Lecture from non-Christian devalues message

A disclaimer should be made that the opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone and are not of the Crown or Redeemer University College.

I'd like to join the chorus on this matter.

I hold in high regard my alma mater, Redeemer College. As such, Mr. Lindeman, your misplaced anger and distorted biblical hermeneutics make it difficult for me to believe that you graduated from the institution. That is all I have to say to you.

Most importantly, I'd like to say to the visitor from outside RUC: please forgive us for him. Perhaps hundreds of comments like the ones above will make clear to you, shocked reader, that this fellow is not indicative of the institution, nor of the God we strive to serve. To Stephen Lewis, thanks for taking the time to share with our community - we might not agree on everything, but we agree on more than you might even hope.

And this is precisely why Stephen Lewis is angry at Christians. When I read such hateful drivel I am led to side with Lewis. If we as professors are encouraging this type of thinking through what we say in the classroom then we have much to repent of. I am deeply ashamed that this opinion piece is written by a student from this institution.

"When a Christian sees someone who is physically hungry, a Christian feeds the hungry person. Why? Because hungry people can't understand the plan of salvation? No. Simply because that person is hungry. That's what Christians do."

I disagree with a lot of what the author said. Christ tells His disciples to make disciples of all nations. How do we expect to accomplish this when we are supporting a death penalty for a sin. What did Christ accomplish on the cross then? Why did He spend His time with the orphan and widow and prostitute showing them love? Perhaps because He was trying to teach the church not to turn their back on them, to give them the death penalty because they have sinned. We are truly mistaken if we ever think we have arrived, that we are without fault and sin or that we believe we can put ourselves above another. On the other hand, we need to be careful that we aren't judging the author in the way that so many here are feeling he wrongly judged Stephen Lewis. Remember that our motives are in love. And despite that this view is not Redeemer's as a whole, we did print it, and like Erica said, outsiders reading this will think that so many others believe this too. We need to be careful what we're printing. The last thing someone struggling through life needs to know is that the church is judging them. Let's be more like Christ. Let's show them someone cares.

I attended Lewis' lecture and, as others have emphasised, I am struck by the simplicity of the criticism contained in this response. However, while I think that this author, Reuben, is being unhelpfully reactionary, I think that many of the responses take a similar form and are, thus, similarly unhelpful. I hope to avoid the same traps.

First, let me clarify what I mean by 'simplicity'. I do not mean to say that God's command not to mis-use His name is not important. Similarly, I believe that too often the Christian left co-opts the actions and agendas of the broader, secular left and attempts to place a Christian spin on such issues without really making an effort to discern God's will or develop an appropriate hermeneutic. I'm reading between the lines of the Reuben's article, here, but I think that that is to what he refers when he writes "Redeemer seems to focus on the other extreme: to be concerned about physical well being without declaring the true Gospel." I hope I do Reuben justice. When I write, then, that I think that his criticism is simplistic, I think that he is attacking tangential parts of the lecture rather than getting to the heart of what was being said. I think that a bombastic, un-nuanced criticism does a disservice to the issue at hand. I think the challenge, instead, is to articulate a more sophisticated criticism of Lewis instead of feeling the need to be for him or against him.

My attempt, then, is this: Lewis has certainly accomplished much in his life as his list of honorary degrees and appointments testifies. However, I was actually surprisingly unimpressed by his presentation. He is knowledgeable, experienced, and has a vision for a strengthened Africa, but I came away from the lecture without feeling hooked into his mission, feeling strangely alienated from the problem where I expected to be more inspired. I think the reason I felt this way was that Lewis lacked a vision with depth. I think that while the world certainly needs public policy that acts justly and facilitates justice between third parties, there must be deeper transformation which I thought was visible more in the panelists than in Lewis. For instance, Dr. Rusthoven's question about microcredit lending was quickly dismissed as being insufficient to have a macro effect. I'm no expert, but I think that if there are to be strong institutions in African states, there must be leaders who are not purely selfish. I sometimes think that our leaders are descending into pure selfishness but I certainly believe that our institutions were built by people who had visions that extended beyond their own self-interest.

Like Calvin's Jamie Smith (cf. Who's Afraid of Postmodernism, Desiring the Kingdom), I believe that Reuben's statement that "Christianity is first understanding the Gospel and then living it out. Social justice in true Christianity is a by-product of Christ’s work in us, not the mainstay" shows an overly strong influence of modernity by suggesting that the life of the mind and the life of the body can be so easily separated, let alone simplified into a cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, we, as Christians who understand both our call to deep transformation and to be agents of justice on earth, must be a witness to a more compelling vision of social justice than that which Lewis presented. Thus, we will find ourselves belonging in the camps of neither the right nor the left, but being agents of mercy and grace so generous that unbelievers will not be able to understand. For instance, the tone with which Lewis attacked the Ugandan church (and interpolated to the church universal) was hardly compelling and made him, I think, seem hateful and ungracious whereas Dr. Anne Marie Zajdlik, in her brief words, seemed to me to have more hope and vision and a real heart for the suffering.

As in the gospel, we must remove the plank from our own (collective) eye before picking the speck from our sibling's eye. In the same way, I believe that we, as Christians, should be challenged by Lewis, an unbeliever, to be more earnest agents of mercy, justice, and grace. Christians who, I believe, have a far stronger foundation for a belief in social justice (that all mankind are God's image-bearers rather than the humanist postulate that humans are born with inalienable rights) should be challenged to work for deep transformation of whole persons. Where Lewis is ahead of us, we should be challenged to do more. We need to go further, though, and fill the deeper gaps for which Lewis' worldview is too shallow.

Agreed. The fact that this got printed is ridiculous. How can you attack a volunteer speaker who has more than proven himself and his work just because he doesn't share the same faith as you?

I'm not really sure who has the final say at the Crown, but someone should have stopped this from being submitted.

By helping the poor and impoverished by teaching them how to help themselves in a "materialistic" way (or just helping them to survive), we are showing God's love through our works. We are showing that He cares for those people and so do we as His children. as St. Francis of Assisi said, "Preach the gospel at all times - if necessary, use words." I believe that this is a very good way to put it. Jesus also fed the poor and helped the weak, why would we not be doing the same? God never once charged us with deciding who gets to live and who dies. Therefore, for us to say that Homosexuals are going hell is overstepping our boundaries that God put in place for us. We don't know enough about God's overflowing love and forgiveness and couldn't even begin to fathom its depth. Homosexuals are sinners, sure, but so are we! This article is so one-sided and ridiculous that it made me angry just reading it. Opinions like THIS are what give Christians a bad name.

Author, you quote Leviticus saying that God condemns... when does the right to condemn others apply to state institutions and individuals? Also, by asking whether or not the readership would condemn God for his actions, you are assuming that you are the arbitrer of God's mind, knowing his actions and wishes, and are being incredibly and unjustifiably offensive to your readership, who must be frustrated by you. There's truth in God's creation, and a non-Christian still may be given the grace of God to say things applicable to Christian thought and daily life. Can you think of any example in the scriptures where God uses a non-Christian?? Quite a few come to mind... he uses Prostitutes, Tax collecters, and other people we'd look at today negatively. But he still uses them. They're also people who God came to the world to save. My opinion is that homosexuality as a practice is sinful and a distortion of what God intends for healthy human sexuality. However, it's not an unforgivable sin - my opinion is that only a rejection of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. That's a different argument, though. Reuben, I've disrespected my parents. More than once. I know that that was wrong and a result of my sin. I'd venture a guess that you've done the same, though - or at least, that you're not without sin yourself. However, we're all fallen, and some by the grace of God are redeemed. That doesn't give the right to the redeemed to condemn those who are living in sin to death, though. Since I've disrespected my parents, Reuben, would you support the government of Canada if they passed a law which sentenced me to death? Deut 21:18-21 18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, 19then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. 20They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. Remember. All sin is sin in God's eyes.