Ken Burns' remarkable film series "The Civil War" has been rebroadcast recently on PBS. Sally and I have made it a point to watch it again and discuss it. We have it on DVR. Last night we viewed episode 5 which tells of a Confederate officer who ordered that a Union gun boat in Galveston harbor be fired upon. When he later boarded the now disabled ship, the officer discovered that his own son lay dead on the deck of the boat in a Union uniform. It is a poignant example of what can happen to a people when ideas become so contentious that sides are formed and arms are taken up. Family members and neighbors end up killing each other.
There are many historical examples of nations and communities turning upon each other with unimaginable violence. Religious views, tribal identities, politics, and ethnicity are some of the most common causes. The slippery slope toward carnage begins when, convinced of the superiority of their particular group, public influencers employ the strategy of deligitimizing the other people, not just their opinions. It is a tactic that seeks to convince one's group that those people who think, act or look that other way are inherently deficient and malevolent. It is an intentional, cynical effort on the part of some to instill a deep, irrational fear of the "other" in one's own group.
Left unchecked it inevitably leads to scapegoating, ethnic cleansing, heresy trials and societal collapse. I have had conversations with friends recently that have made me realize how far down this road we have already gone. One veteran of the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's observed with genuine alarm that racist rhetoric is gaining a foothold in mainstream dialogue once again. You know it is a fact that Blacks and Hispanics are on the receiving end of some pretty disgusting commentary in some circles today. So also is the old McCarthy era "un-American" paranoia making a comeback. When someone says, "We must take our country back," we should ask some probing questions. Do they mean put a Republican back in the White House? Or do they mean return to a 1950's status quo when whites dominated everything and minorities were in their place in the social pecking order? When someone says something is "not scriptural," do they mean it doesn't agree with their understanding of the Bible? Or, do they mean that those who share that view are under the influence of Satan?
On the religious front, Rob Bell published a book with the title "Love Wins" (Harper One) wherein he puts forth the idea that God's love is greater than some of our old theologies have been willing to consider. Upon hearing that Sally and I like the book, a friend who has not read the book in essence declared Bell was a greedy trouble maker who was contributing to a "great end times deception" that would lead to the takeover of world government by the anti-Christ. Somehow he "knows" this even though he has never met Rob Bell or read his book.
Jesus challenged us to love both neighbor and enemy. Name calling, stigmatizing and cultivating ill will against those with whom I have differences is not the way to anything good. On the contrary, it becomes fertile soil for the germination of horrific evil. We better stop it before it is too late.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Monday, May 24, 2010
Reform Immigration Law Now
It seems to be such common sense. If someone breaks the law, they should expect punishment if they get caught and there should be no expectation of benefit to any lawbreaker for doing so. In the abstract it is hard to argue against that logic. But what if it is an ill conceived law? For example, what if the rule of law says one must pay the English throne a punitive tax for tea? According to the above stated logic, those under British authority, if they wanted to be law abiding citizens, should have paid the tax so long as it was the law. Yet, when I was taught American history, I was taught that those who carried out the civil disobedience and vandalism that came to be known as the "Boston Tea Party" were considered American Revolution heroes. Their act of sneaking onto a British ship and throwing its cargo into Boston Harbor helped fuel the passion for the ultimate revolt against England by our nation's founders.
It was once against the law to assist a runaway slave. Harsh penalties were called for by the courts for anyone caught doing so. Yet, today, most people regard the activists who operated the "Underground Railroad" which gave sanctuary and assistance to slaves escaping from the cruelties of slavery to be humanitarian role models.
And who can forget that Jesus was executed for the charge of being a lawbreaker?
Some laws are not good laws, especially laws that are intended to preserve the status quo of the "already haves" while prolonging the suffering of those circumstantially ensnared in poverty and struggle. Laws and attitudes that arise from a self-focused withholding of opportunity and resources from the disadvantaged are not good laws. In fact, in my view, they are evil laws that need to be changed.
What is very troubling to me is that some of those arguing for harsh "law and order" treatment of immigrants who have made their way across our borders in search of work and a better life without waiting years and years to maybe get legal permission, also claim to be followers of Jesus. Since I can't for the life of me find anything in the teachings of Jesus, or the overall biblical ethos that justifies treating people this way, I have to conclude that this insensitive and inflexible attitude arises from another source. Some apparently have confused their Americanism with their Christian discipleship.
Sadly, this confusion has become a breeding ground for angry sterotyping and scapegoating in these times of economic downturn and rising unemployment. Otherwise decent and well meaning people are being swept up in what can only be described as ugliness and hostility toward whole neighborhoods and ethnicities. Some media commentators are enriching themselves by working their listeners into a bigoted froth.
Come on, my fellow Americans, we're better than this, aren't we? Everyone knows we have been hanging a help wanted sign over the no tresspassing signs at our borders for years, as Jim Wallis of Sojourners has pointed out. Rounding up people who only seek to work and make a better life for their family, putting them in chains and handcuffs, jailing them and forcing them to leave the country and very often their immediate family members because they do not have the right piece of paper is not the answer. Changing existing laws to remove the roadblocks and delays so that America will once again be a welcoming land of opportunity for hard working individuals who want to contribute to the strength and growth of our economy and our communities is the answer.
It was once against the law to assist a runaway slave. Harsh penalties were called for by the courts for anyone caught doing so. Yet, today, most people regard the activists who operated the "Underground Railroad" which gave sanctuary and assistance to slaves escaping from the cruelties of slavery to be humanitarian role models.
And who can forget that Jesus was executed for the charge of being a lawbreaker?
Some laws are not good laws, especially laws that are intended to preserve the status quo of the "already haves" while prolonging the suffering of those circumstantially ensnared in poverty and struggle. Laws and attitudes that arise from a self-focused withholding of opportunity and resources from the disadvantaged are not good laws. In fact, in my view, they are evil laws that need to be changed.
What is very troubling to me is that some of those arguing for harsh "law and order" treatment of immigrants who have made their way across our borders in search of work and a better life without waiting years and years to maybe get legal permission, also claim to be followers of Jesus. Since I can't for the life of me find anything in the teachings of Jesus, or the overall biblical ethos that justifies treating people this way, I have to conclude that this insensitive and inflexible attitude arises from another source. Some apparently have confused their Americanism with their Christian discipleship.
Sadly, this confusion has become a breeding ground for angry sterotyping and scapegoating in these times of economic downturn and rising unemployment. Otherwise decent and well meaning people are being swept up in what can only be described as ugliness and hostility toward whole neighborhoods and ethnicities. Some media commentators are enriching themselves by working their listeners into a bigoted froth.
Come on, my fellow Americans, we're better than this, aren't we? Everyone knows we have been hanging a help wanted sign over the no tresspassing signs at our borders for years, as Jim Wallis of Sojourners has pointed out. Rounding up people who only seek to work and make a better life for their family, putting them in chains and handcuffs, jailing them and forcing them to leave the country and very often their immediate family members because they do not have the right piece of paper is not the answer. Changing existing laws to remove the roadblocks and delays so that America will once again be a welcoming land of opportunity for hard working individuals who want to contribute to the strength and growth of our economy and our communities is the answer.
Monday, March 15, 2010
LET'S MAKE IT A LIFESTYLE
$164 million PER HOUR from private donations poured into relief for Haiti in the week following the calamitous January 12 earthquake. That bears repeating. $164,000,000 per hour!, according to The Chronicle for Philanthropy. Not all of that came from the U.S., to be sure, but much of it did, and rightly so. Haiti, after all, is right in our backyard. One of the poorest nations on planet earth, where the average income is only $2 a day, languishes in the shadow of what is arguably the richest nation in the history of the world.
Of course, there have been on the ground in Haiti for many decades committed and compassionate missionaries and social workers doing stellar work to relieve the suffering of this oppressed nation. Yet, progress has been painfully slow. Navigating through the obstacle course of language barrier, rampant corruption, almost nonexistent infrastructure and all the accompanying ills of systemic poverty, we cannot overstate the significance of their sacrificial service. But, truth be told, most of us seldom if ever thought about Haiti before this earthquake.
Presidents Clinton and Bush, who accepted the assignment to oversee the United States' relief effort, have stated that Haiti has an unprecedented opportunity to rebuild, modernize and rise up stronger than ever as a consequence of the benevolent spotlight that is currently upon them. May it be so.
Perhaps you, like me, take a look at all this and ask yourself, what's wrong with this picture? How is it that we can allow such abject poverty to exist year after year, decade after decade right in our own "neighborhood"? Why is it that we wait until there is a natural disaster of epic proportions to arouse us to direct the resources we had in hand all along to help this suffering people? Were there things we should have been doing in a more proactive way to preempt the suffering? What if the focus of our foreign policy was to eradicate such chronic suffering? What if the primary role of our military was to assist people groups that need a hand to help them overcome circumstances that have held them back for too long? What if we didn't wait for an earthquake to establish modern hospitals, schools and food distribution points? What if we were proactive in assisting them in building earthquake resistant dwellings with proper sewage and water treatment? What if we made caring for the poor the top priority rather than fighting elective wars and bailing out Wall Street?
I do not think it is as big a step as one might imagine to link the responsive to crisis generosity of the American people with a well planned, proactive "war on poverty", to borrow an old, beat up phrase. If we're so ready to flood incredible sums of money into crisis stricken areas when called upon, surely it is reasonable to think we could do so much more to head off the dimensions of potential crises in advance. Let's envision the improvements in foreign relations that could come about if the world truly began to see and believe that our goal, first and foremost, was to serve the world with no-strings-attached generosity and kindness rather than the self-interested bullying that has been the nature of so much of what we have done in foreign policy lately. Rather than our extraordinary generosity toward Haiti being seen as crisis response, why not strive to make it a lifestyle?
Of course, there have been on the ground in Haiti for many decades committed and compassionate missionaries and social workers doing stellar work to relieve the suffering of this oppressed nation. Yet, progress has been painfully slow. Navigating through the obstacle course of language barrier, rampant corruption, almost nonexistent infrastructure and all the accompanying ills of systemic poverty, we cannot overstate the significance of their sacrificial service. But, truth be told, most of us seldom if ever thought about Haiti before this earthquake.
Presidents Clinton and Bush, who accepted the assignment to oversee the United States' relief effort, have stated that Haiti has an unprecedented opportunity to rebuild, modernize and rise up stronger than ever as a consequence of the benevolent spotlight that is currently upon them. May it be so.
Perhaps you, like me, take a look at all this and ask yourself, what's wrong with this picture? How is it that we can allow such abject poverty to exist year after year, decade after decade right in our own "neighborhood"? Why is it that we wait until there is a natural disaster of epic proportions to arouse us to direct the resources we had in hand all along to help this suffering people? Were there things we should have been doing in a more proactive way to preempt the suffering? What if the focus of our foreign policy was to eradicate such chronic suffering? What if the primary role of our military was to assist people groups that need a hand to help them overcome circumstances that have held them back for too long? What if we didn't wait for an earthquake to establish modern hospitals, schools and food distribution points? What if we were proactive in assisting them in building earthquake resistant dwellings with proper sewage and water treatment? What if we made caring for the poor the top priority rather than fighting elective wars and bailing out Wall Street?
I do not think it is as big a step as one might imagine to link the responsive to crisis generosity of the American people with a well planned, proactive "war on poverty", to borrow an old, beat up phrase. If we're so ready to flood incredible sums of money into crisis stricken areas when called upon, surely it is reasonable to think we could do so much more to head off the dimensions of potential crises in advance. Let's envision the improvements in foreign relations that could come about if the world truly began to see and believe that our goal, first and foremost, was to serve the world with no-strings-attached generosity and kindness rather than the self-interested bullying that has been the nature of so much of what we have done in foreign policy lately. Rather than our extraordinary generosity toward Haiti being seen as crisis response, why not strive to make it a lifestyle?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Eden's Lie
Has it ever occurred to you that religion has fallen into the trap of repeating the lie of Eden to solve the problem created by Eden’s lie?
For those who may not know the story told in Genesis chapter 3, a cunning talking serpent convinced Eve and Adam that God was withholding something from them. He sowed a seed thought of discontent concerning their current standing with their Creator. “God doesn’t want you to be like him, knowing good and evil,” the tempter reportedly said. Apparently that was all it took to tip Adam and Eve over into the reckless behavior of breaking out of the boundaries of their ideal existence and trying to fix the problem they, until that moment, didn’t know they had.
The duped and disobedient couple took charge of their own destiny, ate fruit they weren’t supposed to eat and set themselves and their descendents on a downward spiral of self-doubt, victimization, blaming others and the gamut of dysfunctions and disorders common to us today. Merely the suggestion that they didn’t measure up in some way was all it took for the Deceiver to ruin the harmony that had existed between the Creator and the created.
Trying to solve the resulting sense of exposure and vulnerability their action had brought to their awareness, the guilty pair tried to hide behind fig leaves they sewed together. To which God, as he was confronting them with their folly, offered a better solution to their nakedness—fur coats he had made (sorry PETA). In other words, God in effect said to them and demonstrated by his action, “Your solutions don’t work. You can’t fix this. Only I can. Whatever resolution of this problem you’ve created and the resulting reconciliation is going to have to come from me.” I can further imagine God saying, “Don’t do anything else. You’ve already caused enough harm with your efforts.”
Now let’s fast forward through time and see what much of religion in its various forms offers us. Again we are told in many different ways that this God of ours is withholding something from us. In fact, as some versions would stress, he stands ready to give us the cold shoulder and the “hot forever” unless we do something. Subtly and not so subtly we are told the ball is in our court and if we’re going to rise to God’s level it depends on us. Make this decision, attend these events, say these prayers, give this money, read this book, act this way, do this and do that. If you don’t, the lie continues, you are really missing it with God. God won’t claim you.
So, if religion is telling us the same lie as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, where does that leave us? It leaves us right where Adam and Eve were totally dependent upon God to fix things. The good news for them and for us is that he did. Now all we have to do is quit looking for some fruit tree of personal effort.
For those who may not know the story told in Genesis chapter 3, a cunning talking serpent convinced Eve and Adam that God was withholding something from them. He sowed a seed thought of discontent concerning their current standing with their Creator. “God doesn’t want you to be like him, knowing good and evil,” the tempter reportedly said. Apparently that was all it took to tip Adam and Eve over into the reckless behavior of breaking out of the boundaries of their ideal existence and trying to fix the problem they, until that moment, didn’t know they had.
The duped and disobedient couple took charge of their own destiny, ate fruit they weren’t supposed to eat and set themselves and their descendents on a downward spiral of self-doubt, victimization, blaming others and the gamut of dysfunctions and disorders common to us today. Merely the suggestion that they didn’t measure up in some way was all it took for the Deceiver to ruin the harmony that had existed between the Creator and the created.
Trying to solve the resulting sense of exposure and vulnerability their action had brought to their awareness, the guilty pair tried to hide behind fig leaves they sewed together. To which God, as he was confronting them with their folly, offered a better solution to their nakedness—fur coats he had made (sorry PETA). In other words, God in effect said to them and demonstrated by his action, “Your solutions don’t work. You can’t fix this. Only I can. Whatever resolution of this problem you’ve created and the resulting reconciliation is going to have to come from me.” I can further imagine God saying, “Don’t do anything else. You’ve already caused enough harm with your efforts.”
Now let’s fast forward through time and see what much of religion in its various forms offers us. Again we are told in many different ways that this God of ours is withholding something from us. In fact, as some versions would stress, he stands ready to give us the cold shoulder and the “hot forever” unless we do something. Subtly and not so subtly we are told the ball is in our court and if we’re going to rise to God’s level it depends on us. Make this decision, attend these events, say these prayers, give this money, read this book, act this way, do this and do that. If you don’t, the lie continues, you are really missing it with God. God won’t claim you.
So, if religion is telling us the same lie as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, where does that leave us? It leaves us right where Adam and Eve were totally dependent upon God to fix things. The good news for them and for us is that he did. Now all we have to do is quit looking for some fruit tree of personal effort.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
The Peril of Foundationalism (believing you know something you don't really know)
Foundationalism has been defined as the claim that certain truths are self evident. Foundationalists claim to build rational arguments upon hard truths that must not be questioned. Foundationalism is the companion of fundamentalism. My early religious upbringing and college training at a denominational school was steeped in both.
Here's the problem. Most of the foundationalism I was taught cannot be "proven" scientifically. It must be accepted by belief. For example, God is the creator of all things. I believe that is true and can argue it to be so, but I can't prove it. Another example, the Bible is the written word of God. Any defense of that proposition that I have heard relies on verses in the Bible to establish that fact. The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is. Some would argue further that the validity of the Bible is strengthened by church history and long held tradition that the Bible is authoritative. In other words, people who believed the Bible to be accurate and reliable depended upon the Bible's claims of authority to claim it is authoritative. It is a circular argument to which one cannot ultimately subscribe without some sort of belief model. Belief that could be defined this way: I believe it because I believe it. So, problem number one with religious foundationalism is that truth claims rely upon belief and circular reasoning.
The second problem is our humanity. We seldom live up to most of the foundational things we claim to believe. Remember these words, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal?" That is a foundational statement-- a supposed "self evident" truth. Unfortunately, the folks who wrote it didn't really believe it. What they really meant was that if you were a white male land owner you were equal. But if you were an African slave, a female or Native American you weren't even on the radar of equality. The way the founders put that "truth" into practice is a dramatic illustration of what Brandon O'Brien, in describing Jim Belcher's critique of foundationalism asserts: "[Christian] traditionalists are bound to rational foundationalism...which leads to preoccupation with dogma and a bounded-set mentality that is eager to define who's in and who's out on doctrinal grounds" ("Emerging vs. Traditional", Christianity Today, Dec. 2009, p. 63). Remember, America's founding fathers did not grant the right to vote to any of the aforementioned excluded groups in the early days of the Republic, even going so far as to putting it into the constitution that a slave could only be considered three-fifths of an equal as they defined it. Their "doctrinal statement" excluded everyone but them.
A more simple illustration might be found in one who claims he believes in and lives by the Bible cover to cover while telling the occasional lie and visiting the occasional internet porn website. In practice, the Bible is not his final authority and makes that person's argument that it is ring hollow and hypocritical.
My purpose here is not to disparage the Bible. I love the Bible and consider it the best source of revelation on how God interacts with us and how one should try to live. Rather, what I am trying to point out is that rational foundationalism will almost always lead one to a dogma driven, argumentative and excluding posture toward anyone who doesn't agree with or fit into your definitions. As a recovering foundationalist I can honestly say that when I aspired to be one, I tended to come across as disproportionately critical, judgmental and contentious. Instead of knowing we are Christians by our love, people begin to label us as fundamentalists by our arguments.
The lessons I have drawn from this are:
1) Just as the constitution had to be amended to redefine equality, so have many of the foundations I was taught to defend and argue been amended by life experience and a more mature understanding. I have learned that I may not know what I think I know.
2) While one may (and I say so with great caution) make some assessments about the quality of one's character based upon that person's behavior, it is virtually impossible to judge the validity of another person's faith. Foundationalism is not helpful for that purpose because it, too often, leads to the wrong conclusion. That's what happened when the foundationalists boldly claimed Jesus could not be a prophet because he was from Galilee. They had their "fundamentals" but they didn't have a clue about the heart and faith transactions that were taking place between Jesus and the Heavenly Father.
3) Life goes better for me when I take the posture of a truth seeker rather than a defender of foundations. Over the years I have wasted countless hours arguing over stuff that doesn't even matter to me now. Foundationalism is a breeding ground for contention and ill will.
4) Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find." I must never assume that my seeking is going to be more successful than someone else's. If Jesus' words are true for me, they are equally true for any other seeker. Foundationalism tends to lead us into the ugly business of being seeker inspectors who confront people with claims that until they start following our dogmatic map they will not find anything of value. How arrogant!
5) "Without faith it is impossible to please God," says the scripture. I believe that.
Here's the problem. Most of the foundationalism I was taught cannot be "proven" scientifically. It must be accepted by belief. For example, God is the creator of all things. I believe that is true and can argue it to be so, but I can't prove it. Another example, the Bible is the written word of God. Any defense of that proposition that I have heard relies on verses in the Bible to establish that fact. The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is. Some would argue further that the validity of the Bible is strengthened by church history and long held tradition that the Bible is authoritative. In other words, people who believed the Bible to be accurate and reliable depended upon the Bible's claims of authority to claim it is authoritative. It is a circular argument to which one cannot ultimately subscribe without some sort of belief model. Belief that could be defined this way: I believe it because I believe it. So, problem number one with religious foundationalism is that truth claims rely upon belief and circular reasoning.
The second problem is our humanity. We seldom live up to most of the foundational things we claim to believe. Remember these words, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal?" That is a foundational statement-- a supposed "self evident" truth. Unfortunately, the folks who wrote it didn't really believe it. What they really meant was that if you were a white male land owner you were equal. But if you were an African slave, a female or Native American you weren't even on the radar of equality. The way the founders put that "truth" into practice is a dramatic illustration of what Brandon O'Brien, in describing Jim Belcher's critique of foundationalism asserts: "[Christian] traditionalists are bound to rational foundationalism...which leads to preoccupation with dogma and a bounded-set mentality that is eager to define who's in and who's out on doctrinal grounds" ("Emerging vs. Traditional", Christianity Today, Dec. 2009, p. 63). Remember, America's founding fathers did not grant the right to vote to any of the aforementioned excluded groups in the early days of the Republic, even going so far as to putting it into the constitution that a slave could only be considered three-fifths of an equal as they defined it. Their "doctrinal statement" excluded everyone but them.
A more simple illustration might be found in one who claims he believes in and lives by the Bible cover to cover while telling the occasional lie and visiting the occasional internet porn website. In practice, the Bible is not his final authority and makes that person's argument that it is ring hollow and hypocritical.
My purpose here is not to disparage the Bible. I love the Bible and consider it the best source of revelation on how God interacts with us and how one should try to live. Rather, what I am trying to point out is that rational foundationalism will almost always lead one to a dogma driven, argumentative and excluding posture toward anyone who doesn't agree with or fit into your definitions. As a recovering foundationalist I can honestly say that when I aspired to be one, I tended to come across as disproportionately critical, judgmental and contentious. Instead of knowing we are Christians by our love, people begin to label us as fundamentalists by our arguments.
The lessons I have drawn from this are:
1) Just as the constitution had to be amended to redefine equality, so have many of the foundations I was taught to defend and argue been amended by life experience and a more mature understanding. I have learned that I may not know what I think I know.
2) While one may (and I say so with great caution) make some assessments about the quality of one's character based upon that person's behavior, it is virtually impossible to judge the validity of another person's faith. Foundationalism is not helpful for that purpose because it, too often, leads to the wrong conclusion. That's what happened when the foundationalists boldly claimed Jesus could not be a prophet because he was from Galilee. They had their "fundamentals" but they didn't have a clue about the heart and faith transactions that were taking place between Jesus and the Heavenly Father.
3) Life goes better for me when I take the posture of a truth seeker rather than a defender of foundations. Over the years I have wasted countless hours arguing over stuff that doesn't even matter to me now. Foundationalism is a breeding ground for contention and ill will.
4) Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find." I must never assume that my seeking is going to be more successful than someone else's. If Jesus' words are true for me, they are equally true for any other seeker. Foundationalism tends to lead us into the ugly business of being seeker inspectors who confront people with claims that until they start following our dogmatic map they will not find anything of value. How arrogant!
5) "Without faith it is impossible to please God," says the scripture. I believe that.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
ZERO TOLERANCE
Making the headlines this week is the story of six year old Zachary Christie of Delaware who was expelled from school and facing 45 days in reform school as stipulated by the Christina School District's zero tolerance policy toward "weapons" brought into the school. The weapon Zachary brought was his favorite camping tool, a folding knife, fork, spoon and can opener with which he planned to eat his lunch. Besieged by a community rightfully outraged that a six year old was facing reform school for such a minor incident, the school board voted unanimously to change the policy and allow Zachary to return to school. So much for zero tolerance.
Certainly, we can understand why a school district would want to send a strong message about weapons at school given the violence that has plagued our schools in recent years. But, any time we make sweeping policy declarations born out of an emotional response to a current circumstance, there will be unintended outcomes. In Matthew 14 we are told of Herod the Tetrarch, who swore an oath to give up to half his kingdom, whatever she asked for, to the daughter of Herodias who had pleased him with her dance in celebration of his birthday. She maliciously asked for John the Baptist's head on a platter. To save face he reluctantly ordered John to be beheaded.
Judges 11 records the appalling story of Jephthah who, when seeking God's favor in a battle with the Ammonites, made a vow that upon returning from battle he would offer the first thing out of the door as a burnt offering to God. In order to keep his vow he ended up burning his only daughter on a sacrificial altar. Yikes!
It seems we human beings are inclined toward knee jerk rule making and ill considered declarations we wish we hadn't made. Thankfully, God isn't of that nature. Indeed God did lay out some specific laws he wanted us to follow. But if you read the record carefully you'll see that he built in some loopholes. Throughout the biblical record God's mercy trumps his judgment. His discipline is always accompanied by a promised future and hope. Paul straight up wrote that God does not deal with us as our sins deserve (2 Corinthians 5). And most significant of all, we are informed that God has, through Christ, even abolished the initial consequence he had stipulated for our sin, death (1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Timothy 1:10).
That the school board decided to waive the demands of their policy and let the matter drop was good news to Zachary and his family. That God has made room for mercy and grace in his dealings with seriously flawed humanity is great news for us all.
Certainly, we can understand why a school district would want to send a strong message about weapons at school given the violence that has plagued our schools in recent years. But, any time we make sweeping policy declarations born out of an emotional response to a current circumstance, there will be unintended outcomes. In Matthew 14 we are told of Herod the Tetrarch, who swore an oath to give up to half his kingdom, whatever she asked for, to the daughter of Herodias who had pleased him with her dance in celebration of his birthday. She maliciously asked for John the Baptist's head on a platter. To save face he reluctantly ordered John to be beheaded.
Judges 11 records the appalling story of Jephthah who, when seeking God's favor in a battle with the Ammonites, made a vow that upon returning from battle he would offer the first thing out of the door as a burnt offering to God. In order to keep his vow he ended up burning his only daughter on a sacrificial altar. Yikes!
It seems we human beings are inclined toward knee jerk rule making and ill considered declarations we wish we hadn't made. Thankfully, God isn't of that nature. Indeed God did lay out some specific laws he wanted us to follow. But if you read the record carefully you'll see that he built in some loopholes. Throughout the biblical record God's mercy trumps his judgment. His discipline is always accompanied by a promised future and hope. Paul straight up wrote that God does not deal with us as our sins deserve (2 Corinthians 5). And most significant of all, we are informed that God has, through Christ, even abolished the initial consequence he had stipulated for our sin, death (1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Timothy 1:10).
That the school board decided to waive the demands of their policy and let the matter drop was good news to Zachary and his family. That God has made room for mercy and grace in his dealings with seriously flawed humanity is great news for us all.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Victim Advocacy
The neighbor I am to love as I love myself is anyone who needs help, according to Jesus, when he offered a Samaritan victim advocate as the role model we are to follow. Victim advocacy is not easy. It involves inconvenience, unplanned expenditure and ongoing commitment. Read the "Parable of the Good Samaritan" found in Luke 10:25-37 and take note how involved the Samaritan was in assisting the helpless man.
As a pastor I preached and taught about this parable many times over the years. Only recently did I notice how competing agendas, as much as anything else, is what kept the priest and Levite exampled in the story from getting involved. I assume the priest and the Levite were decent and honorable people in their own right. In the culture of that day they would have been thought of as religious leaders. As such, they most certainly had a religious agenda. Their thoughts would have centered in ceremony and Bible study. Liturgy and correct doctrine were on their minds; not unlike many pastors and active church goers today. It consumes a great deal of mental, emotional and material resources to carry out the demands of many churches these days.
The priest and Levite believed they were on their own missions from God and thus could not be distracted into time consuming social work. God would expect them to remain on task... as would our employer, our family, our church, our financial planner, our sports teams and TV schedule, all those who set our agendas today.
What I need to understand is until I have positioned myself to be prepared to respond whenever I encounter the mistreated and victimized who have been rendered powerless by others, I'm not much of a neighbor by Jesus' standards. If my mindset is not geared toward immediate response regardless of the inconvenience, it's a fair bet that I love myself more than my neighbor.
As a pastor I preached and taught about this parable many times over the years. Only recently did I notice how competing agendas, as much as anything else, is what kept the priest and Levite exampled in the story from getting involved. I assume the priest and the Levite were decent and honorable people in their own right. In the culture of that day they would have been thought of as religious leaders. As such, they most certainly had a religious agenda. Their thoughts would have centered in ceremony and Bible study. Liturgy and correct doctrine were on their minds; not unlike many pastors and active church goers today. It consumes a great deal of mental, emotional and material resources to carry out the demands of many churches these days.
The priest and Levite believed they were on their own missions from God and thus could not be distracted into time consuming social work. God would expect them to remain on task... as would our employer, our family, our church, our financial planner, our sports teams and TV schedule, all those who set our agendas today.
What I need to understand is until I have positioned myself to be prepared to respond whenever I encounter the mistreated and victimized who have been rendered powerless by others, I'm not much of a neighbor by Jesus' standards. If my mindset is not geared toward immediate response regardless of the inconvenience, it's a fair bet that I love myself more than my neighbor.
Friday, September 11, 2009
HATRED AND STRIFE
"He's never had a job in his life, the dirt bag!"
I was startled both by the tone of his words and the contempt in his expression that erupted in the midst of a moment of what I thought was light hearted banter. It left me speechless wondering how an otherwise solid family man and church-goer could be overtaken by such vitriol.
You might think we were talking about some miscreant who had made the headlines from a recent police blotter. But no, he was reacting to my mentioning of the President of the United States. His expression was very similar to the one on Joe Wilson's (Republican Rep. South Carolina) face when he, by his own admission, lost all sense of decorum and disrupted the President's speech to a joint session of Congress embarrassingly blurting out, "You lie!", for all to hear. It was a new low in partisan politics for which, after being confronted by congressional leaders, he apologized to the dismay of many who think he's a hero.
It is abundantly clear that our national political conversation has ventured into some very dangerous territory. Opponents of President Obama, who have been removed from their accustomed seats of power by an electorate disgusted with their bungling in recent years, have decided that the only way they can influence the outcome of health care reform policy, is by cynically relying upon their media propagandists to whip their shrinking audience into hostile hysteria. It is a calculated and coordinated strategy that has infused the body politic with a toxicity from which we may never recover. Too many under the influence of this deadly elixir have surrendered to an irrational hatred that is driving them to believe that it would be better to destroy the country than allow the proposed reforms.
Of course, there is a reaping what you sow aspect to this for the democrats. When they were the minority, they too employed some very uncivil tactics to leverage their limited power. Of President Bush many of them shouted, "He's not our president!" It was no less an attempt to deligitimize him than the right wing efforts to discredit Obama currently in play. Such tactics should be off-putting to reasonable people and disqualify anyone using them as a credible source. That includes propagandists like Olberman, Maddow, Limbaugh and Hannity who make a living by keeping their followers emotionally worked up and reactionary with their spew.
We need a national time out. We need some training in civics. We need honorable statesmen and women to rise above the fray and show us how to have political debate without resorting to the eye gouging, biting cage fighting of our current debate. Leaders who will offer their opinions and make their case with reason and facts and graciously accept either victory or defeat when the votes are counted. Absent that our future looks sad.
I was startled both by the tone of his words and the contempt in his expression that erupted in the midst of a moment of what I thought was light hearted banter. It left me speechless wondering how an otherwise solid family man and church-goer could be overtaken by such vitriol.
You might think we were talking about some miscreant who had made the headlines from a recent police blotter. But no, he was reacting to my mentioning of the President of the United States. His expression was very similar to the one on Joe Wilson's (Republican Rep. South Carolina) face when he, by his own admission, lost all sense of decorum and disrupted the President's speech to a joint session of Congress embarrassingly blurting out, "You lie!", for all to hear. It was a new low in partisan politics for which, after being confronted by congressional leaders, he apologized to the dismay of many who think he's a hero.
It is abundantly clear that our national political conversation has ventured into some very dangerous territory. Opponents of President Obama, who have been removed from their accustomed seats of power by an electorate disgusted with their bungling in recent years, have decided that the only way they can influence the outcome of health care reform policy, is by cynically relying upon their media propagandists to whip their shrinking audience into hostile hysteria. It is a calculated and coordinated strategy that has infused the body politic with a toxicity from which we may never recover. Too many under the influence of this deadly elixir have surrendered to an irrational hatred that is driving them to believe that it would be better to destroy the country than allow the proposed reforms.
Of course, there is a reaping what you sow aspect to this for the democrats. When they were the minority, they too employed some very uncivil tactics to leverage their limited power. Of President Bush many of them shouted, "He's not our president!" It was no less an attempt to deligitimize him than the right wing efforts to discredit Obama currently in play. Such tactics should be off-putting to reasonable people and disqualify anyone using them as a credible source. That includes propagandists like Olberman, Maddow, Limbaugh and Hannity who make a living by keeping their followers emotionally worked up and reactionary with their spew.
We need a national time out. We need some training in civics. We need honorable statesmen and women to rise above the fray and show us how to have political debate without resorting to the eye gouging, biting cage fighting of our current debate. Leaders who will offer their opinions and make their case with reason and facts and graciously accept either victory or defeat when the votes are counted. Absent that our future looks sad.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Where Have We Seen This Before?
I'll tell you right up front that I do not yet know where I stand on health care reform. There is such a confusing array of misinformation and propaganda dominating the discussion right now that I think it would be very unwise to lock down on a position until the facts are better known.
That said, I would like to suggest that I think we've seen some of the tactics being used by the various special interests in the debate before. When following Jesus became a state controlled religion, it became the norm to threaten the uninformed public with threats that a big angry God in heaven would send everyone who did not comply with church authorities to a place of terrifying eternal conscious torment. Countless "free thinkers" were tortured and executed by the fear mongering religionists.
When Hitler wanted to rule the world he played on peoples' fears and ignorance drumming up the evilest lies of anti-semitism. It lead to the Holocaust and WWII. In the United States we were so led to be afraid of the Japanese by our leaders that we locked up Japanese Americans just because they were of Japanese heritage--a terrible injustice.
In the 1950's McCarthyism echoed throughout our culture resulting in black listing, false arrests, and an unprecedented assault on the First Amendment. Controlled by fear of communism, we lived in a society where everyone was a suspect, the bogeyman lurked behind every corner and the cold war shaped a generation.
Anti-Catholic sentiments were exploited to demonize JFK. I remember and witnessed first hand the way those who opposed civil rights went after Martin Luther King. It was all fear based.
Now we are being bombarded by a similar sort of "the-sky-is-falling-and-the-devil-is-taking-over" paranoia. Irrational people are screaming at their elected representatives. E-mails are anonymously spreading ugly and libelous rumors about the President. Power brokers are fanning the flames of fear and angst for their own selfish agendas. It's an absurd circus.
I have concluded from history that whenever fear is used as a tactic to mobilize and manipulate people it is not from a source that should be respected nor trusted. I will not be frightened into going along with your agenda. If you want me to consider your point of view, it is far better if you lower your voice, present a well reasoned argument and allow me to respectfully disagree if I so choose. You may have some valid points, but if you couch them in angry rhetoric and slogans, I'm not listening to you. In fact, I will tend to consider you a propagandized dupe.
On a positive note, I recommend that anyone wanting to find a balanced and reasoned approach to the health care reform discussion check out the excellent material that Jim Wallis and Sojourners have put together You can find it at http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display&item=HC09-main
That said, I would like to suggest that I think we've seen some of the tactics being used by the various special interests in the debate before. When following Jesus became a state controlled religion, it became the norm to threaten the uninformed public with threats that a big angry God in heaven would send everyone who did not comply with church authorities to a place of terrifying eternal conscious torment. Countless "free thinkers" were tortured and executed by the fear mongering religionists.
When Hitler wanted to rule the world he played on peoples' fears and ignorance drumming up the evilest lies of anti-semitism. It lead to the Holocaust and WWII. In the United States we were so led to be afraid of the Japanese by our leaders that we locked up Japanese Americans just because they were of Japanese heritage--a terrible injustice.
In the 1950's McCarthyism echoed throughout our culture resulting in black listing, false arrests, and an unprecedented assault on the First Amendment. Controlled by fear of communism, we lived in a society where everyone was a suspect, the bogeyman lurked behind every corner and the cold war shaped a generation.
Anti-Catholic sentiments were exploited to demonize JFK. I remember and witnessed first hand the way those who opposed civil rights went after Martin Luther King. It was all fear based.
Now we are being bombarded by a similar sort of "the-sky-is-falling-and-the-devil-is-taking-over" paranoia. Irrational people are screaming at their elected representatives. E-mails are anonymously spreading ugly and libelous rumors about the President. Power brokers are fanning the flames of fear and angst for their own selfish agendas. It's an absurd circus.
I have concluded from history that whenever fear is used as a tactic to mobilize and manipulate people it is not from a source that should be respected nor trusted. I will not be frightened into going along with your agenda. If you want me to consider your point of view, it is far better if you lower your voice, present a well reasoned argument and allow me to respectfully disagree if I so choose. You may have some valid points, but if you couch them in angry rhetoric and slogans, I'm not listening to you. In fact, I will tend to consider you a propagandized dupe.
On a positive note, I recommend that anyone wanting to find a balanced and reasoned approach to the health care reform discussion check out the excellent material that Jim Wallis and Sojourners have put together You can find it at http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display&item=HC09-main
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Won't You Be My Neighbor?
Distilled down to its essence the teaching of Jesus orbits around one simple principle--Love your neighbor as yourself. As I have mentioned repeatedly in this blog, the only way Jesus said anyone would ever be able to tell if we were actually following him was if we had love one for another. He straight up said he was only giving us one commandment--love one another. Saint Paul, in what seems to me a breakthrough moment of clarity told the Corinthians, "No love, no nothing" (1 Corinthians 13).
One may have advanced degrees in theology and church history and be able to recite various creeds and dogmas that human beings just like us hammered out over many centuries and fail to notice the utter simplicity of Jesus' core message. For some reason religionists have a need to quibble and complicate. How else can one explain the existence among Christians of thousands of denominations and independent groups all claiming to have some unique insight into God's thoughts and intentions? And, on a broader scale the same could be said of the tone of relationship between the competing religions. Truth claims honed and refined by "thinkers" and power brokers (religionists) from various regional and cultural contexts all claiming they speak for God have resulted in entire continents of people polarized against others who see things differently.
Marc Ian Barasch in his book FIELD NOTES ON THE COMPASSIONATE LIFE/A SEARCH FOR THE SOUL OF KINDNESS, Rodale, 2005; p. 120, offers this bit of wit:
"...A good organizational consultant would counsel the world's major faiths to reexamine their original mission statements: The core business of Jesus, Inc. or Allah Ltd. or Moses Corp. or Buddha LLC is surely not to sell tickets to heaven or peddle get-out-of-hell-free cards, but to distribute every kernel of wisdom from their ancient storehouses that might help us love each other.
We are slowly emerging from millenia of holy know-it-alls beaning each other with their Infallible Books, passing judgment with their Divine Laws, and trying to enforce competing copyrights on Ultimate Truth..."
One can only hope. For God's sake let's put our best efforts into keeping it lovingly simple and neighborly. We can start by foregoing the utterly arrogant assumption that some of us are wiser, better informed, more in possession of the truth and closer to God than those other people.
One may have advanced degrees in theology and church history and be able to recite various creeds and dogmas that human beings just like us hammered out over many centuries and fail to notice the utter simplicity of Jesus' core message. For some reason religionists have a need to quibble and complicate. How else can one explain the existence among Christians of thousands of denominations and independent groups all claiming to have some unique insight into God's thoughts and intentions? And, on a broader scale the same could be said of the tone of relationship between the competing religions. Truth claims honed and refined by "thinkers" and power brokers (religionists) from various regional and cultural contexts all claiming they speak for God have resulted in entire continents of people polarized against others who see things differently.
Marc Ian Barasch in his book FIELD NOTES ON THE COMPASSIONATE LIFE/A SEARCH FOR THE SOUL OF KINDNESS, Rodale, 2005; p. 120, offers this bit of wit:
"...A good organizational consultant would counsel the world's major faiths to reexamine their original mission statements: The core business of Jesus, Inc. or Allah Ltd. or Moses Corp. or Buddha LLC is surely not to sell tickets to heaven or peddle get-out-of-hell-free cards, but to distribute every kernel of wisdom from their ancient storehouses that might help us love each other.
We are slowly emerging from millenia of holy know-it-alls beaning each other with their Infallible Books, passing judgment with their Divine Laws, and trying to enforce competing copyrights on Ultimate Truth..."
One can only hope. For God's sake let's put our best efforts into keeping it lovingly simple and neighborly. We can start by foregoing the utterly arrogant assumption that some of us are wiser, better informed, more in possession of the truth and closer to God than those other people.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Pastor's Dilemma
Some of my readers will be aware that I abruptly left a 34 year career as a pastor in 2005. I went into detail about some of the reasons in a book I subsequently published with the controversial title Quit "Going" to Church...And Other Musings of a Former Institutional Man, Xulon Press (see recommended link). Although my decision to leave career ministry seemed sudden, the process leading up to it was not.
For those who aren't interested in reading a whole book on the matter, I recently came across a single paragraph that encompasses much of what compelled Sally and me to pursue a new direction in our journey. It appears in an article about the Rwandan reconciliation process in the June 2009 Christianity Today. Mark Moring describes the very painful and slow process of healing between the Tutsis and Hutus since the Rwandan genocide 15 years ago ("Reconcilable Differences" p. 28).
Here is the paragraph that caught my attention:
"...Pastors say, 'We have Hutus and Tutsis in our church. For me to talk of forgiveness and reconciliation, it is very difficult, because I am afraid of losing some of them.' Some feel that if the pastor is asking survivors to forgive, maybe he is taking sides with the Hutus. Or if he asks the Hutus to repent, maybe he is siding with the Tutsis. So many pastors just preach in general, because they are afraid to say the hard things" (emphasis added).
In simple terms what is being described is the fear of rejection that haunts many pastors. It certainly plagued me. Of course, everyone wants to be liked, but for many pastors it goes much deeper. They don't want to lose people from their congregation because personal income and significance are directly tied to keeping as many as possible in the pews. It is in the pastor's best interest to try to keep his or her congregants content and contributing. To my shame it is the political game that I played for many years. I only owned up to it when the longing for freedom to say some of the "hard things" I wanted to say finally overwhelmed my insecurity driven people pleasing.
Some might suggest that the ideal approach to this dilemma is to transparently make the transition and set an example in personal growth that church members can follow. Perhaps. But when people pleasing is an addiction--a drug of choice, so to speak--it is usually better to cut off the supply. That's what I felt I had to do. Never again do I want to be in a situation where I feel I can't say what I believe because it will threaten my livelihood or sense of prestige.
For those who aren't interested in reading a whole book on the matter, I recently came across a single paragraph that encompasses much of what compelled Sally and me to pursue a new direction in our journey. It appears in an article about the Rwandan reconciliation process in the June 2009 Christianity Today. Mark Moring describes the very painful and slow process of healing between the Tutsis and Hutus since the Rwandan genocide 15 years ago ("Reconcilable Differences" p. 28).
Here is the paragraph that caught my attention:
"...Pastors say, 'We have Hutus and Tutsis in our church. For me to talk of forgiveness and reconciliation, it is very difficult, because I am afraid of losing some of them.' Some feel that if the pastor is asking survivors to forgive, maybe he is taking sides with the Hutus. Or if he asks the Hutus to repent, maybe he is siding with the Tutsis. So many pastors just preach in general, because they are afraid to say the hard things" (emphasis added).
In simple terms what is being described is the fear of rejection that haunts many pastors. It certainly plagued me. Of course, everyone wants to be liked, but for many pastors it goes much deeper. They don't want to lose people from their congregation because personal income and significance are directly tied to keeping as many as possible in the pews. It is in the pastor's best interest to try to keep his or her congregants content and contributing. To my shame it is the political game that I played for many years. I only owned up to it when the longing for freedom to say some of the "hard things" I wanted to say finally overwhelmed my insecurity driven people pleasing.
Some might suggest that the ideal approach to this dilemma is to transparently make the transition and set an example in personal growth that church members can follow. Perhaps. But when people pleasing is an addiction--a drug of choice, so to speak--it is usually better to cut off the supply. That's what I felt I had to do. Never again do I want to be in a situation where I feel I can't say what I believe because it will threaten my livelihood or sense of prestige.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Murder is Abortion
Dr. George Tiller, one of very few who continued to perform late term abortions,sometimes referred to as "partial birth abortions", was aborted this past Sunday as he passed out bulletins at his local church. A "pro life" activist walked up to him and instead of shaking his hand offered in welcome to the service, pulled out a gun, shot him dead and fled the scene. It was a cowardly and heartless act of homicide that made Mr. Tiller a martyr and virtually guaranteed that the advocates of abortion rights will gain strength in numbers and bankroll.
All I feel like saying to this killer right now is, "Murder is abortion, you idiot!"
All I feel like saying to this killer right now is, "Murder is abortion, you idiot!"
Friday, May 15, 2009
I Have a Few Questions
I have a summer job that I thoroughly enjoy. I work as a grounds keeper at a local golf course. It doesn't pay very much, but it gets me out of the house doing honest work with lots of sun and fresh air. After a winter season of sitting at my computer and writing I need that. My main duty is riding a large tractor mower grooming fairways and rough. Next time you watch a golf tournament on TV and notice the neat mowing stripes on the fairways think of me.
As I bounce along with the drone of the diesel engine and mower reels in the background, I have ample time to contemplate. One's mind can go many places under these circumstances. Lately I've been giving myself permission to ask questions I did not use to ask. In no particular order here are a few of them.
* What is it about the religion of the "religious right" that causes them to become the angry bunch they have become since losing the last election?
* How is a self-serving, militaristic Americanism compatible with the ethics Jesus taught?
* Why is there no discernible difference between the amount of gossip and criticism of others one hears from churchgoers and those who do not make church a regular part of their routine?
* Why didn't I recognize earlier on how evil is the need to be in control?
* Why are so many pastors unhealthy (See the latest issue of Christianity Today for a clue)?
* Why have so many of us thought that what happens after we die is more important than living now?
* Who decided pews or being seated in rows was a good idea?
* What evidence is there that God endorses government issued marriage licenses?
* Why should clergy receiving a housing allowance not have to pay income tax on it?
* When did law enforcement (justice) become more important than love to many who claim to be followers of Jesus?
Keep running mower...
As I bounce along with the drone of the diesel engine and mower reels in the background, I have ample time to contemplate. One's mind can go many places under these circumstances. Lately I've been giving myself permission to ask questions I did not use to ask. In no particular order here are a few of them.
* What is it about the religion of the "religious right" that causes them to become the angry bunch they have become since losing the last election?
* How is a self-serving, militaristic Americanism compatible with the ethics Jesus taught?
* Why is there no discernible difference between the amount of gossip and criticism of others one hears from churchgoers and those who do not make church a regular part of their routine?
* Why didn't I recognize earlier on how evil is the need to be in control?
* Why are so many pastors unhealthy (See the latest issue of Christianity Today for a clue)?
* Why have so many of us thought that what happens after we die is more important than living now?
* Who decided pews or being seated in rows was a good idea?
* What evidence is there that God endorses government issued marriage licenses?
* Why should clergy receiving a housing allowance not have to pay income tax on it?
* When did law enforcement (justice) become more important than love to many who claim to be followers of Jesus?
Keep running mower...
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Bellicose threatening vs. a smile and a handshake.
Is anyone besides me wondering how in the name of all things good can anyone think it is in the United States' best interest to maintain an international reputation as a torturing bully? Upset over recent photos of President Obama shaking hands with avowed enemies such as Venezuela's Chavez and Nicaragua's Ortega, along with the release of formerly classified documents about our interrogation tactics, his critics have gone into a state of near apoplexy. The argument is that unless the United States can convince our enemies that we stand ready to inflict upon them severe harm and will torture captive enemy combatants when we think it is necessary, we have no standing to defend freedom's causes. Our enemies will see us as weak and will be emboldened.
In the first place, the fact the the United States has been the world's only super power for decades has been no deterrent to those given to terrorism. In the second place we have now learned that some of these banned interrogation tactics were employed hundreds of times with questionable results. As one expert said, if you have to water board someone a hundred times, it obviously isn't working.
From a principled biblical perspective there is simply no way one can claim it is wrong to shake hands and smile at an enemy. If anything that doesn't go far enough. The Bible says we are to LOVE our enemies and, if they are hungry, give them something to eat. Admittedly, this is not always easy. In fact, Jesus described it as the narrow way that few of us ever find. Most of us are inclined toward retaliation and violence. Our gut tells us to get the s.o.b's. But that isn't the way of love. It has a very poor track record for success, whereas love never fails.
Bellicose threatening vs. a smile and a handshake--let's try the latter for a change.
In the first place, the fact the the United States has been the world's only super power for decades has been no deterrent to those given to terrorism. In the second place we have now learned that some of these banned interrogation tactics were employed hundreds of times with questionable results. As one expert said, if you have to water board someone a hundred times, it obviously isn't working.
From a principled biblical perspective there is simply no way one can claim it is wrong to shake hands and smile at an enemy. If anything that doesn't go far enough. The Bible says we are to LOVE our enemies and, if they are hungry, give them something to eat. Admittedly, this is not always easy. In fact, Jesus described it as the narrow way that few of us ever find. Most of us are inclined toward retaliation and violence. Our gut tells us to get the s.o.b's. But that isn't the way of love. It has a very poor track record for success, whereas love never fails.
Bellicose threatening vs. a smile and a handshake--let's try the latter for a change.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A QUESTION OF AUTHORITY
A friend of mine reminded me the other day of an incident that occurred on campus when I was in Bible college 37 years ago. In reaction against a host of perceived ineptitudes on the part of the faculty and board of administration, and in keeping with the mood of the culture at that time, unrest was gaining a foothold in the student body. Classroom discussions were confrontational and petitions were being circulated.
In reaction to this brewing storm, a high powered guest speaker was brought into a chapel service to deliver a message on the topic "God's Chain of Command". With stridency and intimidation this member of the administrative board, who also happened to be a pastor of a large church, made the case that he and those in charge of the school were in authority by divine assignment and to question their authority was to question God. Several years later this same guy refused to comply with a denominational policy he didn't agree with and quit the denomination and had himself decalred to be an anointed apostle. So much for God's chain of command.
I have learned through some painful experiences that when we flex our authority muscles and employ enforcement tactics to coerce others into compliance, we usually do so out of insecurity and a need for control. Seldom if ever is that the approach God prefers. Human leaders are too human to be trusted with absolute authority. That is precisely why Jesus told his disciples that in his kingdom he resists any sort of lording it over others. Greatness in his world is reserved for those who humbly serve rather than for those who think they must be in charge. I've quoted it before but it bears repeating, "Relationships of domination are forbidden in the kingdom of God" (Jerry Cook).
For people to work together in any organized way toward the accomplishment of an objective there have to be certain agreed upon guidelines to maintain order and some way to resolve problems that arise. I get that. What we should avoid at all cost, however, is allowing anyone to station themselves between us and God as if in matters of personal faith they have the final word. Theologian Paul Tillich said it well back in 1962: "I don't give any human being, be it pope, or preacher, or professor of theology the right to tell me how my faith shall express itself." When it comes to my personal relationship with my Creator, there is no human chain of command.
In reaction to this brewing storm, a high powered guest speaker was brought into a chapel service to deliver a message on the topic "God's Chain of Command". With stridency and intimidation this member of the administrative board, who also happened to be a pastor of a large church, made the case that he and those in charge of the school were in authority by divine assignment and to question their authority was to question God. Several years later this same guy refused to comply with a denominational policy he didn't agree with and quit the denomination and had himself decalred to be an anointed apostle. So much for God's chain of command.
I have learned through some painful experiences that when we flex our authority muscles and employ enforcement tactics to coerce others into compliance, we usually do so out of insecurity and a need for control. Seldom if ever is that the approach God prefers. Human leaders are too human to be trusted with absolute authority. That is precisely why Jesus told his disciples that in his kingdom he resists any sort of lording it over others. Greatness in his world is reserved for those who humbly serve rather than for those who think they must be in charge. I've quoted it before but it bears repeating, "Relationships of domination are forbidden in the kingdom of God" (Jerry Cook).
For people to work together in any organized way toward the accomplishment of an objective there have to be certain agreed upon guidelines to maintain order and some way to resolve problems that arise. I get that. What we should avoid at all cost, however, is allowing anyone to station themselves between us and God as if in matters of personal faith they have the final word. Theologian Paul Tillich said it well back in 1962: "I don't give any human being, be it pope, or preacher, or professor of theology the right to tell me how my faith shall express itself." When it comes to my personal relationship with my Creator, there is no human chain of command.
Monday, March 16, 2009
C'mon Church Leaders, Guide Us Out of the Gloomies
Anyone who has followed my writings the past couple of years is aware that I am not optimistic about the future of the dominant expression of Christianity in America today. I fully expect denominational/institutional Christianity to follow the same course it has in Europe where it has largely become a relic of the past. That is not to say, however, that I think the message and way of Jesus Christ are in any sense in decline. To the contrary, I've never been more encouraged than I am right now with their future prospects.
There are a number of reasons for my hope. Among them are:
1) Widespread rejection of the political power seeking form of Christianity that sought to impose selected morality through legislative influence. The Moral Majority mentality has been a disaster and a distraction from serious Christ-following.
2) Emancipation of whole hearted God seeking from clergy and creed dominated forms. People everywhere are discovering God and his heart for compassion, justice and peace apart from excluding and controlling authority structures.
3) Serious and respected scholars and leaders who are rejecting gloomy doctrines that cultivate fear, cause people to cluster at the exit and assume most human beings are going to hell are gaining in number. Not because they are participating in some sinister plot to undermine God's truth, but because God's truth is setting us free just as Jesus said it would. Old superstitions and people regulating ploys can't stand up to enlightened scrutiny, as I indicated in my previous blog.
What I find myself longing for are established leaders who will be courageous enough to break ranks from the status quo and give voice to their attraction to and sympathy for the fresh ways God is working today. If even one or two significant institutional leaders would be willing to sacrifice role security for the sake of the greater good and declare the misguidedness of some of the old mindsets, I believe it would embolden many to break out into the light. It is long overdue for maintainers of the established to give way to the inevitable progress of the emerging.
C'mon church leaders, guide us out of the old gloomy perspectives of the past. How about some good news for a change--Christ's really good news.
There are a number of reasons for my hope. Among them are:
1) Widespread rejection of the political power seeking form of Christianity that sought to impose selected morality through legislative influence. The Moral Majority mentality has been a disaster and a distraction from serious Christ-following.
2) Emancipation of whole hearted God seeking from clergy and creed dominated forms. People everywhere are discovering God and his heart for compassion, justice and peace apart from excluding and controlling authority structures.
3) Serious and respected scholars and leaders who are rejecting gloomy doctrines that cultivate fear, cause people to cluster at the exit and assume most human beings are going to hell are gaining in number. Not because they are participating in some sinister plot to undermine God's truth, but because God's truth is setting us free just as Jesus said it would. Old superstitions and people regulating ploys can't stand up to enlightened scrutiny, as I indicated in my previous blog.
What I find myself longing for are established leaders who will be courageous enough to break ranks from the status quo and give voice to their attraction to and sympathy for the fresh ways God is working today. If even one or two significant institutional leaders would be willing to sacrifice role security for the sake of the greater good and declare the misguidedness of some of the old mindsets, I believe it would embolden many to break out into the light. It is long overdue for maintainers of the established to give way to the inevitable progress of the emerging.
C'mon church leaders, guide us out of the old gloomy perspectives of the past. How about some good news for a change--Christ's really good news.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Doctrinal "Flat Earth"
If one goes back in history to the time of Christopher Columbus and the great explorers, one will be reminded that most people of that era firmly believed the earth was flat and that venturing too far out to sea would result in falling into the abyss where lived the great sea monster. It was also a time when inquisitions and reformations were underway in Europe. Looked at from the broad view of that period we enjoy today, one recognizes that under-informed, closed mindedness was being confronted by new ideas and high risk exploration. Old myths and superstitions could not withstand the impact of discoveries and inventions that proved them to be false. Historians have labeled it the Age of Enlightenment.
Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo (1564-1642), and others gave birth to modern science by demonstrating the heliocentricity of our solar system. They were often persecuted by Christian authorities who quoted Bible verses such as "Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1Chronicles 16:30...(depending on translation [which state] that 'the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.' In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, 'the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.' Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that 'And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place' etc." (Wikipedia on Galileo Galilei). As far as the Bible authorities were concerned, these verses were nothing less than the word of God Almighty proving that the earth could not possibly orbit around the sun. Again quoting from Wikipedia: "On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture. In March 2008 the Vatican proposed to complete its rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls.[107] In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy." It only took 400 years for the Church to own up to how wrong it was.
There are other examples one can find to demonstrate how Bible authoritarians have claimed they had God's sure word for various positions that were utterly wrong. For instance, it was once widely believed it was a scriptural fact that Africans were cursed by God and properly regarded as sub-human. Only the most ignorant of people believe that today.
History is bloodied by controversies and wars fought over notions that one group--usually the group in power--decided were contrary to the word of God as they understood it but were later found not to be. A couple of these battles are shaping up right now in conservative Christian circles. Anger is rising and battle lines are being drawn between those who think they are being true to the scriptures by defending dispensationalism (ask John Hagee if you don't know what that is)and those who see it otherwise. Another battle front is forming over the belief there literally exists a divinely designed torture chamber located somewhere in the basement of creation (hell), and those who are asserting it isn't so. It may take another 400 years, but I have no doubt God is going to help us shed our contemporary "doctrinal flat earth" mindsets. Doing so will not send us over the edge into the abyss. It will open us to new and wonderful discoveries of how great and good God is.
In the meantime we all would be well advised to consider our biblical views as opinions of the moment that could change with the discovery of unforseen evidence to the contrary. It is closed mindedness that always gets us in trouble.
Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo (1564-1642), and others gave birth to modern science by demonstrating the heliocentricity of our solar system. They were often persecuted by Christian authorities who quoted Bible verses such as "Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1Chronicles 16:30...(depending on translation [which state] that 'the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.' In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, 'the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.' Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that 'And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place' etc." (Wikipedia on Galileo Galilei). As far as the Bible authorities were concerned, these verses were nothing less than the word of God Almighty proving that the earth could not possibly orbit around the sun. Again quoting from Wikipedia: "On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture. In March 2008 the Vatican proposed to complete its rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls.[107] In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy." It only took 400 years for the Church to own up to how wrong it was.
There are other examples one can find to demonstrate how Bible authoritarians have claimed they had God's sure word for various positions that were utterly wrong. For instance, it was once widely believed it was a scriptural fact that Africans were cursed by God and properly regarded as sub-human. Only the most ignorant of people believe that today.
History is bloodied by controversies and wars fought over notions that one group--usually the group in power--decided were contrary to the word of God as they understood it but were later found not to be. A couple of these battles are shaping up right now in conservative Christian circles. Anger is rising and battle lines are being drawn between those who think they are being true to the scriptures by defending dispensationalism (ask John Hagee if you don't know what that is)and those who see it otherwise. Another battle front is forming over the belief there literally exists a divinely designed torture chamber located somewhere in the basement of creation (hell), and those who are asserting it isn't so. It may take another 400 years, but I have no doubt God is going to help us shed our contemporary "doctrinal flat earth" mindsets. Doing so will not send us over the edge into the abyss. It will open us to new and wonderful discoveries of how great and good God is.
In the meantime we all would be well advised to consider our biblical views as opinions of the moment that could change with the discovery of unforseen evidence to the contrary. It is closed mindedness that always gets us in trouble.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Hockey Fight Unity
I once described a local pastors' fellowship I belonged to as having hockey fight unity. When a fight breaks out in hockey oftentimes the players on the opposing teams pair up with one of their opponents and hold the other's jersey as a way to keep the other guy out of the brawl. The ministerial fellowship meetings always felt to me like competing pastors getting together to keep each other from getting into a fight. We'd smile at each other and toss around unity and brotherhood slogans all the while mistrusting and staying on the alert in case the other guy starts swinging.
It is the consensus among the participants of a small prayer group I'm involved with that the number one enemy of community transformation is division among the Christians. It's been 2000 years since Jesus prayed that his followers would be one in the same fashion that he and his heavenly father were one and we're as likely as ever to break out in strife over turf, doctrine, preferences and control. Why is that?
Aside from the general 'fallenness' that we all have to live with, one of the main reasons we have such a hard time making meaningful progress toward unity is the many and varied systems and structures we establish for the purpose of maintaining our own sense of well being. We all tend to seek identity in that which makes us feel the most comfort and control. Birds of a feather flock together because it usually seems easier--less stress and fewer strangers to fear. So we organize ourselves with policies and guidelines that are intended to preserve our status and space. In our effort to preserve we inevitably erect boundaries that exclude. Excluding boundaries always result in the "ins" and the "outs", the "us" and the "them". Once that dynamic exists disunity is assured. At this stage of my life I've come to believe that as long as we feel the need to defend institutional distinction (e.g., Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Republican, Democrat, Hawkeye, Cyclone) we can make little or no progress toward genuine unity.
As always Jesus is our model. Of him Paul wrote to the Philippians: "Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of slave, became human!" Jesus willingly set aside his distinctive position for the express purpose of breaking through the boundary that separated humanity from its creator. Until we all are willing to identify and minimize those excluding labels and boundaries that define us, we'll continue to settle for hockey fight unity. How sad.
It is the consensus among the participants of a small prayer group I'm involved with that the number one enemy of community transformation is division among the Christians. It's been 2000 years since Jesus prayed that his followers would be one in the same fashion that he and his heavenly father were one and we're as likely as ever to break out in strife over turf, doctrine, preferences and control. Why is that?
Aside from the general 'fallenness' that we all have to live with, one of the main reasons we have such a hard time making meaningful progress toward unity is the many and varied systems and structures we establish for the purpose of maintaining our own sense of well being. We all tend to seek identity in that which makes us feel the most comfort and control. Birds of a feather flock together because it usually seems easier--less stress and fewer strangers to fear. So we organize ourselves with policies and guidelines that are intended to preserve our status and space. In our effort to preserve we inevitably erect boundaries that exclude. Excluding boundaries always result in the "ins" and the "outs", the "us" and the "them". Once that dynamic exists disunity is assured. At this stage of my life I've come to believe that as long as we feel the need to defend institutional distinction (e.g., Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Republican, Democrat, Hawkeye, Cyclone) we can make little or no progress toward genuine unity.
As always Jesus is our model. Of him Paul wrote to the Philippians: "Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of slave, became human!" Jesus willingly set aside his distinctive position for the express purpose of breaking through the boundary that separated humanity from its creator. Until we all are willing to identify and minimize those excluding labels and boundaries that define us, we'll continue to settle for hockey fight unity. How sad.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Someone, Please "Unscrew" Us
I've been struck by the number of high profile individuals who have made the headlines this week because of some career and reputation damaging behavior. Ted Haggard, Michael Phelps, Tom Daschle and a whole roster of CEO's have lost jobs, respect and more because they chose to engage in some risky conduct. Daschle didn't pay his taxes. Phelps, the Olympic swimmer, let his picture be taken while taking a hit of weed from a bong. Haggard...well, you know.
What is it about us human beings that makes so many of us do stuff that on the surface seems totally reckless and foolish? Why would a well connected, former Senate leader, think he could get away with cheating on his taxes? Why would a multiple Olympic gold medal winner who stands to make millions from lucrative endorsements put it all at risk for a temporary marijuana high? Why would someone like Ted Haggard, one of the brightest evangelical stars, do the stuff he now admits including using meth and cavorting with male escorts? Why would Wall Street executives receiving billions in taxpayer bailouts be so callous as to think they could pay themselves huge bonuses and ridiculous perks while under the microscope of investigation and public scrutiny?
Why did I once go out and party the very night my parents were nailing down the final details of an arrangement that would have allowed my brother and me to remain in our beloved high school and not have to start attending a new one in the middle of 11th and 10th grades--every teenager's worst nightmare. Passing out in Dad's arms earned me a seat in the moving van and meant the loss of peer status and popularity to become a stranger in the new school. Why did I do that? Because I'm an idiot? Don't answer that.
These examples underscore the fact that we human beings, at the most inopportune times, are capable of doing things that are illogical, unwise, self-destructive and hard to explain. We all screw up. Because of this, I try to remind myself I have no basis to feel like I'm better than others. Given the same set of circumstances these folks faced, my conduct might have been even worse. I'm convinced we all need someone to "unscrew" us--a savior, if you will.
What is it about us human beings that makes so many of us do stuff that on the surface seems totally reckless and foolish? Why would a well connected, former Senate leader, think he could get away with cheating on his taxes? Why would a multiple Olympic gold medal winner who stands to make millions from lucrative endorsements put it all at risk for a temporary marijuana high? Why would someone like Ted Haggard, one of the brightest evangelical stars, do the stuff he now admits including using meth and cavorting with male escorts? Why would Wall Street executives receiving billions in taxpayer bailouts be so callous as to think they could pay themselves huge bonuses and ridiculous perks while under the microscope of investigation and public scrutiny?
Why did I once go out and party the very night my parents were nailing down the final details of an arrangement that would have allowed my brother and me to remain in our beloved high school and not have to start attending a new one in the middle of 11th and 10th grades--every teenager's worst nightmare. Passing out in Dad's arms earned me a seat in the moving van and meant the loss of peer status and popularity to become a stranger in the new school. Why did I do that? Because I'm an idiot? Don't answer that.
These examples underscore the fact that we human beings, at the most inopportune times, are capable of doing things that are illogical, unwise, self-destructive and hard to explain. We all screw up. Because of this, I try to remind myself I have no basis to feel like I'm better than others. Given the same set of circumstances these folks faced, my conduct might have been even worse. I'm convinced we all need someone to "unscrew" us--a savior, if you will.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Keep Perspective
My dad turns 80 this year. That means he lived through the Great Depression. He tells stories of soup lines and having nothing to eat but the beets his dad "borrowed" from the neighbor's garden. Did I mention Dad turns 80 this year? Dad and Mom both lived through those bleak years and continue to enjoy fruitful and fulfilling lives.
In 1985, Sally and I moved out of Riverton, WY, adding our house to the over 500 others that were on the market in sparsely populated Fremont County. As you may recall, mortgage interest rates then hovered around 15-18%. Hundreds of homeowners had no choice but to default on their home loans and simply walk away. Nearly 40% of the population of that county moved out because of the closing of the uranium mines and steel mill. Our realtor had not had a home sale in months and said we would need a miracle to sell our newly constructed home. By God's grace it sold within two months for cash. Here we are 24 years later alive and well. The situation looked dire, but we survived.
These days we are hearing that we are in the midst of the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression. Hundreds of thousands are losing jobs, bankruptcies are spiraling out of control and Washington can't print and spend money fast enough in its frenetic attempt to stop the bleeding. Each day brings new headlines of economic woe. Sure, it can be depressing to hear constant drumming of negative headlines. Anyone with a retirement account has watched it evaporate. It is hard not to worry.
But, whenever I catch myself giving in to fear and worry, I step back and recall. We've been through stuff like this before. We got through it then and we'll get through it now. Having survived withdrawal from our consumer addiction and the false security of our materialism, we'll likely be wiser, more thrifty and more God aware. That's a good thing.
Keep perspective. We're going to get through this just fine.
In 1985, Sally and I moved out of Riverton, WY, adding our house to the over 500 others that were on the market in sparsely populated Fremont County. As you may recall, mortgage interest rates then hovered around 15-18%. Hundreds of homeowners had no choice but to default on their home loans and simply walk away. Nearly 40% of the population of that county moved out because of the closing of the uranium mines and steel mill. Our realtor had not had a home sale in months and said we would need a miracle to sell our newly constructed home. By God's grace it sold within two months for cash. Here we are 24 years later alive and well. The situation looked dire, but we survived.
These days we are hearing that we are in the midst of the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression. Hundreds of thousands are losing jobs, bankruptcies are spiraling out of control and Washington can't print and spend money fast enough in its frenetic attempt to stop the bleeding. Each day brings new headlines of economic woe. Sure, it can be depressing to hear constant drumming of negative headlines. Anyone with a retirement account has watched it evaporate. It is hard not to worry.
But, whenever I catch myself giving in to fear and worry, I step back and recall. We've been through stuff like this before. We got through it then and we'll get through it now. Having survived withdrawal from our consumer addiction and the false security of our materialism, we'll likely be wiser, more thrifty and more God aware. That's a good thing.
Keep perspective. We're going to get through this just fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)