Today is World AIDS Day 2009.
The Church has, for the most part, done a terrible job of responding to the AIDS epidemic. For a long time, we looked down our noses at the suffering and called it the justice of God come early. More recently, we just became indifferent to the plight of the suffering. Those with HIV/AIDS are in someone else’s backyard, like an invisible army that we can ignore until they finally go away.
That is…until we meet someone with AIDS.
Then we can’t ignore them. We may not hate them, but we certainly find them to be somewhat curious. How did she get it? Sleeping around? Was/is he homosexual? Maybe she shared needles with someone. Stupid. We cannot help but fill in the blanks. And once we’ve done that, it’s a short step to judging them. Sadly, judgment is our default.
And once again culture is one step ahead of us. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (the biggest AIDS/HIV medical provider in the nation) recently launched a billboard campaign in Los Angeles in an effort to get people to visit their website www.freeHIVtest.net where they can find a location to get a free HIV test and follow up with treatment, if needed. Their marketing campaign is brilliant and their slogan is, “No Judgmental Bullsh*t.” Obviously getting an HIV test often carries with it a significant amount of negative stigma and the AHF wants to reduce that factor as an obstacle to getting the test.
Their message is fantastic. And I wish it were an advertisement for the Church.
It is not just AIDS, though. As I noted in my last blog post, we Christians are notoriously judgmental, experts in pointing out the specks in others eyes while having logs in our own. We are quick to point out how others are failing, but completely unable to see our own sin.
I get it, though. I get why we often become judgmental. We want to be sure that others know there are things out there that we disagree with. The only problem is that we focus on those things almost exclusively. We forget that being a Christian is not just characterized by the things we’re against, but also (and more importantly) by the things we are for. Or at least it should be.
So, what should Christians be for? Here are a few ideas:
- Justice – There are unjust practices all over the world from human trafficking to child slavery to corrupt governments. Christians should actively seek to promote the undoing of those practices.
- Sacrifice – Yes, even American Christians are called to make sacrifices for the sake of others. And if, when you give it up, it doesn’t hurt very much, it is not much of a sacrifice.
- Compassion – Have compassion on everyone, regardless of what they look like, what sorts of activities they engage in, or what they believe. We should be non-discriminatory on this.
- Giving – Of our time, money, and resources. We do not serve the Kingdom when we keep everything to ourselves. Give yourself away.
- Truth – But not to the exclusion of everything else. We need to learn how to stand firm in our beliefs without letting truth trump the other things we should be for.
- Humility – Being bearers of the truth does not give us license to lord it over others. Ever.
- Love – Because everything else is summed up in these two commandments: love God and love your neighbor. If you’re wondering what love looks like, see the above bullet points.
And, of course, we can be against one thing: judgment.
What would you add to the list of things Christians should be for?
P.S. Check out our most recent press release!
How do we practice being non judgmental when there is this blog about leaving the building.
There are so many things I judge as being wrong with the church I am a part of. There working on a $10 million dollar phase two on the 43 acre property they sit on. Talking about what the tithe for the church should be if the median income in our city is …. and the number of heads of household in the church is ….. so we should have this much coming in…. Once the new building is up then we should have this many members and so the tithe should be ….. and so with that money we could do …..
How do I not judge the church when I THINK there is so much wrong with it.
Did the church of Act’s have a building? Or was it all home based?
For a building so full of people I have never been in a place that felt so empty.
By: Dustin on December 1, 2009
at 10:42 AM
Dustin,
Thank you for your comment and for being so vulnerable about your own struggle with this. To clarify, I think we have a responsibility to judge the Church – not condemn, but definitely to judge. This is perhaps one of the most needed, and yet most difficult things to do because of our tendency to judge with anger. We need to recapture love-based judgment for the Church that is done out of a desire to see the Church succeed in her calling. Too often, judgment is done for the sole purpose of tearing something down…not for Christians, it is done to build the Church up!
To answer your question, the early church met in homes. However, that was done out of necessity and is merely a description of the early church, there is no indication that the early church intended that meeting in homes should be the only way to do it. Obviously has a house church leader, I think meeting in homes gives us a unique advantage in a lot of things and I want to help other churches and Christians think about that, but I don’t think homes is the only way.
Keep struggling, man! God is growing you in that process!
By: Ken Eastburn on December 2, 2009
at 8:08 AM
So, if actively promoting the undoing of corrupt government should be on the agenda, how is that any different than what James Dobson or Pat Robertson do?
By: David on December 1, 2009
at 4:39 PM
Not everything that James and Pat do is bad – they stand for some very good things (i.e. protecting the unborn). Unfortunately, they also take a stand on very ridiculous things and thus compromise their credibility. But part of their problem is that they think the non-Christian government should cater to Christian ideas and principles. It is one thing to advocate for one’s government to act justly towards all people, and it is another to advocate for one’s government to play favorites. I think the most Christian thing we could do in this regard is to fight for the rights of all people equally without insisting on something special for ourselves.
By: Ken Eastburn on December 2, 2009
at 8:14 AM
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Thank you for speaking out.
By: Dennis on December 2, 2009
at 6:18 AM
Thank you, Dennis!
By: Ken Eastburn on December 2, 2009
at 8:14 AM
Balance!
By: barnabas41 on December 2, 2009
at 8:03 AM
Christians should be for balance? Why? (I don’t disagree necessarily, but I’d love to hear why you say so!)
By: Ken Eastburn on December 2, 2009
at 8:15 AM
My “balance” comment was an affirmation of your statement that we should judge but not condemn the church. It was a quick response to that; but, evidently I should have been more specific.
There are myriad of worldly issues that disciples should examine and hopefully come down on the side of “What would Jesus do?” Unfortunately, as I have stated on many occassions, way too many Christians have difficulty in separating the gospel from patriotism. Those who point this out normally incur the wrath of many patriots! For example, I have many Christians friends who throw up the verse about God requiring us to obey all governments whenever I question or challenge the way government operates. I am often called “unpatriotic” because I judge both parties; ergo, damned if you doo, damned if you don’t. But I never acquiesce God’s truth regardless how painful it may be to many.
At your serfice!
JO
By: barnabas41 on December 2, 2009
at 10:04 AM
Creation Care (being good stewards of the Good Creation) & Racial Reconciliation
By: Nick Love on December 2, 2009
at 12:52 PM
One thing we must be for is Jesus. He is the focal point. It must not be obnoxious. But everything else you mentioned we should be for should always point back to Jesus. He is the life changer. Does that mean bible thumping? No. Does it mean dropping his name in every sentence? No. It means though that we have an answer for what we do when we help the hurting. When we love on people who may not be very easy to love.
As for the rest of the list, you are dead on. Most of my ministry has been among the poor and those who have been homeless in our local area. I’m beginning to experience a heart change from Father though about others, about the poor in Africa. I don’t know where it’s going yet, but it’s an exciting journey.
By: johnlunt on December 3, 2009
at 9:37 AM
Sharing the Gospel with others on any and every occasion. It shouldn’t be enough for Christians to see people well fed, in good health, as wealthy as their neighbors, drinking clean water and eating fantastic food and then going to hell because nobody ever gave them the Gospel. Our hearts should be breaking for those that do not know Christ as their Lord and Savior. The list that you have there is a good one and just about any American would agree with it, but what sets Christians apart is sharing the Gospel. I think if each of us examine ourselves, the thing that should set us apart as believers is our excitement to see others come to Christ. Our hearts should break for them not just because they are hungry or treated poorly in our society, or in another country. They should be breaking first and foremost, because they are lost.
Contrary to popular opinion, Christ did not come to change social conditions, he came to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). When we get serious about “going fishing” God will take care of the social issues, the finances in an individuals life, and lovingly care for his children in every circumstance.
By: Catherine on December 3, 2009
at 10:29 AM
Yes, we are commanded to share (or preach) the gospel; there is no denying this fact. But I don’t think Christ seeks to see our “excitement” when we (supposedly) are responsible for others accepting Christ. We see too much of this perception that people are SAVED because they confessed so in mass gatherings due to our sharing the gospel. Too many preachers and ordinary folks jump up and down and begin to take credit for leading others to Christ, as if we score points. Ours is to plant the word of God and Christ does the saving, not us.
Those who truly accept Christ and follow Him as disciples are those who experienced the love of Christ through our acts of love and charity.
Way too many egotistical religious leaders claim their greatness by the size of their churches and by counting how many they led to Christ on Sunday. Way too many Chistians bask in the glory of the euphoric church services (and its RELIGIOUS EXCITEMENT) rather than doing the will of God.
Preachers and pastors are given the responsibility of teaching and training those who have already accepted Christ, those whe need to know (more so) what TRUE religion is all about. It most certainly is not for us to carry our little adding machines to count how many WE led to Christ. This is the problem with the church and why it has lost its relevancy: Too much time is being spent on being CHURCHY and not enough tiime in tending the poor. Feeding the hungry is not about changing social conditions, it’s about loving your neighbors, regardless of their origin state.
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:26-27
By: barnabas41 on December 3, 2009
at 11:05 AM
Ken, I looked at your website because I felt that I might of found a connection with what I am hoping to move toward… moving my wife and myself out west to be involved in house church ministry. I am an ordained Southern Baptist minister hooked on participatory church life… otherwise it isn’t very lively, is it? My wife has fibromialgia and we hope to relocate to an area with lower humidity. Could it be where you are?
Anyhow, I like how God has led you. But if I were part of your house church, I would of been (and I am) offended by your remark about how churches should take on the motto of the HIV testing group that has the word “bull****” incluced in it. I would of (and I am doing so now) held you accountable for such vulgar (NON CHRISTLIKE) language. Don’t you think we should speak out on wrongs as Christ would? You were speaking out, but I am certain that Christ would not want the Bull**** word used. I have heard many (to many) otherwise admirable Christians use that word, but it takes away from a Godly influence rather than adding to it. Please, for sake of Godly influence on our younger as well as older “flock” confess this indiscretion and lead on… as God leads. Dwight Cummings
By: Dwight Cummings on January 25, 2010
at 3:03 PM
Note: Dwight’s comment was actually left on a different article, but I’ve moved it here in the interest of letting his comment be reflected to those who have read and commented on this post.
Hi Dwight,
I apologize for taking so long to respond to you. It is not that I want to ignore you or your question, but life has been abnormally busy for me lately. Actually, if you can pray for me, I would really appreciate it as I’m going through some hard stuff right now.
Regarding your opposition to my use of the language. First let me say that I am glad you are taking the time and energy to hold me accountable for my words. Actually, I’m surprised that you are the first and that it took this long. So, for that, I am grateful for your courage and willingness to say something.
That said, after taking some time to reflect on what you have said, I must ultimately disagree with your overall conclusion.
When writing this post I did so carefully and prayerfully. I was well aware of the fact that I would (sooner or later) get some push back due to the strong language, but at the end of the day I remained convinced in my own heart that it was appropriate for me to preserve that language in the interest of accomplishing the larger goal.
I do want to clarify that I am not advocating for churches to adopt this phrase for themselves. I don’t think it would be particularly useful for churches/Christians to go around saying this about themselves not least of which is because it may not be true. Rather, I wish this is what the non-Christian culture said about the Church.
Of course, the goal of this was ultimately to take a stance against those believers who have allowed themselves to be characterized by less than Christlike behavior and to encourage them to consider what it might look like to be as vocal about what they are for as they are about what they are against.
I believe the use of the strong language may sometimes be appropriate both to draw the attention of an otherwise lazy and uninterested people to the matter at hand, but also (and more importantly) to indicate just how important this particular matter is. If we manage to ignore it, we will only be hurting ourselves.
I am aware that this answer may not be sufficient to convince you, and for that I am both sorry but also content. It is not for me to convince you that I am right, merely I wish to share with you why I felt it important enough to include. My only request is that you reflect on what I’ve said here and settle it between you and God. If you still think I am wrong, I respect your opinion and ask you to remain convinced all the more, bearing with me as your weaker brother.
In Christ,
Ken
By: Ken Eastburn on January 25, 2010
at 3:22 PM
[...] AIDS Healthcare foundation had an interesting campaign to promote free HIV tests saying, “No Judgmental Bullsh*t” which I blogged about on December 1st. I wish they had been talking about the church. [...]
By: Top 10 Comments of 2009 « A House Church Blog on January 26, 2010
at 8:34 AM