Church
Politics and Christians
Watching the debate the other night sparked a great many thoughts in my every running brain (quiet up there). One thing I was struck by was the conversation about humanitarian crises. I felt like both candidates were similar to each other in their positions, and that position seemed contrary to the Gospel. Essentially, I understood the conversation to be one of moral responsibility and sacrifice. They were asked about the responsibility of the United States to get involved with genocide, such as that happening in Darfur, that which has happened in Rwanda, with undertones reaching back to the Jewish Holocaust. Both candidates agreed that we have a responsibility, presumably not just as a country but as a a world and as individuals, to pursue peace and to protect others from violence. That is all well and good, but there was a fascinating and subsequent divergence from that philosophy when it came to nationalism and protection of our own. For instance, (and I can’t remember this exactly), but one of the candidates implied that the killing of our own troops for the sake of rescuing/stopping genocide would be too much. That is too much sacrifice to be made.
Now, I’m completely dubious of the notion that violence can stop violence, but the point that I would like to make is that of nationalism. Why is it that our own lives, our own country, is more important than all others? Why are the lives of those that live here not worth sacrificing for others?
This springs from a heartfelt frustration that I have had ever since I became a Christian. I have always thought that it would be worth it (if possible) to sacrifice myself for others, particularly in death. To be specific, I used to ask God if I could suffer hell instead of others. Could I go to hell instead of my friends and family? At first this seems like such fantasy and naivete, but I think there is some real truth in these matters. For one, somehow God is in charge of the modes of salvation and redemption - though there may be some constrains by his own character and the necessity of propitiation/expiation. Second, this seems to be exactly the heart of Jesus (thus, of God), that he would sacrifice himself for the sake of others, and so our emulation of that desire is good.
It is in such a manner that nationalism can be a very dangerous thing for Christians to engage in. We become more concerned with those in our own tribe than with all of humanity, with other folks who need love and help. This is particularly clear when we see the demonizing of whole countries like Iran, Libya, North Korea, Russia, China, when the vast majority of people living in those countries are not involved in the wrongs that our country identifies. Thus, military engagement (and often times the media) engage in this hubris of nationalism whereby we, the United States, are the great country who is wronged and never admit the times when we wrong others, particularly the innocent (or the killing of the innocent is considered an unfortunate by product of fighting evil).
Now, I’m completely dubious of the notion that violence can stop violence, but the point that I would like to make is that of nationalism. Why is it that our own lives, our own country, is more important than all others? Why are the lives of those that live here not worth sacrificing for others?
This springs from a heartfelt frustration that I have had ever since I became a Christian. I have always thought that it would be worth it (if possible) to sacrifice myself for others, particularly in death. To be specific, I used to ask God if I could suffer hell instead of others. Could I go to hell instead of my friends and family? At first this seems like such fantasy and naivete, but I think there is some real truth in these matters. For one, somehow God is in charge of the modes of salvation and redemption - though there may be some constrains by his own character and the necessity of propitiation/expiation. Second, this seems to be exactly the heart of Jesus (thus, of God), that he would sacrifice himself for the sake of others, and so our emulation of that desire is good.
It is in such a manner that nationalism can be a very dangerous thing for Christians to engage in. We become more concerned with those in our own tribe than with all of humanity, with other folks who need love and help. This is particularly clear when we see the demonizing of whole countries like Iran, Libya, North Korea, Russia, China, when the vast majority of people living in those countries are not involved in the wrongs that our country identifies. Thus, military engagement (and often times the media) engage in this hubris of nationalism whereby we, the United States, are the great country who is wronged and never admit the times when we wrong others, particularly the innocent (or the killing of the innocent is considered an unfortunate by product of fighting evil).
|
2 Wishes
These days I have two wishes for/from the church. The first is a deeper engagement in silence during services. In my church experience silence is an uncomfortable time where folks have not been trained to seek inside themselves, sit in the depths of God, coming up face-to-face with our minuteness in the presence of a vast God...
My second wish really focuses on humility. Essentially, I wish we were more humble in our epistemology and grasp of truth. Suffice an example: the trinity. I have written about this before, and my point is almost the same. The trinity is an example of the supra-rationality of God and the tenuous nature of our knowledge. The three and one aspect of trinity defies human knowledge. One of the basic tenets of matter is that it cannot be in the same place as other matter, and thus the trinity, in some manner, shows the weakness of our understanding. (I am not so much putting God in the realm of matter, as trying to show how contrary to our experience of reality God is.) Yet, not only does the trinity show us how dimly we perceive reality, it also brings us (hopefully) to humility. Instead of being able to claim some sort of deeper knowledge or reality, we should admit that our knowledge is ever changing, ever being learned. This is the contrary mode of most church mindsets and (foundationalist) epistemologies (in my experience).
My second wish really focuses on humility. Essentially, I wish we were more humble in our epistemology and grasp of truth. Suffice an example: the trinity. I have written about this before, and my point is almost the same. The trinity is an example of the supra-rationality of God and the tenuous nature of our knowledge. The three and one aspect of trinity defies human knowledge. One of the basic tenets of matter is that it cannot be in the same place as other matter, and thus the trinity, in some manner, shows the weakness of our understanding. (I am not so much putting God in the realm of matter, as trying to show how contrary to our experience of reality God is.) Yet, not only does the trinity show us how dimly we perceive reality, it also brings us (hopefully) to humility. Instead of being able to claim some sort of deeper knowledge or reality, we should admit that our knowledge is ever changing, ever being learned. This is the contrary mode of most church mindsets and (foundationalist) epistemologies (in my experience).
Thinking about... Stuff
10/30/07 10:11 Categories: Church
I think I’m interested in Christian Ethics more than theology because of its practical nature. I’m a bit scared of intellectualism. That is a bit misleading. I am a deep intellectualist who has a hard time with faith often because my mind cannot understand all that ’spiritual stuff’. Ethics is a way that I can get at both - well maybe not exactly the ’spiritual stuff’, but definitely the ‘loving your neighbor’ stuff.
So, Emily and I were at church on sunday. Well, we were at our not-church church, which is to say it is some sort of house church which is still seeking to define itself. But during that time a couple things hit me: 1. Ethics is a possible bridge between the ivory tower and life! More importantly, 2. I think I approach God more intellectually than I should. I was watching Chris, who is a dad. His son was sleeping on his chest and Chris was enjoying the worship. His son knew that he was so safe, so secure, so loved. Somehow I think I’ve lost that with God. During worship I thought about God, about how I don’t go lie on his chest and enjoy his love and mercy. I almost don’t even know how to anymore. Maybe that is painting the picture a bit darker than it needs to be. The point is, God wants to be Chris to us. He wants us to come, let our guard down, and just snuggle up. To be cared for. That is one of the aspects of God. He also wants us to get on our feet and walk, but that does not need to be all the time. There are definitely times for rest, for comfort.
I once heard an analogy about God. A little boy wanted to cook his mom breakfast for mother’s day, so he tried his hand at pancakes. The pancakes didn’t really turn out and he completely trashed the kitchen. He was getting more and more frustrated throughout the whole process. Eventually his mom came into the kitchen, but instead of freaking out at the mess, she saw her son’s frustration and effort - she understood what he was trying to do. She gave him a big hug and helped him finish the pancakes and clean the kitchen. In a similar sort of way God is like that mom, helping to fix and clean up our mistakes. But I was also told that God wants us to grow up. To reach maturity - just as that mother wants the son to learn from his mistakes and become proficient at making pancakes and cleaning up the kitchen on his own. Right now I’m not so sure about that conclusion. It seems that the closer relationship is better in the midst of the brokenness. Yet, what really happens is that as the boy grows older, the relationship can stay just as close, but it takes on different characteristics. They don’t bond over messes, they bond over conversation, going for walks together, and all the new and different ways of relating.
I have associated that growing up with intellectualizing my faith. That is how we grow up to relate with God. But is that true? As in most cases, I think Jesus gives us a great example. If we are to take the Biblical story seriously, then he engaged with the Father by going about the Father’s work, which meant caring for the poor, healing the sick, fasting, praying, and there were some times for intellectual sparring. However, the point is that there was a deeper spiritual component - and by spiritual I mean supernatural, otherworldly, and mystifying - to his relationship to the Father. In essence, this spirituality is not only intellectually, or only concerned with social justice, or only concerned with living in a right way. It seems deeper, more fully, seeking peace and reconciliation between ourselves and God, enabling us to rest in the Father, however that looks like.
Frank Pastore
07/30/07 14:13 Categories: Church
I almost cried today. And is not because Emily still isn’t home. It’s because of this article. It is written by Frank Pastore, a radio personality on KKLA 99.5 in Los Angeles. He is a Christian talk show host who generally makes me frustrated whenever Emily makes me listen to him (He makes her mad too, but she likes to get made every once in a while… or something like that). Well, this article kinda did it in for me. It is so frustrating.
Pastore’s thesis is that moderate and liberal Christians, though to be fair he only refers to the “emergent church”, “don’t like truth, knowledge, science, authority, doctrine, institutions or religion.” Wow! If that isn’t enough to get a tear in your eye, well kick yourself and pretend. This is a pretty popular personality, who represents a good majority of conservative Christians, basically claiming that some other Christians are… essentially evil. Well, I’ll let you read the article yourself.
I just find it extremely frustrating that we Christians just sit here bickering and hurting each other. We don’t trust each other, and that is probably because we do not know each other. The camps do not form relationships, they just lob bombs over the dead zone and try to destroy each other via a barage of words. Yeah, that solves a lot.
Oh, and in other words, the Pope thinks evolution is valid. Yay!
Oh, and in other words, the Pope thinks evolution is valid. Yay!
Selling Jesus
07/30/07 17:49 Categories: Church
So, when did we come up with the idea that we can evangelize without relationships? Was it from the strategies of advertising agencies? If you send out enough information, you will get some percentage of response. Then, we don’t have to worry about maintaining relationships: we just have to focus on getting as much information ‘out there’ and hoping that it sinks in some-where. Corporate Christianity, here I come.
More on Nonviolence
A few quotes from Kurlansky’s book:
“The early Christians are the earliest known group that renounced warfare in all its forms and rejected all its institutions.”
“For 284 years… Christians remained an antiwar cult. Christian writers emphasized the incompatibility of warfare with Christian teachings.”
“Active practitioners of nonviolence are always seen as a threat, a direct menace, to the state.”
“…once the state embraces a religion, the nature of that religions changes radically. It loses its nonviolent component and becomes a force for war rather than peace. The state must make war, because without war it would have to drop its power politics and renege on its mission to seek advantage over other nations, enhancing itself at the expense of others. And so a religions that is in the service of a state is a religion that not only accepts war, but prays for victory. From Constantine to the Crusaders to the contemporary American Christian right, people who call themselves Christians have betrayed the teachings of Jesus while using His name in the pursuit of political power.”
Revelations of God
Growing up I was very often told about how horrible the Pharisees were in Scripture. In the Gospels they often come across as Jesus’ enemies, and so they must be our enemies as well. Then, they were occasionally connected with the mainstream church, because they were the mainstream religious teachers of the day. During their time they were truly trying to seek God and live the way God commanded, just as mainstream Christianity today. Because Jesus had such harsh words for them, he would surely have harsh words for us so we must be sure to be even more righteous than the Pharisees. A good preacher would note that such righteousness is the righteousness we get from God through Jesus, and a poor preacher would connect it to striving harder than they did to be righteous.
There are some very good and wise aspects to this sort of teaching and application. I think the church-Pharisee comparison has its proper place, but the part we forget is how that should make us very uncomfortable and nervous about God. We forget that the Pharisees were doing the best they knew how, and the best God had revealed how, to live righteously.
The most nerve-racking aspect of our condemnation of the Jews is how they treated Jesus. But the point I want to make is that the way they treated Jesus is the way God had told them to treat Jesus. Colin Brown, a professor at Fuller Seminary, points out that they call Jesus a glutton and a drunkard (Matt 11:19). Brown argues that this is a term from the Old Testament which has some very specific consequences to it.
The Old Testament reference is Deut 21:18-21, which reads:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
It becomes clear hear that the Pharisees were obeying God’s orders. Jesus would not obey his family, even saying that they were not his family and that those listening were his family (a stubborn and rebellious thing to say). So, although the Pharisees did not follow this command exactly, and were not allowed to follow it because of the Roman occupation, they did as good as they could under the circumstances and had Jesus crucified outside the city gates. This argument, as I have relayed it, is very obviously incomplete, but hopefully it has been understood as more than plausible. The point I want to make is how faithful the Pharisees were living to the commands of God. They knew that Jesus was teaching a message that was not wholly compatible with their understanding of the Old Testament, that he was a prophet teaching a new prophecy (something also punishable by death). They had no way or reason because of their Old Testament context to move past the law as they had it to receive this new teaching of God.
So what does that mean for us? What does that mean for those of us trying to live out our current revelation of God? It seems at first glance that it is entirely possible for God to have further revelations of himself that seem to contradict what He has done and how He has previously revealed himself in history.
I suppose there are some considerations that may be encouraging in the light of this alarming and humbling view of God’s revelation. First is the very humility that it births in our views of our own certainties of God’s word to us. I do not mean this in some manner of doubt, but as death to our every resurrecting pride. The second is the stories of God’s grace and relationship to individuals in the midst of doing a new thing. It seems, when we see the stories about Paul, the throngs following Jesus, Nicodemus and other examples, that it was possible for those seeking to be aware of and engage with God’s movement. This deeper understanding was rarely something driven by their own righteousness, but out of a hunger for God. I must note right now that I do not know what God’s criteria of finding their hunger satisfiable, but not the hunger of the Pharisees. It seems that there was nothing done by them to merit revelation of God’s new activity. Paul was going around seeking out and killing Christians! He certainly does not seem to deserve any sort of revelation from God.
Ultimately, the point I’m trying to make is that it is not ours to judge other’s claims that they are engaging with the work of God. Continuity of purpose, goal and methodology makes it easier for us to understand God’s work in the world, but it is not something that is necessary for God to work in the world. It makes him intelligible to us, but intelligibility is not a prerequisite of God’s actions. (I suppose this could be argued, but I have to stand by it. Even physics really is not intelligible. We have no real reason for knowing why things work the way they do, we are only able to track how those things do work.) So, Lord have mercy on us as we attempt to pursue Him in the way that we have been taught!
There are some very good and wise aspects to this sort of teaching and application. I think the church-Pharisee comparison has its proper place, but the part we forget is how that should make us very uncomfortable and nervous about God. We forget that the Pharisees were doing the best they knew how, and the best God had revealed how, to live righteously.
The most nerve-racking aspect of our condemnation of the Jews is how they treated Jesus. But the point I want to make is that the way they treated Jesus is the way God had told them to treat Jesus. Colin Brown, a professor at Fuller Seminary, points out that they call Jesus a glutton and a drunkard (Matt 11:19). Brown argues that this is a term from the Old Testament which has some very specific consequences to it.
The Old Testament reference is Deut 21:18-21, which reads:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
It becomes clear hear that the Pharisees were obeying God’s orders. Jesus would not obey his family, even saying that they were not his family and that those listening were his family (a stubborn and rebellious thing to say). So, although the Pharisees did not follow this command exactly, and were not allowed to follow it because of the Roman occupation, they did as good as they could under the circumstances and had Jesus crucified outside the city gates. This argument, as I have relayed it, is very obviously incomplete, but hopefully it has been understood as more than plausible. The point I want to make is how faithful the Pharisees were living to the commands of God. They knew that Jesus was teaching a message that was not wholly compatible with their understanding of the Old Testament, that he was a prophet teaching a new prophecy (something also punishable by death). They had no way or reason because of their Old Testament context to move past the law as they had it to receive this new teaching of God.
So what does that mean for us? What does that mean for those of us trying to live out our current revelation of God? It seems at first glance that it is entirely possible for God to have further revelations of himself that seem to contradict what He has done and how He has previously revealed himself in history.
I suppose there are some considerations that may be encouraging in the light of this alarming and humbling view of God’s revelation. First is the very humility that it births in our views of our own certainties of God’s word to us. I do not mean this in some manner of doubt, but as death to our every resurrecting pride. The second is the stories of God’s grace and relationship to individuals in the midst of doing a new thing. It seems, when we see the stories about Paul, the throngs following Jesus, Nicodemus and other examples, that it was possible for those seeking to be aware of and engage with God’s movement. This deeper understanding was rarely something driven by their own righteousness, but out of a hunger for God. I must note right now that I do not know what God’s criteria of finding their hunger satisfiable, but not the hunger of the Pharisees. It seems that there was nothing done by them to merit revelation of God’s new activity. Paul was going around seeking out and killing Christians! He certainly does not seem to deserve any sort of revelation from God.
Ultimately, the point I’m trying to make is that it is not ours to judge other’s claims that they are engaging with the work of God. Continuity of purpose, goal and methodology makes it easier for us to understand God’s work in the world, but it is not something that is necessary for God to work in the world. It makes him intelligible to us, but intelligibility is not a prerequisite of God’s actions. (I suppose this could be argued, but I have to stand by it. Even physics really is not intelligible. We have no real reason for knowing why things work the way they do, we are only able to track how those things do work.) So, Lord have mercy on us as we attempt to pursue Him in the way that we have been taught!
Tithing
I had a realization today. There is much discussion about economics and economic policy, particularly as elections are coming up. Often times as Christians we try to connect what we see as Scripture to how we do life, and sometimes (for good and evil) we try to literally follow the prescriptions of Scripture. Late last year, when Huckabee was still a viable candidate his tax policy was considered by some - the flat tax where income is not taxed but only an enormous sales tax is levied on all products. The tithe of the Old Testament represents a very new and different form of taxation/public support. Not only does the theocratic form of government necessitate a different understanding of this economic interaction, but the very form of the tithe is not an income tax. Instead the tithe is a full wealth tax - the 10% is taken from everything that a family owns, not just the money (sheep, goats: livestock) earned in one year. This is has some impressive implications, namely that the distribution of wealth would be much more aggressively achieved. I do not know the reproductive rates of livestock, but there are few people who grew their entire wealth by 10% in one year. Jubilee, which is often so surprising, irritating and even odious to some, becomes far more easy to cope with when wealth is already being redistributed in such a serious manner. This definitely will require more thought later!
Knowing God
Having been raised in the solid culture of evanglicalism, I have been often taught that Christianity is not a ‘religion’ but a ‘relationship’ - meaning that it is not a set of rules to be followed, but about ‘knowing’ God through Jesus. I have always had a hard time with such understandings of what it is to be in a ‘relationship’ with God. God is... well, God. As Barth notes, he is HOLY, meaning different, other, not-likes-us! And yet he comes to become as like as as possible - even taking on flesh.
This is all well and good. In fact, it is very good, but I am still very fuzzy on the practical working out of what a ‘relationship with God’ means. Let me illustrate my point. I have a good friend and wife, Emily, and my relationship with her is very easily defined: I talk to her, she talks to me. When either of us is troubled we can see it on each other’s faces and in our actions. We can comfort each other with a hug (or chocolate). We can do fun things together, like riding our bikes, watching Lost, going to the beach (ok, I’ll throw in shopping for her sake...). In essence, our relationship is extremely tangible. But I don’t think that such a tangible relationship is what we mean with God.
I suppose I have some friends who would disagree with me - there relationships with God are very tangible via a very active role that they see God taking in their lives. Now, I’m not saying that they are wrong, I have a very hard time with the sort of activity that they claim God is behind. One of the most common activities that God seems to bring about is putting them in a certain place, surrounded by people who love, care and bless them (and often where they are in positions to love, care and bless others). The bottom line is that I have a hard time knowing/understanding that such was God’s work - that because of some special relationship with Him these things occured, which would not have occured had not this relationship with God been a reality in these Christian’s lives. For if these things would have happened, these people known, without a relationship with God, then how is a relationship with God made in manifest in the glorious blessings of relationships?
This is only one example, though there are many other possibilties. So, the question remains: what is it to have a relationship with God?
This is all well and good. In fact, it is very good, but I am still very fuzzy on the practical working out of what a ‘relationship with God’ means. Let me illustrate my point. I have a good friend and wife, Emily, and my relationship with her is very easily defined: I talk to her, she talks to me. When either of us is troubled we can see it on each other’s faces and in our actions. We can comfort each other with a hug (or chocolate). We can do fun things together, like riding our bikes, watching Lost, going to the beach (ok, I’ll throw in shopping for her sake...). In essence, our relationship is extremely tangible. But I don’t think that such a tangible relationship is what we mean with God.
I suppose I have some friends who would disagree with me - there relationships with God are very tangible via a very active role that they see God taking in their lives. Now, I’m not saying that they are wrong, I have a very hard time with the sort of activity that they claim God is behind. One of the most common activities that God seems to bring about is putting them in a certain place, surrounded by people who love, care and bless them (and often where they are in positions to love, care and bless others). The bottom line is that I have a hard time knowing/understanding that such was God’s work - that because of some special relationship with Him these things occured, which would not have occured had not this relationship with God been a reality in these Christian’s lives. For if these things would have happened, these people known, without a relationship with God, then how is a relationship with God made in manifest in the glorious blessings of relationships?
This is only one example, though there are many other possibilties. So, the question remains: what is it to have a relationship with God?