Luke 16:19-31
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Sermon: Isolation or Mutuality
And then we are introduced to Lazarus. A man who appears to be completely
alone, whose only companions are the street dogs, who is hungry enough to eat
crumbs from another’s table. He presumably has no family to take him in and
help him. He seems completely isolated, so much so that none of us would want
to trade places with him.
Now, it is easy to think, especially since we put the parable after songs
about money, that what Jesus is talking about is the rich man’s wealth, that
Jesus is saying that being rich is wrong; but actually that is not what Jesus
is saying at all. If wealth prevents us from getting into heaven, then Abraham
wouldn’t be the one meeting Lazarus because he was a very wealthy man. In the
parable of Lazarus and the rich man, “The parable’s key theological concern is
not the rich man’s wealth (many of Jesus’ followers were wealthy) but the fact
that his wealth inhibits his compassion, isolates him from seeing the needs of
others, and prevents him from recognizing Lazarus as his neighbour.”[1]
In other words, when we read the parable, we think that it is Lazarus who
is isolated and alone in this life, but the irony is that the rich man is
really the one who is isolated. He has hidden himself away behind his gate. He
has cut himself off from others by simply becoming blind to their needs. His
wealth has actually separated himself from the rest of humanity, and it is the
state of his heart that Jesus is critiquing.
But wealth is not the only thing that can isolate us in this way.
Our prejudices, our experiences, our hurts, our values, these also can get
in the way of our seeing the needs of others and having compassion. Growing up,
one of my favorite comic strips was Garfield – you know the fat cat that loves
lasagna, that hates Monday’s and lives for naps. One cold winter night Garfield
looks out the window and sees Odie the Dog peering through the window. Garfield
thinks to himself: This is horrible. Here I am in the comfort of a warm house,
well fed, and there is Odie outside begging to get in, cold and hungry. I can't
stand it anymore. I just can't stand it. So at that he goes over to the
window…and closes the curtains.[2]
Now I realize that Garfield is just a comic strip character, so analyzing
him is a little strange. But why does he close the curtains on Odie? It isn’t
because Garfield is rich and Odie poor. More likely it is that Garfield doesn’t
like Odie, or dogs in general, or that he is a cat and only thinks about
himself. Likewise, there are lots of reasons that we close the curtains and
refuse to see the needs of others. It may be that we don’t like a certain
person, or that a type or person makes us uncomfortable. Whatever the reason –
the end result is that we isolate ourselves, and cut ourselves off from others
by closing the curtains.
Let me be really controversial here. I think one of the reasons that racial
tensions are so high right now is that many people have closed their curtains
to the problems and difficulties of being black in our society. White people
don’t even see it. We don’t want to see it. And we refuse to even try to
understand. We have isolated ourselves from each other to the point where we
aren’t listening.
So, what’s so bad about that?
What’s the problem with ignoring other people and their problems?
In Jesus’ parable, the rich man’s isolation is so great, that even after
death he is cut off from everyone else. Now he no longer has the comforts of
his money to fall back on. He is completely alone. In fact, it is so bad that
even when he is alone, and he sees Lazarus from a distance, he doesn’t
celebrate at seeing an old acquaintance, he doesn’t look to make a personal
connection or to establish a relationship in his loneliness. He only thinks
about his own thirst, about the heat, about his own discomfort. He only sees
Lazarus as a means for meeting those needs. He only cares about what Lazarus
might do for him. There is no sense of equality here, no compassion, no sense
of connection. Lazarus might as well be a vending machine serving Mountain Dew,
that’s how much the rich man cares about Lazarus’ humanity. And while we may
not want to admit it, there is a problem when we only see others as a means of
meeting our needs.
Interestingly and perhaps paradoxically, the things that prevent us from
recognizing the needs of others, often say a great deal about our own needs
that are not being met. In other words, the rich man is unable to see Lazarus’
needs because the rich man himself has needs that aren’t being addressed. These
are harder to see, but if you think about it what are the needs of the rich
man? [pause] What does he fail to see about himself?
It is the very thing that I have been talking about -- I would suggest that
he is blind to his own need for interactions with others – he sees himself as
self-sufficient. Like many in our world he is a rugged individualist. He thinks
he can do it all by himself. That he doesn’t need other people. Relationships
are unnecessary. He is quite fine on his own.
But it is also absolutely false. We are increasingly aware in our global
economy, that we are mutually dependent upon each other. We depend upon thousands
of people each and every day. The person who planted our food, who picked it,
who processed it. The person who wove our fabrics, who sewed the clothes, who
sold it to us at the store. The person who paved our roads, the one who
installed our electric lines. The person who assembled our car, the miner that brought
out the iron to make the steel. Our parents, our teachers, the many individuals
that have shaped our lives and helped us to grow into the people we are today. The
doctors that help our kids when they are sick, that staff the hospitals, that
perform surgeries!
When we admit that we are mutually dependent upon others, this allows us to
open up and admit our needs to others, and in many cases helps us to see their needs
as well. That’s mutuality – realizing that our lives are intertwined and
inseparable. It is different from codependence where we are so needy that it is
unhealthy. Rather it is a healthy admission that isolation is impossible, and
that each of us contributes to the lives of others.
When I confess that I need other people even to have the food to eat that
meal that is in front of me, then I can open my eyes to the needs of others who
may not have that meal in front of them. I should look at their situation and
say, “Somewhere, something failed. A connection was missed, and they are
hungry.”
Or we can go deeper, if I can confess that I have a deep need to love and
to be loved. If I am willing to see that I have a desire for others to treat me
with respect, to listen to me, to care about my health and well-being. Then it
only makes sense that others have that need too – and I have a part to play in
making that happen. I can be the one that listens, that respects, that cares
for my neighbor – which is exactly what the rich man in the parable fails to
do.
Our parable suggests that all relationships should be like that, where
there is a sense that each individual is important, is filled with the Holy
Spirit, and has something to offer, that we are only really human when our
hearts are open to one another. If the rich man could have seen that, then he
would not have suffered such isolation, and would not have been cut off in the
afterlife, and Lazarus would have found mercy and hope in this life.
So it isn’t the money that Jesus is saying is the problem, like he often
suggests, it is our hearts that are the problem, our hearts that need the help
– and thankfully he comes to help show us the better way. Opening the curtains,
seeing our neighbor, showing compassion.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Sermon from 9/18/2016 -- Praying for Everyone
1 Timothy 2:1-7
Let me begin by saying that some of you may find parts of this sermon political and parts of it may be uncomfortable. And there are very good reasons for that – the original bible text is itself political, and the implications of what the author is saying would make many people uncomfortable.
The good news is that this year has been an exciting and deeply annoying election process. Now you may be saying to yourself, “That’s good news?” Yes it is, at least when it comes to understanding this passage, because it will have greater meaning for us than it might at other times.
Let’s get all historical. Paul, or someone writing on his behalf, is writing to a group of Christians and he says, “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.” Now at first that sounds pretty tame. But remember, these Christians are not living in a time when the leaders are even remotely Christian. In fact, the emperor has demanded that people treat him as a god, that they bow down before his statue and pray to him. That’s idolatry – worshiping something other than God, and so Christians and Jews refused to do so. But when they refused, they were arrested, tortured and often killed in quite barbaric ways.
So imagine that you live in a place and time like that. Where you are forced to go into a temple, bow down and worship an emperor – if you don’t, you know that at the very least you will be put in prison. And here is Paul, telling you pray for emperor. Doesn’t that make you a bit uncomfortable? Isn’t there a part of you that says, “No! I don’t want to pray for this person! I will not pray for someone who wants me jailed or killed!”
Of course, what Paul is doing is actually quite clever. He is suggesting that instead of praying to the emperor, they pray for him. Whether they like him or not, in fact, whether he is at all godly or not, he deserves their prayers. Everyone deserves prayer – even the worst of us. So Paul suggests, when you go to the temple, carefully word your prayers so that the soldiers think you are praying to the emperor, but when in fact you are simply praying for the emperor. It is really quite smart. But that doesn’t mean it was easy for people to do. They still had to get past their feelings about the emperor in order to pray for him. They had to lay aside the friends and family that may have been arrested, they had to swallow their anger, and pray for someone they didn’t like.
That’s why I think that this passage might come at a good time for us right now. People are pretty polarized politically right now. We have very strong feelings about the candidates for president. I bet that most of us have pretty negative feelings about one of the candidates or all of them. But here is the thing, Paul suggests that no matter what our feelings about the candidate – that individual deserves our prayers. So you can see why I said that the sermon might seem political and it may make us uncomfortable. But it isn’t particularly supporting one party or the other – rather Paul is telling us to do something that we might not like doing – pray for all our leaders, even the ones that set themselves up as gods, or put us in prison, or torture us, or even kill our family and friends.
That being said, What should they pray for the emperor?
I mean, there are lots of ways you can pray for someone. You can pray that they have great health, that everything they do succeeds, or you can pray that they fall and break a leg, or that they are hit by a runaway chariot and killed. But I am guessing that if you are in front of a group of soldiers and pray that the emperor is hit by a runaway chariot and killed that they would arrest you on the spot.
Paul makes a little more subtle suggestion. They should pray for the emperor so that we can lead quiet and peaceful lives in godliness and dignity. In other words, we should pray that they would be good and wise leaders. Which when you think about it is a great prayer. It only makes sense that we should be praying for our leaders, even the ones we don’t like by asking God that they would be good and wise leaders that lead in a way that brings a good quality of life to all of us.
Paul then reminds us that God wants all people to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. Notice that he does not say that we should pray that the emperor be saved or come to knowledge of the God, once again the soldiers would probably arrest us if we did that.
Of course, we aren’t facing arrest for praying if we pray that one of our elected officials would come to be saved or the knowledge of God. But – here is the thing, praying that assumes that we know what God alone knows –what is in the heart of that leader. Far too often I hear people saying that this leader or that leader isn’t really a Christian, and then they suggest that our country would be a better place if he or she were. The fact is, being a Christian does not automatically make you a good leader, or even make you act particularly Christian. Look at history and you can find plenty of absolutely rotten leaders who were Christian.
Rather he suggests that we pray in a more practical way. He reminds us that Christ came to set all people free – so our prayers are that the leader leads in such a way that all might be free through Christ. Our prayers are about the practical and everyday decisions that the leader makes – for that wisdom from God that brings goodness to the lives of those that leader leads.
So on the political side of things, when you are looking at presidential candidates, what Paul is saying is pray for the practical way they affect us, don’t pray that bad things happen to them; and pray that they would gain wisdom that would enable all of us to live quiet and peaceful lives in all godliness and dignity. That is a great prayer.
But let’s move this past politics for a moment. This concept does not just apply to our presidents and politicians. It also applies to our bosses, our neighbors, our exes and anyone that just plain may annoy us. As tempting as it might be to pray that our boss would be fired, or our neighbor be attacked by a rabid squirrel, that is not the approach that Paul suggests.
We are to pray that they would allow us to live our lives in quiet and peace, and that all might find the freedom of Christ. And I like that. If our boss would allow us to do that, if our neighbor would allow us to do that, if our ex would allow us to do that, then those people would be a lot easier to live with.
He has given us a great model that we can use to be in prayer for anyone, whether we like the person or not, it is a fitting prayer.
Hmm. I just had a sudden thought. I realized that the person that usually causes me the most grief in my life, is me. Usually when I have trouble it is because I have made a dumb decision. So maybe I ought to be using this prayer on myself! “God, help me to live in way that I may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.” I like it! I think I will have to use it. See that’s not political, it is just plain practical advice on how to deal with my biggest opponent – myself! When I was thinking about this sermon originally, that thought never even occurred to me. Love it!
So to summarize. In this time of political turmoil, we should be praying for all of our leaders, whether we like them or not. In fact, we should be praying for all people, whether we like them or not. And we can even pray for ourselves. “Supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.”
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Black Lives Matter
There has been a response by many white Christians to the
Black Lives Matter movement that has suggested that Jesus wouldn’t have agreed with
the sentiment and that instead by his death on the cross he would have said
that “All lives matter”. But I must disagree. Although theoretically Jesus
shows love for all, he often did so by lifting up and speaking on behalf of the
oppressed, the hurting, the poor, and the downtrodden. I believe Jesus would
have said Black Lives Matter, as a way of telling us that we are not living up
to his standards of love and justice. Here are 10 of his statements that I
believe show that Jesus would have worn a Black Lives Matter t-shirt:
1. 1. ““Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the
kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed
are you who weep now, for you will laugh . . . But woe to you who are rich, for
you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will
be hungry.” – see Luke 6:20-26
2. 2. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he
has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim
release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the
oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” – see Luke
4:18-21
3. 3. “And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust
judge says. And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him
day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly
grant justice to them.” – see Luke 18:1-8
4. 4. “Indeed, some are last who will be first, and
some are first who will be last.” – see Luke 13:24-30
5. 5. “But when you give a banquet, invite the poor,
the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they
cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
– see Luke 14:7-14
6. 6. “Or those eighteen who were killed when the
tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than
all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you
will all perish just as they did.” – see Luke 13:1-5
7. 7. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters
of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have
practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a
gnat but swallow a camel!” – see Matthew
23:23-39
8. 8. The Parable of the Good Samaritan: “So likewise
a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was
moved with pity.” See Luke 10:25-37
9. 9. “Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it
that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison,
and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you,
just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to
me.’” – see Matthew 25:41-46
1 10. “If the world hates you, be aware that it hated
me before it hated you . . . If they
persecuted me, they will persecute you.” See John 15:18-16:4
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Four Most Dangerous Cities
Anytime someone prefaces a statement by "I'm not racist" or "I'm not bigoted" you can expect the statements that follow to be exactly that -- racist and bigoted. The person knows that or they wouldn't say preface their statements that way. What they are really hoping to do is to convince you that their form of racism or bigotry is okay. They are trying to justify their hatred. Such is the case with the following link:
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/28643-four-of-the-most-violent-u-s-cities-have-something-in-common
The mistake made by the author, Red Dawn, is that they believe that the facts prove they are neither racist nor bigoted, when the racism is not in the facts, but the way the facts are interpreted. The author intentionally connects race to violent crime, and suggests that this is the most important connection. That insinuation is what makes the statements racist: saying that cities where a high percentage of the population is black and the liberal policies of their leadership have directly caused the violence. Why? Because the connection itself is an error of causality.
Let's start with race, and turn the statistics upside down. The ten countries worldwide with the lowest crime rates from 10th to 1st are: Cyprus, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Bahrain, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Switzerland. These are countries from different parts of the world, representing different racial and ethnic groups. Race itself does not appear to be directly related to the ability to be peaceful.
Let's try something interesting, just to be irritating and generally aggravating to the writer of the article and address the liberal policies connection. Taxation. Of those ten countries with the lowest crime rates, three of them also appear in the list of countries with the highest tax rates. Denmark -- number 3 in tax rate, 9th lowest in crime. Japan -- number 7 in tax rate, 6th lowest in crime. Ireland -- number 10 in tax rate, 7th lowest in crime. If we only look at those examples we might conclude that the way to have low crime is to raise taxes. Apparently the liberals are right, and we should raise taxes to reduce crime, right? A more honest evaluation would be that taxation level, generally considered a liberal policy, is unrelated to violent crime.
Another example of false causality: country size. All of the countries on the list are relatively small geographically. Most are far smaller than most of our states! Does that mean that all the big countries in the world would have less crime if they just chopped themselves up into bite sized pieces? Perhaps if every county was self governing? More likely their is no causal relationship.
Now, let's look at the 'facts'. The writer claims that these four cities are among the highest in violent crime. According to neighborhood scout -- Detroit is number 3, St. Louis is 14, Baltimore is 18, and Washington DC is 29. Hardly the 4 worst in the country, like the writer makes it sound. Ignored are cities with more conservative bents like Myrtle Beach number 12, Indianapolis number 39. The reality is almost all big cities are Democratic in political bent, Of the top 50 cities in population, only two have Republican mayors -- Indianapolis, and Fort Worth, Texas. So most cities are liberal even those that would make the list of the big cities in the US with the lowest crime rates. Political party has no correlation here.
What the writer gets partially correct is the issue of racial segregation. The cities with the highest levels of racial segregation do experience higher levels of crime, but the cause is not the race of the individuals committing the crime nor the political party of their leadership. Rather it is the systemic, subtle racism which has been allowed to continue. When a city has a history of racial hatred and fear which leads to redlining, white-flight, and other formal or informal methods of segregation, it can hardly be surprising that those tensions eventually erupt into violence. Look at South Africa, Israel, Sarajevo, and countless other international examples.
So here's the point. Red Dawn, by drawing the conclusions that the most important issues leading to the violence in the cities are the race and politics of the individuals and not their history of persecution -- is actually perpetuating the very fear that has caused the problem in the first place. It may be subtle, it may be couched in misleading facts, but it is still bigotry. It is still racism.
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/28643-four-of-the-most-violent-u-s-cities-have-something-in-common
The mistake made by the author, Red Dawn, is that they believe that the facts prove they are neither racist nor bigoted, when the racism is not in the facts, but the way the facts are interpreted. The author intentionally connects race to violent crime, and suggests that this is the most important connection. That insinuation is what makes the statements racist: saying that cities where a high percentage of the population is black and the liberal policies of their leadership have directly caused the violence. Why? Because the connection itself is an error of causality.
Let's start with race, and turn the statistics upside down. The ten countries worldwide with the lowest crime rates from 10th to 1st are: Cyprus, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Bahrain, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Switzerland. These are countries from different parts of the world, representing different racial and ethnic groups. Race itself does not appear to be directly related to the ability to be peaceful.
Let's try something interesting, just to be irritating and generally aggravating to the writer of the article and address the liberal policies connection. Taxation. Of those ten countries with the lowest crime rates, three of them also appear in the list of countries with the highest tax rates. Denmark -- number 3 in tax rate, 9th lowest in crime. Japan -- number 7 in tax rate, 6th lowest in crime. Ireland -- number 10 in tax rate, 7th lowest in crime. If we only look at those examples we might conclude that the way to have low crime is to raise taxes. Apparently the liberals are right, and we should raise taxes to reduce crime, right? A more honest evaluation would be that taxation level, generally considered a liberal policy, is unrelated to violent crime.
Another example of false causality: country size. All of the countries on the list are relatively small geographically. Most are far smaller than most of our states! Does that mean that all the big countries in the world would have less crime if they just chopped themselves up into bite sized pieces? Perhaps if every county was self governing? More likely their is no causal relationship.
Now, let's look at the 'facts'. The writer claims that these four cities are among the highest in violent crime. According to neighborhood scout -- Detroit is number 3, St. Louis is 14, Baltimore is 18, and Washington DC is 29. Hardly the 4 worst in the country, like the writer makes it sound. Ignored are cities with more conservative bents like Myrtle Beach number 12, Indianapolis number 39. The reality is almost all big cities are Democratic in political bent, Of the top 50 cities in population, only two have Republican mayors -- Indianapolis, and Fort Worth, Texas. So most cities are liberal even those that would make the list of the big cities in the US with the lowest crime rates. Political party has no correlation here.
What the writer gets partially correct is the issue of racial segregation. The cities with the highest levels of racial segregation do experience higher levels of crime, but the cause is not the race of the individuals committing the crime nor the political party of their leadership. Rather it is the systemic, subtle racism which has been allowed to continue. When a city has a history of racial hatred and fear which leads to redlining, white-flight, and other formal or informal methods of segregation, it can hardly be surprising that those tensions eventually erupt into violence. Look at South Africa, Israel, Sarajevo, and countless other international examples.
So here's the point. Red Dawn, by drawing the conclusions that the most important issues leading to the violence in the cities are the race and politics of the individuals and not their history of persecution -- is actually perpetuating the very fear that has caused the problem in the first place. It may be subtle, it may be couched in misleading facts, but it is still bigotry. It is still racism.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Response to the Response to President Obama's Speech at the Prayer Breakfast
For what I am about to say, you will need to see this video. Also, remember that I am a pastor, a Christian, and not at all interested in becoming Muslim. I find much of Islam's teachings to be problematic. However I do not like false-characterization of the ugliness of my own faith's history, nor false-characterization of the faith of others.
http://blessings.buzz/2015/02/05/video-obama-wants-to-talk-about-the-crusades-lets-educate-him/
I would never justify the crusades. Having read a great deal about them in my church history classes, they are one of the worst things that Christians have partaken in. There is very little good about them, and all Christians should be deeply embarrassed by them. He skips such things as the children's crusade, the knights slaughtering Christians because God would sort them out, and the whole concept of fighting a holy war solely for the purpose of taking back the holy land. These were foolish, bloody, and there was very little holy about them.
Dr. Bill Warner distorts several facts. The motivation for the Crusades was not to free Christians. There was the desire to push back the Muslim offensive -- I will give him that, but always the desire was to take back the holy land from the infidels (both Muslim and Jews). Christians were seldom freed by the actions.
The armies left with little provisions. As the armies traveled they looted they Christian cities along the way, fighting and killing people to feed the armies. When they arrived, they were seldom acting to free others, but simply to kill all. One example, on July 15th 1099, Christians took Jerusalem. What followed was a horrible bloodbath. Women were raped, infants thrown against the walls. A synagogue in which many Jews sought refuge was set fire and they were prevented from escaping. The eyewitnesses say that the horses waded in blood.
Third, he only considers the official crusades, and none of the other battles which Muslims might consider acts of aggression. Nor other Christians offensives into other lands. The establishment of Israel could certainly be considered one. I have heard Christians talk about Gulf war, the war in Iraq, and the war against terrorism as religious wars. If Christians talk about them in that way, how do you think Muslims perceive them? Although we see them as defensive -- they take place in their homelands -- so they probably don't feel defensive to those whose soil they take place on.
He talks about slavery but ignores that Islam has very strict guidelines on the treatment of those slaves, including seeing them as human beings with certain rights. Consider the millions of slaves that Christians have taken from Africa, and it was justified because they were not Christian, the treatment was inhumane and there were few if any rights. What follows is a deep and lasting problem of race relations in the US. He doesn't mention lynchings of Muslims in many Christian countries, several within the last year (see the Central African Republic for one example). You can bet those Muslim extremists do consider those acts.
He also claims that there is no command to kill non-Christians in the New Testament. Close, but not quite true. Jesus parable of the vineyard in Luke 20 (also in Matthew 21) has been used to justify the killing of non-Christians. Revelation frequently mentions the armies of God killing large numbers of people, and often when people start believing that the end of times is near, they justify themselves by saying that they are those armies.
He also assumes that all Muslims consider Jihad to be a physical war. The term itself means struggle and often does include military battle. However, some consider it to be the internal spiritual struggle. And he assumes that it has a negative connotation; however some wars -- even most Christians would agree -- are against such evil that they are indeed necessary and part of the duty of the followers of God.
Before you judge the president's words at the prayer breakfast, remember that history is often an ugly thing, that much evil has been done in the name of religion, and that denying our own capacity for evil is one of the first steps to committing great evil. Yes, ISIS, is committing great acts of evil. But the crusades were as well, as I quote one crusader, who was bragging about the holiness of the soldiers in their treatment of the women that had been left behind in a Turkish camp, "We did nothing evil to them, but simply speared them through." And I could go on and on through history pointing out Christian brutality -- we must be willing to see the log in our own eye, before working to help our brothers and sisters with theirs.
http://blessings.buzz/2015/02/05/video-obama-wants-to-talk-about-the-crusades-lets-educate-him/
I would never justify the crusades. Having read a great deal about them in my church history classes, they are one of the worst things that Christians have partaken in. There is very little good about them, and all Christians should be deeply embarrassed by them. He skips such things as the children's crusade, the knights slaughtering Christians because God would sort them out, and the whole concept of fighting a holy war solely for the purpose of taking back the holy land. These were foolish, bloody, and there was very little holy about them.
Dr. Bill Warner distorts several facts. The motivation for the Crusades was not to free Christians. There was the desire to push back the Muslim offensive -- I will give him that, but always the desire was to take back the holy land from the infidels (both Muslim and Jews). Christians were seldom freed by the actions.
The armies left with little provisions. As the armies traveled they looted they Christian cities along the way, fighting and killing people to feed the armies. When they arrived, they were seldom acting to free others, but simply to kill all. One example, on July 15th 1099, Christians took Jerusalem. What followed was a horrible bloodbath. Women were raped, infants thrown against the walls. A synagogue in which many Jews sought refuge was set fire and they were prevented from escaping. The eyewitnesses say that the horses waded in blood.
Third, he only considers the official crusades, and none of the other battles which Muslims might consider acts of aggression. Nor other Christians offensives into other lands. The establishment of Israel could certainly be considered one. I have heard Christians talk about Gulf war, the war in Iraq, and the war against terrorism as religious wars. If Christians talk about them in that way, how do you think Muslims perceive them? Although we see them as defensive -- they take place in their homelands -- so they probably don't feel defensive to those whose soil they take place on.
He talks about slavery but ignores that Islam has very strict guidelines on the treatment of those slaves, including seeing them as human beings with certain rights. Consider the millions of slaves that Christians have taken from Africa, and it was justified because they were not Christian, the treatment was inhumane and there were few if any rights. What follows is a deep and lasting problem of race relations in the US. He doesn't mention lynchings of Muslims in many Christian countries, several within the last year (see the Central African Republic for one example). You can bet those Muslim extremists do consider those acts.
He also claims that there is no command to kill non-Christians in the New Testament. Close, but not quite true. Jesus parable of the vineyard in Luke 20 (also in Matthew 21) has been used to justify the killing of non-Christians. Revelation frequently mentions the armies of God killing large numbers of people, and often when people start believing that the end of times is near, they justify themselves by saying that they are those armies.
He also assumes that all Muslims consider Jihad to be a physical war. The term itself means struggle and often does include military battle. However, some consider it to be the internal spiritual struggle. And he assumes that it has a negative connotation; however some wars -- even most Christians would agree -- are against such evil that they are indeed necessary and part of the duty of the followers of God.
Before you judge the president's words at the prayer breakfast, remember that history is often an ugly thing, that much evil has been done in the name of religion, and that denying our own capacity for evil is one of the first steps to committing great evil. Yes, ISIS, is committing great acts of evil. But the crusades were as well, as I quote one crusader, who was bragging about the holiness of the soldiers in their treatment of the women that had been left behind in a Turkish camp, "We did nothing evil to them, but simply speared them through." And I could go on and on through history pointing out Christian brutality -- we must be willing to see the log in our own eye, before working to help our brothers and sisters with theirs.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Religious Liberty
In the April 2013 Imprimis of Hillsdale College, R.R. Reno writes about the changing face of religious liberty in the United States. His position can easily be summarized in one line: "Our secular establishment wants to reduce the autonomy of religious institutions and limit the influence of faith in the public square." He then goes on to say lay blame upon many groups for this trend, most specifically the "left" including the Obama administration, the libertarians and their utilitarian views, and more. While his insights into the cultural shifts in attitude toward religion may be correct, I think his quickness to blame certain groups is sociologically naive, and he ignores the dynamics of the "orthodox" church that have contributed to the problem.
The fact is, throughout history, the greatest violators of religious liberties have not been the non-religious, but the very orthodox religious groups themselves. The call for orthodoxy has a history of violence and oppression as those in power try to purge the heretics from church and country. This history contributes to the rise of the "nones", those people who claim no religious affiliation whatsoever. How? In my 20+ years in the pastorate I have watched the Christian church and its diversity of opinions and expressions face a siege from evangelical and fundamentalist voices, who want to call the church back to a more orthodox (in their eyes) position. These voices were so self-assured and so strongly represented in the culture, that many church people were convinced that if their church or pastor did not agree with this new orthodoxy, that the church they were attending must be non-Christian, and so they left. Also, these voices so altered the perception of Christianity, that people who once were able to consider themselves Christian because there was room for them in that less dogmatic era, no longer found themselves comfortable or welcome in the new Christianity.
This redefinition caused issues which were debated within the church, to suddenly issues of church against society. The case of creation and evolution is a great example. In college I was part of an evangelical student movement, but even within this group the issue of evolution was little debated. There was a strong understanding that some parts of the bible are not to be taken literally, and that science has its place in the discovery of God and how God works. But that changed as the new call to orthodoxy arose. Suddenly the room for Christian debate was removed and redefined to Christians versus Science. (This situation is certainly not new -- it has happened repeatedly in history, so I am not claiming this is a first). As that happened, people became convinced that to be Christian meant to be anti-science.
In a similar way, issues of abortion, homosexuality, prayer in school, etc., became calling cards of the new orthodoxy and people whose opinions were different faced being called non-Christian, heretical, and so on. This essentially ostracized or silenced a whole segment of the church. Those orthodox voices then called for a re-Christianizing of our country, asking for Christianity (specifically the evangelical form) to be named a state religion, or at least claiming they were being persecuted and oppressed by not being allowed to practice their orthodoxy in ways that forced it upon others in schools, hospitals and courtrooms.
That culture has backlashed against this movement should not be surprising. The rise of the "nones" is not a sign of a less spiritual people; but the rise of a group of people that have found our current religious atmosphere to be toxic to their beliefs. And the desire of those so affected to have themselves protected from this atmosphere legally and constitutionally only makes sense.
R.R. Reno omits this dynamic, and in doing so also omits one of the steps that is necessary for the retention of religious liberty in America -- and that is the willingness of Christians to realize that inflexible orthodoxy crushes the human mind, and does not save the human soul. What keeps the church meaningful in life, is its infusion with the Holy Spirit, its willingness to hear as God calls us to new things, new ideas, and new expressions of faith. Until we allow faith the room to breathe, faith has trouble growing, living and thriving in society. In other words, until Christians themselves are willing to give each other religious liberty and freedom, we will not have it in the political arena either.
The fact is, throughout history, the greatest violators of religious liberties have not been the non-religious, but the very orthodox religious groups themselves. The call for orthodoxy has a history of violence and oppression as those in power try to purge the heretics from church and country. This history contributes to the rise of the "nones", those people who claim no religious affiliation whatsoever. How? In my 20+ years in the pastorate I have watched the Christian church and its diversity of opinions and expressions face a siege from evangelical and fundamentalist voices, who want to call the church back to a more orthodox (in their eyes) position. These voices were so self-assured and so strongly represented in the culture, that many church people were convinced that if their church or pastor did not agree with this new orthodoxy, that the church they were attending must be non-Christian, and so they left. Also, these voices so altered the perception of Christianity, that people who once were able to consider themselves Christian because there was room for them in that less dogmatic era, no longer found themselves comfortable or welcome in the new Christianity.
This redefinition caused issues which were debated within the church, to suddenly issues of church against society. The case of creation and evolution is a great example. In college I was part of an evangelical student movement, but even within this group the issue of evolution was little debated. There was a strong understanding that some parts of the bible are not to be taken literally, and that science has its place in the discovery of God and how God works. But that changed as the new call to orthodoxy arose. Suddenly the room for Christian debate was removed and redefined to Christians versus Science. (This situation is certainly not new -- it has happened repeatedly in history, so I am not claiming this is a first). As that happened, people became convinced that to be Christian meant to be anti-science.
In a similar way, issues of abortion, homosexuality, prayer in school, etc., became calling cards of the new orthodoxy and people whose opinions were different faced being called non-Christian, heretical, and so on. This essentially ostracized or silenced a whole segment of the church. Those orthodox voices then called for a re-Christianizing of our country, asking for Christianity (specifically the evangelical form) to be named a state religion, or at least claiming they were being persecuted and oppressed by not being allowed to practice their orthodoxy in ways that forced it upon others in schools, hospitals and courtrooms.
That culture has backlashed against this movement should not be surprising. The rise of the "nones" is not a sign of a less spiritual people; but the rise of a group of people that have found our current religious atmosphere to be toxic to their beliefs. And the desire of those so affected to have themselves protected from this atmosphere legally and constitutionally only makes sense.
R.R. Reno omits this dynamic, and in doing so also omits one of the steps that is necessary for the retention of religious liberty in America -- and that is the willingness of Christians to realize that inflexible orthodoxy crushes the human mind, and does not save the human soul. What keeps the church meaningful in life, is its infusion with the Holy Spirit, its willingness to hear as God calls us to new things, new ideas, and new expressions of faith. Until we allow faith the room to breathe, faith has trouble growing, living and thriving in society. In other words, until Christians themselves are willing to give each other religious liberty and freedom, we will not have it in the political arena either.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Protecting the Bible
I have always been a little concerned about those that suggest that the bible is flawless and without error. It smells too much like, the apparently urban legend that a deck hand said of the Titanic, "Not even God could sink this ship." For the Bible to be completely inerrant, it would require too much from imperfect people. And I think anything that we humans construct has the potential to sink, even holy books.
First, people would have to hear perfectly what God told them -- and I know from many experiences that people don't do that well. Once after coaching a JV soccer game, the opposing coach came over to me and said, "I sense a rivalry here." I replied, "No. Next year we will be varsity and you will kill us." Somehow, the other coach heard, "Next year we will beat varsity and kill you." I discovered this when we played the varsity team next year and all their players were taunting us about "You're going to kill us? Welcome to varsity, after which they trounced us 11 - 0. All because of our imperfections in communication. And with God, it is even more difficult for us to get our message right.
Second, for the bible to be inerrant people would have to refrain from adding their personal comments to what God told them, you know embellishing it a bit to make it more exciting. Another soccer story. After each game, I would send the scores, stats, and a written quote to the newspapers for them to print if they wanted to. I put the quote in quotes with my name in order to make it clear it was an exact quote. Yet on one occasion the sport's editor didn't think my quote was exciting enough and totally rewrote my statement using hyper-competitive language not befitting of a pastor. I wasn't very happy. With the Bible, it seems equally (if not more) likely that humans would want to add their spin -- us being self-centered and all.
Third, the transmission of the texts would have to be perfect. It is true, that the texts have been passed down with remarkable accuracy, there are places where ancient texts have slight variations. They usually make no difference to interpretation, and yet the differences are there.
Some people try to get around these issues by saying that the texts were perfect in their original form and in their original language. That may sound like an acceptable statement at first, but in reality it is problematic. If God could get the bible perfectly into the hands of the original authors, wouldn't God have also ensured that the text remained pure and error-less during its transmission? Why would people long ago have a more accurate ability to get God's word exact than people now-a-days? It sounds good at first, because we don't know those people from long ago, and it is easy to trust people whose motives and personalities are invisible to us; while with current scholars, it is easy to distrust them because they must have an agenda they are pushing.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think the bible is a wonderful book, written by people about their experiences of God. I believe that it has the sanction of the Christian community and is intended to help us understand the faith and draw closer to God. I believe it is the spirit-filled, authoritative, and sacred book of Christianity. But I don't believe it is perfect. We should be willing to say, "Yes, the bible is right about this, but not about that. It is right that God is behind all of creation, but it isn't right about it taking 7 days. Yes, the bible is right in teaching that children ought to honor their mother and father; yet it is wrong about sparing the rod spoiling the child."
So here is what started this little rant. As I was working on my sermon this week, I was studying marriage in the bible and that favorite feminist passage about women submitting to men. So many commentators have struggled to remind us that it isn't talking about an ancient hierarchy that accepted abuse, but about humble service, it is about respect for one another, sacrificial love like that of Christ. But as I studied I discovered that those commentators are trying to protect the Bible from its own cultural bias where male dominance was acceptable, and hitting a woman to keep her pure wasn't morally questioned. No one wants to admit that the bible is very close to suggesting that spousal abuse is okay, that would make it all too obvious that the bible is not a perfect book.
Even the translators are in on it. Here's the verse as several Bibles render it. Ephesians 5:33
"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." -- King James Version
"So each husband should love his wife as much as he loves himself, and each wife should respect her husband." -- Contemporary English Version
"Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband." -- New Revised Standard Version
"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." -- New International Version
The problematic word is 'reverence' or 'respect'. It is a nice word, a gentle word, an acceptable word; but it isn't what the original Greek says. The original word is phobeo. You should recognize that, it is the word we use as phobia -- a deep and life-controlling fear. Every other time this word appears in the bible, it is translated as fear, afraid; but not here because that would not only unpopular, it would be immoral to suggest that wives should live in mortal fear of their husbands. Accurately rendering the word would force us to examine whether or not some of the biblical teachings are no longer acceptable; and admit that the authors were as human as we are, and subject to error. And that in turn might cause us to question. What teachings are applicable to us today? Where are the moments where God truly speaks, despite our human failings?
You see, I do believe that the Holy Spirit carries the text to us, but I also believe that the Holy Spirit continues to speak; sometimes correcting the past and leading us into newness of life. Yes, there is the danger that we will hear wrong, that we will twist the words to our own intentions -- but there is also the chance that God has plans for us that are greater, brighter and better than even those envisioned by the sages of the past.
First, people would have to hear perfectly what God told them -- and I know from many experiences that people don't do that well. Once after coaching a JV soccer game, the opposing coach came over to me and said, "I sense a rivalry here." I replied, "No. Next year we will be varsity and you will kill us." Somehow, the other coach heard, "Next year we will beat varsity and kill you." I discovered this when we played the varsity team next year and all their players were taunting us about "You're going to kill us? Welcome to varsity, after which they trounced us 11 - 0. All because of our imperfections in communication. And with God, it is even more difficult for us to get our message right.
Second, for the bible to be inerrant people would have to refrain from adding their personal comments to what God told them, you know embellishing it a bit to make it more exciting. Another soccer story. After each game, I would send the scores, stats, and a written quote to the newspapers for them to print if they wanted to. I put the quote in quotes with my name in order to make it clear it was an exact quote. Yet on one occasion the sport's editor didn't think my quote was exciting enough and totally rewrote my statement using hyper-competitive language not befitting of a pastor. I wasn't very happy. With the Bible, it seems equally (if not more) likely that humans would want to add their spin -- us being self-centered and all.
Third, the transmission of the texts would have to be perfect. It is true, that the texts have been passed down with remarkable accuracy, there are places where ancient texts have slight variations. They usually make no difference to interpretation, and yet the differences are there.
Some people try to get around these issues by saying that the texts were perfect in their original form and in their original language. That may sound like an acceptable statement at first, but in reality it is problematic. If God could get the bible perfectly into the hands of the original authors, wouldn't God have also ensured that the text remained pure and error-less during its transmission? Why would people long ago have a more accurate ability to get God's word exact than people now-a-days? It sounds good at first, because we don't know those people from long ago, and it is easy to trust people whose motives and personalities are invisible to us; while with current scholars, it is easy to distrust them because they must have an agenda they are pushing.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think the bible is a wonderful book, written by people about their experiences of God. I believe that it has the sanction of the Christian community and is intended to help us understand the faith and draw closer to God. I believe it is the spirit-filled, authoritative, and sacred book of Christianity. But I don't believe it is perfect. We should be willing to say, "Yes, the bible is right about this, but not about that. It is right that God is behind all of creation, but it isn't right about it taking 7 days. Yes, the bible is right in teaching that children ought to honor their mother and father; yet it is wrong about sparing the rod spoiling the child."
So here is what started this little rant. As I was working on my sermon this week, I was studying marriage in the bible and that favorite feminist passage about women submitting to men. So many commentators have struggled to remind us that it isn't talking about an ancient hierarchy that accepted abuse, but about humble service, it is about respect for one another, sacrificial love like that of Christ. But as I studied I discovered that those commentators are trying to protect the Bible from its own cultural bias where male dominance was acceptable, and hitting a woman to keep her pure wasn't morally questioned. No one wants to admit that the bible is very close to suggesting that spousal abuse is okay, that would make it all too obvious that the bible is not a perfect book.
Even the translators are in on it. Here's the verse as several Bibles render it. Ephesians 5:33
"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." -- King James Version
"So each husband should love his wife as much as he loves himself, and each wife should respect her husband." -- Contemporary English Version
"Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband." -- New Revised Standard Version
"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." -- New International Version
The problematic word is 'reverence' or 'respect'. It is a nice word, a gentle word, an acceptable word; but it isn't what the original Greek says. The original word is phobeo. You should recognize that, it is the word we use as phobia -- a deep and life-controlling fear. Every other time this word appears in the bible, it is translated as fear, afraid; but not here because that would not only unpopular, it would be immoral to suggest that wives should live in mortal fear of their husbands. Accurately rendering the word would force us to examine whether or not some of the biblical teachings are no longer acceptable; and admit that the authors were as human as we are, and subject to error. And that in turn might cause us to question. What teachings are applicable to us today? Where are the moments where God truly speaks, despite our human failings?
You see, I do believe that the Holy Spirit carries the text to us, but I also believe that the Holy Spirit continues to speak; sometimes correcting the past and leading us into newness of life. Yes, there is the danger that we will hear wrong, that we will twist the words to our own intentions -- but there is also the chance that God has plans for us that are greater, brighter and better than even those envisioned by the sages of the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)