A week ago I was reading Philip Yancey's The Jesus I Never Knew and was struck by the chapter on the Beatitudes. To summarize, Yancey suggests that many of us American Christians have so bought into our nation's societal and cultural norms that we are unable to fathom, much less truly grasp, Jesus' teaching in the Beatitudes. We're taught to value the polar opposites. Our virtues are power and wealth, freedom and individual rights. We praise type-A personalities—leaders who can take charge and get things down quickly and efficiently. While we've become more sensitive to mental and physical illness, we value health, strength, and people who pretty much have their lives together. We believe that we're simultaneously entitled to the highest standard of living with the least amount of work, ensuring that we complain at the slightest hint of difficulty. As a society, we glamorize and publicize criminals and celebrities who break the law and generally make trouble. In sum, we're the result of generations of democratic and capitalistic presuppositions taken to their inevitable conclusions. What is more, not only have most of us Christians failed to in any way think fundamentally different than the rest of society around us, many of us have actually become the biggest proponents of many of the systems that bring about and/or encourage these results. Conservative Christians have become some of the staunchest supporters of the military, laissez-faire capitalism, etc. I for one was brought up thinking exactly these things. It has only been the past few years that I have begun to question whether the Americanization of Christianity actually accords with Christ's teachings, and only in the last year or so that it has started to become clear that it does not.
Yancey provides a quote by Monkika Hellwig, who lists the advantages to being poor:
1. The poor know they are in urgent need of redemption.
2. The poor know not only their dependence on God and on powerful people but also their interdependence with one another.
3. The poor rest their security not on things but on people.
4. The poor have no exaggerated sense of their own importance, and no exaggerated need of privacy.
5. The poor expect little from competition and much from cooperation.
6. The poor can distinguish between necessities and luxuries.
7. The poor can wait, because they have acquired a kind of dogged patience born of acknowledged dependence.
8. The fears of the poor are more realistic and less exaggerated, because they already know that one can survive great suffering and want.
9. When the poor have the Gospel preached to them, it sounds like good news and not like a threat or a scolding.
10. The poor can respond to the call of the Gospel with a certain abandonment and uncomplicated totality because they have so little to lose and are ready for anything.
In all honesty, these were brand new thoughts for me. Growing up, I was in no way taught to value poverty or the poor. Whether this was explicitly said to me or implicitly conveyed, I was taught the polar opposite. The poor outside the church were slackers. They were bums with poor work ethics who indirectly sponged off all the hard workers via government programs simply because they were too lazy to get a job. I was taught that everyone in America could succeed financially if they'd just work hard enough. On the flip side, the poor within the church were pity cases. Everyone looked down on them with condescension, providing them food and clothing because that's what Christians were supposed to do, but they always maintained the least social contact possible. And it's not like I grew up wealthy. My family was a part of the lower middle-class, but the only reason we were there was because of my parents' hard work and thrift...
So now I'm faced with this idea that there is immense value in the poor, that they understand things about God, life, and humanity that the middle and upper classes do not. The difficulty now becomes this: what do I do with this newfound revelation? If American societal norms fly in the face of Christ's teachings, should I automatically seek the opposite of those norms? Rather than dismissing offhand all those warnings to the rich throughout the New Testament, what would it tangibly look like to take them seriously? If I truly took it seriously that it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven, what would that look like? Over the past week I’ve been turning these ideas and questions over time and again in my mind, but I’ve had no epiphanies thus far. I find myself echoing the sentiment of the disciples when they said, “These is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” At this point, I can announce no conclusions, but I can walk you through my thought processes as my opinions and beliefs develop.
It seems completely counter intuitive, perhaps absurd, to seek poverty. All of Scripture’s admonitions to provide for the poor appear to have one thing in common: the goal is to alleviate poverty. So it appears to be the case that for all the blessings that accompany poverty, this is not something that Christians should actively pursue. Besides, what would that look like? After all, there is at least some truth to what I was taught growing up. Certainly not all, but a whole lot of people who are poor in this country are so because of their own lethargic lifestyles. Clearly that contradicts the Bible's teachings. Yet this line of reasoning keeps leading me down the well-worn path of rationalizing and dismissing the Beatitudes. I cannot get past the cognitive dissonance that Jesus speaks of poverty as something of a virtue. If this is the case, is the opposite true as well? Does this automatically mean that wealth is a vice? And if that is the case, how should I as a Christian respond? Should I not seek to make a lot of money, demanding low wages, despite working hard? That seems legalistic. Should I seek to make as much as possible and give a lot, or even most, of it away? We’ve got the example of philanthropy in the infant Jerusalem church of Acts, but is that meant to be descriptive of Christians’ behavior at a crucial point in the Church’s early history or is that meant to be prescriptive for all churches at all times? Perhaps this is a viable option, but I’m not aware of such philanthropy anywhere in the New Testament Church. Furthermore, to what degree are the Bible's teachings about money moored in the historic contexts in which the biblical authors wrote? Specifically, if Jesus had lived in the 21st century United States where there is decent opportunity for a vertical economic rise rather than in the economic shackles of 1st century Palestine, would His teachings have been the exact same? What does it mean to be wealthy, anyway? Affluence in America looks a lot different than it does on much of the globe. Perhaps the problem is socio-economic in nature rather than purely economic in that many wealthy consider themselves to be more educated and refined—more civilized—than the lowly poor. Must wealth be accompanied by this overt condescension or even a more subtle relational barrier? What about the poor themselves? Suffice to say, I’ve met a fair share of poor folks who don’t square with Hellwig’s saintly portrayal.
The last thing I want to do is jump from the metaphorical frying pan into the fire. I don't want to swing from the extreme of uncritical, full acceptance of American societal norms to the other extreme of full rejection of those norms. That seems reactionary and unwise. On the other hand, I don't want to justify myself and my culture while perpetuating these unbiblical errors that are so common within the church. What I know is that this chapter in Yancey's book was a major challenge to my thinking. What I do not know is how I should respond. I don't pretend to have any answers. I also wonder to whom one should turn for questions like this. It’d be impossible to count the number of conservative theologians who've bought hook, line, and sinker into American societal norms. Same goes for many christian economists, only many of them aren't truly moored with a biblical worldview but are simply economists who are also Christians. Sometimes you can find some of those personal finance guys, but they seem more interested in making sure your 401(k) is robust at retirement than making sure your economic principles aligns with Scripture. Oy vey...
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Evangelicalism Series - Part I: Why folks don't like the term anymore
The past couple years I've observed a growing chorus of those who reject the title "evangelical." Their reasons vary but the general thinking to seems to align pretty well. Some reasons overlap, others do not. In no particular order, here are the reasons I'm hearing:
1) They disagree with the systematic, microscopic demarcation of everything. Why can't they simply be a "Christian" or a "Follower of Christ"?
2) They're fed up with the political, cultural, social, economic, racial, etc. connotations. At some point the term brings more baggage than it's worth. Within this camp there appear to be two sub-groups. First, there are those who want to jettison the term entirely. Second, those who are opting for the "post-evangelical option." They suggest that this sufficiently delineates themselves from the evangelical stereotypes enough that they can establish their own identity.
3) What the heck does "evangelical" mean, anyway? One professor of mine recently said that the effort to define or even describe evangelicalism is "like grasping at air." At some point a term becomes so nebulous that it is almost without meaning. Some even say the term even obscures rather than explicates the complex realities to such a degree that it does more harm than good.
4) They're much more comfortable with a denominational label. As one author in a recent Modern Reformation article described it, Evangelicalism makes a better hall than a room; a better street than a home. This idea of "mere Christianity" makes a lot of sense in theory, but in practice people hone in on particular issues. So why not use a denominational label that better aligns with those finer theological positions?
5) Those who know their American religious history are prone to objecting on the grounds that the term "evangelical" as used in its contemporary sense not only doesn't correspond with the historical ideals of the movement, but it's also a far cry from its meaning just two generations ago.
6) The term evokes a christian tradition that is seriously deficient in its appreciation of mystery, beauty, art, etc.
7) One professing evangelical theologian bemoaned that evangelicals tend to think of themselves as a people without history as though they are simply the modern incarnation of the first century church. Lots of people simply cannot resonate with a tradition (no pun intended) that places no value in tradition or history, intentionally seeking to detach itself from the communion of believers spanning 2,000 years.
8) "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" - Mark Noll. N.K. Clifford put it this way: The Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an over-simplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for critical analysis and serious reflection." In the 20th century in particular, The Scandal has decimated the life of the mind within American evangelicalism. Forget being an uphill battle. For persons who have invested in their lives being serious thinkers, the prospect seems intellectually suicidal.
9) What's this? Evan-gel-ism-ical? It's a ludicrous proposition for someone to claim a title they don't understand, much less one they've never heard of. And it's borderline extraordinary how many Christians who would fall within the evangelical sphere have never heard of evangelicalism.
10) Evangelicalism within the American context has bought hook, line, and sinker into such American presuppositions as capitalism, democracy, patriotism, individualism, consumerism, pragmatism, and the like. For some this is attractive. For others it's repulsing.
11) Stephen Colbert once said (paraphrasing), "Earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, volcanoes, blizzards, dust storms, and hail storms. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it. I say we stick it to Mother Nature before she can stick it to us." For a young generation of American Christians who are environmentally conscience to one degree or another, they refuse to silently embrace their parents' Rush Limbaugh environmental philosophy of rape the Earth first and ask questions later.
12) The tenuous relationship between contemporary evangelicalism and the Protestant Reformation causes a lot of inner turmoil and/or confusion for the theologically-minded among us. Is evangelicalism the modern theological heir of the Protestant Reformation? If you're an evangelical, does that mean you have resonate with the teachings of Luther and Co.? What if you don't? And what's this nonsense about "evangelical Anabaptists" or even, gulp, "evangelical Catholics"? Aren't those oxymorons?
13) They're trying to establish something different altogether. Whether it be the Emerging Church, the home church movement, or some sort of other church renewal movement, the last thing they want to do is claim the moniker of the very thing they're trying to break from.
14) Disagreement with evangelicalism's big umbrella policy. Some say evangelicalism includes everyone from Benny Hinn to John MacArthur, Greg Boyd to John Piper. How can a category that is that big serve any practical function, especially if there is not central authority willing/able to declare who is and is not an evangelical?
15) Does it really lead to any more tangible unity? After all, we've got more denominations than ever, right?
By confession, I'm not a very objective writer. There are parts of almost every single one of these objections that I agree with, that has given me great hesitation in claiming the title "evangelical." As I'll explain in later notes, however, it's a term I embraced reluctantly. Yet the more I've learned, the more I've come to resonate with the term.
1) They disagree with the systematic, microscopic demarcation of everything. Why can't they simply be a "Christian" or a "Follower of Christ"?
2) They're fed up with the political, cultural, social, economic, racial, etc. connotations. At some point the term brings more baggage than it's worth. Within this camp there appear to be two sub-groups. First, there are those who want to jettison the term entirely. Second, those who are opting for the "post-evangelical option." They suggest that this sufficiently delineates themselves from the evangelical stereotypes enough that they can establish their own identity.
3) What the heck does "evangelical" mean, anyway? One professor of mine recently said that the effort to define or even describe evangelicalism is "like grasping at air." At some point a term becomes so nebulous that it is almost without meaning. Some even say the term even obscures rather than explicates the complex realities to such a degree that it does more harm than good.
4) They're much more comfortable with a denominational label. As one author in a recent Modern Reformation article described it, Evangelicalism makes a better hall than a room; a better street than a home. This idea of "mere Christianity" makes a lot of sense in theory, but in practice people hone in on particular issues. So why not use a denominational label that better aligns with those finer theological positions?
5) Those who know their American religious history are prone to objecting on the grounds that the term "evangelical" as used in its contemporary sense not only doesn't correspond with the historical ideals of the movement, but it's also a far cry from its meaning just two generations ago.
6) The term evokes a christian tradition that is seriously deficient in its appreciation of mystery, beauty, art, etc.
7) One professing evangelical theologian bemoaned that evangelicals tend to think of themselves as a people without history as though they are simply the modern incarnation of the first century church. Lots of people simply cannot resonate with a tradition (no pun intended) that places no value in tradition or history, intentionally seeking to detach itself from the communion of believers spanning 2,000 years.
8) "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" - Mark Noll. N.K. Clifford put it this way: The Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an over-simplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for critical analysis and serious reflection." In the 20th century in particular, The Scandal has decimated the life of the mind within American evangelicalism. Forget being an uphill battle. For persons who have invested in their lives being serious thinkers, the prospect seems intellectually suicidal.
9) What's this? Evan-gel-ism-ical? It's a ludicrous proposition for someone to claim a title they don't understand, much less one they've never heard of. And it's borderline extraordinary how many Christians who would fall within the evangelical sphere have never heard of evangelicalism.
10) Evangelicalism within the American context has bought hook, line, and sinker into such American presuppositions as capitalism, democracy, patriotism, individualism, consumerism, pragmatism, and the like. For some this is attractive. For others it's repulsing.
11) Stephen Colbert once said (paraphrasing), "Earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, volcanoes, blizzards, dust storms, and hail storms. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it. I say we stick it to Mother Nature before she can stick it to us." For a young generation of American Christians who are environmentally conscience to one degree or another, they refuse to silently embrace their parents' Rush Limbaugh environmental philosophy of rape the Earth first and ask questions later.
12) The tenuous relationship between contemporary evangelicalism and the Protestant Reformation causes a lot of inner turmoil and/or confusion for the theologically-minded among us. Is evangelicalism the modern theological heir of the Protestant Reformation? If you're an evangelical, does that mean you have resonate with the teachings of Luther and Co.? What if you don't? And what's this nonsense about "evangelical Anabaptists" or even, gulp, "evangelical Catholics"? Aren't those oxymorons?
13) They're trying to establish something different altogether. Whether it be the Emerging Church, the home church movement, or some sort of other church renewal movement, the last thing they want to do is claim the moniker of the very thing they're trying to break from.
14) Disagreement with evangelicalism's big umbrella policy. Some say evangelicalism includes everyone from Benny Hinn to John MacArthur, Greg Boyd to John Piper. How can a category that is that big serve any practical function, especially if there is not central authority willing/able to declare who is and is not an evangelical?
15) Does it really lead to any more tangible unity? After all, we've got more denominations than ever, right?
By confession, I'm not a very objective writer. There are parts of almost every single one of these objections that I agree with, that has given me great hesitation in claiming the title "evangelical." As I'll explain in later notes, however, it's a term I embraced reluctantly. Yet the more I've learned, the more I've come to resonate with the term.
The Truth Project's Errant Conception of History
Originally a facebook note, posted 2-15-09
My college has a required, freshmen-level course entitled Western Thought & Culture which is built around Francis Schaeffer’s 'How Shall We Then Live?' book and video series. I had the course a couple years ago. The cinematography was humorous at times and distractingly outdated at others, but the content was, by in large, excellent so long as you realize that Schaeffer was trying to survey the forest rather than study a particular tree. I appreciated his interdisciplinary effort. Nevertheless, the material is now so outdated that the college is considering possibilities for alternative material. One series they’re most considering is Focus on the Family’s 'The Truth Project.' As someone who cares deeply about my college, evangelicalism, truth, and history, I decided to watch the DVD sixth lesson: "History: Whose Story?"
I'll start off by saying a few words about Dr. Del Tackett, the primary lecturer in and person behind the series. Having watched an introductory biography of him in which he laid out his goals, I cannot help but resonate with him. He believes that the transformation of Christians has to transpire in their minds, which then plays itself out in the way they live. He is well-read in Schaeffer's work, so his beliefs align quite well. In all of this, I commend Dr. Tackett. I do have some pretty strong critiques of Dr. Tackett concerning his use of history, though.
Dr. Tackett raises some legitimate issues that the Church needs to hear today. The problem is that he, frankly, doesn't know what he's talking about because he doesn't have training in the area of history. Yes, Scripture clearly teaches that there is a transcendent metanarrative which shows that God has and will continue to guide from creation to the eschaton. Yes, there is a christian worldview built upon doctrines like the Imagio Dei and the Fall that must guide a Christian's view and interpretation of history. Part of what makes the Bible so extraordinary, however, is that it (at times) pulls back the veil and declares God's intent and action--a luxury we do not have in the post-canonical period. I get really nervous when I hear Christians citing history and definitively stating God's will in it. This smacks of Pope Urban II declaring, "God wills it!" to launch the Crusades. Furthermore, all his talk of "revisionist history" troubles me. As Christians who do not have an inspired (i.e. OT prophets, NT apostles) understanding of God's will and actions, we know the story's conclusion but we do not have a perfect understanding of the plot. We can speculate as to God's purposes in unfolding his transcendent plan, but all we can definitively study is the immanent.
There certainly are a lot of scholars who do not share a christian worldview and whose interpretations of history are, therefore, not moored in biblical doctrine. Of course their interpretations will be (from our perspective) skewed and propagating an alternative view of history. That's all true. Nevertheless, to blanketly condemn all "revisionist history" is, if I may be candid, ludicrous. The video exhibits a reactionary polarization away from postmodernity's excesses to a borderline-fundamentalist declaration of God's view of history. The whole discipline of history is premised upon a constant reinterpretation (i.e. revising our knowledge/view) of the past in an effort to more accurately interpret the past. There's always more evidence that can be brought to bare, more factors to be interjected, more perspectives to be factored in. I don't know of any trained historian would have made this outlandish (if not explicit, then implicit) claim that we've "figured it out," which brings me to my next point. Of all the "experts" Dr. Tackett cites as supporting his claims, not one is actually trained as a historian. There are some legitimately brilliant thinkers (Os Guinness, Ravi Zacharias), but they're not historians. This is like asking a chemist to comment on the significance of political science. Even the case study for Dr. Tackett's position, the Pilgrims, is oversimplified to the point of distorting the historical truth. He's putting forth this one-sided, right-wing view of history that fails to balance biblical doctrine with the social, cultural, political, economic, psychological, and other such factors that play into one's interpretation. That is, Dr. Tackett certainly has some excellent things to say, but his failure to nuance his position undermines the validity of the whole historical endeavor by fundamentally misusing the discipline.
The underlying problem I see is people's presumption of history. Fortunately, most all critical thinkers acknowledge the importance of history. Unfortunately, history is the sort of discipline where everyone assumes they know it. In, say, quantum physics, non-experts are more likely to defer to others or say, "Ya know, I'm honestly not an expert but here's what I think..." Not so with history. Seems most folks think they know it because they know some, perhaps even many, dates and names. That is, there's this prevailing notion of "lay expertise" because people assume that history is not that technical a discipline. From what I see, Dr. Tackett falls prey to think temptation.
I'm deeply troubled that this is the sort of content that is being put out to evangelical students. I feel that it will further propagate an evangelical culture that pushes pietism at the expense of critical thought and theology at the expense of all other disciplines. I've not watched the other DVDs within the series, so I can't speak to their content. If it is as simplistic as the material on history, however, I cannot embrace it and would encourage evangelicals to look elsewhere for worldview materials.
My college has a required, freshmen-level course entitled Western Thought & Culture which is built around Francis Schaeffer’s 'How Shall We Then Live?' book and video series. I had the course a couple years ago. The cinematography was humorous at times and distractingly outdated at others, but the content was, by in large, excellent so long as you realize that Schaeffer was trying to survey the forest rather than study a particular tree. I appreciated his interdisciplinary effort. Nevertheless, the material is now so outdated that the college is considering possibilities for alternative material. One series they’re most considering is Focus on the Family’s 'The Truth Project.' As someone who cares deeply about my college, evangelicalism, truth, and history, I decided to watch the DVD sixth lesson: "History: Whose Story?"
I'll start off by saying a few words about Dr. Del Tackett, the primary lecturer in and person behind the series. Having watched an introductory biography of him in which he laid out his goals, I cannot help but resonate with him. He believes that the transformation of Christians has to transpire in their minds, which then plays itself out in the way they live. He is well-read in Schaeffer's work, so his beliefs align quite well. In all of this, I commend Dr. Tackett. I do have some pretty strong critiques of Dr. Tackett concerning his use of history, though.
Dr. Tackett raises some legitimate issues that the Church needs to hear today. The problem is that he, frankly, doesn't know what he's talking about because he doesn't have training in the area of history. Yes, Scripture clearly teaches that there is a transcendent metanarrative which shows that God has and will continue to guide from creation to the eschaton. Yes, there is a christian worldview built upon doctrines like the Imagio Dei and the Fall that must guide a Christian's view and interpretation of history. Part of what makes the Bible so extraordinary, however, is that it (at times) pulls back the veil and declares God's intent and action--a luxury we do not have in the post-canonical period. I get really nervous when I hear Christians citing history and definitively stating God's will in it. This smacks of Pope Urban II declaring, "God wills it!" to launch the Crusades. Furthermore, all his talk of "revisionist history" troubles me. As Christians who do not have an inspired (i.e. OT prophets, NT apostles) understanding of God's will and actions, we know the story's conclusion but we do not have a perfect understanding of the plot. We can speculate as to God's purposes in unfolding his transcendent plan, but all we can definitively study is the immanent.
There certainly are a lot of scholars who do not share a christian worldview and whose interpretations of history are, therefore, not moored in biblical doctrine. Of course their interpretations will be (from our perspective) skewed and propagating an alternative view of history. That's all true. Nevertheless, to blanketly condemn all "revisionist history" is, if I may be candid, ludicrous. The video exhibits a reactionary polarization away from postmodernity's excesses to a borderline-fundamentalist declaration of God's view of history. The whole discipline of history is premised upon a constant reinterpretation (i.e. revising our knowledge/view) of the past in an effort to more accurately interpret the past. There's always more evidence that can be brought to bare, more factors to be interjected, more perspectives to be factored in. I don't know of any trained historian would have made this outlandish (if not explicit, then implicit) claim that we've "figured it out," which brings me to my next point. Of all the "experts" Dr. Tackett cites as supporting his claims, not one is actually trained as a historian. There are some legitimately brilliant thinkers (Os Guinness, Ravi Zacharias), but they're not historians. This is like asking a chemist to comment on the significance of political science. Even the case study for Dr. Tackett's position, the Pilgrims, is oversimplified to the point of distorting the historical truth. He's putting forth this one-sided, right-wing view of history that fails to balance biblical doctrine with the social, cultural, political, economic, psychological, and other such factors that play into one's interpretation. That is, Dr. Tackett certainly has some excellent things to say, but his failure to nuance his position undermines the validity of the whole historical endeavor by fundamentally misusing the discipline.
The underlying problem I see is people's presumption of history. Fortunately, most all critical thinkers acknowledge the importance of history. Unfortunately, history is the sort of discipline where everyone assumes they know it. In, say, quantum physics, non-experts are more likely to defer to others or say, "Ya know, I'm honestly not an expert but here's what I think..." Not so with history. Seems most folks think they know it because they know some, perhaps even many, dates and names. That is, there's this prevailing notion of "lay expertise" because people assume that history is not that technical a discipline. From what I see, Dr. Tackett falls prey to think temptation.
I'm deeply troubled that this is the sort of content that is being put out to evangelical students. I feel that it will further propagate an evangelical culture that pushes pietism at the expense of critical thought and theology at the expense of all other disciplines. I've not watched the other DVDs within the series, so I can't speak to their content. If it is as simplistic as the material on history, however, I cannot embrace it and would encourage evangelicals to look elsewhere for worldview materials.
My Theory of "One-Siders" and "Two-Siders"
Originally a facebook note, posted 2-7-09
Hey folks,
The following note is the result of a lot of thought, reflection, and even pain over the last few years. It contains my opinions but also an attempt to articulate how I think and process the world. It may not "feel" personal as you read it, but it is for me. What prompted this now? The fact that some of you, even my closest friends, have fundamentally failed to understand how I think, which has resulted in your misunderstanding or misjudging my heart. That has hurt. I'm not asking you to agree with everything I've written, but I would ask you to respect me for where I'm at. For better or worse, this note is a representation of who I am and where I'm at right now.
Thanks,
Carson
--------------------------
I find 99.9% of debates to be a waste of time. Here's why:
I believe that the premise and format of a debate is fundamentally flawed. Within this construct, there are two (and usually only two) delineated sides to a given issue and some universally recognized rules or parameters (i.e. logical fallacies) within which things will operate. Because the purpose of the engagement is for each side to defeat the other, both sides are trying to defend their position while attacking the other. The objective, then, is not the mutual attainment of truth but the winning of an intellectual competition. Both sides will dig in their heels and fight for their position 'til the bitter end. Even if a side becomes convinced that their position on a particular point is entirely wrong or merely in need of nuance, they cannot make that acknowledgment lest they concede that point and forfeit the competition. That is, the nature of debate itself is a deterrent to humility. Furthermore, the side vs. side format polarizes the issues and all too often obscures, rather than explicates, the complex realities of the issue.
We live at a time in which competition is revered and humility is abhorred. Our society's cultural perception is that civil discussions of an issue are boring. The masses would much rather see 'em duke it out. This causes the debate format to be exalted, especially among commercial media who are looking to sell their product.
Watch any cable news station for at least 15 minutes are you're almost bound to watch a political cockfight. They'll introduce two people who represent the polarity opinions regarding a particular issue and then unleash them on each other. How often do they actually engage one another? Usually they're speaking past the other person. How often do they acknowledge when they're shown to be wrong on a particular point? Usually they can't/won't because the audience will perceive it as weakness. Eventually we the viewer get so accustomed to this that we forget that any other options are available. We think that "debates" are the pinnacle of intellectual rigor. We feel like the issues have been thoroughly delved into when both sides have yelled at each other and both sides have returned to the corner until the next round. My belief is that American society in general has lost (or never had?) the sophistication and/or humility to recognize that a better way is possible. Sadly, the christian community does no better.
From personal experience, most people today seem not to have the ability to distinguish between a debate and a serious discussion. When I bring light to the difference, they'll crack a sarcastic remark implying something to the effect of, "Riiiiiiiight. That sounds good in theory, Carson, but let's be serious. Any intense discussion is a debate." In their minds, it's the tone of the interaction, not the content, that defines the nature of the discourse. If ya get into it and have any sort of disagreement where it's not a mutual butt kissing session, it's perceived as a debate. Those who know me well know I constantly have people mistaking my passionate discussions for debates due to their intensity. What messes with folks' heads is when I don't mind being wrong--when the other sides shows a hole in my reasoning, presents new evidence that persuades me in a different direction, etc. If I'm wrong about something, be it a moral failure, errant reasoning, or a misplaced belief due to a previous lack of knowledge, I want to be corrected. I put my ideas out there in a forthright manner because if I don't, they can't be kicked around and refined. I believe what I believe, but I'm always willing to reevaluate my beliefs based upon new evidence. On top of that, my effort to be consistently transparent and wear my heart on my sleeve leaves people scratching their heads. Seems it's usually the self-conscious bullies who are loud and the embittered manipulators who are so open. Frankly, my approach screws with most people's schema 'cuz they go into the engagement looking for that intellectual victory, but there is no defeating an opponent who will seriously engage you but doesn't mind losing. It completely disarms the whole nature of the perceived "debate" and they don't know what to do with it. Consequently, there are four typical responses: 1) They start with the character attacks; 2) They proceed as if I am debating them; 3) They ignore everything I'm saying 'cuz they can't get their minds around it; 4) They resonate with my approach and almost immediately become a good friend.
This whole thing is an articulation of my developing philosophy for how to worship God with our minds. Although I'll make exceptions when I think there's hope for changing the interaction's tone, I've recently been making an intentional effort not to engage with people who merely want to defend and propagate their position rather than truly question and assess the possible options. During the course of my life, I've met a few folks who were quintessential examples of such persons. Many of them are proud, lifelong member of the vast right wing conspiracy. It's as if it's a part of their DNA to defend political conservatism. If I say anything even remotely positive about a Democrat, it's as if they're innately compelled to immediately offer a negative comment. If I say anything negative about a Republican, they must give a shot across the bow at a Democrat. And it's not as though they're playing Devil's Advocate to balance everything. Most of these folks are smart, but it's as if they're genetically incapable of seeing the world from another vantage point. They have no discernment of the world's perspective beyond their own. They must interpret everything through the strict prism of their worldview and all outlying facts must be immediately discounted. There is no room for tension, balance, or paradox. Everything is binary--black and white, good and bad, conservative and liberal, Democratic and Republican, Calvinist and Arminian, biblical and unbiblical, introvert and extrovert, etc. To help me get my mind around this phenomenon, I've coined a term to describe such people: "One-Siders"--those who care about the complex issues in life but only seem capable of seeing one side of every issue.
The view that is quickly emerging within my head is that there is no hope in engaging folks who are of this ilk. At first it's easy to get excited because they're willing to talk about these serious issues, but it soon becomes apparent that they want to debate, not discuss; "defend the truth," not question/refine their beliefs to ensure they correspond with truth. Interactions of this sort are the ultimate exercise in futility. Thus, while my desire for passionate discussion is greater than ever, I'm quickly losing my desire to engage the One-Siders in their debates. It just saps your energy and doesn't go anywhere meaningful. Unfortunately, this is what most people think I'm doing all the time...
It appears to be a sad but true reality that very few people are "Two-Siders": people who care about the complex issues in life but aren't obsessed with debate; naturally wired to see both sides of issues but aren't relativists. Y'all know who you are, and you mean the world to me because you validate my existence. Thank you.
Hey folks,
The following note is the result of a lot of thought, reflection, and even pain over the last few years. It contains my opinions but also an attempt to articulate how I think and process the world. It may not "feel" personal as you read it, but it is for me. What prompted this now? The fact that some of you, even my closest friends, have fundamentally failed to understand how I think, which has resulted in your misunderstanding or misjudging my heart. That has hurt. I'm not asking you to agree with everything I've written, but I would ask you to respect me for where I'm at. For better or worse, this note is a representation of who I am and where I'm at right now.
Thanks,
Carson
--------------------------
I find 99.9% of debates to be a waste of time. Here's why:
I believe that the premise and format of a debate is fundamentally flawed. Within this construct, there are two (and usually only two) delineated sides to a given issue and some universally recognized rules or parameters (i.e. logical fallacies) within which things will operate. Because the purpose of the engagement is for each side to defeat the other, both sides are trying to defend their position while attacking the other. The objective, then, is not the mutual attainment of truth but the winning of an intellectual competition. Both sides will dig in their heels and fight for their position 'til the bitter end. Even if a side becomes convinced that their position on a particular point is entirely wrong or merely in need of nuance, they cannot make that acknowledgment lest they concede that point and forfeit the competition. That is, the nature of debate itself is a deterrent to humility. Furthermore, the side vs. side format polarizes the issues and all too often obscures, rather than explicates, the complex realities of the issue.
We live at a time in which competition is revered and humility is abhorred. Our society's cultural perception is that civil discussions of an issue are boring. The masses would much rather see 'em duke it out. This causes the debate format to be exalted, especially among commercial media who are looking to sell their product.
Watch any cable news station for at least 15 minutes are you're almost bound to watch a political cockfight. They'll introduce two people who represent the polarity opinions regarding a particular issue and then unleash them on each other. How often do they actually engage one another? Usually they're speaking past the other person. How often do they acknowledge when they're shown to be wrong on a particular point? Usually they can't/won't because the audience will perceive it as weakness. Eventually we the viewer get so accustomed to this that we forget that any other options are available. We think that "debates" are the pinnacle of intellectual rigor. We feel like the issues have been thoroughly delved into when both sides have yelled at each other and both sides have returned to the corner until the next round. My belief is that American society in general has lost (or never had?) the sophistication and/or humility to recognize that a better way is possible. Sadly, the christian community does no better.
From personal experience, most people today seem not to have the ability to distinguish between a debate and a serious discussion. When I bring light to the difference, they'll crack a sarcastic remark implying something to the effect of, "Riiiiiiiight. That sounds good in theory, Carson, but let's be serious. Any intense discussion is a debate." In their minds, it's the tone of the interaction, not the content, that defines the nature of the discourse. If ya get into it and have any sort of disagreement where it's not a mutual butt kissing session, it's perceived as a debate. Those who know me well know I constantly have people mistaking my passionate discussions for debates due to their intensity. What messes with folks' heads is when I don't mind being wrong--when the other sides shows a hole in my reasoning, presents new evidence that persuades me in a different direction, etc. If I'm wrong about something, be it a moral failure, errant reasoning, or a misplaced belief due to a previous lack of knowledge, I want to be corrected. I put my ideas out there in a forthright manner because if I don't, they can't be kicked around and refined. I believe what I believe, but I'm always willing to reevaluate my beliefs based upon new evidence. On top of that, my effort to be consistently transparent and wear my heart on my sleeve leaves people scratching their heads. Seems it's usually the self-conscious bullies who are loud and the embittered manipulators who are so open. Frankly, my approach screws with most people's schema 'cuz they go into the engagement looking for that intellectual victory, but there is no defeating an opponent who will seriously engage you but doesn't mind losing. It completely disarms the whole nature of the perceived "debate" and they don't know what to do with it. Consequently, there are four typical responses: 1) They start with the character attacks; 2) They proceed as if I am debating them; 3) They ignore everything I'm saying 'cuz they can't get their minds around it; 4) They resonate with my approach and almost immediately become a good friend.
This whole thing is an articulation of my developing philosophy for how to worship God with our minds. Although I'll make exceptions when I think there's hope for changing the interaction's tone, I've recently been making an intentional effort not to engage with people who merely want to defend and propagate their position rather than truly question and assess the possible options. During the course of my life, I've met a few folks who were quintessential examples of such persons. Many of them are proud, lifelong member of the vast right wing conspiracy. It's as if it's a part of their DNA to defend political conservatism. If I say anything even remotely positive about a Democrat, it's as if they're innately compelled to immediately offer a negative comment. If I say anything negative about a Republican, they must give a shot across the bow at a Democrat. And it's not as though they're playing Devil's Advocate to balance everything. Most of these folks are smart, but it's as if they're genetically incapable of seeing the world from another vantage point. They have no discernment of the world's perspective beyond their own. They must interpret everything through the strict prism of their worldview and all outlying facts must be immediately discounted. There is no room for tension, balance, or paradox. Everything is binary--black and white, good and bad, conservative and liberal, Democratic and Republican, Calvinist and Arminian, biblical and unbiblical, introvert and extrovert, etc. To help me get my mind around this phenomenon, I've coined a term to describe such people: "One-Siders"--those who care about the complex issues in life but only seem capable of seeing one side of every issue.
The view that is quickly emerging within my head is that there is no hope in engaging folks who are of this ilk. At first it's easy to get excited because they're willing to talk about these serious issues, but it soon becomes apparent that they want to debate, not discuss; "defend the truth," not question/refine their beliefs to ensure they correspond with truth. Interactions of this sort are the ultimate exercise in futility. Thus, while my desire for passionate discussion is greater than ever, I'm quickly losing my desire to engage the One-Siders in their debates. It just saps your energy and doesn't go anywhere meaningful. Unfortunately, this is what most people think I'm doing all the time...
It appears to be a sad but true reality that very few people are "Two-Siders": people who care about the complex issues in life but aren't obsessed with debate; naturally wired to see both sides of issues but aren't relativists. Y'all know who you are, and you mean the world to me because you validate my existence. Thank you.
Younger Evangelicals and the Pro-Life Movement
Originally a facebook note, posted 1-29-09* This note should be read in conjunction with an earlier note entitled "Pro-Life: Before and After Birth."
The past few years I've talked to quite a few young evangelicals who have told me, in no uncertain terms, that the single most important political issue for them is abortion. I used to be a member of this camp, so I know the argument well: Life is the most sacred and fundamental part of what it means to be human, what it means to be made in God's image. Therefore, it is the duty of all Christians everywhere to guard the lives of the unborn. It's the political line in the sand. If they don't stand for this issue, no other issue makes sense. So many young evangelicals will not waiver in their approach and will not question their methodology because this is all they've ever known as they grew up within the James Dobson defined brand of evangelicalism over the past 25-30 years. They think that by reevaluating their approach, they're compromising on their convictions. Thus, they become all the more strident in their political obsession with abortion.
To me, this reasoning sounds like a classic case of putting all your eggs in one basket. Here's the problem: What if you can't win that issue? From 2000-2006 this country had a strongly Pro-Life President, a GOP controlled Congress in both houses of Congress, and turned one moderate-left seat on the Supreme Court conservative while maintaining another conservative seat. The result from all that? They passed legislation banning partial-birth abortion and it was upheld by the Supreme Court. That's HUGE, but it did not overturn abortion in American, nor will it. Tragically, it's a fight that cannot be won... at least on a political level. So while Evangelical Right is losing in the two issues they care about (traditional marriage & abortion) despite their borderline obsession, they're losing the ability to bring the influence of a biblical worldview to the entire rest of the issues.
There is a time to fight as an idealist and there is a time to be a realist. The Christian Right has tried the idealistc approach as an active voting bloc for about 30 yrs now and has FAILED at the two issues it really cares about. Why? In my opinion, it's because these issues cannot be won within the political realm--it's an exercise in futility. As Philip Yancey discusses in 'The Jesus I Never Knew,' man cannot be transformed by top-down legislation, but by redemption with and restoration in Christ. Perhaps the time has come to attempt the realistic approach. Rather than fighting the ideological war to end abortions completely, let's do something tangible and try to prevent as many as possible. I propose two ways:
1) By passing laws that enable and encourage these women to make the right decision and have the kid (see: "Pro-Life: Before and After Birth);
2) Diverting the millions upon millions of dollars that are being poured into the political fray over this issue and invest them in clinics to help pregnant women. Call me a tragic realist, but abortion cannot be ended. So let's do what we can to save as many as possible. That's my take.
Lastly, let's address this idea that abortion is the sole issue which should influence young evangelicals' voting. I respect and can appreciate that position because it shows how committed they are to the life of the unborn. That's an amazing stand, but I disagree with it. The Christian worldview cannot fit so neatly into a single issue or two. It should influence our thoughts not only about bio-ethics, but on economics, war, education, poverty relief, and a whole myriad of other issues. I understand why folks on the evangelical right vote solely on the issue of abortion, but I'm trouble by their willful ignorance about all other issues. So I'd offer a final word of challenge: If you're one of those folks who votes solely on the issue of abortion, I commend you. Stand for your convictions, but not at the expense of knowledge of all the others. Remember that the Kingdom of God is not and cannot be accurately represented by a temporal political party. As Christians, I encourage you to be passionate about those issues you care most about but I simultaneously implore you to seek how how your faith should interact with all the issues on the political spectrum.
Palin's Supposed Mistreatment by the Media
Originally a facebook note, posted 1-27-09
In the wake of Obama's inauguration, I've read about and heard a lot of conservative folk complaining about the media's unfair treatment of conservatives. One of the examples I'm hearing most is about Sarah Palin. This pains me greatly.
I had a tough time deciding who to vote for this election cycle, so I developed a chart containing roughly 100 issues. It represented what issues I felt passionate about and which ones I was borderline apathetic on, which issues I agreed and disagreed with the candidates and to what degree. The chart was on a scale of 1-5 in either direction. For example: McCain got 5 pts for the issue of abortion and Obama got 5 for "Health Care: Right vs. Privilege"; McCain got 2 for Concealed Handguns and Obama got 2 for ""Energy/Environment: Kyoto Protocol"; it was a wash for both Fiscal Responsibility and Censorship. You get the point.
The day before McCain picked Palin I remember very clearly that the GOP ticket was winning 71-68 on my chart. Take note: The day before Palin, I was voting McCain... just as I had during the primary. When she first came out, I was a little hesitant. I'd never heard of her, so I kept the issue neutral on the chart. About a week later, I was honestly a little excited (Score: 73-68, McCain). Then she started speaking. The first couple speeches alone were bad enough that I gave a slight advantage to Obama on the issue of "VP Candidate." Then came the Katie Couric interview.
Katie Couric's interview of Governor Palin was, without a doubt, the most incoherent, most incompetent interview I've ever seen given by politician. Ever. Of either party. (i.e. Her foreign policy experience: The proximity of Russia to Alaska.) She clearly had no basic grasp of the issues and was just making crap up (i.e. When asked what newspapers and magazines she read, she replied, "All of them.") And she just plain sounded dumb. Trying way too hard to use big words that didn't fit the conversational context (i.e. (i.e. "recused"). This wasn't a case of biased media asking impossible questions like McCain and the Neo-Cons later complained about ("gotcha journalism"). I could have answered every single one of those questions just fine because I read The Economist, TIME, and Newsweek. Couric was not malicious, biting, or unfair. She posed basic, if forthright, questions that weren't hard to answer. Any person aspiring to the office of President of the United States should have been able to answer those questions without hesitation. The problem was not Couric's interview style, but Palin's utter incompetence showing through clearly. As the media ought to have done, they jumped on it.
When I finished watching that now infamous interview, I felt a familiar, unwanted feeling coming over me: Depression caused by the prospect of voting for another mindless evangelical who talked funny, had too much pride in their home state, and would give the left another stereotypical figure to embody mindless Christianity. Look, I am a professing evangelical. No one can legitimately accuse me of being an angry liberal who simply hates the evangelical base, but this lady was either A) ridiculously under-qualified or B) stupid. There are no other options. The more she spoke, the more points Obama gained in my chart. (Keep in mind this is issue is magnified by McCain's age and medical history.) Then I started to think about McCain's judgment. If he's pick Sarah Palin was his VP candidate, what else would he do?!? ...
Final score: Obama 74, McCain 71.
Let's two points crystal clear: 1) Governor Palin alone cost McCain my vote; 2) The media was not unfair to Palin, but did exactly what they should have done: exposed and relentlessly dogged a candidate who was redonkulously unqualified for the most powerful office in the world. Think I'm exaggerating the problem? Watch for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/wat
http://www.youtube.com/wat
http://www.youtube.com/wat
http://www.youtube.com/wat
I readily acknowledge the media's liberal bias, but, for the love, don't cite Palin as an example. I rest my case.
The Merchandising of a President
Originally a facebook note, posted 1-26-09
If you've not been a hermit for the past couple months, you've seen the merchandising of President Obama--T-shirts, hoodies, posters, coffee mugs, etc. It's pretty humorous to me that people's reaction to this breaks down into two pretty rigid categories. First, you've got the embattled conservative/Bush supporters. They've been beaten down pretty mercilessly by the media for at least the past five years, so they're angry over the glorification of Obama. They think it's hypocritical. Second, those who just plain love Obama. If Bush stood for all that hate, then Obama is the opposite of that. Naturally, they're gung-ho about him right about now and will happily support him in any way possible (including dishing out $9.99 at Wal-Mart).
Yesterday my wife and I went to basketball game in Atlanta. We grabbed lunch at a Wendy's in a predominantly African American neighborhood. One of the people in there was wearing a XXXL Obama T-shirt. In a nearby gas station, there was a customer buying an Obama T-shirt. Outside of Philips Arena there is a souvenir/merchandise shop. Only from what I saw walking by, it looked like they were selling as many Obama things as Hawks, Thrashers, Falcons, or Braves combined. Inside the arena I saw many African American folks wearing Obama T-shirts. Point being, everywhere we went there were African Americans sporting Obama paraphernalia, and it got me thinking.
Honestly, I'm pretty excited. I voted for Obama, but I'm certainly not on his bandwagon. There's a lot I like about him and his policies, but there's a whole lot I dislike, too. He was, in my estimate, simply the best option available. Still, one of the major reasons I voted for him was what I described as the "Redemption Theme for African Americans." Considering our nation's history, I knew it'd be huge for the African American community to have a black man in the highest office in the land. What I'm most excited about with all of this is that the African American community now has a solid role model. They're wearing T-shirts of an articulate man who graduated from Harvard Law and is sporting a suit and tie. They're proud of a man who has intelligent things to say that go beyond beyond sex, drugs, entertainment, materialism, crime, and self-glorification. I couldn't be more critical of some of the things he's already done (e.g. abortion, stem cells, etc.), but I'm pretty stinkin' excited for the African American community. I sincerely hope and pray this will inspire the next generation to reach beyond the aspirations of their parents and grandparents.
Don't Forget About Palestinian Christians
Originally a facebook note, posted 1-29-09There's a lot of pro-Israeli propaganda spouted by evangelical and fundamentalist Christians on facebook. (*Note: Much of this is being driven by Dispensationalism, a theological system that did not exist until J. N. Darby invented it in the mid-19th century.) Type "Christian Israel" in a facebook search sometime. You'll get plenty of groups like "Christian supporters and lovers of Israel and the Jewish people," "I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I SUPPORT ISRAEL!," "Christian Zionism (Christians for Israel)," and so forth. What is more, much of the content of such groups is not only pro-Israeli, it's anti-Palestinian. Palestinians are seen as an evil scourge upon God's chosen people who need to be eliminated. People talk all about how Jews needed a home, especially after the Holocaust. More than understandable. What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that the re-creation of this homeland displaced an entire people group. What is more, most American Christians have no idea that Palestinian Christians even exist. In our unbalanced, uncritical, unconditional support of Israel, we have utterly forgotten about them.
This note is a reminder. According to 1 Peter 2, Christians are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation." We are "aliens and strangers in the world." As Christians, our bottom line allegiance is not to the United States, Israel, or any other country. The Body of Christ transcends nationalities, people groups, cultures, and languages. Whatever your theological convictions concerning Israel, let us never implicitly tell our brothers and sister in the Lord to "Go to hell!" through our political beliefs. Let us never forget that Christ died for and loves the Palestinians just as much as the Israelis. Palestinian Christians are already persecuted by Palestinian Muslims and are subject to attack by the Israelis. Let us not add to their suffering, but pray for and support them.
I Choose to Believe Rocky V Never Happened
Originally a facebook group description, posted 12-11-06As the gnostic gospels are to the biblical Gospels, so Rocky V is to the other Rocky movies.
Reasons why Rocky V cannot be considered part of the Rocky canon:
1. All character development throughout all other movies was negated
2. Adrian turned into a nag
3. Rocky became a gookie dad
4. Rocky and Paulie were equals
5. Rocky forgot how to speak (Don’t even start with the brain damage stuff. Just don’t)
6. Rocky reverted to his wardrobe from the first movie for no apparent reason
7. Mickey’s precious moments pep-talk?! We all know Mickey would never actually say that
8. Kid aged 4 years in a 17 hr plane flight from Russia back to the US
9. Adrian aged 10 years in 17 hr plane flight from Russia back to the US
10. His mansion from Rocky V was not, though it pretended to be, the mansion from Rocky IV
11. Does not contain the essential elements of any story: introduction, development, conflict, climax, resolution
12. Every Rocky movie has taught us that Rocky, at his core, is a fighter. He would never refuse a challenge
13. Rocky would never train a man with a mullet
14. Man with mullet wearing Apollo’s shorts?! (Holy brainfart, Syllvester)
15. Quality actors forgot how to act
16. What’s with the Don King wannabe character?
17. No training sequence
18. No inspirational music (Let us not mention what it did have)
19. No fight in the ring
20. No other movie ended with a sappy black and white slideshow of the previous movies
21. This movie is not about Rocky. It was about Robert Balboa and Tommy “The Machine" Gunn. The movie should have been named Bobby and the Mullet I, not Rocky V.
Essentially, Sylvester Stallone was obviously going through a mid-life crisis. You know how some dads go out and buy a $50,000 sports car? Well, Sylvester Stallone made Rocky V. This movie cannot even be considered a part of the Rocky canon as does not fit the essential criteria of a Rocky movie. We’d all agree that people make mistakes. I say we choose to forgive and forget. Forgive Sly for this atrocious film and forget that it ever happened.
-------------------------
And, last but certainly not least, an update from the true Rocky V itself. There is one scant reference to the other Rocky V, when Rocky talks about the "home team" with his son. Other than that, the movie is completely ignored. No flashbacks, no continued story line (ie: no brain damage), no nothin'. Even Stallone seems to agree the movie never happened.
Reasons why Rocky V cannot be considered part of the Rocky canon:
1. All character development throughout all other movies was negated
2. Adrian turned into a nag
3. Rocky became a gookie dad
4. Rocky and Paulie were equals
5. Rocky forgot how to speak (Don’t even start with the brain damage stuff. Just don’t)
6. Rocky reverted to his wardrobe from the first movie for no apparent reason
7. Mickey’s precious moments pep-talk?! We all know Mickey would never actually say that
8. Kid aged 4 years in a 17 hr plane flight from Russia back to the US
9. Adrian aged 10 years in 17 hr plane flight from Russia back to the US
10. His mansion from Rocky V was not, though it pretended to be, the mansion from Rocky IV
11. Does not contain the essential elements of any story: introduction, development, conflict, climax, resolution
12. Every Rocky movie has taught us that Rocky, at his core, is a fighter. He would never refuse a challenge
13. Rocky would never train a man with a mullet
14. Man with mullet wearing Apollo’s shorts?! (Holy brainfart, Syllvester)
15. Quality actors forgot how to act
16. What’s with the Don King wannabe character?
17. No training sequence
18. No inspirational music (Let us not mention what it did have)
19. No fight in the ring
20. No other movie ended with a sappy black and white slideshow of the previous movies
21. This movie is not about Rocky. It was about Robert Balboa and Tommy “The Machine" Gunn. The movie should have been named Bobby and the Mullet I, not Rocky V.
Essentially, Sylvester Stallone was obviously going through a mid-life crisis. You know how some dads go out and buy a $50,000 sports car? Well, Sylvester Stallone made Rocky V. This movie cannot even be considered a part of the Rocky canon as does not fit the essential criteria of a Rocky movie. We’d all agree that people make mistakes. I say we choose to forgive and forget. Forgive Sly for this atrocious film and forget that it ever happened.
-------------------------
And, last but certainly not least, an update from the true Rocky V itself. There is one scant reference to the other Rocky V, when Rocky talks about the "home team" with his son. Other than that, the movie is completely ignored. No flashbacks, no continued story line (ie: no brain damage), no nothin'. Even Stallone seems to agree the movie never happened.
My Pain: From Younger Brother to Only Child
Originally a facebook note, posted 10-27-08
Before I write anything else, let me first ask y'all to pray. I'm hurting and I need your prayers.
As many of you know, I've had a strained relationship with my brother for many years. Between his graduation in '99 and my own in '03, I can count on my fingers the number of times we spoke. What killed me about this was that it was constantly following in his shadow. It was like he was a cross between Patrick Swayze in the late '80s (coolness) and Andrew Carnegie (ambition and business savvy). Everybody (grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends, teachers, etc.) loved him and everyone wanted me to be like him. Somehow he managed to not only repeat the effort in college, but actually became all the more popular and respected. Needless to say, I was seen as the lesser brother who lacked that same self-confidence and work ethic. But dang it if didn't try.
I built my whole life around trying to be Clay Clark v. 2.0. I decorated my room like him, tried to draw like him, played the same sport he loved, took the same jobs, painted the same weight room, etc. I remember that people would constantly come along and ask how he was doing. Of course, they'd never take the time to ask how I was and they were disappointed when I didn't have news. My value was found only in relationship to him. Long story short, I got to the point where I couldn't handle it anymore. I got miserably depressed and fantasied for hours at a time about suicide. Coupled with a lot of other crap that was going on, I bottomed out. That's when Jesus got a hold of me. I knew that I was either going to die or turn my life over to Christ. Thankfully, God pulled me toward the latter.
I consciously rebelled against everyone's expectations, including my parents. I grew my hair out real long, repainted his car, quit the basketball team, took up my own style of art, spent time w/ a different group of friends, and became zealous for God. Still, the pain did not end. During one rare conversation, I told him that I wanted to be a pastor. He swore at me and hung up. That hurt.
As many of you know, I've had a strained relationship with my brother for many years. Between his graduation in '99 and my own in '03, I can count on my fingers the number of times we spoke. What killed me about this was that it was constantly following in his shadow. It was like he was a cross between Patrick Swayze in the late '80s (coolness) and Andrew Carnegie (ambition and business savvy). Everybody (grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends, teachers, etc.) loved him and everyone wanted me to be like him. Somehow he managed to not only repeat the effort in college, but actually became all the more popular and respected. Needless to say, I was seen as the lesser brother who lacked that same self-confidence and work ethic. But dang it if didn't try.
I built my whole life around trying to be Clay Clark v. 2.0. I decorated my room like him, tried to draw like him, played the same sport he loved, took the same jobs, painted the same weight room, etc. I remember that people would constantly come along and ask how he was doing. Of course, they'd never take the time to ask how I was and they were disappointed when I didn't have news. My value was found only in relationship to him. Long story short, I got to the point where I couldn't handle it anymore. I got miserably depressed and fantasied for hours at a time about suicide. Coupled with a lot of other crap that was going on, I bottomed out. That's when Jesus got a hold of me. I knew that I was either going to die or turn my life over to Christ. Thankfully, God pulled me toward the latter.
I consciously rebelled against everyone's expectations, including my parents. I grew my hair out real long, repainted his car, quit the basketball team, took up my own style of art, spent time w/ a different group of friends, and became zealous for God. Still, the pain did not end. During one rare conversation, I told him that I wanted to be a pastor. He swore at me and hung up. That hurt.
Because of his strong personality, charm, ambition and accomplishments, everyone loved him. He was the guy everyone else wanted to be like. This made it all the worse. No one saw, would recognize, or acknowledge the degree to which he hurt me. I'd get the whole "brothers will be brothers" crap. And the way my parents addressed or, rather, did not address it made it worse. It always felt like they were taking his side 'cuz they'd never stand up for me. Now, they were in a tough spot. No doubt about it. My brother is the sort of guy who surrounds himself only with like-minded individuals. He only wants those around him who will encourage him and reinforce what he already thinks. If my parents would have stood up to him, he would've rejected them and it would've destroyed their relationship. Furthermore, my dad had no clue what to do because he was an only child. My take was that he just thought I should be thankful to have a brother. So what they did was absolutely nothing. Time and again I'd get beaten down by his verbal barrage and they'd sit back and say nothing.
Fast forward to the past couple years. People who've only met me in the past few years cannot believe the when I describe the way I was back in high school and middle school. The way I completely lacked confidence; how I hated myself and wanted to die. I thank God that He's allowed me to come into my own. I have passion and a vision for what I want to do with my life. I've completely chucked my brother's image and even my rebellion against that image, and have simply come into my own. I no longer look to my brother for approval or affirmation because I know it simply ain't coming from there. Still, I remain baffled by his uncanny ability to wound me unlike anyone else. Even after nearly 10 years of little contact with him, there's still part of me that's his kid brother and that wants nothing more than to be told, "I love you and I support what you're doing with your life." Instead, what I get is this B.S. that says, "I love you, but..."
Last year I thought there was hope. After years of pain and despair, my brother's son was born blind. Somehow, whether it was a miracle or whatever, his vision was partially restored. My brother gave full credit to God and professed faith and Christ. Finally, I had hope that things would change. Though I remained cautious, I hoped that his life and his heart would change. I hoped that he'd apologize for the way he'd treated me. I hoped that 9 years of crap would be put behind us and we'd turn the page. Instead, what I've seen is an ever-greater militancy in his worldview and a hatred of those he disagrees with. I reached out to him, trying one more time to love him. What I got in response was a hate-filled degradation of my very existence. I called my dad weeping and was on the cusp of writing him out of my life, but against the advice of my wife I held out hope. Then came today.
I called my brother today to wish him a congratulations on the birth of his third child just hours earlier. As the phone rang I distinctly remember thinking, 'Why are you doing this? Why do you keep putting yourself out there like this? Just send him a card.' Yet I forced my pain aside and reached out to him. Within minutes he turned the conversation to politics against my wishes. I tried to be civil, but I will not bend to him like the rest of the cronies in his life. I will not cower in fear or be intimidated. I was purposefully not aggressive, but I would not back down, either. Within 15 minutes he'd described me as "useless," "worthless," and his favorite epithet of all: "liberal." I tried to tell him that the world is not so simple or black and white. That he's thinking in binary terms and that I'm not "conservative" or "liberal," but moderate. He shifted his attention to his next favorite target: academia. According to him, I'm representative of all that is broken and wrong in this world. And I quote, "You're why this country is going to hell." He told me that until I "get a real job" and "get out of that useless world of ideas and start dealing with the real world" that I'd "never amount to anything." His latest comment finally drilled home a message that I've long refused to accept: I have no brother.
What is a brother? Biologically, yeah, it's two people with male equipment originating from the same genetic pool. But what else is there? The Bible says Christians are "brothers" and "sisters" in the Lord. What does that mean? Clearly there's something more than a biological concept in view. There is an intimacy and a relationship there. There is a common upbringing and a way of viewing the world. They say that blood is thicker than water, that family relationships trump those of friends. I'm only 23 years old, but for nearly a decade already I've had no such relationship with my biological brother. Everytime time I've reached out to him, I've been vehemently scoured. Somehow, someway I've come to be all that which he so disdains. "Brothers will be brothers," but at the end of the day brothers are still brothers. They have the relationship that endures though the hard times. Well, for the last 10 years, there has only been hard times. There has been no relationship.
As a Christian, I've struggled forever to figure out how to cope with my brother. How many times can I be injured? How many times can I take this psychological beating? Matthew 18:21-22 says, "Then Peter came and said to Him, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.'" (btw - I love the irony that this actually says," How often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him...") Jesus' answer of the 70 X 7 seemed to be of the Rocky Balboa philosophy--always one more round. Get it handed to you and continually come back for more. This was all that I knew to do, so I kept trying to honor God and refusing to give up on this relationship. Then, just tonight, something occurred to me. Something I should have realized long ago: Context, context, context, Bible college moron! This passage is not about continually inflicting pain upon oneself by continual exposure to the same hurt. That's being a flagellant and it's psychological self-mutilation. This passage is rather about forgiveness. How many times should I forgive my literal brother? Unlimited. How many times should I expose myself to his wrath? That's a different question. One should forgive the criminal who breaks into his house and steals from him numerous times, but it is not a sin to move out of the neighborhood.
This has not always been the case, but I can honestly say that I harbor no ill will toward my brother. I love him dearly despite his treatment of me and I forgive him for all that he's done. But as of this evening, I have no brother. I have blocked his email address and fb account. I have deleted his phone number from my cell and will remove his address from Sarah's and my rolodex. I will have no more contact with him. I love him and I forgive him, but I will no longer allow him to emotionally and psychologically beat me down anymore. As far as I'm concerned, he's no longer a part of my life.
truth and love
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-30-08
As I see it, there are two extremes. On the one end is the brazen arrogance of those who perpetually engage in hostile debate. They're bent upon proving others wrong and stroking their own intellectual ego. Usually this is done "in pursuit of the truth." On the other end is the willful ignorance of those who refuse to engage in any critical thought. They're focused upon maintaining peace and unity at all costs. As such, they're unwilling to intelligently engage any issue lest they offend someone. In my estimation, both sides are deficient. They needn't be mutually exclusive. As Christians, we should be aggressive in our pursuit of truth, but humble in our disagreements. We should be slow to speak, but quick to listen. We should not pit our hearts against the minds, but use our minds to inform our hearts. That is, we ought to use our reason to grow our faith. So long as we affirm the essential, orthodox beliefs of Christianity and have faith in Christ, we're ultimately brothers and sisters in the Lord. We should engage in those issues in which we disagree, but those issues should be labeled and treated like the secondary issues that they are.
As I see it, there are two extremes. On the one end is the brazen arrogance of those who perpetually engage in hostile debate. They're bent upon proving others wrong and stroking their own intellectual ego. Usually this is done "in pursuit of the truth." On the other end is the willful ignorance of those who refuse to engage in any critical thought. They're focused upon maintaining peace and unity at all costs. As such, they're unwilling to intelligently engage any issue lest they offend someone. In my estimation, both sides are deficient. They needn't be mutually exclusive. As Christians, we should be aggressive in our pursuit of truth, but humble in our disagreements. We should be slow to speak, but quick to listen. We should not pit our hearts against the minds, but use our minds to inform our hearts. That is, we ought to use our reason to grow our faith. So long as we affirm the essential, orthodox beliefs of Christianity and have faith in Christ, we're ultimately brothers and sisters in the Lord. We should engage in those issues in which we disagree, but those issues should be labeled and treated like the secondary issues that they are.
New Orleans should not be rebuilt
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-30-08
No doubt some of the people who read this will think I completely lack compassion. That's simply not the case. This note is purely based upon practical logistics and a long-term care for the people.
I've heard so many people be angry with the Bush administration for not doing enough to rebuild New Orleans. My response? Good. Ever play any of the Sim City computer games? What's one basic lesson you learn? Don't build below sea level. Ever. To do so is downright idiotic. The city will be flooded. It's only a matter of when. And when it does, people will die and the city will be ruined, only to be rebuilt again. Some will object to this on the grounds that may countries have used land reclamation. Some will even cite the Netherlands, which boasts that 1/5 of its territory was formerly in the ocean. What is the difference? New Orleans is built in freakin' hurricane alley. Building a major city below sea level in a place that is known to get powerful, annual hurricanes is a formula for disaster.
Some will say, "Yeah, but New Orleans is such a great cultural city!" No doubt it is and its lose would be a tremendous blow to the U.S. in this regard. But which is worse, loosing a cultural center or continually rebuilding the thing only to have it destroyed again?
Mankind cannot avoid building where there is natural disasters. I get that. In the U.S., this would exclude much of Hawaii because of volcanoes, most of CA because of earthquakes, the Great Plains because of tornadoes, and the East Coast because of hurricanes. This dangers cannot be fully avoided. We can, however, use some common sense. Build on the East Coast and build in the gulf coast. Fine. But don't build a major city below sea level! Stupid.
People knock Bush 'cuz they think he's neglected New Orleans after the hurricane. They think he's been incompetent and has forgotten about these people. Maybe all that is true. On the other hand, maybe he opposite is the case. Maybe he's wise enough to know that New Orleans should not be rebuilt but he's not able to come right out and say this because it'd be complete political suicide.
No doubt some of the people who read this will think I completely lack compassion. That's simply not the case. This note is purely based upon practical logistics and a long-term care for the people.
I've heard so many people be angry with the Bush administration for not doing enough to rebuild New Orleans. My response? Good. Ever play any of the Sim City computer games? What's one basic lesson you learn? Don't build below sea level. Ever. To do so is downright idiotic. The city will be flooded. It's only a matter of when. And when it does, people will die and the city will be ruined, only to be rebuilt again. Some will object to this on the grounds that may countries have used land reclamation. Some will even cite the Netherlands, which boasts that 1/5 of its territory was formerly in the ocean. What is the difference? New Orleans is built in freakin' hurricane alley. Building a major city below sea level in a place that is known to get powerful, annual hurricanes is a formula for disaster.
Some will say, "Yeah, but New Orleans is such a great cultural city!" No doubt it is and its lose would be a tremendous blow to the U.S. in this regard. But which is worse, loosing a cultural center or continually rebuilding the thing only to have it destroyed again?
Mankind cannot avoid building where there is natural disasters. I get that. In the U.S., this would exclude much of Hawaii because of volcanoes, most of CA because of earthquakes, the Great Plains because of tornadoes, and the East Coast because of hurricanes. This dangers cannot be fully avoided. We can, however, use some common sense. Build on the East Coast and build in the gulf coast. Fine. But don't build a major city below sea level! Stupid.
People knock Bush 'cuz they think he's neglected New Orleans after the hurricane. They think he's been incompetent and has forgotten about these people. Maybe all that is true. On the other hand, maybe he opposite is the case. Maybe he's wise enough to know that New Orleans should not be rebuilt but he's not able to come right out and say this because it'd be complete political suicide.
A Christian in Favor of Abolishing "In God We Trust"
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-21-08
Fact: "In God We Trust" did not appear on U.S. currency until 1864. I find this to be an endlessly fascinating bit of historical context. I love that the United States government put this motto on its money during a time in which it was enthralled in a civil war in which both sides claimed to be fighting on behalf of God. It came about during a time in which the people of the United States were desperate and, no doubt, the general national sentiment was turned toward trust in God. Those conditions are no longer the case, though, so why should we retain the phrase?
This motto is, in reality, a falsehood. The United States is a pluralistic society with a wide range of religious beliefs, including the rejection of a supernatural being entirely. And most of those who do profess faith in the God that this motto references do not live accordingly. Thus, in my estimation, "In God We Trust" is no more and no less than a lie.
It seems to me that maintaining this erroneous claim that United States is somehow a God-fearing/trusting nation is nothing but harmful. If it were true, I'd advocate that we keep it. As it is false, I support ridding ourselves of it. We are living in an ever-greater post-Christian society. I wish it were not so, but it is. The answer is not to dig our heals in and demand that we maintain our special privileges and former standing. The answer is to recognize these new contexts and treat the United States as a non-Christian nation, the same as we'd treat China, Japan, or Saudi Arabia. Christians in N. American and Europe have been looking to the past too long. Yes, it is a tremendous legacy and one that should not be forgotten. But by the same token, it is not the days of yore. We're not going to convert anyone to Christianity by saying, "Everyone here used to be a Christian. You should be, too!" Not my idea of an effective evangelistic technique.
The residual cultural Christianity is no Christianity at all. We need to stop acting the Czar in the early 20th century, pretending like the world is no different than it was a few hundred years earlier. What we should do is completely start over with our evangelism, just like it were the 10/40 window. My thinking is that the maintenance of such phrases as "In God We Trust" placates the evangelical community, keeps them embroiled in fights against the "wicked liberals" who seek to undermine these Judeo-Christian heritage, and distracts them from their true calling--reaching people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather than seeing non-Christians as spiritually hurting people who need to be reached with the Gospel, we see them as the enemy--people to be suppressed and defeated politically and culturally. Rather than an exterior focus of reaching out to non-Christians, the evangelical community's focus has been internally-oriented as it seeks to shield itself from outside influence. Rather than seeing "us" (conservative Christians) as "them" (liberal atheists) merely saved by faith through grace and a little further down the spiritual journey, we create these binary categories in which it's "us" against "them." Rather than loving non-Christians, we have this tendency to verbally berate them as the enemy who are undermining our heritage.
I say we rid ourselves of "In God We Trust" and its implicit cultural Christianity. In addition to falsely giving the impression that we were founded as a "christian nation," it distracts us from our true calling, misleads our efforts, and causes us to fight against people who we should be seeking to reach.
Fact: "In God We Trust" did not appear on U.S. currency until 1864. I find this to be an endlessly fascinating bit of historical context. I love that the United States government put this motto on its money during a time in which it was enthralled in a civil war in which both sides claimed to be fighting on behalf of God. It came about during a time in which the people of the United States were desperate and, no doubt, the general national sentiment was turned toward trust in God. Those conditions are no longer the case, though, so why should we retain the phrase?
This motto is, in reality, a falsehood. The United States is a pluralistic society with a wide range of religious beliefs, including the rejection of a supernatural being entirely. And most of those who do profess faith in the God that this motto references do not live accordingly. Thus, in my estimation, "In God We Trust" is no more and no less than a lie.
It seems to me that maintaining this erroneous claim that United States is somehow a God-fearing/trusting nation is nothing but harmful. If it were true, I'd advocate that we keep it. As it is false, I support ridding ourselves of it. We are living in an ever-greater post-Christian society. I wish it were not so, but it is. The answer is not to dig our heals in and demand that we maintain our special privileges and former standing. The answer is to recognize these new contexts and treat the United States as a non-Christian nation, the same as we'd treat China, Japan, or Saudi Arabia. Christians in N. American and Europe have been looking to the past too long. Yes, it is a tremendous legacy and one that should not be forgotten. But by the same token, it is not the days of yore. We're not going to convert anyone to Christianity by saying, "Everyone here used to be a Christian. You should be, too!" Not my idea of an effective evangelistic technique.
The residual cultural Christianity is no Christianity at all. We need to stop acting the Czar in the early 20th century, pretending like the world is no different than it was a few hundred years earlier. What we should do is completely start over with our evangelism, just like it were the 10/40 window. My thinking is that the maintenance of such phrases as "In God We Trust" placates the evangelical community, keeps them embroiled in fights against the "wicked liberals" who seek to undermine these Judeo-Christian heritage, and distracts them from their true calling--reaching people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather than seeing non-Christians as spiritually hurting people who need to be reached with the Gospel, we see them as the enemy--people to be suppressed and defeated politically and culturally. Rather than an exterior focus of reaching out to non-Christians, the evangelical community's focus has been internally-oriented as it seeks to shield itself from outside influence. Rather than seeing "us" (conservative Christians) as "them" (liberal atheists) merely saved by faith through grace and a little further down the spiritual journey, we create these binary categories in which it's "us" against "them." Rather than loving non-Christians, we have this tendency to verbally berate them as the enemy who are undermining our heritage.
I say we rid ourselves of "In God We Trust" and its implicit cultural Christianity. In addition to falsely giving the impression that we were founded as a "christian nation," it distracts us from our true calling, misleads our efforts, and causes us to fight against people who we should be seeking to reach.
Reflections on Christians and Politics: Conclusions
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
1) As Christians, our ultimate citizenship is not in any earthly nation (1 Pet. 2:9). Our heavenly citizenship should vastly supersede that of our earthly citizenship. Accordingly, it seems to me that Christians who are also Americans need to think fundamentally different about the world around them, including our commitment to any government.
In the world but not of the world. Difficult balance. I'm presenting reading Neibuhr's 'Christ and Culture' about this very topic. Clearly there are dual biblical mandates for the preaching of the Gospel and the improvement of society. We agree there. What I am saying is that Christians rarely do anything but give lip service to being first and foremost heavenly citizens. What I see among American Christians today is the same problem I've studied throughout Church history: Christians are failing to critically question the culture and society around them; failing to think fundamentally differently as Christians. In my estimate, that verse in 1 Pet. shows the true distinctiveness of Christians as a unique people. Folks can disagree as to how those differences will manifest themselves in a tangible sense, but I think we can all agree that we need to make an effort to think uniquely as Christians.
2) The GOP is not the party of Christianity (nor is the Democratic Party). Historically, this merger only took place after the Evangelical movement became politically active and become a formidable voting bloc (see: TIME's 1976 "Year of the Evangelical"). I've known sincere evangelicals who feel that God has led them to support competing parties. Abraham Lincoln once wrote, "The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims that to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, but one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purposes is something different from the purpose of either party- yet the human instrumentalties, working just as they do, are the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true." I'd like to suggest that neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party is supported by God, but His purposes are being worked out through both parties together. As such, we need to clearly delineate that the cause of Christ is not the cause of John McCain, Barack Obama, any other candidate or any other political organization.
3) I agree that apathy is problematic. I disagree, however, with the implicit idea that abstaining from political participation is immediately considered apathy. Surely there are times in which Christians SHOULD abstain for the sake of a greater purpose. For example, Billy Graham has always avoided being identified with a particular political idealogy. Why? Because he knew that being identified primarily as a Republican, Democrat, or even American may hamper his listener's response to the Gospel, and he refused to be stumbling block to them.
4) Jesus was purposefully and emphatically apolitical. Given, he was living under a totalitarian empire in the first century and we're living under a representative democracy in the 21st. Much different context. Nevertheless, I disagree with the automatic assumption that Christians most vote to be good citizens. It seems to me that we, as Christians, are allowing our national government to define good citizenship rather than Scripture. In my estimate, our model should be Rom. 13. Paul assumed that so long as they honored the government, paid their taxes, and that sort of thing that they were good citizens during a time in which the Church's persecution was just beginning as Christianity was being split from Judaism's privileges under the Roman law and the Christians were being considered bad citizens for not worshiping the pantheon. In other words, Paul had different standards for good citizenship than did the Roman government. Allow me to suggest that we Christians today also need to look to Paul's definition, rather than allowing good citizenship to be defined by the United States government.
Why do we assume that voting is what we SHOULD do? Since we acknowledge the difficulty in applying the Bible's principles to our own context, why do we immediately assume that the right thing is to vote? This is almost to suggest that if Christ came today that he'd instruct His followers to get involved politically. That rather than being apolitical, He'd be a proponent of democratic involvement. I'm simply hesitant to make that leap. Maybe He would, but, then again, maybe He wouldn't.
5) Evangelicals tend to be two issue voters. While I respect those who earnestly believe that abortion and traditional marriage are the two most important issues, this is no excuse for the purposeful ignorance to all the other issues that is so prevalent among them. That is, just because one thinks an issue or two is more important than all the others, this does not exhort them on toward informed or uncritical issues regarding all the others.
6) I'd just like to challenge the idea that abortion and traditional marriage ARE the two most important issues. I can think of another that may be more important: health care. This country was founded upon the principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Seems to me that life is the prerequisite to the rest. Without life, nothing else happens. Why is it, then, that we have a system where a child born to a poor family gets no treatment and dies of cancer while another child born to a rich family gets the treatment and lives? I see this as a major injustice in our system, which is being perpetuated by the GOP. I'm not saying this issue IS more important the usual Big 2, but it's at least worth considering the possibility.
7) Whoever gets elected, let me just throw it out there that it's not the end of the world. Ever notice that all politicians and media correspondents always call the present election "one of the most important elections in American history"? Just once I want to hear a politician say, "Well, actually, in the grand, historical scheme of things I think this election will be a relatively minor blip on the radar." Why don't they? Because they've got to get the voters into a fervor to get them out on election night. So I'm cool w/ folks saying this (or any other) election is important, but please don't load it up with all the hyperbole about it being one of the most important elections and how it'll have "disastrous" consequences upon the country. Maybe... but maybe not...
1) As Christians, our ultimate citizenship is not in any earthly nation (1 Pet. 2:9). Our heavenly citizenship should vastly supersede that of our earthly citizenship. Accordingly, it seems to me that Christians who are also Americans need to think fundamentally different about the world around them, including our commitment to any government.
In the world but not of the world. Difficult balance. I'm presenting reading Neibuhr's 'Christ and Culture' about this very topic. Clearly there are dual biblical mandates for the preaching of the Gospel and the improvement of society. We agree there. What I am saying is that Christians rarely do anything but give lip service to being first and foremost heavenly citizens. What I see among American Christians today is the same problem I've studied throughout Church history: Christians are failing to critically question the culture and society around them; failing to think fundamentally differently as Christians. In my estimate, that verse in 1 Pet. shows the true distinctiveness of Christians as a unique people. Folks can disagree as to how those differences will manifest themselves in a tangible sense, but I think we can all agree that we need to make an effort to think uniquely as Christians.
2) The GOP is not the party of Christianity (nor is the Democratic Party). Historically, this merger only took place after the Evangelical movement became politically active and become a formidable voting bloc (see: TIME's 1976 "Year of the Evangelical"). I've known sincere evangelicals who feel that God has led them to support competing parties. Abraham Lincoln once wrote, "The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims that to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, but one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purposes is something different from the purpose of either party- yet the human instrumentalties, working just as they do, are the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true." I'd like to suggest that neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party is supported by God, but His purposes are being worked out through both parties together. As such, we need to clearly delineate that the cause of Christ is not the cause of John McCain, Barack Obama, any other candidate or any other political organization.
3) I agree that apathy is problematic. I disagree, however, with the implicit idea that abstaining from political participation is immediately considered apathy. Surely there are times in which Christians SHOULD abstain for the sake of a greater purpose. For example, Billy Graham has always avoided being identified with a particular political idealogy. Why? Because he knew that being identified primarily as a Republican, Democrat, or even American may hamper his listener's response to the Gospel, and he refused to be stumbling block to them.
4) Jesus was purposefully and emphatically apolitical. Given, he was living under a totalitarian empire in the first century and we're living under a representative democracy in the 21st. Much different context. Nevertheless, I disagree with the automatic assumption that Christians most vote to be good citizens. It seems to me that we, as Christians, are allowing our national government to define good citizenship rather than Scripture. In my estimate, our model should be Rom. 13. Paul assumed that so long as they honored the government, paid their taxes, and that sort of thing that they were good citizens during a time in which the Church's persecution was just beginning as Christianity was being split from Judaism's privileges under the Roman law and the Christians were being considered bad citizens for not worshiping the pantheon. In other words, Paul had different standards for good citizenship than did the Roman government. Allow me to suggest that we Christians today also need to look to Paul's definition, rather than allowing good citizenship to be defined by the United States government.
Why do we assume that voting is what we SHOULD do? Since we acknowledge the difficulty in applying the Bible's principles to our own context, why do we immediately assume that the right thing is to vote? This is almost to suggest that if Christ came today that he'd instruct His followers to get involved politically. That rather than being apolitical, He'd be a proponent of democratic involvement. I'm simply hesitant to make that leap. Maybe He would, but, then again, maybe He wouldn't.
5) Evangelicals tend to be two issue voters. While I respect those who earnestly believe that abortion and traditional marriage are the two most important issues, this is no excuse for the purposeful ignorance to all the other issues that is so prevalent among them. That is, just because one thinks an issue or two is more important than all the others, this does not exhort them on toward informed or uncritical issues regarding all the others.
6) I'd just like to challenge the idea that abortion and traditional marriage ARE the two most important issues. I can think of another that may be more important: health care. This country was founded upon the principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Seems to me that life is the prerequisite to the rest. Without life, nothing else happens. Why is it, then, that we have a system where a child born to a poor family gets no treatment and dies of cancer while another child born to a rich family gets the treatment and lives? I see this as a major injustice in our system, which is being perpetuated by the GOP. I'm not saying this issue IS more important the usual Big 2, but it's at least worth considering the possibility.
7) Whoever gets elected, let me just throw it out there that it's not the end of the world. Ever notice that all politicians and media correspondents always call the present election "one of the most important elections in American history"? Just once I want to hear a politician say, "Well, actually, in the grand, historical scheme of things I think this election will be a relatively minor blip on the radar." Why don't they? Because they've got to get the voters into a fervor to get them out on election night. So I'm cool w/ folks saying this (or any other) election is important, but please don't load it up with all the hyperbole about it being one of the most important elections and how it'll have "disastrous" consequences upon the country. Maybe... but maybe not...
Reflections on Christians and Politics: Voting for Mormons
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
I don't expect all of my leaders to be Christians. That'd be hopelessly naive. But while that is the typical argument I hear leveled against Romney by conservative folk who will not vote for him, my position is different.
Back when I was a nominal Christian my early high school years, I dated a Mormon. Through the course of that, I learned quite a bit about Mormon history, doctrine, creepy (and secretive) cultic rituals, and the like. Whereas my parents thought I may stray from Christianity, God actually used my stupidity to grow my faith by forcing me to decide what I actually did and did not believe. Needless to say, I hold that the "Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a heretical cult.
As for the politics, I'd have no problem voting for a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or the like. I do, however, have a tremendous problem with voting for a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. What's the difference? True, they're all false religions, but there is one, in my estimate, SIGNIFICANT difference: The former group of religions does not claim to the true Church (true Christianity), while the latter group does. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses represent a full-fledged attack upon the Bride of Christ, which gets me back to my idea of thinking fundamentally different as a Christian.
I don't expect all of my leaders to be Christians. That'd be hopelessly naive. But while that is the typical argument I hear leveled against Romney by conservative folk who will not vote for him, my position is different.
Back when I was a nominal Christian my early high school years, I dated a Mormon. Through the course of that, I learned quite a bit about Mormon history, doctrine, creepy (and secretive) cultic rituals, and the like. Whereas my parents thought I may stray from Christianity, God actually used my stupidity to grow my faith by forcing me to decide what I actually did and did not believe. Needless to say, I hold that the "Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a heretical cult.
As for the politics, I'd have no problem voting for a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or the like. I do, however, have a tremendous problem with voting for a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. What's the difference? True, they're all false religions, but there is one, in my estimate, SIGNIFICANT difference: The former group of religions does not claim to the true Church (true Christianity), while the latter group does. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses represent a full-fledged attack upon the Bride of Christ, which gets me back to my idea of thinking fundamentally different as a Christian.
Reflections on Christians and Politics: Third Parties
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
Third parties in American politics have a legacy of negatively impacting the very agenda these candidates pursue. For example, Ross Perot's Reform Party was closer to Bush41 and Dole in terms of policy, but his participating allowed Clinton to get elected and reelected. Ralph Nader's Green Party was closer to Gore, but his participation in the '00 election gave the election to Bush43. When the voters get split multiple ways, popular morons can get voted in who have no business being in office. Trust me, I lived in MN when a pro wrestler was in governor's mansion. Point being, third parties aren't always what they're cracked up to be.
Want more examples? My home state of MN is traditionally very liberal. In county in which I lived, however, was very conservative. So much so that Republican candidates usually got well over 60% of the votes. Well, one year a group of ultra conservatives became active and put forward their own Constitution Party candidate. The result? The Constitution Party candidate drew roughly 25% of the vote, which split the conservative vote. The GOP candidate got about 35% of the vote. Leaving the Democratic candidate to win the office with a mere 40% in a heavily conservative county. Want to talk more history? How about the Teddy's Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party in the 1912 election. Again, the conservative vote was split, allowing Woodrow Wilson to win the election. Want more historical examples? How about the Free Soil Party, the Southern Democratic Party, the Progressive Party... My point? Third parties don't work in the American political system.
Third parties in American politics have a legacy of negatively impacting the very agenda these candidates pursue. For example, Ross Perot's Reform Party was closer to Bush41 and Dole in terms of policy, but his participating allowed Clinton to get elected and reelected. Ralph Nader's Green Party was closer to Gore, but his participation in the '00 election gave the election to Bush43. When the voters get split multiple ways, popular morons can get voted in who have no business being in office. Trust me, I lived in MN when a pro wrestler was in governor's mansion. Point being, third parties aren't always what they're cracked up to be.
Want more examples? My home state of MN is traditionally very liberal. In county in which I lived, however, was very conservative. So much so that Republican candidates usually got well over 60% of the votes. Well, one year a group of ultra conservatives became active and put forward their own Constitution Party candidate. The result? The Constitution Party candidate drew roughly 25% of the vote, which split the conservative vote. The GOP candidate got about 35% of the vote. Leaving the Democratic candidate to win the office with a mere 40% in a heavily conservative county. Want to talk more history? How about the Teddy's Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party in the 1912 election. Again, the conservative vote was split, allowing Woodrow Wilson to win the election. Want more historical examples? How about the Free Soil Party, the Southern Democratic Party, the Progressive Party... My point? Third parties don't work in the American political system.
Reflections on Christians and Politics: The Founding Fathers Were Deist, Not Christian
The beliefs and principles of the Founding Fathers is a complicated matter. The United States was not founded as a Christian nation like contemporary conservatives suggest, nor were they secular like contemporary liberals suggest. They were, instead, deists. Here's my logical argument:
A: God as the Creation, the Imagio Dei
B: The rest of Christian orthodoxy, including the Fall, literal death and resurrection of Christ, justification by faith, the Trinity, etc.
C: A Christian worldview
A + B = C
A ≠ C
A alone is a Deistic, rather than Christian, worldview.
The Founding Fathers had, and the Constitution was built on, a deistic worldview, which is not equivalent to a Christian worldview. Interesting that this nebulous period of almost Christian and almost secular is when the country was founded. Because of the complexity of the situation, both conservatives and liberals can find enough evidence to support their claims. Few want to look at the grand picture.
A: God as the Creation, the Imagio Dei
B: The rest of Christian orthodoxy, including the Fall, literal death and resurrection of Christ, justification by faith, the Trinity, etc.
C: A Christian worldview
A + B = C
A ≠ C
A alone is a Deistic, rather than Christian, worldview.
The Founding Fathers had, and the Constitution was built on, a deistic worldview, which is not equivalent to a Christian worldview. Interesting that this nebulous period of almost Christian and almost secular is when the country was founded. Because of the complexity of the situation, both conservatives and liberals can find enough evidence to support their claims. Few want to look at the grand picture.
Reflections on Christians and Politics: Conservatives, God, and $ Share
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
I often wonder where God these conservative fiscal principles fit in with Christ's commands. Allow me to give a few examples. "They're abuse the system." Didn't Christ say to turn the other cheek and give up your cloak, too? "It's MY money, I worked for it!" Ultimately, isn't everything God's? "No one should tell me how much money I can make." Where does this greedy obsession with accruing personal wealth fit the biblical teaching?... In short, I often find that conservative Christians' economic principles fail to demonstrate Christ's love for the poor and downtrodden. Surely there were many poor in Jesus' day who were so because they were lazy, just as there are today. But Christ didn't insult them.
That, of course, is one side of the coin. I'm not nearly as liberal as I may be coming across. But what I'm attempting to show is that there must be a observation of tension and balance in our beliefs as Christians. We cannot afford to be incompassionate conservatives who hate the poor OR naive liberals who refuse to put their foot down. In Christ we find the ultimate example of a person who loved the lowly an the downtrodden, while being willing to kick people upside the head when they needed it. In my estimate, the task before us is to find and maintain that balance.
I often wonder where God these conservative fiscal principles fit in with Christ's commands. Allow me to give a few examples. "They're abuse the system." Didn't Christ say to turn the other cheek and give up your cloak, too? "It's MY money, I worked for it!" Ultimately, isn't everything God's? "No one should tell me how much money I can make." Where does this greedy obsession with accruing personal wealth fit the biblical teaching?... In short, I often find that conservative Christians' economic principles fail to demonstrate Christ's love for the poor and downtrodden. Surely there were many poor in Jesus' day who were so because they were lazy, just as there are today. But Christ didn't insult them.
That, of course, is one side of the coin. I'm not nearly as liberal as I may be coming across. But what I'm attempting to show is that there must be a observation of tension and balance in our beliefs as Christians. We cannot afford to be incompassionate conservatives who hate the poor OR naive liberals who refuse to put their foot down. In Christ we find the ultimate example of a person who loved the lowly an the downtrodden, while being willing to kick people upside the head when they needed it. In my estimate, the task before us is to find and maintain that balance.
Reflections on Christians and Politics: Political Segregation
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
I recently read an article in The Economist that was fascinating. When Jimmy Carter was elected in '76, 23% of the counties in the country were considered landslide counties--meaning one candidate or the other won them by 10% or more. When W. got elected in '00, 43% of the counties were landslide counties. When he was reelected, it was up to 48%. The point is, Americans of all political stripes are purposefully sounding themselves with like-minded people, resulting in what the magazine called political segregation. What I found to be all the more interesting, whereas one would think that the dawn of the Information Age would expose folks to more views and perspectives, just the opposite seems to be the case. When all there used to be for evening news as CBS, ABC and NBC, people all engaged in the same viewpoints. Now that we have cable news, conservatives watch FOX while liberals watch CNN. And the trend is only magnified by the proliferation of the internet. The internet seems to actually be having the opposite effect of what one would anticipate. Rather than exposure to the marketplace of ideas, it's allowing people to narrowly filter their information according to their pre-existing views. This is, in my estimate, a tragic development. Any time a person only reads, listens to, interacts with, and befriends people who think exactly the same thing, they become stagnant in their views, unable to deal with complexity. The other side become little more than straw men--ridiculous people holding to things that any "reasonable" person would not believe.
As a Protestant Christian, this gets back to the whole Evangelical vs. Fundamentalist discussion. Historically, the difference between these two movements is that Evangelicalism seeks to engage with differing views while Fundamentalism is defensive, seeking isolation from views it disagrees with. Problem is, evangelicalism's theoretical principles seldom align with its actual practices. That is, they're theoretically willing to engage other views but they're cultural fundamentalists, refusing to do so. For me, I am an evangelical in so far as I affirm the movement's historic hermeneutical and theological distinctives. Where I struggle greatly in applying that tag to myself is that I so disagree with the fundamentalist culture that has enveloped the thing...
Sorry, this has been a giant rabbit trail. My point? I sincerely appreciate my friends and those few family members who seek to engage in the marketplace of ideas. I commend those folks for your truly evangelical stance. We disagree on some smaller political issues. Rather than saying, "And that's fine," I think that's great! So long as folks are militant in their beliefs, I want to talk to 'em! Anyway, thank you.
I recently read an article in The Economist that was fascinating. When Jimmy Carter was elected in '76, 23% of the counties in the country were considered landslide counties--meaning one candidate or the other won them by 10% or more. When W. got elected in '00, 43% of the counties were landslide counties. When he was reelected, it was up to 48%. The point is, Americans of all political stripes are purposefully sounding themselves with like-minded people, resulting in what the magazine called political segregation. What I found to be all the more interesting, whereas one would think that the dawn of the Information Age would expose folks to more views and perspectives, just the opposite seems to be the case. When all there used to be for evening news as CBS, ABC and NBC, people all engaged in the same viewpoints. Now that we have cable news, conservatives watch FOX while liberals watch CNN. And the trend is only magnified by the proliferation of the internet. The internet seems to actually be having the opposite effect of what one would anticipate. Rather than exposure to the marketplace of ideas, it's allowing people to narrowly filter their information according to their pre-existing views. This is, in my estimate, a tragic development. Any time a person only reads, listens to, interacts with, and befriends people who think exactly the same thing, they become stagnant in their views, unable to deal with complexity. The other side become little more than straw men--ridiculous people holding to things that any "reasonable" person would not believe.
As a Protestant Christian, this gets back to the whole Evangelical vs. Fundamentalist discussion. Historically, the difference between these two movements is that Evangelicalism seeks to engage with differing views while Fundamentalism is defensive, seeking isolation from views it disagrees with. Problem is, evangelicalism's theoretical principles seldom align with its actual practices. That is, they're theoretically willing to engage other views but they're cultural fundamentalists, refusing to do so. For me, I am an evangelical in so far as I affirm the movement's historic hermeneutical and theological distinctives. Where I struggle greatly in applying that tag to myself is that I so disagree with the fundamentalist culture that has enveloped the thing...
Sorry, this has been a giant rabbit trail. My point? I sincerely appreciate my friends and those few family members who seek to engage in the marketplace of ideas. I commend those folks for your truly evangelical stance. We disagree on some smaller political issues. Rather than saying, "And that's fine," I think that's great! So long as folks are militant in their beliefs, I want to talk to 'em! Anyway, thank you.
Reflections on Christians and Politics: Our Fallible Constitution
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
Most of y'all know me pretty well, but maybe a few don't. So I'll quickly fill in the background info. I grew up in a home of Dittoheads. I'd been listening to Rush Limbaugh my whole life, and I even listened to his nightly podcasts my first year at Moody. Back then, I used to think that the best way to interpret the Constitution was the same way were interpret the Bible: Seek to understand the meaning intended by the original author. And that sounds good in theory. The problem is this: What if the original authors were, gulp, wrong? Take the Dred Scott decision as the ultimate example. Those Supreme Court justices rightfully interpreted the Constitution according to the original intention of the Founding Fathers. They absolutely did. The problem was that this decision upheld slavery. We look back upon that today and, unless you're a racist bigot, you think it's probably THE most tragic moment in court's history. It perpetuated a culture that saw human beings made in God's image as no more than animals. But according to a hermeneutic based upon authors' intentions, it was absolutely right. So what do we do with this? Allow me to suggest that what the Constitution meant at one point is not necessarily right today. Yes, I realize that gets slippery. I realize there's all sorts of problems that this position can create. Still, I have to recognize this tension due simply to the Dred Scott decision.
The Constitution was written by fallible men. As good as it is, as a product of fallible men, it must itself be a fallible document. (And fallible documents need correction.) The only way to avoid this is divine inspiration, which I don't suspect the Constitution has despite how so many people treat it as the second volume of Holy Scripture.
Most of y'all know me pretty well, but maybe a few don't. So I'll quickly fill in the background info. I grew up in a home of Dittoheads. I'd been listening to Rush Limbaugh my whole life, and I even listened to his nightly podcasts my first year at Moody. Back then, I used to think that the best way to interpret the Constitution was the same way were interpret the Bible: Seek to understand the meaning intended by the original author. And that sounds good in theory. The problem is this: What if the original authors were, gulp, wrong? Take the Dred Scott decision as the ultimate example. Those Supreme Court justices rightfully interpreted the Constitution according to the original intention of the Founding Fathers. They absolutely did. The problem was that this decision upheld slavery. We look back upon that today and, unless you're a racist bigot, you think it's probably THE most tragic moment in court's history. It perpetuated a culture that saw human beings made in God's image as no more than animals. But according to a hermeneutic based upon authors' intentions, it was absolutely right. So what do we do with this? Allow me to suggest that what the Constitution meant at one point is not necessarily right today. Yes, I realize that gets slippery. I realize there's all sorts of problems that this position can create. Still, I have to recognize this tension due simply to the Dred Scott decision.
The Constitution was written by fallible men. As good as it is, as a product of fallible men, it must itself be a fallible document. (And fallible documents need correction.) The only way to avoid this is divine inspiration, which I don't suspect the Constitution has despite how so many people treat it as the second volume of Holy Scripture.
Reflections on Christians and Politics: Christians in Society
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
Four questions to consider:
1) Is all of American society Christian?
2) Where does this idea come from the the government should not feed the poor and clothe the naked? This idea that that is the Church's job alone.
3) Does Rom. 13 say that that is all the government should do?
4) Which is people's greatest desire, that the people be fed or that the Church get the credit?
1) Many conservatives put forward this idea that the government should not provide for the people, as that is the role of the Church. In part, I agree. That is a role for the Church. The problem, however, is that true Christians have never been the majority in any historical context. Ever. (A prevailing cultural Christianity, sure, but not true, born again believers.) Most Americans today are not Christians and will not, on their own free will, give away their money away to feed the poor. So how, then, does one get all of society to help in feeding the poor and clothing the naked? Let's face it, the government has far more resources than the Church ever will. Why not use the power and resources at its disposal to take care of these people?
2) The Roman government in the first century A.D. had programs that, to use an anachronistic, could be described as welfare. For example, they were big of famine relief. I see NO WHERE in the NT that anyone says this is bad. Paul in particular does not say, "The Church alone should be feeding the poor, not the government." He commands the Church to do this, but it's never presented as being to the exclusion of other organizations such as the government.
3) This is classic Anabaptist hermeneutic. (Yes, this is ironic as Anabaptists were/are big on the separation of church and state.) That is, if Scripture doesn't say it, I'm against it. It's the same reason the Amish are against modern technology. Romans 13 simply is not an exhaustive explanation of the role of government in society. It obviously lays some required foundations, but it is not, nor does it mean to be, a comprehensive biblical explanation for the role of government in all times and in all places.
4) Obviously I want the Church to be doing practical acts of love. That is true religion according to James. My greater desire, however, is that the people be fed. So I pose a question: If the government can tangibly help more people than the Church can, would we rather that the people starve until the Church gets its act together or would we rather that the government use its power and authority to take care of these people?
Four questions to consider:
1) Is all of American society Christian?
2) Where does this idea come from the the government should not feed the poor and clothe the naked? This idea that that is the Church's job alone.
3) Does Rom. 13 say that that is all the government should do?
4) Which is people's greatest desire, that the people be fed or that the Church get the credit?
1) Many conservatives put forward this idea that the government should not provide for the people, as that is the role of the Church. In part, I agree. That is a role for the Church. The problem, however, is that true Christians have never been the majority in any historical context. Ever. (A prevailing cultural Christianity, sure, but not true, born again believers.) Most Americans today are not Christians and will not, on their own free will, give away their money away to feed the poor. So how, then, does one get all of society to help in feeding the poor and clothing the naked? Let's face it, the government has far more resources than the Church ever will. Why not use the power and resources at its disposal to take care of these people?
2) The Roman government in the first century A.D. had programs that, to use an anachronistic, could be described as welfare. For example, they were big of famine relief. I see NO WHERE in the NT that anyone says this is bad. Paul in particular does not say, "The Church alone should be feeding the poor, not the government." He commands the Church to do this, but it's never presented as being to the exclusion of other organizations such as the government.
3) This is classic Anabaptist hermeneutic. (Yes, this is ironic as Anabaptists were/are big on the separation of church and state.) That is, if Scripture doesn't say it, I'm against it. It's the same reason the Amish are against modern technology. Romans 13 simply is not an exhaustive explanation of the role of government in society. It obviously lays some required foundations, but it is not, nor does it mean to be, a comprehensive biblical explanation for the role of government in all times and in all places.
4) Obviously I want the Church to be doing practical acts of love. That is true religion according to James. My greater desire, however, is that the people be fed. So I pose a question: If the government can tangibly help more people than the Church can, would we rather that the people starve until the Church gets its act together or would we rather that the government use its power and authority to take care of these people?
Reflections on Christians and Politics: Taxes = Stealing ?
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
I keep hearing conservative, christian folks call taxes "stealing." Where is this idea coming from? I find this particularly odd because this very issue is the one Jesus was addressing when he said, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's." The historical context for this was that the Jews had an agreement with the Romans. Whereas most conquered peoples were polytheistic and had no trouble embracing the new Roman pantheon, the Jews' monotheistic beliefs were a big problem. We consider our society's diversity today to be one of its greatest strengths. But most societies throughout history have seen diversity as a significant weakness. The Romans perfectly fit this. They demanded uniformity of culture and religious belief throughout the empire to promote stability. Again, the Jews caused big problems with this. The solution? The Romans set up an agreement with the Jews that their monotheistic beliefs and distinct culture would not be threatened so long as the Jews submitted to Romans and paid special, steep taxes for this privilege. This tax was no small burden. It weighed heavy on the Jewish people. Plus there was that whole issue of idolatry. So the issue of paying taxes to Rome was a major "current event" issue. Thus, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about paying taxes to the government, the they were suggesting that the Romans were literally "stealing" from them and from God Himself! Jesus' brilliant reply? "Pay your taxes!" Note: Jesus did NOT qualify it by saying that they should pay certain taxes for certain purposes. He gave an unqualified command to simply pay 'em--a principle that, in my estimate, continues through the present. So, when people call the government's taxes "stealing," I have to wonder if they're thinking biblically OR as one raised in a context espousing conservative political beliefs which are being passed off as "biblical."
I keep hearing conservative, christian folks call taxes "stealing." Where is this idea coming from? I find this particularly odd because this very issue is the one Jesus was addressing when he said, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's." The historical context for this was that the Jews had an agreement with the Romans. Whereas most conquered peoples were polytheistic and had no trouble embracing the new Roman pantheon, the Jews' monotheistic beliefs were a big problem. We consider our society's diversity today to be one of its greatest strengths. But most societies throughout history have seen diversity as a significant weakness. The Romans perfectly fit this. They demanded uniformity of culture and religious belief throughout the empire to promote stability. Again, the Jews caused big problems with this. The solution? The Romans set up an agreement with the Jews that their monotheistic beliefs and distinct culture would not be threatened so long as the Jews submitted to Romans and paid special, steep taxes for this privilege. This tax was no small burden. It weighed heavy on the Jewish people. Plus there was that whole issue of idolatry. So the issue of paying taxes to Rome was a major "current event" issue. Thus, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about paying taxes to the government, the they were suggesting that the Romans were literally "stealing" from them and from God Himself! Jesus' brilliant reply? "Pay your taxes!" Note: Jesus did NOT qualify it by saying that they should pay certain taxes for certain purposes. He gave an unqualified command to simply pay 'em--a principle that, in my estimate, continues through the present. So, when people call the government's taxes "stealing," I have to wonder if they're thinking biblically OR as one raised in a context espousing conservative political beliefs which are being passed off as "biblical."
Reflections on Christians and Politicss: "biblical"
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
It drives me batty that conservative folks want to label absolutely stinkin' everything "biblical" or "unbiblical." Certainly there are appropriate times for these labels, but I wonder if we throw them around too flippantly. I often think that things that are often called "unbiblical" are, in fact, merely "non-biblical." The Bible simply doesn't answer every question we have today because no one was thinking these things 2,000+ years ago. It was a much different historical context. The Bible does contain truth, but not exhaustive truth. It contains certain transcendent principles that apply in all times and places which should be the foundation and parameters for our views about contemporary issues today. But it remains the case that the Bible just doesn't answer all of our questions. As such, I think we should be a little more careful to slap the "biblical" or "unbiblical" label on things. For that matter, maybe some of our opinions that we hold aren't rejected OR supported by Scripture at all. They simply are.
It drives me batty that conservative folks want to label absolutely stinkin' everything "biblical" or "unbiblical." Certainly there are appropriate times for these labels, but I wonder if we throw them around too flippantly. I often think that things that are often called "unbiblical" are, in fact, merely "non-biblical." The Bible simply doesn't answer every question we have today because no one was thinking these things 2,000+ years ago. It was a much different historical context. The Bible does contain truth, but not exhaustive truth. It contains certain transcendent principles that apply in all times and places which should be the foundation and parameters for our views about contemporary issues today. But it remains the case that the Bible just doesn't answer all of our questions. As such, I think we should be a little more careful to slap the "biblical" or "unbiblical" label on things. For that matter, maybe some of our opinions that we hold aren't rejected OR supported by Scripture at all. They simply are.
Reflections on Christians and Politics: conservative/liberal
Originally a facebook note, posted 8-15-08
The overarching evangelical culture affirms that conservative is ALWAYS right and liberal and is ALWAYS wrong. I think this is false. For example, during the American Civil War it was those conservative Christians with a high view of Scripture who were most supportive of maintaining slavery. It was the liberals of the day who were fighting to emancipate the slaves and abolish the slave trade. Also, take the Civil Rights Movement. Regardless of one’s thoughts about the movement’s direction today, I think we can all agree that its original ideals were great. In both examples, it was the "liberals" who were fighting for equality under the law while the conservatives were fighting to maintain slavery and later Jim Crowe. Plus, take into account the fact that what modern-day libertarian folks call "conservative" was considered "liberal" just a few hundred years ago during the days of John Locke, and this whole thing gets complicated real quick.
The overarching evangelical culture affirms that conservative is ALWAYS right and liberal and is ALWAYS wrong. I think this is false. For example, during the American Civil War it was those conservative Christians with a high view of Scripture who were most supportive of maintaining slavery. It was the liberals of the day who were fighting to emancipate the slaves and abolish the slave trade. Also, take the Civil Rights Movement. Regardless of one’s thoughts about the movement’s direction today, I think we can all agree that its original ideals were great. In both examples, it was the "liberals" who were fighting for equality under the law while the conservatives were fighting to maintain slavery and later Jim Crowe. Plus, take into account the fact that what modern-day libertarian folks call "conservative" was considered "liberal" just a few hundred years ago during the days of John Locke, and this whole thing gets complicated real quick.
"Everybody Loves a Holy War" by Mark Heard
Originally a facebook note, posted 7-25-08
Everybody Loves a Holy War
Some say that God has approved of their mob
Esteeming their purposes alone
Choosing sides with a definite pride
And taking their cause for His own
Everybody loves a holy war
Draw the line and claim divine assistance
Slay the ones who show the most resistance
Everybody loves a holy war
Many's the man with the iron hand
Supposing his own thoughts to be Divine
He will break any bond -
'cause the other man's always wrong
It's a handy excuse for his crimes
Everybody loves a holy war
Draw the line and claim divine protection
Kill the ones who show the most objection
Everybody loves a holy war
Dissident cries are met with cold eyes
And treatment the devil would get
Righteousness and truth
can be weapons in the hands of fools
While innocents go to their deaths
Everybody loves a holy war
Draw the line and claim divine assistance
Slay the ones who show the most resistance
Everybody loves a holy war
Written by Mark Heard
© 1982 Bug 'n Bear Music ASCAP
Everybody Loves a Holy War
Some say that God has approved of their mob
Esteeming their purposes alone
Choosing sides with a definite pride
And taking their cause for His own
Everybody loves a holy war
Draw the line and claim divine assistance
Slay the ones who show the most resistance
Everybody loves a holy war
Many's the man with the iron hand
Supposing his own thoughts to be Divine
He will break any bond -
'cause the other man's always wrong
It's a handy excuse for his crimes
Everybody loves a holy war
Draw the line and claim divine protection
Kill the ones who show the most objection
Everybody loves a holy war
Dissident cries are met with cold eyes
And treatment the devil would get
Righteousness and truth
can be weapons in the hands of fools
While innocents go to their deaths
Everybody loves a holy war
Draw the line and claim divine assistance
Slay the ones who show the most resistance
Everybody loves a holy war
Written by Mark Heard
© 1982 Bug 'n Bear Music ASCAP
Theology: Great Discipline, Terrible Academic Culture
Originally a facebook note, posted 7-25-08
* This note marks a progression of thought. It contains much of the same content of "My Growing Distaste for Theology." Whereas that note was more pessimistic, however, this one is more positive as I'm hopefully coming to come answers.
--------------------------
I have a love-hate relationship with the discipline of theology. In its purest, most simple, form, theology is pursuit the of God--both knowledge of and relationship with Him. What could be better? The problem is, the pure form rarely manifests itself.
My observation has been that the culture of the whole theological endeavour has been marred. The theologians themselves are arrogant, proud, and self-righteous. The overall aura is one of hostility, magnified by the eternal weight that is placed upon the discussion. In literature, if you disagree over the interpretation of a text, it's alright. If you disagree in theology, you're abusing the divinely inspired Word of God, misrepresenting God, and potentially sending people to hell. Then there's also this prevailing superiority trip. Both amateur and professional theologians act as if all other disciplines are innately inferior. For example, I recently heard an address by D.A. Carson in which he delved into the topic of "What is Evangelicalism?" Before he got into his own views, he first systematically went through all the ways of addressing the issue in order to show how they were errant or limited. According to him, theology alone was the way to answer the question. It alone provided the truth. Now, I sincerely like most of D.A. Carson's work. Certainly I disagree with him on some things, but by in large I like his stuff. But I hear him, like most other theologians, dismissing all disciplines in this manner, I cannot help but marvel at their brazen arrogance and/or naivety.
I get that to know absolute truth absolutely, one would have to be omniscient. Since God alone fits that bill, all of our attempts to understand anything fully will be imperfect. Every discipline has its own strengths and weaknesses, points of clarity and blind spots. This is why an interdisciplinary approach is so essential. Rather than dismissing the value of, say, history, like he did, D.A. Carson should have recognized that all disciplines provide different perspectives. People are limited, so this will never be perfect. The best we can do, then, is to seek to simultaneously incorporate as many perspectives as possible. He is unwilling to do that, though. Like nearly all theologians, he treats the theology as the discipline to which all others must bow their knee. It alone is the one, true, holy discipline. It alone is pure, containing no presuppositions. After all, it alone is the study of God... The ignorance of this, especially by such brilliant scholars, makes me sick. Yet for all my distaste for the culture surrounding formal theology, I cannot and will not simply dismiss it.
Although their attitude tends to spoil it, christian theologians are right about one thing: All christians should study theology. Our faith requires it. All Christians have some understanding and perception of who God is, and that is theology. In that sense, it really should have a place of preeminence in christian academic circles. So I do not bemoan that. It's the culture that gets me.
In my estimate, all christian theology breaks down into two fundamental camps: orthodoxy (essential) and adiaphora (secondary). The question then immediately turns to the definition of orthodoxy. That is, what is orthodoxy and who grants it this authority? Vincent of Lérins’ famous quote is, " Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus." Basically, he's talking about that which has been believed by all Christians at all times and in all places. I believe the Spirit has never deserted the Church. There is a continuity of faith and doctrine by all believers over all time. In the Christian period, that continuity transcends Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant divisions. As long as people affirm these basic doctrines and have faith in Christ, I believe they're saved and a part of the Church regardless of differences of secondary matters. (Even those secondary doctrines that are incredibly significant.)
How did orthodoxy come to be in the first place? The Bible doesn't contain such a systematic list, so how do we know what is essential and what is not? Again, I believe that God has guided His Church. Orthodoxy is not a definite list that got written down at one time and is the eternal list for all succeeding generation. Rather, orthodoxy is organic. It is not created, but refined. And usually refined in response to heresy. No one had to say that the deity of Christ was an essential doctrine until someone started questioning it. It was simply assumed. Likewise, no one called it the "literal" death and resurrection of Christ until people started denying it. It seems that God consistently uses an assault upon the Church's fundamental teaching in order to define what is essential, thereby strengthening His Church.
Yeah, that's nice theory. But what is that list tangibly? Since orthodoxy is organic, no list will be perfect or completely timeless, but here's my attempt:
• The Word of God, meaning the communication from God to man in both Holy Scripture and in the physical manifestation of Christ.
• The Holy Trinity
• The dual humanity and divinity of Christ.
• God as the Creator
• The Imagio Dei
• The Fall and resulting depravity of humankind
• The deity of Christ
• Christ’s literal death and resurrection
• The need for personal faith in Christ and His atoning work on the cross
• The sovereignty of God
• The responsibility of humankind
• God’s active involvement in His creation
• The loving and just character of God
• God’s guidance of the Church.
• The coming return of Christ
• And in another 20 - 50 years, I think the recognition that homosexuality behavior is, in fact, a sin will start making people's lists. Again, in response to errant teaching.
The past few paragraphs have been a ginormous rabbit trail, but they're a necessary to know because it's upon them that I build my thoughts about theology's role...
I've observed that the vast majority of Christians tend to polarize to one of two extremes regarding this issue of theology. The first extreme is the one I discussed earlier in this note. It's the one of dogmatism and arrogance. They assume theirs alone is the right view and everyone else is a fool for disagreeing. The other extreme is those people who say, "Screw it! I can't figure it out. I never will. Why try?" And they try not to consider theology any more than they absolutely must. Theological apathy, if you will. Personally, I dislike both polarities, which finally gets me to how I think theology ought to be done.
There is a tension to be observed and practiced. I don't think Christians should be profoundly dogmatic on secondary issues, nor should they not give a crap. (Yes, that's a double negative, and I liked it.) They should start with and ultimately revolve around those core, essential, orthodox beliefs. Then they should engage the doctrines. They should think and study. They should pursue God through their theology. They should seriously make an effort to figure out what they believe about different doctrines. The key is humility when they disagree. I think this approach is what Lewis called "mere Christianity."
In two different facebook notes before this one, I've commented on my growing dislike of theology. Frankly, those notes were wrong. I'd failed to make a key distinction in my head. It is not theology that I dislike, it's the culture established by most of its practitioners. This is why I've decided to make a conscious effort to filter my theological discussion with folks. I will not talk to the people who don't care, nor will I talk to those who are militant on their adiaphora. I will only discuss with those people who are serious willing to seek out and engage other ideas and change their views as merited by new evidence. That is, those people hungry enough to pursue theology and humble enough to admit their limitations. The only problem is that they're few and far between. My exhortation to whoever may read this note: Please be one of those people.
* This note marks a progression of thought. It contains much of the same content of "My Growing Distaste for Theology." Whereas that note was more pessimistic, however, this one is more positive as I'm hopefully coming to come answers.
--------------------------
I have a love-hate relationship with the discipline of theology. In its purest, most simple, form, theology is pursuit the of God--both knowledge of and relationship with Him. What could be better? The problem is, the pure form rarely manifests itself.
My observation has been that the culture of the whole theological endeavour has been marred. The theologians themselves are arrogant, proud, and self-righteous. The overall aura is one of hostility, magnified by the eternal weight that is placed upon the discussion. In literature, if you disagree over the interpretation of a text, it's alright. If you disagree in theology, you're abusing the divinely inspired Word of God, misrepresenting God, and potentially sending people to hell. Then there's also this prevailing superiority trip. Both amateur and professional theologians act as if all other disciplines are innately inferior. For example, I recently heard an address by D.A. Carson in which he delved into the topic of "What is Evangelicalism?" Before he got into his own views, he first systematically went through all the ways of addressing the issue in order to show how they were errant or limited. According to him, theology alone was the way to answer the question. It alone provided the truth. Now, I sincerely like most of D.A. Carson's work. Certainly I disagree with him on some things, but by in large I like his stuff. But I hear him, like most other theologians, dismissing all disciplines in this manner, I cannot help but marvel at their brazen arrogance and/or naivety.
I get that to know absolute truth absolutely, one would have to be omniscient. Since God alone fits that bill, all of our attempts to understand anything fully will be imperfect. Every discipline has its own strengths and weaknesses, points of clarity and blind spots. This is why an interdisciplinary approach is so essential. Rather than dismissing the value of, say, history, like he did, D.A. Carson should have recognized that all disciplines provide different perspectives. People are limited, so this will never be perfect. The best we can do, then, is to seek to simultaneously incorporate as many perspectives as possible. He is unwilling to do that, though. Like nearly all theologians, he treats the theology as the discipline to which all others must bow their knee. It alone is the one, true, holy discipline. It alone is pure, containing no presuppositions. After all, it alone is the study of God... The ignorance of this, especially by such brilliant scholars, makes me sick. Yet for all my distaste for the culture surrounding formal theology, I cannot and will not simply dismiss it.
Although their attitude tends to spoil it, christian theologians are right about one thing: All christians should study theology. Our faith requires it. All Christians have some understanding and perception of who God is, and that is theology. In that sense, it really should have a place of preeminence in christian academic circles. So I do not bemoan that. It's the culture that gets me.
In my estimate, all christian theology breaks down into two fundamental camps: orthodoxy (essential) and adiaphora (secondary). The question then immediately turns to the definition of orthodoxy. That is, what is orthodoxy and who grants it this authority? Vincent of Lérins’ famous quote is, " Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus." Basically, he's talking about that which has been believed by all Christians at all times and in all places. I believe the Spirit has never deserted the Church. There is a continuity of faith and doctrine by all believers over all time. In the Christian period, that continuity transcends Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant divisions. As long as people affirm these basic doctrines and have faith in Christ, I believe they're saved and a part of the Church regardless of differences of secondary matters. (Even those secondary doctrines that are incredibly significant.)
How did orthodoxy come to be in the first place? The Bible doesn't contain such a systematic list, so how do we know what is essential and what is not? Again, I believe that God has guided His Church. Orthodoxy is not a definite list that got written down at one time and is the eternal list for all succeeding generation. Rather, orthodoxy is organic. It is not created, but refined. And usually refined in response to heresy. No one had to say that the deity of Christ was an essential doctrine until someone started questioning it. It was simply assumed. Likewise, no one called it the "literal" death and resurrection of Christ until people started denying it. It seems that God consistently uses an assault upon the Church's fundamental teaching in order to define what is essential, thereby strengthening His Church.
Yeah, that's nice theory. But what is that list tangibly? Since orthodoxy is organic, no list will be perfect or completely timeless, but here's my attempt:
• The Word of God, meaning the communication from God to man in both Holy Scripture and in the physical manifestation of Christ.
• The Holy Trinity
• The dual humanity and divinity of Christ.
• God as the Creator
• The Imagio Dei
• The Fall and resulting depravity of humankind
• The deity of Christ
• Christ’s literal death and resurrection
• The need for personal faith in Christ and His atoning work on the cross
• The sovereignty of God
• The responsibility of humankind
• God’s active involvement in His creation
• The loving and just character of God
• God’s guidance of the Church.
• The coming return of Christ
• And in another 20 - 50 years, I think the recognition that homosexuality behavior is, in fact, a sin will start making people's lists. Again, in response to errant teaching.
The past few paragraphs have been a ginormous rabbit trail, but they're a necessary to know because it's upon them that I build my thoughts about theology's role...
I've observed that the vast majority of Christians tend to polarize to one of two extremes regarding this issue of theology. The first extreme is the one I discussed earlier in this note. It's the one of dogmatism and arrogance. They assume theirs alone is the right view and everyone else is a fool for disagreeing. The other extreme is those people who say, "Screw it! I can't figure it out. I never will. Why try?" And they try not to consider theology any more than they absolutely must. Theological apathy, if you will. Personally, I dislike both polarities, which finally gets me to how I think theology ought to be done.
There is a tension to be observed and practiced. I don't think Christians should be profoundly dogmatic on secondary issues, nor should they not give a crap. (Yes, that's a double negative, and I liked it.) They should start with and ultimately revolve around those core, essential, orthodox beliefs. Then they should engage the doctrines. They should think and study. They should pursue God through their theology. They should seriously make an effort to figure out what they believe about different doctrines. The key is humility when they disagree. I think this approach is what Lewis called "mere Christianity."
In two different facebook notes before this one, I've commented on my growing dislike of theology. Frankly, those notes were wrong. I'd failed to make a key distinction in my head. It is not theology that I dislike, it's the culture established by most of its practitioners. This is why I've decided to make a conscious effort to filter my theological discussion with folks. I will not talk to the people who don't care, nor will I talk to those who are militant on their adiaphora. I will only discuss with those people who are serious willing to seek out and engage other ideas and change their views as merited by new evidence. That is, those people hungry enough to pursue theology and humble enough to admit their limitations. The only problem is that they're few and far between. My exhortation to whoever may read this note: Please be one of those people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)