Monday, July 14, 2008
God help us...
Let's see... how exactly is promoting a church youth group event by giving away a gun *not* a bad idea? Hmmm... maybe I'll drop by this church the next time I visit my parents in Oklahoma City. On the other hand, maybe I won't.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
for thought and discussion...
Here are a few thoughts that I've been mulling around, brought to mind by some recent academic conflicts over the proper way(s) to interpret Scripture:
As the Gospel accounts were turned into written documentation, via the development of the Bible and the establishment of the Creeds, there was (and still is) a great danger that Christianity might be reduced from a response, in faith, to the revelation of God's grace into a systematized pattern of belief which suits one particular interpretation of Scripture or Creeds.
But if God is, in fact, God, and Scripture is God's written revelation about Jesus Christ - who was and is the greatest revelation of God - then we ought to admit at least one thing: The Christian faith will always be bigger (though certainly not smaller) than our systems. It will always reach wider than our ability to grasp or control.
Certainly, structure is important, especially when dealing with a religion that encompasses a full third of the world's population. But structure and control are quite different. One might rightly ask the question, "Then how do we prevent misuse or corruption of the Gospel?" I believe the answer is, ultimately, we don't. God does that. We can (and should) do our best to be faithful with what we've been given, but when another Christian falls outside of the boundaries we consider "orthodox," we need to be very careful to separate our idea of orthodoxy from the faith of that person (assuming they are genuinely seeking God, which is another issue we cannot grasp or control).
Which means we need to cast a wider net for grace. We need to remain as minimalistic as possible with our faith, and give God's grace the freedom to work, rather than assuming a role as guardians of "the Truth." God's Truth is not our possession, it possesses us. And if we believe that, we need to trust that God will take care of all who seek Him, even if we don't agree with their views.
This requires a fundamental shift in our thinking: Rather than being afraid to live/work/worship with those who fall outside our particular confession of faith, we should embrace the opportunity to honestly engage with other believers in any setting -- allowing that even if we are meeting with someone who ultimately is not a Christian, that isn't the point. The point is to trust that God will be revealing Truth as Christians interact with others in the Spirit's power.
That power, it seems to me, is not primarily manifested in writing up documents in order to determine how we will live and interact, it is IN the living and the interacting, in the struggle and the growth that comes from allowing ourselves to have a wide view of God's grace and watching as God draws people from all backgrounds, nations, and walks of life to Himself. Does this paradigm also contain certain dangers? Of course. But in my estimation, the dangers of relinquishing our attempts to control the Truth and living with a wider view of God's grace pale in comparison to the danger of reducing the Gospel to a system we can manage, because that is nothing more than idolatry - the creation of a god in our own image.
As the Gospel accounts were turned into written documentation, via the development of the Bible and the establishment of the Creeds, there was (and still is) a great danger that Christianity might be reduced from a response, in faith, to the revelation of God's grace into a systematized pattern of belief which suits one particular interpretation of Scripture or Creeds.
But if God is, in fact, God, and Scripture is God's written revelation about Jesus Christ - who was and is the greatest revelation of God - then we ought to admit at least one thing: The Christian faith will always be bigger (though certainly not smaller) than our systems. It will always reach wider than our ability to grasp or control.
Certainly, structure is important, especially when dealing with a religion that encompasses a full third of the world's population. But structure and control are quite different. One might rightly ask the question, "Then how do we prevent misuse or corruption of the Gospel?" I believe the answer is, ultimately, we don't. God does that. We can (and should) do our best to be faithful with what we've been given, but when another Christian falls outside of the boundaries we consider "orthodox," we need to be very careful to separate our idea of orthodoxy from the faith of that person (assuming they are genuinely seeking God, which is another issue we cannot grasp or control).
Which means we need to cast a wider net for grace. We need to remain as minimalistic as possible with our faith, and give God's grace the freedom to work, rather than assuming a role as guardians of "the Truth." God's Truth is not our possession, it possesses us. And if we believe that, we need to trust that God will take care of all who seek Him, even if we don't agree with their views.
This requires a fundamental shift in our thinking: Rather than being afraid to live/work/worship with those who fall outside our particular confession of faith, we should embrace the opportunity to honestly engage with other believers in any setting -- allowing that even if we are meeting with someone who ultimately is not a Christian, that isn't the point. The point is to trust that God will be revealing Truth as Christians interact with others in the Spirit's power.
That power, it seems to me, is not primarily manifested in writing up documents in order to determine how we will live and interact, it is IN the living and the interacting, in the struggle and the growth that comes from allowing ourselves to have a wide view of God's grace and watching as God draws people from all backgrounds, nations, and walks of life to Himself. Does this paradigm also contain certain dangers? Of course. But in my estimation, the dangers of relinquishing our attempts to control the Truth and living with a wider view of God's grace pale in comparison to the danger of reducing the Gospel to a system we can manage, because that is nothing more than idolatry - the creation of a god in our own image.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
opening another can of worms... :-)
First substantial post in several weeks... might as well make it controversial!
A recent report on NPR discussed the possible ramifications of the CA Supreme Court's ruling in favor of gay marriage. One growing trend appears to be an intensification of the legal struggles between gay rights advocates and religious organizations. My guess is that most gay people don’t want to force people to accept them by enacting legislation. However, just as there are religious advocates who desire to push their particular moral agenda on the nation, there are also those in the GLBT community who have their own legislative agenda. And, there are just some people who are "sue-happy."
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." (The key phrase is, of course, "any place of public accommodation") Whether everyone likes it or not, citizens of the United States have been given the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they are not harming someone else or don't directly infringe on someone else's freedom to live their lives as well.
What disturbs me are situations like the recent one in NM where a Christian photographer who refused to take marriage pictures for a gay couple was then sued, and was ordered to pay $6600 in legal fees for discrimination. Discrimination? Let’s be honest here - more or less, this lawsuit seems to be about hurt feelings. I cannot see how this, in any way, falls under the auspices of civil rights. Is it my right to never have my feelings hurt? To never have anyone refuse what I ask them to do? Does saying you disagree with someone’s behavior automatically count as discrimination?
Such a perspective suffers from terribly flawed logic: Can you imagine a world where everyone was obligated to perform any service asked of them, simply because to refuse would be "discrimination?" Would a gay photographer be content with having to take pictures of Fred Phelps' family holding their cruel "God hates fags" signs, because of "civil rights?" Or, as another person suggested, what about forcing a vegetarian to make a promotional video for a butcher shop, so as to avoid any intimation of discrimination? When everyone can claim discrimination for any reason, no one can claim discrimination for any reason.
The response, I'm sure, would be that any business which is open to the public cannot refuse services to anyone on grounds like race, sexual orientation, etc. because that is the law. (Even though sexual orientation is not explicitly addressed in the FCRA) But what I wonder is: Will forcing a photographer to take wedding pictures of a gay couple really bring about the kind of change that gay rights advocates hope for? Or is it not just a reflection of the kind of tactics that religious fundamentalists have used against gay people? Why emulate that approach?
Of course, this is a difficult ethical area to traverse, because - for example - without civil rights, Jim Crow-era restaurants could still continue to refuse service to minorities. And that would be bad - just as all bigotry is bad. But, if possible, I'd rather have the community regulate that racist behavior by putting that restaurant out of business, than have to rely on the government to make the bigots serve black people.
Bringing about a change in behavior from within the community is always preferable to having to rely on pressure from the outside to force a change in behavior. Unless it's a systemic problem, in which case the government may have to step in. And I think there have been times when that's been necessary, but I don't think that's ever the best solution. And even if there is systemic discrimination, that can only be resolved to a point, because all Americans are allowed their own freedoms, no matter how insulting, to a point. Whether we like it or not, there are still a lot of bigots out there. And they are free to be bigots.
It seems we are in the midst of a struggle between the freedom of religion and the rights of gays. In my opinion, the first thing that needs to happen is that people on both sides need to be reminded that one of these freedoms is not superior to the other in our constitution.
No matter how much believers may hate to admit it, our nation was not founded on the idea that religious freedom is superior to other kinds of personal freedom. On the other hand, despite the apparent mindset of a vast majority of our culture, my own individual freedom is not superior to the freedom of the other person. The problem, I think, is there are people on both sides who aren't willing to admit these realities. Until they do, the conflict will never be resolved properly in an ethical sense. It will continue to be resolved by legal means, and that will create further suspicion and hostility.
To impose any subjective political agenda - religious, gay, or otherwise - on the rest of the nation is contrary to the reasoning behind the founding of America. Freedom, as my friend Roy says, is a two-way street. If you expect a freedom for yourself, you have to allow it for the other person as well. That may not always be easy to accept, but it is the American way.
A recent report on NPR discussed the possible ramifications of the CA Supreme Court's ruling in favor of gay marriage. One growing trend appears to be an intensification of the legal struggles between gay rights advocates and religious organizations. My guess is that most gay people don’t want to force people to accept them by enacting legislation. However, just as there are religious advocates who desire to push their particular moral agenda on the nation, there are also those in the GLBT community who have their own legislative agenda. And, there are just some people who are "sue-happy."
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." (The key phrase is, of course, "any place of public accommodation") Whether everyone likes it or not, citizens of the United States have been given the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they are not harming someone else or don't directly infringe on someone else's freedom to live their lives as well.
What disturbs me are situations like the recent one in NM where a Christian photographer who refused to take marriage pictures for a gay couple was then sued, and was ordered to pay $6600 in legal fees for discrimination. Discrimination? Let’s be honest here - more or less, this lawsuit seems to be about hurt feelings. I cannot see how this, in any way, falls under the auspices of civil rights. Is it my right to never have my feelings hurt? To never have anyone refuse what I ask them to do? Does saying you disagree with someone’s behavior automatically count as discrimination?
Such a perspective suffers from terribly flawed logic: Can you imagine a world where everyone was obligated to perform any service asked of them, simply because to refuse would be "discrimination?" Would a gay photographer be content with having to take pictures of Fred Phelps' family holding their cruel "God hates fags" signs, because of "civil rights?" Or, as another person suggested, what about forcing a vegetarian to make a promotional video for a butcher shop, so as to avoid any intimation of discrimination? When everyone can claim discrimination for any reason, no one can claim discrimination for any reason.
The response, I'm sure, would be that any business which is open to the public cannot refuse services to anyone on grounds like race, sexual orientation, etc. because that is the law. (Even though sexual orientation is not explicitly addressed in the FCRA) But what I wonder is: Will forcing a photographer to take wedding pictures of a gay couple really bring about the kind of change that gay rights advocates hope for? Or is it not just a reflection of the kind of tactics that religious fundamentalists have used against gay people? Why emulate that approach?
Of course, this is a difficult ethical area to traverse, because - for example - without civil rights, Jim Crow-era restaurants could still continue to refuse service to minorities. And that would be bad - just as all bigotry is bad. But, if possible, I'd rather have the community regulate that racist behavior by putting that restaurant out of business, than have to rely on the government to make the bigots serve black people.
Bringing about a change in behavior from within the community is always preferable to having to rely on pressure from the outside to force a change in behavior. Unless it's a systemic problem, in which case the government may have to step in. And I think there have been times when that's been necessary, but I don't think that's ever the best solution. And even if there is systemic discrimination, that can only be resolved to a point, because all Americans are allowed their own freedoms, no matter how insulting, to a point. Whether we like it or not, there are still a lot of bigots out there. And they are free to be bigots.
It seems we are in the midst of a struggle between the freedom of religion and the rights of gays. In my opinion, the first thing that needs to happen is that people on both sides need to be reminded that one of these freedoms is not superior to the other in our constitution.
No matter how much believers may hate to admit it, our nation was not founded on the idea that religious freedom is superior to other kinds of personal freedom. On the other hand, despite the apparent mindset of a vast majority of our culture, my own individual freedom is not superior to the freedom of the other person. The problem, I think, is there are people on both sides who aren't willing to admit these realities. Until they do, the conflict will never be resolved properly in an ethical sense. It will continue to be resolved by legal means, and that will create further suspicion and hostility.
To impose any subjective political agenda - religious, gay, or otherwise - on the rest of the nation is contrary to the reasoning behind the founding of America. Freedom, as my friend Roy says, is a two-way street. If you expect a freedom for yourself, you have to allow it for the other person as well. That may not always be easy to accept, but it is the American way.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
I am DONE!
Well, after a week that included graduation, getting a really nasty cold, finishing two finals and two papers, and spending time with parents while they were in town visiting... I am officially finished with my Master's program! I now have (barring any extremely odd events) a master's degree in theology and biblical studies from Fuller Theological Seminary. It's time to relax for a few days, and then I can finally start blogging more frequently! Woohoo!
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
A challenge to Americans...
I would like to challenge every American who reads this blog, and encourage you to spread the challenge to everyone you know, to do the following:
Take your "tax rebate check" and donate it to a reputable charity helping those in places like Myanmar, Haiti, Sudan, and other countries that are experiencing extreme suffering. Imagine the message it would send if thousands of Christians in the U.S. actually did this... spread the word.
Here are some charities worth considering:
http://www.worldvision.org/
http://www.mercycorps.org/
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
http://www.wr.org/
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/
http://community.ob.org/site/PageServer
http://www.redcross.org/
Thanks.
Take your "tax rebate check" and donate it to a reputable charity helping those in places like Myanmar, Haiti, Sudan, and other countries that are experiencing extreme suffering. Imagine the message it would send if thousands of Christians in the U.S. actually did this... spread the word.
Here are some charities worth considering:
http://www.worldvision.org/
http://www.mercycorps.org/
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
http://www.wr.org/
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/
http://community.ob.org/site/PageServer
http://www.redcross.org/
Thanks.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Live from the PNW-AAR...
Hooray! I presented a paper today and it didn't suck! :-) I'm here on the campus of George Fox University, where the Pacific NW regional conference of the American Academy of Religion is being held this year. I'll be hanging out, listening to papers, and enjoying conversation with other scholars of religion, etc. But the best news is, I was accepted to present a paper today, and I made it through! I was really nervous prior to presenting the paper, but it wasn't nearly as frightening once I got going. Everyone seemed to enjoy the presentation and overall the feedback was fairly positive, even those who disagreed with some of my ideas were gracious and said I'd done a good job. So, I'm going to take them all at their word. :-) Anyway, the paper was titled "From finitude to fallibility: Viewing anthropological evil though a Ricoeurian lens." If you're interested in reading it, just give me your email and I'll forward a copy to you. It would be too much to post on here. Anyway, that's also the reason I've been a bit quiet in the blog-world lately... between working on this paper, and doing my homework, I have little free time! But, I just wanted to let everyone who reads this know that my presentation was a success. Ok, that's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)