Pastor Jon's Blog

Things the Bible Doesn’t Say: “God helps those who help themselves”

Friday, February 10, 2012

It’s been awhile since I introduced this sporadic series (I told you it would be sporadic). But in that post, I told a story about a woman coming up to me after a worship service a few years ago, and asking, “Could you please show me in the Bible where it says, ‘God only helps those who help themselves’? I have a lazy family member who needs to hear that, and he’ll listen if it’s from the Bible.’” I had to summon up all the pastoral energy I could muster to restrain some of the feelings going on inside of me. These feelings were based on 2 facts:

This woman clearly wanted to use the Bible to make her own point. Now, my frustration about this was quickly turned back onto myself, since I have done very much the same thing at times. But that does not excuse such an approach to the Scriptures. The Scriptures are meant to “teach, rebuke, correct, and train in righteousness,” not be used to tell us what our “itching ears” want to hear. But the fact that is more relevant for this blog…
This common proverb ISN’T IN THE BIBLE!

So where does this phrase come from and what does the Bible really say? Glad you asked…

Apparently, this phrase originated as the moral in Aesop’s fable, “Hercules and the Waggoner” (though it refers to gods, not God). And it was probably popularized in our culture when it ended up in Ben Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanack” (see 1736).

The point of the phrase, I think, is meant to counter laziness cloaked in piety. For instance, I shouldn’t just sit in my house praying for God to drop a wad of cash into my lap so I can pay my bills instead of training and applying for a job. In that case, the point of this little nugget is somewhat biblical. For instance, there are a number of biblical proverbs about the importance of discipline and work and the dangers of laziness (note: biblical proverbs are general facts about life in God’s world, not infallible promises from God). Likewise, Paul has little patience for those who simply consume the services of the church community without making any effort to contribute (note: this is about those who are unwilling to work, not those who are unable or cannot find work). Just looking around us, we see that passivity and unwillingness to get our hands dirty is probably not going to lead to a fulfilling and prosperous life. And the Bible affirms that laziness and idleness are neither characteristics of God nor characteristics that God desires for his people.

But let’s get back to the quote: “God helps those who help themselves.” I get asked whether this is in the Bible so often that I have come up with a stock response: “The God of the Bible is a God who helps those who cannot help themselves.” And it’s not just those who are unable, but even those who are initially unwilling. This is the radical, controversial, and sometimes offensive Gospel of God’s grace. Let me point to a few passages that I believe emphasize this point (some of these are about God, some are about how God calls his people to imitate him):

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82:3-4).

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion– to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor (Isaiah 61:1-3, cf. Luke 4:14-19).

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? (Matthew 5:44-47)

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8).

Some of you might say, “What about the Law? Didn’t God require the Israelites to obey the Law if he was going to bless them?” And to that, I would say, “OK, great. You want to get past the ‘proof texts’ and get into the greater Story.” We must not take the Law out of its context in the Story, nor should we take God’s Covenant blessings and promises outside the context of the Covenant. Remember that the Israelites received the Law (or, Instruction) AFTER God had delivered them out of slavery in Egypt. And as you read the Law, that gracious initiative is always foundational for why the Israelites would WANT to trust and obey their God, why they would WANT to form a community around God’s instruction and wisdom.

Beyond that, I would suggest that the whole biblical Story is that of God’s gracious and undeserved world-saving, community-forming, creation-restoring activity. To illustrate my point, look at how God treats Israel when they disobey and brazenly break the Covenant. If “God only helps those who helps themselves,” Israel would have been out. The pattern of Israel’s relationship with God is Deliverance-Sin-Consequence/Discipline-Repentance-Deliverance. It is the pattern of a God who sticks with his people even when they fail to help themselves.

And the Story of Jesus: it is simply the Story of grace. Born to lowly shepherds and pagans, eating with prostitutes and swindlers, forgiving his executioners, and dying for the worst of sinners.

The first posture of the disciple is not the posture solving, fixing, doing–of helping oneself. It is the posture of prayer: asking, seeking, knocking. When we try to help ourselves first, we are likely to create more problems than we solve. When we turn to God first, we are able to bathe in his grace, freed to live in his wisdom and empowered to join the Spirit in helping others.

So remember, “God helps those who CANNOT help themselves”…and he calls us to do the same.

Posted in Things the Bible Doesn't Say | 1 Comment »

Cringe-Factor: watching what’s wrong with our world (and ourselves)

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Ever since Lauren (my wife) and I got a DVR a month ago (yes, we VHS-recorded shows up until 2012), I’ve become obsessive about not watching commercials. I come up with elaborate schemes by which we can watch the shows we want while never having to channel surf or watch a commercial. You need to know this about me. You also need to know this about Lauren: Lauren enjoys watching The Bachelor. (Sorry honey, I typed it.) Usually, as proof of her love for me, she indulges in this guilty pleasure when I’m not around. But on Monday, when it was time for House, in order to avoid watching commercials, I told Lauren I would watch The Bachelor with her for an hour (only half the show–seriously, two hours might have melted my brain). But here’s the thing: when I watch The Bachelor, I get hooked. Part of it is that this season’s bachelor is a dead ringer for tennis star Rafael Nadal. But generally, I think it’s more the car-wreck syndrome, where I’m encountering something so grotesque and disturbing, I just can’t look away!

As we watched, I got to thinking, “The Bachelor is like a window into what’s wrong with our culture.” That’s good blog material. Hence, the following “Cringe-Factor” list of shows. If you watch these shows, I think you will pretty vividly witness some of our culture’s underlying “sin-themes”: threads of beliefs and behaviors woven through our culture that draw us away from God and the Good News. To be clear: I don’t think these shows are the primary problem. They are simply visible illustrations of how some of these deeply-embedded sin-themes are worked out uniquely in our 2012 American culture. As we read in Ecclesiastes, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

Before we get to the list, a few ground rules for this and potential future “Cringe Factor” posts: 1) This list is not comprehensive, nor will I describe the shows, so if you are unfamiliar with a show, go ahead and look it up, 2) Yes, I am biased and some of those biases will be evident, 3) This is not a “worst shows” list, but shows that I believe provide clear illustrations of common “sin-themes” in our surrounding culture, 4) This is not a command not to watch these shows (that would make me a hypocrite), 5) I’ve chosen some of these shows as representatives for a category, not because that show is particularly worse than others of its kind, 6) These are not the only shows that have “sin issues” (and some have redemptive value), but ones I find most clearly illustrate the sin-theme, 7) While the shows themselves may be trivial, I believe the cultural realities that make these shows attractive to viewers are anything but trivial and have a wide range of effects on people’s lives and spiritual well-being. So without further ado, in no particular order, here is my first “Cringe-Factor” list:

1) The Bachelor(ette): No surprise here. Let’s just look at the stats (feel free to fact check): after 22 seasons, 1 current marriage (season 1), 1 current engagement, 6 break-ups after the show, 12 broken engagements, 2 no-decisions, and lots of public controversy (don’t get me started on Bachelor Pad). Sin-theme 1: the perception that more options = freedom/happiness. From Starbucks to dating shows, we assume that having lots of options (and testing out all those options) will lead to happiness. Obviously, this hasn’t worked so well in the case of this show. Contrasting our glorification of options, the Gospel asks us to commit to one God, one Way, one Life, where we find eternal joy. Sin-theme 2: complete butchering of the term “love.” The show is a picture of how different our culture’s use of the word “love” has strayed from the covenantal, agape love of God described in the Scriptures. The show claims to be an environment for love, which, judging by statistics, it is not. Rather, it is a hot-bed for lust, superficiality, and rivalry. In fact, the show is actually more “successful” (profitable) when there is controversy, fighting, and heartbreak. ABC is more invested in these ratings-grabbers than in promoting lasting commitments. Let’s just say it’s no 1 Corinthians 13.

2) Celebrity Apprentice: I watched a couple seasons of this show, until it lost my interest. But in that time, I considered teaching the Gospel straight from the boardroom scenes (aka, the “You’re fired” scenes). Donald Trump makes clear that what is most valuable on this show is power, self-justification, arrogance, and manipulation–a “win at all costs” attitude. Sin-theme 1: confessing to or taking responsibility for an error is a sign of weakness. This plays out in many more significant areas of our culture, namely politics. Admitting a mistake is political suicide as it will be aired without context over and over, and drudged up time and again by opponents. The Gospel requires us to confess our weakness and sin and seek God’s strength and mercy–in other words, to be honest and humble. Sin-theme 2: results are all that matters; the ends justify the means. The Scriptures tell us to leave the results up to God, and how we play the game is more important than whether we “win” or “lose” in the immediate circumstance.

3) Jersey Shore/Real Housewives: Rarely do I criticize something I have not personally experienced. In this case, I have not seen the shows, but have seen how they are publicized in other television contexts. Sin-theme 1: judgmentalism and self-justification. I believe one of the central reasons we watch certain “reality” shows is so we can feel better about our own lives. ”At least I’m not as dumb, ugly, mean, messed-up… as him/her/them!” We sit back content that we’re “not that bad.” The Gospel calls us away from looking down on others, and to see ourselves as co-participants in sin and co-needers of grace. This is what draws us into humility and purpose. We see that we have our issues too and are able to–in God’s grace–pursue a better vision. Sin-theme 2: de-humanization and exploitation. While “reality” shows might seem to humanize characters, these shows create a zoo-like feel with people in the cage of the television screen. Sure, these people have a choice and get paid, but whatever they receive is never enough to compensate for the dignity they have lost in becoming a cash-cow for some network and a laughingstock for a culture’s enjoyment.

4) Entertainment Tonight: our culture is obsessed with celebrities and their lives. Sin-theme 1: vicarious living. Many of us live vicariously through celebrities because we think our lives are dull and insignificant and because we assume that fame, money, physical beauty, travels, and parties are what make for interesting, signficant lives. Perhaps the way we are living, our lives are dull and insignificant. But the Gospel tells us that we are created in God’s image and can become masterpieces, new creations in Christ’s image. Living the Gospel makes our lives interesting and significant. While we are living our lives vicariously through celebrities, we are missing out on the Gospel’s offer that Jesus’ life can be lived out vicariously through us, the Body of Christ. Sin-theme 2: artificial community. Artificial community happens when we know someone else but they do not know us. We get caught up in events and story lines that, in fact, have no relevance to our lives. All this investment in artificial relationships detracts from real relationships in real community with God and one another. We are called into relationships in which we know and are known, in which we are healed and agents of healing.

5) Extreme Makeover: Home Edition: Yeah, I said it. Again, these are not shows without redeeming value. There’s nothing wrong with getting a little emotional and feeling happy for these families. Just let me point out one theme. Sin-theme 1: marketing love (an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one). Let me put it this way: if ABC weren’t profiting from this show, it would be off the air. Some of these families and communities featured on the show are filled with genuine love. But upstaging those families are a group who is there because they get paid to be there. Ty Pennington and company may be wonderful people, but this show is weak evidence in making that case. More and more, companies are capitalizing on the discovery that charity is marketable. Yet, the Gospel puts self-sacrifice at the heart of love. And Jesus tells us to do our giving in secret without fanfare. Love happens when we are acting out God’s love for us no matter the cost to us and regardless of who is or isn’t watching.

6) Toddlers in Tiaras: I’m just afraid of what would happen if I get going on this one.

Maybe I’m being a curmudgeon. It wouldn’t be the first time. Still, I believe tv can be dangerous. It invites us to passively and uncritically let messages and images soak into our brains and imaginations. I’m not saying “don’t watch these shows” (though it might not be a bad idea). I am urging you to be aware of the themes that your brain is soaking in when you watch. James says one mark of true religion is “to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” This doesn’t necessarily mean avoidance of the world, but it does require awareness of these sin-themes. In that sense, some of these shows may actually be helpful in bringing to light some of the underlying forces that keep us and our culture from receiving the full blessing of the Gospel. So when you watch a show with the “Cringe Factor,” humbly pray for God to show you how that sin-theme might have worked its way into your life, and ask how you can be a shining light for others who are struggling in the dark places of our world.

But seriously, 2 hours of The Bachelor might melt your brain

Posted in Cultural Trends, TV and Movies | 5 Comments »

State of the Union: my thoughts

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

This past Tuesday, all my favorite shows were cancelled thanks to the State of the Union (SOTU) being aired on every channel. So I just hunkered down and watched/listened. (I’m kidding about the tone–I like that networks do their best to get you to watch the SOTU, because it is important.) Here are some of my thoughts on the whole affair.

Introductory Thoughts:

1. Cards on the table: I consider myself a theological conservative and a political moderate/independent, though I do find myself leaning left more often than leaning right. I have this nasty tendency to see wisdom and folly in both “sides,” which makes it quite difficult for me to come out and make a decision when voting time comes around.

2. I approach political speeches with great cynicism. I know that everything about the SOTU is carefully calculated using market-based research and principles. As one of my pastor friends likes to say, “It’s hard to find the person behind the ideology,” or in this case “behind the crafted, vote-seeking presentation.” This is not a commentary on President Obama as much as our current political scene. (There was one entertaining moment of apparent spontaneity–when the audience was caught completely off-guard by one of the only jokes in the speech and Obama responded sheepishly to the crickets. And by the way, I love that they panned to Michelle; I get that face all the time at home!)

The minuses:

1. Call me unpatriotic, but I always get concerned when there is a lot of “America is the best” or “America needs to be the best” talk going on. Statements like this, for example: “Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.” Is that true? What does he mean by leveling the playing field? It seems to me like you can pursue global justice or American economic/military superiority, but you cannot honestly serve both of those masters. Not all the blame falls on the President. There is this false notion going around that says to love one’s country means to think one’s country is the best in the world. It’s simply not true, and we ought to beware such language before a God who regards nations as nothing in his sight and who opposes the proud.

2. From whence they come? There were a lot of programs that the President laid out that I think would work. But a number of times, he mentioned the importance of rewards/incentives for businesses who stay in the U.S., for the best teachers, for kids who go to college, etc. A couple times, the President alluded to some ideas for funding these incentives. But there are still a lot of big question marks in my mind of how we materially encourage (bribe?) people to do the right thing while also making a dent in a ginormous debt. In another instance, the President gave a great line that got me excited coming from a family of educators: “Give [schools] the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.” Preach it! But then this thought: If you are not going to evaluate teachers by standardized test results (a good thing) and you are going to reward the best teachers and weed out the ineffective ones (I suppose a good thing), how are you going to determine who gets rewarded and who gets booted? The President brings up a great issue. But how do we implement this in a fair way? And does the federal government really have the ability to accomplish this?

The pluses:

1. Specificity and purpose. While one commentator afterward called the speech a “laundry list,” I appreciated the President’s specific discussion of a variety of issues and what he sees needing to be done. During his 2008 campaign, I thought he was rightly criticized for giving speeches that were more cheerleading than clear on issues. But on this night, he simply said, “Here are the issues that need to be addressed. Here are the ways I see us best addressing them.” I liked that.

2. Inspiring and encouraging leadership. The President said a number of times to his congress, “Send me _____, and I’ll sign it right away.” First, let me qualify this: I realize that this refrain may have been intended to pass the buck for lack of effectiveness in the administration so far and blame congress for any future ineffectiveness. That said, as I listened, I found myself all excited to sign up for one of these committees. I think it’s great for a leader to say, “This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Here is a vision for how we can do it. Now get creative and let’s make it happen!” Perhaps this is just my moderate naievete that we should be able to get together and work for the good of the country. So sue me, I liked it.

In conclusion, I enjoyed the President’s conclusion. He told us we needed to be more like the Navy SEALs who raided the bin Laden compound. ”All that mattered that day was the mission.” This is a concept we need to grasp as churches as well to battle our divisiveness (John Armstrong calls it “missional ecumenism“). But what is our mission as a nation? The SEALs had a very clear mission, which was why they could unite around it. But how does that apply to a nation?

What do you think? What were your thoughts about the President’s address? What do you think is our national purpose or mission, around which we can unite?

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments »

Don’t Hate, Integrate!

Thursday, January 19, 2012

I know you’ve all been sitting at your computers for the last 3 weeks just wondering, “When is Pastor Jon going to post a new blog?!” Well, in those 3 weeks, I’ve been doing a couple things: 1) Pondering whether or not tongue-in-cheek comes through in blogging, and 2) Spending a week in Tampa, FLA with other young clergy participating in a training program. This was the first of four trips to Tampa I will undertake over the next four years for training in different aspects of pastoral leadership. The basis for this first week was “Family Systems Theory” (FST), a way of understanding human behavior developed by Murray Bowen. In essence, the idea is that we are not best understood as isolated individuals, but as parts of the various systems in which we function (ie. family, workplace, faith community). After a week of being immersed in this theory, I’ve got a lot of stuff packed into my brain that I’m still processing through. But rather than talk about FST, I want to spend this blog talking about the processing…process called “Integration.” Integration is an idea that I believe is essential to the Christian call to live “in the world, but not of the world.”

You see, Murray Bowen was not a Christian (as far as I know), whose theory was not intentionally connected to Christianity in any way. One of the questions I kept asking and discussing with my colleagues in Tampa was, “How does (or doesn’t) this fit with the Gospel, with the call of the Church, and with our call as pastors?” In our culture–more than any other culture in history, dare I say–we are confronted with all kinds of information, theories, and ideas. We are constantly filtering all of this input into what seems true and what doesn’t. This filtering is done both consciously and subconsciously. We are deciding what should be “integrated” into our worldviews and lives and what should be discarded or even actively opposed. As humans, we cannot avoid this process of integration and rejection. There are things that are true (accurate to reality) or helpful to our goals and things that are false (inaccurate) and unhelpful.

As I said in my introductory first blog post, “The purpose of this blog is based on a very simple assumption: Christians are called to think differently about life.” There are things that we must say “Yes” to and things we must say “No” to in life. Naturally, we fall back on making these decisions thoughtlessly, just going with flow of our bodily impulses or the culture around us. But as Christians, we are commanded, “Do not conform any longer to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Thus, we are called to engage the Integration process thoughtfully, comparing whatever new information we are presented with to what we believe already and to reality. The goal of Integration is that we would be, well, integrated. By that I mean that we are not saying “Yes” to ideas or beliefs that utterly contradict each other (contradiction is different from mystery and paradox) and that our beliefs and behaviors seem to fit with each other. The letter of 1 John is a great example of a call to integration: “We love because he first loved us [integrated]. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen [disintegrated]. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister [integrated].”

Integration is a word I actually learned while in seminary with my wife, who is a counselor. For students to become licensed, they had to learn–as students in any psychology grad school–theories from Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Carl Rogers, and B.F. Skinner. But as a Christian seminary, psychology students also had to take a course called “Integration.” Every theory–especially in psychology–makes assumptions about the nature of human beings, the role of God, methods of healing, and what is ultimately best for people. These assumptions are going to be very different for a Christian than for someone (like Freud) who is clearly opposed or indifferent to Christianity. The integration question in this context is, “What insights did Sigmund Freud have that fit my understanding of reality, what of his theories do not, and what insights might actually seem true enough to replace some of my existing beliefs?”

As I mentioned in my post on Harry Potter, it is far easier to wholly accept or reject someone’s ideas. It is more difficult to engage the process of Integration–more difficult, but also more Christian (in my opinion). So briefly, here are some principles I employ when I am engaged in the mental process of Integration.

Humility and Honesty. To engage the Integration process, I have to acknowledge that I don’t know it all. I also have to be able let the new information challenge my assumptions and beliefs. A number of times, I have received a new bit of information that has challenged what I “know” about the Gospel and the Bible, only to go back to the Scriptures and have them opened up in a new way. Not many of us would say, “I’ve got it all figured out,” yet many of us live in a way that says, “Don’t you dare challenge my beliefs and assumptions!” Jesus faced the most opposition from people who would not let their understandings of God and faith be challenged, even by…well…God himself.
General and Special Revelation. These doctrines have been quite enlightening to me. Basically, they indicate that even though someone might not be engaging Jesus and the Scriptures in faith (special revelation), that doesn’t mean that they have no way of discovering truth. God has given all humans access to some level of truth through the creation, interactions with people, and life experiences (general revelation). In other words, we should not be surprised if Sigmund Freud or the Buddha or Stephen Hawking or John Lennon are actually making true insights into the world. As the saying goes, “All truth is God’s truth.” Of course we are going to find true insights in other religions because they are living in the same world, learning from trial and error like everyone else. Of course people who look closely at humanity and the natural world are going to gain true insights. As Christians, we can learn from some of these basic insights, while also knowing that God has chosen to reveal himself in a more full and relational (special) way in the Scriptures and in Jesus. Integration allows people–even people who may not know or love God at all–to help us check our blindspots and drive us back to God in our search for love, truth, and wisdom.
Seeing the problem vs. Having a solution. This is a big one for me. I am constantly awed at how insightful non-Christians can be into the human condition. The best and most honest comedians, poets, musicians, and journalists are intimately aware of–in Christian terms–human sin and cosmic brokenness. They are intimately aware of our deep needs and our quest for hope. To put it more simply: they are intimately aware that something is wrong. A couple years ago, I read Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. There is much I find appalling in Rand’s philosophy of how things should be, but there is much I find prophetic in Rand’s perception of our human and societal condition. I believe Jesus and his Gospel work are God’s solution to the problem. Yet, while I am left unsatisfied with the ways the Buddha or Ayn Rand or Sigmund Freud would seek to solve our problems, I think we can gain some insight from them into the problems that need to be solved.

It is easy to hate and reject information that makes us think or challenges our assumptions. But such knee-jerk reactions keep us 1) from the general revelation insights we might learn from others, 2) from developing a spirit of humility and openness, and 3) from being able to connect and interact meaningfully with anyone who is not “like us.” Integration can be a rigorous process. But it is one that is essential if we are going to live in this world in a meaningful way while also being transformed by God’s Spirit. This is just some introduction to the idea of Integration. I hope you can see the process at work in some of my other blog posts and maybe you can even practice applying it when you read, see, or hear some new bit of information. Don’t hate, Integrate!

Posted in About the blog, Philosophy and Engagement | 1 Comment »

Holidays and Holy Days

Friday, December 30, 2011

We are almost to the end of the “Holidays” as we celebrate them in our American culture. Typically, this season begins with Thanksgiving, moves through Christmas Eve/Day and culminates in New Year’s Eve/Day. Yes, I know the holiday season seems to be expanding faster than Santa’s belt after all those Christmas Eve cookies, but let’s just keep it simple for the moment. The inspiration for this article came a couple years ago as I was reading about the spiritual discipline of Celebration. Because I tend to be a fairly task-oriented, forward-looking person, I am someone who needs times to stop and celebrate the ways God has blessed me. The discipline of Celebration really resonated with me. And I thought to myself, “It would be great to have some people over for a meal and time of sharing with each other and thanking God for the ways he has blessed us over the past year.” I started to think that this idea sounded rather familiar. If you’re a little quicker than me, you’re already shouting at your computer screen, “That’s Thanksgiving!” Well just calm down! Because eventually I got there too. But here’s my question: Is that what we really do on Thanksgiving?

“Holiday” is such a common word that we don’t often consider what it literally means. Not surprisingly, it is a mash-up of “Holy Day.” “Holy,” most basically, indicates something or someone “set apart,” usually for a specific purpose. So, a holiday is essentially a day set apart for some specific purpose. Thanksgiving is certainly a different day, a day set apart for a specific purpose. But what is it that we have set it apart for? In my mind, I wanted a day or meal set apart for conversation about God’s blessings, the ways God has moved in our lives in material, emotional, relational, and spiritual ways. What we typically mean when we talk about the Thanksgiving “Holiday” is a day set apart for family and lots of food. Certainly those are not bad things, but it is not what I was yearning for as I learned about the discipline of Celebration.

Or take Christmas: a day “set apart” for remembering the wonder and beauty of God’s Incarnation, that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Yet, when people asked me, “How was your Christmas?” my first reaction was to tell them about spending time with my family, how my daughter enjoyed opening her presents, and about our travels over the past weekend (and I’m a pastor!). Yes, perhaps we set apart an hour or so on Christmas Eve to worship, but that’s not quite a holy DAY. Rather, the big setting apart was–again–for family and food, mostly engaged in without much thought to worship, Jesus, Incarnation, or God saving the world.

And then there’s the New Year. While this is not normally considered a religious holiday, it is another day we “set apart.” I think that many of us actually use the New Year holiday better than we do Thanksgiving and Christmas. It is a transition day, a time to look back at the previous year and ahead to a new year. If you read blogs, scan the newspaper, or watch tv, you will find lots of people looking back. There are lots of “Best/Biggest _____ of 2011″ specials and articles. This can be really valuable stuff: wrapping up a year, summarizing it to learn where we have come. In Ordering Your Private World, Gordon MacDonald speaks of the importance of “closing the loop.“ We need closure, and the New Year holiday is a natural time to do that. We are also famous for making (and breaking) New Year’s Resolutions. While we obviously don’t do this well, at least we are taking time to think ahead and envision a different future for ourselves. We all need time to reflect and imagine. That is what the New Year holiday can be set apart for.

This blog is not intended to bemoan anything, but rather to encourage us to take the idea of a “Holy Day” seriously. God commanded Israel to set apart days, weeks, and even years for specific purposes. We like the idea of having “Christmas in our hearts all year,” but as human beings, God knows that we need specific times to focus and return to him and to the life to which he has called us. Israel had days set apart to remember God’s deliverance (Passover), celebrate God’s mercy (Yom Kippur), thank God for his provision (similar to our Thanksgiving), and even a day to lament (see Lamentations), not to mention Sabbath and Jubilee days and years.

Maybe for you, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year are all lost to other purposes and traditions. Regardless, we Christians need the practices of remembrance, reflection, celebration, thanksgiving, and envisioning that these days represent. So whether it is on January 1st or January 4th, I encourage you to take time to think about what 2011 was for you, where you saw God moving, how his Good News came alive in your life or the lives of others around you. And I encourage you to ask God to help you imagine what 2012 might be: ways God might be moving to transform your character, open up opportunities for you to use your gifts, or live out God’s peace, love, hope, and joy more fully. And then ask God to do it with you and guide you to a community that can support, encourage, and challenge you in that vision.

I hope you enjoy the end of your “Holidays” and discover the value of Holy Days in 2012.

Posted in Cultural Trends | 1 Comment »

Occupy Pastor Jon’s Blog

Friday, December 9, 2011

OK, so I’m showing up to this party about 3 months late. I never was a cutting-edge type of guy. Occupy Wall Street has been going on since September 17 in NYC and in that time has become quite a movement all over the country, even here in Toledo. I don’t mind not being on the cutting edge, though, because sometimes “cutting edge” simply is a euphemism for “speaking before you think.” The more I have researched the Occupy movement, after 3 months I’m still not sure that it isn’t too soon to draw any conclusions. So instead, I’ll use this space as a chance to share some of what I have discovered and offer a few of my initial reactions as I hold the Occupy movement up to the light of the Gospel Story. First, my discoveries:

1) Occupy is different from what we normally think of when we hear “protest.” As the Occupy Toledo website distinguishes, “A protest is at first antagonism. An occupation is at first COMMUNITY. A protest is defined by opposition. An occupation is defined by PRESENCE. A protest is singular. An occupation is MULTITUDE.” The movement is seeking to be different not just in policy but in practice. So, instead of trying to garner votes for or against a particular issue/party/candidate, the Occupy movement is advocating a different way of organizing society. And the individual occupations seek to function in that different way: sans authority, sans private ownership, sans any set-in-stone political agenda.

2) People aren’t quite sure how to respond to the Occupy movement. It would be easier to respond if they had a set of demands or if there were a designated leader or if there were a clear audience (ie. state/federal legislators, corporate CEOs, the American public, the judicial system). Certainly there are implications of what the movement is generally saying for most, if not all of these. But we’re better at responding to something concrete with a yes or no than to what Occupy is offering.

3) There are a few popular “proposals” that are being spoken. One of the most prominent would be debt forgiveness–allusions to a biblical “Jubilee”–as a way of evening the playing field and starting fresh. The claim is that there is so much debt (individually and even nationally), that there are only a small handful of people who are not in debt to anyone–experiencing financial “freedom.” This is not a sustainable of just situation regardless of the causes of the debt, and thus it needs to be changed.

4) The movement is seeking to be as genuinely democratic as possible. This is one of the reasons that there has been great hesitancy in designating leaders or a specific agenda. That is not to say there are not some key idea people who have greatly–if mostly anonymously–influenced the movement. But this is to say that the movement has sought to be extremely dialogical, conversational, and inclusive of as many people’s grievances and suggestions as agree with their foundational goals. They are trying to listen to people whose voices seem to be largely ignored by policy-makers and corporate leaders.

So while these are some very cursory insights I have gained into the Occupy movement, let me now share a couple of the things I have observed. These are not necessarily original to me.

1) The Occupy movement and the Tea Party have some distinct similarities in spite of appearing to be polar opposites. It is true that the Occupiers tend to want government to step in to regulate businesses in order to create a more just system while Tea Partiers tend to want government to step out of regulating businesses in order to create a more just system. Yet, the more I read on the Occupiers, the more I see them–like the Tea Partiers–wanting a system that tends to be more locally oriented than federally oriented. In the Torah (Old Testament Law) and the New Testament Church, most of the economic laws and practices assume a relational, small community–at least compared to the U.S. Both groups recognize that economies function best (most justly) when they are small and relational and that one of the biggest problems we have right now is that our economies are not just nationally, but globally intertwined. Without the possibility of relationship with those we are buying from and selling to, it makes the biblical economic principle of compassion difficult to follow. Odd, but the Tea Party and Occupy movements each see the same problem and share the goal of a more locally-driven economic system. And I agree: while globalization may allow many of us to get more things more cheaply, I find it very difficult to see any lasting, just, healthy, or compassionate solution that does not involve some sort of re-localization of the system.

2) One of the questions we have to ask any movement is, “Who are you trusting?” For the Tea Party, the clear answer seems to be “the Market.” They mistrust government and are putting their faith in capitalism to take care of things. For the Occupy movement, the question is a little more complicated. They are obviously mistrusting “the Market,” largely based on the greed and indefensible inequality they see in corporate leaders. But does that mean they are trusting the government? Well, perhaps. I suppose they believe the government might step in and do some regulation or help out in redistributing some wealth (a term I do not use pejoratively). But perhaps they are really trusting the people or a pure democracy. As David Graeber (one of Occupy’s key idea guys) reasons, “If democracy is to mean anything it is the ability to all agree to arrange things in a different way.” I think they believe that since our current system seems to pretty much be a human development, if they capture people’s imaginations, they are quite capable of developing a new system. So the idea that their lack of focus or political agenda is self-sabotage may be a bit short-sighted. The goal is not to work within the system to alter the system, but to collectively create a new system. This is what many people seem to be missing, and why Chris Hedges senses, “This is a goal the power elite cannot comprehend.” In some sense, this approach is quite Christian: aim at people’s hearts, capture their imaginations, and invite them to join in in a new way of doing life. It is based on vision and invitation before policy and legislation. On the other hand…

3) No matter how inclusive any movement claims or tries to be, there is always an underlying worldview, a Story that drives it. The Occupy movement does share with the Scriptures a concern for the poor, the voiceless, and the helpless. The Occupy movement does share a Christ-commanded commitment to non-violence (yes, like all human movements, we should expect slip-ups). In fact, the Occupiers may be far more influenced by Christianity than many of them would care to admit. There is much, I believe, that Christians can affirm in the Occupy movement. As Jim Wallis writes, “When they stand with the poor, they stand with Jesus.” Yes, the movement borrows from pieces of the Christian vision. No, it is not a Christian movement at heart. As much as our trust is in anything other than God’s New Creation process, we are at best settling and at worst doing something spiritually dangerous, replacing one kind of sinful system with another. More on that here…

4) I think the big question that arises for me is, “If the Occupy movement (somehow) succeeds in bringing down the ‘system,’ will they have the foundation of character and commitment to actually replace it with something better?” As Jesus says, sometimes casting out one demon merely makes space for more and worse ones to enter in. One dangerous scenario that we face individually and any reform movement faces is the tendency to get caught up in the “others’” sin without owning our own sin. If the Occupy movement gains power and influence, how will that power affect the character of their movement? The fear of wealth redistribution is whether we can actually trust the middleman, the re-distributor. Again, Jesus never tells us to trust humanity. We should hold a healthy skepticism as much as we believe that we are all susceptible to the power of temptation and sin. So I am wary of those who jump in and embrace a movement like Occupy wholeheartedly and place their hope for transformation and new creation there.

So what is a Christian to do? Well, let me humbly and hesitantly suggest that I think it is important for Christians to engage the Occupy movement in a positive way. First, we are called to see where God is at work and join him there. I certainly don’t agree with every idea or practice of the Occupy movement (if this is even possible!). But our job is not just to participate in things initiated by the Church, but to join where God is at work. There is enough going on in the Occupy movement that seeks to stand for the poor and stand up to injustice that it is at least worth amplifying those parts of the movement that are picking up God’s voice. Second, it is important for the Church to engage the Occupy movement–and I say this as humbly as I can–because they need us. Christians have been given a truly wonderful vision of what God is doing in this world and how he is doing it. If there is hope for a new movement of justice, compassion, and reconciliation, that hope comes from God’s initiation of that work. The Scriptures tell us that God is blessing the world through a people who put their trust in him and cry out to him, not through people who try to do it on their own. That is our Story, and we can live out that Story among the Occupiers. As I have mentioned above, the Occupy movement also needs to be called to humility and confession. Someone needs to affirm that there is great sin in our systems, but the biblical Story is very clear that we all participate in sin. Our sin that may seem small in comparison to the system’s sin, but only until we are given the opportunity to continue in those sinful patterns on a larger scale. An arrogant revolution is a dangerous revolution.

Only time will tell whether the Occupy movement is just a flash-in-the-pan or a lasting and growing force in our culture. As Christians, our calling remains the same regardless: to be the Body of Christ, God’s representatives in this world, partakers in a radical kind of life, seekers of justice, and proclaimers of true hope. If the Occupy movement joins us in part of that, let’s be grateful for that. More on Occupy soon here at the blog. And if you’d like, join Pastor Luke Lindon and I as we Occupy Nautica Coffee in Mayberry Plaza on Tuesday, December 13th at 7pm, where we will be discussing further the Occupy movement. We’ll discuss some of the questions I’ve posed in this blog and many more.

Articles, websites, and blogs:

http://occupywallst.org/– Occupy website

http://www.sojo.net/blogs/2011/10/05/occupywallstreet-helpful-links–links to info on the Occupy movement and historical context

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/distribution-of-wealth/–some analysis of statistics related to the 99% number

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485 and http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/where-do-you-fall-on-the-income-curve/–some recent research on how distribution of wealth has changed over the past 30 years

http://www.sojo.net/press/occupy-wall-street-christians-debate-if-jesus-would-occupy-protesters–Jim Wallis an his thoughts on whether the Occupy movement has some “Christian” character

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_the_elites_are_in_trouble_20111009/–a Occupy is being underestimated by the “elites” as well as an insider’s account of what goes on and how it developed

http://www.jesusradicals.com/we-need-a-confessing-movement/–a call for protesters to acknowledge their own sin even as they hold others accountable

http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/is-it-time-for-evangelicals-to-join-occupy-wall-street/–discussing how evangelicals can/should engage the Occupy movement based on 3 Christ-like aspects to Occupy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-john/the-occupation-of-the-lor_b_1119252.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false&fb_source=message#undefined

Posted in Cultural Trends, Politics, Social Justice, World Events | No Comments »

The Battle for Christmas

Friday, December 2, 2011

Do you ever notice a theme that seems to be converging from a bunch of different areas in your life? This week, I was writing my article for the December church newsletter and then came across this article via facebook (which I strongly encourage you to read–especially the end). And now that my pre-Thanksgiving ban on Christmas music and watching Christmas commercials has been lifted, I am fully in the paradox that is the Christmas season in America.

If it weren’t for the wondrous beauty of the Incarnation, Christmas in the U.S. could be pretty depressing as a Christian. There are so many things we associate with Christmas that run the gamut from odd (“Grandma Got Ran Over by a Reindeer”? Really?) to incongruent (Black Friday mobs) to just plain offensive (find your own example). Perhaps one of the most upsetting parts of the Christmas season to me, however, is the way Christians conduct themselves. This runs the gamut from total assimilation to cultural versions of Christmas (lots of shopping, busyness, no focus on Jesus) to utterly misrepresenting the whole point of Christmas in the name of protecting Christmas. Towards the latter end of this gamut is the barrage of facebook posts, yard signs, etc. that declare one’s intention to reject “politically correct” holiday greetings (ie. “Happy Holidays”) in favor of the more “traditional” “Merry Christmas.” In the article linked above, “The Fat Pastor” talks about why “Happy Holidays” is a perfectly acceptable greeting for Christians to use, but I want to go a step further and make a case that it may actually be the “more Christian” way to greet a stranger during this season.

I’ll start my case with what Christmas is all about. I don’t agree with “The Fat Pastor” that Christmas is a relatively minor part of Christianity. Perhaps the day itself, but certainly not the Incarnation, that God was “enfleshed” in Jesus. This is truly a striking theological statement. As Paul writes in Philippians, “[Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” This description of the Christmas moment is filling out Paul’s call to Christians: “Your attitude should be the same as Christ Jesus.” So, to sum up, Christmas is about God lovingly humbling himself and sacrificing comfort and ease to meet us where we are by identifying with us so that he can serve us, and we are supposed to follow that example.

Now, someone please tell me in what way saying, “Merry Christmas!” to a person who is Jewish, Muslim, atheist, or even ignorant of Christianity is following the example of Jesus. How is that identifying with them, serving them, helping them to know God’s love for them, or sacrificing for them? What I hear Christians insisting is, “It’s my right!” which is exactly what the Incarnation is opposed to. Jesus does not grasp onto his rights or prerogatives as God, but lets them go. He rejects rights-thinking in favor of love-thinking.

Surely some will say, “I’m not going to be ashamed of my faith. I’m a Christian, and we’re supposed to boldly proclaim the Gospel! We shouldn’t hide out of fear or shame.” I hope you see that foregoing “Merry Christmas” need not be an act of fear or shame, but of love. Not to mention that saying, “Merry Christmas” is hardly proclaiming the Gospel. Proclaiming the Gospel in love requires knowing something about the one(s) to whom you are preaching it: understanding their worldview, assumptions, and beliefs and seeking their good, none of which really applies to a random person at the store.

Finally, some will argue, “But our culture is taking Christ out of Christmas. They’re defiling our holiday.” To which I would say, “We kind of took over someone else’s holiday first.” We ought to beware of judging others lest the same standards of judgment be turned back on us.

Friends, we do not need to win any battle for the culture. As has been said about the battle for prayer in public schools, “Maybe we should focus on getting prayer back in our churches first.” And of the battle for the 10 Commandments, “Maybe we should be able to at least list the 10 Commandments ourselves.” I say of the battle to keep Christ in Christmas, “Maybe we should focus on putting Christ at the center of our lives first.” Have the same loving, sacrificial, humble approach as Jesus had. And be prepared with an answer when someone asks you what reason you have for such hope this time of year or any time.

“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” 1 Peter 3:15

Posted in Cultural Trends, Religion in the news | 1 Comment »

Getting Our Stories Straight

Friday, November 11, 2011

I guess for those of us who are into sports, the obvious topic for this blog would have been the scandal at Penn State. But for now, just one quick comment: we’ve had lots of college student protests in the news this year captured by iPhones and the like. Just take a moment and contrast the “Arab Spring” protests where many young people in northern Africa and the Middle East gathered to speak out against oppressive political regimes and the Penn State students who gathered to speak out (violently at times) against the firing of a football coach who took part in covering up the sexual abuse of children. Priorities, anyone? That’s all I have to say about that…for now.

What I decided to focus on this week were a couple of related election-week experiences I had. I’ll tell you the separate stories as they happened.

On Wednesday, I came across a friend’s Facebook posting of this article on a new “Christmas Tree tax.” As you can see in the article, the author is incredulous that the Obama administration is “imposing” a new 15-cent tax on all Christmas trees sold by major tree farms (sales of >500 trees/year) in order to boost the public image of Christmas trees. The tax gained ridicule from conservatives and eventually was put on hold. The impression I got from listening to soundbytes and reading headlines and blogs were that this tax was 1) some new thing from Obama and his tax-addicted administration, 2) a unilateral decision by the government picking on Christmas tree farmers, and 3) a way for the government to gain some revenue for its programs. At this point, I thought to myself, “Hmm, maybe there’s more to the story.” And guess what? There was! I came across this article, which clarified some of the process going into the tax proposal. Apparently, a group of Christmas tree farmers have taken a hit with the prevalence of artificial trees, realized they didn’t have the resources as individuals to do much marketing, and approached the administration about this tax program, which would be the latest in a series of similar programs (eg. “Got Milk?” “Beef: it’s what’s for dinner” and “Pork: the other white meat”). Now, do I think these are places the government should step in? Not really. I think a little collaboration and ingenuity among the concerned Christmas tree farmers is more appropriate. But it is clear that this is not 1) some new concoction to tax people by a socialist regime, 2) a straight-up “imposition” by the government on poor farmers, or 3) a way for the government to gain revenue for an unrelated program (ie. Obamacare). That’s story 1.

Story 2 occurred on Thursday. I was listening to a (quite liberal) radio show discussing SB 137, an anti-bullying bill passed by the Michigan State Senate last week. The issue at hand was not the anti-bullying part of the bill, but an insertion that Republicans in the state senate made. According to the show, it sounded like the Republicans had put in a clause letting people off the hook if their bullying is based on a religious belief or moral conviction. You can see some of the criticism in this article. This seemed pretty odd to me (even for Republicans…), so I thought to myself, “Hmm, maybe there’s more to the story.” And guess what? There was! I decided to just read the bill. It’s mostly a bill requiring school districts to create and enforce thorough anti-bullying legislation. The controversial addition by Senate Republicans goes like this: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.” Let me say that I am grateful for the anti-bullying bill and the increased attention being paid to bullying. Bullying was never a good thing, but is a whole new beast with social media and cell phones. It is dangerous and it should be addressed by schools (and churches, and workplaces, etc.). That said, however, I agree with the inserted clause. It does not justify or excuse bullying. Critics believe it will make the bullying policies difficult to enforce. Guess what? Life is messy and a bullying policy isn’t going to fix all the problems. But there is a difference between stating a belief that something is wrong and bullying someone. Sadly, it is a distinction our culture is increasingly unable to make. That is why the clause is necessary. And though some bullies will certainly try to use it as an excuse for their bullying as some critics say, that is not what this clause is about. That’s story 2.

I hope my literary clues have led you to the connection between these two stories. In Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort, Bishop describes and laments the way Americans are increasingly able and willing to adopt a “tribal” lifestyle. We can easily design our lives so that the journalists, newscasters, preachers, and friends we interact with are all telling us what we want to hear, reinforcing our beliefs, telling us the side of the story that will confirm our preconceived notions. The problem is this: rarely do stories have one side. That’s not to say that there is no right or wrong. That is to say that before we form an opinion, vote, or plan of action, we should have as much of the story as we can. I think this is generally a good policy. But as Christians, I believe the biblical Story gives us even more motivation to get our stories straight…

Truth-speaking. God does not and cannot lie. Which means that if we are to reflect God accurately (function as God’s image), we must be truth-speakers, “speaking the truth in love.” Truth-speaking is not just accurately relaying some facts, but doing our best to convey the whole story. For instance, if we tell people that God is just and holy, but leave out that he is loving and forgiving (or vice versa), we are certainly guilty of misrepresenting God and have failed to lead people into Truth. Aren’t we just as much responsible for accurately representing other people? In both of the examples above, I had to go to at least two different sources to put together the whole story. If we only represent the “liberal” or “conservative” version of the story in conversation or Facebook post or radio show, can we really say we are speaking truth in love? If we only mention parts of the story that spotlight the “socialist agenda” of President Obama or the insensitivity of Republicans in the Michigan state senate, isn’t that pretty close to slander, libel, or gossip depending on the medium? Half-story-telling is not compatible with being truth-speakers.
Truth-seeking. In order to be truth-speakers–in this day and age–we must be truth-seekers. This means being aware of the signs that we are only getting one side of the story. In fact, maybe we should just assume it when it comes to news channels, blogs (except my own, of course ), radio programs, and politics. Turn off the people paid to get ratings by being divisive and controversial. Turn on the people from both sides who are making thoughtful arguments for the good of the order. Fine, watch FoxNews or MSNBC, but then consult the other before you have a conversation with your like-minded friends. And if you don’t have time to do some truth-seeking, there is a plethora of biblical wisdom about holding your tongue.
Truth-seeing. The biblical Story gives us some good principles to check the filters through which we are understanding the world. For instance, the Scriptures tell us that all human beings are a) created in the image of God and b) fallen into sin. Our vision is out-of-whack when we only see the image of God in “our people” and only see evil and sin in “them.” We need to be disciplined in applying these doctrines across the board. The doctrine of the “Image” should make us think twice before we accept that Republicans are pro-bullying. The doctrine of Sin should give us a healthy skepticism about whether President Obama is really a tax-addicted dictator just because my favorite news station is painting that picture. Again, there are right and wrong, good and evil, but truth-seeing means we respect the Image enough to consider that the “others” might be good and right and Sin enough to consider the possibility that I and my side are are just as susceptible to evil and wrongness.
Healing and Reconciliation. Accepting the first side of the story we hear is not the way to healing and reconciliation, two things God is pretty into. These gospel goals are made difficult by the lack of #1-3. The more we misrepresent others, refuse to listen to the other side, and neglect the biblical call to respect and self-awareness, the harder unity and peace become. As Christians, we have been given the ministry of reconciliation. If we continue to surround ourselves with people who reinforce the goodness and rightness of our current way of thinking and the evil and wrongness of anyone we already disagree with, there is no hope of transformation, something else God happens to be pretty into.

Here’s the message: As Christians, who are called to worship in Spirit and in Truth, who follow the One who calls himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life, who are indwelt by the Spirit of Truth, there is no part of our lives where we can settle for less than Truth. Our political landscape makes it easy to do just that. So this is one of the opportunities we have to be stars in a dark sky: as truth-speakers, truth-seekers, and truth-seers for the sake of healing and reconciliation wherever God has placed us.

Posted in Cultural Trends, Politics | 2 Comments »

Things the Bible Doesn’t Say

Friday, October 28, 2011

As a pastor, I have a lot of conversations with people on Sunday mornings, not to mention the continuous conversation going on in my own head: “What are the Words of Institution again? Why isn’t the powerpoint working? Why didn’t I use the restroom before the service started?” So it takes a lot for me to remember a Sunday morning conversation I had two years ago after a worship service. A congregant came up to me and asked, “Could you please show me in the Bible where it says, ‘God only helps those who help themselves? I have a lazy family member who needs to hear that, and he’ll listen if it’s from the Bible.’” Patiently–and much to the chagrin of this congregant–I explained that this particular quote is not in the Bible. I told her there were scriptures that spoke to the value and calling to work, but that I wasn’t really into giving people biblical ammunition for their predetermined arguments to bring the hammer down on their opponent. OK, maybe I didn’t say it quite like that, but you get the picture.

There are lots of things the Bible doesn’t say, which is one thing. There are a number of things that many people assume, think, or wish the Bible said that it doesn’t, which is a whole other thing. It’s these common ‘additions’ to the biblical text I’m going to examine in this sporadic series. Every so often, I’ll take on one of these sub-biblical nuggets of gospel truthiness. Many of them have hints of biblical wisdom, but either end before the whole story has been told or take a sharp turn away from the Bible’s message.

Where do these misquotations come from? Well, it varies.

1) Cultural proverbs: every culture has its proverbs or “words of wisdom.” The Western world has been significantly shaped by Christianity and the Bible, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t come up with some of our own brand of proverbs. With all the Bible quotes circulating in our culture, it can be easy to just lump all proverb-sounding phrases into biblical phrases. (This, I think, is the case with “God only helps those who help themselves,” but we’ll save that for another time.)

2) The cliche-ification of faith: This stems, admittedly, from pastors like myself. We try to distill a biblical lesson down into catchy, memorable phrases, and suddenly they become biblical. Instead of reading and memorizing Scripture, people base their faith on cliches. Now, I’m not against the practice of communicating in memorable ways, but oftentimes the quote is taken out of the lesson it was intended to sum up and takes on a life of its own.

3) Wishful thinking: combined with #1, sometimes we hear something we really want to be true and then canonize it. We wish these quotes right into the Bible.

4) Selective listening: sometimes we have a situation in our lives to which we have a pre-determined response, whether it is out of our own preferred solution or what we see as the only viable solution. We then hear a biblical message or text that sounds kind of like what we were already going for, and BAM! we’ve created our own Bible verse.

5) Historical layering: again, we live in a culture that for centuries has been filled with Christians interpreting, communicating, and creating art to depict the biblical Story. Which is great in some ways (thank God for Handel’s Messiah, no?). Except sometimes we too quickly assume that the interpretation or artistic rendering are accurate in every detail to the biblical text. For today’s focus of “Things the Bible Doesn’t Say,” I’ll give you one example of this last category that many of you probably already know.

The Bible doesn’t say that Adam and Eve ate an apple. The text simply says “fruit.” I suppose it could have been an apple, and I don’t think anyone is really missing out on the point of the text by assuming the fruit was an apple. But still, where do we get an apple? Possibly from a Latin play on words in which
the word for evil and apple are practically the same (if this is the origin, it would be a good example of #2 as well). It ended up being an apple in John Milton’s 1667 epic Paradise Lost (which contributes more to how many people think of the Fall story than Genesis 3 does), and was frequently depicted as an apple in Renaissance art. All of a sudden, all the images of the Fall we see have apples in them, not to mention secular allusions to the story (ie. Apple, Desperate Housewives). And so we assume the Bible speaks of an apple.

The example I’ve given here is relatively harmless. I only use it to illustrate how these ideas are canonized in our minds and the minds of our culture. And my point is not to blame artists, pastors, or cultural wisdom. Rather, the common soil that allows these misquotes to grow is biblical ignorance, getting our scriptural knowledge secondhand instead of being rooted in the Biblical Story ourselves. My ultimate reason for shining some light on these things the Bible doesn’t say is to highlight what the Bible actually says, what the Gospel Story is really all about, what God is truly saying to us. My hope is that these misquotes will encourage us to delight in the sweetness of God’s Word, let the Gospel message cut to our hearts, and to be enlivened by the Words of Life God is speaking to our hearts.

Posted in About the blog, Cultural Trends, Things the Bible Doesn't Say | 1 Comment »

The Story of Jobs: an American iCon

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

I was on vacation last week, visiting some friends and family in Columbus. We decided to spend some time window shopping at Easton Town Center, one of those chic outdoor malls with every chain store you can imagine. Just a few hours earlier, the sidewalk in front of Easton’s Apple store had been completely impassable with customers nabbing the iPhone 4S that had come out that morning. But now, as we approached, it was cleared out enough to see a bunch of Post-It notes on the window. As we drew nearer, we realized it was a memorial: little notes written in gratitude to the late Steve Jobs, apples and flowers laid respectfully on the sidewalk. It shouldn’t have surprised me given all the news, magazine, and blog attention Jobs’ passing had received over the previous couple weeks.

Now, I’m kind of like that non-cutting-edge, nerdy PC guy in the Mac commercials, probably even worse (you should have seen the faces on the Verizon salespeople when I told them I wanted to see their options for phones that didn’t have internet). But I do recognize the impact Steve Jobs has had on our culture. If you want to start an interesting conversation at your next dinner party, let people opine on whether Jobs had a bigger impact on the technology industry or on the marketing industry. Point is, huge impact in two of our culture’s biggest arenas.

The question I like to ask about big news stories in this blog is: What made this such a big story? Or–more crassly–Why do we care? What makes Steve Jobs’ death different than millions of other people who die each day whom we’ve never personally met? The answer to this question gives us insight into the fabric of our culture, the culture that forms us and how we do life. And my answer, as I read others’ thoughts and did some of my own musing is this: Steve Jobs’ story was an extraordinarily rare intersection of many of our culture’s favorite stories. He was the perfect storm or cultural narratives. For instance:

1) The rags-to-riches story: Who hasn’t heard the story of Jobs and his buddies developing the first Apple computer in his garage? We love to tell and hear “Horatio Alger stories,” about poor people rising to success through hard work and a couple of breaks.

Examples: Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Pursuit of Happyness

2) The successful orphan story: Jobs was born to unmarried biracial parents who met in grad school, and then was adopted by Paul and Clara Jobs when he was 5 years old. It is a story of second chances and underdogs–two of our other favorite themes.

Examples: Moses, Annie, The Blind Side

3) The “cool” story: Coolness is at the core of American culture. You probably didn’t even blink when I called myself a nerd because I don’t get too into technology. Read that again. But Jobs shirked the traditional CEO suit-and-tie for the way hipper black pants and long-sleeved black t-shirt when presenting his products. His informality endeared him to my formality-allergic generation. And his approach to technology transformed it from being something for geeks, to something that made you cool–and that’s what many of us are really after.

Examples: She’s All That, TLC’s What Not to Wear

4) The non-conformist story: Yeah, we “value education.” But we really love when someone drops out of college only to exhibit genius in a non-traditional way. No one really likes the guy/gal who gets straight A’s, but who can resist the guy whose creative genius sticks it to our system of dry lectures and standardized testing?

Examples: Einstein, Dead Poets’ Society, Good Will Hunting (sort of)

5) The vindication story: Who roots for the wealthy CEO? We do…when that CEO has been pushed out of his own company only to continue his success with another company until his old company practically begs him to come back and save their (his) company.

Examples: Joseph, Jesus’ Resurrection, Shawshank Redemption, The Lion King

6) The technological progress story: Will anyone argue if I simply state that our culture is obsessed with technology? Jobs and Apple didn’t just promise better products, but better ways of thinking, better lives, and better communities. He made products that at least made people feel like their lives were vastly better (more convenient?) because of them and that our messed up world had hope because someone like Jobs was working on it.

Examples: Ironman, “Building a smarter planet”

7) The battle-with-cancer story: I truly don’t mean this to be irreverent, but the enemy that brings our culture together like no other is cancer. His battle with cancer made Jobs a tragic hero and helped us to connect with him on a more personal level.

Examples: Brian’s Song, Five

8 ) The fearless explorer story: Jobs may not have been discovering a new land or going to the moon, but he is depicted as an adventurer into the new horizons of communication and technology. For Americans of European descent, we are raised hearing the stories of the explorers and their courage “to boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Examples: Christopher Columbus, Star Trek, Moon Landing

9) The long-lost family reunion story: Jobs even has this one down. After tracking down his birth mother, Jobs was reunited with his sister, Mona Simpson, an award-winning writer.

Examples: ABC’s Find My Family, August Rush, The Parent Trap, Star Wars (Luke and Leia–yeah, it gets awkard), Rain Man

10) The privately spiritual, but not religious story (a side note): Jobs is attested to have had an affinity to principles of Buddhism/Zen Buddhism. This side of Jobs, however, was more a behind-the-scenes thing. These are the ingredients in the recipe for how Americans are supposed to do religion: a flare of Eastern philosophy, keep it private, and add a whole lot of words about human progress. Jobs embodied this “ideal.”

Examples: Phoebe (from Friends), Forrest Gump, etc.

I hope you see what I mean when I say that Jobs was the perfect storm of American culture. This is why, in my opinion, the people who made Jobs one of the wealthiest men in America pay tribute to him. As Christians, we have a Story too. And it is important to understand where our Gospel Story intersects and diverges from our culture’s favorite stories. The stories our culture likes tend to have echoes of Gospel themes (ie. adoption and vindication), but also tend to be separated from the God who gives foundation, reality, and ultimacy to those themes. It’s our job to let the stories our culture tells point us back to the full Gospel Story, and tell that Gospel Story to our culture, both connecting it to their favorite stories and transcending them.

According to our cultural stories, Steve Jobs may have lived “the ultimate life.” As Christians, we can be thankful for ways God gifted and used Jobs for good and even the ways Jobs may have intentionally or unintentionally cooperated with those purposes. But we are to continue to hold up Jesus as our example of “the ultimate life.” We must acknowledge how different the life of Jesus looked from the life of Jobs, not just because they lived in different times and places, but because they lived out very different stories. The Gospel Story assures us that Jesus is the one who can actually deliver on his promises to help us not just “think different” but be different, give us a better life, and create a better world.

Online tributes to Jobs: http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/

Jobs’ famous Stanford commencement address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA

Blogs on Jobs and his passing:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/06/the-zen-of-steve-jobs/

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/10/14/holier-than-thou-with-my-nokia-6010/

http://michaelmilton.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-and-the-great-commission/http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=90749

http://timgombis.com/2011/10/06/the-wisdom-of-death-steve-jobs-jonathan-edwards-qoheleth/

http://www.davidpauldorr.com/grieving-the-grief-about-jobs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DavidPaulDorr+%28David+Paul+Dorr%29

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-the-allure-of-technology-and-the-image-of-god/

Posted in Cultural Trends | No Comments »

« Older Entries