You are here

Faith

A More Excellent Way

Here are a couple of interesting articles: one titled "A More Excellent Way" in ChristianityToday by Charles Colson and another by Tony Campolo titled "Is Christianity a Casualty of War?" in The Huffington Post. They both draw attention to some of the down sides of the strong association between faith and politics. I've observed that many (most?) Christians are glad to have a president who wears his faith on his sleeve. I guess I have a different perspective. I'm glad to live in a secular society. I have no desire to force my faith on anyone else nor to have anyone force theres on me. I'm glad president Bush is a man of faith, just like I would be for anyone, but not so much in his role as a head of state. Sometimes countries have to do things in their own interest, perhaps, that aren't the best P.R. for the faiths of their citizens. Frankly, I'm not eager for the rich white guy who drops bombs to be the face of Christianity that the rest of the world sees. From Colson's article:

I shudder every time I hear triumphalistic statements by Christian leaders, because they feed such fears - and understandably so, when a Christian leader predicts God's wrath on the people of Dover, Pennsylvania, for rejecting alternatives to evolution in their school curriculum. If we are honest, we must admit that we often act as if we're powerful because we have - or say we have - big constituencies. For example, after President Bush's 2004 reelection, Christian leaders argued they deserved payback for delivering the votes for his victory. Some even warned the President that if he didn't support a ban on gay marriage, they wouldn't support his Social Security reforms. These leaders may have been well intentioned, but this was pure power brokering - the kind that allows our critics to say we're equating the Christian faith with a political agenda. We have to remember that we owe whatever influence we have to the moral authority we derive from serving God, not from the number of names on our mailing list. To seek political victories in this heavy-handed way is not only a bad witness; it's also unwise. Ultimately, we need both political victories and cultural support. Even if President Bush's judicial appointees tip the Court into reversing Roe v. Wade (as I pray will happen), would there be fewer abortions? Not immediately. The issue would then return to the 50 states, and we'd have 50 battles instead of one. Of course, the law is a moral teacher, but changing the law is an empty victory unless we also change the moral consensus. To change the culture, therefore, we must learn how to engage the political process more winsomely. It will require a different mindset. We'll need to recognize that we're appealing to hearts and minds, not twisting arms. In fact as well as in appearance, we are not seeking to impose, but rather to propose. We're not demanding something for ourselves; we are inviting a hungry and needy world to come to Christ and find goodness and fullness of life. The Christian church makes a Great Proposal, inviting everyone to the table - regardless of ethnic origin, background, or economic status. We're inviting people to consider a worldview that's livable, that makes sense, in which people can discover shalom and human flourishing. This means, first, loving those we contend against in the political process. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Whom you would change, you must first love." Some Christian leaders do get this. Jerry Falwell, whatever else he has done, has gone out of his way to engage the gay community protesting against him. James Dobson set a similar example when protestors surrounded the Focus headquarters. Second, we offer our strongest witness when we demonstrate that we do love others by fighting AIDS in Africa or the worldwide sex-trafficking trade, or by reforming prisons and prisoners, loving the most unlovable. One New York Times columnist who vehemently opposes our political efforts has nonetheless praised Christians for the work he's seen us perform around the world. When the world sees us working for human rights, we earn moral authority that blunts the "imposing your morality" attacks in the public square. Our cultural mandate requires us to work for justice and righteousness so that God's creation reflects his majesty and goodness. That includes engaging in politics. But we must remember as we do this that we are proposing a more excellent way to a needy society, and that we do so in love, no matter how much abuse is heaped upon us.

From Campolo's article:

Recently, I sat in dismay as I watched a television show that featured a prominent Christian author defending the use of torture in the war against terrorism. I was outraged that this man could try to make a case for followers of Jesus condoning such an immoral practice. I shared my feelings with a group of fellow Evangelicals and was stunned when the consensus that emerged from this group of Christians was in agreement with this author. One of those in the group was wearing one of those WWJD bracelets that proposes that when facing any decision and in every circumstance, the question should be asked, "What would Jesus do?" He evaded the question as to whether or not Jesus would torture a terrorist. The question is would Jesus ask, "What doth it profit if you gain information from a tortured terrorist and lose your own soul?" I came away from that discussion with a sense that many of us Evangelicals have given up our moral compasses and wandered into an ethical wasteland where we are not only losing our souls, but also losing our testimonies as good people. Checking around, I found very little condemnation of America's use of torture from those pundits of Christian Fundamentalism who usually can be counted on to speak out with righteous indignation whenever our government provides even the appearance of evil. Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "Beware when you fight a dragon, lest you become a dragon," and I wonder if we are becoming as despicable as those evil terrorists who are our declared enemies. Secondly, I am asking if we evangelicals are not only losing any moral authority we once had, but also are losing our opportunity to carry out what we believe is our Biblical imperative to preach the whole Gospel to the whole world. One of the distinguishing traits of we Evangelicals has been our zeal to carry the good news of Christ's salvation to every nation--even as our Lord directed us to do. Sadly, one of the consequences of our support of our nation's foreign policies is that the doors for missionary work are being shut. Because Christianity, throughout the Muslim world, is associated with America, anti-Americanism has heated up anger against Christians in many parts of the Islamic world. In Iraq, Christians, who even during the evil days of the Hussein regime had the privilege of boldly worshipping and evangelizing, are now being threatened. There have been churches in Baghdad that have been burned down, and tens of thousands of Christians have been fleeing the country in fear of persecution. Undoubtedly, missionary endeavors are losing ground in Iraq. Furthermore, if democracy comes to Iraq it is not likely to bode well for Christians there. The new government probably will be Shiite and, if history is to be trusted, Christians will not fare well under Shia law. More than 300 missionaries who had been serving in Pakistan have lost their visas. Christianity is so identified with American power and politics that in some places missionaries are being sent home, not only because they are thought to be people who denigrate Islam, but also because of suspicion that they might even be CIA agents. Again the question must be raised as to whether or not Christianity is becoming a casualty of the war on terrorism.

100 Years Later

100 years after the division between a cappella churches of Christ and instrumental Christian Churches, several events in 2006 are highlighting what those two groups have in common. From an article by Bobby Ross Jr. in The Christian Chronicle:

To mark the centennial, the Abilene Christian University Lectureship in Texas and the Tulsa International Soul-Winning Workshop in Oklahoma both plan tag-team keynote addresses featuring university presidents or ministers from both groups. In addition, about 40 ministers from a cappella churches of Christ will speak at the largest annual gathering of instrumental Christian Churches - the North American Christian Convention in Louisville, Ky. The ministers of the largest congregations in each fellowship - Rick Atchley of Richland Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth, Texas, and Bob Russell of Southeast Christian Church in Louisville - will appear at all three events. "We're not soft-pedaling the differences. We think they're real and significant," said Mark Love, director of the ACU Lectureship, set for Feb. 19-22. "But they shouldn't stop us from loving each other and talking together and celebrating the things we do agree on." Both fellowships grew out of the Restoration Movement of the 1800s. Disagreements over instruments in worship, missionary societies and what it means when the Bible is silent on an issue caused a split shortly after the Civil War, according to historians. But until 1906, religious almanacs included both groups under one heading: "Christian Churches." That changed when the editors of the Gospel Advocate, unofficially representing the a cappella churches, and the Christian Standard, on behalf of the instrumental churches, asked for separate census figures. In the 1920s, a separate split occurred among the instrumental Christian Churches over issues such as open membership, the ecumenical movement, liberal theology and denominational hierarchy. The people in favor of those changes formed a third group: the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which has about 770,000 members in the U.S. Knowles, who has organized unity forums for more than 20 years, said the two groups share "the same spiritual DNA." "In the essentials, we are one. In non-essentials, we need to allow liberty," Knowles said. "In all things, we need to have more love." Both groups believe in the inspiration of Scriptures, elder-led congregations and world evangelism, church leaders say. But Jack Evans Sr., president of church of Christ-affiliated Southwestern Christian College in Terrell, Texas, said he sees the unity events as "just another ploy of Satan to help change the total identity of the New Testament church." "As it proceeds, I see a complete abandonment by some churches of Christ of the basic principles of the New Testament within the next few years," Evans said. On the other hand, some a cappella church leaders who view instrumental music as doctrinally wrong say they nonetheless consider instrumental church members "their brethren." Flavil Yeakley, director of the Harding Center for Church Growth in Searcy, Ark., said he would not teach that an instrumental church member coming to an a cappella church would need to be re-baptized. "However, I could not in good conscience be a part of a congregation that used instrumental music in the worship assembly," Yeakley said. "I believe that the instrumental brethren are "brethren-in-error" - but brethren-in-error are the only kind of brethren we have."

AOL Offends God

AOL recently launched recently launched the following marketing phrase: "I AM Instant Messaging." Horribly offensive, isn't it? Well, yes according to Mr. Hypersensitive van Don Quixote. From an article by Natali Del Conte in the San Francisco Examiner:

An angry America Online instant messenger (AIM) user named Ian Millar is making a stink over AIM's latest advertising slogan, "I Am," leaving the San Francisco creative team behind the campaign scratching their heads. Millar claims that "I Am" is the language of God used in many scriptures and the English translation of the Hebrew YaHWeH, meaning God. He claims using it in an advertisement is a marketing tactic sure to offend The Almighty. "It's not that we don't care about religion, but this never occurred to us," said Beach. "If this is blasphemy, then Popeye is in a lot of trouble because he always says "I am what I am."

Tags: 

Liberty is Number 1

lawyer.jpgThe debate team at Liberty College, Jerry Fallwell's fundamentalist Baptist college, is currently ranked #1 in the nation in debate, ahead of "...Harvard (14th) and all the other big names." From an article in Newsweek by Susannah Meadows, "Cut, Thrust and Christ. Why evangelicals are mastering the art of college debate":

Falwell and the religious right figure that if they can raise a generation that knows how to argue, they can stem the tide of sin in the country. Seventy-five percent of Liberty's debaters go on to be lawyers with an eye toward transforming society. Debaters are the new missionaries, having realized they can save a lot more souls from a seat at the top - perhaps even on the highest court in the land. Falwell's school, in Lynchburg, Va., pours a half million dollars into the debate program every year, with the goal of eventually flooding the system with "thousands" of conservative Christian lawyers. "We are training debaters who can perform a salt ministry, meaning becoming the conscience of the culture," says Falwell, who is also hoping the team will elevate the humble academic reputation of Liberty itself. "So while we have the preaching of the Gospel on the one side - certainly a priority - we have the confronting of the culture on moral default on the other side." Karl Rove was impressed enough by the squad that he tapped Liberty coach Brett O'Donnell to prep George W. Bush for all three presidential debates in 2004. O'Donnell briefed the president on his nonverbal tics. "They didn't listen to me until after the debacle," says O'Donnell, of Bush's awkward first debate performance. O'Donnell, who recently started his own consulting business, has already been contacted by two potential Republican candidates about the 2008 race. If all goes well, maybe he'll get some business down the road from some ex-students.

Tags: 

Lefty Religious Protest

Here's a link to an article from mid-December from The Washington Post titled "A Religious Protest Largely From the Left. Conservative Christians Say Fighting Cuts in Poverty Programs Is Not a Priority." It describes plans of left-leaning Christians to protest proposals in the government's budget planning for cutting programs for the poor. It boils down to that same old debate: can the government effectively meet the needs of the poor, the vulnerable, and the powerless or is "the government not really capable of love?"

Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts? Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices. Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders "have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees," he said. "They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical." At issue is a House-passed budget-cutting measure that would save $50 billion over five years by trimming food stamp rolls, imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, squeezing student lenders, cutting child-support enforcement funds and paring agriculture programs. House negotiators are trying to reach accord with senators who passed a more modest $35 billion bill that largely spares programs for the poor. At the same time, House and Senate negotiators are hashing out their differences on a tax-cutting measure that is likely to include an extension of cuts in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains. To mainline Protestant groups and some evangelical activists, the twin measures are an affront, especially during the Christmas season. To GOP leaders and their supporters in the Christian community, it is not that simple. Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said yesterday that the activists' position is not "intellectually right." The "right tax policy," such as keeping tax rates low on business investment, "grows the economy, increases federal revenue -- and increased federal revenue makes it easier for us to pursue policies that we all can agree have social benefit," he said. Dobson also has praised what he calls "pro-family tax cuts." And Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives "know that the government is not really capable of love." "You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy. I think Hurricane Katrina is a good example of that. FEMA just failed, and the church and the Salvation Army and corporations stepped in and met the need," she said. Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts. "There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact," he said. "But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility."

There are links to press coverage of the "Civil Disobedience for a Moral Budget" on the sojourners web site. There's also more info on the "call to renewal" website, "a faith-based movement to overcome poverty."

Pages

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer