Rob Bell and the New McCarthyism

Recent headlines have indicated worldviews clashing in our nation’s capital (well, all headlines pretty much indicate clashing worldviews, but I am speaking about some specific declarations).  If you have not heard, Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has brought some issues before our representatives.  He is concerned about Islam; specifically, its increasingly radical nature in America. 

While this discussion is certainly merited based upon the possibility of a so-called “home-grown” threat from radical American Muslims, King has come under some criticism for singling out the Muslim community.  The political Left has labeled it “New McCarthyism” and a “witch-hunt.”  Fears abound that it may cause a spread of Islamopobia amongst citizens, possibly resulting in violence to Muslims themselves.

While the Muslim community faces these recent events, the Christian community is discussing the release of Pastor Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins; A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. 

Rob Bell has also faced criticism for his book, but this coming from the Religious Right.  In his book, Bell discusses Christian eschatological issues as they should apply to non-believers, and apparently, opens the doors of redemption a bit too wide for most Christians’ comfort.

While seemingly unrelated, it seems to me that American Christians can see the thread here between the political and religious existence of these two stories.  We are faced with an interesting question: How do we approach the “religious other,” especially when their political rights are not so “other”?

Bell’s more universalistic perspective softens attitudes between different religions.  Something about the stance of “Hey, you’re ok with my God and Savior, spend eternity with us,” presented to another faith disarms conflict and also encourages cooperation.

Likewise, (and I have not data for this) it seems like it might be just a teeny bit easier to disrespect, ignore, or even discriminate against other religious groups if you think, “Well, they just haven’t got a ticket into paradise.  They’re not ok with my God.”

Maybe Bell’s book scares some Christians not because it creates a breakdown in doctrine, but that his perspective might require a more wholesome embrace to those non-believers this side of eternity.

And maybe King’s political crusade scares some Liberals not because it represents a breakdown in equality and justice, but more because it begs the real issue of a needed investigation into dangers in our society.

In the end, it may seem we must declare that we should work to give respect and dignity to those within our political arena, regardless of religious beliefs.  We must also declare that no matter what eternal judgments I may have about a certain ideology or religious belief, those perspectives can be no excuse to treat others badly in this life. 

Who really knows if Muslims will join Christians in eternity?  Or if Christians will join Muslims?  Or if Americans will join Palestinians?  Regardless of what we believe our holy texts tell us about these eschatological questions, the answers should not shape how we treat our fellow man.  Eternity or not, Muslim or Christian, American or Somalian, a living human deserves love and respect within or without our religious and political borders.

A New Humanity: What Science and Religion Can Tell Us About Community

A recent study into the lives and attitudes of theists and atheists conducted by Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff found that the social attribute of “niceness” might be caused by the feeling of being watched.

For theists, this comes from the idea that God might be with us every step of the way, and therefore, what you do matters because He has seen it and may be judgmental or affirming.  For atheists, the “niceness” falls out the window, because they don’t have that “angel on my shoulder” feeling.

However, an analysis of the study that I found on Slate poses a different hypothesis.  By investigating the “niceness” of developed secular nations, Paul Bloom comes to the conclusion that “niceness” doesn’t come from the feeling of being watched by an omnipotent being, but rather from the reality of community around us.

Theists then are happier and more amicable simply because they feel they are part of a larger community.  Atheists frequently feel detached from meaningful social circles and could therefore be more upset and volatile.  It is not then, belief in God that makes you a “good person” but rather being in community.

Certainly, these ideas are caricatures.  We can all think of atheists who are fun-loving, great people and we can all name some miserable theists.  But, as it turns out there could be a trend here.  Miserable theists could for some reason not feel welcomed in their faith communities.  And happy-go-lucky atheists could be a part of a strong friend-group, which serves them as a communal resource.

My perspective of this study tells me one thing for certain.  If Christians want to be an integral part of society and begin affecting change in the lives of those around them, we must simply open our hearts.

I know that most churches have an open door policy.  Most churches will physically allow someone new off the street into their service.  They will let them sit in the pew and they will let them drink the coffee. 

But is that the standard of a welcoming policy? An unlocked door, a pew to sit in and some coffee?

Of course it is not, and I know of some church communities who set the bar much higher.  They ARE openly welcoming to a new member of the congregate.

But, I know of some churches that are not.  I know of parishioners who hate it when new people come and take their pew accidentally.  I know of parishioners who are comfortable with the community they have and are not interested in bringing new people into the fold.

I think it would be good for our society to feel more welcomed in church communities.  This means stop judging, this means calm your preaching, and this means above all else, start loving.

People who come to church for the first time don’t need to have a break-down-cry-run-to-the-altar-confess-all-sins- experience.  We shouldn’t aim for that.  We should aim for a Christ-like embrace that doesn’t point out their sins or expect their conversion.  We should give them COMMUNITY.

Paul writes in Ephesians, “Christ is our peace, in his flesh he has made both groups (Jew and Gentile, slave and master, pagan and Christian, theist and atheist) into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.  He has abolished the law (seen as setting apart the Jews from the rest of the world) with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in the place of two, thus making peace.” (2:14-15)

This might sound blasphemous, (many Christians have held this idea before) but I say take the welcoming action even a step further and redefine our theology.  The ultimate dividing line that exists in American Christianity today is the “heaven and hell” narrative.  “Where are you going to go when you die?” “Are you saved?” “Have you asked Christ to come into your life?” 

We need to abolish this narrative.  The redemption through Christ answers all of the questions for anyone.  The answer is that Christ is going to “gather up all things to him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Ephesians 1:10)  I am talking about the pinnacle of welcoming one into the fold: the reality of universal redemption.  What I mean is, believe him or not, Christ redeems you.  

Universal redemption is the only metaphysical and theological finality that makes sense in the scheme of community.  It is the only one that can bring fulfillment of the new humanity.  It is how Christ makes peace.

And not only peace, but a happier population.  A more amicable one, because people can rest easy knowing that they are a part of the “in-crowd”.  Atheists and theists alike can set aside their days of being heavy-laden with worry and loneliness.  Because of Christ’s redemption, we are part of the whole.  It is the job of Christians to communicate that reality to people.  We don’t need to spread the message of how Christ sets us apart; we need to spread the message of how Christ brings us together.  It will transform our society.

Oppression: Some Thoughts

A few days ago, I read on the BBC that a white South African man was lynched for killing a black man. The scene in the news video was madness; a large mob of black South Africans celebrating, and an equally angry mob of white South Africans crying for revenge. Before the death of the white man, the roles had been reversed: the whites were celebrating and the blacks were crying for revenge. Apparently, the black man who was killed was a prominent leader in South African equality rights. I don’t know the details, but it was clear that the white man who killed him had racial motivations. The black man who was killed was not your Nelson Mandela nonviolence-type of leader. He was more like Malcom X; “any means necessary.” Evidently, his past had been marred by racial violence towards white South Africans.

This story got me to thinking: Where does oppression end and reconciliation begin? From my consideration, it seems that moving from oppression to equality takes a HUGE amount of trust and forgiveness. That may seem obvious, but I believe that it starts with the oppressed.

At first glance, it may seem that oppression ends with the oppressor. The tyrannical power that is holding their boot to the neck of another people group must simply let up and change their ways! However, this is not so. Before the boot of tyranny will be lifted, the oppressor needs to be convinced that the oppressed is ready to forgive and will not seek revenge. This is a difficult task by any evaluation. The hurdles you face are few, but gigantic. First, it is not a simple task to get oppressed people to agree to forgiveness. Who wants to forgive when they have had a boot on their neck for so many years? Second, it is no simple task to get oppressors to believe that they will be forgiven. What boot-pressing superiority is going to believe in forgiveness towards them?

The larger problem on top of all this is what oppressor is going to give up the position of superiority without the threat of some kind of punishment? The truth is, not many. However, IF the oppressors ever do decide to lift the oppression and work for equality, the only way they WILL follow through is if they know there is no threat of revenge from the oppressed. When they feel safe in loosening their grip, then they will be in a good position to do so.

In the South African example, Nelson Mandela was able to convince many black people to forgive and many white people to feel safe in that forgiveness. And it lasted for a while. However, now on the BBC you see an interview with a black South African woman saying, “he (the white man who killed the black man who was then killed by a mob) deserved what he got.” Well, of course he deserved it. And now the white people are yelling that the mob deserves to be killed for their actions. And next the black people will be yelling that the white people deserve…. Anyway, it goes on and on.

The key to redemption is not giving what is deserved. The key to redemption is giving what isn’t deserved. The Christ story is all about this. Mercy on those who deserve it least. Forgiveness for those who shouldn’t be given it. Grace for those who are not gracious themselves. It sounds crazy and radical, because it is. If we want to see violence and oppression end, we must embrace forgiveness and toss aside our retaliation. If you feel wronged by someone and cry out for justice, it will come from you giving to others what they don’t deserve; forgiveness, mercy, and grace. It certainly is not easy, but we must do this if we want to see a world of redemption instead of a world of oppression.

The Hunger and The Thirst for Righteousness

In the most famous “sermon” in Christian history, Jesus says;

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6).

Most would recognize this as a section from the Beatitudes, or the introduction of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, as we have labeled in our Bibles. I have always been intrigued by the Beatitudes and as a result have spent time contemplating them. It seems to me that this specific verse, about the mysterious “hunger or thirst for righteousness,” says much more than may have originally been thought.

Traditionally, at least in my experience, churches and pastors have taught that Jesus is telling of a promise God makes to us. The promise consists of not cause and effect, but rather of an assuredness in our attitude. The idea is that God is saying “Rest assured in your hunger or thirst for righteousness, because I am promising you that eventually it will come. At some point in time, I will restore creation and all humans by bringing you my righteousness. Your thirst will be quenched at that time; your hunger will then be satisfied.” The underlying tone of this message is to be patient. Be patient in hunger or thirsting, because God will fulfill it at some predetermined time that is unbeknownst to humanity.

This understanding I find lacking. Jesus is not giving a “pie in the sky” promise about some time in the future when our hunger and thirst shall be met by God’s fulfillment. He is talking cause and effect here; he is talking about the hunger creating the fulfillment.

Think about this: If one hungers for cake, or thirsts for soda, they may say things like, “I would do anything for cake right now” or “I want a soda so bad.” Already, this desire has manifested itself in their speech. They have acknowledged the reality of their desire. Soon, if the resources are available, their actions will fall in line with their words and they will ACT in a certain way to attain their goals. If they want cake bad enough, and the ingredients are in the house, they will take time from their day and they will make it. If a soda machine is available, they will take time and money and sacrifice them in the interest of fulfilling that desire for themselves. The truth of reality is that if the hunger or thirst is great enough, it will cause us to CREATE the fulfillment of them.

It might be argued that clearly there are people in the world hungry and thirsty for things that they don’t receive. Indeed, many people are dying of hunger or thirst today because the resources are NOT available to them. From this devastating truth, we can realize more of the meaning from Christ’s words: the resources for achieving righteousness are always available to us. If they were not, Christ would be lying in his statement.

If this is the case then, Jesus is not giving a promise, but rather a prediction. He is making a cause and effect statement that would be as simple as me saying, “If I am hungry enough for bread, and there is bread available, I will make sacrifices and change my actions to satisfy this hunger.” Jesus is saying that if we are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, we will change our actions in order to see it fulfilled.

This is akin to Jesus’ strange statement, “ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you. For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8) Jesus is not promising arbitrary fulfillment of desires. He is promising that if we want something bad enough, we will do what is necessary to get it. Better yet, if what we are hungry or thirsty for is righteousness, we have all the resources we need for fulfillment, within us and around us. Do we hunger and thirst enough?
Are we willing to change our actions in order to create the Kingdom of God?

In God We Trust?

Recently, I received a chain email begging the American population for help. It was written in urgent tones and affirmed me that in this issue, I could indeed make a difference. In a world of so many social, political, and spiritual problems, I read on in hopeful anticipation of how I could “make a difference.” Ready and poised to take action in a direction that promised results and change, I curiously considered what this ill could be that I had the power to solve. AIDS? Cancer? Poverty? World Hunger? Suspenseful lists in blog posts?

The email was trying to convince people to “refuse to accept” new coins that the United States government has issued. The major problem with these coins was that they lacked the words “In God We Trust.”

Although I don’t recall if the email was rooted in a Christian organization, it represents a large movement in American Christianity. Most Americans are familiar with the “In God We Trust” debate and those issues that run parallel to it, ie; Ten Commandments in courthouses, prayer in classrooms, “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Christianity has effectively convinced its populations that defending these areas of tradition and others are an essential Christian duty. There are fear-mongering preachers who teach that the abolishment of “In God We Trust” from American forms of money would lead to the demise of the United States as we know it. Because we are a God-fearing nation, and we demonstrate that fact proudly to the world on every piece of legal tender, we are in His omnipotent favor and can enjoy the fruits of His providence. But beware! To turn from God by neglecting to print His name on your money is certain destruction!

But what really should the Christian stance on this topic be, if any? In this issue, has a Christian duty become a civil duty or vice-versa? What does scripture say?

It is generally admitted by Christians that money is the second-most discussed topic by Christ in the gospels. Jesus had a lot to say about your relationships, and not much less to say about your pocketbook. And what does he say?

Well, one day Jesus and his disciples are discussing the matters of the world and the kingdom of heaven, and a Pharisee asks him about taxes. Of course, the Pharisee knows that Jesus is a threat to the Roman Empire and if he can catch Jesus saying explicitly: “Don’t pay your taxes because they fund that evil empire of Rome!” then the Jewish teachers and the Roman government can be rid of the nuisance that is the Christ. So the Pharisee pipes up:

“Jesus, what about taxes? Should we pay them?” Jesus, (as he so frequently does) responds to a question with a question;

“Do you have a coin?” Certainly the Pharisee does, and hands it to the Rabbi as the Jewish and Roman crowd anxiously awaits the response. Jesus takes a look at the coin and says to the Pharisee,

“See how it says ‘In God We Trust’ right here in little letters? That means that it is your Christian (or Jewish) duty to pay your taxes. Based on the printing on the coin, you can clearly see that the Roman Empire is godly, as it recognizes God on every piece of legal tender…”

Wait a second…. I thought I remember that story reading differently! Oh yeah, that is not how it went at all! In Mark 12:17, after Jesus does indeed ask the Pharisee what is on the coin and it is established that the head of Caesar is branded in the piece, Jesus says,

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Well, of course, back in Jesus’ time, this answer would work just fine. And now it would work just fine too, except that the government of our empire has slyly printed God’s name onto the coins next to Caesar’s (or Washington’s) head. Now the Christian populace is confused: “render to God, wait… No, Caesar! Wait, no… God!” To alleviate this confusion, those who have their hands in the pot of political interests and their words in the sanctuary of American churches have taught us that by rendering to the government our taxes, we are also effectively rendering to God what is God’s. If the government recognizes the authority of God, then by some hierarchal law of association, what belongs to the government is also Gods. Also, conveniently, our money is now of greater spiritual power! What joy it is to tithe and donate money that has the name of God printed in the side! Certainly God will use this coin more favorably than any other in circulation, because He sees that it bears His name! And certainly, He will look with disdain and disgust on coins that don’t have His name; in fact, He will devalue them!

Jesus is rolling over in his resurrection. The head of Caesar (or Washington) is still clearly there! Do not confuse “In God We Trust” with whom this money REALLY belongs to. It is a clever ploy by men who understand Christianity well enough to manipulate it. Of course, no one is so explicit in their talk of this issue, but read between the lines and cut through the pulpit rhetoric; these trends are there.

I urge you, pay your taxes. But don’t do it as some Christian duty. Do it because you recognize that money that you own is a chunk of metal with the empire’s name on it, and in the end the value that it has is created and defined by them, not God. To God it is worthless.

I urge you, rejoice in the removal of “In God We Trust” for it will be the repealing of a lie. And if “In God We Trust” continues to remain on the coins, ask your political leaders, fellow citizens and yourself to think of whom we trust when they build weapons of mass destruction. Is it God? Or are we trusting in our technological superiority? Whom do we trust as we send soldiers off to Afghanistan to “defend our freedom?” Is it God or are we trusting in our military might? Whom do we trust when we allocate money for economic bailouts? Is it God or are we trusting in the financial leverage we have created for ourselves? Whom do we trust when we open savings accounts, retirement plans and life insurance policies? Whom do we trust when we buy lock boxes for our money? Whom do we trust when we use money as if it were the ultimate power itself? Is it God?

2012: A Warning

I recently went to see the new movie "2012," and I was impressed by the special effects, and even the interesting story line. It was similar to other "end-of-the-world" films but this one possessed an intriguing quality that others lacked: the realness of a specific date that has people talking.

Of course, most of us are familiar with the Mayan calendar and its ending date of 2012. I am not educated in all the details of the calendar and its implications, but it certainly has started a conversation. Now, people are reading deeper into Nostradamus, the teachings of religious books, and anything having to do with astronomical or mystical import. I have even heard of one case where a biblical scholar, Dr. Wayne Stanton, is developing a numerical code of reading the teaching of Christ, and finding that Jesus was warning us of world-ending events in 2012.

What is going on here? Has there ever been a time in history when humans have entertained the idea of the end of their species with such specificity or degree?

As a younger person, I used to read Christ's words in Matthew 24 about how not to believe the false prophets, and that "no one knows the day or hour," and that the Son of Man would come as a thief in the night. I thought the only sure way to obviate any eschatological encounters with the Son of Man would be to wake every morning and say out loud, "Today, Christ will come again." If no one knows the day or hour, how could you say that on the day? You couldn't, and therefore would save yourself from the "end times"

But when does this talk cross the line from amusing predictions to certain expectation? The shades are gray, but the more we discuss this date, the more it is cemented in our minds and even as I type this, I am adding to the visibility of 2012.

The problem with this cementation is a psycho-social one. We will wake up on January 1st, 2012, and continue on with our lives as usual. But, in these years preceding the date, we will have time to effectively "talk up" 2012, and make it into a year of novelty, standing apart from others. If this talk is successful (in a certain sense) then our days of 2012 will be lived with our minds harboring background thoughts, like shadows of crumbling buildings; "what if this is THE year of THE end?"

My fear is that this question will lead us into expectation, expectation will lead us to more proclamation, proclamation will breed more expectation. If this cycle occurs, then the phobia/reverence/fascination with 2012 will drive people to take matters into their own hands. I hate to say it, but proclamation and expectation leave room for failure and disappointment. If the fear of failure and disappointment outweighs the fear of our own species death, then we have a dire situation on our hands. A dire situation of our own creation.

To use the words of Bill Maher, "The only thing worse than prophesy is self-fulfilling prophesy." If 2012 was not the end, all this talk may make it be.

If you like to think of 2012 and to flirt with the tantalizing idea that it may indeed be the end of our species, then do it. But do it cautiously. Make sure that as you provoke the idea it doesn't provoke you back to do something rash.

The Political Blindness of Christianity

A few days ago, I was engaged in a conversation with some Conservative Christians (whom I appreciate and respect mind you), and they were voicing their opinions on health-care, Obama's administration, and the current State of the Union.

The dialogue was amicable, even delightful, as we exchanged perspectives and ideas. I happen to have a more liberal stance than this couple did, but nonetheless we journeyed into the subjects with mutual friendliness.

Although I continue to respect these individuals, the woman said something that struck me. It was something to the effect of; "the reason I appreciate George W. Bush so much more than Obama is not because of his policies or actions, but because he never missed an opportunity to acknowledge God and the Lord's authority over his presidency and this country." This woman was also upset by Obama's impassivity in addressing the National Day of Prayer, and then she went on to site that Muslims prayed together outside of Congress recently.

Stop there. At the time, I thought to myself "Is George W. Bush a good international symbol for the Christian faith?" The obvious answer I arrived at was "no." However, after contemplating this statement in the following few days, I realized it stands for a much larger and more profound sentiment than she intended. Namely, this:

When did it become a necessity or even a comfort to have a national leader affirm a Christian belief? This is the epitome of the minimization of the Christian message and action. We have arrived at a place where Christian duty and narrative is enhanced by a political leader supporting it, and this is wrong. Christians DO NOT need the bolstering efforts of a political leader, and when we believe that we do, we have sold ourselves out to a lesser and weaker road; one where our Christian duty becomes nothing more than a specific voting record or arguing for a political perspective because it is "more Christian." In this position, we can rest assured that the political parties have successfully co-opted our narrative, and used it for their own ends.

We have been blinded into believing that Obama's endorsement or ignorance of the National Day of Prayer somehow affects our spiritual lives, when in reality the power of prayer rests in none of these external forces. Indeed, if the potency of prayer depended upon such things, then it would not be a spiritual force of any importance.

I believe that Christians should act politically and should stand up for what they believe, whether it is a campaign, a certain political leader, or a specific public policy. However, do not make the mistake in thinking that you support these things BECAUSE of your Christian faith. Do not make the mistake that picketing against certain legislation qualifies as Christian action. These things are as lame as writing your thoughts on a blog. Remember that Christ holds us to higher standard of action, one of compassion, forgiveness and social providence. No one is clothed by George W. Bush never missing the opportunity to say "God Bless America." No one is fed by Obama disregarding the National Day of Prayer. The actions of the Body of Christ don't happen at those levels, they happen at the level in which you and I live. Do not confuse these to a degree in which you are paralyzed and blinded by your political perspective, missing the larger action and purpose of Christ.