What will save Anthony Weiner?

With the news that Congressman Anthony Weiner was going to seek treatment for his sexual addiction, Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary tweeted, “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.” Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, founder of This World: The Values Network took exception to Mohler’s comments claiming that Mohler was trying to proselytize the congressman. Rabbi Shmuley responded to Mohler’s comments in an article in The Jewish Journal titled, “An Evangelical Attempts to Proselytize Anthony Weiner.”

In his response, Rabbi Shmuley made three statements that demonstrate just how different evangelical Christianity and Judaism really are. These statements are based on incorrect assumptions that Rabbi Shmuley makes about evangelical Christianity. He assumes that we believe that “salvation through Jesus Christ grants immunity to sexual sin” and that Christianity will prevent sin. No one with a correct understanding of evangelical Christianity would make these claims as they run contrary to Scripture, Old and New Testaments. Our faith does not prevent sin but it does provide a way out. “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and He will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Cor 10:13, ESV) Here, God supplies that which is necessary to overcome sin and temptation to those who have placed their faith in Him.

Rabbi Shmuley says, “Redemption comes about not through anything we believe but how we behave.” In this statement he makes redemption a matter of self-determination. We can will ourselves to be obedient enough to be redeemed. However, Genesis 15:6 concerning Abraham, the father of Judaism, “And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (NKJV, emphasis mine). To his credit, Rabbi Shmuley rightly says, “It is not faith that guarantees our morality but rather an ironclad commitment to righteous action, be we atheists or theist.” I believe this is true, but while faith does not guarantee our morality, neither does our morality guarantee the kingdom.

Secondly, Rabbi Shmuley says, “Redemption is never a function of belief and always a function of deed.” To support his view, he quotes Jesus in Matt 7:16, “You will know them by their fruits.” The Rabbi makes an excellent point and most evangelical Christians that I know will readily admit that there is a tension and a struggle between faith and obedience. The Rabbi in his statement though creates a rather extreme false choice that distinguishes between two biblically inseparable concepts, faith and works. In order for his statement to be aligned with Scripture (Old and New Testaments), it should read, “Redemption is always a function of belief that results in deeds.” James and the writer of Hebrews affirm the emphasis of obedience that comes from faith, but this obedience is empowered by God, not our will.

Thirdly, Rabbi Shmuley says, “Atonement comes not from belief in Jesus Christ but from getting on your knees in front of the wife whose heart you broke, begging her forgiveness, and placing yourself in an environment of change that will help sustain your new moral commitment.” Anthony Weiner should absolutely do these things and in them he and his wife may experience reconciliation. But to ascribe atonement to this act of self-vindication is to limit the concept of atonement to earthly relationships. Rabbi Shmuley grossly misses the point of the atoning sacrifice when he says, “Judaism is emphatic that when it comes to sins that pertain to human relationships, not even G-d can forgive. The injured party must be approached directly.”

The statements made by Rabbi Shmuley stem from the same type of moralistic deism that trapped the Pharisees of Jesus’ day into thinking that self-determination, self-righteousness, and self-vindication was enough to gain entrance to the kingdom. Nicodemus even struggled with the spiritual side to Jesus’ teaching. Rabbi Shmuley makes a similar mistake in limiting concepts such as redemption and atonement to the physical realm and physical relationships. However, he goes one step further. While the Pharisees of Jesus’ day misunderstood faith, Rabbi Shmuley seems to completely dismiss faith as irrelevant. The Bible is very clear when through the writer of Hebrews the Holy Spirit reminds us that, “without faith it is impossible to please [God],” (Heb 11:6, NKJV).

Contentment vs. Complacency

In their newly published book, The Faith of Leap, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch present an awesome challenge to the church to step up and pursue the adventure to which we have been called. The premise of the book is that if we are going to take on the responsibility of being light in a dark world, we will be required to assume a certain level of risk--one that is not dissimilar to that of first century Christians who realized that claiming "Jesus is Lord" was countercultural and counter-political to the driving and safe worldview of the Roman Empire that readily declared "Caesar is lord."

Before I get to what I believe is right about the opening chapter, I want to to take issue with one paragraph. In order to validate their position, the authors believe that we must impose on God's character the same type of risk that we as humans experience. In doing so they present a theology that closely resembles the theology of "Open Theism." Open theists assume that since our risk stems from a lack of knowledge and control, then our God who takes risks must do so from the same perspective, a lack of knowledge and a lack of control. I agree that God seemingly took risks when he gave Adam a choice, and when He came in the flesh, and when He entrusted His mission to a church. But in God's economy, risk and knowledge and control do not stand in opposition. God is still omniscient and omnipotent. What is risky for us is not so for God. The authors admit that this particular theological debate is beyond the scope of the book, so they correctly keep the ideas of risk and courage centered on the church and it's mission today.

The real motivation for this article is to make sure that we as a church understand the difference between contentment (the topic for many of our Sunday School classes for June 19) and complacency. When we teach about contentment, we are speaking in terms of materialism, calling, and the circumstances of this world or our lot in life. Contentment in this sense battles our natural inclination towards covetousness, envy, and greed. Paul articulates the Christian perspective when he says, "Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me," (Phil 4:1-13, ESV).

However, Paul never allowed his contentment to take on the characteristics of complacency. To do what he did in writing sometimes scathing letters to churches showed that he cared and was passionate about his calling. His unwillingness to allow John Mark on the second missionary journey showed that he was passionate about his convictions. He risked friendships at the expense of truth and conviction. He pursued the adventure of being a Christian in ways that many of us would never consider. Paul wrote, "Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure," (1 Cor 11:24-27, ESV).

Paul was content, but he was never complacent. As believers, contentment with regard to the things of this world should never be misconstrued as complacency with regard to the kingdom. Are we, individually and as a church, willing to let urgency and risk drive our mission and purpose? Here is a question to consider, how often do we operate in the realm of mediocrity (in our individual faith and in the corporate life of the church) because we have mistaken complacency for contentment?