NOTE: The following is a "Letter to the Editor" that will appear this week in the Daily Siftings Herald, the local paper, in response to comments concerning health care reform made by local people interviewed by Dr. Bill Downs that appeared in the paper on Monday, August 3. You can probably gather the kind of comments made from my wording.
I read the comments in Dr. Bill Downs’ Monday column from people who expressed their displeasure at the current push to reform our health care system, and I must say that I found some of the arguments unsatisfying and erroneous. I thought I would offer rebuttals to some of the remarks.
First, the idea that this is an example of the “government gaining control of our lives in every way possible,” and that it will “erode our liberties,” is a great example of irrational thinking; the kind of irrationality that fear mongering commentators on Fox News and conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh are using to cloud and stall the issue. For them, the issue is not health care; it is their bruised pride over loosing the presidential election.
The reality is that the options being seriously considered by lawmakers would allow those who have coverage to keep their coverage, if they so choose. They will not be forced into a government run health care, and this is not a secret plan to socialize health care or for the government to take control of our lives.
Second, the argument that the private sector can solve this crisis is ridiculous. They have had their chance, and yet health insurance premiums and health care costs keep rising. Health insurance companies are paying for less and less care, and there are growing numbers of people losing their health insurance. While some argue that government managed health care would mean that bureaucracy will stand between us and our doctors, the reality is that this is already happening. The insurance companies, who are in business to make a profit, are the current gatekeepers deciding who and what gets covered.
Third, if we are going to use the Preamble to the Constitution as an argument against health care reform and universal health care coverage, then we best pay close attention to the statements that speak of establishing justice and promoting general welfare. Would not justice be more fully established and the general welfare of all people in this nation be improved if affordable and quality health care is provided for all?
While many make the argument that universal health care will impinge upon our freedom, this claim is only a pretext for securing what we truly worship: Prosperity. We are concerned more for the economics of the issue, and by this we mean our own personal prosperity. But we must come to realize that governmental budgets are moral documents, and sacrificing to ensure that those without affordable and quality health care are covered is the moral thing to do, even for “the alien in our midst.” In fact, not to do so is immoral. It is interesting that those who are adamantly against universal health care are those who have good and affordable health care. Why worry about our neighbors who don’t have such care?
Furthermore, the idea that “It doesn’t work, it costs too much, it will bring down this nation,” is the most ridiculous thing I have heard someone say in this debate. No rational thinking person should jump to such conclusions, and again, this is a position based on misinformation provided by those same fear mongers.
The real economic argument is not that it will cost too much to reform health care. Indeed, the very opposite is true. If we do not take this opportunity to reform our health care system in this country, then we will continue to see costs rise, insurance premiums become unreachable even for those who have health insurance now, and insurance companies continue to refuse coverage even as they rake in billions in profits each year. Estimates suggest that before we reach mid-century, over 30% of our GDP will be consumed by heath care costs (http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf). Moreover, research indicates that 60% of bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to health care expenses; a percentage that is sure to rise if we maintain the status quo (http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf).
Concerning the claim that it doesn’t work, there have been commentators who have cited the health care systems of Britain and Canada as evidence for their position. But most of those who make this argument don’t really know what they are talking about. They have focused on a limited amount of evidence to prove their point, but have failed to truly investigate the overall experience of those who live in these countries. As one who lived in Britain for two years, with a spouse and three young children, I believe I can speak with greater authority on this issue than those who simply guess.
Though we were not British citizens, we were afforded the same health care Britons received. My kids’ prescriptions were free, and my wife and I paid a minimal amount for any medications we needed. When any of my children were very ill in the middle of the night, we did not have to go to the emergency room or wait until the next day to visit a physician; a doctor came to our house in the middle of the night to treat our children.
Both my wife and my oldest son had surgery while in Britain, and both were well cared for. In fact, my son needed surgery after he injured his face in a fall at school. His lip was so torn that the hospital called in a highly respected plastic surgeon to do the surgery. Without this surgery his lip would not have healed properly. Moreover, during his hospital stay he was given overwhelming attention from the hospital staff; more attention than he would have received at most hospitals in America. All of this care was given to us free of charge. Without the availability of this care, I am not sure what we would have done.
Are there problems with the British and Canadian systems? I am sure there are. But I am also sure that their problems do not come close to the problems we have right now in our health care system, and yet their systems cover everyone.
In my view, the health care issue is the most significant economic and moral crisis we face in this country. But crises are always times of opportunity. The question is whether we will take this opportunity to reform this system so that all can be covered, or whether we will maintain the status quo and continue to talk about the 46 million people who do not have adequate health care as if they do not exist. This is a disgrace on our national conscience, it fails to live up to our creed of justice for all, and it puts us in a place of shame in this world.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Church Must Become Authentically Relevant
I live in that region of the United States that has been dubbed the Bible belt. In the county in which I reside there are over 100 churches of various denominations and various sizes. Although all of them are part of the wider Christian tradition, which is unfortunate for it makes us somewhat monolithic in our religious understanding, this variety of places of Christian worship offers the seeker with a selection of Christian theological beliefs, church polity, types of worship, and choices of dress. You really can’t go wrong in finding a house of worship that fits what you want, unless of course you are not Christian. I am sure there are towns like this all over America.
Yet, despite the plethora of houses of worship in towns across this country, it seems to be that the church is becoming less relevant to the lives of people both within and outside the church. While many stay away from church for various reasons, many do cite the fact that the church is out of touch with their needs, that the church is too dogmatic and strict in its beliefs, and that for the most part it has sided with a particular political agenda. And many folks don’t understand why churches feel the need to subjugate women or ostracize people due to sexual orientation.
It is probably accurate to say that many folks stay away from church because they just don’t find it worthwhile, and thus they do find excuses to stay away. But the fact of the matter is that these accusations against the church, as well as plenty of others, are often valid.
Moreover, among the folks who faithfully attend church Sunday after Sunday hoping to hear a word from God, are those who leave the place of worship with a great measure of dissatisfaction. Part of this dissatisfaction has to do with the person who comes to worship, whose life is filled with distractions that draw their attention and energy from focusing on God in worship. But much of this disappointment happens because the church has waned in its relevancy to touch people’s lives and to translate the gospel for the needs of today’s world.
It is these people that find the church very ineffectual in its proclamation, hiding behind a spiritualism that is based on worship as entertainment and preaching as superficial. At church we are encouraged to allow our emotions to soak in the shallow songs that appear on the screen and the sermons that reinforce our beliefs, but do not challenge our status quo existence as people who choose comfort over vulnerability and prosperity over sacrifice.
But more tragically, these people are discouraged from asking serious questions about faith and about the issues we face in our world, or they are given pat answers to these questions. In fact, we are encouraged to shut down our minds in church, which leads me to believe that church is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest institution we can find. It is, as one of my kids said, “The place where you can get an easy “A”.
We cannot equate relevancy with emotional manipulation and easy “A” theology. Folks don’t want to come to church to have their emotions manipulated or to hear rehearsed answers to their questions. People who come to church come there to find meaning for their lives and relationships that are welcoming and embracing, not condescending. And while many churches may claim to be welcoming, the reality is that they are not welcoming those they judge as sinful.
Furthermore, people who come to church don’t seek sermons that are mundane repetitions of outdated theology or unsophisticated platitudes. They want to be challenged by the gospel and how to follow Jesus in faithful discipleship. They want to deal honestly with deep questions about God, humanity, and the issues we face in our world. They want to hear that the gospel can change the world, but not simply through getting people saved, which is far removed from the central message of Jesus. People want to hear, and they need to hear that Jesus’ message is not about heaven or hell, but about living justly and faithfully here in this life.
That being said, there is no doubt that there are faithful and relevant churches all across this nation and this world. Faithfulness and relevance, however, cannot be equated with size. How many members a church has or how many baptisms a church performs is not the measure of faithfulness. In fact, there are many small churches that are probably more faithful to the call of Jesus than those mega-churches who have gone into tremendous debt to build elaborate places of worship and family life centers, but only present a false sense of relevancy.
I think for the most part, the church, as an institution, remains a stagnant institution instead of a living dynamic community of disciples. In my view, it will take an awful lot of soul searching and questioning to peel back two millennia of institutional film that prevents us from being authentically relevant to the world.
Yet, despite the plethora of houses of worship in towns across this country, it seems to be that the church is becoming less relevant to the lives of people both within and outside the church. While many stay away from church for various reasons, many do cite the fact that the church is out of touch with their needs, that the church is too dogmatic and strict in its beliefs, and that for the most part it has sided with a particular political agenda. And many folks don’t understand why churches feel the need to subjugate women or ostracize people due to sexual orientation.
It is probably accurate to say that many folks stay away from church because they just don’t find it worthwhile, and thus they do find excuses to stay away. But the fact of the matter is that these accusations against the church, as well as plenty of others, are often valid.
Moreover, among the folks who faithfully attend church Sunday after Sunday hoping to hear a word from God, are those who leave the place of worship with a great measure of dissatisfaction. Part of this dissatisfaction has to do with the person who comes to worship, whose life is filled with distractions that draw their attention and energy from focusing on God in worship. But much of this disappointment happens because the church has waned in its relevancy to touch people’s lives and to translate the gospel for the needs of today’s world.
It is these people that find the church very ineffectual in its proclamation, hiding behind a spiritualism that is based on worship as entertainment and preaching as superficial. At church we are encouraged to allow our emotions to soak in the shallow songs that appear on the screen and the sermons that reinforce our beliefs, but do not challenge our status quo existence as people who choose comfort over vulnerability and prosperity over sacrifice.
But more tragically, these people are discouraged from asking serious questions about faith and about the issues we face in our world, or they are given pat answers to these questions. In fact, we are encouraged to shut down our minds in church, which leads me to believe that church is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest institution we can find. It is, as one of my kids said, “The place where you can get an easy “A”.
We cannot equate relevancy with emotional manipulation and easy “A” theology. Folks don’t want to come to church to have their emotions manipulated or to hear rehearsed answers to their questions. People who come to church come there to find meaning for their lives and relationships that are welcoming and embracing, not condescending. And while many churches may claim to be welcoming, the reality is that they are not welcoming those they judge as sinful.
Furthermore, people who come to church don’t seek sermons that are mundane repetitions of outdated theology or unsophisticated platitudes. They want to be challenged by the gospel and how to follow Jesus in faithful discipleship. They want to deal honestly with deep questions about God, humanity, and the issues we face in our world. They want to hear that the gospel can change the world, but not simply through getting people saved, which is far removed from the central message of Jesus. People want to hear, and they need to hear that Jesus’ message is not about heaven or hell, but about living justly and faithfully here in this life.
That being said, there is no doubt that there are faithful and relevant churches all across this nation and this world. Faithfulness and relevance, however, cannot be equated with size. How many members a church has or how many baptisms a church performs is not the measure of faithfulness. In fact, there are many small churches that are probably more faithful to the call of Jesus than those mega-churches who have gone into tremendous debt to build elaborate places of worship and family life centers, but only present a false sense of relevancy.
I think for the most part, the church, as an institution, remains a stagnant institution instead of a living dynamic community of disciples. In my view, it will take an awful lot of soul searching and questioning to peel back two millennia of institutional film that prevents us from being authentically relevant to the world.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Church is the Broken Body of Christ
How did a movement that began with a rugged band of first century Jewish peasants eventually become the largest institutional religion in the world? How did the followers of Jesus move from meeting in homes to building extravagant cathedrals, worship centers, and family life buildings? How did the preaching of the gospel move from being a prophetic ministry of calling people to faithful discipleship to being a multibillion dollar business that promises blessing, prosperity, and victory over our enemies? How did a once inclusive community that welcomed Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, become an exclusive institution that works at its best to shut people out? How did a people called to weep and mourn create an atmosphere of worship that entertains and manipulates the emotions but does not call us to follow Jesus? How did the broken body of Jesus become the instrument of religious power?
Perhaps the most famous metaphor to describe the church comes from the Apostle Paul’s description of the church as the body of Christ. Paul’s selection of this metaphor was not haphazard, for the sign and that which it signifies cannot be easily distinguished, as the image of the church as the body of Christ signifies that the church is indeed the incarnation of Jesus in the world. The church is the mouth, the hands, the feet, and the heart of Jesus to a world in need of prophetic voices, serving hands and feet, and hearts of compassion. Yet, we have forgotten that Jesus’ body was broken for us, and as such the body of Christ in the world today should also be broken.
Brokenness, like many other terms that fit within its semantic domain, conjures up images of weakness and failure, images that for some reason we have taken to be far from what it means to be followers of Jesus. For some odd reason Christians are particularly guilty of assuming that because they are Christian all things should work out for them. We pray to avoid struggle and pain, and in some sections of the church, we are told that if we have enough faith we can avoid these things and we can even become rich.
But as followers of Jesus, why should we assume that our lives should be any less tragic than his own? We must remember that Jesus, the one we are called to follow, suffered real evil, real pain, and real death. His life was not just a brief stopover on his way to heaven. He did not swoop in and swoop out human existence. His life was a vulnerable existence that ended in a miscarriage of justice.
Followers of Jesus must embrace brokenness as a faithful way of existing in the world both as individual followers of Jesus and as the collective body of Christ.
While Christianity has traditionally believed in a God who is all powerful, when I reflect on the life of Jesus, I am inclined to believe that the traditional view of God does not seriously consider the vulnerability of human existence as represented in Jesus’ life and tragic death. Moreover, by coupling the belief that God is all-powerful with the idea that we, as opposed to others, are the blessed and chosen people of God, we mock the cross of Jesus. Christians have no pride of place in God’s creation, for our redemption does not make us blameless, and our lack of evil and oppressive deeds does not mean we are innocent. And at no point in his life did Jesus ever suggest that we will be prosperous and secure if we only have faith in God.
Indeed, the church exists in the world as the suffering body of Christ that engages with the pains and struggles of those seeking hope, healing, redemption, and restoration. Jesus took on human brokenness in order to be intimate with those who struggled and suffered in this life. He did not separate himself from pain and brokenness, but he embraced it as a way of being intimate with those who suffer. His compassion was not a feeling of sympathy for the plight of the hurting, while he remained distant from their hurting. His compassion was the force that led him to be intimately bound to those who hurt.
If the church is ever to return to Jesus’ vision for his followers, then those who claim to be Christian must choose to take up the cross of Jesus by choosing to be broken. Becoming a Christian does not remove our connectedness to the rest of humanity. Rather following Jesus leads us to be more intimately connected to humanity, especially to humans who are broken. The body of Christ does not exist separate from the world, but in solidarity with the world as the broken body of Christ incarnate and suffering with the rest of humanity.
Perhaps the most famous metaphor to describe the church comes from the Apostle Paul’s description of the church as the body of Christ. Paul’s selection of this metaphor was not haphazard, for the sign and that which it signifies cannot be easily distinguished, as the image of the church as the body of Christ signifies that the church is indeed the incarnation of Jesus in the world. The church is the mouth, the hands, the feet, and the heart of Jesus to a world in need of prophetic voices, serving hands and feet, and hearts of compassion. Yet, we have forgotten that Jesus’ body was broken for us, and as such the body of Christ in the world today should also be broken.
Brokenness, like many other terms that fit within its semantic domain, conjures up images of weakness and failure, images that for some reason we have taken to be far from what it means to be followers of Jesus. For some odd reason Christians are particularly guilty of assuming that because they are Christian all things should work out for them. We pray to avoid struggle and pain, and in some sections of the church, we are told that if we have enough faith we can avoid these things and we can even become rich.
But as followers of Jesus, why should we assume that our lives should be any less tragic than his own? We must remember that Jesus, the one we are called to follow, suffered real evil, real pain, and real death. His life was not just a brief stopover on his way to heaven. He did not swoop in and swoop out human existence. His life was a vulnerable existence that ended in a miscarriage of justice.
Followers of Jesus must embrace brokenness as a faithful way of existing in the world both as individual followers of Jesus and as the collective body of Christ.
While Christianity has traditionally believed in a God who is all powerful, when I reflect on the life of Jesus, I am inclined to believe that the traditional view of God does not seriously consider the vulnerability of human existence as represented in Jesus’ life and tragic death. Moreover, by coupling the belief that God is all-powerful with the idea that we, as opposed to others, are the blessed and chosen people of God, we mock the cross of Jesus. Christians have no pride of place in God’s creation, for our redemption does not make us blameless, and our lack of evil and oppressive deeds does not mean we are innocent. And at no point in his life did Jesus ever suggest that we will be prosperous and secure if we only have faith in God.
Indeed, the church exists in the world as the suffering body of Christ that engages with the pains and struggles of those seeking hope, healing, redemption, and restoration. Jesus took on human brokenness in order to be intimate with those who struggled and suffered in this life. He did not separate himself from pain and brokenness, but he embraced it as a way of being intimate with those who suffer. His compassion was not a feeling of sympathy for the plight of the hurting, while he remained distant from their hurting. His compassion was the force that led him to be intimately bound to those who hurt.
If the church is ever to return to Jesus’ vision for his followers, then those who claim to be Christian must choose to take up the cross of Jesus by choosing to be broken. Becoming a Christian does not remove our connectedness to the rest of humanity. Rather following Jesus leads us to be more intimately connected to humanity, especially to humans who are broken. The body of Christ does not exist separate from the world, but in solidarity with the world as the broken body of Christ incarnate and suffering with the rest of humanity.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
What Would Jesus Do About Health Care?
One of the vocations for which Jesus is best known is being a healer. The Gospels narrate stories in which he makes the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk. He heals some of dreaded diseases and he raises others from the dead. Yet, the healing narrative in Mark 5:21-43 strikes me as particularly interesting in the way it is told and for its implications for how we envision health care reform in this country.
In the hands of the author, the two stories of healing that we find in Mark 5:21-43 have become intertwined into one story. The story of Jairus, the Synagogue leader, and his very ill daughter brackets the story of an unknown woman who has been hemorrhaging for twelve years. Both stories involve females in need of healing. The number12 is important in both. Jesus’ touch plays a key role in each healing. And the theme of faith is vital to what takes place in each episode. The literary structure and details not only forces us to read the stories as one story, but leads us to see one story as having meaning for the other.
Yet, when we read the stories as one, we also come away with the idea that the two individuals that come to Jesus could not be more different. Jairus, whose name we know, is a male. The woman, who remains nameless, is a female. Jairus is a leader in the Synagogue, a man of great religious and political stature and influence. The unnamed woman is an outcast, who has been shunned by her community because of her disease. Jairus can come to Jesus expecting to seek healing for his daughter. The woman is disregarded by the crowd as she approaches Jesus from behind.
Perhaps one of the reasons these two stories are linked together is so that readers can face the reality that in our human existence all of us are vulnerable to sickness and death. Sickness and death are universal, and they have neither respect for people of importance nor sympathy for those who are poor. At some point in life everybody suffers pain and sickness, and therefore, at some point in our lives we will all seek healing.
The problem, however, is that many who seek healing will never receive the care and treatment they need because they cannot afford health care coverage. In our wealthy and technologically advanced country, millions of people will not receive the health care they need because they cannot pay for such care. Tens of thousands die each year for lack of health care, and thousands of others suffer in pain and sickness because they cannot meet the expense of medical care and treatment.
Politicians have debated this issue for some time now, and currently there are plans being put forth to reform our health care system and make quality care affordable for all. Yet, there are still those who argue that our health care system should remain as it is, market driven. There are still those who think that the free market is the best solution to our health care problem, for in their minds competition will produce an industry that will be beneficial to all. The discussions have been reduced to political and economic debates that treat those who need health care coverage as mere numbers.
Yet, the issue of providing health care to those who do not have access to such care because of the exorbitant costs is not a political or economic issue; it is a moral issue that calls us to re-envision how we see life and human dignity.
In a market driven system of health care, the unnamed woman would have perhaps gone untreated, but Jairus would have had the health care he needed for his daughter. After all, Jairus is a man of means. But the woman has no money left. Jesus, however, saw things differently. Jesus valued all human life as sacred to God, and he extended healing and wholeness to both the woman and Jairus’ daughter.
But in stopping to heal the unnamed woman instead of proceeding straightaway to Jairus’ house uninterrupted, Jesus also rebuked a system that offered preferential treatment for those like Jairus who have power, status, and money. He recognized the universality of pain and suffering, and thus he desired to heal both the woman and Jairus’ daughter. But he also knew the prejudices of societies that do not nurture and heal their most vulnerable members, and he stopped to affirm the value of someone who others perceived as an insignificant poor woman.
The test of faithfulness to Jesus is always in how we treat the vulnerable of society. If we are to bear authentic witness to Jesus as the healer, and to God as the giver of life, then we must embrace the value and dignity of all human beings, but especially the vulnerable of our world. In our American society, perhaps there is no greater population that is more vulnerable than those who do not have access to good and affordable health care.
It is time that Christians, and indeed people of all faiths, seriously consider this issue beyond the political battles and number crunching, to see the moral imperative of developing a system that offers to all the basic human right to quality and affordable health care.
In the hands of the author, the two stories of healing that we find in Mark 5:21-43 have become intertwined into one story. The story of Jairus, the Synagogue leader, and his very ill daughter brackets the story of an unknown woman who has been hemorrhaging for twelve years. Both stories involve females in need of healing. The number12 is important in both. Jesus’ touch plays a key role in each healing. And the theme of faith is vital to what takes place in each episode. The literary structure and details not only forces us to read the stories as one story, but leads us to see one story as having meaning for the other.
Yet, when we read the stories as one, we also come away with the idea that the two individuals that come to Jesus could not be more different. Jairus, whose name we know, is a male. The woman, who remains nameless, is a female. Jairus is a leader in the Synagogue, a man of great religious and political stature and influence. The unnamed woman is an outcast, who has been shunned by her community because of her disease. Jairus can come to Jesus expecting to seek healing for his daughter. The woman is disregarded by the crowd as she approaches Jesus from behind.
Perhaps one of the reasons these two stories are linked together is so that readers can face the reality that in our human existence all of us are vulnerable to sickness and death. Sickness and death are universal, and they have neither respect for people of importance nor sympathy for those who are poor. At some point in life everybody suffers pain and sickness, and therefore, at some point in our lives we will all seek healing.
The problem, however, is that many who seek healing will never receive the care and treatment they need because they cannot afford health care coverage. In our wealthy and technologically advanced country, millions of people will not receive the health care they need because they cannot pay for such care. Tens of thousands die each year for lack of health care, and thousands of others suffer in pain and sickness because they cannot meet the expense of medical care and treatment.
Politicians have debated this issue for some time now, and currently there are plans being put forth to reform our health care system and make quality care affordable for all. Yet, there are still those who argue that our health care system should remain as it is, market driven. There are still those who think that the free market is the best solution to our health care problem, for in their minds competition will produce an industry that will be beneficial to all. The discussions have been reduced to political and economic debates that treat those who need health care coverage as mere numbers.
Yet, the issue of providing health care to those who do not have access to such care because of the exorbitant costs is not a political or economic issue; it is a moral issue that calls us to re-envision how we see life and human dignity.
In a market driven system of health care, the unnamed woman would have perhaps gone untreated, but Jairus would have had the health care he needed for his daughter. After all, Jairus is a man of means. But the woman has no money left. Jesus, however, saw things differently. Jesus valued all human life as sacred to God, and he extended healing and wholeness to both the woman and Jairus’ daughter.
But in stopping to heal the unnamed woman instead of proceeding straightaway to Jairus’ house uninterrupted, Jesus also rebuked a system that offered preferential treatment for those like Jairus who have power, status, and money. He recognized the universality of pain and suffering, and thus he desired to heal both the woman and Jairus’ daughter. But he also knew the prejudices of societies that do not nurture and heal their most vulnerable members, and he stopped to affirm the value of someone who others perceived as an insignificant poor woman.
The test of faithfulness to Jesus is always in how we treat the vulnerable of society. If we are to bear authentic witness to Jesus as the healer, and to God as the giver of life, then we must embrace the value and dignity of all human beings, but especially the vulnerable of our world. In our American society, perhaps there is no greater population that is more vulnerable than those who do not have access to good and affordable health care.
It is time that Christians, and indeed people of all faiths, seriously consider this issue beyond the political battles and number crunching, to see the moral imperative of developing a system that offers to all the basic human right to quality and affordable health care.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Jesus Calls Us to Bear Authentic Witness of Him
In my last article I described four misconceptions we often have about being Christian witnesses. As I stated, these are beliefs and methods that many well-meaning believers practice that, in my opinion, are misguided and do not authentically represent what it means to bear witness of Christ’s love to the world.
But if these misconceptions do not accurately describe the type of witnesses Jesus calls his followers to be, then what does it mean to be Christ’s witnesses? This is an important question for all of us who claim to follow Christ; one we simply cannot ignore. While we may shrink away from the zealous and arrogant evangelistic methods that some use, we cannot ignore Jesus’ clear and straightforward command to be his witnesses. It is there; he said it; and there is no way of denying it. So, what does it mean to be witnesses of Christ?
There are numerous passages from the New Testament that we could investigate to gather an understanding of what it means to bear authentic witness to Jesus. Of course, several of these would come from the Gospels, and most notably Jesus’ Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, where he commands his followers to go and make disciples of all peoples. But Acts 1:8 seems to me to offer a succinct and yet very rich definition of what it means to be a witness for Christ.
In Acts 1:8, Jesus tells his followers, “You will be my witnesses.” As I read these words, I hear Jesus speaking more about a state of being than anything else. In other words, while action is involved in being witnesses for Christ, in that we are called to speak and do, being a witness is really more a state of existence than an action. Being a witness for Christ is an identity; it is who we are that leads to what we do.
Thus, being a witness to Christ is not primarily an action; it is a vocation. The English word “vocation” comes from the Latin which means “calling”, and it describes not so much what we do, but who we are. Vocation does not describe our employment. Rather vocation is our purpose and our way of life. Thus being witnesses of Christ is a way of life and a sense of being, and not simply an action through which we seek to convert others to our religious way of thinking.
But there is one very crucial point to make about our identity as witnesses. We must always remember that we are Christ’s witnesses. Jesus plainly says, “You will be MY witnesses.” In other words, followers of Christ are not witnesses of theological doctrine or of religious practices. They are not witnesses of moral and political agendas. They are witnesses of the person of Jesus with whom they have an intimate relationship.
And their intimacy with Jesus, which continues after his departure through the empowerment of the Spirit, flows over into their being witnesses of him. It is not through their utilization of methods and tactics that they become witnesses. It is not through their ability to force guilt onto others that they are witnesses. It is through their relationship with the crucified and risen Christ and their empowerment by Christ’s Spirit that they become witnesses of him.
There is a little comment in Acts 4 that demonstrates this very idea. As Peter preaches to those who have arrested him and John, the author of Acts tells us that those who heard Peter “recognized them as having been with Jesus.” Peter and John were not off doing their own thing. They weren’t creating their own movement. Rather, they were being faithful to their vocation and to their relationship to Jesus, and they were recognized as having been with Jesus.
One of the sad notes about Christianity is its long association with injustice, oppression, violence, and war. From the time of Medieval Europe, when the church carried out violence against so called heretics, to the time when slavery in this country was supported by white Christians, to more recent days when a new poll indicated that the majority of evangelicals support torture, Christianity has often failed to be an authentic witness to the authentic Christ.
If we are to be recognized as having been with Jesus, then our lives and our messages must express to the world the transformative message about a Christ who loves and embraces all. But if our lives and beliefs express neglect, injustice, intolerance, exclusion, hate, violence, and war, or the support of any of these, then we are false witnesses to a false Christ. When we believe that we must stand for intolerance, hatred, violence, and oppression in order to be true to what we think God desires, we are indeed more witnesses of a false Christ than the authentic Jesus.
What is shocking to me is that many evangelicals who practice witnessing as a confrontational approach to convincing people of their guilt and sin and their need to convert to Christianity, are often the most intolerant of people, whose intolerance and hate speech do not fit with having been with Jesus. In their form of bearing witness, they have so changed the person of Jesus that they bear false witness to who Jesus really is. If the church is to be the authentic witness to the authentic Jesus, then we must become recognizable to the world as having been with Jesus.
But if these misconceptions do not accurately describe the type of witnesses Jesus calls his followers to be, then what does it mean to be Christ’s witnesses? This is an important question for all of us who claim to follow Christ; one we simply cannot ignore. While we may shrink away from the zealous and arrogant evangelistic methods that some use, we cannot ignore Jesus’ clear and straightforward command to be his witnesses. It is there; he said it; and there is no way of denying it. So, what does it mean to be witnesses of Christ?
There are numerous passages from the New Testament that we could investigate to gather an understanding of what it means to bear authentic witness to Jesus. Of course, several of these would come from the Gospels, and most notably Jesus’ Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, where he commands his followers to go and make disciples of all peoples. But Acts 1:8 seems to me to offer a succinct and yet very rich definition of what it means to be a witness for Christ.
In Acts 1:8, Jesus tells his followers, “You will be my witnesses.” As I read these words, I hear Jesus speaking more about a state of being than anything else. In other words, while action is involved in being witnesses for Christ, in that we are called to speak and do, being a witness is really more a state of existence than an action. Being a witness for Christ is an identity; it is who we are that leads to what we do.
Thus, being a witness to Christ is not primarily an action; it is a vocation. The English word “vocation” comes from the Latin which means “calling”, and it describes not so much what we do, but who we are. Vocation does not describe our employment. Rather vocation is our purpose and our way of life. Thus being witnesses of Christ is a way of life and a sense of being, and not simply an action through which we seek to convert others to our religious way of thinking.
But there is one very crucial point to make about our identity as witnesses. We must always remember that we are Christ’s witnesses. Jesus plainly says, “You will be MY witnesses.” In other words, followers of Christ are not witnesses of theological doctrine or of religious practices. They are not witnesses of moral and political agendas. They are witnesses of the person of Jesus with whom they have an intimate relationship.
And their intimacy with Jesus, which continues after his departure through the empowerment of the Spirit, flows over into their being witnesses of him. It is not through their utilization of methods and tactics that they become witnesses. It is not through their ability to force guilt onto others that they are witnesses. It is through their relationship with the crucified and risen Christ and their empowerment by Christ’s Spirit that they become witnesses of him.
There is a little comment in Acts 4 that demonstrates this very idea. As Peter preaches to those who have arrested him and John, the author of Acts tells us that those who heard Peter “recognized them as having been with Jesus.” Peter and John were not off doing their own thing. They weren’t creating their own movement. Rather, they were being faithful to their vocation and to their relationship to Jesus, and they were recognized as having been with Jesus.
One of the sad notes about Christianity is its long association with injustice, oppression, violence, and war. From the time of Medieval Europe, when the church carried out violence against so called heretics, to the time when slavery in this country was supported by white Christians, to more recent days when a new poll indicated that the majority of evangelicals support torture, Christianity has often failed to be an authentic witness to the authentic Christ.
If we are to be recognized as having been with Jesus, then our lives and our messages must express to the world the transformative message about a Christ who loves and embraces all. But if our lives and beliefs express neglect, injustice, intolerance, exclusion, hate, violence, and war, or the support of any of these, then we are false witnesses to a false Christ. When we believe that we must stand for intolerance, hatred, violence, and oppression in order to be true to what we think God desires, we are indeed more witnesses of a false Christ than the authentic Jesus.
What is shocking to me is that many evangelicals who practice witnessing as a confrontational approach to convincing people of their guilt and sin and their need to convert to Christianity, are often the most intolerant of people, whose intolerance and hate speech do not fit with having been with Jesus. In their form of bearing witness, they have so changed the person of Jesus that they bear false witness to who Jesus really is. If the church is to be the authentic witness to the authentic Jesus, then we must become recognizable to the world as having been with Jesus.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
A Few Misconceptions about Being Christ’s Witnesses
Kirk Cameron is probably most famously known as Mike, the teenage son on Growing Pains, a popular sitcom of the mid-80s. Cameron is better known today, however, for his zealous Christian ideas and his association with Ray Comfort, an evangelist who, with Cameron, seeks to convert people to Christianity.
Both Cameron and Comfort call what they do witnessing. It seems to me, however, that while they may be passionate about what they are doing, and they certainly believe they are right in doing it, they are more than anything being confrontational and condemning to the extent that they may do more harm than good. Their approach is certainly not new, for many Christians consider this kind of proselytizing as being faithful to Jesus’ commission for his followers to go into the world and share the gospel with all people.
I don’t doubt the passion of those who believe in this kind of evangelism, and I don’t necessarily want to judge the motivations of the hearts of folks like these. But I am concerned that this kind of witnessing, and the passion that seems to fuel it, is misguided and may not be what Jesus envisioned when he voiced the command for his followers to be his witnesses.
For too long we have believed certain misconceptions that have been energized by our zealousness and our desire to be what we believe to be faithful to Jesus’ call for us to be his witnesses. I would like to challenge a few of these misconceptions in order to lay the ground work for I think is a more faithful definition and description. These are beliefs and strategies that many have practiced in their efforts at evangelism that do not, in my mind, reflect Jesus’ own practice and instruction. Indeed, while these may have limited success in converting people to the Christian religion, they may do more harm to our witness of Christ.
Misconception No. 1: Witnessing is converting people to the Christian religion. This is simply not true for a number of reasons, but two are crucial for us to understand. First, we do not convert people; only God can change the hearts and minds of people. Our Bible thumping arguments, though we think they are eloquent, do not convert people. Second, nowhere does Jesus say for us to convert people to our religion. He says to share the good news and to call people to follow him, but he does not call us to convert people to our religion or to our theological doctrines.
Misconception No. 2: Witnessing is telling people they are morally corrupt without God. First of all, human morality is not dependent on humans believing and following God. People can certainly be moral people without being religious and without believing in God. As well, many people who claim to be Christian have demonstrated that they are not very moral. Second, witnessing is not convincing people that they are sinners. I have heard many purported experts in witnessing say that in order to get people saved, you must first convince them they are morally corrupt sinners. But this assumes that Christianity is morally superior to other religions and the non-religious.
Misconception No. 3: Witnessing is convincing people that Christianity is the only true religion and that all other religions are false. There is no way to prove this. Although religions are different in their belief and practice, we cannot legitimately say that one is truer than the others. In fact, if truth is determined by the goodness of something, then Christianity, as it has often been practiced throughout history as a means of oppressing and subjugating others, is in a bad position to prove it is more truthful than other religions.
Misconception No. 4: Witnessing involves threatening others with the judgment of God, like saying, “If you die today without being saved, you will spend eternity in hell.” First of all, we are not God and we do not determine who and how God judges. Second, scaring people out of hell and into heaven is not very biblical, and it is not faithful to Jesus’ call for us to share the good news. Besides, escaping a place called hell in order to get into a place called heaven is not what it means to follow Christ.
I am convinced that these methods are neither faithful to the gospel nor effective in reaching people with the gospel. But if these are not the ways of being Jesus’ witnesses, then what does it mean to be Christ’s witnesses? While we may shrink away from the practices and methods that those like Cameron and Comfort use, we cannot ignore Jesus’ clear and straightforward command to be his witnesses. Therefore, in upcoming columns, I will seek to lay out a biblical model of evangelism that is harmonious with Jesus’ primary emphasis on love for one’s fellow human beings.
Both Cameron and Comfort call what they do witnessing. It seems to me, however, that while they may be passionate about what they are doing, and they certainly believe they are right in doing it, they are more than anything being confrontational and condemning to the extent that they may do more harm than good. Their approach is certainly not new, for many Christians consider this kind of proselytizing as being faithful to Jesus’ commission for his followers to go into the world and share the gospel with all people.
I don’t doubt the passion of those who believe in this kind of evangelism, and I don’t necessarily want to judge the motivations of the hearts of folks like these. But I am concerned that this kind of witnessing, and the passion that seems to fuel it, is misguided and may not be what Jesus envisioned when he voiced the command for his followers to be his witnesses.
For too long we have believed certain misconceptions that have been energized by our zealousness and our desire to be what we believe to be faithful to Jesus’ call for us to be his witnesses. I would like to challenge a few of these misconceptions in order to lay the ground work for I think is a more faithful definition and description. These are beliefs and strategies that many have practiced in their efforts at evangelism that do not, in my mind, reflect Jesus’ own practice and instruction. Indeed, while these may have limited success in converting people to the Christian religion, they may do more harm to our witness of Christ.
Misconception No. 1: Witnessing is converting people to the Christian religion. This is simply not true for a number of reasons, but two are crucial for us to understand. First, we do not convert people; only God can change the hearts and minds of people. Our Bible thumping arguments, though we think they are eloquent, do not convert people. Second, nowhere does Jesus say for us to convert people to our religion. He says to share the good news and to call people to follow him, but he does not call us to convert people to our religion or to our theological doctrines.
Misconception No. 2: Witnessing is telling people they are morally corrupt without God. First of all, human morality is not dependent on humans believing and following God. People can certainly be moral people without being religious and without believing in God. As well, many people who claim to be Christian have demonstrated that they are not very moral. Second, witnessing is not convincing people that they are sinners. I have heard many purported experts in witnessing say that in order to get people saved, you must first convince them they are morally corrupt sinners. But this assumes that Christianity is morally superior to other religions and the non-religious.
Misconception No. 3: Witnessing is convincing people that Christianity is the only true religion and that all other religions are false. There is no way to prove this. Although religions are different in their belief and practice, we cannot legitimately say that one is truer than the others. In fact, if truth is determined by the goodness of something, then Christianity, as it has often been practiced throughout history as a means of oppressing and subjugating others, is in a bad position to prove it is more truthful than other religions.
Misconception No. 4: Witnessing involves threatening others with the judgment of God, like saying, “If you die today without being saved, you will spend eternity in hell.” First of all, we are not God and we do not determine who and how God judges. Second, scaring people out of hell and into heaven is not very biblical, and it is not faithful to Jesus’ call for us to share the good news. Besides, escaping a place called hell in order to get into a place called heaven is not what it means to follow Christ.
I am convinced that these methods are neither faithful to the gospel nor effective in reaching people with the gospel. But if these are not the ways of being Jesus’ witnesses, then what does it mean to be Christ’s witnesses? While we may shrink away from the practices and methods that those like Cameron and Comfort use, we cannot ignore Jesus’ clear and straightforward command to be his witnesses. Therefore, in upcoming columns, I will seek to lay out a biblical model of evangelism that is harmonious with Jesus’ primary emphasis on love for one’s fellow human beings.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Rethinking the Inspiration of Scripture
One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is the belief in the inspiration of scripture. The author of Second Timothy writes, “All scripture is inspired by God.” The word translated as “inspired” literally means “God-breathed,” and although the author of these words would have been speaking specifically about the Hebrew Scriptures, Christians have long recognized that inspired scripture also includes the New Testament.
Most seminary students can list for you the various theories that have been proposed to describe the action of divine inspiration. From those theories that view the scriptures as produced by gifted human authors, to the idea that God gave a message to the author, who then used his own words in writing the text, to the theory that God dictated every particular word of the text, each hypothesis has been debated by theologians across the spectrum of Christian thought.
While the verse from Second Timothy clearly states that “All scripture is God-breathed,” this does not mean that we must accept the idea that every word was dictated by God to the human author, who then recorded those words. Many may hold to the idea that God inspired every word of the text, but this is a matter of one’s personal faith. It is certainly not compulsory to believe this, and one’s critical approach to scripture or to any theory of divine inspiration does not in and of itself negate one’s faith in God. To suggest that the text is as much a human creation as a divine one does not make one less faithful in one’s belief in God.
In fact, the texts of scripture actually give more evidence of human involvement in their production than they do of divine inspiration. This does not mean that we need to throw out divine inspiration altogether. But a very crucial question must be asked if one is to define, at least at some level, the idea of inspiration. Why did the writers of the books of the Bible write and why did they write what they wrote?
Those holding to verbal or literal inspiration would answer that God led these biblical authors to write what they wrote. This may be true, but there is no way for us to know this. However, it might be helpful for us to answer the questions about why these texts were written, and why the authors wrote what they wrote, by considering why the two communities that produced the two portions of the Bible would have done so.
Obviously, we must speak here in generalities when we talk about ancient Israel, from whom we received the Hebrew Bible, and early Christianity, from whence comes the New Testament. Across the time and space of both of these communities, but particularly ancient Israel, there was much diversity that is part of the text of scripture.
The people of Israel viewed themselves as different from the other nations that surrounded them. Indeed, they were distinctly different from these nations particularly when it came to religion. There is no known ancient civilization that was not religious, but Israel seems to have been the only ancient people who were monotheistic. They believed their God was supreme over other gods, and that their God had created the physical world from nothing and had chosen them as a covenant people. This belief certainly influenced their understanding of the world and other peoples.
To put it succinctly, the text of scripture came forth from the people of Israel in response to what they believed about God and what God was doing. In other words, they were theologically interpreting history and they were telling their history from a theological point of view. Their understanding of God and the world influenced the way they told their stories, from the creation story, to the flood story, to the Exodus story, to the stories of conquering the land of Canaan through violence, and the stories of their Exile and their return.
In approaching an understanding of the writing of the New Testament books, we must remember two things. First, the earliest followers of Jesus were Jewish, and hence any faith that would develop from their experiences must have some connection to ancient Israel and its texts. Second, because these earliest followers of Jesus believed him to be God’s Son, the promised Messiah of Israel, they must be able to explain this in relation to God’s working in the life of ancient Israel as expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures.
In holding onto these two important ideas, the authors of the books that would become the New Testament searched the Hebrew Bible in an attempt to understand and explain Jesus. While we like to think that the Old Testament foretold the coming of Jesus, it is probably better to say that those earliest believers in Jesus saw in him what they believed was described about the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. They then formulated their stories about Jesus to define his life, teachings, death and resurrection as the new actions of God in the world. Thus, their experience of Jesus influenced their reading of the Old Testament and their writing of the New Testament.
What all of this means is that the text of scripture, what we call the Bible, is the Word of God in the sense that it contains the stories of how God’s ancient peoples believed God to be working in the world. The Bible is the explanation of the mysteries of God envisioned by these historically situated humans. But the various texts written by these humans reveal God and God’s will differently and thus we must approach these texts critically in order to assess how the Spirit speaks through scripture today.
Most seminary students can list for you the various theories that have been proposed to describe the action of divine inspiration. From those theories that view the scriptures as produced by gifted human authors, to the idea that God gave a message to the author, who then used his own words in writing the text, to the theory that God dictated every particular word of the text, each hypothesis has been debated by theologians across the spectrum of Christian thought.
While the verse from Second Timothy clearly states that “All scripture is God-breathed,” this does not mean that we must accept the idea that every word was dictated by God to the human author, who then recorded those words. Many may hold to the idea that God inspired every word of the text, but this is a matter of one’s personal faith. It is certainly not compulsory to believe this, and one’s critical approach to scripture or to any theory of divine inspiration does not in and of itself negate one’s faith in God. To suggest that the text is as much a human creation as a divine one does not make one less faithful in one’s belief in God.
In fact, the texts of scripture actually give more evidence of human involvement in their production than they do of divine inspiration. This does not mean that we need to throw out divine inspiration altogether. But a very crucial question must be asked if one is to define, at least at some level, the idea of inspiration. Why did the writers of the books of the Bible write and why did they write what they wrote?
Those holding to verbal or literal inspiration would answer that God led these biblical authors to write what they wrote. This may be true, but there is no way for us to know this. However, it might be helpful for us to answer the questions about why these texts were written, and why the authors wrote what they wrote, by considering why the two communities that produced the two portions of the Bible would have done so.
Obviously, we must speak here in generalities when we talk about ancient Israel, from whom we received the Hebrew Bible, and early Christianity, from whence comes the New Testament. Across the time and space of both of these communities, but particularly ancient Israel, there was much diversity that is part of the text of scripture.
The people of Israel viewed themselves as different from the other nations that surrounded them. Indeed, they were distinctly different from these nations particularly when it came to religion. There is no known ancient civilization that was not religious, but Israel seems to have been the only ancient people who were monotheistic. They believed their God was supreme over other gods, and that their God had created the physical world from nothing and had chosen them as a covenant people. This belief certainly influenced their understanding of the world and other peoples.
To put it succinctly, the text of scripture came forth from the people of Israel in response to what they believed about God and what God was doing. In other words, they were theologically interpreting history and they were telling their history from a theological point of view. Their understanding of God and the world influenced the way they told their stories, from the creation story, to the flood story, to the Exodus story, to the stories of conquering the land of Canaan through violence, and the stories of their Exile and their return.
In approaching an understanding of the writing of the New Testament books, we must remember two things. First, the earliest followers of Jesus were Jewish, and hence any faith that would develop from their experiences must have some connection to ancient Israel and its texts. Second, because these earliest followers of Jesus believed him to be God’s Son, the promised Messiah of Israel, they must be able to explain this in relation to God’s working in the life of ancient Israel as expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures.
In holding onto these two important ideas, the authors of the books that would become the New Testament searched the Hebrew Bible in an attempt to understand and explain Jesus. While we like to think that the Old Testament foretold the coming of Jesus, it is probably better to say that those earliest believers in Jesus saw in him what they believed was described about the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. They then formulated their stories about Jesus to define his life, teachings, death and resurrection as the new actions of God in the world. Thus, their experience of Jesus influenced their reading of the Old Testament and their writing of the New Testament.
What all of this means is that the text of scripture, what we call the Bible, is the Word of God in the sense that it contains the stories of how God’s ancient peoples believed God to be working in the world. The Bible is the explanation of the mysteries of God envisioned by these historically situated humans. But the various texts written by these humans reveal God and God’s will differently and thus we must approach these texts critically in order to assess how the Spirit speaks through scripture today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)