(e)mergent Voyageurs

I came across an interesting article in the The Scotsman this morning entitled "Famine Is Offensive, Not Jerry Springer". In a response to the Christian protest against the "Jerry Springer: The Opera" which may (or may not) have led to the loss of arts funding by the British Arts Council, the author (a self-proclaimed "non-Christian") considers the nature of Christianity against Christ. In his opening paragraph, Andrew Burnet says:


He goes on the speculate that Jesus is not so concerned with many of the things Christian invest time, energy and money into protesting, stating:


Inevitably, Christian readers will find some views of the writer harder to swallow than others, but it is quite rare to find an admittedly non-Christian writer, who is critiquing the Church, but graciously honours the exceptions to this critique and recognizes that Jesus Himself should not be measured by those who represent Him poorly. I wonder if many Christians would be so gracious.

So how do those of us who seek to represent Christ & Christianity in a more authentic way respond to such an article? Do we apologize for those who have so brutally misused the name of Jesus, both now and through history? Do we argue against the sweeping generalizations? Do we formulate an apologetic for Christianity as we see it (be it Emergent or what have you)?

Perhaps all of these things, in part, can and should be part of our response. However, I do not believe it is either enough nor the emphasis we should seek. Rather, if such public displays of unfortunate Christianity can draw the attention of a watching world, then let us change their hearts and minds with missional communities that distinguish themselves by that which they believe is True, not just what is simply good, right or moral.

Even further, I wonder if we should be distinguishing ourselves by standing beside those whose freedoms are threatened, even if those freedoms are exercised in ways we may be uncomfortable with or are disagreeable with our morality? This is not to say that we throw the doors open to unbridled permisiveness. Rather, acknowledging the complex and sensitive balance that needs to be found, create a world in which free will can be exercised responsibly and truly- meaning room must be made to fail. The Tree was in the Garden, after all.
It is not that we want to become "politcally correct" or even "socially acceptable", but neither do we want to protect against the abuse of freedom by removing freedom altogether. Martin Luther King Jr. once said of racial segregation:

In the same way, while laws and rules may serve the ultimate good (though rarely when it hinders true freedom), they must be byproducts of this deeper, truer obedience to the unenforcable obligations of the loving God and loving our neighbours.