Balancing Jay

Hiatus

2006-12-08T15:55:00.000-06:00

Please forgive the hiatus I've been taking here. I enjoy pondering Dr. Phelan's writing, and intend to continue, but I've been swamped recently.

Merry Christmas.

What's personal about salvation? (September, 2006)

2006-09-16T15:52:00.000-05:00

Personal Savior.

As one who has both carelessly used this phrase and self-consciously avoided it, I appreciate Jay giving it depth.

Evangelical Christians frequently speak of having accepted Jesus as their "personal Savior." Critics of this language suggest it sounds possessive and excessively individualistic--like having Jesus as my personal banker or hiring Jesus to be my personal trainer. This is, of course, a caricature ... When we use such language we mean not peronal possession or personal servant, but personal as opposed to impersonal, active as opposed to passive, conscious as opposed to unconscious.

A transforming "personal Savior" transforms us personally...

... for Christians salvation is not just an occurrence, it is a process.

And undo the our culture's influence.

All of us have been powerfully, invisibly, and unwillingly formed by our culture--or should I say deformed by our culture. Our churches, our schools, and our homes are to be places of formation and imitation with Jesus as the model.

There's a paradox here that (I think) C. S. Lewis pointed out. He was responding to critics of Christianity who claimed that becoming "like Jesus" made all Christians want to be faceless clones, robbing of them of their individuality. Lewis pointed out that the more we become like Jesus, the more we really become our unique selves. It's our culture that herds us, trying to clone us into its image of a good "consumer."

And, as the Scripture says, "The goal of our instruction is love..."

To externalize the love of God involves obeying Jesus even when I am smiled at as naive, even when the smirk of the worldly wise or the Christian realists suggest I am a fool. But if I am a fool for aspiring to follow Jesus and externalize the love of God, so be it.

Amen.

Ideal pastors (August, 2006)

2006-08-19T05:56:00.000-05:00

Wise advice to pastors new and old. Each bit of advice he gives to pastors, we eavesdropping lay people need to hear as well. After all, we're part of the "ministry teams" he describes.

... everything a pastor does is predicated on "spiritual depth." I would argue that the number-one priority for every pastor must be her or his spiritual life. Serving well is draining spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Pastors must take significant time to deepen their spiritual life.

Amen. May this be true for us all.

Getting over ourselves (July, 2006)

2006-07-10T22:18:00.000-05:00

Jay reels in the utopianists on both sides of the pulpit, with a little dose of reality: God loves us, glaring warts and all.

I appreciate Jay's pointing out the trickiness of people's perceptions: the same service's style being too old-fashioned and too trendy; the same sermon both "lacking theological depth" and over our heads.

Our perceptions are so subjective, so elusive. Yet we trust them so much. Not that I'm advocating that we become rationalists: as important as logic is, there's far more to life than what we can deduce (not to mention eternity).

Where does that leave us? In need of just the skewering Jay compassionately gives us:

I would like to suggest that all of us--cranky church members and cranky pastors alike--need to get over ourselves.

His benediction:

I am, rather, suggesting that you give each other a break, laugh along with God, and love each other fiercely--as you are fiercely loved and lovingly endured by God!

Amen. Someone said that we don't have to take ourselves too seriously because God takes us very seriously.

May God's forbearance toward us be our example.

********

Michal, "the patron saint of cranky church members:"

12 Now King David was told, "The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-Edom and everything he has, because of the ark of God." So David went down and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with rejoicing. 13 When those who were carrying the ark of the LORD had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. 14 David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might, 15 while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouts and the sound of trumpets.

16 As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart.

17 They brought the ark of the LORD and set it in its place inside the tent that David had pitched for it, and David sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings [a] before the LORD. 18 After he had finished sacrificing the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD Almighty. 19 Then he gave a loaf of bread, a cake of dates and a cake of raisins to each person in the whole crowd of Israelites, both men and women. And all the people went to their homes.

20 When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"

21 David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD's people Israel—I will celebrate before the LORD. 22 I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor."

23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.

2 Samuel 6:12-23

I heard a recent worship song use the phrase, "I will become even more undignified than this." Now I know where that came from.

May David's humility rub off on me.

Sin, grace, and intolerance (June, 2006)

2006-06-14T15:08:00.000-05:00

Jay calls us from our culture's notions of sin and tolerance back to God's grace and forgiveness.

What I'm pondering:

"Greed and power can seduce even the best intentioned and most confident. Ryan and his cronies illustrate the corruption of our culture and the unravelling of our commitments to virtues like honesty, frugality, and compassion."

"The problem is not a lack of a sense of sin, but the loss of the possibility of grace. ... In spite of our vaunted tolerance we seem to relish the sins and failures of others. ... We expect perfection. We insist on consistency. We mock hypocrisy. ... In general we are jaded, graceless, and cynical. We hope for grace and forgiveness, but we can barely believe in it and certainly have a hard time offering it to the other."

"We can't imagine a God that can really heal our diseases and pardon our iniquities. Whatever our culture tells us, the gospel tells us there is no one beyond the love and grace of God--not even that dying SS officer."

I'm a mix of emotions when I put myself in Simon Wiesenthal's position. What would I say to the dying SS officer? Can I forgive what he's done? What would that mean?

But I have the gospel, and I can share it with him. I can tell him the good news: that even he can find forgiveness at the foot of the cross. Not glossing over the wrong he's done, but Christ paying its severe penalty.

May you and I have the courage to rise above our grievances and pain and offer God's forgiveness to the unlovable--even a dying SS officer or former Governor Ryan. As God used a reluctant Jonah to call the Ninevites to repentance, so he can use us.

*******

Jay writes:

[Ryan's crimes are] just the latest in a series of criminal acts committed by governmental and business leaders. Greed and power can seduce even the best intentioned and most confident. Ryan and his cronies illustrate the corruption of our culture and the unravelling of our commitments to virtues like honesty, frugality, and compassion.

I want to take Jay's sobering warning to heart. Corruption is so rampant in Illinois politics that people get desensitized and shrug it off. I appreciate Jay's refusal to do that.

I'd caution against painting with too broad a brush, though. Corporate scandals like Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and HealthSouth deserve the attention they got, but may not have left an accurate impression. As the editors of the Wall Street Journal put it, these scandals (particularly Enron) have led to "a boatload of hectoring about the corruption of the business class." But:

it turns out that class was pretty small. The private sector, like the public sector, will have its share of scandals and malfeasance. But looking back, the extraordinary thing about Enron is how extraordinary it was. ... This was not financial innovation at its finest. But, it seems, it was also not widely imitated.

Government and business leaders, like all of us, are sinners in need of a savior. But the vast majority are also responsible, law-abiding citizens, and our society benefits from their contributions.

I know Jay wouldn't advocate stereotyping any group or making them a scapegoat. I'd urge his readers not to either: as Jay cautions, to avoid being jaded and cynical.

Inspiration

2006-06-02T20:37:00.000-05:00

On North Park's campus:

"Test everything: hold fast to what is good."

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Grace and self-indulgence (May, 2006)

2006-05-15T12:19:00.000-05:00

Jay takes us from the Covenant's roots into Scripture to help us discern God's grace from its counterfeits, and see it for what it is: "God's most wonderful gift."

If we are not careful, the idea of grace will produce self-indulgence. The idea of grace can produce complacency. ... While grace is the gospel's great gift, "cheap grace" is a curse.

Jay asks:

"How can we avoid turning God's most wonderful gift of grace into the hollow gesture of a bored deity?"

"How can we ourselves avoid presuming upon such a gift, so that we experience none of its transforming effects?"

Like a spoiled child, I receive God's grace with hardly a moment's reflection.

You know those VISA commercials? "this thing ... $10 ... that thing ... $20 ... what it means ... priceless." That's where my mind goes when I hear "priceless." But God's gift of grace is truly priceless in a way nothing else is. O Lord, rescue me from Madison Avenue!

May you and I take a long hard look at God's amazing grace. May we see better who we are in light of it. May we better see the One who gives it. And may we be transformed.

*******

FYI:

Brennan Manning's web site: www.brennanmanning.com.

Brennan Manning's book: The Ragamuffin Gospel.

Green evangelicals? (April, 2006)

2006-04-10T16:19:00.000-05:00

Jay introduces us to the Evangelical Climate Initiative and its Call to Action.

What I appreciated:

"[The Call to Action] insists that love for God's creation and responsible stewardship should motivate Christians to care for the earth rather than participate in its destruction."

"Evangelicals who are concerned about the health and life and future of their families--their children and grandchildren--must pay attention to the destruction of our environment. None of us should be indifferent to the potential death and suffering of millions--whether the cause is abortion, hunger, war, or environmental degradation."

"We care for the earth today in anticipation of the new heavens and new earth--God's eternal kingdom."

*****

Jay writes:

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, some evangelical leaders argued that the science regarding global warming was inconclusive.

I stand unashamed with that camp.

One compelling graph should tell the story of global warming. Carbon dioxide creates a warming, green-house effect in the earth's atmosphere. Plant life consumes carbon dioxide. Burning fossil fuels produce it. Mankind has done plenty of both.

We should be able to tally how much fossil fuel we've burned, from automobiles to electricity, over the last 150+ years. We should be able to tally how much of the earth's plant life has been reduced over that same time. There should be a steady cumulative effect: the accumulation of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide. Plotting each of those along with the earth's temperature should tell a compelling story, and end all debate. It should be the first and main talking-point of global warming proponents. But no such graph exists.

In fact, one version of the graph I describe does exist: the "hockey stick." But it's being proven a hoax. Richard Muller, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, writes this in MIT's Technology Review:

Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. ...

I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.

... Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

We are called to be stewards of the environment. We should debate what that means, and how we prioritize it. We must set aside the "political and activist frenzy."

It brings me back to one of my fundamental tenets: the environment is best served by the truth.

*****

More to digest:

The Evangelical Climate Initiative's Climate Change: An Evangelical Call To Action (PDF format). Their web-site is www.christiansandclimate.org.

Jennifer Biddison responds to the Call to Action:
Evangelicals misled on climate change.
Iain Murray responds to the Call To Action: "Sadly, these good men and women have allowed their itching ears to listen to fables. Their claims are based on half-truths and unsound logic."

NASA's Goddard Institute's Common Sense Climate Index.

Univ Alabama Huntsville: Climate's 27-year warming pattern not consistent with 'global warming'

Bob Carter, UK's Telegraph: "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998."
Steven Milloy looks at the history of the infamous "hockey-stick" graph.

Thomas Bray (Detroit News): 'What Jesus drives' crowd reignites a dubious cause.

The National Association of Evangelicals' Call to Civic Responsibility (PDF format). See "We labor to protect God’s creation" on pages 11 - 12.

The National Association of Evangelicals' Resolution on Environment and Ecology, 1971.

Update, 4/12: Richard Lindzen: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence, Wall-Street Journal's OpinionJournal.

Anti-Christian Jeans? (March, 2006)

2006-03-21T21:55:00.000-06:00

What I appreciated:

Jay's perspective in answering Cheap Monday jeans' owner Bjorn Atldax's "popular if banal observation about the history of Christianity. It shows an ignorance of both history and Christianity," as Jay then points out.

"...a careful examination of these [supposedly Christian] wars would suggest they are sprked less by piety and more by overweening ambitions, ethnic hatreds, commercial greed, and (especially) nationalistic arrogance."

"Rene Girard suggests that Christianity has made it much more difficult to justify war. By challenging the tendency of nations and peoples to scapegoat their enemies, by commanding them to see their enemies as human beings, Christianity forced previously unimaginable reflections on "just war." ... On the cross Christ stood in for every sufferer, every slave, every one oppressed and degraded simply because their side lost."

"Have Christians failed to attend to and follow the teachings of Christ? Tragically yes. But there would be no end of slavery, or no declarations on human rights, or debates about the justness of war were there no Christianity."

"But the Christian faith is not to be tamed or controlled by any king or president, by any nation state or empire."

*****

Jay writes:

Have Christians failed to attend to and follow the teachings of Christ? Tragically yes. But there would be no end of slavery, or no declarations on human rights, or debates about the justness of war were there no Christianity.

I agree. I wish slavery never existed, and I'm glad and proud that it has been abolished here in the US, even at the terrible cost of our Civil War. Slavery still exists in parts of the world, and I would love to see it abolished everywhere.

But, honestly, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery as clearly as I wish it would. I wish it would say "the entire institution of slavery is wrong, wicked, evil and must be ended." God delivered the Israelites from slavery. But Leviticus seems to allow it: both implicitly and explicitly (e.g., Leviticus 25:44-46).

In the New Testament, slavery usually has negative connotations (e.g., "slaves to sin"), and Paul says (in 1 Cor. 7), "... if you can gain your freedom, do so. ... do not become slaves of men." But Paul (in Acts 16) interacts with a slave woman without condemning slavery itself. And Ephesians 6 even instructs slaves and masters without commenting on the morality of slavery itself.

Jay's and my opposition to slavery (I believe) is informed by the balance of Scripture, but can't be considered crystal-clear Christian theology either. That leaves it open to the accusation of "nationalistic arrogance" (which I could easily see a Confederate citizen making), or of seeking "political power and social prominence." I don't want to dismiss any accusation too quickly, but I'm pretty sure I'll be sticking to my guns on this one.

But that's the rub. We're faced with many issues to decide, and Scripture often doesn't speak with crystal clarity. On slavery, we generally agree. What about abortion? Crime? National defense? The role of government? Animal rights? Captialism vs. Socialism?

May God use the Scriptures to influence our thinking and rebuke our wrong attitudes. May we carefully evaluate each accusation made. And may we ultimately stand for what's right in the face of the harshest accusers.

*****

Jay writes:

I have a button on the jacket I wear when I go for a walk. It says "Who would Jesus bomb?" That we can and should ask that question reminds us of what our faith stands for and who it is we follow. ... The critique of our faithlessness and failure should make us take notice and live as if Jesus actually meant what he said and as if the gospel were really good news for all people.

I've seen "Who would Jesus bomb?" bumper-stickers. They seem intended more as a slap at Christians than a sincere seeking. I'd like to talk to the owner of one, but haven't had the chance. I appreciate that Jay doesn't stop at the slogan itself.

Jesus said, "Do not resist an evil person." Jesus also said, "if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

So who would Jesus bomb? These related questions come to mind:

Would Jesus have allowed the holocaust? What would he have done to stop it?

Would Jesus, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, have plotted to assassinate Hitler? Jay cites Bonhoeffer as one who "found the resources to resist confusing Caesar and Christ." That plot did involve a bomb.

Would Jesus have fought the Civil War? Would he have allowed the Confederate States of America to keep slavery legal even today? If not, what would he have done to stop it?

Who would Jesus incarcerate? Jesus said he was sent "to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Would Jesus abolish all prisons? (I'm convinced he wouldn't.)

(Update, 3/30: I said, "Slavery still exists in parts of the world..." iAbolish.com gives you the full story.)

Congratulations, Dr. Phelan!

2006-03-21T20:30:00.000-06:00

Congratulations to Dr. Phelan on his appointment to executive vice president for academic affairs at North Park.

May God grant Jay a double-measure of His grace in his new role and his new sphere of influence.

From the announcement:

Particular emphasis was placed on selection of a person of unquestioned academic excellence and integrity, an individual with good administrative and interpersonal skills who makes people feel valued and respected, and someone who is a good listener, with the ability to work in a fair and constructive manner to assimilate the thinking of the broad spectrum of North Park's academic personnel. ... Jay is noted for his academic excellence and integrity and he has a successful record of academic leadership in the seminary.

Open hearts (February, 2006)

2006-02-10T16:41:00.000-06:00

Jay reveals a health scare, reflects on his life, and ponders the Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays debate.

*****

Jay writes:

I wondered if through me anyone had experienced the love and generosity of God.

Through your writing, many of us, including myself, have. I hope you're with us for many years to come. But when you get to heaven, you'll get a grand reception.

*****

Jay writes:

Are we so unsure of our message, so insecure in our identity that we need the culture and the government to prop them up? ... If we cannot demonstrate the loving generosity of God, if we cannot model the sacrificial love of Christ, we should just keep our whining insecurities to ourselves.

Well put. Our hedonistic culture is hostile to our faith, and for good reason: the gospel threatens it. The New Testament church came to terms with this much better than we do.

"Christian conservatives" ... were angry at President Bush for not using the word Christmas in his holiday greeting card. The president rather wished his friends and supporters a happy "holiday season."

Consider that the GOP's chair, Ken Mehlman, is Jewish. As a Christian, I'm not offended or threatened if someone wishes me a Happy Hannukah. Likewise, I don't expect others to be offended or threatened if I inadvertently wish them a Merry Christmas. But if I know I'm speaking to a larger group than Christians, "happy holidays" seems appropriate. Perhaps these "Christian conservatives," like the political left, see only Christians voting for Bush. Not so.

*****

Jay writes:

The second story in the Tribune concerned a Profesor Paul Mirecki of the University of Kansas. He canceled a class called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Religious Mythologies" after he was beaten by two men who mentioned the class during the assault.

In fact, Mirecki dropped the class before the assault, not because of it. The Lawrence Journal-World reports on December 1, 2005:

Paul Mirecki, chair of KU's religious studies department, withdrew the class, "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design and Creationism," after controversy erupted over e-mails he had written disparaging Catholics and religious conservatives.

His assault appears to have happened around 6:40am on December 5th.

That's a significantly different story than what the Tribune seems to have reported. In fact, there's good reason to believe that Professor Mirecki's assault is a hoax. (The developing story was blogged here.)

In spite of this, Jay's point is well taken: "Rather than reasoned arguments and respectful engagement you offer a fist in the mouth." Sadly, some Christians have acted this way (and some will).

I suggest, though, that this story is one of many falsehoods floating around, each of which influences our thinking, reinforces our stereotypes, and leaves us less enlightened, not more.

*****

Jay writes:

Others have complained about retailers who leave out the word "Christmas" in their advertising, even calling for boycotts. ... When we as Christians complain about such things we appear petty. We seem to be looking for special privileges, special recognition. ... And do we really think anyone sees in these complaints the love and generosity of God who gave us so much in Jesus?

I cringe with Jay about these complaints, as they seem to hinder the gospel.

The "War on Christmas" debate caused a lot of friction this past Christmas season.

Both sides go immediately to stereotypes: intolerant, complaining Christians looking to ram their religion down everyone's throat; God-haters seeking to mute Christians and ram hedonistic secularism down everyone's throat. Each side has the case-studies that confirm their stereotype. But stereotypes confuse the issues. Let's set them aside.

Both sides lose proportion, too, and that muddies the waters. People aren't being murdered in the streets over this. (In contrast to the riots over the Danish Mohammed cartoons.)

As Jay says, "Rather than reasoned arguments and respectful engagement you offer a fist in the mouth." Each side offers the other a "fist in the mouth" by stereotyping, distorting their opponents' views and losing proportion.

Jay's right in calling the specifics he cites as "complaints." Let's set those aside as such.

Are there other specific instances that deserve their own consideration? Things that an objective observer would categorize as real civil rights abuses? Do they deserve attention, or is any such discussion simply complaining?

I think some civil liberties have been violated, and they do deserve attention.

The dictionary defines civil rights as the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship ... including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination. And civil liberties are fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

A just society protects the rights of each of its citizens: black, white, hispanic; Christian, Jew, Muslim, Athiest; rich, middle-class, poor. It's not a matter of special protection for minorities, but the same rights granted each citizen. Denying any legitimate rights to any individual means a less just society.

Now I suppose we'll debate all day about what constitutes freedom of speech or religion, or governmental interference. But I think we'd agree on a lot, too. I thank God for the freedom we have to debate it here in the US, and don't want to take that for granted.

Gestures of grace (January, 2006)

2006-01-16T21:14:00.000-06:00

"We know that God is not looking for an opportunity to scorch the sinners of the world, but save them."

Sometimes the church, especially the bright and successful evangelical church, leaves the impression that only the handsome and successful need apply. Only the bold and beautiful make it to the stage. ... We are cool, competent, jauntily casual, and easy to look at.

Sadly, this does seem true. Churches are right in wanting to persuade, to be Christ's aroma to the world (2 Cor. 2:14-16). But this world's image of beauty is shaped by Cosmopolitan, GQ, Playboy, VH1 and BET. In trying to influence, we fall into the mold. May God have mercy on us.

Before all of us--handicapped, broken, limited, and fearful--is one who loves us desperately and offers to us the gestures of grace. His life is an invitation to love.

May we see ourselves for who we are. May we see Jesus for who he is.

Only the theologically compliant and politically sound are acceptable. No deep questions are allowed. No sense of dis-ease at quickly settled certainties is permitted. Questions, evidently, are a sign of intellectual and moral weakness, better to be unasked. The human understanding that the Bible recognizes as broken and fallible becomes with bitter irony the final court of appeal on God's Holy Word of love.

Let God be true, and every man a liar. (Rom. 3:4) Though I don't see this first-hand, I believe it exists in many circles, on both sides of the political fence. May we seek to understand over being understood, draw out the questioner (Prov. 20:5), and love the dissenter as ourselves.

A new year calls us to dance with Jesus. His story shows us the gestures of grace. We are awkward as we take them up. We stumble through our steps. We are artless in our movements. But if we learn to dance with Jesus the dance of grace and love, perhaps we--artless and clumsy as we are--can teach these steps to others even more artless and clumsy than ourselves.

And may we, artless and clumsy as we are, not be ashamed in a world that despises these qualities, knowing we dance for an audience of One--Jesus.

Reconciled opposition? (December, 2005)

2005-12-31T23:59:00.000-06:00

Please forgive my continued tardiness and back-dating this article to be easier to find.

Jay encourages us to contend, to argue, in a Christlike manner.

What makes the prayer interesting is Hauerwas's insistence that "God...must love a good argument."

I believe that. That's a fascinating statement, though, considering God's omniscience. If there are better and worse ideas (and I believe there are), God must know them all. Yet he often allows us to wrestle and argue things through, to start--and perhaps end--confused about what to think.

Contending with God--or with a brother or sister--is not necessarily destructive. Hauerwas says that such a debate is not "a matter of winning, but rather for the up-building of your church, the body of Christ."

Since I started this blog to contend with Jay from time to time, I appreciate his perspective on godly argument. May my contending result in the up-building of the body of Christ.

We can be brothers and sisters in Christ--in love with God and each other--and wrestle with differences of vision, style, approach to ministry, and theology. In fact, if we don't contend about these things we will likely become lazy and fall into error and sloth. With Hauerwas we pray, "make us your witness so that the world, observing how we argue, will say: 'See how they love one another; they would rather argue than kill.'"

Amen.

Certainty or humility (November, 2005)

2005-11-30T23:59:00.000-06:00

Please forgive my incredibly late post. I'm back-dating this so it archives for November. 12/13/2005.

Jay is dismayed at the smugness of "the people who never seem to have doubts and questions and are sure about everything." He admonishes us: "Perhaps we need to return to our sources. Are you alive yet in Jesus?"

What I appreciated:

"In the end, being a Jesus follower is not about knowing everything but about trusting him."

"Only in the light of God, in Jesus the light of the world, do we see, know, and experience spiritual, intellectual, and moral light. And this light comes not from us gathering accurate information about the world, but from knowing God. It does not come from us looking at the frame, but looking in the mirror."

[David Myers:] "As a Christian monotheist, I start with two unproven axioms: 1) There is a God. 2) It' not me (and it's also not you). Together, ... these axioms imply my surest conviction: that some of my beliefs (and yours) contain error."

"When orgainzations and structures and denominational and local church politics overwhelm our sense of mission and compassion, we are spending too much time looking at the frame and not enough time looking at the mirror [of James 1:22ff]."

Smug people put me off, too. Sometimes, though, when I get a little closer, I find that they're less certain than they appear, wrestling with their own contradictions (and maybe reacting to them). And I can get on my soapbox, too, putting others off. We all need God's love and mercy.

Are we forced to choose between certainty and humility, as the title suggests? Can we walk humbly with God, yet as Luke says, know "the certainty of the things we have been taught?" Not a certainty that makes everything black or white, but one that holds fast to the core truths our culture ruthlessly berates.

I think about a Christian standing before God on the last day. A slave owner who never questioned slavery's morality. Think of the shock, the horror, the devastation in having God reveal this gaping blind-spot with all creation watching.

You are that person. In God's eyes (and who else matters?), our blind-spots may be just as big: things you never questioned, or dismissed easily. How does that make you feel? It humbles me.

May God take us to the mirror, revealing our smug blind-spots so we might repent. And may we, in the midst of our own doubts, walk humbly beside both the uncertain and the smug, loving each as Jesus would and pointing each to Him.

Four Tables (October, 2005)

2005-10-11T05:54:00.000-05:00

Jay introduces us to four different "tables," contexts in which to consider our lives and ministries.

The kitchen table: "A church that fails to form community will ultimately fail in other areas of outreach and ministry."

"Where do you gather as a family to tell stories, wrestle with problems, play games, soothe tears?"

"How do you form community in your congregation?"

The seminar table: "A church that is not committed to intellectual engagement with the Scriptures and the world is quite literally 'brain dead.'"

The operating table: May the chuch be a place where all find healing in Jesus.

"How does your church join God in the healing and reconciliation of the world?"

"How does it share God's passion for the lost and the poor and the fearful and the broken?"

How can we cultivate that passion in the midst of our busy lives?

Do you find yourself shying away from the shattered? Thinking they need more time, energy, or resources than you have to give? What would Jesus do?

The communion table: May the church be a place where, despite all our differences, we can sit together at the foot of the same Cross.

"And we look forward to the marriage supper of the Lamb."

The government and the poor (September, 2005)

2005-09-30T23:59:00.000-05:00

Please forgive my tardiness. I'm back-dating this to so that the blog archives it under September.

Jay makes a case for the government, perhaps along with private organizations (like churches), being tasked by God to care for the poor. He challenges those who "insist that this should not be role of the government."

I appreciate Jay's heart for the poor, and his advocacy on their behalf. Such compassion is clearly mandated in Scripture, and the mark of a godly leader.

I am not suggesting that government programs and expenditures are the only way to deal with poverty, or that government policies intended to deal with poverty have unfailingly helped the poor. Many have been disastrous. ... It is impossible to do justice to the commplexity of this issue in a brief column, and I recognize that it is perilous to compare a modern democracy with an ancient monarchy.

I appreciate his sensitivity here in approaching this touchy issue, and agree whole-heartedly with each of these observations.

I'm open to the idea of the government, along with churches and private organizations, playing a role in helping the poor. I agonize over which Scriptures to apply to that end, though.

I do want to argue that according to the Bible, rulers, the state, and society have a responsibility to care for the poor. .... the Law and the prophets have quite a bit to say about how God wanted Israel to make sure "there will be no one in need among you" (Deut 15:4).

Let's look at Deut. 15:4-6:

However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, [5] if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. [6] For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

One could take many things from this passage, including imperialism ("you will rule over many nations"). What should we take from it? Should we endorse monarchy since we find it in the Old Testament? (I'm sure Jay and I agree that we shouldn't.)

We're not to disregard the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-19, Acts 24:14, Hebrews 1:1, Romans 15:4), but to understand it through the lens of the New Testament (2 Peter 1:19-21). We see the Kingdom of God spiritually, not politicly and geographically (Matt. 12:28, Luke 17:21, Rom. 14:17, 1 Cor. 15:50, Col. 3:1-4). We see God's mercy prevailing for now (Matt. 5:45), and his immediate judgment deferred (2 Peter 3:8-9). And we see the Chuch universal being the focus of God's attention and promises as Israel was (1 Peter 4:17).

So we don't take everything from the Old Testament and apply it today. It's not arbitrary, though: we use the New Testament, not our personal whims and tastes. And, often, it's a matter of our discernment.

Similarly, we must be very careful in taking promises God made to Old Testament Israel, and apply them to our government. (This is where the "religious right" gets it wrong, in my humble opinion.) God chose Israel as a nation in a way he hasn't done since--except in his Church universal, the Body of Christ.

So what about government? I believe it should reflect the compassion of its people. So it should care for the poor. The church, however, should reflect Christ's character in a way that a government can't.

How to go about it, as Jay mentions, is another discussion. I'd add that an equally important discussion is who is and isn't poor.

Wheat and weeds (August, 2005)

2005-08-10T07:48:00.000-05:00

Jay takes us to the logical conclusion of a "purged and purified church", where we've "shed the scabrous doubters and skulking sinners," and it really isn't what we want. And with Jesus's parable of the wheat and the weeds, Jay reminds us that that isn't what God wants either.

[Leaving the weeds] makes some people's skin crawl. As Craddock puts it, "What? Just leave the weeds in there with the wheat? ...Isn't there any such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil, true and false? We need to take a stand. We need to draw the line. We need to say, 'You stay and you go.' ... But the boss said, 'Leave the weeds alone.'"

I find myself in situations where I'm torn between similar choices. Do I boldly confront this person, or try some other approach? Am I just being a coward if I choose not to confront it in the boldest manner I know?

When faced with decisions like this, I try to work backwards from the end result. I picture myself standing before God on the last day, and we're reviewing this sitution. Will He say to me, "Why didn't you confront him, let him know what I think of his behavior?" Or, will He say, "You had an opportunity to influence that guy, but you blew it with your strident tone."

Sometimes we can't tell wheat from weeds... [Craddock:]"I thought it was a weed. I do not know a weed from a flower."

I've been wrong each way before.

To ponder:

The parable of the wheat and weeds: Matthew 13:24-29.

Read 1 Corinthians 5, then 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 and 7:8-13. What are Paul's goals in these two dealings? How are the circumstances similar or different than Jesus' parable?

Read Galatians 6:1-2. How does Paul's attitude here contrast with 1 Cor. 5? Why the contrast?

Read 2 Timothy 2:24-25. How does this apply?

Healing and reconciliation (July, 2005)

2005-07-01T08:58:00.000-05:00

Jay takes us back to the roots of Pietism, calling us to healing and reconciliation.

In Genesis 3 the curse begins. In Revelation 22 it ends. ... Paul argued that God's people already live in anticipation of this healing, life, and reconciliation: 'If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!'

But in living in anticipation of this reconciliation, we recognize that it won't be here until God intervenes, when history reaches Revelation 22. Like holiness, we reach for it but know it only comes from God.

If Christians are about nothing else, we are about healing and reconciliation.

Here we have a watershed in the Church. What place does reconciliation take relative to speaking the truth? Jay's exactly right when he says we're "fallible and quarrelsome," and we've got to keep this in mind. In 2 Tim. 2:14, Paul says, "Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen."

At the same time, we're called to stand firmly (1 Cor. 16:13, not forgetting verse 14 : "Do everything in love."). To speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). To lovingly but boldly confront, as Paul and John did (Galatians 1 & 2, 1 Jn 2:19). I think of Paul's instruction to Timothy...

2 Tim. 2:23-25
Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, ...

When does standing firmly cross over into quarreling? Perhaps when love falls by the wayside. When does reconciliation cross over into pleasing people instead of God (Gal. 1:10)? Perhaps when truth falls by the wayside. How do we get it right? How do we walk that fine line? May God have mercy on us and give us grace.

Note, too, that when Paul talks about his ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18-20), he's talking about us being reconciled to God, not necessarily one another. (Don't read too much or too little into that.)

..........

alienate: 1. To cause to become unfriendly or hostile; estrange. 2. To cause to become withdrawn or unresponsive; isolate or dissociate emotionally. ...

Red and blue (June, 2005)

2005-06-13T13:49:00.000-05:00

Jay gives us a very personal glimpse at his own family as he dissects the "Red State/Blue State" rhetoric.

There is more to my parents than the caricature of Red State fundamentialist. And there is more to many others I love and respect who would be called "Blue State liberals." People are always more rich and complicated than simplistic labels.

I hope the Covenant will continue to be that place where Red State and Blue State people can meet in love and conversation. I hope we will not demonize, scapegoat, and name-call, but listen. Perhaps very few will change their minds--but perhaps "enemies" can embrace. Perhaps we can each humbly acknowledge to the other that we don't have all the answers.

Amen.

Ordinary ministry (May, 2005)

2005-05-12T20:29:00.000-05:00

This month's piece really shines, and I praise God for the blessing Jay is to the Covenant.

John Ames saw the glory in the ordinary. God does too. No follower of Jesus--however modest their gifts or menial their task--should consider their lives and ministry less than glorious.

Amen. When I was younger, I dreamed ambitiously of God using me in much more earth-shaking ways. I would probably have been put off at the utter ordinariness of John Ames. But those like him (and me) who labor in menial tasks and with modest gifts are shaking the earth. And pleasing God.

During the last few weeks the world has mourned and celebrated the extraordinary life of Pope John Paul II--and justly so. He was a towering figure in world history. ... But for every John Paul II there are millions of John Ameses--ordinary people involved in ordinary ministry.

And the person God seeks for such high-profile missions are the ones He's been pruning in obscurity. Pope John Paul II lived most of his life not just in obscurity, but completely powerless and persecuted in Communist Poland. I think of Tabitha in Acts 9. Like the long list of names ending Romans, she was an obscure, ordinary woman. But suddenly her story--her death--made an extraordinary impact. We never know if or when God will catapult us into completely different realms of influence (for better or worse). Our job is to be faithful where we are today. "Who despises the day of small things? ..." (Zech. 4:10a)

My wife noticed that the theme, ordinary ministry, fits nicely with the upcoming CHIC 2006 theme: "No ordinary day." Intentional? A God thing either way.

Confessions of a chastened evangelical (April, 2005)

2005-04-05T21:47:00.000-05:00

Wow. Jay at his very best. As the Companion's cover reads, "Does God Have a Political Agenda?" (and Jim Wallis says, in essence, yes), I appreciate Jay's words of caution.

Some highlights for me:

"In Cross-Shattered Christ, Stanley Hauerwas argues that 'Christians are forbidden from ever assuming they possess rather than are possessed by the God they worship.'"
"If nothing else, our being sinners should give us pause... Our understanding is limited, our vision is blurry, and we lack the capacity to see the big picture as God sees it."
"I have told people that after all of my columns they should read, 'But I could be wrong.' Why? Because I am a broken and sinful finite being, ignorant in many ways and in need of God's grace and forgiveness--and so are you." [In fact, Jay told me this same thing when I told him about this blog. And he's right, we're all in the same boat: broken, sinful, finite, ignorant, so often kicking against the goads.]
"...can Christians, evangelical or otherwise, ever look at the world the same way after the twentieth century?"

Taking a closer look at a couple things...

One of the speakers was a prominent evangelical who announced to the startled audience that with the election of George W. Bush evangclicals had "won the culture war." Most of us thought this declaration was at least premature and perhaps even heretical.

I agree with Jay: that remark is way off, even though I consider Bush's re-election a very positive event. But it makes me think: what would it really look like to "win" the "culture war?" I start to think in terms of the divorce rate sharply declining, Hollywood portraying Christians in a positive light, secular universities welcoming ideological diversity. What do you think?

From time to time I meet Christians with quite the combative attitude. (Perhaps you perceive me this way.) They think in terms of the Old Testament: God's will was law. They paint America's foundation in the same light, a religious utopia unblemished until the secular humanist came along.

I don't see it that way. I see the New Testament Church, a tiny minority, persecuted (1 Pet. 1:6) and seemingly without a voice in a hostile culture, but still subverting the culture for Christ.

Perhaps we should be cautious about assuming that we North American evangelicals have all the answers to the world's problems: political, spiritual, and social. We are called to humility, trust, penitence, and grace--not smug certitude. As Hauerwas writes, "to be made part of God's love strips us of all our presumed certainties."

Well put. But even shunning "smug certitude," we're confronted with decisions. Indecision has consequences, too. May we consider each decision soberly, listen carefully, and choose wisely.

The dictionary defines triumphalism as "the doctrine, attitude, or belief that one religious creed is superior to all others." While I reject the arrogance and over-confidence implied in this definition, I have to say that I'm a Christian because I do believe the Christian "religious creed is superior to all others."

The linking of the fortunes of the church with the fortunes of a political party has been a mistake made over and over in the history of the church. Possession of political power has never enabled the church to make anyone holy.

I agree. But I'd say that Stalin's persecution of the church remains a hindrance to the gospel to this day. How do we address that?

Update: Since the Sojourners' Jim Wallis was quoted at length in this month's Companion (and in last month's Markings), you might be interested in this perspective on him by the Weekly Standard: God's Democrat.

A seamless garment? (March, 2005)

2005-03-31T13:00:00.000-06:00

Jay challenges us to consider broadening our concept of "pro-life" into a "seamless garment" that not only opposes abortion, but also war and capital punishment, and cares for the poor. "A narrowly focused 'pro-life' agenda leaves too much out."

I appreciate Jay's calling attention to the poor, and taking us to the Scripture. "God's concern for the poor is so obviously and powerfully described in hte Scriptures that one would have to purposefully ignore it not to see it... God takes oppression of the poor by the rich and comfortable very seriously. These are social and political issues but also profoundly moral and theological issues." I agree. And I commend him for trying to move past the "simplistic and absurd" stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives.

Where I'd challenge him:

[Jay wonders] why evangelical Christians aren't as concerned about infant mortality rates as they are about abortion rates.

The CDC reports that 28,034 infants died in 2002 [Table 31], a rate of 7.0 per 1000 births nationally. As Jay mentions, Mississippi has the worst state rate, at 10.3 (tied with Louisiana, though the District of Columbia is even worse, at 11.3). The two best states are Maine and Vermont at 4.4. If we were to reduce the national rate--every state--to this best-case, we would have saved 10,413 precious human lives.

The CDC also reports 846,447 abortions in 2001 [Table 2]. That's 80 times as many lives lost. Let's make this concrete: If Jay's article of, say, 600 words reflected this proportion, he'd write just 7 words about improving infant mortality, and the rest about ending abortion. Jay says "there is a silent tsunami going on around us--are we paying attention?" 10,000 to 28,000 human lives from infant mortality, 310,000 lives from the tsunami, 846,000 lives from abortion. Where, indeed, is this "silent tsunami?"

If pro-life people and especially pro-life Christians really believed in the sanctity of life they would care for it as much after the birth as before.

I agree completely, and commend Jay for advocating for the poor. But I'd challenge him to seriously reconsider his leftist influences (including The Nation magazine and Sojourners).

The free markets and technological advances of the west have done far more than anything else in history to help the poor. And Marxism has done more to increase poverty and oppression than anything else in history, crushing its subjects under a poverty so extreme the average person would give their eye teeth to change places with the worst off of Mississippi. (And those are the survivors--those not slaughtered wholesale by their own governments.) The left's enchantment with Marxism devastates its claim to advocate for the poor, from the New Left's endorsement of the Sandinistas, Cuba, Vietnam and Cambodia, to the old left's endorsement of the Soviet Union. This is the elephant in the room that the left ignores.

I'm not defending everything that Capitalism has accomplished. I'm not claiming that no injustice exists, or that the non-Marxist world is a bed of roses. I'm not claiming that there isn't much more we can do--there is. But the big picture is what it is, despite the left's selective analyses. Accurate analysis is the best starting-point.

[Cardinal Joseph Bernardin] used the image of a "seamless garment," linking opposition to abortion, war, and capital punishment.

War is tragic. But in the 20th century, more people have been murdered by their own governments in times of peace than have died in wars. If it's human life you're interested in, unqualified opposition to war isn't "pro-life." Again, the left's opposition to Vietnam paved the way for the Khmer Rouge's bloody reign, despite their desperate attempts to shift the blame.

-------

Links and Footnotes:

A perspective on the Sojourners leftist politics, including their history.

Sojourners web-site.

National Right To Life scrutinizes Glen Stassen's abortion analysis

U.S. infant mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control.

World Health Organization's child mortality comparison, region of the Americas and much of the former Soviet Union

The grotesque cross (February, 2005)

2005-02-16T11:28:00.000-06:00

God uses crucifixion--the most horrific mode of execution--to shout to a dulled, nihilistic and indifferent culture. To confront us with the impact of our own evil and sin. Jesus endured that brutality for my sin, for your sin. I pray that that reality sinks in.

We do "need the bold strokes of the cross to confront us with the impact of our own evil and sin." We're sinners in the hands of an angry God (as Jonathan Edwards put it).

Scot McKnight's The Jesus Creed is a book I really want to read. And though I haven't read Flannery O'Connor, I appreciate her influence on us by influencing leaders like Phelan and McKnight.

"When we bear the image of Christ we risk receiving his beating as well." (2 Tim. 3:12.)

............

I don't want to detract from Jay's message, but I'm compelled to look more closely at one thing:

In the United States these days we are not really permitted to see the full results of our own violence. We receive only sanitized reports of our actions from our media and our government. We are not even permitted to see the flag-draped coffins of our own dead less[sic] we wake from our stupor and confront our own nihilistic will to power.

Are our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the American people's "will to power"? Afghanis and Iraqis cast the first truly free votes of their lifetimes. How does allowing them to assert their own will somehow fulfill our will to power? I don't think Jay thought this through as carefully as he could have.

............

To help you ponder his article...

nihilism -- (1 a) a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless (b) a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

rapaciousness -- (1) excessively grasping or covetous (2) living on prey (3) RAVENOUS

ersatz -- being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation

Whose God? (January, 2005)

2005-01-31T23:23:00.000-06:00

Jay decries political parties and movements invoking God's name for their own agendas. He cites Daniel Lazare in The Nation, and makes reference to William Willimon in The Christian Century (neither of which I've read).

What I appreciated [with my comments interspersed]:

"God stands in judgment on all peoples and states, all parties and politicians. God will not be used as the ground of American democracy and power." [See Romans 3:23, Isaiah 40:15, Psalm 2:1.]
"It should also be said that the [Christian] God ... is not the god of Islam." [See John 14:6. I commend Jay for unflinchingly quoting the controverial John Ashcroft.]
"[William Willimon:] I defy anyone to attempt to read through a translation of the Qur'an ... and come away saying, 'Well, Jesus and Muhammad are heading in much the same direction.'"
"...living with Muslims may actually help Christians become better followers of Jesus."
"Well, how should [the Muslim college student] judge the Christian faith [but by the actions of his 'Christian' roommate]?" [Well put! See 2 Cor 5:20.]
"It is the pagan that uses God for their own purposes. The Christian follows the God of Jesus by living the Jesus-life regardless of the siren call of money, power, sex, or even the nation state."

Where I'd challenge him:

President Eisenhower famously opined, "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith and I don't care what it is." [Emphasis mine.]

In not caring what faith it is, Eisenhower is endorsing Unitarianism, not Christianity. As a Christian, that statement doesn't inspire me to vote for him or to blindly follow every other idea he advances. How about you? Does this straw man really make a case?

[Lazare] comments: "Just as ancient Rome tolerated all cults as long as they sacrificed to the emperor," Eisenhower believed postwar United States "should welcome all forms of religious expression as long as they bolstered the national cause. Faith in God and faith in America were mutually reinforcing."
...The painful thing is that Lazare implies that the Christian God is much more pliable and agreeable to cooperating with the national cult.

Ironically, ancient Rome fed Christians to the lions by the thousands, exactly because they refused to sacrifice to the emperor. And it was Christian influence that stopped it. So in this very case, the "national cult," not God, was the pliable party.

[That President Eisenhower and "many before and after him" seems to have used God to manipulate the electorate] ...suggests that followers of Christ in the U.S. in particular have let our God be used by politicians of every stripe to undergird their own goals and sustain their own power."

I don't doubt politicians have used God (both successfully and not) to justify their positions. Living in the Bible belt for nine months, I saw religion used to sell all sorts of things. (Does it work? I hope not.) But what would it look like for Christians to not "let our God be used?" Enacting heavy-handed laws against mentioning God's name? I doubt Jay would endorse that.

To be fair, religion is mocked, ridiculed and vilified in secular circles to "sell" (typically political ideas), and far more often. This is using God to endorse a point of view, albeit negatively. Not letting the Christian God "be used" would have to include forbidding this as well, wouldn't it?

In reality, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not available to add dignity to the political causes of the right or the left, to justify tax breaks or entitlement programs, wars just or unjust... God stands in judgment on all peoples and states...

People of every nation, culture, sub-culture and political persuasion will be shown their blind spots and sins at the judgment seat of God. That includes you and me.

But Jay implies that God, who requires us to act justly and to love mercy (Micah 6:8), who urges us to set the oppressed free (Isaiah 58:6), is now "not available to add dignity" when these requirements work themselves out into actions (particularly voting). I disagree.

Willimon concludes, "Frankly, I think the Muslims have got it right when they say that Christians in the West appear to have produced, or at least acquiesced to a pagan, sex-saturated, violent, materialistic society. Muslims seem to despise us not because we're so free (wrong, G. W. Bush) or because we're so very Christians [sic] (wrong, Jerry Falwell) but because we're so awfully pagan."

Muslims do despise our society's paganism. (I do, too.) Muslim societies use heavy-handed laws to ban paganism, but also to perpetuate slavery (as in Sudan) and drastic inequality between men and women, and ban religious freedom. Do these Muslims only despise our paganism? Jay is pretty selective in the things he points out Muslims despising. A look at the whole picture proves G. W. Bush right.

Our founding fathers, many Christian, all strongly influenced by Christianity, built a free nation knowing full well that many would use this freedom to reject Christ and indulge in pagan pursuits. They built a free nation, not a Christian nation. And this free nation eventually banned the slavery it inherited and gave women unprecedented rights. This same free nation that gives pagans the right to revel publicly, also gives Christians the freedom to publicly live the Jesus-life.

Though I appreciate Jay's thoughts and challenges, his sweeping judgments don't leave us with a coherent point of view. If in "living the Jesus-life" we let our beliefs influence our voting, we're letting "our God be used by politicians...to undergird their own goals and sustain their own power." If we don't, we've "acquiesced to a pagan, sex-saturated, violent, materialistic society."