An old friend/classmate from Great Britain posted a link to a recent article by Jonathan Dudley entitled “My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?”.

I thought “ho hum another article/piece/post on the subject” and made the mistake of reading it.

My friend should put on his English teacher hat and evaluate the article as a piece of writing. Can one identify a thesis? crux? clear conclusion? What exactly is the position Dudley is attempting to defend? Do his arguments support his conclusion insofar as one can identify it? What other conclusions would his arguments support? How relevant is the evidence he brings to bear on the discussion? Even if you agree with him this is not a very good article.

Let me put it this way. Let us assume for the sake of argument that same-sex relations are entirely compatible with the Christian way of life. If so the piece by Dudley is a poor attempt to defend that conclusion.

An aside. Did a search to see who has rebutted and/or responded to Dudley. Surprisingly the only people who take note of his work are those who already agree with him. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of more traditional Christian scholars who are afraid to take on the position(s) he takes. This suggests (a) that this recent piece simply has not attracted much attention yet and/or (b) that those who normally would respond do not think this piece is worth their while.

Also found it odd that Dudley is often described as a Bible expert or scholar. Compared to the average American sure. But compared to thousands of people who would disagree with him and who have studied and taught and published more? In fairness to Dudley he is probably not running around touting himself as a Bible expert/scholar as much as those who wish to use his writing to bolster their own views.

He’s been to seminary and apparently did very well. Meaning no disrespect at all to his real accomplishments as a student and a writer so what? Been there done bought the t-shirt.

One of harsher criticisms of his article is the reductionism. He only focuses on explicit condemnations of same-sex relations. In one place – Romans 1. And characterizes the nature of Paul’s argument in the most simplistic terms. “Argument from nature”. That’s it? No attempt to delve into the entire biblical and theological background to Romans 1? No attempt to analyze possible differences between (his characterization of) Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11? To what extent does Dudley engage the small libraries of scholarship on (1) Romans (2) sexual ethics in the New Testament (3) the issue of same-sex relations in the Bible and in Christian tradition let alone (4) the theological-anthropological framework in which Christian tradition addresses same-sex relations? To what extent has Dudley attempted to wrestle with the work of scholars like Robert Gagnon?

In fairness to Jonathan Dudley perhaps he has done so at length elsewhere. Just not here. Often when one writes an article/post there are time and space limitations. “I wrote a 50 page paper refuting 12 books on the subject. But I’ve got an anatomy exam next week and this article can’t be more than 500 words so this’ll have to do”.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Found another couple pieces/interviews and unfortunately so far it looks like variations of the “shellfish argument”. The Bible condemns x and it also condemns eating crawfish. No one worries about eating crawfish so why should we worry about x? A bright 7 year old might point out that x includes such things as bestiality or incest or defrauding the poor of their wages and so on and so on. This is why the title of the recent piece “The Bible condemns a lot of things why focus on?” is amazingly stupid. In fairness someone else such as an editor almost certainly assigned that title.)

One thing that strikes me as just a bit odd is how he conflates the issue of same-sex relations with the issue of gay marriage. I know that plenty of people do that but one must be careful to distinguish issues that are related but distinct. I dare suggest that one can favor gay marriage and think same-sex relations are incompatible with the Christian way of life. And one can oppose gay marriage and have no problem with same-sex relations. One must distinguish between how is a disciple of Jesus Christ the son of God supposed to live? and what kinds of family structures should society – which includes people who are not Christian – permit or encourage? In case dear readers are curious I lean towards the former position. There are plenty of things that are not compatible with the Christian way of life that perhaps society and government should not attempt to regulate.

Okay so the Christian church has had varying attitudes toward marriage and celibacy during its first 1500 years. What does that have to do with the specific issue at hand today? Was the Christian church against marriage during that time? No? So how is that piece of evidence (which we will take at face value for the moment) relevant to the issue at hand? This is another serious flaw with Dudley’s argumentation. Not “that is wrong” but “even if that’s correct so what?”

Let us also assume that modern evangelical Christians take many stances that would have been considered heresy a few hundred years ago.

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s “pro-family” activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

Dare we ask how well so-called progressive Christianity would have been regarded for most of the church’s history? Is Dudley arguing that what evangelical Christians promote is just as much “heresy” as what modern liberal-progressive Christians promote? If x is flawed how does that help y?

I think Dudley reveals his larger agenda when he brings in abortion. Wait a second. Are we talking about same-sex relations? and/or same-sex marriage? and/or abortion?

Again Dudley muddles the issue. He argues that the church has not historically and traditionally supported the idea that life begins at conception. Okay. Without doing further research am inclined to agree with that. I mean gee whiz how long have we known about conception? But that’s not the same as saying the church has always thought elective abortion is just fine. The church historically and traditionally has opposed elective abortion – am unaware of any evidence to the contrary – but not because of some particular view about human conception. So Augustine had some doubts about when the body has a soul. Does that mean he favored terminating pregnancies? Evidence x does not lead to conclusion y.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Have often noticed that progressive/liberal Christians group these stances together. Let me put it this way. My views on same-sex relations and abortion are pretty traditional. But I have no problems with evolutionary theory and many evangelicals would be horrified by my views on hell or the “security of the believer” or atonement theory. Am not “all or nothing” when it comes to these issues. And yet nearly every time I see progressive/liberal Christians defend elective abortion in the same breath as same-sex-relations-are-just-fine. As if they go together. Indeed are inseparable. Still struggling to understand quite why this is so. Can anyone anywhere point to an example of someone who says “elective abortion is unjust but same-sex relations are perfectly fine for Christians”?)

Dudley points out that evangelical Christians take stances against same-sex marriage and elective abortion – claiming that the Bible supports them in this – but can be pretty loose about other issues that the Bible clearly addresses such as divorce.

Okay. Fair enough. The church is arguably inconsistent. Although it is odd that when discussing divorces Dudley focuses on what Jesus teaches and ignores what Paul says. Whereas when discussing same-sex relations focuses solely on Paul. There is an apparent inconsistency in his methodology.

But this is where Dudley’s conclusion? position? thesis? is clearest and strongest. If there is any worthwhile value to be found in his writing it is this:

Evangelical Christians need to come to terms with two problems with positions they commonly take on moral-social issues. First – they claim that the position they take is “traditional/historical” when it might not be. [Rw - Okay this one is weaker and more debatable.] Second – they oppose these things that they think the Bible condemns but they are very tolerant of those things that others claim the Bible also condemns.

Evangelical Christians need (1) to improve how they understand and articulate the positions they take and (2) to be more consistent(?) with regard to what issues they care about.

Now this is not to get into the issue of just whether they are truly inconsistent or not. It depends on how one interprets Scripture does it not? Oh man there’s that common liberal refrain. Progressive/liberal Christians would say “you are wrong with regard to what the Bible says about sex and marriage and abortion and wrong with regard to what the Bible says about money and war and justice”. Dudley accuses evangelicals of explaining away Scriptures that deal with divorce. Dare we ask if progressives/liberals explain away Scriptures that deal with sex and procreation and marriage?

I would say yup. See my critique of Wright Knust:

These two examples illustrate what may be a problem with Wright Knust’s methodology. Which is what I call Heads I win, Tales you lose. Yes the Bible is often ambiguous and not entirely consistent. But what we see is when the text is ambiguous Wright Knust consistently chooses the reading that most undermines traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage. If there is the remotest chance that a text could be read in such a way as to endorse something other than sexual-relations-within-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. And if there is a remote chance that a text can be read in such as way that it does not warn against sexual-relations-outside-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. Clear texts are no longer clear. And ambiguous texts are no longer ambiguous.

Dudley raises a good point about consistency and hermeneutics. But that point cuts both ways.

Gee whiz maybe evangelical Christians should heed Dudley and start opposing liberalization of divorce.

By the way this raises the question of exactly what Dudley is attempting to accomplish. Okay let us assume that evangelical Christians are inconsistent. They oppose x y and z but are lenient on p d and q which the Bible also condemns. What then? Is the goal to help the Christian church be more consistent? more faithful to what the Bible teaches? What exactly does Dudley want Christians to do? It would seem consistency and better understanding of tradition/history are not his true or ultimate concerns. Speaking of charades and honesty.

One last thing. Jonathan Dudley needs a mirror.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

See he actually makes a good point. How often are we just advancing our interests rather than what the Bible and/or Christian faith and tradition really teach? We need to ask ourselves that question. But what about progressive/liberal Christians?

Let me wax harsh for a moment. This was the part that struck me as downright offensive.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Where to start? Dudley ignores and dismisses how many Christians who are neither white nor male? And he better not respond “yeah but those women and non-white Christians are just repeating what others tell them” which to be perfectly blunt is sexist and racist. As if women are not capable of forming their own opinions regardless of what men tell them. As if Christians of color are not capable. (That last sentence is exactly what many liberal Episcopalians often argue. I have seen it and have had people say it to my face.)

But let us think about this for a moment. It is somehow in the interest of white male heterosexuals to interpret Scripture and Christian tradition this way. Really? How? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation. How exactly does a white male heterosexual benefit if he says “the Bible says no same-sex relations”? or for that matter “the Bible says no sleeping around with gorgeous women you are not married to”? or for that matter “no destroying an unborn child because you do not want her to be born”? or for that matter a host of other things?

Probably Dudley and/or others would offer some deconstructionist/theory-based scholarship or the like to demonstrate that yeah somehow such people do benefit. But I do not see it. Never have. Would it not be easier to say “well heck have sex with whomever or whatever you want”? Would it not be easier to say “child with Down’s Syndrome? abort it and don’t feel any guilt about it”?

If I embraced the whole progressive/liberal Christian panoply in many ways life would be easier. If nothing else would receive more approval and praise from the surrounding culture. The opposite of 1 Peter. But so far as I can tell the ones who truly benefit(?!?) are those who say “no no no the Bible and Christian tradition do not really restrain us so much from doing whatever we feel like doing”.

Dudley talks about “own interests” (see below). But how are more restrictive interpretations in our “own interests”? The opposite – that progressive/liberal Christians have their own desires in mind – appears more likely to be the case.

Dudley concludes his piece:

The [evangelical] community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

He makes a leap here in these last paragraphs. I don’t think he has truly proven that opposition to same-sex relations or gay marriage or abortion are the very human perspectives of its leaders or not the Bible’s values. He might be right. But he has not really proven this. All he has done so far is raise good questions – good and fair questions – about tradition and consistency.

Set that aside for the moment. Dare we ask about the very human perspectives of the leaders of progressive-liberal Christianity? Do they never attribute those to God? Do they never engage in charade? Are they always honest with themselves and others? Are they always defending the Bible’s values? Do they never use the Bible to defend their own?

Based on a quick and dirty internet search Jonathan Dudley is a fine young man who is now studying medicine and already doing some wonderful things for people with regard to medical care. Glory to God for this. (And of course evangelical Christians do many of the exact same things and more.) I would respectfully ask the good doctor(-in-training) to examine himself as well.

Addendum:

Where are Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in this discussion? It’s all very well to pick on evangelical Christians and their flaws. But traditional Christianity is much more than evangelical Christians in America. How might Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians contribute to this discussion? Dare we find out?

Update 2011/06/22 - Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic kindly links here but more importantly offers a few excellent points of his own. Note especially the problems with how Dudley deals with history/tradition particularly with regard to the Jovian controversy. Hate to say it but it looks like Dudley just mangles if not downright misrepresents the historical record. This is a serious problem that forces me to re-evaluate my estimation of Dudley as a student/scholar/writer. I often disagree with what someone writes but can respect the quality of their thinking/scholarship. But poor scholarship is just not acceptable even in defense of a position with which one happens to agree.

This raises the issue of why are progressives/liberals promoting this young man’s work when it does not hold up well to scrutiny? The question almost answers itself. “Look! A Christian and Bible scholar who agrees with us!” One is reminded of 1 Kings 22.

Update 07/12/2011:

I chose not to respond any further to the comments offered because (a) my policy has always been there is a point at which one needs to just let people have their say otherwise the back-and-forth will continue forever and (b) although some decent points were raised (seriously) they were buried in so much {could not think of a diplomatic way to say it} I decided they did not merit any further response.

Therefore I commend both the post and the replies-to-objections made by Josh Gelatt. He clearly has more familiarity with (a) history of philosophy and theology and (b) some of the biblical/textual issues than I and his response to Dudley (and his would-be defenders) is much better than the poor offering above. Which recommendation calls into question the rhetorically clever but empty claim that my post is “best but still bad”.

Where Gelatt writes from a Reformed Baptist point of view let me also mention “A Critique of Jonathan Dudley’s ‘Take’” by Joe Hargrave at Non Nobis. He writes from a firmly Catholic point of view. Like the Opinionated Catholic – who *ahem* is not a Louisiana Tech undergraduate – he also suggests that the article by Dudley (along with Protestant replies thereto) demonstrates a serious problem with Protestantism and its emphasis on sola scriptura. In other words the debate over same-sex relations is a very Protestant debate. I am inclined to agree. Although I would argue that one does not have to be a Roman Catholic to see problems with the piece by Dudley.

Another Protestant response is “A Response to Jonathan Dudley” at Know It’s True.

Update 2011/08/21:

Despite (1) let people have their say and (2) some comments might not merit response – I was curious about the comment that Robert Gagnon recognizes the problem of argument from nature in Romans 1 regarding same-sex relations but regarding long hair for women in 1 Corinthians 11. Not exactly. Yes Gagnon recognizes the similarity between Paul’s argumentation in both pericopes (the relevant pages are 373-384) but does not conclude it represents a problem the way Jonathan Dudley presents. One can disagree with Gagnon’s analysis and conclusions but it is not accurate to imply Gagnon agrees with Dudley on this point.

When enough media outlets pound us enough with the message that someone is odious or venal or stupid one starts to believe the propaganda. “Oh man sure hope Michele Bachmann does not become the Republican presidential candidate because she’s crazy and dumb too”. Enter Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online who boils it down for us in “Bachmann Smart, Media Dumb”:

Seems like only yesterday when Michele Bachmann was supposed to be dumb… [L]ate last year, when I heard her speak at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. I was sitting at a table full of professor types. We kept turning to each other and saying, “This woman is sharp, not at all the dunce she’s been portrayed as.”

Liberalism nowadays may be the last great holdout of old-fashioned prejudice. By telling themselves they’re against group hatreds of all kinds, and dismissing their opponents’ arguments as nothing but bigotry in disguise, liberals grant themselves license to despise. They swear, mock, and hate with a clean conscience, never guessing they’re turning liberalism itself into an outpost of bigotry in reverse. The flip side of liberal guilt is this hidden license to hate.

Same thing applies to Sarah Palin. Came across an article about the recent efforts to go through thousands of her emails. Some people leave comments along the lines of “she is still stupid” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Just naked prejudicial assertion. I frankly am increasingly tired of being told whom we should like.

Walter Russell Mead has made significant contributions to our national social-political conversation with “The Death of the American Dream I” and “The Death of the American Dream II”.

The one thing I do know is that change is on its way — more fundamental, more challenging, and also perhaps more exhilarating than many of us are ready for. The health of the American economy is going to require us to move away from the credit card economics of the consumer republic.  The health of American society and democracy require that we move beyond the life of the last eighty years.  We should be looking at new ideals in which domestic partners are enterprise partners, the home is more frequently a place of business, and education moves away from big box buildings and toward forms of community schooling somewhere between home schooling and charter academies.

One way to summarize the kind of change we need.  During the farm era the focus of American domestic policy was to create the most favorable possible environment for millions of ordinary Americans to launch flourishing small businesses.  Rather that focusing on home ownership, American social policy should probably be looking at small business formation as the key to mass middle class prosperity in the next fifty years.

The American Dream is not in the last analysis a farm or a home and a good job.  It is the dream that through hard work and good choices the average American can be prosperous and independent, and that ordinary people with these life experiences can govern themselves wisely and well without the ‘guidance’ of their ‘betters’.

Even many so-called/self-proclaimed conservatives might not get this. That they confuse “progressivism Lite” with true classical liberalism and the American Dream before the vision of Thomas Jefferson lost out to that of Alexander Hamilton. Mead’s important articles remind me strongly of an important and interesting podcast by Clark Carlton on “My Two Cents on Capitalism”:

Capitalism is a modernist economic system and progressivism is a modernist palliative—not an alternative.

The only real alternative to capitalism is something along the lines of what Jefferson envisioned. This is similar to the vision of the Catholic distributivists, such as Belloc and Chesterton, and to the third way of the Protestant economist Wilhelm Röpke. The foundation of such a system is widespread property ownership and decentralized government.

I should point out here that the Greek word economia means household management.

James Tissot, "The woman who had been crippled for 18 years" (1886-1896)

First published in The Window (November 2006)

Sabba- (or) Holy Liberation, part V
Richard M. Wright

(The Sabba- is going somewhere…)

Last week I suggested that Sabba- in part represents the opposite of slavery. Perhaps liberation. And therefore asked, If we choose not to practice Sabba- are we choosing (a kind of) slavery over freedom?

In Luke 13 Jesus heals a woman on the Sabba-. “On a Sabba- Jesus was teaching… and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years… When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, ‘Woman, you are set free from your infirmity’” (13:10-12; NIV).

What is strange is that Jesus does not use the language of healing. Not “woman you are healed” but “woman, you are set free (Greek apolúoo “set free, release, pardon”; Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: 96b). And when some complain that Jesus is healing on the Sabba- he replies, “Should not this woman… whom Satan has kept bound… be set free (Greek lúoo “loose, untie, release”) from what bound her?” (13:16).

Jesus uses the language of liberation. Of untying… of forces of evil (spiritual? psychological? socio-economic? even physical?) that hold prisoner and that keep in bonds… of release. This is not just about healing a sickness. This is about setting a human being free from the forces that make her a prisoner and hold her down. The Sabba- is a day for rest and worship… for playing and praying… The Sabba- is also a day for liberation and for setting human beings free from whatever holds us prisoner.

Two questions.

First. Does the Christian community ever turn this day of liberation into a day of… bondage? slavery? drudgery?

Second. How do we – as individuals, as families, as a church family – practice Sabba- even more as a day of liberation?

Arthur Waskow describes Sabba- as a revolutionary act – and Sabba- keepers as guerilla soldiers who liberate time. I would add that Sabba- must become even more a liberating time and Sabba- keepers as those who not only liberate time but set human beings free.

Supporters of full inclusion for gays and lesbians in The United Methodist Church drape the central table in black cloth during a demonstration on the floor of the 2008 United Methodist General Conference

Was perusing Lectionary Homiletics for December as part of my weekly sermon preparation. Noticed how many contributions are from Ed McNulty. Wonder who that is? Do a search. Come across a website that might tell me more. Turns out to be the blog of a very liberal Presbyterian minister who serves a congregation in a town located in northeast Tennessee. Hey wait a minute. I recognize that town. That’s where my wife was born and grew up! And we even visited that church once around Christmas. Even then recall we thought it was a good and interesting experience but we probably would not go back next time we were in town.

Took a few minutes to look over this pastor’s blog. Curious about where he comes from. What his basic views are.

Look – I went to Baptist Theological Seminary of Richmond which is across the street from Union Theological Seminary / Presbyterian School of Christian Education. Cross-registered and took several classes at the historic Presbyterian seminary. Regularly attended their chapel services. Had plenty of Presbyterian friends. Yeah many of them were pretty liberal.

They had nothing on this guy in Tennessee. Compared to him they are staunch traditionalists.

The point is not to knock this active and passionate Presbyterian pastor who happens to serve in my wife’s home town. Just giving some background.

Among his other big causes – which include 9/11 trutherism for which I have little respect or patience along with Peak Oil an issue with which I do have some sympathy – is equality in the Christian church for Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender(?) persons. Fair enough. That is his prerogative.

(In this post I will not specify his name or congregation or URL of his blog. Not out of contempt or disrespect. But because this is not personal - this is not about him but about something he wrote and what it represents. Plus this is one of those times where I would rather not invite conflict.)

Among other things he shares his response to a questionnaire regarding Amendment 10A which has something to do with changing the rules about ordination to Christian ministry in the P(resbyterian)C(hurch)-USA:

How would you respond to those that say that if we pass 10a individuals and congregations will leave the PC(USA)? That question fosters co-dependence and bullying. We need to treat people like adults and expect adult behavior. If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy. Some even have been defrocked. You do the right thing and let the chips fall. I think once the church passes 10a we will become stronger. We certainly will be more in the spirit of Jesus.

This response is the one that jumped out at me the most. Try to follow the reasoning and then I will address the larger implications.

1. People say they will leave if we make this change? That is a form of co-dependence and bullying.

There is some truth to this. People at University Baptist Church occasionally play the “don’t do this or I will leave” card and it can be a form of emotional blackmail. Although this is a difference between “don’t make this change in the time and style of Sunday morning worship” and “don’t make this change in whether or not we ordain people in same-sex relationships to the Christian ministry”.

2. If people really have that much of a problem with this change then they will leave. No one is forcing them to stay or go.

Well that is not entirely true is it? If you belong to an institution or organization because of what it stands for and it makes what you regard as a fundamental change that you believe turns its entire purpose upside down then there is a sense in which yes you are being forced to leave because to stay is a violation of your conscience yes? How many liberals or rather leftists said they would leave the United States if George Bush was re-elected president? Gee why did they say that? Were they being forced to leave? In one sense no – no one was putting a gun to their head. But in other sense yes – because to them it means “I can no longer in good conscience remain a citizen of this nation”. How can someone who presents himself as so liberal and open-minded and understanding and all that good stuff not understand something so basic? That people are forced to leave because to stay represents a violation of their basic convictions? And this pastor cannot say “oh come now that’s no violation of your Christian convictions” because whether that is so or not is not the point. The point is how these persons and congregations view the proposed change.

This above is the most significant part of this pastor’s argument and we will return to it.

3. So we lose some people and churches. Yeah but have we not lost people and churches because of the current policy?

Well first of all consider the Episcopal Church. Have they lost more or gained more what with the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop? Are same-sex couples suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to be baptized? Are people who think same-sex relationships are morally neutral suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to become members? No? Yeah sure a few people are attracted to liberal churches and liberal denominations. But far more leave and/or never seek to join because they are either repulsed or just plain uninterested.

And while we are at it just how many people and churches have they lost because of the current policy? Care to throw out a number with some hard evidence behind it? Or is he just blowing rhetorical smoke?

But that is a weak argument. Ultimately one should do something because it is right not because it is popular. This pastor is aware of that. Well – sometimes. In fact he plays both the we’ll gain more than we lose and the we just need to do the right thing cards in the same paragraph.

We do have to grant one point. If by we’ll be stronger he means that the Presbyterian Church (USA) will no longer be conflicted because of this issue then yes that is probably correct. After the dust settles and many people and churches leave then yes they will have tremendous unity on this otherwise divisive issue. They will be known for their stand and people will join them or not.

Now back to that very significant statement If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy.

This is the painfully obvious point and question.

If the church stands for something that goes against their conscience and convictions and therefore people will be free to leave… and the church currently stands for something that they think is fundamentally wrong… then why don’t they leave?

Why do you seek to radically change this organization/institution to suit your convictions? Why not join some other organization/institution? Why not form your own?

If you do not care for the terms of your marital relationship why does the other person have to leave and you get to keep the house?

Ah… perhaps therein lies the answer.

It is easier to take something that someone else created – not to deny that you may have helped along the way – and change it. That it is to create something new and different that reflects your desires.

See – generations of Presbyterians have lived and given and served and died to help create this denomination. Because of what it stands for. And if change it such that these people think it is radically different – no longer traditional biblical Presbyterian Christianity – then that bothers them very much indeed. They do not want to give up what they built – and yes I recognize that liberals in some sense helped build this house and we can debate the difference that makes or not – to people who want to change it into something they regard as fundamentally different in character and purpose.

But the liberals want to take over change the denomination – and it is about much much more than same-sex relationships and one only has to read this pastor’s blog to recognize that the issue of same-sex relationships is the tip of a much larger theological and ideological iceberg – in ways that traditionalists cannot endure and say oh well no one’s forcing you to stay. So the traditionalists what? give up the churches and seminaries they helped to build? the organizations into which they poured their lives?

They have to leave the house and either move into some other house or starting building a new one from scratch.

Don’t believe me?

Look at the Episcopal Church once again. When Episcopal parishes say “we cannot live with the leadership and directions of this national church” they are not allowed to keep the buildings which they built and paid for (mostly or entirely – yes I am aware of how dioceses play a role in building up parishes). To the victors go the spoils. The losers have to start again.

So why don’t liberal Presbyterians just leave and form their own new denomination? Heck one can even let liberal Presbyterian congregations keep their facilities. Heck we can even let them keep a seminary or two. If they can keep them running.

No – what we see is these innovators would rather take over and co-opt something and change it to be more in line with their point(s) of view.

Melkor did not create the orcs. He could only take what Iluvatar created – men and elves – and change them into orcs. Melkor was not able to create anything original of his own.

Parasites do not produce or create so much as they co-opt other life for their own purposes. No I am not calling liberal Christians parasites. But I will dare suggest that this “we will start doing things you did not imagine when we first got married but you have to leave and we keep the house” attitude is a form of parasitism.

Honesty compels one to suggest some counterarguments.

a. We are not trying to turn our denomination into something different. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. (Diana Butler Bass makes this argument explicitly – although inconsistently because she often appeals to changes in current social and cultural attitudes.)

One must then ask “at what point in the history of the Presbyterian church did a majority of Presbyterian Christians hold these views on Christian faith and practice?”

b. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. You are the ones who have been taking our denomination in a new and wrong direction.

This sounds like the same argument as #a and perhaps it is but it relates to the fundamentalist takeover / conservative resurgence (depends on one’s point of view) in the Southern Baptist Convention. See – liberals are not the only ones who attempt to radically change something. My intent is not to bash the Southern Baptist Convention nor to defame evangelical/conservative friends and brethren. In fact I have started to identify again – partly – with Southern Baptists over the last few years. My goal is to understand their point of view. Moderate Baptists believed that the conservative movement of the 1980′s that was pretty much accomplished by 1990 represented a departure from historic Baptist Christianity. Obviously more conservative Southern Baptists do not see it that way. They believed liberal-moderate denominational leaders and seminary professors were the ones who were beginning to drag the denomination in a wrong direction.

One important difference is that the Southern Baptist Convention by definition could not take buildings and facilities away from more moderate Baptist congregations. Oh we can complain about professors losing their jobs and takeover and radical transformation of denominational institutions and structures. And as a matter of fact moderate Baptists to a large extent did end up having to create something new pretty much from scratch. I know. I went to one such seminary and most of my professors had been forced or pressured into leaving their positions at Southern Baptist seminaries.

(While we are it at surely the reverse is also true – that some conservative Baptists have felt compelled to leave a moderate Baptist congregation.)

But let me reiterate what I think is a key point and a compelling question.

Why do people who represent a minority viewpoint seek to transform an organization/institution/denomination so that it is more in line with their distinct convictions – rather than just leave and start their own?

In fairness I must acknowledge that there may very well be – indeed I assume that there is – a good answer to that question. But I have not figured it out yet.

Looking at the comments – before they were closed – one wonders how many New York Times readers need help with basic reading comprehension.

Ross Douthat nails it. With facts rather than speculation or supposition.

He discusses a recent study that demonstrates that college and university admissions policies favor black and Hispanic applicants. White and Asian applicants need better grades and scores to get in. Okay. I think we all knew that. And in a way I support that. Seriously.

But here is the kicker. The study found that not just any white applicants need better grades and scores. Downscale rural and working-class whites were most disadvantaged:

An upper-middle-class white applicant was three times more likely to be admitted than a lower-class white with similar qualifications.

Well maybe that has to do with money. Perhaps. But more than that:

While most extracurricular activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school R.O.T.C., 4-H clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances. Consciously or unconsciously, the gatekeepers of elite education seem to incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or “Red America.”

Now that is interesting.

This is why some of the people who left comments need to learn how to read.

“When Douthat made it about white Christian conservatives I stopped reading. It’s about class!”

“It’s not about race as Douthat says. It’s about class!”

Precisely. That is exactly what Douthat is getting at. It is about class. Rich and poor – with poor or working-class whites on the losing end. And it is about culture. Urban versus rural – with rural whites on the losing end.

This is what I have been observing and writing about. America is becoming increasingly divided. Not by race. So much as by class (and culture). City people looking down on country people. (In my opinion the single biggest divide. I will address this in future posts reflecting on the journey through China.) East and West coast versus the Midwest. North versus South. A couple nights ago I was chatting with some people online and a couple of them started trash talking “redneck yeehaws” in the Southeast. I was quite offended and pushed back.

It would be interesting to look at the data and compare rural African-American and Hispanic applicants. The results could undermine or reinforce Douthat’s points.

I have much more to write about what I like and/or admire about China. But in the meantime and out of fairness let me list a few things that I did not like.

When one visits another nation with a different culture there are different forms and stages of  “culture shock”. For me it was mostly positive. According to my journal the charm began to wear off some time after the second week.

1. Bathrooms

Anyone who has been there probably understands. Not just that the toilets themselves are different – generally porcelain/steel holes in the floor over which one squats. That was the case in India as well. But that they are filthy and they stink. Like walking into an open sewer. Even nice generally clean restaurants often had bathrooms that were disgusting. Nearly always there was at least one sink for washing hands afterward. Frequently no paper towels – paper products such as tissues and napkins are not freely available in China. That is not so bad. But sometimes there was no soap either. It was never clear to me whether one is allowed to put used paper in the toilet. Many bathroom stalls had little trash cans filled with used toilet paper.

There were exceptions of course. Hotel rooms always had Western toilets on which one sits. And some businesses had bathrooms that were clean and pleasant. But when and where to go the bathroom was a serious issue I had to face each day.

2. Traffic/crowds

China is crowded. Some of you are thinking “well duh that’s obvious”. It is not just obvious. It is in my opinion the single most significant fact of Chinese society. Even more than their long rich and unifying history/culture. The traffic in Chinese cities – especially Beijing and Shanghai – has to be experienced to be believed. The roads are jammed nearly every hour of the day. And it has become worse during the last few years  because more Chinese people are buying cars. It can take 1-2 hours to drive from one part of Beijing to another. I remember trying to get to a restaurant in time for a dinner party. It took 30 minutes just to travel the last 5 kilometers.  There are traffic signs and rules of the road and so forth – but to a large extent driving is a constant battle for the next slot or open space. Bicycles and scooters do not seem to obey any rules at all – they go pretty much where they want when they want even through a stop sign or red light.

It is not just the traffic. It is crowded on the streets. Constantly  dodging and navigating past other people. At train and subway stations a competition to squeeze and push past hundreds of others just to get onto the escalator or through the gate. Nearly everywhere long lines. The Shanghai Expo was by the far the worst. Standing in line for 1-2 hours with thousands of other people for a chance to get into one of the pavilions. There was one place in downtown Shanghai that was a solid mass of people – the only way to get where you wanted was to look for a meandering stream of bodies that was heading in your direction and join the flow.

Why do I think this is so significant? Because it transforms daily life into an almost constant competition. For a slot for a space for a turn for a table for a chance to get through a door or through a gate. Chinese cities are stressful. And I say that not just as a visitor. One can tell that locals feel it too.

3. Signs

Signs in China are confusing. I cannot tell you how much time I spent just trying to figure out which way to go at the airport or in a train station. Not enough signs. Signs that are not clear. Signs that are too small to be seen while driving along at 80 kmh. Signs where the crucial information is covered up by something else such as an emergency telephone. Signs that send you in the wrong direction. Even signs that contradict each other. Again – I could tell this was a problem for my friends who live there as well. Which way to the maglev? Where is the west parking lot? Wait – which way to subway line 8? Where on earth do I check in for China Air? There were a few times I the visitor helped out locals who were lost and confused.

4. General difficulty/confusion

There was a point during my journey when I began to lose patience with just how difficult everything seemed in China.

One might reply “well that’s because you’re not a native and you don’t speak/read the language”. That is partly true. I have traveled to many different countries during my relatively short life. Canada and Western Europe and Eastern Europe and even India. But based on my experience China is an unusually difficult place to travel if you are not a native. If you (a) do not have a local Chinese friend who takes care of you and/or (b) do not go with a tour group/agency that does the same thing then (c) it would be difficult frustrating and almost impossible to visit China as a tourist. My wife noted that on her favorite television show “The Amazing Race” contestants consistently experience the most trouble in China.

By contrast Hong Kong was not like this.  And I did not have a local friend to take me around! But I had little difficulty figuring out where to go or what to do. As my rabbi friend told me during my brief visit “Hong Kong is built on convenience”. China is not.

5. Public smoking

I think it is fair to say that public smoking is frowned upon in the United States. Not so in China. Smoking – including in public – is quite common. You have been warned.

6. Ignoring rules and pushing

This last part I am reluctant to bring up. Because I like China and I love Chinese people. And I stand by what I wrote earlier about service and professionalism. And I have not yet mentioned the generosity and hospitality that my friends demonstrated. I paid for nothing in China except travel and hotels. My friends insisted on paying for everything else such as meals tickets and even the occasional gift.

But there is another side of Chinese society. I believe it is directly related to how crowded China is – at least in the cities – and how life is a daily competition.

Publicly posted rules/signs are frequently ignored. In some tourist sites are signs that say “no (flash) photography” or the like. People just snap and flash away. In the museum “no cell phones”. People make and answer calls. In some areas “no smoking”. People light up and puff away. On the airplane the “fasten seat belt” light is still on – we are still taking off from the airport with plenty of heavy turbulence and Chinese passengers start getting out of their seats and heading toward the bathroom or getting things out of their luggage in the overhead bins. Unreal. Flight crew make announcements like “we would like to remind our passengers to stay in/return to their seats with their seat belts on“  every few minutes – and Chinese passengers would either not return to their seats or wait about one minute and then sure enough start getting up and doing exactly what they were told not to do.  I noticed that very few Americans  did this.

My general impression was that many Chinese people will do whatever they want to do or think they need to do at any given moment no matter what the signs/rules say. Until someone with specific authority – such as a security guard or police officer – stops them. At the museum in Shanghai my friend – who is a professor of English at Tongji University – saw a security guard stop me from answering my cell phone. And then 5 minutes later she was making and answering phone calls herself. Eventually the guard spotted her and told her to stop.

Related to this is pushing/jumping in line. I frequently saw Chinese people push or jump ahead in line. The worst was at the Shanghai Expo. I saw a few fights  start because someone jumped in line – by hopping over or scooting under a fence/gate. At one point an older Chinese gentleman – who had been yelling at the guy who just jumped line right in front of him – turned around looked at me and said “Americans don’t jump in line – they wait their turn”. Apparently we have a reputation. My friend in Hong Kong said one of the ways he can identify mainland Chinese in Hong Kong is that they push in line.

Do not misunderstand me. These are general observations. Plenty of Chinese people are courteous and patient and follow posted rules and so on. But I frequently saw public behavior – such as relieving oneself in public – that one does not normally see in the United States.

7. Cautionary note

There is one major problem when comparing China to the United States which is this. What exactly are we comparing? I live in Baton Rouge which is a small city – in many ways just an overgrown town. Most of my life I have lived in the country or the suburbs. Is it fair to compare life in the suburbs to life in a Chinese city? Perhaps it would be better to compare Houston or New York City or Atlanta or Los Angeles to such places as Beijing or Shanghai or Guangzhou. Perhaps we should compare cities to cities. Not towns to cities. What we typically see and experience of China is urban China. We must not forget that 80% of Chinese people live in rural areas.

Sorry about not posting much – during my journey through China or even the first week after getting back. Trip back was a bit rough. Was awake for about 30+ hours straight. Sleep schedule was royally fouled up. And pretty sure developed and am now fighting off a mild sinus infection. Medicine making me feel a bit loopy. One friend who travels to China regularly said jetlag feels like a “low grade flu that lasts for a while”.

I enjoyed my journey through China. There are many things about China I like more than the United States. Let me discuss several of these.

1. Service

I could have started with “restaurants, hotels, and other businesses” but better to start off with the number one thing that impressed me the most. Service. Almost every restaurant, hotel or other business the service was exceptional. The staff are there to help and take care of your needs to the best of their ability.

In restaurants – replenish your cup of tea promptly without being asked, helping lay out your napkin if you have not done so, replacing a dish that has filled up with bones/shells, standing patiently while you look through the menu making your choices, answering questions, guiding you to the restroom, providing extra utensils when needed, and so on.

In businesses – such as the foot massage place providing some fruit and hot water and/or tea for your refreshment, guiding you to where you need to go for what you need, producing a ticket so you can make a purchase, greeting and thanking you courteously, and so on.

Even on airplanes – the flight crew help and serve passengers first. And then yes they enforce rules and control passengers second. Flying was more pleasant in China than in the United States.

Compare this to what often happens in the United States. How often my family goes to a restaurant and experiences poor or mediocre service. At the airport in Newark stopped at McDonald’s to get a cup of coffee and the girl working the front neither thanked me for my business nor even looked at me when she handed me my change. One gets the impression sometimes in the United States that people who interact with customers do not care. And then we are expected to tip them!

Now I know that part of this impression – vastly better service in China – is because those labor is cheap. Instead of 2-3 flight crew there are several. Instead of one person who takes care of 3-4 tables at the restaurant you have about one staff per table. They even have staff whose sole job is to greet you when you come to the restaurant! I will return to this point in a later post.

But even then – okay so an American business has less staff available than a similar business in China. One can still ask how well each employee serves the customer. Take the girl at McDonald’s in Newark for example. Could she have smiled? thanked me? looked at me when handing me my change? Yes it is easier to get good service when there are more employees or staff. But if American businesses have less employees or staff can they provide better service?

2. Restaurants – and food in general

Chinese restaurants generally rock. Not just the high end restaurants but even the regular ones. Even their menus are more impressive – like large full color books displaying all the dishes available. There seem to be more choices. They seem to have a better more efficient system to make sure you get everything you ordered in a timely manner. Restaurants are generally larger. Many have private rooms available if you need a little more peace and quiet. In Taiyuan push a little button on your table and *poof* someone comes.

I like Chinese food more. More flavor. More variety. Each province has its own cuisine. Heck – sometimes a different town has its own distinct cooking. American food by comparison can seem a bit plain and boring. Now I live in Louisiana so that helps. But still. Most meals had several different dishes. Compare that to a typical American meal where you are eating 2-3 different foods. Here is my hamburger. There are my fries. That’s two.

I also greatly prefer how Chinese people eat. Frankly this is more important than the food itself. The different dishes are placed in the middle of the table and everyone takes what they want from those same dishes. There is a greater sense of sharing and community/relationship. One of my meals was at a Western restaurant in Shanghai and the difference was striking. This is my food. That is your food. You don’t enjoy any of mine. I don’t enjoy any of yours.

Now one can easily argue that a typical family meal does come closer to the Chinese pattern. A handful of dishes in the middle of the table. Everyone takes some. One of my friends commented that in America there were two meals that were more like the Chinese pattern: fellowship meal and Communion.

Only twice did I have a mediocre or worse meal at a restaurant in China. The genuinely bad/disgusting meal was a Chinese fast food place at the train station in Guangzhou.

3. Public transportation

It ain’t easy getting around in the United States if you don’t have a car.

I rather liked being able to travel from city to city by train. Or around a city by train/subway or by bus. Even by taxi – because taxis in China are vastly less expensive than they are in the United States. My most expensive taxi ride was the equivalent of $4.

A similar ride in Houston set me back something like $25. Taking a taxi in the United States is expensive. And there are not exactly taxis driving around all over the place. I will come back to this point also.

Travel in China was generally much less expensive. I could buy an air ticket a few days before the flight and – depending on the destination – would pay $80-150. As opposed to $250-700. Most subway/train/bus travel within a city was less than $1-2.

I still wish the United States had a stronger public transportation system. Yes I am aware of the problems we have had trying to get one. They always seem to be expensive and yet still lose money. Amtrak anyone? It is one of the things I miss most from our time in Great Britain – how easy we could get around just by bus or train. My brother and I could pop into London to spend a Saturday with our friends pretty much on our own.

4. Professionalism

In general I observed what I would call a higher level of professionalism in China. Even people who cleaned bathrooms – you could tell they took their jobs seriously and did quality work. Often people wore some sort of uniform – which I think contributes to this. Not we each wear whatever we want and do our job any old way. Chinese people generally work quite hard. My friends explained this is because if you don’t do a good job – there is always someone ready to take your place.

(to be continued)

Forgive my lack of humility but I felt good about this one. It is something I have been wanting to say for years. It is so short because we had Communion that day.

“All the Flowers in God’s Swamp”
Revelation 7

Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
4th Sunday of Easter
April 25, 2010

Japan is a swamp?

But let us be honest. If Japan is a swamp – as Professor Yanaibara writes in his introduction to Silence by Shusaku Endo – so is China and Korea and India and Kenya Liberia and Ghana England Canada and Mexico so is every nation of the world including the United States.

So is Louisiana.

And this is not a bad thing. Challenging. Difficult sometimes. But not bad. Indeed it is a very beautiful thing which we celebrate and which brings glory to God.

As we see in our Bible reading from the book of Revelation chapter seven.

After this I [John – the writer] looked and there before me is a great multitude that no one can count from every nation tribe people and language standing before the throne [the throne of God] and in front of the Lamb [who is Jesus]. They are wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands. And they cry out in a loud voice: ‘Salvation belong to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb’.

Where do I start?

My understanding of the Christian faith and of the Christian church and its relationship to the different nations cultures and peoples of the world has been shaped partly by the writings of Shusaku Endo. For one of my classes in graduate school our professor asked us to read the novel Silence and write a short paper about it. It moved me so much that I read two more books by Endo and wrote about them as well.

One of the main issues that Endo writes about is the relationship between the Christian faith and Japanese culture. But what Endo writes is also true for the relationship between the Christian faith and every culture. In the novel Silence the translator Inoue says Japan is a swamp. The flower of the Christian faith cannot grow in this swamp. And if it does grow in this swamp it will change into something different.

Brothers and sisters I say to you that every nation of the world is a swamp. And this is a very beautiful thing.

Our Bible reading presents us with a vision. A vision of the people of God who stand before the throne of God. And this great crowd that the Lamb who is Christ purchased for God with his blood that no one can count comes from every nation every tribe people and language. They are not all the same. Yes they are one people of God who belong to God in and through and because of Christ. But they still have their distinct ethnic cultural linguistic and national identities.

When we become followers of Jesus Christ the Son of God when we become members of the Christian church which is the body of Christ we do not we must not give up who we are. The purpose of Church of the Nations is not to turn everyone into Americans who think and pray and worship and study the Bible only in English. Be Kenyan. Be Ghanaian. Be Japanese. Be Chinese. Be Korean. Be American. When the flower of the Christian faith grows in the swamp(?) of our different languages nations and cultures it will grow and look and smell a little different. And this is exactly what God wants.

Stephen Freeman is a pastor in Tennessee. He writes that when we translate the Bible into different languages sometimes we discover new meanings when words in the original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek) clothe themselves in the flesh of the new language. The book of John in the beginning was the word the logos the dao and the dao was with God and the dao was God.

Clark Carlton is a professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech University. He speaks of the need to form local churches that reflect the local people and their culture. So a Christian church in Japan will reflect the local Japanese people and their culture. In China will reflect the local Chinese people and their culture. Indeed we can take this a step further. In Guangzhou will reflect the local Guanghzou citizens and their culture. In Louisiana will reflect the local Louisiana people and their culture. And so on.

When the Russian Orthodox missionary Innocent of Alaska brought the Christian faith to the native peoples of Alaska he did not try to make them Russian. He became fluent in six of their languages. He translated the Bible and other Christian writings so that the native Alaskan peoples could study the Bible pray and worship in their own languages. Build churches and fill them with artwork that reflect their own cultural traditions. He worked hard to encourage and train native Alaskans to become pastors and teachers and other leaders in their own churches.

So not only what Church of the Nations shares with people of different nations languages and cultures. But also what people of different nations languages and cultures share with each other including Americans.

Japan is a swamp. So is every nation of the world. So is Louisiana. So is Church of the Nations. This is a very beautiful thing.

That got your attention.

I have tried hard not to post this but my patience is spent.

Several weeks ago read a rather strong piece “The Wilding of Sarah Palin” by Robin of Berkeley at American Thinker. In a nutshell she argues that the left is trying to destroy Sarah Palin by symbolically raping her. And in the course of so doing the left shows its true colors.

At the time I thought “oh come on that’s all just a bit much isn’t it”. But the more one pays attention the more one wonders if Robin of Berkeley is correct. Witness this despicable exchange between Larry King and Sarah Silverman:

King:  Sarah Palin, what do you think? Sarah Palin? I got to say her name because we have to say it every night.

Silverman:  About what? About her posing in Playboy? I think she should go for it.

King:  Agreed.

It is not enough for people to say they think Sarah Palin is wrong. No for some reason they find it necessary to say stupid dumb moron b*tch c*nt Barbie who needs to be gang r*ped and would just love to see her naked in Playboy. It is part of a larger pattern that is deeply troubling. The campaign to stop suppress silence marginalize stigmatize deligitimize any and all disagreement with the current federal government. You are a white man who disagrees with President Obama? You must be a raaaaacist. You are a black person who disagrees with Congress? You must be a self-loathing Uncle Tom traitor to your race. You are a woman with a mind and voice of her own who refuses to toe the party line of the left? You are a dumb b*tch with nice b**bs that we would love to see naked.

Try for just one nanosecond to imagine what the reaction would be if people spoke that way about the First Lady. And nobody had better talk that way.

Feel the love. Feel the compassion. Feel the respect for women.

For the record I am neither a fan nor a critic of Sarah Palin. Although I am beginning to appreciate her more precisely because she refuses to be quiet despite the worst depredations of her critics. And I am increasingly concerned about the relentless attacks against her because they represent by extension an effort to take away my own freedom to express and act upon my convictions. What the left is doing to Sarah Palin is what they want to do to everyone who opposes their agenda.

Stories do not come much more beautiful than this.

The New York Times deserves profound gratitude for a magnificent article on Father Moses Berry who is an Orthodox priest in a small rural village in Missouri. Like most Orthodox priests in the United States he is a convert.

When he returned here in 1998, after the death of an uncle who had willed him a 40-acre family farm, he had no intention of starting an Orthodox church in a town already served by 10 Christian churches of various denominations, let alone opening a black history museum.

“We thought my wife would teach, I’d paint appliances and go to school and become an emergency medical technician,” Father Moses said. “I should have known I could never leave the priesthood or forget my history.”

Read the whole thing here. Have a tissue handy.

Why draw attention to this?

It is a beautiful story. This is what salvation looks like. A human being transformed by the grace of God. And how the grace of God touches other human beings through him. Concerning the museum Father Moses says:

“I don’t want other people to run this museum because it’s too delicate, this issue of slavery,” he said. “I’ve tried having other people run this, but they get stuck on, ‘Oh, this is a horrible thing the white man did,’ which causes resentment. I want to explain it and bring them from suffering to freedom.” [emphasis added]

“And bring them from suffering to freedom”.

In one of his “Faith and Philosophy” podcasts Clark Carlton mentions Father Moses and that someone is producing a documentary film about him. Glory to God.

There is another reason I draw attention to this. It is the subject of the podcast in which Clark Carlton mentions Father Moses. And that is the subject of cross-cultural ministry.

For eleven years I have ministered among people who come to the United States from other nations. Right now from China, Korea, Japan, Liberia, Kenya, Cameroon. I have also ministered among people from India, Angola, Nigeria, Malawi, Zambia, Jamaica, Germany, Taiwan. Most are here for a short time but some are here permanently. Most do not have a Christian background but some have been strong Christians most of their lives.

To me one of the most important questions to ask about any Christian tradition from Quaker to Baptist to Reformed to Anglican to Catholic to Orthodox and everything in between is how well does this tradition “work” in other cultures? We can debate what “work” means in this context but I think you get the idea. Can the Christian gospel expressed through the life of the Christian church communicate to and include people of radically different cultural backgrounds?

Could you have a thriving Anglican parish in the mountains of Papua New Guinea? If not why not?

There are several issues involved. Buildings. Vestments. Language. Literacy. Liturgy. Art. And so on.

Could you have a thriving Orthodox parish – complete with icons vestments service books incense and all the rest – comprised of Inuit who spend part of the year out on the ice? Hold that thought for a moment.

Consider University Baptist Church and the second “emerging” worship gathering. In an earlier post I questioned whether it is necessary to change the form and style of worship in order to attract young families with children. A brother in Christ wisely pointed out that yeah sure traditional worship can attract young families with children. Who already have a church background. But the “emerging” worship gathering is intended to attract the unchurched. Okay.

My own small congregation must deal with this question also. We want to attract and include people from all nations and languages and cultures. Africans often end up attending one of the larger more “charismatic” churches in Baton Rouge. Presumably because they prefer a different worship style. Over the last eleven years we have had a modest number of Africans, few Europeans, and no South Americans. Is there something “wrong” with our style of worship?

Bring it closer to home. We have predominantly white and predominantly black churches. Yeah we know that is not the way it is supposed to be but hey you know we just have our different styles of worship.

Now hang on a second there pardner.

There is a congregation in Illinois that is one third African-American one third Asian and one third everybody else. Heard the pastor speak at the Association of Americans Ministering among Internationals conference in Boston 2005(?). They do it.

There are a few predominantly African-American Anglican churches in the Diocese of Louisiana. The staff of this congregation attended a funeral mass at a predominantly African-American Catholic church a few years ago.

During a mission experience up in Lake Providence met a missionary couple who serve in South Dakota. They told me how once a month all the “ethnic” churches come together for a joint worship gathering. And each month a different church leads.

There are plenty of ethnically and culturally diverse churches. Those on the more “charismatic” free church end of the spectrum. Those on the more “liturgical” end of the spectrum. The common notion that certain ethnic or cultural groups only respond to certain ways of doing church does not hold up.

Ginormous case in point.

Innocent of Alaska.

Surely there was no way one could possibly transplant Orthodox Christianity among the people of the Aleutian islands. How could they possibly respond to and embrace an expression of the Christian faith that reflects so different a culture?

But they did. Innocent worked tirelessly to learn their languages and dialects and to translate the Scriptures and liturgy for them. He found ways to communicate the Christian faith in their cultural forms. He did not try to turn the Aleutian peoples into Russians. Many of them became Christians without losing their cultural identity.

Innocent of Alaska is one of the greatest missiological role models.