Church Voices

A recent commercial in my area says, “There’s nothing wrong with wanting to look your best.  After all, when you look good, you feel good.”

Really?

I find Christians using the phrase “There’s nothing wrong with…” a lot when they are trying to rationalize their choices.  But often it isn’t the choice that is wrong, but the heart/attitude behind the choice.  I think that ultimately, we know this and it shows in our trying to make something sound okay by saying that there is nothing wrong with it.  Whenever you hear that phrase, or one similar to it, ask yourself, “Is there anything wrong with…?”

So is there anything wrong with wanting to look your best?  Is this an issue that Christians should even care about?  I’ll post an update with my answer in a few days, but first I’d like to hear from some of you on the issue in the comments.

To the ancient Greek mind you fell into one of two categories: Greek or barbarian. If you were Greek then you were cultured, sophisticated, concerned with philosophy, poetry, architecture and politics. On the other hand if you were a barbarian you likely spent most of your time hitting things with a club.

In 476AD some of those barbarians hit Rome with a club. Specifically, a Germanic tribe commanded by Odoacer did the hitting, and they just kind of took over. They maintained much of what was already in place, and occasionally went to war against various other groups. Eventually Odoacer went up against an army he couldn’t beat, it was commanded by a man named Theodoric. They signed a treaty to share power, and at the celebration feast Theodoric killed Odoacer with his bare hands.

Here’s the thing though, likely you’ve heard of the Roman empire and the Greek foundation it was built upon. In fact, it had such a profound impact on the history of the world that the founding fathers of the United States were, to a certain extent, obsessed with the Roman empire.

So why are the Greeks and Romans such a powerful influence in the way we think, and in the development of the western world while the architect of the fall of Rome is far more obscure, and has nothing in the way of modern influence?

Barak Obama touched on the difference between Greco-Roman influence and barbarian influence when he said,”know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy”. The Greco-Roman world is marked by creation. The creation of an empire, the creation of a republic, the creation of architecture, poetry, philosophy, roads, and ultimately the creation of an entire way of looking at the world. The barbarians, on the other hand, didn’t create much of anything. They destroyed, and they saw glory in their day, but ultimately they are mostly forgotten.

As tremendously powerful as the Greco-Roman world was it is, at best, a shadow of the ultimate creator, God. God created everything from nothing. Even salvation is offered in terms of creation: the creation of the church, through the work of Christ is ultimately about creation (oddly enough through the destruction of Christ’s life). Even when Jesus talks about defeating hell itself it is in the context of creation. In Matthew 16 he says, “upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.” The creation of the church is held out by Christ as defeating hell, rather than a direct assault on hell itself.

Unfortunately, many Christians act more like barbarian destroyers than they do like Greek creators. Their time and energy is spent trying to destroy political parties, theological positions, and individuals they disagree with. Most of these people will fail in their ultimate goal, but even for the few who are successful their accomplishments likely won’t have the effect they expect it will. Instead of leading to a glorious renewal of their values and churches, it will instead end up fizzling out and being forgotten like a wet firework the day after the fourth of July.

On the other hand, Christians who actually devote their efforts to building disciples, churches, schools of thought, and other ecclesiastical outworkings have the opportunity to create, in conjunction with God, things that will outlast their lives, and perhaps will shape the thinking of generations to come.

At the stroke of midnight a group of 12 men gather.  They have gathered to made decisions on policy and doctrine for the entire protestant world. 

Tall man: Alright, I call to order this super secret meeting of the real ultimate Christians.  What’s first on the agenda?

Fat man: The gays.  We need to decide what to do about the gays.

Tall man: Right, right.  Ok people what say you on the issue of the gays.

Skinny man: The Bible is clear they are sinners.

Short man: Absolutely, the Old Testament and New Testament are both clear on the issue.  Sinners.

Tall man: Alright, good, glad we got that cleared up.  Can I have a motion to adjourn?

Man: There’s more to it than that.

Bearded man: What are you talking about?  The scriptures are clear.

Man: They are clear.  But we’ve left off so much more.  How should we minister to homosexuals?  Don’t we need some sort of apology and repentance for our actions towards them?  How should Christians expect the government to act on issues directly related to this? 

Bald man: You’ve clearly abandoned the Bible.

Slight man: You’re not kidding he has.  He’s abandoned the clear mandates of scripture.

Tall man: You can bet we’ll have you removed from your position over this.

Man: I’m not denying homosexuality is sinful, but there’s so much more to this than that.

Fat man: You have lost the way, and are a wolf in sheep’s clothes. 

Pale man: You’ve called good evil, and evil good.

Tall man: You’d better believe this won’t go unpunished.  This meeting is adjourned.  You’ll be hearing from us.

Man: But… I… we didn’t even decide how to live with …. how to treat…. they’re our neighbors…  and… what about those within our churches… and… but…

And….. scene!

This post by John Armstrong, if true, is a bit depressing and a major weakness of American evangelicals. The post in a nutshell:

…suffice it to say—older evangelicalism thrives on opposition. It is the child of fundamentalism and fundamentalism has to have a liberal enemy in order to create new momentum for ministry (sic). There is always one new person to find who denies inerrancy, or who advocates a socially liberal cause. This requires the faithful leader to launch a new barrage of attacks. And when the attacks are launched few care about the truth of what a person said or meant before the attack started. The war must be won.

This is troubling for a number of reasons.

First, it demonstrates a mindset that can never build the kindgom of God. The mindset of a people who are on the look out for internal threats and are focused on ferreting out the alien other within their midst are a people who are not looking out beyond themselves at the places were the kingdom of God has yet to be established in significant ways. The most this mindset can hope to achieve is the status quo.

However, I believe that even the status quo may be beyond the grasp of this mindset because it requires a constant diet of enemies to attack. This means that as time goes on and dragon after dragon is slain eventually new dragons will have to be made, and these new dragons are made by narrowing the definition of evangelical so as to find new groups and individuals to attack. This chips away at the number and talent pool of evangelicals, and if this pattern is followed faithfully enough eventually there’s about 30 true believers left all with a median age of 87.

Of course, this very practical critique doesn’t even begin to touch on the violence done to the gospel itself. In order to create new enemies to banish you have to add to what binds evangelicals together: the gospel. In this particular case that means things like political positions have been added to faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. John Armstrong cites the first call for removal of a particular national figure was over global warming. Jerry Falwell went so far as to preach a sermon on February 25th 2007 entitled “The Myth of Global Warming”. A better question than “what do you believe about global warming” would be “why are you talking about global warming when you should be worshiping God”. There’s a sort of dark irony around the fact that ultimately these additions to the gospel in the name of doctrinal purity will eventually lead to the loss of the gospel as it drowns among these smaller, temporal issues that have been puffed up and elevated.

This mindset also creates an unhealthy fixation on what national figures have to say, that results in the parsing of every syllable uttered by people we’ve never met or impact us in the slightest. Churches, at their core, are local entities serving particular communities. Of course a local church disciplining one of its own with the aim of restoration and done with the love of Christ isn’t going to fire up the troops or get donations pouring in, even if it is the Biblical model of dealing with these sorts of issues. However, the very non-Biblical model of taking aim at a national target with fiery rhetoric meant to destroy and banish in order to fire up the troops and to get those check books to open up a bit is the tactic we see employed far more often. Ultimately, this tactic also destroys the role of the local church, and gives power to individuals whose only qualification is a large platform and who answers to no one. They have everything to gain by acting recklessly and everything to lose by acting with restraint and dignity, and so the unofficial leaders of American Christianity become loudmouths whose goal is to gin up donations by dividing the body of Christ. If that description sounds a bit like racial hucksters who divide the United States at every opportunity… well that’s probably not an inaccurate parallel.

Apparently you can’t train good customer service… or if you can, companies don’t know how.

Don’t ask me how I’m doing if:

1) You don’t really care.

2) It isn’t going to change the way you treat me.

I was in the local grocery store the other day and the cashier asked me if I found everything okay.  It’s company policy for them to ask.  I’m not sure why, though, because when I explained that in fact I had not found what I wanted, she said, “I’m sorry.  Your total is …”. 

Today I was on the phone activating a credit card so that I could get free stuff with it (just kidding).  The website wasn’t working properly so I had to call.  The automated system transferred me to a live person who asked me how I was.  I was frustrated from a series of events including the problems on the website and made that known (in more of a defeated tone than one of anger).  She proceeded to tell me about some program to get more of my money and I said, “No, thank you,” as soon as she took a breath.  She then asked me to keep in mind blah blah blah.  The spiel was taking even longer than they normally do, so I interrupted again.  Only instead of simply saying “No thanks,” I asked her if she heard me tell her I was frustrated at the beginning of the call.  She said that she did.  I then told her that when somebody is already frustrated, it’s not a good idea to press the issue when they say no.  She then told me that she was simply asking me to keep in mind blah blah blah (seriously, she went right back to the spiel).

Don’t ask if it doesn’t matter.

For the last 20 months I’ve been on a theological crash course that’s illuminated the scriptures for me almost more than any other experience in my life. That crash course is called fatherhood. Interestingly enough one of the statements that has been made repeatedly to me is how great it would be to be a baby. Everything is taken care of for you, you’re fed, everyone loves you, and you have no responsiblity.

I don’t think this is true.

It must be incredibly hard to be a baby. You have no idea why you’re being taken to the places you’re being taken to, you have no idea who most people are, or what’s going on at all. Every parenting advice book I’ve read has the same advice: babies need routine because they have no idea what’s going on.

Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture! But when full understanding comes, these partial things will become useless.

When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.
1 Corinthians 13.9-13

These verses are often quoted in the context of discipleship, usually in terms of discussing what someone used to do or used to believe, with the implication being that anyone who does those things, or believes those things are still immature and will grow out of it if they are truly disciples.

These verses have absolutely nothing to do with discipleship.

Instead these verses describe our life here, and our life in eternity. Here we don’t have any idea what’s really going on. Like babies we have a very limited knowledge about how God is working, about what is happening to us, and about how the world works. The terrible irony of how this verse is wrongly used is that those who claim to now be knowledgeable, unlike their previous child-like state are people who are unaware of how much we can’t possibly know.

That’s not to say that we can’t know anything. Even babies know something of their world.

Babies know their parents love them.
Babies know when they hurt.
Babies know when they’re hungry.
Babies know their family members.
Babies know when they’re not at home.

Not to stretch the metaphor too far, but I think its fair to say we know the rudimentary make up of what’s going on. We know who loves us, we now what He did to save us, but much of the how and why of what’s happening, especially when we hurt isn’t clear. Sometimes a baby hurts because a doctor has administered a life giving shot, other times a baby hurts because he has a life threatening illness, and no baby alive has figured out which is which.

Any number of short and simple descriptions of a Christ-follower’s life is available to us in scripture (to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God is my favorite of the bunch), but how and why this world and how and why God operates in this world often isn’t clear, and all too often the things obscured by the cloudy bits of the mirror are what separates us from each other. We have been given a clear command that we are to love each other and we will be known as His disciples by that love, meanwhile churches split, relationships dissolve, and no clear disciples of Christ are known because of arguments about what is behind those clouds have been allowed to dominate the focus, energy and ambition of the church.

Cal Thomas has already co-written one book that is critical of trying to use the kingdom of this world in service to the kingdom of God. Now, in the wake of the election, Thomas has written a column that calls for abandoning the power of the world in order to pursue the kingdom of God.

Scripture teaches that God’s power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow’s mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one’s self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior “kingdom”?

Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.

Its hard to argue with his conclusions in light of scripture:

But Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

I’ve got the post election blues. And its got absolutely nothing to do with who won or who lost*. My post election blues stem from the reactions of Christians on both sides of the political aisle, because there’s enough classlessness to go around.

I’ve seen McCain supporting Christians (or at least anti-Obama Christians) use rhetoric that amounts to ex communicating their brothers and sisters over who they voted for. These same people are willing to tolerate people in their church having a positive view of health and wealth preachers like Joel Osteen or TD Jakes, but if you have anything less than a negative view of Obama apparently that calls your salvation into doubt.

I’ve seen Obama supporting Christians accuse their brothers and sisters of hating the poor, and of being racists.

And the predictions, the predictions are the worst. I’ve seen predictions of the coming economic cataclysm (I can only imagine what it looks like to, say, a Zimbabwan when Americans wring their hands about recessions, meltdowns and the sky falling), predictions of concentration camps full of Christians, predictions of first amendment redaction, and predictions of the coming anti-Christ. Do you really expect people to believe your testimony or to take you seriously when you give the gospel when you make wild eyed predictions like this? Or how about when you tell people about the sovereignty of God and how God is our father who cares for us?

Don’t get me started on the classlessness. I shouldn’t be surprised by it now since the realm of politics has become synonymous with those who are willing to say the worst possible thing about their opponent even if those things only have a tenuous connection with reality at best. It hasn’t ended with the election of Barak Obama either. The demonization of Sarah Palin has continued right through the election, and of course the heat is turned up on Obama as well. I’ve seen Christians on both sides using derogatory insults that only differ from playground insults in their greater degree of viciousness. These classless and derogatory insults and accusations are venom and saltwater pouring from the mouths and minds of a people who claim to have the water of life.

I guarantee you that sooner or later your political ideology will be defeated. The question that remains to be answered is whether or not your discipleship survives. Jesus told his disciples they would be known by their love for each other. Are we loving each other in this post-election?

Read the rest of this entry »

A common practice in ancient Rome was to leave unwanted infants on a hillside to die of exposure. As Christianity spread it became common for those infants to be saved by Christians as a way of advancing the kingdom of God in the great here and now. This practice is now looked back on as a great source of pride by current Christians. I doubt very much that ancient Romans even recognized this as an abhorrent practice.

Every era has its unseen vices. Practices that are so deeply ingrained in the daily routine of life that the horror of the practice fades away to background noise.

The unseen vices of America’s past include slavery quickly followed by societal and lawful racism. Americans today recognize the sin easily, and so today actively grapple with its effects, and the current forms of racism. Americans of even 60 years ago did not.

But what about today? What are the unseen vices of the current age? While I’m sure I overlook a great many, I humbly suggest usury as a prime candidate. Consider the following story:

The New York Times has an article that tells the unfortunate tale of Diane McLeod and her love affair with debt. She started out “debt free” when she got married, but after a divorce she’d managed to accrue $25,000 in credit card debt. Despite not having a down payment or any assets, Diane was given a $135,000 mortgage. Over the next few years, illness, underemployment, and shockingly irresponsible spending combined disastrously with the bank’s willingness to refinance her loan as her home appreciated (for a fee, of course). 5 years later, Diane owes $237,000 on her mortgage. She’s in foreclosure now, and a recent sheriff’s auction of the home did not draw a single bidder. A similar house down the street recently sold for $84,000 less than she owes on her home.

The NYT says there is a bright spot at the end of the tunnel for Diane. She’s still getting credit card offers from “Urban Bank.”

Recently an envelope arrived offering a “pre-qualified” Salute Visa Gold card issued by Urban Bank Trust. “We think you deserve more credit!” it said in bold type.

A spokeswoman at Urban Bank said the Salute Visa is part of a program “designed to provide access to credit for folks who would not otherwise qualify for credit.”

The Salute Visa offered Ms. McLeod a $300 credit line. But a closer look at the fine print showed that $150 of that would go, as annual fees, to Urban Bank.

Its clear that we’ve long passed the point where credit cards (and banks that issue them) have are not trying to earn a living off of interest in the form of short term loans that are paid off. Instead, their goal is to create debt that is never paid off. Credit card loans are essentially becoming assets. They don’t care if you have the ability to pay off the loan because they don’t want the loan paid off ever. They just want a constant revenue stream.

Christians of the past recognized the danger of usury. St. Jerome concluded that on the basis of Deuteronomy 23.20 earning any interest at all should be banned (as all men are brothers, sharing a common creator), Augustine concluded “to live by usury is exceedingly unnatural”, Saint Anselm began the shift in thinking that lead to the belief that charging interest was the same as theft, in 1139 the second Lateran Council denied sacraments to unrepentant usurer, by 1142 a decree had been issued that forbade re-payment greater than the amount actually lent, and St Thomas Aquinas and his disciples generally concluded that earning money lent on interest was wrong with a few exceptions. The list can go on and on, these are just some of the larger examples.

Of course to come to such a conclusion would require some major re-thinking of how Christians conduct themselves. The obvious being to avoid using, being employed by, or investing in credit cards, rent-a-centers, check cashing business and other businesses that earn money by charging exorbitant fees and interest on those least likely to be able to re-pay it.

What might hurt a bit more is the examination of the role that banks play. The sub-prime mortgage meltdown demonstrates that even large, reputable banks have acted in a way that is contrary to scripture. For most of us this isn’t a huge concern as we have the ability to use the services of a bank when and how we choose, and so can choose to use our money and borrowing power in a way that is consistent with scripture.

However, for those who find themselves in a banking career a bit more discernment is required. Do the scriptures forbid a Christian from being a teller at a reputable bank who may or may not be engaged in producing credit cards and other less than wise lending services? What should someone who is rounding out the end of their career as a bank president at a local branch do? They are bound to take care of their family, but at the same time their skills are now all in areas that would require them to work for a business that oversees auto loans. What about a car salesman who doesn’t actually make loans, but knows that many of the people he sells to can’t afford the loans they’re signing? While Christians can probably exist in these industries in some capacity, these questions are rarely, if ever, wrestled with.

There is one area to thank God for the progress made in. I thank God that men like Dave Ramsey have sounded the alarm on money management and debt in general. I also thank God that many churches are involved in educating their communities in this area.

Bob Myers over at the BHT notes:

During the Phillies N.L. Championship series, manager Charlie Manuel’s mother died. (His father was a Pentecostal minister who tragically committed suicide when Charlie was in high school.) Statements about his mother looking down on the game, watching it, being the 10th player on the field etc. are rampant on Sport’s talk radio here and they have provoked a littany of others sharing how their deceased loved ones who are Phillies fans manifest their presence when they attend a game or watch it on television.

He goes on to say its interesting the universality of such beliefs as they likely came from evangelicals, Catholics and agnostic types. He makes a couple of observations.

So much for the argument that people in Bible times were gullible, but we moderns live in a scientific age…

We can’t bear to believe any one that we loved is simply “no more”. And this stubborn notion that leads to sentimental superstition is correct. This clearly demonstrates that there’s something against death in our nature. And it makes me have compassion on all who walk around with sorrow in their hearts over a death that occured decades ago.

The second observation is, to me, far more interesting than the first, and one many Christians often overlook in their zeal to look forward to the life eternal. Death is always tragic. It is tragic because we weren’t created to die, and is a reminder of the power and horror of sin. It is also tragic, even when it happens to a saint, because we are without that person and they have left a void behind in our lives. I suspect many Christians feel guilt over their sorrow because they’ve been told its a happy day that their loved one has entered eternity. I also suspect that same impulse prevents many Christians from going to a counselor when sorrow deepens into depression.

I’ll add a third observation to this list. That observation is that no matter what we may think we never make an intellectual decision about what we believe. Oh, I realize you read that sentence and probably think it applies to other people who are not you, but we all do this. Our feelings, perceptions, biases, and other factors that are decidedly outside the intellect form our beliefs as much as the intellect does. This, of course, has application for both evangelism and discipleship and Christians ignore it at the own peril.