I watched a clip last night on an interview by Charlie Rose on CBS with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and was embarrassed to hear the political leader of a rogue state that seems to understand what America does not. Watch the video at this link, I couldn't see a way to embed it at around the 1 minute mark.
Did you catch that? You don't combat terror by arming the next generation of terrorists, you will never "defeat" terrorism by giving rise to a new group of terrorists to fight the current terrorists.
Duh.
Yet that is precisely what our President and Congress are going to do, walking lockstep in folly when they can't agree on anything else.
Welcome to the Roman Empire. Plenty of people are fiddling while it burns down around us.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Romancing the Anabaptists
I love me some Anabaptists. I first got turned on to them thanks to Dave Black, and it is quite an accomplishment and a testament to Dr. Black's infectious enthusiasm that I gave them serious consideration after years of listening to the White Horse Inn where every ill in the church could be traced back to the Anabaptists (and every ill could be solved by applying more "word and sacrament"). So I am of course as pleased as anyone that these Reformation era brethren are experiencing a major revitalization of interest in the church.
Having said that....
I am concerned that many Christians are romanticizing the Anabaptists and turning them into something they were not. In doing so they risk completely missing the very important lessons that Anabaptists can teach the church today by trying to make the Anabaptists fit into a contemporary model that really has nothing to do with what they believed. Yes they believed in and practiced non-resistance but there is a lot more to them than that. As a result of their persecution the Anabaptists rarely had time to sit down and pen lengthy theological treatises and I am afraid that has given license to many contemporary thinkers to "fill in the blanks". This pop culture "Anabaptism" where Anabaptist becomes a word that means whatever I want it to does a disservice to the Anabaptists and the contemporary church alike.
The Anabaptists were a people under constant persecution, not for being too lax with the Scriptures but being too literal. Far from being unorthodox or disinterested in orthodoxy they were a people deeply concerned with right belief and right practice. They weren't especially ecumenical (read Menno Simons speaking about the pope and Roman Catholicism). They held to some pretty traditional ideas on doctrines like hell. They certainly were not loosey goosey about doctrine, in fact they were just the opposite. They suffered persecution because of their refusal to compromise.
Fast forward four hundred years or so and you get a pretty divided manifestation of "Anabaptism". On the one hand you have the traditional Anabaptist groups like the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites and other groups that are visibly recognizable by their dress and manner (usually plain, coverings for women, often technologically averse). I believe that these historically Anabaptist groups would be more recognizable to the original Anabaptists than the second group although I think they (the original Anabaptists) would be troubled by the insularity and general disinterest (or outright aversion) to evangelism their progeny exhibit.
The second group, what I and many others call "neo-anabaptism", includes a smorgasbord of beliefs that are all over the place but (and this is a pretty broad generalization) tend to fall way to the left on the theological scale. Most prominent voices promote "egalitarianism", reject substitutionary ideas of the atonement, advance ideas that border on (or leap right over the border) of universalism or at least a rejection of a literal hell. In spite of my general dislike of these sorts of fanciful notions and the time-space continuum paradox they would cause I would hazard to guess that Menno Simons and company would be bewildered by the positions held by many of those who claim a contemporary affinity with them. When many contemporary Christians talk about Anabaptism what they are really talking about is a romanticized, and perhaps hijacked, version of an important movement in the church that bears little practical resemblance to what their forefathers believed and practiced. It seems like neo-Anabaptists define Anabaptism by definitions that have nothing to do with the Anabaptists other than Anabaptist non-resistance, which looks very different from militant political pacifism (pun intended). I am sure that characterization will rub many in the neo-Anabaptist camp the wrong way but I call 'em like I see 'em.
Some of this is the fault of evangelicalism. There is not really a home for peacemaking in what passes for the church loosely defined under the umbrella of evangelicalism, whether you are talking Reformed denominations or charismatic groups or run of the mill Baptists to non-denominational churches. The idea of practical peacemaking simply doesn't get any sort of consideration, leaving only the fringe left of the theological spectrum as a home for those who eschew redemptive violence. Ideas like redemptive violence, "just war" and the myriad hypothetical situations and geo-political rationales we invoke to excuse or even celebrate our rejection of peacemaking are so deeply entrenched in mainstream evangelicalism that peacemaking rarely gets even a cursory examination. This leaves a lot of Christians without many options. Peacemaking is not a new concept and it certainly is not a "progressive" or liberal idea. It is deeply embedded in the foundations of the Gospel.
Anyway, back to my point. We stand on the cusp of a seismic change for the church in America. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it will have a similar impact, although a very different one, that the Reformation had on the church. As we look to the past to help us face the future there are few historical manifestations of the church that are as potentially valuable as the Anabaptists. We risk missing the timely and critical lessons they have to teach us if we remove the real people who suffered for standing firm for the truth in a hostile culture and replace them with neutered, politically correct shills for a cornucopia of "progressive" ideology. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of great people who fall into the category of "neo-Anabaptist", many of them Christians doing great things for God. They have some worthwhile things to say and I am not saying they can't call themselves Anabaptists. I just wish they would study more of the actual Anabaptists to understand what made them uniquely valuable to the contemporary church rather than the romanticized version we so often see today.
Having said that....
I am concerned that many Christians are romanticizing the Anabaptists and turning them into something they were not. In doing so they risk completely missing the very important lessons that Anabaptists can teach the church today by trying to make the Anabaptists fit into a contemporary model that really has nothing to do with what they believed. Yes they believed in and practiced non-resistance but there is a lot more to them than that. As a result of their persecution the Anabaptists rarely had time to sit down and pen lengthy theological treatises and I am afraid that has given license to many contemporary thinkers to "fill in the blanks". This pop culture "Anabaptism" where Anabaptist becomes a word that means whatever I want it to does a disservice to the Anabaptists and the contemporary church alike.
The Anabaptists were a people under constant persecution, not for being too lax with the Scriptures but being too literal. Far from being unorthodox or disinterested in orthodoxy they were a people deeply concerned with right belief and right practice. They weren't especially ecumenical (read Menno Simons speaking about the pope and Roman Catholicism). They held to some pretty traditional ideas on doctrines like hell. They certainly were not loosey goosey about doctrine, in fact they were just the opposite. They suffered persecution because of their refusal to compromise.
Fast forward four hundred years or so and you get a pretty divided manifestation of "Anabaptism". On the one hand you have the traditional Anabaptist groups like the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites and other groups that are visibly recognizable by their dress and manner (usually plain, coverings for women, often technologically averse). I believe that these historically Anabaptist groups would be more recognizable to the original Anabaptists than the second group although I think they (the original Anabaptists) would be troubled by the insularity and general disinterest (or outright aversion) to evangelism their progeny exhibit.
The second group, what I and many others call "neo-anabaptism", includes a smorgasbord of beliefs that are all over the place but (and this is a pretty broad generalization) tend to fall way to the left on the theological scale. Most prominent voices promote "egalitarianism", reject substitutionary ideas of the atonement, advance ideas that border on (or leap right over the border) of universalism or at least a rejection of a literal hell. In spite of my general dislike of these sorts of fanciful notions and the time-space continuum paradox they would cause I would hazard to guess that Menno Simons and company would be bewildered by the positions held by many of those who claim a contemporary affinity with them. When many contemporary Christians talk about Anabaptism what they are really talking about is a romanticized, and perhaps hijacked, version of an important movement in the church that bears little practical resemblance to what their forefathers believed and practiced. It seems like neo-Anabaptists define Anabaptism by definitions that have nothing to do with the Anabaptists other than Anabaptist non-resistance, which looks very different from militant political pacifism (pun intended). I am sure that characterization will rub many in the neo-Anabaptist camp the wrong way but I call 'em like I see 'em.
Some of this is the fault of evangelicalism. There is not really a home for peacemaking in what passes for the church loosely defined under the umbrella of evangelicalism, whether you are talking Reformed denominations or charismatic groups or run of the mill Baptists to non-denominational churches. The idea of practical peacemaking simply doesn't get any sort of consideration, leaving only the fringe left of the theological spectrum as a home for those who eschew redemptive violence. Ideas like redemptive violence, "just war" and the myriad hypothetical situations and geo-political rationales we invoke to excuse or even celebrate our rejection of peacemaking are so deeply entrenched in mainstream evangelicalism that peacemaking rarely gets even a cursory examination. This leaves a lot of Christians without many options. Peacemaking is not a new concept and it certainly is not a "progressive" or liberal idea. It is deeply embedded in the foundations of the Gospel.
Anyway, back to my point. We stand on the cusp of a seismic change for the church in America. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it will have a similar impact, although a very different one, that the Reformation had on the church. As we look to the past to help us face the future there are few historical manifestations of the church that are as potentially valuable as the Anabaptists. We risk missing the timely and critical lessons they have to teach us if we remove the real people who suffered for standing firm for the truth in a hostile culture and replace them with neutered, politically correct shills for a cornucopia of "progressive" ideology. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of great people who fall into the category of "neo-Anabaptist", many of them Christians doing great things for God. They have some worthwhile things to say and I am not saying they can't call themselves Anabaptists. I just wish they would study more of the actual Anabaptists to understand what made them uniquely valuable to the contemporary church rather than the romanticized version we so often see today.
Funding Syrian rebels summed up
This was something I penned this morning and I think it is a decent summary of the push to fund "moderate" Syrian rebels...
The U.S. House has already voted in favor of, and the Senate is preparing to do the same, a proposal to spend more money we don't have to help people we can't trust in a conflict we don't understand and have no business getting involved in.
If I didn't know better I might think that we are arming these rebels to create a new threat to fight a few years down the road, the better to perpetuate this endless cycle of warfare that accomplishes nothing but killing American young men and women along with countless civilians, spending the U.S. further into debt and enriches people in America that profit from war in corporate board rooms and government offices alike.
Meanwhile NPR reports that ISIS militants have U.S. weapons. Any takers on how long before the latest round of armaments being sent to this region are being used to kill American soldiers?
The U.S. House has already voted in favor of, and the Senate is preparing to do the same, a proposal to spend more money we don't have to help people we can't trust in a conflict we don't understand and have no business getting involved in.
If I didn't know better I might think that we are arming these rebels to create a new threat to fight a few years down the road, the better to perpetuate this endless cycle of warfare that accomplishes nothing but killing American young men and women along with countless civilians, spending the U.S. further into debt and enriches people in America that profit from war in corporate board rooms and government offices alike.
Meanwhile NPR reports that ISIS militants have U.S. weapons. Any takers on how long before the latest round of armaments being sent to this region are being used to kill American soldiers?
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Here Come The Scavengers
When an animal is wounded, the scavengers start to circle hoping for an easy meal that they didn't earn. You can see this in nature films and you can see it right where you live if you are sort of in the country. A sure sign that a deer is wounded are the circling vultures. Maybe it is just me but I think I am seeing some circling in our popular culture and the wounded beast is the NFL and the well-publicized mishandling of the Ray Rice situation and the subsequent witchhunt.First on Ray Rice.
It doesn't matter if "she started it" or "she hit me first". Men don't hit women because it is cowardly and unmanly. There is nothing less genuinely masculine than hitting someone weaker than you and that is doubly true when it involves a woman. PC or not it is still true than generally speaking men are bigger and stronger than women. Just a fact. Yet we find ourselves in an era that tries to pretend that men and women are essentially the same at the same time it decries domestic violence and the "rape culture". This muddled confusion is no surprise. For a generation or more men have been inundated with the message that women are nothing special outside of their ability to provide men sexual gratification and perhaps pay the rent when the man is too lazy to get a job. Little wonder that a guy who is 220 lbs thinks nothing of beating a woman unconscious. When my X-box is frustrating me I turn it off, when a woman back-talks me I shut her up. This is the culture we live in and no one says anything unless someone famous is involved. It is the sign of a complete societal failure that men like Ray Rice think that beating up a woman is ever an option.
Is the NFL player base more prone to domestic violence based on a couple of incidents, ugly as they are, than the general population? I don't know if the statistics bear that out but certainly there are plenty of examples of domestic violence by employees of other industries. So why is this conversation dominating the news? Two words for you: Mad. Stacks. (Yo.) (OK that was three....)
Lots of cash flow plus a huge public profile = easy target for extortion
Groups are coming out of the woodwork to get in on this windfall, offering consulting services and
Raise your hand if you think that the oodles of cash being extorted from the NFL will do a thing to end domestic violence. If you have your hand raised you are a sucker. Just a little honesty for ya.
The very real issue of men hitting women (and that is different from a parent spanking a child for obvious reasons) is one that should be handled by teaching our young boys to be men when they are little. We shouldn't have to pull adult men aside and lecture them with psychobabble mumbo-jumbo about an issue that shouldn't even be an issue. Men hitting women is a failure of the understanding of men and woman as co-equal image bearers of God and the divine design of God in creating two complementary genders. It isn't hard to figure out but watch and see as the NFL pays millions in hush money to make this issue go away. Lawyers and consultants will cash in. Players will be inundated with common sense. The NFL will have protected its mad stacks. Women will still be treated like sex toys and punching bags by men who were never taught the most basic of gender rules: boys and girls are different and boys don't hit girls.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Linkage
Here are a couple some links I have liked (or didn't like but read anyway)
First, one from today by Eric Carpenter Is This A Joke? What has Eric asking that question is the constant advertisements from Ligonier Ministries for a "theology cruise". The "cheap" cabin is "only" $800 (based on double occupancy so figure $1600 minimum). Eric writes:
The add basically invites you to spend hundreds, possibly thousands, of dollars on a comfortable cruise around the Caribbean while listening to theological lectures. Could Christianity be made to seem any cushier?
The scriptures tell us that life with Christ will often be difficult. We may have to suffer due to our affiliation with Jesus. Many Christians around the world today have great struggle in their lives on a regular basis. Meanwhile, those of us with money are expected to share it with those who have little.
In light of these things, how can a comfy theology cruise be justified? While the truths taught during the theology lectures will probably be solid, the very existence of this cruise conveys something else. It says that living for Jesus is easy and fun. Frankly, this cruise appears dangerously similar to what the prosperity gospel teaches.
Yes, yes. I am a free market guy. I believe that citizens in an allegedly free society can do whatever they want with the money they earn. I also had a conversation with an Amish friend last week about the way we use wealth and the idea of being a stumbling block to the brethren. These sorts of cruises smack of the sort of elitist influence buying we see among politicians. Spend enough money and you get to hobnob with the cool theologians. The rest of you less fortunate types will have to be content with podcasts. When you consider the innumerable solicitations via mail and email I get from Ligonier warning of dire consequences if they fail to raise some insane amount of money this month, it makes you wonder if they have their financial (and Kingdom) priorities straight.
NPR reports on the way that the Islamic State (that isn't Muslim according to the Prez) uses the regions it has conquered to fund their activities, How The Islamic State Smuggles Oil To Fund Its Campaign. Well done America. We keep destabilizing this region leading to conditions where radical groups rise up and we end up going back over and over again, wasting billions of dollars we don't have and losing countless lives we can't replace or justify.
Two articles from the Washington Post on the way police use forfeiture seizure and fines to fund themselves, often at the expense of the poor, Stop and seize and How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty. I have remarked before that many (most) institutions become primarily concerned with self-preservation and perpetuation over time and it seems that law enforcement is no different. In a related story we read how a Family Could Lose Home Over Son’s Drug Possession, even though it was a minor amount.
This one really rubbed me the wrong way, Hacking Traditional College Debate's White-Privilege Problem. From the intro...
It used to be that if you went to a college-level debate tournament, the students you’d see would be bookish future lawyers from elite universities, most of them white. In matching navy blazers, they’d recite academic arguments for and against various government policies. It was tame, predictable, and, frankly, boring.
No more.
These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These “alternative-style” debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.
I get that college debate can be kind of boring and staid but in the real world there is a place for reasoned dialogue within a framework. Being able to argue your point in a calm and rational way is a critical skill in the workplace. When a meeting is winding up you can't just get up and shout "F the time!". That gets you fired and rightly so. This is just another way that the "academic" world is so removed from the real world that it is actually hurting people preparing for life outside of the campus.
Russ Moore speaks to the issue of domestic violence in light of the Ray Rice video and suspension, The Church and Violence Against Women. He says:
An abusive man is not an over-enthusiastic complementarian. He is not a complementarian at all. He is rejecting male headship because he rejecting his role as provider and protector. As the culture grows more violent, more consumerist, more sexualized and more misogynistic, the answer is not a church more attenuated to the ambient culture, whether through a hyper-masculine paganism or through a gender-neutral feminism.
Complementarianism rightly understood is the very antithesis of violence against women because it understands that men should treat their wives as Christ treated the church.
That is some of what I have been reading for the last week or so, enjoy!
First, one from today by Eric Carpenter Is This A Joke? What has Eric asking that question is the constant advertisements from Ligonier Ministries for a "theology cruise". The "cheap" cabin is "only" $800 (based on double occupancy so figure $1600 minimum). Eric writes:
The add basically invites you to spend hundreds, possibly thousands, of dollars on a comfortable cruise around the Caribbean while listening to theological lectures. Could Christianity be made to seem any cushier?
The scriptures tell us that life with Christ will often be difficult. We may have to suffer due to our affiliation with Jesus. Many Christians around the world today have great struggle in their lives on a regular basis. Meanwhile, those of us with money are expected to share it with those who have little.
In light of these things, how can a comfy theology cruise be justified? While the truths taught during the theology lectures will probably be solid, the very existence of this cruise conveys something else. It says that living for Jesus is easy and fun. Frankly, this cruise appears dangerously similar to what the prosperity gospel teaches.
Yes, yes. I am a free market guy. I believe that citizens in an allegedly free society can do whatever they want with the money they earn. I also had a conversation with an Amish friend last week about the way we use wealth and the idea of being a stumbling block to the brethren. These sorts of cruises smack of the sort of elitist influence buying we see among politicians. Spend enough money and you get to hobnob with the cool theologians. The rest of you less fortunate types will have to be content with podcasts. When you consider the innumerable solicitations via mail and email I get from Ligonier warning of dire consequences if they fail to raise some insane amount of money this month, it makes you wonder if they have their financial (and Kingdom) priorities straight.
NPR reports on the way that the Islamic State (that isn't Muslim according to the Prez) uses the regions it has conquered to fund their activities, How The Islamic State Smuggles Oil To Fund Its Campaign. Well done America. We keep destabilizing this region leading to conditions where radical groups rise up and we end up going back over and over again, wasting billions of dollars we don't have and losing countless lives we can't replace or justify.
Two articles from the Washington Post on the way police use forfeiture seizure and fines to fund themselves, often at the expense of the poor, Stop and seize and How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty. I have remarked before that many (most) institutions become primarily concerned with self-preservation and perpetuation over time and it seems that law enforcement is no different. In a related story we read how a Family Could Lose Home Over Son’s Drug Possession, even though it was a minor amount.
This one really rubbed me the wrong way, Hacking Traditional College Debate's White-Privilege Problem. From the intro...
It used to be that if you went to a college-level debate tournament, the students you’d see would be bookish future lawyers from elite universities, most of them white. In matching navy blazers, they’d recite academic arguments for and against various government policies. It was tame, predictable, and, frankly, boring.
No more.
These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These “alternative-style” debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.
I get that college debate can be kind of boring and staid but in the real world there is a place for reasoned dialogue within a framework. Being able to argue your point in a calm and rational way is a critical skill in the workplace. When a meeting is winding up you can't just get up and shout "F the time!". That gets you fired and rightly so. This is just another way that the "academic" world is so removed from the real world that it is actually hurting people preparing for life outside of the campus.
Russ Moore speaks to the issue of domestic violence in light of the Ray Rice video and suspension, The Church and Violence Against Women. He says:
An abusive man is not an over-enthusiastic complementarian. He is not a complementarian at all. He is rejecting male headship because he rejecting his role as provider and protector. As the culture grows more violent, more consumerist, more sexualized and more misogynistic, the answer is not a church more attenuated to the ambient culture, whether through a hyper-masculine paganism or through a gender-neutral feminism.
Complementarianism rightly understood is the very antithesis of violence against women because it understands that men should treat their wives as Christ treated the church.
That is some of what I have been reading for the last week or so, enjoy!
Friday, September 12, 2014
That is what they were laughing about
I saw the picture of former Presidents Clinton and Bush laughing together the other day and wondered what was so funny. I think I figured it out so I created a meme to capture their moment of jocularity.....
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
The Foolishness of Fear
Of all people those who believe, truly believe, in Christ ought to be the least fearful around.We should have absolute confidence in the eternal perspective and promise of God.
Why then, at least based on social media, are Christians so terrified of anything and everything. I mean like trembling in fear exhibited in impotent and empty bravado and rhetoric. Two recent events have highlighted this disturbing trend for me.
The first was the widely publicized return of two American missionaries who had contracted Ebola while serving in the mission field. I emphasized the words above because it was staggering to see that a number of Christians were dead-set against having these American missionaries come back to....America. One of the people I noticed just frothing at the mouth about this was a prominent blogger who talks a lot about the sovereignty of God. I guess that sovereignty only extends within the four walls of church buildings. What was really troubling about the reaction to the returning of these missionaries was the implied accusation that they kinda had it coming for going somewhere with sick people. It seemed that some people who claimed to be Christians were of the opinion that if you want to leave the comfortable confines of your pew and be somewhere more than 15 minutes from an American medical facility you just gotta take your chances and you certainly shouldn't come back here where you might infect some other Americans. In spite of crazy precautions being taken, which to someone who is not a medical professional or "scientist" made me quite confident that no contamination would happen, there still were many of us who thought that the risks outweighed the benefit to these American missionaries coming home for world-class medical care, care which worked and saved their lives enabling them to continue to serve Christ in a more meaningful way than posting on a blog.
The other event is ongoing and has to do with the persecution of Christians in Iraq and elsewhere that has escalated in recent months.We have been inundated with horrific reports and photos, many accurate and others not, leading to calls from many Christians to turn once again to Caesar to rescue our brothers and sisters from the sword by using the sword. I understand the impulse. We have family members being tortured and put to death by people who are one step above animals. Our immediate response is to use the unquestioned might of the American military to put a stop to it. What we forget, mired as we are in immediacy bias, is that every single time we have sent American troops into that region it has turned out badly. Western interventionism is one of the root causes that has destabilized this region and allowed an already demonic religion to be turned into a semi-organized force that now threatens our siblings. These atrocities against Christians and the public beheading of the two journalists are callously designed to draw America into more direct conflict with ISIS/ISIL. They don't fear American intervention. They want it. Anyway, geopolitical issues aside the greater concern is how Christians in the West respond to persecution when it happens overseas. The answer is usually a combination of empty social media gestures and calls for airstrikes even if we know deep down that those airstrikes invariably kill innocents while trying to defend innocents. I am concerned that as Christendom crumbles and the cozy Kingdom-hiding cocoon of American religious tradition evaporates that many of people will respond in the same way here at home. Bigger picture, every time we are faced with a new threat, real or perceived, we respond in fear.
Brothers it shouldn't be this way. We are motivated by fear far more than love in the church in America, at least in the largely white and middle- to -upper-class church I am familiar with. Fear of terrorists. Fear of illegal immigrants. Fear of criminals breaking into their houses. Fear of sickness. Fear of poverty. Fear of someone taking away "our way of life". Fear of everything and anything except what we ought to fear.
Our Lord had a lot to say about this issue. Jesus told us that fear of man is fear misplaced.
"I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! (Luke 12:4-5)
What have we to fear from man? What can ISIS to do us? Behead me? Go ahead, may my last moments be spent praising God as my Anabaptists forerunners often did before being martyred by the religious authorities. Perhaps in my death, as I pass from this world to eternal life, the manner of my death might be a witness to my killer that he in turn might repent and be saved. The historical Anabaptists understood what Paul wrote in Philippians...
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have. (Php 1:27-30)
Suffering as He suffered is just part of our lives. We are a people set apart from the world and our changed lives are a direct challenge to the world, a challenge that is usually met with revulsion, mockery and persecution. When we let fear of man dominate us, our impulse is to turn back to the world for security. This fear dominates us and emasculates our witness. I am not seeking out suffering but I am not surprised if it comes. We live in a culture of fear but we are fearing all of the wrong things.
"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Luke 12:32-34)
Why then, at least based on social media, are Christians so terrified of anything and everything. I mean like trembling in fear exhibited in impotent and empty bravado and rhetoric. Two recent events have highlighted this disturbing trend for me.
The first was the widely publicized return of two American missionaries who had contracted Ebola while serving in the mission field. I emphasized the words above because it was staggering to see that a number of Christians were dead-set against having these American missionaries come back to....America. One of the people I noticed just frothing at the mouth about this was a prominent blogger who talks a lot about the sovereignty of God. I guess that sovereignty only extends within the four walls of church buildings. What was really troubling about the reaction to the returning of these missionaries was the implied accusation that they kinda had it coming for going somewhere with sick people. It seemed that some people who claimed to be Christians were of the opinion that if you want to leave the comfortable confines of your pew and be somewhere more than 15 minutes from an American medical facility you just gotta take your chances and you certainly shouldn't come back here where you might infect some other Americans. In spite of crazy precautions being taken, which to someone who is not a medical professional or "scientist" made me quite confident that no contamination would happen, there still were many of us who thought that the risks outweighed the benefit to these American missionaries coming home for world-class medical care, care which worked and saved their lives enabling them to continue to serve Christ in a more meaningful way than posting on a blog.
The other event is ongoing and has to do with the persecution of Christians in Iraq and elsewhere that has escalated in recent months.We have been inundated with horrific reports and photos, many accurate and others not, leading to calls from many Christians to turn once again to Caesar to rescue our brothers and sisters from the sword by using the sword. I understand the impulse. We have family members being tortured and put to death by people who are one step above animals. Our immediate response is to use the unquestioned might of the American military to put a stop to it. What we forget, mired as we are in immediacy bias, is that every single time we have sent American troops into that region it has turned out badly. Western interventionism is one of the root causes that has destabilized this region and allowed an already demonic religion to be turned into a semi-organized force that now threatens our siblings. These atrocities against Christians and the public beheading of the two journalists are callously designed to draw America into more direct conflict with ISIS/ISIL. They don't fear American intervention. They want it. Anyway, geopolitical issues aside the greater concern is how Christians in the West respond to persecution when it happens overseas. The answer is usually a combination of empty social media gestures and calls for airstrikes even if we know deep down that those airstrikes invariably kill innocents while trying to defend innocents. I am concerned that as Christendom crumbles and the cozy Kingdom-hiding cocoon of American religious tradition evaporates that many of people will respond in the same way here at home. Bigger picture, every time we are faced with a new threat, real or perceived, we respond in fear.
Brothers it shouldn't be this way. We are motivated by fear far more than love in the church in America, at least in the largely white and middle- to -upper-class church I am familiar with. Fear of terrorists. Fear of illegal immigrants. Fear of criminals breaking into their houses. Fear of sickness. Fear of poverty. Fear of someone taking away "our way of life". Fear of everything and anything except what we ought to fear.
Our Lord had a lot to say about this issue. Jesus told us that fear of man is fear misplaced.
"I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! (Luke 12:4-5)
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have. (Php 1:27-30)
Suffering as He suffered is just part of our lives. We are a people set apart from the world and our changed lives are a direct challenge to the world, a challenge that is usually met with revulsion, mockery and persecution. When we let fear of man dominate us, our impulse is to turn back to the world for security. This fear dominates us and emasculates our witness. I am not seeking out suffering but I am not surprised if it comes. We live in a culture of fear but we are fearing all of the wrong things.
"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Luke 12:32-34)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)