An Evangelical Future

/0 Comments/in /by

An Evangelical Future

If we look at “what’s trending” we have to navigate between the “two horizons” of Christian tradition and Christian living. As I have tried to emphasize in these essays, Christianity is Evangelical, Orthodox, and Catholic. The life and growth of Christianity among any of the traditions is always “evangelical” as the historic and new churches undertake to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. But this evangelical, missional dynamic informed and energized by the Word and the Spirit cannot be managed institutionally and certainly not politically.

At present, there is still immense commitment from American evangelicals to this mission and now along the lines of partnership with other missional Christians around the globe. The day of paternalism by Western churches is over – we live in a post-colonial time and this is to the advantage of global Christianity for the formation of many new centers of faithful leadership. New vital areas of American evangelicalism have become “post-denominational”, even seeking a “religion-less Christianity”. But there is a problem of falling statistics in general commitment to church attendance and to biblical literacy – the two are inseparably linked. Aging memberships and disaffection for and of the young have become acute. At the hundreds of Christian colleges and para-church organizations, there may be a feeling of largeness and momentum but in terms of the population as a whole, American evangelicalism is a shrinking demographic. Fortunately, many of its organizations are committed to partnership with the global family of evangelicals and the prospects are bright despite our brokenness. Still, the future will be to address this decline. In all likelihood, if the evangelical population trend reverses and demonstrates significant new growth, it will be because the message and methods of discipleship are actually “reaching the unreached”.

The distinguishing feature of evangelicals is their concentration upon scripture as the canonical form of the Gospel. Through translation and dissemination of the scriptures permeation of the gospel will be extensive in the local populations of the world. This means that wherever believers are adequately formed as disciples of Jesus, they will be narrating their own lives in biblical yet unfamiliar cultural terms. Evangelicals are defined by this internalization of the gospel, by its translation into modes of “saving experience” –the fundamental Christian experience that the rubric “evangelical” connotes. Saving experience shaped by this gospel is the evangelical measure for all other doctrinal and missional norms. The Christo-centric scriptures – “the messianic scriptures” are the basis for this measure (cf., e.g., Lk 24, the risen Jesus instructs his disciples in doing Spirit-illumined, messianic exegesis of all scripture).  This is the source of Augustine’s “evangelical” motto:  credo ut intelligam – “I believe in order that I may understand”. These evangelical features make learning and experience twin principles of identity formation. Evangelical mission, education, and humanitarian relief are practical outcomes of this identity.

What will evangelical leadership look like? Part of the evangelical world is struggling to make its mark through tradition. The neo-traditionalists may be “Anglican”, “Reformed”, “Wesleyan”, “Baptist”, even “Pentecostal” while there is a constant trickle of conversion to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. The traditions are certainly the common property of all Christians and yet all the historic institutions together are not adequate for the global missional task. This should not be taken as dismissive, only that the global mission to the earth’s 7 billion could never be dependent upon the historic institutions alone. So the mission is being taken up and extended by non-Western Christians as well. Happily, they are up to it. Impressive leadership and resources have emerged in Asia and elsewhere. I would suggest here a key historical lesson evangelicals should bear in mind. When Constantine adopted Christianity as the religio licita (“legal religion”) of Empire it not only radically altered the faith, it also limited the church. Orthodoxy became defined by the boundary of the empire; but orthodox Christianity already exceeded those bounds. The resulting divisions left much of the world beyond the empire to a critically weakened mission. This would be born out over and over again – Latin will only take you so far in the world. With the demise of Constantinianism in mission and with unencumbered evangelical principles, the extension of the gospel to all nations is actually freer now. As the new communities find ways to exist and to do their mission, orthodoxy and catholicity will embrace such developments.

The very positive side of evangelical outreach is also humanitarian. For decades, evangelicals were allergic to any whiff of “social gospel”. As the mainline went into radical decline, evangelical organizations such as World Vision have proliferated. The missional partnerships and the political coming of age of evangelicals are also significant in this. Hopefully the new generation of evangelicals will realize how fundamentally the gospel inspires life commitments to discipleship with these very practical outcomes. If Christian living based upon the gospel can achieve greater focus, a whole new generation of American evangelicals will join the already vibrant missional partnerships around the globe.

The evangelical contribution to global Christianity from the Reformation was its concentration upon the doctrine of salvation sola Christi – but also its ecclesiology which required faithfulness to the gospel alone – the true heart of sola scriptura. The marks of salvation and of the church are mediated through the Spirit and the Word activating people in worship and discipleship. Christianity thrives based upon the gospel essentials of knowing Christ where the “two or more” gathered in his name constitute the church whenever this is happening. In these conversations I have advocated for the five sola’s of the Reformation: faith alone, scripture alone, grace alone, Christ alone, to God alone be glory. The great imperative for evangelicals is the proclamation of the gospel and the advancement of the church however simple its forms. Evangelicals have always seen this mission as requiring practical innovation and immense resourcefulness.  When the Gospel of Christ takes root in and transforms so many cultures it is because it also teaches deep respect for the dignity of the human being. These evangelical principles have become a permanent feature of global Christianity but they are a long away from any possibility of institutional containment. In this we can be confident in the sola Christi: “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18).

Evangelicals are by necessity deeply committed to religious liberty because they are often regarded as sectarian as they have communicated the gospel independently of traditional institutions. But they, like other Christians, wish to avoid persecution – and they must wish this for every human being. Persecution does not always result in a strengthened church. In some cases persecution has resulted in the eradication of historic Christian communities along with the silencing of their message. The world of cultural systems is vast and powerful and only relatively few provide for freedom of religion. In intolerant places, Christian living has become virtually impossible because it is associated with “Western” culture. But in recent decades many evangelicals have been looking to models of contextualization and indigenization of the gospel by native speakers and their nascent communities. The gospel is culturally translatable but its communicants must be free to live it out. Living out the gospel will always be profoundly shaped by the cultures of its people and evangelicals need to respect these new Christian achievements however unusual they may appear. “The gospel cannot be chained” (2 Ti 2:9) as it makes its way into difficult places and engenders new communities. American evangelicals have a great deal to learn from the emergent evangelical majorities in the global east and south – of course the learning in partnership goes in both directions.

The origins of religious liberty are not to be found in the general rule of law but in the gospel itself. Saving faith requires the exercise of a free conscience – or better, a freed conscience. This is essential to scriptural teaching on the nature of the human being before God. The gracious work of the Holy Spirit is a free act of God so that faith in Christ is truly saving the person not coercing him. The most “evangelical” of the Vatican II documents is Dignitas Humanae (1965)[1] authored by John Courtney Murray and promulgated by Pope Paul VI, drawing directly from the American evangelical heritage going back to Roger Williams. The document asserts that “the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature”. Such faith is linked directly to the dignity of the person which is “inviolable” – something that culture warriors need to reflect upon long and hard.

As we learn to recognize the contemporary evangelical developments soteriologically and ecclesially, we might consider five rules of Christian identity: 1) wherever believers, however hidden within the landscape of their native cultural systems manifest a sincere confession of “Jesus is Lord” we are assured that they do so only by the Holy Spirit (I Co 12:3); 2) wherever believers begin to live out the love command of Jesus they demonstrate the reality of their sanctification in Christian living (Mk 12:29);  3) wherever believers demonstrate witness to eternal life in Jesus Christ they demonstrate the saving reality of Jesus’ mission in the world (Jo 17:3);  4) wherever believers, however much they are forced underground and are few, gather in Jesus name they are his ecclesial presence in the world (Mt 18:20); 5) wherever believers are helping others to become followers of Jesus they demonstrate the spiritual authority which Jesus gives to his disciples (Mt 28:19-20).  All of these are evangelical hallmarks of the church where the gospel of Jesus Christ is being effectively mediated in the world. To be sure, there are a multitude of doctrinal refinements to be brought forward but these are their root and stem; that which makes the visible church possible.

Finally, perhaps the greatest thing that evangelicals can do is praise God and in particular to exclaim: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news…” (Is 52:7; Ro 10:15).

 

 

[1]  http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

LOSS OF TRUST IN GOVERNMENT IS DEVASTATING

/3 Comments/in , /by

A common theme emerged in the reflections of the political pundits on the three recent sources of political crisis: the administration’s talking points on the Benghazi attack; The IRS targeting of conservative organizations seeking 501 (C) 4 tax-exempt status; and the Justice Department’s subpoenas of the phone records of Associated Press reporters. In each case, there was a devastating effect on the level of trust in government.

This eroding level of trust among politicians contributes strongly to the current political gridlock. Those who clamor for “small government” now have more ammunition for questioning any new government programs because government just cannot be trusted to implement any new legislation.

This erosion of trust is even more evident in the abysmal level of confidence in government reported by citizens. This lack of trust on the part of citizens poisons their views on the acceptability, or lack thereof, of major proposals for legislation currently being debated in Congress. For example, in discussing with a pastor friend of mine the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill currently being debated in the U. S. Senate, I applauded the “balanced” nature of the proposed legislation, in that it has strong law and order measures at the same time that it provides a tough but fair pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (see my May 1 Blog Musing, “The Elusive Search for Balance in Political Legislation”).

The reaction of my friend was sobering: “Yes, but my conservative parishioners are not in favor of this comprehensive plan because they don’t trust the Obama administration to actually implement any law and order measures (e.g., stronger border security) that may be part of a comprehensive package that Congress approves”.

It is hard to overestimate the damage that this loss of trust in government has on political discourse. The brokenness of political discourse among citizens needs to be addressed. But I will focus the remainder of this musing on the appalling state of political discourse among politicians. The problem lies primarily in the ways in which politicians typically engage those on the other side of the aisle.

A bedrock pre-requisite for politicians who disagree with one another about any public policy issue being able to identify the “common ground” needed for governing is that they first achieve a high level of “mutual trust and respect.” Political scientist Stephen Monsma has eloquently elaborated on this pre-requisite in proposing a “Dialogue Model for Cultural Engagement” in stark contrast to the prevalent confrontational model.[1]

In brief, Monsma argues that the first step in his three-step dialogue model is “establishing a spirit of mutual trust and respect with those with whom one disagrees,” either by “establishing personal face-to-face relationships” or, if that is not possible, by engaging “in dialogue in a thoughtful, honest, respectful manner in your writing, speeches, or artistic endeavors” (pp. 28-29). Establishing this relationship of mutual trust and respect will make it “harder for you to write off the other person, and the other person will have a harder time writing you off, as stupid, biased, or evil. It becomes harder for persons in a dispute to demonize the other as foolish or bad” (p. 29).

Monsma’s second step in the dialogue model is an extension of the first step: “Coming to understand why those who are opposed to us take the positions that we see as being wrong” (p. 30). It is when we get to know others in a relationship of trust that we come to a mutual understanding of how our respective social locations inform our differing perspectives on the issue at hand, which will prepare us to talk respectfully about our disagreements.

It is only after we have engaged one another in these first two steps that we may be prepared to take the huge third step: “that of persons on the other side altering their position – or you, perhaps, altering your position – so as to reach greater, even if not complete, agreement” (p. 30).

I whole-heartedly embrace Monsma’s Dialogue Model for engaging those with whom you disagree. In fact, my entire web site is based on this model. But to suggest that this model is feasible in our current political climate appears to be ludicrous. So what can realistically be done to improve the engagement between politicians?

If you are hoping that I will provide an easy answer, you will be sorely disappointed. Trust cannot be legislated. It can only be earned. And restoring trust that has been lost is an extremely difficult task that typically takes a long time. So, I can only propose a modest first step.

Monsma’s model for dialogic discourse suggests that politicians need to get to know one another better on a personal level, so that they gain clearer understanding of the reasons for their disagreements and earn each other’s respect despite their differences.

Such “personal engagement” between politicians on opposite sides of the aisle, including opportunities for greater social interaction, seems to have virtually disappeared from the current political scene. The result is that those who disagree about important public policy issues typically view each other not as friends, or at least collaborators, seeking what is good for the country, but only as combatants.

As modest as this first step sounds, it will require an enormous shift in how politicians currently engage one another. It is my hope that more politicians will try this “personal” strategy, which should also be pursued to change the mode of engagement between political pundits and other citizens who now prefer to demonize one another. I believe that such a strategy can be a small seed that begins the long, arduous process of rebuilding trust in government. 

 

[1] Stephen V. Monsma, “Called to be Salt and Light: An Overview” in Harold Heie & Michael A. King, Editors, Mutual Treasure: Seeking Better Ways for Christians and Culture to Converse (Telford, PA: Cascadia Publishing House, 2009), pp. 21-36.

THE ELUSIVE QUEST FOR BALANCE IN POLITICAL LEGISLATION

/in , /by

The biggest obstacle to politicians actually governing rather than posturing is the erroneous belief that my side has a monopoly on how to solve the public policy problem at hand and the views of the opposition have little or no value. It’s my way or the highway.

This “either/or” rather than “both/and” thinking typically leads to the proposal of inadequate one-dimensional solutions to multi-dimensional problems, when what is needed is to strike a proper balance that addresses the various dimensions of the problem. Examples of the failure of political legislation that refuses to seek a proper balance are legion.

The stalemate in attempts to solve the Federal Budget Deficit problem results from one-dimensional thinking on both sides of the aisle: either we cut expenditures or we increase revenues. No solution is in sight unless we pursue both strategies, creating a workable balance between them.

The recent failure of proposed gun control legislation reflects a failure to adequately recognize and address the multiple dimensions of the problem of violence in America. The choice is not between either addressing the mental health and “culture of violence” problems that beset our nation or enacting some common sense gun control measures like strengthening the system for background checks. It has to be both.

I am encouraged by the balance that I perceive in the proposal for comprehensive immigration reform that is currently being debated in the U. S. Senate. For those legitimately concerned about law and order issues, the proposed legislation includes strong measures for strengthening border security and combating visa overstays. But it also provides a viable pathway to citizenship for those undocumented workers who are making an enormous contribution to our economy and our country and whose families are being decimated by current immigration laws. However, in the early stages of the debate on this proposed legislation, one-dimensional political voices are already being heard. Time will tell whether this balanced approach has any chance of being legislated.

The need for multi-dimensional solutions to problems extends to American positions on thorny foreign policy issues. Consider, for example, our stance regarding the seemingly intractable conflict between Israel and Palestine. There is absolutely no hope for a solution unless it is recognized that the only viable solution will need to treat both Israelis and Palestinians “justly” (enabling both peoples to flourish). And America will be on the wrong side of history if it fails to advocate for such a balanced solution.

I could go on. But by now you get my point.

If I am right about the need to seek a “proper balance” between competing views on most domestic and foreign policy issues, then that points to what I believe to be two primary reasons for the current gridlock in Washington.

The first reason is that proposing one dimensional solutions to multi-dimensional problems is a piece of cake. It all too easy to argue for either/or solutions that lend themselves to 60 second sound bytes or bumper stickers, and to simply demonize those who do not agree.  Seeking for multi-dimensional solutions is demanding work. It requires that you actually engage those who disagree with you in respectful conversation as you seek to forge a workable balance between competing viewpoints, which is an enormous task since there will be much disagreement about how to define that balance.

A second and even more ominous reason for the current political gridlock is that in our current political climate those who seek for balanced solutions will likely be punished. This is due to the huge lobbying efforts and obscene amounts of money that are expended on promoting the election of one-dimensional politicians and thwarting the political aspirations of those who wish to engage in “principled compromise” with members of the other party toward balanced solutions to our most pressing societal problems. This will not change until the American public refuses to elect politicians who are committed to one-dimensional either/or thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Government’s Role and the Journey with Capitalism

/3 Comments/in /by

The debate over the role of government in western societies has been a product of our journey with free-market capitalism since the 18th century. Christians may dress the debate up in biblical language, but we need to pay attention to the peculiarly modern and capitalism-driven shape of our tired debates over government’s role.

Modern capitalism has been the great driver of economic, technological, and cultural development in the modern world. In fact, modern capitalism essentially defines the modern world.

But it became clear quite early in the career of industrial capitalism that it produced numerous losers as well as winners. Losers included workers (including women and children) abused by overlong hours and unsafe working conditions; mass urban workforces at the mercy of business owners and the business cycle; failed businesses and those who lost their jobs when they failed; communities harmed by environmental “externalities” of profit-hungry industries; villages and cities dominated by business monopolies; those who lacked the skills or the good health to work; and many more.

Many thoughtful observers attacked capitalism as early as the 18th century. Protests mounted in the 19th century, ranging from dreamy utopian experiments to the hard-eyed revolutionary plans of the Marxists. Marxism especially posed a mortal threat to capitalism and brought terror to those who benefited from its arrangements.

We know what happened. The 20th century became, in large part, the story of the battle between Marxism and capitalism, with a bit of Nazi fascism thrown in there to keep things suitably apocalyptic and bloody. Western societies generally rejected Marxism but did gradually grow the role of government to deal with all of the problems that capitalism itself produces.

Much of the modern role of government is indeed best understood as a response both to capitalism’s failures and its most radical critics. So government protects the environment because we know business on its own will fail to do so voluntarily. Government educates children (or requires that they be educated) and now protects children from being drawn prematurely into the workforce. Government (sometimes) regulates both the health and safety of workplaces and the activities of banks and investors, because we know that business on its own will not do so adequately. Government supports higher education because an educated citizenry makes a better and more productive workforce for capitalism. Government commerce and agriculture departments directly encourage economic activity and productivity. Government economic and monetary policies seek to prevent the boom and bust cycle of capitalism from being too disruptive to people and communities. Government programs for the poor, the sick, the disabled, and the aged seek to provide income support to those unable to participate (any longer) in the workforce.

All of this is on top of the baseline role of government in providing law and order services domestically and security services internationally, which most everyone understands to be part of what even a minimalist government needs to do.

Christians who hold a realistic understanding of sin, together with an informed understanding of the history of modern capitalism, must reject the claim that an unregulated capitalist business sector can be counted on both to pursue profit and to advance the common good. Reinhold Niebuhr is still relevant here, in his shrewd assessment of human selfishness, especially at the level of collectivities. He is also relevant in his analysis of our endless capacity for self-deception when our self-interest is at stake. That would include the self-deception involved when capitalism’s great winners seek to remake the social contract according to the way they see the world.

One final Niebuhrian note, however: concentrations of power are intrinsically dangerous wherever they appear. Thus unchecked capitalism is dangerous. But so is unchecked government. Unchecked owners are dangerous. But so are unchecked unions. Power corrupts. Great centers of power need to be checked by other great centers of power. I am among those who believe that western societies have been more damaged by unchecked capitalism than by the mix of capitalist power and government power that we now experience. But history gives us plenty of examples of the dangers of unchecked government as well.

 

 

 

About a Society That Depends on Abortion

/20 Comments/in /by

There is much to affirm in the discussions of abortion thus far. I share these convictions:

1) Elective abortion is the volitional destruction of a human life at its earliest stages.

2) Contemporary ultrasound technology is among the scientific-technological developments that has made it harder to deny the humanity of the developing child.

3) Abortion has become a partisan issue, as is illustrated in the radically polarized abortion planks of our two dominant political parties this summer. (It should be said that pro-life Democrats are deeply disappointed with the Democrats’ abortion language this year, while the exceptionless Republican plank is also problematic for many Republicans.)

4) Those abortion planks do not accurately reflect the real diversity of opinion even within those parties, dramatically complicating political efforts to change abortion law.

5) Christian opposition to abortion is well-grounded in scripture and tradition, especially clearly in the latter.

6) Christian opposition to abortion is best understood as part of a holistic Christian ethic of the sacredness of human life from womb to tomb, and this is how it was situated in the earliest days of the church–and far less often today. See my forthcoming book, The Sacredness of Human Life, coming out with Eerdmans in January.

7) Christian opposition to abortion has sometimes been very poorly conducted and has created disdain among many who might otherwise be at least sympathetic to the cause.

8) Christians opposed to abortion need to be able to offer good public reasons why they believe abortion is wrong and abortion law needs to change, and can do so.

9) Changes in abortion law would need to be incremental, including a relatively broad range of exceptions (rape, incest, threat to the life of the mother), for there to be any hope of public acceptance of an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

I would add that so far the commentators have not much addressed the stubborn cultural realities that underlie the continued survival of Roe v. Wade despite deep unease about it among many.

One way to say it is that the United States, like much of the rest of the “advanced” world, is a society that depends on abortion to underwrite its sexual and romantic practices. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, and may never be overturned, because we have no national intention of changing these sexual and romantic practices.

What do I mean by this? First, the ethic confining sex to marriage has collapsed, among Christians as well as everyone else. There are small subcultural pockets of resistance (with occasional visible symbols, such as  Tim Tebow) but in general Americans have sex when their bodies and emotions lead them to do so, beginning in the teenage years and early twenties.

Second, marriage has weakened as an institution. Fewer Americans are marrying, many who do marry are marrying later, many are embarked on their second, third, or fourth marriage, and so on. This of course means that the ethic that sex must be tied to a lifetime marriage seems less and less plausible to people. It also means that marriages are generally more fragile, which helps to explain why a surprising number of abortions actually take place among married women, who are often seeking to protect their fragile relationships from overwhelming economic or emotional stress.

Classic liberal solutions to these problems include the mass availability of birth control and a stronger social safety net. There are good reasons to offer these solutions, but it is clear that even if we had universal health care, and birth control sent to everyone by mail every day, we would still produce a large number of unwanted pregnancies–because men and women are so often having sex in relational contexts in which they don’t bother with birth control or couldn’t handle a pregnancy if it were to happen.

The essays thus far have said little about the special vulnerability of women, and the way women’s needs are asymmetrical with men’s when it comes to the abortion issue. A society that counts on lots of non-marital, non-covenantal, deeply irresponsible sex will produce a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and women rather than men are the ones who get pregnant.  For many millions of women, this has been reason enough to protect legal access to abortion.

I have long been convinced that the sexual revolution was a trick that men (and sometimes women) played on women, in the name of pleasure and liberation for both men and women. But overturning earlier strictures confining sex to marriage has increased the expectation that people will have sex outside of marriage, and thus has increased women’s vulnerability to unwanted pregnancies. The “solution” to these millions of unwanted pregnancies taking place in women’s bodies also has been inscribed on/in women’s bodies, via abortion. Sex has become less covenantal and more transactional, and the “externality” of unwanted pregnancy is borne by one gender only. There is nothing remotely just about this, but it has created incentives for both men and women to enshrine abortion rights up there with freedom of speech and religion among our national fundamentals.

My prediction: until we learn to break our social dependence on abortion, there will always be mass elective abortion in the United States, no matter who is elected or even what the law says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two Fine Essays

/3 Comments/in /by

Even though the two essays by Amy Black and Paul Brink differ in the approaches they recommend, I somewhat surprisingly found myself largely in agreement with both of them.  Both clearly recognize deep problems with our current K-12 educational system (if it can be called a system) and both sincerely seek answers rooted in a genuine concern for children and their families. 

Black’s point in regard to poverty and its underlying contribution to our education problems is accurate, yet often not discussed.  In fact, I would go one step further and point out that single parenthood is a leading cause of poverty.  There is an indirect, but clear line from a society that assumes premarital sex is normal and divorce an appropriate, “no-fault” answer to marital difficulties to poverty to children failing in their studies and dropping out of school.  And Brink’s point in regard to the importance of communities—whether based on geography or interests and beliefs—as being the proper locus for setting and monitoring educational policy is also well taken.  But both points—as accurate and as well expressed as what they are in the two essays—have a certain unreality to them.  If in order to correct the deep problems with our educational system, we must wait to reduce poverty and single parenthood and if we must wait until the American political culture accepts communities as the basis for our schools (whether geographic or non-geographic in nature) we will be a long time waiting.  Meanwhile, additional generations of students will have been failed by society with unacceptable consequences.

To her credit, Black in particular recognizes this problem and puts forward several more short-term, practical policy proposals.  Let me reemphasize one that Black suggests and add one of my own.  Her suggestion I would emphasize is that of after school programs.  I have visited and studied a number of these programs, and have been impressed by the good they often do.  They keep kids off the streets in the time gap between when school lets out and a parent returns from work.  Meanwhile they can receive the encouragement and help with their studies they too often do not receive at home.  In a number of focus groups I have conducted with teenage participants in such programs, they have described them as serving as a second family, with values, motivations, and role models they have not received from their own families.  This is where churches and other faith based civil society organizations can provide a vital service.  There IS something we can do that is positive and proven in effectiveness.

A second suggestion I would make is to enact voucher or voucher-like programs as a means of funding education and putting more power into the hands of parents, including low-income parents.  This is a key means by which the communities that Brink discusses would be encouraged and empowered to come together to seek the education for their children they desire.  And given the tax-based resources of government—national, state, and local school district—this would be a crucial means to empower parents.  Since the Supreme Court has found vouchers can be used at Christian and other faith-based schools without violating the Constitution, this is a viable public policy option that could be pursued now.  Cleveland, Milwaukee, the District of Columbia, and others areas have already experimented with vouchers.

More important than any specific proposals that our two essayists made is the fact that both deeply care about our doing a better job than we are now at educating our children.  If we as a society truly care and put that caring ahead of special interests with a vested interest in the status quo or a commitment to the latest politically correct theory, I am convinced our educational system can and will be improved.  Our children, our families, and our society will all be better served than they are now.

SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE

/in , , /by

Truth-telling seems to be in short supply these days in political discourse. Fact-checking groups are having a field day as they seek to uncover “truth” in the assertions of those who seek political office. Some of the assertions are found to be simply false. It is more common to uncover the subtle telling of partial truths meant to distort or misrepresent the positions of political opponents. In either case, truth-telling is sacrificed for the sake of political advantage.

As a person who aspires to be a follower of Jesus, I am called to exemplify a better way, that of “speaking the truth” (Ephesians 4:15) in all my interactions with others, political or otherwise.

My recent reading of god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, written by the late Christopher Hitchens, uncovered an ample supply of truths, falsehoods, and partial truths that distort or misrepresent the nature of religious faith.

On the side of truth, Hitchens is absolutely correct when he points to some of the atrocities perpetrated on humans in the name of God, such as the Crusades, or the more recent carnage in Belfast, Ireland, where he “interviewed people whose relatives and friends had been kidnapped and killed or tortured by rival religious death squads, often for no other reason than membership of another confession” (p. 18). Persons who profess commitment to religious faith should never lose sight of these sad truths that Hitchens cites about the destruction wrought by some religious persons or groups.

On the side of falsehood, Hitchens is wrong when he makes some universal assertions, such as in the sub-title of his book: “Religion Poisons Everything” (italics mine). One had better be careful when making assertions about “everything,” since such an assertion can be conclusively refuted by citing just one counter-example. A monumental refutation of the assertion that religion poisons “everything” is provided by the work of Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Abernathy, John Lewis and others in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s whose motivation for seeking justice and equality for peoples of all races was deeply informed by their Christian beliefs.

Of course sub-titles are usually chosen to sell books, so Hitchens may well have been “exaggerating for effect.” But, this book contains other statements that are simply false: “Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago” (p. 7); “The attitude of religion to medicine, like the attitude of religion to science, is always necessarily problematic …” (p. 47 – italics mine). Once again, the universal claim of “necessity” is false. To be sure, there are religious believers for whom the findings of science are problematic. But that is not true for me.

This latter example is an illustration of what I find most distressing in Hitchens’ narrative: the many assertions he makes about religious faith or religious believers that contain “partial truths”, but that distort or misrepresent the “whole truth.”  I will note two more examples. 

Hitchens notes, accurately, that religion has been a “source of hatred and conflict” (p. 255). But religion has also been the motivation for much that has been noble and praiseworthy, as in the Civil Rights movement previously noted. He also asserts that “The three great monotheisms teach people to think of “Life itself [as] a poor thing; an interval in which to prepare for the hereafter or the coming – or second coming – of the Messiah” (pp. 73-74). To be sure, there are religious people who fit that description. But that partial truth doesn’t describe me. I embrace life, in the here and now.

Hitchens’ most troublesome partial truth is his view of the “faith” that is held by religious believers. He seems to equate faith with “blind belief” (p. 249) for which one cannot present “reasons.” This assertion is contrary to the essence of my faith as a Christian, which most fundamentally refers to my commitment to faithfully following Jesus. And my commitment to follow Jesus does not preclude my having good reasons for such commitment, reasons that I believe can be stated in terms of my Christian perspective on life, the world, and my place in that world making the most sense of my world of experience. 

It is Hitchens’ inadequate view of the meaning of “faith” that leads him to further assert that “faith is helping to choke free inquiry” (p. 137). Once again, Hitchens does capture a partial truth, for there are religious believers for whom faith is a blind belief that is the “enemy of … inquiry” (p. 229). But that description does not fit me.

Here then is the problem with the many partial truths that are sprinkled thoughout Hitchens’ narrative: When a partial truth is presented as the whole truth, it is a “conversation stopper.” But when it is acknowledged as a partial truth, it opens up the possibility of further conversation intended to arrive at a better grasp of the whole truth. 

By erroneously presenting a partial truth as the whole truth, Hitchens closes the door on the possibility of ongoing conversation in search of a broader truth. And that door is locked shut by his penchant for name-calling when he disagrees with someone. Starting with the more modest examples and working our way up (or is it down), he asserts that the British evangelist Malcolm Muggeridge was “silly” (p. 145); those involved with the intelligent design movement are “boobies” (p. 269); the late Jerry Falwell was a “fraud” (p. 290); “Sir Isaac Newton … was a spiritualist and alchemist of a particularly laughable kind” (p. 65); and “Augustine was a self-centered fantasist and an earth-centered ignoramus” (p. 64).  

Name-calling is not a good way to start a conversation. A much better way is to begin the conversation by listening to someone who disagrees with you, trying to empathetically understand the reasons that person has for his/her views; then expressing your contrary views, and your reasons for your views, in a gracious non-coercive manner that invites ongoing conversation; and then engaging the other in respectful conversation about your differences with the goal of attaining a better grasp of the “whole truth” (uncovering what Michael King has called “mutual treasures” in a book that King and I edited titled Mutual Treasure: Seeking Better Ways for Christians and Culture to Converse). 

This better way to start a conversation is an elaboration of the remainder of the exhortation from Ephesians 4:15: “Speaking the truth in love” (italics mine), since providing a welcoming space for someone who disagrees with you to express that disagreement, and then respectfully engaging that person in conversation about your disagreements is a deep expression of what it means to love that person, to which Jesus calls me and all others who claim to be his followers. 

It is my hope that “speaking the truth in love” will be modeled in the “Alternative Political Conversation” (APC) eCircle that will be launched on this web site on February 1. In stark contrast to the hyper-partisan, often vitriolic political discourse that you will be exposed to by most of the mainstream media up until Election Day 2012, we will present an alternative discourse in which six Christians who are astute political observers situating themselves all along the political spectrum, from “far left” to “far right,” will post position papers every 3 or so weeks on pre-announced public policy issues (e.g., the Federal budget deficit, immigration, abortion), after which they will respond to each other’s postings and interested readers will be given the opportunity to submit responses. Rather than being “conversation stoppers,” the postings from our six regular commentators will be “conversation starters,” expressed in ways that respect those who disagree about their respective glimpses of the truth regarding important public policy issues. You are invited to join that conversation. 

My prayer is that come Election Day 2012, we will be able to look back on the record of this APC conversation and point to marvelous exemplifications of “speaking the truth in love.”


eCircle: The Elusive Search for Unity in the Christian Church

/in /by

I had originally envisioned all Conversation Circles being carried out locally, hosted by interested readers who want to model respectful conversation in their geographical settings. I still hope that happens frequently. But then a friend noted that in light of my purpose of facilitating forums for respectful conversation, there is no better place to model such conversation than on my own web site – an obvious great idea that had eluded me.

So, that feature has now been added to my web site. Instructions for initiating or joining an electronic Conversation Circle can be accessed at eCircles.

I hope that many readers will avail themselves of this new opportunity to initiate eCircles, and I encourage many other readers to join an eCircle of their choice.

I have just initiated an eCircle on The Elusive Search for Unity in the Christian Church. My keen interest in this topic flows from my belief that a prayer that Jesus offered to God has been unanswered; his prayer that all Christians “may be brought to complete unity” (John 17: 20-22). In that light, I am seeking conversation partners who are representative of a wide variety of Christian traditions, including persons who fit one or more of the following descriptions:

  •  Persons who are willing to share either painful personal experiences of disunity or encouraging expressions of unity within the Christian Church (a good subject for your initial posting on this eCircle)

 

  •  Scholars who have a particular interest in the topic of Christian Unity (including, but not limited to, scholars in the academic disciplines of religion, history and sociology)

 

  •  Church leaders and active church laypersons from Christian denominations or movements that are struggling with the attempt to create unity in the midst of significant diversity in Christian belief and practice

The purpose of this conversation will be to gain greater clarity as to the reasons for disunity within the Christian Church, and to gain understanding as to how Christians can work together to forge greater unity. In particular, we will address eventually address all of the following questions:

  •  Why is there such great diversity in Christian belief and practice?

 

  •  Has this diversity in Christian belief and practice always been a characteristic of the Christian Church?

 

  • What are some of the approaches that have been taken to forge unity in the midst of the great diversity in Christian belief and practice, and how successful, or not, have these various approaches been?

 

  • Is there an adequate basis for forging unity in the midst of the great diversity in Christian belief and practice?

 

  • At the same time that we seek to forge unity in the midst of our diversity, how should we engage those Christians with whom we disagree about significant aspects of Christian belief and practice?

It is my hope and prayer that many readers who share my interest in this topic will decide to join my eCircle, and will encourage other friends and acquaintances to do likewise.

Use this link to skip directly to the eCircles page.

More on Conversation Circles

/in /by

I am delighted that shortly after I launched my web site, two friends, one in Minneapolis and one in a suburb of Chicago, responded with possible interest in establishing local Conversation Circles (two down, many more to go).

This initial expression of interest prompts me to say more about what I have in mind, especially since one of the major purposes of my web site is to foster the establishment of numerous Conversation Circles.

At first, I envisioned asking interested persons to formally “register” their Circles on my web site, and then “require” them to report on the logistics and results of their Circles. But I soon came to my senses. Busy people don’t need one more thing to do. Establishing such formal expectations might prove to be disincentives for participation.

Since I do not want to put any unnecessary “hurdles” in your path, you are not expected to “establish a Conversation Circle” on my website. You can just decide on everything related to the Circle you wish to establish in your setting, and then “just do it.”

Although I am strongly partial toward face-to-face conversations, geographical distances between persons you may wish to talk with may suggest judicious use of “electronic conversation.”  The topic you wish to talk about, your choice of conversation partners, and all the logistics for orchestrating the conversation are entirely up to you.

We don’t even have to know that you are “doing it.” But, as indicated on our Conversation Circles page, we do give you the option of reporting some information related to your establishing a Conversation Circle. If you decide to exercise this option, I will, at a later date, give you the option of reporting on the results of your conversation, with emphasis on what worked well and what didn’t work as well, so that we call all learn from your experience. After that I may report on your Conversation Circle in one of my Blog musings, assuming you give me permission to do so, or I may ask you if you are willing to write an entry for posting on my blog.

But, once again, the extent, if any, to which you may wish to provide information and a concluding report on your Circle is entirely up to you. I am much more interested in your “just doing it;” taking whatever steps you judge to be necessary to establish a fruitful Conversation Circle in your sphere of influence that will model respectful conversation.

I thank all of you for your consideration.