Archive for the ‘Christianity’ Category

« Older Entries

They ask the questions we avoid (or) Why does God save yet not prevent?

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

I have one of the best jobs on the planet. Pastoring a small church whose primary ministry is with international students and scholars. Most of whom are here for a limited period of time. Many of whom are studying the Bible and learning about the Christian faith for the first time. We also have Americans and internationals who have been strong Christians for many years.

The thing about extremely intelligent and well educated internationals who are studying the Christian faith for the first time is that they ask questions that American Christians do not normally ask. Either because we have asked and answered them long ago. Or we avoid them because we have yet to find a satisfactory answer.

Jesus teaches us to forgive others. So why does God not forgive human beings unless we believe in Jesus? And why could God not forgive unless his son died on the cross? And yet God expects us to forgive others without such conditions.

Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. President Bush is supposed to be a Christian. So why did America go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying there are no satisfactory answers to these questions. Just that they sometimes ask questions that one does not hear from Americans who have grown up going to church. This Sunday they hit me with a good one. We were discussing the Psalms. A short study on different types of Psalm. Wisdom. Lament. Thanksgiving. And praise. For the last type looking at Psalm 146. How often we think “God must be on the side of those who prosper and must be angry with those who suffer”. And yet Psalm 146 clearly proclaims that God cares especially for the oppressed the hungry the imprisoned the blind the fallen the foreigner the widows and the orphans. We might think God must have been punishing the people of Haiti because they “made a deal with the devil”. And yet Psalm 146 invites us to see how God cares about them.

And how does God care for all these different kinds of people who are in need or are suffering? Does he make food *poof* appear out of thin air? Or does he help them through us? I do believe in miracles. That God can and does *poof* provide what people need. But I also believe strongly that we are junior partners with God. That we participate in his ongoing mission to heal and to forgive and to save.

And then someone asked:

Yes but why did God not prevent the earthquake in the first place?

I did not have a good immediate answer for that. Perhaps I should have. Yes there is Genesis 1-3 and the story of the Fall or more precisely the Falling Apart. We can talk about the brokenness of creation and how that goes back to when human beings first turned against God. Paul Achtemeier argues persuasively that the book of Romans is not primarily about the doctrine of salvation by grace which we receive by faith. It is really about the story of God and his relationship with a world in rebellion against him. And it is in that context as part of that story that yes indeed Paul the apostle brings up salvation by grace received by faith.

But somehow that does not seem to answer adequately the question my Chinese friends ask. Or does it?

We talk about how God saves. But these people from other nations who frankly are the best in their home countries ask why God saves but does not prevent in the first place.

In The Silmarillion by J. R. R. Tolkien why does Eru Ilavatar allow the drama to continue?

Posted in Christianity, Hebrew Bible, Internationals, Personal, Theology, Tolkien | 2 Comments »

The need for theological identity

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Been reading Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister McGrath. In the chapter on “The Modern Period” McGrath surveys and summarizes a grocery list of “major theological movements” during the “Modern” period.

Romanticism, Marxism, Liberal Protestantism, Modernism (found this one hard to understand), Neo-Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Feminism, Postmodernism, Liberation Theology, Black Theology, Postliberalism, Evangelicalism, Pentecostal and charismatic, and theologies of the developing world.

What I did not expect was to resonate strongly with how McGrath describes one of these movements. Care to guess which one?

Postliberalism.

Oh yeah. Time to order a custom made t-shirt.

Postliberalism rejects both the traditional Enlightenment appeal to a “universal rationality” and the liberal assumption of an immediate religious experience common to all humanity. (119)

Not entirely sure about that part. But hang in there.

Arguing that all thought and experience is historically and socially mediated, postliberalism bases its theological program upon a return to religion traditions, whose values are inwardly appropriated. Postliberalism is thus anti-foundational… communitarian… historicist.

It gets better.

Postliberalism reintroduces a strong emphasis on the particularity of the Christian faith, in reaction against the strongly homogenizing tendencies of liberalism, in its abortive attempt to make theory (that all religions are saying the same thing) and observation (that the religions are difference) coincide.

McGrath mentions several theologians – apparently I should have gone to Yale – including George Lindbeck who “develops  what he terms a ‘cultural-linguistic’ approach which embodies the leading features of postliberalism” (119).

Where the summary of postliberalism gets downright scary (in a good way – I hope) is:

Theology is grounded on the intrabiblical paradigm, which it is obliged to describe and apply as best it can. To affirm that theology has a regulatory authority is not to imply that it can regulate Scripture, but to acknowledge that a distinctive pattern of regulation already exists within the biblical material, which theology is to uncover and articulate.

This seems to be a bold challenge to the claims of postmodernism and its intellectual cousins.

I do not mean to imply I agree with all of the above. Only that of the various approaches McGrath describes this is the one where I thought “yeah – that is more or less how I look at Christian theology at this stage of my life”. The goal is not to seize upon an “identity”. But to be encouraged that I am not entirely alone – including in my stubborn resistance to liberal Protestantism (which bears strong resemblance to the “emergent” church movement although I could be wrong – that movement claims to be postmodern). Also my theology has become much more “orthodox” – a deep concern for the traditions and teachings of the Christian church throughout the centuries. That is why I would qualify the point about “intrabiblical” interpretation. Surely how the church interprets Scripture is already part of this “pattern” which theology would uncover and articulate?

Posted in Christianity, Personal, Theology | No Comments »

Has "women in ministry" become central dogma?

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

I could get in serious trouble for this.

Let me begin by reminding people that:

  • I married my campus minister (and she hates that I keep saying that – sounds like she was some sort of stalker or predator who seduced one of her students when in fact I chased her okay?)
  • Who received her seminary degree years before I did
  • Who has preached for me on numerous occasions
  • I attended a seminary affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • Where some of my teachers were women
  • About half of my classmates were women
  • I received one of those “Leadership Scholarships” – so must have been at least somewhat acceptable ideologically to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • I serve at a church that contributes to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • I serve with women ministers

But I am increasingly uncomfortable with how fellow moderate Baptist Christians articulate and practice their convictions concerning “women in ministry”. In a nutshell when did “women in ministry” become a central dogma of the Christian faith?

One must immediately and carefully distinguish “women in ministry” from “ordination of women” from “women as pastors-or-priests”. Of course it is precisely such distinctions which fellow moderate Baptist Christians do not appear to accept. Fair enough. But I will so distinguish nonetheless.

One can speak of “women in ministry” without necessarily agreeing with “ordination of women” or “women as pastors-or-priests”. “Ministry” simply means service (here in the context of the life and work of the Christian church). My wife was a campus minister - but is not ordained and has never served as a pastor (or priest – if we were part of a different Christian tradition). She ministered to college students. She has also served as a minister with children and youth. She is functionally one of the ministers with children for Church of the Nations. “Women in ministry” can take a nearly endless variety of forms. Teaching. Preaching. Visiting. Counseling. Organizing. And so on. It is true that some Christians will argue that not every form of “service within the church” is appropriate for women (typically preaching because of its association with the pastoral office?).

One can even speak of “ordination of women” without necessarily agreeing with “women as pastors-or-priests”. This is where both critics and supporters of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement (from the Southern Baptist Convention) have gotten off track. Critics failed to appreciate the careful and limited statement against women as senior pastors. So theoretically one can have women in ministry along with ordained women along even with women as associate pastors and so on. Just not as (senior or sole) pastor of a congregation.

However this has been lost even on supporters of the statement. Since the ratification (adoption?) of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement several churches have been kicked out of associations simply because they had women who were ordained (sometimes on ministerial staff and sometimes not even that). And the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention stopped endorsing or supporting women chaplains. It was intellectual laziness and/or disingenuity for defenders of the statement to argue “we are not against women in ministry – just women as senior pastors” and then on the other hand to target Baptist congregations that had women who were not senior pastors.

My own private beef with “ordination of women” is that it is unclear to me exactly what “ordination” means in the Baptist tradition. We are so ardently anti-sacramentalist in our theology. Everything is a symbol or a memorial. None of our rituals actually does anything in terms of changing reality – right? As far as I can tell ordination in the Baptist tradition means almost nothing more than a change in your tax status. So it is difficult to argue for or against “ordination of women” until we are clear about just what ordination is and what it does theologically and ontologically.

But in the meantime theoretically one can ordain women in the Baptist church without those women serving as (senior or sole) pastors.

Now – back to “women in ministry” as central dogma.

Several years ago David Currie came to speak at University Baptist Church. I remember well when he said the reason many Texas Baptists were unhappy with the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention was “look – we might be fundamentalist but only if we want to” (something along those lines) and “Texas Baptist churches might not have a woman as pastor – but we can if we want to”. The issue then was freedom. A congregation that supported the Cooperated Baptist Fellowship might not have a woman pastor. Might not want a woman pastor. But will not try to stop other Baptist congregations from ordaining women or calling a woman as pastor.

There was a point – when exactly? – when that changed. When the issue was no longer “you can be against women as pastors so long as you do not try to tell others what they cannot do”. But “you must be actively in favor of women as pastors or you are not welcome in this organization”. What once was optional became mandatory.

Some will argue that this is a mistaken impression of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. It may well be. But can we at least agree that while this impression might be technically mistaken it functionally is correct? And so the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship goes out of its way to hold up women in ministry and women as preachers and women as pastors. Please note I am not saying this is wrong.

One sees this explicitly in my own setting.

Let me share an anecdote. A church planter with the North American Mission Board needed some office space. For some bizarre reason he came to us. There were the usual normal and reasonable concerns from the deacons. But I remember one deacon in particular arguing strongly against this. Because this guy represents the Southern Baptist Convention. Which does not support “women in ministry”. Which is against our values and beliefs. And if we let him have some office space we are guilty by association (my words not hers – but that was the gist of her argument).

What struck me is that the issue of women in ministry was her number one and central argument. It was the hill on which this deacon was prepared to die. If these people do not agree with us on women in ministry then we cannot associate with them or give them any material help whatsoever. That is a pretty strong line to take. We can associate with Jewish people and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Unitarians and work with them on joint projects and have them come and speak to our congregation. But Southern Baptists who do not agree with us on women in ministry – that is going too far.

And now the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Louisiana is pushing the “women in ministry” vector pretty hard. Speakers. Scholarships. The themes of our gatherings. It is all about being missional (where “missional” means what we do is vastly more important than what we profess or teach theologically) and “women in ministry”. These have become the twin poles or central dogmas of moderate Baptists.

Recently former president Jimmy Carter penned a rather strong statement about the role and status of women in the Christian church. It was published as an editorial in the British newspaper The Guardian. The former president does make some good points but they are difficult to extract from the shadow of this singularly weak paragraph:

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

This is the central error in a nutshell. If women are prevented from playing a “full and equal role” then it must be because they are viewed as “somehow inferior”. Many people accept that. Many people I know and respect and with whom I serve accept that.

(I note in passing this paragraph as well:

At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

I wonder what an informed and competent scholar of church history would make of that. The second sentence is problematic because while historical evidence supports some of his examples it does not support all. Jimmy Carter is another moderate Baptist who fails to make appropriate distinctions. And can his third sentence – that the current state is the result of some misogynistic conspiracy – truly stand up to examination?)

Let me get myself in trouble with fellow moderate Baptists by stating for the record that I do not accept the argument that “if women are equal in status they must have the same roles as men in the life of the Christian church”. I do not dispute that many may believe women should have a different role because they are “somehow inferior” (however one defines that). But I assert and argue that some may believe women have a different role in the Christian church for reasons that have nothing to do with misogyny. Disagree with them if you like. No problem. But at least understand where they are coming from.

(Also problematic is the way Jimmy Carter seems to equate various forms of “subjugation” and “discrimination”. As if Southern Baptist opposition to women as senior pastors is somehow equivalent to genital mutilation and domestic abuse. Offensive nonsense.)

Robert Parham also chimed in with “Blaming Men is Not Good Theology”. It is not a bad article – merely weak. What struck me as peculiar is “women are partly at fault because they support these religious institutions with their money and energy”:

Imagine what would happen if rank-and-file Baptist women launched a religious disobedience movement in the local church. If they said no more offerings and no more volunteer hours, the preachers with power would have a lightning-strike revelation about the full equality of women.

Again – not bad so much as weak. This is a subtle form of solipsism masquerading as reasoned argument. It all comes down to experience. “Preachers with power” would suddenly change their minds not because we make a strong case for the “full equality of women” on historical biblical and theological grounds. So far as I can tell Parham simply assumes from the outset that he is correct – everything then becomes a matter of compelling others to conform.

It is possible to believe that men and women have differing roles in the Christian church – and not because one is somehow inferior to the other?

Yes.

But to make this argument I might have to depart just a tad from typical Baptist theology.

The exceptional Anglican theologian Eric Mascall in his book Corpus Christi begins with an argument concerning the nature of apostolic ministry. Forgive me for quoting in extensio:

I can only reply that this objection seems to be based upon a totally false notion of the kind of superiority that a bishop has to a priest, or a priest to a layman. … Any respect in which there is in fact superiority is surely totally unobjectionable; it is like the superiority which St. Paul ascribes to the eye over the ear and to the hand over the foot, a superiority which is entirely compatible with mutual need and mutual love. And presumably when we are made perfect in heaven, neither will the clergy pride themselves on their ’superiority’, nor will the laity envy them for it; so what harm will it do? The blessed are able, in Dr. C. S. Lewis’s phrase, ‘to play great parts without pride and little ones without dejection’. [27]

In short – “superiority” of role does not imply superiority of status or value in the eyes of God. Would the truly humble care if their role in the universe is “inferior”? Which leaves one wondering how much such issues are about pride and envy and false notions of worth.

But Baptists do not believe in a “superiority” of clergy over laity – so why should we care about this argument from Mascall?

Then what about the Trinity?

The Church is not only ecclesia de Christo; she is also ecclesia de Trinitate. Her life and unity are the life and unity of the Holy Trinity. The pattern of her life is the pattern of the life of God, into which she is taken up. And the life of God is not an undifferentiated but a a trinitarian life, in which Father, Son and Spirit, though united, are distinct, and in which sonship, with its two aspects of apostleship and priesthood, is not common to all three Persons but is proper to the Son alone. [33]

The persons of the Holy Trinity are “equal”. But they are persons – and each person has a distinct identity and role within the life of the Trinity.

My wife thinks that is a dangerous argument and she may be right. It implies that just as God the Son is submissive to God the Father so women should be submissive to men within the life of the Christian church. I think that is a weak objection. I think a stronger objection might be “wait a second – so are men analogous to the Son or to the Father? you cannot be the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ at the same time can you?”

Correlating sex (male or female) with persons of the Trinity may be a colossal mistake. Perhaps the more relevant consideration is that equality of status does not therefore dictate equality of role. The divine Persons are distinct and with differing roles. So human beings can be equal in value – but as persons be distinct and with differing roles. Did Jesus mind being the Son?

Can all men be ordained pastors or priests? And if we answer “well no – of course not” then are we thereby suggesting some men are somehow inferior to others? This point is frequently lost on the dominant leadership of the Episcopal Church.

One last point – expanding on the Church as the image of the Holy Trinity.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America touched on this during his address to the Anglican Church in North America 2009 gathering. He notes (starting around 31:20) that the “blurring of gender may create a larger core of workers” (a common argument for why women should have fully equal roles in the Christian church – and is one I have used the most) “but it destroys authentic personhood, it destroys authentic masculinity, it destroys authentic womanhood”. Here he is not addressing specifically the issue of “women in ministry”.

Later he does (starting around 49:00). He asserts that the new Anglican province must resolve the issue of “the ordination of women”.

I believe in women’s ministry. I believe that women have a critical role to play in the life of the Church. But I do not believe it’s in the presbyterate or the episcopate [as priests or as bishops]. Forgive me if this offends you. But this is the universal experience and vision and opinion and position of the Greek Orthodox World the Roman Catholic world and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches.

This is a very important issue. And the issue is not so much about ordination – that’s the negative side of it.  The positive side – how can we come together to creatively find the right context for women’s ministry in the Church which is so critical?

Please do not think that there is any misogyny here. Not a bit.

So what am I saying? That I have changed my mind? That I am against women in ministry? or ordaining women? or women as pastors (or priests)?

No.

What I am saying is it appears some moderate Baptists are making “women in ministry” as one of their central dogmas. That it is an understandable but serious mistake to equate “women do not have the same role as some men” with “they are somehow inferior”. That they fail to understand adequately and fairly why some traditions distinguish the role of women from that of some men in the Christian church – even if still they disagree!

Posted in Baptists, Christian Practice, Christianity, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Orthodoxy, Personal, Southern Baptist Convention, Women | No Comments »

God and politics for me – but not for thee

Thursday, August 27th, 2009

Losing respect for people with whom I used to identify is painful. And I am beginning to despair for the future of rationality and honesty in our nation.

Where does one even begin?

I made the mistake of following a link to EthicsDaily.Com which is the website of the Baptist Center for Ethics. Two or three years ago I visited it on occasion. Most of time agreeing with the articles they published.

Remember when moderate Baptists criticized strongly the Southern Baptist Convention for how often it seemed to confuse Christian faith with conservative politics? for wanting a “wedding” with the Republican Party?

The irony seems completely lost on Robert Parham when he writes:

The Blue-Dog Democrats, many of whom are from the Bible Belt, and Republicans who have claimed for 25 years that GOP stands for God’s Only Party, seldom, if ever, frame health care as a moral imperative.

Read the whole thing here. Brace yourself. It is perhaps the single most offensive article by Robert Parham I have ever read.

Apparently he is fighting leukemia. Baptist deacon comes in and asks to pray for him. Parham replies “I won’t let you pray for me”. Why? Because the deacon is a sanctimonious jerk? Get this:

Then I told the bug-eyed deacon I would let him pray for me-under one condition. He and his church had to pray and to work for social justice related to the looming health care crisis in Tennessee, where some 300,000 people were at risk of finding themselves without health care coverage.

Uninsured Tennesseans deserved the same quality of care that I was receiving, I said, sharing that I was one of the wealthy Americans with good insurance and a community of support. Then, I asked him why he hadn’t written down what I had said on the pad he was holding.

Talk about moral blackmail. “I will not let you pray for me until you and your entire congregation agrees with me on this particular social and political issue. And why are you not writing this down?” Parham casually assumes that his understanding of “justice” is not only correct but the one that others must subscribe to or else he will not let them pray for him. And if they do not then they are “indifferent” to the “biblical imperative: seek justice”.

Not mistaken. Not wrong. Not sincere faithful Christians with different understandings of what “seeking justice” looks like. There are indifferent.

Look. To be honest he is indeed entitled to his opinion even to his convictions. That “seeking justice” in this particular context means helping 300,000 Tennesseans get health care coverage. We can extend that courtesy and generosity to Parham even when he will not extend it to brothers in Christ who came to the hospital to visit him and pray for him.

But therein lies the irony and the hypocrisy.

The Baptist Center for Ethics has pretty much taken the gloves off and declared not only their support for President Obama and “healthcare reform” (as understood by liberals in the Democratic party) but has done so in the name of God. This is what God wants. This is part and parcel of the biblical imperative to seek justice.

Those silly Southern Baptists. Those silly Republicans who claim that GOP stands for “God’s Only Party”. (Really? First time I have heard of that.) How dare they think God is on their side politically.

“No – we are on God’s side politically”. That is the irony. God and politics for me – but not for thee.

And the hypocrisy is to criticize Southern Baptists and Republicans for allegedly saying something similar.

Let me address at least two more articles I had the misfortune to peruse.

The first is “Choosing Sides: In Health Care, Jesus Sides with Poor” by Drew Smith.

Toward the beginning he writes:Many Christians are ignorant to the social justice message of Jesus. Preferring to see Jesus in only spiritual terms, and his message as only about salvation and heaven, we often miss the significance of Jesus as a political figure.

But if we are to call ourselves Christian, we must broaden not only our understanding of Jesus’ message as having social and political ramifications, we must also be open to how that message shapes how we live socially and politically today. Certainly this should influence how Christians should treat the current health care debate.

Read the whole thing here.

Fair enough so far. Although Smith might be careful about (1) assuming that if people disagree with him it is because they are “ignorant” (an all too common assumption people make about those who hold different views) and (2) professing to know just what those social and political ramifications are. I have strong political convictions myself. But (3) I do not push them on my congregation partly because (4) although I think my political convictions are good and reasonable I am not quite prepared to identify them entirely with what the Bible teaches about justice. In other words we can all (okay – mostly) agree that the Bible calls the people of God to seek justice. Even that God has special concern for the poor. But we might exercise a little humility when it comes to articulating exactly how we think that plays out in terms of specific political and social and economic policies in the United States in the year 2009.

I think I am right. I think my views are compatible with the “biblical imperative to seek justice”. But they might not be.

This is where Smith begins to lose it.

Why do many of our leaders side with big insurance and pharmaceutical companies instead of with those who need quality and affordable health care? Why do they listen to the lunatic fringe of the right wing misinformation machine, instead of standing firmly on what is right and just for the vulnerable of our nation?

Yet, we must not place all the blame on these leaders, for many of the citizens of this country, and tragically many who claim to be Christian, are also standing vehemently against any sort of reform.

Well now. Does Smith mean the pharmaceutical companies that have now offered to spend $130 million in support of President Obama and his healthcare reform proposals? Why assume that they “side” with insurance and drug companies out of malice? And Smith accidentally demonstrates he is not interested in serious honest conversation the instant he talks about “listen to… right wing misinformation machine”. As oppose to what? The left wing information hegemony? Why assume that people oppose the current healthcare reform proposals (of President Obama and the Democratic leadership) only because they are evil or are misled? And to say they are against any sort of reform is a lie.

A lie.

Let me say that again.

A lie.

Tell us that Republican proposals for healthcare reform are wrong. Tell us that ordinary citizens have support wrong alternatives for reform. Do not tell us they are against reform. What was that about misinformation sir?

If we read our Bible carefully, we will find that God is always on the side of the poor and vulnerable. If we are to be on God’s side of the issue of health care, then we must side with the poor and vulnerable of this nation. We can and we must speak with greater authority, even if those who stand against health care reform continue to scream. We have the power to change things, if we only will.

Like Jesus, we need to have a sincere consciousness about the plight of people in our country, especially the vulnerable. We have a moral and godly responsibility to care about this issue and especially the people who are greatly affected by this problem. We must, if we claim to follow Jesus, speak up for the vulnerable of our nation; we must be the voice of the voiceless. If we are not, then we cannot claim to follow Jesus.

There is some truth here I think. But once again Smith – while persistently caricaturing and demonizing his opponents – confuses the specific policies that he favors with “God’s side of the issue of health care”. And it is revealing that is precisely how Smith frames the issue. There is indeed a “God’s side of the issue”. And Smith and President Obama and the Democratic leadership are on that side.

And if you disagree – “you cannot claim to follow Jesus”.

I could also tackle “Infusing Health Care Debate with Nazi Imagery” by Rabbi Fred Guttman. But after reading through it a few times I found more irony than hypocrisy. When conservatives employ Nazi language and imagery against opponents – that is a classic mistake. But how quickly we forget (1) how Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done precisely that and (2) how some of the people who employ this language and imagery have been proven to be fakes and plants intended to make opponents of the current healthcare reform proposal(s) look bad.

(For the record – I myself have been the target of such fakery when I was in college. People pretending to be part of my group trying to make us look bad.)

Let us wrap this up with “What’s Really Motivating Angry Town-hall Mobs?” by Jim Evans. This borders on evil and is one of the chief reasons why my respect for many moderate Baptists is evaporating.

Members of Congress trying to hold town hall meetings on health care reform are being shouted down by angry mobs of constituents. Attendees at these events are reportedly carrying weapons. Conspiracy theorists are awash with nonsense about President Obama being a socialist, not a natural-born citizen and intent on dismantling the American way of life.

This is mostly slander. “Reportedly carrying weapons”. Oh really? You mean like the “angry white guy with an assault rifle” that MSNBC showed – never letting us see his hands or face because he was in fact an African-American? Most conservatives and Republicans I know have little patience for “birthers” (those who keep going on about whether the President is really a natural-born citizen).

It gets worse:

Pure, unadulterated paranoia? No, not really. Actually it’s displaced racism. There is a segment of the population that will not accept that we have an African American president. Any notion that seemingly disqualifies him is embraced with the ferocity of a pit bull at a dog fight.

One struggles to disentangle the slander from the sophistry in that paragraph.

So now if you have legitimate concerns about the Obama Administration and its policies including and especially his healthcare reform proposals – you must be a racist.

Yes of course. That must be why I applied to live in Ujamaa my sophomore year and become one of three white people surrounded by about 120 people who also happened to be African-American. That must be why I was one of the few Ujamites who bothered to visit his little brother (who happened to be African-American) regularly – and continued to do so for 4 years after I no longer lived in Ujamaa. That must be why I pastor a congregation in which several congregants are African. That must be why I led a mission trip and worked myself to exhaustion in order to purchase and assemble and distribute 1300+ backpacks with school supplies in one of the poorest areas of the United States that is also predominantly African-American. That must be why I pulled my children out of a predominantly white and affluent private school so they could go to a public middle school in which more than 2/3 of the students are African-American. That must be why my wife left her state job to become a public school teacher and now works diligently at an elementary school in which one occasionally has a white student.

Because we are racists?

Come on Jim Evans. Is that the best you got? Cheap slander? You bore me.

(This is why I have decided no longer to participate in discussions with people who employ such tactics. They do not respect me. In fact they rush to defame me. They have demonstrated repeatedly they are not interested in serious honest discussion of the issues. So why should I waste my time and energy with them? But I will try to pray for them and I do not mean pray that God would change their minds. Let his will be done. What else can we ask?)

What boggles my mind – really leaves me in a pit of despair for the future of sanity and rationality in the United States – is why people like Smith and Evans and Parham and President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and so on and so on and so on cannot do something like this.

“We think you are wrong about healthcare reform. We think this really is the best approach. We have read the bill in all its details. Here are some facts and figures and studies. We are aware of the arguments against this approach. We think those arguments are wrong or mistaken in the following ways. You are not bad people. You are not ignorant. You are not angry mobs. You are not dupes. You are not racists. We understand that dissent is still American and we are happy to listen to respectful calm disagreement. But we think you are wrong. And this is why.”

You know – if supporters of President Obama and proponents of the current healthcare reform proposals took that approach…

I think they would win.

And yes you can quote me on that. But will you take my advice?

Addendum: My friend Chris Brady kindly directs our attention to an excellent preamble from Sojourners:

Good health is the will of God for each and every one of God’s children. Death, disease, and pain did not exist in the garden of Eden, and Revelation tells of a “new heaven and new earth,” where once again they will not exist.

In the fallen world in which we live, injury and sickness are a fact of life; physical death on this earth will never be overcome. But scripture paints a clear picture that health was God’s intent from the beginning and will be the goal once again in the end. This means that on a personal, national, and global level the physical well-being of all God’s children is close to God’s heart — and should be close to ours as well.

There is no religious mandate for a specific, God-ordained system of health care or insurance. No amount of biblical exegesis will lead you to a policy conclusion about health care savings accounts, personal versus employer-provided insurance, single-payer public systems, or private insurance plans. Luke might have been a physician, but he never commented on whether or not computerizing medical records should be a national priority.

Read the whole resource page here.

Second addendum: Jonah Golberg at National Review Online welcomes – in a way – how the left is beginning to invoke God and religion in defense of their initiatives.

President Obama briefly switched from wonkish frippery about bending cost curves to speaking of faith. Reaching out to progressive faith leaders in two massive conference calls, Obama insisted that God was on his side. Expanding health care fulfills a “core moral and ethical obligation that we look out for one another . . . that I am my brother’s keeper, my sister’s keeper.”

This would be an easy opportunity to call attention, once again, to the double standards applied to Obama. When Pres. George W. Bush invoked God as his inspiration, many liberals saw our theocrat-in-chief taking a sledgehammer to the wall between church and state. When Obama does likewise, it’s inspiring, spiritual leadership.

But, frankly, I find it refreshing.

Of all the silly arguments that have been passed off as deeply profound in American politics, the notion that politicians can’t “impose” their personal morality on others tops the list.

Read the whole thing at National Review.

Posted in Christianity, Healthcare, Politics, Propaganda, Religion, Rhetoric | 1 Comment »

Church as visible concrete reality versus(?) overly-realized eschatology

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009
Ruins of Coventry Cathedral

Ruins of Coventry Cathedral

What and where is the Church? Is there only an ideal Church off somewhere/somewhen in heaven? Or can we see and experience and participate in the Church here and now?

Metropolitan Ware writes:

The Church is accomplished on earth without losing its essential characteristics. There is not only an ideal Church that is invisible and in heaven. This ideal Church exists visibly on earth as a concrete reality. (The Orthodox Church, 242)

This is an important even essential cornerstone of Orthodox Christian ecclesiology.

I do not know to what extent this is compatible with Baptist Christian theology (however one defines that) concerning the church. But in a delightful article Prof Steven Harmon at Samford University explains why the church still needs Baptists. The heart of his position is this:

I’m convinced that the church cannot make progress toward the visible unity for which Jesus prayed (John 17:20-23) unless it receives the distinctive gifts the Baptist tradition has to offer the rest of the church. (Baptists Today, August 2009: 28)

I find it interesting that Prof Harmon’s argument refers to Christian unity – rather than some other goal or principle. We will come back to this. And it is significant the he refers to the “rest of the church” – which is to say that the church is more than (a) the Baptist tradition or (b) local Baptist congregations.

So what are these distinctive gifts that the Baptist tradition offers? The first gift that Prof Harmon describes caught my attention:

I believe one of the gifts that the rest of the church needs to receive from Baptists is our gut-level aversion to overly-realized eschatologies of the church. (That’s theologian-speak for the refusal of Baptists to equate any expression of church life in this present age with the full realization of the kingdom of God.)

The reason this grabbed my attention is that I wonder what is the relationship between this position (aversion to overly-realized eschatologies of the church) and what Metropolitan Ware writes. To what extent is (this particular) Baptist ecclesiology compatible with its Orthodox counterpart. One could focus on the term “fully”. Perhaps Orthodox ecclesiology would concede “look – we are the visible concerete reality of the Church… but we are not the full realization of the kingdom of God”.

I am not a theologian – although I would like to be more of one. I am not sufficiently versed in Baptist or Orthodox theology or in theological method to figure out how these two positions relate to one another. My guess is that Orthodox theology would indeed say “yes we are the full realization” – and then qualify or explain that somehow. My guess is that there are irreconcilable points-of-difference between Baptist and Orthodox theologies of the church/Church. Although I would rejoice were it possible to synthesize and harmonize them.

Please understand I am not trying to pick an argumment with either or to set one against the other. Not at all. I am trying to understand. And to struggle through my own understanding of the Christian church.

One fine brother in Christ wrote in a forum that “Rick is not comfortable being Baptist”. I suggested there might be some truth to that. But hang on a moment.

Prof Harmon in the same piece also writes:

“Real Baptists” are relentlessly dissatisfied with the present state of the church in their pilgrim journey toward the community that will be fully under the reign of Christ.

That sounds like the journey of my own heart. Relentlessly dissatisfied – hopefully in a good way! Indeed at times I feel like “the earliest Baptists… [who] ended their lives on the periphery of the Baptist churches they helped establish”.

Is there a home – ecclesiologically? Or is God content always to travel in a tent?

Posted in Baptists, Christianity, Ecclesiology, Orthodoxy, Theology | No Comments »

Vladimir Lossky and the practicality of "orthodox" theology

Monday, July 6th, 2009

The “Introduction” to The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky was an important turning point in my growing awareness of the importance of sound theology in the Christian life and in the Christian church. This is not to say we must become theological fundamentalists who have every question exhaustively resolved and/or permit no differences of opinion or expression on matters of Christian teaching or practice. But simply that sound theology cannot be skipped over in order to emphasize ethics or mission. Although one could quote several paragraphs perhaps this one captures most the spirit of the work:

Unlike gnosticism, in which knowledge for its own sake constitutes the aim of the gnostic, Christian theology is always in the last resort a means: a unity of knowledge subserving an end which transcends all knowledge. This ultimate end is union with God or deification, the theosis of the Greek Fathers. Thus, we are finally led to a conclusion which may seem paradoxical enough: that Christian theory should have an eminently practical significance; and that the more mystical it is, the more directly it aspires to the supreme end of union with God. (9)

Earlier in the chapter Lossky states:

We must live the dogma expressing a revealed truth, which appears to us as an unfathomable mystery, in such a fashion that instead of assimilating the mystery to our mode of understanding, we should, on the contrary, look for a profound change, an inner transformation of the spirit, enabling us to experience it mystically. Far from being mutually opposed, theology and mysticism support and complete each other. One is impossible without the other. (8)

If the ultimate end is x – it is important to articulate(?) a theology which supports and leads to x. Much of the book addresses how and why inadequate understandings of the Holy Trinity – particularly of personhood – call into question the possibility of our union with God or generate inadequate understandings thereof.

Posted in Christianity, Orthodoxy, Theology | No Comments »

In Houston for Cooperative Baptist Fellowship General Assembly

Thursday, July 2nd, 2009

Most years I do not attend. But this year we came for two primary reasons:

  1. I have been asked to participate in a panel on ministry with internationals and
  2. A chance to visit a member of the congregation who has been here for 6 months undergoing treatment at M. D. Anderson and a third reason which is that
  3. This year it is in Houston which is the large city nearest Baton Rouge

Although there is much that is good in and about Cooperative Baptist Fellowship there are reasons why I am finding it more difficult to identify with that organization. For many years I have not regarded myself as Southern Baptist because it is far too strict and conservative. But increasingly…

The last few years I have been reading and thinking more about the importance of sound theology. Not doctrine for the sake of doctrine – but rather sound theology which works and works because it is sound theology. This was particularly clear in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky. Lossky articulates clearly why sound theology matters. Because if there is a goal (or purpose) of the Christian faith it is important that one’s theology allows and/or supports that goal. If your theology is broken – then the goal becomes difficult if not impossible. (Lossky describes the goal/purpose as “union with God”.)

My concern is that in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship being “missional” has taken front and center stage to such an extent that it is unclear if they have a theology. And/or if there is a theological framework which allows and/or supports their “missional” emphasis. I remember when my fine classmate Rick Bennett – who works for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship – at a retreat for clergy said that they have two goals or “twin emphases”. Spiritual formation and missions (which they often articulate in terms of being missional or missional practice).

Fair enough. But what do we mean by spiritual formation? And in what theological framework do we understand the mission of the Christian church? I think it is too simple even simplistic to say “we are all about Jesus Christ and being the presence of Christ in the world”. That is why I understand spiritual formation and missions within the theological framework of the Holy Trinity. Our Orthodox Christian friends understand this very well.

It was good to see old classmates – especially those who have been serving faithfully as career missionaries and often in challenging contexts. This is when Cooperative Baptist Fellowship tends to shine – its career missionaries. People of prayer and theological conviction and passionate participation in the work of the kingdom of God.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is liberal or heretical or a Bad Thing(tm). Just that at times it feels uncomfortably “bland and mushy”. Perhaps and understandably in reaction to the excesses of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The above must seem rather critical of Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. That is not my intent. But rather to share why increasingly I feel – oh dear there is that word – uncomfortable and even dissatisfied when I attend such events. It is like we are trying to live in a beautiful palace – that is genuinely beautiful – made or jello or even made of cloud.

Posted in Christianity, Personal, Travel | 3 Comments »

Outside Los Angeles for ACMI 2009

Saturday, May 30th, 2009

My first time in California.

ACMI is Association of Christians Ministering with Internationals – an umbrella network/organization for those who minister among internationals. (And by internationals they tend to mean not refugees and not even immigrants so much as visiting academics – students scholars and so on. This is an important clarification.)

At Azusa Pacific University in Azusa California. Weather has been very mild even cool at times. Mostly overcast. There are hills – perhaps small mountains! – here. Staying in the dorms which frankly is nice and convenient. (I like when ACMI meets at a college/university. Food and lodging and meetings all in one place.) The food is very good!

On a personal note I came with my first case of poison ivy(?) since childhood. Note to future self – next time you have a medical problem get it taken care of before you leave town. $100 at emergency room instead of $20 with primary care physician back home. It did need attention because it was spreading and was beginning to hurt noticeably – the ache and burning and itching. Calamine was not doing the job. The shot in the left shoulder was painful and I could hardly use the arm for a couple hours.

The plenary sessions have been good to excellent. Worship has been multicultural and multilingual which I greatly love. Praising God in other languages such as Twi Swahili and Hindi!

First plenary session on emerging technologies. Facebook and Web 2.0 just might not be totally evil. Just might actually be helpful in ministry and maintaining/developing relationships. Just do not overdo it. (See third plenary.)

Second plenary on whether Christians will include Muslims and the Islamic world in the Great Commission. Or because of 9/11 will like Jonah basically say “to hell with them”. Very powerful presentation.

Third session tonight was on China. Where is it going? Will it become a Christian nation? (I would ask “what exactly does that mean? a theocracy? or a nation full of Christians who greatly influence society and culture?” I can support the latter but not the former – I do believe passionately in religious freedom.) What kind of Christianity will China embrace? One important point the speaker frequently raised is that Chinese Christians love their nation. If American Christians make disparaging remarks about China (as in the Chinese government) that is extremely unhelpful! At the same time she spoke plainly about how the goal of the CCP (Chinese Community Party) is to maintain power and stability. And they will co-opt anything (such as a rebirth of Confucianism) in order to perpetuate a one party state.

(I wondered “does that include Christianity? Is it possible for even the Christian faith to be co-opted in order to serve the interests and perpetuate the power of the state? I also wanted to ask if – given this Chinese propensity – democracy is inherently incompatible with Chinese culture. I do not think so – but I wondered if she realized what she implied even as she explicitly denied this is the case.)

Wonderful chances for networking. Praise God for the brave souls who do not know me and yet walk over and ask if they can join me for dinner. I have been meeting (eating) and talking with (1) others who do international ministry in south Louisiana – networking! (2) others who serve an “international church” rather than para-church international ministry and to a lesser extent (3) fellow Baptists doing this. How Southern Baptists in ISM (international student ministry) organize is in a state of perpetual flux. I normally am graciously invited and included in meetings and conversations. That did not happen this year. It appears entirely unintentional.

There are at least two CBF missionaries here also. I hope to find them.

I want to make a couple quick comments about prayer and worship – and this is where I may wax rude judgmental and arrogant.

Worship is not performance.

Let me say that again. Worship is not performance.

I wish worship leaders did not add mini-sermons. “We are going to worship God because blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda awesome great awesome awesome just so holy awesome we just want to blah blah blah”. Please stop talking. Just play and/or sing and let us worship. And then they add stuff in the middle of songs or between sogs. Please stop talking. Just play and/or sin and let us worship.

That they got up and had us “worship” again after the Chinese scholar spoke was – and how can one say this with some restraint – inappropriate. Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony the fourth movement just reached its climx… and then you want to get on stage and start talking again. Stop! Please stop! It was a beautiful powerful moment that should not have been spoiled with more blah blah blah.

Do not tell people to stand up. That drives me up a tree. Invite us to stand. But do not just tell us. Even the Book of Common Prayer uses the word may all over the place.

Prayer as performance. I think some people think of prayer as performance. “Look how earnest and passionate I am!” I am sure the motives are sincere – to lead the people of God to prayer earnestly passionately and fervently. I am increasingly convinced of the wisdom of simple dignified prayers – and that are set. The temptation to turn prayer into self-promoting performance is just too great. We stumble and uh and ah and just this and just that father weejuz weejuz weejuz. Here we discern the wisdom of Catholic or Anglican or Orthodox liturgy.

Someone else composed this. And it has stood the test of time. And reflects the wisdom of centuries of Christians before us. Not our little “thrown together right now on stage uh uh uh weejez aaaaaaaaaaaameeeeeeeehn“. Oh puleez.

I apologize. That is judgmental and rude. But I care about public prayer and worship and have some rather strong ideas about them. Why is it not enough to say “Father God we ask you to remember this person or that situation” and leave it at that? Why do we tell things God already knows? Why do we presume to tell him exacty how to handle these situations? (And yes I do these things myself. Chief of hypocrites at your service.)

Posted in Christianity, Internationals, Ministry, Personal, Travel, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Marketing versus(?) evangelism (or) Centripetal ecclesiology

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

Outreach.

Churches agonize about it. Well at least this one does. But listen and observe carefully how people talk about it and attempt to engage in it.

Spend thousands of dollars on slick postcards to the community. “There’s a place for you here!” Where we are. Little map. Schedule of worship and other activities. Colorful picture. Actually quite well done.

Debates about whether and how often to advertize in the local newspaper. Cutting back just a bit. About whether to continue shelling out enormous sums for a presence in the yellow pages.

And oh yeah we got yellow “visitors’ bags”. Full of papers and brochures about different ministries within the church. All very informative. And maybe boring at times.

Recently the discussion has shifted to administration and procedures. How do we handle visitor information? How do we follow up with visitors? Letter. Phone call – not too many or they feel harrassed! Dare we visit?

And recently significant changes in our primary software suite for membership management. Automated Church Systems aka ACS. Not longer hosting it locally but now with their server – we access it remotely. Costs more – but now they are responsible for installations and upgrades and backups. Frankly this represents a dramatic improvement.

Leverage a module within ACS we have never used before. So that an “outreach coordinator” in each Sunday school class can enter visitor information. Coordinate follow up. Report results.

Do you see where this is going?

I have been struck by this curious emphasis on the mechanics of outreach – where outreach means “letting people know about our church such that they come here… and then they want to come back… and join and/or participate… and it would be nice if they contribute financially”.

In a way – evangelism as marketing.

Let me throw something else on the table. Recent discussions about Sunday school. Deep concern about how the numbers have been dropping steadily for the last several years. Meetings with parents of children and youth to find out what they want. Because – and I am sure you have heard this plenty of times – “they are the future”.

Parents with children – and those children/youth – are the “future of the church”.

My ministerial colleagues chafe somewhat against the “the young are the future of the church” talk. Because what does that say about our seniors? They are the past? They are obsolete? And what does it say about our children and youth and hey throw in the youngish families or the pre-seniors? That if they are the future they must by implication not be the present?

I am deeply troubled when churches talk about “outreach” (growing the church numerically) as a marketing/mechanical problem. “If we have the right tools and mechanisms… if you use this software… designate these people to implement certain procedures and processes… if we put together just the right mailings and website… then people will flock to us and join”.

My seminary teacher (yes professor but “teacher” strikes a more affectionate tone) Isam Ballenger taught that there are centripetal as well as centrifugal forces in Christian mission. What does that mean? That yes the church “goes out” to say and do things. We go and tell people about Jesus. We go and serve others in the name of Jesus. This is the centrifugal movement. “Go get them!”

But we often overlook the centripetal movement. To what extent do we evangelize simply by being the church? By our prayer our worship our life in communion with each other and by holy living? Such that people are drawn into the Christian church because they are attracted. And/or – in tension with the centrifugal – once we have “gone out and gotten them” they actually want to stay and be a part of this? This is the centripetal movement. “Bring them in / they will come”.

Congratulations! You have spent thousands and successfully gotten twenty people to visit your church on that groovy Sunday when you have a special worship service. You greeted them. Gave them bags. Got their information. Called and wrote and maybe even visited them.

Why should they come back?

I am not convinced that growing the church numerically is necessarily or always the product of mechanics and marketing and procedures. Because the church is not – or at least it jolly well should not be – another social service agency or another religious social club. “Come join our organization! We are nice people who do nice things! You should be part of this too!”

{WILL FINISH THIS LATER WHEN I GET HOME AND HAVE ACCESS TO A CERTAIN RESOURCE}

Posted in Christianity, Ecclesiology, Missiology | No Comments »

"Why do Christians hate Obama?" (or) How does one answer a broken question?

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

Note (May 07, 2009): I marked this post as “private” after I wrote it. Was not comfortable with the idea of writing a post responding rather publicly (the Internet is very public) to something a congregant wrote on facebook (which is semi-public). But after a few weeks – sure.

********

A member of the congregation I serve posted on facebook:

“Why do christians hate obama?”

It has generated a few replies – some of which are more troubling than the question. “They hate everybody”. Or a peculiar testimony about discussing Obama with someone who “called the Holocaust punishment for the Jews”. (I would not know where to find someone who holds that opinion.) A good friend who was an invaluable part of our ministry with internationals and whom I respect highly commented that “some are easily conned by others and don’t think for themselves. These poor manipulated souls believe that being a Christian is to follow a Republican Political agenda”.

Frankly I am not sure I should reply at all. Or at least publicly.

One could respond with a simple test. “Does your question – and do the answers – apply to any other situation?” Imagine if I asked:

“Why do democrats hate bush?”

And the replies were along these lines. “They hate everybody”. Or discussing Bush with someone who “called 9/11 punishment for Americans”. Or “some are easily conned”. And so on.

Wright’s Second Principle of Epistemology states:

A well asked question almost answers itself.

And by extension:

A broken question is almost impossible to answer.

The original question – “why do christians hate obama?” – is broken in at least two ways.

  1. It does not qualify “christians” in any way. A few? Some? Most? The question implies the sweeping generalization that all Christians hate the president.
  2. It assumes that (said group) “hates” the president. What do you mean by “hate”? Harbor malice toward him? Wish him harm? (And you cannot equate strong principled opposition with hate. Unless Democrats hate Republicans.)

The question contains (1) a sweeping generalization and (2) a problematic assumption. It is a (twice-)broken question. And therefore almost impossible to answer.

(There may be another problem with the question. Do these people “hate” the president because they are “Christians”? Or are they American citizens who “hate” the president for reasons that have less or nothing to do with their religion?)

I do not dispute that some “Christians” may genuinely “hate” the president. (Although I assume and have no evidence for this.) That is more than unfortunate. It is against what the New Testament teaches explicitly. Would Jesus hate the Roman emperor?

If you wish sincerely to have a useful discussion then I offer the following:

Why do some? many? most? Christians oppose and/or disagree with some? most? all? of what President Obama says does and wants?

Then – and only then – will you begin to have a productive conversation.

Posted in Christianity, Economics, Issues, Politics, Rhetoric, Society and Culture | No Comments »

« Older Entries