Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again: I’m not always on the cutting edge of the blogosphere…and I’m ok with that. But this week, the U.S. and other nations’ efforts to “demoralize and destroy” ISIS have extended into Syria. Generally, responses to this crisis fall somewhere on a spectrum between aggression (in Phil Robertson’s words, “Convert them or kill them”) to passivity (“We can’t win so we should just get out.”). The basic question of this spectrum is, “At what point are we justified in using force to accomplish our purposes?” Well, I have a few other questions, and then a story.

Question 1: If we zoom out from this specific ISIS crisis, what are the variety of factors that affected the rise of ISIS and what are the variety of consequences that military engagement will precipitate? In light of this, is it beneficial to use force in this situation?

  • Limiting ISIS to “an evil movement that just popped up because of some people’s bad choices” will minimize our ability to address the situation comprehensively. And beyond that, I wonder if we did “demoralize and destroy ISIS” via force–whether justified or not–what new seeds of hatred and perceived oppression might eventually grow into. For Paul, the most important ethical questions are not, “Do they deserve it?” or “Is it justified/permissible?” but “Is it beneficial? Will this thing (in this case, military force) take control of me somehow? Will this advance the Gospel and more fully establish the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven?” Will this actually lessen violence in Iraq and Syria or will new seeds of hatred and perceived oppression be planted? Will military violence “master us” by becoming our go-to method for accomplishing what we want? Can killing bring about God’s Kingdom? These are questions Christians must answer concerning military involvement and we must discern whether violence will, in fact, accomplish our primary purposes–not necessarily our national interests, but the interests of God and God’s Kingdom.

Question 2: Is Jesus’ teaching relevant in international relations and, specifically, with the level of evil we see in ISIS?

  • As followers of Jesus and believers that Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, we must at least think twice whenever we feel like the Way of Christ is irrelevant or naive.

Question 3: Is there another way besides aggression and passivity?

  • I would suggest Jesus says the way to engage opposition is through loving engagement. Which means being willing to die, but not to kill. This is distinct from passivity, which is willing neither to die nor to kill and military engagement which is both willing to die and kill.


A Story: One day, Jesus intended to preach the Good News in a town that most Israelites would never have entered. When they did not welcome him, two of Jesus’ followers, in full faith, suggested they bring down fire from heaven. Jesus did not call on fire from heaven. On another day, Jesus entered Jerusalem to the cheers of crowds and to the jeers of the religious leaders. It is likely that both the religious leaders who opposed Jesus and the crowds who cheered Jesus on as he entered Jerusalem that day expected that Jesus was plotting a rebellion against the Romans by calling on the “Zealots,” a band of Jews ready to engage in a military rebellion against Rome (their main difference being whether they thought it would work). But Jesus did not call on the Zealots. In fact, he wept over the destruction that a future rebellion would level on the city. On another day, soon after that, Jesus was being unjustly arrested when one of his followers pulled out a sword and sliced off the ear of one of the guards arresting his rabbi. Jesus did not call on the swords of his disciples. In fact, he healed the destruction their violence had done.  On that same day, Jesus himself acknowledged that a legion of angels would come to fight on his behalf if he simply called for them. But Jesus did not call on heaven’s angels. On the next day, Jesus stands in front of the representative of the Roman Empire’s oppressive force. He tells Pilate that his Kingdom is not the kind where citizens fight with the world’s weapons. Jesus did not call on violence from his Kingdom’s citizens. Jesus did not call on heaven’s fire, the Zealot militia, his disciples’ swords, the angelic army, nor his Kingdom’s army to fight the greatest injustice and evil that has ever been perpetrated in God’s world. On the Cross, as Jesus died, it would seem that this Way of engaging the world with love failed. But on the third day, God raised Jesus up from the dead, and set him as both Lord and Messiah.

Sometimes the Way of Christ seems naive or even foolish. But it is neither aggressive nor passive, neither cowardly nor controlling. Rather, the Way of Christ, the Way of Love is creative. It looks for answers on a plane beyond the spectrum of aggression–passivity. I certainly don’t have all the answers. But there are a few who are trying to live this other Way. Here is one example. I’m sure there are others. But I wonder what it would look like if a growing number of people who claim to follow the Way of Christ persistently lived and advocated for ourselves, our churches, and even our authorities to think in a more creative way about engaging problems and oppositions.

I’d love to hear your questions and stories, your opinions and disagreements as we continue to live in a world where ISIS and other violence movements continue to do damage.


Sometimes you measure a war in days, sometimes in years. Other times, you measure a war in millenia. Such is the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, which saw yet another escalation in a conflict that traces back to…well…the Bible. It seems that a group of militants entered into Israel through an underground tunnel, prompting Israel to send troops into Gaza. There are reports of children being gunned down, hospitals destroyed, and other events that both sides call “tragedy.”

There are lots of opinions on this conflict around the world, and those opinions vary in the U.S. as well. Some have criticized President Obama throughout his time in office for slacking on our relationship with Israel, while others have welcomed a “more balanced” approach to both Palestinians and Israelis. Here are some questions I have concerning the conflict:

  • Whom do we believe?
    • Can we somehow get through the typical demonizing and dehumanizing to the “facts of the case”? And if not, how strongly should we be holding our opinions on who is right/wrong, or what this/that side should do?
  • In what ways does bad theology affect our relationship with Israel?
    • There is a theological  system called dispensationalism that grew in popularity throughout the 20th century. It closely connects a national Israel with the end times, and is now mostly espoused by televangelists and the most fundamentalist churches. (My opinion: it’s woefully bad theology.) But I wonder how much our national opinion was formed by this theology.
  • What role should the U.S. be playing in the Middle East?
    • Should we mind our own business (and ignore injustice and atrocities)? Get involved (and arrogantly pretend like we can solve a millenia-old conflict)? Are there more humble and peace-making ways to be involved?
  • As Christians, how do we approach a conflict where there are fellow Christians on either side?
    • Shouldn’t these connections trump our national loyalties?

A story: Way back after God delivered his people from slavery in Egypt and was bringing them into the Promised Land, the Israelites (then a people, not yet a nation) stood outside of Jericho, a fortified city with huge walls, who didn’t seem to want to welcome Israel into their land. Joshua, the leader of the Israelites after Moses died, is contemplating what to do when a messenger from God with a sword draws near to him. He asks this man, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”What might we expect? These are God’s People after all. Of course, God is going to take their side. And yet, the messenger replies, “Neither…but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.”

How often do we try to put God on a side, when God has his own plans and purposes? The key to following Christ isn’t figuring out whose side God is on, but in being on God’s Path. And oftentimes, God’s Path leads us away from either of the “sides” in a conflict. What if we have a God whose fullest revelation to us shows us that he would rather lose his life than take it from others, even from his enemies? How does this affect our opinions about conflicts near and far? Rather than picking and defending a “side,” perhaps we should be prayerfully looking for God’s people and how we can join them in being compassionate and wise peacemakers and prophets. For if we asked God, “Whose side are you on? Israel’s or the Palestinians’?” God might just answer, “Neither.”

The news has been filled with Syria the past couple weeks.  And Egypt the couple weeks before that.  I have to say, there’s something refreshing about it.  At least the media is talking about something significant, something that affects lives, something that has implications for our common humanity.  Other than that, it’s anything but refreshing.  It is a global conundrum where everyone seems to agree: “The U.S. has no good options.”

But I’m not here to share my opinion on the Russian plan or what the President should do if it fails.  I’m here to talk about how this fits into the Story–you know, the Story of this world and God and humanity.  Which brings me to Food, Inc.  For those of you who don’t see the obvious connection between a documentary about the American food industry and the current crisis in the Middle East, let me explain myself.  My wife and I watched Food, Inc. a few years ago.  It was disturbing.  Not just to see the story behind what we put into our bodies.  But to look through this window into the human situation.  Not pretty.  Here’s what I saw: We humans are experts at solving problems…without paying attention to the problems our solutions will cause.  We make an adjustment to make our farming easier without attention to the ways this will disrupt the animals, plants, and ecosystem.  We mass produce food to make it more available without attention to what this does to the nutritional value of the food.  We make food cheaper without attention to how it affects laborers, jobs, and the economy.  This is the human story.  We solve one inconvenience only to create a deeper predicament.

See what I mean about Syria and Egypt?  And Iraq and Afghanistan?  And Korea and Vietnam?  And so many other situations.  There has been lots of conversation in Christian circles recently about whether Adam and Eve were historical figures and whether Genesis 1-3 even intends to present them as such.  But regardless of your position on this, it’s hard to deny the truth of Genesis 3, aka “The Fall.”  In this story, Eve and Adam face the temptation to improve their lives their way.  Eve hears the logic of the serpent, and then the text says, “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”  In other words, she decides that her solution to her “problem” is better than God’s wisdom…and proceeds to pitch this miracle solution to the rest of humanity (who knew better). 

Hopefully, we have learned something from Afghanistan, where we armed rebels to get rid of one regime only to empower the Taliban’s rise years later.  Hopefully, we have learned something from Iraq, when a “quick use of force” to dethrone one dictator and capture another terrorist turned into a war that dragged on for a decade.  Hopefully, we might consider even the lasting effects of our own Civil War, when the use of force may have brought about one good cause, but also left divisions, hostilities, and hard hearts among fellow Americans for years to come.  Hopefully, we will learn the lesson of Food, Inc. that sometimes our brilliant solutions to certain problems actually cause THE PROBLEM (sin, brokenness, darkness, etc.) to weave its way ever-deeper into the fabric of our world. 

I don’t presume to know what Jesus would do if he were the 44th President of the United States (not that he could get elected).  I do know that with legions of angels at his disposal, Jesus chose the path not of least resistance, but of greatest sacrifice.  And told all who would follow him to do the same.  This is the path that will weave healing into the fabric of the world.  Being willing to house Syrian refugees?  Listening to our brothers and sisters who are actually in the midst of the conflict?  Using our voices to redirect national resources into serving those in need rather than enforcing our will militarily?  Encouraging our leaders to ask what is good for the Middle East, not just how can we achieve American interests?  This is just a brainstorm.  But it is what we need: creativity; thinking outside the box of war vs. appeasement; a willingness to take the narrow road that leads to Life when the well-trod wide path lures us with a quick fix.

Created in God’s image, we humans have a natural bent toward problem solving.  We will keep digging our hole deeper, however, until we are willing to sit at the foot of the Cross, listen to the Story of the Gospel, and be trained in the Way of Christ: the Way of creative love, loving sacrifice, and a sacrificial commitment to the healing of the world.

Yesterday I received two emails and noticed a couple Facebook posts bearing links to an article entitled, “Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith.”  The story is not exactly all out in the open at this point, so I’m not going to pretend I’m an authority on this particular story.  But these e-mails reveal a “pressure-point” for many Christians in America as well as the increasing number of non-Christians in America.  You know how pressure points work: if someone applies minimal pressure in just the rights spot, they can cause a disproportionate reaction in the other person.  Church and State issues are a pressure point in our country.  The smallest pressure applied to an issue in this category can open up a whole can of accusations, assumptions, defensiveness, and fear.  Now, none of these things are particularly prominent in the life of Jesus, so perhaps I could just take this monthly blog space and talk through the issue with both “sides.”

Background: It appears that the Pentagon spent some time seeking the counsel of outspoken advocate for the separation of Church and State in the military, Mikey Weinstein (the Christian Post initially reported wrongly that Weinstein was “hired” by the Pentagon).  The facts seem to be that the Pentagon is looking at certain standards for chaplains in counseling situations with non-Christian soldiers and restrictions on how faith is promoted by other military authorities.


Dear President and Pentagon,

Why consult this guy?  There are plenty of lesser-known but better-qualified people who could have helped you to develop the policies your thinking about.  Weinstein’s language is intentionally provocative and his strategy seems to be founded on attention-getting.  You even could have consulted Christians who would want to minimize the relationship between Church and State.  Did you want to stir the pot in conservative circles?  Just doesn’t seem like a wise move.

Also, you are taking on a very difficult issue.  Christians–including chaplains–don’t just share the Gospel because they want to get more people over to our side.  We believe that to treat the human as a non-spiritual being is ultimately going to come up short.  We believe that there is healing, restorative, wholeness-creating potential in the Gospel, which is rooted in the person of Jesus.  So it is possible to share the Gospel (evangelize, proselytize, whatever you want to call it) in a spirit of love, genuinely seeking the ultimate and deepest good of the other.  I get it.  Sometimes we do share the Gospel in selfish and unloving ways.  But pretending like any counselor should–let alone could–just “turn off” her/his beliefs and worldview in seeking the healing of another might not be that realistic or helpful.  Most of these chaplains are Christians and Chaplains because they believe that Jesus is actually the best and ultimate source of healing and restoration for themselves and others.

Further, the Constitution does not demand that Church and State exist in utterly separate spheres.  Rather, it reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  In other words, the religious voice has a place in the public sphere.  Government simply may not choose or enforce one religion over another.  So the Christian’s voice need not be accepted merely because it is Christian, but it also should not be rejected merely on the grounds that it is Christian.  Be very careful, my friends, for trying to order how and when people apply their religious convictions is a messy endeavor.

TTFN, Pastor Jon

Dear Church,

OK, deep breaths.  In.  Out.  I understand that headlines like this are concerning.  You’ve had quite a run at the top of Western/American society.  You’ve enjoyed lots of great benefits in our culture that Jesus never promised.  Even so, now that they seem to be fading away, it’s hard.  None of us likes to say “goodbye” to something that was enjoyable, comfortable, or made us feel special.  It is natural to mourn the loss of our cultural privilege.  Christian America was also the air we breathed for many decades.  We assumed it.  It was dependable.  It made church life so much easier.  And now, we’re noticing that breathing isn’t quite as easy.  You felt like America was built on the foundation of Christianity, and now it feels like each one of these restrictions might be the one that causes the whole thing to cave in.  Not fun.

But you also must remember that it’s possible that these “Separationists” have a point.  What made America distinct from England, Rome, etc. wasn’t Christianity…it was religious freedom.  We can believe what we want without the government punishing us for it.  It’s true that the great beneficiaries of this for many years were mostly Christians of various denominations (yes, we Christians have a wonderful history of oppressing ourselves).  But doesn’t this founding American principle and justice itself demand we extend the same freedoms to others who believe in different gods with different names, or even no god at all?

So this whole Mikey Weinstein thing.  First of all, be careful what you read and pass on.  This Weinstein character isn’t government employed.  And there is no evidence that the government wants to court martial your average soldier who shares his faith.  There isn’t really even evidence that they’re going to adopt Weinstein’s ideas nor that he was the only one they consulted.  Don’t spread gossip, or–even worse–slander.  You don’t have to be the news-breakers or the watchdogs.  Just be patient, get more facts, and listen to a different perspective.  By all means, have an opinion.  But be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to become angry.

And let’s think through the real issue at hand.  It’s a tough one.  Think about it.  These chaplains are employed by the U.S. Government, who constitutionally aren’t supposed to promote one religion over another.  I mean, if our churches were paying these chaplains and donating them to the military, that’d be one thing.  But that’s not the case.  Moreover, it doesn’t appear we’re talking about worship services.  We’re talking about counseling situations and military operations.  The military is an authority-based community where soldiers are often deeply emotionally wounded.  This is a context ripe for spiritual abuse.  Could policies go too far?  Yes.  But can you also understand that the government wants to make sure their chaplains are really seeking to understand, connect with, and bring healing with their soldiers whether they are Christians or not?  And can you see that telling a traumatized non-Christian soldier who is struggling that the only professional he can talk to is someone who will only talk to him about Jesus might not be what’s best for that soldier?  And do you really want a picture of a Cross and shield on a plane set out to kill?  Is this mixture of Gospel and military something we really want to protect?

One more thing.  This whole “Fear” thing.  It’s very unbecoming of you, Church.  I mean, how many times does God have to tell us “Do not be afraid”?  So you get court-martialled for following the Spirit and preaching the Gospel when you weren’t supposed to.  So pastors don’t get tax breaks anymore.  So you can’t have your Christmas decorations out in front of City Hall.  And what if laws were passed that put us in jail for sharing our faith with people?  What if we got kicked out of the U.S. because we were worshipping Jesus?  What if we became targets for assassination because we were so subverting our culture?  We’d be no worse off than millions of our brothers and sisters in Christ all over the world since the time of Jesus.  Here’s the problem:  We seem to be more fearful and anxious than those brothers and sisters WHO ACTUALLY FACED THAT STUFF!  One of those persecuted Christians once wrote: “Perfect love casts out fear.”  If we perfectly believed that nothing in all creation could separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, we would be perfectly free from fear.  I’m not saying that I’m there.  But the point is, if we are afraid, that says more about our lack of faith than it does about our surrounding culture’s godlessness.  Let’s not let fear for our own comforts and privileges distract us from the radical life of preaching Good News to the poor, binding up the brokenhearted, and setting the captives free that we have received as followers of Jesus.  Don’t promote fear.  Let everything you do be done in loveDon’t be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with goodLive such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

Grace and Peace to you all,

Pastor Jon



So I was going to write a simple post on an article I read last Sunday about how Pres. Obama should not swear on a Bible due to the separation of Church and State, and how, though I do think there should be a separation of sorts, this argument completely misses the point of the Bible in the inauguration.  Yada yada yada…

And then I read this…and watched this…and I changed my mind.  January 22nd, the day after Pres. Obama’s inauguration and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, was the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a court decision that essentially legalized abortion in the United States.  While limitations on when, how, and after what procedures abortions can be performed have been enacted nationally and on state levels, abortion continues to be a practice that is both legal and common (in 2009, the CDC reports that approximately 1 fetus was aborted for every 6 live births, and well over 50 million legal abortions have been performed since 1973) in the U.S.

The abortion debate is widely known to be inflammatory (sometimes literally) and divisive.  And while I have hinted at my convictions on this matter elsewhere on this blog, I have generally been cautious (fearful?) about airing my own opinions either here or elsewhere.  I know there are people in my congregation who have strong opinions on either “side” of the debate, and others who have strong opinions that the topic should be avoided.  It is well known that some of the most vocal opponents of abortion can be found in evangelical and Roman Catholic Christian circles.  On the other hand, I pastor in a denomination (the United Church of Christ) that calls women’s right to have an abortion one indicator of “reproductive justice.”  So, in some ways, I exist in the middle of the debate.

So let me begin by affirming some of the points made by my more “pro-choice” brothers and sisters:

  • Yes, the pro-life movement contains some hypocrites who call themselves “pro-life” and then blow up abortion clinics or assassinate doctors who perform abortions.
  • Yes, there are many conservatives for whom it is true that “they will do anything for the unborn, but once you’re born, you’re on your own” (potentially offensive language in this link), who have fought tooth-and-nail to outlaw abortion but never cared to get into the messiness of poverty, shame, etc. that make abortion an attractive option.
  • Yes, as a whole, the pro-life movement has treated the unborn as full humans while failing to fully appreciate the humanness of women who have unwanted pregnancies, the complexities of their situations, and the systemic challenges they face.
  • Yes, if abortion were illegal, it would continue to happen in unsafe ways.
  • Yes, it’s disgusting that men can and do run away from unwanted pregnancies, leaving the woman on her own to make it work.
  • Yes, rather than “speaking the truth in love,” pro-lifers have had a tendency to speak words that lead to condemnation and shame, especially on the part of the women who have had abortions.

Living in the center of theological/political battlegrounds , I work very hard to put myself in the shoes of other Christians (and other people, in general) who hold different perspectives than I do.  As I have imperfectly and stumblingly allowed myself into the ethical complexities and gray areas of our broken world, I have generally found my heart softening on many issues.  I may still hold a different conviction and opinion (I’m no relativist), but I can see how some might interpret the Gospel and the will of God differently than me.

This has not been the case for me when it comes to abortion.

I see how acting in compassion and seeking  justice for women in unenviable circumstances is a Gospel mandate.  I deplore the ways pro-lifers have often been simplistic, hypocritical, and downright evil in their pursuit of their “cause.”  I weep for the personal and systemic forces that have moved and will continue to move women to endanger themselves for the sake of an illegal abortion.  And still, I fail to see how the right to have an abortion has anything to do with the Kingdom of God.  Moreover–and here is why I address this topic this week–I fail to see how abortion can be anything more than a tragic-if-necessary evil, let alone something to be celebrated.

Unfortunately, like most “political” debates, the abortion debate regularly gets derailed as people talk past each other (fail to address what the other is actually saying), ask loaded or unproductive questions, operate on surface-level principles (“pro-life”/”pro-choice”), and disregard the possibility of any possibility outside “A (overturn Roe) or B (keep Roe).”

At the risk of falling into the same traps I just outlined, I would like to offer a few thoughts on why I oppose abortion and how I respond to those who count Roe v. Wade a victory worth celebrating.

  1. First of all, I believe that it is possible to be pro-women while at the same time being anti-abortion (and so do many women who oppose abortion).  I do not aim to demonize women who have had or are considering having abortions.  The forces at work in our culture are way bigger than a single person making an isolated decision.  Given the burdens and challenges many women experience, I can see how many women do choose the route of abortion.  If I were facing the same burdens and challenges, I can only guess at what I might do.  But regardless, the basis of the following thoughts is not blame and condemnation, but grace and the possibility of a more just and loving society where men and women, adults and children, born and unborn have every opportunity to thrive.
  2. I frequently hear proponents of reproductive rights make the claim that the fetus is not a person with a right to life.  In fact, one is almost required to hold to this position to support abortion.  A fetus, then, is merely a piece of tissue.  I’m not going to pull in any Scripture to argue that life begins at conception (such references very rarely pay attention to what the biblical writer is actually saying).  But here’s the thing: we don’t treat fetuses as just a piece of tissue.  When we are hoping/praying for children, we celebrate at the first signs of life blossoming in the womb.  And even when we are not hoping/praying for children, we know full well that that first sign of pregnancy has deeply human implications.  I’m afraid the whole debate about precisely when the “tissue” becomes a “person” (conception, 3 weeks, 2nd trimester, birth…?) misses the point (more in #7).  We must proceed with great caution, however, whenever we feel the urge to put limits on who is and is not a member of the human community.
  3. To continue #1, it should be noted that multiple serious philosophers, in order to argue against the personhood of the fetus, have found it necessary to extend their support for abortion to “infanticide.”  In other words, if we are saying fetuses are not human/persons because they are completely dependent on another human or because they are not self-conscious, that is equally true of newborn babies.  Really, the biggest difference between a child in the womb and a child outside of it is that the fetus is invisible and voiceless to us.  Not less human.  And this is why pro-lifers see opposition to abortion as a dire matter of justice for the unborn: acting as a voice for the voiceless, making visible the invisible, and protecting the most vulnerable members of our human society.
  4. On the topic of justice, the problem is not just that people choose to have abortions, but who is chosen to be aborted.  With all of our medical technology and genetic testing, we can be particularly careful about which “tissues” are worth keeping.  We know that in cultures (like China), where boys are more desirable, female fetuses are disproportionately selected for abortion.   Talk about a “war on women.”  In our country, studies indicate that a wildly disproportionate number of parents who find out that their fetus has Down Syndrome are aborted.  I find these to be disturbing facts.
  5. As true as it may be that some pro-lifers only a) care about human well-being pre-birth and/or b) are so caught-up in legal battles about abortion that they ignore the host of other factors related to abortion, these accusations are convenient and inaccurate generalizations of pro-lifers.  Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which are often supported by pro-lifers, have proliferated since 1973, seeking to serve women with pre-natal care, counseling, and material needs once the baby has been born.  Many Christians have put their faith into action by adopting unwanted children both domestically and internationally.  And “social justice” has increasingly entered the evangelical/emergent vocabulary in the past decade.  Thankfully, this accusation is less and less true and should not have such a prominent place in the debate.
  6. I would suggest that advocating for abortion is “the easy way out” for people who recognize the systemic pressures on pregnant women.  Abortion is not the only solution to the problem of abandoned pregnant women.  I would much rather see the energy that goes into reproductive rights advocacy go towards developing creative ways to hold fathers accountable in caring for the life they helped create, provide programs that reframe sexuality and procreation, make adoption a more financially viable option for willing and loving families who struggle to afford huge adoption costs,  subsidize childcare costs for single mothers, to name a few alternatives.  Abortion is not the only or best way of addressing the problem of unwanted pregnancies in ways that are compassionate toward women.  It’s just the easiest.
  7. Abortion does not solve the problem or empower women.  In fact, it lets men off the hook.  ”Hey, you have the option to abort.  If you don’t want to, that’s your problem.”  Abortion leaves women in the powerless spot of choosing between an unwanted (potentially coerced) abortion and single motherhood.  This is merely moving the problem of powerlessness, not solving it.  At the moment a woman finds out she is pregnant, men are supposed to be responsible as committed partners and fathers, and yet Roe v. Wade gives men absolutely no legal responsibility to determine whether the child lives or dies.  If women want responsible, committed men at this time, the law is undermining that desire, and giving men a convenient excuse to abandon women–as if men needed any more encouragement to be irresponsible.  (This is a big part of what makes this ad so deplorable, in my opinion.)
  8. Roe v. Wade reinforces the disjointedness of our understandings of sexuality and procreation.  It puts a big bracket in the beautiful process of procreation, disconnecting new life from loving relationship.  It says, “Sex is for individual pleasure.  Pregnancy is about the woman’s individual rights.  Birth begins the mutuality of parenthood.”  Contrast: “Sex is the physical pinnacle of relational intimacy, and in this expression of love, new life is created to be celebrated and cared for by its co-creators from beginning to end.”  For Christians, the biblical story is that God’s love is the source of creation and Life.  And so procreation is this process from love to life.  Anytime we try to jump in, parse out, and disconnect that story, we are walking on shaky ground.  I’m not naive enough to think that this narrative is always reality, but I will say that the incessant touting of “rights” and “individual freedom” and “ownership” as predominant values is an enemy of relationship, community, and love.  It hinders our culture from thinking, dreaming, and imagining in relational terms of love, intimacy, partnership, and mutual loving sacrifice.  Roe v. Wade, here, is not the primary culprit, but rather a legal rubberstamping of community-unfriendly values surrounding sex, relationships, and procreation.
  9. None of this is to say that Christians should put all their resources and resolve into getting Roe v. Wade overturned.  Rather, I believe it is our first calling to live the Kingdom of God and to present our surrounding culture with an alternative.  What does this mean in this case?  Presenting a narrative of sexuality in our communities that connects sex to procreation and committed relationships.  Simultaneously creating communities of grace, which shower women with unintended pregnancies and women who have had abortions with love and support.  Opening up our families, homes, and spirits to women who are not sure whether or not they can support a child and to the beautiful opportunity of adoption.  Seeking ways to hold men accountable to the procreation process.  Offering society a fuller view of humanity and hope that makes abortion a less viable option.  The questions we must ask ourselves: “Were Roe v. Wade completely overturned, would the Church be prepared for the consequences?  Are we working to create a society where abortion just doesn’t make sense?”  This, to me, is a more holistic ethic of Life than simple pro-life v. pro-choice debates.

Well, my simple post has become a weird mix of a long-but-not-long-enough and complicated-but-still-simplistic treatment of this controversial but vitally important issue.  I have gone past my normal blog length, and yet there is still so much more to say.  I hope you will take time to respond, to see through my eyes, to challenge me, and to point out more constructive ways of approaching this issue.  Although I feel strongly about this issue, I promise respect and love to any who disagree with me here, and will hold your comments to the same standard.


(Note: when I share a link, I am only passing on that article for your reading and discernment, not as an endorsement)

With election season in full swing, I thought I would take just a moment to point out two campaign ads that I’ve come across.  Both of these made me sit up and say, “Wow”…but not in a good way.   They are both, in my opinion, illustrative of a single message that both camps are sending to voters this year: “Vote scared!”  While this has become common over the years (especially in regards to terrorism and homeland security), it seems to pop up most clearly this election in an unexpected area: the so-called “War on Women.”  It seems that both sides agree this war is going on; the only question is whom women should fear.  So I’ve chosen one television ad from each side that was approved by that candidate (no Super PAC ads).  While the targets of the ads are different, I hope you see the same underlying message:  ”Vote scared!”

(I don’t know how to embed video, so you can watch them by clicking on the following links.)

Summary: If you’re a baby girl in this country, you should be frightened.  The debt of current generations will fall crushingly onto your shoulders if Obama is re-elected.  You won’t have jobs, opportunities, or any way to dig yourself out of the hole you’ve been born into.  Moms (and dads), you should be scared of what Obama will do to your daughters (and sons).  Oh, and we hope you catch the irony of the nursery music and soothing motherly tones of the narrator as you ponder the devastation that will eventually be meted out on this cute little baby.

Summary: Women, this is a historical moment, a turning point for the future of womankind.  Mitt Romney wants to take away your legal access to have an abortion.  As a woman, you surely believe you have every right to terminate your pregnancy.  And surely you believe that every insurance company should be required to offer contraception coverage.  Since Mitt Romney has a different belief about human life, he clearly is out of touch with women.  Who knows what other womanly needs and rights he might stomp on if you elect him.  Oh, and you can see how out of touch Mitt is in the split screen where a jabbering Romney is distanced from our concerned heroine.

Both of these commercials, I hope you notice, say next to nothing about the candidates by whom they are endorsed.  They are purely focused on engendering a fear of the opponent.  The commercials aim to make you sympathize with the women on screen, and then explain how the opposition is going to bring harm to these people with whom you’ve just made a connection.

I’ve said before on this blog that I am independent when it comes to politics, and I struggle with how to use my vote each year.  One of the biggest frustrations I have is that the packaging seems to mean more than the contents.  In other words, how something is said has more effect than what is being said.  It is bad enough when candidates make soaring, overblown promises about what they will do (see Romans 12:3).  In fact, maybe the genuinely believe they will do these things.  It is worse when candidates pretend to look into their crystal balls and prophesy the doom that will come if the other is elected.  Plus, the rhetoric assumes what is in HIS heart (HE obviously hates women…and baby girls!), while leaving others to assume that what is in MY heart is pure and good (I will protect you from evil and harm!).  This is the opposite of life in God’s Kingdom, in which we must hold ourselves to the same standards as we hold others, first own up to the impurities in our own hearts, and treat our enemies with love as we would desire to be treated by them.

I have to say (again as an Independent) that I was particularly surprised by the President’s commercial.  Though I disagree with a number of his policies (in this case, on abortion), I have found him generally to be respectful and reasonable in his discourse over the past 4+ years (here is President Obama at his best, in my opinion).  Since 9/11, many have noted that Republicans have gotten into a rut of playing the “Vote Scared!” card when it comes to foreign policy and homeland security issues (this election cycle, we’ve moved from Middle Eastern terrorism to Chinese economic growth and the Arab Spring).  But it seems Democrats have found their counterpart in the “War on Women.”  They have specifically chosen “war” and “fear” rhetoric, in which there is no room for shades of gray or stopping to really listen (lest the “enemy” attack).  For instance, this ad assumes that any reasonable person can see that abortion and contraception coverage are basic human rights for women.  There is no room for discourse.  If you think abortion is unjustly terminating a human life or that contraception is (more often than not) a lifestyle choice more than a medical necessity (both positions I support), you are making this society a “scary” place for women.  Hence, women should fear anyone who holds these positions–not dialogue with them, love them, or treat them as rational human beings who are co-journeyers in the ever-changing and murky waters of bioethics.  Fear; do not love or listen.

As Christians this election, what would it look like to “Vote compassion” or “Vote conviction” rather than “Vote scared”?  As John writes, “Perfect love drives out fear.”  What if we rest securely in the care of God’s promises, freed to lovingly engaging the societies in which we live?  What if we recognize not only that “This is my Father’s world,” but also that no one President will completely transcend the checks and balances of our system over the next four years (note that we’re not quite a Communist country even after 3.5 years under President Obama as the doomsday prophets of the last election cycle were predicting).  What if we listened attentively, spoke clearly, and modeled love for the “other” both when we are interacting with that “other” and when we are interacting with “our own”?

In the Vice-Presidential debate last week, the moderator asked the two VP candidates if they were at all embarrassed by the vitriolic tone of the campaign so far.  Both promptly began attacking and parrying (to use fencing terms), as if the concept were completely lost on them.  We should expect more from those who get our votes.  But first, we should expect more from ourselves.  By all means, vote!  But by all means, don’t vote scared!

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.


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!

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?

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:– Occupy website–links to info on the Occupy movement and historical context–some analysis of statistics related to the 99% number  and–some recent research on how distribution of wealth has changed over the past 30 years–Jim Wallis an his thoughts on whether the Occupy movement has some “Christian” character–a Occupy is being underestimated by the “elites” as well as an insider’s account of what goes on and how it developed–a call for protesters to acknowledge their own sin even as they hold others accountable–discussing how evangelicals can/should engage the Occupy movement based on 3 Christ-like aspects to Occupy