What is the role of the church in society? What does it mean for Christians to be in the world, but not of the world? How do we remain faithful to our Christian confession and identity, but also engage the culture around us? These are important questions for us to consider, and they have been questions of considerable debate among Christians since the time of the early church.
There are some Christians who view the relationship the church should have with the culture as one of separation, isolation, and abandonment. Inherent in this approach is an understanding of the world as evil and culture as the tool of evil. The world is a very evil place, full of evil ideas, and thus Christians should separate themselves, isolate themselves, and, to some extent, abandon the culture.
A second approach is one in which Christians confront culture with power and judgment. Those who take this approach seek to use power, especially political power, to force what they believe to be Christian ideals onto the culture. Indeed, these types of groups would like to force Christianity itself on to culture. In America, these individuals and groups equate Christian ideals with American values, and, to a great extent, it is the latter that perhaps influences the former.
A third way that Christians have defined this relationship to culture is to embrace culture without any thought for the inherent biblical tension that lies between the Christian gospel and the culture. This view is a weak, ‘namby pamby” mentality that places hope solely in the togetherness of humanity. However, it fails to recognize sin and evil in our world, and it fails to see that culture has its inherent problems.
But is this all there is? Or, is there another approach; one through which the church does not separate herself from the world, does not seek to have power over the world, and does not cower down to the point of having no prophetic voice in the world?
In Jeremiah 29:1-7, we find a letter from the prophet Jeremiah written to the Exiles who were in Babylon. As is well known among scholars and lay people alike, the Babylonian Exile had a tumultuous effect on the people of Judah. This deportation from their home land, with the last deportation taking place in 586 B.C.E., coupled with the destruction of the temple that same year, brought a sense of despair and hopeless.
It is to these Exiles that Jeremiah writes his pastoral letter found in Jeremiah 29. His reasons for doing so seem to be to counter the idea that was being propagated by others that this current ordeal would be short-lived. In their prophetic utterances, the Exile would be over soon and God would return them to their land.
Jeremiah writes, however, to oppose this understanding of God’s purposes. This Exile from their land, Jeremiah tells them, will not be short-lived, and he instructs them to build, plant, marry, and multiply. In other words, he calls on them to do the things they would normally do.
These are not instructions given to temporary residents of a city. Refugees don’t do these kinds of activities as if life was normal. But these are instructions given by someone who understands that this Exile was going to last for an extended period of time.
Yet, there is something that Jeremiah says in his letter that may have confused and angered even his most loyal follower. Jeremiah also instructs the captives to “Seek the welfare of the city” (29:7).
The English word welfare, found in the NRSV, translates the Hebrew word shalom, a familiar word even to those of us who may not read or speak Hebrew. This term carries with it a richness of ideas, such as peace, prosperity, well being, and wholeness. And, if we understand the use of shalom here to mean something along these lines, then perhaps we might also capture its meaning by using the expression the common good.
In this sense, Jeremiah not only commanded the Exiles to settle down in Babylon and to build, plant, marry and multiply, he also called them to do more than simply wait out the Exile in isolation and separation or in judgment and intolerance. Rather, he called on them to seek the common good, not only for themselves, but also for their captors.
In many respects, the Christian tradition has utilized the historic Exile of Judah as a metaphorical exile of God’s people in the world. Indeed, as Peter states in one of his letters, Christians are aliens and strangers in this land we call the world (1 Peter 2:11). The assumption is that this earth is not our home, and the hope that we maintain, based on the biblical idea of a future existence with God, lingers in our hearts and minds. But until that distant future becomes a reality, we exist here in the now of this world, of this society, and of this culture.
We can take the position of some who practice isolation, separation, and abandonment of culture. Or, we can relate to this culture with force and power through intolerance, judgment and coercion. And we may even choose to shrink from our call to be God’s people in the world by quieting our prophet voice. But none of these are authentic biblical responses.
The most faithful relationship we can have to our culture is the do what we can to seek the common good for all. That, of course, is not an easy task, but it seems to be our clarion call from God, particularly as that call is revealed in the teachings of Jesus that command us to love others, to be peacemakers, to work for justice, and to bear witness to the God who is on the side of the oppressed. Seeking the common good, or seeking the shalom of the city, is possibly the most authentic way to be God’s people in our culture.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Peacemaking is the Heart of Jesus’ Message
In 1981, the Generally Assembly of the United Nations declared that the opening day of its annual session would be recognized as International Peace Day. Twenty-years later, in 2001, the Assembly determined that September 21 of each year would be known as International Peace Day. I write these words on International Peace Day 2010.
The heart of Jesus’ message is the desire for peace. At one level, Jesus called people to follow him as a path to finding peace with God. Yet, at a more experiential level, Jesus called people to be at peace with one another. Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount we find one of Jesus’ most forthright statements on the subject, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”
Given the fact that this statement appears in the list of what has been named the Beatitudes, those pithy sayings that stand as the most important ethical values Jesus lays out, peacemaking must assuredly be a core value and action for Jesus followers. Peacemaking not only reflects Jesus’ teachings, it also mirrors the life of Jesus who came as the Prince of Peace. But what is required to be peacemakers and why must we be peacemakers?
Simply put, and without qualification, the kind of peacemaking Jesus commands requires non-violent responses to evil. One of Jesus’ most controversial statements also comes to us through Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. Jesus states, “When someone strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer to him the other one.” While many have tried to live true to this instruction of Jesus, more often than not Christians have found his command to turn from violence unsettling, and perhaps even ridiculous. But we cannot negotiate with Jesus at this point, for his statement is very straightforward. If this is true, then why do we tend to avoid Jesus’ clear command to turn the other cheek as an essential part of being non-violent peacemakers?
The answer to that question lies in our failure to see that Jesus’ definition of peacemaking also requires forgiveness. The central message of scripture is that God so loved the world that God has forgiven the world. But God’s forgiveness is not based on our paying restitution or in our suffering a penalty. God’s forgiveness flows from God’s unconditional love for humanity and a desire to make peace with us.
Our biggest problem in practicing this kind of forgiveness, and therefore our greatest hindrance to making peace, is that we are vengeful. Our culture tells us that revenge is a necessary part of justice, and when we as individuals, or as a group, or as a nation are wronged, it is only right, even expected, that we seek revenge against the wrongdoers. But is this the message of Jesus?
Gandhi, one of the greatest followers of Jesus’ teachings, said it best when he reflected on Jesus’ command not to seek revenge; he declared, “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” While the message of the world is that vengeance is right, and making people pay for the harm they cause us is good, the message of Jesus, and Gandhi, calls us to something greater that reflects God’s own character and action—forgiveness. Forgiveness is the necessary action that leads to peacemaking.
We should not assume, however, that offering forgiveness to others means that those who commit wrongs should not be brought to justice. We cannot simply overlook the wrongs committed by others, and we must name evil as evil. But the passion for seeking justice cannot be fueled by the need for vengeance; it must be empowered by the desire to forgive, to bring reconciliation, and to make peace.
While Jesus’ teachings on peacemaking apply to those of us who seek to reconcile with those who have hurt us personally, peacemaking also extends to conflicts among groups of people, whether local conflicts or wars on the global front. The waging of any war brings destruction to the lives of ordinary people, and wars will never establish lasting peace. The Christian community should condemn such hostilities, because Jesus never called his followers to take up the weapons of warfare and kill their enemies. He has called us to take up the cross of self-sacrifice through which we can find love for our enemies.
Two statements by Dr. Martin Luther King seem relevant to this topic. Dr. King stated, “Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.” Jesus also understood that war could never assure the world of peace; only peacemaking brings lasting peace. Dr. King also said, “Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice.” Peacemaking and peace building require us to work for justice.
Many have understood these principles and have applied them to terrible situations to discover that peace is indeed possible. One example that stands out is what took place in South Africa in the last century. South Africa was a place of violence and hatred due to the laws of apartheid that prevented people of color from having equal rights. Atrocities abounded from both sides, until changes were made that cleared the way for Nelson Mandela to be elected in 1994 as the first black president of South Africa.
However, before his election, Mandela had been imprisoned by the white South African government from 1962-1990. Yet, after Mandela was elected president of his country, he did not seek revenge against his captors. Instead, his government established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which offered forgiveness to those who would come forward and admit of their wrongdoings. Mandela knew that peace could not be made by seeking vengeance. Without this commission, South Africa may have continued to be a place of strife and conflict.
On this International Peace Day may we remember those who have worked tirelessly for peace across this world, and may all of us, Christian or not, find ways to work together for a more just and peaceful world.
The heart of Jesus’ message is the desire for peace. At one level, Jesus called people to follow him as a path to finding peace with God. Yet, at a more experiential level, Jesus called people to be at peace with one another. Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount we find one of Jesus’ most forthright statements on the subject, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”
Given the fact that this statement appears in the list of what has been named the Beatitudes, those pithy sayings that stand as the most important ethical values Jesus lays out, peacemaking must assuredly be a core value and action for Jesus followers. Peacemaking not only reflects Jesus’ teachings, it also mirrors the life of Jesus who came as the Prince of Peace. But what is required to be peacemakers and why must we be peacemakers?
Simply put, and without qualification, the kind of peacemaking Jesus commands requires non-violent responses to evil. One of Jesus’ most controversial statements also comes to us through Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. Jesus states, “When someone strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer to him the other one.” While many have tried to live true to this instruction of Jesus, more often than not Christians have found his command to turn from violence unsettling, and perhaps even ridiculous. But we cannot negotiate with Jesus at this point, for his statement is very straightforward. If this is true, then why do we tend to avoid Jesus’ clear command to turn the other cheek as an essential part of being non-violent peacemakers?
The answer to that question lies in our failure to see that Jesus’ definition of peacemaking also requires forgiveness. The central message of scripture is that God so loved the world that God has forgiven the world. But God’s forgiveness is not based on our paying restitution or in our suffering a penalty. God’s forgiveness flows from God’s unconditional love for humanity and a desire to make peace with us.
Our biggest problem in practicing this kind of forgiveness, and therefore our greatest hindrance to making peace, is that we are vengeful. Our culture tells us that revenge is a necessary part of justice, and when we as individuals, or as a group, or as a nation are wronged, it is only right, even expected, that we seek revenge against the wrongdoers. But is this the message of Jesus?
Gandhi, one of the greatest followers of Jesus’ teachings, said it best when he reflected on Jesus’ command not to seek revenge; he declared, “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” While the message of the world is that vengeance is right, and making people pay for the harm they cause us is good, the message of Jesus, and Gandhi, calls us to something greater that reflects God’s own character and action—forgiveness. Forgiveness is the necessary action that leads to peacemaking.
We should not assume, however, that offering forgiveness to others means that those who commit wrongs should not be brought to justice. We cannot simply overlook the wrongs committed by others, and we must name evil as evil. But the passion for seeking justice cannot be fueled by the need for vengeance; it must be empowered by the desire to forgive, to bring reconciliation, and to make peace.
While Jesus’ teachings on peacemaking apply to those of us who seek to reconcile with those who have hurt us personally, peacemaking also extends to conflicts among groups of people, whether local conflicts or wars on the global front. The waging of any war brings destruction to the lives of ordinary people, and wars will never establish lasting peace. The Christian community should condemn such hostilities, because Jesus never called his followers to take up the weapons of warfare and kill their enemies. He has called us to take up the cross of self-sacrifice through which we can find love for our enemies.
Two statements by Dr. Martin Luther King seem relevant to this topic. Dr. King stated, “Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.” Jesus also understood that war could never assure the world of peace; only peacemaking brings lasting peace. Dr. King also said, “Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice.” Peacemaking and peace building require us to work for justice.
Many have understood these principles and have applied them to terrible situations to discover that peace is indeed possible. One example that stands out is what took place in South Africa in the last century. South Africa was a place of violence and hatred due to the laws of apartheid that prevented people of color from having equal rights. Atrocities abounded from both sides, until changes were made that cleared the way for Nelson Mandela to be elected in 1994 as the first black president of South Africa.
However, before his election, Mandela had been imprisoned by the white South African government from 1962-1990. Yet, after Mandela was elected president of his country, he did not seek revenge against his captors. Instead, his government established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which offered forgiveness to those who would come forward and admit of their wrongdoings. Mandela knew that peace could not be made by seeking vengeance. Without this commission, South Africa may have continued to be a place of strife and conflict.
On this International Peace Day may we remember those who have worked tirelessly for peace across this world, and may all of us, Christian or not, find ways to work together for a more just and peaceful world.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Religious Literacy Cultivates Authentic Understanding
The recent heated debates and arguments over the building of an Islamic Center in New York, as well as the clashes in other parts of the U.S. over the planned construction of Islamic structures, not only exposes an irrational fear of Islam, but a lack of religious literacy Americans have about Islam, and for that matter about religion. Such ignorance only increases our misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of the world’s fastest growing religion to the point that we will not even listen to moderate Muslims who desire to integrate into the religious fabric of America as a part of making this country stronger.
Take for example the recent remarks by the Tennessee Lt. Governor and gubernatorial candidate, Ron Ramsey. In a town hall meeting in Chattanooga, Ramsey, after towing the Tea Party line about how socialism is ruining our country, took questions from those gathered in the room. One gentleman’s query had to do with what he thought to be a national threat, as he put it, “the invading of our country from the Muslims.” He looked to Ramsey for what he would do about this threat.
Ramsey’s initial response suggested that he agreed with the man about the threat of Muslims invading our country. Ramsey continued by expressing concerns about the building of a Mosque in Rutherford County in Tennessee before he stepped back to say that he is in support of the First Amendment to the Constitution stating, “I’m all about freedom of religion.”
With this statement, Ramsey had an opportunity to affirm his belief in the Constitution, regardless of whether he agrees with the teachings of Islam or not. He had the opportunity to affirm, in public, his ardent belief in the First Amendment that protects the religious rights of all, but he did not.
Instead, Ramsey went on to mischaracterize Islam, even to the point of questioning its status as a religion. In his own words, “You can even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, or a cult, or whatever you want to call it.”
While this is only one example of religious illiteracy, particularly about Islam, I am sure that the sentiments expressed by Ramsey are felt by millions of Americans who would rather continue to remain ignorant about Islam so that they can continue to stereotype Islam as a religion of radical hatred and evil. Protesters against the building of the Islamic Center in New York have expressed their attitudes against learning more about Islam through signage that reads, “All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11.”
In his book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn’t (2007), Stephen Prothero argues that while Americans are the most religious people in the Western World, we are perhaps the most religiously illiterate. He states that the “private and public lives of Americans are “awash in a sea of faith.” “Unfortunately, however, Americans’ knowledge of religion runs as shallow as Americans’ commitment to religion runs deep.” To put it bluntly, Prothero believes that while we are very religious, we very ignorant about religion. I happen to agree with his conclusions.
How should we respond to such religious illiteracy?
The most obvious answer to that question is that we must gain at least a basic knowledge of other world religions. Such education about these religions will help us avoid stereotypes and untruths that can only lead to a dehumanizing of adherents of that religion. However, such knowledge needs to be accurate.
Listening to the fear mongering politicians and pundits does not offer any one of us a chance at learning the facts about another religion. However, reading reputable books on religions and befriending and conversing with people who practice other faiths are two significant actions we can take in solving our problem of religious illiteracy. But our motives for such learning ought to be authentic as well.
While some Christian churches offer classes about world religions, these often only serve as a pretext for evangelism, and the focus usually concentrates on finding problems within a particular religion in order to win an apologetic argument. We need to recognize the intrinsic value of learning about other religions for the purpose of being better informed world citizens who are not simply interested in converting others to our religion. Those who seek to learn about other faiths should hold authentic desires to listen to and learn from those of other faiths.
We also need to gain an appreciation of the value that all religions contribute toward the betterment of humanity. The great world religions are ways of approaching the human search for ultimate reality and for how we are to live as humans. Some, but not all of them, express such reality in terms of a divine being. These various religions have different ways of understanding God, the human problem and how to remedy that problem. These differences are significant and therefore should not be overlooked and we should not treat religions as if they are all the same. But each one offers much good to the world. For sure there those who practice hatred and violence in the name of their religion, but at the same time, there are people from all faiths who act with love and goodness.
Through our gaining knowledge about the religious beliefs of others, we can reach a place where we can acknowledge both the similarities and the differences between various religions. Though they are vastly different, religions seek for the common good of humanity. Keeping interfaith dialogue focused on the common good, while at the same time having open and honest discussions about religious differences, can help us balance the truth and value of our own religious faith while at the same time acknowledging the truth and value of the faith of another. This is not a fool proof solution, but through thoughtful engagement and conversations, we can at least cultivate a more authentic understanding.
Take for example the recent remarks by the Tennessee Lt. Governor and gubernatorial candidate, Ron Ramsey. In a town hall meeting in Chattanooga, Ramsey, after towing the Tea Party line about how socialism is ruining our country, took questions from those gathered in the room. One gentleman’s query had to do with what he thought to be a national threat, as he put it, “the invading of our country from the Muslims.” He looked to Ramsey for what he would do about this threat.
Ramsey’s initial response suggested that he agreed with the man about the threat of Muslims invading our country. Ramsey continued by expressing concerns about the building of a Mosque in Rutherford County in Tennessee before he stepped back to say that he is in support of the First Amendment to the Constitution stating, “I’m all about freedom of religion.”
With this statement, Ramsey had an opportunity to affirm his belief in the Constitution, regardless of whether he agrees with the teachings of Islam or not. He had the opportunity to affirm, in public, his ardent belief in the First Amendment that protects the religious rights of all, but he did not.
Instead, Ramsey went on to mischaracterize Islam, even to the point of questioning its status as a religion. In his own words, “You can even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, or a cult, or whatever you want to call it.”
While this is only one example of religious illiteracy, particularly about Islam, I am sure that the sentiments expressed by Ramsey are felt by millions of Americans who would rather continue to remain ignorant about Islam so that they can continue to stereotype Islam as a religion of radical hatred and evil. Protesters against the building of the Islamic Center in New York have expressed their attitudes against learning more about Islam through signage that reads, “All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11.”
In his book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn’t (2007), Stephen Prothero argues that while Americans are the most religious people in the Western World, we are perhaps the most religiously illiterate. He states that the “private and public lives of Americans are “awash in a sea of faith.” “Unfortunately, however, Americans’ knowledge of religion runs as shallow as Americans’ commitment to religion runs deep.” To put it bluntly, Prothero believes that while we are very religious, we very ignorant about religion. I happen to agree with his conclusions.
How should we respond to such religious illiteracy?
The most obvious answer to that question is that we must gain at least a basic knowledge of other world religions. Such education about these religions will help us avoid stereotypes and untruths that can only lead to a dehumanizing of adherents of that religion. However, such knowledge needs to be accurate.
Listening to the fear mongering politicians and pundits does not offer any one of us a chance at learning the facts about another religion. However, reading reputable books on religions and befriending and conversing with people who practice other faiths are two significant actions we can take in solving our problem of religious illiteracy. But our motives for such learning ought to be authentic as well.
While some Christian churches offer classes about world religions, these often only serve as a pretext for evangelism, and the focus usually concentrates on finding problems within a particular religion in order to win an apologetic argument. We need to recognize the intrinsic value of learning about other religions for the purpose of being better informed world citizens who are not simply interested in converting others to our religion. Those who seek to learn about other faiths should hold authentic desires to listen to and learn from those of other faiths.
We also need to gain an appreciation of the value that all religions contribute toward the betterment of humanity. The great world religions are ways of approaching the human search for ultimate reality and for how we are to live as humans. Some, but not all of them, express such reality in terms of a divine being. These various religions have different ways of understanding God, the human problem and how to remedy that problem. These differences are significant and therefore should not be overlooked and we should not treat religions as if they are all the same. But each one offers much good to the world. For sure there those who practice hatred and violence in the name of their religion, but at the same time, there are people from all faiths who act with love and goodness.
Through our gaining knowledge about the religious beliefs of others, we can reach a place where we can acknowledge both the similarities and the differences between various religions. Though they are vastly different, religions seek for the common good of humanity. Keeping interfaith dialogue focused on the common good, while at the same time having open and honest discussions about religious differences, can help us balance the truth and value of our own religious faith while at the same time acknowledging the truth and value of the faith of another. This is not a fool proof solution, but through thoughtful engagement and conversations, we can at least cultivate a more authentic understanding.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
“Driven by Faith, Not by Fear”
One of the Internet sites I frequently visit is operated by a grassroots organization known as Faithful America. Faithful America’s focus is to get people of faith involved to address the pressing moral issues of our time, such as poverty, immigration, climate change, and peace. As their website states, they are “building a powerful grassroots movement to put justice and the common good back at the center of the American values debate.”
Recently, Faithful America began a campaign “to counter the fear and the lies the Tea Party and extreme pundits are spewing.” To create a name for this campaign, they held a contest and the winning slogan is, “Driven by Faith, Not by Fear.” When I first read those words, I immediately thought of one of my favorite stories from the Gospels; the one located in Mark 4:35-41 where we find Jesus and his disciples crossing the Sea of Galilee in a boat. For me, there is no other biblical story that offers such a contrast between faith and fear.
In the midst of their nautical journey to the other side of the sea, Jesus and his followers encountered a raging storm that appeared quickly and threatened their lives. While the story shows Jesus as a miracle worker who has power over creation, the impact of the story on its readers speaks directly to the empowering strength of faith to overcome the crippling force of fear.
It goes without saying that the disciples were afraid of the storm, for they believed that they were about to perish under the torrent of the sea. But the theology of the story hinges on the dialogue between two characters; Peter, who represents all the disciples in their fear, and Jesus, who calmly sleeps as the storm rages. In Jesus, we discover a peaceful composure and the assurance of God’s presence. In Peter, we witness a dramatic picture of human fear.
How might this story speak to us about the crippling power of fear in our own context?
Since the horrific events of September 11, 2001, many politicians have used the tragedy to attempt to convince us that we ought to be afraid, and that we should especially be afraid of the other. At the heart of the immigration debate is a fear that America will be overrun by immigrants. At the heart of arguments against allowing the construction of a Mosque and Islamic cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero and the building of a Mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is a fear that we are somehow giving leverage to terrorism. At the heart of the past debates over health care, is a fear that we are now on the slippery road toward socialism. It seems that every issue that arises offers an opportunity for some to inject unsubstantiated and irrational fear into the debate as a way of convincing us that this is the end.
This fear mongering rhetoric defines the world in black and white terms, seeing only good or evil and leading those who utilize such rhetoric to more easily define who and what are our enemies. The now infamous “war on terror” tag-line became the rationale for waging war, torturing prisoners, and infringing on the freedoms we have always cherished, all in the name of national security. Arizona’s recent passage of a law targeting immigrants, as well as several other states seeking to pass similar legislation, have come about as a result of the power of fear. Moreover, the use of fear as a tactic of political campaigning has created the illusion that only one political party can save our nation.
What shocks me the most about all of this rhetoric is that many Christians have bought into fear as a thoughtful reaction to terrorism, to immigration, to heath care and many other important issues. Yet, the reality is that if we surrender to fear, our faith in God and in one another will diminish, and we will become less than the humans we were created to be. We will become fear induced extremists instead of humans made in the image of God who are commanded to love others and to do good.
Our succumbing to the power of fear has produced a rising tide of intolerance and xenophobia. Moreover, irrational fear is precisely the motivation behind the ever extending trajectory of stories and opinions that continue to speak of the other, whether they are immigrants, Muslims, gays and lesbians, or the poor, in terms that demonize them as less than human. But this is what fear does.
Faith, on the other hand, embraces the other as made in the image of God and worthy of love and friendship. Indeed, in the story from Mark 4, Jesus desires to cross the Sea of Galilee because he knows that on the other side are the Gentiles, enemies of his own race, and he is compelled to cross boundaries to embrace them in friendship and love. While faith does not deny the existence of evil or those who may cause evil, faith relies on the eternal goodness of God whose love conquers evil. Faith is truly the power that overcomes fear.
Fear is a powerful force, but if allowed to have control, fear draws us from God and God’s call for us to live faithfully in the world. While so-called threats to our security and to our way of life, whether real or imagine, naturally produce feelings of fear, we must follow the model of Jesus, who at the most vulnerable point in his life, turned to the God who gives faith that triumphs over all fear. May all that we think, say and do be “Drive by Faith, Not by Fear.”
Recently, Faithful America began a campaign “to counter the fear and the lies the Tea Party and extreme pundits are spewing.” To create a name for this campaign, they held a contest and the winning slogan is, “Driven by Faith, Not by Fear.” When I first read those words, I immediately thought of one of my favorite stories from the Gospels; the one located in Mark 4:35-41 where we find Jesus and his disciples crossing the Sea of Galilee in a boat. For me, there is no other biblical story that offers such a contrast between faith and fear.
In the midst of their nautical journey to the other side of the sea, Jesus and his followers encountered a raging storm that appeared quickly and threatened their lives. While the story shows Jesus as a miracle worker who has power over creation, the impact of the story on its readers speaks directly to the empowering strength of faith to overcome the crippling force of fear.
It goes without saying that the disciples were afraid of the storm, for they believed that they were about to perish under the torrent of the sea. But the theology of the story hinges on the dialogue between two characters; Peter, who represents all the disciples in their fear, and Jesus, who calmly sleeps as the storm rages. In Jesus, we discover a peaceful composure and the assurance of God’s presence. In Peter, we witness a dramatic picture of human fear.
How might this story speak to us about the crippling power of fear in our own context?
Since the horrific events of September 11, 2001, many politicians have used the tragedy to attempt to convince us that we ought to be afraid, and that we should especially be afraid of the other. At the heart of the immigration debate is a fear that America will be overrun by immigrants. At the heart of arguments against allowing the construction of a Mosque and Islamic cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero and the building of a Mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is a fear that we are somehow giving leverage to terrorism. At the heart of the past debates over health care, is a fear that we are now on the slippery road toward socialism. It seems that every issue that arises offers an opportunity for some to inject unsubstantiated and irrational fear into the debate as a way of convincing us that this is the end.
This fear mongering rhetoric defines the world in black and white terms, seeing only good or evil and leading those who utilize such rhetoric to more easily define who and what are our enemies. The now infamous “war on terror” tag-line became the rationale for waging war, torturing prisoners, and infringing on the freedoms we have always cherished, all in the name of national security. Arizona’s recent passage of a law targeting immigrants, as well as several other states seeking to pass similar legislation, have come about as a result of the power of fear. Moreover, the use of fear as a tactic of political campaigning has created the illusion that only one political party can save our nation.
What shocks me the most about all of this rhetoric is that many Christians have bought into fear as a thoughtful reaction to terrorism, to immigration, to heath care and many other important issues. Yet, the reality is that if we surrender to fear, our faith in God and in one another will diminish, and we will become less than the humans we were created to be. We will become fear induced extremists instead of humans made in the image of God who are commanded to love others and to do good.
Our succumbing to the power of fear has produced a rising tide of intolerance and xenophobia. Moreover, irrational fear is precisely the motivation behind the ever extending trajectory of stories and opinions that continue to speak of the other, whether they are immigrants, Muslims, gays and lesbians, or the poor, in terms that demonize them as less than human. But this is what fear does.
Faith, on the other hand, embraces the other as made in the image of God and worthy of love and friendship. Indeed, in the story from Mark 4, Jesus desires to cross the Sea of Galilee because he knows that on the other side are the Gentiles, enemies of his own race, and he is compelled to cross boundaries to embrace them in friendship and love. While faith does not deny the existence of evil or those who may cause evil, faith relies on the eternal goodness of God whose love conquers evil. Faith is truly the power that overcomes fear.
Fear is a powerful force, but if allowed to have control, fear draws us from God and God’s call for us to live faithfully in the world. While so-called threats to our security and to our way of life, whether real or imagine, naturally produce feelings of fear, we must follow the model of Jesus, who at the most vulnerable point in his life, turned to the God who gives faith that triumphs over all fear. May all that we think, say and do be “Drive by Faith, Not by Fear.”
Thursday, July 1, 2010
A Candidate’s Religion, or Lack Thereof, Should be Personal, not Political
The relationship between religion and politics is always a messy one; sometimes too messy. As the recent primary elections in South Carolina and Nevada have demonstrated, politicians can easily use religion as a weapon against political rivals (See Brian Kaylor’s Baptist Attacks Fail on Candidate's Religion at EthicsDaily.com).
This is not new. Candidate Obama faced continual questions over his own faith, even though he repeatedly claimed to be a Christian. But folks still question his faith, even after he has been elected president.
However, these religious inquisitions within the political arena raise serious questions about political candidates, the nature of political campaigns and the proper place of religion in our politics. Should a political candidate be forced to defend his or her faith in order to be elected? And, should candidates legitimately use religion as a weapon against political opponents?
In reading Kaylor’s story, and in my own following of this kind of back and forth religious examination between candidates in which candidate ‘A” claims to be more religious than candidate “B”, or candidate “B’ claims to be a member of the right religion, as opposed to candidate “A”, whose religion is somehow less true, I am reminded of something I heard one morning during the early campaigning of the last presidential election.
While sipping my morning coffee, I watched a reporter interview folks in a local diner on the day of one of the presidential primaries. The journalist was asking patrons of the restaurant who they would choose as their candidate for president and why they were choosing that particular contender. Most were concerned about the economy, or about immigration, or about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or about any number of issues. Yet the response of one woman caught my attention and almost caused me to spill my morning cup.
When asked for whom she would vote, this particular voter responded with the name of her choice candidate, and when asked why she would cast her vote for this particular candidate, she simply replied that he would be the right person to turn America back to religion. I thought I had actually misheard what she had said, but I was wrong. Not only had she said what I thought she said, she was also very sincere in what she said.
Don’t misunderstand me; I firmly believe that all people have the right to vote their religious consciences, even if I or anyone else does not agree with them. Indeed, in our democracy, people who are eligible to vote can vote for any particular candidate for any particular reason. Moreover, there is certainly nothing wrong with voting for a person because that candidate is religious.
The problem that I see in making the religious faith of a candidate a determining factor for voting for that candidate, and especially in using religion as a political tool to either make oneself look better to the voters, or to cast religious doubt on one’s opposition, is that we can confuse the personal faith of a public official with the idea that he or she should be a religious leader in our government. This seems to be what the woman in that coffee shop was saying, and it seems to be what happened in both South Carolina and Nevada, and probably in other elections.
But, should a candidate’s religious preference or the lack of religious preference be a vital part of his or her campaign? Should a candidate’s personal faith be fair game in political elections? Must a candidate for any office succumb to the constant badgering from those who question his or her faith as a qualification for carrying out the duties of the office for which he or she seeks election?
The short answer to this question ought to be that while the personal faith of a candidate for public office may be important to a block of voters, this does not mean that the candidate needs to prove his or her faith, and it certainly does not mean that the candidate’s role in government is to lead America back to religion, as if religion has somehow vacated our country.
There are some very important reasons that such a distinction must be kept. First, America was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. While some have challenged this fundamental principle of American identity, history is on the side of those who maintain this separation.
Learning from the long history of religious violence and oppression in Europe, the founders of this nation, while affirming the importance of religion, drew a clear line between the roles of the church and those of the state. That line is always hard to keep clear, but it becomes very blurry when political candidates are valued foremost for their religious views.
Second, while the U.S. Constitution gives many roles and authorities to those elected to federal offices, and while various state constitutions outline the responsibilities of state officials, these documents do not include religious leadership as a duty.
There are certainly times in the life and struggle of a nation where certain elected officials, such as a president or a governor of a state, symbolically serve a quasi-pastoral function, giving comfort to those who have suffered great tragedies. Moreover, by virtue of the power of these offices, elected officials must act justly by making just legislation, which can have religious correlations. But in no way do elected officials serve as religious leaders.
Third, and perhaps most important for the modern era of American life, the multicultural fabric of our society has also produced a multi-religious civilization in which all should have freedom of religion and equal rights. While a candidate is free to choose his or her personal religious faith, and he or she may find strength from that faith to carry out the role to which she or he is elected, no elected official can become the promoter of any religion, including their own religion or the dominant religion of their constituency. To do so will inevitably lead to the endorsement of one religion over others, whether such an endorsement is implicit or explicit. In a democracy of religious diversity, to promote one religious perspective over others would result in the suppression, and perhaps oppression, of other religious views.
In a democracy, where the power over government rests with the vote of each citizen, the fundamental belief is that people can make reasonable and moral choices. And while those citizens have the right to make their choices based on religion, they must also understand that moral choices and good government are not solely dependent on religion or on a person who is a religious leader. The key to a just and moral society in which the religious and non-religious are free and equal citizens is in finding the common moral ground on which just legislation is promoted to achieve the common good for all, religious or not.
This is not new. Candidate Obama faced continual questions over his own faith, even though he repeatedly claimed to be a Christian. But folks still question his faith, even after he has been elected president.
However, these religious inquisitions within the political arena raise serious questions about political candidates, the nature of political campaigns and the proper place of religion in our politics. Should a political candidate be forced to defend his or her faith in order to be elected? And, should candidates legitimately use religion as a weapon against political opponents?
In reading Kaylor’s story, and in my own following of this kind of back and forth religious examination between candidates in which candidate ‘A” claims to be more religious than candidate “B”, or candidate “B’ claims to be a member of the right religion, as opposed to candidate “A”, whose religion is somehow less true, I am reminded of something I heard one morning during the early campaigning of the last presidential election.
While sipping my morning coffee, I watched a reporter interview folks in a local diner on the day of one of the presidential primaries. The journalist was asking patrons of the restaurant who they would choose as their candidate for president and why they were choosing that particular contender. Most were concerned about the economy, or about immigration, or about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or about any number of issues. Yet the response of one woman caught my attention and almost caused me to spill my morning cup.
When asked for whom she would vote, this particular voter responded with the name of her choice candidate, and when asked why she would cast her vote for this particular candidate, she simply replied that he would be the right person to turn America back to religion. I thought I had actually misheard what she had said, but I was wrong. Not only had she said what I thought she said, she was also very sincere in what she said.
Don’t misunderstand me; I firmly believe that all people have the right to vote their religious consciences, even if I or anyone else does not agree with them. Indeed, in our democracy, people who are eligible to vote can vote for any particular candidate for any particular reason. Moreover, there is certainly nothing wrong with voting for a person because that candidate is religious.
The problem that I see in making the religious faith of a candidate a determining factor for voting for that candidate, and especially in using religion as a political tool to either make oneself look better to the voters, or to cast religious doubt on one’s opposition, is that we can confuse the personal faith of a public official with the idea that he or she should be a religious leader in our government. This seems to be what the woman in that coffee shop was saying, and it seems to be what happened in both South Carolina and Nevada, and probably in other elections.
But, should a candidate’s religious preference or the lack of religious preference be a vital part of his or her campaign? Should a candidate’s personal faith be fair game in political elections? Must a candidate for any office succumb to the constant badgering from those who question his or her faith as a qualification for carrying out the duties of the office for which he or she seeks election?
The short answer to this question ought to be that while the personal faith of a candidate for public office may be important to a block of voters, this does not mean that the candidate needs to prove his or her faith, and it certainly does not mean that the candidate’s role in government is to lead America back to religion, as if religion has somehow vacated our country.
There are some very important reasons that such a distinction must be kept. First, America was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. While some have challenged this fundamental principle of American identity, history is on the side of those who maintain this separation.
Learning from the long history of religious violence and oppression in Europe, the founders of this nation, while affirming the importance of religion, drew a clear line between the roles of the church and those of the state. That line is always hard to keep clear, but it becomes very blurry when political candidates are valued foremost for their religious views.
Second, while the U.S. Constitution gives many roles and authorities to those elected to federal offices, and while various state constitutions outline the responsibilities of state officials, these documents do not include religious leadership as a duty.
There are certainly times in the life and struggle of a nation where certain elected officials, such as a president or a governor of a state, symbolically serve a quasi-pastoral function, giving comfort to those who have suffered great tragedies. Moreover, by virtue of the power of these offices, elected officials must act justly by making just legislation, which can have religious correlations. But in no way do elected officials serve as religious leaders.
Third, and perhaps most important for the modern era of American life, the multicultural fabric of our society has also produced a multi-religious civilization in which all should have freedom of religion and equal rights. While a candidate is free to choose his or her personal religious faith, and he or she may find strength from that faith to carry out the role to which she or he is elected, no elected official can become the promoter of any religion, including their own religion or the dominant religion of their constituency. To do so will inevitably lead to the endorsement of one religion over others, whether such an endorsement is implicit or explicit. In a democracy of religious diversity, to promote one religious perspective over others would result in the suppression, and perhaps oppression, of other religious views.
In a democracy, where the power over government rests with the vote of each citizen, the fundamental belief is that people can make reasonable and moral choices. And while those citizens have the right to make their choices based on religion, they must also understand that moral choices and good government are not solely dependent on religion or on a person who is a religious leader. The key to a just and moral society in which the religious and non-religious are free and equal citizens is in finding the common moral ground on which just legislation is promoted to achieve the common good for all, religious or not.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Is Jesus Popular?
I have three teenagers. One is about to begin his university studies at the college where I am currently employed. The other two are still in high school. Having high school and college age kids means that our mail box is often flooded by post cards from various universities across the nation. Almost daily we receive another advertisement from a college that communicates to the prospective student why they should choose their university.
Recently, my middle teen, who will be a junior in high school this next academic year, received a post card from a Christian college. The header on the card read, “The most popular guy on campus walked the earth two thousand years ago.” Obviously this card is meant to inform the student that at this Christian campus, Jesus, the guy who walked the earth two thousand years ago, is the most popular guy on that campus. The intention is to say to the prospective student, and the student’s parents, that at this school, we are really Christian.
While I understand that using Jesus in such a public relations campaign might be effective in catching the eye of students who want to attend a university where Jesus is very popular, somewhat like the star athlete who promotes a certain product, I wonder how popular Jesus really is. Or, perhaps a better questions is, which Jesus is popular? Is the real Jesus popular?
I will have to admit, that in my own life, I sometimes find Jesus to be popular. I like Jesus. But the problem with which I struggle is that I like a certain kind of Jesus. I like the Jesus that I find comforting. You know, the Jesus who is often depicted in paintings that hang in children’s Sunday School rooms. In these images, Jesus is pictured with children and animals around him in scenes of great serenity and gentleness. Who would not like such a Jesus? I know that this is the Jesus I like. But is this the real Jesus?
In Mark 6, Jesus, Nazareth’s own hometown boy, returns home to preach to those who knew him as a child. You can imagine the anticipation they felt for what he might say as he preached his first sermon in his home synagogue. Although Mark does not tell us the words that Jesus spoke, he does tell us that those who heard him “took offense at him” (Mark 6:3). Taken literally, they were scandalized by what he said. Why?
Perhaps they assumed that their hometown boy would make them proud by affirming their righteousness, their place as God’s elect people, and their pious religious observances. Perhaps they assumed that Jesus would side with them against their enemies, preach stirring sermons convicting others of their sins, and pointing to his own people as examples of what it means to live holy lives. They believed that Jesus would tell them what they wanted to hear, and this would make him popular.
However, whatever Jesus said in the synagogue on that day convinced the Nazarenes that the returning hometown boy was not the Jesus they wanted. Instead of being the popular Jesus, the one everyone could like, he was offensive and scandalous to them. He was not popular.
We can look at this story and point our pious fingers at these people and others who reject Jesus, shaming them for not embracing the person and words of Jesus. But are we not just looking into the mirror at our own faces? Was not their problem with Jesus the same as our problem with Jesus?
We embrace the Jesus we want, the popular Jesus who listens to our problems, offers us comfort, and easily forgives our sins. But, we quickly reject the unpopular Jesus, the Jesus who offends us.
The Jesus we want is our friend. He is our ally in the face of our enemies. This Jesus is always on our side, answering our prayers, and blessing us. This Jesus tells us what we want to hear, makes us comfortable, and looks pleasingly at our self-righteousness.
The Jesus we want permits us to wage unjust violence against our enemies in the name of national security. He allows us to hoard money and possessions in the name of financial security. He allows us to be unconscious of the sufferings around us and to replace real discipleship with a pseudo spirituality that manipulates us into thinking we are close to him. He consents to our prejudices that we not only hold against people of other races and genders, but especially against those of other religions and sexual orientations. Yes, this is the Jesus we prefer. He is the Jesus we can accept. He is the popular Jesus.
But this is not the real Jesus. The real Jesus is the one who calls us to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies, to sell all we have and give to the poor, and to take up the cross and follow him. This is the Jesus who calls us to reach out to others and cross the boundaries of race, religion, culture, and gender. This is the Jesus that dined with tax collectors, beggars, diseased, and various persons of questionable social standing.
This is the Jesus who compels us to repent of our insular lives and to commit ourselves to work for justice, peace, and hope in our world. This is the Jesus that desires for us to be inclusive and affirming of others. This is the Jesus who calls us to rethink our theological assertions and to open ourselves to being moved by his Spirit. And this is the Jesus, who, by being so offensive and so scandalous to his contemporaries was crucified on the most offensive and scandalous instruments of Roman power-the cross.
Yes, this is the offensive Jesus, the one who is not so popular. This is the Jesus, that if I am honest, I do not like, for instead of comforting me and affirming what I want, he haunts me. But he is the real Jesus. He is the radical Jesus. He is the biblical Jesus. Indeed, this Jesus refused to be popular, for although he called folks to follow him, he called them to embrace his radical, and dare I say, unpopular way of living. Is this Jesus popular? As I look around, I would have to say, I don’t think so.
Recently, my middle teen, who will be a junior in high school this next academic year, received a post card from a Christian college. The header on the card read, “The most popular guy on campus walked the earth two thousand years ago.” Obviously this card is meant to inform the student that at this Christian campus, Jesus, the guy who walked the earth two thousand years ago, is the most popular guy on that campus. The intention is to say to the prospective student, and the student’s parents, that at this school, we are really Christian.
While I understand that using Jesus in such a public relations campaign might be effective in catching the eye of students who want to attend a university where Jesus is very popular, somewhat like the star athlete who promotes a certain product, I wonder how popular Jesus really is. Or, perhaps a better questions is, which Jesus is popular? Is the real Jesus popular?
I will have to admit, that in my own life, I sometimes find Jesus to be popular. I like Jesus. But the problem with which I struggle is that I like a certain kind of Jesus. I like the Jesus that I find comforting. You know, the Jesus who is often depicted in paintings that hang in children’s Sunday School rooms. In these images, Jesus is pictured with children and animals around him in scenes of great serenity and gentleness. Who would not like such a Jesus? I know that this is the Jesus I like. But is this the real Jesus?
In Mark 6, Jesus, Nazareth’s own hometown boy, returns home to preach to those who knew him as a child. You can imagine the anticipation they felt for what he might say as he preached his first sermon in his home synagogue. Although Mark does not tell us the words that Jesus spoke, he does tell us that those who heard him “took offense at him” (Mark 6:3). Taken literally, they were scandalized by what he said. Why?
Perhaps they assumed that their hometown boy would make them proud by affirming their righteousness, their place as God’s elect people, and their pious religious observances. Perhaps they assumed that Jesus would side with them against their enemies, preach stirring sermons convicting others of their sins, and pointing to his own people as examples of what it means to live holy lives. They believed that Jesus would tell them what they wanted to hear, and this would make him popular.
However, whatever Jesus said in the synagogue on that day convinced the Nazarenes that the returning hometown boy was not the Jesus they wanted. Instead of being the popular Jesus, the one everyone could like, he was offensive and scandalous to them. He was not popular.
We can look at this story and point our pious fingers at these people and others who reject Jesus, shaming them for not embracing the person and words of Jesus. But are we not just looking into the mirror at our own faces? Was not their problem with Jesus the same as our problem with Jesus?
We embrace the Jesus we want, the popular Jesus who listens to our problems, offers us comfort, and easily forgives our sins. But, we quickly reject the unpopular Jesus, the Jesus who offends us.
The Jesus we want is our friend. He is our ally in the face of our enemies. This Jesus is always on our side, answering our prayers, and blessing us. This Jesus tells us what we want to hear, makes us comfortable, and looks pleasingly at our self-righteousness.
The Jesus we want permits us to wage unjust violence against our enemies in the name of national security. He allows us to hoard money and possessions in the name of financial security. He allows us to be unconscious of the sufferings around us and to replace real discipleship with a pseudo spirituality that manipulates us into thinking we are close to him. He consents to our prejudices that we not only hold against people of other races and genders, but especially against those of other religions and sexual orientations. Yes, this is the Jesus we prefer. He is the Jesus we can accept. He is the popular Jesus.
But this is not the real Jesus. The real Jesus is the one who calls us to turn the other cheek, to love our enemies, to sell all we have and give to the poor, and to take up the cross and follow him. This is the Jesus who calls us to reach out to others and cross the boundaries of race, religion, culture, and gender. This is the Jesus that dined with tax collectors, beggars, diseased, and various persons of questionable social standing.
This is the Jesus who compels us to repent of our insular lives and to commit ourselves to work for justice, peace, and hope in our world. This is the Jesus that desires for us to be inclusive and affirming of others. This is the Jesus who calls us to rethink our theological assertions and to open ourselves to being moved by his Spirit. And this is the Jesus, who, by being so offensive and so scandalous to his contemporaries was crucified on the most offensive and scandalous instruments of Roman power-the cross.
Yes, this is the offensive Jesus, the one who is not so popular. This is the Jesus, that if I am honest, I do not like, for instead of comforting me and affirming what I want, he haunts me. But he is the real Jesus. He is the radical Jesus. He is the biblical Jesus. Indeed, this Jesus refused to be popular, for although he called folks to follow him, he called them to embrace his radical, and dare I say, unpopular way of living. Is this Jesus popular? As I look around, I would have to say, I don’t think so.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Having All Things in Common: The Essence of Christian Community
The book of Acts includes two summary passages that describe the character of the first century church (Acts 2:42-45; 4:32-37). In both references, Luke, the author of Acts, narrates that the early believers gathered for worship, prayer, fellowship, and the breaking of bread. Even in our churches today, these actions are familiar and normal to us, as these are still considered the central acts of worship of the gathered people of God.
But perhaps more striking to our ears are the statements in which Luke tells us that these believers “would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” He goes on to say, “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.” “There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.”
What might cause such radical generosity among these believers? For sure, it was the power of the Spirit that compelled them to share what had been their own with the needy of the community. Indeed, the indwelling Spirit transformed their understanding of property as that which is privately owned, to viewing private property as that which must be shared with others. Their sharing with others demonstrated that there was a reevaluation of worldly possessions in light of the new work that God was doing in Christ.
But was the relinquishing of private property simply a form of asceticism through which the believers renounced the things of this world to focus on the things of God? To some extent, we would have to say yes. However, the giving up of private property for the well being of others was not simply an expression of genuine generosity that both provided for the needs of others as well as liberated those who acted this way from the temporal things of this world. This action was also a major step, if not the major step toward the formation of the beloved community.
The giving up of one’s possessions for the good of others was more than a simple life void of the distractions of private property. It was something much greater; it was one of the primary characteristics of community living among the early believers. Indeed, without the giving up of possessions to share with others, true community among the believers would not have been realized.
Consequently, these earliest followers of Jesus instituted something radical for their world. For sure, there were other communities in the Hellenistic world which held common possessions, following the teachings of those like Aristotle, who taught that friends held things in common. And the community at Qumran, which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, lived this way. But Luke’s narration of these summary portraits of the early church informs us that what they were practicing was different from much of the world around them, and the significance of their common living was brought on by the gospel and the power of the Spirit.
Yet, while the actions of giving up private property in the new people of God may have been something radical, and remains so today, the reality is that these actions, according to Luke, were actually normative for Christian identity and community. Luke’s narration of their selling private possessions is not so much for the purpose of informing us of the ideal to which the church is to attain, though this reason is there. Rather, the practice of community sharing among the early believers was a fact of being the Jesus-following, sprit-empowered, people of God. It was who they were.
The portraits of the church in Acts, therefore, are not primarily models of unreachable ideals the church is to hopelessly pursue; though the church should continue to pursue authentic community through such acts. Instead, these narratives express that which was and is normative for the church to be the church. To act differently means to be less than what the church is to be.
Through the practice of sharing possessions, the believers were materially expressing something deeper that was essential to their being the community of Jesus. Simplicity and communal sharing of possessions had become the normative economy of the new people of God, and this practice opened the way for other normative practices that shaped the community.
Service became the normative model of social relationships, instead of holding power over the other. Inclusive welcoming of all, rather than exclusion, became the norm of community formation. And humility, not power, became the norm for living in peace. Once the right to claim private possessions was reevaluated in light of God’s new work to create and shape a new community, and once these symbols of status were removed through the guidance of the Spirit, service, inclusion, and humility further shaped and characterized that community.
Western Christianity, and especially our American brand of Christian religion, has privatized religion to the extent that we cannot legitimately call it Christian, at least, I think, from a biblical perspective. This privatization of Christianity is in direct opposition to the original call of Jesus, who, although calling individuals to follow him, called them to a social community in which they were formed by his character and the Spirit and in which they found new existence and identity.
The pictures of the early church in Acts portray what Jesus envisioned as normative for the community of faith; a community through which individual character formation takes place that shapes the broader collection of God’s people into a true community of sharing, service, inclusion, and humility.
The sharing of possessions among the early believers, according to these passages from Acts, was on the same level of importance as the preaching of the apostles, the breaking of bread, prayers, and the worship of God. But such sharing was not simply a renunciation of one’s worldly possessions. Nor was it merely a generous act to help those in need. While both of these are true and necessary, the larger purpose for relinquishing wealth and possessions was so that authentic community in Christ would become a reality.
But perhaps more striking to our ears are the statements in which Luke tells us that these believers “would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” He goes on to say, “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.” “There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.”
What might cause such radical generosity among these believers? For sure, it was the power of the Spirit that compelled them to share what had been their own with the needy of the community. Indeed, the indwelling Spirit transformed their understanding of property as that which is privately owned, to viewing private property as that which must be shared with others. Their sharing with others demonstrated that there was a reevaluation of worldly possessions in light of the new work that God was doing in Christ.
But was the relinquishing of private property simply a form of asceticism through which the believers renounced the things of this world to focus on the things of God? To some extent, we would have to say yes. However, the giving up of private property for the well being of others was not simply an expression of genuine generosity that both provided for the needs of others as well as liberated those who acted this way from the temporal things of this world. This action was also a major step, if not the major step toward the formation of the beloved community.
The giving up of one’s possessions for the good of others was more than a simple life void of the distractions of private property. It was something much greater; it was one of the primary characteristics of community living among the early believers. Indeed, without the giving up of possessions to share with others, true community among the believers would not have been realized.
Consequently, these earliest followers of Jesus instituted something radical for their world. For sure, there were other communities in the Hellenistic world which held common possessions, following the teachings of those like Aristotle, who taught that friends held things in common. And the community at Qumran, which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, lived this way. But Luke’s narration of these summary portraits of the early church informs us that what they were practicing was different from much of the world around them, and the significance of their common living was brought on by the gospel and the power of the Spirit.
Yet, while the actions of giving up private property in the new people of God may have been something radical, and remains so today, the reality is that these actions, according to Luke, were actually normative for Christian identity and community. Luke’s narration of their selling private possessions is not so much for the purpose of informing us of the ideal to which the church is to attain, though this reason is there. Rather, the practice of community sharing among the early believers was a fact of being the Jesus-following, sprit-empowered, people of God. It was who they were.
The portraits of the church in Acts, therefore, are not primarily models of unreachable ideals the church is to hopelessly pursue; though the church should continue to pursue authentic community through such acts. Instead, these narratives express that which was and is normative for the church to be the church. To act differently means to be less than what the church is to be.
Through the practice of sharing possessions, the believers were materially expressing something deeper that was essential to their being the community of Jesus. Simplicity and communal sharing of possessions had become the normative economy of the new people of God, and this practice opened the way for other normative practices that shaped the community.
Service became the normative model of social relationships, instead of holding power over the other. Inclusive welcoming of all, rather than exclusion, became the norm of community formation. And humility, not power, became the norm for living in peace. Once the right to claim private possessions was reevaluated in light of God’s new work to create and shape a new community, and once these symbols of status were removed through the guidance of the Spirit, service, inclusion, and humility further shaped and characterized that community.
Western Christianity, and especially our American brand of Christian religion, has privatized religion to the extent that we cannot legitimately call it Christian, at least, I think, from a biblical perspective. This privatization of Christianity is in direct opposition to the original call of Jesus, who, although calling individuals to follow him, called them to a social community in which they were formed by his character and the Spirit and in which they found new existence and identity.
The pictures of the early church in Acts portray what Jesus envisioned as normative for the community of faith; a community through which individual character formation takes place that shapes the broader collection of God’s people into a true community of sharing, service, inclusion, and humility.
The sharing of possessions among the early believers, according to these passages from Acts, was on the same level of importance as the preaching of the apostles, the breaking of bread, prayers, and the worship of God. But such sharing was not simply a renunciation of one’s worldly possessions. Nor was it merely a generous act to help those in need. While both of these are true and necessary, the larger purpose for relinquishing wealth and possessions was so that authentic community in Christ would become a reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)