Nationalism

If you're not sure what exactly I'm talking about when I talk about compromised nationalistic messages . . . somehow I ran across this one today (I really wasn't looking for it!) . . . this is not the Gospel . . .

Why Wright Is Wrong from bellshoals on Vimeo.

Glenn Beck and Dealing in Politics

I have made it pretty clear through my posts here that I believe the American political system has compromised much of the Gospel in the American church. It has become difficult to discern the Gospel from the right wing political alignment of the Religious Right. There is certainly a wealth of disagreement when it comes to the nature of the Gospel and politics. Whenever I have some time, I'll be taking some time to study and work through some of the more critical matters involved here - I've recently just touched the surface. I foresee a discourse on Romans 13 coming soon.

For now, I want to take a moment and post a thought or two about Glenn Beck. I used to tune into his show occassionally just to stay abreast of what his very influential show is teaching. I would get so frustrated in watching it I came to the conclusion that it wasn't very beneficial for me to participate. However, I went to the gym last week and, his show on one of the televisions, I caught wind of his recent attacks on the "social justice" movement. As someone who has read a good bit in this area, I was intrigued as to what this great conspiracy was holding.

I actually dvr-ed the Glenn Beck show (never thought I would do that!) and, when I later watched what ensued, to say that I was outraged, disappointed, saddened, and appalled all at the same time wouldn't do justice to the range of negative emotions I felt. What Beck says doesn't bother me much - he is what he is; an entertainer, a personality, larger than life - all that. What I found so appalling was to see two prominent figures in the American church standing behind his shadow and mimic his agenda. All you conservative friends, keep in mind, I have no political allegiance - what appalled me wasn't so much the Republicanism (I'm used to that) it's their compromise and public debunking of fellow Christians . . . right next to Mr. Latter Day Saint, Glenn Beck. Beck's LDS is another topic for another day . . . what I find so amazing is that, by their actions, the president of the leading Reformed seminary (Westerminster) and wellknown evangelical (from Liberty University) more closely align their ideology and perspectives from someone from a false teaching - the LDS than from a liberal-voting evangelical Christian (though they didn't come right out and say it).

I have been looking for some perspective in addressing this sensitive matter. No doubt any posting in this regard will stir quite a flurry of comments and downright arguing. Is it possible to avoid that? Perhaps not. I found this blog posting over at Vanguard Church that I think has helped me focus this on the pertinent matter.

Glenn Beck is a false prophet. That's the title of his post . . . and I think Bob, the blog's author, is getting at the issue. I keep hearing people - Christians - crying out that we can't get involved in politics, that we must remain neutral. I know what they are saying. I'm not in complete disagreement. However, Glenn Beck's false teaching and compromise of the Gospel must be addressed. It is perhaps here more than anywhere else where the church's Constantinian compromise most vividly comes alive. I just read a book by Alan Hirsch entitled The Fogotten Ways. The point is about how the methodology of the church has been compromised by culture to the point that we can no longer envision another kind of church. At one point he makes the point, "the template of this highly institutional version of Christianity is so deeply embedded in our collective psyche that we have inadvertently put it beyond the pale of prophetic critique." (p. 51). The point of the book is more about the form and life blood of church but I make the same accusation of the church's involvement with politics. We have become so compromised by political power and might that we have lost our way - we can have put ourselves beyond the pale of prophetic critique.

I don't expect most people who read this to agree with me. I know my audience much too well. My hope is that you can take a moment and look inside yourself. What factors have led you to these political ties and perspectives that you hold so dearly? Why do you get so energized in the midst of these conversations? Could you be wrong?

I will share this on Facebook . . . not sure that's the best idea . . . but I hope you can engage in constructive dialogue . . . no matter what your perspective.

Helpful Fruit #4 - A Tradition of Pacifism

It was a trip to Columbus, OH that sealed my fate as a pacifist. I live in Columbus now, but at the time I was living, working, and going to school in Nashville, TN. I was working for a church in Nashville and had been invited to join a couple other former Buckeye residents to their yearly trek to the Ohio State - Michigan football game. I'll spare you the details (Buckeyes lost, John Cooper fired . . . really, really cold), but the connection to pacifism had to do with the car ride back to Nashville from Columbus. Two friends from church invited me, and one of the friend's brothers also came and provided our transportation.

Our foray into politics began while we were overnighting Friday at a friend's house and the topic of the recent election came up. Somehow, (I don't remember the details of the conversation, but if it was anything like most political conversations I've taken part in with Christians, the beginning presupposition of everyone present being a registered Republican probably played a role), the other men found out that I had voted for Al Gore. This (absurd, in their eyes) reality, opened us up to a weekend of political conversation and debate.

Even at that time, I had my suspicions about the benefit of a Christian being involved in the political process (even the less evil democratic political system), but had continued to meddle in the quasi-liberal-slanted perspective of my upbringing. Attending a private Christian school in the South immediately placed me in a smaller minority than the ethnic minorities at the not-long-ago-segregated campus of my alma mater.

It takes approximately six hours to drive from Columbus to Nashville, and that Saturday, after the game was over, our six-hour commute was solely focused on politics. The conservation moved from light joking about the parties, to the serious concern they had over my vote . . . and as I came to find out, my soul. The most tense moment came when the driver challenged anyone to, "Name one good thing Bill Clinton did for this country!" As a college student, that was pretty easy to do because the former President had help sign into legislation a huge college education assistance program that I had benefited from. "He had gotten me a few extra thousand dollars to attend college." Sounded like something good to me. Turns out, my traveling companion did not see this as in any way "good." His response began sternly, and grew louder to the point of a yelling crescendo, "It's my money and I worked my ass off for it, and why should I be paying for your college tuition?" The car sat in silence for quite awhile. Finally, as the tension began to lift a bit, I tried to make the point that I really had no dog in the fight. I wasn't card-carrying for anyone. My point was simply to force my companions into considering the biblical texts that didn't easily jive with their political views. "What about Acts 2 and 4 where the Christians met together and sold all they had and shared all they had?" I asked. "And how does the Old Testament practice of jubilee connect with your Right wing political stances?" These were questions they had never been asked before - really, they had never been asked these questions!

I relay this story not to characterize everyone with one broad-sweeping stroke. Certainly, politics are complicated and generalizations are seldom helpful. This experience, however, opened my eyes to the negative side of politics and the divisive and explosive discussions that often result. These events occurred nearly a decade ago, and the United States has grown even more divided along political lines. What a breath of fresh air a church who focused more on kingdom politics than on the tirelessly fallen politics of the nation would be! Never has the world needed the prophetic voice of the church to live out a nonpartisan politic who concerns herself with matters of justice, mercy, and righteousness.

In recent years, pacifism has grown in attention paid by Christian theologians. Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw brought some more academic concepts from people like John Howard Yoder and Jacques Ellul to a more popular-level, lay Christian audience through their book: Jesus for President. Other scholars and pastors like Gregory Boyd, Lesslie Newbigin, and a host of others, are receiving wide readership and extensive exposure. As the West continues to broaden its perspective through the advances of technology and mass media, global concerns are becoming prevalent, and for many Christian traditions, their theological structure is incapable of productive dialogue in this setting.

In my years in seminary at Lipscomb University, it came as a huge surprise that this private Christian school with an overwhelming pro-Republican undertone, actually bears the name of one of America's most important Civil War-era Christian pacifists (and I don't think this is overstated): David Lipscomb. In fact, it turned out, Churches of Christ have a ripe tradition of pacifism. Lipscomb's 1913 work, Civil Government, represents what might be one of the most overlooked and under-appreciated documents produced in America on the topic of pacifism. [The full version of Lipscomb's work is available online here.]

Scholars in Churches of Christ continue to maintain this longstanding tradition - most notably through the work of Lee Camp (Lee has written the very popular Mere Discipleship, and hosts the Tokens program at Lipscomb) and Michael Casey ("the topic about which he was most passionate and which forms the largest corpus of his published materials was that of pacifism in Churches of Christ . . ." from preface of And the Word Became Flesh, essays written in his honor published this year.) Lipscomb University also has faculty member Richard Goode who teaches in the history department who has been especially formative in my experience, even in my limited interaction with him. In short, the pacifist tradition in Churches of Christ is alive in well . . . at least in the academy.

The challenge before us as ministers within the tradition is to bridge the gap between the isolated tower of academia and the every-day life of the church. In my early years of ministry I see no message as desperately needed in the face of mounting political divisions as this one. At the same time I have experienced the loudest and most acute backlash from conversations in this vein. Nationalism has become the most uniting characteristic of our churches: progressive and conservative churches are equally as likely to sing patriotic hymns in their service and display the American flag prominently in their building.

Certainly, pacifism stands as one of the more hopeful fruits of our tradition. It is also, however, one of the most challenging in teaching and discussing. It is widely said the two topics to avoid in public conversations are politics and religion. What this topic does is jump head first into them both. When it comes to our political allegiances, Churches of Christ are as guilty as any other Christian group of losing our way. It is important for us to rekindle the thoughts and ideas of our pacifist forefathers . . . and be reminded that these are not novel ideas - as the accusation sometimes is made. Not only is there a great history of pacifism within the broader Christian church, closer to home, Churches of Christ share in this rich tradition. We must learn to not be afraid of talking about politics, but we must reframe the conversation. We must overcome the unnecessary obstacles that we have placed in front of those who differ politically and open our minds to a new political reality, a politics of the kingdom of God.

This is not a call for being anti-political (a charge I have been accused of). Quite the contrary, this is a call for a renewed orientation, for allowing God to set our political agendas instead of our governments, and for realizing that our politic is our life, not our vote. We must allow our political agendas to be caught up in the vision of God, not the latest candidate to ascend to power. May Christ grant us some sanity when it comes to charged political matters. May he grant us the confidence and vision of the prophets to speak the Word of God. Those of us in Churches of Christ stand in a great tradition to be able to do so, may we be bold in taking up that calling.

Revisiting the Truth Project

Last fall I did a series of posts reflecting on the video series promoted by Focus on the Family called The Truth Project. It was a well-produced series that promotes, by my assessment, a foundational Christian philosophy that has gone on the offensive in recent years as it has lost steam in the face of the demise of modern philosophy. I continue to receive many hits from folks searching for information to the Truth Project and thought I would repost my most recent response to a Truth Project inquiry.

Someone inquired to my reaction to this link regarding Lesson 9 on the state. I offered the following thoughts:

Thanks for the post, Randy and the link. I looked over the information and it lays out Tackett's premise in regards to the role of the "sphere of the state." In some of my other posts on The Truth Project, I've critiqued this "sphere" understanding to the Bible.

It is Tackett's understanding that the Bible somehow maps out this grandiose social order. Now, I'm the first to acknowledge there is a great order and scheme behind the great creative God, but I'm not convinced that he isn't over playing the cards on this one. Foundational to his argument (again, a philosophical underpinning that I've already rebutted in this post) is the idea that God has created blue printed confines within which the state must operate.

His case point is a handy one considering his conservative realpolitik. Why not consider the question, "Can the state murder unjustly?" His case study on can the state steal is simply his case against the welfare state.

In his argument he chooses the relatively obscure story of Uzziah. Now, Uzziah's in the Scriptures and I also believe he should be considered. But, it could hardly be argued that Uzziah somehow represents an exemplary story of the core identity of Old Testament social ethics.

A broader and more fundamental Old Testament example would be Leviticus 25's teaching of the year of Jubilee. Every 50 years the state of Israel was to forcibly redistribute wealth. It's not often termed that way since it sends up so many red flags, but is that not exactly what happens? Those who had become imprisoned were to be freed. Those who had lost everything were given a fresh start. Those who had accumulated too much had to give up their excess. Interestingly, Tackett makes strong statements about the Bible's teaching making it being an overstepping of the role of the state to do exactly what Israel was commanded to do (and later reprimanded by the Old Testament prophets for not doing!) And this is no obscure law on the edge of the Torah - this was fundamental to it's economy! By no means am I claiming that this solves any discussion . . . however, it blasts major holes in Tackett's arguments and shows him to be rather inept in his presentation by not dealing with the most glaring shortcomings of his overgeneralization.

One other aspect of the notes I'll comment on is the listing of the states and their leaders who have shown "obvious overstepping of the state's authority." It's a list of the notable notorious world leaders: the worst of the worst - Hitler, Stalin, etc. While I am in no way comparing these evil empires with the American empire, I do think it deserves mention that the United States and other Western empires are not allowed a free pass. Millions have died at the hands of American militaristic campaigns.

Again, I'm not in any way denying the blessings of our country. However, as Christians we are called to be prophets, standing back from the culture and acknowledging God when we see Him, acknowledging sin when we see it. More Christians need to acknowledge America is an empire. The only empires in the Bible were staunchly addressed in the Bible (be it Rome, Egypt, etc.) We must not give America some free pass. Tackett's theology here is a house of cards created to avoid real critique and consideration of prophetic implication for the new empire in which we find ourselves.

Thanks again, Randy for you comments, I'm going to post this as my newest blog entry as well since it's been awhile since I've commented on the Truth Project.

Neither Conservative Nor Liberal

Lee Camp's message is timely, poignant, and needed in pulpits across the nation.

http://ottercreek.podOmatic.com/entry/2009-08-30T13_05_53-07_00

Necessitating an Egyptian/Roman Translation of the Bible

Earlier this year the Patriot's Bible hit the bookshelves of stores all across the country. There is an interesting video floating around from the editor explaining the rationale behind the compiling of this work, but in the end, I have to side with others who see this as perhaps the culmination of the patriotic idolatry of the American church. I feel this is an important teachable moment for people who may feel uncomfortable with this latest marketed Bible (which by the way, shouldn't we feel uncomfortable with all of these "specialized" and "marketed" Bibles?) thinking this may go too far. I don't want to dwell on critiquing this particular Bible here. The few folks that do come by here and read, have a pretty fair idea of the string of that argument. Instead, I'd like to propose another Bible that needs to be compiled.

Stephen Prothero has an interesting book entitled American Jesus: How the Son of God became a National Icon. While I haven't has a chance to read the book, the description on the back details an important element in American culture. "Our nation's changing images of Jesus, Stephen Prothero contends, are a kind of looking glass into the national character. Even as most Christians believers cleave to a traditional faith, other people give Jesus a leading role as folk hero, pitchman, or countercultural icon." (From Dan Cryer, Newsday). Prothero pursues something that consistently shows itself to be true: humans are most likely to worship a deity that looks most like us. Of course Jesus was white. Of course Jesus would be in favor of capitalism. Of course Jesus woudl be in favor of democratic governments. Of course Jesus would be an American patriot - he'd probably wear red, white, and blue to the fireworks. That's what we do . . . so it must be what he would do. Thus the Patriot's Bible.

Unfortunately, for us, the Bible was written from the perspective of the oppressed, not the oppressors; from the perspective of the poor, not the wealthy; from the perspective of the powerless, not the powerful. Yet in the halls of our churches and seminaries, the Bible has been slanted toward those perspectives. Jesus, like Bruce Barton's The Man Nobody Knew, becomes a mirror of successful Americana.

It seems to me we need to come up with a translation of the Bible that would have been read in Cairo and Rome. A Bible that would have stood to convict Pharaoh and Caeasar of their sins of oppression. I'm guessing we wouldn't particularly care for the language that it would contain, the acts of sacrifice it would require, or the life changes it would mandate. It would, once and for all, specifically address the problems of affluence and excess. Gluttony and abundance would be given more than the scant references contained in the Holy Scriptures.

Our leaders should be spending their time composing a work such as this instead of wasting our time wading through the references to Scripture in the founding documents of the United States as if that somehow makes their genocide of the Native Peoples less significant.

Readings off the Map

In researching for my upcoming paper, I'm reading through a lot of scholarly work on the periphery of theological scholarship. Most folks who check this blog out will probably be pretty unfamiliar with much of this work. I know some of you will have difficulty stomaching some of it, but I think there is great reward in exposure to things we have difficulty understanding and that offends. Stemming from a pacifist perspective, consider the following excerpt from Walter Wink's book, Unmasking the Powers. (By the way, this book is written with the Cold War as a backdrop, and it has been interesting for me to see the many parallels with today's works reflecting on the war on terror.)

“This is why the American abolitionist and founder of the Oneida Community, John Humphrey Noyes, could write to William Lloyd Garrison,
‘When I wish to form a conception of the government of the United States (using a personified representation), I picture to myself a bloated, swaggering libertine, trampling on the Bible – its own Constitution – its treaties to the Indians – the petitions of its citizens, with one hand whipping a negro tied to a liberty pole, and with the other dashing an emaciated Indian to the ground . . . The question urges itself upon me – “What Have I, as a Christian, to do with such a villain?”
‘My hope of the millennium begins where Dr. Beecher’s expires – namely, AT THE OVERTHROW OF THIS NATION.’
I have quoted such an extreme view because it helps place in relief the most radical challenge of Revelation 18: its celebration of the fall of the richest and most powerful empire of the time. Are we then to entertain the terrible possibility that the salvation of humanity depends somehow on the decline, destruction or transformation of the United States as a sign of God’s sovereignty over the nations? Rome, yes, but – America? Never! The very suggestion of such a thing will strike many Americans as subervsive. And that reaction itself is an index of our idolatry. A godly people would react ot the treat of God’s judgment with fear, awe, consternation. They would know that no person and no nation is righteous before God. They would say, with Jefferson, ‘I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just.’ But Americans do not, on the whole, think that way. To the degree that they are religious at all, they actually believe that God is pleased, beholden to, partial to, and identified with our land.
This is not to deny that, in many ways, our nation may be a more desirable place to live than some other countries. Nor do I wish to ignore the many positive contributions it has made to human society. My point is simply that these contributions in no way mitigate the objective state of idolatry that has been the price we have paid for nationhood.”

Many of us who speak against the perils of our country take great offense and quickly dismiss us as "haters" or the like. I think the merit in Wink's point here is that it must be possible for the Christian to live critically in the world she is a part embracing the good, but prophetically rebuking the evil.

Torture

I have several topics of interest I hope to post about in the next week or so - health care being at the top of the list and what I had intended to blog about today, but then I read the editorial that Cal Thomas had in today's paper about torture. I have to be honest, I have been way out of touch with things in the media lately (that must account for the peace that I have felt over the past few days), and have just heard a piece here and there in regards to the big debate about torture and all that has come with that. Just another partisan battle for the ages.

I guess it's because I am a glutton for punishment, but for the most part, I expose myself to more conservative media personalities and outlets than liberal ones. It seems to me that listening to folks you agree with all the time doesn't do much to help your critical assessment of the world, so I listen to people who drives me nuts. In that spirit, I spent a few minutes over lunch a bit ago watching videos from conservative discussions on the topic of torture mainly from Fox News. I suppose what surprises me (and disappoints me) most in these discussions is to see publicly confessed Christians (Cal Thomas is a Presbyterian from Washington D.C., and I also saw Glenn Beck following his same lines of argument - he's a Mormon) offer the party byline when it comes to overt matters of morality.

It would be my hope that something like the possible torture by the United States government would help expose the idolatrous relationship that so many Christians have with their state. Much of the time the patriotism that has invaded the faith of so many Christ-followers sits idly by as they pledge allegiance to their flag, sing the National Anthem before their sporting events, and sport their "God Bless the USA" bumper stickers on the back of their SUVs - seemingly harmless events. I'm the first to say that seeing one's faith through the cataract of post-Constantinian Christendom, the aforementioned actions are difficult to give much critical attention to. This realm of life espouses such incredible passion and fervor that seldom do these issues ever leave the level of passion to a place where critical self-examination can take place.

Perhaps you don't see the harm in pledging your allegiance to a flag. Maybe you believe the United States is the great hope of the world (an aside note: I just finished reading Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil which does a great job of illustrating how the "Captain America complex" has dominated the pages of American history where her politicians, leaders, and public-at-large has seen the America in the role as super hero: never guilty, but falsely accused; never the provoker, but always the provoked; never fully appreciated for what she means to the world; always working from the omniscient presence - "I'll save you even though you don't realize you need saved." They do a fantastic job of showing how this fautly logic has driven the country's foreign policy since its inception and how the current chlallenges faced in the "war on terrorism" are the same challenges that faced the U.S. in the Cold War, Vietnam, and on back through history) but surely the sight or thought of your nation's government toturing criminals delivers you a bit of an ethical quandry.

Charles Sheldon suggested we ask, "What would Jesus do?" That, apparently, only applies to personal matters of morality. We allow governments to operate under their own rules of engagement. It's different for them, right? Well, that's the thing: a lot of folks are having to ask that question now. Is that right? Jesus would never torture anyone. Jesus was tortured. How can we sit back and, even for one moment, for one criminal, allow an exception? When does the Bible ever teach that the end justifies the means - especially when we are at war?

I'm tired of conservatives telling me that I just don't understand. Sean Hannity told me I suffer from a pre-September 11 mentality. I'm the dumb one. I'm the naive one. It's one thing for liberals and conservatives to banter this stuff back and forth. It's entirely something else when I Christian can idly stand by and join the conversation without maintaining their sense of uniqueness - holiness.

My plea for conservative Christians is to acknowledge that fighting violence with violence will not work - it never works. Our government has promised us that greater force is needed to fight off the enemies so that peace will prevail . . . again . . . even though it hasn't worked before . . . even when we dropped two atomic bombs and killed thousands of innocent people in Japan. The terrorists killed 3,000 people in the United States, and we have killed more than ten-fold in civilians in two other nations. When will it end? We should expect this faith in the empire from those without hope, but from people with faith in Jesus? Those pulling triggers and dropping bombs will always be closer to the soldiers killing Christ than the innocent one on the cross.

Reflections on Peter Rollins Lecture & Newt Gingrich's Book

Peter Rollins

I found out a few weeks ago that Peter Rollins was going to be in Columbus yesterday, so I worked things out to be able and go listen to him. He offered a three hour lecture. The whole experience was a little surreal as I joined a crowd of 80 in a dimly lit old theater listen to a post-modern Christian philosopher from Ireland with beer on-tap. I haven't had a lot of exposure to Rollins, but my interest was piqued by some video clips I ran across online a few weeks back. Trained as a philosopher, Rollins has brought to light one area I feel especially inadequate in study. A few years ago I remember being challenged by John Caputo at a conference about the place of philosophy in our faith. To say that it was lacking in my training would be a huge understatement.

I'm not sure I could adequately reflect on Rollins' lectures here, but would strongly encourage anyone who gets the chance to hear him to do so. His group works on the fringes of Christianity and will stretch any Christian in our country with his thoughts. He suggests that his work (with the quasi-faith community called Ikon) has a prophetic voice on the fringes of orthodox Christianity. No doubt many would question his place within orthodoxy altogether, I do believe that he is providing necessary critique for the current state of the modern church. I am very excited to read his forthcoming The Orthodox Heretic (April) as it is a collection of parables created by Rollins to help communicate. Highly entertaining to listen to, Rollins is well schooled in parables from philosophy, rabbinic traditions, and other places - it will be well worth anyone's time to read from his forthcoming collection.

Essentially, Rollins argued in the first section of his lecture that the modern project of reason succeeded in objectifying God . . . the pinnacle coming with Nietzche's "killing of God." Nietzche, in fact, simply proceeded through the modern project. Rollins made use of a helpful image of God always pushing back at theology resisting the temptation to be objectified. I loved his image of God being so close, and so transcendent that we can't figure him out (as opposed to so far away we can see him, what, I'm sure many of his opponents argue). There's more to be said here, but I'm still processing.

Rediscovering God in America

Secondly I wanted to spend a few minutes dissecting a book given to me by one of our elders (thanks, Curt :-) ). The book, Rediscovering God in America, is a tour through the monuments and important structures in the United States which Newt Gingrich has compiled to "rediscover the historic source of American liberty and to rediscover the founding generation's understanding of what is required to sustain liberty in a free society." p. 131. I appreciate Curt giving me this book and offering it as a challenge to the pacifist perspective I argue.

I ackowledge that this book has forced me to reevaluate my considerations for the relationship between the Christian faith and participation in this nation. I believe that I often over-state the ills of our government in order to make the case that a Christian is not called to participate in government. The United States is a rather enigmatic case for Christians to consider when considering the government. I believe what Gingrich is trying to do is to combat the radical left that wants to rewrite history books taking "God out of the founding of our nation" - I would imagine he would say something like that.

Gingrich states that he does not intend for his book to be theological in nature, but for the theologian, everything is theological. To allow a book like to address state concerns or sociological concerns and NOT theology is to create and/or expand an incredibly harmful compartmentalization that deeply affects the American church. Gingrich's observations should be troubling for Christians on multiple accounts. First of all, the unspoken logic of the book is that because Scripture permeates the national landmarks we were indeed birthed as a religious (Christian) nation. It's amazing to me how many evangeicals rush to the frontlines of our nation's beginnings and uphold the founding fathers as born again Christians. It is well documented that many, if not most, of these forefathers were Deists at best.

With our Scriptures stamped all over the landmarks of this nation, I am disappointed more Christians are not disheartened by the early ways these forefathers did not act like Christians, devistating the Native peoples from their lands (in many ways, I believe the horrors inflicted on the Native Americans are every bit as horrendous as what Hitler did to the Jews - by the grace of God, the Jewish race survived the atrocities, but many Native civilizations were destroyed by this "Christian" nation - but becaue it is closer to home, it is not talked about). We are too quick to separate their behavior from their actions. We are too close to the situation. We want to have the Christian underpinnings of society, but to do so, we have some seedy baggage to deal with. Christ has called us to faithfulness to him, period. Not knowledge of Scriptures. Not claiming a land for him. Not policing the world in his name. We are called to love him and love others. By participating in the state, I am not sure we can do that. I see it in the people I care the most for. They cast a blind eye at blatantly un-Christian practices at the state level excusing it as if Jesus holds the state to a different standard.

This brings me to a second important point. I believe the most mis-guided aspect of our discussions about the state in America centers on the concept of freedom. It is vital that we ackowledge that the Bible is no guaranteer of freedom. The United States has propagandized the nation over recent decades, focusing especially on Christians, stamping our fight for freedom in all international conflict under the guise of godly oversight and protection. The Bible does not teach to fight for freedom. NOWHERE! If this offends you, stop reading right now and do a study. There is no guarantee of freedom. I know it's easy for me to say that. I wouldn't trade it for anything. But God has called me to faithfulness, obedience, and love, not the right of freedom. Slaves were told to obey their masters, not fight them or run away. This concept calls into question the very root of our nation - fighting (read killing) for our freedom. Is this what Jesus taught on the sermon on the mount? How dare we give a free pass to those in the military because they do so in combat? Jesus never makes that distinction, how can we? This places the onus on those who wish to argue for military participation, not me.

This is not an easy discussion to be had. I don't know if many are ready to fully open themselves up for the implications of what this means. I believe that Gingrich is narrow-mindly American in his book and potentially sows the seed for a future holy war. Perhaps he will follow it up with a second volume noting all the landmarks of Iran that are covered in verses from the Koran and how their nation is built around a good-peaceful religion gone bad and now must be destroyed. It becomes nothing more than a modern-day crusuade. The cycle of this thought continues. We must spend more money so our military is the biggest so that no one threatens us . . . haven't we misplaced our hope as soon as we do that? And so many of us do that without even thinking about it. My hope is in God. Period.

The idea of kingdom is political. It was the political jargon of the day. What purpose would Jesus have had in using that language unless he meant his kingdom to be an alternative politcal reality? We can praise the outcome of the wars of the state (freeing blacks, defeating Hitler, etc.) but Christians must always do so with a partly disappointed heart knowing that this is not the way of the kingdom. The means must be consistent with the end . . . the end cannot be used to justify whatever means possible. This is not an easy teaching to accept. But, something that Gingrich fails to ackowledge, is that every ruler, every war, is started and maintained by people who believe that God is on their side (is the swastika not a broken cross?) Just becuase we think God is on our side does not make us right . . . or good.

The Truth Project Twice More

We are nearing the end of our small group study of The Truth Project. Last night I watched the second to last installment about the "sphere of labor." I did not get to see the last video about "The American Experiment" but have a pretty good idea of where he was going with it - a place I will be spending a great deal of time arguing against in the coming weeks. Essentially believing that America is a great last hope for the Gospel and we need to continue to try and "save it for God" or bring it back to God or whatever. Anyone reading this who has been here before knows that I especially struggle with such a perspective. I just finished reading Gregory Boyd's book entitled The Myth of a Christian Nation. It is a great pastoral piece written to challenge and make people uncomfortable in dealing with their idolatry of nationalism. This problem is alive and well and way too often has gone unaddressed. I would like to say more about the book as I found it to be a poignant and sharp pastoral treatment of a topic that is all too often left in academia.

However, back to the truth project. I had many misgivings and much reserve in studying this material knowing that it was produced (or at least marketed) by Focus on the Family. I knew there would be some underlying agenda-driven points along the way. It met me squarely with this video on labor. Now, I do applaude the inclusion of this topic in the series. He is right that we too often do not speak of the place of labor in our theological framework. And for the first part of his video I felt he did a fair job of presenting a biblical perspective. Our role in work is rooted in God's working in the Genesis account. God worked. He created us to work. Work is not inherently evil. The Fall did affect work (he states that the text shows it affected the ground, not work itself, which may be a semantical variation, but I don't feel as though he gives enough credance here to the affect the Fall has had - he sure was adament that the Fall had affected our moral capacity in the rest of the series!)

When he moves away from Genesis, however, he begins some hermentuetical gymnastics to make his right wing political ideology fit the Bible. I found his use of the biblical text in this video to be incredibly selective and misleading and incredibly unfortunate. He loves the Old Testament where it talks about leaving behind the gleanings for the poor people to work - to ensure they WORK for their wages. The poor should not be given hand outs. OK, I'm with him there. Systematic rehabilitation is at the core of addressing the complex issues of poor - but little progress will be made by wood-working factories leaving the sawdust for poor people to collect and recycle (the "incredible" example he gives). But here, as throughout this series, he is showing an incredibly myopic and fundamentalist perspective of the text. The Bible says it, I believe it, let's move on. He came across to me as a very well-intentioned (I don't doubt his heart) white, middle class American who has taken little time to sit down accross the table from the impoverished families who are all out of "easy" answers. For Tackett, everything is flat. The poor need jobs; people with money need to make jobs so they will work. If only it was that simple!

This is, to me, one of the most frustrating aspects that frequently surfaces from evangelical Christianity - an utter disregard for the complex sociological and economic factors affecting the world. Please don't take this the wrong way, but there comes a point and time when we need to put our Bibles down and learn from economics, sociology (and all other disciplines) and struggle and wrestle with how this impacts our understanding of the sacred texts. It is like Tackett has been unaware through this entire series how he has been shaped by these disciplines and through his life experience, and instead stamps his perspective as the way.

Unfortunately, his way doesn't consider the fundamental economic program in the Old Testament. I have had disagreements with his teaching throughout the series, but felt as though it served as good discussion. Some of his statements and teachings in this series are downright misleading and un-biblical. I am flabergasted that he would spend 15 minutes of his hour long session on the gleanings passage and NEVER mention jubilee. Jesus reads from the text in Isaiah at the beginning of his ministry in Luke stating that he has come to fulfill this (in their hearing). Israel was intended to be built around the idea of redistrubtion of wealth - something he lists on the screen that the Bible teaches is a SIN! A sin! It is a biblical teaching! I'm not supporting socialism or anything like that . . . my point is that Tackett has allowed his culture to dictate his understanding of the text. The Bible does teach that this is a sin. It actually looks a lot like what the early church did. Jubilee forcefully redistributed the wealth every fifty years. I don't believe that this makes everything easy to understand . . . but if you are going to have a Bible study you CAN'T spend a fourth of your times talking about the gleanings (because that fits into your Republican/Protestant work ethic ideology) and not address the jubilee (because that fits more into a Democratic/liberal sharing of wealth that you don't agree with). Why else would he avoid this teaching? It is even more central to Old Testament theology? And of course he went to the Proverbs to uphold the value of work and all that. There is a lot to be wrestled with here, and he avoids the conflict altogether and instead presents our form of economy as though it is ordained in Scripture - it is not. It may be a better version than most or all other economies . . but it is not presented in the Bible (our economy is totally foreign to the biblical authors).

He makes the same mistake in the New Testament. He rushes to you don't work you don't eat and says . . . See, told you. But totally avoids Jesus' fundamental teachings from the Sermon on the Mount - if someone asks for your tunic, give him your cloak as well. Tackett would say give him a job. Hey that's great . . . but all I've got is a tunic and cloak. His poor use of the Bible in this episode shows that he is not a theologian working outside his field, mistraining those in the ways of his ideology.

He shows his card and the house of cards falls out from under him by a simple and seemingly harmless comment he makes off the cuff and on the side. To completely understand this you'll have to know the general outline that he uses for his teaching. There are great foundations built on the nature and character of God, anthropological insights, supporting pillars of philosophy and others and on top are these spheres: labor, sociology, and others. His premise is that these spheres are the created order set in place by God with a purpose. It is when these spheres overlap into another sphere that sin enters. It sounds great, but it's not biblical. The Bible nowhere lays out some created order that everything follows. This is where modernistic scientific models break down. Sure, there is some good in organizing things this way and it is a helpful way to talk about things that don't get addressed enough. However, you can't draw logical conclusions based on these faulty logic premises. That fails to see them for what they are. They are illustrates for the sake of discussion, not ontologically secure facts.

His comment is that the spheres of government (the state) and labor are different and that jobs can't come from the state. Wait . . . was that John McCain or Dell Tackett. The Bible doesn't say anything about that. He knows that, that's why he quickly moves on, but if you're paying attention, you can't let him get by with that comment. His whole system breaks down if you begin to use it in that way. My postmodern mind was fatigued by trying to follow his thoroughly modernistic approach and application to Scriptures. It furthers my suspicions that The Truth Project is a thoroughly modernistic agent dressed up with some bells and whitles (there was a really well done and cool video at the beginning of this session depicting God's creation), but riddled with the same issues that are being debunked by postmodernity.

In the end, Tackett offers too many answers, and not enough questions in an area that is very challenging and complex. I appreciate his willingness to address the topic, but wish that he would do so acknowledging his biasses.

Political Wake

I write this post as the 2008 political campaign has finally ended. At 29, this marks the third Presidential election of my voting career. Having taken part in these three elections (and most of the others in between), this election year was altogether different for me. In the weeks and months leading up to yesterday, I had countless conversations, emails, facebook exchanges, etc. with people who vehemently disagreed with my political ideology and an occassional sympathetic ear - but I find myself very alone in this arena. Perhaps, I'll look back one day and see that this was the political season that raped me of my youthful naivete in approaching politics. I, as a minister, I have found myself in a precarious position. Most of us know to leave politics out of the pulpit as it has no place there. I've never been tempted to dabble there - that area seems pretty black and white, but from there the water gets a little cloudy.

Most ministers I talk with leave politics at home. They don't put signs up in their yard or bumper stickers on their car (both, I strongly believe all people of faith should avoid - public endorsement like that seems like a bigger barrier to the kingdom than anything positive). They don't blog about it (unless they have some secret blog that no one from their church knows about - yeah, I don't think many folks from church come here, so I'm guilty). They limit their conversations with sympathetic church members they know to be "safe." I suppose there is some value there. It seeks to avoid polarization. I in no way wish to cast aside those good intentions. However, I can't help but seeing in that perspective a bit of superficiality and television evangelist. If someone asks me what I think, I believe I should tell them what I think instead of dancing around like some little girl holding in her pee. We, like the rest of the world, have strong convictions and beliefs. Talking about them with others helps temper our ideals as well as challenge them and grow them. I don't believe that we should go on the offensive, but I also believe that we should not run from them and play the politically safe game. Avoiding them altogether, as many do, seems too "safe." Perhaps, their naivete is long gone and they realize how hot the fire is we are playing with.

So . . . I chose to be a bit more vocal about things for the first time. Still no preaching or signs or bumper stickers, I'm not talking about that. But, I have posted publicly on facebook a couple of articles that lean to the left. (I'm sure there were a few folks who said, "I thought he was a minister!") I have made comments here and there on facebook (which are seen by 300 plus people I know at differing levels - most Christians, some not). It's been a great way to reconnect with some folks at a level beyond the, "How's the wife and kids" stuff. The result has been numerous conversations on ideology with people I know at varying levels and who are from an array of different socio-economic situations: doctors, lawyers, factory workers, professors, business folks, other ministers, that one strange guys that I don't know what he does, and that girl from high school who I think is stalking - just kidding, on both accounts). At first, I thought, great! We can talk through these things and hopefully help each other grow, etc. That's where that naivete was probably still alive and well. The discussions turned to tomes, and I came to realize that my minutes were turning to hours addressing this stuff. The tone of the discussions also changed. What I entered into, at first, with an open and honest heart, quickly became frustrated and more interested in changing the other person's opinion than any kind of growth or encouragement. I got really caught up in that again today, when I finally realized I needed to take a step back and think about things. The result is this, very long, post that is currently on my blog and posted as a note on facebook.

I am disappointed with the attitude of so many Christians I have seen living out their faith in this political season. I am disappointed, especially, in myself. I, like so many others, have lost my way this political season. I have become more interested in arguing my wacky concepts that nobody is pro-abortion, that capitalism isn't God's one and only design for the economy, that the zealous nationalist patriotism so many Christians hold to, looks similar to jihadism from outside our country, and on and on (these things I think are important and uphold a counter-culutral sense of politcs that the wounded Lamb embodied choosing the way of death instead of imperial power - that's the point of Revelation!) And I have failed to use this opportunity to hold unabashedly to my core tenet of faith: there is a Supreme Being who has created this world as it is, and who, through some incredible Providence that I cannot understand, will make all things good in the end. I have forgotten the great catechism that has guided so many believers in history: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." Not to win elections. Not to pursuade people of the "right" answers.

As we move forward into this new world, I believe that Obama's tenure will bring a new chapter to our nation in many ways. For me, the most important thing to be said as we move toward a new world will be learning to move beyond our prejudices. No matter your affiliation or feeling, you couldn't help but be moved by the scene in Chicago last night which inspired hope and opportunity for all African Americans in our country. Hopefully, all were able to set partisianship aside last night for a few hours and just enjoy what this means in the big picture of our nation - and of the world. John McCain's concession speech encouraged all to do so, and was a wonderful call for all to move forward. This is the most important political event of my 29 years.

The way forward means a call to a new conversation. I apologize to people who are not Christians who have watched over the past months and have seen no difference between people of faith and those without faith. I am sorry we have not shown the way forward in the midst of disagreement. We should have shown the way. Our sacred text reads that nothing is to divide those with a believing faith in Christ - but that has not been the case - or at least it has not been evident. We are divided . . . blue and red Christians.

You and I both must overcome the desire to be right, and instead let the desire to be good be our chief aim. Instead of locking heads about the semantics of abortion law, let's work together to help young people find more constructive things to do with their time than have irresponsible sex. Instead of fighting over how to best combat terrorism, let's make every effort as individuals, organizations, businesses, and even government to be people who love others. I am sorry to say that our faith does not fight force with force and may not always look "successful." Instead of bickering over money and taxes, let's share the incredible wealth our nation has been blessed with with those in our cities and living on the streets, with those around the world. I am sorry so many of my fellow Christians speak of what they want to do with "MY" money. All that I have is yours, and if you have a need that I can address, I will do all that I can to do so. Instead of arguing over health care, let's help take care of our neighbors and fellow citizens.

Most non-Christians would be surprised to know that this is exactly what the first church was like. There are four Gospels that tell us about the life of Christ, and then a Book called Acts which tells us what Jesus' followers did with his teachings. Early on we find thousands who were cut to the heart and didn't know what to do in light of thier faith. They came to believe that Jesus was God's Son, and became followers of him. The result was not toting Bibles around yelling at people, but instead living communally with each other. They shared all that they had. They cashed in their retirement accounts and took care of each other. They ate together every day. They created little communal societies of accountability. It wasn't easy - which is probably why they didn't last. But, there can be little doubt that if the church was doing that today, many of the arguments that created our political campaign this year would have never happened. Early on, it was difficult for leaders of the nations to do anything to the Christians - they were so peaceful and helped the nation so much. Compare that to today, and it is hardly recognizeable.

So . . . for all of those who are reading this who have had long dialogue with me, I am sorry that I have taken up so much of your precious time. Thank you for taking the time to read these words right now. Those of you who don't know me at all, or have lost touch, I hope this is a clear window into my heart and mind. For Christians reading this, I hope you will turn the news off tonight, stop reading political articles online, and spend time with your family. Pray with your wife and kids. Leave the comfort of your home, and find someone in need. Over and over again we are commissioned that way, but I run from those opportunities. Pray about your church. Pray that God will move in you. It is my suspicion that most of you are like me and have spent much more time reading through political rants than quality time with your Maker. I know it sounds trite, and it isn't like me to be trite, but I can't really remedy this issue any other way.

I come from a tradition that inadvertantly has used prayer more like a cop-out than the incredible world changing power that it is. I feel well-grounded and totally dependent on God in some areas of my faith, but prayer is not one of those areas. I think sometimes I read, blog, or do other things to avoid the face to face encounter with a God I so seldom talk with. I think, if you are like me, I need to stop typing and reading . . . and spend my time where I can actually do some good - relying on the one who will get me there. And, if he tells you how to fix some of these major problems, be sure to let the rest of us know!

Refreshing Perspective

Everyone I know is sick of seeing the negativity in this year's Presidential election. I'm not sure we've seen anything like it. On my Facebook page, each time I log on I see all the articles and perspectives people on my friends list have posted. I have been distraught over the numerous articles filled win rancor and dissension from "Christians." Their arguments and their talking points are no different than their particular party's agenda. Hopefully, what I uphold here is not simply another talking post for liberal politics. If I follow closely with the typical liberal perspective, I am not where I want to be. I am sympathetic to much of the objectives of liberalism, however, see in them much short of kingdom perspective. I am in no way offended by conservativism. There is much there that is good. Why would half of our country espouse the two mindsets? There is good in each.

My strongest disappointment this year comes from (especially conservative, but not limited to) folks who have sold out to rhetoric of fear. My esteemed conservative friend who I discuss things with often (and who is no doubt reading this) falls solidly into that category. In arguing why he can't vote for Obama, it was exclusively a perspective of fear. As Christians why are we so afraid? We have a higher calling and a broader perspective. I found the following article in my inbox stating my perspective much better than I can. I hope, if you find yourself steaming at this post, you'll read the following link and see where I'm coming from.

http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=3287

More Politics and The Truth Project

I have a million things to do, but I want to put a quick blog post up in my hopes of being a little more consistent. Since we've returned from our vacation, I've been pulled a million different directions and I've been working at getting focused - all the while, still adjusting to our new schedule with Mary Beth and Clark at the preschool from 9:00 - 12:00. It's been a challenge.

I want to reference two different topics in this post.

First of all, more thoughts about politics. Recently I have spent some time watching some late night political talk shows. What a waste of time. Really! What a waste of time. Any Christian will have some explaining to do on judgment day as to why they wasted so much time in that arena. All the hosts are so extreme - regardless of the "slant." There are so many things out there that are more profitable. Some people reading this no doubt watch those shows and are offended that I would make such a swift/all encompassing statement - but seriously, what is the profit? You are more "up on the issues"? I've felt that shortcoming lately. It's easy to feel like you need to educate yourself to better debate the issues with friends and co-workers. The kingdom call us to a higher plane. If politically-obsessed Christians would spend more time creatively considering the crises of our world and the differences they could make in their own circles . . . I just have to think that is more profitable. Is there anything wrong with watching them? I'd say the answer is in that old adage: everything in moderation. If you want to watch a political show, fine. Pick one - just one, and do something more profitable with the rest of your time.

I plan to make a longer post in reference to Brian McLaren's latest book I'm nearly finished with - Everything Must Change. It's taken me awhile to get to it (I bought it last year at the zoe conference in Nashville - over a year ago). It's an interesting work and I'll post more later.

Two couples from our congregation spent a day in September attending a simulcast training presentation of Focus on the Family's The Truth Project. We began showing the series the week we were in Maine - three Sundays ago. It is a 50 minute video presentation, followed by a thirty minute small group experience. The two families that did the training were over-enthusiastic about it and brought that excitement to our church in hopes of bringing more depth to our membership.

Unfortunately, I head up our teens' small group on Sunday nights and that's really the only night that we can be together. I had some doubts about how much the teenagers would connect with it, and it's the only time we're together, so I was reluctant to separate the teens out. Anyway, the bottom line is I don't get to watch the videos with the rest of the church or participate in the small groups. There is a make up group during the week, and last night I attended that group watching the second video about worldview and philosophy.

I'll say up front that I expressed (quietly) some concern . . . no, not concern, doubt - about the underlying philosophy The Truth Project would be coming from - before seeing, but implying from what I know about Focus on the Family and the teasers that we watched. Our membership is excited about the series, and I in no way wanted to damper that, but instead wanted (and still want) people to consider the presentations critically. A note about Focus on the Family - I think they've done some good things and James Dobson began with a good direction, but has gone a direction that I am not comfortable at all and his political lobbying has outweighed the message he began with. Extremely disappointing. So, their affiliation with FOTF drew initial skepticism.

I searched for some information online about The Truth Project because I was unfamiliar with it, and couldn't find much. I did get a few hits praising it, but nothing real substantative, mostly passing references. I did find one substanitive blog in regards to it who shared concerns that I saw going in. If you are interested you can read his posts here. Maybe it was a bad idea to "jade" my own opinion before watching, but through some of his other posts I saw a similar theological outlook. So, if you see some repetition in my own thoughts below, I probably got them from him, and I think he was right on.

OK, so in reference to the second lesson:

It seems to me that the professor, Del Tackett, and the others involved in the series (R.C. Sproul, Os Guiness, Ravi Zaccarias, and others) are reacting to and struggling through a postmodern philosophical and theological shift that has already happened. This video highlights how unhelpful terms can be. "Postmodernism" according to Tackett is a false worldview that he groups next to "secular humanism," "Islam," among others. From my understandings, the philospohical foundations for this argument is not very accurate. Towards the end of the video the professor uses a chart which shows "Truth" on one side (what we're all after) and all the other "world views" on the other side throwing their lies at us, decieving us.

That is foundationalism. If we could just see those foundations, just weed out all the manipulations and half-truths and lies, we'd only be left with "truth." Tackett never addresses how we can do that when the only thing we have to work through are all those -isms and -ologies that shape our thinking.

He uses a box and some out-dated Sagan video series to illustrate the limits philosophy has put on its self. To see nothing outside the box leads only to despair and inner-conflict - Nietzche's nihilism (though for some reason, he never mentions Nietzhe). I don't like his box analogy. It's much too simple and cuts a critical step out. I told our small group I think I'd compare it more to a Rubik's cube. Sure, there's something outside the box (something that every poll shows 95% of people believe, I'm not sure why he spent so much time rehashing a dressed up ontological apologetic) but while we are inside the box are we free to understand that something on our own? I know it freaks out those absolutists, but relativity is inevitable. The great thing about Truth is not that once we have it figured out we are transformed (which is what I hear Tackett saying), but it is in our search for it and our conversations with other in regards to it, we are transformed. Realizing just how little of it we really know.

This is an area of theology I am extremely interested in, but unfortunatley, have difficulty communicating. This makes my interaction through this video series a challenge. I think I will be going back through Grenz and Franke's book Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. This was my first exposure to the topic and highlights the divide alive and well in "evangelical theology." Tackett is more espoused to the D.A. Carson's and Millard Erickson's (this divide can be easily seen in Erickson's response to Grenz's book Renewing the Center which he aptly titled in opposition: Reclaiming the Center.

In other words, the disagreement and problems that I see coming in this video series are not something I just made up. It is reflective of a broader issue of doing theology in a postmodern context in a post-rationalism, post-absolute world - the world of fragmentation as Grenz and Franke refer to it. I'll end with a quote from Grenz and Franke highlighting the trouble with Hackett's criticism of postmodernity:

"Clearly postmodernism cannot be dismissed as nothing more than a deconstrutive agenda that stands in stark opposition to Christian faith and thought. On the contrary, there is much evidence that suggests that the postmodern context has actually been responsible for the renewal of theology as an intellectual discipline after a period of stagnation under the weight of mdernists demands concerning the acquisition of knowledge. Freed from teh constraints of modernity, postmodern concerns have spawned numerous new theological programs." (p. 22)

If you have seen The Truth Project, I would love to dialogue further about it. I am excited to be having this dialogue in our church and appreciate these two couples wanting to be challenged and wanting to challenge our folks. I hope we are all up to that challenge.

So . . . What Exactly is Going on with the Economy

Believe it or not, we didn't have many economics classes in seminary, so I'm still playing catch up with all this stuff. Found this broadcast from NPR filled alot of holes for me:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95099470

Moving On

I'm not sure what happened to me last week, but somehow I got swept up into the political tidal wave I have, somehow, managed to avoid. I never listen to political talk radio (and last week I found myself listened to Dennis Miller in the car). I seldom post politically sensitive blog postings elsewhere (obviously here I do on occasion, but I don't figure anyone will ever read this), but found myself posting (and angering) other blogs. What in the world is going on?

One of the reasons that I limit my voyages into the political world is, as I stated in previous blog posts) I tend to find myself on the opposing side as many of those I interact with - maybe even most of the people I interact with. Add that to the fact that I have realized that I am very opinionated - and strongly opinionated at that . . . all those factors seem to unite into something that is not very edifying or unifying. Therefore, I wrestle with the need for balance. On one hand, I don't want to be the constant disjoint in the fabric of popular opinion. In conversations with church folks I see the need - very often, to bite my tongue and avoid a tedious, and probably mostly unprofitable discussion. However, I believe in the things I believe in and want strongly to bring that perspective to the discussion table often seeing it as a necessary corrective and "other side of the story" to what many are bringing.

So . . . for now, this is that avenue. If you read here and believe me to be strongly opinionated and over-the-top in my views, that is probably largely because I overstate the case here to help me from overflowing into more inappropriate places. So, in that thought, I'll make a few comments about the following story that appeared in our paper today. If you don't care to read it, it is about a group of Christian lawyers who are challenging the IRS' insistence that churches leave politics out of their public agenda, basically setting out to allow churches (and any other non-for-profit to publicly support a candidate). Maybe you think this is a great idea, but from my experience in churches this would be a horrible disaster and allow yet another divisive area to become even more so in churches. Can you imagine the implications of having a pastor preach from the pulpit who they should vote for? Granted, many pastors essentially do that today - anyone unclear where James Dobson stands? but this would take it to another level. I can't imagine this ever getting through, but the fact that this group is even pursuing it shows the bitter divide in Christianity over how we should go about impacting the world.

When our churches align with political parties we lose our prophetic voice. Jesus could have chosen political solutions, instead worked totally outside of the political system dying as a suffering lamb instead. I believe the book of Revelation has much to say to the church today in our political aspirations. In Revelation, the government is the dragon and monster and enemy of the work of Christ. Why are we so quick to join hands with them today?

On a much more serious note . . . Ohio State . . . huge game . . . will determine how next week goes for me . . . on top of that Browns - Steelers, by Monday, I may need a week off to recuperate.

Sarah Palin

So we all got to know a little more about Sarah Palin last night. I have to admit I was bouncing back between the speech and my college football game I was playing on PS2 - that will give you plenty of fodder to express how far from a true American I am. If I get home tonight I'll watch McCain's with my attention undivided. However, a few comments on Palin.

She's an impressive figure with a broad appeal to be sure. She undoubtedly will appeal to the conservative base in this country, though I really wonder how she will do with independents and conservative Democrats. Her in-your-face, no-holds-bar facade will do well with the conservative down-home moms, but left me a little wanting. I kept having this feeling, all through the speech, that I was listening to a revamped George W. Bush intimidation speech done with a skirt on. The "snide" (that was what some of the Democrats thought of the speech) comments constantly coming from her were strange and left me scratching my head. I mean, I suppose I understand from a political standpoint what was going on, but I still found the whole thing really odd. The cynic in me believes the Republicans are really just participating in underhanded sexism - putting the mother of 5 (oh yeah, with the baby with Down's Syndrome that they kept), dealing with family problems (pregnant daughter, who hasn't been there?), working class husband . . . all that - it's great, I'm not knocking that, don't read that, I just wonder if her part on the ticket is more about all that than any political fortitude she brings to the country.

OK, that made me sound like a Democratic sounding post . . . I'm trying to get away from all that. My real concern is to read her speech through as a Christian. How should I interpret her words through the lens of my faith? The snideness undermines alot of the Christian value I would have hoped to see in a woman who is such a stalwart Christian, but I'll pass on that because that has become the way we do politics in this country. Give me someone who doesn't worry at all about the other candidate and attempts to win the votes on their own merit, and then my ears will really perk up to listen.

I guess the aspect of Palin (and not just her but the whole McCain ticket) that really worries me from a Christian perspective is their insistence on scare tactics. Palin's whole deal, "My son's going to war and I want someone who's been there, etc. etc." doesn't connect with me. Now I know it does with alot of Americans, but I don't see the appeal for Christians. Why must we fear our boundaries? We are Christians! We have no boundaries. There are Christians in the nations we are bombing. Our nation has killed Christians. If you have not thought about that, then you have sold out to your nationalism too far. Is there ever a perfect solution? Of course not. However, in Obama's devotion to diplomacy, I feel we would be taking important steps forward, making back up some of the diplomatic ground that we have lost over the past 8 years.

I find it very interesting that my Christian peers are so afraid of the deterioration of the moral fabric of our nation, while casting a blind eye at the terrible name our country has (and read: MORAL name) across the globe. And in our entirely snobbish nationalistically centered ways, we think they are all wrong and ill-founded and ungrateful and fill in the blank. American Christians must cure their myopia and see the world larger than one or two issues.

I appreciate Palin and all that she represents for women. As a side note, it says a great deal about the Democratic party that this dog and pony show came their way (with Geraldine Ferraro) more than 20 years ago, and now they are breaking new ground on race - imagine how long it will be before the Republican party gets there? I'm not saying you vote for anyone because of their anatomy or skin color, but you have to grant a party something for breaking those barriers first. If you are unwilling to concede that, I feel you have been significantly jaded by your political lenses.

So the race if off. Much good was said of Palin and rightfully so. The real corrective, in all the debates and discussion, will be the facts. (More people should check out www.factcheck.org and websites like that as they get us a little closer to the actual facts). It is as difficult to see through the rhetoric in politics as it is in religion. Should I teach my Sunday school class on voting for the right candidate or the role of women in church? I suppose either choice would be as caustic. If we could just stick to the facts. The great philosophical realization we're all forced to come to terms with, however, is that there are never just facts. All facts have to be interpreted. My favorite thing to do in this political season is to watch these speeches and then flip back and forth between Fox News and the other news stations and listening to the different perspectives. I sit there and listen and say to myself, "Wait a minute, didn't we just all watch the same speech." Perspective is a powerful thing! Read my last post!

Politics

I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't comment about politics. At 29, this is quickly becoming the most challenging year for me to discern my political perspective. To say that I lean "Left" would be stating the obvious for anyone who knows me. I don't intend to come across that way, and almost never do I ack0wledge that point blank - as I've done here. What the Democrats say in public makes more sense to me than what the Republicans say (I choose the word "say" because I am not naive as to how that often varies between words and practice. In actuality what both parties claim to be about differs only slightly - sure how they claim that we're going to get there doesn't, but they both claim to improve/end the war, protect the country, lower taxes while spending more all over, yada yada . . . but man, have we become partisan in this country!)

I follow politics probably more than the average American (read that as a bash against average Americans, not that I follow politics closely), but don't waste too much time on it. I have voted in probably half the elections since I've been 18, like most Americans, focusing more on the Presidential ones. I've voted mostly for Democratic candidates,but not exclusively. I often feel completely uneducated on local candidates when I see the full ballot, so often I have to leave much of the ballot blank.

I have two points I'd like to pursue and would be interested for others' perspectives. First of all, I'm becoming more and more intrigued as to why my ideological slant is so consistently left - definitely not the place most of my friends and colleagues lean. Secondly, I'm really struggling with whether or not the Christian is best served by participation in the government (which, if you've ever read here before, about which I have commented often). I'm really working on one of my biggest flaws in writing - being concise! So, I will address the first point here today, and work on posting on the second later this week.

Why am I liberal? My parents were/are the typical uninformed and apolitical type that represent many in this country. I have never known my dad to be a big supporter of anyone or any issue. He's always been more concerned with what is happening to General Motors (his employer) and occasionally sees an intersection there with politics. My mom tends to ride the coattail of her dad (my grandpa), a yellow dog Democrat as they say.

Politically, my two biggest influences are probably my Grandpa and my mom's sister, both registered Democrats. I suppose, like most kids growing up, I just supposed that's the way most people like me were like. I couldn't have been more wrong. The older I got, I realized that the town in which I grew up (Defiance) was a Republican stronghold. Ohio, the state in which I was raised, tended to be conservative (though things have changed in recent years). And then, the big shocker, when I went to Lipscomb and sat in my Bible classes there I realized that it was just assumed that everyone there was a conservative Republican. Sure there were dissenters, but very few, and almost never was that vocalized. So . . . somehow in the midst of all this experience, it was the liberal ideology that has stuck with me.

Obviously, our country right now is about a 50/50 split between Republicans and Democrats (the third parties' and independents' perspectives demand another post, so I'm acknowledging there place, but ignoring the conversation for now). There are some stereotypes that statistically hold true (meaning they are trends, not dead-in-the-water-facts) like urban areas tend to be blue, suburban areas red, minorities blue, WASPs red, the higher your degrees, the more likely you are to be blue (college grads look to be about 50/50, but after that the likelihood of being a Democrat escalates). So . . . looking at my stats: WASP, master's degree, suburbanite . . . wow, it should be a foregone conclusion . . . so, what happened? Did my education outweigh all the other factors? Are my family ties that strong?

I have no idea. There is an elder at our church that I talk, no debate with, often who stands diametrically opposed to me on about every ideological possibility. He's a good guy, well thought, we're both cordial and enjoy talking with each other broadening the horizon (I can be his token liberal and he's my token conservative) we both go to the same church, have the same hopes and dreams for the future . . . and could not see the world more differently. How can this be?

Right now, my working thesis is that the familial perspective you are raised in is the most difficult aspect of our persona to alter. Why is adult Christian proselytizing such a challenge? It's as challenging as asking someone to go against their parents (many times). I am who I am because that was the way I was raised. Now . . . my brother ensures me he is voting for Ron Paul, so, by no means is it a foregone conclusion. We are no way predestined totally at the mercy of our upbringing. However, as Freud has shown, all those small subtle influencers along the way while we are growing up are slowly molding us into the people that we become as adults.

As much as I wish to believe that I am a free thinker, the truth of the matter is that there are very few brilliant minds that can think outside of themselves. I do not have one of them. I am forced to think within the construct that has been molded for me. Do I sympathize with Republican perspectives and values - absolutely. I am at a place where I can tear up at the very thought of an abortion, and yet vote for a party that refuses to legislate against it. Does that make me inconsistent? Perhaps it would in many other's minds, but it doesn't in mine. Legislation is the furthest thing in my mind to stopping the problem of abortion. I am sick and tired of that issue becoming the litmus test for evangelical Christians. It is a horrid thing! Few people disagree with that! That's right - few, very few! Most statistics show abortions went down in the Clinton administration (I didn't hear that on Fox News, so it may not be true). No one is in favor of having unwanted children. People die in our world every day because of other sources of immorality. Health care is quickly becoming every bit the moral issue that abortion is.

OK, OK, OK, almost got rolling too much on that stuff (my hopes of being concise are just about gone). I know most conservatives probably could have done without that last paragraph. I am trying hard to weed out of my language the caustic tones that I see prevalent in almost all political reports (so, remove "sick and tired," "That's right - few, very few!" the Fox News parenthetical statement, and that should make it a little more palatable. Sorry. But that is exactly what I'm getting at.

There is something so alive in us about our ideologies. It comes back to the two no-no's in public discussion - two topics I'm sure Miss Manners would say to leave alone: religion and politics. And the two have become merged together in the past two Presidential elections like never before, and I think, left Christians in a precarious and difficult position. A position that forces us to rethink our involvement in the political process altogether.

Nuts and Bolts, Nuts and Bolts . . . We Got Screwed

I have to pass this story along. It involves a recent business deal with our church. First, a little background:

The Alum Creek Church is located in Orange Township in Delaware County Ohio. Our church has had multiple problems with the zoning regulations within the township. They have very stringent zoning codes and are enforced with gestapo enthusiasm (I learned this when I put a church garage sale sign out a day early and found it stuck inside our church door). The most visible example of their overzealous control is the current site of the church. Our church address is 6256 S. Old State, but you cannot gain access to our church through Old State Rd. Upon entering the township, the zoning board made us alter our building site plan by 90 degrees. So . . . need less to say, they are a little particular.

We were approached several months ago by a local cable company that wanted to do business in Orange Township. Currently, the township is serviced by only one provider, so there is a total lack of competition. In order to bring their business to the township they need to build a relay center to relay the lasers. The first approached the township about building it on government property. The trustees denied the request. They next approached the Olentangy School district about placing it on school grounds, which they also denied. That left them with the option of pursing private land. Our church was perfectly placed.

They met with our leaders and laid it out - while its probably not appropriate to disclose the details of the agreement, the church stands to gain several thousand dollars through the lease, as well as free Internet, cable, and telephone service. It fits into our broader hopes, however, of serving the community as an alternate provider. There is a small location at the rear of our church (surrounded on two sides by trees and one side by the church building) that they desired to place it. They drew up plans and requested a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a five member board who grant or deny zoning variance requests within the township.

That meeting was last Thursday night. Myself and one of our elders attended the meeting, as did two members of the Villages of Alum Creek subdivision (who both spoke on our behalf), and another worried neighbor (who wasn't crazy about the idea, but who doesn't even live within a half mile of the church). Much discussion ensued, surprising the cable representative who had done 40 of these and never had such a lengthy process. The board members asked why they couldn't put it on the other side of the tracks (something the lasers wouldn't allow), or on township property (something they had already tried, but were told no), or another place already zone business (they had tried two or three and been denied). After long discussion (really led by one vocal member who was especially belligerent in references to church and could be a problem for us in the future) two were for us and two were against us leaving the board chair to cast the deciding "no" vote. The deal was off because of a 3-2 vote from a voluntary board of appeals.

That was disappointing enough, but what happened next was absurd and we have done all we can do to resist bringing public attention to the situation. This week I found out that Orange Township called the cable providers office Friday morning (!) just a few hours after the end of the meeting to offer "several" options for the cable company to consider on township land. They stole the deal right out from under us - after they had already been offered the deal! Mary Beth called the township office yesterday to inquire about a "rumor" of another cable company coming to the area . . . which they were "excited" to say the deal would be done by the end of the year after they consider a couple different options south of Orange Rd. (our building is north of Orange Rd.) Wow. It sounds like some Dateline episode. Or better yet, maybe John Stossel would like to add it to his list of Give Me a Break!

I couldn't believe it!

The Challenge of Giving

I think the American church has a huge challenge ahead for us. Doing good and social action has become the cool thing to do. Celebrity social action has moved from guys like Bono, who are just known for doing stuff like that, to Brad Pitt, Alicia Keys, Madonna, Oprah . . . and on and on the list goes. Celebrities and famous people have always contributed a great deal to the greater good of humanity, but it seems like the current cultural milieu is especially ripe with this philanthropy.

Is the church ready for this? We are slowly losing our uniqueness, people are stealing our bylines. Helping the homeless and the less fortunate - isn't that our tag line? How are we to interpret the good being done in the name of humanitarianism? How are we to respond? I think there are a couple of responses needed.

First of all, Christians must continue to see the world through the discerning eyes of Christ. Much as in my previous post in regards to environmentalism, the current "do good" campaigns are often self-serving. Idol Gives Back. It's encouraging to see neighbors contributing to such worthy causes, but much as we see in churches, often we are quick to write a check, but seldom to we do things to address the deeper seeded issue. The whole concept of creating an "American Idol" is materialistic and reeks of classism. Writing checks is a helpful thing and it creates some revenue to begin to address the social ills that are oft-highlighted. However, it creates a deeper social conscience to actually make a long-lasting impact.

Last night I had the great priviledge of attending a local township zoning appeals meeting for a business deal our church has gotten rigged up. WOW internet cable wants to build a relay station behind our church building in order to service the surrounding township. After listening to the first item on the list last night, fifteen minutes of discussion about a sign variance request, it was the cable companies turn. They made their proposal, two hours of discussion past by, and they voted against it 3-2 meaning several thousand dollars won't be coming our way and the area will continue to have only one provider and their consumers will continue to get gouged.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm sure we're wondering where that came from. Well, I couldn't help but think during this meeting of how we'll never move forward in helping solve the world's problems our local governments are spending hours discussing the kinds of signs being erected, the specific type fonts they will be using, the height they will be placed at, the concerns for future growth and expansion, and on and on they went. Common sense flew out the window. It was too obvious to see that erecting a 10 foot building that won't really be seen by anyone behind our church building brings a great advantage to thousands of homeowners because three guys didn't want to see it happen. It illustrates the real muckiness of the problem.

Everyone likes to sing and talk about changing the world, but that's as long as that won't cramp my style, won't affect my life style. And therein is the problem. Feeding the hungry and clothing the naked and bringing clean drinking water around the world, and improving working conditions in third world countries and purifying our breathing air all will take some sacrifice and life change. But that can all wait can't it? Will I get to talk to that cute blonde chick Brooke if I call Idol Gives Back?

Greenery

The new "in" thing is going green. People are taking an interest in their environment. This is a good thing. However, it is interesting how quickly popular culture has hijacked the movement and how commercialism has taken over. Now, labels and claims abound, and consumers must be especially diligent in making decisions when it comes to how we live our lives. I wonder how often this movement will last, or in other words, how long will it be "cool" to spend extra money on environmentally friendly versions of the same things we already use. It seems as though people are usually interested, even passionate, when it comes to ideas and easy life changes, but there is a deeper challenge that environmentalism will offer and it will require much deeper changes than the superficiality of how we spend our money.

I picked up a book called Cradle to Cradle which really addresses the systemic challenges that need to be addressed in a technologically-driven post-Industrial Revolution era. It has really challenged my sentiments of the "green" movement. It, as is usually the case, is a much more deeply seeded issue. It's not nearly as simple as we'd like to make it. It requires innovative scientists, engineers, architects, and other fields.

Environmentalism poses a challenge to Christianity that few "conservative" churches are prepared to address. This whole area really gets into a theological perspective that has largely gone untapped. In short, few of our scholars, academics, pastors, and theologians are prepared for the challenges that the current environmental discussion brings. When Christians do respond, it is often from liberal camps while others stay distanced from the discussion altogether. The recent statement from the Southern Baptist Convention illustrates the significance this issue has brought to our churches; however, I fear we remain utterly unprepared. In regards to the SBC, I wonder whether their motives were theological or if they were simply responding to the current culture millieu. This is a real issue for us. If we feel it is significance to respond to the movement, what are our motives? Where do we see the biblical contact? Do we see necessary correctives to the cultural perspective? Tough questions that deserve much attention. I hope to address some of these difficult questions in the coming weeks in biblical reflections, personal thoughts, and reviews of my readings.