Death of Movements?

Interesting conversation stemming from Jason Clark's post here. Of particular interest to me were the links to both Tony Jones and Jason Coker.

I'm currently reading How the Mighty Fall, by Jim Collins. Movements and organizations go through various phases that precede their collapse. I'm wondering: In movements and institutions that we label "Christian," do we experience the same cycles of growth, success and then decline that for-profit corporations go through because we continue to organize by contemporary business models? Is there another way for us, with different expectations and measures of "success"?

Coming to the Table

Is the table of Jesus about being qualified and certified? Or is it about hospitality and wonder--welcoming the awestruck stranger?

The Table in Time

Is the Table of the Lord - the place of Eucharist - a memory of the past, a realization of the present, or a foretaste of the future? Or all?

Worthiness at the Table of Jesus

By the early second century, according to Justin Martyr, the Eucharist was already limited to people who affirmed the tenets of the faith and had been baptized. Just 100 years earlier, Jesus served that Last Supper (and first Eucharist) to twelve friends who didn't get it, had deep reservations about Jesus, were about to cut and run, and included one who was selling Jesus out to his murderers. Yet Jesus served them all. Interesting how the boundaries of right belief and proper membership emerged so quickly.

Eucharist-Shaped Church

The evangelical church has, in my view, made a mistake by either marginalizing the Eucharist or using it as ancient/future window dressing. If we dare explore the Lord's Supper as a narrative/eschatological expression, we might find that we unstick ourselves from our desperate need to produce, perform and sustain the props of a western Christendom that may be gasping its last.

President Obama's Nobel Award

I've been doing some research into the make up of the Nobel Institute after hearing about the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama. Here's what I have learned:

1. The Nobel Institute is not in Nobel, Ontario, Canada, as many people might have assumed, but is rather in Oslo, Norway, which is somewhere in . . . Norway.

2. The entire staff and nominating committee of the Nobel Institute are very, very, very white, which is apparently what happens to you if you live for a long time in Norway.

3. Norway is actually considered to be part of Europe, which means that the people associated with the Nobel Institute are probably European. And Norwegian.

That's why this whole award to a first-term, first-year American president is a puzzle to those of us who actually live in the country over which he presides. We Americans are, they say, industrious, pragmatic, and all about results. How can the Nobel committee award the Peace Prize to someone who hasn't accomplished some things that have measurable results? If that's how it works, then maybe I can get the Nobel Prize for Literature because I'm thinking about writing a world-changing book. Somebody needs to suggest that to the Norwegians.

The GOP is mocking the president by claiming that he is receiving the prize just "for awesomeness." We Americans believe in having potential, but we generally don't give prizes for it.

Since I heard the news yesterday I've been thinking about this on two levels. First, why would a group of European intellectuals agree on this award? Second, Do I reflect on this as an American who has some particular political affiliation or as a follower of Jesus?

First, the Nobel committee claims that it awarded the prize to Mr. Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." We haven't see the accomplishment of full international diplomacy or the cooperation between peoples, but maybe the committee sees it as a foretaste of what could be. Perhaps they also see Mr. Obama's efforts as a change in the way the US has been perceived by the rest of the world. So it could be that the award was given because of what the President represents to the world. Maybe that's a European perspective contrasted to a USAmerican perspective.

Second, as a follower of Jesus, how do I reflect on this? It won't do to just pick political sides and christianize our rhetoric (although, in spite of the head-scratching that some may have over the logic of the award, I really don't understand why we wouldn't consider it somewhat of an honor that the President of our country just got the Nobel Peace Prize. Why we want our national leaders to crash and burn--as though that would be a good thing for the nation--remains a puzzle to me). Without turning anyone into a 21st century messiah (which I am not trying to do), are we able to reflect eschatalogically about this event?

To think eschatalogically is to consider how the intentions and purposes of God, which will be fully realized one day, are given in the here-and-now as a foretaste of what will come. What God gives in sign and wonder offers a deposit on the fullness that he will one day bring in the new heaven and new earth. In the continuum of Israel, Jesus and the church, we find a representative community that gives evidence that the kingdom of God is breaking into human history. We should be the ones who understand the value and meaning of something that is already, but not yet.

Maybe that group of Norwegians were having an eschatalogical moment when they made their decision. Maybe they were thinking about what might be.

I'm not qualified to say whether this award was given appropriately or not. However, I was in Europe in 2004 and got a taste of what it's like to be from a country that no one else seems to like. That America would be seen in a different light appeals to me. But no matter how we view this award, we might be better served (and be better servers) if we see it through the eyes of those who live in the expectancy of what we hope will one day be--not in political or military maneuverings, but in the reality of the kingdom of God.

Is Compassion Misplaced?

The release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has scandalized and horrified many. al-Metrahi's hero's welcome in Tripoli has enraged the people who still grieve the loss of the 270 people who died as a result of the bombing that took place twenty-one years ago. The rage that has been expressed through the media has been constant since al-Megrahi's release.

I cannot fathom the pain that must be felt by those who lost loved ones in that bombing. The sense of injustice must be overwhelming for them. I understand the power of their emotions.

Secretary MacAskill defended his decision by saying,

"In Scotland, justice is tempered with compassion. That is why he has been allowed to go home to die.

"I'm showing his family some compassion. I accept it is a compassion not shown to families in the United States or Scotland.

"But we have values and we will not debase them and we will seek to live up to those values of humanity that we pride ourselves on."

As I read his statement about the particular Scottish value of compassion, my mind went to a story told by the German theologian Jurgen Moltmann of his time of captivity in Scotland and England at the end of World War Two. Moltmann had been involved in the aerial bombings of strategic locations in Holland and was captured toward the end of the war. When the war ended, he and others were kept in the camps for the purpose of re-education so that they might return home to Germany and create a new culture there.
When Moltmann and his comrades learned of the Nazi atrocities in the death camps (as regular military, they had not been aware of the genocides), their shame was overwhelming. Many refused to return to Germany. Moltmann, however, found forgiveness in a way that he could never have anticipated. In the preface to his book, The Source of Life, he reports this experience:

“In Kilmarnock the miners and their families took us in with a hospitality which shamed us profoundly. We heard no reproaches, we were accused of no guilt. We were accepted as people, even though we were just numbers and wore our prisoners’ patches on our backs. We experienced forgiveness of guilt without any confession of guilt on our part, and that made it possible for us to live with the past of our people, and in the shadow of Auschwitz, without repressing anything, and without becoming callous.”

I have to wonder: Is there actually something embedded in the hearts of the Scottish people that allows such forgiveness in the face of obvious and confirmed guilt? Moltmann goes on to give an account of his confrontation, after his conversion to Christianity, with some Dutch theology students who relayed the effects of the bombings in which Moltmann had participated. Yet, through tears, these students reached out in forgiveness and embraced their German brothers, claiming that it was only through Jesus Christ that such forgiveness could take place.

I don't know which is more troubling to me: The sense of injustice seen in releasing one convicted of the deaths of so many people, or the disturbing ring of the Gospel in the actions of Secretary MacAskill. Jesus pointed out the counter-intuitive nature of life in the kingdom of God:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48)

I know nothing of Secretary MacAskill's religious leanings. But I have to wonder if it is possible that the permeation of the Gospel in a culture can actually produce a counter-intuitive response to hatred and violence that becomes scandalous and incomprehensible to the rest of the world. Certainly Jurgen Moltmann, even before his conversion, experienced forgiveness in that context and now, it appears, so has al-Megrahi.

I continue to grieve along with those who lost loved ones in the bombing of PanAm flight 103. At the same time, my hope is that the Gospel of Jesus will continue to permeate our lives and culture. The counter-intuitive nature of the kingdom of God will continue to disturb us, but perhaps that is how we Christians might be the light of the world.

Thoughts on the Passing of Dr. Ray Anderson

I first heard about Ray Anderson in 1975, during my time in the Navy. My friend, Jeff Baker, had just graduated from Westmont College and had begun his studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. Jeff kept telling me that I really needed to meet Ray Anderson. Twenty years later, I did meet Ray in a systematic theology course at Fuller.

My wife, Emily, audited one of the courses I took with Ray. It was a challenging time for us: I was twelve or thirteen years into my business career and now found myself at Fuller, attempting to sort out this sense of "calling" to ministry that had inconveniently raised its head in my life. We felt a bit stuck--how does a person consider leaving a financially successful career and move toward an uncertain vocational future? We had one daughter in college and one in high school. There seemed to be a lot at risk. We didn't know how to take our next step, if there was one.

One night in class, Ray stopped his lecture and told a story that is probably familiar to many of Ray's students. He shared his own journey of responding to the call of God. He told of leaving the farm and coming to Pasadena to start his seminary work. He spoke of "calling" as something that described the life of all Christians. He used the term "destiny" to speak of devoting one's life to something that mattered deeply--putting one's hand to the place of the heart.

When we left class that night, we no longer questioned whether or not we would make a radical life change. It would now just be a question of God's timing. Within a year we planted a church, I left the business world and we led that church for the next ten years. It was a true experience of putting our hands to the place of our hearts.

I've reminded Ray of that a number of times. I really wanted him to know how much his work could impact someone like me in some very important areas of life. It's a mixed bag when you tell someone like Ray that their words resulted in an action that reoriented the life of an entire family. The person might feel encouraged that their work made a difference. Or, the person might feel responsible and even worried. Probably a bit of both. But I think Ray had enough confidence in God to lean more toward encouragement.

A couple of years later Emily and I audited Ray's Theology and Ecology of the Family. He taught one evening about helping people work through deep issues of forgiveness. That same week a woman came to my office in need of help in forgiving people for horrible abuses that had taken place during her childhood. I walked her through what I had learned in Ray's class and the impact on the woman was dramatic and transformative.

The next evening of our class meeting, Emily and I rushed early to the International House of Pancakes where Ray would meet with students before class. We hoped that the usual crowd of fans would be small so that we could report to Ray what had happened. When we arrived, Ray was alone--no students had joined him that evening. We had him to ourselves.

We shared the story of how his teaching on forgiveness had be played out in real life with a real person. As we offered the details, tears rolled down Ray's face. It was an expression of Ray's love for God, people, and the intersection of theology and ministry.

I will always be indebted to Ray for teaching me to love theology--not for its own sake nor as an academic abstraction, but as a living, vibrant engagement with the living God who reaches deeply into human lives to bring reconciliation and transformation. Jesus was always at the center of Ray's teachings and he helped all of us to love Jesus more. Ray's mantras, "All theology is practical theology" and, "All ministry is God's ministry" continue to echo in my head. It is an honor to pass those words on to new generations of leaders--the population of people that Ray so honored and loved.

Ray will be missed by many. He will be missed not only as theological icon but also as pastor, mentor, friend and--as he liked to put it--maverick.

We entrust our friend to our heavenly Father, on whom Ray's sights were always set.

Partisan Emails, No Prayer

I often get emails that make negative claims about our current US administration. Most come from fellow followers of Jesus. It is curious to me that I have yet to receive anything from these folks that says they are praying for the President and other national leaders. I wonder why that is? It seems to me that the kingdom of God calls us to a new way of relating to the world that transcends partisan politics.

The Bartender

My book on spiritual formation and evangelism. A natural title, don't you think?

You can get it here: www.fullerseminarybookstore.com.

Can the Church Survive in a Post-Consumer Culture?

The United States, and for that matter, the world, is not really post-consumeristic. All living things consume and if we stop consuming what it takes to sustain life, then we die.

However, the current economic meltdown is causing some economists to question the sustainability of economic systems (like that of the USA) that rely significantly on consumer spending. As evidenced this holiday season, when consumers spend less at Christmas, the growth of the economy suffers. The Christmas spirit is viewed less by worship and reflection on the birth of Jesus, and more on how to part with money we don't have for more things that we don't need.

The current crisis is significant and has to be addressed. But for we who follow Jesus, this may also be the time to self-critique; to have the courage to dismantle what we think has sustained our church systems and learn in fresh and new ways what it means to be the church for the sake of the world.

In highly developed societies (again, like the USA), there is an increasing lack of awareness of the relationship between production and consumption. Ask a young child where eggs come from and she might name the local grocery store rather than the chickens in the back yard. We work jobs and then spend money on things that have no apparent link to the work we produce. Very few of us grow the crops or raise the livestock that feed us. There are so many levels between production and consumption that the relationship between the two is often foggy.

That's why we can continue to demand more and more without regard for the price to be paid when consumer demand outpaces the ability to produce (not to mention that much of what we demand is non-essential. Guitar Hero and iPods may be cool and entertaining, but they are not essential to life. iPhones, yes. iPods, no).

If we begin to look closely at how that perception has leaked into the church we might be disturbed. People shop churches as though they are buying cars. The church experience is seen as the meeting of a demand, whether it is program for kids, sermons that inspire or entertain, music that is appealing and little or no requirement for participation. People leave churches with the same kind of consumer mentality that characterizes our shopping-oriented life. If the church up the street is more attractive, has better music, spicier programs, then we move, dismissing the significance of Christian community with no more concern than when we choose to shop at Target over WalMart.

This is a systemic problem in the church (of course, I am over-generalizing here in order to make a point or two), in that churches have often come to see themselves as vendors in a competitive marketplace. We construct "services"* in order to attract more people, and we don't really care where those people come from, and most of them come from other churches. 

We too often develop highly-produced musical aspects of worship not because we seek to draw people into the beauty of worship but rather in order to keep and attract our customers--I mean, members. We think we are somehow creating environments that will draw people seeking faith, but most of our movement in church membership comes from with the ranks of people calling themselves Christians who find it easy to move from one church to the other. 

In seeking to find needs and fill them we easily pander to consumeristic tendencies that have already created a massive problem in the culture--and the world--at large. And for all our efforts, we find that much of what we do is simply for us and not the world. In fact, the world out there doesn't really care how cool and trendy our "services" are (Click here for one atheist's view of the nature of Christian mission).

Brothers and sisters, this is not sustainable. And it has little to do with the essence of what it means to be the church.

What if, during these difficult times, we as the church began to look deeply at who God has called us to be, and then prayed for the courage to act on some newly discovered convictions (look here for a creative challenge to holiday consumerism)? What if we ran the risk of losing attenders by searching out God's desires and intentions for us and then forming our corporate life around those intentions? Would we consider our churches to be successful if we had smaller, more deeply devoted members who understood that we don't "do church" for ourselves but for the sake of the world? That to be a worshipper of God also means that we are lovers of the world?

If we USAmericans are waiting for things to get back to "normal" economically so we can get back on our debt and spending machines, then we have learned nothing. If the church at large doesn't use this opportunity to re-evaluate and reform both its inward and outward life, then we also will have learned nothing.

Returning to normal is not what we need. What we need is a new normal. 

*Note: Worship gatherings are not called "services" because they serve us. The idea is that we serve God in our worship. From there we go, as many churches include in their weekly benedictions, to love and serve the world.

Thinking about the Birth of Jesus

Christmas is about a week away. All the rhetoric about whether or not we can say "Merry Christmas" in public continues to bless my dark little heart. Yes, indeed--why would we ever say such a thing? Why not say "Merry Shmerkins"? BECAUSE IT ISN'T SHMERKINS DAY, THAT'S WHY! Check the calendar. You'll see that I'm right.

Nevertheless, Christmas time it is. This is supposed to be a big deal for we who follow Jesus. And yet, we get sucked into the same cultural non-Christmas stuff as much as anyone else. We need to work on that. We might start by reflecting on why celebrating the birth of Jesus is important to us.

Of course, it's important to us for a lot of reasons. It causes us to think about what it means that such a one would be born in a very human way, yet conceived, we are told, by God. We think about the amazing things that will come in the ministry of Jesus. We consider what sorrow will come to him and to all who come to love him.

There is another thing that is wandering through my mind this season: That Jesus' birth signals the unimaginable claim that God, in entering fully into human existence in the person of Jesus, will experience all the inevitabilities of that existence: Life, joy, sorrow, pain, suffering, and ultimately, death. Jesus is born--it is now a guarantee that Jesus will die.

Sometimes we think that the Romans and Jewish leaders who condemned Jesus to death on a cross were responsible for his death--that without them, Jesus would not have died. While it's true that they were the instigators of his death at that point in time, it was God who embraced the inevitability of human death when Jesus was born. For every birth announcement there will one day be an obituary.

Jesus did not come as an innocent "other" who stands between God and the human race, somehow shielding us from what God really wants to do to us. No, Jesus came with all the fullness of God, so that it is God himself who lives, loves, suffers and dies. Remember that Jesus is linked with the ancient Jewish title Emmanuel--God is with us.

Christmas is good. Buy some presents that mean something for people you love, but don't go into debt and don't be dopey about what you buy. Bless your neighbors and co-workers. Find environments of worship and reflection that draw you deeper into the mystery that is the incarnation. Learn about Advent. Live in the story.

Merry Christmas. Hang on for Easter.

What About Homosexuality? Part 3

There are a number of studies in the areas of anthropology, psychology and medical science that suggest the normalcy of homosexuality, in both genetics and the history of human societies. The scientific studies seem to be in continuous debate, but the anthropological studies have many levels of history on their side. It appears that homosexuality has always been present in human societies. For various reasons, people with homosexual inclinations were often marginalized, sometimes for antagonistic reasons and other times because such behavior does not add new members to the tribe or village through procreation.

In western culture today, the need to add new human beings to societies is less of a concern than it might have been in history past. Yet, homosexual people and communities are still often marginalized, at least because they remain a small minority of most populations.

The tension and paradox then, must deepen. I follow Jesus, who is shown in my Scriptures to have reached out to the marginalized and declared that the kingdom of God had come to such as these. Jesus reached out to all kind of people on the margins of his particular society and was personally marginalized to the place of execution when his own countrymen demanded his death.

The people I have know who claim a homosexual inclination have not been sexual predators or abusers (that I know of). They are not people who woke up one day and decided to take a walk on the wild side with members of their own gender. They claim a drive within them that they do not control. Some claim that drive has been evident since they were children. Most of the homosexual people I have known have also shared with me stories of deep relational pain, sexual abuse and neglect. These confessions make them like others I know and love who do not claim to be homosexuals. 

Defining homosexual persons as immoral en masse requires me to assume that those persons have made a conscious and willing choice to pursue such behavior when they were not compelled to do so, as a deliberate act of transgression against the rules of God. But I do not believe that homosexual persons can be so easily dismissed. If so, then I must dismiss myself and all others on planet earth.

No matter the cause of homosexuality--a normal, genetic variation from heterosexuality or an expression of sexual deviance arising out of deep relationship brokenness--I have to ground my relationships with homosexual persons the same way I must ground my relationships with heterosexual persons: As co-humans, made in the image of God. As such, I am compelled to point them to Jesus, that their lives might be transformed by the Spirit of God just as my life must be transformed.

In addition, no matter my opinion on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, I must still go to them and to others who are needy and hurting, and serve them in the name of Jesus.5 That is at the heart of the true Christian vocation. Our vocation is not to rain condemnation on anyone, but rather to both proclaim and demonstrate the present reality of the kingdom of God.6 

5 See the article by the well-known British atheist Roy Hattersley, "Faith Does Breed Charity." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/12/religion.uk. Accessed 11/23/08.

6 Dr. Ray S. Anderson deals with this question in a more comprehensive way at http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2008/07/homosexuality-and-church-meditation-on_18.html.

What About Homosexuality? Part 2

The question about homosexuality is linked more to the issue of morality than to that of fitness. Is homosexuality wrong in that it runs counter to a moral standard? In order to think about this, I have to explore in what ways homosexuality might be framed in a category of morality.

1. Sexual practices that are predatory or forced upon an unwilling person would be considered, generally, immoral. If homosexual behaviors are acted out in such a way, most societies would consider them immoral. However, most societies would consider heterosexual activity immoral as well, if acted out under the same circumstances.

2. Sexual practices that use another person without regard for that person's well-being or dignity, even if by mutual consent, would be considered by many to be dehumanizing at the least. Again, that would apply to both homosexual and heterosexual behavior.

3. Obsessive sexual behavior (sometimes labeled "sexual addiction") of any nature is generally considered aberrant (note the recent celebrities whose treatment for sexual addiction has made the popular press).

I suspect that the question moves beyond even these categories and into the realm of the transcendent. In other words, is there a higher moral law that is breached when a person claims to have an innate attraction to people of the same gender?

The three Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--have within their scriptures prohibitions against homosexual behavior (Islam is probably the strictest in this regard, with capital punishment as a legal consequence in certain middle-eastern nations). This is not to say that all adherents of these faith traditions denounce homosexuality, but rather that their sacred texts do not support such sexual behavior.

So, as a Christian, a former pastor and now a theological educator, what do I think? Again, my thinking on this subject cannot be purely objective--I bring my own history, learning and biases into the analysis.

1. I am heterosexual. I do not desire a sexual relationship with another man. It is not a matter of choice--I simply have no inclination in that direction. It is, therefore, difficult for me to understand that inclination in others since it has not been my experience.

2. I was raised in an era when homosexuality was considered aberrant behavior by the psychological community2 and immoral behavior by most religious groups. The possibility of the acceptance of homosexuality as normative has some significant imprinting to challenge, as it probably does for many boomers and their ancestors.

3. I have had (and have) relationships with co-workers, business associates, and friends (both inside and outside our common faith communities) who were or are homosexual. Only one of those persons would be characterized as sexually aggressive toward others, myself included. The rest I have considered as valued relationships.

For me, this creates a paradox. On the one hand I have sacred texts that I deeply value which speak against homosexuality3; on the other, I have texts in those same Scriptures that call me to love all people--those who are like me and for me, but also those different from me and even antagonistic toward me.4  I combine this tension with friendship and love I have shared with homosexual people in my life and I find abstraction to be an impossibility.

TO BE CONTINUED

2In 1973, homosexuality was moved from DSM-II's category of mental issness and into the category of sexual disturbance. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/210, accessed 11/23/08.

3Even if all the texts of the Old and New Testaments that specifically refer to homosexuality were eliminated as culturally obsolete, the Bible would still teach that the image of God is reflected in men or women individually, but also in the relationship between a man and a woman in the bond of marriage (see Genesis 2).

4See Jesus' words about the completeness and perfection of God's love in human relationships in Matthew 5:43-38.

What About Homosexuality? Part 1

I have been asked recently to give my opinion on homosexuality: Is it wrong? What I can offer is only an opinion, and as such it will be flawed and in need of correction. Nevertheless, I will offer it. 

I must begin by confessing a lack of so-called objectivity. As the scientist-philosopher Michael Polanyi claimed, there is no possibility of pure objectivity when it comes to the way human beings analyze the things of the world. Even the most learned scientist brings her own worldview and material expectations to the microscope.1

I also lack objectivity because there have been people in my life who tell me that homosexuality is the proper category for their sexual orientation. These people have not been in my life in a casual way--they are people I have loved and valued as friends. It will be impossible for me to approach this topic abstractly, theoretically, philosophically or theologically without seeing the faces of the friends I have known.

The question on the table, again: Is homosexuality wrong? I am a Christian, I have been a pastor and I now work in the field of theological education, so the question behind the question is likely about what I believe God, the Bible, church tradition, etc., claim about homosexuality.

To attempt to address this complex question, I have to start by turning back and asking: What do we mean by wrong? There are at least two ways to approach that question.

1.  Something can be deemed wrong because it is incorrect or misplaced. Chili powder is the wrong seasoning for lemonade. "Five" is the wrong answer to "What is the sum of two plus two?"

2. Something can be deemed wrong because it violates a moral or ethical standard within a communal system, like a nation, a state, a city, a religious community, and so on. In this sense, wrong is determined by a standard that transcends, or is above and outside, human preferences. Murder is considered wrong because most human communities place a high value on human life, for a variety of reasons. Diverting funds from a charity into the pockets of the charity's executives is considered wrong because the act violates a trust and puts the declared recipients of the charity's gifts at risk.

I sat in a public high school classroom a few years ago as a group of honors students discussed the issue of same-sex marriage. The opinions differed as the group worked through their questions and thought process. More than one student suggested that homosexuality presented a problem because of the "lock and key." Suspecting I knew what they meant, I inquired further. The claim was that they found homosexuality to be puzzling because, to put it crudely, the parts didn't seem to fit. For these students there was something wrong anatomically. They understood that males and females had sexual organs that were designed (by God, by evolutionary processes, and so on) to have intercourse which had the potential to foster reproduction. One organ was a giver and the other a receiver, with particular reproductive (and pleasurable) results.

These students were claiming that homosexuality was wrong because of the incongruity of the sexual organs. In this sense wrong would be akin to being different. It would be an issue of fitness.

But the question at hand is linked more to the issue of morality than to that of fitness.

TO BE CONTINUED

1. Michael Polanyi sets the stage for his argument by claiming ". . . that complete objectivity as usually attributted to the exact sciences is a delusion and is in fact a fast ideal" (p. 18). He states later, ". . . Personal knowledge in science is not made but discovered, and as such it claims to establish contact with reality beyond the clues on which it relies. It commits us, passionately and far beyond our comprehension, to a vision of reality. Of this responsibility we cannot divest ourselves by setting up objective criteria of verifiability . . . For we live in it as in the garment of our own skin" (p. 64). Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, 1974.

Is Marriage a "Right"?

People on both sides of the same-sex marriage issues (very big in California right now) argue from the position of individual rights. Pro-same-sex people seem to rely quite heavily on what they claim is a constitutional right to do the things that an individual wants to do--like get married.

I was thinking about this issue a few days ago and I recalled two things that occurred in my life in 1972 (when dinosaurs roamed the earth) that had to do with my so-called rights.

In 1972 I was 19 (I turned 20 in September). I was a voting-age citizen of the United States and the bearer of all rights therein. In the Spring of that year I received a letter that began with the word, "Greetings!" It was my draft notice. I learned very quickly that my right to do what I wanted had been suspended. I did not have the right to refuse that summons to serve in the military (as it turned out, I joined the Navy and served four years). Yes, the summons to compulsory military service came with the privilege of being a citizen, but my rights to individual freedom had to be suspended for that to happen.

The second thing that happened that year is that I got engaged. Emily and I made a verbal commitment to each other and it was affirmed by our community and families. We had the "right" to just move in together (which we did not), but getting married turned out to be different. In 1972, three things had to happen for us in order to get married: (1) We had to get blood tests. Presumably we would have been refused a marriage license if something suspect was shown in the test results; (2) I had to get my parent's written permission. In 1972, a woman could marry at 18, but a man had to be 21 (probably a wise recognition of the disparity between maturity levels). I could get married at 20, but my parents had to give me a letter (which they did); (3) A recognized official (clergy, officer of the court, etc.) had to preside over a marriage ceremony, religious or otherwise.

For us, marriage was not really a right--it was a request we made to the state of California that could be denied under certain circumstances. People, for example, who are already married cannot get married to another person--the permission will not be granted. 

In 1972, two people of the same sex could not receive permission to marry. But since that time, other restrictions to the permission process have been lifted: Blood tests are no longer required; people may marry at age 18 (both male and female). Some sort of ceremony by an authorized person is still required, however. It is still a granting of permission and the conferring of legal recognition.

When people get married, I don't think they are exercising a right. It is the receiving of recognition by the larger community (in our case, the state of California) that this relationship qualifies for the protections offered by the legalities of marriage, including ownership of property, rights to income, inheritance, structures for offspring, etc. In an important way, marriage has always been an institution that protects the couple, but also serves the community.

I think the argument about rights in same-sex marriage is misplaced. Perhaps the proponents should talk about how (1) they believe same-sex as a limiter should be simply removed from the list, just as blood tests and parental permission have been; (2) they believe that same-sex marriage, in a recognition by the state, serves the larger community.

Christians should look at the issue a little differently, I believe. For us, marriage is also not about rights. Marriage is about a covenant relationship that is characterized by faithfulness--to God, to each other, and to our community. Marriage is not simply a contract that is characterized by rights. We also believe that marriage is a spiritual and theological reality--it is a reflection of the image of God (we get this from Genesis chapters 1-2 in the Bible). More on this topic later.

If marriage is only about rights, then there can be a lot of movement to remove more and more limiters from those rights: Change the legal age of adulthood from 18 to 10. That would allow a 40-year-old man to marry an 11-year-old girl--it would be his right to do so. Change the requirement that marriage be monogamous--people could have the right to marry as many people as desired. If marriage is only about rights, then that right should be exercised as anyone sees fit. If not, then there must be discrimination afoot.

The argument regarding the rights of marriage is painful because it is misplaced. If there is an argument, at least from the legal side, then it needs to framed differently. 

Fires in California

Yesterday, upon discovering that Santa Barbara was burning, my co-worker J-Bird and I quickly relocated a group of our students up there who had planned to meet for a church history class right next to the heavy burn area.

This morning I discovered that the sky above my neighborhood was filled with smoke. It seems that major fires are burning (out-of-control) in the areas surrounding my city. The sky is dark enough that the light-sensitive lamps in people's yards are flickering on. The sun is an eerie, dull red disk high in the afternoon sky. Ash is falling everywhere.

My wife left this morning to visit her mother 35 miles to the northeast in a hospital where she was admitted last night. Her mother is 85 years old and her situation appears grave. Both major freeways that my wife would take home are closed because of wildfires. Across the street, my neighbors Kate and Tony are waiting for Kate's mother, who is living with them, to slip away. The hospice people thought she would pass away on Thursday, but she still lingers.

This is turning out to be quite a week. It is interesting how global issues lose their attraction when your local world is in turmoil. It causes me to stop and remember that, at its essence, life is much more about people than it is about issues. And we all live together in a very dangerous world where our only real hope is to trust in God and put our lives into his hands.

"You are a hiding-place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance." (Psalm 32:7)

Post-Election Reflection

Now that the dust of the election is beginning to settle, it seems good to me to think about how we, as followers of Jesus, respond to the results. Two thoughts come to mind:

1. If your candidate was not elected, will we pray for our new president and trust God for the welfare of the nation? There are radio talk shows that make a fortune out of attacking presidential administrations that they do not prefer. Is that a place for us? I think not.

2. In California, Proposition 8 passed (51%), seeking to ban gay marriage in the state. The question we must now ask is: Who is my neighbor? Is a gay or lesbian person my neighbor? What does Jesus have to say about our love to the neighbor?

Proposition 8 has resulted in more accusations of hatred (which is a significant ramp-up of the term intolerance) toward its proponents than any issue in my memory. Even though the issue might be important, it is a sad irony that the word hatred would be linked to the Christian community (Mormons are probably taking the biggest hit on this one). Historically, Christians have been accused of being atheists, cannibals, and any number of strange labels. In most cases, these labels were not true.

May the label of hatred also be found to be untrue about us.

Acting Like a Christian in an Election Year, part 6

There is good counsel for us in Jeremiah 29:

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare."

This text was apparently written to the Jewish exiles living under the dominance of the Babylonian empire. As exiles, they are still called to live their lives and to pray for the welfare of the larger culture.

We can probably imagine how difficult forced exile would be. The people are taken from their land by a powerful military force and relocated to a place and culture not their own. Over time they adapt and learn how to live in the new culture, all the while striving to keep the memory of their identity alive. Walter Bruggemann, commenting on the song of Moses in Exodus 15, says that the community of ancient Israel . . . "gathered around the memories, knows that it is defined by and is at the disposal of a God who as yet is unco-opted and uncontained by the empire." (The Prophetic Imagination, Augsburg Press, 2001, p. 19)

Aren't we glad that we in USAmerica are not in exile? But we are. As followers of Jesus, as the people of God, we will always live in the shadow of a dominant culture. We may not feel a sense of oppression here, but we do live in a dominant culture that is driven by consumerism (which is the strongest fueler of our domestic economy), militarism and the demand for personal rights. When we forget that we are called to live in the alternative reality of the kingdom of God, then we become exiles without memory. We find ourselves serving a god that has indeed been co-opted and contained by the empire. We end up worshipping a god that is wrapped in the nation's flag.

The idea that we Christians in the USA are a people in exile might seem odd to some. But we are a people (according to St. Paul in Romans 11) grafted into the life of Israel. The Israel into which we are grafted is an Israel in exile (at the time of Paul's writing, the exile was under the dominance of Rome). By our very essence, we are a people in exile, both theologically and existentially.

To recognize that we are a people in exile is not a call to despise the nation. But it is, I believe, a call to speak prophetically and with wisdom into the life of the nation by first of all speaking into the life of the church. The church needs memories--not sentimental memories of the various denominational traditions, but instead memories of the story that God has been writing throughout human history. The story is not national but global and eternal. It is a story of both salvation and mission. It is the story into which our lives are being written. It is the story of the exiles impacting the dominant culture just as yeast permeates bread dough.

Today is election day in the USA. Some may vote out of fear, party loyalty, anger, or the desire for power. By contrast, perhaps the votes cast by followers of Jesus could be given as prayers--prayers for the welfare of the nation, that we might find welfare.

If you are a USAmerican citizen, then I encourage you to vote today. But remember who you are.

Acting Like a Christian in an Election Year, part 5

More anti-Obama messages have come my way via the Internet this week. I wonder why no one ever sends me anti-John McCain information? Most of the things I receive come from people identifying themselves as Christians. I still see things insisting that Mr. Obama is a Muslim (by the way: Regardless of the fact that he claims to be a Christian and has written about his faith in one of his books--prior to the campaign--I wonder if it has occurred to anyone that in the USA it is not illegal to be a Muslim. In fact, a person of any or no faith can run for public office. Just a thought).

People extend great respect to Mr. McCain for his service to his country, and rightfully so. Mr. McCain also says he is a Christian but describes God's relationship to the human race in deistic terms (as the cosmic clockmaker who sets things in motion but disappears, leaving the human race to make the best of things). I guess that doesn't really trouble anyone or I would have received another video or an email with doctored photographs or other incredible pieces of fine journalistic brilliance.

The alignment of evangelical Christian faith with Republican politics is, in my view, wrong. It is just as wrong as aligning our faith with Democratic politics, although that alignment is rarely promoted among evangelicals. American + Republican = Christian, is a very distorted formula.

In his book The Contemplative Pastor, Eugene Peterson calls we who follow Jesus to a different economy of life:

"The methods that make the kingdom of America strong--economic, military, technological, informational--are not suited to making the kingdom of God strong. I have had to learn a new methodology: truth-telling and love-making, prayer and parable. These are not methods very well adapted to raising the standard of living in suburbia or massaging the ego into a fashionable shape." (p. 28)

So, before we pass on the information of:

Rumor--let us reflect on our scriptures and how they counsel us regarding false witness (see Exodus 23:1-3 and Matthew 5:33-37 for starters)

Hatred--let us consider how Jesus describes perfection of love (Matthew 5:43-48) and the way he includes both neighbors and enemies in God's perfect circle of love.

Disastrous Expectations--let us consider how Jesus calls us to both love and pray for those we consider to be our opponents (again, Matthew 5:43-48) rather than to predict (and even hope for, perhaps?) their downfall.

So, my fellow followers of Jesus: Let's relearn what it really means to be the people of God for the sake of the world.