Valuing Virtue

Friday, May 4, 2012

One man accuses a Parkinson’s sufferer of exaggerating his symptoms and calls a woman he has never met a “slut.”  Another man actively tries to infect a politician with the flu virus and calls the silent protest against an anti-Bible rant “pansy-a–ed.”  Perhaps you already know who these two men are.  But if so, pretend you don’t.  At first glance, do these seem like a couple of guys you would want to be formative forces in your life?  Or better yet, your children’s lives?   Both of these men do have great influence on different sectors of our society; they are Rush Limbaugh and Daniel Savage, respectively.   Limbaugh, of course, is a long-time conservative political talk-show host.  Savage is a sex-advice columnist and the innovator of the “It Gets Better” campaign that seeks to influence teens struggling with their sexuality away from suicide.

Now, the goal of this post is not to voice either agreement or disagreement with either Limbaugh’s or Savage’s “positions” on the issues they speak about.  Nor is it to try to stand above and scold them.  The purpose of this post is to ask, “To whom do we listen and learn?” and “Why?”  Because here’s the thing: in our technological, globalized society, we pretty much have the opportunity to listen and learn from anybody!  And here’s what I want to suggest: whether it comes to choosing a pundit, a university, a pastor, or a political candidate, we vastly undervalue the importance of virtue.  We give priority to what a person “values” over a person’s “virtue.”

This idea is not original to me.  I heard it in a lecture by theologian Dr. David Wells a few years back.  As I remember, he was speaking about politics.  His main thesis was that when we vote, we vote based on values rather than virtues…and as Christians, that is problematic.  We are used to hearing “values” spoken of on the political right, so I’ll start there.  For conservatives, as long as a candidate has the correct “values” (pro-life, “traditional marriage,” small government, etc.), that is the candidate we should vote for.  For the left, the values determining values might be something like pro-choice, “marriage equality,” unions, and “pro-environment.”  (I realize I am generalizing a bit.)  The key, though, is that decisions are made based on a candidate’s overall policies, his/her “values.”  Contrast that to prioritizing virtue.  This might go something like this: if I see evidence of a candidate’s sense of justice, compassion, wisdom, and willingness to listen, I would be able to vote for and trust them to be a good leader.

Case in point: Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  The stance of many was that Clinton’s character (infidelity to wife, abuse of power, workplace ethics, deception) was more of a “private” issue, and had no real effect on his capacity to be a “good” leader (read: follow through on the “right” policies) for the country.  (It would have been really interesting to see how this would have played out if Clinton hadn’t already been in his second term.)

Of course, one of the problems is that a person’s virtues are far more difficult to discern than someone’s values.  They also don’t fit quite as neatly on a bumper sticker.  But not only that: we are taught that we will impact the world by having right answers and great ideas, not by being virtuous (I’ll come back to this another time).

Jesus–and I would suggest the Scriptures as a whole–are loathe to subordinate virtue to value.  The greatest commandment, says Jesus, is love: love God and love neighbor.  Love–biblically–is about character.  Paul goes on to speak of the “fruits of the Spirit” (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control).  These are the marks of “the good life” according to the Gospel, and they are all aspects of character.  How often do we look for these traits in the people we listen to, learn from, vote for, or follow?

I am not a moral or political relativist.  I do believe there are things that are right and wrong, better and worse, helpful and harmful.  This is a tension I myself very much feel when I am listening, learning, and voting.  I get excited about creative ideas, and innovative arguments, and I want to vote for people who value things I think are important.  But I am tempered by the Kingdom of God and its King, who say that the Kingdom is an inside-out thing, a heart thing, a character thing.  (Just read Jesus’ Kingdom Manifesto.)

As a pastor, I am confronted with this reality.  There are many people who listen to my sermons and other teachings and will choose to side with me or against me based on whether they think I am on the right side or wrong side of issues, whether I present my position in an engaging or eloquent way, and whether I get results (butts in the pews).  I am intensely aware of the discrepancy between my values and my virtues.  I freely admit this to you.  I do not always live up to the Kingdom Vision I preach (and blog).   It’s not that I’m pretending to be better than I am, just that it’s easier to value the right things than to live the right way, easier to say well than live well.  My concern is being a pastor who gains followers because I value Gospel things, regardless of whether I have Gospel virtue.  Because as a culture, we are trained to follow people in exactly that way: values > virtue.

Rush Limbaugh and David Savage, I think, reveal this cultural training that I sense as a pastor.  Just because someone comes up with a campaign that might be helpful for struggling teens or might have some valid political insights, is that enough to “make up for” the serious character questions that certain actions have raised?  Jesus says that his followers will impact the world with God’s Kingdom not because of their cleverness, but because of their character.  And if we truly are putting our highest value on Jesus and his Kingdom, then we must value virtue.

I’ll close with 2 quick and simple thoughts for putting virtue back into your list of values.  1) Kingdom virtues are formed relationally/locally.  Lighten up on always trying to learn from the people with the most “expertise” or “success,” find someone whose character you respect, and allow that person to influence you on a heart level.  2) Catch yourself when you defend the people you listen to by saying, “But they’re right…”  Admittedly, I have a very limited grasp of the virtue/character of Rush Limbaugh and Dan Savage.  But from what I have seen, if I am looking for a conservative political viewpoint, I am going to try to find someone else, whose character I respect; and if I’m going to direct struggling teens to someone who can encourage and counsel them through difficult times, I’m going to look elsewhere to someone who does so in a loving, Christ-like manner.  God may use these two in some positive ways–he often uses all of us in spite of our weakness–but I would rather spend my time with people whose character and ideas will contribute to my growth in love, joy, peace, etc.

Virtue is a growth process.  It’s not something I’ve achieved or really anyone has.  But I hope that Christians seriously value this virtue process.  I hope that while we refuse to cut ourselves off from people with suspect character, we are also intent on engaging in formative relationships with people who will contribute to our growth in the Way of Love.  I hope we don’t get caught up in thinking that “being right” about things is good enough.  And I hope that the people who look at us will be profoundly affected by our Christ-like virtue, not just our “values.”

 

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=3092

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/obama-joins-it-gets-better-campaign-dan-savage-says-make-it-better/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018110513_savage01m.html?prmid=4939

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/04/30/anti-bullying-speaker-attacks-bible-christian-teens/

Posted in Cultural Trends, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Earth Day and Creation Care

Friday, April 20, 2012

This Sunday, April 22, is Earth Day.  Earth Day has been observed in various ways for about 40 years, and some might say it has “hit its stride” with the prominence of the Green movement.  A number of earth-conscious slogans have shaped how my generation thinks about the earth–from the political imperative “Go Green,” to the philosophical approach “Think globally, act locally,” to the practical “Reuse, Reduce, Recycle.”  Proponents of earth care have been effective in getting their message out.

Sadly, I’m not sure how much “progress” has really been made in the 40-some years since that inaugural Earth Day.  And also sadly, the Christian Church (especially in its association with the Republican Party) is often seen as an enemy of this movement to care for the earth.  Most recently, then-candidate for the Republican presidential nomination Rick Santorum stirred the pot with this comment critiquing what he perceives as President Obama’s theology: “[the President's] idea that man is here to serve the Earth, as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a phony ideal. I don’t believe that that’s what we’re here to do – that man is here to use the resources and use them wisely, to care for the Earth, to be a steward of the Earth, but we’re not here to serve the Earth.  The Earth is not the objective.  Man is the objective. I think a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside-down.”  So what is an American Christian to do?  Or more foundationally, how is an American Christian to think in regards to the environment and the Green movement?

Let me start by offering 3 theological principles:

1) We are talking about Creation, not just the Earth.  Of anyone, Christians have more reason to take environment issues seriously.  If this is just a planet that we happen to live in; if we are just dust moving around on a pile of dust, I don’t see a whole lot of reason to care about “going Green.”  But if this is a beautiful piece of art created by the ultimate Artist, a protective home created by a Heavenly Father, a reality declared “good” by the Lord of Life, well that’s a horse of a different color.  We cannot honestly praise God as Creator in one breath, and then abuse his creation in the next.  Some people seem to think earth-care requires an alternative theology to Christianity that makes the earth into God (pantheism) or puts humans on the same level as (or beneath) the world Earth.  Obviously, I disagree, and think that this claim misunderstands the biblical Story (mostly due to misunderstandings within the Church itself).

2) Human beings are the crown of creation, kings and queens over the rest of God’s creation.  In this one thing, I agree with Santorum (and disagree with many environmentalists): humans have been appointed to “rule over” this world.  Sounds oppressive, huh?  What does that mean?  Here is the key.  If we learn anything from God’s kingship or Jesus’ expression of authority, we learn that to rule “in God’s image” is to serve, to cultivate, to care for, to sacrifice for.  Yes, we are called first to serve God–not the earth.  But God directs our service back to cultivate beauty and life in his creation just as God has done.  One dimension of being made “in God’s image” is being a ruler over this earth as God is Ruler.  Again, as opposed to undermining earth-care, Christian theology actually bolsters a calling to care about creation.

3) God is still interested in creation.  N.T. Wright has done a wonderful job calling Christians’ attention to the fact that the Bible’s Story does not end with heaven, but with New Creation.  Think with me for a moment: if God originally thought it would be “good” for us to cultivate and care for creation, might not creation-care be our fulfilling work in the New Creation?  In fact, Revelation picks up this idea.  In the New Heavens and New Earth, we are told that “[God's people] will reign forever and ever.”  Far from making creation-care irrelevant in this fading creation, in caring for creation now, our disposition and abilities are being prepared for the wonderful work of eternity.

OK, I could go on.  But let me briefly offer a couple implications I see for Christians who want to live out these truths:

1) We must look past the politics of environmentalism and into the heart of God.  What the heck does it matter if global warming is fact or fiction?  We have been called to care for the beautiful and good creation God has made.  And I don’t think that the desire for our nation to compete economically with other nations is going to hold much weight in justifying our abuse of creation in God’s courtroom.

2) We must live and preach against consumerism.  The math is simple.  More consumption = More creation-abuse.  Put another way: voting Democrat is not your duty to creation-care.  Many of us want to get married to the Green movement without forsaking our mistress of consumerism.  Here’s the deal: as long as we continue to demand the ability to travel whenever and wherever we want, greater environmental risks will be taken to get the oil; as long as we continue to demand more meat, animals will continue to be raised in unhealthy and unjust conditions; as long as we demand more…things, the more factories will pollute, trees will be chopped, and landfills will be filled.  As in the whole Christian life, creation-care begins with our heart disposition to the creation.  Do we prefer the way of personal pleasure at any expense or the way of love?

Thanks be to God for grace.  It is nearly impossible to live in this world without getting tangled up in the destructive webs we have created (often to free ourselves from the old destructive webs we were in).  God doesn’t tell us we must “save the earth.”  Jesus is doing that.  And that grace compels us to simply follow him into the Way of Love, the Way of Life.  It compels us into creation-care not with the weight of the world on our shoulders, but with the encouraging call of God to love as we have been loved. Where is God calling us to curb our own appetites or alter our own careless practices as an act of servant-ruling over his creation?  How is God calling us to speak lovingly and persuasively into the political realm–not just on environmental issues, but also in various economic and international issues that have implications for the creation?  What is God calling us to do in our local communities to model and encourage others to have a healthy relationship to the material world?  When might we speak the Gospel to people who need to see the bigger picture of “going green” and of what God is doing in this world through Jesus?

Surely there is more to say and better ways to say it.  Here are some places you can go to read more about the Gospel and creation-care:

Wendell Berry–if you haven’t read him, do; if you have, read more.  Especially this and this.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/october/17.27.html

http://bawulskis-in-scotland.blogspot.com/2009/10/towards-theology-of-national-geographic.html

http://www.ucc.org/environmental-ministries/

http://www.earthday.org/

 

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

What We Don’t Know: the Trayvon Martin Case and Community

Friday, March 23, 2012

Nearly one month after 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was killed in Sanford, Fla. and with over 1.3 million people having signed a petition calling for the arrest of George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin, President Obama gave a personal plea for justice and “soul-searching” from the White House lawn this morning.

Here are some of the facts of the case (you can find more facts by clicking on the links or doing your own research): unarmed Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood watch leader.  Zimmerman had called 9-1-1, describing Martin as “suspicious.”  Zimmerman claimed self-defense, and was found with a bloody nose and wound on the back of his head.   Trayvon Martin’s father lived in the gated community where he was killed.  Florida has what is called a “Stand Your Ground” statute, which authorizes citizens’ use of force in certain circumstances.  No arrest has been made.

Here is what is being debated (again, not exhaustive): if Zimmerman used a racial slur during his 9-1-1 call, if Martin actually attacked Zimmerman or if Zimmerman was actually pursuing Martin, if Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs/alcohol (he was never tested), how well police investigated the case originally.

I’ll admit, a lot of what I read makes me lean towards thinking that George Zimmerman needs to be arrested and tried, at the very least.  But what bothers me about this case and too many other public cases is what we don’t know…and what we may never know.  A lot of people are weighing in on what should happen here.  But that is not the purpose of my blog.  I want to take a moment and reflect theologically on the “what we don’t know” factor and how the Gospel speaks to our ignorance.  So following are a few pieces of “what we don’t know” in this case (and others):

1. What really happened.  This is not to say that there isn’t or won’t be enough evidence to convict George Zimmerman, but we must face the reality as human beings that there are limits to what we can know, and thus limits to our ability to execute justice.  This is not a case where we are wondering who killed Trayvon Martin.  It is a case where we are trying to piece together stories, claims, and various people’s perspectives on why and how it all happened.  The problem in such cases is that people lie, fill in their own blanks, assume, and misinterpret.  Within these realities, I am incredibly thankful that we have a God who knows and a God who cares about justice.  As the author of Hebrews writes, “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”  In other words, the story of justice in the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman does not end with the decision of police officers, a judge, and a jury of fallible human beings.  The case is ultimately and forever decided in the throneroom of God, who sees not only events but what is going on in the heart.  God will make all things right, even if we get it wrong.  We are absolutely called to seek justice here and now as the Kingdom of God is a just kingdom, and Jesus tells us to seek and pray for God’s “will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.”  But thanks be to God that we don’t have the last say.

2. The people who signed the petition.  Petitions like the one for Zimmerman’s arrest mean little, in my view.  We do need to hold accountable the people whom we have entrusted with executing justice in our society.  But the online petition is so impersonal and disconnected.  If you really care about justice in this specific case, if you have done your research and believe this is a place you need to speak out, pack up and be a part of one of the rallies, make a phone call, write a personal letter, send money to one of Martin’s advocates.  The online petition is no more than another “Like” click on Facebook, in my opinion.  Of the 1.3 million signers, maybe 1 million of these people care.  Or maybe .3 million of them care.  But we don’t know.  So what does it really mean?  I think the kind of justice God calls us to seek is intended to be a characteristic of a community, not just an abstract ideal.  Divorcing justice from community is what allows us to think we are following God’s call by simply typing our name onto a list.  What ultimately happens is that this “commitment” to seek justice fades as soon as media coverage ends.

3. The people in our own communities.  I am haunted by interviews, again and again in high-profile cases like this one, of people who say something like, “This just isn’t the person we knew” or “We could never have seen it coming.”  Whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, the fact remains that we don’t really know the people in our “communities.”  People who are supposedly experts on Zimmerman mention things like, “He was an altar boy in the Catholic Church” or, from a former neighbor, “[Zimmerman and siblings] were very well behaved.  They didn’t run around loose or anything” (really?).  Very few of our actions are “out of character.”  Almost everything we do is actually “in character”; it’s just not a part of our character that others have taken the time to see.  We are surprised when someone acts out because we are so detached from each other.  We do not take time to know each other’s hearts.  We see the obvious actions (like what neighbor kids do in the yard) and facebook posts and whether someone was in church or not, but none of these really have anything to do with truly knowing someone.  None of these have much to do at all with community.  We watch Dateline or 20/20 and acquaintances of someone who has just killed his wife and kids will say, “He was just a really normal, good guy.”  Based on what?  The evidence at hand states otherwise.  We have one obvious example of our disconnect with people in our community in the Martin case itself.  According to one of Zimmerman’s friends, “He had a passion for the safety of our neighborhood” (at least enough to carry around a 9mm to protect it).  And yet, he didn’t care enough to know the people in his neighborhood, or perhaps Trayvon Martin wouldn’t have been so suspicious. This is why God’s community is about doing life together, being in each other’s homes, asking each other probing questions, challenging each other when we see ways we are not reflecting Christ, and–as dirty a word as it may sound to many of us Protestants–confessing to one another our struggles with sin.  I’m not saying anyone could have predicted that Zimmerman would kill Trayvon Martin, but perhaps we wouldn’t be so “shocked” by these things if we realized how superficially we really know one another.

There are some things we simply cannot know as limited human beings.  For those, we rest in the justice and grace of a sovereign God.  There are some things we can know “dimly, as in a mirror.”  For those, we do the best we can to seek justice and love one another with whatever provisional knowledge we have.  There are also some things that we can know.  For those, we Christians must be diligently attentive to God’s call to community.  Do we ask our spouses, parents, and kids deep questions that get into their hearts?  Do we engage in real life with our church family so that we built intimate relationships of knowing at a heart level?  Do we cultivate community in our neighborhoods so that we can truly “seek the peace and prosperity” of the place God has put us?  If we don’t, we shouldn’t be shocked to see what happens in our communities.  I pray that President Obama’s call for soul-searching extends beyond the laws and people relating to this case itself.  I pray that we would be pursuing deeper, more intimate, more real community–the kind of community for which Jesus pursues with us.


Posted in Cultural Trends, Justice | No Comments »

Book Review: How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens

Thursday, March 8, 2012

When I was in seminary, one of the things that drove me nuts was when professors would write, “Further explanation” or “More details” on a paper.  You asked me to summarize Church history in 5 pages!  Of course I could have added more!  It’s unfair to have expectations beyond the set limits.  Anyway, I don’t recount these sentiments for my own catharsis, but to make a point.  I’ve been given the opportunity to receive a free copy of Michael Williams‘ How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens thanks to Zondervan on the condition that I would read and review the book on my blog along with a number of other bloggers.  And the topic that Dr. Williams is addressing is one that could fill the pages of a bookshelf worth of books: “How does the whole Bible witness to Jesus?”  This is what Dr. Williams calls the “Jesus Lens.”  Pointing to John 5:39 and Luke 24:27, Dr. Williams asserts, “Reading the Bible through the Jesus lens is reading it the way it was intended.”  To show how all 66 of the Bible’s books point to Jesus is quite a task.  So as I review the book, I am going to try to keep in mind my seminary experiences and the size of the task at hand in order to be fair and helpful.

For starters, I really appreciate the idea of the book.  Dr. Williams is clearly writing to Christians who believe that the whole Bible points to Jesus.  (I do, in fact, believe this.  The reason I signed up for the blog tour was because I was preaching on this idea right around the time I received notice of the book).  Particularly, he seeks to provide a resource for Christians regardless of how theologically trained they are, and I think he achieves his goal of “avoid[ing] the usual dry, data-intensive introduction to the Bible…” (p. 9).  Dr. Williams has written a quite accessible, easy-to-read book.

One of the other aspects of the book I appreciated was the effort to illustrate what all the Bible’s talk about Jesus means for us.  This, for me, was an unexpected and pleasant surprise.  Dr. Williams doesn’t let the reader settle for having knowledge about the Bible and Jesus.  He rightly takes the next step to “consider what the fulfillment in Christ must necessarily entail for believers, who are being conformed to his likeness” (p. 10).  So I applaud Dr. Williams for this approach.

Yet, as I worked my way through the book and listened to Dr. Williams apply the “Jesus Lens” to each book of the Bible, I could not get past a feeling of disappointment.  So I decided to apply the words I offer couples in Marriage Preparation sessions: disappointment often comes from expectations, examine your expectations.  What was I expecting of this book that contributed to my disappointment?  And were they fair expectations?  Well, part of my excitement about The Jesus Lens stemmed from my enthusiasm for the other books in the “How to Read the Bible…” series, in particular Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart’s How to Read the Bible Book by Book.  This book resides in our church library, on my shelf, and in the collections of numerous congregants who have acted on my recommendation of it.  Book by Book–about 180 pages longer than The Jesus Lens–points out the basics of each biblical book (author, date, main themes, etc.) and then summarize the structure of each book.  I find Book by Book–while perhaps a bit “dry” and “data-intensive”–to be an incredibly valuable reference material for lay people.  That’s what I was expecting from Jesus Lens: a reference material that would equip people for personal Bible study, that small group leaders could print off before they entered into a new study, and a resource that would give people categories to understand the Christ-centered direction of the Scriptures. My disappointment, I think, came when I realized that The Jesus Lens read more like a devotional or sermon.

For instance, instead of developing categories for how the Bible points to Jesus, The Jesus Lens takes one overarching theme from each book (many of which are debatable) and finds a New Testament texts that make the same point about Jesus.  For me, the problem with this is it leaves a number of curious omissions: no connection of the Passover in Exodus to Jesus, minimal reference to how genealogies shape the Story, no allusion to messianic Psalms, no discussion of how the structure of Acts presents the life of the Church as a mirror of the life of Jesus in Luke, no note of the Christ Hymn in Philippians 2, and no hint that John’s Gospel presents Jesus as the fulfillment of numerous Old Testament events and symbols (ie. Passover Lamb, temple, bronze serpent, Manna, the Water and Light at the Feast of Tabernacles,  Shepherd, etc.).   In fact, in the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) chapters, there are as many quotations from Romans 7 as from the Gospels.  All of these are confusing to me as they are Christ-centered moments of the Scriptures that I would want Bible readers and small group leaders to pick up on with the help of a resource like The Jesus Lens.

Since each blogger has agreed to focus on a particular section of the Bible, I’ll show more what I mean (plusses and minuses) as I focus on the prophetic books:

  • Some of the prophetic books were some of the The Jesus Lens’ best chapters, in my opinion.  For instance, Amos might have been my favorite in the whole book.  Part of the reason was its connection to a Gospel (Matthew).  Dr. Williams showed how Amos’ oracles against false religion are connected to Jesus’ heart focus in his Kingdom Community vision in the Sermon on the Mount and in the holistic nature of Jesus’ ministry (proclamation, compassion, healing).  Habakkuk and Malachi were other high notes for me, partly because they emphasized Jesus as the Revelation of God, not just how Jesus benefited us.
  • In part, the above books stood out–in my opinion–because too much of the rest of the book is using a “Substitutionary Atonement/Imputation Lens” instead of a “Jesus Lens.”  Now, I am a subscriber to Substitutionary Atonement (Jesus took on the death-punishment I deserved for my sins, so that I could be forgiven and live out Christ’s life) as a valid interpretation of the Cross.  But I do think this understanding of Jesus’ life and death can be overemphasized.  The overemphasis shows up in Hosea, a book about God’s almost unbelievable mercy and faithfulness, when Dr. Williams writes, “We may take comfort in knowing that the faithfulness of Jesus is counted as our own” (p. 115-116).  Yes, I believe it is.  But it would have seemed less forced to me to say, “We may take comfort in knowing that the Cross shows God’s faithfulness to us even when we have been unfaithful to him.” (See also Proverbs, “[Jesus] is the wise one whose wisdom is credited to us before God…” [p. 80])
  • Isaiah is a long book; so here I tread lightly in seeking to be fair.  In the “Jesus Lens” section of the chapter, however, Dr. Williams chooses only to focus on Jesus as the Immanuel (God with Us) of Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23.  I agree with this connection, but it is an extremely limited way of connecting Isaiah to Christ.  I was rather shocked that Isaiah 61:1-3  (a passage that Jesus reads and applies to himself!), was completely neglected both in chapters on Isaiah and Luke.  Isaiah 52-53 is mentioned, but not in the “Jesus Lens” section, even though it would have been a far more natural link to Jesus’ sacrificial death than other links proposed in the book.  Isaiah (alongside the Psalms) is a clear illustration of where I think Dr. Williams’ approach (choosing one theme per book to apply to Jesus) falls short of truly equipping the reader with a Jesus lens.  And this leads me to my final thoughts…

How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens succeeds in its emphasis on application (not just information), its structure (background-theme-Jesus Lens-application), and its readability.  At the same time, it is not what I was hoping for.  I was hoping for a book that captured the rich, subtle, brilliant, artistic, and decidedly storied ways the Scriptures point to Christ, an accessible but more comprehensive resource for Bible-readers to understand the Christ-focus of the Bible.  In other words, something more like what Fee and Stuart have done in Book by Book.  Dr. Williams offers a more devotional book.  It is a better read from cover to cover than Book by Book, but I don’t think it is as valuable of a reference material.  The category shift to “reference material” would have allowed a little more space (Book by Book is longer, but it still allows someone who wants to better understand a book to get lots of help in 4-12 pages), the option of bullet-pointing some of the diverse ways the Scriptures point to Christ, and introducing some new language that would give Bible-readers some new categories with which to discover Jesus in their Bible reading.

We do have some great materials out there for people who want to understand how the Bible’s pieces fit together to reveal a picture of Jesus.  Not least among these is Sally Lloyd-Jones’ Jesus Storybook Bible (super accessible) and Graeme Goldsworthy’s According to Plan (a bit more academic than The Jesus Lens).  How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens will be added to this collection.  But I’m still looking for that resource that goes both deeper and broader into the Christ-focus of the Bible’s Story for the average Bible reader.

Discussion with Dr. Williams on his book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=98Xzvun5ae0

Posted in Books | No Comments »

No Faith Allowed? Religion in the Political Arena

Friday, February 24, 2012

Rick Santorum brought religion back to the center of political conversation this week.  It seems that everyone has an opinion about what place Christian faith has (or does not have) in the political arena.  Is this a fair conversation to have?  Absolutely.  In fact, it is necessary.  Is it fair to suggest that a public figure is applying his/her faith in a way inconsistent with the Gospel?  I believe it is–at least for the sake of our own learning process of how to live our faith.  But is much of the conversation that is actually going on thoughtful and helpful?  I would say, “No.”

Let’s look for a moment at Santorum’s recent comments in Columbus during a discussion about energy policies and the environment: “[The President's policies are] not about your job. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology.  Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology. But no less a theology.”  He later went on to clarify his comments: “When you have a worldview that elevates the earth above man and says we can’t take those resources because its going to harm the Earth, it’s just all an attempt to centralize power and give more power to the government…[Obama believes] man is here to serve the Earth… Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective.”  What is Santorum suggesting?  I believe he is suggesting that President Obama’s environmental and energy policies derive from his basic way of understanding the order of humanity’s relationship with the Earth; and that he believes Pres. Obama’s worldview to be different from that which is set forth in the Bible.

To those quotes, many people jumped up and cried, “Foul!”  The title of one Huffington Post article summed up a common opinion: “Religion and Politics Don’t Mix, Major Religious Groups Tell Presidential Candidates.”  Upon reading the article, you will find that the headline doesn’t really describe what “major religious groups” actually told presidential candidates, but the sentiment is clear: Religion has no place in government!  If I may (and I may, because it’s my blog), I’d like to offer a few ideas that I wish came up more in these conversations.

1) Everyone has a worldview, and we all live out of it.  Frankly, it drives me nuts when people say that religion has no place in politics.  Santorum was absolutely right saying that the President’s policies come out of his “worldview” (I wish he had used that term to begin with).  A worldview is, simply, a system by which we view the world.  I know, revolutionary.  Our worldview is the set of foundational assumptions we have about life in this world that informs the decisions we make and opinions we hold.  All of our worldviews are based on beliefs: beliefs about where the world came from, what the purpose of humanity is, what is good and bad, etc.  I’m not just talking about Christians or even religious people.  I’m talking about everybody.  To be a Christian means to accept a Christian worldview–or at least to determine to develop a Christian worldview.  Jesus and the Bible present a worldview and distinguish that worldview from other worldviews.  They speak to the purpose of human life, our place in the cosmos, how we should act, etc.  Realizing that not all Christians are of one accord on what a Christian worldview is and that we don’t all live it out perfectly, a Christian should aspire to live out of the Christian worldview.  And I think it is hard to call a worldview “Christian” if it doesn’t have implications for how we act in all areas of life: family, work, politics, etc.  A politician who is a Christian, I believe, should have his/her policies formed by Christian worldview beliefs.  Here’s the kicker: even atheists have worldviews.  And atheist politicians are going to have their policies formed by their worldview beliefs as well.  It is nonsensical (I know that’s strong) to suggest that Christians should keep their beliefs out of politics because everyone brings their beliefs to politics. 

2) We need a calm, thoughtful conversation on the separation of Church and State…desperately.  Christians need to understand two things: 1) this separation thing was our idea–it is good that the government cannot take one particular kind of religious belief and impose it on the whole country, including churches who don’t hold that particular belief; 2) the New Testament never talks about having our values and beliefs legislated by a government.  Non-Christians need to understand a couple things as well: 1) just because an idea comes out of a religious worldview does not mean that it is not a good policy (intentional double-negative); 2) the establishment clause does not delete religion from the public sphere, but, on the contrary, protects its expression in the public sphere.  In other words, Christians cannot and should not be able to impose an idea just because it is Christian; but Christians have every right (and responsibility?) to influence politics by demonstrating that something Christian may be good for society.  In the present example, the fact that Santorum claims Pres. Obama’s policies are “unbiblical” is irrelevant legislatively.  But if he demonstrates convincingly a) to Christian citizens that the President’s policies are outside a Christian worldview and thus not a helpful way of living in this world and/or b) to the general public that a more “biblical” approach to the issue is really for the good of society, then he has fairly and legally applied his faith to influence the political process (in my estimation).

3) We need to watch our double-standards.  Rick Santorum has been criticized for calling the President’s theology/worldview “phony” and “unbiblical.”  People have said that he “stepped out of bounds.”  It seems to me that I’ve heard quite a bit of criticism of Rick Santorum’s theology/worldview, specifically as they relate to his positions on abortion and gay marriage.  Seriously, do people who are pro-choice and supporters of marriage equality not disagree with the theology/worldview that leads to Santorum’s positions?  Do many of those who claim the Christian faith not think, then, that Santorum holds a phony and unbiblical theology?  Some of the people I hear criticizing Santorum for un-Christianly dismissing liberal/progressive theology are the very same people I hear speaking negatively and dismissively of evangelical or “fundamentalist” (another widely misunderstood and misused label) theology.  If it is wrong for Santorum to do it, then it is wrong for his opponents to do it as well.  And I do think both “sides” (including whichever “side” I’m on) would do well to spend as much time thinking about HOW we disagree as we do thinking about WHAT we disagree on.  It’s the whole speck-of-sawdust-plank thing.  We can openly disagree, even with our fellow Christians.  We can even rebuke and hold each other accountable.  But we tend to call the very same practices “righteous rebukes” when we use them and “evil mudslinging” when our opponents use them (ok, most of us don’t use the term “righteous rebukes,” but you get the picture).  When Christians disagree and when it happens in public, we can still be a witness to the world of how to disagree in love and sister/brotherhood.

So to sum up.  I don’t love the way Rick Santorum went about disagreeing with President Obama this week, I’m a little queasy about his clarification (“If he says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian”–what does that mean?), and I don’t subscribe to a lot of Santorum’s political/theological positions.  I do think the whole situation brought back to the surface an important conversation about faith and public life.  And I think that conversation about faith and public life needs to be reframed and reformed.

What can we do?  Well, as normal pastors and Christians, we can watch the way we talk about politics and politicians this election year.  We can pay less attention to the billowing smoke of media reactions and more attention to the fire of what is actually being said and suggested.  We can point out when people we agree with are making their points in unloving and unfair ways.  We can sit down for coffee or a beer or a shamrock shake (mmm!) with someone who votes differently than we do and ask them lots of questions about what they believe and why.  We ask God to help us develop in us the character to engage politics in a Christian way before asking God merely to show us what to vote for.

In my mind, complete disengagement from politics is not an option.  Nor is trying to legislate “Christian values” to people who don’t share our worldview.  We are called to shine like stars in a crooked and depraved generation.  What more relevant place to start than everything political!

 

http://www.sojo.net/blogs/2012/02/21/santorum-question-should-theology-affect-way-we-vote

Posted in Politics, Religion in the news | No Comments »

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:

  1. 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…
  2. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 »

« Older Entries