August 2, 2009

Dr. Ron Sumners

Reframing the Issue

Matthew 22:15-22

Brad Bright, whose father, Bill Bright, was the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, tells the story of a young man who came to a Campus Crusade information table during registration for a new semester at the University of Washington. He asked, “Can I sign up for a Bible study?” The young woman at the desk responded affirmatively, “Sure you can!” The follow-up question was, “I am gay; can I still sign up?” The response was that he would be welcomed. That was probably not the answer that he expected or wanted. He asked, “Is there anything I would not be allowed to do because I am gay?” The young woman at the table answered honestly and told the young man that he could not teach a Bible study or hold office in the organization, if he was openly gay and actively homosexual. As graciously as she could, she explained the Biblical prohibitions as well as the charter rules of Campus Crusade for Christ. He had been schooled on the questions to ask and his response was obviously rehearsed as well, “I am offended. I am being discriminated against!”

The next day, the front page of the student newspaper read, “Christian Group won’t allow gays to be leaders.” The article asked the question, “Why does the university allow the Campus Crusade for Christ to discriminate against gay students?” There was a call to revoke Campus Crusade for Christ’s charter as a student organization. The whole thing had been a classic set-up!

The response of the Campus Crusade was not to cower but to confront. They handed out 10,000 flyers the next week all over the campus. The flyer said nothing about homosexuality. It asked if a minority organization had no rights on the campus and could not set its own standards. They asked the university why the Campus Crusade for Christ should be censured while others on campus could openly attack and discriminate against Campus Crusade for their standards, beliefs and rules. The last sentence of the flyer read, “What are you afraid that you might hear?”

The articles in the student paper against the Campus Crusade for Christ and the attacks from the gay students quickly ended when Campus Crusade would not be trapped into the game of their enemies.

This sermon is not about homosexuality. But, since I opened with the subject, let me say some things. Some religious people say that the God of the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior despite the fact that every clear biblical reference to such conduct is, without exception, negative. The only way someone could make that statement is if they had never read the Bible! If every statement I make about Brussels sprouts is negative, then an intelligent person will come to the conclusion that I do not like Brussels sprouts! If you will show me one clear biblical statement about any form of homosexual behavior that is positive, I will reconsider my opinion! God loves the homosexual as well as the adulterer and bank robber, but He does not condone or approve of their conduct! The Bible never precisely says, “Do not hold dog fights,” but the evidence from the Bible would validate the truth of that statement also.

In addition, to defuse homophobia in the Christian community; homosexuals are not the cause of the spiritual decline of America – they are only a symptom of that decline. If we want to identify a cause for the decline of morality and religion in our country; all we have to do is look in the mirror!

The strategy used by the Campus Crusade for Christ at the University of Washington was nothing new. In Matthew chapter 22, the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked Him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. They were trying to set Him up just as the “inquiring” university student had done at the University of Washington. If Jesus said, “No,” He would risk arousing the anger of the Roman government. If He said, “Yes,” the masses, which passionately hated the Roman occupation, might turn against Him. The Pharisees thought they had Jesus trapped. Therefore, instead of answering their question, Jesus accused His opponents of being hypocrites. He attacked their credibility and put them on the defensive.

Jesus then followed up by reframing the question: since the money the Jews used bore the image of Caesar, was it not his? If so, how could they legally withhold from Caesar what was rightfully his? But Jesus did not leave the discussion there – His real goal was not to settle the issue about the money, but to point people to God. Therefore after He had told people to give Caesar what was his, He added, “And give to God what is God’s!” He did not address the issue at hand – man’s obligation to the state. Rather, He used the opportunity to springboard into the greater issue of man’s obligation to God. In the process, He exposed the Pharisee’s hypocrisy. They were not concerned about taxes, just as the college student wasn’t interested in joining the Campus Crusade for Christ. The goal of the Pharisees was to discredit someone they saw as a threat. But when Jesus exposed their hypocrisy, the Bible says, “They left and went away.” That is exactly what happened with the opposition to Campus Crusade at the University of Washington!

When God becomes the central issue, debates about secondary matters often take care of themselves and even go away!

Matthew chapter 21:23-27 records how the religious leaders came to Jesus to corner Him by inquiring about the source of His authority. They hoped to trap Him into claiming equality with God so they could stone Him. At the worst they hoped to discredit Him with the people.

Jesus said He would answer their question if they answered His. He asked if John the Baptist’s authority came from God or man. Whichever way they answered, they were going to look bad and they knew it. If they said John’s authority was from God then Jesus would follow, “Then why did you not believe him?” If they said John’s authority was from man, the people would turn against them because they felt that John was a prophet of God. Jesus reframed the question and made God the main issue. He told the Pharisees that if they would not answer His question then He would not answer theirs!

In John 8:1-11, when the woman was caught in adultery and brought to Jesus, the Jewish leaders asked if she should be stoned to death according to the Law of Moses. They were again trying to trap Jesus. If He did not uphold the Law, they would have basis for bringing charges against Him. If He did uphold the letter of the Law, He would likely alienate Himself from the common people He was trying to reach.

So, instead of directly answering the question, He broadened the terms of the debate in order to uphold the Law, put the religious leaders in a defensive position, save the woman from stoning, and give her the opportunity to leave her life of sin. His response was, “If any one of you is without sin, you throw the first stone at her.” If anyone had thrown a stone after that, they would have been claiming to be sinless or equal with God – a crime that, itself, was punishable by stoning. It was the very thing they accused Jesus of claiming. Jesus effectively used their view of God to take control of the situation.

In each case, rather than answering the question, Jesus wrested control of the debate by turning the question to His agenda. He reframed the issue so that God was made the central issue. His objective was to point people to the Father.

These examples illustrate the principle of how we may transcend any issue, including homosexuality or abortion or prayer in school, ultimately making the God of the Bible the focus of the debate. As long as we get trapped into philosophical banter concerning the ethics of the world, we will waste our time and do damage to the Kingdom and we will certainly be playing into their hands. The secular humanists will win because they do not really understand the issue. We wallow in the mire with them over ethical issues and never get around to pointing them to the Father, as did Jesus!

In today’s American culture, we must first recognize that the amoral forces of “tolerance” are currently in the driver’s seat, which means those of us who disagree with them, by default, are on the defense. The war in Viet Nam painfully reminded us that a great defense can rarely do more than delay defeat. Because we did not pursue victory, we were defeated.

As Christians, we can give defense for our beliefs all the day long. We may even hold our own in the debate. But, that tactic only delays defeat. We may win the battle only to lose the war. So, the pastor in the local church rails against secular humanists, homosexuals, abortion and the liberal media to a congregation that shouts its agreement. And I, also, agree with the sentiment. But have we won any battles when all we do is gather together to pat ourselves on the back for all in the culture that we are against?

If our response to the state of our world is merely to condemn a symptomatic issue such as homosexuality, abortion, racism, or pornography as morally reprehensible, which it certainly is, we will lose (i.e. the behavior will continue or another symptom of man’s sin will take its place). In much of our culture, condemning immoral behavior is deemed intolerance. And if we come across as intolerant, we lose much of our ability to communicate the Gospel to a large segment of our culture. That is exactly what Satan and our opposition wants. Here is the real bottom line: each time we defensively react to their issue, they are able to further marginalize us in the eyes of the broad culture, and worse, get us off the message. Our message is not primarily that homosexuality and racism and abortion are sinful. Our message to the world is that there is a Savior! It is that simple – and that profound!

Matthew 13:24-30 records the story Jesus told of a farmer who discovered that someone had planted weeds in his wheat field in order to destroy the crop. He instructed his employees to let the weeds grow up with the wheat until harvest time. Uprooting and tearing out the weeds would destroy the roots of the wheat. The wheat and weeds would be separated at harvest time. Likewise, God does not ask us to pull weeds in His wheat field; rather we are instructed to nurture, water, and fertilize the wheat until the time comes for Him to harvest it.

The most powerful force in the world is love. Hate and condemnation are attributes of Satan and a lost world. When we use their tactics, we lose our love and we lose our effectiveness in the world!

Jesus laid down His life as a sacrifice of love. He did not come to condemn us. John tells us that in the third chapter of his Gospel. Therefore, the logical starting point for changing our culture is not debate with the culture, but the introduction of Jesus. Our words will not change the world – the Spirit of God can and will!

In order to make God the starting point, we must first establish a clear link in the minds of our fellow citizens between their view of God and their position on any given moral issue. In the minds of many Americans, there is currently a disconnect between belief in God and their position on many moral issues due to the pervasive influence of moral relativism. Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right and wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person’s individual choices.

In our society we often hear the question, “How does that make you feel?” as though my feelings are the most important consideration. Wherever this question pops up in regard to a moral issue, we should always reframe the question with “How do you think that makes God feel?” God is the issue! Without God, morality is a fuzzy issue based upon what is expedient and what makes me feel good. Concerning our debate with culture over certain aspects of morality- let’s reframe the issue and make God and the proclamation of the Gospel the subject of the discussion.