THE ALTAR OF GOD

Sacramentality Part 2: Treasure in Jars of Clay

2012-01-25T11:13:00.001-06:00

I have wanted to post this for some time. Actually, I wrote it a while back, but because many will say that I have a vested interest, I held off posting it. The truth is I may well have a vested interest, but that doesn’t make it less true. There are still valuable lessons to be learned from the church’s history. I think the Donatist controversy of the 4th century still informs so much of our church life today.

The primary disagreement between the Donatists and the rest of the early church was over the treatment of those who renounced their faith during the great persecution under the Roman emperor Diocletian (303–305). The rest of the church was far more forgiving of these people than the Donatists were. The Donatists refused to accept the sacraments (baptism and communion) and spiritual authority of the bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution. Many of these church leaders had gone so far as to turn Christians over to Roman authorities and had handed over scriptures to authorities to be publicly burned. These people were called traditors (“the lapsed”). These traditors had returned to positions of authority after the persecution, but the Donatists proclaimed that any sacraments given by these Christians were invalid. So, if someone who had betrayed Christ and the church during the persecution baptized you, that baptism was not valid.

In A.D. 311 Caecillian was elected as bishop of Carthage by three area bishops. However, Caecillian, as well as Felix, one the three that elected him, was accused of handing over scriptures to the authorities during the persecution. A council of North African bishops met and elected a new bishop, Majorinus, to replace Caecillian. Majorinus soon died, and was succeeded by Donatus. Now here’s what happened: The church’s official position was that those who had lapsed during the persecution (denied Christ or handed over scriptures to the authorities) were to be forgiven and reinstated in the church – even to positions of leadership. Donatus and his followers believed that those who had denied Christ could never be forgiven. Only he and his group were the “true church,” and anyone who had lapsed during the persecution could not administer baptism or communion – and, furthermore, anyone who was baptized by one of the lapsed had received an invalid baptism.

The Donatists held that all sacraments administered by those not of their sect were invalid. So by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This position is known as ex opere operatis - Latin for “from the work of the one doing the working,” That is, that the validity of the sacrament depends on the worthiness of the minister conferring it. The larger Christian position was (and still is): ex opere operato – “from the work having been worked.” In other words, the validity of the sacrament depends on the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work. Because of Augustine’s influence on the church the Donatists were eventually deemed heretical.

Okay, so what can we learn? Baptism and Communion are valid because they are channels of God’s grace, and are NOT dependent on human qualifications. This is a big difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. Evangelical churches in particular, have in many ways reverted to the Donatist position. That is, more weight is placed on the knowledge, qualifications, character, personal credibility, integrity, purity, and moral authority of the minister than in the imbued grace of God working through the minister. Remember how Paul spoke of the messenger as a “jar of clay”? – weak, broken, flawed. Protestant, evangelical churches do not practice this functionally. Too many people put way too much weight in the purity and moral authority of the minister. When some people discover that he is human – weak and sinful, their faith is tried, even shattered. Why? Don’t put your faith in people, put your faith in God. A person can’t bear up under the pressure. When a Catholic priest fails morally, his bishops protect him. When an evangelical Protestant minister fails morally, his bishops and parishioners no longer believe that he is “qualified” to minister, despite his many other qualifications (education and skills), and even a life that bears witness to God’s grace and the power of confession and repentance.

This may not be heresy, but something is very wrong when people and churches put more faith in the moral qualifications of a person than the ability of God to minister His grace through broken and sinful people. It is out of whack, and not consistent with what the church has believed and practiced as a matter of policy for the past 1700 years! Is the treasure in a jar of clay, or is the jar of clay the treasure?

Roe v. Wade: A Test of Real Conservatism

2012-01-23T15:57:00.000-06:00

Today marks the 39^th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. This has been a lightning rod issue and litmus test among social conservatives since then. For me, it is a slightly different litmus test.

Last week I said that the proper definition of "conservative" is "federalist." In that regard, Mitt Romney is true conservative. He is a hardcore federalist! A candidate like Santorum, who wears the mantle of conservatism, is not a federalist. Consider their respective platforms on abortion:

Romney: Roe v. Wade should be reversed by a future Supreme Court and States should decide their own abortion laws.

Santorum: Favors a constitutional abortion ban and opposes abortion even in cases of rape.

Now, Santorum may appeal to social conservatives with that, but that makes him a “big government conservative,” not a federalist. Romney is right on this. It is also my own personal view? Abortion IS an issue for me – on a moral and religious level. Who the president is does not affect the issue at all. I am opposed to abortion. However, I reject both “pro life” and “pro choice” labels. I am anti abortion, but pro choice. I believe that women should CHOOSE to have the child. Scripture gives this choice in Deuteronomy 30: “I set before you today life and death; blessings and curses. Now choose life.” I think abortion is morally reprehensible. However, all polls indicate that the majority of Americans think abortion ought to remain legal - therefore I am in the minority on this issue. What am I going to do? Force my religious views on the rest of the country? Laws in the United States are not made on the basis of religious teaching or conviction. They are utilitarian because we are a secular nation.

From a LEGAL standpoint I think that Roe v Wade (1973) was a terrible decision. Even liberal law professors (Lawrence Tribe of Harvard) admit this. Both liberals and conservatives need to understand that if Roe v Wade is overturned, it will not make abortion illegal, it will simply return the issue to the States. At that point all 50 state legislatures will determine their own abortion laws. This is the way federalism works. And, since most Americans want to see abortion kept legal, I don’t believe that any state will ban it outright. Overturning Roe v Wade will have virtually zero effect on abortion in America. Roe v Wade simply incorporated the 14th Amendment so that one State's allowing abortion applies to the other 49 States.

The rhetoric from people like Santorum lends the impression of religious fanaticism, and no law in the United States will ever be made on the basis of religious fanaticism. Calling abortion “murder” marginalizes the argument. Murder has a meaning. It is the intentional taking of a human life in a manner that is illegal. Abortion is not illegal. I have looked into the distressed eyes of women contemplating this decision, and what they need is love, compassion, and hope – not anger, fanaticism, and labels. And they really don’t need any more laws.

Love, Actually is, All Around . . .

2011-12-27T12:29:00.003-06:00

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40

Scripture asserts that there is nothing more important than love. But what is love? What does it mean to love someone? Can it be defined? Is it a feeling or an action?

The movie, Love Actually (2003), explains this concept very well. Here is Hugh Grant’s opening monologue. “Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinion is starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed. I don’t see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often it’s not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it’s always there. Fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the twin towers none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge. They were all messages of love. If you look for it, I’ve got a sneaky feeling you’ll find that love, actually is, all around.”

Every Christmas I watch this movie, and always find something new of note. I watched it again last night, and edited my annual post on this. A number of characters’ lives are woven together in seemingly separate stories to define the full meaning of love.

David is the newly elected British Prime Minister. He falls in love with Natalie—a “plump,” average looking girl from the “dodgy” end of Wadsworth. Message: Love transcends positions of power, stature, or social class.

Daniel is a man who has just lost his wife to cancer. She had a 10-year-old son, Sam, from a previous marriage. During the movie Daniel and Sam grow closer than any father and son could. Message: Love is greater than the biology of family (ask anyone who’s adopted).

Sam, on the other hand, has a huge crush on Joanna—a girl at school with the same name as his mom. He does everything to get this girls attention, including learning to play drums. Message: True love knows no age. Even a crush is love. No one is immune from the “total agony” of falling in love.

Sarah is an interesting character. For two years she has had a crush on Karl, the “enigmatic chief designer” at the ad agency. He is interested in her, but she has a problem—her brother is in a mental institution and calls her day and night. She has no time for romance. In the end, she picks her brother. Message: Love as loyalty is sometimes greater than love as romance.

Harry is Sarah’s boss at the office. He is married to Karen, and has two children. They’re just an average suburban family. But Mia, his sexy secretary wants him! She plots ways to seduce him. He buys her an expensive necklace, but his wife finds out. She feels betrayed, hurt, and angry, but in the end she chooses to stay with him and be a loyal mother and wife. Message: Love is greater than seduction—loyalty is love as well.

The next character is Jamie—a writer who finds himself “alone again” in a cottage in the south of France. The housekeeper is a Portuguese girl named Aurelia. She can’t speak a word of English, he can’t speak any Portuguese, and neither of them can speak French! And yet they fall in love without ever communicating a single word. Message: Love is ineffable—it transcends language.

Billy Mac is a hilarious character. He is an ex-heroin addict pop star trying to make a comeback. On Christmas Eve he shows up at his manager’s apartment and confesses that he’s the “love of his life.” Message: Men can love each other and not be homosexual. That’s something our culture isn’t real comfortable with because people don’t see friendship as true love—but it is.

Jack and Judy are body doubles in the adult film industry. They meet on the set and then film several sex scenes completely naked. This is, oddly enough, “just work” for them. Then, close to the end, Jack walks Judy home, and as he leaves, she softly and shyly kisses him. He jumps down the icy stairs in joy. Message: Love is greater than sex. Sex is not always love, and sometimes love involves no sex.

Lastly, Mark is in love with Juliet, his best friend’s wife. Mark suppresses his feelings for her by giving her the cold shoulder. He calls this “a self-preservation thing.” Eventually she finds out, and after he confesses that he will love her forever, he walks away and says, “Enough. Enough now.” Can you love someone you can never be with? Yes. Message: Love, however strong, sometimes has to be unrequited.

Love has so many facets, so many twists and turns, so many pathways. It’s like John Lennon said, “All you need is love.”

“The Word Became Flesh": Christmas and Sacramentality

2011-12-23T12:12:00.002-06:00

During my final seminar at seminary a few years ago, the professor went around the table and asked each of us to state our theology in a single word. (This was a more succinct form of the “stand on one leg” test) Taken aback by being put on the spot, I mumbled something about Barth, to which the professor replied, “You don’t believe that at all—that’s not you!” Slightly embarrassed, it did give me pause for thought, and began a process of questioning and winnowing down everything I thought I believed. Today, my one-word answer would be “incarnational” or perhaps “sacramental” might be a better way to phrase it. What do I mean?

There are certain ineffable actions that surpass words. A kiss, for example, is a physical act that communicates things that are impossible to fully put into words. The most important things in life are difficult to put into words. That’s why we have poets—to explore and probe the borders of language, and to create new metaphorical possibilities. If you have a wonderful experience—seeing a sunset, falling in love, hearing a symphony—whatever it is, you very quickly run out of adjectives to describe what happened. Words alone make us feel empty. The sacraments are like that. They are actions that communicate beyond words. Unfortunately, post-enlightenment rationalism still infects much of Christianity to the point where we think that reality is an intellectual formula. We think that reality lies in words, when, in fact, the New Testament shows that it works the other way: “The Word became flesh.”

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” John 1

That is what Advent and Christmas is all about. The word Advent means “coming” or “arrival.” The focus of the season is on the celebration of the birth of Jesus, and the anticipation of his return. Advent is far more than simply marking a 2000-year-old event in history; it is celebrating the revelation of God in Christ whereby all of creation will be reconciled to God. That is a process in which we now participate, and the consummation of which we anticipate. We affirm that Christ has come in the flesh, that he is present in the world today through his church, and that he will come again in power. Advent is characterized by a spirit of expectation, anticipation, and longing. There is a yearning for deliverance from the evils of the world. We hope that God, who sometimes seems distant, will rule over all His creation in truth and righteousness. It is that hope that once anticipated the coming of the anointed one—the Messiah. That same spirit now longs for his return to come and set the world aright!

Over the past four weeks we have remembered that God’s people once cried out in oppression and anguish, “How long O Lord?” The answer is that God has always been the Holy One in the midst of sinful people. The desire of His heart has always been to dwell with us. And then, when we least expected it, under the boot of oppression, in a night without light, came THE Light; in a world without hope, eternal hope was born; in the midst of despair, we heard the singing of angels. As we now celebrate Christmas, look past the hustle, the gaudy tinsel, and the crass commercialization. Remember that Israel’s prayer was answered that night so long ago in small Bethlehem, and our prayer remains the same: “Come, O Come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel!”

But there is something far deeper to those Christmas thoughts. I have been pondering this all week. I have a habit of posting one thought from worship every Sunday on Facebook. Last Sunday I noted the following, “The anticipation of Advent ought to imbue the church with a sacramental understanding of the incarnation. There can be no true spirituality without sacramentality.” What does that mean? What is “sacramentality”?

It means that all reality is potentially the bearer of God’s presence and the instrument of God’s saving activity on humanity’s behalf. This principle is rooted in the nature of a sacrament as a visible sign and instrument of the invisible presence and activity of God.

Christianity sees in Christ the full embodiment of God. Since God became human, then God is seen, touched, and heard in the context of human living. “He is the Image of the invisible God.” This is the principle of sacramentality. The church celebrates certain rituals (primarily baptism and communion) that make the saving presence of God tangible. They are moments of encounter with God that deeply affect our lives. Christ is present, LITERALLY, in baptism and communion. What we celebrate during Christmas is a tiny preface to this ongoing reality.

Most Evangelical Christians do no think in these terms, and it certainly does not describe my own church heritage. Leaving baptism aside for a separate discussion, I was raised in a tradition that eschewed any “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. It was done “in remembrance” of Christ’s death and resurrection. That’s remembrance ONLY. Anything beyond this radical Zwinglian understanding was deemed “too Catholic.” I currently attend a church where the Eucharist is celebrated once a month. While many of us would like to celebrate it weekly, that too has been deemed “too Catholic.” Both churches sadly miss the point. Christianity affirms that God became human in the person of Christ, that we are receptacles of the Spirit, that the church collectively is the body of Christ on earth, and that Christ’s presence is mediated to us through real and tangible elements. Much of Christianity has become, in a sense, too spiritual. The obsession with spirituality that is disconnected from physical reality, and the preaching of salvation as a plan to escape this world is, at best, a reversal of what Christianity has always taught, and, at worst, a return to some early heresies!

But sacramentality embraces more than sacred rituals. It also promotes the idea that we live in a sacred world because it has been created by God. For this reason, every tangible element of creation from the natural environment to human persons provides an opportunity to encounter something of God’s presence. Understood in this way, the principle of sacramentality affirms that as we study and explore the human condition, as well as the natural environment, we are actually discovering more about the presence of God.

C.S. Lewis stated this brilliantly: "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no 'ordinary' people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.”

Merry Christmas!

Moral Bank Accounts

2011-11-07T12:55:00.001-06:00

Over the past week the furor and media frenzy surrounding Herman Cain’s alleged sexual harassment has got me thinking about a principle I use to assess someone’s character. I call that principle, “Moral Bank Accounts.” It’s almost impossible to neatly categorize people as either “good” or “bad” since life and certainly human behavior can only be described in shades of moral gray. The rules are rarely clear. Motivation cannot be fully ascertained or understood. “Good” people sometimes do bad things. “Bad” people sometimes do good things. Moral certainty and judgment of others is a rare and expensive luxury!

If you've ever heard of a “Ponzi scheme” you will surely assume that Charles Ponzi was a bad man. He cheated many people out of their money. But a new biography reveals that a few years before inventing his scheme, Ponzi had given a fair amount of his skin so it could be grafted onto a woman who was dying of severe burns. He suffered extreme pain from this act of generosity, which saved a person's life. Yet who would ever associate Ponzi with anything except scamming people out of their money?

People all have “moral bank accounts.” Just like a monetary bank account into which we make deposits and also withdrawals, we make moral, behavioral deposits into, and withdrawals from our moral bank account based on the multitude of actions we engage in during our lifetime. Some obvious villains make so many withdrawals that no imaginable good they can do will change the balance. But that’s the exception, and a bit of a disclaimer. I believe that people should be judged this way, rather than on the basis of every little thing they do. I started thinking this way years ago when Bill Bennett, author of the “Book of Virtues,” was railed against because he gambled away large sums of money. The gambling paled in comparison to how much good Bennett has done. We need moral perspective. It’s the only way to balance justice and mercy.

Without the perspective that a moral bank account gives us, we exaggerate the good done by bad people, and the bad done by good people. God is the ultimate judge, but in the meantime, moral judgments must be made by us humans. Charles Ponzi heroically saved a woman's life at a great personal price. His money scheme was awful; but he was not. Oscar Schindler saved many Jews during the Holocaust while being unfaithful to his wife. Yet we regard Schindler as a moral hero. I am all for pursuing moral clarity and calling good “good” and evil “evil.” But we lose the war against evil and the war for good when we lose moral perspective. We all have moral bank accounts, and it's good to make deposits because we all make withdrawals!

Law School: A New Call to Ministry

2011-08-22T11:23:00.003-05:00

My admissions essay to Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law:

“You shouldn’t say that in church!” The elder said it to me with a sneering kind of condescension that was half amusement and half judgment. “Why not?” I replied with the kind of naïve enthusiasm that could only come from a new convert. “Because it’s too political. People don’t want to hear about politics in church!”

That conversation happened on Sunday, January 30^th, 1994 in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. That is a date I will never forget. I was nineteen, had only been a Christian for two months, and was watching history unfold rather messily as my home country seemed to teeter on the brink of a racially charged civil war. We didn’t expect that only three months later, Nelson Mandela would assume the presidency in a peaceful election that some heralded as “miraculous.” Pre “Truth and Reconciliation,” we fully expected chaos and violence.

For reasons I still do not fully understand, I was asked to deliver the sermon at my home church. The message that I prepared was one of reconciliation, but more specifically, that it was the church’s responsibility, as Christ’s ambassadors, to be stewards of peace and to be fully engaged in ushering in a new era of justice in our country. Those who heard my sermon that night were kind to me, but the elder was right, my message was deemed “too political,” and therefore, by definition, not spiritual enough.

The following month I left my home in South Africa to make a new life for myself in the United States. Part of that new life was responding to the call of ministry. I pursued a theological education with the same rigorous enthusiasm that had characterized other challenges in my life. I was a young, foreign student with little money to spare, yet knowing that I was serving a much higher purpose, I found great joy in the life of the mind. After graduating from Dallas Christian College, I went to graduate school at Baylor University, and then Seminary at Abilene Christian University. Though I had served with churches since 1998, I was ordained to the ministry in 2005, when I received the Master of Divinity degree.

Over the course of my ministry I found that the church tends to talk about salvation as a future expectation for individual people – almost as a means of escaping this world. I heard Christians jokingly refer to baptism as “fire insurance.” I began to struggle with this understanding of the church’s role as a harbinger of some future spiritual reality, rather than engaging in the struggle for peace and justice here and now. In a sense, Christianity has become too spiritual. That is, the concerns of the church have become otherworldly, with Christians focusing their attention on the afterlife. While the pursuit of utopianism is also dangerous, such a focus tends to miss the political, social, and economic implications of God’s Kingdom breaking in here and now. The church I grew up in regarded the phrase, “Social Gospel” as near heresy, and today’s Evangelicals have the same reaction to the phrase, “Social Justice.”

As a means of broadening my experiences, I joined the Acton Institute’s Free and Virtuous Society in 2004. This is an organization that seeks to integrate a Judeo-Christian understanding of the human person with moral truths and free market economic principles. In 2005 I received certification as a mediator after studying at Abilene Christian University’s school of Conflict Resolution. My involvement in these programs brought me into close contact with several lawyers. It was refreshing to be around these men and women. They had an excitement about their profession and about making an impact for good that I hadn’t seen or felt in a long time. I think that was the genesis of my fascination with the study of law. But life was comfortable in the recesses of the church - as long as I didn’t rock the boat too much! So I buried myself in my work as a minister, fully believing that I could do more, and that I could make changes where others had failed.

In the summer of 2008, the toll became too much to bear. My wife and I separated, and were subsequently divorced in May 2009. (I won’t go into all the details of our failed marriage here because many of those details are, and should remain, private.) For a host of personal and professional reasons, I could no longer lead the church that I dearly loved, and resigned my ministry in August 2008. You’re only a leader if others are following! A whirlwind of loss and hopelessness took everything I had spent the better part of a decade building up. I didn’t know where to go, who to turn to, or what to do with my life. Worst of all, I felt abandoned by the church.

And then, while sitting in Starbucks one afternoon, I gazed at my coffee cup, and read the following “The Way I See It” quote by Scott Turow: “The law, for all its failings, has a noble goal - to make the little bit of life that people can actually control more just. We can’t end disease or natural disasters, but we can devise rules for our dealings with one another that fairly weigh the rights and needs of everyone, and which, therefore, reflect our best vision of ourselves.”

After reflecting on that sentiment, it struck me that the study of law and a career as a lawyer was not leaving the ministry, but a new way to be faithful to my call to ministry. That may seem odd to some people, but in my way of thinking, both lawyers and ministers are supposed to promote and fight for a better world here and now. When people are at their weakest, it is either a lawyer or a minister that takes them by the arm, stands shoulder to shoulder with them, and gives them the greatest thing a person can have – hope! That ideological conviction is my primary reason for pursuing the study of law.

There are practical, career oriented reasons as well. Since receiving certification as a mediator in 2005, I have offered my services as a mediator and conflict resolution coach. However, it is difficult to establish one’s self in this field without having studied law. I believe that a law degree will give me the necessary credentials and professional clarity to effectively work as a peacemaker in our society.

Since March 2009 I have worked for Christian Relief Partners as their “Liaison for African Projects.” This aid organization is assisting with the development of a community in South Sudan. We are developing a sustainable model tied to the local community, including skills training, economic development, education, and agricultural programs. South Sudan has just voted to secede from the North, and establish their own country. I have traveled to the Sudan on two occasions now, and as I continue to invest myself in building up the new nation of South Sudan, I believe that a law degree will grant me the credentials that will open many doors.

In short, my desire to study law is born out of the same conviction that allowed me to answer the call to ministry. Or better stated, Christian Relief Partners has a simple, one sentence vision: “We believe that the world can be a better place.”

The Banality of Evil

2011-08-02T17:13:00.002-05:00

“The plan was to kill people." That is what Jeremy Morlock told an army judge after he participated in a "kill team" of soldiers in Afghanistan who brutally targeted civilians and then staged the bodies to look like dead insurgents. The soldiers took humiliating photos of the murdered civilians, and some even kept body parts as mementos. Morlock has been sentenced to 24 years in prison.

The above paragraph (as mild as it is) describes evil. It also describes abject stupidity, but let’s stay serious with “evil.” Admittedly, the word has been overused to the point of exhaustion. What do I mean when I refer to an action as evil? By the word “evil,” I refer to human behavior that is intentionally harmful to others.

But even with neat definitions and parameters, it is difficult to reconcile the image of a clean-shaven, all-American Morlock with the Morlock who sat so calmly in a courtroom and described the vicious murder of innocent people for sport. And how can you explain the actions of the other soldiers in the kill team, or those who actively covered up for them?

Grappling with the issue of evil is frustrating for me because oftentimes “good” or “normal” people commit the worst kinds of evil. Two writers have been valuable: Hannah Arendt and Henry David Thoreau.

Hannah Arendt

In her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, (1963) the political theorist Hannah Arendt opened a unique window through which to gaze upon evil. Jewish by birth, Arendt escaped Nazi Europe in 1941 and later became a naturalized American. In 1961, on behalf of the New Yorker magazine, Arendt reported on the Jerusalem trial of Adolph Eichmann, who had been instrumental in administering the Nazi death camps.

She opened the trial's transcript in order to examine a sadistic monster, but she closed it without finding one. Like his fellow Nazi Heinrich Himmler, who went from being a chicken farmer to heading the notoriously brutal SS, Eichmann seemed to be an ordinary man simply carrying out orders. Arendt coined a term - the "banality of evil” - partly as a way to describe Eichmann's demeanor during the trial, in which he denied all responsibility for the holocaust on the grounds that he was just following orders; he was obeying the law.

Eichmann showed no guilt, malice, or insanity. The most remarkable emotion he displayed was a tendency to brag. Arendt called this bragging, “the vice that was Eichmann's undoing” because it led him to speak of atrocities that he had not been ordered to commit. To Arendt, it seemed Eichmann would rather die as a war criminal than live as a nobody.

Arendt continued to elaborate on how seemingly ordinary people can commit terrible acts simply because those acts were performed in a systematic manner and within a sanctioned context - a context that discouraged accountability by rewarding obedience. A reviewer of Arendt's book observed that the Nazis had "normalized the unthinkable."

Arendt's insights also applied to the more mundane atrocities. For example, the seizure of Jewish property ceased to be theft if it was done through proper paperwork, stamped, and filled out in triplicate by a government clerk. Those who processed the forms or inventoried the goods were simply doing paperwork and inventory; they were "honest" people just doing their jobs. (How many times have you heard that line?)

The same was true (then and now) of prison guards, special police forces, and an obedient judiciary. They obeyed laws or orders without questioning. The law assumed the role that conscience played in other people.

People obey for many reasons. Some see it as a path to success. Others fear the consequences of disobedience. Many, like those who do the paperwork to facilitate theft or murder, view their jobs as routine and boring - as far from evil as imaginable. They simply want to collect a paycheck or acquire a pension, and they give no thought to the content or consequences of their actions.

Arendt's complex explanation of “the banality of evil” offers us insight into Morlock and his kill team in Afghanistan. They were in an environment that systematically dehumanized Afghans. The military culture also dehumanized the individual's moral conscience and erased personal responsibility. (Ever seen “A Few Good Men”?) Despite the parallels, however, Morlock does not fit neatly into Arendt's paradigm. For one thing, he cannot fall back on “obeying orders” as an exculpatory argument. Of course he tried this argument, suggesting that a superior officer in his unit had suggested the kill team, but no one receive official orders. Their repeated cover-ups reveal that they knew their actions were wrong by some standard.

And now to one of my favorite authors:

Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau offers further insight. In his work, On Civil Disobedience, Thoreau objected to majority rule because the views of the majority do not always coincide with what is morally correct. Every human being has a fundamental obligation to discover for himself what is just and then to act according to his conscience, which is inviolable, even if it contradicts the majority or the law. It is precisely moral conscience that makes us fully human.

It is within the military that Thoreau saw the greatest relinquishment of moral conscience. Thoreau contemplated soldiers who would march off to die and to kill strangers in a conflict they know is unjust. He asked whether those soldiers retained or relinquished their humanity when they replaced their own moral judgment with the dictates of others. Thoreau concluded that once a man abandons his moral judgment, he becomes a machine; his body becomes a mere tool to be used by those in power.

Thoreau wrote,

“The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others - as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.”

Many consider service to their country to be an automatic virtue, but it is a dehumanizing vice whenever it involves the abandonment of conscience. Soldiers like Jeremy Morlock point guns at strangers who have done them no harm. When you systematically strip away a man's conscience and then give him a gun with little accountability, the worst within his humanity is likely to surface. Or perhaps Thoreau is correct - his humanity itself may disappear.

Arendt stated, “The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” If so, then the first step toward evil for most people is agreeing to shut down the mind. And that is precisely why, like Jefferson, “I have sworn, upon the Altar of God, eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

What is a Good Person?

2011-07-25T11:23:00.000-05:00

“I have learned to control my desire to do evil; it is now my desire to good that gets me in trouble.” Jewish saying

As I have struggled recently with trying to understand my own sometimes bad and inexplicable behavior, I have become less interested with the question, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” and much more fascinated with asking, “Why do good people do bad things?” To say that only bad people do bad things is to have a simplistic view of a complicated world that rarely operates in black and white, but rather in shades of gray. It is usually what we term “good” people who do bad things. But why?

The answer may be quite simple. (It may also be anathema to religious and socially conservative people.) We tend to see the things going on inside of a person (personality, motives, desires, morals, upbringing, etc.) as more important in regulating behavior than the forces outside of the person (context, situation, societal, and peer pressures). Because we have an elevated view of the individual and the power of choice and free will, we tend to downplay the power of context and situation, while seeing ourselves in control, and other people in altruistic terms. We think that people have an inner core that dictates and determines their actions. We call this their “true self.” The “real” Charles for example. So we classify ourselves and others in terms of kinds of people – “good” people, “bad” people, “strong” people, “weak” people, “moral” people, etc.

But all these labels may be erroneous. Maybe there aren't different “kinds” of people. Could it be that there are simply “normal” people in quite different situations? Without getting into the Milgram Nazi guard experiments (Google if you must), configure the situational context a certain way and you can make some people look weak or evil, and others look strong or moral. This doesn’t mean that situations alone determine our behavior, but we tend to dramatically underestimate the power of context and situation. How many times have you heard someone say, “I would never do that!”? This is precisely what sets us up for wrongdoing. We tend to overestimate the strength of our character. We see ourselves as a “kind” of person – a good father, a good husband. To see ourselves in this way is a mistake – a very costly one. Trust me.

This principle applies to all moral issues - addiction, sexuality, theft, spending, violence, revenge, and on and on. Situations have way more power than we think. Consequently, “good” people wander into situations that cause them to falter.

My advice? Treat your own virtue with suspicion. Your strength can easily become your weakness. Guard it jealously! Don't believe your character alone is sufficient to carry you through. The world is littered with the ruined lives of those who said, “I don't know how I could have done that (fill in the blank). I’m not that kind of person!”

This is Africa!

2011-06-24T11:27:00.000-05:00

I love Africa. I was born in Africa. I grew up in Africa. Most days the sights and sounds and emotions of my childhood are as vivid as last night’s storm. I can’t describe what it’s like to experience those unique sights, sounds, smells, and tastes. Africa is not the célèbre cause of the month for me, or a photo opportunity. The first 20 years of my life were spent in Africa. The people are full of joy, welcoming, and hospitable. In South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and the Sudan - I have always been accepted warmly. I’ve marveled at the Cape of Good Hope, climbed Table Mountain, smelled the pines of Tstsikamma, heard the roar of Victoria Falls, and stood at the convergence of the Luangwa Valley, as the mighty Zambezi rolls towards Cabora Bassa. The vibrancy and pain of Africa is imbued on my consciousness.

Some experiences and sights and sounds and emotions cannot be translated. I vividly recall my thoughts and feelings just a few months ago while sitting on the edge of the mountain overlooking lower Boma in the South Sudan. Watching the sun slowly setting to the west, thousands of feet below me, the Gia villages were lighting their evening fires. To the north relief vehicles looked like ants scurrying back and forth. Far off in the distance thunderclouds were emptying torrents of rain – as if nature itself was trying to cleanse the land of its bloodshed and sorrow. The rhythmic drumbeats of the Jonglei village gave an eerie but calm impression. In the afternoons you can still hear the occasional volley of gunfire, as if the SPLA need to remind everyone that they control the mountain. These sights and sounds peel back emotions that aren’t felt often. How can such a beautiful place be so full of sorrow? The human suffering makes it hard to breathe – as if there is a weight on one’s chest.

The reason for the overwhelming sadness is that most of Africa is a continent without much hope. According to the Hoover Institution, two-thirds of African countries have either stagnated or shrunk economically since independence in the 1960s. Most African nations today are poorer than they were in 1980 - by wide margins. It’s hard for well-intentioned people to acknowledge that poverty is not a cause, but a result of Africa's problems. According to the Netherlands-based Genocide Watch, since 1960, around the time of independence, about 9 million black Africans had been slaughtered through genocide and mass murder. The Congo leads the way with 2,095,000, closely followed by the Sudan with 2 million, Nigeria and Mozambique with a million each, Ethiopia: 855,000, Rwanda: 823,000, Uganda: 555,000 and hundreds of thousands more in other countries.

The economic observations are just as daunting. According to the World Bank it takes mere days to incorporate a company in Canada. In Mozambique, it takes 153 days. And Mozambique's company law has been unchanged since 1888. In the midst of the unending demands that the west do more, would it be unreasonable to suggest that, after 123 years, the government of Mozambique might also be obligated to do something about its regulations?

Meanwhile, next door in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe's government is being given hundreds of thousands of tons of emergency supplies from the UN's World Food Programme. At the U.N. the head of the WFP emphasized that the famine was all due to drought and Aids, and nothing to do with Mugabe's stewardship of the economy. Ironically, it was during the G8 summit, devoted to Africa, that Zimbabwe's government ordered those commercial farmers whose land had not yet been confiscated to cease all operations.

What African countries need most, the West cannot give. What Africans need is personal liberty. That means a political system where there are guarantees of private property rights and the rule of law. If you were living in some impoverished African village, would you want any “wealth” if there were the constant likelihood that the government, or some irate chief, or some marauding tribe will come through to destroy everything?

The Index of Economic Freedom, published by the Wall Street Journal, lists Botswana, South Africa and Namibia as “mostly free.” World Bank GDP rankings put Botswana 89th ($2,980), South Africa 94th ($2,600) and Namibia 111th ($1,700). Is there any mystery why they're well ahead of their northern neighbors, such as Mozambique 195th ($210), Liberia 201st ($150) or Ethiopia 206th ($100)?

The lack of liberty means something else: A nation loses its best and brightest people first. According to the last census, there were 881,300 African-born U.S. residents, of whom I am one. Want to end poverty in Africa? The first step must be removing those petty dictators who rule throughout that continent. Dictatorial mini-giants such as Robert Mugabe. Yes there's hunger and poverty in Zimbabwe; but the blame is to be placed squarely on Mugabe, not on a lack of help from the west. The G8 summit? Don't look for any discussion on getting rid of Africa's dictators and warlords. It will be about wealth redistribution, and government-to-government aid with many strings attached.

But state-to-state aid ignores the value and potential of the human person. When we put the person at the center of our economic thinking, we transform the way we look at wealth and poverty. Instead of asking what causes poverty, we ask what causes wealth? What conditions are prime for human flourishing from which prosperity can grow? In echoing what the PovertyCure Network has outlined, it is time to move:

From aid to enterprise.
From poverty alleviation to wealth creation.
From paternalism to partnerships.
From handouts to investments.
From seeing the poor as consumers or burdens to seeing them as creators.
From viewing people and economies as experiments to pursuing solidarity with the poor.
From viewing the poor as recipients of charity to acknowledging them as agents of change with dignity, capacity, and creativity.
From encouraging dependency to integrating the poor into networks of productivity and exchange.
From subsidies and protectionism to open trade and competition.
From seeing the global economy as a fixed pie to understanding that human enterprise can grow economies.

But most importantly, it is time to view all people as free beings created in God’s Image. When you let someone’s humanity connect with your own soul, everything changes! Here’s an excerpt from my journal on a trip to Zambia:

“Today we drove to the Chadiza district on what may or may not have been a road to do two medical clinics - one in Chadiza, and one in a village called Kabvuwa, right on the Mozambique border. James and I rode with Wellington, but we still managed to get lost getting there, so we showed up fairly late in the afternoon. Being lost on the Mozambique border is not good! You cannot imagine a poorer or more remote place on earth. The villagers had been waiting for hours, but when they saw our van kicking up dust on the road, they got up, and welcomed us with joyful singing. And then we got to work. We gave out pills, cleaned sores and burns, and we pulled lots of teeth. As the sun started to set we worked frantically to help as many people as possible – even pulling teeth in the dark with only one small flashlight. I was helping Laurie with wound care. A young girl, maybe 9 or 10 years old, wearing a bright blue shirt came to us with a severe infection in her eyes. We cleaned out her eyes with water and cotton swabs. The girl was clearly in severe pain. But when I looked her in the face, and we made eye contact she flashed me a beaming smile like I had never seen before. It was a look of relief and gratitude and true happiness. In the poorest, most remote spot I have ever been to a little girl showed me true happiness. The emotion of the moment flooded over me, and I couldn't hold back the tears. I had to sneak around the corner and sit in the van for a few minutes so the rest of the team wouldn't see me not smiling. They don’t know that the constant smile is a mask I wear for their benefit. I'll never know that little girl's name, I’ll never see her again, but she’s why I keep coming back to Africa.”

Instead of the familiar refrain, “This is Africa,” let’s pray, “God bless Africa!”

Return to the Southern Sudan

2011-02-25T03:07:00.002-06:00

Christian Relief Partners has been involved in the Southern Sudan for a couple of years now. Last month a historic referendum was held in which the south voted to secede from the north and establish independence. This comes after a bloody twenty-five year civil war that decimated the country. Now this brand new country needs to put aside inner strife and inter-tribal conflicts and stand together.

In African countries that have experienced genocide, civil war, and tribal violence, the role of community in fueling hatred and inciting violence is impossible to ignore. Greed has prompted many African leaders to use communities as pawns - using their poverty and hopelessness to stir up dissention and hatred, and creating an environment of fear and hostility. Even as these conflicts are managed and new leaders come into power, the resentments and tribal hatred continue to fester, so that some of these communities are always on the brink of violence. It is becoming more apparent that those taking over leadership in post-conflict areas, and trying to rebuild their communities must play a significant role in tearing down these barriers of hate by promoting peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Leaders with the desire to create lasting change in Africa are increasingly collaborating with Christian organizations to seek training that can help them as they steer communities towards a more peaceful future.

The power of true biblical forgiveness is a model that has already resulted in transforming communities all over the continent. Obviously, many communities are still shackled with generations of hatred and resentment. Remarkably, the fledgling government of the world’s newest country is now seeking help to train government officials, civil leaders, police officers, and lawyers in peacebuilding, conflict resolution, trauma healing, and servant leadership.

In my capacity as Christian Relief Partners’ Liaison for African Projects, I will be departing for the Southern Sudan on March 8th along with some of the board of SEA Partners. It is a chilling kind of excitement to be hands on involved in the establishment of the world’s newest country! My itinerary will be as follows:

March 10-14: Meet with ministers and teachers in Boma, Southern Sudan.

Distribute food aid from the U.N. World Food Programme

March 14-16: Meet with government, civil, and religious leaders in the capital of Juba.

Meet with representatives of Joint Aid Management (JAM) in Yei.

March 16-18: Meet with leaders in the village of Biong to discuss the establishment of a

new Christian school.

March 19: Return to Nairobi, Kenya.

After this trip I will develop a curriculum based on conversations with government and church leaders that will result in the training of teams traveling to the Sudan, as well as ministers in the Southern Sudan. This project will be titled, “A Model for the Training of Ministers as Agents of Reconciliation and Communal Peacebuilding through Biblical Forgiveness in the Southern Sudan.”

As you can imagine, such a trip costs a great deal due to the logistics of getting in and out of the Southern Sudan. If you have supported this work in the past, or if this is something you are interested in supporting, please contact me at: charles@partnersonline.org. Every bit helps, and your kindness would be greatly appreciated.

Peace and Blessings

Charles

A Brief Note on Men, Women, and Relationships

2011-01-06T23:18:00.003-06:00

Recently, I have given a great deal of thought to the universal problem that men and women fall in love, but do not truly understand each other. Perhaps this is brought on by my annual “Love Actually” Christmasthon, or by the fact that deep down I’m a lovesick fool, or just plain pathetic, or overly analytical, or perhaps it is because my own history of tried and failed relationships reads like Tennyson’s Charge of the Light Brigade. What I’m trying to say is that I’m not the expert, just someone who has tried and failed, and thought a lot about those failures.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, purportedly said that after all his years of research, he still did not know what women want! Perhaps that is a question best left for women to answer. What I can do is say precisely what men want and need, and it is something that only the woman they love can fully provide. And it’s not what everyone thinks it is!

There are many misperceptions regarding male needs. For example, here is an old joke that illustrates a stereotypical misperception regarding male sexuality:

A heading reads: How To Impress a Woman

Beneath that heading: “Compliment her, respect her, honor her, cuddle her, kiss her, caress her, love her, comfort her, protect her, hold her, wine and dine her, buy things for her, listen to her, care for her, stand by her, support her, go to the ends of the Earth for her.”

That long list is followed by: How To Impress a Man

And beneath that: “Show up naked. Bring food.”

As with most stereotypes there is some truth to this, but it is not fair or accurate to men. So what do men most want? Answer: To be admired by the woman he loves. Men need admiration. A man needs to be admired by his wife (for the sake of clarity, let’s keep the discussion within the context of marriage). More precisely, a man needs to feel that his wife admires him, looks up to him, and trusts him. A man needs the rush of knowing that if his wife believes in him he can conquer the world. One proof is that the most devastating thing a woman can do to her man is to hold him in contempt. That is so devastating to a marriage that, over time, it is often more toxic than infidelity.

Contempt is the same as public humiliation. It is so despicable a behavior that it is hard to describe effectively. We’ve all seen it at the mall: the brow-beat husband and father scurrying two steps behind the wife, drooping shoulders, carrying the diaper bag or purse or whatever – only rushing to fetch the minivan! Or the wife who only has criticism for her husband at their friend’s dinner parties, or the woman at church who says, “I have three children. Two I gave birth to, and one I married.”

Of course, this means that in order to gain a woman's love, a man must be admirable. Boys know this instinctively. Young men often reveal how much harder they work at something when they know girls are watching them. If a woman “falls in love” with a man she does not admire, that love will not last. Conversely, a woman can always fall in love with a man she has come to admire first.

To be admirable, then, a man needs to exhibit three qualities:

Strength

Integrity

Ambition

Like the legs of a tripod, all three are needed. A man who has strength, but no integrity (honesty) is simply macho; a man of integrity, but no strength or ambition is weak; a man with ambition, but no integrity is a crook.

To be admirable, a man must exhibit strength in the world and at home as a husband and father. That means making tough decisions, leading with certitude, sometimes saying “no,” and always doing so with the utmost kindness.

Likewise, integrity has to be a borne from the kind of honesty that imbues character. It comes from seeing the folly in something you’ve done, and wishing you could change it, but you can’t – you have to press forward with courage and resolve, and the conviction that you will never lie again. Then you will gain character, because, in the words of Danny Devito in The Big Kahuna, “honesty will reach out from inside and tattoo itself across your face.”

Ambition must not be confused with material success. Having ambition does not mean that a man is wealthy, but that he is a goal oriented hard worker who wants to improve himself. Plenty of men who earn relatively little are still admired by their wives because they have a work ethic that is not lazy, and looks to the future.

So as it turns out, everybody wins. Women get what they want, men get what they want, children get what they need – good homes and role models, and society gets what it desperately needs – men of strength, integrity, and ambition!

In Defense of the "Commercialization of Christmas."

2010-12-22T00:23:00.000-06:00

Every year, as predictable as the arrival of winter, comes criticism about the commercialization of Christmas. We are told that Christ has been taken out of Christmas because we spend too much money on Christmas gifts and because stores have rendered Christmas little more than a great time to sell merchandise.

If there is a better example of people complaining about something that is overwhelmingly good, I would like to know what it is. One time each year, a majority of people feel obligated to buy gifts for their friends and relatives. It is a time when we go to stores, not for ourselves, but with the needs and wants of others in mind.

Here is a good rule governing criticizing: Before you criticize something, imagine its alternative. Imagine that when Christmas came around stores put up no decorations and no one bought gifts. Would we be a better society? Of course not! Spending money on gifts for others is one of the nicest traditions in society and ought to be cultivated, not discouraged. People who don't buy Christmas gifts aren't noble, they are cheap.

Another objection is that some people spend out of obligation, not out of love. Again, think of the alternative. If we were to encourage only altruistic acts that come from love, few people would get married or have children, and almost no gifts would ever be exchanged. It is none of my business to judge why other people give Christmas gifts. It is only for me to appreciate the fact that they do. Christmas is greatly honored by gift giving. When you buy Christmas gifts, you bring joy to the recipients, you feel good about giving, you spend time thinking about what other people like, you keep many businesses alive, and most of all, you honor God by reciprocating, in the lives of others, His gift to us – Jesus, the Christ.

The Greatest Sin

2010-09-11T00:16:00.002-05:00

"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” (Exodus 20:7)

As I have reflected on the 9/11 attacks this ninth anniversary, as well as the controversy surrounding the “Ground Zero mosque” and the “burn a Koran day,” my belief that there is one sin that is worse than all other sins has been reinforced. That sin is committing evil in the name of God – evil defined as purposefully harming another human being.

The Commandment in Exodus 20:7, translated as, "Do not take/misuse the name of the Lord your God in vain," is imprecisely translated. The Hebrew verb literally reads, "Do not carry the name of the Lord your God in vain." And, the commandment continues, "for God will not hold guiltless whoever carries His name in vain.” It is the one sin that does not have the offer of forgiveness!

When a secular person commits evil they do not bring God into disrepute. When a person commits evil in God's name, however, they destroy the greatest hope for goodness to prevail on earth - widespread belief in a God who demands ethical goodness.

There is nothing as evil as religious evil. The Nazis were cruel, and so were the Communists, but they only sullied their own names, not the name of God. For example, the immense amount of evil being caused by those Muslims who slaughter innocents in the name of God is hurting God's reputation.

One can only pray that Muslim institutions will realize the damage done to the name of Allah and to Islam by those Muslims who preach or practice evil in the name of Allah and Islam - and the even greater damage done by the rest of the Islamic world's failure to protest against this evil by publicly announcing that evil preached or committed in the name of Allah and Islam is sin and its practitioners will go to hell, not to Paradise to be serviced by multiple virgins! For if there is a hell, those who murder and torture the innocent while praising God are surely the first to go there.

I remember when Islamists kidnapped a young lady who was a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor. Before taking her picture, these men covered her head and her hands so that no female skin would be exposed. In their perverse thinking, God is more concerned with men being titillated by female skin than He is with kidnapping (not to mention beheadings and bombings).

This is why religious fundamentalism is twisted. The legalism that fundamentalism produces furthers the greatest sin – carrying the name of God in vain because it causes people to act unkind and even commit evil in the name of God.

Dennis Prager tells about a young man who attended a Jewish institute he once directed. When this young man first arrived at the institute, he was a kind and nonjudgmental person - and completely secular. After his month-long immersion in the Torah, he became a fully practicing Orthodox Jew.

A year later the young man was actually less kind and was aggressively judgmental of his fellow Jews, including those who had brought him to Judaism in the first place. In one year he had become, in his own eyes, holier than the teachers who brought him to religion in the first place. The religion's emphasis on legal observance enabled him to count the number of laws his fellow Jews did not observe and judge them accordingly. Over the course of my own ministry I have seen a number of new converts behave in this way.

Within Christianity, faith in Christ can lead one to live a life of extraordinary loving-kindness and self-sacrifice, but it can also, and has, led Christians to place so much emphasis on proper faith as to neglect equal emphasis on proper behavior.

When you evaluate your own beliefs and practices, ask yourself, “Has this belief or doctrine made me a better person?” or, “Has this belief or doctrine made me less kind, less compassionate, less rational, and more judgmental?” If your answer is the latter, it’s time to re-evaluate that belief. If not, you may be “carrying” God’s name in vain.

“He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).

What is Salvation?

2010-08-30T02:39:00.002-05:00

What does it mean to be saved? What does the word “salvation” mean? Over the course of my ministry I did some informal polling on this question, asking Christians what they think salvation means. And invariably the answer is, “Salvation is going to heaven when you die.” When we ask, “Is this person saved?” what we’re asking is, “Have they done what is necessary in order to go to heaven when they die?” We tend to talk about salvation as a future expectation for individual people. We talk about salvation as a means of escaping this world and going to a better world.

The hope of going to heaven when I die brings me great comfort, but that is not the meaning of the concept of salvation in any of the gospels. It is simply not defined that way.

Stories of salvation in the gospels are about restoration. Jesus heals, and forgives, and restores. In every story the person touched by Jesus is restored to God, their family, and their community. Salvation is God giving back to us life and peace and community and trust.

The word we translate as “salvation” in the New Testament has a depth of meaning: life, deliverance, preservation, restoration, wholeness, soundness, health, and peace. And what are we saved from? Sin, death, guilt, sickness, loneliness, ignorance, fear, hell, despair, alienation, and meaninglessness.

So let’s take this word “salvation” out for a test drive through Luke’s Gospel.

In Luke 7:11-15 we read the story of Jesus raising a young man from the dead. If you had been a journalist on the scene, your headline would probably have read, “Jesus raises a young man from the dead.” But I want you to notice that Luke phrases this in such a way that the point of the story is Jesus giving back to a hopeless woman her status in the community. If you were a woman whose husband and only son died, leaving you all alone, you were in big trouble - you had no status, no voice, no income - and in this story Jesus saw her, had compassion on her, and the miracle here is the return of the son to the mother so that she can be restored to her community, and we’ll read that story a hundred times, and miss the point.

Also in chapter 7 of Luke’s gospel (vss 36-50) Jesus is anointed by a “sinful” woman at the home of Simon, a Pharisee. This woman understood God’s love and Simon never got it, and what’s interesting is the last thing Jesus said to her: “You faith has saved you; go in peace.”

In the Hebrew community and language the word “peace” is “shalom” - one of the most important words and concepts in the Bible. “Shalom” is wholeness, completeness, fullness. To live in shalom (peace) is to live in harmony with God and with humanity and with nature.

So when Jesus tells this sinful woman to, “Go in peace,” he’s not just saying, “Have a nice day.” He’s saying something profound. He’s talking to her in a such a way that she knows, and Simon knows, and everyone at the table knows, and everyone eavesdropping outside knows that she has been embraced by God, and because God has embraced her, her community, who knows her reputation, must also embrace her and forgive her and love her. Jesus restored her to her community. That is the meaning of salvation in this story.

In the following chapter (8:40-48) we read a similar story. Here again we come across a woman who is an outcast. Because of her uncleanness she has no community, no position, no standing, no voice - and Jesus heals her, he saves her, and he calls her “daughter” – and once again, this very public affirmation has the result of restoring her to her community.

All of these stories are, in one way or another, salvation stories.

My favorite salvation story in Luke’s Gospel takes place in chapter 19:vss 1-10. In short, as Jesus entered Jericho, Zacchaeus, who was a tax collector, and thus an outcast from his community, grabs Jesus’ attention. Jesus addresses him: “I must stay at your house today.”

Salvation came into that house literally and figuratively, and when Jesus said, in the presence of everybody, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham,” he is saying, “This man (Zacchaeus) is not an outsider. He is once again part of this community, he can be trusted, he can be loved, he can be forgiven and accepted again.”

Salvation cannot just be about a future expectation, it also has to be about present reality. If we let the future expectation of salvation dominate how we think and talk about salvation we are not being true to the way salvation is described in scripture, we’re not being true to the way Jesus spoke about salvation, and we will never function effectively as his body on earth. Salvation must be experienced here and now.

The church needs to ask some very difficult salvific questions. If we do not place ourselves in the loving and forgiving and salvation affirming shoes of Jesus, Christians can easily roll off phrases like, “I forgive you,” along with, “But sin has consequences” in the same confusing sentence with no apparent sense of irony or awareness of their mischaracterizing the gospel.

What does salvation look like for a divorced mother?

What does salvation look like for the family who’s been knocked out of their home by a hurricane?

What does salvation look like for the mother of 3 kids in Africa who has AIDS?

What does salvation look like to people in the Sudan who have nothing but contaminated water to drink?

What does salvation look like to people in Dallas who have no air conditioner in the summer?

What does salvation look like to people in our community with no food?

What does salvation look like to people addicted to drugs?

What does salvation look like for a church leader who has sinned?

What if salvation walked into their house?

What if Jesus walked into their community?

What if we’re supposed to be Jesus?

Salvation, for those people, had better not be a “see ya in heaven someday” pat on the back!

Salvation is a new house.

Salvation is food.

Salvation is medicine.

Salvation is clean water.

Salvation is restored trust

Salvation is peace.

What is salvation for you?

"I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God, Eternal Hostility Toward Every Form of Tyranny Over the Mind of Man."

2010-08-02T00:03:00.007-05:00

The origin of this quote is a letter written by Vice President Jefferson to his old friend, Dr. Benjamin Rush. Specifically, Jefferson fiercely opposed Christian clergy who sought to have an established state church. Instead, he championed the idea of church/state separation. For this, the clergy hated him, and waged a despicable campaign of slander and lies against him. Here is the quote in it's original context:

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of.

I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened.

The delusion into which the plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists.

The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

But this is all they have to fear from me, and this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, and company, which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.

Why the Arizona Immigration Law is Unconstitutional.

2010-07-29T02:41:00.004-05:00

Since it was passed, I have been against Arizona’s illegal immigration law. So, needless to say, I was pleased when a Federal Court ruled against the law one day prior to its going into effect. The Arizona law runs counter to my understanding of Federalism. To explain, let’s run several laws/rulings through the Tenth Amendment.

The text reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This states a principle in our system of government known as “enumerated powers.” Simply put, the responsibilities of the Federal government are listed in the Constitution, while all others are left to the several States. This jurisdictional line has often been blurred.

Take abortion. From a legal standpoint Roe v Wade (1973) was a terrible decision. Even liberal law professors (Lawrence Tribe of Harvard for example) admit this. If Roe v Wade is overturned, it will not make abortion illegal. It will simply return the issue to the states. At that point all fifty state legislatures will determine their own abortion laws.

In a similar vein, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. This law states that no State shall be forced to recognize any same-sex union considered a marriage in another State. The law also defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. This law was recently ruled unconstitutional, and rightly so. The Federal government has no jurisdiction over the marriage laws and rites of any State.

What about drug enforcement? The same principle applies. The Federal government has no jurisdiction. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) should not exist. The very idea of a “war on drugs” is laughable on its face, but from a legal standpoint, every State ought to be able to pass it’s own drug laws. If California wishes to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana (or cocaine for that matter), it should be able to with no Federal intervention.

I understand that there are moral and societal arguments to be made in each of these cases, but purely from a jurisdictional and Constitutional point of view, the States have primary jurisdiction in each of these cases.

So why is the Arizona immigration law unconstitutional? In a nutshell, the law requires police officers who encounter persons engaged in a criminal offense (even a traffic stop) to inquire the suspect’s immigration status. Persons are thus required to keep proof of their status on them at all times.

Again, we have a jurisdictional problem. The Constitution grants the Federal government the power to admit persons into the United States, grant them residency status, and determine the process of naturalization for aliens. People are admitted to the United States, NOT Arizona, or Texas, or California, or New York. The States have no legal right to enforce any immigration law, and officers who represent a State or local municipality have no right to inquire the status of any person within their State. We cannot have a patchwork of fifty different standards of immigration enforcement. Arizona knew this when it signed up to enter the Union in 1912.

Ruling the Arizona law unconstitutional is a victory for our Federalist system of government.

Ethics and Justice. Part 10: The Eight Principles of Moral and Ethical Behavior

2010-07-20T12:38:00.001-05:00

Consider the first nine parts of this series on Ethics and Justice to be an introduction. After all these principles, the question is still out there, “Okay, so what should I do?” Once certain principles are ingrained in your subconscious mind, the right thing to do will be the natural thing to do. So here are eight principles that can be used by anyone to live just and ethical lives.

1. Do no Harm

You’re not really proactively good, you just have the courtesy not to intentionally hurt people. Most people define ethics and morality in terms of not hurting anyone. People define goodness negatively - “Of course I’m good. I’ve never killed anyone or robbed a bank.” One man said to his wife, “You know, I’m a good husband. We’ve been married for thirty years, and I’ve never once hit you.” If you can’t do any good, just don’t do any harm!

2. Do Good

James 4:17 “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” Doing the right thing, initiating good, taking proactive steps is to swim against the tide. It is human nature to be led, to go with the flow, to blend in - this is why mobs of people will commit crimes that, individually, people would never commit. Goodness requires empathy. If you are incapable of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, you are capable of doing great evil.

3. Tell the Truth

One of the 10 Commandments is “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Living consistently with what you say is at the heart of personal integrity. Lying is the antithesis of who God is. Jesus says in John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” If God is truth, then falsehood is like kryptonite – it goes against everything that God is. God can’t lie, and He will not tolerate deceit in people who are created to be like Him.

4. Keep Your Promises

This builds on the commitment to always tell the truth. Giving your word is a serious thing. And again, it’s about having respect for other people. Ethical people build reputations of honesty and integrity. Ethical people are reliable and dependable. Psalm 15 says, “Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary? He who keeps his oath even when it hurts.” God does not take lightly the breaking of covenants. Keep your word. Do what you say. Be faithful to your commitments because it honors God.

5. Respect Other People’s Freedom

This is staying out of other people’s business. Don’t meddle. Don’t be a busybody. The freedom to make our own decisions is a wonderful thing because it is a gift from God, and cannot be taken away by any person. This is why religion can never be coercive. Ethical behavior is built on the principle of respecting other people. When respect for another human being, created in the Image of God, is breached in any way, we are guilty of unethical behavior. Don’t tell adult people what to do just because you would do it differently.

6. Practice Fairness

Proverbs 29:7 “The Righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.” Ethical people are just and fair, and treat those who are weaker than them with respect and dignity. Here's a good measure. Ask yourself, "How do I treat people who are not in a position to do anything for me?" It's easy to be nice, and kind, and polite to people who can do something for us, people who have some power over us. But what about people who are weaker than us, people who are poorer than us, people who have no power over us? How do we treat them? God is deeply concerned with how we treat each other - so practice justice and fairness, and the more power and wealth you have, the greater the responsibility you have to act justly, and to be fair.

7. Make Reparations for Wrongs Committed

This practice of restitution, of reparation is deeply rooted in the principle of justice in the Hebrew Bible. If you stole something, you repaid what you took - a simple “I’m sorry” was not enough. This principle of restitution is an important step in addiction recovery programs - you’ve got to go back and fix what you did wrong. This is an important New Testament principle. It’s called repentance.

8. Show Gratitude

We teach our kids that the foundation of politeness is to say “please” and “thank you.” It’s a wonderfully simple message, and yet it’s the most openly violated principle of polite behavior. Give thanks in all circumstances. Why? Because we who have tasted God’s love view all of life through the lens of thankfulness. “Thanks be to God.”

And finally, to quote Jesus, “Now go and DO likewise.”

Ethics and Justice. Part 9: The Nature of the God Who Demands Moral and Ethical Behavior

2010-07-05T21:54:00.009-05:00

The Jewish people taught the world two significant things:

1. There is only one God, and morality stems from the nature of the one and only God.

This is why God revealing Himself to Moses and calling Israel and delivering them is of great importance for all humanity, because when God delivered the 10 Commandments on Sinai, for the first time in human history a people said, “There is only one God, and this is the type of behaviour He demands of us.” The implication of ethical monotheism is that morality is not a cultural variant. When God said, “Don’t murder,” that became true for all people, at all times, in every culture. There is no competing God to offer an alternative morality.

And,

2. God’s primary demand is that we act with decency towards each other.

This statement doesn’t have the revolutionary impact on us that it should, because we live in a world heavily influenced by 3000 years of first Jewish and then Christian thinking. But consider the impact of this kind of thinking in the ancient world. In the ancient world, one could be devoutly religious and immoral at the same time. One could be a devoutly religious Greek or Roman and not be “good.” These people went to prostitutes as an act of religious worship.

So people ask with confusion sometimes, “How could a people as advanced as the Romans murder, and adulterate, and leave their unwanted babies out with the trash?” The answer is because that’s how the gods they worshipped behaved. Humans always become like the object of their worship. Christians insisted that religion impacts morality. One’s relationship with God is lived out in terms of relationships with other people.

So, if humans become like the object of their worship, what does scripture teach us about God’s nature in terms of our moral and ethical obligations?

1. God is Supernatural

God is above the natural world; He is not a part of it. The Bible begins with the words, “In the beginning, God created.”

The point of Genesis is not to provide a scientific account of the origins of the Earth; it is to provide people with an account of the nature and character of God. He is transcendent, He creates, He rules, He is self-sufficient. In a world in which nearly all people worshipped nature, God wanted Israel to know that nature was subservient to Him.

Why is this important? Because nature knows nothing of good or evil. Nature is amoral. In nature there is no right, only might. Into the ancient world where human sacrifice was a means of placating disease and disaster, God said, contrary to the laws of nature, “If something is weak don’t kill it, protect it.” The worship of Baal was a form of nature worship. They believed that in the winter Baal died, and went into the underworld, so the plants died also, in the spring Baal would be resurrected and the plants would be revived. The Canaanite practice of sacred prostitution was meant to help Baal revive and ensure the fertility of flocks and plants and people.

Nature cannot teach us right and wrong, only God can, and He is above nature.

2. God is Personal

God is not an unnamed, unknown force. He has a name, He has revealed Himself to us, and He cares about His creation.

When God revealed His name to Moses in Exodus 3 He also revealed His personality, His character, and His nature. God is not an “unmoved mover,” who has set forces in motion and moved on. We are created in His Image, He knows us, He loves us, He cares for us, He has numbered the hairs on our head, and out of His personhood, God cares how we treat each other.

Disrespecting a human being is dishonouring the God in whose Image they have been created. The ultimate demonstration of God’s personhood is that He became a man. In the incarnation of Jesus, God taught us what it is like to be truly human, and to be truly human is to be like God.

3. God is Good

A God who is not good cannot demand goodness from His creation. The ancient Babylonians and Canaanites and Greeks and Romans were not good because their gods were not good. God rules the universe by a code of moral standards.

Despite the temporary victories of evil people and the suffering of good people, a moral and just God rules the universe, and ultimately, if not in this life, then in the next, good and evil will get what’s coming to them. God is not neutral in the battle between good and evil, and neither can we be.

4. God is Holy

To be holy is to be set apart, to be different, distinctive. You don’t have to be like the world to have an impact on the world. You don’t have to be like the crowd to change the crowd. You don’t have to lower yourself to other people’s level to lift them up.

Holiness isn’t being odd or a misfit - holiness is simply being like God, and the result of having a relationship with God is that you become like Him. To be holy is to elevate ourselves above our animal nature, and act like beings created in the image of God. No matter how meaningful, or beautiful, or well intentioned something may be, if it is separated from the goodness of God it can easily lead to evil. This is why the same culture that produced Wagner and Beethoven and Mozart also produced Hitler.

Everything we do must be grounded in the goodness and holiness of the one God – art, education, law, love, compassion, reason, patriotism, life, ritual, business, profits, psychology, economics, sports - everything that we are involved in must be guided by the goodness and holiness of God.

What is an Intelligent Person?

2010-07-02T03:14:00.004-05:00

I often say that I need to be around intelligent people. What do I mean by that?

Firstly, an intelligent person is not someone who comes across as the smartest person in the room. It is not someone who is inundated with facts and complex systems of hyper-knowledge. An intelligent person does not exude the thin air of esoteric concepts and vocabulary. A person who tries to dazzle you with their intelligence lacks humility, and ironically, humility is the first prerequisite of true intelligence.

In that same vein, an intelligent person is not a bully. A truly intelligent person begins the search for knowledge and understanding from a posture of humility. Knowledge and ideas and words are not weapons to win arguments and dominate dissenters, rather they are steps on the ladder that leads to truth.

An intelligent person is a curious person, and cannot be satiated with encyclopedic facts, because the search for understanding does not have an end. An intelligent person is one who speaks with both confidence and kindness because they recognize that every human being is created in God’s Image, and possesses some measure of truth.

Most of all, an intelligent person has an insatiable desire for truth, understanding, and clarity. An intelligent person is madly in love with ideas for the sake of truth, not their own interpretation of ideas for the sake of self-promotion.

And finally, an intelligent person realizes that we have two ears but only one mouth for a good reason!

Ten Words You Should Know

2010-07-01T00:21:00.003-05:00

English novelist Evelyn Waugh once said, “One forgets words as one forgets names. One's vocabulary needs constant fertilization or it will die.” I love language! For me, words are like a rich and vibrant palette of color. Conversations are canvases on which people collaborate to create a rhetorical work of art. So, in that spirit, here are ten words that are rarely used, but if used at the right time and in the right context, can fertilize your speech.

1. Defenestrate: To throw somebody or something out of a window.

2. Garbology: The study of waste materials. The study of a cultural group by an examination of what it discards.

3. Digerati: People who have or claim to have a sophisticated expertise in the area of computers, the Internet.

4. Antipodes: Places that are at exact opposite sides of world.

5. Hallux: The first digit on the foot. The big toe on the human foot.

6. Otiose: Something that is not effective; with no useful result or practical purpose. A person that is worthless or lazy.

7. Cullet: Broken or waste glass returned for recycling.

8. Pellucid: Transparent or clear in meaning. Easy to understand.

9. Borborygmus: The rumbling sounds made by the movement of gases in the stomach and intestine.

10. Embrangle: To confuse, perplex, or entangle somebody or something.

Ethics and Justice. Part 8: Respect for Life: The Foundation of Ethical Behavior

2010-06-29T02:51:00.005-05:00

When Jesus said: Love God; and love your neighbour, he was echoing something that had long been true in Israel’s history: God is deeply concerned with how we treat one another. He demands moral and ethical goodness. God goes into detail when regulating how we treat each other. Consider Deuteronomy 25:13-16: “Do not have two differing weights in your bag - one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house - one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. For the LORD your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.”

Who does God detest? “Anyone who deals dishonestly!” Various versions render this differently, but the point is the same, and it should cause us to stop and think. If you lie, cheat, steal, mislead, or deceive for the sake of personal gain you are stirring up the anger of God because you are dishonouring a human life created with dignity in the Image of God! It’s not only high profile corrupt executives who have a lot to answer for – it’s the manager at the grocery store who charges more than the marked price, it’s the banker who tacks on “hidden fees,” it’s the gas station owner who has rigged his pumps to give you less gas than you’re paying for – “God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.”

The foundation of all these laws is respect for life. As we consider ethics, and morals, and practical implications, and this situation and that situation, let us never lose sight of the fact that it all depends on respect for life. Three thousand years ago most civilizations accepted human sacrifice as normative. In the context of that world God gave Israel certain laws, based on respect for the sanctity of life, not just human, but animal life as well. For example, God commanded them not to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. Why? Because it is cruel to cook an animal in the very substance that gives it life. Jews were forbidden to eat the limb of a still living animal. And the Sabbath day commandment includes the remarkable obligation to give your animals a day of rest as well.

In the Jewish Talmud there is an obscure law that is one of the most ethically beautiful laws in Judaism. It simply says: “One is not permitted to ask a storekeeper the price of an item if he knows he will not purchase it.” Now isn’t that incredible? Just think about it. When we go into a store, from a clothing store to a car dealership, and we pretend to be interested in something we honestly have no intention of purchasing simply because we have time to kill, or we just want to test drive the car, we are stealing. Stealing valuable time from someone. Now, by all means, shop around for the best price if you really intend to buy something, but don’t intentionally deceive someone. Don’t falsely raise the hopes of someone who works on commission. This obscure Jewish law can help build an ethical society because it makes us aware that we have certain obligations towards other people. We’ve been told so often that “The customer is always right,” we really believe it! We’ll stand in line and argue with the people at Target until they take back an item we know we bought at Wal-Mart!

You can apply this principle to so many areas of your life, and you will be part of the solution in our society, not part of the problem.

Ten Questions You Need to Answer Before Marrying

2010-06-26T18:24:00.000-05:00

When I used to counsel with church members before officiating at their wedding ceremonies, I would have them go home and answer these ten questions honestly. Then we would meet and discuss the answers. There are two ways you can take this advice: 1) Charles has no credibility when it comes to marriage advice; or 2) Charles has failed and learned some very valuable lessons, and therefore has credibility to give marriage advice. It's up to you.

1. Is the person your best friend or at least becoming so?

It is easy to get excited about a new person. But if you cannot say that the person you are considering marrying has become or is becoming your best friend, you need to figure out why before you decide to marry. This is probably the single most overlooked question among couples. Many people cannot answer this in the affirmative. But you have to answer it. Over time, friendship is the greatest bond between a couple. If the person you marry does not become your best friend, you will either seek someone who will be or simply drift apart. What is a best friend? Someone you tell just about everything to, someone you want to be with as much as possible, and someone you need. One of the most devastating ideas is that depending on another person is a sign of weakness. The opposite is true. The inability to need is a sign of weakness - you are afraid to relinquish power or afraid to be hurt.

2. Do you enjoy each other?

This sounds trite, but enjoying each other (aside from physical intimacy) may actually be the single most important characteristic of a happy marriage.

3. Is there chemistry between the two of you?

As essential as being best friends and enjoying each other are, there should be a vibrant physical component to your relationship. Dating for marriage is not an interview for a strictly platonic best friend. If there is insufficient physical attraction after all other criteria are met and time has passed, you may be in the tragic position of having to end a relationship with a great man or woman.

4. Does the person have at least one very close friend of the same sex?

It is a bad sign if the person you are thinking of marrying does not have good friends of the same sex. Something is very wrong. A woman who cannot hold female friends and a man who cannot hold male friends have issues that will probably sink your marriage.

5. How does the person treat others?

It should go without saying that if the person is not kind to you, quit while you can. But it is far from sufficient that the person you are considering marrying treats you kindly. Watch how they treat waiters, employees, family members, and anyone else they come into contact with. How the person treats others now is how this person will treat you later.

6. What problems do the two of you have now?

Whatever problems you have before the wedding day, you will have during your marriage. Do not think that marrying will solve any problem you have with the person. You have three choices: Make peace with the problem, see if it can be solved before deciding to marry, or don't marry the person. It is imperative that you be ruthlessly honest with yourself. And that is very hard. Nothing is easier than denying problems when you are in love.

7. How often do you fight?

It is normal for couples to fight, but it is a bad sign if you are doing so frequently while dating. That should be the easiest time to get along - no children together, no joint financial problems, and the excitement of a new person. If you fight, do you quickly make up? Does he/she hear your side? Do you apologize after a fight? And most important, do you fight over the same issues with no resolution? Also, Do you miss the person when you are not together?

8. Do you share values?

Opposites attract in the very beginning. Likes stay together for the long term. The more you share, especially values, the better your chances of a good marriage. For example, if you think television watching is a form of self abuse and your prospective spouse loves watching for hours a day, you may have a big problem. Likewise if you have opposing political and social views to which you are passionately committed.

9. Is the person unhappy?

The importance of marrying an essentially happy person cannot be exaggerated. If you are basically happy, do not think for a moment that you can make an unhappy person happy by marrying him or her. On the contrary, the ability of the unhappy to make the happy unhappy is far greater than the ability of the happy to make the unhappy happy.

10. What do people you respect think of the person you're considering marrying?

Young people are certain they know better than anyone else in the world what is good for them. So a lack of enthusiasm for the person you are considering for marriage on the part of family or friends may mean little or nothing. But if objections come, let’s say, from a parent you respect for reasons that are not easily dismissed, and if others you respect are unenthusiastic as well, you should take their objections seriously.

Ethics and Justice. Part 7: In Defense of Situational Ethics

2010-06-21T02:06:00.001-05:00

Christians believe that God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion or mores. Without God, each individual makes up his or her own moral standards. This is known as moral relativism. Moral relativism is scary and dangerous because it means that murder, for example, is not objectively wrong. It's a matter of personal feeling, or societal norm. Most secular people do not confront these consequences of moral relativism because it is hard for decent people to realize that “I think murder is wrong,” is as meaningless as “I think purple is ugly.” Relativism is the idea that there is no definite right and wrong. There is no truth, and even if there were, we couldn’t recognize it. Right and wrong, and truth are manifestations of traditions and norms within various cultures. Right and wrong and truth are individual matters, determined by individuals. We cannot impose our values on other people.

However, there is one aspect of moral relativism that confuses many Christians who believe in moral absolutes. They assume that situational ethics is the same thing as moral relativism and therefore regard situational ethics as incompatible with Christian morality. I think it is a mistake to argue that just as individuals determining what is right and wrong negates moral absolutes, allowing situations to determine what is right and wrong also negates moral absolutes. This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of moral absolutes. A moral absolute means that if an act is good or bad, it is good or bad for everyone in the identical situation. This is also called universal morality.

But “everyone” is not the same as “every situation.” An act that is wrong is wrong for everyone in the SAME situation, but almost no act is wrong in EVERY situation. Sex in a loving relationship is good, but when violently coerced, it is rape. Truth telling is usually right, but if, during World War II, Nazis asked you where a Jewish family was hiding, telling them the truth would have been evil. Likewise, it is the situation that determines when killing is wrong. That is why the Ten Commandments say “Do not murder,” not “Do not kill.” Murder is immoral and unlawful killing, and it is the situation that determines when killing is wrong. Pacifists say that it is wrong to take a life in every situation. This is based on the mistaken belief that absolute morality means “in every situation” rather than “for everyone in the same situation.”

The key element in Christian morality remains simply this: There is good and there is evil, independent of personal or societal opinion; and in order to determine what it is, one must ask, “How would God judge this action?” My point is simple – because universal morality says that an action is wrong for all PEOPLE, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong in all SITUATIONS.

Ethics and Justice. Part 6: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

2010-06-19T15:18:00.000-05:00

In part one of this series I pointed out that there are really two modes of moral reasoning. The first is consequentialist moral reasoning. Here morality is located in the consequences of an act. Right or wrong depends on the outcome. The second is categorical moral reasoning. Here morality is located in certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences or outcome. A little more on these systems, because everybody, whether they recognize it or not, uses one of these ways of making ethical decisions – and its good to know this, because if you live and breathe, you have to decide between right and wrong; good and evil every day.

The most prevalent form of consequentialist moral reasoning is Utilitarianism. This is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure. Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number of people,” and is also known as “the greatest happiness principle.” Utility (the good to be maximized) has been defined as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain). It is not inaccurate to describe utilitarianism as the ethics of majority rule. This is the most pragmatic way of deciding between right and wrong, and the allocation of resources, and therefore it is the most pervasive in our society. Our government uses a utilitarian ethic in making decisions – what will be most beneficial for the most number of people? It’s very democratic. Majority rules. Let’s look at an example: A doctor has five patients. Four are dying and need organ transplants NOW (one has a bad heart, one has a failing kidney, one only has a quarter of a lung, and one’s liver has been pickled). Only one “patient” is perfectly healthy. What would a utilitarian ethic demand? The doctor should kill the healthy one, take their organs and give it to the other four, right? That way one will die and four will live. Isn’t that better than four dying and only one living? It’s simple math. But what’s the problem? What if the one person would rather live? The problem with an ethical system that tries to accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number is that it tramples on the rights and ignores the value of individual people.

Categorical moral reasoning, often called deontology, or moral absolutism, sees certain principles (often revealed in religious codes) as far greater than the circumstances of life, and the need for utility. There is definite truth, and we can come to know it. There is a clear distinction between right and wrong, and we can know the difference.

So, what do you think? Which is preferable? More importantly, which do you employ in your personal life, family life, and professional life?

DOUBT

2010-06-10T01:47:00.001-05:00

One of my favorite movies is "Doubt." It is based on the play of the same name by John Patrick Shanley. In his introduction to the play, Shanley has the following commentary about the virtue of doubt:

"There's a symptom apparent in America right now. It's evident in political talk shows, in entertainment coverage, in artistic criticism of every kind, in religious discussion.

We are living in a culture of extreme advocacy, of confrontation, of judgment and of verdict. Discussion has given way to debate. Communication has become a contest of wills. Public talking has become obnoxious and insincere. Why? Maybe it's because, deep down under the chatter, we have come to a place where we know that we don't know ... anything. But nobody's willing to say that.

What is doubt? Each of us is like a planet. There's the crust, which seems eternal. We are confident about who we are. If you ask, we can readily describe our current state. I know my answers to so many questions, as do you. What was your father like? Do you believe in God? Who's your best friend? What do you want? Your answers are your current topography, seemingly permanent, but deceptively so. Because under that face of easy response, there is another You. And this wordless Being moves just as the instant moves; it presses upward without explanation, fluid and wordless, until the resisting consciousness has no choice but to give way.

It is doubt, so often experienced initially as weakness, that changes things. When a man feels unsteady, when he falters, when hard-won knowledge evaporates before his eyes, he's on the verge of growth. The subtle or violent reconciliation of the outer person and the inner core often seems at first like a mistake. Like you've gone the wrong way and you're lost. But this is just emotion longing for the familiar. Life happens when the tectonic power of your speechless soul breaks through the dead habits of the mind. Doubt is nothing less than an opportunity to reenter the present.

There is an uneasy time when belief has begun to slip, but hypocrisy has yet to take hold, when the consciousness is disturbed but not yet altered. It is the most dangerous, important and ongoing experience of life. The beginning of change is the moment of Doubt. It is that crucial moment when I renew my humanity or become a lie.

Doubt requires more courage than conviction does, and more energy; because conviction is a resting place and doubt is infinite; it is a passionate exercise. You may come out of my play uncertain. You may want to be sure. Look down on that feeling. We've got to learn to live with a full measure of uncertainty. There is no last word. That's the silence under the chatter of our time."

N.T. Wright on the Relationship Between Genesis and American Politics

2010-06-09T00:32:00.002-05:00

Many of you have heard me preach and teach on the book of Genesis. My own theological interpretation certainly runs counter to the literal view taken by most evangelical Christians who "flatten the story," and then infuse it with unique (and modern) American cultural norms. In this clip N.T. Wright (widely regarded as one of the preeminent biblical scholars in the world) says in under 5 minutes what I have struggled to say for the past 10 years! It's hard to find brilliance like this - enjoy!

Ethics and Justice. Part 5: Can One Sin on a Deserted Island? The Communal Aspect of Ethics and Justice.

2010-06-07T00:33:00.000-05:00

Can you sin on a deserted island? Most people I’ve spoken to say yes. Examples I've heard are: You can kill yourself. You can harm the environment. You can lust. You can blaspheme God. But these examples are a little forced. I suppose you can run around cutting down trees and killing monkeys, or commit suicide, or fantasize about someone not on the island, or even scream things at God. But these things don't seem to be typical “sins,” and the ethical meaning of “sinning in your heart” is open for interpretation. At what point do thoughts become sins, and what gradation of sin? Further, if you saw this behavior on the island, I doubt your first thought would be, “That is a sin.” You'd probably think that the person went crazy, and thus it weakens any categorization of “sin.”

But now, let's imagine that there are two people on the island. Can you sin with another person? Now we can imagine all kinds of sin: Lies, stealing, violence. The whole point of the question is to make this principle painfully obvious: Sin is a social phenomenon. I think one of the worst mistakes in theology is to consider sin to be only, or even primarily, a God/human issue. The island question is trying to point out that if it is just you and God, your sin repertoire is pretty anemic. But sin categories abound when we find ourselves in human community, when we see sin as a human/human issue. In other words, God's judgment against sin is judgment against human-to-human infractions.

I think this is what Jesus was getting at in the Sermon on the Mount. Before you offer your sacrifice to God, first be reconciled to your brother, then come offer your sacrifice to God. It's also the theme in 1st John - you can't say you love God when you hate your brother. Love your brother first and then you can say you love God with authenticity. If you wander through life thinking there's a rift between you and God, that focus leads to guilt, shame, and religious paranoia. But if we also see sin as a human/human rift, then we can focus on reconciliation that we can actually do something about.

Ethics and Justice. Part 4: Why do "Good" People do "Bad" Things?

2010-06-02T22:05:00.002-05:00

I am less fascinated with the question, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” than with the question, “Why do good people do bad things?” Bad things happen to good people because we live in a fallen, sinful world in which evil (or stupid) people can ruin your day or your life at will! But to say that only bad people do bad things is to have a simplistic, childlike view of the world. It is usually “good” or “normal” people who do bad things. Augustine said that the line separating good and evil runs through the heart of every human being.

We tend to see the things going on inside of a person (personality, motives, desires) as more important in regulating behavior than the forces outside of the person (context, situation, social pressures). We downplay the power of context and situation, while seeing ourselves and other people in altruistic terms. We think that people have an inner core that dictates and determines their actions (their “true self”). So we classify people in terms of “kinds” of people – “good people,” “bad people,” “strong people,” “weak people,” etc. But all these labels are erroneous. There aren't different “kinds” of people. There are simply people in different situations. Configure the situation a certain way and we can make some people look weak and others strong. Remember the Milgram “Nazi guard syndrome” experiments? This doesn’t mean that situations alone determine our behavior, but we tend to dramatically underestimate the power of context and situation. How many times have you heard someone say, “I would never do that!” This is precisely what sets us up for wrongdoing. We tend to overestimate the strength of our character. We see ourselves as a “kind” of person – a good father, a good husband. To see ourselves in this way is a mistake – a very costly one.

This principle applies to all moral issues - addiction, sexuality, spending, violence, and on and on. Situations have way more power than we think. Consequently, “good” people wander into situations that cause them to falter. Treat your own virtue with suspicion. Your strength can easily become your weakness. Don't believe your character alone is sufficient to carry you through. Trust me on this! The world is full of the ruined lives of those who said, “I don't know why or how I could have done that” (fill in the blank). “I’m not like that!” I am one of those fallen people who thought the strength of his own character could save him from falling over the precipice!

Ethics and Justice. Part 3: What is Evil?

2010-06-01T13:39:00.003-05:00

The trial of the century happened in the late 1960’s. It started with a daring kidnapping when Israeli agents went to South America and caught the most notorious Nazi not yet convicted of war crimes – Adolph Eichmann. Eichmann was the architect of the Holocaust – he came up with the idea of gassing Jews because even if one bullet could kill three people, that was still too expensive! They took him to Jerusalem for trial. David Ben-Gurion wanted this to be a show trial – to put all the horrors of Nazism on display for the entire world to see. Watching that trial was an Israeli journalist – Hannah Arendt – who then wrote a book called: Eichmann in Jerusalem. But the subtitle of the book is what caught everyone’s attention: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Arendt says that the trial would have been easy had Eichmann been a monster. But he’s not. He’s just a petty bureaucrat. He’s not very smart. He’s ambitious in the way small men are. He doesn’t have much of a philosophy of life. He’s only anti-Semitic out of convenience. He’s petty. But that’s more troubling – that small, petty, insignificant, ordinary people can do such atrocious evil! But that’s Eichmann. That’s not us. We would never do that. We know better.

Also in the 1960’s, psychologist, Stanley Milgram, came up with a fascinating psychological experiment. Milgram told his subjects that he was studying the effects of negative reinforcement on learning – does punishment make us learn better? So he had two people – a teacher and a learner – and the teacher sat at a control panel where a button produced electric shocks. The learner was sitting behind a glass partition, and every time they got an answer wrong, the teacher had to press the button, and give them a shock – and with every subsequent shock, the voltage was increased. But here’s what you need to know – the real test subject was the teacher – the learner only acted like he was being shocked. There was no electricity connection. Milgram was wondering if the teacher would keep giving the learner electric shocks just because someone in a lab coat told them to. Finally, the learner started yelling in pain. They would say, “Stop. I have heart trouble.” Finally the learner would quit making sounds altogether – which meant they were passed out or dead! How far would ordinary people go? 60 percent of people never stopped hitting that button! They did outrageous, immoral, murderous things because someone with authority in a lab coat told them to! Milgram labeled his results the “Nazi guard syndrome.”

Here’s the point. Evil is not deep. It’s shallow. It’s superficial. Evil is the failure to see clearly. The shallowness of evil is the inability to see below the skin. It is to see the world in terms of “us vs. them.” How is it that Eichmann, who had Jewish friends, could be the architect of the Holocaust, and ship off millions of Jews to be killed? Because they didn’t have a name! They were a problem to be solved! If we can boil life down to “us vs. them” we can demonize anybody. It’s easy to hate people if all they are is “The Russians” or The Chinese” or The French” or “Terrorists” or “Catholics” or “Baptists” or “New Yorkers” or “Republicans” or “Democrats.” You can hate anybody who has no face and no name. Evil is the failure to see that all people were created in the Image of God, and that God created them all for Himself, and He will not be satisfied until all people and all things are redeemed for Him! Evil does not recognize human connectedness.

I try to be optimistic and positive, but evil is winning. We have allowed ourselves to be broken up a thousand different ways into a thousand different groups – and Christians are not helping – because we are real good at seeing the world as “us vs. them.” God’s desire is that walls get torn down, and in a world of shallow tribalism, that is a powerful message!

Ethics and Justice. Part 2: Is Human Nature Good or Bad?

2010-05-27T23:16:00.003-05:00

Do you believe that human beings are born basically good, or basically bad? This is one of the most important questions you will ever ask in order to understand humanity.

I believe that we are born neither good nor bad - we are born innocent. “What about babies?” you might ask. Babies are not “good” in a moral sense. They're beautiful, adorable, cute, wonderful, and INNOCENT. “I want mommy; I want milk; I want to be held; and if you don’t do these things immediately, I will ruin your life!” We are born narcissists, preoccupied with ourselves. I know some of you are cringing, but be honest. Have you ever worked with young kids? Have you seen the cruelty kids inflict on one another? Consider the school playground in your neighbourhood. Consider a group of ten or eleven year olds where one kid is fat or clumsy or short, and you will witness cruelty that would shock most adults. People do not start out “good.” How many people have yelled at their kid, “Now listen - you share way too much! You have to learn to be more selfish.” The idea is absurd. How many times have you told your kids to say “thank you”? Gratitude doesn't come naturally. To insist that human nature is essentially good is to ignore the witness of scripture, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary – Auschwitz, the Soviet Gulags, Rwanda, Kosovo. But the good news is that we can do good, we can teach our children to do good, we can hold each other accountable, we can make the world a better place – starting in our own homes. We have to be made into good people.

So, to clarify – we are born neither good nor bad, we are born innocent. We are born with a blank slate. And if, as we grow older, we do not think about, and learn, and obsess about doing good, it is inevitable, as surely as the sun rises in the east, that we will do wrong. Goodness is a discipline that must be taught. The struggle to make the world a better place is not a battle between individuals and society, or between Christians and non-Christians, or between us and the government, or between free nations and totalitarian regimes – the struggle to make the world a better place happens every morning when you and I look in the mirror, when we walk out the front door, when we get into traffic, when we go to Wal Mart, when we interact with other people. The whole point of living a life of discipline and holiness is to fight against our nature.

Ethics and Justice. Part 1: Introduction to the Modes of Moral Reasoning

2010-05-26T00:56:00.003-05:00

We, in the western world, live in an age that has been described as “Post-Christian.” In other words, we live in a time when the moral compass of Judeo-Christian values no longer guides people. It is no longer the default mode of human behaviour. We live in a morally confused time.

Here's an example: I am a big James Bond fan. I can name all the movies, in order, and analyze each one, and compare them to the books, and so on - its fascinating stuff. The Bond films follow a successful formula - glamorized violence, drinking, murder and mayhem, nudity, and gratuitous sex scenes. However, when “Die Another Day” was released, one scene in particular caused a firestorm of controversy. In one scene, James Bond lights up a cigar with a Cuban gangster. Anti-smoking groups around the world went hysterical! How dare he glamorize the evil of smoking? Illicit sex, drug use, murder, and theft receive far less condemnation than lighting up a cigar!

Another example of this state of moral confusion is PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) campaign to fight what they see as the evils of raising and killing chickens for food. Their campaign is called, "A Holocaust on Your Plate." Posters show chickens in a pen on one side, and on the other side is a picture of Jews cramped into a railway boxcar on the way to Auschwitz. When you morally equate the killing of chickens for food with the genocide of Europe's Jews, you are in a state of moral chaos!

Ethics and morality have shifted from the micro to the macro. For example, teenagers who think it perfectly okay to download music and software without paying (stealing) would never think about not recycling! So ethics are whatever is good for the planet, not what I have to do in relation to other people. When values are separated from God moral chaos ensues. Only a set of values independent of God could lead people to believe that people burned alive, slowly frozen to death, medically experimented on, stripped naked and machine-gunned family by family, forced to watch their children die, or slowly suffocated in gas-chambers suffer no more than chickens! This is the state of moral confusion that exists in a world where you and I are called on to make ethical decisions, to choose between right and wrong; good and evil, and then to act on those choices.

Imagine that you are a Senior in college. You are about to graduate. All your hard, diligent work is about to pay off. You are engaged to the prettiest girl in the school, and you’re planning to get married as soon as you graduate – her mother is already planning the wedding. And money is no problem anymore – after four years of Ramen noodles and cold pizza for breakfast, you have a job lined up. An advertising agency has offered you a position in their marketing department with a starting salary of $80 000, and to make the deal really sweet, because you have been such a great student, and because they recognize your potential, they are throwing in a new BMW as your company car. But, of course, all this – the marriage, the job, the money, the car, the respect – depends entirely on your graduating. No graduation, and its all off – a deal breaker.

And so you go in to register for your final semester. You do one final degree audit, and your advisor tells you that you missed a Freshman Literature class that is required, so you’ll need to take it. You reluctantly sign up because you need to graduate. Now understand that this class has nothing to do with your major - business and marketing. You sign up for an American literature class in which you study that great novel – Moby Dick, which you have to read in its entirety. But you’re too busy with other things – really important things, to actually read the book, so what do you do? Well, you watch both movies – the old one, and the new Patrick Stewart one, you read the Cliff notes, but you do not actually read the book. And then comes the final exam, and you are prepared. You know all about Moby Dick. This is going to be an easy A – a great ending to your stellar academic career. However, when you get the exam you notice there is only one question: “Did you read the book?” And it is required that you answer truthfully. The teacher makes a very moving speech about honesty, and integrity, and self-respect, and honour. “Did you read the book?”

Now let’s consider your actions:

1) If you answer truthfully and say, “no,” you will fail the exam, not graduate, lose the job, lose the BMW, and ruin the wedding plans.
2) If you say “yes,” you will be lying, dishonouring yourself; you will be guilty of purposeful deception – something the Bible strongly condemns!

What would you do?

I brought up this scenario to illustrate the kinds of ethical dilemmas we face everyday. Not terribly important, not life or death. Our decisions will not affect millions of people. Do we pay the nickel for the mint at the restaurant checkout, or do we just take it and walk out? Those are the types of ethical decisions most people face everyday.

There are really two modes of moral reasoning that we’re going to explore in this series:

1) Consequentialist moral reasoning. Here morality is located in the consequences of an act. Right or wrong depends on the OUTCOME.
2) Categorical moral reasoning. Here morality is located in certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences or outcome.

My purpose in this series is for us to look within ourselves and ask, “What kind of person am I?” Moral people, when faced with a decision of right or wrong do not ask, “Now what’s the right thing to do? What rule applies here?” They ask, “What kind of person am I? How has faith in God shaped my character?” Moral people will do the right thing instinctively because they are moral people, and because their value system is grounded in the life and character of God.

Set Me Free!

2010-05-10T13:32:00.001-05:00

What is freedom? Much of our political philosophy as Americans is based on the presupposition that all people yearn to “breath free.” This is what it means to be created in the Image of God. We are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This is the trinity of choice. Freedom, we reason, must therefore be the absence of obstacles to doing what we want. But what if freedom has a much more stringent moral dimension?

Much of human activity vis-à-vis our notions of freedom involve seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. But this way of living is not really free – it is simply serving our desires. Let me give you an example. Last week two of my students took me to Yogurtland – a new, self-serve frozen yogurt store. They have multiple flavors, and you are “free to choose” any flavor or combination of flavors. Here are some flavors I could choose from: vanilla, strawberry, pistachio, peanut butter, green tea, and pumpkin pie. Of those flavors, the only ones that appealed to me where strawberry and pistachio. In yogurt form, the other flavors are nasty! So my “choice” at the yogurt stand was simply satisfying a built-in preference, a preference which I never chose to begin with. There is nothing wrong with acting according to our built-in preferences and desires, but it is not acting freely.

So, can one be held morally responsible for actions that fall outside of our ability to choose freely? Suppose I am pushed from the roof of a ten-story building and land on another person and kill that person. I cannot be held morally responsible for their death since I cannot choose to not follow the law of gravity. Think about the language you speak? Did you choose English? Did someone who was born in Russia choose to speak Russian? Of course not! What about your set of beliefs? What about your religious identity? Given that we inherit genetic defects from our parents, do we really choose to be healthy – or obese, or depressed? The truth is that we have far less choice than we realize.

But how far can we take this way of thinking about freedom and choices vis-à-vis moral responsibility? If someone is molested as a child, for example, can they be held morally responsible for deviant behavior as an adult? Here, then, is the link between freedom and morality. To act freely in a moral sense is not simply to choose the best means to reach a pre-existing end (the satisfaction of built-in desires). To act freely is to choose a new end for its own sake. This ability to rise above our instincts is what sets humans apart from animals. Back to Yogurtland. True freedom of choice is rejecting my desire to eat pistachio over pumpkin pie, walk out of the store, fast for a day, and then send $50 to feed hungry children in Africa.

MLK Nobel Peace Speech - 1964

2010-05-03T00:46:00.003-05:00

Watch this, and really listen. This speech is timeless, and should give you chills as long as there is injustice in this world!

“Keep Your Government Hands off my Medicare” and other Logical Contradictions

2010-04-21T02:38:00.003-05:00

Last year I attended the Southlake TEA Party. It was fun, I suppose, in a sort of, “So this is how wealthy white people protest?” kind of way. Even the handful of counter-protesters were charming. Remember, it’s Southlake! One guy, dressed like a clown, held a sign that read, “Ignorance is underrated.” It was a fun-and-games type cheerful environment that balmy April morning. But, 2009 seems like so long ago now. The movement has evolved since then. In many ways I relate to the TEA Party’s critique of the fiscal excesses of the Federal government. I agree with the best American instincts that the movement represents – freedom, self-reliance, and limited government. So, it is with some sadness that I predict the TEA Party will self-destruct before the next presidential election. Liberals should leave them alone and watch.

Look at those pictures. “Keep Govt out of my Medicare.” “Don’t Steal From Medicare to Support Socialized Medicine.” Really? When I first saw those kinds of signs I laughed out loud. What else can you do? It’s what I call a “piñata of asininity.” But over the course of the past year, those signs got me thinking. The inherent weakness of the TEA Party is that it rests ideologically on the fault line of a logical contradiction. Last week Sarah Palin bemoaned the fact that 47 percent of Americans pay no Federal income tax at all. I scratched my head. The “TEA” stands for “Taxed Enough Already,” so isn’t it good that 47 percent of us pay no income tax? What does Palin want? More people to pay more taxes?

Those kinds of statements and anecdotes won’t destroy the movement; they just make the spokespersons look stupid. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since this kind of populism feeds on anti-intellectual sentiments and the eschewing of “elitism.” So what contradiction will destroy the movement? There are two separate ideological strains running through the heart of the TEA Party. The first is libertarianism. As a political philosophy, libertarianism is pure. It believes in limited government. Period. Government exists only to protect the life, liberty, and property of the individual. Nothing else. In Ayn Rand’s libertarian epic “Atlas Shrugged,” the hero, Galt, an inventor disgusted by creeping American collectivism, leads the country’s capitalists on a strike. “We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers,” Galt lectures the “moochers” who make up the populace. “We have no demands to present you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.” “Atlas Shrugged” was published 52 years ago, but in the Obama era, Rand’s angry message is more resonant than ever before. Sales of the book have spiked since being heavily plugged by Glenn Beck. At TEA parties and other conservative protests, you will find signs reading “Atlas Shrugs” and “Rand Was Right.”

The second strain is social and religious conservatism. These are evangelicals who have become politically active. I know these people. They are my “clan.” And trust me, they do not want limited government – they want government to enforce their brand of morality in what they believe is a “Christian nation.” These are the people who supported George W. Bush. And there lies the problem. Libertarians will readily say that “W” is the worst President this country has ever had!

So let’s run through the issues: War in Iraq? Social conservatives generally supported the war, and continue to support our military intervention in other countries. They love the military, and will lash out at anyone who does not “support the troops.” Libertarians do not support the war, have an isolationist view of military intervention, and generally see our invasion of Iraq as a military and diplomatic blunder. What about drugs? Social conservatives support the “war on drugs” and seek even tighter laws and crackdowns. This is a moral issue to them. Libertarians support the legalization of drugs, particularly marijuana. For them it’s cut and dry – it’s none of the government’s business what you put into your own body. Speaking of your own body, what about abortion? This is the hallmark issue of social and religious conservatives. Overturning Roe v Wade is a crusade. In the meantime, they attempt every way possible to make abortion more restrictive. There is no issue bigger than the rights of the unborn. Libertarians are pro-choice to the extreme. Its the woman’s body – what she chooses to do with it is between her and her doctor. Period. And then there’s the ubiquitous issue of gay rights, particularly gay marriage. Naturally, social and religious conservatives abhor the idea and fight it on every front. They claim to protect the “institution of marriage.” Well, not them, but the government. Again, libertarians do not balk. Their understanding of limited government says that it’s not the government’s business, and thus gay marriage is perfectly okay. Social and religious conservatives and libertarians are like oil and water – they do not mix!

The only thing keeping this alliance together at the moment is an outlandish and irrational hatred of Obama. I have often wondered why he has to be so vilified without letting up for a moment. Now I see it. Social conservatives and libertarians must have a common enemy, and that enemy must be as insidious as possible. He has to be a “socialist.” He’s “the most radical president we’ve ever had.” He’s “anti-American.” He wasn’t even born here! Hatred of Obama is the glue that holds the movement together. But it’s a weak bond. It cannot last. I have a strong feeling that before the next presidential election the TEA Party will self-destruct in an ideological explosion of bitter wrangling and in fighting.

My Last Sermon

2009-08-11T01:42:00.003-05:00

On Sunday, August 10, 2008 I preached the following sermon at the Kaufman Church of Christ. I never got an opportunity to preach part 2. This is irony defined - particularly the Eugene Peterson quote at the end. It's almost as if no one in the audience heard a single word. Please take the time to read - and enjoy:

BAGGAGE CLAIM (Part 1)

Scripture Reading: Psalm 51:1-17
“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place. Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice. Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity. Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will turn back to you. Save me from bloodguilt, O God, the God who saves me, and my tongue will sing of your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.”

Introduction:
- How many of you have taken a trip recently where you have had to pack a bag and check it with an airline?
- How many of you have done that and your baggage has taken a different trip? You went to Chicago, but your bags went to Hawaii – for no good reason other than the person who checked you in was in a bad mood or they were having a bad hair day or something?
- Now, how many of you have taken trips to other countries where you had one or more connections before your final destination?
- And it is a terrible thing to wonder, “Where are my bags?”

- This happened to me on my last trip out of the country. This was not a complicated return route – nothing like going to Zambia – I went to Zambia one year, and this was the route: Dallas to London to Entebbe in Uganda, to Nairobi Kenya, to Harare Zimbabwe, to Lilongwe Malawi, and then we drove over the border into Zambia!!!
- But my last trip wasn’t like that - we checked our bags in Johannesburg, picked it up in Washington, DC, went through customs, and then handed it over to the TSA people to recheck onto our Washington to Dallas flight – and it was at that point that my luggage got lost. After all those crummy airports in all those crummy African countries, my bags got lost in Washington!

- Because we only had 30 minutes to do all this – not that I mind this kind of pressure – I can run through an airport with the best of travelers – completely undignified – sweat pouring off me, shirt half tucked, shoe laces undone – clutching my little Ziploc bag with fluids and gels in 3 ounce containers, yelling “1 more, 1 more for Dallas!”

- We made it onto that flight, and we got to Dallas right on time, but one of my bags did not – b/c the customs people, and the TSA people, and the United Airlines people, at 6:30 in the morning, just didn’t seem to have the same sense of urgency that I had.
- So here I am at DFW airport, the last person left watching that baggage carousel go round and round and round, still wearing the same clothing that I’ve had on for two days!
- So now, my dream, and the dream of thousands of travelers, especially now b/c you have to pay more, is to say, “NO,” when asked, at the check-in, “Do you have any bags to check today Mr. North?”

- But you know the problem, don’t you? None of us can make a trip without baggage of some kind.
- So a lot of travelers only take a small carry on bag and they pretend that they’re flying baggage free.
- Now this idea may work on United Airlines, but it will never fly in real life.

- And unfortunately, through the years, people have come to think that in the church you better not have any real baggage, and if you do, you had better keep it tucked under the pew in front of you so no one can see it because baggage is embarrassing and cumbersome.

- I have heard the welcome and call to worship at some churches extended this way: “Come in here and leave all your problems and struggles outside.”
WHAT? WHY? That’s nonsense! God is not interested in a phony plastic sliver of 1 hour of your life – He wants it all!

- And what I would like to do today is to invite you to claim your baggage because if there is any place in this world where people ought to be able to come in and say, “I have baggage,” it ought to be around other people who claim Jesus as Lord!

- So here are some things to keep in mind:

1) All of us Have Baggage
- There is not one of us who doesn’t have hurts, difficulties, hang-ups, or bitter disappointments lurking somewhere in our lives - and some of it stinks to high heaven, but we’re taught to walk in here and pretend like we have no baggage – that’s why we have “church clothes.”
- I remember getting my first 3-piece suit when I was only 6 – it had a clip on tie, and that’s what I wore to church – and now I understand that there are mental “church clothes” people put on – at home at 9 o’clock it’s, “Hurry up woman, turn out that light, put that down, will you kids get in the car – daddy, you’re speeding! Hush up, I’m teaching Bible class!”

- And the whole family arrives with their hair standing on end, ready to kill each other, and then the door of the minivan opens, and it’s “Hello brother Roy. Good morning Charles, how are you? Fine, Fine – Come on kids, put your baggage away, it’s time for Bible Class.”

- That is an insidious thing because pretty soon people really start to think that church folks have no baggage, no problems, our kids are perfect, everything is peachy, we’re the best dressed people in town, and the preacher stands there with weapons-grade perkiness, and that can’t be real!

- Which is why we learn a very important thing about ourselves in a short letter John wrote to the Ephesian church (Read 1st John 1:8-10):
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”

- If you claim you have no baggage, who are you deceiving? God? No! You deceive yourself!

- When you say, “I have sins, and here’s what they are b/c this burden is too heavy to carry,” it’s wonderful to hear God say, “Come to me all who are weary, and I will give you rest.”
- But this is where we run into a big problem:

2) All of us Learn Early to Hide it Well
- You remember the story, don’t you? A man and a woman in a garden. Eve eats the fruit, and then Adam does as well, and now they have both sinned, but I always wondered, “what’s the deal with the fig leaf cover up?” I mean, it’s not like they’re at the mall. They’re married! They’ve seen it all before!
- But isn’t it interesting that humanity’s first reaction to sin was to cover it up and try to hide.

- But you know how the story goes – and it’s the same today.
- You cannot come here on a Sunday morning wearing your little fig leaf and hide from God – you are only deceiving yourself, because you’re not fooling the rest of the people here.

- And I know what so many people think – “If you saw my baggage you wouldn’t want me in your church, you wouldn’t welcome me into your Home Team.”
- And listen, I can sympathize with those feelings, and when you admit that, you learn something about grace – you learn that you can’t have it until you know you can’t live without it!

3) Pretending Like we don’t have any baggage doesn’t make it easier to carry
- Because that feeling of constantly having to dodge and cover up is oppressive and impossible to keep up.

Illus:
- I remember one Sunday morning – Holly was fixing her hair, and I had some free time – now don’t ask me why, but I was wrestling with the cat on the living room floor!
- Well, the cat bit my nose!
- Now we’re about to leave for church, I have to preach, and I have a bloody gash on my face! That was the day I discovered makeup! Base. But I was stuck with it, because I had to put it on again that night, and then Wed. night until the scratch was healed.

- Once you cover something up you have to keep covering it up, and soon you’ll be too scared to go camping with people because they might see you without your makeup!
- We live in a world where people value authenticity, and can spot a fake a mile away.

Conclusion:
From Eugene Peterson:
“The churches of Revelation show us that churches are not Victorian parlors where everything is always picked up and ready for guests. They are messy family rooms. Entering a person’s house unexpectedly, we are sometimes met with a barrage of apologies. St. John does not apologize. Things are out of order, to be sure, but that is what happens to churches that are lived in. They are not show rooms. They are living rooms, and if the persons living in them are sinners, there are going to be clothes scattered about, handprints on the woodwork, and mud on the carpet. For as long as Jesus insists on calling sinners and not the righteous to repentance – and there is no indication as yet that he has changed his policy in that regard – churches are going to be an embarrassment to the fastidious and an affront to the upright.”

- In Matthew 11:28-30 Jesus offers this invitation:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Christians and Divorce. Part 2.

2009-07-02T14:56:00.000-05:00

Over the course of my ministry in three separate churches, I was surrounded by people who needed answers to questions raised by divorce and remarriage. Divorced men and women asked me to conduct their weddings, having been denied in other churches. Some deacons had been divorced and remarried. Should they be thrown out of church leadership? We would lose people I considered some of the most spiritual in the church, people with exemplary Christian homes and marriages. Of course, I never dreamed that someday these hurts and hang-ups would affect me so personally. So, what does the Bible really say?

The New Testament presents us with a problem in understanding what the text says about divorce and its real-world implications. Jesus seems to say that divorce is allowed only if adultery has occurred: “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). However, this has been interpreted in different ways. Most Christians say that Jesus allows divorce only for adultery. Beyond what Jesus says, Paul also allows divorce. He permits it for abandonment by a nonbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-15). Yet some, including myself, have found this teaching difficult to accept, because it seems so cruel in certain situations. It suggests there can be no divorce for physical or emotional abuse. As a result, some Christians ignore this teaching or find ways around it. For example, when Jesus talked about “adultery,” perhaps he included other things like abuse.

But does the literal understanding of the text mean what we think it does? If you read the texts like a first-century Jew would have read them, those confusing passages make more sense. One of the most dramatic shifts centers on a question the Pharisees asked Jesus: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” (Matt. 19:3). A few decades before Jesus’ time, rabbi Hillel had invented a new form of divorce called the “any cause” divorce. By Jesus’ time, this “any cause” divorce had become so popular that almost no one relied on the literal Old Testament grounds for divorce. The “any cause” divorce was derived from a single word in Deuteronomy 24:1. Moses allowed divorce for “a cause of immorality.” Rabbi Hillel and his disciples argued that anything, including a burnt meal, could be a cause! They said that the text taught that divorce was allowed both for adultery and for “any cause.” In Texas we call this a “no fault” divorce.

Another sect of rabbis (disciples of Shimei) disagreed with this interpretation. These opposing views were well known to all first-century Jews. And the Pharisees wanted to know where Jesus stood. “Is it lawful to divorce your wife for any cause?” they asked. In other words: “Is it lawful for us to use the ‘any cause’ divorce?” When Jesus answered “no,” he was condemning the newly invented and rather chauvinistic, “any cause” divorce. Jesus agreed with rabbi Shimei. It meant they couldn't get a divorce whenever they wanted it - there had to be a lawful cause. It also meant that virtually every divorced man or women was not really divorced, because most of them had “any cause” divorces. Matthew summarized the whole debate in one sentence: Any divorced person who remarried was committing adultery (Matt. 5:32), because they were still married. It may not be obvious to us, but their first readers understood clearly what they meant.

Within a few decades, however, no one understood these terms any more. Language and cultural contexts often change quickly. The early church, and even Jewish rabbis, forgot what the “any cause” divorce was, because soon after the days of Jesus, it became the only type of divorce. It was simply called “divorce.” This meant that when Jesus condemned “divorce for ‘any cause,’” later generations thought he meant “divorce for any cause.” Confused? Look at the quotation marks – these are vastly different phrases.

Jesus was simply rejecting a faulty Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. Also, Jesus didn't reject the other ground for divorce in the Old Testament, which all Jews accepted. The church eventually forgot the other cause for divorce, but every Jew in Jesus' time knew about Exodus 21:10-11, which allowed divorce for neglect. Exodus says that everyone had rights within a marriage. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse, usually the wife, had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. In later Jewish and Christian marriages, the language of covenant became more formal, such as “love, honor, and keep.” In other words, the vows we make when we marry correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce. In Jewish life, and all of Jesus’ teaching took place within that context, anyone who was neglected, in terms of emotional support or physical support, could legally claim a divorce. According to Paul, this includes abandonment. In 1st Cor.7 he says that the abandoned person is “no longer bound.”

When we put all this together we have a clear and consistent set of rules for divorce and remarriage. Divorce is only allowed for a limited number of grounds that are found in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New Testament:

Adultery (Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)
Emotional and physical neglect (Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7)
Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)

Couples list these biblical grounds for divorce in their marriage vows. When these vows are broken, it threatens the marriage. As in any broken contract, the wronged party has the right to say, “I forgive you; let's carry on,” or, “I can't go on, because this marriage is broken.” While divorce should ideally never happen, God allows it (and subsequent remarriage) when the marriage vows are broken. Victims of broken marriages can see that God's law is both practical and loving. Trust me – this is a painful truth that I have learned the hard way.

Christians and Divorce

2009-06-11T00:44:00.004-05:00

Note: This and other posts may cause people to say that I have too much of a vested interest to be objective. The only thing I can say is that I may have a vested interest, but that doesn't make it less true. If truth is measured on a sliding scale of subjectivity, then nothing can ever be true. The fact that I have a vested interest only means that I have struggled with this issue with both my head and my heart.

Many religious people believe that for the past generation, America has been in a moral decline. Whenever conservatives describe this decline, they include the high divorce rate, along with crime and out-of-wedlock births, as prime examples. I believe they are wrong. Dennis Prager tells a story that happened to him when he used to moderate a show called “Religion on the Line.” Each week for two hours the guests were a Protestant minister, Roman Catholic priest and rabbi (different ones each week), as well as representatives of virtually every other faith. One night, the topic was divorce – “What is your religion's view on divorce?” The Protestant minister spoke against divorce and noted that, “people get divorced too quickly.” The priest then said virtually the same thing, and the rabbi agreed. After each spoke, Dennis asked the minister if he knew anyone who had divorced. “Well,” he said, “my brother is getting a divorce right now.” “And do you feel that he is getting divorced too quickly?” Dennis asked. He then explained that his brother and sister-in-law had tried counseling for many years to no avail, and that their home was a deeply troubled one. Dennis then asked the priest if he knew anyone well who had divorced. He responded that his mother had divorced many years ago. “Do you feel that she divorced too quickly?” “Not at all,” he said, adding that the divorce liberated her from a toxic relationship. Dennis then asked the rabbi if he knew anyone well who had divorced. And, sure enough, his parents had divorced many years earlier, and he was convinced that it enabled him and his mother to become happier people because the home was so depressed. This scenario is typical. Whenever people say, “People get divorced too easily,” they mean “other people.”

Of course, many divorced people should have stayed together, just as there are couples who stay together who should get divorced. But social conservatives look foolish when they say that except for adultery and spousal beating (and many reluctantly agree to this because it is not “biblical”), no one should get divorced and that the divorce rate necessarily exemplifies a society in moral decline. It is simply not true. A truly bad marriage is like life imprisonment, and innocent people do not deserve such a punishment. Second, it only takes one person to divorce. Assuming that all divorced people sought their divorce is as untrue as it is unfair. Fifty percent of marriages may end in divorce, but only fifty percent of those wanted the divorce. Third, when there are no children involved, a divorce's cost to society is minimal. Furthermore, I believe it is far better for society to have people marry and divorce than never to marry. When people marry, they tend to mature, and society desperately needs grownups! Fourth, regarding children and divorce, the effects of divorce usually depend on what happens before, during, and after a couple divorces. By far, the worst consequence of divorce is the large number of fathers who voluntarily or involuntarily (because of selfish ex-wives) leave the lives of their children. When both parents stay thoroughly involved in their children's lives, sharing physical as well as legal custody, the adverse effects of divorce can be minimized, and depending on how bad things were prior to the divorce, a child's life can actually improve. Divorce doesn’t screw kids up; screwed up parents screw kids up!

Let me be clear. I believe that most marriages should never come apart; that every good marriage has periods of alienation and anger; that people must ride these tough waves and try to improve their marriage. But I would not lump divorce statistics with crime and out-of-wedlock births as a barometer of social pathology. There are simply too many exceptions to the rule that people get divorced too easily. Like the clergy on Dennis’ show, I feel that almost every divorced person I know (including myself) deserves sympathy more than contempt. Let's vigorously promote good marriages but have no more knee-jerk condemnations of divorce. It is these condemnations, more than divorces themselves, that are made too easily.

PS: I have purposefully left out textual arguments concerning divorce. This post makes a societal point, not a textual one. However, remember my golden rule for interpreting the Bible: Scripture is supposed to make you smarter and kinder. If your understanding of the text makes you stupid and less kind, you are wrong! That principle applies especially to texts like Matthew 19. Be kind and compassionate . . . and smart.

Can You Sin on a Deserted Island?

2009-06-05T10:46:00.003-05:00

Some time ago ACU professor, Richard Beck posed the question, “Can you sin on a deserted island?” I became weirdly fascinated with this question. Much of my thought here is borrowed from the discussion on his blog.

Most people I’ve spoken to say yes. Examples I've heard are: You can kill yourself. You can harm the environment. You can lust. You can blaspheme God. But these examples are a little forced. I suppose you can run around cutting down trees and killing monkeys, or commit suicide, or fantasize about someone not on the island, or even scream things at God. But these things don't seem to be typical “sins,” and I can get quite a theological argument going about the ethical meaning of “sinning in your heart.” At what point do thoughts become sins, and what gradation of sin? Further, if you saw this behavior on the island, I doubt your first thought would be, “That is a sin.” You'd probably think that the person went crazy, and thus it weakens any categorization of “sin.”

But now, let's imagine that there are two people on the island. Can you sin with another person? Now we can imagine all kinds of sin: Lies, stealing, violence. The whole point of the question is to make this painfully obvious: Sin is a social event. I think one of the worst mistakes in theology is to consider sin to be only, or even primarily, a God/human issue. The island question is trying to point out that if it is just you and God, your sin repertoire is pretty anemic. But sin categories abound when we find ourselves in human community, when we see sin as a human/human issue. In other words, God's judgment against sin is judgment against human-to-human infractions.

I think this is what Jesus was getting at in the Sermon on the Mount. Before you offer your sacrifice to God, first be reconciled to your brother, then come offer your sacrifice to God. It's also the theme in 1st John - you can't say you love God when you hate your brother. Love your brother first and then you can say you love God with authenticity. If you wander through life thinking there's a rift between you and God, that focus leads to guilt, shame, and religious paranoia. But if we see sin as a human/human rift, then I can focus on reconciliation that I can actually do something about! Before you go to church, ask, “Is my brother offended by me?” Because if he is, what's the point of going to church?

The Healing Power of Laughter?

2009-04-30T14:36:00.002-05:00

Humor is powerful. It can heal or it can cut like a razor. One of the best episodes of Seinfeld has Jerry’s dentist, Tim Watley, convert to Judaism and then tell Jewish jokes. This offends Jerry, not as a Jew, but as a comedian. Consider these three jokes (borrowed from Richard Beck’s experimental theology blog):

1. Why was Helen Keller such a bad driver? Answer: Because she was a woman.

2. What is great about having Alzheimer's on Easter? Answer: You can hide the eggs and look for them.

3. What does an Ethiopian chicken look like? Answer: Ethiopian chicken? What’s that?

Good jokes are highly compressed, which demands that the listener fill in a lot of background assumptions, values, and beliefs that make the joke work. If the listener cannot fill in this background he doesn’t “get it” and the joke fails to produce laughter. Last month I was on a flight from Nairobi to London when a woman sitting next to me sneezed. I turned to her and said, “You’re soooo good-lookin.” She laughed, but others sitting near us did not. If you don’t “get” a joke, no amount of explaining makes the joke suddenly funny to you. You can’t explain a joke into being funny. You either get it, or you don’t. This feature of a joke - its demand for you to supply the background information - makes jokes a form of community building. When someone likes our jokes we’ve found a soul mate, a kindred spirit, someone who sees the world the same way we do. People are attracted to people who make them laugh. This is the joy of laughter and humor. But there is a dark side. This feature of jokes also makes them forms of exclusion.

Take the three jokes above. All three are compressed and require you to fill in backgrounds and stereotypes. The Helen Keller joke works only if you share a stereotype about women drivers and know that she was a blind and deaf mute. The Ethiopian chicken joke only works if you know that country has a long history of famine and if you understand certain livestock and agrarian patterns of east African cultures. Those shared stereotypes and knowledge make the jokes work. But what if you didn’t know any of that? Does my explaining this to you make you laugh? No. If you have to have a joke explained to you it only intensifies your feeling of exclusion. Getting it or not getting it immediately marks insiders and outsiders. No amount of explanation will offset the realization that you were “too stupid” to be an “insider.” Also, if a joke is a stereotype then the joke adds salt to the wound. Some of you (women) might have found the Helen Keller joke offensive. Why? Because as a woman, you are excluded by the joke and offended by the negative stereotype that functions as the mechanism of exclusion.

How about the Alzheimer's joke? Is it funny? It all depends on who makes the joke. If a person suffering from Alzheimer's tells the joke then we see the joke as funny, because it is a form of dark humor. An Alzheimer's patient has a right to tell this joke because he is an insider to the world of the joke. If told by an outsider (me), the joke is mean. This is why black comedians can use the “n” word and white comedians cannot. It's a matter of insiders versus outsiders. Jokes are boundaries. Jokes mark off a space of shared attitudes and experiences. A joke is compressed because it functions as a kind of test. Do you share my view of the world? Are you with me? Are you an insider or an outsider? This is why jokes are both wonderful and wounding. They are wonderful when they are shared, but jokes wound when they exclude people and use stereotypes. Jokes become contested when outsiders attempt to enter the space before gaining the consent of the insiders. This is why the ethnicity of a person telling an ethnic joke is vital to understanding the nature and function of the joke. Jokes are complex and morally treacherous (eg: All in the Family). They bring us together and force us apart. Jokes are serious business!

What Does This Mean?

2009-04-17T12:20:00.002-05:00

I saw this video in church a month ago. So, what does it mean? What do you think?

Boma Update

2009-04-06T11:27:00.005-05:00

I have spent the better part of a week recovering from the trip to the Sudan. This week I will be editing a video that will be disseminated in a number of places. Soon my blog will return to its original purpose: questioning traditional thinking on everything concerning religion, politics, and popular culture. I will continue my involvement with the Boma project. Please check (and bookmark) the Partners in Hope web site (www.partnersonline.org). Under the Ministry tab you will find a blog link, as well as Twitter and Facebook feeds. Please stay involved in this project with me. As things unfold there will be a great need for all kinds of support!! For now, check out some of these pictures from the trip. Take note of the wreckage of a U.N. transport plane that crashed on the muddy airstrip a couple of months ago.

Back Safely!

2009-03-18T16:22:00.002-05:00

I just got back into Nairobi tonight (Wed). I feel tired and extremely DIRTY! The Sudan is like nothing I have ever experienced in Africa! Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw and experienced over the past 6 days. It is wild beyond anything I imagined. There is a vibrant community of NGOs and other aid workers (mostly American) operating from Nairobi, Loki, and into southern Sudan. I have met so many other Americans and some Europeans who are working here. The UN World Food Programme has a warehouse in lower Boma. We transported tons of US AID up the 3500 ft climb to our compound in upper Boma. I don't know how we got that truck up that mountain, because it is dishonest to call that rocky trail a road. Owww! Right at the end of the muddy airstrip we saw the burned out remains of a UN plane that crashed a few weeks ago. That's what you want to see when you are coming in to land! I spent 6 long days up on that mountain. What did we do? We had meetings (negotiations) with the area chiefs, we made bricks, helped with construction of the second set of classrooms, conducted a pastor training workshop, trekked to several villages with a 60-pound generator to show "The Jesus movie," and maybe most important - we spent the afternoons sitting under the mango trees drinking tea. And then there's the truck getting stuck in the mud halfway up the mountain. We had to go dig it out. But we won't talk about that right now :( On Saturday the Murle tribe had a strange chest-thumping partnering dance - kind of like an ancient mating ritual. Seeking adventure, I joined in. When someone told me that I may have to take a Sudanese woman home, I ran back to the compound and hid away! We were in an area of the Sudan controlled by SPLA rebels. I managed to befriend their commander, "Chief Lino." It would have been awesome to pop off a few rounds of his AK47. I asked, but he said no. He did offer, however, that any of his soldiers would come to my aid any time. Nice! On Sunday we went for a walk to check out the old airstrip on the far side of the plateau. A few hours later we ran into a de-mining team from the UN who informed us that we had been walking through an area with landmines!! That's too much danger. Good thing we are off that mountain and back in the relative safety of Nairobi, Kenya.

Hello Nairobi

2009-03-12T01:11:00.003-05:00

It's just past 9am on Thursday March 12. Yesterday's travel wasn't too rough, though transferring from Terminal 3 to Terminal 5 at Heathrow was a sticky mess!! I have never seen so many people packed shoulder to shoulder in my life. I did run into the South African baseball team though. What are the odds? We arrived at Jomo Kinyata Airport in Nairobi at about 10pm last night. When you step off a plane in Africa there are very distinctive sounds and smells that are really familiar to me, and always bring back a flood of memories - both good and bad. Your senses are immediately assaulted with a feeling like "It's still 1975 around here." And then the slowness begins! NO ONE is in a hurry here - ever! But, TIA. (This is Africa) That's part of the charm I suppose.

I have just enjoyed one of those leisurely African breakfasts at a missionary compound called "The Mayfield House." African slowness means you get to sit around and drink lots of coffee and talk. I just met an American woman over breakfast who returned from the Sudan yesterday. Her MAF charter flight had to detour to pick up 5 people who had gunshot wounds from a raid on a tribal village close to where we are going. So, I am scared and excited - but mostly excited!

We'll spend today in Nairobi, and then we leave at 6am on Friday morning for the Sudan. Please keep us in your prayers. The adventure begins :)

Goodnight, and Good Luck

2009-03-10T13:04:00.003-05:00

I'm about to leave for the airport. I'll be flying from Dallas to London to Nairobi to Loki to Boma. Whewww! I'll stay in touch as best I can while I am away. Please keep me and the mission in your thoughts and prayers as the Sudan is not a safe place to be right now. I return to Dallas on March 26. Goodnight, and Good Luck!

Back to Africa!

2009-01-27T14:04:00.006-06:00

I’m going back to Africa, but I need your help. Please read on . . .

I love Africa. In many ways Africa is still my home. I was born in Africa. I lived in South Africa for the first 20 years of my life. The sounds, the smells, and the tastes of Africa are real to me. The people are wonderful. They are full of joy. They are welcoming and hospitable. And yet most of Africa is a continent without much hope for its people. Extreme poverty is not a cause but a result of Africa's problems. According to Genocide Watch, since 1960 about 9 million Africans had been killed through genocide, mass murder, and targeted starvation. The Sudan, in particular, is a nation in turmoil. Northern Sudan is Islamic, southern Sudan is Christian and Darfur in the west is an area of continual genocide.

A group of Sudanese church leaders met in 2004 to formulate a plan to begin the process of restoration in the lives of their people after more than two decades of devastating war. During this meeting, an organization was founded – The Sudan Evangelical Alliance (SEA). SEA exists to offer financial, educational, and spiritual support in order to bring new life and hope to the people of the southern Sudan.

When asked to prioritize the needs of their people, the local leaders of SEA said that giving their children a better life through education was at the top of their list. After some investigation, the SEA identified an isolated and impoverished tribal community in southeastern Sudan called Boma. A majority of the people in Boma are presently trapped with little hope for a better future. There has never been a functioning school or church in Boma. After meeting with the tribal chiefs and sharing with them the desire to help build a school, their response was to give 52 acres of land for this project. With two classrooms completed, “Faith Learning Center” opened for kindergarten and first grade in January of 2008. Work has begun on the next phase of additional classrooms which will house a secondary school. The school building project also serves as a workshop for training local Sudanese men to gain skills in brick making and construction. After developing part of the land as a farm, each household in Boma was provided with seed to plant corn using farming techniques taught them to raise their own food. The first harvest in Boma took place in July of 2007 amid much rejoicing. The school itself will have a farm from which students will be fed and the surplus sold to help pay teacher's salaries. Parents will work at the school and farm as payment for their children attending. The SEA hopes to be sending teams of medical personnel to begin training in community health issues and initiate the process of opening a clinic in Boma. While all of this is taking place, the teachers, staff, and volunteers will be sharing the gospel with the people not only in word, but also in loving actions.

Each aspect of the Boma project is designed to train the local people with the skills and knowledge that will enable them to independently operate the school and farm. When sufficient progress has been achieved in Boma and the school can stand on its own, its operation will be turned over to local leadership. (Please watch the video below)

So, how do I fit into all of this? One of the organizations supporting the SEA’s Boma project is Partners in Hope. Their goal is to raise funds to build an orphanage and boarding facility close to the school. As the school grows this will be a necessity. Since I have taken survey trips and medical missions to Africa as part of my work with the East-Reach mission in Zambia, I have been asked to take a trip to the southern Sudan in order to meet with local leaders, villagers, and children. My task will be to assess needs, get my “hands dirty” with construction and farming, and return to the U.S. with information to assist in raising the funds needed for constructing an orphanage. I will be departing on March 10th, and will return on March 24th. The total cost for this survey trip is $3000. This covers airfare to Nairobi Kenya, a charter flight to Boma, lodging, food, and travel visas.

If any of my friends and readers would like to help with this effort, I would appreciate your thoughts and prayers for safety and success. If you are able to, I would especially appreciate your financial assistance. Any amount will help. If you are interested in being a part of my new and exciting opportunity to spread hope in a very dark part of Africa, please contact me soon. My email address is: charles@partnersonline.org. You can also contact Ryan at Partners in Hope. His email is: ryan@partnersonline.org.

God bless you, and Nkosi Sikelel iAfrika (God bless Africa).

DOUBT

2009-01-10T12:37:00.000-06:00

Run, don't walk, run to see this movie!

Things I've Learned the Hard Way in 2008 (That Will Hopefully Make Me a Better Person in 2009)

2008-12-31T18:05:00.001-06:00

I have learned many things in 2008. I want to share some of those things. Other lessons I will keep to myself for now, but they will influence how I act and treat other people for the rest of my life.

So, in no particular order:

1. Always tell the truth. Sometimes bluntness and honesty will alienate people, but if you lie (for whatever reason), it will alienate people even further when the truth comes out (and it will come out). NEVER lie to people you love! Lying is a form of manipulation and control, and it is never right to try and control other people.

2. When you have someone’s trust, protect it like it is a precious treasure. Once that trust is lost, it is hard (sometimes impossible) to win it back.

3. The bond between a parent and child cannot be broken, and is induplicable among human relationships. In other words, give your children all the love you can!

4. When people tell you that you are wonderful, talented, etc., don’t believe your “own press.” The moment you do, you have become vulnerable to pride – which always comes before the fall.

5. When people are hurt they will act in unpredictable ways and do things completely out of character. Forgive these actions freely.

6. If you want people to forgive you, you have to offer forgiveness to others first.

7. True love is unconditional. Love freely. If that love is not reciprocated, it will soften your own heart.

8. There is a huge gulf between the virtues that some Christians claim to have, and what they actually practice.

9. In times of crisis, your list of true friends will shrink to just a few. Treasure these people for the rest of your life, and remember who abandoned you.

10. Counselors serve a purpose, but do not put too much trust in them. This also applies to “Christian” counselors. Take their advice, but do not abandon common sense.

11. Human beings have an extraordinarily high tolerance for emotional pain.

12. Indecision is worse than making a bad decision. Don’t vacillate. Choose!

13. Material things have no intrinsic value. Money and fine things are only valuable if you can share them with people you love.

14. Loneliness is as destructive of the human spirit as cancer is to the body.

15. Happiness can be found in small things, and usually comes from within. Do not depend on another person or persons to make you happy.

16. Never make big decisions or serious financial commitments when you are emotionally hyped up or as an act of rebellion.

17. Every family has a pathology. You must figure it out or you WILL repeat it.

18. And finally, to quote a very wise family member, “Charles, you are the dumbest smart guy I’ve ever known!”

The Gospel is Not a Weapon

2008-12-30T00:36:00.003-06:00

Here's my favorite scene from one of my favorite movies: "Saved."
I SO RELATE!

2008-12-16T12:10:00.001-06:00

I Am Sorry

2008-12-10T01:37:00.003-06:00

"And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, 'Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.' Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.'"

I have been struggling to get into the "Christmas spirit" this year. So much has happened! I feel overwhelmed with sorrow most days. I was preparing myself for the most miserable Christmas of my life. And then - I read, as if for the first time, Luke 2. One word stood out to me - the word "peace." The coming of Christ is not about me and my feelings, nor is it about gifts and gaudy tinsel, nor is it about shopping. It is about peace.

Everyone who knows me, and many who read this blog know that I have been very angry and frustrated! I have done and said things to alienate so many people. This Christmas I feel a gaping hole in my heart and searing grief for all the people I love who will be far from me - both physically and emotionally. So, like never before, I am going to focus on the real meaning of Christmas - peace. If I have hurt you, lied to you, lashed out at you, abused your trust, or used you in any way to further my own selfishness and arrogance, please, I beg of you, forgive me. People don't change overnight, and sometimes it takes a lot for stubborn people like me to discern the leading of the Lord. God deals a little more harshly with us, but He never gives up. I believe that after I have walked through this fire I will have learned how to be honest and humble. I am willing to be made willing.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

NOT Finished

2008-12-06T22:44:00.003-06:00

Last year I posted this picture during what I thought was a stressful time. Well, it was "peaches and cream" compared to now! This is how I feel right now about EVERY part of my life without exception.

What if Starbucks Marketed Like the Church? A Parable:

2008-12-02T11:45:00.001-06:00

Parables are like satire - if you get it a light goes on in your head, if you don't get it, then you just get angry. Jesus said something like that! Enjoy.

Laugh Out Loud My Friends!

2008-11-25T22:38:00.003-06:00

Okay, no serious blogging yet. However, in honor of my friend, "Tim the dentist," I offer up my favorite Seinfeld clip of all time. This is golden!

Personal Update

2008-11-10T23:26:00.003-06:00

I hope that those of you who read this blog and show an interest in my scattered, sometimes weird thoughts will be patient with me. While this blog has given me so much opportunity to share things that I deem important, it has also been a constant source of strife and tension. I have been censured by elders, received hateful emails, had many arguments with many people, hurt people's feelings, and in turn I have been misunderstood and even hurt. I am at a point in my life where I don't need more tension. I am overwhelmed with anxiety and sorrow. This is not a good time for me to jump into the fray again. I will have plenty time and opportunity to share my ideas in the future - when I am more sure of myself, and when my faith is stronger. Thank you so much for reading and showing an interest in my opinions. For now, my last word will be, "My name is Charles North, and I am a doubter."

My Name is Charles North, and I am a Doubter!

2008-11-10T01:50:00.004-06:00

Religiously speaking, I doubt a lot. My mind is riddled with uncertainty. Maybe it's just my personality type or my analytical training. I used to think that I was alone in my uncertainty, and that sharing my doubts would label me as weak, unfaithful, or even ignorant. I also thought that sharing my doubts would hurt the faith of those who looked to me for answers and certainty. I've discovered, however, that if you ask people in an honest moment, just about everyone has doubts. And I'm not just talking about passing moments of “I wonder if . . ?” I'm talking about deep and prolonged doubts. Recurring doubts that keep you up at night. Since Christians rarely speak of doubt we feel that expressing it is somehow unfit for proper (religious) company. So we stew on it and think we are alone - strange or odd or different, even to the point of deviance.

I've become convinced that sharing doubts is very therapeutic. Ironically, sharing doubts promotes deeper faith. My eyes were opened to this a few years ago when I was talking to a High School Senior (a very bright kid) about religion and the problem of evil in the world. I shared my doubts with this kid. A few days later I got an email from the kid, and he had this to say, “I have been struggling with church for some time, but talking to you opened my eyes. I have never heard a minister admit to doubting God. But hearing you made me realize that it is okay to doubt and that I fit in at church.”

I want to de-pathologize doubt. I want us to speak more openly about our doubts. I think it is healthy to know you are not alone. Here are specific things I have doubted or still doubt. What about you? Is this healthy?

I've doubted that God exists.
I've doubted that God really cares and works in the world.
I've doubted that prayers make any difference.
I've doubted that there is a heaven after death.
I’ve doubted that there is a literal place called “hell.”
I’ve doubted that the Bible is “inspired.”
I’ve doubted that the church is capable of forgiveness.
I’ve doubted love.
I’ve doubted the “stories” of the Old Testament.
I’ve doubted my own “goodness.”
I’ve doubted the value of “truth.”

Abortion

2008-11-07T14:43:00.002-06:00

One of my reasons I gave for voting for Obama (#15) was about abortion. Since then some people have said they don’t understand how abortion can be a non-issue for me. I appreciate the chance to clarify. And remember, this blog is about CLEAR THINKING. So, what is my own personal view? Abortion IS an issue for me – on a moral and religious level. Who the president is does not affect the issue at all. I am opposed to abortion. However, I reject both “pro life” and “pro choice” labels. I am anti abortion, but pro choice. I believe that women should CHOOSE to have the child. Scripture gives this choice in Deuteronomy 30: “I set before you today life and death; blessings and curses. Now choose life.” I think abortion is morally reprehensible! However, all polls indicate that the majority of Americans think abortion ought to remain legal - therefore I am in the minority on this issue. What am I going to do? Force my religious views on the rest of the country? Laws in the United States are not made on the basis of religious teaching or conviction. They are utilitarian because we are a secular nation.

From a LEGAL standpoint I think that Roe v Wade (1973) was a terrible decision - an abominable interpretation of the Constitution. Even liberal law professors (Lawrence Tribe of Harvard) admit this. Both liberals and conservatives need to understand (and I don’t think they do) that if Roe v Wade is overturned, it will not make abortion illegal. It will simply return the issue to the states. At that point all 50 state legislatures will determine their own abortion laws. This is the way federalism works. And, since most Americans want to see abortion kept legal, I don’t believe that any state will ban it outright. Overturning Roe v Wade will have virtually zero effect on abortion in America. Roe v Wade simply incorporated the 14th Amendment so that one state's allowing abortion applies to the other 49 states. Most Americans, including politicians, seem to not understand this.

If you oppose abortion on moral and religious grounds, then you need to get it together. The virulent rhetoric lends the impression of religious fanaticism, and no law in the United States will ever be made on the basis of religious fanaticism. Calling abortion “murder” further marginalizes religious conservatives. You may think abortion is “unjustified killing,” but it is not murder. “Murder” has a meaning. It is the intentional taking of a human life in a manner that is illegal. Abortion is not illegal. In order to have a seat at the table of rational debate, we should all use the language we’ve agreed on – English! I have looked into the distressed eyes of women contemplating this decision, and what they need is love, compassion, and hope – not anger, fanaticism, and labels. And they really don’t need any more laws.

Equal Opportunity Satire!

2008-11-07T08:59:00.003-06:00

This video from The Onion is very funny!! Even though I am an Obama supporter, I offer it up just to make you laugh. Enjoy.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Why I Voted For Obama

2008-11-04T01:05:00.007-06:00

Yesterday I boldly declared myself an Obama supporter. I do not believe in gloating however. The past few years have been hard. This election has been bitter, and hard-fought. Today I feel nothing but pride. I am proud to be an American! Since I was five years old, all I wanted was to be an American. Yesterday was the first time I voted for a president in my life. I have a great sense of calm and reassurance that if a nation so diverse and so divided can transfer power so peacefully, that nation can still be a shining city on a hill for all the world to look up to. Now we have a chance to leave the 20th century behind and let a new leader from a new generation take us across this bold new frontier to face the 21st century. Take hope. This country and the world will be okay. Please watch Obama's speech from Tuesday night.

My vote, like so many things I do, is complicated. I voted for Obama, but also against McCain. Here’s why:

1. When John McCain passed his campaign finance reform act a few years ago, I swore I would NEVER vote for him. I consider that law to be one of the most egregious assaults on the constitution ever mustered by Congress. Today I keep my promise to myself.

2. McCain is 72 years old, and it shows; Obama is 47. I think that McCain’s time has come and gone. He represents a bygone generation. It’s time for the Vietnam generation to enjoy retirement, and allow a new generation to lead the country and the world. I’m going with the younger guy.

3. Obama is VERY intelligent and articulate. That counts with me. He is a very quick study, and picks up on things fast. He gives complex and nuanced answers to serious issues and problems. McCain seems to give overly simple answers. Why? Because his right wing base sees the world in terms of “black and white.” We need a serious person to lead.

4. McCain is close enough to Bush in both economics and foreign policy that he represents a third Bush term. George Bush has been the worst president since the Civil War. A vote against McCain is, for me, a repudiation of the Bush administration.

5. In that vein, I have come to reject “trickle-down” economics. At the end of the Bush administration, the country is economically ruined. An obscene amount of wealth is concentrated in a tiny handful of people. These people (oil executives, Wall Street barons, war profiteers, etc.) have the audacity to pillage and pirate without any shame or consequences, while the rest of us are in dire straits.

6. I think the idea that Christian equals Republican is absurd. In the OT and the NT God is ALWAYS on the side of the poor, and against the rich. In this election, Obama’s policies overwhelmingly help the poor, while McCain has spent the past month creating fear in people earning over $250 000 a year that they will be taxed more. My Christian values find better expression in the Democratic Party because my values are deeper than the shallow and trite moralizing of Republican Christians.

7. Our medical system is BROKEN. People are dying and going bankrupt because of obscenely high medical expenses, while insurance companies are wallowing in profits. Republican judges consistently throw out lawsuits against these insurance companies. The sooner we have nationalized health care, and see every HMO go out of business, the better off we will be. Obama will bring us closer to that reality.

8. McCain spoke and acted erratic during all 3 debates. After the debates I had ZERO confidence in McCain.

9. McCain’s war hero status is to be applauded on a personal level, but it does not impress me in any way as a “qualification” to be president.

10. I cannot put Sarah Palin that close to the presidency. I admire her personally, but again, I don’t believe this woman is anywhere near qualified to be poised to take the reins of our government. Her sketchy credentials, her lack of knowledge, and her conservative worldview is not what America needs right now. I don’t want a folksy “hockey mom” running the country.

11. The "guilt by association" attacks on Obama have been so weak and pathetic, they have actually pushed me to support him. The worst has been the “socialist” label. George Bush has been the most socialist president in our history! We are well down the socialist path. Progressive tax rates, property taxes, and public education are all planks of the Communist Manifesto for crying out loud!

12. I refuse to give any Republican any further hold on power. They have squandered that chance. George Bush has presided over the biggest growth of the Federal government in our history. Enough!

13. I don’t respond to fear. My vote for Obama is a thumb in the eye of every conservative fear monger who wants us to look for terrorists behind every bush and under our beds.

14. I am voting AGAINST the war in Iraq. I agree with Obama’s position that this was an unjustified and unnecessary war from the beginning. McCain is a carbon copy of Bush with regards to the war. EVERY reason we were given to go to war is a lie, and we have no reason to still be there. We are wasting billions of dollars every month doing the very same thing that caused the British Empire to go bankrupt. I refuse to give my consent one day longer!

15. While I am pro-life, abortion is a non-issue for me in presidential elections. Even if (and it’s a big if) Roe v Wade is overturned, it just sends the issue back to the states. Abortion will NEVER be illegal in the U.S. Once you realize this, you won’t waste energy making your voting decisions on this one issue.

16. I just plain like Barak Obama. After his speech on Tuesday night, I have hope again!

It's Always Saturday - But Sunday is Coming!

2008-10-14T23:41:00.002-05:00

In Christian theology the three days that Jesus spent in the tomb are significant for the life of the church. Jesus suffered pain, suffering, and death on Friday; he lay dead in the tomb on Saturday; and he was raised to life on Sunday. His resurrection was a demonstration of the Spirit’s power over death.

The church exists in a similar state – our suffering is in the past, but our resurrection has not yet happened. For us, it is always Saturday. For the past 2000 years it has been perpetually Saturday. We live in an already-but-not-yet state between suffering and victory. In this state we learn patience, reliance on God, love fore one another, concern for the lost, but we also live by hope, anticipating our certain resurrection.

Over the past few days I have seen my own life through this paradigm. Every day is Saturday for me. Every day involves a gut-wrenching, coma-like state of waiting. I’ve been through the Friday of suffering and death, but every morning when I wake up, I feel sick when I see “Saturday” on the calendar of my subconscious imagination. But I know that Sunday is coming! One of these days I will wake up to a new dawn of a new day – a day of resurrection, new life, and hope for a bright future. Sunday is coming!!!

Official Policy Regarding the Role of Women in Public Worship

2008-09-21T20:55:00.002-05:00

The role of women in the public worship of the church has become a contentious issue recently. Despite the clear teaching of scripture and long-held traditions, I was asked several months ago to draft a statement that would be distributed amongst Churches of Christ. I have wrestled with this task. I have anguished over the biblical texts. I have incorporated historical, cultural, and extra-biblical evidence from the Greco-Roman world. But mostly, I have remained unwavering in our historic commitment to the inerrancy of scripture, its clear teaching, and hence the need to take it literally without picking or choosing which commandments we will follow as those in liberal denominations do. The following notice will go out over the wires first thing Monday morning:

To all faithful members of the Church of Christ:
Effective immediately the following rules will be adopted with regards to the role of women in the public worship of the church. We regret that such a notice is necessary, but some among us have not taken seriously the plain commandments of the Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 14 and 1st Timothy 2. Henceforth all women are to remain silent in the assembly. Thus far we have not permitted women to preach, lead prayers, or make announcements, but now they will not be permitted to ask questions in class, or participate in the singing. Silence means silence! Women will, however, be permitted to serve communion since this involves no speaking or authority. Furthermore, since we are uncertain where to place the comma in 1st Timothy 2:12, women will no longer be permitted to teach in any capacity. This includes ladies classes and children's classes. ALL classes must be taught by a man. It is better to be safe than sorry. Women will be required to dress modestly. This means that no woman will be allowed to enter the assembly wearing braided hair, gold jewelry, pearls, or clothing purchased at major department stores (expensive clothing). As part of our biblical dress code, all women will be required to wear a head covering. Any modest hat or scarf will do. Ladies, if you have any questions, please follow the scripture and ask your husbands at home.
Thank you.

Temple Police

2008-09-19T12:55:00.002-05:00

People often wonder why I have such an openly defiant attitude toward authority – civil as well as religious authority. I want to identify three reasons:

1. I grew up in South Africa during the heyday of the apartheid regime. As a child and teenager my father taught me that I had a MORAL OBLIGATION to resist authority. He was right!

2. I follow leaders. True leaders are hard to come by. I know precious few leaders. You can slap a title or a uniform or a badge on any yahoo. That doesn’t make them a leader, and it certainly doesn’t mean I necessarily ought to follow them, obey them, or respect them.

3. I have a theological warrant. Here’s what I mean:

Jesus was not brought down by anarchy. He was brought down by law and order allied with religion, which is ALWAYS a deadly mix. Beware of those who claim to know the mind of God and are prepared to use force, if necessary, to make others conform. Temple police are always a bad sign. When chaplains are seen hanging out at the sheriff’s office, watch out. Someone is about to have no king but Caesar! I doubt that many of us will end up playing Annas, Caiaphas or Pilate. They may have been the ones who gave Jesus the death sentence, but a large part of him had already died before they ever got to him - the part Judas killed off, then Peter, then all those who fled. Those are the roles with our names on them - not the enemies who confront, but the friends who abandon.

No one knows what Judas said. In John’s gospel he does not say a word, but where he stands says it all. After he led about 200 Roman soldiers and the Temple police to the garden where Jesus is praying, Judas stood with the authorities. Even when Jesus came forward to identify himself, Judas did not budge. He stood on the side with the weapons and the handcuffs.

In 1849 Henry David Thoreau wrote a tract called “Civil Disobedience.” Here’s an excerpt:
“The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders - serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few - as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men - serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.”

Are You a "Good" Person?

2008-09-17T23:47:00.003-05:00

I am less fascinated with the question, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” than with the question, “Why do good people do bad things?” This is much more relevant and interesting. To say that bad people do bad things is to have a VERY simplistic, childlike view of the world. It is usually good people who do bad things. I have become obsessed with figuring out why. This is why I watch disturbing movies like “Hostel.” This is why I have profiled Hitler’s henchmen. I have really probed the question, “Why do good (or normal) people do bad things?” Here’s what I think. (I wrote about some of this last year.)

We tend to see the things going on inside of a person (personality, motives, desires) as more important in regulating behavior than the forces outside of the person (context, situation, social pressures). We downplay the power of context and situation, while seeing ourselves and other people in altruistic terms. We think that people have an inner core that dictates and determines their actions (their “true self”). So we classify people in terms of “kinds” of people - good people, bad people, strong people, weak people. But all these labels are erroneous. There aren't different “kinds” of people. There are simply people in different situations. Configure the situation a certain way and we can make some people look weak and others strong. This doesn’t mean that situations alone determine our behavior (though I do believe in situational ethics), but we tend to dramatically underestimate the power of context and situation. How many times have you heard someone say, “I would never do that.” This is precisely what sets us up for wrongdoing. We tend to overestimate the strength of our character. We see ourselves as a “kind” of person – a good father, a good husband. To see ourselves in this way is a mistake – a very costly one.

This principle applies to all moral issues - addiction, sexuality, spending, violence, and on and on. Situations have way more power than we think. Consequently, “good” people wander into situations that cause them to falter. Treat your own virtue with suspicion. Your strength can easily become your weakness. Don't believe your character alone is sufficient to carry you through. Trust me on this! The world is full of the ruined lives of those who said, “I don't know why or how I could have done that (fill in the blank). I’m not like that!”

It's Good to be Alive

2008-09-10T17:10:00.002-05:00

I'm in Waco today driving around looking at all my old hangouts, walking around Baylor campus, and yes, mountain biking on the trails along the Brazos river. I went down one of the "advanced" trails this morning. I should have known better. It's been years since I knew what I was doing. As I catapulted down a narrow rocky path, my right handlebar clipped a tree. The handlebars got twisted 180 degrees and I got thrown off the bike. I haven't had a good crash in years! I lay there stunned for a minute with my head against a tree - scratches on my right wrist, bruised left elbow, scratches and cuts all down my left leg. I got up, yelled something at the stupid tree, and hammered on down the trail for another 30 minutes with blood and dirt all over my face, arms, and legs. It feels SO GOOD to be alive!!!

Character

2008-09-01T23:28:00.001-05:00

This is the final scene from the movie "The Big Kahuna." I have watched it many times over the past few weeks as I try to make sense of my life.

I'm Taking a Break

2008-08-09T19:19:00.004-05:00

Sorry for removing that last post. I'm really not supposed to be putting up stuff from Postsecret, so I'll respect that. On Wednesday night Cory showed how Jesus learned to say "no" to some things because he had said "yes" to a much greater mission. So, in that spirit, I am going to take a bit of a break from blogging. I need to say "no" to my desire to vent and pontificate for a while so that I do a little life maintenance and construction. I know that for some of you, checking my blog is the most exciting thing you do all day!! (Ha, Ha). Don't worry, I'll be back!

The Evil of Hurry

2008-07-29T11:24:00.002-05:00

Some time ago I ran across this behavioral experiment on Richard Beck’s blog. It is fascinating because it speaks to my main curiosity – the pathology of human “evil.”

In 1973, John Darley and Daniel Batson published one of the most famous papers looking into human behavior. The study was entitled: “From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior.” The “Jerusalem to Jericho” paper is of interest to me because the study centered on a modern-day recreation of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Here's a sketch of what they did:

The study involved seminarians preparing for ministry. The students were randomly split into two groups. The first group was asked to prepare a sermon on the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the second group prepared a sermon that had nothing to do with helping others. The students were then scheduled to deliver this sermon at a given time and place. When they arrived at the place, they were told that the location had been changed at the last minute and that they were to go to a new location. At this point, the students were split into three groups. A third were put under strong time pressure, told that they needed to get to the new venue in a hurry. A third was put under moderate time pressure. And finally, the third group was told that they could take their time getting to the new venue. Along the route (an alleyway) to the next venue they had placed a person who showed signs of distress. Specifically, they were sitting slumped against the wall, head down and eyes closed. As the subject passed, the person would cough twice and groan. Basically, they showed signs of abdominal pain. As the students passed the key variable was recorded: Would they stop to check on the groaning person?

What a great study! A controlled simulation of Jesus' parable. Even the use of seminarians is a nice touch, echoing the priest and Levite in the story. Well, who stopped to help? There were three main predictions that were being tested:
1: Almost everyone will stop. These are all seminarians! They are good people, bound for the ministry. Most will stop.
2: Those who were thinking about the parable of the Good Samaritan will stop. Half of the seminarians had a sermon about the Good Samaritan in their heads. Those thinking about Jesus' parable would be more likely to recognize the situation.
3: Those who were less hurried will stop. Those who have the time, help. Those who don't have the time, don't.

So, what is your guess as to the outcome? It was 3. The single biggest factor in helping was hurry. The relevant contrast is striking. No hurry: 63% offered aid. High hurry: 10% offered aid. Some seminarians in a hurry literally stepped over the groaning person on the way to deliver their sermon on the Good Samaritan!

So, here are some observations about this study:

First, virtue is contextual. We are a different kind of person when we are hurried versus when we are unhurried. There is no “real” you. There is “hurried you” and “unhurried you.” And, as your family, friends, and coworkers can attest, hurried you and unhurried you are really two very different people.

Second, the Jerusalem to Jericho study makes this observation: Most people pursue spirituality as a hobby. Life with God is a leisure activity that compliments our cozy suburban lives. It’s compartmentalized along with baseball, football, PTA, and work. Why do I say this? Because hobbies and leisure activities are what we pursue when we have “free” time on our hands. But when we have “stuff to do,” we tend to place our hobbies to the side. They are not allowed to interfere with our urgent agenda. If so, then the Jerusalem to Jericho study suggests that helping others, for many, is a hobby. It's something to do on weekends, when you have some spare time, rather than a central and urgent feature of your life.

Third, hurry is a form of evil, if evil is defined as lack of empathy for other human beings. Hurry turns us into self-interested, callous jerks. Love sometimes involves slowness.

"Poor Judgement"

2008-07-28T12:15:00.002-05:00

Here is a story out of Australia I thought I'd share. I really love the magistrate's quote at the end.

SYDNEY (Reuters) - An Australian man convicted of his seventh drunk-driving charge was spending about $1,000 ($972 U.S.) a week on beer - enough to buy more than 2,500 small bottles a month, a newspaper said Tuesday. The heartbroken construction worker began drowning his sorrows after breaking up with his partner five years ago, the Northern Territory News said, quoting his defense lawyer as telling a court in Australia's remote, tropical north. The magistrate declined to jail the father of four, Michael Leary, noting he had quit drinking since his latest arrest, but he banned Leary from buying or even holding a beer for 12 months. The magistrate also poked fun at Leary's favorite beer, Melbourne Bitter, in a part of the country where drinkers can be as loyal to beer brands as they are to football teams. ''That is poor judgment on two counts there - drinking that much, and drinking Melbourne Bitter,'' magistrate Vince Luppino was quoted as saying.

Priceless!

"We Christians Aint Like the Muslims"

2008-07-25T11:03:00.004-05:00

I was listening to the radio yesterday, and some guy called in with this gem: "We Christians aint like the Muslims. They believe that the Koran can change. Christians don't do that. Jesus said, 'If anyone adds or takes away from the book,' they'll be punished! Now some people think that the snake didn't really talk. That's takin away from the book, and God will punish them cause they aint real Christians!"

Okay, let's go:

1. "Muslims" are divided into 2 hostile sects: Sunnis and Shi'ites. The Sunnis believe that God's revelation in the Koran was fixed at the time of Mohammed's death. Shi'ites believe that subsequent prophets received equally as authoritative revelation.

2. "Christians don't do that." HELLO?? The NEW TESTAMENT claims to be a subsequent and more authoritative revelation than the OLD TESTAMENT. The early Jewish Christians were the Shi'ites of first century Judaism!!

3. The warning in Revelation 22:18-19 about "adding" or "taking way" from "this book" applies ONLY to the book of Revelation.

4. Christians have a number of different INTERPRETATIONS about scripture. One interpretation is not more right because it's more literal, and being literal DOES NOT equal more respectful. As far as I know it's only fundamentalist, conservative, evangelicals who take all of the Old Testament literally. Many Christians and virtually all Jews understand much of the OT (the 6 days of creation, Adam and Eve, the flood, Jonah, etc) to be myth - a parable to make a point.

Fellow Christians, please THINK before calling in to national radio shows!

"Mr. Opportunity"

2008-07-24T21:54:00.004-05:00

Is it just me, or is Honda's new ad campaign the most annoying thing on T.V.? This "Mr. Opportunity" cartoon character seriously makes me feel ill. Wouldn't you love to wipe that smarmy smirk off this guy's face? I'll never buy a Honda if they think this little of their customers.

Churches - An embarrassment to the Upright!

2008-07-23T16:49:00.002-05:00

From Eugene Peterson:

"The churches of Revelation show us that churches are not Victorian parlors where everything is always picked up and ready for guests. They are messy family rooms. Entering a person’s house unexpectedly, we are sometimes met with a barrage of apologies. St. John does not apologize. Things are out of order, to be sure, but that is what happens to churches that are lived in. They are not show rooms. They are living rooms, and if the persons living in them are sinners, there are going to be clothes scattered about, handprints on the woodwork, and mud on the carpet. For as long as Jesus insists on calling sinners and not the righteous to repentance – and there is no indication as yet that he has changed his policy in that regard – churches are going to be an embarrassment to the fastidious and an affront to the upright."

"Airship Worship"

2008-07-18T14:32:00.001-05:00

Thanks for this Raleen. Watch this and enjoy your weekend - especially Sunday!

The Best Car Commercial Ever!

2008-07-16T00:02:00.000-05:00

Watch this amazing ad. Enjoy!

Jour de Bastille Heureux

2008-07-14T14:50:00.002-05:00

Happy Bastille Day Froggies! On July 14th 1789 French peasants stormed the Bastille, setting off the French Revolution. Since the French Revolution was largely caused by their aiding the American colonies in our war against Britain, I feel we Americans ought to tip our hats to our French brethren every July 14. So, let the Tricolour fly, let there be an abundance of cheese and wine, and jour de Bastille Heureux! (Happy Bastille Day)

"I Pledge Allegiance . . ."

2008-07-08T11:44:00.004-05:00

** DISCLAIMER **
I love America. I have loved her for as long as I can remember. It has been hard leaving home and going through the interminable process of becoming an American. America has faults, and I'm quick to point those out, but I am more in love with the IDEA of America and all she can be than I ever have been. DO NOT confuse my need for critical thought and my loathing of politicians with a disdain for America!

As this political season really heats up, you will often hear allegations that certain people or parties or positions are “unpatriotic,” or “un-American.” You will no doubt hear about how we are sliding into the morass of godlessness, and evidence of this secular slide comes in the form of court decisions – like the decision from a few years back ruling it a violation of our constitution for a public school to require their students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or that the phrase, “under God” should be removed. Does that make you angry? Why? From 1892 to 1954 the words “under God” were not even part of the Pledge.

The pledge was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy. He devised it on the occasion of the nation's first celebration of Columbus Day. It’s wording omitted reference not only to God but also, interestingly, to the “United States.” It said, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The key words for Bellamy were "indivisible," which recalled the Civil War and the triumph of the Union over states' rights, and "liberty and justice for all," which was supposed to strike a balance between equality and individual freedom. By the 1920s, reciting the pledge had become a ritual in many public schools. The campaign to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of the flood of religiosity of the early 1950’s. It's unclear precisely where the idea originated, but one driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress. The “under God” movement didn't take off, however, until the next year, when it was endorsed by George M. Docherty, the minister of the Presbyterian Church in Washington that Eisenhower attended. In February 1954, Docherty gave a sermon - with the president in the pew before him - arguing that apart from "the United States of America," the pledge "could be the pledge of any country." He added, "I could hear little Moscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity." Perhaps forgetting that "liberty and justice for all" was not the norm in Moscow, Docherty urged the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge to denote what he felt was special about the United States. The ensuing congressional speeches offered more proof that the point of the bill was to promote religion. The legislative intent of the 1954 act stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our government upon the Creator,” and to “deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." In signing the bill on June 14, 1954, Flag Day, Eisenhower delighted in the fact that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

This had not always been the case, however. In 1943 Chief Justice Robert Jackson wrote the following when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to force school children to recite the Pledge: “Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

And, one more thing. Should Christians pledge allegiance to any flag or government or nation anyway? Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Caesar (any government) may have your money, but only God is entitled to your allegiance and full devotion. The Jehovah's Witnesses may be right on this one. Your thoughts?

What a Picture!

2008-07-07T21:30:00.003-05:00

One of the most popular blogs worldwide is called Postsecret. All they do is post anonymous confessions that people write on one side of a postcard and mail in. This is hardcore heartbreaking stuff. This one really grabbed me by the hear!

Continuing to Mock . . .

2008-07-01T13:11:00.003-05:00

In the spirit of making fun of our government, all elected officials, and especially the State Department, I offer this video from The Onion. Enjoy.

Nation Of Andorra Not In Africa, Shocked U.S. State Dept. Reports

Life Imitates the Onion

2008-06-25T16:38:00.004-05:00

Sometimes I come across a news article that is so bizarre, I think I’m reading The Onion – which is the greatest piece of satire and parody ever written! But no, I am soon jarred back to my battered senses by the sheer inanity that this is real! Today’s Wall Street Journal carried an article on how the Democrats are planning their August Convention in Denver to be the “greenest” ever! Yeah, whatever!!

Here’s how absurd this is. The volunteers need caps and fanny packs – but they have to be made from organic cotton, by unionized, U.S. workers. The only problem – such a product does not exist! They intend to use biodegradable balloons – and to prove they are biodegradable; organizers have buried balloons in a steaming compost heap. Plates and utensils must be biodegradable as well. Volunteers, decked out in green shirts, will watch to make sure that every scrap of trash is put in the “proper” trash bin. 70 Percent of all food must be locally grown to cut down on fuel usage hauling in food. Fried foods will not be permitted. And to make sure it’s all “green,” they have hired a “carbon advisor.” (If preaching doesn’t work out for me this will be my lucrative new career.) My first suggestion – don’t run the air conditioner. Sweat it out! We’ll soon see how “cool” Obama is. Maybe they’ll have afternoon naptime? This does sound like a giant day care after all!

And to think that these hysterical, foolish, immature, clowns will be spending millions of dollars between now and November begging me to let them run the country! My response will be to mercilessly parody and make fun of them until the election! Who’s with me?

Nemesis Required!

2008-06-24T10:10:00.008-05:00

Thanks to Wade Hodges for this really great idea off Craigslist. Someone posted this last month:

"Nemesis required. 6 month project with possibility to extend:
I’ve been trying to think of ways to spice up my life. I’m 35 years old, happily married with two kids and I have a good job in insurance. But somethings missing. I feel like I’m old before my time. I need to inject some excitement into my daily routine through my arm before its too late. I need a challenge, something to get the adrenaline pumping again. An addiction would be nice, but, in short, I need a nemesis. I’m willing to pay $350 up front for you services as an arch enemy over the next six months. Nothing crazy. Steal my parking space, knock my coffee over, trip me when Im running to catch the BART and occasionaly whisper in my ear, “Ahha, we meet again”. That kind of thing. Just keep me on my toes. Complacency will be the death of me. You need to have an evil streak and be blessed with innate guile and cunning. You should also be adept at inconsicuous pursuit. Evil laugh preferred. Send me a photo and a brief explanation why you would be a good nemesis. British accent preferred."

Isn't that great? I wonder if I have any nemeses? I wonder if I am someone's nemesis? Mmmm? Who is your nemesis?

Take a Look in the Mirror America

2008-06-19T22:22:00.007-05:00

Here are some observations that are troubling me this Juneteenth. I heard on the radio that a pet store in Dallas was selling all BLACK cats and dogs at half-price today! At last weekend's Texas state Republican convention, buttons were being sold that said, "If Obama is President ... will we still call it the White House?" The same group also sold buttons with Hillary Clinton's picture that said, "Life's a bitch. Don't vote for one." Exit polls in southern states have many white voters admitting that they did not vote for Obama because he is black. At a recent Obama rally a Muslim woman was removed because she was wearing a headscarf, and that wouldn't look good on TV. And let's not forget New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin's "chocolate city" remarks from a few years ago.

This election is going to show America and the world what we are, and what we are NOT in terms of racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance. And so far . . . it does not look good for us!!!

Food and Drink Prohibited

2008-06-13T10:55:00.004-05:00

I have been scanning various church's facility guidelines. Many churches make this statement, and I have even seen this sign posted in a few church foyers, banning food and drink from the "auditorium." So, what is the problem with this? What strikes you as odd?

What is the Object of Your Worship?

2008-06-09T10:55:00.003-05:00

From time to time I level some harsh criticism against Churches of Christ on this blog. I can do this because I am the ultimate insider - I "grew up in the church," I never missed Sunday School, we went every Wednesday night and Sunday night, I was part of the youth group, I worked VBS every year, I was baptized as a teenager, I have been educated in Church of Christ schools, and I have preached for 10 years in 3 congregations. The Church of Christ is in my DNA. There are things I love dearly about Churches of Christ, and there are also flaws and inconsistencies that I cannot ignore. To do so would be evidence of brainwashing. I want all my readers who have been critical of me recently to remember that this blog is a protest against brainwashing and blind acceptance of things that ought to be smashed to pieces with a rhetorical sledgehammer! So, if you care to stick with me, I want to take a sledgehammer to your most basic assumptions with a simple question: WHAT IS THE OBJECT OF YOUR WORSHIP? And yes, there is only ONE correct answer!

God?
The Church (any church)?
The Church of Christ?
The Bible?
Traditions?
A political party?
The United States?
The military of the United States?
Certain cultural values and expressions (eg: "southern hospitality")?
Capitalism?

The answer is GOD. Only God is to be worshipped. Anything other than God is idolatry. The reason why I am so harsh in my criticism of traditional and inflexible churches and Christians is because I see people WORSHIPPING the institution of the church, the Bible, traditions, and even the U.S. The extreme defensiveness and sometimes harsh reactions of people who feel threatened by my criticisms is evidence of this. So, please, worship God, but have the maturity of thought and attitude to CHILL OUT about everything else!

PS: "Chill out" is the best theological phrase I've learned in over 10 years of graduate school! Feel free to quote me liberally on this.

A Church That Flies

2008-06-02T15:44:00.003-05:00

I started a new sermon series yesterday, that a lot of people have responded to very well. So, for those you who weren't there, here's the transcript of the sermon:

I want to begin by explaining a very important distinction that we have sometimes blurred. The largest bell ever cast is known as the emperor’s bell. It is the largest bell in the world. It weighs 440 000 pounds, it is 23 feet in diameter. It was cast in Russia to celebrate the coronation of Tsar Kolokol III. There was a problem, however. The bell could not be hoisted into position. They tried. It fell, and a 12-ton piece broke off the lip. The bell now stands as an ornament in a public park. It has never rang, not once.

Point: Sometimes the form of something (how it looks) can overwhelm its function (what it was intended to do). A bell, regardless of how big and beautiful it looks, is not a bell if it cannot ring. It is useless if it cannot make a sound.

If you drive out of town in any direction, you are likely to go by a junkyard. And you’ll see rows and rows of rusted out cars. Some still have their wheels on. They all pretty much look like cars. They have the form of cars. But the problem is that none of them can get me from point A to point B. They no longer function as cars - and it really doesn’t matter that they look like cars, if they can’t transport me, they don’t work like cars.

One more example: Holly used to work for a foundation that operated 4 house museums. They’re wonderful homes, full of furniture from the Civil War period. Now if I were to take a tour through one of those museums, and I got tired, and sat down on one of these antique chairs, the docent would throw a fit. They’d have me off that chair before I could take a breath! Why? Because what looks like a chair no longer serves the function of a chair. A chair is built, by design, to sit in - that is why it has a seat, a back, and 4 legs. And if you ever come across a piece of furniture that has a seat, a back, and 4 legs, and you may not, under any circumstances, sit in it - well, it’s useless.

So we have two concepts now:
Form (how something looks, its shape, its characteristics)
Function (what it does, and why - its purpose)

Baptism is a great example of form and function working together – the form of baptism is immersion in water b/c the function of baptism is a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection, and a washing away of sin. The reason why you do something precedes the specifics of how you do it. How you do something is only important if you’re doing it for the right reasons. In other words, form (what something looks like, how you do something) is important, but it always follows after and serves function (why you do something, its purpose).

I have been conducting an informal poll – asking people to name the “marks” of the church. What the church looks like. And, predictably, they rattled off the usual list - acapella singing, weekly communion, giving, praying, preaching, local autonomy, plurality of elders, deacons, someone even said having the name “Church of Christ.” But then I asked them to define the function of the church. What is the work that God has called His people to accomplish? If we say that we are the body of Christ on earth, how is that body supposed to function? What is the church for? Why are we here? What is God trying to do through us? Now that is a tougher question. We know the form, but what’s the function? Or is our function to simply get the form right? Is our purpose to be a carbon copy of the 1st century church? Is that it? Surely there must be more? You can have all the forms and structures and language down just right – you can have acapella singing, weekly communion, local autonomy, plurality of elders, deacons – you can even have the “right” name on the sign outside: “Church of Christ” – and be of no use to God. You might as well be a chair in a museum!

So, what are the functions God wants us to perform? What are the goals God wants us to strive for? It has become fashionable to say that we have an “identity crisis” in the church. Well, we don’t. We know who we are. We have a functional crisis in the church. We don’t know what to do! We have wings, but we don’t know how to fly! Instead of asking “how did they do things in the NT?” let’s ask “what were they about? What was their business? And why? What functions did the church perform? What is the business of the Kingdom of God? What goals and ambitions should we embrace? What purposes are central to our very existence?

From our reading of Acts 2 (42-47) and the rest of the book of Acts, I believe there are 7 basic functions of the church: Worship, Holiness, Being a Community, Maturing each other (discipleship), Service, Witness, Influence. This is the work that God has entrusted to His church. These are purposes to pursue - these things transcend time, culture, circumstance. These things are important and necessary for the church to function and exist and bring glory to God. And in the time remaining today we’re going to briefly look at the first function of the church – next week we’ll talk about holiness, community, and discipleship, and the week after that we’ll talk about service, witness, and influence.

1) God’s People are Called to Worship.
Worship is the primary function of God’s people – b/c worship is the acknowledgement that God is in our presence, that He is holy, and we are not!

Isaiah 6:1-5

We must worship. We must let our praises ring out. It is something we cannot not do! Under Moses, the first 2 of the 10 commandments addressed worship. The entire book of Psalms is the record of the worship of the Israelites. The NT church was primarily a worshipping community. Worship is an attitude and lifestyle - it was, and still is, a way of glorifying God in all we do. Worship was the reason the early church came together, and it is the reason we come together.

But we need to remember that true worship must never be confused with assemblies and rituals - it is, rather, the experience of the presence of God in our lives. Worship is when we see our own brokenness, and we express our gratitude to God, with joy, and fear, and humility. The language of worship transcends words. God demands that our worship honor Him and change our lives. Worship is not just an event you attend, it is not merely a set of rules to follow. It is an experience you cannot live without!

And perhaps, the most important practical implication of worship is that it has to change my life. There has to be a consistency between what we do in here one hour on a Sunday, and what we do out there the rest of the week. Worship has to change my life. This inconsistency is what the Jews of old were condemned for:
Isaiah 1:11-17

Our final text is a description of what heaven will be like, and no surprise, it is endless worship in the presence of God forever. But it is worship based on the notion that God, out of His great love for us, actually did something that benefits us greatly!
Revelation 5:1-14