Public rebuke versus private redemption

I recently came across an interview from Katie Couric that I thought was timely, in light of the popular discussion these days.  I do not know when this piece aired, and I do not know who the guest, Carl Lentz, is except that he is pastor of a Pentecostal church in New York City that meets in a dance club and has thousands in attendance each week.

Katie Couric: How do you feel about the sort of tolerance issue that I was talking to Joel (Osteen) about?  I mean, do you guys have positions on, say, gay marriage and things like that?

Carl Lentz: We have a stance on love, and everything else we have conversations.

Katie:  So what does that mean?

Carl:  Exactly that.  Often people want you to make these big statements...

Katie:  Pronouncements

Carl:  Yeah, about things, and I don't think it's fair.  I don't think a public forum is always the best place to talk about something that's so sensitive and important to so many, because a public forum--there's no discussion there.  And everybody's situation is unique.  So, I've been with some people who are like, "Make a statement about this."  And I'll say, like, "Why?"  I'd rather have a conversation, you know, with that person; because if I make a statement publicly, there's no discussion, there's no explanation--there's just this comment.

Katie:  Just to play devil's advocate, do you feel like you have a moral imperative to speak publicly about some of these more controversial issues?

Carl: No, because we try to be like Jesus.  Very rarely did Jesus ever talk about morality or social issues.  He was about the deeper things of the heart.  Often people want to talk about behavior modification.  Our church isn't about that.  You can get behavior modification doing yoga, or going to a karaoke thing--you can change a little bit there.  We're about soul transformation. So you start talking about some of the symptomatic stuff--that's not what we're about.  We're about talking to people about their heart, and the condition of their soul.  And some of that stuff out-works itself. But we're not out to change people, because we can't.

Think about that for a minute.  What were the major themes of the most public statements of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount? Blessings in your present circumstances.  Love for your enemies.  Not judging others.  It was in the very private moments that he called out sin--the story of the woman at the well comes to mind.  There is probably a very good reason that there was only an audience of three at the Transfiguration--only Peter, James and John had the privilege of seeing Jesus in his heavenly state.  We have no eyewitness accounts, unless you believe that the Gospel of Mark was dictated by the Apostle Peter; we only have written descriptions from Matthew, Mark and Luke, none of whom were actually there.  It was a very emotional, very intimate experience.  Much like salvation.

Think of these two very different experiences:  In one, a member of the Jewish religious hierarchy approaches Jesus under cover of darkness.  Jesus could see, in this one-on-one, face-to-face encounter, that Nicodemus had some soul-searching, serious questions about how to approach God.  Jesus cut to the chase immediately: "I tell you the truth," he said. "No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."  Nicodemus was clearly a literal thinker.  His question seems ludicrous to anyone except those who think in very literal terms.  "How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"  This give and take between the two men led to possibly the most famous verse in all of Scripture: "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."  Jesus led Nicodemus from religion to relationship, from condemnation to unconditional love.  He even spoke to Nicodemus' background in the law when in the same conversation Jesus said, "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."

Now think about almost every Super Bowl broadcast you have seen.  Some guy in an end-zone seat, usually wearing a rainbow wig so he will stand out from the crowd, holds up a sign that reads "John 3:16".

Both Jesus and rainbow-wig guy have the same message.  But which one is more effective?  When Jesus gave the Great Commission, he didn't say, "Go ye therefore to every sports venue and hold a banner with my name."  He didn't say, "Teach them all things by way of putting religious bumper stickers on your cars."  And he sure didn't say, "At every opportunity, give an interview to a magazine where you describe one particular sin in very graphic detail in order to illustrate why you think it is a disgusting practice."

What he did say was that we should teach and disciple all people.  What he didn't say was that we should teach or disciple them all at the same time.  The best way to teach is individually, or at least in a small-group setting.  Why do you think many colleges boast about a low student-teacher ratio? Why do students who fall behind need one-on-one time with a tutor? Because that is the best way to teach.  And what is discipleship?  It is showing people how to live as Jesus lived.  The very best way to do that is to have the student follow the teacher around--not follow you on social media, or follow your radio and television broadcasts or even your sermon series on books and DVD. 

But back to the issue that everyone seems to be talking about this past week.  My philosophy professor in college, who has since retired, recently shared this post on Facebook:

If it were possible to come to the Bible with no pre-conceived ideas of right and wrong, the Bible rather clearly says that homosexuality is wrong--whatever the implications and applications that entails. It is a rather complex issue. (Note also that it clearly teaches that lying and gossiping, along with a good number of other things are wrong; lying seemingly, perhaps, gets the most attention).

If we could come to the Bible with no idea of how we ought to live, it clearly... says that we are to love each other, and that has many implications and applications. Christian love is more complex than appears first glance.

So we look for ways to live between these two concepts. We tend to gravitate, because of our prejudices, one way or the other. Truth lies somewhere in the middle along a shifting line depending on the relative situation. We don't want to be wishy-washy, so we polarize rather than having no clearly absolute answer.

I don't have the answers, however I am certain of one thing (one of the few things I am certain about) and that is that Christian love is trumps.

I guess the point of what I am saying is this: if we have a broad audience, we should speak of broad things, like love and mercy and justice.  If we want to identify specific sins of specific people, we should have those conversations in private, in person, and only after a lot of prayer.  If people make a blanket statement publicly, it is very easy to tune out their message.  Then the conversation is controlled by the media.  It is much better, showing more humility, to have discussions with people one at a time, so that their specific needs can be met with the message of Christ.  Remember Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees: don't point to the splinter in your brother's eye until after you have removed the log from your own.