Sometimes I fear we all live in a kind of wonderland, where a world view which makes sense to us seems like utter nonsense to others. This week, reading online magazines from conservative and liberal sources, I was struck by the absolute incompatibility of their positions. If one set of ideas is true, then the contrary must be nonsense, right? I was reminded of Alice’s words during her lost time in Wonderland:
“If I had a world of my own,” Alice said, “everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?“
I hope that didn’t make your head ache. In general, it’s better not to think too deeply about Wonderland logic. Just take the sense of it and move on. Unfortunately, the world we inhabit sometimes seems much like Wonderland. For instance, I read this week in Focus on the Family’s online magazine that liberal Christians are motivated by pure selfishness, while middle class conservatives are really caring and responsible individuals unfairly maligned in the press. It’s true, and author Peter Schweizer claims he found the proof by analyzing existing social research. He published the conclusions in his new book, Makers and Takers. Here’s what he discovered:
“… conservatives are more reflective in terms of responsibility and they think about larger-picture issues. And that’s one of the things that really handicaps modern liberalism. Conservatives believe there are things larger than themselves; for many people, it’s faith in God. But modern liberalism really is about self.”
But then, in the liberal publication, Faith in Action, I discovered contrary observations. The first was a quote from the famed liberal Roman Catholic Archbishop, Oscar Romero of El Salvador, who was assassinated in 1980 for his courageous opposition to the military dictatorship in his country, a dictatorship supported by American conservatives. Romero said:
“A church that doesn’t provoke any crises, a gospel that doesn’t unsettle, a word of God that doesn’t get under anyone’s skin, what gospel is that? Very nice, pious considerations that don’t bother anyone; that’s the way too many would like preaching to be.”
In the same article United Methodist Bishop Ken Carder presents a similar assessment taken from Rethinking Wesley’s Theology for Contemporary Methodism. He writes that a middle-class ethos permeates the Church. According to Carder: “The poor are absent from most local churches and denominational structures; and whenever they are visible, the poor tend to be treated as objects of charity more than as special friends of Jesus Christ and persons with whom God closely identifies.”
“Too often,” the article goes on to assert, “we put niceness above all else in the church. ... The Sunday sermon must be a place where our pastors give us both the pastoral and prophetic word. Many of our preachers are downright scared to preach the word because of the reaction they fear from angry laity, who think they own God’s pulpit. We need to affirm the freedom for our pastors to share the Word of God with us.”
So which is it? Liberals say we need a confrontational sense of the gospel that refuses to tolerate a world where the few prosper while most suffer. Conservatives argue they offer a model which the world should copy -- taking personal responsibility in their own lives and not acting as selfish individuals like liberals. To which liberals respond by asking, “how does that translate into a world more fair to all?” And conservatives answer, “if you want to change the world, why don’t you start with yourselves?”
And on it goes. Is your head spinning? Do you feel like you’ve joined Alice in the wacky world of Wonderland? “If I had a world of my own,” Alice said, “everything would be nonsense.”
Is everything nonsense? Or do some people profit from making us think it is?
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Changing Face of Being Christian
If asked for a single word to describe Christianity today, I would say “diverse.” To call oneself “Christian” is to claim a place among a body of believers which grew from the oral teachings of a charismatic prophet who preached briefly in an obscure corner of the world two thousand years ago. Beyond that, agreement slips away.
Just take a look around and you’ll find enough letters to fill a bowl of alphabet soup: UMC, ELCA, UCC, UBIC, just to name of few. Baptists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal and Anglican, Presbyterians, etc. -- we didn’t get all these variations because we agree on everything. Quite the contrary.
But now, in what might be a parallel to our political landscape, some young Christians are calling for a truce in this fighting among ourselves.
There was a time when all “Christians” had to agree. Disagreeing could get you killed in a most painful way. That kind of forced allegiance to the church’s version of truth undermined the faith, and most of what was good about the Gospel disappeared. The Reformation brought a correction but also divisions. Denominations fed their flocks a diet of doctrinal nuance, and arrogance became inevitable: “if we’re right (and we are), you must be wrong,” which led to, “we are saved and you are not.”
Is it any wonder that a culture grown weary of political infighting would also tire of religious wars? We should all thank God for this new generation of believers who would rather open spiritual doors than close them.
I’m not saying Christians should turn away from public policy debates. But political alliance does pose a problem. The phrase “Holy Roman Empire” should ring a bell. It’s one thing to take political stands -- Jesus himself championed the poor and oppressed -- it’s another to ally oneself so closely with the establishment that you become the establishment. Do so and you’ll lose your edge.
But it’s a hard habit to break. Witness “evangelical” Christianity and how its social platform became a political platform under the Republican banner. But now many evangelicals are refusing to make dogmatic political loyalty the ultimate test of faith. A story this week in the New York Times says many younger Evangelicals are rejecting the dictates of party and church elders. The article, by Neela Banerjee, describes a generation of Christians looking for ways to unite rather than divide. Banerjee writes:
“The Journey, a megachurch of mostly younger evangelicals, is representative of a new generation that refuses to put politics at the center of its faith and rejects identification with the religious right. They say they are tired of the culture wars. They say they do not want the test of their faith to be the fight against gay rights. They say they want to broaden the traditional evangelical anti-abortion agenda to include care for the poor, the environment, immigrants and people with H.I.V., according to experts on younger evangelicals and the young people themselves.”
The article quotes Notre Dame sociology professor Christian Smith to say young evangelicals reject using the church to enforce political orthodoxy: “Evangelicalism is becoming somewhat less coherent as a movement or as an identity. Younger people don’t even want the label anymore. They don’t believe the main goal of the church is to be political.”
One of the most public rifts among evangelicals is the dispute over environmental activism and global warming. Dean Inserra, a young Southern Baptist preacher from Tallahassee, Florida, says older leaders have felt threatened by grass roots “green” initiatives because they’ve allowed themselves to become too entangled with “the right-wing agenda.” According to the Times, Pastor Inserra asks, “How is taking care of God’s creation a political issue? Since I am pro-life, I am pro-environment.”
Despite their willingness to move toward a wider set of concerns, these young Evangelicals remain a fairly conservative bunch: still literalists in their understanding of scripture, still judging homosexuality as sin.
I would have to disagree with them on that last point. I believe that when God looked on creation and declared it good, God was including all genders and all sexual orientations. Machines in factories sometimes kick out rejects, but God is not a machine.
Still, let’s give credit where it’s due. The movement toward greater diversity by caring Evangelicals is a good thing. As the proverb says, “the longest journey begins with a single step.” And while the journey from that village in Galilee has already covered many miles, it is far from over.
Just take a look around and you’ll find enough letters to fill a bowl of alphabet soup: UMC, ELCA, UCC, UBIC, just to name of few. Baptists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal and Anglican, Presbyterians, etc. -- we didn’t get all these variations because we agree on everything. Quite the contrary.
But now, in what might be a parallel to our political landscape, some young Christians are calling for a truce in this fighting among ourselves.
There was a time when all “Christians” had to agree. Disagreeing could get you killed in a most painful way. That kind of forced allegiance to the church’s version of truth undermined the faith, and most of what was good about the Gospel disappeared. The Reformation brought a correction but also divisions. Denominations fed their flocks a diet of doctrinal nuance, and arrogance became inevitable: “if we’re right (and we are), you must be wrong,” which led to, “we are saved and you are not.”
Is it any wonder that a culture grown weary of political infighting would also tire of religious wars? We should all thank God for this new generation of believers who would rather open spiritual doors than close them.
I’m not saying Christians should turn away from public policy debates. But political alliance does pose a problem. The phrase “Holy Roman Empire” should ring a bell. It’s one thing to take political stands -- Jesus himself championed the poor and oppressed -- it’s another to ally oneself so closely with the establishment that you become the establishment. Do so and you’ll lose your edge.
But it’s a hard habit to break. Witness “evangelical” Christianity and how its social platform became a political platform under the Republican banner. But now many evangelicals are refusing to make dogmatic political loyalty the ultimate test of faith. A story this week in the New York Times says many younger Evangelicals are rejecting the dictates of party and church elders. The article, by Neela Banerjee, describes a generation of Christians looking for ways to unite rather than divide. Banerjee writes:
“The Journey, a megachurch of mostly younger evangelicals, is representative of a new generation that refuses to put politics at the center of its faith and rejects identification with the religious right. They say they are tired of the culture wars. They say they do not want the test of their faith to be the fight against gay rights. They say they want to broaden the traditional evangelical anti-abortion agenda to include care for the poor, the environment, immigrants and people with H.I.V., according to experts on younger evangelicals and the young people themselves.”
The article quotes Notre Dame sociology professor Christian Smith to say young evangelicals reject using the church to enforce political orthodoxy: “Evangelicalism is becoming somewhat less coherent as a movement or as an identity. Younger people don’t even want the label anymore. They don’t believe the main goal of the church is to be political.”
One of the most public rifts among evangelicals is the dispute over environmental activism and global warming. Dean Inserra, a young Southern Baptist preacher from Tallahassee, Florida, says older leaders have felt threatened by grass roots “green” initiatives because they’ve allowed themselves to become too entangled with “the right-wing agenda.” According to the Times, Pastor Inserra asks, “How is taking care of God’s creation a political issue? Since I am pro-life, I am pro-environment.”
Despite their willingness to move toward a wider set of concerns, these young Evangelicals remain a fairly conservative bunch: still literalists in their understanding of scripture, still judging homosexuality as sin.
I would have to disagree with them on that last point. I believe that when God looked on creation and declared it good, God was including all genders and all sexual orientations. Machines in factories sometimes kick out rejects, but God is not a machine.
Still, let’s give credit where it’s due. The movement toward greater diversity by caring Evangelicals is a good thing. As the proverb says, “the longest journey begins with a single step.” And while the journey from that village in Galilee has already covered many miles, it is far from over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
