THE NEED FOR A PROPHETIC VOICE

Posted on September 24, 2010 by stanwiedeman

As we enter the political season we will have to again endure a barrage of rhetoric. Candidates will mostly tell us what is wrong with their opponent. New candidates will denigrate the current conditions, blaming them on the policies of the incumbents. And incumbents will laud their accomplishments, assuming that they have any, and will defend their party’s policies.

What we need more than political verbosity is a prophetic voice. In her book The Cloister Walk, Kathleen Norris provides a succinct description of the role of the prophet. “A prophet’s task is to reveal the fault lines hidden beneath the comfortable surface of the worlds we invent for ourselves, the national myths as well as the little lies and delusions of control and security that get us through the day.”

The clouds of dust that enveloped Manhattan on 9/11/2001 served as a warning that the Emerald City was vulnerable. What was at the heart of this attack? Why would anyone hate the home of freedom and the free market? How did America contribute to that hatred?

We needed a prophetic voice. Instead we got a lot of political bravado. National leaders sounded like Mohammed Ali taunting our new enemies with flair. And then we got sage advice like this from New York’s mayor, Rudy Giuliani, “Show your confidence. Show you’re not afraid. Go to restaurants. Go shopping.”

Ken Myers, editor of Mars Hill Audio Journal, observes, “False prophets assure us of peace when there is no peace. True prophets have the annoying habit of insisting that there is no peace just when we have convinced ourselves that everything is running smoothly.”

There’s the rub. Most of us don’t want to hear the prophetic voice because it challenges our self-constructed security. We are more prone to listen to the false prophets, because their message is less annoying, less disturbing, less uncomfortable.

Wearing the prophet’s mantle in the ’70’s, Francis Schaeffer, theologian, philosopher and author, said that personal peace had emerged in the Western world as a leading value. He defined personal peace as living “one’s life with minimal possibilities of being personally disturbed.” Not wanting to be disturbed, we put up with vacuous political oration, maybe even liking it, rather than tolerating the provocative message of the prophet.

For example, a consumer-based society like ours continues to thrive only when money flows freely. When people begin to save their money (critics call this “hoarding”), inventories back up. Like clogged expressways, the money flow slows down. That produces panic among investors, leading to market decline.

Experts tell us this scenario is bad for the economy, and what is bad for the economy is bad for us. They tell us that everything is fine with the system that a few minor tweaks won’t fix. They tell us that we don’t need to change any of our habits, as long as we keep spending freely.

Reality would argue differently. We are currently suffering the effects of an economic crisis. Unemployment rates have reached alarming levels. People are suffering the loss of income. Everyone was spending freely, but maybe some were spending too freely. The system seems to have developed huge cancerous areas that need more than a tweak.

This has brought out the prophetic voices. The prophets of the government tell us we need to raise taxes to enable the government to bail out individuals and corporations in their time of need. Different prophets announce that we need to value the relationships of community, where family and neighbors provide the financial assistance to help those in need. Some may have to reduce their level of affluence to assist others, but the peace that comes from sharing will overwhelm the false peace of possessions.

Which voice issues from the true prophet? Which one disturbs you the most? Which one exposes the little lies, delusions and national myths? Which one announces there is no peace as long as you keep thinking you don’t have to make any personal changes? These questions might help you separate the false from the true.

But who wants to be told that there is something wrong with us? Wouldn’t it be simpler just to be told what is wrong with the other candidate?

Posted in Christian Mind, Transformed Lives | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FAITHFUL PRESENCE

Posted on September 15, 2010 by stanwiedeman

On the last day of school, Jim Rodgers received a note from a student in his freshman English class, which read:

My freshman English teacher, Mr. Rodgers, is, without a doubt, the biggest inspiration in my life today … He does not know how much he has affected my life. He has saved it.

Mr. Rodgers wrote a book called The Old Guy Rules. Though I had been in treatment for depression, it didn’t seem to matter. I was all ready to commit suicide, but I wanted to read Mr. Rodgers’ book before I “passed.” I ordered the book online, downloaded it, and began to read it.

It completely stopped my negative thinking. I wanted to be an “Old Guy,” and I wasn’t about to miss my chance.

Rodgers read the note in complete in shock. The female student had been hospitalized earlier in the year, but the administration did not explain the cause. He was unaware that every day she was battling a debilitating depression. Neither did he suspect that this bright, talented young girl considered her life of so little worth that she had wanted to end it.

The integrity of Rodgers’ life impacted the life of a very fragile girl. He had watched his own dreams of an NFL career disappear after college. He had endured a severe crisis when his marriage ended suddenly, leaving him to raise two young children. And he was trying to deal honestly with the aging process. Rodgers had encountered and conquered obstacles in his life, making him the person and the teacher who he is. And who he is rescued someone else’s life.

Rodgers illustrates the theme of James Davison Hunter’s new book, To Change the World. For 2,000 years the Church has interpreted for their generation the mission that Jesus gave to His followers, to take the gospel into every part of the world. Hunter, the LeBrosse-Levinson Distinguished Professor of Religion, Culture, and Social Theory at the University of Virginia, explains the complexities of this task in our generation due to the complexity of our culture.

Critiquing the current strategies used by the Church to engage the world, Hunter argues for a “faithful presence.” “For the Christian, if there is a possibility for human flourishing in a world such as ours, it begins when God’s word of love becomes flesh in us, is embodied in us, is enacted through us and in doing so, a trust is forged between the word spoken and the reality to which it speaks; [between] the words we speak and the realities to which we, the church, point.”

Hunter identifies three areas where this faithful presence should show up. First, it means we are fully present to one another, to both those within the community of faith and those without. Some theological divisions within the Church are understandable, but the myriad of factions and schisms dividing the Church would rival the political parties of some national parliaments.

But the Church’s greatest challenge in this area, Hunter suggests, is a faithful presence to the outsider. Many Christians too quickly condemn those who fail moral and theological tests. Some treat homosexuals and Muslims with a shameful contempt. Others practice informal shunning of those who do not measure up to social or character standards.

God instructs His people, in both the Old and New Testaments, to accept and love the stranger. The rationale is that every insider was at one time an outsider. The Israelites were strangers in the land of Egypt (Lev. 19:34). Every Christian was formerly alienated from God’s covenant promises before entering the community of faith. Separating people on the basis of class, status or any other artificial means of division is never acceptable for the Church.

The second area faithful presence should be evident is in our tasks, the responsibilities and activities we must perform to live in this world. Work is both virtuous and difficult. Christians should approach our work in the spirit of Colossians 3:22-24, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.” This demands an excellence in all our tasks, at work, at home, at church, in the community.

The third area where faithful presence should be visible is in our spheres of social influence. Hunter shows that every social relationship carries power. Christians are not called to abdicate this power, as some wrongly interpret. “Where power is exercised, therefore, it must conform to the way of Jesus: rooted in intimacy with the Father, rejecting the privileges of status, oriented by a self-giving compassion for the needs of others, and not only noncoercive toward those outside of the community of faith, but committed indiscriminately to the good of all.”

Hunter masterfully argues for a life well-lived, holistically and consistently, which promotes human flourishing for everyone with whom we come into contact. The degree to which our lives have been transformed by our relationship with Christ will manifest itself to those around us as we flesh out, embody and enact the gospel. Who we are will, in turn, impact the lives of those around us.

Posted in Christians Engaging Culture, Transformed Lives | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RESPONDING LIKE CHRIST

Posted on September 10, 2010 by stanwiedeman

This week America will look back to remember one of the defining moments of our history. On 9/11/2001, nineteen extremist Muslims executed the deadliest terrorist plot to occur within American borders. Their actions, motivated by their religious beliefs, snuffed out the lives of 2,996 people, including their own.

In the weeks that followed, investigators identified the terrorists as members of al-Qaeda,a militant Islamic group dedicated to the purification of Muslim countries through a war on all foreign influences. They claim that their holy book, the Koran, justifies this war, known as jihad. Many Muslim leaders condemned the terrorist acts and distanced themselves from al-Qaeda entirely.

The incident provided a racial powder keg that threatened the 5 million Muslims living in the U.S. Government leaders were careful to distinguish between this radical terrorist branch of Islam and the vast majority of Muslims who do not interpret Islamic jihad as military action. They wanted to protect the resident Muslims from a severe retaliation by other Americans.

In the nine years that have followed, most Americans have grown in their knowledge of Islam, but we are still far from understanding all the nuances and subtleties of this religion. Most of us do not appreciate the distinctions between Sunni and Shi’a, much less between Sufism and Ahmadiyya. Complexities have emerged in Islam almost as much as … Christianity.

Christians, of all people, should be understanding of the misunderstanding that descends upon a religion because of the deeds of a radical fringe element. One Christian church traveled throughout the country to protest at the funerals of service personnel who died in Iraq. They invaded these solemn ceremonies to flaunt placards that read “God hates fags.” Through the media, these people masqueraded as representatives of Jesus Christ – not the Jesus of the Bible, however.

Years ago, I attended a protest rally at a small airport for the pro-life movement. A regional politician was passing through and we were there to present a Christian pro-life message. As the politician neared some people in the group began shouting hateful abuses. I was stunned. These people claimed to be followers of Jesus, but I could not imagine that the Jesus of the Bible would ever approve of their belligerent behavior.

Like Islam, Christianity claims to be a religion of peace. Yet Christianity has bred fringe radical groups, also. In 1978 Jim Jones convinced 907 followers to commit revolutionary suicide by drinking a cyanide Kool-aid mixture because he feared outside forces would invade their community. And how many professing Christians practiced the vile hatred of black Americans to the point of persecution and lynchings?

Most Christians quickly distance themselves from the more radical groups who claim the name of Christ. We would declare them heretics at worst, grossly misguided at best. Yet, the uninformed might not make the same distinctions that we do. The repugnant actions of a few radicals damages Christianity’s reputation.

What did Jesus actually teach? He upended standard Jewish theology in the Sermon on the Mount, declaring, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:43-45).

And what did Jesus actually do? He was beaten within a lash of his life by Roman guards, although he had broken no Roman law. Spikes were driven into his hands and feet so that he could hang on a cross, because his theology did not agree with the current Jewish ruling class. Completely innocent of the atrocities committed against him, Jesus looked upon his persecutors from the cross and prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)

What did the early followers of Jesus do? They were reviled, persecuted and martyred by people who did not understand them. They did not provoke their persecutors. They did not revile back. They did not organize protests and hatefully malign government officials. They spoke the gospel to their oppressors and prayed for them. These Christians interpreted their faith in Jesus to mean behavior that characterized him. They acted in love not hatred, in peace not hostility.

Now we are faced with applying the same principles of love and peace to our Muslim neighbors. We may disagree with them theologically, but we should love them no less. We should not falsely identify them with the terrorists just because they both claim the name of Muhammad. Regardless of our differences, we should strive to be at peace with them.

“Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Romans 12:17-18) Will we portray an accurate picture of Jesus in the treatment of our Muslim neighbors?

Posted in Christians Engaging Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

IS FAITH INFERIOR TO REASON?

Posted on August 31, 2010 by stanwiedeman

You may have seen a sign on CTA buses around Chicago, “Are you good without God? Millions are.” This message, along with “Don’t believe in God? Join the club.” and “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” adorn billboards in cities all over America. They are part of a the national campaign funded by United Coalition of Reason, “a national organization that works to raise the visibility of local groups in the community of reason.… by conducting campaigns which highlight the fact that nontheists live in every community across America.”

The CoR seems to imply the community of reason is comprised of those who share the belief that God does not exist. What about those who reside in the community of faith? Are we unwelcome strangers to the community of reason?

How do we explain the relationship between reason and faith? What happens when someone encounters a question they cannot answer? Does faith compromise the endeavor to find an answer through rules of logic and science? Is faith the blind leap to some mystical explanation that transcends the natural material world and bypasses reason?

According to Leslie Newbigin in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, “Reason is a faculty with which we seek to grasp the different elements in our experience in an ordered way so that, as we say, they make sense.” Newbigin tries to show the absurdity of separating reason and faith. Reason actually leads to faith by indicating what things are reliable objects of faith and trust.

Nontheists ridicule the superstitious beliefs of people 500 years ago, or the primitive beliefs of uneducated tribes in remote areas today. These beliefs usually opt for religious explanations to the unexplainable events in their lives. Storms, diseases, enemy victories, plagues and calamities were usually associated with a god who was angry because the people had violated one of his laws. According to critics blessed with five centuries of scientific discovery, these beliefs were void of reason.

On the contrary, they formulated their beliefs based on the traditions and knowledge base of their society. They may have drawn wrong conclusions, but those conclusions were reasonable for their social order.

In the late 19th century, bloodletting was the most common medical treatment for many diseases. Well-educated doctors believed what science told them about the practice. Reason led people to use this technique to heal very sick patients. A little more than 100 years later, we know that this practice was almost always more harmful to the patient than helpful. You never hear anyone criticizing 19th-century doctors as irrational, superstitious men. They may have had incorrect beliefs, but their beliefs were guided by reason.

Today, scientists are constructing theories based on the tradition and knowledge base of the 21st century in America. Many of these scientists believe these theories and work feverishly to prove them true. One must wonder how many of these beliefs will appear silly in the light of another 100 years of discovery.

Nontheists do not deny God’s existence because they are strictly a community of reason, while all who believe in God are a community of faith only. The conflict is not between reason and faith, but between the foundational assumptions that people use to arrive at their beliefs. (Believing that God does not exist is no less an exercise of faith than believing that He does exist.)

Many nontheists have adopted the belief that science alone offers the explanation for all of reality, that the natural world is all there is. Christians proceed from the belief that there are things in the world that cannot be explained by science alone, that a supernatural world exists. Those with integrity of reason would be testing their core beliefs to see if they coincide with the truth as we know it in our current tradition of knowledge and experiences.

Don’t ever let anyone suggest that faith in Christ is inferior to the reason of the nontheist. Followers of Christ employ every bit as much reason as do those who reject him. Perhaps it would be better to begin the discussion with assumptions. What things do people accept as true without the rigors of reasonable examination?

Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive. Both are at their best when they work together.

Posted in Christian Mind, Faith and Reason | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THE BIBLE AND GAY MARRIAGE

Posted on August 25, 2010 by stanwiedeman

Wait a minute, Jon Meacham. I am confused by your Newsweek column, “A Victory For Liberty In California”. You argue that “the religious case for gay marriage is a strong one,” appealing to “Western monotheistic traditions [that] hold that human beings are made in the likeness and image of God, and are thus all equal in the sight of the Lord.” In the next paragraph you dismiss “those who assert biblical authority in support of traditional definitions of marriage” because “Scripture is not inerrant [without error].”

Maybe you don’t realize that the basis for believing that all human beings bear the likeness and image of God derives from the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1-2. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). We appeal to biblical authority as the basis of our understanding of human nature.

This biblical assertion has profound implications for most social issues. In fact, any discussion of human rights must begin here. All other beginning points ultimately fail to establish human equality without ambiguity. The establishment clause for marriage is also contained in the creation story of Genesis 2.

If you are willing to accept the first two chapters of Genesis, as your argument indicates, then you must accept the next chapter to the creation account, what we call the story of man’s fall. Genesis 3 explains the titanic disruption to man’s existence. Adam and Eve violated God’s only law for them, eating from the one tree God restricted from them. With this act, sin entered human experience. God expelled them from paradise. And human history would be littered with the fallout of their act of rebellion.

You make an important assumption to your religious argument. “If a person is homosexual by nature – that is, if one’s sexuality is as intrinsic a part of one’s identity as gender or skin color – then society can no more deny a gay person access to the secular rights and religious sacraments because of his homosexuality than it can reinstate Jim Crow.”

That assumption has never been established. No study or research has determined with any degree of certainty that sexual orientation embeds itself in human nature in the same way race and gender do. Your whole argument collapses if this assumption is untrue. The Bible actually disagrees with this assumption.

Returning to the religious argument, the Bible clearly reveals God’s attitude toward the practice of homosexuality. It consistently, both in the Old and New Testaments, denounces it as a manifestation of the sinful tendency of man. And where did this sinful tendency come from? You only need to refer back to Genesis 3 for the explanation. But this presupposes that you still want to appeal to biblical authority.

You conveniently abandon this appeal when you know that it will be used against your case. You point to the Bible’s laws regarding lending money, haircuts, subjugation of women and slavery to discount its authority on some levels. God gave these laws to a specific nation in a specific context for specific reasons. They must be interpreted in their context in order to understand God’s intent for commanding them. Your casual reference to them is unfair and irresponsible to the discussion.

On what basis do you arrive at the conclusion that “Scripture is not inerrant?” Entire books have been written on this subject. Theologians have devoted themselves to research this topic and reach carefully reasoned conclusions. Have you read these books and refuted their conclusions with your own careful reasoning?

I am confused that you would take the time to dismiss biblical authority when you indirectly relied upon it to build your religious case. Many people decry the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis as errant, allegory, man’s unscientific attempt to explain human origin. Those who do not accept the existence of any Deity would scoff at the claim that humans are stamped with a divine likeness. So much for the religious case for equality.

The Christian faith continues to appeal to biblical authority when deciding how to treat homosexuals. The same Bible that classifies homosexual practice as sin also teaches us to “love your neighbor as yourself,” including your enemies, “live peaceably with all,” “love does no wrong to a neighbor” and “condemn not, and you will not be condemned,” to name only a few. A well-reasoned biblical theology will explain the ability to love all people while rejecting some moral practices.

The Bible is too easily quoted when it serves a person’s cause, but discredited when it does not. It deserves a fairer and more consistent treatment.

Posted in Biblical Authority, Christians Engaging Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment