.

Really? “Most” see a problem with the Church. Even if this cloudy statistic were verifiable, it would still be illogical. Plus, it’s a rather pessimistic view of Christianity. I think more people are turned off by Jesus-freakiness than hypocrisy. And I think the weird stares these guys are getting has more to do with their haircuts and face piercings (that’s not so much ad hominem as just a valid observation given their punked out photos). But maybe instead of working for a church, they should work for THE Church.

So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today?

Can we get a little more specific than “certain groups?” Maybe we could get an actual example of “hate and condemnation” rather than just relying on hastily generalized impressions. These boys are well on their way to getting a C- on this assignment for a serious lack of evidence.

Some say it was during the rise of Conservative Christianity in the early 1980s with political action groups like the Moral Majority. Others say it goes way back to the 300s, when Rome's Christian Emperor Constantine initiated a set of laws limiting the rights of Roman non-Christians. Regardless of the origin, one thing is crystal clear: It's not what Jesus stood for.

Who is “some?” Who are “others?” And do these guys have any idea of the kinds of things those poor oppressed non-Christian pagans were up to back in the day? Have they forgotten that Roman paganism had just engaged in years upon years of public execution, torture, and dismemberment of Christians?

And how is it so clear that Jesus was opposed to state-supported Christianity? I don’t remember him ever saying “Blessed are those who don’t support state-Christianity, for they shall be holier than thou!”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating a state religion. But the problem with state religion is not that the government invariable tries to dictate truth and law to the Church, not the other way around. Plus, with state-religion you can be born into a nation that follows the wrong faith – like Protestantism. Boy will it be a shocker to these guys when they find out that in the new Jerusalem the government and religion are one in the same.

Also, since Jesus lived and died in a occupied territory of the Roman Empire, I’d say it is pretty difficult to glean precisely what Jesus saw as the role of religion in a democracy. If it were possible for the Jews to vote out the Roman regime and replace it with a more Hebrew-friendly government, I don’t think the whole son of David thing would have been as significant to the Jews.

His parables and lessons were focused on love and forgiveness, a message of "come as you are, not as you should be." The bulk of his time was spent preaching about helping the poor and those who are unable to help themselves. At the very least, Christians should be counted on to lend a helping hand to the poor and others in need.

I think a better paraphrase of Christ’s message is “come as you are, and become who you should be.” He tells the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. He doesn’t say, “Oh, it’s cool. Whatever. Who am I to tell you what to do?” And I think it might be a bit hasty to say that the “bulk” of Jesus’ time was spent preaching about helping the poor. The bulk of his time, for all we know, was making a living as a local carpenter. Even when he did start his public ministry, it seems to me that a lot of it was spent trying to keep people from going to Hell...and one of the ways to avoid going to Hell is to become a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven by following its rules, many of which include acts of charity.

This brings us to the big issues of American Christianity: Abortion and gay marriage. These two highly debatable topics will not be going away anytime soon. Obviously, the discussion centers around whether they are right or wrong, but is the screaming really necessary? After years of witnessing the dark side of religion, Marc and I think not.

First, this suggests that all Christians are screaming. When’s the last time you remember hearing a Catholic bishop scream at anyone? Don’t most of us wish they raised their voices a little more? It seems to me that the left has as many if not more screamers than the right.

And I feel sorry that they have seen the dark side of religion...would that be pluralism? or perhaps radical Islam? Surely, the desire to preserve human life and the sanctity of the God-instituted sacrament of marriage isn’t the “dark side.”

Christians should be able to look past their differences and agree to disagree. This allows people to discuss issues with respect for one another. Christians are called to love others just as they are, without an agenda. Only then will Christianity see a return to its roots: Loving God with all of your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Isn’t agreeing to disagree what you usually say to end a conversation? Besides, it seems to me that agreeing to disagree doesn’t really lead to an honest exchange of idea. It’s more of an excuse to just spout off your personal philosophy regardless of how much it might offend others.

And we are called to love one another with an agenda – we are called to love one another as a means of spreading the Kingdom of God and leading others closer to Heaven.

An agenda is crucial to loving a person because it means you are thinking about the future of the relationship. To love without a agenda is empty. It is simply having a friend for the moment.

The point of loving a neighbor as yourself is that you always have an agenda for yourself, even if that agenda is only to fulfill God’s plan for you.

The Apostle Paul describes this idea of love beautifully in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance."

In a more complete context, Paul says:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

But don't take our word for it; look at what Jesus and his followers stood for in his time and what Christianity stands for today. Then come to your own conclusion.

Well, I can think of at least two women whom Jesus told to repent from their sexual sins. And Jesus was all about submitting to appropriate legal authority.

And, frankly, I’d rather come to the same conclusion as the people who have been thinking about it for two-thousand years than to just make up some conclusion all on my little lonesome.

Comments

[Beothius]

Nice post Peter. My only quibble is with your first counterpoint.

The negation of Mr Bakker's first point that "Christians [are] supporting laws that force others to live by their standards" is not necessarily "to support laws that force us to live according to other people’s standards". A more precise negation would be something like, Christians should not support laws that force other to live by there standards.

That is, of course, unless you believe there are only two mutually exclusive options when it comes to legislation, namely to support a issue (vote for pro legislation) or not support it (vote for con legislation). I believe a charitable interpretation would allow for a third option i.e. not supporting either legislative option.

Though, there is a good argument to be made for either interpretation.

[PeterTerp]

I'm fully willing to concede your point. If I were actually addressing Mr. Bakker, I probably would not make the argument as such.
That being said, so long as a group is willing to play by the rules so to speak, it makes sense to me that they would attempt to pass legislation in their own best interest, as opposed to passing legislation in the interest of others (or not contesting legislation that is not in their best interest). It would certainly be wrong for pro-lifers to infringe upon the law...however, it seems to me that so long as pro-lifers are using due process to pass laws, then it is up to the democratic system to ensure people's rights are protected.
One wants to ask oneself, why does someone like Bakker put so little confidence in the Constitution or our system of government (note, I didn't say faith in government...just confidence). Telling conservative Christians to not allow their religion to move them politically is essentially saying that they should politically surrender themselves to whatever left wing ideology wants (since I doubt the Left would be equally willing to surrender their stakes in the political lobbies).