I enjoyed an enriching conversation on Facebook yesterday -- yes, it is possible! -- with two high school classmates that I've not seen in person for nearly 50 years. It began when I 'shared' an article about why Christians voted for Donald Trump. While we differ on some political views, we agreed that the label "Christians" is very broad and that the article failed to recognize that the category includes different races, different socio-economic backgrounds, different creeds and, of course, different political preferences.
The descriptor 'evangelical' has been used this election season and I have bemoaned its use to describe a voting bloc rather than a theological distinctive. We used to say "born again Christian" until that label was robbed of meaning by overuse and misuse. Many evangelical Christians prefer the label "Believer" to convey an adherence to traditional Christian orthodoxy; "Bible-believing Christian" is another. But those labels are primarily for us to communicate with others of our own ilk.
I am a Bible-believing, born again Christian Believer. And I know other Bible-believing, born again Christian Believers who are brothers and sisters in Christ but have different views than I on politics and public policy. Occasionally our discussions will refer to Scripture, but we can still differ on how to apply the words to a specific public policy argument. E.g., there is no debate that caring for the poor among us is a Biblical value -- the Church has demonstrated that through the centuries in countless ways, from orphanages to hospitals to schools to micro-economic development. The quarrel is over what the role of government should be. (II Thessalonians 3:10 is often quoted in this discussion: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”) Even if we agree that government has a role to play, how to shape that public policy will likely bring about further debate based less on Biblical principles than on political perspective.
During the election, I heard "I don't don't know how Christians can vote for Clinton/Trump." When said of Clinton, it usually had to do with her position on abortion or religious freedom. When said of Trump, it usually had to do with his character and behavior which were far from what Christians expect of themselves and others who call themselves Christian.
In the conversation on Facebook yesterday, one of my classmates referred to "the modicum of accommodation required to continue being a public business." This was a reference to bakers who won't bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding or photographers who won't do gay weddings, etc. While I think that the vendetta against the Portland OR bakery was completely overblown (and Oregon voters must have agreed, since the man responsible was the only Democrat not to win his election for State office), I think that the refusal of the bakery was not "the Christian thing" to do. Unless they use litmus tests for every other customer to determine their 'moral fitness' to be married (did they have sex before marriage, are either of them divorced, do they attend the same church and confess Jesus as their Savior, etc.), they did in fact discriminate against the gay customers.
More to the point, though, is that the refusal of service "witnessed to" the wrong thing; it essentially said, "My moral purity requires that I condemn your sin." Even if you believe that the gay lifestyle is sinful, condemnation is not Christ-like. (See John 3:17 and 8:11) How much better would it have been to deliver quality service with a loving spirit and demonstrate that Christians don't hate LGBTQ persons?
To me, 'evangelical' means proclaiming the Gospel in word and deed. And at the heart of the Gospel is Jesus' command to love one another, an instruction that is repeated nineteen times in the New Testament. And it is not just love for other Christians that is commanded. The "Great Commandment" -- which Jesus quoted from Leviticus -- is to "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Luke 10:27)
Folks my age will remember the "Jesus Movement" of the 1960s when we sat around campfires and earnestly sang, "We are one in the Spirit. We are one in the Lord. And we pray that all unity will one day be restored. And they'll know we are Christians by our love -- by our love! Yes, they'll know we are Christians by our love."
The proof of our faith is not our adherence to a creed, but our faithful obedience to Christ's commands. (James 1:27-2:18) I don't think it's too much to ask for us to show love when we have received the love of Christ in abundant measure.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Words have Power
I observed to my wife this morning that I overlooked an element of the Presidential campaign that I should have included in my 'bill of particulars' in yesterday's blog: the unrelenting use of exaggerated rhetoric.
Donald Trump's favorite word was "disaster" -- everything was "a disaster." Obamacare, Benghazi, Syria, Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation -- disasters all. For anyone who has experienced a real disaster, Trump's overwrought language must have seemed dismissive of their own personal experience of disaster.
Hillary Clinton emphasized "danger" -- it would be "dangerous" to have Trump as President. Is it any wonder, then, that his election has created fear across the country? Apparently, we are all in danger!
I have posted previously about the power of words. I believe that this exaggerated rhetoric is partially to blame for the hysterical reaction by many to the results of the election. But there is another side to be considered.
President Obama was (in my view rightly) criticized for his refusal to label the threat of "radical Islamic terrorism." He believed that to do so would result in heightened distrust of Muslim Americans. I suggest that his failure to do so missed the opportunity to distinguish between the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. who pose no threat and those who have been radicalized. I.e., by refusing to use the label, he kept all Muslims as a monolithic entity opening all to suspicion.
Similarly, when demonstrations in Ferguson MO and Baltimore MD turned violent, the President's tepid response contributed. He failed to recognize that in voicing sympathy for their concerns and lending validity to them, he appeared to justify their anger which eventually turned to destructive behavior. Yes, he condemned the violence. But his words and attitude did not convey the horror felt by the victims of those violent acts.
I was saddened to read of horrible words and actions against Muslims, people of color, and LGBTQ citizens since the election. The actors in these matters seem to have been emboldened in their misoislamism, racism and homomisia (I'll explain my terms later) by Trump's rhetoric during the campaign. While he did not use explicit bias language, the way he spoke about Mexican immigrants and Muslims undoubtedly was heard by those populations as denigrating of an entire class of individuals. Even his "othering" (my word) of groups of people by use of the definite article -- the Muslims, the Hispanics, the evangelicals, the blacks, etc. -- provided linguistic clues that were followed by opponents and supporters alike.
NB -- since words mean things, I avoid using the suffix '-phobia' to describe 'hatred of.' Homophobia literally means "fear of gays"; homomisia means hatred of them. Similarly, Islamophobia means "fear of Muslims." The acts I have been reading about seem motivated more by hatred than fear, so I chose "misoislamism." Following my blog yesterday, I should use "xenomisia" (hatred of the strange or foreign) rather than xenophobia, since I think it is more a matter of despising the unfamiliar than fearing it that is at play.
President-elect Trump should make a strong statement condemning the hateful acts against others undertaken by those who are ostensibly his supporters. He should also apologize for statements made during the campaign that "otherized" (again, my word) entire groups of people. And he should follow his pledge to be President of all people with powerful words that convey intolerance for those who speak and act intolerantly of those unlike themselves. To do so would take a strong step in the direction of unifying the country.
Donald Trump's favorite word was "disaster" -- everything was "a disaster." Obamacare, Benghazi, Syria, Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation -- disasters all. For anyone who has experienced a real disaster, Trump's overwrought language must have seemed dismissive of their own personal experience of disaster.
Hillary Clinton emphasized "danger" -- it would be "dangerous" to have Trump as President. Is it any wonder, then, that his election has created fear across the country? Apparently, we are all in danger!
I have posted previously about the power of words. I believe that this exaggerated rhetoric is partially to blame for the hysterical reaction by many to the results of the election. But there is another side to be considered.
President Obama was (in my view rightly) criticized for his refusal to label the threat of "radical Islamic terrorism." He believed that to do so would result in heightened distrust of Muslim Americans. I suggest that his failure to do so missed the opportunity to distinguish between the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. who pose no threat and those who have been radicalized. I.e., by refusing to use the label, he kept all Muslims as a monolithic entity opening all to suspicion.
Similarly, when demonstrations in Ferguson MO and Baltimore MD turned violent, the President's tepid response contributed. He failed to recognize that in voicing sympathy for their concerns and lending validity to them, he appeared to justify their anger which eventually turned to destructive behavior. Yes, he condemned the violence. But his words and attitude did not convey the horror felt by the victims of those violent acts.
I was saddened to read of horrible words and actions against Muslims, people of color, and LGBTQ citizens since the election. The actors in these matters seem to have been emboldened in their misoislamism, racism and homomisia (I'll explain my terms later) by Trump's rhetoric during the campaign. While he did not use explicit bias language, the way he spoke about Mexican immigrants and Muslims undoubtedly was heard by those populations as denigrating of an entire class of individuals. Even his "othering" (my word) of groups of people by use of the definite article -- the Muslims, the Hispanics, the evangelicals, the blacks, etc. -- provided linguistic clues that were followed by opponents and supporters alike.
NB -- since words mean things, I avoid using the suffix '-phobia' to describe 'hatred of.' Homophobia literally means "fear of gays"; homomisia means hatred of them. Similarly, Islamophobia means "fear of Muslims." The acts I have been reading about seem motivated more by hatred than fear, so I chose "misoislamism." Following my blog yesterday, I should use "xenomisia" (hatred of the strange or foreign) rather than xenophobia, since I think it is more a matter of despising the unfamiliar than fearing it that is at play.
President-elect Trump should make a strong statement condemning the hateful acts against others undertaken by those who are ostensibly his supporters. He should also apologize for statements made during the campaign that "otherized" (again, my word) entire groups of people. And he should follow his pledge to be President of all people with powerful words that convey intolerance for those who speak and act intolerantly of those unlike themselves. To do so would take a strong step in the direction of unifying the country.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
THIS is xenophobia!
Gee whiz, this was an ugly election season. I even stayed up until the results were announced so I could be sure it was finally over (not wanting a repeat of 2000). Now we can all take a deep breath and return to our normal lives, right?
Not so fast. Hillary supporters are demonstrating in the streets, tweeting vile comments and posting articles hysterically predicting doom for the country and claiming that every female in the USA must fear for her safety.
From what I read, Facebook has been burning with inflammatory comments. (I have seen a few that were extreme, but none so bad that I felt I needed to "unfriend" the writer.) I have read opinion columns by syndicated columnists and by Hollywood celebrities that paint a dystopian picture that is completely at odds with the daily lives of most Americans. They read as if laws were repealed, convicts released, and open season was declared on sex crimes and crimes of violence on Wednesday morning November 10th.
Much more measured were columns in the New Republic by David Dayen and The Guardian by Thomas Frank. There was acknowledgement that liberal elites and the media (redundant, I know) completely misunderstand the fervor that underlay the Trump campaign.
When Trump had the temerity to discredit the Gold Star parents and speak about banning Muslims from immigrating to the U.S., the word "xenophobia" gained currency -- and rightly so. Far too many Americans are fearful of Muslims because of radical Islamic terrorism. Far too few Americans encounter Muslims on a regular basis. Those who work with, attend school with, live next door to Muslim Americans tend to recognize them as people not unlike themselves.
Diversity has been a value pursued in academia and in many businesses for this very reason. Associating with people unlike ourselves -- racially, culturally, religiously and otherwise -- enriches everyone.
I am grateful to have learned this lesson first hand. I attended elementary school with African-American kids. My high school had a high percentage of Jewish students, as well as African-Americans. (Apart from one family of migrant farm workers who settled permanently, I had no such exposure to Hispanics, though.) As a college student and young adult, I encountered other people who were different than I.
As a result, I am accustomed to engaging in polite, respectful dialogue to explain my position on an issue and listen to the positions of others. I have even, until the last Presidential cycle, enjoyed spirited discussion of political differences. It has been different this time, for the following reasons.
1. The candidates -- and their supporters -- made it personal. Both Clinton and Trump attacked their opponent's morality, honesty, competence, trustworthiness, etc. Is it any wonder, then, that the post-election dialogue continues that pattern by attacking the person who voted for ______ as stupid, blind, deluded, or even un-Christian?
2. The news media, in pursuit of ratings, circulation or clicks, latch onto the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of the campaign and give exposure to even the most lurid 'news items.' So supporters of one candidate have explosive accusations to lob at the opposition, and will continue those attacks even when the initial item has been refuted or explained.
3. Social media has depreciated the value of truth and civility. Twitter and Facebook have provided a means for the most outrageous "information" to get wide exposure. For example, there was a piece circulating that quoted Tim Kaine as proposing to ban the Catholic Church from the U.S. It was written as satire, but because it began with a legitimate quote, it appeared genuine. It was shared by two of my Facebook friends, not realizing that it was bogus.
4. Most importantly, though, I think is the xenophobia that exists in the news media and other parts of the opinion-shaping, policy-making elite. Fox News' Tucker Carlson pointed out that none of the Washington DC/New York City news media have a clue what motivates the voters in Oshkosh or Terre Haute. (They may not even know they are real places with real voters!) And it is my assessment that this cultural ignorance leads to a fear of those citizens. Racial hatred against Hispanics, not economic self-interest, must motivate someone who worries about the impact of illegal immigration because his job has been lost or wages lowered. The NRA member who keeps guns for hunting or for self-defense cannot be appalled by Sandy Hook or Charleston shootings. If you support the police when Black Lives Matter foments violence, you must be a racist. If you believe in traditional marriage, you hate gays. Apparently, these liberal elites do not believe it is possible to hold views that differ from their own and still love and accept blacks, Hispanics, LGBT+ people, Muslims, etc.
Xenophobia -- fear of the stranger. Yes, there are white working-class voters who never encounter people of color, of other nationalities or languages, or LGBT+ folk on a regular basis; but with immigration, migration, and transience that number is much lower than the coastal elites imagine it to be. I suggest that the attitudes of the average church-going Midwesterner are far more tolerant than those of the average Ivy League professor or NYT/WashPo reporter. That has to be the case if the latter are fearful of riots and violence ensuing from the mere fact of Trump's winning the election. (Oh, wait. Riots and violence have ensued -- just not by the white working-class.)
THIS is the real xenophobia: the irrational fear by coastal elites of those strange Midwesterners who attend church, own guns, oppose abortion, value traditional marriage, attend High School football and NASCAR, and who want a Supreme Court that will protect First Amendment religious liberty as assiduously as First Amendment freedom of expression.
Not so fast. Hillary supporters are demonstrating in the streets, tweeting vile comments and posting articles hysterically predicting doom for the country and claiming that every female in the USA must fear for her safety.
From what I read, Facebook has been burning with inflammatory comments. (I have seen a few that were extreme, but none so bad that I felt I needed to "unfriend" the writer.) I have read opinion columns by syndicated columnists and by Hollywood celebrities that paint a dystopian picture that is completely at odds with the daily lives of most Americans. They read as if laws were repealed, convicts released, and open season was declared on sex crimes and crimes of violence on Wednesday morning November 10th.
Much more measured were columns in the New Republic by David Dayen and The Guardian by Thomas Frank. There was acknowledgement that liberal elites and the media (redundant, I know) completely misunderstand the fervor that underlay the Trump campaign.
When Trump had the temerity to discredit the Gold Star parents and speak about banning Muslims from immigrating to the U.S., the word "xenophobia" gained currency -- and rightly so. Far too many Americans are fearful of Muslims because of radical Islamic terrorism. Far too few Americans encounter Muslims on a regular basis. Those who work with, attend school with, live next door to Muslim Americans tend to recognize them as people not unlike themselves.
Diversity has been a value pursued in academia and in many businesses for this very reason. Associating with people unlike ourselves -- racially, culturally, religiously and otherwise -- enriches everyone.
I am grateful to have learned this lesson first hand. I attended elementary school with African-American kids. My high school had a high percentage of Jewish students, as well as African-Americans. (Apart from one family of migrant farm workers who settled permanently, I had no such exposure to Hispanics, though.) As a college student and young adult, I encountered other people who were different than I.
As a result, I am accustomed to engaging in polite, respectful dialogue to explain my position on an issue and listen to the positions of others. I have even, until the last Presidential cycle, enjoyed spirited discussion of political differences. It has been different this time, for the following reasons.
1. The candidates -- and their supporters -- made it personal. Both Clinton and Trump attacked their opponent's morality, honesty, competence, trustworthiness, etc. Is it any wonder, then, that the post-election dialogue continues that pattern by attacking the person who voted for ______ as stupid, blind, deluded, or even un-Christian?
2. The news media, in pursuit of ratings, circulation or clicks, latch onto the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of the campaign and give exposure to even the most lurid 'news items.' So supporters of one candidate have explosive accusations to lob at the opposition, and will continue those attacks even when the initial item has been refuted or explained.
3. Social media has depreciated the value of truth and civility. Twitter and Facebook have provided a means for the most outrageous "information" to get wide exposure. For example, there was a piece circulating that quoted Tim Kaine as proposing to ban the Catholic Church from the U.S. It was written as satire, but because it began with a legitimate quote, it appeared genuine. It was shared by two of my Facebook friends, not realizing that it was bogus.
4. Most importantly, though, I think is the xenophobia that exists in the news media and other parts of the opinion-shaping, policy-making elite. Fox News' Tucker Carlson pointed out that none of the Washington DC/New York City news media have a clue what motivates the voters in Oshkosh or Terre Haute. (They may not even know they are real places with real voters!) And it is my assessment that this cultural ignorance leads to a fear of those citizens. Racial hatred against Hispanics, not economic self-interest, must motivate someone who worries about the impact of illegal immigration because his job has been lost or wages lowered. The NRA member who keeps guns for hunting or for self-defense cannot be appalled by Sandy Hook or Charleston shootings. If you support the police when Black Lives Matter foments violence, you must be a racist. If you believe in traditional marriage, you hate gays. Apparently, these liberal elites do not believe it is possible to hold views that differ from their own and still love and accept blacks, Hispanics, LGBT+ people, Muslims, etc.
Xenophobia -- fear of the stranger. Yes, there are white working-class voters who never encounter people of color, of other nationalities or languages, or LGBT+ folk on a regular basis; but with immigration, migration, and transience that number is much lower than the coastal elites imagine it to be. I suggest that the attitudes of the average church-going Midwesterner are far more tolerant than those of the average Ivy League professor or NYT/WashPo reporter. That has to be the case if the latter are fearful of riots and violence ensuing from the mere fact of Trump's winning the election. (Oh, wait. Riots and violence have ensued -- just not by the white working-class.)
THIS is the real xenophobia: the irrational fear by coastal elites of those strange Midwesterners who attend church, own guns, oppose abortion, value traditional marriage, attend High School football and NASCAR, and who want a Supreme Court that will protect First Amendment religious liberty as assiduously as First Amendment freedom of expression.
Friday, October 7, 2016
Knowing your headquarters from your hindquarters
My son is a military chaplain, currently stationed in Okinawa. In this week's newsletter, he shared the following message with his readers. While intended for a military readership, I think it has general appeal and share it herewith.
In addition to His warning that the blind leading the blind is disastrous, Jesus gives another admonition, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?” Stop there and again we get the wrong impression -- that we should be worried only about ourselves. But Jesus then says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.” Jesus doesn’t mean to disregard our brother’s speck simply because of our plank. We have to remove our obstacles to truth, our own selfishness, pride, and self-serving choices, and be willing to become more like Jesus, our teacher. When we are more comfortable around the Truth, then we will be able to see how best to help our brethren following behind us. But how do we know?
Jesus gives us a hint as to how to tell what’s true, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." As obvious as distinguishing the headquarters from the hindquarters, you can’t get apples from a pine tree. Men and women are different. Right and wrong are the same for everyone, everywhere, at all times. We do not show love for each other by pretending otherwise. When we are not certain what kind of fruit a tree (or act, or person) will bear, we can reserve judgment and seek the guidance we need to remove the plank from our vision. But most times the fruit is obvious, and we need to have the courage to defend the fences our forefathers erected for our protection out of wisdom and love for us, lest we put our headquarters where our hindquarters should be.
During the American Civil War, General John Pope—whose army in the west had seen more
success than its eastern counterpart—was transferred by President Lincoln to command of the
Army of the Potomac. Shortly after taking command he gave a rather impassioned speech to his
troops extolling his successes, and in the process highlighting their failures. To illustrate that he
planned for the Army to be always on the move he stated that his headquarters would be in the
saddle. His men would later quip that their commander had “his headquarters where his
hindquarters should be.” To not know one’s headquarters from his hindquarters has remained, in
various forms, an expression describing a man or a woman confused about something that should be obvious to him; after all it’s obvious to us. Or is it?
We modern people have done such a terrific job of busting up stereotypes and taboos, of breaking rules and eliminating boundaries, and blurring distinctions, that we have become confused about the kinds of things that were once obvious and incontrovertible. Even what it means to be a man or a woman has become a source of confusion —gender confusion. G.K. Chesterton warned in his 1929 book The Thing not to tear down a fence or a gate we think is useless. “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” Stereotypes, taboos, rules, boundaries, and distinctions are fences that have been erected over generations of hard-earned experience, and many are right to be torn down. However, many more are best left standing where they are, and a thoughtless, impulsive, self-serving society has failed to make the measured judgement required and simply tears down whatever stands in the way of its desires.
Often judgement is cast aside because of Jesus’ own words, "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned.” We hear these words and believe ourselves commanded to reserve judgment and refrain from characterizing things as right or wrong. We demur behind a wall of relativism saying, “I can’t tell you what’s right for you.” And if we were to read no further into the Gospel of Luke, maybe this would be the correct conclusion. But Jesus didn’t stop there, He went on to say, “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher.” All of us need to be taught by someone who knows, and those who know—who have learned before we have—have paved roads of knowledge for us, with road signs to direct us, and gates and fences to protect us. We disregard or destroy them at our own peril.
We modern people have done such a terrific job of busting up stereotypes and taboos, of breaking rules and eliminating boundaries, and blurring distinctions, that we have become confused about the kinds of things that were once obvious and incontrovertible. Even what it means to be a man or a woman has become a source of confusion —gender confusion. G.K. Chesterton warned in his 1929 book The Thing not to tear down a fence or a gate we think is useless. “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” Stereotypes, taboos, rules, boundaries, and distinctions are fences that have been erected over generations of hard-earned experience, and many are right to be torn down. However, many more are best left standing where they are, and a thoughtless, impulsive, self-serving society has failed to make the measured judgement required and simply tears down whatever stands in the way of its desires.
Often judgement is cast aside because of Jesus’ own words, "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned.” We hear these words and believe ourselves commanded to reserve judgment and refrain from characterizing things as right or wrong. We demur behind a wall of relativism saying, “I can’t tell you what’s right for you.” And if we were to read no further into the Gospel of Luke, maybe this would be the correct conclusion. But Jesus didn’t stop there, He went on to say, “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher.” All of us need to be taught by someone who knows, and those who know—who have learned before we have—have paved roads of knowledge for us, with road signs to direct us, and gates and fences to protect us. We disregard or destroy them at our own peril.
In addition to His warning that the blind leading the blind is disastrous, Jesus gives another admonition, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?” Stop there and again we get the wrong impression -- that we should be worried only about ourselves. But Jesus then says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.” Jesus doesn’t mean to disregard our brother’s speck simply because of our plank. We have to remove our obstacles to truth, our own selfishness, pride, and self-serving choices, and be willing to become more like Jesus, our teacher. When we are more comfortable around the Truth, then we will be able to see how best to help our brethren following behind us. But how do we know?
Jesus gives us a hint as to how to tell what’s true, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." As obvious as distinguishing the headquarters from the hindquarters, you can’t get apples from a pine tree. Men and women are different. Right and wrong are the same for everyone, everywhere, at all times. We do not show love for each other by pretending otherwise. When we are not certain what kind of fruit a tree (or act, or person) will bear, we can reserve judgment and seek the guidance we need to remove the plank from our vision. But most times the fruit is obvious, and we need to have the courage to defend the fences our forefathers erected for our protection out of wisdom and love for us, lest we put our headquarters where our hindquarters should be.
Monday, October 3, 2016
Deep and Wide
It's not exactly a theophany, but God spoke to me this morning in an unusual way. I was reading my morning devotions -- as usual -- using the books and web sites I visit each day. But my first web site grabbed me in an unusual way.
My initial reaction was negative: "Oh, no. I can't get away from politics, even during my devotions." That was because the writer began with the Affordable Care Act and a paper she had read.
"Oh, great!" I said to myself. This devotional reading is based on an academic paper, not on the Scriptures.
But habits being what they are (and being compelled to finish any reading I begin because of my OCD), I read the entire piece. And God spoke to me, humbling me as He said, "I can use any means to speak, but you've got to be open to listening." Maybe I was more sensitive to this message today because in my Corps Officer's sermon yesterday, she said "In order to hear God, you've got to be open to listen to whatever He says and however he says it."
If you've read this far, you may be wondering what He said to me. Here's the gist, based on the Great Commandment and the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10: Christians are accountable not just to God and to the Christian community, but to the broader community as well. The writer asks this question: "How can we focus our faith on being more accountable in doing the work of this world? I think the readings today point out that in seeking to be accountable to the Gospel, we need to keep focused on the truths revealed through Jesus Christ. That means being accountable to our neighbors. Accountability means demonstrating love in seeking truth and equity." (Barbara Dilly, Creighton U Daily Reflections)
Here I was engaged in a pietistic discipline of daily Scripture and devotional reading with prayers, and I'm being challenged that my holiness cannot go deeper unless it spreads wider.
My last post was about how to be a Christian voter in the current climate of acrimonious political interaction. Dilly spoke to that in this way: "Defining a shared set of values and a coherent vision for the future is very difficult. One thing does seem to be certain, and that is the vision must include the value of accountability to society for every American."
Part of my frustration in this political climate is the sense of powerlessness to influence the culture more broadly. I have seen many posts on Facebook that promise (as I have done) to pray for our country; it sometimes seems as if that is all Christians can do. But I was challenged by my devotions again this morning to do all that I can to emphasize Kingdom values in my daily interactions with my neighbors and to do all that I can to help our country's leaders arrive at a coherent vision that is rooted in God's Word.
Thank you, Lord, for speaking to me again today.
My initial reaction was negative: "Oh, no. I can't get away from politics, even during my devotions." That was because the writer began with the Affordable Care Act and a paper she had read.
"Oh, great!" I said to myself. This devotional reading is based on an academic paper, not on the Scriptures.
But habits being what they are (and being compelled to finish any reading I begin because of my OCD), I read the entire piece. And God spoke to me, humbling me as He said, "I can use any means to speak, but you've got to be open to listening." Maybe I was more sensitive to this message today because in my Corps Officer's sermon yesterday, she said "In order to hear God, you've got to be open to listen to whatever He says and however he says it."
If you've read this far, you may be wondering what He said to me. Here's the gist, based on the Great Commandment and the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10: Christians are accountable not just to God and to the Christian community, but to the broader community as well. The writer asks this question: "How can we focus our faith on being more accountable in doing the work of this world? I think the readings today point out that in seeking to be accountable to the Gospel, we need to keep focused on the truths revealed through Jesus Christ. That means being accountable to our neighbors. Accountability means demonstrating love in seeking truth and equity." (Barbara Dilly, Creighton U Daily Reflections)
Here I was engaged in a pietistic discipline of daily Scripture and devotional reading with prayers, and I'm being challenged that my holiness cannot go deeper unless it spreads wider.
I got the same message from Stuart Briscoe ("Devotions for Men") on Thursday. He was commenting on the Levitical command to leave part of the harvest for gleaning by the poor and said, "you see, there is a very definite link between being holy
and picking grapes. There
is also a link between holiness and opening doors for old people, picking up
beer cans left in the countryside, caring for AIDS patients, reviewing the way
you pay your employees, treating a baggage handler with courtesy, and showing
respect to a waiter. In some ways
holiness is not easy. But in our culture
so many people behave so badly that it is not very difficult to stand out, to be
separate, to be holy – simply by treating people properly!”
My last post was about how to be a Christian voter in the current climate of acrimonious political interaction. Dilly spoke to that in this way: "Defining a shared set of values and a coherent vision for the future is very difficult. One thing does seem to be certain, and that is the vision must include the value of accountability to society for every American."
Part of my frustration in this political climate is the sense of powerlessness to influence the culture more broadly. I have seen many posts on Facebook that promise (as I have done) to pray for our country; it sometimes seems as if that is all Christians can do. But I was challenged by my devotions again this morning to do all that I can to emphasize Kingdom values in my daily interactions with my neighbors and to do all that I can to help our country's leaders arrive at a coherent vision that is rooted in God's Word.
Thank you, Lord, for speaking to me again today.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
How to be a Christian voter
Let me confess right at the outset that I do not purport to know how to be a Christian voter. That is, I do not have simple answers to how my faith informs my vote for specific candidates. Christian leaders are not always helpful. I am a brother in Christ to Rev. Franklin Graham and align with him theologically. But when he uses the label 'chocolate' to refer demeaningly to our President, I take offense and fear that he is damaging the cause of Christ.
On the other side of the political spectrum, I am impressed with the clarity of "Sojourners" ministry and align with the heart of Rev. Jim Wallis. But I fear that evangelism has been replaced by social action and political advocacy.
I watched the Presidential debate Monday night. Other than a brief discussion of tax policy that cited dueling economists, there was virtually no serious discussion of public policy. And even the tax dialogue quickly degenerated into ad hominem attacks. A Facebook friend commented on the debate's missing policy points, "I'm old enough to recall a time when the views of candidates on selected issues would be published side by side in newspapers for everyone to read, think about, and compare. Unfortunately, we voters don't have the advantage of very much of that kind of unbiased, simple, direct, uncluttered information in this supposed Information Age."
I have always voted on the basis of the candidate's public policy stances. I voted for Jimmy Carter, not because he was a born-again Christian but because Gerald Ford seemed to lack knowledge of foreign affairs. I have no-one to vote for this year; my vote will be a "least among evils" vote. Part of the reason is that none of the candidates (not even Gary Johnson) have given me articulate policy positions that merit my support.
Notice, too, that we have not heard -- nor will we -- any discussion of abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, bathroom privacy, etc. Strangely enough, I think that's a good thing with the way the discussion of issues such as racial conflict has played out. The dialogue has not been elevated, it has sunk to lows I could not have anticipated in Presidential politics. How does a Christian speak into this situation?
Positions taken by evangelical Christians in political forums are often labeled as bigoted or uninformed. It is also possible that attempting to influence the society through partisan politics has backfired. That is, "evangelicals" are merely a voting bloc that Donald Trump courts and Hillary Clinton labels 'deplorable.' I want the word to mean "one who loves." ... one who loves God ... one who loves his neighbor ... one who loves and serves the unlovely ... not "one who votes for Republicans." We should be salt and light in the world, not sandpaper.
In our zeal, we sometimes work against our own interest, rather like evangelical pastors in my first appointment who organized demonstrations against the downtown theater that was showing pornography. They did not succeed in closing down the theater. But they did succeed in calling attention to its existence and increasing their box office receipts.
I commented on the Facebook post as follows: "Perhaps among the lessons learned from this debacle is that Christians should not expect government to do what only the Gospel can do. Moral issues have been absent from the discussion, so we no longer expect our leaders to use the levers of power to accomplish behavior change. It may be a fruitful time for the Gospel -- or it may move the Church to irrelevancy as it has in most of Europe. I'm praying for revival."
Like I said, I don't know how to be a Christian voter in 2016.
On the other side of the political spectrum, I am impressed with the clarity of "Sojourners" ministry and align with the heart of Rev. Jim Wallis. But I fear that evangelism has been replaced by social action and political advocacy.
I watched the Presidential debate Monday night. Other than a brief discussion of tax policy that cited dueling economists, there was virtually no serious discussion of public policy. And even the tax dialogue quickly degenerated into ad hominem attacks. A Facebook friend commented on the debate's missing policy points, "I'm old enough to recall a time when the views of candidates on selected issues would be published side by side in newspapers for everyone to read, think about, and compare. Unfortunately, we voters don't have the advantage of very much of that kind of unbiased, simple, direct, uncluttered information in this supposed Information Age."
I have always voted on the basis of the candidate's public policy stances. I voted for Jimmy Carter, not because he was a born-again Christian but because Gerald Ford seemed to lack knowledge of foreign affairs. I have no-one to vote for this year; my vote will be a "least among evils" vote. Part of the reason is that none of the candidates (not even Gary Johnson) have given me articulate policy positions that merit my support.
Notice, too, that we have not heard -- nor will we -- any discussion of abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, bathroom privacy, etc. Strangely enough, I think that's a good thing with the way the discussion of issues such as racial conflict has played out. The dialogue has not been elevated, it has sunk to lows I could not have anticipated in Presidential politics. How does a Christian speak into this situation?
Positions taken by evangelical Christians in political forums are often labeled as bigoted or uninformed. It is also possible that attempting to influence the society through partisan politics has backfired. That is, "evangelicals" are merely a voting bloc that Donald Trump courts and Hillary Clinton labels 'deplorable.' I want the word to mean "one who loves." ... one who loves God ... one who loves his neighbor ... one who loves and serves the unlovely ... not "one who votes for Republicans." We should be salt and light in the world, not sandpaper.
In our zeal, we sometimes work against our own interest, rather like evangelical pastors in my first appointment who organized demonstrations against the downtown theater that was showing pornography. They did not succeed in closing down the theater. But they did succeed in calling attention to its existence and increasing their box office receipts.
I commented on the Facebook post as follows: "Perhaps among the lessons learned from this debacle is that Christians should not expect government to do what only the Gospel can do. Moral issues have been absent from the discussion, so we no longer expect our leaders to use the levers of power to accomplish behavior change. It may be a fruitful time for the Gospel -- or it may move the Church to irrelevancy as it has in most of Europe. I'm praying for revival."
Like I said, I don't know how to be a Christian voter in 2016.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Jesus weeps
I wonder if Jesus looks at Charlotte NC and other US cities as He did Jerusalem when He said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ... how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate." (Matthew 23:37-38)
In the quarter century since Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles policemen, we are still asking his plaintive question, "Can we all get along?" It is deplorable -- yes, I used that word deliberately -- that we are once again facing off with one another over the subject of race.
I am tired of the political posturing and readiness to lay blame. I know it is a highly charged presidential campaign and every event is viewed through the lens of its political impact. But with news media giving air time to every point of view, no matter the credibility of the speaker, it seems that we are being driven to take sides. One is either a supporter of Black Lives Matter or of the police.
Balderdash! Although I acknowledge that BLM is prone to excess and confrontation, we should not be deafened to the legitimate fears and concerns of African-Americans because we find their most vocal movements objectionable. Similarly, recognizing the immense dangers faced by police officers should not blind us to the reality that snap judgments made in stressful situations are heavily influenced by a variety of factors, including perceptions based on prejudice and experience. (No, I do not mean 'racism.')
In the current climate, the same statistics are used by opposing sides of the argument to prove that a) black men are killed by police disproportionately to their percentage of the population or b) black men are killed proportionately to the rate at which they commit violent crime. Both a) and b) are factually true. So what? How can we find a point of agreement that leads us to healing and solution rather than further divide?
As a follower of Jesus, how should I respond? I would love to hear from the clergy in Charlotte NC who have been on the front lines to intercede between the police and irate protesters. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)
Jesus' crucifixion was pursued by the political leaders of His day; the Sanhedrin's political power was threatened by Jesus' popularity. I am fearful that the racial conflict we are seeing, embedded in a nasty political climate, will result in people of faith finding themselves on opposite sides rather than joining hands in a community of healing.
For most of my adult life, I have worked and lived in places that were predominantly white. When I have been in more racially diverse environments, I have been enriched by reminders of lessons learned as a child when the neighborhood I lived in changed from all white to all black, except for the Hostetlers and the Levinsons ... of lessons learned riding a bus to school with kids just like me except for the color of their skin ... of lessons learned riding through neighborhoods ravaged by riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on my way to college classes. But in the final analysis, those are lessons learned cerebrally rather than viscerally.
I have never been stopped for 'driving while black.' I have never had a white woman clutch her purse in fear as I walked by. I have never been assumed to be a gang member or a drug user simply because of the clothes I wear. [My children would howl in laughter at the thought. I probably embarrass them by dressing to the other extreme.] These are lessons learned viscerally by countless African-American males.
Is there a point to my meandering musing? I guess it would be to wonder if God is calling me to some specific action to "put my money where my faith is." I want to part of the answer, not part of the problem, but I don't know how.
I shall continue to pray for those acting redemptively in Charlotte. I shall continue to pray for healing for our nation and for this Presidential election to have positive results for our nation. And I shall look for ways to speak and act as Christ would have me do.
In the quarter century since Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles policemen, we are still asking his plaintive question, "Can we all get along?" It is deplorable -- yes, I used that word deliberately -- that we are once again facing off with one another over the subject of race.
I am tired of the political posturing and readiness to lay blame. I know it is a highly charged presidential campaign and every event is viewed through the lens of its political impact. But with news media giving air time to every point of view, no matter the credibility of the speaker, it seems that we are being driven to take sides. One is either a supporter of Black Lives Matter or of the police.
Balderdash! Although I acknowledge that BLM is prone to excess and confrontation, we should not be deafened to the legitimate fears and concerns of African-Americans because we find their most vocal movements objectionable. Similarly, recognizing the immense dangers faced by police officers should not blind us to the reality that snap judgments made in stressful situations are heavily influenced by a variety of factors, including perceptions based on prejudice and experience. (No, I do not mean 'racism.')
In the current climate, the same statistics are used by opposing sides of the argument to prove that a) black men are killed by police disproportionately to their percentage of the population or b) black men are killed proportionately to the rate at which they commit violent crime. Both a) and b) are factually true. So what? How can we find a point of agreement that leads us to healing and solution rather than further divide?
As a follower of Jesus, how should I respond? I would love to hear from the clergy in Charlotte NC who have been on the front lines to intercede between the police and irate protesters. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)
Jesus' crucifixion was pursued by the political leaders of His day; the Sanhedrin's political power was threatened by Jesus' popularity. I am fearful that the racial conflict we are seeing, embedded in a nasty political climate, will result in people of faith finding themselves on opposite sides rather than joining hands in a community of healing.
For most of my adult life, I have worked and lived in places that were predominantly white. When I have been in more racially diverse environments, I have been enriched by reminders of lessons learned as a child when the neighborhood I lived in changed from all white to all black, except for the Hostetlers and the Levinsons ... of lessons learned riding a bus to school with kids just like me except for the color of their skin ... of lessons learned riding through neighborhoods ravaged by riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on my way to college classes. But in the final analysis, those are lessons learned cerebrally rather than viscerally.
I have never been stopped for 'driving while black.' I have never had a white woman clutch her purse in fear as I walked by. I have never been assumed to be a gang member or a drug user simply because of the clothes I wear. [My children would howl in laughter at the thought. I probably embarrass them by dressing to the other extreme.] These are lessons learned viscerally by countless African-American males.
Is there a point to my meandering musing? I guess it would be to wonder if God is calling me to some specific action to "put my money where my faith is." I want to part of the answer, not part of the problem, but I don't know how.
I shall continue to pray for those acting redemptively in Charlotte. I shall continue to pray for healing for our nation and for this Presidential election to have positive results for our nation. And I shall look for ways to speak and act as Christ would have me do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)