talking-heads

Rabbi, who sinned…

Frank

…this man or his parents, that he was born blind? (John 9:1-2)

I grew up with this personal theology. If I tripped and fell in the playground, it must’ve been because of the white lie I told my parents to get out of cleaning my room. If my knee was skinned really bad, then it must have been a sin much worse. This theology led to a religious paranoia and paints God as the cosmic puppet-master instead of the loving Father that he is.

But this theology is also applied to prop up one’s personal politics and biases. I sat in on a class on Abraham’s Covenant with God yesterday and I was reminded that there is no covenant between God and my country. Despite what some may preach, the United States is owed no special favor by God. Likewise, God owes us no special punishment for violating the terms of his covenant. Tell that to the talking heads after Hurricane Katrina or 9/11. Some were quick to assign motive to these tragedies while justifying their personal theology.

It’s a shame these recognized representatives of American christianity (TM) are not Ambassadors of Christ (2 Cor 5:20, Eph 6:20) instead because Jesus addressed this very issue in Luke, chapter 13: “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, ‘Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them- do you think they were more guilty than all the to others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.‘” (Luke 13:1-5)

These two tragedies, the Galileans whom Pilate killed and those who died in Siloam could be justified by the religious at the time because of their political ties. The Galileans were likely leading in a revolt against Roman authorities while the tower in Siloam was part of the aqueduct Pilate was constructing so those who died were in the employ of these same authorities. Jesus’ reply was much like the traps the Pharisees and teachers of the law would try and catch Jesus in by trying to force him to take a side. But much like his replies to these traps, his reply here emphasised that which side doesn’t matter. We should be concerned about our the condition of our own souls.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t preach against sin (despite the common strawman: judge not, lest ye be judged). But we should be preaching the Gospel of salvation, not the religion of condemnation. And we should never assign motive to what God chooses to do or not to do. I could close by saying something about why we shouldn’t assume. But you know how the rest of that goes.

(more on Abraham’s Covenant in tomorrow’s blog carnival)

Rabbi, who sinned…

Frank

…this man or his parents, that he was born blind? (John 9:1-2)

I grew up with this personal theology. If I tripped and fell in the playground, it must’ve been because of the white lie I told my parents to get out of cleaning my room. If my knee was skinned really bad, then it must have been a sin much worse. This theology led to a religious paranoia and paints God as the cosmic puppet-master instead of the loving Father that he is.

But this theology is also applied to prop up one’s personal politics and biases. I sat in on a class on Abraham’s Covenant with God yesterday and I was reminded that there is no covenant between God and my country. Despite what some may preach, the United States is owed no special favor by God. Likewise, God owes us no special punishment for violating the terms of his covenant. Tell that to the talking heads after Hurricane Katrina or 9/11. Some were quick to assign motive to these tragedies while justifying their personal theology.

It’s a shame these recognized representatives of American christianity (TM) are not Ambassadors of Christ (2 Cor 5:20, Eph 6:20) instead because Jesus addressed this very issue in Luke, chapter 13: “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, ‘Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them- do you think they were more guilty than all the to others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.‘” (Luke 13:1-5)

These two tragedies, the Galileans whom Pilate killed and those who died in Siloam could be justified by the religious at the time because of their political ties. The Galileans were likely leading in a revolt against Roman authorities while the tower in Siloam was part of the aqueduct Pilate was constructing so those who died were in the employ of these same authorities. Jesus’ reply was much like the traps the Pharisees and teachers of the law would try and catch Jesus in by trying to force him to take a side. But much like his replies to these traps, his reply here emphasised that which side doesn’t matter. We should be concerned about our the condition of our own souls.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t preach against sin (despite the common strawman: judge not, lest ye be judged). But we should be preaching the Gospel of salvation, not the religion of condemnation. And we should never assign motive to what God chooses to do or not to do. I could close by saying something about why we shouldn’t assume. But you know how the rest of that goes.

(more on Abraham’s Covenant in tomorrow’s blog carnival)

Don’t Buy This Book!

Frank

I bet you’d never expect reading that on a blog by an aspiring author. But there are many of us who have no celebrity, no following outside of local (congregation) and virtual (facebook/twitter/blogs) support, who feel a calling from God to use our talents for His glory. Some of us want to write fiction, some inspirational Christian living, and others want to share personal experience to build up and encourage the Body of Christ.

But then there are those who have celebrity, who are the headline of the week, who cash that in to market themselves under the veil of christianity (intentional little ‘c’). For example just a month ago Multiple Blessings by Jon and Kate Gosselin was one of the books of the month at Family Christian. Now, they’re embroiled in scandal with rumors of infidelity, questions about the sincerity of their parenthood, and the authenticity of their television show. They cashed in on their celebrity and sadly, their children. (More of what I think about that last subject here) And predictably, the christian consumer buys it hook, line, and sinker.

Now former Miss California Carrie Prejean is looking to cash in as well. The current poster-child of christian persecution wants to write a book about her experiences as Miss California. She wants people to “know the truth about what’s going on and what has gone on through all of this.” What truth would that be? The breast implants? The lingerie modeling? The throwing your sister under the bus? The sudden embracing of Jesus once the cameras stopped rolling and the controversy began?

Please, please, please I beg you do not buy this book! Instead of reading a book that’s no better than tabloid gossip, pick up something that will edify your soul and draw you closer to Christ. I’ll be back later with recommendations…

Don’t Buy This Book!

Frank

I bet you’d never expect reading that on a blog by an aspiring author. But there are many of us who have no celebrity, no following outside of local (congregation) and virtual (facebook/twitter/blogs) support, who feel a calling from God to use our talents for His glory. Some of us want to write fiction, some inspirational Christian living, and others want to share personal experience to build up and encourage the Body of Christ.

But then there are those who have celebrity, who are the headline of the week, who cash that in to market themselves under the veil of christianity (intentional little ‘c’). For example just a month ago Multiple Blessings by Jon and Kate Gosselin was one of the books of the month at Family Christian. Now, they’re embroiled in scandal with rumors of infidelity, questions about the sincerity of their parenthood, and the authenticity of their television show. They cashed in on their celebrity and sadly, their children. (More of what I think about that last subject here) And predictably, the christian consumer buys it hook, line, and sinker.

Now former Miss California Carrie Prejean is looking to cash in as well. The current poster-child of christian persecution wants to write a book about her experiences as Miss California. She wants people to “know the truth about what’s going on and what has gone on through all of this.” What truth would that be? The breast implants? The lingerie modeling? The throwing your sister under the bus? The sudden embracing of Jesus once the cameras stopped rolling and the controversy began?

Please, please, please I beg you do not buy this book! Instead of reading a book that’s no better than tabloid gossip, pick up something that will edify your soul and draw you closer to Christ. I’ll be back later with recommendations…

I wish they all could be California girls…

Frank

No, not really. Especially if they’re anything like Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Is anyone tired of this yet? She was asked a question on gay marriage from an openly gay host whose only claim to fame is running an online tabloid and having a name similar to Paris Hilton. She was open about her faith in interviews leading up to the pageant and California is home to the controversial Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. What did she expect to happen?

So she lost. So she said it was because of her answer opposing gay marriage. So what.

So Miss Prejean did what Evangelical Christians have learned to do, not from the example of Jesus Christ, but from their political brand of American Christianity (TM)- she played the “persecution” card. Now she’s a celebrity to the Religious Right (scroll down down at the 558 mark and listen to the podcast if you want to hear this “great” interview) and a spokesperson for the National Organization of Marriage (I’d never heard of it before she came along, and I’m against gay-marriage).

Yes, the Perez Hilton went over the line by taking her response personal instead of crediting her for her honesty and not being tempted by peer pressure to be politically correct. He then left the line far behind in his rear view mirror when he went public calling her a “b—h” and “c–t” just because she thinks differently than he does. But that does not come close to equalling Christian persecution.

I’ve written several times before criticising the “persecution complex” of American Christianity (TM), and I’ll repeat myself by saying her crying about losing a beauty pageant is an insult to the thousands of Christians across the globe whose lives are threatened because of their faith.

Did I mention this was a beauty pageant? An celebration of vanity if there ever was one. And last I checked, vanity is a sin. It doesn’t help her cause that she got breast implants before the competition and that they were paid for by her California sponsor.

I’m sorry, but I have little sympathy for this woman. Was she treated unfairly? Yes, of course. Was it because of her faith? Not sure if it was as much a matter of faith than of politics. Is she being persecuted? Yes to a degree, but only because she’s elevated herself to the level of national celebrity. I’ll certainly pray for her and wish nothing but the best, but I won’t claim her as speaking for me, my politics, nor my faith.

Instead I turn to Jesus, who never backed down from persecution. “At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ “(Luke 13:31-32) But his goal wasn’t political or to change the social norms (though admittedly he did speak out against some of them, emphasis on some) but instead to offer redemption to the world through shedding his blood.

In Memorium: Father Neuhaus

Frank

I should do a better job keeping up on headlines, though I’m surprised this didn’t turn up as I browsed my typical blog roll. But Father Richard John Neuhaus, founder of First Things, author, spiritual advisor to the President, and possibly one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the last century passed away January 8 at the full age of 72.

I regret to know little about him other than reputation. I also regret that I never did add First Things to my links, though I often meant to. Father Neuhaus was always good for a quote, and the Christian blogosphere could count on his wisdom on social and political issues. The obituary in Newsweek gives a better description than I ever could. In fact, I pray that some of the same can be said of me when I shuffle off this mortal coil.

But in the spirit of this blog, I want to pull some quotes from the article that we all can and should apply to our lives as Public Christians.

To begin with, he was a thoroughgoing Christian radical, meaning that he believed that the truth of Christian faith was not just truth-for-Christians, but the truth of the world, period. As with his hero, John Paul II (and contrary to the conventional wisdom on “tolerance”), that conviction opened him up to serious conversation with others, rather than shutting down the argument. Yet his basic theological and philosophical convictions, and the intellectual sophistication he brought to their defense, had resonances far beyond the boundaries of the religious world…

Neuhaus’s position was that the two pieces of the First Amendment’s provisions on religious freedom were in fact one “religion clause,” in which “no establishment” of religion served the “free exercise” of religion. There was to be no established national church, precisely in order to create the free space for the robust exchange of religious ideas and the free expression of religious practices. In making this case, Neuhaus changed the terms of the contemporary American church-state debate, arguing that the Supreme Court had been getting things wrong for more than half a century by pitting “no establishment” against “free exercise,” with the latter increasingly being forced into the constitutional back seat…

Neuhaus’s convictions about the meaning of religious freedom in America also reflected his consistent defense of popular piety and the religious sensibilities of those whom others might consider “simple” or “uninformed.” If 90 percent of the American people professed belief in the God of the Bible, he argued, then there was something profoundly undemocratic about denying those people—a super-majority if ever there was one—the right to bring the sources of their deepest moral convictions into public debate, even if they sometimes did so in clumsy ways…

[T]hese Big Ideas… intersected in what Richard Neuhaus, public intellectual, thought of as his life’s project: the creation of a “religiously informed public philosophy for the American experiment in ordered liberty,” as he frequently put it. (emphasis mine)

I couldn’t think of a better description or better example of Public Christianity in America today. But his theology wasn’t half-bad either. I’ll close with this quote, from his book Death on a Friday Afternoon (courtesy of internet monk).

When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers throughout my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of justification by faith alone,” although I will thank God that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood formulation was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways—these and all other gifts I have received I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will, with Dysmas, look to Christ and Christ alone.

Then I hope to hear him say, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” as I hope with all my being—because, although looking to him alone, I am not alone—he will say to all.

Jesus is my Campaign Manager

Frank

I made the mistake last night at church talking politics with one of my friends. Actually, she brought up how she can’t wait for it all to be over; she’s tired of hearing the same arguments over and over. Then she said something that totally boggled me. She commented on how Jesus never talked about abortion or homosexuality. Now I understand where she was coming from. The Religious Right is too narrowly focused on these issues above all else. But the case she makes doesn’t apply to her point. She commented on how the world was more “jacked up” in Jesus’ day, yet he didn’t bring up these issues. The Romans practiced infanticide, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Homosexuality was common in pagan worship and temple prostitution, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Well first of all, Jesus ministered to the Jews who lived in and around Jerusalem. He never went to Rome or Corinth or associated with Greek prostitutes. So why would he bring these subjects up? But here’s a twist on the argument. Slaves were present all around Jesus’ ministry. In fact, the Old Testament gives instructions regarding slavery. And Jesus never said a word about the practice. Should that mean that slavery is not a religious issue of concern to Christians? Someone should’ve told that to William Wilberforce.

I mentioned that and she side-stepped it by then saying that Jesus never preached politics anyway. Well yes, and no. He comment on “giv[ing] to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” was both a theological and political statement since Caesar claimed divinity. At the same time, he didn’t take any side to the dismay of the religious leaders. The same was true when Jesus instructed his disciples how to pray by saying “Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name.” The first comment personalized the God of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which would’ve upset the religious leaders, but followed that up by praising his name which usurped the divinity of Caesar. If anything, his politics were indirect. But because he wasn’t the political leader many thought the Messiah should’ve been, it was easy to entice Judas to betray him.

The extension of my friend’s argument, that she didn’t mention, was that Jesus preached about the poor more than anything else, so that should be a political priority. I don’t disagree, except for the political aspect of it. Jim Wallis, in his book God’s Politics, dedicates a section in his first chapter titled, “The Political Problem of Jesus” and then goes on to turn Jesus’ teaching into a political argument. This is where I disagree with him. I don’t believe that because Jesus said to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” that that should apply to foreign policy. That is a personal command. Not a political one. And there’s a difference between being under attack and persecuted. But he argues that if a political leader claims to be a Christian, then they should apply that to their politics. I agree that faith should guide morality applied through politics. But to apply faith directly to politics turns this pluralistic country into a theocracy, which I believe Jesus would’ve opposed. A political leader needs to consider the big picture and the good of the country and balance that not against, but rather on, their faith. In other words, their faith should be the fulcrum of their lever, not one side of the balancing act.

Back to the personal aspect of Jesus’ teachings. His commentaries on the poor, lack of explicit political stances, and teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven are personal, not national. So we can’t apply “love your enemies” or “blessed are the peacemakers” to policy. That’s not to say I’m pro-war. But whether or not to go and participate in war is a personal decision that would have to be informed by a personal faith. Whereas the decision to engage in war on the national level must be policy driven. At the same time, I believe our Freedom of Speech also obligates us to speak out against war if our conscience leads us to.

This would then imply that a Christian politician cannot effectively hold an office and still keep Jesus first and God above all. And I think there’s truth to that. That’s why I’m suspicious of any politician who says I should vote for him or her because of their faith. And that’s also why I don’t expect our moral problems to be “fixed” via politics, but instead through individual Christians actively living out their convictions.

As for abortion and homosexuality, I told my friend that sin is still sin. That doesn’t mean that morality at that level should be legislated. But if my vote gives me a voice, I want to cast it to make a statement of my faith. And that is what I will continue to wrestle with up to, and beyond, November 4.

Frank

I was going to post a long rant about the YouTube videos of Sen. Obama’s pastor that have been making news lately. Even though the news broke a couple of weeks ago, it’s still a hot topic by bloggers so I’ll leave the rants up to them. I recommend these two from the Newsweek/Washington Post “On Faith” blog portal, these three from the beliefnet “god-o-meter” this one from Christopher Hitchens at Slate, these two from the Independent Conservative, and finally ones from ABC News and the LA Times.

I’ll only add that what I’ve seen on YouTube shouldn’t be preached from the pulpit. I also recognize that we’re seeing three minutes of 30 years of preaching. But I have a rule of thumb regarding this, and the same rule applies to all preachers across the political and racial spectrum from Pat Robertson to Jessie Jackson. What is preached from the pulpit should 1) give insight on the nature of God, 2) describe God’s relationship with us and/or vise versa, 3) edify and encourage the congregation using scripture (i.e. strengthening the church: 1 Corinthians 14), 4) instruct the church on living Christ-like lives or 5) lead others to a saving relationship with Jesus. If a subject doesn’t do any of the above, it shouldn’t be preached.

Hold a press conference if you want or host a TV or a radio show. But remember the words of Paul, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.” 1 Cor 13:1-3

To me, Reverend Wright is just a clanging cymbal. But isn’t he doing #3 above, you might ask? Well, where’s the love that Paul talks about? I wrote about this before, and this is what I think Trinity Church should be doing. Maybe they are, but our media loves a scandal and this makes much better news than reflecting God’s glory.