To be a follower of Jesus means in the first place to enter by compassion into his experience, with all that it expresses of the divine and of the human. And it means in the second place to enter with him into the suffering and the hope of all human persons, making common cause with them as he does, and seeking out as he does the places of his predilection among the poor and despised and oppressed.
--Monika K. Hellwig
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
We Must Repent of This War
by Jim Wallis
The war in Iraq is personal for me.
It’s personal for the families and loved ones of the more than 3,200 American soldiers who have lost the precious gift of life. The stories I hear every day on the radio and TV break my heart. They are so young to die, and it is so unnecessary. When I look at my son and celebrate his birthday, I think of all the children whose fathers or mothers won’t be coming back from the war to celebrate theirs.
It’s personal for the tens of thousands of service men and women who have lost their limbs or their mental and emotional health, and who now feel abandoned and mistreated.
It’s personal for all the Iraqis who have lost their loved ones, as many as hundreds of thousands. What would it be like to wait in line at morgues to check dead bodies, desperately hoping that you don’t recognize someone you love? I can only imagine. And when I look at my son, I think of all the Iraqi children who will never celebrate another birthday.
This isn’t just political; it’s personal for millions of us now. And for all of us here tonight, the war in Iraq is actually more than personal--it has become a matter of faith.
By our deepest convictions about Christian standards and teaching, the war in Iraq was not just a well-intended mistake or only mismanaged. This war, from a Christian point of view, is morally wrong--and was from the very start. It cannot be justified with either the teaching of Jesus Christ or the criteria of St. Augustine’s just war. It simply doesn’t pass either test, and did not from its beginning. This war is not just an offense against the young Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice or the Iraqis who have paid such a horrible price. This war is not only an offense to the poor at home and around the world who have paid the price of misdirected resources and priorities--this war is also an offense against God.
And so we are here tonight, very simply and resolutely, to begin to end the war in Iraq--not by anger, though we are angry; not just by politics, though it will take political courage; but by faith, because we are people of faith.
This service and procession are not just another political protest, but an act of faith, an act of prayer, an act of non-violent witness. Politics led us into this war, and politics is unlikely to save us by itself. The American people have voted against the war in Iraq, but political proposals keep failing one after the other.
I believe it will take faith to end this war. It will take prayer to end it. It will take a mobilization of the faith community to end it--to change the political climate, to change the wind. It will take a revolution of love to end it, because this endless war in Iraq is based ultimately on fear, and Jesus says that only perfect love will cast out fear.
So tonight we say, as people of faith, as followers of Jesus, that the deep fear that has paralyzed the conscience of this nation, which has caused us to become the kind of people that we are not called to be, that has allowed us to tolerate violations of our most basic values, and that has perpetuated an endless cycle of violence and counter-violence must be exorcised as the demon it is--this fear must be cast out!
And to cast out that fear, we must act in faith, in prayer, in love, and in hope--so we might help to heal the fears that keep this war going. Tonight we march not in belligerence, or to attack individuals (even those leaders directly responsible for the war), or to use human suffering for partisan political purposes. Rather, we process to the White House tonight as an act of faith, believing that only faith can save us now.
Ironically, this war has often been cloaked in the name and symbols of our faith, confused American imperial designs with God’s purposes, and tragically discredited Christian faith around the world, having so tied it to flawed American behavior and agendas. Millions of people around the world sadly believe this is a Christian war. So as people of faith, let us say tonight to our brothers and sisters around the world, and as clearly as we can--America is not the hope of the earth and the light of the world, Jesus Christ is! And it is his way that we follow, and not the flawed path of our nation’s leaders who prosecute this war. As an evangelical Christian, I must say that the war in Iraq has hindered the cause of Christ and, in this season of Lent, we must repent of this war!
The war in Iraq is personal for me.
It’s personal for the families and loved ones of the more than 3,200 American soldiers who have lost the precious gift of life. The stories I hear every day on the radio and TV break my heart. They are so young to die, and it is so unnecessary. When I look at my son and celebrate his birthday, I think of all the children whose fathers or mothers won’t be coming back from the war to celebrate theirs.
It’s personal for the tens of thousands of service men and women who have lost their limbs or their mental and emotional health, and who now feel abandoned and mistreated.
It’s personal for all the Iraqis who have lost their loved ones, as many as hundreds of thousands. What would it be like to wait in line at morgues to check dead bodies, desperately hoping that you don’t recognize someone you love? I can only imagine. And when I look at my son, I think of all the Iraqi children who will never celebrate another birthday.
This isn’t just political; it’s personal for millions of us now. And for all of us here tonight, the war in Iraq is actually more than personal--it has become a matter of faith.
By our deepest convictions about Christian standards and teaching, the war in Iraq was not just a well-intended mistake or only mismanaged. This war, from a Christian point of view, is morally wrong--and was from the very start. It cannot be justified with either the teaching of Jesus Christ or the criteria of St. Augustine’s just war. It simply doesn’t pass either test, and did not from its beginning. This war is not just an offense against the young Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice or the Iraqis who have paid such a horrible price. This war is not only an offense to the poor at home and around the world who have paid the price of misdirected resources and priorities--this war is also an offense against God.
And so we are here tonight, very simply and resolutely, to begin to end the war in Iraq--not by anger, though we are angry; not just by politics, though it will take political courage; but by faith, because we are people of faith.
This service and procession are not just another political protest, but an act of faith, an act of prayer, an act of non-violent witness. Politics led us into this war, and politics is unlikely to save us by itself. The American people have voted against the war in Iraq, but political proposals keep failing one after the other.
I believe it will take faith to end this war. It will take prayer to end it. It will take a mobilization of the faith community to end it--to change the political climate, to change the wind. It will take a revolution of love to end it, because this endless war in Iraq is based ultimately on fear, and Jesus says that only perfect love will cast out fear.
So tonight we say, as people of faith, as followers of Jesus, that the deep fear that has paralyzed the conscience of this nation, which has caused us to become the kind of people that we are not called to be, that has allowed us to tolerate violations of our most basic values, and that has perpetuated an endless cycle of violence and counter-violence must be exorcised as the demon it is--this fear must be cast out!
And to cast out that fear, we must act in faith, in prayer, in love, and in hope--so we might help to heal the fears that keep this war going. Tonight we march not in belligerence, or to attack individuals (even those leaders directly responsible for the war), or to use human suffering for partisan political purposes. Rather, we process to the White House tonight as an act of faith, believing that only faith can save us now.
Ironically, this war has often been cloaked in the name and symbols of our faith, confused American imperial designs with God’s purposes, and tragically discredited Christian faith around the world, having so tied it to flawed American behavior and agendas. Millions of people around the world sadly believe this is a Christian war. So as people of faith, let us say tonight to our brothers and sisters around the world, and as clearly as we can--America is not the hope of the earth and the light of the world, Jesus Christ is! And it is his way that we follow, and not the flawed path of our nation’s leaders who prosecute this war. As an evangelical Christian, I must say that the war in Iraq has hindered the cause of Christ and, in this season of Lent, we must repent of this war!
Monday, March 19, 2007
More Powerful?
To suggest that the sin of man so corrupted his creation that God cannot fix it but can only junk it in favor of some other world is to say that ultimately the kingdom of evil is more powerful than the kingdom of God. It makes sin more powerful than redemption, and Satan the victor over God. Reducing the gospel to a strictly spiritual dimension of human existence concedes everything outside of that dimension to the enemy.
--Michael D. Williams
--Michael D. Williams
Saturday, March 17, 2007
What Will Quench the Light?
It is not scientific doubt, not atheism, not pantheism, not agnosticism, that in our day and in this land is likely to quench the light of the gospel. It is a proud, sensuous, selfish, luxurious, church-going, hollow-hearted prosperity.
--Frederic D. Huntington
--Frederic D. Huntington
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Transforming Effect
What God requires of those who call on God's name is responsive servanthood. God wishes to act in and through us, so Christian hope does not relieve men and women of responsibility. We are not primarily responsible for shrewd analysis of problems, for strategic selection of means, for maximizing the chances of success. We are primarily responsible for turning to God, for attempting to know and do God's will. That well may lead us into actions which are not shrewd, strategic, or successful, as the life of Jesus suggests. But as Jesus' life demonstrates, human action which is faithful to God's will can have transforming effect.
--Parker Palmer
--Parker Palmer
The Sin of Self-Sovereignty
An interview with Eugene Peterson:
RADIX: [In EAT THIS BOOK (Eerdmans, 2006), you write that] "the text that seems to be most in favor on the American landscape today is the Sovereign Self." Do you think there are reasons why that's a special problem in this particular culture in a way that it wasn't in the past?
PETERSON: Well, the basic ingredients go back to Eden. But I think American culture with our combination of individualism and consumerism has taken it pretty far. We've got the money, most of us do, to do whatever we want to. With our post-Enlightenment individualism and consumerism, combined with the total erosion of community, which we're all experiencing, I think America has almost perfected the self-sovereignty sin.
RADIX: Do you notice a difference when you travel in other countries?
PETERSON: I don't do that much traveling, but when I talk to friends who are in Third World countries, it's very different. The little bit of travel I do is usually in Scotland and Ireland, and Christians are such a minority people there, they don't have that same sense of self-sovereignty--they're more marginal to the culture. So I think it's an American problem, although some of the Asians might be catching up with us--the Hong Kong, Korean, Japanese Asians.
RADIX: Toward the end of the book, you say that when the Hebrews were at home in the Canaanite culture, they knew how to say "no" to the culture when they needed to. So I'm wondering, at what points do you think we American Christians need to be saying "no" to our culture? Are there any points that are especially important?
PETERSON: Well, yes. I think the identification of the culture with the church, with the evangelical church, makes us prone to an idolatry of nation. That's so pervasive it's almost impossible to carry on a conversation about it. America's founders left Europe because of nationalized churches. Now we've got one of our own, and we aren't even aware of it. So the nationalism combined with the pervasive consumerism are big problems for the American church.
We go church-shopping; we demand services of the church. The scary thing about this for me is that the vocabulary stays the same. We use all the right words, and we still keep all our doctrines in the evangelical church, but the context has changed so radically that they no longer mean anything. I don't know how the Devil works, but if I were the Devil, I don't think I could have devised a better way of destroying the congregation than talking about "big"--you know, the bigger, the bigger, the bigger, the more glamorous. And that destroys congregations. Congregations aren't glamorous; they're comprised of sinners.
But we've got these poster pictures, glamour shots of what churches ought to be. It can destroy pastors of small churches--they feel always inadequate, always inferior. And it destroys the people in the big churches, because they're no longer dealing with community; they're just part of a crowd. In the vaunted small-group movement--which certainly has some good things going for it (probably earlier on, more than now)--people say, "Well, we take care of community by having small groups." Well, those aren't communities--those are people you like. And, you know, a community has to have people you don't like in it.
RADIX: Yes, actually, my small group is made up of people I like.
PETERSON: They all are. If you don't like them, you just drop out. Good things happen in these groups, but it's not community. Congregation is God's way to give us community.
RADIX: [In EAT THIS BOOK (Eerdmans, 2006), you write that] "the text that seems to be most in favor on the American landscape today is the Sovereign Self." Do you think there are reasons why that's a special problem in this particular culture in a way that it wasn't in the past?
PETERSON: Well, the basic ingredients go back to Eden. But I think American culture with our combination of individualism and consumerism has taken it pretty far. We've got the money, most of us do, to do whatever we want to. With our post-Enlightenment individualism and consumerism, combined with the total erosion of community, which we're all experiencing, I think America has almost perfected the self-sovereignty sin.
RADIX: Do you notice a difference when you travel in other countries?
PETERSON: I don't do that much traveling, but when I talk to friends who are in Third World countries, it's very different. The little bit of travel I do is usually in Scotland and Ireland, and Christians are such a minority people there, they don't have that same sense of self-sovereignty--they're more marginal to the culture. So I think it's an American problem, although some of the Asians might be catching up with us--the Hong Kong, Korean, Japanese Asians.
RADIX: Toward the end of the book, you say that when the Hebrews were at home in the Canaanite culture, they knew how to say "no" to the culture when they needed to. So I'm wondering, at what points do you think we American Christians need to be saying "no" to our culture? Are there any points that are especially important?
PETERSON: Well, yes. I think the identification of the culture with the church, with the evangelical church, makes us prone to an idolatry of nation. That's so pervasive it's almost impossible to carry on a conversation about it. America's founders left Europe because of nationalized churches. Now we've got one of our own, and we aren't even aware of it. So the nationalism combined with the pervasive consumerism are big problems for the American church.
We go church-shopping; we demand services of the church. The scary thing about this for me is that the vocabulary stays the same. We use all the right words, and we still keep all our doctrines in the evangelical church, but the context has changed so radically that they no longer mean anything. I don't know how the Devil works, but if I were the Devil, I don't think I could have devised a better way of destroying the congregation than talking about "big"--you know, the bigger, the bigger, the bigger, the more glamorous. And that destroys congregations. Congregations aren't glamorous; they're comprised of sinners.
But we've got these poster pictures, glamour shots of what churches ought to be. It can destroy pastors of small churches--they feel always inadequate, always inferior. And it destroys the people in the big churches, because they're no longer dealing with community; they're just part of a crowd. In the vaunted small-group movement--which certainly has some good things going for it (probably earlier on, more than now)--people say, "Well, we take care of community by having small groups." Well, those aren't communities--those are people you like. And, you know, a community has to have people you don't like in it.
RADIX: Yes, actually, my small group is made up of people I like.
PETERSON: They all are. If you don't like them, you just drop out. Good things happen in these groups, but it's not community. Congregation is God's way to give us community.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Great Moral Issues
Is the fact that 30,000 children will die globally today, and everyday, from needless hunger and disease a great moral issue for evangelical Christians? How about the reality of 3 billion of God’s children living on less than $2 per day? And isn’t the still-widespread and needless poverty in our own country, the richest nation in the world, a moral scandal? What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS that wipe out whole generations and countries, or the sex trafficking of massive numbers of women and children? Should genocide in Darfur be a moral issue for Christians? And what about disastrous wars like Iraq? And then there is, of course, the issue that got Dobson and his allies so agitated. If the scientific consensus is right--climate change is real, is caused substantially by human activity, and could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths--then isn’t that also a great moral issue? Could global warming actually be alarming evidence of human tinkering with God’s creation?
Or, are the only really "great moral issues" those concerning abortion, gay marriage, and the teaching of sexual abstinence? I happen to believe that the sanctity of life, the health of marriages, and teaching sexual morality to our children are, indeed, among the great moral issues of our time. But I believe they are not the only great moral issues.
--Jim Wallis
Or, are the only really "great moral issues" those concerning abortion, gay marriage, and the teaching of sexual abstinence? I happen to believe that the sanctity of life, the health of marriages, and teaching sexual morality to our children are, indeed, among the great moral issues of our time. But I believe they are not the only great moral issues.
--Jim Wallis
The True Hermeneutic
For in Christ and through Christ and because of Christ Christians have been given a revealed insight into God's nature and character. This understanding of God was vindicated for us in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, whom we acclaim as the Christ, God incarnate. Jesus the Christ thus becomes--in himself and in his teaching--the true hermeneutic, the key to the understanding of the Bible, and beyond the Bible to the understanding of the action of God throughout history. In other words, the Word of God incarnate in Jesus the Christ interprets for us the word of God in the Bible.
--Naim Ateek
--Naim Ateek
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Resources
The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed.
--Mahatma Gandhi
--Mahatma Gandhi
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Big Ideas That Can Change the World
By David Batstone
Pedagogy--a word rarely used. And in our age of achievement testing, a bit of a lost art. For nearly 15 years I have been a professor in the university system. I guess by now I cease to be annoyed by the students who approach school like an obstacle course: hurdles they need to crawl under or jump over in order to achieve the grade they want.
I make it my personal challenge each semester to inspire these students to love the process of learning. I tell them that they soon will enter a world of work that will value individuals who can apply intelligence and emotional tools to evolving environments. Memorizing a set of data or mastering a skill has a value, to be sure. In the 21st century, however, a law of diminishing returns immediately kicks in to depreciate the value of those personal assets.
It jars my students--who obsess over the major of study they should choose--when I proclaim, "It really doesn't matter what you study, but it does matter immensely that you study with curiosity and passion." At this point, I imagine more than a few parents with teenagers roll their eyes and mutter, "If only." They would be content to get their kids to complete their homework, and do so in a way that does not feel like pulling their teeth. If this battleground scene sounds all too familiar, your teen sounds like a good candidate this summer for a SuperCamp.
Meet Bobbi DePorter, who started the SuperCamps over 25 years ago and continues to run them as part of her Quantum Learning Network. More than 43,000 youth are now graduates of her camps that focus on learning and life skills. The camps operate in 10 countries and take place on top-grade university campuses--Stanford University and the Claremont Colleges host the camps in California--across the United States.
"Most young people are not taught to learn effectively," Ms. DePorter told me. "They do not understand how to discover their strengths, pursue goals, make decisions, solve problems and resolve conflicts," she added. Ms. DePorter launched the SuperCamps to give kids confidence to develop and follow their own interests and curiosities. Over a 10-day SuperCamp experience, youth learn better strategies for reading, writing, public speaking, memorizing, note-taking and test-taking.
Sounds like an intensive summer school, doesn't it? Yet kids want to keep coming back. The SuperCamp experience shows that to pique a kid's curiosity translates into a fun experience. I imagine they are inspired once they look inside themselves and find new ways to reach out to everything around them.
The SuperCamps engage in some bold myth-busting: Myth: Teens waste their minds on video games. Reality: Teens decode and create games as well as play them. SuperCamp Insight: Getting inside video games can help teens reconsider their cognitive boundaries.
Myth: Teens believe they are entitled to whatever they want. Reality: Teens yearn to know how to take responsibility to earn their success. SuperCamp Insight: Teen's struggle for independence is also a search for ownership of their personal achievements.
I latched onto Quantum's program because it became obvious to me that, with notable exceptions, our school system is not preparing young people for a society of hyper-connected networks. Many parents--and teachers--wish that young people would not be so mega-sensory oriented and drawn to producing their own knowledge more than they are absorbing the classics. Instead of berating youth for being wired differently, wouldn't it be better to help them feel confident about themselves and help them to build bridges from classical knowledge to emerging ideas?
Ms. DePorter has a big vision for her SuperCamp. Yes, she is boosting student performance; The Wall Street Journal reports that SuperCamp "turns so-so students into academic achievers." Yet her more expansive dream is to set a new standard for learning and life skills that fills the social and leadership gaps of our institutions. Helping kids gain tools for the little things leads them to big ideas that can change the world.
Pedagogy--a word rarely used. And in our age of achievement testing, a bit of a lost art. For nearly 15 years I have been a professor in the university system. I guess by now I cease to be annoyed by the students who approach school like an obstacle course: hurdles they need to crawl under or jump over in order to achieve the grade they want.
I make it my personal challenge each semester to inspire these students to love the process of learning. I tell them that they soon will enter a world of work that will value individuals who can apply intelligence and emotional tools to evolving environments. Memorizing a set of data or mastering a skill has a value, to be sure. In the 21st century, however, a law of diminishing returns immediately kicks in to depreciate the value of those personal assets.
It jars my students--who obsess over the major of study they should choose--when I proclaim, "It really doesn't matter what you study, but it does matter immensely that you study with curiosity and passion." At this point, I imagine more than a few parents with teenagers roll their eyes and mutter, "If only." They would be content to get their kids to complete their homework, and do so in a way that does not feel like pulling their teeth. If this battleground scene sounds all too familiar, your teen sounds like a good candidate this summer for a SuperCamp.
Meet Bobbi DePorter, who started the SuperCamps over 25 years ago and continues to run them as part of her Quantum Learning Network. More than 43,000 youth are now graduates of her camps that focus on learning and life skills. The camps operate in 10 countries and take place on top-grade university campuses--Stanford University and the Claremont Colleges host the camps in California--across the United States.
"Most young people are not taught to learn effectively," Ms. DePorter told me. "They do not understand how to discover their strengths, pursue goals, make decisions, solve problems and resolve conflicts," she added. Ms. DePorter launched the SuperCamps to give kids confidence to develop and follow their own interests and curiosities. Over a 10-day SuperCamp experience, youth learn better strategies for reading, writing, public speaking, memorizing, note-taking and test-taking.
Sounds like an intensive summer school, doesn't it? Yet kids want to keep coming back. The SuperCamp experience shows that to pique a kid's curiosity translates into a fun experience. I imagine they are inspired once they look inside themselves and find new ways to reach out to everything around them.
The SuperCamps engage in some bold myth-busting: Myth: Teens waste their minds on video games. Reality: Teens decode and create games as well as play them. SuperCamp Insight: Getting inside video games can help teens reconsider their cognitive boundaries.
Myth: Teens believe they are entitled to whatever they want. Reality: Teens yearn to know how to take responsibility to earn their success. SuperCamp Insight: Teen's struggle for independence is also a search for ownership of their personal achievements.
I latched onto Quantum's program because it became obvious to me that, with notable exceptions, our school system is not preparing young people for a society of hyper-connected networks. Many parents--and teachers--wish that young people would not be so mega-sensory oriented and drawn to producing their own knowledge more than they are absorbing the classics. Instead of berating youth for being wired differently, wouldn't it be better to help them feel confident about themselves and help them to build bridges from classical knowledge to emerging ideas?
Ms. DePorter has a big vision for her SuperCamp. Yes, she is boosting student performance; The Wall Street Journal reports that SuperCamp "turns so-so students into academic achievers." Yet her more expansive dream is to set a new standard for learning and life skills that fills the social and leadership gaps of our institutions. Helping kids gain tools for the little things leads them to big ideas that can change the world.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
American Polytheism
by James W. Skillen
Much of today's media coverage of religion identifies its subject matter by referring to the number of Americans who attend church, or to the Jewish observance of holy days, or to the Muslim practice of praying five times a day. Church, synagogue, or mosque--that's the religion tag. Then, since many Christians who attend church regularly also happen to be politically conservative, the media identifies them with the "Christian right." Positions that "right-wing" Christians take on political issues such as abortion, or interpreting the Constitution, or marriage, are then viewed as expressions of Bible-believing fundamentalists. This, in part, is what Jeff Sharlet does in a recent and provocative essay in Harper's Magazine (December 2006) on "how the Christian right is reimagining U.S. history."
There are at least two major problems with this approach, however. First, many Bible-believing Christians, like Jimmy Carter, are not part of the Christian right. And second, what the political right does with religion and politics does not necessarily qualify as Christian.
Consider a recent piece by George F. Will in which he expresses sympathy with a new book on Ronald Reagan by John Patrick Diggins. Diggins, who is enthusiastic about Reagan, argues that Reagan's god was the god bequeathed to America by Ralph Waldo Emerson, not by the Bible. Diggins contends that in effect "Reagan's religion 'enables us to forget religion' because it banishes the idea of 'a God of judgment and punishment.'"
Emerson's and Reagan's god is good and therefore humans are good. A good god couldn't have created evil; consequently, we and our desires must be good. Therefore, no American leader needs to "suggest that the public has shortcomings and should engage in critical self-examination."
Americans should be optimistic about the future. For example, "Reagan said that the people never start wars, only governments do." Under Reagan, according to Diggins, "Americans could live off government and hate it at the same time." They could (and still do), as I would put it, love America while holding government suspect. With this religious spirit of goodness and freedom, Reagan, says Will, "frequently quoted [Thomas] Paine's preposterous cry that 'we have it in our power to begin the world over again.'"
Now, we know that many conservative Christians turned enthusiastically to Reagan and away from the born-again Carter. Yet this cannot be explained in terms of the degree of Christian orthodoxy of the two presidents. To make sense of American public religiosity, in other words, we need to look at what Americans - including many American Christians--believe about the god (or gods) of America and not first at what they believe about Jesus Christ.
Yet how can any Christian accept such a dualism of religions--serving an American god in public who may be at odds with Jesus Christ? Can it even be done? My friend, Joe Loconte, with whom I radically disagree at this point, offers one familiar way to do it. "The Church," he explains, "aims to create a spiritual community grounded in the law of love. The State seeks to maintain justice in a secular society that rejects the divine law."
Never mind that Jesus told his followers that they cannot serve two masters and that the totality of their lives should be oriented by the love of God and the love of their neighbors as themselves. Never mind that Jesus claimed that all authority in heaven and on earth (not just spiritual authority) had been given to him. Is it perhaps the case that Christians have found room for American gods in the vacuum they have created by trying to confine Christ's authority and love to a spiritual community?
I must be quick to say that I do not belong to the pro-appeasement, be-nice-to-fascists camp that Loconte sets up in his lecture as the foil for his support of the stay-tough-America war against terrorism. My disagreement with him does not arise from within the polarized alternatives he presents in his speech. His polarity works only so long as one accepts the privatization of Christian love so that the American military is free to do un-spiritual and nasty things to defend the world from evil. As Loconte puts it, "Biblical realism does not seek to make the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount a road map for U.S. foreign policy" But it is precisely this kind of dualism--all too prevalent among Christians of both liberal and conservative stripes--that cuts off any possible consideration of a deeply biblical, seriously Christian approach to politics and government.
How will we ever be able to assess from a Christian point of view what is on track or off track in the work of government if we insist at the outset on making one or both of two errors? The first is to assume that America's god is the God of the Bible. The second is to assume that Jesus Christ puts the work of politics and government in the hands of America's god.
Much of today's media coverage of religion identifies its subject matter by referring to the number of Americans who attend church, or to the Jewish observance of holy days, or to the Muslim practice of praying five times a day. Church, synagogue, or mosque--that's the religion tag. Then, since many Christians who attend church regularly also happen to be politically conservative, the media identifies them with the "Christian right." Positions that "right-wing" Christians take on political issues such as abortion, or interpreting the Constitution, or marriage, are then viewed as expressions of Bible-believing fundamentalists. This, in part, is what Jeff Sharlet does in a recent and provocative essay in Harper's Magazine (December 2006) on "how the Christian right is reimagining U.S. history."
There are at least two major problems with this approach, however. First, many Bible-believing Christians, like Jimmy Carter, are not part of the Christian right. And second, what the political right does with religion and politics does not necessarily qualify as Christian.
Consider a recent piece by George F. Will in which he expresses sympathy with a new book on Ronald Reagan by John Patrick Diggins. Diggins, who is enthusiastic about Reagan, argues that Reagan's god was the god bequeathed to America by Ralph Waldo Emerson, not by the Bible. Diggins contends that in effect "Reagan's religion 'enables us to forget religion' because it banishes the idea of 'a God of judgment and punishment.'"
Emerson's and Reagan's god is good and therefore humans are good. A good god couldn't have created evil; consequently, we and our desires must be good. Therefore, no American leader needs to "suggest that the public has shortcomings and should engage in critical self-examination."
Americans should be optimistic about the future. For example, "Reagan said that the people never start wars, only governments do." Under Reagan, according to Diggins, "Americans could live off government and hate it at the same time." They could (and still do), as I would put it, love America while holding government suspect. With this religious spirit of goodness and freedom, Reagan, says Will, "frequently quoted [Thomas] Paine's preposterous cry that 'we have it in our power to begin the world over again.'"
Now, we know that many conservative Christians turned enthusiastically to Reagan and away from the born-again Carter. Yet this cannot be explained in terms of the degree of Christian orthodoxy of the two presidents. To make sense of American public religiosity, in other words, we need to look at what Americans - including many American Christians--believe about the god (or gods) of America and not first at what they believe about Jesus Christ.
Yet how can any Christian accept such a dualism of religions--serving an American god in public who may be at odds with Jesus Christ? Can it even be done? My friend, Joe Loconte, with whom I radically disagree at this point, offers one familiar way to do it. "The Church," he explains, "aims to create a spiritual community grounded in the law of love. The State seeks to maintain justice in a secular society that rejects the divine law."
Never mind that Jesus told his followers that they cannot serve two masters and that the totality of their lives should be oriented by the love of God and the love of their neighbors as themselves. Never mind that Jesus claimed that all authority in heaven and on earth (not just spiritual authority) had been given to him. Is it perhaps the case that Christians have found room for American gods in the vacuum they have created by trying to confine Christ's authority and love to a spiritual community?
I must be quick to say that I do not belong to the pro-appeasement, be-nice-to-fascists camp that Loconte sets up in his lecture as the foil for his support of the stay-tough-America war against terrorism. My disagreement with him does not arise from within the polarized alternatives he presents in his speech. His polarity works only so long as one accepts the privatization of Christian love so that the American military is free to do un-spiritual and nasty things to defend the world from evil. As Loconte puts it, "Biblical realism does not seek to make the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount a road map for U.S. foreign policy" But it is precisely this kind of dualism--all too prevalent among Christians of both liberal and conservative stripes--that cuts off any possible consideration of a deeply biblical, seriously Christian approach to politics and government.
How will we ever be able to assess from a Christian point of view what is on track or off track in the work of government if we insist at the outset on making one or both of two errors? The first is to assume that America's god is the God of the Bible. The second is to assume that Jesus Christ puts the work of politics and government in the hands of America's god.
Revolution of Love
In essence, what Jesus imparted to his disciples was that they must strive for true justice on earth as in heaven, as their righteous service to God; that they must honor God by doing indiscriminate justice, by lifting up "the least of these" on the altar of God's justice and mercy; that they must set into motion a revolution of love and holistic spirituality that demonstrates love for God by treating the needs of even the least of God's children as holy.
--Obery M. Hendericks, Jr.
--Obery M. Hendericks, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
