Posted by Justin Mulwee in Charity, The Naysayer | 38 Comments
Go Hang Out With Losers
RELEVANT magazine posted an article last week, “You Are Who Your Friends Are.”
After talking to a bunch of prisoners, the author says, “The real reason they were in prison was not because they had committed crimes, though they had, but rather it was because of the people they hung out with.” He then implies that we should dump friends we don’t want to become and acquire holier pals.
This sort of advice is dished out to Christian adolescents constantly. He has a point: our friends influence us, and we should make it a point to draw close to those we admire. Friends are vital to your walk with Christ.
But do you see what’s missing? Such advice suggests we audit our relationships with a simple cost-benefit analysis, eagerly discarding those not righteous enough to benefit our character. It’s all about us.
This behavior fails a simple Jesus test. Jesus was regularly caught hanging around society’s scum. When the religious elite questioned this, he put them in their place.
And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Mark 2:16-17
Too many of us have become like doctors at doctors’ conventions, healthy folks sitting around sipping tea and crumpets in our exclusive club while the sick are dying in the streets. They need us. And we need them, lest the Church become what Martin Luther King Jr. called “an irrelevant social club.” Let us not permit our laziness to masquerade as wisdom. The road to hell is marked “practicality.”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Talking About Being In the World But Not of It « Travis Lambert - [...] Being In the World But Not of It My comment below is from the Blackbird Press article, “Go Hang ...
This is one of the reasons I like the Catholic conception of the Church as a “Hospital of Sinners” (rather than the reformed “Fellowship of the Elect”). I think we worry too much about being corrupted and too little about being helpful to others.
Good article.
Hear, hear! It is true that the Relevant article has offered ‘good advice’ for self-preservation, but that is not what Christians ought to be in the business of. If one really thinks that they are too weak to resist the influence of others, then they should strive to be stronger, not strive to lower their standards. This will require God. Anything less makes the Church ‘set apart’ at the expense of doing good.
I have been observing almost exactly the reverse trend. Granting the existence of exclusive Christian cliques, I have more often been struck by the lukewarming effect (if I may coin the term) which associating with unbelievers has on believers.
Yes, in theory a Christian ought to be able to keep the faith and be a light to the world, to be in the world but not of it, but in practice it seems that such association–ignoring Scriptural warnings that bad company corrupts good character and that light has nothing to do with darkness–has, far from pulling up unbelievers from the pit of sin and ignorance, actually pulled believers down. I have even seen it in myself.
It begins small. One finds oneself in a group of unbelievers, chatting, laughing, talking–it doesn’t even have to be actual friends; mere acquaintances will suffice. Someone will make a joke which contains implications clean contrary to Christian doctrine and offensive to one’s own conscience. And yet we laugh. At the very least we smile (not to do so would be social suicide). Later we will be asked a direct question or to agree to something which requires us at last to show our colors. We will stammer, blush, and even quietly announce our uncertainty on the subject (much like that staunch defender of the faith, Joel Osteen, on Larry King, http://bit.ly/2XdHa). And the more time we spend with such society, the more we invest in them and they endear themselves to us, the more cowardly we become and the weaker are our convictions. In the end, whether we admit it or not, we have become ashamed of our Lord and Savior, for whom we ought to deny even father and mother and spouse, but whom we have denied for the sake of a handful of acquaintances which in all likelihood we won’t even know in a couple of years.
Indeed, being in but not of the world is a tricky business. Some reckless people I have talked to have claimed to have found this balance, though in reality they had only succumbed to worldliness. I once heard someone passionately defend the sensuality and near fornication of a dance which I had condemned on the basis that non-participation would have meant a violation of the Great Commission.
We will not save lechers and murderers by becoming lechers and murderers ourselves. Please don’t misunderstand me; I am not a religious isolationist. But it takes a strong faith to be able to associate with unbelievers and not succumb to unbelief, and those whose faiths are weak are frankly not up to the task.
Sounds like that one chapel speaker I heard tales of, and her interpretation of the Jonah story…if the waters of life are stormy, throw your friends off the boat!
@Travis Lambert
I think the issue is that we are seeing evangelism as the work of “lone ranger” Christians. Although it isn’t explicitly stated, that’s the underlying assumption that I’m seeing in your comment above. When we don’t frame our understanding of the Christian life and evangelism accurately, it gets us into a mess.
That’s the point of inclusive Christian community, right?. The Church itself is supposed to be a new kind of community, inviting all into participation in living Kingdom lives alongside one another, with Jesus as the epicenter of all existence. It is a missional fellowship.
I believe it’s a Biblical mandate to “go” and be with those who are not yet followers of Jesus (as I’m sure you do too), but if we do that without anything to invite non-believers into, and without the support of a Christian community behind us, the lone rangers will fail and fall every time. The New Testament vision of a disciple of Jesus has at its very core the understanding that there is no such thing as a standalone Christian. Christians are to be defined by community, which gives a proper framework, foundation, and support structure for being in the world, but remaining different from the world (read: “holy” which has a library full of Scriptural meaning behind it).
In the New Testament, there is no dichotomy between Christian community and going to those who are not yet followers of Jesus. We are exempt from neither mandate.
I didn’t even bother to read the entire article from Relevant…
You can do it… I’ve done it…. you have to approach things… well you have friends that are for support and then you are salt and light… ?? I’m sure I’ve screwed it up as many times or more than I’ve done it well.
This reminds me of something a woman who works with prostitutes in Thailand said. I don’t remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of, “A dirty thing doesn’t make a clean thing dirty. A clean thing makes a dirty thing clean”
As to Travis, I have great sympathy. It is true that most people collapse. I think that in many ways, being among the incredible temptation that comes with other people’s folly is one of the greatest tests of Christian endurance, just as prevailing as a testimony of Christ in their lives is a greatest accomplishment. The difference between you and the Relevant article and the point at which our thinking is alike is that, indeed like the infamous ‘Jonah lady’ chapel speaker, the article suggests that we should just abandon foolish friends, while we both acknowledge that to succeed in this area is intense difficult and a point of great failure to be addressed with caution but not outright avoidance.
Your last line says it well. I daresay that being a testimony to those most in need is the purpose of our discipline.
As to Jeremy Pastor, while I would not say that _every_ Christian falls without the support of others, the overwhelming majority do and it is critical that those blessed enough to have good companions make the most of them. (Unfortunately, not everyone is so blessed, as I have experienced, but God does provide, and for those that have community, the provision of God will often come through that community–community must not be neglected.) Your comment is an excellent one.
To Travis–I agree, but not completely. The thing that many Christians forget, though, is that Jesus hung out with bad company–tax collectors (notorious for being dishonest), prostitutes, and the like. Yes, you are right that if you have weak faith that you will more likely be influenced than the others. But how can the sick be healed, the murder come to respect life, the hungry be fed, and the prostitute cleansed if we do not go to them? If we don’t go, who will? If you go under the guise of trying to sneak in and then do a surprise attack, then you probably will fail and it will have a “lukewarming effect” as you put it. However, when you go in with the intention of bringing the Love of God openly and brilliantly, things tend to work out a lot better.
I think that the very western idea of “just me and God” is silly/stupid. You need community and you should always be seeking Christian community. You need the support of fellow Christians to refresh yourself/admonish you. Two heads are better than one etc. etc.
However you shouldn’t hide in your little Christian hole. Once prepared and refreshed head back out into the world and change it for the better as much as you can, for as long as you can and then head home.
I think Christians should have there core group of Christian friend(s) and have friends who are not Christians. they should just be hyper aware of how they act around said non-Christian friends. fitting in should not be a priority in such cases.
@Ben
“fitting in should not be a priority in such cases.” Amen. I think we all need to remind ourselves of that all the time, and it doesn’t just apply to hanging around non-Christians, either.
“It takes a strong faith to be able to associate with unbelievers and not succumb to unbelief.” I’m not sure I agree. I followed the “ditch your friends” message when I became a Christian, effectively cutting myself off from those I should have been reaching, damaging Christ’s reputation among those who already hated Him, and epic failing at showing the grace that wanted to save them. Thankfully, they showed more grace than I had and are back in my life, and if anything my faith has been strengthened through being challenged. I’ve stepped out in faith in ways I wouldn’t have otherwise, grown in my love for Christ through seeing what I’ve been saved from, and had my passion for sharing the Gospel intensify.
Yes, we often begin to look like our friends, so we have to intentionally seek out godly people to keep us grounded. But we can’t stop reaching out. People hate the church because of the suffocating homogeneity and exclusivity it often represents. We basically send the message: “We don’t like you. Oh, and our God doesn’t either.” How counter-productive.
I know I just basically repeated what other people have said, but there’s my two cents.
@Tia
If I too may speak from experience, I once had to “ditch my friends.” More dramatically, I had to leave the city. For me it came down to a matter of life and death, salvation or damnation. When I came back, I found a new circle of friends, one which built me up in Christ rather than tear me down.
Years later, I reconnected with some from the old set; and whether or not I can say that I have helped them grow closer to Christ (as my wife and the new circle has helped me), I can say with absolute certainty that not only would I not have helped my old friends if I had remained, I would actually have dragged them further into ruin.
Over the past year I worked with parolees, and one of the things the parolees who were successfully getting themselves out of crime and back into society said is that they had to change their friends and their habits.
If they went back to their neighborhoods and back to their old friends they were just gonna go back to prison. I think when Christians convert they have to they have to approach their non-Christian friends differently. They probably shouldn’t being doing everything they did with them before they became a Christian.
I know from my own experience, my non-Christian friends in high school acted differently around me. They swore less, when they did they would apologize etc. Usually, if you have really good non-Christian friends, they will understand and respect your beliefs. And if they don’t do you really want to be their friend?
@Travis
I think that there are times when we need to step away from our friends if they are dragging us down. Your point does have validity, and in your situation, it probably was the best thing to do.
Now @all
I think the main differences in opinion in this comment thread are the product in how we are looking at the question. Some people are seeing is as, “No, we shouldn’t hang out with the losers because our closest friends need to be those who can build us up.” Whereas the other side is saying, “Yes, we should hang out with losers. It’s important to help the hurting, lost, etc.” It’s interesting to see that the two sides are talking about two completely different things. It makes me wonder how many other disagreements withing Christianity are like this–the different sides not realizing that they are not talking about the same thing.
As to MeBeingReal: a very valid point. This debate does not specify what sort of friends we are talking about. No one on either ‘side’ said that best friends ought to be the kind that are a bad influence. As usual, it seems that a balance is necessary, a balance that forces people to go beyond their own strength, to be both in the world and not of it. C.S. Lewis wrote that one can know Christianity to be the real religion by the fact that it stretches a believer to be between to things and striving for both. (‘Christian Apologetics’ from _God in the Dock_; G.K. Chesterton has some similar ideas in _Orthodoxy_.) At the time, he was writing about spirituality based on mystery and knowledge and that sort of thing, but I think the idea applies here also. We must help and be helped–we must serve many kinds of people.
@Travis
I completely get what you’re saying. And I agree with you- there are instances in which holding onto a friendship is the worst thing we could do for our walk with God. I know there are a few people I should never, because of the nature of our past relationship, seek a friendship with again. Our primary goal should never be to make/keep friends. But I don’t think our gut reaction should be to ditch all our non-Christian friends simply because they’re non-Christian, and I don’t think you do either. Like MeBeingReal said, I think we’re on the same side.
Creating a conflict out of two non-exclusive ideas is what the Relevant article was doing, and that’s what I meant to complain about in the first place. The Relevant article is for the most part a story of how the author created a great circle of Christian friends. But even his title, “You Are Who Your Friends Are” makes the false suggestion that you have no choice but to become like those around you, as if we had no free will and our character was corrupted by mere proximity to sinners.
It’s still pretty tricky. After reading the discussion, it seems that at times pulling away from old friends is the best thing you can do, and at other times the worst thing you can do. I submit that if you do leave old friends, it should be out of humility, admitting that you are not strong enough to resist their influence and parting ways is how you can best serve God. It should not be a decision made from arrogance or only out of practical self-interest.
I think everyone is almost missing the point. I think the article is ridiculous. As a christian in my life I do not/ or want to have a distinction between good and bad friends, they’re all just friends and not matter how christian or not they are people who god loves. The idea of a christian going into relationships or life with idea of avoiding sin is ridiculous because you can’t avoid it.
Relationships end all the time for various reasons, some may not be able to be reconciled. But using spiritual stagnation as an excuse to drop friends and find holier people to feel better about yourself or your relationship with god is ridiculous. Self-worth is found in god not friends or relationships. Be a leader in your life and relationships. loving others is hard because it does not always benefit you. God knows your heart and will not turn his back on you.
This may be another restating of the same point, but I wonder if I may be viewing this issue differently than some others. I think we can all agree that there is a difference between a “friend” and someone we associate with. Jesus was routinely found in the company of unbelievers, but there are two important facts we have to remember about this: first, these were people he visited with, not people who were his friends and were a normal part of his daily life. Second, Jesus visited with those people for the express purpose of sharing the gospel with them. I think that it is foolish to have close friends who are non-christians, because these are the people who will inevitably influence us. To me, “be in the world but not of it” means that we are to be set apart but still spend time around non-believers. Obviously we cannot avoid non-christians, they will always be our coworkers, neighbors, etc. I think though that there is an important difference between encountering non-christians and being friends with them. Spending time with these people should have the ultimate goal of sharing the gospel; not necessarily talking about Jesus every time we talk to them, but at the least trying to be an example of the love of God. Jesus loved them just as much as his disciples, but he was not friends with them, he was trying to save their lives.
Rick, I couldn’t disagree more. Spending time with non-Christians only for the purpose of sharing the gospel and never being true friends with them is one reason so many people are repulsed by the sharing of the gospel. It says to them that you have no interest in being a real friend but only view them as a project.
Maybe I shouldn’t have said that should be our only purpose, but if you are being a true friend to someone, shouldn’t you be sharing the gospel with them anyway? Again, I don’t see a problem with associating with non-christians, and I certainly don’t think we should be rude. With that said, I think if we are following Jesus’ example, I don’t think that non-believers should be a part of our innermost circle. On the surface, it may seem rude, but I don’t think it is, and it doesn’t appear that Jesus thought so either. His behavior was to love non-believers, but his first priority was always sharing God’s love with them, not being friends just for the sake of not offending them.
Also, I mentioned this in my first comment: I’m not suggesting that every time we talk with a non-believer, the only possible subject of conversation is the Bible. You are correct that this would be offputting. However, we are being disobedient to the second greatest commandment (love your neighbor as yourself) if we are not looking for example to, at the very least, show God’s love by example and by our actions toward those around us.
That makes a little more sense. And yes, a true friend should share the gospel. It’s only natural, because we care about our friends and want the best for them. But I think the gospel is a lot easier to stomach if it comes from a friend who is genuinely affectionate toward them. Not that becoming a close friend is the only circumstance to share the gospel. But I will not reject friendships on the criteria that people are not Christians.
I’d like to agree in theory that one’s innermost circle should be Christians, but that is not true in my life, as the closest person to me is my sister who is not a Christian. We’re not just close because we’re family, but because we’re so similar and understand each other.
So, I think it’s a good guideline that one’s closest friends should be Christians. But even then it doesn’t work as a hard rule.
Hard rules are usually a very bad idea (unless they are so vague as to provide almost no practical directive in a given situation).
@travis “Pulling up unbelievers from the pit of sin and ignorance, actually pulled believers down”
And Christians wonder why people see them as condescending and judgmental.
@Joe
What do you find condescending and judgmental about the acknowledgment that unbelievers live in sin (because they have not obtained Christ’s forgiveness) and ignorance (because they deny Him Who calmed to be the Truth)? To be a Christian at all requires one to believe that; it takes no special arrogance on the part of the believer. If it makes you feel any better, I take no more pleasure in observing the fact than I would in observing that several people are going to drown because they refuse to take hold of the life preservers that have been thrown to them. I may indeed be tempted to think myself superior to them for having taken the life preserver myself, but that would of course be very foolish of me (especially since I can’t say that I threw myself the lifeline), and it doesn’t necessarily mean that I will. I may simply feel pity.
And all the while we have been thinking about whether or not the survivor is arrogant (which is itself arrogant, is it not?), the question of whether or not the others are really drowning remains exactly where it was. That is to say, whether or not one is arrogant while one thinks it, unbelievers really may be living in sin and ignorance.
You don’t think it’s arrogant to pity someone else’s beliefs? You don’t think that viewing people who disagree with you as drowning is condescending?
Let’s play this conversation out.
Travis: What I believe is truth, do you agree with me?
Heathen: No, I have my own beliefs.
Travis: Poor drowning soul, you will surely suffer forever because you disagree with me. You live in a pit of ignorance and sin.
Heathen: But I’m well informed of your beliefs, and I live as moral a life as you do.
Travis: In the love of God, I want you to be just like me or suffer the consequences. Now it’s time to go hang out with some people who don’t drag me down.
I know you don’t say these things out loud, but you think them. And this attitude of “my beliefs (based completely on faith) are right and yours are wrong” has got to stop.This attitude is one of the many many reasons so many people leave the church. It automatically sets up a grater than thou complex, and maybe worst of all, it makes you more concerned with trying to convert someone than trying to simply listen to them.
I encourage you to give listening a try. You might actually learn something from people you disagree with.
Sorry to single you out. This attitude is pervasive both and the church and this thread. “Hang out with losers”? I want to barf.
@Joe
The main point I’m trying to make is that there is no relationship between the truth of a proposition and the possible arrogance of the person who believes it.
Whether or not a person believes it, whether or not they are arrogant to think so, a person is either drowning or not. Similarly, if even half of the things which Christ said about Himself are true, then He is “the way and the truth and the life [and] no one comes to the Father except through [Him]” (John 14:6). It’s not a matter of arrogance or humility but one of fact or fiction, truth or falsehood. It’s a matter investigated not by psychoanalyzing the proponent, but by examining the rational and/or empirical evidence for the claim.
Your imagined conversation between me and the “Heathen” is silly. How I would proceed (how I have proceeded on several occasions) would be to argue from reason that God exists (http://wp.me/pAuSA-2q) and from historical evidence that Christ did in fact make claims to deity and did in fact perform miracles (see http://bit.ly/cl0NBy).
Your petition that a Christian should abandon his beliefs that Christ is the one true God (which you falsely assume are based only on blind faith) for the sake of keeping people in the church is absurd. You might as well say that someone who is a vegetarian on ethical grounds should give up his or her belief that eating meat is wrong. They may do so, but they would thereby cease to be a vegetarian. In the same way, a Christian who ceased believing in Christ (or His claims, which is the same thing) would thereby cease to be a Christian. Just like a someone who doesn’t believe in Marxism is not a Marxist. It’s a simple matter of definition.
But if we’re going to talk about arrogance, let’s talk about that of the person who says, “Because I don’t know it or believe it, therefore you can’t either.” It is humble to say (if it’s true), “I don’t know that”; but there’s nothing more unfounded (and therefore arrogant) than to add, “Therefore you can’t know it.” To declare that a thing is unknowable before you have even heard the evidence is the very summit of arrogance.
One can be an ethical vegetarian without saying that people who eat meat are ignorant sinners. I know, because I am one.
The same is true of any ideology. I don’t think the cosmological argument makes any sense, but I don’t think you’re going to burn in hell for thinking that it does.
Lets put the shoe on the other foot.
Would you find it condescending if an Atheist said you are brainwashed into dogma and can’t think for yourself? I assume it would. Would that kind of statement make you more or less inclined to consider Atheism? I assume less. So what makes you think that statements like yours could in any way win over someone?
But winning someone over isn’t the point. The point is we need to accept people the way they are. You can’t change anyone else, only yourself. So rather than having a box of non-Christian acquaintances you are working on, why not just have friends?
This could go on forever, but I wish you the best.
Joe
You are making a basic assumption that all beliefs are equal and equally rational, and that furthermore certain ethical principles entailed by your religious views (accept people as they are) trump others that are entailed by different beliefs (ie Traves’s sense that it is his moral duty to share his faith, not because it’s cool that other people agree with him, but because they are in eternal danger otherwise). You’ve accused and condemned Travis for doing the same
Your value system claims to be accepting and non-judgmental, and yet here you are passing judgment on Travis. You should just accept him as he is, after all, and not try to impose your arbitrary faith-based religion (and consequent value system) on his arbitrary faith-based religion and value system. It’s all faith just the same, and no one can change anyone else anyway.
At least Travis is acting consistently. You aren’t.
As to Joe, it appears that Dan and Travis are right basically in saying that there is no necessary connection between one’s humility or perceived humility and the facts that one accepts. Looking at the example of Christ, He was the epitome of humility and compassion who also had to accept and propagate that He was God (a notch more challenging than just saying ‘my right beliefs work to the exclusion of yours’). And indeed, it was very off-putting to the people around him, unto death, but His example demonstrates also that it is more than just people’s indignation but also their fear that a believer will face, and that is the real danger and distinction between Christians and others (not just beliefs, but the power of God to drive out fear, which to give others is worth challenging them with).
If it makes it any better, I am not really disagreeing with your assertion that it is really hard not to at least come off as arrogant, especially today, it’s just that saving face isn’t our highest priority, because life is just a flash in the pan. It’s what Soren Kierkegaard calls the ‘paradox of Christianity’ (I think, I ought to reread that), that the first calling of Christians is to spread the glory of God, which is also the very thing that will do them in amidst the world. You might like Kierkegaard, I recommend books like _Fear and Trembling_, _For Self-Examination_, or _Practice in Christianity_. Walter Lowrie’s _A Short Life of Kierkegaard_ may also be something you would really enjoy.
@ Joe
“One can be an ethical vegetarian without saying that people who eat meat are ignorant sinners…. The same is true of any ideology.”
The same is certainly not true of any ideology! Perhaps the vegetarian analogy fails, but you must accept that certain ideologies are mutually exclusive. Take slavery, Nazism, or (to use a more urgent example) human trafficking. No sane person can look on such atrocities and say, “While I personally may be against these things, I’m certainly not going to condemn those who promote and perpetuate them.” There comes a time when you absolute must put your foot down, when you must take a side.
Now, I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not a slaver, Nazi, or trafficker–but surely you must see how you cannot adopt your above statement as a general principle.
Again you insist on speculating about the tone in which a proposition might be made instead of whether or not a proposition might be true or false or discoverable to the eye of Reason. “I don’t think the cosmological argument makes any sense” is not an objection. Let me know when you get tired of name-calling and actually want to be open-minded enough to consider the evidence.
First of all, I have not, unlike the title of this article, called anyone a name. Secondly, I apoligize if my analysis of the comological arguement was too brief. I have been over it so many times that I don’t feel like debating its flaws here. Thirdly, slavery and trafficing are not ideologies.
I have also not passes judgement on anyones beliefs, but rather have critisized, because as Travis said you have to put your foot down somewhere the language being used to discribe non Christians. I do this because I have friends ranging from orthodox to evangelicals to Jews to Muslims to atheists and while I disagree with many of them, I view none of them as threats to my own beliefs. And I don’t stay away from them out of a fear that they will “drag me down”
But if no one here thinks calling people you disagee with losers who will drag you into a pit of ignorance is condecending, then this is a lost cause.
About the title: I did not call anyone any names, or say that someone is loser for being a nonbeliever or for holding any certain opinion. I only said there are those who we would prefer not to emulate, but we should still befriend them. Read carefully and you will see that my post did not even make a distinction between Christians and nonbelievers. Please don’t put words it my mouth.
As for the debate between Joe and Travis: if one were to say to a nonbeliever, “I will pull you up from the pit of sin and ignorance,” It would certainly sound very conceited, and I understand why it irritated you. It would be a terrible way to present the gospel. But Travis was not trying to spread the gospel with this sentence; he was trying to articulate his position about why he felt he had to turn from his own group of friends.
We must present the truth as humbly as possible, but we must be honest with ourselves and say that without the light of Christ we are all doomed to sin and ignorance. In the same way, I expect an atheist to believe I am ignorant; otherwise, why would be he an atheist?
@ Joe
It’s only condescending to say that unbelievers are in sin and ignorance if the proposition is false or unknowable (which you seem to have no interest in debating), otherwise it is a mere statement of fact, similar to “Those people are about to die in a train wreck.”
“. Thirdly, slavery and trafficing are not ideologies.”
No but racial supremicism and hedonism, which tend to couple with those ethical mandates, are. Your “objection” is pure semantics.