I had planned to run with the pack and write a feature on the top 10 faith stories of 2007. Believe me, as a newspaper reporter I’ve filled many an inch of newsprint with these year-end remembrances. Filling the “news hole” while employees enjoy the holidays with family may be the main purpose of the year-in-review genre.
But as I compiled my list for 2007 it hit me we should be looking forward and not back. Two trends I saw in 2007 convinced me of that. The first is the continuing rise of the emerging church; the second is the softening of the evangelical movement. “By God,” I thought, “we could have a convergence be in the works!”
Much has been written about the “emerging” movement, but mainly looking from the outside in. Many Christians I know in mainline churches would fit nicely into the category without ever having heard the words “emerging church.” So here’s my take on the emerging movement derived not from the writings of religious academics or major publications, but from the pews and meeting rooms of local churches:
Emerging Christians are action oriented. We see scripture, and Jesus himself in a historical context as someone affecting change in the here and now. We want to do the same. Scripture therefore is not an ancient document to be studied and revered, but a record of action on God’s behalf that can be used in our current context as a guide for our own actions.
Emerging Christians are spiritual, even mystical. We don’t believe in the separation of heaven and earth. We believe God’s Spirit is a real and present force in the world that can be felt in a tangible way. We know that those who followed Jesus sensed this presence in him, observing that he spoke with authority not seen in other religious leaders. Some reach this spiritual consciousness through deep prayer that is more like meditation than the word prayers familiar to traditional Christians. Others reach spiritual heights through intense action in the way a marathon runner reaches a “runner’s high.” As a pathway to a higher spiritual plane, scripture is seen as metaphorical and not subject to easy intellectual dissection. Notice how Jesus used word pictures we call parables, and not academic statements, to describe the “kingdom of heaven.”
Finally, emerging Christians seek political progress. We believe God meant it when creation was described as “good.” We understand that God intended fairness, compassion and justice for all people of the earth. Emerging Christians recognize that Jesus stood up against abusive elites, including the Romans, in defense of the poor, the disabled and other oppressed people. We believe we must do the same in our own culture. We don’t see life on earth as a “vale of tears” to be endured as we wait for our reward in heaven. We will never restore Eden, but we can make this place more like God intended -- or die trying as Jesus did.
Emerging Christians are evangelical by nature, that is we believe in spreading the good news that Christ brought to earth. The traditional church as we’ve known it over the past two or three hundred years has a fairly formulaic definition of the good news: believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and gain the reward of eternal life. But now the more conservative Evangelical church is starting to see beyond this simple recipe. Mission work is no longer focused only on “winning souls” for Christ but on relieving suffering. And when new thinkers in the Evangelical community championed an environmental “green movement,” traditionalists were unable to defeat them.
There’s much work to be done and divisions that defy compromise, but it seems clear to me that emerging Christians and traditional Evangelicals have these two things in common: an intense love for Jesus and an overwhelming dedication to the Christian life. Could 2008 be the year we begin setting aside our differences? If we did, we could really rock this world.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Bhutto's Murder Calls Us to Stand Up for Peace
Benizer Bhutto’s murder is being viewed by some in this country as proof we must stand even more violently against extremists who would do such things. Nothing could be further from the truth. When we line up with Mao Tse-Tung in his belief that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” we become the comrade of murderers and not their enemy.
Since this political murder has occurred on the Asian subcontinent it’s appropriate to recall the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” The contrast in the words of Mao and Gandhi present a choice. Which path will we follow as Americans? As Christians? Sure, a few in the American church have spoken from the pulpit against death and destruction as foreign policy. But where is the committed call for active resistance? Who but followers of the Prince of Peace have the organization, the voice and the standing in the court of public opinion to make such a call?
Ms. Bhutto now takes her place in a long line of murdered prophets who put serving God’s wish for the world above their own personal safety. The list stretches back into history and includes Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. As with the others, she knew she would die for her beliefs and didn’t shrink away. We wonder why so many view the church today as an impotent shell; we need look no further than the streets of Baghdad and Pakistan.
Of course, it will be politically safer for American preachers to rail against Ms. Bhutto’s murder. No well-heeled parishioner is likely to huff off over that one. But if death is acceptable for us as a tool of regime change, then it’s acceptable for them. You are what you do, baby. Any other claim is pure sophistry.
Many called on Jesus to lead a military rebellion against the brutal Roman occupation. If ever violence could be justified as a path, this was the time. But Jesus made a conscious decision for another path. He knew that to take up the sword would fundamentally alter him and his mission. He had come to embody God’s peaceful wish for the world and knew he couldn’t have it both ways. So he sacrificed himself to serve God and to “be the change” he wanted to see in the world.
Haifa Zangana is an Iraqi political activist and a former prisoner of Saddam Hussein. In her book City of Widows she describes how the American invasion and the prior sanctions have decimated her country. According to Ms. Zangana, the best numbers from sources within Iraq -- sources ignored by the western press -- count over one million war-related fatalities in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, most of them men. In Baghdad alone, she says, there are 300,000 war widows. But events in Pakistan prove that those who believe in enforcing their truth with bullets and bombs don’t really care about the gender of their victims.
Since this political murder has occurred on the Asian subcontinent it’s appropriate to recall the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” The contrast in the words of Mao and Gandhi present a choice. Which path will we follow as Americans? As Christians? Sure, a few in the American church have spoken from the pulpit against death and destruction as foreign policy. But where is the committed call for active resistance? Who but followers of the Prince of Peace have the organization, the voice and the standing in the court of public opinion to make such a call?
Ms. Bhutto now takes her place in a long line of murdered prophets who put serving God’s wish for the world above their own personal safety. The list stretches back into history and includes Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. As with the others, she knew she would die for her beliefs and didn’t shrink away. We wonder why so many view the church today as an impotent shell; we need look no further than the streets of Baghdad and Pakistan.
Of course, it will be politically safer for American preachers to rail against Ms. Bhutto’s murder. No well-heeled parishioner is likely to huff off over that one. But if death is acceptable for us as a tool of regime change, then it’s acceptable for them. You are what you do, baby. Any other claim is pure sophistry.
Many called on Jesus to lead a military rebellion against the brutal Roman occupation. If ever violence could be justified as a path, this was the time. But Jesus made a conscious decision for another path. He knew that to take up the sword would fundamentally alter him and his mission. He had come to embody God’s peaceful wish for the world and knew he couldn’t have it both ways. So he sacrificed himself to serve God and to “be the change” he wanted to see in the world.
Haifa Zangana is an Iraqi political activist and a former prisoner of Saddam Hussein. In her book City of Widows she describes how the American invasion and the prior sanctions have decimated her country. According to Ms. Zangana, the best numbers from sources within Iraq -- sources ignored by the western press -- count over one million war-related fatalities in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, most of them men. In Baghdad alone, she says, there are 300,000 war widows. But events in Pakistan prove that those who believe in enforcing their truth with bullets and bombs don’t really care about the gender of their victims.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
The Church as Champion of a New Vision
Earlier this week I wrote about the price the church has paid for continuing to walk hand-in-hand with the culture. In the world of Richard Land, the Southern Baptists' ethics czar, Christianity’s struggle with American culture shrinks down to one word: Sex. I’m not Richard Land. Which is not to say I’m untroubled by the crass sexuality our culture peddles, but that’s more a symptom that the root of America’s lost vision.
More at the heart of our confusion is our simultaneous practice of two religions so different that there’s really no room for them to co-exist. Jesus acknowledged this when he said “no man can serve two masters.” Many Christians choke on these passages in Matthew’s 7th chapter, especially when Jesus goes on to say, “You cannot serve both God and wealth, You’ll either hate one and love the other.“ Even to discuss these words risks whispers of “socialist!” and accusations of being un-American. But the point isn’t that we should all take a vow of poverty, or that having wealth is ungodly. Later in the same chapter Jesus says, “God knows you need these (material) things.” Christians who care enough to explore these “two masters” admonitions are often eager for a way to make serving God compatible with our acquisitive society. A first step might be to admit the essential difference between the universal laws of an infinite God and finite economic systems that are man-made and subject to human manipulation.
Princeton economist Paul Krugman wrote recently of how a religious belief “in the perfection of free markets” facilitated the sub-prime mortgage collapse that now threatens the entire economy. Krugman described federal regulators as “blinded by ideology,” noting then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan’s allegiance to the principles of Ayn Rand, the “high priestess of unfettered capitalism.” At the heart of their faith system is the belief that each individual’s pursuit their own self interest will inevitably benefit society in general. As Greenspan wrote in an article for Rand’s newsletter, “it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.”
That sounds logical, but apparently you can’t count on it working every time, like for instance God’s love and compassion. What would a free enterprise system based on God’s values look like? The answer is laid out in the books of Moses. It’s a society that balances the interests of the many, especially of the most vulnerable, with the self-interest of the powerful few. In fact it was for the exact purpose of establishing such a caring culture that God supplanted the Canaanite oligarchy with the covenant people of Israel. Jesus continued the fight by challenging the spirituality of religious leaders who prospered financially by throwing in with the Romans while their people suffered in poverty.
Our challenge as an American church is to champion a vision that puts God’s values first, a vision with clear priorities whenever we see God‘s intentions at odds with human self-interest. It will give us authenticity we have lost. No man can serve two masters.
More at the heart of our confusion is our simultaneous practice of two religions so different that there’s really no room for them to co-exist. Jesus acknowledged this when he said “no man can serve two masters.” Many Christians choke on these passages in Matthew’s 7th chapter, especially when Jesus goes on to say, “You cannot serve both God and wealth, You’ll either hate one and love the other.“ Even to discuss these words risks whispers of “socialist!” and accusations of being un-American. But the point isn’t that we should all take a vow of poverty, or that having wealth is ungodly. Later in the same chapter Jesus says, “God knows you need these (material) things.” Christians who care enough to explore these “two masters” admonitions are often eager for a way to make serving God compatible with our acquisitive society. A first step might be to admit the essential difference between the universal laws of an infinite God and finite economic systems that are man-made and subject to human manipulation.
Princeton economist Paul Krugman wrote recently of how a religious belief “in the perfection of free markets” facilitated the sub-prime mortgage collapse that now threatens the entire economy. Krugman described federal regulators as “blinded by ideology,” noting then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan’s allegiance to the principles of Ayn Rand, the “high priestess of unfettered capitalism.” At the heart of their faith system is the belief that each individual’s pursuit their own self interest will inevitably benefit society in general. As Greenspan wrote in an article for Rand’s newsletter, “it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.”
That sounds logical, but apparently you can’t count on it working every time, like for instance God’s love and compassion. What would a free enterprise system based on God’s values look like? The answer is laid out in the books of Moses. It’s a society that balances the interests of the many, especially of the most vulnerable, with the self-interest of the powerful few. In fact it was for the exact purpose of establishing such a caring culture that God supplanted the Canaanite oligarchy with the covenant people of Israel. Jesus continued the fight by challenging the spirituality of religious leaders who prospered financially by throwing in with the Romans while their people suffered in poverty.
Our challenge as an American church is to champion a vision that puts God’s values first, a vision with clear priorities whenever we see God‘s intentions at odds with human self-interest. It will give us authenticity we have lost. No man can serve two masters.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
An Apocalyptic Vision: Can a Remnant Prevail?
I wrote in a recent article on divorce among Christians that the church has lost membership since the sixties. The best studies show it’s true and anecdotal evidence from local congregations supports the studies: a smaller percentage of Americans are in church week to week. Some would say, yes, but the people still practicing the faith do so with greater fervor, which may be a worthy tradeoff. God has worked with remnants before.
Many remember a time when the church and the culture walked hand-in-hand. Guys named Ike and Jack were in the White House, Andy was taking care of business in Mayberry and that darn Beaver was always in trouble. Maybe we were deluding ourselves even then, thinking God and American culture shared the same values. But even if we weren’t, those days are gone.
This is not to say the culture hasn’t seen some progress on equal opportunity issues like racial equality, women’s rights, gay and lesbian visibility. It has. But progress has come because people were willing to take risks and stand in opposition to the status quo.
Many in the church, good middle class folk, still cling to a baby blanket belief in the American promise that almost everyone embraced after World War II. In fact, they’ll die still believing and therein lies the problem. Who’ll take their place in the pews? For younger generations the church has become irrelevant. It is not a natural fit with the culture, because it’s values are clearly not the same. And it hasn’t generally shown the courage to offer an alternative vision by standing against the wasteland of our modern material culture. It sits impotently in between, the Monarch of Nothingness, a shell of it’s former self and a shadow of what it might be.
If the church is going to prevail in the war for hearts and minds it first needs to realize it is at war -- which is not to say we should put on the angry xenophobic face of those who prosper from the death and destruction of bullets and bombs. As usual Jesus provides a good model. Jesus wore God’s heart on his sleeve, which infuriated the religious leaders who had traded control of their church for a life of luxury. They were willing to turn their backs on Roman oppression and the poverty of their own people as long as temple taxes were paid and their bellies were full.
But Jesus would have none of it and his answer was apocalypse: confrontation to end the current corrupt system, and the beginning of a new era where God’s values of justice, compassion and love would prevail. In other words, restoration of God’s intentions for creation and for human kind.
Right now the battle has been joined on a guerilla level. The church I’m attending has declared itself a “reconciling” congregation and opened its doors all shapes of people. And guess what, those once shunned in both the church and the larger culture are coming in and feeling at home. The Episcopal Church has taken a stand by ordaining homosexual clergy and has paid a price for doing the right thing. These are good starts but only skirmishes if the church is to embrace the kind of covenant responsibilities described in scripture. If the church wishes to inspire a new vision for a new era, it must offer something radically different than the selfish materialism that is the current religion of American culture. I’ll write more about that later this week.
Many remember a time when the church and the culture walked hand-in-hand. Guys named Ike and Jack were in the White House, Andy was taking care of business in Mayberry and that darn Beaver was always in trouble. Maybe we were deluding ourselves even then, thinking God and American culture shared the same values. But even if we weren’t, those days are gone.
This is not to say the culture hasn’t seen some progress on equal opportunity issues like racial equality, women’s rights, gay and lesbian visibility. It has. But progress has come because people were willing to take risks and stand in opposition to the status quo.
Many in the church, good middle class folk, still cling to a baby blanket belief in the American promise that almost everyone embraced after World War II. In fact, they’ll die still believing and therein lies the problem. Who’ll take their place in the pews? For younger generations the church has become irrelevant. It is not a natural fit with the culture, because it’s values are clearly not the same. And it hasn’t generally shown the courage to offer an alternative vision by standing against the wasteland of our modern material culture. It sits impotently in between, the Monarch of Nothingness, a shell of it’s former self and a shadow of what it might be.
If the church is going to prevail in the war for hearts and minds it first needs to realize it is at war -- which is not to say we should put on the angry xenophobic face of those who prosper from the death and destruction of bullets and bombs. As usual Jesus provides a good model. Jesus wore God’s heart on his sleeve, which infuriated the religious leaders who had traded control of their church for a life of luxury. They were willing to turn their backs on Roman oppression and the poverty of their own people as long as temple taxes were paid and their bellies were full.
But Jesus would have none of it and his answer was apocalypse: confrontation to end the current corrupt system, and the beginning of a new era where God’s values of justice, compassion and love would prevail. In other words, restoration of God’s intentions for creation and for human kind.
Right now the battle has been joined on a guerilla level. The church I’m attending has declared itself a “reconciling” congregation and opened its doors all shapes of people. And guess what, those once shunned in both the church and the larger culture are coming in and feeling at home. The Episcopal Church has taken a stand by ordaining homosexual clergy and has paid a price for doing the right thing. These are good starts but only skirmishes if the church is to embrace the kind of covenant responsibilities described in scripture. If the church wishes to inspire a new vision for a new era, it must offer something radically different than the selfish materialism that is the current religion of American culture. I’ll write more about that later this week.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Jesus' True Teachings Could be Good Politics
Here I am in a “Disciples” class a few years back trying to explain grace and why it’s so superior to “reaching God” through the law and by avoiding all those naughty things named in the 10 Commandments and other parts of "the Book." A friend in the class, a school teacher and all around pretty bright woman, was scratching her head over the idea of grace and salvation coming as a gift through Christ’s sacrifice. It seemed just too mechanical. She felt there had be another way, a fresh way, to talk about what it means to be Christian.
Maybe she's right. Maybe we’re balled up like a sweaty sheet from theological tossing and turning over how obedience to the law fits with God’s grace. She steps in, smart but no trained theologian, and sees there has to a third way.
I was reminded of her resistance to my “grace formulations” by Judith Warner’s opinion piece titled “Holier Than They” in Thursday’s NY Times. She takes a lay person’s peek at the faith and wonders why the core concerns people on the street would call “Christian” seem to be missing:
“These days … for all the talk of religion, there is little public soul-searching about the absence of care and compassion, love, acceptance and inclusion – the things that many consider to be the essence of Christianity – in the words of our purported Christian leaders.”
And while she sees what we’ve previously pointed out in this space -- cracks in the conservative movement’s solid wall of propaganda, she wonders if it may be too late:
“The Christian conservative vote is, apparently, splintering. Younger evangelicals are increasingly said to be interested in putting their faith to greater use than bashing gays, promoting guns and putting God on the presidential ticket. That would seem to indicate that we’re facing a moment of opportunity: a chance to expand and amplify the reach of the voice of religious moderation. The silence I’m hearing makes me think, though, that as a society we’ve come to accept the slippage of prejudicial and hateful attitudes into religious doctrine as somehow normal.”
That slippage, while deplorable, is facilitated by ordinary means. Most of us are set up for it the first time we write a research paper in high school or college. You propose an idea and then look for a “proof passage” in the literature. Too much of that approach in studying the Bible can obscure scripture’s true essence and open the door to deceivers. My Disciple class friend was suggesting a little less theology and a little more ardent application of the KIS theory. If we’re ready to defend the soul of Jesus’ message -- that we love God and our neighbor as ourselves -- it’ll be harder for the haters to play their game.
Warner borrows a phrase from a Times editorial condemning “Islam’s silent moderates” for inaction in the “appalling, brutal and bigoted” case of a Saudi woman sentenced to prison for being gang raped, and asks when Christian moderates will end their silence:
“It would be nice today to hear a candidate step up and oppose all that is ‘appalling, brutal and bigoted’ in the limited religious views that substitute for spirituality in American politics today. Who knows — it might even be good politics.”
Maybe she's right. Maybe we’re balled up like a sweaty sheet from theological tossing and turning over how obedience to the law fits with God’s grace. She steps in, smart but no trained theologian, and sees there has to a third way.
I was reminded of her resistance to my “grace formulations” by Judith Warner’s opinion piece titled “Holier Than They” in Thursday’s NY Times. She takes a lay person’s peek at the faith and wonders why the core concerns people on the street would call “Christian” seem to be missing:
“These days … for all the talk of religion, there is little public soul-searching about the absence of care and compassion, love, acceptance and inclusion – the things that many consider to be the essence of Christianity – in the words of our purported Christian leaders.”
And while she sees what we’ve previously pointed out in this space -- cracks in the conservative movement’s solid wall of propaganda, she wonders if it may be too late:
“The Christian conservative vote is, apparently, splintering. Younger evangelicals are increasingly said to be interested in putting their faith to greater use than bashing gays, promoting guns and putting God on the presidential ticket. That would seem to indicate that we’re facing a moment of opportunity: a chance to expand and amplify the reach of the voice of religious moderation. The silence I’m hearing makes me think, though, that as a society we’ve come to accept the slippage of prejudicial and hateful attitudes into religious doctrine as somehow normal.”
That slippage, while deplorable, is facilitated by ordinary means. Most of us are set up for it the first time we write a research paper in high school or college. You propose an idea and then look for a “proof passage” in the literature. Too much of that approach in studying the Bible can obscure scripture’s true essence and open the door to deceivers. My Disciple class friend was suggesting a little less theology and a little more ardent application of the KIS theory. If we’re ready to defend the soul of Jesus’ message -- that we love God and our neighbor as ourselves -- it’ll be harder for the haters to play their game.
Warner borrows a phrase from a Times editorial condemning “Islam’s silent moderates” for inaction in the “appalling, brutal and bigoted” case of a Saudi woman sentenced to prison for being gang raped, and asks when Christian moderates will end their silence:
“It would be nice today to hear a candidate step up and oppose all that is ‘appalling, brutal and bigoted’ in the limited religious views that substitute for spirituality in American politics today. Who knows — it might even be good politics.”
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Why Did Break Away Diocese Choose This Fight?
I grew up in a blue collar place where almost every male learned to fight. It was a matter of survival. Some liked to fight for the fun of it and I was one of those. There was something very exhilarating about feeling your blood boil.
As I matured and my horizons began to expand, physical fighting lost its appeal, but the desire to feel my blood boil didn’t. I found I was pretty good at rhetorical nose punching, so the intellectual argument took the place of flying fists. Politics, sports, you name it, I was a ready teddy. But as I moved further along in my evolution, I began to realize the wisdom of choosing your fights. You can tell a lot about a person by the fights they choose.
This week an Episcopal diocese in California chose to fight over whether homosexuals can be as fully Christian as heterosexuals. That’s probably not how they would phrase it, but that’s really what is shrinks down to. The Episcopal Church in the U.S. is part of a worldwide Anglican fellowship that traces its roots back to the Church of England.
Over the weekend delegates at the annual convention of the San Joaquin diocese voted to secede from the national Episcopal Church. Clergy and lay delegates alike voted in large majorities to secede in objection to the right of partnered gay and lesbian believers to serve as Episcopal ministers. The move is likely to have dire spiritual and legal consequences. History says the parent church will fight to retain the property of individual parishes within the diocese. It’s not a small fight and choosing it speaks volumes about who these people are.
Let’s be up front; there are a few verses sprinkled through scripture that speak against homosexuality. Most are set in a historical context quite different from our contemporary context of gays and lesbians in committed and monogamous relationships -- the type of sexual relationship we generally find acceptable for heterosexual clergy. But the passages are there. The question is, when did perfect compliance with all scripture become a prerequisite for being Christian? The church, after all, is often described as a club for sinners. Admitting you are one is the price of admission.
Why have they chosen this fight rather than, say, Jesus’ frequent admonition against lives devoted to the accumulation of wealth? Their choice speaks to who they are and, while I could guess what it says, in their own hearts they know and I’m afraid it ain’t pretty. One thing it might say is they’re not fully committed to believing God’s grace is the umbrella under which all Christians stand.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, elected last year as the first woman to lead the U.S. Episcopal Church, had warned San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield against voting to break away from the denomination but did not threaten specific consequences. Jefferts Schori supports ordaining partnered gays and lesbians.
"We deeply regret their unwillingness or inability to live within the historical Anglican understanding of comprehensiveness," she said in a statement after the vote. "We wish them to know of our prayers for them and their journey."
As I matured and my horizons began to expand, physical fighting lost its appeal, but the desire to feel my blood boil didn’t. I found I was pretty good at rhetorical nose punching, so the intellectual argument took the place of flying fists. Politics, sports, you name it, I was a ready teddy. But as I moved further along in my evolution, I began to realize the wisdom of choosing your fights. You can tell a lot about a person by the fights they choose.
This week an Episcopal diocese in California chose to fight over whether homosexuals can be as fully Christian as heterosexuals. That’s probably not how they would phrase it, but that’s really what is shrinks down to. The Episcopal Church in the U.S. is part of a worldwide Anglican fellowship that traces its roots back to the Church of England.
Over the weekend delegates at the annual convention of the San Joaquin diocese voted to secede from the national Episcopal Church. Clergy and lay delegates alike voted in large majorities to secede in objection to the right of partnered gay and lesbian believers to serve as Episcopal ministers. The move is likely to have dire spiritual and legal consequences. History says the parent church will fight to retain the property of individual parishes within the diocese. It’s not a small fight and choosing it speaks volumes about who these people are.
Let’s be up front; there are a few verses sprinkled through scripture that speak against homosexuality. Most are set in a historical context quite different from our contemporary context of gays and lesbians in committed and monogamous relationships -- the type of sexual relationship we generally find acceptable for heterosexual clergy. But the passages are there. The question is, when did perfect compliance with all scripture become a prerequisite for being Christian? The church, after all, is often described as a club for sinners. Admitting you are one is the price of admission.
Why have they chosen this fight rather than, say, Jesus’ frequent admonition against lives devoted to the accumulation of wealth? Their choice speaks to who they are and, while I could guess what it says, in their own hearts they know and I’m afraid it ain’t pretty. One thing it might say is they’re not fully committed to believing God’s grace is the umbrella under which all Christians stand.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, elected last year as the first woman to lead the U.S. Episcopal Church, had warned San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield against voting to break away from the denomination but did not threaten specific consequences. Jefferts Schori supports ordaining partnered gays and lesbians.
"We deeply regret their unwillingness or inability to live within the historical Anglican understanding of comprehensiveness," she said in a statement after the vote. "We wish them to know of our prayers for them and their journey."
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Time for Us to Admit God Plays No Favorites
I don’t spend as much time pondering theology as I once did, but I’ve long believed that if the this doctrine called “original sin” makes any sense at all (and I have my doubts), it’s as an admission there will be times when the interests of two well intentioned people collide. When they do, the tendency to act in our own interest -- rather than defer to the equally just interest of the other -- might be a flaw in our design that could fit the definition of original sin. Of course, this human tendency could be seen as biological, nothing more than an expression of our survival instinct. And maybe it’s not even inevitable. You can find examples of people overcoming the inclination to put ourselves first. Jesus comes to mind.
An article in Saturday’s New York Times (Young Israelis Resist Challenges to Settlements) offers a good example of dueling views over a claim to justice. The story tells of a particular house in the West Bank and 17 acres of adjoining land planted mostly with olive and almond trees. The land belongs to a Palestinian family, but they can’t so much as harvest olives from their trees without threats of harm from the young Israelis. The young settlers have occupied the house and are renovating it. This action -- taking the house and land -- is illegal under Israeli law, but sympathy for the settler community runs deep and in this case no one has taken action against them.
Many young Israeli settlers are deeply idealistic and religious. Generally admirable people. They are, no doubt, consistently caring in their relationships with each other. And most westerners, especially Christians given the part we’ve played in an abusive history, are instinctively sympathetic to both the Jews and Israelis. Still, I believe intellectual honestly, if not justice, would be better served if the settlers would just step forward and say, “Yes, this Palestinian family has a just complaint. They are being treated with great unfairness, but I can’t help it. In this case I’m simply going to put my own interests first.” That would be understandable, and human.
But that’s not what they’ve done. Instead, they’ve appropriated God for themselves, as if the Palestinians are not also part of God’s creation, declaring that they don’t really care whether this family loses its rights or is forced to become refugees in a foreign land. In fact, that’s their very recommendation for them. Worse yet, rather than accept their own selfish humanity, a spokesperson tries to put it off on God: “God gave this (land) to us,” he said. “Now that we’re here, I don’t think we’re going to move.”
In fairness to the young Israelis, the idea that God can be made small and limited to a particular land or nation is just as rampant among Christians in America where “for God and country“ is still a favorite theme. Mitt Romney is not the only politician to seek advantage from draping the flag over the cross. The idea of “gods” who reside in a certain land, favoring their resident nations is a primitive concept prevalent throughout the world in the years prior to Christ. This is one of the misunderstandings swept away by Jesus’ teachings. Recognizing that God plays no favorites is an absolute prerequisite to God’s values of peace, justice and compassion taking hold throughout creation. Nothing less should be tolerated: whether in America or in Israel and the West Bank.
An article in Saturday’s New York Times (Young Israelis Resist Challenges to Settlements) offers a good example of dueling views over a claim to justice. The story tells of a particular house in the West Bank and 17 acres of adjoining land planted mostly with olive and almond trees. The land belongs to a Palestinian family, but they can’t so much as harvest olives from their trees without threats of harm from the young Israelis. The young settlers have occupied the house and are renovating it. This action -- taking the house and land -- is illegal under Israeli law, but sympathy for the settler community runs deep and in this case no one has taken action against them.
Many young Israeli settlers are deeply idealistic and religious. Generally admirable people. They are, no doubt, consistently caring in their relationships with each other. And most westerners, especially Christians given the part we’ve played in an abusive history, are instinctively sympathetic to both the Jews and Israelis. Still, I believe intellectual honestly, if not justice, would be better served if the settlers would just step forward and say, “Yes, this Palestinian family has a just complaint. They are being treated with great unfairness, but I can’t help it. In this case I’m simply going to put my own interests first.” That would be understandable, and human.
But that’s not what they’ve done. Instead, they’ve appropriated God for themselves, as if the Palestinians are not also part of God’s creation, declaring that they don’t really care whether this family loses its rights or is forced to become refugees in a foreign land. In fact, that’s their very recommendation for them. Worse yet, rather than accept their own selfish humanity, a spokesperson tries to put it off on God: “God gave this (land) to us,” he said. “Now that we’re here, I don’t think we’re going to move.”
In fairness to the young Israelis, the idea that God can be made small and limited to a particular land or nation is just as rampant among Christians in America where “for God and country“ is still a favorite theme. Mitt Romney is not the only politician to seek advantage from draping the flag over the cross. The idea of “gods” who reside in a certain land, favoring their resident nations is a primitive concept prevalent throughout the world in the years prior to Christ. This is one of the misunderstandings swept away by Jesus’ teachings. Recognizing that God plays no favorites is an absolute prerequisite to God’s values of peace, justice and compassion taking hold throughout creation. Nothing less should be tolerated: whether in America or in Israel and the West Bank.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Is it Time for Combative Christians to Seek Peace?
It has happened before. Allies who once marched together now moving apart, one choosing reconciliation while the other continues on the path of confrontation. Recent articles reflect that possibility for two of the powerful online voices of American Evangelicalism.
Earlier this week Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink.com published an account of its continuing war with the American Psychological Association (APA) over Focus’s insistence that gays and lesbians choose between their sexual orientation and their faith. But just as we were about to scream “give it a rest” to combative Christian conservatives, Christianity Today.com offered a sensitive suggestion we Christians stop asking Jews and other non-Christians to say “Merry Christmas” or else get off the planet for the holiday season. Enough of this “War on Christmas” chatter they said; to which we say “Amen.”
Written by Ted Olsen, the Christianity Today piece (titled Do They Know It’s Hanukkah?) mocks the passion of self-appointed defenders of Christmas:
“One organization is selling bumper stickers that read, "This is America! And I'm going to say it: Merry Christmas!" and "Merry Christmas! An American Tradition." (I don't remember the American part of the Christmas story, but I haven't re-read Luke 2 yet this year.) Also for sale: "Just Say Merry Christmas" bracelets. ("They're guaranteed to ward off the evil spirits of the ACLU grinches," says the ad.) Just say Merry Christmas? To everyone? Regardless of whether they actually celebrate Jesus' birth?
Olsen goes on to tell two stories of Hanukkah -- one the historic Jewish tale of revolt and miraculous victory, the second a story of Christ recorded in John’s Gospel of Jesus walking in the temple during the Feast of Dedication, a festival derived from the victory celebrated in Hanukkah. Because Jesus is already known as a religious revolutionary, his very presence in the temple provokes the established religious leaders, and his words push them to the edge. They insist angrily that he tell them plainly if he is claiming to be the Christ. Jesus sidesteps the showdown they would force on him, saying, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. You do not believe because you are not part of my flock.”
So, Olsen offers advice on the “Christmas Wars” that works in most situations: Be like Jesus. “The Jewish Hanukkah story is one of triumph over a culture that wanted to force the Jews to assimilate against their will. The Christian Hanukkah story is one that starts with Jesus asking provocative questions, but retreating rather than forcing the issue.
To insist that non-Christians say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" runs against the lessons of both Hanukkah stories.”
That ‘live and let live” attitude might be a good one for Focus on the Family to take in its war against the APA. We’ve all seen what happens when science is forced to conform to religion. Instead of spending so much energy visiting guilt on gays and lesbians they would be better served to visit the heart of their own faith. They might discover there’s joy to be had in taking Olsen’s advice to be more like Jesus.
Earlier this week Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink.com published an account of its continuing war with the American Psychological Association (APA) over Focus’s insistence that gays and lesbians choose between their sexual orientation and their faith. But just as we were about to scream “give it a rest” to combative Christian conservatives, Christianity Today.com offered a sensitive suggestion we Christians stop asking Jews and other non-Christians to say “Merry Christmas” or else get off the planet for the holiday season. Enough of this “War on Christmas” chatter they said; to which we say “Amen.”
Written by Ted Olsen, the Christianity Today piece (titled Do They Know It’s Hanukkah?) mocks the passion of self-appointed defenders of Christmas:
“One organization is selling bumper stickers that read, "This is America! And I'm going to say it: Merry Christmas!" and "Merry Christmas! An American Tradition." (I don't remember the American part of the Christmas story, but I haven't re-read Luke 2 yet this year.) Also for sale: "Just Say Merry Christmas" bracelets. ("They're guaranteed to ward off the evil spirits of the ACLU grinches," says the ad.) Just say Merry Christmas? To everyone? Regardless of whether they actually celebrate Jesus' birth?
Olsen goes on to tell two stories of Hanukkah -- one the historic Jewish tale of revolt and miraculous victory, the second a story of Christ recorded in John’s Gospel of Jesus walking in the temple during the Feast of Dedication, a festival derived from the victory celebrated in Hanukkah. Because Jesus is already known as a religious revolutionary, his very presence in the temple provokes the established religious leaders, and his words push them to the edge. They insist angrily that he tell them plainly if he is claiming to be the Christ. Jesus sidesteps the showdown they would force on him, saying, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. You do not believe because you are not part of my flock.”
So, Olsen offers advice on the “Christmas Wars” that works in most situations: Be like Jesus. “The Jewish Hanukkah story is one of triumph over a culture that wanted to force the Jews to assimilate against their will. The Christian Hanukkah story is one that starts with Jesus asking provocative questions, but retreating rather than forcing the issue.
To insist that non-Christians say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" runs against the lessons of both Hanukkah stories.”
That ‘live and let live” attitude might be a good one for Focus on the Family to take in its war against the APA. We’ve all seen what happens when science is forced to conform to religion. Instead of spending so much energy visiting guilt on gays and lesbians they would be better served to visit the heart of their own faith. They might discover there’s joy to be had in taking Olsen’s advice to be more like Jesus.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Judas Dispute: One More Empty Religious Pursuit
A fascinating story on today’s New York Times Op-Ed page reveals how political motives can distort scholarship. If you’d like to read the piece by April D. DeConick, professor of Biblical studies at Rice University and author of “The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says,” click the link at the end of this story. Here’s the main contention in professor DeConick’s Op-Ed tale:
“Amid much publicity last year, the National Geographic Society announced that a lost 3rd-century religious text had been found, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The shocker: Judas didn’t betray Jesus. Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judas’s reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples. It was a great story. Unfortunately, after re-translating the society’s transcription of the Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographic’s translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon.”
DeConick say’s National Geographic made numerous errors, some perhaps intentional, that completely changed the document’s meaning. She speculates they might have been motivated by a desire to help heal the ancient rift between Jews and Christians, and to avoid offending mainstream believers with certain Gnostic understandings of Yahweh, Christ’s relationship to the “supreme” God, and Christian atonement theology.
If she’s right, we should feel troubled. It would be bad enough if “truth” was sacrificed for some higher “truth;” but when it give way to political expediency, then religious studies -- like politics in general -- have entered what one Iraq war commentator called the “post-truth era.”
But, what’s doubly disturbing is that this kind of dispute is the low place to which Christianity has fallen. This unfortunately is how our faith has evolved, starting with a religious outsider who by the spirit became God’s imprint on earth and, armed only with God’s values, stood up against the culture in defense of the poor and oppressed. From that beginning we come to a time when religious insiders become the focus of the faith by debating the meaning of obscure Coptic texts. I have to believe that somewhere Jesus is crying, if not vomiting.
Thankfully, for those who would practice the real Christian faith, Jesus spoke directly to vacuous religious elites who neglect “the weightier matters … justice and mercy and faith.” His disappointment is clear: “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” That’s Matthew’s Gospel; the translation I believe is undisputed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01deconink.html?ex=1354251600&en=91c478a2d5fb0116&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
“Amid much publicity last year, the National Geographic Society announced that a lost 3rd-century religious text had been found, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The shocker: Judas didn’t betray Jesus. Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judas’s reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples. It was a great story. Unfortunately, after re-translating the society’s transcription of the Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographic’s translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon.”
DeConick say’s National Geographic made numerous errors, some perhaps intentional, that completely changed the document’s meaning. She speculates they might have been motivated by a desire to help heal the ancient rift between Jews and Christians, and to avoid offending mainstream believers with certain Gnostic understandings of Yahweh, Christ’s relationship to the “supreme” God, and Christian atonement theology.
If she’s right, we should feel troubled. It would be bad enough if “truth” was sacrificed for some higher “truth;” but when it give way to political expediency, then religious studies -- like politics in general -- have entered what one Iraq war commentator called the “post-truth era.”
But, what’s doubly disturbing is that this kind of dispute is the low place to which Christianity has fallen. This unfortunately is how our faith has evolved, starting with a religious outsider who by the spirit became God’s imprint on earth and, armed only with God’s values, stood up against the culture in defense of the poor and oppressed. From that beginning we come to a time when religious insiders become the focus of the faith by debating the meaning of obscure Coptic texts. I have to believe that somewhere Jesus is crying, if not vomiting.
Thankfully, for those who would practice the real Christian faith, Jesus spoke directly to vacuous religious elites who neglect “the weightier matters … justice and mercy and faith.” His disappointment is clear: “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” That’s Matthew’s Gospel; the translation I believe is undisputed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01deconink.html?ex=1354251600&en=91c478a2d5fb0116&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Churches Moving Ahead of Nation on Tolerance
If you're a regular reader of Mr. B's you've noticed I've been a little slow lately with the commentary here on the Christian Counter Culture blog. A couple of things have slowed me down, including my oldest daughter's wedding in November. But the main thing has been a rather drawn out move from Florida to Chicago. I had to be out of my place in Florida two weeks before I could move into my new home in Chicago.
In between I was a transient, visiting friends and family in Kentucky and Michigan. Viewed from a political perspective I left a red state, stopped off in a red state that recently overwhelmingly elected a blue governor, then went to the deep blue state of Michigan where one house of the legislature is red and red governors are not rare, en route to the blue state Illinois, which also has been known to elect governors from the right.
Spending Thanksgiving with my family in Detroit, we ended the day with a spirited political argument with the reds and blues in the family showing their colors. It's a confused situation all around. Here's my father for example; he's both a retired UAW member and a lifelong Republican. Go figure.
My journey also has taken me into worship with a variety of churches: Methodist, Pentecostal and Lutheran. In God's houses I found more sensitivity to differing views on the nation's politics. The prevailing attitude is something like, "no matter how you feel about the war in Iraq, we need to be tolerant of each other and pray together that our troops will stay safe and the killing will end as soon as possible." Maybe it's a bit of a dodge, but it seems to express a desire for binding the church together. I witnessed the same on doctrinal issues over which people were once eager for a fight. Maybe all the fighting over politics has dulled the taste for fighting over insignificant differences within the body of Christ. I hope so. Leadership has to come from somewhere in our troubled culture, and the church divided can't get it done.
In between I was a transient, visiting friends and family in Kentucky and Michigan. Viewed from a political perspective I left a red state, stopped off in a red state that recently overwhelmingly elected a blue governor, then went to the deep blue state of Michigan where one house of the legislature is red and red governors are not rare, en route to the blue state Illinois, which also has been known to elect governors from the right.
Spending Thanksgiving with my family in Detroit, we ended the day with a spirited political argument with the reds and blues in the family showing their colors. It's a confused situation all around. Here's my father for example; he's both a retired UAW member and a lifelong Republican. Go figure.
My journey also has taken me into worship with a variety of churches: Methodist, Pentecostal and Lutheran. In God's houses I found more sensitivity to differing views on the nation's politics. The prevailing attitude is something like, "no matter how you feel about the war in Iraq, we need to be tolerant of each other and pray together that our troops will stay safe and the killing will end as soon as possible." Maybe it's a bit of a dodge, but it seems to express a desire for binding the church together. I witnessed the same on doctrinal issues over which people were once eager for a fight. Maybe all the fighting over politics has dulled the taste for fighting over insignificant differences within the body of Christ. I hope so. Leadership has to come from somewhere in our troubled culture, and the church divided can't get it done.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Giving Thanks That It's Time for a Showdown
If we work at it, everyone can find at least something small to be thankful for. Jesus said, "Don't fear, only believe." In God's parlance that means believing God meant it when he looked down on creation and declared it good. Even in times of fear, believers know God intended us for joy. With faith we can take hold of it. Even in the darkest times, that's something to be thankful for. It's up to us to find our particular, personal door to God's joy. If you're having trouble finding the latch on your door check out Jesus; he can help you put your hand on it.
That's my take on personal thankfulness. But as believers we have some shared reasons to give thanks this year. Tops on my list is that the church seems to be inching toward reconciliation and perhaps taking the nation with it. The poet T.S. Eliot once surveyed the "Wasteland" of our culture and saw only one institution, the church, that had any chance at all of reversing our slide into empty materialism. He wasn't hopeful enough to think it probable the church would succeed, but if it didn't, we might as well admit that the values of justice, compassion and spirituality are now nothing more than a quaint memory.
Maybe I'm deceiving myself, but I've had opportunity to visit a variety churches recently and have noticed a willingness to jettison doctrinal differences in favor of fostering a sense of God's spirit moving among us, giving of strength and perspective. With that gained perspective I believe the church is seeing how it has been used to support the politics of personal gain. The deal the church has made, especially the evangelical branch, has turned out to be Faustian in nature -- a deal with the devil -- that traded promises on a few isolated issues for permission to rape the many in favor of the few. This is the same deal the church of Jesus' day made with the Romans, and a deal made by the Christian church with political and economic elites throughout the centuries.
John wrote that Jesus brought a light into the world darkness could not overcome. We're starting to see now how true that is. Believers everywhere are starting to see that it's time for a showdown, a time to stand up for God's values, in God's Spirit, and insist that the light of God that radiated from Christ will also shine in us. For that I offer a prayer of thanks. It is never too late.
That's my take on personal thankfulness. But as believers we have some shared reasons to give thanks this year. Tops on my list is that the church seems to be inching toward reconciliation and perhaps taking the nation with it. The poet T.S. Eliot once surveyed the "Wasteland" of our culture and saw only one institution, the church, that had any chance at all of reversing our slide into empty materialism. He wasn't hopeful enough to think it probable the church would succeed, but if it didn't, we might as well admit that the values of justice, compassion and spirituality are now nothing more than a quaint memory.
Maybe I'm deceiving myself, but I've had opportunity to visit a variety churches recently and have noticed a willingness to jettison doctrinal differences in favor of fostering a sense of God's spirit moving among us, giving of strength and perspective. With that gained perspective I believe the church is seeing how it has been used to support the politics of personal gain. The deal the church has made, especially the evangelical branch, has turned out to be Faustian in nature -- a deal with the devil -- that traded promises on a few isolated issues for permission to rape the many in favor of the few. This is the same deal the church of Jesus' day made with the Romans, and a deal made by the Christian church with political and economic elites throughout the centuries.
John wrote that Jesus brought a light into the world darkness could not overcome. We're starting to see now how true that is. Believers everywhere are starting to see that it's time for a showdown, a time to stand up for God's values, in God's Spirit, and insist that the light of God that radiated from Christ will also shine in us. For that I offer a prayer of thanks. It is never too late.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
What, no Love? That Can't be God's Voice!
On our home page at www.christianheartbeat.org you’ll find a feature story about hearing God’s voice. It asks the question, “What does God’s voice sound like?” This may be the most important question facing the church today. It appears that we have intuitive knowledge of God’s voice written on our hearts, and trying to substitute another has as much chance of succeeding as fooling a baby with a voice other than mommy’s.
We know instinctively, without a single visit to a Bible study, that God’s voice is loving, forgiving, calming and comforting, inclusive, and perhaps most clearly, expansive of the human experience. God intends us to live large -- to love passionately and enjoy creation. God made the world for joy and laughter, not for fear and sorrow. Although some of that is inevitable, God gives us the resilience to bounce back. And if we’re living in God’s image -- speaking with God’s voice -- we’ll be out there helping others to do just that.
When people hear voices from the church and from Christian leaders in the media that just don’t sound like God’s, they recoil from so-called “organized religion,” especially organized Christian religion. Church membership declines and spiritual seekers begin to look elsewhere.
That’s the dilemma facing our evangelical media leaders and the unfortunate result of their public position on homosexuality. While the public may agree that legal bonds between homosexuals shouldn’t be exactly the same as traditional marriage, they also know instinctively these Christians are not speaking with God’s voice on the subject. If when the church speaks loudest it’s not speaking with God’s voice, why would anyone seek God in the church? It’s a no-brainer.
That perception of Christians as unchristian emerged from a recent survey by the conservative Christian polling group Barna, and is reported in a new book by Barna Group President David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons called, of all things, unChristian. Kinnaman recently told the news outlet of Focus on the Family that on homosexuality at least, the public no longer believes evangelicals are speaking in God’s authentic voice: “… that really is the perception, that Christians have lost the ability to love and to deal with and to have meaningful friendships with these individuals,” he said.
If these prominent media Christians aren’t speaking authentically on an issue they have made their priority, why would they be trusted on anything else? Because they lack love, the full Christian message loses credibility. And we all suffer -- including God.
We know instinctively, without a single visit to a Bible study, that God’s voice is loving, forgiving, calming and comforting, inclusive, and perhaps most clearly, expansive of the human experience. God intends us to live large -- to love passionately and enjoy creation. God made the world for joy and laughter, not for fear and sorrow. Although some of that is inevitable, God gives us the resilience to bounce back. And if we’re living in God’s image -- speaking with God’s voice -- we’ll be out there helping others to do just that.
When people hear voices from the church and from Christian leaders in the media that just don’t sound like God’s, they recoil from so-called “organized religion,” especially organized Christian religion. Church membership declines and spiritual seekers begin to look elsewhere.
That’s the dilemma facing our evangelical media leaders and the unfortunate result of their public position on homosexuality. While the public may agree that legal bonds between homosexuals shouldn’t be exactly the same as traditional marriage, they also know instinctively these Christians are not speaking with God’s voice on the subject. If when the church speaks loudest it’s not speaking with God’s voice, why would anyone seek God in the church? It’s a no-brainer.
That perception of Christians as unchristian emerged from a recent survey by the conservative Christian polling group Barna, and is reported in a new book by Barna Group President David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons called, of all things, unChristian. Kinnaman recently told the news outlet of Focus on the Family that on homosexuality at least, the public no longer believes evangelicals are speaking in God’s authentic voice: “… that really is the perception, that Christians have lost the ability to love and to deal with and to have meaningful friendships with these individuals,” he said.
If these prominent media Christians aren’t speaking authentically on an issue they have made their priority, why would they be trusted on anything else? Because they lack love, the full Christian message loses credibility. And we all suffer -- including God.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
God's Warriors? God's Name Taken in Vain
God’s Warriors: Christian, Muslim, Jewish. You might think the world has trouble enough from the ungodly without fanatics making war in God’s name. God can’t be pleased.
“God’s Warriors” is the three-part Christiane Amanpour series that’s been running -- and rerunning -- on CNN. Ms. Amanpour is fair and balanced in her treatment of the three extremist groups, not to mention more generous to them that they deserve. Whether it’s the Muslim, Jewish or Christian segment of the investigative series, the “warriors” show themselves to be self-interested posers pretending to do God’s work without the slightest idea of who God really is. But their threatening presence casts its dark shadow on the Middle East and the peace summit now being championed by U.S. Secretary of State Condalezza Rice. Crossing them can be punishable by death.
I’ve watched enough of Ms. Amapour’s series -- it’s hard to stomach for long periods -- to know all three groups share the same problem: they’re dedicated to “God’s word” instead of to God. Each group confuses the “sacred documents” of their particular faith with the infinite wisdom that is the true word of God. And because they fail to seek God’s heart, they misunderstand their documents
I know I’m not going to cure this ill. The problem has corrupted all the Middle Eastern or Semitic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- from the beginning, mostly out of a desire to enforce orthodoxy. The greater the certainty the “word” is absolute revelation, the easier the task of enforcing orthodoxy. And it seems to follow as day does night that “God’s Warriors” emerge from the most constrained and orthodox branches of their respective faiths. The one thing they share is a divine belief that they are right and the other guy isn’t.
The Judeo-Christian religions have been as guilty as our Islamic brothers in substituting devotion to religion for devotion to God. In his sixth chapter the prophet Hosea speaks a truth repeated often in the Hebrew scriptures: “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offering.” Jesus repeats this sentiment in the New Testament. Accused of lacking devotion to the Torah in his attitude toward the Sabbath, Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Just read the scriptures for God’s sake! You can’t miss it: God intended us for love not war. How sad God must feel to hear a phrase like “God’s Warriors.” Could God’s name possibly be taken more in vain?
“God’s Warriors” is the three-part Christiane Amanpour series that’s been running -- and rerunning -- on CNN. Ms. Amanpour is fair and balanced in her treatment of the three extremist groups, not to mention more generous to them that they deserve. Whether it’s the Muslim, Jewish or Christian segment of the investigative series, the “warriors” show themselves to be self-interested posers pretending to do God’s work without the slightest idea of who God really is. But their threatening presence casts its dark shadow on the Middle East and the peace summit now being championed by U.S. Secretary of State Condalezza Rice. Crossing them can be punishable by death.
I’ve watched enough of Ms. Amapour’s series -- it’s hard to stomach for long periods -- to know all three groups share the same problem: they’re dedicated to “God’s word” instead of to God. Each group confuses the “sacred documents” of their particular faith with the infinite wisdom that is the true word of God. And because they fail to seek God’s heart, they misunderstand their documents
I know I’m not going to cure this ill. The problem has corrupted all the Middle Eastern or Semitic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- from the beginning, mostly out of a desire to enforce orthodoxy. The greater the certainty the “word” is absolute revelation, the easier the task of enforcing orthodoxy. And it seems to follow as day does night that “God’s Warriors” emerge from the most constrained and orthodox branches of their respective faiths. The one thing they share is a divine belief that they are right and the other guy isn’t.
The Judeo-Christian religions have been as guilty as our Islamic brothers in substituting devotion to religion for devotion to God. In his sixth chapter the prophet Hosea speaks a truth repeated often in the Hebrew scriptures: “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offering.” Jesus repeats this sentiment in the New Testament. Accused of lacking devotion to the Torah in his attitude toward the Sabbath, Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Just read the scriptures for God’s sake! You can’t miss it: God intended us for love not war. How sad God must feel to hear a phrase like “God’s Warriors.” Could God’s name possibly be taken more in vain?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Not Time Yet for a Smile and a Haircut
Reading The Evangelical Crackup, David Kirkpatrick’s Times Magazine article in which he details the waning power of the religious right, stimulated sad memories. I was reminded of the bittersweet end of the Viet Nam War in 1975. Those of us who actively opposed the war were finally getting what we wanted, if not in the way we wanted it. But without “The War” to be against, we were left asking, “who are we?” Most eventually got a haircut and a job, and joined the middle class.
For many progressive Christians the fundamentalists on the religious right provide a powerful bogeyman to rally against. Here are people who are exclusionary in their approach, strident in their style, pessimistic in attitude, with tunnel vision in their choice of issues. Activists in the so-called Mainline Protestant churches have been vigorous in opposition to these fellow Christians because we see them as misrepresenting the faith. Politicians who share or support their views are driven by the interests of their constituents. In that context, their actions are reasonable. But Christians should be driven by God’s bias for justice and compassion.
Kirkpatrick cites the War in Iraq and a general weariness with politics from the pulpit as reasons why ultra-conservatives have been losing ground in the evangelical movement. Even the Southern Baptist Convention has begun to push back against the conservatives who have controlled it since the 1980s, electing a moderate president at its last convention. While the tradition evangelicals tended to see Christianity as a set of theological beliefs coupled with specific moral imperatives (mostly involving sex), the newer leaders are taking a broader approach, according to Kirkpatrick:
“Falwell, Dobson and their generation saw their political activism as essentially defensive, fighting to keep traditional moral codes …. But many younger evangelicals — and some old-timers — take a less fatalistic view. For them, the born-again experience of accepting Jesus is just the beginning. What follows is a long-term process of “spiritual formation” that involves applying his teachings in the here and now. … They talk more about a biblical imperative to … the betterment of their communities and the world. They support traditional charities but also public policies that address health care, race, poverty and the environment.”
Sounds pretty progressive. So you see what I mean about trading protest signs for haircuts? With enemies like these, who needs enemies?
But before we go too far in writing off the religious right, let’s remember the power they still wield in the popular media. Yes, Falwell is gone and much of his generation of clergy is aging, but Dr. Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization still dominates Christian radio. Despite the ascendancy of more moderate conservatives like Bill Hybels of the Willow Creek Association and Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren, many evangelicals feel the movement is simply suffering a mild downturn--inevitable after riding so high for so long. Kirkpatrick writes, “Conservative Christian leaders in Washington acknowledge a ‘leftward drift’ among evangelicals, quoting Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and the movement’s chief advocate in Washington. He (Perkins) told me he believed that Hybels and many of his admirers had, in effect, fallen away from orthodox evangelical theology. Perkins compared the phenomenon to the century-old division in American Protestantism between the liberal mainline and the orthodox evangelical churches. ‘It is almost like another split coming within the evangelicals,’ he said.”
What many of the conservative evangelicals resist admitting is that may of us on the left--Jim Wallis being a good example--consider ourselves evangelical in the original sense of the word: advocates of the good news of Jesus Christ. Maybe if we could agree on that definition, we could heal all the splits and march en masse to the salons and barber shops.
For many progressive Christians the fundamentalists on the religious right provide a powerful bogeyman to rally against. Here are people who are exclusionary in their approach, strident in their style, pessimistic in attitude, with tunnel vision in their choice of issues. Activists in the so-called Mainline Protestant churches have been vigorous in opposition to these fellow Christians because we see them as misrepresenting the faith. Politicians who share or support their views are driven by the interests of their constituents. In that context, their actions are reasonable. But Christians should be driven by God’s bias for justice and compassion.
Kirkpatrick cites the War in Iraq and a general weariness with politics from the pulpit as reasons why ultra-conservatives have been losing ground in the evangelical movement. Even the Southern Baptist Convention has begun to push back against the conservatives who have controlled it since the 1980s, electing a moderate president at its last convention. While the tradition evangelicals tended to see Christianity as a set of theological beliefs coupled with specific moral imperatives (mostly involving sex), the newer leaders are taking a broader approach, according to Kirkpatrick:
“Falwell, Dobson and their generation saw their political activism as essentially defensive, fighting to keep traditional moral codes …. But many younger evangelicals — and some old-timers — take a less fatalistic view. For them, the born-again experience of accepting Jesus is just the beginning. What follows is a long-term process of “spiritual formation” that involves applying his teachings in the here and now. … They talk more about a biblical imperative to … the betterment of their communities and the world. They support traditional charities but also public policies that address health care, race, poverty and the environment.”
Sounds pretty progressive. So you see what I mean about trading protest signs for haircuts? With enemies like these, who needs enemies?
But before we go too far in writing off the religious right, let’s remember the power they still wield in the popular media. Yes, Falwell is gone and much of his generation of clergy is aging, but Dr. Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization still dominates Christian radio. Despite the ascendancy of more moderate conservatives like Bill Hybels of the Willow Creek Association and Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren, many evangelicals feel the movement is simply suffering a mild downturn--inevitable after riding so high for so long. Kirkpatrick writes, “Conservative Christian leaders in Washington acknowledge a ‘leftward drift’ among evangelicals, quoting Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and the movement’s chief advocate in Washington. He (Perkins) told me he believed that Hybels and many of his admirers had, in effect, fallen away from orthodox evangelical theology. Perkins compared the phenomenon to the century-old division in American Protestantism between the liberal mainline and the orthodox evangelical churches. ‘It is almost like another split coming within the evangelicals,’ he said.”
What many of the conservative evangelicals resist admitting is that may of us on the left--Jim Wallis being a good example--consider ourselves evangelical in the original sense of the word: advocates of the good news of Jesus Christ. Maybe if we could agree on that definition, we could heal all the splits and march en masse to the salons and barber shops.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Untrue Condi Chasing a Beau Called Peace
“The word is out, (sing along if you’d like) all over town, Condi’s been seen, out running ‘round …”
Yes, it’s true, Condi’s been untrue. Who’s the lucky guy? Well, it’s not exactly a guy. Whoa, wait a minute, say it ain’t so! You wouldn’t want to shake the foundations of Colorado Springs. Well, it ain’t so, but what she is accused of is just as abhorrent, maybe more so, than someone proving Condi is one of those people who loves her own kind.
What is Condi accused of ? Dare I say it? She’s been running ’round pursuing a path of peace over war. In fact, you could say she has been accused of loving her own kind--humankind. Condi’s main sin right now is that she has continued negotiating with North Korea over its nuclear program while the xenophobes in the administration call day after day, louder and louder, for some kind of hostile action against … well just about anyone. Certainly someone needs to be blown up.
Interestingly, in recent days Condi has been speaking very publicly about her Christian faith. Maybe God has been getting her ear. Maybe God’s voice is convincing her of the futility of our current antagonistic strategies. Maybe she has been reminded that nothing upsets God more than to look upon creation and see violence everywhere. Maybe she is finally ready to stand up and say the time for peace is now, and when it finally arrives, it will not come from the barrel of a gun.
Yes, it’s true, Condi’s been untrue. Who’s the lucky guy? Well, it’s not exactly a guy. Whoa, wait a minute, say it ain’t so! You wouldn’t want to shake the foundations of Colorado Springs. Well, it ain’t so, but what she is accused of is just as abhorrent, maybe more so, than someone proving Condi is one of those people who loves her own kind.
What is Condi accused of ? Dare I say it? She’s been running ’round pursuing a path of peace over war. In fact, you could say she has been accused of loving her own kind--humankind. Condi’s main sin right now is that she has continued negotiating with North Korea over its nuclear program while the xenophobes in the administration call day after day, louder and louder, for some kind of hostile action against … well just about anyone. Certainly someone needs to be blown up.
Interestingly, in recent days Condi has been speaking very publicly about her Christian faith. Maybe God has been getting her ear. Maybe God’s voice is convincing her of the futility of our current antagonistic strategies. Maybe she has been reminded that nothing upsets God more than to look upon creation and see violence everywhere. Maybe she is finally ready to stand up and say the time for peace is now, and when it finally arrives, it will not come from the barrel of a gun.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Jesus and Joe Torre on the Same Team
In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly states that God recognizes our need for material things. Let’s get that straw man out of the way up front: when progressive Christians reject the materialism of our culture, we are not suggesting a universal vow of poverty. Most of us aren’t cut out for that.
The social welfare system, for which I once worked, thinks of the central necessities as food, shelter, clothing and medical care. These are the essentials for a life that isn’t a moment-to-moment struggle for survival. Such a struggle is not fertile ground for spiritual growth and Jesus says so. In Matthew 6:31-32, he tells his followers, “Therefore do not worry, saying ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.”
With the word “Gentiles” Jesus is separating believers from non-believers, and the operant verb in his sentence is “strive.” As I'll explain in a minute, it's a concept illustrated by Joe Torre's departure from the New York Yankees.
Earlier in the passage Jesus had stated, “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will … be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” Jesus concludes his sixth chapter remarks with this advice: “Strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” This is not a promise of wealth as some prosperity preachers would have it, but a promise that a life spent seeking God’s spirit will not lead to material destitution.
Of all the many perspectives that divide Christ’s church today none is more important than this question of what motivates us. If the means of salvation was the great issue for the reformation, the path to success in God’s eyes is the great issue today. Much of the American church refuses to separate itself from the secular scoring system that defines “success” as the accumulation of wealth. But Jesus clearly says if you’re playing that game, you’ll never play on his team.
I don’t intend in any way to say that wealth itself is a bad thing; Jesus’ question is what inspires you, for what do you strive? Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology and author of The Costs of Living: How Market Freedom Erodes the Best Things in Life, employs a sports analogy in a New York Times editorial today which seems to underscore Jesus’ point. Schwartz says that the main reason Joe Torre felt insulted by and rejected the Yankees’ contract offer was the inclusion of financial bonus incentives for doing what he would have endeavored to do anyway.
Schwartz writes that of course people want to get paid for their work, “But people aren’t working only for money. They are also working because they think their work serves a purpose, or they are devoted to excellence, or they love what they do. When you offer people bonuses for doing their jobs, you are telling them that money is not just one of many reasons to work, but the only reason.”
Jesus says that if material success is your main motivation in life, forget about God’s presence in your life. You aren’t meant for the kingdom. Joe Torre would understand.
The social welfare system, for which I once worked, thinks of the central necessities as food, shelter, clothing and medical care. These are the essentials for a life that isn’t a moment-to-moment struggle for survival. Such a struggle is not fertile ground for spiritual growth and Jesus says so. In Matthew 6:31-32, he tells his followers, “Therefore do not worry, saying ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.”
With the word “Gentiles” Jesus is separating believers from non-believers, and the operant verb in his sentence is “strive.” As I'll explain in a minute, it's a concept illustrated by Joe Torre's departure from the New York Yankees.
Earlier in the passage Jesus had stated, “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will … be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” Jesus concludes his sixth chapter remarks with this advice: “Strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” This is not a promise of wealth as some prosperity preachers would have it, but a promise that a life spent seeking God’s spirit will not lead to material destitution.
Of all the many perspectives that divide Christ’s church today none is more important than this question of what motivates us. If the means of salvation was the great issue for the reformation, the path to success in God’s eyes is the great issue today. Much of the American church refuses to separate itself from the secular scoring system that defines “success” as the accumulation of wealth. But Jesus clearly says if you’re playing that game, you’ll never play on his team.
I don’t intend in any way to say that wealth itself is a bad thing; Jesus’ question is what inspires you, for what do you strive? Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology and author of The Costs of Living: How Market Freedom Erodes the Best Things in Life, employs a sports analogy in a New York Times editorial today which seems to underscore Jesus’ point. Schwartz says that the main reason Joe Torre felt insulted by and rejected the Yankees’ contract offer was the inclusion of financial bonus incentives for doing what he would have endeavored to do anyway.
Schwartz writes that of course people want to get paid for their work, “But people aren’t working only for money. They are also working because they think their work serves a purpose, or they are devoted to excellence, or they love what they do. When you offer people bonuses for doing their jobs, you are telling them that money is not just one of many reasons to work, but the only reason.”
Jesus says that if material success is your main motivation in life, forget about God’s presence in your life. You aren’t meant for the kingdom. Joe Torre would understand.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
FDR: Self-Interest is Bad Morals and Economics
Do you believe we are our brother’s keeper? That question was asked this week during a TV news discussion of the S-CHIP program that assures lower income children will get medical attention when they need it. The answer may be more crucial now than ever before in our nation’s history. How we answer as a people, how we answer as Christians, may well determine whether or not we continue toward the destiny we imagine for ourselves or go the way of nations and empires which have turned their backs on God’s values.
Many believers would like to separate their faith in God from the political/economic system in which they ground their convictions. They would like to hold in one hand a theology of markets and individual initiative that governs life on earth and in the other hand a theology of salvation that governs life after death. By stretching their arms as far apart as possible, they imagine the two theologies never touch. Unfortunately, it’s a plan requiring willful self-deception. It’s just not be possible to know God and scripture and not know that God’s is saying “yes, here on earth, right now, we are our brother’s keeper.” In the conflict between the common good and self interest, God’s word is clear.
And here’s the surprising irony about God’s position: as is so often the case, when we follow God’s will and obey the command to be our brother’s keeper, we inevitably prosper more as individuals. Just another example of how God is so much wiser than us.
There was a time, during the war years and thereafter, when America at least pretended it believed this. The country had a sense of common purpose, a sense of common possibility. President Roosevelt had inspired belief when he said, “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals. Now we know that it is bad economics.” But with finger-pointing cries of “socialism,” the proponents slowly turned crass self-interest into a virtue. And the church, for whatever reasons--financial, fear of confrontation, a false understanding of what it means to be born again--has been unwilling to stand tall and say, “No, God intends us to be our brother’s keeper, and by the way, FDR was right, heedless self interest is bad morals--and bad economics.”
Some might leave the church over such a show of courage, but, who knows, others might see the church flexing its muscle and say, “now that’s what I’m looking for!” Someone has to lead before it’s too late. If not God’s people, then who? If not now, when? If we are now a nation that won’t even guarantee our needy children medical care, we’re saying as clear as can be, “No, we are not our brother’s keeper.”
Many believers would like to separate their faith in God from the political/economic system in which they ground their convictions. They would like to hold in one hand a theology of markets and individual initiative that governs life on earth and in the other hand a theology of salvation that governs life after death. By stretching their arms as far apart as possible, they imagine the two theologies never touch. Unfortunately, it’s a plan requiring willful self-deception. It’s just not be possible to know God and scripture and not know that God’s is saying “yes, here on earth, right now, we are our brother’s keeper.” In the conflict between the common good and self interest, God’s word is clear.
And here’s the surprising irony about God’s position: as is so often the case, when we follow God’s will and obey the command to be our brother’s keeper, we inevitably prosper more as individuals. Just another example of how God is so much wiser than us.
There was a time, during the war years and thereafter, when America at least pretended it believed this. The country had a sense of common purpose, a sense of common possibility. President Roosevelt had inspired belief when he said, “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals. Now we know that it is bad economics.” But with finger-pointing cries of “socialism,” the proponents slowly turned crass self-interest into a virtue. And the church, for whatever reasons--financial, fear of confrontation, a false understanding of what it means to be born again--has been unwilling to stand tall and say, “No, God intends us to be our brother’s keeper, and by the way, FDR was right, heedless self interest is bad morals--and bad economics.”
Some might leave the church over such a show of courage, but, who knows, others might see the church flexing its muscle and say, “now that’s what I’m looking for!” Someone has to lead before it’s too late. If not God’s people, then who? If not now, when? If we are now a nation that won’t even guarantee our needy children medical care, we’re saying as clear as can be, “No, we are not our brother’s keeper.”
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Crazy Contradictions in Being Christian
I live with this crazy contradiction that I think of as being Christian: I want everyone to like me, but at the same time I don’t mind a good fight. I try to give the benefit of the doubt to people -- who they are and what they think, but at the same time I don’t hold back from defending my own convictions, even when I know it‘s going to tick someone off.
If this contradiction is going to lead to trouble it usually comes from wanting everyone to like me. It can lead me to give people more credit than they’re due and assume their good intentions for too long despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Then when the truth becomes obvious things can turn nasty.
CNN’s Jack Cafferty recently published a book called, “It’s Getting Ugly Out There,” and any observer of the American scene--either the political or religious landscape--would have to agree he’s right. The reason may be that no one cares anymore whether the guys on the other side like them or not. No one is interested in giving the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is quick to hand out black hats to those they disagree with while perching a bright white Stetson on their own dome.
Just below Jesus Christ on my heroes list is Princeton economist Paul Krugman. I’ve seen Krugman in action and believe his natural tendency is to give people the benefit of the doubt. But last week he wrote a column suggesting we’ve been closing our eyes to the truth about the political right for too long, that memory is too short about facts like Barry Goldwater’s support for Joe McCarthy, Ronald Reagan’s opposition to the Voting Rights Act and the National Review’s support of White Supremacy in the segregated South. Maybe he‘s right. Maybe we should forgive but not forget, reach out in friendship but not let the wolf fool us into thinking he’s Red Riding Hood’s grandma. After all, it was Reagan who said, “trust but verify.” It’s a tricky business, figuring how to get along and avoid self-righteousness without giving in on important principles.
How do we work with this crazy contradiction? We want to reach out in love but not give the impression that all things are equal, that a life driven by self interest is as good as one driven by compassion. Taking my cue from the way Jesus worked, I think it may be in the tone of voice. Jesus had a “tone” about him that welcomed people to step into his circle--even those who came with bad intentions. I have to believe that some of those were changed just by being near to him. It happens even today. But he also knew when to say goodbye to those he saw weren’t candidates for the kingdom. And yet from the cross he forgave even those who crucified him. It’s funny, but the only people who ever make him mad were self-absorbed religious leaders who seemed more interested in closing doors to the kingdom than in opening them. That was one thing he was willing to fight over.
If this contradiction is going to lead to trouble it usually comes from wanting everyone to like me. It can lead me to give people more credit than they’re due and assume their good intentions for too long despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Then when the truth becomes obvious things can turn nasty.
CNN’s Jack Cafferty recently published a book called, “It’s Getting Ugly Out There,” and any observer of the American scene--either the political or religious landscape--would have to agree he’s right. The reason may be that no one cares anymore whether the guys on the other side like them or not. No one is interested in giving the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is quick to hand out black hats to those they disagree with while perching a bright white Stetson on their own dome.
Just below Jesus Christ on my heroes list is Princeton economist Paul Krugman. I’ve seen Krugman in action and believe his natural tendency is to give people the benefit of the doubt. But last week he wrote a column suggesting we’ve been closing our eyes to the truth about the political right for too long, that memory is too short about facts like Barry Goldwater’s support for Joe McCarthy, Ronald Reagan’s opposition to the Voting Rights Act and the National Review’s support of White Supremacy in the segregated South. Maybe he‘s right. Maybe we should forgive but not forget, reach out in friendship but not let the wolf fool us into thinking he’s Red Riding Hood’s grandma. After all, it was Reagan who said, “trust but verify.” It’s a tricky business, figuring how to get along and avoid self-righteousness without giving in on important principles.
How do we work with this crazy contradiction? We want to reach out in love but not give the impression that all things are equal, that a life driven by self interest is as good as one driven by compassion. Taking my cue from the way Jesus worked, I think it may be in the tone of voice. Jesus had a “tone” about him that welcomed people to step into his circle--even those who came with bad intentions. I have to believe that some of those were changed just by being near to him. It happens even today. But he also knew when to say goodbye to those he saw weren’t candidates for the kingdom. And yet from the cross he forgave even those who crucified him. It’s funny, but the only people who ever make him mad were self-absorbed religious leaders who seemed more interested in closing doors to the kingdom than in opening them. That was one thing he was willing to fight over.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Filling in the Blanks in Christian Obedience
David Brooks of the New York Times, one of the likeable guys among American conservatives, offered a brief history and defense of the conservative philosophy in his column earlier this week. On the Times OP-ED page Brooks set out to show that flaws in American conservative policy have nothing to do with an unsound premise for conservatism in general.
Brooks is a well-intended man, as are many conservatives, so I gave him a read. He traced his movement back to the Englishman Edmund Burke, whose Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) was once a staple of a liberal arts college education. “What Burke articulated,” Brooks wrote, “was not an ideology or a creed, but a disposition, a reverence for tradition, a suspicion of radical change.” Roll that around in your mind a bit and you might understand without reading the rest of how Brooks says our conservative politicians jumped the track.
Put in a positive frame, “a suspicion of radical change,” could be described as a love of discipline and order. Which brings me to the impact on Christianity today. At a party recently a Christian woman in her mid-40s, widowed with two teenaged daughters, described to me how devoting herself to the Lord had given her the anchor she needed in her time of turmoil. As we began talking about faith she asked me, “What is at the center of our faith?” I answered, “the confidence to love.” She shook her head “no.” I tried again: “to serve.” Frustrated, she said, “No! Obedience! God wants our obedience.”
Obedience is a favorite concept among conservative Christians, a religious parallel to Burke’s love of order and discipline. And I’m all for it. But the word “obedience” by itself is at best an empty shell and a blank check; at worst it’s an invitation to be “good Germans.” We all know where that can lead.
“Yes,” I told my Christian friend, “I believe very much in obedience, obedience to God’s law of love--love the Lord with all your heart and all your soul, and your neighbor as yourself.” It seemed to trouble her that I had converted her answer into my original answer. At a time of chaos in her life she craved the order and discipline of submitting herself to God’s authority. She wanted boundaries that made her feel safe, not an admonition to do something like living God’s love. I understand and respect that. I have no doubt she is a good and caring person.
But I also have no doubt that the obedience I described is the same as scripture describes. Return to the law of Moses, to Deuteronomy, to the first principle, to what Jews call the “shema,” Hebrew for the word hear: “Hear O Israel: … You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” Leviticus 19 adds the second part -- “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus later puts them together in the great commandment. “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,” he says in Matthew. So yes to obedience! But obedience has to mean something or it becomes fertile ground for tyrants. For Christians it means obedience to the law of love. Imagine that, obedience and love are the same thing. Maybe one day we Christians will bridge our differences.
Brooks is a well-intended man, as are many conservatives, so I gave him a read. He traced his movement back to the Englishman Edmund Burke, whose Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) was once a staple of a liberal arts college education. “What Burke articulated,” Brooks wrote, “was not an ideology or a creed, but a disposition, a reverence for tradition, a suspicion of radical change.” Roll that around in your mind a bit and you might understand without reading the rest of how Brooks says our conservative politicians jumped the track.
Put in a positive frame, “a suspicion of radical change,” could be described as a love of discipline and order. Which brings me to the impact on Christianity today. At a party recently a Christian woman in her mid-40s, widowed with two teenaged daughters, described to me how devoting herself to the Lord had given her the anchor she needed in her time of turmoil. As we began talking about faith she asked me, “What is at the center of our faith?” I answered, “the confidence to love.” She shook her head “no.” I tried again: “to serve.” Frustrated, she said, “No! Obedience! God wants our obedience.”
Obedience is a favorite concept among conservative Christians, a religious parallel to Burke’s love of order and discipline. And I’m all for it. But the word “obedience” by itself is at best an empty shell and a blank check; at worst it’s an invitation to be “good Germans.” We all know where that can lead.
“Yes,” I told my Christian friend, “I believe very much in obedience, obedience to God’s law of love--love the Lord with all your heart and all your soul, and your neighbor as yourself.” It seemed to trouble her that I had converted her answer into my original answer. At a time of chaos in her life she craved the order and discipline of submitting herself to God’s authority. She wanted boundaries that made her feel safe, not an admonition to do something like living God’s love. I understand and respect that. I have no doubt she is a good and caring person.
But I also have no doubt that the obedience I described is the same as scripture describes. Return to the law of Moses, to Deuteronomy, to the first principle, to what Jews call the “shema,” Hebrew for the word hear: “Hear O Israel: … You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” Leviticus 19 adds the second part -- “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus later puts them together in the great commandment. “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,” he says in Matthew. So yes to obedience! But obedience has to mean something or it becomes fertile ground for tyrants. For Christians it means obedience to the law of love. Imagine that, obedience and love are the same thing. Maybe one day we Christians will bridge our differences.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Can Christian Unity be More Than a Pipe Dream?
This morning in worship we sang that hopeful old tune, “We are One in the Spirit.” You know, the one where “we pray that our unity will one day be restored.” You may remember a time not long ago--back when the main dispute between Christians was baptism by sprinkling infants vs. immersing adults--when we could sing that hymn with a sense of possibility. Now, as Christian factions square off over issues like the war and whether homosexuality is the unpardonable sin, Christian unity seems like a pipe dream. And I'm not talking tobacco in that pipe.
But the dream lives on. Last night I attended a candlelight celebration for a “fourth day” community that is completely non-denominational. This one happens to be an Emmaus community. You may be familiar with Via de Cristo, or one of the other transformational weekend walks. Those who complete the weekends continue to gather periodically under the umbrella of God’s love. Our particular community has members from almost 30 denominations or independent congregations. When we meet in one sanctuary or another, no one can doubt that God’s spirit is in the house. We pray, we sing, we celebrate communion, we love one another. Some people lift their hands in praise, others don’t. No big deal. When we join in communion, no one asks why grape juice instead of wine, or whether anyone believes the elements are symbolically or in fact the body and blood of Christ. What joins us is more important than what separates us.
Although we have clergy participating in our gatherings and in our weekend walks, our community is essentially run by lay people. I hate to say it, but maybe that’s the secret. Take a look at the people sowing dissention in the Christian community and almost all of them are making a living by marketing their divisive opinions. Not that there’s anything wrong with making a living being clergy or running a Christian ministry. The question is, with whose voice do you speak? God’s voice or your own. I’ve spent many years learning to recognize God’s voice and I believe I know what it sounds like. It’s a voice of loving inclusion, not one of angry rejection. I’m trying to watch my own voice on that score. If we all could, maybe some day we truly would be "one in the spirit" again. Which brings me back to the chorus of the hymn: "And they'll know we are Christians by our Love." I believe Jesus said that.
But the dream lives on. Last night I attended a candlelight celebration for a “fourth day” community that is completely non-denominational. This one happens to be an Emmaus community. You may be familiar with Via de Cristo, or one of the other transformational weekend walks. Those who complete the weekends continue to gather periodically under the umbrella of God’s love. Our particular community has members from almost 30 denominations or independent congregations. When we meet in one sanctuary or another, no one can doubt that God’s spirit is in the house. We pray, we sing, we celebrate communion, we love one another. Some people lift their hands in praise, others don’t. No big deal. When we join in communion, no one asks why grape juice instead of wine, or whether anyone believes the elements are symbolically or in fact the body and blood of Christ. What joins us is more important than what separates us.
Although we have clergy participating in our gatherings and in our weekend walks, our community is essentially run by lay people. I hate to say it, but maybe that’s the secret. Take a look at the people sowing dissention in the Christian community and almost all of them are making a living by marketing their divisive opinions. Not that there’s anything wrong with making a living being clergy or running a Christian ministry. The question is, with whose voice do you speak? God’s voice or your own. I’ve spent many years learning to recognize God’s voice and I believe I know what it sounds like. It’s a voice of loving inclusion, not one of angry rejection. I’m trying to watch my own voice on that score. If we all could, maybe some day we truly would be "one in the spirit" again. Which brings me back to the chorus of the hymn: "And they'll know we are Christians by our Love." I believe Jesus said that.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Christians Must Set Their Own Political Agenda
As a tax exempt non-profit, the group I lead, Christian Heartbeat, is prohibited from supporting specific political candidates and parties. That suits me fine. I suppose I could try to fudge the issue by endorsing here on my blog and not in my web magazine at http://www.christianheartbeat.org/. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family seems to have gotten away with that sort of sleight of hand, having been cleared in a recent investigation of his obvious partisanship. From my perspective that’s his problem and a problem for his integrity I’d rather not have. I guess he has the lawyers to do it.
Identification with one political party or the other is self-defeating for conservative and progressive Christians alike. Ask a conservative evangelical how they can be so against destruction of a frozen embryo that shows no resemblance to a human being but have no problem with bullets tearing apart a fully formed child and they start to mumble some remote scriptural nonsense. Ask a progressive how they can get so incensed about the war in Iraq and still support nine months of abortion on demand and they too will spin into intellectual gyrations.
Believe me, I’m not a head-in-the-sand Christian who thinks our faith should be apolitical. I take my lead from Jesus on that one, and anyone who thinks I’m wrong simply doesn’t understand the historical Jesus. Our Lord was harassed and crucified because he opposed both the Romans and the Jewish aristocracy which aligned itself with the occupiers against the good of their own people. But Christ was original in his opposition, his point of view distinct from the Roman-friendly religious class and from the angry zealots who yearned to drive out the occupiers by force.
Peter used the phrase “a peculiar people” to describe Christians. He calls on us to set ourselves apart in our perspective--not in a way that makes us invisible, but in a way that makes us powerfully uncorrupted. When we do, our thoughts, our goals and our politics will clear like the sun melting away the morning mist. Then we’ll truly be worthy to call ourselves Christians, and we’ll begin to understand how to bring God’s values to a world much in need of redemption..
Identification with one political party or the other is self-defeating for conservative and progressive Christians alike. Ask a conservative evangelical how they can be so against destruction of a frozen embryo that shows no resemblance to a human being but have no problem with bullets tearing apart a fully formed child and they start to mumble some remote scriptural nonsense. Ask a progressive how they can get so incensed about the war in Iraq and still support nine months of abortion on demand and they too will spin into intellectual gyrations.
Believe me, I’m not a head-in-the-sand Christian who thinks our faith should be apolitical. I take my lead from Jesus on that one, and anyone who thinks I’m wrong simply doesn’t understand the historical Jesus. Our Lord was harassed and crucified because he opposed both the Romans and the Jewish aristocracy which aligned itself with the occupiers against the good of their own people. But Christ was original in his opposition, his point of view distinct from the Roman-friendly religious class and from the angry zealots who yearned to drive out the occupiers by force.
Peter used the phrase “a peculiar people” to describe Christians. He calls on us to set ourselves apart in our perspective--not in a way that makes us invisible, but in a way that makes us powerfully uncorrupted. When we do, our thoughts, our goals and our politics will clear like the sun melting away the morning mist. Then we’ll truly be worthy to call ourselves Christians, and we’ll begin to understand how to bring God’s values to a world much in need of redemption..
Monday, October 1, 2007
Don't Let the Innocent Get Treated Like Jesus
Christianity is a faith descended from a man falsely accused and falsely executed, so it’s natural that fairness in our criminal justice system should be a top priority for a predominately Christian nation. Among all the areas in which God’s values and God’s politics have been distorted by our culture, justice for the falsely accused finally appears to be moving in the right direction.
A New York Times article of Oct. 1 notes that all but eight states now have laws on the books allowing convicted criminals to access DNA evidence for testing that wasn’t possible at the time of their trials. And because the tide has begun to recede from a pervasive bias against the accused--often because their race or class made them look guilty to the majority--other evidence like eyewitness testimony and jailhouse snitches also is becoming suspect.
A 2005 study by Law School professor Samuel R. Gross of the University of Michigan uncovered 340 prisoners sentenced from 1989 to 2003 who now are exonerated. The majority were convicted of murder or rape. Almost half were cleared by DNA evidence and more than half the cases involved faulty eyewitness testimony. Another study this year by Professor Gross identified 86 death row inmates sentenced between 1973 to 1989 who were exonerated through 2004. While Gross concentrated on the most egregious felonies like rape and murder, he concluded it was certain many more innocents accused of lesser crimes occupy our jails.
The Times article, which can be reached at the link below, contains a great deal more about how states are pursuing clarity in the criminal justice system. So many of the concerns in our culture that run contrary to God’s values--like poverty and the failure of compassion--defy short-term solutions. Fairness in our justice system is one area in which action can yield results. Because Christ spoke out against just such a system and paid the price for it, we who follow Jesus should be energized by this fairness movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/01exonerate.html?ex=1348977600&en=36c60fe4165c0c00&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
A New York Times article of Oct. 1 notes that all but eight states now have laws on the books allowing convicted criminals to access DNA evidence for testing that wasn’t possible at the time of their trials. And because the tide has begun to recede from a pervasive bias against the accused--often because their race or class made them look guilty to the majority--other evidence like eyewitness testimony and jailhouse snitches also is becoming suspect.
A 2005 study by Law School professor Samuel R. Gross of the University of Michigan uncovered 340 prisoners sentenced from 1989 to 2003 who now are exonerated. The majority were convicted of murder or rape. Almost half were cleared by DNA evidence and more than half the cases involved faulty eyewitness testimony. Another study this year by Professor Gross identified 86 death row inmates sentenced between 1973 to 1989 who were exonerated through 2004. While Gross concentrated on the most egregious felonies like rape and murder, he concluded it was certain many more innocents accused of lesser crimes occupy our jails.
The Times article, which can be reached at the link below, contains a great deal more about how states are pursuing clarity in the criminal justice system. So many of the concerns in our culture that run contrary to God’s values--like poverty and the failure of compassion--defy short-term solutions. Fairness in our justice system is one area in which action can yield results. Because Christ spoke out against just such a system and paid the price for it, we who follow Jesus should be energized by this fairness movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/01exonerate.html?ex=1348977600&en=36c60fe4165c0c00&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Lesson for Christians in Buddhist Protests
Clergy in Burma are putting their safety—maybe even their lives—on the line to defend the rights of their nation’s underclass. The protesters, led by Buddhist monks and numbering up to 35,000, have been on the streets for over a week demanding justice from a military regime that has reduced its people to poverty while reserving privilege for itself. The trigger for the protests in this Asian nation now known as Myanmar was a massive fuel price increase.
“Today we saw the most widespread demonstrations since 1988,” said Bangkok-based Burmese analyst Win Min. “Things are moving very quickly.” Win Min characterized the current situation as a spiritual rebellion, an economic protest and a reaction to longstanding suffering, according to a report from the Asia Sentinel.
The Burma protests are a form of religion-in-action not seen in the United States since the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War when church leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and the Berrigan Brothers led street protests to oppose oppression. And despite memories of thousand of Burmese being gunned downed during the 1988 protests, the monks seem prepared to pay whatever price is necessary:
"There's no prospect now of the monks just deciding to abandon this. They are getting braver every day and their demands are getting greater every day, and it's much more overtly political," a Rangoon-based diplomat told Reuters.
As it was in the United States, the presence of religious leaders is problematic for the government. Soldiers are reluctant to beat or kill members of the clergy, although it appears Wednesday in Burma they finally took restrained but clearly aggressive action. The natural and rightful inclination of religions like Christianity and Buddhism is to foster an atmosphere of peace, not violence. The Burmese monks were cautious in taking their complaints to the street—the fuel increases date back to August 19 and the protests grew slowly. Dr. King faced that same reluctance in the 60s as other ministers argued for caution and patience. But when caution and patience become inaction, injustice will flourish unopposed.
We know that Jesus was troubled by religious leaders who not only stood by but benefited as God’s values were being subverted. Is it reasonable to expect our secular leaders to support Godly values like compassion and justice on their own? If not, at what point must religious leaders also become political leaders?
“Today we saw the most widespread demonstrations since 1988,” said Bangkok-based Burmese analyst Win Min. “Things are moving very quickly.” Win Min characterized the current situation as a spiritual rebellion, an economic protest and a reaction to longstanding suffering, according to a report from the Asia Sentinel.
The Burma protests are a form of religion-in-action not seen in the United States since the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War when church leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and the Berrigan Brothers led street protests to oppose oppression. And despite memories of thousand of Burmese being gunned downed during the 1988 protests, the monks seem prepared to pay whatever price is necessary:
"There's no prospect now of the monks just deciding to abandon this. They are getting braver every day and their demands are getting greater every day, and it's much more overtly political," a Rangoon-based diplomat told Reuters.
As it was in the United States, the presence of religious leaders is problematic for the government. Soldiers are reluctant to beat or kill members of the clergy, although it appears Wednesday in Burma they finally took restrained but clearly aggressive action. The natural and rightful inclination of religions like Christianity and Buddhism is to foster an atmosphere of peace, not violence. The Burmese monks were cautious in taking their complaints to the street—the fuel increases date back to August 19 and the protests grew slowly. Dr. King faced that same reluctance in the 60s as other ministers argued for caution and patience. But when caution and patience become inaction, injustice will flourish unopposed.
We know that Jesus was troubled by religious leaders who not only stood by but benefited as God’s values were being subverted. Is it reasonable to expect our secular leaders to support Godly values like compassion and justice on their own? If not, at what point must religious leaders also become political leaders?
Monday, September 24, 2007
A Spirit of Joy Marks New Counter Culture
Back in 1969 Theodore Roszak, a California history professor, published The Making of a Counter Culture. The Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement and the increasing pace of change spawned by technology had created a new dimension within American society not born on Wall Street, Main Street or Madison Avenue. It was all around, rising up from many places in many ways, sporting long hair and dashikis, tie-dye tees and bell bottoms. Roszak’s book attempted to describe the complex cross currents that comprised this counter culture.
Common believe has it that the children of the 60s were eventually folded in among the denizens of Wall Street, Main Street and Madison Avenue, more involved in making a living and raising families than changing the world. Dreams were overtaken by realities. Life goes on.
But as God promised through Isaiah, a remnant remained on which to rebuild a world of justice and compassion such as God had intended in the creation. If you are a Christian, this is your inheritance, this is the obligation of being born again, not of the flesh but of the spirit.
While Roszak’s book described a landscape of groups and influences, today’s counter culture takes its meaning from two shared convictions: Living “in the spirit” is a real possibility here on earth, not some obscure reward for good boys and girls to collect when they die; and that the institutions of our materialistic society are opposed to those who would inhabit the kingdom of heaven now, not later.
And don’t be naive; our prevailing culture is powerful and alluring. Ask Christian parents who have tried to raise their children as what Jesus called “children of light.” It is hard enough for us as adults to stand up to our sorry culture; how can we expect our children to survive against a market place and media designed to swallow them whole?
Jesus said the children of this world are often more shrewd than the children of light. While they offer the mostly false promise of cheap thrills and flashy possessions, we counter with an unappetizing campaign of “just say no.” For all its excesses the counter culture of the 60s knew one thing: there’s a joyful exuberance in being spiritual. Instead of saying no to pleasure, our mantra should be say yes to joy. Say yes to the kingdom of joy and say it now.
Common believe has it that the children of the 60s were eventually folded in among the denizens of Wall Street, Main Street and Madison Avenue, more involved in making a living and raising families than changing the world. Dreams were overtaken by realities. Life goes on.
But as God promised through Isaiah, a remnant remained on which to rebuild a world of justice and compassion such as God had intended in the creation. If you are a Christian, this is your inheritance, this is the obligation of being born again, not of the flesh but of the spirit.
While Roszak’s book described a landscape of groups and influences, today’s counter culture takes its meaning from two shared convictions: Living “in the spirit” is a real possibility here on earth, not some obscure reward for good boys and girls to collect when they die; and that the institutions of our materialistic society are opposed to those who would inhabit the kingdom of heaven now, not later.
And don’t be naive; our prevailing culture is powerful and alluring. Ask Christian parents who have tried to raise their children as what Jesus called “children of light.” It is hard enough for us as adults to stand up to our sorry culture; how can we expect our children to survive against a market place and media designed to swallow them whole?
Jesus said the children of this world are often more shrewd than the children of light. While they offer the mostly false promise of cheap thrills and flashy possessions, we counter with an unappetizing campaign of “just say no.” For all its excesses the counter culture of the 60s knew one thing: there’s a joyful exuberance in being spiritual. Instead of saying no to pleasure, our mantra should be say yes to joy. Say yes to the kingdom of joy and say it now.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A Genuine Tough Guy? Check out Jesus
I grew up in Detroit and almost every guy I know from there likes to pretend that makes him something of a tough guy. “Detroit: where the weak are killed and eaten.” It’s a bumper sticker I’ve seen in Florida where I live now. I’ve never seen it in Detroit.
Despite what you may have heard, there are many well-to-do areas in metro Detroit—just as there are in places like Philly and Chicago. I actually did grow up in a pretty tough blue-collar neighborhood. Learning to fight was part of the maturation process for young males, even if you were a church-going Christian.
But the dangers of my neighborhood were nothing like those Jesus faced. In his day if you didn’t have status, if you weren’t in with the in-crowd—meaning the Romans—you had no rights. The occupiers could pretty much do whatever they wanted to you.
Jesus talks about it near the end of his Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s gospel and offers a formula for how a genuine tough guy who is also a man of peace stands up to abusers. Because the Romans didn’t want to encourage actual revolt, they put a limit on how they pushed around the locals. A soldier could grab any citizen and force him to carry his burden for a mile. No “thank you” or compensation required. It was a humiliation and showed the Jews who was boss. Jesus explained how to get even: When the mile is up, you say, “hey man, that was nothing—a walk in the park. I got another mile in me easy.” You’ve just killed two birds with one stone: first, you’ve told the oppressor “you can’t hurt me,” and second, you’ve saved some other poor soul from being the next victim.
In the same chapter Jesus says if someone, again meaning a Roman soldier or maybe a collaborator, strikes you on the right cheek, let him give you a shot to the left cheek too. The point here was that since most people are right-handed, a smack to the right cheek would be a back-hand—which is how someone would show they saw you as a weak underling—another humiliation. In saying give him the left cheek too, Jesus is saying stand up to the abuser in a non-violent way by saying “go ahead dude, smack me with a forehand—I’m as good as you and not a bit afraid or humiliated.”
Sometimes I get the impression every American male is trying to prove he’s a tough guy from Detroit, Philly, Chicago or the Bronx. It’s how we end up in unnecessary wars, or justify turning our backs on the weak. You want to see a real tough guy? Check out Jesus.
Despite what you may have heard, there are many well-to-do areas in metro Detroit—just as there are in places like Philly and Chicago. I actually did grow up in a pretty tough blue-collar neighborhood. Learning to fight was part of the maturation process for young males, even if you were a church-going Christian.
But the dangers of my neighborhood were nothing like those Jesus faced. In his day if you didn’t have status, if you weren’t in with the in-crowd—meaning the Romans—you had no rights. The occupiers could pretty much do whatever they wanted to you.
Jesus talks about it near the end of his Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s gospel and offers a formula for how a genuine tough guy who is also a man of peace stands up to abusers. Because the Romans didn’t want to encourage actual revolt, they put a limit on how they pushed around the locals. A soldier could grab any citizen and force him to carry his burden for a mile. No “thank you” or compensation required. It was a humiliation and showed the Jews who was boss. Jesus explained how to get even: When the mile is up, you say, “hey man, that was nothing—a walk in the park. I got another mile in me easy.” You’ve just killed two birds with one stone: first, you’ve told the oppressor “you can’t hurt me,” and second, you’ve saved some other poor soul from being the next victim.
In the same chapter Jesus says if someone, again meaning a Roman soldier or maybe a collaborator, strikes you on the right cheek, let him give you a shot to the left cheek too. The point here was that since most people are right-handed, a smack to the right cheek would be a back-hand—which is how someone would show they saw you as a weak underling—another humiliation. In saying give him the left cheek too, Jesus is saying stand up to the abuser in a non-violent way by saying “go ahead dude, smack me with a forehand—I’m as good as you and not a bit afraid or humiliated.”
Sometimes I get the impression every American male is trying to prove he’s a tough guy from Detroit, Philly, Chicago or the Bronx. It’s how we end up in unnecessary wars, or justify turning our backs on the weak. You want to see a real tough guy? Check out Jesus.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Faith Should Flourish in Postmodern Era
Here’s a question, a bit of advice, and a sales pitch from Christianity Today’s online newsletter: “Is faith intellectual suicide? Many scholars, scientists, and the average person you pass on the street would like to think so. Equip yourself with resources on the relationship between faith and science and the battle for faith in a postmodern culture.”
That’s a nice try but a mile-wide miss by the conservative Christian journal. Apparently, although conservatives love to use the term, they don’t understand “postmodern.” The postmodern era isn’t a threat to faith but an era of opportunity.
A brief history lesson: first came the pre-modern era, which ended just a few hundred years ago. Answers to life’s puzzles came from mythical and mystical sources: legend, belief, ancient documents, intuition and, of course, God. Science had a toe-hold but not a foot-hold. Just ask Galileo. Then came the modern era in which we came to believe our puzzles could be solved, our ultimate questions answered beyond a doubt. In the modern era science and experimentation were kings. We believed there was a single right answer to things, not a group of equally virtuous possibilities.
The post-modern era returned mystery to our attempts to understand the world around us. Some would say it began with the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the 1960s. Kuhn reveals that science’s answers are not absolute or permanent, but work for a while only because we assume a certain set of beliefs to be true. He calls them paradigms. A well-known example is the paradigm of an earth-centered solar system. Under that paradigm, Ptolemy developed charts for the movement of the sun and stars which allowed sailors to navigate quite effectively—even though the basic assumptions were incorrect. But instead of realizing our limitations, the “modern” thinker, convinced of scientific “truth,” looks at the replacement paradigm and says, “Now we have the final answer.” Kuhn shows us that each new paradigm also is destined for eventual failure. Mystery re-enters the equation.
In the postmodern era, science and faith can flourish side-by-side. We can believe in scientific explanations for what we see, while knowing intuitively the universe contains wonders beyond our knowing. This is not intellectual suicide, but intellectual freedom.
That’s a nice try but a mile-wide miss by the conservative Christian journal. Apparently, although conservatives love to use the term, they don’t understand “postmodern.” The postmodern era isn’t a threat to faith but an era of opportunity.
A brief history lesson: first came the pre-modern era, which ended just a few hundred years ago. Answers to life’s puzzles came from mythical and mystical sources: legend, belief, ancient documents, intuition and, of course, God. Science had a toe-hold but not a foot-hold. Just ask Galileo. Then came the modern era in which we came to believe our puzzles could be solved, our ultimate questions answered beyond a doubt. In the modern era science and experimentation were kings. We believed there was a single right answer to things, not a group of equally virtuous possibilities.
The post-modern era returned mystery to our attempts to understand the world around us. Some would say it began with the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the 1960s. Kuhn reveals that science’s answers are not absolute or permanent, but work for a while only because we assume a certain set of beliefs to be true. He calls them paradigms. A well-known example is the paradigm of an earth-centered solar system. Under that paradigm, Ptolemy developed charts for the movement of the sun and stars which allowed sailors to navigate quite effectively—even though the basic assumptions were incorrect. But instead of realizing our limitations, the “modern” thinker, convinced of scientific “truth,” looks at the replacement paradigm and says, “Now we have the final answer.” Kuhn shows us that each new paradigm also is destined for eventual failure. Mystery re-enters the equation.
In the postmodern era, science and faith can flourish side-by-side. We can believe in scientific explanations for what we see, while knowing intuitively the universe contains wonders beyond our knowing. This is not intellectual suicide, but intellectual freedom.
Friday, September 14, 2007
To be good, do good. It's that simple
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems our faith should be way more than a walk down memory lane. We study, we celebrate what happened thousands of years ago for what it says about how we live today. I don’t think many would disagree.
So it was that during a Bible study in the early spring of 2004, less than a year after we first went into Iraq, we found ourselves debating what God would have us think about this war. Group members were already beginning to be polarized—just like the country. My co-leader, a Vietnam vet, said that his greatest fear was that we would “cease to believe that America is good.”
I knew what he meant but it seemed an antiquated concept to me, a remnant from an earlier time when people believed in constant absolutes and unquestioned obedience to authority. Wasn’t it obvious? America is good when it does good. For those who believed the Iraq mission a mistake, America was (and is) not doing good. We sympathize with our troops and pray for their safety, but we can’t say America is doing good in one instance because it did good in another. Actions have consequences. We were good when we wrote “all men are created equal” into the Declaration of Independence; not good when we made slavery legal in America. It’s really pretty simple.
Some Christians like to emphasize the concept of obedience to authority. I too believe in obedience—to the law as Jesus summarized it: Love God and God’s creation, and your neighbor as yourself. Those who love obedience to earthly authority can pull out a passage here and there—mostly misunderstood and misinterpreted. They themselves often have an interest in that authority structure, much like the religious leaders who challenged Jesus to explain by what authority he spoke. They couldn’t see it but the answer was obvious: God’s.
So it was that during a Bible study in the early spring of 2004, less than a year after we first went into Iraq, we found ourselves debating what God would have us think about this war. Group members were already beginning to be polarized—just like the country. My co-leader, a Vietnam vet, said that his greatest fear was that we would “cease to believe that America is good.”
I knew what he meant but it seemed an antiquated concept to me, a remnant from an earlier time when people believed in constant absolutes and unquestioned obedience to authority. Wasn’t it obvious? America is good when it does good. For those who believed the Iraq mission a mistake, America was (and is) not doing good. We sympathize with our troops and pray for their safety, but we can’t say America is doing good in one instance because it did good in another. Actions have consequences. We were good when we wrote “all men are created equal” into the Declaration of Independence; not good when we made slavery legal in America. It’s really pretty simple.
Some Christians like to emphasize the concept of obedience to authority. I too believe in obedience—to the law as Jesus summarized it: Love God and God’s creation, and your neighbor as yourself. Those who love obedience to earthly authority can pull out a passage here and there—mostly misunderstood and misinterpreted. They themselves often have an interest in that authority structure, much like the religious leaders who challenged Jesus to explain by what authority he spoke. They couldn’t see it but the answer was obvious: God’s.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Prison Officials Enforcing Religious Orthodoxy
In my church we pride ourselves on tolerance—on being able to agree to disagree without fragmenting the “body of Christ.” We’ve had families leave because they felt our pastors were too liberal, only to return when they learned their new, more conservative church had no tolerance for the non-conforming 10 percent of their belief system. Better to be where you’re accepted, even when you disagree.
Enforced orthodoxy has been a problem in the Christian Church from the beginning. It’s why the so-called Gnostic gospels were banned and burned. And once the Romans quit putting Christians to death, we started in on each other. It’s also why the pilgrims first came to America and why government establishment of an official religion was banned in the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Justice Department have forgotten that history. The Bureau, which operates as part of the Justice Department, has recently established a list of up to 150 permitted books for each religion, while banning all others from our Federal Prisons. Bureau spokeswoman Traci Billingsley told the New York Times the goal was eliminate books that advocate violence, tend to radicalize, or encourage discrimination. But prison chaplains were already screening donated books for these types of extremism. Because the Bureau provided no money to buy the books on their list, many prisons have had their religious libraries stripped bare.
Although the Bureau denies it has become an advocate among competing views of Christianity, Ms. Billingsley's statement seems to belie that claim: “We really wanted consistently available information for all religious groups to assure reliable teachings as determined by reliable subject experts,” she said.
The Bureau has refused to release the list to the public but parts of it have leaked out anyway. As an example of the apparent bias, the list contains nine books by C.S. Lewis, a darling of the religious right, and none by the highly respected Reinhold Niebuhr, a progressive but mainstream pastor and theologian.
If the Bureau’s thinking had been applied 2,000 years ago, the Pharisees would have been in, and Jesus would have been out.
Enforced orthodoxy has been a problem in the Christian Church from the beginning. It’s why the so-called Gnostic gospels were banned and burned. And once the Romans quit putting Christians to death, we started in on each other. It’s also why the pilgrims first came to America and why government establishment of an official religion was banned in the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Justice Department have forgotten that history. The Bureau, which operates as part of the Justice Department, has recently established a list of up to 150 permitted books for each religion, while banning all others from our Federal Prisons. Bureau spokeswoman Traci Billingsley told the New York Times the goal was eliminate books that advocate violence, tend to radicalize, or encourage discrimination. But prison chaplains were already screening donated books for these types of extremism. Because the Bureau provided no money to buy the books on their list, many prisons have had their religious libraries stripped bare.
Although the Bureau denies it has become an advocate among competing views of Christianity, Ms. Billingsley's statement seems to belie that claim: “We really wanted consistently available information for all religious groups to assure reliable teachings as determined by reliable subject experts,” she said.
The Bureau has refused to release the list to the public but parts of it have leaked out anyway. As an example of the apparent bias, the list contains nine books by C.S. Lewis, a darling of the religious right, and none by the highly respected Reinhold Niebuhr, a progressive but mainstream pastor and theologian.
If the Bureau’s thinking had been applied 2,000 years ago, the Pharisees would have been in, and Jesus would have been out.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
God's Love is Big Tent for Gay Rights
I remember only bits and pieces from my college education and I’m not sure why certain things have stuck. I can still recite the definition of “paradox” learned in an upper level lit class. And I remember vividly one thing I picked up in my Biblical Interpretation class at Concordia Lutheran College in Ann Arbor: The first principle is “Let scripture interpret scripture.”
This is as much a warning as a principle: Don’t go pulling out little bits of scripture to use as building blocks until you’ve studied the entire blueprint. It’s good advice for our politicians as well as our religious leaders. Unfortunately, our high-profile preachers, with help from the media, have made it difficult.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, now a candidate for his party’s presidential nomination, seemed to understand this in 1994 when he was running for the U.S. Senate. Writing from a perspective that saw our great democracy as inclusive, he said, “If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” He knew then, his oldest son Tagg Romney said in a recent New York Times article, “… it was very wrong to discriminate.
But now, in the heat of a tough primary campaign and dogged by conservative religious leaders and their media publicists, Gov. Romney has been forced to wear the approved mask when facing the gay rights issue. And he doesn’t stand alone. His dilemma is no different than that of others running for public office. The conservative branch of Christianity is very adept at making the media believe their view is God’s view.
I don’t expect the media to know that first principle of Biblical Interpretation, but you’d think these theologians, many of them proudly sporting the title “Reverend Doctor” before their names, would have this basic knowledge. Jesus, for example, once told a Canaanite woman he “was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel,” but today’s Christian leaders don’t run around saying, “Well, golly, I guess we shouldn’t be Christians after all.” They understand in the larger context of scripture that Jesus came to make God’s presence real for all people. That larger context, put simply, is God’s Love. It’s a big tent, a universal tent, with room for all God’s children, and certainly not limited by sexual orientation.
This is as much a warning as a principle: Don’t go pulling out little bits of scripture to use as building blocks until you’ve studied the entire blueprint. It’s good advice for our politicians as well as our religious leaders. Unfortunately, our high-profile preachers, with help from the media, have made it difficult.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, now a candidate for his party’s presidential nomination, seemed to understand this in 1994 when he was running for the U.S. Senate. Writing from a perspective that saw our great democracy as inclusive, he said, “If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” He knew then, his oldest son Tagg Romney said in a recent New York Times article, “… it was very wrong to discriminate.
But now, in the heat of a tough primary campaign and dogged by conservative religious leaders and their media publicists, Gov. Romney has been forced to wear the approved mask when facing the gay rights issue. And he doesn’t stand alone. His dilemma is no different than that of others running for public office. The conservative branch of Christianity is very adept at making the media believe their view is God’s view.
I don’t expect the media to know that first principle of Biblical Interpretation, but you’d think these theologians, many of them proudly sporting the title “Reverend Doctor” before their names, would have this basic knowledge. Jesus, for example, once told a Canaanite woman he “was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel,” but today’s Christian leaders don’t run around saying, “Well, golly, I guess we shouldn’t be Christians after all.” They understand in the larger context of scripture that Jesus came to make God’s presence real for all people. That larger context, put simply, is God’s Love. It’s a big tent, a universal tent, with room for all God’s children, and certainly not limited by sexual orientation.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Real Heroes are Never Part of the Status Quo
Adventurer Steve Fossett seems like a decent man. He has a winning smile and eyes that sparkle with possibility. I’m sure he’s a hoot to party with. For the sake of his circle of friends and family, let’s pray he comes out of the desert alive. But for all his records in the air and on the sea, his heroism is of the petite variety.
Real heroes are never conventional. Conventional heroes may show bravery in the face of danger, as Fossett surely has, but true courage is always in opposition to the status quo. Someday we may have a culture so fine that this will cease to be true. But for now it’s as much a fact as in the days of Jesus, Moses, Elijah and Jeremiah. True heroes stand up for what could be, what should be, against what is. For true heroes it’s not about the self—as it clearly is for Fossett—it’s about putting one’s self at risk to serve God’s good intentions. Simply putting one's self at risk is not enough to make a hero.
Those who followed Jesus could plainly hear that he spoke with authority not present in the words of their established religious leaders—mirroring God and not simply mimicking God as the scribes and Pharisees. The kings of Israel and Judah tried desperately to exclude their true prophets, instead assembling a cadre of counterfeit prophets who would tell them what they wanted to hear. So it remains. If you doubt it, turn on any news network and hear the prophets of the status quo—each well compensated for their effort—struggling mightily to make things seem right when we as a people know in our hearts they are not.
Finding truth was never meant to be as easy as lying back on the couch and turning on the TV. Prophets in general are not found in comfortable places. Jesus’ followers walked great distances to isolated places to hear the truth. And that brings us back to Mr. Fossett: Let’s pray he comes out alive. Maybe, like Jesus, he will have had a desert epiphany.
Real heroes are never conventional. Conventional heroes may show bravery in the face of danger, as Fossett surely has, but true courage is always in opposition to the status quo. Someday we may have a culture so fine that this will cease to be true. But for now it’s as much a fact as in the days of Jesus, Moses, Elijah and Jeremiah. True heroes stand up for what could be, what should be, against what is. For true heroes it’s not about the self—as it clearly is for Fossett—it’s about putting one’s self at risk to serve God’s good intentions. Simply putting one's self at risk is not enough to make a hero.
Those who followed Jesus could plainly hear that he spoke with authority not present in the words of their established religious leaders—mirroring God and not simply mimicking God as the scribes and Pharisees. The kings of Israel and Judah tried desperately to exclude their true prophets, instead assembling a cadre of counterfeit prophets who would tell them what they wanted to hear. So it remains. If you doubt it, turn on any news network and hear the prophets of the status quo—each well compensated for their effort—struggling mightily to make things seem right when we as a people know in our hearts they are not.
Finding truth was never meant to be as easy as lying back on the couch and turning on the TV. Prophets in general are not found in comfortable places. Jesus’ followers walked great distances to isolated places to hear the truth. And that brings us back to Mr. Fossett: Let’s pray he comes out alive. Maybe, like Jesus, he will have had a desert epiphany.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Celebrity Fixation Blocks View of Who We Are
Whatever happened to the poor? Syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne asked that question last week knowing full well that our nation’s poor hadn’t magically disappeared. Dionne was commenting on a recent study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a liberal media watch group that studied 38 months of nightly news broadcasts on ABC, NBC and CBS.
“With rare exceptions,” the study said, “… poverty and the poor seldom even appear on the evening news—and when they do, they are relegated mostly to … platitudes about their hardships.”
Dionne sees the poor and struggling middle class as “barricaded behind our fixation on celebrity, our titillation over personal sin and public shame …” Using figures from the FAIR report, Dionne says that in the period studied between September 2003 and October 2006 the three networks combined for 58 stories about poverty. In that same period they broadcast 69 stories on the legal woes of Michael Jackson. Enough said.
News programs aren’t the only place on television missing the real lives of people other than the comfortable. And even when TV people seem to be like you and me, they don’t share our problems: they go anywhere they want, do whatever and buy whatever they want. I guess that makes sense. Especially on a sitcom, you don’t want unfunny, unhappy people. And in our consumption culture, you can’t be happy unless you’re getting things and doing things. So they do, and the bill never comes around.
I’m not asking to trip back to shows of the 60s and 70s where people struggled weekly—like Good Times or All in the Family. But hiding working class life also risks hiding much of our culture’s spiritual reserves. As a social worker with the elderly in Florida I saw time and again how people who had faced financial challenges all their lives met aging with greater courage that those who had achieved material security but were now rendered poor by circumstances beyond their control.
We’re missing that courage and so much more: the strength of family ties, church as a center of life, a more physical way of being--closer to the basics we're born with. This is not to say the poor haven’t been victimized by our mania for things, or our national trend to obesity. Of course they have. Everyone who has raised children in this culture knows it’s nothing short of war to teach children to value themselves on virtues beyond material accumulation. In part, we fail because as Christians we have for too long acted unsure about the pursuit of pleasure. In our bodies, in our minds, in our gift for sensing a spiritual reality that transcends all limitations, God has wonderfully made us to feel joy and pleasure. But we, as Paul writes, have preferred the works of the creature over those of the creator, adoring our things while treating pleasure as “personal sin and public shame.”
“With rare exceptions,” the study said, “… poverty and the poor seldom even appear on the evening news—and when they do, they are relegated mostly to … platitudes about their hardships.”
Dionne sees the poor and struggling middle class as “barricaded behind our fixation on celebrity, our titillation over personal sin and public shame …” Using figures from the FAIR report, Dionne says that in the period studied between September 2003 and October 2006 the three networks combined for 58 stories about poverty. In that same period they broadcast 69 stories on the legal woes of Michael Jackson. Enough said.
News programs aren’t the only place on television missing the real lives of people other than the comfortable. And even when TV people seem to be like you and me, they don’t share our problems: they go anywhere they want, do whatever and buy whatever they want. I guess that makes sense. Especially on a sitcom, you don’t want unfunny, unhappy people. And in our consumption culture, you can’t be happy unless you’re getting things and doing things. So they do, and the bill never comes around.
I’m not asking to trip back to shows of the 60s and 70s where people struggled weekly—like Good Times or All in the Family. But hiding working class life also risks hiding much of our culture’s spiritual reserves. As a social worker with the elderly in Florida I saw time and again how people who had faced financial challenges all their lives met aging with greater courage that those who had achieved material security but were now rendered poor by circumstances beyond their control.
We’re missing that courage and so much more: the strength of family ties, church as a center of life, a more physical way of being--closer to the basics we're born with. This is not to say the poor haven’t been victimized by our mania for things, or our national trend to obesity. Of course they have. Everyone who has raised children in this culture knows it’s nothing short of war to teach children to value themselves on virtues beyond material accumulation. In part, we fail because as Christians we have for too long acted unsure about the pursuit of pleasure. In our bodies, in our minds, in our gift for sensing a spiritual reality that transcends all limitations, God has wonderfully made us to feel joy and pleasure. But we, as Paul writes, have preferred the works of the creature over those of the creator, adoring our things while treating pleasure as “personal sin and public shame.”
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Richard Jewell and Our Era of Fear
I usually try to tread carefully in the motives department, so when I read today of Richard Jewell’s death I tried to pull back from asking what in the world motivated his accusers. Jewell was the hero of the park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics. Jewell spotted a suspicious looking bag and began moving people away from it, likely saving many lives. One died and 111 were injured.
Jewell wasn’t at the park in any official capacity. He chose to be alert, get involved and take action—which is what made the police suspicious. Most of us are trained to mind our own business, especially in a crowd. But Jewell was minding other people’s business. That led to questions: “What was Jewell really doing that day in the park?”
How did Jewell go from hero to suspect? Fear tells most the story. Fear and the pressure it brings to find quick answers. Looking back from deep within the decade of fear, it’s clear the potential for today was building even then. President Bush and his friends didn’t create this slinking sense of vulnerability, but after 9-11 they saw their ticket to ride and they rode roughshod.
Fear at its heart is nothing more than lost faith. Sometimes, of course, it’s appropriate, but this national cloud is not. You’d think that in a nation packed with self-confessed Christians, selling such a package would be difficult. Jesus put his feelings very simply: “Fear not; only believe.” But apparently it’s still a good pitch. In fact, for many of the new White House wannabes fear is still the favorite sales tool.
Richard Jewell didn’t fear that day, he cared—enough to put himself at risk for others. Governors and the Attorney General apologized to him and we can learn from him. Courage, I believe, is standard equipment in the basic Christian package. Without it faith is impossible. We hold the key to ending this nervous era: “… perfect love casts out fear.” That’s John’s first letter. That’s Jesus. That is us.
Jewell wasn’t at the park in any official capacity. He chose to be alert, get involved and take action—which is what made the police suspicious. Most of us are trained to mind our own business, especially in a crowd. But Jewell was minding other people’s business. That led to questions: “What was Jewell really doing that day in the park?”
How did Jewell go from hero to suspect? Fear tells most the story. Fear and the pressure it brings to find quick answers. Looking back from deep within the decade of fear, it’s clear the potential for today was building even then. President Bush and his friends didn’t create this slinking sense of vulnerability, but after 9-11 they saw their ticket to ride and they rode roughshod.
Fear at its heart is nothing more than lost faith. Sometimes, of course, it’s appropriate, but this national cloud is not. You’d think that in a nation packed with self-confessed Christians, selling such a package would be difficult. Jesus put his feelings very simply: “Fear not; only believe.” But apparently it’s still a good pitch. In fact, for many of the new White House wannabes fear is still the favorite sales tool.
Richard Jewell didn’t fear that day, he cared—enough to put himself at risk for others. Governors and the Attorney General apologized to him and we can learn from him. Courage, I believe, is standard equipment in the basic Christian package. Without it faith is impossible. We hold the key to ending this nervous era: “… perfect love casts out fear.” That’s John’s first letter. That’s Jesus. That is us.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
"Be the Change You Want to See ..."
Whenever possible I like to spin my blog comments off messages sent to me by friends. It cuts the chance of running on with subjects no one else cares about.
Early in the morning Monday a friend sent an e-mail, subject line: “Gonzales.” It turned out to be an online NY Times article. Breaking news: “Embattled Attorney General Resigns.” I knew my friend wasn’t shedding tears.
Also yesterday, an e-mail from one of my pastors, Esther Robinson—a forward of info on our local celebration of “International Day of Peace,” scheduled annually for Sept. 21. We’re meeting in a local park for a night of interfaith prayer, meditation and music of the harp and flute, along with the beating of peace drums.
It would be easy enough to draw a link between the peace drum and Gonzales succumbing to a drumbeat of criticism, his sins including involvement with the President in reversing the tide of civilization regarding the treatment of people in our physical custody. In law enforcement they use the phrase, “care and custody,” but with the help of Gonzales’ legal sophistry Bush managed to eliminate the concept of “care.” If you’re in our custody, we don’t care about the rules. “We’ll tell you the rules.”
It would be easy enough, but the truth is Gonzales is just another enabler in all this, and in a smaller way so are we all. These guys in the White House—the President’s MBA aside—run the country more like the mob that a Fortune 500 company. These are action guys and people like that. If they need something done, they don’t ask, “can we?” They just do it. And as Gonzales was helping rewrite Geneva the voices in opposition simply weren’t being heard.
The United Nations established the International Day of Peace in 1981, and calls for a cease-fire in all wars worldwide that day. The purpose is to “encourage peace and non-violence” and to help build “Cultures of Peace.” The e-mail included a quote from Gandhi that helps explain how to reach that difficult summit: “Be the change you wish to see in the world,” Gandhi said. It really is that simple. We can’t afford to have our voices go unheard any longer.
Early in the morning Monday a friend sent an e-mail, subject line: “Gonzales.” It turned out to be an online NY Times article. Breaking news: “Embattled Attorney General Resigns.” I knew my friend wasn’t shedding tears.
Also yesterday, an e-mail from one of my pastors, Esther Robinson—a forward of info on our local celebration of “International Day of Peace,” scheduled annually for Sept. 21. We’re meeting in a local park for a night of interfaith prayer, meditation and music of the harp and flute, along with the beating of peace drums.
It would be easy enough to draw a link between the peace drum and Gonzales succumbing to a drumbeat of criticism, his sins including involvement with the President in reversing the tide of civilization regarding the treatment of people in our physical custody. In law enforcement they use the phrase, “care and custody,” but with the help of Gonzales’ legal sophistry Bush managed to eliminate the concept of “care.” If you’re in our custody, we don’t care about the rules. “We’ll tell you the rules.”
It would be easy enough, but the truth is Gonzales is just another enabler in all this, and in a smaller way so are we all. These guys in the White House—the President’s MBA aside—run the country more like the mob that a Fortune 500 company. These are action guys and people like that. If they need something done, they don’t ask, “can we?” They just do it. And as Gonzales was helping rewrite Geneva the voices in opposition simply weren’t being heard.
The United Nations established the International Day of Peace in 1981, and calls for a cease-fire in all wars worldwide that day. The purpose is to “encourage peace and non-violence” and to help build “Cultures of Peace.” The e-mail included a quote from Gandhi that helps explain how to reach that difficult summit: “Be the change you wish to see in the world,” Gandhi said. It really is that simple. We can’t afford to have our voices go unheard any longer.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Religious Belief Shapes Political Destiny
As Christians, how are we to respond to our culture? Support? Resistance? Or a little of each. Go with Caesar here and God there? Some would say politics and religion shouldn’t mix at all. It may depend on how you see the nature of our faith.
In his classic book, The World’s Religions, Huston Smith argues that all religions tend to divide into camps over several basic questions. One is whether we see ourselves as interconnected in our achievements, or masters of our own destiny. Those who believe in individual achievement prefer a strong system of order that protects them and their property. Those who believe in a common destiny are more likely to see the wisdom in God’s admonition to the people of Israel that they not come proudly into the Promised Land, drinking from wells they did not dig, harvesting vineyards they did not plant and then sit back self satisfied and say, “Look at all I’ve accomplished.”
It’s easy to see how this difference plays out on the modern Christian landscape as we separate into opposing views: order vs. freedom of expression, judgment vs. compassion, individualism and free will vs. collective responsibility for each other. Each side seems to find ample justification in their reading of the Bible.
Because Christianity holds such strong sway in American culture, these differences form a battleground in the debate over what kind of America we want. If we are masters of our own destiny it’s easier to dismiss the suffering as getting their just deserts. In his farewell to his disciples Jesus said they would be known as his followers by the way they treated each other—not by their individual achievements. If we apply this belief to the social compact of our political structure, aren’t we required to choose a system that answers “yes” to the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
In his classic book, The World’s Religions, Huston Smith argues that all religions tend to divide into camps over several basic questions. One is whether we see ourselves as interconnected in our achievements, or masters of our own destiny. Those who believe in individual achievement prefer a strong system of order that protects them and their property. Those who believe in a common destiny are more likely to see the wisdom in God’s admonition to the people of Israel that they not come proudly into the Promised Land, drinking from wells they did not dig, harvesting vineyards they did not plant and then sit back self satisfied and say, “Look at all I’ve accomplished.”
It’s easy to see how this difference plays out on the modern Christian landscape as we separate into opposing views: order vs. freedom of expression, judgment vs. compassion, individualism and free will vs. collective responsibility for each other. Each side seems to find ample justification in their reading of the Bible.
Because Christianity holds such strong sway in American culture, these differences form a battleground in the debate over what kind of America we want. If we are masters of our own destiny it’s easier to dismiss the suffering as getting their just deserts. In his farewell to his disciples Jesus said they would be known as his followers by the way they treated each other—not by their individual achievements. If we apply this belief to the social compact of our political structure, aren’t we required to choose a system that answers “yes” to the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Plan B Reduces Abortion. What's Not to Like?
Annual sales of the morning after pill “Plan B” have increased eightfold since gaining FDA approval for over the counter distribution. According to its manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals, the pill can lower the risk of pregnancy in 89 percent of cases if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
Since unwanted pregnancy often leads to abortion, that should be good news for anyone who would like to see abortions reduced--which I believe includes most Christians. Or so you would think. A coalition of groups with strong ties to the evangelical Christian movement have filed suit to force the government to return Plan B to prescription only status. These are the same groups that fought a bitter battle to keep Plan B off the market completely, and finally succeeded in limiting access to women 18 and over. Those younger must get a doctor’s prescription or find someone old enough to buy it for them.
Since we know these groups are strongly anti-abortion, you have to wonder what motivates them. Every explanation I can imagine seems cynical. Could it be that abortion has been such a successful political issue for them that they don’t want to lose it? Maybe they are all closet liberals who really love big government and want nothing more than federal intrusion in private lives. Well, maybe on this issue only.
Most likely, the real answer has to do with sex. This also explains the connection to the church and Christians. The Catholic Church and conservative Christians in general have long suffered an aversion to sex as pleasure—especially sex outside of marriage—whether or not it leads to pregnancy. Why else would anti-abortion leaders change the definition of pregnancy to the moment of fertilization—rather than implantation in the uterus—and then argue “the pill” should be banned because it might cause abortion by preventing implantation? Surely they must know that criminalizing birth control would mean even more abortions.
No one likes abortion. We all want the numbers reduced. Maybe some day reduced to almost nothing. Plan B is helping. Many Christians also want to enjoy one of God’s greatest gifts—strong, healthy sex lives—without intrusion from government or anyone else who thinks it’s their right to take control.
Since unwanted pregnancy often leads to abortion, that should be good news for anyone who would like to see abortions reduced--which I believe includes most Christians. Or so you would think. A coalition of groups with strong ties to the evangelical Christian movement have filed suit to force the government to return Plan B to prescription only status. These are the same groups that fought a bitter battle to keep Plan B off the market completely, and finally succeeded in limiting access to women 18 and over. Those younger must get a doctor’s prescription or find someone old enough to buy it for them.
Since we know these groups are strongly anti-abortion, you have to wonder what motivates them. Every explanation I can imagine seems cynical. Could it be that abortion has been such a successful political issue for them that they don’t want to lose it? Maybe they are all closet liberals who really love big government and want nothing more than federal intrusion in private lives. Well, maybe on this issue only.
Most likely, the real answer has to do with sex. This also explains the connection to the church and Christians. The Catholic Church and conservative Christians in general have long suffered an aversion to sex as pleasure—especially sex outside of marriage—whether or not it leads to pregnancy. Why else would anti-abortion leaders change the definition of pregnancy to the moment of fertilization—rather than implantation in the uterus—and then argue “the pill” should be banned because it might cause abortion by preventing implantation? Surely they must know that criminalizing birth control would mean even more abortions.
No one likes abortion. We all want the numbers reduced. Maybe some day reduced to almost nothing. Plan B is helping. Many Christians also want to enjoy one of God’s greatest gifts—strong, healthy sex lives—without intrusion from government or anyone else who thinks it’s their right to take control.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Covering "Religion" Sickens Christian Reporter
When Los Angeles Times staff writer William Lobdell got his wish and was named the paper’s religion writer he believed God had answered his prayers. But after just a few years on the faith beat his dream felt more like a nightmare. Now he rather write about almost anything else.
Lobdell described himself as a “serious Christian” in a recent LA Times story that details his disillusionment with the Catholic Church and other Christian institutions, specifically the Trinity Broadcast Network (TBN). He explained that before taking over the Times’ religion post he often “cringed” at how the mainstream media covered faith and Christianity, making them look like a “circus,” or worse yet, “a freak show.” But the closer he came to seeing how these Christian insiders really worked, the more disillusioned he became with them.
“I understood that I was witnessing the failure of humans, not God,” Lobdell said. “But in a way that was the point. I didn’t see these institutions drenched in God’s spirit.”
The one-two combination that knocked Lobdell to the canvas began with his assignment to cover the sex abuse scandals that engulfed so many Catholic priests. Before he was finished with the abuse scandals, he understood the degree to which the priests and bishops involved had betrayed God and the children entrusted to them. And in the case of Trinity Broadcast Network, Lobdell’s inside view revealed nothing more than a pit of greedy vipers with no motivation beyond their own material enrichment. Worse yet, respected Christian leaders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuller appeared as guests on TBN, helping to convince viewers the network is something better than what it is—an elaborate confidence game.Lobdell managed to keep his faith, but he asked the Times to assign him to a new beat. Maybe the mainstream media is right: many of our Christian institutions are freak shows. Many, but not all. And that’s why we must insist that those which remain genuine and authentic act and speak with courage on the great questions like war and economic injustice. Here on earth we are all God has to accomplish good. When we fail, God fails.
Lobdell described himself as a “serious Christian” in a recent LA Times story that details his disillusionment with the Catholic Church and other Christian institutions, specifically the Trinity Broadcast Network (TBN). He explained that before taking over the Times’ religion post he often “cringed” at how the mainstream media covered faith and Christianity, making them look like a “circus,” or worse yet, “a freak show.” But the closer he came to seeing how these Christian insiders really worked, the more disillusioned he became with them.
“I understood that I was witnessing the failure of humans, not God,” Lobdell said. “But in a way that was the point. I didn’t see these institutions drenched in God’s spirit.”
The one-two combination that knocked Lobdell to the canvas began with his assignment to cover the sex abuse scandals that engulfed so many Catholic priests. Before he was finished with the abuse scandals, he understood the degree to which the priests and bishops involved had betrayed God and the children entrusted to them. And in the case of Trinity Broadcast Network, Lobdell’s inside view revealed nothing more than a pit of greedy vipers with no motivation beyond their own material enrichment. Worse yet, respected Christian leaders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuller appeared as guests on TBN, helping to convince viewers the network is something better than what it is—an elaborate confidence game.Lobdell managed to keep his faith, but he asked the Times to assign him to a new beat. Maybe the mainstream media is right: many of our Christian institutions are freak shows. Many, but not all. And that’s why we must insist that those which remain genuine and authentic act and speak with courage on the great questions like war and economic injustice. Here on earth we are all God has to accomplish good. When we fail, God fails.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Rove's Departure Bittersweet for this Christian
Karl Rove left the White House this week, bringing a sigh of relief from fellow Republicans. But for many Christians on the left it was a bittersweet moment. For me it brought back to life memories of the days after the 2004 election. After 2000, despite anger over dirty play by the Bush team, most Christians, left and right, continued to work together on the church’s business , which hopefully is the same as God’s business. The days following 2004 were different. This past Sunday morning on the Chris Matthews show, Dan Rather said winning the 2004 election was Rove’s crowning achievement. For Christians on the left it was a blow to the solar plexus. Not only were we more convinced than ever that Leo Durocher was right, “Nice guys finish last,” but we as Christians began questioning whether we could continue embracing brothers and sisters who didn’t see the overwhelming immorality in using America’s power to deal so much death. Instead of concern over the great questions of war and peace, life and death, they had railed on about whether God would vomit at the thought of two men making love.
In the days following the election, I read online how the suspended bombing of Fallujah had resumed and of two families caught unawares who tried to escape the city. The first, a family of three were killed when their car was struck. The second, a mother and teenaged girl, escaped alive, but bomb shrapnel tore into them, ripping off the girl’s leg. I made the mistake of picturing the scene: The mother and daughter looking down at where the leg had been, the horror in their faces. In my mind’s eye I saw the girl’s face and she looked like one of the girls in our youth group. I couldn’t get over it and day after day, when I saw Bush or Cheney, or Rove on TV that horrified girl came back to me looking just like one of our own children.
I had recently been elected one of the co-lay leaders of our church. After about a week of suffering with the wounded teenager I decided to make a statement by resigning as lay leader. I just couldn’t make common cause with people from whom I now felt so estranged. We are a large church and have 70 people on our executive committee. Our pastor, who had been criticized himself for not waving the flag enough from the pulpit, circulated my letter of resignation to all 70 church leaders. In the letter I talked about my feelings and how I was haunted by the girl’s broken image. Some called me arrogant or were angry that I questioned them, but we’ve come together again these few years later to find common ground where we can share God’s love and work.
I didn’t change the world with what I did. I took a small step to let my brothers and sisters in Christ know how strongly I believed that God’s will on this is unmistakable. And I believe if we Christians ever do mend our broken culture that’s how it will happen: from the ground up, one small step at a time. Don’t ignore your opportunities, small or large, no matter whom it may offend.
In the days following the election, I read online how the suspended bombing of Fallujah had resumed and of two families caught unawares who tried to escape the city. The first, a family of three were killed when their car was struck. The second, a mother and teenaged girl, escaped alive, but bomb shrapnel tore into them, ripping off the girl’s leg. I made the mistake of picturing the scene: The mother and daughter looking down at where the leg had been, the horror in their faces. In my mind’s eye I saw the girl’s face and she looked like one of the girls in our youth group. I couldn’t get over it and day after day, when I saw Bush or Cheney, or Rove on TV that horrified girl came back to me looking just like one of our own children.
I had recently been elected one of the co-lay leaders of our church. After about a week of suffering with the wounded teenager I decided to make a statement by resigning as lay leader. I just couldn’t make common cause with people from whom I now felt so estranged. We are a large church and have 70 people on our executive committee. Our pastor, who had been criticized himself for not waving the flag enough from the pulpit, circulated my letter of resignation to all 70 church leaders. In the letter I talked about my feelings and how I was haunted by the girl’s broken image. Some called me arrogant or were angry that I questioned them, but we’ve come together again these few years later to find common ground where we can share God’s love and work.
I didn’t change the world with what I did. I took a small step to let my brothers and sisters in Christ know how strongly I believed that God’s will on this is unmistakable. And I believe if we Christians ever do mend our broken culture that’s how it will happen: from the ground up, one small step at a time. Don’t ignore your opportunities, small or large, no matter whom it may offend.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Why Haven't We Changed the World?
Here’s my Question: Why haven’t we changed the world? “We,” meaning “We Christians.” We’ve had 2,000 years to get the job done. The usual answer is “original sin, dying world, vale of tears.” Perfection waits in heaven. Excuses. Every day is a new day. We act and world either changes or stays the same.
My theory is much simpler: bad philosophy. Or you might say, bad theology. What’s theology but philosophy with God added to the mix? And if philosophy is worth anything, it’s not about ideas but how we live.
Ask anyone—especially those who might once have called themselves Christian, but ask anyone: practicing Christians, media, what it means to live Christian and you’d most often hear the three-point plan: keep your pants up, your shoulder to the wheel, and do what you’re told. Let’s face it, that plan isn’t going to change the world. There’s nothing wrong with keeping your pants up, most of the time anyway, or with keeping your shoulder to the wheel, but they don’t come close to what we need.
The worst problem is in point three: “do what you’re told.” Those doing the telling--seen in the plan as having God’s authority--have a pretty poor track record. They’ve never needed to change the world because for them the world looks pretty good “as is.” We can and should demand better leadership--as futile as that may seem--challenging our world on a political level as Jesus did. But along with his political message Jesus promised that “the kingdom of heaven” is possible on earth. We’ve lost faith in that possibility. You won’t find it in the three-point plan. You have to look up to find it, not down. When we do, we’ll start to understand how to change the world.
My theory is much simpler: bad philosophy. Or you might say, bad theology. What’s theology but philosophy with God added to the mix? And if philosophy is worth anything, it’s not about ideas but how we live.
Ask anyone—especially those who might once have called themselves Christian, but ask anyone: practicing Christians, media, what it means to live Christian and you’d most often hear the three-point plan: keep your pants up, your shoulder to the wheel, and do what you’re told. Let’s face it, that plan isn’t going to change the world. There’s nothing wrong with keeping your pants up, most of the time anyway, or with keeping your shoulder to the wheel, but they don’t come close to what we need.
The worst problem is in point three: “do what you’re told.” Those doing the telling--seen in the plan as having God’s authority--have a pretty poor track record. They’ve never needed to change the world because for them the world looks pretty good “as is.” We can and should demand better leadership--as futile as that may seem--challenging our world on a political level as Jesus did. But along with his political message Jesus promised that “the kingdom of heaven” is possible on earth. We’ve lost faith in that possibility. You won’t find it in the three-point plan. You have to look up to find it, not down. When we do, we’ll start to understand how to change the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
