Being a part of a mostly liberal denomination--The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, I get exposed to quite a few interesting thoughts and ideas.
Recently, I was asked to edit a comment I made on Facebook because it came across as "mansplaining." My first thought was, "What the hell is that?" Turns out, it is a made up word by those who are combating the "patriarchy" who see certain comments as patronizing--especially if they are coming from a male. Behind such wordplay is the assumption that we indeed live in a patriarchy where men dominate women; men are the oppressors of women; and where men have engineered a system to keep women oppressed even in their use of language.
Such thinking is not unique to the third-wave feminist movement. There are also such undertones in the sphere of race and identity in our culture. The term "white-privilege" is bantered about quite a bit these days assuming that society is geared to privilege people with less melanin in their skin. The very fabric of our society: how it is constructed; how it functions; its very foundational thoughts--are imbued to favor whites. Therefore, as some have concluded, all white people are racist.
I firmly believe that if you think that all people of a certain gender, skin color, or sexuality are racist, sexist or what have you, then you are actually guilty of major prejudice. Not bothering to get to know people on an individual basis, you have categorically made a "preconceived judgement or opinion." You have not judged a person by the content of his or her character; rather, you have made your claim based upon that person's gender or skin color. Such behavior is misguided at the least. Evil at its worst.
Such thoughts got me to thinking about the assumptions that govern Christianity. Does Christianity make prejudicial statements about people? Does Christianity assume things about others before getting to know those others?
Without a doubt.
Christianity claims "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." All are infected with the disease of original sin. (Original sin being an inherent selfishness and desire to be our own god of the universe into which all are born; all struggle with; and all have difficulty overcoming.)
If I adhere to the historical understanding of the Christian faith, then I definitely pre-judge people in this manner. Am I misguided at the least? Evil at worst?
I might be, if I looked at the world through the lens of dichotomy: us/them; oppressor/oppressed; right/wrong. For if I am a follower of Jesus who is "washed in the blood of the Lamb" and you are not, then I am better off than you are. I know that I am saved. I know that I am righteous unlike those who are still wallowing in their sins and condemned to everlasting punishment.
But historical Christianity does not allow me to look at the world this way. Historical Christianity does not allow me to think of myself as better off than anyone. For I too am guilty of original sin. I too am guilty of an inherent selfishness. I too am guilty of wishing to be god of my own universe. I cannot set myself against anyone because I am just like the other.
Much of the rhetoric in liberal churches who buy into the oppressor/oppressed lens--translated into male/female; white/black; white/brown; white/insert whatever color you choose; straight/GLBTQ; ad infinatum--draw sharp distinctions between genders, races, and those with differing sexual orientation. There is a definite dividing line for those who look at the world in this fashion. One could literally accuse these folks of black/white thinking and be absolutely correct--even though most on this side of the fence claim to see the world in shades of gray. Actually, they only see shades of gray when it is to their benefit--as do most people, including myself.
Historical Christianity has removed the dividing line. All have sinned. All are saved only and solely by grace. That's the other part generally missing from the rhetoric these days.
Left up to human devices, there is never a leveling of the playing field. There can only be societal upheaval which seeks to deconstruct systems and institutions and reconstruct them in a more equitable fashion. Historically speaking, this is never going to happen. Every single governmental and institutional structure has been shown to be wanting. Every single governmental and institutional structure has shown to have major flaws. None have been up to the task of creating a world of equality and egalitarianism. None. This is simply a historical fact whether you like it or not. And all the legal wrangling we try will never get us there. You cannot legislate a perfect society. Even God tried that--at least if you take Scripture seriously. It didn't work because we humans always find the loop holes. We humans always interpret the law to our advantage. What is needed is not more law, but complete changes of heart.
That is not accomplished by ourselves--or else we could claim to have an advantage over others. "I changed myself. You can too. You must too. You'd better too." Historical Christianity claims that such change comes from God and His action through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Trusting that Jesus saved me means that I cannot claim any sort of superiority. Trusting that Jesus saved me means that I cannot claim to have an advantage over anyone else. Trusting that Jesus saved me means that I am incapable of demonizing another; seeing the other as less than human; or condemning the other based upon their actions or physical traits. Jesus died for the other and saved the other just as He died for and saved me.
In much of liberal Christian thought "salvation" comes by recognizing my privilege and seeking to be in solidarity with those who are oppressed by such privilege. "Salvation" comes by seeking to become like the other or in solidarity with the other. In historical Christian thought, salvation comes through Jesus and then seeking to be like Him--dying to myself, my wants, and my desires and living to the glory of God. This means loving others including those who treat me wrongly.
Hence, I become prejudiced. I see people as sinners. I see them in need of the love of God through Jesus Christ. But I do not condemn them or hate them because I am also prejudiced in seeing them as children of God and beloved by God.
This is the prejudice of Christianity, and perhaps it is the prejudice we need more than ever in our society.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Are We Naturally Born Racists?
This title in the July/August "Reader's Digest" was timely given the events that took place in Charleston, SC when Dylann Roof murdered nine men and women because of the color of their skin.
There has been much discussion and reaction to this event--much of it particularly misguided in my estimation. I mean, some have used this shooting as a platform to rid the nation of symbols of the Confederacy. But removing the Confederate flag from public grounds will do very little to address the real, underlying issue regarding racism and prejudice. There is much more to this issue--much which is not being discussed.
I am going to take just a moment to deal with particular definitions in this subject. I think it is important to do so because if we cannot agree on terminology, then we cannot agree on solutions. Therefore, in this post, I will define
Racism as prejudice with power. (A definition I was exposed to in college.)
Prejudice as an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics. (from Merriam-Webster's third definition)
It is important, I think, to deal with prejudice. The appropriation of power, history shows, changes over time. It rises and falls among groups over and over and over again. If prejudice is combined with that power, racism occurs.
The Nature of Power
The philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche penned many influential writings which actually underpin much of our surrounding culture these days. Philosophically, Nietzsche removed transcendence from reality. Essentially what he said was: human reason cannot prove any sort of reality above and beyond this world. Therefore, what is our motivation for doing things? What is our reason for engaging in whatever activity we engage in?
Nietzsche's answer was: will to power. Essentially, we strive to put ourselves in the most advantageous position possible. We strive to get our own way; to make our own lives easier; to put ourselves in a position of power and authority so that we do not answer to anyone.
One might argue Nietzsche's basic postulates; however, I don't think he is far from the truth. For Christianity also says that humankind tends to act with its own self-interests in mind. Christianity states that humankind tends to seek autonomous authority where we answer to no one and make our own decisions without regard to anyone else--but with regard to our own well-being. This is the original sin of the garden of Eden where humankind wanted the knowledge of good and evil so that it no longer needed reference to the One who created them.
"What does this have to do with racism?" you might ask. Everything, I think.
The Nature of Prejudice
I personally do not believe we are naturally racist or prejudice, but we become prejudice very, very fast. In the July/August issue of Reader's Digest an article caught my eye. It was titled "Are We Naturally Born Racists?" I encourage you to read the article in its entirety to see the research that the following quotes are based upon. [The research is based on the IAT, and if you would like to take the test you can find it here.] I found the following one particularly fascinating:
"Humans are tribal creatures, showing strong bias against those we perceive as different from us and favoritism toward those we perceive as similar. In fact, we humans will divide ourselves into in-groups and out-groups even when the perceived differences between specific groups are completely arbitrary." Reader's Digest, July/August 2015 "Are We Naturally-Born Racists?" Pp. 113-114.
Let that sink in just a moment before reading the next one.
"In other words, if you give people the slightest push toward behaving tribally, they'll happily comply. So if race is the basis on which tribes are identified, expect serious problems." Reader's Digest, July/August 2015 "Are We Naturally-Born Racists?" P.114.
We only need the slightest push to begin drawing lines in the sand and acting tribally.
It Should Seem Obvious, but...
In my Sunday School adult class we have spoken at length about race issues and whether or not racism is on the decline. Racist behavior I think is significantly less because of the Civil Right's Movement; however racist attitudes, I think, have not abated. The above research perhaps gives us an insight as to why.
One of the gentlemen in my class who is over seventy recalled in the early days in the Cat Spring, TX community how Germans and Czechs drew sharp lines of distinction. Intermarriage was "verboten". Drinking beer socially was acceptable, but that was about it. The two groups sought to be distinct and separate. They clung to their differences. Over time, those barriers faded, and the cultural distinction is almost gone.
"Why?" one might ask. These groups were divided based upon clinging to a particular culture and language that kept them distinct. As time passed and generations lost many cultural practices and children learned English only, the differences evaporated. There were no longer lines that caused divisions. Remember, the brain needs only a slight push to draw the boundaries and become tribal. When language and cultural distinctions evaporated, tribalism vanished.
That's not easily done with physical attributes, is it?
One cannot simply wait 60 years for skin color to change. It won't. Intermarriage will not produce a "greying" of color anytime soon. This distinction will remain regardless of our best efforts to become colorblind. You cannot help but see the differences. And if our brains just need the slightest push...
We will become tribal. Not we will, we are tribal.
This is not just a "white" problem. This is not just a "black" problem. This is not just a "brown" problem. This is a human problem that demands a radical answer.
Society's Answers
Society over and over again has tried to teach us that no matter what is outside, we all bleed red. This is most certainly true.
Society has taught us since the overthrow of the Jim Crow laws that skin color is irrelevant compared to our identity as human beings. This is most certainly true.
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech resounds with words that touch many of us to our very core--the dream of a nation where we are judged by the content of our character instead of the color of our skin.
If these truths are embraced by many and believed by many, why do we still find such division? Why do we still see so few integrated neighborhoods? Why is Sunday morning still the most segregated morning of the week? Why do kids congregate among kids of their same color?
We only need the slightest push toward tribalism.
Do we naturally disregard these ideals and continue to cling to our respective culture of color?
I think we do. And no matter how much you point to the ideal, human nature has a tendency of taking over--whether we want it to or not!
Why?
Because of two things: 1) In the deepest recesses of our hearts we want to be with others who are just like us. Our brains make distinctions and cling to them, so nothing less than a total restructuring of our brain's natural state needs to occur. 2) Our Western, enlightenment society still tells us to cling to our racial identity! Embrace the color of your skin! Let no one tell you, your skin color is bad or wrong or ugly! This is central and core to your being!
And in one way it is, but in another way, it perpetuates the problem. For if I cling to my skin color and if my skin color is central to my being, then those who do not share my skin color are categorized as different by my brain--whether I want my brain to do this or not. And we only need a slight nudge toward tribalism...
The Gospel's Answer
Christianity proposes another answer--one that is much more difficult, but much more liberating and all encompassing.
The Christian answer begins with dying to self. That's a hard thing to swallow because we love ourselves. We do everything we can to preserve ourselves. Evolution has bred us to look out for ourselves and protect everything about us--not only my physical self, but also my identity. I am who I am, and no one is going to tell me to be otherwise!
Yet, Jesus says, "Find your identity in me. Don't look to your race, gender, ethnicity, or social status. Don't look to your wallet or your possessions. Don't find your sense of self-worth in how many Facebook likes you get or in how many degrees you possess. Find your worth, value, and identity in me."
St. Paul articulated this in brilliant fashion when he penned the words of Galatians 3:27-28, "For as many of you as are baptized in Christ Jesus have clothed yourself with Christ. For there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. All of you are one in Christ Jesus."
The White Privilege Accusation
When my wife and I adopted our first daughter (who is bi-racial), I sat down to fill out my parochial report for my congregation. As I contemplated the report, I became very uncomfortable. You see, my denomination wants me (on the basis of my best judgement) to write down the racial/ethnic composition of my congregation. As I looked at the places to fill in such categories, I unequivocally thought about my own family. Do I look at my daughter and think, "Oh, she is bi-racial. Her skin tone is black."? NO. UNEQUIVOCALLY, NO!!!! I simply see her as my daughter.
The human brain only needs the slightest nudge to draw lines and act tribally...
I filled in the blank under "other" for the entire congregation. I wrote in "Children of God."
I ended up in a heated discussion with someone in Chicago, IL where our church offices are located. I was accused of having viewing the topic with white privilege and that "with all deference to St. Paul's theology, the Division for such and such requires these numbers."
So you are putting the Division for such and such ahead of the clear biblical witness? Which one do you think I am going to listen to?
"You are speaking from a position of white privilege."
Now, I am going to go back to Nietzsche because Nietzsche was remarkable in his assessment of human nature. He says we all seek our own will to power. We don't, by default, seek the greater good. We don't, by default, seek the betterment of society. Nietzsche argues (and rather successfully since much of philosophy has been trying to deal with him for the last 100+ years) that we only seek things that have some direct benefit to ourselves. It's a great understanding of original sin.
The claim that folks like myself are speaking from a position of white privilege is nothing more than a power play to lessen the force of a particular segment of society and increase the power of other voices within that same society. In this case, the claim of white privilege places a priority on the voices of people of color (putting them into ascendance of power) while making secondary (putting them in a lower position) the voices of people labeled as "white." It's a power play, plain and simple.
I expect to be soundly bashed for that comment, but I think I am on solid ground with my assertion. The claim of white privilege allows society to continue to draw lines based upon skin color, and:
The human brain only needs the slightest nudge to draw lines and act tribally.
Toward a Solution
Christianity offers a pathway forward because of the nature of the Gospel.
The Gospel does not allow anyone to take the moral high road. It does not allow anyone to place his or her race in a position of moral superiority or authority. For Jesus died for us WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS.
The Gospel also does not allow anyone to wallow in victim hood. For the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE BOUGHT YOU WITH GREAT PRICE showing your immense value to Him.
These two things try to address something that society cannot touch: the heart. For it is the heart which seeks power and privilege. It is the heart which has selfish intentions, and it is these selfish intentions and desires for self-preservation that lead us to isolate ourselves from others and draw our boundaries.
The human brain only needs the slightest nudge to draw lines and act tribally...
But if those lines are destroyed because all have sinned.
And if those lines are destroyed because God's desire is to redeem all.
Then, no racial group can claim to be better than another with these two fundamental understandings. There is something that cuts us down at the knees while at the same time building us up. There is something that humbles us in our interactions with God and with one another without making us feel like we are worthless.
I simply cannot look at a person of a different color and see myself as better than him or her when I know that I was and am a sinner. I cannot look at a person of a different color and see myself as somehow superior when I know that person is made in the image of God and clothed with the righteousness of Christ--the same garment I am clothed in!!! I cannot see myself belonging to another group based upon ethnicity or skin color when all has been covered by Jesus.
And for those who are not part of the Christian faith, I am not commissioned to see them as anything less than fellow human beings who need to hear the Gospel just as much as I needed to hear it.
For certain the Church has not done a very good job of following through on the implications of the Gospel, but I believe part of this is due to the fact that we've forgotten the nature of that very Gospel. But that is another topic for a later date.
There has been much discussion and reaction to this event--much of it particularly misguided in my estimation. I mean, some have used this shooting as a platform to rid the nation of symbols of the Confederacy. But removing the Confederate flag from public grounds will do very little to address the real, underlying issue regarding racism and prejudice. There is much more to this issue--much which is not being discussed.
I am going to take just a moment to deal with particular definitions in this subject. I think it is important to do so because if we cannot agree on terminology, then we cannot agree on solutions. Therefore, in this post, I will define
Racism as prejudice with power. (A definition I was exposed to in college.)
Prejudice as an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics. (from Merriam-Webster's third definition)
It is important, I think, to deal with prejudice. The appropriation of power, history shows, changes over time. It rises and falls among groups over and over and over again. If prejudice is combined with that power, racism occurs.
The Nature of Power
The philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche penned many influential writings which actually underpin much of our surrounding culture these days. Philosophically, Nietzsche removed transcendence from reality. Essentially what he said was: human reason cannot prove any sort of reality above and beyond this world. Therefore, what is our motivation for doing things? What is our reason for engaging in whatever activity we engage in?
Nietzsche's answer was: will to power. Essentially, we strive to put ourselves in the most advantageous position possible. We strive to get our own way; to make our own lives easier; to put ourselves in a position of power and authority so that we do not answer to anyone.
One might argue Nietzsche's basic postulates; however, I don't think he is far from the truth. For Christianity also says that humankind tends to act with its own self-interests in mind. Christianity states that humankind tends to seek autonomous authority where we answer to no one and make our own decisions without regard to anyone else--but with regard to our own well-being. This is the original sin of the garden of Eden where humankind wanted the knowledge of good and evil so that it no longer needed reference to the One who created them.
"What does this have to do with racism?" you might ask. Everything, I think.
The Nature of Prejudice
I personally do not believe we are naturally racist or prejudice, but we become prejudice very, very fast. In the July/August issue of Reader's Digest an article caught my eye. It was titled "Are We Naturally Born Racists?" I encourage you to read the article in its entirety to see the research that the following quotes are based upon. [The research is based on the IAT, and if you would like to take the test you can find it here.] I found the following one particularly fascinating:
"Humans are tribal creatures, showing strong bias against those we perceive as different from us and favoritism toward those we perceive as similar. In fact, we humans will divide ourselves into in-groups and out-groups even when the perceived differences between specific groups are completely arbitrary." Reader's Digest, July/August 2015 "Are We Naturally-Born Racists?" Pp. 113-114.
Let that sink in just a moment before reading the next one.
"In other words, if you give people the slightest push toward behaving tribally, they'll happily comply. So if race is the basis on which tribes are identified, expect serious problems." Reader's Digest, July/August 2015 "Are We Naturally-Born Racists?" P.114.
We only need the slightest push to begin drawing lines in the sand and acting tribally.
It Should Seem Obvious, but...
In my Sunday School adult class we have spoken at length about race issues and whether or not racism is on the decline. Racist behavior I think is significantly less because of the Civil Right's Movement; however racist attitudes, I think, have not abated. The above research perhaps gives us an insight as to why.
One of the gentlemen in my class who is over seventy recalled in the early days in the Cat Spring, TX community how Germans and Czechs drew sharp lines of distinction. Intermarriage was "verboten". Drinking beer socially was acceptable, but that was about it. The two groups sought to be distinct and separate. They clung to their differences. Over time, those barriers faded, and the cultural distinction is almost gone.
"Why?" one might ask. These groups were divided based upon clinging to a particular culture and language that kept them distinct. As time passed and generations lost many cultural practices and children learned English only, the differences evaporated. There were no longer lines that caused divisions. Remember, the brain needs only a slight push to draw the boundaries and become tribal. When language and cultural distinctions evaporated, tribalism vanished.
That's not easily done with physical attributes, is it?
One cannot simply wait 60 years for skin color to change. It won't. Intermarriage will not produce a "greying" of color anytime soon. This distinction will remain regardless of our best efforts to become colorblind. You cannot help but see the differences. And if our brains just need the slightest push...
We will become tribal. Not we will, we are tribal.
This is not just a "white" problem. This is not just a "black" problem. This is not just a "brown" problem. This is a human problem that demands a radical answer.
Society's Answers
Society over and over again has tried to teach us that no matter what is outside, we all bleed red. This is most certainly true.
Society has taught us since the overthrow of the Jim Crow laws that skin color is irrelevant compared to our identity as human beings. This is most certainly true.
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech resounds with words that touch many of us to our very core--the dream of a nation where we are judged by the content of our character instead of the color of our skin.
If these truths are embraced by many and believed by many, why do we still find such division? Why do we still see so few integrated neighborhoods? Why is Sunday morning still the most segregated morning of the week? Why do kids congregate among kids of their same color?
We only need the slightest push toward tribalism.
Do we naturally disregard these ideals and continue to cling to our respective culture of color?
I think we do. And no matter how much you point to the ideal, human nature has a tendency of taking over--whether we want it to or not!
Why?
Because of two things: 1) In the deepest recesses of our hearts we want to be with others who are just like us. Our brains make distinctions and cling to them, so nothing less than a total restructuring of our brain's natural state needs to occur. 2) Our Western, enlightenment society still tells us to cling to our racial identity! Embrace the color of your skin! Let no one tell you, your skin color is bad or wrong or ugly! This is central and core to your being!
And in one way it is, but in another way, it perpetuates the problem. For if I cling to my skin color and if my skin color is central to my being, then those who do not share my skin color are categorized as different by my brain--whether I want my brain to do this or not. And we only need a slight nudge toward tribalism...
The Gospel's Answer
Christianity proposes another answer--one that is much more difficult, but much more liberating and all encompassing.
The Christian answer begins with dying to self. That's a hard thing to swallow because we love ourselves. We do everything we can to preserve ourselves. Evolution has bred us to look out for ourselves and protect everything about us--not only my physical self, but also my identity. I am who I am, and no one is going to tell me to be otherwise!
Yet, Jesus says, "Find your identity in me. Don't look to your race, gender, ethnicity, or social status. Don't look to your wallet or your possessions. Don't find your sense of self-worth in how many Facebook likes you get or in how many degrees you possess. Find your worth, value, and identity in me."
St. Paul articulated this in brilliant fashion when he penned the words of Galatians 3:27-28, "For as many of you as are baptized in Christ Jesus have clothed yourself with Christ. For there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. All of you are one in Christ Jesus."
The White Privilege Accusation
When my wife and I adopted our first daughter (who is bi-racial), I sat down to fill out my parochial report for my congregation. As I contemplated the report, I became very uncomfortable. You see, my denomination wants me (on the basis of my best judgement) to write down the racial/ethnic composition of my congregation. As I looked at the places to fill in such categories, I unequivocally thought about my own family. Do I look at my daughter and think, "Oh, she is bi-racial. Her skin tone is black."? NO. UNEQUIVOCALLY, NO!!!! I simply see her as my daughter.
The human brain only needs the slightest nudge to draw lines and act tribally...
I filled in the blank under "other" for the entire congregation. I wrote in "Children of God."
I ended up in a heated discussion with someone in Chicago, IL where our church offices are located. I was accused of having viewing the topic with white privilege and that "with all deference to St. Paul's theology, the Division for such and such requires these numbers."
So you are putting the Division for such and such ahead of the clear biblical witness? Which one do you think I am going to listen to?
"You are speaking from a position of white privilege."
Now, I am going to go back to Nietzsche because Nietzsche was remarkable in his assessment of human nature. He says we all seek our own will to power. We don't, by default, seek the greater good. We don't, by default, seek the betterment of society. Nietzsche argues (and rather successfully since much of philosophy has been trying to deal with him for the last 100+ years) that we only seek things that have some direct benefit to ourselves. It's a great understanding of original sin.
The claim that folks like myself are speaking from a position of white privilege is nothing more than a power play to lessen the force of a particular segment of society and increase the power of other voices within that same society. In this case, the claim of white privilege places a priority on the voices of people of color (putting them into ascendance of power) while making secondary (putting them in a lower position) the voices of people labeled as "white." It's a power play, plain and simple.
I expect to be soundly bashed for that comment, but I think I am on solid ground with my assertion. The claim of white privilege allows society to continue to draw lines based upon skin color, and:
The human brain only needs the slightest nudge to draw lines and act tribally.
Toward a Solution
Christianity offers a pathway forward because of the nature of the Gospel.
The Gospel does not allow anyone to take the moral high road. It does not allow anyone to place his or her race in a position of moral superiority or authority. For Jesus died for us WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS.
The Gospel also does not allow anyone to wallow in victim hood. For the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE BOUGHT YOU WITH GREAT PRICE showing your immense value to Him.
These two things try to address something that society cannot touch: the heart. For it is the heart which seeks power and privilege. It is the heart which has selfish intentions, and it is these selfish intentions and desires for self-preservation that lead us to isolate ourselves from others and draw our boundaries.
The human brain only needs the slightest nudge to draw lines and act tribally...
But if those lines are destroyed because all have sinned.
And if those lines are destroyed because God's desire is to redeem all.
Then, no racial group can claim to be better than another with these two fundamental understandings. There is something that cuts us down at the knees while at the same time building us up. There is something that humbles us in our interactions with God and with one another without making us feel like we are worthless.
I simply cannot look at a person of a different color and see myself as better than him or her when I know that I was and am a sinner. I cannot look at a person of a different color and see myself as somehow superior when I know that person is made in the image of God and clothed with the righteousness of Christ--the same garment I am clothed in!!! I cannot see myself belonging to another group based upon ethnicity or skin color when all has been covered by Jesus.
And for those who are not part of the Christian faith, I am not commissioned to see them as anything less than fellow human beings who need to hear the Gospel just as much as I needed to hear it.
For certain the Church has not done a very good job of following through on the implications of the Gospel, but I believe part of this is due to the fact that we've forgotten the nature of that very Gospel. But that is another topic for a later date.
Monday, August 31, 2015
The Tribal Brain Undone
This morning we have the second feeding of a multitude found in the book of Mark. Yes, you heard me correctly, this is the second time Jesus feeds a large group of people. Mark records two feedings. If you don’t believe me, you can look in your Bible at Mark chapter six. That’s the feeding of the 5000. This is the feeding of the 4000. Some scholars, while looking at these two accounts think that Mark is simply telling a story twice–a doublet is what they call it. They discount the historical accuracy of this second event. Other scholars are quick to say that there are very different circumstances here–circumstances that say this is indeed another historical feeding with a very important point. What might that point be? Let’s begin our journey this morning together.
In the July/August edition of "The Reader’s Digest", Chris Mooney writes an article titled, “Are We Naturally Born Racists?” It is a fascinating read about the nature of the human brain. The writer, Chris, takes the IAT test, which is a test that seeks to measure your initial reactions to people of color. Chris considered himself color blind, but the test revealed that he had an innate prejudice. He was not happy about this. But he asked numerous questions about this research, and it led him to write the following:
Let that sink in just a moment before hearing the next one.
What kind of problems?
Lebanese-born French writer Amin Maalouf says this in his 1996 book In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong:
Think about such things deeply for a moment as you think about the culture that surrounds us. Think about such things as you reflect on what took place and is taking place just down the road in Waller County surrounding Sara Bland. Think about such things as you contemplate the shooting of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Think about this as you ponder the execution of Houston Sheriff's Deputy Darren Goforth. Think about such matters as you remember the cold blooded killing of nine church people in Charleston, S.C.
In each of these situations, there is an us/them mentality. There is the idea that a particular group is persecuted and then justified in its actions. There is a great divide as tribal lines are drawn around the color of skin. Ah, but if Mooney and the researchers at Harvard are correct, such tribalism doesn’t just take place around skin color, our brain naturally draws distinctions between male and female, German and Czech, black and white, young and old, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, and so on and so forth. Lines get drawn, sides get taken, and fights eventually erupt. And sometimes we scratch our heads in bewilderment wondering why.
And some of you might be wondering why I am even going down this train of thought when it looks like it has nothing to do with the feeding of the 4000. Such matters seem to be completely absent from this text from Mark chapter 8. And you would be right if you just look at this text at face value, but I don’t want to look at it on the surface. I want to dig into it and place it into context. I also want to compare it to the previous feeding found in chapter 6 because there are some very important differences.
First off, the location is important. Mark begins this little segment with the words, “In those days...” which connect this story to the one immediately preceding it–the healing of a deaf, tongue tied, Gentile man. This is important because Jesus is traveling through Gentile territory. You might say He was in hostile territory given the Jew’s animosity toward Gentiles. However, something very strange seems to be going on. The Gentiles are very receptive to Jesus’ message. A large crowd has gathered to hear Jesus preach and teach.
I pointed out last time with the feeding of the 5000 that you should be thankful that I don’t preach like Jesus. I will reinforce this once more as I point you toward Jesus’ statement, “I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for...” how many days? Yes. Three days. How many complaints do you think Jesus got about that sermon?
But let’s return more to the point. I want you to take a moment to turn to the feeding of the 5000 that you find in Mark chapter 6, and I want you to look at something carefully. I want you to look at the role of the disciples. Who initiates care and compassion for the crowd in Mark chapter 6?
It’s the disciples. The crowd has been there all day. The crowd is getting hungry. The disciples know they need to eat, and, knowing they could not provide for the crowd, they asked Jesus to send them away to get something to eat. As we look at the feeding of the 4000, the crowd has been with Jesus for three days–three days!!! How come the disciples didn’t say anything to Jesus about the people getting hungry? How come the disciples didn’t ask Jesus to send them away to get their own food? How come the disciples don’t show the same kind of concern? I think there is a reason.
Jesus is the one who begins the conversation and who has compassion. He, again says, “I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. 3If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way—and some of them have come from a great distance.”
Verse 4 reads: His disciples replied, ‘How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert?’
Now, there are a couple of ways of looking at this. First, we can wonder: are the disciples dense? Don’t they remember Jesus feeding the 5000? Don’t they remember His amazing miracle? Don’t they realize that Jesus could do once again what He did before? Do they truly lack faith in the one who fed the multitude before, walked on water, cast out demons, and then healed a man who was deaf and tongue tied?
I think the answer is no, and I base it on what I read in one of my commentaries. It was a very intriguing quote, and I would like to share it with you now. William Lane writes in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, “There is an indirectness in the response of Ch. 8:4 which is different in tone and function. It serves to refer the question of procuring bread back to Jesus and is tantamount to asking, What do you intend to do?”
What do YOU intend to do, Jesus? Not, how can we help. Not, should we spend a lot of money to provide food. It’s all up to you Jesus. Now, this could be seen as a statement of tremendous faith. It could be seen as a statement of trust in the Lord, but it doesn’t fit the context. It certainly doesn’t fit what will be happening in the next couple of texts. In fact–here is a bit of a foreshadowing for you–as we look at the next couple of snippets in the coming weeks, we will see that the disciples don’t get it. They don’t understand Jesus’ mission. They are starting to understand that He is the Messiah, but they don’t yet realize, Jesus is here to save, not simply the Jews, but is here to save the WHOLE WORLD. This means, I think, in the context of what is going on in this segment of the book of Mark, the disciples don’t want to feed this crowd. They don’t want to have compassion on them. They don’t like this crowd because this crowd is a Gentile crowd. This crowd isn’t like them. The disciples are being tribal.
But Jesus won’t let them get away with this. Jesus won’t let them keep those boundaries drawn. Jesus asks them how much bread they have. Seven loaves this time. Jesus takes them and begins breaking them, and He makes the disciples distribute the bread. Jesus finds that they have a few fish. He blesses them and starts distributing them through the disciples. Once again, the entire crowd is satisfied, and when all is said and done, seven baskets are filled. This time, it’s not seven lunch boxes-the Greek word here connotes large baskets constructed out of rope. Jesus dismisses the crowd, and everyone gets back into the boat and leaves.
Again, as we shall see in the next Sunday or so as we continue our journey through Mark, the disciples don’t get what Jesus is doing. They don’t understand this foray into Gentile territory. They don’t understand the nature and reality of what it means that Jesus is God incarnate. They don’t understand fully the nature of what it means that Jesus is the Messiah. They are still caught up in the idea that Jesus is here for the Jews. They are still caught up in the idea that this man who is full of power will restore the kingdom of Israel. The other nations of the world–the Gentiles are to be subjects to rule over. They are outsiders. They are those people over there. It is all too easy to look at the world and think such thoughts. The brain is hard wired to draw distinctions, and we are quick to act tribally. Do you see now why I started as I did? Do you see now how this ties to our present reality is a very real way? Do you see how we still struggle with the same issues the disciples struggled with?
And what does Jesus lead us to? What place does Jesus want us to arrive at?
Let me read to you a snippet from the book of Ephesians chapter 2:
Did you catch that phrase in there? Did you catch the fact that you were once “far off?” Did you catch that through the blood of Jesus, a new humanity has now been created? Did you catch that the world has been reconciled to God through Jesus’ body on the cross?
You see, Jesus is showing in the feeding of this Gentile crowd that He is the Messiah for the world. He is not simply the Messiah for the Jews. All are far off from God. The Jews are far off because they do not follow the commands given to them by Moses. The Gentiles are far off because the Jews have not taken the blessings of God and then sought to be a blessing to others. All are separated from God. All.
And we don’t like to hear that. No. We don’t like to hear that at all. We like to think that God and we are like this (hold intertwined fingers up). We like to think that God and we are on good terms. We like to think that we have it all figured out and God is walking with us affirming us every step of the way, and the people with all the problems are those people out there. If those people would just get their acts together then everything will work out. And I will surround myself with people who think like me and act like me and look like me. We will affirm each other and make ourselves feel good, and we can look down our collective nose at everyone else.
But Jesus says, “I don’t think so. You are not as good as you think you are. In fact, because of your sin–you are apart from God. You are out there. And so is everyone else in the world.” All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And there is nothing you can do to make it better. Your brain won’t allow it. You will always become tribal. You will always try to think in terms of us versus them. That’s how you are wired because of your sin.
But even though we can’t do anything about this, there is one who can. There is one who did. For when Jesus stretched out His arms on the cross, He brought you close to God. He brought me close to God. He brought the world close to God. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be save through Him.”
All who were once far off have been brought near. All who have sinned receive forgiveness through Jesus Christ. And even if a person does not follow Jesus, do we see them as less than ourselves? Do we see them as unworthy of love and compassion and trust? Of course not. We see others as God sees them: as precious people who are in need of a Savior. And how do we bring them to the saving knowledge of Jesus? Do we do so with hatred, animosity, anger, frustration, and the like? Of course not. No. We lead with the same things Jesus gave to us when we least deserved it: compassion, kindness, grace, and love. Yes, there are differences. Yes, there are divisions, but when we place our trust in Christ, we do not lead with blame, or hatred or animosity or drawing lines. We lead with compassion, love, and reconciliation. Amen.
In the July/August edition of "The Reader’s Digest", Chris Mooney writes an article titled, “Are We Naturally Born Racists?” It is a fascinating read about the nature of the human brain. The writer, Chris, takes the IAT test, which is a test that seeks to measure your initial reactions to people of color. Chris considered himself color blind, but the test revealed that he had an innate prejudice. He was not happy about this. But he asked numerous questions about this research, and it led him to write the following:
Humans are tribal creatures, showing strong bias against those we perceive as different from us and favoritism toward those we perceive as similar. In fact, we humans will divide ourselves into in-groups and out-groups even when the perceived differences between specific groups are completely arbitrary.
Let that sink in just a moment before hearing the next one.
In other words, if you give people the slightest push toward behaving tribally, they'll happily comply. So if race is the basis on which tribes are identified, expect serious problems.
What kind of problems?
Lebanese-born French writer Amin Maalouf says this in his 1996 book In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong:
People often see themselves in terms of whichever one of their allegiances is most under attack. And sometimes, when a person doesn’t have the strength to defend that allegiance, he hides it. Then it remains buried deep down in the dark, awaiting its revenge. But whether he accepts or conceals it, proclaims it discreetly or flaunts it, it is with that allegiance that the person concerned identifies. And then, whether it relates to color, religion, language or class, it invades the person’s whole identity. Other people who share the same allegiance sympathize; they all gather together, join forces, encourage one another, challenge “the other side.” For them, “asserting their identity” inevitably becomes an act of courage, of liberation.
In the midst of any community that has been wounded agitators naturally arise… The scene is now set and the war can begin. Whatever happens “the others” will have deserved it.
Think about such things deeply for a moment as you think about the culture that surrounds us. Think about such things as you reflect on what took place and is taking place just down the road in Waller County surrounding Sara Bland. Think about such things as you contemplate the shooting of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Think about this as you ponder the execution of Houston Sheriff's Deputy Darren Goforth. Think about such matters as you remember the cold blooded killing of nine church people in Charleston, S.C.
In each of these situations, there is an us/them mentality. There is the idea that a particular group is persecuted and then justified in its actions. There is a great divide as tribal lines are drawn around the color of skin. Ah, but if Mooney and the researchers at Harvard are correct, such tribalism doesn’t just take place around skin color, our brain naturally draws distinctions between male and female, German and Czech, black and white, young and old, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, and so on and so forth. Lines get drawn, sides get taken, and fights eventually erupt. And sometimes we scratch our heads in bewilderment wondering why.
And some of you might be wondering why I am even going down this train of thought when it looks like it has nothing to do with the feeding of the 4000. Such matters seem to be completely absent from this text from Mark chapter 8. And you would be right if you just look at this text at face value, but I don’t want to look at it on the surface. I want to dig into it and place it into context. I also want to compare it to the previous feeding found in chapter 6 because there are some very important differences.
First off, the location is important. Mark begins this little segment with the words, “In those days...” which connect this story to the one immediately preceding it–the healing of a deaf, tongue tied, Gentile man. This is important because Jesus is traveling through Gentile territory. You might say He was in hostile territory given the Jew’s animosity toward Gentiles. However, something very strange seems to be going on. The Gentiles are very receptive to Jesus’ message. A large crowd has gathered to hear Jesus preach and teach.
I pointed out last time with the feeding of the 5000 that you should be thankful that I don’t preach like Jesus. I will reinforce this once more as I point you toward Jesus’ statement, “I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for...” how many days? Yes. Three days. How many complaints do you think Jesus got about that sermon?
But let’s return more to the point. I want you to take a moment to turn to the feeding of the 5000 that you find in Mark chapter 6, and I want you to look at something carefully. I want you to look at the role of the disciples. Who initiates care and compassion for the crowd in Mark chapter 6?
It’s the disciples. The crowd has been there all day. The crowd is getting hungry. The disciples know they need to eat, and, knowing they could not provide for the crowd, they asked Jesus to send them away to get something to eat. As we look at the feeding of the 4000, the crowd has been with Jesus for three days–three days!!! How come the disciples didn’t say anything to Jesus about the people getting hungry? How come the disciples didn’t ask Jesus to send them away to get their own food? How come the disciples don’t show the same kind of concern? I think there is a reason.
Jesus is the one who begins the conversation and who has compassion. He, again says, “I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. 3If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way—and some of them have come from a great distance.”
Verse 4 reads: His disciples replied, ‘How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert?’
Now, there are a couple of ways of looking at this. First, we can wonder: are the disciples dense? Don’t they remember Jesus feeding the 5000? Don’t they remember His amazing miracle? Don’t they realize that Jesus could do once again what He did before? Do they truly lack faith in the one who fed the multitude before, walked on water, cast out demons, and then healed a man who was deaf and tongue tied?
I think the answer is no, and I base it on what I read in one of my commentaries. It was a very intriguing quote, and I would like to share it with you now. William Lane writes in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, “There is an indirectness in the response of Ch. 8:4 which is different in tone and function. It serves to refer the question of procuring bread back to Jesus and is tantamount to asking, What do you intend to do?”
What do YOU intend to do, Jesus? Not, how can we help. Not, should we spend a lot of money to provide food. It’s all up to you Jesus. Now, this could be seen as a statement of tremendous faith. It could be seen as a statement of trust in the Lord, but it doesn’t fit the context. It certainly doesn’t fit what will be happening in the next couple of texts. In fact–here is a bit of a foreshadowing for you–as we look at the next couple of snippets in the coming weeks, we will see that the disciples don’t get it. They don’t understand Jesus’ mission. They are starting to understand that He is the Messiah, but they don’t yet realize, Jesus is here to save, not simply the Jews, but is here to save the WHOLE WORLD. This means, I think, in the context of what is going on in this segment of the book of Mark, the disciples don’t want to feed this crowd. They don’t want to have compassion on them. They don’t like this crowd because this crowd is a Gentile crowd. This crowd isn’t like them. The disciples are being tribal.
But Jesus won’t let them get away with this. Jesus won’t let them keep those boundaries drawn. Jesus asks them how much bread they have. Seven loaves this time. Jesus takes them and begins breaking them, and He makes the disciples distribute the bread. Jesus finds that they have a few fish. He blesses them and starts distributing them through the disciples. Once again, the entire crowd is satisfied, and when all is said and done, seven baskets are filled. This time, it’s not seven lunch boxes-the Greek word here connotes large baskets constructed out of rope. Jesus dismisses the crowd, and everyone gets back into the boat and leaves.
Again, as we shall see in the next Sunday or so as we continue our journey through Mark, the disciples don’t get what Jesus is doing. They don’t understand this foray into Gentile territory. They don’t understand the nature and reality of what it means that Jesus is God incarnate. They don’t understand fully the nature of what it means that Jesus is the Messiah. They are still caught up in the idea that Jesus is here for the Jews. They are still caught up in the idea that this man who is full of power will restore the kingdom of Israel. The other nations of the world–the Gentiles are to be subjects to rule over. They are outsiders. They are those people over there. It is all too easy to look at the world and think such thoughts. The brain is hard wired to draw distinctions, and we are quick to act tribally. Do you see now why I started as I did? Do you see now how this ties to our present reality is a very real way? Do you see how we still struggle with the same issues the disciples struggled with?
And what does Jesus lead us to? What place does Jesus want us to arrive at?
Let me read to you a snippet from the book of Ephesians chapter 2:
3But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, so that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. 17So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Did you catch that phrase in there? Did you catch the fact that you were once “far off?” Did you catch that through the blood of Jesus, a new humanity has now been created? Did you catch that the world has been reconciled to God through Jesus’ body on the cross?
You see, Jesus is showing in the feeding of this Gentile crowd that He is the Messiah for the world. He is not simply the Messiah for the Jews. All are far off from God. The Jews are far off because they do not follow the commands given to them by Moses. The Gentiles are far off because the Jews have not taken the blessings of God and then sought to be a blessing to others. All are separated from God. All.
And we don’t like to hear that. No. We don’t like to hear that at all. We like to think that God and we are like this (hold intertwined fingers up). We like to think that God and we are on good terms. We like to think that we have it all figured out and God is walking with us affirming us every step of the way, and the people with all the problems are those people out there. If those people would just get their acts together then everything will work out. And I will surround myself with people who think like me and act like me and look like me. We will affirm each other and make ourselves feel good, and we can look down our collective nose at everyone else.
But Jesus says, “I don’t think so. You are not as good as you think you are. In fact, because of your sin–you are apart from God. You are out there. And so is everyone else in the world.” All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And there is nothing you can do to make it better. Your brain won’t allow it. You will always become tribal. You will always try to think in terms of us versus them. That’s how you are wired because of your sin.
But even though we can’t do anything about this, there is one who can. There is one who did. For when Jesus stretched out His arms on the cross, He brought you close to God. He brought me close to God. He brought the world close to God. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be save through Him.”
All who were once far off have been brought near. All who have sinned receive forgiveness through Jesus Christ. And even if a person does not follow Jesus, do we see them as less than ourselves? Do we see them as unworthy of love and compassion and trust? Of course not. We see others as God sees them: as precious people who are in need of a Savior. And how do we bring them to the saving knowledge of Jesus? Do we do so with hatred, animosity, anger, frustration, and the like? Of course not. No. We lead with the same things Jesus gave to us when we least deserved it: compassion, kindness, grace, and love. Yes, there are differences. Yes, there are divisions, but when we place our trust in Christ, we do not lead with blame, or hatred or animosity or drawing lines. We lead with compassion, love, and reconciliation. Amen.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Gay Marriage, the Law and the Church
When the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage several weeks ago, I wrung my hands for exactly zero seconds. The outcome was expected, and it was the correct legal outcome.
I do not believe it was the correct moral outcome, but it was the correct legal outcome.
I am purposely making that distinction because it is an important one. A very important one.
I am not like some within the Christian Church.
I do not believe the U.S. is the new Israel or new Jerusalem.
I do not believe the U.S. is a Christian nation. It could be argued well that it never has been.
I do not believe we can transform the U.S. into the kingdom of God.
I do not believe it is the Church's job to impose morality through the use of the law.
I believe that well-meaning Christians have tried to impose morality and justice and other such things by the use of the law; however, while managing to get laws passed, it has simply driven certain behaviors into hiding where they lurk until striking out. (See, Roof, Dyllan and racism) The changing of laws do not change human hearts.
The Civil Rights Movement
I do want to take a moment to talk about the importance of the Church working in society for its betterment. I am the father of two bi-racial girls. I hazard to think about what their lives would have been like 60 years ago or so. I hazard to imagine them being required to drink out of separate water fountains and sit apart from the rest of our family because of asinine laws like Jim Crow. I am most certainly glad those things are outlawed!!
And I am thankful that the thrust of power that came to overturn those unjust laws came through the Black Churches in our nation. For certain, there were many involved in the process of other religious faiths and traditions, but those represented a minority. The public figures of the Civil Rights Movement were pastors, and Martin Luther King, Jr. was, of course, the chief figurehead.
King's genius was not simply his passion for non-violence, but also his willingness to call a nation that considered itself Christian to account. In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," King basically said, "You know, you say that you are Christian. You say that you follow the Bible. Why are you not following its basic principles of justice, fairness, and equality?" It was and is a fantastic letter.
An appeal to such a collective conscience is a master-stroke of genius, and it worked! It worked brilliantly!!! To change the laws. And to change behaviors.
But it did not change the hearts and minds of many. Perhaps this is where the Civil Right's Movement failed. For the prejudice that was overtly embodied in Jim Crow Laws and segregation was now driven deep into people's hearts. And it hasn't gone away at all.
So, should another similar movement be staged today? Do more laws need to be changed to prevent covert racism? Should the Church strive for such a thing in this current climate?
I am highly suspect of trying to accomplish such a thing, because the climate of the U.S. has changed and changed dramatically.
A View Backward to Go Forward
The Christian Church is one of the more unique institutions in the global scheme. 90% of Muslims live in the Middle East and Africa. 90% of Hindus live in India. 90% of Buddhists live in Asia. Only Christianity is evenly distributed throughout the globe. Christianity has been able to survive under all sorts of governments and rulers--even those that severely persecuted the Church. In a rather head scratching note, the more the Church is persecuted, the more it seems to grow and thrive.
Part of the reason for this, I am convinced, is that Christianity grew up in a hostile culture. It clashed with its parent religion of Judaism and also with the surrounding Roman Empire. It proclaimed that Jesus was God--anathema to Jews and subversive to Romans. In both cases, the death penalty could be sought for adherents (for blasphemy or for subverting the rule of Caesar).
Yet, despite the danger, one does not see anywhere in the early Church petitions to the governments to legalize Christianity. One does not see the apostle Paul standing before governors and asking them to change the law. No. Paul seeks to convert. Paul seeks to bring people to Jesus Christ and then allow the power of God to transform those hearts and minds.
It's a far cry from how the Church tends to operate in the U.S. today. For a brief time, the U.S. adopted our ethical framework when making decisions. For a brief time, we could count on people being in and understanding what it meant to have a Christian ethical framework. At one time most of the U.S. had a Christian worldview, but there has been a divorce.
Ethics are no longer rooted in God.
The source and norm for ethics in the U.S. is the Constitution, and the ethical moorings of the Constitution are...
Who knows?
An Ethical Hodgepodge
Reason according to some.
"Do whatever makes you happy as long as you hurt no one," according to others.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," according to more.
"Truth is what we make it; truth is relative," according to others.
We have no agreed upon ethical basis for defining truth, justice, happiness, or the like. We have no system of ethics underpinning our national discussion. In fact, what very often happens is a clash between ethical systems without folks even aware that such systems are clashing.
The results can be quite confusing and disheartening. People are quick to hurl insults toward each other. Oppressed becomes oppressor. The opposition gets vilified. We cry out "do unto others as you would have them do unto you!" But the practice ends up being "do unto others as I think should be done unto them."
Lord, save us.
Thank God, He has.
Which is why I haven't done any hand wringing.
A Christian Ethical Framework
You see, the Christian ethical framework seeks the will of God. Believing that God has indeed revealed His will to us, we earnestly believe we should seek it out. However, when we discover what that will is, we know it is impossible to uphold. We know we can never live up to it.
Think about this in your own life at this point. Most of us have a certain standard of how we expect others to live. Do we live up to our own standard? Recently, in a discussion, I pointed out that a gentleman called out Christians for being judgmental was himself making a judgement against Christians. Fortunately, he was of the thinking sort and realized exactly what he was doing. "It must be a condition of humanity," he said. I heartily agree. A condition we cannot save ourselves from. We need a Savior.
That Savior, according to Christianity, is Jesus who lived the life we were supposed to live--loving God and loving neighbor as self completely; and He died the death we deserved upon the cross--paying the penalty for our disobedience and inability to fulfill God's will. Jesus did this while we were still sinners--undeserving of such radical love.
To understand that we do not fulfill the will of God...
To understand that we do not deserve God's love and acceptance...
To understand that it was given to us at great cost to God...
Humbles a heart. It takes away pride in any sort of moral accomplishment one may perceive. It allows one to see one's own brokenness. One still seeks God's will, but then understand that God's will includes loving others as we were loved--broken people loving other broken people. This is done no matter what kind of government sits in power--or what kind of ethical framework is embraced by the surrounding culture.
Gay marriage is legal.
Two consenting adults having sexual relations is legal.
Selling a rock as a pet is legal.
Making millions of dollars without sharing is legal.
Consuming alcohol to excess is legal.
Yelling at your spouse is legal.
Calling someone an a$$hole is legal.
Looking at a woman with lust is legal.
Doesn't mean any of those things are moral, but instead of pointing fingers and decrying the immorality of others, I believe Christians are called to roll up their sleeves and do some very hard work--very hard work--seek conversion of others to the Christian worldview. To seek the change of heart and not simply the change of law.
The Need for Government
There is no doubt that we need government and we need just laws. Without government and laws, society falls into anarchy. There is also no doubt that Christians need to be involved in politics. We have a duty to work for the welfare of our neighbor (How that gets played out is oftentimes a point of contention, granted.). I cannot imagine the Church standing idly by while injustice is perpetrated upon people.
And the Church is indeed guilty of both standing by and perpetrating injustice upon people. We have only to look into our history at the times when the Church held power (middle ages) or--for the most part--walked hand in hand with those in power (Nazi Germany). In both of these cases, great tragedy befell minorities as the vast majority of Christians supported or turned a blind eye to injustice.
I believe this happens when the Church aligns itself with the structures of power within a given nation. Therefore, the Church must maintain a critical distance without becoming disengaged. The Church must have a voice within the public square without aligning itself with any group seizing power. The Church must be a powerful voice without seeking power itself. And, oh and this is the tricky part--the Church must not be swayed to endorse any seeking power because of a promise of favorable legislation.
It is far too tempting to allow ourselves to endorse certain candidates who promise action on particular issues to win our votes. An appeal to our own desire of power and getting what we want through legislation can be very, very tempting. However, I think that this does great damage to our primary calling--to proclaim Jesus and not the Law.
"For the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. It is the smallest of seeds, but when planted it becomes a tree so large the birds of the air long to build their nests within."
The Kingdom of God begins with the seed of the Gospel in our hearts. It grows as more and more hearts are tuned to God--not to the Laws of a nation. And the Gospel roots out evil intentions, hatred and prejudice--the very root causes of hatred and division within our species. But it all begins with the change of heart--the primary focus, I believe of spreading the Gospel--of changing another's worldview.
Not an easy task, but the one mission the Church was given straight from the one who died for the world.
I do not believe it was the correct moral outcome, but it was the correct legal outcome.
I am purposely making that distinction because it is an important one. A very important one.
I am not like some within the Christian Church.
I do not believe the U.S. is the new Israel or new Jerusalem.
I do not believe the U.S. is a Christian nation. It could be argued well that it never has been.
I do not believe we can transform the U.S. into the kingdom of God.
I do not believe it is the Church's job to impose morality through the use of the law.
I believe that well-meaning Christians have tried to impose morality and justice and other such things by the use of the law; however, while managing to get laws passed, it has simply driven certain behaviors into hiding where they lurk until striking out. (See, Roof, Dyllan and racism) The changing of laws do not change human hearts.
The Civil Rights Movement
I do want to take a moment to talk about the importance of the Church working in society for its betterment. I am the father of two bi-racial girls. I hazard to think about what their lives would have been like 60 years ago or so. I hazard to imagine them being required to drink out of separate water fountains and sit apart from the rest of our family because of asinine laws like Jim Crow. I am most certainly glad those things are outlawed!!
And I am thankful that the thrust of power that came to overturn those unjust laws came through the Black Churches in our nation. For certain, there were many involved in the process of other religious faiths and traditions, but those represented a minority. The public figures of the Civil Rights Movement were pastors, and Martin Luther King, Jr. was, of course, the chief figurehead.
King's genius was not simply his passion for non-violence, but also his willingness to call a nation that considered itself Christian to account. In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," King basically said, "You know, you say that you are Christian. You say that you follow the Bible. Why are you not following its basic principles of justice, fairness, and equality?" It was and is a fantastic letter.
An appeal to such a collective conscience is a master-stroke of genius, and it worked! It worked brilliantly!!! To change the laws. And to change behaviors.
But it did not change the hearts and minds of many. Perhaps this is where the Civil Right's Movement failed. For the prejudice that was overtly embodied in Jim Crow Laws and segregation was now driven deep into people's hearts. And it hasn't gone away at all.
So, should another similar movement be staged today? Do more laws need to be changed to prevent covert racism? Should the Church strive for such a thing in this current climate?
I am highly suspect of trying to accomplish such a thing, because the climate of the U.S. has changed and changed dramatically.
A View Backward to Go Forward
The Christian Church is one of the more unique institutions in the global scheme. 90% of Muslims live in the Middle East and Africa. 90% of Hindus live in India. 90% of Buddhists live in Asia. Only Christianity is evenly distributed throughout the globe. Christianity has been able to survive under all sorts of governments and rulers--even those that severely persecuted the Church. In a rather head scratching note, the more the Church is persecuted, the more it seems to grow and thrive.
Part of the reason for this, I am convinced, is that Christianity grew up in a hostile culture. It clashed with its parent religion of Judaism and also with the surrounding Roman Empire. It proclaimed that Jesus was God--anathema to Jews and subversive to Romans. In both cases, the death penalty could be sought for adherents (for blasphemy or for subverting the rule of Caesar).
Yet, despite the danger, one does not see anywhere in the early Church petitions to the governments to legalize Christianity. One does not see the apostle Paul standing before governors and asking them to change the law. No. Paul seeks to convert. Paul seeks to bring people to Jesus Christ and then allow the power of God to transform those hearts and minds.
It's a far cry from how the Church tends to operate in the U.S. today. For a brief time, the U.S. adopted our ethical framework when making decisions. For a brief time, we could count on people being in and understanding what it meant to have a Christian ethical framework. At one time most of the U.S. had a Christian worldview, but there has been a divorce.
Ethics are no longer rooted in God.
The source and norm for ethics in the U.S. is the Constitution, and the ethical moorings of the Constitution are...
Who knows?
An Ethical Hodgepodge
Reason according to some.
"Do whatever makes you happy as long as you hurt no one," according to others.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," according to more.
"Truth is what we make it; truth is relative," according to others.
We have no agreed upon ethical basis for defining truth, justice, happiness, or the like. We have no system of ethics underpinning our national discussion. In fact, what very often happens is a clash between ethical systems without folks even aware that such systems are clashing.
The results can be quite confusing and disheartening. People are quick to hurl insults toward each other. Oppressed becomes oppressor. The opposition gets vilified. We cry out "do unto others as you would have them do unto you!" But the practice ends up being "do unto others as I think should be done unto them."
Lord, save us.
Thank God, He has.
Which is why I haven't done any hand wringing.
A Christian Ethical Framework
You see, the Christian ethical framework seeks the will of God. Believing that God has indeed revealed His will to us, we earnestly believe we should seek it out. However, when we discover what that will is, we know it is impossible to uphold. We know we can never live up to it.
Think about this in your own life at this point. Most of us have a certain standard of how we expect others to live. Do we live up to our own standard? Recently, in a discussion, I pointed out that a gentleman called out Christians for being judgmental was himself making a judgement against Christians. Fortunately, he was of the thinking sort and realized exactly what he was doing. "It must be a condition of humanity," he said. I heartily agree. A condition we cannot save ourselves from. We need a Savior.
That Savior, according to Christianity, is Jesus who lived the life we were supposed to live--loving God and loving neighbor as self completely; and He died the death we deserved upon the cross--paying the penalty for our disobedience and inability to fulfill God's will. Jesus did this while we were still sinners--undeserving of such radical love.
To understand that we do not fulfill the will of God...
To understand that we do not deserve God's love and acceptance...
To understand that it was given to us at great cost to God...
Humbles a heart. It takes away pride in any sort of moral accomplishment one may perceive. It allows one to see one's own brokenness. One still seeks God's will, but then understand that God's will includes loving others as we were loved--broken people loving other broken people. This is done no matter what kind of government sits in power--or what kind of ethical framework is embraced by the surrounding culture.
Gay marriage is legal.
Two consenting adults having sexual relations is legal.
Selling a rock as a pet is legal.
Making millions of dollars without sharing is legal.
Consuming alcohol to excess is legal.
Yelling at your spouse is legal.
Calling someone an a$$hole is legal.
Looking at a woman with lust is legal.
Doesn't mean any of those things are moral, but instead of pointing fingers and decrying the immorality of others, I believe Christians are called to roll up their sleeves and do some very hard work--very hard work--seek conversion of others to the Christian worldview. To seek the change of heart and not simply the change of law.
The Need for Government
There is no doubt that we need government and we need just laws. Without government and laws, society falls into anarchy. There is also no doubt that Christians need to be involved in politics. We have a duty to work for the welfare of our neighbor (How that gets played out is oftentimes a point of contention, granted.). I cannot imagine the Church standing idly by while injustice is perpetrated upon people.
And the Church is indeed guilty of both standing by and perpetrating injustice upon people. We have only to look into our history at the times when the Church held power (middle ages) or--for the most part--walked hand in hand with those in power (Nazi Germany). In both of these cases, great tragedy befell minorities as the vast majority of Christians supported or turned a blind eye to injustice.
I believe this happens when the Church aligns itself with the structures of power within a given nation. Therefore, the Church must maintain a critical distance without becoming disengaged. The Church must have a voice within the public square without aligning itself with any group seizing power. The Church must be a powerful voice without seeking power itself. And, oh and this is the tricky part--the Church must not be swayed to endorse any seeking power because of a promise of favorable legislation.
It is far too tempting to allow ourselves to endorse certain candidates who promise action on particular issues to win our votes. An appeal to our own desire of power and getting what we want through legislation can be very, very tempting. However, I think that this does great damage to our primary calling--to proclaim Jesus and not the Law.
"For the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. It is the smallest of seeds, but when planted it becomes a tree so large the birds of the air long to build their nests within."
The Kingdom of God begins with the seed of the Gospel in our hearts. It grows as more and more hearts are tuned to God--not to the Laws of a nation. And the Gospel roots out evil intentions, hatred and prejudice--the very root causes of hatred and division within our species. But it all begins with the change of heart--the primary focus, I believe of spreading the Gospel--of changing another's worldview.
Not an easy task, but the one mission the Church was given straight from the one who died for the world.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
God in School
I wish I had a better title than the above for I do not believe it does this post justice. Nothing better came to mind to kind of pull together the thoughts roaming around in my head.
Let's start with Miley Cyrus. Not only did she grab attention at the VMA's, but the next thing you know, she is featured in a music video riding a giant wrecking ball naked (with hands strategically placed) seductively licking a sledge hammer. I've read more than a few opinion pieces analyzing, criticizing, and supporting her behavior. And I ask, "Is it surprising?"
Let's then move to Anthony Weiner. I posted about a shouting match he had the other day with a fellow Jewish New Yorker. New York voters soundly rejected him as a mayoral candidate particularly after he was found to be sexting even after losing his congressional seat for doing the same thing. One of his sexting partners showed up at his election party. After all was said and done, Weiner flipped the bird at reporters showing little contrition for anything he had done or was doing. And I ask, "Is this surprising?"
We move now to violence and the horrendous murders we have seen taking place in the news--particularly those with a racial overtone. I find it interesting how the different news networks have begun dealing with such matters after the George Zimmerman trial. Suddenly, each time a black person harms or kills a white person, there is a racial overtone and vice-versa. There seems to be a concerted effort to highlight violence that occurs between people of different color/race/ethnicity. And I ask, "Is such violence surprising?"
Now, we head toward the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. I saw several stories in the past few days highlighting the fact that the wealthy keep getting more wealth while the poor remain in poverty. The few are lording it over the many, and there are cries rising up about the injustice of it all. But I ask, "Is it really surprising?"
I mean, I think all of these things have something in common. There is a common thread that actually binds it all together.
Think about what we teach now in school regarding human beings and how they came into existence. In our science classes we teach that man descended from apes. Man is simply another animal who evolved--there is nothing special about him. And how did that evolution occur? Through natural selection and genetic mutation. Now, we know we have little control over genetic mutation. This happens when our genes fail to make exact replicas either by a mistake in the replication process or from some sort of mechanism including being affected by radiation from the sun. It really doesn't matter--it's out of any control that we exert.
Ah, but natural selection--that's another story. For natural selection is all about the survival of the fittest. Death and disease wipes out the lesser and the weaker leaving the strong to thrive and survive. Passing on one's genes means rising to the top of the food chain, striving to be the highest on the ladder to ensure survival of one's genetic lineage. It means attracting the alpha of the opposite sex as well to ensure a good genetic bond. And protecting one's genes from those considered lesser is paramount! When a threat arises to challenge our status, it must be met and put down decisively. This is the natural way of things. Nature isn't some kind of Eden where everything gets along. It's fight, flight, freeze, and reproduce to pass on one's genes and ensure the survival of the species.
Sure, we talk about tit for tat and kindness being a part of the evolutionary process. We talk about how one species can be kind to ensure its survival--particularly if it's effective for a weaker beta male or female. But this is merely descriptive--it is not proscriptive.
This what we teach in school. Plain and simple. And we offer no sort of corrective to this in our science classes at all. Most high schools that I am aware of do not have the resources to offer philosophy or theology classes, and so most students are taught that this is what makes us tick--as the animals we have evolved to be.
And God forbid that we invoke any thought of a Creator in the educational process for that violates the separation of church and state. That is establishing a religion, and we simply cannot have that.
But we have no presented ourselves with a major conundrum. For science isn't capable of getting us from what is to what ought. And as a society, we have walked away from any sort of universal ought when it comes to morals and actions--in short we have walked away from any sort of religious foundations for morals and ethics.
And because of that, we are left with evolutionary thought guiding our behaviors and thoughts. The very stuff we taught in school. And it surprises me that many get so upset when people act like evolution has bred us to act:
When Miley Cyrus uses sexuality to make herself desirable and wealthy, she is simply using what nature gave her to climb the ladder and pass on her genes.
Anthony Weiner does the same thing from a male point of view.
Interracial violence mirrors what goes on in nature when different colors of fur cause species to attack one another from within.
Garnering more wealth is simply a way of garnering more power and prestige--rising to the top of the evolutionary ladder.
And even though kindness is shown in nature, there is nothing--nothing at all--there to take us from is to ought. There is nothing which says kindness ought to be the rule instead of fight, flight, freeze, or reproduction.
Only religion offers a foundation to take us from is to ought. Only faith gives us a foundation to go against many of the evolutionary instincts which drive us.
A failure to recognize this means we will simply keep teaching the same things and expecting different results. Perhaps God does indeed need to be reintroduced in school--not as a means of forcing religion upon anyone, but by helping folks understand:
We are more than animals.
Let's start with Miley Cyrus. Not only did she grab attention at the VMA's, but the next thing you know, she is featured in a music video riding a giant wrecking ball naked (with hands strategically placed) seductively licking a sledge hammer. I've read more than a few opinion pieces analyzing, criticizing, and supporting her behavior. And I ask, "Is it surprising?"
Let's then move to Anthony Weiner. I posted about a shouting match he had the other day with a fellow Jewish New Yorker. New York voters soundly rejected him as a mayoral candidate particularly after he was found to be sexting even after losing his congressional seat for doing the same thing. One of his sexting partners showed up at his election party. After all was said and done, Weiner flipped the bird at reporters showing little contrition for anything he had done or was doing. And I ask, "Is this surprising?"
We move now to violence and the horrendous murders we have seen taking place in the news--particularly those with a racial overtone. I find it interesting how the different news networks have begun dealing with such matters after the George Zimmerman trial. Suddenly, each time a black person harms or kills a white person, there is a racial overtone and vice-versa. There seems to be a concerted effort to highlight violence that occurs between people of different color/race/ethnicity. And I ask, "Is such violence surprising?"
Now, we head toward the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. I saw several stories in the past few days highlighting the fact that the wealthy keep getting more wealth while the poor remain in poverty. The few are lording it over the many, and there are cries rising up about the injustice of it all. But I ask, "Is it really surprising?"
I mean, I think all of these things have something in common. There is a common thread that actually binds it all together.
Think about what we teach now in school regarding human beings and how they came into existence. In our science classes we teach that man descended from apes. Man is simply another animal who evolved--there is nothing special about him. And how did that evolution occur? Through natural selection and genetic mutation. Now, we know we have little control over genetic mutation. This happens when our genes fail to make exact replicas either by a mistake in the replication process or from some sort of mechanism including being affected by radiation from the sun. It really doesn't matter--it's out of any control that we exert.
Ah, but natural selection--that's another story. For natural selection is all about the survival of the fittest. Death and disease wipes out the lesser and the weaker leaving the strong to thrive and survive. Passing on one's genes means rising to the top of the food chain, striving to be the highest on the ladder to ensure survival of one's genetic lineage. It means attracting the alpha of the opposite sex as well to ensure a good genetic bond. And protecting one's genes from those considered lesser is paramount! When a threat arises to challenge our status, it must be met and put down decisively. This is the natural way of things. Nature isn't some kind of Eden where everything gets along. It's fight, flight, freeze, and reproduce to pass on one's genes and ensure the survival of the species.
Sure, we talk about tit for tat and kindness being a part of the evolutionary process. We talk about how one species can be kind to ensure its survival--particularly if it's effective for a weaker beta male or female. But this is merely descriptive--it is not proscriptive.
This what we teach in school. Plain and simple. And we offer no sort of corrective to this in our science classes at all. Most high schools that I am aware of do not have the resources to offer philosophy or theology classes, and so most students are taught that this is what makes us tick--as the animals we have evolved to be.
And God forbid that we invoke any thought of a Creator in the educational process for that violates the separation of church and state. That is establishing a religion, and we simply cannot have that.
But we have no presented ourselves with a major conundrum. For science isn't capable of getting us from what is to what ought. And as a society, we have walked away from any sort of universal ought when it comes to morals and actions--in short we have walked away from any sort of religious foundations for morals and ethics.
And because of that, we are left with evolutionary thought guiding our behaviors and thoughts. The very stuff we taught in school. And it surprises me that many get so upset when people act like evolution has bred us to act:
When Miley Cyrus uses sexuality to make herself desirable and wealthy, she is simply using what nature gave her to climb the ladder and pass on her genes.
Anthony Weiner does the same thing from a male point of view.
Interracial violence mirrors what goes on in nature when different colors of fur cause species to attack one another from within.
Garnering more wealth is simply a way of garnering more power and prestige--rising to the top of the evolutionary ladder.
And even though kindness is shown in nature, there is nothing--nothing at all--there to take us from is to ought. There is nothing which says kindness ought to be the rule instead of fight, flight, freeze, or reproduction.
Only religion offers a foundation to take us from is to ought. Only faith gives us a foundation to go against many of the evolutionary instincts which drive us.
A failure to recognize this means we will simply keep teaching the same things and expecting different results. Perhaps God does indeed need to be reintroduced in school--not as a means of forcing religion upon anyone, but by helping folks understand:
We are more than animals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)