@Britphil

You said:
“I’m not sure that you have fully taken in Michael’s original posting. He states that this man is “open and genuine” he is good company and he is asking searchingly deep spiritual questions.” It sounds like every pastor/Christian’s dream! To be met with genuine curiosity rather than complete indifference to the Christian faith! Could it also not be, that in Michael, he has discovered someone who is willing to talk to him on the level of friend and not just pastor.”

I am not sure that we are landing so far apart on this matter, although I do not agree that I have failed to take in Michael’s original posting. I agree with you completely that Michael’s heart for engaging this friend is admirable and his willingness to talk on the level of friend, not just pastor, is a winsome approach. This is clearly an example we should all follow. But the more fully rounded circumstances here are what are being discussed, not this particular tactic.

In all of my comments in this thread, my focus has been on what I think is the inadvisability of tolerating illegal conduct by virtue of rendering no objection whatsoever to being asked if it was “okay.” I have never called for Michael to throw a fit and threaten the guy with termination of their relationship if the guy continued to smoke pot. Go and check each of my previous comments. Rather, I propose that at the very least he could have noted his objection by merely saying “it’s not okay.” Because by saying nothing, or saying “I don’t mind”, permission is granted. And ultimately, by NOT objecting to illegal activity, you are implicitly endorsing it, or at the very least expressing an ambivilence to it. Is that a defensible point of view?

What form or manner of illegal activity rises to the level that calls for an objection? In my original post, I asked Michael if rather than pot, his friend wanted to do a couple of lines of cocaine. Would that have been a case in which Michael would have said he DID mind? How about if the friend had reached a level of intoxication through consumption of the beer they were drinking yet intended to drive himself home. Would that be a cause for objecting?

That which is illegal is just that. And friendship or not, it seems inappropriate to bear the name Christian, and simply declare “hey friend, I don’t mind if you break the laws of the state.” I am fine Britphil if we agree to disagree on this matter. It just seems to me that the position of greater integrity is to say “I don’t condone law breaking. I will still be your friend, but I won’t affirm your conduct by saying or implying that I am indifferent to it.” The question could be turned around to ask “how good a friend are you if you express indifference to their bad (in this case literally illegal) behavior? Particularly when they seem to be expressly seeking your permission to engage in it. That was the case here.

Hi there bro Tom

To tell you the truth, today is the first time in a few days that I have felt barely conscious, never mind energised!

A viral bug hit our household late on Sunday evening and I have been feeling pretty groggy and out of the game for the last couple of days. Today is the first day that I have felt relatively human in quite a while!

Princess Diana…now that’s more like it. Not that I would make any claims as to her salvation status (not my job, but His!) what I admired most about her is that she actually attempted to sit very lightly to her status and tried to give the monarchy a more human face. I would not go as far as to say she modelled the ministry of Jesus in this way, but it did have some hallmarks of his desire to make God’s Kingdom far more accessible to ordinary human beings. Interestingly enough, a huge number of ordinary people in the UK loved her (as was witnessed at the time of her death and beyond) whereas the powers that be saw her as a pesky and awkward adversary opposed to genuine monarchical tradition.

Which leads me on to an observation I have been meaning to ask. I sometimes get the sense that us Brits and you Americans differ slightly in our focus. This is a generalisation I confess but please hear me out.

It appears to me that American Christians tend to pay great attention to being church, but sit less loosely to issues of the Kingdom, whereas we Brits may be more inclined to see things more in terms of the Kingdom and less specifically in terms of the church. That may be a bit unfair in places but I hope you get my drift.

Do you think this may be due to the fact that us Brits have had years of living under a monarchical structure, so the term “Kingdom” resonates more easily with us. Conversely, being a Republic, Americans have no personal experience of living under a King or Queen, (the term President does not have the same feel) and would probably actively resist it at all costs, so maybe you feel a tad uncomfortable with the term Kingdom, even when it refers to the Kingdom of God. If this is the case, just to muddy the waters further, it is interesting to note that there is a growing number of people who would like to see the British monarchy abolished and replaced by a Republic.

And before you all begin to hammer on the keyboards, you are not allowed to include the Kennedy, Onassis, Rockefeller or even the Gates families as quasi-royalty. Only bona-fide royalty will do!
“I think you did OK with you friend, and when you lead him to the foot of the cross, we will all understand better what it took to get him there.”

Tom…spot on…this was what I was trying to say earlier, only far less succinctly and eloquently.

Thanks a lot. Please be in prayer for him. If my methods are right or wrong, God can still be gracious to him and use this situation, flawed or not. Either way, I pray for his soul.

BritPhil

Mornin’ Pardner…Brother, you sure wake up energetic…! I don’t wake up fully until after the 30 mile ride to work on a crazy highway on a motorcycle, wuhu!

In retrospect I should say that among the British of whom I have formed an opinion, Diana holds top honors, but I don’t really put her on a list with regular folks. We once had a very earthy football (NFL) coach in Philadelphia, Buddy Ryan. He said of one player, “He might not be in a class by himself, but whatever class he’s in, it sure don’t (sic) take long to call the roll”

you said
“However, I have become very suspicious and resistant towards a type of Christianity which enjoys the feeling of superiority over non- Christians that, if we are honest, we actually enjoy and at times thrive upon, and which actually begins to work itself out in a form of pride in our own righteousness as we compare ourselves to the unrighteousness of others. ”

Hmmm…, I can be guilty of that on occasion. Odd thing though, the fact is, we as believers are empowered against sin by the Holy Spirit, and therefore have no excuse. Unbelievers, who are under the power of sin, are doing what is expected of them. We surely have nothing to be haughty about, and all the reasons for quiet humility.

Michael,

Thanks for being patient with us as we hash this out. I think you did OK with you friend, and when you lead him to the foot of the cross, we will all understand better what it took to get him there.

Just returning to the fray following a night cooling off in the cells!

Hey John

Wowee…along with Tom there now two of the P&P fraternity who don’t think I’m zooming down the road to eternal damnation. My fortunes are beginning to take an upward curve!

Well… where shall I begin?

Cadis – “let them sit and suffer for a few more days so that they can repent of their ways”. I like your style!

Tom – Good morning my new-found Maggie-admiring friend! “I’m always glad for the people who trigger my more fervent responses” I agree. I always am grateful for those people who help me to see things from a different perspective. I have a friend, from a lapsed Catholic background who is brilliant at doing this and I really respect and admire him for it. Like you, I am amazed that Michael hasn’t booted us off the site well before now. Good job he’s such an irenic type of bloke…but I guess that even he may have his limits!!

Hi Nick. Thanks for your comments.

“And the point of such programs is to change the behavior these kids learned in their environments. Being lax is not the way to do this, and I don’t think it is a very Christian way of doing things either.”

In the environment you are talking about, I fully agree that it is the right approach to adopt, and as Christians working within a secular environment I fully understand the need to tread very carefully re evangelising etc. Just as an aside, although the work is secular, I believe the ministry you had there was just as valid as full time missionary work. I feel that what the church needs to do quickly, is to address the issues/decisions Christians face as “missionaries” in their secular working environment. I believe we often fail our congregations big time in this area. I guess that has just gotten the keyboards a-buzzin!

“Jesus called people to repentance from the very beginning.

I think this is way too much of a generalisation. If we were to look at individual encounters on their own merits, I think we will find that Jesus called some to repentance from the outset, others towards the end of his time with them. I don’t know how you can say that Jesus called the Samaritan woman to repentance at the beginning when his words “Go, leave your life of sin” were the very last words he uttered to her following a long conversation. I think this is a trap we all fall into very easily, of generalising about what Jesus said and did when a more thorough reading of the gospel narrative would show us that Jesus interactions were varied and appropriate to the person and the situation.

You said: “is it any wonder they may feel uncomfortable when in our company. Perhaps they have good reason too.”

This needs to be qualified Nick. If when in our presence, or observing our behaviour and lifestyle they genuinely come under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit (and it is His work not ours) and feel uncomfortable because of it, then that is to be welcomed, encouraged and advocated.

However, I have become very suspicious and resistant towards a type of Christianity which enjoys the feeling of superiority over non- Christians that, if we are honest, we actually enjoy and at times thrive upon, and which actually begins to work itself out in a form of pride in our own righteousness as we compare ourselves to the unrighteousness of others. Yes, sure, they are “sinners” but then so are we, except that we happen to be, by God’s grace and mercy, “saved sinners” as opposed to ruined ones, no more and no less than that.

The only reason why a non-Christian should feel uncomfortable in our presence is because God’s Spirit is at work in and through us….period! If they feel uncomfortable because of the type of overly self-righteous person we are or have become, (and if we are all honest, I guess we have all travelled down that road), then the problem is not with “them” it is with “us”. And if the “non-lax” approach is adopted across the board as the standard Christian approach in all areas of Christian life ie mission, evangelism, pasturing, counselling etc. then I am not sure that it it’s a kind of harsh Christianity I would want to share with the world. There were occasions when Jesus was far gentler and gracious with a person than they had the right to either merit or deserve.

And it has to be said, the “ordinary person” appeared to feel very safe in the company of Jesus, even when he was rebuking them. (which surely should be our model to adopt). The ones who felt consistently uncomfortable were the superficially righteous religious folk whose underlying sinful nature was beginning to be exposed.

Have a good day my friend

“As someone who this friend seems to view as an expert on Christian matters, Michael’s seeming ambivalence to illegal behavior, seems both socially and spiritually irresponsible.”

Hi Chuck. Apologies if I sounded overly harsh. I am glad to hear that we both have a distaste of theological jargon whether it be pre-modern, post-modern or just plain modern in its origin.

There is something which has been bothering me as I have been reflecting on this discussion. It would appear that we Christians have been doing what we do best. We have clearly demonised this friend of Michael’s and almost made him out to be a felon responsible for committing the unforgiveable sin! We have also done the same to Michael who is clearly now up for the award of “Irredeemable and Irresponsible American pastor of the year 2008”

You quite rightly accused me of not reading your original post properly, but I’m not sure that you have fully taken in Michael’s original posting. He states that this man is “open and genuine” he is good company and he is asking searchingly deep spiritual questions.” It sounds like every pastor/Christian’s dream! To be met with genuine curiosity rather than complete indifference to the Christian faith! Could it also not be, that in Michael, he has discovered someone who is willing to talk to him on the level of friend and not just pastor. That he has actually met someone who possesses both the genuine intellectual ability and capacity to take his questions seriously and attempt to answer them honestly allied to a willingness to engage with him as an equal human being and not some form of inferior species? Such people are very thin on the gorund in the Christian apologetic world. And perhaps..just perhaps, maybe we need to give God a bit of space and time to do what he does best and carry out his work. Perhaps the most productive thing wee could do is to add this guy and Michael to our weekend prayer lists and ask for God to work and move upon this guy’s life through Michael, no matter how irresponsible we may think Michael is being! (you might, I most certainly don’t!)

One final thought… and it’s back to Cadis..I can’t help but think what it would have been like if a Palestinian printing press had been available in Jesus’ day. “(Nick, I know this is pushing hypothetical concepts to the very limit but please humour me)

I guess the headlines about Jesus would have been none too flattering. I am sure the the local grapevine/gossip/word of mouth stuff was sensational enough but I guess he would have found himself in the pages of the press for all the wrong kinds of reasons.

By all means if Michael ends up plastered on the front pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, or if the worst comes to the worst that dreadful publication the National Enquirer please be the first to tell me “I told you so!!”

You are exacly right. If this was another friend of mine (who often falls into this sin and is a Christian), I would ring his neck! He would be smoking with a black-eye!

Far Out! I turn my back for a couple of hours and there’s another 50 or so posts. I’m going to have to pay more attention if I want to be a part of these conversations.

Nick:

“John: Not only would I, but I have, and I think you’re reading way too much into my unfinished sentence.”

I agree. Apologies and please book my place at the next athletics meet in the ‘long jumping (to conclusions)’. Not quite ready to join the international competition (I’ve read some of Spong, not to mention Dawkins…) I cant compete with the conclusion jumping distances they achieve.

Tom

“Michael will probaly eject us from his thread soon. I think we may have driven everyone else away.”

I’m still here, if that’s any consolation. It’s just that on a Tuesday I have other things to do for 20 hours of the day (including catching a couple of hours sleep).

britphil

#41 was brill mate. Just what I was thinking as I was reading through the thread. Kudos mate.

I still stand by my thought that this man is exactly that, a man. Not some wee kid in need of moral guidance. There’s an implicit understanding that this guy was was asking for Michael to ‘excuse that conduct’ as Chuck puts it. This implies that Michael has some authority over his friend, which is an implication that I’m not sure sould be assumed.

It’s almost like there is a belief that we occupy a moral/positional(church leaders?)/knowledge based authority over people. We don’t. At best we are interactive libraries which people may access and, if permission has been granted, we can suggest aspects of our witness/knowledge that they may benifit from.

It may be that Michael has that permission, I just can’t tell from his story. In the absense of a clear indication of that permission, I can’t see how I’d be able to justify raising an objection to this guy engaging in an activity that I’ve already declared I wasn’t going to engage in. He’s an adult who’s responsible for the consequences of his actions and who has apparently decided he’s going to gamble on the potential consequences of this action.

It’s a line where the landscape changes quickly once you cross over it. It depends on the level of permission Michael has to influence this guy’s life.

@ Britphil

You said:
“Come on Chuck..isn’t this a bit rich…what about all the doctrinal theological jargon Conservative evangelicalism has foisted on us down the years and told us is absolutely imperative for our salvation and survival…including the more wackier of the Rapture doctrines.

Sounds a bit like “jargon is OK…when it suits” to me.”

I would ask you to find some place in my original comment (# 38 to save you the time) where I made a defense for ANY theological “movement’s” jargon. I don’t believe I did.

In any event, by focusing on this, you have missed the point of my reply. By Michael say “he did not mind” or some words to that effect, that his friend smoked pot, I am suggesting that he implicitly lent support for his friend’s engagment in activity that is explicitly against the law. As someone who this friend seems to view as an expert on Christian matters, Michael’s seeming ambivalence to illegal behavior, seems both socially and spiritually irresponsible. Apart from not wanting to offend his friend, I am not sure how you defend the answer “no, I don’t mind (that you are about to go do something illegal).”

I don’t intend to set myself up as some paragon of virtue or righteousness, but Michael asked his readers how we would have responded. As I pointed out in my original reply, I hope that I would have simply answered this “friend” with something to the effect of “yeah, I do mind if you break the law. You are important enough to me that I won’t excuse that conduct by saying ‘no, I don’t mind’.”

Nick
“Do you object and risk offending the smoker? Or do you say go ahead and risk trouble with the law?”
I’m not going to keep them company while they get a buzz, but will talk with them while they are buzzed. No law against conversing with a stoner. But, you’re not smoking in my house, car etc. pot or tobacco.
“5) I’m sure you’re aware that the pericope adulterae is most probably not original to the text so I wouldn’t feel comfortable using it as an example of Jesus’ standards”
I started to address this in one post and deleted it, because I thought it would start a landslide, and although I agree with you about it’s later addition, the principle involved is solid in relation to the teachings of Christ, just not as Canon.
I like to avoid hypotheticals mostly because there is no end to them or the interpretation of same.

Cadis,
I meant to answer your one question, and got distracted,
NO, I never sold my stash. I did on rare occasion share it with like minded druggies, but never turned on innocents. No real principles involved there, I just wanted it for myself and it was a reciprocal thing with my fellow junkies. I was very paranoid about the danger of selling the stuff. I’d steal it, but never sell it, hows that for morals…?

Britphil: I don’t have a lot of time to respond so I’ll just jot down a few notes.

(1) One hypothetical is as helpful as the next. I’ve been in situations similar to what Michael has described in the post, and I have reacted differently, but many readers have probably never been in such a situation, so Michael’s question about their response is just as hypothetical. But I ask because not much changed in my hypothetical other than the increased possibility of arrest. Do you object and risk offending the smoker? Or do you say go ahead and risk trouble with the law? I’d object, maybe someone else wouldn’t.

(2) As a former drug user I know the answers to the questions you’d ask, so they wouldn’t be my questions. What I’d want to say is that I prefer not to be around drug use and I’d appreciate if they could respect that. If the opportunity comes up to share my testimony then great, but if not I’d hope that the same respect I was able to show people as an unregenerate drug user could be shown to me. Which is another thing, before I was saved I would have never thought to get high around other people who didn’t get high unless I knew from past experience that they didn’t mind.

(3) The program I ran was secularly funded, but the company’s owner was/is Christian as was/am I. But we were technically not allowed to endorse any religious points of view, although as Christians we could only act as ourselves. And the point of such programs is to change the behavior these kids learned in their environments. Being lax is not the way to do this, and I don’t think it is a very Christian way of doing things either.

(4) Jesus didn’t tolerate sin so as not to initially offend someone or risk running them off which seems to be the impression you get from his interaction with sinners. Jesus called people to repentance from the very beginning.

(5) I’m sure you’re aware that the pericope adulterae is most probably not original to the text so I wouldn’t feel comfortable using it as an example of Jesus’ standards.

(6) You said: “is it any wonder they may feel uncomfortable when in our company. Perhaps they have good reason too.” I think that they should feel uncomfortable in our company if what they are doing is less than upright. We’re called to be lights in darkness. We’re told to be transformed and not conformed. Again, people need to come up, Christians don’t need to come down. If someone is comfortable sinning around me then that tells me that I’m doing something wrong and I need to come up higher.

Gotta run… be well.