What is "Home"?

In some ways, this is a follow-up post to yesterday's post. I just watched a powerful video containing a message to ISIS from Christians. While ISIS incites the world to violent conflict with its atrocities, and the world responds with a mission to "degrade and destroy" ISIS, this video speaks the Gospel-truth that not even ISIS warriors are beyond redemption if they will but heed the call of Jesus. Check out the video below:

Who Would Dare to Love ISIS? (A Letter from the People of the Cross)
Posted by International Christian Concern on Sunday, April 19, 2015

While there is certainly plenty to discuss with this video, I actually want to make a few brief observations about one of the comments on the video I saw. In the FB comments, one member posted about ISIS: "They don't realize when they kill a christian the are just sending them home."

Let's think about this statement for a second. Is this really what we mean to say? I think I know what the commenter is trying to get at, but the way the post is written is theologically problematic. What we should actually say here is that although those Christian martyrs were killed, they are now resting in the presence of God. My issue is with saying that killing those Christians has "sent them home."

So, what's wrong with calling heaven "home"? The problem is that such an idea buys into a gnostic/Platonic belief that physicality is evil or temporary and that our ultimate future is a disembodied state called "heaven." As I wrote about yesterday, the ultimate Christian hope is in the resurrection from the dead. Heaven is temporary. One day heaven and earth will be united as one (cf Rev. 21).

You see, if the above video comment is true and those martyrs are now "home," this has several problematic implications:

1. Death's evil is minimized
    If heaven is "home," then what does that make earth? If it's only a place I'm visiting, then shouldn't I try to get "home" as fast as possible. The answer to this is obviously "yes." In fact, the only reason I can see why we should linger longer and not commit suicide or seek to be murdered is we need to get other people to believe in Jesus so they can also live forever in heaven (oh wait, that seems to sum up the driving motivation of evangelicalism). We should also be careful whenever we celebrate the martyrdom of our Christian brothers and sisters. The Bible always maintains that death is an enemy. It is never to be viewed as a kind gateway to our true destiny. Rather, it is an evil obstacle God is working to overcome.

2. God made a mistake in creating the world
   If heaven is "home," then what kind of cruel God do we serve who banished us to an earthly existence? Why create matter at all? How can we call call heaven "home" when God Himself placed us on earth?

3. We dismiss the Bible
   Is there crying in heaven? Most people would say "no" because they have been tricked into believing that heaven is forever and that it is our "home." But I suppose those individuals have never seriously read passages like Rev. 6:9-11. This is a scene from heaven (slain martyrs), and yet it does not seem like a perfect paradise. Instead, the souls of these saints cry out and lament to God. They are waiting for something beyond heaven. They are waiting for judgment and resurrection. They are not truly home yet.

4. We dismiss any theology of judgment day.
    If judgment day is all about deciding who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, how does this square with the popular theology of people going directly to heaven or hell upon their death? If we arrive at "home" immediately upon death, then what does God's future judgment mean for us? Is God just going to say, "Ok, you get to be in heaven...oh, wait, you're already there"? No, Judgment Day is when God sets the world right. Everything the righteous lost through sin and death is restored and redeemed. The world experiences resurrection and recreation. Evil is finally put away for good. It is at this moment when heaven and earth are married that we can finally say we are "home."

Again, I appreciate the sentiments of the commenter, but they are theologically troublesome. If we really want to reach ISIS, we need to have a good grasp on the Gospel Jesus, Paul, and the early Christians preached, and it is a Gospel of resurrection. So to be clear, when ISIS martyrs our brothers and sisters, those fellow disciples of Jesus find peace in the arms of God. But they too, like us still on earth, are awaiting our true home--a resurrected reality where there is no more pain, murder, rape, sin, or death on earth. Maranatha.

If You had been here...

It has now been two weeks since Easter. This is the time of year when I always ponder whether or not we can truly claim to be a people of the resurrection. Each year comes with grandeur and glory. We proclaim "He is risen! He is risen indeed!" among stained glass windows and brilliant sunshine. We sing "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" while inhaling lily-infused air. We fill our sanctuary with bells, organ, guitars, cymbals, and strings. And the sermon, well it practically preaches itself. It is impossible to miss the Gospel truth of the Resurrection.

But give us two weeks, and we will largely forget all about resurrection. Yes, we still believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, but that is about as far as it goes. We dismiss the idea that the same spirit who raised Jesus is resurrecting our spirits in the here and now. We continue to ignore the truth that our bodies will one day be raised from the ground. But these are crucial truths that fill us with courage to live lives of faith in the midst of fear.

In John 11 we read the incredible story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. As I was reading this story today, I noticed that one statement (or versions of it) is made at least three times to Jesus in the story--"If you had been here, Lazarus wouldn't have died." Both Mary and Martha tell Jesus this (11:21, 32) and the crowd also wonders about this (11:37).

I don't know why this phrase stuck out to me in reading the story. Maybe it's because it echoes our own desires. We are, by nature, people who desire escape. No one likes suffering. And so, when evil does rear its head, we are left questioning God's love. "God, if you love me you will stop this from happening." "God, if you had been here, this would not have happened." Yet, implicit in this reasoning is the concept that God is our butler who must do whatever we think is best. Embedded in this thinking is a belief that we need to avoid pain at all costs.

When it comes to facing the reality of death, Americans take this same tack. Honestly, most American Christians take a very unbiblical approach to death. When confronted with the truth that our bodies are wearing out and will one day die, most of us simply deny that this is any real loss. We have bought into the Platonic idea that, once we die, our souls will fly off to a disembodied "heaven" and dwell there for eternity. It's as if we think, "If God really thought these bodies were a good idea, then he would stop us from dying. But since we die, He must intend for us to leave these bodies behind." I hear echoes of Mary, Martha, and the crowd--"If You had been here, he would not have died."

But Jesus is not afraid of death. He grieves it and weeps over it because death is evil, but He knows it is not the end. Instead, Jesus' message is that God's love is stronger than death and can turn the evil of death into an opportunity to glorify God.

Yes, God could stop our deaths, but death is the reality we created. We have all sinned, and so we all die. But the Gospel is not just about defeating death, it is about using death to defeat itself. It's about God being so powerful and loving that He takes what is broken and dead and breathes new life into it. What evil and death ruin, God takes and transforms into something even better. Our hope is that God is in the process of allowing death to occur to open the possibility of resurrection. We will die one day, but those who follow Jesus will experience a life raised from the death. And through the pain of it all, we will realize the glory, love, and brilliance of our King.

So after Easter, let's hold tight to a strong theology of resurrection--one that not only believes Jesus rose from the dead, but also believes we will be raised one day as well. If we do this, we will stop saying with the crowd, "If you had been here...," but will start saying, "I accept my death, but stand amazed in your power over death and loving willingness to raise this prodigal life." May we be a people who desire to redeem and restore, not to escape. May we be a resurrection people.

I leave you with this song as a reminder of what Jesus means for us post-Easter.

Baby Enemies

One of the great joys of my life is getting to play with my two little girls, Hadi and Lailah. It is exciting to see them learning about their world and laughing with each other. When playing with them, I frequently end up on the floor as their daddy jungle gym, which is fine until Hadi decides to jump on my stomach without abandon (she's not quite as light as she used to be).

As I was playing with my girls yesterday, adoring their wonder and playfulness, the thought crossed my mind--this is how every human starts out their life. Now, I know that many children do not have  parents who play with them and love them or who are even present. Many children are neglected and abused. But, nonetheless, every person in the world begins life as a harmless child. Everyone who has ever lived was once a helpless blob of cuteness that had the same desires for love, affection, and play as the rest of us.

And so, as I stared into the beautiful eyes of my daughters, I realized that I could just as easily have been staring into the eyes of countless dictators, criminals, and terrorists when they were babies. No matter how "evil" a person is, there was a time when they were not unlike my own daughters.

Just take a look at these pictures.

Hitler as an infant

Kim Jong II

Jeffrey Dahmer

Charles Manson

Emperor Hirohito

Normal children, adorable faces made in the image of God. And yet, all of these children grew up to become murderers, maniacs, or dictators responsible for some of the worst evils in modern history.

This thought reminds me of two things. First, evil runs through each one of us. Just because we start off cute and harmless does not mean we will always be that way. Regardless of our beginning, we are each capable of horrible evils just as these above individuals were.

But second, as I looked at my daughters, in some small way it humanized these "villains" for me. This fact helps me to see past the atrocities and anger to begin feeling a true sadness for them. Something in their lives went horribly wrong for them to abandon their innocence and compassion. As evil as individuals like Hitler or Bin Laden were, perhaps it would do us good to remember that they were once children as well--children who played with balls, yearned for love, and giggled at the simplest surprises.

One of the toughest commands of Jesus is to "love your enemies" (Matt. 5:44). I don't know how to fully do this, particularly when it is MY enemies. However, perhaps offering love to our enemies begins with reframing their humanity. Instead of looking only upon their offenses, perhaps we look wider to see their full story. Yes, they have become monsters, but they began as infants. If we do this, maybe we can move past pure anger and into grief, and out of that grief we can learn to forgive and pray for their well-being and salvation.

So the next time you look into a child's eyes, offer a prayer for them and their family that they will stray far from evil and cling to righteousness. And when you look into that child's eyes, imagine for a moment that you are also looking into your enemy's eyes, for your enemy was once a child too.

"To the flag..."

I remember attending Vacation Bible School as a kid and reciting the 3 core pledges good Christian kids were supposed to learn. Remembering these pledges wasn't a problem for me because I also knew them from Wednesday night children's activities at my church. These pledges were the Pledge to the American flag, the pledge to the Christian flag, and the pledge to the Bible (in that order).

Recently I found myself thinking back to those pledges, and in particular to the Christian flag itself. I was driving to work last week and saw a flag pole with both the American and Texas flags flying on it. Of course, in accordance to the US Flag Code, the American flag was flying above the Texas flag. Yet for some reason, I found myself thinking about the Christian flag instead of the Texas flag. In particular, I began thinking about how the Christian flag is (and is not) flown next to the American flag. This also got me wondering about the history of the Christian flag. How did it come about? So, I did a little research.

The Christian flag was developed in America. This should come as no surprise given the color scheme. It was first proposed in 1897 by Charles C. Overton in New York. Overton was selected to fill in as teacher when the guest speaker for his church's Sunday School hour failed to show up. Looking at the American flag, he began to talk about flags and symbolism. At some point in his lesson, he suggested it would be a good idea to have a flag to represent all Christians. Apparently this idea stuck in his mind as he designed such a flag and presented it the following week. By 1907, Overton had partnered with Ralph Diffendorfer, secretary to the Methodist Young People's Missionary Movement, to promote his creation. Within a few years, Methodist pastor Lynn Harold Hough had written the first pledge to the Christian flag. The flag and pledge gained such popularity within churches that they continue to be used today.

One of the interesting conundrums that the creation of this flag has posed, though, is how to fly it in relation to the American flag. As noted above, the US Flag Code states, "No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America." Exceptions are not even made for the U.N. flag or for other "international" flags:

"No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof."1

 However, many Christians have not felt comfortable flying the American flag above the Christian flag. To do so seems to be saying that America is more important than God's Kingdom, and surely that isn't right. At the same time, most Christians also feel very uncomfortable placing the American flag in the secondary position. To illustrate my point, take a look at the following photo:

What was your gut reaction? If you consider yourself patriotic to any degree, there was probably a part of you that thought, "Wait, the stars and stripes should be at the top!"

And the truth is, most Americans agree. In fact, the above is not even a real photo. I could not find a picture on Google with the Christian flag flying above the American flag. I had to Photoshop this picture. The closest you ever find to the above picture are the two flags standing side-by-side at equal height. (The exception to this is on naval ships where sailors are allowed to fly a church pennant above the American flag to signal that the ship is currently holding chapel services. But this a different flag and is probably more to signal to other ships that the crew is not in combat mode and should not be fired upon according to the Geneva Convention.)

The side-by-side solution has become normative. We set both flags in stands of equal height in the sanctuary (the side each flag gets may depend on the particular congregation). At VBS we say BOTH the pledge to the American flag and the pledge to the Christian flag. Churches will invest in a second flag pole to fly the flags side by side (or they will just refrain from flying the Christian flag). We want to say, "Yes, we are fully American, and we are fully Christian."

But the great problem of all of this is that sometimes being an American butts up against being a Christian. Indeed, in recent years I've wondered about the language of our pledges. It seems increasingly odd to pledge one's "allegiance" to one government, and then pledge your "allegiance" to another Kingdom in the next breath. Yes there is such a thing as dual-citizenship, but eventually that breaks down.

I have several relatives who were born oversees in England, Spain, and Germany. I myself was almost born in Germany. And yet, since the parents were American citizens, my relatives became dual citizens. But, dual citizens eventually have to choose. After a certain amount of time, many countries will revoke your citizenship if you fail to live there, or they will make you choose which citizenship you want to use. Even if you are allowed to retain both citizenships, if the two countries ever came into conflict, you would have to choose a side. If the two countries went to war, you can't serve both militaries without being called a traitor in both places.

The word "allegiance" means "loyalty," "devotion," or "obligation." When we pledge "allegiance," we are vowing to give our complete loyalty.  Is it possible to promise your complete allegiance to two different entities and governments? I seem to remember someone once warning against trying to "serve two masters." And the uncomfortable truth is that the Kingdom of God (and yes, "Kingdom" is a political word) often clashes with the Kingdom of America. When push comes to shove, where will our allegiance be?

At the end of the day, I'm not particularly fond of the Christian flag anyway. Personally, if we are going to have a flag to represent the Kingdom of God I'd like to see something a lot more stylish. Maybe a lion or a lamb, or a crown or something. Or at least pick some different colors besides red, white, and blue. But, that's neither here nor there. My point is that we already have a plethora of symbols for God's Kingdom. Whenever we break the bread and drink the wine we are reminded of the dynamics of God's Kingdom. The gathered Body of Christ is a signpost of this truth. Whenever we gather together as the church, we proclaim that we belong to God's Kingdom, not primarily to the Kingdom of America. Our everyday mission and ministry should also be a testimony of our heavenly citizenship.

But I do appreciate the Christian flag for at least one reason--it (should) force us to think about allegiances, citizenship, and treason. It places the conflict of Kingdoms onto symbolic cloths for our eyes to wrestle with. It demands we have uncomfortable discussions about how our culture and government impact us and sometimes blind us to the commands of God.

How do you fly these two flags together? American on top, Christian on top, side-by-side, no Christian, no American, no flags at all? I can't answer that for you. However, one thing the Bible does make abundantly clear is that our primary calling as Christians is to God and His Kingdom--a Kingdom that transcends national boundaries and binds Americans, Iraqis, Israelis, Russians, Chinese, Mexicans, and countless others together. That is where my citizenship lies.

" For, as I have often told you before and now tell you again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven." Phil. 3:18-20a

Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties

The news has been abuzz the past few weeks with debate over what entails "religious freedom." The spark for this discussion has been Indiana's passing of a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) bill, but was also fueled by Arkansas' governor signing a similar bill into law. These laws would allow their states to protect the preferences and liberties of religious individuals and entities. In short, they say the government cannot force a person or group to contradict its religious beliefs.

However, the focus on these bills (as with other similar efforts) has been on the expansion of these religious rights to companies and businesses. The go-to example seems to be Christian bakers. Under these laws, if a baker who happens to be a Christian is asked by a gay couple to cater their wedding, the baker would have the right to refuse service if he felt catering the wedding would violate his conviction that homosexuality is wrong.
This has sparked outrage on the part of gay-rights groups who insist the law invites and legalizes discrimination. Proponents of the law claim that the focus is not on the gay community and that it will not be used to discriminate. Instead, they say, the law is intended to protect from big government.

Now, I am not an attorney or legal expert, so I cannot weigh in very much on the legality or implications of these laws. However, I have observed one issue in the back-and-forth that must be brought to the surface.

As I've listened to both sides, I can agree that each has some valid points. However, neither side is likely going to see eye to eye for one simple reason--they hold competing values. In particular, conservatives are prioritizing "religious liberty" while their opponents are prizing "civil liberties."

Of course, we in America like to believe that our laws and justice system can bring us peace, prosperity, and unity (which honestly looks a lot like idolatry at times to me). We also want to believe that our Constitution can solve any social problem we encounter. As such, we want to believe that religious liberty and civil liberties (both great American values) can coexist in harmony. But ultimately, this is not the case.  When push comes to shove, you most often will have to choose either religious liberty or civil liberty, or you will have to redefine what one of those values looks like.

Recently, Rick Santorum, a Republican presidential hopeful, came to the defense of RFRA laws by trying to point out the "two-way street" that exists. He asked why it would be wrong to allow a Christian to refuse service to a gay couple based on religious beliefs but not be wrong for a pro-gay print shop to refuse service to Westboro Baptist, who famously promote the slogan "God hates fags."

However, these kinds of remarks illustrate the tunnel vision that creeps into such public debates. Comments like Santorum's completely ignore the other side's point that the LGBTQ community is entitled to civil rights, and therefore any such discrimination is wrong. I can just imagine a gay-rights activist responding to Santorum's illustration by saying, "It's wrong for the Christian to discriminate, AND ok for the print shop to refuse service because discrimination against gays is wrong in both scenarios."

This conflict between religious liberty and civil rights (and our different priorities) means that we are really just talking past each other. We will never find common ground or see eye-to-eye as long as we are operating by different paradigms. For instance, our definitions of "civil rights" conflict. For some conservative Christians, civil rights includes race, ethnicity, and gender, but should not include "sinful" behaviors like alternate sexual orientations or gender identities. Meanwhile, others feel sexual orientation should be a protected category. As long as we cannot agree on these terms, there will be no resolution to the public debate. Beyond this simple fact, we also place different values on religious and civil liberties, and this is important because religious and civil liberties inevitably stand in tension with each other.

The bottom line is that if we value religious freedom as the highest priority, then we are going to admit that all kinds of religiously motivated beliefs are acceptable. But how far do we take this? Is it ok for white supremacist groups who use the Bible as justification for their actions to hate or even harm blacks and Jews? Is it ok for certain cults to employ suicide or human sacrifice? Most of us would say that these actions cannot be prohibited in a civil society, but this is what you will get if you prize religious freedom without adding any qualifications or redefinitions.

And most often, the way we place a check on unbridled religious freedom (or any other freedom, like freedom of speech) is to fall back on civil liberties. It's ok to utilize your freedoms unless it infringes upon the freedom or well-being of others around you. This is the very argument being used with RFRA laws. It's fine to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the moment that belief drives you to treat others differently or to discriminate, that is a problem.

And the truth is that, by-and-large, sexual orientation is considered a civil liberty now. We have a variety of laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination against those in the LGBTQ community in certain contexts. More and more cities are passing non-discrimination ordinances (my college hangout town of Springfield, MO is set to vote on one such ordinance today). And, as I said in an earlier post, regardless of your beliefs regarding homosexuality, you need to come to terms with the fact that society has accepted it as a legitimate lifestyle (more than half of Americans support legalized gay marriage). So, if defenders of religious liberty want to protect the civil liberties of other races and genders, they are going to have to start protecting the rights of the gay community as well.

But, at the same time, we would do well to hear conservative concerns that valuing civil liberties as the highest value can pose problems as well. For instance, should a pastor be forced to offer his church building for a lesbian couple's wedding ceremony even if it violates his conscience or his church's teaching? What if civil rights keep expanding and begin to offer protections for more and more specific groups? This increases the likelihood that there will be conflict between civil and religious liberties. So, it's not good enough to simply place civil liberties on a pedestal either.

One thing I hope Christians see from this conversation is the futility of placing our hope in government or laws. Yes we need good government and just laws, but these things cannot save us. They will always be imperfect. So maybe it's time we stop putting so much emphasis on these American values, and instead turn our attention to the values of God's Kingdom, the place where our allegiance is supposed to be anyways.

In God's Kingdom, we value rights, but we don't die for them. Instead, we die for the well-being of others, even for our enemies. In God's Kingdom, we are called to practice radical love, grace, and hospitality. In God's Kingdom, we confess that all are made in the image of God, but also that all have fallen short of the glory of God. It is only as we begin to set our eyes on our heaven-on-earthly calling that we will be able to navigate the tricky areas between religious liberty and civil rights. Looking to laws and our Constitution won't bring opponents together, heal the pain in someone who has experienced discrimination, or bring about a society that respects faith. Quoting the Constitution or appealing to the "weight of history" won't change the lens your opponent is using that prevents meaningful dialogue. Only the Way of Jesus can do this. So perhaps it's about time that we start looking at the words and life of Jesus as the starting point of how to decide whether or not to bake that wedding cake.

------------------------------
Other random observations as additional food for thought and discussion:

• It's helpful to note that the current RFRA bills tend to extend religious protections to businesses. For Christians, we need to really think about whether this accurately reflects reality. A business may have Christians in it, but does that make the company "Christian"? This might be easier to believe with small businesses and those who are self-employed, but what about bigger corporations like Chic-fil-a or Hobby Lobby? Certainly not every employee of these companies is a Christian. While we may want to say the company has a right to religious protections, who is protecting the religious beliefs of individual employees? If Chic-fil-a were to decide it can't cater to gay-rights events or at gay weddings, are non-Christian employees obligated to carry out the same practices, even if it goes against their religious conscience?
• We Christians do a poor job of thinking about the precedents we set. One of the interesting developments in the news has been that the governor of Indiana ended up signing a clause to prevent the RFRA law from interfering with non-discrimination laws, while Arkansas has specifically avoided creating any exemptions for non-discrimination laws. In fact, Arkansas even passed a bill that prevents cities from enacting any non-discrimination ordinances not already in state law (by the way, there are no non-discrimination laws in Arkansas protecting gays or lesbians). However, at the end of the day, the motivation for pushing back against such ordinances is the conviction that homosexuality is a sin (there really is no commercial or legal reason). However, with these and other efforts, are we setting a double standard? Are we saying it's ok to discriminate on the basis of the sin of homosexuality, but not on the sins of lust, greed, adultery, or lying? Do Christian bakers ever feel compelled to refuse to cater weddings that celebrate excess, drunkenness, and wealth? Probably not (they probably get excited about selling twice as much). Once again I wonder if are trying to legislate morality, but are ending up looking like hypocritical fools.